The Lost World of Adam and Eve (5 page)

All of it is introduced by God saying “Let there be . . .” This portrays the power of God’s spoken word. His decree calls light into existence, but again we have to understand the statement of the text with a recognition of what the Israelite audience considered “existence” to mean.

Day Two

Day two begins with another act of separation: the waters above from the waters below. Everyone in the ancient world believed there were waters above (since it sometimes came down) and waters below (since you could dig to find water and since there were springs where the waters emerged). No new scientific information is being given here; the text reflects the ways in which everyone in the ancient world thought about the cosmos and has particular significance for what they believed about the weather. God accomplished this separation by means of the
rāqîa
ʿ
(“vault, expanse, firmament”). Prior to the midsecond millennium
A.D
., this term was consistently understood as a solid sky that held back the rain. When it became widely recognized that the sky was not solid, other translations began to be used that focused more on the lower levels of the atmosphere, using nontechnical terms such as
expanse
or
vault.

Everyone in the ancient world believed in a solid sky, though there were varying opinions about its composition. The Israelites undoubtedly believed in a solid sky, though it is open to question whether
rāqîa
ʿ
is the word for that solid sky. For many years, I believed that it was.
1
Further reflection and more recent research, however, have led me to a different conclusion as I have encountered another Hebrew term that I believe refers to the solid sky.
2
If this is the case,
rāqîa
ʿ
refers instead to the space created by the separating of the waters that are held back by the solid sky. That space would be the living space for all creatures. This space is significant in ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, particularly in Egypt, where they associate it with the god Shu. Ancient cosmology is reflected in the Hebrew Bible since the sun and moon are together in this space. But most important for our discussion, we recognize again that we are not being introduced to the manufacture of a material object.
3
In Israelite perception, the space is not material. (We cannot bring in the concept of molecules of hydrogen and oxygen; that is no longer thinking with the text.) The separating of the waters, the existence of a solid sky and the establishment of space for living all pertain to the environment in general and to weather systems specifically (regulation of the upper waters).

Day Three

As we examine the text closely, we realize that even though activities involve components of the material world (waters, dry land, plants), the verbs do not describe God making any of those objects. The seas are gathered, the dry land appears and the plants sprout. This is the work of organization and ordering, not the work of manufacture. The function of plant growth is initiated. This ordering provides the basis for food production.

In days one through three, we find that the discussion centers on the ordering of the world in terms of what could be identified as the major functions of human existence: time, weather and food. These three would be recognized by any culture in any place, as they represent what all humans have recognized as providing a framework in which we exist. Regardless of one’s scientific knowledge or sophistication, these communicate the most important understanding of the cosmos. We can see that the text of Genesis is reflecting on these three because after order has been eliminated in the flood, it is reestablished by God. He promises in Genesis 8:22:

Days one through three, then, deal not with the manufacture of material objects but with ordering and establishing functions.

Day Four

As the first three days addressed major functions in the ordered cosmos, days four through six discuss the functionaries that are provided.
4
If this is not a material account, then we do not expect a sequence of material events to be recounted. It is therefore no problem that we had light referred to on day one though sun, moon and stars are not mentioned until now. The focus of the first day was time, not light, and the functions have been treated separately from the functionaries.

We need to continue our investigation of whether there is also an element of material origins in this discussion of the functionaries. The first important observation to make is that in the ancient world they were not aware that the sun, moon and stars were material objects. In Israel, they believed they were exactly what the text calls them—lights, not material objects that produce light or reflect light. In the rest of the ancient world, they were also considered gods. No one knew that the sun is a burning ball of gas or that the moon is a rock in orbit that reflects the light of the sun. They believed these two lights to be very close (inside the solid sky, Gen 1:17). They are discussed not as being or becoming objects but as having designated functions in the ordered system of humans:

• separating day from night
  
• signs, celebrations (religious seasons, not weather seasons), days and years
  
• governing day and night
  

The stars in the ancient world were thought to be engraved on the underside of the solid sky rather than being suns that were farther away. It is not clear whether the Israelites shared this view.
5
Nevertheless, day four would not have been considered by the Israelites to be focusing on the origins of material objects since they did not realize these
are
material objects. Instead, the account gives attention to the roles assigned by God to these functionaries.

Day Five

As the account of this day begins, we see that God says that the waters should teem with living creatures rather than saying that he made them. Those who have observed that days four through six are involved in filling the world are correct. I would be more inclined to speak of him installing functionaries in the way that furniture fills a room and beautifies it but also carries out the functions of the room. Here, the birds beautify the space established on day two, and the sea creatures beautify the waters below (which are the creatures in the realm of human observation—humans can’t see the waters above).

