Genesis Scripture Index of Materials
GENESIS 1:1 Gen001.htm
GENESIS 1:1 Gen003.htm
GENESIS 1:1 Gen004.htm
GENESIS 1:1 Gen005.htm
GENESIS 1:1 Gen006.htm
GENESIS 1:1 Gen007.htm
GENESIS 1:1 Gen008.htm
GENESIS 1:1 Gen009.htm
GENESIS 1:1 Gen010.htm
GENESIS 1:1 Gen011.htm
GENESIS 1:1 Gen015.htm
GENESIS 1:1 Gen129.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen001.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen004.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen007.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen008.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen009.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen010.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen011.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen015.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen019.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen028.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen034.htm
GENESIS 1:2 Gen040.htm
GENESIS 1:3 Gen009.htm
GENESIS 1:3 Gen010.htm
GENESIS 1:4 Gen010.htm
GENESIS 1:6-8 Gen010.htm
GENESIS 1:11 Gen017.htm
GENESIS 1:12 Gen011.htm
GENESIS 1:12 Gen018.htm
GENESIS 1:16 Gen013.htm
GENESIS 1:17 Gen010.htm
GENESIS 1:24 Gen012.htm
GENESIS 1:24 Gen028.htm
GENESIS 1:25 Gen012.htm
GENESIS 1:25 Gen028.htm
GENESIS 1:26 Gen002.htm
GENESIS 1:26 Gen007.htm
GENESIS 1:26 Gen012.htm
GENESIS 1:26 Gen026.htm
GENESIS 1:26 Gen031.htm
GENESIS 1:26 Gen038.htm
GENESIS 1:26-28 Gen012.htm
GENESIS 1:26-28 Gen013.htm
GENESIS 1:26-28 Gen015.htm
GENESIS 1:26-28 Gen021.htm
GENESIS 1:26-28 Gen031.htm
GENESIS 1:26-28 Gen038.htm
GENESIS 1:26-28 Gen042.htm
GENESIS 1:26-28 Gen046.htm
GENESIS 1:26-28 Gen047.htm
GENESIS 1:26-30 Gen026.htm
GENESIS 1:27 Gen002.htm
GENESIS 1:27 Gen012.htm
GENESIS 1:27 Gen030.htm
GENESIS 1:27 Gen046.htm
GENESIS 1:27 Gen047.htm
GENESIS 1:28 Gen013.htm
GENESIS 1:28 Gen026.htm
GENESIS 1:28 Gen031.htm
GENESIS 1:28 Gen047.htm
GENESIS 1:29 Gen046.htm
GENESIS 2:1-3 Gen004.htm
GENESIS 2:3 Gen001.htm
GENESIS 2:3 Gen003.htm
GENESIS 2:3 Gen004.htm
GENESIS 2:3 Gen007.htm
GENESIS 2:3 Gen010.htm
GENESIS 2:3 Gen013.htm
GENESIS 2:4 Gen003.htm
GENESIS 2:4 Gen009.htm
GENESIS 2:4 Gen017.htm
GENESIS 2:4-7 Gen018.htm
GENESIS 2:5 Gen018.htm
GENESIS 2:7 Gen007.htm
GENESIS 2:7 Gen019.htm
GENESIS 2:7 Gen021.htm
GENESIS 2:7 Gen022.htm
GENESIS 2:7 Gen031.htm
GENESIS 2:15 Gen025.htm
GENESIS 2:15-17 Gen026.htm
GENESIS 2:17 Gen026.htm
GENESIS 2:17 Gen029.htm
GENESIS 2:18 Gen027.htm
GENESIS 2:24 Gen012.htm
GENESIS 2:25 Gen028.htm
GENESIS 3:7 Gen028.htm
GENESIS 3:7 Gen031.htm
GENESIS 3:7 Gen034.htm
GENESIS 3:7 Gen050.htm
GENESIS 3:9 Gen029.htm
GENESIS 3:11 Gen029.htm
GENESIS 3:14 Gen029.htm
GENESIS 3:14-19 Gen030.htm
GENESIS 3:14-24 Gen030.htm
GENESIS 3:15 Gen036.htm
GENESIS 3:15 Gen050.htm
GENESIS 3:16 Gen030.htm
GENESIS 3:17-19 Gen026.htm
GENESIS 3:19 Gen018.htm
GENESIS 3:20 Gen031.htm
GENESIS 3:21 Gen031.htm
GENESIS 3:21 Gen036.htm
GENESIS 3:23 Gen031.htm
GENESIS 4:1 Gen019.htm
GENESIS 4:1-16 Gen036.htm
GENESIS 4:4 Gen036.htm
GENESIS 4:7 Gen030.htm
GENESIS 4:15 Gen037.htm
GENESIS 4:16-26 Gen037.htm
GENESIS 4:17 Gen037.htm
GENESIS 5:1 Gen012.htm
GENESIS 5:1 Gen017.htm
GENESIS 5:1 Gen038.htm
GENESIS 5:2 Gen038.htm
GENESIS 5:3 Gen012.htm
GENESIS 5:3 Gen037.htm
GENESIS 5:3 Gen038.htm
GENESIS 5:24 Gen040.htm
GENESIS 5:29 Gen036.htm
GENESIS 5:32 Gen050.htm
GENESIS 6:1-3 Gen039.htm
GENESIS 6:1-7 Gen042.htm
GENESIS 6:3
Gen024.htm
GENESIS 6:3
Gen040.htm
GENESIS 6:3
Gen042.htm
GENESIS 6:5
Gen040.htm
GENESIS 6:8
Gen042.htm
GENESIS 6:9
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 6:9
Gen042.htm
GENESIS 6:9-22
Gen042.htm
GENESIS 6:10
Gen050.htm
GENESIS 6:11
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 6:12
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 6:13
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 6:17
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 6:18
Gen046.htm
GENESIS 6:18
Gen047.htm
GENESIS 6:19
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 6:20
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 7:1
Gen045.htm
GENESIS 7:2
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 7:2
Gen045.htm
GENESIS 7:3
Gen045.htm
GENESIS 7:4
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 7:8
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 7:9-12
Gen042.htm
GENESIS 7:11
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 7:13
Gen050.htm
GENESIS 7:14
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 7:19
Gen045.htm
GENESIS 7:19-20
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 7:22
Gen019.htm
GENESIS 8:1
Gen045.htm
GENESIS 8:1
Gen046.htm
GENESIS 8:19
Gen046.htm
GENESIS 8:20
Gen046.htm
GENESIS 8:22
Gen045.htm
GENESIS 9:1
Gen046.htm
GENESIS 9:1-17
Gen047.htm
GENESIS 9:1-17
Gen048.htm
GENESIS 9:1-17
Gen049.htm
GENESIS 9:6
Gen038.htm
GENESIS 9:17
Gen046.htm
GENESIS 9:18-29
Gen050.htm
GENESIS 9:18-29
Gen051.htm
GENESIS 9:25
Gen054.htm
GENESIS 9:26
Gen054.htm
GENESIS 9:27
Gen054.htm
GENESIS 9:29
Gen041.htm
GENESIS 10:1
Gen052.htm
GENESIS 10:1-4
Gen052.htm
GENESIS 10:1-5
Gen053.htm
GENESIS 10:3
Gen053.htm
GENESIS 10:6
Gen052.htm
GENESIS 10:6-20
Gen054.htm
GENESIS 10:7
Gen017.htm
GENESIS 10:12
Gen054.htm
GENESIS 10:25
Gen055.htm
GENESIS 11:1-7
Gen055.htm
GENESIS 11:10
Gen052.htm
GENESIS 11:26
Gen052.htm
GENESIS 11:26
Gen065.htm
GENESIS 12:1
Gen069.htm
GENESIS 12:10-17
Gen073.htm
GENESIS 14:18
Gen002.htm
GENESIS 14:19
Gen002.htm
GENESIS 14:20
Gen002.htm
GENESIS 14:22
Gen002.htm
GENESIS 15:1
Gen003.htm
GENESIS 15:6
Gen042.htm
GENESIS 15:6
Gen043.htm
GENESIS 16:13
Gen002.htm
GENESIS 17:5
Gen036.htm
GENESIS 17:9
Gen025.htm
GENESIS 20:4
Gen009.htm
GENESIS 21:33
Gen002.htm
GENESIS 22:14
Gen002.htm
GENESIS 24:7
Gen002.htm
GENESIS 25:11
Gen065.htm
GENESIS 25:27-32
Gen119.htm
GENESIS 26:24
Gen003.htm
GENESIS 27:1-41
Gen121.htm
GENESIS 27:41
Gen122.htm
GENESIS 28:11-22
Gen123.htm
GENESIS 28:13
Gen003.htm
GENESIS 28:22
Gen122.htm
GENESIS 31:3
Gen127.htm
GENESIS 31:53
Gen127.htm
GENESIS 31:53
Gen129.htm
GENESIS 33:20
Gen002.htm
GENESIS 41:51
Gen036.htm
GENESIS 49:24
Gen002.htm
EXODUS 2:24
Gen046.htm
EXODUS 3:14
Gen002.htm
EXODUS 3:14
Gen018.htm
EXODUS 4:22
Gen039.htm
EXODUS 10:21
Gen008.htm
EXODUS 10:21-23
Gen009.htm
EXODUS 10:22
Gen008.htm
EXODUS 13:2
Gen036.htm
EXODUS 13:12
Gen036.htm
EXODUS 15:5
Gen008.htm
EXODUS 15:8
Gen008.htm
EXODUS 17:14
Gen003.htm
EXODUS 18:4
Gen027.htm
EXODUS 20:17
Gen028.htm
EXODUS 21:12
Gen048.htm
EXODUS 21:22
Gen020.htm
EXODUS 21:24
Gen049.htm
EXODUS 21:25
Gen049.htm
EXODUS 24:4
Gen003.htm
EXODUS 24:10
Gen004.htm
EXODUS 29:39-41
Gen051.htm
EXODUS 32:14
Gen040.htm
EXODUS 34:7
Gen052.htm
EXODUS 35:2
Gen048.htm
LEVITICUS 3:16
Gen036.htm
LEVITICUS 10:9
Gen051.htm
LEVITICUS 11:13
Gen011.htm
LEVITICUS 11:29-31
Gen012.htm
LEVITICUS 18:19
Gen052.htm
LEVITICUS 20:9
Gen048.htm
LEVITICUS 20:10
Gen048.htm
LEVITICUS 20:13
Gen048.htm
LEVITICUS 20:15
Gen048.htm
LEVITICUS 20:16
Gen048.htm
LEVITICUS 22:17-25
Gen036.htm
LEVITICUS 23:13
Gen051.htm
LEVITICUS 24:20
Gen049.htm
NUMBERS 3:1
Gen003.htm
NUMBERS 6:3
Gen051.htm
NUMBERS 10:5
Gen046.htm
NUMBERS 13:33
Gen040.htm
NUMBERS 15:7
Gen051.htm
NUMBERS 15:10
Gen051.htm
NUMBERS 18:12
Gen051.htm
NUMBERS 18:27
Gen051.htm
NUMBERS 22:1
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:2
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:3
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:4
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:5
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:6
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:9
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:10
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:11
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:12
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:13
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:14
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:15
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:17
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:18
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:19
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:20
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:22
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:23
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:24
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:25
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:26
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:27
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:28
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:29
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:30
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:32
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 22:34
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:1
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:2
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:5
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:6
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:7
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:8
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:9
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:10
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:13
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:18
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:19
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 23:23
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 24:2
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 24:3
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 24:4
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 24:9
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 24:17
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 24:18
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 24:19
Gen129.htm
NUMBERS 33:1
Gen003.htm
NUMBERS 33:52
Gen012.htm
DEUTERONOMY 2:23
Gen054.htm
DEUTERONOMY 5:21
Gen028.htm
DEUTERONOMY 7:13
Gen051.htm
DEUTERONOMY 11:14
Gen051.htm
DEUTERONOMY 14:1
Gen039.htm
DEUTERONOMY 14:3
Gen051.htm
DEUTERONOMY 16:13
Gen051.htm
DEUTERONOMY 18:9
Gen129.htm
DEUTERONOMY 18:10
Gen129.htm
DEUTERONOMY 18:11
Gen129.htm
DEUTERONOMY 19:19
Gen049.htm
DEUTERONOMY 20:16
Gen019.htm
DEUTERONOMY 21:8-21
Gen048.htm
DEUTERONOMY 22:25
Gen048.htm
DEUTERONOMY 28:39
Gen051.htm
DEUTERONOMY 31:9
Gen003.htm
DEUTERONOMY 32:4
Gen008.htm
DEUTERONOMY 32:4
Gen042.htm
DEUTERONOMY 32:5
Gen039.htm
DEUTERONOMY 32:18
Gen003.htm
JOSHUA 1:7
Gen003.htm
JOSHUA 10:40
Gen019.htm
JUDGES 6:11
Gen127.htm
JUDGES 6:12
Gen127.htm
JUDGES 6:13
Gen127.htm
JUDGES 6:14
Gen127.htm
JUDGES 6:15
Gen127.htm
JUDGES 6:16
Gen127.htm
JUDGES 6:36
Gen127.htm
JUDGES 6:37
Gen127.htm
JUDGES 6:38
Gen127.htm
JUDGES 13:4
Gen051.htm
JUDGES 13:7
Gen051.htm
JUDGES 13:14
Gen051.htm
2 SAMUEL 22:1
Gen003.htm
1 KINGS 18:39
Gen003.htm
2 KINGS 10:15-27
Gen051.htm
2 KINGS 11:18
Gen012.htm
2 KINGS 14:6
Gen003.htm
1 CHRONICLES 16:26
Gen004.htm
2 CHRONICLES 9:21
Gen053.htm
2 CHRONICLES 23:17
Gen012.htm
NEHEMIAH 9:6
Gen004.htm
JOB 1:6
Gen039.htm
JOB 1:21
Gen019.htm
JOB 2:1
Gen039.htm
JOB 3:11
Gen019.htm
JOB 4:19
Gen018.htm
JOB 4:19
Gen019.htm
JOB 10:9
Gen018.htm
JOB 10:9
Gen019.htm
JOB 28:24-26
Gen018.htm
JOB 36:26-29
Gen018.htm
JOB 38:4
Gen004.htm
JOB 38:4-7
Gen006.htm
JOB 38:4-7
Gen008.htm
JOB 38:5
Gen004.htm
JOB 38:7
Gen007.htm
JOB 38:7
Gen039.htm
JOB 40:15
Gen011.htm
PSALM 2:7
Gen003.htm
PSALM 2:7
Gen012.htm
PSALM 2:8
Gen043.htm
PSALM 2:8
Gen044.htm
PSALM 2:9
Gen044.htm
PSALM 8:3
Gen026.htm
PSALM 8:3-8
Gen026.htm
PSALM 11:3
Gen005.htm
PSALM 18:1
Gen003.htm
PSALM 19:1
Gen026.htm
PSALM 22:9
Gen019.htm
PSALM 29:10
Gen045.htm
PSALM 32:8
Gen128.htm
PSALM 33:6
Gen004.htm
PSALM 33:6
Gen026.htm
PSALM 33:9
Gen004.htm
PSALM 33:20
Gen027.htm
PSALM 35:6
Gen008.htm
PSALM 37:4
Gen126.htm
PSALM 39:5
Gen040.htm
PSALM 39:7
Gen012.htm
PSALM 40:12
Gen033.htm
PSALM 45:7
Gen012.htm
PSALM 46:6
Gen002.htm
PSALM 47:2
Gen002.htm
PSALM 58:3
Gen019.htm
PSALM 70:5
Gen027.htm
PSALM 72:9
Gen029.htm
PSALM 73:20
Gen012.htm
PSALM 87:5
Gen002.htm
PSALM 89:7
Gen039.htm
PSALM 89:11
Gen004.htm
PSALM 90:2
Gen006.htm
PSALM 90:4
Gen009.htm
PSALM 104:2
Gen004.htm
PSALM 104:5-9
Gen045.htm
PSALM 104:14
Gen051.htm
PSALM 104:15
Gen051.htm
PSALM 110:1
Gen012.htm
PSALM 115:9
Gen027.htm
PSALM 119:105
Gen128.htm
PSALM 139:6
Gen018.htm
PSALM 139:7
Gen018.htm
PSALM 139:8
Gen127.htm
PSALM 139:13
Gen020.htm
PSALM 139:14
Gen020.htm
PSALM 148:2
Gen006.htm
PSALM 148:5
Gen006.htm
PROVERBS 3:5
Gen126.htm
PROVERBS 3:5
Gen128.htm
PROVERBS 3:5-6
Gen126.htm
PROVERBS 3:5-6
Gen128.htm
PROVERBS 3:6
Gen128.htm
PROVERBS 3:18
Gen024.htm
PROVERBS 15:4
Gen024.htm
PROVERBS 16:33
Gen126.htm
PROVERBS 17:21
Gen003.htm
PROVERBS 20:1
Gen051.htm
PROVERBS 21:1
Gen126.htm
PROVERBS 24:27
Gen027.htm
PROVERBS 31:6
Gen051.htm
ECCLESIASTES 3:21
Gen022.htm
ECCLESIASTES 12:7
Gen019.htm
SONG OF SOLOMOM 6:1-8
Gen001.htm
ISAIAH 2:4
Gen041.htm
ISAIAH 2:22
Gen019.htm
ISAIAH 8:1
Gen041.htm
ISAIAH 8:6-11
Gen013.htm
ISAIAH 10:9
Gen054.htm
ISAIAH 13:10
Gen010.htm
ISAIAH 27:1
Gen028.htm
ISAIAH 29:16
Gen018.htm
ISAIAH 34:11
Gen008.htm
ISAIAH 34:11
Gen009.htm
ISAIAH 40:12
Gen010.htm
ISAIAH 40:22
Gen004.htm
ISAIAH 40:22
Gen010.htm
ISAIAH 40:31
Gen127.htm
ISAIAH 42:5
Gen019.htm
ISAIAH 43:1
Gen018.htm
ISAIAH 43:1
Gen019.htm
ISAIAH 44:2
Gen019.htm
ISAIAH 45:9
Gen018.htm
ISAIAH 45:9
Gen019.htm
ISAIAH 45:18
Gen004.htm
ISAIAH 45:18
Gen009.htm
ISAIAH 48:16
Gen012.htm
ISAIAH 49:23
Gen029.htm
ISAIAH 54:9
Gen041.htm
ISAIAH 55:10
Gen018.htm
ISAIAH 55:11
Gen018.htm
ISAIAH 57:16
Gen019.htm
ISAIAH 64:6
Gen040.htm
JEREMIAH 1:5
Gen020.htm
JEREMIAH 4:23-26
Gen008.htm
JEREMIAH 4:23-26
Gen009.htm
JEREMIAH 4:24
Gen010.htm
JEREMIAH 11:20
Gen023.htm
JEREMIAH 17:9
Gen046.htm
JEREMIAH 17:10
Gen023.htm
JEREMIAH 31:33
Gen020.htm
JEREMIAH 47:4
Gen054.htm
EZEKIEL 14:14
Gen041.htm
EZEKIEL 14:20
Gen041.htm
EZEKIEL 26:19
Gen008.htm
EZEKIEL 28:1
Gen028.htm
EZEKIEL 38:2
Gen052.htm
EZEKIEL 38:2
Gen053.htm
EZEKIEL 38:6
Gen052.htm
EZEKIEL 44:21
Gen051.htm
DANIEL 1:8-16
Gen051.htm
DANIEL 4:35
Gen126.htm
DANIEL 9:11
Gen003.htm
DANIEL 9:13
Gen003.htm
HOSEA 5:7
Gen003.htm
HOSEA 6:7
Gen046.htm
HOSEA 6:7
Gen047.htm
JOEL 2:2
Gen008.htm
JOEL 2:2
Gen009.htm
AMOS 5:26
Gen012.htm
AMOS 6:2
Gen054.htm
JONAH 1:1
Gen127.htm
JONAH 1:2
Gen127.htm
JONAH 1:3
Gen127.htm
MICAH 7:17
Gen029.htm
ZECHARIAH 4:14
Gen038.htm
MALACHI 1:1-3
Gen117.htm
MALACHI 4:4
Gen003.htm
MATTHEW 4:16
Gen008.htm
MATTHEW 5:17
Gen049.htm
MATTHEW 5:20
Gen049.htm
MATTHEW 5:21
Gen049.htm
MATTHEW 5:38
Gen049.htm
MATTHEW 11:19
Gen051.htm
MATTHEW 19:1-6
Gen031.htm
MATTHEW 19:3-6
Gen012.htm
MATTHEW 19:4
Gen006.htm
MATTHEW 22:30
Gen039.htm
MATTHEW 24:27
Gen041.htm
MATTHEW 24:37
Gen041.htm
MATTHEW 24:37-39
Gen045.htm
MARK 12:26
Gen003.htm
LUKE 1:15
Gen020.htm
LUKE 1:41
Gen020.htm
LUKE 1:44
Gen021.htm
LUKE 1:46
Gen022.htm
LUKE 1:47
Gen022.htm
LUKE 3:36
Gen041.htm
LUKE 3:36-38
Gen038.htm
LUKE 3:38
Gen031.htm
LUKE 4:6
Gen031.htm
LUKE 10:27
Gen022.htm
LUKE 17:26
Gen041.htm
JOHN 1:1-3
Gen004.htm
JOHN 1:1-3
Gen005.htm
JOHN 1:3
Gen005.htm
JOHN 1:3
Gen007.htm
JOHN 3:19
Gen008.htm
JOHN 3:19
Gen009.htm
JOHN 8:12
Gen010.htm
JOHN 11:35
Gen034.htm
JOHN 14:9
Gen022.htm
ACTS 7:2
Gen069.htm
ACTS 10:11
Gen127.htm
ACTS 10:12
Gen127.htm
ACTS 10:13
Gen127.htm
ACTS 10:15
Gen127.htm
ACTS 10:17
Gen127.htm
ACTS 10:19
Gen127.htm
ACTS 10:20
Gen127.htm
ACTS 13:1
Gen127.htm
ACTS 13:2
Gen127.htm
ACTS 13:3
Gen127.htm
ACTS 14:8
Gen005.htm
ACTS 15:6
Gen127.htm
ACTS 15:7
Gen127.htm
ACTS 15:12
Gen127.htm
ACTS 15:13
Gen127.htm
ACTS 15:22
Gen127.htm
ACTS 15:24
Gen127.htm
ACTS 15:25
Gen127.htm
ACTS 17:26
Gen031.htm
ACTS 26:18
Gen031.htm
ROMANS 1:18
Gen006.htm
ROMANS 1:18
Gen029.htm
ROMANS 1:18
Gen033.htm
ROMANS 1:18
Gen036.htm
ROMANS 1:18
Gen038.htm
ROMANS 1:19-20
Gen014.htm
ROMANS 1:20
Gen041.htm
ROMANS 1:23
Gen038.htm
ROMANS 2:18
Gen126.htm
ROMANS 3:20
Gen032.htm
ROMANS 4:1-5
Gen042.htm
ROMANS 4:13
Gen044.htm
ROMANS 4:14
Gen044.htm
ROMANS 5:12
Gen008.htm
ROMANS 5:12
Gen032.htm
ROMANS 5:13
Gen032.htm
ROMANS 5:14
Gen031.htm
ROMANS 8:14
Gen127.htm
ROMANS 8:14
Gen128.htm
ROMANS 8:17
Gen044.htm
ROMANS 8:18
Gen029.htm
ROMANS 8:19
Gen029.htm
ROMANS 8:22
Gen033.htm
ROMANS 8:28
Gen126.htm
ROMANS 8:29
Gen012.htm
ROMANS 8:29
Gen013.htm
ROMANS 8:29
Gen044.htm
ROMANS 9:1-5
Gen118.htm
ROMANS 9:19
Gen126.htm
ROMANS 12:2
Gen014.htm
ROMANS 12:2
Gen128.htm
ROMANS 13:3
Gen049.htm
ROMANS 13:4
Gen049.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 2:9
Gen022.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 2:14
Gen022.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 2:14
Gen023.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9
Gen044.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 6:10
Gen044.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 8:6
Gen004.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 11:3
Gen026.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 11:8
Gen031.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 11:9
Gen031.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:21
Gen008.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:21
Gen009.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:22
Gen008.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:22
Gen009.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:22
Gen031.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:24
Gen026.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:25
Gen026.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:38
Gen011.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:39
Gen011.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:44
Gen023.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:49
Gen012.htm
1 CORINTHIANS 15:49
Gen013.htm
2 CORINTHIANS 3:18
Gen012.htm
2 CORINTHIANS 3:18
Gen013.htm
2 CORINTHIANS 4:3
Gen031.htm
2 CORINTHIANS 4:4
Gen012.htm
2 CORINTHIANS 4:4
Gen031.htm
2 CORINTHIANS 4:6
Gen010.htm
2 CORINTHIANS 5:14
Gen024.htm
2 CORINTHIANS 6:14
Gen126.htm
2 CORINTHIANS 9:8
Gen024.htm
2 CORINTHIANS 12:9
Gen024.htm
GALATIANS 3:29
Gen043.htm
GALATIANS 3:29
Gen044.htm
GALATIANS 4:1
Gen043.htm
GALATIANS 4:6
Gen044.htm
GALATIANS 4:7
Gen044.htm
GALATIANS 4:18-20
Gen044.htm
GALATIANS 5:18
Gen127.htm
GALATIANS 5:18
Gen128.htm
GALATIANS 5:22
Gen043.htm
GALATIANS 5:23
Gen043.htm
EPHESIANS 1:11
Gen044.htm
EPHESIANS 1:11
Gen126.htm
EPHESIANS 1:11-14
Gen044.htm
EPHESIANS 1:13
Gen044.htm
EPHESIANS 1:14
Gen044.htm
EPHESIANS 2:1
Gen040.htm
EPHESIANS 2:1-3
Gen031.htm
EPHESIANS 2:2
Gen031.htm
EPHESIANS 2:8
Gen021.htm
EPHESIANS 2:8
Gen040.htm
EPHESIANS 2:9
Gen040.htm
EPHESIANS 5:5
Gen044.htm
EPHESIANS 5:9
Gen043.htm
EPHESIANS 5:17
Gen128.htm
EPHESIANS 5:18
Gen128.htm
EPHESIANS 5:19
Gen128.htm
EPHESIANS 6:6
Gen128.htm
PHILIPPIANS 4:6
Gen129.htm
COLOSSIANS 1:13
Gen031.htm
COLOSSIANS 1:16
Gen004.htm
COLOSSIANS 1:16
Gen005.htm
COLOSSIANS 1:16
Gen006.htm
COLOSSIANS 1:16
Gen007.htm
COLOSSIANS 1:16
Gen010.htm
COLOSSIANS 1:16
Gen014.htm
COLOSSIANS 1:17
Gen005.htm
COLOSSIANS 1:17
Gen010.htm
COLOSSIANS 1:17
Gen014.htm
COLOSSIANS 2:9
Gen022.htm
COLOSSIANS 3:10
Gen012.htm
COLOSSIANS 3:10
Gen013.htm
COLOSSIANS 3:16
Gen128.htm
COLOSSIANS 3:17
Gen128.htm
COLOSSIANS 3:24
Gen044.htm
1 THESSALONIANS 4:3
Gen126.htm
1 THESSALONIANS 5:18
Gen126.htm
1 TIMOTHY 2:6
Gen024.htm
1 TIMOTHY 2:8-14
Gen031.htm
1 TIMOTHY 2:8-15
Gen029.htm
1 TIMOTHY 2:13
Gen032.htm
1 TIMOTHY 2:14
Gen032.htm
1 TIMOTHY 4:10
Gen024.htm
1 TIMOTHY 5:23
Gen051.htm
TITUS 3:5-7
Gen044.htm
HEBREWS 1:2
Gen043.htm
HEBREWS 1:4
Gen043.htm
HEBREWS 4:12
Gen022.htm
HEBREWS 5:8
Gen043.htm
HEBREWS 7:9
Gen032.htm
HEBREWS 7:10
Gen032.htm
HEBREWS 9:24
Gen010.htm
HEBREWS 11:3
Gen004.htm
HEBREWS 11:3
Gen007.htm
HEBREWS 11:4
Gen036.htm
HEBREWS 11:5
Gen038.htm
HEBREWS 11:7
Gen041.htm
HEBREWS 11:7
Gen042.htm
HEBREWS 11:7
Gen043.htm
HEBREWS 11:7
Gen045.htm
HEBREWS 11:8
Gen069.htm
HEBREWS 12:15-17
Gen119.htm
HEBREWS 12:24
Gen036.htm
1 PETER 1:3
Gen044.htm
1 PETER 1:4
Gen044.htm
1 PETER 1:5
Gen044.htm
1 PETER 3:17
Gen050.htm
1 PETER 3:18
Gen050.htm
1 PETER 3:18-20
Gen039.htm
1 PETER 3:20
Gen041.htm
1 PETER 5:7
Gen129.htm
2 PETER 2:4
Gen039.htm
2 PETER 2:5
Gen041.htm
2 PETER 2:5
Gen042.htm
2 PETER 3:3-5
Gen005.htm
2 PETER 3:4-6
Gen041.htm
2 PETER 3:8
Gen009.htm
1 JOHN 1:5
Gen010.htm
1 JOHN 1:9
Gen126.htm
1 JOHN 2:2
Gen024.htm
1 JOHN 2:7
Gen006.htm
1 JOHN 2:28
Gen029.htm
1 JOHN 4:17
Gen029.htm
1 JOHN 4:18
Gen029.htm
1 JOHN 5:19
Gen031.htm
REVELATION 1:8
Gen018.htm
REVELATION 2:7
Gen024.htm
REVELATION 4:1
Gen126.htm
REVELATION 12:7-17
Gen039.htm
REVELATION 12:9
Gen028.htm
REVELATION 21:1
Gen007.htm
REVELATION 21:4
Gen034.htm
REVELATION 22:1
Gen007.htm
REVELATION 22:2
Gen024.htm
REVELATION 22:3
Gen034.htm
Genesis
LEGEND: "a" = summary lessons, "b" = exegetical analysis, "c" = topical doctrinal studies
Genesis-001Overview: Blessing and Cursing; The Origins of
God's Chosen People
Genesis-002God and Man in Genesis
Genesis-003Who Wrote Genesis? Genesis Overview
Genesis-004Creation and Restoration Genesis 1:1-2:3
Genesis-005Beginnings
Genesis-006Beginnings
Genesis-007God; Creation Words; Pagan Cosmogonies
Genesis-008The Gap View. Gen 1:1
Genesis-009The Gap View; Day Age View
Genesis-010Systematic Creation
Genesis-011Restoration-Creation
Genesis-012Creation of Humanity
Genesis-013Man and Dominion. Gen 1:16-2:3
Genesis-014Creation and Evolution: Irresolvable Conflicts
Genesis-015Creation and Evolution: Monkeys
Genesis-016Creation and Evolution: Time; Dating; Age of Things
Genesis-017Creation of Man
Genesis-018Creation of Man. Gen 2:4-7a
Genesis-019The Origin and Transmission of Human Life. Gen 2:7
Genesis-020When Does Human Life Begin? Gen 2:7
Genesis-021The Uniqueness of Man. Gen 2:7
Genesis-022The Soul: Immaterial Part of Man. Gen 2:7
Genesis-023The Makeup of the Soul
Genesis-024Perfect Environment; Sufficiency; Volition
Genesis-025Divine Institution 1: Human Responsibility
Genesis-026Doctrine of Divine Institutions
Genesis-027Responsible Labor
Genesis-028Temptation and Fall. Gen 2:25-3:7
Genesis-029Confrontation and Consequences
Genesis-030The Consequences of the Fall. Gen 3:14-24
Genesis-031Adam's Original Sin; Introduction
Genesis-032Adam's Original Sin: Imputation
Genesis-033The Problem of Evil
Genesis-034The Problem of Evil
Genesis-035The Problem of Evil
Genesis-036Cain: The Expansion of Unbelief; Gen. 4:1-16
Genesis-037Cain: Expansion of Civilization; Gen. 4:16-26
Genesis-038The Doctrine of Civilizations
Genesis-039Sons of God; Nephilim; Demonic Attack; Gen. 6:1-3
Genesis-040Nephili
Genesis-041The Flood: Grace
Genesis-042Corruption and Construction; Gen. 6:9-22
Genesis-043Personal Sense of Destiny; Inheritance; Heb 11:7
Genesis-044 Inheritance, II
Genesis-045The Flood; Universality; The Ark; Gen. 6-7
Genesis-046The Noahic Covenant; Gen. 6:18; 8:1, 20-9:17
Genesis-047Noahic Covenant; Dispensation of Human Gov’t; Gen. 9:1-17
Genesis-048 Doctrine of Capital Punishment, I; Gen. 9:1-17
Genesis-049Doc of Capital Punishment, II; Gen. 9:1-17
Genesis-050The Prophecy of Noah’s Three Son’s; Gen. 9:18-29
Genesis-051Noah’s Vineyard: The Doctrine of Drinking; Gen. 9:18-29
Genesis-052The Table of Nations; Japheth; Gen. 10:1-4
Genesis-053The Enlarging of Japheth; Gen. 10:1-5
Genesis-054The Descendant of Ham; Gen. 10:6-20
Genesis-055First Attempt at Internationalism: Babel; Gen. 11:1-7
Genesis-057The Descendants of Shem; Gen. 10:22-32; 11:10-058
Genesis-058Importance of Gen. 1-11; Review
Genesis-059Review Importance of Creation, Gen. 1
Genesis-060Review: Sin, Evil, Reality, Gen. 2-3
Genesis-061Review: Judgment: Grace and Salvation
Genesis-062Review: Evidence of the Flood; Young earth vs
old earth
Genesis-063Review: Babel, Genesis of Kosmic Thought I,
Gen 10,11
Genesis-064Review: Babel, Genesis of Kosmic Thought II,
Gen 10,11
Genesis-065Overview: Abraham: Friend of God, Gen 11:26-
25:11
Genesis-066Avram’s Background, Birth; Gen. 11:26-32
Genesis-067A New Covenant; A New Dispensation; Gen. 12:1
Genesis-068Called Out: Doctrine of Separation; Gen. 12:1
Genesis-069Walking by Faith; Gen 12:1; Acts 7:2; Heb 11:8
Genesis-070Abram: Worldwide Blessing; Gen. 12:1-4
Genesis-071Abram and the Land Promise; Gen. 12:4-9
Genesis-072Facing Adversity without Stress; Gen. 12:10-17
Genesis-073Stressbusters Reviewed, Gen 12:10-17
Genesis-074Dr. Dean's last class taught at Preston City Bible
Church before moving to West Houston Bible Church. November 10, 2004
Genesis-077Facing Adversity, Consequences of Stress. Genesis 12:10 December 28, 2004
Genesis-078Self Protective Strategies. Genesis 12:10 January 04, 2005
Genesis-079bDynamics of Spiritual Advance. January 11,
2005
Genesis-080b Test: Application of Grace-Orientation. Genesis 13:1-18 February 1, 2005
Genesis-081b Faith Rest Drill & Grace Orientation Mechanics. Genesis 13:1-18. February 8, 2005
Genesis-082b Utilization of Grace Orientation. Genesis 13:
February 15, 2005
Genesis-083b Blessing by Association. Genesis 14: 1-17 March 01, 2005
Genesis-084b Blessing by Association Part 2. Genesis 14: 14-20 March 08, 2005
Genesis-085c The Truth About Tithing, The Test of Gratitude. Genesis 14: 17-24 March 15, 2005
Genesis-086c Is Tithing for Today? Genesis 14: 17-24 March 29, 2005 Genesis-087c Grace-giving: Gratitude and
Generosity. Genesis:14:18-20 April 05, 2005
Genesis-088b The Priestly Order of Melchizedek. Genesis 14:17-24 April 12, 2005
Genesis-089b Imputation; Justification. Genesis 15:6 April 26, 2005
Genesis-090b The Doctrine of Imputation. Genesis 15:6 May 10, 2005
Genesis-091b "Cutting" the Abrahamic Covenant. Genesis 15:7-20 May 17, 2005
Genesis-092b Hagar: The Human Solution is a Defective Solution. Genesis 16 May 24, 2005
Genesis-093b Ishmael: Sins Unintended Consequences. Genesis 16 May 31, 2005
Genesis-094b Angel of the Lord; Grace Orientation. Genesis 16:7-16; June 14, 2005
Genesis-095b Divine Sufficiency; Omnipotence. Genesis 17:1-8 June 21, 2005
Genesis-096b The Doctrine of Circumcision. Genesis 17:2-14; July 5, 2005
Genesis-097b Promise and Faithfulness. Genesis 17:15-27 July 12, 2005
Genesis-098b Hospitality; Fellowship Meals; Omniscience and Omnipotence. Genesis 18:1-15 July 19, 2005
Genesis-099b Grace Orientation, Impersonal Love, Intercessory Prayer. Genesis 18:16-33 August 09, 2005
Genesis-100a Paganism and Homosexuality: Cultural Self-Destruction. Genesis 19:1-14 August 16, 2005
Genesis-101a Paganism and Homosexuality: Cultural Self-Destruction. Genesis 19:1-14 August 23, 2005
Genesis-102b Sodom: The Attraction and Judgment of Pagan Culture. Genesis 19 August 30, 2005
Genesis-103b Sodom: The Attraction and Judgment of Pagan Culture. Genesis 19 September 6, 2005
Genesis-104What the Bible Teaches about Homosexuality. Genesis 19 September 13, 2005
Genesis-105b Fear: HVP vs DVP Solutions. Genesis 20 September 20, 2005
Genesis-106b God is Faithful. Genesis 21:1 September 27, 2005
Genesis-107b Grace Orientation: Blessing to Others. Genesis 21:22 October 11, 2005
Genesis-108b Testing, Vindication, Spiritual Growth. Genesis 22:1 October 18, 2005
Genesis-109b Faith Rest Drill; Abraham's Final Exam. Genesis 22:1-19 October 25, 2005
Genesis-110b Confident Expectation: No Turning Back. Genesis 22:20-24; 23:1-20 November 1, 2005
Genesis-111b God Provides a Bride for Isaac. Genesis 24: November 8, 2005
Genesis-112A Abraham, Friend of God. Genesis 25: November 15, 2005
Genesis-113A Abraham, Tested for Growth. November 29, 2005
Genesis-114A God's Faithfulness: What happened to Isaac? Gen. 25:19 - 35:29 December 13, 2005
Genesis-115b Birth or Jacob; Election Gen. 25:19 - 26 December 20, 2005
Genesis-117b Selection of Jacob: Salvation or Blessing; Malachi 1:1-3, Romans 9-11; January 3, 2006
Genesis-118b Election of Jacob in Malachi; Romans 9:1-5; January 24, 2006
Genesis-119b Birthright, Inheritance; Genesis 25:27-32, and Hebrews 12:15-17. February 7, 2006
Genesis-120b Isaac: Faith Rest and Grace Orientation Test; Genesis 26: February 14, 2006
Genesis-121b Deception and Unintended Consequences; Genesis 27:1-41 February 21, 2006
Genesis-122b Doctrine of Separation; Genesis 27:41 - 28:22 February 28, 2006
Genesis-123b Stairway to Heaven; Genesis 28:11-22 March 21, 2006
Genesis-124b Divine Guidance; Divine Discipline. Genesis 29. March 28, 2006
Genesis-125b God's Sovereign Grace. Genesis 29. April 4, 2006
Genesis-126b Divine Guidence and the Will of God. Genesis 31. April 11, 2006
Genesis 127b Divine Guidence and the Will of God Part 2. Genesis 31. April 18, 2006
Genesis-128b Wisdom and Decision Making Part 3. Genesis 31. April 25, 2006
Genesis 129b Balaam and the Will of God. Numbers 22. May 2, 2006
Genesis-130b People Testing: Divine Direction. Genesis 31:1-21. May 9, 2006
Genesis-131b People Testing; Spiritual Skills. Genesis 31:22. May 16, 2006
Genesis-132b Testing; Growth, Maturity, Service. Genesis 31:22. May 23, 2006
Genesis-133b Resolving Family Conflict. Genesis 31:17-31. May 30, 2006
Genesis-134b Humility and Orientation to God's Authority. Jun 6, 2006
Genesis-135b Humility, Reconciliation. Genesis 33:1-20. Jun 13, 2006
Genesis-136b Corrupted by the Kosmic System. Genesis 35: Jul 13, 2006
Genesis-137b Dynamics of Human Failure and Divine Faithfulness. Genesis 35
Genesis-138a Divine Faithfulness. Genesis 25:19 - 35:29 Jul 25, 2006
Genesis-139a Joseph: Divine Providence. Genesis 25:19 - 35:29
Genesis 140b Dreams and Visions. Genesis 37:2 Aug 8, 2006
Genesis-141b Reap what you Sow. Genesis 37:18 - 36 August 15, 2006
Genesis-143b Joseph's Leadership Training. Genesis 37:18-36. August 29, 2006
Genesis-144b Doctrine of Rejection; Grace Orientation. Genesis 37. September 5, 2006
Genesis 145b Providence, Protection and Provision. Genesis 38. September 12, 2006
Genesis 146b Providential Preparation. Genesis 39. September 26, 2006.
