These type of ‘how can we be sure’ questions can come to us with the force of an Andy Roddick service. I think it has to be met with a return question for starters: “Are you open to the idea that it could have happened?” After all, there are a hundred reasons to doubt something as incredible as a resurrection from the dead. It is not as if we are asking people if Jesus picked up a leaf. This is resurrection from the dead. If our friend is not even willing to consider that it could possibly have happened, then I think we need to expose that at the beginning. The problem is not with evidence or testimony, but with the person’s prejudices in the first place. In a gentle way – I would a question back: “How can you be sure that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead?”

Now suppose we get past the first thing, and the person is willing to accept the possibility that Jesus rose (unlikely is OK – as long as it is possible), then you can speak through the facts that lend a rational support to a belief.

As with anything from history, there are three categories of evidence, all beginning with A:

Firstly accounts of eyewitnesses corroborating the event. For Jesus’ resurrection – we have them, including Non-Christian sources. Remember back to our Easter Sunday sermon this year, when Stefan went into great detail about the eyewitness accounts.

Secondly archaeological evidence. But with the resurrection – any archaeological evidence would serve to disprove that it happened. Remember a few years back James Cameron (director of Titanic) claimed to have discovered the Ossuary or Family Tomb of Jesus. If that was true, then that would speak against the claims that Jesus rose.

Thirdly, the after-effects of the event: Does it matter? In short, the church exists because Jesus rose from the dead. The New Covenant People of God and the gathering of disciples all over the world in different churches, different languages, different denominations across the different generations testifies to the heavenly reality that God’s Kingdom is here and now. It is founded on belief in Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus is the Son of God and Lord by His resurrection. When the apostles preach the gospel in Acts – every speech has resurrection in it. Paul says that Christianity is true as long as Jesus rose.

Christianity is not an acknowledgement of cold hard facts. The truth about Jesus affects us to the core. In believing in the resurrected Jesus, Christians tie their future with Jesus. Christians depend on the fact that we have now been forgiven and have new life in the living Lord. We trust in the fact that we have moved from death to life because of our Lord who has gone through death into eternal life.

Ultimately, we know when it comes to being “sure”, the only thing that can make a person thoroughly believe in the resurrection of Jesus is the Spirit of God working on and then coming into a person to convict them of heavenly truths. Without Him, there will always be reasons not to believe. But as you point to an outward sign – then the existence of the church of believers is a resurrection phenomena. And the church will always exist in this world as long as Jesus is the resurrected Lord of this world.

YBIC,

Andrew

Why the Question?

Inauguration of the New Covenant

The nation Israel was God’s chosen nation. As the descendants of Abraham, they stood in covenant relationship with him:

‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment, I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians.  And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am the Lord.’”

But Jesus brought in a New Covenant, and under the New Covenant, non-Jews could also become God’s people.

The Establishment of Modern Israel

As we move through the history of the Israelite nation, we know that Israel was destroyed by Assyria in 722 B.C., and that Judah was exiled to Babylon in 587 B.C. Both these terrible events are described in the book of 2 Kings as God’s promised judgment on the idolatry and unfaithfulness of his people (see 2 Ki 17:1-23, 2 Ki 25 and Deut 30:17-18).

But God remained faithful to his covenant promises to the House of David (2 Sam 7). In 538 B.C., Persia was the new power in the middle east. Under the leadership of Cyrus, Persia conquered Babylon. Cyrus is described by Isaiah (45:1-7) as God’s ‘anointed’ - his chosen agent raised up to restore God’s people and carry out his purposes. Cyrus issued a decree ordering the exiled Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple (Ezra 1-3).

But we also know from history that this second temple was destroyed by the Romans after a Jewish uprising in 70 A.D. So the Jews once again found themselves without a land, without a king, and seemingly without God’s blessing.

In 1948, Israel became a nation state again after almost 2000 years. For some, this development was the restoration of Israel the disciples spoke of, and the beginning of the great ‘ingathering’ of Jews before the return of Christ:

So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6)

And so all Israel will be saved… (Romans 11:26).

