Oh I don’t know about any of this. We might as well throw in John 5:17,
If God is resting, then why does Jesus say the Father is always (and still) working?
The context here, of course, is that the Jewish leaders were angry because Jesus was working — rather than resting — on the Sabbath. Like the YECs, they interpreted Exodus 20:11 superficially; it says God literally rested, and so, they, too, should literally rest.
Perhaps Psalm 104:30 can also shed some light too on this debate:
When you send your breath, they are created, and you renew the surface of the ground.
Probably the real reason the text says that God rested… and perhaps nobody (?) except @gbrooks9 would even like this is that in the Ancient Near East the other creation accounts were focused on the gods getting rest. For example, divine unrest and sleep deprivation are central themes in many creation stories, one example from early early Babylon would be the Atra-hasis myth. Or more recently and perhaps relevantly, after man was created in Enuma Elis, the climax is divine rest and a celebration of Marduk, the head of the gods.
While there was no struggle in the Genesis account (intentionally left out), other texts of creation do mimic our Babylonian friends epic struggles a bit more like Job 26:11-12 or Ps 89:9-10, Ps 18:10-16, Ps 74:12-15.
That’s a fair challenge, and I’ll give it a go. (But not before one other tiny response I can’t resist …)[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:46, topic:36180”]
in this context a “cessation of the labors heretofore described” I have no problem picturing God doing this - …
[/quote]
There it is … you just anthropomorphized God! That’s not a bad thing and we all do it. Indeed we have no other way of really being invited into a personal relationship as we can’t conceive of “him”/“her” any other way. (In fact most of us effectively limit “him” not just down to our species but down to one gender at that!) When pressed we should all readily admit Scriptures do this all over the place. They are reaching out to us after all! Okay, on to your real challenge which isn’t entirely unrelated to what I just wrote above.
This passage means to me that there is a divinely ordained cycle (the seven day week) in which labors are carried on in normal course for six of those days, but that every seventh day is to be set apart as a “cessation” (since you like that word so much --and it is a good one) from all the normal activity. And I furthermore see this blessing as being uniquely made for humans, although (through us) it is to be for nature as well – at least all of it that we are responsible for. I.e. land is to eventually get its rest, and beasts of burden too are due rest. But while I think this divinely ordained cycle is in some way embedded in nature itself, it is uniquely our prerogative to carry it out. I.e. nobody goes out and observes animals taking a sabbath rest for themselves just of their own accord. It is the responsibility of God’s image bearers to observe this on behalf of all nature. You somewhere above already made it clear that you reject the notion that this passage could somehow be God giving us an example for something you see as happening later. But I cannot follow you in attempting to set aside all the rest of Scriptures on this. Genesis and Exodus both are traditionally attributed to Moses as a first human source (and of course compiled and redacted into something closer to our present day form by later exiled scribes.) I have no problem thinking of Moses being inspired by God to include these aspects of the narrative to help people make sense out of their present reality (which included a mandated Sabbath observance). Does this mean I question whether this cessation literally happened? Yes, it does. Because I don’t think this story is about God’s daily planner, but ultimately about ours. I take Jesus at his word when he teaches us that the Sabbath was made for people and not people for the Sabbath. I have no trouble thinking that God enjoys creation or that creation unfolded (and is still unfolding) with significant milestones that our anthropomorphized God “sits back” and “just enjoys”. But this does not mean that I think God literally has a physical rear end and a chair with a backrest to plop it down on. And anybody who tries to make such statements about buttocks and backrests would be totally misunderstanding what I mean by “sits back and enjoys”. You want to imagine God as a human engineer or carpenter that actually finishes a job and ceases labor. Fine --like I said, we all inevitably anthropomorphize God. But when you start to make it about the mechanics of that anthropomorphism, (as in — did God really cease his labors or didn’t he?) then I think you miss something bigger.
