Monthly Archives: January 2016

The Urim and the Thummim

28 Thursday Jan 2016

Posted by in Bible

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

One of the more mysterious expressions a Bible reader may encounter is “the Urim and the Thummim” (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Deut 33:8 [in reverse order]; Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65). In fact, “Urim” and “Thummim” are not translations, but are rather transliterations of Hebrew words whose referent is disputed. If you have heard anything at all about the Urim and the Thummim, chances are good that you have heard one of several theories invented by modern scholars, without support from the Bible or ancient Jewish tradition.

Marginal notes in English Bibles translate the word “Urim” (‎אוּרִים) as “Lights,” although the plural of the common Hebrew word for light (אוֹר) is slightly different (אוֹרִים = “Orim”). By its form, Urim is the plural of the Hebrew word for “firelight” (אוּר), which is used in the plural form “Urim” in Isaiah 24:15 to refer to the east as the region of the fiery light of the rising sun. While some suggest that “Urim” and “Thummim” are each to be understood as an intensive plural which refers to a single object, Hebrew grammars question whether the intensive plural can be used of non-living things (IBHS §7.4.3; Joüon §136f), and in any case it is not necessary to interpret “Urim” and “Thummim” as intensives. Thus, “Urim” is best understood to mean “the fire-like lights” or “the ones shining like firelight.”

“Thummim” is, to begin with, an inaccurate transliteration of the Hebrew word תֻּמִּים, in which the תּ is given a hard pronunciation; “Tummim” would be a more accurate transliteration, although convention now demands the spelling “Thummim.” Marginal notes in English Bibles translate the word “Thummim” as “Perfections,” although this translation does not seem like the right one for the Hebrew word that is used. (The translation of “Urim” and “Thummim” in the marginal notes of English Bibles as “lights” and “perfections” is evidently taken from the LXX text of Ezra 2:63.) “Thummim” is the plural form of the Hebrew word תֹּם, which occurs in the singular twenty-three times in the Old Testament. This word is usually translated as “integrity” (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:4; Job 4:6; Pss 26:1; 78:72; Prov 2:7), but also can be translated as “innocence” (Gen 20:5-6; 2 Sam 15:11; 1 Kgs 22:34; 2 Chr 18:33) or “completeness” (Job 21:23; Isa 47:9). Translating “Thummim” as “the blameless ones” seems to fit best with basic meaning of the word.

“Urim” and “Thummim” were names given to physical objects that were part of the high priest’s sacred garments. (Compare Solomon’s naming of the two main pillars of the temple porch as “Jachin” and “Boaz” in 1 Kings 7:21.) The high priest’s vest (called an “ephod”) contained shoulder pieces with two special onyx(?) stones set in sockets of gold (Exod 28:7-14). These stones were engraved with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel—six on one stone, and six on the other. The shoulder pieces were attached to the breastplate, a nine-inch square piece of heavy (double-thick) fabric with four rows of three gemstones set in sockets of gold (Exod 28:15-21). Each gemstone was engraved with the name of one of the twelve tribes (presumably naming Ephraim and Manasseh separately, and excluding Levi, which was represented by the high priest). The breastplate was hung from the shoulder pieces by means of gold chains that were connected to the sockets of the onyx stones on the shoulder pieces (Exod 28:22-25). The Urim and the Thummim are said in Exodus 28:30 to be set into the breastplate (literally, “and you shall set into the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim”; Leviticus 8:8 also reads “he set into the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim”). This evidently refers to the placement of the gemstones in their gold settings. The Urim and the Thummim seem to be identified in Exodus 28:29-30 with the gemstones which were engraved with the names of the tribes of Israel. The high priest’s breastplate is called “the breastplate of judgment” (Exod 28:15), since God revealed His judgments/decisions to the Israelites through the Urim and the Thummim on the breastplate. The Urim and the Thummim are evidently to be identified with the priest’s ephod that David often used to inquire, when he seemed to receive audible responses (1 Sam 23:6-12; 30:7-8). The word “ephod” refers to a linen garment, but can refer specifically to the breastplate on the garment that was used for inquiring of God—or, in some instances, for an object used for pagan divination (as in Judg 8:24-27; 17:5).

