Notes Along the Way 5 -- God's Callings Part I

1. I would say that my junior year of high school was my favorite year. I did pretty well on my SAT so the letters were coming in. I was applying to colleges. The summer after my junior year I did Boy's State and went to a laser camp for two weeks at Rose Hulman. At that time, I thought I wanted to be a surgeon. That would have been a huge mistake.

I was a camp counselor for the district middle school camp with some close friends. One of them was headed for Central Wesleyan College a year behind me. That stuck in my mind. I was a pretty poor counselor. I slept really soundly so the first night the middle school guys all left the cabin after I fell asleep. The rest of the week I put my bunk in front of the door so they would have to crawl over me to get out.

There was a moment when I especially felt the presence of God. A chubby boy ran away saying he was going to walk home. Someone had made fun of his weight. We found him. What impressed me is that he really didn't want to leave. He just wanted someone to come after him. There was a moment when I felt the love of God flowing from us to him in an incredibly rich way.

I was nearly at the peak of physical shape in my life. I remember running across the camp at what seemed like the fastest I had ever run. Those were days when I could easily run a 440 in less than a minute and was somewhere around 5:30 for a mile. I'd never get back to those speeds, although I would run a couple marathons in England 10 years later.

2. I also caught the traveling team from Central at district conference. I don't know what it was about singing teams like that. They were just ordinary students. But I was a singer, and they always impressed me, like they were stars. Irrational, I know.

As an aside, for as long as the special song phase of American church worship took place, I sang solos regularly in every church I attended. As a boy, my mother always accompanied on the piano. But soon were the days when you bought cassette sound tracks at the local Christian bookstore -- which began to be a thing when I was in college. From Fort Lauderdale to Trinity Wesleyan in Central to Stonewall in Lexington, I sang often. That phase of church music was ending by the time I moved to Marion.

I was also in quartets. At Central I was in a mixed traveling group that went everywhere from Florida to Virginia. A highlight was a trip to Florida with Elmer Drury, Keith Drury's brother. He would die of a heart attack less than a year thereafter. I was in quartets at Asbury too. I always sang bass. I also sang in choirs at Central, Stonewall, and at St. John's in England.

3. I applied to several colleges. Since I had been at Boy's State -- and Dirac still had an office at Florida State (he would die the next year) -- I applied there and was accepted. I was accepted at Rose Hulman. I received a Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute award for science my senior year, so I applied there and was accepted. Tom Sloan pressured me into applying to Marion College, so I did. I also received the Isaac Bashevis Singer award to the University of Miami. It was a full tuition scholarship into a 5 year med-school program, an early 3 + 2 as I recall.

And I applied to Central Wesleyan College. My dad was on the Board of Trustees at the time, and he thought it would look bad if I didn't at least apply there. So I did. Because I was a National Merit Finalist, as I recall, they offered me a full tuition scholarship.

I had no intention of going there, despite two cute girls whom I knew would be there. As tempting as the University of Miami was, I really didn't want to be an hour from home. I wanted to get further away where I could be my own person (that was probably one of many not too smart impulses I've had in my life). Rose Hulman was still all boys -- NO! RPI was way in New York. 

Marion College offered me a pittance of a scholarship. To be honest, I didn't think much of it academically at the time, although it was probably higher than Central. Florida State was in Tallahassee -- the middle of nowhere. I can't remember if I applied to Johns Hopkins. I know I thought about it.

4. In the fall of 1983, my dad wanted me to visit Central when he went there for the fall board meeting. Again, he felt like it was somewhat of an obligation since he was on the board. But there was no pressure on me to go there. We were a family of duty, and we were performing it.

But something strange happened while I was there. On the one hand, the academics seemed inferior even to my AP high school classes (this sometimes has to do with who you are teaching). I would face the shame of my high school chemistry teacher who would feel like good scholarships and awards were wasted on me. From Key Club to Daughters of the American Revolution to Veterans of Foreign Wars, I would do well on the scholarship night. And to go to Central? 

But Central felt like home. After feeling like an outsider all my public school years. These were my kind of Christian. Although I was still painfully shy, Central felt like church camp to me, a place I might belong. As we left the campus to go home, I said that although I hated it, I felt like God wanted me to go there.

And so go there I did. For the first thirty or so years of my life, I would say I was a doubter about just about everything. An ex-girlfriend once said I was type cast when I played Thomas in a church Easter play. I doubted my salvation for ten years. I doubted whether I loved girlfriends. I doubted decisions to make and often felt like I consistently made the wrong ones.

But I never doubted that God wanted me to go to Central, and that was quite amazing. That was the first of such clear callings in those years of my life.

3.7 The State of the Question

This is the conclusion to chapter 3, "Creation and the Big Bang." Any publishers interested yet?

2.1 Relationships between Science and Faith
2.2 Critical Realism and the Coherence of Truth
2.3 Approaches to Scripture

3.1 General and Special Relativity
3.2 Three Cosmologies
3.3 An Inflationary Cosmology
3.4 Ex Nihilo Creation
3.5 The Cosmological Argument
3.6 The Fine Tuning Argument

8.1 Approaches to Genesis 2-3
8.2 Situating Genesis 2-3

_____________________________
3.7 The State of the Question
In this chapter, we have explored how the prevailing theories of the universe's origins fit "hand in glove" with the notion of a Creator and an Intelligent Designer. The Big Bang theory implies that the universe had a beginning. This fact leads naturally to the question of why the universe began and what its cause or causes were. The naturalists of the twentieth century were keenly aware of this dynamic, and it arguably fueled their resistance to the Big Bang theory.

Our increasing awareness of the universe's fine tuning has significantly amplified this argument. Even non-theists recognize the extreme improbability of the universe's balance such that the conditions for life are even remotely possible. [1] By far the most intuitive explanation for the universe's order is an Intelligent Designer. The argument would not specify much about such a Designer -- for example, it would not necessarily say anything about that Designer's moral character or awareness of happenings within the universe. Nevertheless, the case for a Creator based on the beginning and order of the universe seems eminently reasonable. 

What then are the non-theistic alternatives? In his 1988 Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking suggested that perhaps the earliest quantum universe was a "no boundary" state to which our normal rules of cause and effect did not apply. He uses the example of the North Pole. You do not ask what is north of the North Pole because of the curvature of the Earth. Maybe, he suggests, the earliest universe was like that such that it does not make sense to ask why it began. [2] He and James Hartle called this the "no boundary proposal" in the early 1980s. [3]

Although they developed the math, much of this proposal sounds like a "what if." Over the decades, Hawking also leaned into the idea that this no boundary state might generate multiple universes -- the multiverse concept. He then invokes the anthropic principle. It is unlikely that most of these universes would be functional. However, he would say, the fact that we are having this conversation implies that we were the lucky ones.

In our fine-tuning section, we mentioned these suggestions. Our universe is amazingly balanced just right not only for the universe to be functional but for life to possibly exist on planets in certain key locations. Various versions of the multiverse proposal propose that the vast majority of universes are non-functional. They rise and go nowhere because they are not finely tuned as ours is. 

Perhaps they have too dense of matter and no galaxies form, or they do not have enough density to form. Maybe they have too many or too few dimensions. Some did not have an asymmetry between matter and antimatter or in the distribution of energy in the earliest universe. The ratios of their forces were not balanced to form atoms, or the resonances of their atoms were not balanced to form heavier atoms.

We are only here, this line of thought suggests, because we happen to live in the Goldilocks universe that was finely tuned. We are the one in a nearly infinite number of failed universes. And that is why you can read this book.

From an intuitive standpoint, these proposals seem less than satisfying. In itself, that would not mean they are wrong. Just maybe the rules of the early universe were different? Just maybe we are the lucky universe among a nearly infinite number of failed ones? Or the idea that there is an Intelligent Designer who created a universe that was "just right"? 

The last option currently seems most reasonable.

[1] Another example would be Stephen Weinberg in The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (Basic, 1993).

[2] Hawking, History of Time, 137.

[3] James B. Hartle and Stephen W. Hawking, “Wave Function of the Universe,” Physical Review D 28 (1983): 2960–2975.

3.5 The Cosmological Argument

The sections of this chapter before this section:

3.1 General and Special Relativity
3.2 Three Cosmologies
3.3 An Inflationary Cosmology
3.4 Ex Nihilo Creation

_____________________________
3.5.1 Ancient and Medieval Versions
In the chapter so far, we have noted that both secular cosmology and Christian theology suggest that the universe had a beginning. We have also seen how many naturalistic scientists of the twentieth century resisted the idea of a "Big Bang" because of traditional arguments for God as Creator. In this section, we turn to the long-standing Christian tradition known as the cosmological argument, which maintains that belief in a Creator is a deeply reasonable conclusion based on the universe having a beginning.

Perhaps the first articulation of the cosmological argument did not even come from a Christian or Jew but from the Greek philosopher Aristotle in the late 300s BCE. Aristotle noted that things in motion have been moved by something else. He thus imagined things being moved now being moved by something before them. But he didn't think this sequence of one thing pushing another could go back infinitely, so he suggested there must have been a "Prime Mover." This first mover moved everything else but was unmoved itself. [1] However, he did not see this mover as a person.

In the 1200s, Thomas Aquinas would take this line of thought and Christianize it. [2] God, he argued, was this first mover. He had several other arguments for the existence of God. Probably the one of most interest to us is his argument from "efficient causes." As we observe the world around us, everything that happens has a cause. And those events had a cause. But this sequence cannot go back infinitely, he supposed. Therefore, there must have been a first Cause, which is God.

He had three more. One was an argument from contingency. Everything around us is not necessary. The Earth is not necessary. The Milky Way galaxy is not necessary. However, if everything were contingent, at some point nothing would exist. But then nothing could exist now. Surely there must be at least one Necessary entity to ground existence. And this, he argued, is God. He had two other arguments about degrees of perfection and the order of nature.

These kinds of arguments are variations on what is called the cosmological argument or the argument from cause. You might liken it to the line of the song from the Sound of Music -- "Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could." And, therefore, there must be a God, a Creator.

