Creation in the NT 01.doc
Creation in the New Testament:
Overview and Implications.
David Watts
|
The subject of Biblical creation arouses mixed reactions, even amongst Christians. Sometimes it is overloaded with the passing scientific "interpretations" of the day. But it has an abiding importance for contemporary witness to Jesus Christ. Are we created beings that exist because a personal supernatural intelligence brought about our existence for a purpose? Or are we accidental products of some purposeless "blind watchmaker" that cares nothing about us or what we do? What does the Bible really teach? What should we believe and understand? |
"He was in the world,
and though the world was made through him,
the world did not recognize him"
[John 1: 10]
If Jesus Christ is the answer, what is the problem?
With the rise in cultural diversity and pluralism, this question is increasingly posed in Christian mission. Currently, within western society, more and more people consciously operate outside and apart from a Christian framework or world‑view. It follows that key concepts such as human responsibility, sin, guilt and redemption are prone to suffer denial and misinterpretation. In no way do we detract from the inherently miraculous nature of Christian conversion. But, since the Spirit of God generally makes use of Christians in awakening others to faith, we have the responsibility to deploy the most effective approaches and methods. We are battling firstly for the minds and understanding of men and women, irrespective of whether or not they are "intellectual" in temperament. Only on this basis can there be a permanent change wrought also in their affections and entire personality.
The central issues of conversion turn upon submission to "the God who is there": submission to this God we have offended and who threatens us with destruction; submission to the "good news" of this merciful God; news that concerns his divine/human Son, Jesus Christ the Lord [Romans 1: 3f].
Now, although absolute atheism may be rare, practical atheism ‑ living as though there were no God ‑ is widespread. It follows that effective proclamation of the Good News must incorporate the entire Christian‑theistic framework or world‑view ‑ within which the person and work of Jesus Messiah are the central focus [Luke 24:26f; Acts 17: 22‑31]. It is, therefore, a live issue today as to whether there really is a transcendent God for Jesus to be! This raises questions concerning boundaries that demarcate between God and the remainder of reality. These must be defined and defended, but also explained in a Christian ‑ rather than (say) an Islamic ‑ way. The boundaries must be understood in a nuanced manner, so that the divine /human Messiah is never an anachronism.
The major Biblical terminology for what we have termed "boundary" is creation ‑ with the active verb "to create", God being the subject [Genesis 1:1]. The principal demarcation may be termed "the Creator /creature distinction". At the outset of the Biblical narrative stands this God who regally speaks the heavens and the earth into existence [Psalm 33 :6]. The Creator is independent of his creation. The creation remains ever dependent upon the Creator. If the Christian message is effectively torpedoed at this juncture then ultimately all is lost! When the opening moves of the Story are faced with denial, then the remainder suffers radical distortion; who will believe its ending?
It is hardly surprising that this whole subject of "creation" has become a battleground ‑ both inside and outside the Christian church. Even, or especially, amongst evangelical Christians this subject has become highly controversial. One effect of controversy is that many Christians ‑ including ministers - avoid the topic entirely, and the result so often is a truncated gospel. Another effect is that it becomes the "single issue" for some, an end in itself, sometimes embellished with bizarre or idiosyncratic "scientific" theories. The proponents do not readily distinguish these additions from the teachings of the Scriptures and “mere Christianity”. How then should we think?
In the interests of promoting a greater consensus amongst Christians, we propose the following elements of one approach to this issue; (steps I‑III). This is only a strategic outline, and each proposition and argument could be elaborated in much greater detail.
I. After reading Genesis 1-11, the Primaeval History, in several versions with an open mind, let us study next the emphases and interpretation of the constituent 'creation' themes in the New Testament.
Although it is academically fashionable to deconstruct Genesis and assign its composition to a late stage of Israel's history, the fact remains that it stands at the head of the Old Testament canon, with its majestic opening:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
Genesis and the Old Testament may - and, when appropriate, should be - interpreted in their own terms, since they manifest self-standing reliability and authority. There are many possible strands to any full or extensive Old Testament doctrine of creation. In the New Testament, there are more than 50 quotations taken from Genesis 1‑3 alone, as listed in editions of the Greek New Testament. These are distributed amongst all the major New Testament author‑witnesses. Several Genesis commentaries include distinct sections on the New Testament thematic development of these topics. [For example, VP Hamilton, NICOT: Genesis 1‑17]. Although it is hermeneutically more common in matters of redemption or new-creation to begin with New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament, as fulfilment, it is also legitimate to utilise this approach with respect to understanding of the “old”-creation. Indeed, the old and the new are intertwined.
