New Testament doctrine of creation, I had no idea what I was getting into in the course of preparing for this. I found that there's very little literature written on that subject. But I do think it's important that we look at the whole of Scripture. I think one of the points that has already been touched on is that we must compare scripture with scripture in order to properly interpret it. When we come to the New Testament, do we find anything that would lead us to believe that the first chapter of Genesis should be taken as any other way than as a literal interpretation? In other words, six 24-hour days. This paper, or this discourse, is going to trace the doctrine of creation through the New Testament, starting with the Gospels, and then concluding with the Book of Revelation. It's not designed to be a mere survey of the doctrine. I've arranged the material according to the biblical order because it allows for the major focus of the paper to build toward its conclusion. The New Testament begins with the Messianic Kingdom and then concludes, of course, with its consummation. Throughout the New Testament, the doctrines of creation and redemption are linked together. Therefore, the major focus that I'm going to be dealing with this afternoon, or I should say this morning, is going to be that relationship between creation and redemption. And while passing through the New Testament, I will also present other material that does affirm a literal view of Genesis chapter 1. Starting with the Gospels. Matthew chapter 19 we have a statement made by our Savior Matthew chapter 19 verses 4 through 6 Here our Savior says Have you not read that he who made them at the beginning made them male and female? And said, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate. Now, Turreton points out that by quoting from Genesis chapter 1 verse 27 and also chapter 2 verse 24 that Jesus shows that the male and female created on the sixth day are of course the same as Adam and Eve presented in chapter 2. I think we all agree with that point. Jesus is teaching that the ordinance of marriage was imposed upon the first couple at the beginning, when they were made male and female. And Turreton also explains that the phrase, at the beginning, does not refer to the beginning of mankind, but to the beginning in which he created the heavens and the earth. Now this is even more obvious in the parallel account in Mark chapter 10. Mark chapter 10, verse 6. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. Thus, the creation of Adam and Eve is joined to the beginning of all creation. Any attempt to separate man's creation from the creation of the heavens and the earth by some kind of extended periods of time other than six days, I'm convinced is a contradiction of what our Savior has affirmed here. He says that man was created at the beginning, male and female, at the beginning of creation. And the further you move away from a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, the more explaining you have to do. Man is also placed at the beginning of creation in Mark chapter 13 and verse 19. Mark chapter 13 and verse 19. For in those days there will be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time nor ever shall be. Now let's assume for a moment that suffering and death did not occur until after the fall. Jesus' words indicate that the fall must have taken place shortly after the six days of creation. Notice that. He is saying that at the beginning of creation, since the beginning of creation, there has not been the kind of affliction that is going to occur, that has been seen since the foundation of the world, since the beginning of creation. And therefore, the argument That suffering and death did not, well I'm going to say, I'll cover that later. Now I want to point to another text. This is in Luke chapter 11. Luke chapter 11, verses 50 through 51. Luke 11, verses 50 through 51. that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation. From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation. The connection of the murder of Abel to the foundation of the world demonstrates the proximity of the first family to the beginning of creation. I affirm that because of these statements from the lips of our Savior that have placed man His creation, too, the creation of the heavens and the earth, affirms that we must have a short period of time, indeed, a matter of days. Now, looking now to a different copy that does deal with one of the main ideas that I want to present in this discussion is in Matthew chapter 19 and verse 28. Matthew 19 and verse 28. This is the first statement that we find in the New Testament concerning God's ultimate goal for creation. Notice Again, 1928. Assuredly, I say to you that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. This regeneration refers to the transformation of creation which will occur when Christ returns. The redemptive significance of this term, translated regeneration, is apparent from the only other occurrence of the word in the New Testament. Paul uses it in Titus 3.5, not of works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. And indeed, it's interesting that this global transformation that's going to take place is described as regeneration. Now moving on, I want us to go to John's Gospel, John chapter 1. And John begins by saying that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him nothing was made that was made. We find here John identifies our Savior as the Creator. All things were made by him and nothing came into this world except through him. And of course, by identifying Christ as the Creator, he also then affirms the deity of our Savior. We