Genesis 1 Numerology

1         2         3         4         5         6         7

Genesis 1 is filled with mystical numerological meaning. The use of numbers distinguishes it from Genesis 2 and is another of the reasons I don't believe they share the same author. 

Genesis 1 begins with God, the one who acts as the primary force that moves the progression of the creation narrative along its two dimensional linear axis from beginning to end. God is the main character, the protagonist. No one else shares the spotlight. There is no antagonist. God is above all.

The number one, here, is a background number, always present, as the singular will that drives the creation onward to the resting point and, of course, it represents the presence and will of God. In fact, I should point out, this is very Jewish.

The narrative progresses linearly from beginning to end while at the same time displaying a greater consciousness that also moves along a second axis. This second axis moves from higher to lower (literally from top to bottom). Higher representing the holy (the heavens), or more God-like character, and lower representing the less Holy, less God-like character of flesh (the earth), displaying a clear duality, distinguishing between that which is above from that which is below.

This concept also provides a framework for which man can begin to view God. Not only is God the creator, but by pointing upwards, it implies something beyond human ability, where humans are not allowed to go, a divine realm. "Higher" implies a better or more perfect nature, a great character and a place of trusted and ultimate authority. Man is made 'in the image of God'. This has significance that, in my opinion, has nothing to do with physical appearance. The author of Genesis 2 will use this same idea to elaborate on the image of God.

While the earth stands for a firm physical foundation, the heavens high above offer a different kind of foundation for men. Heaven identifies that part of a man that makes him different from the other animals: morality, awe of the divine, reason and respect for order or law.

This concept of higher and lower introduces us to our first number, two. While the number two indicates a division it is not necessarily a bad thing because it is an intentional separation. In ancient Judaism, this would be one of the major functions of the priesthood, to maintain the separation between the holy and the common.

Other numbers appear not quite so prominent in the text.

Three divides the six days of creation, so that each set portrays some specific characteristic of the work of creation. Three therefore indicates a time of change, from one thing to another. It signifies that work is being done on something to change it.

For some reason six is representative of mankind or of the creation of mankind as he is created on the sixth day. We know this is significant because other Levantine cultures pointed out the same thing. In the Babylonian creation account mankind is created on the sixth (of seven) tablet. In Genesis, the number six marks an end to action and seven a beginning of rest (from action).

By far the most prominent numbers are two and seven. Two representing various kinds of separation (which is brought about only through work) and seven the end of a work well done. Seven represents a creation completed, that is, with nothing more to be done, and now those who were working can relax and enjoy it's produce.

Two (this and that)

• God and creation, God representing order and creation BEFORE God's will imposed on it represents chaos and darkness
• beginning to end
• higher to lower
• creation days divided into two sets of three: first three days for forming the three parts of creation, second three days for filling what had been formed with life
• Day 1: separate light from dark
• Day 2: separate upper waters from lower waters
• Day 3: separate earth from the lower waters
• Day 4: create sun for the day (greater light) and moon and stars (lesser lights) for night
• Day 5: create birds and fish
• Day 6: create land animals and man, man created as male and female
• Judgment outcomes: God saw that it was good! Good as opposed to ?, judgments are comparisons of God's work to His plan/will. It is either according to His will or it is not. Good indicates that it is going 

Seven (it is finished)

• There are seven visible bodies in the night sky that are not part of the 'fixed' background of stars. These seven bodies were used to calculate times and seasons
• Judgments ("God saw..." and "...it was good")
• Commands ("let... and it was so...) directed at the creation, this does not include "let us..." with respect to the creation of mankind because that command was directed to a divine council 
• seven [total] days of creation
• 'heaven' and 'earth' each appear twenty one times (7 x 3)
• 'God' appears thirty five times (7 x 5)
• Day seven is a day of rest BECAUSE the work of the six previous days were completed, the work is done and there is nothing more to do, all has been prepared.

