6. Creation
6. Creation
1. What is creation?
That external work of God by which He has produced heaven and earth, that is, the universe, out of nothing and has imparted to all things their nature.
2. How do theologians divide the external works of God?
a) Some divide them into the works of creation and providence. The work of grace then falls under the latter. But there are objections to this division:
1. Grace becomes a subdivision of providence which, although it can be that, is less accurate.
2. It is as if one would separate the beginning of a thing from the rest of it. Creation must be understood more widely, as in the definition given above. It is not a bare beginning, but more. It is the once-for-all establishing of the natural order and is most closely connected with providence insofar as the latter is its continuation.
b) For these reasons better is the division into naturae opera and gratiae opera, works of nature (creation and providence) and works of grace (re-creation and the order of salvation). Both are in the decree of God and there find their unity, a unity that we in any case cannot indicate in its details.
3. Where does the doctrine of miracles belong?
Usually this subject has been treated under God’s providence because miracles form a contrast with God’s ordinary governance. But two considerations should be noted:
a) This is not the only point of view from which miracles can be considered. They are more than unordinary acts of God. Lying outside of the order of nature, they belong in fact to the higher order of things, to the kingdom of grace, accompanying revelation, and thus should be closely connected with the opera gratiae [works of grace].
b) Seen in this way, miracles are correlated with each other; they form a plan in which nothing is accidental.
4. Is the doctrine of creation an articulus purus [pure article] or an articulus mixtus [mixed article]?
Articuli puri [pure articles] are those that cannot be derived both from reason and from revelation but depend entirely on revelation. Articuli mixti [mixed articles] flow from both reason and revelation. The question then is whether creation can be proven by reason. That has been attempted by starting from the concept of God. God, one says, could not remain shut up within Himself. He needed a world in order to love it, etc. Such reasoning is not legitimate. As far as we can judge, had the creation remained nonexistent, God would have been all-sufficient, as He is now. We can certainly reason from the world up to God, but we cannot by logic descend from God to the world. We believe that creation, as an incomprehensible, almighty act, cannot be proven or deduced by us. Nature may lead us to a point where we must cease our investigation and have an inkling of something mysterious and completely unique in its kind, but we cannot logically conclude that this has been a creation out of nothing. Creation is an articulus purus. We understand this to be true of creation out of nothing, not of the idea of a forming of the universe by God in general.
5. In how many parts can we treat the doctrine of creation?
In three:
a) The significance of this doctrine in relation to the whole of Christian truth.
b) The scriptural data for this doctrine and its exposition.
c) A short discussion of deviating theories.
6. At what points does the doctrine of creation cohere with Christian truth in general?
a) The doctrine of creation emphasizes the transcendence of God. That God has created the universe out of nothing is the most powerful expression of the fact that He is distinct from the universe, is exalted above the universe, and exists in Himself as the all-sufficient One. “He gives to all life, breath, and all things.” Therefore what the doctrine of the Trinity proclaims with respect to God’s inner existence, the doctrine of creation proclaims to us outwardly.
b) The doctrine of creation teaches the infinity of God. The forms of finitude, in which all that is finite exists, namely time and space, have been created by God and may not be viewed as something in which He Himself exists by nature.
c) The doctrine of creation reminds us of the complete freedom and sovereignty of God toward the universe. If, as pantheists believe, the universe had grown out of God, had developed out of Him, then He would Himself be involved in the degeneration and decline of the world. But since He has created it in His freedom, we can be assured that everything in this world, in spite of all the error and sin of human beings, will necessarily serve to glorify Him. This teaches us, in the midst of our misery, the higher, the only true theological optimism. Again, that the creatures have been brought forth out of nothing proves that they cannot claim as valid over against God any rights they imagine to possess. All their rights rest precisely on what God, in accordance with His perfect nature, has given to them. Pantheism leads to a philosophy of what is right that makes the creature to share in God’s right, since the creature was eternally in God and present with God. Arminians say in principle that God has exactly as much right to us as He manifests benefits. We reverse that and say: Every right that God gives us is originally a benefit.
d) The doctrine of creation proves the omnipotence of God. Creating something out of nothing is an act of absolute, infinite power, something that completely transcends our concept of power (which is always tied to an object). The distance between being and nonbeing is an infinite distance. Therefore Scripture, in order to portray God’s power, very often points to creation. He is the Creator of the ends of the earth, who does not tire or grow weary. Therefore creating is also an exclusively divine work. Creaturely creating is a contradictio in adjecto [a contradiction in the adjective].
e) The doctrine of creation secures for the creature a certain measure of glory. Divine interest is expressed when the Lord prepares, as creator, to create, which is a free act. That the universe comes into being is not its fate, even less God’s; it is rather its creation. By the activity to which it owes its origin it is consecrated, the finger of God has touched and formed it, and in the midst of all its defection and sin the imprint of God’s finger clings to it. God stands toward it not as a gardener who lets a plant or flower grow, but as the artist who forms an image according to his own vision, whose work was first in his heart and whose heart is therefore reflected in his work.
f) The doctrine of creation forms the basis of the doctrine of revelation. A God who by a self-conscious act of freedom brings the universe into existence cannot desire to do anything other than to reveal Himself directly in an unmistakable way to the world thus created. A God who as Creator of the world maintains interest in the world will not let that world exist without proper, sufficient knowledge of Himself. Conversely, a God who is not apart from the world nor elevated above the world but is developing within the world first comes to consciousness slowly and imperfectly in the world.
