Theories of Origins and Genesis 1:1-2:4
Introduction
Evangelicals attribute qualities such as ‘innerancy’, ‘infallibility’, ‘truthfulness’, ‘final authority’, ‘perspicuity’, and ‘sufficiency’ to canonical Scripture. Sometimes these claims are limited by Scripture’s ‘intended purpose’. They nevertheless remain lofty claims, with solid Scriptural support.
The current hegemony of science has meant that modern theories of cosmological origins have, for some, implicitly raised questions about the traditional ‘naïve’ exegesis of Genesis 1. For example, Calvin assumed six 24 hour periods, dating the creation to approximately 6000 years ago[1].
Evangelicals have divided over ‘six-day creation’ at different levels. The complexities suggest some boundaries for speculation need to be established which doesn’t compromise a high view of scripture. The bible teaches about creation. Thus, the boundaries need to be created by the text. However, different presuppositions, not textual issues, have occasioned the differences. Can scientific theory or evidence influence exegesis? What does Gen 1:1-2:4 in fact teach? What boundaries, if any, arise?
1. May scientific theory or evidence influence exegesis?
Three broad positions can be identified. ‘Fideism’ treats science and theology as complementary approaches to the same reality, but which asks different questions. Science tells us ‘what’ and ‘how’, theology tells us ‘who’ and ‘why’. This correctly discerns that the object of special revelation is not cosmology. However, Christian theism requires the assumption of ‘God’ in natural science. Further, scripture itself determines its own purpose; perhaps it indeed tells us the ‘what’ and ‘how’.
‘Concordism’ sees science or theology offering rational support or difficulties for the other. A concordist who believes in creation and scripture’s authority would presuppose harmony between the bible and scientific observation[2]: ‘Presuppositionalism’ argues theology supports science by giving rationality to scientific presuppositions (eg existence of truth, orderly nature). These views rightly seek coherence between God’s world and God’s word, but it risks superimposing a contemporary scientific grid over the exegetical enterprise.
A third position holds that the practice of modern science contradicts the bible and is thus ill-founded, and seeks to replace it with ‘creation science’. ‘Creation science’ holds modern science accountable for its methodological inconsistencies and presuppositions, but may itself be subject to the same criticisms. ‘Creation science’ depends on the a priori acceptance of the literal reading of Genesis.
I think scriptural propositions bearing on science must affect science. This is a matter of authority. Conversely, empirical observation of phenomenon must affect exegesis. This gives the text meaning to us. We should thus assume coherence between God’s word and God’s world.
Scripture has dual authorship. However, the human author is pre-scientific. This suggests that we adopt the phenomenological aspect of the biblical author, to understand the text. Modern scientific knowledge acts as a warning or confirmation regarding exegesis after exegesis, because of the coherence between God’s word and world.[3]
2. What does Genesis 1:1-2:4 say?
Genre classification per se cannot determine the ‘historical intent’ of the author[4]. Narrative can be poetic, poetry prosaic. Genesis 1 is neither typical Hebrew poetry nor normal prose[5]. The style is exalted[6], ‘akin to a hymn’[7], with an identifiable narrative structure:
The Genesis account reports that God made the universe in an unformed state, and then shaped it[8]. God is always said to ‘create’, never create ‘out of’[9], thus implying creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) (cf He 11:3). In verse 2, attention focusses on ‘the earth’[10].