If we opt to commence our evangelism in the Gospels with the stunning personality of Jesus of Nazareth, as is entirely proper, then we shall soon have to consider his teaching on creation. Arguably, the securest approach to interpreting Genesis on human and cosmic origins is to do so consciously as a disciple of the Master. This is not to prejudge or bypass detailed interpretation and exegesis, but to handle Genesis reverently and submissively. His interpretation will become my interpretation, neither more nor less. What does the New Testament affirm?
A. Concerning Mankind: Created and Fallen
1. Jesus, of the Gospels, as apparent in all the discernible literary strata, expresses a confident faith in the historical trustworthiness of the Scriptures, including Genesis. "Have you not read ...?" he commences his teaching on marriage and divorce ‑ placing his authority behind the understanding of marriage as a divine creation ordinance, not merely a social contract. [Matthew 19:4‑5; Mark 10: 6‑8].
2. The same passages also presuppose, in the understanding of Jesus, the historical (as distinct from mythological) status of the first human pair, as responsible sentient beings, whom Genesis names Adam and Eve.
3. They further entail that the entire human race, as we now know it, is genetically descended from this first pair; a point made explicitly elsewhere in the New Testament [Acts 17:26; Romans 5: 12f; 1 Cor 15: 21f]. This argues for equality within mankind, against theories of a master‑race. The Bible is silent as regards the possible prior existence of any pre-Adamic, non-human, but human-like creatures, although silence does not prove non-existence!
4. That mankind was created as the image‑bearer and vice‑regent of God is a truth implicit in Jesus' teaching ‑ as in the incident of the tribute money, [Matt 22: 20f]. In James [3: 9] the teaching is explicit; in Paul it is extensive. The concepts of "image/likeness" and "son "‑ of God are interrelated [Genesis 5: 1‑3; Luke 3:38]. In giant steps, the Bible moves from Adam to Israel to Jesus in the quest for a faithful and obedient Son. The entire New Testament is concerned with the outcome of God's original purpose for his image‑Son, as realised now through Jesus Christ and all those savingly united to him [Hebrews 1: 1‑3; 2: 5‑18].
5. According to Genesis 2:7, the creation of man (Adam) was by formation from "the dust of the ground" followed by bestowal of the divine breath. The result was that Adam became a "living being". The New Testament [1 Cor 15: 45f] treats this as an important and crucial point, with vital similarities and differences between Adam and Christ, as the last {eschatos} Adam. Only by this creative act did Adam become a "living being" {psuche zÇsan}; although animal life forms were also called "living being". We should acknowledge a degree of mystery here and not be too hasty or dogmatic in our interpretation. This language suggests that we are to understand the origin of Adam-the-human-being as by some form of immediate 'special' creation, irrespective of whether on not “the dust of the ground” used by God’s Spirit, as the basis of man’s physical, biochemical and physiological existence, can now be assigned any kind of genetic pre-history. Certainly, in view of this radical impartation by God’s Spirit, there was a clear discontinuity established between the human and animal kingdoms – through the higher-order faculties, including advanced linguistic abilities, bestowed upon mankind. Hence the overall genesis of Adam and mankind can not be fully accounted for by a reductive explanation of natural, evolutionary descent, even when such evolutionary processes are viewed as manifestations of God’s plan and providence. Adam did not exist at all prior to the moment of the divine inbreathing (kiss!), even though he was bodily-constructed from pre-existing "biomaterial": pre-endowed by God with characteristic properties and potentialities. But, at the same time, we must readily acknowledge a merely biological continuity, with the animal kingdom, with or without any genetic basis, as we human beings are subject to the same laws of biomechanics, biochemistry and physiology.
6. The New Testament confirms that both male and female of mankind were created in God's image. However, the primal man was created before the woman and within the original marriage covenant was assigned a role of social headship. There also remains a mutual inter‑dependence between male and female [l Cor 11: 8‑12; 1 Tim 2: 13]. Behind the physical and social union between a man and woman in marriage, stands the archetypal union between Christ and the church [Eph 5: 32].
