Published: August 27, 2026 | Speaker: Chuck Hartman | Series: Biblical Theology Part 3 - The Kingdom of God - Part 3 | Scripture: Genesis 1:1-2, II Corinthians 4:6
Transcript
View Full Transcript →
0:09
All right. Tonight we get to the crux of the controversy that surrounds my interpretation of Genesis 1 verses 1 and two. Now before I'm I'm not going to
0:20
jump right into it. I have some not some caveats but preparatory statements. Um, one is that I'm not the only one who's ever thought this that um there will be
0:32
a lot of citations in your notes because I I've I've said before many times that I really never want to be the only one who's thought something. Um, that's not
0:43
a good sign after 2,000 years of Christian history. So, um I I do think that as I've also said many times that
0:55
um the way I view Genesis 1 one and two for me requires a lot less duct tape than the more conventional view. Having
1:07
said say that also uh the second point is that I am approaching the scripture as a work not only of revelation but of
1:18
literature and in literature there is reciprocal well intertextuality. well intertextuality. Okay. um
1:29
Okay. um what is written early on is echoed and alluded to if not quoted later and what is quoted later is only fully understood in light of what was said earlier. And
1:42
so I'm going to actually start by developing u what I believe to be the literary structure of Genesis 1, chapter 1 and
1:52
Genesis chapter 2, which as I've said, liberal scholars believe represent two different source materials. But li liberal scholars also believe
2:03
that none of it is historical anyhow and it's all simply a compilation of ancient Jewish myths borrowed from the Babylonians or the Samrians or the Egyptians. Um there's no evidence of
2:14
that whatsoever. And as we move through um Genesis in context of the kingdom of God, I think we'll see at least at points how vastly different the biblical
2:27
account is from any pagan ancient pagan account. But I do think that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 serve two different purposes with
2:41
relationship to the beginning creation. I do not think they are two separate sources, but I do think that they are two separate literary functions. Um, and
2:54
I'm going to start with that because we're going to spend a fair amount of time this week, two weeks, um, building the case for the Garden of Eden being
3:05
the first throne room and the first king, the first vice regent, I should say, being Adam. So, we we can't just jump out with that.
3:16
Although there are certain words in the text that that lead to that kind of a conclusion but I think it should be developed a bit more. So I want to point out the what I believe to be the
3:27
literary function of Genesis 1 and the literary function of Genesis 2. Now in saying that,
3:59
I hope to help you read the book more smoothly more smoothly um and and not get hung up on the fact that Genesis 2 seems to be a it's actually called the second creation account. Um but it it does seem to be in
4:12
different order than Genesis 1. Um and and that might be troublesome. It certainly has troubled people and has led to the the liberal view of the of
4:23
the documentary hypothesis. But if we look at the literary function of Genesis 1,
4:36
it is essentially a prologue. Now, that becomes more apparent when we get to Genesis 2. But the first thing we need to uh realize, and let me make sure I get the the verse numbers correct and not write
4:47
something down in error. Genesis 1 in our Bibles, our English Bibles, is probably not divided quite correctly.
5:16
day. I I don't quite understand why the division was made where it was between the sixth and seventh day. And then Genesis 2:4
5:27
starts with a word that I think undeniably indicates that with that verse we have the beginning of the book of Genesis.
5:40
So I don't know if you read a book and there's a preface. Maybe you don't always read the preface. I don't always read the preface. I skim it. See if it
5:50
has anything worth reading. Um, but I think analogously we could say that Genesis 1 is the preface and we ought to read it.
6:00
read it. John actually follows a similar pattern. The first 17 verses of his first chapter are are a prologue and he actually begins of course same
6:11
way that Moses began Genesis with that word beerit in the beginning. Okay. So technical I think we go through verse
6:21
three of chapter 2.
6:39
and I'm not going to go into the details because we've done that when we did the study on Genesis. But if you you lied line day one lines up with day four,
6:50
day two lines up with day five, day three lines up with day six. Very similar topics. Okay, just as an example, day one is let there be light
7:01
and the separation of the light from the darkness. Day four is the establishment of the heavenly bodies that give light by day and by night. So there's parallel parallelism between them. Um, and I
7:13
think that was intentional. Now, that doesn't say anything about
7:26
the scientific validity of Genesis 1. I think the scientific validity of Genesis 1 is established by the phrase there was evening, there was morning, day one. And it's not one day. It's it's
7:39
day one. Yum. That's how all day two, day three. day three. It sounds like a day. Okay. Especially since within that we we learn what it is
7:51
that constitutes a day. So, um I don't see any reason from a literary structure to to say, "Oh, well, that proves it's just um it's just figurative and poetic
8:02
speech and could have been day ages or epics or it's you're just reading into the scripture at that point." And you're not doing it from any theological foundation. You're doing it on the basis
8:12
of modern evolutionary science is what you're doing. And I think when you start down that road, you you will not go far until you've completely emasculated the entire content of Christianity.
8:25
I so I don't want to be misunderstood just because I'm saying it is laid out in a parallel structure. Is that okay? I hope that doesn't make anybody think that I'm diminishing what I believe to
8:36
be the historical veracity and the literal nature of an evening and a morning being a day. But it is parallel and that's very common in scripture and
8:46
it it does indicate that it it is it is um it is historical fact being presented in somewhat of a poetical frame and it's being it's really the
8:59
introduction to the rest of Revelation. Um the the the historical veracity and the theological significance of Genesis 1 2 and 3 cannot be overstated.
9:12
They are the foundation upon which the rest of scripture has been built. And so it it does matter. And I remember many many years ago somebody asking me
9:24
um whether or not she could be a Christian if she didn't believe in literal creation. literal creation. And my answer was I don't know the content of your Christianity at that point because everything is built upon
9:37
these three chapters. It's all there and then it's unpacked as revelation unfolds. So hopefully by saying that you know I won't I won't be misunderstood is in any way uh spiritualizing
9:50
or turning creation into a metaphor though I very much believe that the creation account is typological
10:01
and we've talked about that before that that for something to be a type rather than an allegory and those words are somewhat interchangeable. So what I'm saying is not technically true because
10:13
the words are somewhat synonymous in their usage. But in a biblical exeetical point of view, allegorical interpretation tends to unhinge itself
10:24
from the historical event whereas typology insists upon the historical event. That without the historical event there is no meaning at
10:35
all typological or otherwise. So I say that for for the folks who maybe has haven't been through the biblical theology all the way through and it is a word when you say typological
10:48
you know people are kind of trained in in our generation and the past several generations that the Bible says what it means and means what it says and we're to simply read it literally. But you
10:59
know literal is not does not exhaust the meaning of scripture. And as I've said many times, if you take that position, that position, you find yourself
11:10
um in a in a a sticky wicket when you start to read the apostles in the New Testament who very much treated the Old Testament in a nonliteral way.
