Old Testament Studies I Lecture 06

All right, we left on Wednesday, uh, thinking about the background of Genesis, its themes, its, uh, purpose, and also some of the bibliographic resources. We want to move back to today to consider first the, uh, the literary structure of this first portion of the Torah. And I gave you a, a chart. As you go through the, we now call The Book of Genesis the first portion of the Torah, 11 times you come upon the term "toledot." Generations. Uh, two of those, uh, come together in chapter 36 when he is dealing with the, the genealogy of, uh, of Esau. And we see that these, uh, uh, chapter 36, verse, uh, verse 9 is almost a, a subtitle at this point, uh, because, because we see in 36:1, "These are the generations, this is the toledot of Esau." And then we have immediately, uh, uh, "who Esau bore." And so, verse 8, "Esau lived in the Hill Country of Seir. Esau is Edom." And, uh, Moses is emphasizing here that God has given to Esau land in the same way that he had emphasized back in chapter 25 that Ishmael, a son of Ishmael, had also received land and become a nation. And, uh, and then he goes on, "These are the generations, this is the toledot of Esau, the father of the Edomites in the Hill Country of Seir." Not, I've emphasized that he is a people and has a land. Let me talk about his sons and his, his progeny. And, uh, and brings up the, uh, the fact that with Esau, that, uh, that in his progeny coming all the way down to, to Moses' own time, that they have had kings ruling over them. And one of the promises that have been given to Abraham in chapter 17 by the Lord was, "and kings, nations, and kings will come forth from, uh, from your loins, from your seed." And so in 36:31, "Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel." So that's why we say that this is almost, as it were, the second toledot, a subdivision, because the first toledot is emphasizing, "Here's, here's Esau, and Esau has received the land and has become a nation." And then he goes on to say, "These are the generations of Esau, this is the nation that lived in the land that God had given to them." And bringing it down to Israel's time, that not only they are a nation, but they have had kings. This, this should be an encouragement to Israel that just as Esau had received land, Israel also was, uh, going to experience the, the promise of God and receive land as well. And in fact, this is animated again when you get to, to Genesis, I mean, Deuteronomy chapter, uh, chapter 2, that speaks about Israel as they were, uh, now turning from the wilderness to, to go north and start to come into the land that they, uh, uh, they interact with these people, including the Edomites. And a reminder that this is not your land, Israel. God gave them this land. He has land for you that he has clearly delineated. And this is all an encouragement to Israel that, uh, that God does and will fulfill his promise to them, as he has done to other heirs of Abraham, the Ishmaelites, and, uh, and the Moabites and Ammonites. And as he has done by the time you get to Deuteronomy chapter 2, for the near relatives of Abraham, the, uh, the Moabites and the Ammonites, that, uh, we read, come through a sorted incident in Genesis chapter 19 from Lot, the nephew of, of Abraham. And so these, you know, these narratives are very, very important. But that's, that's the reason why we have two toledot here. It is still, it is still a toledot, or two toledot, of a non-covenantal son. It is Esau that we see given to us in chapter 36. So seeing that this whole chapter through 37:1 is about Esau and his progeny and the nation and kings that came to him in the land that God gave to him, we then trace through and say, "Okay, we have 11 of these toledot, and 10 major toledot." Significantly, five come in the first portion of Genesis dealing with the Primeval history, the ancient history, or the more ancient history compared to the patriarchal history. The patriarchal narratives, five are there. And then five are given to us in the second part. And, uh, in the second part, as you can see, we have two long toledot, three long toledot. The toledot, uh, is the toledot of Terah. What Terah generated, and that then gives us the story of God's dealing with Abraham that we have looked at fairly extensively in the development of the Abrahamic Covenant. Then we have a, a quick toledot that gives us a non-covenantal son, that is Ishmael. Then we have another long toledot that is the, the toledot of Isaac. But it's the progeny of Isaac. It is Jacob that comes before us. And we see in that toledot, God's choice of Jacob, who becomes Israel. But Jacob has a brother, Esau. We see that non-covenantal son of, of Isaac. We see his generations. And then finally, we have the, the toledot of Jacob that is given to us beginning in chapter 37, verse 1. And significantly, it will speak, and we'll, uh, we'll talk about the, the, the sons of, of Jacob, and particularly concentrate upon Joseph and Judah. Don't miss that within this toledot as a whole as well. And yet, as we already talked about, even though this is the progeny of Jacob, Jacob lives throughout the stories that, uh, that are brought before us within this toledot. And then at the very end, we, uh, we see that Jacob and then, uh, Joseph die, as recorded in chapter 50. But it's significant, the toledot of Jacob really culminates, as we've seen in chapter 49, with the blessings of Jacob just before he dies upon his progeny, upon the tribes that will come through his sons, and how God will bless them at the end of the days. And so this is, uh, this is the flow.

