Categories
Bible Study Genesis

Genesis | Chapter 13

After his excursion of faithlessness into Egypt, Abram heads back to Canaan with Sarai and his nephew Lot in tow. Both he and Lot have considerable wealth, an unfortunate point of contention that will cause unnecessary disruptions in the family. We get a bit of a reset point, here, as Abram makes his way up through the Negev north to Bethel, the place he originally landed in Canaan and the location of the altar he built for the Lord. (Bethel is just north of modern-day Jerusalem). It failed when Abram tried to rely on his own cunning and wisdom to navigate the situation in Egypt, his return to Bethel and call upon the name of the Lord appears to be a good sign. 

Yet, the bounty that both Lot and Abram possess has caused a problem. When Abram left Canaan the first time it was in the midst of a great famine. God’s promises were difficult to understand. Now that they’ve returned, there is concern whether the land that God has given Abram is yet still insufficient in that it is not big enough for the herds of both men. Remember, one of the things we are to look for in Genesis is comparison, the putting of two folks side by side to see and learn from the differences. We see it here with Abram and Lot. 

Abram attempts to resolve the conflict by pointing out that there is plenty of land, let’s not all try to grow radishes in the same spot. He offers for Lot to choose where he wants to go and Abram will take the other direction. This is an unnecessarily conciliatory act, Abram has Lot beat in age, this is the land God promised him, and it seems that Lot’s good fortune can be tied to Abram’s good fortune. Abram’s gesture for peace is admirable. This reset seems to be good. (It’s worth noting that the Canaanites and Perizzites still inhabit the general area.)

In antiquity, folk generally faced east to orient directions (towards the morning sun). Thus, to the right and left here would indicate moving north or south. However, Lot looks around and picks neither, looking east, attracted to the apparently well-watered fields of the Jordan Valley (an understandable choice with the knowledge of the recent famine in the area). This area was not likely part of God’s promise to Abram and was not an area he had walked through during his previous time in the area. Also note that, so far, “east” hasn’t necessarily been a good direction, often indicating movement away from God. The gate out of Eden heads east, the direction Cain heads after killing Abel is east, and it from the “east” where the Babel conspirators had come from. 

For contrasts, note that we are told “lifted up his eyes” and chooses his own land based upon its physical appearance (a deceit in retrospect, given the subsequent judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah.) Abram, however, is instructed by the Lord to “lift up your eyes” and see in all directions the land which God will give him. Lot chooses his land, God chooses Abram’s. Lot will head east to the soon nefarious lands of Sodom. Abram will remain with the Canaanites, who at this point are not under God’s judgment. 

God’s previous promise (main Genesis focus items of land and descendants) is reiterated here, making it clear that this promise is not just for Abram but for his family and future generations as well. Abram moves slightly north and pitches his tent again. And as before, he does so in the presence of another altar he constructs to acknowledge the faithfulness and dominion of the Lord God in this area. 

Perhaps one thing to take away from all of this is that, when we find that God’s promises don’t always work out as we expected, the best course of action seems to be to keep walking faithfully within them until we get our bearings. Yes, you can try to take things into your own hands (ahem, sell your wife in Egypt), but you’re not going to be able to keep God’s promises your way, has to be his. That’s not easy, and even though we see Abram with a nice reset, the unknown’s in his life are far from over. Time and time again both he and his descendants will be faced with trying to understand God’s big promises in light of their faithful/faithless steps within them. 

Categories
Bible Study Genesis

Genesis | Chapter 9

As we leave the ark, it’s as if Creation as begun again. And like Eden, God’s blessing’s have returned in the form of multiplying and filling the earth. However, things aren’t quite the same. No longer is there a seemingly harmonious relationship between man and beast, who have now become part of the food chain (where previously everyone appeared to be a vegetarian). As such, their relationship now contains fear and dread. (If folk started eating me I suppose it would change my perspective of them.) 

