Bible Facts Little Understood by
Christians
www.bibleone.net
The
Septenary Arrangement of Scripture
There remains therefore a rest
[Sabbath rest] for the people of God (Hebrews
4:9).
Hebrews
4:1-11 deals with a rest that will be realized by
“the people of God”
during the seventh millennium dating from the restoration of the
earth and the creation of man in the first chapter of
Genesis.
Teachings surrounding this rest, textually and
contextually, viewed from the standpoint of the way matters are
outlined in the book of Hebrews,
are based on three portions of Old Testament Scripture:
- The experiences of the Israelites under
Moses, and later Joshua (Hebrews
3:2-19).
- God’s work and subsequent rest during the
seven days of Genesis
chapters one and
two (Hebrews
4:4).
- The Sabbath given to Israel that the
nation was to keep week after week following six days of work (Hebrews
4:9).
The experiences of the Israelites under Moses,
and later Joshua, during a past dispensation form the type;
and the experiences of Christians under Christ during the present
dispensation, leading into the coming dispensation, form the
antitype. Then teachings surrounding a rest lying
before both the Israelites in the type and Christians in the
antitype are drawn from the rest that God entered into following six
days of work in Genesis
chapters one and
two. And the Sabbath was
given to Israel to keep, ever before them, the whole overall
thought of that that occurred in the opening two chapters of
Genesis (cf.
Exodus 20:8-11;
31:13-17).
Teachings drawn from the opening two chapters of
Genesis form the key
to the entire matter, and a correct understanding and interpretation
of these opening chapters is not something that should be taken
lightly. Scripture is actually built upon a structure that is laid
down in these two chapters, and an individual's understanding and
interpretation of numerous things throughout the remainder of
Scripture will be governed by his or her understanding and
interpretation of this opening section of Scripture.
If one understands these opening verses correctly, he will
understand how God has structured His revelation to man, allowing
him to grasp numerous things that he could not otherwise
understand. However, if one fails to understand these opening
verses correctly, the opposite will be true. He will have gone
wrong at the beginning, and he will remain wrong the remainder of
the way.
The preceding, for example, is the reason many individuals fail to
see the proper relationship of the Sabbath rest in
Hebrews 4:9 to God’s rest
following six days of work in Genesis 2:2, 3 (cf. Hebrews
4:4). They attempt to relate this rest to something that
Christians enter into during the present day and time, which is a
time prior to the seventh day, a time not even in view. Or this is
the reason many individuals attempt to understand
2 Peter 3:8 in the light
of Psalm 90:4, when,
contextually, 2 Peter 3:8
must be understood in the light of the opening two chapters
of Genesis (cf.
2 Peter 1:16-18; 3:5-7).
With these things in mind, the remainder of this chapter deals with
the structure of the Hebrew text, especially in parts of the
first chapter of
Genesis, particularly
verse two, and the
testimony of the remainder of Scripture insofar as the opening two
chapters of Genesis are
concerned.
One MUST understand what is revealed at the beginning
first. This is the key. Only then can an
individual be in a position to move forward and properly understand
the remainder.
“Was”
or “Became”
It would go without saying that there has been
a great deal of controversy over the years among theologians and
Christians in general concerning exactly how the opening two
chapters of Genesis
should be understood. And it would also go without saying that, as
a result, confusion has reigned supreme in Christian circles
concerning not only these chapters but the general tenor of the
remainder of Scripture as well.
There are actually two major schools of thought surrounding these
two opening chapters, though there are a number of variations within
that are held by those in each school.
Those in one school (probably the position held
by the majority today) view the six days in the
first chapter as time
revealing and describing God’s creative activity from verse
one.
And those in the other school view these six
days as time revealing God’s restoration of a ruined creation (creation
seen in v. 1, a ruin
of this creation seen in v. 2a,
and God’s restoration of the ruined creation seen in vv.
2b ff).
Then there is a variation of the second school, which is held by
quite a few individuals and could be looked upon as forming a third
school of thought. Those holding to this view see
Genesis 1:1 as an opening
statement dealing with restoration, not creation. That is, they see
the verse dealing, not with God’s creation of the heavens and the
earth in an absolute sense (as most view the verse), but with the
beginning of God’s restoration (reforming, remolding, refashioning)
of a previously perfect creation that had fallen into a state of
ruin (with the creation of the heavens and the earth per se
not seen in these opening verses).