The chief objection to such arguments is the question of why the progression cannot go back forever. In the 1700s, David Hume (1711-76) made such an objection. Just because it does not match our common sense, he argued, does not disprove that it could be so. [3]

3.5.2 Contemporary Versions
We have already seen in this chapter that the Big Bang theory answers this question of infinite regression. This is some of the reason that so many scientists of the twentieth century resisted it. As Georges Lemaître rightly observed, the idea of a beginning in cosmology directly supports the cosmological argument.

We might note some of the modern efforts to address the question of infinite regression from a philosophical and even mathematical perspective. The key figure here is William Lane Craig, who revived a medieval Islamic argument for the existence of God called the Kalaam argument. [4] A simple version of his argument goes like this:

Textbox: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Sometimes you will hear a popular response of, "Then where did God come from?" However, God does not fit within this logic because he does not have a cause. The first premise is that "whatever begins to exist has a cause." But God is not in this category.

Here is another way to put it. The argument is an argument about this universe. Everything that happens in this universe has a cause. And the universe itself as a whole would seem to need a Cause. However, God is not this universe. God is prior to and distinct from this universe. He is therefore outside this argument. We do not know if he needs a cause from this argument. Therefore, this attempt at rebuttal confuses God with the creation and is a non sequitur -- something that does not follow from the logic. 

Craig has also argued that an actual infinite does not exist in this universe. This is an intriguing concept that is attractive in many ways. Craig himself has argued for this idea by invoking the absurdity of a parable known as "Hilbert's Hotel." In this parable, there is a hotel with infinite rooms that are full. But when a new guest arrives, the clerk can simply move the person in room 1 to room 2 -- along with all other subsequent rooms -- and there is now a vacancy. In fact, by moving all the people in odd rooms to even rooms, there is now an infinite vacancy. Craig suggests that, while this seems mathematically possible, it makes little sense in the real universe.

Whatever one thinks of Craig's argument, the universe does not seem to be infinite, and the current thinking is that it had a beginning. In chapter 5, we will explore the quantum realm and realize that infinite does not exist on the quantum level either. The world cannot be divided infinitely small in space either. So it would seem that Craig is correct. While infinite may exist in mathematics, it does not seem to be a real entity in the physical universe.

3.5.3 The Attributes of God
It seems fitting to end this discussion of the cosmological argument with some possible inferences we can draw about the nature of a Creator based on cause. From a standpoint of faith, let us move beyond a mere scientific argument to one that includes faith that God created the universe out of nothing. The issue of creation would seem to be one in which science and faith are potentially in continuity. Science does not tell us what triggered the creation. Scripture may or may not specify the how of creation. The two might easily be in continuity with each other, overlapping but distinct in the questions they address.

Accordingly, let us assume by faith that the universe was created by God out of nothing. Let us assume by faith that God created not only the matter of the universe but space itself. Let us assume that God designed it thoroughly, determining what the laws of the universe would be. This is a quite different situation from a cook coming up with a new recipe using existing ingredients. The cook did not invent the ingredients or their chemical makeup. The cook did not invent the laws of chemistry that govern how those molecules will interact with each other.

No, creation ex nihilo is not something that we have any experience with. God creates the very rules and laws of this universe. Perhaps God creates the logic of this universe. What God might create in some other universe might be completely incomprehensible to us because we have no point of reference to understand it. We are exploring the concept of true and thoroughgoing creation out of nothing.

What might this imply about God? First, if God truly creates the universe out of nothing, then he must surely have as much power as he creates or more. That is to say, he must surely be omnipotent or all-powerful in relation to the creation. You cannot lift 200 pounds if you are not 200 pounds strong. By inference, therefore, God must be at least "universe-strong."

Some pose non-sensical questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot move it?" This is a game with words, the fallacy of equivocation where the same word is used with different meanings. God can lift any rock he creates because he is all-powerful. Because he is all-powerful, it is not possible that he would create a rock he could not lift. The wording makes it sound like this means he is less powerful, but that is a mere trick of wording. God can lift any rock.

A second implication is that God must surely have exhaustive knowledge of the universe he has created. Again, he is not like a cook in the kitchen. He is designing everything. God must therefore be omniscient in relation to the workings of the universe -- every possible aspect of the creation. If everything in the universe is determined, he must also know every actual dimension of the universe as well. In chapter 6, we will argue that God can know every actual aspect of the universe without determining it as well.

It can take some processing for us to begin to fathom the depths of such omniscience. Presumably, God knows all our possible experiences -- he created their possibility. God learns nothing. Emotions in God must then surely be personifications -- images to help us understand God that are not literally applicable to him. For example, anger implies reaction, but if God knows everything, then he does not react in the same way that we react as humans.

As creator of everything, God must also be the creator of the possibility of evil. We will discuss in chapter 5 the theological benefits of seeing God as permitting evil to happen rather than him being the direct cause. Nevertheless, omniscience would seem to imply that God thoroughly knows what evil is because he created its possibility.

On some of these matters, we may find out in the kingdom of God that our feeble reasonings missed the mark. After all, we are discussing the infinite and that which is beyond our comprehension. Our finite and fallen state suggests that we should approach all these questions with great humility, for we are but dust.

[1] Aristotle talks about the Prime Mover in several places, Metaphysics 1071b12–22, 1072a19–30, 1074b33–1075a11 and Physics, VIII.5–6.

[2] Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.2.3.

[3] Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

[4] William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Macmillan , 1979).

3.3 An Inflationary Cosmology

Previous posts in this chapter:

3.1 General and Special Relativity
3.2 Three Cosmologies

3.4 Ex Nihilo Creation
3.5 The Cosmological Argument
3.6 The Fine Tuning Argument 
3.7 The State of the Question
_______________________________

3.3 In 1981, Alan Guth published a landmark paper hypothesizing that several problems in cosmology might be explained if the early universe underwent a rapid inflation in fractions of a second from a tiny, hot, dense state into a much larger size, from the microscopic to the macroscopic. [1] For one, there was the "horizon problem." This was the fact that the universe appears somewhat uniform in all directions even though it is not old enough for its parts otherwise to have ever been in contact with each other. Similarly, the universe is generally "flat," a condition that would not likely have been the case without some special circumstance such as the expansion Guth proposed.

Finally, "grand unified theories" had proposed that the fundamental forces of nature were all related to each other in the early universe. However, such theories imply the existence of monopoles, lone charges that might exist without their opposing charge. This phenomenon has never been observed. Guth proposed that they might have been so widely distributed by a rapid expansion of the early universe as to be undetected. 

In the decades that have followed, a general consensus has emerged in terms of the timeline and sequence of the universe's early expansion. Later in the chapter, we will explore how the events that unfolded seemed to be "just right" for the universe to form in a way that would eventually allow for stars and planets such as ours. If we did not live in a "Goldilocks universe," none of us would be here today.

As in the image above, the universe is currently thought to have begun in an incredibly hot, dense singularity. Then, something pulls the trigger. It begins to expand rapidly. Three minutes later, we will have atomic nuclei. [2]

The Planck Epoch
In the time from beginning to nuclei, the universe will undergo several rapid "epochs." It starts in the Planck epoch. This is the time immediately after the Big Bang when the laws of physics as we now know them break down. The universe is arguably the smallest possible space, 10^-35 meters, a quantum of space, and the smallest quantum of time passes, around 10^-43 seconds. This is the starting line.

The Grand Unification Epoch
Then gravity distinguishes itself from the other fundamental forces. This is the "Grand Unification Epoch." In the next fraction of a second, from 10^-43 to 10^-36 seconds, the other fundamental forces are still combined. Only gravity has become an independent force.

The Inflationary Epoch
Now comes the inflation. In the period from 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds, the universe goes from a subatomic size of 10^-26 meters to about the size of a marble of 1cm. This is the period that Guth predicted, explaining the horizon problem, the flatness of the universe, and the lack of detecting monopoles.

The Electroweak Epoch
From 10^-32 to 10^-12 seconds, the strong nuclear force -- which eventually will hold the nuclei of atoms together -- distinguishes itself from the still combined other forces, called the "electroweak" force. The sphere of space that will become the universe is about 300 light seconds in size or a little more than half the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

The Quark Epoch
This epoch begins with the electroweak force dividing into the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force. We now have all four of the fundamental forces of nature. In this period from 10^-12 to 10^-6 seconds, we also see quarks and gluons dominate. In the Standard Model of Particle physics, quarks are some of the most fundamental of particles, thought to be the component parts of protons, neutrons, and a host of other subatomic particles. In this period, they are too hot to glue together yet, but make up a quark-gluon plasma. By the end of the epoch, the universe is about the size of our solar system.

The Hadron Epoch
Early in this period from 10^-6 to one second, matter and antimatter annihilate each other following Einstein's famous equation, E = mc². There is slightly more matter than antimatter, allowing the universe as we know it to continue to unfold. Quarks begin to fuse together to form some of the particles we learned about in high school -- protons and neutrons. The universe is now a second old, and it is now several light years across. A light year is the distance light travels in a year, going at a speed of 300,000 kilometers per second.

The Lepton Epoch
The next epoch begins as the universe cools enough for neutrinos to be liberated from matter. From about one to 10 seconds, the universe will expand to be a few million kilometers across. Particles like electrons and neutrinos dominate.  

The Nucleosynthesis Epoch
From 10 seconds to about 3 minutes, the universe has cooled enough for protons and neutrons to fuse together to form nuclei. It is still too hot for electrons to orbit, but the nuclei of hydrogen, helium, as well as some deuterium and lithium to form. [4] The universe is now several light minutes across.

The Photon Epoch
Up to this point, it seems like there is little that might conflict between science and faith. In the standard timeline, the universe is only 3 minutes old. However, the current model now supposes a period of some 380,000 years in which the universe exists in a plasma of photons (light particles), electrons, and nuclei. The soup is initially too hot to form atoms, but it is cooling. By the end of this period, the universe is thought to be about 84 millions light years in diameter.

