Session 2.3: October 13, 2023
Scripture Reading: Genesis 1:1-3:24 (we won’t read it again, but we will discuss it)
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.
6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.
11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.
20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
27 God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.
31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.
1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.
5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)
10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This one at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.
1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all the cattle
and all the living creatures of the field!
On your belly you will crawl
and dust you will eat all the days of your life.
15 And I will put hostility between you and the woman
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”
17 But to Adam he said,
“Because you obeyed your wife
and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,
‘You must not eat from it,’
the ground is cursed because of you;
in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
but you will eat the grain of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat food
until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”
20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.
Main Themes
Initial Remarks
Let’s Come Together (Finally!)
If the last two weeks of the Bible study have been divisive, I hope that this week brings us all back together. During those two sessions, I suggested the possibility that the early chapters of Genesis are figurative. Nevertheless, I asserted repeatedly that they are true. Today, I want to focus on those truths embedded in the narrative. What is Genesis teaching us? And here’s the surprising part: even if you adamantly disagree with me and believe the text is meant to be taken completely literally, or if you land somewhere in between, I think we will agree on the main lessons taught by the text. They stand mostly independently of the figurative versus literal debate.
A Minimum Facts Presentation
Before we jump into the substantive portion of our discussion, I want to make one important clarification. The purpose of my dive into Genesis is to establish a Christian worldview. We are not engaging in an exhaustive exploration of every textual and theological issue. So, the discussion today will be a sort of “minimum facts” presentation. That is, I want to highlight the most basic lessons in the text with which virtually every Christian agrees. I will not delve into every possible conclusion that can be drawn from the text, although that would be very interesting. And, as always, participants are free to discuss anything I did not include in my presentation. So, again, the list below is not an exhaustive list of the points made by the first three chapters of Genesis, much less by the entire book. It is more of a “top four.”
Genesis v/s Enuma Elish
I think that a good way to explore the worldview presented by Genesis is to compare the biblical text to the Enuma Elish, the ancient Babylonian creation myth. (You can find it here.) The Enuma Elish is fairly representative of many Ancient Near East myths, so it provides a great backdrop against which Genesis shows its distinctive outline. (I am not necessarily embracing or rejecting the view that Genesis is a polemic against other Ancient Near Eastern myths. I simply find the comparison to be helpful.)
One God—No Theomachy, No Theogony, No Deicide
Listen the words of the Enuma Elish:
1 When the heavens above did not exist,
2 And earth beneath had not come into being —
3 There was Apsû, the first in order, their begetter,
4 And demiurge Tia-mat, who gave birth to them all;
5 They had mingled their waters together
6 Before meadow-land had coalesced and reed-bed was to be found —
7 When not one of the gods had been formed
8 Or had come into being, when no destinies had been decreed,
9 The gods were created within them:
10 Lah(mu and Lah(amu were formed and came into being.
11 While they grew and increased in stature
12 Anšar and Kišar, who excelled them, were created.
13 They prolonged their days, they multiplied their years.
14 Anu, their son, could rival his fathers.
15 Anu, the son, equalled Anšar,
16 And Anu begat Nudimmud, his own equal.
17 Nudimmud was the champion among his fathers:
18 Profoundly discerning, wise, of robust strength;
19 Very much stronger than his father's begetter, Anšar
20 He had no rival among the gods, his brothers.
21 The divine brothers came together,
22 Their clamour got loud, throwing Tia-mat into a turmoil.
23 They jarred the nerves of Tia-mat,
24 And by their dancing they spread alarm in Anduruna.
25 Apsû did not diminish their clamour,
26 And Tia-mat was silent when confronted with them.
27 Their conduct was displeasing to her,
28 Yet though their behaviour was not good, she wished to spare them.
29 Thereupon Apsû, the begetter of the great gods,
30 Called Mummu, his vizier, and addressed him,
31 "Vizier Mummu, who gratifies my pleasure,
32 Come, let us go to Tia-mat!"
33 They went and sat, facing Tia-mat,
34 As they conferred about the gods, their sons.
35 Apsû opened his mouth
36 And addressed Tia-mat
37 "Their behaviour has become displeasing to me
38 And I cannot rest in the day-time or sleep at night.
39 I will destroy and break up their way of life
40 That silence may reign and we may sleep."
41 When Tia-mat heard this
42 She raged and cried out to her spouse,
43 She cried in distress, fuming within herself,
44 She grieved over the (plotted) evil,
45 "How can we destroy what we have given birth to?
