In the Creation story, God said, "Let there be light," on day 1. What light is God referring? The sun, moon and stars weren't created until the 4th day and since God is light and he isn't created, what is Scripture saying?
Johnny Cisneros reply:
You’re right. In summary, God himself is the source of the light, but not in the sense that he’s created himself. One commentator writes, “The source of creation’s first “light” is not specifically stated. Since it is not tied to a luminating body such as the sun (vv. 15–16), the text implies that the “light” has its source in God himself. This is the thought of the poet who depicts the Creator wrapped in light as a garment (Ps 104:2) and the light witnessed by the prophet at the epiphany of the Lord (Hab 3:3b–4). The prophets and apocalyptists attributed to the coming “day of the Lord” terrestrial and cosmic transformations when the eschatological light will have its source in the Lord, not in the sun or moon. Like the luminous cloud of God, witnessed by Israel in the wilderness and in the tabernacle (cf. Exod 24:15–18 w/40:38), this primal light indicated the divine presence” ...
And,
“The dark world was lit up when God said, ‘Let there be light’. More precisely, day was distinguished from night by the creation of light. Light is a form of energy and may be produced in many different ways, not just by sun and stars (which were not created until the fourth day). Contemporary cosmologists say that the universe began with a hot big bang, which must have made a very bright light. Order began to appear and replace dark chaos” (New American Commentary: Genesis, 145, 153).
I'm not sure if the response helps my understanding...would I be incorrect to conclude that God said, "Let there be light," to set himself apart (and above) from darkness. In essence God was establishing his preeminence over all creation by first imparting his 'lightness' that will proceed anything else.
That's not to say that God was "creating" himself, but rather he is Alpha and Omega, beginning and the last. On the second day of Creation, God separated the waters from the air, and then on day 3, he created land thus containing the dominion the 'waters' had previously had over the unformed earth. From what I've learned from Dr. Michael Heiser, the 'waters', also translated Tehom allows for the pre-Creation Chaos Theory. God gave the Tehom (or twisting serpent) parameters with which it/he/she can operate. That is until the end when Revelations 21:1 state that the 'Sea' (Tehom) will be no more.
On day 6, God creates wild beasts and livestock. Why is there a distinction for livestock? As I understand livestock, they are domesticated animals for the purpose of food and clothing, two things that are unnecessary in the Garden of Eden. In fact, the introduction of meat for food isn't until after the flood.
Johnny Cisneros reply:
Some take livestock specifically as “cattle” while other take it generally as “domesticated animals”. You make a good point that the distinction seems unnecessary considering the needs in the Garden. Here’s an option: domesticated animals could also be used for travel (told to fill the earth), shelter (skin), tools bone/intestines), and general agricultural task (i.e. carrying, pulling, plowing), not just food and clothing. In the broadest sense, domesticated animals are animals that can live in close proximity to humanity, and are useful, and pose no imminent threat to humans (again excluding the option of food and clothing).
Again, I'm not sure that the answer satisfies my question. As I think more about it, perhaps the distinction in the wording is a clue as to God's plan for redemption even from Creation. I understand the point you are making by saying that domesticated animals had/have more uses than for diet. However, aside from travel, which God say to fill the whole earth at the same time he created Adam and Eve, the other animal uses indicate a world where there is death, decay and toil. All of which didn't exist at the time of Creation. There would be no reason to distinguish between livestock and wild animals because all of creation were vegans, with no predator and prey.
Secondly, while tending to the garden for Adam would have been a piece of cake because at that point, there were not weeds, or uneven, hard ground, so tools derived from animals would not have been necessary.
And...in the garden, prior to the Fall, death was not present and nothing wilted away, not by choice and not because of old age, so your response to say that the domesticated animals (bones/intestines) would have been possible without death occurring first.
But, I can answer my own question by saying that God foreknew that Adam and Eve would sin and so he set up provisions for them, even in the Creation story. If I am correct, then this is profound to me because I have long struggled with believing God that his Will has been in place and functioning from the beginning of time. I've struggled/questioned that perhaps God had a Plan A, but because Adam and Eve sinned, then he had to implement Plan B. That kind of theology flies in the face of an Almighty God.
