Eco-Theology
Bible Study No. 1
Genesis 1. God and the Whole Creation
The first chapter of the bible (though in fact it runs to chapter 2 verse 3) imagines a week in the life of God. A momentous week because God used it to create the universe. Science has taught us that the universe took some 14 billion years to be created from the big bang that defined the shape of the constellations to the emergence of creatures like us. But then long before science was able to date the past theologians had discerned that God doesn’t measure time like us (see 2 Peter 3:8). Genesis 1 does not tell us when different bits of creation happened, nor the mechanism by which new elements appeared as part of the creation montage. Nor is it accurate scientifically as to the order in which things happened: for example plants are made on day three but the sun not until day four. Rather, its whole purpose is to show clearly the nature of the relationship between God and the physical universe, of which we ourselves are a part.
“Day” is therefore a poetic way of defining a stage of creation, and as in some other poetic writing including some of our hymns, each of those days generates a stanza, with each stanza having a similar pattern. So, each day begins with God saying, “Let such and such come into existence”, and then it happens. This fact that creation was God’s idea and that God brings each part of it into existence, is reinforced by God assuming the right to name the created things on days one to three, and then on days five and six by God purposefully conferring the blessing that enables the living creatures to reproduce. Usually God is said to note the goodness of each thing as it is made, and when every intended act of creation is complete at the end of day six “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good”. That qualifying adjective “very” suggests that the whole creation considered together is even more perfect in God’s eyes that each part individually. And we, humankind, are one of those parts. We don’t have a creation day of our own but are created on the same day as all the other land creatures. And yet there are several unique elements in the description of human creation for us to reflect on the significance of. One is that we are made in God’s image and likeness. We might take that as implying, among other things, that our relationship with the rest of creation should be modelled in some sense on how God relates to it. Secondly, having created us God speaks to us, indicating perhaps that (s)he expects us to listen, and not just to do what comes naturally as is expected of the other creatures. Thirdly in that first act of speaking to humanity God assigned responsibilities in relation to created things; what the words “subdue” and “dominion” mean is crucial to understanding our place within creation, and the next chapter, which will be our next study passage, helps. But this section in itself
(particularly v26) would seem to make clear that the question has to be posed in the form, “How should those who collectively bear the image of God exercise dominion in relation to all other creatures?” [A quick reminder from the series introduction article that “creature” covers all that God created, not just what we think of as living things.] Hopefully the previous paragraph offers plenty of questions to ponder, alone or with others, in understanding how God, the universe and us are intended to relate. Here are some other questions to think about or discuss with others arising from Genesis
- Why do some believers want Genesis 1 to provide scientific information about creation?
- I wrote “each stanza has a similar pattern”. What departures from this do you notice, and
how do you interpret their significance? - Why do you think it is important to the writer to state (v29-30) that humans and other
animals when created were intended to be vegetarian? [You might want to be aware that
God’s instruction changes from Genesis 9:2-3.] - God declared everything in creation good. When we judge something as bad is human sin
to blame or are we merely mistaken, do you think?
Stephen Mosedale