Reading Genesis the Way God Intended

How to Read the Early Chapters of Genesis

Why Genesis 1 & 2 Cannot Be Harmonized

The Not-Yet Redemption of the Body in Ephesians 4

One of the most important lessons for anyone struggling with sin to learn about the nature of biblical soteriology is that the body is not redeemed yet. In fact, not only is it not redeemed, because it is corrupted, it continues to be corrupted the rest of your temporary life here. This means that not even the physical thing attached to your spirit directly, a thing the spirit pervades, is redeemed until the Lord returns and the physical resurrection of the body occurs.

One of the texts that tells us this is Ephesians 4:18-24.

⸀ἐσκοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ ὄντες,* ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν τὴν οὖσαν ἐν αὐτοῖς,* διὰ τὴν πώρωσιν τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, οἵτινες ⸀ἀπηλγηκότες ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ εἰς ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης ⸂ἐν πλεονεξίᾳ⸃.* Ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἐμάθετε τὸν Χριστόν, εἴ γε αὐτὸν ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐδιδάχθητε,* καθώς ἐστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ,* ἀποθέσθαι ὑμᾶς κατὰ τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφὴν τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν φθειρόμενον κατὰ ⸂τὰς ἐπιθυμίας⸃ τῆς ἀπάτης,* ⸀ἀνανεοῦσθαι δὲ ⸆ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν* καὶ ⸀ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι ⸂τῆς ἀληθείας⸃.* 

Having been darkened in their [people without Christ] understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But you did not learn Christ this way if indeed you heard Him and you were instructed by Him, as the truth is in Jesus, that you are to take off the former way of life, the old man which is being corrupted in accordance with its deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Things of note here: The former manner of life is described in vv. 18-19. This is the behavior that comes from an unredeemed life. However, we are told that this behavior can still come from a believer because the corrupt body continues to be corrupted in harmony with its deceitful desires. It is not the manner of life that is being corrupted but the old man that is currently being corrupted still. The participle τὸν φθειρόμενον is a Present Passive "being corrupted" and it is masculine in gender in agreement with  τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον also masculine in gender. It is not in agreement with τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφὴν which is feminine in gender. Hence, it is not the behavior that is continually being corrupted but the source of that behavior, the old man, which is still something a Christian has as a part of him, i.e., this body of death, the flesh.

Paul tells us that the remedy for this is not to believe that the body is redeemed but rather to throw off those former behaviors by putting on the new man through the renewal of the spirit of the mind, which is created in the likeness of God. So this new nature is found in the spirit of the believer, in their minds, which are now made after the image and likeness of God as opposed to the corrupted old man that in Pauline theology is found within the physical body, the flesh. 

What this means is that there is no redemption of the old man in the flesh until the redemption of the body. This is helpful to understand in that many Christians are thrown into absolute despair because they find that they struggle with the same evil desires that they had before they were saved, and then, think that maybe they are not saved. 

Instead, what is really happening is that the person is saved and has become a new man in the spirit of the mind, but rather than ushered into the peace of a fully redeemed self, has instead entered into the war before the peace. 

Christians, therefore, need to understand that the desires of the body are not in continuity with the life of holiness but rather one that is alienated from God, hostile toward God, run by their emotions and given over to an indulgence in sexual immorality. And that is still the state of their physical bodies. They have not yet been redeemed in their bodies. That is the hope that they are to look toward and in view of that hope subject their bodies to the renewed spirit of their minds in Christ and be led by that spirit rather than by the winds and waves of what they want to do. 

This is helpful to note since it lets Christians know that the struggle is the normal pattern of the Christian life as the full redemption of his person has not yet taken place yet. It is also helpful to know that a Christian must overcome the flesh rather than try and get it aligned in agreement with the spirit. The wants will never be in agreement in this life. Hence, every decision will have an opposite desire to it and the Christian must learn the mind of Christ in order to choose which path to take. Even when taking the right path, there will always be a desire to take the other. This is the craziness of war but it is the craziness to which we are called when we have been reconciled to God in the inner man, but the body must now be placed in subjection until it is redeemed at the coming of the Lord for the world to come.

The Already-Not Yet of John 5:19-30 and How Christ Applies His Given Authority to the World

 If you've ever heard the Kuyperian claim that "there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” then you'll be familiar with what I'm talking about in this post. I actually can't stand when people quote this because, of course, every Christian agrees with this statement given qualifications concerning what they mean by it. The question is how much of what Christ claims of that every square inch as His and not the devils occurs before His second coming. In other words, the issue surrounds when Christ takes hold of what is given to Him as the reward of His work, not whether He does or not.

As argued in the last post, He clearly doesn't claim that of the bodies of believers until the resurrection. I don't know about you but my body is more than a square inch. In fact, the increase of potlucks lately has made quite a few more square inches than it previously was, and Christ has not yet applied the transforming redemption to it and laid hold of it yet. It remains an unwilling participant in my worship of Christ. Because the Spirit of God is within me, it, again, unwillingly, has become the temple of God, but it would as soon as get rid of the Spirit in order to have its way as look at ya. 

So I may not even need to write this post. I probably already proved that Christ has, in fact, not laid hold of everything in the previous post. In fact, the Bible is really clear that He must reign until He puts all of His enemies under His feet, the last one being death. Hence, there are many square inches, according to Scripture, that are not under His feet, i.e., under His authority, in subjection to Him.

So what does Matthew 28:18 mean? All authority has been given to Me in heaven and earth? I think the problem is that people are thinking in terms of American politics and not ancient authority. You may be given all authority as a king in the ancient world, but you now have to take hold of it. It doesn't mean you reign over anything yet. What it means is that a province, nation, etc. has been given to you. You now have to go and subdue it or it does not belong to you.

In other words, the giving of authority is a right to rule over that area and its people, not the actual ruling over the area and its people. 