11:23
Okay, the famous example is when Matthew quotes Hosea 11, out of Egypt I have brought my son. When you read Isaiah 11 verse1, it is clearly referring to the
11:34
Exodus. Okay, it it is not referring to Messiah coming with his father and mother or his alleged father and his mother out of Egypt. You know, that's not what it refers to. And yet, yes, it
11:45
does. Okay, Matthew was not playing fast and loose and found a neat verse that he can insert for a little bit of color. No, he he was reading it correctly
11:56
because it was both a historical event, the Exodus, and a typological event because Jesus Christ was himself the fullness of Israel and he was of course God's son. Okay? So, you know, there
12:09
there's typology in the midst of the history. So, establishing hopefully that that what we're reading in Genesis 1 and two and three are and must be
12:22
historical. what is their typological significance? And I would say that that's not something that has been very well investigated throughout much
12:34
of the church's history. And that's because for much of the church's history, either it was a literal this is what happened and we move on. It was a his it
12:46
was a history lesson and no more or it was very imaginative allegory. There never seemed to be a balance in between. Now, Augustine did a pretty
12:58
good job balancing his understanding of creation and the fall, which was, I think, brought to his attention by the actual sack of Rome in
13:09
AD 410, AD 410, which led 16 years later to the publication of the city of God, his magnumopus. And that's if if you can do it, I have
13:20
not yet done it, it's worth reading. I mean it's a toone and and it does get into uh contemporary issues that obviously we may not know anything
13:33
about. You know it mentions people that have been forgotten by history and not just individuals but people groups and groups within the church. Um but his overall worldview has been one of the
13:44
most impactful in Western civilization and in the church. Um so I do recommend it. We'll actually be talking about that uh Lord willing in in week six when we
13:57
talk about the kingdom of fallen man. But going back to Genesis then Genesis 1 is prologue. is prologue. Now that may not be obvious until you
14:08
get to the beginning of Genesis 2. So Genesis 1 u functions as
14:30
in Genesis 1 at the end of it you have been given been given only a couple of things I mean from a from a redemptive theological perspective you've really only been given that man has been
14:41
created in the image of God. That's that's a very important point. And if you make the chapter division where I'm making it, you've also been given the Sabbath. Okay? Now, these are
14:53
theological, they are sotiological, they are esqueological, they are ecclesiological, they're all the different parts of systematic theology
15:03
are there in those little things that come out of Genesis 1. Now, of course, we have the the story of creation um and and that is also very
15:16
important and it will but but until you get to Genesis 2, I don't think you can I I couldn't conclude that Genesis 1 is prologue.
15:27
is prologue. Very necessary, but nonetheless, it is it is it is actually before Genesis. It's like pre- Genesis this terms of the book because Genesis 2
15:39
verse 4
15:53
begins with one word to these are the generations of
16:07
Now, it's interesting. These are the generations of the heaven and the earth in the day in which God created them. Now, wait a minute. He didn't create them in a day. He created them in six days, you know. So, yeah, this is literary day doesn't necessarily mean
16:19
one 24-hour day. And that's why I said it's the evening and morning that convinces me that God was talking about a 24-hour day. He linked it to the movement of the celestial objects that
16:32
define our day. But the word yom like the day of the Lord. Well, you know, the day of the Lord doesn't necessarily mean one 24-hour day
16:43
because the word doesn't. It it does more in our own language. You know, those were the days or or the day of of judgment, the day of decision is not necessarily a 24-hour period. We use it
16:55
that way in our own language. But to do the reason I believe this is where the book of Genesis actually begins in terms of its content is because we have this
17:05
word I think 10 times and each time starts a discernable section of the Genesis narrative.
17:16
This is a marker word and and if Moses intended to begin his book as it were the content of his book in Genesis 1 verse one that's what he would have used
17:27
to do. But he couldn't do that because he wasn't going to dive in the deep end. He wanted to establish clearly by prologue God having created light.
17:40
Okay, God spoke light into darkness and that God has created all things that have been created, all things that are. Now, that's going to obviously be picked
17:51
up by the psalmist, by the prophets, by the the evangelists, by Paul, you know, the the idea that that creation is a foundational principle. It is a um sin
18:03
quanon. It is without which nothing. It is not negotiable. So whatever you happen to believe about what science has proved,
18:13
understand that if you grant to science facts that are contrary to Genesis 1, in doing so, you are negating the entire
18:25
Christian worldview. You're negating God as creator. Man is uniquely created in his image and singularly. So, right,
18:36
you're and by that point you're you're also going to be creating or negating Genesis 2 and Genesis 3. Now, there is really no sin and then there's no need
18:46
of salvation. So, there's no need for a God man, the last Adam. I mean, if it's all metaphor, all metaphor, then what are we left with?
18:56
So the price to pay I mean we may not be able to scientifically prove the error of evolution although I think it's quite capable of disproof um but not everybody
19:11
will understand the arguments. I think for us it's important to realize that God's revelation is is not arbitrary and it's not subject to to our acceptance as
19:23
science proves or disproves it. If you're going to give it up, if you're going to give up Genesis 1 and just go ahead and give up the whole thing because you now have no content to your
19:35
Christianity, no content to your view, a Christian worldview. So toadote um is not where we begin. you know, he doesn't start there. He doesn't start in Genesis
19:45
2 verse one. He starts in Genesis 1 verse one. And that's because this historical event is also typological. Okay. So, um, anybody have any questions
19:55
about I'm not going through all 10 of them. We did that in Genesis in the Genesis study, but I think these are clearly chapter markers and and some of them are very
20:06
interesting in how they were placed. For example, the toladote that deals with Abram is actually the toladote of his father Terra.
