Creation or Evolution

Preface to the First Edition

I have written this book mainly for people who believe, as I do, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God from cover to cover. Of course I can understand that others might wish to read a book on such a controversial subject, including people of any faith or none. I hope those who happen to be in this latter category will find it interesting to see how one practising scientist, at least, addresses this issue, but I make no apologies for writing primarily for those who share my own Christian faith, for it often seems to be those within this community who have the greatest questions on the subject of creation and evolution. I therefore make no attempt in this book to defend the role of the Bible as the authoritative Word of God, but simply assume that this is the starting point for all Christians. If that is not your starting position, I hope at least that the book will help you to see how the Bible and science can live together very happily.

Unfortunately this topic has often been characterised by rather strongly held positions among Christians, sometimes diametrically opposed to each other. Occasionally this has led to the kind of exchanges that generate more heat than light. There are even Christians who think that to be a real Christian necessitates adopting the same position on these issues as they do. So it is good for Christians as they read this book to remember that we are saved by the finished work of Christ on the cross for our sins, and nothing can be added to our salvation other than what Christ has accomplished for us, for ‘The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love’ (Galatians 5:6). The last thing I would want is for this topic to be a matter for dissension or disunity among believers. This book is written as a discussion and a dialogue. Of course it expresses a particular point of view, but where there are differences I hope these can be aired amicably in a spirit of Christian love. One thing that we as Christians are not always very good at is disagreeing in a loving way. This can happen when peripheral doctrines not essential to salvation begin to be viewed as of central importance.

Essential and central biblical doctrines are that God created and sustains the universe, that human beings are made in his image and that sin separates men and women from God in a way that only God’s atoning work through Christ can remove. On such doctrines Christians are united. But sometimes we disagree over peripheral doctrines, such as the methods God used and uses to create, or the precise limits of our divine image as humans, or the best way to make people aware of the gulf caused by sin and God’s remedy for it. If such peripherals come to be regarded as of central importance, Christians can forget that it is by the way that we love one another that people are to recognise that we are disciples of Jesus.

So hopefully no one will tackle this book thinking that finding the correct answer to the question posed by its title is essential for salvation! I am glad to belong to a church in Cambridge where different members represent a broad range of views on this topic, and where we worship and work together quite happily. I count among some of my closest Christian friends those who share my view of God as creator and redeemer, but who see the way in which this ties up with scientific issues in terms very different from the line suggested in this book. Although it is always a good thing for Christians to find the truth and agree on it, we recognise that all of us ‘know in part’ (1 Corinthians 13:9), and that whereas knowledge will one day be fulfilled, only love that is developed now will have its culmination in the coming kingdom. In the meantime, we can rejoice that we can continue in Christian love in spite of some differing beliefs.

For many years I have been giving lectures on science and faith in churches, universities, schools and other venues. If I am giving a general lecture on the topic, I normally avoid the subject of creation and evolution altogether (wanting nothing better than a quiet life). But then it comes to the question and answer period, and the first question is usually something like ‘What do you think about Genesis 1?’ or ‘How does biblical teaching about Adam and Eve fit with science?’ In seeking to answer such questions I have found surprisingly few books written by professional biologists who take the Bible seriously and tackle hot topics like the interpretation of Genesis, Adam and Eve, the question of death before the fall and so forth. Of course there have been some great books written on the topic, and I have taken care to cite those here, but with the science advancing so rapidly there is a constant need to update the discussion.

I am grateful to Tim Bushell, then President of the Imperial College Christian Union in London, for the title of this book. I was invited to give a talk there some years ago as part of a Christian Union Mission, and this was the title I was given to address. I liked it so much that ever since I have had a book buzzing around in my head with the same title. Here it is.

I would like to thank also kind friends who have made helpful corrections and suggestions on earlier versions of the manuscript, some contributing particular items of information; in particular Ruth Bancewicz, John Bausor, Sam Berry, Peter Clarke, Keith Fox, Julian Hardyman, Rodney Holder, Ard Louis, Hilary Marlow, Paul Marston, Hans Meissner, Hugh Reynolds, Julian Rivers, Peter Williams and Bob White. The errors and ideas that remain are all my own, and mention of these names should not be taken to imply that they are necessarily in agreement with the answer that I give to the question in the title. I would also like to thank the publisher for their help and patience during the preparation of the manuscript, in particular Tony Collins, Simon Cox, Jenny Ward and their team.

