Lecture 08: The Book of Genesis - Dr. Bill Barrick

when we get into Genesis chapter 2 one of the biggest problems comes up starting at verse 5 because we know that in verse 4 you have a summary of the genealogy of the creation of the heavens and the earth and it kind of closes off now it can be argued that that is the beginning of chapters 2 through 4 and it's a heading for chapters 2 through 4 and that's true it can be argued that way because that's where the Tull adult formula normally comes is at the beginning of a section not at the end of a section and so in a way it's like a hinge in the text verse for use it helps to summarize and close off the first part of the text but it really introduces what follows and I would agree with the work that's been done by Jason Deroche II on this and published in Journal of evangelical theological Society just I think last year or the year before where he has gone through a very detailed study of the Tal adult formula and has demonstrated that 2:4 should be taken as introduction to what follows not the conclusion of what precedes even though what follows is actually taking and going back and giving the details of day six in a sense verse four in introducing what follows is also kind of like a summary of what preceded it's kind of like repeating what preceded in actual fact it kind of collapses it down into one simple statement and makes that the beginning of the series of genealogies and Tolle adults the remainder the book and as we're looking at that the real problem comes starting at verse 5 because we go to verse 5 we have in every plant of the field before it came about in the earth before it happened in the earth and every herb of the field before it sprouted and we keep going on with this you see because why hadn't sprouted because God Yahweh God had not yet caused it to rain upon the earth and there was no man to till or to work the ground and a aid the word there aid can be a mist or it can be like an artesian well or spring and there's so much disagreement about it all that anyone can say dogmatically is its water and it's one or the other and it's obvious that it comes up from the ground so it can be a mist that arises or it can be a spring that arises to water and to provide drink for all the surface of the ground now the reason I've diagrammed it this way is to point out that this is the main topic right here the topic is not the plant of the field the herb of the field it's not the rain it's not the man the topic is the aid the mist it's the water supply the water supply rose up from the earth and it gave drink to yet watered all the surface of the ground this is the primary verb this is the primary subject this is the topic all of these above here modify this verb adverbial II when did the mist arise before there was any plant in the ground why well before God creates anything he provides its nourishment and what it needs first he doesn't just have rocks rise up out of the sea and then create plants and say oops wait a minute there's nothing for the roots to go into I need to have soil oh oh I forgot something else that needs water I've got to have fresh water coming into water these plants know he provides all these things in order ahead of time and that's what we're having emphasized here is that God is a God of order God is a God who provides force creation and everything he does is done decently and in order there's a reason for it he provided fresh water before there were plants before there were herbs well and why did he have to do that because you see the first to answer the adverbial question wim before before the third phrase answers the question the adverbial question why because God Yahweh God had not yet caused to rain upon the earth rain would become his means of providing water but it had not been there yet we're not told exactly when God started the rain but he didn't start at the beginning and there was no man to till the ground and why does that mention it's mentioned really right parallel to the it's a second cause a second question as to why it's kind of related to the first that if man's purpose is to care for until the ground before the fall there has to be ground there and there have to be plants there and there has to be water there before he you can't farm unless you have soil unless you have plants unless you have water if you're lacking any one of those three you can't be a farmer you can't fulfill God's design Adam can't fulfill God's design this does not say then that for some reason here that you have a different account of creation putting man before water and that this is contradictory to the first account it does not contradictory at all and it's reminding us by the way for those who have read the first account in chapter 1 verse 1 through chapter 2 verse 3 that man is the focal point of God's creation he is the climax of the creation and the whole book is about men after this not about the animals not about the ground not about the plants not about the birds not about the Seas it's about man and so logically is going to being man into it and because the fact is he goes further this account is going to deal with how man himself again and the point is that God knew what he was doing the whole time he wouldn't create man until man would have the work God has designed for him to have and he makes certain everything is in place and so these modify the rising up of the water from the surface of the earth and it provides drink to