Happily for him, he was also ignorant of the strange scholasticism which was taught at Jerusalem, and which was soon to constitute the Talmud. If some Pharisees had already brought it into Galilee, he did not associate with them, and when, later, he encountered this silly casuistry, in it only inspired him with disgust. We may suppose, however, that the principles of Hillel were not unknown to him. Hillel, fifty years before him, had given utterance to aphorisms very analogous to his own. By his poverty, so meekly endured, by the sweetness of his character, by his opposition to priests and hypocrites, Hillel was the true master of Jesus, if, indeed, it may be permitted to speak of a master in connection with so high an originality as his.

The perusal Of the books of the Old Testament made much impression upon him. The canon of the holy books was compose of two principal parts: the Law — that is to say, the Pentateuch — and the Prophets, such as we now possess them. An extensive allegorical exegesis was applied to all these books; and it was sought to draw from them something that was not in them, but which responded to the aspirations of the age. The Law, which represented not the ancient laws of the country, but Utopias, the factitious laws and pious frauds of the time of the pietistic kings, had become, since the nation had ceased to govern itself, an inexhaustible theme of subtle interpretations. As to the Prophets and the Psalms, the popular persuasion was that almost all the somewhat mysterious traits that were in these books had reference to the Messiah, and it was sought to find there the type of him who should realize the hopes of the nation. Jesus participated in the taste which everyone had for these allegorical interpretations. But the true poetry of the Bible, which escaped the puerile exegetists of Jerusalem, was fully revealed to his grand genius. The Law does not appear to have had much charm for him; he thought that he could do something better. But the religious lyrics of the Psalms were in marvelous accordance with his poetic soul; they were, all his life, his food and sustenance. The prophets — Isaiah in particular, and his successor in the record of the time of the captivity — with their brilliant dreams of the future, their impetuous eloquence, and their invectives mingled with enchanting pictures, were his true teachers. He read also. no doubt, many apocryphal works — i.e. writings somewhat modern — the authors of which, for the sake of an authority only granted to very ancient writings, had clothed themselves with the names of prophets and patriarchs, One of these books especially struck him — namely, the book of Daniel. This book, composed by an enthusiastic Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, under the name of an ancient sage, was the resume of the spirit of those later times. Its author, a true creator of the philosophy of history, had for the first time dared to see in the march of the world and the succession of empires only a purpose subordinate to the destinies of the Jewish people. Jesus was early penetrated by these high hopes. Perhaps, also, he had read the books of Enoch, then revered equally with the holy books, and the other writings of the same class, which kept up so much excitement in the popular imagination. The advent of the Messiah, with his glories and his terrors — the nations falling down one after another, the cataclysm of heaven and earth — were the familiar food of his imagination; and, as these revolutions were reputed near, and a great number of persons sought to calculate the time when they should happen, the supernatural state of things into which such visions transport us appeared to him from the first perfectly natural and simple.

That he had no knowledge of the general state of the world is apparent from each feature of his most authentic discourses. The earth appeared to him still divided into kingdoms warring with one another; he seemed to ignore the “Roman peace,” and the new state of society which its age inaugurated. He had no precise idea of the Roman power; the name of “Caesar” alone reached him. He saw building, in Galilee or its environs, Tiberias, Julias, Diocaesarea, Caesarea, gorgeous works of the Herods, who sought, by these magnificent structures, to prove their admiration for Roman civilization, and their devotion towards the members of the family of Augustus — structures whose names, by a caprice of fate, now serve, though strangely altered, to designate miserable hamlets of Bedouins. He also probably saw Sebaste, a work of Herod the Great, a showy city, whose ruins would lead to the belief that it had been carried there ready made, like a machine which had only to be put up in its place. This ostentatious piece of architecture arrived in Judea by cargoes; these hundreds of columns, all of the same diameter, the ornament of some insipid Rue de Rivoli — these were what he called “the kingdoms of the world and all their glory.” But this luxury of power, this administrative and official art, displeased him. What he loved were his Galilean villages, confused mixtures of huts, of nests and holes cut in the rocks, of wells, of tombs, of fig-trees, and of olives. He always clung close to nature. The courts of kings appeared to him as places where men wear fine clothe. The charming impossibilities with which his parables abound, when he brings kings and the mighty ones on the stage, prove that he never conceived of aristocratic society but as a young villager who sees the world through the prism of his simplicity.

Still less was he acquainted with the new idea, created by Grecian science, which was the basis of all philosophy, and which modern science has greatly confirmed — to wit, the exclusion of capricious gods, to whom the simple belief of ancient ages attributed the government of the universe, Almost a century before him Lucretius had expressed, in an admirable manner, the unchangeableness of the general system of nature. The negation of miracle — the idea that everything in the world happens by laws in which the personal intervention of superior beings has no share — was universally admitted in the great schools of all the countries which had accepted Grecian science. Perhaps even Babylon and Persia were not strangers to it. Jesus knew nothing of this progress. Although born at a time when the principle of positive science was already proclaimed, he lived entirely in the supernatural. Never, perhaps, had the Jews been more possessed with the thirst for the marvelous. Philo, who lived in a great intellectual center, and who had received a very complete education, possessed only a chimerical and inferior knowledge of science.

Jesus on this point differed in no respect from his companions. He believed in the devil, whom he regarded as a kind of evil genius, and he imagined, like all the world, that nervous maladies were produced by demons who possessed the patient and agitated him. The marvelous was not the exceptional for him; it was his normal state. The notion of the supernatural, with its impossibilities, is coincident with the birth of experimental science. The man who is strange to all ideas of physical laws, who believes that by praying he can change the path of the clouds, arrest disease, and even death, finds nothing extraordinary in miracle, inasmuch as the entire course of things is to him the result of the free will of the Divinity. This intellectual state was constantly that of Jesus. But in his great soul such a belief produced effects quite opposed to those produced on the vulgar. Among the latter the belief in the special action of God led to a foolish credulity, and the deceptions of charlatans. With him it led to a profound idea of the familiar relations of man with God, and an exaggerated belief in the power of man — beautiful errors, which were the secret of his power; for if they were the means of one day showing his deficiencies in the eyes of the physicist and the chemist, they gave him a power over his own age of which no individual had been possessed before his time, or has been since.

