CREATION AND ONGOING SALVIFIC ACTION
The action of God in Genesis I is then more than a bit of information about the origins of the world. It reveals to us something about what we have to expect from God in the ongoing process of history.
Creation
is a promise of God’s continuing availability and involvement. Clayton observes: “The same God who worked
the mighty acts of creation is pro nobis, continually present with us
through the Spirit.”1
Simkins
notes “. . . The biblical authors have
presented the human condition and redemption in terms of God’s activity in
creation . . . creation in the Bible therefore serves as a paradigm or model of
the human condition and of redemption.”2
In this paper we will seek to relate creation to the ongoing divine salvific action.
It is not by chance that the Bible opens with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” or that historic Christian creeds do the same, such as the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth,”3 or the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth of all that is seen and unseen,”4 or that contemporary affirmations of faith begin in the same way, such as the statement of the United Church of Canada: “We are not alone, we live in God’s world. We believe in God who has created and is creating,”5 or that of the Korean Methodist Church: “We believe in one God, creator and sustainer of all things, Father of all nations, the source of all goodness and beauty, all truth and love.”6
I say it is not by chance because there is perhaps no more fundamental affirmation about God than that of Creator. It is the bedrock, the foundation on which all other affirmations about Him are made. The opening chapters of Genesis present the main pillars upon which the Christian faith rests. However, the motif of creation, important as it is in the Bible, is nevertheless only introductory to what follows. It is introductory to the central theme of scripture – redemption. Genesis is but a prologue to the historical drama (the Exodus in the Hebrew Bible and the redemptive sufferings and resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament) that unfolds itself in the ensuing pages of the Bible.
II. CENTRALITY OF THE CREATION MOTIF
The word “introductory” is used in a relative sense. Creation references are generally assigned to the later texts of the Old Testament: The Priestly writings, Deutero-Isaiah, and late Psalms. Since the creation motif is considered chronologically late, it is therefore considered theologically secondary.
We need not enter into a lengthy discussion of the issues here. Gerhard von Rad maintains that “The Yahwistic faith of the OT is based on the notion of election and therefore primarily concerned with redemption.”7
Historical acts of liberation are central to the faith of Israel with creation in a cosmic sense at best peripheral. Even von Rad admits that the doctrine of creation is indeed early,8 he subordinates it to soteriology,9 providing for a sharp separation of creation from soteriology and of cosmology from history.
H. H. Schmid assigns to creation theology a much more central theological significance. He states that “ancient Near Eastern cosmic, political, and social order find their unity under the concept of ‘creation.’”10 He notes that the creation accounts of the ancient Near East did not deal primarily with the origin of the world. Rather these accounts were concerned with the present world and with order – the order of the state and legal order.11 Israel, he claims, basically shared that thinking even though expressing it in her own way.12 Such a thrust leads Schmid to conclude:
All factors considered, the doctrine of creation, namely, the
belief that God has created and is sustaining the order of the
world in all its complexities, is not a peripheral theme of
biblical theology but is plainly the fundamental theme. What
Israel experienced in her history and what the early Christian
community experienced in relation to Jesus is understood
and interpreted in terms of this one basic theme . . . . All
theology, even when it does not speak expressly of creation
but speaks of faith, justification, the reign of God, or whatever,
if it does so in relation to the world..13
In the words of Bultmann: “The doctrine of creation is not a speculative cosmology, but a confession of faith, of faith in God as Lord.14
III. THE HERMENEUTICS OF THE CREATION MOTIF
It is perhaps strange, having noted the importance of the creation motif and its place in theology now to suggest that the texts associated with this motif are often difficult to interpret. But indeed they are. Two factors contribute to this difficulty.