God gives the authority to Adam to rule over the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, etc., but He tells Him to then subdue it by a continual activity of being fruitful and multiplying so that the earth is filled, man subdues creation, and then, and only then, does he get to rule over it as its sole king.

Christ is the second Adam. He's been given the mandate. He now must subdue what has been given to Him. 

But here is where everything goes awry in some people's theology. Does Christ subject the world to Himself by just subjecting the spiritual individuals who will belong to His kingdom first and then, only when they are completed in number, subject the physical world to Himself, or does He subject both the spiritual and physical world to Himself simultaneously? 

As argued in the preceding post, the latter is clearly not true, and John 5:19-30 is yet another scriptural example of that.

In this text Christ proclaims:

Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. 25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. 30 “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Jesus is here arguing that He only does what the Father is doing and that as His Father judges men and gives life to people, the Son now can do the same. This is the authority that is given to Him. He now decides to whom He will give life and to whom He will give a decree of condemnation. 

Hence, Christ says in v. 25 that He will call out to those who are spiritually dead and they will come to life. The reason He is able to do this is given in vv. 26-27: The Father has life in Himself and has granted to the Son to also have life in Himself and that the Father has granted to the Son the authority to execute judgment in this regard. In other words, the authority granted to the Son is to become the judge of the world, save some in regeneration, and then in v. 28-29 to resurrect all men to either eternal life or eternal condemnation. But these very verses tell us how Jesus applies this authority to judge the world. He applies the spiritual authority to raise from spiritual life now. He applies the authority to the physical world at the judgment when some are raised to eternal life and others to damnation. In other words, the application of Christ's authority is to claim every spiritual square inch of his people now, and claim every physical square inch of creation in the eschaton, i.e., at the resurrection from the dead.

That is why the immediate result of Christ declaring that all authority has been given to Him in heaven and earth in Matthew 28:18-21 is commanding the disciples to go get all of His spiritual kingdom, to go lay hold of it through the means of making disciples via baptism/conversion and teaching all that Christ commanded. That is why Christ proclaims to Pilate that His kingdom is not of this world. It is not of this world. It is the physical new world to come, but His kingdom now is a spiritual one that is not of this world. It's why we are strangers and aliens here. Why we are told we are citizens of heaven and we ought to seek the things above rather than the things below because are lives are not here but instead have been hidden in Christ, why we are told that we are waiting for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time, and not merely looking to lay hold of a world that the Bible says is passing away. 

To be sure, the new world is not a completely different world anymore than our new bodies will be completely different bodies. Same bodies but glorified. Same creation but cleansed and transformed. But this all at the coming of the Lord according to the Scriptures.

An Argument against a Postmillennial Claim about the Physical World

The best part of a storm is at the end of it. The darkness is broken by a sudden ray of light from the sun that crashes through the clouds signifying the end of the gloom. There is a sort of picture of Christ's return in that. 

Not all postmills will make this argument. I feel like I have to say that every time I talk about somethi9ng these days because the immediates response will be, "That's not what I claim." I get it. Everyone has their whopper their way. I'm just talking about those who put pickles on it. 

The pickles in this case is the claim that the authority given to Jesus Christ as a reward for His faithful work has already effected the physical world and it will continue to progress into something better until the day the Lord comes. In other words, the weather will be more accommodating to humanity, the animals will no longer be as hostile toward humans or one another, the trees will grow more green year by year, humans will live longer, etc.

Of course, I've talked a lot about the already-not yet theology of the New Testament that is pretty much unanimously held by New Testament scholars, as a theology that teaches that the spiritual transformation of God's sons must precede their physical transformation, but this belief above must deny this, and I'll argue here as to why.

In Romans 6-8, Paul argues that although we have been united to Christ, it is the inner man, the spirit, not the body that has been transformed. Hence, the physical body remains, not only in its evil estate, but , as he states in Ephesians, "continues to be corrupted" (Eph 4:22). Paul says of his physical body that nothing good dwells within it (Rom 7:18), and that it is only the inner man that loves the law of God (v. 22). Hence, he cries out, "Who will save me from this body of death?" (7:24). The body, after the Christian has come to Christ, is called "the body of sin" and that it is possible to let sin reign within it because it, in fact, has not yet been redeemed/transformed. The hope of the Christian to get freedom from sin in this life is by realizing the death sentence the body has been given (Rom 6:8, 11; Gal 5:24), giving it up as a living sacrifice to God through the renewing of the inner man/the mind/spirit (Rom 12:1-2), dominating the body by living in the spirit/the inner man rather than in the flesh. In other words, there is a war in the Christian because the physical body has not been transformed yet and still desires to do what is sinful (Gal 5:16-18). Paul argues in Galatians 5 here that the spirit/the new inner man is given so that we do not do what we want, referring to the desires of the flesh/the body. 

Now, it is important to put in another caveat that although the body is interchangeable with the flesh in Pauline literature, he is not saying that the body is inherently evil but instead that it has been completely corrupted. It is from this corruption that the body has not yet been delivered.

Instead, the timing of that deliverance is given in Romans 8. In vv. 10-11, Paul concludes based upon what he just argued that although the body is dead (notice: dead, not transformed), the spirit is alive because of Christ's righteousness. Paul then gives this hope to Christians in v. 11: "If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ will also give life to your mortal bodies through the spirit that dwells in you." In other words, the spiritual transformation within the believer that has taken place due to his unification with Christ will be the means through which the body is also given life and transformed by God.

When does this occur? Immediately? No, we just saw that the believer will struggle with the desires of the body that continues to get worse and worse, not better. As it gets worse, Christians who are growing in the new man are also getting stronger and able to dominate the desires of the body more and place it into submission by force, not because the body wants to be in submission to Christ. Instead, the transformation of the body occurs at the resurrection. Paul states in v. 23 that we inwardly groan as we await the revealing of the sons of God, which he explains is at the resurrection of the body.