From about 280,000 years on, the universe is getting cool enough for atoms to begin to "recombine." This will gradually happen all over the universe, reaching the peak of recombination at the end of this epoch.

At the end of ths period, the universe cools enough for photons to be released. This is thought to be the basis for the cosmic microwave background that was discovered in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson. If one is sympathetic to the idea that the days of Genesis 1 could have been epochs, then it is fascinating that the event of Day 1 is the creation of light (Gen. 1:3). According to the current inflationary model, in the 380,000th year, the universe said, "Let there be light."

The Dark Ages
The universe grows dark. The frequency of the light from the cosmic photon release gets stretched as the universe expands and red-shifts everywhere. It goes into the infrared part of the spectrum, the stuff of night goggles. According to the prevailing model, the next 150 million years are a time when gravity slowly pulls hydrogen and helium together into clumps. The expansion was uneven, so there are concentrations of matter where galaxies can form. The dark ages end as the first stars ignite, and there is a cosmic dawn.

If you would like to take Genesis metaphorically, you might see this slow separation and gathering of hydrogen across the universe as analogous to the separation of the waters in Genesis 1:6-8. Now the sky appears.

Galaxy Formation
In the prevailing model, the next 300 million years or so see the formation of huge stars that burn out quickly. The first galaxies begin to form. In the current theory, the oldest observable galaxy is MoM-z14, thought to date to about 300 million years after the Big Bang. 

Reionization Period
In the current model, at the same time galaxies are forming until about a billion years after the Big Bang, the newly formed stars and quasars begin to detach hydrogen nuclei from their electrons. It is called re-ionization because you'll remember that they had been separated in the early universe. Bubbles of ionized hydrogen gas merged with each other, leaving the transparent universe we see today when we look up to the skies.

Generations of Stars
For the next 8 billion years or so -- at least in the current model -- the first generation of stars burn out and go supernova. Some become black holes. Others crunch helium together to begin to form heavier elements like carbon and oxygen. According to the prevailing theory, the elements that will soon become the fundamental elements of life are being created in the burning out, collapsing, and re-formation of stars.

Our Solar System
Again, in the current model, our solar system forms about 4.5 billion years ago, about 9 billion years into the existence of the universe. Our Sun is thought to be a third generation star, meaning that a first star burned out and exploded. Then a second star formed with heavier elements in the mix. It burned out and exploded, creating all the elements we now know. Then that material coalesed around our Sun, Sol, with at least eight planets in tow.

The main feature of this model that could present a potential conflict with faith is the timeline. Those who take Genesis 1 to teach a full creation in six 24 hour days will object to a universe that is 13.5 billion years old. However, there are also interpretations of Genesis 1 that see no conflict here.

We will discuss various interpretations and science strategies in the next chapter. Apart from the timeline, nothing in this sequence seems intrinsically unbiblical or contrary to faith. Indeed, one could suppose that God himself was orchestrating these developments, as we will argue in the later section in this chapter on the Fine-Tuning argument.

[1] Alan H. Guth, “Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems,” Physical Review D 23, no. 2 (1981): 347–356. He published a more popular version of his argument that same year as The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins (Basic, 1981).

[2] See Stephen Weinberg, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (Basic, 1993).

[3] Deuterium is hydrogen with a neutron in the nucleus. Normally hydrogen has no neutrons. Lithium has three protons and four neutrons in its nucleus.

3.6 The Fine-Tuning Argument

Here's the next 

2.1 Relationships between Science and Faith
2.2 Critical Realism and the Coherence of Truth
2.3 Approaches to Scripture

3.1 General and Special Relativity
3.2 Three Cosmologies
3.3 An Inflationary Cosmology
3.4 Ex Nihilo Creation
3.5 The Cosmological Argument

8.1 Approaches to Genesis 2-3
8.2 Situating Genesis 2-3

_____________________________ 
One of the most compelling arguments for an Intelligent Designer is the fine tuning argument. 

3.6.1 The Argument from Design
In addition to the cosmological argument, the idea that the order of the world points toward an intelligent Creator goes back to ancient times. [1] This "argument from design" or "teleological argument" found its classic expression in the late 1700s with William Paley (1743-1805), an English minister who argued that the complexity of organs like the eye pointed directly to the existence of God as its designer. [2] If you found a watch, he argued, you would not think that it happened to come into existence by chance. You would assume that there was a watchmaker.

However, the argument from design came into question after the theory of evolution began to gain prominence. Contrary to Paley's argument, Darwin's theory argued that complex organisms like humans evolved on their own from simpler ones. In the theory of evolution, the eye evolved into its current form over millions of years entirely by nature "selecting" those versions of a developing eye that gave an advantage to prior organisms. The notion seems to violate our intuitions, but the scientific community would quickly adopt this perspective. As the twentieth century progressed, the teleological argument seemed to have fallen upon hard times.

Enter the fine-tuning argument. The fine tuning argument is the recognition that the stable existence of the universe as a whole is dependent on a significant number of minute, extremely balanced factors. The astoundingly narrow nature of these parameters is such that even non-theists recognize their extreme improbability. [3] We live in a Goldilocks universe that happens to be "just right."

To account for such "fine tuning," non-theists often resort to the notion of a multiverse. [4] In this context, the multiverse concept suggests that our universe is just one of countless universes that are regularly coming into existence. The overwhelming majority of those universes -- this theory supposes -- are failed universes. They are born defunct and non-functioning. We just happen, the sentiment goes, to be in one of very few lucky ones that is sustainable. 

But then we wouldn't be having this conversation if we weren't, the notion continues. It's called the anthropic principle. [5] Our existence is extremely improbable. But we are here, so we must just be impossibly lucky. 

3.6.2 A Goldilocks Universe
Earlier in the chapter, we presented the current theories regarding the early inflationary period of the universe. If we follow the path of the universe's inflation, we can see at every turn the ways in which our universe is thinly balanced. The precision necessary not only for us to be here but for the universe as a whole to exist in such a stable form is truly astounding.

We begin with the three dimensions that are intuitively apparent to us -- up/down, right/left, forward/backward. What would happen if there were more or fewer dimensions to a universe? It is doubtful that such universes could form stars, planets, atoms, or other stable structures. The inverse-square law that governs gravity and electromagnetism depends on a three-dimensional framework. With more or fewer dimensions, forces would not balance in ways that permit stable orbits or atoms. [5] 

As minute fractions of a second passed, the fundamental forces of nature began to differentiate: gravity, the strong nuclear force, electromagnetism, and eventually the weak nuclear force. First gravity becomes distinguishable from the other forces. The strong nuclear force becomes differentiated from the electromagnetic force. In the atom, we see these forces balanced on the narrowest of margins. 

The strong nuclear force holds protons together despite the fact that their similar charges repel each other electromagnetically. Yet the nuclear force is too weak at a distance to affect electrons outside the nucleus of the atom. The opposite charges of the nucleus and electrons holds the two in place, but quantum mechanics keeps them from collapsing into the nucleus. If any of these forces were any stronger or weaker, atoms couldn't form. 

The fraction of mass that converts to energy in nuclear reactions is just right for stars to be able to form and exist stably. If it were a greater number, stars would burn out too quickly for planets and life to form. If it were less, stars would not form in the first place.

Even during inflation, quantum fluctuations left slight wrinkles in density, which later became the seeds of galaxies. The map of the cosmic microwave background pictured earlier reflects an unevenness in the distribution of the universe's density. If it had distributed completely evenly, without any "wrinkles," then galaxies would have never formed. Remarkably, the asymmetry of the universe is just right for us to have a universe that works the way we need it to work for us to be here.

A similar asymmetry of the early universe was the fact that there was slightly more matter than antimatter at the key moment. If the two had been entirely balanced, they would have annihilated into a universe that was pure energy in keeping with Einstein's formula E = mc^2. But the slightly greater amount of matter meant that a sufficient portion of matter survived this early moment of annihilation. 

Another finely tuned feature was the overall density of matter in the early universe. If matter had been denser, the universe might not have expanded in the way it has in order to form habitable galaxies. It all would have crunched back into itself. Yet if it had been less dense, it might have expanded too fast for galaxies and solar systems to form.

We might finally mention more conditions under which atoms were formed. We have already mentioned the finely tuned balance of forces in the atom. Assuming that the early universe initially was almost entirely made up of hydrogen -- the simplest atom -- the process by which heavier elements were then formed depends on a razor thin balance.

In particular, the amount of mass converted to energy when hydrogen fuses into helium -- the first step toward there being any other elements -- is finely tuned. If it were greater, all the hydrogen of the universe would have fused into helium. Stars would burn out too quickly, and we would have no water. If it were less, we would have no helium and, by extension, no oxygen or carbon. In addition, the formation of carbon from three helium atoms only can take place because of some very specific "resonances" that exist in these nuclei. 

Like all the other features we have mentioned, the balance is "just right" for these heavier atoms to form that are necessary for life.

The fine tuning of the universe is quite remarkable. It seems to be inexplicable from a standpoint of our universe alone, although in the final section we will mention some attempts at a naturalistic explanation. At the same time, the hypothesis of an Intelligent Designer would provide an eminently reasonable explanation. While perhaps not provable, belief in a Creator based on the fine tuning argument is very reasonable.

[1] E.g., Plato, Timaeus 28a-29a.

[2] William Paley, Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802).

[3] E.g., Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design (Back Bay, 2005).

[4] Another example would be Martin Rees in Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe (Basic, 2001).

[5] E.g., Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Bantam, 1988). “We see the universe the way it is because we exist.”

[6] So Rees, Six Numbers. The paragraphs that follow are largely drawn from his observations.

3.4 Ex Nihilo and God (Science and Scripture)

So much to write, so little time. To avoid oversaturation, let me skip forward in the chapter. Previous writings in this series have included:

2.1 Relationships between Science and Faith
2.2 Critical Realism and the Coherence of Truth
2.3 Approaches to Scripture

3.1 General and Special Relativity
3.2 Three Cosmologies

8.1 Approaches to Genesis 2-3
8.2 Situating Genesis 2-3
_____________________________
Einstein's general theory of relativity and Guth's inflationary universe both potentially prompt reflection on the concept of ex nihilo creation, creation "out of nothing."