20:17
father Terra. Okay? So, I don't quite know all the way why there were certain toolots and not others. Why is there not a toll-dote of Abram? There isn't. It's the toll-dote
20:28
of Terra. Okay, I have my theories, but you know, um that's not really the the topic. But but the word toadote I think is is clearly intended and and you know
20:40
you don't need to know Hebrew because it is consistently translated in the English these are the generations of so you read that and you keep reading
20:51
that you know and from a hermeneutical standpoint you you see this as oh now I know I'm starting a new section okay so really maybe instead of reading by
21:02
chapter we should read by to do Okay. Uh because you're reading a whole section. Jonathan, are there 10 of those in Genesis? in Genesis? Yes, they're only in Genesis.
21:20
No, it's it's very different. Um because these are interspersed throughout the whole book. So, they're more like chapter headings and they're not I mean, they're actually not genealogies. The first one, this is the this is the the
21:30
the generations of the heaven and earth in the day in which God created them. God planted a garden in the east of Eden and he placed there's no gen there's no genealogy there. Okay. Now later on
21:42
you're going to get the genealogy of Adam through Seth and through Cain. Genesis 4, Genesis 5. You have that. Um but they're not necessarily genealogies
21:52
like there are in Matthew and Luke. So I don't know quite why it's I mean the word is generations. Um but and it is just one word but the form of it in the Hebrew gives us all of
22:05
that. Okay. So they're they're they're not linked to the actual generations although the generations the lineages are also themselves important.
22:16
And we're going to talk about that um I think in week five when we talk about the um sons of God and the sons of man
22:27
and try to elaborate on what scripture means by that and the genealogies are important at that point. Um, but no, they there's really no
22:40
equivalent chapter divisions in any other book of scripture like there are like there is in Genesis, Exodus, the the other four books do not have this. Um, and and yet
22:51
here here you have it 10 times within the book of Genesis. Any other questions?
23:03
Okay. All right. So, fine. [snorts] Prologue is first word.
23:14
Yeah, but prologue. But but that's your fault. [laughter] And I I share that fault. Um, prologue means first word. And I like that. Okay. It's it's still the word, you
23:26
know. It's just the first word. It's the word that comes before the word. It's prologue. All right. So, I like that introduction. Fine. That's that's good, too. Some people don't read the
23:37
introduction either. Um, you know, you go right to chapter one and, you know, so I don't want I don't want to make too much of the word, but that's why I like it because it's still the word, but it's
23:48
the word before the word. I like prologue, too. I don't know why. They really are. Yes, they are. But then also, that's where the author thanks his
23:59
wife for her husband. No, that's the afterward. That's true. That's right. Yeah. Some prologues are better than others. You're you're right. The prologue the prologue I mean that's what I'm saying that I shouldn't not read it.
24:11
I really shouldn't because it is the first word which means it's the word before the words and it should be read. So I do like the word but I'm not going to make a capital case over it. It's
24:22
it's what I'm saying is it is not actually part of the content of Genesis and yet it's crucial to it. and I are gonna make
24:38
to distinguish the prologue from an introduction. An introduction is what you have in a text in nonfiction work. This is the argument that I'm going to lay out. A prologue comes in a story
24:48
[snorts] and it sets the
25:01
the theological themes that are now going to be expanded on. Yeah. And I think that's a that's a good point. We are and I want to be very careful how I say this with a lot of
25:12
caveats. I am reading the Bible as a story. It is a absolutely grand story, but that does not in one one iota make it a work of fiction. Okay. Another
25:23
thing, another good reason to call it prologue is because some people interpret chapter 2 as a retelling. Yes, they do. It's not that's it. That's what I'm
25:34
that's exactly what I'm trying to say is it is absolutely not. It's just a different way of saying things. In fact, it is it stands on its own, but it would not stand and the whole book stands on
25:45
chapter one. Okay? But when we start talking about that garden and and God putting man in that garden, we're talking two things. We're talking temple and we're talking kingdom. We're talking
25:56
priest and we're talking king. And those two roles are in one person, Adam. And what do they for what do they forecast? What do they type? Jesus
26:06
Christ. Okay. So, you know, you can start to see the the strings that they're they're attached and they're very clearly attached when you when you
26:17
see them. And then when you see them, I don't think you can unsee them. So, uh I think you're you're understanding where I'm coming from. And that's that's exciting because I think for me it was it was a very enlightening
26:29
to realize um and that was I think it was probably in Hebrew class in seminary about the only thing I remember is to do and dog is fish. Okay. The Hebrew word
26:41
for fish is dog. So and also I always tell this and that is the Hebrew word for tent I will never forget. It's oh hell and I am not a
26:52
camper. So that's it for me. There's the Hebrew. That's about all I got. Uh except that someone in Oklahoma City thought I was Jewish. So okay. All right. So what we what we have
27:05
I think in Genesis 1.
27:20
Now, some might say we have the beginning of history and and yes, it is the beginning of history, but I don't think that's the perspective that we should take as we move into scripture because although human history plays a
27:33
peripheral role, as we'll see when we talk about the kingdoms of fallen man, it it's all there in scripture, but not every single kingdom is is discussed. We know nothing about China uh from ancient
27:45
China from scripture. So, it's not just the it's not the um the history of mankind or even of creation. I believe it's the beginning of the history of redemption.
27:57
Now, that's where I'm going to get a little bit controversial as I unpack that. Chapter 2, I think, is the beginning of covenant history.
28:22
Now, that is not to say that I believe that God made a covenant with Adam, the Adamic covenant. I don't vehemently disagree with it. I just think more has been made of it than should be. And it
28:33
also does not mean that I am a covenantalist. I believe that the scripture shows dispensations. Paul actually uses the word ouas economy
28:44
and in many English Bibles it's translated dispensations. translated dispensations. That doesn't make me a dispensationalist. There are clearly covenants in scripture
28:55
and those covenants are monogistic. They are they are done by God and this is something that there they are God intervening within his creation and there is no
29:08
greater intervention that one can imagine than for God to create in the first place. first place. So that that's like the foundational intervention without that there would be
29:18
no others. So in that sense it it does definitely have the characteristic of covenant and the language that is used in Genesis 2 is covenantal. But the word
29:32
itself is not used. So we're not going to I'm not going to make too much of that. But I think that's what we're we're dealing with here in terms of these two and their literary structure. Now, Genesis 3, of course,
29:47
that's where a lot of people would go to say the beginning of of of um redemptive history. And I'm putting it in Genesis
29:57
1. And I'm going to explain why. Because I don't think that Genesis 3 is the beginning of redemptive history. I believe it is the beginning of
30:07
restorative history. restorative history. that it's the beginning of God restoring what was original.
