Lecture 04: The Book of Genesis - Dr. Bill Barrick

let's go back then to where we left off last week left off this slide because we're already talking about the creation of man in chapter 1 we already then have atom in existence and as we look at chapter 1 and we look at the text it behooves us to go back and take a look at these verses and and by the way before I get too far away from it here on creation I've always thought it somewhat astounding that when God describes the making of the Sun and the moon and the stars invert chapter 1 verse 16 it's at the end of verse 16 that is stahl most like an afterthought with had coke evene and the stars I mean you and I look at all the stars and say wow that's huge that is far more significant that's billions and billions and billions quadrillions go as high as you want it's a Google number out there that is so huge beyond creating a single sphere like the earth and a second one like the Sun and a third one like the moon that how could it be that the creation of such a numerous host of celestial bodies would just be kind of like an afterthought and the stars that just shows how mighty and how big our God is now powerful yes that the creation of all the stars is doesn't merit top billing you and I would make it top billing because we're overwhelmed by their numbers their multitudes their size the extent the expanse the variety the hugeness when we look at some of these stars that dwarf our earth where our earth is like a speck of dust in comparison that it just is always astounding to see the end of verse 16 I'm always taken by that as I look at it but going on back here to what we're talking about with regard to man in verse 26 y-yo mare Elohim so God said net as se-ah-dom that Sal may new kid moot a new let us make man atom in our image according to our likeness now that very statement the plurality of it has to be a reference to the plurality of the persons that Godhead it can't be God including the angels even if they did exist and I believe they did exist by that time because I believe the angels were there prior to the creation of the of the earth according to job 38:7 how can he say that he's going to create man in God's image and the aim angels image and why would it be that throughout the remainder scripture we never have a reference to being made in the image of angels we're only in the image of God that's the only image that has ever referred to and talked about so this plurality has to be a reference to the plurality of the Godhead and we are then created mankind's created in the image their image says our image and according to our likeness what's involved in all of that does it mean that God is a personal being with some form of body or existence that is similar to ours I doubt it that falls into answer morphism yes it speaks of the arm of God the finger of God it talks about him seeing and hearing it talks about all of those type of things they're anthropomorphic but to then limit God to a physical body and say well he must have two legs two arms two eyes two ears a nose and a mouth like us goes far beyond anything in Scripture and remember when the son of God when the second person comes and is made in the likeness of human flesh that appears to be something that is the new part not just following the same arrangement for and just making it physical in nature rather than spiritual in nature when we go through the text it appears that at least one element of being an image of God is the exercise of authority when God exercises Authority he demonstrates it not only by what he does but how he names things all the way through the creation narrative he is naming those things which he has made because he has authority over them man exercises his authority in the same way Adam not only names his wife but he also names the animals before naming his wife he named the animals that's how he determined that there was no one like him among the animals no one made in the image of God so I think that that's part of it and I think first Corinthians chapter 10 also brings that same thing out that we there you have the idea that the man and the woman had a relationship to each other in a realm of authority and that the woman submits to her husband because he's made in the image of God the abscence referring to her as being an image of God is not that she is not in the image of God because we know she is according to Genesis 1 and Genesis 9 but in the context of the home and the marriage relationship the one who has authority as the husband therefore he acts in that authority as being in the image of God she acts the image of God in her joint authority with him over the children so it we have to be careful what we limit there if we say that only the man has created image of God then we end up saying that then a woman can be murdered without there being capital punishment it puts her at a lesser value because we're told that the reason that capital punishment is required if someone who kills a human being is because that human being they've slain has been made in the image of God there's nowhere in scripture where you have capital punishment limited to cases of slaying of male human beings it applies equally to the slaying of female human beings because they are both created in the image of God here in the beginning so verse 26 goes on to say here well year do did bid Gath Hayyim who vote Hashem ie UBA UBA vemma ova Kol Haaretz OVA Kol ha ravish ha Romesh al Haaretz so that you are to rule over let them rule and let