One final Genesis Principle. One final big principle. That is the condition we all have come to know as "sin". The biblical version occurs in Genesis 3.
You know the story. It begins, "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field ..." (Gen 3:1), an ominous beginning to be sure. Satan in serpent form asks, "Did God say ...?" Contradicting God, he informs Eve that she could be "like God" (Gen 3:5). The outcome? "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate" (Gen 3:6). Well, you know the rest. God came and found them hiding. They finally revealed their sin. Everyone paid the price. Each player in the scenario -- the serpent, the woman, and the man -- received their curse. Adam and Eve were banned from the garden. Not a pleasant story. Sin had entered the world.
There are more details in that story, more components to get a clearer picture of the Genesis Principle of Sin. You see, we tend to think of sin as "bad things". Sometimes they are more like "mistakes". (I've actually had people tell me that. "I don't sin; I just make mistakes.") Genesis (and God) would disagree.
First, the severity of the problem. God warned Adam, "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen 2:17). (And clearly Adam passed that on to Eve.) Now, let's see. If "sin" is "a mistake", doing a "bad thing", one would think the consequence would fit the crime. So ... what ... maybe an hour or two in the corner of the garden or something? No. "In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Wait! Death? Really? For eating a piece of fruit? Sin, you see, is far more serious than "a mistake" or "a bad thing". It is a violation of God's command, an act of Cosmic Treason. As Eve demonstrated in her actual intent, it is an attempt to "be like the God" in ways we are not authorized. It's a big deal.
Second is the principle known as "Original Sin". Now, the term may be used to refer to the event itself -- Adam and Eve's first sin. But usually it refers to a human condition that has existed ever since that first sin. You see, the Genesis Principle of Sin holds that "sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men" (Rom 5:12). The Genesis Principle is that all humans are born with a sin nature because of Adam's sin. There is no such thing as "innocent" in these terms (with the sole exception of Christ). Sin is not an action anymore, but a condition. It's a condition we've all inherited (so to speak) from our father, Adam. Humans are not "basically good". They are rotten at the core.
So, sin is a serious, deadly problem and sin is a pervasive, all-encompassing problem. These are two components of the Genesis Principle of Sin. The good news is that there is a third piece. God told the serpent, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gen 3:15). This verse is called among theologians "the Protoevangelium" -- the First Gospel. No sooner did Adam inflict the pervasive and deadly problem of sin on the universe but God arrives with a solution. His Son would arrive one day in the form of a human -- an offspring of Eve -- to crush Satan's head. It wouldn't be without injury ("You shall bruise his heel"), but it would be successful. Thus, included in the Genesis Principle of Sin is the Gospel, the promise of redemption, the provision for salvation from the problem of sin. In a very real way, then, throughout history anyone whose confidence of salvation was in this early promise of God for redemption by His Son, the Christ, would be a "Christian", saved by faith in the Son of God.
The Bible takes the subject of sin very seriously. Its consequences are deadly, both spiritually and in so many other ways. All creation is subject to sin (Rom 8:20-22). The consequences range from immediate spiritual death all the way to permanent separation from God. No one escapes the problem. God explained (repeatedly) the depth of the problem with tools like the Law and His commandments to illustrate how far we are from what we ought to be. We, in turn, minimize it. And the Bible harkens back to the event as proof text of other concepts (e.g., Rom 5:12; 1 Tim 2:12-14; etc.). It is, in some sense, one of the singular main themes of the Bible and all Christianity. It is the "Bad News" answered by the Good News. It's big ... really big. Minimizing it doesn't make it go away. Thank God for the Good News of His remedy, the sacrifice and resurrection of His Son.
Showing posts with label Genesis Principles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genesis Principles. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Genesis Principles - Marriage
One quite clear concept from Genesis that has carried through from the beginning to our time is the concept of marriage. The very first marriage was between the very first two people. We know the concept has carried through because Jesus referred to it (Matt 19:4-6) and Paul confirmed it (Eph 5:31). Thus, this Genesis Principle continues without deviation. What principle?
First, we clearly have "a man" and "his wife". To stretch that to "a man" and his wives (plural) is to deviate from this original version. They did, but it isn't in the original. To stretch it to a man and anything else (or a wife and anything else) is ludicrous. A man and his wife -- the original design.