3.5.1 Anachronistic Readings
First, a little background on the doctrine. One dynamic of our interpretation of Scripture is that we inadvertantly read our assumptions into the words of the Bible. For example, we will see in the next chapter that Genesis 1:1-2 probably did not originally picture creation out of nothing. It simply wasn't a perspective that existed at the time. [1]

Similarly, when we read Romans 4:17, which says that God calls into being things that do not exist, we are prone to hear creation out of nothing. However, the paradigms of people at the time did not likely hear such comments in the way we do. For example, when I make a pancake out of various ingredients, I am "calling into existence" something that did not exist before.

In the past, some have seen 2 Maccabees 7:28 as the first instance of creation out of nothing (early 100s BCE). The verse speaks of God not using existing materials to make the skies and the land. However, many currently think it is anachronistic to hear ex nihilo creation here. It seems to fit the time of writing better to think the author is saying God did not use materials as they appear to us but rather formless hyle, as in Wisdom 11:17 (first century BCE or CE).

Hebrews 11:3 would arguably fit in this same category as well: "that which is seen has come to exist not from things that appear." As in 2 Maccabees 7:28, the verse was not likely a denial of God's complete use of any material at all but an affirmation that he did not create the world out of materials as they currently appear (phenomena). We arguably see ex nihilo creation in these passages because it is our existing paradigm, but it arguably was not a paradigm that yet existed at the time.

3.5.2 Gnostic Controversies
Most scholars currently hold that the doctrine of creation out of nothing developed as a Jewish and Christian doctrine during the Gnostic controversies of the 100s CE. [2] Prior to those debates, it was not uncommon for Christian thinking to be dualistic. For example, the Gospel of John says, "That which is born of flesh is flesh. That which is born of spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). Despite efforts to reinterpret such comments differently, John seems to assume a metaphysical dualism of some sort. [3]

To be fair, the kind of stark dualism that we find in Descartes in the 1600s did not yet exist either. As Dale Martin has demonstrated, the ancients still saw the heavens as material even if much thinner material than that of our bodies. [4] For example, Aristotle saw the material of the skies as a fifth element, ether, from which we get the word ethereal. [5] The key distinction was more between the corporeal and embodied versus the disembodied spiritual. It was not so much between material and immaterial.

Nevertheless, it is common to confuse any dualisms in the New Testament with the Gnostic dualism of the second century. However, Platonic dualism is not the same as Gnostic dualism. The dualisms prior to the second century CE saw the embodied world as inferior to the disembodied heavenly realm ("the spirit is willing; the flesh is weak" -- Mark 14:38). However, they did not see the embodied world as intrinsically evil. Plato saw the body as the "prison of the soul," a negative connotation. [6] But he did not see the body as evil.

Gnosticism took that next step. Building on the common assumption that God created the cosmos out of underlying, eternal material (hyle), they saw this material substratum as a basis for the existence of evil. In the mid-second century CE, the Christian Marcion went so far as to suggest that a "Demiurge" was the creator of the Old Testament, an evil god different from the Father of Jesus.

In response to this Gnostic dualism, both Judaism and Christianity increasingly asserted that God had not only organized the material of the world -- the previous view -- but that God had created the underlying material of the heavens and earth itself out of nothing. We find this development as early as Theophilus of Antioch around 177CE. [7] As the Nicene Creed would clarify in 381 CE, God is the maker of everything "seen and unseen."

3.5.3 Creator of Emptiness
For two millennia, you could argue that the doctrine of ex nihilo still carried certain cosmological assumptions  of which its proponents were not aware. Namely, I suggest that Jews and Christians throughout the centuries often understood creation out of nothing to be the placement of matter into emptiness. They may not have seen this emptiness as vast. More likely, they saw the imagined space into which God placed material as extremely small compared to our sense of the universe's vastness today. 

Speculation was limited about what might be beyond the earth, the starry firmament above, and whatever underworld might be beneath us. The “edges” of the cosmos were often thought to be bounded by the primordial waters of Genesis 1:7. Even after the heliocentric debates of the 1500s and 1600s, it is doubtful that someone like Isaac Newton envisioned the universe on anything like its modern scale, though by his day the stars were increasingly seen as distant suns scattered through a much larger cosmos than the biblical authors might have imagined.

Einstein's theory of relativity and developments thereafter have given us a sense that space itself can curve and expand. These insights may prompt still further developments in our understanding of creation ex nihilo. It should now be clear that a robust sense of creation out of nothing should not only include the matter within the universe, but the space in which that matter exists. Moving well beyond anything the biblical authors or Christians of the first two millennia envisaged, we should now see creation as the creation of both space and matter.

I alluded earlier in this chapter to the distinction between zero and the empty set. Zero still suggests a framework of numbers. However, the empty set is the set that contains no numbers, not even zero. Let me suggest that, in a post-relativity, inflationary universe framework, creation out of nothing is creation out of empty set rather than creation out of zero. God creates both matter and the space that matter occupies. God created energy, antimatter, and any quantum fields that may anchor space. God created the singularity that expanded into our current universe.

It is difficult for our human minds to imagine what non-space emptiness might be, a nothing beyond both vacuum and emptiness. Yet it would seem that this is the "non-state" of the universe prior to creation. A clear implication is that God created the rules for the universe out of nothing as well. We cannot assume that any prior rules of logic or metaphysics existed that we could fathom. We should suspect that even notions we have of the Trinity and such are analogies rather than literal.

We are speaking of true incomprehensibility, that of which we cannot speak. A via negativa on a level we cannot fathom. [8]

[1] In John Walton's book, The Lost World of Genesis 1 (InterVarsity, 2009), he argues that ex nihilo creation simply isn't addressed in Genesis 1. The point of Genesis is that the creation was "non-functional" before God created. In his view, the question of the materials God used simply wasn't the question they were asking (see especially Propositions 1-4).

[2] For a comprehensive treatment of the doctrine's development, see Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of "Creation Out of Nothing" in Early Christian Thought (T & T Clark, 1994). 

[3] Joel Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible (Baker Academic, 2008). So also N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003), 440-47.

[4] Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (Yale University, 1999).

[5] Aristotle, De caelo 1.268b–269a, 1.3.270b

[6] E.g., Plato, Phaedo 82e. In Cratylus 400c, he calls the body the tomb of the soul (soma sema).

[7] Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 2.4.

[8] The notion of a "negative way" or via negativa suggests that we can only say what God's reality is not rather than what it is.

________________________________
3.3 An Expanding Universe (inflationary cosmology)

3.5 The Cosmological Argument
3.6 The Fine Tuning Argument

Pensée 5.1 Anarchy and communism are unworkable as forms of governance.

Thursday is usually my philosophy day, so here is a pensée from a little further down the line. Here was the first.
_______________________
1 The first question I want to address in the area of social and political philosophy has to do with the ideal form of government. What is it? Most of us do not have much say in the form of government under which we live. Perhaps we could migrate from one place to another. Occasionally, someone lives during a time of revolution and can either participate or resist. But almost none of us will be a Benjamin Franklin or an Oliver Cromwell or a Fidel Castro.

As a sidenote, I believe the United States is currently in a somewhat precarious position, and I have written as much in The United States versus Whatever This Is. There are forces that want to change the U.S. Constitution to make it more into their vision of a Christian nation. This is misguided for several reasons, not least a fundamental lack of biblical depth. But I will hold off my thoughts on theocracies until the next pensée.

In this pensée, I wish rather to address two forms of "government" that I strongly do not recommend and consider to be highly impractical. These are anarchy (rule by no one) and communism, which alleges that all property might be shared in common by a community with no one actually owning anything.

2. There were voices in the 1700s that thought a human in a primitive state would be pure. Thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) believed that society was often a corrupting influence on the good in humanity. [1] The purest human would be something like a "noble savage" that was not entangled by politics or social entanglements. Tarzan, if you would.

He was wrong. Human nature is human nature. A solitary human is a far more vulnerable human. A solitary human is unable to thrive as much as in a positive community. 

This is true, by the way, on a national scale. A country that tries to go it alone is a vulnerable country. I think of the villages along the coasts of the North Sea that were delighted to go about their own business until the Vikings came and took their stuff and burned their villages. Think of the way the English treated the Scots, who just wanted to be left alone. Even today, peaceful countries like Finland and Norway are in danger from agression from Russia and need allies.

As the African proverb goes, "If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together."

3. Not dissimilar to anarchy is the naive view of freedom that sometimes manifests itself in democratic countries like the United States. "It's a free country," someone might say. 

The problem of course is that no freedom is absolute, without exception. When freedoms come into conflict, they cannot equally be expressed. I am not free to kill you, for example. I am not free to steal your things. I have freedom of religion, but not if my religion involves child sacrifice. I have freedom of speech, but there is a line where my speech might directly lead someone to kill you. It is a very hard line to identify, but it exists and I am not free to cross it. I have the right to bear arms, but presumably not if I am a convicted serial killer.

It is quite amazing to me that some Americans seem quite irrational about such things. I am free as long as my freedoms do not substantially interfere with the freedoms of others. Anarchy is impractical because it allows my freedoms to harm you, which does not lead to a thriving society.

4. Of course, this naive view of freedom also is unbiblical. As Paul says, "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity to gratify the flesh" (Gal. 5:13). I am free to serve the Lord. I am free to love others, the verse goes on to say. 

The Corinthians were a good example of the naive view of freedom some Christians have. Paul tells them that everything may be lawful for them, but not everything is beneficial (1 Cor. 10:23). They boast in their freedom -- "I have knowledge" (1 Cor. 8:1). They think that because they know there are no other gods, they should be free to eat at pagan temples. "Nobody's home."

Paul corrects them. It's not about their rights, freedoms, and knowledge. It's about looking out for others. It's no coincidence that the love chapter is sandwiched in this sequence. Following Christ is not about me, me, me. It's about loving God and others.