all the surface of the ground so the first statement is God made a provision of water because he's a God who cares he's a God of order he's a God who provides now if he is that kind of God what else do you think he did in creation that demonstrates his perfect design his perfect plan His perfect provision that's when we go on then to talk about man his purpose and then the provision of the woman so this is a beautiful introduction to the second statement here the second description of creation which is going to focus on man but it opens with reminder of what kind of God were dealing with here who our Creator is like and why then he comes along and provides us with additional explanation of how he created man on the sixth day and how he created male and female on the sixth day therefore not giving a different account at all it's the same account in detail which is a pattern in Genesis that's what Moses does he does that again in chapters 10 and 11 chapter 10 he starts off by talking about different languages that people are divided into language groups and you're sitting there scratching your head saying when did that happen it's not until chapter 11 he goes back and explains how that happens and he does the same thing all the way through the rest of Genesis he gives us a preview and he comes back and works on the details in fact he does that all the way through the Pentateuch yes Craig yes I think that it's the Eden there it's the Garden of Eden that's being primarily talked about it doesn't mean that God doesn't provide the same thing outside the garden in fact indication as God doesn't have to go into creation again when he drives man from the garden when they fall and that they're able to till the ground even though it's cursed because he's made the same provision outside the garden as he has inside but he's given Adam and Eve a specific instruction especially Adam where they have authority over that specific realm and this is where I agree with John Walton that it is really intended to demonstrate that here's where God is it's the presence of God so it's like a sanctuary it's like a temple that you have it right there from the very start that it was intended that man worshipped God God dwell among men walk among men speak and communicate with men and so the later Tabernacle is almost a replica of this in some ways down to the fact that the cherubim on the curtain guarding the way and the Holy of Holies are similar to the cherubim guarding the entrance to garden after the fall accept notice they have a sword and the ones that are depicted on the veil do not which shows there is a difference a distinction it's a similarity and there are changes I hesitate to use the term evolved but the the concept of God's presence develops systematically from the garden to post garden into the tabernacle and then into the temple and then into Christ and then into the church and into us where our bodies now are the temple of God so and instead of the Angels guarding us with swords we have them ministering to us according the writer of Hebrews and we have them watching us to see how we live and so they become the observers but now our bodies are the temple of God and so there's I think as you see the development of that concept there's a unity to that development there's a continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament in this as there is often a continuity theologically between the Old Testament the new and I think that's seen by the fact that there's only one really new thing brought out in the New Testament that's the church it's the mystery it was hidden in ages past and has now made manifest all the other things were already revealed jesus said that he said Moses and the prophets spoke of me he said not only they speak of me they spoke of how I would suffer and die for sin they spoke of hide rise from the dead and be glorified they spoke about what the gospel was and what the object of faith is the Messiah they spoke about salvation as being faith they spoke about propitiation they spoke about reconciliation they spoke about Redemption they spoke about resurrection they spoke about sanctification they spoke about justification none of those things are new and so we have continuity and this is why we can go back and look at the continuity the revelation of Scripture here here in the book of Genesis and see that as it comes about and it makes it a very beautiful thing and so there's a point where I think Walton has hit on something that needs to be observed I think he's taken it too far in some ways and he's tried to tie it too much to the ancient Near East where if you go to the temples that tell Casilla lore you go to the temples in Syria can't think of the name of the place where the biggest temple is in Syria right right offhand in Daraa at ándara a huge temple and it has phoenix-like cherubim guarding the entrance it has a holy place it has a most holy place it's the same design the same arrangement almost the same proportions as given for the tabernacle and for the biblical Temple of Solomon and yet it dates from a period several hundred years after Solomon which would seem to indicate again that the reason for that is a either a common revelation that is understood or known or has been received or a common experience and since we all come out of the garden in essence and Adam there's a common experience of a sanctuary or that which is holy in the dwelling place of God God being among men and then