Second, "they shall become one flesh". Two components are in play here. First is the union that marriage becomes. It isn't a simple relationship. It isn't a committed relationship. It is a union. Two "become one flesh". Paul indicates that there is something else going on than mere sex here: "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?" (1 Cor 6:16). This union goes beyond an event. It becomes a condition. It is the primary reason that Paul warns against sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:13). It is a union.
The second component is somewhat easier to figure because it is easy to see. Sex. The Genesis Principle of Marriage includes the idea that husband and wife engage in sexual relations with each other partly to become one flesh and partly to fulfill the commandment "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). That is, it is not true that either sex is solely for reproduction or for mutual pleasure. It is for a union and reproduction.
But we're not done. I think we can gather more from these first two chapters on the Genesis Principle of Marriage. There is, for instance, another purpose indicated -- a reason for Man and Woman. According to the text, Eve was designed as "a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:20). The Genesis Principle of Marriage here will have none of modern feminism that claims that everyone is the same. Adam had his role. Eve had hers. She was "a helper fit for him."
"Ah!" you will complain, "You are making women as less than men." Not at all. Indeed, included in this Genesis Principle of Marriage is exactly the opposite. We read in the first chapter of Genesis "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). Humans, if you recall, derive their God-given value from the Imago Dei, their being made in the image of God. Who is made in the image of God? The text says "male and female". Thus, men and women are of equal value. So Peter warns husbands to "live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7). "Heirs with you." Not creatures of lesser value. Joint heirs. And not people worthy of less honor. They are people to whom honor is due. Remember, a different role does not equate to a different value.
"Okay," you might counter, "but you're still setting up a hierarchy. You're still making man over woman." Well, if you wish to put it that way. But I'm just telling you what the Genesis Principle says. It says that Eve was "a helper fit for him". Paul confirms this when he says, "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). Am I setting up a hierarchy? Only in so far as God has. Only in so far as Christ has agreed to. (Isn't it ironic that God is the head of Christ, but wives refuse to have husbands as their head?) The Genesis Principle of Marriage includes the honor a wife deserves as well as the submission (Eph 5:22-24) that God demands.
There are some ramifications to all this that should be apparent. First, if husband and wife are one, a union that exceeds mere physical coupling, what would that say about adultery? Clearly the notion would make no sense at all considering this Genesis Principle. Uniting with others outside of this union would be wrong in so many ways. In fact, this is why adultery in the Law was punished by death. There was no remedy for such a disastrous event.
Jesus brings up the other obvious ramification (Matt 19:3-12). If husband and wife are one, where does divorce fit in? In what possible sense does that union come to an end? What are the conditions required to terminate that union? Clearly death would do it. You know, "'Til death do us part". That makes sense. And Jesus pointed to "sexual immorality" (Matt 19:9). If sexual relations produce a union and sexual immorality produces an immoral union, that would make sense as well. How about "irreconcilable differences"? If you understand the Genesis Principle of Marriage, that doesn't work at all. How about "mental cruelty" or the like? If you continue to hold to the modern perception of marriage as simply a relationship between two people, that would seem reasonable. But if you see marriage as a genuine union, it would make as much sense as cutting off your leg because it hurts you. Such an act might be necessary in extreme circumstances, but only after every other possible avenue has been exhausted. Surely that is obvious when marriage is viewed through the biblical concept.
Well, there's more than enough to mull over here on this particular Genesis Principle. I am fairly certain, in fact, that I've left stuff out. Feel free to pick up your own connections from the text. I hope, however, that you see that it's much bigger in scope than today's simple "committed, loving relationship" that so many think defines marriage. Much bigger ... if you're willing to take your principles from Scripture rather than culture.
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).Now, walk with me for a few moments because I think we might get a lot more out of this Genesis Principle than you might have first imagined.
First, we clearly have "a man" and "his wife". To stretch that to "a man" and his wives (plural) is to deviate from this original version. They did, but it isn't in the original. To stretch it to a man and anything else (or a wife and anything else) is ludicrous. A man and his wife -- the original design.
Second, "they shall become one flesh". Two components are in play here. First is the union that marriage becomes. It isn't a simple relationship. It isn't a committed relationship. It is a union. Two "become one flesh". Paul indicates that there is something else going on than mere sex here: "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?" (1 Cor 6:16). This union goes beyond an event. It becomes a condition. It is the primary reason that Paul warns against sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:13). It is a union.
