Time and Logical Order in Genesis 1Walter R.

out o f It, clim atic conditions, and so on, pose qu ite d ifferen t and som ew hat more d ifficu lt problem s in rela tion to science or history than are posed by Genesis 1. Its intention is clear: Som ething like th is, or best described by this, really happened to our species in our space-tim e, in a place recognizable geographically, and in time, as a defining “before” from which our history has developed.

Genesis I im poses no such boundary constraints. W hile “heavens and ea rth ” are com prehensive realms w ith in creation, its account does not define these specifically, nor does it link its tim e-fram ework to that o f the second account. In fact the bridge text (Gn 2:4) linking the two narratives strongly suggests an intended discontinuity or break between them, at least in respect to time: after the statement, “^ e s e are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created ,” w hich can be read as a m arker ending the first account, the text continues: “In the day tha t the hoRD G od made the earth and the heavens...” The perspective clearly has shifted; I suggest that the shift is one ftom outside time to within time.

Ifw e th ink o f Genesis l : l -2 :4 as a literary prologúelo what follows it, we can understand such a sh ift. C e rta in ly the speaker in a prologue follows a logical sequence, and it is necessarily presented as a time-sequence; but to suppose that the parametric “tim e” of the prologue’s exposition is the same as the time of the narrative following, in relation to which it stands as a prologue, is a conceptual m istake no one ever m akes in o rd in ary literature or drama.

٦̂ ٩ his essay argues th a t the logical ״ ا order o f the Bible’s firs t c r e a t io n

accoun t, G enesis l : l - 2 :4 , is no t fu n d am en ta lly chrono logical. O f course, the passage o f tim e marked by the successive days of creation is

d b an im portant literary device. G od’s u n fo ld in g p u rp o se an d agency

moves through the week toward creation of hum an beings in the divine image, and ends in G o d ’s enjoyment of his finished work in the seventh day. However, th is narrative “tim e” has no direct connection to a literal

chronology o f creation . I shall present a num ber of arguments for this view, based on the text and its use in the rest o f the Bible.

S uch an a rg u m e n t is c e r ta in ly not ap p rop ria te for in te rp re tin g the second account o f creation in Genesis 2:5ff; there, tem poral con tinu ity w ith w hat follows is essential. ThesceneinEdenanditsim m ediate sequel may be in terpreted in allegorical or sym bolic ways, but is no t detached ftom the ensuing development o f hum an history p resen ted by the B ib le.1 T h e “tim e ” o f Genesis 2:5 may be “a long tim e ago,” or “at the tim e w hen ...” (as Genesis 2 says), but it is linked contiguously to our chronology. It is a crucial “before” w ith respect to three tem poral realities: the h isto rical past in which G o d ’s acts have m anifested his grace and power; our own present, form ing the p o in t o f personal contact w ith the living God; and a future “after” w hich lies ahead in t im e — a n d th ro u g h w h ich G o d is leading creation toward realizing his eternal purposes. Because o f th is , sta tem ents in Genesis 2 about the garden, rivers flowing

־”־

Walter¡{.Thorson served as Professor in Theoretical Chemistry, University ofAlberta, 1968-1994 and was also Adjunct Professor ofphilosophy o f Science at Regent College for more than 25 years. Recently he has written extensively on scientific and philosophical questions related to biology. He can be reached at wrmethor@ shaw.ca.

CRUX Spring 2 0 0 7 /V o l.43 , ^ ه . س Timeا Logical Order ('٨ Genesis ا

w ith fruitful understanding o f the opening chapters of Genesis, form the essential “why” for this article. T ff s is not a scholarly paper aim ed at presenting new ideas to biblical scholars, bu t an attem pt to provide some critical basis for refuting grossly inadequate approaches to these texts. Readers of CRUX are usually quite fam iliar w ith theological and philosophical issues bearing on literature, the liberal and fine arts, and concerns o f contem porary culture such as ecology and the environm ent; they often are m uch less so in relation to scientific questions, ?eople w ith scientific tra in in g and experience are continually asked to address challenges arising o u t o f p o p u la r evangelical cu ltu re ’s hostile a ttitu d e to science. Most ofthe issues raised have not changed in the past fi f ty ٠٢ more years— and these issues are im portant concerns for students at Regent College, for exam ple. In p a rticu la r, a strong bias tow ard literal interpretations o f the Genesis 1 account in terms of “young- earth creationism” persists in evangelical thinking. This bias is not really based on serious engagem ent w ith sc ien tific understanding, but rather on claims that a faithful exegesis of the texts requires such a literalist in te rp re ta t io n . A tta ck s on scientific conclusions based on supposed exegetical concerns in Genesis (rather than on the merits of the scientific work itself) would die out naturally, if standards commonly applied to questions in literature and the arts were employed to read these biblical texts as they relate to matters scientific.

F u r th e r r a tio n a le fo r th is essay is p rov ided by com parison w ith an artic le p u b lish ed in C R U X (Septem ber 2004): “T h e P eace o f C re a tio n : R e c o v e rin g a T h e o lo g ic a l B a la n c e ,” by J o n a th a n R . W ils o n W و. ils o n ’s essay d isc u sse s

Conflicts in popular culture

over creation and science and

their persistent interference

with fru itfu l understanding

ofthe open- ing chapters o f Genesis, form

the essential “why”for this

article.

