Genesis 2... Problem for Literalists?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Question:  does anyone else find this snippet of narrative highly problematic for those who accept the absolute literal Genesis story, but also profess that God is omnipotent?

"for those who accept the absolute literal Genesis story"?  you mean like Jesus and the Apostles?

---

1
    Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed.
2
    Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.
3
    So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.
4
    1 Such is the story of the heavens and the earth at their creation. At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--

Just tell me what jumps out at you when you have it.

I see no problem with God's omnipotence here.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why would an omnipotent God need to rest?  Either God's not omnipotent or, far more likely, the text is not literal.

the scripture simply says that he rested, it does not say he "needed" to rest.

But, this passage is taken literally by the New Testament:

Heb 4:4 "And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.'"

The 7th day had no evening, it was an eternal rest.  Those who have faith today will be able to enter God's eternal rest. (read Heb 3:7-4:11).

so, one thing that can be assumed is that God was setting aside an eternal rest, not for his need, but for our need.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

BTW... keep working that tired "like Jesus and the Apostles" when I bring this up.  I have already offered superior counter points so many times that its now become trite.

You showed that Jesus and the Apostles didn't take the Genesis account literally?!  Do you have a link?

That would be strange because not only did Jesus and Apostles (and, for that matter, the rest of the Old Testament) take the account literally, they placed the words of Genesis into the mouth of God:

Heb 4:4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.'"

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why would an omnipotent God need to rest?  Either God's not omnipotent or, far more likely, the text is not literal.

the scripture simply says that he rested, it does not say he "needed" to rest.

But, this passage is taken literally by the New Testament:

Heb 4:4 "And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.'"

The 7th day had no evening, it was an eternal rest.  Those who have faith today will be able to enter God's eternal rest. (read Heb 3:7-4:11).

so, one thing that can be assumed is that God was setting aside an eternal rest, not for his need, but for our need.

It's amazing how far you are willing to reach beyond the literal text when, and only when, it has some immediate benefit to your purposes.

I'm sure that that is exactly what is meant by the original author.  That when it says God rested, he was resting us.
And you attack me for my so-called "reaches".

WHAT?!

Obviously, I meant that God created an eternal rest (which God, himself, first took part in) for OUR BENEFIT.

If you read Heb 3:7-4:10, you'll see the very eternal rest God took on the 7th day is the EXACT SAME rest believers are promised in the afterlife.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Obviously, I meant that God created an eternal rest (which God, himself, first took part in) for OUR BENEFIT.

If you read Heb 3:7-4:10, you'll see the very eternal rest God took on the 7th day is the EXACT SAME rest believers are promised in the afterlife.

Alright, honestly, I am willing to indulge you.  Please explain your point, and I will listen, because I don't really get what you are talking about, or how you forge this direct connection.

Ok, my first point is that Genesis does NOT say that God “needed” to rest, simply that he rested.  There are MANY actions God did, not for His need, but for our need.  

Example: God told Solomon to build a house for Him, yet God didn’t need the house for Himself, because Paul states in Acts17:24 “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.”

So, we can't assume that simply because God did something or instituted something that He must have needed it.  The purpose may serve OUR needs, not His.

The lack of rest is a picture of Hell: Revelation 14:11 “And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

And the presence of rest is a picture of Heaven: Revelation 14:13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." "Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them."

Heb 3:7 through Heb 4:11 is all about equating the eternal rest of Heaven that awaits us with the rest God took on the 7th day of Creation.  The Sabbath is simply a prefiguration of Heaven, just as the Passover was a prefiguration of the death of Christ.

Col 2:16 "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were and are to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

So, since the scripture plainly states that the Sabbath symbolizes the eternal Heavenly rest that awaits those in Christ and since Genesis does NOT say that God “needed” to rest, my conclusion is that God took an eternal rest for our benefit – to establish an eternal rest for us, where we will be at peace for ever with God.

---

Lastly, since Heb 4:4 states: "And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. 4For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.'"...

...it shows that the writer of Hebrews took literally God's rest in Genesis.

Since the bible doesn't say that God needed to rest, there is no "Problem for Literalists".  On the other hand, if you want to say that God didn't rest, then you are the one facing a contradiction since your lack of literal acceptance contradicts Heb 4:4.

