What is Biblical Meditation? How is different from the pagan practices of meditation? What are some current dangers that Christians are facing with the introduction of mystical practices. In a recent sermon, I dealt with these questions.
The audio for the sermon as well as my notes can be found here: SermonAudio
Dear CLA Families and Friends,
Thank you for your prayers for the Americans for Truth Conference that was held at CLA earlier in the month of August. On the first evening of the conference there were around 75-100 protestors organized by the Gay Liberation Network. Though some of the protestors were quite vulgar, rude, and even smelly, there was thankfully no violence. Some of the protestors were even willing to engage in serious conversation with some of the speakers and attendees of the conference. While the protestors were shouting about how the conference was inspired by hate, a former homosexual was sharing his story of God’s grace in his life.
I would strongly encourage you to order either CD’s or DVD’s from the conference. To learn more visit – www.aftah.org
To learn more about the protest, note the Facebook page here: GLN Protest
Change and unity. Think of how you are growing and changing and yet you are the same person today as you were a year ago and five years ago. When we think of God’s covenant throughout history there is both unity and change.
Gen. 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Abraham was 75 when God made this covenant with him. Twenty-four years later, God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision. This was not an entirely new covenant but rather a way for the covenant to be administered. Through the covenant sign of circumcision God was giving to Abraham and to all of his descendants a very visible sign of what God promised to do and what was to be in response their duty. At this time God also promised to Abraham all the land of Canaan.
God’s dealing with Abraham is of supreme importance. As Robert Reymond has summarized: “Once the covenant of grace had come to expression in the spiritual promises of the Abrahamic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant became the picture or model of God’s continued work of salvation leading up to the coming of Christ.”[1]
Now later as the descendants of Abraham were brought out of Egypt by God’s mighty power, Israel was given what has been called the Mosaic Covenant. Again this was not an entirely new covenant, it was a new way for the covenant to be administered. Israel was given many laws and ceremonies. Israel was never to earn her salvation by keeping God’s Law. Rather God gave to Israel the law as part of His covenant dealings with His people. God always deals with people in terms of covenant.
With David, the covenant of grace reached another important stage. The Davidic covenant formally established the manner in which the Lord would rule among his people. The climax of the OT is found in 2 Samuel 7. O. Palmer Robertson writes: “Prior to this point, God certainly had manifested himself as the Lord of the covenant. But now God openly situates his throne in a single locality. Rather than ruling from a mobile sanctuary, God reigns from Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. In a climatic sense, it may be said that under David the kingdom has come.”[2]
All the OT covenants made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David point the way clearly to the coming of Christ and the New Covenant of which He would be the mediator.
Hebrews 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
We will consider this New Covenant in our next study.
[2] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, 229.
Many people today talk about how we should try to think of God. All the other religions of the world are based on the idea of man seeking after ‘god’ or ‘gods.’ But Scripture teaches something much different. God seeks after man. God does not wait for man to seek him because man on his own will never find God or seek after Him.
The Westminster Confession of Faith in Chapter 7 speaks of the distance between God and man as being so great that we could never experience any enjoyment of God as our blessing and reward if God did not take the initiative to come to us. And God has done this through the means of covenant.
There are different definitions for covenant:
Covenant – an agreement or promise between two or more persons.
Covenant – a bond in blood, kingly given, broken only by death.
Covenant – the relationship that God begins and determines with His people.
Theologians debate on whether to call God’s dealing with Adam in the Garden of Eden a covenant. The word is not found in Genesis 1-3, but there are basic elements of what can be called a covenant. The covenant between God and Adam is sometimes called the covenant of works or the covenant of life. Looking at Genesis 2:15-17, there are the basic parts of a covenant. Adam was given permission to eat of every tree of the garden and forbidden at this time to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen. 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Genesis 3:17-19 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Note that Adam and Eve are then kicked out of the Garden of Eden with no hope of return. They were cut of covenantally from the life that they had one enjoyed. But before Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden they were given a promise in Genesis 3:15.
Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Here in these words we see that God would bring salvation to Adam and Eve not through their own obedience but through a coming Savior.
The Westminster Confession of Faith states that following the fall of Adam (and Eve), the Lord was pleased to establish a new covenant.
