|
About Jesus Steve Sweetman Chapter 1 My
Commentary On The Book Of Genesis The
following commentary is based on the 1984 edition of the New
International Bible. Chapter
titles in this commentary correspond to the chapter titles in the NIV
for easy study. Our
English word "Genesis" come from Latin that comes from Greek.
It simply means "the origin of something,"
as in the "genesis of a singing group."
In this case, it is the "genesis of the material universe
and how it relates to humanity."
Most
conservative scholars believe Moses wrote the book of Genesis, as well
as Exodus Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy,
known as the Torah. You
might ask how he could write all these things when he wasn't around to
see them first hand. There
are a couple of points to consider here.
One is that he most likely knew these things through oral
tradition that was passed down from one generation to another.
Some have trouble with this due to the fact that such passages of
verbal information may not be accurate.
Yet beyond this is the inspiration of Scripture.
I know that inspiration is not considered to be scientific in
nature by many today, especially within some current philosophies of
science, but it is fundamental to Christianity.
I will not explain or prove inspiration
here. In my thinking, it is
a given. After
His resurrection Jesus spoke to two men as He was walking along a road
with them. They had told Him
of the recent death of a man they thought was the Messiah.
Jesus played dumb, pretending not to know what they were talking
about at first. The two men
were confused at this point. In
Luke 24:27 Jesus tries to help them out by quoting all the scriptures
spoken concerning Him being the Messiah, beginning at Moses and
continuing throughout the prophets. Many scholars believe when Jesus
speaks of Moses here, He is speaking of Genesis through Deuteronomy.
Thus Jesus attributes the authorship of Genesis to Moses. In
the New Testament there are 165 quotes from Genesis. The
debate over Creationism and Darwinism has been raging for years.
Genesis chapter 1 is brought into the midst of this debate.
Many Christians try to approach the book of Genesis from a
scientific perspective, but it's scope is beyond science.
It's basically a pronouncement of the facts, without trying to
prove details. It obviously predated modern science and western thought.
Another
thing to think about is that Genesis chapter one was never meant to be
an exhaustive thesis on how things were created.
The main point to this chapter is that God is Creator and He
created what we presently see around us and more.
For the most part, Genesis only addresses the creation of things
pertaining to human existence and humanities relationship with God.
Genesis is the beginning of the story of God and His dealing with
mankind. So
I view Genesis, especially the first few chapters as a theological
thesis more than anything else. I'm
not a scientist and therefore what I write is not
necessarily from a scientific perspective.
An
important word to know and understand concerning God is the word
"anthropomorphic". This
word means "to ascribe human characteristics to something that is
not human. In reference to
God, this means, ascribing human characteristics to Him who is
spiritual. He may do this of
Himself, or we may do it of Him. I
believe He does it of Himself in Genesis and other places in the Bible.
For example, in
Genesis 1 it speaks of God speaking. That is, it says, "God
said…" Does God
really speak? Well, He
probably does, but I'm not sure He speaks like us.
God being spirit doesn't necessarily speak as men speak.
His speaking might well be simple thoughts.
The Bible also talks about God having arms and eyes and a place
to sit. These are all words
common to man who has a material body that God doesn't have.
Therefore God is represented in human terms because that helps us
understand better. God may
have some kind of eyes, but they're not like ours.
God is so far beyond humanity that there is no way humanity can
understand Him, and therefore we speak about God in human terms only to
help our limited understanding.
Beyond us speaking anthropomorphically of God, I think He speaks
anthropomorphically about Himself.
The
Beginning (ch. 1:1 – 2:3) There
are at least three ways of looking at verse 1.
Some say that when verse 1 says that "God created the
heavens and the earth", that is a general synopsis and the rest of
the chapter explains what this means.
Other's say that this is a former creation, and the verses 2
onward is a re-creation. Others
suggest that verses 1 is part of a very long first day of creation.
In
chapter 1 verse 1 we see that God "created the heavens and the
earth." The very first
phrase is important. It
reads, "in the beginning." Another
book in the Bible begins with the same words and that is the book of
John found in the New Testament. It
reads, "in the beginning was the Word …"
The Word Is the pre-incarnate Jesus.
Most scholars believe that. So
right here in the beginning of our Bible, the beginning of time as we
know it, we see allusions to our Lord Jesus Christ, and that's what the
rest of the Bible is all about. It's
all about our Lord Jesus Christ.
I
believe "in the
beginning" means in the beginning of space, time,
and the material universe that we know and even don't know.
Most scholars believe that prior to Genesis 1:1 there was no such
thing as space and time. We
know from John 4: that Jesus
said that God is spirit. God
lived, and still does in the
spirit realm where there is no space and no time.
There is no material existence as we know it.
From this place, He created the "heavens and the
earth," that is, all that we know and don't know about the material
universe. This is not simply
the creation of the earth here. It's
the creation of the heavens as well, although the heavens might have
been empty because the stars were created sometime after. In Scripture there are at least three heavens mentioned. Paul visited the third heaven, which seems to be that place where God lives. There is also the atmosphere around the earth, and even into the universe, which is called the heavens as well. Then, there is the universe itself, outside earth's atmosphere. This too is known as the heavens. Thus we have three heavens.
