The Creation of the World, 1-31

‘This account of creation lays the foundation of Israel’s world view about God, human beings, creation, and the laws that pertain to mankind (e.g., to worship no other gods, to keep the Sabbath, and to take no innocent life).’ (New Geneva)

The opening section as prologue:

‘This opening section of Genesis stands outside the main frame of the book set by the ten headings, ‘This is the account of’ (Gen 2:4 etc.). This shows that it is a prologue to the rest of the book, setting out who God is and how he relates to the world. It thus provides a key to the interpretation of Genesis, if not the whole Bible. But this prologue is more than a statement of theology, it is a hymn of praise to the Creator through whom and for whom all things exist.’ (NBC)

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth… – This form of words dates back at least as far as the AV, and has been repeated in many subsequent  translations (NIV 1984, NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, NKJV, RSV).  In fact this translation reflects that of the LXX.

Compare:

NRSV – ‘In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth…’
GNB – ‘In the beginning, when God created the universe…’

As traditionally understood, this passage implies a creation out of nothing.  The alternative translation implies that God worked creatively from pre-existing materials (with land and water already present).  This alternative translation allows for (but does not require) belief that God and the cosmos as co-eternal (see Psa 148:5; Prov 8:22–27).

Although God can and does create ‘out of nothing’, he also creates new things from pre-existent materials, as in Gen 1:27; 2:7. The doctrine of creation includes both ex nihilo and mediate creation, the latter involving pre-existing materials, other agencies, and, possibly, large tracts of time.

Enns and Byas (Genesis For Normal People) extend this further.  They say that the ancient world did not have a concept of creation ex nihilo.  The present chapter begins, accordingly, with a cosmos that is tohubohu – a formless void.  Where there is formlessness, God will create space (days 1-3), and where this is an empty void God will fill it (days 4-6).

John Walton, in a variety of publications, maintains that the Genesis account – beginning as it does with this verse – is more to do with function than with material things per se.  Days 1-3 of chapter 1, accordingly, are to do with assigning function and order to previously disordered and non-functioning materials.  Days 4-6 are to do with functionaries.  Day 7 is about the Lord occupying his now-functioning creation, which then becomes a temple in which he rests and is worshipped.  He shares this with human beings, seen as co-workers (not as slaves).

See this somewhat technical discussion by Edward L. Greenstein.  I am not qualified to adjudicate in this matter.  I simply note the uncertainty about the translation of this famous verse, and record Greenstein’s conclusion:

‘Genesis does not attribute the creation of the primordial matter to the deity. The creation of the primordial matter is either presupposed or unimagined.’

What about the eternity that preceded the creation of the cosmos? –

‘Prior to the beginning mentioned in Gen 1:1, we must postulate a beginningless eternity, during which God only existed. How must we fill up these blank ages in the eternal life of God? What did God do before the creation of the world?…He is represented in Scripture as always working, Jn 5:17. Can we then say that he passed from a state of inactivity to one of action? Moreover, how is the transition from a non-creative to a creative state to be reconciled with his immutability? And if he had the eternal purpose to create, why did he not carry it out at once? Why did he allow a whole eternity to elapse before his plan was put into execution? Moreover, why did he select that particular moment for his creative work?’ (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 130f)

‘The existence of God is the foundation of all religion’:

‘Moses begins with the Author of creation, before he treats of the promise of redemption. Paul preached God as creator (Ac 17:24) before he preached Christ as mediator…The devil directs his fiercest batteries against those doctrines in the Word, and those graces in the heart, which most exalt God and bring men to the lowest subjection to their Creator…Sin unlinks the dependence between God the Sovereign and man the subject. Sin endeavors to subject God to the wills of men. God is deposed, and man is enthroned; God made a slave, and man a sovereign above him.’ (Stephen Charnock)

A ‘plural of majesty’:

‘The Hebrew word for “God,” the first subject of Genesis and the Bible, is plural to denote his majesty. There is no other god. (Deut 4:39; Isa 40:21,28; 43:10; Jn 1:1; Col 1:17) he is truth, the basis for all sound knowledge. (Jn 14:6) God is personal; he speaks and acts.’ (New Geneva)

