Over the years, I find myself drawn more and more to the book of Genesis in prayer and study. It’s possibly the most attacked book in the Bible by liberal scholars, pseudo-scientists, and a litany of other detractors. The enemy knows if he can cast doubt on one book of the Bible, the others fall too. And because Genesis lays the foundation for the other sixty-five books, its validity is critical. Unfortunately, many well-meaning Christians have unnecessarily caved to societal pressures and contorted doctrinal positions into impossible knots. They’ve redefined, parsed, injected, and superimposed non-literal meanings into Genesis, leaving a husk of originality. This capitulating is often done in obeisance to the overinflated scientific communities wildly unscientific theories like the Big Bang and Darwinian Evolution.
The enemy knows if he can cast doubt on one book of the Bible, the others fall too. And because Genesis lays the foundation for the other sixty-five books, its validity is critical.Tweet
Many well-meaning Christians have caved to societal pressures and contorted doctrinal positions into impossible knots. They’ve redefined, parsed, injected, and superimposed non-literal meanings into Genesis, leaving a husk of originality.Tweet
Expanding Circles of Truthless Knowledge
For serious-minded people, the unflinching partiality in proclaiming ideas as fact is maddening beyond words. The oddity of what I’m trying to describe brings 2 Timothy 3:7 and its depiction of the last days squarely into focus: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Knowledge has undoubtedly increased exponentially over the past one hundred years alone, yet the truth is fuzzier than ever for most. You might think in a naturalistic society, questions of gender would be settled debates, but not in a culture that’s stuck in a learning circle. Picture, if you will, a circle of learning with truth just on the outside of the circle. In their learning, they sometimes touch truth briefly, but the curvature of the loop takes them past reality into incredible error. As the circle of knowledge expands, it grows away from truth rather than encompassing reality. The ever-expanding knowledge that edges away from the solid foundation of absolute truth leave learners empty, broken, unfulfilled, unguided, and unregulated. They are like compasses without a true north or oceans without the gravitational pull of the moon.
Knowledge that edges away from the solid foundation of absolute truth leave learners empty, broken, unfulfilled, unguided, and unregulated. They are like compasses without a true north or oceans without the gravitational pull of the moon.Tweet
Scientific Science Deniers
But there is a glimmer of hope. The scientific community has mismanaged and overstepped itself on so many occasions that people are starting to catch on. Large swaths of Christians and even irreligious folks are beginning to realize that worshipping at the altar of science “so-called” is a dangerous proposition. Some generations forgot that Hitler and other vile historical figures committed unspeakable atrocities in the name of science and progress. The oddities and evident confusion or outright malevolence of the scientific community’s response and involvement in COVID jolted many people out of complacency. Even with the most generous opinions towards the scientific community surrounding COVID, most people have found it to be incompetent at the very least. Yet, unbelieving heretics are being burned at the public stake of opinion in disgrace for daring to disagree with the First Church of Scientific Naturalism. How interesting and telling it is that the science community so often becomes the predominant deniers of genuine science.
How interesting and telling it is that the science community so often becomes the predominant deniers of genuine science.Tweet
My Faith Journey
I was homeschooled and then went into private Christian schools throughout my childhood and teenage years. I was not taught the theory of Evolution formally in school—quite the opposite. However, like all other kids born since the mainstreaming of the Big Bang Theory, I wrestled with questions in my heart. It was hard to find coherent rebuttals to Darwinian thought aside from disgusted remarks about how we didn’t come from monkeys or that Evolution is pollution in my younger years. While that’s all cute and accurate, it didn’t satisfy my curious mind. Thankfully, I found two books that at least began answering all my questions: Scientific Creationism edited by Henry M. Morris Ph.D. and The Flood: In the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology by Alfred Rehwinkel (yes – I was a nerd). I highly recommend clicking the links included on those book titles and grabbing your own copies on Amazon.
Steven Waldron’s Creationist Commentary
Because of my faith journey, I understand the importance of intelligently pushing back against error, falsehoods, and well-formed untruths. And that is why I was so delighted to read and promote Pastor Steven Waldron’s new book series entitled Commentary on Genesis (Discussions in Scripture Series – A Creationist Commentary), Volumes 1-3 on the Apostolic Voice Podcast, Episode 51. There are many excellent books and commentary on Genesis, but I know none that approach the book of beginnings the way Waldron has done it. For one, he uses a conversational tone that is nonetheless intellectual and readable at the same time. Secondly, it is a verse-by-verse discussion. And thirdly, the majority of the book’s focus revolves around defending the literal interpretation of Genesis. Fourthly, it is not dull or droning. And there are other nuggets of profound information scattered throughout the book as well. Every Christians should own all three volumes of Steven Waldron’s Commentary on Genesis (Discussions in Scripture Series – A Creationist Commentary).
