CREATION MOMENTS: 8.11.18

DID JESUS TREAT CREATION AS FACT IN THE MODERN SENSE?

Note: Creation Moments exists to provide biblically sound materials to the Church in the area of Bible and science relationships. This Bible study may be reproduced for group use.

Many modern church leaders claim that our ideas about fact, history, and science are modern. They say that before a few hundred years ago, the modern idea of what a fact is did not exist. From here, they go on to say that when the Bible talks about something, it is spiritually true, but not true fact or history in the modern sense. So, they say, in a sense God did create the world, but He did so by evolution. They maintain that all Genesis is trying to tell us is that “God did it”; Genesis doesn’t intend to offer factual details as to how it was done.

1. While this is a very clever use of language, many believers sense that this is not an honest position. In this study we will look at how Jesus and the Apostles treated the Genesis creation account. Did they treat it as “spiritually” true, but not true in our modern sense of the word “fact” or “history”?

Consider, first of all, Jesus’ method of argument in Matthew 19:1-9. Is marriage a “factual” situation of life, or something less than an actual event in history? If marriage is an actual event with which people must live, would Jesus’ argument from a “mythical” event depicting the origin of marriage hold any water?

How many references out of Genesis does Jesus cite here? Which are they? How can you tell by the reaction of the Pharisees that they considered Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as actual, factual, historical event?

2. Verses 7 & 8 add weight to our argument that Jesus considered Genesis more than myth with spiritual application. How so? Do the Pharisees contest the historicity of this example? How does this whole incident relate to Jesus’ understanding of the historicity of Adam and Eve and their life as described in Genesis?

Could you use this incident to counter the claim that Genesis is not factual in the modern sense? How does Jesus’ response to the Pharisees give you a clue as to how you could use this?

3. Take a look at Matthew 24:36-44. After reading these verses as context, focus your attention on verses 38 and 39. What event is Jesus here recalling? Where is it found in Scripture? What point is Jesus teaching here?

Now, if Jesus’ physical return is to be a historical event, would it make any sense for Him to refer to what was considered a myth with religious meaning? How does Jesus’ example here support the historicity of Noah’s Flood as a judgment upon sinful man?

In verse 37 Jesus says, “As it was…so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” If the Flood at the time of Noah was not an actual, factual event in history (in our modern sense), what can we conclude that Jesus is saying about His Return?

Likewise, those who would say that Genesis is not historical fact in the modern sense of the term, also make the same claim about Christ’s Resurrection. And they defend themselves by saying that the Apostles did not understand factuality and proof the way we do today.

4. Take a look at 1 Corinthians 15:1-58. This is a long section but it has a lot in it. Let’s focus first on verses 1-8. What is the subject?

Starting in verse 5, Paul begins to offer proof for the claims he made in verses 1-4. What kind of proof does he offer the Corinthians? How many witnesses to the raised Savior does he number? Is Paul the only witness? Look at verse 7. What could a doubter in the Corinthian congregation do if he doubted Paul?

In what settings is this same kind of proof used today? Is it used to establish that something did, in fact, actually happen? Does Paul mean to suggest that if you had a video camera at the tomb when Jesus rose from the dead, you could have actually recorded the Resurrection (provided God allowed the camera to operate)? Does Paul mean to say that Jesus rose from the dead, hair, teeth, bones and all?

5. As you read through 1 Corinthians 15 you will find other statements by Paul which indicate that he understands fact and history in the same way we do today. In verses 12 to 15 Paul argues from yet another tack. What elements of his argument here support the factuality, in the modern sense, of Jesus’ Resurrection? Find other examples in this chapter.

How many times does Paul’s argumentation also bring Genesis in as factual history? List the verses and describe what happens to Paul’s argument for Christ’s resurrection if Adam was not a historical person.

Close this Bible study by making 1 Corinthians 15:53-57 your own prayer of request, praise and thanksgiving to God.

GOD'S PERSONAL PROVISION FOR HIS CREATURES

Note: Creation Moments exists to provide Biblically sound materials to the Church in the area of Bible and science relationships. This Bible study may be reproduced for group use.

God’s personal care of all His creatures as individuals stems from the fact that He is all knowing and all-powerful and it is His nature to love. So, because He is all knowing, He provided all living things with a built-in set of genetic ranges in order to help each kind of creature cope with changing conditions. But as both Scripture and breeding experience shows, the different features which may become evident in creatures from generation to generation have very set limits. For example, there is no crossing of the barrier between kinds.

1. Read Genesis 2:1-2. Now compare this with Exodus 20:11. Was there anything more to create after the sixth day of creation?

Is it reasonable to conclude that Scripture makes very clear that the variations noted in the genetic codes of the various kinds of creatures had already been created by the end of the sixth day?

How does this Scriptural claim contradict evolutionary claims? Experience supports the Scriptural claims, since no new helpful genetic information has ever been observed to develop spontaneously – something which must happen countless times for evolution to be valid.

2. Read Genesis 8:17. Just as God told people to expand over the earth, so He gave animals the same command. He also knew that in many cases this would mean that growing populations would all be competing for the same food in the limited situation provided by an island situation like the Galapagos. So, in His wisdom, He provided creatures like these finches with the genetic range that would enable them to fulfill their needs for food without harm to the others.