The most common scholarly interpretation of the Urim and Thummin since the nineteenth century has been to view them as a lot oracle. Scholars have hypothesized various ways in which this might work. One common form of the theory is that the Urim and the Thummim were two stones of similar size and shape that were placed in a pouch behind the breastplate of the high priest. One of these stones (the lighter colored Urim?) signified “Yes” (כֵּן), while the other (the darker colored Thummim?) signified “No” (לֹא). These stones could be used to obtain answers from God to Yes/No questions. When a question was asked, the priest would reach into his breastplate, shake the stones around, and, without looking, pull out one of the two stones. One problem with this theory is that “Urim” and “Thummim” are both plural forms, and so should refer to more than one stone. More importantly, the Bible never describes a pouch behind the high priest’s breastplate with stones in it; the Urim and the Thummim are identified with the stones set in the front of the high priest’s breastplate. This theory also cannot explain how one could fail to receive a response by Urim, as Saul did twice (1 Sam 14:36-37; 28:6). The verses which describe Saul’s failed inquiries only mention Urim, which does not fit with the theory that the Urim and the Thumim were used in conjunction to inquire of God. The Urim and the Thummim were different from the practice of casting lots, and their use should not be assumed in passages where the casting of lots is described (e.g., Josh 18:10; 1 Sam 14:41-42; 1 Chr 24:5). (Working on the assumption that the Urim and the Thummim were a lot oracle, many modern Bible versions, including the ESV, Message, NAB, NET, NIV, NJB, NRSV, and RSV, abandon the Hebrew text of 1 Samuel 14:41 in favor of an LXX expansion which explicitly supports the “lot oracle” theory. This LXX expansion is apparently the source of the modern academic theory.)

The earliest ancient extrabiblical sources which describe the Urim and the Thummim describe a supernatural illumination of one or more of the stones in the high priest’s breastplate. Josephus (Ant. 3.8.9 §§214-18, available here; search within the page for “I will now treat”) describes how the sardonyx stone on the right shoulder piece of the high priest’s vestments would shine brilliantly when sacrifices were offered (on the Day of Atonement?), in order to indicate that God had accepted the sacrifice (if indeed He had accepted the sacrifice). Josephus also claims that the twelve gemstones in the high priest’s breastplate would shine brilliantly when the people of Israel marched out to battle, in order to signify that God was present with them and had accepted their prayer for victory (if God indeed had accepted their prayer for victory). Josephus’ claim fits with the meaning of the term “Urim” as “fire-like lights.” Josephus also states that the gemstones in the high priest’s breastplate were to be used to inquire of God, and he seems to imply that the stones would illuminate in response to an inquiry (Ant. 4.8.46 §311, available here; search within the page for “Moses taught”).

The Urim are mentioned in 4Q376 (= 1Q29 = 4Q375?), one of the so-called “Dead Sea Scrolls” from Qumran. The text is very fragmentary, so it may very well have mentioned the Thummim also. After the mention of the Urim, the text describes the alternate shining of the stones on the right and left shoulder pieces of the high priest’s ephod at some national feast (the Day of Atonement?). The stones are said to contain “flashes of fire” and to “shine forth” to all the assembled people “until the priest finishes speaking.” Another portion of 4Q376 commands the people to do all that the priest tells them “in accordance with all this judgment,” which may be a reference to the decisions of God that were rendered through the Urim.

Another one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4QpIsad, mentions the Urim and the Thummim and describes how they give light “like the sun in all its radiance.” This text is unfortunately fragmentary, but appears to identify the twelve gemstones in the high priest’s breastplate with the Urim and/or Thummim. Van Dam (The Urim and Thummim, 232) argues that the ancient traditions which describe the supernatural illumination of the stones are compelling, and suggests that this interpretation of the Urim and the Thummim only fell out of favor in Western scholarship since the seventeenth century due to a rationalistic, anti-supernatural worldview.