them rule over the fish of the sea over the birds of the sky or the heavens and over the creatures in all the earth and or and over all the earth would be taken here and rule over all the earth and over every creeping thing which creeps upon the earth notice them rule it's plural why plural at this point we have odd Dom being used could be one individual in fact chapter 2 demonstrates the first one created was the man and there was the man alone and that his being alone was not good therefore God's creative activity was not yet finished but verse 27 goes on to help us out in that regard where we have ye brah Elohim earth ha Adam but salmo so God created the man ha Adam in His image but Salim in the image of God but salaam elohim bara otto he created him singular Zachar una vaca excuse me Nick Ava bara Oh Tom notice male and female he created them there's the them that helps to bring this to focus they are the plurality in verse 26 that are to rule over all the animals so looking at it that way we see that she also exercises Authority together their husband they are vice Regents they are Co vice Regents over all the animals and over all the earth it's at this point that we have the mention of woman but absolutely no idea of how that came about there's no explanation there's no detail here in the first account of creation that's why we have the second account given it's a pattern that Moses has he'll give the general idea bring it out usually in just one verse where he mentioned something of significance but he doesn't develop it he doesn't provide us details but then he comes back and picks up that detail and develops it fully so that we might better understand what's happening that's what's going to happen with the account in chapter 2 it's not a different creation account it is an expanded account of one section of the first six days in fact one section of the sixth day that is going to be explained there because of its great significance and of course verse 28 why've Adak well tomm Elohim God blessed them notice the plural again y-yo merlok him Elohim paru you ravu liudmila ooh f Haaretz and he said to them plural be fruitful a plural imperative and multiply a plural imperative and fill a plural imperative the earth and subdue it notice it subdue has a kibbutz under the sheen that is the shortened form of the shariq it is a plural form of the verb again they man and woman Zack Arun Akiva are to subdue the earth and rule here repeated to where we don't have any question now about the correction of making the poor referred to both male and female in verse 26 we have where you do mentioned again una do big bid gat hey Yama etc all the way through telling them they have authority over them so God said behold I have given to you plural second masculine plural he's speaking to both man and woman I've given to you every herb seeding seed which is upon the face of all the earth and every tree which has in it which has in itself the fruit of the tree bearing seed for you it shall be as food or it shall be for food for eating so as we're looking at this text and we go through it it's very clear then that both man and woman are in the mind of God are intended here is being created on the sixth day the two of them not just the one but we're just not given the details we're not told how God created man everything is left to later I think that every individual whether past ancient past or present reads chapter 1 and immediately has questions like that how did he do it was it just by a command and suddenly man just sprouted from the earth or was it not from there so he was poof and he appeared in the air like a genie rub a lamp and suddenly it's there how did it happen how did it happen God later lets us know how it happens because he describes it in detail when we come back to it in chapter 2 in looking at it one other thing we could talk about in the section there in chapter 1 is the idea of the different kinds each creates according to its kind we even have the repetition six times here of the word seed we had it there in the seed that seated by the tree the fruit tree but nothing has said that way about man and perhaps it would cause someone to say okay we know how plants and animals reproduce how does man reproduce was man intend to reproduce given a command to reproduce no reference though to offspring in Chapter one what do you call those offspring and that is going to come about also as we go further in the text as we get into chapter three it will finally occur and we'll see exactly what is happening there so let's go back now having laid that foundation and realized that one of the great questions the hot-button topics today is on whether or not Adam was a historical be if he was historical was he the first and only human being on planet Earth or was he one of hundreds or thousands or even millions but specially chosen by God to be the head of God's people to be the recipient of God's special relationship of God's commands or is really the history not to be taken so literally but merely viewed as an archetype to say that the history of this first man whether he was really historical whether he was really the first or only is not significant but that he serves as the pattern for all those who are similar to come for all of us and therefore then in the rest of Scripture we look at mankind as Adamic in the sense that they too have relationship to their God their creator they to sin they too are subject to death and so this man is merely a type or an archetype how