Now, why is this important? Because in vv. 19-23, Paul argues that all of creation is linked to the body of believers through federal headship. It cannot be linked to the spirit except through the body because creation has no inherent spirit within it. There is no eternal life force in creation. It is linked to mankind and his lifeforce, his spirit, only through his body. Hence, it is only at the transformation of his body that creation can be transformed. Hence, it remains in a state of futility and decay until that time. There is no transformation of the physical world before it because there is no transformation of the body of believers before it.

We know that the resurrection occurs at the coming of Christ. It is then that we are transformed as He is (Phil 3:19-21; Col 3:1-4; 1 John 3:2-3). This is the already-not yet. In John 5:25, Jesus states, "“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." The kingdom had come in Jesus very day as the Son of God called out and raised spiritually dead men to spiritual life. But notice that this is for the inner man/the spirit, not the body. That is spoken of in vv. 28-29, when Jesus says, "Do not marvel at this [i.e., that God has given the Son authority to raise men spiritually], for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." This is not said to be now. This is not what the kingdom looks like now. The kingdom now is a bunch of spiritually raised people with untransformed, corrupted bodies. We'll talk about in another post the fact that the authority given to Jesus to judge the world manifests itself in the already-not yet in these texts so that only the spiritual is applied now, but I digress.

My point is that this transformation of the body only occurs at the resurrection of the bodies of believers which only happens at the second advent of Christ.

Now, back to Romans 8. In vv. 18-25, which read as follows:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. 

The suffering in the context is due to an untransformed body and the struggle between the old man and the new man that it creates. Paul tells us to win the battle with our corrupted body by living in the mindset of the new man and overcoming it. This struggle is linked to the struggle that all creation has since it is linked to the body and now Paul personifies it as though it has a mind that is waiting to be delivered from it decay, corruption, and futility. In other words, the creation is still in the same state it was in before Christ came just as the body of the believer is in the same state it was in before Christ came and the gospel was applied to him. That's because the gospel has not been applied to his body and it has not been applied to creation yet. That is the "not yet" part of the already-not yet. 

So all one has to do to evalutate this common postmill claim that creation has been transformed or is being transformed or will be transformed before Christ's return to his physical body. The Bible says that the body was not transformed, is not being transformed, but will be transformed only at the resurrection of the body at the return of Christ. 

This, of course, leads us to a complete misreading of Isaiah 65:17-25 as some sort of future promise that God must fulfill in the church. Instead, these are Deuteronomic promises to Israel that if it obeys the law and is faithful to the suzerain-vassal covenant made by God with Israel after the exile, He will restore them as a picture of the new heavens and new earth that they were meant to be, and thus, fulfill their role as the means of saving the nations through that picture. They are not faithful, and therefore, this was never fulfilled, nor since Christ who is the substance of the shadows has come, does it ever need to be fulfilled. The church now is the spiritual kingdom that will spiritually picture the new heavens and earth as a place where everyone loves God and one another and where sin and chaos are no more. The church pictures this by loving one another, being faithful to God, and not living in the sins of the corrupted flesh.

It is important to understand, then, that the passage in Isaiah 65 would be a contradiction with the New Testament in any other framework. If this passage is arguing that the physical creation will be transformed before the resurrection and transformation of the bodies of believers, then it is a real contradiction with the New Testament that says otherwise. Instead, understanding it correctly as contingent, and therefore, unnecessary for God to fulfill due to Israel's unfaithfulness, will lead one to conclude that this prophecy remains a shadow of the world to come, and a sad commentary on what Israel could have been had they been faithful. 

So the gospel has not been applied to creation. Christ is given authority to take over all heaven and earth but has not yet applied that authority to the physical world, starting with and including our physical bodies. And this is, perhaps, the greatest irony of this argument within a postmill context because it ends up being a whole lot of people claiming to transform the world with the gospel who cannot even transform the most essential part of the physical world, i.e., their bodies, before the return of Christ. To use a verse out of context, If the eye is dark, the whole body will be. And it will remain that way until Christ appears in glory as the light that washes away all of the gloom. 

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ro 8:19–25.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Jn 5:28–29.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Jn 5:25.

Summary of the New Covenant Use of the Old Covenant Rituals

The new covenant doesn’t turn buildings into temples, Sundays into sabbaths, water into circumcision, and bread and wine into sacrifices. It tells us that these are shadows that did not point to more shadows but to the body, the substance, the Person and work of Jesus Christ; and all who are in Him have no need for shadows. However, the body will still cast shadows. So we gather when called because we are the temple of Christ. Sometimes this is in buildings and on particular days. We are baptized to proclaim our regeneration and renewal in Christ. But like the thief on the cross, one is saved by faith not water. We partake of communion to declare that the gospel binds us to Christ and one another in love as a testimony to our sanctification. But a poor church that has no bread and wine to eat during famine, but proclaims Christ as Lord, is saved by the new covenant all the same. The new covenant does not return to the shadows as their evidence of faith and hope. Shadows now look back upon salvation, not forward to it, and as such, are not the necessary evidences of salvation and Christian maturity.

Why the Physical Promises of the Old Covenant Cannot Be a Part of the New Covenant without Denying the Gospel

 If the physical promises of the old covenant are now a part of the new then the new covenant rejects the New Testament teaching about it. The gospel is the means by which we have favor from God. Love as it is expressed in personal and communal holiness is the marker that one is in Christ and has the favor of God.

If a physical promise to individual saints must be fulfilled as a marker that one is in the new covenant then this runs contrary to the teaching of the apostles who teach that there is no physical marker of one's status in Christ but love as it is expressed through the abstaining from evil and the doing of good in the body. 

If long life in the land, no miscarriages, no poverty, no sickness, etc. are a part of the new covenant promises then the gospel of the apostles that promises suffering and loss in this world is contrary to that of the covenant God has made in the new covenant.