The second component is somewhat easier to figure because it is easy to see. Sex. The Genesis Principle of Marriage includes the idea that husband and wife engage in sexual relations with each other partly to become one flesh and partly to fulfill the commandment "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). That is, it is not true that either sex is solely for reproduction or for mutual pleasure. It is for a union and reproduction.
But we're not done. I think we can gather more from these first two chapters on the Genesis Principle of Marriage. There is, for instance, another purpose indicated -- a reason for Man and Woman. According to the text, Eve was designed as "a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:20). The Genesis Principle of Marriage here will have none of modern feminism that claims that everyone is the same. Adam had his role. Eve had hers. She was "a helper fit for him."
"Ah!" you will complain, "You are making women as less than men." Not at all. Indeed, included in this Genesis Principle of Marriage is exactly the opposite. We read in the first chapter of Genesis "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). Humans, if you recall, derive their God-given value from the Imago Dei, their being made in the image of God. Who is made in the image of God? The text says "male and female". Thus, men and women are of equal value. So Peter warns husbands to "live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7). "Heirs with you." Not creatures of lesser value. Joint heirs. And not people worthy of less honor. They are people to whom honor is due. Remember, a different role does not equate to a different value.
"Okay," you might counter, "but you're still setting up a hierarchy. You're still making man over woman." Well, if you wish to put it that way. But I'm just telling you what the Genesis Principle says. It says that Eve was "a helper fit for him". Paul confirms this when he says, "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). Am I setting up a hierarchy? Only in so far as God has. Only in so far as Christ has agreed to. (Isn't it ironic that God is the head of Christ, but wives refuse to have husbands as their head?) The Genesis Principle of Marriage includes the honor a wife deserves as well as the submission (Eph 5:22-24) that God demands.
There are some ramifications to all this that should be apparent. First, if husband and wife are one, a union that exceeds mere physical coupling, what would that say about adultery? Clearly the notion would make no sense at all considering this Genesis Principle. Uniting with others outside of this union would be wrong in so many ways. In fact, this is why adultery in the Law was punished by death. There was no remedy for such a disastrous event.
Jesus brings up the other obvious ramification (Matt 19:3-12). If husband and wife are one, where does divorce fit in? In what possible sense does that union come to an end? What are the conditions required to terminate that union? Clearly death would do it. You know, "'Til death do us part". That makes sense. And Jesus pointed to "sexual immorality" (Matt 19:9). If sexual relations produce a union and sexual immorality produces an immoral union, that would make sense as well. How about "irreconcilable differences"? If you understand the Genesis Principle of Marriage, that doesn't work at all. How about "mental cruelty" or the like? If you continue to hold to the modern perception of marriage as simply a relationship between two people, that would seem reasonable. But if you see marriage as a genuine union, it would make as much sense as cutting off your leg because it hurts you. Such an act might be necessary in extreme circumstances, but only after every other possible avenue has been exhausted. Surely that is obvious when marriage is viewed through the biblical concept.
Well, there's more than enough to mull over here on this particular Genesis Principle. I am fairly certain, in fact, that I've left stuff out. Feel free to pick up your own connections from the text. I hope, however, that you see that it's much bigger in scope than today's simple "committed, loving relationship" that so many think defines marriage. Much bigger ... if you're willing to take your principles from Scripture rather than culture.
Friday, December 07, 2012
Genesis Principles - Rest
Continuing on the principles derived from Genesis that remain today, I'm going to examine the biblical concept of rest.
Yesterday we examined the concept of work. It is God-given. It is part of God's design. He gave Adam work right from the beginning and assigned him tasks that continue to this day. In contrast to -- or, perhaps, included in -- that concept would be the biblical concept of "rest".
We first see this concept introduced by God.
This concept is carried further explained in Exodus.
In Exodus 20, the Sabbath was codified -- made into law. In Hebrew, the word means "intermission". "What? I thought it was 'Saturday'." No, not Saturday. Not "seventh day". Sabbath, then, is a day of rest, an intermission for daily living. The original principle set down by God was "one of seven". Further, when Jesus was asked about it He told the Pharisees, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Again, the principle of rest.
I'm not going to define the Sabbath day for you. For some it's definitely Saturday. For others it is now Sunday. For others it is any day at all. Paul wrote "Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath" (Col 2:16). Which is yours? Not my problem.
