projector this morning. I didn't forget. I just wanted to do something a little different. We're actually going to be in the Word today. Amazing, isn't it, to think of? We're going to spend most of our time in the Word. And so I didn't think it was really going to be that helpful. I know some of you have said it's been helpful, and I'm glad for that. But today I wanted to focus mainly just upon the Bible. We do have Bibles in the back if someone needs a Bible and you don't have one with you today. Certainly you can use those. You can use your cell phones, too, if you have those. Turn that ringer down. OK. Well, last week I was surprised by a number of comments from you regarding the fact that we call Moses the author of scripture, and yet some, like me, believe that not every word was at least of Genesis, was written by Moses. Were many of you surprised by that when I said that? I know at least a couple of you. Well, I'm not saying, you know, you got to pick your battles. And to me, I think that's one that good Christians can disagree on. That's not something we have to fight about here in the church. As we get to Deuteronomy, we'll look at that chapter. Specifically, that speaks of Moses' death. And we'll look at it in its context and see. But again, that's not something that I think has to divide us or anything like that. But I just thought it was interesting. And probably at one time, I thought the same thing when I first heard that, too. I was probably shocked and surprised by that. So I can certainly understand. But it's good to get people thinking and to get people looking at the word that closely and questioning things that they've always thought, whether they're actually biblical or not. So if that's what comes out of it, then that's a great thing. I had this nagging feeling that I should spend more time in the primeval narrative. We are going to get to the patriarchal narrative today. But I wanted, by way of review and also to cover some new things, to go back into the primeval narratives. specifically Genesis 1 and 2, and cover some of those issues. I talked about its cultural relevance to us today. I spent a lot of time in the first four parts of this study talking about that, but then I felt like I kind of breezed over a lot of those issues and didn't really give it the time that it deserved. So I wanted to go into that. And for some of you who weren't here in the other sessions, maybe you'll find it helpful as well. So open your Bibles, please, to Genesis chapter 1. I'm taking it for granted that most of us know where that one is. Genesis chapter 1. Good, Paul. He's quick, that guy, huh? It is in the beginning, yes. And that's mainly what I want to look here, the first two verses. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. So we see so much here, even in just that first verse. And I was going to break it down to you, but we just don't have enough time in this study to cover everything I want to cover. But in the beginning, God, there was a beginning, this is telling us. There was a point at which there was no history. There was no time. There was a point at which nothing existed. And then there was a point at which everything existed. All matter existed. Time existed. History existed. And at the beginning of it all is God. He is the creator. And like we saw last week, the proper translation of this passage is what we read in the most common translation, that God created the heavens and the earth. It wasn't that the earth already existed and God created everything out of them. The heavens and the earth already existed. Sorry, the heavens and the earth were created. They didn't already exist. I get lost in my own notes. Yeah, boys. I really shocked some people with that one. So God created the heavens and the earth, and then he created everything out of them. So God created everything out of nothing. You'll hear people mention the term, the Latin term, ex nihilo. That's what that refers to, out of nothing, not out of preexistent matter. John as we saw last week and his gospel tells us there was nothing that he did not create And who is this creator that we're speaking of? Christ that's right. Jesus. Does this mean that God was God the Father wasn't involved in creation? No Does it mean that the Holy Spirit wasn't involved in creation? No, and in fact we see in these first two chapters of Genesis we can see are revelations of all three were involved in the act of creation. We also talked last week about the young earth. And I explained to you how I was a young earth creationist. I believe that the earth is not very old, probably thousands of years old. I believe that God created everything out of nothing in six literal days. And most of you who have heard Dr. McIntosh here have probably heard most of this argument. But let's look at the next verses, verses 3 to 5. And God said, let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. Pay attention. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. So God called the light day and the darkness night. So there was night and day. What do you think that refers to? Good and evil, she said, refers to time, refers to a literal night and day. As we can see in the immediate context, the light was called day. The darkness was called night. There was evening and there was morning. the first day. Sounds like a 24-hour day. The Hebrew word is yom, which refers to a 24-hour day. It can refer to an age, but the context determines the meaning, right? And clearly, the context here is of a 24-hour day. God is smarter than we are. And he's very specific when he wants to be about the things that are necessary for us to know. And to me, it seems in this chapter that God is very specific about creation. There are a lot of brilliant people, very smart people, many who confess Christ, who see ages in here, and the gap theory, and all these different things. But I think when we take the text, what it plainly says and simply says in its context, I think it very literally explains a six-day creation. Some will point out other scriptures that one day with God is like a thousand years, right? And they say, well, you know, one day with God, so this could be talking about ages. But that's clearly not allowed by the context of this passage. And if that's not enough, the days are given chronologically, the first day, the second day, the third day, and so on and so forth. So they don't allow for millions of years or even hundreds of thousands of years. And I think when people do that, what they're doing is an eisegesis. They're reading into the text what they already believe, that the Earth is millions of years old or that we have to allow for that because science proves that. Science does not prove it. And God's word certainly does not teach it. And so we should use exegesis, allowing the text to speak for itself in order to define its meaning to us rather than reading its meaning into it. And we talked about our tools of interpretation. And so like I said, when we look at the context, when we look at the immediate context, sorry, yes, go ahead. That's right. You're getting ahead of me, but he's absolutely right. That's another argument. Yes. Yes. Very good, Daniel. Anyone else? Daniel's using a tool of interpretation. Does anyone remember what that was called? The analogy of faith, letting scripture interpret scripture. He looked at other portions of scripture that teach more clearly, possibly, if you can get any more clearly than this, but certainly support the fact that the Earth was created in six days. Yes, Kate? John was an absolutely lousy interpreter. He was a lousy interpreter. Possibly. I haven't studied him much. I must confess that. But yeah, I would say he was certainly a lousy interpreter, that's for sure. OK, so when we look at the immediate context, when we look at the remote context, when we look at the historical context, not a lot of history at this point, measured in seconds and hours and days rather than years or ages. When we look at the grammatical structure, as we've just said, when we look at the literary form, we've talked about how it clearly seems to be historical narrative. Many people, again, would disagree with that, but again, Just because someone disagrees with it doesn't mean it's a valid theory, right? You all understand that, right? So we always disagree with a lot of people on a lot of different things. It doesn't mean we're both right, right? So I would say, and a lot of other great Christians throughout history would say as well, that this is historical narrative. And the analogy of faith, like I talked about, Just a minute ago that Daniel brought up here. There's scriptural support for the six days We see scriptural support in Genesis chapter 2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished in all the host of them and on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done so God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on a On it, God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. And so we see there the institution of Sabbath first being mentioned, I believe first being mentioned. And then when we look to Exodus chapter 20, we could turn there, specifically what Daniel was talking about. beginning in verse eight. Remember the Sabbath day. Sorry for everyone who's still turning, but remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord, your God. On it you shall not do any work. You or your son or your daughter, your male servant or your female servant or your livestock or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days, the Lord made heaven and earth to see in all that is in them. and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." So as Daniel wisely pointed out, that he's not telling us to rest for ages. He's telling us to rest for days. And he's pointing back to creation for that interpretation of days. Not ages, not years, not millenniums. God created everything out of nothing. in six literal days. And again, like I said, there's very many brilliant people, people much more brilliant than I. But yet, I think many times God uses the foolish to shame the wise, right? Absolutely. And I was hoping Daniel was going to agree with my exegesis of this text, because he's A brilliant man as well, but you can see that men much more smarter than I believe the same thing. Let's look at verses 26 and 27 here. Then God said, let us make man. Let us. That's an interesting statement there. Let us make man in our image after our likeness. But another spectacular thing here. is what we read in verse 27. So God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created him. Male and female, he created them. So we see here in this passage that God has a special relationship with his creation, and particularly the creation of man. Man, unlike the animals, is made in God's image, was made in God's image. If you notice in verses 24 and 25, And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds, livestock and creeping things, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds. And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind, and God saw that it was good. So creation, all of the beasts of the earth are certainly good. And they were created, but they