And so the question is raised, are the Jews the people of God today?

The Short Answer

Well the short answer is no. God’s ‘Old’ Covenant, exclusively with Israel as a nation ended at the cross. The Jewish rejection of Jesus ended Israel’s status as God’s exclusive nation.

But this rejection of Jesus by Israel was the spur for God’s blessing to go to the nations. Jesus brought in the New Covenant at the cross.  Under the New Covenant, membership of God’s people isn’t about being born into a particular country. It’s not about whether you follow the OT Law and are circumcised. Membership of the New Covenant is not by natural birth but by spiritual rebirth. Now you’re one of God’s people if you have faith in Jesus and are born again by the Holy Spirit:

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. (John 3:5)

“…Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” (John 3:15).

The Church – the New People of God

Under the New Covenant, the church is the new people of God. And the church is made up of all people who trust in Jesus and are born of the Spirit, Jews and gentiles alike.

But…Israel does not equal the Church

Christians initially had trouble figuring this out. Some Jewish Christians thought that Israel was the church, just like it was before Jesus. So they told gentile believers that they had to follow the Law and get circumcised to be part of God’s people (Gal 6:12).  But this was Old Covenant thinking. So Paul says to the gentile Galatians that they had God’s Spirit – they didn’t need to become citizens of Israel (Gal 3:1-5). Under Jesus there is no ethnic dimension to salvation (Gal 3:28).

And…The Church does not replace Israel

Paul faced the opposite problem in Rome. The Gentiles thought that the Jews were a lost cause because many rejected Jesus (Rom 9:6). In other words, they believed the church had replaced Israel.  But Paul points out that the gospel was for the Jew first (Rom 1:16), and says later that the Jews were very much in God’s plans (Rom 11:1-2). God hadn’t abandoned Israel, but would use the gentiles to take the gospel back to the Jews (Rom 11:29-32).

So Israel is not the church, nor has the church replaced Israel. Instead, believing Jews continue into the church, where saved Jews exist side by side with saved gentiles.

The Restoration of Israel

This raises the question: if verses like Acts 1:6 and Romans 11:26 aren’t talking about Israel today, what are they talking about? Well first, Jesus doesn’t deny Israel will be restored when asked. Instead, he answers with this statement:

“… you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

And this is exactly what happens in the book of Acts. The apostles preach Jesus as the promised messiah in Jerusalem (the royal city) in chapters 2 to 7, and then in Judea (the southern kingdom) and Samaria (the northern kingdom) as they are scattered because of persecution:

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. (Acts 8:1)

Here we see the restoration of Israel under the Davidic King as people repent and entrust themselves under the Lordship of Jesus.

Along the way some Jews reject Jesus as their king. Those who reject Jesus forfeit their status as ‘Israel’. This is the idea behind Paul’s statement in Romans 9:6: ‘For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.’ Only those who have faith are true Jews. That’s why Paul can say in Romans 11:26 ‘all Israel will be saved.’ The Jews who will be saved are all true Jews. These Jews are the ones who were faithful to God under the Old Covenant, and the Jews who submit to Jesus under the New. All Jews of faith are saved by the blood of Jesus.

Implications?

Well first, don’t expect a mass conversion of Jews marking the last days. The restoration of Israel promised in the New Testament has already happened and continues to happen as Jews come under the Lordship of Jesus today.

And second, under the New Covenant, all people, Jews and gentiles alike, regardless of ethnic background, in fact regardless of gender, social status or any human measure, are all equally part of God’s people. Anyone can be part of God people - all you need to do is trust in Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit. As Paul says to the Galatians:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-28)

Blessings,

Alex

The conversation about gay marriage has come back to the forefront this week with President Obama’s admission that his “evolving position” on this issue has brought him to the place where, in his words, “At a certain point, I've just concluded that-- for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that-- I think same-sex couples should be able to get married”. The conversation was amplified on the ABC program, Q&A, when Joe Hockey was asked a fairly sharp-edged question about this issue as well.