This is because a covenant promise is not something God has the option of giving if the other party has kept their part. God is not allowed by His own justice to decide whether He will give all of the above to every individual. He must do it. Every. Single. Time. That is the nature of a covenant that one swears by His own death if He does not do what He says if the other party does what they swear to do. 

So if the old covenant promise to let children live long in the land for honoring their fathers and mothers means that they will live a long time in their own lands within the new covenant, then God must cause them to live long in their land.

Of course, one might point out that the land the text is referring to is the land of Israel and this is being spoken to Israelites during the time of the old covenant, and thus, it doesn't apply to us in that way. Rather, such a picture points to who will enter the new heavens and new earth rather than some temporal blessing today. That would be the apostolic application of such a verse. 

But if the new covenant contains the promises of the temporary shadows of this world within it, then whoever does not receive these things in the here and now does not have God's favor. They can now be identified, not by their love for the brethren, but by the fact that they have not received the promises that mark one who has God's favor.

Thus, the favorable new covenant believers are known as having favor from God or more favor from God by virtue of old covenant promises, sitting them at one table and those less blessed at another. 

The following three facts display that this theology is false.

1.    1. A covenantal promise, as these promises are, is an obligation that God has to fulfill them every single time. He cannot break it by not delivering or underdelivering. God is bound by His own promises and He cannot lie. They must be fulfilled as they are stated. Yet, we know that God does not give such promises to faithful believers, not even to the apostles, not even to Christ (Did Christ not honor His father and mother in order to live long in the land because He died at the age of 33?). The old covenant has passed away at the coming of Christ. Its promises to Israel are shadows that look to both the spiritual redemption of those who believe in the here and now and the physical redemption of creation in eschaton.

2.  2. God’s giving of the promises or curses are a sign of one’s identification as having favor from God or being an apostate. This is not what the NT argues. One's identification is marked by their love for one another and having received the promise of the regenerating Holy Spirit of the new covenant who produces that love. Suffering, not success, in ruling over the world is promised until Christ returns and is tied to the sanctification of God's people as they learn to put the deeds of the body to death.

3.  3. Even if these promises were to be applied generically to other groups outside of Israel or just literally applied to the church specifically, the promises are contingent upon obeying the entirety of the law, not just one part of it. That means that one will live long in the land when he obeys his father and mother only if he worships the true God, is not an idolater, not a blasphemer, does not break the sabbath, does not murder, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, or covet. He must obey all of the ritual law, civil law, and moral law without fault. Hence, since only Christ could do this, these promises cannot be contingent upon the obedience of individual Christians but upon Christ and therefore received by every Christian. And yet, we know these temporal promises are not. Again, they cannot function as general truisms. They are covenantal promises that God must fulfill if they are promised to Christians through Christ in the same way that they are promised to Israel, i.e., physical and temporal as well as spiritual and eternal. This ideology is self-evidently false. Therefore, this gospel is not the gospel of the New Testament.

The New Covenant and the Already/Not Yet of the Gospel

 The number one thing that people misunderstand about the new covenant is that it is different than the old covenant. That may sound like something that would be obvious, but actually it isn't to many people today. 

You see, the old covenant, we are told by the New Testament, consisted of shadows of things to come, things that would be eventually fulfilled in Christ's first or second coming. Some shadows point to spiritual realities of the individual's relationship to the Father, regeneration of the individual mind, and individual knowledge of God. Other shadows point to the corporate reality of all creation being renewed along with the bodies of believers. 

It is the misunderstanding of how these two shadows are fulfilled, or rather, when they are fulfilled. In Gnosticism, only the individual's relationship with God is restored but there is no hope for the body or creation to come. This is to reject the shadows of the old covenant that were promised to Israel if they had remained faithful to God. 

The promises of Israel were a picture of the new heavens and earth that would come at the end of the process of creation in which we now live. All of chaos would be a thing of the past for faithful Israel. There would be no more miscarriages, no more poverty, no more drought, starvation, disease, untimely deaths, etc. as a picture of the fact that God will remove chaos from the world at the dawn of the new heavens and new earth. 

But now Jesus comes on the scene and tells us that the kingdom of God is already here, in our midst. We are told that a day is coming and now is that those who hear the voice of the Son of God will come alive in regeneration. We are told by Paul that we have been renewed in the inner man, in the spirit. 

So there is an agreement with Gnosticism on that point. The fulfillment of the old covenant shadows in the new covenant before the consummation of the world is a spiritual fulfillment, not a redemption of creation. Not yet. However, against the Gnostics, we are also told that a time is coming (Christ does not say it is now as before) that those who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God and come out of the tombs. Paul states that all creation longs for the revealing of the sons of God, which is defined as the resurrection of the body, because the physical creation is subject to vanity until that time. We are told that our flesh continues to be corrupted in the likeness of its sinful nature, that our body is one of death, and that there is no good in us. 

Hence, in the present time, we are told to set our minds on the things above and not on the things below. We are told that we await a heavenly city rather than placing our hope in one here. We are told we are aliens in this world but citizens in heaven. We are to hope for the things unseen, for a salvation ready to be revealed but has not yet appeared, to consider our deaths gain and our faithfulness to Christ in the face of persecution and suffering victory in this world.

All of this will result in our inner man taking control of our individual flesh, living in the new man by putting to death the deeds of the body. 

Gnosticism is NOT the emphasis on the spiritual in hope of the physical promises that are not currently presented to the saints. That is Christianity. That is the new covenant. To argue otherwise is to go back to the shadows of the old covenant and deny that Christ has come and is fulfilling the spiritual redemption of humanity, the federal head of creation, before He brings about the physical redemption of humanity. 

Creation is not redeemed until after the full human is redeemed in every saint. It follows its federal head. It does not precede it. And God has set that no one will be made complete without another. This means that Christ is not reigning over the physical world and redeeming it at the present time nor should his people think they can presently either. Instead, Christ has divided His ministry between priest and king, spiritual redemption and physical redemption, between His first and second coming. This is the already/not yet laid out in the New Testament. 