should we view Adam and that right now there are literally dozens of periodical articles being written in Pablo there are already in fact in the last two years there are at least six or seven major books that have been published on the historical Adam or non historical Adam and on this debate and there are more to come I've just received word that there are at least five more new publications on the historical Adam debate that are coming out during this year so we've not seen the end it is a key point right now and it's being hotly debated and argued and even in books that aren't dealing directly with the issue are mentioning it and dealing with it in a part of a book that may be dealing with a far broader subject matter there's one of recent days edited by Chris Anne's Murray and John Walton I can't remember who he was the co-editor with him of the volume that's really an evaluation of historical criticism and Dan block has written a commendation for it a recommendation for it an endorsement of it says it needs to be read because it is dealing with its evangelical scholars wrestling with the higher critical methodologies and trying to find out what is good and what is bad in there and even in that they get involved in a discussion of the historical Adam whether or not he's historical or an archetype or not and the writer of the particular chapter is not denying his historicity is actually arguing for his historicity but he is pointing out that it has become a hot button topic because historical criticism tends to deny the historicity of Adam and so he says this is what evangelicals then must wrestle with and must come to conclusion with in their evaluation of the methodology itself how valuable is a methodology that reaches that conclusion with regard to Adam another essay deals with history the exodus from Egypt and there are others in there even dealing with New Testament aspects so no matter what you're looking at today you're going to find this is a hot-button topic that's showing up everywhere someone has something to say about biblical history biblical inerrancy etc is going to involve it so first of all I would say that historical Adam a historical Adam is foundational to our biblical understanding of God's creative activity did he really create man how did he create man the history of the human race is this the beginning of the human race is it the continuance the human race is an intervention in the human race the nature of mankind are all mankind fallen are all affected by the fall the disobedience of Adam if Adam was not alone on the earth how were those others on earth at that time affected by his fall how could they be affected by his fall how are the effects of the Paul passed on if the result of fall is death how does death enter into the lives of these who are outside of Adam or not the descendants of Adam the origin and nature of sin is that saying that other people if Adam was not alone on earth does that say other people we're also disobeying God why is it that God chose Adam over the others what's the difference in their origin what's the difference in their nature the existence and nature of death and by the way on their origin nature of sin then did other people then produce children that were not fallen and only Adam and Eve produced fall on children you see the how the argument and how the debate multiplies and it gets involved in more and more areas what about the existence of nature of death what is death why did it come when did it come on what basis does it come the reality of salvation from sin if if Adam had has disobeyed and fallen and is in need of salvation what about if there are other people other than Adam living on the earth day how are they saved are they eligible for the salvation or are they like the angels a host of beings that will eternally exist but have no part in that which Adam can participate in it has an impact on the account of historical events in the book of Genesis if this is not historical at what point are things historical in the book it has an impact on our view of the authority the inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture the assumptions that I come to this with first of all I reject the view of an Old Earth you say but how can you do that when it seems that currently scientists claim that this earth is very ancient and support it by means of fossils the layers in the rock etc etc well I believe there's a response to all of that and I believe that it can be demonstrated as I spend every summer in the Grand Canyon that all those layers there those sedimentary layers from the great unconformity all the way up are laid down by flood waters and they're laid down instantaneously quickly rapidly not over millions of years and we'll talk about that as we get to that section of Genesis I'll go into that in detail I'll share with you some of the things we see in the canyon and elsewhere and I'll tell you at that point in time that some of those rock layers are found not just here they're found in Australia they're found in Asia they're found in Britain they're found in Europe they're found in Israel they're found in Africa in the same order with the same contents the same chemical composition all laid down in the same way with horizons that are not eroded that are contiguous with knife edges that can be folded without fracturing the rock and that appear to have been laid down very rapidly by water not by wind or any other means of deposition so we'll come back and talk about that in greater