The Key Theological Significance of the Genesis Creation Story
The creation of the world is told in such depth nowhere else than in the first book of canonical scripture – Genesis. Although Genesis does not directly name it’s author, Jesus and the writers of scripture clearly believed Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch – the first five books of the bible, often referred to as ‘The Law.’ The creation account as told in Genesis has been a subject of much debate amongst biblical and scientific scholars for many generations, many of those arguing from the scientific point of view claiming that the creation account is implausible, mostly due to the perhaps dubious events recorded. However, it can also be claimed that the creation account does not stand in as sharp a contradiction with scientific probability as it may seem, and therefore, not myth.
The early chapters of Genesis comprehensively present two accounts of the creation process of both the cosmic and human origins, indeed the word ‘Genesis’ translates loosely as ‘beginning’. The initial readers of such events would indeed have been the individuals of Moses’ day – the Israelites and therefore as the recipients were indeed God’s people, the accounts given in the early chapters of Genesis were written most likely as an unreputable declaration as opposed to a defence.
Genesis chapter one moves through the various stages or ‘days’ of creation, beginning with the command “let there be light” immediately followed with an obedient fulfilment of “and there was light.” God then moves into the creation of night and day, by separating this light from the darkness marking the closing of the first day of the creation process, this sequence of events can be outlined as followed; on day two, the atmosphere was created, day three, the dry ground and plants, on day four the sun, the moon and the stars and on day five the bird and sea animals. The final aspect of the creation process is on day six, the creation of land animals and humans, yet this does not conclude the creation process, a divine day of rest on the seventh day marks the conclusion of the creation process. As Michael D.Coogan writes; “Each act of creation is described as a formula: ‘God said … it was so (or God created) … God saw that it was good.’ As the repetition of the formula on the third and sixth days indicates, on each of them are the two separate acts of creation. This may be a literary device or it may indicate that an eight-act scheme has been fitted into a six-day chronology so that the seventh day may be highlighted.”
In juxtaposition to the first creation account, the second follows the formula much more that of a sort of storyline, more emotive in tone. As the second account reads, rather than both man and woman being created at the same time, initially there is only a man, which is then followed by the creation of a ‘partner’ for this individual man, as God Himself states, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” Both the man and the woman are then put in care for The Garden of Eden; to act as stewards for every aspect of God’s creation. As Victor H. Matthews and James C. Moyer write; “The story then concerns itself with the etiology of why human beings are no longer living in the garden and why death came into the world. The expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden marks one of many turning points in the human story, in this case from an existence of deathless leisure to a world of work, pain, childbirth, and personal striving”
From a more critical interpretative perspective, Genesis 1-3 can be read as a refutation of competing creation accounts and therefore, the narrative is not required to be historically, scientifically, or even chronologically accurate by modern standards. Instead it is a story, corresponding to the literary form of the period. According to Alexander & Baker (2003, pp.156-166) list common features of other creation accounts (e.g. chaotic beginning, separation of waters, breath of life, cosmos as temple) and show how Genesis infuses them with greater significance. The Enuma Elish is described as one of the oldest myths in existence. The story is most often dated in 1800 BC., when the god Marduk rose to prominence. Other Sumerian versions are thought to date even further back. Indeed, there are a number of notable similarities between the Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 including The sequence of the days of creation, the events of creation are similar: firmament, dry land, luminaries and humanity and darkness preceding creative acts. However, there are also a number of very obvious differences and the creation account in Genesis that set it apart from this Myth, infact, Genesis rather reads against the myth. In the Enuma Elish, Marduk battled with his great-great-grandmother Tiamat and then, after he had killed her, created heaven and earth from her body. Indeed, Enns, points out: “Despite these differences, however, the problem remains. However different these stories may be, they unquestionably share a common way of speaking about the beginning of the world; both Genesis and Enuma Elish breathe the same air.”
