2: The Unity Of The Book Of Genesis

Schaeffer showed remarkable foresight in staunchly defending the Bible's integrity. He foresaw that if those skeptical voices prevailed in undermining the authority of the Word of God, it would have profound consequences for the succeeding generation. Regrettably, we find ourselves witnessing the fruition of those concerns today. The doubts and challenges to the Bible's credibility have indeed gained traction, impacting how the next generation approaches matters of faith. It's akin to recognizing the foundational support of a bridge being weakened — a realization that prompts us to reflect on the potential consequences for the path ahead.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/19/2a/2e/192a2eb3c956e758e6d128b50aa473c6.jpg
As seen at pinterest.com
I am reviewing No Final Conflict by Francis Schaeffer to assess its impact on Christianity amid current discussions about Jewish supremacy. Does this book lead Christians towards a blend of Judaism and Christianity, or does it deepen their understanding of Christianity itself? 

I question the use of the term Judeo-Christian, equating it with Zionism, a sect many Christians find alluring but I find harmful (Proverbs 14:12). Unlike these zealots, I seek God based on truth revealed by Him as stated in Romans 10:1-2 and Proverbs 24:5-6.  We've been warned about the way to life abundant; there is only one way. (John 10:10; Matthew 7:26-27).

Finally, I want to know how God formed a people into a nation.  I look at the elements of nationhood. I am skeptical of America's shift since the 1960s towards being a melting pot. America abandoned foundational principles for globalism and multiculturalism, which harm nation, family, and individual. Drawing parallels with the Exodus story, I stress the importance of remembering our history to avoid passing on a harmful legacy to our children. After all, our children ask for bread and deserve bread, not the snake we have created and are about to pass on to them (Matthew 7:9-10).

With these thoughts in mind, I invite you to study along.  To go to the beginning of this series click here.  To join me in this study on Gab click here.

The Unity of the Book of Genesis

If we try to separate the religious passages in the book of Genesis from those which touch on history and the cosmos, the religious passages are relegated to an upper-story situation. They have been removed from any connection to space-time verification, and that means no historical or scientific study can refute them. But it also follows that no studies can verify them. In short, there is no reason to accept the upper-story religious things either. The upper-story religious things only become a quarry out of which to have our own personal subjective, existential, religious experience. There is no reason, then, to think of the religious things as being other than in one’s own head.[1]

It should be noted in studying the book of Genesis that there is no literary distinction between the sections dealing with history and the sections dealing with the cosmos, on the one hand, and religious subjects, on the other hand. Further, as we shall see later, the New Testament takes the Old Testament as history at the most crucial point of affirming that Adam and Eve are historic characters.

What I quoted in Chapter 1 from T. H. Huxley applies at specifically this place. J. S. Bezzant, an old-fashioned liberal at Cambridge University, in Objections to Christian Belief also puts his finger on the problem of those who separate the portions in Genesis and in the Bible as a whole that speak of history and the cosmos from those that speak of religious matters. In general, Bezzant speaks against historic Christianity itself, but here he suddenly swings around and speaks to neo-orthodoxy. And he says this: “When I am told that it is precisely its immunity from proof which secures the Christian proclamation from the charge of being mythological, I reply that immunity from proof can ‘secure’ nothing whatever except immunity from proof, and call nonsense by its name.” The neo-orthodox position is that the Bible contains mistakes in the areas of history and science, but we are to believe it anyway in the religious areas, that somehow a “religious word” breaks forth from it. The result is that religious things become “truth” inside of one’s head—just as the drug experience or the Eastern religious experience is “truth” inside of one’s head.

Further, it means that the next generation of Christians will have the ground completely swept from under them. It is my observation that those who are taught a weakened view of the book of Genesis by their professors almost always carry it further into the whole Bible and are left really shaken as far as any real basis for their Christianity is concerned. And there is a reason for being shaken, for there is no reason to keep what the Bible says religiously if we have put it in an upper story and thrown away that of which the Bible speaks when it touches history and the cosmos.

God could have given us the religious truths which He sets forth in the Bible in a theological outline the way some theologians have set forth theological outlines. But instead of this, he gave us religious truths in a book of history and a book that touches on the cosmos as well. What sense does it make for God to give us true religious truths and at the same time place them in a book that is wrong when it touches history and the cosmos?

What sense does it make for God to give us true religious truths and at the same time place them in a book that is wrong when it touches history and the cosmos?

As we consider the way the Bible itself sets forth these matters, our thesis is that the Bible, including the first eleven chapters of Genesis, sets forth propositional truth, both where it touches history and the cosmos and where it touches religious matters.

Because almost everyone accepts that the second half of Genesis—namely, from Abraham on—is historic, it is important to consider the indications that the whole book of Genesis is a unit.

