BCS Study - Part VI (Chapters 13-18, Creation)

[Once4all]

These chapters cover a lot of pages, about 122. Currently, I'm just a few pages shy of finishing chapter 17.

Because a bit of time has elapsed since reading the earlier chapters in this section, I'll post my comments but may not be able to expound on them without revisiting the text.

I'm changing my numbering scheme to precede the item numbers with the chapter number.

CHAPTER 13, The Great Creation Debate

13.1. Page 244. I highlighted, "A crucial ingredient to make progress in the Genesis debate is the humility to distinguish human interpretation from divine inspiration." I certainly agree with this statement and wrote in the margin that this is true of any theological position.

13.2. On page 245 I highlighted, "If interpretive issues lead to competing interpretations of prophecy, does it not seem reasonable that these same issues would lead legitimately to competing interpretations of creation."

I also highlighted on the same page an excerpt from Samuel Frost regarding some things written by Louis Berkhof. Here is a portion of what I highlighted (I don't feel like typing in the whole thing): "...the dogmas of the church are changeable. The very need for a history of dogma supposes this fact, since truth does not have a history. One does not 'develop' truth. Truth 'is.'"

I didn't have any margin notes for these highlights; I suppose I highlighted them because I agree with them.

13.3. On page 246, a dictum of C.S. Lewis was quoted, that I thought was interesting: "The devil sends errors into the world in pairs of exact opposites."

I didn't have any margin notes, but my thoughts on it now are that it is an intriguing statement; however, without scriptural examples, that's all it is. The statement seems to be quoted in order to lead you to believe that young-earth creation and evolution are both "of the devil" because their "demands for literalism" in interpreting Genesis are in agreement even though their positions are at opposite extremes.

13.4. On page 248, there is a statement to "consider how Martin Luther acknowledged that his 'literal' view of the days of creation broke with the teaching of the Church fathers." Luther's quotation begins, "We must understand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the holy fathers. ..."

The point being that "The idea that Genesis 1 records an exact record of six consecutive 24-hour days identical to our ordinary week does not find support in early Church history."

13.5. Regarding that an appeal to tradition should not be used to determine proper understanding, this quote from James Jordan was included on page 249: "It is, after all, always possible that 'six-day creationism' has not properly understood the text of God's revelation. We must always be open to the text above all else, and not blindly cling to familiar traditions, whatever they may be." My margin not to this: Amen! Same of Trinity doctrine.

The Jordan quotation is followed immediately by: "Some Church traditions are right and some are wrong. People have argued many contradictory things from Church history." My margin note, meant as a general comment and not to the authors specifically, reads: Yeah, and the ones you say are right, are "right" because YOU believe them!

I had a few more things highlighted in chapter 13 that I didn't mention here. Even the ones I included are just personal observations and/or things I agree with. I'll move on to chapter 14 in a new post.

[Once4all]

CHAPTER 14 - Covenant Creation

No margin notes in this chapter; just highlights. Here are a few of them:

14.1. A quote by David Chilton: "Biblical prophecy is not 'prediction' in the occult sense of Nostrodamus, Edgar Cayce, and Jean Dixon... The purpose of prophecy is not 'prediction,' but evaluation of man's ethical response to God's Word." Page 272.

14.2. "These early chapters of Genesis are geared to a moral purpose in much the same way that the curse and redemption apply to the moral world of man." Page 273.

14.3. A quote by Frederic W. Farrar: "There is no other Eastern book in the world which we should have dreamed of understanding literally if it introduced speaking serpents and magic trees. Even the rabbis, stupidly literal as were their frequent methods, were perfectly aware that the story of the fall was a philosopheme – a vivid pictoral representation of the origin and growth of sin in the human heart." Page 275.

14.4. "Consider the prophecy given in Genesis 3:15 concerning the seed of the woman who would crush the head of the serpent. It is given in heavily symbolic, poetic form, yet it came to pass, ultimately, with the crucifixion of Christ in the first century. John even captures some of the imagery in Genesis by highlighting the location of the crucifixion: Golgotha – the place of the skull (John 19:17). The visual image is as historically graphic as Genesis 3:15 is symbolic. It is as if the very cross itself, planted on top of the hill, pierced the head of the serpent." Page 277.

14.5. "The super-theme of the Christian faith is this: one is either 'in Adam' or 'in Christ.' That explains why the story of the Bible unfolds with a theme of division: Cain or Seth, Lamech or Enoch, Ham or Shem/Japheth, Lot or Abraham, Hagar or Sarah, Ishmael or Isaac, Esau or Jacob, and on to Pharaoh or Moses." Page 278.