Much of the controversy surrounding these different views is
centered in the linguistics of verse
two. Grammarians go back
to the Hebrew text and deal with two areas: (1) the relationship to
verse one of the three
circumstantial clauses that form the
second verse to that stated in the
first verse, and (2) the
meaning of the Hebrew word hayah in verse
two (translated “was”). And good Hebrew grammarians
reach different conclusions in both realms.
1. The Three Circumstantial Clauses
The three circumstantial clauses in
Genesis 1:2 are simply the
clauses that form the verse:
(a)
“The earth was without form,
and void;”
(b)
“And darkness was on the face of
the deep.”
(c)
“And the Spirit of God was
hovering over the face of the waters.”
In the Hebrew text there is what is called a “waw”
beginning verse two (a
conjunctive or disjunctive particle [actually, a letter in the
Hebrew alphabet, the waw, prefixed to a word], usually
translated “and” in most English texts). Some grammarians view this
particle beginning verse two
in a conjunctive sense (showing a connection between v.
1 and v.
2), and other grammarians
view it in a disjunctive sense (showing a separation between
v. 1 and v.
2). Normally the context
determines how the particle is to be understood.
(The other two circumstantial clauses
in verse two begin with “waw” as well, which will be
discussed later.
The Hebrew text of the Old Testament
uses the “waw” more frequently in a conjunctive [“and”]
rather than a disjunctive [“but”] sense. Of the approximately
28,000 usages of this particle, some 25,000 appear to be conjunctive
and some 3,000 disjunctive.)
Those viewing the “waw” beginning
Genesis 1:2 in a
conjunctive sense would see the three circumstantial
clauses as inseparably connected with verse
one, and those viewing the
“waw” in a disjunctive sense would, instead, see a
separation between these two verses.
If there is an inseparable connection of the clauses in verse
two with verse
one
(in a conjunctive sense), and verse
one describes an absolute
beginning in relation to the heavens and the earth (God’s actual
creation of the heavens and the earth in the beginning), then verse
two would have to
describe how God created the earth in the beginning (i.e., “without
form, and void”).
Understanding the structure of the Hebrew text after this fashion
would necessitate viewing that which is described at the beginning
of verse two as the
condition of the earth at the time of the action described in verse
one. That is to say,
God would have initially created the earth (v.
1) in the condition
described in verse two.
Then the six subsequent days would have to be looked upon as time in
which God, step by step, performed and completed His work of
creation introduced in verse one.
The preceding view of the structure of the Hebrew text is the reason
for the position held by some that
Genesis 1:1 describes the
beginning of God’s restorative work rather than an absolute
beginning. Those holding this view see the three circumstantial
clauses in verse two as
inseparably connected with verse
one. But they also see that Scripture teaches a
subsequent ruin of the creation following God’s creation of the
heavens and the earth in the beginning (e.g., cf.
Genesis 1:2 and Isaiah 45:18
[the Hebrew word tohu, translated “without
form” in Genesis 1:2
is translated “in vain” in Isaiah 45:18;
and this verse in Isaiah
specifically states that God did not create the earth tohu,
i.e., after the fashion in which it is seen in
Genesis 1:2]).
Thus, those who see God’s perfect creation undergoing a subsequent
ruin but also view the three circumstantial clauses in verse
two as inseparably
connected with verse one
are forced into a particular position concerning the interpretation
of the opening verses of Genesis.
They are forced into the position of seeing the actual creation of
the heavens and the earth, and also the ruin of the heavens and the
earth, as occurring at a time prior to
Genesis 1:1, events which
they would see as not being dealt with per se in the opening
verses of Scripture at all.
Then there are those grammarians who see the “waw” beginning
verse two as
disjunctive. These grammarians would see the Hebrew “waw”
beginning the verse being understood in a similar sense to the way
in which the Greek word de is used in the New Testament
(normally disjunctive), as opposed to the Greek word kai (the
word used to show a conjunctive sense). In this respect, the
translators of the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old
Testament) used de to translate the first “waw” in
what was apparently meant to be a disjunctive sense beginning
Genesis 1:2 (with the
conjunctive kai used to translate the remaining two “waws”
beginning the other two circumstantial clauses in the verse).
Using the King James Version (KJV)
text to illustrate, the translators of the Septuagint used de
and kai to translate the three Hebrew “waws” in this
manner:
And
[De, lit., But] the earth
was without form, and void; and [kai]
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And [kai]
the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And, viewing the verse beginning in a
disjunctive sense of the preceding nature, there would be no
connection between the first two verses of
Genesis. Rather, a
separation would exist instead. Within this view, one would
normally see verse one
revealing an absolute beginning, with verse
two (along with the
following verses) revealing events occurring at later points in
time.