Westminster Confession of Faith: 7.3 – Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
Now you know enough about the Bible to realize that there are at least 4000 years of OT history before the coming of Christ. God prepared the way for the coming of Christ in a number of ways. God raised up the godly line of Seth. God then chose Noah and his family to be the ones who would continue the human race after God brought an incredible judgment on the entire world.
Then in Genesis 12 we have what can be described almost as a new creation. We have in Genesis 12 the beginning of Abraham’s story (it actually is introduced at the end of chapter 11).
Gen. 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
We will continue looking at the Abrahamic Covenant next.
Introduction
Matthew begins his gospel with a genealogy that shows that God has guided the whole of Israel’s history so that it might climax in the birth of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of David and the Son of Abraham.[1] In this genealogy we see the perfect but often surprising plan of God.
1. Verse 1: Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham
Note verse 1 again: The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.
Matthew’s gospel is appropriately the first of the gospels. And one way that we see this is in its opening words: the book of the genealogy. These same words in Greek are used in the Greek Translation of the Old Testament in Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 5:1. And so from the very beginning Matthew shows the connection between the Old and New Testaments. Yes, something new has come and is happening. But what is new is firmly based on what God already has done and has promised.
In the Old Testament the genealogies always take their name from who is first in the list. In Genesis 5, the genealogy runs from Adam to Noah, but since Adam, obviously was first, the genealogy is called the genealogy of Adam and not Noah. But here in verses 1-17, the genealogy is called not the genealogy of Abraham, but the genealogy of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.[2] Matthew’s original readers would not have missed this point.
The name or title Christ is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word, Messiah. Messiah means the anointed one. It is the word used in Psalm 2:2, “The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Messiah, saying…” Christ is not simply Jesus’ last name, though often we read in Scripture the name, Jesus Christ. Since we are so familiar with the name, it is difficult for us to appreciate how a first century Jew would have heard this title. Christ or Messiah is the long-awaited deliverer of God’s people. The name Christ represents the true hopes of God’s people for four thousand years of Old Testament history and for two thousand years since the time of Abraham. It was also a misunderstood title. Jesus did not want his disciples or others to go around telling people that He was the Christ or Messiah.
The expression, Son of David, is similar in meaning to the term Messiah. Jesus as the Son of David was the true heir to the throne of Israel. But interestingly the name Son of David is used most often in connection with Jesus’ power to heal. And in Matthew’s gospel, those who use the name are mainly those who had little social or theological importance: the blind, the lame, the dumb, the demon-possessed daughter of a Canaanite woman, and children.[3] These people were able to recognize Jesus for who He is while the religious leaders rejected Him. And does this not continue today? It is the humble who are able to recognize Jesus as the true King, who call out to Him for mercy, while the proud and arrogant reject Jesus in favor of their own ideas.
Finally here the expression, Son of Abraham, which is only used here in Matthew’s gospel, shows that Jesus is the one in which the entire history of Israel has its goal. Jesus is also the one through whom God will indeed bless all the nations of the earth, as was promised to Abraham.[4]
2. Verses 2-17: History and Christ’s humanity
The word begot is used 39 times in verses 2-16. There are some missing generations, so each group of two is not necessarily father and son. What is very important to see is that in verse 16, we do not read, and Joseph begot Jesus. Rather we read, that Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ. Matthew clearly shows that Jesus did not biologically come from Joseph. Rather from Mary, Jesus was born. And this verb, was born, is a different form of the word begot. And in verse 20, we have another form of this verb. Look at the end of the verse which reads, “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” This word conceived is another form of the word begot. And so there are four important things that Matthew shows here in this chapter. Jesus was not fathered directly by Joseph. He was born of Mary. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was then adopted by Joseph and so therefore he was connected to David and Abraham by legal right. And so what Matthew has given here in this genealogy is not so much the biological descent from Abraham to Jesus but rather the legal right to be the ruler of Israel.[5]
3. Verses 2-17: Four Important Women
Besides the name Mary, in verse 16, there are four other women mentioned in this genealogy. And what is somewhat surprising is that they are not the traditional matriarchs of Israel: Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel, but four women, perhaps Gentiles, who in some cases in very disturbing ways became part of the lineage of our Savior.
