The Lost World of Genesis One-Session 6 (b)

We are continuing to work through Dr. John Walton’s book on Genesis One. We have been looking at the individual days of creation. Last we talked about day six. We paused before completing the last section to pay particular attention on the creation of humanity. Let read that part of Genesis again before we proceed.

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate Proposition 7: Divine Rest Is in a Temple

Divine Rest Is in a Temple

English Standard Version Chapter 1

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

Read Genesis 1:26-27.

John Walton notes that...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.

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.

We have touched on this concept of imaging God before. So it bears fleshing out here. We tending to think of this Image of God in a very particular “modern” and in my view self-centered and egocentric point of view.

Dr. Mike Heiser in his book the unseen realm explains this in probably the best most simplest terms.

he writes.....

IMAGE OR IMAGER?

Chances are you’ve heard a sermon or two on the topic. I’m willing to bet that what you’ve heard is that the image of God is similar to something in this list:

• Intelligence

• Reasoning ability

• Emotions

• The ability to commune with God

• Self-awareness (sentience)

• Language/communication ability

• The presence of a soul or spirit (or both)

• The conscience

• Free will

All those things sound like possibilities, but they’re not. The image of God means none of those things. If it did, then Bible-believers ought to abandon the idea of the sanctity of human life in the womb. That assertion may jar you, but it’s quite evident once you really consider that list in light of how Scripture talks about the image of God.

Genesis teaches us several things about the image of God—what I call “divine image bearing.” All of what we learn from the text must be accounted for in any discussion of what the image means.

1. Both men and women are equally included.

2. Divine image bearing is what makes humankind distinct from the rest of earthly creation (i.e., plants and animals). The text of does not inform us that divine image bearing makes us distinct from heavenly beings, those sons of God who were already in existence at the time of creation. The plurals in mean that, in some way, we share something with them when it comes to bearing God’s image.

3. There is something about the image that makes humankind “like” God in some way.

4. There is nothing in the text to suggest that the image has been or can be bestowed incrementally or partially. You’re either created as God’s image bearer or you aren’t. One cannot speak of being partly or potentially bearing God’s image.

Among the list of proposed answers to what image bearing means are a number of abilities or properties: intelligence, reasoning ability, emotions, communing with God, self-awareness, language/communication ability, and free will. The problem with defining the image by any of these qualities is that, on one hand, nonhuman beings like animals possess some of these abilities, although not to the same extent as humans. If one animal anywhere, at any time, learned anything contrary to instinct, or communicated intelligently (to us or within species), or displayed an emotional response (again to us or other creatures), those items must be ruled out as image bearing. We know certain animals have these abilities because of carefully conducted research in the field of animal cognition. Artificial intelligence is on the verge of similar breakthroughs. And if intelligent extraterrestrial life is ever discovered, that would also undermine such definitions.

Defining image bearing as any ability is a flawed approach. This brings me back to my pro-life assertion. The pro-life position is based on the proposition that human life (and so, personhood) begins at conception (the point when the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm). The simple-celled zygote inside the woman’s womb, which pro-lifers believe to be a human person, is not self-aware; it has no intelligence, rational thought processes, or emotions; it cannot speak or communicate; it cannot commune with God or pray; and it cannot exercise its will or respond to the conscience. If you want to argue that those things are there potentially, then that means that you have only a potential person. That’s actually the pro-choice position. Potential personhood is not actual personhood. This thought process would mean that abortion is not killing until personhood is achieved, which nearly all pro-choicers would certainly consider to be after birth.

Even the soul idea fails the uniqueness and actuality tests. This notion derives from the traditional rendering of in the King James Version (“and the man became a living soul”). The Hebrew word translated “soul” is ......

nephesh

According to the Bible, animals also possess the nephesh. For example, in , when we read that God made swarms of “living creatures,” the Hebrew text underlying “creatures” is nephesh. tells us the “living nephesh” is in animals.

The term nephesh in these passages means conscious life or animate life (as opposed to something like plant life). Humans share a basic consciousness with certain animals, though the nature of that consciousness varies widely.

We also cannot appeal to a spirit being the meaning of image bearing. The word nephesh we just considered is used interchangeably with the Hebrew word for spirit.....

ruach

Examples include and . Both terms speak of an inner life where thinking, reason, and emotions occur, along with their use in activities like prayer and decision making. The point is that the Old Testament does not distinguish between soul and spirit. All these qualities associated with spirit require cognitive function, and so cannot be relevant until after brain formation (and use) in the fetus.

So how do we understand divine image bearing in a way that does not stumble over these issues and yet aligns with the description in Genesis? Hebrew grammar is the key. The turning point is the meaning of the preposition in with respect to the phrase

“in the image of God.”

In English we use the preposition in to denote many different ideas. That is, in doesn’t always mean the same thing when we use that word. For example, if I say, “put the dishes in the sink,” I am using the preposition to denote location. If I say, “I broke the mirror in pieces,” I am using in to denote the result of some action. If I say, “I work in education,” I am using the preposition to denote that I work as a teacher or principal, or in some other educational capacity.

This last example directs us to what the Hebrew preposition translated in means in . Humankind was created as God’s image. If we think of imaging as a verb or function, that translation makes sense. We are created to image God, to be his imagers. It is what we are by definition. The image is not an ability we have, but a status. We are God’s representatives on earth. To be human is to image God.

This is why is followed by what theologians call the “dominion mandate” in verse 28. The verse informs us that God intends us to be him on this planet. We are to create more imagers (“be fruitful and multiply … fill”) in order to oversee the earth by stewarding its resources and harnessing them for the benefit of all human imagers (“subdue … rule over”).[1]

Back to Walton.....

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 , and we will discuss that in a separate section at the end of this chapter.

Among all of the functional elements referred to in , 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 mentions none of the materials or material processes for human origins, appears to offer just such a description. Therefore we will step briefly out of our focus on 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 . 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 . An individual named Adam is not the only human being made of the dust of the earth, for as 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” (). 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.

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 (). 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.[2]

Up Next: Divine Rest Is in a Temple

Divine Rest Is in a Temple

Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (p. 71). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

[1] Heiser, M. S. (2015). The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (First Edition, pp. 40–43). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

[2] Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (pp. 67–70). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Related Media

Related Sermons