Nowhere does Scripture issue its commands to teach family members the faith to the exclusion of the larger faith community.  Indeed, much of today’s emphasis on family devotionals vis-a-vis Christian education at church smacks of the post-modern individualism (allbeit in a “conservative” reactionary way) that atomizes the faith and makes Christianity increasingly difficult to apply to life “in the world.  Even though the Church is the one eternal family of God, the family does have special responsibility in the raising of children, though it is limited, just as parents’ resources are more limited than that of the larger church.

Today’s family cannot simply read from a devotional or a catechism and expect its members to be transformed by the gospel.  The Word of God must be applied to specific situations in the many questions of daily living.  The most profound teaching a family can provide are simply sentences through such situations — “we do/don’t do this because God word says ____ in ____(cite scripture reference or story in the Bible).”  Parents do not need to teach systematically, but through biblical principles and most importantly, by example.  My experience is that those who are most passionate about systematic family devotions, are most insecure because their lives do not live out the graces of the gospel before their children.  I fear they see such devotions as a magic bullet that will develop their children.  On the contrary, the point of the commands of Deuteronomy 6 is not to use scripture like magic, but to make an effort to have a scriptural worldview at the center of your “mundane” daily living.

More than formal devotions, parents should help their children see the sacramental in the “mundane” activities of life.  Most children fail to see the relevance of Scripture to their lives, but they need to see how the simple act of sitting down together at the table as a family is the image that God constantly chooses to describe who are his people (those who accept his invitation to eat with Him) people and what salvation looks like (a big feast with “the rejects” from every nation).  Conversely, when a Christian family cannot find any time to sit down and enjoy each others’ company, a parent can gently inform them that they are not valuing an occasion that God and His people value — they are not living by grace, nor are they inviting others into space that God has made for such valuable learning.  Other sacramental images which are full of biblical import are that of bathing (baptism, repenting from sin), household chores (the value of serving God) and school (discipline, seeking ones calling).  Such sacramentalism can be overdone, but it is better to err on that side, since we are prone to fragment our faith from the rest of our lives.

Such an awareness of the sacramental in family life can lay important foundations and a give needed awareness of scripture’s relevance to daily life.  Only when a family can see the relevance of scripture can they agree to read Scripture together.  Perhaps then, and only then, can a family do a more systematic study of scripture and rigor of prayer.

The union of these two attributes in regard to knowledge is best explained by the fulness of the knowledge of God dwelling within Christ and he simultaneously not be concious of it. 

I think Jesus used these disturbing words as rich metaphor to communicate several key truths.  First that the disciples (and the crowd) willingly follow him and continue to willingly follow Him.  In v.53 the verbs “eat” and “drink” are aorist active subjunctives which demonstrate an initial response to Jesus.  Then in v.54 the verbs “eats” and “drinks” are present active participles showing an ongoing, willing, response to Him.

 Second, Jesus is clearly using this metaphor to connect several very important aspects of Jewish history: atonement through the sacrificial system, and the provision of God through manna in the wilderness.  Leviticus 17:10–11 (ESV) states, “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.”  This is both the object of the crowd’s disgust and the beauty of what Jesus is communicating.  The thing that offends them is their salvation.  Jesus is the rock of offense, the stone that the builders rejected that has become the cornerstone.  Jesus is saying that he is their atonement.  In referencing the ‘bread from heaven’, there are several insights that may apply.  First it reflects the miraculous provision of God, it is a staple in their diet, and the last time God provided bread from heaven they didn’t particularly like it- they grew tired of it and longed to return to Egypt and slavery.  These images also represent the verbal structure Jesus employs that He is our atonement once for all (blood) and our daily supply (bread).  There is a eucharistic element to these passages as well.

Jesus makes this a requirement because following Him requires complete submission, the will to follow Him, and complete dependence on Him once and for eternity.

I find that Origen’s comment regarding the role of the elder as Shepherd is what we often find people gravitating toward as somewhat of a classic summarization of the relevant Biblical passages.  Tending, caring, feeding are dominant themes.  But then I am struck and intrigued by Jesus’ words in Revelation 2.  The image is destructive and undomesticated.  And I am reminded that the Shepherd of Israel was sent to pluck up and break down, to overthrow, destroy, and bring harm… watch over them to build and to plant [Jeremiah 31:28].  There is an amazing tension between these two aspects of shepherding.  Is this a valid tension and does the Revelation 2 passage contribute to the correct understanding of the work of shepherds/elders today?  I believe that it does.