Further, God deals with the consequence of taking the life of a human, whether by man or beast. God is the giver of life and it is His exclusive domain. Further, humans are created exclusively in His image and likeness so are in a category all their own; to kill a human is to require the murderer’s life in return. I’ll note two things here. One, this is a stricter punishment than what existed before, we’ll note that Cain escapes with his life after the murder of Abel. Also, this seems to also apply to humans that aren’t walking with God (as the distinction is their creation in His image and likeness, not their current faithfulness.) 

The gut reaction here may be to jump to applicability of this section to things like the death penalty or war. This isn’t the right text to debate the veracity of a”just war” theory, however I’ll note that what God says here is, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed…” God isn’t exacting direct justice upon the murderer, it sounds like man is responsible for regulating the justice on God’s behalf. If and how Jesus impacts this is a reasonable discussion, but at stake is correct understanding the principles of the value of human life (in one hand) and God’s justice when that life is taken unnecessarily (on the other hand). 

Note that God’s covenant for the rainbow is not just with Noah, it’s with the creatures as well. Consider the next time you meet a rabbit that it’s not outside the realm of possibility that God is doing business with that rabbit in some way or another. The sign is a rainbow, which doesn’t imply that there was never a rainbow before that point, it’s just something that happens when it rains that God is using as a reminder to humanity (and the rabbit, I suppose) that He’s not going to flood the place again in judgment. 

Here’s as good a place to note as any, there’s a bit of a Moses vibe going on with Noah. We think of those two folks being a long way apart, and they are, if you’re digesting the first 5+ books of the Bible as a group, and recognize they were likely written around the same time, the parallels add some depth to the story. For similarities, note that both “found favor in God’s sight”, both are saved by an ark (Moses’ tiny boat thing he sent down the Nile in is described with the same word as Noah’s boat, a rare word in general), both are prophets, have a priestly role (sacrifice) and both lead building projects with really specific guidelines given by God (ark and tabernacle). Both also are given laws in the context of the covenants God is establishing either with them or, in Moses’ case, the people he is leading. 

On the back half of chapter 9, the prime point seems to be to tag Ham with the curse of Canaan. This is an interesting curse in that it comes from a human, not from God. Still, it will come true eventually when the God’s people are freed from Egypt (where they were slaves, I might add) and take the “promised land” from the Canaanites in the process. It’s worth noting here that the curse is exclusive to the Canaanites (not all of Ham’s descendants), which makes any foolishness related to the subjugation of the offspring of Ham as a whole (who settled in Africa/Arabia) even more untenable. 

The story that brings the curse on is kind of an odd one. Noah is man of the land (this is good) but then he grows grapes and passes out drunk in his tent (the text isn’t clear that Noah has sinned here). Ham’s sin is also not clear besides potentially the fact that he ignored his father’s shame and neglected to do anything about it. (If we think that’s a reasonable extrapolation, and I think it is, it should certainly inform how we look at the world and those who need help. The fact that you didn’t strip a man nude and laugh at him doesn’t mean you’re not on the hook for leaving him that way once it came to your attention.) 

In either case, the two other brothers take extensive measures to protect their father’s honor and cover him. Note here also the similarities to Eden in Noah’s story as well. We get the combo of blessing, nakedness and cursing. Just like in Eden, the nakedness is covered by a 3rd party (God for Adam and Eve, his sons do the job for Noah)  Again, ours is not a work of convenience but of labored necessity to protect the honor of those created in the image and likeness of God, even if they got in their shamed position by passing out drunk in the nude. Consider that next time you spend your time in judgment of someone’s shameful circumstances instead of finding ways to reduce that shame. We’ve got a lot of work to do, boys. 

For follow up: there’s pretty strong and reasonable evidence to believe that Ham’s sin here is related to having sex with his mom, which here is referred to as Noah’s nakedness, see Leviticus 18. This also makes the curse of Canaan make much more sense, because Canaan is the product of Ham’s relationship with his mother, and possibly an attempt to usurp Noah’s lineage and to having the family line be elevated through Canaan.

