The first eleven chapters in the Bible are my favorite chapters. As someone who questioned their veracity before I started following Jesus, I understand that there are some difficult things in these chapters. When we read these chapters, we read them like 21st century Americans who are obsessed with particular orders of events and the scientific method—things that the Hebrew people were not concerned about at all in the 15th Century BC—approximately 3,500 years ago. I think that, 3,500 years ago, the Hebrew people were more interested in knowing why than how—Particularly, “Why did God choose us as His national people?” That’s the question Genesis 1-11 answers, not “how” but “why.”
I focused a large part of my higher education on the practice of apologetics. As an apologist, I am largely disappointed in the practice of Christian apologetics because it goes to extreme lengths to try to prove or disprove something that either can’t be proven or disproven or doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. For instance, we might consider the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
If both the first a second premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. The Kalam Cosmological argument is sound in its logic. Someone may try to debate the first or second premise. But, most materialistic naturalists would agree with the Kalam Cosmological argument if they believe that the universe began to exist because they believe that there is a necessary law of cause and effect that was written down by Isaac Newton. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So, if we agree that the universe has a cause, we now have to decide what that cause is. “Therefore, God exists!” is not a logical next step. We still need to talk about the plausibilities of infinitely regressing causality, circular causality, or the implications of what people have observed concerning quantum entanglement, rogue particles, and what is described as the random appearance of particles ex nihilo. Even with the masterful use of non-euclidean geometry to prove, mathematically, that the universe is finite and reason that there is most likely something that transcends spacetime as we know it, cause and effect cannot be observed back to their inception. Yet, we expend much energy in the practice of apologetics trying to prove that our God was the necessary uncaused cause. We try this scientifically even though a right practice of science demands observation–and we cannot observe way back then to prove our claims.
Why?
We are obsessed with how things came to be. So, we will go into Genesis and try to explain how every little event might have occurred and the plausibility of the Red Sea being stopped by a gust of wind or calculate the volume of water on the Earth’s surface to show that a flood is possible or explain that the Star of Bethlehem might have been some kind of astral alignment or Sodom was burned as the result of some natural eruption of burning sulfur in that part of the world. Never mind that these tendencies are counterproductive to apologetics. After all, where is God’s divine action if we explain everything He did by naturalistic means as if we needed to appease the materialists? Here we are trying to prove the Bible true and, all the while, explaining away what makes the Bible so wonderful. Most modern-day apologetics has failed. Most apologetics courses are filled with information and complex philosophical arguments, but are necessarily void of proof. A search for “Apologetics” on amazon.com renders more than 10,000 results. There is an unbelievable amount of information on a topic that can’t prove or disprove God anyway. Some concepts in modern apologetics are useful, but most of the time people are simply arguing in circles showing off their intellect while never really providing a reason for the hope we have.
In 1 Corinthians 1:27, Paul wrote,
God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:18-23).
The world considers certain things to be characteristic of superior people. Super-human intellect and the ability to debate philosophically are two of those things. They were in Paul’s day as well. Here, the Bible tells us that God does not use what is wise in the world’s estimation to put the things of the world to shame. Instead, He uses what the world considers to be foolish—the weak things. He clarified what he meant.
And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).
When the world relied on the superiority of speech and intelligence, Paul limited His speech to the bare essentials so that by simplicity the complex arguments of the world would be put to shame. In the modern day, when people practice apologetics, they typically feed the world’s furnace instead of speaking simply. Paul provided the perfect apologetic example on Mars Hill in Acts 17. He did not go to each one and try to philosophically disprove all the claims people were making and prove his own claims using the world’s method of argumentation. Instead, he talked to them about their own idol to an unknown god. As I read these chapters in the Bible, I begin to think that maybe we have gone about apologetics all wrong in our own time. I think I find two principles in the text:
- From 1 Corinthians 1-2; The simplest explanation is usually the best.
- From Acts 17; If people don’t believe the Bible, they can’t reasonably argue against the logical outcome of their own beliefs or actions.
So, proper apologetics is presuppositional and expository. It is a more Socratic method and a less scientific method. It is more about worldview than factual knowledge. We easily get these things mixed up because we get entrapped by someone who tries to talk circles around us using data analyses and philosophical language. But apologetics is simple, and we don’t have to fear antagonists who make themselves appear to be intelligent in their writing or on social media.