Genesis 38 tells the horrible story of Tamar. Tamar may have been a Canaanite. She was the daughter-in-law of Judah, married to two of Judah’s sons who were both killed by the LORD because of their wickedness. What a sad life she had. Judah was to give his third son to Tamar, but he did not. And so one day after Judah’s wife had died, Tamar dressed up like a prostitute, and Judah seeing her solicited her services. And from this perverse union, came twin boys, Perez and Zerah. Tamar was far from innocent in this story, but Judah recognized that she was more righteous that he was, which in this case was not saying much. And yet in God’s Providence, Tamar gave birth to one who was directly part of the line of Christ.
In verse 5, we find the second woman in this genealogy, Rahab. Rahab is two other times mentioned in the NT by the designation, Rahab the harlot. Of course she did not remain a harlot. And by faith she did not perish with those who did not believe, when she received the spies with peace, showing that her faith was real. According to some Jewish legends, Rahab married Joshua, but here was see that Rahab was married to a man named Salmon. And so again we see God working in unexpected ways, bringing a pagan prostitute to a knowledge of the truth and bringing her into the lineage of David and more importantly Christ.
The story of Tamar is connected to the third woman mentioned here, Ruth. Ruth, we know was at one time a pagan Moabite. But in the LORD’s grace, Ruth, the faithful friend to Naomi, became a follower of the LORD, and she too was brought into Israel and into the lineage of Christ. When Ruth and Boaz were allowed to marry, a blessing was spoken over Ruth. The people and the elders together said, “We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two who built the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. 12 May your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the LORD will give you from this young woman.”[6]
The fourth woman mentioned here is not even specifically named. She is called in verse 6, the wife of Uriah. We know her of course as Bathsheba. Why isn’t her name directly listed like the others? Perhaps she is named in this way, so that we are reminded of the sin of David. And in 2 Samuel 12, when Nathan the prophet came before David to confront him of his terrible sin, Bathsheba is not named directly, but in that chapter she is also twice called the wife of Uriah. We don’t have time to review this awful story in detail. Some commentators and preachers have described David’s sin as adultery.[7] But this description implicates Bathsheba and almost makes her equal in the crime, which Scripture does not say. David’s sin is nowhere simply and directly described as adultery. It was even worse. Bathsheba loved her husband, Uriah. David clearly took advantage of her in this awful incident. And yet in God’s amazing providence, Bathsheba did become one of David’s wives and gave birth to Solomon.
Why these four women? They may be examples of how God’s plan was to bring the nations or Gentiles into His kingdom. This was not simply plan B because Israel rejected her Messiah.[8] We know that at least Ruth and Rahab were clearly Gentiles. And Tamar and Bathsheba may also have been Gentiles. It is also possible that their surprising stories prepare the way for the virgin birth of Christ, which is the ultimate surprise. These women then serve as reminders that God often works in ways most unusual and unexpected.[9] There is no sinner who is too sinful to be forgiven. The grace of God through Jesus Christ is indeed greater than all of our sin.
[2] Donald Hagner, Matthew (Word Biblical Commentary), 9.
[3] France, 286.
[4] Hagner, 9-10.
[5] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT), 33.
[6] Ruth 4:11-12.
[7] For a contrary position see Richard Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba? A Case Study in Narrative Theology,” available at http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=318&journal=1&type=pdf
Dr. Magary at Trinity also would describe David’s actions as a case of rape.
[8] Craig Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 79-80.
[9] Hagner, 10.
The basic root of all sin is the issue of authority – God’s will or your desire. Will you submit to God’s authority or attempt to experiment with your life?
We will briefly consider the story of the Fall in Genesis 3 as we consider further the nature of sin and its consequences.
Genesis 3:1-7
There are many who mock this story. How could Eve have a conversation with a serpent? Would not Eve think it strange to speak with an animal? Of course we know from the NT that Satan was speaking through the serpent, but how do we understand that Eve would have carried on a conversation with a snake? Several possibilities must be considered. Let me share two with you.[1]
1. Perhaps Eve because of the short time she lived before the fall, wasn’t sure what to think about a talking snake. It might have initially struck her as being strange, but perhaps with her limited experience and knowledge of the world, she wasn’t sure what to think.
