Old Creation & New Creation

Welcome to Have You Not Read, a podcast seeking to answer questions from the texts of scripture for the honor of Christ and the edification of the saints.

Before we dig into our topic, we humbly ask you to rate, review, and share the podcast.

Thank you. My name is Chris Giesler. Today with me are Michael Durham David Kassin And we have a couple of questions we'd like to address.

Let's start with this one. Isaiah 6520 is a common verse used by dispensational apologists to claim that the idea of a millennial kingdom is not just taught in Revelation 20.

This verse says that people will have long lives, but will still die, which fits with their idea of a millennial

Jewish kingdom. What is your interpretation of this verse? Well, I think it's a good question. I think it's a question that comes from a desire to not only read the

Bible, but believe the Bible and to interpret it faithfully. And it entails a crafting of our hope.

What do we anticipate? What are we looking forward to? What is it that we believe that God will do? And so we want to be encouraged by the promises of God.

So when we go to Isaiah chapter 65 and we open it up, we read in verse 20 some descriptors that are very good news indeed.

No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days.

For the child shall die 100 years old, but the sinner, being 100 years old, shall be accursed.

And then there's more description that follows. I'm going to read this more in full, but when you read a passage like that, don't we want to know more?

We want to know more about this. This puts images into our minds that should warm our hearts, should enrich our hopes.

So if we back up a little bit to verse 17, we read this. For behold,

I create new heavens and a new earth. God is the creator, and he says,

I create new heavens and a new earth. And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.

Okay, so we think of heaven and we think of earth, new ones that will make the old forgettable.

Okay, well, verse 18 says, but be glad. That might be a little consternation, like, well, you know,

I like my earth, you know. What's wrong with it? Verse 18 says, but be glad.

Be glad. Do not be full of consternation. Do not be worried and afraid.

Don't be full of anxiety at this great change, right? But be glad and rejoice forever in what

I create. Behold, I create Jerusalem. So do you hear what

God is saying there through Isaiah? First he says, I create new heavens and a new earth.

Now don't let that upset you. Rejoice in what I'm creating. He says, I create Jerusalem.

So Hebrew parallelism, one line explains another.

When God says, I create a new heaven and a new earth, he says, I create Jerusalem.

He's explaining, he's layering in the metaphors. Something that we see in Revelation 21, wherein

God declares new heaven and a new earth and then he says, come look at the city, the bride of Christ, right?

Which is Jerusalem, heavenly Jerusalem. So we can tell this is familiar territory if we've been reading

Revelation. Now he says, for behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing and her people a joy.

That goes well since Isaiah has been instructing by word of the Lord, be glad and rejoice forever in what

I create. It's a city full of rejoicing and you need to rejoice too. And God says, verse 19,

I rejoice, I will rejoice in Jerusalem and joy in my people. So you see how he identifies the city with the people, right?

Not with the architecture, not with a temple or walls or banners, but what does he mean?

In my people, I will rejoice in Jerusalem and joy in my people. That's the parallelism. He's focusing on the people of this city.

The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, nor the voice of crying. Then we come to verse 20.

No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days.

For the child shall die 100 years old, and the sinner being 100 years old shall be accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them.

They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit. They shall not plant and another eat.

For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of my people, and my elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth children for trouble. For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the

Lord, and their offspring with them. It shall come to pass that before they call

I will answer, and while they are still speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together.

The lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, says the

Lord. So we begin by hearing about a new heavens and a new earth. We hear the parallel that this is

Jerusalem. God focuses in on the people there in Jerusalem, that they are at peace, that they are delivered from essentially the curse, that they're not under curse but they are under blessing.

And there is all manner of scenes of shalom all throughout this city, and then

God wraps it up by talking about this is my holy mountain. So layering in those things

I think is important. New heaven and new earth, I create Jerusalem, this is my holy mountain. These are metaphors that the

New Testament takes up to speak about the new covenant, to talk about those who are in Christ.

And so one instinct that we need to have in reading this passage is, hey, I wonder how

Jesus understood this passage. I wonder how his apostles read this passage and how they would interpret it, and begin to look for cross -references.

Yeah, probably literally. You probably read it literally. According to the literature.

Yeah. Right. That's what it should be. Yeah, you have to define the term literally. You're reading it according to the author's intent.

So the author is writing in a well -understood

Hebrew form, a parallelism. He's got parallelism going in terms of its structure.

You have rich metaphors being laid one on top of the other in a kind of apocalyptic type of material.

How are we to read this? You know? These are very rich metaphors that are meant, these are images of pictures worth a thousand words.