His distinctive character very early revealed itself. Legend delights to show him even from his infancy in revolt against paternal authority, and departing from the common way to fulfil his vocation. It is certain, at least, that he cared little for the relations of kinship. His family do not seem to have loved him, and at times he seems to have been hard towards them. Jesus, like all men exclusively preoccupied by an idea, came to think little of the ties of blood. The bond of thought is the only one that natures of this kind recognize. “Behold my mother and my brethren,” said he, in extending his hand towards his disciples; “he who does the will of my Father, he is my brother and my sister.” The simple people did not understand the matter thus, and one day a woman passing near him cried out, “Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which gave thee suck!” But he said, “Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” Soon, in his bold revolt against nature, he went still further, and we shall see him trampling under foot everything that is human — blood, love, and country — and only keeping soul and heart for the idea which presented itself to him as the absolute form of goodness and truth.

 The MorningStar Academy

The Jubilee Academy

Learning By Grace

Mimi Rothschild

Jesus was born at Nazareth, a small town of Galilee, which before his time had no celebrity. All his life he was designated by the name of “the Nazarene,” and it is only by a rather embarrassed and roundabout way [NOTE: The census effected by Quirinus, to which legend attributes the journey from Bethlehem, is at least ten years later than the year in which, according to Luke and Matthew, Jesus was born. The two evangelists in effect make Jesus to be born under the reign of Herod (Matt. ii. 1, 19, 22; Luke i. 5). Now, the census of Quirinus did not take place until after the deposition of Archelaus -- i.e., ten years after the death of Herod, the 37th year from the era of Actium (Josephus Ant., XVII. XIII. 5, XVIII. i. I, ii. I). The inscription by which it was formerly pretended to establish that Quirinus had levied two censuses is recognized as false (see Orelli, Inscr. Lat., No. 623, and the supplement of Henzen in this number; Borghesi, Fastes Consulaires [yet unpublished] in the year 742). The census in any case would only be applied to the parts of the Roman provinces, and not to the tetrarchies. The texts by which it is sought to prove that some of the operations for statistics and tribute commanded by Augustus ought to extend to the dominion of the Herods, either do not mean what they have been made to say, or are from Christian authors who have borrowed this statement from the Gospel of Luke. That which proves, besides, that the journey of the family of Jesus to Bethlehem is not historical, is the motive attributed to it. Jesus was not of the family of David (see Chap. XV.), and, if he had been, we should still not imagine that his parents should have been forced, for an operation purely registrative and financial, to come to enrol themselves in the place whence their ancestors had proceeded a thousand years before. In imposing such an obligation, the Roman authority would have sanctioned pretensions threatening her safety.] that, in the legends respecting him, he is made to be born at Bethlehem. We shall see later the motive for this supposition, and how it was the necessary consequence of the Messianic character attributed to Jesus. The precise date of his birth is unknown. It took place under the reign of Augustus, about the Roman year 750, probably some years before the year 1 of that era which all civilized people date from the day on which he was born.

The name of Jesus, which was given him, is an alteration from Joshua. It was a very common name; but afterwards mysteries, and an allusion to his character of Savior, were naturally sought for in it. Perhaps he, like all mystics, exalted himself in this respect. It is thus that more than one great vocation in history has been caused by a name given to a child without premeditation. Ardent natures never bring themselves to see aught of chance in what concerns them. God has regulated everything for them, and they see a sign of the supreme will in the most insignificant circumstances.

The population of Galilee was very mixed, as the very name of the country indicated. This province counted among its inhabitants, in the time of Jesus, many who were not Jews (Phoenicians, Syrians, Arabs, and even Greeks). The conversions to Judaism were not rare in these mixed countries. It is therefore impossible to raise here any question of race, and to seek to ascertain what blood flowed in the veins of him who has contributed most to efface the distinctions of blood in humanity.

He proceeded from the ranks of the people. His father Joseph and his mother Mary were people in humble circumstances, artisans living by their labor, in the state so common in the East, which is neither ease nor poverty. The extreme simplicity of life in such countries, by dispensing with the need of comfort, renders the privileges of wealth almost useless, and makes everyone voluntarily poor. On the other hand, the total want of taste for art, and for that which contribute to the elegance of material life, gives a naked aspect to the house of him who otherwise wants for nothing. Apart from something sordid and repulsive which Islamism bears everywhere with it, the town of Nazareth, in the time of Jesus, did not perhaps much differ from what it is today. We see the streets where he played when a child, in the stony paths or little crossways which separate the dwellings. The house of Joseph doubtless much resembled those poor shops, lighted shop, by the door, serving at once for kitchen, and bedroom, having for furniture a mat, some cushions on the ground, one or two clay pots, and a painted chest.

The family, whether it proceeded from one or many marriages, was rather numerous. Jesus had brothers and sisters, of whom he seems to have been the eldest. All have remained obscure, for it appears that the four personages, who were named as his brothers, and among whom one, at least, James, had acquired great importance in the development of Christianity, were his cousins-german. Mary, in fact, had a sister also named Mary, who married a certain Alpheus or Cleophas (these two names appear to designate the same person), and was the mother of several sons who played a considerable part among the first disciples of Jesus. These cousins-german who adhered to the young Master, while his own brothers opposed him, took the title of “brothers of the Lord.” The real brothers of Jesus, like their mother, became important only after his death. Even then they do not appear to have equalled in importance their cousins, whose conversion had been more spontaneous, and whose character seems to have had more originality. Their names were so little known that when the evangelist put in the mouth of the men of Nazareth the enumeration of the brothers according to natural relationship, the names of the sons of Cleophas first presented themselves to him.

