Sermon: From Scratch

Introduction

“From Scratch.”

When you hear the phrase what does it connote to you? How do you use the phrase?

“Built from scratch.” “Baked from scratch.” “Made from scratch.”

Merriam-Webster offers the following explanations[1]:

To create something from scratch is to make it without any ingredients or materials prepared ahead of time. The scratch in from scratch originally referred to the starting line of a race "scratched" into the ground, from which all runners would be starting without a head start…

In cooking, to make something from scratch means to use only the most basic ingredients, with nothing premade…

Building a structure from scratch means using no prefabricated parts…

To build a business or livelihood from scratch means to start with nothing provided in advance…

In these there is a strong sense of creating something significant out of nothing, or almost nothing. And that is how the biblical Creation account of Genesis chapter 1 has traditionally been viewed.

Genesis 1 Creation Account

We are probably quite familiar with the King James translation of the first two verses of Genesis.

​¹ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ² And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2 KJV)

From these verses it seems quite clear that there was nothing and then God created everything. But this may be yet another case of interpretation influencing translation.

The idea that God created everything from nothing is dated to just a couple of centuries prior to Jesus, during the time of the writings of the Maccabees. The Jewish Christians continued this thought and by the third and fourth centuries after Christ, it was held as orthodox theology.

But as you might have inferred, the text of Genesis predates Maccabees by another couple of centuries, at least, and is based on earlier creation mythologies, stories, and traditions. As recent scholars have studied and learned more about ancient creation stories, Bible translators have incorporated what could be considered a more accurate rendering of the one found in Genesis. The Common English Bible translators render the first two verses in this way:

¹ When God began to create the heavens and the earth—² the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters (Genesis 1:1-2 CEB)

This more accurately conforms to the Creation mythologies that are found throughout the Ancient Near East. Rather than a total void, there was already something, but what was there was seen as complete chaos. What God does through Creation is bring order out of chaos. That is the story of the Creation account in Genesis 1.

For the ancients, the sea was a place of chaos and where evil dwelt. The instances of Jesus taking control over the waters are significant because they are evidence of a power greater than the greatest chaos that humans know. They are evidence that Jesus is greater than the powers of this world.

This does not mean that God couldn’t have created matter out of nothing, but the Bible is silent on where and how matter and the universe originated. As far as the beginning of this world, something already existed, and God took those raw materials and placed them into proper order to bring about the world that humans know.

When you think about making something “from scratch,” that is what it means. Anything created depends on something that already exists. Even the most creative and original thought depends on and utilizes ideas that already exist. Something new is a result of a reordering of existing materials and ideas.

Baptism of Jesus

Let’s review today’s reading from Mark.

⁴ John the Baptist was in the wilderness calling for people to be baptized to show that they were changing their hearts and lives and wanted God to forgive their sins. ⁵ Everyone in Judea and all the people of Jerusalem went out to the Jordan River and were being baptized by John as they confessed their sins. ⁶ John wore clothes made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist. He ate locusts and wild honey. ⁷ He announced, “One stronger than I am is coming after me. I’m not even worthy to bend over and loosen the strap of his sandals. ⁸ I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

⁹ About that time, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and John baptized him in the Jordan River. ¹⁰ While he was coming up out of the water, Jesus saw heaven splitting open and the Spirit, like a dove, coming down on him. ¹¹ And there was a voice from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I dearly love; in you I find happiness.” (Mark 1:4-11 CEB)

There is much that could be spoken about this selection, but I want to focus on the last few verses which describe Jesus’ baptism. While it may not be immediately obvious, there are images that parallel the Creation account of Genesis.

The first is that of wilderness and water. Both communicate ideas about disorder and chaos. They are where the world is wild and uncivilized, where dangers lurk, and threats abound. Yet that is where Jesus first appears in the Marcan gospel. Even more, the key aspect of this appearance of Jesus is that of coming up from out of the water. Just as the entire world and all of humanity finds emergence in the primordial waters, Jesus is depicted as appearing from out of the water.

The image of heaven splitting comes from a text in Isaiah 64. But it could also allude to the Creation account in Genesis where God separates light from darkness, waters from waters, dry land from the sea, and day from night. The allusion can also be to the momentous occasion at Sinai where God split open the heaven to come down to the mountain to speak with the people, which also occasioned the identification of Israel as God’s chosen. And the prophetic texts of the Hebrew scriptures speak of Israel as God’s son.

The image of the Spirit coming down is like the spirit, breath, or wind that is found at the beginning of the Creation account – an entity that is a participant in the initial creation of this world.

