How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?

Note: I haven’t separated Ken’s comments from the quotes from Hodge: you’ll discern where one ends and the other begins. Rowland).

I have already posted in this thread Augustine’s criticisms of people who want to make deductions about “the way the world is”, to use a common phrase, but showed their ignorance of the world around, and thereby brought discredit on Christianity.

I posted a few paragraphs from David Livingstone’s book “Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders”, and in that post indicated that I would be posting various items, quoted directly from the original writings, to back up Livingstone’s claims. This is the first of them. For those who haven’t read my earlier post (or if the posts get to your newsreader in a different order) I’ll repeat here some general comments I made.

If we are to understand the range of ideas about the interpretation of Genesis as it relates to scientific ideas, it will be necessary to refer to assorted commentators who have written about this. I have, over the years, collected a number of quotations about this and will be posting them here, so that people can respond by simply referring to my posts rather than resources which may be elsewhere on the Internet.

Let me start by saying that if creationists wish to hold their views as religious views, and simply say that modern science has got it all wrong, there would be few objections to this, even though most people would regard them as rather off-beam.

However when they add “… and I have scientific evidence to back up my beliefs” it is only to be expected that at least some scientists will prick up their ears.

But when they then try to get their ideas into science classes in schools, under the guise of science, those scientists who have taken an interest in education in schools become worried. And when news gets around the scientific community, as it has been doing since the 1960s, and scientists start looking into what is claimed as “science”, the fat is in the fire, to be polite. There is a phrase about fans which some people have thought more appropriate.

Having said that, apart from Augustine and Calvin I am going to restrict my postings to citing from the works of evangelical theologians and scientists from the 19th century onwards. I’ll start with theologians.

Charles Hodge, Professor in the Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, was one of those who developed what came to be known as the “Princeton Theology”, which many evangelicals take as one of the best examples of evangelical thought to come out of the 19th century. His “Systematic Theology” was first published in 1871, but I will be quoting from the edition published by Thomas Nelson and Sons in London in 1888. As was common in those days, people reading theological works were assumed to be able to read French, German and Latin with ease (and some assumed a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew as well). I will leave the Latin parts intact where the quotations contain these, and will not indicate accents in modern European languages, since not all Web browsers or newsgroup readers display these correctly, and some mail systems refuse to post items with accented characters. I will also follow the common convention of using the underscore character _ to delimit anything in italics in Hodge (whether these are for emphasis or otherwise), but will ignore his occasional use of bold type.

Hodge divides the work into several parts, with the chapters numbered within each of these parts. Volume 1 contains an Introduction, followed by Part I, which is entitled Theology Proper. Volume II contains Part II, entitled Anthropology, and Part III, entitled Soteriology. Chapter X in Part I is entitled “Creation”. In this, starting on page 553, is a section “The Scriptural Doctrine”. The description provided by Hodge is close to that which would be accepted, using rather different words, by a modern scientist.

The Scriptural doctrine on this subject is expressed in the first words of the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The heavens and the earth include all things out of God. Of which things the Scriptures teach that they owe their existence to the will and power of God. The Scriptural doctrine therefore is, (1.) That the universe is not eternal. It began to be. (2.) It was not formed out of any preexistence or substance; but was created _ex nihilo_. (3.) That creation was not necessary. It was free to God to create or not to create, to create the universe as it is, or any other order and system of things, according to the good pleasure of his will.

The doctrine of an eternal creation has been held in various forms. Origen, although he referred the existence of the universe to the will of God, still held that it was eternal. We speak of the divine decrees as free and yet as from everlasting. So Origen held that this was not the first world God made; that there never was a first, and never will be a last. “Quid ante faciebat Deus,” he asks, “quam mundus inciperet? Otiosam enim et immobilem dicere naturam Dei, impium est simul et absurdum, vel putare, quod bonitas aliquando bene non fecerit, et omnipotentia aliquando non egerit potentatum. Hoc nobis objicere solent dicentibus mundum hunc ex certo tempore coepisse, et secundum scripturae fidem annos quoque aetatis ipsius numerantibus . . . Nos vero consequenter respondimus observantes regulam pietatis, quoniam non tunc primum cum visibilem istum mundum fecit Deus, coepit operari, sed sicut post corruptionem hujus erit alius mundus, ita et antequam hic esset, fuisse alios credimus.”

