4th
FUNDAMENTAL
TRUTH
THE FALL
OF MAN
Man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” [Gen. 1:26, KJV]. However, man by voluntary transgression fell and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God (Gen. 1:26–27; 2:17; 3:6; Rom. 5:12–19).
What are we as human beings? This is a question that has been asked by thoughtful people through the centuries. It is an important question, since without its proper answer, life’s meaning remains uncertain. Much of the unrest among youth may be attributable to this urgent quest.
A good beginning point for our discussion might be to reflect on two passages from the Book of Psalms. “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet” (Ps. 8:4–5). In this passage the words “heavenly beings” translate the Hebrew ’Elohim, which is a general word for “God,” “gods,” or “angels,” depending on the context. The writer of the Book of Hebrews, inspired by the Spirit, incorporates this Old Testament text in his New Testament work (Heb. 2:5–9; applying the psalmist’s verses to Jesus as our representative and as the one through whom we can achieve the destiny that was blocked by sin). In doing so, he translated ’Elohim into the Greek word angelous—“angels”—and in this way provided a clarification of the original Hebrew. The important point, however, is that the perspective of the Psalmist with regard to human beings is from above, from their relation to heaven. A sharp distinction between human beings and the rest of creation is evident here.
Another psalm begins: “O LORD, what is man that you care for him, the son of man that you think of him? Man is like a breath; his days are like a fleeting shadow” (Ps. 144:3–4). This view of human beings discloses our plight. We are, after all, but frail creatures. Apart from our Creator, we are in peril. Between these two important views of humankind—one that sees us as a special object of God’s creative interest, the other that sees us dependent on God’s sustaining power—the realistic Bible account of humanity is cast. All nonbiblical views of humanity are either too high or too low. The Bible depicts us as we are in reality.
Where did human beings originate? The Bible does not give us a detailed, precise account of creation, such as modern scientists might produce. Scientific language as we know it was not developed until modern times. The Bible uses everyday language, and in that sense is prescientific in its categories and language; but it is not untrue or mythical. It is a common sense reporting of events and information in language appropriate to the people of the ancient Near East. And, remarkably, in spite of the span of millennia, in spite of our sophisticated, scientifically-oriented culture, the language of Genesis still conveys the essential information we need. After all, science is but a system of classifying empirical data. And though scientists can speculate about origins, they have no way to go back and be sure of them. We have assurance of our origin, however, through the facts given by revelation in God’s Word. True science and the Bible are not at odds.
Very simple, yet utterly profound is the assertion in Genesis 1:26–28 regarding the origin of human beings.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
It should be noted that this passage does not imply exploitation of the natural world, but care and proper use. Subduing the earth means bringing its resources under proper control and use. It was the go-ahead for a physical science that would help people learn about the earth and how to use it properly. Ruling the animal world included proper care and respect for its creatures. It was the go-ahead for a biological science that would help people learn about all living organisms and how to treat them. Unfortunately, as Romans 1 indicates, people took God off the throne, put self on the throne, and fell into the kinds of idolatry, sin, and perversion. Then, as long as they believed in many gods—none of whom were in complete control, and many fighting each other—they could not believe in any consistency in nature or in natural laws. It was not until the latter part of the Middle Ages, when Christian theologians said that God had a plan and that He was faithful and consistent, that people began to realize there was a consistency in nature. In effect, Christian theologians gave the impetus to scientific research, and science began to make progress.
Several crucial and far-reaching implications may be derived form the Genesis record. First of all, Adam and Eve were products of special creation by God. The Bible explicitly demands a creationist viewpoint, in sharp distinction to evolutionism, which teaches an organic development from the lower animals to human beings. Although the biblical record does not specify the time of creation, saying only “In the beginning,”1 it does clearly differentiate between the creation of all other living organisms and the special creation of Adam and Eve. The various theories of biological evolution, which blur the distinction between human beings and animals, require a view of Scripture other than that held by the apostles. For Paul, there was a literal Adam, and he makes a theological point on the fact that Adam was the first man (Rom. 5:12–21). And if there was a literal Adam, evolution is hard-pressed to account for some way that Adam could have evolved into Eve. Usually, evolutionists propose that a female was first in the human line.