Genesis-147b Dreams, Providence, and Patience. Genesis 40. November 28, 2006
Genesis-148b Suffering for Blessing: Divine Promotion. Genesis 41. December 12, 2006
Genesis-149b Exposing Guilt for Forward Momentum. Genesis 42. December 19, 2006
Genesis-150b Guilt, Grace, Forgiveness, Restoration. Genesis 43. December 26, 2006
Genesis-151b Confession, Cleansing, Recovery, then Repentance. Genesis 43. January 2, 2007
Genesis-152b Confession in the OT. Genesis 42. January 23, 2007
Genesis-153b Confession Prayers of Ezra, and Nehemiah. Genesis 42.
Genesis-154b Forgiveness and Restoration of Trust. Genesis 42-43. February 13, 2007
Genesis-155b Forgiveness and Reconciliation. Genesis 45-46. February 20, 2007
Genesis-156b Wilberforce, Slavery, and the Bible. Genesis 47. February 27, 2007
Genesis-157b Forgiveness; Wisdom; Discipline on a Nation. Genesis 47. March 6,2007
Genesis-158b Preparation for Death. Genesis 48. March 27,2007
Genesis-159b Jacob's Prophecy: Reuben. Genesis 49:1-4. April 3,2007
Genesis-160b Jacob's Prophecy: Simeon, Levi, Judah. Genesis 49:5-12. April 10,2007
Genesis-161b The Lion of Judah; Zebulon; Issachar. Genesis 49:8-14. April 17,2007
Genesis-162b Dan: Serpent to Israel. Genesis 49:15-16. April 24,2007
Genesis-163b Dan: Samson and Idolatry. Genesis 49:15-16. May 1,2007
Genesis-164b Dan and the Development of Idolatry. Genesis 49:15-16. May 8,2007
Genesis-165b Lucky, Happy and the Wrestler. Genesis 49:17-19. May 15,2007. May 15,2007
Genesis-166b Future Trends for Joseph. Genesis 49:17-19. May 22,2007
Genesis-167b Jacob's Blessing: Benjamin. Genesis 49:27,28. May 29,2007
Genesis-168b The Tribes in History and Prophecy. June 26,2007
Genesis-169b Doctrine of Dying, Prepared and Dying Grace. July 10,2007
Genesis-170c Dying, Preparation,Dying Grace, and Grieving. July 17,2007
Genesis-171c Dying: Death and Grieving. Genesis 50:1. July 24,2007
Genesis-172b Burial of Jacob; Death of Joseph. Genesis 50. July 31,2007
001-Overview: Blessing and Cursing; The Origins of God's Chosen People
LEGEND: "a" = summary lessons, "b" = exegetical analysis,
"c" = topical doctrinal studies
The author of Genesis is Moses. Moses is the one who put together the final rendition or the final edition of the Pentateuch. That does not mean that everything in Genesis was originally written by Moses, as we will see. There are ten points in the Hebrew text where it uses the word toledot, and it is usually translated, “these are the generations of, this is the history of,” and most scholars believe that these sections were taken from scrolls, oral history, and written history that went all the way back to Adam. So when Moses was in the wilderness with the Israelites during the 40 years of divine discipline before the nation could enter the land he had in his possession there earlier documents. Under inspiration, under the ministry of God the Holy Spirit, he took from those documents the information he needed in order to present the history of Israel. So Moses is the final author, he wrote between 1446 BC, the time of the exodus, and 1446 BC which is about the time he went to be with the Lord. During that time he penned the entire Pentateuch which is a term that refers to the first five books of the Bible—Genesis through Deuteronomy, sometimes referred to as the Torah or the Law, the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses.
The title “Genesis” as we have it in our English Bible really derives from the Latin Vulgate. The Hebrew title is taken from the first word in the first verse. It is the Hebrew word bereshith. It is the preposition be, meaning “in,” and then the term “the beginning.” It doesn’t have a definite article there because in Hebrew when you attach a preposition as a prefix to the word it supplants or replaces the definite article. So it should be translated “In the beginning,” the Hebrew title for the book. The Latin Vulgate derived the title from the phrase, “The book or the history of,” the translation in the Vulgate of toledot, Biblos Genesios, meaning “The book of beginnings.” As such it emphasizes the origins, that Genesis is the book of origins.
Moses wrote this to Israel. This is important to understand to catch the framework for why Genesis was written. There are a number of reasons that we could come up with but the primary reason is that Moses is sitting out in the wilderness with about two to three million Jews who are about to go into a land that God has promised them, and they are going to go into military conflict and take this land forcibly from its possessors, the Canaanites. So the question he is answering is: Why us? What is our right to the land? What is the source of divine blessing? What is the historical basis for God’s covenant with Israel? So he goes back to the beginning. But the thrust of this book has to do with the beginnings of Israel. That is why it is divided the way it is. The first eleven chapters have to do with the beginnings of mankind, and then it is from chapter twelve to chapter fifty that you get the emphasis on the four individuals, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. So if we look at where the emphasis lies we can see that there is a lot of information and time covered in those first eleven chapters that Moses just seems to skip over—it leaves us with a lot of questions—but the thrust in those chapters is simply to provide an introduction to why God calls Abram in Genesis chapter twelve.
Genesis is the book of beginnings, and there are numerous beginnings in Genesis.
1) It is the beginning of the space-time continuum. Before Genesis 1:1 there is just God and the third heaven, there is no universe, no such thing as space or time.
2) It is the beginning of the universe. He creates a space-time continuum, which is a special location for the universe.
3) It is the beginning of our solar system.
4) It is the beginning of vegetation and animal life on planet earth.
5) It is the beginning of earth as the home for the human race, not necessarily the beginning of earth as a planet but the beginning as a home for the human race.
6) It is the beginning of the human race.
7) We see the beginning of the institution of marriage.
8) We see the beginning of the institution of family.
9) We the first sin and the beginning of sin.
10) We see the first divine judgment on sin.
11) We see the announcement of God’s plan of salvation.
12) We see the beginning of law and the judicial system.
13) We have the beginning of economics—buying and selling, and principles that should undergird all economic theory.
14) We have the beginning of labor. Labor begins before the fall.
15) We have the beginning of society and social structures.
16) We have the beginning of language and learning.
17) We have the beginning of cities and the first urban development.
18) We have the beginning of God’s grace because man is no longer deserving and is fallen.
19) We have the beginning of animal sacrifice as a picture of the future work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
20) We have the beginning of music.
21) We have the beginning of metallurgy.
22) We have the beginning of demonism.
23) We have the beginning of idolatry.
24) We have the beginning of globalism and internationalism, and the first United Nations comes about in chapter eleven.
25) We have the beginning of government and national distinctions.
26) We have the beginning of Israel, the Jews as a distinct race.
When we look at the overall structure of Genesis there is a literary organization of the text that occurs in the Hebrew. It is not necessarily obvious in the English because the English translators do not always translate the Hebrew in the same way. The Hebrew word is toledot. Sometimes it is translated “record,” sometimes “generations,” sometimes “history.” But the best way to understand this is “these are the records of so and so,” or “this is what happened to so and so.” So these are structural markers that occur throughout Genesis. The first occurs in 2:4, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth,” and it should be translated “This is what happened to the heavens and the earth.” After God creates [recreates] the heavens and the earth in Genesis chapter one, and you have perfect environment on the restored earth, what happens? How did it get from perfect environment to the state it is in now? That is covered from 2:4 to 4:16. Then in 5:1 we have “This is what happened to, or this is the record of, Adam and Adam’s descendants,” and that goes down to 6:8 which is where the flood is announced. Then in 6:9 we have, “This is what happened to Noah,” and we have there the story of the world-wide flood. In 10:1 to 11:9 we have, “This is the record of Noah’s sons.” That concludes with the episode at the tower of Babel. From 11:10 to verse 26, a short section, there is the record of Shem and his descendants. That concludes with Terah, the father of Abram. In 11:27 we have, “This is the record of Terah and his decendants,” and that goes down to the death of Abraham in 25:11. From 25:12 to verse 18, another very short section, “This is what happened to Ishmael.” This is not tracing the line of the seed but it is going to wrap up the loose ends related to Ishmael and his descendants. Then from 25:19 to 35:29 we have, “This is what happened to Isaac and his descendants,” and that includes Jacob. In 36:1 to 37:1 we have Esau. From 37:2 to the end of the book, 50:26, we have what took place for Jacob and his descendants, and that entire section focuses on Joseph.
By way of an overview we organize Genesis into two basic sections. The first revolves around four events. This is the primeval history of mankind. The word “primeval” means early, or ancient. We have four events covering the history of mankind or the Gentiles, starting with creation and the restoration; the fall; the flood; and the story of the tower of Babel. That is the primeval history of mankind, the introduction to the book. The second section revolves around four people. This is the patriarchal history of Israel—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.
The theme of Genesis is the theme of blessing. What is blessing? What does blessing mean? Blessing in the Scripture is not just happiness, it is the place of life—real, genuine life—in relationship to the creator, happiness, a place of enrichment and prosperity. Especially in the Old Testament there is a strong element of physical and financial prosperity and enrichment. In contrast to blessing we have the theme of cursing which is to be defined as the imposition of a barrier to life and happiness. Often this cursing is judicial in nature, it is the judgment of God.
The creation and restoration in Genesis 1:1-2:3. We see the beginning of the universe in 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” But there is something amiss by the time we get to verse 2, which should be translated “And the earth became formless.” Something takes place, there is now darkness on the planet, and this indicates there has been some element of divine judgment. Then God the Holy Spirit begins to move on the face of the waters in verse 2 and there is restoration. In the face of cursing in the second verse there is restoration and blessing in verse 3. Specifically we are told in chapter one that animal life was blessed, human life was blessed, and the seventh day, the Sabbath, is blessed. There are three specific blessings in this chapter. Mankind begins in a state of blessing, a state of perfect environment and a state of harmony with God. Mankind, we are told in verses 26 and 27, is created in the image and likeness of God. Man is created in order to represent God to the creation and to rule the creation. The fall begins in 2:4 and it is in this verse that we have our first toledot. Chapter two is a repetition of creation from a different perspective and it sets the stage for chapter three. The focal point of chapter two is the creation of the man and the woman, and the test of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It sets the stage to the fall so it is the precursor to the fall and in that chapter we see the beginning of human responsibility, the first divine institution; we see the beginning of marriage, the second divine institution. Then chapter three is the episode of the fall itself. So there is the loss of the original state of blessing that is replaced by the curse on sin. A curse from a biblical viewpoint, remember, is defined as a barrier that is erected in a position to prevent blessing. A curse in Scripture is God’s announcement of divine judgment on people as a result of their disobedience to Him. It is an explanation of the consequences of sin. The penalty for sin is spiritual death. The curse that is outlined in Genesis 3 is the outline of God’s judgment for sin on the different people who were involved.
The first toledot covers the section from 2:4 down to 4:26 and it actually covers more than simply the fall. It goes down through the early civilization section which takes place prior to the fall in Genesis 3 and 4. This shows the outworking of sin on the human race. There is the episode of Cain versus Abel in chapter 4 where Abel is obedient to God and Cain is disobedient to God, and as a result of Cain’s disobedience there will be cursing upon Cain and he will be cut off from others on the earth. Abel is murdered but is replaced in terms of a believer in the family line by the birth of Seth. Adam has other children and they marry one another. There is intermarriage at this time, there is no difficulty or problem between siblings. In fact, there is not a law against siblings until you get to the Mosaic law and we will discuss the reasons for that when we get there. In the early stages of the human race when there were limited options there was intermarriage within the family. It seems strange to us but when you look at what the options were there weren’t any. In chapter three is the development of chaos within the family as a result of sin, and there is cursing.
Then we come to the second toledot in 5:1: “This is the book of the genealogy of Adam.” Chapter five really describes the area leading up to the flood. This is what happens to Adam’s descendants and it begins with blessing. It reminds us of the status of blessing which Adam enjoyed at the creation: “In the day that God created man He made them in the likeness of God.” He created them male and female, blessed them, and called them mankind in the day they were created. Then we are reminded again and again as we read through this chapter that that blessing has been turned to cursing, and we are reminded of death at every step of the way, that each of these men died. So death and cursing pervades the fifth chapter. It is a reminder that the earth is not what it was originally created to be and that the reason that there is evil, suffering and death in human history is because of Adam’s decision to disobey God. And that evil increases in the world at this time because men get further and further away from God, and the more that mankind disobeys God, the more they get away from the Lord, the more there is a fragmentation of society and the more that chaos enters into human history. This is exemplified finally by the time we get down to chapter six when there is a demonic invasion of the human race. As a result of that the Lord makes a comment in verse 5: “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” So there is no hope for the entire human race, with the exception of Noah and his immediate family, and a few others who all die before the flood. But the second toledot ends with a note of hope in verse 8: “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.” So 6:1-8 announces the extreme curse of catastrophic world-wide death/judgment on man that would come through a world-wide flood.
This brings up the third toledot, the toledot of Noah which begins in 6:9 and extends to 9:29. Again, the theme is judgment, cursing, divine judgment on the entire world with the exception of Noah and his family through the world-wide flood. But nevertheless there is blessing in the midst of cursing. God’s grace preserves a remnant in Noah. It is through that remnant, and through Noah who functions as a second or new Adam that God will begin to repopulate the earth. What we see in the episode of the flood is a restoration of the chaos that occurred in the original primeval chaos of Genesis 1:2 where the earth was covered with water. So the flood restores the earth to the primeval chaos of judgment on Satan. Noah is a new Adam. He is set to repopulate the earth, and at this point God institutes a new covenant with Noah. He promises that there will be no more global watery destruction, that there will be meteorological stability for the most part, and delegates responsibility to mankind to govern himself. So with the Noahic covenant we have the beginning of the fourth divine institution which is human government. Nevertheless, though God has blessed Noah and his sons in 9:1, man is still sinful. At the end of the chapter we discover that Noah gets drunk from the wine of his vineyard, and then there is the episode where he is found lying naked in his tent and his grandson comes in and covers him.
There is an interesting twist at the beginning in Genesis one where Adam and the woman are naked and are not ashamed. Now nakedness is something to be ashamed of and something to be covered, and by treating that lightly there is a curse placed upon Canaan. This clearly reveals the disrespect that Canaan has for his grandfather, and it reveals certain tendencies in his line that will become more evident, specifically in the Canaanites. When Ham comes in to cover him Noah doesn’t curse Ham, he curses the grandson, Canaan, because he knows that these tendencies that the father showed are going to be developed more fully through Canaan. What is happening when Moses is writing this? Moses is in the plains of Moab and the Israelites are getting ready to go into the land to take it forcibly and violently from the Canaanites. So there is a rationale developing for why the Canaanites are not worthy to keep the land, because they have become so perverse and so sinful that it is now time for God to remove them in divine discipline.
So there are three sons of Noah: Ham, Shem and Japheth. Ham is not cursed but one of his sons, Canaan is cursed because of his father’s misbehavior in relationship to Noah’s drunkenness. Then the other two sons are blessed. Noah blesses Shem in v. 26, “And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” It is through Shem that the Hebrews come, that revelation comes, that the Bible comes, that redemption comes through Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christianity therefore is going to have its largest impact on Japheth, the Gentile descendants that we would relate to mostly western Europeans, and mostly North Americans are descendants of Japheth.
In chapter 10:1 we have another toledot: “This is what happened to the sons of Noah.” So 10:1-11:9 is going to tell us what happens to the sons of Noah as a whole, and this focuses on their failure to disperse and the curse of the division of languages which begins national distinctions. That takes place at Babel where instead of expanding and filling the earth as they were commanded to do mankind decides to unite, they are going to make a stand against God, disobey God; they are not going to voluntarily take control of the earth, so God has to scatter them. He announces that judgment in 11:4.
Then we come to the fifth toledot, which is still part of the Babel episode—this section between the flood and Abraham. It is given in 11:10. “This is the genealogy of Shem.” This sets the stage for God’s renewal of blessing through the descendants of Shem. The genealogy here goes from verse 10 down through verse 26 where it talks about Terah, so it is specifically Abraham through whom God’s redemptive plan will transpire.
This brings us to the second major division of the book where we talk about the four people in the patriarchal history of Israel. It introduces the sixth toledot, beginning with Terah in 11:27 and goes down through 25:11, and that whole section really tells the story of Abram who is renamed Abraham. It is, again, and extension of the theme of blessing and cursing but now it is localized to Abraham and his seed. In Genesis 12:3 we read, “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curse thee lightly.” This takes us to the Abrahamic covenant which is specifically divided into three sections: a land promise, a seed promise, and a blessing promise. We need to pay attention to these three words (land, seed, blessing) because these three ideas: the tracing of the land promise from generation to generation; the tracing of the seed, God’s preservation of the seed through Isaac, Jacob and Joseph; and then we find the motif throughout this last part of Genesis of how God blesses the descendants of Abraham, and He blesses by association those who are friendly to them and He judges those who are hostile to them.
Starting in 12:10 through 15:21 the emphasis is on the land. God is going to develop this theme and show how He is going to protect and preserve the land for Abraham and his descendants. So there is an emphasis on the land, and first there is a famine test. Abram leaves and goes down to Egypt. Rather than relying upon God he decides he is going to handle the problem on his own and he leaves the land. So God has to work to destroy his human viewpoint strategy and get him back to the land. Then in chapters 13 & 14 there is a problem developing with Lot, his nephew. Abraham is to divide and separate from Lot. God told Abraham, “And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.” So there is the promise of the land and the division of the land. Then in chapter 14 there is the invasion of the land by the kings of the east. It is Abraham who eventually destroys the armies of the four kings. He came back and instead of giving a tribute to the king of Sodom he gives tribute by way of the tithe to Mechizedek. His name means King of Righteousness. He was the king of Salem, which is now Jerusalem, and he is seen as a religious leader. In chapter 15 God reaffirms and confirms His covenant with Abraham. This is where the Abrahamic covenant is actually, formally ratified. There is an emphasis on the land. God continuously throughout this period says, This land is yours, I am promising to give you this land. And as Abraham understood that to be a physical piece of land, we should too.
There is an emphasis on the seed through chapters 16-21. There is a human viewpoint solution to the seed in the 16th chapter where Sarah suggests that Hagar should be taken as Abraham’s wife, so he follows her instructions, gets himself in trouble, Hagar is pregnant and she gives birth to Ishmael. This, of course, is the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In chapter 17 we have the introduction of circumcision as the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. This is to keep the line distinctive, that there would be a distinctiveness to the Jewish males because of circumcision. Then in chapters 18 & 19 is the episode of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah. This is the protection of the seed. God is going to protect the seed from coming under their perverted influence. Next is a second human viewpoint solution in chapter 20 where Abraham is living near the Philistines. He has Sarah pose as his sister. But Abimelech closes the wombs of all the Philistine women, and he wakes up realizing that something is going on and that Sarah is actually Abraham’s wife. Sarah is kept from possible sexual relations with someone else and the interference with the promise of the seed. Then in chapter 21 there is the birth of the seed: Isaac. Abraham is then tested in chapter 22 where Abraham is told to take his only son and sacrifice him. Abraham is willing to do that, when know from Hebrews 11, because he knows that God can raise Isaac from the dead. His faith is now so strong that he understands that God’s plan will come to pass whether he sacrifices Isaac or not. God, of course, stays his hand, provides a substitute ram in the bush which is a picture of Jesus Christ who dies on the cross as our substitute.
Then we have the conclusion of this section in chapters 22-25 where Abraham purchases land for burial for Sarah, and this is a sign or guarantee for future ownership of the land. The seed is protected because Isaac gets a wife, Rebecca, and than Abraham blesses Ishmael and sends him on his way, and this shows that God is going to protect the land from any kind of inheritance conflict and protect the seed from conflict with Ishmael.
The seventh toledot is in chapters 25:12-18 which ties up the loose ends related to Ishmael and his descendants. That covers up to Abraham.
Then we come to Isaac. Not much is said about Isaac. Most of what we know about him is really told in terms of the story of Jacob. This is the eighth toledot, 25:29-35:29, it covers Isaac and Jacob. Isaac is 40 years old when he marries Rebecca. Initially she is barren. This is a major theme that runs through here, the women are all barren. But that is to show that God is a God who brings life where there is death, He brings blessing where there is cursing, and due Isaac’s prayer and his dependence upon the promise to Abraham God opens Rebecca’s womb. She conceives and the story of the seed continues. Isaac abuses his birthright, trades it for a bowl of pottage, and that shows that he has no concern or care for his inheritance in relationship to Abraham. There is a test of famine in chapter 26. Isaac keeps the family in the land, which is a sign that he has learned something at least from his father’s leaving the land during times of famine. He goes and associates himself with the Philistines and is a blessing to others. In chapter 27 there is the story of the deception and manipulation to get the blessing, where Isaac tells Esau to go hunting and bring back some wild game for his favorite meal. By this time Isaac is very old, is blind, can’t hear well, but he wants his favorite son Esau to make him a good meal of wild game. When Esau is gone Rebecca comes along and because she wants her favorite, Jacob, to get the blessing she creates a deception and the manipulation works. The thing is that God was going to bless Jacob anyway, so what we see here is God’s grace and His control of history which overrides all the manipulations and deceptions of mankind. Jacob has to flee because Esau is understandably angry with him. He flees to his relative, his uncle Laban in the area of Mesopotamia, and there he finds a wife, Rachel, and the perpetuation of the seed. In the story of Jacob in chapters 28-35 we have his conflict with Laban. Laban is a conniving, deceiving, duplicitous man who just cheats his nephew in any way he can. Remember Jacob’s name means “heel-grabber, the deceiving one.” Jacob ends up working 14 years for two women, and then another six years to get his finances in order, and during that time Jacob is blessed by the Lord. His flocks, his herds all multiply, despite the conniving of Laban. Finally, Jacob flees Laban, he needs to get back home, and God blesses and protects him.
During this time Jacob has twelve sons and one daughter, and these become the progenitors of the twelve tribes of Israel. These twelve sons had no spiritual interest whatsoever, they are on negative volition and in rebellion against God, and when they get back to Canaan they want to take Canaanite wives. Abraham and Isaac and their wives, Sarah and Rebecca, had made sure that their children would not marry Canaanite women. That would destroy the line. But there is no concern here for maintaining the distinction from Canaanite culture among the 12 sons. Judah marries a Canaanite wife. Several others marry Canaanite women, and this is why God is going to ultimately take them to Egypt. It is to protect the line because in Egypt the Egyptians hated the Jews. They were extremely prejudiced against the Jews and wouldn’t even eat in the same room with the Jews. So they didn’t want to have anything to do with the Jews and that would preserve the line so that there wouldn’t be this intermarriage with the pagan Gentiles and introduce false religious beliefs into this line of redemption that God was developing.
The ninth toledot comes up at the end of this episode with Jacob. It deals with Esau, mentioned twice (36:1 & 36:9), and in chapter 36 what happens to the descendants of Esau. That is important because it establishes the identity of all of Israel’s future neighbors.
In chapters 37-50 we come to the story of Joseph. We have the various tests of Joseph. Initially he is given these dreams and visions where he can understand what God’s plan is for his life. He tells his brothers because he is not very humble and so he fails the humility test. They get angry at him, sell him into slavery, and he is taken down into Egypt. This time there is an interlude and Judah, one of the brothers who wanted to kill him, is tested. His sons end up marrying Canaanite and they die because they are so wicked that God kills them both. Tamar, one of the wives of his sons, survives. She is supposed to be married to the third son. Judah forgets all about that so she prostitutes herself, disguises herself, and he goes to her as a prostitute. She gets pregnant and it eventually comes back on Judah. It shows that Judah’s evil is judged and righteousness is established. Judah is going to turn around as a result of that and become a hero later on. After that there is a second cycle of suffering and testing. Joseph still remains faithful. He is sold into slavery, he is faithful to Potiphar, despite his wife’s advances on Joseph, and he is faithful to God.
Joseph is thrown into prison and tries to get the butler, also imprisoned, to help get him our when he is freed. In other words, he is relying on his own scheming to get out rather than resting in the provision of God. Then after he is finally released and because he correctly interprets dreams about the future of Egypt, Pharaoh elevates him to the second highest position in the land. There are seven good years during which time he administers the kingdom and he builds tremendous storehouses. When the seven years of famine begin in all of the Middle East, everyone has to come to Egypt to get grain because he has done such an excellent job of storing the grain.
Back home Jacob and the boys are growing hungry so Jacob sends the boys, except for Benjamin, down to Egypt to get grain. They come across their brother but they don’t recognize him. This is another test for Joseph. Is he going to yield to mental attitude sins of vindictiveness? Is he going to want top destroy his brothers? Or is he going to treat them in grace and blessing. Of course, he treats them in grace. He tells his servants to put all of their money back in the grain bags. This was a test for the brothers to see if they had learned honesty. As they head home they discover they have all this money back in their bags and they know they are going to get in trouble. But they go home and tell their father about it, and when they run out of grain their father sends them back and they take all the money back to show their honesty. They don’t know they are being tested. It shows that over time they finally got the picture and decided that they were going to have some integrity in their lives.
They get back on the second journey. Joseph had told them that when they come back to bring their younger brother. Jacob doesn’t want to release the youngest son, his favorite, he has already lost one son; he thinks Joseph is dead. The brothers had left Simeon there. They were just going to leave Simeon to hang out to dry there, it seems, but Jacob sent them back to get Simeon out of hick, as it were. They brought all of the money back that had been restored to them, plus more money to purchase grain. When they come back the test that Joseph has for them is, will they still protect Bejamin’s life? In other words, have they learned their lesson of brotherly love. They have and they pass the test, especially Judah.
In chapters 45-50 is the epilogue which shows how the Jews ended up in the womb of Egypt and how God is going top protect them and preserve them in the midst of the famine, and how God is going to use that time to make a great nation of them. All of this sets the stage for the beginning of the book of Exodus.
What do we learn from this?
1) That Jesus Christ controls history, that no matter what man does God controls history.
2) Blessing and cursing in history is ultimately related to God’s plan for Israel.
3) God’s grace overcomes all obstacles, evil plots, conniving, manipulation, mental attitude sins of mankind. God’s grace overcomes everything; nothing is too great for the grace of God.
4) God’s plan of redemption cannot be thwarted by human schemes. God will bring about our redemption, He will bring about our salvation, because it is not dependent upon who we are or what we have done but on who He is and what He has done.
]]>
002-God and Man in Genesis
We have to keep in mind the context of Genesis, that this is the prologue, as it were, the introduction to the Pentateuch which provided the foundation for the nation Israel. So in Genesis Moses is answering the question that is being asked: Where did we come from? Why are we as Jews the special people? What is God’s plan for us? What gives us the right to the land? God clearly addressed why they were going to go into the land and why there was a reason for them to annihilate every man, woman and child among the Canaanites, and what gave them a right to take that land from the Canaanites. This is the function of Genesis, to explain why God had to call out a special nation from among all of the nations, what the purpose for that nation was, and how God would use that nation to bless all of the nations. So the foremost message that we get in Genesis, if we want to summarize much of it, is to the Jew. In other words, if you were a Jew sitting on the plains of Moab about to go into the land of Canaan, about to go into battle and take this land from its current inhabitants, then what would you be learning as the main idea from Genesis? That would be that the God who created all things, the God who created man, the God who sustains all things, is the same God who called Abraham, the same God who created Israel as a nation, the people as a new race, and it is the same God who sustains Israel through all her travails. We can take that a step further in terms of application for us, that the same God who created all things from nothing, the same God who sustains the universe, the same God who can bring about the incredible judgments of the flood, the judgments against Sodom and Gomorah, is the same God who can protect us and preserve us, no matter what crises we encounter, no matter what national travail we may go through, no matter what kind of difficulty men and women may face in combat, is the same God who sustains the universe and who sustains Israel and is the same God who can sustain us and protect us.
Having said that there is a tremendous amount in Genesis that we can learn about God. What do we learn about God? This is one of the main reasons that Moses wrote Genesis: to teach the Jews about this God who had called them out and what that God could do. We learn a number of things about God in Genesis but the first way we learn about God is by observing the names of God in Genesis. Remember that to a Jew, a Hebrew, to someone in the ancient world, a name is not simply nomenclature, not simply a tag. A name says something about its inherent nature, its essence, its character. The names of people said something about their character, their background, their attributes, and so the names for God tell us something about who He is and what He can do.
