The Lost World of Genesis One (11 page)

Similar interests and perspectives are attested throughout the ancient Near East.

Moving through day four, we should pause here a moment to
comment on another verb associated with creative activity, asa.
This verb had been used in verse 7 ("God made the expanse"), and
it is used again in day four, verse 16 ("God made two great lights").
It will be used again in day six for both animals (v. 25) and people
(v. 26). It also shows up in some of the summary statements (Gen
2:2-4, variably as "made" or "done") and in Exodus 20:11 as a summary statement of the work of the seven days. While some may
insist that this verb, at least, expresses a material perspective, we
must be careful before jumping to such a conclusion. Any Hebrew
lexicon will indicate that this verb covers the whole range, not only
of "making" but also of "doing." Even in the summary statements
in Genesis 2:2-4 the verb covers all the activities of the seven days,
many of which clearly involve only doing, not making. It is true
that this verb can be used for a material process, but it does not
inherently refer to a material process. In Exodus 20, the discussion
of the sabbath uses the same verb across verses 9-11. The phrases
show a pattern: "In six days you shall do all your work ... on the
seventh ... you shall not do any work ... for in six days the Lord
did the heavens and the earth [his work]." What does doing his
work entail? If creation is his work, and creation is function oriented, then doing his work was accomplished by establishing functions.' This coincides with Genesis 2:2, which reports that God
finished all the work he had been doing and rested from all the
work of creating that he had done-all using the same verb.

On day four, God began with a decree (v. 14) that identified the functions of these celestial functionaries. Unlike the situation
in the rest of the ancient Near East, these functionaries are nonpersonal entities. The text at least tacitly makes this point by referring to them as "lights" rather than by their names which coincided
with the names of deities in the rest of the ancient Near East.
Then he did the work so that they would govern as intended (v 16).
And finally he appointed them to their stations (v. 17). The conclusion is the familiar, "It was good" which, as we discussed last
chapter, indicates that they are all prepared to function for the human beings that are soon going to be installed in their place.

DAY FIVE

In contrast to day four, where the functionaries were helping to
accomplish the functions associated with the sphere which they
inhabited, in day five the functionaries simply carry out their own
functions in the cosmic space that they inhabit. The text addresses
what they do (teem, fly) rather than the role they serve. But in the
blessing God also gives them a function: to be fruitful and multiply. God created them capable of doing so, and it is their function
to fill their respective realms.

Of particular interest is the specific attention paid to the "great
creatures of the sea" in verse 21. Here the author returns to the
verb he has not used since verse 1, bara , and which will only be
used again in this chapter in verse 27. This use raises the significance of these creatures. In the ancient world the cosmic seas were
populated with creatures that operated against the ordered system. Whether antithesis or enemy, they were viewed as threats to
order, as they inhabited the region that was itself outside of the
ordered system. This is the very reason why the author of Genesis
would single them out for comment. Since there is no cosmic warfare or conquest in Genesis as is sometimes part of the ancient
Near Eastern picture, the text indicates that these creatures are simply part of the ordered system, not enemies that had to be
defeated and kept in check. In Genesis these creatures are fully
under God's control.

DAY Six

As with the creatures inhabiting cosmic space in day five, the animals inhabiting terrestrial space in day six are not functionaries
that carry out the functions indicated in day three. Instead they
carry out their own functions in that space. The text indicates
their functions relative to their kind rather than functions relative
to other inhabitants. They are viewed in their categories, and they
reproduce after their own kind as part of the blessing of God.
Their function is to reproduce and to fill the earth-this is what
God made them to do. It is the wonder of creation that new generations of the same kinds of creatures are born from parent creatures. This is the same sort of marvel as the system that allows the
plants to grow from seed.

One of the more intriguing elements in these verses is the subject and verb in verse 24 ("Let the land produce living creatures").
This is clearly not a scientific mode of expression, and the interpreter should not attempt to read in it scientific concepts. What
would it refer to in an ancient Near Eastern context? As already
mentioned, ancient Near Eastern texts do not often speak of the
creation of animals, and when they do, it is generally a brief comment in passing. The closest statement to this one in Genesis
comes from a work entitled The Exploits of Ninurta:

Let its meadows produce herbs for you. Let its slopes produce honey and wine for you. Let its hillsides grow cedars,
cypress, juniper and box for you. Let it make abundant for
you ripe fruits, as a garden. Let the mountain supply you
richly with divine perfumes.... Let the mountains make wild animals teem for you. Let the mountain increase the
fecundity of quadrupeds for you.4

The role of the land or the mountains in producing animals
does not give us material information as if this were some sort of
spontaneous regeneration or a subtle indication of an evolutionary
process. Rather the land and mountain are locations of origin.
This is where animal life comes from, not what it is produced from.
It is similar to a child today asking where babies come from.
Rather than needing a description of sperm and egg in fertilization and conception, the child only needs to be told that babies
come from hospitals or from their mothers.

