Every culture has been intrigued by the mystery of their origins. Where did we come from? How did we get here? Every religion and every society has some form of creation story. They are never designed as factual accounts of the origin of life but rather they express wonder that we exist at all and answer the questions in such a way that the stories can be told to the children and passed from generation to generation.

1:1–2:4a The book of Genesis contains two accounts of creation. This first is spacious, taking in the whole cosmos as viewed from earth, while the second has a more limited, localized setting, taking place entirely within the Garden of Eden (2:4b–3:24). According to the first account, God creates the world in 6 days and then rests on the 7th, thereby establishing the Sabbath day of rest as a part of the natural order. God’s week of creative work follows a perfectly symmetrical pattern. In the first three days, God marks out three earthly realms: (1) day and night, (2) sky and sea, and (3) land and plants. In the second three days, God populates these three realms with stars and planets, birds and sea creatures, and land animals, including humans. God is characterized as high and powerful, creating mostly by command (“And God said”).

This account is thought by some to be the most theological chapter in the entire Bible. It is written as a confession of faith, not a scientific explanation. The passage shows us a God who is powerful, creative, artistic- a God who can bring form and life out of chaos and nothingness. God is, God creates, God sustains- this is a powerful statement of faith in a truly awesome God.

There is a rhythm and repetition indicating this account may actually have been written for liturgical use. God said, saw, separated and called, over and over. At each stage the creation is declared good.


The statement in Gen 1:26-27 that human beings were created in God’s image has had a powerful influence on later views of human life, and many interpretations of its meaning have been proposed. These interpretations emphasize either the nature or the function of human life: the image of God as a certain quality or character granted to humans or the image of God as a role or task assigned to them. Early Christian thought emphasized the former, connecting the image of God with human nature and, in particular, with the unique spiritual character of human life. Augustine, for example, believed that the image of God referred to the rational soul, placed by God in the human body, which was created out of the ground (as described in the second creation account, 2:7). Such a division between soul and body, or spirit and matter, is a later development in Greek thought, however, and is not shared by Priestly or other OT writers.
A very different approach to the image of God as a definition of human nature has been taken by modern theologians writing on behalf of oppressed groups (women, racial and ethnic minorities, those in the lower economic strata). According to this interpretation, the divine image refers to the sanctity and innate worth of all human beings and presumes that all persons are to be treated with equal dignity. Unlike the early Christian view, this characterization of human nature focuses on the whole person rather than on the soul alone. The logic behind this interpretation is obvious to modern readers, though it is unlikely that the Priestly writer shared such modern conceptions of equality.
Biblical scholarship in the late 20th century emphasized the functional interpretation of the image of God, viewing that image as identifying a particular role for humans, either as counterparts or partners of God, or as representatives of God in the created realm. The concept of representation, the most widespread view in biblical scholarship today, is drawn from analyzing the use of the expression “image of god” in the ancient world. In antiquity, this expression was used, in Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts, to designate the ruling monarch as the gods’ special representative with a divine mandate to rule. By adopting this expression, the Priestly writer has therefore attributed royal status and responsibility to human beings. When taken in this context, the image of God describes humanity’s preeminent position in the world and humanity’s responsibility to rule in creation as God’s representative. Human beings are thus mediators, as were kings and priests alike, of God’s presence in the world.

The translation humankind (’adam) is an improvement over “man” (RSV, KJV). The Hebrew word ’adam possesses the same dual sense, “man, mankind (humanity)” as the English word “man” in traditional discourse. Here, where it refers to humanity, including male and female (v. 27), the general sense is obviously intended.

According to Priestly tradition, humans were vegetarians before the flood; they are given food from the two traditional Mediterranean crops—grains and fruits—created on the third day (vv. 11-12).
The Priestly creation account comes to a climax with the establishment of the seventh day of the week as a sacred day of rest, modeled on God’s own behavior at creation The Hebrew for rested is shabat, the root from which the word “Sabbath” derives.

These are the generations [or descendants] of . . . This is a formula with which the Priestly writer frames the major sections of Genesis (e.g., 5:1; 6:9; 10:1), dividing early history into precise periods. Here it concludes the Priestly creation account and introduces the Yahwist’s narratives of the Garden of Eden and of Cain and his descendants, which follow (2:4b–4:26).