This is a book written by someone who is passionate about both science and the Bible, and I hope reading it will encourage you to believe, as I do, that the ‘book of God’s Word’ and the ‘book of God’s works’ can be held firmly together in harmony.

Preface to the Second Edition

The six years since the publication of the first edition have been full of surprises. One pleasant surprise has been the steady ongoing demand for this book throughout this period leading to multiple printings, reflecting the ongoing interest in the topic posed by the title. Another surprise has been the take-up of the book by segments of the church community that I had imagined had long ago come to terms with evolution, in particular Anglicans and Catholics.

In the Preface to the First Edition I commented on the dearth of books, faithful to both Scripture and science, that tackled this particular topic. Thankfully that is no longer the case, and a significant cohort of new books on the topic, written from various perspectives, has now appeared. These include Historical Genesis: From Adam to Abraham by Richard Fischer (2008), The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton (2009), Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution by Denis Lamoureux (2009), Darwin, Creation and the Fall edited by R.J. Berry and T.A. Noble (2009), Origins by Deborah Haarsma and Loren Haarsma (Revised Edition, 2011), The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions by Karl Giberson and Francis Collins (2011), Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? by John Collins (2011), Mapping the Origins Debate: Six Models of the Beginning of Everything by Gerald Brau (2012), The Evolution of Adam: What The Bible Does And Doesn’t Say About Human Origins by Peter Enns (2012), the multi-authored Four Views on the Historical Adam (2013) and The Adam Quest by Tim Stafford (2013). I am grateful for these and many other helpful contributions to this growing literature and have incorporated some of the points from these books in this new edition. Of course mention of these books does not mean that I agree with everything in them, any more than I am sure their authors agree with everything in the present volume! But it is good to see a respectful dialogue emerging, with Christians remaining faithful to Scripture, but also realising that the Bible may not necessarily exclude a scientific view to which they had previously been opposed.

One surprising book that appeared in 2009 is a multi-authored work entitled Should Christians Embrace Evolution? edited by Norman Nevin. I say ‘surprising’ because the book is written very specifically as a riposte to the first edition of the present volume. Whereas ‘response books’ written by Christians are rather common when addressing books by, for example, the ‘new atheists’, to have a ‘response book’ written by one set of Christians against another is, in my experience, thankfully rare, and indeed I am not sure that it’s a very good idea. The problem about ‘response books’ is that they can end up scoring debating points rather than providing a more thoughtful overview of a topic that requires calm reflection. In the present instance Should Christians Embrace Evolution? seems to have been rushed out with undue haste following the publication of the first edition of this book, leading to inaccurate accounts of the views expressed herein, not to speak of a string of scientifically inaccurate claims. In no sense does this second edition intend to be a ‘counter-riposte’ to this kind of material, although I have added or revised some sections to clarify points that might have led to misunderstandings.¹

On a not unconnected point, one rather alarming development since the publication of the first edition has been reports of some no doubt well-meaning Christians asking fellow believers whether they hold to ‘the Alexander view on creation and evolution’ or, even worse, whether they are in the ‘Alexander group’ on such matters. The apostle Paul, no less, had some very tough comments to make about such divisive attitudes, albeit in the context of baptism (1 Corinthians 1:10–18). This provides an opportunity to underline the point that there is really nothing conceptually novel in theological terms in either the first or the second edition of this book. That might not sound like a very good way for an author to sell more copies of his book, but it really is true. All the proffered biblical interpretations and theological views suggested in the present volume have very long histories. As far as more recent history is concerned, my own views on the topic have been shaped by that great generation of academic evangelical scholars who did so much for Christian work among students in Britain during the 1950s–1990s. I am thinking in particular of Jim Packer, Oliver Barclay, Derek Kidner, Donald MacKay, John Stott, Sam Berry, Colin Russell, Donald Wiseman, Jim Houston and many others. Although my views may be expressed somewhat differently from these commentators on occasion, the roots of this book are to be found in their many books, lectures and sermons, not to speak of personal friendships.