What I will point to, however, is the Genesis Principle of rest. God ordained by example the idea of rest one day out of seven. Further, He blessed that day of rest and "made it holy." As such, the ongoing, Genesis Principle of "Sabbath" -- "intermission" -- may no longer be the Exodus concept of "the seventh day", but it is certainly still a day set aside for rest and worship. It isn't even for God's sake. The Sabbath was made for Man.
One more important consideration. The author of Hebrews said, "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" (Heb 4:9). This rest is illustrated by God's rest on the seventh day of creation (Heb 4:4) and fulfilled in our resting in faith in the finished work of Christ (Heb 4:9-10). Thus, the ultimate concept started by God as "rest" is found in resting by faith from our work of salvation in the promise of God's Son to save us.
Rest is not an optional idea. Man needs it. God designed it. God performed it when He didn't need to in order to demonstrate it to us. It illustrated our need for genuine, physical rest, our need for weekly time with God in worship and rest, and our ultimate and final rest in the finished work of Christ. None of that is optional. None of it is outdated, outmoded, passed into a former time. We need it all. Rest is God's idea. It's a good one.
Yesterday we examined the concept of work. It is God-given. It is part of God's design. He gave Adam work right from the beginning and assigned him tasks that continue to this day. In contrast to -- or, perhaps, included in -- that concept would be the biblical concept of "rest".
We first see this concept introduced by God.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation (Gen 2:1-3).It's interesting first because clearly an Omnipotent Being has no need for rest. God didn't rest because He was tired. He didn't need to restore His energy, recharge His batteries, any such thing. But the concept of rest in Scripture is first applied to God.
This concept is carried further explained in Exodus.
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Exo 20:8-11)."Oh, now, hold on, Stan. Are you saying that the Sabbath is a universal principle that is still in effect today?" Hold on. Let's not get ahead of me here. Follow along. Remember, the concept is "rest". The original concept was practiced by God. It involved the concept of not doing work ... for a limited time. How much time? In the biblical example it was one day out of seven.
In Exodus 20, the Sabbath was codified -- made into law. In Hebrew, the word means "intermission". "What? I thought it was 'Saturday'." No, not Saturday. Not "seventh day". Sabbath, then, is a day of rest, an intermission for daily living. The original principle set down by God was "one of seven". Further, when Jesus was asked about it He told the Pharisees, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Again, the principle of rest.
I'm not going to define the Sabbath day for you. For some it's definitely Saturday. For others it is now Sunday. For others it is any day at all. Paul wrote "Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath" (Col 2:16). Which is yours? Not my problem.
What I will point to, however, is the Genesis Principle of rest. God ordained by example the idea of rest one day out of seven. Further, He blessed that day of rest and "made it holy." As such, the ongoing, Genesis Principle of "Sabbath" -- "intermission" -- may no longer be the Exodus concept of "the seventh day", but it is certainly still a day set aside for rest and worship. It isn't even for God's sake. The Sabbath was made for Man.
One more important consideration. The author of Hebrews said, "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" (Heb 4:9). This rest is illustrated by God's rest on the seventh day of creation (Heb 4:4) and fulfilled in our resting in faith in the finished work of Christ (Heb 4:9-10). Thus, the ultimate concept started by God as "rest" is found in resting by faith from our work of salvation in the promise of God's Son to save us.
Rest is not an optional idea. Man needs it. God designed it. God performed it when He didn't need to in order to demonstrate it to us. It illustrated our need for genuine, physical rest, our need for weekly time with God in worship and rest, and our ultimate and final rest in the finished work of Christ. None of that is optional. None of it is outdated, outmoded, passed into a former time. We need it all. Rest is God's idea. It's a good one.
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Genesis Principles - Work
Continuing with the principles from Genesis that will continue to shape our lives, let's look at the concept of work. (I know, I know. "Look, Stan, if you're going to use four-letter words in this blog, I'm going to stop reading!" Bear with me.)
Many, many today view work as "the enemy". I've heard a lot of Christians who argue that work is a product of the Fall. They idea is that in an ideal world where there was not sin we'd be sitting around eating grapes and doing no work at all. That would be heaven on earth. So ... what does Genesis say about it?
One of the fundamental principles set down in Creation was the need to work. Man was given jobs to do. There was the tending of the garden. There was the subduing of the earth. There was being fruitful and multiplying. Work, work, work. It wasn't a curse; it was a product of a good God as a good thing to His good creation.
