The Lost World of Genesis One (24 page)

If we have to be reminded or coerced to observe it, it ceases to
serve its function. Sabbath isn't the sort of thing that should have
to be regulated by rules. It is the way that we acknowledge that
God is on the throne, that this world is his world, that our time is
his gift to us. It is "big picture time." And the big picture is not
me, my family, my country, my world, or even the history of my
world. The big picture is God. If the sabbath has its total focus in
recognition of God, it would detract considerably if he had to tell
us what to do. Be creative! Do whatever will reflect your love, appreciation, respect and awe of the God of all the cosmos. (This is
the thrust of Is 58:13-14.) Worship is a great idea, but it can't be
mechanical, and it may only be the beginning. It is up to the individual to determine his or her personal response to give the honor
that is due. The more gratitude we feel toward God and the more
we desire to honor him, the more the ceremonies will mean and
the more we will seek out ways to observe the sabbath. All of this
derives from a renewed understanding of the sabbath that proceeds from our interpretation of Genesis 1.

ORDER

Any reader of the Bible can see that wisdom is a worthy pursuit
and that as an attribute of God he grants it to humans who, being
in his image, are able to achieve it to some degree. What is less
transparent, and often the topic of discussion, is exactly what constitutes wisdom. A theory I find very attractive for the way it suits
the wide variety of data is that wisdom entails finding inherent
order and conforming oneself to that order. One understands authority, society, family, relationships, ethics and etiquette all in
relationship to an understanding of order.

Interpreters of Wisdom literature have consistently noticed
how prominent a topic creation is in that literature. The connection of wisdom with order offers an explanation for that prominence. God's creative work has established order in the cosmos
just as he has established order in society and all other areas. Science has observed that order and given us an appreciation of how
deeply order penetrates.

In the interpretation of Genesis 1 that has been proposed here,
we understand that one of the main emphases of the account of
creation is the order that God brings to the cosmos in his wisdom.
The temple was seen as being at the center of the ordered world
as God established and preserved order in the world from the
temple.

When we are troubled by the disorder that we encounter in this
world, it is important to understand that the disorder and brokenness of this world are the result of human sin and the Fall. The
theological commitment we draw from Genesis 1 is that God is
the author of order. We respond by understanding how he has
ordered the world: materially, functionally and spiritually.

HUMAN ROLE

The description of humankind and the statement of blessing in Genesis 1 can now be understood perhaps a little more clearly as
related to human functions. When God grants the privilege that
people may be fruitful and multiply, he gives us the function of
populating the world without limitation. When God creates people in his image it indicates, perhaps among other things, that we
are to function as his stewards over creation. When God gives the
mandate to subdue and rule, he is assigning a task and providing
the wherewithal to accomplish that task. Through Genesis 1 we
come to understand that God has given us a privileged role in the
functioning of his cosmic temple. He has tailored the world to our
needs, not to his (for he has no needs). It is his place, but it is designed for us and we are in relationship with him.

This view is different from both the ancient Near East and different from modern materialism. In the ancient Near East people
were created as slaves to the gods. The world was created by the
gods for the gods, and people met the needs of the gods. In the
Bible God has no needs, and his cosmic temple has been created
for people whom he desires to be in relationship with him. In
modern materialism people are nothing but physical forms having
no function other than to survive. The theology of Genesis 1 is
crucial to a right understanding of our identity and our place in
the world.

THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF "IT WAS GOOD"

Finally, interpreters have often offered a variety of opinions of the
meaning of the repeated statement in Genesis 1 that "it was good."
Some have drawn far-reaching implications from their interpretation. We have already discussed in chapter four the idea that
"good" is a reference to being functional, not a matter of moral
goodness. This is an important distinction because it does not
suggest that we ought to look for moral goodness in the way that
the cosmos operates. When we think of "good" in connection to being functional rather than moral, we don't have to explain how
predation can be part of a morally good world. As God indicated
to Job, even though the world is God's place and functions under
his control, that does not mean that the cosmos is a reflection of
God's attributes (Job 38). The cosmos declares God's glory, and
his existence can be deduced in the observation of the world, but
those truths do not indicate that his attributes are consistently
worked out in what we call the "natural world." Gravity is not just;
rain falls on the righteous and unrighteous alike , even where no
one lives (Job 38:25-27); the created world is not "fair." If it were
going to be consistently fair and just, there would be no room for
sin at all. Given that it is a sinful world, God's condescending
grace reigns.

