Genesis 1 and Biblical Authority
May 1st, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
Scripture always speaks with absolute authority. It is as authoritative when it instructs us as it is when it commands us. It is as true when it tells the future as it is when it records the past. Although it is not a textbook on science, wherever it intersects with scientific data, it speaks with the same authority as when it gives us moral precepts. Although many have tried to set science against Scripture, science never has disproved one jot or tittle of the Bible—and it never will.
It is therefore a serious mistake to imagine that modern scientists can speak more authoritatively than Scripture on the subject of origins. Scripture is God’s own eyewitness account of what happened in the beginning. When it deals with the origin of the universe, all science can offer is conjecture. Science has proven nothing that negates the Genesis record. In fact, the Genesis record answers the mysteries of science.
A clear pattern for interpreting Genesis is given to us in the New Testament. If the language of early Genesis were meant to be interpreted figuratively, we could expect to see Genesis interpreted in the New Testament in a figurative sense. After all, the New Testament is itself inspired Scripture, so it is the Creator’s own commentary on the Genesis record.
What do we find in the New Testament? In every New Testament reference to Genesis, the events recorded by Moses are treated as historical events. And in particular, the first three chapters of Genesis are consistently treated as a literal record of historical events. The New Testament affirms, for example, the creation of Adam in the image of God (James 3:9).
Paul wrote to Timothy, “Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Timothy 2:13-14). In 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, he writes, “Man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.”
Paul’s presentation of the doctrine of original sin in Romans 5:12-20 depends on a historical Adam and a literal interpretation of the account in Genesis about how he fell. Furthermore, everything Paul has to say about the doctrine of justification by faith depends on that. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Clearly Paul regarded both the creation and fall of Adam as history, not allegory. Jesus Himself referred to the creation of Adam and Eve as a historical event (Mark 10:6). To question the historicity of these events is to undermine the very essence of Christian doctrine.
Moreover, if Scripture itself treats the creation and fall of Adam as historical events, there is no warrant for treating the rest of the creation account as allegory or literary device. Nowhere in all of Scripture are any of these events handled as merely symbolic.
In fact, when the New Testament refers to creation, (e.g., Mark 13:19; John 1:3; Acts 4:24; 14:15; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2, 10; Revelation 4:11; 10:6; 14:7) it always refers to a past, completed event—an immediate work of God, not a still-occurring process of evolution. The promised New Creation, a running theme in both Old and New Testaments, is portrayed as an immediate fiat creation, too—not an eons-long process (Isaiah 65:17). In fact, the model for the New Creation is the original creation (cf. Romans 8:21; Revelation 21:1, 5).
Hebrews 11:3 even makes belief in creation by divine fiat the very essence of faith itself: “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Creation ex nihilo is the clear and consistent teaching of the Bible.
“Creation ex nihilo is the clear and consistent teaching of the Bible.”
Amen.
Case closed. Katie, bar the door. Game over. That’s final.
In fact, when the New Testament refers to creation, it always refers to a past, completed event—an immediate work of God, not a still-occurring process of evolution.
This is a huge point. A theistic evolutionist would have to say, to be consistent, that God has not created anything, but is still creating everything. If things come about by macroevolution, they’re still coming about and so the creation is not final.
We don’t have, “In the beginning God started creating the heavens and the earth.”
A lot of this material that’s getting posted, especially yesterday’s, is from John’s book, The Battle for the Beginning. I really recommend it to Christians and non-Christians alike if you’re interested in this discussion.
Mike - Just to be fair, let’s state your proposition accurately. The Bible says “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. You are correct that it does not say that God started creating. But that has zero to do with the discussion of evolution. For the next statement in the Bible is “and the earth was (some say “became” rather than “was”) without form and void. So the issue of instant creation to which you refer deals with the creation of things other than life (otherwise that thing which was instantly created could not have been described as without form, and void).