Consider the creation account, the very foundation of the story we love. If the creation account is fictitious, then our entire belief system as Christians comes unhinged. So, opponents of the Christian faith expend much energy attacking the creation story. Well-meaning Christians react by developing arguments meant to directly address the accusations made and usually create more philosophical problems than they try to solve. Let’s consider some of those accusations against the creation account.
- It is silly to believe there was light on the earth, day and night, and plant life before the sun and stars formed (cf. Genesis 1:3-19).
- It is also silly to believe that God created the earth before creating a sun to keep it in orbit (cf. Genesis 1:1, 16).
- The idea of a giant dome around the earth holding back the waters in the sky sounds ridiculous in light of modern science and the space age (cf. Genesis 1:6-7).
Essentially, opponents of Christianity claim that Genesis 1 presents an origin story that disagrees with some modern historical claims made by some who practice the scientific method concerning how physics worked at the inception of the cosmos. First, we realize that history is a different type of discipline than science is. History, especially prehistory, is much more difficult to figure out than science. Science deals with things that are observable, demonstrable, and repeatable. History does not. History is difficult to nail down. The only sure thing we can know about history, what happened before we were here, is by eyewitness testimony. History cannot be known using the scientific method. Concerning history, I am more likely to believe testimony than a practitioner of the scientific method who steps outside of his discipline to make claims about what he did not in fact observe.
I do understand that there are some who speak of reasonable belief, scientists who understand that their belief about origins equates to faith and believe that their faith is reasonable based on what they can currently observe about the laws of physics as they are currently in discrete spacetime and what they can currently observe about the cosmos. Now we can have a conversation because we are talking about the reasonable faith we have concerning the origin of our cosmos. Every person, no matter his worldview, believes what he does about the origin of the cosmos by faith. His faith might be informed by scientific inquiry or the testimony presented in a book like the Bible. But it is still faith. People are fighting over a matter of faith on both sides, not falsifiable fact. The key to having reasonable faith, then, is humility and sincerity, not the pride of philosophical debate as if any of us were present when the universe formed and transcended it in order to observe it at its inception.
So, we require humility and sincerity. It is pride that says, “I won’t believe the Bible’s account because of science.” The Bible is not a scientific account. It makes historical claims. When we measure the veracity of someone’s testimony, we use laws of logic. Until we can prove a testimony wrong by observation of the truth, we are not justified in our cynicism. This being said, I want to look at Genesis 1 with you. I believe Genesis 1 even accounts for the opponents of Christianity who say, “The God of the Bible does not exist,” which supports our reasonable belief in the veracity of Genesis 1. I’ll provide some apologetic commentary as we move through the text.
————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
In Genesis 1:1, we see not a scientific claim that there was a beginning of space and time but a statement about God. The text does not tell us exactly how or by what means God created. It does not even tell us that God created ex nihilo. It simply tells us that in the beginning, God created the heavens (or the cosmos) and the earth.
Beginning, in the Hebrew, is a word that could simply mean in the ancient times or at the beginning of the story or as a matter of preeminent importance. The point of verse 1 is not to tell us that time had a beginning, which is a nonsensical claim in itself. To say that there is a beginning of time is to place time within itself and claim that time began at a point in time because “beginning” in that context is a temporal reference. But, time cannot preexist itself. The point of verse 1 is to tell those who read that God acted and created everything we observe—the heavens and the earth.
Though verse 1 makes no claim about physics, the age of the universe, exactly how God created the heavens and the earth or how long He took to do it, it does follow from verse 1 that God must transcend the heavens and the earth. If He transcends the heavens and the earth, there is no way to observe Him by measuring the heavens and the earth—where everything is that we can observe. Though no scientific claims are made in the first verse, we can deduce something about our scientific method.
1. The scientific method deals with our observations of the material universe.
2. God cannot be observed because He transcends the material universe.
3. Therefore, the scientific method cannot deal in any manner with claims about God.
This is why it is foolish to claim that there is no God or to say that we believe in science instead of God or to pit science against religion.
Genesis 1:1 even accounts for the existence of atheistic people. If God transcends the material universe, it makes sense that people are unable to seek Him out or invoke Him. If God is to be known, He must somehow become material for us to see by His own volition and not our demand. The Bible alone provides the only possible way that can happen, if the divine essence somehow exists within spacetime as persons and at least one of those persons is visible so that when we look at Him, we can see and know God. Verse 1 not only accounts for atheism but proves the biblical perspective of God the most philosophically reasonable of all the perspectives we have.