5. Let me use the lock downs during COVID as an example. I recognize that there are those who question the effectiveness of quarantining and vaccines. Most experts continue to maintain that these were best practices and that, indeed, the slowness of the Trump administration to quarantine made the epidemic worse than it would have been. Those claims can of course be debated. For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that these protocols were legitimate.

If in fact they were legitimate, then arguments that the government was oppressing Christians or violating the freedom of religion are clearly misguided. Assuming legitimacy, the government was protecting the populace as its job is and those churches that insisted on meeting potentially were harming others -- even if unintentionally. 

Our freedom of religion does not allow us to harm others. And of course, churches were allowed to meet online -- there was no singling out of churches for oppression. Such claims seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of freedom in America. At worst, they strike one as rather selfish. Me, me, me. My rights and everyone else be damned.

I am not free to harm others.

6. Let me here assert two key axioms of the ideal society. First, it is a place that aims to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number possible. This is the utilitarian principle. Second, it aims to do so without violating the core rights of every individual. This is the principle behind the Bill of Rights and is technically called "universal ethical egoism." We set up a system that brings about the greatest good for everyone as much as possible. Within this framework, we aim for maximal human freedom.

More on these principles in a later pensée.

7. A second impractical way of structuring society is communistically. Communism is the notion that a society would not have private property but all property would be shared in common. Under the vision of Karl Marx, each person would work according to his or her ability but would receive back only in accordance with his or her need. [2] Marx naively imagined that all this would happen rather automatically if we could get private property out of the way.

We can imagine a situation where one person is sickly and is able to work very little. However, they require great resources. Someone else is extremely able bodied and is able to work incredibly effectively. However, they may need very little. Marx would say, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Although it is no doubt accentuated by our culture, it feels like there is something unfair, perhaps unjust about this set up. The workers in the Parable of the Day Laborers feel it in Matthew 20:1-16. It seems unfair that those who worked one hour should be paid the same as those who worked all day. (Note of course that Jesus is on the "wrong" side of this one.)

8. In the end, communism doesn't work because of human nature. On the one hand, I will argue that society should take care of the person who cannot take care of him or herself. A great society would.

But a society that does not reward work and effort is not a society that thrives. We are made to strive. We are made to try to excel. From a biblical perspective, we were made to "subdue the earth," not in terms of trashing it but in terms of striving to become the best we can be.

The twentieth century attempts to create a thriving society through communism were all failures. They never even achieved a communist society but were able to get no further than a kind of authoritarian socialism. They ended up debasing humanity rather than elevating it. Eastern Europe was a failure. The Soviet Union was a failure. Cuba and North Korea have been failures when it comes to elevating everyone.

We will have time later to talk about economic philosophy. For the moment, let us simply note that true communal experiments have not lasted for long. The Shakers, Oneida, New York did not last. Usually, the most assertive voices simply run the show unofficially. The Metropolitan Church Association tried to live communally in Chicago and then Waukesha, Wisconsin. But in its latter days, it could only survive off the bequests of individuals joining the community. Eventually it had to close.

Neither anarchy nor communism are effective ways to structure society.

[1] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men (1755).

[2] Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (1848).

3.2 Three Cosmologies

Previous writings here on the blog have included:

2.1 Relationships between Science and Faith
2.2 Critical Realism and the Coherence of Truth
2.3 Approaches to Scripture

3.1 General and Special Relativity

8.1 Approaches to Genesis 2-3
8.2 Situating Genesis 2-3
______________________________

3.2 Three Cosmologies
As the vastness of the universe became more and more apparent over the course of the twentieth century, three primary theories emerged to account for its origins and ongoing nature. At the middle of the century, the favorite was the so-called steady state theory, championed to great effect by individuals like Fred Hoyle. A small minority thought the math of general relativity might point to a beginning of the universe with something like a "big bang." The name "big bang theory" was actually given to this approach in ridicule. However, after it became clear that this was the most likely beginning to the universe, some suggested an ongoing oscillating big bang so as to avoid the need to invoke something like a Creator. [1]

textbox: Three Models:
steady state theory -- the universe has no beginning and matter is constantly being created as space expands
big bang theory -- the universe began at a point in the past in a dense hot state that has been expanding and cooling ever since 
oscillating big bang theory -- the universe begins, expands, contracts, expands again endlessly

3.2.1 Steady State Theory
After Einstein introduced the general theory of relativity, it was not long before individuals like Alexander Friedmann (1922) and Georges Lemaître (1927) recognized that the theory could point to a beginning to the universe followed by cosmic expansion. Einstein himself did not find this possibility appealing. He preferred a static universe that neither expanded nor contracted but that more or less stayed the same for all time. To counteract gravity and keep the universe static, he introduced a "cosmological constant" to his equations.

However, in 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding -- everywhere. As a light-emitting object moves away, the frequency of the waves gets elongated (like the Doppler effect when a siren is moving away from you). The result is what's called a "red shift." Galaxies all appeared to be moving away from one another, as though space itself were stretching. 

So, despite Einstein's attempt with the cosmological constant, the scientific community now had to come to grips with a universe that wasn't static at all. [2] In fact, it might very well have had a beginning. Georges Lemaître had seen this theoretical possibility of the math in 1927. He was both a scientist and a Belgian Roman Catholic priest. He saw this evidence as support for the idea of God as a Creator.

Enter Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle in 1948. Finding the possibility of a "Big Bang" at the beginning distasteful, they proposed a "steady state theory." The idea was that as the universe expanded, the average density of the universe stayed the same by creating matter to fill the gaps. They proposed that about every billion years, one hydrogen atom came into being for every cubic meter in the universe. They suggested that matter is continuously being created and thus that there did not need to be a beginning (or a Creator). Thus, the universe had no beginning or end in time.

Hoyle was known for his charismatic personality. In fact, he was the one who coined the expression "big bang" for the idea of a beginning. He regularly appeared on the radio and made it easy for the public to believe that his preferred cosmological option was the best of the alternatives.

3.2.2 The Big Bang Theory
As early as 1922, Alexander Friedmann recognized that Einstein's relativity equations could be interpreted to suggest a beginning to the universe in a very dense state. Friedmann's life unfortunately was cut short in Russia by typhoid, but seven years later the Belgian scientist Georges Lemaître independently came to the same conclusion.

With the confirmation of the universe's expansion in 1929, the possibility that the universe began with a "big bang" became even more plausible. Although the expression was originally one of derision, the name stuck. Nevertheless, this option remained unpopular among naturalists until the mid-1960s. Naturalism insists on explaining all the phenomenon of the world without recourse to the existence of the supernatural or spiritual. Many naturalists resisted the idea of a cosmic beginning, since a universe with no beginning seemed to remove the need for any first cause or Creator.

Nevertheless, events that unfolded in 1965 finally settled the debate. Early, in the 1940s, scientists like George Gamow had suggested that if the universe did begin in a hot, dense, fiery state, then the leftover radiation from that fireball should be detectable still today. As space stretched, the leftover radiation would stretch into the microwave frequencies and would form a sort of cosmic microwave background (CMB) everywhere in the universe, with a temperature a few degrees above absolute zero.

It was by accident in 1965 that Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson stumbled upon this very background
radiation. They were working on a radio telescope for Bell Labs, but wherever they pointed the telescope in the sky, it was picking up a faint microwave hiss. They tried everything to eliminate possible noise sources, even cleaning out pigeon droppings inside the antenna. But the signal remained.

When Robert Dicke and Jim Peebles at nearby Princeton University heard about the situation, they immediately suspected that Penzias and Wilson had come upon the very "afterglow of creation" that for which they were planning to test. This puzzling signal was exactly what Gamow and others had predicted if the universe had begun with a "big bang." Hoyle and others were unable to account for it with their steady state theory, and the big bang theory became the primary theory for the universe's origin.

As we will see in the section on the inflationary universe, the current thinking is that the cosmic microwave background comes from around 380,000 years after the beginning, when the universe cooled enough for photons to be released universe wide. "Let there be light," you might say. If the universe were infinitely old, the background radiation would have already dissipated. The CMB is thus strong evidence that the universe had a beginning.

3.2.3 The Oscillating Big Bang
Naturalism insists on explaining the phenomena of the world without recourse to the supernatural or spiritual. However, the Big Bang theory suggested that the universe had a beginning, which raised the question of why the universe began. Theists were all too ready with an answer -- a Creator. This left the naturalist to ask what other explanation there might be.

One option came to be known as the "oscillating" big bang. As early as the 1930s, Richard Tolman had explored the possibility of "cyclic" universes. In the late 1900s, the theory revived of a universe that was in a constant process of rapid expansion, then contracting into a crunch, then expanding again in an endless, eternal cycle. In this way, the universe would have no beginning or ending. It would just be one endless cycle of expansion and contraction -- bang and crunch, bang and crunch for all eternity.

The main problem with the theory was entropy, the tendency of systems to increase in disorder and to lose heat. Each recycled universe would thus have less usable energy than the previous one. The result is basically a countdown to a universe without order -- not an infinitely repeatable cycle. Further, by the early twenty-first century, it was clear that there was not enough matter in the universe for its gravity to pull it back into a crunch. Indeed, the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating. Its destiny could actually be a cosmic "rip" rather than a cosmic "crunch."

[1] Einstein preferred a static model in the early twentieth century, with the universe always being more or less as it is today.

[2] Einstein later called the constant a blunder, although it did turn out to be part of the equation.

3.1 Creation and the Big Bang -- Relativity

Back in the summer I wrote a little with a few to the Science and Scripture class I designed and have occasionally taught for Houghton University. This week I'd like to work a bit on Chapter 3 of a book proposal I'd soon like to submit somewhere. Chapter 3 is "Creation and the Big Bang."