Now, as we go back to the Primeval history, it begins in chapter 2, verse 4, with, with this, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth." That is, this is what the heavens and the earth brought forth. So, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created." Now, before the heavens and earth can bring forth anything, they have to come into existence. And so, before this toledot is the introduction to both this first quarter of the Torah as well as the, the Torah as a whole. That is, we need to read the account of how God brought the heavens and the earth into existence. And so that is the introduction, which gives us God's creation. Then, having read of God's creation, all right, what did the heavens and the earth generate? What's, what came forth? What happened after the creation had taken place? And that's what we see in 2:4 to 4:26. What did, uh, what happened in God's creation? Well, it was a good creation until, until the man and the woman whom God had made ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which God said you should not eat of. And the end result was, as we've seen, the ground was cursed. And, uh, and, uh, the Earth then became a place of violence. It became a place of rebellion, as seen in Cain's line in Genesis chapter 4. Yet, with a conclusion that there is still hope, because in, uh, in the days of Enosh, the grandson of, of, uh, Adam, man began to call upon the name of the Lord. And Seth has this child, and the worship of God is, is reestablished within the line of, of Adam. And that then prepares us for the toledot that is seen in chapter 5. That, uh, with this, uh, with this proliferation of the effects of sin that is seen within the Earth, God, God has the genealogy of Adam that comes to Noah. And Noah is the one who will, who will grant relief, give rest from the work and from the toil of the hands from the ground that the Lord has cursed. That this will be the place of God's blessing. And that anticipation comes to fruition because the toledot ends with the fact that Noah finds grace in the eyes of the Lord. He, he reaps God's unmerited favor, so that he is a man who walks with God, who will be faithful in obedience to God. And so that God will use him to, to reconstruct the, uh, the world and mankind upon the Earth after God's flood. And it is significant that the longest of the toledot that is in the first part of Genesis is the toledot dealing with the flood and dealing with Noah.

All right, what, what happened? What, what is the toledot of Noah? What, what did Noah generate? What came forth in his life and through his progeny? Well, it was because of his response to the grace of God, where he walked with God, a righteous man, blameless in his time, in his generation, Noah walked with God. And significantly, picks up a term that goes back to the Garden when the Lord would come and walk with Adam in the cool of the day, and it's, uh, basically twilight, evening time. And, uh, "walk" will become a term for those who will order their lives with the result that there will be fellowship with the God who has created them. Noah walks with God, and later on, we'll find out that that Abraham also walked with God. But, uh, the key of this point is basically through the flood, what happens is, is that, uh, the, the Earth, in particular, reverses back to the condition that was seen in Genesis 1:2, where, where the waters cover the Earth. And we see that this is, this is emphasized in Genesis chapter 7, because of the flood, where in, uh, in, uh, verse, uh, uh, uh, 19 of chapter 7, "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. And the water prevailed 15 cubits higher, and the mountains were covered." That, so again, as you're looking at the Earth, there is nothing that is not covered with water. And in verse 24, "The water prevailed upon the earth 150 days." Notice in verse 8, "God remembered Noah, and God caused a wind, he sent a ruach to pass over the earth." So the ruach is over the surface of the waters, and then the waters begin to subside, and then ultimately the dry land will appear and vegetation. Now, this is not going to take place in three days, as we see in Genesis chapter 1. God is now going to, to use the processes that he has established within the Earth and, uh, and reestablish and reconfirm after the, uh, the flood, so that ultimately, once again, the dry land will appear, vegetation will appear, the animals, and Noah will leave the ark, so that, uh, the animals will once again live upon the Earth, and so will man. And in Genesis chapter 9, to Noah, God restates what he had said to Adam back in Genesis chapter 1. That's what we mean about the sense that there is almost, within the way that, uh, that Moses phrases this, that there is a new creation. Now, not in the sense that God completely destroyed what took place in Genesis chapter 1. Uh, certainly he, he, uh, uh, you know, doesn't recreate man as, uh, as is seen. He doesn't recreate the animals that is seen in Genesis chapter 1 in that way. It doesn't generate them out of nothing, nor the same thing with the Earth. But, but there is a sense in which the flood is, is a reversal of what we have read in Genesis chapter 1, that, uh, where God had formed, formed and filled that which was unformed and unfilled. And then there is at least a reversal of that forming and that filling. And, uh, yet when the flood was completed, then God slowly reinstituted, given in Genesis chapter 1. And, and very certainly, Noah comes before us as a, as a second Adam, as a new progenitor of the human race that will now find itself not as a blob of mankind, but that God will, through the sons of Noah in Genesis chapter 10, the toledot that will continue to emphasize man's sin, just as we saw back in in chapter 2:4 through 4:26, that this toledot, we will see man's sin and God's, uh, uh, God stepping in again, as he did with, uh, with Noah and the flood. But now the stepping in, because God has made the Noahic covenants, will not be in as a universal act of judgment, but it will be through the toledot of Terah, a determination to bring blessing upon man. And this is helping us to see how the structure ties into what we've been discussing as far as the themes that are seen in, in Genesis. And then we won't go over this because we've, we've walked it through, but, uh, uh, for those who like a traditional outline of Genesis, basically what I've taken is what I've given you in the, uh, the chart and, and outlined it out for you. The Primeval history, that is the introduction to the Patriarchs and to the Sinaitic Covenant, the covenant that God will make with, uh, uh, with Abraham, and then ultimately with Israel. This becomes an introduction to both. And this is where we see the Noahic covenants and the need for the Abrahamic covenants. And then you can walk through it as we have done from the introduction through the toledot that then leads into the patriarchal history, which is also introductory to the covenant that God is going to make at Sinai with Israel. It is the link between the Noahic covenants and the Sinaitic covenants. But here we see the Abrahamic Covenants as the means of God's blessing to the nations. It has been given to us in the Noahic Covenant and the foundation to the Sinaitic Covenant that is going to be revealed then in the great center section of the Torah in Exodus 1 through Numbers chapter 25. But that's for next week. But, uh, we see then the toledot, and toledot 1, 3, and 5 being the significant toledot, with the balance balanced with the toledot of the non-covenantal son of Abraham, and then the non-covenantal son of Isaac, that, uh, that God reveals to Israel. And this is very, very important because they're going to come into contact with the, with the peoples of Ishmael as they are in the, uh, in the desert area, and with the people of, of Edom. And so Genesis is, is certainly a preparation for the rest of the Torah, and a preparation even for Israel as they hear it on the plains of Moab, as they go into the land. They're going to come in constant, uh, uh, contact with these people. They need to know where these people are from and how they fit into what God is doing in the world.