There must be something awkward in a revelation conceived of in this way. Many today are forming a concept of revelation that clearly betrays its affinity with pantheism and may absolutely not be combined with the theistic doctrine of creation.
7. How many categories of scriptural data are there concerning the doctrine of creation? Two.
a) Texts spread throughout the whole of Scripture that speak of creation.
b) The detailed narrative in Genesis 1 and 2.
8. What belongs to the first category?
a) Texts that lay emphasis on what is new, previously not present, that appears as the product of creation (Exod 34:10; Num 16:30; Psa 51:12; Jer 31:22; Rev 4:11).
b) Texts that lay emphasis on the absolute, infinite power of God as revealed in the creation (Pss 33:9; 95:4–7; 121:2; Isa 40:26, 28; 41:20; 42:5; 45:12, 18; Jer 10:11; 32:17; Amos 4:13; Rev 10:6).
c) Texts that point to the exaltedness of God above the created world, attributing to Him an existence outside of and above it, thus to the transcendence of God (Pss 90:2; 102:26; 104:29; John 1:3; Acts 17:24; Rom 1:20, 25; Heb 1:10–12).
d) Texts that make mention of the creation as a work of wisdom (Job 28:24, 28; Isa 40:12–14; Jer 10:12–16; John 1:3; Heb 1:2).
e) Texts that present the creation as an organism infused with life (Pss 33:6; 104:30; Job 26:13; 33:4).
f) Texts that place the creation under the aspect of the sovereignty of God, demonstrating that He has created everything for His own sake (Isa 43:7; 45:18; Rom 1:25).
g) Texts that view the creation as something forward-looking, as a foundational act whereby the ordinances and laws of things are established once for all. The word for this is κτιζεῖν, “to found.” The creation as such is therefore κτίσις, a “founding,” “foundation.” From this a parallelism is developed between creation and re-creation: 1 Cor 11:9; 2 Cor 5:17; Col 1:16; 3:10; Eph 2:10, 15; 4:24; Gal 6:15, (κτίσις); Jas 1:18, (κτίσμα). In this sense the Greek fathers spoke of a first, a second, and a third creation, as a threefold laying of the foundation, through which a world order arises (1 = creation, 2 = regeneration, 3 = consummation of things).
9. Is it accidental that the Bible opens with a history of creation?
No. The reason for this, however, is not to be sought in the effort to bring everything up out of the deepest depth. Such a thought is foreign to Scripture. Scripture does not intend to be an encyclopedia for us. The doctrine of creation is presented here in connection with God’s saving revelation.
10. How many kinds of interpretation are there of Genesis 1 and 2?
Mainly three: the allegorical, the mythical and the historical. The first two views, however, are untenable because within the narrative of Scripture the creation narrative is interwoven like a link in the chain of God’s saving acts. God does not make a chain of solid gold, in which the first link is a floral wreath. If the creation history is an allegory, then the narrative concerning the fall and everything further that follows can also be allegory. The writer of the Pentateuch presents his work entirely as history. Against those that believe in the results of higher criticism, it can perhaps be useful to note that according to the critics who carve the Pentateuch into pieces, Genesis 1 belongs to the Priestly Codex, that is, to the more sober, nonpoetic part of the Torah. The same writer who describes the layout of the tabernacle and the clothing of the priests gives us the narrative of creation, and he connects both. Further, elsewhere in Scripture Genesis 1 and 2 are treated as history (Exod 20:11; 31:17; Pss 8; 104; Matt 19:4; 2 Pet 3:5). See also the Sabbath idea in the Letter to the Hebrews.
11. What is the mythical interpretation of the creation narrative?
That a conscious, intentional invention is not to be understood here but an unintentional, naive poetry that developed gradually and for those among whom it first formed was taken as reality. Valid objections against this view are the same objections made against the allegorical view.
12. How did Moses become acquainted with this creation narrative?
Certainly revelation is at its basis. Another question is whether that revelation was given to Moses or originated long before him. Many, such as Kurtz, Ebrard, Lange, and Hugh Miller maintain the first view and think that the entire revelation was shown to Moses in a vision. Thus, it is a prophecy in retrospect. Objections to this view are the following:
a) There is no analogy for such a retrospective vision in Scripture.
b) Visions in Scripture always have a symbolic element, whereas here we have pure history.
c) Visions in Scripture provide only bits and pieces of the history of the future, never a connected narrative.
d) How should one explain the marks of similarity between the biblical narrative and the creation sagas of pagan peoples? This similarity seems to demand that the creation story was known before Moses and that traces of it were preserved by pagans. Of course, if the narrative came to Moses completely or in part by tradition, this in no way detracts from the inspiration by which he was enabled to record it fully and infallibly.
13. Can one who rejects the allegorical and mythical interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 also fall into error on the other side?
Yes, some want to give a hyperscientific exegesis that satisfies the latest perception and newest fashion. All sorts of theories from physics, geology, and astronomy have been projected onto the narrative. Some maintain that the theory of evolution in its entirety is contained in these chapters. This is perhaps apologetic zeal, but it is bad exegesis. Every interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 must be justified exegetically. That science has discovered this or that, or thinks to have discovered it, is not enough to cause us to discover it in Genesis. The creation narrative provides pure truth, but in such a general form that it can serve equally for the instruction of God’s people in centuries past and His children at the present time. (The hyperscientific interpretation loses sight of that.) That is precisely what makes the creation narrative such a great artistic achievement of the Spirit of God.