The Internal Argument

The argument for the unity of the book of Genesis falls into two parts, the internal and the external. The former, the internal, itself falls into two parts. The first of these is the literary unity in the entire book of Genesis exhibited by the toledoths, or what is translated in the King James Version as “these are the generations of.” P. J. Wiseman in 1936 pointed out (and he may be correct in this) that this phrase falls at the end of the section preceding it rather than at the beginning of the section which follows. The important thing is that this phrase continues uniformly throughout the whole book of Genesis, thus indicating unity.

In Genesis 2:4 we read, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth.…” If we take Wiseman’s position, we would consider this the summing up of what occurs from Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. In 5:1 we read, “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” In Gen 6:9, “These are the generations of Noah.…” In Gen 10:1, “Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.…” In Gen 11:10, “These are the generations of Shem.…” In Gen 11:27, “Now these are the generations of Terah.…” In Gen 25:12, “Now these are the generations of Ishmael.…” In Gen 25:19, “And these are the generations of Isaac.…” In Gen 36:1, “Now these are the generations of Esau.…” In Gen 36:9, “And these are the generations of Esau.…” In Gen 37:2, “These are the generations of Jacob.…” In Genesis 1–11 this phrase is repeated six times, and after Genesis eleven, it is repeated five times—almost an equal division.

The second internal indication of unity in the book of Genesis is a rather unique literary form that is used throughout: namely, the unimportant subjects are always dealt with first, then the important subjects carry on. The unimportant subjects are given tersely, and then the central matter flows on at length. This literary form is uniform throughout the whole book of Genesis. We can consider, as an example, those places where an unimportant son is dealt with quickly and then an important son is dealt with in detail. And the subsequent movement of biblical history flows on from the important son.

Considering these two factors together, we have a strong internal indication of the unity of the entire book of Genesis. And since the second half is accepted as history, there is no reason to approach the first half on any other basis.

The External Argument

The second reason for taking the entire book of Genesis as historic is the external argument. The case may be put simply and concisely: Absolutely every place where the New Testament refers to the first half of Genesis, the New Testament assumes (and many times affirms) that Genesis is history and that it is to be read in normal fashion, with the common use of the words and syntax.[2]

To the best of my knowledge, the following passages are exhaustive, in the sense that they are all those in the New Testament which refer to the first half of Genesis.

We read in Matthew 19:4, 5—“(Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he who made them at the beginning, made them male and female; and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh?” Here Jesus clearly gives a normal reading to the text and treats it as an historic statement. It is interesting that he ties together Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 by quoting from Genesis 1 in Matthew 19:4 and from Genesis 2 in Matthew 19:5.

In Luke 3:38 the genealogy of Christ includes, “who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God.” This genealogy begins in Luke 3:23 with those characters who are unquestionably historic: “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli …” and so on, and so on, and so on. After reciting a list of Old Testament characters, including David and Abraham, this genealogy concludes with the mention of Enos, Seth and Adam who, like the other characters, are clearly taken to be historic.

In Romans 5:12 we read, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned.” In this verse is the affirmation that Adam was a real man. Romans 5:14 teaches, “Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses.… So here the historicity of Adam is affirmed to be equal to the historicity of Moses. And 5:15 says, “But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many are dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” Here the historicity of Adam is affirmed to be equal to the historicity of Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 6:16 Paul asks, “What? Know ye not that he who is joined to an harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” Paul, referring back to Genesis 2:24, links the historic reality of a man being joined to a prostitute to the historic reality to which the Old Testament refers—namely, the relationship of Adam and Eve.

1 Corinthians 11:8 says, “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.” This statement is crucial because it affirms as a historic statement the fact that Adam came first and Eve came from Adam.

1 Corinthians 11:9 continues, “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” Paul again refers to the historic fact that after Adam was created, God created Eve for Adam.

1 Corinthians 11:12 adds, “For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” This strikes me as an intriguing statement, for the historicity of the birth of every one of us is affirmed to be parallel to the historicity of Eve coming from Adam, as told in the book of Genesis.

1 Corinthians 15:21 states, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” Paul affirms a parallel between the historicity of Christ, specifically at the time of Christ’s resurrection, and the historicity of Adam’s rebellion.

1 Corinthians 15:22 continues, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

1 Corinthians 15:45 tells us, “And so it is written, The first man, Adam, was made a living soul.” Here the didactic statement that Adam was the first man is affirmed.

2 Corinthians 11:3 says, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” The historicity of Eve’s temptation by the serpent is paralleled to our temptations in space-time history.

Ephesians 5:31 states, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” This parallels what Jesus says in Matthew.

We read in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression.” These are further affirmations of the historic fact that Eve was taken from Adam and the historic fact that Eve was the one who first sinned.