I am a scientist by background (and in my intentions here), and th is article offers som e lim ite d in terpre ta tion o f G enesis 1, no t exegesis, a lthough 1 hope I can do th a t w ith o u t v io la tin g sound exegetical principles and constra in ts . 1 have lim ited a im s: 1 n e i th e r p ro p o se a sy s te m a tic in te rp re ta t io n o f th e te x t, n o r try to establish a specific correspondence w ith scientific understanding o f our universe and its history. Instead, I argue th a t attem pts at either o f these tasks should recognize that in Genesis ل tim e functions as an expositional device, ra th e r th a n b e in g in te n d e d as explicit, literal reality. I shall offer a num ber o f arguments in support o f this claim.

O f course th is idea is not entirely new. It is beyond the scope o f this essay to cite all th e in te rp re tiv e s tu d ies o f b ib lica l creation accounts th a t m ight suggest the same conclusion— and from some o f which I have acquired helpful insight. Generally, approaches to Genesis I th a t recognize its character as a literary prologue ٠٢ emphasize its use o f literary devices to s tru c tu re the narrative are open to the argum ent. H enri B locher’s In the Beginning is a though tfu l approach to Genesis th a t has particu larly in fluenced my ow n th in k in g , and D erek K idner’s GenesL· is an accessible and readable com m en tary on the G enesis tex t itself.^ N e ith e r o f these a u th o rs has exp lic itly proposed the interpretation given here, but their approaches to the creation accounts are not incompatible w ith it. Com m ents by O ld T estam ent scholars such as Bruce W altke and th e la te W illia m j . M a rtin on the opening chapters o f Genesis have also been m ost helpfu l in d irec tin g a tten tio n away from particu lar in terpretations concerned w ith scientific questions, and toward letting the biblical text speak its own message more clearly and w ith o u t c o n s tra in t by such narrow preoccupations. W hile argum ents m ade here are broadly in harm ony w ith ideas suggested by these and other sources and influences, the ir peculiar focus is my own response and reflection.

Conflicts in popular culture over creation and science and their persistent interference

Time and Logical Order ١٨ Genesis 1CRUXSpring 2007 /V 0I.43 , N o. 1

Since the second creation account is meant to he understood chronologically and in some broad sense historically, the tw o accounts offer complementary perspectives on creation. This complementarity o f the two accounts is im portant to their m utual coherence, a key to ئله'ر interpretation. However, because it does not directly concern argum ents about tim e and logical order in Genesis 1, it is not discussed in this essay.

Genesis 1 as Literary PrologueT h e accoun t o f creation in G enesis 1:1— 2:4 has obvious features suggesting it is a k in d o f prologue to w hat follows it. Its literary structure is self-contained: it has a beginning prospectus for creation, a middle p o rtio n (the six days) in w hich creation is described (as ءم ?* the prospectus); and a closing section (the seventh day) in w hich the completed work is viewed in satisfaction by the Creator, and the recurring seventh day Shabbat in hum an life is consecrated as the appropriate response within tim e. The “colophon” in 2:4, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,” has usually been understood as a marker stating that the prologue has ended, and is so interpreted here.

Two o th er b ib lical prologues m ay be fruitfully compared w ith this one.

(a) The hrst two chapters o f fob present an in tro d u c tio n to the book as a whole; events on earth (1:1-5, 13-22; 2 :8-13) are related ro events in heaven (1:6-12; 2:1-7) providing a mysterious rationale for them . Job and his friends reason and dispute the en igm a o f h is su ffering and tem p ta tio n th ro u g h the rest o f the book, bu t we as hearers/readers are separately priv ileged by th is p ro lo g u e to k n o w w h a t th e y canno t know : th a t the real “cause” is not from w ith in Job or even from w ith in th is w orld— but rather (as O sw ald C ham bers said) th a t G od and Satan have chosen to make a battleground of fo b ’s soul. However unsatisfactory we may feel this introduction to the book o f Job may be as a rationale for w hat follows— and whatever we may th ink about the conversation betw een G od and

problems in evangelical th ink ing that have fostered neglect o f a balanced theology of creation and encouraged m uch narrow er c o n s tru c t io n s ig n o r in g o r d e v a lu in g m aterial creation’s significance in the plan o f God. ?roblem s discussed by W ilson also foster m is tak en approaches to G enesis. W ilson’s article has not aim ed to break new ground in th ink ing about theology and the env ironm ent, b u t to address theo log ical m is c o n c e p t io n s s h a p in g in a d e q u a te

evangelical responses on such topics. Similarly, my aim is not so m uch ro present new ways o f understanding Genesis 1 in relation to scientific (Questions as to show th a t su p p o se d e x e g e t ic a l c o n c e rn s t h a t feed you n g -earth creation ist a r g u m e n ts a re b a s e d on m isreading o f the text.

T h e conclusion th a t the logical order o f Genesis 1 is no t essentially logical«،»?،-??/־، is s u p p o r te d by s e v e ra l c o n s id e r a t io n s . T h e f i r s t and m ost im p o rta n t is th a t Genesis ل is (and was intended to be) a literary prologue to the m aterial following it. Second, in te r n a l structu re in the text itse lf provides evidence th a t the passage o f tim e is a literary device for presenting a certain logical order in creation. Third, c e r ta in th e o lo g ic a l m o tifs tha t are im portant to the logic o f G enesis 1 becom e clearer w hen we consider how it is “read” or interpreted elsewhere in Scripture. Finally, external th eo lo g ica l c o n s id e ra t io n s strongly suggest th a t Genesis 1 d e l ib e ra te ly p re s e n ts a

divine perspective, one fundam entally not constrained by tim e as we experience it w ithin creation. These different approaches support a com m on view o f Genesis 1 as having a logical framework not essentially concerned w ith tim e (i.e., chronological sequence).