His sisters were married at Nazareth, and he spent the first years of his youth there. Nazareth was a small town in a hollow, opening broadly at the summit of the group of mountains which close the plain of Esdraelon on the north. The population is now from three to four thousand, and it can never have varied much. The cold there is sharp in winter, and the climate very healthy. The town, like all the small Jewish towns at this period, was a heap of huts built without style, and would exhibit that harsh and poor aspect which villages in Semitic countries now present. The houses, it seems, did not differ much from those cubes of stone, without exterior or interior elegance, which still cover the richest parts of the Lebanon, and which, surrounded with vines and fig-trees, are still very agreeable. The environs, moreover, are charming; and no place in the world was so well adapted for dreams of perfect happiness. Even in our times Nazareth is still a delightful abode, the only place, perhaps, in Palestine in which the mind feels itself relieved from the burden which oppresses it in this unequalled desolation. The people are amiable and cheerful; the gardens fresh and green. Anthony the Martyr, at the end of the sixth century, drew an enchanting picture of the fertility of the environs, which he compared to paradise. Some valleys on the western side fully justify his description. The fountain, where formerly the life and gaiety of the little town were concentrated, is destroyed; its broken channels contain now only a muddy stream. But the beauty of the women who meet there in the evening — that beauty which was remarked even in the sixth century, and which was looked upon as a gift of the Virgin Mary — is still most strikingly preserved. It is the Syrian type in all its languid grace. No doubt Mary was there almost every day, and took her place with her jar on her shoulder in the file of her companions who have remained unknown. Anthony the Martyr remarks that the Jewish women, generally disdainful to Christians, were here full of affability. Even now religious animosity is weaker at Nazareth than elsewhere.

1. He appears by the side of the Ancient of Days.

2. His face like appearance of a man, and yet so lovely,  like that of one of the holy Angels.

3. This Son of Man’ has, and with Him dwells, all righteousness.

4.  He reveals the treasures of all that is  hidden, being chosen by the Lord, is superior to all.

5. He is destined to  subdue and destroy all the powers and kingdoms of wickedness.

6.  His Name had been named  before God, before sun or stars were created. He is the staff on which
   the righteous lean, the light of nations, and the hope of all who mourn  in spirit.

7. All are to bow down before Him, and adore Him.

8.  He was chosen and hidden with God before the world was created, and
   will continue before Him for ever,

9.  The Messiah is to  sit on the throne of glory, and dwell among His saints. Heaven .

10. The Messiah forgives you of all of your sins and washes you as white as snow.

Brought to you by Learning By Grace, Inc., the nation’s premiere provider of online Christian homeschooling programs.

The MorningStar Academy

Mimi Rothschild

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have 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 creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them. And God blessed them and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:26-28

Does God say, let man be one of the fish of the sea, one of the fowl of the air, or one of the cattle of the earth; let him be related to all the animals on the earth? No, He instructs man to have dominion over these creatures. The purpose of God in creating man was that he would be distinct from the animals. Nothing happened to man until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life – then man became a living soul. God did not do this with the animal kingdom.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 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 to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:7-10, 15-20

Notice something about Adam: God did not create a baby and wait for him to grow up. On the day Adam was created he possessed all of his faculties, reflected intelligence, and was full-grown with all the appearance of age. That tells us something about God’s creation. When He created the tree, probably it had growth rings. When He created the mountain, it may have had the appearance of erosion and other indicators of age. Genesis 1:9 says that God caused the waters to gather and the dry land to appear. Some mountain-building probably occurred and possibly some erosion. In any case, the dry land and the mountains would have gained an appearance of age. Adam, created on the sixth day, could see light coming from stars created on the fourth day, though apparently millions of light years away. God created a full-grown, developed universe.

Adam named all the animals, but he did not find anyone who met his specification for a mate. Adam was totally unique. There was no help meet for him. “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:” and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto man” (Genesis 2:21-22). This is a most interesting portion of Scripture and probably one of the most scientific texts in the Bible. Investigation with frogs and other animals has led to some interesting results. Every cell in the body contains the same genetic structure. The nucleus of the skin cell of a frog can be used to replace the nucleus of an egg and eventually cause a tadpole to hatch. The cell, even though a skin cell, has the full template for the entire structure of a frog within it. In other words, every cell in the body has the same template. We do not as yet understand enough about this experiment to transfer the nuclei of skin cells to human eggs.

However, this scientific information suggests something about the method God used to create Eve. He took from Adam a rib. Some people charge the Bible with inaccuracy because men now have the same number of ribs as women, but this is a specious argument. If I lose my hand, my children will still be born with two hands. Adam had one less rib than Eve, but their offspring inherited the proper number of ribs. God took this particular portion of the body because it contained bony substance and fleshy material. From this He could perform a cell reduction (taking half of the chromosomes) and create woman. He could have created woman instantaneously of dust as He did Adam, but He chose to take a rib from Adam. Why?

1) This negates the possibility of theistic evolution or any other evolution. God says He took a rib from man and created woman. In biology we learn that the male has an X and Y chromosome, the female two X chromosomes. These separate and recombine to make makes and females. In taking a rib from Adam God was able to take two X chromosomes and create a female. Suppose He created woman first? She has only two X chromosomes – where would He get the Y? This parallels the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus Christ, born of a virgin. There is such a thing as parthenogenesis in rabbits, of course, with a female giving birth without the help of a male, but she always produces a female. One uniqueness of Jesus is that Y chromosome.

2) Adam was created first; then God taking the rib, produced a female. Why is that important? It demonstrates the uniqueness of Adam’s existence, for Adam came not from a woman. Every other male in this world came from a female. Why did God go to all the trouble to do it this way? It demonstrates the unity of the human race. Notice what Adam says in Genesis 2:23: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Have you ever wondered about the fact that on the day God created them, He created only one individual? Adam and Eve were one: the same genetic constitution, one individual, bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. That is why Eve could partake of the fruit and not plunge the whole human race into sin; Adam was the one held responsible. If God had created man from the dust and woman from the dust, Adam and Eve individually would have had to fall. Jesus Christ could come to save because Adam fell, and as all men die in Adam, so in Jesus Christ all men can be reborn into God’s family and be made alive (Romans 5:12).