First, the creation passages are often influenced by or cast in mythopoeic language which does not readily yield to the speculative thought patterns of the western world. Traditional doctrinal or philosophical questioning raise issues not addressed by the poetic character of biblical language.15
Even more significant is the way biblical language functions in its given literary contexts or circles of tradition associated with a passage. Anderson observes “There are various theological dimensions to the biblical creation faith, though not all need to be present at one time or in one text.”16
Moltmann concurs with Anderson, noting that:
It is a biblicist misunderstanding of the biblical tradition to
think they are laying down once and for all particular findings
about nature, and render all further research superfluous….
Stories of creation belong within a hermeneutical process of
revision and innovation, as the result of new experiences….
They offer themselves for productive new interpretation and
for their development. So it is not merely possible to relate
the biblical testimonies about creation and God’s history with
His creation, to new insights about nature, and new theories
about the interpretation of these insights; it is actually neces-
sary to make this connection, and to reformulate the biblical
testimonies in the light of these things.17
Such an openness, given the advances in and the aggressiveness of
science, compels not only a revisiting of initial creation but a renewed
interest in God’s ongoing creative activity. Moltmann suggests a tripartite
approach to creation: CREATIO ORIGINALIS, CREATIO CONTINUA, CREATIO NOVA.18
IV. CREATION ORIGINALIS
Due to space restraints we will essentially limit our tripartite treatment primarily to Genesis l. Martin Luther once said of Genesis l that “it contains matters of the utmost importance” and yet was “very difficult to understand.”19 He cites Jerome’s assertion20 that among the Hebrews it was forbidden for anyone under thirty to read the chapter or to expound it for others. They must have a good knowledge of the entire Scripture before tackling this chapter.21 But, Luther notes, this practice did not achieve any-
thing worthwhile for in the commentaries of the Jewish Rabbis “men twice thirty and even older prattle most childishly about these extremely important matters.”22
But Luther does not spare Christian exegetes. He maintains that there was none in the church before him “who has explained everything in the chapter with adequate skill. The commentators, with their sundry, different, and countless questions, have so confused everything in the chapter as to make it clear enough that God has reserved His exalted wisdom and the correct understanding of this chapter for Himself alone….”23 He concludes by declaring that God “has left with us this general knowledge and that it was created by God out of nothing.”24
Perhaps I should yield to Martin Luther and quit my paper at this point. One needs only to survey the voluminous literature here to recognize the truth of Luther’s claim that commentators have confused everything in this chapter. But the fact that we keep trying (Luther himself was not deterred, devoting 73 pages to Genesis l in his Lectures on Genesis l-5)25 reflects our belief that the text was written to be understood.
But anyone who would claim to offer an interpretation of Genesis l must do so with considerable caution.
Indeed, the text of Genesis l is rich and subtle but perhaps more significant in accounting for the many different interpretations is the baggage that the interpreters bring with them. Armed with all our modern skills, methods, procedures, biases, and knowledge we approach Genesis l to make sense out of it. Instead of being characterized by humility we often reflect a spiritual or intellectual arrogance. This ancient text must yield to and must fit our theological prejudices or our modern intellectual advances.26
Genesis l has been subjected to all sorts of comparisons with the latest scientific findings, resulting in, on the one hand, a rejection of the account as the myth of a prescientific culture and, on the other hand, a demonstration of the amazing scientific correctness of its pronouncements. Two groups, each regarding themselves as pre-eminently scientific, view the text through the lenses of conflicting orthodox paradigms – same text but differing presuppositions and paradigms, resulting in conflicting conclusions. These antithetic conclusions reflect an amazing mutual arrogance.
The secular mind sees this as a head-on clash between prejudiced religionists and open-minded scientists (scientific imperialism) while the fundamentalist views this as one more joust between God and Satan (biblical literalism).27
It seems most unlikely that Genesis I has waited in obscurity all of these many years for modern science to provide its meaning. Our contemporary preoccupations could hardly have been the preoccupations of ancient Israel.28
More likely the understanding of this passage should follow the inner-biblical (Old and New Testaments) interpretation of it and the deployment of its language and symbols to present God’s present and future creative acts of salvation. Such a biblical use warns against a restriction of Genesis l to CREATIO ORIGINALIS.
