Goldilocks meets Genesis 1

Folded rocks at Hartland Quay, Devon,
suggest that the “creation” of today’s landscape
occurred over long periods of geophysical activity.

No matter what your parents, or anyone else, told you, you are not an accident. That is all you need to remember if the arguments and assertions about Genesis 1 confuse you. Because that is the heart of the biblical teaching about creation. However, it needs some unpacking first.

The account of creation in Genesis 1 remains problematic for many people (and is exacerbated because Genesis 2 appears to offer an alternative narrative). We can be caught between two extremes: a literal six-day “creationism” and the assertion that “science” relegates Genesis to the level of myth (at best) with no relevance to today’s world. The debate among Christians can go further and lead to sometimes bitter and even divisive arguments about biblical inspiration and authority.

However some misunderstandings arise simply because we assume biblical writers are saying things which they never intended. So before we examine what Genesis 1 does (and does not) say, we need to note that Hebrew (biblical) literature in general stems from a way of thinking that is completely different to ours.

Evocation not explanation

The former Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, who ought to know how the Hebrew mind works, has written that “when the Hebrew Bible wants to explain something, it does not articulate a theory. It tells a story.”¹ He points out that western ways of thinking (especially since the 17^th century) owe much to the Greek mindset that analysed and speculated.

By contrast, Hebrew writers evoke images rather than offer explanations; they assert but rarely analyse. For example, when Hebrew people looked at nature, they didn’t try to work out why it was the way it was; they simply saw in it a reflection of God’s character, and let that inspire their worship and inform their theology.

Or take the age-old problem of innocent suffering: it is never addressed as a philosophical issue on the Bible, and no “answers” to it are offered. Instead we see the unfortunate Job wrestling with simplistic, inadequate and downright false “answers” to his plight. He ends up none the wiser except to realise that God is bigger than he thought. Elsewhere, the Bible reassures us that God is always present to support us, if not always to remedy our ills, whatever the circumstances.

The same is true in the New Testament. Its authors were mostly Jews steeped in Hebrew ways of thinking, even though the earliest documents were written in the Greek language. Paul, for example, uses a number of word-pictures to describe the purpose and effect of Jesus’ death on the cross. These include a sacrifice of atonement, an example, redemption or ransom, reconciliation, rescue from evil, and rendering the old Mosaic law redundant. But Paul never discusses how these relate to each other. Like a well-cut diamond, New Testament statements about Christ’s death flash different facets of truth when seen from different angles. It was later theologians who tried (with mixed success) to fuse the images into a coherent theory.

The pre-Christian Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle both influenced the thinking of Christian leaders from early times. Their perspective in turn formed a basis for the “Enlightenment” of the 17^th century from which sprang today’s “scientific” outlook, which focuses more on fact than on meaning. And that led many Christians to assume, wrongly, that Genesis 1 was a factual account of how the universe came into being.

However, one of the most influential theologians of the early church, Augustine of Hippo, had rejected this possibility as early as the fifth century AD. Sadly, his strictures were forgotten even though in other matters his systematic exposition of biblical teaching laid a foundation for much of the theology which has shaped the church ever since.   

In a detailed exposition of Genesis, Augustine claimed that Genesis 1 was not to be taken literally. He upbraided Christians for talking nonsense about what was known in his day (which was far less than what is known now) concerning the motions of the planets and the events of the natural world. He even – long before the idea of evolution was conceived – suggested from his reading of Scripture that God built in to the universe the capacity for continuous development and change (which of course we observe in small ways to the present day).²

Theology not science

Genesis 1 sets the scene for the entire biblical narrative. It is theology, never intended by the original author to be read as science or history, but intended instead to answer the question (which has been repeated by philosophers and scientists ever since): why is there something rather than nothing? It’s primarily about God.

First, it tells us that God is greater than the universe, and existed before it came into being. He stands outside the universe. He is not trapped or enclosed by it, yet is present everywhere within it. Interestingly, Augustine pointed out what now is generally accepted, that time as we know it only began when the universe was formed (cue debate about the nature of “eternity”). The first message of Genesis is that God is a powerful and resourceful creator of all things. It’s a reminder that “With God, all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).

Secondly, it tells us that the universe had a definite beginning. Many people (theologians included) down to the 20^th century believed in a “steady state” universe that, like God, had always existed (reducing the creation account in Genesis to relate to the Earth alone). Current understanding, based on astronomical observations, physics and maths is that there was a “Big Bang” when the universe as it now is³ came into existence. The fact that this matches Genesis is interesting but no more; the agreement is not “proof” of anything. The point is that the creation was not a chance or accidental event, but was deliberately instigated by God. Genesis is hinting that therefore there is a meaning and purpose to the universe.

Thirdly, it reveals that God is orderly and systematic. Creation was carefully planned and guided, stage by stage. This is the purpose of the narrative’s use of “days”. They have been variously interpreted as (a) literal 24-hour periods of creation; (b) long unspecified eras (as in Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8); and (c) a vision revealed to the author over a series of days (or nights). But the imagery they evoke is of natural, logical and above all unhurried progress. Current understanding suggests that huge swathes of time are required for physical and chemical processes to develop the conditions required for life to flourish.

