I will only point out that we do ourselves a great disservice when
we attempt to hide the fact, taught for years in seminaries, that
these stories, the creation stories (there are two) are ancient
Isreal's mythic explaination of the natural world around them. That
God figures clearly in them is testament to their faith, which I
follow, but with common sense.
PC
PC, I beg to differ. There is only one genesis story in Genesis.
Chapter 2 is a geneology story. It is the family history of one
particular lineage from which the Jewish people claim descent.
And while Chapter 1 certainly is mythic, it is also stunningly
accurate in the creation order that science would many generations
later discover and name evolution. How lucky, if not downright
ironic. tom in TN(USA)
PC
Never having been to seminary I have neither the benefit nor the
handicap of such instruction (you may choose which it is). To
describe this story as "myth" is interesting since the word "myth"
does not preclude its truth, but merely speaks of its supernatural
nature. In that sense, I agree.
tom in TN - I, in fact, see three accounts although, like you, I see
them as parallel. The first is Gen. 1:1. That's it. End of story.
The heavens and earth are created. The next account is 1:2 - 2:3.
This is the specific account of the creation of earth. Following,
2:3 - 11:32, is the specific account of the creation of man on the
earth. Following that, 12:1 - the rest of the Old Testament, deals
with God's dealings with one man, Abraham, and his descendants. As
the focus gets narrower, the accounts get longer. You can write a
paragraph about a lake, and a book on the contents of a single drop
of water.
I preached on this some time ago, and if I may, let me share these
thoughts on the lessons this passage teaches.
First, this passage teaches us that God is creator. Creation was not
"luck" or a "mistake" or a cosmic fluke, but it was with a plan. And
it was done with wisdom (see Proverbs 3:19-20). If God so wisely
created and now guides the universe, cannot His wisdom guide our
lives?
Secondly, man is a special creation. Notice, when God makes
something in this passage, it says, "Then (or And) God said, 'Let
there be...'" or something similar (let the earth, let the waters,
etc.) (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24). However, when God makes man, He
says "Let us make..." Here we see the relationship God wants to have
with man. Man is made differently from the rest of creation; man is
made for relationship with the Creator.
Finally, this story points us to Christ (John 1:1-5; Colossians
1:16; Hebrews 1:2) in whom man can ultimately attain that
relationship with God.
Hope this helps.
JG in WI
JG in WI, Thanks for pointing out that difference between "Let there
be..." and "Let Us make..." I can't beleive I never noticed that.
The rest of it may have been sub-contracted out, God giving the plan
and parameters, but when it came to us God said "I'll do it
ourselves." We're a hands-on project, God's "signature piece". Back
in the Renaissance, master painters might do only two or three key
elements of a large painting, leaving the rest to apprentices,
though the master would direct and correct until their work fit his
vision. In the end the whole would bear his signature but careful
study will show more deft brushwork or subtlety of color or purity
of form in the primary subject. God caused to be created a beautiful
background and setting in which the Masters own hands created the
divine self-portrait, made "in our own image."
That's neat to think about. Thanks. tom in TN(USA)
This being Trinity Sunday and memorial Day Sunday. People will be
remembering there passing relatives... Decoration Day appalachian
people call it. This Scripture seems appropriate to the occasion.
Now, that we have done the Advent-Lenten-Easter-Ascension-Pentecost
(the major seasons of the Church) Trinity Sunday is the last Sunday
for a while to change altar clothes--then we celebrate "ordinary
time" Ordinary Time- could bring out the 7th day imaging here... God
rested...we wait...for the next step... As I was reflecting on
that...I thought, hmmmm biblical Prophecy right here and it connects
with Revelation... 1 day is like 1000 years to God, right. well God
Rested 1000 years let His Creation Flourish Then the serpent
enters...near end of 1000 or right after? See this Reveltion
correllation... At the End of the 1000 year reign, serpent loosed
for a short time to test those who never knew tribulation....trial
or refining... God Allowed the serpent in both places...Why? Because
Mankind had to be tried, refined...to see if would remain true to
Lord. Just some wonderings here... Ladypreacher on OHIO
Mythic stories usually answer questions. The creation story is not
for answering when and how God created the world. IT IS great for
dealing with the question" why? Especially since after each phase of
the creation, God looks at it and says "that is good". Why is there
land? Why is there light? Why is there mankind? What is the purpose?
What is its value? These are great questions for graduation day and
for memorial day! Manzel
My hope with this week's reading is to concentrate on 1:31-2:4 - the
importance of Sabbath. Memorial Day weekend around here always
indicates the unofficial start of summer. We used to talk about the
lazy, hazy days of summer. "Summertime and the living is easy" HA!