The word for ‘created’ is bara. There are a number of significant points about this word. For one thing, it is only ever used with God as its subject: creation is a divine prerogative, even though by extension we can speak of human creativity. For another thing, the word is used only infrequently even of God’s action: (e.g. Gen 1:1,21,27) this points to the dignity and majesty of this mode of divine action. Again, when the word is used, no mention is ever made of any materials that God made have used to create with: an artist uses a variety of material (paint, stone, wood, and so on), but God does not simply work with things, he brings things into being. This is not to say that God does not use materials: it is just to say that his sovereignty over the materials is so complete that the materials themselves are irrelevant to the ultimate creative achievement.

‘The first article in the creed of inspiration relates to physical nature’ (Dawson).

All things are to be understood in relation to God as their ultimate cause. This hast vast implications for every area of our lives, including education, politics, economics, family life, moral values, and scientific research.

Similarly, we should reject attempts to align this text with the beliefs and findings of modern science.  For example Ray Comfort writes:

‘Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion. “In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]…And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters.” The first thing Scripture tells us is that God controls all aspects of the universe.’

But it doesn’t take a sceptic to point out that this is mere hermeneutical opportunism.

1:2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.

The earth was formless and empty – The world was at the beginning an orderless chaos. See Jer 4:23 Isa 34:11. These passages indicate that a sense of waste and chaos is meant, rather like a trackless desert. The rest of the chapter will show the developing order imposed by God. How easy it is for us to reverse the creative order, and to cause the world to sink back into its primeval chaos and formlessness! ‘The earth is almost reduced to the same condition again by the sin of man, under which the creation groans. See Jer 4:23, I beheld the earth, and lo it was without form, and void.’ (MHC)

The earth was yet to be ‘shaped’ (for example, by the series of ‘separations”) and populated.

Some postulate a ‘gap’ between verses 1 and 2 and would translate ‘became’ rather than ‘was’:

‘Although the Hebrew word may mean “became” (as in Gen 19:26), the construction of the clause does not support a consecutive statement describing something that happened subsequent to verse 1 (“and”) but rather describing something included in verse 1 (“but”). In other words, the initial creation was formless and empty, a condition soon remedied. The phrase means that at this point in God’s creative activity the earth was yet unfashioned and uninhabited.’ (Ryrie)

The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters – So most translations.  Some commentators, however, thinks that ‘Spirit’ over-Christianizes the word ‘ruach‘ here, and prefer to translate, ‘wind’.  But, writes Peter Leithart,

‘the arguments for the traditional translation are compelling. The ruach is on ‘elohim’s side of the Creator-creation divide. As Augustine notes, the Spirit is in a position of superiority to the earth, hovering above it, moving as a bird hovers over an egg or protectively over its young (see Deut 32:11). The ruach is (at least) the operation of ‘elohim as He shapes and fills the formless void.’

Moreover (quoting Hamilton),

‘“none of the other eighteen occurrences of this phrase [ruach of Elohim] in the OT means anything like ‘mighty wind’” (e.g., (Exod 31:3; 35:31; Num 24:2; 1 Sam 10:10; 16:14).’

And when ruach means ‘wind’, it generally implies destruction rather than creation (Exod 15:10; Isa 11:15; 40:7).  When it means ‘breath’ or ‘spirit’ is generally implies something constructive or creative.

The word translated ‘hovering’ doesn’t describe what the wind does.  Rather, it describes how the protective, nurturing eagle cares for its young (see Deut 32:10f, with its echoes of the present passage).  Some have seen a pre-echo of Christ’a baptism, with its reference to the Spirit as a dove, Mt 3:16.

The Holy Spirit had a key role in creation. The Heb means both ‘wind’ and ‘spirit’. A feminine quality is apparent here: the picture is that of a mother eagle, fluttering over her young, nurturing them into strong, active life. See Job 33:4 Ps 104:30. ‘It is the Spirit who, everywhere diffused, sustains all things, causes them to grow, and quickens them in heaven and in earth’ (Calvin).

1:3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 1:4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.

