In Colossians chapter 2 verse 8 we read, Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, and not after Christ. The danger of being spoiled through philosophy and vain deceit, the ideas of men. The reference in verse 11 there makes it clear that this is a call to reject those who mixed faith in Christ with the rituals of the ceremonial law and the traditions of the Pharisees.

The laws given to Moses and the traditions, the laws that the Pharisees had added. And whilst there is still a danger of this type of teaching, tonight I want us to look at the beginning of our study at a modern problem relating to philosophy and vain deceit. And we're going to do so in Genesis.

There are attempts today to combine the ideas of naturalistic thought with scripture. There are those who think scripture must be reconciled to what men have thought. In Genesis chapter 1 and verse 1 we read, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning God created. It's not a problem with those words that we're going to look at for a few minutes. For amongst those who describe themselves as evangelical, there's no question they accept those words.

It's in the words that follow in the next few chapters that they run into difficulties. The worst compromises are really found amongst those who are studying and teaching the next few chapters. It's understandable in the broad, liberal, neon-believing teachers of Old Testament that they would go to the ideas of naturalism and philosophy and the thoughts of men to understand Genesis. 

But this has infected evangelical scholarship too. And when folk come to the Bible, come to the book of Genesis, come to chapter 1 and chapter 2 and chapter 3 and so on, folk find problems and difficulties. And they listen to what scholarship has said, worldly scholarship, the ideas of men.

And they read the Bible and they try to fit the two together. And there's a tendency to want to be accepted amongst scholarship and not be too wildly divergent, to be at least meeting together around the same table even if you're not agreeing on every point. When you read Genesis chapter 1, you see that word God.

In the beginning, God created. That's the word Elohim. When you turn over, we come across the word Lord in capitals. 

Chapter 2 there, verse 4, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, the word Lord there is in capitals. And that's the word Yahweh, the Hebrew word Yahweh. Two different distinct names for God. 

And so clever people reading this have said there must be two original accounts with different names for God. Two different writers. And somebody later has come along and took these documents and blended them together, a bit of this and a bit of that.

And they didn't do a brilliant job of it, or they didn't see the necessity of trying to iron out these differences. But that's the reason that we've got these different words for God. And then in chapter 2, you notice that the account there of the creation of man is not quite the same as chapter 1. Chapter 1, the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, different things happen. 

You find there that there's a progression and an order in that the animals are created. We're told about that. And then man is created.

We're told about that. And the sixth day is complete and creation is complete. But they say when you read chapter 2, it's different.

You look through chapter 2, you find that in verse 7, the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground. And then you read down in verse 19, we read, and out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air and brought them unto Adam. When they read this, they say that contradicts what it said in chapter 1. It's different. 

It must be a totally different creation account written by a totally different author. The two have been put in here. They take the word and there to mean next, rather than also. 

Because when you read chapter 1, you'll see that great emphasis on chronology. The first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day. There's chronology there. 

But in chapter 2, we don't find any emphasis on chronology at all. What we see is that there's a focus on the creation of Adam, of man. Indeed, it could well be that this account is written as it were from Adam's viewpoint. 

The fact that God created the beasts is mentioned in the context of when they were introduced to Adam. So, on the one hand, we have the sceptical critics who read this and they say, well, these accounts come from lots of different sources, different times, and were put together at a later date. There are other points that they bring up.

For instance, Abraham and Isaac. Abraham twice, Isaac once, are both described as having said that their wives were their sisters. One incident with Pharaoh, two with Abimelech.

The critic has a field day with this. You've got three very similar instances. At least they've got one thing in common.

But being so similar, there must be three writers telling us about the same incident. They can't get their minds around the fact that one man can do the same sinful thing more than once. Nor do they take into account the fact that Abimelech is likely a title like Pharaoh is.

And so, we're not talking about the same Abimelech at all. We're talking about two different Abimelechs. It's not uncommon for sons to do the same error that the father has done either.

