LIVRO DE GÊNESIS E A PALAVRA DIVINA

7/28/2019 LIVRO DE GNESIS E A PALAVRA DIVINA

1/18

Genesis and the Real World

David Roth

It Is Written

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This seems pretty

straightforward, doesn't it? And yet so much of what we read about Genesis these days

implies that it's really not so straightforward, after all. Take, for example, the claim that inGenesis 1:1, the phrase 'the heavens', "refers to the component of space in the basic space-

mass-time universe." And that, "the term 'earth' refers to the component of matter [or

"mass"] in the universe..." (Only later is the planet earth itself made from this initial stuffcalled "the earth"). According to this interpretation then, Moses meant to say, 'at the

beginning of time God created space and matter'.

Now, you certainly can't argue with the fact that God created what we call "space" and

"matter". But was Moses really trying to specify those particular concepts here in Genesis1:1? Did he need modern scientific categories to come along so we'd finally understand

what he meant by the phrase, "the heavens and the earth"'? Or does this, in fact, sound more

like somebody reading modern science into Genesis?

Interestingly enough, this "space " and "matter" interpretation is the opinion of Dr. HenryMorris (on pages 40 and 41 of his The Genesis Record). Dr. Morris has built quite a career

and reputation on supposedly taking the Bible at face value, come what may. And in the

mind of many conservatives, anyone who disagrees with him is necessarily indifferent tothe Scriptures (to say the least). Even so, I'm not at all sure how his exegesis could be

called "literal" here, unless the word means something other than what I thought it did. But

one thing is for sure: he's not giving us a straightforward reading of Genesis 1:1, call it"literal" or not.

Maybe I shouldn't single him out. Except that, as I said, he is so often taken to be the

champion of straightforward, no nonsense interpretation of Genesis. And in this instance,

he clearly does not do so. What's more, we don't have to be liberal, evolutionist badguys tosee that he doesn't, either. Many others also offer commentary and opinions that, in one

way or another, seem far removed from a plain reading of this passage of Scripture. And it

doesn't always help to know whether the one commenting is a conservative or a liberal. Part

of the problem may be that commentaries present Genesis to us in a dissected and analyzedform along with a lot of background material that is thought to be crucial to understanding

the text. So much so that many commentaries just don't seem much like the Genesis that weremember reading in the first place. (The Genesis that Moses wrote, I mean). And we endup having trouble putting the two versions together in our minds. The actual words of

Moses become, in a sense, replaced by the commentary, rather than being made clearer and

more accessible to us.

Obviously, some of this can't be helped. A commentary is supposed to be more than averbatim repetition of a particular passage. Or it just wouldn't be "commentary". It has to


2/18

interrupt a plain reading if it is to do any commenting. Still, I wonder if, somewhere along

the line, we haven't become dulled to the fact that the Bible itself is written. Written withjust as much care and purpose as any commentary is. Writtennot some sort of mindless

aggregate of unrelated words, thoughts and phrases that can only be made sense of by

experts. Nor is the Bible a mere religious database from which to collate verses for the

seven steps to this and the ten principles of that. The Bible was crafted in a premeditatedway by those in whom the Spirit acted to write the Word of God in the first place. And this

deliberately literary nature of scripture is often more evident in a plain reading of it than in

the commentaries that are supposed to be helping us understand what we're reading. Thisseems especially true of Genesis 1. Oh, we're right in using commentaries and other tools.

There's no excuse for laziness in Bible study. But I wonder if, in the end, we aren't too

easily satisfied with manipulations of words, phrases and imagesnever taking the time togo back and read what Moses (or any other Bible author) actually wrote. And to see if the

commentary is really telling us what God said or not. There is something to be learned from

those noble minded Bereans.

Now, making a big deal about the literary nature of Scripture might make you a littlesuspicious (especially in the context of Genesis 1). Suspicious because "literary character"

usually means that a liberal is trying to sneak something in on you. There's no denying the

fact that one way to 'handle' (rather than understand) Genesis 1 is to ostensibly appeal to itsliterary qualities. Concern for "literary genre', for example, is often just a pretext for

purging a passage of its specificity, historically speaking. Genesis, "properly" interpreted, is

not supposed to involve specifics of real world history. And so an endless parade of literary

categories are inventively applied to Genesis 1 to make it historically inert. In fact, whentalking about religion, many intellectuals use the terms "reality" and "truth" as merely

existential categories rather than as both existential and ontological ones, like they do when

talking about history and science. l mean that 'religious' or 'theological' truths of Scriptureare treated as alien to the world of specific historic facts; as if there is no necessary

connection between the two. 'Religious' meaning and actual facts are not seen as belonging

to the same reality. Sort of like Aesop's fables. The people, places and events of his storiesare not historically specific. Rather, they are vehicles for generalized truths. Truths

contained in the gist or moral of the stories.

Paul, in talking about how history and religion are related to one another, makes the

'religious' meaning of the resurrection dependent upon the historic fact of the resurrectionl Corinthians 15. If we take away the fact we also take away the religious meaning too!

This is no less true of Genesis I. Again though, certain ways of 'handling' Genesis

narratives serve to keep them in a detached, literary world away from causing intellectualproblems for the real world. Practically speaking, this attitude eventually makes religion

little more than structured symbolism of realities that are ultimately knowable through

nonreligious means (a la Joseph Campbell).

Anyway, the point is that intellectual subterfuge is not at all what I have in mind bybringing up the literary nature of Scripture. Quite the opposite. Acknowledging literary

dynamics of a Bible passage does not mean we accept that passage as nothing more than a

literary dynamic. The passage does not have to be seen as locked in sort of an a-historical

loop. The fact that Moses (or any other Bible writer) uses language in a premeditated,


3/18

artistic way to articulate something does not reduce that articulation to mere metaphor or

fable. In fact, it is through the literary character of Biblical revelation that its meaning isbest guarded against the errors of wolves and of fools. When you and I talk to each other,

we use all sorts of gestures, inflections and so onthings that provide context for the words

we're usingas a way of getting our intent across. If the Bible, for its part, had no artistry

no literary characterit would be far more difficult to pin down the intentions of itsauthors. This is certainly true of the narrative of Genesis 1.

