Is there good in separateness from God?
Here is a passage from the book:
There are two ways of reading the phrase "and God saw that it was good,"
which appears six times in Genesis 1. The first is that the goodness of
creation is a reflection of the goodness of God -- a way of saying "I am
good." This meaning is evident in such declarations of the Psalmist as
"the heavens are telling the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1). Unquestionably,
then, one purpose of creation is to give God glory.
The other dimension to the phrase does not contradict the first, but it is
often overlooked. The statement is not only a reflection of the goodness
of God. It is often misquoted as "God said that is was good," implying that
the goodness of creation is the result of divine fiat. But in the wording
"God saw," there is a recognition of the separateness of creation -- and of
the goodness in the separateness. Most profoundly and mysteriously, it
points to the price the Creator was willing to pay for the independence of
his creation.
Thus God does not simply "say" or "declare" the goodness of what he has
made: he sees its goodness, as a free response to his own calling.
Though its origin is clearly from God, the very fact of creation gives
creatures an independence, a goodness, and a freedom of their own.
"God saw that creation was good" is thus not so much a declaration
as it is a response to creation.
The first question seems to be whether God actively declares -- thereby assigning -- creation's goodness or He passively observes -- thereby acknowledging -- creation's goodness. The Hebrew word "saw" in Genesis 1 is "ra'ah" which means to see, to understand intellectually, to perceive. This certainly implies God observed, He didn't declare.
Following the authors' logic, I think they would go on to say the implicit goodness God observes in creation was derived entirely from Him. So a passive observation makes Him no less responsible for creation's goodness.
That said, what more (if anything) should we interpret from the repeated use of the word "saw?" Can we go as far as to agree with this sentence: "But in the wording 'God saw,' there is a recognition of the separateness of creation -- and of the goodness in the separateness?"
Sin has clearly caused separation between creation and God, but is there a benign separateness before the Fall? A liberty that is good in itself but distorted by man?
posted by Matthew at 10:50 PM
2 Comments:
I know I have not responded much, if ever, to this blog, but Matt has been kind enough to keep me on it to learn from what you guys think and talk about.
My initial reaction to the passage is very negative. To suggest that God is indicating that separation itself has some sort of special goodness seems to go beyond the text and the rest of Scripture; for as II Corinthians 5:18-20 calls us to be reconciled to God and messengers of reconciliation.
There is definitely a Creator, creature distinction, which seems to be the point of Genesis 1-2. However, the author of the passage claims, "Though its origin is clearly from God, the very fact of creation gives creatures an independence, a goodness, and a freedom of their own. 'God saw that creation was good' is thus not so much a declaration
as it is a response to creation.", thus claiming that in separation and independence from God is goodness. Yet the doctrine of providence holds that a created being, but its very definition, is not independent and cannot exist apart from that which created it. Paul says as much in his redeeming statement in Acts 17:28, "In him we live and move and have our being."
Apart from God creation has no freedom, no independence, no life; therefore it goes beyond our biblical understanding to say that God's perceived goodness of His own work is a "response" to the separation of creation and God. It is a response, but a response to God's own work.
Jeremy,
I'm with you that the entire idea of redemption is bringing us back in communion with Christ...but I also agree with your statement that "There is definitely a Creator, creature distinction." That's why I'm wondering if we should distinguish between "separation" and "separateness."
I'd define "separation" as the distinction between Creator and creature that originated with sin and requires redemption.
"Separateness" (maybe we could call it "otherness"), then is a freedom of will that God gave to His creation that ensures authenticity in the relationship between Creator and creature. Man has distorted separateness/otherness into separation by choosing sin over God.
Sure, creation has no freedom, independence, or life but that which God has given...but did He give us a "separateness" that is inherently good?
Post a Comment
<< Home