Finally, there is the image of Jesus being proclaimed as God’s son. In our language and interpretation, we most likely see this as singular, i.e., the object of “You are my Son” is specifically and only Jesus. But I mentioned just a few moments ago that Israel (in the collective) was also referred to as God’s son. In Luke’s genealogy he ends the list with “Adam son of God.”[2] While Adam could refer to a single individual, Adam is also often used in the Bible as a representative for all of humanity.

What Might Baptism Mean?

We have all heard the result of baptism referred to as a “new creation” or a “new creature”. What does that mean in light of some of the ideas brought out today?

One point to be made is that baptism is not suddenly creating something that didn’t exist before. Nor does it result in a discontinuous existence that is unrelated to what has already existed. What it is, however, like the Genesis Creation account, a bringing and restoration of order into chaos. And that, I think, is good news. Our lived lives don’t suddenly change after baptism. What came before has value. Our life and experiences prior to baptism are being redeemed and brought into proper order.

We continue to experience the same problems that already exist and are part of our lives. But what we do acquire is the Holy Spirit that moves and empowers us to partner with God in bringing order into the chaos that is human experience. Just as the sea continued to exist after Creation and with it the chaos it represents, there are still storms that exist about us and buffet us. But we can have assurance that the Word and Breath of God continues to restore order where there is chaos. There is a promise that chaos will eventually disappear, but it only comes in the book of Revelation, after all creation is recreated.[3]

A second point made is that God entered the chaos of humanity and made the choice to identify with us. When Jesus underwent the ritual of baptism, it was not because he had any sins to be cleansed from (a point which troubles Matthew and Luke). Rather, it was a deliberate decision to identify and enter fully into human experience, with all of the results of sin cast upon it. The good news here is that God knows and feels our confusions and our hurts, and Jesus offers us life patterns that can help us walk through those times.

A third and final point made is that baptism is not only an individual action, but it is something that is communal. Baptism is not merely about an individual confession of sin and repentance, but an entry into a collective, new community which exists beyond the physical boundaries of space and time. A baptized individual enters the community that is represented by Jesus. The entire community is declared by God, “You are my son, whom I dearly love.” Jesus may have been the individual who heard those words, but he hears it as a representative of the entire community that he began to build and continues to strengthen with each person added to it.

Bibliography

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2008). Feasting on the Word: Year B, Volume 1 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Enns, P., & Byas, J. (2019). Genesis for Normal People. The Bible for Normal People.

Jacobsen, D. S. (2014). Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries: Mark. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Mark (A Feasting on the Word Commentary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Merriam-Webster. (2024, January 5). Scratching the Surface of ‘From Scratch’. Retrieved from Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus: https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Sabin, M. N. (2002). Reopening the Word: Reading Mark as Theology in the Context of Early Judaism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

---

[1] (Merriam-Webster, 2024)

[2] Luke 3:38.

[3] Revelation 21:1.

Video: Origins Today–Genesis 1-3 Through Ancient Eyes by John H. Walton

How should modern Christians interpret and understand the creation accounts of Genesis 1-3?

My notes follow.

 