But when had God created this provision, according to Scripture? This principle is referred to as God’s on-going provision for His creatures. Note that God’s preservation is not part of a “continuing creation” act, but works on a separate set of principles from His act of creation. Note also that preservation depends on principles and abilities that were established at the creation.

3. While they may seem basic, it is essential that we understand these biblically established principles if we are going to understand what is often called “adaptation.” Read Genesis 1:21. What did God create on this day? How is His work evaluated?

Of course, by God’s standards, “very good” means perfect and complete. Is the principle of “after their kind,” included as part of this perfection and completeness, according to this verse?

So, at the end of the fifth day there is nothing new, among birds and sea creatures, to be created. By the same token, all that had been already completed was not evident. For example, there would be no new kinds, but all the characteristics of a kind were not evident to the eye in the then-living representatives of the kind (although it was in the genes).

4. When we understand how God personally cares for each individual creature, and that He does so on the basis of His perfect knowledge of the future from before the creation, evolutionary arguments about “adaptation” lose their force. Arguments that God created using evolution become nonsense when we see how He actually works in the world, and how what we see compares with Scripture.

When our thinking gives God the glory and honor that He deserves, we can speak easily of His continued preservation of His creation that is based on what He created in the first six days. But His personal care of even the most unimportant (to us) creatures should underscore for us His personal care and love for each of us.

5. There is no child too small whose concern is not also a concern of the Heavenly Father. And God invites each of us to learn to see Him as our loving, personal, concerned Heavenly Father. It was for this reason that He sent His only Son to save us from the consequences of our own sin and rescue us from the corruption that is in the world. Each of us can say, in Christ “Nothing can separate me from His deep personal concern for me and my life!”

WHAT IS TRUTH?

1. The gospel of John stresses the themes of truth and light in the context of Christ as creating Son of God and Savior of mankind from sin, death and the devil. In stressing this theme John also contrasts truth and lie. Jesus’ words about the devil being the father of lies, untruth being a part of his nature, are in John 8:44. How does this verse contrast with John 18:38-39?

What is Pilate’s response to Jesus’ use of the word “truth”?

2. Educated Romans and Greeks usually separated the idea of truth in the material world from truth in the philosophical or spiritual realm. To them truth in the material world, such as evidence in a court of law establishing the truth that a suspect was elsewhere during a crime, was objective fact which could be established by witnesses. The Greeks and Romans also had a basic philosophy which established science with the same kind of definition of truth.

3. Statements about God or gods and religious beliefs were seen as truth of a different sort. Truth in religion was whatever was true to the individual believer. It was purely subjective. “If you believe that there is one God, then that is true for you, but don’t insist that it must be true for me also. ” There were hundreds of different beliefs in the Roman Empire, all of which were tolerated.

Public opinion supported this toleration not because of some democratic principle of freedom of religion, but because the prevailing attitude was that religious truth, unlike truth in the material “real” world, was subjective. All who agrees with this one rule were free to do as they wished in their religion.

4. So Pilate asked, “What Is truth?” The world, as Pilate and his contemporaries saw it, did not need to hear any witness of religious truth since religious truth is subjective, not objective, like science. Jesus, on the other hand, makes it very clear that the Roman and Greek understanding of religious truth was not valid.

5. This is why the early Christians were rejected and persecuted by the Romans. In understanding the Roman approach to religious truth we see that Christianity was considered troublesome because of its claims of universal truth. Tacitus referred to Christians as anti-social. It all sounds strangely modern, doesn’t it?

6. It is not difficult to see why Pilate’s question, “What is truth?” is still in circulation today. Western thought today is nearly identical to Roman and Greek thought in separating spiritual truth from “real world” truth – essentially defining spiritual truth as subjective and scientific truth as objective. This separation of truth into subjective-spiritual and objective-scientific also allows many people to accept Christianity as “religiously true,” while evolution is “scientifically true.” But as we have already seen from Scripture, Jesus’ own words challenge and reject this division of truth.

7. In John 3:12 Jesus says to Nicodemus, “If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” How does Jesus’ statement infer that “religious” and “scientific” truth cannot contradict each other?

This unity of truth is based in the fact that God is the Creator of all things in general and every detail in particular – and He still sustains and upholds the entire creation.

8. How does 2 Corinthians 4:2-3 link truth to both physically verifiable events and spiritual truth. Is 1 Corinthians 15:1-19 concerned with establishing the connection between a physically verifiable event and spiritual reality?

How does St. Paul take great pains to establish physical verifiability? How important is that link to spiritual truth, according to St. Paul himself? Dividing “spiritual-subjective truth” from “material-objective truth” on this point proves disastrous to the heart of the Christian faith. Consequently, St. Paul states in verse 32 that if Christ is not really raised, we might as well eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!

9. If two different “truths” disagree with one another, it is not because there are different and conflicting “truths.” It is because one of the “truths” is not truth. It is reasonable to conclude that when there is a disagreement between man’s truth and God’s truth, God’s truth is to be preferred.

The Bible, as the revelation of God, is indeed truth. When it speaks of heavenly things it is just as true, and true in the same sense, as when it speaks about our material world, which is studied by science. The purpose of the Bible is to make us wise unto salvation which is in Jesus Christ through the forgiveness of sins, which is ours by grace, through faith in His atoning work for us. According to our Lord’s own argument, if the Bible was untrustworthy in earthly matters, we would have reason to doubt what it says about heavenly matters!