46 Though their behaviour causes distress, let us tighten discipline graciously."
47 Mummu spoke up with counsel for Apsû—
48 (As from) a rebellious vizier was the counsel of his Mummu—
49 "Destroy, my father, that lawless way of life,
50 That you may rest in the day-time and sleep by night!"
51 Apsû was pleased with him, his face beamed
52 Because he had plotted evil against the gods, his sons.
53 Mummu put his arms around Apsû's neck,
54 He sat on his knees kissing him.
55 What they plotted in their gathering
56 Was reported to the gods, their sons.
57 The gods heard it and were frantic.
58 They were overcome with silence and sat quietly.
59 Ea, who excels in knowledge, the skilled and learned,
60 Ea, who knows everything, perceived their tricks.
61 He fashioned it and made it to be all-embracing,
62 He executed it skilfully as supreme—his pure incantation.
63 He recited it and set it on the waters,
64 He poured sleep upon him as he was slumbering deeply.
65 He put Apsû to slumber as he poured out sleep,
66 And Mummu, the counsellor, was breathless with agitation.
67 He split (Apsû's) sinews, ripped off his crown,
68 Carried away his aura and put it on himself.
69 He bound Apsû and killed him;
Notice how this ancient myth sounds nothing like Genesis. It immediately greets us with multiple gods (Apsû, the first in order, and the demiurge Tia-mat). Other gods are subsequently created. A genealogy of gods is called a theogony, and it was common to ancient myths. Genesis, however, has no genealogy. At most, in Genesis, when God speaks he uses a plural form—like maybe he is addressing a crowd. This has led some scholars to posit a heavenly council. But there is no god other than God—Yahweh.
The Enuma Elish tells the story not only of multiple gods but of their animosity. A conflict between the gods arises. A war between the gods is called theomachy. This is also common to ancient myths. Finally, the gods’ quarrel ends in the death of a god—deicide. If we continue reading, we would learn that creation itself is the result of this rivalry between the gods and their death.
What do we find in Genesis? None of that!
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
In the beginning there is no two anything. There are no two gods opposing one another. There is not even an impersonal dualism like a ying and yang. There is no good and evil. There is only good. And this good is not some mystical goodness, like a force or energy or “waters,” but a good God—a personal being.
This is one of the most shocking and powerful lessons from Genesis—monotheism! And, if we are willing to take more of scripture into account, we could go as far as to say that it is “perfect being monotheism.” This means that there’s not only one God, but that God is perfect. He is all powerful and morally perfect. I think that this “perfect being theology” is key to a robust conception of “good.” A theology that includes multiple gods will generally fail the Euthyphro Dilemma: “Is the good good because God approves it, or does God approve it because it’s good?” A theology with no gods (atheism or some form of dualism) makes goodness accidental—it is a robust fact that could be different—and cannot account for moral duties. It is only when goodness is grounded in a necessary being that what is good could never be otherwise and goodness becomes personal such that it can give moral duties to others.
God is Not Like Nature
Again, hear the words of the Enuma Elish:
49 [Marduk] gathered [Tia-mat’s foam] together and made it into clouds.
50 The raging of the winds, violent rainstorms,
51 The billowing of mist—the accumulation of her spittle—
52 He appointed for himself and took them in his hand.
53 He put her head in position and poured out . . [ . . ] .
54 He opened the abyss and it was sated with water.
55 From her two eyes he let the Euphrates and Tigris flow,
57 He heaped up the distant [mountains] on her breasts,
58 He bored wells to channel the springs.
59 He twisted her tail and wove it into the Durmah,
61 [He set up] her crotch—it wedged up the heavens—
62 [(Thus) the half of her] he stretched out and made it firm as the earth.