weren't created in God's image. Only man is spoken of as being created in God's image. So I think it's showing us the unique position and relationship that man has with God that the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom don't have. Sorry, Peter, but it's not true. They actually, if you go on their website, I don't know if they still have it there, but I went on there once. They had a thing that talked about the Bible and how the Bible teaches that animals and plants are just as special as man, and that we shouldn't kill them and things like that. But there is a more special relationship. Those things are good, but man was created in God's image. only object of creation created in God's image. He is the only object that is blessed, verse 28, and given dominion over creation. Sorry again, Peter. Now, this brings up a good point. Does this mean that we are to abuse creation? Absolutely not. We are to treat creation with respect. I mean, it makes sense. creation of our God, we should, of course, treat it with respect. We should be wise and careful stewards of all that He has created. That's part of taking dominion. But our primary concern is not recycling. It's not rescuing animals. Those are great things to do. They're not bad things in and of themselves to do. But our first duty is to bring God glory and to enjoy Him forever. Do that when we recognize that man has a special relationship with God, that plants and animals and the environment do not. Environmentalism is more built upon the practice and beliefs of animism, ancient animism, than it is Christianity or biblical religion and relationship with God. OK, next, notice that there are only two genders created. It seems funny, but in this day and age, you actually have to have this discussion. And it's becoming more and more relevant to our society today, obviously, as you all know. He created two genders, male and female. What are the gender, non-gender specific names that are going on? I don't know. I think he's a or something like that I've heard. I don't know. But there are other pronouns to use now instead of he or she. and different things like that. And I don't want to be flipping in this, just like the other issue that we just spoke about with regard to the environment. I don't mean to be insensitive to people. I'm respectful of people. But at the same time, I'm not respectful of the notion of a transgender person. It says clearly that God created male and female. And I believe because of the effects of sin, there are probably people who are confused about their sexuality. But that doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it something that we should respect and encourage. In the same way, I'm respectful of a person with mental illness. Many of you know I have people close to me who suffer from mental illness. And those people certainly believe that their perception of reality is true and is real. But yet, in my conversations and dealings, I refuse to admit that what they perceive as real is real, their delusions and things such as that. Because they're not real. They're not true. Their perception of reality is wrong. And so you deal with them with sensitivity, but you deal with them also with the truth. Notice also that male and female were created for each other. They were created to be a complementary of each other. God didn't create another Adam for Adam in case he didn't like Eve. He didn't create another Eve for Eve. They were created for each other. They were created to complement each other, to be fruitful and to fill the earth. How does that happen unless They were created heterosexual. Jesus said that a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife and be joined as one flesh. And I don't want to be crass, but that doesn't happen naturally between people of the same sex. It doesn't happen at all between people of the same sex. OK, so those are certainly relevant issues to our day. and issues that are going to become even more relevant, more heated, I fear. But there are things we have to deal with, things we have to stand strong upon God's Word. We have in chapter 2 now, moving on, another creation account. It's been thought by many that this is a different creation account, that this chapter is proof that there were Different sources used by the writers of Genesis. Remember, most of these people don't believe that Moses was the author of Genesis. And that's a clue that their non-Orthodox beliefs are informing their non-Orthodox interpretations. So they're reading into the text what they want to read into the text. What I see here is not a different account of creation. We see here nothing that contradicts the chapter 1 narrative, but we see further details given. Verse 1 is a continuation from chapter 1, noted by the grammar, thus, at the beginning. So therefore, it's a continuation, probably written by the same person, I would surmise there. So it's clearly connected to chapter 1, not a different narrative. And also, it seems to me that while there is certainly a different literary structure here, there's not a different literary form here. It's still historical narrative. But there is a difference in structure that is noticed when we look at verse 4. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. These are the generations. We talked about that last week. That was a rough Hebrew translation, because my Hebrew is rough. But the translation, eletoladot, eletoladot. These are the generations. And this, as we see, begins. a new discourse. And it introduces us to the main characters in the history of God and his people. And it ties them together and leads the reader through the genealogy of the righteous line and the covenants of God. And what's most interesting about this, I find anyway, is that the person mentioned in the Eletoladol is not the focus of the scripture to follow. But they are actually introducing us to the next main characters. So here, these are the generations of the heavens and the earth. It's not focusing primarily upon the heavens of the earth, but it's focusing on the next main character, who is going to be Adam. And at the same time, it's also tying Adam to creation. And so we see there that the writer of Genesis clearly believed in creation, believed in tying Adam to creation. The next interesting thing is that the Elitoledo, I've really got to stop saying that, also seems to signify the covenantal acts of God with his creation, first with the heavens and the earth, You don't have to turn there, but Jeremiah chapter 33 verses 20 to 26 seems to compare God's covenant with David to His covenant with the night and with the day. So there seems to have been a covenant that God had with creation. And so it's right to read that here as we look at verse 4. And then we'll see in the following verses the other recipients of the covenantal relationship with God. So we also see here that these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. So that shoots a hole in the theory that the earth was preexistent yet again. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. So there's that 24-hour day of creation again. We see also in this chapter of how the creation of man came about from the dust of the ground. Nothing should give us any indication that this is poetry or figurative, anything but literal. We don't read of ape-like creations. We don't read of single cell organisms turning into fish, turning into amphibians, coming on the land. We read nothing of that. God breathed the breath of life in the man and put him in the garden with the trees, good for food and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And he gave him a warning to not eat of the tree of good and evil. Notice the evil was not formed yet. So this shoots a hole into the theories of modern day feminists who want to say that they want to use this as a weapon against Christianity and against the Bible. speaks against the theories of a lot of people who want to use the Bible to browbeat women into unnatural submission and to oppress women. The prohibition was given to Adam. I think Paul did a great job in his study on the doctrine of man in talking about the covenant this covenant, the covenant of works. And so I would point you to look on Sermon Audio and find those if you had more on that. But basically, this is the teaching of the fact that God made a covenant with Adam, whereby he was commanded not to eat of the tree. And if he obeyed in perfect obedience, he would continue in perfect relationship and communion with God. And if he transgressed the covenant, His sin would bring sin and misery and death, both spiritual and physical, to Him and to all of creation, because He was, and is, was the representative head of man. Is that right, Paul? Did I do that okay? Okay. You can correct me. You can correct me next time. But yeah, no, it's all there. And then we read of this in chapter 3. And we see the first mention of the covenant of grace, that God in His infinite mercy would provide relief through the skull-crushing seat of the woman. Then we read of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 and the evidence of the now sinful heart of man as we read about the first murder. And moving along pretty quickly, in chapter 5 we come to another Elitoledo. This is the book of the generations of Adam. And so this introduces us to the next progeny and covenantal subject, who would be Noah. In chapter 6, we have a lot of mystery surrounding this passage, and people love to talk about this. It's really what they focus on in this chapter is not the focus, really, I think, of the chapter. But I've gone through that. Well, I'll call it a phase, but where you try to figure out who are the Nephilim and who are the giants that it speaks of. Who are the sons of God and the daughters of man? And what is going on here? There's lots of theories out there that the sons of God were angels, fallen angels, who reproduced with women, the daughters of man, and created these creatures, these giants. And that's a very popular story. Anybody see the recent Noah movie, I guess, a couple of years ago? Anyway, that figured largely into this movie. And really, the movie was just ridiculous in their interpretation. Yes, it was terrible. Absolutely. The interpretations were built more upon Jewish myth and tradition than it was upon the actual biblical account. So I wouldn't recommend the movie. But if you wanted to watch it, just know it's ridiculous. Compare it to scripture, and it clearly is ridiculous. But there are many theories of what this narrative is referring to. And personally, my own thought is that it refers to the interrelation between the line of Cain, those would be the daughters of man, and the line of Seth, those would be the sons of God. Many people throughout history have believed that. There are a lot of theories out there. It's not something I really spend a lot of time thinking about anymore, because I don't think it's really the main point of the chapter. The most important part of the chapter is the growth of evil among men, so much so that God was grieved and he destroyed all of his creation in a terrible flood. And this is far from the peaceful images of the Noah's Ark that we like to put