(Most holding this linguistic
view see verse two as a description of God’s perfect creation
[from verse one] being brought into a ruined state, separated
from verse one by an unrevealed period of time. And they
would, accordingly, see God’s activity during the six days as
activity surrounding the restoration of this ruined creation.
Some
holding this linguistic view though still see the six days as time
revealing God’s creative activity. They view verse one as
describing a “grand summary declaration that God created the
universe in the beginning.” Then, apart from seeing a
connection between v. 1 and v. 2, they view God’s
activity during the six days as a revelation concerning how God
accomplished that which He had previously stated in verse one.)
2. The Hebrew Word “Hayah”
Hayah is the Hebrew word translated “was” in most English
versions of Genesis 1:2
(“The earth was. . . .”).
The word is found numerous times throughout chapter
one and about 3,570 times
in the entire Old Testament.
The etymology of the word is somewhat questionable (most look at the
probable primary meaning of hayah as “falling” or “to
fall”). Hebrew scholars though see the word used over and over in
the Old Testament in the sense of “to be,” “to become,” or “to come
to pass.” And through attempts to trace the etymology of the word,
comparing the Hebrew with the Arabic (a related Semitic language),
and seeing how the word is used in the Old Testament, many scholars
have come to look upon the word in the sense of a verb of being
(“to be”). But scholars also recognize that it is not completely
valid to equate the word with the English verb of being after this
fashion.
The word is translated different ways in English versions — e.g.,
“was” or “were” (Genesis 1:2,
3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13,
etc.), “be” (Genesis 1:3,
6, 14, 29, etc.), “became [or, ‘to
become’]” (Genesis 2:7,
10; 3:22, etc.). But that’s in English
versions. In the Latin Vulgate there are thirteen instances where
hayah has been translated in the sense of “became” in
Genesis chapter
one alone; and in the
Septuagint there are twenty-two such instances in this one chapter
(out of the twenty-seven times hayah appears in chapter
one).
The first use of hayah in Scripture is in
Genesis 1:2 — the verse
under consideration in this study. But going beyond this verse for
a moment, note how the word is used elsewhere in chapter
one.
Hayah appears twice in verse
three, translated “be” and
“was.” And translating, “Let light be [or ‘become’]:
and light became,” would actually best convey the thought of
that which occurred.
Then note verses 5, 8, 13, 19,
23, 31. The word hayah appears two times
in the latter part of each verse (both translated in the English
text by the one word, “were”). Translating literally from the
Hebrew, using “was” in the translation, the text would read, “. . .
And there was evening and there
was morning, [comprising]
the first day . . . the second day . . . the third day,”
etc.
Actually though, “became” would really better convey the thought
surrounding that which occurred, for evening and morning came to
pass, “became,” comprising each of the six different days.
Leupold, a Hebrew grammarian from past years,
in his commentary on Genesis,
appears to capture the overall thought of hayah to mark
beginning points in each day quite well by translating, “. . .
Then came evening, then came morning — the first day the second day . . . the
third day,” etc.
Then note the words, “. . . and it
was so,” at the end of verses
7,
9, 11, 15, 24, 30. “Was” in
each reference is a translation of the word hayah, and it is
easy to see that “became” rather than “was” would really provide a
better description of that which occurred in each instance,
translating, “. . . and it became
so” (cf. “Let there be [a translation of hayah]
. . . .” [vv. 3,
6, 14]).
Though hayah has been translated “was,” “were,” or “be”
throughout the first
chapter of Genesis, the
word is actually used mainly throughout this chapter in the sense of
“be,” “became,” or “had become.”
Attention is called to this fact because
numerous individuals look at the translation “became [or ‘had
become’]”as so rare in the Old Testament that serious consideration
should not be given to the thought of translating
Genesis 1:2, “And
[or But] the earth became [or had become] . . . .” But
the rarity is in the English translations, not in a literal Hebrew
rendering or in certain other translations (e.g., in the
KJV there are only 17
instances in all of Genesis
where hayah has been translated “became [or, ‘. . . become’]”
[2:7,
10; 3:22; 9:15; 18:18; 19:26;
20:12; 21:20; 24:67; 32:10; 34:16;
37:20; 47:20, 26; 48:19]; but in
the Septuagint there are at least 146 instances [and some 1,500 in
the entire Old Testament]).