On Day 1 (vv3-5), God creates light before he creates the sun, moon and stars (vv14-19). This makes a chronological or literal interpretation of the creation days as 24 hour periods difficult[11]. First, we (and the human author) define ‘Day’ (yom) by the existence and movement of the sun and moon, one of the purposes God assigned to the heavenly bodies (v14). Moses is thus describing a phenomena (a day without a sun[12]: vv3-5) necessarily outside of and without analogy in all human experience, including his own. To import our notion of a 24 hour period because of the word ‘day’ is, at least, anachronistic and insensitive to the progression of the account. ‘Day’ indeed provides some analogy; but to assume ‘24 hours’ is to beg the question. Reymond argues that the days after God created the sun (Day 4) were 24 hour periods, and thus Days 1-3 would have been ‘ordinary days’ as well[13]. This assumes that yom must equal ‘24 hours’ after the sun is created. However, it is more likely that we should read the later narrative in light of the earlier, not vice versa. Second, day is primarily characterised according to its ‘enlightened’ character, not its length of time. Third, the darkness (v2) and following command ‘let there be light’ perhaps constitute ‘the first day’, given that the order ‘darkness’ then ‘light’ accords with the formula, ‘And it was evening and it was morning’ (v5). If so, it brings the darkness of verse 2 into the first day. In 2:4, yom doesn’t not mark a day of evening and morning but marks the temporal construction ‘when God made’. Thus, yom is clearly used not to mean 24 hours.
On Day 2 (vv6-8), God separates the waters by making a firmament (raqia), from the verb ‘beat, stamp, spread’[14]. It denotes a hard surface[15]. It contains waters above it. According to our cosmology, this appears problematic. However, we and Moses share a similar phenomenological perspective. The sky appears from the ground like a hard curved surface. Phenomenologically, with Calvin we should probably see the 'water above' as clouds.
On Day 3, (vv9-13), God gathers the waters underneath the heavens to one place, so that ‘dry ground’[16] (v9-10) or ‘earth’ (v10) appears[17]. Vegetation sprouted before the sun was made.
On Day 4, (vv 14-19) God ‘sets’ (natan: not caused to appear) lights in the firmament. Phenomenologically, the sun, moon and stars appear embedded in the firmament. However, astronomically they lie far beyond earth’s atmosphere. We note the earth was made before the sun, moon and stars were made. The purpose may well be an anti-ANE polemic. The luminaries are not deities, as in Enuma elish, but created by God. They are not even named, merely described, clocks and calendars that don’t control destinies. The star’s creation is almost an afterthought[18], to serve humanity. Thus, the account is not heliocentric, unlike modern science, but geocentric and anthropocentric.
On Day 5 (vv20-23) the birds fly ‘upon the face of the firmament’. From the ground, birds appear to fly against the backround of the sky’[19]. God’s creation includes the great sea creatures, thought of as powerful deities in the ANE context.
On Day 6 (vv24-31) a narrative change of pace occurs around the creation of adam (v26)[20]. God created the adam out of the adamah (‘ground’). The geocentric account is now explicitly anthropocentric. All is made for man’s benefit (v29).[21]
On Day 7 (2:1-3), God finished and rested from his work. That this section stands outside the first of the ‘generations’ (toledot) suggests it is outside the main historical outline of Genesis and is not to be interpreted in the same way[22].
Only the narrative itself can reveal its purpose. However, I notice the account’s potential to critique ANE cosmology and theology[23].
(a) It affirms God’s unity against ANE polytheism.
(b) God creates through his powerful word not magical utterances.
(c) The sun, moon, stars and sea monsters are not powerful deities.
(d) Matter is not eternal.
(e) Man is not an afterthought, to feed the gods, but creation’s climax, whom God feeds.
(f) The 7th day was not unlucky, but a holy day of rest.
God created the world out of nothing by his word, then ordered it. Yom denotes ‘when’ (2:4), and is defined independently of the sun’s revolutions (days 1-3). It need not mean six 24-hour periods. Throughout the narrative uses phenomenological language, such as raqia.
Neither does Ex 20:8-11 require the Genesis days be understood literally[24]. The sabbath command requires only that the six days work, one day rest pattern be founded on God’s creation, not on the meaning of yom[25]. Rather, Jesus’ argument (‘My Father works even until now’: Jn 5:17) suggests that ‘God’s sabbath … is co-extensive with history, and not a literal day[26].
3. What boundaries, if any, does it place on scientific speculation about cosmological origins?
I now outline three views of cosmic origins, and propose theological and scriptural boundaries on scientific and exegetical speculation.
Young Earth creationism (YEC) argues all basic types of organisms were created by God in the creation week. The curse introduced death, both human and animal. The flood was global and caused the large fossil record.