because we go into the era of the tabernacle which predates the ándara temple by a long ways and the other peoples around see this and hear about it and know about it it's not a surprise then that other cultures begin to develop something that is very similar and almost depict the same type of relationship is this because the Israelites borrowed from the pagan neighbors did Moses borrow from pagan neighbors to design the tabernacle not according to a pistol the Hebrews it says he did according to the design that God showed him on Mount Sinai which is in the heavenlies not borrowing him if he bought if he borrowed it from the pagans we had to go back and excise that description then from not only the book of Exodus but from the Book of Numbers I believe also and we have to excise it from the pistil de Hebrews as soon as we start saying that they borrowed that from the ancient eastern peoples we are starting to lose scripture and once we start cutting out Scripture that's like Thomas Jefferson's Bible where he went through with a pair of scissors and cut out every reference to supernatural and miracle in the New Testament and what Bible do you have left them you see if if we're going to yield to it that way you mind we'll just give it up totally and realize that we're of all men most miserable and without hope Roberto right I am how do you balance that with a historical hermeneutics where they didn't borrow from the pagans but they were still of that time how do you how do you balance that I don't need to balance it all I have to do is look at the direct statement of Scripture when God gives this to him by revelation he doesn't give it to him by saying goat go next door to your neighbor and in this pagan temple you get their account and then you copy it and you borrow from it he doesn't do that they have a totally different worldview why adapt their viewpoints to describe the truth there's no need to do that it's very clear at times when someone does that that there has to be a generic truth that is appealed to us when Paul for example quotes from pagan poets he's looking at a specific truth that he's identifying and he doesn't say I'm borrowing that from them he says no they agree with the truth they testified that this is true he's not saying that he borrows from him and he's not borrowing from them he's citing them as evidence and we don't have such citations in the Old Testament so it's and when we talk about a literal historical grammatical interpretation the historical looks at the historical background and says okay what period of time did Moses write this okay of the 15th century BC if we're going to identify any borrowing then those things have to come from before and one of the key elements of that borrowing there's used by the liberal theologians is for example the law of Moses especially the laws the tip the statutes the commandments and the judgments and the precepts that are given and people say oh look the law Code of Hammurabi existed at least a hundred if not three or four hundred years before Moses so therefore the law of Moses must have been borrowed from Hammurabi but you look at it you start translating the law Code of Hammurabi from the Akkadian as dr. Chow and I did when he was taking Acadian and we noted all the various differences there were huge huge differences different values different foundations and reasons different worldview different ethics different laws entirely those that were similar were just because hey everybody has an innate conscience given by God Romans chapter 2 law hat God has inscribed on the hearts of all peoples the principles of his law and therefore God explains this is why other peoples come up with some of the same concepts and can even record them in codify them in lock codes like that of Hammurabi and yet Israel does not need to depend on that because Israel's getting their law from the source from the lawgiver himself and so their law is not mediated by men it's mediated by angels according to Galatians and God Himself writes the law on the tables of stone with his own hand his own finger not even Moses wrote it and so I think that what when we talk about historical hermeneutic it's not saying we interpret the Bible in accordance with the way that the ancient Near East writes we we treat it in accord with its historical setting its geographical setting its cultural setting that's its historical foundation and we maintain that and it's not saying we use the extra biblical to validate or to prove or to even be the foundation of the biblical okay does that help a little bit there's more to it than that we could spend a lot of time on that but we're not giving up the historical aspect of the hermeneutic at all in fact I find it amazing if you look at some of the commentaries for example on the the epic of gilgamesh and you read the commentaries been written by secular historians linguists and sociologists of the epic of gilgamesh they never ever have have the epic of gilgamesh borrow from any other culture its pristine they assume it's written independently and that it is represents one culture and one viewpoint and in fact it represents along with many of the ancient Eurasian stories of creation it represents a a defense of the authority of supremacy of one specific God in their Pantheon which makes it very different than the Bible because it doesn't say one God among many but one God period and that he's the true God and there's no comparison and so you can say there