3. The Hebrew Text Alone
Can linguistic questions surrounding the first two verses of
Genesis be resolved from
the Hebrew text alone? Can one determine from the Hebrew text alone
whether the “waw” beginning verse
two should be understood
as conjunctive or disjunctive? Or can one determine from the Hebrew
text alone how the word hayah should be translated in verse
two? Or can one
determine from the Hebrew structure of verse
two alone how the
remainder of the first
chapter should be understood in an overall sense?
Some Hebrew scholars would answer in the affirmative. But, because
of the different ways a number of Hebrew scholars view the matter at
hand, using the Hebrew text alone, the issue could only be resolved
within their minds and possibly within the minds of others who
follow their same line of reasoning. And note that the issue would
be resolved by different scholars after entirely different fashions,
all based on their understanding of the grammatical structure of the
Hebrew text.
However, there is another way to approach the matter;
and that other way is to see how the whole of Scripture deals with
the issue at hand. If the whole of Scripture can be shown to
support one view alone — which it can — then the correct
linguistic understanding of
Genesis 1:2 and the corresponding correct interpretation
of chapter one can
easily and unquestionably be demonstrated.
This is not to say that Genesis
1:2 or the first
chapter of Genesis
as a whole cannot be understood correctly apart from first going to
the remainder of Scripture, for that cannot be the case. God would
not have begun His revelation to man after a fashion that man could
not have understood apart from subsequent revelation (requiring
approx. 1,500 years to complete). But this is to say that the
correct linguistic position for
Genesis 1:2 and the correct corresponding interpretation
of the entire chapter — which can be shown by going to the remainder
of Scripture — is a position that God would have expected man to see
as evident when he began reading at this point in
Genesis, though man many times does not do so.
Thus, in this respect, knowledge of the way in which the Hebrew text
is structured is really not going to resolve the issue at hand. And
time has been spent in the Hebrew construction of
Genesis 1:2 and other related passages, not in an attempt to
resolve the issue, but to demonstrate two basic things: (a) There
are good, reputable Hebrew scholars who hold varying views on the
opening verses of Genesis,
which are many times based strictly on their understanding of the
structure of the Hebrew text, apart from contextual considerations;
and (b) though the linguistics of the Hebrew text (within the
different ways scholars understand the linguistics of the text) will
support any one of these views, all but one are out of line
with the remainder of Scripture and are, consequently, wrong.
That is to say, though it may be possible to support different views
from the structure of the Hebrew text alone, different views
cannot be supported when the remainder of Scripture is taken
into consideration — with or without the Hebrew text. Scripture
will support only one view, and that one view is the position
alluded to in the opening portion of this chapter.
Scripture will support “Creation” (an absolute creation [v.
1]), a “Ruin” of the creation (which means that the “waw”
beginning v. 2 must be understood in a disjunctive sense [But], and the
Hebrew word hayah must be understood in the sense of “became
[or had become]” [v. 2a]), a “Restoration” of the ruined creation (performed
entirely through divine intervention [vv.
2b-25]), and “Rest” (six
days of restorative work, followed by one day of rest [1:2b-2:3]).
And to illustrate this is not difficult at all. In fact, the
opposite is true. It is a very simple matter to illustrate, from
other Scripture, exactly how the opening verses of
Genesis must be
understood.
In this respect, first note the words tohu
wavahu from the Hebrew text of
Genesis 1:2.
Tohu Wavohu
The words tohu wavohu from the Hebrew
text of Genesis 1:2 are
translated “without form and void”
in the KJV English text (“formless
and void," New American Standard Bible [NASB]; “formless and empty,”
New International Version [NIV];
“waste and void”
American Standard Version [ASV]).
These two Hebrew words are used together only two other places
throughout all of the Old Testament—in
Isaiah 34:11 and
Jeremiah 4:23. And both
of these passages present a ruin of that previously seen existing
in an orderly state.
In Isaiah
34:11, Edom (v. 6)
was destined to become tohu wavohu (translated “confusion”
and “emptiness” [KJV],
“desolation” and “emptiness” [NASB];
and in Jeremiah 4:23-28,
there is a comparison of that which had previously occurred
relative to the earth in
Genesis 1:2a to that which was about to occur relative
to the land of Israel.
The land of Israel was about to become tohu
wavohu. That is, as seen in
Jeremiah 4:23-28, God was about to do the same thing
to the land of Israel (cf. vv.
14:22) that He had previously done to the earth in
Genesis 1:2a. And the
reason for both of these actions — that which God had done to the
earth, and that which He was about to do to the land of Israel — was
the same. Sin had entered (sin on the part of Satan
in the former, and sin on the part of the Jewish people in
the latter).
