Professor Claims God is Not Creator according to Genesis Oct 12
In one of the more unusual theories to come out about Genesis, a professor of Old Testament in the Netherlands claims that Genesis 1:1 is not about creation of the material world but separation within it, removing God from being the Creator in line with the rest of the Bible and the literature of Mesopotamia. The view was announced in the London Telegraph last week. The URL is:
In one of the more unusual theories to come out about Genesis, a professor of Old Testament in the Netherlands claims that Genesis 1:1 is not about creation of the material world but separation within it, removing God from being the Creator in line with the rest of the Bible and the literature of Mesopotamia. The view was announced in the London Telegraph last week. The URL is:
Now it is true that there has long been discussion if Genesis 1:1 is about creation from nothing or creation and formation out of chaos. Some argue that the real narrative of creation in the account starts in verse 2. Bruce Waltke, who has taught OT at several evangelical seminaries, holds this view of the real story starting in Gen 1:2 and published on it when I was in seminary. Genesis 1:1 is then seen as a heading sentence for the entire narrative. However the key point is that we are still discussing creation and God as Creator of us and of the heaven and earth. What is amazing about this professor’s argument is that she argues that her view is sustained in part from a reading of the Bible as a whole. Yet it is God AS Creator that stands at the basis for His relationship to us and gives God the role of the one to whom His creatures are accountable.
Psalm 8:3, which declares God made the heavens, could hardly make the point any more clearly. Psalm 19:1 says the sky is God’s handiwork. Even in the book of Genesis itself we have the statement that the Most High God is "Creator of heaven and earth" (Gen 14;19, 22; also Ps 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3: isa 40:28; Rom 1:25). The verses I noted are not merely speaking of God creating people (which the professor does accept), but of God’s creatiing the creation.
Why is this important? Well, because it is God as creator of heaven and earth and of us that makes us accountable to Him and responsible as stewards for the creation He placed us in. There is an effort today–whether by denying God or by distancing Him from Creation–to reduce the significance of our relationship to God and our obligation to Him. One need only look at Paul’s speech on Mars Hill in Acts 17:16ff. to see that the idea of God as Creator serves as one of the fundamental theological roots for an appeal for people to know their God. So although news is out that God should not be seen biblically as the Creator, one only can embrace that view by ignoring many biblical texts.
19 Comments
Brett Williamss
What is NOT said
Dr. Bock,
You wrote: Genesis 1:1 is not about creation of the material world but separation within it, removing God from being the Creator…
There is nothing in this statement that addresses WHO IS the Creator. Your assessment that “God” is not the creator based on her conclusion does not follow, at least from the data you provided in this brief post.
And, if this professor concludes that since Gen 1.1 is NOT referring to the creation of the material universe and therefore God is NOT the creator, she too is making a conclusion beyond the “evidence.” Her only argument is to state that WE ARE NOT TOLD who the Creator is IN THIS VERSE.
Does she list any other contenders for the Creator of the Universe? Here is an instance where her findings have no relation to her conclusion. You’ve already shown God is the Creator from the REST OF SCRIPTURE.
Where am I off? This “finding” seems irrelevant to the question “Who created the material universe.”
bock
What is NOT said dlb
Brett:
If you read the article, she is the one claiming God is not the creator of the world. This is why I provided the link, so you could see the whole argument (at least as the reporter reports it). Here is the relevant part of the article:
She concluded that God did not create, he separated: the Earth from the Heaven, the land from the sea, the sea monsters from the birds and the swarming at the ground.
"There was already water," she said.
"There were sea monsters. God did create some things, but not the Heaven and Earth. The usual idea of creating-out-of-nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is a big misunderstanding."
God came later and made the earth livable, separating the water from the land and brought light into the darkness.
She said she hoped that her conclusions would spark "a robust debate", since her finds are not only new, but would also touch the hearts of many religious people.
She said: "Maybe I am even hurting myself. I consider myself to be religious and the Creator used to be very special, as a notion of trust. I want to keep that trust."
A spokesman for the Radboud University said: "The new interpretation is a complete shake up of the story of the Creation as we know it."
Prof Van Wolde added: "The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now."
______________________________________
By the way, the NT also teaches God as creator and adds that the Son of God has a role in this creation. Two key texts are 1 Cor 8:4-6 and Col 1:16.
dlb
mike
i find it very interesting
i find it very interesting that she thinks the larger canon supports her reading of gen 1. i would think the YHWH speeches in job, wisdom in proverbs, john 1, colossians, rev 4-5, etc. would only validate taking God as Creator in gen 1
Andy
Hard to take seriously…
I’m not sure how she can claim that her interpretation is supported by reading the Bible as a whole. John opens his gospel by explicitly stating that the eternally existing Godhead created everything that exists.