Adam is the individual responsible for the fall of the human race. Eve fell in Adam, for he is the racial head, the one held responsible. This principle is important concerning the fall because our salvation is based upon it. Adam fell into sin, and every man born into Adam’s family was born to die. Thus every man must be reborn into God’s family through Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life. As in Adam all are children of Satan, so in the second Adam, Jesus Christ, all become children of God. Without man’s unity and fallen nature we would not have one way of salvation obtainable by all men.

Why be concerned with how man and woman came into being? God was very specific in how He created man and what He designed and created for him – so specific that we can take no position other that that He created them perfect. “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright” (Ecclesiastes 7:29).

God created Adam and Eve and gave them the genetic potential for all people on the earth today. Unfortunately, many men do not choose to believe this, but would rather say that somehow man evolved from a lower form of life. Or they may take the position (as some do) of a theistic evolutionist and say that two apes for some unknown reason fell on their knees; they looked upward, God mistook that for prayer, and He created man and woman. Or perhaps somehow God allowed them to evolve and, when they were ready, gave them a soul. in opposition to these variant possibilities, we must accept what God says or accept theories which go counter to the Biblical account.

Is a serious study of creation and a careful examination of the Genesis record essential to our Christian faith? Many people tell us that the Christian’s responsibility is simply to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. They tell us that the Christian should just try to glorify Him and not become overly concerned with doctrine and certain difficult areas of the Bible. After all, we really don’t possess a revelation that tells us how everything came into existence, but one which gives us spiritual guidelines and clarifies our responsibility to proclaim Jesus Christ. With that in mind, they say, why be concerned with creation? Why study creation at all?

An approach to Genesis from such a perspective would seem to lessen the significance of Biblical creation. In addition, Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection, Hugo Devries and his idea of mutation, and other events of the last hundred years, such as the Scopes Trial, have suggested that it is unscientific to believe the Biblical account. Thus many scientists have accepted only the theory of evolution. Finally, certain theologians of our day have yielded to the statements made by these scientists and inform us that the book of Genesis does not give a clear notion as to how God created the heavens and the earth, that it does not tell us when He created them, and that Genesis is not an account we can accept literally. Basically, the first eleven chapters of Genesis impart only suggestion or a “figurative rendition” of a beginning. We are told we cannot receive these chapters as literal truth because, after all, we “know” that the world evolved. Thus science classrooms around the country propagate the theory of evolution. Genesis is deemed the great myth of our time; anyone who believes it must be considered foolish.

What can we do about our dilemma? What defense can be established? Let us address ourselves first of all to the theologian who has thrown out the first eleven chapters of Genesis on the basis that it is non-scientific and cannot be accepted literally. Suppose we grant him that premise for a moment. We will reject the passage in question, labeling it myth and allegory. We will disclaim any statement in the passage regarding science, for we know that evolution is a valid law of science. On the basis of such a premise, however, and in an attempt to be consistent, we must necessarily throw out any references to these eleven chapter that appear in the rest of the Bible. Why? If the first eleven chapters are untrue, then a reference by any other writer to the first eleven chapters would only serve to perpetuate falsehoods.

Turn first to Exodus 20:8-11:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath day of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

If we eliminate the first eleven chapters of Genesis, then we must throw out this reference to those eleven chapters, for here in the eleventh verse we read, “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.”Such a statement is foolishness if evolution is true. Note, however, that this little verse appears in the midst of the Ten Commandments – and is the basis for one of the commandments. In effect God is saying, as I, God, created the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh, so shall you, man, work six days and rest on the seventh. Remember the seventh day; keep it holy and worship Me. James tells us that if we are guilty of breaking one of the commandments, we are guilty of breaking them all. If we deny the accuracy of verse eleven, we deny a premise upon which one of the Ten Commandments is based. And if Moses is untrustworthy here, we may well doubt is credibility elsewhere.

To dispute the correctness of verse eleven is to conceive that God, who revealed to Moses the writing on stone tablets, revealed something which contained a lie, which is contrary to His nature. If He wrote there with His own hand that He created everything in six days and we have proven scientifically that He could not do it. Then God has lied to us from the tablets of the Law. In addition, an inaccurate Mosaic account, here and throughout the Pentateuch, would bring into disrepute other verses in the Old Testament that deal with the Law, because the entire law is focused upon the Ten Commandments. If the Ten Commandments are wrong, the Law is void.

Many Old Testament writers refer to God’s work of creation in terms of the Genesis account. We read in Ecclesiastes 7:29, “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright . . .”The Psalmist says, “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:9); creation of the heavens was “the work of thy [God's] fingers”(Psalm 8:3). In Proverbs and in most of the prophets appear numerous references to God’s having created. God’s own testimony to the prophet Isaiah clearly specifies the consequences of setting aside the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it. And set it in order for me. Since I appointed the ancient people? And the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? Ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 44:6-8

After castigating man’s idolatrous worship, He continues,

Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.

Isaiah 44:24

In the following chapter we read,

I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me . . . I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do all these things . . . I have made the earth, and created man upon it. I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. Hi have raised him up in righteousness, I will direct all his ways. He shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price, nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts . . . For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens. God Himself that formed the earth and made it, he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited. I am the Lord, and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:5,7,12,13,18

Disregarding the authenticity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis on the basis that God did not create the heavens and earth requires that we reject the testimony of Isaiah – the testimony of God Himself – and declare that God is telling us a lie.

Now let us turn to the New Testament, still upholding the premise that evolution, as a valid law of science, supplants the first eleven chapters of Genesis. In Matthew 19:3-5 the Pharisees came to Jesus, “tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”He replied, “Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be on flesh?” In this passage verse 4 is taken from chapter 1 of Genesis, verse 5 from chapter 2. If evolution is true – if all things came about by natural causes, the results of such processes as natural selection and mutations, and uniformitarianism – we cannot accept the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, who placed His credence on the testimony of Genesis 1 and 2. Either Jesus did not know that the world evolved, He was deceived by some foolish idea that it was created, or He deliberately deceived us because the people of His day could not understand evolution and thus He patterned His words after ideas that would be acceptable in His day. None of these three choices helps the Bible very much. If we cannot accept His teaching concerning spiritual things, such as heaven and a life hereafter?