Evolutionary views are of two basic types: theistic and atheistic. We may rule out atheistic evolution as obviously out of bounds by definition, though the majority of evolutionists today believe evolution has taken place by the same natural processes we see going on today and that in themselves they are a sufficient explanation. Therefore, they see no need for divine intervention. Yet even some of them are having a hard time explaining the origin of many of the complex structures in nature.2
There are numerous sincere Christians, however, who feel that they must accommodate the teaching of the Bible to various so-called facts of science, choosing therefore to adopt a position known as theistic evolution. Although the motives for taking such a position are commendable, it requires a type of biblical hermeneutics that raises more questions that it resolves. It forces a mythical, or at least a figurative or allegorical, interpretation on part of Genesis. None of these views corresponds to that of the apostle Paul. It appears further that the capitulation of theistic evolutionists to the demands of certain scientific theories may be premature. The theory of biological evolution, due to recent scientific inquiry, is under more serious question by many today than it was a generation ago. The Bible does not deny that there is change and development. God created one man and one woman. Today we have all the variety seen in the various races. Even so, we all are still human beings, much more alike than we are different. God in creation seems to have made provision for additional variety to develop. But the development and changes are seen within the “kinds” that God created. Fossil records show also that all the major groups of animals go back in straight lines to the earliest fossils (found in the Cambrian period). For example, an echinoderm (starfish family) in the Cambrian was just as much an echinoderm as one is today; an arrow worm in the Cambrian was as much an arrow worm as one is today. Most of the so-called proofs of evolution are taken from changes and development within the various kinds.3
Actually the theory of evolution has become more of a philosophy than a scientific theory. As Bible believers we can rest assured that the facts really do dovetail with the legitimate demands of Scripture.4 God does not speak in nature. But the Bible is God’s eternal Word. What science discovers is often interpreted in various ways, but there are thousands of people today working in science or who have scientific training who believe that there is no real conflict between science and the Bible. The Bible-believing person need not fear truth.5
Several important implications regarding the nature of human beings flow out of the Genesis account of special creation. One is that all people have a common ancestry: Adam and Eve. This testifies to the unity of mankind. Basically there is only one race, the human race. The teaching in Romans 5:12–21, regarding the Fall, is based squarely on the solidarity, the unity, of the human race. Through this unity, the tendency toward sin occasioned by Adam’s fall reaches throughout the entire race. Likewise, the redemption that is ours through Christ, the second Adam, has a similar potential (Rom. 5:18).
When God created Adam, He first formed the body from the moist dust of the ground. Then He breathed into him the breath of life6 and he “became a living being.”7 The Bible speaks later of the material body, an immaterial soul, and an immaterial spirit. Those who emphasize these three categories are called trichotomists. There is justification in this threefold distinction in such passages as 1 Thessalonians 5:23: “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Others take the statements of 2 Corinthians 4 and 5 to indicate there are basically two categories, the body and the inner person. Those who emphasize this dual aspect, material and immaterial, without giving special consideration to the distinction between soul and spirit, are called dichotomists.8
Regardless of which camp one may class oneself on this issue, it is clear that there are three functions of the human nature, indicated by the three categories. The body is the world-conscious aspect of our being. The sensory apparatus God has given us—sight, touch, hearing, smell, and taste—furnishes us an awareness of our physical surroundings. It is chiefly through this kind of avenue that we communicate with our environment. Our bodily appetites are part of our physiological and psychological makeup.
