Genesis

The Creation

Gen 1:1-31

Of all the chapters of this remarkable book the first has probably given rise to more thought, discussion, and controversy than any other. Nor is this surprising, remembering its contents and the place it occupies at the beginning of the Book of God. And assuredly it will repay the fullest and minutest attention, study, and meditation. In order to arrive at a right conclusion as to its meaning and object, it will be necessary to bring into view several considerations.

I. What is its Character?

The first essential is that we try to discover what the chapter really is.

Is it history? This were obviously impossible, since no one was present to observe and record for posterity the events here stated. The contents clearly refer to prehistoric events and times.

Is it science? This at any rate can hardly be the primary purpose of the writer, for the Bible is a book of religion, and this is its introductory chapter. Besides, science is continuous and incomplete, and we are learning more and more of its secrets every day. In any case this chapter could only be scientific in the broadest and most summary meaning of the term.

Is it myth? If by this is meant that which is inaccurate, untrustworthy, legendary, and, in modern phraseology, "mythical" we naturally ask whether such inaccuracy and untrustworthiness are likely to be found in a book of religion. But if by myth is meant a form of picturesque teaching suited to the childhood of the world, it may be said that even if it be a myth in form, its underlying teaching and details must be true to fact. Even parabolic teaching presupposes facts which correspond to the symbol used.

When we compare other cosmogonies, such as the Babylonian, we notice at once some remarkable agreements and some equally remarkable contrasts. All cosmogonies, for instance, have traces of a primeval chaos, yet their moral atmosphere is entirely different from that of Genesis, and they have nothing corresponding to the great statement of Gen 1:1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Moreover, the Babylonian cosmogony is, as is well known, religiously impure, with materialistic and polytheistic elements.

Is it invention? By this is meant, is it the work of man’s imagination, the record of what some early writer thought must have happened or did happen? If so, we naturally ask why it appears in a book purporting to be the Word of God?

Is it revelation? That is, is it to be regarded as an integral part of the Book which has come down to us as (in whatever sense) the inspired Scriptures of God? The precise method of revelation we know not, and it does not concern us to know; but the fact of revelation, and the place of this chapter in the book and in the Bible generally, seems to compel the inquiry, is it invention or revelation? Is it in any sense trustworthy in what it says? Can we use it in confidence in reading and teaching? Its place in Scripture must be accounted for as also its position in a book whose characteristic is truth, and whose purpose is to reveal the God of truth.

There are two usual explanations of the points contact between the Hebrew and Babylonian cosmogonies. (1) Some urge that Genesis is to be traced from Babylonia, but was afterwards purified, the Hebrew writer using the best of sources available, and making them the vehicle of religious teaching. Apart from the likelihood or unlikelihood of any direct borrowing from so impure a source, we may fairly inquire whether this view is adequate in the light of any true theory of Divine inspiration. And even though we limit the idea of inspiration to the arrangement and use of materials, to what has been called the inspiration of selection, the prior question still remains as to the source of those materials, and also their reliableness and accuracy. Surely we need some guarantee at this initial point. (2) Others say that the Babylonian cosmogony is the corrupt version of which Genesis is the pure record received from primal revelation. Is not this view much more likely to be true, and also much more in keeping with the idea of a Divine inspiration? When we remember the longevity of the human race up to the time of Abraham, there is nothing insuperably difficult in the view that this pure cosmogony may have been preserved among the antediluvians, and brought from Mesopotamia by Abraham without any corruption. At any rate, we have to account for the fact that this pure cosmogony is found among the Hebrews, while an impure cosmogony is found in Babylonia. Surely Divine inspiration is the only adequate solution of the problem. If the substance of this chapter is not revelation it must be, in whatever sense, invention or fiction; and in the latter case it really matters not whence it came or by what process it has arrived at its present state. In view, therefore, of the uniqueness of the Hebrew race, the place of this chapter in the Bible, and the general idea of Divine inspiration associated with the Old Testament, it seems much easier and truer to believe that we have in this chapter the record of a primeval revelation.

The following remarks from Lange’s Commentary on Genesis (p. 147) seem to sum up the truth on this subject:

II. What is its Purpose?

We must never forget that a chapter like this, as indeed every chapter like this, as indeed every chapter of the Bible must be judged primarily from the standpoint of those for whom it was originally intended. What did the first readers understand by it? Still more, what were they intended to understand by it? It must have had an intelligible message for them, however imperfectly and incompletely they grasped it. If, therefore, this chapter had been written in scientific language it would have been almost entirely unintelligible until the nineteenth century of our present era. Indeed, we may go very much further and say that many of the scientific books in our own language written a century ago are not only superseded, but practically unintelligible in the light of modern research. We are, therefore, justified in regarding this chapter as giving a simple, popular account of creation from the religious standpoint, and intended to be understood by people who lived in the time of the world’s childhood. Its elementary character and religious purpose are the twofold key to its true meaning, and if this is continually borne in mind it will not be difficult to see its continued value up to the present day. The great fundamental yet elementary principles connected with the creation need to be taught to succeeding generations of people of various ages and capacities, and it is one of the most remarkable features in the experience of Christian teaching that this chapter is found to be adapted to intellectual and moral childhood in all ages and countries, and at the same time not inappropriate to mature minds and fuller knowledge.