And, in complete keeping with this type
understanding of the use of tohu wavohu in
Isaiah 34:11 and
Jeremiah 4:23,
Isaiah 45:18 (where the Hebrew word tohu is used,
translated “in vain”) clearly states that God did not create the
earth (in Genesis 1:1)
in the manner described in Genesis
1:2a. Isaiah 45:18
states that God “created it [the earth] not in vain [not
‘tohu,’ not ‘without form,’].”
Thus, if
Genesis 1:2a is to be understood in the light of related
Scripture bearing on the subject, there can be only one possible
interpretation — the ruin of a prior existing creation (from v.
1) because of
sin. The earth from verse one
“became” tohu wavohu.
The ruin seen in both
Genesis 1:2a
and Jeremiah 4:23,
for a purpose is with a view to eventual restoration. And
the restoration seen in the continuing text of
Genesis 1:2
(vv. 2b-25) and
in the overall passage of Jeremiah
4:23ff (v.
27b), as well as in
related Scripture (e.g., Isaiah
35:1ff), is also
for a purpose.
Then, the whole of subsequent Scripture is
perfectly in line with this type understanding of the opening
section of Scripture. The whole of subsequent Scripture is built on
a septenary structure, with the foundation established and set in an
unchangeable fashion at the beginning, in
Genesis 1:1-2:3.
That is to say:
The heavens and the
earth were created, there was ruin of the material creation
(because of sin), God took six days to restore the ruined creation,
and He rested the seventh day.
Man was created
on the sixth day, man fell into a state of ruin (because of sin),
God is presently taking six days [6,000 years] to restore man, and
God will rest the seventh day (the seventh 1,000-year period [cf.
2 Peter 1:15-18;
3:3-8]).
And the latter, patterned after the former, is
what the whole of Scripture is about. The whole of Scripture is
about the same thing initially introduced and established in an
unchangeable fashion in the opening thirty-four verses of
Genesis (1:1-2:3).
The whole of Scripture is about the creation of man, his ruin, his
restoration over a six-day period (over a 6,000-year period),
followed by a seventh day of rest (a seventh 1,000-year period — the
Sabbath rest awaiting the people of God [Hebrews
4:9; cf. vv. 3,
4], the Messianic Era).
As previously stated, man would have been
expected to understand this opening section of Scripture after the
preceding fashion at the time it was written. And subsequent
Scripture simply verifies the correctness of the way man would have
been expected to understand these verses, apart from other
revelation at the time Genesis was written.
Days
in Scripture
The structure of God’s revelation to man will
be set forth briefly under three headings, and material discussed
under these three headings will relate specifically to how
particular sections of Scripture handle the matter at hand. Then
attention will be called to other related Scriptures outside these
sections to better present the overall picture from the whole of
Scripture.
1. The Sign of the Sabbath
The Sabbath was given to Israel as a sign,
and the Sabbath was to be observed by the Jewish people “throughout
their generations, for
a perpetual covenant” (Exodus
31:16). In this respect, God stated concerning the
Sabbath,
It is a sign between Me and the
children of Israel forever:
for in six days the LORD made heavens and earth, and on the
seventh day He rested and was refreshed. (Exodus
31:17)
When giving the Sabbath to Israel (cf.
Exodus 20:11) or referring
to the Sabbath rest awaiting the people of God in the book of
Hebrews (4:4-9),
in each instance, for a very good reason, God called
attention to that which had occurred in
Genesis chapters
one and
two. There is a latter work of restoration, followed by
rest, which is based on a former work of restoration, followed by
rest; and the Sabbath was given to Israel to keep this thought ever
before the Jewish people.
That is, though the sign of the Sabbath concerned a present work and
future rest, it was based on a past work and rest. God
worked six days to restore a ruined creation in the opening chapter
of Genesis; and on the
sixth day, along with the completion of His work of restoration, He
brought man into existence to rule over the restored material
creation. Then God rested on the seventh day.
But a ruin ensued once again. Man, an entirely
new creation in the universe, fell; and, as a result, the restored
material creation was brought under a curse (Genesis 3:17), leaving God with two ruined creations: man,
and the material creation.
With that in mind, how did God, in the
Genesis account, set about
to restore these two ruined creations? The answer is not only
clearly revealed but it is also very simple.
According to Scripture, God set about to
restore the subsequent ruined creations in exactly the same
manner as He had restored the former ruined creation in the
opening chapter of Genesis.
God set about to restore the two subsequent ruined creations over a
six-day period (in keeping with
Genesis 1:2b-25); and, in keeping with
Genesis 2:2, 3,
following His restoration work, God would then rest on the seventh
day.