The Talmud and other Jewish literature contain multiple traditions regarding the Urim and the Thummim (see this page or this one, and search within the page for “Urim”). According to one tradition, when an inquiry was made, various letters of the names of the twelve tribes which were engraved on the stones would protrude or light up in order to spell out an answer. But since the names of the twelve tribes do not contain all the letters of the alphabet, this theory was expanded by various rabbis to include additional stones with additional words, and to have the illuminated letters pop out from the stones and arrange themselves into words. However, it must be remembered that these traditions come from a period centuries after the Urim and the Thummim were no longer in use. On the whole, the theory of illuminated letters seems like an embellishment based on the known fact that the stones in the breastplate would illuminate when the high priest spoke a message from God in response to an inquiry.

A more believable Jewish tradition (from the same Talmud tractate) taught that the inquirer would face the priest and his breastplate, while the priest turned his head toward the ark of the covenant. The inquirer would ask a question in a soft tone of voice, and the priest would verbally state God’s answer to the question (b. Yoma 73a). This looks like the method by which the process happened in passages which describe people inquiring of God (Judg 1:1-2; 20:27-28; 1 Sam 10:22; 23:9-12; 30:7-8; 2 Sam 2:1; 1 Chr 14:10-15). It is interesting that the Talmud also affirms that the priest who led the army into battle was allowed to wear the Urim and the Thummim when he did so, even if he was not the high priest. This fits with Josephus’ claim that the stones of the breastplate would illuminate at the start of a battle in order to signify God’s presence with the people. The Talmud also claims, believably, that only leaders of the nation could inquire of God through the Urim; the Urim could not be used by ordinary people or for common, everyday matters (b. Yoma 71b).

The suggestion that the high priest would receive a prophetic oracle from God in response to a formal inquiry through the Urim is the only one that that fits with the biblical passages noted above. The Urim and the Thummim are best viewed as separate objects. The Thummim (“perfections”) are never mentioned independently of the Urim (“lights”), but the Urim are twice mentioned in the Bible independently of the Thummim (Num 27:21; 1 Sam 28:6), both times in the context of using the Urim to inquire of God. The Thummim are never said to be used to inquire of God; they are simply mentioned as part of the high priest’s breastplate. Following Josephus’ description, the Thummim (“the blameless ones”) were the two onyx stones on the shoulder pieces of the high priest’s vestments, inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. They would light up brilliantly to signify that God had accepted the sacrifices offered on the Day of Atonement, thereby making the tribes of Israel blameless before Him. The Urim (“the ones shining like firelight”) were the twelve gemstones in the high priest’s breastplate, inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. These stones would light up in brilliant colors to verify that the words spoken by the high priest in response to an inquiry were indeed received from God, as well as to signify that God had heard the people’s prayer for victory when they went out to battle. The shining of these stones showed visibly that God’s glory was manifested through the twelve tribes of Israel. The name of the tribe of Levi was not listed among “the blameless ones” (Thummim) or “the shining ones” (Urim), but is identified with the high priest as “the godly one” in Deuteronomy 33:8—And of Levi he said, “Your blameless ones and your shining ones are with your godly one.” In Old Testament times, the priests functioned as mediators between God and the people, representing both the people to God and God to the people. The Urim and the Thummim, with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel inscribed on them, were an important aspect of the mediatorial role of the priesthood.

The Mishnah states that the Urim and the Thummim ceased to exist “when the former prophets died” (search within this PDF for “Urim”), which the Talmud interprets as a reference to the time when the first temple was destroyed (search within this page for “Urim”). Josephus says the stones in the high priest’s breastplate stopped shining some two hundred years before he wrote (i.e., after the death of John Hyrcanus in 104 BC) due to the sins of the nation (Ant. 3.8.9 §218, available here; search within the page for “Now this breastplate”; compare J.W. 1.2.8 §§68-69, available here; search for within the page for “He it”). Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65 indicate that the Urim and the Thummim did not exist when the Israelites initially returned from exile, though there was an expectation that the high priest might have them at a future time. John 11:49-52 records an instance of the high priest receiving prophetic revelation from God as late as a few weeks before Jesus was crucified, though it does not say whether this revelation involved the Urim and the Thummim. Practically speaking, the use of the Urim to inquire of God seems to have ceased when a line of prophets arose (partway through the reign of David), after which time persons desiring a message from God would direct their inquiries to a prophet instead of the high priest. However, it seems likely that the Urim and the Thummim continued to shine miraculously in certain circumstances even after they ceased to be used for inquiring of God. If Josephus is to be believed, they stopped shining about one hundred years before the birth of Jesus Christ.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