III. What is its Plan?

There are those who think that Gen 1:1 refers to the original creation, and that then between Gen 1:1-2 room is left for the vast geological ages with their catastrophes which are thought to be described by the phrase the earth was without form and void. This is urged more particularly because we read in Isa 45:18 that God did not create without form (same word in Hebrew). According to this view, Gen 1:2 to the end of the chapter gives the story of the earth being fashioned for man’s life and habitation just prior to the historic period. This view, though not generally accepted, is interesting and suggestive, and has not a little to recommend it, even though it does not solve every problem.

Taking the chapter, however, just as it stands, without any such break, we read it through, and are at once impressed with two things: (1) There is only one species mentioned in the entire chapter, And God created great whales (Gen 1:21). Everything else is generic. Why this exceptional reference? Why are these water monsters singled out in this way? Is it possible that we have here a hint of the writer’s purpose? Was he striking at the root of some ancient worship of sacred animals? Is it impossible that if the materials for the composition of Genesis were associated with Egypt this has reference to the worship of some sacred animal like the crocodile? (See Miracles, by Dr S. Cox.) (2) Then in Gen 1:16 special reference is made to the creation of the sun and moon. Is it possible that we have here another blow to a prevalent form of Eastern worship of the heavenly bodies? These two hints at any rate possibly suggest the religious purpose of the writer.

It is noteworthy that in the Hebrew of Gen 1:2 the adjectives formless and empty seem to be the key to the literary structure of the chapter. The record of the first three days refers to the heaven and earth receiving their form, and the record of the last three days to the filling-up of their emptiness. An outline will show this clearly:

Thus, the first and fourth days correspond, the second and fifth, and the third and sixth. First comes form, and then fullness. The literary structure of the chapter is clear, and is one of many proofs of Hebrew parallelism and love of parallelistic structure.

Above all, the keynote of the chapter is "In the beginning God." The word God occurs no fewer than thirty-two times; God created four times; God said eight times; God saw seven times; God made three times; It was so (God’s purpose) six times. So also we find God called, God set, God blessed, God divided.

Are we not right, then, in thinking that this chapter was intended as an account of creation from the religious point of view, and written for the instruction of mankind in all ages?

IV. What is its Relation to Science?

It is Relation to inevitable that this question should be asked, since on the assumption that religion and science both come from God there should be at least some general agreement or points of contact between them. At the same time the truest method of comparison is not between this chapter and the results of modern science, but rather between this chapter and all other ancient cosmogonies. It is when Genesis is compared with such other ancient accounts of creation that its immeasurable superiority is seen (Waggett, The Scientific Temper in Religion, pp. 160 ff). Nevertheless, in view of natural questionings, and bearing in mind the evident purpose of the chapter as an account of creation from the religious standpoint, the following inquiries with reference to its relation to science may rightly be made.

Does the chapter contain any scientific error? On the authority of the greatest masters of geological and biological science we may say that this has not yet been proved. There was a time when the statement of the creation of light before the sun was regarded as a scientific inaccuracy, but this charge has long been dropped, for modern science has shown that light existed before and independent of our present sun. In entire keeping with this the Hebrew distinguishes between light (Gen 1:3) and luminaries, or light-bearers (Gen 1:15).

Is the chapter written in sufficiently elastic and pliant language to admit of the inclusion of continuous scientific discoveries? It must be obvious to every thoughtful reader that this early chapter could not be expected to be in exact agreement with the latest details of scientific research, since science is continually changing and is ever incomplete. If it had been written in strict scientific language it would, of course, have been unintelligible for centuries. As the Speakers Commentary rightly says:

Yet there are indications that the very language of Genesis is pliant enough to allow of not a little scientific discovery being inserted. Thus there are two words used for creation. One, Bara, is used three times only in the chapter (1) at the beginning (Gen 1:1); (2) at the commencement of life (Gen 1:21); (3) at the creation of man (Gen 1:27). Bara is thus reserved for marking the first introduction of each of the three great spheres of creation the world of matter, the world of life, and the spiritual world represented by man (Green). The other word, "Asah", is found throughout the rest of the chapter, and is used of God making or molding from already created materials. Surely in this we have at least a hint of the modern scientific ideas of primal creation and mediate creation.

In a fascinating book, The Conflict of Truth (by Mr. F. H. Capron), the author refers to the five factors which Mr. Herbert Spencer regards as the most general forms into which the manifestations of the Unknowable are re-divisible. These forms are said to be: Space, time, matter, motion, force. Mr. Capron calls attention to the suggestive and even remarkable analogy between these forms and the early verses of Genesis 1.

