Introduction
“The texts of Genesis chapter 1-11 contribute to what might be called a relational model of creation. That is, both God and the creatures have an important role in the creative enterprise, and their spheres of activity are interrelated in terms of function and effect. It seems clear that God is not just independent and the creatures just dependent. God has shaped the created order in such a way that there are overlapping spheres of interdependence and creative responsibility shared between Creator and creature. At the same time, God is God and freely brings into being that which is not God. A deep dependence of the creatures upon the Creator for their existence and continuing life is apparent and creatures can be assured that this God is unalterably committed to their continuing life and will be deeply immersed in that life for the sake of a new creation.”[1]
“God does more than speak and act. In evaluating, God sees, indeed experiences that which has been created and is affected by what are seen, thereby revealing an ongoing relationship of consequence with that which has been created.”[2]
“This portrayal of God, the creator of heaven and earth, leading all the animals one by one, and then the woman, to a face to face meeting with the Adam is truly remarkable. This activity suggests the image of God as a servant: God the Creator places the divine self at the service of the “good” of the human being, indeed at the service of creaturely creativity. God’s role is the placing of various creative possibilities before the human being, but it is the creature that is given the freedom to decide. God so values human response that God will take into account the free human response from within the creative process in shaping the future.”[3]
“God involves the human in creational tasks; God walks in the garden and engages the human; God ameliorates judgment (4:15); God suffers a broken heart (6:6); God limits the divine options in relating to sin and evil (8:21-22). And readers are not yet to Abraham!”[4]
“Development and change are what God intends for the creation, and human beings are charged with intra-creational development.”[5]
“This perspective is testimony to a fundamentally relational understanding of the way in which God acts in the world. There is an ordered freedom in the creation, a degree of openness and unpredictability, wherein God leaves room for genuine human decisions as they exercise their God given power. Even more, God gives them powers and responsibilities in such a way that commits God to a certain kind of relationship with them. This entails a divine constraint and restraint in the exercise of power in relation to these agents. They overdid it!”[6]
“In this concluding chapter, I draw on some biblical texts that relate to this human vocation, but I think it is finally important to speak of a mutuality of human vocation and nonhuman vocation.”[7]
“All creatures, of course, are deeply dependent upon God for their existence and continuing life. At the same time, God has freely chosen to establish an interdependent relationship with the creation, with respect to both origins and continuation and with overlapping spheres of responsibility. Indeed, God has freely chosen to be dependent upon both human and nonhuman in the furtherance of God’s purposes in the world.”[8]
Creation and Redemption
“This divine creative activity is an indispensable for the later work of redemption, without which there would be no people to redeem. God’s redemptive work does not occur in a vacuum: God’s work in creation provides the basis for God’s work in redemption; God’s work in redemption fulfills God’s work in creation.”[9]
“
“God’s redemption is an overcoming of anti-creational forces at every level, including the cosmic.”[11]
“Redemption as well as distinguishable continuing creative acts (e.g. in the wilderness) are the means; creation or new creation is the end. Redemption is the service of a creational end, ultimately a new heaven and a new earth (Isa 65:17; cf. 2 Cor 5:17)”[12]
“The redemptive victory of God frees the creation to become what God intended. Redemption, for all its decisiveness, does not cancel out the becoming character of creation, a becoming in which God continues to be active as the creator of the world. The gift of God in the wilderness, by which God enables new life and growth for
Freedom
“
“The kind of relationship God established with the created order necessarily entailed risk; genuine relationships always entail risks (at least pre-eschaton). What creatures do with their God given freedom makes a difference regarding the course creation will take.”[15]
“God has freely chosen to share the continuing process of creation with the creatures, especially human beings.”[16]
“The creation is a highly dynamic reality in which the future is open to a number of possibilities and creaturely activity is crucial for the becoming of the creation.”[17]
“In conclusion, God’s way into the future with this creation is dependent at least in part on what human beings do and say. This state of affairs brings human responsibility brings human responsibility to the forefront of the conversation.”[18]
In ch. 3 we will seek to show that the Genesis texts made this point, namely, that there is a temporal distinction between creation and the entrance of sin into the life of the world.”[19]
Sin and Evil
“At the same time when sin and evil do enter into the life of the world, they do not become constitutive of what it means to be human (or any other creature). That means that we are not so permeated with sin and evil that we cannot name such forces or work against them. At the same time, it needs to be said that evil is a powerful reality in the world and has become systemic, built up over time into the very infrastructure of creation. Reclamation of creation will be necessary.”[20]