have here this preposition, through, in verse 3. All things were made through him. And that preposition does frequently express an intermediary agent. The preposition by itself, however, does not settle the issue. In Galatians chapter 1 and verse 1, Paul uses this same preposition where he declares his authorship that is through Jesus Christ and God the Father. Now since the preposition through there has both Jesus Christ and the Father as its object, obviously neither one is acting as the intermediary of the other. And there are two ways in which men view the act of creation. Now, this is a little side issue from the question of literal interpretation of Genesis 1, but I do think it's an interesting theological point to determine. There are two different views. One is that creation was a cooperative Trinitarian act. For example, in his Outlines of Theology, A. A. Hodge has, and I don't know if you're familiar with the format, it's a statement followed by what we consider is a correct conclusion. So here it is, it's, prove that the work of creation is in scripture attributed to God absolutely, i.e., to each person of the Trinity coordinately, and not to either as his special personal function. And then he gives a list of verses that affirm that. Now on the other hand, there are those who explain that the Father created through the Son. And I wasn't sure where this was going to lead me. I have reached the conclusion that that is the correct biblical doctrine. It's the Father created through the Son. In Galatians 3, verses 9-11, Paul refers to God who created all things through Jesus Christ. That, to me, settles the issue, except that there's a textual variant that leaves out through Jesus Christ. Well, I'm not going to go into why I believe that that phrase belongs there. But it's not necessary to leave the issue with textual criticism. The author of Hebrew begins his book by saying, God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, having these last days spoken to us by his son, who he has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. So again, the author of Hebrews affirms this. And the last preposition there that's translated through is the same one that occurs in these other texts. I'd also like to point out, though, that the word worlds there is also the same word that's translated age elsewhere in Scripture. teacher when I was a student at Bob Jones. Most of you understand that Bob Jones is a dispensational school. And I did have one instructor who informed the class that it says here, literally, that through whom he made the world's means, through whom he made the dispensations. Yes, I appreciate your laughter. Actually, the term is used for the material universe. In Hebrews chapter 11 in verse 3, and I'll be saying more about this verse later, it says, And so what we see here is that same word here that's translated worlds that we understand that the world were framed by the Word of God, it's the same one back in the first chapter of Hebrews. Thus, indeed, the author of Hebrews affirms that God did create through the Son. Now, as we go to the book of Acts, one of the things that we notice is that the doctrine of creation, that God is creator, is an important element in the presentation of the gospel. In chapter 14, Paul declared to the people of Lystra that he and Barnabas were preaching that they should turn from their pagan gods, and now I'm quoting, to the living God who created the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them." I know we all recognize that God is creative, but I think it's important that we understand that, indeed, that is an important point in evangelism. Maybe this would be a good time for me to interject a thought. What about the evangelism of our children? I have three little ones. And I've gone through the creation account with them several times. I don't know how many times I've done this. Each time I have done it, I have done it with a view that I want my children to understand the creator and how he created. I'm afraid. If I were to teach to my children some of the things that I've heard, they would think, oh, why can't I do that with other chapters in the Bible? Where would my children be? if they did not understand that the very first chapter in the Bible reveals both the Creator and the means by which He created. But it's interesting, as we move on in the book of Acts, we come to Acts chapter 17. Now, I know we're familiar with this text. We find that Paul here is speaking to these philosophers at Athens. And he tells his audience there that he is proclaiming to them the God who made the world and everything in it. Again, beginning with the concept of God as creator. Now he proceeds in this discourse to answer four basic questions that philosophers through the ages have attempted to answer, where did I come from? Second, where, excuse me, why am I here? Third, who am I? And fourth, where am I going? Paul answers the first question. In verse 26, where he says, He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings. Where did I come from? From one blood. Of course, that refers to Adam, from whom all other men descended. Now the answer to the second question is found in verse 27. where he reads, so that they should seek the Lord in the hope that they might grope for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. Now, notice the connection here with the creation of Adam to God's redemptive purpose. Now, Paul answers the third question in verses 20-29 by saying that we are the offspring of God. That's answering the question, who am I? We are the offspring of God. And then the answer to the fourth question, which is where am I