Later we find that things change. As a product of the Fall, Eve is promised pain in childbearing (which wouldn't have been there if no sin had occurred) and Adam is told
Many, many today view work as "the enemy". I've heard a lot of Christians who argue that work is a product of the Fall. They idea is that in an ideal world where there was not sin we'd be sitting around eating grapes and doing no work at all. That would be heaven on earth. So ... what does Genesis say about it?
And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Gen 1:28).Now, that's interesting. Before the Fall, before sin, before Adam really messed things up, we have instructions from God: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." Apparently God started with the concept of fruitful labor. Let's see if that's consistent.
Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name (Gen 2:19).It would appear, then, that the very first thing we see God doing with Adam was to give him a job: name the animals. Imagine that! The time, the effort, the creativity, the bookkeeping. Okay, maybe not bookkeeping, but he not only had to name every creature but remember that name. Try it sometime. How many words can you make up? And remember afterwards? And this job that God assigned Adam was for a purpose. God understood that it was not good for Man to be alone, so He had Adam see all the animals (with mates) to recognize his own need for a mate.
The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him (Gen 2:20).Get it, Adam? You are different. You need something. You need "a helper fit" for you.
One of the fundamental principles set down in Creation was the need to work. Man was given jobs to do. There was the tending of the garden. There was the subduing of the earth. There was being fruitful and multiplying. Work, work, work. It wasn't a curse; it was a product of a good God as a good thing to His good creation.
Later we find that things change. As a product of the Fall, Eve is promised pain in childbearing (which wouldn't have been there if no sin had occurred) and Adam is told
"Cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Gen 3:17-19).Don't buy the lie. Work is not of the devil. Fruitful labor is not a curse. Doing work is a gift from God, part of His original design for humans, something that remains today. Our popular American attempt to minimize work and glorify play is a product of Satan, not God. While it is true that work was made harder by sin (ironically, part of the sentence for the human race for violating God's command was hard labor for life), God ordained work and it is for our benefit. This is still true today. So is the command -- "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it." We haven't succeeded at either, and today's world is pushing us toward giving up on both. And for those of you who dream of winning the lottery (or hitting it big some other way) and spending the rest of your life in leisure, understand that you'd be doing so against God's original design ... for your good. Hey, I have an idea! How about if we begin to appreciate the work God has given us to do? Well, it's a thought, anyway, even if work is a four-letter word.
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
Genesis Principles - Imago Dei
Remember, I'm working here on "Genesis Principles", concepts constructed at the beginning that cross time and bypass covenants or dispensations to affect all of life from the Old to the New Testament and into our day. Here's the concept we're going to see today:
What does that mean? Well, some suggest it is a physical similarity. This, of course, makes no sense since God is spirit (John 4:24). But that very well could be one primary component. We have a spirit. The text, on the other hand, suggests at least one component of the image of God in humans. It says, "Let them have dominion." We would, then, be similar to God in the fact that He has given us some measure of dominion. We rule over the earth. An extension to that is found in the following verses where it says, "And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it'" (Gen 1:28). There is, then, not only a measure of dominion, but a measure of control. "Subdue it." A task. But included in that command is another similarity to God: "Be fruitful and multiply." We are, then, a reflection of God when we create life. Reproduction is in the image of God. And therein is the primary concept of Imago Dei. We are a reflection of God. Like the moon reflecting the light of the sun, we reflect the glory of God.
One of the key components of the Imago Dei in humans is found indirectly in the simple fact that we are given dominion and we are given commands. Thus, humans, as a reflection of God, are moral creatures. Animals don't share the same moral structures. They don't have rules against theft and murder, for instance, which, when violated, threaten their souls. But as those who reflect the nature of God, we are creatures of morality at the core.
Some have suggested that the Imago Dei is gone. They suggest that it ended when Adam sinned. That concept would suggest that our primary reflection of the image of God was in our sinlessness. When that ended, so did the reflection. This simply isn't true. David, in Psalm 8, repeats the principle. He says, "What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet" (Psa 8:4-6). Still in effect. When Noah and family left the ark, God instituted human government. In that institution, He called for capital punishment. The notion of putting someone to death for murder, you see, was ordained by God. But the reason for that extreme punishment was given after the Fall. What was the reason? "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen 9:6). Thus, the Imago Dei was still in effect after Noah. And the principle was God's baseline for the value of human beings. Animals were not made in the image of God; humans are. Thus, James warns of the faulty use of the tongue: "With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God" (James 3:9). Still in effect.