Of course those of the schoolmen who made the thoughts of God creative, or identified purpose with act, or who said with Scotus Erigena, “Non aliud Deo esse et velle et facere,” must regard the universe as coeternal with God. This was done by Scotus in a pantheistic sense, but others who regarded the universe as distinct from God and dependent upon Him, still held that the world is eternal. The influence of the modern Monistic philosophy, even upon theologians who believe in an extramundane personal God has been such as to lead many of them to assume that the relation between God and the world is such that it must have always existed. The common doctrine of the Church has ever been, in accordance with the simple teaching of the Bible, that the world began to be.

The second point included in the Scriptural doctrine of creation is, that the universe was not formed out of any preexistent matter, nor out of the substance of God. The assumption that any thing existed out of God and independent of his will, has ever been rejected as inconsistent with the perfection and absolute supremacy of God. The other idea, however, namely that God fashioned the world out of his own substance, has found advocates, more or less numerous, in every age of the Church. Augustine, referring to this opinion, says, “Fecisti coelum et terram; non de te: nam esset aequale unigenito tuo, ac per hoc et tibi, . . . et aliud praeter te non erat, unde faceres ea; . . . et ideo de nihilo fecisti coelum et terram.”

Not only those of the schoolmen and of the modern theologians who are inclined to the Monistic theory, made all things to be modifications of the substance of God, but many Theistic and even Evangelical writers of our day hold the same doctrine. Sir William Hamilton also held that it is impossible to conceive the complement of existence being either increased or diminished. When anything new appears we are forced to regard it as something which had previously existed in another form. “We are unable, on the one hand, to conceive nothing becoming something; or, on the other, something becoming nothing. When God is said to create out of nothing, we construe this to thought by supposing that He evolves existence out of Himself; we view the Creator as the cause of the Universe. `_Ex nihilo nihil, in nihilum nil posse reverti_,’ expresses, in its purest form, the whole intellectual phenomenon of causality.” To this he elsewhere adds, “In like manner, we conceive annihilation, only by conceiving the creator to withdraw his creation from actuality into power . . . The mind is thus compelled to recognize an absolute identity of existence in the effect and in the complement of its causes — between the _causatum_ and the _causa_,” and therefore, “an absolute identity of existence” between God and the world. This doctrine the fathers, and the Church generally, strenuously resisted as inconsistent with the nature of God. It supposes that the substance of God admits of partition or division; that the attributes of God can be separated from his substance; and that the divine substance can become degraded and polluted.

The third point included in the Scriptural doctrine of creation is, that it was an act of God’s free will. He was free to create or not to create. This is opposed to the doctrine of necessary creation, which has been set forth in different forms. Some regard the phenomenal universe as a mere evolution of absolute being by a necessary process, as a plant is developed from a seed. Others, regarding God as a Spirit, make Life and thought essential and coeternal with Him, and this life and power are of necessity creative. God’s “essence,” says Cousin, “consists precisely in his creative power.” Again, he says, “He cannot but produce; so that the creation ceases to be unintelligible; and God is no more without a world than a world without God.” As, however, thought is spontaneous, Cousin, when called to account for such utterances, maintained that he did not deny that creation was free.

Some who do not admit that God is under any natural or metaphysical necessity to give existence to the universe, still assert a moral necessity for the creation of sensitive and rational creatures. God, it is said, is love; but it is the nature of love to long to communicate itself, and to hold fellowship with others than itself. Therefore God’s nature impels Him to call into existence creatures in whom and over whom He can rejoice. Others say, that God is benevolence, and therefore is under a moral necessity of creating beings whom He can render happy. Thus Leibnitz says: “Dieu n’est point necessite, metaphysiquement parlant, a la creation de ce monde . . . Cependant Dieu est oblige, par une necessite morale, a faire les choses en sorte qu’il ne se puisse rien de mieux.”

According to the Scriptures God is self-sufficient. He needs nothing out of Himself for his own well-being or happiness. He is in every respect independent of his creatures; and the creation of the universe was the act of the free will of that God of whom the Apostle says in Rom. xi. 36, “Of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things.”

