Galatians Chapter 4

Sons and Heirs

1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, 2 but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5  to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

.

1. Is Paul now changing the subject?

No. Paul is continuing to drive home his point that the law was a temporary situation and had served its purpose.In the previous chapter he had shown them that believers in the gospel were the true children of Abraham; that they had been delivered from the curse of the law; that the law was a schoolmaster to lead them to Christ, and that they were all the children of God. BN

Whereas in chapter 3 Paul dealt mainly with justification (my position on Christ), in chapter 4 his emphasis was primarily on sanctification (How are we now to live the Christian life). CN

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith Gal 3:24 (ESV)

.

2. The slave analogy illustrates what principle?

 The slave as well as the child has restricted freedom. In respect to ability to make decisions both groups are identical in that they both are under the authority of their managers.

Again we will have to go back to the Roman customs to see Paul’s illustration in action. In a Roman home servants had charge of different possessions of the master. Some had charge of the chattels, others of the livestock, others kept books for him, and others had charge of his children. When a little one was born into the home, the servants cared for him and dressed him in play clothes so that he didn’t look any different from the children of the servants with whom he was playing. And he had to obey the servants just like the other children did. ^JVM

.

3. What does Paul point to as the major factor in bringing us out of slavery to the law?

Redemption and the indwelling Holy Spirit.  The blood of Christ paid the price to buy us back out of bondage to the law.  The Holy Spirit in us guarantees out position.

You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 1 Cor 7:23 (ESV)

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. John 14:16-17 (ESV)

 When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴ who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. Eph. 1:13-14

.

Paul’s Concern for the Galatians

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. 12 Brothers, I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong. 13 You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, 14 and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. 15 What then has become of the blessing you felt? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? 17 They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them. 18 It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, 19  my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! 20 I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

.

4. What is so puzzling to Paul?

 “how can you turn back?” Why would you want to go back to being enslaved by a worthless system which can never bring life?  What is the motivation for me to want to go back to being treated like a first grader where I have to raise my hand to use the restroom? Is there security for spiritually immature Christians to want to live under a set of written rules such that they don’t have to depend on the Spirit?

“I am perplexed about you.”

.

5. What is all this about days and months?

“Ye observe days,” meaning the sabbath days. Paul said to the Colossians, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days” (Col. 2:16).

“Months” probably refers to the observance of the “new moon” practiced by the people of Israel in the time of the kings. The prophets warned them against it.

“Times” should be translated seasons, meaning feasts. God had given Israel seven feasts, but they all had pointed to the Lord Jesus Christ.

“Years” of course would refer to the sabbatic years. The observance of all these things would put these gentile believers completely back under the Mosaic Law.

Today we hear legalists claim they are keeping the Mosaic Law, yet they are keeping only the sabbath day. All the law comes in one package, including the sabbatic year and the Year of Jubilee. James in his epistle said, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). That is, he is guilty of being a lawbreaker. JVM

These Galatians were formally gentile pagans who had never lived under the Jewish Ceremonial laws and now they had been convinced by the Judaizers that they needed to observe all these practices which had been given to the Jewish people as metaphors of   Christ.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Sabbath-keeping.html

.

6. What “bodily ailment” is Paul referring to?

Probably Paul’s thorn in the flesh was some sort of eye trouble, and it evidently made him very unattractive. I cannot conceive of them wanting to pluck out their eyes and give them to Paul if what he really needed was another leg. Apparently Paul had an eye disease which is common in that land and is characterized by excessive pus that runs out of the eyes. You can well understand how unattractive that would be to look at while he was ministering to them. Paul says, “You just ignored it, and received me so wonderfully when I preached the gospel to you.” JVM

See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand! Gal 6:11 (NKJV)

.

Example of Hagar and Sarah

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.” 28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

.

7. These two sons of Abraham, how did they differ?

Ishmael was the son by the Egyptian slave Hagar. This was not Gods plan. This was the result of a plan cooked up by Sarah and Abraham. Paul allegorically identifies Hagar with My Sinai in Arabia in the respect that her children were under slavery to their fleshly natures as the Hebrews were under slavery to theirs and had to be restricted by the Mosaic Law which was given on Mt. Sinai or Mt. Horeb.

He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.” Gen 16:12 (ESV)

 These are the ancestors of the Arabs which is very telling with respect to the situation on the Middle East today.