30:19
Now, in saying that, I believe that there was an original before our original, and that's what we're going to spend most of the evening talking about
30:29
and possibly arguing about. All right. So, I'm just going to throw in Genesis 3 Originals. Mhm. Yeah. There's an original that
30:40
pertains to us, to man, but there's an original that pertains to the angelic beings. I do not believe they're co-incidental.
30:52
I do not believe they're co-extensive. In other words, I do believe that angels, the angelic beings, I even say say it this way, predate us.
31:05
Okay? What we read in scripture and creation is oriented to man. The creation of time and space.
31:15
Okay? They are our dimensions. They are not the dimensions of spiritual beings. We're presented with spiritual beings in the scripture, but we're given
31:26
nothing concerning their origin. Okay? They they are they show up. In fact, they we'll get into this, but they show up already corrupt. Some of them,
31:38
one of them in particular. Um, so I do believe that and again what what was we we'll talk about this in a minute in more detail, but what was created in the
31:49
beginning and I'm going to say that in a moment because I I do think creation brought into being something that was not before,
32:00
not before, but that there was something to use our before. All right. I I know that's gonna you're
32:11
not all going to agree and that's fine. Um I do think I have a biblical basis for this that I'm going to draw through typology between Genesis 1 and two very
32:23
important New Testament passages. But anyhow, Genesis 3, I believe, is actually the beginning
32:47
Now in Genesis 3, restoration involves both grace and judgment.
32:59
Okay. So two attributes of God, his mercy and his holy justice will be manifested through the fall of man,
33:09
but it will also be manifested in the fall of Satan. One will be via grace through the son of man. The other will be via judgment
33:22
because the son of man will crush the serpent's head. So, we have both grace and we have judgment in Genesis 3, which I say is the beginning of God restoring all things to what he originally and I'm
33:34
not even going to say to what he intended. I don't think that's the right way of saying it because what that that that has error on several sides. First of all, it makes it sound like things happen contrary to his
33:48
will. That's not possible. It also fails to realize that if Jesus Christ was slain from before the foundation of the world and if we were found in him from before the foundation
33:59
of the world, then all of his purpose and plan must have been set in the Godhead before the foundation of the world. Okay? So, I'm not going to say what God intended because I think all
34:11
that has come to pass is what God has intended even if we don't understand it. And all that will come to fruition in the consummation of the age is all that God intended. And all the glory that
34:22
will redown to the father through the through the service of the son and the church will be what God intended. But it will not be what God originated.
34:34
What he originated both with the angelic beings and with creation was very good.
34:51
well I'd say redemptive and oh okay that's one's a subset of the other redemptive history redemptive history um is Romans 8 redemptive history is God restore or restoring or redeeming
35:04
all creation all creation covenant history is God redeeming man okay so It's a subset. Does that Does
35:15
that make sense? And through the subset, the whole set will be redeemed. We're not being redeemed through the blood of calves, goats, bulls. Okay? The
35:27
animals that shed their blood have no role in our redemption. That's Hebrews. The writer of Hebrews says says that. So the the but that does not mean that the animal kingdom the the
35:39
entirety of creation will be will not be redeemed. Paul makes it very clear in Romans 8 that it will be it will be redeemed. So that's up
35:50
here and and I want to show this evening why it needs to be redeemed because that doesn't happen until down here as far as we've been taught and as far as
36:01
the scripture lets us know. But I I maintain that there was something in need of redemption even at that point in Genesis 1 Genesis 1 and we're going to get there uh in just
36:12
a few moments. But I want to I want to establish so that yeah I might be parsing words a little bit too finely. I I accept that. But I make the distinction and theologians do make the
36:23
distinction when you say covenant you are specifically talking about God's gracious intervention in the lives of
36:34
humans not anything else. Okay does that make sense? So it is a it is a subset of what but he is redeeming everything.
36:44
Redemption also leans far more on grace, not judgment. not judgment. Redemption is pure grace because God is not obliged to redeem anything.
36:57
So there's a a lot more. There's grace here. And then there's a there's a concentration of that redemptive purpose within a people.
37:09
Okay? And that comes very soon because the concentration of that redemptive purpose is in Adam, the vice region of God. Okay. So, and that's going to we're
37:19
going to hopefully unpack that over the next few weeks. Now, the parallelism that I mentioned earlier, um, Genesis 1 verse one, everybody I think
37:32
is familiar
37:44
with that parallel, right? And I think it's impossible to deny that John started writing his gospel with Genesis 1 in mind and with the entirety of creation in his mind.
38:04
Johannine scholars have divided up John into seven sections. I mean the the the creation and the Genesis account does form a framework into which much of John
38:15
can be fit from a literary standpoint. Whether or not John had that so specifically in his mind, I would not care to say. And I do think that sometimes when I've read those
38:25
frameworks, they're a little bit forced, but it's not forced to say that Genesis that John 1:1 is a crystal clear illusion to Genesis 1:1. In the Greek,
38:35
it's the exact same word. Two words. All right. So, but the other one that I've alluded to, I've mentioned before that I think is
39:00
is Genesis 1:3. God said, "Let there be light." And 2 Corinthians 4:6, the God who spoke light into darkness. And let me read the verse because from a
39:12
typological interpretation, Paul is doing it right here. He's going back to the very first act and he's explaining in retrospect
39:25
what God did and what it meant, what it typified. I don't think he, again, I don't think that the writers of scripture simply
39:37
conveniently borrowed neat Old Testament passages in order to color their own writings. I think that is a very cheap view. of inspiration.
39:49
of inspiration. In fact, it would render these men not much more than charlatans. They're actually playing on God's word. I don't think they did that. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, they were as intimate
40:03
with the spirit that mo that inspired Moses to write, "Let there be light." And God said, "Let there be light." is the same spirit that inspired Paul to say um in Genesis 4, I'm sorry, 2
40:17
Corinthians 4:6, "For God who said light shall shine out of darkness," well actually he didn't say quite that is the God who has shone in our hearts
40:30
to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. There is the typological meaning of Genesis 1:3.