see there's a similarity the the creation story establishes the credentials of the supreme deity that's a similarity we can appeal to and say see it's serving one of its purposes is serving that that's part of the theö centric nature of the creation account but it's a very different God than any of the gods of the ancient Near East and I don't think it's the fact that God is saying to Moses borrow from the legends in order to borrow this form because the form doesn't even match it's a very different match no other ancient Eastern legend begins with in the beginning and no other ancient legend begins with saying first day evening the morning first day evening the mornings second dance setter etcetera none do that whatsoever only this one it's unique it's different some of the similarities are just due to the general concept of communicating to human beings all right so that your love letter to your wife has many similarities to Brandon's love letter to his wife but neither one of you read the other one or borrowed from it but you have a commonality of experience a commonality of the form in which you express it it that the similarities do not mean you borrowed and unfortunately that's the assumption made automatically by those who come to the scripture and interestingly they don't make that assumption with the extra biblical literature it's only the Bible why because the Bible is conceived of as their enemy because it presents a God that if they have to deal with him they're convicted of sin remember what we read from well housing okay all right the place and condition of man in the world then is what we're talking about here and so what happens in Chapter two is that we have a narrowing of the focus of the book of Genesis and the focus comes down on mankind it's not a second creation account it's distinct from the it's not distinct from the first it's tied to the first in fact Moses now gives details that he did not include in the first description in Chapter one why the focus on aid i've mentioned it before the ancient near-eastern people's first concerned their environments was water where was Israel when Moses wrote the book of Genesis in the desert in the wilderness what was one of their greatest concerns water he had to supply water for them God had to supply water out of a rock for them it's a great concern this is how God accommodates himself to his audience and it's not just Israel alone the immediate recipients but all peoples have this concern and so he answers the question because you notice it's not talked about in Chapter one God provided water for plant life before day three that's part of the point God provide for animal life and mankind before days five and six that's part of the point it's God's providential care and wisdom and those themes drive the text here especially when it comes to a mate for Adam because that's a matter of provision as well so the continuing record goes on chapter two verse five twenty five returns the question regarding the origin of female in chapter 1 verse 27 Genesis 2:5 through 25 assumes a knowledge of a hearing of or a reading of chapter 1 verse 1 through 2 for it's dependent on it because it doesn't give all the other details because the first one leaves you with questions and that's purposeful that's what maintains our interest God wants us to be thinkers I say this again and again my exegesis classes we're not to be lazy thinkers God in turned that we gird up the loins of our mind that we be alert that we think and he often in his word gives us thoughts that caused the stop and ask questions and then he provides an answer but he wants us to think about it first before he provides the answer and that's one of the ways we see this developing here Genesis 2:7 begins retelling then the creation of man so we go back to the evidence here we see a distinction between Adam and ha Adam between man and V man the definite article when Adam is used without the article that's the proper name Adam when ha Adam is used it's either the man or stood generic group mankind this being referred to and that makes a very beautiful tie as we go through this text because it's in this text in chapter 2 we have the context of naming and it's in verse 20 when we have Adam referred to without the article he's just been naming all of the animals that God has brought to him just like God takes and brings the animals to Noah to put on the ark so he brings the animals to Adam to name the God who can bring the animals to the ark is the same God who can bring the animals to Adam Adam doesn't have to go out and search for them the question always comes and I think Justin Taylor raised this in his blog you know how is it possible that all these things could happen on day 6 everyone says it's impossible how could Adam name how could God create all the animals and man on day 6 and man that name all the animals and then God create the woman and then God and a man named the woman how can all that happen in one day it's impossible they say really that shows how low of you we have of God and of his creation number one what about the animals some say well it chapter two presents the animals being made and then brought to man know the Hebrew grammar as John Collins here brought out very clearly is a previous past he had already created those animals God brought to Adam the animals which he had already created on day five and six days five and six what kinds of animals did he bring well that's answered