Well, metaphors in the Bible are worth a thousand meditations. What is going on here?

Look at the beautiful things that are being described in this passage. However, this is not the first time that Isaiah has been writing about new heavens, new earth, and creating

Jerusalem, and talking about his holy mountain. These are themes. We're in Isaiah 65. We're about done with the book.

There are a lot of instances of Isaiah talking about these very themes earlier in the book.

We really need to know what those passages say before we know what this passage says, because we want to read them in context.

So Isaiah, moved along by the Holy Spirit, has labored to develop these themes. Now we're at a point, kind of like a doxology, and the themes are bright, they're glowing, they're converging together in this chapter.

And if we're not careful, we're going to miss the beauty of the passage, if we don't understand how these metaphors have been developed throughout the book of Isaiah already.

And even within this one chapter, I mean, we're jumping into 17, where he's talking about a specific thing, but this is in contrast to the first half of the chapter, which is about God's judgment on a specific people, is what it looks like.

And then he's like, be glad, because I'm doing a new creation, and he specifically mentions

Jerusalem. So even within the one chapter. So yeah, like you're saying, going back and picking up all of that context would be...

I mean, you see that chapter after chapter, especially in Isaiah, I mean, one of the famous ones is Isaiah 61, where Jesus says, you know, the

Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord is anointed to bring good news to the poor, and send me to bind up the broken heart, and proclaim liberty to the captives, and proclaim the favorable year of the

Lord. And then that same chapter starts talking more about judgment. And then it goes back to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes, oil of gladness instead of mourning, and then you shall eat the wealth of those nations.

And then it goes into, a little bit more, more of Zion's coming salvation, because God is judging his enemies.

And then their salvation is wrapped up in the protection and judgment of their enemies that is coming, and their salvation is a part of that.

It's all kind of all juxtaposed. And it looks like, as you had just said, the earlier chapters talk about that judgment and vengeance, and then this incredible blessing on God's people.

This is not a new theme. This isn't the first time that Isaiah talks about this. That's correct.

And, you know, it's kind of a funny thing to ask, but when you're reading there in Isaiah 65, and he says,

I create a new heavens and a new earth, and he says, I'm creating Jerusalem, you know, one of my questions is, where'd the old ones go?

You know, God, you already created Jerusalem, you're doing it again?

You know, Genesis 1, 1, God, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, you're doing it again?

Well, what was wrong with the old? Well, when you back up in Isaiah, so here's a good example, in Isaiah chapter 51,

God, of course, is dealing with these realities through Isaiah. Look, the people of Israel have not been faithful to the covenant.

They've been sinning and breaking covenant. God's curses are coming upon them, and the future for Jerusalem is not bright.

Destruction and judgment are on their way, and that's not very happy to hear, but there is comfort.

Comfort, oh comfort, my people, and God is showing kindness and comfort to his people in the hopes of the

Messiah. But when we get to Isaiah 51, and we read verse 6, we read,

Lift up your eyes to the heavens and look on the earth beneath. Okay, here we go, heavens and the earth, all right?

Let's look at this together. For the heavens will vanish away like smoke, uh -oh, and the earth will grow old like a garment, that's not good, and those who dwell in it will die in like manner.

This sounds bad, but my salvation will be forever and my righteousness will not be abolished.

So the heavens and the earth are going to vanish away and grow old, goodbye, judgment's on the way, death is on the way.

Well, we've been hearing a lot about that in Isaiah. I mean, if you just read all of Isaiah, can't do it tonight in this podcast, but you hear these themes.

This is the judgment of God. Well, what are we going to do now without the heavens and the earth?

What are we going to do? Well, Isaiah chapter 51 doesn't leave us hanging too long, and we read in verse 16, speaking to his servant,

I have put my words in your mouth, I have covered you with the shadow of my hand, that I may plant the heavens, lay the foundations of the earth, and say to Zion, you are my people.

Oh, so he does away with the old heavens and the old earth in order to create the new heavens and the new earth, and when he says plant, that has the idea of something that starts off small, but it's going to grow really big.

When you lay the foundation of something, that's where you start your structure, and then you build upon it, and how is he going to do that?

By putting his words in the mouth of his servant, and his servant is going to bring about this new heaven and new earth, this new creation, and God is going to say to Zion, you are my people, everybody who is in Zion.

That corresponds rather well with what we read in Isaiah 65, about a new heaven and a new earth, and I create

Jerusalem with a people of rejoicing, and all y 'all in my holy mountain Zion.