The Bible also affirms the historicity of Cain and Abel. First John 3:12 says, “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.” And Jude 11 says, “Woe unto them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah.” Here it is affirmed that Cain is equally historic as these other men.

It is important for us, having looked at the New Testament references to the first half of Genesis, to notice that Genesis itself emphasizes strongly that Adam was a historic character. We read in Genesis 4:1, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” This verse is meaningless unless both Adam and Eve, as well as the birth of the child, are taken to be historic.

Genesis 4:25, 26 has similar content: “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth. For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.” Again it is impossible to take this in any way except emphasizing a historic space-time event.

Genesis 5:5 is striking in this regard: “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” The phrase “and he died” is meaningless except in the context of space-time history. And of course the phrase “and he died” declares Adam to be as historic as those other men whose deaths are named one after another in this chapter.

It is clear that the Israelites took these early passages of Genesis to be historic. Jeremiah 27:5 reads, “I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me.” In Jeremiah 27:6 this statement about creation is made parallel to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar.

Psalm 136 describes in detail the creation as it is portrayed in Genesis, and then parallels this description to the historic events in Egypt and the events on the east bank of the Jordan as the Jews marched toward Palestine.

In the light of both the internal and external evidence, it seems absolute that both the Old and New Testaments assume that we will read the book of Genesis as a total unity.

And both the Old and New Testaments affirm that the first half of Genesis is space-time history.[3]

“The Bible Is Not a Scientific Textbook”

There is no reason, therefore, to consider science free from the propositions set forth in the Scripture. We often hear the statement, “The Bible is not a scientific textbook.” Should we say this or not? It depends on what we mean.

Years ago, before I heard anyone else use this phrase, I used it, but I meant by it that we must remember what the central purpose of the Bible is. The central purpose of the Bible is to give us what fallen man needs to know between the Fall and the second coming of Christ.[4] This is the theme of the book and is dealt with with great intensity and great uniformity throughout the Bible. It seems to me that everything else is secondary to this and is to be seen in reference to this central theme.

For example, the Bible is not a book of angelology. So there is a lot we do not know about angels. This does not mean that we do not know a good deal about angels from the Bible, but we do not have a comprehensive statement about them. The Bible teaches about angels in reference to the central theme.

I would say the same thing about scientific matters. The Bible is not a scientific textbook—in the sense that science is not its central theme, and we do not have a comprehensive statement about the cosmos. But the Bible tells us much about the cosmos in reference to the central theme. In Genesis 1 we have the statement of the creation of the cosmos, and thus as we come to Genesis 2 and the central focus is placed upon man, we can understand man’s setting.

“The Bible is not a scientific textbook” is true in the sense in which we have just spoken. But many people today use the statement in a different way—that is, to say that the Bible does not affirm anything about that in which science has an interest. When the statement is used to mean this, it must be totally rejected. The Bible does give affirmations about that in which science has an interest.

God has given four revelations to man. The first two are general revelation, the second two special revelation. The general revelations are, first, the universe and its form, and second, man and his “mannishness.” It should be noted that Paul stresses both of these in Romans 1. The two special revelations are the verbalized communication from God to man in the Bible, and second the revelation of God in Christ. Rightly understood, these four revelations will always compose one revelation.[5]

When we face apparent problems between present scientific theories and the teaching of the Bible, the first rule is not to panic, as though scientific theory is always right. The history of science, including science in our own day, has often seen great dogmatism about theories which later have been discarded. Thus there is no inherent reason why a current scientific theory should immediately be accepted. And there is no inherent reason why a Christian should be put in a panic because the current scientific theory is opposite to what is taught in the Bible.

When we come to a problem, we should take time as educated people to reconsider both the special and general revelations; that is, we should take time to think through the question. There is a tendency among many today to consider that the scientific truth will always be more true. This we must reject. We must take ample time, and sometimes this will mean a long time, to consider whether the apparent clash between science and revelation means that the theory set forth by science is wrong or whether we must reconsider what we thought the Bible says.

The Bible does not give us exhaustive truth about the things of the cosmos, and therefore science has a real function. Also, science, as a study of general revelation, has shown us things that have caused us to understand the Bible better. The outstanding illustration of this is in the various archaeological discoveries in the Near East.

Questions & Notes

  1. What happens when the religious passages in the book of Genesis are separated from those which touch on history and the cosmos?

  2. Absolutely every place where the New Testament refers to the first half of Genesis, the New Testament assumes (and many times affirms) that Genesis is _________ and that it is to be read in normal fashion, with the common use of the words and syntax.

  3. Both the _________ and _________ _________ affirm that the first half of Genesis is space-time history.

  4. What is the central purpose of the Bible?

  5. What are the four revelations God has given to man?

Click on the "No Final Conflict" tag below to see all the posts in this series. To go to the start of this series click here. To join me in this study on Gab click here.