It is my opinion that God created the heavens, but the heavens do not include the spiritual realm where God lives, and where I believe angels lived prior to Genesis 1:1. I say this because someone might suggest that heaven, or paradise, or that place where Paul visited, that is, where God is, was created along with the other two heavens described above. In the six days of creation there is no mention of God creating that spiritual realm known as heaven where he and the angels live. This is a relative point when considering when Lucifer fell out of God's grace.
In Genesis 8:2 we note that the floodgates of the
heavens were closed and it stopped raining.
The same word "heavens" is used in Genesis 8:2 as it is
uses in Genesis 1:1. I
therefore conclude, since the "heavens" used in chapter 8 is
clearly the sky and the area above the sky where there was an umbrella
of water, we should understand Genesis 1:1 in the same way.
God did not create heaven or the heavenly world in Genesis 1:1.
If
verse 1 is not a synopsis of creation but an extended long period of
time that ends in the creation of light, then the heavens spoken of here
might be empty, just empty space since the stars were not created at
this point in time. Another
thought on the words "in the beginning."
John 1:1 uses the same wording when John says, "in the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was
God." All
conservative scholars understand the Word as being the pre-incarnate
Jesus. So one thing to note
here is that Jesus was with God in the creation process.
The
fourth word of the Bible is the word "God."
The word for God here is "Elohim", meaning, God, the
all-powerful one". "Elohim"
is the plural form of the word "El".
"EL" is the simplest and most basic word for God in the
Hebrew language. Elohim
expresses the idea that God is plural, comprised of more than one aspect
or personality. Many see the
Trinity in the word "Elohim", but the word itself does not
express the idea of three. It
simply expresses the idea of more than one.
Referring
to John 1:1 again, it is thus understandable why "Elohim," the
plural form of God is being used here, and why it is used later in
Genesis 1 when God said "let us create man…"
Jesus was with God as John 1:1 says, yet Jesus is also God
Himself. God is plural. Another
verse to consider in this connection is found in Revelation 3:15, where
Jesus introduces Himself to the church at We
also need to look at the word "create" here in verse 1.
The Hebrew word is "bara."
It really means to "create from nothing."
We might think that there was just empty space in the universe
before God created, but most Biblical scholars say no to this idea.
There was not empty space. There
was nothing, absolutely nothing, because empty space in itself is
something. Therefore,
God created all material things, including what we see, what we don't
see, and including empty space. He
also created time. Modern
science has discovered that time is actually material, just as anything
we see here on earth. Time
is also not constant. Time
changes under certain circumstances.
Hebrews
11:3 confirms that God created the material universe out of nothing when
it says, "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." The simple
fact is that God created something out of nothing merely by speaking it
into existence. Prior
to Genesis. 1:1 there was no such thing as time.
God does not live, nor never has lived in a space time place.
He lives outside of time. We
call that eternity. It's not
that He really looks down on time. He's
just outside of time. That
is why He knows the beginning from the end.
That is how He can foretell the future.
So when we speak of God being "up in heaven", those
words might be understood in anthropomorphic terms
because heaven isn't really up, or so I think.
I see heaven as being around us in another dimension. Verse
2 begins with, "now the earth was formless and empty…"
We need to stop and look at the word "was."
You will probably see an alternate rendering of the Hebrew word
here. The Hebrew word
translated as "was" can also be translated as
"became". The
word "became" makes the verse completely different
than the word "was."
Look at it this way. The
verse can be read, "the earth was formless and empty," or,
"the earth became formless and empty."
These are two different thoughts, and a major doctrine has arisen
over this word. If
the earth "became" formless and empty, that means at some
prior time it wasn't formless and empty but for some reason it became
formless and empty. The
"Gap Theory" is the doctrine that presents arguments to this
effect. Because of a few
certain other scriptures, those who hold to the Gap Theory believe that
there is a major gap between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis 1.
God originally made the earth with form, but because of sin,
maybe satan's sin, or the sin of a pre-adamic race, God judged the earth
and His judgment destroyed the earth that once was.
This explains why the earth became formless and empty, assuming
the word "became" is the way we should translate the Hebrew
word here. Those
who hold to the Gap Theory suggest that this gap explains why scientist
believe the earth is billions of years old.
They just don't know how long this gap was and how long the first
earth was in existence prior to God's judgment. On
the other hand, if you translate this Hebrew word as "was', you get
a whole different meaning. It
is simply that God's first act of creation made an earth without form
and it was empty until He continued His creation to fill the earth in
with what we presently have. It
might be suggested that a long period of time might well have occurred
during this formless and empty stage.
If this is so, this might well indicate the earth being billions
of years old. Yet,
there are many Christians who believe the earth is only about six
thousand years old because they believe that God created the earth in
six twenty four hours days as we know days.
They say this because of the words "the evening and the
morning " was the firs, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth
day. These words seem
to express a twenty four hour day. Yet
one problem with this thinking is that days and nights, with the
creation of our sun and moon did not exist until day four.