Notes

• What does the Bible reveal? How does the Bible reveal what it reveals?
• God reveals his purpose through human communicators. This communication is limited to human means, culture, time, language.
• Bible is written “for us, but not to us. Message transcends culture, but form is culture-bound.” We are reading someone else’s mail.
• We have to learn to see the world as the original writers of the text saw the world. What was their view of cosmology? (E.g., they didn’t see the world as a globe/sphere.)
• What we see today as “mythology” was the ancients’ truth.
• The Israelites/Hebrews had their particular cosmological view that does not look like anything like our modern scientific one.
• If God is going communicate into the ancient culture, which cosmology would he use? Theirs or ours? God uses what is familiar, but by his communication he is not endorsing the cosmological viewpoint.
• The human view of cosmology is always in flux. Much has changed even in the last century about how we see the universe.
• “We must see the text the way the ancient Israelites saw the text.” The definition and meaning of words in the Bible must be what they understood. We must not impose our definitions onto the text.
• The Bible does not provide new scientific revelation – it is a theological text.
• When the Bible speaks about “thinking or feeling” in the heart, we know what that means. We don’t feel the need to “defend” the Bible’s “physiological” and “neurological” perspective of thought, mind, and emotions. So we should extend this to other “science claims” in the Bible.
• The Bible is not teaching or revealing science. It is making certain historical claims. But it’s primary intent is theological.
• The Creation account of Genesis is not about material origins, but about functional origins. Ancients did not consider “existence” to be about material origins, but about something being given a “function.”
• “Naming and separating are acts of creation.”
• Genesis 1 is “not about building a house, but making a house a home.”
• Days 1-3: functions proclaimed (no material creation)
  • Basis for 1) time, 2) weather and space, 3) food provision
• Days 4-6: functionaries installed
  • 4) Lights (not objects) for signs, celebrations, days, years; 5) fish and birds to fill the world; 6) animals to fill the world and people to subdue and rule
  • The Israelites saw sun, moon, and stars as “lights,” not objects. (The other peoples in ANE saw these as both lights and gods.)
• The world is thus a home. Whose home?
• The world is a cosmic temple. The Creation account is the arrival and enthroning of God in his home. It is a cosmological account; not a material account.
  • The Sabbath is the day in which God arrives.
  • In the ancient world, gods “rest” in temples
  • “Rest” is the main goal of creation and the creation account
  • Resting expresses having control over an ordered system
  • It is from where God governs the world
• “Rest” in the Bible is not about downtime. It is about order and stability.
  • When the book of Hebrews talks about “not yet having achieved rest” it means that there is yet another level of order and stability that has not yet been seen.
  • Rest is not about activity/inactivity
  • Biblical rest is about engagement
  • The opposite of rest is unrest
• Creation account
  • The days are 24-hour periods – but it’s not about material creation
  • Therefore, it is not making a claim about the age of the earth of how it was created
• Second account of creation: Genesis 2
  • It is not about an expansion of Day 6
  • There is a sequence problem if we try to fit it into Day 6
• Synoptic (doubling back, restating) vs. Sequel (moving forward, a different account)
  • All Genesis synoptic relationships concern brothers
  • Genesis 2 does not involve brothers
  • Genesis 1 speaks of a large multitude of human beings created
  • Genesis 2 speaks of two distinct individuals: Adam and Eve
• If Genesis 2 is a sequel account, it is a later time period than Genesis 1
  • Solves the problem of Cain and a large population that is assumed to exist
• Genesis 2 – an account of archetypal function of humans
  • Adam and Eve may be historical individuals, but Genesis 2 is more about their forming as archetypes
  • If the text is making statements that is true about all humanity, it is most likely archetypal
  • If the text is making statements that cannot be true for all humanity, it is about individuals
• The “forming” account of humans
  • Not about chemistry or sculpting
  • Dust cannot be formed (clay works better)
  • Dust represents mortality (Gen. 3:19)
  • Genesis 2 is making a statement about human mortality
    • Humans were created mortal (otherwise there would have been no need for the tree of life)
  • What about Paul’s statement that sin brought death? Doesn’t that mean humans were originally immortal?
    • No. Sin caused humans to lose access to the tree of life. Thus sin brought death.
    • Paul’s statement says nothing about the original immortality of human beings
• When the Bible speaks of “forming” people, it is about functions and identity – not material origins
  • E.g., Psalm 103:14; 1 Cor. 15:47-48
• Genesis 1 – functional creation of the world and all its inhabitants. Genesis 2 – a “choosing” of some subset of humans for a specific purpose.
• What about the creation of woman?
  • More than just rib – bone and flesh
  • “Rib” – never used anatomically again. Used architecturally to mean “one side of a pair.”
  • Not about surgery.
  • “Deep sleep” – a visionary state. Adam is “seeing” something in a vision; something that is deeply theological.
  • The collective human race is only complete when both men and women come together (not specifically about marriage or sex).
  • This is another archetypal statement.
• Both men and women designed and commissioned to serve as priests (Gen. 2:15)
  • “Helpmeet” – Eve to help Adam in sacred task
• Genesis contains no information about the “forming” of individuals
• There is no biblical account of material/biological human origins
• The Bible says nothing on whether evolution and common origins is true or not; but the Bible would not contradict, either.
• The theological, ontological human creation account
  • Endowed with the image of God
  • Creation of a spiritual being
  • Designation as priests
• Biology being could have evolved, but the spiritual being could not
• Genesis 3: Order, non-order, and disorder
  • Order – connected to sacred space
  • Non-order – remained after creation
  • People given the task of expanding sacred space and order
  • Presence of God brought life
  • Serpent as chaos creature promoting disorder
  • People wanted (desired) to be the center of order (temptation)
    • The fall isn’t about disobedience and eating fruit, but about wanting to be like God – center of order
    • This desire led to disobedience and eating fruit
  • Sin brought disorder
  • Humans cast out from sacred space into les ordered realm
• An alternate way to interpret Genesis 1-3
• How can people who read the Bible and accept its authority, but interpret it very differently, get along together?
• By only allowing a singular interpretation of the Bible (usually a strict creationism), Christians fail to minister to one another graciously, Christians fail to evangelize effectively, and is leading to attrition among Christians.
• By defending the singular, traditional interpretations so strongly, are Christians failing in our mission?
• Q&A
• Original sin or original innocence? Case can be made for latter.
• Human soul – not tied to the breath of life (because all living beings have it) but connected with being created in the image of God.
• Origin of civilizations – distinct from material and ontological origins