The conclusion that the logical

٢̂٠٢ ofGenesis ل is not essentially chrono logical is supported by several consid- erations. The first and most important is that Genesis 1 is (and was intended to be) a literary pro- logue to the material following it.

· ” ·

CRUXSpring 2007 /V 0I.43 , No. 1? Genesis آئ،لخه '(٨ Logical ^٠ س'رآ ٨

evening and mnrning, the «th day...”), serve to mark distinct elements or aspects of G od’s work as it moves toward com pletion. The seventh day, uniquely set apart from the others because it has no definitive end, is entirely devoted to contem plation and satisfaction; finally, as if to link the narrative’s detachment back to our own sense o f presence and time, the voice offers a commentary: “So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.” The recurring seventh day within creaturely time has been consecrated or set aside by God himself, as an opportunity to refrain from our self-enslaving agendas; we are set free to celebrate and enjoy G od’s completed work in his presence. W ith that explanatory comment, the prologue itself ends.

C o m p ariso n o f G enesis 1 w ith the prologue to a stage d ram a illu stra tes its fu n c tio n — an d also my p o in t ab o u t its “time.” I f we attend a dram a and a prologue is presented before the curtain rises, we have no trouble grasping the fact th a t its tim e or narrative sequence bears no necessary chronological relation to events in the dram a i ts e lf - ju s t as no one but a child would ever confuse the prologue’s speaker w ith one of the characters in the play. The prologue is presented literally “before” the dram a, but we all understand that this tim e-sequential o rder is n o t essential to its con ten t and m eaning, or its relation to the dram a proper; their “tim es” are unrelated-

It is interesting th a t ancient rabbinical co m m en tary on G enesis I (dating back at le a s t to th e ea rly m ed iev a l Jew ish com m entato rs and scholars M aim onides and N achm anides) insisted th a t tim e in Genesis 1 canno t be considered o rd inary tim e on earth , bu t is G od’s tim e. Genesis 1 offers us G od’s perspective on creation, a “view from outside”— and one contrasting w ith the “creaturely” perspective o f Genesis 2:5ff, a “view from w ith in ” (space-time). Such a d e tach ed , ex tern a l v iew p o in t is intrinsic to a prologue.

We need not base the argum ent purely o n li te r a ry a n d s ty l is tic c o m p a riso n . Because m any people instinctively dislike

Job which ends the dialogue about evil— the literary function o f the two opening chapters is clear: as a prologue, Job 1-2 offers insights m eant to make sense o f what fo llow s-

(b) Jo h n 1:1-18 is a pro logue to the fou rth gospel, and functions sim ilarly: to provide an external, introductory perspective on the m ean ing o f w hat follows. It even contains intentional parallels to Genesis 1: the expression “In the beginning” rem inds us unm istakably o f Genesis 1:1 and this is confirm ed by explicit statem ents about the W o rd ’s pre-existence to creation and his role as Creator, as well as by symbolic uses o f “life” and “light” suggesting Genesis 1 as an underlying basis inform ing the w riter’s th o u g h t. Jo h n relis us th a t Jesus C h ris t is G od m anifest in flesh— and obviously intends we read the rest o f his gospel w ith this essential premise.

Similarly, Genesis 1:1-2:4 offers a defining perspective for w hat follows in Genesis, the ?entateuch (Torah) and indeed for the Bihle as a whole. It tells us th a t the purposes for w hich creation was form ed d id no t arise from its own process or being, but came from “outside” in a radical, ultimate sense.

The overall “voice” and style o f Genesis 1 helps to set it off as a prologue— especially since they are in marked contrast to Genesis 2:5ff. Perhaps the most distinctive element is the sense of an “outside” perspective. God is the only speaker, G od’s will and agency the origin of all that occurs. Creation, including human beings, is made ٠٢ fashioned by God, and careful language distances or distinguishes creation from Creator. In the rhythm of the six days’ unfolding work, G od’s satisfaction and fulfillm ent o f his own purposes are the repeated criterion o f its adequacy: God saw that i t was good. W hile God is also the one who creates in Genesis 2:5ff, the contrast in voice could hardly be greater: there he is “in” the creation, and above all in dialogue w ith his creatures, who have themselves become purposive agents and speakers. The obvious parallel is with a stage drama and a prologue to it spoken by a different voice before the curtain rises. Stylistically, the six days of creation, each w ith its clearly marked tag (“and there was

־أئ

Time and Logical Order in Genesis 1CRUXSpring 2007 /V 0Í.43 , N o ا.

parameters that map progress from one end o f the subjeet to the other are really related to tim e as a variable. In teaching I often rem inded students that our joint experience in class had a literal chronological order: “Last week we proved th a t (٨)...; and this now implies, if we apply it to what we have just learned yesterday, (B)..., that (C )...” In such dialogue everyone understands th a t this colloquial usage, though inescapable, is certainly not intrinsic to the logical order o f the subject proper; it is merely a param etric m apping w ith in tim e o f a logical order in the subject that is in m ost cases essentially atem poral. Because we live and learn in tim e, tim e’s arrow and the arrow o f logical sequence are m apped together; yet tim e is not really the focus o f conceptual meaning.^

Recognition that Genesis ل functions as a literary prologue (to the biblical account o f h um an h is to ry fo llow ing it) suggests we set aside the nai've assum ption th a t it is necessarily a chronological acco u n t o f creation. However, we should then ask: what logical ordering, development or “progress” o f th o u g h t is concep tually im p o rta n t to u n d erstan d in g it? Some clues to th is are provided by the literary structure o f the text itself, and we consider these next.