The latter restoration must occur in complete keeping with
the former restoration. A divinely-designed pattern had been set in
the former restoration that could not be changed. Thus, the latter
restoration must occur over a six-day period. And this
six-day period of restorative work must, as the former, be followed
by a day of rest.
From a biblical standpoint, it is not possible for the matter to
occur in a different manner. And the Sabbath was given to Israel to
keep the thought ever before the Jewish people that, in accord with
the opening verses of Genesis,
God was going to once again rest for one day following six days of
work to effect the restoration of that which is presently in a
ruined state (both man and the material creation).
The Sabbath was a “sign,” and a sign in
Scripture points to something beyond itself. This “sign,” the
Sabbath, points to a seventh-day rest that God will enter into
with His people (“the people of God” in
Hebrews 4:9) following
six previous days of restorative work.
Each day in the former restoration and rest was twenty-four hours in
length, but each day in the latter restoration and rest is revealed
to be one thousand years in length (2 Peter 1:16-18; 3:3-8;
cf. Matthew 16:28-17:5). Based on the pattern set
forth in Genesis
chapters one and
two, God is going to work for six thousand years during
the present restoration and then rest the seventh one-thousand-year
period.
Scripture begins by laying the basis for this septenary arrangement
of time in the opening verses (Genesis
1, 2). Then, accordingly, this is something seen
throughout Scripture (Exodus
31:13-17; Numbers 19:12;
Hosea 5:15-6:2; Jonah 1:17; Matthew 17:1;
Luke 24:21; John 1:29, 35, 43; 2:1;
5:9; 9:14; 11:6, 7; Hebrews 4:1,
4, 9). And the matter is then brought to a
conclusion in Revelation
chapter twenty, where
the 1,000-year Messianic Era is mentioned six times (vv.
2-7), immediately prior to
the eternal ages that are seen to follow (chapters
21,
22).
Scripture deals with 7,000 years of time — time extending from
the restoration of the earth and the creation of man to the
end of the Messianic Kingdom. Scripture has very little to say
about what occurred prior to these 7,000 years, and it also has very
little to say about what will occur following these 7,000 years.
Scripture is built on this septenary arrangement of time, which is
based on the opening two chapters of
Genesis; and this is an
evident fact which must be recognized if one would correctly
understand God’s redemptive plans and purposes that He has revealed
in His Word.
2. The Signs in John’s Gospel
The gospel of John is built around eight signs; and, as in the sign of the
Sabbath, the signs in this gospel point to things beyond the signs
themselves.
It is the Jews who require a sign (1
Corinthians 1:22); and these signs, taken from numerous
signs that Jesus performed during His earthly ministry, are directed
(as was His ministry in that day) to the Jewish people.
Jesus performed such
signs for one central purpose:
. . . that you [the Jews]
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that believing you might have life through His name. (John
20:30, 31; cf. John 2:11; 5:46,
47; 6:14, 21; 11:45).
Seven of the eight signs in John’s gospel were
performed in connection with particular days, all in perfect keeping
with one another, all in perfect keeping with the sign of the
Sabbath, and all in perfect keeping with the septenary arrangement
of Scripture. And all of the signs refer, after different fashions,
to the same thing. They all refer to things surrounding Israel’s
coming salvation and restoration.
The first sign, in 2:1-11,
has to do with Jesus turning the water in six water pots to wine
(“six,” man’s number; the water pots made from the earth, as man;
filled with water [the Word]; and through divine intervention a
change ensues). This sign, pointing to the future salvation of
Israel as the wife of Jehovah, occurred on the seventh day (1:29, 35, 43; 2:1), which is when Israel will
enter into these experiences foreshadowed by the sign.
The second sign, in 4:40-54,
has to do with the healing of a nobleman’s son. This sign occurred
on the third day (vv. 40,
43), after Jesus had spent two days with the
Samaritans. It will be after two days visiting “the
Gentiles, to take out
of them a people for His name,” that on the third day
Jesus will return to the Jewish people to effect healing for the
nation (cf. Hosea 5:15-6:2;
Acts 15:14-18).
The third sign, in 5:1-9,
also had to do with healing, with a man being healed at a particular
time. This healing occurred after thirty-eight years, on
the Sabbath (vv. 5,
9). The reference (drawn from an Old Testament type)
would be to the healing of the nation through the second generation
of Israelites being allowed to enter the land under Joshua after
thirty-eight years (dating from the overthrow at
Kadesh-Barnea). And both the sign and type would foreshadow the
same future event. They would both point to that future time when
the nation will be healed and will be allowed to enter the land
under Christ, an event which will occur on the seventh day,
the Sabbath.
