Go to this link for further discussion of this topic.

Two of the stories in Genesis seen as most representative of God's covenant revolve around Noah and Abraham, to the extent that these are traditionally 'go-to' stories for Sunday Schools and Bible lessons.

Noah (Chapters 6-9) was the man who listened to God when when no one else does, risking ridicule while the world laughs at him for building a boat on dry land, only to be vindicated when everyone else perished in a flood. Powerful images of Noah shepherding animals on to his boat, or gazing at a rainbow which symbolises God's covenant, have been read by Christians as representative of the type of resolute faith we are called to have and the rewards that we will recieve.

Likewise, Abraham and Sarah's struggle with infertility and the birth of their miracle son Isaac is held up as important learning. Abraham's remarkable, dutiful response and willingness to sacrifice his son are lauded as an example of great faith.

Certainly there are constructive messages to draw from these stories, in terms of emphasising God's sovereignty or an encouragement to maintain faith amidst suffering and doubt. However, an objective look at the texts also reveals some horrifying sub-plots.

For example, amidst idealic images of lions and gazelles together flocking towards the enormous ark, we miss the disturbing fact that (as far as the narrative is concerned) God is about to kill the human race by drowning. While many interpretations are sympathetic to the narrator's perspective that humans basically deserved what they got, we cannot avoid that a literal reading sees God as a volitile being who resorts to violence if the world exceeds outside his design. This same God - whom we proclaim as eternal and unchanging - is nevertheless repelled by his actions to the point of deciding to never do it again. He then makes rainbows as a sign of that promise - which somehow makes the story pretty enough to tell five year old children at Sunday School!

The story of Abraham has its equally sinister sub-plots. Isaac, the long-awaited son who would inherit God's promises, was in fact (Chapters 17, 21) the second son to Abraham, after Sarah offered her slave, Hagar, to Abraham as a surrogate. Hagar (who had no choice in the matter) bears a son (Ishmael) who through no fault of his own draws Sarah's jealousy, especially when she concieves a child of her own. Hagar and Ishmael are then banished to the desert.

God then tests Abraham to see if he is really worthy of the covenenat/agreement he has made with God, asking him to sacrifice Isaac on an alter by cutting his throat and then burning the body. Regardless of the outcome (which has a suitable animal replacement being found to prevent the sacrifice of Isaac at the eleventh hour) we often miss the fact that in this story God did, in fact, ask Abraham to conduct human sacrifice and that Abraham was, in fact, willing to carry it out.

For these reasons, I'm less inclined to think the stories are truly representative of God, and more representative of the understanding the ancient Israelites had about God. While the Abraham story in particular is valued because it is seen as a precursor to the gospel narratives that have Jesus as a substitute for our sins, it still highlights the disturbing notion that God can only be satisfied by blood sacrifice. This is something I believe that is wholely rejected by Jesus. While 'sacrifice' or 'lamb of God' are terms used to explain or describe the mission of Jesus to the world later in the New Testament, it is not God who demands Jesus' blood - it is us, who can't comprehend a religious system without someone having to pay.

This is one that is really uncomfortable to talk about, but discomfort doesn't change the fact that it is there. In this story (Chapters 18-19), God tells Abraham that he will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the lack of righteous people there (again, the violence issue arises here).

Abraham negotiates with God to spare the city if enough righteous people can be found. God agrees, and sends two angel messengers to evaluate the cities. In Sodom, they are greeted by Abraham's nephew Lot. Lot hosts the men, who are pursued to his house by a mob who wish to sexually assault the newcomers. Lot, to protect the newcomers, offers his daughters in place. When this does not divert the mob, however, the angels blind the attackers. They then tell Lot to leave the city, as God will soon destroy it.

Lot, his wife and daughter do flee the cities as they are consumed by fire and brimestone. Lot's wife, however, ignores instructions not to look back, and is infamously turned into a pillar of salt.

This leaves Lot and his daughters alone in a cave, possibly believing that they are the only remaining people alive. The story then gets unpleasant. It reports that Lot's daughters are desperate to have children to continue the family name, and so they get their father drunk and fall pregnant to him over two successive nights. The story then reports that the children of these women become the nations of the Moabites and Ammonites (Gen 19:37-38).

It is interesting to note that, while we usually condemn the actions of the towns people, we don't consider the near betrayal of Lot's daughters by their father. There are a number of writers who both condemn and defend Lot's actions for various reasons, suggesting that his offering up of his daughters was out of a middle eastern obligation to protect his guests. A plain reading of the Bible would further condemn the actions of the daughters in the cave as culpable, while exonerating Lot, but this is not really sustainable. Perhaps one night for Lot could be considered drunken stupor, but a second night is fully knowing.

Some people point to the condemnation of the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah as the purpose of the story, reading it as a case study in condemnation of homosexuality (which it is not). Elsewhere-as in the New Testament-the story becomes a condemnation of sinfulness generally.

However, the distastfulness of the story can perhaps be best explained by the closing lines placing Moab and Ammon as descendents of the encounter. It becomes a way of taunting, disgracing and dismissing traditional rivals of Israel, demeaning them as products of incest. It emphasises the purity of those in Israel's direct story... Abraham... while condemning Lot's lineage.

This type of ancient political proganda gets challenged later in the Hebrew Bible narrative, however, as a Moabitess named Ruth becomes an ancestor of David, Israel's idealised king.

Genesis starts with the creation accounts, where at the creation of humanity God says "let us create humankind in our image". It is an interesting passage... who is the 'we' that is being spoken about?

Traditional Christian responses suggest that its a reference to the Trinity, but this is not an argument that can be made if we take the text seriously as an ancient Jewish work. Is God refering to angels of some sort? Its not really a theme explored anywhere else in the story. Others consider the phrase to be a kind of 'royal we'.

The key, as hinted earlier on this page, possibly lies in the use of the word 'elohim', which can mean 'gods', as in plural, although throughout the Hebrew Bible is usually used to mean God, as in 'one God'. In the wider Canaanite world, the people believed in a pantheon of gods. One of these was Yahweh - the focal point of Genesis 2 - while other members of the pantheon were Asherah and Baal, who appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Later evidence shows that the Israelites took a long time to reject the polytheism of the Canaanite world around them (even the first of the 10 Commandments to to 'have no other gods before me' (Exodus 20:3, NRSV).

The point? It took time for Israelites to come into their belief in only one God... possibly as late as their exile and captivity in Babylon. Genesis provides us with a glimpse into the early stages of this developing understanding. An interesting article that explores this more in depth can be found below.

For further reading, begin with this article by Valerie Tarico, interviewing Thom Stark.