There is nothing particularly mythic about the language, "In the beginning God created the

heavens and the earth." In the narrative that follows this declaration, Moses continues

talking about this same "God". And he still talks about the same "heavens and earth" thatGod "created". And he uses straightforward language like "light", "sky", "land", "birds",

"man" and so on. There's nothing here about using body parts of some deity to form the

world we know. What then is so myth-like about this narrative?

Well, it's not so much the literary character of the narrative that gives some people the

impression of myth-ness in Genesis 1. It is that what we read doesn't seem to them to fit thereal world (at least as it has been articulated by our sciences). Genesis 1 is consequently

'interpreted' in a way that permits a kind of generalized understanding of ita religiouslyuseful understanding without getting specific with real world detail. Rudolf Bultmann (one

who approached the New Testament in this way) once wrote: "Myths give worldly

objectivity to that which is unworldly". And that's just how many see Genesis 1. That is, asa vehicle to bring concrete, this world expression to truths that are actually beyond this

world.

Divine revelation is not seen as being connected to the Bible in a way that demands

absolute integrity of the textany textof Scripture. There is no intrinsically necessaryconnection between the specific way the Bible has come to us and divine revelation. The

Bible is an accident of history, not integrally involved in divine revelation itself. This

attitude can be seen, for example, in the way that the revelational content of Genesis 1 is sooften reduced and generalized to that of "general" revelation. Compare, for example, what

Dr. Howard Van Till says about Genesis 1 in The Fourth Day and what Paul says we all

know without even reading Genesis (Romans 1).

Nearly everybodyeven the more 'progressive' among usagrees that Genesis 1 presentsGod as the Creator. And, of course, it does teach this. The thing is though, it presents God

as the Creator. Not as merely a creator or as merely creative. Mypoint is that the assertion

that God is the Creator is much more historically specificmuch more tied-in with theintricacies of real world historythan many modern commentators allow for. We aren't

talking about a religious truth that is the consequence of reflection on reality. Reality is

itself the consequence of God being "the Creator".

God is the Creator. That is specific. Too specific, in fact, to dismiss the possibility ofconflict between the Bible and our culture's sciences. Attempts to bring these two together

nearly always means subordinating the articulations of the Holy Spirit to those of the

sciences. Where this two-world approach is used (see The Fourth Day andPortraits of

Creation), youcan never exegetically establish that God is the Creator. Oh, you might


4/18

genuinely believe that he is the Creator. But you could not derive it exegetically. Not from

Genesis 1, anyway. And that's because the issue here is not so much one of literaryconstraints of a genre on our thinking as it is philosophic constraints of our thinking being

imposed on the text. For one thing, there would be nothing to link a supposed Near Eastern

mythic world to the real one; nothing in the text itself, because we just don't have a 'moral

of the story' to tell us what this supposed myth has to do with the real world, like we dowith Aesop. In the end, the very attempt to save Genesis from 'too much' specificity,

empties it of any real specific religious meaning too!

Your exegesis could be no more specific than to say that God is a creator, or that he is

creative. You just can't expect an ancient Near Eastern myth to serve as proof that God isthe Creator. All this accomplishes is to show that the god mentioned in the myth created the

world of that myth (the a-historical loop I was talking about earlier). And we'd be left to

imagine a connection between that mythic world and the real world of our experience. Thatconnection wouldn't be exegetical. It wouldn't be a teaching of Genesis 1. But the context

of Genesis as a whole, and its place and use in the rest of Scripture eliminates such an

approach to what Moses wrote, if we're going to take Genesis seriously.

Again, the problem with the modern approach boils down to the fact that what God createdis the real world. This world that God is said to have created, here in Genesis 1, is the same

world that the rest of Scripture takes place in. The same world, in other words, that the

whole history of redemption unfolds in and partakes of. It is the venue God made to displayhis glory in. If the Genesis world was a metaphor, myth or saga, what must be said about

what takes place in that make-believe world? Even Adam's sin and our need of a Savior

would be part of the mythic construct. The idea behind so much of what we hear aboutGenesis seems to be that divine revelation is exclusively made up of truths that would

obtain whether this world existed or not. But Jesus (the focus of divine revelation) was

himself incarnated into this same Genesis world. He lived and died and rose gain in this

God-created reality introduced to us in Genesis 1. The same reality that you and I now call"the real world".

What God Created

All Scripture is literary in nature. So identifying literary qualities in any particular portion

of Scripture (say, Genesis 1, for instance), does not indicate that such a passage is merelymetaphorical or poetic in character. It doesn't mean that it must be understood by just

'getting the gist of it' like we might a fable of Aesop. Nor does it make us "liberal" if we

acknowledge the obvious literary nature of Scripture. There is, in fact, nothing up mysleeve in emphasizing that Scripture is deliberately composed writing. That's what it is.

And we ought to read it that way. With that in mind, let's read Genesis 1 again (the

narrative in view here actually covers Genesis 1:1-2:3. But I'll call it "Genesis 1" to make it

easier to refer to). By the way, it would really help here if you'd have your Bible open.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I'm sure you know this verse by

heart. But how does it read to you? I mean, is it a complete thought? Or is it completed only

when you've finished reading the entire narrative (Genesis 1:1 through 2:3)? I ask thisbecause we often quote Genesis 1:1 as a proof-text for saying that God created everything.


5/18

And yet, at other times, we take verse 1 as an incomplete thought. I mean, it is taken as the

first of a sequence of discrete acts described in the course of the narrative ending up inverse 31. In other words, verse 1 says God created "the heavens and the earth". Then verse

2 picks up where verse 1 left off. He created more. Then verse 3 picks up where verse 2 left

off. And so on until we read that the work is "completed" (2:1). Read in this way, verse 1

relies on the verses that follow it to round out the thought that it began; to complete thesequence of events that it started. Does "the heavens and the earth" refer to all that God

created? Or does it refer only to some initial stuff?

