The Flood Ends: Genesis 8:1-22

Genesis 8:1 opens with the phrase "God remembered Noah."  The idea of God remembering should seem strange to us.  Had he forgotten Noah for the year and ten days he spent in the ark?  What sort of omniscient god forgets something?  It turns out that the Hebrew concept of God remembering is a quite different from our own.  Derek Kidner, in his commentary "Genesis" says, "God [remembering] combines the ideas of faithful love... and timely intervention."  So when the text says that God remembered Noah, there is an implied action taking place.  In this case, God acts to dry up the waters and bring Noah out of the ark.

Verses 6 through 14 are interesting.  Why is Noah playing with birds?  Why is he waiting?  Why not just come out of the ark if he can see the ground is dry (verses 13 and 14) instead of just removing the ark's covering?  We might think his behavior is a little odd, but consider that God commanded Noah to build and fill the ark (6:14-22), and he commanded Noah to enter the ark (7:1-3).  Now Noah demonstrates his obedience once again by patiently waiting waiting for God to command him to come out of the ark (this happens in verse 8:15).  

In verse 20, Noah builds an altar to God and offers sacrifices of clean animals on it.  You might wonder what constitutes "clean".  For this, we have to remember the audience that was hearing the story.  The newly minted nation of Israel, led by Moses, had laws defining which animals are clean.  This would have been familiar to them and needed no further explanation.  Descriptions of clean animals can be found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

Let's consider why God is pleased by Noah's offering.  The text says that he found the aroma pleasing in verse 21.  But consider the offerings of Cain and Abel from chapter 4.  In my post on that passage, it was clear that God was displeased with Cain's attitude more than the nature of his offering (aroma or otherwise).  I think the same is true here.  Let's once again consider our audience.  The nation of Israel had laws regarding burned offerings and their purpose (see Leviticus 1).  In general, burned offerings had the following concepts associated with them:

1)  Recognition that the giver had a broken relationship with God (sinfulness)
2)  The offering was a symbol of the giver's sinfulness (through laying on hands in Leviticus 1:4)
3)  Burning the offering restored the relationship between God and the giver (atonement)

So it is likely that Noah's offering showed his desire for a restored relationship with God.  In verse 21, God responds with two statements.  First, God tells Noah that he will not curse the ground (as he did in Genesis 3:17) even though man's inherently evil nature would justify such action.  Here, we see God acting mercifully toward mankind in spite of the evil in their hearts, not because of their righteousness.  Second, God reassures Noah that he will never again destroy all living creatures.

The Flood: Genesis 7:1 - 7:24

In my last post, I talked about how God deals with evil.  I said that he is patient, and he graciously pursues us in our fallen state.  But, eventually God acts and he acts boldly.  In Genesis chapter 7, we see God act boldly to destroy evil by flooding the earth.  Let's consider some things in the way he brought this about.

In 7:1, God commands Noah to go into the ark and take his family "because I have found you righteous..."  In his commentary "Genesis", Derek Kidner notes that the "you" in this verse is singular.  There is a suggestion that Noah was righteous and that his family was blessed (and preserved) because of his righteousness.  There might also be an implication that perhaps Noah's family isn't so righteous.  Perhaps, after Noah is gone, there will be no righteous influence left on the earth.  If this is the case, God patiently (and dramatically) waited until the last possible moment before bringing the flood, giving mankind as much time as possible to repent and turn toward him.  But he acts before all is lost; before there are no righteous left to preserve.  

There is a lot of repetition in this section.  When you look at it, the story is practically repeated three times.  Once in 6:9 through 22 with a focus on God's plan and covenant with Noah, again in 7:1 through 7:12 with a focus on God's provision for the animals and Noah's family, and finally in 7:13 through 7:24 with a focus on the great flood and all the destruction that it caused.  It is interesting that Noah's obedience to God's commands is highlighted in each telling of the story (6:22, 7:5, 7:16).  Not only does this emphasize Noah's righteousness but also God's provision for the righteous.  I can't imagine this would have been an easy time for him, but God's purpose was to use the last righteous man on earth to preserve the living, not give him a comfortable life.

On a less theological note, I know many struggle over the nature of the flood.  Was it a large but local flood with the text describing the way things appeared to Noah?  Was it global with the entire earth covered in miles of water?  I don't really know.  Kidner notes that "Whole Earth" can also be translated as "Country" in Hebrew and that the language could be used to support either case.  We would do better concern ourselves over how passionate God is about dealing with evil and the provision he makes for those who love him and obey. 