“I claim that to designate this reality as ‘evil’ is not supported by the text; yet, in some sense ‘chaos’ persists. A key to considering this issue is the divine command to ‘subdue the earth’.”[21]
“W. Sibley Towner is right to say (also calling attention to Job 38-41): ‘If there were no freedom in this creation, no touches of disorder, no open ends, then the moral choice, creativity, and excellence could not arise. The world would be a monotonous cycle of inevitability, a dull-as-dishwater world of puppets and automatons.’”[22]
“The traditional interpretation closely links sin and death, commonly formulating an ontological change: humans who are not immortal become mortal. Most scholars now conclude that the text makes no such claim; I would agree, given certain clues.”[23]
“I would speak of death in two ways, as the experience of death within life and as realized mortality. If human beings were created immortal, the tree of life would have been irrelevant. Death per se was a natural part of God’s created world. Yet, the tree of life was a potential vehicle for receiving some form of ongoing life. Now, even in sin, this remains a possibility (3: 22). So God makes a further move beyond death within life, namely, exclusion from the tree, so that their mortality is realized. The upshot of this interpretation is that Paul’s understanding of sin and death in Rom 5:12-21, while developing these themes beyond the scope of the story, is right to read the story from an etiology of the full reality of death, if not mortality per se.”[24]
“The effects of sin and its aftermath are now extended to the cosmic sphere, first in 6:1-4 and then in the flood itself. The first text has never been satisfactorily explained by interpreters.”[25]
“In sum, Genesis 3 witnesses to an originating sin that begins a process, an intensification of alienation, extending over chapters 3-6, by which sin becomes “original” in the sense of pervasive and inevitable, with effects that are cosmic in scope.”[26]
“Mindful of their created status, they are still called to be co creators with God, in and through whom God will work. Divine activity does not entail human passivity in working toward God’s goals for creation. Human beings become sinful and this development darkens everything they say and do, but they remain God’s good creation, in the divine image, with the same call to responsibility (3:22-24; 5:1-3; 9:1-7).”[27]
“Make no mistake, sin has the effect of breaking down harmonious relationships at multiple levels; it creates divisions between human beings and God, among human beings (men and women, siblings, parents and children), between human beings and the land (‘thorns and thistles’), and within oneself (shame). Sin adversely affects the spheres of family and work, of culture and community (4:17-24), of national life (chs 10-11), indeed the larger creational order (the flood). In fact, sin is so deep-seated that “every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually” (6:5); even the flood does not change that (8:21). Yet, human beings can act against such inclinations (4:7; cf. Deut 30:11-14) and decide for that which is life-giving rather than death-dealing. This tension regarding human beings who are both good and sinful, including both chosen and non-chosen will pervade the texts in Genesis 12-50.”[28]
Diversity
“God counters these efforts by acting in such a way - confusing languages - that they have no choice but to scatter and establish separate linguistic communities. God thereby promotes diversity at the expense of any kind of unity that seeks to preserve itself in isolation from the rest of creation at risk.”[29]
“The genealogies and stories of these outsiders demonstrate the extent to which God’s life-giving and life-preserving work in creation extends well beyond the borders of the chosen family.”[30]
“At the same time, the Egyptians treat the chosen family is such a way that their lives are preserved and they are able to develop as a community in an alien land (47:27); their grieving of Jacob’s death (50:7-14) witnesses to possible relationships that can be developed between the chosen family and outsiders. Given this basically positive portrayal of the Egyptians, readers will have difficulty demonizing them when they come to the book of Exodus. These texts clearly witness that God has been at work among the Egyptians for good. Such is the activity of the Creator God.”[31]
“But especially noteworthy are the stories of God’s speaking relationship with outsiders such as Hagar (Genesis 16; 21), Laban (Gen 30:27; 31:24, 29), Abimelech (Gen 20), and the dreams of Egyptians (Genesis 40-41).”[32]
“Divine election does not entail having a corner on participation in the goodness of God’s creation.”[33]
God and humans create together
“Both human and nonhuman creatures are called to participate in the creative activity initiated by God.”[34]
“The common notion that the Creator is completely external to the creation, perhaps in the interests of avoiding pantheism, amounts to a concealed deism.”[35]
“Unlike the view of other ancient Near Eastern creation texts, human beings were placed in
“The creation accounts demonstrate that God chooses not to act alone in bringing the creation into being. While God is certainly the initiator and primary actor in creation, God certainly involves both the human and the nonhuman in the continuing process of creation; it is important to stress that human beings are not unique in having the powers of creative activity.”[37]
“The very first words that God speaks to the newly created human beings assume the gift of power and its (potential) exercise: be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, have dominion, subdue the earth (1:28). Given the imaging of God we have discerned up to this point, these words of commission should be interpreted fundamentally in terms of creative word and deed and not domination or violence. God’s relationship with the world is such that God, from the beginning, chooses not to be the only one who has creative power and the capacity, indeed the obligation, to exercise it. God certainly takes the initiative in distributing this power to the creatures and God is the one who invites their participation in the use of power. But, having, done so, God is committed to this way of relating to them in such a way that forfeiting or suspending this role is not a divine option. God is a power sharing God, and God will be faithful to that way of relating to those created in the divine image.”[38]