Interpreting Genesis 1-3

Dr. John Walton presents and Joe Fleener provides a response. My notes on the video are found after the video and I conclude with my assessment of the response.

Dr. John Walton, Old Testament, Wheaton College (dur. 1:08)

·         Inspiration and interpretation of scripture.

·         The importance of context and culture.

·         Scripture written for us, but not to us.

·         We must strip away our culture from our reading of scripture.

·         We need to place ourselves into the original setting as much as possible.

·         Communication takes place on the basis of what is familiar.

·         God could not communicate something completely foreign to ancient peoples.

·         Understanding ancient cosmology is crucial to reading creation accounts.

·         “Who’s in charge?” was the most important concept to communicate.

·         Material structure was not important.

·         God doesn’t always use “right” science to communicate, rather he uses familiar.

·         We can’t read the words of the text with our assumptions.

·         We have to define words and concepts according to what it meant to the original audience.

·         Textual authority can only come from what the original context would have communicated.

·         Naturalistic explanations do not eliminate God.

·         The Bible does not provide scientific revelations.

·         God does not “upgrade” Hebrew scientific understandings.

·         God accommodates the understandings of his audience to communicate using the already familiar.

·         Inerrancy only applies to what the Bible is meant to affirm.

·         Day 1: God created the basis of time.

·         Day 1: Time is not an object, light is not an object - no objects created on day 1.

·         We think creation means “creation of objects.”

·         The ancients did not think that way.

·         Usage is the key to meaning.

·         English words can mean different things in different cultures.

·         Usage determines meaning.

·         “Create” [baw-raw] does not have to create an object.

·         “Create” can mean creation of functions and orderings.

·         That God created everything is not in question.

·         The question is, what part of this creation story is the creation account telling?

·         The creation account begins with Gen 1:2.

·         Genesis 1:1 is an introduction.

·         There is already material at verse 2.

·         The starting point of this account is “no order” and “no function,” not “no material.”

·         the Egyptians talk about the desert and sea as “non-existent” - not materially, but in function.

·         Thesis: Genesis 1 is an origin account of order and functions; not material objects.

·      Ancients thought of the cosmos as a kingdom with someone in charge.

·         Creation account: who is in charge?

·         When God says “it is good” in the creation account it doesn’t mean perfect or righteous, but ready to function.

·         When God says “it is not good” it means something is not ready to function.

·         It is futile to ask “what objects were created on a particular day?”

·         Moderns are concerned with how the material aspects are built.

·         The ancients weren’t particularly concerned with that.

·         Moderns are concerned with the story of how the house was built.

·         The ancients were concerned with the story of how a home was created.

·         John 14 - Jesus says he will build a home for his family.

·         In the house story we are insignificant.

·         In the home story we are honored guests.

·         Day 2: Creation of weather.

·         Day 3: Food.

·         Time, weather, food - three crtitical functions of existence.

·         Days 4-6: functionaries are installed

·         Hebrews did not see sun, moon, and stars as objects - they were functionaries providing functions.

·         Day 7: a temple account

·         We moderns don’t see “temple” in the text, but the ancients would not have required it.

·         Why does God need to “rest”?

·         It is not six days of creation, but a full seven days.

·         When God “rests” it screams “a temple”!

·         God takes up residence by “resting.”

·         God moves in to take charge.

·         When the Bible says that the Israelites rested, it means they took charge and order established.

·         When Jesus says “I will give you rest” it means he will elevate his people to take charge in the kingdom.

·         When the book of Hebrews says “rest hasn’t been achieved” it means full order and charge has not been established.

·         Rest is where a being rules, not where someone sleeps.

·         Rest is the climax of the creation account.

·         The opposite of rest is not activity, but unrest.

·         The temple does not “exist” until God moves in.

·         God moves in by an “inauguration ceremony”

·         In ANE texts, an inauguration ceremony involves proclaims the functions of the temple, functionaries are installed, and a deity takes up rest in the temple, and takes seven days.