Is Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. ……………………….. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.” Gen 17:19-21 (ESV)

I will be with you and will bless you, for to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father. 4  I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Gen 26:3-5 (ESV)

Isaac was a man of faith, gentleness and wisdom.

.

8. What happened to Ishmael?

He was driven away. The son of the flesh and the son of the promise could not coexist. You cannot mix the flesh and the Spirit and you cannot mix law and grace. Paul is telling the Galatians that they need to choose the promises of God over the curse of the law and they need to drive out the Judaizers.

24 “No one can be a slave of two masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. Matt 6:24 (HCSB)

  Early in the morning Abraham got up, took bread and a waterskin, ⌊put them⌋ on Hagar’s shoulders, and sent her and the boy away. Gen 21:14 (HCSB)

 17 God heard the voice of the boy, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What’s wrong, Hagar? Don’t be afraid, for God has heard the voice of the boy from the place where he is. 18 Get up, help the boy up, and support him, for I will make him a great nation.” 19 Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the waterskin and gave the boy a drink. 20 God was with the boy, and he grew; he settled in the wilderness and became an archer. 21 He settled in the Wilderness of Paran, and his mother got a wife for him from the land of Egypt. Gen 21:17-21 (HCSB)

.

9. Just for fun:  where is Mt. Sinai?

 The scripture says it is in Arabia but most bible maps put it in the Sinai Peninsula.

     

The blackened peak of Jebel El Lawz and the rock of Horeb where Moses split the rock and water gushed out.

Chariot wheels found at the bottom of the Red Sea at the Nuweiba crossing point.

The traditional Mt. Sinai was “discovered” by the mother of the Emperor Constantine based on a “dream” she had. There is no archaeological evidence to establish this as the actual location of the mountain where Moses received the Commandments.  The Roman Catholic built a monastery at the base of the mountain.

• ESVN………….ESV Study Bible Notes
• MSBN…….MacArthur NASB Study Notes
•  BDB………….. Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
• NIVSN…..NIV Study Notes.
• JVM ….J Vernon McGee,
• ACC …. Adam Clarke’s Commentary
• BN …..Barnes Notes
• WBC……   Wycliffe Bible Commentary
• CN …… Constables Notes
• IC……….Ironside Commentary
• NET………Net Bible Study Notes.
• JFB…………..Jamieson  Fausset  Brown Commentary
• VWS……………..Vincent Word Studies
• CMM………….Commentary on Matthew and Mark
• BDB………….. Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
• Darby………..John Darby’s Synopsis of the OT and NT
• Johnson………Johnson’s Notes on the New Testament.
• NTCMM…………..The New Testament Commentary:  Matthew and Mark.

“Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107

The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Question: “Is temptation a sin? Is it a sin to be tempted?”

Answer: Temptation, by its very nature, feels wrong. God’s moral law is written in the heart of every human being (Romans 1:20), and when a sinful temptation is introduced, our consciences immediately sense danger. However, the temptation itself is not the sin. Jesus was tempted (Mark 1:13; Luke 4:1-13), but He never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). Sin occurs when we mishandle temptation.

There are two avenues by which we are tempted: Satan and our own sinful flesh. Acts 5 gives an example of someone tempted by Satan. Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, wanting to appear more spiritual than they really were, lied to the apostles and pretended they were giving as an offering the full price of some property they had sold. Peter confronted them: “How is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?”(verse 3). In this instance, Peter knew that the temptation to lie had come from Satan. Ananias and his wife both gave in to that temptation (verses 7-10). The betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot is also attributed to Satan’s influence (Luke 22:3; John 13:2).

Ultimately, since Satan is the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4) and the father of lies (John 8:44), all evil originates with him. However, our own selfish nature is an ally of Satan’s. We need no prompting from Satan to entertain sinful ideas. James 1:13-14 says, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.”

Even though we may desire to do good, we are all tempted. No one is above it, even someone like the apostle Paul. He shared his own struggle of flesh against spirit when he wrote in Romans 7:22-23, “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.”

Temptation is not of itself sinful. It becomes sin when we allow the temptation to become action, even in our minds. Lust, for example, is sin even though it may never be acted upon (Matthew 5:28). Covetousness, pride, greed, and envy are all sins of the heart; even though they may not be apparent to anyone else, they are still sin (Romans 1:29; Mark 7:21-22). When we give in to the temptation to entertain such thoughts, they take root in our hearts and defile us (Matthew 15:18–19). When we yield to temptation, we replace the fruit of the Spirit with the fruit of the flesh (Ephesians 5:9; Galatians 5:19-23). And, many times, what was first entertained as a thought becomes action (see James 1:15).