In the Babylonian story, the clouds, the wind, the rainstorms, the rivers, the mountains, and much of creation is a part of or physically connected with Tiamat’s body. Notice the connection between the gods and creation—they might not be entirely the same but they are not entirely distinct either.
What do we find in Genesis?
God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” Genesis 1:6
God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” Genesis 1:9
God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” Genesis 1:11
God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years . . . .” Genesis 1:14
I could quote more verses, but I think the point is clear. God is not like creation. Creation is not made of God. It is made by God. God simply speaks creation into being. God transcends it. The creator who makes things good exists even if nothing else exists and would exists if all stopped existing. He is the beginning and the end.
Nature is Not Spiritual
Although the Enuma Elish story does not contain as many spirits of nature as other Ancient Near Eastern myths, we still have a clear example. Listen to this:
11 He placed the heights (of heaven) in her (Tia-mat's) belly,
12 He created Nannar, entrusting to him the night.
13 He appointed him as the jewel of the night to fix the days,
14 And month by month without ceasing he elevated him with a crown,
15 (Saying,) "Shine over the land at the beginning of the month,
16 Resplendent with horns to fix six days.
17 On the seventh day the crown will be half size,
18 On the fifteenth day, halfway through each month, stand in opposition.
19 When Šamaš [sees] you on the horizon,
20 Diminish in the proper stages and shine backwards.
In the Enuma Elish, night is a personal god. Night does not behave according to some natural principle. Night only comes and stays for as long as it does because the god of night is following orders. Presumably, the god of night could be enticed to disobey. Is all of nature like this? (For purposes of this discussion I am not including animals or humans in the definition of nature.) Is there a spirit of the waters? Is there a spirit of the sky? Are the flowers sprites and the trees dryads? Does everything around us behave as it does because a personal being—a spirit—is choosing to behave a certain way? The implications of these questions are staggering.
Perhaps we scoff at the idea that nature is personal and spiritual, but we shouldn’t. Not because I think that it is true but because it is the worldview that was held by nearly everyone in the ancient world and many (perhaps most) people still hold it today. If anything, the idea that nature is “non-spiritual” is not the rule but the exception. If to the belief in a non-spiritual natural world you you add the belief that nature was created by a mind—a mind not entirely unlike ours—then you have an entirely peculiar worldview. That is the worldview of Genesis.
The Christian, non-spiritual, intelligible understanding of creation is distinctive and has shaped the modern world. For example, it is foundational and necessary for science. This is the reason that many historians (Christian and non-Christian alike) agree that science is an outgrowth of Christian theology. Here’s how an article explains the connection between Genesis and science, which, if overly simplistic, gets the point across:
1. Laws Up Above
The ancient Chinese had incredible technology, but not science as we know it. Why? Because while they were intelligent, they did not believe in a Higher Intelligence—not in the Bible’s sense. They didn’t think there were ever-present, always-applicable laws of nature that governed the universe. They went out into the world and tamed it through technology, but they didn’t seek to press into the deeper laws of the universe.
That’s because they didn’t have Genesis 1. They didn’t believe that “In the beginning, God.” They didn’t believe that through his Word an ordered cosmos was created that shows all the hallmarks of dependable regularities—seasons and spheres with boundaries and signs in the sky, all going round and round, evening and morning, evening and morning. . . .
2. World Out There
The ancient Greeks were smart cookies. All philosophy is a footnote to Plato, as they say. Philosophy, mathematics, art, and literature were all spheres of excellence for the Greeks. Science? Not so much, because science requires you to believe in a stable and predictable world out there that’s open to investigation. Science occurs when you make repeatable observations and check your theories against the cold, hard facts. But Greeks didn’t believe in cold, hard facts. They believed in minds and reason and laws but not in empirical investigation. For them, study entailed a journey within the mind, not a venture out into the field. So, no science.