here by Kenneth Matthews in your textbook as well we're not talking about species we're talking about broad classes the bærum in the created kinds more like genus so he didn't have to bring a Persian cat a tiger a lion and a tabby he only had to bring one feline one cat one dog for Adams name how many geniuses are there like that there it's there ones that can be handled very easily by a man with a brilliant mind and an unfallen man the original man had a brilliant mind God made him furred fully capable to make instant observations very acute and accurate observations of the nature of animals and to give them names almost instantaneously he had an ability and language that allowed him to do that he names his wife that way and we see some of his insight into this reasoning of naming her that tells us how he probably named the animals themselves and then when he speaks his first words are spoken about her in verse 23 and it's in poetry sophisticated piastic li arranged three-element three-level poetry with repetition don't underestimate the abilities of the unfallen original created man nor underestimate the abilities of a perfect God whose all-powerful and all-knowing there's no reason to doubt this account taking place in one day even during just daylight hours there's no reason to doubt it whatsoever how long did it take the wine to become fermented at the wedding of Cana when Jesus turned the water into wine did they have to sit there and wait for hours no it was instantaneous and if it were tested it would have carbon atoms in it it would have all the acids and I think there's something like some somewhere near 300 different types of chemical elements that have to be present in wine talking about the different acids talking about all the different things there there I I there's a list of it on the Internet I looked up one time and I just I'm amazed by it I'm gonna add it into my commentary so that it's included there as an example of what God can do instantaneously and we look at that and we say oh but we have to do carbon-14 dating on this to find out the original age of this carbon material that's in there it wasn't there in the water before now it's there instantaneously what's what's carbon-14 going to tell you well it's gonna on the basis of assumptions it's going to assume that's perhaps several years or hundreds of years old but the scripture says it was instantaneous has the appearance of age and has the flavor of age it's the best wine he did instantly the God who can do that can create man as a mature human being instantly so the creation of man doesn't take a long time either he speaks and it forms him out of the dust the ground breathes into his nostrils the breath of life how much time has passed maybe no more than five seconds for all we know you say but it's gonna take time for him and a foal is born it takes a while to learn how to walk hey this is a perfect man created by the perfect God he's able to walk talk breathe do everything instantaneously started a little baby coming out of the womb that can only crawl and can only go by baba baba and cry no God created perfectly capable to fulfill everything he designed to do including procreation to unite with the woman that he gives him and to produce seed produce offspring immediately he there can be that can take place he's prepared it doesn't have to wait so these things if you look at him a single individualists form notice only Adam is formed from the dust the ground one individual one the male part does a car part breath of life breathe it as was nostrils he becomes a living soul a living being singular God places him in a garden verse eight and gives him a job before there's a woman God assigns work verse fifteen God commands him not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and then verse 18 we had the most amazing statement God sees that it is not good it is not good for the man to be alone oh did God make a mistake absolutely not just think about that for a second could God make a mistake in this if this is a surprise to God or he suddenly says oops I left something out wait a minute when we start talking like that what do we do with the five passages the New Testament that say that Christ was appointed as Savior of the world before the foundations of the earth what do we do about the statements there that say that we were elect from before the foundations of the earth that God's program of redemption was established before he created the heavens in the earth that says he knows what's going to happen ahead of time and has already got a plan so it's not like what John Sanders says in the book the God who risks that God made a mistake and is surprised by the fall and therefore has to devise Plan B it's always been plan a and what's Plan A that somehow the second person of Godhead who's appointed to be the Redeemer is going to have to take upon himself human flesh and come and be a sacrifice for sin so he has to be born a human being on the earth and that takes the seed of the woman so even the concept of the seed of the woman was before the foundation of the earth before the fall that requires a woman so God's program of redemption from the very beginning from before he created the earth demands that there be a woman so this is not a surprise to God he's making a very definite statement of how we see all the way through the the creation account it's an orderly progression of what he supplies and does and that before he can announce