2. It also possible that Eve recognized that although the snake was speaking to her, she realized that some higher spirit was behind the voice and that the snake was used only to enable conversation between her and Satan. In the NT we have numerous examples of demons speaking through people, so what we find in Genesis is not without parallels in other parts of Scripture.[2]
But others mock this story out of ignorance claiming that God had temper-tantrum merely because Adam and Eve happened to eat a little bit of fruit.[3] But if we pay attention to these verses in Genesis 3 and take them seriously we see what a powerful story has been recorded in these verses. If all of creation has been affected by the actions of Adam and Eve here in the Garden of Eden, then it is certainly important that we try to understand what we are dealing with here.
Verse 1 tells us that the serpent was more cunning, crafty, or shrewd than all the creatures which the LORD God had made. The end of verse 1 is often translated as a question, but it may be better to translate it as a statement that Eve interrupts as she jumps into the conversation in verse 2. Satan’s goal through the serpent was to get Eve and Adam to think of God’s command as being both unreasonable and wrong. And so the serpent begins by speaking a lie, “Even though God has said, you shall not eat of every tree of the garden…”[4] Eve here cuts of the serpent and responds by correcting him. But then in verse 3 she adds to what God had said and she also then turns God’s command into more of a suggestion. Note the end of verse 3 where she says, lest you die.
One commentator has written, “What she actually seems to have done was to ‘interpret’ God’s clear prohibition as only the warning of another expert – who might indeed be wrong… It is as if she were saying, ‘He recommended that we not eat only because he was concerned for our well-being.’”[5]
The serpent then responded wanting Eve not to think of God’s command as merely a recommendation but an unreasonable and hollow threat. God’s real motive is selfishness. He is threatened by the possibility of you eating the fruit and becoming like him, knowers of good and evil.[6]
Note that Eve doesn’t respond to this statement. She and Adam bought into the logic and lie of the Satan working through the serpent. Rather than responding to Satan, Eve we see focused on the forbidden fruit. There are three statements in verse 6 which focus on desire and lust. We also see importantly in verse 6 that Adam was with Eve. He was not somewhere else in the Garden doing what God had told to do, but rather he was with his wife watching what was happening rather than protecting Eve.
There are a variety of words used in Scripture for sin. Sin is missing the mark. Sin is doing what God forbids. Sin is not doing what God commands. But a more basic analysis of sin is the issue of authority. Will you listen and obey what God has commanded? Or will you merely think that God is giving some advice, maybe reasonable in some cases, maybe not in others, but in the end I am going to choose what I think is best.
When you look at the story of Adam and Eve following the account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, you realize how absurd it is for Adam and Eve to think that they really know anything at this point. What did they really know having been created not long before? Sin is the ultimate absurdity. When you give into your sinful desires you are a fool. Do you really think that you can know better than God who has created you? It is ridiculous but because of our sinful natures inherited from Adam and Eve all men and women make the foolish choice to sin. Sin is self-destructive. Sin brings misery. And yet because of our fallen natures we do it over and over again. Generally speaking we are our biggest problem and our worst enemy.
Right now you are facing all sorts of temptations to sin, in some cases in very significant ways. Are you going to submit to God’s authority or are you going to think you can follow your own ideas and not suffer any consequences?
Romans 8:13-14 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
[2] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 441.
[3] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 445.
[4] Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses, 24. Alter here follows the insights of E. A. Speiser who Reymond also notes.
[5] Reymond, 443-444.
[6] Reymond, 444.
Introduction: When Charles Darwin’s famous book On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago on November 24, 1859, all 1,250 copies were purchased on the first day of publication. This suggests that the people of England were waiting very much for a theory that would mean that the Bible and the Christian God were no longer needed. “The world jumped at Darwin,” said George Bernard Shaw.[1]
What’s the big deal of not believing in the doctrine of creation and specifically a relatively recent creation in the space of six days?
Proposition: The issue is what will be determinative? Man’s supposed knowledge or the truth of God’s Word?
Basic Choices
1. Six-day creation, approximately 6,000 years ago.
2. Day-age theory, trying to correlate the ‘days’ of creation with periods of millions or billions of years.
3. Framework Hypothesis – no attempt to harmonize Genesis and the supposed conclusions of science.
Problem #1: How do we account for Adam, Sin, and the Need for Christ?