The common faith of the Church on this subject is clearly and beautifully expressed by Melancthon: “Quod autem res ex nihilo conditae sint, docet haec sententia: ipse dixit et facta sunt; ipse mandavit, et creata sunt, id est dicente seu jubente Deo, res exortae sunt: non igitur ex materia priore exstructae sunt, sed Deo dicente, cum res non essent, esse coeperunt; et cum Joannes inquit: Omnia per ipsum facta esse, refutat Stoicam imaginationem, quae fingit materiam non esse factam.”

This is followed by a section headed “Mediate and Immediate Creation”, in which Hodge expounds on the idea that the theological doctrine of creation does not imply instantaneous creation, and that the use of already existing materials, and gradual rather than instantaneous actions, is required by a correct reading of Genesis.

But while it has ever been the doctrine of the Church that God created the universe out of nothing by the word of his power, which creation was instantaneous and immediate, i.e., without the intervention of any second causes; yet it has generally been admitted that this is to be understood only of the original call of matter into existence. Theologians have, therefore, distinguished between a first and second, or immediate and mediate creation. The one was instantaneous, the other gradual; the one precludes the idea of any preexisting substance, and of cooperation, the other admits and implies both. There is evident ground for this distinction in the Mosaic account of the creation. God, we are told, “created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Here it is clearly intimated that the universe, when first created, was in a state of chaos, and that by the life-giving, organizing power of the Spirit of God, it was gradually moulded into the wonderful cosmos which we now behold. The whole of the first chapter of Genesis, after the first verse, is an account of the progress of creation; the production of light; the formation of an atmosphere; the separation of land and water; the vegetable productions of the earth; the animals of the sea and air; then the living creatures of the earth; and, last of all, man. In Gen. i. 27, it is said that God created man male and female; in chapter ii. 7, it is said, that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” It thus appears that forming out of preexisting material comes within the Scriptural idea of creating. We all recognize God as the author of our being,, as our Creator, as well as our Preserver. He is our Creator, not merely because He is the maker of heaven and earth, and because all they contain owe their origin to his will and power, but also because, as the Psalmist teaches us, He fashions our bodies in secret. “Thine eyes,” says the sacred writer, “did see my substance, yet being, unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.” (Ps. cxxxix. 16.) And the Bible constantly speaks of God as causing the grass to grow, and as being the real author or maker of all that the earth, air, or water produces. There is, therefore, according to the Scriptures, not only an immediate, instantaneous creation _ex nihilo_ by the simple word of God, but a mediate, progressive creation; the power of God working in union with second causes.

Augustine clearly recognizes this idea. “Sicut in ipso grano invisibiliter erant omnia simul quae per tempora in arborem surgerent; ita ipse mundus cogitandus est, cum Deus simul omnia creavit, habuisse simul omnia quae in illo et cum illo facta sunt quando factus est dies: non solum coelum cum sole et luna et sideribus quorum species manet motu rotabili, et terram et abyssos, quae velut inconstantes motus patiuntur, atque inferius adjuncta partem alteram mundo conferunt; sed etiam illa quae aqua et terra produxit potentialiter atque causaliter, priusquam per temporum moras ita exorirentur, quomodo nobis jam nota sunt in eis operibus, quae Deus usque nunc operatur.”

Thus far there is little room for diversity of opinion. But when the question is asked, How long was the universe in passing from its chaotic to its ordered state? such diversity is at once manifested. According to the more obvious interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, this work was accomplished in six days. This therefore has been the common belief of Christians. It is a belief founded on a given interpretation of the Mosaic record, which interpretation, however, must be controlled not only by the laws of language, but by facts. This is at present an open question. The facts necessary for its decision have not yet been duly authenticated. The believer may calmly await the result.

The theistical advocates of the Nebular Hypothesis assume that the universe was an indefinitely long period in coming to its present state. God, intending to produce just such a universe as we see around us, instead of by a fiat calling the sun, moon, and stars, with all their marshalled hosts, into existence, created simply nebulous matter diffused through space; invested it with certain properties or forces; gave it a rotatory motion, and then allowed these physical laws under his guidance to work out the harmonious system of the heavens. As He is as truly the maker of the oak evolved from the acorn, according to the laws of vegetable life, as though He had called it into existence in its maturity by a word; so, it is maintained, He is as truly the creator of heaven and earth, on the nebular hypothesis, as on the assumption of instantaneous creation. This, however, is merely a hypothesis which has never commanded general assent among scientific men. It is, therefore, of no authority as a norm for the interpretation of Scripture.