14. How is the first verse of Genesis 1 to be interpreted?
“In the beginning” means “before all things.” Thus it does not refer back to subsequent deeds of creation, but speaks of the absolute beginning of time.
Concerning the creating mentioned here there are two explanations:
a) It is the initial bringing forth of material out of nothing, thus the so-called immediate creating, while in the following verses mediate creation is described.
b) It is a heading prefaced to the creation account. That is, first it is reported to us in general that God created heaven and earth and first in what follows is that further explained to us. We accept the first explanation, because:
1. Otherwise any reference to the first act of creation would be lacking.
2. The Hebrew word בָּרָא appears precisely to indicate the immediate creation in its divine uniqueness (see Num 16:30). In the qal form it is never used of human creating. That the basic idea is “to cut” is certainly true and to such extent refers to material out of which something has been cut. But that only shows that human language is unsuited for expressing with complete accuracy divine actions such as the act of creation. God must reveal Himself to man, must speak human language. Here He has at least chosen a word that comes closest to the reality in view.
3. “Heaven and earth” is equivalent to the universe, for which Hebrew does not have any word.
15. What more is contained in the twofold expression, “heaven and earth”?
Simultaneously this expression already contains a division. The creation at its first beginning, when everything was still intermixed, already lay under the goal to be split into two great spheres of heaven and earth. God draws lines from the beginning on. Even the chaos is called “heaven” and “earth.”
16. What does the so-called Restitution hypothesis want to maintain?
Focusing on Genesis 1:2, this hypothesis teaches that there was an original earth before there was the creation or preparation that is described from v. 3 on. It therefore translates v. 2, “the earth became formless and empty,” or “the earth had become formless and empty.” (The first translation is that of Kurtz and Zöckler.) The goal of this hypothesis is to harmonize Scripture with geology. The original earth became “formless and empty” by numbers of upheavals, before God prepared our earth. Against this view are the following considerations:
a) An undefined period of such earthly catastrophes is in conflict with God’s intention to make the earth a dwelling place for man (Isa 45:18). Such periods of emptiness are suitable only for a pantheistic development of the universe.
b) All the scientific objections are not solved by this hypothesis, in particular biological ones. Can there have been life on an earth without light?
c) [The Hebrew] tohu wabohu is a negative then positive expression, indicating what has yet to receive its form.
17. What has been done to remove the first objection?
The formlessness and emptiness of the earth is connected to the fall in the kingdom of the angels. But then men with their world become a kind of second experiment, after the failure of the experiment with the pure spirits. Scripture, however, nowhere presents matters in this way. Angels are obliging, etc.
18. How then do we interpret the second verse?
As the introduction to v. 3. It describes the state of the earth when God sent forth His first word of creation.
19. What is to be concluded from the fact that in v. 2 there is no further mention of heaven?
a) That the aim of the creation account is not astronomical but subordinate to the history of redemptive revelation.
b) That v. 1 cannot be a heading. If this were the case, then we would have to say that only half of the heading is treated.
20. What is said further concerning the chaos?
That it was a “roaring flood” or abyss (see Psa 106:9; Isa 63:13). From Psalm 104:6 it is clear that this expression must not be understood to refer to a muddy material, in which land and water are still thoroughly mixed together, but to a solid core of earth, flooded by water (see also 2 Pet 2:5).
21. Explain the words, “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters”?
The Spirit here is not a “wind from God,” sent out to dry what was created, for that is first spoken of in what follows. According to Psalm 33:6 it is the personal spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity (see Psa 104:30). The word translated by “hovering,” רָחַף, is used elsewhere of a bird that hovers protectively over its young (Deut 32:11). Already in the first instance where the Holy Spirit is mentioned in Scripture His activity is portrayed for us in an image borrowed from the kingdom of the birds, just as He elsewhere appears as a dove. Here “hovering,” “brooding,” has in view the stirring of life within lifeless material. The brooding of birds brings out very aptly that life originates from outside by fructification. In the world there is at first no life. The Spirit of God must hover above the roaring flood, for its roaring is a dead noise. But the Spirit of God hovers on and above the waters. He does not mingle with them. Even where God’s immanence comes to the fore, God and the world still remain unmixed.
22. What is the meaning of “And God said” (v. 3)?
a) One must compare these words with Psalm 33:6 and with the teaching of the New Testament regarding the creative activity of the Logos, the uncreated Word (John 1:3; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2). That God speaks indicates that God’s thought is going to form the chaos, that ideas are introduced concerning it. And that is precisely the particular work of the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity. As being is from the Father and life from the Spirit, so thought is from the Logos. Naturally this must be so understood that nevertheless the undivided ad extra [external] working of the three persons is maintained.
b) It can also include that God can call His works into being by a word of power, without exertion of effort.
c) It shows that the world is something outside God, something distinct from God. It appears at the Word of God. And the word is accompanied by thought; the external logos presupposes the internal logos.
23. What is the first thing called into being by this speaking of God?
Light. This is prerequisite, not only for the appearance of living beings where it shines, but for all distinguishing and grouping. Light is the image of clarity, of thinking. Consequently, the works of the Logos begin with the creation of light. The same connection, the same sequence, between life and light that we meet here we find in the work of re-creation, where regeneration and calling follow each other, just as in creation we see the hovering of the Spirit and the word of power, “Let there be light!”
24. What is said about this light?
“God saw that it was good.” God thus recognizes it as a faithful image of His own light-nature, for He is a light and there is no darkness in Him. Its being good consists in its likeness to God. It was not said of the chaos that it was good, nor is that said of the darkness in vv. 4 and 5.