Eleven different names that are used in Genesis to refer to God, primary names that are used of God to teach us, and would have taught the Jews, something about who this God was who had called them as a nation.
1) El or Elohim is the standard or generic name in Semitic languages for deity. The word El is roughly a cognate for the Arabic word Al or Allah. But that does not mean that they are the same God. The form Elohim where you have that plural ending him, that indicates plurality. Writers often emphasize that the term Elohim is a plural of majesty, so don’t try to read the Trinity into this. But in disagreement with that, in many places this plural noun is used—e.g. Genesis 1:26, 27, “and God [Elohim] said, Let us make man in our image.” So you not only have a plural noun but a plural pronoun that goes along with it. Although that does not necessarily teach the Trinity it certainly suggests a plurality in the Godhead. That is later developed and there are other passages on the Old Testament that give a much clearer indication of the Trinity, but to just dismiss this as a plural of majesty does it a tremendous amount of injustice.
2) The second word that we find in the text is the word Yahweh. Elohim is used in Genesis chapter one exclusively, you do not find any other name for God in the chapter, and it is not until Genesis chapter two that we are introduced to the title, or God’s personal name, Yahweh. This is based on the sacred tetragrammaton, which means four letters, because in early Hebrew especially there were no vowel points. All there they had were consonants. So there were four letters: YWH. What has happened is that over the years there have been a tremendous number of Germans working on Hebrew. There were a number of Jews living in the area of Germany who have contributed to this. Remember that in German the Y is written with a J, and the W is pronounced like a V. So that is where the letters J and V are picked up, and then you had JH and VH. Another word that is used in Hebrew which is a generic term for Lord, is the Hebrew word Adonai. It was actually vocalized as having more of an E at the front. So if the vowels E, O, and A are inserted you come up with the name Jehovah. But Jehovah is not a Hebrew word at all, it is a compound of Yahweh plus Adonai. The Jews treated the name of God with reverence, so they would never pronounce Yahweh. Actually they added different vowel points so that the vowel points would remind the reader to read Adonai instead of Yahweh. It was that compound of the consonants from one name and the vowel points from another name that produced this sort of hybrid word, Jehovah. This is one of the problems with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They think that you have to pray everything to Jehovah but Jehovah doesn’t really exist! Yahweh is the personal name for God, and it is emphasized as the covenant name for God for Israel. So whenever they see that name it is going to remind them that this is the God who entered into a personal covenant relationship with Abraham and with Moses, and that this is the God who is the specific God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The key verse for Yahweh is found in Exodus 3:14, “I AM WHO I AM.” This name Yahweh is based on the Hebrew verb hayah, the verb to be or to exist. So it is generally understood that the name of God emphasizes His existence, that it refers to God as the self-existent one and that He is the one who has no beginning and no end.
3) Frequently we have these first two names in compound: “The LORD God,” Yahweh Elohim. You will always know when Yahweh is at the back of the English word Lord, because in most English Bibles they will make those four letters L-O-R-D in small caps. If you see a name for God, Lord or God, in small caps what underlines that in the Hebrew is the term Yahweh. So Yahweh Elohim takes the generic term God and focuses it on the Yahweh who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
4) Genesis 14:18, 19, 20, 22, “The Lord God Most High.” “Most High” is the term El Elyon. This name emphasizes the exalted status of God, that He has overwhelming power. It emphasizes His supreme majesty, and it was the sin of Lucifer to want to be like the Most High. It is referred to in the Psalms. It is El Elyon who is the place of shelter. He is the Rock in the midst of our adversity, our ever present help in time of trouble. In the Psalms it id God who is referred to as El Elyon who has the deepest concern for Israel and for Zion: Ps. 46:6; 87:5. In Genesis 14:22 God is referred to first as the Lord God Most High [El Elyon], and then He is described as the possessor of heaven and earth. That word translated “possessor” is the Hebrew word which means to own something, to possess something, to acquire or purchase something. So it refers to God as the Most High God, the owner of heaven and earth, that He is above all gods and everything that occurs in heaven and earth is under His dominion and under His sovereignty. So this term, El Elyon, is going to emphasize God as the owner of the heavens and the earth and therefore the one who has the right to rule the heavens and the earth. Several times in the Psalms God is referred to as the Most High God, El Elyon: Ps. 47:2, His parallel to a great king, emphasizing His sovereignty, His rule over the universe; 97:9; 91:1, 9, an emphasis on the protection of God for all believers; 78:35.
5) El Roi, Genesis 16:13, Hagar says, “You are the God who sees.” She uses the verb to see to indicate God’s perceptiveness about people. He knows the future, He knows Hagar’s predicament, and He comes along and predicts her future and the future of her son, Esau. He is the God who sees, and the God who sees her travails and her problems and difficulties is the same God who sees and knows about all of our difficulties and problems.
6) El Shaddai. This term is used twice in Genesis, 17:1 & 35:11, and it means God the Almighty. It emphasizes God’s power. This term is used most often in Job. It is used 48 times in the Old Testament, 31 of them in Job. Job is the book where we see the hero, Job, going through the most difficult suffering imaginable. It is in the context of that suffering that God is referred to as God the Almighty, that He is more powerful than any difficulties we can face in time. The name emphasizes His omnipotence, His ability to perform whatever He desires.
7) El Olam, the eternal or everlasting God, Genesis 21:33. Here it emphasizes God’s attribute of eternal life, that God has neither beginning nor ending. He is the self-existent one, not simply an uncaused cause; He is a person. He has no beginning and no ending and all of His attributes are infinite.
8) Jehovah-jireh, which actually in the Hebrew is Yahweh-jireh. It is found in Genesis 22:14 in the context of Abraham following God’s command to sacrifice Isaac. The emphasis in the name is that God supplies all of our needs, especially our need for salvation.
9) Yahweh the God of the heavens, Genesis 24:7. That indicates his sovereignty over all of the heavens, that God is the king of the heavens, the ruler of the heavens, the ruler of the earth and the affairs of mankind.
10) El Elohe Israel, the God of Israel, Genesis 33:20.
11) The final name is really a title, a description of God, “The Shepherd or Rock of Israel.” Genesis 49:24. This emphasizes God as the leader of Israel, the shepherd of Israel. He is the one who takes care for Israel. It is God who protects and provides for Israel in the wilderness. It emphasizes His role as the leader and protector of Israel.
These eleven names and titles emphasize the character and attributes of God that are learned in the book of Genesis.
There are several different attributes of God that are emphasized in the book of Genesis.
1) The first is that God is a living God who is deeply involved in His creation. So that the laws of nature are really the laws of God, the laws that He set in motion and that He continues to watch over, and the laws that He continues to sustain. God is eternally existing and He is distinct from all creation: Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” This statement stands in marked contrast to every other statement in the ancient world or even modern times about creation.
2) We see God in Genesis as one who interacts with man. He comes and walks in the garden in the cool of the day and teaches Adam and the woman before the fall. He is the one who seeks out and takes the initiative to spend time with him, to find out what the problem was after they disobeyed Him. He is the one who takes the initiative to provide a solution to the problem that man has created. It is God who speaks, it is God who sees, it is God who hears the problems of man, it is God who rests at the end of the creation week. God is intimately involved with His creation. He interacts with mankind throughout creation. We see this in Genesis chapters 1, 2,3, 17, 18, and other chapters.
3) He is the one who created mankind as a reflector of Himself. Man is created in the image and likeness of God. We are to reflect God’s character, His attributes, we represent God. We were originally created to represent God and to rule over creation—Genesis chapter one.
4) God is the one who enters into the human arena with a human form and human acts—Genesis 12, 18, 32. This shows the divine initiative of grace.
5) He reveals Himself. God is not hiding from man. He is not playing sort of a cosmic hide and seek game with man. He is continually giving testimony to Himself. The psalmist says the heaven declare the glory of God. Paul says in Romans 1 that the invisible attributes of God are clearly seen in the creation. If people don’t see God it is because they don’t want to see God. Yet He is the one who is continuously seeking man, saving man, disclosing Himself and revealing Himself to mankind.
We see the emphasis on the sovereignty of God in Genesis.
1) God is the ruler of the heavens and the earth, the one who disposes as He wills. He is called the Most High God, as we have seen already. He is, as we see in Genesis 1, the creator of everything. There is nothing in the heavens or on the earth that does not owe its existence and its sustenance to God. He controls everything.
2) We see His acts in Genesis 1 as a God who names some things and individuals. He names the light day and the darkness night. His naming of things indicates His control. He determines the limits, the animals will procreate after their kind. He determines the limits, the boundaries of the waters and the land, and He determines nature. It is God who determines that something that is what it is, it is not what it is because of chance. If you are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, if you believe the Scriptures, if you believe that Genesis one is a clear statement of a seven day creation and restoration, as we will see, then if you look at an oak tree you do not se the same tree that an unbeliever sees. You see leaves and acorns and branches, but what you see is something that was intricately created and designed by God, and what they see is something that is there by pure random chance. That means that whatever else is said about that tree believers do not see the same thing as unbelievers. The implication of that is profound because that means there is no neutral ground. We cannot go out there in the creation and say, Well let’s find some common ground in the creation we can agree on. We can’t agree on anything. The tree you see and believe in is not the tree they see. What they see is the product of time and chance and it just happens to be there. What you see is something that was purposely put there and designed that way by an omnipotent, sovereign God. And that makes all the difference in the world.
3) God sets forth mandates and prohibitions for all things. After creating the animals in Genesis chapter one He says they are to multiply according to their kind, and He blesses them and gives an order to all living things to be fruitful and multiply. This indicates that He rules, nothing is there by chance.
4) God brings about judgment in the curse. When He is disobeyed He judges that disobedience, and He outlines the consequences of that disobedience in the curse in Genesis chapter three. He brings about judgment on the evil of man at the time of the world-wide flood under Noah. He brings about another judgment on rebellious mankind at the tower of Babel. And He brings about judgment on Sodom and the cities of the plain.
5) God is able to prophecy and predict the future, indicating His control of human history. God controls human history and brings about His purposes in history, and that is why He can prophecy the future—Genesis chapters 15 & 46.
6) God disposes of people and property. He gives Canaan to His people. Notice that He gives Canaan the right to the land. He tells Abraham in Genesis 12 that their evil has not reached its fullness yet, so He does not take the land away from the Canaanites until the proper time, and then He takes it away and gives it to His people. This shows that God has the right to determine who will live where and who own what property.
7) God promises kings to Sarah. He says, You will have kings that come forth from you. He is able to control who their descendants are and what their powers will be—Genesis 17.
8) God controls people’s dreams. Abraham has dreams in Genesis 15; Jacob has dreams in Genesis 28, 31; Joseph interprets dreams in chapters 37, 40, 41. God controls people’s dreams and communicates through those dreams.
9) God establishes and removes people in political power. He raises up some and He removes others. Genesis 41, God sustains Abimelech in his rule over the Philistines.
10) He tests people—Genesis 22. He tests Abraham’s faith by ordering him to sacrifice his son, Isaac.
11) God rules over nations, economies, and life—Genesis 40-41. Ultimately, economics are not determined by the market, they are determined by God.
12) God chooses whom He will bless. He chose to call out Abraham; He chose to make a special people out of Abraham; He chose to bless him. The choosing of Abraham did not involve his eternal salvation, it involved God’s special plan for Abraham and his descendants, that God would bless them and use them to bring about His redemptive plan.
Then we see an emphasis that God is omnipotent throughout Genesis.
1) He is the one who creates the heavens and the earth, and every detail within the earth. God is in control of all of the details of creation, and certainly God can oversee the details in our lives.
2) He creates the human race, mankind, and sustains mankind. God is all-powerful.
3) He prevents Enoch from dying in Genesis chapter five. Enoch walked with the Lord and he was not. He did not die, he just walked off into heaven with God one day.
4) He controls the time and the duration and the extent of the world-wide flood at the time of Noah.
5) He protects Abraham--Genesis 15—from the assaults of the four kings.
6) God controls the womb. In many cases He closes the womb so that Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel could not give birth. This is not because God was mean-spirited, but God was teaching that He alone brings life where there is deadness. It is a picture of our spiritual life where there is spiritual death. Genesis 20, 21, 25, 30.
7) God controls the fertility of the flock, so that when Jacob is raising his flock separate from Laban’s flock, and Laban sets up conditions, all of a sudden all then sheep are giving birth to spotted lambs. So Jacob is blessed. Whatever conditions Laban set up Jacob continued to prosper because God is the one who controls the fertility of the flocks.
8) God is the one who can cripple a man. He cripples Jacob with simply the touch of His hand—Genesis 32.
Then we see that God is righteous and just in Genesis, that He is not a capricious God but a God who is righteous and just in contrast to the gods of the Gentiles.
1) He punishes disobedience with death. Spiritual death is the punishment for the disobedience of Adam and the woman in the garden of Eden.
2) God is the one who announces a just judgment on sin or disobedience to Him. So He applies His righteous standard to the affairs of mankind.
3) He punishes Cain for murder, but because it is at such an early stage of the human race He does not take Cain’s life but puts a mark on him and protects him. That is a sign of God’s graciousness in Genesis.
4) We see in Genesis 6 that God destroys the inhabitants of the earth because man is evil and the thoughts of his heart are evil continuously.
5) God scatters the nations because of their rebellion—Genesis 11.
6) He curses and blesses people due to how they treat Abraham’s seed. This is a major theme throughout the rest of Genesis. Blessing by association.
7) God refuses to judge the innocent along with the guilty. He will not judge Lot and his family if they are righteous along with all the unrighteous in Sodom and Gomorah.
8) Go treats the kings of the earth justly. When Abraham goes to Abimelech and says Sarah is his sister God warns Abimelech and instead of destroying him He protects him, He treats him justly, even though Abimelech is an unbeliever.
9) God is the one who protects and vindicates His people. Rachel and Leah, the two daughters of Laban, are treated unjustly by their father Laban, yet God vindicates them and they finally leave and head back to the promised land. Jacob works for Laban and even though he is treated harshly and mistreated by Laban, God protects and ultimately vindicates Jacob.
10) God made things right for Joseph, even though Joseph was unjustly charged and unjustly imprisoned. Eventually he was released and placed in the second highest position in Egypt. God exercised His righteousness toward Joseph and so the supreme court of heaven took care of the details. It was not up to Joseph to vindicate himself.
We see an emphasis in Genesis on the grace of God
1) God provides everything for mankind in the perfect environment of the garden. There is nothing left to chance. God always supplies everything, His grace is sufficient.
2) Then, after their disobedience, God provided a physical covering for them, the sinners, despite their disobedience, and He provides salvation and life for mankind. They do not deserve it or earn it but God graciously provides.
3) He protected Cain from avengers and put a mark on him to warn off those who would avenge him, that they would suffer the justice of God if they avenged the death of Abel.
4) He gave grace to Noah and the earth. It took Noah 120 years but it was a 120-year warning period to warn the earth about the coming judgment. It was during that time that Noah and his sons went throughout the world preaching the gospel and yet there was no one who responded.
5) He remembered Noah in Genesis 8 and Abraham in Genesis 19, and God blessed them and protected them.
6) God provided water and protection in the wilderness for Hagar in Genesis 16.
7) God preserved the righteous in the covenant in chapter 19.
8) God intervenes time and time again when people fail, chapters 12, 20, 26, and he always supplies what is needed.
9) He freely established His covenant and blessed deceptive Jacob.
10) It is God who graciously sent angels to watch over and protect Jacob in Genesis 28 32. He watches over and protects us even when we don’t deserve it, even when we are in rebellion.
11) He gave prosperity to Jacob in chapter 33; He prospered him.
12) He blesses Egypt with the future knowledge of a coming famine, and provided Joseph as someone to lead them through the crisis in chapters 39ff.
Finally, we learn 8 things about mankind.
1) Man is created with a mortal body framed from the dust of the earth.
2) Man’s immaterial nature comes directly from the breath of God.
3) Human life is composed of biological life, the physical life formed from the chemicals of the soil, plus soul life, the immaterial life that is breathed into man by God. This makes man in the image of God. He is unique from all other creatures because his life comes from God.
4) Man is the image of God, and this term refers to his function, not his form—his function and his fellowship with God. He is to serve God and obey God, and he is to rule over creation and administer the kingdom for God.
5) Man was created male and female and they are to compliment each other. The man is the leader and the woman is to assist him in fulfilling the mission that God has given them.
6) Man is created perfect, but his disobedience destroys the perfection of the universe and brings horrendous consequences upon himself and the universe. His sin doesn’t just affect himself, it doesn’t just bring a fall to man, it affects the animal kingdom, nature, everything in creation. That one bad decision that Adam made reverberates throughout the entire universe.
7) Man now has a disposition for evil, toward rebellion, toward self-sufficiency and autonomy. Man is a rebel against his creator and seeks to be like the Most High, following in the footsteps of Lucifer.
8) That means that man is in desperate need of a savior. But it is God in His initiative who is going to provide a savior and provide salvation.
]]>
003-Who Wrote Genesis? Genesis Overview
We continue with what is still an overview and we focus on one particular subject and answer a question: Who wrote Genesis? We need to remember that all doctrine is important to us even though all doctrine is not immediately applicable or relevant. It is always relevant at some point and in some way—all Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. That includes, even as we will see, the genealogies in Genesis. The second reason this is important is that this will at the very least strengthen your confidence in the Scriptures, that the Scripture is what it claims to be, i.e. the Word of God, the revelation of God, God revealing Himself to man. So this should strengthen confidence in the historical reliability and veracity of Genesis. Then, you might never know when you might need to know this. You may be challenged by somebody in the future and you will fall back on this information. You never know when you might need this. Many will have children or grandchildren who are going to run into this in their classroom, and your knowledge will forearm them for that eventuality. This information should be transmitted in prep-school in the category of Christian evidences. We also need to have this on file just in case anybody needs the information.
The challenge to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is not simply something that is doctrine only in some sort of ivory tower university classroom somewhere, but it comes home in odd little ways to haunt people. Just about any movie you see which has to do with biblical themes is going to be advised by somebody who buys into this theory that we are talking about. This is constantly being brought up as a challenge to biblical truth. And the reason it is important is that if the Bible isn’t what it claims to be, if the Pentateuch isn’t what it claims to be as the writings of Moses, if we can’t trust that, then how can we be sure we can trust anything else that is covered in Genesis, especially when it comes to the first eleven chapters. So it is important to understand this issue.
To summarize, the prevailing view in modern liberal [those who do not believe that the Bible is the God-breathed revelation of Himself to man] scholarship is that the Bible is just a natural product of human ability and instead of being God’s revelation to man it is man’s record of his religious experiences. The Mosaic authorship is rejected because their presupposition is that God just doesn’t communicate like this to man. Instead of Mosaic authorship they believe that the Pentateuch is was actually written by a series of authors, multiple authors, and these authors are identified by basically four letters. It is called the JDEP view of the Pentateuch. So instead of Moses writing the Pentateuch there were at least four different authors and then some editor of redactor comes along several hundred years later and sort of blends all these things together.
The background on this. Up until the nineteenth century it was almost universally believed that Moses was the author of Genesis and the Pentateuch. The Jews and Christians both believed that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. But at that time many trends that had their source in the 17th century and the birth of the Enlightenment came together and culminated in a world view that is known as naturalism. In naturalism you have the view that everything has a natural cause within the creation. God does not speak within the creation. God is outside the box and God never speaks in the box, and so everything happens and is caused by events in the box. The first person to challenge Mosaic authorship was a Jewish rationalist by the name of Spinoza. Following Spinoza there were several who put forth different views. One man came along at the beginning of the seventeen hundreds and said, You can identify the different backgrounds by looking at the fact that one author prefers to use the title of Elohim for God and another author prefers to use the name Yahweh. So they identify two different sources there. Then, by the end of the 18th century there was a German scholar by the name of Eichhorn who came along and distinguished two other sources. So you have the J source which is the writer who prefers the name of Yahweh, and then you have the E source for the man who prefers the name Elohim. Then D would be the Deuteronomist, the person who puts together Deuteronomy and adds a few other things in some other books. And then you have a priest who comes along and adds more liturgical information and talks about sacrifices, and he adds that material later on.
The basic motivation here is to discredit the Bible. They make a basic assumption. The hidden assumption that they approach all the evidence with is a presupposition of anti-supernaturalism. They assume from the get go, without any evidence or data, that God can’t speak to man, that there is no such thing as a miracle, that there is no such thing as the supernatural. This is indicated by a quote by Miller Burrows who was one of the men who worked on the Dead Sea scrolls and was a professor at Yale university: “The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of available data but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural.” That is their agenda. They do not believe that God will, could, or can (if He exists) communicate to man. Therefore when they look at the data, no matter how wonderful or convincing the data is, they are not convinced because God by definition cannot, will not, and would not communicate with man. Second, their agenda is to discredit Mosaic authorship because if Moses did not write the Pentateuch and the Bible is not what it claims to be, then they have destroyed the veracity of the early chapters of Genesis. Therefore man is not what the Bible says he is. There is no such thing as God, no basis for the atonement. It is an attempt to destroy everything else in the Bible.
By the late 19th century there were two German theologians, K.H Graf and Julius Wellhausen, who came along and popularized this view. At that time they would say that the J author wrote about 850 BC, the E writer wrote about 750 BC, the D writer wrote about 621 BC, and then the priestly writer wrote about 570. But within 20 or 30 years, by the time you get into the 20th century, those dates are all out and they would say that everything was written after the Babylonian captivity, during the period known as the second temple period, after they returned and rebuilt the temple under Zrubbabel. So this becomes the foundation for what becomes known as 19th century Protestant liberalism. It is a rejection of Mosaic authorship and ultimately a rejection of any divine authorship. And it is an attempt to discredit everything in the Bible. We should be aware of the fact that many people who have written and critiqued their views always point out that across the board they rejected, denied and just ignored archaeological evidence to the contrary. And liberal scholarship has consistently ignored the reputations that have been made available and put in print by conservative scholars, and they have built a theory that is today nothing more than a working hypothesis. But it is the working hypothesis of every liberal theologian, even though the details on which this thing was originally built can no longer be validated. But they can’t throw the whole theory out because if they do the only option left is to believe the Bible! We will see tremendous parallels between this and the whole acceptance of evolution. There is the same manufactured evidence, the same circular reasoning. There is the same fact that back in the early 18th century there were certain positions developed based on certain conjectures, assumptions, certain evidence that they thought was there. That evidence fell apart because of archaeological discoveries in the early 20th century, but the conclusions continue to live.
A major Hebrew scholar of the previous generation critiqued this view in detail, and in his introduction to his book on the documentary hypothesis, he comments, “There was not a scholar by the 1920s who doubted that the Torah was compiled in the period of the second temple. . . . It is true that differences of opinion with regard to details were not lacking. One exegete declared that this source was earlier and another exegete that source was earlier. Some attributed a given section refers to one document and some to another document. Certain scholars divided a verse among the sources in one way, others in another. There were those who broke down the documents themselves into different strata and others who added new sources to those already mention, and so forth. Nevertheless, even though no two scholars held completely identical views, and though these divergences of opinion betrayed a certain inner weakness in the theory as a whole, yet in the basic principles of the hypothesis almost all the expositors were agreed.” Furthermore, Kenneth Kitchen who is one of the foremost British Egyptologists on the scene today, writes in his book on the ancient orient and the Old Testament: “Nowhere in the ancient orient is there anything which is definitely known to parallel the elaborate history of fragmentary composition and conflation of Hebrew literature as the documentary hypothesis would postulate. Conversely, on the other hand, any attempt to apply the criteria of the documentary theorists to ancient oriental compositions that have known history but exhibit the same literary phenomenon, results in manifest absurdity.” In other words, you can’t find any parallel to the modern theory in the ancient world, and you can’t make the modern theory work on anything that we have information on. It is just a theory that has been made up out of thin air.
So what did they set forth as proof? The first proof they set forth was that writing wasn’t known in Moses’ time. This argument soon fell out of use due to archaeological discoveries (However in the 1970s this was still being taught in a university classroom). There were discoveries in 1929 at a place called Ugarit, which is in north-west Canaan, that dated to the same period as Moses. It was a rich discovery of documents and literature demonstrating that in that area there was a tremendous amount of writing taking place. Remember that the exodus took place at approximately 1446 BC. One hundred years after that we have what is known as the Armarna correspondence which is variously dated from about 1350 to about 1250 BC. It was letters that were written from people and some leaders in the Palestine area as they were writing back to the Egyptian Pharaoh and reporting on the circumstances and situation in Palestine. So there are many other evidences. Then in the mid-seventies there was a discovery at a place in Syria called Ebla. At Ebla they discovered a rich library in a palace and many of the names were similar to the names found in the Bible. And that dated from a period of about 2100 BC, some 600 years before Moses.
Second, they had an assumption that there were no known law codes that existed as early as the Mosaic law. Therefore this had to be a fabrication because nobody had such a details technical code that early. However, the code of Hammarabi of Babylon was discovered by archaeologists and the date there was between 1700 and 2000 BC, a good 3-400 years before Moses. Furthermore, in Mesopotamia there was the discovery of what is known as the Lipit-Ishtar code which dates to about 1800 BC, 400 years before Moses. In 1945 there was discovered near Iraq an extremely technical law code written in Akadian that dated to about 2200 BC, approximately 800 years prior to Moses.
Their next assumption was that various names for God indicated different authors. In some passages Elohim is used exclusively. In other passages Yahweh is used exclusively. So they supposed that this must indicate different authors. Examples: Elohim, the generic appellation for God is used exclusively in Genesis 1:1-2:3. There is no other name for God in that section, so they would say Genesis one is the writing of the E document, and then starting in 2:4 is the phrase, “This is the history of … in the day that the LORD God [Yahweh Elohim] made the earth and the heavens.” So that is the first mention of the name Yahweh, and they would say that starting in 2:4 there is the introduction of Yahweh, so this and chapter three were part of the J document. This would be their contention. There is just a slight problem here. There are a lot of technical evidences that could be cited. The facts don’t fit the theory because in chapter three verses 1, 3, 5 is the term “Elohim,” Yahweh is not mentioned there. So obviously that doesn’t fit the hypothesis. Then in chapter four the name Yahweh occurs several more times until the end of the chapter, when all of a sudden Elohim alone is introduced again. So that doesn’t fit the scenario. When we come to the flood story in chapters 6-8 the name Yahweh is used sometimes and then there is a switch to Elohim, so it goes back and forth. That doesn’t fit the theory that they have. Then, in Genesis 15 Yahweh occurs when God is giving His covenant to Abraham. Yahweh, remember, is the covenant name for God in the Old Testament for Israel; it is the name always associated with the covenant. So Yahweh is in Genesis 15 and that would fit the theory. However, in Genesis 17 where God introduces circumcision as the sign of the covenant the name that we find there is not Yahweh but Elohim. Clearly there are changes in the text. Why does the author go back and forth between Yahweh and Elohim? These are not accidental or haphazard, but they are there by design and because of the purpose of the author. They relate to the different roles. Furthermore, the Jews knew that there was only one God. In I Kings 18:39 we have the phrase, “The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.” The term “LORD” is Yahweh—Yahweh, He is Elohim. They knew Elohim as a generic term but LORD is the name of God, the specific, technical name of the God who is associated personally with Israel and who has entered into a personal covenant relationship with Israel. Elohim is the name that the Gentiles use for God but Yahweh is a term that is specifically associated with God’s relationship to Israel. So when we go back and do an analysis of the use of the terms in Genesis we realize that throughout the Pentateuch Elohim was used when the lessons and material focused on God as the transcendent God, when the emphasis is on God as a more abstract distant God, when the focus is on God as creator of all life, the ruler of all the universe, and the source of life, and when His actions are related to all of mankind. Then Yahweh is used when the lessons and the materials focus on God as the personal, holy, righteous God, when the focus is on the God of Israel who interacts personally in human history, when His specific attributes are in view, when the text is emphasizing the majesty and glory of God, and when the emphasis is on God as a personal God who enters into concrete relationships with man. Genesis 1:1 portrays the transcendent God who created Jew and Gentile alike, but in Genesis chapter two we have the more intimate God who is in the process of creating man and woman in His image and likeness and setting forth the ethical demands of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is the God who is intimately involved with people. Furthermore, an analysis of the names of God in the Scriptures reveal that in the prophets, minor and major, and in the legal literature—Deuteronomy, Leviticus—and much of the poetry except for what is called wisdom literature, Yahweh is used exclusively for God. Elohim is not used alone in those passage, it is always used in conjunction with Yahweh or it is not used at all. Yet in the wisdom literature, like Job and Proverbs, Elohim alone is predominant. There is little mention of Yahweh. Why is that? If we look at all the ancient near eastern literature—Babylonian, Egyptian, Akadian, Persian—this was typical. Whenever they were writing about their particular god they used the technical name of the god, but when they wrote their wisdom literature, which were universal principles of life, they would always use the generic name for their god. This was the standard way of writing throughout the ancient world. Furthermore, this type of distinction continues throughout all Talmudic literature and Rabbinic literature. In that literature which specifically focuses on God and His relationship to Israel they never used the name Elohim, it is always the name Yahweh. So this usage plays out that Elohim is used when the focus is on God and His roles related to all of mankind and Yahweh when the emphasis is on His attributes, His righteous standards, and His specific relationship to Israel. No other ancient near eastern text is ever thought to be compiled in this sort [documentary hypothesis] of patchwork quilt manner. It is ridiculous to even think about applying this to the Mesopotamian creation documents. In fact there, three different deities are mentioned that have double names, just as God has a double name of Elohim and Yahweh, so this is standard operating procedure in ancient near eastern literature with a single author. There is no evidence that the different names for God in the Bible indicate different authors or different sources, but they are used to bring to bear by one author different emphases about the person and character of God.
Another argument is used that there are different styles and different vocabularies in different places which indicate different authors. One argument given is a fairly technical Hebrew argument based upon the use of two different words. You have the phrase “so and so begat somebody else.” There are two different ways this word “begat” is written in Hebrew. The first is using a hiphil stem where is uses a word that is transliterated holid. It comes from the Hebrew word yalad. In the qal stem it looks different again. In some of the genealogies you have holid and others you have yalad. So in the documentary hypothesis the liberal comes along and says, See, this shows different sources. But it is really a circular argument. For example, in Genesis :1-16 there is the name LORD of Yahweh used in the account of Cain versus Abel. Then starting in versus 17 down to the end of the chapter there is a genealogy. In it the writer uses the term yalad, so the documentary hypothesist says, See, you find yalad here in Genesis four so that means that this must be a J word. So wherever you find yalad, that is a J document. So wherever we find yalad, that is a J document, so if it is a J document it has Yalad in it and if it has yalad in it, it must be a J document! The premise has not been established at all. Furthermore, the verb yalad in the qal stem occurs a number of times with synonymous meaning of holid, the causative meaning from the hiphil stem in passage such as Deuteronomy 32:18; Hosea 5:7; Psalm 2:7; Proverbs 17:21. So there is an interchangeability between these two words that does not necessitate different authorship.
Then a further argument that they try to use is that of two different phrases. For example, “to make a covenant” and to “cut a covenant” in the Hebrew. The liberal comes along and says these are different, but one means to give security to a contractual agreement and the other is used when a covenant or contract is fulfilled, established, brought to completion.
The liberals make an assumption that the J document is going to look at God in a certain way and in the J documents God always reveals Himself in an appearing form. So when you find God appearing, that is going to be a J document. If God appears in a dream or a vision, then that is the Elohim document, an E document. And if God just speaks alone without appearing to man or using a dream or a vision, then that is a P document. These are hard and fast assumptions that these scholars make. But the theory never fits reality. Genesis 15:1, “After these things the word of the LORD [Yahweh] came unto Abram in a vision.” But wait a minute! Only the Elohim document has God appearing in a vision! So it doesn’t fit. Genesis 26:24, “And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake.” Here Yahweh appears at night, but it is Elohim who is supposed to appear at night! So now we have another verse that doesn’t fit the theory. In this case the critics just take the verse out and say it shouldn’t be in the Bible at all! Then in Genesis 28:13, “And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac.” Here is the Lord appearing. It is Yahweh who is supposed to appear, but this is Elohim, “the God of Isaac.” But the liberal comes along and says obvious this has been conflated, and there are really two statements, so they take out their scalpel and cut the verse in two and completely rewrite the verse so that it fits their theory.
Then there is another problem. That is the claim that there are two different accounts of creation: Genesis 1 being one account, but there are contradictions with Genesis chapter two. Firstly, it is a pretty standard approach for all ancient near eastern literature to describe an event in general summary terms and then come back and give the specifics and deal with one element of it in a more detailed fashion. So it fits the pattern of ancient near eastern literature.
There a re a couple of other little things the liberals point out, so look at Genesis 2:4, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” They would say, Look, this is in the day when God made everything but He didn’t make man until the sixth day in chapter one, so how do you make this fit? The phrase here is the Hebrew word b’yom, “in day”, literally. If it was replacing a definite article it would be pointed differently, it would be ba yom. But it is not replacing a definite article, which means that yom is considered to be indefinite—not “in the day” but “in a day.” Whenever you have yom with a number or an article affixed to it, it refers to a 24-hour day. That is one of the reasons the six days in chapter one are 24-hour days. But furthermore, when you have this phrase it is a Hebrew idiom, “at that time.” It is used that way in places like Numbers 3:1; Psalm 18:1; 2 Samuel 22:1. So it reads, “In the time that the LORD God made the heavens and the earth.” It is not talking about the specific day. Then in verse 5, “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew.” But didn’t God create the plants on the third day, not on the sixth day? they would argue. It is interesting, if you look at the Hebrew words there that are used for the plants there is a repetition of those ideas at the end of Genesis chapter three—3:17, 18, “ … cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee.” It isn’t saying in 2:5 that there were no plants and no vegetation on the earth, but two specific kinds of vegetation were not yet present on the earth and were not present until after the fall. The reason they are not present is because the fall changes things. Man’s food is graciously supplied by God through the fruit of all the tree in the garden. He doesn’t have to till the soil to produce vegetable and herbs for food, but he does after the fall. So that is not a contradiction.
Another the liberals come up with is in Genesis 37. In some sections those to whom Joseph was sold into slavery were Ishmaelites, and in other sections they were called Midianites. But the Midianites and Ishmaelites are the same people, so it doesn’t indicate different authors, it just indicates different terminology is used.
Kenneth Kitchen concludes here that “there is no incompatible duplication here at all. Failure to recognize the complimentary nature of the subject distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation, like Genesis one on the one hand, and the concentration and detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism, they are just purposely ignoring the facts.”