My exegesis suggests YEC claims too much. The highly structured account suggests a movement away from literal mainline. Phenomenological language is clear. The creation of the sun (Gen 1:16) suggests the arrangement is topical not chronological[27].
Apparent age theory (omphalos [28]), which YEC requires, is problematic. This posits God created the world with an appearance of age. Many object it makes God a deceiver. This is not necessary. The main problem is that it is not falsifiable. Further, it is inconsistent to argue both ‘apparent age’ and evidence for YEC. Perhaps the earth’s ‘youthfulness’ is apparent![29].
YEC argues Romans 5:12 requires the entry of both animal and human death only after the fall. However, it does not require animal death, only human death: ‘death came to all men, in whom all sinned’[30]. Nothing is said of animal death in Gen 1-2[31].
Furthermore, the physiology we observe of some carnivorous animals provides problems for YEC. If animal death is only the result of the fall, did God create the lion, crocodile or great white shark to eat meat? If he did, then did they fast before the fall? If he didn't, then are we thrown back to some form of 'theistic evolution' (at least 'micro-evolution', albeit speedy and miraculous), in that prior to the fall their physiology allowed them to eat vegetables, but after the fall their physiology allowed them to eat only meat. Further, why does the Scripture praise their ability to eat meat, if death is a consequence of the fall? (eg Psalm 104:20-21). For an interesting article see Lee Irons, 'Animal Death Before the Fall'
‘Creation science’ provides alternative explanations of origins consistent with Gn 1. For example, the pre-flood earth was surrounded by atmospheric and subterranean layers of water. Global temperatures were warmer, allowing dinosaurs and men to co-exist[32]. This is possible, but has not convinced many Christian scientists. Further, it requires some ‘phenomenological’ licence with the text. Thus, the raqia is said to be a former global canopy of water. However, the text describes the sun, moon and stars as ‘set’ in the firmament, even though Copernican theory (which YEC accepts) describe them as lying far beyond the earth’s atmosphere. YEC is suspicious of phenomenological readings of Gn 1, yet must use phenomenology to preserve its proposal.
Old Earth Creationism (OEC) holds that God’s activity occurred in a progression, perhaps in epochs, and concedes an old earth (4-5 billion years) and universe (10-20 billion years).The days of creation are seen as an age, literal days separated by long periods, or that the days are a literary device. Some accept a global flood, others a regional flood. I think several boundaries are imposed by the text upon these positions.
One version of OEC adopts the ‘gap theory’[33]. God originally created the flawless universe over millions of years as recorded in Gen 1:1. Then because of some catastrophe (perhaps Satan’s fall), the world ‘became’ (not ‘was’) without form and void. (Gen 1:2). Genesis 1:3ff then records God’s restoration or second creation of the formless earth a few thousand years ago in 6 days[34]. In response, it seems strange that the universe's actual creation and fall is described only in vv1-2, and never referred to again, and the restoration (vv3ff) is the focus of the account. Further, the reading of perfect hayah as ‘became’ is unlikely; and the waw should not bear the weight of the strong adversative but required by the theory[35]
Some versions adopt a ‘day=age’ view, thus the luminaries’ creation consists of the clearing of the sky so that they become visible[36]. This is not what the text says[37]. Further, the NT views the flood as destroying all humans except eight survivors (1 Pe 3:20; 2 Pe 3:6[38]). Given these boundaries, a version of OEC which has yom as a literary device is most likely.
Theistic Evolution (TE) We should distinguish ‘theistic evolution’ from ‘natural selection’. The latter views the evolutionary process as an accident, providing purposeless explanation for apparent purposefulness.[39] TE holds the universe was created by God through biological evolution and self-organisation[40].
