Being raised in a scientific age and having attended secular institutions until my formation in seminary I have always struggled with creation Ex nihilo. There was nothing and then God spoke and creation came into existence. A creator God, as depicted here, is a very distant God, one who breathes life into the world and then sits back and watches from a distance. This is definitely Aristotle’s clock maker God, the prime mover; definitely not the close personal God that Christ refers to as Abba.
This passage, also, is from the P source in the Pentateuch and as we will see later it is but the first (really the second, but that is another story) story about creation. In case you are new to biblical studies, much like myself in many ways, there are four sources of material in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the bible. They are J, E, P and D. Each of the sources are from different time periods, J being the oldest and P the newest.
Scholars generally agree that the reason that this passage was edited into Genesis was to provide scripturally-based reason as to why the Sabbath must be observed. Since during the act of creation, God rested and blessed that day to make it holy, there is scriptural reason for Sabbath observance.
All that being said, there are a few things that strike me on which I want to focus.
In verse 26 when God creates humankind, he does so by saying “let us make humankind…”
Is this a royal we? Or are there others with God? Later in verse 27, God returns to speaking in the singular. Where did they go?
Another point of interest is verse 1 of chapter 1 and verse 1 of chapter 2. In each case heavens is referred to in the plurals. Is there more than 1 heaven or is this a reference to the stars of the sky?
And something I have always struggled with, why would God give dominion over all the earth over to humankind? After all the effort to create, well everything, why relinquish control to humankind? I mean, surely God must have known the ecological disaster that a decision like that would eventually cause? I think as we go through the rest of the bible we will eventually return to this theme of land. Perhaps this is the beginning of the development of a theology of land?
To be honest there is much more in this passage and many more questions, but to ask every question and attempt to answer each would be an endeavour that is well beyond my skill. We have, after all, just begun to scratch the surface and I am sure some of these questions will return to us as we continue through the bible. For now though, this should suffice to whet my appetite.
Marty, it is a laudable to read God’s Holy Book, something I enjoy doing myself. I only wish more would do so, even among the clergy! Maxine (my wife, your cousin) told me about your Bible reading blog.
I hope that I can address some of your musings to satisfy your curiosity. Such as your struggle with creation. Our physical existence today might appear to be solid, but what we see appears to be scientifically measured ex nihilo. Note this paper that cites mass as being measurably holographic in nature: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 (note that this paper is controversial, but not due to the holographic explanation, but that the author ascribes gravity as no longer being thermodynamic but enthropic in origin)
Yes, even the continued existence of the universe and all that is in it is ex nihilo, so why would the Genesis account be any less acceptable? The fact that we cannot yet understand our current holographic existence does not mean our puny human minds can fully comprehend the Genesis creation account, but the continuing reality supports the description of the B’reshit (in the beginning) former.
The term “heavens” [shah-MAH-yeem in Hebrew] can mean any one of several locations. For example at Gen 1:1 and Isa 40:22 the “heavens” is the huge physical universe. At Gen 1:6-8, Gen 1:20 the “heavens” is earth’s atmosphere where birds and even airplanes fly. At Ps 14:2 “heaven” is the dwelling place of Jehovah. Each of those “heavens” has its own location. Identify each of the “heavens” at 1 Ki 8:26 (there are two here) and 1 Ki 8:30 (there is one here). By the way, to which of these “heavens” did our friend Elijah go? ( 2 Ki 2:11; John 3:13).
I will let you know that I support the 2 Timothy 3:16 assertion of the Bible and I do not ascribe to the Documentary Theory for the following reason:
1:1 (J) The Document Theory relies on a human assertion that arose
1:8 (J) better computers than the southern states.
1:2 (E) ex nihilo some 2,000 years following the original living witnesses
1:7 (E) in the United States the northern states won due to having
1:3 (P) which purports that parallel non-sensical writings were held as history.
1:6 (P) roughly equivalent to someone in 3010 determining that during the civil war
1:4 (D) Though for complex, though not unimaginative, reasons these sections were
1:5 (D) not formed as a consolidated whole until centuries later. This would be
Albeit the above example is over-simplified, but it should be sufficient to make clear the absurdity, that it is in reality a (relativily recent) tradition that is designed to render the word of God as invalid (Mark 7:13). It is just a modern form of gematria, but instead of producing artificial constructions the Document Theory artifically shreds the communicaion. Somehow similar nonsense is purported to have retained as historical writings until Ezra pieced it all together. Another flaw with the Document Theory is that the section assignments appear to be more arbritary than the scholars who accept this theory let on. Ba‧raʼ′, “created,” in Genesis 1:1 is claimed to be written by source called “P.” So why then is that same word at Genesis 6:7 which is supposed to be a “J” source. The expression “land of Canaan” appearing in several texts (among which are Ge 12:5; 13:12a; 16:3; 17:8) is said peculiar to source “P,” but we find this same expression used by “J” and “E” sources in chapters 42, 44, 47, and 50.
As regards the ‘us’ of verse 26, it is in English translation that this is a separate word. The Hebrew conjugation Naaseh (we make; from Asah, to make) is a plural and indicates more than one personality is involved. Two aspects can be appreciated from this: 1) Hebrew has no ‘royal we’. This is borne out by the singular self-ascribing found in verse 29, when Elohim again speaks, but this time in the singular Nathatiy (I have given; from Nathan, to give). Singular self is used by Elohim in this verse. 2) so then who is included in the ‘us’ of verse 26? The answer is found in Colossians 1:16 (see also John 1:3). But in verse 27 (and 29) it is no surprise that the overall architect and provider has the authority to retain credit for those things. Even Jesus (who participated in the creation acts according to Col. 1:16) ascribed such credit to God, such as in Mark 10:6.
I hope you find these things helpful, and I agree with you that Bible study can lead to more questions to be answered, just as any study of God’s creation through the sciences can lead to more discoveries, and again more questions to be answered, just as Ecclesiastes 3:11 indicates.
-JoeS
Thanks for your comments Joe, I appreciate them.
The documentary theory is a useful tool I find for Old Testament biblical studies. Is it 100% accurate? Of course not, because it is a human creation. Having said that we must also hold out the possibility that the documentary theory was divinely inspired from the gift of the Holy Spirit and is in some way a continuation of divine revelation.
I am also going to treat the Old Testament throughout my exploration as the Hebrew Bible and independent of the New Testament. It is my desire to treat these scriptures with the same reverence and love that Jesus did and therefore when reading and exploring them I am going to resist temptation to use the New Testament as a means of proof-texting the Old Testament and allow the scriptures to speak for themselves. It is my hope that by doing so, new and interesting insights will jump off the page and deepen my understanding of God’s holy word.
I am currently reading my way through the entire Bible (or such is my goal); I am just finishing up Judges now. I wanted to applaud you for your endeavor and I hope that you keep the determination to finish the job.
I am not a Christian, and each chapter of the Bible that I read only strengthens my resolve against this religion. Page after page of xenophobic hatred, incestual genealogy, and ruthless murder. I wish that more Christians would familiarize themselves with the Bible; they would see that it is written for and about a people far away in time and space, and is completely irrelevant to today’s understanding of morality or spirituality.
I agree that we should all familiarize ourselves more with the bible. And yes it is written about a people far away in time and space, but that doesn’t mean there is no truth in the writings and the events that we can indeed learn from.
Stepping back from the bible for instance, the birth of Liberalism and Democracy in the French and American Revolutions were bloody and full of xenophobic hatred and ruthless murder. Does that mean the writings of Voltaire, Jefferson and Locke should be dismissed? I think not.
Knowing the culture it was written in helps us to understand the development of the religion, and indeed our own culture in many ways. After all, many liberal ideals of the enlightenment are in fact based on the bible.
So I would have to disagree that it is irrelevant to today’s understanding of morality and spirituality. If I toss out the bible for the reasons you listed, then I might as well toss out the Declaration of Independence as well, for it was written in a xenophobic hatred and ruthless murder, where only white men had any rights.