Okay, so these themes are something, and this is one example, Isaiah 51, there are many other examples, even as far back as Isaiah chapter 2, about how

God is speaking about his plan to do a new thing, and he uses a lot of different metaphors to describe that new thing, and one of those metaphors is a heaven and an earth.

Now, when he says, I'm going to make a new heaven and a new earth, and I'm going to do it through his word in the mouth of his servant, and this new heaven and a new earth is basically a new city, and it's

Mount Zion, and a new people, and we read those themes in the New Testament, what do we come up with?

Oh, it's the new covenant. It's a new order, it's a new way of doing things, and heaven and earth make a wonderful metaphor for a new structure, right?

So heaven and earth, you have your stars at night and landmarks during the day. You know exactly where you are by the heavens and the earth.

There is the structure of the world, this is the world in which you live, right?

It defines everything. You know, where do heaven and earth meet? The horizon. It's a wonderful metaphor to describe, this is the order that God has made.

This is the order that God has put into place. And so when we read, when things get really disorderly, when there's judgment of God upon a nation, upon a system, any kind of system, what happens to the heavens?

The heavens fall, they're shaken, stars fall, lose their light. Right. When Edom goes down, there goes the moon, there goes the sun, there goes the stars, it's power outage, right?

Power down. And what happens when God comes in judgment? What happens to the earth? Well, the mountains melt like wax and the islands, you know, hitch up their skirts and run away.

Now, how do we read that according to the literature, right? When God came in judgment, did he melt all the mountains like wax or do we still have mountains today?

When God came in judgment, did all the islands in the Mediterranean hitch up their skirts and run away?

No. But what are mountains? And what are islands? And what are stars? They are?

Landmarks, guideposts. Yeah. Guideposts, navigation. Hey, I know where I'm at. There's nothing so disorienting than when the entire sociopolitical system just completely is erased and something else comes in to take its place.

So these are good metaphors to describe, hey, God's going to do a whole new thing.

The old heavens and the old earth, in other words, the old covenant is going to pass away and there's a whole new thing rolling into town.

It's similar, but it's going to be better and greater. So that's what Isaiah is talking about here.

And how do we know that? Well, we don't just rely on Isaiah 65 verse 20 and that's all we look at.

And we don't even just rely on the second half of Isaiah 65. We read that passage in its broader context and we discover, oh, he's using metaphorical language to get at spiritual realities.

And then not only do we have that light, but we actually have the other prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Daniel who will say similar things.

I was just looking at Joel. Just like he used this exact same language and many people think he's actually quoting

Isaiah. Exactly. This kind of physical blessing and judgment that goes back and forth and uses a lot of the same decreation language.

And then we get to the New Testament and we see Jesus and the apostles take up passages out of Isaiah, like Isaiah 65, and then how do they describe it?

We let the light of Christ be our guide, understanding what this passage is about.

And instead of me fixating on a lion - Laying down with a lamb.

Laying down with a lamb. Eating grass. Like a lion eating a straw in his mouth and so on and so forth.

Is that the point? Is the point of the passage about how lions become herbivores?

Or is there something richer going on? And knowing Isaiah, I'd say there's something richer going on, right?

There's something deeper going on. There's something really, really interesting going on given all of the promises of God in the context of the history of Israel.

Now this, I think, can make some folks nervous, right? And I understand why.

Because hey, don't you want to take Bible seriously? Yeah. Yeah. Is the accusation you're spiritualizing the text?

Hey, you're spiritualizing the text or - I want to take it literally. It says these people are going to have long lives and then they're going to die, therefore my understanding of a millennial kingdom where this, you know, where you have really good government, really good healthcare, people are going to have really long lives, that's the implication.

But what you're saying is that focusing on that verse in an attempt to be literal and take the

Bible seriously, you're actually not doing so. You are taking it out of context and applying it in a way the author didn't intend.

Yeah. So for example, I think what we can all agree on is that we want to interpret the Bible biblically.

Yes. And I would say this, that because God is a good communicator, he's the best, perfect.

That whatever he has given to us by his Holy Spirit who bore holy men along and every word that they wrote was superintended with the truth of God just as he would have it.

And then we read this, that the plain meaning of the text is the biblical meaning of the text.

But just because I think it's plain to me, this is just about eating habits of lions, doesn't mean that is the plain meaning of the text.

The plain meaning of the text is the one that God intended for us to understand. And if I'm missing it, it's my fault and I've got to grow and I've got to learn.

Now let's do something interesting with this passage. If indeed new heaven and new earth and creating

Jerusalem all anew, if this really is about the new covenant, then this would be a passage that would be in contrast with the old covenant.

Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. Yes. So when we begin reading about weeping, crying, no more, here is the good of infants.