Taken as an incomplete thought, of course, Genesis 1 can't stand by itself as a proof-text for

saying that God is the Creator. "The heavens and the earth" would not then includevegetation (which doesn't show up until verse 11), birds and sealife (verse 20), land animals

(verse 24), nor even man himself (verse 26). In fact, according to Dr. Morris, it wouldn't

include the sun, the moon, the stars, or the planet earth! So again, what is Genesis 1:1saying that God created?

I think that we are right in using Genesis 1:1 as Biblical proof that God is the Creator. Inother words, that verse 1 here is a complete thought. Look, for example, at how the phrase,

"the heavens and the earth" is used a little later, in 2:4: "This is the account of the heavensand the earth". 2:4 relates to us something of what comes from "the heavens and the earth",

its resultant history. I do not believe that Genesis 1 is talking about the same thing. Genesis

1 is not "the account of the heavens and the earth". That is what the narrative initiated in2:4 goes into. Genesis 1 is about the "creating" of the heavens and the earth.

The phrase, "the heavens and the earth" is not so much a list of what God created as it is

telling us that God created everything. "The heavens and the earth" is to the range of things

God created, what "springtime and harvest" is to passing time and "ladies and gentlemen" isto an audienceall inclusive. Joining two opposites into one phrase here indicates

comprehensive inclusion, even of things not specifically listed. All of which is to say that in

the beginning God created everything. Period.

Oh, and something else here. Saying that this creating took place, "In the beginning" isn't aproblem either. Moses is not saying that 'at the first instant of time' God created the heavens

and the earth. (This could be a problem because Moses would be saying that God created

everything in an instant. Then he would go on to speak of the six days of creation). "In thebeginning" corresponds to the phrases "when they were created" and "in the day that the

Lord made earth and heaven" (chapter 2, verse 4). The reference is not to a point of time

but to a period of time. A period that constitutes the early portion of history. Not, "At thebeginning...", but "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Genesis 1 in Context

Alright then, if for the sake of argument, Genesis 1:1 stands as a complete thought, how is

it supposed to fit into the rest of the passage? Well, it seems to be something of a heading to

initiate the narrative that follows it, 1:2-2:3. In fact, it seems that Moses planned out theentire book of Genesis in this way. That is, using headings to initiate narratives. The book

of Genesis progresses from "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" to the


6/18

children of Israel poised to enter the promised land. This progressive unfolding of God's

plan (his election) can be easily seen in the headings themselves. These headings arecharacterized bywhat should I call them?toledot phrases. Toledot (toe-le-dote) is the

Hebrew word often translated "generations". But here, see what I mean for yourself:

(Genesis 2:4) "These are the toledot of the heavens and the earth. "

(Gen. 5:1) "This is the book ofthe toledot of Adam."

(Gen. 6:9) "These are the toledot of Noah."

(Gen. 10:1) "these are the toledot of Shem, Ham and Japheth..."

(Gen. 11:10) "These are the toledot of Shem. "

(Gen. 11:27) "These are the toledot of Terah."

(Gen. 25:12) "These are the toledot of Ishmael. "

(Gen. 25:19) "These are the toledot of Isaac."

(Gen. 36:1) "These are the toledot of Esau."

[(Gen. 36:9) "These are the toledot of Esau." (yes, this is a repeat)]

(Gen. 37:2) "These are the toledot of Jacob. "

Where does Genesis 1:1 fit in? Well, suppose you were looking over Moses' shoulder as hewrote. And suppose that you noticed that he had used the toledot headings to shape and

direct the narratives that make up Genesis. What's more, you were familiar with the

creation stories of the surrounding nations; not to mention Moses' own education in Egypt.All of which, in some form or another, say that the creation is materially derived from

divinity. Looking over his shoulder then, you might well have expected him to begin

Genesis: 'This is the toledot of God.' Thus Genesis 1:1 would fit right at the top of the list Ijust gave you. It would fit his style as well as the conventional wisdom of the day.

So why didn't he do that? Quite simply because there is no toledot of God. And "the

heavens and the earth" is not derived from God. The creation is not a product of divine

'substance' as was commonly held. God is just not part of the history of things in that way.God created the heavens and the earth out of . . . what? If the heavens and the earth is not a

toledot of God, then what were they made out of ? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

It must be said here that the word "created" (Genesis 1:1; "bare" in the Hebrew), does not

mean "created out of nothing", as is often suggested. Not by itself, anyway. Look down atverse 27, for example. There the word 'bare' is used several times. God "created" man. Male

and female, he "created" them. Out of nothing? Hardly. Chapter 2 says that God made man


7/18

out of the dust of the ground (2:7). And in I Corinthians 15, Paul makes something out of

the fact that man did not come "out of nothing". This historic fact (revealed in Genesis 2)that man came from the dust of the earth is theologically important to Paul's discussion

there (verses 42-49). So Moses did not use the word "bare" thinking that it meant 'created

out of nothing'.

Don't get me wrong though. Genesis does teach that "the heavens and the earth" werecreated out of nothing ("ex nihilo", as we like to say). But it does so contextually rather

than lexically. And that's where Genesis 1:1 comes in. Moses does not begin Genesis with

'This is the toledot of God' because "the heavens and the earth" did not come out of God.

History is not eternal. It is not simply an extension of the life of God. "The heavens and theearth" came out of nothing. And God made it come out of nothing. "In the beginning God

created the heavens and the earth." It is precisely its placement at the beginning of the

toledot narratives that drives home the point that God "created" out of nothing. Theuniverse is a toledot of nothingGod created it. It does not descend from anything, much

less from God himself.

