I admit it. The last post was repeated from 2012 — and it was not all that controversial at the time even though it offers an interpretation of Genesis 1 that is far from the usual approach.
It simply interprets Genesis 1 for what it is — inspired, beautiful Ancient Near East literature, speaking truth in its own terms. The lesson isn’t about the literal creation of the world. Rather, Walton makes clear that such literature sought to speak of purpose and function, not time order or the like.
So what is more likely true: That God wrote Genesis 1 in terms that would be misunderstood by its readers for thousands of years until we modern readers, finally aware of the Copernican cosmos, can understand it correctly — because we are the audience for whom Genesis 1 was written? Or that God wrote Genesis 1 in terms that would be understood by its immediate readers in the expectation that future readers would study enough history and ancient literature so that all generations would understand?
And if we were to read Genesis 1 as an Ancient Near East document (ANE) and not a textbook on astronomy, several very cool things turn up.
First, and most importantly, we see that man’s purpose is to be God’s image on earth. God’s children — the church — are thus called to be images of God in his Temple, to draw the world toward God, to represent God’s special presence, and to display the qualities and virtues of God.
We are saved, not just to go to heaven when we die, but to be God’s very image and likeness in his temple.
Second, we are to be God’s priests, not meaning merely that we get to read and interpret the Bible for ourselves (the usual application of our being a priesthood of believers), but also that we serve in his Temple to bring about his worship, to help others come to God.
Young people will understand what I mean when say we are God’s avatars. That is, today, he walks the earth through his children and his church — the body of Christ. We represent God to the world. (And, yes, I know it’s a Hindu concept, but it’s also a computer gaming concept, far removed from Hinduism.)
Third, even though Genesis 1 is not attempting to describe a modern cosmology (which would have been incomprehensible to Moses’ audience), there are some important connections between Genesis 1 and modern science.
Back in the 19th Century, scientist were learning that the universe is vast, but they had very little detail because their telescopes and instruments could not measure the distance of stars but for a few light years away. But when the galaxy Andromeda was discovered to be thousands of times farther away than many stars in the late 18th Century, the scientific community began to grasp just how large the universe is.
But it required bigger and better telescopes and observation of redshifting of light, indicating that other galaxies are moving very rapidly away from our own galaxy, the Milky Way, implying an expanding universe.
Even in the 1950s, text books offered three possible forms of existence for the universe —
* Steady state
* Oscillating (like a spring, expanding, collapsing, and expanding again)
* Big Bang
Many scientists rejected the Big Bang on philosophical grounds, because it implied creation ex nihilo, that is, from nothing — just as taught in Genesis and many other passages.
(Joh 1:3 ESV) All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
However, it became clear in the second half of the 20th Century that even if the universe were to contract, due to the pull of gravity, it would not collapse into a giant star, only to explode again. Rather, the physics of the universe would cause the universe to collapse into nothing. Hence, no oscillating universe.
And as telescopes looked further and further into the past (because light from distant galaxies can take millions of years to reach earth), the steady state idea failed. The further away a star or a galaxy is, the younger it is. The early universe doesn’t look like today’s universe. The Hubble Space Telescope produced incredible evidence of the young universe, confirming the predictions of the Big Bang theory. Therefore, the Big Bang theory is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, despite its pro-Christian implications.
And yet many in the church reject the Big Bang theory because they see it as contradicting the Bible. But the Bible says the universe began as nothing, and so does the Big Bang Theory.
And here’s an even bigger point. If you take what we can observe today, and the known laws of physics, and run the equations backwards in time, the universe collapses into nothing. Except not really nothing. There would be no matter, energy, or even time as we experience time (because time is part of the fabric of the universe), but there would still be the laws of nature. These exist outside the universe.
Now, the mathematical equations we call “laws” do not make the universe run. Rather, they only describe what happens. They don’t cause what happens to happen.
When I was in college, I worked on a program to play pool on a computer. The program required very complex calculations of momentum, kinetic energy, friction, elasticity, and so on. The computers of the 1970s could not do the math. But 16 ivory balls could.
The cue stick and balls do not do the math, but they somehow behave as a very complex set of equations require. And so the math describes reality but doesn’t cause reality. What does?
The Greeks had a word for it — the force behind the laws — that, as Stephen Hawking puts it — puts the fire into the equations. The Greeks called it the Logos.
It’s Jesus who makes the universe operate as it does, and for reasons known only to him, he likes for the universe to operate in ways describable mathematically.
(Col 1:16-17 NIV) 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
(Heb 1:3-4 ESV) 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
So science and the Bible agree. In fact, the Bible gives a far more satisfying description of the nature of things than science. The equations are just ink on paper until some power greater than the created universe makes the universe follow its laws.
Oh, and …
Are we suggesting that the creation account is allegorical and there really was no perfect garden or initial sinless state if man? Should we construct a glossary explaining what is true and what can’t be true? A playbook would be nice.
Jay wrote, “there would still be the laws of nature, because they exist outside the universe.”
Really, Jay? What evidence for the laws of nature outside the universe? Unless you claim to travel multidimensionally, or unless you claim to have made trips to and from heaven, even via visions, I fail to see your basis for such a claim.
Skip, you were supposed to have watched the video of John Walton at Harding. You wouldn’t need to ask if you watched the video.
Glenn, Watched but ran out of time to finish. I guess the end will clear everything up.
Laymond, The broken record keeps playing. 😉
Jay, I truly appreciate your two most important (or as you pointed out, cool) points: we are God’s image, and God’s priests. If we forget these while trying to make every jot and tittle of scripture into a fact of science we lose sight and purpose.