Here's what's going to happen with your houses, vineyards, your eating habits. When you read all of that and then you go read the curses of the covenant in Deuteronomy, this is an absolute reversal.

Line for line. Reversal of the curses that came with violating the old covenant.

And these were all the curses that they were currently living under in Isaiah's day for their unfaithfulness.

But this is showing a complete reversal of the curse and not just the curses that we read about in the

Sinaitic covenant, but we begin to hear about the reversal of the curse that fell because of Adam himself.

The wolf and the lamb, the lion and the sheep, even all of that is getting turned back.

So all of this is just being utterly reversed. All of the curses and all of the problems of sin that we see the folks struggling with all throughout the covenants that God made with man, the whole thing just gets rolled right back in total reversal.

And apparently someone's going to come bear the curse and there's blessings now in the new creation that God brings.

Yeah. I think Isaiah addressed that one as well, who it is that bears that curse. Yes. So that's how

I would read Isaiah 65 with all of its rich imagery, but it's not the way that I would read

Genesis 1 and 2. Yeah. And then that brings us to another question. So we have the issue of kind of hermeneutics, how we are looking at a text, literally meaning according to the text.

So Isaiah here is using a lot of metaphors and images to paint a picture.

What about Genesis? So we had a question come in. It says, I'm struggling with a massive amount of anxiety over the fact that my leaders in my church reject a literal historical view of Genesis.

So there's that word literal, in favor of a secular view. Any insight would be welcome. Is it extreme to wonder whether it's time to leave?

They seem to sold on so many other issues, so I don't know what to think about it.

Thanks. You think they're sold or solid? Solid. Solid. Maybe I misread that. Yeah. Solid on other issues.

Okay. I just want to make sure. Yeah. Solid on other issues, but this question about a literal historical interpretation of Genesis.

Yeah. That's a good question. I think that the anxiety side of it is going to be associated with uncertainty as to the importance of this particular issue.

How important is it? So when we read Genesis chapters one and two and much of what follows, many people will look at this and say, look at the structure, look at the repetition, look at the beauty of the passage, look how rich it is, look at how many themes are brought together in such a short time in a wonderful portion of scripture.

Look how Genesis one and Genesis two are just doing different things and we have these fanciful tales about a serpent talking and a worldwide global flood.

And let's just be honest, we know that our universe is billions of years old.

Obviously this is a rich, wonderful metaphor given to us from God, but it's not dealing with history.

It's answering mystery, but it's not revealing history. And there's a whole bunch of other reasons given for that.

So it depends on your approach into this particular subject. If you're taking the side of our current version of science, and you'll have to let me know which one that is because it just keeps changing.

It's hard to keep up. The amount of times that they have to erase their blackboards that they thought they would stand forever.

Settled science. Yeah, settled science just keeps on getting erased over and over and over again. So which version of science are you into right now?

It's interesting because some people are holding on to what they believe are facts from 20 years ago and the academy has moved way past it.

There were things in our textbook that were years old that I know for a fact that the people that believe in evolution do not hold to.

They'll say, no, that's old, but that's still in the text. Everything's very fluted on the move and uncertain. But even that, if you say, well, it can't possibly mean that because we're so certain about X, Y, and Z, you'll have to let me know by what standard you are evaluating those truth claims because you are subjecting the

Bible to that authority. Now some people will come at this and say it's not to be received as history because of its poetry.

The only problem with that is that when you read Hebrew poetry, the way that it's constructed, the components of Hebrew poetry, they're not here in Genesis 1 and 2 and following.

It's just not there. So we have to pay attention to how it's written.

And how it's written is like 1 Samuel, it is written as if it's to be received as history.

Here's what's happening here at the beginning. And then there was another day. And by the way, this day was a morning and an evening. As if we would be in a situation where we'd say, a day could be a metaphorical, like the day of the

Lord, or, you know, it's a day like a thousand years, but no, it's evening and morning. That's the day.

Evening and morning. That's the day. How do we know evening from morning? It's dark and light. And all of this is explained for us in the text that we're supposed to be taking this as an actual historical event, a series of historical events.

Is it beautiful? Yes. Is it exquisitely structured? Yes. Is it filled with rich language?

Yes. Does it take aim against the idolatry of the Israelites that they brought with them up out of Egypt?

Yes. It does all of that. And it's still sacred history, just like other historical passages, like David and Goliath is doing more than simply relating a tale.

It's doing a lot of things all at once. This is the richness of scripture. So when we read about how

God made the sun and how he made the moon, how he made the stars, and how he made Adam and Eve in his own image, and what he did with the garden, and so on and so forth, we're not reading apocalyptic metaphors.

