The Story of Creation

I'm just gonna call him by his name, Dick, it's great to have you with us.

Any effort to address it, people will be wrestling with what you say and in many cases reacting to it, but we're gonna try and clear out some of the core ground and thing about what these chapters are and are not doing, and so with that in mind, let's talk a little bit about the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

And just kind of to frame the conversation, there are people who say those two chapters kind of intersect with each other and are related to each other in one way or another, and then there are people who say, "No, these are two fairly distinct accounts and pictures of creation."

And I'm gonna let you play with that however you want, any combination or one preferred to the other, and why should we see it one way versus the other in thinking about the relationship of these two chapters.

And this formula, in Hebrew the toledot formula, extends through the book of Genesis, and it links the previous unit to the following. It always refers to things that are already there, but then goes on and develops what happens with them whether it's a genealogy or whether it's an account.

That raises the question of what's the relationship of chapter 2 to chapter 1 then, and some people like to see it as in lockstep with Genesis 1 so that Genesis 2 is just about the sixth day in Genesis 1.

There are some problems with that because in the text, what happens is that you get, for example, in chapter 2, the creation of the birds, and in Genesis 1 they're created on day 5, not day 6, and so there's things like this.

Now, some translations try to get around that by saying that God had created the birds and so on, but the grammar of the text is really clearly a basic past-tense narrative form, and it's difficult to justify translating it that way, although some have done that.

So issues of sequences, which sometimes come up about the differences between the two chapters are understood better with that being in the background, and that's distinct from the view that says, "Well, really, chapter 1 is doing one thing and chapter 2 is doing another thing, and you shouldn't put those two together at all, and you shouldn't think about any kind of sequencing between those two at all."

Am I reading you right as to which is the better alternative?

There are a lot of things going on in these two chapters as we think about the creation, there's no doubt about that, and one of the ways in which this material can sometimes be handled is to ask the reader to make a choice, and the choice goes something like this.

These chapters are representative of who humans are, they're archetypical, and describe kind of the role in creation of human beings, but we shouldn't press them too hard for their material contribution to how the creation is taking place, a kind of either/or approach to the chapter.

And that's pushing back against the idea that could be framed in a variety of ways, and in fact is, that we're either dealing with kind of a very vivid snapshot of the step-by-step forms of creation which are associated with some views of these chapters or even a less specific, and a less vivid way in which, yes, there's a generalized description of the way creation happened, but we don't need to choose between the fact that this is archetypical, this is what God is saying about humanity, but it also is very material and very direct in terms of the role of Adam and Eve, a kind of both/and approach to the reading of this text.

So I've kind of given you three views there. How do you see these early chapters playing out in terms of those options?

It that point, it starts using Yahweh, the covenant name of God.

Now, as far as the archetypal discussion and so on, one of the things that I think is important is that these chapters are about what happened in the ancient world, so I would argue that there is real historical reality here. There's a real Adam and Eve and so on and so forth.

But, there, archetypal for us, one of the best ways for me to explain that is in the fall story in Genesis 3 we get these patterns of deception and doubt and illegitimate desire and so on.

That's not just about what happened in the garden, it is about that, but it's also about what we keep on struggling with is deception, and doubt, and illegitimate desire, shame, and fear and all these things, and it's meant to be read with the idea that this chapter is about the historical Adam and Eve, but it's also about what we deal with day by day.

And so there's the archetypal and that shows up in this as when you get creation you get the pattern of existence, you get the pattern of who what these realities are or who these people are in such a way that it helps us to understand who we are, and that's what we mean by archetypal.

The point is, is that the text deals with both the function of things, but the foundational material creation of them as well, and it is a mistake to try to drive a wedge between the two.

How would you deal with that particular aspect of the question? What do we do with the imagery that we've got here, things like carving out of ribs and that kind of thing or even the sequencing of the days?

It's a way of shaping a story in an understandable way, and the ancient Israelites would be fully used to that pattern. Like in Proverbs, there's six things the Lord hates yet seven, you know, in Proverbs 6, various places.

And this pattern shows up in many different places including construction of the tabernacle and the temple and so on. So what I'm seeing here is that the shaping of the Genesis 1 through 2, 3 account is really shaped according to this literary pattern.

And so when we talk about day 1, for example, I think what we're getting is not necessarily a movie, it's more like a snapshot – "Here's day 1 and God is drawing our attention to this and he's saying, 'I made it.'"

And then he moves on to the next unit, the firmament of heavens and draws our attention to that, and he says, "I made it." And he keeps on going through progressively through the chapter, these snapshots are eliminating the conditions that we have in verse 2 of the deep, dark watery abyss.

It does reflect the structure of the world and the basic framing of what relies on that. So you have the dry ground before they get the animals, you know, you get the rachila the firm and the heavens before you get the lights in the heavens, all of these things, and the result is you end up with a kind of not just a cosmogony, not just a creation, but a cosmology, "How does our world fit together and how does it work?"

And then when you move into chapter 2, what you have is a bit of a shift because you have things in chapter 2 that you find nothing like that in chapter 1, like the rivers flowing in Eden, and they talk about the Tigris and the Euphrates River.

Well, those are realities that the Israelites knew were actual historical markers, and geographical markers in the real world of humanity. So there's a shift between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 linking them together and saying that this is about creation of our human world, and therefore we step even more into historical realities that we deal with day by day.

But before I get to that, let me get to another idea that I think is extremely, or set of ideas that I think is extremely underdeveloped coming out of these chapters.

I like to say to my students that I was probably 20 years into my professional teaching career before I realized that there was a very important concept that I had heard next to nothing about theologically, and that I still hear very little about, and that is the idea of being a steward, that we are called in the creation, it's part of the creation mandate in fact.

It's a central thing that we're asked to be, that we are asked to be stewards in the world to manage the world well together, that God made us male and female to manage the world well together, to subdue the earth, if I can use the language of the text.

I'd like for you to elaborate a little bit on that before we turn to the idea of image because image is related to that, at least in terms of purpose. So talk a little bit about what Genesis is trying to do in presenting any human being, whether they have a sense of relationship to God or not, as being called to steward the earth well.

He's put us here for that purpose, so we're responsible for what God has put us here to manage. And so this stewardship issue is a big deal and it really can get us into even understanding the whole question of our responsibility for the creation, and it can get us into some of these environmental discussions and so on, and how we handle the world is not just for us; we are here to manage the whole thing that's good for all.

It also sets up the whole idea of the together part, the fact that we've been made male and female, and then of course across the story of the scripture, you've got a variety of peoples that God has allowed to emerge.

It also sets the foundations, I think, for what the gospel achieves on the other end in terms of reconciliation, what the gospel takes us back to. The gospel takes us back to being good stewards of the creation together in a way that's harmonious.

It lays the groundwork for where love is supposed to take us. It lays the groundwork for where justice is supposed to take us, etc. So it's a mammoth concept, but I tease people, we never have a course on stewardology, but maybe we ought to.

It certainly is a big part of what would technically probably fall into anthropology and sets the tone for what the assignment is, what the calling of human beings are as they reflect the capability that God has given us that is a reflection of himself in the creation.

And the word "dominion" is a tricky word because it suggestions an idea of domination, and it certainly has that because it has authority built into it, but the way in which God has created man and woman to work together where she is the helper, the helpmate, talks about a cooperation in that, and a complementarity in that, that is designed to mutually enhance what each brings to the stewardship.

The point is that he has put us here for managing it well, being fruitful and multiplying, and spreading out so that we're present in it to manage it and so on, and that's gonna take some, yeah, we have to be who we're created to be, that's his image and likeness.

But then in chapter 2 it develops that further into the dynamics of the world of the man and the woman, and says it's not good that the man be alone, and so the whole point of the movement is that man would have who he needs as his companion in the midst of this, and that they become one.

There's no domination here in chapter 2 –

And it's interesting because scripture later on in the New Testament comes to blame each of them in one way or another for what took place because they have each let the other down in by the way in which the fall happened.

And I think part of what I wanna deal with here is who's responsible for creating the image of God in us and what is it that the scripture is depicting in that, and at one level, obviously, the answer is transparent, God is the one who made it, but how is this being depicted?

Is this being depicted as part of a process that just, you know, and I could be accused of characterizing here, but it just kind of fell into place or is this part of a process in which God consciously injected himself into a process that says, "I am making man and woman"?

In this context, part of the issue is that there's been a lot of confusion about what do we mean by the image and likeness. I've been involved in some discussions even very recently where scholars are debating this whole discussion, and I've had people, right from the front saying, "Well, obviously, I have no idea what the image and likeness is."

The fact of the matter is we really do if we anchor it in what's actually going on in the text at its foundation rather than to get so carried away with speculations about it. There's a lot of metaphysical speculation that goes on around the image and likeness, but it needs to be anchored to what the text is actually doing.

And we actually have a text from times of ancient Israel in which it's a text written on a statue, the Telteharia inscription, and this text talks – gives us an inscription on the skirt of the statue of the king, and it's starts out this is the statue, the king, the dimuth, okay, and it comes around, yes, this is the tselem, you know what I mean? And it does that twice. It goes around on that twice.

And so the anchor is found in that we are like or in an image of God, standing here representing him in the world.

But God has given us all sorts of capacities to accomplish that, and I think we should be looking at them more as a whole, and there are capacities, and that's important, but the text here is anchoring the discussion in our purpose in the world he made us to do this.

It's not a theoretical discussion. It's about function. It's about how we handle ourselves and how that relates to the entire creation.

It sanctifies our activity in the world or at least it's designed to portray the idea that the work that we do, even the mundane work that we do in managing the world, there's something appropriately sacred about it because it's part of this imaging and stewardship that God has given to us in making us the way that he made us.

Where do they start? They start with the idea of "You've been created by a creator God to whom you're accountable."

One is, is that God starts out a process and it ends with this – ends somehow along the way with this image of God being injected into the creation in the process.

Those who are inclined, and I've tried to avoid all the controversial terms and just stay in the text, but I probably can't do it at this point, but those who are more inclined to say what might be called, at least a form of theistic evolution would say, you know, God wound up the clock and there's a process, a scientific – he's been active in it all, it's his creation, you know, they're trying to be clear about that, but basically it winds down and at some point, some unspecified point, the image of God came into this process.

I think what I'm hearing from you goes slightly differently. It goes something to the effect of, no, when Adam and Eve came on the scene, this was a creative act of God. God was acting all along in whatever he was doing in the creation before he got there, but this is a moment –

And my reaction is no, that is a misrepresentation of what's being described. What's being described is the idea that yes, God has put into place a process by which he creates, and by which the creation functions and has some level of order, but there are times in which he moves in to enhance what it is that he has previously done and what he has gotten started.

And that's not a matter of natural or supernatural; that is a description of the way in which God has chosen to launch the project, if you will.

He's meaning to create a world that is by its very nature productive.

And the danger sometimes is we get, and we've kind of approached the entire podcast this way, the danger can be we get so locked up in the controversy that we're having about creation and evolution, etc. that that becomes the focus of the discussion, doing the apologetics related to those questions, and in the process we miss actually what the emphasis of the text is about describing who it is that he's made us to be.

But the point here is, is that we have a capability of relating to this being who made us that is unlike anything else in the creation, and that's part of the covenant part, and the interesting thing about that is, and this is a whole 'nother podcast is that relational dimension with God which expresses itself in the covenant structures of the Old Testament shows a personalness of engagement that God has with us that some very famous monotheistic religions tend not to have.

And here I have Islam in mind in particular with its emphasis on the sovereignty of God, but its lack of discussion of the covenant relationship and the love that God has for people. Everything goes through the lens of submission rather than the lens of relationship.

And so this is something that he's personally involved in as the sovereign God over all.

That takes us back to the creation mandate because we were called to manage the creation well together.

Now, it can be understood in a singular way too, like in Genesis 5 with Adam and so on, and then on into the Noahic thing in chapter 9. The point is that you can think about it from both directions, but where this really begins, this whole concept really begins is with the collective.