The only way NOT to have a contradiction, is to:
1) accept God's rest in Genesis as literal (literal acceptance brings agreement with Heb 4:4)
2) since the scripture doesn't state that God "needed" the rest, don't assume God "needed" the rest

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the very notion of a God who "rests" distorts the image of God as a being who always "is" without constraints.

Likewise, the very notion that God needed Solomon to build Him a house also distorts the image of God.  But there was a purpose for doing so, as my post points out.

I've corrected some typos and added a couple of needed points...so my last post needs to be reread.

thanks

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Super,

Glad we reached agreement.  I have to crash now...will check back in the morning.  Hopefully, my explanation will demostrate how taking Genesis literally does NOT hinder one from getting the point.

The book of Genesis is not simply an historical account, it is also a deeply prophetic book since the events recounted in Genesis foreshadow the future; of which, a perfect example is the Sabbath.

Also, God only rested from creating the world, but he is still at work ministering to us:  

John 5:16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

I believe St Augustine goes over the difference of God resting from creating versus God continuing to work at ministering to us.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As you said, the Temple was the "House of God," but you can't house God, and so, although God himself said this, clearly the author of that passage does not mean for this to be taken as literal.

I am getting the feeling that you an I might be closer than ever to reaching an understanding, I hope you are don't have to prove me wrong.

granted you can't house God, but the fact remains the building of the Temple was a literal historical event.  So the bible can be historically 100% literal, but the literal events have deeper symbolic meaning.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As you said, the Temple was the "House of God," but you can't house God, and so, although God himself said this, clearly the author of that passage does not mean for this to be taken as literal.

I am getting the feeling that you an I might be closer than ever to reaching an understanding, I hope you are don't have to prove me wrong.

granted you can't house God, but the fact remains the building of the Temple was a literal historical event.  So the bible can be historically 100% literal, but the literal events have deeper symbolic meaning.

Of course.  I don't doubt that it can be 100% historical at all.  In fact, I believe that the Bible contains a very high degree of historical accuracy.  I also believe the Bible to be 100% inspired.  That being said, I don't think the Bible is 100% factual.  Some writings are intended as histories, some as prophesies, some as allegorical stories to illustrate truths about God, morality, etc.  I don't think Genesis is any less true simply because I do not believe it is a literal account, that, indeed, contains facts.  I simply don't think all the stipulations of the account need be correct for the truth to be maintained.  The authors were inspired to truth, and wrote that truth.  But if science tells us that the Universe is 15 billion years old, and evolution happened... how does that diminish God, as God is the one who created all those things?

I don’t know what more you need.  After all, you yourself chose a passage from Gen chapter 2, which Heb 4:4 interrupted both as literal and figurative. 

And look carefully at what the Gen 2:1-3 says: “1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. 2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.”

So, Gen 2:3 is extremely specific – he rested NOT from all work, but from all the work of creating the heavens and the earth.  In other words, he rested from the work of creating physical things.  That’s the literal interpretation. But, as Jesus’ statement in John 5:16 shows, God NEVER rested from his spiritual work.  God didn't kick up his feet, just as we won't kick up our feet in Heaven, but will move on to a better and bigger "life".

So, Gen 2:3, taken literally, dovetails exactly with the rest of scripture:  God rested from creating physical things, yet continued his spiritual work in ministering to mankind.  Basically, after the work of physical creation, God went on to better and bigger things – spiritual work.

And you can take Gen 2:3 literally, while at the same time accepting the same verse’s symbolic and prophetic meaning, and be in total agreement with scripture without a single contradiction – because the scripture interprets it as both literal and symbolic (and, as in this case, prophetic).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dude... go to bed.  Seriously, don;t stay up on my account.

it wasn't you, it was the Word.  This verse of God resting from labor but not resting from ministering is the reason why the priests could do ministering work on the Sabbath without violating the Sabbath.

It also explains what God meant in Psa 95:7-11 "So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.'"...He meant that he declared they (the Israelites who refused to listen to Joshua's and Caleb's report) would NOT enter Heaven, they would not be saved...which is why He waited until that generation died off before bringing them into the promised land.

Also, if God's rest in Genesis 2 is not taken literal, then there is no literal heavenly rest waiting for us.

In closing, Supersoulty, you picked an excellent example why Genesis is to be taken literally.