Darius the Mede: A solution to his identity

08 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by in Archaeology, Bible

≈ 135 Comments

Tags

,

[Para español haz clic aquí]

For a summary of views on Darius the Mede, see the following article: The Identifications of Darius the Mede (English) | Español | Français | Português | Norsk | Kiswahili | Русский | العربية | 中文 (繁體) | 中文 (简体) |

The biblical book of Daniel describes a figure called Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, who is said to have assumed rule over the Neo-Babylonian Empire after the fall of Babylon to a Medo-Persian force (Dan 5:31). Darius the Mede is a major character in Daniel 6, and the vision of Daniel 9 is said to have occurred during his reign. However, a problem arises when trying to identify Darius the Mede in extrabiblical literature. Darius the Mede is generally considered fictional by modern critical scholarship. (There are a few critical writers who accept the historicity of Darius the Mede, but not many.) The conventional view states that Cyrus the Persian conquered Media ca. 553 BC and deposed the last Median king. Cyrus, as king of Persia, reigned over the entire (Medo-)Persian Empire when Babylon fell in 539 BC. Evangelical Bible scholars have proposed various solutions to harmonize the book of Daniel with this version of history, but there remains a measure of dissatisfaction with these solutions.

When I started writing my dissertation on Darius the Mede, the scholarly discussion was essentially at an impasse. Neither evangelical nor critical scholars had any significant new ideas, and neither side found the other side’s arguments compelling. However, most scholars were unaware that the Greek historian Xenophon describes a Median king, whom he calls Cyaxares II, who corresponds very closely to Daniel’s Darius the Mede. The view that Cyaxares II is Darius the Mede was the standard Jewish and Christian interpretation from Josephus and Jerome until Keil in the 1870s, but it was abandoned after cuneiform inscriptions were discovered that seemed to support Herodotus’ account of the accession of Cyrus, which does not allow for the existence of Xenophon’s Cyaxares II.

The thesis that I argue in my 2014 Ph.D. dissertation and published book (both entitled Darius the Mede: A Reappraisal and available in pdf format here and here, or as a print book here) is that Cyrus shared power with a Median king until about two years after the fall of Babylon. This Median king is called Cyaxares (II) by the Greek historian Xenophon, but is known by his throne name Darius in the book of Daniel. Cyrus did not make a hostile conquest of Media, did not dethrone the last Median king, and did not become the highest regent in the Medo-Persian Empire until after the fall of Babylon. Cyrus was Darius’s co-regent, the hereditary king of the realm of Persia, the crown prince of Media, and the commander of the Medo-Persian army—yet it was still Darius who was officially recognized as the highest power in the realm. Darius died naturally within two years after the fall of Babylon, and as he had no male heir and Cyrus had married his daughter, Cyrus inherited his position upon his death and united the Median and Persian kingdoms in a single throne.

My reconstruction of the accession of Cyrus is based largely on the detailed account given by the Greek historian Xenophon, which agrees remarkably well with the book of Daniel and is supported by a surprising variety of other ancient sources. The account of the accession of Cyrus given by the Greek historian Herodotus, which forms the basis for the reconstruction of these events by modern historians, is a legendary recasting of a propagandistic myth promoted by Cyrus as a means of legitimating his conquest in the minds of an unfavorable Babylonian populace. Cuneiform references to Cyrus (and his son Cambyses) as “king” soon after the fall of Babylon are easily explained through a coregency which lasted until the death of Darius the Mede/Cyaxares II.

Major supporting arguments made in the book include the following:

  1. The historical reliability of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia was found to be much higher than scholarly consensus currently holds. (One scholar of Xenophon, Steven W. Hirsch, also argues for a much higher view of the historical reliability of the Cyropaedia.) Xenophon was found to be historically credible, and superior to Herodotus, with regard to his accounts of the royal upbringing of Cyrus, the existence of Belshazzar, the existence of Gobryas, and the marriage of Cyrus to Cyaxares’ daughter.
  2. The Behistun inscription of Darius Hystaspes (“Darius I”) states that two Medians who launched rebellions against Darius at separate times did so on the basis of (allegedly) false claims to be of the family of Cyaxares. The fact that they claimed a relation to Cyaxares, rather than to Astyages, is evidence that Cyaxares II did indeed exist and was the last Median king.
  3. The adoption of “Darius” and “Ahasuerus” (= Xerxes) as throne names of the first two Persian kings in the dynasty which followed that of Cyrus is evidence that they were used as throne names by kings of an earlier dynasty. This is indirect evidence that there indeed was a Median king named “Darius,” and another named “Ahasuerus,” as the book of Daniel presents them (Dan 9:1). The use of throne names by Persian kings also gives plausibility to the suggestion that the given name of Darius the Mede was “Cyaxares.”
  4. There are strong historical evidences that the Medes and the Persians had formed a confederated government, and that Herodotus’ story of Cyrus subjugating the Medes and deposing the last Median king is therefore historically inaccurate. Xenophon and Herodotus agree that the Median king Astyages gave his daughter Mandane in marriage to Cambyses I, who was king of the Persians. In the ancient Near Eastern context, such marriages signified the formation of political alliances, and it seems that Astyages made just such an alliance with Persia with a view toward checking Babylonian hegemony. A passage in the Persae of Aeschylus is noted in chapter 4 which presents Astyages as the founder of the alliance, though without naming him directly. Chapter 3 notes biblical texts which describe the Medes and Persians governing their empire jointly, and also notes abundant archeological evidence which presents the Medes as senior partners and equals with the Persians, rather than their vassals.
  5. The Harran Stele, which is an inscription of Nabonidus, mentions a certain “king of the land of the Medes” alongside the kings of Egypt and Arabia as Babylon’s leading enemies. This inscription was produced well after the supposed conquest of Media by Cyrus, and therefore seems to indicate that Cyrus did not depose the last Median king.
  6. The historian Berossus, whose history of Neo-Babylonia is well respected but poorly preserved, refers to the actions of an unspecified “King Darius” shortly after the fall of Babylon. The conventional version of the history of the period does not recognize any such “King Darius.”
  7. Valerius Harpocration, a professional researcher and lexicographer at the library of Alexandria, affirms in a lexical work that there was a king of the Medo-Persian Empire named “Darius” who reigned sometime before Darius Hystaspes. Once again, the conventional version of the history of the period has no explanation for this “Darius.”
  8. The Greek tragic dramatist Aeschylus, who wrote before Herodotus, describes two Median kings who preceded Cyrus as rulers of Medo-Persia. Although Aeschylus does not name these two kings, he presents the first as the founder of the dynasty, the second as his son and the king who was on the throne when Babylon fell, and the third, Cyrus, as the natural successor of the second king. The conventional history of the period does not recognize this second Median king.

Scholars tend to be skeptical when presented with new theories, and rightly so. My own dissertation committee at Dallas Theological Seminary was quite skeptical when I proposed the topic. However, after exhaustive research on the primary source texts for the period, the evidence supporting Xenophon’s description of a Median king reigning in parallel with Cyrus, and corresponding to Daniel’s Darius the Mede, was compelling. My work has been well received so far by evangelical Bible scholars, a number of whom have communicated to me that they are now advocating my position. Some others have told me that my work has spurred them to start their own research projects on Babylonian contract texts or related topics. Evangelical scholars seem quite happy to have a new solution to the problem of Darius the Mede which fits well with both the book of Daniel and extrabiblical literature. It is my hope that the evidence for identifying Cyaxares II with Darius the Mede will not only reinvigorate scholarly discussion on Darius the Mede, but also will also create a significant change in the way that Cyrus’ rise to power is understood by historians of Neo-Babylonia and Medo-Persia. In conclusion, I present a list of references to my book or dissertation in academic articles and online sources, starting with a few additional works of my own:

  1. After publishing my dissertation, I gave a presentation on Darius the Mede at the 2015 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, “Darius the Mede – The Evidence for Identifying Him with Xenophon’s Cyaxares II.”
  2. I coauthored an article with Rodger Young, “The Remembrance of Daniel’s Darius the Mede in Berossus and Harpocration,” that was published in the July–September 2016 issue of Bibliotheca Sacra (pages 315-23). This article was briefly reviewed by Brian Collins on his Exegesis and Theology site.
  3. I was the primary creator of the Daniel volume of the Photo Companion to the Bible (BiblePlaces.com, 2019). This volume can be consulted for photographs illustrating the archaeology of the book of Daniel. One photograph that is relevant to the issue of Darius the Mede is the one shown at the top of this post, which is a relief carving at Persepolis that depicts Median and Persian nobles as equal in status.
  4. My dissertation was favorably reviewed by Benjamin Noonan in the June 2015 issue of The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (p. 386 of the book reviews).
  5. Kirk MacGregor follows my line of argumentation on pages 51-54 of his April 2016 JISCA article “A Contemporary Defense of the Authenticity of Daniel.”
  6. Paul Tanner favors identifying Darius the Mede with Cyaxares II, and he includes extensive argumentation in his commentary on Daniel in the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series; see also his book review on Amazon.
  7. John Goldingay cites my work on p. 293 of the revised edition of his commentary on Daniel (Logos; Amazon), and his summary of viewpoints on Darius the Mede relies heavily on my dissertation.
  8. Christian Varela has a lengthy article in Spanish, “Un Analisis De La Identidad De Dario El Medo del Libro De Daniel” (pages 324-53 in El Pueblo del Pacto: Hechos Destacadas de la Historia de Israel). Varela cites my book extensively while arguing from an Adventist perspective that Darius the Mede should be identified with Cyaxares II.
  9. James Bejon has an extensive discussion of Darius the Mede in his online commentary on Daniel (Appendix 5, starting on p. 9). Also available as a separate article.
  10. Rodger Young published an article, “Xenophon’s Cyaxares: Uncle of Cyrus, Friend of Daniel,” in the June 2021 (vol. 64, no. 2) issue of JETS, pages 265-85. Young argues for the historicity of Cyaxares II from both biblical and extrabiblical sources.
  11. Rodger Young also published “How Darius the Mede Was Deleted from History and Who Did It,” Bible and Spade 35.3-4 (Summer/Fall 2022): 24-33.
  12. References to my work have also appeared on various Christian websites, such as Thomas Ross’ page about my book on his apologetics website, Peter Goeman’s blog article, Kyle Pope’s article in Focus Online, John Oakes’ reference in his Evidence for Christianity site, and the link on Eddie Van Gent’s Daniel Prophecies site.
  13. A Persian Farsi translation of my book has been published by Qoqnoos Press in Iran (ISBN: 9786220404651). It can be purchased from Agah Bookshop. A preview is available on Academia.edu. This is a highly relevant topic for an Iranian audience.
  14. I did an interview on Darius the Mede for a YouTube channel.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.

A biblical perspective on extraterrestrial life

03 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by in Creation, Current events

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

,

Extraterrestrial life is a topic of great interest in modern Western culture, as evidenced by the recent success of the new Star Wars movie. While various people have differing conceptions of what aliens are or may be, the secular scientific conception of extraterrestrial life is one of biological life. Thus, in what follows in this post, by the terms “extraterrestrial life” and “aliens” I am referring to biological life, not to spirit beings.

Space agencies such as NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), along with numerous privately funded enterprises, have spent untold billions of dollars on programs designed to find life outside of the earth. Why are so many resources devoted to a search for something that has never been proven to exist? It is because extraterrestrial life is a key component of an atheistic, evolutionary worldview. That is, if the earth is the only place in the universe where life exists, then it must be a special creation; man does not exist merely by accident. If, on the other hand, life arose by means of natural processes, then these same natural processes would have given rise to life in many other places, both in our own solar system and throughout the universe. Because evolutionists reject the idea that life is a special creation, they believe that life probably evolved in other places in the solar system (including Mars, comets, and Saturn’s moon Enceladus), and that life almost certainly exists in other places in the universe. At the same time, many people have considerable doubts about the existence of extraterrestrial life, since none has ever actually been found. Thus, the huge, decades-long search for extraterrestrial life by mainstream scientists is actually a search for evidence to support the assumptions an atheistic worldview.

A second motivation for the search for extraterrestrial life is that atheists, who claim not to believe in God, nevertheless sense that there is a greater reality outside of the earth and its physical processes. There must be other sentient beings out there, in possession of superior forces which we do not understand, and with knowledge and intelligence that far exceeds our own. Virtually no one believes that man is totally alone, without other intelligent beings in existence somewhere else. Fairy tales about aliens, presented in the context of evolution’s mythological history of the universe, have gripped the popular imagination in the same way that pagan legends and cosmogonies gripped the imagination of ancient man.

Far from confirming evolutionary theory, the search for extraterrestrial life has only raised more doubts and questions about Darwinian evolution, since it has come up empty-handed. First, the physical search for life on Mars and elsewhere in our solar system has found nothing; scientists are so desperate to find extraterrestrial life that merely the discovery that there is water on Mars, or that there has been water on Mars in the past, is trumpeted as powerful evidence that there is or once was life on Mars. In fact, water does not produce life; living organisms can only be produced by other living organisms (or by a special creative act of the living God). In addition, Mars is an extremely inhospitable environment for life; if large numbers of living organisms were transported from the earth to the Mars and then released, they would all die quickly.

Second, the search for communication signals from intelligent aliens living on planets outside of our solar system has found no such signals. One might object that we simply lack the technology to detect communication from the distant places where extraterrestrial life may exist. However, in fact we do have the technology to detect communication signals from across the Milky Way, or even from other galaxies, so the fact that we have not detected any communication from aliens is a great puzzle to SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) researchers. The Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico is capable of transmitting and detecting narrowband signals across a range of many thousands of light years. Although estimates vary, some sources claim that Arecibo could detect a duplicate of itself at the center of the Milky Way, or, with minor system improvements, could communicate with a hypothetical twin all the way on the edge of the galaxy; see this page and this one. Arecibo is nearly capable of trans-galactic communication, and we have the capability to build a more powerful system (Cyclops) that could certainly be used for trans-galactic communication. The first Arecibo Message, intended to establish communication with intelligent extraterrestrial life, was transmitted in 1974 to a cluster of stars 25,000 light years away. Other messages have been sent since then, and Arecibo has been used to search for messages sent in our direction. (Apparently scientists assume that alien life must be friendly; they do not seem troubled by the possibility that by revealing our existence to a powerful and evil race of aliens, they may enslave man or wipe him out.)

The reasoning behind the use of Arecibo and similar projects for SETI runs as follows (from my friend Rodger Young): “very broadband signals as used in TV broadcasting are attenuated fairly quickly and most estimates are they could not be decoded outside our solar system. But narrow-band frequencies can transmit much farther. The most intelligent way to announce our presence to whoever-is-out-there would seem to be to broadcast at a single frequency, sending by binary signals something like the set of prime numbers that would show the whoevers that ‘Hey! We’re here; let’s try to communicate.’ ” If life on earth evolved by natural process, then life should have evolved in many other places by means of these same natural processes, and the trajectory of extraterrestrial civilizations should be similar in many ways to ours. Young states further, “According to the prevailing (evolutionary) viewpoint, there should be many, many civilizations out there who have evolved up to, and beyond, the point where they would have such broadcasters and receivers. If so, they would have the same curiosity about contacting other intelligences. One Web page estimated the number of stars in our galaxy as from 100 billion to 400 billion, although Wikipedia (‘Milky Way’) says this may be as high as one trillion. If only one out of a million such stars had planets capable of supporting life, then any theory that says that, given the right conditions, life will spontaneously evolve, should predict hundreds of thousands of sites in our galaxy where life has evolved at least to the level where we are now.”

