The REAL World of Genesis 1
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
I have recently become aware of a troubling new challenge to (and rejection of) the face-value, historic understanding of the creation account in Genesis 1. It claims that the original “world” of Genesis 1 is “lost” to us and can only be “rediscovered” by studying other ancient cosmologies that were being developed in Babylon, Egypt, and Phoenicia. Because Genesis was first written for the Hebrews living in ancient times, we must understand the cultural and religious climate of the world in which they lived in order to grasp the real meaning of Genesis 1.
A leading evangelical Old Testament scholar, Dr. John Walton, authored a book entitled, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (2010, InterVarsity Press). Dr. Walton, Professor of Old Testament Emeritus at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, has also presented his views in the notes on Genesis in the NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (2019, Zondervan).
Dr. Walton proposes that the Hebrew word bara, translated “create” in Genesis 1:1, does not require the modern English meaning of “bring into initial existence.” Instead, in his view, the term can signify taking what already exists materially and giving it its proper function and purpose.” In other words, God gave the sun, moon, and stars, for example, “functional existence rather than material existence” (NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, p. 4, in the article titled “Creation and Existence”). They already existed materially before God “created” them.
So, according to this theory, Genesis 1 does not actually describe God bringing anything into its initial existence at all, whether in a seven-day period or otherwise. It does not have anything to do with God initially bringing into existence light, the expanse, the vegetation, the sun, moon, and stars, fish and birds, or beasts and man. It proposes instead that Genesis 1 tells us that God took materials that He had previously created materially, perhaps even millions of years earlier, perhaps through evolutionary processes, and gave them form and function.
The more I have reviewed this approach, the more concerned I have become. I have been surprised to see it being considered, supported, and validated in various conservative, evangelical religious circles. Even some instructors and other leaders in Christian university settings whom I know personally have given it a public hearing without clearly refuting it.
They claim, along with Walton, that one may accept, support, and teach this position without compromising the Bible’s inspiration, accuracy, historicity, and reliability.
Obviously, this approach allows for, perhaps even calls for, some form of “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creationism.” These ideas propose that evolutionary processes may have occurred over eons of time before God’s revelation in Genesis began, but that God oversaw or allowed these processes.
In this view, the “days” of Genesis 1 are not “days” in any time-related sense, whether 24-hour days or long ages of time. The controversy over the age of the earth and the universe is irrelevant to the “real” message of Genesis 1.
There are multiple reasons for my conviction that this interpretation is false. Not only does it, in my opinion, contradict the face-value reading of Genesis 1. It also contradicts the way the rest of God’s inspired word treats Genesis 1. I cannot find any evidence that Moses, the prophets, the Lord Jesus Christ himself, or the apostles approached the text in this way. Nor have I seen it in the uninspired writings of the earliest Christians.
In other words, this “lost world” theory proposes that basically no one really understood the “true” meaning of the text until very recently, when modern scholarship “found” it. How did those living in the age of inspired scripture miss it, if it is now so obvious? How did Christians and commentators throughout the centuries not see this, if it was there all the time, relatively easy to discover?
And another thing. If this theory is true, when did the real meaning of Genesis 1 become lost? Who lost it and why? Considering how seriously the Hebrews transmitted their God-given beliefs through the centuries, how did they not pass on to their children the “correct” interpretation that has only recently been recovered?
I am convinced that the “real world” of Genesis 1 was never “lost,” and I base that conviction on what I read everywhere in the Word of God. I cannot see any inspired scripture which would keep me from taking the Genesis creation account at face value. Rather, the Spirit-led writers treated the text just as most Bible students once did – just for what it says. They did not attempt to “get behind the text” and explain that it meant something different from what it said.
The Law of Moses
Let’s begin with the words God spoke – yes, God Himself – when He gave Moses and Israel the Law, including the Ten Commandments.