40:41
Genesis 1:3. But there is also the typological context of Genesis 1 verse3.
40:54
And that sheds light on Genesis 1:es 1 and 2. and 2. In order to speak light into darkness, what must you have first?
41:05
Darkness. Now we can read 2 Corinthians 4:6 and we can understand. Oh yeah, it was the darkness of a dead soul. A darkness of a soul at enmity with God, right? We can
41:17
we can understand the idea of chaos or disorder when we think of our own fallen hearts. Paul talks about it in Romans 7. You know, in in my in my members,
41:27
there's still this law that is working against God and makes me do things that I don't want to do. Wretched man that I am. So we can read 2 Corinthians 4:6 and
41:38
we read it in the context of our own salvation and we we accept that there was no light within me. There was nothing but darkness. And when God opened my eyes through the regeneration
41:50
of the Holy Spirit, it was like light. Who what is that? Is it an Isaac Watt song? Um chains fell off, you know? Charles Wesley. Charles Wesley. Charles Wesley. I should have guessed.
42:01
Yeah. Right. And can it be? you know, um he's in a dark dungeon, right? And then light floods in. So, you know, it it's very poignant. It's very songw worthy.
42:13
But what is the illusion? I mean, Paul's very clear. The God who spoke light into darkness is the God who speaks light into the darkness of our souls.
42:25
And so the condition of us before regeneration is analogous to the condition of Genesis 1 verse one
42:38
and two, excuse me.
43:04
Does anybody dis anybody disagree that the true state of anyone outside of Christ is utter darkness?
43:14
Is there any spark of divinity that can be fanned into flame? No. Okay. It is as dark as any darkness we can imagine. And God speaks light into it.
43:43
And that light reveals the glory and the knowledge of God. Now what I'm saying is the way Paul is writing indicates that he has an understanding of Genesis 1, two, and
43:54
three. Genesis verse chapter 1:es 1, 2, and three that we've lost sight of that he sees it as the antitype
44:05
and the fulfillment of the purpose of verses one, two, and three in the beginning. And that when we get to three, verse
44:17
three, we get to the beginning of God revealing his glory. And he starts it the same way in both instances by speaking light into
44:30
darkness. Right? Fair enough. So if we make the
44:50
What do we find in Genesis chapter 1 verse two? And darkness covered the deep. Okay, we we'll read a whole thing in a moment. And then in Genesis 1:3
45:09
that this is how Paul is seeing it. It it as I read Paul and the whole idea of illusion, this is how Paul is not just seeing what
45:20
God did in himself and in all believers, but he's seeing in that the fulfillment, the antitype of what God did recorded by
45:31
Moses in Genesis 1. Now, when we go back to Genesis 1, what do we find? Well, I think we find
45:42
verses that should trouble people. And I frankly lament frankly lament on many, many accounts, I lament the advent and the progress of evolution
45:55
um because it's a lie from the pit of [clears throat] But I also lament it because it has distracted Christianity
46:05
distracted Christianity from a proper evaluation of Genesis 1. Just about anything you buy off the shelf now on Genesis 1 is going to be essentially an attempt to prove
46:18
creation. An attempt to prove or an attempt to prove within that historical venue. there's going to be an attempt to prove a particular perspective on the word yom
46:31
day whether it's literal figurative epical okay um but what you won't read is any exposition of verses one and two
46:45
and yet the words that are used in that those two verses are so clearly biblically negative
47:05
there's a stark I mean the contrast is between darkness and light and I think those two verses are what really need to be exposited before you move on to the days
47:24
any questions comments all right well let Let me let me read the verses. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And here's And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface
47:36
of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. There are four terms used
47:47
in that that verse verse two that are um
48:17
What was before is now. I put it that way because we can only think and talk in terms of time. But time I think we all recognize is created. It's it's not we know that the
48:31
um the the aspect of of eternity is not never ending time. It is timelessness. that God does not dwell within time.
48:45
He rules over time, but he's not dwell within it. He intervenes in time and in the fullness of time, he sent forth his son. But when we think of the beginning,
48:57
we're we're actually reading the beginning of the time space universe in which we live. And that's how we should
49:08
understand it because we are the centerpiece of that entire created order. We are the only creature that is said to have been created in the image of God.
49:19
of God. So it is right that we should think in terms of the beginning because it is the beginning of time. It is the beginning of space. But is it the beginning of
49:29
God? No, it is not the beginning of God. So we have at least one being who stands outside of space and time and also outside of our space and time
49:43
and that is God. But there is another order of being that seem also to stand outside both our order of space and time
49:55
and that is the angelic host of which I read nothing in Genesis concerning their creation.
50:08
The implication of Genesis 3 is that the creation of Satan and his rebellion were already established historical and
50:20
even using the word historical is not good but they are established historical facts by the time we get to the garden and Adam and Eve within the garden there
50:32
there's no indication how much time elapsed between creation and the fall.
50:47
history. Yeah, I you I was thinking the same thing and I think you can get away with it. Yes. But I also think angels are not subject to time. They are unchang They are unchanging.
50:58
are unchanging. They can't die. They they they are they are immortal. They they cannot die. But they are unchanging as far as we can tell. They they the same the same angels show up
51:13
centuries later and they haven't aged as far as I can tell. Um I mean what do we know about angels? I I I don't want to pretend to say and I think you can use the word the the history of the angels
51:24
in order to distinguish them from God who has no history. He is truly eternal. And that I think is very valid. I don't want to be mistaken. angels are created.
51:34
But it it has always, at least for a very long time, and I can't remember when it hasn't, seemed to me that angels are a presupposition in the Genesis
51:46
account. And that Satan, who is said to be the the most subtle of all God's creatures, shows up fallen. Okay? And that seems like there needs to
52:00
be a prop prologue. A word before the word before the words. Okay. And have you ever wondered? I mean, how can you not have wondered where'd this guy come? He's not even in
52:10
the script, you know? He just shows up on stage. on stage. Um, people focus on the fact that he shows up in the form of a serpent, you know, and how bad snakes are. I think it's just amazing that he just
52:22
shows up, shows up, you know, which means there is a pre- Genesis 1 concept. Actually, I think it's a pre- Genesis 1
52:33
vers3 concept and that's Genesis 1 verse Hey, you think of one and two
52:43
prologue of the prologue. for the rest of uh if I I could think of it that way. Yes. But I would say that and I think it does because it actually sets the stage.