The numbers in Genesis tie the physical creation to the divine and the good intentions of the divine. This contradicts the seemingly ubiquitous idea that the physical world is evil and bad (as seen in a number of Greek philosophical schools and later in gnostic theology). Genesis implies the exact opposite. The numbers in Genesis reveal a natural order that has been planned and is beneficial.

Because of the existing order in the natural world, mankind has found rhythms and patterns. For example, the lunar calendar, from which most of these numbers probably originate. One lunar month is approximately 28 days. The new moon was considered the beginning of a new lunar month and the full moon appeared roughly 14 days later (7 x 2). The quarters further divided the lunar month into four seven day periods (7 x 4 = 28).

The new moon and the full moon were each thought to last for 3 days (3 days of light, 3 days of darkness) symbolically implying a cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth.

One lunar year was approximately 12 lunar months with a 13th month added every couple of years to keep it in sync with the solar calendar (later given to twelve months).

Everywhere in nature there seems to be repeated numbers and shapes making divine order more apparent. And this order is permanently set, repeating in predictable cycles, like a law that is inescapable, influencing everything. This law was considered divine, not natural, and certainly not according to human imagination.

The numerology found in Genesis is not intended to be the main point of the text. It is intended, by the author, to show God's wisdom in ordering the universe as it is. These numbers are 'natural' in that they are part of the natural world in which we live. 

Genesis 2 3 4 Light and Dark

This topic is actually one of the reasons I dont believe that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by the same person. The treatment of various subjects, like light and dark, are as different as night and day. Genesis 1 treats darkness as a profane state of nature. By profane I mean common, or not set apart for special use by God. Darkness is not personified and does not antagonize the will of God. It is separated from light and is intended to be seen literally, day (the time of light) and night (the time of darkness), each governed by their respective heavenly body. The light is called "good" and the darkness receives no comment, it is ignored. Genesis 2, however, presents light and darkness quite differently. In Genesis 2, 3 and 4 darkness implies what is hidden, light is revelation (revealing) or plain to see, both intentional actions carried out by specific individuals (you will see what I mean). It is clearly, in my opinion, being drawn from Genesis 1 as an allegory of the subject and even a thematic dichotomy. Gods commands/judgment (spoken words) represents the light and Adam the sun (to govern the day). He is the image of God, proving that he is a son of God by doing (and obeying) the things God does (and says concerning him) in Genesis 1. Those actions specifically are:

1. Separating = setting apart
2. Naming = recognizing and declaring purpose
3. judging = deciding whether or not a specific goal is being achieved

and the words spoken about them:

1. governorship of the earth and of the living things that are on it
2. confidence of Gods ability to provide for all living things (because he cares for them all)
3. respect for the living things that God has created

In Genesis 1 separating and naming (another thematic dichotomy found in the story) demonstrates Gods wisdom with respect to establishing order and purpose in the cosmos. Separation indicates order and the name indicates a things purpose. It is done and stated plainly, no hidden agenda. In Genesis 2, the man must separate and name the animals (same concept demonstrated in the man). In Genesis 1, God periodically judges His own work indicated by God "seeing" that what He has done is "good". In Genesis 2, the man, apparently, has some reservation (or dissatisfaction) about his own work (a judgment) and God seeks for him a "helper", the mans judgment is right on. When God presents (implying the man "sees" her) the woman to the man he makes a declaration about her that is nothing less than a judgment of "good". The man is showing the qualities that makes him "like" God.