Another line of evidence they come up with is really based on the assumption of evolution: that monotheism had not really evolved yet, by 1450 BC. Their assumption is that all cultures move from simple to the complex, so they assume that polytheism is more simple, monotheism is much more abstract and technical, so as man got further and further away from the stone age background his religious ideas evolved until he finally came up with this masterful idea of monotheism. However, once again that doesn’t fit the evidence. There is no straight-line development in culture. A work that is usually ignored by scholars, written by a Jesuit scholar in the 20s, named Wilhelm Schmit, (A 6-vol. Work in the French), an anthropologist who investigated every culture, every known religious belief system back to an original monotheism. It is an incredible documentation that all known world religions, no matter how obscure, all began with a single God. This is exactly what the Scriptures teach. However, liberals have an agenda to reject God.
The biblical evidence is clear that Moses wrote the Pentateuch: Exodus 17:14, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua.” There is internal evidence to support this. The writer of the Pentateuch has an intimate knowledge of the customs of that day, and these customs would not have been known 500 years later. He knew Egypt, he knew the desert, he knew the language. He is intimate with the geographical locations he describes. This would not have been so 500 or 1000 years later. Furthermore, he wrote in a second millennium contract form called the Suzerain-vassal treaty form, that was not know 500 years later. The Pentateuch claims Mosaic authorship in passages like Exodus 17:14; 24:4—“Moses wrote all the words of the law”; 24:27—“The Lord said to Moses, Write these words”; Numbers 33:1, “Moses wrote down”; Deuteronomy 31:9, “So Moses wrote this law.” So the Pentateuch claims Mosaic authorship. Other Old Testament books taught Mosaic authorship: Joshua 1:7, “ … according to all the law which Moses, my servant, commanded you”; 2 Kings 14:6, “the book of the law of Moses”; Daniel 9:11, 13; Malachi 4:4. Not only does the Old Testament teach that Moses wrote the Pentateuch but Christ taught it in Mark 12:26; John 5:46, 47. Furthermore, the Jews in their tradition believed this. The Samaritan Pentateuch holds to Mosaic authorship, as does the Palestinian Talmud, Philo in his work on the life of Moses, Josephus held to Mosaic authorship.
The bottom line is, you must take every verse and claim of Scripture as absolute truth whether you fully understand it or not. If you pick and choose, then you make yourself the authority and in effect you are judging God. This is the position the liberals have placed themselves in, that they claim to be God and they claim to know what is true and what is not true without any aid from outside divine source. It is clear that the Bible is exactly what it is, and it is the Word of God about the origin of the universe and the creation of mankind. So we can be confident when we come to read the Pentateuch and the early chapters of Genesis that this is giving us absolute objective truth.
004-Creation and Restoration Genesis 1:1-2:3
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” There is no statement in all of literature that can stand up to that opening verse in Genesis. It is in the opening chapter of Genesis that we have displayed for us all of the glory and grandeur of creation. In that chapter God is the subject of almost every verse. He is the one who creates and restores the universe and the earth, and all that is in them. It is this chapter that forms the foundation for the book of Genesis. In turn, Genesis forms the foundation for the rest of the Bible. That is why Genesis chapter one stand in the bulls eye or the target for those who are hostile to the Bible, those who are in rebellion against God, and those who would assert human autonomy and try to free man from what they think are the shackles of religion and Christianity. Satan and all the forces aligned against God and the Bible know that if you can discredit Genesis you can discredit the rest of the Bible. And if you can discredit Genesis 1-11 you can discredit the book of Genesis. And if you can discredit Genesis chapter one, then you can discredit Genesis 1-11, all of Genesis, and undercut the Bible.
Over 200 times Genesis is either directly quoted or indirectly referenced in the New Testament. In fact, every book in the New Testament except for Philemon, 2 & 3 John reference Genesis. Twenty-five times Jesus directly refers to Genesis, quoting from Genesis chapters 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 17, 19, 28. Notice the heavy emphasis on 1-9. Of those first eleven chapters He doesn’t quote from 8, 10, or 11 but He quotes from all of the others, indicating that He accepted them as written, that He interpreted them literally and did not have some sort of allegorical understanding of them. And He based doctrine on what was in those chapters. So if what happened in those chapters didn’t happen as literally portrayed then the doctrine based on those is not true. Twenty-four times in the New Testament Genesis chapter one is either directly quoted or alluded to. Genesis one is foundational not only to Genesis but also the entire New Testament. The veracity of those first eleven chapters of Genesis is so important that if they are not true then nothing else in the Bible is true; you can’t rely on anything else in the Scriptures. So this is not some secondary issue, some side debate. The New Testament is grounded on Genesis 1-11. Furthermore every doctrine, and not just major doctrine but every secondary doctrine as well, has its origin in Genesis 1-11.
It is in Genesis 1 that we are confronted with the God who stands unique among all of the gods devised by human imagination. In fact, Genesis one is written in such a way that it takes a sort of back-handed slap at all of the other religions that were popular that that time. There is an undertone of polemic (an argument against something) in Genesis one against the world religions at that time, especially the religions the Jews were going to meet when they came into Canaan. The reason to point this out is that there are so many Christians today who say we should not get involved in some sort of debate with human viewpoint, with some form of controversy with false systems of thought. The Bible at its very core is an assault on all false systems of thought. To say that we don’t need to do that is to say that the Bible and the Holy Spirit were somehow wrong in the way they approached the revelation of God’s truth. God’s truth is always juxtaposed to the error, the human viewpoint of the day.
So in Genesis one we have a portrayal of God’s creation. It is a magnificent portrayal of everything that God did. It is simple. If we read through the chapter we are struck with the simplicity of the narrative. It doesn’t go into excessive detail but once you start probing what is there we realize how detailed it actually is. There is a sublime characterization of the creation that comes across in the simplicity of the narrative. The emphasis in the chapter is always on God. He is the subject of every verse. The emphasis is on His majesty, His omnipotence, and His sovereignty. And it is in Genesis chapter one from the first verse that we meet the God who stands apart from the creation and everything else in the universe. This was revolutionary in the ancient world. All of the other religious systems had a god that was generated by the universe itself, and then in turn those gods generated other gods and creation. In all other mythologies and cosmogonies the gods are part of creation that in turn gives birth to man.
To properly understand Genesis chapter one we must begin with an overview, a summary of the entire chapter from 1:1 down to 2:3. We must try to recapture in our minds the original context in which this was first written and first read. Moses penned this book to provide the foundation for the nation Israel. Origins are important. To know why we do something we must know why we came into being in the first place. So Genesis was written to ground the creation of Israel and the existence of Israel in the sovereign work of an omnipotent God who planned, executed and sustained the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. Too often when we come to Genesis we want to look at it in the light of the modern issues of science and the Bible—evolution versus Darwinism. We will eventually come to that but before we address those issues, which are really application, we need to examine this chapter as a whole in terms of its overall structure and the doctrines that are contained here. Then we want to exegete the passage verse by verse. Finally, when we have taken everything that we can from the text, then we will analyze what we have learned in light of ancient and modern myths of origins. Modern origin myths is exactly what modern science has provided for us in Darwinism and modern theories of evolution: modern science from its theories about the age of the universe, the age of the solar system the age of the earth, the age of man, to its theories about the origin of the universe, the evolution of life on the planet. It has built an elaborate and detailed technical cosmogony, reinforced by a sophisticated scientific superstructure and explanation in order to explain the origin and development of the universe apart from God. It is that presupposition that God is not in the equation at all, that does not exist, that God did not create that reverberates in every single statement that modern science makes about the origin of the universe and the origin of man. Somewhere in every statement they make about origins there is a theological presupposition that God does not exist, and that is a religious statement. It is a religious statement to say that God exists; it is a religious statement to say that God does not exist. So modern evolutionary theories are just as religious as any other religious statement which they claim to reject. So everything that modern science has, from its dating schemes to origin schemes, falls apart once they are examined closely. They are simply a modern myth constructed to explain the origin of a Godless race.
In 1406 BC there were between a million and a million and a half Jews in the Moab desert on the verge of war to conquer the land, to take the land away from the Canaanites. It involves an invasion against a more numerous people, against giants, against walled, fortified cities. In most cases the technology of warfare that the Canaanites had is superior to the technology that these wandering Jews had. Because the Jews had spent the past 40 years in the desert they are not operating from any kind of industrial base or any kind of strength. They have minimal equipment, minimal training in terms of military techniques. So this is a time when it is conceivable under just a human viewpoint look at the circumstances when chaos may erupt. It is a time which from the human viewpoint standard seems uncertain. And yet Moses is reinforcing for them the doctrine that the God who began history controls history, that the God of the universe who sustains it is the same God who created Israel and will sustain them in the conquest. This God who spoke all things into existence from nothing is the same God who is going to guarantee their victory over the Canaanites.
In this whole chapter there are three major doctrines that are emphasized in relationship to God. The first is the power of God over creation, i.e. His omnipotence, that He creates everything, that there is nothing in the universe that was not created by Him. The second major doctrine that is emphasized is the sovereignty of God over human history, that God is the ruler of that which He has created, and everything in that creation should be subordinate to Him. He controls history and will work history out to His ultimate purpose. The third doctrine covered here is the authority of God over all His creatures, especially the human race and every human being, because He as the creator has the right to be followed as the ultimate authority of every one of us. Psalm 89:11, “The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fullness thereof, thou hast founded them.” Because God has created everything He has the right to run it according to His will.
The first major doctrine related to the power of God over creation is what is called the creator-creature distinction, and this is fundamental to understand and to apply in all of our thinking. In Genesis 1:1 because God creates the universe we see that He is completely distinct from His creation. He is not part of creation, He is beyond creation. Whereas we can learn many things truly through empiricism we cannot understand absolute truth or origins, that which goes beyond our senses, other than through revelation. That is a contrast. It is empiricism versus revelation and only the creator who was there can reveal to us what happened. What we have with modern science is men who were not there telling us on the basis of what they find today what happened ten-million years ago or ten-billion years ago. They weren’t there, nobody was there, but we believe that we have the Bible, written by the omniscient, omnipotent God who was there, who is absolute veracity and cannot lie, and He has told us how He created things. So He is completely distinct from His creation. That means that when God created the havens and the earth, if you back it up five minutes before that instant, there were no physical laws, no scientific laws. There was nothing except God existing in the Trinity. All His absolutes that we have revealed in Scripture, while they may reflect His character, did not come into being until after creation. You can’t come along and say that before creation there was such and such a law that God had to follow. There was no law, there was just God and His righteous character. So we see in the creator-creature distinction that God is completely distinct from His creation, that He is the one who makes everything, He is creates all matter, all energy, He is the creator of time and space. He is the creator of all physical laws and He stands above those physical laws and uses them and shapes them to His end. Thus we must conclude that scientific laws are not eternal absolutes but they are subject to the control of God and may be shaped and modified by Him at will. This is how miracles take place.
Since God made everything and man is in God’s image it is foolish, then, to make an image to God because He is distinct from the creation. So implicit in Genesis one is this polemic against the gods of the Gentiles and all of their idolatrous systems. As they seek to make images of God what they fail to understand is that they themselves are the image of God.
Though little is said in Genesis one about specifics related to polytheism, pantheism, monism, and other religious systems, this is mostly because they did not develop until some later time. Most of the world’s religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, did not exist in the Old Testament period. However, by the time of Moses the worship of god’s were identified with the forces of nature. They did have polytheistic gods. They identified them with the forces of nature, they identified them with the stars, the moon, the sun. They specifically identified their gods with fertility, and in doing so these gods were often represented by water, storms, rain, thunder, lightning. So it is at the very beginning that we see this God who creates all of those things, that those are not the gods but it is God Himself who creates the stars, the sun, and the moon. And there is not even in the initial earth rain or thunder or storms. Furthermore, water as described in Genesis 1:2 is “the deep,” the uncontrolled water, is under God’s control and power. So it is a slap in the face to the religious thinking of those cultures that surrounded Israel. 1 Chronicles 16:26, “For all the gods of the people [Gentiles] are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.” Nehemiah 9:6, “Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven [angels] worshippeth thee.” Thus, if God is sovereign then the gods of the nations pose no real threat to Israel. That is the point. If God created everything, God created the heavens, the sun, the stars, God is in charge of fertility, then why are you afraid of the gods of the Canaanites, they have no power.
A second major thing that we see here is that God reveals Himself, that the God of Israel is not only a God of power but a God who speaks and reveals Himself to His people. He is the one who speaks, just utters a word and all things come into existence. For there was nothing, absolute nothing. God speaks and something is there. It is God’s Word which has power, and it is that same Word which comes to Israel through Moses and the prophets in terms of direct revelation. Psalm 33:6, “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” Hebrews 11:3, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
We see that God restores life. This is another major theme and doctrine in the first chapter. God restores life where there is death. This demonstrates that He is the one who takes this barren, chaotic earth in Genesis 1:2 which is under divine judgment, and is able to bring forth life where there is no life. He is the one who restores order where there is chaos. He is the one who brings forth dry land when all there is is a watery mess. This is a major theme of Genesis. Ultimately it foreshadows the redemption solution that God can bring life where there is death, but it also shows how God can bring forth life in Israel where there was once death and chaos. It is the same theme that you have with the barren women, the matriarchs who give birth to Israel. God is demonstrating He has power to bring forth life where there was death.
Thus Genesis chapter one shows that God is the unique and distinct creator. He is the sovereign over the universe, the sovereign over man and over each individual, and thus He speaks to man with power and truth, and He is the only one who has and can provide a redemption solution.
The structure of the chapter. The section goes from 1:1 to 2:3 because we have a tolodote in 2:4, “This is the generations of the heavens and the earth.” That begins a new section in the book. The first thing we note that each day includes a statement about God speaking, “And God said.” The first day begins in verse 3. In the structure of the Hebrew this indicates sequential action. We have a formula, “And God said,” and then there is a statement of the results of His speech, “Then there was; it was so.” Then there is an evaluation, “It was good.” And then there is a time frame, morning and evening. There is a clear pattern in each and every day. Each element of this formula would be understood at face value. Thus just as the statement “God spoke” was understood literally, so too the phrase “evening and morning.” If any of those are taken in a non-literal way then it would break up the whole formula. The seventh day has a distinct pattern. You don’t have God saying or creating anything on the seventh day. Instead, the emphasis is on a completion that fits perfectly with God’s design or blueprint. The very structure of the text in the Hebrew highlights this theme. There are 35 words in the Hebrew text of those three verses, a multiple of seven. The three middle clauses found in 2a, 2b, and 3a in the original have seven words in each clause. Each clause also has within it the adjective “seven.” So you have glaring at you just from the very structure and literary formation of the text itself this emphasis and re-emphasis on seven, and seven is the number of perfection and completion in the Bible. So the reader is delivered a reinforced statement that the seventh day is a day of completion. God said on the sixth day that it was very good, which is a statement implying that it was exactly as He intended. Therefore, perfect creation came from the hand of God—not a moral perfection but a creation that was perfectly in line with what he intended it to be and for His purposes.
There is a debate over the relationship of the first two verses to each other. It has been debated for years whether or not there is a time gap between the first verse and the second verse, whether the first verse is merely a topical sentence or not, whether the first verse states an original creation or not. We will see all this later on, but our view is that there is a time lapse between 1:1 and 1:2, but it is completely inappropriate and without any textual reason to insert anything into that time lapse other than the angels and the fall of Satan. It is not a place to try to ram, cram and jamb historical geology, the geological ages, some sort of pre-Adamic race to account for the Neanderthals, etc. There is no basis for that. What we do see is that in the first two verses is an indication that there has been an original creation and a subsequent judgment. The focus is on the state of the earth when God began to restore that earth in verse 2.
The organization of the first chapter down to 2:3 is:
1:1 – 2:3 provides us with an introduction and the original creation.
vv. 3 – 31 describe the six consecutive 24-hour days of restoration.
2:1-3 gives the conclusion.
The main idea of this chapter is that God creates the universe out of nothing. Unmentioned, undefined, and not part of the context is why the earth has become without form and void, and darkness, and covered with a chaotic salt sea. So there is an unmentioned judgment here, but the Spirit of God prepares the earth for restoration. Where the chaos is ordered, the emptiness is filled, in order to provide a perfect environment for mankind to rule over and to enjoy as God’s representatives. The application to Israel as they sit out in Moab is that just as God reformed the chaotic earth He is going to restore the land that has become chaotic under the Canaanites. Just as the Spirit of God was able to restore the earth in Genesis 1:2ff, so God is going to be able to give the land that He promised to the Jews. Remember we have to keep in mind why all of this is being written. It is not being written to the 20th century to give an answer for scientific questions about origins.
In the first two verses God creates, judges and then begins the restoration process. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The point here is that God is the unique creator of all things and He is distinct from everything in His creation. The first verse describes the creation of the heavens and the earth. In Hebrew there is no word for “universe.” What is there besides the universe? Nothing. Everything in the universe, material and immaterial, are all created by God. Genesis 1:1 expresses that initial creation. The angels have already been created. Job 38:4, 5, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; when the morning stars [sons of God] sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” So when God lays the foundation of the earth all the sons of God, a united angelic host, shouts for joy over that creation. Furthermore, the angels are united, there is not yet a disruption at this point in the angelic host. Therefore sin has not yet, at the point that God created the earth, any evil in the universe, no angelic revolt. That comes later.
In verse one God creates. It is not the universe that creates, it is not matter that creates, it is not energy that creates; it is God who creates the universe, energy and matter. All other pagan cosmogonies have some sort of existing something out of which, even if it is just a watery chaos, everything comes. But there is always the existence of something, and this is no different from what we find in modern evolution. We have the big bang, but what was there ten seconds before the big bang. That has to have something there. But the Bible says that there was nothing there. God creates. The verb that is used here in the Hebrew is bara. It is a special verb that is only used for the creative activity of God. There are other verbs in Hebrew that speak of creation but only this verb speaks of God’s creation. This verb never has anything or anyone other than God performing that action. So whenever bara is found God is always the subject of the verb. Then the phrase, “In the beginning.” This refers to the beginning of the universe, the beginning of the space-time continuum. By universe is not mean the galaxies and the stars and the constellations. You look at the heaven. It is finite. There is an end to the universe. It locates a space, it has height, width and depth. That is space. So God creates this space, and so what must go along with space is also time, and God creates time. God creates the space-time continuum. He doesn’t create stars yet, that doesn’t come until the third day. What He creates at the first day is simply the space-time continuum, and in the midst of that space-time continuum is placed a planet. That is all we know we have at the end of Genesis 1:1. And it seems that this planet is the center of angelic activity prior to Genesis 1:2.
Verse 2 is not, cannot, and does not describe an intermediate stage or the initial stage of creation. This cannot be argued on the basis of the Hebrew syntax. The Hebrew syntax starts of with the waw consecutive, which is the conjunction “and,” and it is linked to a noun. When you have sequential action in Hebrew, which is standard narrative form that you have for the rest of the chapter, you have the waw prefix. It is either connected to a noun or a verb. When it is connected to a verb it is sequential action, it indicates one thing after another. But if you want to use that conjunction as a “but” to show contrast, to show a stop in the action, to show what grammarians called disjunction rather than conjunction, you attach it to a noun. And that is what we have at the beginning of verse 2. There is a disjunction here, which means that there is a break between what happens in the first verse and what happens in the second verse. Furthermore, other passages like Isaiah 45:18 indicate that God did not make the world empty and void. The phrase here where “the earth was without form and void” is the phrase tohu waw bohu in the Hebrew, which means formless and empty. Furthermore, there are three phrases in chapter two—“empty and waste, darkness, the deep.” These three terms are used in the rest of Scripture to indicate some sort of judgment as a result of sin. The threefold repetition of terms that everywhere else in the Scriptures speak of some kind of judgment, some kind of chaos, as a result of rebellion against God suggests that this is exactly what happened: there was a judgment on the planet because of sin. And the only sin that fits the bill is the sin of Satan. So here we have the angelic conflict, the rebellion of the angels, along with Satan, against God. Their headquarters are judged. Satan makes a case to God that He is not really fair, He hasn’t given them an opportunity to do what he can do, to show that he can be god, and God decides that He is going to give Satan an object lesson. The rest of the object lesson, that God is indeed just, that the creature cannot operate independently of the creator and enjoy any measure of success and happiness. God is going to demonstrate that it is only by being a servant to the Almighty in genuine humility can there be any guarantee of success and happiness in life. It is those themes, those virtues, that are carried out throughout the rest of Scripture. Jesus came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. He humbled Himself to the point of the cross. He is demonstrating the exact opposite characteristics of Satan in showing that it is only when we have humility, dependence upon God, trusting God, that the creature can have any measure of success and happiness in life. The main doctrine covered here is that God brings judgment on rebellion and sin.
Then, at the end of verse 2 we have the Spirit of God preparing the planet for restoration. It is God and God’s initiative that comes to restore the consequences of sin. This restoration is going to be so profound that it would have totally removed any vestige forever of evidence of any previous existence on the planet. There are those who think that there was some kind of animal life before this, or some kind of human life, and that this is what is preserved in the fossils. But if this were true this renovation of the planet that takes place in the next six days is so profound that it would have removed any evidence if there had been anything. The doctrine here that we see that is foreshadowed is regeneration, that is it the Holy Spirit who brings life out of chaos, and that it is God who is the source of meaning and order.
In the next section, from 3-31, we have the description of how God calls all things into existence by His Word. Here we see that there is a play on the tohu waw bohu theme of verse 2. It is formless and empty. God begins by giving form. On day one He gives form, He creates light and separates the light from the darkness, and there is a temporal separation—evening and morning. Day two, He gives form. There is the atmosphere. He separates the upper waters from the lower waters and creates the atmosphere on the earth. So there is special separation. Then there is a logical development. It talks about what He has done with the waters on the earth, then He begins to work on those waters on the earth. In day three He separates the waters from the land. Dry land appears, vegetation comes forth, and there is a geographic separation. So He has created these three spheres of environment—light and darkness, the atmosphere, the seas and continents. On day four He puts the light into light bearers and puts the sun, moon and stars into the heavens. On day five He fills the atmosphere with the creatures of the air, and He fills the waters with the creatures of the waters. On day six He fills the continents with land creatures and with man. So it is a perfect balance. First He creates their environment, then He places them in their environment.
On day one God creates light, separates it from darkness. To this point there was no light, except that God is light. So where did the darkness come from if God is light. The darkness must comes as a result of judgment. So God is going to bring forth light where there was judgment. We are told, “God said.” This is how God creates, it is through His creative and powerful Word, Psalm 33:9; John 1:1-3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16. There is a hidden play on words here, it is by His Word that all things come into power, but His Word is the LOGOS [Logoj] of God, the second person of the Trinity, Colossians 1:16. The earth is in a state of darkness, so God’s first act is to call into existence light. This isn’t just physical light, the light that we see associated with luminaries. This is light that entails in terms of physics the very core element of all things. It brings forth light as it exists in both particle and wave and it is light that pervades every area of the universe. This light also has a symbolic value as that which overpowers darkness. Then God separates the light from the darkness, indicating that God has the power to distinguish and divide. God then calls the light day and the darkness night, which indicates that He has the right to determine what things are. Things are not what they are because that is what they are, things are what they are because God said so. So man can’t come along and say that he is what he is because of empiricism, man must be who he is because God says who he is. Everybody and everything is what it is because God says that is what it is, and we have to define what our role is according to how God has described it. Then God says that there was evening and morning in one day, indicating the normal progression of sunset and sunrise which would indicate to the Jew sitting out in the desert a 24-hour period, which is exactly what this is.
So in terms of doctrine this is the root of all later biblical imagery over power and sin and darkness. God makes distinctions and defines what they are. Also, God begins to initialize human vocabulary. This is one of the most remarkable things in terms of language. Scientific studies indicate, as far as we can push them, and there is a lot to be learned about how mankind learned to speak. This can’t happen apart from having some sort of programming of language, formatting of language, ahead of time. So God formats, initializes, as it were, human vocabulary. And then man takes over. Then God begins the task of defining things and initializing human vocabulary.
On day two God creates the atmosphere. The old King James version said, “Let there be a firmament.” This sounds like it was something solid and firm, and that is because the Hebrew word here translated “expanse” is the word for atmosphere, and that word was translated by the Latin word “firmamentum,” meaning it indicated something solid. But this is the atmosphere. “God made the expanse and separated the waters which were below the expanse [under the atmosphere], from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so. And God called the expanse heaven, and there was evening and there was morning a second day.” A couple of things to note: the continuation of a waw consecutive plus the verb indicates sequential action. This follows directly on the action at the conclusion of the previous verse. Here we see that God brings order into the atmosphere of the earth. The watery chaos of verse 2 is now divided into the waters above and the waters below. Earth, it appears, has some sort of water vapor canopy, a water canopy. This is where the water comes from for the later Noahic flood. (Just a side point. There was probably less water on the earth between creation and the flood than there is today, so there was more dry land on the earth) God separates and divides, which shows there is organization and planning. It is not chaotic, it is not random. The expanse, the atmosphere, that God creates is made up of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, helium, and a number of other gasses which provide a perfect mixture for the survival of later plant, animal and human life. In the Scriptures it is described metaphorically as a tent curtain in Psalm 104:2; a veil in Isaiah 40:22; and as a clear pavement like sapphire in Exodus 24:10. What does this mean? There is a lot of speculation here. Some suggest that this was a water vapor, because apparently you could see that there were stars out there. Some suggest ice crystals because it is in the upper atmosphere and the water vapor would be frozen. Some suggest that it was a band of solid water that was translucent that could be seen through. Normally it is thought to have enveloped the earth like the cloud cover around the planet Venus. That is how many creationists have expressed throughout the last forty or fifty years. However, some recent studies in a book called “Starlight in Time,” has suggested, very interestingly, that the band of water was outside the universe. It is interesting because the text seems to suggest that this is possible, because the same word for expanse that we have here is the place where the sun ands the moon are placed. If we restrict expanse to the upper atmosphere of the earth, then the sun and the moon only appear to be there, they are not really there. But the text says that God placed the sun and the moon and the stars in the expanse. So there is room for that. There is so much to be studied here that we should be willing to investigate.
Throughout this section there is a continued polemic against the pagan gods. The gods of the ancient world inhabited the heavens and were associated with the heavens, and here we see that God created the heavens. The point is that God is over the gods of the pagans. The doctrine that is emphasized here is that God is above all other gods, and God created all the details necessary for life. So if God can create and sustain life God can handle any other problem.
On the third day we have the development of the dry land and the oceans. “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.” So here God separates the waters from the dry land.
Verse 11, 12, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” The point here is that God creates plant life and trees. There is an apparent conflict with the second chapter, but the conflict is only apparent because there God is talking about the plants of the field. It is a distinction that is important to bring out. We see in these verses that there is the continued sequential progression and logical progression. God moves from separating the waters above from the waters below, to dividing the waters below from the land. Then God brings forth vegetation on dry land. The decree of fertility here is important. They are to bring forth vegetation “after their kind.” This decree of fertility is in contrast to the fertility ideas of the Canaanite religions that claimed fertility is the activity of the gods. Every year they would have the death of the crops in the fall and then there would be renewed life in the spring, so they explained that in the fall the god would be captured or died, carried away to the abyss, and then he escapes in the Spring and brings forth life. But you don’t have those kinds of seasons when there is a universal temperature in the early earth. Furthermore, what we see here is that God creates the seasons and God is the one who builds fertility as a mechanism into plant life and animal life.
On the fourth day God puts the sun, the moon, the stars in the heavens. “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.” So there is a mechanical purpose, for illumination. These are not gods. Again the polemic, the gods of the Canaanites were associated with the stars, the sun and the moon, the gods of the zodiac, the gods of the astrology. But it is God, the God of the Jews, who created all of these things. On the fifth day God creates life in the sea and the sky.
In verse 22 there is a pronouncement of divine blessing. “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.” Again, the emphasis on fertility, that God builds fertility into the system, it is not something that the gods demand be placated so that there can be fertility.
Finally, the crowning event of creation on the sixth day. God first created the animals. Notice: “after their kind.” The kind is broader than species but narrower than genus, but there is no movement from one kind to another kind. God creates the original prototype and then they develop from there. Then in verse 26 God creates man in His image. Man is to represent God to the creation. Man is not to create images of God for man is the image of God. Man is to dominate creation. Creation was provided for man to meet all of man’s needs. Man is to rule creation responsibly but man is different from nature, distinct from nature, not part of nature. All of the pantheistic religions, all of the nature religions, all of the religions that the ecologists base all of their rantings on, are based on the idea that man is just another part of nature. What undergirds much of the modern ecology is just pure evolution, that man is no different from anything else, and yet Scripture says man is distinct from everything else because he is in the image of God. And nothing else is in the image of God.
Then, vv. 30, 31, God rests. He provides everything for man kind, looks at all that He had made, “And behold, it was very good.” Good is not moral here, good is it fit the plan. Remember that God says on the 6th day in chapter two that it wasn’t good for man to be alone. “If “good” means moral or righteous then we have a problem, because God created man and it is not good, it’s not good for man to be alone. That can’t fly, so good has to mean it doesn’t fit the pattern, doesn’t fit the plan. So it is all good, exactly as God intended. He created a perfect environment. And, by the way, there would be no fossils here as remnants of some sort of pre-Adamic life because fossils are dead things and God created a perfect environment, not a graveyard. So you can’t try to force some sort of historical geological framework into Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
God rests on the seventh day; 2:1-3 sanctifies it. He rests not because He is weary but He is simply establishing a pattern for man. The best translation is: “Once the heavens and the earth were completed, on the seventh day God ceased from His labor.” This God establishes a pattern for labor. At this point He stabilizes the laws of physics as they were known before the flood. At this point whatever laws were in operation when God restores in these six days are different from what takes over in terms of sustaining the universe from 2:4 on. They change again when Adam sinned and they change again after the Noahic flood.
]]>
005-Beginnings
Genesis 1:1 “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The Bible begins with a clear assertion of not only the existence of God, which is not argued for at all, it is just stated, but with the clear statement that God has created everything in the universe and that God is completely distinct from everything in the universe. Sometimes we—Christians who have been in a church context, studying the Word for much of our lives—take this a little bit for granted. Sometimes we are so familiar with what is stated here that we miss the impact. We often forget the resounding impact of this first verse in Genesis and the impact it had at the time Moses wrote. AS Christians we sometimes think that this is something people always believed. It is not. This was a minority position when Moses wrote it. It was just as much fought against during the Old Testament by the pagan cultures surrounding Israel, the truth of Genesis 1:1 was resisted by many in Israel, it was resisted by those the apostle Paul preached to in his missionary journeys, it was just as controversial when Paul went to Thessalonica, Berea and Athens as it is today. We need to remember that what is taught in Genesis chapter one in terms of a creation emphasizing a distinct creator was as revolutionary and controversial in that day as it is today. No culture held that view, they all held other views that are not too different from modern Darwinistic or evolutionary views.
Why is it that we study the doctrine of origins? First of all the origination of anything is directly related to its purpose or its meaning. In divine viewpoint Scripture teaches that God intentionally planned and executed the creation of mankind. God is a God or order, a God of reason; He does things with purpose. Therefore mankind was created for a purpose. This means that the life of every human being has meaning and purpose and value which is derived from the creator and defined by the creator. It is the creator who defines who and what we are and the purpose and meaning of life. In contrast to divine viewpoint, human viewpoint, whether we are talking about some religious system or some philosophical system, life is always the product of time plus chance. In human viewpoint, since life is the product of time plus chance, the only meaning that man can have is derived from either, a) society—what society, culture, country assigns the meaning to be. When society determines the value and meaning of the purpose that gets into a generally Marxist philosophy of history; or, b) the individual. This fits into more of an existential framework. The only meaning that I have is the meaning I create. So in pure existentialism when there is no meaning and purpose in life, except what you create, then you have to do something significant in order to give meaning to your life. Since there is no ultimate reality, no ultimate absolute, there is no such thing as a right or wrong, so it doesn’t matter whether you commit genocide or whether you help somebody—some tremendous altruistic endeavor, it doesn’t matter which it is—either one validates your existence and gives it meaning. There is no basis for judging whether one is right or wrong. So life gains its meaning either from society or from the individual assigning meaning to himself, or there is just no meaning at all—the position of the nihilist. A fourth view would say that the only meaning that man has is derived from what it produces, and that would be a utilitarian meaning. So in human viewpoint there is no inherent meaning, it just comes from whatever else something in the creation assigns to the individual. The Bible says that we come from God, He created us in His image, so that gives us a meaning and purpose and defines our purpose and our meaning.
Secondly, origins provides the foundation for society, life, law, civilization and institutions. Whatever the society is, whatever the religious beliefs, the view held of origins is what will determine the nature of society, the meaning of life, the foundation for all ethical decisions, and thus it is the foundation for law and legal theory, the foundation for that civilization and for all the institutions in that civilization. So origins defines everything in life, from education and government to health care. Whatever it is, at some point it always goes back to the view of origins. Ps. 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” In this psalm the psalmist recognizes the importance of the foundation or origins.
Origins are the Archimedian fulcrum. On origins everything else in society moves, no matter what it is. For example, if you change your view of origins you change your view of ethics. If everything is flux and evolution is change and everything is going through a process of change and movement, then there are no absolutes. Apply that to law: If you have a creationist, absolutist mentality when you go to the Constitution, the Constitution has an absolute meaning. But if you have an evolutionary framework and you apply that to law, then the Constitution is a “living-breathing document” that is reinterpreted for every generation. That comes out of an evolutionary view of reality. So creation gives us a basis for saying that outside of the world there is an objective point of reference on which everything turns. If you have an objective point of reference that is outside the universe, as it were, then you have a basis for saying that something is absolute truth versus absolute falsehood, that you have a basis for saying that something is absolutely right versus absolutely wrong. But if there is no external fulcrum point then you end up with nothing more than relativism and all judgments become simply a matter of opinion which is then enforced by might as opposed to right.
Whatever you choose as the basis for origins defines ultimate reality. So if you decide that the universe is the result of a big bang, that everything comes out of matter and energy, then matter and energy can’t produce anything other than matter and energy, so ultimate reality means that everything is material—so we end up worshipping that which is material, and you produce a materialistic society because that which is spiritual doesn’t exist and has no value. And if you live in an ancient world where you believe that ultimate reality was a watery chaos, governed by gods that personified the forces of nature, you end up worshipping the forces of nature. So whatever you ground your ultimate metaphysic [beyond the physical or that which is observable] in that becomes ultimate reality. So whatever you choose as the basis for origins defines for you ultimate reality, and then that ultimate reality always becomes the ultimate object of worship for mankind.
The use of creation in Scripture.