[Once4all]

CHAPTER 15 - The Prophetic Creation

15.1. Page 283: "Genesis 1 speaks prophetically about God's creative acts which set the pattern of forming and filling. ... That which God forms, he fills."

"God's creation on Days 1 through 3 foreshadows the old covenant which came with glory (forming), and Days 4 through 6 foreshadows the new covenant which comes with surpassing glory (filling)."

Examples of forming and filling given prior to these quotes (same page) are that the sky and waters are created on Day 2, then filled with birds and fish on Day 5; the land is created on Day 3, then filled with animals and man on Day 6.

My question, written in the margin, is How is the old covenant "filled" by the new covenant? Yes, it is FULfilled, but that is not the same.

15.2. On page 284, I've highlighted the first paragraph, which basically points out the the old covenant is figuratively night and the new covenant is figuratively the dawning of the new day; a repeated theme in Paul's writings and throughout the New Testament. This is followed by a quotation from Chilton, of which I've highlighted just the last phrase: "... the heavens and earth move eschatologically from evening to morning, the lesser light being succeeded by the greater light, going from glory to Glory."

15.3. There is a discussion on pages 284-285 about the meaning of "the evening and morning" in Daniel's prophecy. Without recapping the discussion, I'll just present my question: What of the 2300 evenings and mornings (plural) in Daniel 8:14? Daniel 8:13 speaks of "the vision about the regular sacrifice," so evening and morning may refer to the evening and morning sacrifices.

15.4. On page 291, Jesus is mentioned as "both the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6) and capstone (Matt. 24:42; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)". My question is just one for clarification: All those scriptures are about the cornerstone (NASB). Where are the capstone scriptures?

15.5. Pages 294-296 attempt to show that Genesis 2 is a recap of Genesis 1. It failed to convince me. I believe that the Genesis 2 account is a separate "creation" account, not a retelling (recap) of the Genesis 1 creation. Genesis 2 is the creation of temple (garden) and covenant.

15.6. Pages 299-300 show some parallels between Genesis 3 and Revelation 12. I thought these were very good.

[Once4all]

CHAPTER 16 - Apocalyptic Life-Spans

A short but very interesting chapter.

16.1. On page 312, I highlighted the first two paragraphs, but will only quote one sentence: "The long ages appear only within the godly line related to the Messiah (Gen. 5)."

16.2. Page 315 begins a discussion of the millennial life-span in Revelation. "Revelation uses a 1000-year period to represent the perfect fulfillment of the long life-spans introduced in Genesis. For what many do not consider is that the millennium in Revelation 20 is a symbolic life-span of the redeemed."

16.3. On page 316, it says that "the millennium is also the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy," but there is no scripture reference for Isaiah. Can you point to a specific passage in Isaiah that you are referring to here?

[Once4all]

CHAPTER 17 - The Covenant Gospel of Jesus Christ

17.1. Page 320. I highlighted the whole paragraph, of which the first sentence reads: "The fact that Isaac is Abraham's only son demonstrates that biology is not the primary focus of Genesis."

When I highlighted this, I thought it was quite the revelation. But now, as I looked up and read the verse it alludes to (Genesis 22:2), I see another explanation for "only son."

(Genesis 22:2 NASB) He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."

What if that comma wasn't there after "only son"? Then it would not mean that Isaac was Abraham's only son, but the only son whom he loves. This goes along with God saying that He loved Jacob but hated Esau (Malachi 1:2-3, Romans 9:13). The covenant significance is still there, regardless.

17.2. Page 328. I highlighted the account of the exodus (Exodus 14:19-22) and the authors' paragraph that follows it, which describes the similarities with Days 1-3 of the creation week. This was great; I love discovering these similarities and cross-references in scripture.

I highlighted quite a bit on page 329, as well.

17.3. Page 332. I highlighted the John 1:9-13 passage and the authors' paragraph that follows it. I agree that "the world" in that passage must refer to the world of 1st century Judaism. The same is true of John 3:16, page 334.

17.4. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is referenced on page 335. My comment is not about covenant creation, but is more a nit about preterism. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 says that Yahweh will raise up for YOU a prophet from among YOU. Wouldn't audience context/relevance apply here just as much as it does in the New Testament? He was speaking to a certain people at a certain time in history, yet we recognize that it has an ultimate fulfillment a long time in the future. This would seem to be a problem for preterism.