[The Naked Bible Podcast] Naked Bible 159: Noah’s Nakedness, the Sin of Ham, and the Curse of Canaan #theNakedBiblePodcast
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/131004895 via @PodcastAddict

Categories
Genesis

Genesis | Chapter 5

We’re likely to read chapter 4 and 5 together for the purposes of comparison. The end of chapter 4 follows Cain and his lineage (his “seed”).  The story of his family tree is preceded by his murder of Abel and ends with the pompous proclamations of the murderous Lamech who seems to think that his ancestor Cain has been mistreated and that the revenge he has taken against this young man is even more justified than Cain’s reaction to Abel. 

In chapter 5, we see a different line and henceforth in Genesis it is as if Cain never existed. If the book started in chapter 5, we would never know of Cain or Abel as the lineage here goes from God to Adam to Seth. It is no coincidence that we see two major characteristics of God’s relationship with humanity affirmed in the description of Seth’s line: that both male and female were created in God’s image and that there was still a blessing upon them. 

There is a clear pattern that introduces each person in Seth’s lineage. It is where that pattern deviates or expands that should draw our attention. The first expansion happens in v. 22, where we learn that Enoch walked with God. The name should trigger a comparison to the Enoch in Cain’s line, who also was a deviation and who had a city named after him. Now, in and of itself a city isn’t a particularly bad thing, but it certainly isn’t walking with God. 

The next deviation happens with a follow up on Seth’s Lamech, a hopeful chap who names his son Noah (meaning “rest”), longing for a time when the seriousness of what Adam has done may find relief. This is most certainly a far cry from the foolish Lamech in Cain’s line who is not seeking peace and reconciliation with God, he is seeking his own self-aggrandizement. 

A few additional things to consider in this short chapter:

I think we should consider whether we see in this chapter at least a potential understanding of 3:15, part of the curse on the snake: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring (seed) and her offspring (seed); he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel.”  Now, this could just be an explanation as to why a snake crawls on the ground. Or, could be the first set of good news, the first gospel, that points to Jesus conquering of sin and death (Iraneus would make this connection in the early 2nd century). However, neither of those is particularly satisfying in the original context. Remember, these stories are told with a purpose, and “why are we afraid of snakes” seems a little low on the importance bar relative to what’s been communicated so far about the God’s sovereign creation of the world and his special relationship with humanity. 

The expectation would seem to be that the rest of the story of Genesis may help answer this question. And, I think it’s reasonable to see that in the comparisons of the lineage of Seth and Cain. That notion of “seed” shows up in both and we find them opposites of each other; seeking different things, having different outcomes. This battle between the goodness of God and the selfishness of man, his pursuit of his own glory (that which they sought from eating the apple) will persist and will be a constant battle. In Cain, we see the seed of evil, of temptation. In the seed of Seth, we find faithfulness, the pursuit of God. 

Now, don’t misunderstand, I certainly believe the Christian reading into this story is appropriate and is the ultimate fulfillment (we know good ultimately wins as Jesus conquers all that is the consequence of human selfishness and pride in His sacrifice, death and resurrection). Jesus makes all stories deeper and greater. But the primary focus of the Genesis story and our understanding of that impact of the curse is likely found in the theme of “seed” and tracing God’s chosen paths of which to continue this blessing. (We’ll note, certainly, that this will not always rely on the “goodness” of those whom God chooses to trace the path.) 

Also, on the ages. It’s hard for us, who can track and record time in such specific detail and accuracy, to fully understand how those in the ancient world recorded and understood time. This is still true in our time, in certain parts of the world folks don’t track ages or anniversaries of things all that well and it doesn’t feel like a gap to them. Smart people who love Jesus disagree on whether we should understand some of these ages as literal or symbolic. There is a case for symbolism but it’s far from a slam dunk. The Seth Lamech lives 777 years (vs. the 77 fold revenge in Cain Lamech), and we see 365 years of life for Seth’s Enoch, a potentially “full” life before God takes him. However, many of the numbers are not easily rendered as symbolic. 