Episode 51, Highlights
I’ve linked our podcast chat below, and I certainly hope you will listen. However, I also wanted to highlight some of the significant points from Waldron’s book and our conversation in written form. Perhaps it will whet your appetite for more, and seeing things in writing helps burn them into our memories. At least that’s my hope. Besides, what could be more interesting than the beginning of the world?
Six Days of Creation
Like myself, Waldron affirms the biblical belief that the world is young and that God literally created the world in six days with no gaps or caveats. In his opening rejection of Evolution, Waldron declares:
All Spiritual and Scientific laws are found here in creation. The theory of Evolution destroys our connections with the past and with God. Are we in the image of a bacteria or God? Does the world have purpose, or is all just random chance? How can we know where we are going if we do not know where we came from? Is there a sense of meaning? The literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is consistent with reality. It is what we see when we look around, whether biologically, geologically, morally, or astronomically. Everything fits perfectly with Scripture.
The literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is consistent with reality. It is what we see when we look around, whether biologically, geologically, morally, or astronomically. Everything fits perfectly with Scripture.Tweet
We Want Utopia Because We Lost Utopia
Waldron makes a philosophical and theological connection between the Garden of Eden and the human condition. We yearn for utopia because we lost it at the human fall in Edan. There seems to be a deep longing in the human psyche to regain humanistically what we lost spiritually. Yet, our only hope for that kind of redemption is found in Jesus. A necessary reality that God foreknew before creation itself. When humanity tries to create a utopia apart from God, the opposite occurs. Every. Single. Time.
We yearn for utopia because we lost it at the human fall in Edan. There seems to be a deep longing in the human psyche to regain humanistically what we lost spiritually.Tweet
Attention to Division
There’s a paradox in Scripture that first plays out in the book of Genesis. While unity gives humanity great power for good or evil, division similarly empowers us (Genesis 1:4-7). Waldron notes this Divine attention to division:
We also see that division is a key concept early in Genesis. Division of light and dark. Division of waters. Division of day and night. Evening and morning. Later divisions into kinds of various living things are mentioned. Then an enclosed Garden, separated from the world, for man and woman. And the division of what could be consumed and what could not.
I believe this to be a type and foreshadowing of later biblical teachings on holiness and separation from the world—the division of the clean and the unclean, the righteous and the profane, etc. Indeed, the typology of light and darkness is perpetuated throughout both Testaments, culminating dramatically in John 1:1-14. There’s much more to explore on this subject. The depths have yet to be treaded. In the meantime, the apparent paradox is reconciled with the revelation that true unity in the spiritual sense can only be achieved by first paying great attention to the details of Divine division.
True unity in the spiritual sense can only be achieved by first paying great attention to the details of Divine division.Tweet
The Law of Biogenesis (Life Produces Life)
Pasteur’s beaker famously proved that only life produces life. Previously, even scientists erroneously believed the corpse itself produced the observable maggots on a dead carcass. By isolating meat in a beaker, Pasteur paved the way for further breakthroughs revealing that only life begets life. It takes life to make life. Dead things do not produce living things. Waldron illuminated this point while commenting on Genesis 1:11:
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
God is the source of all life, and He placed life within the seed giving it potential to fill the earth with its own kind. An incredibly complex genetic structure determines its own kind. As Waldron astutely points out:
Genetic walls are built into the seed, which ensures that which is encoded in the cell is what is produced. Change comes from within the DNA, not from without. Cut off a thousand generations of rat tails, and the rodent DNA still says rats will reproduce with tails. The law of kinds, DNA, and genetic walls does not allow for Evolution. This is observable science.