52:54
I believe it sets the stage. Actually, visually it sets the stage. Darkness covered the surface of the deep. Okay. And everything was formless and
53:27
and earth little earth and all other galaxies. Is that what I I've always viewed it that way. I I always viewed it as the space-time continuum. I I view that phrase as the creation of
53:43
understanding and that is spaceime. The creation of the dimensions, the four dimensions by which we think and by which we live. That's how I've always read it. I've never read it as the
53:54
creation of God or his abode. And we think of God dwelling in heaven because that's what scripture tells us. But it's speaking in language that we understand.
54:04
God doesn't God doesn't dwell in a place. He actually says that to Solomon or Solomon says that in his prayer. Okay? He he fills all and all.
54:16
Um and and so we have to use language that is within the perspective in which we were created. So we're created space-time creatures. I don't personally
54:27
think that angels were created that way. I don't I don't know how they were created but I don't think they were created that way.
54:48
in space. Yeah. What does that mean? Little earth. Yeah. Yeah. kind of reminds me of the little stone cut without hands that rolled down the mountain and crushed the world
54:59
empires and grew into a mountain that filled the earth. It seems that God does work with little things to do great. Yeah. I you know I I mean a lot of people have been hung up with the fact
55:10
that why do we think we're the only ones here? Well, we I think we're the only ones here. And I think that God takes the ignoble of the world and makes it
55:22
noble to confound the noble to confound the people who want it to be big and grand. Yeah. But uh in in light of you you think about this kind of ties into
55:34
what I'm talking about. We're told by physicists that the universe is expanding to which I want to ask the question into
55:45
what? What is it expanding into? That isn't it. The universe is the one word. It is the one thing and yet it's expanding which means it's expanding
55:55
into something else. What is that? I have no idea. But I think those types of boundary like microscopic or telescope those types of boundary knowledge
56:08
boundary knowledge are the fringes of God's ways. Okay. the depth surpassed finding out. And I think that's why he did it. He
56:19
said, you know, over time you are going to learn to see farther than you could ever imagine seeing. And there'll be something beyond it. And you'll be able to see smaller than you ever imagined
56:29
possible. And there'll be something smaller. Just so you know that you ain't God. I am. And I think that's the picture. And I'm okay with that. I don't need to have any
56:40
other explanation than that God's creation testifies to the incredible majesty of God. That he is so much bigger than anything he's created and really in a sense so much smaller. He's
56:52
so much more intimate than the smallest uh quark that we can look at. So I think there's a it's not superfluous that God did what he did. I mean you think about
57:04
it. Why did he why did he create the galaxies? How many of you been at the beach and looked at the Milky Way? Can't really see it here, you know, but when you're at the beach and there's no light
57:14
pollution, it just goes like cotton candy right over top of us. And you think, why, you know, why why did he do that? Well, because he's just really big. Okay, so um where was I? That was a
57:29
great rabbit trail, but I want to get back on track. Um Genesis 1 verses one and two. Okay. So,
57:43
four words. Um, two couplets, two pairs. I'm going to take them a little bit out of order. I don't think the order again
57:53
is is all that vital. But the the first one I want to talk about is darkness
58:08
Um, I can't think of a single place in scripture where either of these are good terms. The deep in in just ancient mythology as well as biblical revelation has always been viewed as the abode of the wicked.
58:21
It is the unknown. It is the realm of death and destruction. It is to be feared as for much of human history it has been and I still do.
58:34
It's scary It's scary and the more we learn about the deep the scarier it is. There are weird creatures down there. It is it is death
58:46
and it brings death and that's how it's always the the uh the vision I think it's it's fascinating Daniel 2 the vision that Nebuchadnezzar g is given is is inanimate
58:57
is inanimate because Nebuchadnezzar is is is a pagan he's a gentile and the statues of the world kingdoms to him are just metals but when that vision is repeated in
59:07
Genesis 7 or nine whatever when Daniel sees said sees said they are they are living creatures coming out of the deep.
59:18
The first three are in fact animals, but the fourth one is a beast that's indescribable. And we'll talk about those um because they are the uh representative world kingdoms of fallen
59:29
man. They are the city of man. And the fourth one, Rome, was indicative of the esquetology of the Old Testament that it would be in the days of Rome that that
59:41
stone that was cut without hands would crush the inanimate statue that Nebuchadnezzar saw. But it was in the it's in chapter 7. It's in the days of that fourth monstrous beast that the son
59:54
of man would appear before the ancient of days and receive dominion over all the universe. Okay. So, um the the the
1:00:05
deep was highly symbolic and so the darkness over the deep together is a state of
1:00:23
It's a it's a state of disorder. And that's going to come in the next pair of words, but is a state of gracelessness.
1:00:35
It is a state of which nothing good can be said.
1:00:50
For in it truly dwells no good thing. Biblically speaking, the these are words that are just um inseparable from gracelessness. when when somebody Jesus when Jesus talks about the unbeliever
1:01:02
where are they cast out into utter darkness. Okay. So um darkness is is a
1:01:12
darkness is not an original God is light and in him dwells no shadow of turning at all. He dwells an unapproachable light. Okay. So that darkness like sin
1:01:25
is not an original. It is a derivative condition. Is that a fair statement?
1:01:37
Absence of an absence of light which is an absence of grace because it's an absence of God. Now it's not an absence of God in the sense that he's not actually there. We're told the spirit of God is hovering
1:01:48
over the surface of the deep. But it's an absence of God in grace, which I actually think is the definition of hell. Hell is not run by the devil, by the
1:02:00
way. He will be just as tormented as all unbelievers will be in in that place. Isn't that also what one would expect of
1:02:14
God without without God's specific intervention? Yes. Anything that is not God actually have that in my outline. Anything that is not God is darkness
1:02:26
and anything that is darkness cannot be delivered from that darkness without God speaking light into it. God is light as God is life. So anybody apart from God
1:02:37
is dead. You were dead in your trespasses and sin. And he said he made you alive. You were passive. He made you alive. You were darkness and into that darkness he spoke light. Light of the
1:02:49
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. So that I think that's a very accurate statement. Anything that is not God is darkness and anything that is apart from God and his grace is in darkness.