You see, Genesis 1:1 does belong at the beginning of the toledot narratives, right where

Moses put it. After all, it too is a heading that initiates a narrative. And that narrativelogically precedes the one that starts with "the toledot of the heavens and the earth"

(Genesis 2:4).

"In the beginning God createdtheheavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1)." That's where it all

started. God made something for himself: the heavens and the earth. That is what ournarrative here is about. Then, having established this, Moses goes on in Genesis to center

our attention on "the toledotof the heavens and the earth (2:4ff.)". Out of everything that

we might want to keep track of to trace the toledot of the heavens and the earthyou know,the vegetation, the animals, the birds, Adam and the rest of the stuff mentioned in chapter

oneout of all of this, Adam is brought centerstage (5:1ff.). Then, out of all the people that

make up the toledot of Adam (all of mankind to that point), Moses focuses on Noah(6:9ff.). And then his sons (10:1ff.). And then one son in particular, Shem (11:l0ff.). And so

on. This narrowing of focus, this display of the election of God, continues (with some

inclusions of reprobation) until we reach the toledot of Jacobthe children of Israel [hereyou may want to look again at the list of toledot headings above].

God, having brought history to this point, will further refine his revelation of himself in the

law and so on. Ultimately, of course, Jesus is the final and complete focus of God's

revelation of himself; the consummation of election in history; the goal of the law; the mostperfect display of God himself. But, for its part, Genesis only goes through the toledot of

Jacob.

We can see God through the course of Moses' writing of Genesis. God continually narrows

the spotlight to focus on his own glory as history progresses toward Christ. From thecreation of the venue of his glory, "the heavens and the earth", to the people he has chosen

to call his own and dwell among, Genesis is the revelation of God himself. That's what

Moses wrote about. That is Genesis. To God be the glory...


8/18

Genesis 1 is the beginning of this revelation. In fact, it is quite a visual narrative for this

very reason. Because of God's glory, I mean. Glory in the Bible is most closely associatedwith visual perception. It is something to behold. So Moses, quite appropriately, writes this

very visually oriented narrative.

Genesis 1 is not a mere introduction to the rest of Genesis. At least, not in the sense that itfalls outside of the revelatory message or the literary style of the rest of Genesis. It is partof the whole. And, accordingly, Genesis 1:1 is a heading for the narrative that immediately

follows it (in lieu of a toledot heading, but having the same relationship to its narrative that

the toledots do to what follows them).

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." All that God "created", includingthe angelic beings, is referred to in verse 1. But going on from there, Moses only narrates

certain aspects of God's creative work (in 1:2-2:3, that is). The fact that particular facets of

the universe are not mentioned though, should not be construed to mean that they falloutside of the assertion of verse 1. It only means that God through Moses, was not offering

a mere inventory of all that he created. Moses' narrative takes place sometime "in thebeginning" not after "the beginning". And what happens within the narrative has to do with

the creating of the heavens and the earth, not with events after that creating (at least notuntil we get to chapter 2 and God's rest).

The Narrative of Moses

Moses wrote Genesis. And he did so deliberately. Which brings up the issue of literary

devices. Any time that we talk about literary devices red flags go up. And that's becausesome of us are worried that the literalness of the "days" of creation are threatened. And if

the "days" aren't taken as straightforward, 24-hour "days", then the integrity of Genesis 1 is

being challenged. There are some legitimate concerns in this area. But whether the "days"are taken as 24-hour days, as epochal periods or as a literary cadence of some sort, we still

have little insight into Moses' narrative. The problem is that Moses relies on something

other than the "days" to set forth the substance of what he wanted to say. So even if I could

convince you of my opinion in this matter, we would have progressed little in ourunderstanding of Genesis 1. It is for that reason that I'm going to bypass that issue for now.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This having been said, Moses

then begins a creation narrative that falls somewhere within the all-encompassing assertion

of verse 1. And he begins by setting the scene for his narrative: "Now the earth..." Excuseme, I need to interrupt myself for a second. I am generally following the New American

Standard Bible (or version). But it incorrectly reads "Andthe earth..." here. It's not a big

deal, except that it can be misleading. It suggests that verse 2 picks up where verse 1 leavesoff. Which isn't true and isn't required by the language Moses actually used. Down in

Genesis 2:4, there is a similar situation. There is a heading that initiates a narrative: "This is

[the toledot] of the heavens and the earth.Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth..."The same prefix that is rendered "and" in 1:2 is rendered "now" in 2:5. The NASB should

have followed their own rendering of 2:5"now"in 1:2 (like the NIV did). Now the earth

was so and so....


9/18

"Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and

the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters" (1:2). Moses prepares us forwhat is to follow, by telling us about the initial setting of the narrative. Each of the

elements will find expression and counterpoint in the body of the narrative. (You may also

notice that these elements figure prominently in the later history of redemption. For

instance, take a look at Jeremiah 4 and Revelation 21 and 22, when you get a chance).

First of all then, the earth was "formless and void". At least, this is how most of us

remember the verse. The problem is that using "formless and void" to translate 'tohu'and

'bohu'gives us the wrong idea about what Moses was saying about the earth. He wasn't

trying to conjure up images of a chaotic swirl of molecules somewhere out in space. Theidea is that the earth was barren and uninhabited. This is also the meaning intended in the

only other passage where these words occur togetherJeremiah 4:

"I looked on the earth, and behold, it was tohu and bohu; and to the heavens, and they hadno light. I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, And all the hills moved

to and fro. I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled.I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness ('bohu'), And all its cities were

pulled down before the Lord, before His fierce anger." (Jer.4:23-26)

He looked upon the earth, the sky, the mountains and the land (hardly a chaotic swirl of

molecules!). Not "formless" and "void". But "barren" and uninhabited". Moses' contrast in

Genesis 1 is not between chaos and order, but between barren emptiness and the fulness of

life. Just as the re-creation contrast is not so much chaos and order as death and life. "Nowthe earth was barren and uninhabited". It is this situation that will be dealt with in the

coming narrative. Not the formation of a planet from some primordial swirl of stuff. To be

more specific, the barren and uninhabited state of the earth will be addressed andcounterpointed by the appearance of life on the earth; the vegetation, animals and finally,

man. Man will then be given dominion over life (not necessarily over all the things

mentioned in chapter 1). There will be no more 'tohu' and 'bohu'. The earth will beinhabited by life. Which is appropriate since the Creator is himself the living God. And

Moses is talking about the creation of the venue for this living God's glory.