Well, then, after, after talking about the literary structure, we need to move back into our notes, uh, where with each book, I select certain interpretive problems or certain interpretive issues. Try to, in the limited time that we have, to take some of the major issues that have vexed students of these books, these portions of scripture, throughout the, uh, the church age, and sometimes in the Old Testament, even going back into Jewish tradition as well. Well, we come to Genesis, and certainly within the last 200 years, the most discussed, debated issue as far as Genesis is concerned is the revelation that is given to us in Genesis chapter 1. The Genesis account of creation today is suspect within the secular world, and of course, in the last hundred years, is suspect today within so-called Christendom as well. That the majority of confessing believers in our country, and the majority of men who, uh, who claim to be biblical scholars, hold Genesis 1 as a being as being unhistorical, as a being unscientific, as, uh, as, uh, maybe having some, uh, theological value, but certainly having no scientific or historical value. And so we have to talk about the nature of Genesis 1 and really carry it all the way through to 11:26. Now, as far as the creation account itself, that is Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and Dr. McCarthy gives us a little further than that within his book. But, uh, two outstanding books that you should be aware of. These are both written by biblical exegetes. They are not scientists. Neither, uh, Kelly or Dr. MacArthur would claim to be scientists. They claim to be, like I am, uh, one who studies the scripture, a biblical exegete. And these books are, are at base seeking to say, "What is the Bible saying?" And they both end with good conclusions. That's why we recommend them to you. But certainly, Kelly's book, and when Dr. MacArthur was doing his series, it resulted in the "Battle for the Beginning." He said that Kelly's book was the book that was most helpful for him as he studied through the early chapters of, of Genesis, along with some of the commentaries that we have already spoken about. But, uh, Kelly's book, "Creation and Change," is a book that you should have and read. He interacts much with, uh, contemporary exegetical, uh, uh, discussion on the creation accounts in, in Genesis.

Well, what are the positions that are held concerning not just Genesis 1, but all the way until we start to get to the patriarchal era? What has been classified as the Primeval history? Well, liberalism just basically says this is myth. It's mythology. The, uh, the Sumerians and then the, the later Akkadians had their myths to try to, in story-like fashion, to try to communicate their understanding of how the world of mankind came into existence. So did the Egyptians, so did the Canaanites. And but particularly the, the Babylonian, um, epics have, have been found. The major, uh, one is, uh, the Babylonian creation account known as Enuma Elish. That, like the books of the, of the Old Testament, the Torah, begin with the first phrase that's, uh, that is, that is the Enuma Elish. And what, uh, Walton has done on page, uh, on page 80, it said, "All right, here is the Genesis account. This is what Genesis is emphasizing." And as we go through the creation epic, Enuma Elish, one of four that has been found in Mesopotamia, right here are some of the similarities and some of the differences that emerge. And, and liberals read this, and you can take a look at it in, in Walton. But, uh, liberals read this and say, "All right, Genesis is just another story. It is a, it is another ancient mythology that is trying to communicate the how the world was created and how mankind came into existence." It goes even further that, uh, Moses, or with liberals, the ultimate tradition that is seen here in Genesis chapter 1 is, is in the end, Israel's modification of these other creation myths to try to communicate, uh, what Yahweh, their God, and how he had been involved in the creation of the heavens and the Earth. Many times liberals will, will begin with these more ancient myths than, than Genesis and say, "How, how Genesis is of the same nature as, as what we read from these ancient Near Eastern, uh, myths." And so it is a, a story that is seeking to, to communicate a theological perspective for the people of Israel. So we've got to, we've got to look beyond the story. The story has no historical foundation in fact. Nothing in Genesis 1-11 has any historical foundation. It didn't happen that way. It is a fictional story that is trying to communicate the theological reality for, uh, for the Israelites and foundational to the rest of the scripture.

