What does it mean to be human? Is there any reason for thinking that human life might be more valuable than, say, that of dolphins or whales? Why are we here? How did we get here? Where did we come from? These are the sorts of questions that scientists and philosophers have been arguing about for hundreds of years. They’re the sorts of questions that are raised by the intelligent design lobby that’s been doing the rounds in America and here of late. But too often the answers that are given are simplistic ones. The Biblical literalists will tell you that God took a handful of the dust of the ground and suddenly humans were created. Just read Gen 2:7. That’s very clear, isn’t it?
On the other hand scientists claim that humanity evolved, along with the rest of the animal world, over millions of years; that the universe is billions of years old. So which is right? It sounds like it has to be one or the other when you break it down into those sorts of terms. Either we were formed from dust, all at once (and science is wrong) or else we evolved over millennia and the Bible is wrong. Which is it? Well, let me suggest that the trouble with a simplistic approach to such a complex subject is that it’s always going to lead us astray.
In fact the Bible doesn’t set out to give us a scientific theory about the origins of the world, or even of humanity. Not that that means it’s not true. You can tell the truth about the world without having to explain every detail.
Genesis begins with the words: "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 2the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." From the outset you see, we’re brought into the realm of time and space. These events had a when and a where. There’s no doubt that the writer saw this as history, just as much as if I were to tell you what I did on my last holiday.
Still, as I said, that doesn’t mean that what we read here is a scientific account of the origins of the world in the way we 21st century people might think about it. No, what we have here is the account of where we came from, told by a people who had none of the advantages of modern science, but who nevertheless were able to grasp truth as it was revealed to them. So the distinction we need to make is that this is true truth, even if it isn’t exhaustive truth.
You might see a similar sort of difference if you read a description of Federation square in an architectural journal compared with, say, Vogue, or Gourmet Traveller. Each would give true facts and impressions, but they’d each be quite different.
So it’s important to understand what we’re reading here. Genesis 1 is a highly structured piece of writing that sets out to teach us not the how of creation but rather the who and to some extent the why of creation.
The account begins with the world a formless void. Interestingly that fits with the most commonly held theory about how the universe came into being doesn’t it? After the big bang, it’s thought, the earth was a ball of energy and matter that took some time to settle into it’s present form. So a formless void isn’t a bad description is it?
But then it begins to diverge from the scientific theories. That’s because it isn’t so much interested in the science of creation as in the reason for and the result of creation.
If you look at the passage you’ll see that the word ’created’ is used at 3 points in the story. Its used in v1, in v21 and then in v27 where it appears three times. At each point there’s a critical movement in the creation story.
In v.1 God creates the heavens and the earth out of nothing. In v21 he creates conscious life and in v27, the climax and pinnacle of creation, he creates humanity in his own image.
Now let me ask you, what do you think it is that characterises each of these shifts in the creation story? Clearly there’s an advance in each case, but it doesn’t seem to be any more than the advance when the light appears or the sun moon and stars are set in their place or the dry land appears and trees and plants begin to grow. So what’s the advance that God wants us to notice in each case?
Well let me suggest that it’s this: that at each point God introduces a new level of differentiation within his creation; of separation between what was there before and what he’s now created. First he brings the heavens and the earth into being, creating the world out of nothing - maybe even via a big bang! And as the passage progresses we see being introduced a growing level of complexity, in most cases introduced by the word "let". "Let there be light"; "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters"; "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And so forth.
The first separation in this process is between light and darkness. And notice how that word separated is used over and over throughout the passage as God introduces this differentiation, first between light and darkness, then between the sky and the earth, then between day and night.
Notice too, that the separation of light from darkness has no sense of good and evil, the way it does, for example in John’s gospel. At the end of the process God looks and sees that it is all very good, including, I assume, the darkness.
The next stage is the separation of the waters above from the waters beneath. I take this to be referring to the clouds and sky above and the sea below. (Remember that at this stage in the account, there’s no dry land.) Then the waters below are gathered together into an ocean and the dry land appears.
Here’s an interesting thought for those geologists in the congregation: There’s only one ocean and one mass of dry land. So could that fit with the idea of the earth having a single continent that slowly drifted apart to form the 6 continents we have today?
In any case the dry land appears and with it, plant life springs up.
The next stage is the appearance of sun and moon and stars. Now remember that this is a highly stylised account. I don’t believe it’s meant to teach us the scientific history of the universe. Rather it uses a mnemonic device, that is, a memory aid, whereby the first day corresponds with the fourth day, the 2nd with the 5th and the 3rd with the 6th. So can you see how the light and darkness are matched by the sun and moon. And notice by the way that even the darkness is ruled by light, albeit the lesser light of the moon and stars.
But then on the fifth day we come to the second major differentiating moment. God creates the great sea monsters, and all the sea creatures and birds - corresponding, notice, with the sky and the sea of the 2nd day. On this day God first creates conscious life. So there’s a scaling up of the state of creation.
Again, on the sixth day, God continues this action by bringing forth on the earth living creatures of every kind. "The wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind."
But notice that there’s one more level to go; one more degree of separation. In v27 we see that God again created. This time we’re told he "created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
Just as the sea creatures and the birds and the animals are differentiated from the rocks and vegetation, so humanity is differentiated from other animal life and indeed from everything else in creation by what’s, in fact, a separate act of creation.