25. How does light appear here?
As not yet concentrated in bodies of light (“lights”). It is thus something distinguished from its bearers. The sun has light, but is not light. Only of God is it said that He is light. According to Job 38:19 there is a place of light, and God asks Job if he knows the way to where light dwells (see also v. 12). The treasure of light of the Father of lights is thus much greater than we can conceive or can derive from sun and stars.
26. What is meant with the division between light and darkness (v. 4)?
The light must have its reverse if it is to become completely light. God’s naming “day” and “night” is naturally not to be understood as if God gave the two periods of time the Hebrew names יוֹם and לַיְלָה. God’s naming is something other. It is a naming that effects something from the outside; gives to things their specific, distinguishing character; makes them what they will continue to be. Augustine said: “All light is not day and all darkness is not night, but light and darkness following each other in regular order make day and night.” The naming of day and night means that therefore light and darkness now receive from God this rhythmic character by which they follow each other. And this physical rhythm, this natural contrast, without doubt reflects the series of spiritual contrasts there are between truth and lies, between good and evil, between beauty and ugliness.
27. How are we to understand, “And it was evening and it was morning, one day”?
It is not as if the first creation day began with evening, for a sufficient distinction would not be made between the preceding darkness and the night. It is probable that here the later, ordinary way of reckoning is not being followed (from evening to evening), but that the days run from morning to morning. The closing words of v. 5 then indicate successively the two halves of the first day. The first half closed with the evening, the second half with the morning.
28. Must the word “day” here be understood in the ordinary sense or in the sense of an indefinite period?
There has been much dispute about this point. Here, too, the decision must not be made dependent on geological considerations but on purely exegetical ones.
29. Is it right to say that the nonliteral interpretation is an innovation to which the development of modern science has driven theologians?
No, those who say that are mistaken. Augustine already said: “What kind of days they were is extremely difficult, or even impossible, for us to imagine, much less to say.”
30. To what is appeal made to support the nonliteral interpretation?
a) To the fact that sun and moon (or rather the rotation of the earth around its axis in relation to the sun) were not yet present. As we know, the length of an ordinary day is determined by this rotation.
b) To the indefinite use of the term “day” in other places in Scripture (Gen 2:4; 5:1; 2 Sam 21:12; Isa 11:16), also to the expression “day of the Lord” (= day of judgment) in the prophets, and to Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8.
c) To the analogy with other things of God. Here we have to do with God’s days. Now the “things of God” are certainly archetypical (exemplars) for the things of men, but they are not completely identical. Thus we have no right, it is thought, to judge that God’s days are like the days of men.
d) To the fact that the duration of God’s Sabbath is eternal. That is one of the days here, the seventh day. If the seventh day is not limited to 24 hours, then the six previous days need not be limited to that time span.
On these grounds many, including those who are not intent on a reconciliation of the Scripture with science, accept an extraordinary length for the creation days. This includes many church fathers and theologians of the Middle Ages, and, among more recent theologians, even Charles Hodge inclines to this view.
31. What supports the interpretation that takes “day” in its ordinary meaning?
a) The entire creation aimed at man as its completion. It is difficult to accept that preparing for this goal took thousands of years.
b) All the creation days must have been of the same length. Who can accept, however, that a day on which nothing else occurred than the separation between light and darkness was a day of thousands of years?
c) The fact that the sun and moon, as measures of time, were not present does not mean that there was no time. Already from the beginning God ordained a rhythm and created the light so that it would alternate with the darkness. When later this light was concentrated in the sun and the other bodies, we are told nothing about it being only then that the 24-hour day began. There was no change at that point. Therefore we have a reason for assuming that before that time the rotation of the earth took place at the same speed and that light was so positioned as was necessary for an alternation of day and night within 24 hours.
d) From v. 14 on the days are unquestionably ordinary days of 24 hours. There God says emphatically of the lights in the expanse that they will be “for days and years.” One might rescue the nonliteral view by assuming for the fourth to the sixth days an extremely slow rotation of the earth about its axis, but what about plant life during those long nights? The night has to have been half of the full day.
e) It is not accurate to say that the days are God’s days. God ad intra does not have days. Creation is an act proceeding outwardly from God. Appealing to the eternal Sabbath is also of no avail. Although God’s Sabbath is certainly endless, that cannot be said of the first Sabbath (after the six-day creation) for mankind.
f) The use of the term “day” in Genesis 9:4 is figurative, but in Genesis 1 figurative language is not used. What one must show is another place in Scripture where a first, a second, a third day, etc., are just as sharply separated and nevertheless describe periods of time. The “day of the Lord” in the prophets refers to a specific day—that is, a day on which the Lord appears for judgment, even though His judgment may last longer than one day.
32. Must someone who holds that the days are long time periods be regarded a heretic?
No, in this sense the question is not an essential one. It would only become so if it provided the occasion for granting priority in principle over the Word of God to the so-called results of science.
33. How is the work of the second day related to that of the third day?
By the fact that both works serve the same goal, namely to prepare the earth for the origination of life.
34. Does the separation on the second day have an additional significance?
Yes. Here again one of the lines is drawn whereby clarity and differentiation takes place in what is created. Here spatial relationships with their contrast of below and above are made clear. And these relationships between above and below reflect the relationship between heaven and earth. The rain, which as God’s blessing comes from above, is a symbol for heavenly blessings. Also, in relation to the Holy Spirit Himself an “outpouring” is spoken of. Thus Scripture also teaches us that almost all atmospheric processes come from God. It is His rain, His snow, His hail, His thunder, His lightning.