3. Minds In Here
If human minds are the product of mindless operations that only honored survival, not intelligence (the two aren’t at all synonymous), then why should we trust our minds to understand the laws up above and the world out there? If we’re the product of the cosmos and part of the cosmos with no higher calling than to pass on our genes, why trust a brain that whirs away according to its own survival imperative?
If you really want confidence in the scientific endeavor, turn to Genesis 1, where humanity is specially created in relationship with the Orderer above and the world out there. . . .
Another website summarizes the same principles as follows:
Nearly all scientists today, regardless of their religious beliefs, believe a certain set of foundational principles which make it possible for them to do science. Some of these common basic beliefs include:
(1) Human beings can understand the natural world at least in part.
(2) Nature typically operates with regular, repeatable, universal patterns of cause and effect so things that we learn in the lab here today will also hold true half way around the world a week from now.
(3) It’s not enough to sit and theorize how the world ought to work, we actually have to test our theories; science is a worthwhile pursuit.
These beliefs seem obvious today, but for most of human history, many people did not hold all those beliefs. For example, animists who believe that gods or spirits inhabit many aspect of the physical world might doubt that nature operates on regular, repeatable, universal patterns of cause and effect; instead they would believe that nature is controlled by gods and spirits who need to be appeased or manipulated by ritual. Or for a very different example, some of the most brilliant philosophers of the ancient world did not see the need to do experiments because they thought it was possible to derive from logic and first principles how the world ought to behave.
Allow me to explain the last statement in the quotation above. The Greeks, for example, believed that the universe had to be modeled by elegant abstract principles, such as geometry, which were discoverable only through thought. So, they assumed that the orbits of planets had to be circular. The Christian worldview recognizes that the universe was made by a mind—a mind that could have created the world this way or that way. Because the creator had options, much like an artist does, we can not simply assume that the world is a certain way. We must discover what that mind decided.
Man in the Image of God
The Enuma Elish is one of the least outrageous Ancient Near Eastern myths when it comes to the creation of mankind, but it repeats a common theme:
1 When Marduk heard the gods' speech
2 He conceived a desire to accomplish clever things.
3 He opened his mouth addressing Ea,
4 He counsels that which he had pondered in his heart,
5 "I will bring together blood to form bone,
6 I will bring into being Lullû, whose name shall be 'man'.
7 I will create Lullû—man
8 On whom the toil of the gods will be laid that they may rest.
In the Babylonian creation myth, why is man created? So that the “toil of the gods will be laid” on him. You might remember that last week I mentioned an Egyptian myth that answers the question similarly. Here is how scholar John Walton discusses that Egyptian myth within the broader context of Mesopotamian myths:
[I]n Mesopotamian traditions people are created to serve the gods by doing the work that the gods are tired of doing. Turning again to KAR 4, "the corvée of the gods will be their corvée: They will fix the boundaries of the fields once and for all, and take in their hands hoes and baskets, to benefit the House of the great gods." The labor that had been required for the gods to meet their own needs was drudgery, so people were expected to fill that gap and work to meet those needs.
In Genesis, why is man created?
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! (Genesis 1:26-28a)
This is shocking and remarkable! Man is created to be like God (at least in some sense), to rule the earth, and to be fruitful and multiply. I will discuss each of these points in reverse order.
Be Fruitful and Multiply
According to Genesis, to marry and have children is integral to being human. Marriage is the very reason that God has made us male and female.
So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Then the man said,
“This one at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:21-25)
To be clear, there are several New Testament verses that make clear that marriage is not a moral duty—one has not sinned for remaining single. However, sadly, this caveat has started acting like the exception that swallows the rule. The Apostle Paul, the one who spoke of marriage and singleness this way, did not suggest singleness as a mere alternative to marriage. Listen to the following verses from 1 Corinthians:
I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that everyone was as I am. But each has his own gift from God, one this way, another that.