detail but I reject an Old Earth because it does not get the scriptural definition as I see it and it does not fit Exodus chapter 20 verses 8 through 11 saying that God created the heavens and the earth in six days I think we have to accept a young earth how young is the question I'm not one of those who holds to a strict 6,000 year chronology I do not follow us chronology I think that there are some gaps in the genealogies we'll talk about that later some of the greatest gaps are after Genesis chapter 11 when we compare for example the line of the Levites with that which is described in the books of chronicles there are huge gaps in the history that would change the organization of the historical timeline that we see in the Old Testament therefore I believe it is possible I'll put the extreme date for the age of the earth at twenty-five thousand years the way both Henry Morris and John Whitcomb did in their first publication in the well what's named Genesis flood in the Genesis flood look in their volume I would put that I'd say that's the max all right but I really don't think 25,000 years fits overall I think the biblical evidence would bring it down lower perhaps closer to 10,000 years and I say perhaps and part of the issue here gentlemen quite honestly is that the biblical text has some issues in regard to chronology that are difficult to resolve and perhaps impossible for us to resolve fully and completely secondly we do have the evidence from archaeology and from literary records of ancient peoples in which we have to deal with the apparent ancientness of great civilizations like that in Egypt in China in Sumeria that go way back before 3,000 BC and so there's an issue there we have to deal with and even the historians and the archaeologists are wrestling with this they don't have an answer in spite of all of the factors they use to try to date materials that they recover in archaeological excavations even using the ancient writings in order to try to interpret they have come up with three different viewpoints they have a high chronology a standard chronology and a low chronology for both the history of Egypt and its timeline Sumeria and its timeline and China in its timeline China is outside the biblical record and yet the same problem exists there that exists with Sumeria that exists with the Egyptians some archaeologists historians hold to a high timeline with a great deal of time being involved with perhaps several thousand years longer of history than what the Standard Time - Ben and others squeeze that down and say it's a shorter timeline when they interpret the data in information and that's an ongoing debate it's not been resolved and it's one that we have to allow time for men to resolve and wait for some of the evidence before we can understand them how does this perhaps impact or help us to better understand the anomalies of the timeline in Scripture itself now I'm not saying that we're depending upon scientific evidence archaeological evidence in order to interpret Scripture we have to interpret the scripture independently but if we see that there is something in that that helps us to better understand the Scriptures then we need to seize upon the same as we do in any other area of scriptures and studying it it helped us to understand keeping a delicate balance there and saying I don't believe the Scriptures because of archaeology I believe the Scriptures because they came from God archaeology helps to illustrate it or help to confirm my faith archeology doesn't produce faith it does not initiate faith it merely confirms the faith and that is what we have to look at there yes Daniel was Abraham before 2,000 BC it's very possible there's a timeline set there of his that could put him earlier and as I said the later timeline having to with the Levites could make it very plausible that we should push back the date of Abraham several hundred years at least and so perhaps and and there are several different timelines for Abraham there's a timeline it says Abraham's around 1900 to 2000 BC there's a timeline puts him at 2100 to 2200 timeline puts him almost to 2500 or 2600 BC part of that whole issue has to do with some of the finds that were at ed law where ella existed from 2600 BC or earlier and you have reference to a king named Abram who could be a bear who would be an ancestor of Abraham and depending upon the chronology there that could be the Abraham several hundred years earlier than what he's traditionally been put and that could resolve the issue of the difference between the chronology of the Levites and Exodus versus the College of the Levites in the Book of Chronicles dr. John Whitcomb and self points that out in some of his recent research and writing that that is exactly what he would say has occurred and we need to readjust the date of the flood we need to readjust the date of the patriarchs on that foundation yes the date of the exodus would remain pretty much the same because there's no evidence for any genealogical variations that you have after that plus that we have the very excellent data astronomically of the observance of E eclipses etcetera and conjunction of the stars that help us to establish dates very solidly from about 900 BC on forward and so up to the time of the kings there it seems very solid and so just the prior period of time which seems to be fairly consistent there as well because first Kings 6:1 talks about from the fourth year Solomon to the day at time of the exodus is 480 years and so if if the time