The darkness is represented by the serpent who presents a whole host of theological (and scientific) problems. Probably the greatest theological question anyone could ask is simply "why?" Why does the serpent deceive the woman and ensnare the man? We have made some fine guesses throughout Christian history, but, surprisingly the text does not say. His motive is hidden (shrouded in darkness) and is never revealed (why? because it is hidden in the darkness, something we are meant to notice). Serpents were known throughout the ancient world for their ability to live both below ground and above ground, producing the notion that they were able to pass between the world of the living and the world of the dead, the underworld (a dark and dreary place). Many cultures worshiped serpents because they were thought to be magic creatures (of prophesy and healing), renewing themselves by shedding their skin (removing the old dead self and being reborn to new life) and living forever. The Hebrews, as far as we know, did not hold such a high place for snakes. Snakes are seen in the Jewish literature as deceptive and dangerous, hiding along the path to strike unwitting travelers. This ability to stay hidden in bushes, under rocks or even camouflaged along the ground until they move to strike is considered a form of darkness (the ability to remain unnoticed). The serpent, in Genesis 3, appears suddenly (to the woman), striking quickly (deceiving her), never revealing his intentions. What is the outcome of his actions? Gods judgment of death on the man and woman, the result of disregarding the command. Did the serpent know this would happen? I believe that he did and that he intended that outcome. In this way, the serpent acts as an anti-image or anti-type. Just as God reveals and separates for the purpose of fulfilling his good will and Adam imitates God in Genesis 2, the serpent (in Genesis 3) also separates for the purpose of his own will, which is not revealed. He separates the woman from the man (Adams dilemma) then the man from God (spiritual death). What God does in plain sight, the serpent does in hiding. Perhaps as an anti-type the serpent is trying to be "like" god but in a way that is different from the man. The man is imitating the character of God. The serpent, on the other hand, is trying to control the situation, bending it to his own will, giving him a sense of power over Gods creation and even over Gods will, thus imitating the power and authority of God apart from the character of God, trying to make himself equal with God or perhaps above God in power. Being "like" God (or "like" a god) then would become a third thematic dichotomy.

The deception of the serpent is a type of darkness, or blindness. The inability to see the truth so you continue to believe what is not truth. He blinds the woman with deception (showing her that she can touch the tree and not die, something that was already true) undermining her fear of the command of God and encourages her to eat. He becomes a murderer by using Gods own judgment (against Him so to speak) to bring death to the woman and thwart Gods will for the man. And because it was done indirectly the serpent thinks he can avoid culpability, and can simply say to God, "you made the rules and I am not the one who broke them." He is not directly responsibility because the action was done by someone else. He shrouds himself in a situational darkness, remaining hidden from the main confrontation between offender and offended, like a puppet-master behind the scene pulling the strings of his puppets. This type of involvement usually makes situations more complex and harder to judge because the one actually responsible is not guilty of breaking the law as it is stated. As the representative of light, Adam failed to judge and dispel the darkness that had entered his kingdom. He did not reveal the serpent for what it was and expel it from the garden and darkness overtook his kingdom. As a form of irony, the writer says that their eyes were "opened" (as though from darkness). But this is the result of having eaten the fruit which God commanded them NOT to eat, it is not a punishment.While before they did not know they were naked, now they do. While before they did not feel compelled to do something about being naked, now they do. They see something about themselves that unnerves them and they assert their own will to fix it effectively separating them from the will of God, who formed them nude in the first place. By asserting their own will they are try to be "like" God in a way that was not intended. They are imitating the serpent in being "like" God and elevating their own will above the will of God.

Finally, God enters the story. I think it is important to lay some ground-work here regarding the judgment of God. His judgment is much more than a time of punishment. It can be that. But I think the best way to describe Gods judgment is as a time of honest assessment. Sort of like a company who has not done so well in the recent past. There comes a point when you have to stop and look honestly at the way things are going, figure out how you can cut, what processes need to change and plan a better strategy for the future, then act. It is like light shining upon a dark situation, revealing not only what has happened but how it will affect things from here on out and what we need to do to fix it. Gods judgment is ALWAYS good and just and His first intention is ALWAYS reconciling what can be reconciled and preserving the direction He thinks is "good". Of course the judgments of God in Genesis 1 were not in response to poor performance, they were simply periodic inspections at the end of a work cycle. The time of judgment for the man and woman has come. The change that has happened to them has deeply affected how they see God and His judgment. Now they fear the presence of God not just the consequences of disregarding His command. First they both try and hide their nakedness (shrouding their nudity from one another?), then the man tries to hide from the presence of God (shrouding himself in darkness). Because the man is responsible for upholding the command and tending the garden, God begins interrogation with him. The man points to the woman and the woman points to the serpent so God begins doling out judgment with the serpent, the root of the problem.