Nowhere in the Bible are such bodily appetites considered evil in themselves. This is very important. The Greeks, as well as other pagans in the early centuries, looked on the body as a “prison house.” Not so the biblical writers. God created the body good. It is intended to be the habitation of the Holy Spirit. Someday it will be resurrected. We will need a body for the full expression of our nature even in our risen, glorified state, for we will always be finite beings. This understanding of the human body and the value God places on it is of utmost significance for proper ethical behavior. If the body were in and of itself evil, we could argue that we are victims of hopeless circumstance when we are solicited by our appetites to sin, and in despair give ourselves over to indulgence. As Christians we are not to permit natural bodily appetites to govern our behavior, but by exercise of proper discipline we must make our bodies become useful instruments for doing the bidding of God (Rom. 6:13; 1 Cor. 9:27).
The two facets of our immaterial nature, soul and spirit, are intimately linked and virtually inseparable; nevertheless, they are used in sufficiently distinct ways that we can note the difference. One may say that generally the term “soul” is used theologically to denote the self, particularly with respect to conscious life here and now (Rev. 6:9). The human soul provides for self-consciousness. It is that which makes the individual a genuine personality, having characteristics unique to that person. Faculties of the soul are commonly held to be intellect, emotions, and will. Together these compose the real person. They give an internal awareness of selfhood. It is that which links the spirit and body; it governs the total personality.
We also have a spirit. God is by His nature spirit (John 4:24). On the other hand, the Bible speaks of the human spirit as being within oneself (1 Cor. 2:11); that is, the human being is not spirit, but houses spirit. Our spirit is that aspect which bears relationship to the unseen spiritual world, whether good or evil. It is that capability in us which is God-conscious. Paul, in Ephesians 2:1–10, describes the state of the unregenerate as being dead in “transgressions and sins.” The unregenerate have bodies, just like their Christian contemporaries. They also enjoy a similar psychological ability, with power to reason, to will, to have feelings. However, they are “dead” with respect to God. They are separated from Him and are spiritually inert. When the Holy Spirit quickens the unregenerate, bringing new life to the individual, that capacity to relate to God is restored.
Genesis 1:26–27 speaks of man (including both male and female) being created in the image and likeness of God. “Image” (Heb. tselem) is used of statues and working models. It implies a reflection in the human being of something of the nature of God. “Likeness” (Heb. demuth) is used of patterns, forms, or shapes that are something like what they portray. The word implies there is something like God about us. Both Hebrew words imply that further development of the human being is possible. In other words, Adam and Eve were not created all they could become: Although there was a perfection in their creation, it was the perfection of the bud, rather than of the flower or the fruit. However, we will never be totally like God, for we will always be finite beings, dependent on God. Jesus declared in John 5:26, “As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself,” that is, by His own right and nature. God has never done that for anyone else. We have eternal life only as long as Christ’s life is in us through living union with Him (see John 15:1–6).
The image of God in us consists of both a natural and a moral image—not a physical one. Our bodies were made from the dust. Jesus did not have the outward form of a man before the Incarnation (see Phil. 2:5–7). God warned Israel not to make images because He by His nature does not have the kind of form one can make an image of (Deut. 4:15–19). Consequently, no image can be like God, and worshiping any image is worshiping something other than God. What Moses and Israel saw was glory (Ex. 33:18,22). The natural image includes those elements of personality or selfhood that are appropriate to all persons, whether human or divine, and are found in all of us as well as in God. Intellect, sensibility, will—such are categories that compose true personality and form a clear line of separation between human beings and animals. The vast natural capabilities of humankind, the potential for what one calls culture and civilization, lies in this accord we have with our Creator.