35. Does the expanse in view refer to a solid firmament?
No, it cannot be proven that Scripture is thinking of something like this with the word רָקִיעַ (Psa 104:2, “curtain”; Job 37:18, “mirror”). But one may not forget that the optical phenomenon of the expanse, although it is not held to be something solid, still represents a real idea. Limiting our view and our horizon, it reminds us, on the one hand, of our limitations and earthliness and, on the other hand, it places before our eyes, for our elevation and comfort, the heaven of God’s glory.
36. How should we understand the waters “above the expanse”?
For this reference has been made to Revelation 4:6; 15:2; 22:1. But whatever these heavenly waters may be, it is not conceivable that they are made of the same material as the earthly waters under the expanse. The simplest and most natural understanding is that they are clouds.
37. How many parts are there in the work of the third creation day?
Two: (a) the separation of water and land on the earth; (b) the producing of plant growth on the resultant dried land.
The first will have occurred either by the elevation of land masses, or by the sinking of the sea floor, or by both at the same time (Psa 104:8).
A formal naming follows the separation of land and water, as above (Psa 104:9). The great chaos, the tehom, was not yet the sea, just as the darkness in itself was not yet night. The tehom, the “roaring flood,” did not yet possess those characteristics by which the ocean affects us aesthetically. The grand poetry of the sea in its distinctiveness is willed by God. It shows us the eternal majesty and self-sufficiency of the Lord. That is why seeing the sea has a calming influence. In the presence of this picture of the sublimity and infiniteness of God one feels lifted above all petty cares and thoughts and loses himself in the sovereign will of God. At the same time, the way the ocean is prevented from overflowing the land is a proof of God’s power that set this boundary for the sea (see Job 38:8–11; Psa 65:8).
With respect to the second part of the work on this day, one may note that the earth can only bring forth plant growth because seeds were already planted earlier when the Spirit was hovering. Three kinds of plants are distinguished:
a) דֶּשֶׁאּ, so-called cryptogams, that is, flowerless plants that do not fertilize each other in the usual way.
b) עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע, “seed-sowing herbs,” that is, herbs and grains that grow in gardens and fields.
c) Fruit trees, that is, every fruit-bearing tree in the widest sense of the word. And all this is “according to its kind.” מִין comes from a verb that means “split, divide.” “Kind,” then, is intended to substantiate a fixed idea, thought of in contrast to other “kinds.” Pluriformity, not simplicity, is the starting point. This is opposed to the hypothesis of evolution that derives everything from simplicity and sees forms as the chance product of matter, forms that appear and disappear, while only matter is eternal. Rather, Scripture teaches that matter exists for the sake of forms. The merging of kinds is a “degeneration,” a violating of the creation ordinance that made everything “according to its kind.”
38. What belongs to the work of the fourth day?
a) The making of the “lights” or “light-bearers,” מְאֹרֹת, φωστῆρες (Septuagint). These are the substantial objects, but the material for them will have been present earlier. Perhaps the “lights” were created out of superearthly materials. Does the narrative here speak of all the stars, including those that are invisible to the naked eye? That cannot be proven. Strictly speaking, mention is made here only of those heavenly bodies that give light and are signs for the earth. Reserve is fitting for us here. We have no right to maintain that the earth is the center of all heavenly bodies. On the other hand, the little earth is certainly a center. And that involves nothing incongruous. God does not reckon merely quantitatively. The world constantly plays up what it deems matters of great magnitude against the smallness of God’s work. But God is a personal God, not a universal cosmic being, and it is the prerogative of His personality if He is divinely partial, choosing earth, as it were, over against the heavenly bodies.
b) Determining the assigned role of these bodies. This perhaps contains, in advance, a protest against all pagan superstition regarding these spheres. Their purpose is positive:
1. To separate between day and night. It is not as if day and night had not existed earlier. But now for the first time light is concentrated in the day and makes its full and specific appearance. The sun begins to rule over the day and the latter must comply with the sun. The earth now receives its light specifically from above. The night, which before this appears to have been completely dark, now receives a light as well.
2. To be signs, אֹתֹת. They are thus a kind of writing, written by God in the sky with His fingers. These signs indicate the climate, the weather and its changes, and sometimes by their constellations or by their sudden appearances proclaim important events in advance. There is, however, their misuse (Jer 10:2; see, however, Matt 2:2; Luke 21:25).
3. To be for set times, מוֹעֲדִים. This has in view the rhythm of the seasons and what is connected to the seasons in activities like farming, raising cattle, or commerce. The moon, too, has significance here, insofar as it regulates the months, and by it the festival times in Israel will be calculated (Psa 104:19; Jer 8:7).
4. To be for days and years, that is, for determining the lengths of the days and for measuring the length of a year.
c) Establishing the significance of a part of these bodies for organic life on earth. They are “to give light upon the earth.” Therefore the sun and moon are called “the great lights,” since they provide a large amount of light upon the earth, not so much because of their size. It is simply a question of how big they appear on earth, what they are for us.
