The most important verse in the entire Bible is this verse: In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It is an important verse on so many levels. First of all, a worldview is derived from an understanding of the nature of reality. Genesis 1:1 lays the foundation for a Judeo-Christian worldview. Our worldview, then, is built upon the idea that God created.
Second, Genesis 1:1 defines who God is. In the beginning, God created everything. The simplest definition for God, according to this verse, is that he is the Creator (bet you didn’t see that one coming). We will dig deeper into the word used for God in Hebrew in a later post, but for now, it suffices to say that God is the Creator. If God is the Creator that means that he has authority over his creation.
Third, This verse makes it known that there was nothing in existence before God. John 1:3 puts it this way: “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” It is impossible for us to imagine a self-existing God that is beyond time, beyond space, and beyond matter. Yet, that is exactly what the Bible tells us about God. If he created it all, then he must be beyond it all.
Imagine if verse 1:1 were removed. The Bible would then start with what we call verse 1:2, which states: “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” This would provide a starting point, but what a terrible starting point this would be! Instead of God being beyond his creation, as a transcendent Creator, God would be a part of the natural universe because there was already something in existence before he started creating; namely the heaven and earth. How would this change our view of God?
1) It could imply that even God himself evolved from the natural elements. Many mythologies, if not all of them, imply that God, or the gods, came into being through the primordial abyss. The gods of other religions only enjoy higher status than mankind because they possess greater attributes than mortals. They are still a part of the natural universe.
2) God’s power would be limited because if he shaped the earth from what already existed, he does not necessarily have the power to defy the laws of nature. Instead of being transcendent and the Master over nature, he would be a subject to nature.
3) Under these assumptions, God would not necessarily be immortal. In fact, he may already be dead if that were the case.
In my opinion, Genesis 1:1 is the most important verse in the Bible. The reason I raised the issue of erasing or altering 1:1 is because certain scholars have attempted to do just that. After seeing the damage done by removing just that one verse, imagine what would happen if we altered or erased an entire chapter of Genesis! Some people have tried to do this and even more! Let’s cherish the Bible and defend its authority from the first verse as it inevitably leads us to Jesus.
4 comments:
Very well written article, brother! You did a nice job of drawing the distinction between the Christian worldview and pretty much all others. I think many people nowadays are trying to blend the Christian worldview with others, yet Genesis 1:1 really does make all the difference. We either believe God created everything and is therefor sovereign over everything, or we don't. We don't like not having control, but if we really believe Genesis 1:1, we must submit to the authority of the Creator in ALL things!
'Genesis 1:1 defines who God is. In the beginning, God created everything.'
In one sense, I think this is right about Genesis 1:1. But I would suggest that it is right only by implication. This has partly to do with the natural sense as to the relation between v. 1 and v. 2:
V.2 begins with a description of what the Earth was like at the point in Creation Week described by v. 1. Verse 1 is a general, and all-encompassing statement of the first general action of Creation Week. And, due to its being all-encompassing, it also serves the need of a title to a narrative of which itself is the opening statement. By analogy, God is not an aloof inactive entity, but, rather, is directly involved in His story:
1. the general cosmos and the special Earth.
2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water.
3. that water and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle;
4. The water cycle and its special beneficiary and member, biology;
5. biology and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal);
6. Animal biology and its special category, human;
7. The man and his wife (Genesis 2:21-25)
Some reason that v. 1 is nothing but a summary title, not the narrative opening. But among other problems, such reasoning is akin to claiming that, since one has a tire swing, the tire itself need not be assumed to have been designed for an automobile, but rather, has always been nothing but a seat for the swing. But this view, that v. 1 not simply serves as, but actually constitutes, a title is essentially a 'good enough for government work' rationalization. It is based on nothing more than fact of that of service, and on any bit of Scripture that affirms that service. It is therefore no better a view of v. 1 than is the claim that so many tire swings, and affirmations of tire 'swings', exist. So the 'title' view is akin to saying, since Adam rightly serves as Title Human, that makes his historical reality unnecessary. For, it is his very historical reality that anchors that role to anything solid worth understanding.
Indeed, the 'v. 1 = summary title' equation tends to see the verse's merism, 'the Heaven and the Earth' as nothing but a Hebrew grammatic surrogate for a singular and neutered 'everything'. This trivializes the self-evidential value of this merism. Specifically, it reduces the merism to a Secularistic 'indifference = objectivity cum undifferentiation'.
Christians who advocate the 'v. 1 = summary title' equation think that that equation is very profound. But it is actually shallow and reductive, just as is the view that Adam is nothing but a metaphor for humanity at large.
And compromisers, such as John Walton, love to reason how v. 1 is merely a 'literary introduction'. In the case of Walton, he teaches that the the account is not about the act of material Creation at all. Specifically, he thinks there is some hard, pro-Secularistic dichotomy between material creative acts and value-laden 'inauguration'-al declarations of what has, in untold Secular eons past, already come to be. It is only if that is how things materially came to be that Walton would be right to see such a dichotomy. But that is not how things materially came to be.
Thank you, RedeemedRev, for your encouragement. I greatly appreciate you reading and commenting. As I've said in other writings, if you mix salt water with pure water, you end up with salt water. Mixing Christianity with any other form of faith will result in something less than Christianity. In some cases, this may not jeopardize the person's salvation. In other cases, it has devastating effects.
Thanks, again!
Thank you, Daniel, for your comments on this series. They are very insightful and contain a great deal of depth and detail. You're clearly very well versed on the topic. Good for you! It's great to have you commenting here.
Post a Comment