The term used throughout the NT describing the activity of shepherding is poimaino.  The term embraces all of the meanings described above.  In the ESV the term is translated appropriately as ‘care’ and addressed specifically to overseers (elders) in Acts 20:28, ‘tend’ in Jesus’ words to Peter in John 21:16, ‘shepherd’ in 1 Peter 5:1-2, ‘rule’ in Revelation 2:27, 7:17, 12:5, 19:15.  While there are specific instructions for elders/shepherds (ie 1 Timothy 3 & 5, James 5:14, Titus 1, etc), the role as shepherd is broadly defined and flexible.  It requires caring and not just caring about the flock but caring for it.  It requires encouragement and rebuke, the formation of Christ and the destruction of worldy attitudes and reasoning, tenderness and strength, the ability to defend and offend, to root out heresy and plant the Word…   Shepherds must be prepared to do what is necessary for the betterment of his people.  I think the term does well to categorize the primary work of the elder and all other specific instructions are within its scope.

The trichotomists are eisegeting the triune nature of God into the imago dei.   Genesis 1:26-27 describes God’s pre-creative thoughts about man and how he will be made- “in our likeness”.  The image of God is stamped on us and can be defined as our conscious predisposition and our true knowledge. (Pratt)  We are made in God’s image in that we are spiritual, moral, and immortal beings which, since the Fall, are stained or marred by sin but not destroyed.  We know this is the case because after the flood account, God speaks in Genesis 8 that the “inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood” and in chapter 9 God states that men will pay with their life if they take the life of another man “for in the image of God has God made humankind.”  This clearly illustrates two things:  first, that the imago dei has nothing to do with how we are constructed spiritually but how we are endowed with dignity and share with God certain attributes.  We share these attributes because we are made in his image.

Dichotomy is the view that man is made of two parts:  body and spirit.  This view is the orthodox view for the predominant portion of church history and is the most widely held view today.  It has much scholarly support.  The foundation of this view point is found in the thorough examination of the passages relating to this discussion. 

In scripture we see that the terms “soul” and “spirit” are used interchangeably.  For example in regard to those who have died, 1 Peter 3:19 and Hebrews 12:23 identifies them as spirits whereas Revelation 6:9 & 20:4 refers to them as souls.  Jesus states in John 12:27 that his soul is troubled and a short time later in similar context John states that Jesus was troubled in spirit. 

More evidence to support the interchangeability between soul and spirit is from scripture’s description of man as either “body and soul” or “body and spirit”.  Jesus says not to fear those who “kill the body but cannot kill the soul” but instead to “fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”  Clearly Jesus is speaking of the soul as that part of man that lives on after death; and, clearly, Jesus is speaking of the whole person with soul being that nonphysical part of man. 

The ability to distinguish or separate the soul from the spirit gets more difficult when everything that the soul is said to do, the spirit is also said to do, and everything the spirit is said to do, the soul is said to do.  Scripture does not allow the distinction between the two to be made and defining precisely the difference between them is impossible.  The faculties of thinking, feeling, and decision making are not said to be performed by our souls only but also by our spirits.  In Acts 17:16, John 13:21, and Proverbs 17:22  we see that spirits can be “provoked” and “troubled” and “downcast” which is the opposite of a “cheerful heart” (Proverbs 17:22).  Additionally, the ability to know, perceive, and think are also said to be done by our spirits.  Mark 2:8 shows us that Jesus is “perceiving” in his spirit and when the “Holy Spirit bears witness to our spirits” (Romans 8:16) it is certainly a function of knowing something.  In fact, our spirit knows our thoughts deeply, “What person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him?” (1 Corinthians 2:11).  The point here is not to say that the spirit rather than the soul does this-or-that but to point out that scripture uses the terms “soul” and “spirit” to describe the immaterial part of man in a general sense (Grudem, 1994).

Romans 11:32 (ESV)  For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Consigned, imprisoned, shut up, bound over to, concluded… these are several of the options translators have chosen to communicate the intent of Paul in this verse.  I think they’re all marvelous choices.  All of the word-options grate against our Western sensibilities.  They display the glory of God’s sovereign rule over creation and humanity.  Determinism need not be feared- as K.S. Wuest puts it, “there is a divine necessity pervading and controlling all the freedom of men, a divine purpose mastering all the random activity of human wills…”  And God coralled mankind so that mercy could be shown to all. 

The verb consigned is aorist active indicative reflecting the past nature of this situation.  By past meaning prior to the revelation of Christ.  This is important as we seek understanding within the context of the entire NT.  Ga 3.22–23 (ESV) states, “But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.”  And the following verses in Ga 3 tell us that the law was our guardian until Christ appeared so that we could be justified by faith. 

One last thought.  I couldn’t help but bring up Lu 5.6- another place where this same verb is used in the NT as it describes the net enclosing the large catch of fish.  It caused me to consider the Parable of the Net in Mat 13.44ff.  There, the fish are caught gathered into the net then brought ashore and sorted, the evil from the righteous…  “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!”

The question of who wrote the Book of Genesis must be answered by looking beyond the book itself.  Is that OK?  It is, because the Book of Genesis is the first of five “chapters” that make up the Pentateuch.  Pentateuch is a word that means “five scrolls” (the name is actually referring to the five containers that hold the five scrolls but later came to refer to the scrolls themselves).  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  These are the Big Five of the scripture- everything flows from them- and they were written as one book by one author.  They were written sometime shortly after the Exodus from Egypt.  The first of the five to be written was likely Exodus as Moses records God’s appearance to Israel on Mount Sinai. 