In the next post, I'll argue why applying old covenant promises to the new covenant is the Judaizing heresy that denies the New Testament gospel and would end up bringing the church under great judgment and damnation.

The Biblical Qualifications of an Elder, Part II: Titus 1:5-9

 The qualifications in Titus are a summary of that in 1 Timothy, but they provide for us clarifications as well as additional examples of what a mature Christian looks like.

5 Τούτου χάριν ⸀ἀπέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ,* ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ⸁ἐπιδιορθώσῃ καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην, 6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα.* 7 δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς θεοῦ οἰκονόμον,* μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον,* μὴ πάροινον, μὴ πλήκτην, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ, 8 ἀλλὰ φιλόξενον φιλάγαθον σώφρονα δίκαιον ὅσιον ἐγκρατῆ,* 9 ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ⸂ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ⸃ καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν⸆.* 

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains incomplete and install elders corresponding to the church in that city, as I ordered you. If anyone is of such a character that no one can make an accusation of sin and have it stick, a man of one woman, having loyal children in his household, children who are not accused of having lived in a depraved manner or are rebellious toward their authorities and yet remain in good standing within his household (because the ecclesiastical governor must be a person who is not accused of any sin [including that of the children under his household] that can stick to him in order to be a manager of God's house), not someone who decides things for the church unilaterally, not someone who is easily angered over personal offenses, not someone who tends to drink too much, not someone who uses intimidation to get his way, not one who doesn't mind getting money in dishonest ways, but one who houses missionaries he does not know, a lover of always doing what is good and noble, being ruled by self-control, judging others words and matters fairly and without partiality, seeking first and foremost to be pleasing to God over family and peers, having his emotions under control rather than being controlled by them, fanatically devoted to the teaching of the faithful Word in such a way that he is able to exhort through sound teaching and convincingly refute those who contradict it.

The Biblical Qualifications of an Elder, Part 1: 1 Timothy 3 and 5

 It is possible to make the Bible into the mouthpiece for any idea a person wants to support. This can only be done, of course, if the Bible is used rather than exposited. Some people have in their heads what they personally think a pastor should look like and then argue for qualifications of elders based upon those personal preferences. These are then read into the text, supported by false inferences, and/or prooftexts that are ripped from their contexts. One might say such a use of Scripture displays a lack of qualification within itself. 

However, the Bible tells us clearly what the qualifications for an elder are in the Gospel of Matthew, Acts 6 and 20, 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5, so we'll go over these clear texts in this series.

The longest description of qualifications is the Gospel of Matthew, but since I am already going over the Sermon on the Mount, I will leave further discussion in this series for the remaining texts in Matthew that address the issue head on rather than attempt a full exposition of Matthew. Second to this, the largest description of qualifications is found in 1 Timothy 3 and 5, so that is where we will start. 

I will include here a translation of the instructions to deacons and deaconesses since what is true for these lower offices are certainly qualifications needed for higher ones. Hence, what is said of them is also that which is required for the elders.

I will attempt to translate words that are often misunderstood with their definitions and to what they refer in the context of 1 Timothy instead of just an English gloss that explains nothing of what the text is getting at. In light of this translation philosophy, the texts read as follows:

1 Timothy 3:1-13

πιστὸς ὁ λόγος˸ 

Εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται,* καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ.* 2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι,* μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν,* 3 μὴ πάροινον μὴ πλήκτην⸆,* ἀλλʼ ἐπιεικῆ ἄμαχον ἀφιλάργυρον,* 4 τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον,* τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ, μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος 5 (εἰ δέ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι οὐκ οἶδεν, πῶς ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ ἐπιμελήσεται;),* 6 μὴ νεόφυτον,* ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου. 7 δεῖ δὲ ⸆ καὶ μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν,* ἵνα μὴ εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν ἐμπέσῃ καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου.* 

This following statement is to be a guide for you: If anyone wants to be an ecclesiastical governor, it is a good work that he desires to partake in. Therefore, it is essential that the ecclesiastical governor be beyond the point of anyone being able to make an accusation of sin stick to him. He is not to have more than one woman, someone who thinks clearly, having complete control over his emotions so as to not be controlled by them, being appropriate with other people, one who lodges Christian missionaries he does not know when they are in need, one who is an expert in interpreting the Scripture, not someone who drinks more alcohol at times than he should, not someone who threatens people to get his way, but one who does not need to always get his own way, looking to avoid fighting over personal preferences, not being one who is emotionally stirred up by getting less money than he thinks he deserves, doing a good job of leading the religious and moral direction of his household by having the children in his household in full submission to that religious and moral direction with a behavior that takes holiness seriously. (But if anyone does not know how to direct his own household in their religious and moral behavior how will they take care of the church of God?); not someone who is still immature in the faith so that he will not be easily blinded by arrogance and fall into the judgment of the devil; but it is also an essential that he have a good testimony to his moral behavior among those who are outside the church in order that he might not fall into public disgrace and into the trap of the devil.

8 Διακόνους ὡσαύτως °σεμνούς,* μὴ διλόγους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας,* μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, 9 ἔχοντας τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει.* 10 καὶ οὗτοι δὲ δοκιμαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον,* εἶτα διακονείτωσαν ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες.* 

11 Γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς, μὴ διαβόλους, νηφαλίους, πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν. 

12 διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες,* τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων. 13 οἱ γὰρ καλῶς διακονήσαντες βαθμὸν ἑαυτοῖς καλὸν περιποιοῦνται καὶ πολλὴν παρρησίαν ἐν πίστει τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.  (Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 1 Ti 3:1–13).