There are those who say that we can merge or synthesize Genesis and the idea of evolution. But where does this leave Adam? Do we somehow stop believing in evolutionary theory only when it involves the creation of man? There are even Christians today who are leaving the door open to the fact that Adam doesn’t even have to be a historical figure. Are we then going to say the same thing about Jesus Christ?
If Adam and Eve were created or evolved after life had already existed for millions of years then we must believe that death had already been present. Scripture, however, states that Adam’s sin led to death and an entirely changed world because of the curse.
Problem #2: Do we want to submit everything that Scripture says to the dictates of science? When and where do we draw the line?
If we must accept what ‘science’ states about the creation of the universe and our world, then where do we draw the line and start believing what the Bible declares that might supposedly goes against science? Do we accept the miracles of Jesus? Did Jesus really feed 5,000 men or as some want to say, did He merely teach them to share? Liberals have attempted to demythologize the Bible. Don’t we do the same thing when we start interpreting Genesis based on modern scientific theories?
The resurrection of Jesus Christ goes against all ‘scientific laws.’ Why should we accept this miracle but reject what Scripture clearly states about creation?
Problem #3: Do we recognize the danger of interpreting the Bible according to a theory, which at its core is anti-Christ?
The teaching of evolution is anti-Christ because it rejects the creation of the world through Jesus Christ and instead places improbable chance as the Creator. Why would we want to try to make such a theory fit with the truth of Scripture merely by saying that God has used such a process? Yes, there are many well meaning Christians who seek to do this. There are very intelligent professors in colleges and universities who have spent their entire careers trying to make this work. But it must be recognized that evolutionary theory cannot just co-exist with the truth of Scripture. “Every doctrine of Scripture is undermined when strict creationism is undermined. Wherever strict creationism is set aside, the vital nerve of Christianity is cut, and the church begins to move in terms of humanistic and political power rather than the power of God.”[2]
Don’t be ashamed or afraid to stand for the truth of Scripture. You need to focus on three areas of study.
a) What the Bible says concerning creation
b) Answers that creationists have given to the questions of evolutionists
c) What the evolutionists themselves teach
[2] Ibid., 49.
Introduction: Did Columbus seek to prove that the world was round as he set out for the New World in 1492? The idea that there was a controversy over this is a hoax. Jeffrey Burton Russell explains the origin of this hoax in his fascinating book, Inventing the Flat Earth. The Flat-earth myth was propagated to seek to drive a wedge between ‘Science’ and the Bible.
Proposition: There is no conflict between the Bible properly understood and Science properly understood.
1. Modern Science Developed out of a Christian View of the World
Modern science did not develop in the advance cultures and civilizations of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and others. Though those civilizations were culturally and sometimes politically sophisticated and advanced, because they worshipped nature, true science was never able to develop. As Stanley Jaki puts it, science suffered “still births” in those civilizations. It was only in an environment, influenced by Christianity, that science was able to begin and flourish.
Why did Science spring from a Christian worldview? Today we of course see that few scientists are professed believers, there are some but they are in the minority. Even with the attacks on Christianity by many of the current champions of science, we can say with confidence that only because of a biblical view of the world was science able to flourish. Why is that the case?
If we think about, the answer is no surprise. The Bible, though not a science textbook, presents the only true view of the world and creation. The physical creation is not god. The physical world is not eternal – there was a starting point in time. God world runs in a stable and coherent manner. The physical world can be understood to a great degree because the world is real and not just our imagination. Another encouragement coming especially from the Protestant Reformation was that God wanted His people to use their talents not only in ‘religious’ service but in all areas of life. It was man’s duty to learn so that there could be benefit for others.[1] These fundamental and basic starting points are what allowed science to develop. In a worldview or religion that worships the physical world, there is no chance for true science to develop and flourish.
As an aside, there is no need for Christians to try to justify this argument by making every scientist of the past into a Christian. Isaac Newton was probably not an orthodox Christian. We don’t need to try to make all the scientists into Christians. Newton who spent a vast amount of time trying to convert lead into gold – he wrote over a million words on the subject – was still operating from a Christian worldview. His contributions to science came because of the influence of Christianity. This is a major statement, but it has been proven true historically, and we are not surprised of its truth because of our view of God and creation.