The theological issues presented in this list should be recognized as mirroring the theological interests about creation found
in the rest of the Bible. As the reader of the Bible looks through
Psalms, Wisdom literature, prophets and on into the New Testament, one finds these same sorts of theological affirmations to be
the focus. The Bible gives little attention to material origins,
though of course God did that too. Consequently even if the
reader is not inclined to adopt the proposed interpretation of
Genesis 1, his or her theology could still be greatly enhanced by
the observations offered here by embracing a renewed and informed commitment to God's intimate involvement in the operation of the cosmos from its incipience and into eternity. We all
need to strengthen our theology of creation and Creator whatever our view of the Genesis account of origins. Even though it is
natural for us to defend our exegesis, it is arguably even more
important to defend our theology. I have attempted to demonstrate that exegesis of the original meaning of Genesis 1 gives us
no cause to argue with the idea of the physical world coming
about by a slow process. But we do need to defend at all costs an accurate view of the nature of God and his role in our world.

So what affirmations does the proposed interpretation of Genesis 1 expect of us?

1. The world operates by Yahweh's design and under his supervision to accomplish his purposes.

2. The cosmos is his temple.

3. Everything in the cosmos was given its role and function by
God.

4. Everything in the cosmos functions on behalf of people who
are in his image.

ON THE BASIS OF THE VIEW THAT Genesis 1 is a discussion of
functional origins, we may now tackle the question of what is
appropriate in the classroom. If a science course intends to discuss material origins from the perspective of a material ontology
(which is essential to the nature of empirical science), there is no
point at which the Genesis account becomes relevant, because
Genesis does not concern material origins and does not have a
material ontology. A significant point of disagreement, however,
does exist between the Bible and the metaphysical assumptions
that may at times accompany the teaching of evolutionary theory.
This conflict arises from the metaphysical issue of purpose (teleology). Framing the issue this way moves the discussion from the
sphere of theology to the larger metaphysical sphere and asks:
Are origins teleological (having a purpose and a goal) or dysteleological (no purpose, no goal)?

Those who accept the Bible by faith accept also by faith a teleological view of origins. Empirical science' is not designed to be
able to define purpose, though it may theoretically be able to de duce rationally that purpose is logically the best explanation. As
the result of an empirical discipline, biological evolution can acknowledge no purpose, but likewise it cannot contend that there
is no purpose-it must remain teleologically neutral. In this book
I have proposed that Genesis 1 presents an account of functional
origins and therefore that it offers no descriptive mechanism for
material origins. If this is so, one could accept biological evolution
as providing a descriptive mechanism putatively describing how
God carried out his purposes. Perhaps this approach could be labeled teleological evolution. In terms of cosmic origins, biblical theology is compatible with a descriptive mechanism such as that
provided by biological evolution offered in terms that leave aside
questions concerning purpose (i.e., teleologically neutral). But
biblical theology is irreconcilable with metaphysical naturalism2
to the extent that the latter is committed to refusing any consideration of purpose (dysteleological). This bone of contention concerns
metaphysics, not empirical science.

I have proposed here that Genesis is not metaphysically neutral-it mandates an affirmation of purpose, but it leaves the
descriptive mechanism for material origins undetermined. Teleological affirmation (there is a purpose and God is carrying it
out in his work of creation) in one's belief assures a proper role
for God regardless of the descriptive mechanism identified for
material origins. This view of Genesis can be compared to other
theoretical approaches as follows:

Creationism, particularly young earth creationism, differs from
the view proposed in this book by insisting that the Bible does offer a descriptive mechanism for material origins in Genesis 1, and
therefore is both teleological and intrinsically opposed to the descriptive mechanism offered by biological evolution. We have
suggested that this perspective does not represent an accurate
contextual reading of Genesis.