Summer winds up being as busy as any other time of the year. WE NEED
TO SLOW DOWN and enjoy the creation. Psalm 8 plays right into this
because it is a contemplative psalm about the wonder of creation and
our relationship to the creator. Reverend KJ
A caveat, coming from my own experience. Be judicious in your use of
the literary term "myth." I got into a sticky situation once when it
got around that "Preacher says creation is a myth." (and, I swear
I'm not making this up - there are people who have told me that the
devil put the dinosaur bones in the ground to trick us into thinking
up evolution). Regardless of how creation came, Scripture is clear
tht it came about by God's very hand.
For inspiration, listen to Handel's "The Creation." (I can't think
of a specific recording to recommend, but I suggest a large chorus).
It's an easy work, so most choirs would do a fair-to-middlin' job
with it. When the firmament is displayed, it's chorally awesome.
Sally in GA
OK - one more post, and then I've really gotta go!
Something jogged my thought-processes to "The Giving Tree" by Shel
Silverstein. An initial reading reveals a touching story of a tree
that keeps on giving throughout a boy's life, even to the point of
letting the boy cut it down to shelter him. The darker side of that
is that it's a story about a selfish, disrespectful individual who
takes and takes from the tree while giving almost nothing in return.
Do we treat God's creation that way: take and take and give little
back, other than a recycled newspaper or two? And that's to say
nothing about our "take - take - take" relationship with God. I'll
take the salvation but not what comes with it, but thanks for the
offer! To incorporate the Gospel lesson, With discipleship comes a
commission and a command to obey Jesus' commandments (but I thought
he only gave one).
Sally in GA
Sally, I've heard the piece about the dinosaur bones, too. Wow!
MTSOfan
Sally in GA, I never thought of using "The Giving Tree" in that way.
Actually, I may change my order some. Perhaps, and I am thinking on
my keyboard here, I will read the scriptures, then read the story to
the children and take off on the sermon from the backside of "The
Giving Tree." Hmmm! lp in CO
If you've done the stewardship program called "Steward," (Abingdon
Press), chapter two of the participants' book has some stuff that
may be helpful. Also, on the video tape, the Native American story
of how the Turtle Clan got its name is a great way to illustrate the
interdependence of humanity and the rest of creation. I'm planning
to show the Turtle Clan story during our contemporary service.
MTSOfan
To JG in WI and anyone else. Biblical scholarship doesn't always
translate into preaching very well, however, some material is just
helpful as back ground.
(Anchor Bible commentary on Genesis)E. A. Speiser believes that the
first creation account goes back to the Mesopotamian material.
Mesopotamian verson of the origins of the earth is found in the
Enuma eliš "When on High" . The details correspond to the Genesis
account, the order of events is the same. Heidel gives the following
correspondances:
Enuma eliš 1. Divine spirit and cosmic matter are c coexistant and
coeternal 2. Primeval chaos; Ti'amat enveloped in darkness 3. Light
emanating from the gods 4. The creation of the firmament 5. The
creation of the dry land 6. The creation of the luminaries 7. The
creation of man 8. The gods rest and celebrate Genesis 1. Divine
spirit creates cosmic matter and exists independently of it 2. The
earth is desolate waste(tohuw bohuw), with darkness covering the
deep (tehom) 3. Light created 4. The creation of the firmament 5.
The creation of the dry land 6. The creation of the luminaries 7.
The creation of man 8. God rests and sanctifies the seventh day
The Babylonian accounts predate the Biblical account. The Babylonian
creation story features a succession of various rival deities. The
Biblical verson is dominated by the monotheistic concept of God in
the absolute sense of the term.
Most scholars who accept higher criticism agree that this first
account comes from the Priestly source. The Priestly writers intent
was to form a Creed which stated that God (Elohim) not the
Babylonian gods created the heavens and the earth. The point is not
whether this account of creation conforms to the scientific data of
today, but what it meant to, and how it was arrived at by, the
writer. (my footnote numbers disappeared!) Speiser, E.A., Genesis,
The Anchor Bible Doubleday & Co., Inc., Garden City, NY, 1964 p.
8-11 Pritchard, J. B. , editor, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating
to the Old Testament, 2nd edition, 1955, p. 60-72 Heidel, The
Babylonian Genesis, p. 129 Spieser, p. 9
Sue in Cuba, KS
My commentary (Brueggemann) states that this text is not history or
myth but poetry and proclamation. This is God's people's
understanding of the way God is in relation to her creation. This
understanding is the basis of a faith in a grace-filled God of
blessing and this understanding shapes our reality and our response
to God's creation. Too bad so few understand Genesis in this way.