on our children's nurseries in their walls and stuff like that, the peaceful, cute little animals and stuff like that. This was the destruction of the world because of their sin. everyone except for Noah's immediate family were killed, were drowned to death, were destroyed. So it's kind of interesting to think of how people have turned that into kind of like a nursery rhyme almost or something comforting. But it's really looking onward to God's judgment upon the world in the day of the Lord. And people would say that, you know, God doesn't do that. He would never destroy the world. Well, He did it before. And Bible is clear that He will do it again. So why were Noah and his family saved? We read in chapter 6, verse 9, these are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. This implies a close relationship and an obedience to God and a right standing before God. So Noah was a faithful man. And it was this faith and expression of God's grace to Noah that saved him. And then we read, jumping down to verse 18, but I will establish my covenant with you and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you. And then he goes on to even include the animals, the beasts. And then after the flood, in chapter 9, we read of the covenantal promises being reestablished, being restated. The command to take dominion of the earth and to be fruitful and to multiply. So we see creation in the first chapter, first two chapters. And then we see a recreation here in chapter nine after God destroyed everything because of the sin. Again, looking forward to the recreation. The new heavens, the new earth, the new creations that are his people, Christians. In verse 9, I established my covenant with you and your offspring after you. And even for the beast, the covenant was there that there would never be a flood to destroy the earth. And the sign was his battle bow hanging in the clouds, the rainbow, a sign of peace. And then in chapter 10. We again read of the generations. Here are the generations of the sons of Noah. So we enter a new chapter and a new detail of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, sons born to Noah after the flood. Shem would become the father of who? What people would come from Shem? He would be the father of the Shemites, also called the Semites. This would be where the Hebrews would come from. And in verse 27, we read... Sorry, that's in verse 27 in chapter 11. We read of the generations of Terah. who would father Abram, along with his brothers, sister. And we enter into a new discourse and a new narrative of the patriarchs. Abram would be the first patriarch. I'm going to read chapter 11, verses 27 to 32. Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran. And Haran fathered Lot. Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his kindred in Ur of the Chaldeans. And Abram and Nahor took wives. The name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah and Iscah. Now Sarai was barren. She had no child. Terah took Abram, his son, and Lot, the son of Haran, his grandson and Sarai, his daughter-in-law, his son, Abram's wife. And they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan. But when they came to Haran, they settled there. The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran. So we see clearly that Terah is not the primary focus of this. But Abram is going to take the focus for the next several chapters. I think it's time, it's helpful to us to know the historical background here. We don't know much about the primeval world, but we do know a little bit about the world in which Abraham lived, the land of the patriarchs, the land of the ancient Near East. The events of Genesis 12 and beyond, they form a new literary unit defined not by a different purpose, but by a narrowing of the purpose. It's a more intense focusing of the purpose from that of the whole earth to those of a single family. And just like the creation accounts of the primeval narratives we talked about last week, this is a unique proposition in the world of the ancient Near East. There are myths focused upon people in general, focused upon Those things. A creation narrative wouldn't take a smaller focus onto a family, such as this one does. A book I have, it's a textbook. It's a very simple textbook if anyone's looking for it. It's called Encountering the Old Testament. Encountering the Old Testament. They break it down like this. Genesis 1 to 11 has a twofold purpose. First, it challenged the other ancient Near East belief systems by attacking them on their own turf. It borrows themes common to all ancient Oriental cultures and adapted them in order to express divine revelation. Second, Genesis 1 to 11 painted an overwhelmingly pessimistic picture of humanity's moral failure. Once sin entered the world, it spread so rapidly it was impossible to contain. So it's my belief, and I haven't studied much on this subject to see where other theologians are, so take this with a grain of salt. But it's my belief that the events in Genesis 1 to 11 were not outside of God's unique foreknowledge. I believe that man created, or God created man, as the catechism says, in order to bring glory to God and to enjoy him forever. God created man not because he needed man, not because he was lonely, as some people do teach their children, not because he needed them, but because he wanted man to enjoy communion with them. And it's my belief that God created man knowing that he would fall. Not creating him to fall, not making him fall, but knowing that he would fall. God gave free will to Adam, and he gave Adam a command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And