Previous writings here on the blog have included:

2.1 Relationships between Science and Faith
2.2 Critical Realism and the Coherence of Truth
2.3 Approaches to Scripture
8.1 Approaches to Genesis 2-3
8.2 Situating Genesis 2-3
______________________________
3.1 General and Special Relativity
In 1905, a young patent clerk named Albert Einstein submitted a paper trying to resolve one of the unresolved conundrums of physics at that time. Experiments had shown that the speed of light remained constant no matter how fast or slow the source of the light was moving. This was baffling because it was not how other waves behaved. Scientists expected the speed of light to add to or subtract from the motion of its source, like a train’s headlight shining forward or backward. Yet every test showed that light’s speed never changed. 

Before Einstein, physicists expected light to behave like a projectile. If you shine a flashlight from the front of a moving train, its speed should be the train’s speed plus the speed of light. If you shine it backward, it should be the speed of light minus the train’s speed. But experiments had already shown that no matter how fast the train—or the Earth itself—was moving, the speed of light remained the same. This contradiction is what Einstein set out to resolve in 1905.

Einstein’s proposed solution was that space and time actually appeared to be longer or shorter depending on how something was moving in relation to you. If you were on the ground looking at a spaceship moving quickly in the sky, the length of the spaceship would be shorter to you than if it were sitting next to you (called “length contraction”). Similarly, a clock on the spaceship would move more slowly to you than a clock next to you (called “time dilation”). Mind you, if you were on the spaceship, space and time would appear normally. But they would appear differently to you if you were observing from a framework moving more slowly in relation to the spaceship.

This proposal came to be known as the theory of special relativity. Einstein proposed that space and time were not separate aspects of a particular context or framework. Instead, they were intimately connected to each other – later conceptualized as "spacetime." As an object approached the speed of light, its length in the direction of motion contracted from the standpoint of something moving much more slowly, and time appeared to slow down for it.

The mathematical equation for the contraction of length as something approaches the speed of light is known as the Lorentz contraction formula. Here is the formula.
_____________________
Textbox:

L=L0​ * sqrt (1−v^2/c^2​​)

Where:
L = Observed length of the moving object (contracted length)
L0​ = Proper length (length of the object at rest)
v = Velocity of the object relative to the observer
c = Speed of light (≈3.00×10^8 m/s)
_____________________

You can see that when something is moving much more slowly than the speed of light, there will be almost no observable difference in length. When the velocity is small, v is much smaller than c, making that part approach 0. The length equals the length proper. But as an object approaches the speed of light, the difference in length becomes very significant. The length of the object approaches zero.

In Einstein’s theory of special relativity, the speed of light becomes the universal speed limit. No object with mass can reach or exceed the speed of light, and the speed of light will be the same no matter how quickly or slowly an object is moving. This idea was counterintuitive. If you stood on top of a train and threw a rock forward, you would expect the speed of the rock from the standpoint of the ground to be the speed of the train plus the speed of the rock. In everyday life, speeds add up or subtract. But if you shine a flashlight forward or backward from the top of a train, the speed of light will measure exactly the same either way. It’s the space and time that changes relative to the ground.

In 1915, Einstein extended his theory to propose the general theory of relativity. The key new element was the impact of mass on spacetime. What Einstein proposed was that mass and energy curve spacetime. When light travels near a sun, it appears to curve because the mass is curving spacetime. This was confirmed in 1919 when Arthur Eddington observed that starlight was displaced passing near the Sun. The curvature of spacetime was altering the light coming past the Sun.

The conclusion, in effect, is that space and time are not rigid but can stretch, curve, and expand. Indeed, it would be confirmed in 1929 by Edwin Hubble that space is expanding. This is not just about the matter in the universe expanding, but the fabric of space itself is getting bigger. The current model sees the universe beginning with a point and then rapidly expanding into the vast universe we know today.

We will ponder these discoveries in relation to creation later in the chapter. It changes our view of creation from one where God puts materials into emptiness to one where God creates the emptiness itself. It may transform our sense of what a creation out of nothing (ex nihilo in Latin) might mean. Apparently, God did not create the universe out of zero but out of an empty set with no elements in it at all.

Romans' Story -- 15:14-33 (situation of letter)

Lead up to Romans
Romans 16 -- Paul's letter to Ephesus
______________________

Romans 15 was probably the last part of Romans written. But these verses give us important background for understanding the letter. So, let's follow Scot McKnight's example and "read Romans backwards." [1] 

1. We already know from Romans 16 that Paul is at Corinth as he writes, staying at the house of Gaius (16:23). This also aligns with the book of Acts (Acts 20:3).

Where has he been? Over the course of his mission, he has "fulfilled the gospel" from Jerusalem to Illyricum (15:19). This is curious because Illyricum is in the northwestern part of the Greek peninsula -- somewhere Acts never tells us Paul visited.

It's a reminder that Acts is not an exact presentation. It is an artistic presentation. It is likely an "economized" presentation. What I mean is that history is sloppy and full of details. Acts does a superb job of reducing the scattered details of life into a somewhat linear presentation. This can take great skill, but precision is sometimes the cost. For example, I have long suspected that Acts 15 is an effective condensation of a process that took a little longer than a one day public event.

When did Paul go to Illyricum? Probably either while he was at Corinth or during one of his trips through Macedonia. Indeed, maybe the difficulties of 2 Corinthians 10-13 led him to stall going to Corinth a little.

2. He is coming from a several year mission in Ephesus. I've already mentioned the pathos I hear in 15:23 -- "no longer have a place in these regions." He's covered the east. 

He longs to come to them, to Rome (15:23). It's been on his bucket list. He's been hindered because of his mission to the Gentiles thus far.

3. Paul's self-identity as an apostle, missionary, church planter to the Gentiles is very clear in these verses. Paul did not see himself equally as an apostle to Jews and Gentiles. He saw the mission to the Gentiles as God's special calling to non-Jews. 

Paul would likely have chuckled (or scowled) to read Acts 15:7 where Peter takes credit for being the first to bring the good news to the Gentiles. He is clear in Galatians 2:7 -- Peter recognized Paul as the apostle to non-Jews while Peter was the apostle to the circumcised. 

So, here is Paul's mission statement: God has sent me as the lead witness to the resurrection among the Gentiles. 

He is also a church planter. He clearly does not see his calling as "second pastor." He does not preach the gospel "where Christ has already been named" (15:20). He doesn't build on the foundation others have laid. Rather, the Spirit has made Isaiah 52:15 come alive to him as a kind of personal verse -- "Those who have never been told of him will see."

4. For this reason, he does not plan to spend a long time in Rome. The Roman church is already established. Indeed, it had already existed in AD49 when Priscilla and Aquila were forced to leave.

How did it get established? Of course the Roman Catholic Church has a tradition that it was founded by Peter but this is unlikely in the extreme. The kernel of the tradition may be that the church had a somewhat of a "Petrine" flavor. [2] It was founded before Paul had brought the "Gentile question" fully into discussion and so the church may have retained a more "conservative" flavor even after most of its Jewish believers had been forced to leave by Claudius.

So, the Roman church is established. He doesn't plan to minister there -- it is already a well established set of churches. And they are primarily Gentile churches.

In AD49, the conflict within the synagogues of Rome reached such a peak that it came to the attention of the Emperor Claudius. Both Suetonius and Acts 18:2 indicate that Claudius kicked at least the Jewish Christians from the city. [3] It seems practically unlikely that all Jews would be forced to leave. It's much more likely that only the "troublemakers" were, namely, the messianic Jews.

This would have left the God-fearers who had become believers. The Roman church in AD50 would thus have been overwhelmingly Gentile. Like a fossil, their shape would have been formed by the Jewish believers who had left. This dynamic may be helpful in the interpretation of Romans (and, frankly, Hebrews and Mark, although Jewish belivers no doubt returned in 54 after Claudius died).

5. There are many hints that Romans was written to a predominantly Gentile audience. 

Paul thinks he has written boldly to them at some points (15:15 -- what are they?), but it is appropriate for him to do so because he is an apostle to the Gentiles. Implication? That they are Gentiles. He can write boldly to them because it's his job. 

His job is to make sure that the Gentile believers are an acceptable sacrifice to God (15:16). They need to be "sanctified" -- set apart as holy for God. So, part of his job is to whip the Gentile churches into shape.

In Christ, he might be proud of all this mission work. Paul's personality sneaks in a little here. Krister Stendahl long ago pointed out that Paul never viewed himself as a failure. [5] He is a choleric -- he has always felt like a success. He has always seen himself as an example and a model to emulate (cf. 1 Cor. 4:16). Romans 7 is not autobiographical but hypothetical, a dramatic enactment, as we will see.

But he will not boast except in what Christ has done through him (15:18). This includes signs and wonders (15:19) -- a reminder that Paul's ministry was not primarily the presentation of heady theology or speeches. Miracles accompanied his mission. We have made him into an intellectual, but that's not likely how they saw him (cf. 2 Cor. 10:10). 

6. In the immediate future, he is on his way to Jerusalem (15:16). He has collected an offering from many of the Gentile churches he has planted, including the churches of Macedonia and Achaia (15:26). Acts mentions a collection of representatives from the churches with him, as we have already mentioned (Acts 20:4). 

"I am going to Jerusalem, ministering to the saints" (15:25). It is for the poor there (15:26). This is in fulfillment of Galatians 2:10.

He likely sees this as the fulfillment of prophecy. Isaiah 60:5 talks about the wealth of the nations flowing to Jerusalem. Indeed, he has ended the argument of the letter in the first part of Romans 15 with verses celebrating the coming of salvation to the Gentiles (15:9-12).

He is afraid he will face opposition from unbelievers in Jerusalem (15:31). According to Acts, he does. He will be arrested and jailed in Jerusalem (Acts 21:27-36). He is also afraid that the Jerusalem church will not receive him (15:31). It's a reminder that he remains on tense, iffy ground with the Jewish Christianity there. Acts 21:20-21 confirms the uneasy ground he is coming to.

He sees this offering almost as an obligation on the part of the Gentile churches (15:27). Israel has shared its spiritual blessings with them. It is thus appropriate for the Gentile churches to share their material blessings back in return.

We get a picture of a Jewish church that is relatively poor, and a Gentile church that is relatively blessed materially. This dynamic might reflect that fact that many God-fearers who associated with synagogues tended to be a little more affluent. The earliest Gentile converts likely came from this demographic.