In Genesis 1:21 the text returns for the first time since Genesis 1:1 to the verb
bārā
ʾ
(“God
created
the great creatures of the sea”). We saw in the previous chapter that
bārā
ʾ
represents the main activity of this account, since Genesis 2:3 indicates that the
ʿ
āśâ
activity represented the way in which he accomplished
bārā
ʾ
.
Interpreters throughout history have wondered about the significance of this distinction. If it is correct to consider
bārā
ʾ
the act of giving a role and function in an ordered system, then this verse is making a remarkable claim. The creatures of the sea were in a liminal zone in the ancient Near East. After all, the sea was the very embodiment of non-order. Therefore, there would be questions about the functions of the sea creatures (and whether they even had any). Liminal creatures (whether sea dwellers or desert dwellers) were sometimes considered to be representatives of non-order (sometimes referred to as chaos creatures, referred to in Greek as
daimon
; many were later classified as demons). The
tannîn
referred to here (
NIV
: “great creatures of the sea”) are counted among the chaos creatures in the Old Testament (see Job 7:12; Ps 74:13; Is 27:1; 51:9; Ezek 32:2; cf. the Ugaritic chaos creature
tunnanu
). It is remarkable that these creatures are included in the ordered world in Genesis 1, and this is made explicit by virtue of the use of the verb
bārā
ʾ
.
The creation events of this day again focus on order and not on the production of material objects.

The phrase “according to their kinds” is a statement of how order reigns in the ways that creatures reproduce. Sharks give birth to sharks, not to crabs; angelfish give birth to angelfish, not to stingrays. This is the same kind of statement that we saw in day three when God proclaimed that plants bear seed according to their various kinds.

Having discussed how order can be observed, the text now moves to function that is expressed through the blessing of fecundity. As in the blessing here, creation of animals in ancient Near Eastern cosmologies addresses the fecundity of animals.
6
The function of the sea creatures is to furnish and beautify this world that is being prepared for humans in God’s image. All the functions and functionaries are discussed in light of that intended purpose—serving human beings. God is putting the cosmos in order not to serve himself but to serve humans. This is very different from what we find in the rest of the ancient world, where the gods set up the cosmos to function for themselves and humans were a utilitarian afterthought.

Day Six

Notably, the presentation of day six begins with God commissioning the
land
to produce living creatures. Since this introduces this day, it is logical to infer that this is a description of the intermediate mechanism by which God
made
(
ʿ
āśâ,
Gen 1:25) the various classes of animals. This connection does not express any modern scientific view, nor should we expect it to. It does, however, agree with an ancient world perspective.
7
Since many animal births took place in sheltered places (dens, burrows, etc.), the observations of the ancients indicated that the land brought forth the animals (babies emerging from the ground). This would not refer only to the initial round of animals.
8
This brings up an important point: the descriptions in this account focus on what happens all the time, not just on what happened on one initial occasion. Day and night alternate continuously, plants always sprout, the sun always shines, creatures always teem. When we recognize this, we may be inclined to title the account “God and World Order.”
9
Such a label would give a new identity to the text and give us a different view of what it is describing.

As in day five, the animals are ordered to reproduce according to their kinds. Interestingly, however, the function is not expressed by the blessing of fecundity as with sea/air creatures and humans. That is, the text does not include a blessing bestowed on land animals to be fruitful and multiply. Consequently, it could not be said that their function is to multiply and fill the world. In fact, Genesis 1:24-25 does not indicate the function of these land creatures, nor does it indicate the process of their material origin. God provided (
ʿ
āśâ
) them . . . for what?

Land animals have all sorts of different functions, and God is going to give humans the task of discerning those functions and assigning them. One aspect of this is observable in Genesis 2:19 when God brings the animals to the man “to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.” We will recall that the giving of a name is a creative activity and is related to function. Another aspect, however, can be discerned from the account of the sixth day in Genesis 1. As we know, the report of the sixth day does not end with animals, so the functional order of the sixth day may not yet emerge in Genesis 1:24-25. I would suggest that the functions of the animals and their role in the ordered system are addressed at the end of Genesis 1:26. When humans subdue and rule, they are identifying functions for the animals and determining what role they will play. This is part of the human role—to serve as vice-regents for God in continuing the process of bringing order.

Day six also addresses the roles that people play in the world that was being ordered for them. Here again, we see both
ʿ
āśâ
(Gen 1:26) and
bārā
ʾ
(3x in Gen 1:27) being used. At the same time, there is a clear focus on functions, the most important of which is found in the image of God.

The uniquely human abilities that are often associated with the image of God (e.g., self-awareness, consciousness of God) give us the ability to fulfill our role as the image of God, but these abilities do not themselves define the image. These capacities could feasibly develop as neurological advances in our material development. But the image of God is a gift of God, not neurologically or materially defined. The image of God as an Old Testament concept can be understood in four categories.
10
It pertains to the
role and function
that God has given humanity (found, for example, in “subdue” and “rule,” Gen 1:28),
11
to the
identity
that he has bequeathed on us (i.e., it is, by definition, who we are as human beings), and to the way that we serve as his
substitute
by representing his presence in the world. When Assyrian kings made images of themselves to be placed in conquered cities or at important borders, they were communicating that they were, in effect, continually present in that place. Finally, it is indicative of the
relationship
that God intends to have with us.

These four aspects of the image of God pertain not only to each individual but, perhaps more importantly, to the corporate species—to the human race. They will be discussed in more detail in chapters nine and twenty-one. For now, it is essential to affirm that all people are in the image of God, regardless of their age, their physical ability or inability, their moral behavior, their ethnic identity, or their gender. The image is not stronger in some than others, and it is something that gives us all the dignity of being specially gifted creatures of God. As God’s stewards, we are tasked to do his work in the world; we are to be his assistants in the order-bringing process that he has begun.
12