I think on the ‘definition of marriage’ question, the Bible - and Jesus in particular - is clear that marriage was created by God for a union between one man and one woman. Ultimately it is the illustration built into creation that points towards the gospel of God and God’s people being united forever. There is naturally a “discrimination” against other forms of relationship qualifying for marriage. I have to admit to being a little saddened about the fact that President Obama describes himself as a “practicing Christian” (and I believe him on this point), yet finds himself at peace with taking a different personal position to his Lord.

But I have been thinking through how, on this issue, we as Christians can engage with a world that refuses to regard Jesus as King, (and therefore does not accept a Christian definition of marriage). As believers, I think we have two roles to play in the world:

(a) Proclaim the gospel with the death and resurrection of Jesus as the centrepiece, calling on people to repent and believe.

(b) Gently, lovingly question other alternative worldviews that disagree with (a).

It is (b) which gives us a way forward on this debate. There are many facets to the debate (e.g. families, children etc...) but equality is the reason most often cited for a need to change the marriage law, and I suspect that it will be the main language of our friends and family when it comes to any approval of a change to the legal definition. This was certainly the case with President Obama. Can I encourage you in a gentle and loving way to ask more about this worldview?

I’m genuinely interested in the question of: “Are there any limits to equality for marriage? Are there people who should not be allowed to marry?” It would be really interesting to hear people’s answers on this – and to investigate the reasoning further. Because the ‘equality’ argument plays out in more directions than just in the gay vs straight arena. For example: What about a man and woman who really love each other but who are a biological brother and sister? Following a line of argument, you could say that they were “born that way” – and “they can’t help who they are attracted to”, why should they “be prevented from being married”? This is the argument of equality applied.

Please don’t hear me being mean-spirited in this line of questioning – I just want to hear from people I love and get them to examine their worldview. I’d like to talk about a more complete way in Jesus.

I’d love to ask that question to the President and hear his answer.

YBIC,

Andrew

You’ve heard of loaded questions? Well this is one. It assumes that God is violent. And we all hate violence, so the way the question is framed already puts Christians on the back foot. The question also assumes God in the Old Testament is fickle  - he’s violent in the Old, and forgiving and loving in the New Testament. So it also calls into question either the sanity of God or the integrity of the Bible.

So, to get our heads around this question, we need to confront both these issues.

But the question is not only intellectually loaded, it’s emotionally loaded. It’s about people violently suffering and dying. So it raises issues that can tempt us to doubt God’s goodness. I know that in my own heart, I have struggled to come to terms with some of the things I read in the Old Testament.

In some ways we could answer the question in a quite straightforward manner. We could say God is God and so he can do what he wants. End of Story. Now that’s true. He is the sovereign creator, and we are his creatures. Our lives belong to him, not to us, and he is free to do what he wants with them. But the Bible also says God is good. And God himself says that arbitrary violence isn’t good. And so this answer alone, without qualification, neither satisfies our hearts, nor does justice to God’s character as he has revealed it to us in the Bible.

And so we need to get our heads and our hearts around the question - we need to know why God acts and we need to know that what he does is good.

So why did God do it?

Usually, when people bring up this question, they mean things like the Israelite conquest of the Promised Land, God’s ‘Holy War.’:

But be assured today that the Lord your God is the one who goes across ahead of you like a devouring fire. He will destroy them; he will subdue them before you. And you will drive them out and annihilate them quickly, as the Lord has promised you. (Deut 9:3)

God knew that the Canaanites would lead Israel astray with their idolatrous religious practices:

Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (Deut 7:3-6)

But God wanted Israel to stay faithful to him. And so it makes perfect sense to clear the inhabitants out of the land.

But God is powerful; he could have just moved them out of the land. He didn’t have to destroy them. But he did. And the reason is God wasn’t just looking for a vacant lot of land.  The Canaanites were idolaters, sexually immoral and sacrificed their children. God’s ‘violence’ on the Canaanites was his judgment on their sin:

After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you.  It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out  before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Deut 9:4-5)

Later in the Old Testament, God’s judges his own people for their sin - Israel is destroyed and Judah is exiled.