7. The New Testament affirms and emphasizes the teaching of Genesis 3 about the primaeval fall; that subsequent to the creation of the first human pair, and during their probation in Eden, they flouted a specific divine prohibition and warning, thereby attracting the divine curse. This led immediately to their expulsion from Eden, to spiritual death and mortality and subsequently to physical death. Thereafter, their progeny from birth comprise "mortal man, doomed to die" [Romans 5: 12ff; 1 Cor 15: 20f]. Thus inter alia human (physical) death is a universal condition of mankind; it is viewed in Scripture as part of the punishment of original disobedience, rather than being a necessarily inherent or intrinsic outcome, by virtue of our creation. However, biological mortality may well be viewed as intrinsic to all creatures from the beginning, as it is now, since immortality could always have been dependent directly upon the Creator; as his gift, which could be bestowed or withheld.
8. A further corollary of the fall is the 'knock on' effect upon the "lower" (subhuman) creation, through the disgrace of God's original vice‑regent Adam [Hebrews 2: 8]. The creation was subjected to “vanity” ‑ ie. frustration, and longs for future deliverance [Romans 8: 19‑22]. It is apparent that Ecclesiastes also contributes heavily here to the Old Testament background. However, the New Testament does not exactly specify particulars in which this frustration consists, so undue speculation or dogmatism is unwarranted.
B. Concerning God and the Cosmos
1. The presentation in Genesis 1‑11 of the universal sovereignty or lordship of God over his creation forms part of the background to Jesus' preaching of the kingdom of God. This is a sub‑set of God's cosmic sovereignty, namely the saving reign of God. This lordship is exercised over human and universal history with an eschatological or teleological purpose in view.
2. Heaven and earth are the integral component parts of the universe in the Biblical cosmology; (an important topic much neglected and misunderstood). This makes for a "spatial" theme (of cosmological transcendence relative to earthly existence) that is developed in tandem with biblical eschatology. The New Testament harnesses this theme throughout, ranging from Matthew's terminology of the kingdom of heaven to the apocalyptic visions of the new heavens and new earth.
3. God's existence and cause‑and‑effect activities precede "the beginning of time" {pro chronÇn aiÇniÇn} [2Tim 1: 9; Titus 1:2]. This eternal or pretemporal perspective [as also in Ephesians 1: 4ff] does not necessarily demand but is certainly consistent with the view that what we know ‑ and think we understand ‑ as "time" is merely an aspect of the created order. Certainly in Genesis 1, time‑keeping is a created function of the motions of the astronomical bodies. In turn, this regularity of motion is a consequence of divine covenantal faithfulness towards creation.
4. God created the universe ex nihilo: without any 'visible antecedents' {phainomenÇn} ‑ such as pre‑existing matter or energy [Hebrews 11:3].
5. The New Testament reveals that from an eternity the divine Son existed in fellowship with the Father [John 1 :lf, 18; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1: 15ff; Heb 1: 1‑3]. Moreover, the Son of God was the specific agent of the original creation of the universe, which now exists through him and for him. He interfaces with and sustains the cosmos directly without the necessity for any intermediary powers, by his own powerful word.
6. The New Testament affirms that God created the universe for his own pleasure [Revelation 4: 11], echoing the divine satisfaction expressed in Genesis 1:31.
7. The New Testament refers to a universal general revelation of God through the cosmos: "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities ‑ his eternal power and divine nature ‑ have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." [Romans 1: 20; cf Hebrews 11:3]. Paul here refutes the philosophical stance of G.E. Lessing and Immanuel Kant. The phenomenal world really does disclose something of the eternal.
8. According to Genesis 1‑2, God created the universe and the earth in such a way that it would support human life. The New Testament reflects upon the ongoing providential care and provision of the Creator for human life upon the earth, including people who remain estranged from him [Matt 5:45; 6:8, 25‑30; 10: 29‑31; Acts 14: 15‑17].
9. The New Testament confirms the historical reality of the great flood in the days of Noah. It also affirms what we may term the "anthropological universality" of this flood as a divine judgement upon the human race [1 Pet 3: 8; 2 Pet 2: 5; 3: 6; Matt 24: 37‑39; Luke 17: 26f]. The New Testament sees this event as an instance of temporary de‑creation, a return to the disorder of the primaeval waters. However, the New Testament reference to "the world that perished" does not necessarily entail a "global" catastrophe. The "world" {kosmos} here means "order". It is importing modern scientific models to insist that it must denote "the entire planetary surface". However, - purely from the Biblical viewpoint - the possibility of that global reference is not excluded.