Now, "myth," because "myth" emphasizes fiction, is too strong of a term for broad evangelical men to take. So they want to have their cake and eat it too, and refer to Genesis 1 to 11 as symbolic theology. That is, did, was there a real Adam? Was there a real Noah? And the answer is, well, no, but yes. In other words, these are symbolic figures. That Adam is not necessarily the literal first man, but he is symbolically the first man. It's only a fine line between that and position A at the end of the day. But, but, but it's referred to as symbolic theology. And Wenham and Kidner would agree that as you go through the rest of scripture, that the men and events that are referred to in Genesis 1 to 11 are viewed as real people and real happenings. And so, as evangelical believers, they say that even though this is symbolic, it is still true. It's true theologically. And that these are, are prototypes. And what, and what the Israelites have done, I'm not sure. Well, Kidner more likely than Wenham would say, well, even Wenham would say this Mosaic tradition behind what we read in these early chapters of Genesis. But, but Moses and an earlier editor of, of Moses, what, what they have done is, is fashioned this in a literary pattern that was familiar within the ancient Near East, because this was the way best to communicate to Israel, revelation from God, what they were to understand about creation. God did it. Man, man was created by God. Man fell. Man was judged by God. And God has entered in promise with mankind. That is the foundation of the Abrahamic Covenant. But that's theological. That's, that's, that's a literal understanding. And, uh, we'll come back to this in just a second as we, as we talk about really the, the new evangelical approach even to the creation account in Genesis chapter 1. It flows, flows from this, from this discussion.

Well, we are in a minority, but it's the minority that I want to be in. And that is that, that as you come to Genesis, the only way you can read Genesis is reading it as historical narrative. That really, in the end, we don't read Genesis 1-11 any differently than we read Genesis chapter 12 to 50. And this is particularly pertinent to those who take position B, because, uh, uh, Wenham and Kidner, among others, are, are those who will, will try to support more strongly the historical foundation of what is in the patriarchal narratives. I guess we can classify a broad evangelical as one who will, will defend historicity within the Bible after Genesis chapter 12. And of course, we live in a day and an age, and get to this in OT, of what is known as minimalism, where liberals, uh, that themselves with the, uh, the Albright, the, the Albright school, held to the historicity of the Patriarchs. But that is suspect in most liberal circles today. And then minimalists go, "Well, there really wasn't, there really wasn't an Exodus. There really wasn't a conquest." And we really can't speak. They even cut it off then, after that. We really can't speak about Israel within the land under judges and under kings. The earliest we can speak about Israel and the land is in the, uh, the 9th century BC. And the whole debate within liberalism on where does the real history of Israel begin. And isn't it nice that we are can take the Bible as the word of God and say the, uh, the nation of Israel began with, uh, with the family of, uh, the Patriarchs that God multiplied in Egypt and then brought forth a people and made them into a nation and gave them their land in a conquest that we will read about in Joshua. But all of that is, uh, along with Genesis 1-11, suspect within liberal circles today.

Well, interesting thing is, is the broad evangelicals try to, you know, don't, don't keep the symbolic theology going all the way through past David with, with Abraham. They start to speak about a real historical person. But, but at the end of the day, and Matthews and Ross bring this out. Matthews does not emphasize number one, that's what minus one means. But Ross does, and he's right. There is no literary distinction between Genesis 1 and the account that begins in 11:27. You didn't read Genesis, you didn't scan Genesis, you, your chapter tells get the end of chapter 11 and say, "Ah, this is a new way of narrative. That obviously everything before was symbolic, everything before was typological. Now we're really talking about what happened in space-time." Words, as you're going through, you, you have no clue that you're reading anything different. This is what we looked at about the toledot. This is the toledot of five of them before, and five of them after. Show that, all right, this is what the heavens and the earth brought forth. This is what Terah brought forth. This is what Isaac, this is what Jacob brought forth. So that it is within the same structure. It's given to you in the same way. So when you are reading the story of Abraham and believe that Abraham was a real person, God was really speaking to him, these things really happened, there is no literary distinction between that and what you've read previously. That if Adam is a, if, if Abraham is a real person, Noah and Adam and the events associated with them are reality as well. There's, there is no literary change to clue you in that you've moved now from from some kind of mythology or or symbolic typological literature to now dealing with actual historical narrative. That is, there's no discernible, uh, literary break. But there are discernible historical features in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. 64 geographical terms, including in Genesis 2:14, and the name of the third river is Tigris. It flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. And particularly the Euphrates is going to come back again and again within the biblical revelation that is given to us within the Old Testament. How can you have Euphrates here, a, a distinct geographical term, and then say, "Well, this is myth or symbolic"? But later on, when, all right, Abraham, your land in chapter 15 is, uh, is going to be as, as Moses, uh, uh, says and uses the, uh, the same term from the river of Egypt as far as the Great River, the river Euphrates. Well, Euphrates already been mentioned in chapter 2. So you have 64 geographical terms like that, many of them like Euphrates that continue to be used as you go through the Old Testament. China or Babylon, Babel, Babylon. 88 personal names. And, uh, and on, uh, on page 13 of Walton, he charts the genealogies from Adam to Abraham. Now, realize from Adam all the way through Terah, these are names of people, names of men who lived upon the Earth. All of these are in Genesis 1-11, by the way. These, uh, these genealogies are repeated for us in Chronicles and in Luke chapter 3, in the genealogy of Jesus. So you've got later biblical warrant that these were real men, just as those who come after Abraham are. As well, you have, uh, you have 48 generic names as you go through mountains and trees, etc. You have 21 cultural items mentioned, different woods, different metals. In fact, again, even going back to the, uh, the creation account, 2:11 flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. Well, is that symbolic gold? Mean, this is the same term that is going to be used throughout the Old Testament for gold, the metal. So you've got, you've got metals, you've got buildings, you've got musical instruments with terms that are used that are going to continue to be used throughout the Old Testament. And let's put it this way, if Moses was trying to say this would be read some way differently than historical narrative, this is my kind of satirical remark. He didn't do a very good job of it. And, uh, the fact that, no, he, no literary distinction, but the discernible historical features that are there. But for those of us, obviously, who are Bible believers, um, the, the New Testament confirmation is, is staggering. Adam, Adam was viewed as a real person by the apostolic writers. What do you do when you get to, to Romans? Well, liberals say, "Well, you got Adam being used typologically. You have Christ being used typologically here." Well, but yes, but isn't Jesus a real person? Didn't he come and really die? All right, then what about Adam? Certainly, you know, uh, Paul is, is speaking about the contrast between Adam and Christ as though they are real individuals. And Noah, Noah is also mentioned throughout, uh, throughout the, uh, the, the New Testament. And so we, uh, we see, and, and we could also add to that, second Peter chapter 3, that Peter even predicts that false teachers are going to come along and scoff at the whole idea of a universal flood. They're going to scoff at the idea that God brought judgment through a flood in the past. And, uh, it's, it's amazing. The Bible not only confirms the truthfulness of Genesis 1-11, it even prepares us in the New Testament that false teachers, this is one of the very things they're going to deny, that, uh, that people and events that are mentioned in Genesis 1:1 will be scoffed at, ridiculed as never really having taken place. That just should impress upon each one of us the authority of scripture. That scripture can already bring the warning of that which we face as contemporary believers. So, uh, if, and hopefully at this point, I'm preaching to the choir, but you certainly need to be aware as you get in the, the, the literature of Genesis 1-11, not only liberals, but even evangelicals today, so-called evangelicals at times, will question the historical nature of Genesis 1-11. You need to be prepared. And, uh, yet, I think God in his word has already given you the warning and given you the confirmation needed to say, "You approach this and you execute it just like any other historical narrative within the Old Testament. You take it as truth, as revelation from God, as historically reliable." Now, as it's historically reliable, our responsibility is to understand what is in the text, what is God revealing about what took place in the past. And God, we've already seen by the very nature of this narrative, does not give us as much information, and he doesn't give to Israel as much information as he later does on the historicity of the events that took place in the life of the Patriarchs. The history is selective. The history is making a point. I don't negate that. But the point that is being made is based upon real historical fact that took place in the past.