When we consider these truths, I believe, it helps us understand that salvation is not “becoming” a child of God, in the sense that we become something we were not, but is a coming into an awareness of what we have been from the beginning. I realize that some would point out that the gospel of John states that we were “given power to become Children of God”. But we have to consider the symbolic language of John as compared to what Jesus did stated in the other gospels, how his embrace of the sinner, the outcast, the poor, the rejected, and all others, reminded them of what they were. His parable of the prodigal Son is not a teaching of someone who wondered away from the church, but of a child who had forgotten who he was.
In Joni Mitchell’s song, Woodstock, her last line of the Chorus is, “We have to get ourselves back to the garden”, and that is what we should seek to do when reading Genesis 1, rather than wasting precious passion on trying to convince everyone that they MUST accept a literal time of perfection before God can accept them.
Well, I appreciate the differentiation between the logos and the Text. They are not the same.
Jay said, without hesitation, as if the knowledge were universal “It’s Jesus who makes the universe operate as it does”
Jay if as you say Jesus made everything for himself, and Jesus controls every action, Why is it that
only THE FATHER knows when the terrible day of destruction will occur ? I am not pushing my Christology, I have many questions about yours.
Laymond,
The texts on which I rely are quoted in the post. Here they are again,
(Col 1:16-17 NIV) 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
(Heb 1:3-4 ESV) 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Add to this John 1, in which Jesus is called Logos and the meaning of Logos in First Century Greek thought.
Finally, notice that these words are spoken long after the Ascension when Jesus is at God’s right hand and on the throne of the Universe.
Jesus statement that only God knows when the end will come is found in Matt 24:36. It’s not unreasonable to imagine that once Jesus was glorified in heaven and placed on the throne of heaven that this information would be revealed to him.
On the other hand, there is nothing in the verses quoted that requires Jesus to know when the end will come.
John,
NT Wright explains it in terms of becoming who we were always meant to be.
Interestingly, as you note, our re-creation, becoming “new creations,” is centered not on forgiveness but repurposing. Our function in God’s world is changed to serving as his image in this world, priests in his temple. He empowers us by his Spirit, but our becoming a new creation is keenly about our function changing.
Walton argues that in the Ancient Near East, and in Genesis 1, the creative acts — barat in the Hebrew — are about function — assigning to each part of the creation its proper function as a part of God’s temple. It’s an interesting thesis.
Laymond,
It was the man, Jesus, who said only the Father knows the day and the hour. Have you not read and do you not remember that to become flesh and live among us the Logos emptied Himself of His heavenly glory?
Glenn wrote,
Well, this is how I’ve read John 1, referring to Jesus, for decades. Jesus is outside the universe, and he holds all things together.
But the same conclusion is found in Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. Hawking is an atheist but nonetheless an excellent physicist.
Quantum effects happen because the laws of nature allow them to happen. The Big Bang is essentially a very big quantum effect. According to the physics, the Big Bang happened because the laws of nature permitted it to happen. This means, of course, that the laws are outside the universe — at least the laws of quantum mechanics.
Now, I’m not remotely satisfied with the claim that the laws of quantum mechanics are “God.” Indeed, even atheistic physicists find that an unsatisfying incomplete answer. I’ll address that issue further in future posts.
Jerry said “Have you not read and do you not remember that to become flesh and live among us the Logos emptied Himself of His heavenly glory?”
‘I’m sorry Jerry, but I don’t remember reading that in John 1 where most of your argument arise, but I do remember the following, and I do remember all the things Jesus did to show God’s glory.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I see where great things were added to Jesus, but sorry no emptying . If you explain more clearly I might see.
Laymond,
For one who preaches to others about our view of the relationship between the Father and the Son, you seem sadly uninformed with regard to major Christological passages – such as Philippians 1:5-11.
It’s good for us each to realize that God is and that Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, yet left the glory behind when He came to earth. I agree with what I see Jay teaching about creation. I see how what Genesis says about the days of creation are true. God is able to do whatever He chooses to do. God is not limited by human strengths and abilities to think and understand. That’s why He could do in an instant unimaginable things beyond our understanding. Jerry does well to point us to passages such as Philippians 1:5-11. Many others are not mentioned in this particular study but shed light on the Savior and His actions as God’s Word prior to His coming to earth as Jesus of Nazareth. Jay does well to remind us that Jesus is God.
Jerry, like I said I’m not discussing my thought on Jesus’ being and purpose, I know my own, I also know Paul’s, and yours is like neither Paul’s or mine. I was just wondering where it comes from. Your belief could not be anchored in what Paul said to the church at Philippi, maybe if you were to break it down as to what Paul really said. And as for my preaching, I never preach, but I do have an inquiring mind.
The laws of physics exist outside of the Universe in the sense that they are a part of the mind of God, I would assume. I think I get what Jay is saying about the Logos/John 1 relation to this as well. However, I don’t know if they exist outside of the Universe in that they are necessarily applicable outside of the Universe.
Justin,
“Outside the universe” is undefined insofar as science is concerned. For Christians, God is bigger than the universe and has an existence before there was a universe. The Big Bang, and physics in general, think of the laws of nature being outside the universe for reasons relating to quantum physics. I could do some lessons on it, but it’s hard to explain without a white board and such. But the conclusion should be obvious from the fact that there is nowhere else for the laws to be.
in my pool table example, is the law of conservation of momentum in the balls? the cue? the table? No, it’s outside of them, obviously. Nor is it in my physics textbook. It’s in the mind of God.
And when you reduce physics down to its most elemental form — quantum mechanics — the conclusion shouts itself at you. The laws of nature regulate nature, and so they aren’t nature. They are from the Logos.
Physicists do not argue otherwise, which is one reason why many physicists are believers. It is in fact a “mystery” for atheist scientists why the laws of nature work and are expressible mathematically. God is clearly the Prime Mathematician, and I don’t see anyway for science to reach a different conclusion.