If the testimony of Matthew is not credible, we must doubt the gospel of Mark, which concurs with Matthew. The third gospel writer, Luke, in the book of Acts (chapter 17) recounts the experience of the Apostle Paul in Athens. Preaching on Mars Hill, Paul speaks of “the unknown God.” He introduces this particular God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the one who “giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” Not only in the book of Acts and the gospel of Luke, but also in the writings of John we find reference to the creation account. In fact, the gospel of John begins, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”He says of this individual who was in the beginning with God, “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.”Must we throw out the testimony of John because he begins his book with a faulty premise, the idea of creation? If this were so, we would have to discard the epistles of John and even Revelation. In Revelation 14:7 the angel in he midst of the tribulation period cries out one message, “Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the foundations of waters.” Apparently this angel was not informed that everything evolved.

In the writings of the apostle Paul, beginning in Romans 1, he speaks more than once of creation. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”(Romans 1:20). Paul is telling us here that if we are willing to accept the fact of creation and examine things from this point of view, the invisible attributes of God are evidenced by the creation.

If Paul is mistaken in Romans, we may have difficulty accepting his statements in other epistles, but let us focus upon some of his other declarations. In Colossians he affirms, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Colossians 1:16,17). The entire passage refers to Jesus Christ. If the creation account of Genesis 1 and 2 is not to be accepted as literal fact, we invalidate this presentation of Jesus Christ as Creator and deny a portion of His nature. We would also have to dismiss the testimony of Paul in I Corinthians 15:39, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.”Here Paul delineates four distinct kinds of flesh, each created separately. Every seed has its own body. If we sow barley, we will reap barley. One never plants wheat and reaps pomegranates. We always reap what we sow because things only reproduce after their kind, which is in accord with Genesis and the law of biogenesis.

Paul also tells us in I Corinthians 11 that

. . . a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (Verses 7-11)

He stresses that the first man was created in the image of God, but the first woman was taken from the side of Adam, created for the man. The first man did not come from a woman. That is impossible if evolution were true, for in evolution the first man would have had to be born of some female ancestor.

The author of Hebrews begins, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:1-2). If the worlds were not made, but evolved, the testimony of this book would become untrustworthy. Later in the book we likewise read, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Hebrews 11:3). This text, incidentally, affords an interesting description of the atom, of which all things consist.

The testimonies of James and Peter coincide with that of Paul. We find in James 1:18, “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” God does not have any creatures if He did not create anything. We might add, of course, that if everything evolved, there is no need for a God. The apostle Peter is consistent in confirming the fact of creation. “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the father fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” Peter comments, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; Whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water, perished” (II Peter 3:3-6). He is citing here the fact of creation and the fact of the Flood. Note also that he is basing the coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ upon these two events – the creation and the Flood. According to Peter, if we cannot verify the creation and the Flood, we have no way of verifying the second coming of Christ. Peter insists that any man who disbelieves those two accounts disbelieves the coming again and is willingly ignorant of the facts. If evolution is true, of course, Peter is willingly ignorant.

We have now disposed of all but one book of the New Testament. However, even the book of Jude presents a few problems, for it mentions Adam and angels, both of whom were created.

If evolution is true, we do not have a New Testament to preach. Jesus Christ is a martyr and a liar, a man who died in vain. If everything evolved, then you are the result of natural processes and possess no sin nature, but are simply the consequence of your animal ancestry. As Freud says, we must work hard to get rid of the beast in man. If evolution is fact, we have no Christian ethic, no morals, no future life. If we throw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis, the Word of God is nothing more than a book. In fact, there would be no Word of God.

To be logical and reasonable, then, since I am not willing to repudiate the opening chapters of Genesis, and because I have personally met the One who wrote them – Jesus Christ, who possesses supreme power and ultimate authority – I must accept what the Scriptures have to say. I will accept literally the first eleven chapters of Genesis, that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. I will affirm that creation took place rather recently, that man fell into sin while living in Eden, that there was a worldwide Flood.

Why is creation important? Because without creation there is nothing else. If there is no Creator, then there is no Saviour either. When someone says, “Present the message of Jesus Christ,” I heartily concur. But we must present the creative message of Jesus Christ because of who He claimed to be. Picture in your mind the person of Jesus Christ. Do you envision a man with a beard, perhaps rough and rugged, walking upon the earth? Do you see a man talking to children, at the well speaking to the woman, walking on the water, hanging upon a cross? If so, your picture is of Jesus Christ incarnate, in fashion like a man, performing an earthly ministry among men.

The apostle Paul, however, tells who Jesus really is, proclaiming that “we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” He is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.” By Jesus Christ “were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Colossians 1:14-16). Notice the all encompassing creative power of Christ. Everything that exists is either in heaven or in earth, visible or invisible. His power comprehends thrones and dominions, principalities (angels) and powers. All of these things were created by Him and for Him, and by Him all things consist. In other words, He is the power which holds the entire universe together. Thus creation is important because of its relationship to the One who created.

We have a tendency at times to be excessively concerned with what man has to say. When some professor tells us that evolution is a proven fact, or when we take the Bible off its inspired plane and attempt to make it coincide with man’s theories, we begin to have problems. The Bible instructs us to be “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (I Peter 3:15). This certainly includes the realm of scientific knowledge.

A fable is told of a small monkey who lived in the wilds of the jungle. He began to wonder why he and his friends did not go down to the river in the cool of the evening. After all, they went down after lunch in the warmth of the day to do a little skinny dipping. It would be equally delightful to go for a moonlight swim. He asked some of the other monkeys, but no one really seemed to know. Finally he came to his uncle, the wisest of all the monkeys in the clan. “Uncle, why don’t we go down to the river in the cool of the evening?”

His uncle replied, “We don’t go down there because the crocodiles come out. Crocodiles like to eat small monkeys.”

That bothered the small monkey a little bit, but he had never seen a crocodile. His friends likewise had never seen a crocodile. So he queried, “Uncle, have you ever seen a crocodile? How do you know crocodiles exist?”

“This information has been passed down to us from generation to generation. It is a well-known fact. If we could write, it would probably be recorded in the Dead Monkey Scrolls someplace.”