Of course, the incarnation, is the ultimate anthropomorphism of God. If anybody wants a place to start getting literal, that would be it. Hopefully that makes some sense. Thanks for challenging me to think about this. And Lord willing there will be no cessation of thinking just yet.
When Jesus says he is a vine, I do not automatically reject the other Biblical uses of the word “vine”. So your “raining cats and dogs” is not applicable. In France, the expression is “raining rope” - - when the rain is really noisy.
While your assertion that the “snow & hail” text was “figurative language” was certainly droll enough - - you know perfectly well that there was nothing about this sentence that is being figurative. It is in error.
Mind you, there are other colorful examples in the same chapter were figurative language is being used. But in the verse about snow and hail … the only thing figurative is the word “treasure” or “treasuries” … a colorful Hebrew word probably used to convey a sense of the wonder of divine action.
Another Job text that describes the heat of making “molten mirror” being like God’s work making the “molten” (i.e. poured) Firmament - - that’s figurative.
Mike, this isn’t my first rodeo, nor yours. You chose a fragment of a Genesis story to build your whole metaphysical construct upon.
I chose the Job text but it was a clear discussion by God of a cosmological wonder - - that satisfies exactly what was needed to be satisfied:
words from God;
couched in the imperfect understanding of the ANE time and culture;
that is completely and obvious in error;
there is nothing about snow or hail that gets stored up in the real world;
and the only thing worse than being mocked by Yahweh is to be mocked by Yahweh over something that isn’t even true.
What a divine irony, aye? The Gods invent lower gods to do their work, and the lower gods invent humans to make food for them. And all the humans do is make noise!!! “Drown them … drown them like cats!”
Leaving aside for the moment all problems associated with your view, it would seem to have extensive utility for dispensing with all biblical conflicts concerning, among other things, the age of the earth, evolution, and Noah’s Flood. It other words, it takes out of play the stuff in Genesis 1-11 that’s hard to believe. How then do you deal with other hard-to-believe parts of the Bible in general? That is, do you generally accept without question events described in the Bible after Genesis 11 such as the birth of Isaac to parents 100 and 90 respectively, the miracles performed by Moses, Balaam’s talking donkey, the walls of Jericho falling, the miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha, and the Jonah experience?
I have two more questions for you. Like the previous one, they will not be to challenge you but merely to clarify your position.
First, do you think Jesus held your view? If so, what makes you think so? And if not, why not?
Second, what is your specific figurative interpretation of Genesis 2:1-3?
You may have missed it, but I’ve already explained why I see no conflict between John 5:17 and Genesis 2:1-3. The latter passage does not claim that God was doing nothing, but that He ceased doing the things He had been doing during the previous periods of time. And the reason He ceased those activities wasn’t because He was tired and needed a break, but because the creation was “completed” or “finished.” In other words, Genesis 2:1-3 seems to lay down a clear dividing line, before which God was making the universe and after which He was managing it.
As for the existence of similarities between Genesis 2:1-3 and other ANE creation accounts, I don’t see how they bear on the question at hand. Maybe I’m missing something.
Actually I do. Why? How many times did Jesus mention Adam by name? When he mentioned marriage, did he also mention it was created for Adam and Eve?
It is just the ending to the 6 days of creation story which has the meaning I mentioned above and it also foreshadows the Sabbath. Although I hate to say foreshadow when Genesis was written after Exodus.
Funny but I don’t see any problems with my view. Now let’s talk about the problems with your view.
Yes. I have no problem with miracles for which there was an eyewitness whose testimony is reported.
I see two differences between our views. The first is the you seem to define anthropomorphism more broadly than do I.
Apparently, you see both quoted expressions as anthropomorphisms, while I see only the first as falling into that category. God is spirit, and as a spirit He can enjoy the sight of something. At least that’s the way I see it.
This is the second difference: You can see God telling us that He did something that He did not actually do and I can’t. I can accept that Genesis 2:1-3 might not mean what I think it does, but I cannot accept that God did not do what it says He did.
One way in which we are alike, however, is our great appreciation for the anthropomorphism that is Jesus of Nazareth.