We're reading about how the base ingredients from which all the metaphors to be made were made.

Why is heaven and earth a good metaphor? Because of how God actually made the heaven and earth. Why is it that a lion is different from a lamb?

Why is it that it's not good for the man to be alone? What is it about the sun, moon, and stars that make them good metaphors to be governing authorities?

Because they govern the evening and the morning. So all of the ingredients...

Even why the need for a new heaven and a new earth, they're in the fall. Yeah, they're in chapter three.

So what we're reading about is how God made everything, and all of the ingredients, maybe not all of them, but here are so many of the ingredients for the metaphors yet to come, but this is how

God made them, and he made them in a certain way to bring glory to his name. So that's why this should not be read as some sort of...

The text is not calling for us to interpret this symbolically. You'll notice that prior to Genesis 1 .1,

we don't have anything. Where's the context? I'm not reading about heaven and earth in Genesis 1 .1

having chapters upon chapters upon chapters of developing of a theme wherein

I would know that this is a rich metaphor. This is heaven and earth God created in the beginning.

But you have some similarities here. So you said that Genesis 1 .2, against the idolatry that the

Israelites were bringing with them out of Egypt. You are reading

Genesis 1 and 2 in context. You're saying that it starts here, there's nothing before it, but there's a reason why

Moses has this written down. I mean, Genesis 1 through 11 is a lot of history, and it's pretty compact.

It leads up to Abraham, Genesis 12. So these are what Israel needs to know about who

God is, who is this pillar that's leading them into the promised land, and that it just starts with him.

Okay, we don't take Genesis 1 .1 completely out of context, but it is the beginning.

And those metaphors or stories or anything else, the narratives that flow, really flow from that point of origin.

When you were in Isaiah 65, you said this is part of a pattern.

And you weren't trying to take it out of context, you were trying to put it into context. So granted that we're dealing with two different genres of literature, separated by a lot of time and different human authors, but you still seem to be applying the same principles.

So what would you say charge -wise, if someone charges you with, well, you're just spiritualizing 65, but you're taking

Genesis 1 literally, that's hypocritical. How would you respond to that? Because it looks like you're kind of trying to do the same thing, put them both in context, but Genesis 1 does have a starting point.

It is a starting point. Well, I would commend the person bringing that criticism for their desire to have a consistent hermeneutics.

That's 100 % what we should be doing. And it would seem as if, why could you read one passage full of spiritual metaphors, but the other passage, this is actual history?

Well, in some sense, the definition of terms is proceeding from a presupposition that needs to be examined.

Now, that presupposition is backed with a desire to be consistent. But the answer to being consistent in our reading of the

Bible is not a commitment to literalism. Literalism is, in some folks' definition, means that whatever you're reading, you need to think of it in real concrete terms in space and time.

This is actually how it happens or how it will happen. It's a real lion eating real straw. And if you don't read it that way, then you're not being faithful to the

Bible. Well, actually, if I don't read it that way, I'm not being faithful to the literalists' way of reading the

Bible. Nor their presuppositions that they have not yet voiced. Right. So, I would agree with a desire to, you know, hey,

Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Genesis 3, all the way through Genesis 11, this really happened.

This was real, genuine history. And there really was King David. And there really were miracles.

The sun really did stop in the sky. These are real, genuine, historical things that happened. How do

I know that? Because Jesus told me. When I'm reading in the New Testament and Jesus tells me from the beginning, here's how it went down.

And it's by faith that we know that God created these things out of nothing. The way that the

Scripture interprets the Scripture, I know that this is genuine, historical reality.

Because the light shown by Jesus Christ tells me that. Now, what about what he and his apostles do with Isaiah 65, right?

They don't come at that in the exact same way. There is such a thing as heaven and earth.

If there wasn't a real thing as a heaven and earth that God created, a structured, ordered universe that God created, then how can we even have the metaphor of heavens and earth?

We don't even have the metaphor because we don't have the concrete reality. Now that we have the concrete reality, then all sorts of metaphors are being used.

If we just pay attention to the way that Jesus teaches, if we look at the way that the apostles teach and then we look at the way that the prophets preach, we keep running into word picture after word picture after word picture.

That doesn't mean that they're not being biblical, they're being very, very biblical by using all of these metaphors to describe who

God is and what he is up to. So it's not a cop -out to say, well, if there's something I see in the

Bible that I don't like, that doesn't fit with what I believe, I just say, oh, this is just a spiritual meaning.

That can be done and people have done that. And so the critique is well worth considering.