Another element that Moses presents is the "darkness". "And darkness was over the surface

of the deep...." This "darkness" is nothing mysterious. And it isn't something that existedeternally, as some have suggested. Darkness is nothing. It is a non-category apart from the

capacity of sight. Just as a shadow is nothing but what it takes from light, so too is

"darkness" nothing without light. That's why Moses mentions it. He plans to address thematter of darkness in the narrative starting with "Let there be light". On the fourth day the

sun, moon and stars visibly give light on the earth and regulate the light and the dark. These

light bearers are given dominion: the "greater light" to "govern the day" and the lesser light

(and starsPsalm 136:9) to "govern the night". This governing takes the form of theirbeing seen in the sky at their appointed times. Thus the darkness is counterpointed in the

narrative.

We should probably mention "the deep" or "the waters" too. While the presence of the deepis here taken for granted, like the earth itself is, the deep is utilized in the narrative that


10/18

follows. These waters will be parted like curtains to reveal the sky and then later, the dry

ground. What's left of the waters will be called "the seas". And they will come to haveliving creatures in them. It's hard not to jump ahead to the flood, where the waters again

prevail on the earth. And to the re-creation that God brings about after his wrath is spent.

But here in Genesis 1, there is no hint of "the waters" as a tool of judgment. They are here,

simply a part of the initial conditions of the narrative.

The last element, but by no means the least, is the stirring presence of God himself. "And

the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." The Spirit is brooding over

this dark, lifeless earth. In the narrative that follows, he is mentioned some 31 times

("creating", "saying", "seeing", "calling", "making" and so on). Then the counterpoint: TheSabbath. The Spirit at rest. And the narrative is complete. It begins with God and it ends

with God.

"Now the earth was barren and uninhabited, and darkness was over the surface of the deep;and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." This is, I believe, the

literary device that Moses uses to artistically structure his narrative. He sets the scene andthen goes on to develop it. It is a very deliberate narrative, not a myth or saga. God created

a venue for his glory. Part of that venue (humankind) was made in his image to behold thatglory. God saw that this venue of his glory did what it was supposed to do. He saw it and

was pleased. He rested and was refreshed. That is Genesis 1.

Cultural Obstacles to Understanding Genesis 1

It is necessary here, to digress a bit. It may not be immediately obvious how this digressionfits in with the discussion so far. But I hope to make it plain as soon as I can. Such a

digression is made necessary, in my opinion, because of some deep seated assumptions that

I find coming up all the time in discussions of the meaning of Genesis 1 (particularly whenthe relationship between the Bible and science is in view).

It's certainly no secret that we Christians have a credibility problem these days. Our culture

sees us as we often see children, newlyweds and seminarians. As being in dire need of a

dose of real life, I mean. How many parents, frustrated with their teenager's unrealisticoutlook on things, haven't resorted to: "Just wait till you get out into the real world. Then

you'll see...." They will "see" just as soon as their naivete and idealism meet up with cold,

hard reality. Or something like that.

Similarly, we Christians are thought to represent a kind of old world naivete. The way welook at reality seems naive and idealistic because we insist on always bringing up God and

the Bible. Things that are okay as personal, private beliefs. But not the sort of things that

make us practical and keep us grounded in reality. At least, not reality as our culture sees it.

Our view of reality is suspect because it involves so much reliance on the Bible. And thissupposed naivete on our part, inevitably leads us to ideas and behavior that are considered

culturally 'inappropriate' or just plain 'irrelevant'. Irrelevant in that we ask the wrong

questions, we misframe the issues of life and, in general, we just don't seem to get it.


11/18

The upshot is that our culture takes upon itself the job of setting us straight. This is mainly

done by imposing on us its idea of what "reality" means. And our culture's idea of realityeither leaves no room for our beliefs, or it trivializes them. Trivializes them by assigning

our religion to a special category of belief separated from reality. Nobody's expected to

actually know anything about reality to have a religious belief.

This cultural attitude toward Christians and what we believe is nowhere more evident thanin that part of our culture interested in things "scientific". Not that science is the only

cultural activity where this attitude exists. Nor can it be said that everyone in science shares

such an attitude. They don't. It's just that in public institutions that are passing on our

culture, science holds a special place. A place that has made it the most powerful andauthoritative cultural tool in our society's rejection of God. It hasn't caused that rejection.

But it is being used to legitimize that rejection just the same.

For decades now, we have been taught that reality lies beyond our everyday, humanfaculties. And that the sciences offer our only objective interface with realitythe only

way for us to really get in touch with the way things are. In school, to drive this lessonhome, we were told that the desks upon which our elbows rested were not really what they

seemed to be. They were really made up of mostly "space" (referring to the 'spaces' in theatomic and subatomic structure of the material that makes up the desk). It was supposed to

follow that our confidence in the solidness of desks was, therefore, something of an illusion

a sort of crude approximation of reality. What we were so sure we knew about our deskswas reallyjust an impression derived from our rather dull senses and their inability to

precisely engage reality. Thinking of the desks as "solid" is as close to reality as we can

expect to come, left to ourselves. Through the sciences though we know better. (Oh, wemay still talk about "solid" desks if we want to. But only as a naive convention of language.

Because the desks aren't really solid, after all).