Without symbolism, it isn’t clear why these ages are so much higher than current day. Folks have discussed potentially the impact of increasing sin, something to do with the flood, the fact we started eating animals; the list goes on. I would also note that the “fathered” in each of these lineages doesn’t have to be direct descendants, there could also be many actual generations in between those names, we’re just getting major players in the line. Broadly, given how history was kept and the propensity for at times wild ages in ancient times (even outside of the Bible, some Sumerian kings had ages of many thousands of years), it remains wise to be cautious here. 

Categories
Bible Study Genesis

Genesis | Chapter 2

One of the questions we have to answer in chapter 2 is, where are we at in the timeline? Man was already created in chapter 1, and God was resting from being done with everything already. And yet, we find the creation of humans back in focus. I’ve seen atheist arguments against Genesis for being bad history because it can’t get its creation story right. But this accusation is based upon a shallow reading of the text and an expectation of how the story is being told that isn’t grounded in reality. This recorded story has been around for anywhere between 7,000 to 10,000 years and the world’s 3 major religions are based upon it. Certainly it takes some level of arrogance to believe that none of them caught on to the fact that the creation of man shows up again in chapter 2. Yes, we’re all aware of it. But this isn’t a linear history, it’s storytelling (true stories, yes) but we are to learn true things by how the story is told. 

So, what’s going on here? We’re zooming in. Chapters 1 and 2 are complimentary accounts. We see God initially as a sovereign Creator who sits above His creation. Now, the picture deepens, it becomes richer,  and we see an intimate and relational God, planting gardens and personally “breathing” life into the unique creature that bear His image. With it, we get a change of name.  The Hebrew word translated as God up to this point has been ‘elohiym. When we zoom in, though, we get His name, “Yahweh”, translated in most texts as LORD. Thus, in 2 v.4 we get LORD God (Yahweh elohiym). 

Also, it’s not clear in the English translation but in Hebrew there is a clear connection between man and the ground in the wording used (adama – ground, adam – man). In v. 15, it’s clear that man is especially suited to tend to the ground, work is a good thing and it is fruitful and rewarding for man to do it. And yet, they are dependent upon each other. If something happens to the land, it puts man’s existence at risk. Keep these things in perspective for chapter 3. 

Greg touched on this, but to expand upon the trees just a bit. I think what we’re seeing is a tree of life that they are free to eat from as it provides the fruit that they may live forever (as long as they can keep eating it). Then you have the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I think this is a merism again, meaning it’s the tree of knowledge of everything (this makes sense with how the snake ultimately talks about it). If they eat from this they will surely die because part of the knowledge they get will be bad (meaning morally corrupt) and they will die (eventually) because they will be cut off from the tree of life, no longer able to live forever. I believe that’s where the warning comes together with the reality of dying. 

Finally, on the creation of woman, a few things to note. Adam is put into a deep sleep as God takes his rib to form the woman. Note that the man has done nothing here, he has no claim of creation of the woman, they both stand equal before God (as noted in chapter 1). We see the woman described as a “helper”. This word is similarly used to describe God’s relationship to humanity, so if your first reaction is to think of “helper” as somehow subservient, you’ll need to take your rendering of that relationship up with God and see who comes out on top. (I’ll note that the feminist perspective that woman is the last thing created so is the most refined and obviously superior creation over all that have come before is also an incorrect rendering.) 

In general, we can rightly see that man is intended to be with the woman, in fact he is “completed” and they are restored to one flesh when they are together. Certainly, the specific nature of this description makes it clear the expectation of human relationships, comparing to polygamy in the ancient world and any number of alternative relationship options that exist in our day

Categories
Bible Study Genesis

Genesis | Chapter 1

The start of the book sets the stage for every word and situation that is to follow. When it all began, there was God, and everything that is to come will come at His behest, direction, and intention. This is important, as this story of creation sits within the context of an ancient world where multiple gods exist pre-creation, often fighting and creating things accidentally. (The Babylonian account Enuma Elish details this.) As we’ll note throughout with other examples, there are certainly similarities between most creation accounts among nations. This is to be expected, and we should consider that the account we view in Genesis was recorded specifically to combat the erroneous nature of other false accounts.

