Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Genesis 1:5

Genesis 1:5 "God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."

"God called the light Day" - God begins to name His creation. In Gen 2:19, Adam will continue in this work by naming the animals. In this way Adam is imitating God. This has been the plan of God from the beginning: That mankind would work the works of God, imitating Him perfectly. Now we, as redeemed man, have one goal: to understand what God is doing in the world and become imitators of God in those acts! A verse many of us know well is illustrative of this. Eph 2:10 "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Jesus was the perfect fulfillment of what mankind was to be, and therefore thoroughly illustrated this concept. In John 9:4, Jesus says, "I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work." He also says in John 5:19 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son does in like manner."

Of course, for you and I this is impossible without the work of the Holy Spirit. All work and toil that we attempt before God will come up empty unless we surrender fully to the Spirit, allowing Him to work in our stead. This is the secret to the victorious Christian life! If you desire this Spirit-filled life, you have but to do one thing... surrender yourself fully to the Lord. Say, "I am nothing. Come and fill me. I am finished with "religious" attempts to serve You. I deny myself and my pride."

"...Evening and morning were the first day." - Now this phrase has sparked a great debate within the church throughout the last 100 years. Some Christians believe the creation days of Genesis to be 24 hour periods, while others hold that a day is a longer period of time. Let me say that I do not believe it is the purpose of the Lord for us to get into this debate a great deal here. I will explain why I am not very dogmatic about either position and then leave it to you to decide.

First, the main arguments go like this: Those who believe the earth was created in six 24 hour days are called "young earth" theorists because they hold the actual age of the earth is from 4000- 10000 years old. Those who hold the earth was created over eons and that the "days" of Genesis are longer periods of time are called "old earth" theorists because they approximate the earth at around 4.3 billion years old. Young earth people criticize old earth people by saying they are not holding true to the literal understanding of the text. They say, "A day means a day. Don't try to argue away the natural reading of the text." Old earth people claim the young earth people are closing their eyes to the obvious evidence of science that the earth is very old. Geological features that have been calculated to take millions of years are visible on the earth. And light from distant stars that has taken millions of years of years to reach us is just now getting to our eyes. These are some of the general arguments that take place.

Now, if you know me, you know I hold to a literal understand of God's word. Of course there are figurative uses of language within the bible. When Jesus says "I am a door" for instance does not mean He is literally a door, but a figurative doorway for us to reach God. So when I tell you I don't really have a dogmatic opinion on the matter, don't brand me as a liberal. I will explain myself.

If you are new to the bible, you must know that the bible was written in Hebrew, an ancient Middle-Eastern language. The translation to English, a modern language from a totally different language root, is not always clear cut. Moreover, Hebrew is a very simple language compared to, say, Greek. There are only a few thousand words in the ancient Hebrew language, compared to millions in some other languages. Therefore, Hebrew words had to double up in their meanings. The reader of Hebrew would often know which meaning was intended by the context the word was written in. The problem is compounded by the amount of time that has gone by between then and now. Customs have been lost, and much vernacular (common words and phrases used at a certain time in a languages history. Ex: Think of the word "cool" today) has been lost. Now please understand that scholars have done a tremendous job translating the bible you have now in English. The general meaning of text and certainly the theology has been pristinely preserved for us thanks to the work of the Holy Spirit. But there are some words whose meaning we will just not be able to get perfect.

We know the word for "day" in the Hebrew certainly does mean a 24 hour period of time. (Young earthers rejoice) But it also can mean a longer period of time. (Old earthers smile) An example in English is your grandfather saying, "In my day we didn't have email!" Can the bible be taken literally with either meaning? Yes it can. If you want to argue with me, lets have a good discussion, but my conscience is not seared by allowing this as a viable option. The problem I have is when the church divides over the issue. Christ can be glorified if, in love, we use the issue as a vehicle to drive us to the word of God. But you run the name of Christ through the mud when in your pride you argue dogmatically over this issue. There are too many other important doctrines to stand for in this backwards world. The bible warns us there will be many false teachers that come in the last days. Trust me, these false teachers are not going to try to get Christians to believe in an old earth! They will try to steer them away from the deity of Jesus Christ or some other primary doctrine of the church. Debate?... sure. Be dogmatic?... No.

3 comments:

  1. I've had fellow brothers and sisters in Christ brand me as a liberal interpreter of scripture for not caring about whether we live on an old or new earth. I see the whole debate as a hinderance to the gospel. And, heck, though I do not believe in macro-evolution, I have decided not to wage a war against those who believe in it. I simply say, "In a macro-evolved universe, can you not deny that we still don't know how it all started in the first place?" Hence, the possibility of a Creator still has to confront the mind of even the most staunch macro-evolutionist.

    I have no questions for you this time though!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ya I totally agree. We simply cannot lose the simplicity of the gospel. To argue with someone even over evolution is to confuse the issue for them entirely. It is like they are thinking, "Does this person just want me to agree with their political/ scientific beliefs?" If the person we are evangelizing to starts to think that, then we have confused the issue.

    The truth is, someone can be saved and believe in macro-evolution. I would agree that they would be wrong, but it is probably because they haven't worked through all of their theology. Let us make sure we deal with the first things first! Good point Austin.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JD, not to fuel a debate by any means because as was already stated this is a secondary issue for sure. The bottom line is the gospel. That being said i hold literally to the 24 hour day for creation. When Adam was created was he made as a new born baby or was he a full grown man? So Adam being made brand new with age dating factors. The trees he made, when God spoke them into being did they all start as seeds or were they made as full grown trees? So that being said i believe it would make sense that we would see certain age dating factors when it comes to our universe with things such as galaxies and stars being at different points of entropy than others. Also if it were "Ages" or a period of time, the plant life made on the third day would not have survived without the seasons and sun and moon from the fourth day....just a thought.
    Another thing that i have thought was interesting was when God had set up for the children of Israel that they were to harvest the land for 6 years and then give it a year to rest. If the earth is young it would put it right around 6000 years old and when Jesus comes back to reign in the millennial kingdom the earth has rest for 1000 years. It of course could be nothing at all but i certainly believe that God loves doing those kind of parallels. So nothing dogmatic on that but certainly interesting for the young earth argument.

    -Jared Richard

    ReplyDelete