Time as a Parametric Device in Genesis 1As m any com m entators point out. Genesis 1 uses the seven-day week w ith the Shabbat rest at its conclusion as a literary device for laying out the logical order o f creation. Just as the Sabbath is set apart w ith in the week as the tim e for celebration o f realities tha t transcend tim e, so foe seventh day occupies a unique place and is set apart from the six days which precede it, both by its distinctive features and by specific statem ent about its divine consecration. T he deliberate daily rhy thm m ark ing each successive stage o f G o d ’s creative w ork, in tro d u c ed by the regular repetition “So there was evening and m orning, the « th . ..day,” is conspicuously absent on the seventh day. Obviously, we should not expect a resumption of the cycle: the seventh day com pletes the acco u n t’s perspective on creation— and un like the

application o f literary parallels to biblical passages dealing w ith objective topics, we m ay also appeal to a broader illustration , one rem inding us ^ow inescapably we aro related to tim e-sequence in all our actions and thoughts. The logical order or sequence o f to p ic s in p re se n tin g or e x p la in in g a com plex sub ject is in m o st cases n o t arbitrary, but is determ ined by the learning process. In general, logical presentation of the subject moves from elementary, general promises and structu res to m ore com plex and consequential realities p redicated by fo^m- After we have learned and mastered a subject, th is logical s tru c tu re becom es reversible conceptually: we can examine the atem poral logical relations between diverse elements w ith in the structure, recognizing th a t so m etim es th e “a rro w ” o f log ical im p lica tio n is h ig h ly d irec tio n a l (“ if ... th e n ...”) and at other times points in either d irec tio n (“ if and only if . . . th e n . . . , and conversely...”). Generally, our capacity to m ake maps, diagram s and other projective sp a tia l d ep ic tio n s o f th e re la tio n sh ip s betw een elem ents in a logical s tru c tu re d e p e n d s on th e ac h ie v e m e n t o f such reversibility in conceptual understanding. However, the learning process itse lf is not reversible, but irreversible·, and, in general, we cannot learn or understand any complex logical structure w ithout having it presented first in a tim e sequence: some ideas and facts m ust be presented before others can even be spoken or w ritten about, while other topics are necessarily afterw ard in presentation , because th inking itself is a creaturely process carried on by our brains w ith in tim e. O ur creaturehood dem ands th a t we learn about and first understand even tim eless logical re la tio n s an d im p lic a tio n s on an axis linked physically to tim e: M onday’s study o f basics necessarily comes chronologically before Tuesday-through-Thursday’s further expositions and Friday’s discussion o f w hat follows as applications of principles learned. ¥et in such cases we certainly neither intend nor conclude th a t the logical developm ent its e lf is also inheren tly chronological in its character, ٠٢ th a t the developm ental

CRUXSpring 2007 /V 0I.43 , N o. }Time and Logical Order ١٨ Genes/5 ا

A variety o f inferences may be drawnfrom the unique pre- eminence ̂ iven

the seventh day; one certain,¡.}׳ is

that creation as G od’s work

must be viewed notfundamen- tally as process,

but as some- thingfinally

perfected— to be celebrated

and enjoyed by humans together

with God.

“day” in the text eannot easily be translated as anyth ing hut a literal, tw enty-four-hour day. However, this argum ent is valid only if the logieal order o f Genesis 1 is neeessarily also ،^r،??2،?logical. I f tim e in s tea d is a literary, param etric device, as I argue here, such a simple linguistic usage is just what we should expect.

The six days o f creation are structured by a defining ئ«ءءكمكممم at the very beginning o f th e p ro lo g u e , a n d its program is followed carefully.A fter the opening sum m ary,“In th e b e g in n in g , G o d created the heavens and the ea rth ,” a prospective agenda for his work is stated: “Now the ea rth was w ith o u t form a n d v o id , a n d d a rk n e s s lay u p o n th e face o f th e deep.” In response to these conspicuous lacks, G od w ill provide creation 's سم and content. T h is is a prospectus o f the in ten d ed w ork— not gratuitous inform ation about some pre-existent state-of-the- cosmos apart from God. Here “th e e a r th ” rep resen ts the entire creation, reflecting the n a rra tiv e ’s a m h ro p o c en tr ic view o f G o d ’s pu rpose. Its i n te n t is c o m p re h e n s iv e : nothing exists apart from God and G od’s creating purpose.؟

In r e s p o n s e to t h i s d e f in in g p ro sp e c tu s , G od gives structure and dynam ic order to creation in the first three days, replacing darkness w ith light, formlessness w ith bounded dom ains w ith in the cosm os, and the barrenness o f fo rm less expanses w ith resources fo r fru itfu ln ess- Then, in the second three days,G od provides content to populate the empty structure: physical entities in the heavens giving them regular, majestic order; living th in g s sp read ing ou t w ith in the ea rth ly

six before has no tem poral end. G od is perfectly satisfied w ith his com pleted work and th is d iv ine rest or celebration is its appointed goal. A variety o f inferences may be draw n from the un ique pre-em inence given the seventh day; one certainly is that creation as G od’s w ork m ust be viewed not fundam entally as process, but as som ething f in a lly perfected— to be ce leb ra ted and enjoyed by hum ans to g e th er w ith G od. Because creaturely existence is inescapably set w ith in tim e, we tend to see process as f a n d ^ m a l ; however, God asks us to share an eternal celebration th a t makes no sense if we view creation prim arily as process. In this respect. Genesis 1 is different, not only from other ancient creation narratives w ith which it is sometimes classed, but also from m odern scientific cosmologies and accounts o f origins. As an enterprise, science m ust view process as u ltim ate because in spite o f our aim to contem plate timeless tru ths, transcend ing tim e itself is no t w ith in our grasp. The pre-eminence o f the seventh day in Genesis I signals an understand ing of creation and its Creator entirely absent from either the Gilgam esh epic or the theory of evolution.