To the unmarried and widows I say that it is best for them to remain as I am. But if they do not have self-control, let them get married. For it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire. (1 Corinthians 7:6-9)
And I want you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the things of the world, how to please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world, how to please her husband. I am saying this for your benefit, not to place a limitation on you, but so that without distraction you may give notable and constant service to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)
He who is single can focus exclusively on ministry. This is a gift. This does not override the fact, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18)! I know that much more can be said about this topic and forgive me if I am painting with too broad a stroke, but the fact that marriage and childbearing is part of God’s plan for us is unmistakable in the Genesis narrative.
Rule the Earth
Our modern, egalitarian, environmentalist sensibilities are sure to be offended by the idea that we are to rule and subdue the earth. However, this idea is not as ominous as it sounds. As a website explains:
God’s command to subdue the earth and the animal life in it is a command to have the mastery over all of it. A true mastery (of anything) cannot be accomplished without an understanding of the thing mastered. In order for a musician to master the violin, he or she must truly understand the instrument. In order for mankind to attain mastery over the animal kingdom, we must understand the animals.
With the authority to rule comes the responsibility to rule well. There is an inherent accountability in the command to subdue the earth. Man has a duty to exercise his dominion under the authority of the One who delegated it. All authority is of God (Romans 13:1-5), and He delegates it to whomever He will (Daniel 4:17). The word subdue doesn’t have to imply violence or mistreatment. It can mean “to bring under cultivation.”
Man is to be the steward of the earth; he is to bring the material world and all of its varied elements into the service of God and the good of mankind. The command to subdue the earth is actually part of God’s blessing on mankind. Created in the image of God, Adam and Eve were to use the earth’s vast resources in the service of both God and themselves. It would only make sense for God to decree this, since only humans were created in God’s image.
The Imago Dei
We are made in the “image of God”—which in theology is often referred to by the Latin phrase imago Dei. What does that mean? I could spend an entire session of our study answering this question. Different theologians give different answers. But, because this is a primer in Genesis, I think that presenting the mainstream position is sufficient. Besides, and rather ironically, it is the mainstream position that is often most misunderstood. Fair warning though, I will go a little beyond the text in Genesis to discuss this topic.
What makes a person a person? Even Christians will answer with something like the ability to reason. That is not entirely wrong, but I am sure you can immediately think of examples that work as counterarguments. What about a human being that is in a comma? What about a fetus? What about someone who is asleep? Neither of these three humans can reason, so they are not persons. Taken to its logical conclusion, killing a human in their sleep is not murder. No person was killed.
So, what gives? Can we give a better explanation of the imago Dei? I think so. To be a person is to be a rational soul. To explain this further, I will quote extensively from a 2003 paper by Dennis Sullivan (emphases are my own):
Empirical functionalism is the view that human personhood may be defined by a set of functions or abilities. Such abilities must be present in actual, not potential form. The classical expression of this view is that of Joseph Fletcher who in 1972 outlined twenty criteria for human personhood. These included such hallmarks as minimum intelligence, self-awareness, a sense of time, and the capacity to relate to others (Fletcher, 1972). In response, Michael Tooley weighed in with the idea of self-awareness (1972), and McCormick with the concept of “relational potential,” based on the ability to interact socially with others (1974). Fletcher then decided, based on feedback from these and other writers, that the sine qua non for human personhood was neocortical functioning (Fletcher, 1974). Neocortical functions are those “higher brain” processes of the cerebral cortex necessary for active consciousness and volition. This should be contrasted with whole-brain functioning, which includes activities of the brainstem as well as the cortex.
…
Functionalists would extend the above argument to deny personhood to the unborn child, since she lacks rationality or self-awareness. However, by this criterion, one could argue that adults also lack self-awareness when asleep or under anesthesia, yet no one questions their personhood during such moments. One way to circumvent this objection is to use Tooley’s idea that only “continuing selves” have personhood, which includes both self-awareness and a sense of the future (Tooley, 1983). This would nonetheless deny personhood to the unborn and justify abortion on that basis.
Michael Tooley, and more recently, the Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer, have both advocated the next logical step: infanticide (Veith, 1998). If the fetus has no right to personhood because it is not yet self-aware, then neither does the newborn: “Infanticide before the onset of self-awareness . . . cannot threaten anyone who is in a position to worry about it” (Singer, 1985, p. 138).