Deacons [i.e., Servants of the Elders and People] likewise must not be people who others can make an accusation of sin stick to them, they must not be people who say one thing to one person and a contradictory thing to another person, they must be people who don't have much to do with a lot of alcohol, they should not be okay with acquiring money through immoral means, holding to the divine interpretation of the faith with a pure conscience; but these people are to be thoroughly tested before they are made deacons to see if they are truly all of these things, and then only afterward let them serve as deacons, having been found to be blameless of anything mentioned above.

Women deacons are likewise to be people who cannot have any accusation of sinfulness stick to them, they are not to be slanderers [i.e., people who spread accusations without the testimony of two or three reliable witnesses], they are to be women who don't drink much alcohol, women who can be trusted in word and deed.

Deacons are to have only one woman, leading their children and their own household well in religious and moral behavior. Because those who serve as deacons gain a good status for themselves and are given much influence in the church when it concerns the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 

1 Timothy 5:17-22

17 Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν,* μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ.* 18 λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή·* ⸂βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις⸃, καί·* ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης ⸄τοῦ μισθοῦ⸅ αὐτοῦ.* 19 κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου κατηγορίαν μὴ παραδέχου, ⸋ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων⸋.* 20 Τοὺς ⸆ ἁμαρτάνοντας ἐνώπιον πάντων ἔλεγχε,* ἵνα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ φόβον ἔχωσιν. 

21 Διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ⸂Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ⸃ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων, ἵνα ταῦτα φυλάξῃς χωρὶς προκρίματος, μηδὲν ποιῶν κατὰ ⸀πρόσκλισιν.* *22 χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει μηδὲ κοινώνει ἁμαρτίαις ἀλλοτρίαις·* σεαυτὸν ἁγνὸν τήρει. (Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 1 Ti 5:17–22).

The elders who lead well are to be considered worthy of a double payment, specifically speaking, those who exhaust themselves in study and teaching. Because it is written, "Do not muzzle the ox when he is eating from the grain that he is threshing" and "the worker is due his pay." Do not even let a person accuse an elder of anything unless it is solely upon the basis of evidence that would hold up under the scrutiny of a court [lit. upon the basis of two or three witnesses]. Those who sin are to be rebuked in front of everyone in order that the rest may fear. 

I bear witness before God and Christ Jesus and His elite angels that you are to follow these orders without prejudging a matter, or doing anything that is preferential to someone you like. Do not transfer the spiritual power of your ministry quickly to anyone so as to not partake in their personal sins. Keep yourself pure.

A Great Channel to Meditate on the Psalms and Worship God with Even Your Breathing

 April has a new channel out where she is going through the Psalms, meditating on the words and even saying them as one breathes in order to even use our breathing to worship God. Check it out if you get a chance. Selah Christian Meditation - YouTube

Attempts to Harmonize Genesis 1 and 2 and Why They Don't Work

Another attempt to harmonize Genesis 1 and 2 consists of making the assertion that the plants, animals, and birds that are created in each account are different from one another. If they are the same plants, animals, or birds then a literalistic reading of these texts would contradict one another. We’ll first start with the plants, then move on to the land animals, and then to the birds.

So, in Genesis 1:11, the text states:

¹¹ And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. ¹² The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ¹³ And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

The plants are made on the third day, three days before the creation of man in Genesis 1:26-27. However, in Genesis 2:5-9, the text states:

⁵ When no bush of the field was yet on the earth and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to work the ground, ⁶ and a mist was going up from the earth and was watering the whole face of the ground— ⁷ then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. ⁸ And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. ⁹ And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

What some will argue, then, is that the plants made in Genesis 1 are different plants than in Genesis 2. They argue this a couple of different ways.

1.     The plants are simply different kinds of plants.

The problem with this harmonization is that the plants made in Genesis 1 and 2 are the same types of plants. The plants in 1:11 are referred to as עֵ֫שֶׂב and  פְּרִ֞י

 עֵ֣ץ and as עֵ֫שֶׂב in 2:5 and fruit trees, although not with the same terminology, are referred to as having been created in 2:9 by calling them “all the trees that are nice to look at and are good to eat.”

One might object by saying that the fruit trees created in 2:9 are not just all of the fruit trees, but are all of the fruit trees that are nice to look at too, leaving out all of the ugly fruit trees I guess.

2.     The plants are simply different plants because they are the plants of the world outside the garden in Genesis 1 but the plants in Genesis 2 are just talking about plants inside the garden.

The problem, however, is still twofold:

1.     The plants described in Genesis 2 are more than just the plants of the garden because they are referred to as the “plants of the field.” The field is not the garden in the early chapters of Genesis as indicated by a few reasons:

a.     The field exists before the garden.

b.     The field refers to uncultivated land that is filled with thorns and thistles outside of the garden (3:14, 18, 23).

2.     The text seems to go out of its way to state that this is referring to all plants. Genesis 2:5 states that וְכֹ֣ל שִׂ֣יחַ הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה טֶ֚רֶם יִֽהְיֶ֣ה בָאָ֔רֶץ וְכָל־עֵ֥שֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה טֶ֣רֶם יִצְמָ֑ח “Now, before YHWH had planted on the earth any of the larger plants or any of the smaller plants. The text is phrased in such a way as to give distance between the two plants created, which is a way Hebrew creates a disjunction, which means it should be translated as YHWH had not planted either any of the larger plants (trees, bushes, etc.) or any of the smaller plants  (grass, weeds, herbs, etc.). This creates a merism that communicates that no vegetation whatsoever had yet been created outside of the garden, i.e., in the uncultivated earth. So these do not refer to the plants of the garden.

 

3.     The third harmonization might then argue that the Hebrew word for “earth,” i.e., אֶ֫רֶץ, also means “land,” and so this may just refer to a situation where the entire earth outside of this area has vegetation but this area does not yet, so this creation is separate from that of Genesis 1.