“What does a crocodile look like?”

“It is reported that crocodiles are long, thin animals with bumps on their bodies. They float down the river like logs. They have two beady eyes, sharp teeth, terrible breath – and they enjoy eating monkeys for dinner.”

That was rather frightening to small monkey, but he continues his questioning of other monkeys and could not find anyone who had ever seen a crocodile. Ultimately, he was convinced that crocodiles simply did not exist, so he set out one evening to prove his new-found wisdom. It was a beautiful evening, the perfect time to get rid of that old wives’ tale and superstition passed on by monkeys’ uncles. So ecstatic was he in his new-found wisdom that he did not even notice a log floating down the river. He wasn’t a bit perturbed when he heard a rustling in the brush behind him, when he felt hot breath down his back. Small monkey soon became crocodile’s dinner. The monkey had said that he refused to believe in crocodiles, but the old crocodile just chuckled, “O foolish monkey, to have said in your heart, there are no crocodiles.”

Man today considers it foolish to believe in God. He will ridicule you and call you a fool. But God replies, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). Man today with his new-found wisdom worships the creature, paying homage to his own knowledge and intellect. God warns, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). Peter says that the man who denies creation, the Flood, and the coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ is willfully ignorant of the facts. Personally, I would rather be called a fool by man because I believed in the wisdom of God than to be called a fool by God because I heeded the vain babblings and teachings of man. Just because man denies God and His law does not make God’s law null and void. I can deny the law of gravity all day, but the moment I step off a thirty story building, I fall in one direction. I can deny it all the way down, but my denial does not mean that I am not bound by its restraints. Man today, in denying God and His law, is still bound by the restraints of God’s law.

Creation – Why?

Is a serious study of creation and a careful examination of the Genesis record essential to our Christian faith? Many people tell us that the Christian’s responsibility is simply to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. They tell us that the Christian should just try to glorify Him and not become overly concerned with doctrine and certain difficult areas of the Bible. After all, we really don’t possess a revelation that tells us how everything came into existence, but one which gives us spiritual guidelines and clarifies our responsibility to proclaim Jesus Christ. With that in mind, they say, why be concerned with creation? Why study creation at all?

An approach to Genesis from such a perspective would seem to lessen the significance of Biblical creation. In addition, Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection, Hugo Devries and his idea of mutation, and other events of the last hundred years, such as the Scopes Trial, have suggested that it is unscientific to believe the Biblical account. Thus many scientists have accepted only the theory of evolution. Finally, certain theologians of our day have yielded to the statements made by these scientists and inform us that the book of Genesis does not give a clear notion as to how God created the heavens and the earth, that it does not tell us when He created them, and that Genesis is not an account we can accept literally. Basically, the first eleven chapters of Genesis impart only suggestion or a “figurative rendition” of a beginning. We are told we cannot receive these chapters as literal truth because, after all, we “know” that the world evolved. Thus science classrooms around the country propagate the theory of evolution. Genesis is deemed the great myth of our time; anyone who believes it must be considered foolish.

What can we do about our dilemma? What defense can be established? Let us address ourselves first of all to the theologian who has thrown out the first eleven chapters of Genesis on the basis that it is non-scientific and cannot be accepted literally. Suppose we grant him that premise for a moment. We will reject the passage in question, labeling it myth and allegory. We will disclaim any statement in the passage regarding science, for we know that evolution is a valid law of science. On the basis of such a premise, however, and in an attempt to be consistent, we must necessarily throw out any references to these eleven chapter that appear in the rest of the Bible. Why? If the first eleven chapters are untrue, then a reference by any other writer to the first eleven chapters would only serve to perpetuate falsehoods.

Turn first to Exodus 20:8-11:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath day of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

If we eliminate the first eleven chapters of Genesis, then we must throw out this reference to those eleven chapters, for here in the eleventh verse we read, “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” Such a statement is foolishness if evolution is true. Note, however, that this little verse appears in the midst of the Ten Commandments – and is the basis for one of the commandments. In effect God is saying, as I, God, created the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh, so shall you, man, work six days and rest on the seventh. Remember the seventh day; keep it holy and worship Me. James tells us that if we are guilty of breaking one of the commandments, we are guilty of breaking them all. If we deny the accuracy of verse eleven, we deny a premise upon which one of the Ten Commandments is based. And if Moses is untrustworthy here, we may well doubt is credibility elsewhere.

To dispute the correctness of verse eleven is to conceive that God, who revealed to Moses the writing on stone tablets, revealed something which contained a lie, which is contrary to His nature. If He wrote there with His own hand that He created everything in six days and we have proven scientifically that He could not do it. Then God has lied to us from the tablets of the Law. In addition, an inaccurate Mosaic account, here and throughout the Pentateuch, would bring into disrepute other verses in the Old Testament that deal with the Law, because the entire law is focused upon the Ten Commandments. If the Ten Commandments are wrong, the Law is void.

Many Old Testament writers refer to God’s work of creation in terms of the Genesis account. We read in Ecclesiastes 7:29, “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright . . .” The Psalmist says, “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:9); creation of the heavens was “the work of thy [God's] fingers” (Psalm 8:3). In Proverbs and in most of the prophets appear numerous references to God’s having created. God’s own testimony to the prophet Isaiah clearly specifies the consequences of setting aside the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it. And set it in order for me. Since I appointed the ancient people? And the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? Ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 44:6-8

After castigating man’s idolatrous worship, He continues,

Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.

Isaiah 44:24

In the following chapter we read,

I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me . . . I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do all these things . . . I have made the earth, and created man upon it. I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. Hi have raised him up in righteousness, I will direct all his ways. He shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price, nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts . . . For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens. God Himself that formed the earth and made it, he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited. I am the Lord, and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:5,7,12,13,18

Disregarding the authenticity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis on the basis that God did not create the heavens and earth requires that we reject the testimony of Isaiah – the testimony of God Himself – and declare that God is telling us a lie.