Of specific note here is that the God of Genesis is alone. Unlike in Enuma Elish, there are no other gods. Israel’s God is the only one and everything that will happen going forward will be intentional (where other gods are forced into creating things, sometimes in relief for all the work they had done. Marduk, one of the Babylonian gods, creates humans to help with all of this work. These weary gods are almost comical.)

We are to see this “creation” as something specifically divine and unique, as the Hebrew word (bara) used for “created” is only used with God as the subject (meaning it’s never attached to human work or creation.) These events aren’t repeatable by anyone else. When we read “heavens and the earth”, it’s likely a merism, meaning something that refers to two extremes as a representation of a whole (including anything in between). So, it says heavens and earth to mean “everything”. We see similar things in the Bible in the phrase “those who go out and those who come in”. Either folk be coming out or going in, but they have to be one or the other, so it refers to everyone.

The earth is without form and void. I think we’re supposed to understand this as kind of a step 1 in the process of creation. God has creating everything initially, now He’s going to take the next steps to put it in order. Now, if we accept a Creator God who can do anything, these steps are certainly unnecessary, He can just have everything happen at once if He wishes. The question is why is this happening in stages? Why mark it out day over day? Why this creation cadence of work, rest, work, rest? These reasonable questions should inform how we’re to perceive the narrative that follows. Some folks, in this vein, contend that God wouldn’t create a world that is formless and void so what must have happened is that this opening describes the creation of a perfect world that was later had some kind of catastrophe that threw it into chaos. It was then that God starts to restore order in the commands that follow.

This is known as the Gap Theory. It’s used to combat other protests around the supposed age of the earth, the dating of dinosaur bones and their existence as a whole, etc. Without delving too far into this, this proposition seems to be more than the text itself can bear. There isn’t any indication of a gap in the text itself and it doesn’t seem to be something that any Jewish historians or commentators had a concept of. It also kind of ignores the anticipation that sits in the image of the Spirit of God hovering over the waters. Now, as stated in the intro, smart people who love Jesus will disagree on the veracity of the Gap Theory. Before you accept or reject it (or any theory/perspective for that matter), find someone who really believes it and listen to how they talk about it. You’ll always get a better understanding that way vs. listening to a synopsis of it by someone who doesn’t agree with it.

As previously noted, though, we’re likely looking at step 1 of the process. And we get to see these steps because the point isn’t just to historically capture that something happened, we’re to see the intentionality, the order, the specificity around the creation. We’re able to see the details and compare them to the other stories that are out there and see that this is the true God. The details here are meant to engage in that and provide assurance and comfort to God’s people.

This leads into v. 3, God speaks. There’s no show, no negotiation, no collecting of resources. God speaks, things happen. That’s power. The raw darkness we saw in the last verse is not destroyed, it is given boundaries and a counterpart – light. It’s certainly worth noting that light and darkness are defined and created prior to creation of the sun and the moon on Day 4. God Himself appears to be the source of this light, a direct rejection of those who would worship the sun or the moon or entertain the thought that they might be gods themselves. Light exists before they are formed, and God is the source. This is interestingly reinforced in the second to last chapter of the Bible, Revelation 21, where we get a picture of this final, restored Kingdom and there is no sun at all, the Kingdom is lit by the glory of God Himself (Revelation 21:23).

In this first day we also see God giving things names. He creates them and then He names them, showing He has ultimate authority. In the ancient world, names were a big deal. Without a name, you were non-existent. This reference has parallels in the Enuma Elish story as everything was nameless prior to creation there as well. Again, this isn’t really a surprise, the implication is consistent in both.