The Old Testament names for the Pentateuch help us to know who the author might be.  It is referred to as:  The Torah (law), The Book of the Law, This Book of the Law, The Book of the Law of Moses, The Book of Moses, The Law Book of Moses, The Law of the Lord, The Law of God, The Book of the Law of God, The Book of the Law of the Lord, The Book of the Law of the Lord their God, and The Law of Moses.  Any time that the Old Testament discusses these five books (which includes Genesis remember) and ties it to a person or author, it gives Moses the credit.  This is important. 

There are New Testament references as well.  The one that carries the most weight is Luke 24:44 (ESV will be used throughout) Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”  Jesus himself calls the Pentateuch the Law of Moses.  It would be hard to argue, based on the evidence, that the author is anyone other than Moses. 

Now to the question of why Genesis was written.   This begs the question of who Moses wrote Genesis for.  As the Pentateuch progresses from Genesis through Deuteronomy it becomes more and more clear who the intended audience of this work was intended to be.  That audience was the Hebrew people that Moses led from Egypt to the Promised Land.

Let’s consider a few things that link Genesis to other parts of the Pentateuch.  Once we look at a few of them it will become at least a bit easier to get to our answer of why Moses wrote Genesis.

In Genesis 1:2, Moses writes The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.  Now check out Deuteronomy 32:9-11- But the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. “He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness;  he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions…”.  In both passages we find God hovering or fluttering over something, namely the deep and God’s people.  The language used is very descriptive of the activity of a bird and its watchfulness and care of it’s young.  It communicated to the early Hebrews that God’s care and watchfulness over them was from before the beginning of Creation and that the God who rescued them from the grip of Pharaoh was the same God who made all things.

In Genesis 1:3-4, Moses writes And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.  Compare this with Exodus 14:19-20:   Then the angel of God who was going before the host of Israel moved and went behind them, and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them, coming between the host of Egypt and the host of Israel. And there was the cloud and the darkness. And it lit up the night without one coming near the other all night.  The God who protected them from the armies of Egypt was the God who created light and separated light from darkness.

In Genesis 1:9, Moses writes  And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.  Consider this in light of (no pun intended) Exodus 14:21-22, Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.  And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.  The God who led them through the Red Sea on dry ground was the God who separated the seas and caused dry land to appear.

So what do these three comparisons tell us about why Moses wrote the Pentateuch?  It tells us that it was written to communicate to the Hebrews who their God was and is.  These comparisons of Genesis 1 with other parts of the Pentateuch highlight this purpose and indeed the rest of Genesis continues to reveal to Israel just who this God is who called them out of Egypt to worship Him.  It reveals to you and me who our God is.  This is why Genesis is so important for us to study.

In Origins we will be studying what is known as the Primeval History and getting into the call of Abraham at the very beginning of the generations of Terah. 

 What is God’s purpose in structuring Genesis in this way?  One reason is that kingdoms, especially of the ancient near east (where the story of the Bible takes place) often marked their history by the reign of their rulers and kings.  God placed mankind in His Kingdom to rule as stewards of creation.  The history of God’s Kingdom is also marked by those who are given the responsibility to rule.  Ultimately this history is marked by the greatest King to rule in God’s Kingdom- Jesus Christ, God’s Son, the King of Kings. 

And that leads to the second reason that that Genesis is structured by generations- it is a continuous winnowing of mankind, directed by the hand of God, to secure the line of Jesus Christ, who would redeem God’s people.  When a farmer winnows his grain he tosses it up and the useless husks and debris blow in the wind and are separated from the kernels of grain.  In Genesis, from all of creation the line of Adam is separated out, then from the line of Adam the descendants of Noah are set apart, then the line of Shem, Terah… right on down to the line of David, to a man named Joseph the husband of  Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, who is the Christ [Matthew 1:16].   Check out the first chapter of Matthew (the first book of the New Testament).  How does it start out?  That’s right, with a ‘generations’ of Jesus Christ. 

As you can see, the ‘generations’ are very important to our study of Genesis. 

For our study, we will not be following this structure strictly.  In the generations of the Heavens and Earth we will be discussing Creation  and God’s Kingdom.  In the generations of Adam we will be looking at The Fall and Cain & Abel.  In the generations of Noah we will be studying The Flood.  In the generations of Shem we will be studying The Tower of Babel.  And as stated earlier, we will be finishing up with the call of Abraham in the generations of Terah. 

Nicky Gumbel once said that our faith is not born in a vacuum but is founded on facts in history, the love of God in our lives now, and the hope we have of a future with God.  These portions of Genesis have been chosen because they are the highlights of God’s earliest documented activity that are key to building the foundation of our faith.  These accounts, along with the remainder of Genesis and Exodus, inform the remainder of the Scripture.  They are vitally, vitally important to your spiritual growth and understanding.