this creation very good and be completed with it he has to have a woman also and so he provides that once not good for him to be alone and gods already demonstrated that by all of the animals he told the annals be fruitful and multiply what they do just automatically divide their cells and all of a sudden you know I just cut off this arm and let it grow into another animal or or whatever no the act of procreation the concept of sexual involvement is there even in the animal realm it's God's design in the same as true of men God is not surprised this is not an omission by God this is part of his perfect plan and he creates an appropriate counterpart there were none found among the animals that he had formed from one individual side he took the woman and he created one woman her relationship to the man is clearly described in verse 23 that's where the poetry is is found and additional that think about the woman has the same DNA as the man because she was created out of flesh from the man flesh bone and blood from the man were used to create the woman she was not created the dust of the ground therefore she has the same DNA as the man she inspires Adam - poetry at last this one is bone of my bones and flesh my flesh this one will be called woman for from man was taken this one this one this one this one the Hebrew zou zou zou you see a climactic excitement and enthusiasm here it's it if I could read it this way gentlemen at last this one is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh this one will be called woman for from man was taken this one yay Lord amen hallelujah that's his poetry let's go home tell your wives about that she's gonna say you never wrote poetry for me just reminder you're a fallen man and you don't have the mind of Adam all right but this is a beautiful account is it not that shows God's provision it's it's to me it is a beautiful part of the of what we see here it's one man plus one woman all the remainder through here to the text until we get to chapter four we see the same in Chapter three over and over again it's one man one woman there are no others contrary to Walton who believes there were perhaps thousands if not millions of men upon the face of the earth at the same time and that God only chose Adam out of every one to be a special person and to be the beginning of his people so Genesis 3 is we come to it as an historical record also of the fall you see part of the problem here of those who deny the historicity of chapters 1 & 2 is that they also end up norm dissing the history of chapter three so there really it never was a fall and we can't use that as an explanation of why sin is here well then rip Romans chapter five out of your Bible because boy that takes care of that one if you rip Romans chapter five out of the Bible in essence in the very carefully constructed systematic theology of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans you end up destroying then right after that chapters 6 7 and 8 as well because they're built upon that foundation and it's the response to an explanation of why then chapter 4 was written that salvation has to be by faith and then to describe what that salvation really consists of building on chapter three you rip the heart right out of the Bible you rip rip the heart right out of the book of Romans you rip the heart right out of the New Testament you rip the heart right out of the Bible and once you rip that out you might as well rip out everything that has anything to do with Genesis 1 2 3 anywhere in the Word of God and you end up with a Bible that is very very anemic and that's exactly what's happening let me close this way with for the time being and we'll pick up here when we come back next week John Walton Dennis Lamb Aroo Paul Sealy all three I've debated and talked with in various circumstances and various settings and all three of them come down to this final conclusion and it surprises everyone when they hear it if you were in San Diego and you heard it it probably surprised you to hear him say it but to get a question from the audience that says well if we can't trust what the Bible says and if the Bible doesn't teach a global Universal flood and the Bible doesn't teach a literal historical Adam's the head of the human race what do we have and all three men say oh wait a minute we didn't say that the Bible teaches exactly what Bill Barracks said it did in his debate with us what he exegetes the scripture to say us what the scriptures say we just don't accept it because it's written by pre-scientific men within the realm of their cultural setting and therefore it cannot be believed then the second question comes almost immediately from the audience as it did in San Diego well then why does Jesus seem to support its historicity because that's how he demonstrated he could accommodate himself to fall a man is by adopting their same errant view now that has implications men not only for my Bible but for my savior and who he is I'm thankful that those men are at least honest about that and open about it but it boggles my mind that they can't see the inconsistency and the danger of it that it puts them on a theological slippery slope that is almost irrecoverable and that's why we teach a class like this the master seminary

Channel: The Master's Seminary

Views: 4,755

Rating: 4.9310346 out of 5

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

Id: X5srsIuDlm0

Length: 40min 58sec (2458 seconds)

Published: Sun Sep 25 2016