If you recall, the first-and-foremost objection to Genesis is the Creation story -- Genesis 1-2. Genesis begins with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). Objection #1. This requires that God be regarded as Creator and, therefore, Owner and Operator. That's right out. As a rebellious race of beings, we accept "I will make myself like the Most High" (Isa 14:14) much more easily than to bow the knee to God. But I think Objection #2 comes out in verse 27.
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Gen 1:27)Maybe the import of such a statement eludes you, so consider. The text first agrees with that offensive "God created" line. Then it goes further. It declares that humans are made in the image of God. At first glance, that's okay, right? Right. Until you realize that this gives humans a special status and killing them, even in their earliest stages, would be wrong. This text opposes the so-called "woman's right to choose." But it's not done.
Objection #3: In the process of explaining part of the nature of "in His own image" it says "Male and female He created them." It is in the context of "in His image." And it is -- oh, the horrors -- gender binary. To suggest that there is something besides "male" and "female" is to violate God's image. And that will never do.
Then it takes it one step beyond -- Objection #4. In the next verse God issues His first command: "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). That is, male and female are uniquely designed and equipped to carry out this specific command from God to procreate. Males cannot procreate with males and females cannot procreate with females. "Be fruitful and multiply" can only happen in an actual gender binary world. But beyond that, this would make sex between same-sex couples not "natural" like it says in Romans (Rom 1:26-27). Not acceptable in the least.
As if that's not enough, the second chapter of Genesis ends with just one more offensive statement -- Objection #5, if you will. It is at the end of chapter 2, then repeated by Jesus, and later repeated by Paul.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)You see what this means, don't you? This verse defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It makes the term "same-sex marriage" an oxymoron, a logical impossibility. You can call that "same-sex" stuff a variety of things, but "marriage" isn't applicable ... given Genesis 2.
We can be fairly naive. We might just say, "Well, God said it so I believe it." And we might miss these objections. Genesis 1-2 must be myth. Why? Because it makes God out to be Lord and Master, the owner and creator of all. Because it suggests humans are in the image of God, removing abortion as a viable, moral contraceptive. Because it defies modern thinking that "my gender is whatever I believe it to be." Because it defines sex between same-sex people as unnatural. Because it denies "same-sex marriage" as an actual thing. Five major objections in the first 2 chapters. Clearly it must by myth. Otherwise, we have a lot of changing to do.
6 comments:
👍
Ha! Asking Christians to live their lives according to Scripture. Tis to laugh. How outdated. Everyone knows we can live how we like without regard for what Christ commanded. Granted, living how we like without regard for His commands will send us to hell, but that's not important because hell doesn't actually exist. (End sarcasm)
I could be wrong, but I've concluded that one of the wonders of the creating story is that there is room for some discussion around the specifics (day/day age), while still acknowledging the miracle of creation ex nihlo. I'm less concerned with the details, than I am with the big picture. God created all that exists from nothing, ordered and designed it to function, and created humans to have a special and unique place in our relationship to Him and to His creation. I've grown to believe that the contortions people go through in order to minimize God's creation, are simply one more manifestation of our human desire to control God and to control the narrative to our (supposed) benefit.
I'm not tied to a "6,000-year-old" model, but I am wondering how folks conclude "There was no Adam" AND conclude that Jesus and Paul were right when they reference Adam as a real person. Paul makes a big deal about "the first man, Adam" in contrast to Christ as the second man, but if we mythologize Adam, we eliminate the picture. There is too much riding on meaningful content of Genesis 1-3 and the Flood (Peter thought that was real) to allow for too much messing with the story for the sake of science and self-justification.
I agree that I'm not tied to the 6000 year model as much as I acknowledge that God certainly has the power to have created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days. I think that the uniqueness of creating isn't necessarily harmed by the "day age" option, given some of the scriptural support for God experiencing time differently than we do. As you point out, the mythologizing of Adam has clear repercussions throughout scripture, as does mythologizing creation ex nihlo. So many major figures throughout the remainder of scripture (specifically Jesus) treat Adam as if he was an actual person and his actions as real, that mythologizing Adam undercuts what Jesus (among others) said later. I think that this is also a way of limiting Jesus as well. If Jesus is who scripture says HE is, then He was an actual witness to what happened with Adam and for Him to mislead His followers about that seems out of character. I do agree that mythologizing Genesis, has repercussions that go way beyond the depicted events.
I've heard some compelling arguments on both sides of the day subject, I've never heard a compelling argument in favor of the "myth" interpretation.
Post a Comment