So how could there have been days prior to day 4?
Yet on the other hand, as we will see, God created light and
separated the light from darkness before He created the sun and moon.
So in God's mind, there were such things as days.
You might want to consider this. So
the earth was formless and empty. Empty
is easy to figure out. There
wasn't anything on the earth. It
is quite possible that there was just water and rock
that we see was dealt with in verse 6 and 7.
The
Hebrew word "tohou" is translated as "formless".
This Hebrew word means "to lie waste."
The earth at this point was barren, and desolate.
"Tohou" can also mean "chaos."
The condition of the earth in the minds of some, those who
believe in the Gap Theory, could not have been created in such a waste
or chaotic condition. God
would not have created it in such a condition, a condition that does not
seem "good," and we know that in God's eyes, everything He
created was good. This is
why some believe that a pre-adamic judgment took place prior to the six
days of creation seen in the following verses.
Isaiah
45:18 is a verse that some turn to when thinking about what we are
talking about here. In
Isaiah 45:18 God says that "He fashioned and made the earth, He
founded it, He did not create it to be empty, He formed it to be
inhabited." Gap
Theorists believe that this verse suggests that God didn't create the
earth formless and empty in the first place.
Therefore they conclude it became formless and empty, and once
again, because God judged a pre-adamic race.
Yet, Isaiah 45:18 doesn't exactly say that, at least in the NIV.
It simply says that God didn't create the earth to remain
formless and empty. He
created it to be inhabited. Therefore, at some point prior to day one of
creation, He actually might well have created the earth as formless and
empty, knowing that this was only step one of His plans.
This might figure into modern science as well when supposing of
an earth being billions of years old.
At this point I'd like to suggest that God created the earth, and it was formless and empty as I said above. His plan obviously was not to keep it in this state. At some point, which we don't know, He created light and separated it from the dark that was already in existence. He called the light day and the dark night. Then He says, as we will see, the evening and morning was day one. Therefore day one might be quite a long time. How long we don't know because we don't know how long the earth was empty and formless.
We also see the words "springs of the deep"
in Genesis 8:2 in connection to those underground springs being closed
up so the flood would end. This would confirm that the deep spoken
of here in verse 2 are the oceans that are fed from underground streams.
The
next phrase in verse 2 says that "darkness was over the surface of
the deep." Some
might think the word "darkness" is in references to sin,
especially if the Gap Theory is correct.
But I think it's simple. I
think good hermeneutics suggest that the earth was simply dark.
There was no such thing as light.
Material light had not yet been created at this point in time.
Most
scholars believe the word "deep" is in reference to water.
Most people believe that the earth at this point was completely
covered with water, and that includes the earth's atmosphere.
There is some scientific evidence that this might
have been the case billions of years ago, but the assumption is
that it was billions of years ago. Genesis 2:6 seems to suggest that at
this stage of creation the water that covered the earth came from
streams that flowed out of the earth to the surface of the earth. The
next phrase in verse 2 says that "the Spirit of God was hovering
over the waters." The
words "over the waters" help confirm the point that the earth
was covered with water. One
thing to note is what Peter said under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. In 2 Peter 3:5 he
says that the "heavens existed and the earth was formed out of
water." To me, this
suggests that the heavens were made first, then the earth.
At this point before the stars were created and dry land was
formed, water covered the whole earth and into the heavens as well,
which is confirmed by the Genesis account.
Here,
right in the second verse of the Bible we see the Holy Spirit mentioned.
The words "Spirit of God"
suggests to many that the Spirit of God is another aspect to God.
We've already spoken of the word "Elohim" as being
plural. Therefore when we
see the words "Spirit of God" here, they see the plural nature
of God, that is, there is God, and there is His Spirit.
I'm not convinced of this. We
know God is spirit, and so the Spirit of God might be God Himself and
not another separate identity. Christians
tend to see God as being God the Father, and the Spirit being another
part of the Trinity, but I'm not sure we can separate the Spirit of God
from God that easily. We try
to understand God in what we call the Trinity, but I think that might
well be a pretty simplistic way of trying to understand God.
Don't get me wrong. I
do believe in the trinity, but my point is that we as human being can't
understand God, and the doctrine of the trinity might well be our feeble
attempt to do so. The
word "hovering" here is suggestive of a hen hovering over her
eggs or newly hatched babies. Some
older civilizations actually see God in a female form here as one who
hovers. They see God as
creator as being female and not male, and there might be an element of
truth here as we will see later. From
an anthropomorphic standpoint, some believe that God is both male and
female, and as female gave birth to all creation. Whatever
the case is with male, female, and God, it was at this point that God
entered the material universe. His
Spirit hovering over the waters suggests to me that God passed through
the barrier that separates eternity and timelessness from the material
universe Verse
3 says, "God said, let there be light," but does God speak as
humans speak? We might think
that God is speaking here as we speak, but God is spirit, so I doubt if
He speaks as we think He does. Yet
on the other hand, if the text says that "God spoke," then in
His own way, He did speak. Another
thought you might want to think about in respect to God speaking relates
to John 1:1 again. If Jesus
is called "the Word of God,"
word is in reference to some kind of speaking.