The moral image includes the will and the sphere of freedom in which we can exercise our powers of self-determination. It is the part of the image that makes possible fellowship with God and communication with Him.9 God is love (1 John 4:8), and we are capable of love and are responsible for its exercise, first toward God (Deut. 6:5), responding to His love (1 John 4:19), and then toward our neighbor, including the foreigner (see Lev. 19:18,33–34; Deut. 10:19; Matt. 5:43–44; Luke 10:27–37). Our intellect informs our will, and for this, too, we bear a responsibility. The moral image in mankind is also the quality of our personality that relates to the rightness or wrongness of the use of our powers. This gives us a moral nature and furnishes the awful potential for great evil or for true goodness, righteousness, and holiness. In the beginning Adam and Eve were created with real holiness of heart, not mere innocence. They had a genuine inclination toward God and wanted to walk and talk with Him. With the Fall, this inclination toward God was ruined, becoming a strong disinclination instead. But God through Christ has provided us with a “new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph. 4:24). This shows God is especially concerned about the moral image and wants to see it restored. Its restoration is necessary if we are to have fellowship with Him.
A question philosophers have been working on and reasoning about since the time of the ancient Greeks has been how to account for the entrance of evil into the world. A wide variety of nonbiblical notions have been put forth through the years. One such view is called dualism. Held by ancient Zoroastrians, later by Gnostics (who troubled the Early Church), and by heretics called Manicheans, this view has a long history. Dualists contend that there is an eternal principle of evil in perpetual conflict with good. Usually such a view looks on matter, or the physical universe, as inherently evil. The result is that the body is considered evil by nature, and either repression of its desires or gross indulgence out of sheer resignation is the result. The consequence for theology is also severe, for it conceives God to be less than absolute and infinite, or it conceives two gods, one good and one bad. For example, some dualists believe a bad god created the universe while the good god was not looking. Some believe only spirit is good, and therefore they suppose that the physical body of Jesus was only an illusion. Others say that the Christ spirit was far below God, separated enough from Him so as not to contaminate Him, and that the Christ spirit came on Jesus either at his birth or his baptism—and some even say the Christ spirit left Him just before His crucifixion.
Another conception regarding evil’s origin is that it is simply part of man’s finiteness. Sin is but a “negation of being.” This belief tends toward pantheism, since being and morality are confused. If creatureliness carries with it automatically the conception of sinning, then it removes human beings from moral responsibility. Sin would thus be purely a result of ignorance and weakness, with the environment more to blame than the individual. People have been trying to shift the blame for their sin ever since the Fall (see Gen. 3:12–13).
A variation on the foregoing theme is that sin is chiefly, if not wholly, corporate evil. Reinhold Niebuhr wrote a famous book called Moral Man and Immoral Society.10 In this volume he attempted to show that the evil a man might not have the courage to do alone he would participate in if he were part of a group, such as a mob or a corporation, where his individuality would be blended with others who would then corporately share the responsibility. Although Niebuhr acknowledged personal sin, others have sought to go far beyond his position: emphasizing the social aspect of sin to the total neglect of personal responsibility. For example, in a generation previous to Niebuhr’s, Karl Marx was teaching that sin is nothing more than social injustice.
A common misunderstanding is a regarding of sin as having the nature of a substance. But if sin were a substance, or a thing, it would have to have been created by God and would therefore in its essence be good. Christian teachers over the years, in view of God’s hatred of sin in the Bible as a whole, have rejected the idea that sin has its origin in God. Even though sin is not a substance or a thing, that does not mean it doesn’t have reality. It acts in the realm of reality. Darkness is the absence of light. Although sin and evil are sometimes compared to darkness, they are more than the absence of good. Sin is also more than defect. It is a force that is active, pernicious, and destructive.
What does the Bible teach on this important subject? The biblical view is that sin originated in an abuse of the freedom given to created beings equipped with a will. God did not create evil. Evil is a matter of relationship, not a thing. Basically, it disregards the glory of God, the will of God, and the Word of God. It breaks away from a relation of obedience to and faith in God and makes a decision to fail Him. God did permit, however, for reasons known best to Him, the possibility of moral failure.11 Freedom of the will is an important corollary of rational personality. Moral action is what determines character. And this involves a terrible risk, the risk of failure. God, in providing for truly free moral decisions in the angels and human beings He created, had to allow for the possibility of failure in some of His creatures. Without that possibility there would not be genuine freedom or true personality.12 The marvelous thing is that God at the same time provided a remedy for those who had fallen.