39. What follows on the fifth creation day?
On the fifth day birds and fish appear, of which the first belong to the sky, the second to the water. Here there is a backward glance to the separation of the second and third day, respectively. Heaven and water were there before the dry land, therefore they are the first to be populated. There is also a correspondence of organic structure between water animals and animals of the air. They are transient and mobile and share these characteristics with their distinctive element and with each other, in contrast to the stability of the earth. They also are similar in the way they reproduce. We read, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,” that is, “full of schools of fish.” Nothing is said about what such birds and fish are made of. “In the expanse of heaven” means “air,” for which Hebrew does not have a word. “Birds” and “fish” of course mean all water animals and flying animals. Scripture recognizes that here a higher level of organic life appears. Therefore these products are addressed and blessed. The animals are spoken to, while the plants were only spoken of. The animals have נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, “living soul,” or, more properly, are “living soul”; sentient life is concentrated in them. Here, too, the creation is a creation in sorts, “according to its kind.” It does not appear that for every kind only one pair was created. Rather the opposite is to be derived from the text. The animals could have been created at the same time in different places on earth. In the case of the creation of man it was different. There the creation of one pair at one point was necessary.
40. What belongs to the sixth creation day?
The creation of land animals and of men. Land animals are of three kinds:
a) בְּהֵמָה; large, tame animals. Thus man is not related to all animals in the same way; there are tame and wild animals. God shows this by creating tame animals as a separate class, and man has commensurate responsibilities toward these animals. It is not a matter of indifference how man treats them. In בְּהֵמָה, from בהם, “to be mute,” there is an indication of the benign character of these tame animals.
b) “Creeping animals,” that is, creeping animals on land, for there are also creeping animals in the oceans.
c) חַיְתוֹ־אֶרֶץ; “wild animals of the ground.” This need not indicate “ferocious animals”—here again “according to their kind.” The animal world is most closely connected with the earth on which it lives. Therefore, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures.” Such language does not occur later concerning man.
41. In what in particular does the importance of the creation of man appear?
In the solemn words of deliberation that precede, “Let us make man after our image and after our likeness.” For the meaning of “us,” see the doctrine of the Trinity. Man is intended to reveal the image of God, also insofar as He is a triune God. The Logos and the Spirit specifically have, with the Father, placed their stamp on man.
42. Is there a difference between the expressions “image” and “likeness”?
No, both expressions say the same thing and reinforce each other. Should one wish to make a distinction, one may say, “in our image,” בְּצַלְמֵנוּ, that is, “in the quality of the image of God, as God’s image.” For this meaning of the preposition בּ, see Exodus 6:3, “as God almighty,” בְּאֵל שַׁדָּי; Psalm 35:2, “rise up as my help,” בְּעֶזְרָתִי; Isaiah 40:10, “as a mighty one,” בְּחָזָק; Psalm 37:20, “as smoke,” בֶעָשָׁן. The second expression, “after our likeness,” כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ, does not refer to the image in man, but to the knowledge of the image that is present in God’s consciousness of God Himself and after which man is created as after a model.
43. Does the image of God consist in dominion over the lower creation?
No, this dominion is certainly brought into connection with the image of God and depends on the image, but it is not the image. Also, the reference here is not to all dominion but to that which all human beings possess equally by virtue of their being human. Compare, on the other hand, 1 Corinthians 11:7–8, where the reference is to an image and ruling in another sense, specifically with the male person in view. The dominion man has over the lower creation is not the same as the dominion God has, and therefore cannot constitute the image of God.
44. What is made evident by the fact that creation after the image of God is mentioned first?
That the image of God lies above the distinction between man and woman, in what is human in general and belongs to woman as well as man.
45. What is the sense of the distinction here between “man” and “woman”?
It appears here as a natural distinction of gender and does not yet come into view as an ethical relationship with marriage in view. That comes later. Therefore here, זָכָר and נְקֵבָה; later, אִישׁ and אִשָׁה.
46. What was the original mandate according to the creation ordinance for man?
To subdue the earth, thus to lead an active, industrious life. Naturally such work is meant by which powers are not exhausted but multiplied.
47. Of what did the food of man consist according to v. 29?
From seed-bearing plants and from trees with seed-bearing fruit. Thus, vegetables for food. See the later command after the flood. Also, for the future, Isaiah 11:6ff. When food in heaven is mentioned, whether figuratively or where sacramental food is mentioned, Scripture always speaks only of plant food.
48. May we conclude from this that originally animals were immortal?
No, that would be to conclude too much. But certainly death with pain, the groaning of the creature (Rom 8:20), first entered the creation later with sin. In the plant world death certainly existed before the fall.
49. Is it not true that the human body is designed for the use of animals as food?
One may not reason back from the current condition of the body to its original design. Sin has brought about a radical change. As an organism man stands in the middle between plant-eating and flesh-eating animals. He can, if need be, still live only from plants.
50. Why is it said at the end that everything was “very good” (v. 31), while earlier everything is said to be merely “good”?
Because each product of creation, corresponding to God’s higher idea, was nevertheless in its isolation not the complete expression of that idea. The idea of the world that God willed to realize was a harmonious whole. Only in the whole can the crowning goodness, which is spoken of here, be present.
51. What elements are there in the “resting” of God?
a) A negative element of ceasing from creating.
b) A positive element of taking pleasure in the finished work. This element is essential for the scriptural concept of “rest.” When the work is finished and the supervisor looks upon it with inner satisfaction, then his capacities rest, and, still, he is all eyes, all ears, all attentiveness, all admiration. He focuses all his energies on what he made in order to comprehend it and to penetrate it. This for the first time is true rest, and so is the rest of God, the joy with which He recognizes and greets the created world as the image of His own glory. The rest of God is thus not a withdrawing of the Lord into the depths of His being, from which He had emerged in order to create. When God is refreshed at the sight of His work, then that look of enjoyment goes out as a blessing over the creation, and man, in whose consciousness the creation is reflected, receives in his heart that peace, as sharer in the Sabbath of God. That is the meaning of the “blessing” of the Sabbath.