The six-plus-one pattern o f the days in Genesis 1 provides a complete projection o f ffs m eaning on all creaturely tim e. T im e is thus a param etric device used no t merely to rationalize the Shabbat but as a k ind of m apping o f G o d ’s ageless e tern ity on our recurren t chronological experience in the present. It makes no sense, arid صا،ء make no sense, to suppose that there would ever be an “eighth day” (or any subsequent days) in the narrative; only as children or in joking do we ever conceive such a th ing . A lm ost everyone perceives intuitively that an entire view o f creation is provided by the span of its seven (six, plus one) days; therefore it is a conceptual m istake to view them as a particular segment o four time from the past. Yet the basis for y oung-earth creation ist argum ents makes just this nai’ve mistake.

A dvocates o f a litera l, ch rono log ical in te rp re ta tio n o f G enesis I m ake m uch o f the fact th a t the H ebrew w ord used for

”־

Time ء CRUXSpring 2ا Logical Order in Genesis س 0 0 7 /V 0 I.4 3 , N o . ا

logical order o f G od’s work o f creation— not as literal chronology.

U s in g t im e as l i t e r a r y “p ro g re s s param eter” in the unfolding logic o f creation has a fu rthe r effect. Just as in any hum an creative program , a sense o f an ticipation and novelty is conveyed. £ ach new day brings fo rth عآلاه$ previously unheralded , entirely new thing. This sense of unexpected novelty o r tra n sc e n d e n c e o f th e o rder created before or underneath it is im portant to th in k in g about science. O n the fou rth day, for example, G od created the merely physical world represented in the celestial objects; oddly, discoveries in as tronom y have always stim ulated advances in physical science. In the fifth and sixth days, however, G od introduces entirely new levels o f being and m eaning in creating living creatures. W h a t m ig h t th is sense o f novelty im ply for a science o f life? D arw inism ’s dogm atic assumption tha t physical principles alone can account for the emergence and com plexity o f biosystems may be a strong hindrance in the long run to creative scientific th ink ing about them.

م literary structure o f Genesis 1 has been discussed by many scholarly commentators. Here I have only added the argum ent tha t this structu re strongly suggests we should not view the passage o f tim e in the narrative literally, but rather as a param etric device presenting the unfolding logic and purpose in G od’s work of creation.

Progressive Development Parameters in Genesis 1We have argued th a t in Genesis 1, tim e’s progress m aps a logical developm ent in creation, but that the “progress-parameters” o f th is logic are no t essentially tem poral. Keeping in m ind that Genesis 1 is concerned m ore w ith G o d ’s purposes in crea ting th a n w ith the process o f creation, we may ask: W h a t are some im p o rta n t “progress variables” in the unfolding logic o f creation in G enesis 1? W h ile a co m prehensive answer to this question is not offered here, certa in them es are evident: an increasing liberty and po ten tia lity o f the creation; as

realm s o f sky, sea and land. T he order o f populating corresponds strictly to the order o f structuring, so that the fourth day stands opposite to the first, the fifth to the second, and foe sixth to foe third, each w ith content co rrespond ing to the s tru c tu re d dom ain formed earlier. Adherence to the prospectus’s program is so strict tha t insisting its logical sequence is chronological creates problems: sun, m oon and stars are only created on foe fourth day, yet the structu red realities

o f lig h t and darkness, day

Keepim in mind fnd n,ight’they provid,e ̂ ereo ع brought tnto betng on tne lirst

day. (T he lam e explanation that this is a phenomenological view o f an earth shrouded by dense fog in foe first three days only shows the foolishness of in te rp re tin g G enesis 1 as if it were ultim ately concerned w ith the process or technique of creation.) Difficulties w ith natural history are also created if it is insisted th a t the »■־fo r o f creation o f liv ing th ings in th e ir v a rio u s d o m a in s is s tr ic tly c h ro n o lo g ic a l— ra th e r th a n d e te rm in e d by the previous structural order defining those domains.

In s t r ik in g c o n tra s t to modern conflict over scientific evidence for great age o f our u n iv e rse , th e th e o lo g ia n A ugustine o f H ippo (circa A D

450) believed th a t in reality G od had created all th in g s i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y — r a t h e r th a n in the six litera l days insisted on by y o u n g -ea rth creationism. H is view reflects

the influence o f ? la ton ic philosophy, bu t it also dem onstrates tw o o ther points: (i) he u n d e rs to o d th e ac co u n t o f c rea tio n in Genesis 1 to be in a detached, literary re la tio n (ra th er th a n a ch ro n o lo g ica lly constrained one) to Genesis 2:5ff; and (ii) he understood tim e in Genesis 1 to be a literary, parametric device for presenting the

that Genesis / is concerned more with God's purposes in creating than with the process ofcreation, we may ask: What are some important progress vari-

ables” in the unfolding logic ofcreation in Genesis 1?

־ * ·

CRUXSpring 2007 /V 0I.43 , ^ ٥ . iTime and Logical Order ؛٨ Genesis 1

purpose, rather than the process or technique o f creation.

St. Paul frequently argues (in Galatians especially; see also R om ans 8 :1-25 and com m ents in Ephesians and Colossians) th a t w hile the resu lt o f h u m an sin and disobedience to G od has been enslavement and bondage to elements o f the created order th a t “by na tu re are no t gods at a ll” (Gal 4:8), yet G od’s purpose from the beginning was to give genuine liberty and potentiality to his creatures. T he prom inence o f th is N ew T estam en t them e regard ing G o d ’s purpose suggests its possible relevance to the unfolding work o f creation in Genesis 1— especially, in days four, five and six.