And God said… – God speaks with sovereign authority. Compare God’s commands with our own, in terms of (a) wisdom; (b) power; (c) certainty of outcome. The NT will make clear the identification of Christ as ‘the Word of God’, Jn 1:1ff; Col 1:15ff; Heb 1:2-3.

G. Wenham comments on the careful arrangement of the prologue:

‘Ten divine commands result in eight acts of creation spread over six days, so that there is a correspondence between days one to three and days four to six. On day one, God created ‘light’ and on day four, ‘lights’ (sun, moon and stars); on day two, he created the sky and sea and on day five, the dwellers in the sky and sea (birds and fish); on day three, he created the land and vegetation and on day six, the dwellers in the land (animals and mankind), giving them plants to eat; finally, on the seventh day (the Sabbath), he rested.’ (NBC)

Peter Leithart notes that

‘No sooner does the Spirit make an appearance than God speaks his first fiat. That God creates by word is one of the most obvious and distinctive biblical claims about creation (Psa 33:6; 148:5; John 1:1-5; 2 Cor 4:6; Heb 11:3).’

The identification of ‘the Word’ with Jesus Christ is, of course, made explicit in Jn 1:1-5, which is itself an unmistakeable echo of the opening of Genesis 1.

“Let there be light” – Not the sun, which was created on the fourth day, Gen 1:16. ‘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.’ (NBC)

‘As the old, so the new creation begins in light; the opening of the eyes is the first work of the Spirit.’ (Flavel)

1:6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water. 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 1:8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.

Verses 6-8 appear to reflect an ancient cosmology, according to which there is a body of water in the ‘expanse’ (‘firmament’) above the sky.  This body of water (mayim) can scarcely have been the water vapour contained in the clouds, for there were several other, more common words for that.

According to many commentators, the ‘events’ of day 2 reflect an ancient, pre-scientific view of the cosmos.  The ‘firmament’ seems to be solid, separating the water above (after all, the sky is blue, giving the appearance of water, and rain comes from above) from the sea water below.  The ‘firmament’ is held up by the ‘pillars of the earth’ (distant mountains).

1:9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 1:10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.

Kidner draws attention to the themes of differentiation, v9,10, and fullness, 11,12, the latter becoming prominent in the rest of the chapter. Alternatively, we might suggest that the twin themes are differentiation and propagation.

The water…dry ground – May be regarded as the oceans and the continents respectively.

How does water gather to one place? – It flows, following the law of gravity. How does dry ground appear? – It moves.

God said…and it was so – The world is shaped and formed in perfect obedience to God’s command.

God called… – ‘The act of naming this and other parts of the creation was, in the Semitic world, an evidence of lordship. (cf. 2 King 23:34) Note the significance of this in Gen 2:19.’ (Ryrie)

God saw that it was good – There may be a hint of divine plurality here, as ‘God’ evaluates ‘God’s work’.  Peter Leithart suggests:

‘When we read Genesis 1 in the light of John 1, this suspicion becomes not only plausible but nearly inevitable. If the Word by which the Father creates is God-with-God, God-toward-God, then the judgments at the end of each day are the Father’s judgments of the Son’s work. Since the Son does all he does in the power of the Spirit, the Father commends both equally. Having established His throne in heaven, the Father issues decrees to be executed by the Son and Spirit, and passes judgment on the goodness of their work. Or, more tightly, the Son is the decree that the enthroned Creator utters by the breath of His Spirit.’

1:11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. 1:12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 1:13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.”

How does the land ‘produce vegetation’? – By the propagation of life. Note the emphasis on ‘seed-bearing’.

“According to their various kinds” – There is orderliness and predictability here, that makes not only science, but logic and reasoning, possible. Compare James’ reasoning in James 3:12.

‘There are fixed boundaries beyond which reproductive variations cannot go, but it is impossible to know whether “kind” is to be equated with families, genera, or some other category of biological classification.’ (Ryrie)

‘Fertility, so often deified in the ancient world, is a created capacity, from the hand of the one God.’

There was evening, and there was morning, a third day – It seems to be stretching credulity beyond breaking point to suppose that everything described here occurred within a period of 24 hours.

1:14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 1:15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 1:17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 1:18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 1:19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.