Elsewhere in scripture, we discover that God remains closely involved with his creation. He is “sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Hebrews 1:3); in him “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Not only does this allow for the ongoing physical “creation” processes (volcanism, erosion, earth movements, and so on). It also reminds us that God does not act in capricious or arbitrary ways. Civilisation depends on the continuing regularity and reliability of physical, biological and chemical processes. (Disrupting that order by human intervention is fraught with danger, as the current debate about climate change suggests.)

Fourthly, Genesis 1 tells us that the universe was made with people in mind. They were created when everything else was ready. They were the last to appear in the Genesis account. Scientists today talk of the “Goldilocks Principle”: the finely-tuned structures of the sun and solar system are “just right” for human life to exist on Earth⁴. A bit nearer the sun (like Venus) and we’d fry. A bit further away (like Mars) and we’d freeze. If the gravity of the sun and the rate at which hydrogen is converted into helium (which produces the sun’s heat) varied even by a tiny fraction, there would not have been enough time for life to develop and thrive on Earth.

Furthermore, Genesis 1 claims that human beings were given a purpose: to develop the earth’s potential and create a God-centred community (known as the “creation mandate”). That is the meaning (sadly misinterpreted at various times in history) of the words “rule over” or “have dominion over” used in some English translations. The calling is to care for, not to exploit, God’s Earth, to treat with respect a physical order crafted by God for good reason.

And finally, Genesis 1 tells us that God created human beings “in his image”. At the very least, the author is suggesting that people alone have the conscious ability to relate to God in a personal way. The ramifications are endless. Later biblical assertions about God’s character (loving, caring, just, righteous and so on) remind us that having been made in God’s image we are meant to reflect God’s nature in our relationships. Violence (physical and verbal) and exploitation or taking advantage of people weaker and more vulnerable than others fail to do that. Darwin’s concept of the “survival of the fittest” in the biological world, a tautology that is often misconstrued, is not God’s rule for human conduct.

Looked at like this, the story of God that Genesis 1 tells is timeless. That itself helps to reinforce the belief that the Bible, rightly interpreted in its original context, is God’s inspired Word for all time. It does not offer an opinion or angle on what different generations discover. It explores the truths that lie behind any facts we might uncover.

Humility not arrogance

By reading Genesis 1 as theology and nothing else, the controversies melt into insignificance. And it is important and instructive to note the comments of some who do not believe that their disciplines give them a right to pronounce on theological or philosophical matters, whatever their personal beliefs.

So TV presenter Prof. Brian Cox writes that science cannot (and should not) answer questions about God. “Science is concerned with answering more modest questions, and that is the reason for its power and success. The goal of science is to explain the observed features of the natural world … This is a humble idea; there is no a priori aim to discover the reason for the existence of our universe or to build theories of everything.”⁵

Another TV presenter and scientist, Jim Al-Khalili, was quoted in an interview that he was mystified why the physics of the universe speak the very precise language of mathematics. “For me, not having an answer, not knowing, is fine. I would like to think I will find the answers. [Who knows] whether I will turn to religion later in life or have some epiphany?”⁶

Almost the final word can be left to Jonathan Sacks’ succinct summary of the different objectives of religion and science: “Science is about explanation. Religion is about meaning. Science analyses, religion integrates. Science breaks things down into their component parts. Religion binds people together in relationships of trust. Science tells us what is. Religion tells us what ought to be. Science describes. Religion beckons, summons, calls. ... Science sees the underlying order of the physical world. Religion hears the music beneath the noise. Science is the conquest of ignorance. Religion is the redemption of solitude.”⁷

Which brings us back to where we started. We are not accidental landings on the roulette wheel of physics. We are not orphans in a limitless void which has no meaning or purpose. Human life on Earth, almost certainly a very rare, if not unique, development in the universe, was planned and executed by a God who is both beyond it yet also imminent within it. The rest of the Bible expounds the reason why, and the responsibilities such an amazing revelation imposes on communities and individuals.

Think and talk

1.  Read how Psalms 8 and 104 celebrate creation without explaining it. Use them for your own meditation and worship.

2.  God’s ongoing creative sustaining of the physical order: Genesis 8:22; Isaiah 40: 225-26; 42:5-9; Acts 17:24-28; Hebrews 1:3.
3.  God’s care for what he made: Matthew 10:29-31.

References

1. Jonathan Sacks, The Great Partnership, Hodder & Stoughton 2011, p. 44.
2. There are references to Augustine’s important correctives in several modern Christian books by authors who are both scientists and Christians who also respect the integrity of the Bible. These include Rodney Holder, Big Bang Big God (Lion 2013) and Alister McGrath, Inventing the Universe, Hodder & Stoughton 2015.
3. Currently, a number of physicists believe, on mathematical grounds, that there have been previous universes or that there may be a number of “multiverses” existing at the same time.
4.  In case any reader is not familiar with the children’s story, Goldilocks found three bowls of porridge in the bears’ house: one was too cold, one was too hot, but one was just right.
5.  Brian Cox and Andrew Cohen, Human Universe, William Collins 2015, p.169.
6.  Interview published in Christianity magazine, December 2015.
7.  Jonathan Sacks, op.cit. pp.6-7.

Future posts will explore other issues from the early chapters of Genesis.

© Derek Williams 2017