Truth Magazine

The biblical account of creation is initially set forth in simple narrative form in Genesis 1-2. The account shows every sign of being an historical narrative to be under- stood in its literal and obvious sense. Dealing fairly with the text itself demands one acknowledge that the first readers would have concluded a simple truth: God created the world and all things in it, including man, over a period of six literal, consecutive days at the beginning of time. However, this article will seek to address the view of the creation presented in other passages of Scripture as the inspired writers look back on the Genesis account of creation. In this way, we can see the divine commentary given to us to aid in properly interpreting this important and fundamental text.

Genesis 5:1-3

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth . . . (ASV).

The fact that Adam and Eve were created on the same day is here affirmed. Two measures of time, a day and years, are used in the same context. Consistency demands the same rule apply to interpreting both. Was the day actually a long epoch or a literal day? Were the years a period of approximately 365 literal days or a collection of many epochs? Obviously, the literal sense of both “day” and “years” best fits the context.

Exodus 20:9-11; 31:14-17

Each passage views the six days of creation and following day of rest as analogous to the Jews’ six days of work and following day of rest, the Sabbath. The days are analogous in length, order, and function. If they are not meant to suggest such likeness, there would appear no legitimate purpose for the parallel made between them.

Psalm 33:6-9

By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as a heap: He layeth up the deeps in store-houses. Let all the earth fear Jehovah: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (ASV).

God’s power as manifest in creation is the focus of this passage. When God spoke, it was done and stood fast. How could this passage be harmonized with an interpretation of the creation account which holds that God spoke to begin a process that took millions or billions or years to “stabilize” into the form ultimately reached? There is no way to harmonize the two for Psalm 33 is diametrically opposed to such views. Yet, our progressive creationists tell us that when God spoke into existence the heavens and the earth, he actually caused the big bang to take place 15 to 20 billion years ago which finally resulted in the earth forming some 4.5 billion years ago. They tell us that when God spoke light into existence on a first day, it took millions of years for enough cooling and clearing of the atmosphere to take place so that the sun, moon and stars could be seen to have already been made when he spoke to make them on a fourth day. Such interpretations may sprout from a fertile imagination, but they wither away when examined in the light of the plain teaching of Psalm 33.

Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4-6

In answering a question asked by the Pharisees about divorce, Jesus referred them back to the origin of marriage with Adam and Eve. Jesus affirmed, “He which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matt. 19:4, KJV ). The progressive creationist might respond that this refers to the beginning of marriage which may have come millions or billions of years after the beginning of creation. However, the parallel account of Mark 10:6 takes care of that quibble by saying, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” If the progressive creationists are correct, man and woman were brought on the scene much closer to our end of time than the beginning. Again, the interpretation forced on the Bible by Progressive Creationism does not harmonize with other biblical references back to creation. Bert Thompson made the following point in commenting on the same passage:

In this context, there is additional information that should be considered as well. For example, concerning Adam and Eve, Jesus declared: “But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them” (Mark 10:6; cf., Matthew 19:4). Christ thus dates the first humans from the creation week. The Greek word for “beginning” is arche, and is used of “absolute, denoting the beginning of the world and of its history, the beginning of creation.” The word in the Greek for “creation” is ktiseos, and de- notes “the sum-total of what God has created” (Cremer, Biblico-Theological Dictionary of New Testament Greek, 1962, 113, 114, 381, emp. in orig.). Unquestionably, then, Jesus placed the first humans at the dawn of creation. To reject this truth, one must contend that: (a) Christ knew the Universe was in existence billions of years before man, but, accommodating Himself to the ignorance of His age, deliberately misrepresented the situation; or (b) The Lord, living in pre-scientific times, was uninformed about the matter (despite the fact that He was there as Creator — Colossians 1:16). Either of these allegations is blasphemous (Thompson, Creation Compromises, 1995, 179).

Other passages could be addressed regarding the issue as well. However, these are sufficient to show that the biblical writers looking back on the creation account took it as a literal statement that God created heaven, earth and all therein in six literal, consecutive days with man’s creation taking place in that beginning of  thecreation week. Any conclusion to the contrary needs to deal with these passages as well as Genesis 1 and 2 in order to show from the contexts that such a conclusion is sustained by proper exegesis.

