In the beginning, God created . . .  Genesis 1:1  NASB

In the beginning – It is little wonder that some rabbis spent their entire lives contemplating the opening three words of Scripture.  We have spent quite a bit of time on the same subject.  At last count, there are half a dozen or more Today’s Words about Genesis 1:1 and quite a few longer articles.  One reason for this continual re-examination of the passage is its absolute uniqueness in ancient Near-eastern thought.  The opening words, and the entire Genesis story, represent a radical departure from every other cultural explanation of that era.

Of course, that wouldn’t explain our continued fascination with the implications of this opening.  That it eventually became the foundation of a doctrine like creation ex nihilo shows its enormous explanatory power, even if that doctrine is not explicitly stated in the verse itself.

But there are some implications from the way Genesis 1:1 is interpreted in Christian theology that lead in other directions.  Jacques Ellul notices one of these when he says,  “Now at the same time and in a corresponding manner, reflection upon God, being led by Greek and Roman thought, radically transformed what the Bible said about God.  On the one side it analyzed the attributes of God – a God, of course, very different from the gods of polytheism, but still a God constructed by philosophy.  Thus the idea of creation underwent a radical change the moment omnipotence came to the fore.  The relation between God and the world now had nothing whatever to do with what the first Christian generations believed.  God was tied to his creation, and ultimately the world contained God.  On this basis one could find the sacred everywhere.  This path led to the reappearance of persons typically connected with the sacred, such as mediators or priests.”[1]

Ellul’s remark recognizes concepts buried in some Christian interpretations of Genesis 1:1 that are not part of the Hebraic world.  The differences are important.  The Hebraic paradigm does not see God contained within the idea of the world, nor does it view God in terms of “attributes,” as most Christian theology does.  Furthermore, since the Hebraic world does not have the Greek philosophical constructs of omnipresence, YHWH is not found everywhere.  He is not the universally distributed God.  He is the God of Israel and He is found among His people.  Yes, I know that you could object.  “God is everywhere.  That’s what omnipresence means.”  But you are missing the point.  God is the God of Israel and the nations are invited to join Israel, not to merge Israel into the rest of the world.  That God could manifest Himself anywhere in His creation does not mean that God is everywhere; i.e., that He is distributed equally in every place as the pantheists claim.

Ellul’s points continue.  Those who serve Him are called to very specific tasks associated with the cultus.  There are no universal priests mediating the relationship between all human beings and the universal God.  There are priests who facilitate the worship of God as He requires it within the culture of His people.  The people as a whole are called to be intercessors between God and the nations, but in the end the role of all these priests and priestesses is to call the nations to join Israel in worshipping Israel’s God.

I know, I know.  If you thought I was stretching the idea of omnipresence, then you will certainly come unglued with this one.  “But Jesus is the high priest of the world.  He died for the sins of everyone!”  The statement is so familiar that we don’t even think about what it implies.  If Yeshua is the priest for everyone, then why does He say He came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel?  And why does He use a metaphor about the new covenant that only has application to the houses of Israel and Judah?  And why does Paul say that we as Gentile believers are “grafted” into Israel?

The answers might shock us.  First, we absolutely know that He is not of the order of the Levitical priests, so in this sense, He is not called (nor is He fit) to serve God.  He is of the order of Melchizedek, something quite unique in itself, and in that order He acts differently than all Levitical priests.  Secondly, since we affirm that He is divine (as God manifest in the flesh), He doesn’t serve God at all.  He is God – God Himself sacrificed in order to offer required compensation for the removal of guilt.  But these are only two small considerations.  Much more investigation is required.  The difficulty is setting aside all our Western, Christian pre-suppositions about the meanings of the text in order to listen to what the text actually says to its first audience.  That doesn’t mean we will come up with any different conclusions.  I believe that Yeshua is the divine Messiah whose death is intimately connected to the forgiveness of sins.  Just how that happens isn’t as clear to me now as I thought it was.  Now I am trying to understand what these passages would mean to a Jew in the first century.  If I don’t know this, then it is doubtful that I really understand what the authors are saying.  And since the overwhelming majority of the followers of Yeshua HaMashiach in the first century were Jews, whatever this text implies, it would have made sense to them.  So, I guess I better get to work.

Maybe Ellul is on to something.  Maybe.  But look what it will require us to do.  We will have to start over in our conceptions about the real relationship between YHWH, Yeshua, Israel and the Gentiles.

Or we could just dismiss all this and stay in our present theological comfort zone.  We could let our traditions remain more powerful than the text.

Topical Index: Genesis 1:1, Israel, priest, Melchizedek, sacrifice