A Path for Redemption: Genesis 6:9 - 6:22

Before we get to Noah and the flood, notice there is a lot of repetition in verses 5 through 13.  In verse 5, humans are evil, and in verse 12 they are corrupt and they have corrupted the earth.  In verses 6 and 7 God's heart is "deeply troubled" by the situation and he plans to solve it by wiping the earth clean.  In verse 13 God declares he will "put an end to all people for the earth is filled with violence because of them."  The end of verse 13 repeats and summarizes, "I [will] destroy both them and the earth."  Verses 8 through 10 talk about Noah.  He "found favor in the eyes of the Lord" in verse 8.  In verse 9 he is described as righteous, blameless, and faithful.  Noah is a sharp contrast to the violent corruption of the people around him.  The scene is set (multiple times for emphasis) with the earth in a state of utter depravity, only a single family still faithful to God, and God ready to act.

We might wonder, why would God let this happen to his creation?  Why choose this moment to act?  Why not sooner?  (and we may well ask, why not later?).

Let's consider how we've seen God deal with evil so far.  In the garden he punished Adam and eve for disobeying.  With Cain God pursued him despite his rebellious heart and told him he could still be accepted if he did what was right.  When Cain murders his brother, God punishes him by taking away his livelihood (the ground would no longer produce food at ALL for him) but also protected him to prevent others from killing him.  In Chapter 6, God sets a time limit for his corrupted creation.  So, what does all this suggest?  From my perspective, God's prevailing characteristic when dealing with evil is patience.  He does not act impulsively (like I would) and he does not act harshly (yep, me again - I'm pretty sure I'd be harsh if I were in his position).  But he does act!

So far, we have only seen God act in a measured and precise way.  He responds to Cain's bitterness by not looking on his offering with favor in 4:5.  Then God escalates his response to Cain by calling him to repent in verse 4:7.  And he further escalates his response after Cain murders his brother.  At each point, Cain rejects God instead of repenting.

Now, many generations later, mankind has overwhelmingly responded to God's patience with more and more corruption.  Perhaps we should not ask, "how could God let this happen," instead we should ask, "why did mankind repay God's patience and kindness with evil and corruption?"  While we might like to blame God for the problems on the earth, we are not given that option in the story.  We must either realize that mankind is responsible for the corruption on the earth or look like fools when we attempt to pass the blame: "I responded to your patience, kindness, and redemptive pursuits with rejection, corruption, and evil, so it's your fault God!"

Now that mankind has fully revealed his wicked nature and utter refusal to repent, God acts.  His plan to wipe the slate clean also includes a plan to preserve mankind through Noah and his family (as outlined in verses 6:14 through 6:21).  As we have seen before, God provides a path for redemption when he deals with evil.

The Decline of Mankind: Genesis 4:17 - 6:6

This section of Genesis marks a shift in the story.  We've seen how quickly man has fallen from the peaceful relationships before being cast out of the garden to the murdering siblings we saw in the last post.  It took only one generation apart from the presence of God.

Starting in verse 4:17 we have a look at Cain's descendants.  In verse 19 we briefly pick up the story again about 5 generations after Cain.  Here we meet Lamech who boasts to his wives that he killed a young man in a fight.  Kidner, in his commentary "Genesis", contrasts Cain's response with Lamech's.  He notes that Cain succumbed to sin and its consequences whereas Lamech revels in it and seeks provocation.  Cain's descendants have clearly taken sin to a new level in a short time.

In verse 4:25, Adam and Eve have another son named Seth.  Seth is declared to be a replacement for his righteous brother Abel at the end of verse 4:25.  His descendants are enumerated in chapter 5 and his lineage appears to be a counterpoint to the violent line of Cain.  Consider Enoch (5:24) who "walked faithfully with God".  Also note that the Lamech of verse 28 is not the same violent Lamech we saw among Cain's descendants.  This Lamech is the father of Noah (who we will talk about in the next post).

This brings us up to chapter 6.  There is a bit of confusion about some of the terms in the first part of this chapter.  Who are the sons of God?  Who are the daughters of humans?  Who are the Nephilim?  Why are they having kids?  There are a few theories about this, but we don't really know for certain.  And who they are is less important than God's view of mankind at this time.  In verse 3 God says, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever..." and in verses 5 and 6 we read:

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.  The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

Clearly, all is not well.  Nearly all of mankind has turned away from God and, following in the footsteps of Cain's descendants, is only inclined toward evil.  How far they have fallen from the garden!  This is the foundation the author is lays as we head into a story about what God will do about it.  

Cain and Abel: Genesis 4:1-16

This is another story I remember disliking when I was younger (yes, I did like some of them I promise).  Interestingly, this is now one of my favorite stories.  Not because of what ultimately happens but because of what this story demonstrates about God's character.  Let's have a look.

The story opens with Eve giving birth to her first-born son Cain.  She seems pretty happy about it when she declares, "with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man."  I've heard people speculate that she was hopeful this child would crush the serpent's head as told by God in 3:15.  If only the serpent's reign could have been crushed so quickly!  However, Cain is no deliverer.  Quite the opposite in fact.

The story picks up when Cain and his brother Abel bring offerings to God in verses 3 and 4.  There is a strong contrast between the two brothers here.  Cain's vegetable offerings are contrasted in verse 4 with fat portions of the firstborn of Abel's flock.  There's a lot of speculation about the acceptability of the offerings themselves.  Did God dislike broccoli?  Were there already rules in place about acceptable offerings?  I speculate that Cain offering "fruits of the soil" - soil that God had cursed - might display an attitude problem.  Offering fruit from cursed soil may have, by association, carried with it a bitter rebuke.  It's as if he is saying, "here, I offer a portion of this harvest that you have cursed and made meager.  You deserve nothing more."  But I am only speculating about the cursed soil being the issue.

However, the adjectives that describe the offerings suggest very different attitudes from the brothers.  Abel clearly chooses the best of what he has while Cain does not.  Cain's attitude, more than anything else, is at the heart (pun intended) of the problem.

So, God doesn't look with favor on Cain's offering and Cain gets very angry in verse 5.  And here is the part of the story that changed my attitude about it.  God doesn't leave Cain alone.  Think of the wealth of things God could have done.  He could have destroyed Cain for being a sullen giver.  He could have told Cain that their relationship was ended and he should never return.  But that's not what God does!  He pursues Cain.  He goes to him to talk and work through the problem.  God goes to a sullen, rebellious, murderous Cain and tries to mend the brokenness in their relationship!  He asks, "Why are you angry?" Now of course, God knows why Cain is angry but he gives him the chance to express himself.  This might also be a rhetorical question suggesting that Cain shouldn't be angry with the situation.  This is probably a better interpretation since God next says (with my paraphrase), "do what is right and I'll accept you."  God tells Cain that this isn't a permanent situation, he can make a choice and be accepted.  And, God warns Cain.  He tells him that he is on a path to be owned by sin.  This is also amazing to me.  Cain is already on this angry murderous path and God still pursues him.  The reason I find it so amazing is because this is a depiction of God's pursuing character.  He  actively pursues us even when we are broken and rebellious.  When I re-read this story several years ago, my picture of God was angry and wrath-filled, and I was shocked at how gracious he was acting.

The story continues and Cain ignores God and murders his brother.  Then Cain denies that he did anything in verse 9.  When God reveals Cain's lie and explains his punishment, Cain essentially tells him it's unfair in verse 13.  At this point, Cain has hit strike four (ignoring, murdering, denying, and whining), but what does God do?  He protects Cain from harm!  This is a far cry from how I would react and a far cry from a depiction of God as a raging tyrant.

Creation and the Fall: Recap

In the final scene of the fall, God drives Adam and Eve from the garden so that they could not, "take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:21)  Derek Kidner suggests this might be because of "logical necessity, since eternal life is fellowship with God."  I think he's right but would add that I don't like to imagine a world where evil people lived forever.

That pretty much wraps up the creation and fall of man and I think it's a good place to stop and consider a little historical context.  

The first five books of the Bible have their authorship attributed to Moses and tell the story of God's interactions with man up through the creation of the nation of Israel.  The Israelite people were brought out of the nation of Egypt (that story is in Exodus) where they were exposed to a different view of the world that included many gods struggling for balance and control. 

The Genesis account would have been particularly important to the fledgling nation.  First, it gives a view of the world as created by single all-powerful being that creates everything.  The same god that created the heavens also created the earth, the seas, the plants, the animals, and mankind.  Second, it establishes that mankind is created in God's image and given great value by him.  Finally, it establishes man's rebellion as the root cause of suffering, struggle and evil in the world.  Each of these would have been radically different from the views they would have been exposed to in Egypt.

Curses part 2: Genesis 3:12-19

In my last post I compared the temptation in the garden to a chess game between the serpent and God.  The serpent made his move and declared victory.  So, how does God respond in this situation?  Let's keep this in mind as we look at the text today.

God first deals with the source of the temptation in verse 14 by cursing the serpent.  There is a lot to say here (I'm using Derek Kidner's "Genesis" commentary again today) but I want to briefly focus on verse 15.  Notice that part of God's curse on the serpent is for his head to be crushed by one of Eve's descendants.  How fitting that the serpent should be "done in" by the very thing he sought to destroy.  Kidner suggests this curse on mankind's enemy is a "glimmer of the gospel".  God indicates that the serpent's victory is temporary and that his power over mankind will be undone.

If we return to the chess game for a moment, it seems like the serpent's declaration of victory was a bit premature.  It's as if God says, "That is not checkmate, I have other pieces on the board that you didn't pay attention to."  

Next God pronounces judgement on Eve.  There are two parts.  The first is painful child bearing.  While the curse on the serpent is for his power to be undone by Eve's offspring, this judgement tells her it won't be an easy thing.  The second judgement is a depiction of marital discord.  This shouldn't be surprising to us since we already saw their broken relationship when they played the "pass the blame" game in verse 12.  In a sense, God is giving her a head's up about the damage that has already been done to their marriage and how that damage will manifest as a mutual desire to dominate each other.

Now God turns his attention to Adam.  Just like the explanation of relational brokenness he gave to Eve, God explains that Adam's actions have cursed the earth and that he will have to struggle to provide sustenance.  And he explains that mankind will eventually die and return to the earth from which God made them.

We might be tempted to think that the pronouncements upon Adam and Eve are rather harsh, but consider, for a moment, what God has done.

1)  He ordered the earth and made it a place suitable for life
2)  He created all living things and provided for them.
3)  He had an inclusive, patient relationship with Adam and gave him Eve as his wife.

Now that mankind has rebelled against God and declared, "I know better than you," there is a separation between God and man (see verse 8).  Since God authored the three things above, it seems logical and natural that a broken relationship with him would translate into a broken relationship with the things he created.  And so the natural result is that life, provision, and relationships are all broken because of man's rebellion.  In this light, God is not being harsh, he is being very forthcoming with Adam and Eve about the natural result of their actions.

Curses: Genesis 3:14-3:19

I used to read this section and wonder why God didn't just fix the problem?  I mean, he’s God right?  Why suffering?  Why pain?  Why frustration and brokenness?  I think a lot of people struggle with this dilemma.  Why would God allow evil into his creation in the first place?  And why doesn't he seem to fix the problem?  These two questions about the fall are really just a small part of two bigger questions that people have debated since time began:  “Is God good?” and “Is God all-powerful?”  In fact, Adam and Eve were confronted with the first question “Is God Good?” as we saw in our last post.  Their actions answered the question with a resounding: “No.  He’s not good.  I know better.”  As we work through the Bible, we’ll have to consider these two questions over and over again:  “Is God good?” and “Is God all-powerful?”

When I consider the situation, I wonder what I’d do in God’s place.  There are many options.  Consider these:

Resigned acceptance – “Well, back to the drawing board.  ‘Earth 2.0’ has a nice ring to it don’t you think?”
Passive aggressive – “I think it’s time for a nice hot meteor shower don’t you?  Oh.  Too hot?  I’m terribly sorry, but it IS the best thing for cleaning up messes like these.”
Wishful thinking – “Let’s just forget this ever happened and start over.  Best friends?”
Fashionable – “I’m trying to figure out if the Earth would look better as a cloud of vapor or with a shiny glass surface ten kilometers thick.”
Apologetic -  “Oops, it seems I've bumped your planet onto a collision course with the sun.  Butterfingers!
Time travel – “Did God really say – “ [Flash, bang, boom! An imposing figure appears in the garden and says:] “Come with me if you want to live…”
Cooking show – “Just pop it into a 7200 degree oven for about 2000 years.  Oh!  It seems I've got another in there already.  Doesn't it look delicious?  You know it’s done when it stops bubbling and a knife melts before you can get it close to the surface.  Bon appetite!”

OK, all humor aside, my options boil down to destroying everything and starting over or somehow undoing man’s rebellious actions, or just ignoring the problem all together.  Let's look at each of these options and consider what kind of god would act this way.

What would we think if God ignored the problem, hugged the first couple and acted as if nothing had happened?  We would probably start asking questions like, "Did God really mean what he said about eating the fruit?"  And move on to questions like, "What kind of God doesn't do what he says he'll do?"  And end up with questions like, "How can I believe anything God says?" or, "What else can I get away with?" and, "I don't really need to listen to God at all."  It's obvious that a willfully blind god isn't a very good one.

So, what if God completely destroyed mankind and started over?  Well, at least he wouldn't be useless like the god of the last option.  This is a god who has power and knows how to use it!  But consider all the time and effort he spent making the earth and everything that lives on it.  We might start asking questions about such a god like, "did he forget something?" or, "did he make a mistake?" or, "did he care about what he created?" or even, "what will this god do to me?" It seems like this god, while powerful, is either uncaring or foolish.  He wields his power haphazardly and has no mercy, grace, or wisdom.  While this god is worth fearing, he is not a god worth following.

So, why didn't God just erase the problem?  Maybe he could have just waved a magic wand or modified everyone's memory to make things OK again.  Surely this would be a good and measured use of his power right?  This god has great appeal for a modern culture filled with near-instantaneous fixes.  But, for a moment, consider that the garden scene was a game of chess between God and the serpent.  The serpent made his move and victoriously declared "checkmate!".  A god that fixes problems by erasing them would say something like, "New rule! No checkmates on Tuesdays!" or he might remove the serpent's last piece and say, "I don't know what you're talking about..."  This god is a cheater and isn't trustworthy.  How can we trust that he won't break the rules when it comes to his interactions with us?  And, not only is this god a cheater, he's also a loser.  When the serpent cried out, "checkmate!" this god's only option for winning was to change the board.  It seems like this god isn't worth following either.

Thankfully, God doesn't act like any of these optional gods.  He's not blind, uncaring, foolish, or untrustworthy.  He acknowledges mankind's rebellion and deals with it like a good parent.  He holds his children responsible for their actions and explains and enforces the consequences.  When I compare God's response to how I would respond, it's clear that he is more restrained, more calm, more mature, and more thoughtful than me.  When I consider how he uses his power in this situation, I see the same caring craftsman depicted in Genesis 1 and 2.  He acts with exacting precision in every situation.  And he prepares his creation for what's coming next.  Even though mankind had rebelled, God still takes the time to prepare them.  In short he acts better than me.

The realization that God acts better than I do is important.  I know that it doesn't fully answer the questions of if God is good and all-powerful.  But it does place him somewhere above me on the scale of goodness.  This might not seem significant, but consider where Adam and Eve placed God on the goodness-scale when tempted by the serpent.  They decided their judgment was better than God’s and that decision lead to disaster.  When we answer, “God is better than me” we are on a different path than theirs.

For a moment, let's return to the chess game I mentioned above.  How does God respond when the serpent declares victory?  If he didn't cheat and didn't leave the game (or flipped over the board), how is DID he respond in this analogy?  Let's consider that a bit more closely in the next post.

The Fall: Genesis 3:1 - 13

My dad would read the creation story to my sister and me when we were young.  I always hated this part of the story because I didn't like tragic endings.  I’d rather my dad read a different Bible story because, let’s face it, this section of scripture doesn't show mankind at his best.  Thinking about it now, I realize how naive I was - the stories don’t really get any better, and selecting a story that shows man in a positive light would be difficult.  In the Bible, mankind has a bright light shown on him and we see him with all his blemishes, his bruises, and his defects.  Make no mistake, God is the only hero in the story.

We've already seen God as creator, provider, and nurturer in the first two chapters.  The scene is set with everything at peace, in its proper place.  But this is not how we experience the world.  Finally we find out why.

In 3:1 Eve is tempted with a question.  It starts with “Did God really say…”  I think there is an implied sense of shock with this statement.  It’s as though the real question is a statement such as: “Admit it, God keeps you in chains down here,” or perhaps, “Does God really keep you locked up down here with nothing to eat?”  In any case, the “question” isn't really a question at all.  The serpent probably isn't interested in the answer, but in the seed of doubt he is planting.  With that in mind, the intended statement is: “God isn't really being good to you”.*

Verses 3:4 and 3:5 follow with 2 outright lies.  I’ll rephrase them for emphasis.  3:4 – “God is lying to you, you won’t die” and 3:5 – “God is oppressing you by withholding something good from you.”

So Eve eats the fruit and so does her husband.  But, consider this question:  When did they sin?  I believe they sinned when they chose to trust the serpent instead of God and what he said.  Also, look closely at the end of 3:6.  Eve didn't have to go far to give Adam some fruit.  He was right there with her! (So, guys, stop being so self-righteous toward the gals) Presumably, Adam was watching and listening to the whole exchange and did nothing about it…  Except disobey in the exact same way Eve did.

This brings us to verses 3:8-13.  Or, as I like to call it, the “pass the blame” section.  Now that they've done something wrong their first instinct is to turn on each other and God (“the woman YOU put here with me” [my emphasis]).  So we see how their broken relationship with God has also driven a wedge of discord between them. 

In the next post, I’ll have a look at the fall out of this whole mess.

*Many people speculate about Eve’s response regarding touching the fruit.  Was she lying because God did not say that in Genesis 2:17?  Had Adam misinformed her?  Had the statement in 2:17 been a brief summary of what God really said?  I tend to think she might be lying (or been misinformed) simply because it is the act of eating that causes the problem (as seen in verses 3:6, 3:11, 3:12, and 3:13) and not the act of touching the fruit (or so it seems to me).  If this is true, this lie might indicate a seed of bitterness already growing in the hearts of the first couple.  I imagine the serpent being surprised to find that a seed had already put down roots and was sprouting.  How fortunate for him; he wouldn't even have to water or fertilize…

The Creation of Woman: Genesis 2:20 – 25

As I mentioned in my last post, Genesis 1 is a big picture view of creation, while Genesis 2 is a view of creation with mankind under the microscope.  Everything slows from the rushed pace and the broad scope of the creation days in Genesis 1.  Before talking about how the first woman is created, have a close look at verses 18 and 20.  In 18 God speaks His first “not good” statement… ever.  It is “not good” for man to be alone.

How interesting.  Clearly God doesn't mean “alone” in the sense of loneliness or isolation since God has a relationship with the first man (Adam).  He seems to mean “alone-in-kind”.  It is not good that Adam be the only one of his kind.

What I find even more interesting is how God goes about making the first woman.  Once He decides to make her, He doesn't just snap His fingers and introduce her to Adam:  

[A bright flash of light and a poof of smoke]

God:  “Surprise!  Look what I made!”

Adam:  “What’s that?”

God:  “It’s a woman.  She’s for you.  Isn't she great?”

Adam:  “What do I need one of those for?”

Badum-Ching. Curtain.

God doesn't act imperiously.  He doesn't manipulate or order Adam to go along with His decision.  He acts just like he did in Genesis 1.  Just as He prepared creation to make a place for lights, birds, fish, and land animals, he prepares Adam for Eve.  He parades all the animals past Adam so that he might name them.  And, in the process Adam realizes he is unique and alone.  There is no other created being like him. 

People make much about how Eve was created from Adam’s rib.  This starts their relationship as being side-by-side co-equals.  I think there is a better argument that reaches a similar conclusion.  The text says, “no suitable helper was found”.  But, surely the animals would have been helpful.  Domesticated animals have been very helpful to mankind.  So, what kind of help are we talking about here?  The conclusion I draw is that Adam needs someone to share in the ruling of creation.  So, God makes for him a complementary co-ruler.  A helper suitable for sharing the duties of ruling.

My thought for application:

We see God preparing both creation and Adam for new things.  He is patient, gracious, and kind in the process.  The preparation takes work (both on God’s part and on ours).  Do we have faith that God is preparing us?  Are we doing the work He has put before us?

The Creation of Man: Genesis 1:26 – 2:20

In case you are wondering, I’m using a commentary on Genesis by Derek Kidner.  I really needed it today.  He points out an interesting turn of phrase in 1:26.  Here, God says “let us make man in our image, in our likeness…”(NIV).  This is interesting for a couple reasons.  First, notice that during the other creation days, God says things like, “let there be…,” “let the water…be…,” “let the water teem…,” and “let the land produce…”.  These phrases are very different than the “let us make” of 1:26.  “Let us make” implies a greater closeness.  Unlike telling the water to teem with living creatures or the land to produce animals, God himself will make man.  And not only will he make man, but he will make man in His image for the purpose of ruling the earth.  Kidner points out that man is a new and unique creation; both part of the created world, but also created in the likeness of God.

In verses 29-30, God gives all of his creatures plants as food.  Once again, God is depicted as caring, and provisional.  All creation depends upon His good gifts.  Kidner suggests that we do not assume God created all things as herbivores.  Instead, it is widely recognized that all things ultimately derive sustenance from plants.  Whether or not you agree with that, God is still seen as the ultimate provider and giver of good gifts. 

Verse 31 marks another change in the creation account.  After creating man (both male and female), God looks at all of his work and declares it “very good”.  Prior to this, God called the work of each day “good”.  I think there is a sense of completeness with the “very good”.  And this is appropriate since the next verse says “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.” NIV).  The completeness of creation is marked by the seventh day of creation.  Here God ceases from the work of creating.

Now that the author has established a creation account from a big picture point of view, the scene shifts to focus on the creation of man and woman and God’s early interaction with them.  Once again, we see an intimate picture of God forming mankind and lavishly caring for them.  The depiction of a lush garden with beautiful trees and delicious fruit is nothing short of drool-worthy.  But this idyllic setting is not a place for laziness.  God intended man to take care of the land (2:15), to know the animals, and to name them (2:19-20).

In the Beginning: Genesis 1:1-25

I really can’t think of a more controversial place to start than Genesis 1.  Put simply, there is much battling over the question of how we got here.  And there are so many sides to take – I know, I’ve been on a couple of them.  I don’t think having different ideas about how we got here is necessarily a bad thing.  If anything, I think my experiences wrestling with this question allows me to appreciate that wrestling with questions is just part of the Christian walk. 

There is no end of different views about Genesis 1 – even among Christians.  I think, however, that every Christian can agree that God created everything.  And we can all agree that we really don’t know how He did it (although we may like to speculate).  About the only disagreement among Christians, in my opinion, comes from how we view the text of Genesis 1.  Is it largely poetic/allegorical or largely narrative/literal. 

Before I discuss my thoughts about how to view the text, let me say a couple things about the importance of how we view the text.  First, I really don’t think it matters in the grand scheme of things.  For the Christian walk, I think it is enough to say “God exists eternally and created everything” and move from there.  Second, the implications of how we view the text boil down to HOW God did His creating.  Was it over in 6 24-hour days or billions of years?  I think getting caught up in answering this question is a big distraction. 

This doesn’t mean we should never consider or investigate it but I don’t think we should be consumed with it.  Considering how long the Bible is, there really isn’t a lot of detail about creation.  And there are a lot of details to wonder about!  The Bible briefly establishes that God is the creator of everything and then spends the rest of the time telling of God’s relationship with Mankind. 

If the Bible’s primary concern is our relationship with God, we might do well to thankfully acknowledge Him as our creator, and, like the text, move on to discovering and building our relationship with Him.  And, if this result is the same whether or not the text is poetry or narrative, then determining the exact genre of Genesis 1 seems like a secondary issue in the Christian walk.

However, I admit that I have a preference toward a poetic interpretation for a couple reasons.  The most significant reason is how a poetic interpretation shows God’s beauty, power, and character.  For a moment, let’s consider Genesis 1:2 and the days of creation as counterpoints to each other.  In 1:2 it says “the earth was formless and empty”.  And, if we look at the first 6 days of creation, God spends three days forming the earth and bringing order out of chaos.  He separates day and night on the first day, separates sky and sea on the second day, and separates land and sea on the third day.  In these three days, we see a powerful God who is carefully forming a safe place for his creation to reside.  He sweeps away the chaos of formlessness and replaces it with order, boundaries, and beauty.  Now that the Earth is no longer formless, God fills it with life.  Where he ordered night and day on the first day, he adds lights.  Where he ordered the sky and seas he adds birds and sea creatures.  And, where he created the land, God fills it with plants and animals.  This is a counterpoint to the “void” or lifeless earth found in verse 1:2.  So God prepared a place for life and then filled that place with life.  This, to my mind, shows a picture of a powerful god who operates in reasonable, orderly ways.  A provider who does what is best for his creation.  An artist who is pleased with his work and calls it good. 

This brings us up to around verse 26 – the creation of mankind.  Let’s discuss this next time.