Genesis 4: Where did these other people come from?

For Winston:

Genesis 4:17 says "Cain lay with his wife." Excuse me. Where did Cain get a wife? And where? Was it his sister? Or did God make him another? Or did God create several individuals like Adam and Eve, and we see the offspring of another of these created ones with Cain?

Unfortunately, the Bible does not clarify this issue, and the Hebrew people didn't see much need to clarify it either. Even the Jewish Rabbis seem to avoid the issue. In my research on the subject, the best answer seems to be to accept the existence of the written record and move on.

Either Adam and Eve had many offspring not recorded in the Genesis account. Since their DNA was "undiluted," one could reason that marrying brothers or sisters would not compromise the gene pool.

The other choice seems to be that God created humanity as he saw the need, and the Genesis account is one example of the creating God did throughout the world. The variety of human settlements all over the globe could support this type of theory, although the Bible does not speak to this type of multiple-creation.

Interesting question. Any thoughts?

Genesis 1 and 2: Two names for God

I forgot to mention another interesting aspect of Genesis 1 and 2. There are two different names for God mentioned in these chapters. Gen. 1 focuses on El, or the Hebrew term for God, in a generic sense. Gen. 2 uses the name Yahweh (which is translated into German as Jehovah), which means "Living One." This is the term used in Exodus 3 where God introduces himself to Moses as "I am." The two names of God speak to the two different functions of the passages. Gen 1 is a general account of creation by the creator God. The Gen 2 account is the personal rendition of the Living God giving life to humanity.

Of the two, I would say that Gen. 2 seems to fit the context of the book of Genesis, whereas Gen. 1 seems to be a later addition designed to introduce the book as a whole. Gen. 1 is closely related to the praises listed in the Psalms, and thus may have been written closer to the time of David. Meanwhile, the use of Yahweh may be a convention of Moses who knew God in those terms.

Genesis 1:28, 2:15-20 God’s gift of dominion

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."


Increase, subdue, rule. I don't think there is any way an environmentalist can deny the force of these terms. We are not to live as one with nature, we are to live as caretakers of nature. We do not commune in nature, we are to shepherd it. We do enjoy the benefit of nature, and we will pay the price if we abuse nature. I don't think there is any doubt, though, that humanity was created as the crowning achievement of God's activity. As the pride and joy of creation, part of our God-given duty is to manage it, for our benefit and the benefit of the rest of creation.

Most people probably use creation of the benefit of themselves. This is not fulfilling God's initial command to us. To "subdue" means to bring under control. IN this case, submission has a positive implication, if the ruler is benevolent. A benevolent and perfect Adam, established by God, can take a peaceful and orderly creation, which submits to his hand, and then subdue it and rule over it as a divinely-appointed manager. Doesn't sound like a bad set up to me.

Let me ask this questions: Is there anyway to rule nature? In the debate of global warming, it is becoming more apparent that, while our actions can have some impact on our environment, we truly don't have much control over some of the factors that dominate our world (i.e. the sun, atmosphere, El Nino, etc). So, how can we rule, or have dominion, over something that is beyond our control? Is this an issue that reflects the relative peace and tranquility of creation before the fall? If so, how does that peaceful image of creation compare to most evolutionary descriptions of a chaotic earth that arrives at some measure of stability?

What about this: This command was given before the Fall. Does this mean that child-bearing and farming occurred before the Fall? Does this mean that Adam and Eve had a family (or potentially had a family) in the Garden of Eden? Were they working already?

Genesis 2: A second creation story?

So, if Gen. 1:1 says "in the beginning God created," and then Gen 2:4 says "This is the account of the creation of the earth and heavens," do we have two separate events, or two versions of the same story?

Three things that might help: First of all, it doesn't make sense to have two separate events. So, this must be two different versions of the same event. Secondly, the focus of Genesis 1 is on the totality of creation. Genesis 2 focuses on humanity and the special duties that God gives. Apparently, the Jews has two perspectives on creation: universal and then human-specific.