I believe this story is intended for Israel (perhaps the story of Israel) to demonstrate the effectiveness and protective benefit of keeping the commands of God. How darkness enters the land through deception and confusion and disruption in Israels relationship with God occurs by the assertion of any will other than Gods. While judgment is certain to come periodically, it does not have to be bad news. Israel must maintain its rightful place as governor of the earth by proper judgment (according to the will of God) and decisive action. For those who have been grafted in, this presents an incredible warning to maintain the course of faith in Gods provision.

Natural Law leads man to his purpose!

Natural Law is not an easy concept to explain (believe me), though on the surface it appears easy to understand. Natural Law is, at first glance,  that law which seems common to all people. Prohibitions on murder, stealing, and adultery are among the most commonly cited. I have often asked the question: what are the natural laws? Where can I find a list? I have yet to find one. So how do we define the laws of a higher moral code? This has proven difficult to really set specific boundaries for this type of law and, it seems to me, for good reason. The more general it is the more universal it stays, acting more as a guide. The more specific it becomes the less universal it will be and the more constricting it becomes, a kind of bondage (slavery), preventing even right behavior. In this sense law tends to become the weapon of tyranny and greed, but the natural use of this kind of law will result in slavery none the less. It is punitive (caused by the sinful nature of mankind) and vengeful (caused by desire for self-preservation and our sense of "fairness", that is, an eye for an eye) rather than reconciliatory, always bringing accusations (encouraging men to be adversaries), always seeking the greatest possible punishment (either as deterrent or as vengeance). In stark contrast to this, the universal natural law absolutely requires a universal cooperation between all men (remaining for us only a potential), something that we have never seen before but know is inevitable (a hope for peace that all men share regardless of culture). I think most people feel we must either accomplish this state of human existence or pass into an obscure extinction. And now the weaponized technologies we have developed make it even more pressing.

We assume that everyone knows not to do these things (murder, adultery, theft, etc...), whether they have been told or not. But is natural moral law really common? Does everyone instinctively know? Where does it come from? How do we define it beyond just somehow "knowing" right from wrong? Regardless of whether or not natural law is common to all CULTURES I believe it is common to all PEOPLE. I say "people" because I do not believe that cultural norms necessarily reflect natural law. Culture tends to reflect political and socio-economic necessities, like slavery, conscription and even social classes which better reflect the worst part of humanity such as our fears and greedy desires. In my opinion, many cultures have norms that bristle against the natural state of an mankind (against natural law itself) further complicating the matter, especially when trying to find out what we should include under the heading "natural law" or "natural moral law". So we tend to see natural law from this complex cultural perspective, convincing us that it is relativistic rather than absolute. While we should not exclude the use of culture or social customs from identifying natural law code it does complicate our endeavor. At any rate, I believe that we should attempt at least a basic understanding of what we mean when we talk about natural law. Why should we consider it absolute? And if we cannot get to clear definitions, perhaps a general conceptual view is more efficient, pointing us (me) in the right direction.

When discussing "natural" law, two kinds of law automatically come to mind (at least for me) that are easy to confuse. Both proceed from nature and we are naturally subject (subjected) to both so the confusion between the two is inevitable.

1. scientific laws of nature: natural principles that govern existence, being and physical interactions. Included in this category would be animal instinct. In a sense, fate!
2. natural [moral] law (higher law): a natural or common moral code that is coercive enough to govern fate for the good of the system.