of Solomon is firmly fixed by means of such astronomical data then it would seem that the date of the Exodus is pretty fixed so we're talking about things that are pre exodus we're talking about things more in the patriarchal realm ok yes right and as far as interpreting as we'll talk about this when we get to Genesis chapter 5 in Genesis chapter 10 the 11 those genealogy have to be very careful of yes I believe there's gaps in them but we can't put in thousands of years it doesn't fit there might be a few hundred years you could gather in there somewhere we have one name omitted and then if a name was omitted does that change the the expanse of time the beginning and ending of a period of time that is stated if you have a grandfather named and a grandson named but not the son it's still then from the distant from the one to the descendant to his descendant whether it's a grandson Isana grandson or great-grandson that period of time is still pretty solid it's not the matter you can put in two or three people in between there and you expand the time span no we still gotta count for this individual no matter what relationship he had to this individual was born when this individual is a certain age so there's not much room for expanse there at all the biggest expanse comes later yes sir yes so no gaps whatsoever correct yes no I can't I think that there have been several of attempted responses and I think in the book of Matthew we have a hint at one of the possibilities because Matthew organizes his chronology his genealogy of Jesus into periods of fourteen generations at a time and it's very clear from those fourteen generations he's left out certain generations and counting them that way and this is a typical Jewish way of doing genealogical analysis and creating genealogical tables Bezalel Porton years ago in the 1970s published an article on this in the biblical archaeologist in which he demonstrated that the Jewish genealogies out of Egypt for example in the period when between the Exile and the time of Christ that while israelites were living in Egypt they left certain genealogies that are patterned the same way some of them by 10 generations some of them by 14 generations we don't know why they did it that way whether they patterned that on say the ten generations of Genesis 5 or why they did it we just don't know but they did organize genealogies that way so that Matthew is following a typical Jewish fashioned genealogy and it could be that that was just a practice that you you hit the highlights you didn't mention every single individual but we since we weren't there how can we say dogmatically we just don't have an answer we can propose possibilities and suggest that it's we have to be careful not to make more of a genealogy than we should and we have to be careful that we don't make less of it than we should it's a hard line to walk and a lot of unanswered questions it is a significant issue we look at all the work that's been done on the chronology of the kings of Israel and all the difficulties there and you have Edwin T Lee writing a massive work on that and we have other men stepping in like Jack Flanagan Finnegan rather Jack Finnegan stepping in and doing work on the genealogies and many other men that have contributed and we're still wrestling through the issues of the chronology of the Kings we haven't yet solved all the problems even with overlapping reins being suggested and even proven it still doesn't solve all the problems there's still issues that exist and part of is just we don't have accurate understanding of exactly how the writers put those together or why they record things the way they did we solved a lot of problems and parlous problems been solved by contemporary records like the Assyrian histories to see how they put together histories and the reigns of kings and how they dated the kings and their chronologies that's helped a lot we found out that there's two different dating systems a year of accession and a year of non accession that is sometimes added in and that the northern and southern kingdoms follow different patterns in their record-keeping from time to time depending on the influence of external nations and their history writing so we're still a long way from having all the answers and the earlier genealogies are even far more difficult to resolve for example compare it with the Sumerian king list where you have men as kings who supposedly reign for tens of thousands of years we have the issue today of arguing does elif mean a thousand or is it a clan what does it refer to and the problem it when we start taking views like that or saying okay maybe they didn't have hundreds of years maybe I Methuselah didn't live 900 plus years maybe that is a figure for maybe 96 maybe it should be a tenth well then what happens for the year at which they sire an offspring what about the person who sires an offspring at the age of thirty we divide that by ten we end up with siring offspring at the age of three so that doesn't even answer the question of the chronologies and that's part of the problem is is that many of the solutions only fit or only work with a certain aspect and don't work with the totality of the evidence or the text and that's what we have to keep going back to

Channel: The Master's Seminary

Views: 9,173

Rating: 4.8000002 out of 5

Keywords: The Master's Seminary, John MacArthur, Expository Preaching, Inerrancy, Biblical Teaching

Id: n1-h7KrRfDw

Length: 35min 58sec (2158 seconds)

Published: Sun Sep 25 2016