1:03:01
Psalm 19.
1:03:12
Yes. The son that runs as a strong man. Yeah. and then goes on immediately. Right. Yeah. That and and so when we're reading about God in his grace, we're reading
1:03:22
about the bringing of light. Okay. It it's in your light that we see light. Psalm 119, I think, verse 130, something like that. Um you know, so the the poets
1:03:33
talk about the the prophets talk about it. Paul talks about it. The bringing in of light is the casting out of darkness. It doesn't work the other way around and it is an instant power. And I think
1:03:45
again by way of typology because all things have been created by God including physics. When you turn on the light, you do not see the light advancing and the darkness retreating.
1:03:58
You see light. So when God said, "Let there be light." It wasn't one of those, you know, the light came in and the darkness went back. It was light.
1:04:09
He dispels the darkness by his word. Now, that's what I think Paul means in 2 Corinthians 4. That's what I think Moses means in first in Genesis 1.
1:04:20
So, darkness and the deep should should trigger. Again, just having read the Bible and and read about all these all of the these words before, this is not a good
1:04:34
situation. But it's a situation into which God speaks light. speaks light. Now the second pair of words is formless and void.
1:04:52
The the Hebrew is often used and I've mentioned it before. It's to boou kind of easy to remember.
1:05:07
That was like saltwater taffy. It means formless or void and void. It means empty. Um Paul when he when he talks in Romans 8:8 about the creation being subject to futility doesn't use
1:05:18
the same word. Um but it's the same concept. Uh Cohellet uses the same word when he talks about life is full of vanity. Not the pair not the pair of
1:05:30
words. Um but he talks about formlessness. I'm sorry void just just fruitlessness. And so again, these these don't sound like creation words.
1:05:43
It's a very strange thing to say about God's creation that it was formless and void. But it gets worse because there's there's only two other
1:05:54
places where the words are used together. One in Jeremiah and one in Isaiah. And they are they are both both porative and judgmental.
1:06:06
and judgmental. They are a condition of utter chaos and gracelessness brought about by the judgment the righteous judgment of God. The okay now
1:06:18
a database of two is not statistically significant and I'll admit that. But the words themselves are kind of anti-creative.
1:06:31
Okay? They're they're anti-order. And I think they're anti- good in the sense that this is not what God creates. But where they are used at least, even
1:06:43
if it's just those two places where they're used together, they are words of judgment. judgments that brings about a condition
1:06:54
that is without order and without grace. Let me uh let me look at those two words or those two passages for you. Um
1:07:15
I do not know why it's highlighting those. That is so weird. Has it always done that? Have you noticed that in other classes?
1:07:27
Oh, all right. Um, here they are. Um, actually, I had the wrong thing in mind. Jeremiah 4. And I'll just write the references. 4:es 23- 26
1:07:50
and Isaiah 34. Oh, this is interesting. Verses 8 to1. I think that's a typo. I think it's 11.
1:08:04
Unless we're reading backwards like the Hebrews did. All right, let's just look at Jeremiah.
1:08:14
I beho I beheld the earth and indeed it was without form and void and the heavens they had no light. I beheld the mountains and indeed they trembled and all the hills moved back and forth. I
1:08:24
beheld and indeed there was no man and all the birds of the heavens had fled. I beheld, and indeed the beautiful land, I'm sorry, the fruitful land was a wilderness, and all its cities were
1:08:37
broken down at the presence of the Lord by his fierce anger. The conditions that he's describing here are postcreation.
1:08:47
are postcreation. There were mountains, there were animals, birds, there were cities. But he's he's using this is an echo here. This is not even illusion. He says it was all tou vabu
1:09:00
and the presence of the Lord in his fierce anger. So it's tied to the retribution of God against sinners. The
1:09:10
Isaiah passage for it is the day of the Lord's vengeance, Lord's vengeance, the year of recompense for the cause of Zion. So this is about
1:09:22
the other, it involves Zion, but it's about the other nations around. Its stream shall be turned into pitch and its dust into brimstone.
1:09:32
Its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day. The smoke shall ascend forever. From generation to generation, it shall be waste. No one shall pass through it
1:09:44
forever and ever. But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it, and also the owl and the raven shall dwell in it. And he shall stretch out over it, the line of
1:09:57
confusion, tohoo, and the stones of emptiness, boho. emptiness, boho. This is judgment. And these words rec they they represent
1:10:09
the result of God's righteous judgment and his indignant fiery wrath. And it's a scary picture.
1:10:20
It's it's it it makes a nuclear explosion seem rather mild. So I I don't see how we can escape Jeremiah just like we can't escape the
1:10:31
fact that in 2 Corinthians 4, Paul is both using Genesis 1 and he's he's commenting on it. I think that's
1:10:42
the important thing about reading the Bible both literally literarily and typologically is that we know that the writers of the New Testament are not just using verses that in using them in
1:10:53
the light of Christ they are commenting on them. They are expositing them. And so the Old Testament verse gives meaning to the new, but the new gives meaning to the old. And when we read the
1:11:05
new, we can't read the old the same way. And we read the old, we read the new in a different light. Well, this is true with Isaiah and Jeremiah as prophets. Okay? They they are clearly using terms
1:11:19
that their Jewish readers and hearers would remember from Genesis 1 verse two. and and Jeremiah, you can't miss the fact that he's basically going through
1:11:29
the days of creation and saying it's all being undone. Okay? It's all being destroyed. The mountains are quaking. The animals are dying. The birds are falling from the I mean, he's going
1:11:40
through the litany of creation. Not the whole thing, but he's touching upon it so that our minds as we're reading it, we're thinking, you know, on day three, he created, you know, and now it's being destroyed. And what started as tou vabu
1:11:53
is ending toou vabu because of the sin and corruption of man. So their book ends as well. But why did it start
1:12:06
that way? that way? If it represents God's judgment and a destruction that flows from his righteous wrath,
1:12:16
righteous wrath, why did we begin with it in verse two of Genesis 1? I think so. I think so. I mean, I think so and
1:12:28
others think so. Um, I would say none of my professors thought so. thought so. And it is
1:12:38
obj. They don't like it. I mean, I didn't think they had a valid objection. I've never read a valid objection. I really haven't. And they think it messes with the literal six day creation. They don't want anything that
1:12:51
can be before the beginning. But I just think they're not reading the scripture literarily and understanding that the beginning is yes, it's the beginning of our our
1:13:02
world, our creation, our cosmos, but it's not the beginning of God. And I think it's clear that it's not the beginning of the angelic world. But we have to place we don't have to um
1:13:13
I think we have to in order to understand better the unfolding of God's redemption and the cosmic battle between God and Satan, Jesus and Satan and the
1:13:24
powers and principalities and the rulers of the darkness against which we fight. Where' they come from? I think that's what we're reading. They're not just in Genesis 1:2. We're reading it in
1:13:35
Jeremiah 4 and in Isaiah 34. These illusions back to that are shedding light on it and and teaching us that when we show up at Genesis 1 vers3,
1:13:46
we've already had a cosmic divine judgment take place. kind of difficult to express. But even if you don't have
1:13:58
that impment, even still the terms in verse two are expressing something.