When the text says that "God said," that might well
imply that Jesus who was the Word of
God spoke creation into existence at that point.
What
did God say in verse 3? He
said, "let there be light."
This light was not from our sun and moon because the sun, moon,
and stars had not yet been created.
We notice that in verse 3 that God did not have to actually make light as we would make something. He just spoke light into existence. Hyper faith Christians today, as well as new age thinkers cross a line of Biblical thinking when they believe we can do the same. I'm not saying words are meaningless because they are, but speaking things into existence as God did is not Biblical.
Traditionally speaking, Jewish teaching has suggested
that this appearing of "light" is the first reference to the
Messiah that can be found in the Bible. This is especially interesting
when you read the gospel of John. John in his first chapter says
that Jesus is the light of the world. Jesus says the same thing of
Himself. I'm not wondering if this light that came to earth at
this point in time, if it wasn't the light from Jesus. I think the
Jews might have a good point here. It's not that God created light.
He just allowed the existing light to shine on earth, who was Jesus.
Verse
4 says that "God saw that the light was good."
I don't believe that this good light was a surprise to God.
I don't think these words mean that after God created light, He
stepped back and thought, "this is better than what I
expected." God knew
what to expect. He simply
stated that what He creates is good. His creation can be nothing else
but good. Prior
to the creation of light, there was just darkness.
Darkness is really just the absence of light.
Yet once God created light, the question might be asked,
"what happened to the darkness since darkness is the absence of
light?" Was there no
more darkness? No.
There was still darkness. Verse
5 tells us that God "separated the darkness from the light."
Just how He did this is unknown to me. It might be possible that
God caused the earth to rotate at this point, thus creating night and
day based on the earth rotating. Remember,
there is no sun or moon at this point to distinguish day from night and
light from darkness. We
simply have light and we simply have darkness.
We don't really know where this light came from.
Maybe it came from God Himself since He is often portrayed as
light in the Bible. We also
see that in the new earth, as seen at the end of Revelation, that there
is no sun or moon that gives light because God Himself provides the
light because He is light. In
verse 5 we see that God named the light and the darkness.
He named the light "day" and the darkness
"night." God not
only created. He named what
He created. The
Hebrew word for our English word "day" is the word "yom".
The word "yom" is found 1840 times in the Hebrew Old
Testament and is translated into about 54 different ways depending on
what English translation you are reading.
It is most commonly translated as a 24 hour period of time, that
being one day. Yet it is
translated as a long period of time as well, as in "the day of the
Lord." The term
"Day of the Lord is often in reference to a period of time leading
up to the end of this present age. Because
"yom" for the most part is understood in a twenty four hour
period many Christians believe that the days spoken of here are a twenty
four hour day. Yet some
believe it is a long period of time since the word "yom" can
be understood this way. This
would provide for the time period that some modern science supposes allows
evolutionary process to occur. Verse
5 ends this way. "And
there was evening, and there was morning – the first day."
This sentence seems to suggest that the first day consisted of
evening and morning, meaning a twenty four hour period of time.
This doesn't necessarily have to be 24 hours since the sun and
moon were not created yet which determines our twenty four hour days.
This day could have had an evening and morning but not in a
twenty four hour. Maybe this
first day last centuries in our time. At this point some believe that
this evening and morning is simply picture language, symbolic of
something else, possibly an evolutionary process. I'd
like to remind you of what I've already said, and that is the creation
of light and its separation from darkness took place at some point after
the earth was created formless and empty.
How long of a period of time the earth was formless and empty we
don’t know, but at the end of this time God created light, thus
possibly ending the long first day, not a twenty four hour day.
Another
thing that I believe is important in connection with light, darkness and
days is this. The concept of
days, at least at this point, is not based on a twenty four hour period
of time. It's based on the
fact that there is both light and dark.
Prior to this there was only darkness.
Therefore, the thing that constitutes a day is not twenty four
hours, but the fact that there is both light and dark, and once that
light dark cycle has passed a day has occurred.
The
Jewish rabbis throughout the centuries have believed this to mean a
twenty four hour period of time. The
Jewish day begins in the evening because of these words.
The sentence seems to suggest that evening is the start of the
day, not the morning as we think in western culture.
Modern
physics tells us that "time is relative," depending on your
mass, acceleration and gravity. That means that time is not constant.
Time does change under certain circumstances.
Therefore, according to some, time might well have been different
in these six days of creation. Man
was not around to experience time. Therefore
the length of these days might not be a 24 hour period of time. This
view attempts to support those who think the earth is billions of years
old. In
verse 6 God said, "let there be an expanse between the waters to
separate water from water." We
see in verse 7 that God did what He said.
He made an expanse to separate water below and water above.
The general consensus is that at this time, the earth and the
atmosphere around the earth was all water.
There was no dry land on the earth, and the atmosphere was
extremely moist or simply in liquid form.
So what God did here was to create a dome of air around the earth
that separated the water on the earth from the water
above the earth. Verse
8 confirms what I just said concerning this expanse as being the
atmosphere around the earth. The
NIV says that God called this expanse the "sky."