“Let there be lights” – ‘The light source of the first day was replaced by the sun and moon. Their purposes were to distinguish day and night, to be signs (by which men get their bearings, as well as signs of judgment, Mt 24:29, to mark off the seasons, and to give light to the earth.’ (Ryrie)

“Let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years” – According to the Sceptic’s Annotated Bible, this (along with Judg 5:20; Mt 2:1f; and Lk 21:25) suggests that the Bible approves of astrology.  This would then be in contradiction to Lev 19:26; Deut 18:10-12; Isa 47:13f; Jer 10:2; and Zeph 1:4f which all condemn the practice of astrology.

In fact, the present verse is self-explanatory: the sun and the moon ‘mark seasons and days and years’.  That is to say, the sun apparent journey of the sun across the sky marks the passage of the day and night, the phases of the moon marks a lunar month, and the elevation of the sun in the sky, along with the length of daylight, marks the passing of the year.  Or, it might be more accurate to say, with Enns and Byas, that they mark, not so much the times of the day or year, but the various points in the Israelite liturgical year.

Either way, it’s nothing to do with astrology.

What we can say is that the Genesis account differs markedly from ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian cosmologies, which regarded sun, moon, and stars as divine beings:

‘Instead of humans bowing down to serve the heavenly bodies, the heavenly bodies were created by God to serve humans’ (Lamoureux, Four Views on the Historical Adam).

Equally baseless is the view of Robert Clifton Robinson.  In this verse, according to Robinson:

‘God states that He created the sun, the moon, and the stars as signs to mark seasons and important events He defines important.’

Note the gloss (my emphasis).  This gloss enables Robinson to recruit this verse into an entire mythology concerning astronomical events that are purported to signal key events leading up to our Lord’s Second Advent (understood in terms of Dispensational doctrine).  See Lk 21:25-28; Acts 2:20.  Robinson feels able to place additional stress on the present verse by an appeal to the notion of what might be called ‘the law of first mention’ – the idea that the first mention of something in the Bible is particularly important in determining its meaning.

Two great lights – The sun and the moon.  Those who adopt a rather literal interpretation must account for the apparent creation of these bodies on the 4th day – after the creation of the earth itself.  The answer offered by Geisler (Baker’s Encylopedia of Apologetics) is that it was on the fourth day that they appeared (due to disappearance of the original vapour).

1:20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 1:21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 1:22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 1:23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.”

God saw that it was good – ‘beautiful and in perfect ecological balance.’ (Ryrie)

1:24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 1:25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.”

“Let the land produce living creatures” – Other creation accounts from the ANE speak of creatures (and humans) ‘sprouting’ from the land, and this appears to be the implied mechanism here.

“According to their kinds” – Anti-evolutionists argue that this proves the immutability of the species.  Lamoureux (Four View on the Historical Adam), however, argues that the language is phenomenological.  Ancient people would have observed that sheep only give birth to sheep, human to humans, and so on.  It would therefore have been reasonable for them to assume that there must have been an original, fully-formed, member (or pair of members) of each species: hence the assumption of an original pair of humans, Adam and Eve.

1:26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”

“Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness” – There is both continuity and discontinuity between the creation of the animal kingdom and the creation of humans.  They are the same, yet different.  Humans may be the pinnacle of God’s creation, but they have a kinship with other living and breathing things that they neglect at their peril.  So it is with the man and the woman: it has been said that they are like the two banks of a river, having equal importance and yet distinct and complementary differences too.

Enns and Byas note that, in the ancient world, a ruler might place an image of himself in a remote part of his empire, to let his subjects know that he is still present, though physically remote.  Here, though, all of humankind has this royal status.  They represent God, ruling over creation in his place.

The same writers continue:

‘In the Babylonian creation story, humans are not made in God’s image. In one story called the Epic of Atrahasis, humans are created as an afterthought to do the grunt work the gods are too good for or are simply too lazy to do. The elevation of humans as a whole, male and female, to the level of divine image-bearer is an ancient Israelite comment on human equality.’