Paul wrote the Romans that “whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). He had earlier written, in the same epistle, that they had “died to the law through the body (death) of Christ” (Rom. 7:4). In spite of the fact that the Bible clearly teaches that we are under the covenant dedicated with the blood of Christ and not the one dedicated by the blood of animals, many continue to have problems with bringing over things dedicated with the blood of animals as law.

The Old Testament teaches that men were to give a tenth (tithe). Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20), and the law of Moses commanded that a tithe be given to the Levites (Num. 18:21-24). Can we learn something from these examples about God’s will for us? I think so. But can we teach tithing as a part of the law of Christ? Certainly not. The law dedicated by the blood of Christ does not give a percentage. We are to give as we have been prospered (1 Cor. 16:1, 2), and as we purpose in our hearts (2 Cor. 9:7). Does fact that God did not give a specific percentage mean that we should not give liber- ally? Again, no! But it does mean that we should not bind the law of Moses as our standard of giving.

Another problem that has arisen among some is women wearing pants. The law of Moses said, “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God”(Deut. 22:5). When the pantsuits first came out, some opposed them on the basis that the law dedicated by the blood of animals revealed God’s intention about such and is still binding on us.

The inconsistency of this is glaringly obvious when they do not bind verse eleven of the same chapter. “You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together.” How do we decide that verse five is binding today but not verse eleven?

Is there anything that can be learned from the instruction of Moses? Maybe so, but we need to remember that one who binds part of the old law “is a debtor to keep the whole law” (Gal. 5:3). The New Testament teaches that women should conform to the customs of the day, so long as they do not conflict with God’s law. Paul told the women in Corinth not to shear or shave their heads because “long hair is a glory” to them. He also forbade them removing their veils, because that would have been shameful conduct in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:2-16). The men in Corinth wore togas, which looked like a modern day dress or robe. Does this mean that we should put on the “toga of a man,” as Paul did? No, the Lord did not give specific attire to men and women, but he gave principles that regulate our attire.

Another problem has arisen over what is “modest apparel.” Some contend that the “tunics of skin” that God made for Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21) were garments that came to the knee. Also, the priests were to wear “linen trousers to cover their nakedness; they shall reach from the waist to the thighs” (Exod. 28:42). Does this prove that Christians must have linen trousers to the knees? If so, Paul dressed immodestly when he put on the toga of a man. A toga was different from trousers. Further- more, when it was customary for women to wear garments to the ankle, Christian women would have been immodest to have worn a garment just to the knees. What does the New Testament say about women’s attire? “In like manner that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good work” (1 Tim. 1:9, 10). “Do not let your beauty be the outward adorning of arranging the hair, or wearing gold, or of putting on fine apparel; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.” (1 Pet. 3:3, 4). We may wish the God had given a specific length, height and tightness of the skirt, but he did not, and to teach the Old Law as God’s standard is the same mistake as teaching the Old Law on giving.

Does this mean that ladies may wear their skirts half way up their thigh? If we cannot draw a line on the leg where immodesty begins, does that mean that God has no standard? If some Pharisee would just tell them exactly what is modest they would appreciate it. But God gave no such instructions through the covenant dedicated with the blood of Christ. He did not say how much the hair can be arranged, how much gold you may wear and how expensive your clothing may be, but he did say it should manifest “a gentle and quite spirit.” I’m convinced that if Christians understand the principles of godliness and have a heart that is transformed, the externals will take care of themselves. The godly person will be neither ostentatious nor skimpy in dress. The principles taught in the Old Law were written for our learning, but we must remember that it was not dedicated by the blood of Christ. To bind even parts of the Old Law is to “become estranged form Christ” (Gal. 5:4).

One lady, convicted about her failure to attend church services, tried to soothe her conscience by writing these words:

I’m sorry You put Sunday where You did, Lord. You see, we could attend church services more regularly if it came at some other time. After six days of work, we’re all tired out. Not only that, it comes right after Saturday night. That’s one time we feel we should enjoy ourselves, so we go to a party or a place of amusement. Often it’s after midnight when we head for home, so it’s almost impossible to get up in the morning. I mean no disrespect, Lord, but it’s the day when we have the biggest dinner and I must be here to prepare the meal. My husband John is cooped up in his office all week, and Sunday morning is the only chance he gets to tinker with the car and mow the lawn. We know we should go more often, but our seat is empty because You’ve chosen the wrong day.