Some people get the idea that creation is just a controversial subject, let’s not get into that if we get involved in a little witnessing to somebody and they bring up the idea of creation or evolution, so just step around that and focus on Jesus Christ and the gospel. Otherwise they may turn off to the gospel. But that reflects so many falsehoods. If somebody is positive they are going to respond to the gospel. The idea is based on a false assumption. The gospel itself is the story of the God of creation, the God who made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, redeeming His creation. It emphasizes through the New Testament in passages like Colossians 1:16, 17 that the Jesus who saved us is the Jesus who made us. In Him and by Him and through Him were all things made. John 1:3 says there was nothing made that came into being apart from Him. So you can’t hold to a biblical Jesus if that Jesus didn’t create everything from nothing.
Second, this idea that creation is somehow just too controversial, don’t muddy the water with it, is based on a false assumption that it hasn’t always been controversial. But creation has always been controversial. If we decide to just step around creation and think it is not important in witnessing we should pay attention to how the apostle Paul spoke to gentile pagan audiences who had no frame of reference in the Scripture, who were committed to another position of origins. Acts 14:8ff, “And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked: the same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.” Notice the people’s reaction. Paul performs these miracles and he has proclaimed the gospel, and the people completely misunderstand what he has said. It frequently happens that when we are trying to communicate the gospel or divine viewpoint to someone with no frame of reference, to someone operating on pure human viewpoint, that they completely misunderstand. Paul is clearly misunderstood and their response in v. 11 is “the gods have come down to us in the likeness of men.” What has happened is that they have taken the truth and completely reinterpreted it. They didn’t think about it, it wasn’t necessarily a conscious thing. This is how human viewpoint works, it just reinterprets truth into its own framework, no matter how clear and objective it was. No matter how clear and precise Paul’s teaching was they interpreted it in their own frame of reference, their own presuppositions.
And look at how Paul handles this. Verses 14 & 15, “Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein.” First he challenges them by saying “We are of the same nature as you are.” He challenges their assumption of creating gods in their own image. The second challenge is to turn, the idea of genuine repentance, i.e. to change their thinking. When Paul says to change their thinking he is not simply talking about changing their thinking about Jesus. Notice that he is talking about the fact that when Christianity comes it is going to overhaul everything. People think that if the Holy Spirit is going to show up and overhaul your life it is like calling in the interior decorator and they are going to put up new curtains, hardwood floors instead of wall-to-wall carpeting, pain the room a different color, etc. But what happens is that when the Holy Spirit is the interior decorator He comes in with the bulldozer because He is going to take down the whole structure and move the foundation. And what Paul is challenging here is their foundation, that their foundation was off. It happens so often in evangelism that people are urged to trust Jesus, but Jesus is not identified as to who He is or what He is saving them from, all of which presupposes an understanding of Genesis 1-3, and the end is that there are people running around thinking they are saved because they trust Jesus. But their Jesus is a funny looking Jesus, and these people aren’t even sure they believe in a God who created everything. And the Jesus of the New Testament is the eternal second person of the Trinity who exists in hypostatic union, who became flesh and dwelt among us, and He is the creator of all things. When John starts off identifying who Jesus is in John 1:1-3 he identifies Him as the creator of everything that is, and that nothing that has come into being has done so except by Jesus. So if you are communicating a Jesus who isn’t the creator of the universe then you are not communicating the Jesus of the New Testament.
So Paul says they have to turn from these “vain things.” The “vain things” indicates their entire religious superstructure and foundation to a living God who is defined as a creator, the one who made the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them. So Paul does not back away from putting creation and a controversial creator God right out there in front. And notice, he is witnessing, and has he mentioned Jesus yet? He hasn’t mentioned Jesus or the cross or the sin, but the first thing he gets out there is the creation.
Note Acts 17. This is when Paul was on his second missionary journey. V.16, “Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.” V. 22, “Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious [very religious]. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands …” Notice Paul hasn’t talked about Jesus or the cross yet. He goes straight to creation. We need to ask what they believe about creation.
One of the ancient Greek poets was Orpheus. He believed, in terms of his expression of Greek ultimate realities, that the ultimate reality was time. There is no actual beginning, so this is an always-existing time. Time, remember, has dimensions to it. Time generates chaos. In modern parlance we might call chaos pure chance. So we have time plus chance. That is exactly the formula of Darwinistic evolution. So the ancient Greeks began with time plus chaos [chance], and then chaos is an enormous space that contains night, mist, and the upper regions of the air which they called the ether. As chaos just generates this night/darkness, mist and ether it begins to swirl around, and all of these molecules get closer and closer and tighter and tighter together until it creates a definable mass that takes on the shape of a huge egg, that after it has congealed and solidified, then splits apart into two halves which become heaven and earth. In mythical terminology we have time plus chance creates a big bang out of which comes an orderly universe. Homer saw the earth pretty much the same way, except when the egg split apart the earth is surrounded then by water. So we can see that there are certain similarities and parallels to what we have in Genesis, but Genesis is profoundly distinct. The earth is flooded by the god Oceanis who personifies the ocean, and it is out of this ocean, then, that life begins—first the gods are generated, then all the other life on earth. So there is some sort of space-time-
Matter reality. That is exactly what you find in the beginning of the big bang. This is a mythological cosmogony. (Cosmogony is an explanation of ultimate origins)
Every religious or philosophical system has some sort of cosmogony or explanation of origins. In the mythological systems of the Greeks what we see is that the power of the cosmos—there is some kind of inherent generating power in the universe itself in the matter of the cosmos which generates itself—is personified. By the time of Paul there had passed the fifth century BC, the classical period, where the philosophers, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle debunked the whole mythology. After following Aristotle there was the development of the following of two major schools of thought: Epicurianism and Stoicism. Epicurius lived from 342 to 270 BC. He was a follower of Aristotle who died while Epicurius was a young man. He denied that there was any purpose in nature, so there is no meaning to anything in nature and everything therefore would be a product of chance and just random events. He believed that there was a infinite number of worlds and that there was no God. So the universe in itself is eternal and self-generating, and everything on earth evolved directly from the matter of earth itself. So he sounds fairly modern. It is pure random, there is no intelligence.
Today there is a big change taking place in science because there are certain people like Michael Beahey who wrote a book called Darwin’s Black Box. He doesn’t argue for creationism but he argues for intelligent design. He is a biochemist and he basically says there is too much information in the basic cell that Darwin had no idea about. There is too much information in a DNA chain for it to just happen randomly. Something had to put it there with intelligence. There has to be a source of intelligent design.
So the Epicurians that Paul is addressing are not any different from the evolutionists that we might meet today. Yet what is the first thing that comes out of Paul’s mouth? Creation! He recognizes that a Jesus who isn’t the creator isn’t the Jesus who is the redeemer.
It is the same with the Stoics. They emphasized the simple life, fatalism and a submission to circumstances, whatever they are, and the believed that the order of the world wasn’t evidence of a creator. But for them the creator is purely pantheistic. (Pantheism means that the creation = God; God is in everything) It basically deifies all of nature, which is really the ultimate metaphysic of all the environmentalists and environmentalism because they have elevated nature above and beyond that which God established.
Paul is not addressing an uneducated crowd but one that is the advocates and proponents of their world view system. In contrast to this the Bible claims that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1,“In the beginning” gives us a time frame—bereshith [be, the preposition “in”; reshith, “beginning”]. “Beginning” is a definite noun, it is an inherently definite word in Hebrew, so it is not “a beginning,” it is in “the beginning,” a specific beginning. In other words, there was a time when the universe did not exist, when the universe was not. There are only two options. Either the universe is eternal or it is temporal; it has either always been here or it had a beginning in time. So the very first statement that the Scripture made is a slap in the face to every single cosmogony that was available on planet earth when Moses wrote it. The Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks all have an eternal cosmos, some sort of eternality in time, chaos, matter. The very first statement is Scripture says they are all wrong, there was a beginning, the universe is not eternal; it has boundaries; it was created by God.
The next assertion that God created the heavens and the earth means that God is distinct from creation. The term “heavens and the earth” is a phrase that must be taken collectively. Just as we would say “part and parcel” of something, “the heavens and the earth” was the Hebrew way of expressing the universe. There is no one-word concept in the Hebrew language for universe. So the term includes everything that is. Divine viewpoint says here that God is the starting point and is the place where we must start because is the creator; He defines everything. The starting point is not matter, not molecules, not gas or energy. In contrast, human viewpoint, no matter what the system, says that the universe (some form of matter, energy, hydrogen gas, or whatever) is the starting point, and everything in he universe, then, must find its ultimate meaning in this ultimate reality of pure matter or gas, or whatever it is. A third observation is that there is a beginning to the creation, which is located in time, and given enough data we can perhaps date this. We probably don’t have enough data but we can come up with certain conclusions in terms of answering the question, When did this happen?
The problem of dating Genesis 1:1
1) It could be billions of years, millions of years, or it could be just a few thousand years or few hundred years. There is nothing anywhere in the Bible to suggest that it is more than a few decades or a few hundred years. That may be a whole new idea to some because there has been this tendency to think it could be billions of years.
2) Where do we get this idea of billions of years anyway? Until the advent of evolutionary science—historical geology, Darwinism—based on a principle called uniformitarianism no one who believed the Bible held to long ages. The most famous chronological system was that of an Anglican bishop by the name of James Usher. He went through all the genealogies, added everything up, and said Genesis 1:1 occurred in 4004 BC. And, of course, so many people ridicule him today. However, Usher did not fall off the turnip or watermelon truck, he was one of the most brilliant men in his day. Not only was he brilliant but he did something that was not uncommon, and that was to use the numbers in the Scripture, accept them at face value and try to come up with a date for original creation. According to the Jewish calendar, creation occurred in 3760 BC. According to the numbers in the Septuagint it has a date of creation of around 5270 BC. (The Hebrew OT that out OT is based on is called the Massoretic Text. It was finalized and formalized in about the 9th century AD. We didn’t have anything older than that until they found the Dead Sea scrolls which were dated around the 2nd century BC. When they dug those up they found there were very few differences. But there are more differences in the LXX. Apparently the Hebrew MSS they had varied somewhat in some places from the Hebrew MSS that were accepted by Massoretes) Josephus had a date of 5,555 BC. Johannes Kepler who was one of the founders of modern physics held to a creation date of 3993 BC. Note that there is a vast difference between a date for the creation of the universe of 3993 BC or 5555 BC and five-billion years! Modern evolutionary chronology places the origin of man at 3-million years BC.
3) It is popular to ridicule this dating as pre-scientific, i.e. they just didn’t understand what we do about geology and our dating systems in geology are absolute. That is the assumption. It is not true. Usher lived between 1581 and 1656, from the time of the birth of modern science. One man who accepted his dates without question was Isaac Newton. He had a few aberrations in his theology, he was not a Trinitarian, but he wrote more about theology and the Bible than he did about science. Many of the early scientists were that way—very interested in Scripture, Bible-believing creationists, and they wrote more commentaries and more about theology than they did about science. Newton accepted Usher’s dates without question. In fact, Newton wrote a book called The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms where he amended and challenged the chronological schemes of the ancient Egyptians and said that they were wrong for setting the date of the first dynasty before 5000 BC, because he knew that the earth wasn’t that old. In fact, no educated man in the 17th or 18th century would think of the earth as being more than 6-7000 years old because they accepted what the Bible said at face value. There are problems with dating and we need to identify these. There are some problems in the numbers between the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint and the Samaritan text, so we can’t be precise. But remember, these differences aren’t large. These differences make up something like 4, 5, 6, or 7-hundred years, they do not make up tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of years. Another problem is the contention that there are gaps in the genealogies in the Bible. The problem is that it is easy to look at some genealogies where it says that A begat B, and begat can cover a number of generations. There are gaps in some of the non-technical, non-specific genealogies, like in Matthew and Luke where we have these large gaps. But in other genealogies we have the precise information. There a confusion with datings systems that come out of archaeology.
All dating systems used by archaeology presuppose an evolutionary, uniformitarian structure. What is uniformitarianism? Statement by Mark Ridley, an evolutionists: “All that is needed to prove evolution is observed microevolution added to the philosophical doctrine of uniformitarianism which underlies all science.” This word is recognized in all evolutionary literature as the key philosophical presupposition to all evolutionary thought. The Bible specifically defines uniformitarianism in 2 Peter 3:3-5, “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” In other words, everything continues at the same rate of decay. That is the idea of uniformitarianism, that you can measure the rate of decay—like carbon 14 or other elements in something and then extrapolate backward based on a uniform decay rate how long that has been there. That is called The Clock, and they have different ways of measuring this, but if you can measure a decay rate over the last 150 years and you get a scientific formula that you can extrapolate back and work out how old something is. It is flawed in a number of ways: a) It is a gratuitous assumption that decay rates have been the same. With Noah’s flood you have the destruction of all decay rates and everything changes because of that catastrophe. But also, not everything gives the same decay rate. For example, if you measure the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, and there has been a specific decay rate over the last 200 years, and extrapolate backwards, then the age of the earth cannot be any older than 10,000 years. If you look at the influx of radio carbon to the earth, the earth, again, cannot be more than 10,000 years old. If you measure the influx of meteoric dust from space, it is too little to calculate. If you measure the influx of sediment to the ocean through rivers then the age of the earth is 30-million years. If you measure the leaching of chlorine from the continents into the oceans, then it yields an age of only one-million years. If you measure the decay rate of carbon 14 and Precambrian wood, then the earth is 4000 years old. If you measure the influx of lead to the ocean via rivers, then the earth is 2000 years old. If you measure the influx of aluminum to the ocean via rivers, then the earth is only a hundred years old. If you measure the influx of silver to the ocean via the rivers, the earth is 2.1-million years old. If you measure the influx of potassium to the ocean, then it is eleven million years old. If you measure the influx of titanium into the ocean, it is only one-hundred and sixty years old. If you measure the instability of the rings of Saturn, the solar system is one-million years old, but then if you measure the accumulation of dust on the moon, then it is only 200,000 years old. In other words, the whole methodology is flawed and the presupposition is flawed. So you can’t assume that dating systems have validity because they are grounded in philosophical presuppositions and assumptions that can’t be proven that are based on evolution. It is circular reasoning. Ultimately they presuppose the uniform process to prove the uniform process and the longevity of it.
The problem is that up until the early 19th century or late 18th century no one who studied the Bible at face value ever came up with the age of the earth and the creation of Genesis 1:1, even with the fall of Satan in there and everything else, of more than 10,000 years. What happened? When science, almighty science, came along on the basis of evolutionary and uniformitarian presuppositions and started saying that the earth was 20,000 or 50,000 years old, then they didn’t think that was a big enough number and tried to fit it in somehow. But it wouldn’t fit. What happened was that it went from 25,000 to 50,000 to 500,000, to 5-million, to 5-billion years, and it got out of control.
So when we look at Genesis 1:1, and even though there is a time lapse between 1:1 and 1:2, there is no reason to just jump in and say it can mean millions or billions of years. The only reason people have introduced those big numbers is because evolutionary scientists came along and said everything has to be that way.
]]>
006-Beginnings
No matter what you think about in life your understanding of origins and creation impacts how you think about that. Origins and understanding the issues related to creation, especially in light of evolutionary doctrine and thought, is not something secondary. Divine revelation is the only revelation that can provide the framework for understanding the details of creation. Example: there are many things that Adam could learn empirically in the garden. He could go around and see that certain plants were green, some were greener than others, some were short, some were tall, some produced fruit, etc. He could observe many different things about the different plants, the different trees in the garden. But no matter how much time he spent looking at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he could not know that if he ate that he would be under a judicial penalty. God had to tell him that if he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would instantly die. He couldn’t know that information empirically, so empiricism is ultimately limited. We can learn some things about God through empiricism but we can’t learn specifics. For example, Romans 1:18-22: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” What is the truth they are suppressing? It is not specific proof, it is proof related to the existence of God. “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them [evidenced in them]; for God hath showed it unto them.” Every single human being who rejects God’s existence knows that God exists, it is evident within them. God revealed it to them. How? Explanation, v. 20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Paul starts with the creation. This is what is called general revelation. It is non-verbal revelation, revelation that when you look out on the earth you see evidence of design, evidence of purpose, and from that you extrapolate that there must be an intelligent designer. But it doesn’t tell us a lot about who God is, it tells us that there is this intelligent designer, that there is this omnipotent power, but it doesn’t tell us anything about who he is. What the Scriptures show is that this is clearly enough to hold people accountable. That means that the unbeliever at the great white throne judgment cannot say he didn’t know God existed. Verse 21, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations [futile in their speculations], and their foolish heart was darkened.” There is no atheist in history that did not at one time know beyond a shadow of doubt that God exists. Verses 22, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” In General revelation you can derive from empiricism certain general data and get enough information to know that God exists, but you don’t know how to be saved, you don’t know that God is a righteous God, that God is a God of judgment and accountability, and that He is a God who is loving and He provided a savior through Jesus Christ who died on the cross for our sins. You can’t learn that, it can only come through special revelation, through verbal revelation and prepositional revelation. We can only derive a certain amount of revelation generally and can only know how to properly interpret that information from special revelation.
Dr Hugh Ross is a Christian, not a trained theologian, doesn’t know the original languages, is an astronomer and a physicist. He makes a number of claims in his books, including rejection of the young earth view. In fact, he claims that when he was 17 years old, just picking up Genesis and reading it for the first time, that it was more than obvious to him that Genesis one covered billions of years. He was at that age already immersed in evolutionary thought so he was reading that from within his preconceived framework. Since his views are in the public domain they are available for analysis and critique, and we need to learn how to think critically about different issues that are raised because none of these views that he raises are original with him. If we start to teak Genesis one it is going to leak out into other areas of theology.
He makes a number of interesting claims in relationship to his views which are called “progressive creationism.” Progressive creationism is the idea that the time period of Genesis one is more than six literal 24-hour days. It teaches that after each creative act there was a certain amount of diversification. So God creates and then there is a long time period, then he creates something else and then there is a lot of development and evolution, and then He creates something else. There are different terms that are used for this, like punctuated creationism, threshold evolution, which are really different forms of theistic evolution. But progressive creationism has really come to represent a couple of different views. One view is called the day-age view. That is the idea that each of the days of Genesis really represents lengthy periods of time. The other approach is that you have day one, a 24-hour day, where God creates X. Then you have a million years, and then day two—for the six days. These views don’t hold up. Dr Ross makes a statement related to non-verbal revelation: “The plan of salvation as stated in the Bible can be seen through the observation of the universe around us. Thus all human beings have a chance to discover it. The Bible is the only one of all religious writings which declares a message in full agreement with and, of course, amplification of the gospel message seen in creation.” So for Dr Ross, what he basically does is come along and say general revelation is big; special revelation is small. It [special revelation] may expand on some things in general revelation but every important detail in the Scripture is just clear from observing nature, so we can use, then, general revelation to judge and interpret special revelation. So what he is saying is that what he discerns empirically can then be used to judge and interpret revelation from God, not the other way around. In doing this he shifts away from the historically orthodox position that general revelation simply indicates that God exists and that man can affirm through creation a few ideas about God and His existence, and enough ideas to be held accountable for rejecting God. The conclusion from this is that because Ross falls apart from his basic system of knowledge he is going to do some damaging things to doctrines in Scripture, because he is going to let empiricism be his ultimate basis of knowledge rather than the Scriptures. This is the typical arrogance of human viewpoint.
Genesis 1:1, the Bible speaks about four beginnings. The first, God, isn’t really a beginning. He is eternal, everlasting, not temporal, Psalm 90:2, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” God has no beginning and no ending, He always is. The phrase “In the beginning” is the phrase that John picks up at the beginning of his Gospel. John is writing from the Jewish perspective and that phrase would take a Jewish reader right back to Genesis one, and he would be thinking about that beginning of space-time history. “In the beginning was the Word [Jesus Christ].” The word “was” is a translation of the imperfect active indicative of the Greek word EIMI [e)imi] the word for existence, and it could be translated, “In the beginning the Word was continuously existing already.” In other words, it takes us to a point of time when time began, when space began, when matter began. He says, “At this point in time the LOGOS was,” imperfect tense, continual action in past time. The LOGOS was existing, emphasizing the eternality of the second person of the Trinity. So God has no beginning or ending, He is eternal.
Then we come to the second beginning in Scripture, the angels. The angels are not eternal, they are creatures. Psalm 148:2, “Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.” The term “hosts” is the Hebrew word which means armies. It is a synonymous parallelism where the angels are synonymous to armies. Then in v. 5 of that psalm, “Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.” This attributes the creation of the angels to Yahweh. This is a strong argument for the deity of Christ because in Colossians 1:16 where Christ is said to be the creator of all things, including angels, “in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers [terms related to angels]: all things were created by him, and for him.” So Paul in the New Testament says it was Jesus Christ who creates the thrones, dominions, authorities. In Psalm 148:5 it says it was Yahweh. Yahweh, then, equals Jesus Christ. Then in Job 38:4-7, a crucial passage for understanding some dynamics in Genesis chapter one. God is confronting Job with his finiteness. Job has been complaining and groaning about his suffering and questions whether God is really a just God. Why don’t you tell me why I suffer? God is not going to answer Job. He is not answerable to us for why He allows certain things into our lives. And in order to demonstrate to Job that Job is just a miserable little creature and has no right to question God as to His purposes or His actions, God begins to fire a number of rhetorical questions to Job, all of which reinforce the idea to Job that he really has no right to question God. “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” The phrase “morning stars” is parallel to “sons of God,” and the term “sons of God” is a term that always refers to the angels. It is not talking about believers. Only when we get into the New Testament does becoming a son of God become a term for believers. The angels were present when God was creating and laying the foundations to the earth, and when He is doing that they are not divided. Notice it says, they sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. This would be before Lucifer fell, before the angelic conflict revolt.
Then we have a beginning for man, referenced in Matthew 19:4, “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning …”
The fourth beginning. John refers to the beginning of the Church, 1 John 2:7.
The next key word in Genesis 1:1 is “God.” What do we mean by God? This is the problem that missionaries run into when they go into pagan, primitive societies. Their concept of God is not a personal, infinite God; it is an impersonal force. So the God that you are talking about is not the God that they are hearing you talk about. You have to go back and clarify these things, otherwise when it is all said and done they don’t have a clue who they have believed in because when Jesus is the Son of God He is just the son of some impersonal force, and that is not who Jesus is in the Bible.
]]>
007-God; Creation Words; Pagan Cosmogonies
There are different views as to when God created the angels. 1) God creates the angels before Genesis 1:1; 2) God created the angels between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2; 3) God created the angels on day 3, and this is usually argued for on the basis of the analogy that is found in the Scriptures where the angels are spoken of metaphorically as the stars of heaven, e.g. Job 38:7. Then you would not have the angelic conflict or the fall of Satan until after Genesis 2:3. The first view, that the angels were created before Genesis 1:1, is preferable.
In Genesis 1:1, the next word we look at is “God,” even though this is the third word in the Hebrew text. What do we mean by the term “God”? People think that they can just generate out of their own mind, their own frame of reference, who God is. It is all personal opinion, and it is very rare to fond someone who will stop and say, “The Bible says that God is this way … God has revealed Himself to be a God who is righteous and holy and just, who is sovereign, love, eternal,” etc. We live in an era today when people think that they can figure out spirituality just from generating it up from their own subjective impressions, and that is true about the meaning for God. There are all kinds of views of God so we have to address the question as to what this means. What we see in Genesis 1:1 is that God is the creator of everything. The word that is used is the Hebrew word Elohim. There are a number of Hebrew words for God and Elohim is a sort of generic term for God. The im suffix is plural, and the reason it has been said that this is not translated “Gods” is that this is the plural of majesty. But there is a disagreement with this because there is a tendency among scholars to go too far overboard and say you can’t find the Trinity in the Old Testament so don’t go to the plurality of God’s name. The reason that is a problem is the way Elohim is actually used in the context of Genesis chapter one. For example, in verse 26 there is not only the noun Elohim which, if it was a plural of majesty, would always be dealt with in terms of the verbs and pronouns as a singular. But we have “And Elohim said,” in v. 26, “let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” So the plural pronoun that is used in v. 26 mitigates against the argument that this is simply a plural of majesty. The plural of Elohim would include the concept of at least a plurality in the Godhead. It doesn’t teach the Trinity in and of itself, it just contains within itself the idea of a plurality in the Godhead. So have just the statement that God creates. But we know from later revelation that God exists as a Trinity, and we know from subsequent revelation that all three members of the Trinity are involved in creation. There are different roles within the Godhead. They are not subordinate to one another in terms of essence, they are equally God, but they are subordinate in terms of role function. God the Father is viewed as the architect, the planner. The Son is the contractor, as it were, the one who is more immediately involved in the construction of the universe. Then the Holy Spirit is the one who is involved in renewal and renovation. Colossians 1:16; John 1:3. The unique characteristic of God against all other gods is His act of creation. It is this act of creation, ex nihilo [out of nothing], that is the defining event in all history for revealing who God is. This almost beyond anything else distinguishes God from everything else in history.
In Revelation chapter five John takes us into the throne room of God and describes what he sees in the heavens. In 5:9 we see the emphasis on redemption. However, what precedes this? In 4:11, before we come to a praise of the Son for His act of redemption, first we have praise for God for His act of creation. “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” So it is in the presence of God that the angels praise Him continuously because He created all things. So to learn who God really is we must abandon pagan deceptions that surround creation. That is not an easy thing to do because all thought systems in human history have some sort of pagan notion about who God is and what He is like, and the whole concept of Scripture is to completely renovate our thinking. So as we go to the end of the Bible we see that even in Revelation there is an emphasis on creation. This comes through even at the very end of Revelation. Revelation 21:1, “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away.” Then in v. 4, “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.” Can verse 4 be understood if Genesis chapter three and the fall of man is not understood? It becomes meaningless. And not only that. If God created the heavens and the earth through some sort of long-term evolutionary process, then there are real problems interpreting the immediate creation of a new heavens and a new earth when it comes to Revelation 21:1. You have to have a consistent system of hermeneutics or interpretation through the Scriptures. In verse 1 we read that the first creation was removed. 2 Peter describes it, it burns up in some sort of nuclear explosion. And God creates instantly a new heavens and a new earth for the habitation of believers throughout all eternity. So if we don’t believe there was an instantaneous creation in Genesis 1:1 then we have no reason to believe that there is an instantaneous creation of a new heavens and earth in Revelation 21. The issue in Genesis and in origins is such that if you tweak with it, twist it out of line, it is going to destroy soteriology. As we will see, evolution is really an attack, a subtle but damaging attack, on the cross and the need for a savior to go to the cross and die for man. There are further implications in Revelation 22:1, “And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.” Notice that there is a river that flows out of the throne of God in the new earth and in the new Jerusalem. Then v. 3, “And there shall be no more curse.” How can you understand v. 3 if you don’t understand Genesis 3? If Genesis 3 isn’t literal, then how can Revelation 22 be understood in a literal sense?
The next word we come to in Genesis 1:1 is the verb “created.” This is in the qal stem, almost compared to the indicative mood in Greek. We have the qal stem of bara, and this verb is used about 50 times in the Old Testament. Every time it is used in the qal stem only God is the subject of the verb. Man never bara’s, only God bara’s. So bara is a word that emphasizes divine creation. There has been a claim that bara had the idea of ex nihilo creation inherent in the meaning of the word. But that is not true. Ex nihilo is Latin for “out of nothing.” In other words, two seconds before Genesis 1:1 nothing existed except God and the angels. God created the angels out of nothing; He created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. The word bara is used in Isaiah chapter 43:1, “But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.” God is talking to the nation of Israel, calling them Jacob. The word “created” there is the Hebrew bara. Was Israel created out of nothing? No, they were created from already existing materials. Abraham came along through the normal process of procreation. The reason we can say that this has the idea of “out of nothing” is not because of the core meaning of bara is “out of nothing,” it simply emphasizes the uniqueness and the creation of something by divine command. What bara emphasizes is just this uniqueness of God. Other passages in the context of Genesis make it clear that this is out of nothing. For example, Hebrews 11:3, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” So that is ex nihilo creation. We also have the fact that in Genesis 1:1, “God creates the heavens and the earth,” indicates that there was nothing there before He created them.
There are three other words we need to pay attention to when we talk about creation. Bara is the first word. The second word is asah, found in Genesis 1:26, “And God said, Let us make man in our image.” The word for “make” is asah, usually translated “do, make,” sometimes “create,” and it is a more generic term for the act of making, fashioning, shaping, creating something. It is used in some passages as a synonym for bara, but a point to be made is that when it is used as a synonym for bara it is the more technical bara that defines the meaning of asah, and there are too many scholars who want to destroy the significance of bara by coming along and going from asah and saying it is a general word, don’t make such a big deal out of bara, it is used in parallel with asah in these passages, so it is not a big deal. No, the technicality of bara restricts the meaning of the broader word. And that is always true in any kind of poetry, that if you are paralleling two words and one word is more precise than the other word that restricts the field of meaning of the more general word. So asah is the more general word used for create. Then in versed 27, “So God created [bara] man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” This indicates that man was uniquely created by God. In Genesis 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,” the mechanics. Here we have our third word for creation, yatser, which has the idea of molding, fashioning, or shaping. This would be the word a potter would use for shaping a clay vessel, so it is a particularly appropriate word for the construction or formation of the male physical body; “and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The biological life is yatser, the soul life is bara, and together the entire process is referred to as creation, asah. A fourth word is banah, which means to build. When the woman was made, she was “built,” banah.
Questions that are raised.
a) Isn’t Genesis one “myth” compatible to other ancient legends and mythologies?
b) Could there be millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and couldn’t this be the time frame for historical geology, all the ages of the dinosaur, and take all of evolution and just basically dump it into this Genesis 1:1-1:2.
c) How long are the days? Are these really 24-hour days, and must we understand them to be 24-hour days? Or could they be seven long periods of time?
d) Could God have used evolution as a mechanism for creation?
In order to answer the first questions we should look at one of the other legends that was popular at the time. The one that was most well-known is one that was discovered between 1848 and 1876, and is a Canaanite creation story, so it is right in the context of the land of Israel. It was in King Ashur-bani-pal’s library in Nineveh. The library dates form about 668-630 BC, and the foremost expert on this document was Dr Alexander Hydell, and this is how he desribes the story: “ … is the principal source of our knowledge of Mesopotamian cosmology. Yet, it is not primarily a creation story at all, its prime objective is to offer cosmological reasons for Marduk’s advancement from the position as chief god of Babylon to that of the head of the entire Babylonian pantheon.” In other words, this is really a political move and a coup take-over by a secondary god, Marduk, who is the god for Babylon, who is going to take over all the gods. This is just a justification for Babylonian ascendancy. This story has a real epic tone to it. Whenever you have something of epic proportions it always drives you back to origins. Origins and the beginnings are always brought in to some degree. In the beginning the heaven and the earth wasn’t named, there was just the presence of water. The chaotic sea was personified. There was the presence of water, three deities, and the use of the heaven and the earth, formlessness and chaos. Everything begins with chaos but there is something that is there. There is matter and chaos already there. There is violence where one of the gods is split in half. Half becomes the heavens and half becomes the earth. Notice the parallelism with modern evolution. It starts with existing matter, we don’t know where it came from. It is in a chaotic state. It is from matter that everything is created, and somehow order is brought to bear.
Notice the difference between that and the simplicity of “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” So you just can’t come along and claim that the Bible just fits into the milieu of ancient pagan cosmogonies, it is radically different.
]]>
008-The Gap View. Gen 1:1
We have had introduced four questions which must be addressed as we begin to move beyond the first verse of Genesis one into the remainder of the chapter. These questions are important because there has been a tremendous amount of pressure for the last 200 years on Christians to somehow assimilate what is found in science with what the Bible says, that somehow to put the two together to make them harmonize. And there are a number of assumptions associated with that attempt that at least need to be pointed out, and many of them are somewhat dangerous. The primary pressures come from the idea that science has somehow discovered Truth, absolute truth, about origins and so make the Bible fit what apparent conclusions from science are. We have to first of all understand what the Bible does teach. This is important because there have been a number of things that have occurred over the centuries where people have not been clear on what the Bible teaches. They come to a false conclusion of what the Bible teaches and then that is juxtaposed with science. The classic case is Galileo being tried by church courts because he wanted to shift from a geocentric solar system, an earth-centred solar system, to a helio-centric or sun centred view of the solar system, which we know is correct.
Just about any time you bring this subject up, when you are talking with a proponent of evolutional science, they will say that this is a case of science versus the Bible, a case of science versus religion. And that is a completely false construct and it betrays the ignorance of the evolutionist as to what was going on, or he is just unwilling to face the historical reality of what took place during the middle ages. Also the fact that Christians cower when they are faced with this indicates that they are pretty ignorant of the situation too. What had happened in the middle ages, going back to about the 11th or 12th century, especially as the Moslem hordes were putting pressure on the Byzantine empire, is that as that pressure developed people were fleeing from the Eastern Orthodox Church and from Greece up in to Europe and they were bringing their libraries with them. They were bringing with them the ancient Greek MSS of Plato and specifically Aristotle. Aristotle made tremendous impact on an Aristotilian view of science and the universe and on the western church. And what happened was that the western church began to assimilate their view of Scripture and to begin to interpret their Scripture within an Aristotilian framework. So what we actually have taking place in the middle ages is not a view of science and a view of the solar system and the universe as being something that was purely biblical, but it is the Bible being reinterpreted within this framework so that you end up with a geocentric view of the solar system. This is because they were taking the Bible plus Aristotle, so it is not a purely biblical interpretation. Furthermore, there were problems with things in language. Another example would be that Job talks about the four corners of the earth. The Hebrew there for corners is one of many words that are used. Actually it means the four directions on the earth or four dimensions of the earth, it is not necessarily the technical word for corners, that is, a right angle. So because it is a mistranslation and a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word it let some people to believe that to take the Bible literally leads to a flat-earth theory. The Bible does not have this view of either a flat earth or of that the heavens are some sort of solid mass, neither does it teach an earth-centred solar system. But when you have a lack of correct understanding of the original languages, and when trying to take a biblical view and interpret it within a human viewpoint philosophical framework, this will always come up with erroneous conclusions.
It is important for us to make sure we accurately understand just what the Bible says and what it doesn’t say, and then once we formulate and understanding of creation based on what the Scriptures say, then we can on that model can have a framework for correctly interpreting the empirical data that science develops. Of course, modern man wants to do it the other way around. We want to conclude that science and empiricism correctly discerns the way things actually are, and then we want to bring that in to govern the interpretation of Scripture. As long as we believe in the sufficiency and inerrancy of Scripture we will always start with Scripture, and no matter how real or how clear something may appear according to science today we know that we walk by faith and not by sight. Walking by faith doesn’t mean that we are going to believe it despite the evidence, but it does mean that the evidence can clearly be falsely interpreted by modern science, and so the Word of God which is clear is going to be more real to us than what our experience may bring to bear.