B B Warfield and J I Packer supported some proposal including human evolution. Warfield grounded his doctrine of scripture and evolution in concursus. Just as scripture was fully human and fully inspired, thus all creatures could develop fully through natural means.[41]
However, we note some boundaries regarding the single origin of the human race (‘monogenesis’). Warfield was uncompromising on the organic unity of the human species, recognising the racist undercurrents in positing humankind as comprising several distinct biological species.[42] Eve became the mother of all living (Gen 3:20). Jesus (Mt 19:4), Paul (Acts 17:26-7; Rom 5:12-14; 1 Cor 5:21-22) and the whole NT assumes the one origin and nature, need and provision of redemption, for humanity[43].
Regarding the special creation of Eve, Van Till[44], Blocher[45], Wenham[46] and Stott[47] see it in the account as poetic and without literal intent. But it seems to me that the account discusses the process how God made Eve (ie from the rib of Adam) (Gen 2:21-22), and this renders the claim of soley a literary figure unsatisfying. Paul asserts Eve’s creation is ‘because of’ Adam (1 Cor 11:8). This suggests special creation.
The theory of evolution is still a theory. The missing link is still missing[48]. Further, some scientists have called its explanatory value into question[49]. So I do not hold to or teach 'theistic evolution' with respect to human origins.
Conclusions
The doctrine of creation provides humans with meaning and purpose, which accidental atheistic evolution undercuts. This is the gospel issue in relation to creation. Theistic evolution, Old earth creationism and Young Earth Creationism each retains the dignity and purposefulness that the doctrine of creation provides.
Genesis 1:1-2:4 shows God creating all things out of nothing, and then ordering his world according to his purposes. As a matter of exegesis, YEC is not required. The narrative uses phenomenological language to make its theological points, perhaps against an ANE background.
Scripture must be allowed to set its own agenda. However, the context of Gn 1 suggests it provides a cosmology as prolegomena for the history of salvation. Gn 1 shows the Saviour God is also the Creator. It’s overarching purpose is salvation, not science. Thus, Scripture is able to make us wise for salvation (2 Tim 3:15). ‘Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation’ (Art VI).
The difficulty YEC apprehends is reconciling phenomenology with its evangelical doctrine of scripture. In other areas of theology, however, it recognises this aspect of scripture (eg anthropomorphism, anthropopropisms). Further, the evangelical doctrine of scripture recognises the evangel of Jesus Christ as Scripture’s purpose. Neither creation science, nor any other view, is the gospel of Jesus Christ, the word of the cross.
As a matter of church practice, we should maintain freedom of belief and not break fellowship over matters within the boundaries. On the boundaries themselves, the complexities of the issues require charity.
Bibliography
H Blocher, In the Beginning (Leicester: IVP, 1984)
D B DeYoung, Dinosaurs and Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000)
V P Hamilton, Genesis 1-117: NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990)
D Kidner, Genesis (Downers Grove: IVP, 1967)
E Lucas, Can We Believe Genesis Today: The Bible and the Questions of Science (Leicester: IVP, 2000)
A McIntosh, Genesis for Today: Showing the relevance of the Creation/Evolution debate to today’s society (Epsom: Day One, 1997)
J P Moreland and J M Reynolds (ed), Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999)
B Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954)
R L Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1998)
H Ross, The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator (Orang Ca: Promise, 1991 2nd ed)
G J Wenham, Genesis 1-15: WBC (Waco: Word, 1987)
B B Warfield, Evolution, Scripture and Science: Selected Writings (ed M A Noll and D N Livingstone: Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000)
[1] M A Noll and D N Livingstone (ed), ‘Introduction’ in B B Warfield, ‘Evolution, Scripture and Science: Selected Writings (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 299
[2] For example, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): ‘Since the Holy writ is true …[it] must accord with the conclusions of observation and experiment’.Galileo held to the heliocentric Copernican theory of the solar system, against the Ptolemaic system, which held the earth to be stationary. The Holy Office, the medieval Roman body responsible for the inquisition, condemned Copernican astronomy (1616) and condemned Galileo to imprisonment for a few months (1632) under suspicion of heresy. Again, Hugh Ross argues that scientific ‘evidence for a universe designed, initiated, shaped, and sustained exactly as the Bible describes, by God, continues to mount.’: H Ross, The Fingerprint of God: Recent Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Unmistakable Identity of the Creator (Orang Ca: Promise, 1991 2nd ed), 185.