…
Ontological personalism states that all human beings are human persons. On this view, the intrinsic quality of personhood begins at conception and is present throughout life (O’Mathuna, 1996). Such individuals are not potential persons or “becoming” persons; they are persons by their very nature. There is no such thing as a potential person or a human non-person.
In order to understand this it will be helpful to reflect on the worldview assumptions that underlie both personhood views. Since the Enlightenment, society in general has been dominated by a high regard for science and the secular tradition of naturalism. Naturalism is the concept that only observable data has reality. A scientist who adheres to this view is free to have any metaphysical or philosophical opinion he would like, as long as it does not influence his practice. In other words, he need not hold to naturalism as a philosophy, but he must adhere to it in his methodology (Plantinga, 1997). However, the Christian scientific community should not be bound by the constraints of methodological naturalism. Herein lies the tension between the two ideas of personhood. The influence of naturalism has led secular science away from a reverence for life, replacing it with a reductionism that claims the human organism is no more than the sum of its chemical parts. The empirical functionalism idea of personhood is compatible with this view, which makes man simply a collection of parts and functions, or a property-thing. Put together enough chemical molecules in the right way, and you have a human being; put another set of parts together, and you have a 1957 Chrysler. Philosophically, it makes no difference.
Ontological personalism, on the other hand, is based on the premise that a human being is a substance. A substance is a distinct unity of essence that exists ontologically prior to any of its parts. This traditional concept dates back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. This view has been well summarized by the Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland (1995), and is discussed in great detail in the book Body and Soul (Moreland & Rae, 2000). For this review, I will focus on two implications of the idea of substance: the parts v. whole distinction, and continuity.
To expand on my earlier illustration of a classic automobile, consider a nicely restored 1957 Chrysler. Many of the original parts have rusted away and have been replaced, so that this vintage car is a collection of old and new. Although many will refer to it as the same car as when it was new, intuition tells us that this is not the case. In fact, as stated earlier, remove the wheels, the motor, the seats, and the body, and the result is no longer a 1957 Chrysler; it is not even a car. To go still further, imagine adding other parts to the original chassis, such that the result(God forbid) is a1972Volkswagen Beetle! There was no continuity of essence between the two vehicles; each is nothing more than a collection of parts (my apologies to VW lovers).
Try to do the same kind of thought experiment on a human being. Remove an arm or a leg from John Doe, and he remains a person, in fact, the same person. You can amputate all of John’s extremities and even remove many internal organs; as long as he remains alive, his substance will never change. You can even “add new parts,” by transplanting organs from other persons, yet John Doe will never become James Smith; his substance is not defined by his component parts. He will always remain the same person.
…
Naturalism has its greatest difficulty here. To hold to a property-thing view of persons is to deny the commonsense understanding of personal continuity, with a host of attendant problems for law and morality.
…
I might add that this view is also compatible with biblical teaching on the image of God. It allows us to explore the way human beings resemble the Divine (rationality, volition, social nature, etc.), while helping us to avoid the dangers of a strictly functional definition. On this view, the image of God is intrinsic to the nature of persons. Thus, Scripture teaches the value of man from the womb, whereas intuition and philosophy help us to affirm that such valuation begins at conception.
The philosophical idea of a human being as substance arises out of a broader philosophical principle, that of substance dualism. Substance dualism holds that there is an entity called a soul, and that the mind is a faculty of the soul. Body and soul (mind) are functionally holistic, which means that the two entities are deeply integrated and functionally interdependent. Yet they are ontologically separate, which means that the soul can exist independently of the body. This allows for a personal existence after death (Moreland & Rae, 2000). Another implication of this idea is that if personhood begins at conception, then that is when the soul originates as well.