The best defense against giving in to temptation is to flee at the first suggestion. Joseph is a great example of someone who did not allow temptation to become sin (Genesis 39:6–12). Although tempted to sin sexually, he did not give the temptation time to take root. He used the legs God gave him and physically fled. Rather than stay in a potentially dangerous situation and try to talk, reason, justify, explain, or otherwise weaken his resolve, Joseph took off. The temptation was not sin for him because he dealt with it in a God-honoring way. It could easily have become sin if Joseph had stayed around and tried to overcome the temptation in his own strength.

Romans 13:13-14 (ESV) gives us a guideline for avoiding situations that can lead to temptation. “Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.” If we determine to “make no provision for the flesh,” we will keep ourselves out of situations that may prove too tempting. When we put ourselves in situations where we know we will be tempted, we are asking for trouble. God promises to provide a “way of escape” when we are tempted (1 Corinthians 10:13), but often that way is to avoid the situation altogether. “Flee the evil desires of youth” (2 Timothy 2:22). Jesus taught us to pray, “Lead us not into temptation” (Luke 11:4), but we have a responsibility to pay attention to the direction God is leading us and avoid temptation whenever we can.

© Copyright 2002-2019 Got Questions Ministries.
www.GotQuestions.orgCopyright Policy: While all of the material on the GotQuestions.org website is under copyright protection, the only purpose of our copyright is to make sure people copy it right. As long as you always clearly reference and/or link to http://www.gotquestions.org as the source of the material, you have our permission to copy, print, and distribute our material. However, the use of Got Questions Ministries material for monetary gain is explicitly prohibited. Please also see this blog post: https://www.gotquestions.blog/copy-it-right.html “Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107

The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Jesus, the Young Age Creationist.

‘From the beginning of creation’—what did Jesus mean?

There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

by Keaton Halley

Mark 10: 6 (ESV) 
6  But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

Not everyone welcomes this news, but some of Jesus’ statements imply, of necessity, that the world is young. This is something I regularly point out when I speak in churches about creation, and it is a theme on which we have written previously, in articles such as Jesus on the age of the earth and in chapter 9 of Refuting Compromise. To reiterate the argument briefly, Jesus claimed that human history began at approximately the same time as all of creation came into existence, not billions of years later. This is evident from Jesus’ statements like: “from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’” (Mark 10:6). The obvious implication from these words is that Adam and Eve were on the scene shortly after the heavens and earth were created; they were not latecomers to a cosmos that had already endured for billions of years, as old-earth proponents insist. Thus, for those who take Jesus’ words seriously, there is no way to fit billions of years into Genesis 1 prior to Adam and Eve. See the comparison of biblical and secular timelines in figure 1.

Figure 1.

Evasive maneuvers

Following such presentations, people have often shared that they rejoiced to learn of this biblical teaching, and some individuals have even been persuaded to change their minds about the age of the earth based on Jesus’ words. But, sadly, many Christians are so strongly committed to their belief in an old earth that they will go to desperate lengths to avoid the clear meaning of the text. Almost invariably, when someone voices an objection to the argument, it goes like this: “Actually, it’s not clear that Jesus was referring to the creation of all things. He might have meant simply the creation of humanity.” This answer is not only given in casual conversations; the same response also appears in the writings of thoughtful scholars like C. John Collins, who argues: “The most obvious ‘beginning of creation’ for this verse is the beginning of the creation of the first pair of humans”.1 Frankly, however, this interpretation cannot be sustained when the text is examined carefully. The idea that Jesus was referring to the creation of humanity overlooks four important exegetical considerations which reinforce the plain meaning of Jesus’ words and thereby confirm that the earth is young.

Broadly speaking

First, Jesus could have worded His statement differently if He had wanted to indicate that He was speaking strictly of the origin of mankind, rather than the beginning of all things—yet He chose not to. For example, Jesus could easily have said “from the beginning of man” or “from the time of their creation” or something similar if that’s what He had wanted to convey. But He did not qualify His statement in this way. He did not modify the word “creation” with any other terms that would restrict its focus, but instead spoke of “creation” broadly the way He would if He had wanted to talk about the created world in general.