Sin, then, originated in the free choice of God’s creatures. When the serpent13 tempted Eve, he began with a question (as Satan so often does), “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” He implied, “Can it be that a good God would keep something from you that you might want?” Then he followed the question with a denial, “You will not surely die … for God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Satan was implying here that God says He created you in His image and He wants you to become like Him; but He has forbidden the one thing that will make you like Him. Then, by letting Satan focus Eve’s attention on the forbidden thing, her mind began to reason that the fruit would indeed be good for her. Satan, therefore, did not have to pick the fruit or force it on her. She kept looking at it—and she made the choice. She took it, ate it, and gave it to her husband, probably conducting him through the same reasoning that led to her sin. When our first parents succumbed to temptation and sinned, several results issued from that act. They entered into a state of guilt. Not only did they become aware of their evil deed and the alienation from God which it incurred, but they became actually subject to penalty, for they were condemned by the command God had given, a command with a penalty attached.14
God could not be holy and ignore the disruption of divine law. For this reason, God must look upon sin with wrath and judgment (see Rom. 1:18; Heb. 10:31; 12:29; 2 Pet. 2:9; 3:7).
Adam and Eve brought upon themselves, then, the personal consequences of sin (see Gen. 3:16–19). In addition, the entire human race was infected by sin. Ever after, children brought into this world would be naturally blighted by the inclination to sin. This disease of the human nature, upon a child’s reaching the age of moral responsibility,15 inevitably issues in personal acts of sinning, for which the individual falls under the wrath of God. The effect of Adam’s sin on the human race is often called original sin. Original sin, though not itself the reason sinners are condemned by God, consequently leads one into overt personal sin, so that the apostle Paul can say with sadness, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Out of Adam’s sin, then, innocence was lost, the divine image in humankind was distorted and weakened, people became enslaved to sin (see Rom. 6), and discord and death entered the world.
An obvious consequence of sin has been the fracturing of the relationships that prevailed in the Garden of Eden. First, Adam and Eve were estranged from God. Their consciences, instead of helping them, caused them to hide from God among the trees of the Garden and make themselves a covering of fig leaves. Then, when God faced them with their sin, they tried to shift the blame (something people have been doing ever since). But God did not accept that. He placed the responsibility back on them.
Sin, then, originated in the free choice of God’s creatures. Instead of believing and trusting God, responding to His wonderful love and provision, they dethroned Him and enthroned self. Unbelief and the desire to exalt self were the key elements in their sin. Isaiah 14 shows to what extremes this can go. In that prophecy against Tiglath Pileser, who took the title “King of Babylon,”16 is recorded the extravagant claims he made for himself. Like most of the ancient kings, he tried to exalt himself above all gods and above the true God. Two years later the prophecy was fulfilled and people who saw his corpse said, “Is this the man17 who shook the earth?” (Isa. 14:16–20).18 The essence of sin, then, is the substitution of the satisfying of self for the original and highest objective in life—seeking God and His righteousness. The result is all kinds of sins, corruption, and perversion.19
Negatively, sin may be described as a transgressing of God’s laws (see 1 John 3:4). A variety of terms are used in both Old and New Testaments, each supplying shades of meaning that center in this basic understanding of sin as the exaltation of self and the transgression of divine law. The most common Hebrew word for sin is chatta’th, which basically means “missing the mark,” either by willfully falling short or deliberately going to one side or the other (see Isa. 53:6; Rom. 3:9–12,23.)20 Another word, resha‘, is used of angry flaring up against God (Ezek. 21:24). Pesha’ is deliberate, premeditated rebellion (Jer. 5:6). Other words speak of twisted, deviant behavior, which is contrary to God’s intention for us. But it all basically goes back to an unbelief that fails to trust and obey God (see Heb. 3:19; 4:1).