going, is verses 30-31 where he says, truly these times of ignorance God overlooked. but now commands all men everywhere to repent because he has appointed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained. He has given assurance of this by raising him from the dead. Paul began with God as creator and concluded with Jesus as judge. And the answers he gives to those four questions would be meaningless if he had not started with the fact that God created the world and everything in it. So that actually the entire discourse demonstrates that God created with the purposes of redemption in mind. Moving now to Book of Romans. We find here another text that ties together the creation of man to the creation of the heavens and the earth. verse 20 of chapter one of Romans, for since the creation of the world, his visible attributes are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Who's today there? It's mankind. And here Paul affirms, that from the very beginning of creation, not from the beginning of the creation of man, but from the very beginning of creation itself, God's invisible attributes are clearly seen. Again, tying man to the very beginning of creation. And yes, I do believe that Paul understands Genesis chapter 1 in the same literal way that I do. Now the next point that I want to deal with is Romans chapter 5 and verse 12. Here we read, therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all sin. Now, Paul, of course, here is arguing that Adam's sin is imputed to Amen. That's the force, that's what he's arguing in this chapter. The word translated world here, I want to point out, does not necessarily refer only to the world of humanity. Now there's some who insist that it has to be limited to that. But I want to point out that it is not necessarily so. John Murray, for example, explains, and I'm quoting now, When he says sin entered the world, he refers to the beginning of sin in the human race and the world means the sphere of human existence. The sphere of human existence. Does not that sphere include the animal realm? Now, I want you to notice the structure of verse 12. He says, Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus sin spread to all men, because all sin. As I look at this text, I believe that Paul moves from a general proposition, that is, sin and death entered through the world through one man. And then he moves to its specific application to all men. Now, this would mean that Paul presents a view of death broader than just mankind. Now, I will admit that Romans chapter 5 and verse 12 by itself does not demand that the death of animals began with the fall. But I certainly believe it allows for such an interpretation. And in my view, that is the most likely and best interpretation of that. Animals had to have started dying and suffering at some particular point. And I see only two options. Either suffering and death began with them at creation or at the fall. Suffering and death before the fall would make suffering and death then a part of the original creation which God declared to be very good. Have you ever seen the advertisements for the Time-Life video, Trials of Life? It's quite clear that the intent of those little clips that they did in advertising that is to shock you So if you're kind of a bloodthirsty kind of a person, you're going to go, hey, I want to see all that blood and gore and dirt and one animal chewing up another. I cannot accept the idea that God created animals at the very beginning to suffer and to die. One of the places where we know that God has compassion for animals is in the concluding chapter of the book of Jonah. God is explaining to that prophet why it is that it's appropriate and proper for him to spare Nineveh. And he gives us one of those grounds. He says, and there's also much livestock there. I believe that we have mischaracterized God if we believe that there was suffering and death before he imposed it after the fall. Now, Meredith Klein is one of those who does believe that God did create the animal realm with suffering and death. I think probably most of us already know that. Now, according to him, Psalm 104 and verse 21, and this is a quote here, he says that Psalm 104, 21 seems to indicate clearly that the Creator had from the outset granted to predatory beasts to feed on other animals. The only problem that I see with that is that in just a few verses later, I think it's starting at verse 26, it talks about the ships sailing on the seas. Who built those ships? I'm assuming that there's an answer to this, but I have never seen it in print as to how you can have predatory animals here being described as before the fall, and just a few verses later, you have the matter of ships sailing on the ocean. Maybe one of our men here will be able to fill us in on that detail. As I said before, I believe that it is a mischaracterization of God if we don't see in his creation his gracious character. And Robert Dabney agrees. He says this, we seem to learn from Genesis 1, 31, 3, 17 through 19, Romans 5, 12, 8, 19 through 22, that all animal suffering and death came upon our earth as a punishment for man's sin, which our concepts of the justice and benevolence of God seem to confirm. And I agree with Dabney here. Our understanding of God should lead us to believe that he created the world in perfect harmony, a harmony in which the symbiotic relationships between organisms reflected the wisdom and power of the Almighty. Klein's arguments that animals died and were used for food prior to the fall are not convincing. He argues that God's statement in Genesis 1.29 concerning man's diet, that it's not restricted, as though it were the only kind of food permitted to man. And of course, by this statement, he's implying that animals weren't restricted in their diet, so it would be okay for one animal to eat another. These verses, however, do show that God created man a vegetarian and that all animals were herbivores. Since vegetation was a sufficient source of nourishment, there is no reason to believe that it was necessary for animals to be eating one another. Now the portion of the curse that God addressed to Adam also offers further evidence that he was strictly vegetarian. God cursed the ground so that Adam would have to eat by the sweat of his face. And the curse forced man to become a struggling farmer. And also when God judged Cain for murdering Abel He said, when you till the ground it shall no longer yield its strength to you. Now what this means is In fact, he goes on and says, "...a fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth." That's in Genesis 4.12. And so, thus came. Instead of being a farmer, he was forced to be a forager. It doesn't say hunter. Now also, Dr. Klein denies that Genesis 9.3 is the first time that God had permitted man to eat meat. He appeals to Genesis 4-4. And that's where it says that Abel was a keeper of sheep. Fine, he was a keeper of sheep. How does the rest of the Bible describe shepherds? The Lord is my shepherd. I shall run and hide. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. John chapter 10, Christ describes himself as the good shepherd who will lay down his life for his sheep. We should not characterize shepherds as people who primarily saw those sheep as land chops. You go through the rest of the scripture and what you will find is that Sheep were used for clothing. Genesis 31, 19. They were also used for milk. Deuteronomy chapter 32 and verse 14. I also want you to know that the context of Genesis 9, 3 clearly demonstrates that God had given animals to man for food. Excuse me, He had not given animals to man for food until after the flood. In verse 2, God declares that the animals will now fear man. Isn't the reason clear why animals will now fear man? Man is about to add meat to his diet. Also, The prohibition in verse 4, chapter 9, verse 4 concerning the animal blood also demonstrates that God had previously only allowed a vegetarian diet. If man had been allowed previously to eat the blood of animals, I should say it this way, to eat the meat of animals. Would we not expect there to have been an earlier than prohibition concerning the blood? I mean, the nature of this prohibition. Now also, Dr. Klein contends that in Genesis chapter 7, verse 2, that the distinction made between Clean and unclean animals proves his point. And he says, here's the reason for this distinction is for dietary purposes. And he actually says that what's happening in Genesis chapter 9 and verse 3 is that it's actually that God's now allowing not just the eating of clean animals, but now also unclean animals. And then as we come to the Mosaic lodge, it's tightened up again. This is what he says. What Genesis 9.3 actually authorized was the eating of all kinds of meat, thus removing the prohibition against the eating of unclean animals that had been instituted for Noah's family with the special symbolic situation in the Ark Kingdom. But if you look there in Genesis chapter 8 and verse 20, you find the reason for the distinction between clean and unclean. Because there it states, What does that mean? That means that the reason for the distinction between clean and unclean wasn't for dietary purposes, it was for sacrificial purposes. Now also, Dr. Klein says this concerning the Isaiah 65, 25 passage. This is where it talks about the wolf laying down with the lamb and so forth. He says, the appeal has also been made to the idyllic prophetic descriptions of an eschaton in which carnivores are turned herbivorous. But this objection, too, is not compelling. For one thing, it must be remembered that the future world is not a simple return to conditions at the beginning. That's true. It's not simply that. But it does involve a return to those previous conditions, even though it does go much further. In Acts chapter 3, verse 21, Peter proclaims that Christ will remain in heaven, and I'm quoting now from the scriptures, until the restoration of all things. And the wolf and the lamb feeding together and the lion eating straw like the ox certainly appears to be part of that restoration. The literal interpretation of Isaiah chapter 65 and verse 25 is a common one. It's not agreed upon by all, but it certainly is a common one. Turretin argues for The earth being renovated in the future, and he appeals to Isaiah 65, 17, and that's where the Lord says that he will create a new heavens on the earth. That's the context of that passage. A footnote, or the footnote, in the Geneva Study Bible, excuse me, the New Geneva Study Bible, It has this, explains that this prophecy awaits the second coming of Christ. That's talking about in reference to the new heavens and the new earth. And it also adds 2 Peter 3, verse 13, and also Revelation 21, verse 1. But what I want to point out is that a literal interpretation of Isaiah 65 And particularly, verse 25, is not necessary for a correct understanding of the conditions before the fall. Calvin, for example, believed that the heavens, the new heavens and the new earth of Isaiah, that's in Isaiah 65-17, included Christ's first advent, the whole of his reign, and his last coming. So it was very conclusive, very inclusive. But he also believed, and I want to point this out, he also believed that in Isaiah 65, 25, that's the text about the wolf and the lamb and the lion, he says the prophet speaks allegorically of bloody and violent men whose cruel and savage nature shall be subdued when they submit to the yoke of Christ. But then he goes on to state But first, we must carefully consider the confusion which befell all the creatures in consequence of the fall of man. For if this were not taken into view, it would be impossible for us to have a sufficiently just and correct view of this blessing of restoration. Now, if you're following me on this, what you should understand is that Calvin, in essence, is arguing that a proper allegorical interpretation of this text requires the understanding that the animals were created living harmoniously, that they were indeed herbivores. So that even an allegorical view of this text supports the argument that there were no predatory animals before the fall. Now another point that I want to touch on is the view that Genesis chapter 2 and verse 17 only refers to moral death or what you might think of as spiritual death. This is where God said But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat. For in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die." Now the reason here is that, as I understand it, is that if only moral death is in view in Genesis 2.17, then that type of death must not be in view at all, and that's all that's understood in Romans 5.12. Let me see if I can state that again. If all that's in view in Genesis 2.17 is moral death or spiritual death, then when we come to Romans 5.12, we would say that that's all that's involved there as well. I'm getting a no from Dr. Collins. So apparently, I have misunderstood him, which may affect the rest of what I'm about to say here in the immediate future. But the point I want to affirm is that I hope I haven't gone too far off the track here. Now, my understanding from Dr. Collins' paper is that he does not believe that physical death was the penalty for Adam's sin. It was only the consequence of moral death. And this is now quoting from his paper. Physical mortality, which he's got 319 here. It's Genesis 319, he predicts, is the consequence of their disturbed condition, which even those who have been morally restored will have to undergo. Now, I understand that the implication of this is that since believers die, physical death cannot be penal. Have I misunderstood you there? I have misunderstood you. Okay. Okay, that's where I need to proceed now. He has said that since believers die after they're converted, that physical death is not penal. I like to quote Gehart as the boss on this point. He says, according to Genesis 2.17, God said, of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. On the basis of these words, the belief of all ages has been that death is a penalty of sin, that the race became first subject to death through the commission of the primordial sin. At present, many writers take exception to this largely on scientific grounds. Now, notice that what Voss says here is that this has been the belief of all ages until the present. Now that in itself is pretty weighty evidence that that has been the belief of the church through all the ages. And so I think we would have to admit that the burden of the proof does rest on those who deny that physical death is included in Genesis chapter 2 and verse 17. Now the Westminster Confession of Faith does teach that spiritual or moral death was involved in the death sentence that was pronounced upon Adam and Eve. This is what it says, that by this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God and so became dead in sin. And that would be that spiritual or moral death. And the assembly provided Genesis 2 17 and also Ephesians 2.1 for proof text on that point. The confession also teaches that every sin brings upon the sinner and he brings guilt upon the sinner and I'm quoting now, is made subject to death. Now this statement is in the chapter entitled, Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment Thereof. And that means that the assembly obviously did not regard physical death as a mere consequence of moral death. It was actually a judicial death. And Charles Hodge explains 1 Corinthians 15, verses 21-22 and Romans 15, verses 12-21 are parallel passages. I think that's very important to understand, especially as I get ready to make my next point. Now, a comparison between these texts show that physical death must be the death that Paul refers to in Romans 5, verse 12. In 1 Corinthians 15 verses 21-22 we read, For since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection from the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Now the contrast here between death and the resurrection of the dead requires taking death to be physical. I just got the 10 minute signal, I appreciate that. Now, as we move on and consider that, that clearly shows, that clearly shows, that text clearly shows that death came by one man. That death is physically death because it's Christ who also then brings in the resurrection from the dead. Now, what this shows, Well, let me backtrack just a little bit. The contrast between, as I already said, the contrast between death and the resurrection of the dead requires taking death there to be physical. And I also want to point out, in the context of Romans chapter 5 and verse 12, what immediately precedes is a discussion of the death of Christ, the physical death of Christ. And then also, In the following context, it prepares, excuse me, well the point, let me, okay, the point I want to make is that if we understand the context of Romans chapter five, verse 12, and that's verses six through 11, what we find here is it not only prepares the reader to understand that death in verse 12 is also physical, but it also shows that Christ's death was necessary to satisfy divine justice. It would not have been sufficient for Christ to have merely suffered the infinite wrath of God. It was necessary for him to die physically because that is part of the penalty that God has prescribed. Well, and the other thing, too, is that as you go on, even Dr. Collins acknowledges that in the following context that physical death is still in view. He correctly states that 514, in Romans 514, that Paul claims that death reigned from Adam until Moses, presumably thinking of the genealogies of Genesis 5, with the refrain, and he died. And indeed, that would, again, affirm the context as referring to not just moral death, but also physical death as in the usual. Now, I think the most conclusive argument that I can give, and I'm going to have to wrap it up really quick, but it's in Romans chapter 8. Romans chapter 8 is where we really tie these two doctrines together. Now, let me just read quickly verses 19 through 21. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly awaits for the revealing of the sons of God, for the creation was subjected to futility, not willing, but because of him who subjected it in hope, because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. And not only that, but we also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our bodies. Now here, Paul is making it very clear that we are not in our original creation. original condition, neither is creation in its original condition. Paul says that God subjected creation to futility. The phrase, bondage of corruption, actually further defines what that futility is. God did not create everything in a state of futility, but He subjected creation to that state. And this subjection could only have taken place at the pronouncement of the curse in Genesis chapter three, verses 17 through 18. And Murray is correct when he states that the relationship, I mean the relation to this earth, excuse me, in relation to this earth, this curse, yeah. So I guess he was having, Murray is correct when he states that in relation to this earth, this is surely Paul's commentary on Genesis 3.18. The point here is that when we as believers are glorified, creation will be glorified as well. Redemption must extend as far as the consequences of sin. The source of creation is God working through Christ, and the goal of creation is the glory of God through Christ. And in the same way, the source of redemption is God working through Christ, and the goal of redemption is the glory of God through Christ. God does not have a plan for creation apart from his redemptive purposes for his people. Redemptive purpose for his people. And he does not have a redemptive purpose for his people apart from creation. And the fact that creation is joined to the final blessings of redemption requires the understanding that they also be joined to the suffering and death of the fall. For the sake of time, I'm going to skip way ahead. And I'm going to go to the book of Revelation. Now let me sum up what happens in the book of Revelation in the throne scene in verses 4 and 5. In the first scene, God the Father is worshipped because He is created. And then, in chapter 5, the Lamb is worshipped because He's the Redeemer. And as we come to chapter 5, what we find is that there is this great crescendo of praise that is offered to the Lamb, and you can see that it begins with The living creatures, let me flip quickly to my... Well, it begins with, as I said, verse eight. When he had taken the scroll, the living creatures, the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb And then it moves on to verse 11, it says, and I looked and heard the voice of many angels around the throne. So now it includes all these thousands and thousands of angels. And look in verse 13. Every creature which is in heaven and on earth and under the earth and such as are in the seas and all that are in them, I heard saying, Blessing and honor and glory and power to him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb forever and ever. What's the point here? All creation joins in the worship of God the Father for having created and in the Lamb for having redeemed. Every creature is rejoicing that the Lamb has redeemed. So that creation and redemption are indeed linked together What does that mean? What does that mean? Listen to Dabney. What was God's true end in creation of the material world? Reason and scripture answer to furnish a stage for existence and action of a moral and rational future. The earth was made for man to inhabit. As the light would be but darkness, there would be no eye to see. So the moral design of the world would be futile without a human mind to comprehend it and praise its maker. Now, such being God's end in creation, it seems more reasonable to suppose that He would produce at once the world which He needed for His purpose, rather than spend hundreds of thousands of years growing it. There is this tying between the purposes of God in creation and the purposes of God in redemption. that to me make it mandatory that we look at Genesis chapter 1 in such a way that we can say, yes, they're tied together. If we don't take it that way. So my problem with the day-age theory is we have too much prelude for too little of program. My problem with the literary hypothesis is that we have too much saying to read. If God's acts and his word are relevatory, then when I come to the book of Genesis, chapter 1, and I see there a straightforward presentation of what God gives, it's only I'm convinced the literalist who can give that text its full revelatory meaning. And with that, I'll conclude.