DID GOD CREATE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING?

James italiano

Sermon • Submitted 2 years ago

0 ratings

· 25 views

A Commentary Study Presented to Trinity College of the Bible

Notes

Transcript

Introduction

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)[1]As a child, we are taught this simple truth. As we progress in our academic life, we get a little more knowledge dispensed and are told that God made the heavens and the earth out of nothing! My undergraduate work proclaimed as a statement of truth that God created ex nihilo (out of nothing) and explained that this means to call into existence that which had no previous form.

An academic debate over this never entered my mental orbit until I started working on my Master’s Degree at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. We are taught to demonstrate an ability to analyze and critically evaluate biblical scholarship. So in my studies, which included theology from Jewish sources and a non-evangelical persuasion, I was surprised to find a different a different view on creation. “In the beginning, when God created the universe, the earth was formless and desolate.” (Genesis 1:1–2 Today’s English Version). This translation reflects an honest attempt for a Hebrew rendition, and also upsets my theological apple cart. It seems to intimate that there was substance already here as God began to create in the beginning. Robert Alter, the superb Hebraist translates Genesis 1:1 as follows “ When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God’s breath hovering over the waters, God said, ‘Let there be light.’”[2]This implies the existence of matter. So our question asks for an answer. Does Genesis 1 teach that God created something out of nothing or did He use existing material?

Conflicting Views

Most of the controversy around our two views stem from the opening three English words: “In the Beginning” (Heb. bere’shit). If bereshit is in the absolute state, and bara (Heb. created) is a finite verb, then our traditional translation is accurate: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1). This translation is the basis of the view of creatio ex nihilio.[3]If bereshit is in the construct state, it would be translated as a dependent temporal cause, implying the existence of the matter (earth was already present) related in verse 2: ‘When God began to create…the earth was…’ God brings order out of existing chaos of existing matter.

Main Theological Arguments

Rashi, a well-known Jewish scholar (ca. A.D.1105), was one of the first to propose the dependent clause translation.[4] He considered verse 1 as the protasis or introductory part of the story: When God began to create. Then, verse 2 is the parenthesis or interlude: the earth (already) being/ was (without form)…finally, verse 3 is the apodosis or the main clause of a conditional sentence: God said let there be light. This translation adopted would have the earth in existence at the time of creation and would forever remove creatio ex nihilio from Scripture.

Merril F. Unger sided with this idea by introducing a ‘Gap Theory’ in his assessment, making it a little more palatable to evangelical readers, (this being a more liberal view). Unger’s only solution to the dependent clause view was to resort to the proposition of the gap theorists by which all the creative acts of Genesis 1:3 and following are made to refer to a recreation or ‘refashioning’ of the earth and its sidereal heavens at a much later period in geological history. He writes “ The majestic opening verse of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth,” apparently does not refer to the original sinless and perfect earth brought into existence in dim antiquity…if Genesis 1:1 refers to the original creation of the universe out of nothing, Genesis 1:2 must either be construed to be the original chaotic state in which the earth was created or to be the result of a subsequent judgment (the gap theory). But the first interpretation is contradicted by both Scripture and theology…The second interpretation, while it avoids the Scriptural and theological difficulties of the first, runs into grammatical and etymological problems. In the original language, Genesis 1:2 consists of three circumstantial clauses, all describing conditions or circumstances existing at the time of the principal action indicated in verse 1, or giving a reason for that action.

With these grammatical facts in mind and taking the Hebrew word baraʾ in a sense which it commonly bears of “shaping, forming or fashioning” (cf. Gen 1:27; 5:1–2; Isa 65:17), always describing divine activity, the following translation brings out the syntactical meaning of the Hebrew: “In the beginning God fashioned (or formed) the heavens and the earth. For the earth was waste and void, with darkness upon the face of the deep and with the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters.” Thus Genesis 1:1–2 evidently describes not the primeval creation ex nihilo, celebrated by the angels (Job 38:7; Isa 45:18), but the much later refashioning of a judgment-ridden earth in preparation for a new order of creation—man.” [5]His view may include an original creation out of nothing; Unger teaches that the creation account we read about in Genesis 1 is a later refashioning of a world that was made a waste at Satan’s fall. The argument that we run into though, is found in the scripture, which tells us in Exodus, “For insix days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that isin them,” (Exodus 20:11). Another place says “it is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ ””(Exodus 31:17). This confines the limits of creation. Everything had to happen in those six days. This would include the heavens (universe) and the earth. So many takes sides with Unger on his thesis.