God’s ‘violence’ in the Old Testament isn’t because he is fickle or cruel. Ultimately, God’s ‘Violence’ in the Old Testament is His judgment on Sin.

Is God ‘different’ in the Testaments?

But then the second issue arises. Does this make God different in the New Testament? Jesus is all about love and forgiveness right?

Well he his. But Jesus also talks about hell more than anyone else in the Bible. Here are just a few references, Hell is:

• Active punishment for sin: suffering, destruction and judgment. (Mt 5:22,29-30; 10:28; 18:9).
• Fire and darkness (Mk 9:48)
• Gnashing of teeth (Mt 8:12).
• Unescapable: the door is shut (Mt. 25:10-12).

Hell is God’s ultimate judgment on sin, his eternal consequence for ongoing, unrepentant rebellion against his Kingship. And hell isn’t pretty - it’s a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:24).

But while hell isn’t pretty, it’s perfectly fair. Sin is rebellion against the sovereign creator and ruler of the universe. And the penalty for this rebellion is death, as God first decreed in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:3), and as is repeated in the New Testament: For the wages of sin is death… (Rom 6:23)

So God isn’t different in the Old Testament. His judgment there just anticipates his final, terrible and eternal judgment of sin.

Is God’s Judgment Good?

Our world idolizes life without consequences - doing whatever we want to make us happy. It struggles with a God who imposes consequences. God’s judgment is a hard pill to swallow. So this question is raised.

Nevertheless, God’s judgment is good.

Why? Because sin wreaks terrible damage to our world and to people. And God hates that because he loves us. So God judges sin because he loves us and hates the damage sin causes.

Consider the alternative:

• If God didn’t judge sin, he’s really giving it the green light. It’s like he’s saying ‘go ahead, do what you want because I’m not going to do anything.’  
• Sin without judgment also says sin doesn’t matter – it’s like saying ‘what you did isn’t a big deal’.
• Sin without judgment also says people, God’s precious image bearers, don’t matter because it says ‘what happened to you isn’t a big deal. I’m not going to do anything about it.’

So if God doesn’t judge sin, he is neither just, loving nor good.

And consider this - if God never put boundaries on sin, we would be stuck with violence and injustice forever. The time when, ‘there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain…’ (Rev 21:4), would never come to pass. In other words, we would never see HEAVEN. As theologian Miroslav Volf said ‘the one thing worse than terror resulting from a system of judgment is terror without any judgment.’

The GREAT NEWS: Jesus and Judgment

But also consider this: the great news of what Jesus has done. All humanity is sinful (Rom 3:23), and so God is right to punish every single one of us. But at the cross, Jesus took God’s good judgment on himself. For God does not delight in the death of a sinner (Ezek 18:23).

And now God, in his wonderful love and mercy delays his ultimate judgment so as many people as possible might be saved (2 Peter 3:8-9). The cross is the ultimate sign of God’s just judgment - but also the glorious example of his love (Rom 5:8).

God is ‘violent’ in the Old Testament because he judges sin. And he judges sin because he loves us so much.

But when you answer this question, don’t stay there: look to the cross – look at what God has done to overcome sin and to end violence forever!

Blessings,

Alex

There is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. The OT law is wisdom for us: It teaches us how to live. It warns us about sin. It proclaims God’s holiness and point to Jesus. The OT Law is wonderfully relevant it is God’s breathed – it teaches, corrects, rebukes and trains us (2Tim. 3:16). It is good and righteous and holy (Rom 7:12).

Because we have Jesus, it’s inappropriate to go back to the laws, pull them out and apply them as rules to live by. No, because Jesus fulfils and completes the laws, we are to read them and understand them in light of Jesus. To read them without Jesus in the picture is to read the whole of the Law and the individual laws incorrectly. 