Ex 20:9 “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore, the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”
It's interesting to study the source of the seven-day week in world history. Have you ever considered its origin? From a biblical standpoint, the seven-day week reflected the week of creation as described in Genesis. There is no other explanation given.
When God Himself said, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day,” how would the people of Israel have understood “six days?” If they would have taken these words to mean something different from what they say, the burden of proof is on those who would teach such a thing.
Surely those ancient Hebrews were much closer to the “real” world of Genesis than anyone living today, whether a scholar or otherwise. After all, it was their world! Surely God could have communicated to them in ways that they could understand. He would not have misled them. If the “seven days” had been related to the ancient cosmologies of other cultures, and not to the days of the week with which they were familiar, He could have indicated that. Why did He not?
Why didn’t God through Moses explain Himself? The “lost world” hypothesis would perhaps answer that God didn’t need to explain the “hidden meaning” of the seven days because the Hebrews already understood that meaning.
However, God went on to stipulate the “face-value” meaning of Genesis 1 again. Once more, again in Exodus, God Himself interpreted the words of Genesis 1 in this same way.
Ex 31:16 “‘So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’ 17 “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”
The Psalms
Let’s continue. What did the psalmists consider to be the truth about Genesis and creation? Granted, they used Hebrew poetry, rather than prose narrative. However, it seems clear enough that they connected Genesis 1 to the God’s original creation, not to His (much) later providing purpose to the heavens and earth that He had already made.
As you read this next text, consider what event was likely in mind when you see, “Of old You founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.” Does this statement not interpret Genesis 1:1 as referring to God’s initial creation? (By the way, these words, first ascribed to Yahweh in this text, are later cited and ascribed to Christ in Hebrews 1:10-12, as another indicator of his full deity.)
Ps 102:25 “Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 “Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. 27 “But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.”
Again, though using poetic language, this next passage from Psalm 104 also points back to Genesis 1. It affirms the understanding that the first chapter of the Bible was to be taken for what it said.
Ps 104:5 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. 6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. 7 At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. 8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them. 9 You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth.
The Later Prayer of Nehemiah
Notice how Nehemiah affirmed the Genesis creation when he praised God centuries later. In the 400s BC, Nehemiah led the effort to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem after the Jews returned from Babylonian exile.
Ne 9:6 “You alone are the Lord. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.
The Teaching of Jesus
Jesus believed and taught that God made male and female from the beginning, apparently pointing to the original creation. Jesus accepted the plain meaning of Genesis and gave no indication that it had been lost. Also, Jesus quoted from both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together, as both belonged to one united creation account.
Noticeably absent from His teaching is any indication that the words of Genesis 1 had been misunderstood. There is no evidence that He connected the creation account with ancient cosmologies or anything else that was not stated in the text. He never suggested that there was a “lost world of Genesis 1.”
Mt 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’”?
The “Beginning” of John’s Gospel
When the apostle John by inspiration wrote in John 1:1, “In the beginning …” he tied that phrase from Genesis 1:1 to God’s original creation. I see no room here for the idea that the heavens and the earth pre-existed the creation discussed in Genesis 1. To John, “the beginning” of Genesis 1:1 was not the time that God took the pre-existing heavens and earth and gave them form and purpose. No, “the beginning” for John was the point at which God through the Word, Jesus Christ, brought all things into being.
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
The Teaching of Paul
When Paul by inspiration wrote regarding Genesis 1-3, he also accepted the text at face value. He did not connect it to the ancient cosmologies of Babylon or Egypt. Neither did he indicate at any point that its meaning had been lost.
Paul believed that when God said, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), that was the point at which He created light. It was not the point at which God took pre-existing light, which had been around for perhaps millions of years, and gave it form and purpose.
2 Co 4:6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
Paul accepted the Genesis account of God’s making the first man, Adam. Adam was a real person, created directly by God from the ground, not as the result of an evolutionary process that began long before Genesis 1. In fact, the Bible says, “Then the LORD God formed man (Hebrew, adam) of dust from the ground (Hebrew, adamah), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Ge 2:7). The very name “Adam” reflects Paul’s conviction that Adam was created from the ground, rather than his having evolved from previous life forms.