In the O ld T estam ent, especially the Psalms and Prophets, expressions o f praise and thanksg iv ing to G od often com m ent w ith awe on his m an ifo ld grace: th ough G od dwells “on high,” beyond the heavens and above the thought and understanding o f h u m an beings, yet he condescends to care for and be interested in them in their m ost in tim ate concerns and needs (c£, for exam ple, Pss 113, 115, 103, 33). In these celebrations G o d ’s radical transcendence w ith resp ec t to c re a tio n is in tim a te ly linked to his love, faith fu lness and deep com m itm ent to his creatures, w ho is like the L o r d God سم<، ٢̂٠ M aker? In Genesis 1 the view o f creation from a transcendent perspective sustains this peculiarly Hebraic sense o f who the L o r d is.

These m otifs are m ore evident in days four through six than in the first three days o f structuring. Days one th rough three do show the narrowing focus o f G o d ’s care and atten tion , from cosmic proportions dow n to the de ta il o f our ea rth and its loving preparation as a place w ith resources for life. T ris focus is unasham edly anthropocentric, but to challenge its “objectivity” really just begs the question about who Godis. ^ u rn e y s in to the m ore alien cosmos ou tside have made us appreciate our p lanet’s uniqueness in a way s tr ik in g ly co n sis ten t w ith the anthropocentrism o f Genesis— and force us to take much more seriously the Bible’s view o fa G od who cares for us.

a coun terpo in t, the increasing generosity o f G od tow ard it; and G o d ’s increasingly personal in terest in, com m itm en t to and invo lvem ent w ith w h a t he has created . These themes are suggested by reflections on Genesis 1 found elsewhere in Scripture.

Psalm 8, a poetic reflection on creation and G o d ’s purpose in it, provides a clue emphasizing the attention or concern o f God as a key concept. In Psalm 8:3—4, wonder at the interest and intention of G od in creating h n m a n s can be read in tw o som ew hat different ways. T ie first and more traditional expresses surprise in view o f h u m a n ity ’s apparent insignificance when compared w ith the majesty o f the heavens in their vast array: W hy should G od concern him self w ith us? T ie second reading is more consonant w ith the Psalm ’s prophetic m eaning (developed in Hebrews 2:5-9): H ow important hum an beings m ust be to the C reator o f heavens and earth— sinoe he takes so m uch interest in them! T ia t true im portance is measured by G o d ’s in te rest an d involvem ent is a fundam ental principle in Genesis 1.

In Ephesians 1:3-14, St. Paul’s argum ent regarding G od’s lavish generosity in C hrist links it to G o d ’s eternal plan “from before the foundation o f the w orld” (that is, to d ivine purpose in creation). It is a sound interpretive principle th a t N ew Testam ent authors draw on O ld Testam ent resources in their th inking. W e conclude tha t divine generosity is an im portan t developm ental theme in Genesis 1— a conclusion reinforced by )ames 1:17—18.

T h e L e tte r to th e H ebrew s m akes a “sp iritu a l” application o f the seventh-day Shabba t o f G od in G enesis 1, g iv ing it eschatological m eaning (Hebrews 4:1—13). Since the whole a rch itec tu re o f H ebrew s relies on the principle tha t eternal realities o f G o d ’s com pleted w ork (includ ing the w ork o f redem ption and atonem ent) are the basis for the believer’s life in the present w orld, it is reasonable to argue th a t the writer o f Hebrews understands the “divine” perspective o f Genesis 1 as being eternal ra th e r th a n te m p o ra l— an d also , th a t its focal in terest is the com pleted divine

س'رآ س Logical Order ١٨ Genesis ICRUXSpring 2 0 0 7 /V 0I.43 , ^ ٥.ا

an alm ost instinctive w orship o f them as divine in pagan cultures.

W hen G od blesses the living creatures th a t have arisen in response to his w ord in seas and skies, so m e th in g qu ite new appears. Blessing is first o f all perm ission or au thorization ; it im plies the recipient has a po tential or capability for authentic in d ep en d en ce or lib e r ty o f ac tio n . T h e phrase “afte r its k in d ” lays dow n lim its and constraints w ith in w hich this freedom is ex p ressed (tex tb o o k s on m o le c u la r b io c h e m is try a n d g en e tic s t r e a t th a t balance in detail); nevertheless, the fifth day introduces essential novelty, transcending the purely causal structu re o f the physical order. This creaturely potential and liberty is deliberately in tended and approved by God: “Do your thing!” The them e o f liberty and p o ten tia lity deliberately endow ed on the creature already begins in the merely biological c rea tio n — th o u g h it develops much further in hum an beings.