The second question we need to address is, Could there be millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and could this not be the time frame for historical geology, the dinosaurs and cavemen? This is an important question. There are really two questions here. One is, Is there a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and how long is it? The second is, Can we cram historical geology, the dinosaurs, the fossils, everything that doesn’t seem to fit into the Bible, into the gap between these two verses? Yes, there is a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. First of all, we know that God is perfect and His work is perfect. Genesis 1:1 is a complete sentence s6ntactically in the Greek. Then 1:2 tells us that the earth was empty, deserted, distorted. The way the verse is punctuated in the English Bible is wrong. There are three circumstantial clauses. The main verb doesn’t actually come until verse 3. The point we make is, How does the earth become “without form and void”? Where does the darkness come from? And why is it necessary for the Spirit of God to generate a flutter over the face of the deep? To answer this we have to compare with other scriptures.
1. Because God is perfect, His work is perfect. God does not create something less than perfection. Deuteronomy 32:4, “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” In Genesis 1:2 we are told three things about the condition here. It is formless and void: it has no form, it is chaotic, and it indicates that something disastrous has happened. In other places, as we will see, it indicates judgment and chaos. This is not a case of God just creating the random parts of the universe.
2. Elsewhere in Scripture “heavens and earth” are used of a completed, working universe. The retort to this is that Genesis 1 is distinct so we are going to have to use all of these terms different from the rest of Scripture. The problem with that is that it would be fine if this were actually recording revelation that was given at the beginning of creation. But remember, this was Moses writing down the Scripture in 1446 BC. So the Jews on the plains of Moab already have a history of biblical or revelatory terminology and they are going to interpret words on the basis of that. Everywhere else in Scriptures words like light and darkness imply light is good, darkness is evil. “The deep” has an evil connotation; tohu waw bohu has a connotation of judgment; so if the second verse in Genesis has these three phrases and that is being written for people living in 1440 BC who already have an oral tradition that has given certain baggage to those words, then when they hear those words at the beginning it is going to have that connotation for them. Same thing with “heavens and the earth.” You can’t just come along and say this is different because it is the starting point in creation. So what we have here is a specific Hebrew syntax or grammar that indicates a change; it indicates a break, a disjunctive waw. When you have a disjunctive waw it is not action that is consecutive to the preceding action. It doesn’t read, “In the beginning God created the earth and the earth was without form and void.” That would be consecutive, and it is how some people want to read it. You read it as a break, and it should be translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was without form of void.” Then coming to the main verb, the perfect of the Hebrew verb hayah, it normally indicates a state of condition, and since it is not the original state of 1:1 we can translate it “became” – “the earth became formless and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep.” Since these are circumstantial clauses that relate to the main verb of “said” in verse 3 we should translate, “Now the earth was without form and void,” because it is stating the condition the earth was in when God spoke in verse three. It is not the same condition of verse one, the waw consecutive breaks the action. So it is clear from the grammar that you have an original creation inverse one and then there is this break where there is some sort of introduction of chaos between v.1 and v. 2. Then verse 2 takes up what is happening in terms of six days of more accurately stated restoration.
3. Then there is a lexical argument from word meaning. This is based on three terms that are used here. Tohu waw bohu basically means formless or shapeless, or something that is completely out of its original design. Bohu means empty. These words are used together. Tohu is used a few times by itself but bohu is never used apart from tohu. Looking at a couple of passages that are related to this you see that there is a sense of judgment that is in the context of these passages. Jeremiah 4:23-26 is a passage where Jeremiah is warning the Jews of the southern kingdom of the coming judgment of Babylon on Judah. In order to portray the destructiveness of this judgment he borrows imagery from creation. Isaiah 34:11 is another passage, the judgment of the nations at the time of the Lord’s vengeance—the end of the Tribulation. Now where did the judgment of tohu waw bohu comes from in Genesis 1:2? Here we have to make a theological deduction. Job 38:4-7, when God laid the foundation of the earth the angels of God shouted for joy, they were all united. They were present. It seems that there has to be a time period for the fall of Satan, described in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. When did Satan and the angels fall? There are only two options. They either fall between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 or they fall after the creation week. The judgment terminology in v.2 suggests that what we are talking about here is the aftermath of the fall of the angels. So what we have here is a chaos which is the result of Lucifer’s fall and the angelic rebellion. As a result of that there is a judgment on the angels. Their abode prior to the fall was on the planet. Earth became the scene of Satan’s rebellion against God and his judgment, so God basically turned the lights out in the universe. God exists in unapproachable light, and when you come to Revelation at the end of the Bible there is no darkness. Where does the darkness come from? It is something that is added, it is not just there. A completely dark universe is going to be frozen because there is no light and no heat. It is during this time that God judges the angels who fell, and it is at this time that Satan raises the challenge to God’s ability to rule His creation and that God had not given him a fair chance and opportunity to prove what he can do. It is at this point, then, that God is going to restore the earth and set up this new universe in which He is going to set forth a test case on planet earth to give Satan the opportunity t demonstrate what he can do, and for God to demonstrate that no creature can live or operate independent from the creator. The concept of darkness in Scripture always has a negative connotation. E.g. Exodus 10:21, 22; Psalm 35:6; Joel 2:2; Matthew 4:16; John 3:19. Then the third word that is used is the Hebrew word tahom which means “deep,” and is often symbolic of chaos and death. For example, in Exodus 15:5, 8 related to the Red Sea, “the deeps covered them.” Then, Ezekiel 26:19, “ … I shall bring up the deep over you, and the great waters will cover you.” When we look at these texts we should infer that there is something radically different that has taken place here as a result of some action that is not mentioned in verse 1 that describes the circumstance on the earth when God spoke in verse three. This indicates that there is some kind of time gap. It is based on grammar, on vocabulary, and on theology.
Then the second part of the question: Can we put into this time gap the geological ages?
1) That idea was set forth in the 19th century. A little history of this interpretation: It can be traced back to at least the 9th or 8th century AD. So the idea that there is a time gap between 1:1 and 1:2 didn’t originate in the 19th century, it goes back to the early church.
2) It was not there in order to ram, cram and jamb historical ages in there. It was understood to be the time frame when Satan fell. It was the only use of that view up until the 19th century. This was the view expressed by Milton in Paradise Lost, that this was the time within which the angels were created and Satan fell. At the end 1700s there was the rise of historical geology. This is in the period of the Enlightenment, and in the Enlightenment man’s reason reigns supreme and there is a definite anti-biblical slant to man’s thinking. There is a rejection of God’s Word. Up to that point scientists almost without exception held that there was a literal Noahic flood that lasted a year and that all of the fossils were formed in the flood. There was a clear belief in flood geology. But starting in the late 18th century there was a rejection of the Bible, a rejection of Noah’s flood as a reality, and that fossils were formed gradually over a long period of time. There was the development of the uniformitarian view of geology, which now, incidentally, is falling out of vogue with modern geology. As a result of that historical geology was postulating a date of the earth of 45,000 years. At that time there had already been the influence of science and Enlightenment thinking on he church for about 150 years—that somehow you could come up with Truth apart from Scripture. So science is developing its reputation that this is true, they know what they are talking about, and they have accurately interpreted the data and that we have a 45,000-yr-old earth. A man by the name of Thomas Chalmers who was a Presbyterian pastor in Scotland, one of the foremost Scottish Presbyterian theologians at that time, set forth the theory that all they needed to come up with is 45,000 years. So it was decided to put the fossils into this gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Notice that the pressure is coming from a secular interpretation of geology that the earth is only 45,000 years old, and so he is trying to come up with only 45,000 years. By the end of the 19th century the talk was something like a million years or several million years, and now it is up to about 300-million years. It keeps getting larger. It is one thing to come up with 45,000 years but quite another to come up with 300-million years. Chalmers’ view was very popular and by the end of the 19th century there was a man by the name of G.H. Pember who wrote a book called “World in Chaos.” He holds the same view, and he tries to put the geologic ages in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This became known as the gap theory. What they really did was hijack the theory that had been around since the early church in order to try to assimilate and compromise with the findings of science, thinking that the findings of science were accurate. Remember we have already seen the fact that dating systems may be extremely flawed, but they were assuming that the dating systems were accurate. So they began to shift the interpretations of Scripture in order to fit the conclusions of science. But there are some basic and fundamental problems with that view. First of all, if you have some form of pre-Adamic race and all of animal life prior to Genesis 1:2. When the judgment occurs, what happens to all this life? It’s dead. This presents some serious problems to theology. Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” In that passage “death” has the definite article emphasizing a unique death. But it seems that with Romans 5:12 you can place an argument from context that this is spiritual death. Spiritual death is the penalty for sin and physical death is the consequence for sin. So even though a lot of people want to use this verse as a argument here, it doesn’t work because Romans 5:12 is a passage that deals with spiritual death primarily. But there is still the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22 to deal with, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” In order to do that attention must be paid to the context of chapter 15—physical resurrection. E.g. v. 20, “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.” What kind of death is in view in v. 20? It is physical death, not spiritual death. The Paul states a principle is v.21: by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. So it is clear that the death here is not spiritual death. Furthermore, death here does not have the article in the Greek, which indicates it is the qualitative idea of death, death in principle came through man. So we are talking about the principle of death. It cannot, according to this verse, precede Adam. If you have anything die physically before Adam then Christ did not need to go to the cross. If death enters into the world before Adam sinned, then death, even in the animal kingdom, is not the result of Adam’s sin, and therefore it would mean the cross was not necessary. And that is heresy. That is why evolution is a subtle attack on the necessity of the cross. Furthermore, if there was physical death before Genesis 1:2 and the fossils were there, then the contention is that Adam is put in perfect environment, but a perfect environment that is a graveyard! That is not perfect environment. Then, the contention is that you could have two catastrophes, one before Genesis 1:2 to form fossils, and another at the flood. This is impossible. Fossils don’t always flow in the same pattern; they are all mixed up. All the fossils have to be formed by the same catastrophic event. It is either the catastrophic event of a judgment in Genesis 1:2 or it is a catastrophic event at Noah’s flood. If it is a catastrophic event at 1:2 then you have a world-wide flood where the waters swirl around the earth with incredible power for an entire year in Genesis chapter six, and there is no trace left of it in the geologic record. That’s absurd. All the fossils are found in sedimentary rock. What lays down sedimentary rock? Water. So if all of those fossils were laid down in Genesis 1:2 all of that evidence would have been destroyed by the flood in Genesis 6. So the only option we are left with is that all the fossils had to have been formed by the Genesis 6 flood. Furthermore, there are examples of tree trunks in multi-strata deposits. That is, there is one tree trunk going through several strata, indicating it was all laid down at one time. Then there are those who presuppose that dinosaurs couldn’t live on the earth with man. But that is assuming that they lived on the same piece of real estate. Lions and tigers do not co-exist compatibly with human beings, but we don’t occupy the same piece of real estate. There are many animals alive today that do not live compatibly in the same environment with man. So what we have is the existence of these creatures but they didn’t exist in the same area as man. Then there are fossilized evidence in Texas that are dinosaur footprints fossilized in the same strata as human footprints. What happened to the dinosaurs? They died out after the flood.
]]>
009-The Gap View; Day Age View
We have begun to answer four key questions. These are important questions that are often addressed and answered in studying Genesis because there is such an incredible amount of pressure from the cosmic intellectual systems to accommodate the Bible with these other views. This is the essence of syncretism, the idea that you can take the Bible and then merge it with whatever seems to be the thinking, the accepted realities of the culture around; to somehow knock the rough edges off the Bible so that it doesn’t always seem to have this head to head confrontation with the world around us. But the whole doctrine of creation is just that, and it always has been. The world is quite adept at constantly trying to undercut the teaching of Scripture and attack Genesis 1-11. The reason is that if Genesis 1-11 is thrown out in any way, shape or form, then everything else in the Bible suffers. Everything else from Genesis 12 to Revelation is built upon what is taught in Genesis 1-11. So we have to be very careful that we don’t fall into the trap of accepting the conclusions today of empirical science as absolute fact. We have to stick with the Scriptures and interpret the Scriptures in light of the Scriptures, and then no matter how much it may run foul of modern theories of science we must be willing to accept the Bible for what it says.
Genesis 1:2 begins with a conjunction in the Hebrew, then a noun, and then a verb. But this is not standard Hebrew sentence structure. Standard Hebrew sentence structure is conjunction, verb, and then noun. So when you have conjunction then noun this introduces what is called a disjunctive phrase. That means you are introducing a new topic, something that is different from the previous topic. So this can be translated “but,” or in some ancient Latin translated it is actually translated “however.” So there is a contrast. Verse 2 consists of three circumstantial clauses: “But the earth was without form and void”; “and darkness was on the face of the deep”; “and the Spirit of God was covering.” A circumstantial clause describes the circumstances surrounding the action of the main verb. This sentence is not an independent sentence, it is a dependent sentence. But the question then becomes, is it dependent on the first verse or on the third verse? In other words, is it describing the circumstances of God creating the heavens and the earth (in which case it would be, When God began to create the heavens and the earth the earth was without form and void) or, is it circumstantial to the third verse? And it is circumstantial to the third verse, you do not have the type of structure in the first verse necessary to have that as a temporal clause. The preposition be, “in” the beginning, should be taken as an independent statement, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” That is the original creation. The three circumstantial clauses in v. 2 describe the conditions existing on the earth when God first spoke on day one.
Isaiah 45:18, “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain [tohu, a waste place], he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.” So we have a specific statement here that God did not create the earth a waste place, without form. He creates it orderly. Something happened, then, that introduces the concept of tohu waw bohu, or judgment. We have already seen from Jeremiah 4:23-26 and Isaiah 34:11 that this terminology is always associated in the Old Testament with a judgment from God. So the first phrase, “without form and void,” is a phrase that indicates the action of divine judgment on the planet. Furthermore, it is not simply that one act of divine judgment but there is a second phrase, and that is “darkness.” Darkness is another concept that also indicates judgment, and everywhere else in the Scripture when you have the concept of darkness you have an indication of some sort of judgment. For example, there is darkness in Egypt in Exodus 10:21-23; Joel 2:2; John 3:19. Darkness always has this negative connotation of something associated with evil and with judgment. Then third phrase has to do with the word “deep.” This is the word tehom which is also associated with something judgmental. In fact, if you look at the Greek Septuagint it translates it with the Greek word ABUSSOS [a)bussoj] which is where we get our English word “abyss.” Everywhere you see abyss in the Scriptures this is the place where the angels are sent for punishment. All of this terminology works together to present an image of judgment on the earth.
Another thing that comes across in this passage is that there is a certain play on words that takes place here that would not be evident except in the English. For example, bohu is a cognate of the Assyrian word bahu. Bahu was the personification of chaos and disorder in the Assyrian pantheon. Bahu, this demonic personage in the Assyrian pantheon, is frequently associated in the literature with Tiamot, a name that is etymologically related to the Hebrew word tehom for deep. So Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is utilizing words that also carry other connotations that the Hebrews would be aware of, and it is this sort of sub-text that comes across showing that God is in control of everything that is going on here, and an indication that the God of the Hebrews is in control over these nature gods of the pagan people surrounding Israel. So that is just a little indication that there is more going on here than what we would pick up on by just reading the English.
I is clear from looking at the text that there is this clear time gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. What happened historically was, a couple of men came along in the 19th century who were influenced by historical geology and trying to add on an other 30 or 40 thousand years to the age of the earth. Thomas Chalmers, already mentioned, latched on to a view that had been around for some time. The idea that there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 goes back to at least the time of Christ and based on certain Talmudic renderings a fair case can be made that it goes back to the Mishna which predates Christ. Clement of Rome at the end of the first century AD, Origen in the late second century, and Tertullian, all translate Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 in this contrasted way, indicating a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. Furthermore, in various rabbinical commentaries, even though they are very mystical in the way they apply the text, they couldn’t get where they were going if they didn’t assume a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. So the idea of a gap goes back into at least the early rabbinic period, predating the time of Christ. But the fact that there was a gap there was simply to explain the fall of Satan and the introduction of evil. It is not an indication that there are vast time frames, like millions or billions of years as demanded by modern evolution. In fact, there is no indication of how long this time was. The dating methods of science can be, and are being, challenged.
One of the basic problems that is most telling is the theological problem, and that is related to an understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22. This crops up again and again and again. If you have any fossils before Genesis 1:2, to create a fossil something has to die. “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” This is a clear statement because the word “death” there is without the article, which means it is a qualitative use referring to death in principle. Death in principle comes by a man. That means that whatever else you can say about the rebellion of Satan they did not die spiritually. You can’t apply the word “death” to whatever happened to the demons when they rebelled against God. You can’t apply the concept of death to anything prior to Genesis chapter three when Adam eats from the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, because it is by a man that death came. We have to take that verse and connect it to Romans 8 which tells us that Adam’s sin not only affected the human race, it affected the entirety of creation. Vv.18, 19, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us [Paul is building a theology of suffering]. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation [revealing] of the sons of God.” That refers to the fact that we as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ will be manifested in full glory as the bride of Christ at the second coming of Christ. It is at that time that the curse is rolled back. It is at that time that the lion will lie down with the lamb. It is not until then that there will be a world that will be without military conflict. It is not until then that the curse starts to be rolled back. So between Genesis 3 and the second coming of Christ in Revelation 19 there is going to be war and misery in the whole creation. Vv. 20, 21, “For the creature was made subject to vanity [futility], not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” The point in v. 21 is that the creation isn’t delivered, doesn’t experience the benefits of redemption, until the sons of God are made manifest at the second coming of Christ. This indicates that there are clear ramifications to nature, to creation, as a result of Adam’s sin, so that the curse that applies to creation and to nature, to the physical reality, is not reversed until the second coming of Christ. All of creation is impacted by Adam’s sin. Even though the penalty was spiritual death there were physical consequences, changes in biology, in botany, in zoology, in geology, in astronomy; all of the natural realm, all of the physical, material realm was changed.
Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Corrected translation: “But the earth” or “Now the earth.” Then we have the verb “was,” the Hebrew verb hayah, the basic verb to be which is called an equative verb, but in many places it has the connotation of “became.” In this passage it is in the qal perfect. Usually in English the perfect tense is translated as either a simple past—it was, or it became—but it also can have an English pluperfect nuance. Remember that any time there is that concept of perfect in a tense it indicates completed action in the past. This holds true for the perfect tense of hayah and it is translated that way in a couple of different passages. For example, in Genesis 20:4, “But Abimelech had not come near her.” This is a qal stem of the verb and it is translated “had not come,” indicating a perfect tense, the completed action. There are many other passages but that gives us an exegetical basis for translating “became” as “the earth had become,” indicating that a transformation had taken place. The best translation that we should have for Genesis 1:2 is, “But the earth had become a disordered waste, and empty; and there was darkness on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the waters.”
As already stated, there were several attempts to accommodate modern science to Genesis chapter one. The gap view, as it came to be called, was just of several accommodationist views. Another accommodationist attempt was called progressive creationism. Definition: The idea of a number of acts of divine creation but they are not in six consecutive days. In one form of progressive creationism you have one created day one, and then, say, a million years and then another act of creation, then another long period, then the third day, and so on. The six days of creation are separated by millions of years. In that view what is happens is that after each created act there is a period of time when diversification or evolution takes place. Then another view is the day-age view where each day is not a literal 24-hour day but each day may be two or three million years long.
This brings us to our next question: How long are the days? Some people who support the day-age view go to verses like Psalm 90:4, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night,” and 2 Peter 3:8, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” So what these people want to do is come along and say each day was equivalent to a thousand years. That still doesn’t work, they want to take this figuratively and say that each day is millions of years. But that completely misreads both Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3. The point in both of these passages is that God is timeless. God is eternal. Eternal means that God is not subject to time at all. God doesn’t have days, He doesn’t have anything like a day. He has one eternal present. There are successions of His creatures but as far as God is concerned He is eternal and timeless. So this is not to be taken literally, it is a simple statement that God is timeless and we should not try to fit God’s timing into our frame of reference. God is not a temporal being.
When we come to the descriptions of the days in Genesis 1:3 through 2:3 we see that there are certain qualifications. For example, in v.5, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” Two things bear on the interpretation of “day” there. First of all it is described as being evening and morning. Any reading of the text would suggest that that is the same frame of reference that you and I have, and after one evening and
one morning it is the next 24-hours period. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for day is the word yom. Whenever the word yom is used with an ordinal numeral, like one, it always refers to one 24-hour period in every one of its uses in the Old Testament—259 uses of yom in the OT, and every one of them refers to a literal 24-hour period. There is one problem passage in Hosea but it is used in an idiom that is based on an understanding of a 24-hour period. So the term “morning and evening” always qualifies it, when there is an ordinal numeral it always indicates a literal 24-hour period. Some suggest that the word “morning” which is the Hebrew boqer is not a literal term but that it can also mean a broad period of time. However, boqer is never used figuratively or metaphorically in the 205 times it is used in the Old Testament. So it is a literal morning. Furthermore, there is another contention made. In Genesis 2:4, “This is the history of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” There the word “day” does not refer to a 24-hour period, but it equals the entire week. No one who knows the original languages argues that the term “day” in Hebrew can’t refer to a long period of time. It is when it is qualified by an ordinal number or when it is qualified by phrases like “evening and morning” that it always means a 24-hour period. In this particular phrase there is the preposition be, which means “in.” When you have that preposition it is an idiom for that time period. It is just a broad term, in the day, in that time period.
There are a couple of other important problems. In the second verse we saw that the earth was chaotic, unformed, and in order to form it, to order it again, God does this in three days. In the first day He creates light, in day two He creates the atmosphere, and on day three He restricts the seas, creates vegetation, and there is geographic separation. Then in the second group of three days He orders the emptiness, the bohu. In day four He has light bearers. Notice: on day one He creates light but it is not localized in a body. On day four He creates the light bearers—the sun, moon and stars. But the point here is, when does God create vegetation? Day three. When does the sun appear? Day four. Problem” Plants need photosynthesis in order to survive. So if these are longer than 24-hour days, if we are talking about millions of years, then you can’t have vegetation before you have the sun. So that is just a basic problem that breaks down the whole concept of either progressive creationism or the problem of the day-age group. Then we have Exodus chapter 20 where we have the Sabbath law. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Principle: “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” If those six days aren’t literal 24-hour days, then I can work for 6000 years and rest on the seven-thousandth year. I can work for six geologic ages and rest of the seventh geologic age. If the days of Genesis one are not literal 24-hour days then there is no meaning for the commandment related to the Sabbath obedience. Furthermore, this passage says that the Lord made the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them. That means that everything that is on the planet, including the fossils, were made in that six-day period. You can’t throw the fossils before Genesis 1:2 and say that these fossils were created by the judgment on Satan and you have some sort of pre-Genesis 1:2 event, because what this verse says is “everything.” Everything that is on the planet now was created/made, asah, in that six-day period. That is why the complete renovation that would have left nothing. Everything is completely overhauled and renovated in Genesis 1:2f
]]>
010-Systematic Creation
What about creation through the process of evolution? There are five views that have been set forth as accommodationist positions to evolution. What happened in the 19th century was that science began to cut itself loose from the Bible. Up until the early 1700s every self-respecting scientist and geologist believed in a literal universal Noahic flood, and they built their science assuming the Bible to be true. Starting with the Enlightenment in the late 1600s, early 1700s, scientists began to reject the Bible, and as they ignored what the Bible said they were coming up with conclusions that were much different from earlier science at that time. As they came up with conclusions Christians decided that in some way they had to accommodate themselves to these conclusions.
The first view is the view that is called theistic evolution, the one that is most removed from taking the Bible literally. It is simply the idea that God works behind the process of evolution. The creative activity of God is indirect, He is just out there in the cosmos somewhere and He uses all the mechanisms of evolution, the mechanism of the survival of the fittest, in order to bring about and advance through the various times until eventually man evolves. So theistic evolution assumes the validity of everything that science teaches and then just kind of sticks God in there as a suave to their religious conscience.
The second view is called progressive creationism. This is where you have long periods of time which begin with a day. So there would be a 24-hour day followed by a long period of time when evolution takes place. After this long period of thousands or even millions of years there is the second 24-hour day, and so on. So the creation days are actually 24-hours but there are thousands or millions of years in between these creative days.
The third view is called threshold evolution. That is very similar to progressive creationism, and instead of having 24-hour days God just comes in an interferes at each stage breaking through these barriers between species.
The fourth view is the day-age view. It looks at each of these days as not 24-hour days but days of extended periods of time—millions of years. But that doesn’t fit the language of the text and there are also other internal problems.
The fifth view is one that many people thought solved the problem. It was a view put forth by Thomas Chalmers, a Scottish Presbyterian, and was later popularized by a man name Pember: the Chalmers-Pember gap view. They took a very ancient view that there is a time period between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Up until the early 19th century when Chalmers hi-jacked the view this gap was understood to be the time period when the angels were created and fell, and the beginning of the angelic conflict and the beginning of spiritual warfare in the universe. And it was during that time that Satan was put on trial and sentenced to the lake of fire, but then he challenges God and challenges the veracity of God, the justice of God, the fairness of God, and claims He never really has given His creatures a chance to prove that they can be God and run things just as well as He can. So God establishes a test case right on Satan’s very own territory of planet earth to demonstrate through volitional creatures, man, exactly why a creature cannot function independently of his creator. So the Chalmers-Pember gap view tried to solve the problem by inserting all the geologic ages in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and make that the period of the catastrophe. According to their view, they would say that all the evidence that you see of fossils took place as a result of that judgment. The problem with that is manifold. 1) It doesn’t fit science very well; 2) It doesn’t fit the Scriptures at all theologically because 1 Corinthians 15 emphasizes that the principle of death began with Adam’s fall. (In evolution the mechanism for advance is through death) If you have a world-wide judgment, pre-Adamic races, pre-Adamic animals that lived on this earth before Genesis 1:2 and they are all packed in ice and are fossils, then basically you would have Adam not created in a perfect world, he would be created in a graveyard. It is not perfect anymore because there is death everywhereand evidence of death everywhere.
So you can’t solve the problem by compromising and accommodating. It must be realized that modern science is built on an epistemological [knowledge base] that is completely antagonistic to revelation. They do not believe that God can reveal Himself to man because it cannot be analyzed scientifically, it is not subject to rationalism and empiricism, and therefore they invalidate revelation as a valid means of knowledge at the very beginning. So it must be realized that divine viewpoint is set against human viewpoint, human viewpoint against divine viewpoint, and you can’t come in and try to compromise just so you feel a little more comfortable living around a bunch of unbelievers who reject the existence of God.
So prior to Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 there is just the existence of the angels, the trial and fall of Satan, and God judges the earth. Another reason why you can’t have fossilization and pre-Adamic race here, from a scientific framework, is this: There are two main events in Scripture that talk about a world-wide flood or watery mass around the earth. There is the condition in Genesis 1:2 and the condition of Genesis 6-9 with the world-wide flood. But what would you look for to prove that there was a universal flood at the time of Noah? What would you expect to find geologically? You would expect to find millions of dead things scattered all over the earth, buried in sedimentary rock, as evidence of a world-wide flood. If all of these dead things buried in sedimentary rock were laid down between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 then you would have a universal flood that lasted a year. It only rained for forty days and forty nights but the water continued to rise for another 180 days and stayed at that level for some further time. From the day Noah stepped on the ark until the day he stepped off the ark was a period of 360 days. So if you have that much water swirling around the earth, along with the other geologic cataclysms that would have taken place at that time—volcanic eruptions, earthquakes—all of it caused by this enormous water pressure you would have had all of that take place for a whole year and with no evidence of it. What you do by placing fossilization between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is lay the foundation for rejecting the universality of Noah’s flood. The reality is that if you do that you basically don’t have any evidence whatsoever anywhere, other than the Bible, of the Noahic flood. And that doesn’t fit from a scientific framework in terms of the descriptions given in the Bible.
Now we begin with the six days of restoration. Just to review on the stages of creation: God creates an original universe. It is in light. Then there is the fall of Lucifer and there is darkness in the universe. The earth is packed in ice—tohu waw bohu. Then there is the new creation or restoration described in Genesis 1:3-2:3. These are the stages of creation and restoration.
How the tohu waw bohu was reversed. Tohu refers to that which is chaotic and unformed. Bohu refers to that which is empty or unfilled. So in the first three days God is going to form all the various spheres: the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the biosphere, the geosphere, and then he is going to fill each one of those spheres in the second three days. There is a perfect pattern here of description. On day one we have the creation of light and the separation of the light from darkness. This indicates that time enters in at this point. There is a temporal mechanism established of light and darkness establishing the cycle with the rotation of the earth of a 24-hour day.
Vv. 3-5, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” When this day begins the earth was a dark watery mass and it is the Spirit of God who is hovering—[or one way to translate the verb here is the idea of “fluttering”], the image of a mother bird fluttering its wings over a nest to keep it warm—over the earth. The Holy Spirit is now energizing the planet. Before there can be any creation there has to be the introduction of energy back into the system. The energy comes from God. God speaks, and we know from Colossians 1:16, 17 that it is Jesus Christ Himself who is the actual agent of creation, and He is the LOGOS of God, the Word of God. God uses His Word here; He speaks, and so this implies the presence of the second person of the Trinity in the formation of the items in the creation. God speaks and says, Let there be light. Darkness implies the absence of light and symbolically in Scripture it implies the absence of good. When God speaks here we see the word Elohim, the plural ending im indicates a plurality in the Godhead. Cf. 2 Corinthians 4:6, Paul is quoting Genesis 1:3 as if it literally took place. The analogy in 2 Corinthians 4 is that just as God illuminated our thinking to the truth of the gospel, that truth is built on or is taught through the principle of Genesis 1:3 that light shall shine out of darkness. Also 1 John 1:5; John 8:12. When God creates light in Genesis 1:4 the first thing He says about it when He observes it is that it is good. The light is good; the darkness is not. He doesn’t say the darkness is good. Then He separated the light from the darkness. Darkness is not removed completely as it will be in the new heavens and the new earth but it is separated, and together light and darkness are used as a means of telling time and of developing a clock in the universe. Then there is a discussion in v. 5, where God calls the light day and the darkness night. He begins to name things, to use a vocabulary. The reason He uses a vocabulary is that He is initializing the vocabulary of the human race. We know tentatively from studies related to the acquisition of language that people learn language from hearing it spoken. In a couple of cases where young children have never been exposed to a human voice it has been learned that after so many months they can’t learn language. At the time of birth you start speaking to a child, their brain cells begin to develop and to process that language and develop the ability to process language. And if they live to be two years of age without hearing a human voice then the brain no longer has that ability to process and categorize language. One of the great problems of evolution is how did a person ever learn to speak? So God is the one who originates language, and He is the one who begins to identify terms.
“And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” It is clear that this is the beginning of some sort of temporal succession, a succession of darkness and light. It is evident that the earth is now rotating on its axis, even though there is no light bearer. Remember that there is no sun yet and no stars, there is just light. This makes it clear in and of itself that these are 24-hour days. In fact, there is so much information given here—evening and morning, day one—so much information about chronology that it is questionable whether God could have done anything more to say these are 24-hour days. In terms of Hebrew vocabulary He has said that. It was necessary for Moses to make that point and for God to say that in light of the fact that in all of the pagan cosmogony around them—the Egyptian origin myths, the Babylonian origin myths—all had eons of time just we face today with modern Darwinism. So God makes it very clear from the beginning that the way the earth was actually created by Him is radically different from the way man has tried to explain it. Furthermore, this light is clearly physical and visible. This means that the presence of visible light waves would include the entire electro-magnetic spectrum. By setting these electro-magnetic forces into operation God in effect is completing the energizing of the universe. So there is a perfectly logical order here. The Holy Spirit begins it with this fluttering or hovering over the earth in v. 2, and then with the creation of light there is the conclusion of the energizing of the physical cosmos. All the types of force and energy which interact in the universe are now present.
The other interesting thing seen here is that the clock starts at dawn. It is evening and then morning, day one, so day two starts with dawn of the next day. This is contrary to the way the Jews later told time. The Jews later marked the time by dusk, so that it began when the sun went down. This is another indication that this is not just Jewish mythology because if it was they would have had the day starting at dusk and not with the dawn.
On day two we see the development of the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. The atmosphere is the creation of all of the gasses and chemicals that make up the atmosphere and that are necessary for the sustenance of biological life on the planet. There is no other planet known to science that has an atmosphere anything near approaching that of planet earth. Furthermore there is the separation of the waters on the earth now into two different spheres, the upper waters and the lower waters. And there is a spacial separation between them which in the KJV is called “the firmament,” indicating that it was something solid, something firm. But that is not the meaning of the Hebrew word. Genesis 1:6-8, “And God said, Let there be a firmament [let there be an expanse] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide [separate] the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament [expanse], and divided [separated] the waters which were under the firmament [below the expanse] from the waters which were above the firmament [expanse]: and it was so. And God called the firmament [expanse] Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.” What is the key word here? Expanse. It is mentioned five times in three verses. Whenever the Holy Spirit wants to capture attention He repeats things He repeats them, so when expanse is repeated five times we ought to pay attention. The Hebrew raqia means expanse, atmosphere, literally a thin stretched-out area. So God is establishing this thin stretched-out area which He places in the water, and it is as though it expands and pushes part of the water up and keeps another part down below. So we see movement taking place in creation, the dynamic of energy. Isaiah 40:12, 22 mentions this raqia. V. 12, “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out [marked off] heaven by the span, and comprehended [calculated] the dust of the earth by the measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?” V. 22, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle [above the vault] of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” So He creates the raqia as a tent for us to dwell in. He has designed the atmosphere and the hydrosphere perfectly to support life. This raqia, then, separates the waters below from the waters above. So what there is, is planet earth and then the gaseous atmosphere, and then above that a layer of water. The is an outer layer of water, the earth is still covered in water, and in between are the gasses, primarily oxygen. So the question becomes, what happened to this water? Was it solid since it is out in space above the stratosphere? Is it ice? Or is it a water vapor? If there was the presence of an outer layer of water, then it would have certain implications for the earth. But we need to understand that the Bible describes three different heavens.
Jeremiah 4:24, “I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.” That refers to the atmospheric heaven around the earth. Then in Isaiah 13:10, “For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” This is a second heaven, the heaven that comprises the stars and the universe and the solar system. In Hebrews 9:24, a third heaven, “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:” This is the heaven of heavens, the very throne room of God. The term raqia is used for each of these heavens. Genesis 1:17, is the second heaven; 1:20, the atmospheric heavens. Ezekiel 1:22, “And the likeness of the firmament [raqia] upon the heads of the living creature was as the color of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.” This would refer to the third heaven. So raqia is a word that is ambiguous, it can have flexibility and refer to the first, second, or third heaven.
If there is a water vapor canopy over the earth there would be certain things that would follow from that.