We see evening and morning, the first day. This sequence supports the Jewish interpretation of counting days, from sundown to sundown. Not sure that’s a necessary extrapolation but that’s where it comes from. The presence of morning and evening without the sun allows for interpretive wiggle room on the understanding of “days”, which some take as literal 24 hour days and some take as ages. Both are allowable interpretations of the underlying Hebrew word used (unless you ask a particularly aggressive literal, 24 hour day person, they tend to be feisty about that definition. The days as “ages” folks tend to be a bit more laid back about the whole thing, but they are folks trying to keep peace between the Genesis account and modern science, so they’re a conciliatory bunch anyway.)

How should we read this then? For purposes of understanding the text as it sits, I’m not sure it particularly matters. For a God who can create absolutely everything with just His word and in an instant, the argument over exactly how long it took doesn’t seem all that relevant. The extension of the creation over any amount of time must serve a different purpose then just the laying down of historical fact or scientific example. To that end, it functions in the narrative as a simple breaking point and likely an example of the human rhythm of work and then rest (the same function that the rest on day 7 provides.) Humanity will follow God’s example to work, know it is good, rest, and then start again the next day.

The second day brings an “expanse” to separate the waters above and the yet unrestricted waters below. Understanding terms is helpful, here. What the ESV translates as “expanse” is the Hebrew word raqiya. This word is later used in the Psalms to describe “skies” or “heavens” (some translations do use “dome” or “firmament”). So, the expanse is the sky, which sets the scene for putting the sun and moon up in it in the days to come.

What is less clear is this bit about the waters above. There’s no language issue to provide direction here, we are left to understand what waters may exist above the sky, There are a number of theories. It could just mean the clouds (which can be considered above as well as in the sky.) It could be kind of a poetic notion of where God keeps the rain (you know, Job 38 style). There’s also a pretty extensive theory about it being a water vapor canopy that was eventually the source of the Flood and regulated weather down below so that the entire earth had quasi-tropic weather. This theory also holds that the canopy would increase air pressure, which is beneficial for health and may have contributed to the long life of the pre-flood citizens of earth.

What’s the answer? The truth is, the text doesn’t say. In the context of understanding Genesis, I’m not sure it matters. Either way, God has started to take the raw materials of creation and set boundaries for it. The balance is His to control and He is doing so and it is good.

The third day comes and God deals with the water below the sky. It’s interesting to note that in the ancient world the water was considered unpredictable, dangerous and powerful. Biblically, we see this notion show up in the beasts that come out of the sea in Daniel 7, the fear as the disciples get caught up in the storms on the lake of Galilee, and even the discussions of the great beasts like leviathan. However, here we have a creator God who speaks to the waters and they obey Him (just like Jesus in that storm situation).

Water is bundled together into massive bodies, leaving land exposed as a separator. Again, God names them, He is in control. Where other cultures may look around them and see gods or deities in land masses, great bodies of water or other unique elements of the environment, a follower of God looks and sees God’s creative work and a reminder that He is sovereign over that creation. This had relevance for the Israelites who were surrounded by competing gods of nature, as well as in our time in some of the movements that point us with reverence to nature instead of nature’s God.

Now that the land is revealed, God creates plants to sprout from it. Note the use of “seed’ four different times here. The plants that are created are one thing, but we’re introduced to the care taken for their continuation. We see plants that produce seed that will produce new plants of the same kind. They are intended to bear fruit and intended to propagate themselves across the world. This is good.

Remember, the concept of “seed” is one of the major themes in Genesis. The same word used here for the plants and trees and such is what is used to describe the offspring of animals and humans.

Day 4 is the installation of what we would call the sun and moon into the sky. Genesis doesn’t use those terms, likely because these were also parts of creation that other cultures had already started to worship. In fact, the heavenly realms were ripe for being turned into objects of worship. Here, we see the sun, moon, and stars subservient to God. We also see God molding His creation into a rhythm, the regulation of time, seasons, night and day.

