Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Olivia]

Why did GOD take 6 days to create the world and rest on the 7th? Why didn't it happened all at once? Also, why are there two stories to the creation of Adam and Eve—Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?

[jimwalton]

I'd be glad to answer your question, but the answer might be a little long. I'll tell you what—I'll give you the Reader's Digest version.

I believe that the understanding of Genesis 1-2 that has been popular for the past 300 years (the age of Enlightenment and the age of Reasoning) is a total misunderstanding of the text. Current research is taking the text back to its original roots and discovering a completely different, and, I believe, a more accurate meaning. (How's THAT for a start?)

To summarize, Genesis 1 is about function, not structure. In other words, God is not telling us WHAT he created, but WHY—what it's purpose is. Science tells us what; God tells us why (something science doesn't and can't talk about). For instance, on Day 1 God is not creating light and dark—they already existed. But he is giving them their role—their function—in keeping time. Understand? God isn't creating the things, but he is giving them their purpose: to keep time. We do injustice to the text by trying to make it conform to our scientific world view. Genesis 1 tells what happened when God began His creative work. The account of Genesis 1 intends to tell of God’s use of raw material (which, no doubt, he created, but that wasn’t the concern of the ancients).

They probably viewed light as having existed prior to this time, and that at v. 3 it was put into operation on the earth. They would not have viewed the sun, moon, and stars as the sole source of light, but they certainly recognized their role, as in v. 14. So light would have been seen as regulated in the heavenly bodies but having its existence independent of them. We take that same information and seek to theologically establish God as the source of light. To them, that would be silly...of course God is the source of light—whether it comes from the sun or not! People forget that the ancients didn’t know anything about the sun as being a burning mass of gas or the moon as being just a planet that reflects the sun’s light. To them, the sun, moon, and stars were created “things” which God ordained to carry light. Cause and effect was not seen scientifically, but as connected to God. (In our day, we have swung a full 180º and see all cause and effect scientifically.)

The text isn't concerned about things. What it's about is that God is taking responsibility for imposing order on chaos. he demonstrates his power and sovereignty by bringing the cosmos into conformity with his purposes.

OK, quickly—the other days.
vv. 6-8: Day 2: God is the regulator of climate. You'll notice that there is nothing mentioned here that God is creating.
vv. 9-13: Day 3: Agriculture. Again, nothing is being made here, but the ground is being given its purpose.

So far we have that God has set up three functions to bring order to the cosmos: time, weather, and agriculture. Compare this with Gn. 8.22, after the flood, when he does the same thing: “As long as earth endures, seedtime and harvest [agriculture], cold and heat, summer and winter [weather], day and night [time] will never cease.”

vv. 14-19: Day 4: They are given their functions (their purpose): signs, seasons, calendar
vv. 20-23: Day 5: They are given their functions to be subservient to people. In v. 20, these statements address the concept of jurisdiction and breeding that touch on the role and operation of these classes of creature (notice, not species). Though humans exercise rule over the animals in general, the fish and birds occupy a different realm, sea and sky, where they carry out their functions.
vv. 24-: Day 6: The living creatures are given their purpose. Humans are given their purpose.

You see? The text is not about the stuff—that's for science. It's about purpose—that's for God. The Bible doesn't try to tell us about the structures. Instead, it tells us what the purpose is—why it's there. Science can't tell us anything about purpose. Instead, science tells us what is there, and as much about it as it can. Science and theology are a perfect complement to each other.

Day 7? The point of Gen. 1, it turns out, is to show us that God was setting up his Temple: the place for him to set up his throne and to make his presence known. It'll be easier if I just quote another:

Rest is the main goal of Creation. The functional cosmos is not set up with only people in mind. The cosmos is also intended to carry out a function related to God. On the seventh day we finally discover that God has been working to achieve a rest. This seventh day is not a theological appendix to the creation account, just to bring closure now that the main event of creating people has been reported. It intimates the purpose of creation and of the cosmos. God does not only set up the cosmos so that people will have a place. He also sets up the cosmos to serve as his temple. As Wenham observes, the creation of people may be the climax of the six days of work, but it is not the conclusion of the narrative. He goes on to point out that it is the seventh day that is blessed and sanctified, suggesting the significance of what happens there.