1) First of all, since water vapor has the ability both to transmit incoming solar radiation—i.e., light and heat comes through the water—and to retain and disperse much of that radiation reflected from the earth’s surface—it holds it, it doesn’t reflect it back down to the earth—it would serve as a global greenhouse, maintaining an essentially uniform temperature around the earth. This would mean that there were no extremities of cold, not freezing weather, no excessively hot weather.
2) As a result of that, with nearly uniform temperatures there would be no wind. Wind comes because there is a colder area and a warmer area. The temperature difference causes the wind to move. So with uniform temperatures great air mass movement would be rare and wind storms would be unknown.
3) Without wind there are no hydrologic cycle—evaporation, then water vapor, condensation of water vapor on a dust particle, and then precipitation. Evaporation is from heat. Now there is a uniform temperature. There is wind and wind blows over the source of water and there is evaporation. So without the air circulation of wind there is no hydrologic cycle, and this fits the pattern of why nobody knew what Noah was talking about when he said it was going to rian for forty days and forty nights. It would be a meaningless term to them. Also, without any global air circulation there would be no turbulence or dust particles thrown up into the upper atmosphere for that water vapor to condense on and precipitate out from. So there would be nothing to cause that to rain.
]]>
011-Restoration-Creation
On day #3 there is an initial statement: “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.” Notice that on day one there was one statement of creation, on day two there was one statement of creation, but then on day three there are two statements of creation. Observe how carefully the text is constructed here: “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place,” and then in v. 11 is a second statement from God: “Let the earth sprout vegetation.” So there are two creative activities on the third day. There is the same pattern on days four, five and six. Day four is one act of creation. Day five is one act of creation. Then in day six there are two acts of creation. So there is a perfect balance here in the text. It isn’t something that is haphazardly thrown together, there is a very precise order in the original text, and we have to take that into consideration. Then in the second part of the third day is the creation of the plant biosphere. V. 11 is the command: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” Then in v. 12 the execution of the command, “And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Two orders of plant life are mentioned. It appears in the English that there are three orders—vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees. Actually it should be translated this way, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation [Heb. deshe, a basic word for vegetation which is then broken down into two components]: plants yielding seed [eseb, a general word for plants], and fruit trees [etz= trees bearing fruit].” Between the two they cover every category of vegetation. Notice that when God creates the vegetation He creates within each category of vegetation their own reproductive system. Inside that reproductive system you have two things, the basic physical components, chemicals that make up each individual category, and then on that cell structure is printed information. Cells do not generate information. Information has to be inputted from an external source. So God not only creates all the different categories of plants and trees but he creates a reproductive system unique to each, and then inputs the information necessary for each kind so that it reproduces itself.
There are a couple of implications here that should be understood. First, up to this point when God does something He is categorizing some things. He creates the light and separates it from the darkness, and then he called the light day and the darkness night. That is categorization. He is categorizing and classifying everything. As we have seen, categorization and classification are necessary for language to function. Not only that, it is also necessary for thought and knowledge to be transferred. This is one of the reasons why we break down doctrines into various categories. This is how we learn. So we see that from the very beginning God is creating according to a specific categories and classifications, and all of this continues, it is stable. The Bible continues to maintain the same system of classification and categorization in the permanence of these kinds and it is brought forth in the Scriptures later on. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:38, 39, “But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” So even the New Testament comes along and insists that there are definite unbreakable boundaries between the kinds. In the Old Testament this is stated again as a foundation for categorizations of clean and unclean animals. Cf. Leviticus 11:13ff, “And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the osprey, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckoo, and the hawk after his kind.”
Conclusion of Genesis 1:12, “And God saw that it was good.” This is the Hebrew word tob. What we will find is that some people will come along and give an implication here of moral quality—good as opposed to evil. The word tob has as its primary meaning, that which is according to plan. It can mean good vs. evil. Some would say that everything was very good, there is no sin here, so therefore Satan couldn’t have fallen yet. Well the premise there is false. The false premise is that good in any of these verses has a moral quality to it. It doesn’t. It only has the idea that God has a blueprint and the result of His work of creation was according to the blueprint, according to plan. In chapter 2 God uses the word tob once again. If it has a moral quality here in chapter one it would have to have a moral quality in chapter two, because in chapter two the word is also related to creation. In chapter two, after God creates Adam, He says, “It is not good for man to be alone.” So here He uses the same word tob again, and he says it is not according to plan. If He is saying it is not moral for man to be alone, then He would be saying it is not moral to be single. Of course we know that is an absurd statement. So obviously the word does not have a moral quality in the context of creation. So you can’t go to the word “good” here and say that sin hasn’t occurred yet, the fall of Lucifer hasn’t occurred yet; that doesn’t hold water.
Then the fourth day where we start to fill those spheres that were created on days one through three. On day one God separated the light from the darkness, and now on day four, in parallel to that, He is going to create the light bearers—the sun, the moon, and the stars. Notice that this is a strong argument against these days being any longer than 24-hour days because God creates the vegetation on day three. For that vegetation to survive it means photosynthesis, and in order for there to be photosynthesis there has to be sun and available light in the near proximity.
Day four. Vv. 14, 15, the statement of the divine command: “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.” The Hebrew word “light” that we found back on the first day is or. Then in this verse we have the word maor, the Hebrew word for a light bearer. At this point light has just been there non-specifically in the universe, it hasn’t been localized in a specific body, but on the fourth day God localizes the light into specific light bodies or receptacles which in turn generate light. So in essence what God does is create the energy systems in the various stars. When this says “for signs” it is not talking about the zodiac, astrological signs. Many people try to say that. The grammatical construction here is that all of these aree related to each other, that the purpose for the heavens is to be able to tell the different times of the year for planting, for harvest, for winter, for summer, and for telling time. So they are set up in the heavens in order to have chronology. And they are there to give light on the earth.
V. 16, “And God made.” The Hebrew word here for “made” is asah, the generic term for creation, to make or to manufacture, or even to do. The moon doesn’t generate its own light, but the language that is used here is phenomenal-logical language, i.e. language that we use all the time. It is like when we ask, “What time did the sun come up this morning?” We all know the sun didn’t come up; neither does it go down. The earth rotates on its axis, but we talk phenomenal-logically, it looks like it rises and goes down. We use this language to describe what it appears to be from our vantage point.
This has raised several major questions about the universe based on the fact that the stars aren’t created until day four. One issue is the distance that light travels. So the problem is of light years and the transmission of light because what do you do with a sun that is 2000 light years away and it would take 2000 years of light travel before it came to the earth, and wouldn’t that be a problem? There are several possible answers. First of all, the easiest solution is that when God created the stars He made the light instantly appear on the earth as well. If God can create stars He can create their light travel so that it hits the earth instantly. But then others raise other questions, like what happens when we see a star nova, and that star is, say, 10,000 light years away? That means that star that we see nova today had actually occurred 10,000 light years ago. Various answers proposed. According to Henry Morris’s book, “The Genesis Record,” he makes the following statement: “The tremendous stellar distances commonly cited are obtained only on the basis of a number of very esoteric and questionable assumptions. Geometric methods for measuring such astronomical distances can reach only to about 330 light years. So any great distances beyond that are, to say the least, uncertain. Furthermore, there is no assurance of the uniformity of the speed of light at such tremendous distances. There is nothing to indicate that light travels that distances throughout the universe. Furthermore, there exist respectable models of relativity and space curvature, for example, which yield light motions such that light would reach the earth even from infinite distances in only a few years.” What he is saying there is that there is evidence that light may not travel in a straight line in space. It may travel in an arc. That is one possible solution and one hypothesis that is being studied. So there are various ways to resolve that particular problem. Furthermore, when God creates the stars is He just making the stars reappear, for example, did He just turn the lights off in Genesis 1:2 and now is turning the lights back on? That is possible but it doesn’t really fit the concept of asah here. Asah indicates creation in every other place—God is making something new. In that hypothesis He is not making anything new, He is just turning the lights on. My suggestion is that this is in this present universe—the existence of the sun, the moon and the stars—is unique to God’s plan and purposes for this particular universe. This is based on the way things are going to be at the end in the new heavens and the new earth—Revelation 21:23-26, where we have a glimpse of that future new heavens and earth. “And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.” The implication is that there is no sun, no moon, no stars in the future new heavens and new earth, so we have to be careful. When we read that word “heavens” we want to import into that the starry skies, but the new heavens and new earth apparently aren’t going to have starry skies. So the model proposed for understanding Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is that the original creation did not have sun, moon, or stars either. Whatever the special dynamics were in terms of the heavens we don’t know.
Day five, the creation of the birds of the sky and the creatures in the waters. “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” In verse 20 we have the articulation of the command, God is commanding these creatures into existence. Then in verse 21 we have the application or fulfillment of that command. V. 21 adds a category that is not stated in v. 20, the great sea monsters. What are these great sea monsters? In v. 20 we are told, “Let the waters team with swarms of living creatures.” This is the Hebrew word sherets, and this is creeping things or living creatures and has to do with everything from microscopic to the large creatures—everything that is in the waters from plankton all the way up to animals. The word that is translated “sea monsters” is the Hebrew word tannin. It is a word that has been translated dragon, sea monster, and is a term that could very easily include large dinosaurs. There is a passage in Scripture that seems to fit the description of a dinosaur-type creature in Job 40:15, “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.” First of all, he is a vegetarian. He is also a creature which has extremely powerful legs and muscles in his body. “He bends his tail like a cedar”—what animal has a tail like a cedar? That rules out an elephant or a hippopotamus. So this particular creature could easily be classified as some category of dinosaur. So the assumption that man could not live alongside a dinosaur assumes a number of things. It is assuming that they live in the same area.
Genesis 1:22, “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply in the earth.” There are four verbs here that are all qal imperatives. So God expects these creatures to follow His orders. He has, as with the plants and the trees, given them a reproductive system so that they can multiply after their kind. This is a real command that goes into effect prior to the fall.
Then we come to the sixth day when God creates the land creatures, v. 24. “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” There are three classifications of land animals here. The first is cattle which is probably domestic animals, not just cows and beef cattle. Creeping things would include everything from lizards, to bugs and insects. Beasts of the earth would include the non-domestic animals, the wild animals. That is an important thing to notice here because later on in chapter two we will discover that God brings the beasts of the filed to Adam to name them. Some people would question how Adam could name all the animals in one day. But God doesn’t bring the beasts of the earth to Adam to name, He brings the beasts of the field to Adam which is a much smaller classification than beasts of the earth. This is the end of the first creative activity on day six.
]]>
012-Creation of Humanity
Genesis 1:24, 25, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
Notice the repetition of one particular phrase. God commands that the earth bring forth creatures after their kind. Then in the fulfillment of that command three times the text emphasizes that each of these categories were created after their kind. Literally in the Hebrew it reads, according to its category or according to its kind. In the space of two verses there are five references to kind. This doesn’t happen by chance. You cannot just come along and somehow figure out some way where you have some sort of development from one species into another species when you have this kind of repetition in the text. When we look at this verse we see that there are three broad categories of animals: the beasts of the earth would refer to the wild animals [the living things of the earth], then the cattle, referring to domestic animals, and then everything that creeps on the ground, the Hebrew word remesh, which would include not just creepy-crawly things. The way that this is used in other passages such as Leviticus 11:29-31, is to include other things such as amphibians and small mammals. So it doesn’t just refer to insects, etc. God makes all of these simultaneously on the earth, according to plan—“and saw that it was good.” This is the first creative activity on the sixth day. All of these things indicate that no chance is involved in any of this, it is all according to plan and by design.
In verse 26 we come to the apex of God’s creative work, the creation of the human race. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Notice the similarity between verse 26 and verse 28. “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Verse 27 is different: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
In verse 28 we see a mirror image of what is stated in verse 26, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Verse 27 is sandwiched in between. Whenever you have that kind of a structure in the Scriptures it is what is called an inclusion, and this is a literary device that the author uses to emphasize what is in the middle. When there is a structure like that, where there is statement A and then A-prime, which is a repetition of A, and in between is statement B, what is being emphasized and highlighted is statement B. That is actually the subject of the passage. The real emphasis here is not so much on what is said in verses 26 and 28, although that is very important, but the emphasis and focal point is on Genesis 1:27, that God created man in His image. So this creation of man on the sixth day is simply summarized here in verses 26-28. It is picked up then as the theme of chapter two. Chapter two gives us the details of how the man and the woman were created on the sixth day. But in terms of the opening narrative all we are told is a summary of God’s creation of man, male and female, in His image. This is a typical stylistic device in Hebrew narrative called pearling, where you stream text together and you have a summary in one section, and then you come back pick up a specific incident and blow it up and expand it. It is a way of bringing emphasis. There is no conflict, then, between the action of Genesis 1:26-28 and the description of God’s creative activity in chapter two.
There is a second thing that needs to be pointed out here. Matthew 19:3-6, “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” The reason this is important is that the liberal contention is that Genesis one is one creation account and Genesis two is another creation account. They say that they conflict you can’t make Genesis two fit one 24-hour day. Look at how Jesus handles the answer to this question. “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.” This is a direct quote from Genesis 1:27, so in His answer the first part of His sentence (v.4 doesn’t end with a period) is taken from Genesis 1:27 and v.5, the second part of His sentence, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh,” is a quote from Genesis 2:24. Sop Jesus in answering the Pharisees takes part of a verse in chapter one and part of a verse in chapter two and pulls them together. He sees no contradiction between those two accounts. In fact, He sees them as completely coordinate and completely compatible. So if people come along and try to make a distinction between Genesis one and Genesis two they are going to have real problems with Jesus. This is the whole point that needs to be emphasized: You can’t start manipulating the text in Genesis one and Genesis two to try to fit any kind of modern cosmogony without doing serious damage to the person of Christ, the work of Christ, and the foundation of what Paul teaches in the epistles. Everything that is in the New Testament has its foundation in Genesis chapters one through eleven. So Genesis 1:26, 27 sets forth the fundamental text explaining the creation of man, and v. 28 gives us a clear statement of the purpose for man in terms of being in the image of God.
“in our image” – This is a qal jussive, a first person plural cohortative. In Hebrew a cohortative is a first person command. In English we think of a command as “You do something.” We don’t have a first person command, but in Hebrew there is a first person command. It is called a cohortative and has the idea of “Let us do something.” So it is an imperatival statement addressed to a first person. What is the significance of the plural here? There are some who want to say that this is simply a plural of majesty, and this raises a number of problems for Jewish expositors. One attempt to explain this is that when Gold said, Let us, He is talking to the angels. But then you have a problem because it says in the conclusion of that clause, Let us make man in our image. Then there are those who want to be too rigid with the text and say, Don’t try to read the Trinity into this. But we have to at least read plurality in the Godhead into this because it is not only “Let us make man in our image,” and of course, that could be an editorial “we,” but it is more than that because of the use of the first person plural pronoun in relationship to image: “in our image, according to our likeness.” While it doesn’t teach the Trinity per se, you can’t rule out plurality here, it is clearly indicating a plurality in God. This type of exchange where you have God talking to Himself or discussing the plan within Himself, in the Godhead, is something that appears in a number of places in the Old Testament. E.g. Psalm 2:7 where two persons are involved in the dialogue. A second example of plurality in the Godhead is Isaiah 48:16-a divine individual is speaking and saying, Come here to me. This verse has all three members of the Trinity present. So even though you don’t have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament there is the clear presentation of plurality in the Godhead and conversation within that Godhead. A third passage is Psalm 45:7. Then there is Psalm 110:1.
“in our image and according to our likeness” – there has been a tremendous amount of discussion about what these terms mean. The terminology is the Hebrew is be, which usually means “in” and tzalam has the idea of image, although it is somewhat uncertain as to exactly what the etymology of that word is. It is used only twelve times in the Hebrew Old Testament. In ten of those instances it refers to a physical representation. It is used of the images of Baal in 2 Kings 11:18; 2 Chronicles 23:17. It is used for other images of Canaanite deities in Numbers 33:52 and several passages in Ezekiel and in Amos 5:26. So here it has a very physical sense to it. But it also has an abstract use and in Psalm 39:7 it refers to the immaterial nature of human life. Psalm 73:20 refers to a dream image. Perhaps the best word to understand the core meaning of tzelem is the idea of representation. This idea of representation, then, clearly includes an abstract idea. When we look at the preposition be that is placed in front of tzelem it gives us more indication. That is described by Hebrew scholars as the beth of essence, i.e. describing the essence of something and it should be translated “as.” So man is created as the representation of God. This emphasizes the fact that man is to represent God. We are created as a representative of God.
The second word that is used is the word damut, and the preposition preceding it is the preposition k. The word damut here is a much more abstract concept than Tzelem. It generally indicates something that is not physical and is an image or representative of something else, and it is virtually a synonym to the other word. So the two words function together as a sort of poetic pair to describe the same thing. Even though you have the preposition be in front of the first one and k in front of the second one there is a shift. Genesis 5:3, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.” There we have a reversal. Instead of tzelem first and then damut, as in Genesis one, what happens in Genesis five is that these words are switched. “Likeness” is mentioned first and “image” is mentioned second. In Genesis 5:3 the prepositions are reversed: be is now with demut and k is now with tzelem. This just indicates, by comparing the two passages, the total interchangeability of the two ideas, and this indicates basically that the function of man is to represent God and that man’s basic form, i.e. his essence, is a reflection of God. This is what distinguishes man from all manner of living things. As pointed out earlier, when you have on the third day the creation of vegetation it is not life. The word in the Hebrew is nephesh—nephesh hayah, indicating a living thing, and it is this word nephesh which has the idea of life in many passages and in other passages it has the idea of soul. It is only to the animals and to mankind that you have this concept of nephesh, but what distinguishes man’s nephesh from the nephesh of the animal kingdom is that man is in the image and likeness of God. Man is to represent God and he is given certain faculties that enables him to do that, that reflect God and go beyond anything that might be apparent in animals. The only thing that can be said for certain is that the difference between the animals and mankind is that mankind is created in the image and likeness of God. That has two aspects. For so long we react to the fact that this is physical. But God doesn’t look like man. We can’t escape the fact that ten of the twelve uses of tzelem refer to a physical representation. Does that mean that mankind is a physical representation of God? No. Primarily the first aspect of this representation is immaterial, non-material, and it has to do with the make-up of man in terms of his soul and human spirit. That is, that God gave man self-consciousness so that when he looks in a mirror and sees himself, he knows himself. Animals don’t know that. Then there is mentality, the ability to think, to think God’s thoughts after Him, to reason according to what God has revealed. (These definitions are as they are before the flood) In self-consciousness you have man recognizing God, so it is relative to God consciousness. In his mentality he is thinking the thoughts of God. Then there is volition, self-determination. In the pre-fall condition he is following God’s will. Finally, man has a conscience which stores the norms and standards, and this is directed towards God and has divine absolutes stored in that original conscience. These four elements work together to make up the soul, and then they are bound together with the human spirit, which means that their self-consciousness is able to relate to God, their mentality is able to understand God’s thoughts, their volition responds to God, and their conscience responds to divine norms and standards. When that human spirit is lost and they are spiritually dead they are no longer going to be God-conscious in the same sense, i.e. a full understanding of who and what God is because they are the image-bearer of God. There was a complete rapport with God prior to the fall. But after the fall they can’t think God’s thoughts, they are bound up in human viewpoint, man becomes the ultimate reference point. In volition they are in negative volition, hostility toward God, and their conscience now has a second set of standards, a set of pseudo standards adopted from their own experience. So man is connected immaterially with a human soul and a human spirit, but this is housed in a physical body.
When God designed the human body, everything related to the five senses, everything related to the physical body was not by chance. God is omniscient and He never increases or diminishes in knowledge. That means that from eternity past God knew everything that was going to happen in human history, that if He created a race with volition they would sin, and that the only solution to the sin problem would be that He would have to incarnate Himself into that race. So God the Father in eternity past knew that He would have to become one of those creatures. So how was He to design a body? What was going to be the most perfect physical form that He could develop, which He, infinite God who has Spirit plus all of these various facets and dimensions to His character, what was going to be the very best physical form in which He could put Himself? God knew that He needed a body through which He revealed Himself in a finite body. The infinite God would become finite man and reveal Himself to man. So the physical body isn’t something that just happens, it is precisely what was needed, and the best form that could ever be developed through which God could reveal Himself. So there is a physical dimension. It is not that your body looks like God but that God is going to have to make Himself finite and reveal Himself to creatures and it couldn’t be done in a better physical form than the one in which he designed for mankind.
V. 27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” That indicates that both the male and the female are in the image of God, but there is a distinction from the very beginning between the male image and the female image. That implies that there is a difference in the soul make-up/orientation of the woman and the man. The man is designed to function in one sense and one way, and the woman is designed to function in another way, both working together as a team to fulfill the purpose and plan of God. But something happens. They fail in Genesis chapter three, they fall into sin and something happens to the image of God. There are some people who teach that the image of God is erased. The issue is whether it is simply erased or effaced. Is is marred or corrupted or is it destroyed? To answer that we need to go to Genesis chapter five.
5:1, “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.” Here we have the word damut; v.2, “Male and female created he them,” so once again it is a reminder that male and female are in the image of God; “and called their name mankind, in the day when they were created.”
5:3, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.” Notice, it doesn’t say he begets a son in God’s image. He begets a son in his image. The difference is that now, while there is an image of God there, it is marred. The image of God, as we will see later, has to do with its function of ruling and reigning, but it is marred now because of sin. It is now in the image of man or in the image of Adam, but does that mean that the image of God has gone. No. In Genesis chapter nine we have the foundation for the principle of capital punishment given, starting in verse 5. “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” This is the delegation for the most serious form of judicial action, i.e. capital punishment. This is the foundation for all forms of judicial action in human history, because if God delegates us the most form of legal action than that would mean that even lesser forms of legal action are also delegated to mankind. Why is it that God requires capital punishment in the case of murder? The second part of the verse: “for in the image of God made he man.” So man is still in the image of God, though it is marred, and because man is in the image of God this is so important because if someone kills another human being it is not only an act against another human being but it is viewed as an act against the creator. Because it is viewed as an act of rebellion against the creator God demands capital punishment.
This important to understand as believers because so often when believers argue against capital punishment they argue from false premises, such as it restrains crime. Well it might restrain crime but that is not what God says, it is not the reason that God gives it in Genesis 9. Other people say we need to have capital punishment to bring about vengeance, but it is not about vengeance. Even “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is not a statement about vengeance, it is a statement about accountability and there is a difference. It is about he fact that this individual has created an act of blasphemy. It is a theological act of such seriousness that this person who commits murder has sacrificed his right to life, and God demands that He be removed.
When we get to the New Testament the concept of image shifts. In the Old Testament we were created originally in the image of God, that image is marred and becomes the image of man and Adam, but it is still there though it is corrupted. In the New Testament the focus is on the image of Jesus Christ. It is the image of Christ that is emphasized. Romans 8:29, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.” So God has a predetermined goal for the believer: to become conformed to the image of His Son. In other words, what is God’s predetermined plan for your life? That we become in the image of Christ. Man was originally created in the image of God, that image was marred and defaced by sin, and only through regeneration and then sanctification is that image restored. This is also seem in 1 Corinthians 15:49, “And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” That is, as we start off as believers we start of in the image of Adam and as we advance in spiritual maturity we reflect God’s character more and more in the image of Christ, the image of the heavenly. 2 Corinthians 3:18 states, “But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror … are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” This is the process of spiritual maturity as we are being changed to where we reflect the character, the person, of Jesus Christ. This is the idea of the fruit of the Spirit. This is again stated in Colossians 3:10, “And have put on the new self, which is renewed in knowledge according to the image of him that created him.” So we are being renewed to this original image. The purpose of all of this is ultimately to fulfill the original dominion mandate. This is done ultimate through Jesus Christ in His return at the second coming. He is the one who is said to be the image of God in 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15.
The image is not simply there because we are to represent God, but how are we to represent God? That is the function of the next verse which is sometimes called the dominion mandate.
]]>
013-Man and Dominion. Gen 1:16-2:3
What it means to be created in the image and likeness of God
What sets man apart from all other creatures is not simply his ability to reason, not his ability to communicate, but that he is in the image and the likeness of God.
1) Man is made in the image and according to the likeness of God. “In the image”; “according to the likeness”. These prepositional phrases start with two distinct prepositions, be [as] and k [according to], but they are used together to indicate a synonymous parallelism between the two concepts.
2) The image describes man’s function. Man is created “as the image,” the basic meaning being “representative.” We are created as God’s representatives. Man was originally created to represent God over all of the creatures. So image describes man’s function. We are to represent God. Man was originally created to represent God over all of the creatures. That is why we see in the mandate of verse 28 that man is to have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. Literally, he is to rule the earth in God’s place. This is his function before the fall. So image describes man’s function according to the standard of God’s immaterial essence.
3) “Likeness” is what describes that immaterial essence of the soul make-up of man in terms of his self-consciousness, his intellect, volition and conscience.
4) These terms explain not merely that man is in the image of God but that he is the image of God.
5) Man was thus created to fill the role as God’s personal representative and ruler over creation, so that the rest of creation could look at mankind and in a sense they would see God. Man was to be God’s representative both to creation underneath him as well as to the angels. Remember the angels are witnesses to what is going on on the earth because God is demonstrating certain things in relationship to the angelic conflict and to Satan’s charges that God is not being fair to him.
6) The image applies equally to male and female. Man and woman together represent God on the earth.
7) The believer being conformed to the image of Christ is to represent Christ as ambassador on the earth. The image of God is defaced and narred through the fall; it starts to be recovered through regeneration; then we grow from grace to grace and from glory to glory as the image of Christ is made in us. That is a picture of the process of sanctification, as the character of Jesus Christ is made in the individual believer. Romans 8:29; 1 Corinthians 15:49; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians 3:10.
The reality of what man is is directly related to his function which is given as to rule, the have dominion. This relates to two distinct words in the Hebrew of verse 26: radah and kabash. Radah means to rule, to dominate, and to exercise dominion; kabash means to subdue, to bring everything under control or to bring something into bondage. So these two words indicate that man is to exercise complete authority over all of the animals, over all of the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, all of the natural resources that God has given to man. This is a unique point which lays the groundwork for a Christian view of the environment. When we run up against the left-wing view of environmentalism their view is that man just wants to rape and pillage and destroy the environment, and they want man to live in peaceful harmony with the environment and not develop any natural resources. That is what we always see in paganism. In paganism we get this idealized utopian view of native man living in perfect harmony with nature—the American Indian, the Australian aborigines, African natives, etc. But they polluted nature! In most environmental rationale they are basically operating on a pantheistic and pagan view of nature, so man is just to live in harmony with nature because he is just another cog. The assumption is evolutionary. As demonstrated earlier most of the pagan religions have the same kind of approach to origins that evolution has. So their idea is that man just lives in harmony with nature, he doesn’t do anything to disturb what is around him. He doesn’t dig in the ground, he doesn’t utilize the natural resources, everything has to be kept in a perfect balance and man is just another piece in the overall machinery of nature. But in Christianity man is distinct from the rest of the creation. Man is to rule over the creation; man is to subdue the creation; man is to exercise his engineering skills, his mental capabilities, his inventiveness, in order to discover the natural resources that God put into the planet so that he can build a civilization that glorifies God. That is the pristine view prior to the fall of man. However, all of that gets warped because of sin. Nevertheless, God never rescinds the dominion mandate. It is restated. It is never going to be fulfilled, though, until Jesus Christ comes back and establishes a perfect government and perfect environment during the Millennium. But Genesis 1:26-28 lays the foundation for how man is to rule and dominate nature. All is to be governed and ruled by man—in a responsible manner, for sure; not in a manner that destroys the environment so that is can’t be used again.
We see the expansion of this meaning of dominion and rule in Genesis chapter two. In 2:15, “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to keep it.” This is his responsibility. It was not an environment where Adam just laid around in the garden and enjoyed all of the wonders of Paradise and ate all of the fruit that he wanted to; he had responsibilities. We will see that those responsibilities were not laborious, not burdensome, not difficulties. He enjoyed it and was in perfect harmony with nature because there was no sin at that point.
Genesis chapter two describes the mechanics of God’s work on the sixth day and the creation of mankind in the garden. He had work to perform. He was to cultivate the garden. The word “cultivate” is the Hebrew abadh, which means to work. Secondly, he was to keep the garden—Heb. shamar, which has the idea of guarding, watching or keeping. Why would Adam have to guard and watch over the garden? Because in the background Lucifer is lurking. So man’s responsibility is to guard the garden from the introduction of evil. Then we know that he was to name the animals, and in the ancient world naming was a function of exercising dominion or control. So now we have this divine mandate that they are to exercise dominion over the earth.
V. 28, “And God blessed them.” And the blessing is given in the quotation. It is defined by the dominion mandate itself. This gives man a purpose and a function. “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” In some Bibles there is a semi-colon after “multiply.” That is not what the Hebrew says. It is not broken by a semi-colon. These are not three different commands here, it is one command with five elements. This is a compound verb. You have five verbs all linked together with the waw conjunctive prefix, which indicates that all five are viewed equally. You can’t remove one without removing the other four. These are linked together syntactically and grammatically so that it is s five-fold mandate. The first command is to be fruitful. This is the qal imperative of the Hebrew word which means to produce offspring. The second word is multiply. It is a qal imperative plus a waw consecutive of a word which means to grow, it is not simply having offspring but having many offspring. Then the ultimate purpose is to fill the earth, and again that is a qal imperative of a word which means they are not to stop until the whole earth is brought under dominion. Many people say that the world is being over-populated, but apparently a recent study indicated that you could take every human being living on the planet and give them a couple of acres of land and they wouldn’t fill the state of Texas. The earth is not over-populated. The dominion mandate has not been reversed. After the Genesis flood God restates this mandate to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. In God’s plan and purpose having children is a function of being an image-bearer. The Psalmist said, Blessed is the man whose quiver is filled with them. The metaphor the psalmist uses is that of a warrior who has a quiver filled with arrows, and he sends those arrows out into battle to gain victory over the enemy. So the picture that we have from the Old Testament is that people were to have children—they were viewed as a blessing from God—and they were, according to Malachi chapter three, to raise godly offspring. The purpose was to influence the world through missionary activity through the godly offspring. This concept is not reversed in the New Testament. The Christian family raises children, has children, in order to send them out as missionaries for divine viewpoint and Bible doctrine into the world, just as a warrior sends his arrows into the enemy in order to gain victory over them. This is a basic function of divine institution #3, the family. So children are always viewed in the Scripture as a blessing, and anyone who views children as less than a blessing is operating on human viewpoint, not on biblical thinking or on Bible doctrine. So the first three commands relate to the idea and filling and expanding influence over the planet. The next two commands relate to t heir function in ruling over everything. They are to subdue the planet, to bring it under control, to dominate it.
The question has arisen: Could the woman have conceived and born children in the garden? There are only three possibilities. The first option is that the woman was incapable of bearing children, and therefore this mandate was designed to be fulfilled only after the fall. In other words, God told them to do something but it wasn’t to go into effect until after the fall. The second option is that the woman was fully capable of bearing a child before the fall but she did not, because she didn’t have enough time, they sinned too soon. The third option was that she could get pregnant but God sovereignly overruled until their faith was tested.
The first problem with the first option is that this would mean that the command as it was initially given was empty and meaningless. God would be commanding them to do something which had no meaning and no possibility of fulfillment before the fall. This creates serious problems for interpretation of the Scriptures. There are several times where these commands are given. It is given one other time before the fall to the animals. If it had no meaning for the man then it would have no meaning for the animals. Second, you have the same command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth given to Noah after the flood, and a similar command is given to Abraham in terms of filling the land with his offspring. And of the other commands are to be understood as being effective immediately, then this command should be understood as being immediately effective. The second problem with the first view is that since all five imperatives are grammatically linked together, you can’t come in and say the last two—rule and exercise dominion—are before the fall and the first three are to be later on at some undesignated time and, of course, they don’t know they are going to sin. So since all five imperatives are grammatically linked they either all have to be effective from the instant they are given or none of them are applicable before the fall. And if they are not applicable before the fall then man has nothing to do before the fall. The whole concept of his purpose in Genesis 1:28 is to explain what he is to do as the creature in the image and likeness of God. After the fall God has to come in and modify this because man is now a sinner and he is going to be incapable of truly fulfilling the dominion mandate. The third problem this has is that it makes being fruitful and multiplying and filling the earth a consequence of sin. The woman can’t get pregnant at all until after the fall because God really doesn’t make that part of her make-up until the curse, and that means that children are a consequence of sin. That goes counter to everything else in Scripture. In conclusion, either she didn’t have enough time or God just simply sovereignly overruled to prevent her from being pregnant. Some people have said she couldn’t get pregnant because that would mean that she would have a monthly cycle in Paradise, but that is not true. There are biological changes that reverberate throughout the entire animal kingdom because of the fall. They become carnivores, their gastro-intestinal system shifts. So there is a physical-biological change in the woman’s reproductive system because of the fall, but that does not mean that it did not exist in another way prior to the fall. In conclusion then, she was capable of being pregnant but God sovereignly overruled that capacity.
V. 29, He is addressing the man: “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” Notice he is to eat vegetation, he is not to eat meat. He was not authorized to eat meat until after the flood.
V. 30, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green plant for food: and it was so.” When He says “every green plant for food” it doesn’t mean every plant was edible. What He is saying is that every plant provides some kind of nutrition for some kind of creature, and that there is more than an abundance of food for mankind.
Observations:
1) This means that trees with fruit, grasses and shrubs that provided nourishment for animals, were mature plants. That doesn’t mean that every plant that God created was mature, but there were many that were mature and fully able from the day they were created to supply the complete nutrition necessary for the animals. From day one God created mature fruit trees. This means that five hours after Adam and the woman were created they could reach out and clutch a ripe pear from a tree, or a ripe banana, and some of the berries in the garden were already ripe.
2) Every animals and mankind were originally designed to be herbivores, they were not carnivores. That means they had a certain kind of digestive system, a certain kind of dental structure. All of those things were related to their eating. This condition, we are told, will be restored in the Millennial kingdom. E.g. Isaiah 8:6-11. In other words, there is not going to be this antagonism in the animal kingdom and the lion is going to eat straw. So there will be a change again in the biological structure in the animal kingdom.
3) These verses speak of God’s abounding and sufficient grace for His creatures. When God provides something to meet the requirement of man, whether physical or spiritual, it is sufficient. Sufficient means that it is as much as needed, not necessarily more than is necessary, but that God provides abundantly and generously so that man does not need to add to what God supplies. Sufficiency applies to man in the garden. He had all the food he needed to eat.
4) In the same way God provided adequate information for Adam and Isha, it was not necessary for them to know all they could know.
5) Every green plant is given for food, indicating that there were no plants that were inedible for some species.
V. 31, “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” In the previous days God said “it was good.” Now He says “it was very good.” This indicates that the creation in its totality was complete. All of the details fit together in perfect harmony. The whole of the earth was exactly as God intended according to His blueprint.