So, we have it that the critics say that there's really one event from three different sources. Taking into account that there are ancient accounts of creation and of a devastating flood. That surely must prove that what we have here was taken from those ancient accounts, cleaned up a bit and put together.

But of course it doesn't prove anything of the sort. It doesn't prove anything of the sort. All it shows is that many ancient cultures had knowledge that God created, or in many cases they have gods who created, and that there was a devastating flood. 

That's what it proves. Nothing more. Of course, looking at all of this they say it probably wasn't even Moses if he ever existed.

Because, you know, taking these accounts from different sources and putting them together, actually it was somebody much later who edited them and put them together and added some extra bits of narrative and so forth. Then before long you've got a whole mythology, a story to convey a meaning rather than historical truth. And indeed, probably compiled in the time of David and Solomon, finalised in the days after the Babylonian captivity, in the days of Ezra, and even later some say.

No book of Genesis until only a few hundred years before the days of Christ himself, the unbeliever, has come to dominate much of Old Testament studies. And whilst in recent years there's been some move away from the most radical of those ideas, and an acknowledgement of the need to study Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch in what is called their final form, to treat them as a piece of complete literature. These ideas have to some extent engulfed many who claim to be Bible-believing evangelicals with a high view of biblical inerrancy. 

One paper published by a professedly evangelical journal in the UK included the following comment. Whether one believes the Genesis account to be historical fact or literary myth is a moot point. This suggesting that it's a waste of time even to debate the point. 

They would accept that the book of Genesis, whilst not history, is bringing theological truth. But I want to contend, strongly contend, that it does matter that Genesis is a book both of history and of theological truth. First, I would ask everyone to read, read the text carefully, so that we don't get carried away by our own imaginations. 

For instance, when you look at the use of different names of God in Genesis, the much simpler explanation is that the writer has been careful to use the name which conveys an aspect of the character of God which is appropriate for that passage. The author made a choice to use a particular name rather than it being some isolated author who only knew that name for God and didn't know the alternative. So it is that in Genesis 1 we have the majestic power of God creating. 

The words fill the reader with a sense of awe and reverence. So the name Elohim speaks to us of awe and reverence and is exactly appropriate. The name Yahweh, the great name that God revealed himself to his people with, where God is dealing covenantally with man. 

We find that name used, for instance, in the days of Noah, Genesis 6 verse 6, and it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth and it grieved him at his heart. And then we go on to read, but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Yahweh, the self-existent one who does not need us yet reaches out in covenantal relationship. 

We see this this name in Psalm number 19. Psalm number 19, a very famous Psalm, well known. Verse 1, the heavens declare the glory of the Lord and the firmament showeth his handiwork, the glory of Elohim.

And those first verses go on to speak of things majestic in creation. In verse 7, the psalmist turns to speak of relationship. The law of Yahweh is perfect, converting the soul. 

The testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the temple. The statues of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart. Psalm 19 revisits God, the creator, and God who created to have relationship. 

With regards to Abraham and Isaac, we've already noted that sometimes sinful practise is repeated. And giving an honest and complete account of what happened, bringing out the difficulty, the sin of he who would be seen as a hero, Abraham and Isaac both, bringing out their sin actually highlights the honesty of the scriptural record rather than being a reason to reject its historicity. Turning back to Genesis chapter 2, we find that this scepticism can bring forth rather sad comments. 

I've got a quote here from what is, again, an evangelically minded, it says, Bible-believing, it says, a journal. In this account, Adam is made before the animals, which are created specifically for his benefit. As we saw a few minutes ago, chapter 2 is not chronological in its focus, whereas chapter 1 is. 

Yes, the animals are created for our benefit, yes, but they were created before Adam. It's chapter 1 that makes clear. Chapter 2, the word, and, in verse 19, conveying also, rather than next, it being from Adam's viewpoint, which they were brought to him to be introduced to him, for him to name them. 

Chapter 2 is not about chronology, the question of who wrote Genesis. It's not complicated for anyone who trusts what Christ said. First of all, remember that Moses did write, Numbers 33 verse 2, and Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the Lord.

It wasn't the only occasion where he's recorded as writing. He did write. Indeed, Moses, Acts 7.22 tells us, was learning in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.

So it would be surprising if he couldn't write. Moses is a real historical man, and the Lord Jesus Christ made this very clear on the road to Damascus after his resurrection. Remember, the two despondent disciples he joined them, he spoke with them, and he gave them the most amazing Bible study possible. 

Luke 24 verse 27, and beginning at Moses and in all the prophets, he expounded onto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself, beginning at Moses. Those two words, Moses and all the prophets, are speaking to us of the whole of what we call the Old Testament, the Tanakh. Jesus told us there very clearly that not only was Moses a real man and historical figure, but also that he was responsible for writing the books of what we know as the Pentateuch. 

Earlier, Jesus had said, John chapter 5 verse 46 and 47, For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? Jesus' words should settle the matter for us. Genesis. 

What is the nature of the book of Genesis? It's not apocalyptic, full of symbols, like parts of the book of Ezekiel, for instance, or the book of Revelation. It's not a wisdom type literature, like Proverbs or Ecclesiastes, nor is it poetic, like the Psalms. It's not Hebrew poetry. 

It is narrative. It conveys to us an account of things which happened. We are told by some, again, very learned people, that we are not to be sidetracked by dogmatism over chronology and days.

They mean that it's impossible to reconcile the chronology of Genesis, both the relative and the absolute chronology, the order of events of creation, with the ideas of some modern scientists. I say that with some caution because most modern scientists have nothing whatsoever in their studies and their learning to do with either geology nor with biology and looking at biochemistry. They are fields which are completely outside their learning. 

You're only ever talking about a limited number of scientists who look at any one subject. Science is so broad and covers so many areas. But the foundational starting point for scientists who think about origins, the presupposition that they have, is a simple one. 

There is no God. That's why they have to have a naturalistic solution to everything. It's why they must cling on to things which are incredibly improbable.

Adam. Adam is presented to us in Scripture as the first man. God created Adam. 

And that's important. Jesus confirms this creation of man. Matthew 19 verse 4. Jesus answered and said unto them, Have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? At the beginning made the male and female.

In Romans 5 verse 12, it emphasises the importance because sin entered the world. By one man sin entered into the world. 1st Corinthians 15 verse 22, For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 

1st formed separately. Genesis is historical narrative. It forms the necessary, the essential foundations for the rest of scripture. 

It is only because Adam's sin brought death that death becomes necessary in redemption. What is our purpose? Living here, existing. Genesis explains our purpose being here. 

Genesis 1 verse 26, God said, let us make man in our image after our likeness. This is a defining statement and marks the distinction between man and animals. In some way we reflect God in creation. 

It might be thought that when Adam sinned this image was lost, but that is not the case. Genesis 9 verse 6 makes clear after the flood we are told, Who so sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be for in the image of God, for in the image of God made he man. This truth was reinforced in the words of James chapter 3 verse 9. With the tongue, bless we God, even the father, and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude or likeness of God. 

Every man and woman, every child has something of the image of God. Think about it. We have speech and thinking and abstract ideas. 

We have a conscience and we have an awareness that our world has an all-powerful creator, even though many, as Romans 1 verse 21 makes clear, suppress that truth in unrighteousness. But we are not what we should be. It is through the new birth that the full image of God is restored and we are made more like Christ. 

Colossians 3 verse 10, And I have put on the new man which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him. We are to have the fruit of the Spirit in every area of our lives. And it is in this context that man was given, to continue reading there in Genesis 1 verse 26, dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that upon the earth. 

Dominion, speaking of stewardship, taking care of creation on behalf of its owner, using everything to love God and your neighbour as yourself, using everything for the glory of God. For surely that's what being in the image of God truly in its fullest sense means. But we should note carefully too that the creation which God undertook and the account we have of it in Genesis 1 and 2 is also about distinctions. 

Some of these are very easy to call to mind. The separation of dark and light, of evening and morning, days of work, days of rest. And then we notice the distinction of male and female. 

Male and female created he them, as we read in verse 27. This is another point today which is being rejected. It's been soundly rejected by some outspoken people who think that they have a right to decide these things for themselves. 

Sadly, some within the broader spectrum who call themselves Christians have been swallowing those ideas, describing it all as a matter of love and acceptance. But we must come back to what God has said in his word. Genesis chapter 2 verse 18.

And the Lord God said, it is not good that the man should be alone. I will make and help meet for him. It's not good that the man should be alone.

He's incomplete at that point. There's something missing. He needs a suitable companion.

And this is where the woman was made. Made out of Adam, but made separate from Adam. Male and female. 

And only, strictly speaking, complete when they're brought together. There is this essential unity and completeness in marriage. Only a man can truly be a man.

Only a woman can truly be a woman. We see as we read through the Scriptures that there is a responsibility of leadership on the man in both home and church. But this is also in the context of Ephesians 5.25. Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it. 

And gave himself. How did he give himself for the church? His bride. He gave himself on that cross. 

It was a self-sacrificial giving. A complete, committed giving. This speaks to us very much of how husbands are to love their wives. 

Genesis gives us the standard of what God says is good. But creation is obviously not perfect and good today. Genesis chapter 3 explains what happened. 

God had blessed them with every tree bearing fruit for food. God had placed them in a paradise to live and work with just one restriction. Just one restriction. 

Thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They had a whole selection, a whole variety of fruit to eat. But there was one tree set apart. 

It was separated as it were. Not physically, but separated by the command of God. Proverbs chapter 3 verse 5 we read, trust in the Lord. 

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine understanding. And that is the point we are at in Genesis chapter 3. Would Adam trust in the Lord with all his heart? Or would he do what he thought was right in his own eyes? Would Adam trust God to define what was good and right? Or would he think he had the right to make his own judgement? The serpent deceived Eve. But Adam wasn't deceived.

The serpent confused Eve. Perhaps, I don't know. But he twisted the word of God and told her, verse 1 of chapter 3, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden.

He highlighted that there were limits. God's apparent goodness was, as the serpent put it across, very restrictive. He wanted to emphasise the negative. 

He wanted to cast God as being harsh. It might sound a bit familiar. People think the Ten Commandments are harsh.

Thou shalt not steal. I tell you, most burglars, most thieves, if you steal from them, they think that's wrong as well. They understand it's wrong.

They just don't think that rule applies to them for some reason. And so it is with all the commandments, they are an expression of God's love. Trust me, he is saying, I know what's good and what is right. 

But Adam took that fruit and he ate of it. And what happened? He was no longer comfortable in the presence of God. We find him there. 

Verse 7 of chapter 3, they knew that they were naked. They knew that they were exposed in the sight of God. And they sewed fig leaves together, made themselves aprons. 

And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden, in the cool of the day. And Adam and his wife hid themselves in the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. There was a sense of shame, a sense of guilt. 

They no longer felt comfortable in the holy presence of their creator. They knew they needed a covering, but the covering they devised for themselves was not acceptable in God's sight. And so we go on to read of how the serpent was judged, of how he would bruise, verse 15, the seed of the woman and how her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel. 

It was a great promise. The serpent who had won a victory in bringing Adam and Eve to sin, the serpent would yet be destroyed by the seed of the woman. And then what happened? We see that, verse 21, unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins and clothed them. 

There's no particular significance attached to this in the account before us, but we are very conscious that to provide animal skins, an animal must have died, its blood must have been shed. Its significance is not set out here, but becomes clear later on. And then Adam and Eve had a son, chapter 4, verse 1. I have gotten a man from the Lord, and said, Eve, she undoubtedly had great hopes for a son, but what did he do? He became a murderer.

But what did he do before he became a murderer? He offered up a sacrifice, an offering perhaps is a better word. He had a gift for the Lord. Verse 4, verse 3 rather, Cain brought up the fruit of the ground, an offering unto the Lord.

And Abel also, he brought up the first ones of his flock, and the Lord did respect unto Abel and to his offering, but unto Cain and his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, was very angry, and his countenance fell. What was the difference between these two offerings? We don't have to wonder, we don't have to speculate, because Hebrews tells us Hebrews 11, verse 4, by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.

So it would seem that Abel offered in faith, he came with humility, with a heartfelt gift of thanks, but Cain, Cain seems to have come without faith. And I would suggest he came therefore with personal pride in what he had achieved. He outwardly gave a gift, but inwardly he was really only trusting in himself.

And in response to his offering being rejected, he got angry, he killed his brother. Sadly, law and gospel, even today, often have that type of effect on people. They resent it, they get angry about it, they know in their hearts, hidden away there, that God is real and true and powerful and almighty. 

They know that they're guilty, but boy they're angry about it. They hate the idea. And we can go on and look and see that things got worse and worse and worse. 

The whole earth, chapter 6, verse 11, was filled with violence. Chapter 6, verse 8, but Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. The Noah, by faith, built that ark. 

The Lord brought animals to that ark. Noah and his family and animals and birds were saved and delivered in that ark. The devastation of man's sin does affect the whole of creation. 

Even Noah, after he had been delivered, after he left the ark, he planted that vineyard. He grew grapes. He made wine. 

He got drunk. The one of his sons seems to have taken sinful advantage of him. And then we have, in chapter 11, the Tower of Babel. 

Again, the whole of humanity is in rebellion against God, the Creator. Instead of going out to fill the earth, they're building a tower to keep them together. They were judged, but that judgement was also an act of grace because the languages being confounded drove them apart and kept them separate, kept them from combining in sin in the future. 

The problem of sin is inherent in humanity. The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. Who can know it? But the promise is still there that was given, the promise of the seed of the woman who would win the victory. 

And that's when Genesis begins to focus in on Abraham and Isaac, Jacob. We see that the promise is carried forward with only one of Abraham's sons. Not the son that Abraham had in his own wisdom, in his own thinking, his own philosophy, his own ideas, the ways of the world. 

Not in Ishmael, but in Isaac. This is made very clear to us in Galatians 4, verse 30, where we are told of the son of the free woman and not of the bond woman. And then Isaac, the son of promise, is offered up at the command of God in chapter 22 on an altar. 

But he didn't die there, did he? Because a substitute, the ram caught in the thicket, died in his place. Interestingly, as you look forward through to the end of the book, we find Joseph was sold into slavery. Who by? Whose idea was it? Judah. 

What do we know about Judah? Judah was to be the ancestor, the father as it were, of the promised Messiah. He was to be the kingly tribe of whose line Messiah would come. But Judah was the one who said, sell Joseph as a slave. 

But what happened when he was standing unknowingly before Joseph? And Joseph told them that the youngest brother, Benjamin, the beloved son of their father, would have to stay with him as a slave in Egypt. What did Judah do? Judah offered to be the substitute, to take Benjamin's place, to let Benjamin go free. Do we not see, looking forward, there is the Messiah who came in his line to save his people from their sins? John chapter 1, verse 29. 

Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. And we have a substitute who fulfilled the great promise given of defeating Satan, who fulfilled the types and the promises given to Abraham. And we see worked out there, Genesis is foundational. 

Genesis is historical narrative. Without Genesis as it is written, in all honesty, the rest of the book is not worth listening to. It's just the writings of men. 

But we serve a risen Saviour. Just as Abraham believed Isaac could be raised from the dead, would be raised from the dead, he believed that in faith. So Jesus was raised from the dead after he died on the cross to save his people from their sins. 

Amen.

(Transcribed by TurboScribe.ai)

(Transcribed by TurboScribe.ai. Go Unlimited to remove this message.)