Genesis 1 tells a story of creation. Notice, it is not the essence of God, who transcends the cosmos, that moves over the surface of the deep. It is the Spirit of God—one of the persons. There is no contradiction when the story indicates that the divine essence is transcendent but the persons are immanent. It would be a contradiction to say that the divine essence is both transcendent and immanent, but the text does not say that. Instead, there is a natural coherence in the text. God, in the person of the Spirit, now begins to speak things into existence.
Opponents to the Judeo-Christian worldview argue that the work of creation described in Genesis 1 are out of order. Light on the earth cannot precede the sun, moon, or stars. I think this is funny because I would agree with the claim that Genesis 1 presents creation events out of natural order. The point of the text is not to present a scientific explanation or theory of origins. Moses isn’t trying to describe God’s exact method or timing. All we have to do is pay attention when we read the Bible. “Then” is a Hebrew conjunction that also means “and.” וt is not a timing reference but a versatile conjunction. Further, there is no definite article in front of the numbered days of creation. I am a fan of reading the Bible literally. It literally reads,
“And God said… And there was evening and morning one day.”
“And God said… And there was evening and morning a second day.”
And God said… And there was evening and morning a third day.”
and so on…
There are simply no timing references in the Hebrew. That’s not why Moses is writing.
By reading the text faithfully, then, we cannot claim that God created light before He created stars because the text does not make that claim. The person who claims that the Bible can’t be true because light cannot precede stars simply hasn’t read the Bible to understand it. They have read it with intent to argue, which always leads to our downfall, or they are simply parroting what they have heard from others who do not care to understand before they speak.
Further, we see that the Spirit of God speaks and causes things to manifest. This is not creation ex nihilo, or out of nothing. It is creation out of God—creation ex theos. Even though the Bible does not tell us scientifically exactly how God did it, the origin the Bible provides is more reasonable than the origin provided by the materialist, which is either out of nothing or out of a series of infinitely regressing causes—both of which seem like very baseless claims. We have never observed something coming from nothing. We also have no reason to believe that causation regresses infinitely. It makes sense that something finite must always come from something, and it is reasonable to think that there must be a transcendent something—God. Though Genesis 1 is not scientific in any manner, it does present a more reasonable worldview than that of those who try to use scientific language to insist that God is not real. The Biblical account is superior. Through it, God is revealing the wisdom of the world as the foolishness it is.
By observation, we can see that there is not a firmament over the earth holding back water. There is a vast outer space. I can simply ask a question here. What does Genesis claim the firmament, or expanse, is made out of? It doesn’t. There is water above and below. You don’t see a glass dome, but the story doesn’t claim there is one. There are layers of atmosphere. Earth even has an event horizon that produces another type of firmament. There is an asteroid belt, and beyond that the Oort Cloud that produces incoming comets. Still further is the event horizon of the super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, then the border of our local galaxy cluster. Then, there is still the border of our supercluster. Still further is the edge of the observable universe. I use the term edge, there, loosely. There are several firmaments. Genesis makes no claim as to what the sky is made out of or how water remains in the sky separated from the water on the ground. It simply says that God made it that way. That claim is not scientific. It does correspond to our observation, especially when we look up and try to identify shapes in the clouds. Opponents of the Bible are so intent on finding things to nitpick that they do not seek understanding and then seem foolish when they make their accusations.
At the end of this chapter, we get the point. Instead of being any kind of scientific claim, it is about what pleases God. God created. He saw that what He made was very good. God loves His creation. We miss this from the very first chapter because we get distracted trying to prove something scientifically that the Bible never actually claims. Genesis 1 sets the stage so that we know everything God does from the creation of His world onward because He loves His creation. He loves the work of His hands. He doesn’t need anyone to worship Him. He does not depend on nor is He subject to His creation. He made something, and He loves the result. It is very good. This story is going to be an optimistic one.
In Genesis 1, Moses provided a claim—God created. He also provides God’s motivation for everything God does with Israel—because He so loves the world (it is very good). Israel has made its way out of slavery in Egypt. The people are wondering about their national identity and why God would choose them. The first 11 chapters of Genesis answer their question. In Chapter 1, we receive the first part of our answer:
- God created everything we see.
- God loves His creation.
While the first five days of creation do not bear a definite article, the sixth day of creation and the seventh day of rest do. If we read this in the Hebrew, our attention is drawn to the sixth and seventh day. The others are just days on which God did some cool things. On the sixth and seventh days, God did something greater. On the sixth day, He created people as His image bearers—the crown of His creation. On those first five undistinguished days, God said His creation was good. On the sixth day, God calls His creation very good. Humanity is God’s prized possession. He loves His creation. He loves humanity chiefly among His creation. So, we can say:
- God created everything we see.