‘The works of creation moved to a climax on day six when mankind was created in two sexes. That this is seen as the crowning feat of God’s creation is emphasized by the lengthy comments on their creation and role, (Gen 1:26-29) which are much fuller than those about any other creature. Indeed, the works of the five preceding days seem to focus on creating a home for mankind. Those aspects of creation that most affect human existence (e.g. plant and animal life and the sun and moon) are described more fully than the creation of light, land, or seas, which are less significant. God’s concern for humanity is made explicit in the provision of plants for food.’ (NBC)

Genesis views humankind as both in nature and over it – there is continuity and discontinuity.

P.T. Forsyth:

‘We were created by God not out of his poverty and his need of company, but out of his overflowing wealth of love and his passion to multiply joy.’

“Let us…our” –

‘The scope of God’s image in man is not defined in Gen 1:26-27, but the context makes it clear. Gen 1:1-25 sets forth God as personal, rational (having intelligence and will, able to form plans and execute them), creative, competent to control the world he has made, and morally admirable, in that all he creates is good. Plainly, God’s image will include all these qualities. Verses 28-30 show God blessing newly created humans (that must mean telling them their privilege and destiny) and setting them to rule creation as his representatives and deputies. The human capacity for communication and relationship with both God and other humans, and the God-given dominion over the lower creation (highlighted in Ps. 8 as the answer to the question, What is man?), thus appear as further facets of the image.’ (Packer, Concise Theology)

‘Apart from God himself, the nearest thing to God is a human soul.’ (A. W. Tozer)

‘Man is neither angel nor beast’ (Pascal), nor some mixture of the two, combining a celestial principle with animal matter.  He is ‘the image of God’.

Certainly, man has solidarity with the animals: he arrived with them on the sixth day, and his food was appointed at the same time as theirs.  But neither animals nor angels are made in God’s image.

The ‘image of god’ denotes derivation and dependence (he is only an image); but also close approximation and dignity.  According to Moltmann, human beings are involved in three fundamental relationships that denote God’s image: they rule over earthly creatures as God’s representatives; they are God’s counterparts on earth, and are made for communion with him; and they are the appearance of God’s splendour, and his glory on earth.

In what does the image of God consist?  This is not made clear in the passage.  It is, perhaps, reflected in transcendence, communication, and spirituality.  An image can constitute a declaration of ownership, Mt 22:20f.

A symbol of God’s rule?  The Kostenbergers:

‘Today, when you hear the word image, you may think of a picture or drawing, but in the day when Genesis was written, the term carried a slightly different connotation. In the ancient Near East, the image of a ruler commonly represented the potentate’s presence in his kingdom. A ruler’s image thus signified his rule, such as when his or her likeness was minted on a coin. In the case of humans, as the male-female image of God, they symbolize his rule, having been created to reflect his glory to all creation (see Ps. 8: 6– 8). Neither the angels nor the animals are in charge of creation— humans are, created in God’s image. At the same time, they are to exercise dominion not in an abusive or oppressive manner but as responsible guardians of the earth for God.’ (God’s Design for Man and Woman)

‘I understand the idea of the “image,” as in Genesis 1: 26– 28, to mean that humans are designed to function like angled mirrors. We are created in order to reflect the worship of all creation back to the Creator and by that same means to reflect the wise sovereignty of the Creator into the world. Human beings, worshipping their Creator, were thus the intended key to the proper flourishing of the world. “Worship” was and is a matter of gazing with delight, gratitude, and love at the creator God and expressing his praise in wise, articulate speech. Those who do this are formed by this activity to become the generous, humble stewards through whom God’s creative and sustaining love is let loose into the world.’ (Wright, The Day the Revolution Began)

Genesis does not say that man is ‘the son of God’, for this would imply divinity (but see Lk 3:38; Acts 17:28).  Generally, Scripture reserves the notion of ‘son of god’ for our adoption as children through Jesus Christ.

What happened to the image of God in man following the fall?  Was it tainted, or destroyed?  Gen 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7; James 3:6 all teach that the image is permanent.

The continued possession of this privilege explains why it is scandalous to take human life, or to curse man while blessing the Lord.  The death entailed by sin is the setting up of a fatal contradiction, an utter perversion of original intent.  After the fall humankind remains humankind, with all the ensuing inviolability and responsibility, but a grisly shadow of himself, a contradictory image, a caricature.