The opposing view is creation out of nothing or ‘creatio ex nihilo’. J.Rodman Williams teaches that creation was bringing the universe into existence without any preexistent material. It was calling into being that which did not exist before. He states,

“ Creation, accordingly, is absolute origination. What was created by God did not come from preexisting material. It is creatio ex nihilo, “creation out of nothing.” “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”—so reads Genesis 1:1. There is no statement about any material or source that God drew upon. What is pointed to here is without analogy in human experience, because human creative activity always involves some shaping of material that is already in existence. With God, however, it is totally different: He alone truly creates—from nothing. The Hebrew word for create, bārāʾ, as in Genesis 1:1, is a word that is never used in the Scriptures with anyone other than God as the subject, and it refers essentially to creation out of nothing —that is, absolute origination.[6]

The savant Umberto Cassuto notes that the Genesis text favors this reading of creatio ex nihilio. It is good to remember that Cassutto (1183-1951) was unrivalled in his knowledge of ancient Semitic literature and an antagonist against JEDP theory or Documentary Hypothesis in its classical form. He states that Rashi’s views (see my mention above) on bara are not conclusive, and can be objected on the basis of the syntactical construction of verse 2. He states the first verse is an independent statement that constitutes a formal introduction, which with great majestic brevity, states the main thought of the section: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” [7]

He is not alone in this view, Bruce Waltke points out that a telic verb (i.e., die or sell) only finds meaning at the end of a process. The Hebrew term bara, meaning “to create” only refers to a completed act of creation, so “it cannot mean that, in the beginning, God began the process of creating the cosmos.”[8]Some scholars have said in passing (or jest) that if you could ask Moses his opinion about creation, specifically creation ‘out of nothing’, he would have favored it. Claus Westermann[9]in his revered commentary on Genesis 1-11 is one.

Ancient Near East Considerations

With the main arguments stated, lets consider our Genesis creation text as a ‘polemic’ against an Egyptian worldview given to a wilderness community by Moses. We will also see why it is important to ask the question did God create ‘out of nothing’.

When Moses led Israel out of Egypt, few of the Israelites knew God. The Egyptians affirmed a vast number of directly contradictory religious ideas, and they believed that every claim in their vast sea of religious beliefs was equally “true.” Rodger Dalman writes, “If Moses made religious claims about Yahweh, many of the Israelites and the mixed rabble in the wilderness would just say, “OK, I can add that idea to my set of religious beliefs.” To teach Israelites about God, Moses had to begin by attacking their basic religious worldview. Moses had to lead Israel into a world where only Yahweh was God. Moses had to give Israel an entirely different way of looking at the world. To accomplish this, Moses wrote the creation account in Genesis. Contrary to all of the angry and irrational arguments about Genesis 1-3, Moses wrote these words to give the Israelites a replacement worldview that would make it impossible for them to continue to worship the gods of Canaan and Egypt.”[10]

The implied monotheism of Genesis 1 is one example of the persistent critique on Near Eastern theology states Gordon J. Wenham.[11]Wenham also notes that the acts of creation on the first five days have a polemic thrust in denying the divinity of the sun, moon, and sea monsters as much of the orient believed. He goes on to say that against the backdrop of Ancient Eastern mythology Genesis’ account of the creation of mankind is strikingly original and distinctive.[12]

This is important information in deciding the correct usage of the wordbara. The Ancient Near East believed that matter had always existed. It had no beginning, but gained existence when it was named and commissioned by a deity. Accordingly, John H. Walton teaches that if creation is the act of bringing something in to existence, we must ask what constitutes existence. In our culture, we have material existence (having molecules/ taking up space) or experiential (e.g., abstractions such as love or time). By contrast, in the ancient world something existed when it had a function - a role to play.[13]In other words, something was created when it was given a name and function by its ‘deity’.