But the answer for consistency, which I would agree with, we need to have a consistent hermeneutics, is that Christ is the light of the world and so he's the light of the word.

And as the word of God who became flesh and as the image of the invisible God, as the light of the world and as truth is in Jesus, I want to know what he thinks about it first and foremost.

I'm to have the mind of Christ in this matter. Now he didn't write a commentary on every single passage in the

Old Testament, the law, the prophets and the writings. He didn't tell us exactly every single detail about Ezekiel, which would have been nice and helpful if he would have, but he didn't.

But what he did was he said all kinds of things to the scholars of his day about how they were reading the scriptures and he kept telling them, you're missing the point.

It is these that testify of me. They really thought that what the

Old Testament was on and on and on about was a great big wonderful golden temple, which is why they would take every single last mite from a widow to make it that golden, beautiful temple.

And Jesus came and said, destroy this temple and in three days I'll raise it up. Yeah. Well, and I think that is a good kind of testing point for if you're over spiritualizing the texts.

Well, Jesus and the apostles apply it to him. It's these that testify of him. We have some modern day people that are starting to come to scripture and say it's the best book ever written, but it's all in psychological terms and we interpret it through the arch types of psychology.

They're hermeneutic is not Christ. They don't understand those metaphors in those texts to be speaking about Christ, whereas Christ does.

And so if you're talking to someone and they're trying to be faithful to Jesus who was an actual person and we're going to interpret it as best we can without over spiritualizing it to where it doesn't mean anything,

I think that would be a good spot to start. Well, I think there's a lot of agreement. I think there's a lot of agreement and unity around this desire to read the scriptures faithfully, consistently, and to not be whimsical according to patterns and fashions and desires and just change up our interpretation of the

Bible all the time. We are not to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. And you're talking about Bible -believing

Christians who believe the word are submitted to Christ. Christ is king and they want to obey him, they trust him, and they trust the scriptures.

These are common starting points among Bible -believing

Christians. We all have the same desire and we want to be not just submissive to what

God has said, but acknowledging that God has the authority to say it. We submit to who is king and his word is true.

And if we all can kind of come at it from that perspective, then I think we already have a great starting point.

Going back to the question, there was the question about is it extreme to wonder whether it's time to leave?

And we seem to be talking about there are room for disagreements as long as the person is not coming at it skeptically.

They want to know the true meaning and they're just not there yet, versus someone that's like, well, humanistic scholars say we can't trust it.

That seems like a very different position. Yes. So, in general, when this particular issue gets discussed about how to interpret

Genesis 1, etc., usually the discussion is narrowed to Genesis 1 and 2, sometimes

Genesis 1 through 3, and very often something along the lines of, this is an issue where Christians can agree to disagree.

That's generally what is often stated. And things like, well, there are good reasons to not take

Genesis 1 through 3 as historical, though it should always be understood it is inerrant and reliable and it does teach us about who we are and who

God is. And all these caveats are made, but there still seems to be this desire to make it acceptable to have a different understanding of the age of the universe, age of the earth, and so on.

Because, and just to be honest, it's due to the claims of the current version of science that we have.

Yeah, they're not trying to submit to Christ's authority and trying to understand his teaching. They are trying to submit themselves to the spirit of the age.

And they'll point out, hey, this isn't, they'll say this isn't a core doctrine, this isn't like denying the nature of God.

It's not that important. Or the gospel, so on and so forth. The only difficulty is when you begin to look at it carefully, more closely.

And as long as you don't pay attention to it very closely, then it's fine. But as soon as you pay attention to it, then you have to start answering some questions.

And one of those questions is about, did Adam really live? Then was there a real Adam? Was there a real

Eve? You're saying that he wasn't created out of the dust of the earth and God breathed the breath of life into him and then made

Eve out of his side from one of his ribs. Because you're saying that that's not actual history. This is basically myth that teaches us something, but it's not actual history.

What are they going to say about that? Was there a special creation along with old earth?

Or was there just God grabbing this Neanderthal and this

Neanderthalette and taking them from their tribes and sparking fire into their heads to make them more than the animals?

There's all sorts of versions. I'm not really getting too far into the weeds on that. There's about three different main views about how to view the historical

Adam given the claims of old earth science. And are these actually going to be a faithful representative of what

Jesus says when he talks about Adam and Eve? What about Paul when he talks about Adam? How are we to actually understand the nature of our sinfulness and need of salvation?

How do we understand the atonement? What does it mean that Christ is the last Adam? If the Adam we read about in Genesis wasn't real, not like that.

All kinds of complications come in about salvation, but then also about the nature of God.