Now let us turn to the New Testament, still upholding the premise that evolution, as a valid law of science, supplants the first eleven chapters of Genesis. In Matthew 19:3-5 the Pharisees came to Jesus, “tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” He replied, “Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be on flesh?” In this passage verse 4 is taken from chapter 1 of Genesis, verse 5 from chapter 2. If evolution is true – if all things came about by natural causes, the results of such processes as natural selection and mutations, and uniformitarianism – we cannot accept the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, who placed His credence on the testimony of Genesis 1 and 2. Either Jesus did not know that the world evolved, He was deceived by some foolish idea that it was created, or He deliberately deceived us because the people of His day could not understand evolution and thus He patterned His words after ideas that would be acceptable in His day. None of these three choices helps the Bible very much. If we cannot accept His teaching concerning spiritual things, such as heaven and a life hereafter?

If the testimony of Matthew is not credible, we must doubt the gospel of Mark, which concurs with Matthew. The third gospel writer, Luke, in the book of Acts (chapter 17) recounts the experience of the Apostle Paul in Athens. Preaching on Mars Hill, Paul speaks of “the unknown God.” He introduces this particular God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the one who “giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” Not only in the book of Acts and the gospel of Luke, but also in the writings of John we find reference to the creation account. In fact, the gospel of John begins, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” He says of this individual who was in the beginning with God, “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” Must we throw out the testimony of John because he begins his book with a faulty premise, the idea of creation? If this were so, we would have to discard the epistles of John and even Revelation. In Revelation 14:7 the angel in he midst of the tribulation period cries out one message, “Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the foundations of waters.” Apparently this angel was not informed that everything evolved.

In the writings of the apostle Paul, beginning in Romans 1, he speaks more than once of creation. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). Paul is telling us here that if we are willing to accept the fact of creation and examine things from this point of view, the invisible attributes of God are evidenced by the creation.

If Paul is mistaken in Romans, we may have difficulty accepting his statements in other epistles, but let us focus upon some of his other declarations. In Colossians he affirms, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Colossians 1:16,17). The entire passage refers to Jesus Christ. If the creation account of Genesis 1 and 2 is not to be accepted as literal fact, we invalidate this presentation of Jesus Christ as Creator and deny a portion of His nature. We would also have to dismiss the testimony of Paul in I Corinthians 15:39, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” Here Paul delineates four distinct kinds of flesh, each created separately. Every seed has its own body. If we sow barley, we will reap barley. One never plants wheat and reaps pomegranates. We always reap what we sow because things only reproduce after their kind, which is in accord with Genesis and the law of biogenesis.

Paul also tells us in I Corinthians 11 that

. . . a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (Verses 7-11)

He stresses that the first man was created in the image of God, but the first woman was taken from the side of Adam, created for the man. The first man did not come from a woman. That is impossible if evolution were true, for in evolution the first man would have had to be born of some female ancestor.

The author of Hebrews begins, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:1-2). If the worlds were not made, but evolved, the testimony of this book would become untrustworthy. Later in the book we likewise read, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Hebrews 11:3). This text, incidentally, affords an interesting description of the atom, of which all things consist.

The testimonies of James and Peter coincide with that of Paul. We find in James 1:18, “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” God does not have any creatures if He did not create anything. We might add, of course, that if everything evolved, there is no need for a God. The apostle Peter is consistent in confirming the fact of creation. “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the father fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” Peter comments, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; Whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water, perished” (II Peter 3:3-6). He is citing here the fact of creation and the fact of the Flood. Note also that he is basing the coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ upon these two events – the creation and the Flood. According to Peter, if we cannot verify the creation and the Flood, we have no way of verifying the second coming of Christ. Peter insists that any man who disbelieves those two accounts disbelieves the coming again and is willingly ignorant of the facts. If evolution is true, of course, Peter is willingly ignorant.

We have now disposed of all but one book of the New Testament. However, even the book of Jude presents a few problems, for it mentions Adam and angels, both of whom were created.

If evolution is true, we do not have a New Testament to preach. Jesus Christ is a martyr and a liar, a man who died in vain. If everything evolved, then you are the result of natural processes and possess no sin nature, but are simply the consequence of your animal ancestry. As Freud says, we must work hard to get rid of the beast in man. If evolution is fact, we have no Christian ethic, no morals, no future life. If we throw out the first eleven chapters of Genesis, the Word of God is nothing more than a book. In fact, there would be no Word of God.

To be logical and reasonable, then, since I am not willing to repudiate the opening chapters of Genesis, and because I have personally met the One who wrote them – Jesus Christ, who possesses supreme power and ultimate authority – I must accept what the Scriptures have to say. I will accept literally the first eleven chapters of Genesis, that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days. I will affirm that creation took place rather recently, that man fell into sin while living in Eden, that there was a worldwide Flood.

Why is creation important? Because without creation there is nothing else. If there is no Creator, then there is no Saviour either. When someone says, “Present the message of Jesus Christ,” I heartily concur. But we must present the creative message of Jesus Christ because of who He claimed to be. Picture in your mind the person of Jesus Christ. Do you envision a man with a beard, perhaps rough and rugged, walking upon the earth? Do you see a man talking to children, at the well speaking to the woman, walking on the water, hanging upon a cross? If so, your picture is of Jesus Christ incarnate, in fashion like a man, performing an earthly ministry among men.

The apostle Paul, however, tells who Jesus really is, proclaiming that “we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” He is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.” By Jesus Christ “were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Colossians 1:14-16). Notice the all encompassing creative power of Christ. Everything that exists is either in heaven or in earth, visible or invisible. His power comprehends thrones and dominions, principalities (angels) and powers. All of these things were created by Him and for Him, and by Him all things consist. In other words, He is the power which holds the entire universe together. Thus creation is important because of its relationship to the One who created.

We have a tendency at times to be excessively concerned with what man has to say. When some professor tells us that evolution is a proven fact, or when we take the Bible off its inspired plane and attempt to make it coincide with man’s theories, we begin to have problems. The Bible instructs us to be “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (I Peter 3:15). This certainly includes the realm of scientific knowledge.