Two exegetical issues germane to Genesis chapter 1: one grammatical, one lexical. First, in 1:1 to 5, what is the, uh, the grammatical construction here? And within evangelicalism, thanks to the Scofield Reference Bible, it has good points, but is the, the understanding of Genesis 1 being that that 1:1 is a statement of original creation, and that 1:2 speaks about the fact that this original creation, the heavens and the Earth, became empty, well, formless and empty, formless and void? So, so that beginning in 1:3, now, and I'll just call this OC, not Orange County, but Original Creation, that, uh, now in 1:3, we have a recreation that begins. Now, within this, then they throw in a lot of theology. This is the original, uh, sinless creation. Why did it become this way? Because that's when you have the fall of Satan and the demons, uh, reflected in the, in the judgment terminology that is used in 1:2. Therefore, how is God going to, to overcome the rebellion of Satan? How is he going to reconcile the, uh, the universe that he has made to himself? That is a story that begins in, uh, in chapter 1:3.

Well, first of all, um, you have to really stretch Hebrew grammar to translate 1:2 as "and the Earth became," rather than just a, a state that is being given to us here. We have a stative perfect that is usually the way that it is used. The Earth was. This is it. It states at that point, rather than became. It had one state previously, and now it is in this state, uh, that really cannot be substantiated from Hebrew grammar. The second thing to realize is that continually the Bible refers back to creation as being what is recorded for us beginning in Genesis 1:1. So that is the Gap Theory. And you'll be hard-pressed to, uh, to find it in, uh, in any commentaries on Genesis. You'll find a lot of popular literature, but you won't find it in exegetical commentaries, contemporary or otherwise, of Genesis chapter 1.

Ross takes the recreation theory. Now, he doesn't take the Gap Theory. He bases it lexically on the word "created," and says that "creation," "bara," traced through the Old Testament, does not necessarily mean creation out of nothing. Later on, Isaiah will speak about the fact that God is going to create in Jerusalem rejoicing. Well, that's not out of nothing. Jerusalem is already there. Our people are already there that are sad because of the judgment that's going to come upon them, and God is going to reverse that. So the people who were sad, Jerusalem was sad, is going to become Jerusalem that rejoices. And he would say the emphasis of "bara," as you take a look in the Old Testament, is the fact that God is always the subject. And then you have to look within the context to see what it is that God created. "Bara" is used significantly three times in, in Genesis chapter 1: that God created the heavens and the Earth. In 1:21, God created the great sea monsters. And, uh, then later on, verse 27, God created man in his own image. He created the heavens and the Earth. He created the sea monsters. He created mankind. And, and Ross would bring out, well, the reason they had is emphasized is because obviously the heavens and the earth, a merism for the universe, everything that can be seen, experienced by man, God created it. Man was not involved. The great sea monsters that were viewed particularly by the Canaanites, their power represented the power of the gods, and the sea monsters were worshiped. And so Moses significantly used the term "bara" there to say, "What you worship as God was made by God." And then obviously, he created man, that, uh, different than the making of the animals, other than the, the sea monsters, that, uh, it is emphasized that, uh, God is the one who made man. And, uh, emphasizing by that, his, his authority over, over man.