If you examine the concept in theological circles, you'll find variations in definition and application. That's fine. Suffice it to say that we were created in the image of God and that this fact remains. Being in that image, whatever it means in its entirety, ought to alter how we behave, how we value human life, and how we view our Creator. As a first example, it is the fundamental basis for a pro-life (as opposed to "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice") position. Now, you can work out other applications.
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" (Gen 1:26).In theological circles the concept is called the Imago Dei, Latin for "the Image of God". Humans, according to the beginning of Scripture, are made in the image of God.
What does that mean? Well, some suggest it is a physical similarity. This, of course, makes no sense since God is spirit (John 4:24). But that very well could be one primary component. We have a spirit. The text, on the other hand, suggests at least one component of the image of God in humans. It says, "Let them have dominion." We would, then, be similar to God in the fact that He has given us some measure of dominion. We rule over the earth. An extension to that is found in the following verses where it says, "And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it'" (Gen 1:28). There is, then, not only a measure of dominion, but a measure of control. "Subdue it." A task. But included in that command is another similarity to God: "Be fruitful and multiply." We are, then, a reflection of God when we create life. Reproduction is in the image of God. And therein is the primary concept of Imago Dei. We are a reflection of God. Like the moon reflecting the light of the sun, we reflect the glory of God.
One of the key components of the Imago Dei in humans is found indirectly in the simple fact that we are given dominion and we are given commands. Thus, humans, as a reflection of God, are moral creatures. Animals don't share the same moral structures. They don't have rules against theft and murder, for instance, which, when violated, threaten their souls. But as those who reflect the nature of God, we are creatures of morality at the core.
Some have suggested that the Imago Dei is gone. They suggest that it ended when Adam sinned. That concept would suggest that our primary reflection of the image of God was in our sinlessness. When that ended, so did the reflection. This simply isn't true. David, in Psalm 8, repeats the principle. He says, "What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet" (Psa 8:4-6). Still in effect. When Noah and family left the ark, God instituted human government. In that institution, He called for capital punishment. The notion of putting someone to death for murder, you see, was ordained by God. But the reason for that extreme punishment was given after the Fall. What was the reason? "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image" (Gen 9:6). Thus, the Imago Dei was still in effect after Noah. And the principle was God's baseline for the value of human beings. Animals were not made in the image of God; humans are. Thus, James warns of the faulty use of the tongue: "With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God" (James 3:9). Still in effect.
If you examine the concept in theological circles, you'll find variations in definition and application. That's fine. Suffice it to say that we were created in the image of God and that this fact remains. Being in that image, whatever it means in its entirety, ought to alter how we behave, how we value human life, and how we view our Creator. As a first example, it is the fundamental basis for a pro-life (as opposed to "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice") position. Now, you can work out other applications.
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
Genesis Principles - Creator:Created
There is one system in theology known as Dispensationalism. There are, of course, others, but the prevalent one today is that one. In Dispensationalism the idea is that the history of the world has been in dispensations, actually stewardships. God has dealt with people in various ways over history, from Innocence with Adam and Eve through the Law with Moses through Grace in the Church age. (It's much more complicated and more steps than that, but you get the idea.) The notion, down at this end of the history pool, is that much of the Old Testament, then, belongs to an earlier Dispensation and is no longer applicable to us. In fact, it works the same way in some Covenantal theologies and others as well. Even if you're not in those categories, most Christians are under the impression that the Old Testament is no longer in effect in some way or another. And that's supported with Scripture.
Common to all Dispensations and all Covenants or whatever other form you'd like to take, however, is what I will be calling the Genesis Principles. These are principles set out in the first three chapters of Genesis. They are so basic as to be universal. They aren't part of the Mosaic Law which Paul says we are not under or the Abrahamic Covenant which was fulfilled in Christ or whatever other limiting factor. The Bible itself often traces its doctrines back to the beginning because these principles would remain in effect because they are prior to Dispensations, Covenants, or any other factor. So I'm going to spend some time outlining some Genesis Principles that should impact your life even today long after Genesis has come and gone.
