back

Sunday, 26 October 2008 - Genesis, chapters 1 and 2.

Today we’re going back to the begin. The very beginning. Because today we start a new series of talks from the first book of the Bible - Genesis. In fact, the title Genesis - which comes to us via Greek from a Hebrew word - means, “in the beginning”, or origin. As evangelical Christians, we rightly emphasis the NT message of a salvation we receive through Jesus Christ alone. We emphasis who Jesus is - and what He did. But it was Martin Luther - who significantly rediscovered this message of salvation in the 16th century for us Europeans - who said - Genesis is “certainly the foundation of the whole of Scripture”. And a millennia before, Augustine found Genesis important enough to devote three books to it. You may also be aware that without the first few chapters of Genesis the end of Revelation doesn’t make sense. And both sets of chapters form the bookends to everything in between. So what we’re look at today isn’t just interesting - but important.

Now I do hope that you’ve done what I asked over the last couple of weeks - and read at least the first two chapters of Genesis - because I haven’t got time to read right through them this morning. I will just be referring to them.

I wanted to get you into small groups now to discuss a couple of questions - but looking at the clock I haven’t got time for that. The questions I would have liked you to think about are - “What do you make of Genesis chapters 1 & 2?” - followed by - ‘What do we mean when we say - “The Bible is the inspired Word of God?”. “How was the Bible inspired by God - and how does our understanding of what we mean by God inspiring this book translate into our understanding of what we read?” But as I say - there’s not time now for that this morning.

You appreciate of course before I start that the beginning of Genesis is a minefield for those seeking to speak about it - and that’s partly because of what other people have said about. As someone once said “The Bible might be inspired, but our interpretation of it often isn’t!”

The big question - before discussing the content of these verses - is - what sort of literature is this? We accept without too much difficulty that the Psalms are mainly poetry (although that poetry is based on fact) and also that Jesus parables were allegorical - each told to a convey a truth but in a story. But other writings are obviously historical accounts. So what have we got in Genesis chapters 1 & 2? What sort of literature have we here?

There’s a number of views about these chapters - but for us this morning they probably come down to a single question - are these chapters ‘Literal’ or ‘Literary’. Are we supposed to understand them as scientific history or theological revelation? And I suppose the question in it’s simplest for is, “Did God create the world in six ordinary days?”

The question’s been around for a long time - but now - we not only do live after the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” - but also in an era where we are far more aware of the vastness of the cosmos and it’s relationship to time and the structure of matter. We even suspect there’s more matter around that we can’t see but can weigh - hence some serious research looking for ‘dark matter’. Which is why a Frenchman, Henri Blocher, in his book “In the Beginning”, says there is no avoiding the confrontation of the natural sciences with Genesis. But he also say that the text of Genesis is forced, if it is treated as an answer to scientists in our time.

Of course not all scientist are in the Richard Dawkins mode. Francis Collins (that’s guy not a woman) is leader of the Genome Project - and became a Christian in 1978. He’s written a book entitled ‘The Language of God’ - and has said that “the God of the Bible is also the God of the genome... and can be worshipped in a cathedral or a laboratory”.

There are some other scientists who have tried to marry God and evolution as compactable concepts. One is a Dr. Alexander who some of us heard speak recently at a men’s CVM meeting. Generally, what they believe is known as Theistic Evolution - although I think some don’t like that term.

Others take a view I will quote verbatim from Blocher’s book: “The Bible is not a textbook of Geology or Anthropology; it’s opening chapters are concerned with matters of faith and not with questions of cosmogony. They teach metaphysical or religious truth; they are doctrinal not physical.”

Over against them of course are the fundamentalist creationists - perhaps most vocal in the USA - who say it’s all literal - that the world is only six thousand years old - and God built into it age identifiers like fossils to fool us into thinking it was older than it really is.

Confused? Well I hope you aren’t so confused by the end of this service.

I’m not a scientist. I’m an engineer and a theologian. So I’m not going to allow myself to get bogged down in scientific detail. What I do want to do is to bring out five key points from these two chapters this morning (just to let you know where I’m going) but before that - I will address some of the problems embedded in the text with the different views I’ve just mentioned.

I suppose the two main problems we have when we come to read Genesis Ch.1 intelligently and with faith revolves around the concept of ‘days’, and the order of creation. Let’s first talk about the days.

A Bible teacher called David Pawson has identified five ways people have tried to understand ‘day’ in Genesis Ch.1. First of course, is as a natural day of 24 hours. But also as ‘an era’ - as a poetic framework - as steps in God’s revelation of creation to humanity (remember, nobody was around to write it down) and as ‘God days’ - the idea based on 2 Peter 3:8, which says that, to God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day.

Well if you stick with the text, then probably only two of them stand up, because of the phrase at the end of each phase of creation: “and there was evening and there was morning, the (whatever day it was)”. They are the literal six 24 hour days - and the literary (or poetic) framework. But before six-day creationists can say QED - they have a serious problem to answer. There’s a seventh ‘day’ - the day God rested - but this day is still going on even as even I speak. So that can’t be a standard 24 hour day can it (and even though it doesn’t say ‘evening and morning’ after it - it’s the same term). And when you go over into Hebrews Ch.4 in the NT - the writer there seems to be interpreting ‘the seventh day’ as metaphorical day anyway.

