material objects. They cannot logically be separated,
because by definition they cannot exist together in any meaningful scientific or material way. The solution of verse 5 works equally
well here as the verse takes on its obvious meaning with God
separating the period of light from the period of darkness. These
are the distinct periods that are then named day and night in verse
5. So far so good.
Now comes the clincher. If "light" refers to a period of light in
verse 5 and in verse 4, consistency demands that we extend the
same understanding to verse 3, and here is where the "aha!" moment occurs. We are compelled by the demands of verses 4 and 5
to translate verse 3 as "God said, `Let there be a period of light."'
If we had previously been inclined to treat this as an act of material creation, we can no longer sustain that opinion. For since what
is called into existence is a period of light that is distinguished
from a period of darkness and that is named "day," we must inevi tably consider day one as describing the creation of time. The
basis for time is the invariable alteration between periods of light
and periods of darkness. This is a creative act, but it is creation in
a functional sense, not a material one.
This interpretation solves the long-standing conundrum of why
evening is named before morning. There had been darkness in the
precreation condition. When God called forth a period of light and
distinguished it from this period of darkness, the "time" system
that was set up required transitions between these two established
periods. Since the period of light had been called forth, the first
transition was evening (into the period of darkness) and the second
was morning (into the period of light). Thus the great cycle of time
was put in place by the Creator. As his first act he mixed time into
the features of the cosmos that would serve the needs of the human
beings he was going to place in its midst.
A second conundrum that this resolves is the detail that many
have found baffling over the ages as they ask, How could there be
light on day one when the sun is not created until day four? Two
observations can now be made: First, this is less of a problem
when we are dealing with "time" in day one rather than specifically with "light." But this does not really resolve the problem
without the second observation: If creation is understood in functional terms, the order of events concerns functional issues, not
material ones. Time is much more important than the sun-in
fact, the sun is not a function, it only has functions. It is a mere
functionary. More about this in the next chapter.
DAY Two
Day two has been problematic at a number of different levels. In
antiquity people routinely believed that the sky was solid.' As history progressed through the periods of scholasticism, the Renaissance, the Copernican revolution and the Enlightenment, verse 2 became more difficult to handle. For if the Hebrew term is to be
taken in its normal contextual sense, it indicates that God made a
solid dome to hold up waters above the earth. The choice of saying the Bible was wrong was deemed unacceptable, but the idea of
rendering the word in a way that could tolerate modern scientific
thinking could not be considered preferable in that it manipulated
the text to say something that it had never said. We cannot think
that we can interpret the word "expanse/firmament" as simply the
sky or the atmosphere if that is not what the author meant by it
when he used it and not what the audience would have understood
by the word. As we discussed in the first chapter, we cannot force
Genesis to speak to some later science.
We may find some escape from the problem, however, as we
continue to think about creation as ultimately concerned with the
functional rather than the material. If this is not an account of
material origins, then Genesis 1 is affirming nothing about the
material world. Whether or
because by definition they cannot exist together in any meaningful scientific or material way. The solution of verse 5 works equally
well here as the verse takes on its obvious meaning with God
separating the period of light from the period of darkness. These
are the distinct periods that are then named day and night in verse
5. So far so good.
Now comes the clincher. If "light" refers to a period of light in
verse 5 and in verse 4, consistency demands that we extend the
same understanding to verse 3, and here is where the "aha!" moment occurs. We are compelled by the demands of verses 4 and 5
to translate verse 3 as "God said, `Let there be a period of light."'
If we had previously been inclined to treat this as an act of material creation, we can no longer sustain that opinion. For since what
is called into existence is a period of light that is distinguished
from a period of darkness and that is named "day," we must inevi tably consider day one as describing the creation of time. The
basis for time is the invariable alteration between periods of light
and periods of darkness. This is a creative act, but it is creation in
a functional sense, not a material one.
This interpretation solves the long-standing conundrum of why
evening is named before morning. There had been darkness in the
precreation condition. When God called forth a period of light and
distinguished it from this period of darkness, the "time" system
that was set up required transitions between these two established
periods. Since the period of light had been called forth, the first
transition was evening (into the period of darkness) and the second
was morning (into the period of light). Thus the great cycle of time
was put in place by the Creator. As his first act he mixed time into
the features of the cosmos that would serve the needs of the human
beings he was going to place in its midst.
A second conundrum that this resolves is the detail that many
have found baffling over the ages as they ask, How could there be
light on day one when the sun is not created until day four? Two
observations can now be made: First, this is less of a problem
when we are dealing with "time" in day one rather than specifically with "light." But this does not really resolve the problem
without the second observation: If creation is understood in functional terms, the order of events concerns functional issues, not
material ones. Time is much more important than the sun-in
fact, the sun is not a function, it only has functions. It is a mere
functionary. More about this in the next chapter.
DAY Two
Day two has been problematic at a number of different levels. In
antiquity people routinely believed that the sky was solid.' As history progressed through the periods of scholasticism, the Renaissance, the Copernican revolution and the Enlightenment, verse 2 became more difficult to handle. For if the Hebrew term is to be
taken in its normal contextual sense, it indicates that God made a
solid dome to hold up waters above the earth. The choice of saying the Bible was wrong was deemed unacceptable, but the idea of
rendering the word in a way that could tolerate modern scientific
thinking could not be considered preferable in that it manipulated
the text to say something that it had never said. We cannot think
that we can interpret the word "expanse/firmament" as simply the
sky or the atmosphere if that is not what the author meant by it
when he used it and not what the audience would have understood
by the word. As we discussed in the first chapter, we cannot force
Genesis to speak to some later science.
We may find some escape from the problem, however, as we
continue to think about creation as ultimately concerned with the
functional rather than the material. If this is not an account of
material origins, then Genesis 1 is affirming nothing about the
material world. Whether or
Similar Books