The Cosmos is portrayed as a Temple Complex in the Bible. Isa 66:1 expresses clearly the temple/cosmos function in biblical theology as it identifies heaven as his throne, earth as his footstool, providing a resting-place for him. He likewise achieves rest on the seventh day of creation, just as he takes up rest in his temple (see below). As developed earlier, “rest” does not imply relaxation, but more like achieving equilibrium and stability. The environment he creates is not intended to provide rest for the people he has created (though that becomes a significant piece of theology as time goes on). Rather, he is making a rest for himself, a rest provided for by the completed cosmos. Inhabiting his resting place is the equivalent to being enthroned—it is connected to taking up his role as sovereign ruler of the cosmos. The temple simply provides a symbolic reality for this concept. Psalm 104:2-4 captures this as the elements of the cosmos serve as functionaries for Yahweh’s rule.

- the luminaries from Day 4 suggest the lamps in the Temple

- rivers flowing from Eden suggest Ezk. 47.1

- when people are assigned their function in 2:15, priestly terms are used

- rest is the principle function of the temple, and a temple is always where a deity finds rest

- the cosmos is described in temple terms, and the temple is described in cosmos terms (Ps. 132.13-14; Ex. 40.34; Isa. 6.3; Ps. 78.69)

- Sabbath and sanctuary relate to one another (Lv. 19.30; 26.2)


The face value of the account, that which is mutually understood by the biblical author and his contemporary audience, contains at least a strong undercurrent of God setting up a cosmos that is intended to function not only as an environment for the people that he is creating, but even more as a sanctuary for himself. He furbishes it, puts people in it and takes up his repose (Sabbath) in Gen 1:1 - 2:4, then sets up Eden along the lines of the holy of holies.

Why 7 days? That was the recognized period of time to dedicate a temple! 1 Kings 8.62-66.

It's a beautiful thing, and a fascinating approach to the text.

[Newbie]

You say that "God is not telling us WHAT he created, but WHY". Is there scripture that makes you think this? If the Genesis 1 account says "God made the firmament", "God made two great lights", "God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves", "God made the beast of the earth" - How do you interpret these passages so that "God isn't creating the thing"? What Biblical passages make you think God isn't creating anything here? Do you have a source of truth greater than scripture that is determining how you interpret scripture?

[jimwalton]

your best bet would be to watch the short video sessions I have on my website (3TV; Genesis through ancient eyes). He (my brother) explains it quite well. But I'll say some here, briefly. it's very long and involved, and better for an actual face-to-face conversation.

In Gn. 1.1, the verb for created is bara'. The subject of this verb in Scripture is always God, but the objects are really unusual things, in the categories of abstractions (purity, righteousness), and people groups (the nations)—that kind of thing. It is never used about making a "thing." It never refers to materials. It's more like we would say in English "my sister created havoc." Well, she literally did create it, but it's not a material thing. Though God did make everything (scripture is VERY clear), the thrust of the verb here is not that God is making something material.

Gn. 1.2. If the text was going to talk about the manufacture of matter, we would expect this verse to say something about that, but it doesn't. Instead it talks about formless and void (disorder and chaos), which was of great concern in the ancient world. All of the ancient cosmologies were not about God making something out of nothing (because they all presupposed that any idiot would know that), but how God brought order and purpose to what was there. The existence of chaos was what they all wrote about, and how their gods gave birth to other gods to deal with it. Genesis also starts with chaos, but is obviously going to take an entirely different approach to what God did about it.