One of the very positive experiences arising from the publication of the first edition has been a steady flow of hundreds of emails and letters from readers coming from many parts of the world. The most encouraging have been those from readers for whom the book has literally been a spiritual lifesaver. Brought up in churches where they had been faced with the stark choice between science or faith, some had been on the brink of jumping ship and forsaking faith altogether, until they realised that science and faith are friends not foes and the cognitive dissonance was finally relieved. Others have become Christians as a result of reading this book, the final obstacle in the way of taking Christian faith seriously having been removed. One letter came from a teacher whose grandfather, aged 90, was an enthusiastic reader, reporting that it had helped him to work through some struggles in his faith. Some have written in with nice things to say, plus around 50 more questions or so for further comment. My apologies to those who have received less than detailed replies – life is too short. But I have tried to include extra material in this edition to address at least some of these FAQs and ‘matters arising’.

My thanks are due to those who have written in response to the first edition with corrections and suggestions for the ‘next edition’ (meaning now this one). In particular Pablo de Felipe and colleagues in Madrid picked up some important corrections during the preparation of the Spanish edition. My special thanks are due to Nell Whiteway, a member of staff at The Faraday Institute, who has made a major contribution to this second edition in helping to correct and update the scientific data. In addition I would like to thank those many helpful readers who read various draft chapters of the present edition, or even the complete book, sometimes leading to pub lunches accompanied by vigorous discussion. This helpful cohort, which also encompasses those who have supplied useful points or articles, includes Gerald Bray, Neville Cobb, Dave Gobbett, Brad Green, Ian Hamilton, Jeff Hardin, Julian Hardyman, Rodney Holder, Nathan James, Hilary Marlow, Ian Randall, Mike Reeves, Dennis Venema, David Vosburg, Garry Williams, Peter Williams and Stephen Williams. Mention of these names does not of course imply that these friends agree with everything in this book and, as always in making such acknowledgments, it is good to emphasise that any errors that remain are all my own. To the reader of this second edition may I say: please do keep the emails and letters flowing (see http://www.faraday-institute.org for contact details) with your thoughts and suggestions, but please also keep in mind that I may not always be in a position to give a very detailed response.

Those who read the first edition might, with good reason, wonder whether it is worth purchasing this second edition. What’s new? This edition is 35,000 words longer. The science has been updated throughout the book, though some fields are moving so fast that inevitably there will be even more recent results available by the time this edition is published. Genomics continues to transform our understanding of recent human evolution. Since the first edition it has become apparent that modern humans are mildly polygenic rather than being strictly monogenic and these new findings are covered in some detail. Origin of life studies have advanced very significantly over the past few years, and some of these new discoveries are described. The chapter on Intelligent Design takes into account some of the more recent publications on this topic. But the greatest increase in word count has been in the more theological sections. What about Adam and Eve? The fall? Original sin? Death before the fall? The atonement? Augustine? These are the questions that are often most pressing in such discussions and for this reason Chapters 10 and 12 in particular have swollen in length to address such topics. One further new feature of this edition is the increased number of endnotes. There was a deliberate attempt to keep the citation number low in the first edition, given that this is a book intended for a general readership without necessarily having any background in science. However, there were complaints from some readers that citations were not provided for certain key points, so this has been rectified to a large extent in the present version, though no attempt has been made to provide citation details for every single point.

A few days before writing this preface I was speaking at a conference in the USA. During a break a man from Texas came up for a chat, saying that he wanted to thank me for something. He said that he had an 11-year-old daughter who went to a Christian school. One day she came home from school to announce that she could no longer believe in Jesus because science was true and so the Bible could not be trusted. Even at that very early age she had been faced with a stark choice between God and science – at the age of 11?! Fortunately, the gentleman from Texas went on to tell me, he had been able to point his daughter towards some articles that I had written which were published on the BioLogos website (http://www.biologos.org) and these, together with other materials she found there, had helped this young person through her crisis of faith.

Pitting faith against science is both a scandal and a tragedy of certain segments of the contemporary church, just as serious in its consequences as the efforts of the new atheists to pit science against faith. My hope is that this new edition can continue in helping to show that both approaches are completely unnecessary, thereby nurturing that first-cousinly friendship that has traditionally characterised the relationship between science and faith down the centuries.

Chapter 1

What Do We Mean By Creation?