There it is again! And you would be fully within Scriptural bounds to ask of me: “does not the creator of eyes enjoy sight?” Of course God does. Does that mean that God has two eyeballs replete with their necessary mechanisms to view? I think you would agree with me that God does not (apart from Jesus, of course). God is spirit. Do you see the quandary? Is it a lie to say God “sees” something if God does not have eyes? Well, it depends how you mean it. If somebody thinks this means that God has mechanical eyeballs, then yes I would say this is a misunderstanding of what is being taught. If instead it is a teaching about God’s omniscience and omnipresence, then I think that is what would be a much more accurate understanding. We just don’t have any adequate concepts in our language to describe the process of perception apart from our own perceptive apparatuses. Would you agree with that?
So you must think Geology is a bogus science, right? Geologists say that mountain ranges rise and fall, and volcanos come and go, even within the span of recorded history.
Do you think mountains are not rising every year, while others are sinking?
No, I don’t consider the words synonyms either. (I guess that is basically what I said though. Whoops.)
What I meant is that the idea communicated by God resting in his temple is the same idea as God taking up rule in his temple because in the ancient context, that is the frame being activated by a narrative that fits the expectations of a temple inauguration narrative. This idea I got mostly from Walton’s comparative ANE lit work, and I think it makes sense of things quite well and it is an interpretation that is frequently referenced and accepted as valid by other OT scholars I have looked at.
Also, see here for a summary of the relevant chapter of Lost World of Genesis 1, or Walton on divine rest here)
J. Richard Middleton has a similar take on rule/rest here: [quote]The very point of God’s “rest” in Genesis 1 (and in ancient Near Eastern creation accounts) is that, having constructed the cosmos as his “house” or temple, the divine King has now taken up residence in the world. God is now sitting on his throne, reigning as Lord of the universe.[/quote]
I would say that the establishment of the earth as God’s temple is what was completed. His work of ruling all of creation from his temple had only just been inaugurated.
I find this unclear. Perhaps this quote may help us to understand the distinction that may be implied in your statement. The quote is just that, and we need to read the entire article (and supporting literature) to make this clear, but this would (I hope) show us that a distinction is needed, as we may fall into contradictions when discussing God as attributes. In any event, it is interesting to contemplate such matters.
FROM: Christiaan Kappes The Theology of the Divine Essence and Energies in George-Gennadios Scholarios
“……the Palamite tradition of discussing the attributes-energy distinction, in what is known as “a first intention” or as a concept derived from a real thing outside the mind of the knower. As such, the object or thing itself really contains such a distinction intrinsically, not as some sort of purely mental operation, like dividing a geometrical plane into quadrants:
There are things that properly befit that energy, through which beings came forth
from the fact of non-existence into the act of existing. Now, creation would be
this very thing So, then, they [Palamites] attribute also modes of distinction, the terms of which would certainly not have been produced by the soul, so that neither is there a distinction [of reason] at all. This is just like when they distinguish these [attributed items] through something absolute, or by not being absolute, or by a relation, which is with respect to itself and in respect to another, that which is from something else and that which is not from something else, that which is participated and that which is not participated, etc. All these are predicated as contradictories.”
I just had a thought. I think we’ve been ignoring something very important, and that is that the culmination of God’s creation is not described as the earth, but humans. It is after the creation of humans that God rests. And my attention is drawn to a part that makes me a little uncomfortable, the part where God gives dominion over all the other animals to humans.
What are we, that we should be placed above all other living things so? Are we really that special?
But maybe it connects to the question at hand, of what it was God considered completed, and why he rested. It says humans were created in the Image of God. I have heard it interpreted that everything else created was for this purpose, the purpose of creating beings that could reflect God. I think it would be reasonable to assign the origin of Free Will to this point. And if the whole point of Free Will is that people are responsible for their own decisions, that means there are now things God is not directly responsible for. Could that be considered, in a way, God “resting?”