The OT also argues over and over that YHWH alone is worthy of worship because of His unique status as Creator, in comparison to created images and idols.
Needless to say, this woman will probably make millions in book sales, because the world loves things that support their unbelief, even if the professor in question is, nominally, a believer.
WoundedEgo
John’s take
>>>>I’m not sure how she can claim that her interpretation is supported by reading the Bible as a whole. John opens his gospel by explicitly stating that the eternally existing Godhead created everything that exists.
Not at all. John just says that God made everything **that was made** by his word.
In fact, since the 4th gospel begins with EN ARKH, clearly he is referring to the Genesis account, as found in the LXX. There, the word was with God: “Let there be…” preceded each creative act. For the writer of the 4th gospel, the “let us make” of Gen 1 is the divine utterances.
CLEARLY, in Genesis 1, the pre-existing “universe” is an infinite abyss:
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
It is philosophy, not scripture, that posits that God is the creator of everything.
PS: I hate “Captcha” – it presents the most illegible characters!! It takes me an average of 6 tries to make a post.
Magnus Nordlund
charge of blasphemy?
Would you agree with E. P. Sanders that the accounts of Mark 14:62; Matt 26:64 is the result of a later Christian interpretation/creativity in regard to high christology since Luke is lacking the blasphemy charge in his account…
In other words the historical Jesus would not have viewed himself as divine… However, Sanders argues that we must look at these accounts in a new fresh perspective; and by that we will discover that the real charges concerns Jesus view of and actions towards the temple institution and its system of hierarchy?
Whats your take on this?
Sincerely
Magnus
bock
Blasphemy dlb
Magnus:
I do not agree with him at all. I wrote a technical monograph on this topic. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus (with Mohr/Siebeck and WUNT, also available through Baker Books with a slightly altered title). Jesus did make a claim about his person that was offensive. God would vindicate Jesus and give him a place on the divine throne. Who can share God’s throne in a Jewish view? That is what I examined.
dlb
Sam
Dr. Bock, you seem to be
Dr. Bock, you seem to be equating God’s creation of the heavens and the earth with creation ex nihilo. But what reason is there to think the heavens and the earth were created ex nihilo rather than out of pre-existing chaotic material? Unless I’m missing something, it seems like more argument is required than simply pointing to verses that say God created the heavens and the earth.
WoundedEgo
EX HUDATOS, not EX NIHILO!
Rather than the Latin “Ex nihilo,” Peter uses the more correct EX HUDATOS (out of water). When the flood came, the making was undone:
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens [the sky ceiling – a solid structure] were of old, and the earth [dry land] standing **out of the water** and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Look at the making of the solid structure called “sky”:
Gen 1:6 God said, “Let there be an expanse23 in the midst of the waters and let it separate water24 from water.
Gen 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.25 It was so.26
Gen 1:8 God called the expanse “sky.”27 There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
That this is conceived of as a solid structure, or “firmament” is evidenced as far to the back of the book as Revelation, where a “hatch” is opened in the sky ceiling to provide entrance to John:
Rev 4:1 After these things I looked, and there was1 a door [hatch] standing open in heaven! [sky-ceiling] 2 And the first voice I had heard speaking to me3 like a trumpet4 said: “Come up here so that5 I can show you what must happen after these things.”
Actually, the plural indicates that there was another sky-ceiling above the realm of the gods, with water above that. So you had the waters under the first sky, the realm of the gods, then another sky-ceiling, then more water.
Think “Thales.”
bock
Seem to be dlb
I did not say anything about ex nihilo creation my noting the position of Bruce Waltke showed. The professor spoke of God’s role as separator of heaven and earth and specifically not Creator. However, there are NT texts that speak of God being the creator of everything as I noted in the post.
Brett Williamss
Dr. Bock,
My apologies for
Dr. Bock,
My apologies for the assumptions I made. I should have read the article first, as you suggested. Sorry for this behavior.
I have a follow up concern. Prof. van Wolde denies that God created the physical/material universe, but that he merely separated it into various pre-existing segments. Her point is that the material universe ALREADY existed when Gen 1.1 takes place and that God only fashioned what was already in existence. But that simply pushes the ‘necessary’ question back to “Who then did create the material universe?” This article gives the implication that such a issue is not something she finds a need to address.
You can not write at the academic level and not address such a critical implication from her conclusion. You can’t remove the supposed Creator of the material universe and not address ‘who created all things that have come into existence!!’ But, did she eliminate God as the Creator (she denied it, but she did not bother to provide any evidence in this short article)…
I still hold to the view that she does not address which God created the material universe, nor does her premises and conclusion rule out the same God who separated in Gen 1.1 as the one creating the material universe at an earlier time, right? She states that God did not create, but she gives us no data to believe the same God did not create the material universe at an earlier time. Obviously this would not be “shocking” nor would she get any recognition, but if she avoids this issue, she can not be taken seriously.