II. Let us be careful to note where the New Testament is NOT concerned to be specific in its interpretation of early Genesis.
It is legitimate to point out pertinent aspects (real or merely apparent, in Genesis 1-11) that are bypassed or ignored by the New Testament. There may be more than one interpretation of these facts once they are granted. But if the New Testament is used as a hermeneutical “filter” to establish priorities in the area of gospel proclamation about creation and God-as-Creator, one view is that a number of issues may be identified which are not (so) crucial to the faithful communication of biblical Christianity. This approach is supported by the fact that none of the following points have been incorporated in major confessions of faith throughout church history.
1. There is no New Testament elaboration or interpretation of the overall chronology of creation and primaeval history. Repeatedly, both directly and indirectly, the New Testament affirms that all that exists is present as a result of the divine creative will. But there is no hint whatsoever that it is necessary or important for us to know either exactly or approximately how far "back in time" was either the origin of mankind (Adam and Eve), still less the establishing of the earth or the heavens. Thus, however we may interpret the identity or duration of the "days" of Genesis 1, and the creation "week" - whether as a relative chronology, a literary framework, etc, and whether the "week" is inclusive or exclusive of events described in the first two verses of Genesis ‑ the New Testament conspicuously avoids treating these topics. Similarly, the genealogies of Jesus' human ancestry in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 are patently there to establish his descent from and connectivity with specific ancestors, as far back as Adam ‑ and to make important historical and theological points thereby. However, it is apparent that these genealogies are purposely incomplete and their gospel‑function is fully expressed apart from matters of absolute chronology.
In this respect, the pointed avoidance of New Testament interest in primaeval chronology parallels the explicit denial of the possibility of setting dates for the Second Coming [Matthew 24: 36, 42]. It is sufficient to know that at the last day Jesus will return in glory. It is sufficient to know that, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Although the fall of man, as described in Genesis 3, is fully underscored in the New Testament, and the outcome and intrusion of human mortality and death are all too apparent, the New Testament does not make it feasible for us to be dogmatic about too many other differences between the immediate pre‑fall and post‑fall worlds of the type that must have left observable traces and may thus be susceptible to present‑day "scientific" investigation. In particular, it is mere speculation and "reading into the text" (eisegesis) to deduce from Romans 5: 12f and 8: l9ff that animal death is necessarily a consequence of the Fall of Adam.
For God’s image-bearers, death is the ultimate ‘biblical’ outcome and ‘rationale’ of futility or vanity. Whereas Paul states that, for the sub-human creation, vanity is the outcome of the fall, he does not state that, for these creatures, subjection to this vanity introduced death. Neither does Genesis or Ecclesiastes. Such might be (has been) inferred, but this is an unsafe inference. It cannot therefore be a proper test of Biblical-Christian orthodoxy to insist that each and every form of animal-death is strictly post-adamic. The importance of this point relates, of course, to the interpretation of animal fossil remains.
3. A number of Christian writers have inferred that animal death cannot predate the fall, as this would be inconsistent in their view with an idyllic paradise. However, there are a number of biblical difficulties with this position.
Firstly, Psalm 104 should be understood as a commentary or inspired reflection on Genesis 1, and verse 21 extols the wonder of the carnivorous lions roaring after their prey and seeking their meat from God!
Secondly, on the first Easter morning ‑ at the ‘dawning’ of the new creation ‑ Luke 24: 41‑43 records the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ partaking of a meal of cooked fish in the presence of his disciples, thus demonstrating the reality of the resurrection. If the death of animals, or in particular fish, was a tragedy that had only came about in the beginning as a consequence of Adam's disobedience it is somewhat incongruous that the Lord should mark and indeed prove his triumph over death in such a manner. This is not at all to suggest that the Lukan passage is illustrative of our ‘eating habits’ (if any) in the new heaven/new earth. The eschatological outcome will far transcend the original Edenic paradise. Nevertheless, while inferences about ‘animal death’ from this passage are not irrefutable, they are at least a pointer away from any postulated Fall /animal death nexus. The inference is, therefore, that the death of fish has nothing whatsoever to do with the consequences of Adam's fall. Mortality of fish ‑ whether natural ‑ or as a result of fishing (!) is part of God's provision of food for mankind. The (dead) fishes along with the loaves of bread were acceptable and appropriate to Jesus for feeding the hungry multitude.