The fourth sign, in 6:1-14,
has to do with bread being provided for the multitudes; and the sign
occurred in connection with the Passover (v.
4). Jesus is that “bread
of life” which will be provided for the nation yet future (v.
35), and the Passover
is the festival in Leviticus 23
that has to do with the future salvation of Israel, when the nation
will receive the true “bread of life.” Israel has slain the Lamb (cf.
Exodus 12:6; Acts 2:36;
3:14, 15),
but the nation has yet to appropriate the blood (cf.
Exodus 12:7,
13; Zechariah 12:10; Romans 11:26). The
Passover, the first of seven Jewish festivals outlining a prophetic
calendar and sequence of events in relation to Israel, will be
fulfilled in that coming day when Israel does appropriate the
blood. And this will then be followed by a continued supernatural
provision for the nation, exactly as foreshadowed by the sign.
The fifth sign, in 6:15-21,
has to do with Christ’s departure, a storm, His return, the
disciples’ attitude toward Him at this time, and the geographical
location in which they subsequently found themselves. It points to
Christ’s departure from Israel two thousand years ago (v.
15), the coming
Tribulation (vv. 16-18),
Christ’s return (vv. 19, 20),
the nation receiving Him (v. 21a),
and the nation's restoration to the land (v.
21b). This is the only
sign not providing a specific reference to particular days, but the
chronology must be understood in the light of the other six signs.
The sixth sign, in 9:1-41,
has to do with the healing of a blind man, on the Sabbath day
(v. 14). This points
to Israel’s future deliverance from her blindness (Romans 11:25), which will occur on the seventh day,
the Sabbath. Or, as in Luke
24:13-31, it will occur after two days (dating
from the crucifixion), on the third day (v.
21).
The seventh sign, in
11:1-44, has to do with the resurrection of Lazarus.
This resurrection occurred after Jesus had been out of the land of
Judea two days, on the third day (vv.
6,
7), after Lazarus had lain in the grave four days
(v. 17). This points
to Israel’s future resurrection (Ezekiel
37:12-14; Daniel 12:2) after two days,
on the third day; and at this time Israel will have been in the
place of death four days, dating four millennia back to
Abraham.
The eighth sign, in
20:1-29, has to do with
Christ’s resurrection, after two days, on the third day.
This sign pints to that coming third day, dating from the
crucifixion, when not only Israel but all of God’s firstborns
(Christ, Israel, and the Church [following the adoption]) will be
raised up to live in His sight, which will be after two days,
on the third day.
3. The Structure of 2
Peter
Second Peter parallels
Jude in the sense that
both deal with the Word of the Kingdom and apostasy
after a similar fashion.
Both epistles begin the same way. The
first chapter of
2 Peter is taken up with
that which is stated in one verse in
Jude (v.
3). Then the matter of
apostasy is dealt with throughout most of the remainder of both
epistles. However, there are things dealt with in the
first and third
chapters of 2 Peter,
showing the septenary structure of the epistle, which are not dealt
with at all in Jude.
Peter exhorts his readers to make their “calling
[pertaining to the kingdom] and election [‘selection’ for a
position of power and authority in the kingdom] sure”
(1:1-15); and
Jude states the same thing
in Jude 3 when he
exhorts his readers to “earnestly
contend for [‘earnestly
strive (Greek: epagonizomai, meaning to earnestly strain
every muscle of one’s being) with respect to’]
the faith” (cf.
1 Timothy 6:12;
2 Timothy 4:7, 8). Then the thought of
apostasy relative to “the faith” comes into view in both
epistles.
However, Peter does
something which Jude
does not do. Before beginning his dissertation on apostasy he calls
attention to that which occurred on the Mount in
Matthew 17:1-8 (2
Peter 1:16-18), which has to do with the Son of Man
coming in His kingdom, after six days, on the seventh day
(cf. Matthew 16:28-17:1).
Then toward the end of his epistle,
Peter, unlike
Jude, moves from thoughts
surrounding apostasy to thoughts surrounding the existence and
subsequent destruction of the heavens and the earth at two
different times.
a)
At a time following the creation of the heavens and the earth
(“the
heavens . . . of old”
and “the world that then was
[the world existing at the time of ‘the
heavens . . . of old’ (in
Genesis 1:1, not during
the days of Noah)]” [2 Peter 3:
5,
6]).
b)
At a time following the restoration of the heavens and the earth
(“the heavens and the earth that
are now,” existing since the restoration in
Genesis 1:2b-25 [2
Peter 3: 7]).