Well, it, it is true, "bara" in and of itself, you could be argued, does not mean creation out of nothing. But, uh, certainly within the context of Genesis chapter 1, there is, as distinct from passages like in, in Isaiah, there, there is no previous substance that has changed. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." And reading that says, not just God is the subject, God did it. This is a special work of God. But obviously, nothing has gone before. So implicit within this verse is the fact that he created them out of nothing. Ross would also argue from, okay, he created man, and yet when you get to chapter 2, you find out that he used dust of the ground for man, and he used the side of man for the woman. That does not negate the fact that he created them. I would say, all right, yes, Genesis 2 can go on and explain a little further. There's no further explanation of how the heavens and the Earth, what God used that was already in existence. Well, Ross argues this to say that all of Genesis 1 is recreation. That again, like the Gap, we assume that the fall of Satan had already taken place, creation already taken place, and now we assume that what's taking place here is a recreation because of verse 2. So how do we understand? And certainly for Israel and the rest of, uh, of scripture, it is very, very clear that this is the creation. This is when God brought forth the heavens and the Earth. This is when he created the universe. Well, how are he, how are we to understand it? And, and the issue revolves around verse 2, because obviously, beginning in verse 3 through the six days of creation that, uh, concludes in, in verse 31, God is dealing with the circumstances that are stated in verse 2. So do we understand chapter 1, verses 1 to 5, as the majority position states it? That this is just day one. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Now, as for the Earth, it was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. The Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." This is all what happened on day one? Or do we begin with the circumstantial clause being day one as far as verse 2 is concerned? Or there's really the revelation concerning day one? And I would lean to this position: begin in verse 3.

All right. Well, if this is so, what is taking place here? All right. What we, uh, what we have in verses 1 and 2 is an introduction. Bring it down here. Is an introduction to the whole. What is Genesis about? It is about how in the beginning God created the universe. But the particular focus of the creation accounts is going to be the Earth, which verse 2 being this disjunctive clause stating the condition that, that, uh, God brought forth the elements. The, uh, the first two terms are the Earth, as brought forth by God, was formless and empty. And verse 2 becomes a state that then is not just for the first day, but that day one begins by the fact that God created light. Day two, the God will create the, uh, the firmament. And, uh, and in day three, there will be the, the dry land and the vegetation, which will come forth. Now, now this is where that which is formless is being given form. What is taking place here is, is that, is that, uh, the Lord, right, as he, as he brings forth the, the Earth, the Earth is formless. Now, the first three days will manifest the form that the Earth is going to take. But it is also empty. And so here we see now the filling. Day four, corresponding to day one, will be the light bearers. Day five, corresponding to day two, will be the creation of the animals that will inhabit the, uh, the air and the sea, the two realities that are seen on day two. And day six, we will have the creation of the land creatures that will climax in the creation of man, that will correspond to the land. And, uh, significantly, for the creatures and man, he has given all of the, all of the vegetation, uh, for food. "I have given every green plant for food," and it was so. This is how this ties back to day three. So in the six days, a God, if we might put it this way, is completing his work of creation. That God creating the universe, all right, and he begins, and I don't think Genesis says whether, you know, verse 2 is a part of the first day. It could be. But the point is, is that God begins by bringing forth the Earth in this state, so that in the six days, he will form and fill it in the way that, uh, uh, that we, uh, that we see here. In fact, probably rather than empty, since I put form here, all right, he takes it and he will fill that which was empty. He will give form to that which is formless. He will fill that which is, which is empty. Then beginning in 1:3, "Then God said," and here we have the form that will follow the statement of command. "Then God, God said," verse 6, "Second day, then God said," verse 9, "Then God said," verse 14, "Then God said," verse 20, "Then God said," verse 24, "Then God said." So that verse 3 begins day one, in the same way that 1:6 will begin day two, etc., as you go down through Genesis chapter 1. And each one of the days is going back to the state that has been, have been given to us in, in verse, uh, two.

Now, I would assume that even though it is not stated in Genesis 1, that when you get to Exodus chapter 20, within the Decalogue, the Ten Words, and Moses communicates, you know, on the fourth commandment, going back to the creation and the creation account, for the seventh day was a distinct day. For on the seventh day, God rested. All right, then we get to the Sabbath ordinance of remembering the Sabbath. "Six days you shall work." And the reason is given in Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the Earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, God blessed the seventh day and made it holy." That the Old Testament looks back to the creation of the heavens, the Earth took place in six days. Therefore, I would assume by that, even though Genesis 1:1 and 2 is functioning as an introduction to the whole account, well, the creation, the, the, the forming and the filling, what God made took place in six days. Therefore, I assume that when he brought forth the Earth in the state that he did, that took place at the beginning of the first day. But the emphasis of, of Genesis is, is the whole six days with the seventh day of rest. This whole creation week is the beginning of what God is going to do that is ultimately going to culminate at the end of days when God will fulfill his plan and purpose as far as the Earth that he has created is concerned. So this is the, the, the best way grammatically, I believe, to see Genesis, uh, 1, is it's the original creation with chapter 1, verses 1 and 2 giving an introduction, and then day one, as far as within the flow of Genesis 1, beginning in 1:3 through 5. And then day 2, 3, 4, after tied in with that.