Unfortunately, this sentiment expresses the feelings of far too many Christians today. Too often for too many Christians, the attendance of worship services is done, not out of a true commitment or genuine sacrifice for God, but out of convenience. If the times for assemblies do not fit their schedules or personal agendas, then they will not attend. Is God pleased with such attitudes? Most certainly not! We do not have to look very far into the Scriptures to see why.

Let us remember the main reason why we come together in the first place, and that is to worship the Lord. Both the Old and the New Testaments express the importance of worship. “Sing to the Lord, bless His name; proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day. Tell of His glory among the nations, His wonderful deeds among all the peoples. For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods . . . Worship the Lord in holy attire; Tremble before Him, all the earth” (Ps. 96:2-4, 9, NAS). Jesus taught that the Father is seeking people who will worship him in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24). With such importance placed upon worship, one might wonder to what degree worship will be emphasized in Heaven. The Revelation letter answers that question: “The twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, ‘Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created’” (Rev 4:10-11, NAS; read also the entire chapter). For those who worship God only out of convenience, do you suppose God would want such people there with him in Heaven? Our worship of God in the here and now is indeed preparing us for the eternal life to come. To neglect our coming together to worship God does not demonstrate good things for eternity.

Second, we must remember how much God’s people need to meet together as often as they possibly can. Christians must make time for public worship and make personal sacrifices to be at each and every assembly period. Each member of the Lord’s church needs the spiritual nourishment of the apostles’ doctrine, fellow- ship, the Lord’s supper, and prayer (Acts 2:42) upon the first day of each week (Acts 20:7). Each member needs to give as he prospers (1 Cor. 16:2) in order to be a part of the contribution for the work of the church. Each member needs the encouragement from each other to continue steadfastly in all faithfulness. “And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works” (Heb. 10:24). Failure to attend the worship assemblies because it isn’t convenient not only is wrong, but it is also very damaging to our spiritual lives and our relationship with God and our brethren.

Third, we must remember that other Christians need us for spiritual strength, comfort, and encouragement.

Worship assembly is not only about worshiping God. Neither is it only about what we can get out of it for ourselves individually. Worship assembly is also about what we can give to each other spiritually. When we come together we are to purpose ourselves to encourage and edify each other (1 Thess. 5:11). We teach and admonish each through our singing (Col. 3:16). We encourage each other through fellowship in the things that we share or have in common in Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:1-2; 1 John 1:3). It isn’t just about you. It’s about a whole host of disciples that need and welcome your presence and encouragement. When Christians have the attitude that they will attend the assemblies whenever it personally suits them or whenever they happen to feel like it, they are being selfish. They are looking out for their own interests but not for the interests of others (Phil. 2:4). Let us remember that we need each other! If we aren’t mindful of each other throughout the week (and we should be!), let us at the very least meet together at the times designated for public assembly. “Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification” (Rom. 15:2).

In conclusion, let us not be like some of the Hebrew Christians who had deserted their assemblies. “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25). The Greek word for “forsaking” is a very profound and forceful one and it denotes to abandon or desert in time of danger. It is the word used by our agonizing Savior on the cross, when he cried out, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Matt. 27:46). How far are you from abandonment? You may not have forsaken the assemblies as of yet, but remember that attitudes such as “personal convenience” will lead you down that road if you aren’t careful. We must all take heed lest we fall (1 Cor. 10:12). May we never forget the importance of attending the worship assemblies.

By Jesse G. Jenkins

On the evenings of August 2, 3, 5, and 6, 1999 David D. Bonner and Jeffery S. Asher debated in Crockett School house in Amarillo, Texas and repeated the same on the evenings of August 23, 24, 26, and 27. Audiences were larger in Lufkin with about 250 -275 the first night and in the 100s the other nights. In Amarillo attendance ran under 200 the first night and estimated in the 80 to 90 range the other nights. The audiences behaved well as was expected,

Bonner was in the affirmative the first two nights and in the negative the last two nights in each place. Bonner’s affirmative was “RESOLVED: The Scriptures teach that Jesus, while on earth in the flesh had and used both human and divine attributes.” Bonner stated his job was easy for all he had to do was prove two attributes of humanity and two of Deity. He gave Scripture for ten points of humanity such as Jesus hungered, tired, slept, suffered, died, etc. He proved Jesus used attributes of Deity in several ways. He showed that he accepted worship as God (Matt. 4:10). He showed that a leper, a man born blind, wise men, a ruler and apostles worshiped Jesus as God. He showed Jesus forgave sins and that only God can forgive sins (Mark 2:5, 7). He gave several examples of Jesus forgiving sins. He asked the question, did Jesus accept worship and forgive sins as man or God?

