Did Moses expect you and I to disregard the historicity of Genesis 1 by purposefully changing the order of creation in Genesis 2? That is the assumption that Tim Keller believes makes the “strongest argument” that the author of Genesis 1 did not want to be taken literally.[1] The predominant weight of that assumption is placed on his interpretation of Genesis 2:5. The problem isn’t only the assumption; it’s the inevitable conclusions that result from it. One who would have to essentially say that Genesis 2:5 is the reader’s clue that everything said in Genesis 1 that contradicts the ‘natural order’ is to be jettisoned. So even though God created light on Day 1 before He created the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4, that does not mean what is says; and even though God created plant life on Day 3 before He created the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4, that too does not mean what is says. That amount of weight on a contested interpretation of Genesis 2:5 is simply untenable.
Tag: Contradictions
There are those who contend that you cannot take Genesis 1 at face value because there are supposed contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Before we consider the arguments behind that contention, something we hope to do in subsequent teachings, it’s worth noting some of the common conclusions that arise from such a proposition: (a) the Scripture is contradictory and therefore not trustworthy, or (b) the inspired writer did not intend to have Genesis 1 read as historical narrative, only chapter two, which shows how God created through ‘natural processes’ as opposed to the six day creation depicted in chapter one. The former conclusion ought to be untenable for a Christian. And the latter is an unnecessary contortion of the intentions of both Genesis 1 and 2. There is no categorical conflict between both chapters and there is no reason to see both chapters as distinct creation accounts. They are not contradictory; rather, they are amazingly complementary.
Today’s resource is the first message from our study of 2nd Samuel. Sometimes it can be seemingly forgotten that Old Testament Scripture, like New Testament Scripture, is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16) and that through it, like the New Testament, the man of God is made complete for every good work (vs.17). So, for at least some of the upcoming Fridays we plan to provide you with teaching from 2nd Samuel. Walking through books of the Old Testament not only affords readers the opportunity to hear from and interact with the sanctifying word of God but it also provides opportunities for instruction and exhortation using events and/or imagery from Old Testament narrative. Likewise there is a broad array of topics that can be considered; and, when appropriate, there are numerous parallels or prophecies or explicit types-and-shadows of the Lord Jesus Christ.
With that being said, today we begin with the message “Aftermath and the Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:1-16).” In it you will be exhorted to snuff out the sparks of rebellion at Gilgal before they catch fire at Gilboa, you will see why there is no contradiction of inspired Scripture as it pertains to the way Saul died, and you may be surprised how the story of the untrustworthy Amalekite should remind us of God’s care for His church.