Day 5 we see life created in the seas and in the air and our first notion of “blessing”. What sticks out as interesting here is the specific mention of the “great sea creatures”. It seems odd, in both a sea and sky full of creatures of all variation, the giant sea creatures get a starring role. However, from what we’ve seen so far, the Genesis account seems to at least have in view the notion of speaking to that which people are mistakenly worshiping. Certainly there are ancient myths of divine monsters (the Hebrew word can be translated as dragon) and the mention here affirms that God has made these creatures, they are not divine and there is only one God. (We see that term “bara” again, the create term that only refers to something God does.)

We also get the first blessing. As we watch for blessings in Genesis, the context will generally explain how we are to understand them. In this case, God blesses the creatures that they should be fruitful and multiply, to populate the skies and the water.

As you look back at the text, notice that it has been specifically and intentionally poetic: the same pattern in repetition for the days, the continuous affirmation that things are good.

We’re now on to day 6 and we get more detail on this day than all the previous days. The earth, unlike the water and the sky, has a specific instruction to produce living creatures, which it does. Just like the plants, we see a variety of creatures come forth from the land; livestock, creeping things, and beasts. And it is good.

The God decides to make man. The text uses a plural, here, that man should be made in “our” image. As Christians, we look back and can understand this as a glimpse of a God that exists in trinity. However, especially in a fiercely monotheistic creation account so far, some think of that as a stretch. Other explanations have been offered, such as maybe he’s talking about other created beings like angels. That one doesn’t make much sense, though, it would mean man is created in the shared image of God and angels.

Since we already have met the Spirit of God hovering over the water (which doesn’t put monotheism at risk, it’s still God), the traditional Christian interpretation seems like the right bet.

Man is created (bara, for the third time) in God’s image and likeness. These could certainly be seen as repetitive, synonymous terms. In general, we should likely read this as humans being given some characteristics of God that are not shared with the rest of creation. The further implication is that this allows humans to have a relationship with God that is different than animals or other parts of the creation. Finally, we should recognize that bearing the image of God comes with the expectation that we act consistently with that image.

The humans are given authority over the rest of the creation, and not just the land animals that were created that same day. It’s everything, the fish, the birds, the livestock, the creepers; all of it. The language here certainly has lineage in subduing as a hostile action or conquest. However, that doesn’t seem to be the relationship between man and the rest of God’s creation. Man doesn’t appear to need any of the animals for food at this point. And, we’ll note soon that man is given work to do but it is good and blessed, there’s no indication the animals are being used to assist in the work (although, rightly noted that there isn’t an indication that they weren’t, either.)

Still, in their uniqueness, man does not seem positioned to either fear the animals nor relate to them in a hostile manner. In fact, man will be given the responsibility of naming these creatures. So, although there is certainly a hierarchy here, the relationship at this point seems to be one of mutual benefit and one that is peaceful. To mistreat creation would be to act differently than God has to that which is subservient to Him, a violation of carrying His image and likeness.

There is a call out in v. 27 where we see the affirmation again that God created man in his own image (repeated again), then specifically called out “…male and female he created them.” This affirms, certainly, that both men and women share this unique “image” and “likeness” of God. It’s how Christians came to understand the value of all life, given that all human beings have been created in that same image and likeness thus having inherent value and worth.

God blesses the humans with the same blessings as the animals, but this time the words are “said to them” vs. just spoken among or over them. Their blessing is to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…” and God has given all of the plants to sustain them while they do so. It’s this section that is the basis for folks believing that meat was not eaten in the Garden of Eden. In general, as we look at blessings, we should consider blessings the provision of advantages and/or privilege, where curses are forces that hinder or restrict. As we look back here we see that God has called them to multiply and then described how He is blessing them in order to do that. And that is very good.