Thirdly: the book of Genesis is divided into 12 clear sections, 11 of which begin with the phrase "This is the account of." The number 12 is special for the Jewish religion (note 12 tribes of Israel). So, Genesis 2:4 starts the second full section of the book. If Genesis 1 is the account of creation. Then Genesis 2 begins the account of humanity in the Garden. So, Genesis 2 shows how man was specifically created, with duties and limitations. Genesis 3 follows with the rest of the story--how humanity failed to fulfill duties and over-stepped limitations. The second creation story leads set up the story about the Fall of humanity in Genesis 3.

So, there is a functional difference: Genesis 1 introduces God's creative power; Genesis 2 introduces humanities role within the created order. Both stories related God's power and purpose. However, Genesis 2 moves the story away from a universal perspective to a very local perspective.

Did you notice that man is created before plants and animals in Genesis 2? Some of the order is different. How does this affect you understanding of the stories? I think, again, the Genesis 2 focuses on humanity, so man was created first. Genesis 1 focuses on creation, and shows the priority of humanity based on their creation last. Also, the male and female creation is discussed differently, and in more detail. This does not mean that the accounts do not go together. However, they are different.

In truth, God communicates his power, our dependency on him for everything good, and the lofty place that man had in creation. Both stories present these truths from different perspectives. We have four Gospels in the New Testament and 2 creation stories in the Old Testament. And the truth can be found in each one.

Genesis 2:1-3: God rested?

And God Rested? Sounds like a good idea to me. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


So, which came first: the Sabbath or the rationale for the Sabbath?

For those of us who hold to veracity and integrity of the Scripture, the rationale for the Sabbath came first. But why did God rest? Or at least, why did they state it this way? God doesn't need rest. Psalm 121:4 says, "Indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." Rest is a human need, and speaks to our weakness. So, why did the Hebrews suggest that God rested from his work?

Well, since actual weakness or tiredness is not an option for God, what is another choice?

Instead of focusing on the rest, focus on the statement in v.2: God finished the work. The point is not that God was weary. The point is that God was finished. He stopped and looked at everything he had done. And he was pleased with it. He was satisfied. It was completed, perfect--just as he had intended for it to be. Creation was complete, and he ceased (rested) from his work.

Now, let me make a couple of theological points here.
1) All of the material in the universe was made at this point. There is no new matter being created. This does not mean creativity is not taking place. However, all creativity (whether it is art, expirement, building, fire, super novas) is based on matter and energy that is already potential and in existence. There is nothing being formed in today's universe that does not have its origin in the original work of God through creation.

2)God ceased his creative activities. However, the term "rest" is appropriate in this respect. Just because he stopped creating does not mean that he quit being active. No, he created and then he began to enjoy his creation by walking in the midst of it. By using the term "rest" the book of Genesis gives a dramatic pause before it explores the significance of God's closeness to humanity in Gen. 2.

So, God paused for a moment. He moved from one task (which he completed--spectacularly) and into a new task--that of introducing himself to humanity and walking with them in the Garden. He rested. He did not stop his activity, though.

Genesis 1:26-31: The Image of God

What does it mean to be made in God's image? And why is this so important?

In the image of God can be 1) as duplicate--"mini-me"; 2) baring certain characteristic and likenesses, but not a complete copy.

By definition, a created being cannot be the creator. So, option 1 is out.

Therefore, we are made in some sort of likeness to God Almighty--a truly humbling concept. But in what way are we the image of God? Is it physical? Is it mental? Is it spiritual? Is there another way that we can be in God's image?

For me, the primary way were are made in the image of God is spiritual. We are able to commune with God in a way that no other part of his creation can. This spiritual nature impacts our mental and physical function to a degree. But for me, the spirit separates us from the rest of creation.