17.5. I thought the paragraph near the bottom of page 335 made a good point in regard to John 1:29 (the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.") The text states, "The fact that Jesus is the passover lamb again highlights the covenant context of Christ's redemption. The original passover during the exodus applied to God's people. Did the blood of the first passover, applied to the doorpost of the Hebrews, take away the sin of planet Earth? No. It covered, in a typological sense, the sin of God's people, the covenant world of the Hebrews and those who joined their ranks by faith (Ex. 12:38). This is the world God loved. The gospel of Jesus Christ can only be understood properly in the covenant context of biblical history."

17.6. Page 336. I highlighted the whole page, to the end of the section. It makes a great case for "world" in John 15:18-20, 22-24 referring to the old covenant world of Israel.

17.7. At the bottom of page 339 is a quote by Douglas Wilson. In it, he refers to being changed "from one kind of human being (with Adam as a father) to another kind of human being (with the last Adam as a father)." The last Adam—Christ—is never identified as our father. Where is Wilson getting this?

17.8. Page 342. I highlighted the line that states, "We do not claim that every case of 'the world' and 'the earth' refers to a strict covenant context, ..." I was just glad to see that.

17.9. Page 342. I highlighted the very last sentence: "The Bible is about covenant relationship between God and man from the opening garden scene to the closing garden scene to which we now turn." (Emphasis mine.) In general, I can certainly agree with that.

[Once4all]

CHAPTER 18 - The Big Picture

18.1 The discussion of the differences between the Greek neos and kainos is enlightening, if accurate. A quote from Don Preston on page 344 explains it like this: "There are two words translated as new in the New Testament, neos and kainos. Neos is new in time. It is that which has never existed before, or that which has recently come into existence. On the other hand kainos means new in quality, not time."

Kainos is used in Revelation 21.1 and 2 Peter 3:13. I'm reading this to mean a "re-newed" heaven and earth, rather than a "brand new" heaven and earth. More on this in the next comment.

18.2 On page 347, I have several things highlight, plus a marginal comment. I touched on my marginal comment in my comment above. Here are my highlighted portions:

"When we consider that the 'heavens and earth' is, quite literally, God's people, past, present, and future, we cannot escape an important conclusion. The 'new heaven and new earth' which the New Testament writers anticipated is, in essence, the same 'heaven and earth' first mentioned in Genesis 1:1"

"God redeemed this world through Jesus Christ whose completed work reveals the 'made-new' heaven and 'made-new' earth."

"Again, it is the 'heaven and earth' made new (kainos not neos). It is the original 'heaven and earth' order reborn or resurrected."

Another reason I found this concept of a "re-newed" rather than "brand new" heaven and earth interesting is that Messianic Jews stress in their teachings that the "new" covenant is really a re-newed covenant. This is the same principle being made in the book. However, the MJs take this idea to mean that many elements of the old Law are still in effect. Some apply it to all Christians, some only to Jewish converts to Christianity.

The "re-newed" versus "brand new" (or replaced) idea is not unique to covenant creation. I don't know if the authors and other covenant creationists realized this, that's why I mention it.

18.3 On page 349, I highlighted: "A replacement view of the new heaven and new earth in Revelation 21:1 breaks the biblical order of creation, fall, and redemption. It suggests that God does not redeem his original creation, but rather disposes of it as a flawed or defective 'first try.'" I thought this was a very good point.

18.4 In a section called "The Groaning Creation," I highlighted the following:

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by it own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. (Rom 8:20-21 NIV)

"Note how Paul is working from a historical view of creation, fall, and redemption. Notice also that the creation has a real will and consciousness. Paul is not focused on the physical universe. The universe was not cursed because the universe never sinned. What is Paul's concept of 'the creation'? The creation is synonymous with God's people. Paul is focused on redemption. The creation, the entire body of God's covenant people, was being 'brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.'"

There's more good stuff in this section, such as Paul's reference to "the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs" in Romans 8:22 and how this reaches back to and matches the curse on the woman (pain in childbirth) in Genesis 3:16.

18.5 In the next section about there being no more curse, the authors note how Isaiah's prophecy of the new heavens and new earth has the same themes as the curse (pages 356-357):

"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. ... They will not toil in vain [curse on Adam] or bear children doomed to misfortune [curse on Eve]; ... but dust will be the serpent's food [curse on serpent]. (Is. 65:17, 23-25 NIV)"

There were other things in chapter 18 that I had highlighted, but these were the highlights of the highlights.