An important corollary to this conclusion now follows. Amongst the fossils apparent in the earth's superficial rock strata, the overwhelming majority are fish fossils. Providing conditions for fossilisation were met (and these are or may have been broader than envisaged in some circles), there is every possibility or likelihood that either all or a substantial proportion of extant fossilised fish remains predate the lifetime of Adam. It would follow that the associated (sedimentary) rock strata would also be pre‑Adamic.
In the absence of clear Biblical teaching to the contrary, we may extend the preceding argument to all animal life‑forms, not only to fish. In brief, there is no compelling textual or theological reason not to consider the possibility that all (or the vast majority of) fossiliferous rocks may be pre‑Adamic.
Such a conclusion does not in the least cast doubt on the historical reality of the Genesis Flood, nor even to belief that it may have had some geological effects.
The general implication is that God’s original purpose for animals intended that they should have a finite life-span and that they should either “die peacefully in old age” or become part of the food-chain of mankind or other animals. The alternative is to postulate that, once born, animals were originally intended to either “live for ever” or perhaps be appropriately “co-glorified” with sinless Adam. On the other hand, human cruelty to animals and some other forms of their suffering are evidently post-Fall.
4. The clear textual evidence concerning human origins, as already noted, strongly argues for special creation of the first human pair. This provides a reasonable explanation for the unique language‑endowment of earthly human creatures, and much more. However, there is nothing in the New Testament, and far less than is often supposed in Genesis 1‑2, bearing directly and unequivocally on the issue of possible post‑creation "evolutionary” changes in the cosmos or within (between?) major types of plant and animal life forms. Nevertheless, some proposed macro-evolutionary mechanisms seem to lack the kind of strong evidence-based support that is the norm in more basic sciences such as physics, chemistry and biochemistry. But whatever may be our current scientific judgments ‑ these should be kept strictly distinguished in status from Biblical "teaching" bearing upon the subject. There is no value in arguing for a “God of the gaps” in scientific knowledge.
III Let us be cautious and provisional in correlating Biblical and scientific perspectives on origins, and distinguish between that activity and the proper function of 'creation' in evangelism.
1. The Christian interpreter concerned to compare Biblical and scientific perspectives on origins should not be hasty and leap to premature conclusions. He or she should consider all of the legitimate possibilities (models). As and when a plausible synthesis may emerge, caution and humility should be exercised. In particular, we should be rigorous in distinguishing between what the Biblical text affirms and what we might also infer beyond that if we also blended in a few (uniformitarian?) principles taken from contemporary scientific modes of thought. It is also important that we exercise Christian liberality and true scholarship by not only allowing but encouraging freedom to consider the relative merits of alternative models.
2. All our conclusions in this area of Biblical and scientific synthesis are likely to be provisional and corrigible. These fallible “Bible‑science” syntheses, however plausible, must not be given undue prominence in the task of evangelism. However, the skills and knowledge prerequisite to attempting responsible synthesis do also have a subordinate role to play in the analysis and dismantling of non‑Christian outlooks that also compete for the allegiance of men and women [2 Cor 10: 4‑5]. Put more simply, it is important to explode the myth that "science has disproved the Bible" or “science has eliminated God”.
3. "Creation and origins" is a theme with a proper and necessary function in evangelism. It plays a foundational role in the Christian world‑view or "meta‑narrative", as the leading component in the historical trilogy of creation‑fall‑redemption. Creation expresses the proper ontological boundary between the Creator and the cosmos, which by the power and mercy of God was bridged in the incarnation of his Son [Luke 1: 35]. These are revealed truths and should be distinctive from all mere human wisdom and science. Other important truths emerge from early Genesis concerning marriage, society and the sanctity of life. The eternal creative purposes of our glorious God will thus be fully realized through his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, as ‑ following his death and resurrection ‑ he finally subdues his enemies: human and demonic, punishes the impenitent, redeems a lost race and gathers together in one all things, to the glory of God the Father [Eph 1:10; Phil 2: 10f; 2 Thess 1: 6‑10; 1 Cor 15: 28].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Watts is Professor of Biomaterials Science at The University of Manchester, in the Photon Science Institute and the School of Dentistry.
Email: David.Watts@manchester.ac.uk