Why are Cain and Abel making a sacrifice? It isn't until after Seth has children that the Bible records that men began to call on the name of the LORD, so if they aren't calling on the LORD, why sacrifice?
Johnny Cisneros reply:
Short answer: Making a “sacrifice” has some overlap (cf. Genesis 12:8) with “calling on the name of the LORD”, but the two are not synonymous.
a) Why a sacrifice? Is that what they are doing here?
This is better understood as an “offering” rather than a “sacrifice”. All major English translations take the Hebrew word minhah as an “offering” (NIV; ESV; NASB; NET; NLT). Offerings can be made for reasons other than atonement for sin. For example, in Leviticus, the grain offering and the fellowship offering do not deal with sin. Here in Genesis 4:3-5, Cain and Abel make an offering as a gift or tribute as an offering God as a superior, more specifically, as king. Notice that they were not prescribed to make an offering to God. So offering here shouldn’t be understood has an offering for sin.
b) What is “calling on the name of the Lord”? Is that synonymous with offering?
“Calling upon the name of the LORD” can mean “to praise or give thanks to the Lord”. In the most general sense, name of the Lord was invoked, called on, or prayed to. Some commentators take this as God was called upon as the LORD. The fact that the narrator does mention “calling on the Lord” in Cain and Abel narrative may suggest that prayer and offering/ritual existed independently of each other. Perhaps to some
degree Cain and Abel, though outside of Eden, still enjoyed an interaction with God similar to their parents (compare God’s interaction with both parties). Then, after the taking of life (Gen. 4:1-15), humanity “calls on the name of the LORD” (v. 26). That comment by narrator may speak to the origins of prayer since in Genesis 4 mentions the origins of other things (e.g. farming [v. 20], music [v. 21], and metalworks [v. 22].
Bibliography
Gordon J. Wenham. Genesis 1-11, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 2002).
Nahum, Sarna. Genesis. The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1989).
William D. Reyburn and Euan Fry. A Handbook on Genesis. UBS Handbook Series (New York:
United Bible Societies, 1997).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Okay, back in the saddle after a brother-in-law’s wedding....
ReplyDeleteAs for the question about light in Genesis 1.
The excerpt that I gave you was just a sampling scholar’s difficulty with understanding that primitive light in Genesis 1.
I don’t think associating the “God is light” proposition from 1 John 1:5 is a help to understanding the light in Genesis 1. “God is light” needs to be understood in John’s language: imagery. One would be hard pressed to find John using “light” as literal light instead of figuration. We are told to “walk in the light” (1 John 1:7), but I think that we all naturally understand that John is talking about a quality of living (since that was what the verb “walking” meant in biblical times), and not a location for walking (i.e. wherever light is shining).
Beyond that, at least the grammatical construction, “God is light” (two nouns joined by a linking verb) doesn’t always suggest equation. In other words, “God is light” is not the same as “light is God”. So rather than equating the two, light, because it has a figurative or metaphorical use in John, should be understood speaking of a quality of God. It’s the same with “God is love”. Sometimes these constructions identify, while other sometimes they qualify. Context and genre are always crucial.
As for Tehom, yes it was chaotic. The ancient person was terrified by the sea. It was a terrible, untamable force of nature that, like many other elements, was personified or deified to make sense of the world (especially for stories of origins like Genesis 1).
Back to the light...I’ll check some Rabbinic material. They have a knack to “filling in the details” when it comes to the events of Genesis.
Question about beasts and livestock
The author’s main point is clear: God created everything. (That main point accounts for the repetitive use of “And God said...”)
I don’t disagree with your conclusion: God provides. And I think you would agree that he himself is the provision, and at the cross we see that revealed.
As for the other points...usage of animals in the Garden doesn’t need to suggest anything negative. Adam was told to work the garden and to guard it. Unfortunately, none of the animals could assist Adam in the work in such a way that ended loneliness. How exactly he went about that...perhaps the Rabbis have something!