Nina in the North
Nina, It is absolutely absurd to try to change God into “she”
especially during the week we try to speak about Trinitarian
theology. In relation to humanity, God has chosen to be identified
as “Father.” The Incarnation is contingent on God being “Father”.
Jesus is God and Jesus is human. Therefore in the relationship with
God and humans, God assumes and relates in the masculine role. Mary
(humanity) is mother. Jesus is Son.
Lead God’s people not into heresy. Goddess worship is simply
unbiblical.
To the poster who mentioned Goddess worship as heresy:
God is neither male nor female. I prefer to use no pronouns at all
for God, for God is more than male and more than female. (More even
than male and female together.) The Father language for God is good
for personifying the loving relationship God wishes to have with us,
but does not make God male. Neither does God's nurturing aspect and
the image of the mother hen make God female.
We baptize in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit, but please, let us not fall to the heresy of limiting
God to maleness, or femaleness, or even human-ness.
I once had to challenge a woman who wanted her "daughters to grow up
knowing that God is a woman." (her words) In my understanding, this
is double heresy, because it recognizes the error in limiting God by
saying "God is a man," and then states the same error by saying "God
is a woman."
Jesus was male. He had to be one or the other. But God is not
limited to maleness or femaleness.
I choose to interpret Nina's post as a corrective against the
falsities of seeing God as merely male, and not as a proclamation
that God is female. Nina may correct me if I am wrong.
Forgive the ramblings. I probably could have said this with fewer
words, or I may need more to defend myself later, but here it is.
Michelle
If anyone can get ahold of Walter Wink's discussion about the
Babylonian creation myth (the Imega Esish--I'm sure I'm spelling it
wrong), it would work well in a sermon on this text. In short, the
Imega Elish talks about the cosmos being created through war and
murder among the gods. The creation story (stories) was written in
response to it. Dr. Wink' work on this might apply to the story in
Genesis 2, but I'm fudging and applying it to chapter 1.
His treatment on that is probably found in one of his books in the
"Powers" trilogy. I heard it in a lecture and was lucky enough to
buy a recording.
With all the violence and chaos in the world today, we need to
remember that we were created not by violence, but by breath and
divine energy, and called "good" by our Creator. That goes well with
Peace with Justice Sunday. Not sure about Memorial Day. Death
redeemed?
sybil in KS (which might end up in NC if the wind keeps blowing like
it is!!!!)
Sybil in KS--This is irrelevant, but wanted you to know I laughed
out loud about your wind comment. I live in MO, and KS always sends
us the wind. I'll take it it's on its way. Maybe we can hit the
Carolinas for a vacation. RevSteph:)
Thanks to you all for your insightful and helpful comments on this
text. Thanks especially to Michelle for your helpful and loving
comments about our 'naming' of God. On that same note, i have
noticed in the past and this week that some of y'all are using the
term 'man' or 'mankind' to refer to the whole of humanity. While i
understand these terms are a part of our linguistic tradition, i
find that in the year 2002 they are outdated, unhelpful, and reflect
a particularly paternalistic understanding of humanity. i have found
that in my congregation, as i have modelled the use of 'humankind'
and 'humanity', the women in particular have felt more empowered and
valued, and we have all been given the opportunity to honor the
fullness of our createdness as human beings. Just a friendly
suggestion to begin using 'human' language, instead of 'man'
language. Blessings on the writing of your sermons... Lisl-young
woman pastor in rural IL
Lisl
And I have found many men emasculated by overemphasis on making sure
we never use the term "man". Let's give our gender-sensitivity a
rest and realize that very few people are purposely trying to keep
anyone down.
Self-censorship is still censorship.
PaxChristi
Michelle -Thanks for your comments and interpretation - I never
intended to start a debate on God's gender but used "she" as an
alternative to all the male language. Generally I keep it neutral or
use he/she occassionally. I use humanity instead of mankind and no
one even notices or takes offense. Nina in the North
One poster writes that we cannot "limit God" and that is very
correct.
God is truly beyond our knowledge in any comprehensible way. In
fact, God is so "all in all" that he has to limited himself, even in
order to create. There would be no individuality is God were to be
without limits. God's presence and being would overwhelm everything.
Creation is the first self-sacrifice of God.
God further limits himself in choosing to be in relationship with
humanity. He reveals himself as Father- Jesus's father and "Our
Father..."
He does not give us permission to define or reshape him, he defines
and reshapes us.
In the name of the Father, Son (+), and Holy Spirit. Amen
How and why did a discussion of the relatively gender-neutral
creation account of Gen. 1 (save for the pronouns used for God)
devolve into a fruitless debate about he-she language for the
Creator?