A scientific law is something that simply must be (a kind of divine providence or fate, like billiard balls slamming into each other on a pool table), as a regulator of what exists and how what exists interacts with itself. These are the principles we can measure and predict, theorize and test. Active participation is not necessarily required because it is the way it is. The inevitable motions of the universe. Now, if laws are principles that are set (cannot be changed) we might ask whether or not they can be avoided or overcome (overcoming/avoiding fate?). Obviously, they cannot be changed outright. No one can walk through walls, I cannot become reptilian and the earth will not suddenly lose its gravitational force (what appears to be eternal stability).  But some certainly can be avoided or overcome, without changing them. When we hop on an airplane we are overcoming gravity (a scientific principle/law). We know that gravity is still there (believe me when I say I am acutely aware of it at 30,000 ft), still operating, we just overcome it by technology. By taking hormone pills (birth-control) we can avoid or interrupt the natural process of reproduction. I think this ability to avoid certain laws allows us to see how the scientific laws of nature provide us with some basis for moral law by asking one very basic question: Is it right (in such and such an instance) to avert the uninterrupted fate of the laws of nature? Really this is what we are hashing out at this point in human history. The most basic scientific laws of nature (biological heredity, chemistry, physics and mathematics to name a few) then provide the foundation from which natural law (a moral code) can be drawn.  This predictable structure creates both a factual reality and "norms" (statistical means) that allow us to ask specific questions about our behavior and actions with respect to the world around us. Moral code can then be derived from what is or appears to be absolute reality and natural norm.

Being able to extrapolate moral code from factual reality requires the ability to reason. Human reason then, with respect to a basic moral code, enables us to find the right moral action through our observations of nature, and this depends on discerning the natural principles/cycles/norms. Reason (and understanding) gives us the unique ability to recognize what is going right or what is going wrong not just with ourselves, but in our environment and in our communities as well. Reason is our way of monitoring and predicting the world around us. This is why we are so curious, wanting to learn as much about our world as possible, to better recognize wrong natures when we encounter them and then find solutions if we can. Consider the following example. Most people are heterosexual for the purpose of sexual reproduction, continuation of life. This is certainly a natural scientific principle that drives the propagation of a species and even the evolutionary process. Is it then morally wrong to be homosexual? While this question may invoke strong opinions and feelings from both sides this law of nature is undoubtedly the reason an argument exists in the first place. The argument reasons: Males and females exist among our species with very few exceptions. Males and females are supposed to produce offspring (heterosexual relationships). That is why males and females exist (propagation of the species and the evolutionary process). Further, human society has evolved from this basic family unit (male, female, and child) which gives the natural moral law a way to flourish, being nourished and exercised by parental affection, education and training. Therefore homosexual relationships are sexually and socially deviant (compared to our observations of nature) life choices that may undermine human society as a whole. And aberrations being found in nature (homosexual behaviors in other species) does not negate the argument because the argument is based on the observed facts of nature (male and female) and the mean behavior (sexual attraction and reproduction between the two sexes) within the human species. Likewise, promiscuity outside of a committed marriage relationship and adultery are also destructive to the proper development of the kind of morality that will lead to a virtuous society BECAUSE they undermine the family. The Apostle Paul makes an argument with a similar line of reasoning in the book of Romans.

Rom 1:18-20  For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,  (19)  because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them.  (20)  For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. 24-27  Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.  (25)  For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.  (26)  For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.  (27)  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