The uniqueness and “special creation” of hum an beings is supported in Genesis 1 by the distinctive linguistic usage ofthe Hebrew

ءءأس) , ra ther th a n m erely m ake or form ), an d by th e s ta te m en t th a t th e y uniquely bear G od’s image; it is powerfully re in fo rced by G o d ’s u n iq u e b lessing to them. A dding to his earlier com m and to be fruitful and multiply, G od’s m andate to have dom inion over the rest o fthe living creatures sets hum an beings apart as a qualitatively d is tinc t creation: their unique blessing or calling implies their unique being/identity. D e f in in g m an /w o m an as “th e ra tio n a l anim al,” “the talking anim al” and so forth, is inadequate ; such h r a c t e r i s t i c s , each d is tinctively (if no t perhaps exclusively) hum an, are only endowments p ertin en t to th e ir un iqueness in b iological creation . T he beings created in G o d ’s image have a level o f being and m ean ing transcend ing the biological gifts suppo rting i t - j u s t as biological creation, w hile having physical existence, is organized in ways transcending purely physical process. G o d ’s in terest in, co m m itm en t to an d blessing o f h u m an beings are m arked by a m ore p ro fo u n d

Days four th ro u g h six show a parallel narrow ing o f focus. T h e creation o f the heavenly bodies on the fou rth day has an im p o rtan t subtext: they are no t divinities governing hum an lives and destinies, bu t re g u la to ry a rra n g e m e n ts for yet m ore significant creaturely being. Hebrews were not unable to appreciate foe majesty o f the heavens (cf. Ps 19, Is 40)— but understood them in terms o fth e relation o f all creation, and especially hum ans, to a living God.

M an y o f th e p e c u lia r ly foreshortened ideas o f creation fostered by m odern ity result ftom our preoccupation w ith the physical world’s regular and mechanistic structure, as if that were the ultimate reality. We are fixated on “fourth day s tu ff”; even m o d ern p h ilo so p h ica l and theological problems have reflected our obsession wifo ideas of causation, deterministic re la tions an d com puter-like contro l o f events. G iven the success o f m o d ern physical

. science, the one area w herepoint to creaturely we may be said to have some

real know ledge o f c rea tion ’s character and processes, this m yopic f ix a tio n is perh ap s understandable. However, by the fourth day’s end G od has h a rd ly b eg u n crea tin g ; the really in te res tin g and novel work still lies ahead.

T h e blessings u tte red by G od in the fifth day’s creation o f liv ing creatures and then finally o f hum an beings on the

six th day po in t to creaturely potentiality , creaturely freedom , divine generosity and divine involvement. N o blessing is given to the celestial objects because none is needed; they do exactly what they were programmed to do , o b e y in g th e c a u sa l p r in c ip le s de term in ing the ir regular behavior— and no more. There’s a striking contrast between fo i؟ H ebraic sense o f the ir m atter-of-fact existence as things made for our needs, and

potentiality, creaturely freedom, divine generosity and divine involvement.

The blessings uttered by God in thefifth day’s creation ofliving creatures and thenfinally o f human beings on the sixth day

· ” ·

CRUXSpring 2007/V 01.43, ^ ٥ . 1Time and Logical Order ،٨ Genesis 1

to such a m inor concern as the technical process o f creation and a literal chronology o f th a t process, is to miss alm ost entirely its real m essage abou t G o d ’s purpose in creation. T h a t is the strongest reason ١١٢̂ should feel a determ ined passion to refute the abuse and misuse o f Scripture implicit in young-earth creationism.

Divine Transcendence and Genesis 1These discussions have a com m on thread: the perspective o f G enesis 1 is in som e way profoundly detached, bo th from w hat follows in the Pentateuch and from the sense ٠۴ tim e and place com mon to our ،:maturely experience. T h is detachm ent was obvious to th e ra b b in ic a l sch o lars ٠ w ho argued th a t it speaks ٠۴ “G o d ’s tim e,” no t ours. It is im plicit in viewing Genesis 1 as a prologue explaining that the universe’s true beginning arose from “o u ts id e” itself.U sing a single week o f seven days as a literary fram ew ork to project the divine purposes in c r e a t i o n a n d t h e i r com ple tion in the S abbath rest onto the “moving screen” o f our tim e, Genesis 1 draws o u r a t te n t io n aw ay fro m c re a tu re ly ob sessio n w ith process to a contem plation of divine purpose and its final

...Genesis 1 draws our

attention away from creaturely

obsession with process to a

contemplation ofdivine

purpose and itsc o m p le tio n . T h e im p lie d f l f l d l C O T V lp iC t lO T l٠

perspective is d iv ine r a th e r ____________________________than creaturely, eternal rather than tem poral. To argue th a t the ordering logic o f Genesis 1 is not inherently a chrono- logic is merely to pursue this idea to its end.

1 th in k th is sense o f d e tach m en t, o f an eternal, d ivine v iew poin t on creation, is deliberately intended by the text, and is intimately connected w ith biblical theology.

T h e b ib le beg ins w ith th e c rea tio n accounts ٠۴ Genesis, but for G o d ’s people the information in these accounts is not rheir original knowledge o f God. The ground for the covenant oflaw is: la m the LoRDyour God, who broughtyou out ofthe land ofEgypt, out o f

involvem ent, signaled in the conversation and m utuality o f purpose o f persons within God. W e are closer to the tru th then ifw e say th a t hum an beings d iffer from o ther biological creatures by being persons', we can grasp hum an transcendence w ith respect to other living creatures only, to the extent we u nderstand w hat tru e personhood im plies and requires.

M ost C hristian reflections on hum an id en tity concede h u m an p o te n tia lity for crea tiv ity , novelty an d lib e r ty as g ifts conferred on us by God; we adm it it whenever we acknowledge the genuine freedom (in principle) o f the hum an will. H ere 1 have argued that G od’s purpose of giving freedom to his creation is not manifested only at the creation o f hum anity; hum an beings are the culmination of a movement already begun in the purely biological creation. From the very beg inn ing , G od has deliberately intended th a t all his creatures shall participate, w ith the various capacities each has, in a “glorious liberty”; otherw ise we can m ake no more th a n poetic ؟ense o f Rom ans 8 :18-25 in relarion to the non-h1]m3n creation.