·         Genesis 1:1-2:3 is the Hebrew version of an ANE temple inauguration ceremony.

·         The Genesis creation account is a theological account, of the past but also of the promise for the future.

·         Seven, literal, 24-hours days – but it isn’t about the literal construction of the material world.

·         No claims are being are made about the age of the earth.

·         Genesis 2 is not about Day 6.

·         Genesis 2 is a sequel account.

·         If Genesis 1 and 2 are sequel accounts, the humans in Genesis 1 are not Adam and Eve.

·         Genesis 2 describes the “creation” of Adam and Eve.

·         Second account does not need to fit into Day 6.

·         Adam and Eve are not the first people – solves quite a few problems.

·         Biblical text suggests there were a whole lot more people than Adam and Eve’s descendants.

·         Adam and Eve are archetypes – one who represents all the others.

·         Does Genesis 2 refer to individuals or archetypes?

·         “Dust” – not chemistry or craftsmanship.

·         “Dust” = “mortality”.

·         People were created mortal (from dust).

·         Tree of life – no sense if people were created immortal.

·         Sin – humans lost the antidote to immortality.

·         Psalm 103:14 – “we” are all formed from “dust”.

·         Not unique to Adam – every human being formed from “dust”.

·         Formed from “dust” is not about material formation.

·         Formed from “dust” does not preclude being born from a woman.

·         Formed from “dust” is a statement about every human being throughout history; it is a statement about identity.

·         Gen 2: Does Adam believe Eve was created from his rib? No.

·         The word “rib” in Gen 2 is never used anatomically anywhere else.

·         Biblical text is not talking about surgery.

·         When Adam falls into deep sleep, God shows him a vision.

·         Adam sees a vision of him being cut into two halves, and Eve being created out of one half.

·         When Adam and Eve join together, humanity is restored to wholeness.

·         It is not about the material origins of woman; but about identity.

·         They (together) are given a priestly role.

·         Adam and Eve can be historical individuals, without being the very first biological humans.

·         There is no biblical account of human (material, biological) origins.

·         The Bible does not endorse or rule out evolutionary processes.

 

Joe Fleener provides a response to John Walton in the remaining 45 minutes.

·         How did the LXX translators understand Genesis 1?

·         How did pre-Enlightenment Christians understand it?

·         How did pre-Enlightenment Jews understand it?

·         How did the Qumran community understand it?

·         There is strong evidence that these understood Genesis 1 as material creation.

·         There is ample evidence that pre-Enlightenment.

·         God is The Author of the entire Bible.

·         The entirely of the Bible has an intentional beginning and an end.

·         Revelation refers back to the Genesis creation account.

·         Revelation discusses new material creation.

·         The language in Revelation is the same as LXX Genesis accounts of creation (therefore, Genesis 1 must be referring to material creation).

·         Various examples from Bible passages that describe God as creator of the material world.

·         The Flood is about material destruction.

·         Genesis 1 and 2 must be about material creation.

·         Paul’s use of the creation account as requiring it to be chronologically and materially literal.

·         Creation of sea creatures in Genesis 1: sometimes thought to be a polemic, but it is clearly a material creation.

·         Not either/or – but both/and.

·         Genesis 1 and 2 is both functional and material creation.

·         Genesis 1 is not science, but it is history.

·         There can be no conflict between science and Genesis 1, even though the Bible is not a science text.

·         How accurate are our understandings of ANE cultures?

·         Are the ANE texts reflective of how people really thought?

·         Scripture must be inerrant and true in all aspects: can something be theologically true, yet ontologically untrue?

·         Criticism of higher criticism in interpreting scripture.

·         Discomfort with the idea of a Cosmic Temple imagery.

My assessment of the response

In my opinion, Fleener’s response fails to convince. John Walton never said God didn’t materially create, which is what Fleener appears to be trying to answer. What John Walton says is that Genesis 1 and 2 are about functional creation which pre-supposes a material creation ex nihilo. Fleener is addressing a single statement from Walton’s work in which Walton appears to put forth a claim that reading Genesis 1 and 2 as a material creation account is strictly an Enlightenment development. Fleener falls into some of the interpretation issues that Walton describes: reading anachronistically; assuming the later Jews and pre-Enlightenment commentators were expressing the original author’s intent; assuming later text in the Bible perfectly reflect the understanding of the Genesis account; assuming a perfect revelation of theology and science from the Bible. What this tells me is that Walton and Fleener is talking past each other due to their different starting points.