So when we come to an OT Law, here are three questions to ask: 
(a) What does this command teach me about sin?
(b) What does this command teach me about God?
(c) How does this command point towards the gospel?

Coming back to President Bartlett: We would say you are not reading the OT correctly. Two crops side by side and the garment of two threads teaches us about God’s holiness and not to pollute it. The dead pig taught us about clean and unclean and the need for washing of sin. The Sabbath teaches us about God’s rest and the purpose of creation that Jesus is bringing in. 

In the end, because we have Jesus, we can plant a vegie patch, wear polyester, eat pork and work on Saturday. We read the OT law as followers of Jesus and the law gives us wisdom in how to love God and love our neighbour.

Here’s a re-post of a blog I wrote back in October last year, picking up on the theme of getting a tattoo:

Can Christians Get a Tattoo?

Here’s an issue which seemingly divides opinions in church circles! Ask older Christians and the consensus would likely be ‘no’. Ask younger ones and the answer might vary. To some, tattoos are marks of idolatry and a desecration of a person’s body. To others, it is a form of self-expression and art which can be used to glorify God.

There is one verse in the bible that explicitly speaks to this issue – Leviticus 19:28: “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.”So there we go, game over. Thus, saith the Lord: No tattoos.

Yet, it is rightly argued that this verse comes in a context – the Israelites leaving captivity in Egypt, where the cutting of dead bodies and tattoo marks were rituals of a pagan culture. God gave this law as a declaration to the Israelites that they were no longer to identify themselves with the Egyptians. So, the argument goes, the context here is specific. That the bonding force of this law no longer applies to us in the way it did to the ancient Israelites in the Sinai Desert. Consider other laws given in Leviticus 19: “Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material ... Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” None of those commands are seemingly obeyed by us either. So for some, tattoos simply become a neutral issue.

I have a problem with the basis of both these arguments by themselves: Either a whole-hearted application of the Old Testament Law directly to us; or a total neglect of the Law as a historical artifact which, while interesting, doesn’t really apply for us today. I’ll come back to the issue of tattoos in a second. But the more important issue here is how we read, understand and apply the bible to us in 2011. The Law was given to the saved people of God. They were not given as commands to get right with God, but as commands so that God’s (already saved) people would know how to live out their special relationship with God. The above point about context is well made, but God’s context is far more reaching. The Law was never God’s final word to his people – it’s purpose was to point to Jesus: “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4). The salvation of God comes through faith in Jesus, and because of him, we are no longer under the Law.

What does this mean for how we read the OT Law? Two things: (a) The condemning power of the Old Testament Law has been conquered by Jesus (Rom 8:1); BUT (b) The Law is still holy, righteous and good for us (Rom 7:12), a point which is confirmed in the fact that Leviticus 19:18 tells us to “love your neighbor as yourself”.

So back to tattoos. Point (a) means that tattoos (in a vacuum) are not a matter of sin, requiring repentance. Point (b) tells us that God didn’t want his people placing marks on their skin for identity and association. For Christians, we find our identity in Christ – we don’t need anything superficial as a confirmation of this.

Here’s my “in 99% of cases” advice on tattoos: Don’t get one, you don’t need it. If my life is God’s, then surely everything in it, including my body, is His too. It’s how I use my whole self, not what I paint on my body which brings Him glory. There might be a 1% case where it is a good idea – you’ll know it because it involves you loving your neighbour.

YBIC,
Andrew 

One question that may well be asked as we speak about the first part of God’s story, Genesis 1-11 is: Should we read the Bible Literally?  For example, should we be reading a literal six 24-hour days for creation?  

Well my answer to this question: Should we read the Bible literally is YES and NO.  We should always read the Bible as literally true, but not necessarily as always true ... literally.  That is to say that although everything we read in the Bible is true, this truth is communicated to us in various different kinds of literature, some of which is figurative and not to be read in a literal way.  For example, when the Bible speaks of God’s right arm it is not saying that we should think that God has an arm but rather is symbolic of God’s strength. 

