Re-reading

Today I spoke with my pastor, Robert Keats, about Genesis 1 and the book of John.  I told him I was re-reading Genesis and John and trying to ask myself questions to get more from the text.  In view of how John presents Christ, as the Light of the World, as the life that is the light of men, and as the incarnate Word of God, I told him I think there is more to the narrative of Genesis than I have been reading.  So my questions of the text were these:  What connection do the first words of creation have with what John tells us about Christ?  How does, "Let there be light" relate to the Christ event?

As I began to re-read and think about Genesis, I then found yet another question that grabbed my attention: why doesn't God say anything was "good" on day two of the creation account?  On the first day we see that God calls the light good.  On day three, God says both the dry land and the plant life created are good.  On days four, five, and six God says that the various acts of creation are each "good."  And finally, on day six, after God has created everything else, he says that all he created is "very good."  But, on day two, there is no statement that anything was good.

There may be nothing to this omission.  It may very well be that there is nothing to be learned from the simple omission of calling anything good on day two.  After all, on day six God calls everything, "very good" thus indicating that creation was exactly according to his plan and purpose.  And if everything was created according to God's purpose, then obviously, what happened on day two had to a good thing.  In any case, Scripture does not give a clear or definitive answer to this question.

If you choose to do a quick search on Google, you can find various answers that people have to why God didn't call the second day of creation good.  Answers range from the idea that the waters above the firmament were set in the sky as a punishment for men (the flood of Noah) and therefore it was not pleasing to God to have this punishment prepared, to the idea that the creation of the firmament and the setting up of the heavens created the realm that Satan would claim as his own.  Unfortunately none of the answers I read really took into account the testimony of Scripture.  For instance there is nothing saying that the waters in the flood came from the water above the "firmament."  Likewise, there is nothing saying that Satan had already taken his domain in the heavens being that as of Genesis 2 he had not yet tempted Eve and Adam had not yet allowed sin into the world.

I have my own theory on why God does not call day two of creation good.  My theory is that day two tells us about God separating creation from himself, setting up the firmament as that which separates creation (the waters below) from the throne room of God (the waters above).  Thus when we see in Revelation 4:6 that there is what appears to be a sea of glass in front of the throne of God, we are taken back to the primordial waters that covered the world, and we are reminded that God is enthroned above the heavens.  God is separated from creation, because of his own design, but he does not intend for things to remain that way.  By the end of Revelation, in chapter 21 we see that God intends to make a new creation, one that will not be separate from himself.  God does not call the second day of creation good because it represents an imperfect idea of what God will one day do, when he will join himself to creation, when there will be nothing that separates him from what his hands have made.  (I do not mean this in a pantheistic or panentheistic sense.)

Obviously, my theory is just that, a theory.  I can't prove my idea is correct.  If I am right, then what that shows us is that God intended, from the very beginning of creation, to bring all things into fellowship with himself.  Thus when we read about the separation of day two we read about an event that was necessary according to God's divine plan, but one which would one day be undone.  This tells us that it should be our aspiration to be brought back to God.  And it tells us that reconciliation with God goes beyond ourselves, it involves all of creation coming into fellowship with God.

But, my point is not to attempt to prove my interpretation of Genesis.  Instead, my point is that it is only through re-reading Scripture that we notice things like the second day not being called good.  We only notice the connections between the waters above and the glassy sea around the throne of God when we read through both Genesis and Revelation enough times that the ideas in each of them take root in our minds.  Yes, reading what others think about Scripture, or hearing someone else point out connections we may not notice in Scripture is useful.  But, we will only begin to see connections ourselves when we become devoted the text of Scripture, in whatever way we have access to that text.

Re-reading Scripture has great value, because it helps us to see connections we might otherwise never notice.  It also encourages us to ask questions, which can be useful to us and help us to get more out of Scripture, even if we cannot definitively answer the questions we ask.  If our goal is to become more like Christ, even as Peter says we are being transformed, and Paul says we ought to live, then there is no better method to becoming like Christ than to dive into his word.  There is no other way to know the mind of God than to give heed to what he has said.  While there may be times we feel as though we are gleaning nothing more from what we are reading, we must remember that God can use those moments to plant something in our minds that will help us later.  Re-reading Scripture is incredibly important to the Christian, and its values cannot be overstated.