This inner-biblical understanding of Genesis l is caught by Nahum Sarna: “Genesis is but a prologue to the historical drama that unfolds itself in the ensuing pages of the Bible. It proclaims, loudly and unambiguously, the absolute subordination of all creation to the supreme Creator who thus can make use of the forces of nature to fulfil His mighty deeds in history. It asserts unequivocally that the basic truth of all history is that the world is under the undivided and inescapable sovereignty of God….the Genesis Creation…ensures that there is a divine purpose behind creation that works itself out on the human scene.29
V. CREATIO CONTINUA
Gilkey observes: “the belief that God’s creative activity was not just ‘once upon a time’ in the remote past, but a continuing factor in the ongoing life of nature and of culture, has been an extremely valuable theological contribution.”30
Moltmann concurs, insisting that:
If we are trying to find a new interpretation of the Christian
doctrine of creation in the light of the knowledge of nature
made accessible to us by evolutionary theories, we must
distinguish more clearly than did the traditional doctrine of
creation between creation in the beginning, continuous crea-
tion, and the consummation of creation in the kingdom of
glory. This distinction has to be made if we are to be able
to survey the process of creation as a whole.31
This emphasis on continuous creation resists labelling God’s present creative works as simply preservation. While the “unremitting creating activity of God” includes preservation, it also includes innovation.32
Words and symbols of original creation from Genesis l are used biblically to depict this continuous creation, both in its preserving and innovating dimensions.
A.
CREATION
Bara’, the unique word for divine[1] creativity, is used strategically in
Genesis l. It is used in the initial superscription34 and in the colophon.35
Between them it is used of the creation of animals36 and of humans.37
Bara’ appears twenty times38 in Deutero-and Trito Isaiah where it takes historical powers and events as its objects. As Bernhardt notes: “Yahweh’s activity in history obtains the quality of the nonpareil work of the creator God.”39
While humankind as a whole is said to be created by God,40 here, in Deutero-Isaiah, the emphasis is on Yahweh’s creation of Israel.41
But not only a people created, also circumstances created now for the return from Babylonian exile.42 Such a return necessitates a transformation (creation) of the wilderness into a fruitful woodland.43 It is God who creates the conditions in which salvation and righteousness thrive.44 Even the very weapon and those who used them against Israel have been created by God.45
The prayer of the Psalmist, for a “clean heart” also employs bara’.46
He is in need of inward renewal and thus asks to be made over, beginning with his heart, resulting in a renewed loyalty.
Thus the word bara’ is used more frequently in the Old Testament for “God’s creation of liberation and salvation in history than for the initial creation of the world.”47 But as Anderson notes: “Creation and redemption belong together as the obverse and reverse of the same theological coin.”48
B.
CHAOS
In primordial antiquity the universe consisted of water. The Hebrew
word for this primeval sea is tehom, having a close correspondence to Tiamat, the Babylonian name for the chaos monster. While the personifying of chaos is given up in Genesis l, nevertheless God is seen as subduing and controlling the sea. But even more critical to this paper is God’s utilization of the sea.
In Exodus 15, the Song of the Sea, the cosmological language of chaos appears. Here the sea is not seen as an adversary but as an instrument of God – an instrument that He uses against Pharaoh’s army in the act of the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. Cassuto sees here a suggestion of the ancient chaos myth, suggesting “not only a mighty act of the Lord against Pharaoh and his host, but also an act of might against the sea, which was compelled to submit to His will.”49
This same motif of deliverance is also
applied by Deutero Isaiah to the return from Babylonian exile.50Chaos then is another creation theme
that is employed biblically to describe God’s redemptive and salvific acts.