Then there’s the order of creation - and the immediate problem we notice is having light and darkness created in Day 1- but the sun, moon and stars don’t appear until Day 4. And with our developed scientific knowledge we are aware of the interdependence of the earth’s existence - not only with our own galaxy - but with trillions of other stars - many much larger than our sun. And we also see that vegetation is created in Day 3 - again before the sun and moon exist to give us the seasons - and also - we have reference to day and night from Day 1 without a structure to produce the day/night cycle.

Incidentally - while our knowledge of the solar system would seen to give credence to the Theistic evolutionist’s theory - they have a problem of their own to grapple with. God says in Genesis 1:26 says, “Let us make man in our own image, in our likeness...” We’ll look again at this verse in a moment - but the question for evolutionists who believe in God is, “How did God specifically chose to create humanity in His own image - and perfect - if humanity is said to have evolved from non-human beginnings over time?”

Have you ever tried to complete one of those picture puzzles that consists of joining up a large number of dots? You go from dot to dot on a page until a picture emerges. Sometimes the dots are numbered - but not always. The problem with us trying to come to a definitive conclusion on these issues is that we haven’t got nearly enough dots to join up - and those we have got aren’t numbered. But I’ll tell you in a minute some that we can join up.

And there’s another problem we have (particularly if you are a literalist) in that we have two accounts of creation. Chapter 1:1 to around 2:3 - and then the remainder of chapter 2. Bible scholars will tell you they are from different sources - but are they in conflict - or are they complimentary? And perhaps stepping back for a minute - should we be asking - ‘Why were these chapters written’? After all - if this was the NT - we’d be interested in - say - why Paul wrote a certain letter to a specific church in a particular town?

The WORD Bible commentary says that “Genesis 1-11 is a tract for the times, challenging ancient assumptions about the nature of God, the world, and mankind. It’s best read as presenting an alternative world-view to those generally accepted in the Ancient Near East.”

Some people with a passing knowledge of ancient civilisations of the area will tell you that, of course, the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures (amongst others) had creation myths as well. Yes, they did. With gods rather than one God - and quite different ideas about creation, including why humanity was created revolving around us existing to serve the gods as mere lowly vassals. And whereas the sun, moon, stars and planets are ‘created’ in the Biblical account - they are viewed as part of a pantheon of gods in other cultures. The Biblical account (which incidentally probably existed for some time as oral tradition before Moses had it scripted) was documented to put the record straight.

I’m going to draw this part of what I’m saying to a close. The easiest way for me to do this is in a series of short statements.

First of a all, these chapters of Genesis come to us out of an extinct culture. We have a little knowledge of the background of it - but not that much.

Some of you know I’m doing an evening class in Kiswahili at the moment. A few weeks back we learnt to tell the time in Kiswahili - but we were told first we needed to ‘think in Kiswahili’. That’s so we could to see why the hours of the day (and indeed the days of the week) are nominated the way they are in this language - which is significantly different to the way we do it.

In one sense we are here seeking to understand a way of communicating for which we haven’t got the background. And let’s face it - if Genesis 1& 2 were written in scientific terms we know about in our 21st AD setting - then they would have been unintelligible to those for whom they were first written.

Also (as Blocher says) “Human language rarely remains at the zero point of plain prose.” It always lends towards figurative language. So Job - talking to God in Job 10:10 & 11 - says - “Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese, clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews?” I hope don’t need to labour the point that this is poetic, not technical, language. Commentators say that in fact there is a high quality literary structure to the first account of creation (including the use of numbers) lost to us to a degree, but not completely, in translation.

But I suppose a key question of how we should understand Genesis 1 & 2 is, “How did Jesus understand it?”. Do you agree? So how did Jesus use and interpret the beginning of the Jewish Torah - these chapters?

Well Jesus believed it’s teaching to be authentic and valuable. He quoted from it. For instance, in Matthew 19:4 & 5 He quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in support of marriage and against divorce. But it also seems He was willing to move outside traditional interpretations as He talked about days and work. He says in John 5:17, “My Father is always working to this very day, and I, too, am working”.

My final comment here. Hebrews Ch.1 starts, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.” These chapters of Genesis are just one of those “various ways” that God used in the past.

So - what can we learn from these two chapters this morning. What do these chapter tell us about God and ourselves? Well I did say that I wanted to tell you five things we can learn from these two chapters. And we start with “In the beginning God....”.

Someone’s commented that “The first subject of Genesis and the Bible is God”. And David Pawson points out that in 31 verses God comes in 35 times, making the Creator, not the creation, the subject of the opening chapter of the Bible. And there is something else as well about the mention of God in this chapter. I guess a lot of us are familiar with the words “let us make man in our image” pointing to plurality in the Godhead - but I only found out as I look into this chapter that the word for God used here is also plural - which in other contexts would be translated ‘gods’. But you can’t do that here because it’s always used with a singular verb! So it’s a plural word used for a single God.

And what we have here is “In the beginning God created...”.

Did you hear the story about Satan coming to God one day and saying, ‘So you made people; I can do that’. God say, ‘OK. go ahead’. So Satan bent down and picked up some earth. ‘Oh no’, said God, ‘go find your own materials’. Theologians talk about God creating creatio ex nihilo (excuse my Latin pronunciation) which simply translated means - something out of nothing.

You’ve probably heard about the biggest scientific instrument in the world that’s been installed under the border between France and Switzerland. It’s called the Hadron Collider - and once they’ve repaired some wiring - they are hoping to start investigating the instant in time almost immediately after matter was formed. What they can’t do is investigate what happened in the split second before! That’s God’s private territory - and the best we can do is accept and embrace the words of Hebrews 11:3. “ By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible ”. It’s all there - in one sentence.

And then we come to us - and the words of Genesis 1:26. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...”

Some years ago I was driving to work with Premier Christian radio on in the car. And a preacher from another country came on talking about the Psalms - and said - “The Bible says - God will cover you with His feathers - and protect you under His wings. Therefore we know that God has feathers and God has wings.” I think I was so disgusted, I don’t think I’ve listen to Premier radio since! This guy had totally miss-read poetry as physical fact. The picture is true - in that God will care for us - but told through an illustration from nature - not with a description of God’s physique!

What we do know from the Bible is that God is spirit - and those who worship Him worship Him in spirit and truth. Jesus said that in John 4:24. And in the OT- Moses tells the Israelites in the desert (Deuteronomy 4:15) that “you saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire”. Indeed when God spoke to Moses out of the burning bush about eighty years earlier, Moses saw no form to God either.

So what does it mean for us to be made in the image of God - in his likeness - if God is spirit? One writer says that ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ together mean “according to a similar but not identical representation”. Another said it’s a bit like representing an epic story in sculpture. And someone else that - “Humanity, fresh from the Creator’s hand, is a pictograph of ‘the image of God’.” One is not the other - but without the original the representation would be meaningless. But what does (or should that be - what did) this representation consist of - if it’s not a flesh and blood representation?

Many commentators will tell you that it is our moral and spiritual nature that is in view. The ability to make judgements and choices - and our eternal nature. Others say that’s too limiting - and want to expand it to a functional role in line with us being God representatives: but I’ll say more about that in a minute. And one commentator says it all comes down to love. Into us - at creation - was breathed perfect love, along with our free will.

There’s a great temptation to ask (and try to answer) the question - “How much of this image of God was lost when sin entered into the world?” But that’s outside my remit this morning!

So the final two things I want to say are to do with what God created us for. First of all - He created us for relationship. That’s clear from both creation accounts - but is more fully ‘fleshed out’ (excuse the pun) in the second account from Genesis 2:18 onwards. We are made for relationship. One of the great sadness of our society is the isolation so many people live in today. Whether you liked the Beatles’ music or not - some of their lyrics were very observant. Lines like, “All the lonely people; where do they all come from?”. And then there’s matrimony the way God never intended it.

I was on holiday a few weeks back. One lady there had come away on the holiday as divorce papers fell on her doormat. She would face them when she got home. She was 50 - and had been married 26 years. In Malachi 2:16 God says, “I hate divorce” - and you can sense God deep feeling about the spoiling of His good purposes as He says it.

We know that good relationships can turn existing into living - and not just in marriages. It brings joy into the frightened existence of an abandoned baby in a Romanian orphanage - or meaning to the elderly in a Residential Home in England. And we can fulfil God’s good purposes today - by modelling good relationships in the church - and I don’t just mean in marriages. I mean by the general way we talk to and deal with one another. Not just as a ‘Christian witness’ - or even because it’s the right thing to do - but because you want to bring goodness, care and affirmation into someone else’s life.

One other thing here - and I need to move up one chapter to point it out from Genesis 3:8 - that it was not only human relationships that we were made to enjoy - but also a relationship with God Himself (in this verse being revealed in it’s absence). It here prefigures what salvation is about - a relationship with God - and not the trying to live by a set of rules or religious rituals.

And the other thing we were created for was - a purpose-filled productive life. Again - both creation accounts tell us this - at Genesis 1:28 and in Genesis 2:15.

Now I’m not particularly into all the hype and sometimes (to my mind anyway) irrelevant exaltations we are bombarded with these days in the name of environment concerns over global warming. But as Christians - we do have a mandate from God to responsibly look after His creation. It’s written into His original tenancy agreement given to us in these chapters of Genesis. And perhaps how we’re supposed to do that goes back to the likeness to God we were originally created in - having the Creator’s mind over the right way to live - and seeing His creation through His eyes.

One commentator called us “God’s Vice Regents on earth”. Which actually ties in very clearly with what the psalmist wrote in Psalm 8:

4 What is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honour.
6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:
7 all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.

So in conclusion - we were created to relate perfectly - and function purposefully - in relationship with the God who designed and made us, and in relationship with each other. How do you feel about that?

Granville Richards