We see the perfect image of God in Jesus Christ, Col 1:15; 2 Cor 4:4.

Many today seem to be in crisis because of low self-esteem.  The difficulties we have in making and sustaining relationships lead to a poor view of self-worth.  But God’s image in man means that not one person is worthless in his sight.

If we are created in the image of God, then our love for God will lead to love for our neighbour, James 3:9.

‘Science enormously emphasizes the unique status of Man. It makes him much more obviously the lord of creation, the measure of all things, the image of God. What it does not do is to give any guarantee whatever that this magician will use his powers well, that he will advance “pari passu” in moral as in material things. Put those two facts together, and you find yourself facing the two dogmas of the Creation and the Fall.’ (G. K. Chesterton) Cf. Ps 8:6; Rom 3:23; 1 Jn 1:8.

“Let them rule” – Note that the man and the woman were given joint rulership of the world and everything in it.

‘Ps. 8:4-8 offers a marvellous poetic comment on this idea. Rule implies lordship but not exploitation. Man, as God’s representative, must rule his subjects, as God does, for their own good. While legitimizing human use of the world’s resources, God gives no licence for our abuse of his creation.’ (NBC)

‘Humankind, created on day 6, is given authority to rule over what God had made on days 4 and 5. The image of God is not that spark in us that makes us human rather than animal—like reason, self-consciousness, or consciousness of God. In Genesis it means that humans represent God in the world, nothing less but certainly nothing more. This is not to dismiss the question of what makes us human and how humanity uniquely reflects God, especially given the challenge of evolution; but “image of God” is not the biblical way of addressing those ideas.’ (Enns, The Evolution of Adam)

1:27 God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

‘Each of these three lines makes a point. Line one asserts the divine creation of man. We came from God. Line two overlaps with line one, except that it highlights the divine image in man. We bear a resemblance to God. Line three boldly affirms the dual sexuality of man. We are male and female.’ (Raymond Ortlund, (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, p97)

So God created – Putting together the divine resolve (“Let us make man…and let them rule”) with the divine creation (“So God created…”) and the divine blessing (“Be fruitful…fill the earth and subdue it…”), Stott says that the emphasis is on three fundamental aspects of humanness: that we are made by him in his own image, that we are made male and female, and that together we are given dominion over the creation.  Men and women are equal beneficiaries in all of this.  ‘There is no suggestion in the text that either sex is more like God than the other, or that either sex is more responsible for the earth than the other.’ (Issues facing Christians today, 4th ed., p328).

Man – The word ʾādām is used generically here.

‘It should be pointed out that Old Testament Hebrew has no common term for “humanity” other than ʾadam. The generic ʾadam was part of the West Semitic lexicon before Genesis 1–3 was revealed and written in the form in which it occurs. Therefore it is somewhat inaccurate to suggest that there was a conscious divine decision to use a masculine term to describe the human race. No other term was available, and there is no evidence that the writer of Genesis invented new words. It should also be noted that Hebrew has only two genders, masculine and feminine; there is no neuter…In short, the nature of revelation, Hebrew language and vocabulary, the semantic range of ʾadam, and the common linguistic development of words all argue against the presumption that “God’s naming of the race ‘man’ whispers male headship”.’ (Hess, in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy).

In the image of God he created them – lit. ‘created him’.

1. Only an image. An image ‘exists only by derivation. It is not the original, nor is it anything without the original. Mankind’s being an image stresses the radical nature of his dependence’ (Blocher).
2. The only image. Although only an image, and although the Genesis accounts stress our solidarity with the animal kingdom, it is not they, nor even angels, but only human creatures who are made in God’s image. The narrative indicates that this was climax of God’s six days’ work.   (Blocher)

Blocher adds that there is a polemical thrust to this declaration. In Ancient Egypt, for example, the pharaoh would often be referred to as the ‘image of God’. But Genesis applies it to all of humankind.

‘In the ancient world, as indeed in some parts of the modern one, great rulers would often set up statues of themselves in prominent places, not so much in their own home territory (where everyone knew who they were, and that they were in charge), but in their foreign or far-flung dominions. Far more statues of Roman emperors were found in Greece, Turkey and Egypt than in Italy or Rome itself. For an emperor, the point of placing an image of yourself in the subject territory was that the subjects in that country would be reminded that you were their ruler, and would conduct themselves accordingly.