52. What do some claim about the creation narrative in Genesis 2?
That it is not only independent of Genesis 1 but also at different points contradicts this chapter, since it comes from another source. Here, they say, man is created first (2:7). Here the earth is dry before the growth of the plants. Adam is first created separately.
53. How is this claim to be answered?
That there is no difference, if we only keep in view that Genesis 2 is not nor does it intend to be a creation narrative. The name תּוֹלְדוֹת (v. 4) never means the “birth” of something in the sense of its “beginning,” but always the “births” [plural] of something, that is, its history after it has already originated. The expression stems from the time when history was still a description of generations, that is, in its most primitive form (Gen 10:1). Genesis 2:4 is thus a heading for what follows and not the conclusion of what precedes. And here only as much of what precedes is recapitulated as is necessary to understand what follows. Given that understanding, we can account for all the differences between Genesis 1 and 2.
54. Is creation a work of the Father only?
No, as an external [ad extra] work it is to be attributed to the triune God. Economically, however, it can be ascribed to the Father. The Father appears in the economy of God, especially in the economy of grace, as our Judge. And He is that as our Creator. As far as the act of creation is concerned, we observe that the three Persons of the divine being work together. From the Father, then, as we noted above, comes being, the bringing forth of substance out of nothing; from the Son comes individuated being, the idea; from the Spirit, living being. In this sense the creating of the substance of the spirits is permanently attributed to the Father, while the Son as Logos enlightens each of these spirits that comes into the world, and the Spirit of God causes the spirits to live. In re-creation this is likewise the case (see 1 Pet 1:3).
In the creation of the universe by the triune God lies the guarantee that nature also, as far as it extends, provides a trustworthy revelation of the being of God. It is not as if the natural revelation must lead to Unitarian results and then suddenly, in a totally unprepared fashion, the idea of the Trinity appears before us on the basis of God’s supernatural revelation. The more and better we get to know nature, the more will we be brought face to face with the triune God.
55. Is creation an eternal act?
No, as a transitive act of God that has an object outside of God, it is an act in time, at least an act that coincides with the beginning of time. It is certainly true that in God’s being itself no time distinction exists, and that thus creation, too, as an activity of God, may not be drawn within time. But that kind of eternity is proper to all of God’s acts. One must only hold that the creation is not eternal in the same sense, for example, as the generation of the Son is eternal and the decrees are eternal. The latter not only proceed from eternity but also remain within eternity; they terminate with something eternal. That is not the case with the creation.
56. Does not the creation of the universe detract from the immutability of God?
No, when Scripture appears to speak as if there is a succession and change in God Himself, it is expressing itself in a human way. For example, in Psalm 90, where the absolute eternity of God is taught so clearly, it is however also said, “Before the mountains were born and You had brought forth the earth and the world, yes, from everlasting to everlasting You are God.” (v. 2). The word “before” appears to introduce time into eternity, but that is because of the weakness of human language.
One must distinguish between active and passive creation (creatio activa and passiva). The former has in view the act of creating in God, the latter, the universe as created. Of the former Voetius says, “Creation, actively considered, is not a real change because by it God is not changed by that act; it only requires a new relationship of the Creator to what is created. And this new relation, which is not real in God, can therefore not effect a real change in Him.” And Wollebius says: “The creation is not a change in the Creator, but a change in the creature, a change from potential being to actual being.”
57. If God’s act of creating does not take place in time, how then can the passive creation, what has been created, manifest a distinction in time between its different parts?
The reason lies in the distinction in order that was conceived and willed in God’s act of creating. Included in God’s idea of creation and in God’s will to create is that one thing follow the other, and therefore in passive creation there is a sequence of time corresponding to this logical order in God. In other words, time and differences of time are products of creation, not the forms in which the creating God Himself moves.
58. How must we answer the question: Could God have created the universe earlier or later?
Here, too, one must distinguish between active and passive creation. As far as the universe’s being created is concerned, this could have occurred earlier or later, if God had so willed. On the other hand, as far as the creativa activa, the creating act of God, is concerned, this could not have happened earlier or later by hastening or delaying the existence of the universe. We may not posit time before the existence of the universe, whereby something would have been taken away if the universe had been there earlier, or where something would have been added if the universe had come into existence later. There is no time before creation. There is only eternity, and time can make no intrusion into eternity, no creature can by its existence or nonexistence add something or take away something from eternity. Already Augustine said very accurately, “Without doubt the world did not come into existence in time, but with time” (De Civitate Dei [The City of God], 10.6).
59. Is it possible to defend the doctrine of an eternal creation (as product)?
As is well known, this was defended by Origen. Others have viewed it as an open question, that is to say, philosophically, apart from the witness of Scripture; so, Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus.
Against this doctrine are the following considerations:
a) The concept of an eternal creation cannot be reconciled with that of a creation out of nothing. Of itself the idea of creation out of nothing includes a transition from nonbeing to being.
b) The concept of an eternal creation leads to a confusion of creation and providence. If the universe is from eternity and nevertheless created, then it is also eternally created and is continually being created. Providence then becomes a continuous creation, or creation eternal providence, which amounts to the same thing.
c) An eternal existence of the world conflicts a priori with the theological character of world history. A history is something that must have a beginning and an end. We can conceive of an ocean of motionless water as having no shore, but for a swiftly moving stream we ask about its beginning and end.
Other arguments are less convincing. Some argue that if the universe were eternal, there would no longer be a difference between creation and the generation of the Logos. But the distinction would remain that the creation is out of nothing, while the generation of the Logos is out of the being of God. Also, it is hardly convincing to say that the eternity of the universe limits God in His eternity and infinity. God’s infinity is in any case of a completely different sort than a universe without a beginning (see H. E. Gravemeijer [Leesboek over de Gereformeerde Geloofsleer] in the section where he discusses this issue).
60. How does Scripture speak about this question?
Genesis 1 speaks of an absolute “beginning.” Similarly, John 1 speaks of a “beginning,” in which the Word was through whom all things were made (v. 3). When Origen helped himself by assuming a series of worlds before this world, this idea is in conflict with what Psalm 90 says, “Before the mountains were born … from everlasting to everlasting You are God.” Behind this universe lies no other, but rather eternity.
61. Is the universe created out of nothing or out of already existing material?
Out of nothing, and that indeed out of nihil negativum [negative nothing]. Philosophers, it is true—Plato, for instance—have sometimes spoken of a nothingness that is only relative, compared with a higher reality. That was called nihil privativum [privative nothing]. By nothing was meant a certain kind of reality. The expression “out of nothing” does not come from the canonical Scriptures but from 2 Maccabees 7:28 in the Latin Vulgate, “ex nihilo.” See Sapientia Solomonis [Wisdom of Solomon] 11:18, where mention is made of creation out of formless matter, which however could refer to the second creation. For creation out of nothing Hebrews 11:3 is emphatic.
62. What is the difference between first and second creation?
The same as the difference between immediate and mediate creation (creatio prima sive immediata; creatio secunda sive mediata). The former refers to bringing matter out of nothing; the latter to the further preparation of created matter. For both the word “creation” is used. The ongoing creation of spirits belongs to the first, immediate creation.
63. What are the main divergent theories regarding the origin of the universe?
a) The dualistic theory. God formed the universe from something that existed along with Him from eternity. Sometimes this matter is seen as ethically evil. Objections to this theory are the following:
1. Matter is not worthy to be made absolute and eternal in this manner, much less evil matter or matter as evil. Only matter that is the product of the eternal Spirit is acceptable, not an eternal, blind matter, which then must be evil per se. The latter is the view of Plato and Aristotle.
2. The law of parsimony prohibits accepting two basic principles, where one can suffice.
3. Creation out of nothing does not violate the law of causality. For the law of causality does not teach us that all matter must come from other matter but only that all change must have a cause. Thus every origin must also have a cause. The cause of the origin of the material of the universe lies in the creating act of God.
4. For dualism, which teaches the eternity of a spiritually evil principle, every guarantee is lacking that the good will maintain the upper hand in the world. What is absolute and eternally necessary, we should say, cannot perish. Such an eternal antithesis does not allow itself to be removed by anything in world history, no matter how long it lasts.
b) The emanation theory, the doctrine that the universe flowed out of God. Here God and the universe are one in principle. The emanation is pantheistic. God is called the absolute insofar as the universe has not yet emerged from Him. This theory can be worked out in different ways, each according to whether it is based on identity pantheism or idealistic pantheism.
A particular, more recent form of this theory distinguishes in God between form and matter. Form is the divine spirit. Matter is the so-called “nature” in God. For the universe, form comes out of God’s form, matter out of God’s matter. Thereby God is thought of as self-conscious, which is usually denied by pantheism. The transition from form and matter in God to form and matter in the universe is pictured as an overflowing of God, although others speak of an act of His free will. Rothe is one of the proponents of this theory.
The emanation idea originates in the East, the theory of evolution in the West. The path of the former runs from above to below, the path of the latter is the reverse. The theory of evolution is atheistic, the emanation theory is pantheistic. We oppose these systems on the following grounds:
1. They do not do justice to God’s transcendence and mix God and the universe.
2. The infinity of God’s infinity is changed into God’s being everything. And God does not remain infinite, since He can be just as little outside the universe as the universe can be outside Him.
3. The more recent form of this theory, such as we find it in Rothe, consciously shifts dualism into God Himself, something to which all emanation theory must lead if it in some sense wants to maintain the distinction between God and the universe. “Matter,” however refined it may be, is present in God. And this matter, a part of God, will have to descend outside God to become a lower form. Thus, a “fall” in God or out of God.
4. The emanation theory robs God of His sovereignty as well as His omnipotence. The concept of revelation is completely falsified by it. It makes God to be a partner of all the evil, both ethical and physical, that is in the universe.
5. The concept of moral evil is completely modified, since God is no longer thought of as a personal being.
6. The only true emanation, in the higher sense of the word, lies within the triune being of God Himself. But there are differences between emanation and generation. They differ:
a. In the object: In emanation it is finite, in generation, infinite.
b. In the object: In emanation it is impersonal, in generation, personal.
c. In the subject: In emanation it is impersonal, in generation and spiration, personal.
d. In the outcome: Son and Holy Spirit remain within the being of God, the emanated universe falls out of God.
c) The theory of evolution. This theory claims that everything has developed, and is still developing, from a single instance of matter by the working of certain natural laws. The theory of evolution, however, does not have an answer to the question where that matter and those laws come from. It can therefore not be a substitute for the doctrine of creation and is based, moreover, on deism or pantheism.