You see, the Bible is made up of a wide variety of literary material or what is better called “Genres”.  And so as we read our way through the Bible we need to ask: What Genre, what kind of literature, are we reading here?

We might be reading sections of History like in 1 and 2 Kings or the book of Acts, which outline true historic events.  We might be reading poetry like we find in the book of Psalms, which we need to read differently to history and which works on certain rules of rhyme and metre.  There are also prophesies, which again work outside of a strict historic framework and point to a future reality like the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel, which have meaning both for the near future and for the far off future.  There are very strange sections called Apocalyptic Writings with dragons and multi head beasts like in the book of Revelation that teach a reality beyond this earthly reality.  And there are Biographies like the Gospels, which focus in on the life of Jesus as well as letters written to various churches throughout the New Testament.

And so to understand the meaning of any given section of the Bible we need to ask: What kind of literature, what Genre, is this section of the Bible written in?  If it is history then we are to read it as factual, as literally true.  But if it is poetry or apocalyptic or a parable of Jesus for example, we find the true meaning of these kind of writings very differently.  For rather than taking everything we read as wooden and literal we need to be asking:  What was the authors intent in writing this?  What did he want me to see about God and his purposes here in this passage?

And so when we are looking at the Genesis chapters 1-11 we need to do the same thing.  We need to know first that what we are reading is literally true.  God is the creator and through his powerful word everything came into being.  That mankind was the pinnacle of his creation, however mankind sinned against God’s good purposes and order.  This is all literally true.

However, to understand whether everything we read in Genesis 1-11 is true ... literally, that is, whether we are meant to be reading that God literally created the world in six 24 hour days and so on, we need to ask what kind of literature, what Genre, is this section of the Bible written in and what does the author want us to understand by what he has written?

In most parts of the Bible this is fairly common sense and there is not much disagreement between Bible scholars.  But on Genesis Chapters 1-11 this is not so straightforward and there is much debate on what kind of literature that we are reading here.  It is commonly held that Moses wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy, a section of the Bible known as the law or the Torah.  Jesus himself claimed this (Luke 24:27).

Although Genesis chapters 12-50 are commonly believed to be authentic history describing the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his 12 sons, the first 11 chapters do not read in this same way.  It is structured around a series of sections, each beginning with the words “These are the generations of ...” (Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1). 

In each section, after the headings, you get the family tree of each person’s descendents, leading to the main focus of Genesis, the account of Abraham and his family from Chapter 12.  In this sense, Genesis Chapters 1-11 are understood to be an introduction to the whole Bible.  It introduces God, humanity and sin in general.  It is for this reason that some call this section of Genesis “Proto-history”, a kind of preliminary history before the actual history is recorded from Genesis 12. 

And before this section, this Proto-History from chapter 2 verse 2, comes the creation account in Chapter 1:1-2:3.  And again, the kind of literature in this section differs to all the other sections.  It is not written as a historical account like other sections of Historical Narrative, nor does it follow the rules of normal Hebrew poetry.  It contains many unique characteristics, like the repetitive formulas “And God said” ... “And there was evening, and there was morning ..”.  It also contains lots of number symbolism around the number 7, which is well agreed upon to symbolise completeness and perfection in the Bible.  The first sentence has seven Hebrew words and the second sentence has 14 Hebrew Words.  The words “Heaven” and “Earth” each appear 21 times.

These kinds of features do not usually occur in a historical narrative.  However, this is not to say that Genesis 1 is untrue or non-historical.  We need to recognise it is a different kind of historical literature which some have called “Figurative History”, that is, history which has artistic figurative elements which do not necessarily need to be taken literally.

Like the creation days for example.  Of course, God could have created the whole world in 6 days.  He is after all God!  However, I have always wondered why if creation came to being from his powerful Word that it wasn’t 6 minutes or 6 hours.  Why wait a day between each part of creation.  Actually, the term day can also mean eras or age and not necessarily mean six 24-hour periods.  The order of creation also makes it hard to read the account in Genesis 1 as being literal as the sun and moon are created on Day 4 - so where is the light coming from on Day 1, 2 and 3?  All of this and much more convinces me that we are not to be reading this section literally as though it is a scientific fact but rather as the author intended.  I believe Moses was setting out to show Israel and the world that God was the creator and that he created the world with a certain order by his powerful word, with mankind as the pinnacle of his creation. 