Gn. 1.3-5. I'll start with v. 5. The Hebrew word for light is 'or. Why didn't God call the light 'or? Instead he called it yom, or "day." And the darkness he called "night." what is happening here is not the concern for what physicists call light, but the sequence of day and night, evening and morning. What is happening here is the SEQUENCE. Back to verse 4. The physicists light cannot be separated from darkness, but alternating periods of light and darkness can be set up in sequence to create a separation that will happen normally, regularly, and repetitively. In other words, God is not creating light, he's creating TIME. Periods of light and darkness, sequences of day and night. God is not creating a material substance, but is bringing order where there was chaos, purpose where there was void. "Time" and "day" are not material objects. God is bringing functionality, order, and purpose to the universe by creating and regulating time. Well, if that's what vv. 4 & 5 are about, then it must also be what v. 3 is about. Notice there is no word for "create" in v. 3. It's the verb "to be," expressing wish or desire. A good understanding would be to translate it, "Let there be a period of light," which was then separated from periods of darkness, called day and night and set in sequence.

Gn. 1.6-8. It's clear that nothing is being created here. There's only another separation: water above from water below. The verb for "made" in v. 7 is 'asa, which means "do." It is God doing something. He's separating water from water by an expanse (raqi'a). The ancients didn't have a clue about the structure of the world and our atmosphere, and their science explained it WAY differently from what we know it to be. But if you read Akkadian and Mesopotamian literature, they felt that their weather came from the raqi'a, or the firmament. What Moses is writing here, by inspiration of God, is that not only is God the author of time, to bring order, structure, and function to our world, but also the author of climate, or weather systems, that make life possible on the planet. God regulates time, and God regulates the weather. The waters from the raqi'a that can brings floods and destruction, or famine and death with it, were often perceived as the forces of chaos, and the gods worked against them. Moses is saying there is no war; God created an operational weather system and all the climate that brings not only order, but survival, to us. The intention of the text is not to convey structure, but function. He called the expanse "sky".

And so it goes. God is bringing order and structure to the chaos, not as a god at war, and birthing other gods to help him, but in simple sovereignty as the One who brings order, structure, and purpose, to his creation.

Vv. 9-11 also do not mention any material substance being created. "God gathered." Another separating—dry ground from wet sea. Why? What structure? No creation of any structure is mentioned. What function? Soil and water were both necessary for ... the agricultural system: the amazing provision of food. God said, "Let the land produce..." Out of the "chaos" God "creates" a functional and provisional agricultural system, extending from the climate, as a function of time.

Are you catching on?

[gmw803]

Jim,

Just because I don't know the answer:

If God had wanted to communicate to mankind that He had indeed created the world in six standard-length days, and that each day had a creative purpose, how would Genesis 1 have been written differently? Would God have provided a definition of a yom that was clearer than an evening followed by a morning? Would He have subdivided the total time into specifically numbered units named first, second, ... sixth with demarcations that do not rely on the cataloguing used? Or perhaps He might have evaluated each day's work.

I am really curious. If God had desired to communicate a creation as I understand it (which I suspect you can surmise), what in Genesis 1 would be expressed differently?

[jimwalton]

I would say that if God wanted to express that he had actually created the world in six 24-hour days, he would have used different terminology and a different sequence. For instance, in Gn. 1.4, it's fascinating that God creates "light," but then doesn't call light "light," but instead calls it "day." Why does God call the light "day" unless it's about the function of day and night in a sequence that we know to be "time." If God wanted to tell us about creating light on the first day, he would have called light "light." And why does light have to be separated from darkness unless to create the function of the sequence? I would just expect the terminology and writing to be different if God were merely creating light.

The sequence, if we are dealing with a strict progression of 6 24-hour days, is troublesome. Light on day 1, but no sun, moon, or stars until day 4? What kind of sense does that make?

Plus, day 2 nothing is created, but only separated. A space between the firmaments is placed. If God were creating in 6 literal days, would one of them be to create a gap? What kind of sense does that make?

One day 3 nothing is created. The land, which apparently was already there, appears as land. Nothing is being made. Vegetation grows on it, but the sun isn't yet created. Weird again.

If God were creating the cosmos in 6 actual literal 24-hr days, I would expect a completely different kind of narrative.

[gmw803]

That is actually a very good answer.

[jimwalton]

If you're curious, watch the videos on creation by John Walton in the 3TV section of the website. They are mostly short (5-15 minutes), and can be digested a little at a time as your schedule allows. But they give a good overview over what John writes about in his many books on the subject.