All Christians are, by definition, creationists. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament expresses this very clearly when he writes:

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Hebrews 11:2)²

We cannot come to know God personally by faith without also believing that he is Creator of all that exists. The Apostles’ Creed affirms: ‘I believe in God the Father, maker of heaven and earth’, a declaration central to the beliefs of all mainstream denominations. So Christians are by definition those who believe in a creator God; they are creationists.

Now of course there is the slight problem that in common usage the term ‘creationist’ is attached to a particular set of beliefs held by some Christians, as well as by some Muslims and Jews, and these beliefs relate to the particular way in which it is thought that God has created. For example, some creationists believe that the earth is 10,000 years old or less. Other creationists believe that the earth is very old, but that God has intervened in a miraculous way at various stages of creation, for example to bring about new species. Since words are defined by their usage, we have to accept that this is the kind of belief to which the word ‘creationist’ refers. But this should not mask the fact that in reality all Christians are creationists in a more basic sense – it is just that they vary in their views as to how God created.

Sooner or later (generally sooner) discussions about creation and evolution come down to how Christians interpret the Bible. Were Adam and Eve real historical people? Was the fruit on the tree in the Garden of Eden symbolic, or like fruit on the trees in the nearest orchard? Was there any physical death before the fall? Can one believe in both the Genesis account and evolution at the same time?

The only way we can answer such questions is by reviewing what the Bible says about creation and considering whether it tells us anything about how God created living things. But before even embarking on that important task, we first have to think about how we interpret the Bible.

Interpreting the Bible

Have you ever met a fellow believer who tried telling you, ‘Well I don’t interpret the Bible – I just read it the way it is’? I have. I’ve also read such comments in print, not just in casual conversation. But of course most Christians are well aware that we are all involved in interpretation when we come to the biblical text.

The challenge of translation

For a start most of us do not read the Bible in its Hebrew or Greek original form, so we are dependent on translators to render the translation as faithful to the original text as they can. This is not always easy. For example, Hebrew has four words for you, distinguishing between masculine and feminine, as well as singular and plural, whereas English has only the one. Comparison of different English translations will quickly reveal that interpretation is involved in the precise rendering of many different verses, although in no case does this affect any basic Christian doctrine.

It is often quite difficult to bring out during translation the nuances of the original text in the way that the author clearly intended. The NIV version of Genesis 2:25 – 3:1 reads:

The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.

But the English loses the fact that the Hebrew words translated ‘naked’ (arom) and ‘crafty’ (arum) are almost identical in spelling and pronunciation and serve to connect the two verses. One attempt at a translation closer to the text makes the key words rhyme:

And the man and his wife were nude… Now the serpent was more shrewd…

But I suspect that this would get the kids giggling on the back row in church if tried when reading the lesson, so perhaps best not.

Light is constantly being shed on the meaning of Hebrew words by newly discovered texts in languages other than Hebrew. The corpus of ancient Hebrew literature still only consists of the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls (far shorter than the Old Testament), a few parts of the apocrypha and some short inscriptions. The King James translation was carried out in the early seventeenth century before archaeology was known and without any modern sense of comparative linguistics (the rules that govern the relationships between one language and another). Furthermore, languages like Akkadian (Babylonian and Assyrian) were completely undeciphered at that time and these have sometimes helped us understand the meaning of Hebrew words.

We might be surprised to read the injunction in the King James Bible to ‘Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish’ (Proverbs 31:6) and in fact ‘strong drink’ is mentioned 21 times in the King James Old Testament text, translating the word sekar. But in more recent translations like the NIV we read: ‘Give beer to those who are perishing’, and sekar is now generally translated as ‘beer’ in place of ‘strong drink’ in the NIV. How come? Did more recent translators get cold feet about having so much ‘strong drink’ in the Bible? Not so – the Bible comes down hard on drunkenness in any translation. The actual reason is more prosaic. Akkadian texts were discovered in which sikaru, a word sounding very like the Hebrew, clearly means beer because it is described as a ‘sweet beer made from grain’,³ and this was sufficient to swing the translations in favour of beer.