The animosity that erupted between Cain and Abel is the first recorded example of the strained relationships that have marred society since the Fall. Wars and fighting have caused untold heartache down through the long history of our fallen race—something that will continue until Jesus, the Prince of Peace, comes back to establish His kingdom on earth (see Matt. 24:6–8). Further, every sinner internally is seething with discord (see Rom. 7). The conflict of mind that tears fallen man apart is a direct consequence of sin. “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” cries the person torn by internal disharmony (Rom. 7:24).
Even nature suffered in the Fall. The very soil was cursed (Gen. 3:14–24). Not only had moral evil become a dark cloud over the world, but the Fall occasioned natural evil, too. The pestilences, diseases, and drought that have plagued mankind—causing his toil indeed to be “by the sweat of his brow”—are the result of the initial rebellion against God in the Garden.
Then sin brought death. God warned that the eating of the forbidden fruit would result in certain death (see Gen. 2:17). “Death” in the Bible often means separation. So the first effect was spiritual death; sin separated Adam and Eve from God. Their rebellion brought physical death into the world. As a result, mankind “is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb. 9:27). More than this, unrepentant sinners are also subject to the second death (see Rev. 2:11; 20:15), which is eternal separation from the source of life, God himself, in the lake of fire.
That the wages of all sin is death (Rom. 6:23) draws attention also to the serious nature of sin. Paul points out that sin could even use a good thing like the Law for evil purposes. God allows this in order that “sin might become utterly sinful” (Rom. 7:13). This means there is no way we can minimize even the slightest sin. No sin is too small for us to overlook and fail to seek forgiveness for. James reminds us also that “God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death” (James 1:13–15). In other words, if we continue to let our minds dwell on some temptation or wrong desire, it will issue in an act of sin, and if we make sin a habit or a way of life, it will bring spiritual and eternal death, that is, final separation from God. No wonder the Bible says, “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—thing about such things” (Phil. 4:8). We do not have to accept or revel in evil thoughts or desires that come to our minds. In themselves they are not sin; they can be interjected into our thoughts by the world around us. But we can reject those thoughts. It is only as we hold onto them and allow them to incubate that they lead to sin. For example, when Jesus said, “I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28), the Greek word for “looks” is a participle which means “keeps on looking.” The fact that a passing thought enters the mind does not mean one is guilty and might as well commit the sin. Not at all. By the help of the Holy Spirit the thought can be rejected and a victory won to the glory of God.
From all this it might seem there is no such thing as a minor sin. However, the Bible does make distinctions in judging sin; but it’s on a different basis—not, for example, whether murder is worse than stealing. In the Old Testament the distinction is between sins that are unintentional, for which a sin offering could made (see Lev. 4:1 to 5:13), and sins that are deliberate and defiant, for which the death penalty was prescribed (see Num. 15:30–31). The New Testament adds, “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:26–29). The Bible thus warns us never to take a light or careless attitude toward sin. Truly the world needs the gospel. Truly everyone needs the salvation God has provided. Thank God we can walk in the light, have fellowship with God, and have the blood of Jesus his Son purify us from all sin (1 John 1:7).
1. Genesis 1 gives a step-by-step account of creation with the emphasis on the Creator. Genesis 2 takes part of the sixth day and gives additional details in a topical way in relation to the creation of mankind. Taking the two chapters together, what can be said about the nature of the man and woman God created?
2. Taking just the first two chapters of Genesis by themselves, what do you learn about the Creator?
3. How are the terms “body,” “soul,” and “spirit” best defined?
4. What is included of “the image of God” in human beings?
5. What is wrong with dualism and pantheism?
6. What does the Bible teach about the nature of sin and evil?
7. What were the steps in Satan’s temptation of Eve? Has Satan changed his tactics today? If so, in what way? If not, why not?