If she keeps this discussion in the arena of rational thought, she will eventually have to acknowledge the Kalam Cosmological Argument and perhaps then state that the Creator of the material universe also created other gods (since we know of one other God now).
Do you find my reasoning and concerns legitimate?
Brett
bock
Apologies dlb
Brett:
This makes sense, although I am not sure about the last paragraph (and the claim of knowing of one other God).
dlb
Greg
Creation By Another Name
I’m just basing this off an incredibly basic understanding of the Ancient Neat East, but I wonder if separating something and creating something are one and the same?
From listening to and reading John H. Walton’s lectures and books on this subject, it seems that the ancient’s considered something created and existing when it was separated from something prior, given a name, and given a purpose. Interestingly we see this happen often in the Genesis creation account.
We who think mostly from a material perspective think God can only create something by calling it’s material form into existence. While I think, when you go back far enough, this is the case, as Hebrews 11:3 points out, I do not think the doctrine of creation ex nihilo can be supported purely by Genesis 1. We very plainly begin the story by being told the earth was formless, void, and covered over by water. This is describing an already existing state that God simply didn’t consider good. Genesis 1:1 seems to be a prologue statement, describing the events that are about to take place (because the earth and the heavens weren’t made by God until he separated and named them in verses 8 and 10). A typical Ancient Near Eastern beginning, it seems, where the creator God creates by separating one thing from another.
So when we think about this, I think it would help to consider creation from an Ancient Near Eastern person’s perspective, as opposed to only ours.
I’m surprised that van Wolde failed to do this. She got some of it right, namely that Genesis 1 describes a God that separates, but missed the fact that this separating God is also creating, albeit by different means and standards than the ones we normally think of.
bock
by another name dlb
Greg:
This is a good point. It is surprising that she failed to take account of it.
dlb
#John1453
Logic of Wold’s argument
I’ve read the lead article and I don’t see that it necessarily follows that God did not create at all. What follows is only that Genesis 1:1 does not contain the proposition that God created ex nihilo.
It may be that Wold believes that there was eternally existing material in a real / physics sense, or it may be that she only believes that is what all early mythologies held to, or she may not believe anything of the sort. Indeed, there is nothing incompatible with here believing what she does about Genesis 1:1 and at the same time believe God created ex nihilo. One would establish ex nihilo creation on other grounds and from other Biblical texts.
It would be interesting, but the text does not tell us, whether she would reinterpret the other verses regarding creation of all things ex nihilo, or whether she would accept them as being another creation account that is just as true.
Moreover, even if matter was as eternal as God (i.e., we disregard the Kalam argument), it does not follow that we are not accountable. We would be just as accountable if God only reshaped existing material as we would be if he both created ex nihilo and shaped that new material.
regards,
#John
Brett Williamss
The entire Rev
Here’s another way of looking at Gen 1.1
We’ve been overly influenced by the Jews rejection of their Messiah and the inauguration of the “New Covenant.” By separating (pardon the pun) the OT from the NT, we’ve created a schism that did not exist in the mind of Christ or the Apostles. Peter tells us that Paul’s writings were on par with “the rest of scripture.” The writings of the Apostles were viewed as PART OF the writings of the Prophets.
So, when we talk about the Creation Event, we have to take into consideration all of God’s revelation. (What did the Jews think about Gen 1.1 without the benefit of the NT revelation? They had partial revelation and were only responsible for partial understanding. That is what Progressive Rev is all about.) What we now know is the Jesus was actually the creator of all things according to the Bible (noticed I didn’t say NT).
The rest is obvious.
Glenn
Well let’s face it, she’s
Well let’s face it, she’s not going to have a particularly memorable thesis if she argues that according to Genesis 1, God IS the creator of the world now is she? 😉
T N Thorne
Old and New Testament Revelation
Mr. Williams,
While I understand and appreciate your argument that both testaments form the entire Bible, I do not concur that we should do away with the distinction of the two parts. The old covenant made with Abraham is distinct from the new covenant Jesus made with mankind, and to ignore the distinction would be perilous.
In Him,
Tyson
WoundedEgo
Prejudicial thinking
It is amazing to me that people can read the same text over and over, year after year, and century after century, and completely miss or ignore what it actually says! Genesis 1 clearly states that it is describing the making of:
* the sky ceiling – a solid structure with waters above it
* the dry land – and the creatures thereon
It clearly describes a pre-existent chaos.