This lesson was supposed to impress upon our young minds that we need science in order

to correctly articulate reality. And that it is through the sciences, rather than religion, thatwe actually come to understand reality. And further, that it is upon the sciences, rather than

religion, that we must build engaged and relevant and responsible lives for ourselves,

especially if we intend to be practical about things.

Another example of this culturally directed use of science in education was the insistenceby our science teachers that the sun doesn't really rise and set. We were supposed to think

in terms of the earth spinning on its axis as it orbits the sun. You know, like those wall

charts with the sun at the center and all the planets going around it in elliptical orbits. That'sthe way things really are. We were supposed to realize that such an out-in-space

perspective on things articulates reality much more correctly than our terrestrial perspective

ever could. And, indeed, there are some special, technical situations where an out-in-space

frame-of-reference is more usefulthan a terrestrial one. Like sending a spacecraft to give usa closer look at Jupiter and Saturn. Useful or not though, it is a bit much to claim that such

an out-in-space perspective is more accurate that our usual, terrestrial one is, just because

there are some uses for such a perspective. On the whole, there are comparatively few suchuses in the life of humanity. Here again though, we were taught that because our everyday

frame-of-reference is naive, we need science to give us the correct perspective on reality.


12/18

Now, don't get me wrong. What I'm saying is not anti-science. It would be silly to sit here

and deny subatomic phenomena or our galactic environment. And, in fact, I'm not trying todo that. I am taking exception though, to the cultural imposition of a particular, supposedly

"scientific" attitude toward reality which is really a philosophic attitude. An attitude that

insinuates that our human scale of reality is somehow less real than the subatomic scale of

thingsthat our scale of experience is merely a second-hand, statistical impression ofwhat's realjust because someone in a lab coat discovered subatomic structure in things. It

simply does not follow that if we identify subatomic structure in a desk, for example, that

the desk we see is less real than the particles and forces we don't see; as if the whole desk isnothing more than its subatomic parts. Or, more to the point, that "reality" is nothing more

than a label to identify the furthest limits of our atomistic reduction of things. And that

since only the sciences can "see" this reality, it is to the sciences that we must turn if we areever to understand reality at all.

It's silly to insist that it is inaccurate or primitive, to talk about the sun rising and setting. Of

course the sun rises and sets! It's not a matter of accuracy, but of being consistent with a

particular frame-of-reference. And from here on earth, the sun rises and sets. It really risesand sets. There's nothing more realistic about an out-in-space view of things. The problem

is that when "reality" is defined according to the prevailing theoretical view of things, then

every time someone in science comes up with new numbers or a new spin on old numbers,we are expected to react by changing our whole view of what reality is.

Our culture seems to think that its sciences actually see behind the stage-set that most of us

think of as reality. They can see behind it, what props it up and what makes it seem to be

something it's not. Even God himself is seen as part of this facade of reality. The scienceshave gone backstage and know what's real. This is just plain nonsense.

Nonsense or not though, that's where we are. And such depreciating of the human scale and

the human frame-of-reference has taken its toll on Biblical religion in our culture.

Obviously, Biblical religion doesn't come about by looking at the subatomic scale of things.Nor does it originate from considering large scale motions in the universe either. So it

stands to reason that unless our religion is actually revealed to us by God (which is patently

absurd to our culture, and therefore not a real option at all), then it must have beendreamed-up at the human scalethe naive scale of things. And, in fact, religion is widely

regarded as the outcome of efforts by human imagination to cope with reality rather than to

actually understand and articulate it. Religion is assumed, thereby, to have no more

grounding in reality than does our imagination. Our religion is reduced to mere personaland social conventionscategories imposed upon realityrather than being intelligently

engaged articulation of reality like science is supposed to be. Again, you just aren't required

to know anything specific about reality to have a religious belief. Religion isn't thought tobe anchored in reality but in second-hand, remote impressions of reality.

To understand reality, we're expected to turn to our culture's sciences rather than to the

Bible. Because human consciousness is at arm's length from what is real, it will be

impossible to live out our lives in an engaged, intellectually responsible way if we rely onreligion. So we're told, anyway. And this attitude has a profound effect on what is


13/18

considered acceptable as far as Genesis 1 goes. Obviously, we can't understand it in a

straightforward manner. That's so unrealistic!

We Christians should know better than to buy into this cultural deception. But I wondersometimes. Hence this digression from Genesis 1. Reality is not at the limit of atomistic

reduction of things. We don't find reality by smashing things into pieces until, at last, thepieces won't break anymore and then call that "reality". Nor do we find reality by flying offinto space to see what we look like from way out there.

It ought to be plain enough from reading Genesis that "reality" is what was made to be

viewed and experienced on the human scale and from within the human frame-of-reference.

God did not place our consciousness at the wrong scale or within the wrong perspective.What we know as "reality" is the venue God created for his own glory. That's not just some

sort of religious spin that we put on an otherwise inert, non-religious object called the

universe. The universe is actually a thing to display the glory of God. And because this isso we'll never find the bedrock of realitythat which is irreducibly realby scientific

inquiry. There isn't a more accurate scale on which we can perceive reality than the humanone. Nor is there a more accurate temporal or spatial frame-of-reference that what we find

ourselves in. For centerstage in the theater of reality is our Lord Jesus Christ.

This certainly does not mean that science says nothing about the universe. But a scientist

does not, by his work, get as close to reality as he would if he understood Scripture and

faithfully responded to God. The more he moves away from the human scale and the

human frame-of-reference, the more he moves into incomprehensibility. Over the yearssome amazingly ridiculous claims about reality have been made based on the apparent

behavior of subatomic particles. Again, the assumption being that this subatomic stuff gets

us to the real-ness behind the impressions of our scale of experience (our "reality"). But, infact, our culture isn't understanding reality better. Reality is becoming more and more

incomprehensible. And as the absurdities multiply, so does our confidence that we

understand more and more about the universe and the nature of reality!