In the end, whatever part of the Bible we are reading, we are to read it, not always literally, but always SENSIBLY and ask, what kind of literature am I reading and what was the authors intent in writing this?  This is a good starting point to finding the meaning God has preserved for us in his Word.

Further Reading:

Reading Genesis by Sandy Grant (Briefing Issue 337 p.9-13).  Matthias Media

For an alternative view on a literal 6 days - this is a good article (although I don’t personally agree with the conclusion): 

     http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally

Which of the following best describes Easter for you this year? 

YBIC,
Andrew 

A couple of weeks ago, I spoke from Ephesians 5 on marriage at church@8 and 10. It’s a really important topic that we must keep speaking about together. But for a number of reasons, this topic can be difficult for some in our congregation, in particular those who are grieving their singleness. Unfortunately, sometimes those of us who are married are not as sensitive or loving as we could be to those of us in this situation. Here is a very poignant reply to an article largely exhorting singles to be content and not self pitying, written by a mature Christian disciple, who has been single for a number of years. I thought it would be helpful for all of us to read – both to empower those who are single and grieving and to help us who are married to be more loving to our single brothers and sisters. In fact I think it will help us love those who grieve more generally.

"Thanks for your article on this topic. However I wonder if you move too quickly to the resolution of 'trusting in the Lord and the wonderful promises of the resurrection' and, consequently, haven't given any time to reassuring singles that what they suffer is 'grief', that grief in singleness is OK and that grief refuses to be dealt with by logic.

"Grief demands to be recognised and allowed to be what it is - an uncontrollable emotional response - sadness - in the experience of a great loss.

"No one chooses grief - it just is. It sweeps across us unexpectedly, it catches us by surprise and it refuses to disappear just because we want it to. It demands acknowledgement, it demands that we pay attention. That is why it is so cruel when we are called to 'trust God and get on with serving'.... In most instances we are in fact already doing just that.

"We have been trusting God throughout our lives and the sudden onset, or the re-emergence, of grief doesn't mean we have stopped trusting God. Rather, it is the demand of our emotions to us, to pay attention to what is happening inside us - that we are grieving. It is only as we allow ourselves to grieve and talk with God about our grief that ultimately we will recover our equilibrium and find our settledness again. As with all grief, it is beyond our control.

"Because the griefs of singleness and of not having children are so deep, so real and so totally right, they can't be dismissed or dealt with by anything other than allowing ourselves to grieve. Grieving with the friends who understand and who don't imply we are being self centred or self pitying or even that we're doubting God's goodness. Such hurtful and totally inappropriate, even cruel responses to women and men in grief, do not help. In fact they add to the isolation and loneliness of grief.

"It is true that God binds up the broken hearted and He does that as we are allowed to express the grief we feel. As with all grief there is no timetable for recovery. Grief just is. How good it would be if preachers began speaking of the reality of this grief and affirmed the single in the reality of their grief and prayed for them.....without any tag lines like 'and help them to serve you Lord and to find their contentment in the wonderful opportunities you give them for serving'. I have never yet heard a preacher speak to discontented marrieds in such terms. Nor do we imply that marrieds are being self centred or doubting God's goodness.

"I know singleness from the inside, I serve the Lord with a glad heart. I've been an adult single for over 50 years, I've learned to grieve and to live with what is an extended grief. I've learned to allow myself to be a human being, and I've also learned that servant hearted women who are single need to be set free to grieve. In such a context of loving concern there is great comfort and support.
 
"And finally, if anyone is worried about this, you can be sure that God will look after growing us to christian maturity in His time and in his way for, each one of us is very important and precious to Him, and He loves us dearly."


Blessings,
Alex