Before all time, God hovered over the abyss, brooding.
We don’t know for how long. In a world of time, it may have been eons. Like an artist before a blank canvas, with eyes closed, breathing deeply, imagining every detail before even dipping his brush.
And then he begins.
For five and a half days, God’s creation takes shape. Then, day six, the creation of man and woman.
There are two ways to interpret day six:
The first is that God made man and woman with great intentionality—every part meaningful, every part wondrous, every part a full story in itself. Every part revealing something of God and his love. In this interpretation, joy fills him as he turns to their center and with all the care of the master, gives them something of himself—the capacity to create. As he steps back, he smiles, knowing it is a gift for them together—face to face, chest to chest, body to body, body in body, joy will fill them. And then . . . new life! As they are to him, so the new life will be to them—bearing their image, extending their love.
The second interpretation also maintains that God made them with intentionality, but this time the emphasis is on functionality. Every part working, like cogs or equipment or systems. In this interpretation, man and woman’s capacity to produce children is a necessity to perpetuate the species. And sexual pleasure, if it has a function, is the motivation to do so.
Both interpretations have consequences.
The one you choose will shape how you view men, women, and their bodies. It will shape how you feel about your own. It will shape how you view sex, sexual pleasure, pregnancy, and children. It will shape how you view the one who created you.
And collectively, the interpretation we choose will shape . . . well, everything.
Question: What consequences do you see arising from each interpretation? And what about this idea: Can both be true?