we talked about that. So none of these events happened outside of God's sovereign power or knowledge. And therefore, the events of chapters 1 to 11, the fall, the spread of evil, the destruction of all but Noah's family, the Tower of Babel, the confusion of language, they were all part of the plan. And so when we arrive at chapter 12, God isn't moving to a new phase. moving to a focusing of the plan. We're getting to see the plan being more focused onto a family. It's not a new plan, because God's other plans didn't work. But this is bringing us into the next act in the grand stage of human redemption, if you will. A patriarch. Anybody know what a patriarch is? Definition? A father. An ancient father. A patriarch is the male head of a family. In particular, we speak of the patriarchs as the male head of not only their immediate families, but of the Jewish family, and indeed of the Christian faith as well, the family of God. The time frame of the patriarchal narrative, it describes centuries of historical events in the life, as I said, of primarily one family. There aren't many references to ancient Near East events. So it makes these narratives hard to date. But common dating for these passages is between 2200 and 1200 BC, so relatively early or late, depending on how you view it. And this would be only common among people who believe that these are actually somewhat true. And of course, many don't believe that they're true at all. And they would say that the events of the patriarchs only hold a minor resemblance to events of the past, and that this is later writers inflicting their view of history and where they came from upon the ancient past. And so they're writing from their point of view into the ancient past, rather than these stories coming through oral tradition and even written tradition to them. And why would they do that? Because ancient myths did come about that way. People were writing these things in order to give an explanation for why their civilization existed, and their cities, and their cultures, and things like that. in order for national pride and importance. But we've already seen that the biblical narrative is not like many of the ancient Near East narratives. And we shouldn't be dismayed that there's not much evidence to prove the historical narratives, because there are a lot of indirect evidence. Archaeology has unearthed a lot of things that have confirmed what the Bible talks about. And so we can learn a lot of indirect things from the Bible. We don't have any proof of the existence of Abraham, no definitive proof of that. But we do have proof of covenantal agreements, proof of life in those times that we can find through documents, through pottery, and things like that, unearthing ancient civilizations. And so they do prove. We can study ancient covenantal documents and see that they're arranged very similar to what we read in the Bible. And so we can trust what the Bible says about those things, though we don't have any proof in particular that Abraham lived. There is a couple of proofs. Sure where I put it here? Yeah, here we go. There is some evidence for the historical reliability. They're indirect. They're not definitive proof that this is happening. We don't know exactly why these instances have occurred. But in Egypt, there was a canal built by Pharaoh Sesostris III in the 1800s BC. The name of that? Canal is Joseph's canal, bar youself. And there's also, near Beersheba, there was found a victory relief, a drawing detailing a victory of Pharaoh Shoshenq. And that mentions. the Field of Abram, or the Fort of Abram. Now, Abram is a Semitic name. It's not an Egyptian name. So where did they get that name? We don't know for sure. But these are all indirect evidence that seem to point, and maybe there is some historical reliability to, in particular, the characters of the biblical narrative, and not merely just indirect evidence that we can look to. So there are some evidences. As you know, don't be dismayed about those things. Quickly running out of time. That's OK. These are important things. Do you guys believe these are important things? All right, I think so. So I want to spend some time on them. The world of the ancient Near East, OK, let's get back to that. It's a fundamental belief that God himself joined himself with humanity and Jesus of Nazareth. That's a belief of Christianity, the belief incarnation, central belief to Christianity. That God has so entwined himself with his creation that we cannot read the Bible and not see him. He so entwined himself with creation that our history is his history. It's his story. God's revelation to man began with creation. And it was fulfilled in the God-man, Jesus Christ. And this has tremendous implications for us. This means that God is not just some force outside of our world, like the other ancient Near East cultures believed. That he's not unconcerned with our world, but that there was a point in time in which God revealed himself to man as creator and judge and redeemer. So the Bible isn't, therefore, just a book of good teaching. It's an excellent piece. It's not just an excellent piece of early literature. It's not just a collection of moral stories, but it's the history of God's revelation to all people. So it's important for us to study the time and the history during which these things happened, the ancient Near East. And it's interesting to think of the area in which all of this happened is modern day Middle East, where we see so much conflict, so much trouble in our day. This was the centerpiece for the Old Testament in the dawn of creation. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail because of the time. But basically, there were three subregions of the Middle East. Think of the maps you've seen on CNN. And joining these three subregions was the Fertile Crescent, an area known as the Fertile Crescent. This was a land that was extremely fertile, very good rains, very good soil. And this is where people tended to migrate. Outside of this area, the area was hot, and it was arid. It was desert, mountains, not hospitable to people, not hospitable to farming. This was an oasis of rivers and flat grasslands, the fertile crescent. And this was the birthplace of God's crown and creation. Man, interesting how that all works out, right? And the first subregion, Mesopotamia, was between the rivers. That's actually what the name Mesopotamia means, between the rivers. It lied between the Tigris and the Euphrates, I believe. So it was a fitting name. Sumer. where the Sumerian people came from, the birthplace of writing. Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, they all make up this land, which is modern day Iraq and Syria and Lebanon. And this was the birthplace of civilization, the birthplace of writing, the birthplace of cities. And so all these groups came there to live, to farm the land. The Sumerians were the first, and then they were followed by the Semites. These were ancient, as I said. These were the people through who the Hebrews came. They weren't exactly what we would consider Hebrews, but they were the Semites. Late in the third millennium BC, one Semite group, the Akkadians, shared power over the region with the Sumerians. And then the Amorites came in. They took control of the land, and they would hold it for the next 1,000 years. And the base of their rule was the cities of Assur and Babylonia and Nineveh. All of these play an important role in the history of the Old Testament. And this would be where the patriarchs came into play. Abram, after being introduced in the genealogy of chapter 11, he immediately becomes the star of the story in chapter 12. 75 years old. He's very successful, and he's wealthy. But yet there was one area of his life that was painful to him. What area was that? Oh, his son. That's right. And God, being gracious and merciful, met him at the point of his pain, like he does with many of us. In the ancient Near East, not to have a son, not to have an heir, was not a good thing. It was not something that was looked upon with favor. It's not something that people would look upon you and say, you were blessed. So despite his wealth, he had great pain and trouble with that fact that he had no child. They were childless. So God promises Abram that he would be blessed and he would bless others through his family line, that he would be the father of a multitude. And so this was a blessing of special importance to Abraham. He had land and descendants. Abraham's father was originally, as I I think I read in the scripture was from the land of Haran in upper Mesopotamia. But even before that was from the Ur of the Chaldeans. And this would be the city Ur in Babylonia. And so when Abram was called, he was living in a land of idolaters. Very likely an idolater himself. Living with his wife, his nephew, and other family members. And God called. Abram out of the darkness and into his marvelous light, out of idolatry and into worship of the one true God. He calls him to leave what security had and to leave the land of his heritage to start over fresh and to start new. And this was a tremendous call of faith to trust in the Lord and His promise. And throughout this journey, we read of Abram's faithfulness to God, though he was anything but perfect. But what is the real focus of this passage? That's right. Absolutely. It was God's faithfulness to Abraham. That's the real focus of this passage. And that's what we gain from this in reading the accounts of Abram. In chapter 13, we read of Abram's wealth and his nephew Lot's wealth growing so much that there was need for them to separate. Paul preached on this last week. And we learn of the consequences of bad decisions as Lot chose to live in the better land for himself and ended up in the city of Sodom. We read of him being taken captive and Abram rescuing him. And after this, the king of Sodom comes out to greet him in the mysterious Melchizedek, king of Salem. wrote out also, and Melchizedek blesses Abram. The king of Sodom offers to give Abram all the goods he rescued, but Abram refuses in order to give glory to God and not to an idolater. And instead, Abram gives a tithe of everything to Melchizedek. priest king that is unheard of as of yet in the biblical narrative. His name means king of righteousness and king of peace. And he's who the writer tells us has an eternal priesthood. Many people, myself included, believe this is speaking of a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. What do you guys think? Do you agree with that generally? Maybe. Very careful answer, maybe. Yep. And it's true. Maybe, maybe not. I believe it is. In chapter 15, we see a progressive revelation of the covenant with Abram, that he shall have a son to be his heir. And again, that he will be the father of a great nation. And Abram believed the Lord, and it was counted to him as righteousness. So we see righteousness not based on works, is it? Based upon faith in God and his word. In 16, we see that God's great glory and grace is quickly soiled by the weak sinfulness of man, as Sarai convinces Abram to father a child with her maidservant. In chapter 17, we read of the covenant of circumcision and the changing