1 Co 15:45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Genesis presents Eve as a real person, whom God made from one of Adam’s ribs (Ge 2:18-23). Adam called her “woman” (Hebrew, ishshah) because she was taken from man (Hebrew, ish). He also named her “Eve” (from the Hebrew term for life or living), because she was “the mother of all living” (Ge 3:20). From the standpoint of Genesis, it is false to say that Adam and Eve evolved from pre-human beings who existed possibly millions of years before the Bible’s creation account. Eve had no mother; she was the mother!
Paul likewise presented Eve as a real person. He taught that she was taken from the man, just as Genesis said, not as the result of evolution. Paul taught that a real serpent deceived Eve in a real moment in history.
1 Co 11:8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
2 Co 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
Paul by inspiration taught that the gender distinctives for men and women originated in the actual historical events described accurately in Genesis. When the simple message of Genesis is questioned, minimized, or rejected, the God-created distinctions between male and female are blurred. We continue to see this in the religious world today.
1 Ti 2:11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
In closing …
The best interpreter of the Bible, and the most ancient and reliable interpreter, is the Bible itself. There is no clear indication (that I can see) in the scriptures themselves that the Jews ever understood Genesis 1 in ways other than its apparent meaning. The idea that no one through the centuries could properly interpret the text or comprehend its “real” meaning is very troubling. I would need solid proof of such a claim.
Let me say this once more. If the real world of Genesis 1 was somehow lost, who lost it? When, how, and why did that happen? Did no one ever write it down and preserve it? Wouldn’t that have been Moses’ role?
I cannot comprehend how the Jews, who so carefully and accurately transmitted the Word of God throughout the centuries, somehow lost the proper understanding of Genesis. I cannot see what reason they would have to start taking the text to mean just what it says. How could a Jew, or a group of Jews, pull such a switch and make such a change? Why is there no record of it? Why weren’t they caught and stopped by those who knew better?
Here are some wise words from an unknown source that are worth considering. “If someone tells you that he has found something in the Bible that no one has seen before in the two thousand years since the Bible was written, be careful! Perhaps what he says he found was never there to begin with.”
Of course, one may choose to reject the Bible completely, including what it says about creation. However, in my judgment, one who accepts the Bible cannot remove from it the claim that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh day.
And so, I go back to where I started, back to where this post began, “in the beginning.”
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
I cannot see any evidence that an understanding of ancient cosmologies was necessary for the Jews of ancient times to understand Genesis 1. If they had, they certainly would not have allowed generations to pass without parents teaching their children this correct interpretation. This absence is even more apparent when one considers that the truth of Genesis 1, the first chapter of the Torah, provided the foundation for the rest of Genesis and all of scripture.
There is currently a relatively new challenge to the traditional understanding of Genesis 1. It claims that the intended meaning of that text has been “lost” to us because it was written at a time and place when other ancient cosmologies were being developed in Babylon, Egypt, and Phoenicia. We can only regain the proper meaning of Genesis by getting behind the text and seeing how it compares and contrasts with these other worldviews.
In this post I hope to show, using the scriptures themselves, that we can take the text of Genesis at face value and that the traditional interpretation is correct.
In the vast majority of English Bibles, the words of Genesis 1:1 appear as I cited them above[1]. The Jews who translated Genesis into the Greek Septuagint translated the words exactly the same way. For the longest time, most scholars and Bible believers understood that Genesis 1:1 announced God’s initial creation of the universe. God, who has existed from all eternity, made a new universe, the heavens and the earth.
Christians connected New Testament passages like John 1:1-4 (“In the beginning was the Word …”) and others to this same beginning point of the material universe. They believed that Hebrews 11:3 referred to the same truth, that in the beginning God brought the worlds into existence. This verse reads, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” Likewise, they read in Romans 4:17 of “God, who … calls into being that which does not exist.”