And like a newly inaugurated “king”… the act of rule/creation (And even, at times, un-creation) continues to issue forth from the throne.
We see this with the Flood … ‘wiping the Earth anew.’
We see this with the creation of the Rainbow.
We see this in Genesis 10’s Table of Nations where God has created new Nations.
We see this with the destruction of Sodom.
We see this with the anointing of Abraham to gather the Chosen People.
We see this with the chastening of the Chosen People (as a taste of Sodom’s fate).
And we see this with, literally, the millions of new creatures that have emerged since the opening up of Noah’s ark.
It is all part of God’s ongoing powers to rule and create.
It still sounds to me that your definition of what constitutes an anthropomorphism is more expansive than mine.
For me, references such as “in the sight of the Lord,” “the Lord sees all,” “the eyes of the Lord,” and “the Lord looks” are not anthropomorphisms unless accompanied by some reference to human anatomy. Jesus said after His resurrection, “a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” He did not say that a spirit has no sight, no strength, no mobility, or other such capabilities.
I do not have to picture God with human eyeballs in order to imagine that He sees. In fact, He tells us that He “sees” and “looks” in a distinctly non-anthropomorphic way:
1 Sam 16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
This difference between our definitions is apparently why you see anthropomorphism in Genesis 2:1-3 and I do not.
Thanks for your informative responses. Please let me continue to ask you clarifying, not challenging, questions. Your view is novel and I am trying to make sure I understand it. It sounds like John Walton on steroids; I’m guessing you may feel that’s a crude comparision, which is why I want to grasp the finer points of your view.
Is it fair to say that you view Gen 1-11 as a succession of parables (i.e. fictions) and Gen 12-50 as a succession of historical accounts (i.e. facts)?
It is correct to say that you take this view based on these three factors: 1) the differences in the underlying Hebrew text of Gen 1-11 when compared to Gen 12-50, 2) the coincidence of written history in the broader world, and 3) “the historical synchronicity of the Bible with events in the surrounding cultures.”
If I was aware of them, I’ve lost the awareness. Can you please copy and paste or re-state?
You seem to have extracted this as a “fact” from Genesis 1-11. So, even though you see Gen 1-11 as figurative (i.e. parables, fiction, whatever), you believe there are embedded there facts - like this one - that can be safely extracted, while other aspects - such as the period of rest described in Genesis 2:1-3 - should not be regarded as factual. How do you go about deciding which is which?
Of what “details” are you here speaking?
You don’t think Jesus perceived His audience as understanding that He was referring to Adam and Eve?
If you think that Jesus held your view because He did not use the personal nouns “Adam” or “Eve,” do you think that Paul did not hold your view because he did?
Can you give me a sense of how many of the miracles (i.e. how much of the hard-to-believe stuff) this leaves as factual in Gen 12 through Mal 4 - 10%? 50%? 99%?
I very much like Walton’s work insofar as he employs other ANE creation accounts to give context to the Genesis account, and especially insofar as he shows how the Israelites saw creation as God’s temple.
That said, I find him utterly unconvincing on the primary point he wants to conclude from all this. To put it bluntly, his logic is sloppy. For example, consider this excerpt from the article of his to which you linked.
Likewise, if Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, the Bible offers no account of material origins. If that is the case, then empirical science could not possibly offer a view of material origins that we would have to reject in defense of the Bible. The Bible only insists that God is the one who is the Creator and that however it took place, he is responsible for creation.
His third sentence is a non sequitur from the first two. If “the Bible offers no account of material origins,” then on what basis can he claim that “the Bible…insists that God is the one who is the Creator”?
That seems like a pretty presumptuous conclusion… just as your fixation on the human definition of “Continuous Creation” is fairly presumptuous as well.
The whole rejection of “CC” appears to be a polemic… rather than a Biblically mandated rejection.
Some denominations reject birthday celebrations… and try to enlist the Bible as a justification. But really it’s a man-made objection… a modern vanity in the shape of Pharisaic-style scruples.