Seems like your other comments suggest that animal death did not exist prior to the Fall. Certainly death came through Adam, but the scope of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 seems to be limited to human beings. That’s not to say that the Fall didn’t have consequences for creation (Romans 8). But animal death may have been a natural part of the created order. Psalm 104:21 (Ps 104 is like an inspired commentary on the creation event of Genesis) describes the predator and its prey (a word used for the tearing of an animal).
As for God’s sovereignty, he knows all possibilities. He foreknows things that never happen. Look at this story in 1 Sam 23:12-13. He gives his creation, human beings, freewill because that what makes them in his image. And even though humans have freedom, and though it is used in evil ways, God is not thwarted by it. Look at the instance of Jesus’ crucifixion and how that event is portrayed by the apostles in Acts. And so God is not the cause of that evil, in that he ordains bad things so that he can look good. He gave Adam and Eve freewill, knowing in full what it might cost him. And what a testimony to his sovereignty that he entered into that relationship with us confident and committed to us because of his sovereignty, because of his ability direct all things for good.
Okay, back in the saddle after a brother-in-law’s wedding....
ReplyDeleteAs for the question about light in Genesis 1.
The excerpt that I gave you was just a sampling scholar’s difficulty with understanding that primitive light in Genesis 1.
I don’t think associating the “God is light” proposition from 1 John 1:5 is a help to understanding the light in Genesis 1. “God is light” needs to be understood in John’s language: imagery. One would be hard pressed to find John using “light” as literal light instead of figuration. We are told to “walk in the light” (1 John 1:7), but I think that we all naturally understand that John is talking about a quality of living (since that was what the verb “walking” meant in biblical times), and not a location for walking (i.e. wherever light is shining).
Beyond that, at least the grammatical construction, “God is light” (two nouns joined by a linking verb) doesn’t always suggest equation. In other words, “God is light” is not the same as “light is God”. So rather than equating the two, light, because it has a figurative or metaphorical use in John, should be understood speaking of a quality of God. It’s the same with “God is love”. Sometimes these constructions identify, while other sometimes they qualify. Context and genre are always crucial.
As for Tehom, yes it was chaotic. The ancient person was terrified by the sea. It was a terrible, untamable force of nature that, like many other elements, was personified or deified to make sense of the world (especially for stories of origins like Genesis 1).
Back to the light...I’ll check some Rabbinic material. They have a knack to “filling in the details” when it comes to the events of Genesis.
Question about beasts and livestock
The author’s main point is clear: God created everything. (That main point accounts for the repetitive use of “And God said...”)
I don’t disagree with your conclusion: God provides. And I think you would agree that he himself is the provision, and at the cross we see that revealed.
As for the other points...usage of animals in the Garden doesn’t need to suggest anything negative. Adam was told to work the garden and to guard it. Unfortunately, none of the animals could assist Adam in the work in such a way that ended loneliness. How exactly he went about that...perhaps the Rabbis have something!
Seems like your other comments suggest that animal death did not exist prior to the Fall. Certainly death came through Adam, but the scope of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 seems to be limited to human beings. That’s not to say that the Fall didn’t have consequences for creation (Romans 8). But animal death may have been a natural part of the created order. Psalm 104:21 (Ps 104 is like an inspired commentary on the creation event of Genesis) describes the predator and its prey (a word used for the tearing of an animal).
As for God’s sovereignty, he knows all possibilities. He foreknows things that never happen. Look at this story in 1 Sam 23:12-13. He gives his creation, human beings, freewill because that what makes them in his image. And even though humans have freedom, and though it is used in evil ways, God is not thwarted by it. Look at the instance of Jesus’ crucifixion and how that event is portrayed by the apostles in Acts. And so God is not the cause of that evil, in that he ordains bad things so that he can look good. He gave Adam and Eve freewill, knowing in full what it might cost him. And what a testimony to his sovereignty that he entered into that relationship with us confident and committed to us because of his sovereignty, because of his ability direct all things for good.