“God remains in the process (see Ps 139:13) but not in a micromanaging way so that human decisions or actions do not count or potentially random events cannot wreak havoc (e.g. the randomness of the gene pool). Humans will do the procreating, not God! Reproduction is a responsibility that human beings have in order to be the image of God they were created to be.”[39]
Conclusion
Genesis 1-2
“For all the importance of historical and literary work on Genesis 1-2, interpreters should not forget that these texts are most basically the product of a community of faith engaged in theological reflection on creation: God is the primary subject in these accounts. This is true of both creation accounts in their own way, as we shall see.”[40]
“Some twenty images of God the Creator can be discerned in Genesis 1-2"[41]
The following are images discussed by the author:
Creator
Maker
Potter
Builder
Architect
Speaker
Surgeon
Molder of Existing Matter
Evaluator
Consultant of Others
Victor
King
“The common notion that the Creator is completely external to the creation, perhaps in the interests of avoiding pantheism, amounts to a concealed deism.”[42]
“After each creative act (except day two) God responds to that which has been created: ‘And God saw that it was good.’”[43]
“Notably, God does not remain removed or uninvolved with the creation once the creature comes into being. God does more than speak and act. In evaluating, God sees, indeed experiences that which has been created and is affected by what are seen, thereby revealing an ongoing relationship of consequence with that which has been created.”[44]
“The ‘let us’ of Gen 1:26 (and the following ‘our’) images God as inviting that which is not God to participate in the creation of human beings; and the ‘us’ (also in Gen 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) is commonly understood to be a reference to divine or semi divine beings of the heavenly realm or divine council/assembly (see 1 Kgs 22:19; Job 38:7; Ps 8:5-6; Isa 6:1-8; Jer 23:18-23). The creation of humanity is thereby shown to be the result of a dialogical act -- an inner-divine consultation -- rather than a monological one. Such an understanding has immense significance for how one views the stature of the human being.”[45]
“In response to arguments for God as king, it should be stressed that no specific monarchial language for God is used in Genesis 1-2 or associated with the image/likeness language of 1:26-27. Moreover ‘image of God’ is never used of a king in the Old Testament (so the only evidence comes from ‘outside the text’), and creation in the image of God is not found in the texts with royal connections.”[46]
“Genesis 1 stresses this divine initiative, imagination, transcendence, and power in a way that Genesis 2 does not. The placement of Genesis 1 suggests that these divine characteristics should stand at the beginning and in the foreground in any discussion of creation. Yet, no simple or static hierarchy emerges, as there is already a leaning toward Genesis 2 in some features of Genesis 1.”[47]
Bibliography
Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and the Christian Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed,
Henry Morris, The Bible Has the Answer, Creation-Life Publishers,
John Whitcomb, The Early Earth, Baker Book House,
Paul R. Sponheim, “Sin and Evil,” in Christian Dogmatics ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson;
Paul R. Sponheim, The Pulse of Creation: God and the Transformation of the World
Robert Benedict, Journey Away from God, Fleming-Revell,
[1] Henry Morris, The Bible Has the Answer, Creation-Life Publishers,
[2] Ibid., 40
[3] Ibid., 57
[4] Ibid., 109
[5] Ibid., 140
[6] Henry Morris, The Bible Has the Answer, Creation-Life Publishers,
[7] Ibid., 269
[8] Ibid., 270
[9] John Whitcomb, The Early Earth, Baker Book House,
[10] Ibid., 124
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., 126
[13] Ibid.
[14] Robert Benedict, Journey Away from God, Fleming-Revell,
[15] Ibid., 69
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid., 277
[18] Ibid., 278
[19] For a thoughtful reflection on the range of creation thought, using biblical resources, Paul R. Sponheim, The Pulse of Creation: God and the Transformation of the World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 18-21.”
[20] Paul R. Sponheim, “Sin and Evil,” in Christian Dogmatics (ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson;
[21] Paul R. Sponheim, “Sin and Evil,” in Christian Dogmatics (ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson;
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid., 76
[24] Ibid., 77
[25] Ibid
[26] Ibid., 79
[27] Ibid., 93
[28] Paul R. Sponheim, “Sin and Evil,” in Christian Dogmatics (ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson;
[29] Paul R. Sponheim, The Pulse of Creation: God and the Transformation of the World
[30] Ibid., 92
[31] Ibid., 96-97
[32] Ibid., 102
[33] Ibid., 103
[34] John Whitcomb, The Early Earth, Baker Book House,
[35] Ibid., 39
[36] Ibid., 47
[37] Ibid., 48
[38] Ibid., 49
[39] Ibid., 50
[40] Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and the Christian Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed,
[41] Ibid., 36
[42] Ibid., 39
[43] Ibid., 40
[44] Ibid.
[45] Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and the Christian Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed,
[46] Ibid., 47
[47] Ibid., 271
No comments:
Post a Comment