- God loves His creation, especially people.
That’s an encouraging start to this wonderful story. On the seventh day, God rested from creating because He completed His creation. For slaves coming out of Egypt, seeing God who rests and enjoys His creation is important. This God is not a slavedriver like the supposed gods of Egypt. He created all things and is in need of nothing. He, therefore, provides rest for people—whom He loves. This is quite a different picture of God than we even get in some so-called churches. It is the entire point of Genesis 1. When we read the text for what it is, we see that the supposed “problems” that people tell us are in the text are not actually there.
—————————————————————————————
Implications
Well-meaning Christians, even apologists, react to attacks against Genesis 1 by ascribing to different interpretations of the text that deal explicitly with some of the foolish attacks that come against the text. They will interpret it either non-literally or literally. If non-literally, they will look at Genesis 1 as a mythology, or legend meant to explain the etiology of the world (why the world is the way it is). They might also try to see the days as merely a poetic trellis, a simple theology rather than a historical claim, or as an allegory. If literally, they will try to appease modern science by creating a gap theory to account for the apparent age of the earth or time requirement there would be for the so-called evolutionary process. They might take a pre-creation view to try to explain the account in light of the apparent age of the universe. If we simply read the text as it is written, we don’t have to do any of that. The criticism against the Bible comes,
“The earth can’t be that young!”
We can simply reply, “Genesis 1 doesn’t make any claim as to how old the earth is.” The accusation is foolish because the accuser didn’t read the story well. The accuser may attack again,
“Light can’t precede the sun on the earth!”
We can simply reply, “Genesis 1 does not claim in any way that light preceded the sun, moon, or stars.” Again, the accuser is proved foolish because he did not read the story well or understand the simple conjunction in the autographical language of the text. Yet, he may attack again,
“I can’t believe you are dumb enough to believe that the earth is flat and there is a giant glass dome over it.”
We can simply reply, “Genesis 1 does not claim the earth is flat or has a glass dome over it.” And, all of a sudden, all the accuser’s accusations against the creation account are extinguished, and we did not even have to debate. In fact, we don’t have to say much at all. People who think they are really, really smart, are typically proven to be very, very foolish. In most cases, all we need is to understand the Bible’s claims for ourselves and recognize what it does not claim.
Genesis 1 has several relevant implications for our lives. I don’t want to leave those unstated. If God created the world and humanity and said, “It is very good,” everything about the way God created the world is very good. Everything God does following this in all of Scripture for His creation is very good. I want to mention a couple of things.
Human nature is very good because God created it. If we are essentially depraved (unable to think or do anything good without God), God made us that way as part of His very good creation and it would be bad for the world and for us if we could be righteous without God. In fact, there would be no standard for righteousness at all and there would be no accountability. Because human nature is essentially depraved, the world is not a survival of the fittest kind of world. There are checks and balances because God created a very good world. This means that whenever we mess things up and sin or cause drama and trouble for ourselves, God has built His world to facilitate that and work it out for the good of the whole world. I’m encouraged by that truth. Adam and Eve will also be encouraged by that truth in Genesis 3.
Wrath, when it comes from God, is ultimately good for God’s world and must be meant to rid the world of that which would make it not very good and lead to its destruction. When we experience God’s discipline in our lives, it is because He loves us and the rest of His creation.
Damnation, when God sends anyone to Hell, is ultimately because if that person inherited the earth in the eternal life we believe God gives His people, that person would make the world bad instead of very good. Hell is only for the unjust and wicked people.
Salvation is not only good for the person being saved. It is meant to establish the world as very good. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son and, with Him, eternal life (cf. John 3:16). It is not because God simply or arbitrarily wants to offer a way to a place called Heaven. It is because He sees His creation as very good. He loves the world.
Work ethic is given to humanity (Genesis 1:28) for the good of the world.
Marriage and intimacy are given to humanity for the good of the world.
In all of this, we can be encouraged knowing that none of God’s actions are arbitrary. His core characteristic is holiness, or transcendence (cf. Genesis 1:1). He is motivated by the love He has for His creation (cf. Genesis 1:31). We are meant to walk away from Genesis 1 saying, “God created,” and “He does what He does because He loves the whole world.” Israel heard this answer, “God chose us because He loves His world.” We see exactly how that idea works out when we read the whole Bible.
Leave a Reply