The destruction of the former is seen in
Genesis 1:2a (“But
the earth had become without form,
and void; and darkness [the sun had ceased to give
its light] was upon the face of
the deep [the raging waters]”), and the destruction of
the latter — destruction by fire — is seen in succeeding verses in
2 Peter (3:10ff).
Peter then draws the entire matter to a climax by stating that “one
day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day” (3:8).
Understood contextually (vv. 3-7),
the verse is self-explanatory. “The
heavens and the earth,
which are now” (v. 7)
must cover the entire septenary period from chapter
one (vv.
16-18), else
2 Peter 3:8 would be
meaningless. And each day in this period is revealed to be one
thousand years in length — six millennia of work, followed by one
millennium of rest, based on the opening verses of
Genesis.
(Note one thing about the restoration
in Genesis 1:2b-25 that should be understood. This
restoration could only have been a complete restoration. No
trace of “the world that then was” [the world preceding the
ruin seen in Genesis 1:2a], or the subsequent ruined earth
[in Genesis 1:2a], can be seen in “the heavens and the
earth, which are now.”
A complete restoration would have
removed all traces of anything having to do with “the
world that then was” or with that world during that time when it
lay in a ruined state. That is to say, geology today cannot show
evidence of any type ruin of a pre-existing creation, for a
complete restoration — the only type restoration possible
through the divine work seen in Genesis chapter one —
would have removed all traces of the ruin occurring in
Genesis 1:2a.
In this respect, all that exists in
the present secular world of history and science — e.g., the
complete fossil record, the dinosaurs, topographical formations such
as the Grand Canyon, etc.— would all have to be placed this side of
the restoration seen in Genesis 1:2b-25, within time covered
by “the heavens and the earth, which are now.”
That which occurred during and which
resulted from the Noachian Flood, 1656 years following the
restoration of the earth (Genesis 6-8), along with later
topographical changes on the earth during the days of Peleg [born
100 after the Flood (Genesis 10:25), must be looked to
for an explanation of numerous things of the preceding nature, not
to a world lying in ruins in Genesis 1:2a, or to a world
existing prior to that time.)
Concluding Remarks
By viewing the whole of Scripture, the correct
interpretation of the opening verses of
Genesis can be clearly and
unquestionably presented through:
1)
The manner in which the Hebrew words from
Genesis 1:2a, tohu
wavohu, are used elsewhere in Scripture (interpreting Scripture
in the light of Scripture [Isaiah
34:11; 45:18;
Jeremiah 4:23]).
2)
And through the typical nature of Old Testament history (1
Corinthians 10:6, 11),
which has been set forth in a very evident divinely established
septenary arrangement.
And these opening verses, providing the
divinely established basis for that which follows, must be
understood accordingly.
The Bible is a book of redemption; and only a correct view of
the opening verses of Genesis
can reflect positively, at the very outset, on God’s
redemptive message as a whole — the restoration of a ruined
creation, performed in its entirety through divine
intervention, for a revealed purpose.
An incorrect view, on the other hand, can only have negative
ramifications. Creation alone, apart from a ruin and
restoration of the creation, fails to convey the complete message at
the outset of the Word; and Restoration alone (viewing the
opening verse as other than an absolute beginning), apart from a
record of the preceding creation and ruin, likewise fails to convey
the complete message at this opening point in Scripture.
It is as F. W. Grant stated years ago relative to the existing
parallel between the creation and ruin of the earth and the
subsequent creation and ruin of man:
“The thought of a ruined condition of
the earth succeeding its original creation . . . is . . . required
by the typical view [that is, the earth’s creation, ruin, and
subsequent restoration forms a type of (foreshadows) man’s creation,
ruin, and subsequent restoration].”
Accordingly, the opening verses of
Genesis cannot deal
strictly with Creation; nor can these verses deal
strictly with Restoration. Either view would be out of line
with the whole of Scripture, beginning with the central theme of
Scripture, the message of redemption.
The only interpretative view that will fit — at all points
— within the divinely established septenary arrangement of
Scripture (which has it basis in these opening verses) is:
Creation (an
absolute beginning, and a perfect creation [v.
1]).
A Ruin of the Creation (v.
2a).
A Restoration of the Ruined Creation (vv.
2b-25).
Rest (in the type — six twenty-four-hour days of restorative
work, followed by a twenty-four-hour day of rest; in the antitype —
six 1,000-year days of restorative work, followed by a 1,000-year
day of rest [1:2b-2:3]).
|