More recently, however, some have said that Genesis 1:1 does not describe God’s initial act of creation at all.
Some scholars would translate the text as it appears in the Revised Standard Version: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters” (Ge 1:1-2). The Living Bible says, “When God began creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was at first a shapeless, chaotic mass.…” See also the New English Bible.
This rendition implies that the heavens and the earth already existed, in a formless and dark condition, at the point at which God began to create. According to this translation, Genesis 1 does not tell us how the materials came to be. No, it claims that God started with preexisting materials and then brought light, the expanse, the vegetation, the sun, moon, and stars, fish and birds, and beasts and man.
“When God began to create.…” We see it in the New English Bible: “In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth.…” Even
Various modern approaches to Genesis 1 have reinterpreted the text in various ways so that there is no substantial conflict between the Bible and modern science. To do so, these theories propose that God did not actually create (bring into existence) the heavens and the earth in the way that the words, taken at face value, say that He did.
Some have declared the biblical account to be mythical, as opposed to being genuinely historical. Some have proposed a “day-age” understanding, in which the six days were not really days but rather eons spanning millions of years. Some have favored a “two-creation” or “gap” theory, claiming that God first created a world that had dinosaurs and other apparently-old features. However, He destroyed that “old-earth” world and made a new one in the six days of Genesis 1.
More recent is a view that the text of Genesis 1 does not say what it appears to say. It does not describe the actual creation (the bringing into initial existence) of the heavens and earth at all, but rather their organization. According to this interpretation, God had previously created all things before anything described in Genesis 1 even occurred!
Based on extensive research into the cosmologies of other ancient cultures, this interpretation claims that we have “lost” the real world of Genesis 1 because we are so far removed from its original purpose. Since it was not first specifically given to us, but rather to Israel in the time of Moses, this view claims that we cannot understand it properly without first understanding the worldviews of other people living at the time, such as the Babylonians or the Egyptians. This view suggests that no one could have correctly interpreted Genesis before these ancient, nonbiblical documents were discovered in recent times. These other sources hold the keys to understanding the real truth about Genesis 1, truth that had been lost about that lost world!
According to this explanation, Genesis 1 has nothing at all to say about the initial creation of the material universe. This proposal says that God did indeed create the universe initially, but Genesis 1 does not describe that. In fact, the initial creation may have occurred eons (even billions of years) beforehand. The claim is that Genesis 1 describes what God did (perhaps much, much later) with that which already existed.
So, Genesis 1 allegedly says something like, “When God began to ‘create’ the heavens and the earth, they already existed. He took what was without form and void, and He gave these entities function, purpose, and order.” For example, God didn’t actually make the two great lights on the fourth day, as Genesis 1:16 seems to say, but that He rather assigned the two great lights their jobs, the one to rule the day and the other to rule the night.
There is a rather new approach I have been troubled to learn of a rather new claim that approach to the Genesis creation account. the Genesis account does not at all describe God’s bringing the material universe into existence. Instead, he believes that Genesis relates how God brought order and purpose to that which He had previously created. In other words, when God began to “create” as noted in Genesis 1:1, the heavens and earth already existed. The earth was at that point, “without form and void.”
book entitled, The Lost World of Genesis One, written by Dr. John H. Walton, a professor of Old Testament theology at Wheaton College. It came to my attention because Dr. Walton was invited to speak at a lectureship on one of our Christian university campuses. Dr. Walton and I have corresponded personally and directly by email, and I am grateful to have had that interaction.
It is Walton’s conviction, based on his extensive research into ancient non-biblical cosmologies, that the Genesis account does not at all describe God’s bringing the material universe into existence. Instead, he believes that Genesis relates how God brought order and purpose to that which He had previously created. In other words, when God began to “create” as noted in Genesis 1:1, the heavens and earth already existed. The earth was at that point, “without form and void.”
In Walton’s view, when God said, “Let there be light,”