8. What happened to Adam and Eve as a result of their sin?
9. What effects did their sin have on the human race?
10. What is meant by spiritual death?
_______________
1 The Bible gives no total for the years from Adam to Abraham. Some have tried to add up genealogies and have come out with dates of creation anywhere from 3900 B.C. to 9000 B.C., depending on how they added them up. The ancient church historians Eusebius and Augustine accepted a date of 5202 B.C. Later the Archbishop of Dublin came up with 4004 B.C. But when we look at the genealogies in the Bible we see that the Bible never intended to mention every person in the line. Matt. 1:8, for example, leaves out three people found in the Books of 2 Kings and 2 Chron. Other genealogies do the same. God never intended us to add them up.
2 A number of books dealing with this subject have been published. Christian bookstores should carry them.
3 The word “kind” in Gen. 1, the Heb. min, is a broad term, broader than “species.” It is used in Lev. 11 even of superfamilies (of animals).
4 For further research in this area, see Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 2d. ed. (San Diego: ICR Publishing Co., 1973); and Pattle T. T. Pun, Evolution, Nature and Scripture in Conflict? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982).
5 Several Christian organizations exist whose members have scientific training. One example is the American Scientific Affiliation with over 2,500 members.
6 The Heb. chayyim is plural. Some interpret this to mean God gave Adam both spiritual and physical life at the same time.
7 The Heb. nephesh, translated “soul” in the KJV here, but “creature” in Gen. 1:20,24. It is translated “person,” KJV, Num. 5:6; 31:19; 35:11,15,30; Prov. 28:17; and many other places; also “life” in Gen. 9:4–5; 19:17,19; 32:30; Lev. 17:14; Job 2:4; and many other places. The emphasis in Gen. 2:7 is that Adam became a real, live person.
8 Some dichotomists see the inner nature as having two aspects: soul in its relation to the world around and spirit in its relation to God.
9 Animals act largely through instinct. They do what is their nature to do; therefore, they are amoral. They are not able to have fellowship with people. A dog may be loyal to its master and even whine on his master’s grave, but he cannot enter into the dreams, plans, and aspirations of his master. On the other hand, we can understand and enter into the plan and purposes of God as we exercise the qualities of the moral image. In this way we can have true fellowship with Him.
10 Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932).
11 There are some things God has not revealed to us. Speculative theology tries to search out these things by human reason. As example is the Scholasticism that dominated the thinking of Western Europe from the ninth to the seventeenth centuries. It combined religious teachings with human philosophies, primarily those of Augustine and Aristotle, and attempted to say more than God intended to reveal.
12 See Clark H. Pinnock, The Grace of God and the Will of Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989), for a good discussion of the Arminian view of sin and the sovereignty of God.
13 See Rev. 12:9, which speaks of “that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan.”
14 Some today confuse guilt-feelings with actual guilt. These are Christians who have accepted the forgiveness of Christ, but still retain nagging feelings of guilt. Guilt feelings are the result of a pained conscience. Guilt itself is the legal responsibility for wrongdoing in the sight of God, which incurs penalty.
15 The Bible gives no specific age of accountability. Some children come to a point where they understand sooner than others.
16 See Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past, 2d. ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1959), 206.
17 Heb. ha’ish, the ordinary man, the individual male human being.
18 Some see a parallel between the self-exaltation of Tiglath-Pileser (also called Pul) and the self-exaltation and fall of Satan. No doubt, Satan was behind him and encouraged his pride, a pride like that of the later Sennacherib (see Isa. 36:18–20; 37:12–13,23–24).
19 See Rom. 1:18–32, where the Bible shows how much suffering is in the world because of sin, and how much, therefore, the world needs the gospel.
20 The same word is used in Judg. 20:16 of left-handed soldiers who could sling a stone at hair and not “miss.”