Many will disagree. I know that we as humans we are able to reason. Some say that this mental capacity to reason is a part of God's image in us. I don't have a problem with this line of thinking. I just wouldn't separate our mental abilities from our spiritual nature. I think the two go hand in hand.

Some would also argue that our bodies, our physical form, is much like God's form. I think this is much less likely, seeing that God himself needs no physical form to exist (OK, that just blew my own mind). Jesus came in human form, which was totally different from his normal existence. Many people will try to take anthropomorphisms from the Bible (like the Hand of God) and use it to argue that God has a human-like form. I don't think this has to be the case. We use human descriptions to try to capture the essence of God, and they will always fall short of a true description of his majesty and glory. This does not meant that it is wrong to use human descriptions to express our understanding of God. The fact is, it is just the best we can do.

Others say that God is man-like because of the vocabulary of the Bible (God is "he," or "father.") Again, I don't think these vocabulary terms do justice in describing the greatness of God. Think of this: God made us men and women for the purpose of pro-creation. Does God need to pro-create? Absolutely not! He is forever and does not need to increase his dominion by having children. So, he does not need to be male nor female. His is God, Creator of male and female. Male and Female are incomplete without each other. God is complete in and of himself. He needs no helper. So, to say that we are in his image physically is to limit God and exalt humanity (men in particular). God made us limited so we would recognize our need for him. Even in the Garden of Eden, sinless Adam and Eve walked with God and learned from him. We are in his image so that we might know him through our spirits.

So, for me, the image of God in humanity is a spiritual essence that impacts our whole being. Why is this important? So that we might relate to God in a personal relationship, recognizing our need for him and then coming to him for blessings and his glory.

Many people miss out on the point of life because they ignore this inherent need for God in our hearts. We were created to know him and need him. We ignore this need to our peril, especially now that the Garden of Eden is a distant memory and our sinful life pulls us farther and farther from a relationship with the One who created us.

Genesis 1: More Random Observations

Day 2 is written from a flat-earth perspective: water above (the blues sky?), water below (springs from the ground) and air in the middle (atmosphere). Imagine this on a flat, linear plane and you can see what the Hebrew mind was thinking 3500-5000 years ago.

God made the vegetation before the sun? How does that work, especially for those who believe in a mixture of creation and theistic evolution?

God rested? Who knew? Of course, this statement notes the end of the creative process. Now, let the micro evolution begin (he said with a smile and bit of sarcasm in his voice)!

Genesis 1: The Order of Events

And God spoke . . . His very word brought everything we see around us into existence.

Note the order of creation: 1. light, 2. An expanse of air (atmosphere) with water above and water below; 3. land out of the water, and vegetation; 4. Sun, moon, and stars; 5. Birds, fish; 6. Land animals/humanity.

A couple of observations here. First of all, there is a parallel happening in the order:
Day 1 Light Day 4 Sun, moon, stars
Day 2 Air and water Day 5 Birds, Fish
Day 3 Land, vegetation Day 6 Land animals, humanity

The Creation story divides the creation process into three primary sections: light, air/water, and land. You can almost see the basic aspects of created matter: fire, water, and earth. All of the specific aspects of creation on days 4-6 correspond with the general creation in days 1-3.

A second observation here. After having been schooled in the fine art of evolution (and make no mistake, it is more art than science), I want to suggest that evolution and creation share a common development in their creative process.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a basic order of evolution can be stated as such:
Big Bang (energy, catalyst) Day 1: Light

Development of individual worlds and galaxies (Day 4: sun, stars--I realize this is out of order--but the only one)
Earth becoming a solidifying ball, with some kind of primordial soup on the surface below a life-friendly atmosphere (Day 2: water and air)

Land forming via volcanoes out of the oceans (soup)(Day 3: land)

Life forming in the sea and migrating to the land (Day 3: Vegetation)

Vegetation, followed by more complex life forms that feed off of the vegetation

Fish developing in the ocean, and progressing to the air and land (Day 5: Fish and Birds created)

Land animals eventually progressing into humanity. (Day 6: Land animals and humanity)

So, when I look at the order of creation, I guess I am amazed that the Hebrew Bible, written about 3500-5000 years before modern scientific observation, perhaps earlier, has basically the same order as the evolutionary scientist, save the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. Maybe they knew something after all? The Hebrew version is certainly unique for its day, in spite of people who say it was borrowed from other ancient religions. Also, the evolutionist does not have a corner on truth. It takes as much faith to believe as Big Band just happened as it does to think that a Supreme Being or Force at least caused it.