Example of Galileo – The issue was not the Bible v. Science but had more to do with Galileo’s rejection of the philosophy of Aristotle. The Roman Catholic Church based many of its ideas on Aristotle.[2]
2. Science Hardly Has a Track Record for Being Always Right
There are different theories for how science develops and progresses. Some would see a slow natural progression where science is constantly learning new truth after another. But this would be much too simplistic. Most science education does not focus enough on the history of science and the failures of scientific theories and ideas. We shouldn’t have to feel like just because many scientists believe in something, then it must be true.
Not too many years ago, it was very respectable to believe that some races of people were superior and that it was to man’s advantage to keep down the population of inferior races. This was part of the ‘science’ of Eugenics. Major universities studied ways to achieve the goal of developing an advanced race. Those deemed inferior were forbidden to marry, sterilized, and treated in other very inhumane ways. And this was all in the name of science and the supposed human good.
3. We must distinguish between science based on actual observation and careful measurements where actual theories can be tested and that science which is focused on theories that cannot really be tested. In this sense, creation is not ‘scientific’ but neither is evolutionary science.
[2] Ibid., 39.
There are few subjects more important for younger Christian men and women to seek to master than the debate between creation vs. evolution. Our faith will certainly come under attack. We must stand humbly but confidently on the foundation of God’s Word as we seek to understand the issues and work through some of the very difficult questions that arise. This first post deals with the evidence for a literal six-day creation.
In Gen. 1:5 we have the first use of the word day. The Hebrew word is yom. The word yom appears 2,304 times in the Old Testament and is the 5th most common noun. The majority of times that it is used is in reference to a normal day-night cycle. It can though at times be used to represent an extended period of time, but that is not its most common usage. How can we tell when it is not referring to a literal day? The context of the passage would indicate otherwise. When day is used to refer to something other than a 24-hour day it is always used with special linguistic and contextual connections. When these are absent as in Genesis 1, the normal meaning is always assumed. And we know this just from our own communication. When we ask other people, “How are you doing today?”, we are generally not asking them for their entire life story. The meaning is determined by the context, which in the case of Genesis 1 is quite obvious and clear.
Berkhof writes: ”In its primary meaning the word yom denotes a natural day; and it is a good rule in exegesis, not to depart from the primary meaning unless this is required by the context.”[1]
Secondly, the word “day” is given additional qualification by the attachment of the phrase evening and morning. In Genesis 1, it is interesting to note the order evening and morning and not morning and evening as we would normally express it. The expression implies that the God’s work transpired in the daylight part of the day ending in the evening. The combination of evening and morning occurs 37 times in the Old Testament and are always used in conjunction with a normal 24 hour day.
Exodus 18:13 – And so it was on the next day , that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening.
Exodus 27:21 – In the tabernacle of the congregation without the veil, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD.
Third, each day in Genesis 1 is given a number. When a number is used, it is always a reference to a literal day. There are passages in scripture referring to creation that do not use a time scale but just refer to the fact that God created. For example, in Isaiah 42:5 we read “Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he the spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it.” However, in Gen. 1, God chose to number the days giving them the clear context of a 24 hour day. Gentry quotes Hasel: “When the word yom is employed together with a numeral, in refers in the Old Testament invariably to a literal day of 24 hours.”
Fourth evidence. Please note Gen. 1:14-19. Now some have questioned how can you have a 24 hour day when the sun is not even created until day four. However, the same terminology is used before and after the sun is created to regulate the normal day and night pattern. We know that days 4-6 must be regulated by the sun, but the day-night pattern was established before the sun was even created. The sun simply fulfills the intention that God had already created. Even before the sun was created, God had already established the day-night cycle. Note verses 3-5 again.
The fifth evidence comes from the fact that man’s work week is specifically patterned after God’s work week. God worked six days and then rested, as man is accordingly to also do. Our work week is not just an analogy. The fourth commandment is quite clear. It ends by saying “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.”
