A sermon on the creation story in Genesis 2
Our Old Testament passage this morning from the second chapter of the book of Genesis is part of the creation story: a story broadly shared by Christians, Jews and Muslims, and indeed with a strong resemblance to other creation stories that originates in the same region. I’d like to start today by giving some context to this story. Not to undermine its value, but on the contrary, to better appreciate the richness of its meaning, particularly in a world so focussed on science and facts.
I’m sure that many of you know, but it is worth reminding ourselves that there are two parallel, yet different, creation stories in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. The one we hear this morning is generally accepted to be the older one of the two: less philosophical, more physical, and God is depicted as a potter moulding clay into life: “then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”. Compare this to the more abstract version: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”

The fact that there are two different accounts of creation in the Bible is not a mistake. These early chapters in the book of Genesis are not a historical account or science textbook, where the facts are neatly ordered for us. Therefore I make no apology in saying that these two creation stories in the book of Genesis are myths: they are God-inspired human stories that help us understand God’s part in creation, as well as ours. Their purpose is not to give us the facts of how the first human beings originated, but their purpose is to help us understand what it means to be a human being, created in God’s image, with in our nostrils the breath of life.
So let us take a closer look at what this passage might tell us about ourselves and about God. Within this passage, there are elements that I suspect are uncontroversial in our Christian understanding of who we are. Human beings are both physical beings, made up of the building blocks of matter (created from the dust of the ground), and yet we are also spiritual beings, our identity is God-given (as he breaths into our nostrils the breath of life).
There is also the strong sense that everything is made by God, our world, the seasons and every living being. Given that this text was written approximately three thousand years ago, of course there is no mention of planets, galaxies and celestial objects other than the sun, the moon and the stars. This is not because they are outside of God’s creation, but because people at the time did not have the words or concepts to describe them yet.
But yet, that does not mean to say that people’s understanding of themselves was simple. This passage shows a profound knowledge of human thought and motive. Moving towards the end of the passage, as we hear how the man and woman were naked, but not ashamed, we might recognise an innocence that we still see in young children: they too are not ashamed, in a way that we adults are. Indeed, our innocence gets lost as we grow up, as we begin to make our own decisions, for better and for worse: when we have tasted from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Is I said, these interpretations are I suspect reasonably uncontroversial, although we don’t always take the time to engage long enough with the text to see them emerge. But, there are also aspects that are more controversial, and within the Church there are very different interpretations of what this this passage might mean.
One of them is our relationship with all other living organisms. This morning, we hear how God puts the man in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it, and we hear how he has the task to name every living creature. There is a sense of responsibility and care for creation in these verses, that we may not always have taken to heart. One of the reasons might be the alternative creation account, in which we hear how human beings are given dominion over all creatures, a phrase that is notably absent here.
As we understand more and more about our impact on the planet, and the way in which all organisms are dependent on each other with a complexity that we still fail to grasp, maybe this morning’s account of creation can help us articulate a sense of humility. Yes, we have named all living species, but that doesn’t give us the right to use them as we like. We too are part of God’s creation, together with all that we have given a name and to care for.
It’s hard to ignore the next controversial issue: the relationship between men and women. In the story we hear this morning, the woman is created out of the rib of the man; whereas in the alternative story both man and woman are created at the same time, in God’s image. These two accounts give a very different perspective on the relationship between men and women. Today’s version seems to imply that a woman is there to keep a man company, whereas only a few verses earlier, we can read how both are created in God’s image.
When we think today about the relationship between women and men, we have to accept that we have been formed by our history. In Western cultures and societies throughout the ages, men have been seen as the norm, with women naturally subordinate. For example, Ancient Greek philosophers were convinced that rationality was a quality only possessed by men, and that therefore they were more suited to rule and lead.
I am currently reading a book on the gender data gap – that happens when you have lots of scientific, data-minded friends. I can very much recommend it as it has really surprised and challenged me to think again about what equality between men and women really means. Our bodies are different, but where should this difference make a difference? Most medical trials involve men only, even for medication to treat conditions most prevalent in women; almost all crash testing is done with the average 70kg male model in mind, even on the passenger seat, which is where often the woman sits. And that is interesting in itself, why is it men mostly driving? Maybe the Ancient Greek rationality argument again?
But on a more serious note, in the Church, there is still the question of female authority and priesthood. Were Jesus’ twelve disciples all male because that was the norm in his day, or was it because women can’t be disciples in this way? I have my view on this, but I know that there are others who hold their view as fervently as I do mine.
And maybe that brings us back to the beginning: how do we read the Bible? Which parts are history, and which parts are not? And even in those parts that we agree are historical, how much of what happened was due to the norms and customs of the time? And how do we respond to this?
To conclude, I’d like to briefly reference our Gospel reading: the disciples in the boat together, in a storm, with Jesus asleep. Maybe that is sometimes how it feels when we consider these and other hard and controversial topics together as a Church: we’re in the same boat, but we all might have a different view of what to do next. And Jesus, he is asleep. Not absent, but asleep. It is only when we turn to him, that the wind subsides, and the water grows calm. We cannot live and work together faithfully, until we really put our trust in God. And I am sure that when we do, we too are challenged by Jesus’ question: Where is your faith? Putting our trust in Jesus isn’t about safety. Safety would be to stay on the shore, and not respond to God’s invitation in the first place. But faith is knowing that God is with us, in whichever storm we may find ourselves. And trusting that when we turn to him, he will listen – but do we dare to listen to him?