A fable is told of a small monkey who lived in the wilds of the jungle. He began to wonder why he and his friends did not go down to the river in the cool of the evening. After all, they went down after lunch in the warmth of the day to do a little skinny dipping. It would be equally delightful to go for a moonlight swim. He asked some of the other monkeys, but no one really seemed to know. Finally he came to his uncle, the wisest of all the monkeys in the clan. “Uncle, why don’t we go down to the river in the cool of the evening?”

His uncle replied, “We don’t go down there because the crocodiles come out. Crocodiles like to eat small monkeys.”

That bothered the small monkey a little bit, but he had never seen a crocodile. His friends likewise had never seen a crocodile. So he queried, “Uncle, have you ever seen a crocodile? How do you know crocodiles exist?”

“This information has been passed down to us from generation to generation. It is a well-known fact. If we could write, it would probably be recorded in the Dead Monkey Scrolls someplace.”

“What does a crocodile look like?”

“It is reported that crocodiles are long, thin animals with bumps on their bodies. They float down the river like logs. They have two beady eyes, sharp teeth, terrible breath – and they enjoy eating monkeys for dinner.”

That was rather frightening to small monkey, but he continues his questioning of other monkeys and could not find anyone who had ever seen a crocodile. Ultimately, he was convinced that crocodiles simply did not exist, so he set out one evening to prove his new-found wisdom. It was a beautiful evening, the perfect time to get rid of that old wives’ tale and superstition passed on by monkeys’ uncles. So ecstatic was he in his new-found wisdom that he did not even notice a log floating down the river. He wasn’t a bit perturbed when he heard a rustling in the brush behind him, when he felt hot breath down his back. Small monkey soon became crocodile’s dinner. The monkey had said that he refused to believe in crocodiles, but the old crocodile just chuckled, “O foolish monkey, to have said in your heart, there are no crocodiles.”

Man today considers it foolish to believe in God. He will ridicule you and call you a fool. But God replies, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). Man today with his new-found wisdom worships the creature, paying homage to his own knowledge and intellect. God warns, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). Peter says that the man who denies creation, the Flood, and the coming again of the Lord Jesus Christ is willfully ignorant of the facts. Personally, I would rather be called a fool by man because I believed in the wisdom of God than to be called a fool by God because I heeded the vain babblings and teachings of man. Just because man denies God and His law does not make God’s law null and void. I can deny the law of gravity all day, but the moment I step off a thirty story building, I fall in one direction. I can deny it all the way down, but my denial does not mean that I am not bound by its restraints. Man today, in denying God and His law, is still bound by the restraints of God’s law.

Many homeschoolers are beginning to think about how to create an educational program for their children that meets the needs of the students that we currently have, not the students that we used to have, nor the students ee wished we had. Homeschooling programs should adapt to today’s student, not them adapting to us. Homeschoolers should begin to think about how to adapt their world to today’s 21st-century. It is not wise to teach the sam,e exact way we have taught for the past 200 years anymore. It is important to change ourselves to adapt to their world

Today’s student who was born between 1982 and 2001 are the first people of the networked generation. They are hyper communicators, and when they are doing their schoolwork, they do not necessarily lose their desire to be in instant communication with everyone. Students are writing more blogs in short text messages than ever before. They are videotaping their lives. Do students even read lengthily documents anymore? I do not believe so. I believe that the rapid firing messages that our students are bombarded with on a daily basis have actually rewired the brain. Today’s students has grown up in a very visual environment, and they love it.

One of the cardinal principles which we must learn to follow if we expect to maintain and warmth of contact with our children is that when the child shares his problems with us, we must not treated lightly. Regardless of how trivial the matter here’s to the parent, it ought to be of real concern if it is bothering the child. To shrug one’s parental shoulders and insist that this is no problem at all is the quickest and most effective way of saying to your child that we really do not understand or care much about what he has on his mind. It is one way of making sure that the child will not come to the parent the next time he is confronted with a problem. On the other hand, by looking the child in the eye and listening attentively to him while he is telling his story, even if this means stopping in the middle of a task that we had thought was urgent taking him seriously.

Let’s remember, when our sons and daughters want to talk, let them! There is the rather natural adult tendency to interrupt the child with advice giving, suggestions, reminders of what he ought and ought not to have done. The sound of their own voices is sweet to most parents. This course of action may make the parents feel good by inflating his ego and making it possible for him to play the role of a superior, of one who knows all the answers and whose wisdom the child ought to listen. This, however, does not help the child in getting his problem out in the open, in the presence of an understanding, this thing, excepting parent. To interrupt with why in the world did you do that? Or, you ought to know better! Now you listen to me! Simply shuts the child up in ruins the confidential relationship, which might have developed.

When we write of the inadvisability of lecturing a child when he wants to talk to the parent, we can do so with conviction! Recently recently, my nephew was trying to confess in misdemeanor with a desperate hope that his father would understand. In the midst of the sons pouring out his rather surprising and exciting story, the father could not resist the temptation to lecture. When he finished, the sons only reply was, “Yes sir, boss!” He never finished his story. This spoke volumes to the father who is now much more careful about dispensing his lectures and who works hard not being shocked if anything is child wants to share. Often our sons and daughters come to us in the first place because they feel guilty and unworthy: they have not come to listen to shocked and upset parents deliver a diatribe which underscores their feeling of guilt.

Have you noticed that in areas where there is heavy and confusing traffic, there is often a safety zone provided to protect the pedestrian? Just so, children need safety zones when the pressures of their emotions become bewildering. The chance to verbally blow off steam to a listening parent if they needed safety zone when the youngster is confronted with a complex accompanying the process of growing up.

When the child is faced with a baffling situation, nothing is quite as therapeutic as having the opportunity to talk his problem out with someone who is ready to be the latest in. Even when there is no particular problem to be solved, big youngster needs an interested list there who doesn’t mind halting what he is doing long enough to hear the detailed description of what happened at school today or if a new friend at Sunday school. Parents need to take this time to say to the child, “I am interested in what you are doing. You are important to me. I’m glad to share your feelings.”

It does sometimes take pleading with oneself to accept a child’s emotions when he is expressing them verbally, but it pays off big dividends in the child’s best emotional development. All of us of our children. Is yours a listening love?