1:14:11
expressing something. Yes. Into which God spoke. And there was nothing there. So you already have a theological
1:14:23
there. I think so. You know, you you are faced with the reality that something appears to be there into which God spoke. Something not good because he says with
1:14:37
everything that he then creates it is good. It is good. It is good. That's a good point. It is good. It is good. It is good. Then he creates man. It is very good. Justin and then Aaron. then Aaron. I'm spitballing a little bit
1:14:50
the idea of the earth.
1:15:04
diminishing what we are also the redemptive history of the earth I believe I believe that. So I think that's why I call it the beginning of
1:15:15
redemptive history redemptive history because when God says let there be light, he's beginning the process of redemption of all things, including that realm that is inhabited by the angelic
1:15:47
like I believe it was God is now going to Yeah, I there's some there's definitely some ambiguity about Satan being cast
1:15:59
down. We see it in several places. Jesus sees it when his disciples come back from their missionary journey. I I saw the se the devil being cast out of heaven. We
1:16:10
see it in Revelation 12. Um the idea of you know um Bill asked me last week about the Job chapter 1 when the sons of of God were walking in the presence of
1:16:21
God and Satan was among them. And so there are there are many theories. I frankly think there's not enough data to form a theory. At least I haven't formed a theory. But I do think that that the
1:16:33
conditions that we read in verse two are because of the rebellion of Satan and a third of the angels. There was war with
1:16:44
heaven and Michael strove against Satan and there was no room found for him and he was cast down to earth. I mean, I think we're looking at judgment and the
1:16:55
result of judgment and I don't know
1:17:07
what was there because I do believe that the words that are being used are being used in accordance of our understanding. But we have words like the deep. And the deep appears to be all that's there
1:17:17
because later on the the this the deep will be separated from the land, the dry land. And and uh the deep will come under the sovereign control of God. You shall go thus far and no further.
1:17:31
But I just think it's another point in favor of the Genesis that Moses doesn't tell us all that information.
1:17:43
that information. That's all that's all the pagan mythologies talk about. That's a good point.
1:17:56
Sea monsters and like Roses is saying all you really need to know is what
1:18:10
No. No. explain some things and talk about No, actually I'm denying that I'm going there because I'm not going to try to explain. I'm simply saying that what we
1:18:20
have in the biblical gen Jeremiah Isaiah first or second Corinthians what we have in the [snorts] biblical commentary on this passage here in Genesis 1 shows us
1:18:31
that there was a state of gracelessness into which God spoke let there be light. And what I want to drive because we have just a few minutes left. What I want to
1:18:41
derive from that is the principle I mentioned last week and that is the fundamental nature of a kingdom is to create order out of chaos. That's where I'm getting that. That the function of a
1:18:54
king is to bring order out of chaos. Now, human kingdoms, as we'll see, Lord willing, in week six, human kingdoms fail to do that
1:19:05
or if they succeed, they only succeed for a temporary po point in time and then they fall apart and they bring greater chaos. But
1:19:16
the principle and the and the pattern of it all is God himself. And I'm I'm I'm establishing my understanding of verse two because what I'm what I'm concluding is not what that
1:19:27
was all there. I'm actually saying I don't know what was there. I actually think the terminology is being used according to our framework of understanding beyond which we can't go.
1:19:38
I mean I can't personally think outside of the spaceime paradigm. Can you? I can't. Maybe Einstein could but I can't. So, and Paul actually says in
1:19:50
Romans that the words that are being used are conditioned to us. They're they're human words. But Paul in saying that is is also understanding and
1:20:00
admitting that we're we're approximating as best we can and to the full necessity of our understanding. I don't think we
1:20:11
need to know anymore about the war in heaven, but it's in the scriptures. I don't think we need to know any more about when the angels were created. I'm simply saying that there was chaos
1:20:22
and into that God brought order and that is the beginning both of the kingdom and of the nature of the king that he is going to bring order out of chaos.
1:20:39
A okay good keep doing that. All right,
1:20:51
Yes, I have always thought of it too. It's like it's it's just God decided to create. But what I appreciate you saying that because my view now and it has been for
1:21:02
quite some time was that the creation of the space-time world that we understand was actually part of a larger cosmic
1:21:14
war. And it was leading to the ultimate victory that what God was doing was actually military strategy that he was going to bring about not only the manifestation of his glory but
1:21:25
the ultimate defeat of Satan who brought death through creation. And I don't think Satan ever expected it. But I think it's I don't look at I
1:21:36
appreciate that word sterile. I think that's a very good word as to how I used to think of creation is just God decided to create. But verse two just doesn't
1:21:48
allow us to do that. Verse two is a situation of gracelessness and then we have God saying, "Let there be light."
1:21:58
be light." Well, let's close in prayer. Father, we do thank you for your word and we do pray that by your spirit you would continue to illuminate your word to our understanding
1:22:09
that we might in all situations give glory to you through Jesus Christ. That in all these things we would see your majesty and your power and your
1:22:20
grace but also your holiness and your wisdom. Father, we Father, we thank you that you did create, but even more so that you recreated.
1:22:33
We thank you for creation, but more so for new creation. And we pray that as we study the kingdom of God, our part in the new creation and our
1:22:44
participation in it would become more apparent to us again for your glory and the exaltation of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. For it is in his name we
1:22:54
pray. Amen.