Because God could have written to the Israelites something along the lines of the

Epic of Gilgamesh in which long eons of time are envisaged. But he doesn't write to them about long eons of time.

He writes to them about seven days and calls them morning and evening. So now the question is, can the

Israelites, hearing this from Moses, can they walk away from that thinking, oh, eons of vast eons of time?

No, they can't walk away. They walk away thinking morning and evening was the first day, morning and evening was the second day. So what does that say about God?

It takes a modern invention to get that in there. So what does it say about God? He's either at best, he's a horrible communicator, at worst, he's a liar.

Because that's not what he said. And he let those Israelites believe something that was not true.

What does that say about God? You see, so we have a lot of complications. The dominoes start falling. And so for a lot of people that hold that, well,

Genesis 1 through 3, it's poetry, it's not history. And they haven't followed the implications yet.

They're probably not thinking to themselves about all of these implications. The more we try to sit there and think about this eisegesis, this reading into the text of the claims of modern science into the

Bible, the more incompatible it is, the more we think about it. And you can't stop with Genesis 1 through 3.

What about Genesis 4, Cain and Abel and so on? What about Genesis 5, the generations, how long they lived?

What about the flood? Oh, it wasn't a global flood. Really? That's what the Bible says.

You can just read it out loud for yourself. It says everything was flooded. Everything died except for what was in the ark. All over the earth, the water was several cubits above the mountains.

So what do you, so you can't stop with Genesis 9. And you can't stop with Genesis 10, the table of nations.

This is where all the people were in the people proceeding out of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

And you can't stop there. You can't stop with that because then you get into Abraham and the whole saga of Israel.

You can't take that on the very same, modern science denies Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and denies the

Israelites were ever in Egypt. This whole thing is also considered myth. That Israel needed an origin myth to distinguish themselves from their fellow

Canaanite tribes. And this is what gave them their identity. But none of that actually happened.

It's full of miracles and unscientific things everywhere. You can't stop with that either because there was a sun stopping in the sky before too long.

Where do you stop? I think that's the concern. If someone is rejecting a historical genesis, and in particular, if they're an elder or someone that's teaching, where are you going to stop?

Are you going to keep going? Yes. And so in all of these things that I've just mentioned, these are written as history to be received as history in a very plain way.

When we get into other passages of scripture and poetic, metaphorical imagery is being brought together, it is talking about something real, something that is going to happen within history, something with real world impacts.

But God is free to talk about the future and what he will bring about in rich theological language, metaphorical language.

He is free to talk about what he's going to do in that language. And he does so for a particular purpose because these metaphors in Isaiah 65 and other places reach back to all that has come before, even as it reaches forward to all that is yet to come and ties it all together into these metaphors that are meant to instill hope in the lives of those who believe in God's word and to help shepherd the people into what is yet to come.

And now I'm not going to be disappointed if sometime in the future, praise be to God, I see a lion eating straw like an ox.

That's awesome, right? I want to see that. I think I'll laugh. I seriously think

I'm going to laugh if I ever see a lion eating straw like an ox does.

That's going to tickle my fun bone. Yeah. But I don't think that that is the real meaning of the text any more than God owns the cattle on a thousand hills means the cattle on the thousand and first hill belong to somebody else.

Right. I don't think that's the real meaning of that text. Now, it could be, but I don't think it runs consistent with the rest of scripture and the way that Jesus would interpret it.

Yeah. Well, I think that about wraps it up for those questions. Let's move on to recommendations.

Michael? You know, church history is becoming, I think, more and more of an important subject.

I think a lot of people get swayed into false church movements or false teachers because they claim outlandish things about church history.

Either, you know, everything in church history was scandalous and wrong, and now you must follow me.

Or I found this amazing, genuine gem in church history that everyone forgot about, but I found it.

I'll be your guide. Come follow me. A variety of things. People are joining up with Greek orthodoxy or the

Catholic church, and they have no real idea the history. And there's a book written by B .K.

Kuyper, and it's called The Church in History. And out of all of the church history that I ever had to read for assignments and classes and so on, this was my favorite.

Well, number one, there are just pictures everywhere. I love... Mine didn't have that when

I read too. Man, I love pictures. And there's not a ton, there's hardly any technical terminology.

They're going to have... The print is not small, and the details are not thick.

You get to move through church history in an interesting way. And he writes, he gets interesting details, and you can tell he's warming his faith toward Christ as he's writing.

And that's why I like this book for church history. The Church in History by B .K. Kuyper. One of my favorites.

I've read through it twice, you know, and it's supposed to be a textbook, so I guess that's my recommendation. Very good.