Then we come to the seventh day in 2:1ff. “ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” The word for “host” is sabaoth, which in other places refers to the armies of the angels, but here it doesn’t have an angelic term, it often refers to the host of the heaven in the sense of the sun, the moon and the stars. So this is a summary statement in verse 1. Verse 2 & 3 tell us the purpose of the seventh day. “And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” V. 2 makes it clear that God finished on the seventh day. But we read this and say that God finished on the sixth day, and that it was a six-day creation week, then He rested on one day. However, the seventh day is correct because of the way it is structured in the Hebrew. It is set up like poetry and there is a perfect balance and parallelism in the lines. This verse consists of three consecutive parallel lines in the Hebrew. Each line contains exactly seven words. It is divided into two parts and the last word in each line is seven. The seventh day, the day of rest, is part of the whole. That means that resting from labor is as much a part of life as fulfilling responsibilities. Man is designed to need rest and to recharge his batteries, and even though this isn’t a legalistic mandate there is a general principle here. People need to take time off for recreation and to relax and enjoy life a little bit and not work seven days a week. God sets aside the seventh day as a day, not of rest because God neither wearies or needs rest, He simply ceases from His work, and it sets up the pattern for the Sabbath that will be established under the Mosaic law for Israel.
In these two verses there is also the repetition of the phrase “his work,” and the emphasis is that God completed His work. It is His work, it is not by chance, it didn’t happen through time plus chance, through impersonal forces in nature. God is intimately involved in every aspect of the creation. So God ceased from His work during that last day.
With Genesis 2:3 we complete the study of the first section of Genesis.
]]>
014-Creation and Evolution: Irresolvable Conflicts
Romans 12:2 says that we are not to be conformed to this world but are to be transformed by the renewing of our mind, by the renovation of our thinking. The term there for world is the Greek word KOSMOS [kosmoj] which has to do with an orderly arrangement of something. In this context it has to do with the orderly arrangement of thought. Every culture, whether it is a primitive stone-age culture, and Asian culture, an inner urban culture, or whether we are talking in the broader sense of a western culture versus an Islamic culture versus a Jewish culture, whatever the culture is, every culture and every nation has certain characteristics. These characteristics more often than not are built on an assumption that God does not exist, they come out of the human viewpoint of that day and that era. So wherever you are in life, whatever you are doing in life as a believer you need to be aware of the fact that you have been in a sense brainwashed, inculcated with the cosmic thinking of your nation, your culture, your background, and need to be in the process of evaluating, examining all of this thinking that we have in our soul that we pick up from the culture around us in order to remove from our soul the thinking that is human viewpoint and replace it with divine viewpoint.
Psychology has its roots in autonomous human viewpoint thinking, not in biblical thinking, and there is a head to head confrontation between psychological concepts and Christianity. The New Age movement and postmodernism and it is important to recognize that many of these isms that came along, as well as Marxism and socialism which gained their real thrust in the middle of the nineteenth century, all started at roughly the same time. If we go back to the 1830s-1850s we will find that the same core group of thinkers were influential in the founding of all of these basic thought systems. They read each other and they cross-pollinated ideas. Yet the history of the 20th century is really the history of the impact of those mid-nineteenth century ideas on western civilization as western civilization drifted further and further away from the Reformation roots that were laid down in the 16th century.
One of these areas that we haven’t taken time to take out and specifically expose is the area of creation and evolution. Evolutionary thought undergirds so much of what it dominates in our society. Most psychological thinking and concepts of who and what man is is influenced by evolutionary thought. In fact, you can even go out and find a lot of so-called Christian psychologists who have tried to merge psychology with Christianity. They have tried to go over into the realm of psychology and pick up certain elements that are neutral, they sound good. Most of these people have never been trained in the history of ideas and the history of philosophy and don’t realize that these ideas they are picking up are like the fruit at the end of various branches on a tree, and they never take the time to see that there is an integral relationship between the fruit at the end of the branch and the roots which are deep in the soil of atheism and evolutionism and Darwinism. So we have to look at this. If we want to break it down again, psychology, sociology, Marxism, socialism and evolution all have their roots in that same framework of thought that occurs in the 19th century.
What is evolution? Evolution is the idea that it took billions of years for the present universe to develop the way it is, and that it took millions of years for organic molecules to develop, and then millions more years for those simple organic molecules to transform slowly and gradually from simple amoebas and protozoa to the complexity of the modern human being. Two things we will look at. One relates to the development of the universe which took billions of years. Today in the literature it is anything from about 3.7 to 4.7-billion years. We can’t even comprehend a billion, it is such a big number. But it is anywhere from 4-billion to 20-billion years, depending on who you read and how much time they think they need. Then when it comes to the earth, the earth just happened by pure random processes, and in those random processes there was this mix of chemicals—a sort of primordial chemical stew cooking on the stove—and something happened, an electrical discharge, they have no idea what, it is all guesswork.
In scientists’ literature they will admit that they do not have a clue how things happened, and there is one particular event that happened from non-living matter/chemicals and suddenly there was produced a living cell, just by pure random chance. And that has to be their view, they have to hold on to that with all of their might to protect their whole theory. But as we will see, that is impossible.
Any Christian who has ever tried to talk to anybody about evolution will have heard people say: “Well you believe in evolution, don’t you? Evolution just means change. Everybody believes in change.” But that is really a debater’s technique to try to avoid the whole issue. There are two types of evolution. There is what is called micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is what we would call change which are small DNA or genetic changes within a species or kind. E.g. you can take two different kinds of dogs and breed them together so that you have a new breed of dog, but it is still a dog. It hasn’t become a cat, a rat, a bird; it is still a dog. Macro-evolution is the idea that there is slow change and transformation from one species to another. This is the whole idea of amoeba demand. What we are talking about is macro-evolution, the idea that there is change and development across the boundaries—where fish eventually crawl out of the water and become amphibious, they develop lungs instead of gills, and eventually they become reptiles, then eventually those reptiles become mammals, and eventually the mammals develop into the highest order of animal, which is man. That shows that there is one chain of being, and this is a critical idea in the whole history of evolution, that all life forms are all part of the same connected chain of life which goes back to the distant mists of history. That is part and parcel of almost every ancient pagan belief, this idea of a chain of being. That undergirds so much of psychology today and some of these other ideas that come along.
One of the classic illustrations that is given in most text books is the idea of peppered moths in England, a white moth with black peppering on them. They would be camouflaged on a Beech tree. Then in the middle 19th century as there was the development of industry and the use of coal fuels and the heavy pollution that came about, what would happen is that the soot would get on the trees and all of a sudden these white moths would become exposed. Now the birds which would eat the peppered moths would see them, they wouldn’t be camouflaged against that background. As time went on the number of white moths that originally outnumbered the number of black moths became less and less. There were always black moths with white peppering but they were in the minority. As a result of the pollution and the soot from the smokestacks the white moths became visible and were eaten. As years went on there was a shift in the moth population and now 95% of the moths were black with white spots, and the white moths were disappearing. This is given as an example in the text book of evolution—survival of the fittest. The point is, however, it is still a moth!
So the basic theory of evolution can be boiled down to the idea that in the beginning there was nothing and there was no one, and as a result of nothing plus no one everything else came into existence. That is the basic mathematical formula and if you boil it down like that it really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Nothing plus no one equals everything, or time plus chance—if you give something enough time plus chance—there is going to develop order, intelligence and complexity. This is the root of all evolutionary thought: time plus the element of chance; given enough time anything can happen. But that is not true. Given enough time I will never win the lottery. Put a typewriter in a cage with a monkey and he will eventually type out, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” But that will never happen. The odds are impossible.
There is a direct conflict between the theory of evolution and what the Bible teaches. The first conflict is the conflict of presuppositions and biases. We have to realize that everyone has some sort of presupposed starting point. Everyone has a bias. Scientists want people to think that they start from a position of pure objectivity, they are not going to be influenced by some religious text. But if the religious text happens to be what it claims to be, that is, the direct revelation of God who created everything, and He is an omniscient God who knows everything, and the scientist is not omniscient, then what is going to have more accuracy? If the text of Scripture is what is claims to be it is the revelation of God, is 100 per cent accurate, and it is discarded as part of the evidence by a scientist, then that scientists is not free from bias, he has a presupposition or a bias at the very beginning that has excluded a large piece of the evidence. So he predetermines his conclusion because he limits the evidence he is willing to examine at the very beginning. When you admit that your starting point is an anti-supernatural empiricism or rationalism then you have already determined from the very beginning before you started talking about any evidence that God does not exist and that God cannot communicate, and that any communication that claims to be from God is just something that is made up by man. That is the scientists’ starting point, they have already predetermined the situation by their assumption.
One question we need to ask somebody who says they are not biased, not prejudiced, they are really objective, and that if you want to just prove God to me, I’m willing to listen to the evidence, what would constitute evidence for a person like that? Ask an evolutionist: What do you take as proof that God exists? The Bible claims in Romans 1:19-20 that there is more than sufficient evidence that God exists: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God [the potential of all that could be known about God] is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” If somebody goes out and says, I don’t see God, then His evidence is clear; they are distorting the evidence—“suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” There is clear evidence every time you look at a molecule, every time you look at a flower, every time you look at some remarkable creatures that are in the world today, it is evidence that there is a designer, there is an intelligence behind that design. But man, because of sin and rejection of God at God-consciousness, suppresses that truth in unrighteousness, and in looking at all of this evidence that God exists just denies it. So you would ask a scientist what would really constitute proof, and he would say he doesn’t know. That is because he has more proof than he needs but he has rejected that. He really doesn’t know what would constitute proof, and if he doesn’t know what constitutes proof he wouldn’t know if it was proved or not. So what would a rationalist or empiricist accept as constituting proof? If you don’t know what would prove the conclusion then you wouldn’t know it if you saw it if the proof was right in front of you, because you have already predetermined the conclusion. So the first conflict that we have is a conflict of presuppositions and biases. In evolution the presupposition is anti-supernatural—there is no God who is involved in the creation.
The next conflict between the creationist and the evolutionist, and that is that evolution is a religion. The claim of the evolutionist is that they are scientists and they are not going to take into account religion, creation is just a religious belief. The problem is that evolution is also a religion. In fact, evolution is as much a religion as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, or any other religious system. It is a system of faith. For example, how do we know how old the rocks are? One way they date the rocks is by the fossils. How old are the fossils. The fossils are dated by the kind of rock they are found in, so it is a circular argument. The fact of evolution is the backbone of modern biology. Modern biologists believe that evolution is not merely a theory, it is a fact. This puts biology in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory. Evolution is not proved at all. Therefore we must ask the question: Is this a science or a faith? If it is not proved, is it science or is it faith?
Quote from Dr. Harrison Matthews, an evolutionist and the writer of the introduction to Darwin’s book, The Origin of the Species. The full title of The Origin of the Species as it was originally published is, Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Almost all of the founding fathers of evolution—Darwin, Huxley, and others—all believed that the white races are superior to all of the other races and all of the colored races are actually degenerations in the development of the human race, and that they would eventually die off and the white races would be supreme. That has pretty much been expunged from modern evolution because they find it embarrassing. It was that idea that gave root to what was called “social Darwinism” which was the foundation of the whole Nazi theory. Hitler was an evolutionist and he believed that in the process of evolution the Arian races were the superior races. Nazi beliefs were all founded on social Darwinism. They find that embarrassing, so you won’t find that talked about much anymore. Matthews’ quote:
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither up to the present has been capable of proof.”
Furthermore, Dr. T. N. Tamezian, who served on the Atomic Energy Commission, stated in an interview in 1959 that scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.”
If evolution is not science and a religion what is the evolutionary faith based on? It is impossible for science to test or validate any of the assumptions on which evolution is based. Experiments can’t test it, they can’t be produced in the laboratory, and the basis of scientific methodology is that you are able to reproduce the experiments in the laboratory in order to demonstrate the truth of the theory, and that can’t take place. Evolution is based on seven assumptions, according to evolutionist G. A. Kirkut, that are the foundation of everything in evolution. He outlines the following seven assumptions:
a) Non-living things gave rise to living material—also known as spontaneous generation.
b) Spontaneous generation occurred only once. (Earlier evolutionists would say it occurred several times) From that one single event, that one molecule developing by chance, happened at the right time and was preserved long enough to replicate itself. (Inside that cell there had to be the capacity for reproduction. That involves an incredible amount of information inside of a cell for that cell to be able to replicate itself, so we are not talking about something that is simple. In Darwin’s day he thought a cell was something very simple. Today we know that a cell is incredibly complex and that it takes a tremendous amount of information for that cell to even be in existence)
c) Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all related.
d) Protozoa (single-celled life forms) gave rise to metazoa (multiple-celled life forms).
e) Various invertebrate are interrelated—one developed into the other.
f) The invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
g) Within the vertebrates the fish gave rise to amphibian, the amphibian to reptiles, the reptiles to birds and mammals.
These assumptions listed virtually define everything in evolutionary teaching. Then Kirkuk states that all of them are assumptions and that not one of them is based on any factual, demonstrable, experimental, testable or reproducible evidence. Their theory is nothing more than an assumption.
Over the years a number of mathematicians have tried to determine the mathematical probability of evolution and of spontaneous generation. Particularly they have looked at the mathematical probability that all of the necessary factors could come together in just the right way and at the right time that non-living chemicals would in one purely random act generate a living cell, and that this cell then survived in a hostile environment long enough to reproduce itself. Where do all of this come from and how could this take place? If all of the universe was crammed with electron particles, and the universe is not currently filled with electronic particles, then the maximum number of particles that could fill the universe would be ten to the one hundred and thirtieth power. (That is ten followed by 130 zeros) If each particle in that universe could perform one hundred billion, billion events (i.e. 10 to the 120th power) each second, and then allow ten to the 20th seconds of cosmic history, i.e. 3000-billion years. (Remember, time plus chance equals organization) then what you have is 10 to the 270th power events possible, i.e. 10 followed by 270 zeros. To get a series of as few as 1500 events to take place in the right sequence (an extremely conservative guess, in a cell you have thousands of events) and under the right circumstances the mathematical probability that you would produce a living cell is 10 to the 450th power. That is one chance in ten followed by 450 zeros. That is just for spontaneous generation of that one single cell necessary to start organic life. We are not talking about what would be involved in producing an eye. An eye is one of the greatest problems that evolutionists have because in the development of any part of the eye until it was a fully functional eye it would be some sort of negative development—what good is this single thing if it doesn’t work? It would be a hindrance to the creature. Until you had the fully developed eye no part of it would be considered valuable or functional in the development of the creature.
The basic idea in Darwinism is the idea of survival of the fittest and adaptations and mutations that graduated over time. The problem with Darwinism as it emphasizes the survival of the fittest is that it never explains the arrival of the fittest. How did it get there in the first place? As one evolutionist pointed out, one of the major problems in Darwin’s book, Origin of the Species, is he never explains the origin of the species. Survival of the fittest only shows why some species survive and some don’t, it doesn’t explain how they got there in the first place.
Most mathematicians who have worked on these probability figures over the years have come up with even a greater improbability.
So that leads us to the theories of the ultimate origins of the universe. There are two basic theories: the big bang theory, which is the predominant theory, and the steady state theory. The big bang view is that the universe and all it contains is the result of matter so dense that matter itself was invisible, suddenly exploding in a super explosion that eventually resulted in the present orderly composition of the universe. Just the very notion seems to be absurd. In a book called The New Story of Science, Robert Agross and George Stanshew, write that the universe began as a particle that was infinitely dense (how can it be infinitely dense?) and occupied no space (how could it occupy no space and even be in existence?). This event is said to have taken place between five and twenty-billion years ago. So, first of all, the big bang theory assumes that matter and energy are eternal. Matter had to be eternally present before the big bang or there would have been nothing to explode. Therefore, what we learn from this is that everyone believes in something eternal. Either they believe in something that is eternal in the form of impersonal matter or energy, or they believe in an impersonal force. This is a faith statement. It is faith, not science. Second, the big bang theory attempts to explain only the ordering and the organization of matter and energy, it doesn’t seek to explain the origin of matter and energy. The basic problem is, if matter and energy are eternal (which the theory demands) then matter and energy would, by the time of the big bang, have reached a state of equilibrium, i.e. it would no longer be in some sort of volatile situation that could explode. This is based on two laws of physics that are violated by the theory of evolution. These two laws are referred to as the two laws of thermodynamics. In the first law of thermodynamics we have the law that matter and energy are not created or destroyed. This means that if there is no matter that is created or destroyed then you have a finite amount of matter. It is not being added to, it is not decreasing. You start off with an X amount of matter. Remember that according to their theory matter is eternal. The second law of thermodynamics says that all matter or energy is moving to a state of entropy (a non-usable state). It is therefore in a state of decline, moving from order to disorder. If matter and energy are eternal and you start off with a finite amount of matter and energy, and all matter and energy is moving from a state of order to disorder, than an eternity ago we ran out of usable energy and usable matter—because you don’t start with an infinite amount of matter, you start off with a finite amount. And it is always moving from a state of order to disorder so that an eternity ago it reached the state of pure entropy where there is no more usable energy or matter. So that is an internal conflict between the theory of evolution and the basic laws of thermodynamics. But in terms of the big bang it also indicates that by the time of the big bang event you would have reached the state of pure equilibrium and there would have been nothing to go bang and nothing to cause it to go bang. So that necessitates that there would have to be some sort of external principle or force on that matter in order to cause it to go bang. That, of course, is unacceptable because it brings us face to face with the idea of God!
The Bible teaches that matter and energy are finite and created, as does the first law of thermodynamics, and the biblical data fits scientific laws more consistently than the theory of evolution.
Furthermore there is another conflict between evolution and creation, and that is that in evolution they can’t explain what holds the solar system together, what holds the universe together, because gravity is a function of mass and there is not enough mass in the solar system, not enough mass in the galaxies, not enough mass in the universe, to hold it together. There is a missing mass problem. Of course, Colossians 1:16,17 tells us that everything is held together by the Lord Jesus Christ. That solves the missing mass problem.
Another conflict that we have is that according to the Bible Jesus Christ created mankind in the image and likeness of God, but according to evolution man developed over millions of years, through billions of evolutionary mistakes, and the death of billions of creatures. So on the one hand you have God creating man instantly, and on the other hand you have millions of years of evolutionary mistakes and side-tracks, and the death of billions of creatures. According to evolution man is fundamentally no different from any other animal, micro-bacteria or plant, he is all a part of that same chain of being. That is why when in terms of the modern ecological movement it is such a terrible evil to go out and chop down a tree in the rain forest—because we are all part of that same chain of being. Man is part of that chain of being, he can’t go in and be over nature as the Bible says. Furthermore, if you try to make any form of compromise with evolution, and form of accomodationist view such as theistic evolution, the day-age theory, or progressive evolution, then you have a god who must be incredibly violent, as well as inept, who required millions of years of ferocious animals and death—the whole idea of the survival of the fittest is built on death, something has to survive meaning something doesn’t survive. The basic mechanism of evolution is death, destruction, violence.
If humans evolved from apes and other creatures then Jesus Christ who was born of the virgin Mary would be genetically linked not just to mankind but to all animals. Again, this is against the statement of Mark 10:6, which specifically says that God created Adam and the woman. Man was created fully mature with the appearance of age. They would reach out and eat of a tree thee fruit which had the appearance of age. So everything was created and had an appearance of age, and that is not a deception, it is not a subterfuge. For example, in John chapter two we know that Jesus transformed the water into wine. What does it take to make good wine? One element is age, yet Jesus created the best wine that has e3ver been drunk in human history in a second. It had the appearance of age even though it wasn’t old. In creation there is the appearance of age, and so that is going to affect any kind of dating mechanism. This Bible is in complete and 100% conflict with what is taught in evolution. There are numerous attempts over the years to try to harmonize the Bible’s account of creation with the myth of evolution. But either the Bible is true or evolution is true, you can’t force any kind of synthesis between the two, there are so many radical differences.
The contrasts:
1) The Bible claims that God is the creator of all things in Genesis one. Evolution claims that random events and chance processes, plus no information or person accounts for the existence of all things.
2) The Bible claims that the present world was recreated in six literal 24-hour days. Evolution says that the world evolved over eons of time.
3) The Bible claims that creation is completed. Whatever laws were in effect, whatever processes were in effect between day one and day six, ceased at the end of the sixth day. Evolution claims that those processes and laws, physical and biological, are still continuing the same today as forever.
4) The Bible says the ocean was created before the land. Evolution says that land came before the oceans.
5) The Bible says that there is an atmosphere between the two hydrospheres. Evolution says that there was one continuous atmosphere and hydrosphere in the early earth.
6) The Bible claims the first life was on land. Evolution claims that life began in the oceans.
7) The Bible claims that the first life was land plants. Evolution claims that the first life were marine organisms.
8) The Bible says that the earth was created before the sun and the stars. Evolution says that the sun and the starts came into being before the earth.
9) The Bible says that fruit trees were created before the fish. Evolution says fish came into being before fruit trees.
10) The Bible says that all stars were made on the fourth day. Evolution says that stars evolved at various times down through the ages.
11) The Bible says that birds and fish were created on day five. Evolution says that fish evolved hundreds of millions of years before birds appeared.
12) The Bible says that birds were created before the crawling things, including insects. Evolution says that insects came before birds.
13) The Bible says that whales were created before the reptiles. Evolution says that reptiles were created before whales.
14) The Bible says that birds were created before reptiles. Evolution says that reptiles were created before birds.
15) The Bible says that man was created before there was rain. Evolution says there was rain before man came into being.
16) The Bible says that man came before woman. Evolution says that woman came before man.
17) The Bible says that light was in existence before the stars and the sun were created. Evolution says that the stars and the sun existed before there was any light.
18) The Bible says that plants were created before the sun. Evolution says that the sun was in existence before there were any plants.
19) The Bible says there was an abundance and variety of marine life all at once. Evolution says that marine life gradually developed from a primitive organic blob.
20) The Bible says that man’s body was created from the chemicals of the soil. Evolution claims that man evolved from ape-like ancestors.
21) The Bible claims that man exercised dominion over all organisms. Evolution says that most organisms were extinct before man ever existed.
22) In the Bible man was originally a vegetarian. In evolution man was originally a meat eater, therefore vegetarianism is considered to be a higher thing.
23) In the Bible there are fixed and distinct kinds. In evolution life forms are in a continuous state of flux.
24) In the Bible man’s sin is the cause of physical death in the universe. In evolution, struggle and death were existent long before the evolution of man.
25) In the Bible suffering, death and pain are viewed as abnormal and the result of sin, and were not God’s original creative intent. But according to evolution suffering, death and pain, and therefore evil, are normal.
]]>
015b-Creation and Evolution: Monkeys
We now focus on monkeys, men, and mutations. We’ve all opened up publications and seen the whole list of man-like and ape-like creatures that are allegedly the predecessors, the missing links in the development of the human race. We always see pictures where these are very hairy and thick-lipped and all the various kinds of primordial features are present in the early versions. But the thing is, that whenever they discover the remains of the allegedly early creatures those remains are just a skull fragment or a jawbone, they have no idea of what the fleshy parts of the man would look like. And so ninety-eight per cent of what you see in those artistic diagrams are nothing more than the artist’s imagination. It has nothing to do with scientific fact. No one ever has a picture of what these looked like, they just have a few skull fragments. Everything else is just pure guesswork.
We have to realize that with the development of the theory of evolution back in the nineteenth century must was made of finding the missing link. Where is the missing link? We don’t know because it isn’t missing. There is no evidence of any linkage whatsoever. In the development of evolution in the 19th century it was seen that this whole extrapolation of this series of early men and the idea of stone-age men and having them as predecessors to full homo sapien human beings put a lot of pressure on Christians. So there were various accommodationist theories that were set forth, such as progressive creationism, the day-age view, and the classic gap view that came from Thomas Chalmers and made popular by Pember. It was that view that hi-jacked an older view that there was a time lapse between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and then they tried to fit 45,000 years into that gap. At least that is what it was when Chalmers wrote, By the end of the 19th century it was a few million years, but they had already committed themselves and made a mistake. They felt like they were taking scientific conclusions as fact, and they were nothing more than guesswork. So they looked at all of these creatures that were allegedly human beings and seemed like some kind of missing link and they tried to work out where to put them, so they came up with the idea that there must have been some pre-Adamic race that existed before Genesis 1:2. The problem with that is that it lends itself to the view that God was kind of experimenting and it is not until Genesis 1:26-28 that after the death of hundreds of thousands or millions of these creatures comes up with the final plan. So that has negative implications for one’s view of God. Few people are willing to admit that. Usually what we find in this is that you have to be extremely humble when you come to the Scriptures and let arrogance dominate. But we know that arrogance is tenacious, and that is really the theme here: the tenacity of arrogance in evolution. This is because there is no evidence of any missing link, no evidence of any kind of human pre-trail whatsoever, even though there is a tremendous amount of propaganda out there in biology text books, in Time-Life books, and in all kinds of national parks are seen the features of the different kinds of people.
So we will go through a list of some of these alleged predecessors and get the true story on these so-called early men.
1) Java man. The Time-Life editors in their book The First Men called these “definitely human and definitely old.” Java man was discovered in September, 1891, by Eugene du Bios when he found a single ape-like tooth. In October in the same general location, about three feet from the first find he discovered another tooth. In November another three feet from the second tooth he discovered a skull impression in a rock mass—not the skull but the impression of the skull. Then that winter the river flooded the site and digging stopped. It was not until the next year in August of 1892 that they returned to the site, and some fifty feet away they discovered a femur. He confidently announced that he had discovered the missing link—Java man, the link between apes and man. But in the same area were discovered bones from deer, elephants, tigers, hyenas, crocodiles and rhinoceros. So it was a graveyard of all kinds of bones, and how would one be able to discern that these ape-like teeth (two of them) and the skull impression were the same individual. In a separate find a German anthropologist found five skull fragments which were later identified with that same group. But now they are declared by Time-Life to be “definitely human and definitely old.”
2) Peking man. Called part of homo erectus. Homo erectus is really a loose designation for something that is pretty much homo sapien, but we are going to knock him down a little bit because they hold the possibility there was some sort of connection, but for all practical purposes they are part of the homo genus. Peking man was discovered in Peking by W.D. Pay who was aided by Teilhard de Chardin. One of the things that we have to be careful of here is who this second person is. He is one of the spookiest guys in the history of Christianity and the history of the 20th century. He was a Jesuit priest, but many New Agers go back to him, read his writings. He is foundational in many of the avante guard postmodernist background type of thinking, and he was also implicated in the hoax of the Piltdown man. The fact that Teilhard de Chardin was involved with the Peking man at all casts doubts on Peking man. These two men found a total of forty men, women, and children’s parts. This was the allegation because there is a lot of differences in the records, because one anthropologist name Janus writes: “They labeled, described, photographed and categorized the casts of the 175 fossil fragments that had been collected”— the reason we go back to the photographs is because in World War II when the Japanese invaded China all evidence of Peking man was destroyed – So Janus writes, “in relationship to Peking man . . . Those fossil fragments were composed of five skulls, 150 jaw fragments and teeth, 9 thigh bones and fragments, two upper arm bones, a collar bone and a wrist bone.” Another anthropologist, Johannsen, agrees that there were five skulls but instead of 150 jaw fragments there were 15 smaller pieces of the skull or face, 14 lower jaws, and 152 teeth. So no one can even agree what the evidence consisted of for Peking man. The evidence, though, from the pictures was that the skulls were crushed from behind and the brains were probably removed for food. There is agreement now from anthropologists—evolutionists—that Peking man was probably not human but was killed and eaten by humans. This has become more of the accepted view in recent years.
3) Heidelberg man. This was discovered in Germany and consisted of a single fragment, a jawbone of large proportions and human teeth. Today he is considered an example of homo erectus, so he is in the homo genus, according to Time-Life books. However, Johannsen and Eady, in their book “The Beginning of Human Kind” state that “his finder recognized that he was a man and thus belonged in the genus homo but decided to put him in a species of his own.” So it was just pure guesswork, the original discoverer of this one jawbone fragment wanted to be known for discovering a new species. So Heidelberg man doesn’t fit in the chain.
4) Piltdown man. This is a fascinating story of how the gullible are easily duped. This was allegedly discovered by a man named Charles Dawson in 1912. But in 1954 it was discovered to have been a hoax. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was associated with Dawson the next year and going back to the same site they discovered a tooth that was buried in that site, and so he is also implicated in putting forth this hoax. The jaw was the jaw of an orangutan that they treated with acid, they stained the skull, and the teeth were filed down, then the jaw of this orangutan was attached to a human cranium. In 1954 it was admitted that this was a hoax. As late as 1969 Harvard Press was still publishing books (15 years after admission of the hoax) affirming the legitimacy of Piltdown man in the human background.
Arrogance is tenacious. Evolutionists continue to hold on to these strands of alleged evidence. In some case they continue to purport that which is known to be false. The Harvard Press account of the Piltdown man was built on nothing but a myth, but a hoax. It shows how they can take something that is fraudulent, warp it around a tremendous amount of scientific language and continue to voice that on the public, even though it has already been proven to be false.
5) Another group of finds that were popular back in the 70s to say were part of the background for the human race were the ramipithicenes. This was based on a jaw fragment that was discovered in 1937 in India. It was originally given the name, because it was in India, of ramapithicus. But then a couple of years later an anthropologist discovered a skull fragment in southern Africa which he combined with that jaw fragment and the species ramapithicus was then born. Notice they take a jaw fragment from India and a skull fragment in Africa and link them together. In 1973 two evolutionists, Alan Walker and Peter Andrews, wrote an article in Nature Magazine that the jaw of ramapithicus was that of a true ape. By the mid-1970s ramapithicus was considered as an ancestor to the orangutan or ape but was definitely not in the line of man. Yet, you will still find books today who have ramapithicus in the lineage of man. Even after the mid-70s when ramapithicus is no longer in the human line, in 1982 Richard Leaky, the son of a famous anthropologist and evolutionist, declared in a book called Human Origins that ramipithicenes are thought to be the group from which our ancestors evolved. They continue to hold on to these things and promote them as absolute evidence when it is not evidence of anything at all except their powerful imaginations. Then there are the Ostralapithicenes [also known as Nutcracker Man], the ones which have gained probably the most fame. Mary Leaky, the daughter of the famous anthropologist, was walking along the slop of a dig on a July morning in 1959 and noticed some brownish-black premolar teeth, the size of a monkey’s or an ape’s, sticking out of the rocks. It took nineteen days to free the teeth and the other parts of a fossil palate out of the rock. The site where they were working contained more than 400 bone fragments in a 25 square-foot area. T. H. Cann notes in his book, An Introduction to Homonology, that Ostralapithigus is a genus now generally agreed to be homonoid, but it is not human. The most famous of these was a three-and-a-half-foot creature called Lucy. Allegedly Lucy is the first creature to walk on two feet, allegedly the oldest ancestor to man, and Lucy theoretically, according to their view, resembles homo sapiens in three ways: her knee, her arm-to-leg length ratio, and her left pelvic bone. But there are problems. The knee joint was found 60 to 80 metres deeper in the rock strata and almost a mile away from the rest of her! Secondly, her published arm-leg-link ratio (a human being has an arm that is about 75% the length of the leg. An ape has one that is longer than the leg) was 83.9%, which meant that her arm was much longer than a normal human. However, the leg bone was crushed in various places and the pieces don’t all fit together. So you can’t get an accurate arm-leg ration at all, it is just another guess. Then the third piece of evidence is the pelvic bone. This pelvic bone is distorted as we have it and it shows that Lucy probably walked on all fours and that she was a knuckle walker, and other quotes indicate that she was probably a climber. In the article published in Science News, vol. 100, November 27, 1971, we read: “Ostralapithicus limb-bones fossils have been rare finds. But Leaky now has a large sample. They portray Ostralapithicus as long-armed and short-legged (notice how that differs from the earlier analysis). He was probably a knuckle walker, not an erect walker as many archaeologists presently believe. Furthermore, if Ostralapithicus lived in the same region occupied 2-million years before the more highly evolved genus homo than Johannsen and his colleagues suggest, it seems likely that the true man and the near man lived in the same area at the same time. All previous theories of the origin and the lineage of the modern man must now be totally revised. We must throw out many existing theories and consider the possibility that man’s origins go back to well over 4-million years.” (And they don’t know what those origins are)
6) Neanderthal man. Isaac Asomoth stated very clearly, “Give a Neanderthal man a shave and a haircut, dress him in well-fitted clothes, and he could probably walk down New York’s Fifth Avenue without getting much notice. In other words, Neanderthal man is now believed to be normal European homo sapiens, with the possibility that he just suffered from rickets and arthritis.
7) Nebraska man was another hopeful missing link. That evidence came from the state of Nebraska. That evidence was built on one tooth which was discovered in 1922. Then two years later a skull was found in the same location and the tooth fitted perfectly. But it was the skull of an extinct pig!
So there we have eight different contestants all trying to be ancestors to man, and none of which fit. Yet that is what most of us have been told, we see it illustrated in all the magazines. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of these are ancestors to man. There are various differences between man and apes. While an ape may superficially resemble a man because he has two legs and certain appearances it would appear that they are closely related. However that is only superficial. For example, man has a permanent bipedal locomotion. That affects everything related to his spinal cord, the relationship of his muscles, all of which are going to be quite different, whereas apes walk on all fours. Second, man has a big toe in line with his other toes. An apes large toe is located back toward the rear toward the heel, and it is opposable just like the thumb on your hand – so that he can grab branches and trees. That is really what determines the difference between an ape and a man, not thee skull. And yet, what are they looking for? In fossil finds they always come up with skull fragments and jaw fragments, but don’t come up with the feet which tells us whether it is an ape or a man. Man generally has a larger brain. In man the head is balanced on the top of the spine; in apes the head is hinged in front of the spine. Man is less mature at birth; apes are more mature. Why do we still have so many species of apes and monkeys? There are also more vertebrae in the back of a man than an ape. Men have shorter arms and longer legs than apes. Men as human beings have 46 chromosomes whereas apes have 48 chromosomes. All of this means that it would be virtually impossible for there to be changes.
So the question arises: Where did these prehistoric men come from? Who are they? Most creationists agree that these were groups of fully human beings that for some reason left the mainstream of civilization. Over time they degenerated socially from the mainline of human development. Under evolution what you have socially is that man started off in this primitive stone age state, and then they gradually discovered things, gradually moved forward. The picture we have in Scripture is that Adam was probably the most attractive, the most physically capable, and the most mentally agile human being that has ever existed. Because of sin everything has gone down hill.
Job makes reference to this in Job 30:1-8, “But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock. Yea, whereto might the strength of their hands profit me, in whom o