‘That has, to us, a threatening sound. We are democrats. We don’t want far-off rulers giving us orders, still less (as we rightly suspect) demanding our money. But that only shows how much our relationships, with God, with the world, and with one another, have been flawed and corrupted. In the early stories, the point was that the creator God loved the world he had made, and wanted to look after it in the best possible way. To that end, he placed within his world looking-after creature, a creature who would demonstrate to the creation who he, the creator, really was, and who would go to work to develop the creation and make it flourish and fulfil its purpose. The creature (or rather this family of creatures, the human race) would model and embody that interrelatedness, that mutual and fruitful knowing, trusting and loving, which was the creator’s intention.’ (Wright, Simply Christian, 31f)

‘Those who regard a human being as nothing but a programmed machine (behaviourists) or an absurdity (existentialists) or a naked ape (humanistic evolutionalists) are all denigrating our creation in God’s image.  True, we are also rebels against God and deserve nothing at his hand except judgment, but our fallenness has not entirely destroyed our God-likeness.  More important still, in spite of our revolt against him, God has loved, redeemed, adopted, and re-created us in Christ.’ (Stott, Authentic Christianity, 139)

Why ‘image’, and not ‘son’ of God?  Lk 3:38 calls Adam ‘the son of God, and Paul takes up a line from a pagan poet to a similar effect, Acts 17:28. ‘Why does Genesis not state it clearly? Doubtless it wanted to keep as far away as possible any pantheistic temptation. “Son” rather than “image” could have suggested that mankind possessed divinity, the idea that had to be banned. In particular, we would say that Scripture wished to reserve the word “son” for the closer, indissoluble relationship of communion that God established with us in Jesus Christ, the Son who became the new man. In the Son we become sons, an act of grace which fulfils and transcends our primeval quasi-sonship.’ (Blocher)

Male and female he created them – Eve’s physical formation is not detailed until 2:18-23.

‘Clearly the intention of the text is to say both that the man and the woman share a common humanity and equal worth before God (hence, both are “man”), and yet they do so not as identical (hence they are distinctly “male and female”).’ (Ware, Bible Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood)

‘If both sexes bear the image of God…then this seems to include not only our humanity (authentic humanness reflecting divinity), but our plurality (our relationships of love reflecting those which unit the persons of the Trinity) and even, at least in the broadest sense, our sexuality.  Is it too much to say that since God, when he made humanity in his own image, made them male and female, there must be within the being of God himself something which corresponds to the “feminine” as well as the “masculine” in humankind?’ (Stott, Issues facing Christians today, 4th ed., p328f)

The text leads us to avoid, on the one hand, the obsessiveness of the Syrian and Canaanite nature cults and the eroticism of our own age, and on the other hand, the prudery and repression associated with the Victorian age.

1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.”

God…said to them – J.I. Packer suggests that within the first three chapters of Genesis we see the word of God in relation to his created world in all its possible relations:

‘Here is God addressing human beings directly; thus fellowship between God and them is inaugurated. Note the categories into which God’s utterances to them in the rest of the story fall.

God’s first word to Adam and Eve is a word of command, summoning them to fulfill humankind’s vocation of ruling the created order. (“Be fruitful . . . and have dominion . . . ,” v. 28.)

Then follows a word of testimony (“Behold . . . ,” v. 29) in which God explains that green plants, crops and fruits have been made for humans and animals to eat.

Next we meet a prohibition, with sanction appended: “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Gen 2:17).

Finally, after the Fall, God comes near to Adam and Eve and speaks to them again, and this time his words are words of promise, both favorable and unfavorable, for while he undertakes, on the one hand, that the woman’s seed shall bruise the serpent’s head, on the other hand he ordains for Eve grief in childbirth, for Adam frustrating labor, and for both certain death (Gen 3:15–19).’ (Knowing God, paragraphing added)

“Be fruitful and increase in number” – ‘that is, to procreate intelligently, responsibly and believingly, trusting in God to provide. Their sexuality was not to be used irresponsibly, but neither was it to be suppressed because of unbelief and unfaith.’ (McLeod, A Faith to Live By)

Amy-Jill Levine notes that some Christians appeal to this verse to support the argument that sexual intercourse should be oriented to procreation, and therefore limited to heterosexual couples.  Levine responds:

‘First, the text is an endorsement of procreation, not a limitation of the sexual act.