Any relation to Abraham? You know... Spelled differently. Yeah, I think it's spelled a little bit differently.

But it must mean he's Dutch somehow. Sure. My recommendation is to get online and view some paintings.

In particular, Albert Bierstadt. I was at a art museum over the weekend, and there's a particular piece that's of Yosemite Valley that's one of my all -time favorites.

And I let the group know, and Dylan said that he was a huge fan.

I didn't know. Albert Bierstadt was a German -American painter best known for his landscapes of the

American West in the 1800s. They said that he went out to Yosemite Valley and did sketches of these interesting, you know,

El Capitan and all of these amazing places that he saw, came back, and then painted from memory.

That's why a lot of his paintings in that more romance style are very sweeping.

The stuff that you see in a lot of modern art, you know, the banana taped to the wall, or somebody just puts a toilet in the middle of the room, and then you compare it to the masters of previous generations.

There is no comparison. That other stuff is just garbage. And you look at, you consume some really high -quality art.

You start to see the difference. And if you've never really appreciated art, there's not a manly guy who wouldn't appreciate a giant picture on his wall of just buffalo or the

Yosemite Valley with a bear walking across a stream. It is amazing. So take a look online.

Bierstadt is spelled B -I -E -R -S -T -A -D -T. Obviously very German. And enjoy them for yourself.

And if you happen to have an art museum in your town, and they happen to have one or two on display, or you find a print, go see it in person.

Because my particular favorite one is about, I think it's nine feet tall, about 12 feet across.

It is not a picture. It's a tapestry. That's awesome. I remember seeing, you sent that picture and it was amazing.

It was really neat. It was fun. You mentioned, this isn't my recommendation, but you mentioned buffaloes.

Have you guys seen a guy on a buffalo? No, I don't know. There's a YouTube series. What? Guy on a buffalo.

I do recommend that. But my recommendation. Now I'm so insanely curious right now.

Yeah. The sequel is guy under a buffalo. Drug behind a buffalo. Yeah. It's a three or four part series.

And it's pretty funny. About a guy on a buffalo. My recommendation is, it's not a book.

I think it's an article that he wrote, Sam Waldron wrote. Theonomy, a reformed

Baptist assessment. And I found it very helpful. There's discussion about theonomy, theocracy, all these different things.

So this is a critique, a reformed Baptist assessment of theonomy. So it's against it.

But I found it very helpful in the discussion as far as kind of sorting through different principles, maybe even some of the motivations why this

Baptist doesn't go that route. Some of the presuppositions. There's obviously discussion about Presbyterianism tends to fall that way.

And Baptists are wanting to distance themselves from Presbyterianism and things like that. At the end, he has kind of his idea of an alternative to it.

And you see a lot of presuppositions come out there. So that was very helpful to me in the discussion.

So theonomy, a reformed Baptist assessment. What are we thankful for? I am thankful for my children.

I was reminded of the blessing of children in a fresh way, listening to the way in which the children and grandchildren of David Holmes spoke of him at his memorial service.

And it was a reminder of how well he loved his children and his grandchildren and had a deep appreciation for them.

And that has stuck with me and renewed my appreciation for the gift of my children.

I am thankful for good fathers. I've had the pleasure over the last,

I've been working a lot, but I've been working with a couple of guys, and to a T, each one of them are really involved in their kids' lives.

And these particular demographic, all of their kids are late high school 20s, some even in their early 30s, and they are just involved.

Their kids text them, call them, and even when there's some strain in the relationship, they're still involved.

And I was just encouraged to see this and see these guys who, once you finish rearing your kids and you send them out into the world, they have the kind of relationship where they keep reaching back more adult to adult.

It's a little bit more peer to peer, but that door is still open. And that's what

I'm hoping to have with my own kids. She reaches back and talks, and of course, it'll be a little bit more adult to adult then, but it was nice to see that these men are involved in their kids' lives and their grandkids' lives, and it sounds like Mr.

Holmes was that kind of guy. I am thankful for my oldest friend, my brother, my first friend, and my first enemy.

Same. Yeah, but I really am. We've had ups and downs, but through the grace of God, both of us are saved.

Both of us love God's word and are able to talk about it. Even if we end up at different positions, we challenge each other on that, and then there's that built -in support of just, we've gone through the same things at the same times.

Family issues, we're both there to pray for each other in our own families, and then our family in general, and I'm just so grateful to have him in the trenches with me.

And that wraps it up for today. We are very thankful for our listeners and hope you will join us again as we meet to answer common questions and objections with Have You Not Read?