It's awfully easy to lose sight of the centrality of Christ and the fit-ness of Scripture tosubstantively articulate reality. Our culture seems to have so much knowledge. And the

way that such knowledge is presented to us doesn't help any, either. For instance: from

millions of miles out in space, a camera was turned so that we could see what we look likefrom way out there. The earth looks like a bluish dot in a sea of darkness and stellar light.

And we were given expert commentary on what we were seeing. What we saw is powerful

evidence of our insignificance in the grand scheme of things. Just see for yourself. All ofwhich trivializes man and the events that have taken place on earth.

God's glory and our responsibility to appreciate that glory are trivialized by our culture.

Trivialized by requiring that we change the scale of our thinking and the perspective from

which we think about the earth and the events that have taken place here. We are expectedto see that praising God is but one of a number of possible responses of the otherwise non-

religious, objective events of reality.


14/18

We are supposed to realize that Biblical history even Jesus himselfis but a tiny element

of the history and composition of the universe as a whole. Our religion is just our spin onthat tiny part of the universe that happens to fall within our naive range of experience.

Salvation in Jesus Christ is but one of a myriad of issues and topics we could choose to

pursue. Glorifying God is not viewed as an intelligently engaged or enlightened response to

the real world. It is merely a personally meaningful way of ordering our very limited rangeof perceptions and experiences. So we're told.

Seeing the Bible as something capable of articulating reality is patronizingly deemed old

world naivete. This is because, of course, the Bible was generated on the human scale and

from within the human frame-of-reference. Its language is restricted to a narrow range ofexperience from within those dimensions. As our knowledge and awareness goes beyond

these primitive restrictions, we're better able to frame questions and concerns to fit our

more comprehensive grasp of reality. We can step back and appreciate the diversity ofperspectives from which to view the real world. (In my own denomination, there was an

officially sanctioned traveling sideshow designed to teach this very thing. It is so sad to see

Calvinists who once worked so hard to give our religion cultural expression now beingsatisfied in merely giving our culture religious expression).

God created this universe to serve his purpose. And he has chosen to speak to us on the

human scale and from within the human frame-of-reference. It is here at the center of things

that God revealed himself to us in his Son-revealing himself in a fullness and clarityunprecedented in all of the universe, at any possible scale or from within any possible

perspective. The earth isn't important because of where it is in the universe. But because

this is where Jesus came. The events of the Bible aren't important because of where theyfall in the line of history of the universe. But because those events have to do with Jesus.

The best place to begin understanding the real world is with the fear of the Lord and in

departing from evil. This is true for both the scientist and the carpet cleaner. What we

Christians are about has everything to do with reality. Not just some personally meaningful,fringe realities. But the very heart of reality itself.

You see, Genesis 1 is not a naively conceived account of things. There's no reason why it

would have been written differently if it were written today instead of in Moses' time. We

should not confuse our assessment of our cultural sophistication with the wisdom of God.And we ought not presume that God had to condescend to the ancients but not to us. As if

we have gotten beyond where they were so that we don't need to listen to what Moses says

in Genesis 1. We haven't. Maturity isn't measured by cultural technology. For we in westernculture are no more grown up than any son of Adam or daughter of Eve has ever been. The

'darkness' of an age is not determined by its religious devotion, but in what it does to either

acknowledge or to conceal reality. Reality that was created by God to glorify God.

The fact that God did not choose to send Jesus to the spatial center of the universe, or toreveal himself only to particle physicists does not make the history of redemption incidental

to reality. Nor does it make our interest in the things of God merely an arbitrary choice out

of a whole universe of possible interests. Our religion deals with what the Creator says isimportant and significant in the universe he made. If we look elsewhere, our grip on reality


15/18

will be compromised. The Holy Spirit, through Moses, wrote Genesis to introduce us to

God, the Maker of the real world. We ought not presume to rise above his condescension tous.

Resuming Moses' Narrative

Returning again to our reading then: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the

earth. Now the earth was barren and uninhabited, and darkness was over the surface of the

deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, 'Letthere be light', and there was light."

Okay, so where is this "light" that Moses is talking about here? Does his narrative take us to

the center of the universe? Are the several degrees of 'background' radiation that we detect

in space, the remnant of "Let there be light"? No, no, no. That's not it at all. Moses does notmention light in order to account for electromagnetic radiation. Nor does he care here

whether light is particle or wave. Light is mentioned because it makes it possible for the

reader to see. To see the glory of God. That is, light has a place in this narrative because itrelates to human beings and our necessary appreciation of God.

At this point in the narrative, you don't see the light so much as you see by means of the

light. When you turn a light on in your room, it is not so much the light itself that greets

your eyes. It is the objects in the room that are illuminated by the light that you see. It isn'tuntil the fourth day that there are any apparent sources of light to actually look at. But the

fact that vision is possible is important to Moses here. The stage is lit, so to speak.

Where is the "and there was light" taking place? Well, let me ask you this: where is the

darkness? Moses sets up his narrative by mentioning that "darkness was over the surface ofthe deep" because that is precisely where the light now is too. He goes on to say that the

light and darkness were not in the same place at the same time. I mean, there is a separation

between the two; between seeing and not being able to see.

The separation is not so much spatial as it is temporal. For God named the lightthe time

of seeing"day" (a temporal designation). And the darknessthe time you can't seehe

named "night". All of which leads to that familiar refrain, at the end of this same verse:

"And there was evening and there was morning, one day." This evening/morning phrasewill also serve to divide the several activities of God as Moses' narrative progresses.

"Evening" signals the end of the day (light), "morning" the end of the night (darkness).

Each of God's activities seem to take place in the day, rather than the night.

The sky is next. Perhaps "the waters" which are above the sky [the clouds?] blocked thesun, moon and stars from sight. I don't know. But, in any case, these upper "waters" sort of

just fade out of the narrative. The waters below the sky, however, will be the subject of

another "day". The sky itself will come to be a place to see birds, the sun, the moon and thestars. But not yet. For now, the sky keeps "the waters" at bay, separated from the waters

above. "And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."