[3] I follow H Blocher, In the Beginning (Leicester: IVP, 1984), 25-27
[4] Contra R L Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 117
[5] There are indicia of prose (mainline wayyiqtols, direct object markers, relative clauses). However, there are also examples of assonance (eg v2: ‘tohu and bohu’), root repetition (eg vv20: ‘swarmers swarming’, flyers flying’, v26: ‘creepers creeping’), and repeated structuring phrases (‘and it was so’, ‘and there was evening and there was morning’).
[6] Wenham, 11
[7] Blocher, 32-33
[8] Hamilton, 116
[9] Wenham, 14
[10] Wenham, 15
[11] Wenham, 18
[12] The Bible begins and ends by describing an untarnished world that is filled with light, but no sun (Rev 22:5). God, himself called “light” (1 John 1:5), needs neither sun nor moon for light. Calvin comments: ‘Therefore the Lord, by the very order of creation, bears witness that he holds in his hands the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon’: Hamilton, 121 fn7
[13] Reymond, 393-4
[14] BDB 955-6
[15] Cf Ex 39:3: ‘to spread by hammering; Job 37:18; skies being spread out hard as a molten mirror
[16] BDB 387, cf Ex 4:9, related to root ‘dry, dried’.
[17] Hamilton, 125 fn 3
[18] Wenham, 21; Hamilton, 127-8
[19] Wenham, 22
[20] No longer the jussive but the cohortative.
[21] Wenham, 38
[22] Wenham, 39-40
[23] following Wenham, xlix-l, liii, 9
[24] A McIntosh, Genesis for Today: Showing the relevance of the Creation/Evolution debate to today’s society (Epsom: Day One, 1997), 39
[25] B Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 146
[26] Blocher, 57
[27] V S Poythress, ‘Response to Paul Nelson and J M Reynolds’ in Moreland and Reynolds, 93
[28] From Gk. for naval. This view originated with P Gosse in 1857, from a book of the same title. Examples are said to be at the creation Adam had a navel, and trees had growth rings. More recently, starlight that seems to take millions of years to reach earth is said to be created en route.
[29] E Lucas, Can We Believe Genesis Today: The Bible and the Questions of Science (Leicester: IVP, 2000), 71
[30] Davis, in Moreland and Reynolds, 83; Newman, in Moreland and Reynolds, 111
[31] R C Newman, ‘Progressive Creationism’ in Moreland and Reynolds, 111
[32] D B DeYoung, Dinosaurs and Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 33-5
[33] =creation-ruination-recreation or restitution theory
[34] McIntosh, Hamilton, 115-6
[35] Ramm, 134-144; Hamilton, 116; D Kidner, Genesis: TOTC (Leicester: IVP, 1967), 44 fn1
[36] Newman, in Moreland and Reynolds, 107-8
[37] Blocher, 45
[38] M Green, 2 Peter and Jude : TNTC (Leicester/Grand Rapids: IVP/Eerdmans, 1987 rev ed), 142
[39] R Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: Penguin, 1988 2nd Ed) cited in McIntosh, Appendix A 144
[40] H J Van Till, ‘The Fully Gifted Creation’ in Moreland and Reynolds, 171
[41] Noll and Livingstone, 43
[42] Noll and Livingstone, 40-3
[43] Noll and Livingstone, 285-6
[44] Van Till in Moreland and Reynolds, 236
[45] Blocher, 98-9
[46] Wenham, 69
[47] J Stott, Understanding the Bible, 233
[48] McIntosh, 184
[49] Molecular biologist Michael Behe argues that the invisible world of molecular systems is full of many complex and irreducible systems, all of which have to be present at once to perform a useful function. These systems cannot be built up part-by-part through a mindless Darwinian process, because in Darwin’s system a presently useless part cannot be preserved in the hope that it will later be useful. However, a designer can look ahead and plan to use the useless parts later on: Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996), as summarised by Johnson in Moreland and Reynolds, 273-4