The issue of evolution deals with the answer(s) to this question: given that life exists (without explaining how it came to be), can we explain the variety of life we see by using natural causes?” By the Bible’s own admission, the creation of life came after the “In the beginning God created …” part. God spoke, and the sea brought forth, the sky brought forth, the earth brought forth. God personally formed man from the dust of the ground with His own hand. God then breathed into man the breath of life. What did all of these processes look like at the level of atoms and at the level of molecules? Neither we, using Genesis, nor the evolutionists, through the theory of mutation and natural selection, can say for certain what these processes looked like. But we can be certain these processes happened, because the Bible says they did. And these processes took place at the level of atoms and molecules coming together, over time (even if only 24 hours), to become living things. There is nothing in Genesis that prevents us from thinking that the earth, in response to God’s command, caused atoms and molecules to come together into RNA and DNA and form a single cell; single cell splits into two, four, eight, sixteen, 32, and so on; at the end of this particular process, a newly-formed giraffe is jolted and takes his first breath. And there is nothing in Genesis that prevents us from thinking that the earth, in response to God’s command, and in the form of the giraffe’s genes, helps the girafee to mutate in response to changes in its environment.
Just to be clear, Genesis does not say that God created life other than man. Rather, the Bible says that God commanded the sea, sky, and earth to bring forth life. It says that God spoke, and the sea, sky, and earth brought forth. Not God. The sea, sky, and earth - in response to God’s command. But note again, Genesis does say that God created man. Man was not brought forth in the same processes that brought forth life from the sea, sky, and earth.
And they were processes. God commanded, and the sea, sky, and earth responded. How is this part of the creation story, and God’s role in it, threatened if we should determine that the sea, sky, and earth are still responding to God’s command to “bring forth” by bringing forth adaptive changes within any given “kind”?
Of this you can be certain: in 30 years time there will be bacteria and viruses (viri) that do not exist today. And the medicines we have today to kill viruses and bacteria will be ineffective against these new variations. Those who know biology and chemistry understand that new life is still being brought forth, even today (variations on what already exists). Why do we have trouble accepting that this might be happening in response to God’s long-ago command to “bring forth”?
Genesis says that God was finished with His activity in creating things, and He rested on the seventh day. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the processes God set into motion during those six days stopped on the seventh day along with God. We have proof that God said only once, “let the sea, sky, and earth bring forth …” But the Bible does not say that this bringing forth stopped at the end of the sixth day. Since the animals were brought before Adam for naming, we can suppose that the bulk of the bringing forth probably stopped by the time Adam named them, at least for the animals. But there is no reason to think that the process which leads to variation and the creation of sub-species (domestic dogs from wolves, etc.) stopped.
What I have said above is not meant as support for the process of macro-evolution (sand crabs turning into giraffes). It is meant to support a more thoughtful evaluation of what Genesis does say, as well as what it does not say, in light of our understanding of how genes and chromosomes work.
Here is a slightly different take on the point I made above. I mean to illuminate the difference between letting one’s mind rest on the proclamation “God Created” and letting one’s mind wander and wonder through the question “How did God create?”.
In my experience, many people think of creation in terms of God creating objects, much like we might make things from modeling clay. God created clay models of the stars and planets and moons, and then went poof and set them all in motion. Then God created clay models of all forms of life on this earth, and then went poof and brought them all to life. All this clay modeling and poofing was completed within 6 earth days. Case closed. Game Over. That’s final. Nothing has changed since then.
However, God did not just create objects (stars; planets; plants; animals). God also created processes. In my experience, this part of creation is often overlooked. God created gravity; magnetism; the electromagnetic spectrum (of which light is only a small part), the stuff that keeps electrons and neutrons spinning around the nucleus of an atom rather than flying off; the thing that causes cells to know when and how to divide; the process that keeps planets spinning; the process that causes and guides DNA replication - to name but a few. God may have created all processes within 6 days, but these processes continue to effect change over time. During the 6 days of creation, God said “do this”, and then rested on the 7th day. In response, the processes which God created during 6 days continue to obey God’s command to “do this” up to the present day.
If the processes God used to create during Days 1-6 have continued to exist, then creation - by some name - would continue to unfold over time. The fact that we can create a type of rose that did not exist at the time of Adam and Eve bears this out. And I cannot be certain, but I’m pretty sure that ligers and mules did not exist when Adam named the animals either. Delicious Apples (the brand) probably didn’t either.
God created life with the flexibility to change over time - at least within certain limits. Some of that change has occurred as a result of man’s direct intervention. But some has occurred by chance. I like to think of this as the continuing unfolding of God’s creation. I don’t think the evidence supports the idea that nothing new has come about after Day 6.