Now, 2 points from the Bible. God created. According to Genesis 1, he made everything for humanity, setting the table so that man might be able arrive as the crowning point of creation.

Secondly, Man is not a product of God's creation. Man is the crowning achievement of creation--all of the world was made for humanity--a gift to be used for God's glory. Evolution does not do justice to the idea that humanity was made for a special purpose. We are not a product of our environment. We were made to be masters of our environment. More on this later in the week.

Genesis 1:1-5: Random thoughts

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. "

Who is God? He is, by definition, not human--totally different. He is creator, and we are creation. There is a fundamental difference, and the two can never be the same. We will always be created beings who were brought into existence. God, however, is eternal--and was before this world. Now, that thought always blows my mind. I used to get scared thinking of God just floating around in nothingness. I can't conceive existence without this world I live in. But God is above it, and has always been. This I can't really comprehend. But that is OK--because if I could know all there is about God, then I myself would be a knowledgeable--and thus divine. I must be satisfied with limited knowledge--it is the nature of humanity.

Who is God? According to Genesis, THEY (God) created the heavens and the earth? More than one God? ELOHIM is the term for God here, and it means "gods" literally. What gives? Three possibilities here.
1) There is more than one god mentioned here, or a heavenly counsel that includes angels and other heavenly types;
2) this is a royal "WE." Ancient kings used to refer to themselves as "WE" to indicate both the king and god were making a decision. Some suggest that the plural here indicates a kingly expression for God Almighty.
3) The Trinity may be expressed here by the plural noun. Thus, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in unity decide to create. This is Christian idea that was not in the mind of the Jewish writers, but may well be a part of the Revelation that Jesus brought to light when he came.

So which one is it? Since Judaism and Christianity only hold to one God (monotheism), then option 1 is out. I think the Jews probably understood ELOHIM to be a kingly reference to God Almighty. However, Christian interpretation sees the Trinity. Genesis explicitly shows the Father and the Spirit. Proverbs 8 indicates that "Wisdom" was present as well, showing an Old Testament element to a Christian Trinity. John 1 indicates that this Wisdom was the Word Jesus: "In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God. The Word was God." For me, the Christian interpretation of the Jewish ideas of God, Spirit, and Wisdom makes the most sense.

So, if he created everything in v.1, then why was it dark and void in v. 2? Did something go wrong? The simple answer is "No." Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement for the whole first chapter. 1:2 simply introduces the creative process. There is no need to see two creation stories here. Now, Genesis 2 is a different story. But Genesis 1 is a unified account with an introductory verse followed by the details.

"3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."
What did God create when he created light? The sun and moon were made on Day 4. So, is this the concept of light? Is it just a physical reference, or did God create good and evil here as well? Note this: the Bible does not say God created darkness. He created light. Yet, the possibility for darkness exists if light is created. It could be simple: God created the foundation for physics and other foundational principles for life, setting the stage for specific creations on earth. It could also be an expression of morality--again a foundational principle for life, but this a spiritual reality matching the physical reality he is preparing to institute. Perhaps he did both. By creating light, he set the foundation for all of creation, physical and spiritual. Perhaps the angels and heaven itself were formed here in preparation for the rest of creation. We are given indications that before he created the earth he made the foundations of the earth. Maybe all this is entailed in light. See further Psalm 102:25, 104:5; Proverbs 3:19, 8:29.