Pagan mythology usually was purposeless, with creation a trivalling side-effect of other activities, an ‘accident’ so to speak. Pagan gods are depicted as fickle and despotic, with little regard for anyone but themselves. The Hebrew God of Genesis stands in sharp contrast to all of these, bringing true nobility to His role as a divine monarch. Indeed, the unique characteristics of God are emphasises throughout the Genesis creation account in such magnificent terms: He moves through the cosmos unchallenged; He merely speaks and the said action occurs immediately and indefinitely; He provides for the needs of all living things without demanding a price in return; He places humanity at the pinnacle of creation. In stark opposition to pagan deities. The God of the Old Testament creates all things through an effortless yet meaningful process, and remains intimately involved with His creation. It is notable however that the poem in Genesis 1 clearly alludes to similar themes, objects and events as in other mythological creation accounts and while there is no direct dependency between the Enuma Elish and Genesis 1, the word ‘tehom’ provides a natural allusion to the myth. Genesis 1, however, reflects a radically alternative theology, emphasising that God creates because he wants to and not out of need, or external pressure such as a divine cosmic battle. The second account also challenges certain mythologies, such as the notion that humans were created by the gods to be of service to them, such as providing food for them. In Genesis 2, God instead provides for His creation, and the people he has created.
There are some scholars that argue that the theological interpretation of the creation account does not stand in opposition to interpretations that are perhaps more of ‘realism’, but instead, compliments such funct. When read in this manner, almost every verse of the Genesis narrative is exhaustive with meaning. God is alone, therefore, the creation account is monotheistic. God is also the sole existing creator of all existence, therefore He is the being of all omnipotence, yet this ‘omnipotent creator’ does not create with the absence of purpose. Indeed, there is a sense of an eschatological framework and within His creation, God sustains all life that he has created, both in a spiritual manner and in a literal manner and He alone passes judgement and covers sin.
Thus, throughout the Genesis account, we have a number of distinctive elements, all of which comprise the foundation Jewish-Christian doctrine. Interpreted theologically, the Genesis creation reveals a microcosm of the complete Christian message: the only true, omnipotent God created humans to reflect His glory, providing all our needs. When we turn from Him in sin, He offers to redeem us through an eternal covenant made possible by the sacrifice of His Son, so that our original relationship might be restored. As Watson states “Elohim seems to be the general appellation by which the Triune Godhead is collectively distinguished in Scripture”
Theology is therefore an inherent feature of the Genesis creation account, as illustrated in specific statements about the nature and identity of God, His mode of creation, His interaction with creation, and His dealings with humanity. Both here and elsewhere in Genesis, statements of this type have a creedal function, defining key aspects of the Hebrew faith.
Indeed, the Creation accounts as told comprehensively in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis are rife with theological significance, laying down the foundations of the relationship between God and man, and creator and creation, all of which forms the source from which stems all other Christian beliefs as we know them today. The claim that such accounts are ‘myth’ is not incredible, and many may fear that such a claim opens not just Genesis, but all of scripture to a mythological interpretation, this is not the conclusion, as when the ‘similar’ myths are compared with Genesis, there are a number of ways in which Genesis rises above the latter, and the work simply cannot be disregarded as ‘myth’ but a work of a much richer and deeper significance.
Bibliography
- Drane, J. W. 2000. Introducing the Old Testament (Completely rev. and updated.) (257). Lion Publishing plc: Oxford.
- Alexander, T. & Baker, D. 2003, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, IVP Academic: Downers Grove, Illinois
- Enns, P (2005) Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, United States: Baker Academic, 2005.
- Watson, Richard (1881), A Biblical and Theological Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Southern Methodist Publishing House)
- Coogan, M.D (2009) A Brief Introduction To The Old Testament, 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
- Matthews, V.H., Moyer, J.C (2005) The Old Testament Text and Context, 2nd edn., Peabody, Massachusetts, USA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc
- John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (CUP Archive, 1985