Please turn to Gen. 2:1-3. The text does not use the normal evening and morning expression here to describe it. Some have tried to then claim that this indicates it is not a 24 hour day and so the other days of creation are then not 24 hour days. This is the argument that Hugh Ross, a popular progressive creationist, uses. This argument is quite ludicrous. First, nowhere in the text does it say that God continues to rest. Secondly, it also says that God blessed that day. If the rest somehow continues, then the associated blessing also the continues. However, we know that sin has now entered the world and along with that a curse has come. Third, the seventh day follows six normal days, and there is no indication why it should be any different, especially since our week is patterned after God’s week. In John 5 we read that Jesus healed a man on the sabbath. Jesus responded by saying, “My father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
The sixth evidence is derived from the fact that every time the plural expression for day is used, “yammim”, it is always used in the context on normal 24 hour days. This is the word used in Exodus 20:11 – For in six days the Lord made the heaven and earth.
Seventh, Moses could have chosen to use another word if God implied an extended period for creation. The word “olam” could have been used to represent an extended period of time or an era. Normally the world is used to mean forever, but there are cases when the implied meaning is just an extended period of time. The Israelites were told in Ex. 12:24, that they were to keep the Passover forever. However, Christ instituted the new sacrament of the Lord’s Supper indicating that the Passover was not an eternal ceremony.
I would like to comment on one other objection raised by those who deny the literal six-day creation. Please note Gen. 2:18-23. Here we have the account of some of the details which occurred on the sixth day. Some have said that the events transpiring on this day would imply that it was not simply a 24-hour day. One progressive creationist argues that it would have taken weeks’, months’ or even years’ worth of activities for Adam to fulfill the task that God required of Him.[2] However, as we have noted the sixth day account in Genesis 1 is bounded by the same parameters as the other days. It also bears mention that Adam was not told to name all the animals but a specific category of animals. The text specifically states the beasts of the field (not beasts of the earth), cattle, and fowl of the air. How many animals to this leave for Adam? Well, we have no real way of knowing. Henry Morris makes an estimate of 3,000 animals which Adam could have name in several hours.[3] While we of course don’t know all the details, there is no reason to believe that the sixth day is unlike the other days.
The arguments or evidences I have presented show quite convincingly that God intended to convey that the creation week was made of 6 24-hour days. Our view does not depend on scientific evidence, though we of course expect to see some evidences of a young earth. There are always going to remain some unanswered questions. For example, how can we see light from stars that are supposedly 100,000 light years or more away? These are other similar questions, however, should in no way cause us to rethink our position. Rather, we need to rethink the answers to these questions in light of our interpretation of scripture.
[2] Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God. p. 150
[3] Morris, Henry. The Genesis Record. p. 97
The assault of Satan and the worldviews of humanism, Marxism, and other false religions will only be defended as God’s people stand for truth girded by a proper understanding of God’s Sovereignty. The doctrine of Predestination is not abstract theology but part of our proper defense and comfort in the face of this great spiritual battle.
This brief chapel talk certainly does not deal with all the theological and philosophical issues relevant to the doctrine of predestination and God’s eternal decrees, but I believe it provide an introduction and basic foundation.
1. Introduction: Let me begin by asking five questions?
2. Proposition: God has planned all things from eternity and yet God is not the author of sin nor is man simply a robot.
3. Organizational Sentence: We will be reflecting on several Scripture passages which I believe establish all three points.
4. Scripture Passages:
I. Gen. 3:6-7
A. The main point here is to show that Adam and Eve were not forced to sin. Sin is not any created thing but rebellion against God.
II. Genesis 45:7; 50:20
A. God clearly had a plan and was not merely responding to what Joseph’s brothers did to him.
B. Joseph’s brothers were fully responsible for their actions. They were not forced to sell Joseph into slavery. In God’s perfect plan things worked out for good.
III. Psalm 139:16
A. God knows and has planned each of our days before we even our first day out of the womb.
IV. Acts 2:22-23
A. I believe that the most wicked act in all of history was the murder of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, who lived a totally perfect life.
B. Here we see that Jesus was crucified according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God. Foreknowledge doesn’t mean simply that God just sees the future; it is closely related also to God’s plan of all things.
C. Here also we see that God’s eternal plan did not mean that those responsible for Jesus’ death – both Jews and Romans – were not responsible.
V. Acts 4:27-28
A. I believe that in this prayer of the apostles we see the same three points. God has planned all things from eternity and yet God is not the author of sin nor are men and women simply robots but are responsible for their actions.
Conclusion: The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3, section 8: 8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
Copyright © 2012 koinonia. All Rights Reserved.