As a Turkish speaker, and someone who has been for many years a supportive associate of those working to translate the Bible into modern Turkish, I have a special interest in that fascinating language. As with all translations, the team faced big challenges as they came to tackle certain passages. For example, how were they going to render Romans 12:20? In the English translation it reads: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if your enemy is thirsty, give him something to drink. In this way you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Now imagine a Turkish reader encountering the New Testament for the very first time without any Bible commentaries available. What might the reader make of this particular verse? Wisely the translators rendered in Turkish the final phrase of this verse to read ‘In this way you will make that person ashamed’.⁴

There are hundreds of examples like this that keep Bible translators intellectually and spiritually challenged all the way round the globe. We should pray for them. It is a tough task, but a task that reminds us that whether we like it or not we are already beginning to engage in the interpretative task of others as soon as we start reading our Bibles in any language other than the original.

Some key principles in interpreting the Bible

The next stage of interpretation involves our own grappling with the text, using this kind of checklist:⁵

What kind of language is being used?

What kind of literature is it?

What is the expected audience?

What is the purpose of the text?

What relevant extra-textual knowledge is there?

The first two points in the list are particularly important when we start investigating what the Bible teaches about creation. The biblical authors use a very wide range of literary styles to convey God’s message to us. ‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness’ (2 Timothy 3:16), but this does not mean that the Holy Spirit suppresses the author’s personality, culture, language and idiosyncratic style. This is where the biblical view of inspiration is so different from that of the Qur’an. Muslims believe that the Qur’an has existed for all eternity in heaven in the Arabic language and was communicated to Mohammed in a series of visions in a particular cave. Mohammed is therefore viewed by Muslims as the mouthpiece of God’s revelation without himself contributing to the text. In contrast, Christians believe God inspired the authors of the 66 books of the Bible to write texts over a period of up to 1,500 years bearing the indelible stamp of their own particular interests, context and culture. Bible-believing Christians have no doubt that what Scripture says, God says,⁶ but it is God speaking through real flesh and blood people, not through robots. As the writer to the Hebrews starts his letter (Hebrews 1:1):

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways…

The range of literary and linguistic styles used in Scripture is indeed extremely wide. When we use our own mother tongue in a given culture, we automatically fill in the correct meanings of texts and of speech almost without thinking about it. When we’re driving and see a sign saying ‘Warning, Heavy Plant Crossing’, we don’t look out for incursions into the road ahead from passing rhododendrons. When we hear someone described as having a ‘chip on their shoulder’, we do not look for bits of wood sticking out of their anatomy next time we meet them. If someone ‘got out of bed on the wrong side’ this morning, we know to keep well clear, not to interrogate them on the layout of their bedroom. Our daily language is saturated with idioms, metaphors, hyperbole, irony, slang and subtle humour, imbued with the flavour and character of the national culture in which it originates.

As we read different materials in our own language our minds effortlessly adapt to the context, even though in the course of a day we may be faced with understanding dozens of different literary styles. One moment we are reading our daily newspaper, the next moment cooking recipes, then a historical novel, or maybe Harry Potter, then a legal document relating to a house purchase, then some cartoons on the back of the newspaper, then a scientific paper (for some) or a business report (for others). We would not dream of understanding one type of literature as if it were another, but automatically interpret statements according to their literary context. When I read in an estate agent’s description of a house for sale that ‘it requires some attention’, I interpret accordingly (e.g. the house has been derelict for more than a year and needs major refurbishment); but if a kind friend has read a draft of my latest book and says, in a classic piece of British understatement, that ‘Chapter 9 needs some attention’, I will take a second look at that chapter very carefully. When Slughorn says ‘I must give you warning that Felix Felicis is a banned substance in organised competitions…’,⁷ then I read the literature accordingly, not as if I were an athlete reading the warning in a sporting manual prepared for the next Olympics.

Context makes a huge difference to nuance. If I say ‘I am broken-hearted that the technician has broken his promise to mend the broken equipment’, this uses the same word in three different ways and only the context determines how literal the meaning is. My recent favourite on this point is the mother quoted as saying: ‘You cannot expect your kids not to go out. You don’t want them staying at home, fixed to the computer’⁸ – the sort of remark any sensible parent might say, we think, and move on. But it makes a lot of difference to know that this was the particular mother whose 14-year-old son had just sailed a boat single-handed across the Atlantic – a unique achievement. Knowing the context changes the nuance entirely – some ‘going out’!