Could we apply this same line of reasoning to immunizations? Or birth-control? Is it wrong for me to stop the biological process of sexual reproduction (as a female) by taking birth control pills? What about surgically altering my sex (from male to female)? All of these questions are tied to this idea of a natural moral law. The natural scientific laws have laid a basis for moral judgment (the conscience). Nature itself gives us our beginning definitions for what is moral and what is not. Obviously we reason differently about various scenarios but I think we still start from the same basic concept of deriving moral code from nature regardless of what we ultimately decide about the scenario itself. But why would we even ask the question? I mean, why consider whether or not an action is right or wrong in the first place? Why do we care? Reason alone is not enough to make us question whether or not an action is moral. There is something in us that gives us pause. This "something" is the conscience! It springs from our nature, just as we have the ability to reason (and understand), we have the ability to judge our choices and actions, to question whether or not we are doing the right thing and to try and predict beneficial and harmful outcomes. This absolutely sets us apart from the other species, and makes us something of a guardian (being responsible for our actions), if you will, over the rest of the natural world. We have the ability to recognize a problem, formulate a solution and judge the effectiveness and morality of that solution. We can overcome a fate that would have been if everything were left as it is, to postpone fate or even change fate/destiny working within the framework of the laws of nature. What other species has this ability to the degree that we do? None that I know of. And to what end/purpose do we have this ability? Is it just for our own personal pleasure and life preservation or could there be a larger picture we are missing? Our natural abilities absolutely enable us to act as guardians/protectors of the natural world, NOT as the top predator, as some have so strongly encouraged in us. I think we can begin to see a truly great purpose for human existence. One that integrates the spiritual and natural elements of our nature as humans. I believe that it is our niche in the natural world (something we have had a difficult time discovering and defining for ourselves)! But a problem has recently emerged that is threatening to undermine the ties between natural moral law and the laws of nature. Because our technology is, for the first time in human history, allowing us to avert or manipulate more and more the physical laws of nature it is challenging our concepts about how we interact with the physical laws of nature, and consequently, our moral framework. How do we respond? So far our response as a species has been utter confusion!

This brings us to the larger picture. What we might call governance of nature. This governance refers to a force that is greater than we are compelling us to be something more/different than other animals, creating within us the desire to fulfill our own fate/destiny/purpose (pushing us to fill this new niche) as governors of the earth. Compelling us to be moral creatures, convincing us of a moral code that transcends the laws of nature, that has anchored itself in those absolute physical laws. Here is where the religious component of natural moral law affects reaction to secular relativistic views of law and individual freedom. Those who feel that our place in the natural world is governed, not by the consent of the people nor by an elite upper class, but by a force (divine) greater than the processes of nature working through time. Better described perhaps as a will that directs us without altering our ability to choose (which is the key to claiming our purpose), to which we must humbly submit ourselves or continue to be hopelessly lost. This divine will is seen by the religious mind as the organizing principle that orders the universe as it is, that establishes laws and sets boundaries. And to make moral decisions that seem to work against the divine will or treat its design for us with apathy or disdain is seen as suicidal (called sin). Dont get me wrong. Religious folk have made some very poor decisions with respect to following the divine will. I think there is a better way and I think in order for us to find that way we have to better define our place as a human species. As religious, moral, rational creatures who care about the future of this planet and mans place in it. We evolve here, we live here, we die here, we belong here and our niche is unique to our species alone. Making laws that force people to behave morally does not work, natural moral law is something that is chosen individually and preserved socially and culturally. And I think this concept of how far off the mark we are is really the central message of Christianity. That is, recociliation with God and men and the choice to live a life devoted to right natural order and spiritual law (which is repentance from sin). Ponder this. If the greatest law is reconciliatory, what happens when party (the offender) refuses to reconcile?

I think natural moral law is BOTH our religious duty AND our natural duty that informs our social duty. It finds the delicate path between individual freedom and social responsibility. To ignore it will ultimately doom our species to extinction because we will have removed ourselves from the niche

So if we were to put together a list what might it look like?

1. Obey and trust the divine law-giver
2. seek to understand the natural world and seek to preserve life according to this order
3. obey and trust parents and those who are wiser than you
4. respect life (even your own) and seek its good
5. live in moderation and humility and always practice being content with what you have
6. in everything maximize the benefit to others and to the natural environment
7. live peacefully with all men and seek and obey the counsel of the wise in resolving a dispute and never hold a grudge if it does not go your way
8. give to those in need and receive what is given to you when you are in need, never take advantage of this system
9. if you do wrong, repent and make it right to the best of your ability