So it is clear at this point in the creation process, that
water covered the earth, above that is sky, and above that is more
water, or possibly clouds. At
this point I will speculate a bit. We
now have water on the earth and above the sky.
In my thinking, this water is not clouds, but water.
You then might ask, "where did that water go since we know
there is no water above our sky?"
The answer might well be that that water flooded the earth in
Noah's day and that is why
it no longer exists. If this
is so, that water might well have been kept above our sky for the very
reason of flooding the earth in Noah's day, thus pointing to the fact
that God knows our future. He
reserved that water for future judgment. This
might be similar to when He destroys the earth with fire in order to
make a new earth. This fire
might well be the fire that exists in the centre of the earth that He
has reserved for future judgment. Day
two ends as day one did. Verse
8 says that "there was evening and there was morning, - the second
day." God's work
of creation ends in our early evening.
In
verse 9 God separated the
water under the sky, exposing dry land. In
verse 10 God calls the dry ground land.
He also called the waters that were gathered together seas.
Note the words "the gathered waters."
In my non-scientific mind, the waters were gathered, that is,
they rushed from one place to another.
This extreme rushing of water surely must have changed the
structure of the surface of the earth.
This rushing of water might be what the scientists have seen in a
so-called ice age thaw, when the ice melted and waters spread over the
earth, causing the formation of lakes and rivers, the Also
God saw that this gathering of water to expose the dry ground was good.
All things that God does is good. Things
didn't stop here on this third day.
Once the dry land was exposed, we see in verse 11 that vegetation
grew from this dry land. God
said, "let the land produce" this vegetation.
What we see here is actually a secondary way in which God
created. Prior to this, He
has simply spoken things into existence.
This is a bit different here.
He does not speak the vegetation into existence.
He basically commands the dry land to produce this vegetation.
The speaking was to the dry land, and once God spoke,
trees, grains and all kinds of vegetation began to grow from the
dry land. Note that dry
land, that is earth and all it contains could hear from God resulting in
dry land obeying God. We
note from Paul's writings in Romans 8 that all of creation is waiting
for a day where it will be redeemed.
All creation is groaning until that day, according to Paul.
"All creation" means all creation, including the soil
we walk on. I therefore
think that even dirt has some kind of capabilities of hearing from God.
So when Jesus says that the stones could cry out in praise to
God, they certainly can, because stones somehow can respond to the
command of God. Some
might suggest that Paul is speaking figuratively in Romans 8.
I concede that this might be the case, but I tend to believe Paul
meant it to be literal. We
don't know why the repetition takes place in verse 12, but verse 12 is
basically a repeat of verse 11. We
need to note that plants came from the earth.
That is why plants have the same molecular structure as the
ground we walk on. Really,
all of life, in its various forms are very similar in its basic
formation because all of life originated from the same source.
In
verse 12 God says that what He did on that day was good.
Verse 13 tells us that the evening and the morning was the third
day. You might say that's
our Tuesday. In
verse 14 God said, "let there be lights in the expanse to separate
the day from the night."
In verses 14 through 16 we have the creation of the stars, sun
and moon. Now we have to note here that this was not the creation of
light. In verse 2 we see
that "darkness" covered the then known earth.
In verse 3 God created light.
So light has already been in existence. So
what happened here is that God made the stars, sun and the moon.
You see the creation of the sun and moon specifically mentioned
in verse 16. Upon making the
sun and moon, God set our galaxy in motion with our moon revolving
around earth, earth revolving around sun. and earth rotating on it's
axis. Because of this
motion we track days and nights. We
now have the ability to measure time that had already been created.
We also have the ability to produce a calendar based on seasons.
In verse 14 we note that these celestial stars were
to be "a sign to mark seasons, days, and years."
Once again, here we see the first mention of a calendar.
So
at this point we can now understand days as being days in our time
frame. Prior to this there
were days because God called them days.
This is where some debate comes in to whether the prior days were
twenty four hour days. It
might be possible that the twenty four hour days didn't actually begin
until the formation of the sun and moon.
In
verses 14 through 16 we see the word "expanse" again.
God set the sun, moon and stars, in this expanse.
Earlier we saw God create this expanse called sky to separate the
water so there'd be water below the expanse or sky, and water above the
expanse or sky. Here
we note that in this expanse, or in the sky are stars.
This then suggests to me that the universe as we can see it is
the expanse. It might not be
just the blue sky above our heads. If
this is so, then beyond the universe as we know it could well be some
kind of water, that is, the water that God separated in verse 6, or else
as I said earlier, the water is gone because it was that water that
might have flooded the earth in Noah's day. Another
thing to note here is that God had already created the heavens and the
earth, that's assuming that you don't believe that verse 1 is a synopsis
of chapter 1. Therefore,
prior to this, the heavens might well have been empty of any kind of
planets.
If you read verse 14 in the NIV and then in the KJV,
because of the use of commas in the KJV, these two versions seem to
differ in thinking. The NIV states that the lights in the sky were
"to serve as signs to mart seasons".
That's easy enough to understand.
Seasons come and go because of the sun.