Day 7 God rests. Unlike other ancient myths, God does not rest because He needs to, He does so as an example to humanity (similar to the work/rest rhythm we saw in the previous days). Interestingly, God blesses the day itself, setting it apart. As we understand blessing, I think the fair way to see this is a day set apart for our example and one that is ultimately to serve creation, to give it advantage or privilege. For all talk of trying to get people to keep the Sabbath, we should recognize that by not doing so we are willfully snubbing our noses up at rest that God has created for us as a blessing. That’s a mistake.

Categories
Bible Study Genesis

Genesis | Introduction

The word Genesis comes from the first word of the book. The Hebrew word is translated as “In the beginning”, the companion Greek word is genesis (guh-nessiss), meaning “origins”. (That Greek word is transliterated to our English “Genesis”. Transliteration just means to take a word from another language and treat it like it’s a legit word in your language. It’s word theft, really. Phil Collins didn’t even know he was a criminal.)

The authorship is debatable. Up until the 18th century it was pretty much acknowledged that Moses was the author of Genesis as well as the 4 books that follow, known as the Pentateuch) and that for the most part the modern version we have was sourced from documentation sometime between the 10th and 9th century, BC. There are problems with this, however. For example, Moses’ death is recorded in these first 5 books, some locations are referred to using names that are believed to have not been around until the 8/7th century BC, and there are references to a king being in Israel (Genesis 36), which happened beyond Moses’ time.

There are a number of proposed solutions which contain various puzzle pieces like multiple documents, multiple authors, various motivations for writing, intertwined source material and so on. Some perhaps retain Moses as the author with suggestions of minor editing to include his death and location correction so folks know which location is being referred to after a name change. Smart people who love Jesus haven’t come to anything resembling an agreement or particularly a way forward to what an agreement would look like in this area. So, we’re left with the text itself which does not bear the name of an author. So, we will proceed without knowing.

Things to watch for in Genesis:
– It is not a book in a traditional sense in that there isn’t a single, consistent plot that winds throughout the book. However, all of the stories are moving in the same direction, contributing to progression of our understanding of God and His relationship to his creation.
– That said, there is a clear focus change from chapters 1-11, which are universal, to the rest of the book, which focuses on a single family line.
– The stories weren’t written in a vacuum, they had relevance to those reading or hearing of them in those days (they certainly weren’t written just for a 21st century audience). In general, Israel’s history has been a troubled one, they very rarely saw sustained periods of peace. As such, Genesis doesn’t shy away from hard questions of people of faith. It was likely formally written down to attempt to serve that very thing.
– They also lived in the context of competing gods and idols. As such, the text interacts with that. We see a fiercely monotheistic God who controls/creates everything with ease, compared to other creation accounts filled with strife and gods fighting with each other.
– Watch for consistent themes of land, blessing (and curses), and offspring. They have relevance in every major story.
– Watch for contrasting characters. Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Judah and Joseph. Many of the stories put two characters up against each other for evaluation. Some are obvious, some less so (like Sarah and Hagar, where Hagar is understood in a much better light upon the comparison.)

As to how to read Genesis appropriately, much of the complication comes from expectations we have of the stories. If we expect it to speak as a science journal, we will evaluate the veracity and truth of the book based upon those expectations. If we expect it to be a history book, we will evaluate it the same way. We will do our best to not bring more to the text than it allows us while also remaining firm in the belief that it is, in whichever case, a true and reliable narrative. Smart people who love Jesus will react to Genesis differently, I encourage you to remain open on how to read the book and gracious with those who read it differently.

Categories
Reference Books

The Pentateuch As Narrative

Author: John H. Sailhamer

Publisher: Zondervan

Why I like it: Sailhamer does a great job of pulling you up from an overly technical study of the Torah into the underlying narratives. A good switch for me in reading this one was to start looking at how the laws in Leviticus-Deuteronomy serve the narrative (the story of how YHWH relates to humans and what it means to reflect His image and associate with His holiness) vs. just being a communication of a law code.

It won’t scratch every itch you have for details, but it’s a great place to start to make sure we’re actually asking the right questions of the text.

Purchase on Amazon