‘Second, this restrictive reading fails to allow sexual relations between couples who are incapable of reproducing, which is a denial of the goodness of creation.

‘Third, this commandment was completed in Genesis 11:8-9, when humanity, following the fall of the Tower of Babel, filled the earth.’

(Reformatted)

“Fill the earth” – that is, replenish it. ‘They were to move over the horizons, over the hills and the rivers, into the unknown. They were to be creative and adventurous, to want to know, unable to be content with not knowing. God put that drive into every human being and into all authentic humanness. The young should never be discouraged from experimenting, innovating and exploring. It is their God-given destiny to move out and to live on the frontier. The church of God, too, must live on the frontier, creatively and imaginatively as God meant her to do. Eden was a great place. But the man and the woman were not meant to stay there. They were meant to move out and fill the whole earth.’ (McLeod, A Faith to Live By)

“Rule over…every living creature” – ‘We take this to mean that man was to research and harness the forces and resources of the cosmos through the procedures of pure science and technology. But we remember with gladness that God put the first human pair into a garden, not into an academic institution, and that they were to express their divine image-bearing by digging and delving, by the great conjoint operations of conservation and improvement. This is surely our responsibility too: not only to keep, but to till; not only to conserve, but also to improve whatever has been entrusted to us, whether it be a garden, a landscape or a theological heritage.’ (McLeod, A Faith to Live By)

“The fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground” – Megan DeFranza writes that ‘while I have often heard the argument that people whose bodies fall in between the “creation categories of male and female” are a result of the fall or “not what God intended,” I have never heard frogs or penguins or ostriches employed as proof of sin’s effect on God’s good creation since these creatures mix the categories outlined in Genesis 1:28.’  (Understanding Transgender Identities).  The argument is weak: intersex conditions involve a physiological anomaly (at the chromosomal level, perhaps, or at the hormonal level).  For this reason they may justly be regarded as ‘not what God intended’.  This does not apply to ‘frogs, penguins or ostriches’.

The so-called ‘cultural mandate’ can be found in Gen 2, which will present a picture of man as God’s estate manager, cultivating and nurturing the garden, with the animals as man’s companions. Man can be seen as the ‘priest of nature’, giving voice to her inarticulate praise to the Creator of all things.

‘Mankind was made to rule creation.  This noblest of creatures was set at the head of the created order, and told to subdue it, Gen 1:28; that is, to map and tap its resources, to bring out and utilise its latent possibilities, to put it to work for him, and thus to harness and develop all its powers for the enriching of his own life, in obedience to God.  God gave us richly all things to enjoy (cf 1 Tim 6:17).  He willed to be glorified through humanity’s learning to appreciate and admire his wisdom and goodness as Creator.  In other words, God commissioned mankind to build a culture and civilisation.’ (J.I. Packer, God’s Words, p61).

1:29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 1:30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so. 1:31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.”

It was very good – God pronounced all things he had made ‘very good’.  Carson says: ‘There is no hint in Genesis 1–2 of death or decay, of butchery, malice, hate, one-upmanship, arrogance, pride, or destruction. There is no hint of any of this. Everything is very good.’ (The God Who is There)

As Matthew Henry remarks, God’s creation is good, for,

1. it is all that he intended;
2. it fits the purpose for which it was intended;
3. it is serviceable to man, who was designed to have dominion over it;
4. it glorifies God.

If God has pronounced all things ‘very good’, we should be thankful for the goodness of creation, and for the material things he has given us, which are intended to be used for him, Ps 104:24; 1 Tim 4:3ff. We should delight in God’s creation, and take joy in the handiwork of the Master-craftsman. Because God’s handiwork is ‘very good’, he values it and care for it – and so should we. Yet how much more does he care for you and me, Mt 6:28ff!