The KJV states that the lights in the sky are to "be for
signs, for seasons, for days …" In
my thinking, the KJV says something altogether different.
The KJV says the lights in the stars are actually signs.
They tell us something. Those
holding to this thinking state that paganism of old made gods out of
these signs. Modern day
astrology follows this pagan practice by believing the stars foretell
the future among other things. This
is a key starting point for those who believe the stars are more than
lights in the sky. They
begin at this verse and proceed throughout the rest of the Bible to
prove their point. In
verses 20 to 23 we see the creation of all living creatures that live in
the water, and all living creatures that fly through the air.
We've seen the creation of plants from the dry ground in verse 11
and now we see the sea and sky creatures created.
You
will note that in the creation of plant and animals God commanded the
earth to produce the plants and the animals.
As stated earlier, this is known as a secondary creation since
God didn't speak them into existence.
He told the earth to produce the plants and animals.
When it comes to the creatures of the sea and birds, the text is
not as clear in this respect, but as in the case with the earth, the
seas and the sky might well have produced the sea creatures and the
birds. The word
"teem" in verse 20 might
suggest this. In
verse 22 we see that God actually speaks to the sky
and sea creatures. He tells
them to multiply, to reproduce themselves.
This tells me that these creatures instinctively are in tune with
God and can hear Him and what He tells them.
There's even some biologists now that suggests that plants have a
way of chemically communicating with each other. If this is so, then
plants could be in communication with God as well.
We see God speaking to the dry ground or earth earlier.
He told the ground to produce plants.
This may be simplistic thinking, but if somehow God communicates
to dry ground to produce plants, the dry ground must be able to
understand such communication.
In
verse 24 God says, "let the land produce living creatures…"
Once again, we see a secondary type of creation here.
God doesn't speak living creatures into existence.
He allows the land to produce these living creatures.
Land animals are direct descendants of the earth, you might say.
There
are three types of animals spoken of here.
I'm not sure that it's an exhaustive list.
Maybe it is. The
three groupings are, livestock, creatures that move on the ground, and
wild animals. Animals that
move along the ground are easy to figure out.
They would be snakes, other reptiles and such.
There is some debate when speaking of livestock and wild animals.
The King James Bible uses the word "cattle" instead of
livestock. It is hard to
exactly know what this means. From
our western viewpoint, that might well suggest farm animals or even
pets, especially in light of the term "wild animals".
Wild animals are clearly differentiated from livestock.
The question then is asked, "what was the purpose of the
livestock?" One
purpose might be for milk, or so some suggest.
Some even say that the livestock was meant to be killed and to be
eaten by man, but I don't believe that.
They might well need to be looked after more than the wild
animals. Whatever the case, this is all quite speculative. We need to
remember that God allowed man to eat animals after the flood, and not
before the flood. In
Genesis 9:1 to 3 we see that after the flood all living creatures,
became afraid of man, and man was allowed to eat them.
Maybe that's why fear came into their hearts.
Concerning
wild animals, Moses might have been writing from his frame of reference.
That is, there were wild animals and livestock around when he was
writing these words. The
wild animals might not have been wild at creation. One
more point before we move on and that is found in Genesis 4:2 where we
see that Abel was a keeper of sheep as the KJV puts it, or a keeper of
flocks as the NIV puts it. These
cattle or livestock might well be what Abel looked after, although we
don't know for sure, especially in light of the fact that Abel lived
after the fall of man. Verse
25 is a repeat of verse 24. The
same repeat was seen when God created vegetation in verses 11 and 12.
At the end of verse 25 we see that God stepped back and said that
the creation of these animals was good, but His work on day six was not
complete. Verse
26 reads, "God said, let us make man in our image, in our likeness,
and let him rule…" Much
has been said and speculated over concerning this verse.
The first word of debate is over the word "us".
Such a short and simple word to cause such a great stir.
The obvious question is, "who is us?"
This clearly points to the "plural nature of God."
Does it point to the Trinity?
You can't conclude that God's nature is triune by this verse.
You can only say that God is some plural being.
Some
have suggested that the "us" refers to angels, but I don't see
that. There's no hint in
Scripture that angels helped God in the creation process.
John 1 verses 1 through 4 gives a picture of the "us"
here. John reports that in
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. All things were made by Him and without Him was nothing made.
All conservative scholars believe that the Word spoken of
here is the pre-incarnate Jesus. So it does appear then that the
"us" referred to here in Genesis 1:26
could refer to both God and Jesus.
Some might suggest that since the Spirit of God has been
mentioned in verse 2 that the "us" is then clearly the
trinity. I think that's a
step or two removed from the direct meaning of verse 26, but I see how
such thinking is derived. Still,
there is no clear statement concerning a trinity in Genesis 1, only
plurality. Trinity can only
be derived after other passages are considered. According
to verse 26 God made man in His "image and likeness."
These two words have caused great discussion over the centuries
as well. What do they mean?
Here's my thinking, whether right or wrong.
Some
say that since God made man in His likeness and image, He has a body and
that our body looks like His. I
don't see that. Jesus
specifically said in John 4:24 that God is spirit, so I don't believe
God has a body that looks like ours.