Those who have been reading the Bible for a long time will also tend to interpret texts almost automatically according to the type of literature being read. Others just starting out might need more help (of course commentaries can be useful): but all of us need to be on our guard against reading one type of biblical literature as if it were another. This point becomes clearer when we consider that the types of literature used in the Bible include prose, historical narrative, poetry (in many different styles), prophetic writing, parables, apocalyptic writings, correspondence, theological essays, biography, genealogy, legal discourse, census data, hymns, descriptions of dreams and visions, and much else besides. We can be seriously misled if we treat one kind of narrative as if it were another, missing the main point of the passage altogether.

When Nathan the prophet told King David a parable in 2 Samuel 12, the king became very involved in the story. It was a real tear-jerker about injustice in which the rich man kills the poor man’s only ewe for dinner, when actually the rich man had plenty of his own. To which story King David cries, ‘As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.’ Then Nathan said to David, ‘You are the man!’ David had become so emotionally involved with the actual parable, not to say blind to his own sin, he had missed the point entirely that Nathan meant him and his adultery with Bathsheba, with its subsequent cover-up and arranged death of her husband Uriah the Hittite.

At other times the biblical writers give us both a straightforward narrative and a figurative account of the same events, in order to drive home the key theological message. For example, Ezekiel 16 says figuratively what Ezekiel 22 says by way of a more straightforward narrative account, and Ezekiel 23 does the same for the more historical account provided in Ezekiel 20.⁹

Jesus himself often spent time trying to persuade his listeners away from a literalistic interpretation of his words, because if they took that route they would equally miss the point. When Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again, Nicodemus’ immediate response was whether he had to ‘enter again into his mother’s womb’, and Jesus had to explain to him that he was speaking of a spiritual rebirth. When Jesus spoke of the Temple being raised in three days, his disciples protested that it had taken 46 years to build the Temple (John 2:20), so how could he possibly do it in three days? But John goes on to explain that Jesus was actually speaking of his resurrection. So what is the true interpretation of Jesus’ words: that the Temple could be physically rebuilt in three days, or that he would rise from the dead on the third day?

A few chapters later in John’s Gospel (6:51) Jesus declares: ‘I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’ Not surprisingly we then read that ‘the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ At which point we might expect Jesus to give a really clear explanation of what he means, but instead Jesus says, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.’ We might feel some sympathy with the listeners on this occasion if they were a bit shocked by such words. Indeed we read that ‘many of his disciples said, This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ (verse 60). Getting the real point of Jesus’ words took some tough thinking and effort. The Word of God is not simply handed to us on a plate as if it were a list of doctrinal points that we could tick off without personal thought and engagement.

Western readers, in particular, are not very practised at reading ancient literature and have a tendency to interpret with a wooden literalism. This is because scientific literature has become so dominant in our culture, influencing the way in which we instinctively read even those texts that come from a pre-scientific age. This can be a significant problem when we come to the biblical text, not only because of its antiquity, but also because it is set in cultures with which we may not be familiar. For example some Western readers are puzzled by the way in which Jesus rarely seems to give a straight answer to a straight question (although he did sometimes). Why doesn’t he just say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in answer to a direct question? (e.g. John 8:5; 8:25; 10:24). Of course Jesus’ main purpose was often to get people thinking about the deeper issues by throwing questions back to them, but generally in Middle Eastern cultures it is not customary to give very straight answers, indeed not deemed very polite. Just listen to a discussion between diplomats from Western and Middle Eastern countries for a while and you will see what I mean!

Understanding other cultures can also help us with otherwise difficult passages like Luke 9:61 where a potential disciple says to Jesus, ‘I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say goodbye to my family’, to which Jesus replies ‘No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.’ At first that sounds a bit harsh, but certainly Jesus is not saying here that we shouldn’t be concerned about our families. When we realise that ‘saying goodbye’ in the culture of the time was not a question of a brief ‘Cheerio, mum and dad’ but could involve a prolonged period of meals, visiting relatives in nearby villages etc., it helps to put the challenge in perspective. If we come to the biblical text with our twenty-first century Western mindsets firmly in place, without any willingness to educate ourselves in the culture and world of the biblical writers, we are likely to miss much of what the inspired Word of God has to say to us.