Genesis 1 offers a fu rther, very subtle h in t o f generosity in G od’s purpose, t r o u g h 1:28, G od’s speech in creating is entirely in the imperative mode, tha t is, he com m ands or authorizes. But in 1 : 2 9 0 ־و G od speaks to the hum ans in the indicative, conversational m ode, assum ing the ir legitim ate capacity to u n d e rs ta n d his purposes as those in personal relation to him . Such a m ode o f speaking with, not merely speaking to, offers deep understanding o f th e unique vocation and privilege conferred on hum ans. T his conception o f a liberty and relation to him in dialogue as being deliberately intended by G od in creating is unique to the Bible. It is the essence o f prophetic m in istry and div ine insp ira tion in Scrip ture; and it is en tirely m issing in the no tion o f hum an relationship to Allah in the religion oflslam , for example.^

O th er developm ental themes appear in Genesis 1, but these suffice for my argument. To claim instead th a t the progression o f logical though t in Genesis 1 is tied merely

”־

Time and Logical Order ؛٨ Genesis /CRUXSpring 2 0 07 /V 0I.43 , N o . ا

universe and its purpuse even exists— and tha t its priorities and ends shape everything we are and may becom e. It seems to me th a t G enesis I, w ith its pecu liar sense o f detachm ent from creaturely time, creaturely ends and creaturely agency, is deliberately m eant to provide such understanding. X

Endnotes1 This point needs emphasis, since the tradition

o f source criticism has often argued that Genesis 1—11 cannot be considered as history in any sense and should be treated purely as mythic material. A help- fui discussion of important issues related to the early chapters o f Genesis as intentionally historical is given by Walter c. Kaiser Jr., The O ld Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? (Downers (Trove, If: Inter¥arsity Press, 2001).

2 Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The opening Chapters ofGenesis (Downers Grove, If: InterVarsity Press, 1984); Derek Kidner, Genesis: A n Introduction a n d C o m m e n t a r y , T y n d a le © Id T e sta m en t Commentaries, ed. D. j. Wiseman (Downers Grove, If: InterVarsity Press, 1967).

3 Jonathan R. W ilson, “The Peace o f Creation: Recovering a Treological Balance,” CRUX 40, no. 3 (September 2004): 2 -8 , based on a paper presented at a Conference for Environmental Professionals hosted at Trinity Western University, fangley, BC.

4 1 am indebted to Thomas F, Torrance for point- ing out (in private communication) that medieval thinkers at least as far back as the time o f Aquinas, Scotus and others had already recognized the ،:ssential distinction required between necessary logical direc- tion or implication in an argument, and the chronolog-

هء'ي/ءم־أءمح«/-ج unavoidable in learning or understanding such structure conceptually— and had thought a good deal about metaphysical implications o f this fact for our grasp of created reality. Part of what makes prob- lems ل tense logic so complex is the fact that these two quite distinct “dimensions” of progress or develop- mental order are entangled in them.

5 Interpretations o f Genesis 1 claim ing that this statement describes the catastrophic result o f a destructive enemy’s attack on an earlier creation (sum- marized in verse 1) are typical of the conceptual errors generated when we assume that temporal سمء־،ءمم is as ultimate from God’s perspective as it is for us. They are also bizarrely inconsistent with the overall atmosphere and literary character o f the prologue, in which God is the only planner, speaker and agent; everything hap- pens completely in accordance with his purposes, and no opposition or will contrary to G od’s is ever mani- fested or even mentioned.

6 In the prophets (see especially Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel) prophetic insight is closely linked to con- versational communication between the prophet and the L © r d . Divine revelation is not merely handed down imperatively but arises from intimately shared understanding.

the house o f bondage. [Therefore] you shall have no othergods before [beside] me. This ^inciple remains the same in the New Testament. The creation accounts ht into this primary context as further knowledge about that G od who is firsr our ■؟ avior and Deliverer.

The Bible condemns and forbids idolatry, not only as im m oral, as a m isleading and ultim ately powerless projection o f our own desires and needs, and as a powerful delusion continually attractive to us as creatures— but above all, as unrealistic and untrue·. G od is not like any created being, and to depict h im in th a t fashion is to construct w hat is not: He is who He is.

f o r m a n y p h y s ic a l s c ie n t is ts , th e conclusion o f m odern cosmology tha t both tim e and space are mere aspects o f creation, in h e ren t in the existence o f m a tte r and energy, has come as som ething o f a shock— because th a t is just w hat the Bible always claim ed. It is an interesting (but probably fruitless) speculation to consider w hat we m ight otherw ise have eventually supposed about tim e’s reality, w ithout having first been nu rtu red im ellectually by the biblical view that eternity is more fundam ental than tim e because G od is eternal: The High and Lofty One who inhabits eternity. Today C hristian theological reflection on the relation o f tim e and eternity (and the implications o f G od’s decision to become incarnate in Christ) is an im portant task; this is partly due to our realization th a t based on the best scientific evidence our entire universe, including time, has a purely contingent existence.

I find it helpful to im agine an inform al r a t i o n a l e for the tw o b ib lica l c rea tio n accounts: in them G od is concerned not only to place his involvement w ith us in the context o f space-time (the second account o f creation); but first, to make clear that there exists a m ore fundam ental perspective on who we are, w hat this universe is and w hat our calling is, than any viewpoint available from w ithin space-time. This transcendent perspective is really inaccessible to us as c reatu res— it is un iquely G o d ’s. ¥ e t the tem ptation to idolatry is irresistible w ithout some understand ing th a t th is view o f our

آلمآورلم؛

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreement.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥۴ ajourna! typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, tbe author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use آس covered by the fair use provisions of tbe copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initia؛ funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property ofthe American Theological Library Association.