From Matthew 4:1-3 he showed that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, and argued if Jesus had no power to do so, there would have been no temptation. There was temptation, so Jesus had the power to turn stones into bread. Bonner emphasized that if the power were the power of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit would have had to sin for Jesus to use his power; there- fore the power was usable power that Jesus had, i.e., his own power.

Bonner showed that John 20:30-31 states the signs Jesus worked proved he was Deity. Asher argued that the signs in this passage referred to the resurrection. The fact that “signs” and “these” are plural did not seem to make any impression on him. Bonner showed that if Jesus’ signs, to which John here referred, were done by the power of the Holy Spirit, then his signs no more proved he was the Son of God than did the apostles’ signs prove they were Sons of God.

Bonner asked who empowered the seventy in Luke 10:19? There Jesus said: “I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy. . .” (emphasis mine, JGJ). To this, Asher never replied.

For six nights Bonner tried to get Asher to tell why it denies the humanity of Jesus if he used his own power of Deity, when Asher teaches it does not deny his Deity to use only his humanity. Asher’s answer was “because Jesus came as a man.” If you can figure out how that answers the question, you are smarter than me.

Bonner surely sustained his proposition with adequate proofs.

The last two nights in each place Asher affirmed: “RE- SOLVED: The Scriptures teach that Jesus, while here on earth in the flesh, had both human and divine attributes but never used any of his divine attributes.” In an effort to prove this he argued that all Jesus did beyond what any human could do was by the power of the Holy Spirit. His major and virtually only argument to try to prove this was his pattern argument. He said that when you prove that baptism is a burial by Romans 6:4, then burial is understood wherever baptism in the name of Jesus is mentioned. This is the pattern. In this he is correct. But then he said that his showing that Jesus worked a miracle by the power of the Holy Spirit as in Matthew 12:28, established a pattern and that wherever Jesus did a miracle it was to be understood that he did it by the power of the Holy Spirit. But Bonner showed that Asher did not have a pattern because sometimes it is said Jesus did a miracle by the power of the Holy Spirit and sometimes by the power of the Father (John 14:10), and sometimes by his own power (Luke 10:19, John 2:7-11; 10:18). If baptism was spoken of as a burial in one passage, as a sprinkling in another and as a pouring in yet another, there would be no pattern for burial. Anyone should see that. Bonner argued that the Godhead worked in unanimity. He had a chart showing this to be so in creation, the resurrection, dwelling in the saint, work, word, etc.

Bonner asked Asher how he would prove that Jesus had divine attributes if he never used them? Asher’s reply was that both agreed that Jesus had divine attributes and thus there was no need to for him to prove it.

Asher said that Jesus learned that he was the Son of God, thus Deity, by his mother and father telling him. He said that Jesus had to learn and grow in God’s favor like any other child. He said that in Luke 2:46-47 Jesus was not teaching the doctors of the law anything, rather that he was asking them questions so he could learn. He said the reason the doctors of the law marveled was that Jesus’ perception was greater than normal.

In answer to Bonner’s argument that Jesus used an attribute of Deity in accepting worship, Asher said that accepting worship did not prove an attribute of Deity because the Caesars accepted worship and the pope accepts worship. Bonner pointed out that Jesus accepted worship with the approval of the Father, but not so with the Caesars and the pope. Asher also said that Jesus accepted worship because he thought he was God. As pointed out above Asher said Jesus concluded he was God by the testimony of his parents.

In answer to Bonner’s argument that Jesus used an attribute of Deity in forgiving sins (Mark 2:5, 10), Asher went to John chapters 4 and 5 and argued that because it says that Jesus did things by the power of the Father, it is understood that he forgave sins by the power of the Father, not his own power. Bonner pointed out that when we read Mark 2:1-10 it should mean the same to us as it did to them and that they certainly had no way of concluding Jesus was not doing this by his own power. To this Asher made no reply.

Bonner pointed out several times that this theory that Jesus never used his own power came about because several years ago some started accusing others of believing that man has to sin. Bonner said that he had never known a brother that believes man has to sin. He challenged Asher to name just one who so believes. No one was named by Asher. In their effort to prove that man can live an entire life without sinning and thus, never need the blood of Jesus they used Jesus as the example of one who did it. When it was pointed out to them that Jesus was not only man, but also God, they had to make him just man to hold onto their position that man can live an entire life time without sinning. First some of them said Jesus divested himself of his divinity, and attributes.

Then they said he remained Deity in person, but not in power and character. How one could be Deity in person without the character of Deity, they never could explain. For this reason or for some other reason, they then gave this position up also. (In fairness to Jeff Asher, I want to state that he says he never believed these first two positions but has always believed Jesus was Deity on earth, that he retained his attributes, but limited himself and never used them. But it is a fact that some of his fellows did teach these first two positions for several years.) They then came to the position that Jesus in the flesh was Deity and that he did have his powers of Deity, but limited himself and never used them. This is what these debates were about.

Bonner said that he believed that in theory man could live without sin, because when man sins, he chooses to sin, but practically man is not able to earn his salvation by sinless living and that if anyone ever said he did, he would make God a liar (1 John 1:10). See also Acts 15:10. Bonner had a chart that asked two questions: (1) What is the probability that man will not sin? Bonner’s answer to this was zero. (2) What was the probability that Jesus would not sin? Bonner’s answer to this was one hundred percent. Asher never answered these two questions.

Bonner used an argument he got from one who wrote in the Faith and Facts paper, that to say anyone had some- thing but could not demonstrate it was like clouds and wind without rain (Prov. 25:14). This writer in Faith and Facts said to say one could work miracles but could not demonstrate is like wind and clouds without rain. Bonner told Asher that to say Jesus had attributes of Deity yet never used them was like Proverbs 25:14 also.

Asher thinks that if one has an advantage over you in any way, he cannot be your example. Bonner used Philippians 2:1-8 to show the humility of Jesus. Jesus left heaven, came to earth to live as a poor person, and to die a cruel death. Bonner affirmed this is the greatest example of humility the world has ever seen, and affirmed no one could possibly duplicate this example in humility. It does look like Jesus had an “edge” in humility, does it not? Asher was challenged to tell if Jesus did have an “edge” in humility. So far as I can recall he gave no reply.

Asher took the position that Jesus is still a man in heaven. He said very little about this in the debate, but in the Friday morning open forum at Amarillo, this was discussed at great length. But the ones who took this position never did tell us how the raised spiritual, immortal body is still human.

Asher and those who agree with him teach that Jesus while on earth was at eternal risk. Asher did not say much about this in the debate, though David tried to get him to do so. What I am about to say was not in the debate, but as it is on the subject, I want those who read the review to consider this also. Was Jesus and thus our salvation at risk because he may have sinned. They think so; I deny it. But the important thing is the Bible denies it. Isaiah 42:1-4 says: “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail (emphasis mine, JGJ) nor be discouraged till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.” Matthew 12:18-20 applies this to Jesus. The Holy Spirit said he would not fail, but Asher says he could have. I think I will take the Holy Spirit over Asher and others who agree with him on this.

All who believe that Jesus accepted worship, forgave sins, gave the seventy power and turned water into wine should have left the debate knowing that Bonner sustained his proposition and that Asher failed to sustain his. All Bonner had to do to sustain his position was to show that Jesus used his Deity in one thing. And he did more than that.

It appears to me that just about every argument they make, if carried to its consistent conclusion would deny that Jesus was Deity while on earth. They disavow this conclusion and I will not assign it to them. But I will assign inconsistency to them. And Asher did say in Amarillo that as to function, Jesus was just a man. Well if in function he was just a man, it would be interesting for them to tell in what sense he was Deity!

For Bonner, Jesse G. Jenkins moderated, C.A. Scroggins flipped charts, David M. Bonner kept time in Amarillo, but Robert Bond kept time in Lufkin and Keith Shackleford.

“ran charts” as used by Asher. For Asher, Ed Dye was to have been the moderator, but because of sickness, A.W. Goff moderated, Tim Coffee flipped charts, and Wayne.