The
Hebrew word for "likeness" seems to suggest
"similarity," that is, in some way or other, man is similar to
God. The Hebrew word
translated as "image' seems to suggest "a shadow" or
"a mirror image." Combine
these two words together and it is clear that man was made to be very
much like God Himself, but not an exact representation.
Man "was similar – in shadow form."
In Hebrews 1 verses 1 to 4 we see that Jesus was an
"exact representation of God," but not us.
Some
New Age philosophers say that we are in fact gods.
Some of these people say this because God reproduced Himself in
mankind, but that's not really what the text says.
It's not really what the Hebrew means when speaking of
"likeness and image".
I
think this representation is not in a physical body, but in mental,
emotional, and spiritual ways. We
are like God in many respects. We
have a capacity to think as He does.
We create as He does. I've
always said that any emotion that we have, God first had.
That is, we laugh because God laughs in His own way.
We cry because God cries in His own way.
All human emotions are similar to the emotions that God has
because we are made similar, but not the same as He. Of
course our emotions have been influenced by the fall and are not pure. We
see the word "likeness and image" in Genesis 5: 1 to 3.
We see these words in reference once again to God creating man.
We also see them in reference to Adam and Eve giving birth to children.
This is another way in which we are created in the likeness and
image of God. Our offspring
are in our "likeness and image".
Our children are like us in many respects, but they aren't us.
They are different. We
are like God, but we are different.
I don't believe that God reproduced Himself in man as many New
Age thinkers believe. New
Age thinkers say that we are all gods. We
should note that God made man in His likeness and image, but the text
does not say that He created animals in His likeness and image.
Man was special. We
will also see later that God breathed a special breath of life into man
that He didn't breathe into animals. Also,
in verse 24 God commanded the land to produce animals.
He did not command the land to produce man.
He made man. That
being said, God did create man from the earth. The
rest of verse 26 says that man was made "to rule over all other
living creatures on earth." The
Hebrew word translated as "rule" in its simplest form means
"to tread or trample upon."
It's used in the Old Testament when harvesters
trampled on the grapes in a wine press.
In my thinking, God is giving man both the authority and
responsibility to take care of the earth, something we haven't done.
The earth and the animals were given to man to look after.
We will see later that we lost this responsibility.
We defaulted on what God asked us to do and gave it over to
satan. Thus, instead of
ruling and having authority over the earth and it's contents, we
ourselves are subject to the one we handed this responsibility over to,
and that's satan. Verse
27 reads, "so God crated man in His own image, in the image of God
He crated him, male and female He created them."
This verse two has created some debate over the centuries.
There are at least two ways of looking at this verse, and maybe a
third way which would be a combination of the two.
Some
say that God created man and woman in this verse, even though there is
no mention of woman. The
word "man" is generic, as in "mankind" which would
include both man and woman. The
specifics of the creation of man or mankind is seen in chapter 2 where
woman is created from man's side. The
other way to look at this is that God created man as both male and
female in one body in this verse. Man
was originally created with the ability to reproduce on his own since he
was both male and female. Some
see this as man being made in God's likeness and image because they feel
that God is both male and female, that is anthropomorphically speaking.
Then in chapter 2 the female part of man is taken from him and
separated into another person. I
think that both ways of looking at this have their validity and maybe
both are true. I tend to see
this verse to say that God made man to be both male and female, and a
later date made woman from man, that could possibly be inferred to in
this verse as well. In
verse 28 we see that God blessed them.
The word "them" here would give credence to the idea
that the last verse is speaking about God creating both male and female
in separate bodies. Genesis
2 would then be further clarification
of the creation process. The
Hebrew word "barak" is the word translated as
"blessed". This
Hebrew word finds it's roots in a word meaning "to kneel",
that is, "kneel, bow down, almost like worship."
The point here is that God set apart man to be special in his own
way. He also blessed the see
creatures and birds in verse 22. There's
no mentioning of him blessing the land animals, but I think we can
safely say that He did. This
tells me that both man and animals have a special place in God's
thinking. They were all
blessed, all set aside as being special in their own way.
The rest of creation didn't seem to get this blessing, so there
is a distinction between plants, animals and mankind that is distinct
from the rest of creation. Also
in verse 28 we see the first thing God told "them", as in both
Adam and Eve. How He spoke
is unknown. It would not
surprise me if God did not use words to speak.
I know there are words recorded in the Genesis account that God
spoke to Adam and Eve, but this too might be anthropomorphic.
But, He might well have spoke to Adam and Eve, in whatever
language they would have spoken at the time.
I'm sure that some would say Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew, but there
is no hint of that being so. My
guess is that it was a different language altogether. So
what did God tell Adam and Eve? The
first thing He told them was "to be fruitful and multiply in
number." Simply put,
have children. That's not
hard to understand. This
statement by God might well suggest that God did not create Adam both
male and female since he told "them" to reproduce.
This would suggest
that God created Adam and Eve in Genesis 1.
The Genesis 2 account is merely further clarification.