 

The problems with this attempted harmonization of the literalistic reading is threefold:

1.     The reasons given for the fact that none of these plants exist in 2:5 is because God had not yet caused it to rain and there is no human being to cultivate the ground. This seems to indicate that rain does not exist upon the earth, not just the land. Are we to believe that this text is arguing that there is rain everywhere else on earth except this huge piece of land that is described as the entire Near Eastern world in 2:10-14. Furthermore, if the conditions needed for vegetation to exist in an area are rain and a human, did God make a bunch of other humans for all of the vegetation He made in 1:11? This might create more problems for the literalist than he realizes.

2.     Although אֶ֫רֶץ can be translated “land” to convey that it doesn’t mean the whole world sometimes, the word really does just mean “earth.” When it is local rather than general, it usually refers to a specific part of the earth, like the אֶ֫רֶץ of Israel would mean “the part of the earth belonging to Israel,” etc. When it is not specified in the text, what is called the unmarked meaning, i.e., the meaning without referential specification in the context, it should  be taken as “the whole earth.” The context itself would limit the term, although it is still possible to argue that here, it is not the most natural rendering since no specific land has yet been referenced, no construct form connects the word to a specified land following, and the previous discussions of the earth in Genesis 1-2:4 have been universal.

3.     The universal language of the animals and birds in 2:19-20 would give the reader an indication that the אֶ֫רֶץ here is universal and not merely local.

 

This brings us to the second created contradiction by the literalistic reading: animals. In Genesis 1:24-26, the text states:

²⁴ And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. ²⁵ And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ²⁶ Then 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 birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

But in Genesis 2:19-20, the text states:

¹⁸ Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” ¹⁹ So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. ²⁰ The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field.

The order of the creation of the land animals on the sixth day is land animals first and then the man is made, but in Genesis 2, the man is made first and then the land animals. The same claim is made as with the plants so I will address them again in a similar manner.

1.     The first claim is that the animals that God makes in Genesis 2 are simply different kinds of animals from those in Genesis 1.

The problem with this attempted harmonization is that the terms used for both state that they are the same types of animals. In Genesis 1, the text says that וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֩ אֶת־חַיַּ֨ת הָאָ֜רֶץ לְמִינָ֗הּ וְאֶת־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ לְמִינָ֔הּ וְאֵ֛ת כָּל־רֶ֥מֶשׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֖ה לְמִינֵ֑ה “And God made the animals of the earth belonging to their groups and the domesticated animals belonging to their groups and the lower animals of the ground belonging to their groups. The words for animals and domesticated animals are used both in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2 (חַיָּה and בְּהֵמָה); and since Genesis 1 says that God made not just the animals, including domesticated animals, generically but also those that belong to their group, there are no more animals belonging to the group of חַיָּה or בְּהֵמָה to be made.

Furthermore, the text of Genesis 2:19 states that God formed from the ground “all the animals of the field” and “brought them to Adam to see what he would name them,” and then in v. 20, Adam named all of these animals that God had just formed from the ground, including “all of the בְּהֵמָה ‘domesticated animals’.” This means that all of the domesticated animals were formed from the ground and brought to Adam to name them here in Genesis 2 after the man was created, even though Genesis 1 presents them as being created before the man ever existed.

 

2.     The animals in Genesis 2 are just the animals inside the garden.

As discussed before, the plants that are made are described as the plants of the field. The field is also synonymous with the ground here that is outside the garden. The things that are formed are formed from the ground and then brought to the garden. Likewise, the animals are called the animals of the field and so this refers to animals outside the garden, not animals made within it.

Likewise, both Genesis 1 and 2 indicate that the animals made are the same animals of the earth by stating in Genesis 1 that God made, not only one kind of animal of a group but the other animals that belong to that group of animals, i.e., all the animals of that group, before the man was created and in Genesis 2 that God made all of the animals of the field that included all of the domesticated animals, not just some of them whose creation are also described in Genesis 1. If not just one kind of the בְּהֵמָה but the rest of the group of בְּהֵמָה are made in Genesis 1 and “all of the "בְּהֵמָה”are made in Genesis 2, then there are no בְּהֵמָה that can be made in Genesis 1 or there are no more בְּהֵמָה that can be made in Genesis 2.  All of them have been made already in one account or the other.

 

3.     These are just the animals in the localized area of the land.

 

This is the same case made from the localized land as before. The problem is that the objections noted above refute this idea. There are no more kinds of בְּהֵמָה that can be made on the earth anywhere because they have already been made in Genesis 1.

Furthermore, the term אֶ֫רֶץ does not appear here as a qualification for the animals, especially for the בְּהֵמָה. Remember, the animals that Adam names are specifically the animals that God forms and brings to the man to see what he would call them. There is no indication in the text that God brings him animals he previously made.

This brings us to our final contradiction between the plants and animals: Birds.

In Genesis 1:20-21, the text states:

²⁰ And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” ²¹ So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

But in Genesis 2:19-20, the text states:

¹⁹ So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. ²⁰ The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field.

As one can probably tell without much ado, the previous harmonizations applied to the phrases “every winged bird” in Genesis 1:21 and “all the birds of the heavens” in Genesis 2:19 shows itself to be untenable. One cannot argue that these are different birds since each text says that they are all the birds. One cannot argue that these are just the birds of a specific land or the garden since the more localized text in this case actually specifies that it is talking about “all the birds of the heavens,” not merely some of them that belong to another land or garden. Again, these are made outside the garden, they are not described as birds of the land or even of the field, but rather of the heavens/skies. So all the birds that are flying in the skies are made on the fifth day before the man was made in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2, all of the birds that are flying in the skies are made after the man, who Genesis 1 presents as having been made on the sixth day.