Cut off a thousand generations of rat tails, and the rodent DNA still says rats will reproduce with tails. The law of kinds, DNA, and genetic walls does not allow for Evolution. This is observable science.Tweet
Young Earth and the Lunar Recession
One inconvenient fact for evolutionists is that the moon is receding from the earth about two inches each year. Waldron makes this case in detail:
If the earth were much over six thousand years of age, the lunar gravitation which currently causes our beneficial tides would wreak havoc and destruction on planet earth. And before that, it would have just crashed into the earth. So, if current processes extend backwards just a few millennia, they would be an impossibility. The same is true for the sun. It is decreasing in size at the rate of five feet per second. Just a few thousand years ago, the earth would be unbearably hot from the closeness of the sun, and life on earth would be impossible.
After Their Kind (Genesis 1:21)
Again, we see the biblical fixation on the certain immutable traits of species (Genesis 1:21). Fish produce fish after their kind. Trees produce trees after their kind. Two dogs don’t produce a cat, and so forth. Waldron pivots from this into a discussion of the fossil record:
Fossils from whatever strata they are found show the same things that are alive today. There are no transitional fossils in the fossil record, and certainly not the chains of fossils from one kind to another, that Evolution and Darwin say should be there and should be the vast majority of the fossil record. “Kinds” are exactly what we see in DNA and the laws of genetics. There is fixity of each species, and only slight variations are possible within the genetic walls of each kind.
The Majestic Plural (Genesis 1:26)
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… (Genesis 1:26).
Here we have a Scripture commonly referred to by Trinitarians suggesting an allusion to the trinity in the Old Testament. Who is God talking to in Genesis 1:26? Waldron walks through several possibilities posed by Christendom throughout the centuries. For example, the traditional Jewish explanation has been that God was referring to the Cherubim’s or other angels (that distinction is another topic for another day). Waldron lists three reasons this might be a possibility. Eventually, though, he states, “The pushback on this subject is that only God is the Creator. And whoever God is referring to here seems to be participating in the act of creation.”
One thing we know for certain, Moses, the inspired author of Genesis, was monotheistic. He did not see this as an indication of God’s plurality or a hint of two hidden separate persons in the Godhead. I concur with Waldron’s assertion that Elohim is seen as the plural of majesty. In other words, God was using the language of royalty about Himself in Genesis 1:26. Charles Ryrie, in his systematic work Ryrie’s Basic Theology, makes an unusual admission for a trinitarian scholar:
We have already suggested that the plural name for God, Elohim, denotes God’s unlimited greatness and supremacy. To conclude, plurality of persons from the name itself is dubious.[i]
Ryrie goes on to speculate despite the evidence that a mystical trinity is probably evidenced in the text. But he ends up having to contradict himself gravely to do so. Regardless, in my opinion, God was not playing hide-and-seek with Moses or giving a peek-a-boo moment for a trinity to be revealed at a later date. Instead, God was speaking of Himself with a majestic plural. Interestingly, Waldron poses another possibility:
Since God dwells outside of time, as well as in time, He could have been referring to the man Christ Jesus here, as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Since all things were made by Jesus, predicated upon Him, this is entirely possible and plausible.
I have no problem with that view. However, for my mind, the majestic plural is the best explanation of this verse. Even today, it isn’t uncommon to hear someone speak of themselves in the plural. It adds gravitas and majesty to their countenance. It’s historically common among royalty. And since God is the supreme ruler of all things it would make sense for Him to speak in that vernacular of Himself. Even intellectually honest Trinitarians are eventually forced to admit that Genesis 1:26 is not a Divine admission of three persons.
One thing we know for certain, Moses, the inspired author of Genesis, was monotheistic. He did not see this as an indication of God’s plurality or a hint of two hidden separate persons in the Godhead (Genesis 1:26).Tweet
God was not playing hide-and-seek with Moses or giving a peek-a-boo moment for a trinity to be revealed at a later date. Instead, God was speaking of Himself with a majestic plural (Genesis 1:26).Tweet
Links and Books Relevant to the Podcast
- Commentary on Genesis, Volume 1
- Commentary on Genesis, Volume 2
- Commentary on Genesis, Volume 3
- New Life of Albany, GA YouTube Channel
- Biblical Archeology Today with Steve Waldron Podcast
- The Premier Study Bible
- Scientific Creationism edited by Henry M. Morris Ph.D.
- The Flood: In the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology by Alfred Rehwinkel
- The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell
- Exploring Genesis by John Phillips
- God’s Crime Scene (A Cold Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe) by J. Warner Wallace
[i] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, Accordance electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999), 58.
You must be logged in to post a comment.