Unfortunately for the theory, as Young states, “No signals have been detected. This is in spite of the fact, explained above, we are now capable of listening to a good part of our galaxy. . . . In summary, the lack of communication from out there, even though we have the capability to receive it, is a very, very great puzzle to the SETI people.”

For Christians who believe the Bible, it comes as no surprise that the search for extraterrestrial life has failed. It is clear from the creation account in Genesis 1 that everything in the physical universe was created for man. The earth was specially made to support biological life, and the sun, moon, and stars were created for the benefit of life on the earth. Further, all plant and animal life on the earth was created for the benefit of man, who is the center of the physical creation. Biological life outside of the earth—which is never mentioned or implied in the Bible—would serve no purpose, since it would be of no benefit to man. And for life to exist elsewhere would require a special creative act of God (life cannot evolve from non-living substances), and also a planet, a solar system, and galaxy designed to support life, requiring many more special acts of God. Such special creative acts of God would surely merit mention in Scripture, yet the Bible presents God’s plan of the ages as entirely about His dealings with man. Christ only became incarnate as a man, and He only died once, for Adam’s race, not for fallen folk on other planets (Rom 5:12-21; 6:10; 1 Cor 15:22; Heb 2:16). History also involves angelic (spirit) beings, which were created to be intermediaries in God’s dealings with man (Heb 1:14). However, the history of the universe is centered completely around life on earth; and when Christ returns to the earth, He will destroy the whole universe and create a new heavens and a new earth (Matt 24:29; 2 Pet 3:10-13; Rev 6:12-17 et al.). If intelligent life exists in the universe outside of the earth, surely it would have to be given due consideration at that time. The fact that it is not mentioned may rightly be taken as an implication that it does not exist. In addition, every time the Bible describes the final judgment and the eternal state, the only persons mentioned are men and angels (Rev 20:7-15 et al.). In eternity, God will move His throne from heaven to a new earth (Rev 21:1-3), and His throne will be situated in a New Jerusalem, which is the capital city of the nation of Israel (Rev 21:22-23), although the nations of the earth and the kings of the earth may enter the city freely (Rev 21:24). There is no mention of aliens. The names of the twelve tribes of Israel are written above the gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:12), and the names of the twelve apostles are written on its foundations (Rev 21:14). Everything about the eternal state of the righteous has to do with man and the earth, while the angels continue in their role as ministering spirits (Rev 21:12). There simply is no room in the Bible for aliens.

“Wait a minute,” someone might say, “the Bible just does not say anything about extraterrestrial life. The Bible therefore allows for its existence.” But the Bible does in fact deny the theories of extraterrestrial life in the shape that those theories took in the ancient world—legends, for example, about the gods of Greco-Roman mythology, their feats in the universe, and their identification with celestial objects (cf. Acts 14:15-17). The Old Testament repeatedly and emphatically denies the reality of the gods of pagan mythology and their supposed feats and dwelling places (2 Kgs 19:17-18; 1 Chr 16:26; Isa 44:12-20). But ancient man did not possess the telescopes, rockets, and other technologies which are necessary to understand the nature of celestial bodies outside of the earth. The ancients did not know that Mars is a planet similar in size and shape to the earth; to them, it was just a light in the night sky, no different from the stars except for its strange motions. Had ancient astronomers understood the nature of our solar system, extrasolar planetary systems, and the Milky Way galaxy, and had they known that there are an unfathomable number of stars and galaxies in the universe, they might well have postulated the existence of extraterrestrial life as modern secular science envisions it, and the Bible likely would have made a statement on that subject in response. But the Bible’s denial of ancient theories of extraterrestrial life are sufficient to disavow analogous theories in their modern form.

Additional resources regarding a biblical perspective on extraterrestrial life may be found on the Answers in Genesis website.

Enjoy this content? Buy me a coffee, or support this blog via a PayPal donation.