7. Paul hopes to use Rome as a launching point for a mission into Spain (15:24, 28). I do not personally think he ever made it there. He will get into conflict in Jerusalem that will significantly derail his plans. Following Acts, he will spend almost two years entangled in Judea.

Then he will use Roman law to get to Rome, appealing to Caesar. But, if the foreshadowing of Acts is any indication, he will die there after his trial.

8. Romans 15:33 may have been the original end to this part of the letter. Some manuscripts indeed have the later doxology of 16:25-27 here. 

[1] Scot McKnight, Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of Empire (Baylor University, 2021).

[2] Raymond Brown and John Meier, Antoich and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (Paulist, 2004). 

[3] Suetonius, Life of Claudius 25.4.

[4] Krister Stendahl, "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Fortress, 1976).

Pensée 1: We can be epistemologically certain of almost nothing.

Descartes did the thought experiment for us. Almost everything we claim to be true can be doubted. 

1. Certainly anything having to do with my senses. We may say, "Seeing is believing." Sure. But that only means we find it most convincing. Our senses can be fooled. We could be dreaming. We could be in a matrix, a holodeck, or a computer simulation.

Is it likely? Probably not. I'm going to assume not -- reasonable people do. 

But I can't prove it. In fact, I can't disprove the claim that God created the world ten seconds ago with all our memories intact and the universe having apparent age. 

Do I think so? No. But I can't disprove it. And neither can you.

2. What about the things of my mind? Certainly my reasoning can be faulty without me realizing it. The human brain overwrites old memories, making even my memories of the past fallible. Drugs will do the trick to mutate my thoughts. So many, many people are mentally unstable. Maybe there's a little bit of insanity in all of us.

What about logic? Since I know of no instances of it ever being wrong, let's say it is reasonable to assume it is certain and reliable. Of course, we don't always have the right premises or follow valid logic. But if the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the proper inference must follow.

Let's throw a good deal of mathematics in here. It would seem to be certain beyond reasonable doubt. If done properly, most math seems reliable without exception.

3. What about the existence of God or God's dependability? Absolutely certain?

Faith comes in here, so the epistemological answer is no. Faith by its very nature implies epistemological uncertainty. This is as far as you and I am concerned. God no doubt has no doubts about his own existence.

I have extreme confidence that a vast number of things are ontologically certain. Their existence is quite likely certain. The problem is not with their certainty, but with mine. I believe them by faith, not by certainty on my part.

I am stuck in my head, apparently. I am finite. I am extremely convinced that I see only the smallest infinitesimal of reality. Further, the way my mind puts together the pieces of the small portion I see is often riddled with fallacy. 

Yes, likely countless things are certain. But very few things are certain to me, whether I am convinced or not. They require some degree of faith on my part -- some more, some less. God may wield the ontological argument for his own existence with perfection. Epistemologically, it is a matter of faith -- and thus uncertainty -- for me and you.

4. "I think; therefore, I am." cogito ergo sum. Descartes came close, but failed because he assumed that the "I" exists, which is a matter of faith. The proper formation is cogito ergo esse. "I think; therefore, something exists."

Everything else requires faith on some level. Logic requires very little faith, for it never seems to fail. The fundamentals of math are apparently related and never seem to fail. The notion of cause and effect seems consistently reliable, although scientists continue to seek the most useful ways to express it. The idea of space and time is incredibly useful, although our perceptions of it turn out to be rather complicated.

Suffice it to say, almost everything we believe, we believe on the basis of faith to some degree or another. Things of which we are incredibly sure, are usually still ultimately a matter of faith. Much of which we are certain is also incorrect, although we usually do not know it.

God knows all the data. God knows all the data in its proper relation to all the other data. God knows it all certainly, for God either created it or its possibility.

But for us, these are matters of faith. 

References: René Descartes, Discourse on Method (1637), Meditations on First Philosophy (1641)

Pensees I may write later (these are mostly in a section, "A Basis for Knowledge")
2. The world outside me exists.
3. I exist.
4. Logic and math seem absolutely reliable.
5. Our situation requires some pragmatism.
6. Kant's distinction is useful.
7. The scientific method is useful.
8. The scientific method has clear limits.
9. Assumptions are inevitable in reasoning.
10. Reasoning is inevitable in thinking.
11. Faith can be reasonable and unreasonable.

12. Belief in a Creator seems reasonable.

The Story of Romans -- chapter 16

The journey started last week here. This week, we jump to Romans 16.
____________________________
1. Does Romans 16 go with Romans 1-15? Everyone thinks it does in terms of the timing -- Paul's at Corinth around AD56. He's about to head to Jerusalem with an offering for the poor in the Jerusalem church.

But was Romans 16 written to Rome? Or, just maybe, was it written to Ephesus? That is the question. At the moment, most scholars say Rome. 

But I am old. I was trained right before New Testament scholarship went all sentimental. [1] While I once would have been in the majority, I am now in the loyal opposition. I side with the older idea that Romans 16 was an independent letter written to Ephesus, collected and attached to Romans because they were written at the same time. 

I summarize the argument at the end of this post. For now, here's that version of the story.

2. Paul had been kicked out of Ephesus, I think. There had been the riot of Acts 19. I believe Demetrius did in fact bring charges against Paul (Acts 19:24, 38). I side with N. T. Wright and others that Paul was jailed and that he wrote Philippians at that time. He feared he had a death sentence on him (2 Cor. 1:8). 

But God delivered him. 

Now, exiled from the city, Paul longed for the churches at Ephesus. After all, he had stayed there for almost three years. Paul's time at Ephesus was almost the longest he had managed to stay in one location before being driven out. [2] During his time there, Paul had used Ephesus as a base, perhaps planting churches in nearby places like Colossae and Laodicea.

Phoebe
3. So, Paul was delighted when Phoebe came to him asking for a letter of recommendation to the churches of Ephesus (Rom. 16:1). Perhaps she was leaving Corinth to live in Ephesus for a bit. Maybe she had business there. 

Paul saw the Lord's hand in it. This was a chance to send a letter back to the churches of Ephesus while helping Phoebe out by vouching for her. 

Phoebe was a deacon of the house church that met in Cenchrea, the eastern port village of Corinth. Deacons did a lot of the work in a church, somewhat like our pastors today. A large enough house church might have a group of elders who provided wise council for it. They were modeled after the elders who provided the background leadership of a synagogue. The Sandhedrin in Jerusalem was the ultimate example of this sort of elder council.

Deacons were thus like the "feet" of a local assembly. They did the day to day work. They were like the synagogue leaders responsible for keeping the ship going. They were the "servants" of the churches. They were people like Epaphroditus at Philippi (Phil. 2:25) or Epaphras at Colossae (Col. 4:12). Phoebe was one of these "servants" of the church at Cenchrae.

4. By the way, don't get confused by Acts 6. Acts never calls the seven deacons. And they don't act like deacons either in the modern sense. Philip was an evangelist. Stephen preaches himself to death. There's a recent tradition that says a deacon does what Peter describes in Acts 6:3. The text just doesn't say that! It's made up.

And Peter done messed up anyway. He got caught with his britches down, overlooking a group just as important to God as he was. Making excuses, "I can't wait tables. I've got to pray." Yeah, right.

It was a ministry failure plain and simple. Luke softens it up as usual. But the bottom line is that Greek-speaking Jews weren't being ministered to. So, God raised up these people to step into the gap. We don't see these seven waiting tables in Acts. We see them spreading the gospel!

4. Paul commended Phoebe to the churches of Ephesus. Such letters of recommendation were important in a world where a stranger could show up claiming things with no way of knowing if they were reliable or not. Paul wanted the churches at Ephesus to know that Phoebe was trustworthy. Indeed, she was a deacon of the house assembly that meets at the port village of Cenchraea.

Paul doesn't have to justify the fact that she's a woman. Apparently, a female deacon wasn't unusual enough to comment on. And, yes, it is the masculine form of the word such as Paul uses in Philippians 1:1 (diakonos). Phoebe is not an informal "servant." The word often has this more generic meaning -- but not when it is used in relation to a specific church as here. 

He calls her a prostatis to him and others (16:2). This probably indicates that she was a person of some financial means, a patron of sorts to the church. Indeed, perhaps she is traveling to Ephesus on business. Paul asks the churches of Ephesus to help her in any way they might when she arrives.

Priscilla and Aquila
5. He sends greetings to Priscilla and Aquila (16:3). Fascinating how often he mentions Priscilla first when he mentions the couple. Apparently, she was the one who first came to mind when he was writing about ministry. He regularly mentions her first in ministry contexts (Acts 18:26; Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19). She is mentioned first in the discipleship of Apollos (Acts 18:26).

Hey, wait a minute. Weren't Priscilla and Aquila with Paul in Ephesus (18:26)? And aren't they in Ephesus in 2 Timothy 4:19 at the end? So why are they in Rome all of a sudden?

They aren't. This is the first clue that Romans 16 was actually written to Ephesus rather than Rome. It won't be the last (keep reading). It's certainly possible that they went to Rome when Paul left Ephesus and then returned by the time of 2 Timothy. But this is the first drip in a cumulative case against Rome as the destination for Romans 16. Ephesus makes much more sense.

Priscilla and Aquila have a house church. Presumably, both of them are elders in their own house church. In more than one place, Paul mentions churches that meet in the houses of women. There is the church that meets in Nympha's house (Col. 4:15). There are those "of Chloe" in 1 Corinthians 1:11. Perhaps these are widows. Or perhaps their husbands aren't believers or aren't involved. 

But in the end, he identifies these churches by their names. It is the First Church of Chloe and the First Church of Nympha. It is natural to assume they were elders in their own house churches. Why wouldn't they be -- except for the way some people wrongly interpret one verse in 1 Timothy?

Epaenetus
6. Paul greets Epaenetus, the first fruits of Asia (16:5). Let that sink in -- the first convert in Asia. A little odd, isn't it -- if he's writing to Rome? Drip, drip. He's not writing to Rome. He's writing to Ephesus.