Parallel passages

Second, the intuitive meaning of Jesus’ words is supported by several parallel passages. In parallel passages we have separate authors telling the same story in their own words, as often happens in the Gospels, and the slight differences in wording can help to clarify a text’s meaning. For example, Matthew 19:4 is parallel to Mark 10:6, so Matthew’s phrase “from the beginning” (used again in v. 8) must be equivalent to Mark’s “from the beginning of creation”. Now, since Matthew’s phraseology is even more generic than Mark’s, he certainly does not give us any indication that this “beginning” is limited to the origin of humanity. But since Matthew has the word “beginning” immediately followed by Jesus’ quotation of Genesis 1:26, he is likely alluding to the introductory words of the creation account as well, which starts, “In the beginning”. If so, there is no possibility of ambiguity in Jesus’ meaning, because the “beginning” in Genesis 1:1 is not referring merely to the start of human beings, but to the origin of “the heavens and the earth.”

Jesus could have worded His statement differently if He had wanted to indicate that He was speaking strictly of the origin of mankind, rather than the beginning of all things.

Even more tellingly, the words of Jesus that appear in Mark 10:6—“from the beginning of creation”—are used again by Jesus in Mark 13:19.2 Now, both passages are from the same book of the Bible. They both involve the same person (Jesus) using similar language to make a similar point, so we have every reason to conclude that the phrases have the same meaning. But the meaning of Mark 13:19 is also illuminated by a parallel passage. Compare:

• Mark: “from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 13:19)
• Matthew: “from the beginning of the world” (Matt. 24:21)

According to the parallel, “the creation” must have the same meaning as “the world”. In other contexts, the term “world” (kosmos, κόσμος) can refer to mankind (e.g., Rom 3:19), but there is no justification for that rendering here. Given the parallel, the contextual meaning of these terms must be found in their semantic overlap, and therefore it isn’t just humanity that is in view, but all of creation.

Multiple witnesses

Third, there are several other New Testament passages which, although they are not connected to Mark 10:6 by parallels, contain the same implications about the age of the earth. Like the passages already mentioned, these texts take it for granted that all the events of creation week happened in the very beginning, including the creation of mankind on Day 6. So, in addition to the above passages (Mark 10:6; 13:19; Matthew 19:4, 8; 24:21), we add the following:

• Luke 11:50–51 — Prophets’ blood was “shed from the foundation of the world” (note: not from the foundation of mankind).
• Hebrews 9:25–26 — People have been sinning and in need of atonement “since the foundation of the world”.
• Romans 1:20 — People have been able to recognize God’s attributes “since the creation of the world”.3

Not only do these texts reinforce the face-value meaning of Mark 10:6, but they also provide independent scriptural testimony to a young earth. After all, it would be preposterous to apply the old-earth interpretive ‘escape hatch’ to every one of these passages. Consider, for example, the passage in Luke’s Gospel where Jesus spoke about “the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world”; there is no basis at all for suggesting that He was really only talking about the world of humanity or the world of prophets. Rather, each of these texts is self-evidently speaking about the beginning of the whole world, and therefore each indicates that the earth is not significantly older than mankind.

Mixed-up meanings

Fourth and finally, the argument that Jesus was referring to the creation of humanity in Mark 10:6 actually misrepresents what Jesus meant by “creation”. In both English and Greek, the word “creation” can refer to either an object (a created thing) or an act (the process of creating). The statement, “this artwork is my own creation”, refers to an object. But “the creation of this artwork took many hours” describes an act.

Each of these texts is self-evidently speaking about the beginning of the whole world.

Notice that when the critics take Jesus’ reference to “creation” and tack on the words, “of humanity”, they are assuming that the term “creation” refers to an act—God’s making of mankind. Certainly, the Bible does use the term in this way in Romans 1:20, which speaks of “the creation of the world,” meaning God’s act of making of the world.

However, it makes little sense to impose this definition on Mark 10:6. Jesus could not have meant that God made people male and female from the beginning of the act of creation, because even old-earth creationists would agree that Adam and Eve were made on Day 6, toward the end (not the beginning) of God’s creative activity.4 Rather, what Jesus meant by “creation” is not the act, but the object that resulted from God’s creative activity. Jesus was talking about something that God made. This becomes even more obvious by looking again at Mark 13:19, in which Jesus used additional wording to help clarify which type of “creation” He was speaking about. His extended phrase reads (note the emphasized words): “from the beginning of the creation that God created until now”. It makes absolutely no sense to speak of God creating the act of creation. Unquestionably, then, the creation here and in Mark 10:6 is not an act, but an object.