C. SPIRIT
The Hebrew word ruah appears in Genesis l where it is variously translated as “wind from God,” spirit of God” and “mighty wind.” The involvement of the Spirit in creation is equally apparent in the Psalmist’s words:
When you hide your face, they are dismayed. When you take
away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you
send forth your spirit they are created; and you renew the face
of the ground.52
Moltmann observes that “according to the biblical traditions all divine activity is pneumatic in its efficacy.”53 The Nicene Creed reflects this emphasis by characterizing the Holy Spirit as “the giver of life.”54
The Spirit’s involvement with life is seen in Ezekiel where the exiles perceive of their nation as dead. The prophets addresses their pessimism by noting the energizing Spirit. Here ruah is translated as Spirit,55 as breath,56
and as wind/winds.57 The dead nation is revived and reborn, reflecting the redemptive and salvific work of God.
The same phenomenon is found in John where the Greek word peuma is also variously translated. The trust is clear. There is no birth from above apart from the work of the Spirit.
Another creation concept is employed in describing God’s acts of
renewal and regeneration.
VI. CREATIO NOVA
As we have already observed God’s present creative activity is not simply preservation but it is also preparation. Moltmann notes that creatio nova is creatio anticipativa “God’s creative activity in history anticipates the consummation in time….The revelation of the rule of God in history initiates the consummation of creation as the kingdom of God.”59
Once again creation language is used in the description of God’s future creative activity. Bara’ is used in Isaiah’s eschatological expectations. Reference is to creation of a new heaven and earth with the elevation of Zion and Jerusalem.60
Nowhere is God’s creatio nova better expressed in creation language than in Revelation where God promises to make all things new.61 This book then closes with a new heaven and earth.62 But here we note a reversal. In Genesis l the heavens and earth are created before its human occupants. But here in Revelation the new heavens and earth follow the preparation of a people to rejoice and live in them.
God’s continual creation activity gives way constantly to creatio nova. With the faith of Israel came the rejection of endless cycles which resulted in temporal meaninglessness. Gilkey notes:
Neither an event that was merely temporal nor an eternity that
was unrelated to time could so pluck a few brief historical
moments from the endless meaninglessness of the cycles of
natural time. But the eternal content of the Incarnation raised
that one series of moments above all natural repetition and gave
them a new and unique status: that of an unrepeatable event
whose effects were for eternity….The entrance of eternity into
time at one moment of the past gave to the future moments of
time an entirely new meaning: they were now under the power
of God, not of the cycles, and thus their own divine content could
be unique and irreversible.63
VII. CONCLUSION
It may ultimately be impossible to establish which came first – creation theology or redemption theology. Perhaps we cannot do better here than when we struggle with whether the chicken or egg came first.
One thing, however, is quite clear. The language and symbols of creation are employed in describing God’s salvific actions. As noted earlier, creation and salvation are the head and the tail of the theological coin.
Such connectivity – such inner biblical
interpretation – must guide us in our approach to creatio orignalis.
ENDNOTES
1. Philip Clayton, God And Contemporary Science (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 23.
2. Ronald A. Simkins, Creater And Creation: Nature In The Worldview Of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA.: Hendrikson, 1994), 90 ff.
3. Reuben P. Job, et al., (editors). The United Methodist Hymnal (Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 1989), 881.
4. Ibid, 880.
5. Ibid, 883.
6. Ibid, 884.
7. Gerhard von Rad, “The Theological Problem Of The Old Testament Doctrine Of Creation” in Creation In The Old Testament, ed. B. W. Anderson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 53.
8. Ibid, 63. Von Rad observes: “Creation was known in Canaan in extremely early times, and played a large part in the cultus in the pre-Israelite period through mythical representations of the struggle against primeval chaos. Yahwistic faith early absorbed these elements….”
9. Ibid, 62. In his essay “Some Aspects Of The Old Testament World View” von Rad cautions “We are nowadays in serious danger of looking at the theological problems of the Old Testament too much from the one-sided standpoint of an historically conditioned theology….” This results in an ignoring “the greater part of what the Old Testament has to say about wehat we call Nature.” The Problem Of The Hexateuch And Other Essays (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966) 144.