Is the meaning of the word "day," "yom," how are we to understand it in Genesis chapter 1? Now, it is true that the word "yom" can have a variety of meanings. From the literal reality of day, the term, even within Genesis, uh, chapter 1, can be the 12 hours of light. "God called the light day." So day can be less than 24 hours. Day can also be more than 24 hours. So that, in 2:4, "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created." In the day that the Lord God made Earth and Heaven. That's just been described as basically a making of it, a six-day process. And, uh, so later on, within the Old Testament too, "day" can stand for an era. It can stand for a, a longer time period. Now, because "yom" has that kind of elasticity, some have come up with what is known as the day-age theory. Kidner being a representative of this. Well, when it says that this was the first day, that's not a literal 24-hour period. That's an elongated period. In fact, it's a very long period. Day one goes for thousands of years, if not millions of years. Day two, day three. And so, and this was very, very popular. This, okay, "yom" is understood here as a long period of time. And then Kidner will show that, well, maybe not in all the specifics, but this ties in with, you know, the geological framework that has been discovered, etc. So "yom" has this long period of time. But this has been counted. And you will notice that the majority of commentators will affirm the fact that "yom," as it is used in the creation account for the first day, second day, etc., is to be understood as a 24-hour day. Well, why? Because notice that each day ends, "and there was evening and there was morning." One day, day one. "There was evening and there was morning." Day two. Right. It's already been determined. All right, there is going to be the alternation of light and darkness, day and night. And day and night equals what? One day. Two days. Three days. Also, the numerical adjective when used by with day throughout the Torah always refers to a 24-hour sequence, an alternation of one night and one period of light, one period of dark, one period of light. And the third thing, we've already seen is in Exodus chapter 20:11, "In six days." I don't think the, the Hebrews said, "Oh, in six days and a seventh day, I got to keep the Sabbath." Well, "yom" can be a long period of time. I can work for a year, maybe. Well, work for a year and take a year off. I mean, work for seven, six years, take a year off. Work for six months, take a month off. In other words, why should it be day? Because in six days. And so every Sabbath day, they're certainly understanding Genesis 1 is talking about what kind of days when it says day one, day two, day three, alternation of darkness and light, that is a 24-hour period. Now, this is so overwhelming that, uh, day-age is basically fallen.

As you can see, among the commentators, into pretty much disrepute that even our symbolic theology, um, exoit, uh, whenham says that as you study the Old Testament, day within the context of day one, day two, day three, can be understood in no other way than a 24-hour day. Now, that doesn't mean that he's a young earther or anything like that. It's just saying the text can only be taken that way. I would agree with him exegetically, it can only be taken in that way. So, if it's only taken that way, it's not day-age. Well, how do you, you understand this day and age in which we live and the seeming assured results of science that the Earth has been here and mankind has been here for a lot longer than the Bible seems to intimate?

So, to try to bridge the gap between the Bible and science, C, D, and E have been expounded. C is the intermittent day theory, that is, that between day one and day two, there was a long period of time. All right, God steps in, day one, says separation, light and darkness. All right, then there is a lengthy time period before he said, you know what, I think we need to separate the waters from the waters. Let me put the firmament above the waters and call the firmament the expanse, heaven, or the heavens. And then he let that go on for a long period of time. And then on day three, said, you know what, we need to get rid of this water on the face of the Earth. And you got a problem there because with the waters receding the same day, you've also got the gestation of the, of, uh, the trees, the plants. Kind of tough then to get this intermittent theory.

But let me go back to Genesis, chap, I mean Exodus chapter 11, 2011. Israel on the plains of Moab. Are they going to hear in six days, God created the heavens and the Earth, which means I can work a day and take a long period off. Then I got to step in and have day two take a long time off. Then, in other words, not only is there no literary evidence for this in Genesis 1, it again makes mockery of Exodus 20. Hey, fifth, position, fourth position is is, well, this is not talking about what God did, it's talking about how he revealed it to Moses. So, on day one, Moses received the revelation of one to five. Then he went to sleep and came back day two, and God gave him six to eight. Then he went back to bed, came back on the third day. In other words, this isn't talking about when God created, it's talking about when he revealed it to Moses. Once again, again, plain reading of the text argues against that. Again, it's a special pleading to try to say that, uh, this is not the way God did it, this is the way God revealed it. Again, Exodus 20:11, he didn't say in six days God revealed how he created, he said in six days he created or made the heavens and the Earth.