Even though we may think it too ingenious to be true, there is ample proof, apart from this, to lead to the conclusion that there is at any rate, up to the present nothing in the chapter which conflicts with any assured results of science.

Has the chapter any anticipations of science as revealed by modern research? We may reply by calling attention to the fact that there is the same general order of events. The steps of the creation of vegetation, reptiles, mammals, and man are essentially true to modern science. Professor Romanes admitted that -

And Sir William Dawson, whose scientific eminence and authority no one can question, states still more definitely that-

Has the chapter any indications of development and progress answering to the great modern theory of evolution? A very superficial reading of the chapter shows that development, progress, and change are among its leading ideas. The term day is regarded by some high authorities as expressive of the ages or epochs of science. They urge that the term "day" does not, and was not intended to mean a period of twenty-four hours, since it is applied to the first three days before the sun and moon our present means of measurement are introduced into the narrative. And, further, that in Gen 2:4 the term day is used for the whole period of creation. There are certainly many places in Scripture where the word day refers to other periods than that of the rotation of the earth. [1]

Has the chapter any points of contact with contact with modern biological and anthropological teaching about man’s nature? The answer is plain. On the one hand the chapter teaches clearly an essential unity of man with animate and inanimate nature, and at the same time it teaches with equal clearness man’s separateness from nature and his transcendence in view of his creation in the image of God. Thus modern science and ancient Genesis are at one as to the complexity of man’s nature, and also as to its unity at once with earth and heaven.

Reviewing the relations of this chapter to modern science, we again call attention to the definitely religious aim and object of Genesis, and may say that while the chapter is scientifically incomplete it is not scientifically inaccurate. On the other hand, religiously, it is both accurate and complete.

Nor can we fail to ask how this correspondence between Genesis and science is to be explained.

How are we to account for such anticipations of modern science in this early book? Even Haeckel admits that:

May we not rightly see in this record a clear proof of Divine inspiration? There is surely nothing in all these correspondences which could have Gen. 1 come into the ken of Moses by purely natural means.

To quote Sir William Dawson again:

V. What is its Religious Teaching?

The primary its and fundamental truth of this chapter is, "In the beginning God created." It teaches that the world is not self-originated, and thereby declares, what science compels us to demand, the fact of a First Cause. The nebular hypothesis of Laplace is the best scientific account of the solar system, and yet it is obvious that this hypothesis only accounts for the second verse of Genesis 1, not the first. Laplace’s theory presupposes a central sun and an atmospheric envelope, but Gen 1:1 goes behind this nebular hypothesis and gives the explanation of its revolution in the creative fiat of God. This simple thought of creation is very familiar to us to-day, but, as is well known, it was not so evident to all the thinkers and all the nations of the old world. Some of the earliest peoples had no idea of absolute creation, and most assuredly it never was so clear and unmistakable in any part of the world as it was among the Hebrews. In view of the fact that the notion of creation is one which had not dawned on the ancient Greek mind, and was never securely attained in the thought of Greece/ we can perhaps realize a little of the immense benefit the world has derived from this chapter (Waggett, The Scientific Temper in Religion, pp. 165 f.).

The chapter also teaches us that man is the crown and culmination of creation, that he is the earthly end for which creation has been made and developed, and that in his life there is the promise and potency of God-likeness. Nothing could be clearer than the teaching of this chapter as to the spiritual nature of man and the spiritual purpose for which he was made. Again to quote Sir William Dawson:

The chapter also declares that matter is not eternal; it teaches clearly that absolute dualism, that refuge of many ancient Eastern thinkers, is entirely impossible and foreign to the whole idea of true religion.

Not least significant is the simple but conclusive way in which this chapter deals with some of the most characteristic errors of ancient and modern thought. In opposition to Atheism it proclaims God; in opposition to Polytheism it emphasizes one God; in opposition to Pantheism it declares the separateness of God and the world; in opposition to Materialism it reveals the spirituality of God and man.

And thus we find ourselves coming back again and again to the first verse, "In the beginning God," and we rest both mind and heart on the familiar words. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God. Let us mark this expression with great care. Through faith we understand. Faith is the great secret of true perception. Never do we find any opposition in Holy Scripture between

faith and understanding, between faith and reason, but only between faith and sight. Faith is the greatest perceptive power in the world. Through faith we see. And as we contemplate God’s creation in the light of this early chapter as well as in the later chapters of modem science, we come back to the old word which declares that Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created (Rev 4:11).

In the study of this chapter with special reference to modern science the following authorities will be found of service: M ‘Cosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution; The Scientific Temper in Religion (chapter vii), by Waggett; The Conflict of Truth, by F. H. Capron ; The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture, by W. E. Gladstone ; article by Sir J. William Dawson, Expositor, third series, vol. iii. p. 284.