Even so, if the critics were to admit their mistake of confusing creative acts with created objects, they might still try to maintain that the created object refers to mankind rather than the entire created realm. But this amounts to saying that the word “creation” here just means “mankind”, and there is no scriptural precedent for this at all. While the Greek word for “creation” (ktisis, κτίσις) can mean “creature” (as in 2 Cor. 5:17), the Bible never uses the singular form to refer to humanity collectively.

Thus, those Christians who try to limit Jesus’ statements to human origins are caught in a dilemma. If they claim “creation” means the act of making mankind, they import a meaning completely foreign to the context. But if they maintain that “creation” refers to (created) humanity, they adopt a meaning completely foreign to New Testament word usage. Better to abandon all the hermeneutical contrivances, and accept the obvious truth that Jesus believed in a young earth.5

Taking our cues from Scripture

As Christians, we ought to take the words of Jesus, and indeed all the words of Scripture, as authoritative (John 10:35; 17:17; 2 Tim. 3:16–17). Yet Jesus’ testimony about the age of the earth is clear even if uncomfortable for some. So I would challenge those Christians who cling to an old-earth perspective to ask themselves if they are honestly submitting to the Word of God on this point, or just finding ways to rationalize their lack of faith. The Bible clearly teaches that mankind is about as old as the rest of creation, so let us humble ourselves before God’s Word as the Thessalonians once did:

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thess. 2:13)

May that same Word continue to be at work in us.

Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history

‘The important thing is that God created, isn’t it?’

by Jonathan Sarfati

Ever had someone tell you, ‘You’re missing the whole point! The purpose of Genesis is to teach that God is our Creator. We should not be divisive over the small details. Genesis teaches the theological truth of “Who?” and “Why?” not about the “How?” and “When?”’ Or else they say that the Bible is a book for faith and morality, not history.

An obvious answer is, why should we trust Genesis when it says God created if we can’t trust it on the details? After all, Jesus told Nicodemus, ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12). So if Genesis can’t be trusted on an earthly thing, such as Earth’s age, the sequence of creative acts upon it, or the Flood that covered it, then why trust it on a heavenly thing such as who the Creator was? Also, if Genesis 1were merely meant to tell us that God is creator, then why simply not stop at verse 1, all that’s necessary to state this?

However, the critic has overlooked something even more important—Genesis is written as real history. This is why the rest of the Bible treats the events, people and time sequences as real history, not parables, poetry or allegory.

What does the rest of Scripture say?

The age and unique creation of Adam and Eve mattered to Jesus

When teaching about marriage, Jesus said:

‘But at the beginning of creation God “made them male and female. … For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:6–8).

Here, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 about a real first man and first woman who became the first couple, and this was the basis for marriage between one man and one woman today. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or more than two people. Evolution teaches instead that a whole population of humans evolved from a population of ape-like creatures.

The important thing is that God created, isn’t it?

Also, in the context of what Jesus quoted, the two become one flesh because Eve was taken from Adam’s flesh, and a man leaves his parents because Adam had none. Furthermore, Jesus said that Adam and Eve were there ‘from the beginning of creation’, not billions of years later.

Far too few Christians defend the foundation of marriage—the recent creation of Adam and Eve as Jesus taught. Then they wonder why sinful deviant acts such as adultery, fornication and homosexual behaviour are increasing, even within the church.

The timeframe of Creation Week matters to God

God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger. The 4th one is:

‘Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God.’

The reason he gave is:

‘For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.’

Clearly the timeframe is important, otherwise this Commandment is meaningless. And if the creation days were really long periods of time, then logically the days of the working week would have to be as well. But ‘Work for 6 billion years and rest for one billion years’ doesn’t quite have the same ring to it …

Adam’s sin bringing death mattered to Paul’s preaching of the gospel

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul explains the Gospel he had taught these people, and how central Jesus’ Resurrection is. And he explains whyJesus came to die:

‘For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. … So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit’ (1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45).

Paul explains that the Gospel (= ‘good news’) is necessary because of the bad news that our ancestor Adam sinned and brought death to all people (Romans 5:12–19). Thus, the last Adam, Jesus, cured this by living a sinless life, dying for our sin, and rising from the dead. Also, Jesus rose physically from the dead (rising from an empty tomb with flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)). So the death Adam brought must also have a physical component, as shown by his return to the dust from which he was made (Genesis 3:19).