Then God said "fill the earth and subdue it." "Fill the earth" is easy. It was God's intent for mankind to reproduce and occupy the whole earth. The question then would be asked, "what would happen when the earth was filled?" "Would man then be told not to have children?" We don't know the answer to this question.
One thing to note here is that the KJV does not use the word "fill" but the word "replenish". Replenish suggests that Adam and Eve were to repopulate the earth, as if it had already been populated before. Those who believe in the "gap theory" say this is further evidence of a pre-Adamic race. You might want to note that God told Noah the same thing after He destroyed the earth in a flood (Genesis 9:1). Once again the NIV uses the word "fill" while the KJV uses the word "replenish." For Noah is was a replenishing, a repopulating of the earth.
The Hebrew word "male" is translated as "replenish" in the King James Bible. Most newer translations translate this Hebrew word as "fill" because that is what the word means. It doesn't mean "refill." As a matter of fact "male" is translated many times in the KJV Old Testament as "fill" and not "refill." What appears to be happening here is that in the 1600 the English word "replenish" didn't necessarily mean to "refill." It was often used to simply fill. Therefore, the difference between the KJV and the NIV is more of a matter of the English language evolving since 1611.
With the above in mind then, you cannot build your doctrine of the Gap Theory on the word "replenish" that appears here in verse 28 because this verse is not talking about a "refilling" but a "filling." The
next thing God tells man is to "rule over the fish, the birds, and
the animals." Somehow
these animals would be subject to us.
We don't really know exactly what that would look like because
since the flood, man and animals for the most part have lived an
estranged life in connection to one another.
God specifically said in Genesis 9:2 that animals would fear man.
I believe this fear makes it not possible for man to rule over
the animals. It
is interesting to note that some have asked the question, "how did
Noah get the animals into the ark. The
answer is simple. Prior to
the flood man did rule over the animals which meant the animals were
subject to man and obeyed him. Once
again, what this looked like is unknown. In
verse 29 we see the next thing that God spoke to man about.
He told them what to eat. He
told them that He gave them every seed bearing plant and fruit tree to
eat from. There is some
debate at this point. Many
believe that man was created to be vegetarian, which changed after the
flood. This might well be
so, but some suggest that is reading too much into this command.
We at least know that plants and fruit with seeds in them were
given to mankind to eat. In verse 30 we see the same plants and fruit trees were given to the animals as well. Both man and beast would eat the same plants.
Verse
31 raps up day number six. God
saw what He had done and said that it was "very good." The
first three verses of chapter 2 go along with chapter 1 in the NIV and
most other modern translations. Verse
1 tells us that at this point all the heavens and the earth in their
vast array were completed. Note
here that it wasn't just the earth that was finished being completed.
It was the heavens as well, the whole material universe.
This tells me that before this creation there was nothing, as we
said in verses 1 and 2. God
created the material universe out of nothing at all, absolutely nothing.
Prior to this creation, all appears to be spiritual. In
verse 2 of chapter 2 we see that God's "work" of creation
ended and so He "rested from His work."
I'm not sure we can think of the words "work" and
"rest" in human terms. I
don't think God worked at creation as we work today.
Simply speaking things into existence doesn't seem like a heavy
load of work that we might think in human terms.
Therefore, the resting should be seen in a different light as
well. Rest might well be
seen as simple completion. Like
most other things in the creation account there are differing ideas
concerning this rest spoken of here.
Some of the Jewish rabbis actually think in terms of the universe
resting along with God. Everything
was created and set in order, in a place of rest, and ready to function
freely without the effects of sin. Still,
the account says that God rested. That
might simply mean that God completed the process of creation.
It might not mean He sat back and put His feet up so to speak.
The
book of Hebrews speaks of God's rest, especially in chapter 4.
It relates God's rest here to rest that you and I can have when
we trust Jesus. The rest
here is in reference to us ending our own works to rely on the work
Jesus has done. The point being, that there is a place of rest where we
can find God through Jesus. This
place of rest is where God presently is.
He is still in His rest. Some
suggest that since the text does not say, "the evening and the
morning – the seventh day", that God's day of rest is still
continuing, and that might well be so.
Another
thing to consider is that God made man on the sixth day.
Man's first full day of life was God's first full day of rest.
We were meant to live a life of rest. The
point here is that in both creation and in salvation, God does all the
work for man. All we need to
do is rest. Verse
3 says that God blessed the seventh day.
The word "blessed" here means to reverence, as to fall
on ones knees. Thus
God set aside the seventh day as a special and holy day, a day that is
signified by rest. Once
again, I believe from my study of the book of Hebrews that this day of
rest spoken of here in Genesis is prophetic of the rest we find in
Jesus, that rest that we lost in the garden through disobedience .
I won't get into the discussion here, but the idea of rest was codified into the Law of Moses that was subsequently nailed to the cross with Jesus, as Paul puts it in Colossians 2:14. I don't believe that New Testament Christians are subject to this Sabbath rules as found in the Law of Moses, and that includes all of the numerous Sabbath laws.
It's clear that the command God institutes to Israel later on in history concerning keeping the Sabbath day holy finds it's roots right here in Genesis 2:2.
|