not there actually are cosmic waters
being held back by a solid dome does not matter. That material
cosmic geography is simply what was familiar to them and was
used to communicate something that is functional in nature. Instead of objectifying this water barrier, we should focus on the
important twofold cosmic function it played. Its first role was to
create the space in which people could live. The second and more
significant function was to serve as a mechanism by which precipitation was controlled-the means by which weather operated. Order in the cosmos (for people especially) depended on the right
amount of precipitation. Too little and we starve; too much and we
are overwhelmed. The cosmic waters posed a continual threat, and
the "firmament" had been created as a means of establishing cosmic order. That we do not retain the cosmic geography of the ancient world that featured a solid barrier holding back waters does
not change the fact that our understanding of the Creator includes his role in setting up and maintaining a weather system. The material terms used in day two reflect accommodation to the way the
ancient audience thought about the world. But it doesn't matter
what one's material cosmic geography might look like-primitive
or sophisticated-the point remains that on the second day, God
established the functions that serve as the basis for weather.
DAY THREE
It is amazing to notice at this point that some interpreters are troubled by their observation that God doesn't make anything on day
three. We can imagine their quandary-how can this be included
in a creation account if God doesn't make anything on this day? By
this point in the book, the reader can see the solution easily. Day
three is only a problem if this is an account of material origins. If it
is understood as an account of functional origins, there is no need
for God to make something. Instead, we ask what function(s) were
set up, and to that question we find ready answers.
First of all we note that just as day two separated and differentiated cosmic space, so day three differentiates terrestrial space.
The act of separating, a key creation activity from a functional
perspective, continues in prominence. Commonly in the ancient
literature, these same differentiations can be seen.
Even as some commentators ponder the absence of material
creation in day three, others often observe that the day seems to
contain two separate acts (water/dry land and vegetation). From a
functional perspective, the soil, the water and the principle of
seed bearing are all very much related as essential to the production of food. The emergence of dry land from the waters is a common element in Egyptian cosmology, and there it has a definite
referent. That is, the emergence of the primeval hillock in cosmology reflects the yearly reality of the fertile soil emerging in the
aftermath of the inundation of the Nile. Thus it is clear that the emergence of dry land is associated with the growing of food.
Day three reflects the wonder of the ancient world at the whole
idea that plants grew, dropped seed, and that more of the same
plant came from that tiny seed. The cycle of vegetation, the principles of fertilization, the blessing of fecundity-all of these were
seen as part of the amazing provision of food so necessary for
people to survive.
So on day one God created the basis for time; day two the basis
for weather; and day three the basis for food. These three great
functions-time, weather and food-are the foundation of life. If
we desire to see the greatest work of the Creator, it is not to be
found in the materials that he brought together-it is that he
brought them together in such a way that they work. Perhaps we
can feel the same wonder when we consider how, even given all
that we know about the physiology of the eye, that beyond all of
our material understanding, through these bundles of tissue we
can see. We should never
being held back by a solid dome does not matter. That material
cosmic geography is simply what was familiar to them and was
used to communicate something that is functional in nature. Instead of objectifying this water barrier, we should focus on the
important twofold cosmic function it played. Its first role was to
create the space in which people could live. The second and more
significant function was to serve as a mechanism by which precipitation was controlled-the means by which weather operated. Order in the cosmos (for people especially) depended on the right
amount of precipitation. Too little and we starve; too much and we
are overwhelmed. The cosmic waters posed a continual threat, and
the "firmament" had been created as a means of establishing cosmic order. That we do not retain the cosmic geography of the ancient world that featured a solid barrier holding back waters does
not change the fact that our understanding of the Creator includes his role in setting up and maintaining a weather system. The material terms used in day two reflect accommodation to the way the
ancient audience thought about the world. But it doesn't matter
what one's material cosmic geography might look like-primitive
or sophisticated-the point remains that on the second day, God
established the functions that serve as the basis for weather.
DAY THREE
It is amazing to notice at this point that some interpreters are troubled by their observation that God doesn't make anything on day
three. We can imagine their quandary-how can this be included
in a creation account if God doesn't make anything on this day? By
this point in the book, the reader can see the solution easily. Day
three is only a problem if this is an account of material origins. If it
is understood as an account of functional origins, there is no need
for God to make something. Instead, we ask what function(s) were
set up, and to that question we find ready answers.
First of all we note that just as day two separated and differentiated cosmic space, so day three differentiates terrestrial space.
The act of separating, a key creation activity from a functional
perspective, continues in prominence. Commonly in the ancient
literature, these same differentiations can be seen.
Even as some commentators ponder the absence of material
creation in day three, others often observe that the day seems to
contain two separate acts (water/dry land and vegetation). From a
functional perspective, the soil, the water and the principle of
seed bearing are all very much related as essential to the production of food. The emergence of dry land from the waters is a common element in Egyptian cosmology, and there it has a definite
referent. That is, the emergence of the primeval hillock in cosmology reflects the yearly reality of the fertile soil emerging in the
aftermath of the inundation of the Nile. Thus it is clear that the emergence of dry land is associated with the growing of food.
Day three reflects the wonder of the ancient world at the whole
idea that plants grew, dropped seed, and that more of the same
plant came from that tiny seed. The cycle of vegetation, the principles of fertilization, the blessing of fecundity-all of these were
seen as part of the amazing provision of food so necessary for
people to survive.
So on day one God created the basis for time; day two the basis
for weather; and day three the basis for food. These three great
functions-time, weather and food-are the foundation of life. If
we desire to see the greatest work of the Creator, it is not to be
found in the materials that he brought together-it is that he
brought them together in such a way that they work. Perhaps we
can feel the same wonder when we consider how, even given all
that we know about the physiology of the eye, that beyond all of
our material understanding, through these bundles of tissue we
can see. We should never
Similar Books