16/18

Now come the landscape and the seas. The "waters" which were once separated like

curtains to reveal the sky are drawn back and gathered to let the land appear. And Godcauses plants and trees to grow up from the land. The end of the 'tohu' and 'bohu' is near for

the land is living. "And there was evening and there was morning, a third day."

At this point the sun, the moon and the stars become visible. Not all at once mind you. Thesun is seen in the day, the moon and stars at night. Moses probably doesn't mention these"great lights" until now (rather than when there was first light), simply because from the

terrestrial perspective of his narrative there was no place for them. He says that they

belonged in the sky, the place where we would see birds. And the sky was not, as such,

around until the second day. So he pretty much had to wait until at least the third day tomention them.

Question: Is Moses naive for not calling the sun a star? Would he have called the sun a star

if he'd written Genesis knowing what we know? No. It may serve a particular purpose tocall the sun a star. But to do so is not, ipso facto, a more accurate way of describing the sun.

From here on earth, the sun does not look or act like a star. It isn't even seen at the sametime as the stars. And there is nothing more real about adopting an out-in-space perspective

to talk about the sun. Similarly, it is not naive to speak of the moon as a "light", eventhough we know that it reflects light rather than generates it. It is a source of light, from a

terrestrial perspective. A more 'scientific' account would not be any more true to reality

than what Moses has written here. He is being consistent with the frame of reference of hisnarrative.

In the daytime, the source of the light of day 1 can be seen. Maybe the waters that were

above the sky only let light in without the sun actually being visible (as on an overcast,

cloudy day). l don't know. Moses did not bother to tell us everything that happened. Evenabout the making of the earth itself. He just starts out his narrative with the earth as given.

Other details that we might have included, were we writing Genesis 1, are also passed over.

I'm thinking of the heat of the sun and the tidal effects of the moon. Things like that. So it isnot far-fetched to imagine that he leaves out other details too, confining himself to details

relevant to his narrative. In this case, the appearance of light on day 1 and the appearance of

light-givers on day 4.

The idea that the sun was itself obscured by something like overcast skies on day 1, seemsmore fitting to Moses' narrative than other scenarios I've heard. Particularly so the view that

God created a sourceless light (a creation that would no longer be part of the heavens and

the earth). Oh not that God couldn't do that if he wanted to. But why would he? And whywould Moses tell us about a part of creation that was irrelevant to creation itself after the

fourth day? Not to mention using space in this brief narrative to mention something

irrelevant to Genesis 1 or any of his later narratives or to the rest of Scripture? There is no

reason to think that Moses conceived of a sourceless light in day 1.

Moses says that "God made the two great lights.... " But the sentence isn't finished (in case

you were thinking that the sun and moon didn't exist till now). "God made the two great

lights... to govern." Togovern the day and the night, that is. So the wording here isn't reallya problem. The sun, the moon and the stars are given dominion over the light and the


17/18

darkness. That is what they were made for. These lights would now be visible at their

appointed places and times, which is probably the substance of their dominion. I mean thattheir dominion would be tied up with their being seen rather than their assuming an active,

cognitive ruling of something. Again, in keeping with the visually oriented narrative of

Moses. "And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."

Birds and sea creatures are introduced onto this stage now. The 'tohu' and 'bohu' areaddressed yet again. The skies have life in them. And so do the waters that were once

barren and uninhabited. "And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day."

Next onto the scene are the land animals: "cattle and creeping things and beasts of the

earth". And then, in the completion of the counterpoint to the 'tohu' and 'bohu' man iscreated. Created and given dominion over life. [Which only makes more terrible the fact

that we chose death over life there in the garden and later spread it to the ends of the earth.

And isn't it something to marvel at that we who were children of death should now becharged with bringing the word of life to the ends of the earth?Matthew 28:18-20]. As

the image bearer of God, man is at once part of God's created venue or stage for his gloryand the audience to behold that displayed glory. Remember though that man is not the

central figure in Genesis 1. God is. This narrative isn't about the greatness or worth of man.The bearer of the image of God is given dominion over life. That is where man fits in here.

Moses is narrating the creation of the venue of God's glory. God saw that this venue did

what it was supposed to and was pleased with what he had done. "And there was eveningand there was morning, the sixth day."

Chapter 2, verse 1 brings us back to the beginning of Moses' narrative. The creating is

done. God created the heavens and the earth. But the narrative is fully completed only when

the Spirit that moved over the waters rests from all his work. "Then God blessed theseventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God created

and made." [That's the sabbath day to remember in order to keep it holy. For since Israel

did not enter it, it remains for some to enter it. There remains a sabbath rest for us! We havea stake in that rest of God that Moses talks about (Hebrews 4).]

Conclusion

This is Moses' narrative. It is not some sort of a naive, primitive myth that we must

condescend to. We are today in the same frame-of-reference that Moses was, way back

then. Moses (and through him, God) is talking to us as much as he was talking to the peopleof his day. And, contrary to many modern opinion makers, Moses is not merely anticipating

Paul's discussion in Romans 1 here.

He begins by declaring that God created the heavens and the earth. And that this creation isvenue for God's glory. This glory of God is most often conceived of in terms of our visual

sense. It is something we see. Moses' narrative here is therefore appropriately very visual in

style, not mythic. It has to do with the real world.

One day this venue, this "heavens and earth", will give way to a new venue, "a new heavensand a new earth" (Revelation 21). And just as we are suitably made for this one, so we will


18/18

be given new bodies suited to that one. That new venue will not be tohu and bohu. The

deep will be gone. And there will be no darkness, no time that we cannot see the glory ofGod, "for there shall be no night there". And life will be everywhere and always. And we

will enter God's rest. And God will be glorified there forever. Even so, Lord come quickly.

LIVRO DE GÊNESIS E A PALAVRA DIVINA

Documents

Transcript of LIVRO DE GÊNESIS E A PALAVRA DIVINA