of Abram's name to Abraham, father of multitude. In 18 to 19, we read of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the rescue of Lot yet again. And then in chapter 20, similar to chapter 12, we read of the second lie of Abraham, saying that Sarah was his sister and not his wife, in order to protect the both of them. And I think last week I referred to that as being Isaac and Rebekah. No? OK, good. All right. All right, in 21, we read of the birth of the child of promise, Isaac. And then 22, we read of the test of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac, and I think I'm closed just looking at this chapter. Let me move on. I know we've been moving close, but I want you to read these chapters, too. We've been moving fast, I mean. I want you to read these, too. So we have to read carefully through chapter 25. Abraham, we read, sorry, not 25, 22. 22. I had many typos in here. I probably shouldn't even tell you this, but at one point, I was typing about Rebecca, and when I was proofreading it, I looked over, and it said Chewbacca instead of Rebecca. Thankfully, I knew that wasn't right, so I changed it. But we're not going to get there anyway today. But for some reason, my spell check was not working. All right, anyway. So Abraham had faith that God would provide the Lamb of sacrifice. that God would provide it himself, though Abram was willing to sacrifice Isaac if God had ordered it. And the writer to the Hebrews in the New Testament, remember, that's to inform our interpretations, he tells us that Abraham believed that God could raise the dead. And so that even if he had sacrificed Isaac, that God would find a way to raise him from the dead and to bring good, make good on his promise to make Isaac into a multitude. But we read also that God didn't require the sacrifice of Isaac, and He provided the Lamb of sacrifice. And this is looking forward, as many of you know, to the pure and spotless Lamb who would take away the sins of the world. And as we're reading through, we should stop and really focus upon that fact as we're reading, because it's not a little fact. What God didn't require of Abraham, he took upon himself. Not only did God provide himself the lamb, but that lamb was his very own son, Jesus. And so those who focus on the passage in a way that tries to paint God as a sadistic monster. What kind of God would tell one of his faithful to kill his own son. He's a monster. He's evil. How could he do that? They're reading it in the wrong way. And they're betraying their own lack of faith, really. Abram, coming out of the idolatry of his time and in the place in which he lived, would surely have been familiar with the practice of child sacrifice. It was very common in the other ancient Near East religions around him. But his God, Abram's God, was not like the other gods. His God was a God of mercy and grace. And he had shown it to Abraham. And he would show it to the world through Jesus Christ. And so we're focusing on the wrong question when we look at it in that way. Why would God ask that of him? Well, we see that God didn't ask that of him. It was a test. It was a test of his faith, more of a test for Abraham than a test for God. Just a second, Kate. I'll get it to you. To prove to Abraham the faith and the assurance that he had in God, and the relationship that he had in God, and that God would make due upon his promise. You know, the Bible tells us that our trials, our perseverance through our trials, our persecutions, our sufferings increase our faith. They build upon our faith. And that, I believe, is what the point of chapter 22, what the sacrifice of Isaac was, to strengthen Abraham. in his faith. God knew he wasn't going to require that sacrifice and allow it to happen. Go ahead. Right? That's right. Absolutely. Praise God for that, right? I'm going to stop there. I really want to go a little bit longer. But I'm going to stop there. for now. Next time, I think we're going to look at the book of Job, because the book of Job actually occurs, many believe, within this time period of the patriarch, specifically in the time period of Abraham. So I want to take a look at that and read that. But we can see many great things taught in these passages. We can learn of the faithfulness of God, in particular, to his promise, to his covenant. We can see the fact that faith in God and His Word and faith in the work of Christ now as Christians who have seen the completion of revelation in Christ is what our righteousness is built upon. Not upon perfect obedience, not upon our works, but we are justified by faith and by faith alone. So we're going to go into Job next. We're going to come back, finish the patriarchal narratives, and then we'll begin Genesis. Because I think the rest of the patriarchal narratives, particularly the story of Joseph, leads naturally into the book of Exodus. OK. Well, let's close in prayer. Heavenly Father, Lord, we do see your great faithfulness. to your servants throughout all time in your word. Help us to understand the truthfulness of your word, to see that what it says is what it means and what you mean. Help us to, by the power of your spirit, to be better interpreters of your word, to be diligent studiers of your word and readers of your word. And God, we would pray, oh God, that you would in turn increase our faith as we read through your narrative, as we see your faithfulness to these people of old. Lord God, may we also see your faithfulness to us in sending your son to do that which we could not do, to be the sacrifice for our sins. God, we thank you in the name of Christ today. Amen.