HUMANITY

The difference when we get to the creation of people is that even
as they function to populate the world (like fish, birds and animals), they also have a function relative to the rest of God's creatures, to subdue and rule. Not only that, but they have a function
relative to God as they are in his image. They also have a function
relative to each other as they are designated male and female. All
of these show the functional orientation with no reference to the
material at all. It could be claimed that the material aspect is
picked up in Genesis 2, and we will discuss that in a separate section at the end of this chapter.

Among all of the functional elements referred to in Genesis
1:26-30, the image of God is the most important and is the focus
of the section. All of the rest of creation functions in relationship
to humankind, and humankind serves the rest of creation as God's
vice regent. Among the many things that the image of God may
signify and imply, one of them, and probably the main one, is that
people are delegated a godlike role (function) in the world where
he places them.

It has already been mentioned that whereas in the rest of the
ancient world creation was set up to serve the gods, a theocentric
view, in Genesis, creation is not set up for the benefit of God but
for the benefit of humanity-an anthropocentric view. Thus we
can say that humanity is the climax of the creation account. Another contrast between Genesis and the rest of the ancient Near
East is that in the ancient Near East people are created to serve
the gods by supplying their needs. That is, the role of people is to
bring all of creation to deity-the focus is from inside creation out
to the gods. In Genesis people represent God to the rest of creation. So the focus moves from the divine realm, through people,
to the world around them. It would be like the difference between
the employees in the plant who serve the company in the manufacturing process (like people in the ancient Near East) and the
employees engaged in sales and marketing who represent the
company to the outside world (like people in Genesis).

MATERIALS FOR HUMANITY

Even though Genesis 1 mentions none of the materials or material processes for human origins, Genesis 2 appears to offer just
such a description. Therefore we will step briefly out of our focus
on Genesis 1 to address this issue.

Ancient Near Eastern texts contain numerous references to humans being created out of a variety of materials, and we find a
great deal of continuity between those reports and the biblical
text. This again tells us that Genesis is working within the normal conceptual framework of the ancient Near East rather than
forging new scientific trails.

The materials or ingredients that are attested in the ancient
Near East are tears of a god (Egypt), blood of a god (Atrahasis),
and the most common, clay (both Egypt and Mesopotamia).
These ingredients are offered as common to all of humanity since the ancient Near Eastern texts only deal with the mass of humanity being created rather than an individual or a couple as in Genesis. This is an important difference as Adam and Eve are treated
as individuals in chapters 4 and 5. This individual identity, however, does not change the significance of the reference to the materials in Genesis 2. The fact that the ancient Near East uses the
same sorts of materials to describe all of humanity indicates that
the materials have archetypal significance. Unlike a prototype
(which is an original item that serves as a model for later production), an archetype serves as a representative for all others in the
class and defines the class. So when the ancient Near Eastern
texts speak of people being created from clay or the blood of a
slain deity, they are not talking about just one individual, but are
addressing the nature of all humanity.

This archetypal understanding applies also to Genesis 2. An
individual named Adam is not the only human being made of the
dust of the earth, for as Genesis 3:19 indicates, "Dust you are and
to dust you will return." This is true of all humans, men and
women. It is an archetypal feature that describes us all. It is not
a statement of chemical composition nor is it describing a material process by which each and every human being is made. The
dust is an archetypal feature and therefore cannot be viewed as a
material ingredient. It is indicative of human destiny and mortality, and therefore is a functional comment, not a material one.

The situation is no different with the creation of woman. Being drawn from the side of man has an archetypal significance,
not an anatomical one. This is the very aspect that the text draws
out when it identifies the significance of the detail: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
wife, and they will become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). This is true of
all mankind and all womankind. Womankind is archetypally
made from the side of mankind. Again we can see that this is a functional discussion, not a material one. After chapter five of
Genesis, Adam and Eve are never again mentioned in the Old
Testament except in the opening genealogy in Chronicles. In the
New Testament, the authors regularly treat Adam and Eve in
archetypal terms.5

Given these observations, we might conclude that Genesis does
not have the same level of interest in the material origins of the
first humans as we do. It focuses its attention on the archetypal
origins of humanity, mankind and womankind. This interest is
part of functional origins. Humankind is connected to the ground
from which we are drawn. Womankind is connected to mankind
from whom she is drawn. In both male and female forms, humankind is connected to God in whose image all are made. As such
they have the privilege of procreation, the role of subduing and
ruling, and a status in the garden serving sacred space (Gen 2:15).
All of these, even the last, were designed to be true of all human beings. Neither the materials nor the roles are descriptive
only of the first individuals. This creation account gives people
their identity and specifies their connectivity to everything
around them.

SUMMARY

In days four to six the functionaries of the cosmos are installed in
their appropriate positions and given their appropriate roles. Using the company analogy, they are assigned their offices (cubicles),
told to whom they will report, and thus given an idea of their
place in the company. Their workday is determined by the clock,
and they are expected to be productive. Foremen have been put in
place, and the plant is now ready for operation. But before the
company is ready to operate, the owner is going to arrive and move
into his office.