The Original Plan Was Good but then…the Fall
Author Sandra Richter in The Epic of Eden describes God’s original intent by pointing out that the creation narrative is not complete in six days—there is a seventh day. On that day God rests. Creation is as intended so God may stop to rule overall. With that in mind, Richter concludes:
In sum, Genesis 1 tells us of God’s first, perfect plan—a flawlessly ordered world infused with balance and productivity. Here every rock, plant and animal had its own designated place within God’s design, a God-ordained space in which each could thrive, reproduce and serve the good of the whole. And we see from the structure of Genesis 1 that the force that held this peaceful and productive cohabitation in balance was Yahweh’s sovereignty over all. But as Day 6b makes clear, God chose to manage this creation through his representative ʾAdām. Thus humanity is given all authority to protect, maintain and develop God’s great gift under God’s ultimate authority. This is who Yahweh is, who humanity is and how both relate to the creation. And regardless of how you choose to harmonize science and Bible, this message is clearly part of the intent of Genesis 1. I would say it is the primary intent.
Then Richter makes the connection to the repeating theme of the entire book of Genesis: covenant.
You may have noticed that my description of Genesis 1 sounds a lot like the relationship between a vassal and his suzerain; a relationship in which the vassal is given full autonomy within the confines of his overlord’s authority. When this reading of Genesis 1 is wedded to Genesis 2, the profile of covenant becomes even clearer. Here the suzerain (Yahweh) offers his vassals (Adam and Eve) the land grant of Eden with the stipulation that humanity care for it and protect it.
Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate [ ʿābad] and keep it [šāmar]. (Gen 2:15)
In addition to this perfect place, Adam and Eve are given each other (Gen 2:18-25), and as is implied by Genesis 3:8, they are given full access to their loving Creator. The only corner of the garden which was not theirs to use and enjoy was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Gen 2:16-17)
In essence, Adam and Eve are free to do anything except decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. Yahweh reserves the right (and the responsibility) to name those truths himself. (Emphasis added)
This was Adam and Eve’s perfect world. Not just fruit and fig leaves, but an entire race of people stretching their cognitive and creative powers to the limit to build a society of balance and justice and joy. Here the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would learn life at the feet of the Father, build their city in the shadow of the Almighty, create and design and expand within the protective confines of his kingdom. The blessing of this gift? A civilization without greed, malice or envy; progress without pollution, expansion without extinction. Can you imagine it? . . . This was God’s perfect plan: the people of God in the place of God dwelling in the presence of God. Yet, as with all covenants, God’s perfect plan was dependent on the choice of the vassal. Humanity must willingly submit to the plan of God. The steward must choose this world; for in God’s perfect plan, the steward had been given the authority to reject it.
But then the fall came. And, surprisingly, then redemption came too.
God’s perfect plan (and humanity’s perfect world) was a matter of choice. Did ʾAdām want this world? Or one of their own making? The ones made in the image of God could not be forced or coerced, but instead were called upon to choose their sovereign. And choose they did. Whenever I think of this moment, the lyrics of Don Francisco’s old folk song echo in my mind: “And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan’s hand.”16 God’s original intent was sabotaged by humanity, stolen by the Enemy. ʾAdām rejected the covenant, and all the cosmos trembled. Genesis 2:17 makes it painfully clear what the consequences of such an insurrection would be: in that day, “you shall surely die.” But amazingly, mercifully, even though Yahweh had every right to wipe out our rebellious race, he chose another course—redemption. In a move that continues to confound me, God spared the lives of Adam and Eve (and their unborn children) by redirecting the fury of the curse toward another—the battered flesh of his own Son. This is the one the New Testament knows as “the last Adam” (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). And although the first Adam did not die, the second surely did. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.
Conclusion—A Personal Note
When I read Genesis, I am astounded. I am not attempting to be overly dramatic or sentimental, but Genesis is so true I can hardly believe it. It paints a picture I cannot deny: Nature is just that. Yet it is curiously intelligible. But it is not divine. The divine things, like goodness, seem to transcend nature but not be less real than it. If nothing else, goodness seems more real. Whereas nature could not exist, goodness seems necessary. Man seems to be like nature but also somewhat divine. Something about man is not like the animals or anything else. Man and nature seem beautiful, yet both seem broken. Is this not truly our experience?