Here’s where the animal liberationists get it wrong. Yes, there are great similarities between humans and the other animals. Some animals can be quite intelligent. They’re all God’s creatures. But here we find a significant theological statement that separates humans from the rest of the animal world. God creates human beings in an action that’s separate from his creation of the animals. Just to emphasise the point, that word ’create’ is used three times in this verse. What’s more we’re told he created us ’in his image’. Again that idea is repeated for emphasis: "in the image of God he created them." What’s more he creates them as male and female. Now the reason for emphasising that isn’t made clear here. After all we know that virtually all animal life is made as male and female. So why emphasise the male and femaleness of humanity? Well, perhaps the parallel account in ch2 explains it. But you’ll have to wait a moment for that.
First let’s think about the significance for us of being made in God’s image. What does it say to me that I’m made in God’s image?
Well I think it says a number of things. First of all, it says something of great relevance to us in the 21st century. How many people today could answer the question "who am I" with any confidence? There was a time when the answer to such a question ran along the lines of Descartes’ famous answer to the question "Who am I?" or "How do I know I exist?": which was "I think, therefore I am." But that doesn’t work any more does it? These days it’s more likely to be "I shop therefore I am." There was a time when we got our identity from what we produced. Now we get it from what we own, what we’ve bought.
And in a world that’s so convinced by the evolutionary theories of science all we can conclude is that we’re just the result of a random series of events. With that sort of perspective it’s no wonder the animal liberationists want to put dolphins and whales on a par with human beings, is it?
But here we see that we’re not just the result of a random coming together of atoms and molecules. Nor are we just another form of animal life. No, God has made us in his image. We’re God’s creation, made to reflect his nature.
What’s more God has made me to be in relationship with him. God knows me. Not the way you might know your car, with all it’s idiosyncrasies or even your dog or your cat. No, God knows me as a person, as someone he can relate to because there’s something in me that reflects his person. And that means that I can know him as well. And not only that, but that means that genuine love is made possible.
Isaac Asimov wrote a series of books about robots. You may have read them or maybe seen the movie ’Bicentennial Man’ which was based on one of them,. The issue in that movie is the question: "What makes us human?" There are a number of answers suggested, including creativity and a sense of humour, but the real test is the existence of emotions, particularly of love.
Asimov got it right didn’t he? Love is the great human emotion. And it’s an emotion that’s made possible because we’re made in God’s image; because God is love.
But it also makes possible communication of ideas and thoughts. It makes it possible for God to communicate with us, to reveal himself to us. Here’s the amazing perspective that the Judaeo-Christian world view gives us: God is not totally other. We’re something like him. That of course is brought into full focus with the coming of Jesus Christ to live among us. Only because we’re made in God’s image is he able to be born as one of us. And that in turn means that I can relate to God - speaking to him as Abba, Father. I have immediate access to him. I don’t need an intermediary. I’m his child. He’s adopted me as his own.
And that means that I’m one who remains his child even if my world sees little or no value in me. So for example if I’m mentally or physically disabled; if I become frail in my old age; if I’m mentally incapacitated, even mentally incompetent. Even then I’m his child. That, if you haven’t realised it, is the burning issue when we begin to consider the question of euthanasia. No matter what mental or physical state I’m in, I’m still God’s child, made in his image.
Finally, as we see when we read through Gen 2, I’m the one he gives responsibility to for his creation. The man was put in the garden to till it. All the trees and plants were given to him for his use, apart from the one tree of course. He was given the responsibility of naming the various animals in the garden. He’s the one who’s left in charge. So if you want to find the culprit responsible for the ecological disasters of our planet, there is only one place to look isn’t there? At humanity. Because we were given responsibility to care for God’s creation. And in fact this is part of an overall responsibility that falls only on humans. That is, of operating in the world as self determining creatures. Of acting responsibly and morally and ethically, in such a way that our relationship with God remains true. But the outworking of that is for us to look at in more detail in a few weeks time.
The last thing we need to think about is the relationship of men and women. God sees that it’s not good for the man to be alone. There’s something in the human makeup, reflecting the nature of the triune God, that requires another of equal status for us to work with and to relate to. God brings all the animals before the man but there’s not one that matches him. So God puts him to sleep and creates the woman from the man’s own DNA. "Here at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", he says. Here is one who is in every way his equal; one who will act as his counterpart in ruling over God’s creation. And so the 2 accounts of creation end at the same point, with humanity as the pinnacle of creation, male and female, in equal and loving relationship with one another, set in a garden to care for it and to maintain it under the rule of God. And "God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good."
What does it mean to be human? It means to be made in God’s image, to reflect his character, his goodness, his creativity, his love. It means to relate with others and with God at a personal level. It means to bear the responsibility for his creation, for tending it and caring for it. It’s a huge privilege that God has given us, but also a great responsibility. We’ll see in a few weeks how we’ve failed in that responsibility, but for now, we need to take great comfort in the fact that there’s a certain dignity in being human that no-one can take away from us, no matter what humanity has done in the past, no matter what happens in the future.
For more sermons from this source go to http://home.vicnet.net.au/~sttheos