Such reflections should also make us cautious when referring to the ‘literal meaning of the text’. The real literal meaning of the text is the one that the author intends us to understand. So when Luke records the words of Jesus (Luke 14:26) that ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple’, what is the literal meaning of the text? If we were reading that text in isolation on a manuscript fragment recovered from some desert in Palestine, we might have a problem in finding the correct interpretation. But of course by placing that text in the context of the rest of the New Testament, we know that Jesus is not actually encouraging us to literally hate our families. Instead our commitment to serve and follow him makes any other claims upon our allegiance look like hatred by contrast: this is a typical example of linguistic hyperbole, of which the Bible is full. Understanding the true meaning of a biblical text can take some time and effort.

The biblical language of creation

The words create, created, creates, creating and creation occur 84 times in the NIV translation of the Bible. But there are many other words also that refer to God’s creative work. There is a temptation in studies of this kind to do an extensive investigation of all the various words used in Hebrew and Greek for the idea of ‘creation’ or ‘creating’ and then arrange them into a system of carefully defined (and sometimes overly dogmatic!) meanings attached to each word. The problem with this approach is that language is defined by its usage and context, and the biblical writers, inspired by the Holy Spirit, certainly chose their words carefully, but not necessarily for the benefit of twenty-first century systematic theologians. So certainly it is useful to study the different words and understand their different nuances, but at the end of the day it is context that will be most important in helping us to understand the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek ‘creation language’ of the Bible, just as it is in English.

There are three main words used for create in Hebrew: bara’ (‘create’, Greek equivalent ktizein), ‘asah (‘make’, Greek equivalent poiein) and yatsar (‘form’, Greek equivalent plasso). The word bara’ is generally used to refer to the action of God in bringing about his creative work. A classic example would be: ‘In the beginning God bara’ the heavens and the earth’. But in Hebrew thought the bara’ works of God are by no means restricted to origins, often referring to any new beginning in the normal everyday processes of life and death. ‘Remember how fleeting is my life. For what futility you have created (bara’) all men!’ cries the psalmist (Psalm 89:47), and ‘Create (bara’) in me a pure heart, O God’ (Psalm 51:10).

In Isaiah 54:16 we have a fascinating example of the way in which God’s bara’ expresses his sovereignty in bringing into being human existence, identity and judgment: ‘See, it is I who created (bara’) the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created (bara’) the destroyer to work havoc…’. And then in Psalm 104 we have the remarkable observation that God’s creative work is involved in the very processes of animal life and death that would have been so familiar to the rural communities of that time: ‘When you hide your face, they [the animals] are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created (bara’), and you renew the face of the earth’ (verses 29–30). Note here that it is by bara’ that the created order is renewed. Job reflects these realities perfectly when he says of God that ‘In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind’ (Job 12:10).

God’s bara’ is not only involved in the life, death and being of both humans and animals, but also in other ongoing processes of the world that are by no means limited to ‘origins’. In Isaiah 45:7 God declares – in the present tense – ‘I form the light and create (bara’) darkness, I bring prosperity and create (bara’) disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.’ And similarly in Amos 4:13 we read that ‘He who forms the mountains, creates (bara’) the wind, and reveals his thoughts to man, he who turns dawn to darkness, and treads the high places of the earth – the Lord God Almighty is his name.’

When God wishes to remind his people of their limited knowledge, he tells them that his work of bara’ is ongoing, so there is no way they can second-guess his plans and purposes: ‘From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you. They are created (bara’) now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, Yes, I knew of them.’ (Isaiah 48:6–7). God’s bara’ is also involved in the generation and blessing of nations: ‘But now, this is what the Lord says – he who created (bara’) you, O Jacob, he who formed (yatsar) you, O Israel: Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine.’ (Isaiah 43:1 and compare verse 7). The rest of Isaiah 43 then explains the many and varied ways in which God’s faithful bara’ and yatsar are being worked out in the lives of his people, God revealing himself as ‘Israel’s Creator’ (bara’, verse 15).