One might say to the literalistic reading, “Bye, bye, Birdie.” For there is a better way to read the genre of ancient Near Eastern Primeval History than an Enlightenment, atheistic worldview that is completely bereft of such a genre and an imagination that would see that Genesis is real history presented for theological and ethical purposes rather than to describe the uninterpreted event for merely the base purposes of feeding an already arrogant culture more knowledge about empty details that have no religious or moral impact upon its readers. Genesis 1 and 2 were never meant to be read literalistically and the author indicates this to his readers by presenting two accounts that have a massive amount of theological and ethical import to our lives by telling us that God made everything and why God made everything but very little confirmation concerning how and when God made everything as this does not help one’s knowledge of Him, humanity, or their relationship to one another.

Why Genesis 2:19 Should Not Be Translated as a Pluperfect

The literalistic reading of Genesis 1 and 2 gives rise to contradictions between the text, as seen in the last post. Various attempts to harmonize these two accounts literalistically have been offered that fail the test of lexicography, grammar, syntax, and context. 

Today, I want to discuss an attempt to interpret Genesis 2:19 in such a way as to present this text as harmonizing with Genesis 1.

In Genesis 2:19, the NIV and ESV (along with some conservative scholars) translate the opening verb as a pluperfect (i.e., where the verb is describing an action that predates the timing of the flow of the narrative). Hence, that reading takes the verb וַיִּצֶר֩ to mean "He had previously formed." The verse then would read, "Now YHWH God had formed from the ground every animal of the field and every bird of the sky. And He brought them to the man to see what he would call each one."

This gives the impression that God had previously made these animals, referencing back to Genesis 1, and that He is merely taking the animals that He had previously made in Genesis 1 and bringing them to Adam. This is not consistent with the grammar and Hebrew syntax for a few reasons.

1. As one can see in the translation, he pluperfect idea is accompanied by a disjunctive term, "now." This is because the flow of the narrative would be to take v. 18 as prior to the creation of the animals and also give the reason for their creation. Hence, the translators wish to supply a disjunctive marker like "now" to turn v. 19 into a parenthetical phrase that merely gives background ("now, YHWH God had previously made from the ground all of the animals of the field"). 

The problem is that this waw is not disjunctive. Disjunctives in Hebrew are most often indicated by a disruption in the usual word order. Hebrew almost uniformly constructs its prose with sentences of the V+S+O  word order. These tend to be the conjunctive sentences, not disjunctive. Hence, this is not a parenthetical statement but flows with the narrative, which means that this action is occuring after the event of God's statement in v. 18. The disjunctive can be seen in vv. 5 and 10, which actually are parenthetical statements that merely provides background for the narrative and are not a part of its sequential order. Another example of this is found in Genesis 1:2. 

2. The fact that this is temporally subsequent to the statement in v. 18 and the flow of the narrative that precedes it is confirmed by the fact that the verb וַיִּצֶר֩ is a wayyiqtol, otherwise known as a waw consecutive. It is given this latter name because it tends to continue the narrative story in prose. In other words, it is the next thing that happens after the previous event described by the wayyiqtol, such as we have in v. 18 with וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ "And He said." Hence, v. 19 is not disjunctive but follows the narrative sequence of events from God forming Adam from the ground in v. 7, planting plants after that in v. 9, taking the man and putting him in the garden in v. 15, commanding him not to eat from the wrong fruit in v. 16, seeing that it was not good for him to be an individual without a mate and deciding to make him a helper in v. 18, forming animals and birds as possible candidates for that role in v. 19, causing him to fall asleep and taking a chunk from his side in v. 21, and crafting a woman for him as a helper and bringing her to him in v. 22.

3. This pattern makes more sense here since God's declaring that Adam's singleness is "not good," a phrase that plays on the pattern of Genesis 1. Along with this pattern is God declaring what is to be created and then it is created. Hence, God states He will create a helper. God creates helpers but they are not fit for Adam, so He makes a final one that is "according to his side," i.e., human like he is. There is no interruption of parenthetical statements in the Genesis 1 narrative between God's decree and the creation of what God decrees. Hence, I would argue there is none here as well and the creation of the animals is part of the process that the man needs to see in the creation of the woman as his uniquely made helper. 

4. Hebrew, and clearly the author of Genesis himself, does not convey the pluperfect idea like this. Instead, if the author meant to communicate a pluperfect idea and make the creation of the animals at an earlier time than that of Adam's creation, he would have said like this: "And God brought all the animals of the field which He had made from the ground to Adam. In other words, the main clause of the narrative flow would appear first and then the pluperfect statement. The author does do this in a couple places just in these opening narratives. For instance, in Genesis 1:31, "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." Notice, the wayyiqtol is the first verb that continues the flow of the narrative, "And God saw everything." The pluperfect that describes things that were previously made begins with the Hebrew relative clausal indicator אֲשֶׁ֣ר "which" and then gives us the pluperfect that lo and behold is formed with a perfect, not an imperfect or preterite. Imagine that. The pluperfect is actually formed out of the perfect as is normative in most languages. It is not formed out of the wayyiqtol anywhere in this narrative.

Again in 2:2-3, the construction appears three times, each one in the same format: wayyiqtol as the main clause in the narrative flow first, then אֲשֶׁ֥ר followed by a perfect. 

"And on the seventh day God finished (wayyiqtol) his work that (אֲשֶׁ֥ר plus perfect) he had done (עָשָֽׂה), and he rested (wayyiqtol) on the seventh day from all his work that (אֲשֶׁ֥ר plus perfect) he had done (עָשָֽׂה). So God blessed (wayyiqtol) the seventh day and made (wayyiqtol) it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that (אֲשֶׁ֥ר plus perfect) he had created (בָּרָ֥א) to make."

Conclusion: The text is not saying that God made the plants, birds, and animals before He made the man and woman. It is saying that God made them after the man was created. This, of course, flies in the face of the literalistic reading of the two texts and begs us to question our presuppositions and traditional interpretations of these texts.