The first is the principle of the Creator and the Created. This principle is found quite obviously in the very first verse of the Bible. Come on. Say it with me. "In the beginning, God created ..." (Gen 1:1). The rest of the first chapter consists of 31 verses detailing six days of ... creation. This isn't rocket science. (No, that would come much later.)
So? Well, in the first verse of the Bible the author of Genesis, inspired by God, set down a singular principle. In the beginning there was God ... and nothing else. Well, the angels could have existed, perhaps, but clearly God is a singularity, a "one of a kind". He told Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'" (Exo 3:14). God is unique in the universe in that He always has been. He is the First Mover, the Uncreated Creator. Of God the Son John says, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3). So Genesis 1:1 lays out this primary principle. In the universe there is God, the Creator, and not God. The "not God" category would be "the created". That which was made.
This may sound basic and even boring, but think about it. Paul says that it was the created "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). What truth? The truth about the Creator (Rom 1:19-21). Instead of acknowledging God in His position as Creator, the created chose to exchange "the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:25).
Since Adam, then, this has been our primary problem. We fail to recognize the distinction between Creator and creature. We prefer to elevate ourselves above the Creator, to serve the creature (ourselves) rather than the Creator. We do it by demanding that the Creator conform to our expectations and doubt when He fails to do so. We do it by siding with Man rather than God again and again because Man is easily as important as the Creator. We do it without thinking, without recognizing it, without caring. The word is "anthropocentrism". We make Man the center where God should be.
A fundamental condition is laid out in Genesis 1. There is a distinction between Creator and Created. There is one Creator. Only one. He has primacy, priority, authority, all rights, all privileges. The second we begin to diminish Him in any category, we are succumbing to the problem of the Created, failing to see the distinction and seeking, instead, to make ourselves like the Most High, a condition we will never achieve. I would suspect that we would be much better off if we could view life first through that first principle of Creator:Created distinction. It would tend to properly order a lot of things in life.
Common to all Dispensations and all Covenants or whatever other form you'd like to take, however, is what I will be calling the Genesis Principles. These are principles set out in the first three chapters of Genesis. They are so basic as to be universal. They aren't part of the Mosaic Law which Paul says we are not under or the Abrahamic Covenant which was fulfilled in Christ or whatever other limiting factor. The Bible itself often traces its doctrines back to the beginning because these principles would remain in effect because they are prior to Dispensations, Covenants, or any other factor. So I'm going to spend some time outlining some Genesis Principles that should impact your life even today long after Genesis has come and gone.
The first is the principle of the Creator and the Created. This principle is found quite obviously in the very first verse of the Bible. Come on. Say it with me. "In the beginning, God created ..." (Gen 1:1). The rest of the first chapter consists of 31 verses detailing six days of ... creation. This isn't rocket science. (No, that would come much later.)
So? Well, in the first verse of the Bible the author of Genesis, inspired by God, set down a singular principle. In the beginning there was God ... and nothing else. Well, the angels could have existed, perhaps, but clearly God is a singularity, a "one of a kind". He told Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'" (Exo 3:14). God is unique in the universe in that He always has been. He is the First Mover, the Uncreated Creator. Of God the Son John says, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3). So Genesis 1:1 lays out this primary principle. In the universe there is God, the Creator, and not God. The "not God" category would be "the created". That which was made.
This may sound basic and even boring, but think about it. Paul says that it was the created "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). What truth? The truth about the Creator (Rom 1:19-21). Instead of acknowledging God in His position as Creator, the created chose to exchange "the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:25).
Since Adam, then, this has been our primary problem. We fail to recognize the distinction between Creator and creature. We prefer to elevate ourselves above the Creator, to serve the creature (ourselves) rather than the Creator. We do it by demanding that the Creator conform to our expectations and doubt when He fails to do so. We do it by siding with Man rather than God again and again because Man is easily as important as the Creator. We do it without thinking, without recognizing it, without caring. The word is "anthropocentrism". We make Man the center where God should be.
A fundamental condition is laid out in Genesis 1. There is a distinction between Creator and Created. There is one Creator. Only one. He has primacy, priority, authority, all rights, all privileges. The second we begin to diminish Him in any category, we are succumbing to the problem of the Created, failing to see the distinction and seeking, instead, to make ourselves like the Most High, a condition we will never achieve. I would suspect that we would be much better off if we could view life first through that first principle of Creator:Created distinction. It would tend to properly order a lot of things in life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)