Just wondering ...
Blessings, Eric in KS
I want ot thank PC (the first entry) for pointing out the obvious.
It's easy to argue creationism, get drawn into inclusive language
debate, etc. But what was important in Gen 1 and 2, what was
important to Gideon, what was important to Bartimaeus, is that God
was there. What's important to the widow of the veteran, what's
important to the parent whose children are growing up in these times
of terror, is that God is here. Always was, always will be. Thanks
PC Craig in Miami. (Where we know about strong winds too!)
Lisl, Your post states, "i have found that in my congregation, as i
have modelled the use of 'humankind' and 'humanity', the women in
particular have felt more empowered and valued, and we have all been
given the opportunity to honor the fullness of our createdness as
human beings."
I think you sell yourself short, my younger sister. If the women of
your congregation have felt empowered, it is most likely your
empowered and empowering presence as an example, rather than your
language, that has done it.
You say 'man' and 'mankind' reflect a paternalistic view of society.
Yes, but only a dim reflection, or a distant echo. That dimness and
distance are due not to folks deciding to change their jargon, but
to many women (and some men too) speaking out, lifting up 'women's
suffrage' and tearing down 'glass ceilings'. C.E.O.s won't bat an
eye at passing a memo along encouraging 'inclusive' language in
company reports. But ask them to give the "little ladies" a raise,
and you'll have a fight on your hands. This is the part that takes
work. Changes in common language usage usually follow rather than
precede social changes. "Humankind' is being used more and noting it
is worthwhile, but do not assume those who haven't yet changed their
jargon don't already have new hearts. I started to say at the top,
"I'll bet you the women feel empowered...". I don't bet. I am
fighting against the insidious lottery being foisted upon my state.
But I do still say sometimes, "I bet...". I don't worry too much
that anybody takes that as support of gambling.
Here's another thought. You say rightly that 'man' and 'mankind' are
linguistically correct; scientifically correct too, for identifying
our species. In fact, I checked the dictionary and found that 'man'
and 'human' define each other. In other words, look up 'man' and the
first definition is 'human'; and vice versa. Here's an interesting
note, though. Etymologically, they come from different roots.
'Human' we are told, comes from a Latin root 'homo', and relates to
humus, the ground, or dirt. 'Man' comes from Old English and several
N. European languages and relates to 'manas', the mind, and means to
think. Human points to the fact that we used to be dirt. Genesis,
chapter 2 concurs. Man points to the fact we have been gifted with
the capacity for thought, sapience. We are Homo Sapiens, thinking
dirt people. What quality will we focus on? Shall we constantly
remind folks they are dirt? Does not 'human' hold down whereas 'man'
lifts up? Have I not gone on long enough? I have! (This was typed
smiling, not sulking. Hope that comes through. I'm more with than
against you, sister. Keep up the good work. May God, who exceeds all
labels, bless your ministry.) tom in TN(USA)
Lots of interesting stuff here, after I posted the first post. God
Sent me exploring...other Creation stories..Judea-Christian of
course-ours...Native American, Hopi and Spider woman (which by the
way there is 3 floods in theirs) and of Course Sumerian-Bablyonian
Gilgamesh Epic...Plus , the Chinese one too... Every Religion has
their own origin story... Which means all people acknowledge a
'creation' of sorts... One interesting thing about our creation
story, the flood---I discovered by reading recently Noah's flood was
not only flood... hmmm...Between verese 1 and 2 of Genesis-
Lucifer's fall anf flood there, Some of my good Christian
evangelical conservative people-have studied on this in the past
long before I got here, LOL They have no problem believing dinosaurs
existed...correllate that with Lucifer's Flood... However, if some
of your southern Bible Belt people do watch TBN on Monday nights
they have a creationist scientist on there, he can show Dinosaurs on
the ARK... He says Dinosaurs were all vegetarians in EDEN , even T
rex... just a thought for you to share with your conservative
congregations who like TBN and Jan and Paul Crouch etc.... I am
using this passage this sunday coupled with corinthians to end
with.... My emphasis, yes Creation happen, but Man messed up... so
intervention time...God was always there...even the period of
apparent silence until John the Baptist... I am new preacher, so
still learning, but I bet God really did talk to a few in that
period of silence??? Any know there...But because of the Death and
ressurection of Christ and His giving us a comforter...we can be a
new creation...transformed for God's glory.... I like corinthians
closing...I think of the show "the judge' about family court... He
always ended with be good to each other.... I think I will end that
way! BE GOOD TO EACH OTHER Ladypreacher in OHIO