10. H. H. Schmid, “Creation, Righteousness, And Salvation” in Creation In The Old Testament, ed. B. W. Anderson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 105.
11. Ibid, 103-104.
12. Ibid, 106.
13. Ibid, 111, 115.
14. Rudolf Bultmann, Primitive Christianity (New York: Meridan Books, 1956), 15.
15. B. W. Anderson, Creation In The Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) 3.
16. Ibid.
17. Jurgen Moltmann, God In Creation (London: SCM Press, 1985), 192-193.
18. Ibid, 208.
19. Martin Luther, Lecture On Genesis Chapters 1-5. Translated by George Schick. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis Concordia Publishing House, 1958), 3.
20. Such is Jerome’s report in his letter to Paulinus, Epistle LIII,
Patrologia, Series Latina, XXII, 547.
The immediate source of the
information, however, is probably Nicholas de Lyra in his introduction to Gen.
l. Luther was heavily dependent on Lyra
for the rabbinic learning cited in his Lectures On Genesis Chapters l-5.
21. Luther, op. cit., 3.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. See Lectures On Genesis Chapters l-5, cited in footnote l.
26. Conrad Hyers, The Meaning Of Creation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984), l.
27. Langdon Gilkey, “Evolution and the Doctrine of Creation,” in Science and Religion, edited by Ian Barbour (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968), 160. Gilkey notes that fundamentalism is not only characteristic of the religious world but “there is another kind of fundamentalism manifested by scientists….” “Creationism: The Roots of the Conflict,” Christianity And Crisis 42 (1982), 108.
28. Hyers, op. cit., 3.
29. Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York: Schocken Books, 1966), p. 9.
30. Langdon Gilkey, Maker Of Heaven And Earth (New York: Doiubleday And Company, Inc., 1959), 21.
31. Moltmann, op. cit., 206.
32. Ibid, 209.
33. When this word is used in the Qal, God is always its subject.
34. Genesis 1:1.
35. Genesis 2:4a. Bara’ also
appears in 2:3 both in its perfect and participle forms. The participle used for continuous,
unbroken, frequently recurring actions – is intriguing. God’s creatio originalis was seen as
continuous and thus may allow a recognition of his continuous involvement in creatio
continua and creatio nova.
36. Genesis 1:21.
37. Genesis 1:27. Here, of humans, it is so strategic that it is used three times.
38.“Bara’” Karl-Heinz Bernhardt Theological Dictionary Of The Old Testament ed. by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. by John T. Willis (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), II, 245.
39. Ibid, 247.
40. Isaiah 45:12.
41. Isaiah 43:1,7, 15 cf. Malachi 2:10 and Psalm 102:18 where “a people yet unborn” is parallel to “a generation to come.” This emphasis on Israel is apparent in early Genesis where the genealogies narrow down to Abraham and the nation which came from him.
42. Isaiah 48:7.
43. Isaiah 41:18.
44. Isaiah 45:8.
45. Isaiah 54:16.
46. Psalm 51:10.
47. Moltmann, op.cit., 208.
48. Anderson, op. cit., 6.
49. Umberto Cassuto, A Commenary On The Book Of Exodus, translated by Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 19677).
50. Isaiah 51:9-11.
51. Genesis 1:2.
52. Psalm 104:29-30.
53. Moltmann, op. cit., 9.
54. Nicene Creed, op. cit.
55. Ezekiel 37:1, 14.
56. Ezekiel 37:5, 6, 8, 9, 10.
57. Ezekiel 37:9.
58. John 3:8. cf. Joel 2:28-29.
59. Moltmann, op. cit., 209.
60. Isaiah 4:5; 65:17-18. Seen as new creations are the covenant renewal (Exodus 34:10) and divine punishment (Numbers 16:30).
61. Revelation 21:5.
62. Revelation 21:1.
63. Gilkey, op. cit., 250.