This passage from Isaiah also reminds us that there is a considerable degree of overlap among the various Hebrew words used for ‘create’, ‘make’ and ‘form’. Of course we do not interpret Isaiah 43:1 as meaning that God’s creative work in the formation of Jacob and of Israel is somehow different! It is very common in Hebrew literature for essentially the same point to be made twice in the same passage, albeit using slightly different language, acting like a refrain through the text – Psalm 145 provides a good example among many others. In this and other ways the different Hebrew creation words are often used interchangeably for the same event. ‘It is I who made (‘asah) the earth and created (bara’) mankind upon it’ says God in Isaiah 45:12. ‘My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshalled their starry hosts.’ The people whom God is calling to himself from every part of the earth are those ‘whom I created (bara’) for my glory, whom I formed and made (‘asah)’ (Isaiah 43:7).

Sometimes all three main ‘creative’ words in Hebrew occur in the same sentence: ‘For this is what the Lord says – he who created (bara’) the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned (yatsar) and made (‘asah) the earth’ (Isaiah 45:18). From those types of example alone we might deduce that the words are completely interchangeable, but it is in fact the case that bara’ always has God as the subject, whereas the other words like ‘asah are used also for human creativity, in addition to their frequent use in reference to God’s creative work. For example, the designers who helped construct the tabernacle and its accessories ‘fashioned (‘asah) the breastpiece – the work of a skilled craftsman’ (Exodus 39:8). We don’t hear of a human craftsman bara’ things in the biblical text – it is God’s job to bara’. But it is quite different for ‘asah. From Genesis chapters 1 to 7 there are 15 examples of ‘asah where God is the direct subject of the making, whereas when we reach Genesis 8 we find Noah opening the window that ‘he had made (‘asah) in the ark’ (verse 6).

Such word studies should be viewed as providing a useful toolkit when reading biblical passages about creation, but no more. There is certainly no room for holding dogmatically to a particular interpretation of a passage based on word studies alone. But knowing a bit about the linguistic background can certainly be helpful as we begin to paint the broad brush-strokes that give us an overall picture of the biblical understanding of the doctrine of creation. The more detailed discussion of the Genesis text will come in later chapters; for the moment we are interested in the ‘big picture’.

Chapter 2

The Biblical Doctrine of Creation

Many people think that when Christians talk about ‘creation’ they are referring mainly to ‘origins’. Of course the biblical teaching on creation includes origins, but if we become too focused on origins then we can forget that the biblical understanding of creation is not primarily concerned with how things began, but why they exist. Also the preponderance of biblical teaching on creation is not located within the first few chapters of the book of Genesis, important as they are, but is scattered throughout the rest of the Bible.

God in relation to creation

If we take Scripture as a whole, four key points emerge about God in relation to his creation:¹⁰

God is transcendent in relation to his creation

Christians do not generally go around hugging trees, because they worship a transcendent Creator who is not to be found in trees but who has certainly brought them into being and who sustains their being. The transcendence of God refers to his otherness, his eternal nature, the fact that he’s nothing like us. As the psalmist prays in Psalm 90:2:

Before the mountains were born

or you brought forth the earth and the world,

from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

The God of the Bible is not a local or tribal god who can be pinned down to some neat time-bound or culture-bound formula. ‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’ (Isaiah 55:8–9). We cannot second-guess God. We cannot tell him how he should have done creation – those of us who are scientists can only describe what he actually has done, to the best of our ability. The properties of the created order are contingent upon God’s will, meaning that they are dependent upon his ultimate say-so. Many historians of science believe that this Christian conviction was important in stimulating empirical thinking during the emergence of modern science. If we cannot work out how God’s creation operates by pure reason – especially fallen reason! – then we’d better do some experiments to find out how it works.¹¹

God’s transcendence also means that all the metaphors we use to describe God are highly inadequate. He is not a kind of heavenly engineer tinkering around with bits of the created order. He is not restricted to the notion of the Divine Architect as promoted by the Freemasons. And he’s certainly not any kind of superhuman as Richard Dawkins mistakenly understands theists to believe, very complex because made of lots of parts ‘like a Boeing 747’.¹² The transcendence of God is a reminder that we can never put God in a box. We are made in his image, but he is certainly not made in ours.

Implicit in God’s transcendence is the concept that he creates out of his free and unfettered will. There was no necessity in God creating the universe. He did not have to create it. His transcendent being is all-sufficient. ‘The Lord does whatever pleases him’ writes the psalmist, ‘in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths’ (Psalm 135:6). The God whom Paul proclaimed to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers at Athens was quite different from anything they had heard of before, a God who ‘is not served by human hands, as