Taking that into consideration, Moses constructed our creation account with these thoughts in mind. But in Genesis, only God can perform this function of naming a thing and giving it a function. He created first and then gave a function. Who controlled function was considered more important than who gave something its physical form.[14] Keil and Delitzsch point out that “In the beginning God created” would have been an affront to ANE worldview at that time. The God that Genesis shares with us created both form and function of all things at the very beginning, when time itself began. Delitsch: “Hence, if in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth…. there is nothing belonging to the composition of the universe, either in material or form, which had an existence out of God prior to this divine act in the beginning.”[15]

In other words, when the True God created (Heb. bara) all things, he did it without and existent material – this would mean no other ‘gods’ were alive either. Delitsch also says that creatio ex nihilio would have been repulsive to pantheism that ruled the Egyptian worldview. Genesis 1:1 so skillfully and magnificently knocks over the sacred cows of a fallen race and accomplishes in one small verse a world of religion. Truly many a great scholars look at Genesis 1:1 as an introduction to the creation story and a stand alone statement of creation ‘out of nothing’.

Final Remarks and Conclusions

It seems that by the time we reach the New Testament period, biblical revelation favored creation ‘out of nothing’. “ By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” (Hebrews 11:3). “…God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did.” (Romans 4:17). I agree with this. The textual scholars that I have quoted have disagreements on Genesis verses 1and 2. But our New Testament verses, especially Hebrews 11:3 seem sure. My analyses and research has brought me to stand on the side of creatio ex nihilio. I must say that I learned to not be so hard nosed with my conclusions or with the conclusions of the scholars in my theological camp. I have softened a little to include the possibility that my lack of knowledge could destroy my intellectual surety. I share the next paragraph of this conclusion to illustrate my point.

Walter Brueggemann made wise comment about the Genesis text in the hands of an honest Pastor preaching weekly to his congregation. When talking about Genesis 1:1-2, He says, “ We should not lose sight of the experiential factor in the notion of creation from chaos (pre-existing matter). The lives of many people are chaotic (cf. Mark 1:32-34). In such a context, the text claims that even the chaos of our historical life can be claimed by God for his grand purposes. The very ambiguity of creation from nothing and creation from chaos is a rich expository possibility. We need not choose between them, even as the text does not. Both permit important theological affirmation.[16]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

New King James Version (NKJV). Oxford University Press, Inc., 2002.

Alter, Robert. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation and Commentary. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004.

Schrader, Stephen R. Liberty Bible Commentary: Old Testament, Executive ed. Jerry Falwell. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1982.

Williams, J. Rodman. Renewal Theology, Vol.1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. 1988.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One: From Adam to Noah. Skokie, Illinois: Varda Books, 2005.

Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis, A Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan 2001.

Dalman, Rodger. Genesis and Israel's Wilderness Generation (Studies in Historical Theology). Brooklyn Center, MN: Dalman 2014.

Wenham, Gordon J. Story as Torah. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic 2000.

Walton, John H. Genesis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan 2009.

Keil, C. F. and Delitzsch, F. Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Pub. House, 1984.

Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis, Interpretation: A Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1982.

CD-ROM Reference

Periodicals

Unger, Merril F., RETHINKING THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION. Bibliotheca Sacra115, no. 457 (Jan 58): 27.

[1] Unless otherwise indicated all Bible references in this paper are to the New King James Version (Oxford University Press, Inc., 2002). [2] Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation and Commentary. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004). [3] Stephen R. Schrader, Liberty Bible Commentary: Old Testament, Executive ed. Jerry Falwell (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 7. [4] Ibid. , 8 [5] “RETHINKING THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION.” Bibliotheca Sacra 115, no. 457 (Jan 58): 27 (italics mine). [6] J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology, Vol.1 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan 1988), 98. [7] Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One: From Adam to Noah. (Skokie, Illinois: Varda Books, 2005),20. [8] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis, A Commentary. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan 2001), 58. [9] Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Pub. House, 1984),108-9. [10] Rodger Dalman, Genesis and Israel's Wilderness Generation (Studies in Historical Theology) (Brooklyn Center, MN: Dalman 2014),20. [11] Gordon J. Wenham, Story as Torah (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic 2000), 24. [12]Ibid. , 25. [13] John H. Walton, Genesis (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan 2009), 11. [14]Ibid. , 11. [15] C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 47. [16] Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation: A Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1982), 29.

Related Media

Related Sermons