Again, it's not impossible that Epaenetus went to Rome, perhaps even with Priscilla and Aquila. But wouldn't these greetings fit very nicely if Paul were writing to -- wait for it -- Ephesus. There, the mention that he was the firstfruits of Asia would make perfect sense.

I'm guessing that Mary has something to do with Epaenetus (16:6). Maybe not. But she is a worker in the church. Children's worker? Nope. Doesn't say that. Women's ministry? Nope. Doesn't say that.

She labors hard "among y'all."

Andronicus and Junia
7. Andronicus and Junia are probably a husband-wife pair. Paul greets them as "my fellow prisoners, notable among the apostles." (ἐπίσημος ἐν...). He adds that they "have been in Christ before me."

The big question here is how to take "notable among the apostles." Most instances of this expression in the Greek outside the Bible refers to a member of a group. [3] This is also the way most early Christians took the phrase with Chysostom in the 300s marveling that a woman would be an apostle. [4] Finally, some copyists of the verse apparently felt uncomfortable enough with the verse that they made Junia (feminine) into Junias (masculine).

All that is to say, what may seem like an ambiguous expression to us -- is it "notable among the apostles or "well-known to the apostles" -- wasn't ambiguous to the ancient Greeks or to ancient Christians. Junia is called an apostle here.

It fits the context too. This husband and wife were believers before Paul. Indeed, as "fellow prisoners," we can infer that they were probably imprisoned with Paul at Ephesus during the Demetrius scandal.

8. What were the criteria for an apostle? Here we don't mean one of the Twelve, but one of the broader group of apostles that included people like James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul. Paul himself gives the criteria -- they needed to be a witness to the resurrection (1 Cor. 9:1).

And here note that there are no apostles of this sort today. Paul was the last (1 Cor. 15:8). When Ephesians refers to God giving some to be apostles (Eph. 4:11), it is referring to the apostles of the earliest church. However, this was a wider group than the Twelve.

Apostles were sent, as the core meaning of the word implies. They were sent as witnesses to the resurrection, as both Paul and Acts 1:22 indicate. 

Bottom line: Andronicus and Junia were Jews to whom Jesus had appeared after the resurrection. Perhaps they were part of the "five hundred brothers [and sisters]" that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:6. Jesus sent them as witnesses to his resurrection, and they found themselves in Ephesus at the same time as Paul. Indeed, they go to jail with him during his time there.

9. They are Jewish -- Paul calls them "kinspeople" or "relatives." But he probably doesn't mean blood relations. He means they're Jewish.

Again, some manuscripts have Junia as a guy -- Junias. However, it's pretty unanimous among scholars that it's a woman, Junia. For one thing, the best manuscripts -- the earliest Greek copies of Romans -- all say Junia. Also, the fundamental rule of deciding what a verse said is this: "What original wording best explains how the other wordings came about?"

So which scenario is more likely? Some copyist felt uncomfortable with a woman being an apostle and made it into a guy or someone intentionally made an apostle into a woman? Copying errors can happen accidentally too, of course.

It's virtually unanimous among text experts that it was Junia, a woman.

10. These are just the first of a number of Jewish individuals mentioned in the closing greetings of Romans 16. Here we get to an important aspect to Romans 16. How Gentile (non-Jewish) were the churches at Rome? I think they were predominantly Gentile, as we will see.

However, Robert Jewett -- who has written an important commentary on Romans in the Hermeneia series -- sees the churches in Rome as much more evenly divided between Jew and Gentile. This conclusion has a major effect on his interpretation of the letter. [5] And he reaches this conclusion in large part by seeing how many Jewish individuals are in the greetings of Romans 16.

Similarly, Scot McKnight "reads Romans backwards," making a great deal of the idea that Phoebe carried the letter to Rome. [6] I love what he does with this concept. I just don't agree in the end.

While I love what these two interpreters do with their working assumptions, I don't go there. In fact, I think these assumptions end up clouding an objective reading of the first fifteen chapters.

He knows a lot of people.
11. So far we have had two hints that Romans 16 was actually sent to Ephesus: Priscilla and Aquila and Epaenetus. There's also the question of Andronicus and Junia being jailed with Paul -- he hasn't been to Rome yet so they had to be imprisoned with him somewhere else. Ephesus fits.

Paul has not been to Rome yet (e.g., Rom. 1:13). So, how does he know so many people there? It's not impossible of course. But it fits Ephesus very well.

Mary. Ampliatus (his "beloved"). Urbanus (a "fellow worker") and Stachys. Apelles and the household of Aristobulus. How does he know his household if he's never been to Rome?

Herodion, a fellow Jew, and the household of Narcissus. Again, he knows a household and he's never been there. 

Tryphaena and Tryphosa -- women he has worked with. One, women work in the church. Two, where has Paul worked with them? Persis, another woman. 

Rufus and his mother, who is like a mother to Paul. Do ancient Mediterranean mothers move around a lot? No. Ephesus makes a lot more sense.

Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas. Brothers and sisters with them. Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas. Also there are saints with them. Paul is probably going house church by house church in these greetings. [7]

Come on. It's Ephesus. Yes, people were mobile in the early church. But we're talking about massive mobility here. It's Ephesus.

Paul says for them to greet each other with a holy kiss (16:16). Why? Because they're family. They are brothers and sisters. They are mothers and sons/daughters. A holy handshake works today.

Memories of Ephesus
12. Paul warns them about dissension and false teaching. We know this will be a problem at Ephesus for decades to come. The Christian Gnostics will emerge from Ephesus. John, perhaps writing the letter of Revelation 2 within fifteen years of Romans, mentions false teachers at Ephesus. 

In Philippians 1:16-17, Paul mentions people at Ephesus who talk Christ in a way that gets him in trouble. That fits the tone of Romans 16:17-18.

Paul says that God will soon crush Satan under their feet, an allusion to Genesis 3:15 (Rom. 16:20). By the way, this is the only allusion to Genesis 3:15 in the New Testament -- and it is not about Christ. It is the feet of the church at Ephesus under which Satan will be crushed here. I don't have a problem with seeing Christ in the Genesis verse. Just know the Bible itself never does it.

This is also one of the places where we learn that Paul saw the serpent in the Garden as Satan. John does too in Revelation 12:9 and 20:2. However, note that Genesis itself never says this. It was not until the first century BC that any Jew seems to have made this connection. [8]. 

The letter to Ephesus may have ended with verse 20: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you." That means that the closing from verse 21-23 may have been the way the letter to the Romans originally ended -- as it does now in this extended version.

He's at Corinth.
13. Now we get information on where Paul is when he is writing. We can apply this information to both the writing of Romans and the short letter to the Ephesians.

First, there is his co-worker Timothy. Notice that Titus is not mentioned. Then he mentions Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, fellow Jews. We know of a Jason from Thessalonica in Acts 17:6. Perhaps it is the same person.

Tertius is Paul's secretary in the writing of Romans 16, probably in the writing of all of Romans. He slips in a greeting of his own. Cheeky. Paul would not likely have handwritten his own letters (cf. Gal 6:11 where he briefly picks up the stylus). He would have planned them and dictated them. 

Gaius seems to host the church at Corinth (Rom. 16:23). That suggests he had a large house, perhaps one that could accommodate 40-50 people for the worship assembly. Perhaps there were smaller assemblies too, but his house was apparently the large meeting place.

That suggests he has money. Perhaps he is the same person as Titius Justus in Acts 18:7 -- Gaius Titius Iustus, a Roman citizen. He was apparently from the earliest layer of the church, a Paul convert (cf. 1 Cor. 1:14).

Erastus is the city treasurer. Obviously, some in the church were well-connected in the city. Still today, you can see an inscription with his name on it on a sidewalk he paid for (see the image of this post). Quartus was probably another prominent person in the church and city. 

Manuscript Issues
14. Romans 16:24 in some manuscripts repeats verse 20 -- "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all." It is not likely original, although it gets a number because it was in the medieval manuscripts that formed the basis for the numbering in the 1500s.

Here we get to the final piece of the Romans 16 puzzle. The manuscript evidence for the last part of Romans is a mess. First, the current 16:25-27 probably isn't original. It's beautiful. It just probably wasn't written by Paul. It's a cap on an exposed tooth. When you are collecting Romans and 1 Ephesians together, you need a new ending. This is a beautiful one. It doesn't sound much like Paul's normal style, but it's beautiful. Let's keep it.

Here's another kicker. These verses appear in some manuscripts at the end of Romans 15 and even in some manuscripts at the end of Romans 14. It's true that all manuscripts of Romans have Romans 16, but we can see "fossils" in the manuscripts that hint it wasn't there in some very ancient ones.

Thus the cumulative argument that Romans 16 was largely a separate letter are 1) a manuscript mess, 2) people we know were at Ephesus (Priscilla, Aquila, Epaenetus), 3) a whole lot of people Paul knows, including house churches, including households in an age where mobility was far less than it is today, 4) a situation that seems to fit Ephesus well.

[1] In the 1980s, New Testament scholarship got tired of the search for hypothetical sources and theories of composition. It decided to focus on the text itself as it currently stands. The trajectory has resulted in scholars having a bias toward the unity of texts, explaining inner tensions by way of literary theories rather than theories of different sources.  

[2] He apparently did better in his hometown area around Tarsus from AD36-44. Unfortunately, we don't know the details of that time. Since he doesn't return to that area -- and we have no record of him going north to Cappadocia and beyond -- perhaps he traveled a bit in that region during those years.

[3] For example, in Josephus, Antiquities 11:110, he refers to someone who is "notable among the Jews."

[4] John Chrysostom, Homily on Romans 31.

[5] Robert Jewett, Romans (Fortress, 2006).

[6] Scot McKnight, Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of Empire (Baylor University, 2021).

[7] Once upon a time, Wayne Meeks blew my mind with how much social context he extracted from these greetings. In The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, 2nd ed. (Yale University, 2003). 

[8] The first instance is in a book called The Life of Adam and Eve.