Uh, both C and D have fallen into fairly unanimous disrepute among evangelicals. As well, the debate today is between A and E. Between the 24-hour day, and I put theory because someone says we can't say it's fact because other exeges, not all exeges hold to it. I would say the 24-hour day fact, but I left it that way. As opposed to the literary framework theory, which is, uh, where, uh, whenham is going with this. Is a day, but understand that this is just the literary framework that, that in the ancient world and re, and re, and responding to these other myths, that what, uh, God is directing Moses to do in Genesis chapter 1 is frame an account because Yom, a day, was looked at at a, at a period. In fact, boasts were made by, by, um, conquerors, uh, during the time of Moses on how in a day they were able to destroy an army. That when something happens in a day, it is a stupendous event, a great event. What Moses is doing here, he is saying, look, you got six days when the most stupendous events that took place happened. He is framing this to communicate theological truth, symbolic theology. It's, it's the framework that was well known within the ancient world and how step by step God did things. This is seen in the Babylonian myth. And what we see here is, is the same extra-biblical, ancient Near Eastern framework is being used to communicate to Israel the greatness of their God and the greatness of his creation. So that he is borrowing the framework to communicate theological truth. Again, is the very beginning of symbolic theology. It is said in this way, not because this is necessarily the way it happened, but the way it is being said literarily reflects the theological truth of what the reality of creation should communicate to Israel and therefore to us. This is not a scientific statement, it is a literary statement. Just as later, the flood is not a literary, not a historical event, but it's given a literary framework. And he goes and, you know, shows how there is a just literary symmetry between the beginning of the flood and the end of the flood. The days that are mentioned, not that this is historical, but it's literary to show how God is in control and, and shows his sovereignty in judging man because of his sin. It is a literary framework to communicate theological truth. And gentlemen, this is catching on like wildfire among evangelicals. And how they can, how they can have their cake and eat it too. The Bible does not give historical scientific information, it's, it's a literary framework to communicate a theological truth and just accept it as such.

The argument to that is not that there isn't any kind of literary framework here. I just, I just showed you that I believe there is. That, that, that God formed then filled. But it is stated that way literarily because, as Exodus 20:11 assures us, that's the way God did it. That is the historical reality. And then it is framed for us because God only, not, not only acted, but he also gave the revelation of his action. And the revelation of his action relates to the way that he did it. So, uh, I would state biblically that, uh, that tying one, two, and three together, that God made, God created the heavens and the Earth to the end that man and the animals, etcetera, are able to function in his created universe in these six days. And, uh, that he has communicated what he did accurately in historical narrative is given to us here of the creation account.

Now, what's embedded within the creation accounts is a statement about the image of God. And in, uh, Genesis 1, when he talks about mankind in Genesis 2:6 and 27, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." And so, verse 27, "God created man in his own image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them." Now, what is the image of God? "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." And the two terms, one that's emphasized in verse 27 is image. Now, it's interesting that image is going to be a term that's going to be used in the Old Testament for, for the heathen representation in visual form of their so-called gods. So they will make what images, idols that were means of worship. So that an image in the Old Testament has the idea of a representative likeness of the one that the image is supposed to represent. And likeness has the idea of that the things held in common between the image and the one that the image is supposed to represent.

So, what is the image of God? Well, classically, it is seen either A or B. The totality of man as a reflection of God, not that God has a body, but but man is made to represent God. And, uh, position A would say, as Hamilton and Kidner, both in his bodily form and in his immaterial nature, the totality of man. This becomes the basis later on in the Bible of anthropomorphisms. God is a God who is able to see, who is able to act, even though he does not have a body. Man being being a representation of God, a limited representation, also have to has the means to be able to to act in the earth. And so God fashions a body for him so that he can can act toward the earth as God is also an actor within his universe. The greater emphasis among theologians, but not necessarily exegetes, has been B, it represents the immaterial nature of man. That just as man, that just as God is a thinking, feeling, willing person, so he gives that unique, those unique characteristics to man as well. It's dealing with the impersonal aspects, the personality of man.

Now, there might be some truth in it. But within the within the context, there is a purpose. "Let us make man in our image, and let them rule over the fish, birds, cattle, creeping thing." And so, in in verse 27, "God created man in his own image." And verse 28, "God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful, multiply, fill the Earth, subdue it, and rule over the fish, birds, every living thing." That the image of God is tied into man's rule over over the Earth. And this then ties in what ancient, uh, kings would do. Is that when they conquered a people, since they could not remain, what they did is they set up a physical image likeness of themselves to remind the conquered people who their ruler truly was. And it seems here as though it is not so much emphasizing what is is the image as what the importance of the image is. Is that the image says man is God's representative upon the Earth, and he is ruling as God's representative upon the Earth.

Now, though believing three is the thrust of the image of God, obviously the image to have any effect has to do what? In some way represent the one who is being represented in the image. And, uh, so seeing, see, image of God being more a purpose than emphasizing the characteristic, it is, uh, the fact that, uh, that, uh, uh, God does make man the way that he does, and we do reflect in both our material and immaterial being aspects of God. But the purpose for that is that man might fulfill the task for which God created him, which is to be his representative and ruler over the Earth, to rule the Earth as God's representative. And I know I'm sounding very, uh, mirish here, as we've talked about in the past on God's original creation ordinance. But, uh, uh, but I would see the emphasis of the image of God not being what man is, but who man is for God. That that is the the thrust of the the biblical passage here in Genesis 1.