All compromise views place death before Adam’s sin, thus undermine the Gospel.

Jesus’ ancestry mattered to Luke

In chapter 3 of his Gospel, Luke traces Jesus’ lineage from Mary all the way back up to Adam. There is not the slightest hint of a break showing where historical characters end and mythical figures begin—all are treated as equally historical; none are mythical. This includes Adam himself, who was created directly by God, not through a long line of ape-like ancestors or pond scum (Luke 3:38).

This is important for Paul’s teaching in the above section. It is also vital for the Atonement. The prophet Isaiah spoke of the coming Messiah as literally the ‘Kinsman-Redeemer’, i.e. one who is related by blood to those he redeems (Isaiah 59:20, which uses the same Hebrew word גוֹאל (gôēl) as is used to describe Boaz in relation to Naomi in Ruth 2:20, 3:1–4:17). The book of Hebrews also explains how Jesus took upon Himself the nature of a man to save mankind, but not angels (Hebrews 2:11–18). So only Adam’s descendants can be saved, because only thus can they be related by blood to the Last Adam.

So if anyone thinks that Genesis history doesn’t matter, then ask how they should preach to the Australian Aborigines. If they have really been here for 40,000 years (according to carbon-14 dating that old-earthers accept), then how could they come from Adam, and how could they be related to Christ, so how can they be saved? Indeed, a compromising clergyman of Darwin’s day claimed that Aborigines had not evolved enough to preach the Gospel to them!1

Cain and Abel’s reality mattered to John

The Apostle John taught:

‘Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous’ (1 John 3:12).

Thus, in teaching the church about good and evil, John accepted the real history of Cain murdering Abel, as an example of real evil.

John accepted the real history of Cain murdering Abel, as an example of real evil.

Jesus also believed that Abel was the first man whose blood was shed. And He taught that Abel’s blood would come upon that unbelieving generation as surely as that of the other martyred prophets throughout Scripture (Matthew 23:35).

Also, Hebrews 11 lists Abel, Enoch and Noah as heroes of the faith, without any hint that they were less real than any of the others listed.

The order of creation mattered to Paul

Paul taught much about the role of men and women in church. Paul justified it by citing the real history of Genesis. He wrote:

‘For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man’ (1 Corinthians 11:8–9).

Thus, Paul accepts the Genesis history that God created first Adam, who then named all the land vertebrate animals that God had previously created, then God made Eve from Adam’s rib—she was not an evolved apewoman! However, later on Paul points out:

‘In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God’ (1 Corinthians 11:11–12).

Here, Paul is following Genesis as well, for Adam named his wife Eve because she would become ‘the mother of all the living’ (Genesis 3:20).

Jesus taught about the sudden reality of His future judgment by comparing it to the time of Noah.

Paul repeats this even more directly in his instructions to his pupil Timothy, ‘For Adam was first formed, then Eve’ (1 Timothy 2:13). Next verse, Paul teaches that Genesis 3is also real history, ‘And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.’

Noah, the Flood and Ark mattered to Jesus and Peter

Jesus taught about the sudden reality of His future judgment by comparing it to the time of Noah:

‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all’ (Luke 17:26–27).

Here, Jesus treats Noah as a real person, the Ark as a real ship and the Flood as a real event that destroyed all people outside the Ark.

Peter likewise warned of a coming Judgment by comparing it with the Flood. He even said that one characteristic of ‘scoffers’ was a willful ignorance of two things: the reality of special creation of the world out of water, and its destruction by water (2 Peter 3:3–7).

But if we deny that the Flood was a real event, then logically the future Judgment must be denied as well. And if the Flood was merely a local Mesopotamian flood, then people could have escaped simply by emigrating. Logically, sinners could escape the future wrath of the Son of Man just by keeping out of Iraq!

Summary

These are only a few examples of where other Bible writers take Genesis as history. Indeed, the inspired writers treat the people, events and times as real, not merely literary or theological devices. And the reality of the history is foundational to crucial teachings about faith and morality.

Creation Ministries International  Dear  Augustine: You are welcome to post CMI articles on the mentioned website, as long as you agree not to change any of the content and reference creation.com and the relevant authors, as you have indicated.
Kind regards,  Annalouise Bekker  Administration
Creation Ministries International (Australia)  https://creation.com/from-the-beginning

 “Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.