The same theory of gradual, or mediate creation, has been applied to account for all the phenomena of the vegetable and animal kingdoms. This has been done in different forms. According to all these theories there must be something to begin with. There must be matter and its forces. There must even be life, and living organisms. To account for these we are forced to accept of the Scriptural doctrine of an immediate creation _ex nihilo_ by the power of God.

Hodge deals briefly with some objections to the scriptural doctrine of creation. The final section in the chapter is headed “Geology and the Bible”. This is particularly relevant to disputes over creationism these days, and Hodge shows that he would reject nearly all the claims of late 20th century creationists, mainly on theological grounds. The first four paragraphs of this section deal with the interpretation of “day” in Genesis 1, although he has given some attention to this earlier.

The geological objections to the Mosaic record are apparently the most serious. According to the commonly received chronology, our globe has existed only a few thousand years. According to geologists, it must have existed for countless ages. And again, according to the generally received interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, the process of creation was completed in six days, whereas geology teaches that it must have been in progress through periods of time which cannot be computed.

Admitting the facts to be as geologists would have us to believe, two methods of reconciling the Mosaic account with those facts have been adopted. First, some understand the first verse to refer to the original creation of the matter of the universe in the indefinite past, and what follows to refer to the last reorganizing change in the state of our earth to fit it for the habitation of man. Second, the word day as used throughout the chapter is understood of geological periods of indefinite duration.

In favour of this latter view it is urged that the word day is used in Scripture in many different senses, sometimes for the time the sun is above the horizon; sometimes for a period of twenty-four hours; sometimes for a year, as in Lev. xxv. 29, Judges xvii. 10, and often elsewhere; sometimes for an indefinite period, as in the phrases, “the day of your calamity,” “the day of salvation,” “the day of the Lord,” “the day of judgment.” And in this account of the creation it is used for the period of light in antithesis to night; for the separate periods in the progress of creation; and then, ch. ii. 4, for the whole period: “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”

It is of course admitted that, taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other. Now it is urged that if the word “day” be taken in the sense of “an indefinite period of time,” a sense which it undoubtedly has in other parts of Scripture, there is not only no discrepancy between the Mosaic account of the creation and the assumed facts of geology, but there is a most marvellous coincidence between them.

Then follows some fairly extensive quotations from James A. Dana’s _Manual of Geology_. He concludes the chapter with a paragraph about how we should handle alleged conflicts between the findings of science and our interpretation of the Bible.

As the Bible is of God, it is certain that there can be no conflict between the teachings of the Scriptures and the facts of science. It is not with facts, but with theories, believers have to contend. Many such theories have, from time to time, been presented, apparently or really inconsistent with the Bible. But these theories have either proved to be false, or to harmonize with the Word of God, properly interpreted. The Church has been forced more than once to alter her interpretation of the Bible to accommodate the discoveries of science. But this has been done without doing any violence to the Scriptures or in any degree impairing their authority. Such change, however, cannot be effected without a struggle. It is impossible that our mode of understanding the Bible should not be determined by our views of the subjects of which it treats. So long as men believed that the earth was the centre of our system, the sun its satellite, and the stars its ornamentation, they of necessity understood the Bible in accordance with that hypothesis. But when it was discovered that the earth was only one of the smaller satellites of the sun, and that the stars were worlds, then faith, although at first staggered, soon grew strong enough to take it all in, and rejoice to find that the Bible, and the Bible alone of all ancient books, was in full accord with these stupendous revelations of science. And so if it should be proved that the creation was a process continued through countless ages, and that the Bible alone of all the books of antiquity recognized that fact, then, as Professor Dana says, the idea of its being of human origin would become “utterly incomprehensible.”

Thus here we have a very eminent theologian, who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, stating that he sees nothing wrong with the concept of a very ancient cosmos, and offering the two interpretations of Genesis which were most widely held unti the 1960s.

I will be posting quotations from various theologians who have written commentaries on Genesis in more modern times, to indicate that virtually all of these see no problems with modern science, and also that a number of them see considerable theological problems with modern creationism.

Salaam Ken Smith

Related Reading: