Time and Logical Order in

Genesis 1
Walter

Walter{.
Thorson served
as Professor
in Theoretical
Chemistry,
University
ofAlberta,
1968-1994
and was also
Adjunct Professor
ofphilosophy
o f Science at
Regent College
fo r more than 25
years. Recently
he has written
extensively on
scientific and
philosophical
questions related
to biology. He
can be reached
at wrmethor@
shaw.ca.

R.

ou t o f It, clim atic co n d itio n s, an d so on,

pose q u ite d iffe ren t an d so m ew h at m ore
d iffic u lt pro b lem s in rela tio n to science
or histo ry th a n are posed by Genesis 1. Its
intention is clear: S o m eth in g like th is, or
best described by th is, really h ap p en ed to
o u r species in o u r sp ace-tim e, in a place
recognizable geographically, and in time, as
a defining before from w hich our history
has developed.
G enesis I im poses no such b o u n d a ry
constraints. W hile heavens and e a rth are
com prehensive realm s w ith in creation, its
account does not define these specifically,
nor does it lin k its tim e-fram ew ork to th at
o f the second account. In fact the bridge text
(Gn 2:4) linking the two narratives strongly
suggests an intended discontinuity or break
between them, at least in respect to time: after
the statem ent, ^ e s e are the generations of
the heavens and the ea rth w hen they were
cre ate d , w h ich can be read as a m ark er
ending the first account, the text continues:
In the day th a t the hoRD G o d m ade the
e a rth an d the h eav en s... T h e perspective
clearly has shifted; I suggest th at the shift is
one ftom outside tim e to within time.
Ifw e th in k o f Genesis l:l-2 :4 as a literary
prologelo w hat follows it, we can understand
such a s h ift. C e rta in ly th e sp eak er in a
prologue follows a logical sequence, and it
is necessarily presented as a tim e-sequence;
but to suppose th at the param etric tim e of
the prologues exposition is the same as the
tim e o f the narrative following, in relation to
w hich it stands as a prologue, is a conceptual
m istak e no one ever m akes in o rd in a ry
literature or dram a.

^ his essay argues th a t th e logical

order o f the B ibles first c r e a t i o n

ac c o u n t, G enesis l : l - 2 : 4 , is n o t
fu n d a m e n ta lly chrono logical. O f
course, the passage o f tim e m arked
by the successive days o f creation is
db
an im portant literary device. G o d s
u n f o ld in g p u rp o s e a n d ag e n cy
moves through the week tow ard creation o f
hum an beings in the divine image, and ends
in G o d s enjoym ent o f his finished w ork in
th e seventh day. H ow ever, th is n arrativ e
tim e has no direct connection to a lite ral
ch ro n o lo g y o f creatio n . I shall p resen t a
num ber o f argum ents for this view, based on
the text and its use in the rest o f the B ib le.
S u ch an a r g u m e n t is c e r ta in ly n o t
a p p ro p ria te for in te r p re tin g th e seco n d
account o f creation in Genesis 2:5ff; there,
tem p o ral c o n tin u ity w ith w h at follows is
essential. T hescen ein E d en an d itsim m ed iate
sequel may be in terpreted in allegorical or
sym bolic ways, b u t is n o t d etach ed fto m
the ensuing developm ent o f h um an history
p re se n te d by th e B ib le.1 T h e tim e o f
Genesis 2:5 may be a long tim e ago, or at
the tim e w h e n ... (as Genesis 2 says), but it
is lin k ed contiguously to o u r chronology.
It is a crucial before w ith respect to three
te m p o ra l realities: th e h isto ric a l p ast in
w hich G o d s acts have m anifested his grace
and pow er; ou r ow n present, form ing the
p o in t o f personal co n tac t w ith th e living
G od; an d a future after w hich lies ahead
in tim e a n d th r o u g h w h ic h G o d is
leading creation tow ard realizing his eternal
p urposes. Because o f th is, sta te m en ts in
G enesis 2 about the garden, rivers flow ing

Time

Logical Order

('

Genesis

I am a scientist by background (and in

m y in ten tio ns here), and th is article offers
so m e lim ite d in te rp re ta tio n o f G en esis
1, n o t exegesis, a lth o u g h 1 h o p e I can do
th a t w ith o u t v io la tin g so u n d ex egetical
principles an d co n stra in ts. 1 have lim ited
a im s: 1 n e ith e r p r o p o s e a s y s te m a tic
in te r p r e ta t io n o f th e te x t, n o r tr y to
estab lish a specific co rresp o n d e n ce w ith
scientific understanding o f our universe and
its history. Instead, I argue th a t attem pts at
either o f these tasks should recognize th a t in
Genesis tim e functions as an expositional
device, r a th e r th a n b e in g in te n d e d as
explicit, literal reality. I shall offer a num ber
o f argum ents in support o f this claim.
O f course th is idea is n o t entirely new.
It is beyond th e scope o f this essay to cite
all th e in te r p re tiv e s tu d ie s o f b ib lic a l
creatio n acco u n ts th a t m ig h t suggest the
same conclusion and from some o f w hich
I have acquired helpful insight. G enerally,
approaches to G enesis I th a t recognize its
character as a literary prologue emphasize
its use o f literary devices to stru c tu re the
narrative are open to th e argum ent. H en ri
B lochers In the B eginning is a th o u g h tfu l
app ro ach to G enesis th a t has p articu la rly
in flu e n ced m y ow n th in k in g , an d D erek
K idners GenesL is an accessible and readable
c o m m e n ta ry on th e G enesis te x t itself.^
N e ith e r o f th e se a u th o rs has e x p lic itly
proposed th e interpretation given here, but
their approaches to the creation accounts are
not incom patible w ith it. C om m ents by O ld
T estam en t scholars such as Bruce W altke
a n d th e la te W illia m j . M a r tin on th e
opening chapters o f Genesis have also been
m o st h elp fu l in d ire c tin g a tte n tio n away
from p a rtic u la r in te rp re tatio n s concerned
w ith scientific questions, and tow ard letting
the biblical text speak its own message more
clearly a n d w ith o u t c o n s tra in t by such
n arro w preoccupations. W h ile argum ents
m ad e here are b ro ad ly in h a rm o n y w ith
ideas suggested by these and other sources
an d influences, th e ir peculiar focus is my
ow n response and reflection.
Conflicts in popular culture over creation
and science and their persistent interference

CRUX Spring 2 0 0 7 /V o l.4 3 , ^ .

w ith fruitful und erstan d in g o f th e opening

chapters of Genesis, form the essential why
for this article. T ff s is n o t a scholarly paper
aim ed at presen tin g new ideas to biblical
scholars, b u t an attem p t to provide some
critical basis for refuting grossly inadequate
approaches to these texts. Readers o f C R U X
are usually quite fam iliar w ith theological
and philosophical issues bearing on literature,
the liberal an d fine arts, an d concerns o f
contem porary cu ltu re such as ecology and
the environm en t; th ey often
are m u ch less so in relatio n
to scientific questions, ?eople
w ith scien tific tra in in g an d
experience are continually asked
to address challenges arising
o u t o f p o p u la r ev an g elical
c u ltu r e s h o stile a ttitu d e to
science. Most o fthe issues raised
have not changed in the p a st
fifty more years and these
issues are im p o rtan t concerns
for students at Regent College,
for exam ple. In p a rtic u la r,
a stro n g bias to w ard literal
interpretations o f the Genesis
1 account in terms o f youngearth creationism persists in
evangelical thinking. This bias
is not really based on serious
en g a g em en t w ith sc ien tific
understandin g , b u t rather on
claims that a faithful exegesis of
the texts requires such a literalist
in te r p r e ta tio n . A tta c k s on
scientific conclusions based on
supposed exegetical concerns
in Genesis (rather th a n on the
merits o f the scientific work itself) would die
out naturally, if standards com m only applied
to questions in literature and the arts were
employed to read these biblical texts as they
relate to matters scientific.
F u r th e r r a tio n a le fo r th is essay is
p ro v id e d by c o m p a riso n w ith an a rtic le
p u b lis h e d in C R U X (S e p tem b er 2 0 0 4 ):
T h e P e a c e o f C r e a tio n : R e c o v e rin g
a T h e o lo g ic a l B a la n c e , by J o n a th a n
R . W i ls o n . W ils o n s essay d is c u s s e s

Conflicts in
popular culture
over creation
a n d science an d
their persistent
interference
with fru itfu l
understanding
ofth e opening chapters o f
Genesis, form
the essential
whyfo r this
article.

CRUXSpring 2 0 0 7 /V 0 I.4 3 , N o. 1

Time and Logical Order

Genesis 1

Since the second creation account is m eant to

he understood chronologically and in some
broad sense historically, th e tw o accounts
offer com plem entary perspectives on creation.
This com plem entarity o f the tw o accounts is
im p o rtan t to their m utual coherence, a key
to 'interpretation. However, because it
does not directly concern argum ents about
tim e and logical order in Genesis 1, it is not
discussed in this essay.

problem s in evangelical th in k in g th a t have

fostered neglect o f a balanced theology o f
c re atio n an d en c o u rag ed m u ch narro w er
c o n s tr u c tio n s i g n o r in g o r d e v a lu in g
m aterial creations significance in the plan
o f G od. ?roblem s discussed by W ilson also
fo ste r m is ta k e n a p p ro a ch es to G enesis.
W ilsons article has not aim ed to break new
ground in th in k in g about theology an d the
e n v iro n m e n t, b u t to add ress th e o lo g ic al
m i s c o n c e p tio n s s h a p in g in a d e q u a t e
evangelical responses on such
topics. Similarly, m y aim is n ot
so m uch ro present new ways
o f understan d in g Genesis 1 in
relation to scientific (Questions
as to sh o w t h a t s u p p o s e d
e x e g e t ic a l c o n c e r n s t h a t
feed y o u n g -e a rth c re a tio n ist
a rg u m e n ts are b a s e d on
m isreading o f the text.
T h e c o n c lu sio n th a t th e
logical order o f G enesis 1 is
n o t essen tially /??-?logical
is s u p p o r t e d b y s e v e r a l
c o n s id e r a t io n s . T h e f i r s t
a n d m o st im p o r ta n t is th a t
Genesis is (and was intended
to be) a literary prologue to the
m aterial follow ing it. Second,
i n t e r n a l stru c tu re in th e text
its e lf provides evidence th a t
the passage o f tim e is a literary
device for presenting a certain
logical order in creation. Third,
c e r ta in th e o lo g ic a l m o tifs
th a t are im p o rtan t to the logic
o f G enesis 1 becom e clearer
w hen we co n sid er how it is
read or interpreted elsewhere
in Scripture. Finally, external
th e o lo g ic a l c o n s id e r a t io n s
strongly suggest th a t G enesis
1 d e l ib e r a t e ly p r e s e n ts a
divine perspective, one fu ndam entally n ot
constrained by tim e as we experience it w ithin
creation. These different approaches support
a com m on view o f G enesis 1 as having a
logical fram ew ork not essentially concerned
w ith tim e (i.e., ch ronological sequence).

Genesis 1 as Literary Prologue

T h e a c c o u n t o f cre atio n in G enesis 1:1

2:4 has obvious featu res su g g estin g it is
a k in d o f prologue to w h at follow s it. Its
literary stru ctu re is self-contained: it has a
beginning prospectus for creation, a m iddle
p o rtio n (the six days) in w h ich cre atio n
is described (as *? th e prospectus); an d a
closing section (the seventh day) in w hich
the com pleted w ork is viewed in satisfaction
by th e C reator, an d th e recu rrin g seventh
day Shabbat in h u m an life is consecrated as
th e app ro p riate response w ithin tim e. The
colophon in 2:4, These are the generations
o f the heavens and the earth w hen they were
created, has usually been u n d ersto o d as a
m arker stating th at the prologue has ended,
and is so interpreted here.
Two o th e r b ib lical p ro lo g u es m ay be
fruitfully com pared w ith this one.
(a)
The h rst tw o chapters o f fo b presen
an in tro d u c tio n to th e b o o k as a w hole;
events on ea rth (1:1-5, 1 3 -2 2 ; 2 :8 -1 3 ) are
related ro events in heaven (1:6-12; 2:1-7)
pro viding a m ysterious rationale for them .
Job an d his friends reason an d dispute the
en ig m a o f h is su ffe rin g a n d te m p ta tio n
th ro u g h th e rest o f th e b o o k , b u t we as
h e a rers/read e rs are sep arately p riv ileg ed
by th is p r o lo g u e to k n o w w h a t th e y
c a n n o t know : th a t th e real cau se is n o t
from w ith in Job or even from w ith in th is
w o rld b u t rath e r (as O sw ald C h am b ers
said) th a t G o d an d S atan have chosen to
make a battleground o f f o b s soul. However
unsatisfactory we may feel this introduction
to th e book o f Job m ay be as a rationale for
w hat follows and w hatever we may th in k
ab o u t th e conversation b etw een G o d an d

The conclusion
that the logical
^ofGenesis
is not essentially
chrono logical
is supported by
several considerations. The
first and most
important is that
Genesis 1
is (and was
intended to be)
a literary prologue to the
material
following it.

'

Logical

CRUXSpring 2 0 0 7 /V 0 I.4 3 , N o. 1

)' Genesis ?

evening and m nrning, the th day...), serve

Job w hich ends the dialogue about evil the
to m ark distinct elements or aspects of G o d s
literary function o f the tw o opening chapters
w ork as it moves tow ard com pletion. T h e
is clear: as a prologue, Job 1-2 offers insights
seventh day, uniquely set apart from the others
m eant to m ake sense o f w hat f o llo w s(b)
Jo h n 1:1-18 is a p ro lo g u e to th e because it has no definitive end, is entirely
devoted to contem plation and satisfaction;
fo u rth gospel, an d fu n ctio n s sim ilarly: to
finally, as if to link the narratives detachment
provide an external, introductory perspective
back to our own sense o f presence and time,
on th e m e an in g o f w h at follow s. It even
the voice offers a commentary: So G od blessed
contains in tentional parallels to G enesis 1:
the seventh day and made it holy, because on
th e expression In the begin n in g rem inds
it G od rested from all his work which he had
us u n m istak ably o f G enesis 1:1 an d this is
done in creation. The recurring seventh day
confirm ed by explicit statem ents about the
within creaturely time has been consecrated or
W o rd s p re-ex isten ce to creation a n d his
set aside by God himself, as an opportunity to
role as Creator, as well as by sym bolic uses
refrain from our self-enslaving agendas; we are
o f life and light suggesting Genesis 1 as
set free to celebrate and enjoy G ods completed
an un d erly ing basis in form ing the w riters
work in his presence. W ith th at explanatory
th o u g h t. Jo h n relis us th a t Jesus C h ris t
comment, the prologue itself ends.
is G o d m a n ifest in flesh an d obviously
C o m p a ris o n o f G en e sis 1 w ith th e
in ten d s we read th e rest o f his gospel w ith
pro lo g u e to a stage d ra m a illu stra te s its
this essential premise.
f u n c tio n a n d also m y p o in t a b o u t its
Similarly, Genesis 1:1-2:4 offers a defining
tim e. I f we attend a dram a and a prologue
perspective for w hat follows in Genesis, the
is presented before the cu rtain rises, we have
?entateuch (Torah) and indeed for the Bihle
no trouble grasping th e fact th a t its tim e
as a whole. It tells us th a t the purposes for
or n arrativ e sequence bears no necessary
w h ich creation was form ed d id n o t arise
chronological relation to events in the dram a
from its own process or being, but came from
its e lf - ju s t as no one b ut a child w ould ever
outside in a radical, ultim ate sense.
confuse the prologues speaker w ith one o f
T h e overall voice and style o f Genesis
the characters in the play. The prologue is
1 helps to set it off as a prologue especially
presented literally before th e dram a, b ut
since they are in m arked contrast to Genesis
we all u nderstan d th a t th is tim e-sequential
2:5ff. Perhaps the most distinctive element is
o rd er is n o t essen tial to its c o n te n t an d
the sense of an outside perspective. G od is
m eaning, or its relation to the dram a proper;
the only speaker, G o d s will and agency the
their tim es are unrelatedorigin o f all that occurs. Creation, including
It is interestin g th a t an cien t rabbinical
hum an beings, is made fashioned by God,
co m m e n ta ry on G en esis I (d a tin g back
and careful language distances or distinguishes
at le a s t to th e e a rly m e d ie v a l Je w is h
creation from Creator. In the rhythm of the
co m m en tato rs an d scholars M a im o n id e s
six days unfolding work, G o d s satisfaction
a n d N ach m an id es) in siste d th a t tim e in
and fulfillm ent o f his own purposes are the
G enesis 1 c a n n o t be co n sid ered o rd in a ry
repeated criterion o f its adequacy: God saw
tim e on ea rth , b u t is G o d s tim e. G enesis
that it was good. W hile G od is also the one
1 offers us G o d s perspective on creation, a
who creates in Genesis 2:5ff, the contrast in
view
from outside an d one co n trastin g
voice could hardly be greater: there he is in
w ith the creaturely perspective o f Genesis
the creation, and above all in dialogue w ith
2:5ff, a view from w ith in (space-tim e).
his creatures, w ho have themselves become
S u ch a d e ta c h e d , e x te rn a l v ie w p o in t is
purposive agents and speakers. T he obvious
intrinsic to a prologue.
parallel is w ith a stage drama and a prologue to
W e need n o t base th e arg u m en t purely
it spoken by a different voice before the curtain
o
n
lite r a r y a n d s ty lis tic c o m p a r is o n .
rises. Stylistically, the six days of creation, each
Because
m an y people in stin ctiv ely dislike
w ith its clearly m arked tag (and there was

CRUXSpring 2 0 0 7 /V 0 .4 3 , N o .

application o f literary parallels to biblical

passages dealing w ith objective topics, we
m ay also appeal to a broader illu stratio n ,
one rem in d in g us ^ow inescapably we aro
related to tim e-sequence in all ou r actions
and thoughts. The logical order or sequence
o f to p ic s in p r e s e n tin g o r e x p la in in g
a com p lex su b je c t is in m o st cases n o t
arbitrary, but is determ ined by the learning
process. In general, logical presentation o f
the subject moves from elementary, general
prom ises an d stru ctu re s to m ore com plex
an d co n seq u en tial realities p red icated by
fo^m- A fter we have learned and m astered
a subject, th is logical s tru c tu re becom es
reversible conceptually: we can exam ine the
atem poral logical relations betw een diverse
elem ents w ith in the structure, recognizing
th a t so m e tim e s th e a r r o w o f lo g ic al
im p lic a tio n is h ig h ly d ire c tio n a l ( if...
th e n ...) and at other tim es points in either
d ire c tio n ( if a n d o nly if ...t h e n ..., a n d
conversely...). G enerally, o u r capacity to
m ake m aps, diagram s and other projective
s p a tia l d e p ic tio n s o f th e r e la tio n s h ip s
b etw e en elem en ts in a logical s tr u c tu re
d e p e n d s on th e a c h ie v e m e n t o f su c h
reversibility in conceptual understan d in g .
H ow ever, th e le arn in g process itse lf is n o t
reversible, b u t irreversible, and, in general,
we cannot learn or understand any complex
logical structure w ithout having it presented
first in a tim e sequence: some ideas and facts
m ust be presented before others can even be
spoken or w ritten about, w hile other topics
are necessarily afterw ard in presen tatio n ,
because th in k in g itself is a creaturely process
carried on by our brains w ith in tim e. O u r
creaturehood dem ands th a t we learn about
an d first u n d ersta n d even tim eless logical
re la tio n s a n d im p lic a tio n s o n a n axis
linked physically to tim e: M on d ay s study
o f basics necessarily comes chronologically
before T uesday-through-Thursdays fu rth e r
expositions and Fridays discussion o f w hat
follows as applications o f principles learned.
et in such cases we certainly neither intend
nor conclude th a t the logical developm ent
its e lf is also in h e ren tly chronological in
its ch aracter, th a t th e d ev e lo p m e n ta l

Time and Logical Order in Genesis 1

param eters th a t m ap progress from one end

o f the subjeet to th e other are really related
to tim e as a variable. In te ac h in g I often
rem inded students th at our joint experience
in class h ad a literal ch ro n o lo g ical order:
Last w eek we proved th a t ( )...; an d this
now implies, if we apply it to w hat we have
just learned yesterday, (B)..., th a t (C )... In
such d ialo g u e everyone u n d e rsta n d s th a t
this colloquial usage, th o u g h inescapable, is
certainly not intrinsic to the logical order o f
the subject proper; it is merely a param etric
m ap p in g w ith in tim e o f a logical ord er in
the subject th a t is in m ost cases essentially
atem p o ral. B ecause w e live a n d le arn in
tim e, tim es arrow an d the arrow o f logical
sequence are m ap p ed together; yet tim e is
n ot really the focus o f conceptual meaning.^
R ecognition th a t Genesis functions as
a literary prologue (to th e biblical acco u n t
o f h u m a n h is to ry fo llo w in g it) suggests
we set aside th e nai've assu m p tio n th a t it
is n ec essarily a chronological a c c o u n t o f
creation. However, we should th en ask: w hat
logical ordering, developm ent or progress
o f th o u g h t is co n c e p tu a lly im p o rta n t to
u n d e rsta n d in g it? Som e clues to th is are
provided by the literary structure o f the text
itself, and we consider these next.

Time as a Parametric Device in Genesis 1

As m any com m entators p o in t out. Genesis
1 uses th e seven-day w eek w ith the Shabbat
rest at its conclusion as a literary device for
laying o u t the logical order o f creation. Just
as the Sabbath is set ap art w ith in the week
as the tim e for celebration o f realities th a t
transcend tim e, so foe seventh day occupies
a unique place and is set ap art from the six
days w hich precede it, b oth by its distinctive
features an d by specific statem ent about its
div in e co n secratio n . T h e d elib erate d aily
rh y th m m a rk in g each successive stage o f
G o d s creativ e w ork, in tro d u c e d by th e
regular repetition So there was evening and
m o rn in g , th e th ...day, is conspicuously
absent on th e seventh day. O bviously, we
should not expect a resum ption o f th e cycle:
th e sev en th day co m p letes th e a c c o u n ts
p ersp ectiv e on cre atio n a n d u n lik e th e

Time and Logical Order

Genes/5

CRUXSpring 2 0 0 7 /V 0 I.4 3 , N o. }

six before has no te m p o ra l en d . G o d is

perfectly satisfied w ith his com pleted w ork
a n d th is d iv in e rest or ce le b ra tio n is its
appointed goal. A variety o f inferences may
be d raw n from th e u n iq u e pre-em in en ce
given th e seventh day; one certainly is th a t
creation as G ods w ork m ust be viewed not
fu n d am en tally as process, b u t as som ething
fin a lly p erfec ted to be c e le b ra te d a n d
en jo y ed by h u m a n s to g e th e r w ith G o d .
Because creaturely existence is inescapably
set w ith in tim e, we ten d to see process as
f a n d ^ m a l ; however, G od asks us to share
an eternal celebration th a t m akes no sense
if we view creation prim arily as process. In
this respect. Genesis 1 is different, no t only
from other ancient creation narratives w ith
w hich it is sometimes classed, but also from
m odern scientific cosmologies and accounts
o f origins. As an enterprise, science m ust
view process as u ltim a te because in spite
o f o u r aim to contem plate tim eless tru th s,
tran sc en d in g tim e itself is n o t w ith in ou r
grasp. The pre-em inence o f the seventh day
in G enesis I signals an u n d e rsta n d in g o f
creation and its C reator entirely absent from
either th e G ilgam esh epic or the theory o f
evolution.
The six-plus-one p attern o f the days in
G enesis 1 provides a complete projection o f
ffs m eaning on all creaturely tim e. T im e is
th u s a p ara m etric device used n o t m erely
to rationalize the Shabbat bu t as a k in d o f
m a p p in g o f G o d s ageless e te rn ity on ou r
rec u rren t ch ronological experience in the
present. It m akes no sense, arid m ake
no sense, to suppose th a t there w ould ever be
an eighth day (or any subsequent days) in
th e narrative; only as children or in joking
do we ever conceive such a th in g . A lm ost
everyone perceives intuitively th a t an entire
view o f creation is provided by the span o f
its seven (six, plus one) days; th erefore it
is a co n cep tual m istake to view th e m as a
particular segment o fo u r tim e from the past.
Yet th e basis for y o u n g -e a rth cre atio n ist
argum ents makes just this naive mistake.
A d v o cates o f a lite ra l, c h ro n o lo g ic a l
in te rp re ta tio n o f G enesis I m ak e m u ch
o f the fact th a t the H ebrew w ord used for

day in the text eannot easily be translated

as a n y th in g h u t a literal, tw enty-four-hour
day. However, this argum ent is valid only if
the logieal order o f Genesis 1 is neeessarily
also ^r??2 ?logical. I f tim e in s te a d is a
literary, param etric device, as I argue here,
such a simple linguistic usage is just w hat we
should expect.
The six days o f creation are structured by
a defining at th e very b eg in n in g
o f th e p r o lo g u e , a n d its
program is followed carefully.
A fter the open in g sum m ary,
In th e b e g i n n in g , G o d
created the heavens a n d the
e a rth , a prospective agenda
for his w ork is stated: N ow
th e e a rth was w ith o u t form
a n d v o id , a n d d a r k n e s s
lay u p o n th e fac e o f th e
deep . In resp o n se to th ese
conspicuous lacks, G o d w ill
provide creatio n 's
an d
content. T h is is a p ro sp ectu s
o f th e in te n d e d w o rk n o t
gratuitous inform ation about
some pre-existent state-of-thecosmos apart from G od. Here
th e e a r t h re p re se n ts th e
entire creation, reflecting the
n a rra tiv e s a m h ro p o c e n tric
view o f G o d s p u rp o se . Its
i n t e n t is c o m p re h e n s iv e :
nothing exists apart from G od
and G o d s creating purpose.
I n r e s p o n s e to t h i s
d e f in in g p ro s p e c tu s , G o d
gives structure an d d y n am ic
order to creation in th e first
three days, replacing darkness
w ith light, form lessness w ith
bounded dom ains w ith in the
cosm os, a n d th e b arren n ess
o f fo rm le ss ex p a n se s w ith
re so u rc e s fo r fru itfu ln e s s Then, in the second three days,
G od provides content to populate the em pty
stru ctu re : physical entities in th e heavens
giving them regular, m ajestic order; living
th in g s sp re a d in g o u t w ith in th e e a rth ly

A variety o f
inferences may
be draw nfrom
the unique pre-

eminence ^iven

the seventh day;

one certain,.} is
that creation
as G o d s work
must be viewed
notfundam entally as process,
but as somethingfinally
perfected to
be celebrated
an d enjoyed by
humans together
with God.

CRUXSpring 2 0 0 7 /V 0 I.4 3 , N o .

Time Logical Order in Genesis

logical order o f G o d s w ork o f creation not

as literal chronology.
U s in g tim e as l i t e r a r y p r o g r e s s
param eter in the unfolding logic o f creation
has a fu rth e r effect. Ju st as in any h u m a n
creative p ro g ram , a sense o f a n ticip atio n
a n d n o v elty is co n veyed. a c h n ew day
brings fo rth $ previously u n h era ld ed ,
entirely new thing. This sense o f unexpected
n o v e lty o r tra n s c e n d e n c e o f th e o rd e r
created before or underneath it is im p o rtan t
to th in k in g ab o u t science. O n th e fo u rth
day, for exam ple, G o d created th e m erely
physical w orld represented in th e celestial
objects; oddly, discoveries in a s tro n o m y
have always stim ulated advances in physical
science. In the fifth and sixth days, however,
G od introduces entirely new levels o f being
an d m e an in g in creatin g living creatures.
W h a t m ig h t th is sense o f n o v elty im p ly
for a science o f life? D arw in ism s dogm atic
assum ption th a t physical principles alone can
account for the em ergence and com plexity
o f biosystems may be a strong h in d ran ce in
the long ru n to creative scientific th in k in g
about them .
literary structure o f Genesis 1 has been
discussed by m any scholarly com m entators.
H ere I have only added th e arg u m en t th a t
this stru ctu re strongly suggests we should
not view the passage o f tim e in the narrative
literally, b u t rath er as a p aram etric device
presenting the unfolding logic and purpose
in G o d s w ork o f creation.

realm s o f sky, sea an d land. T h e order o f

populating corresponds strictly to the order
o f structuring, so th at the fourth day stands
opposite to the first, the fifth to the second,
and foe sixth to foe third, each w ith content
co rresp o n d in g to th e stru c tu re d d o m a in
form ed earlier. A dherence to the prospectuss
program is so strict th a t insisting its logical
sequence is chronological creates problem s:
sun, m oon an d stars are o nly created on
foe fo u rth day, yet the stru c tu re d realities
o f lig h t a n d d a rk n e ss, day

Keepim
in m ind fn
dn,ighttheyprovid,e^ere

o
brought tnto betng on tne lirst
that Genesis / is day. (T h e lam e ex p lan a tio n
th a t this is a phenomenological
concerned more view o f an ea rth shrouded by
dense fog in foe first three days
with God's
only shows the foolishness o f
in te rp re tin g G enesis 1 as if
purposes in
it were ultim ately concerned
w ith the process or technique
creating than
o f creation.) D ifficulties w ith
with the process natural history are also created
if it is insisted th a t the fo r
o f cre atio n o f liv in g th in g s
ofcreation,
in th e ir v a rio u s d o m a in s
we may ask:
is s tr ic tly c h ro n o lo g ic a l
ra th e r th a n d e te rm in e d by
What are some th e previous structural order
defining those dom ains.
important
In s tr ik in g c o n tr a s t to
m
odern
conflict over scientific
progress varievidence for great age o f o u r
u n iv e r s e , th e th e o lo g ia n
ables in the
A ugustine o f H ip p o (circa
unfolding logic 450) believed th a t in reality
G o d h a d cre ate d all th in g s
ofcreation in
in s ta n ta n e o u s l y ra th e r
th a n in th e six lite ra l days
Genesis 1?
in sisted on by y o u n g -e a rth

Progressive Development Parameters in

Genesis 1

AD

W e have arg u ed th a t in G enesis 1, tim e s

p ro g ress m aps a lo g ical d ev e lo p m e n t in
creation, b u t th a t th e progress-param eters
o f th is logic are n o t essentially tem p o ral.
Keeping in m ind th a t Genesis 1 is concerned
m o re w ith G o d s p u rp o ses in crea tin g
th a n w ith the process o f creation, we m ay
ask: W h a t are som e im p o rta n t progress
variables in the unfolding logic o f creation
in G e n e sis 1? W h ile a c o m p re h e n siv e
answ er to th is question is n ot offered here,
ce rta in them es are evident: an increasin g
lib erty an d p o te n tia lity o f the creation; as

creationism . H is view reflects

th e in flu en ce o f ? la to n ic philosophy, b u t
it also dem o n strates tw o o th e r points: (i)
he u n d e rs to o d th e a c c o u n t o f c re a tio n
in G enesis 1 to be in a detach ed , literary
re la tio n (ra th e r th a n a c h ro n o lo g ic a lly
c o n strain ed one) to G enesis 2:5ff; an d (ii)
he u n d e rsto o d tim e in G enesis 1 to be a
literary, param etric device for presenting the

Time and Logical Order Genesis 1

a c o u n te rp o in t, th e increasing generosity
o f G o d to w ard it; an d G o d s increasingly
personal in te rest in, c o m m itm e n t to an d
in v o lv e m e n t w ith w h a t he has cre ate d .
These themes are suggested by reflections on
Genesis 1 found elsewhere in Scripture.
Psalm 8, a poetic reflection on creation
an d G o d s p u rp o se in it, provides a clue
em phasizing the attention or concern o f G od
as a key concept. In Psalm 8:34, w onder at
the interest and intention of G od in creating
h n m a n s c a n be re a d in tw o so m e w h a t
different ways. T ie first and m ore traditional
expresses su rp rise in view o f h u m a n ity s
apparent insignificance w hen com pared w ith
the majesty o f the heavens in their vast array:
W h y should G od concern him self w ith us?
T ie second reading is m ore consonant w ith
th e P salm s prophetic m eaning (developed
in H ebrew s 2:5 -9 ): H ow im portant hum an
beings m u st be to th e C reato r o f heavens
and ea rth sinoe he takes so m uch interest
in them! T ia t true im portance is m easured
by G o d s in te re st a n d in v o lv e m e n t is a
fundam ental principle in Genesis 1.
In Ephesians 1:3-14, St. Pauls argum ent
regarding G o d s lavish generosity in C hrist
links it to G o d s eternal plan from before
th e fo u n d a tio n o f th e w o rld (th at is, to
d iv in e p u rp o se in creation). It is a sound
interpretive principle th a t N ew T estam ent
au th o rs draw on O ld T estam ent resources
in th eir th in k in g . W e conclude th a t divine
generosity is an im p o rta n t developm ental
them e in Genesis 1 a conclusion reinforced
by )am es 1:1718.
T h e L e tte r to th e H eb rew s m ak es a
s p iritu a l app licatio n o f th e seventh-day
S h a b b a t o f G o d in G enesis 1, g iv in g it
eschatological m eaning (H ebrew s 4:113).
Since th e w hole a rc h ite c tu re o f H ebrew s
relies on th e principle th a t eternal realities
o f G o d s co m p leted w o rk (in clu d in g the
w o rk o f re d e m p tio n a n d ato n em e n t) are
the basis for the believers life in the present
w o rld , it is reasonable to arg u e th a t th e
w riter o f Hebrews understands the divine
persp ectiv e o f G enesis 1 as bein g etern al
ra th e r th a n te m p o r a l a n d a lso , th a t
its focal in te rest is th e co m p leted divine

CRUXSpring 2 0 0 7 /V 0 I.4 3 , ^

purpose, rather th a n the process or technique

o f creation.
St. Paul frequently argues (in G alatians
especially; see also R o m an s 8 :1 -2 5 an d
co m m en ts in E p h esian s a n d C olossians)
th a t w h ile th e re su lt o f h u m a n sin an d
disobedience to G o d has been enslavem ent
and bondage to elements o f the created order
th a t by n a tu re are n o t gods at a ll (G al
4:8), yet G o d s purpose from the beginning
was to give genuine liberty and potentiality
to his creatures. T h e p ro m in en ce o f th is
N ew T e sta m e n t th e m e re g a rd in g G o d s
p u rp o se suggests its possible relevance to
the u n fo ld in g w ork o f creation in G enesis
1 especially, in days four, five and six.
In th e O ld T estam e n t, especially th e
Psalm s an d P rophets, expressions o f praise
an d th a n k sg iv in g to G o d o ften co m m en t
w ith awe on his m a n ifo ld grace: th o u g h
G od dwells on high, beyond th e heavens
and above the th o u g h t an d u n d ersta n d in g
o f h u m a n beings, y et he co n d escen d s to
care for and be interested in th em in th e ir
m ost in tim ate concerns an d needs (c, for
exam ple, Pss 113, 115, 103, 33). In these
celebrations G o d s rad ical tran scen d en ce
w ith re s p e c t to c r e a tio n is in tim a te ly
lin k e d to his love, faith fu ln e ss a n d deep
c o m m itm en t to his creatures, w h o is like
the L o r d > G od

^
M a ke r? In G enesis
1 the view o f creation from a tran scen d en t
perspective sustains this peculiarly H ebraic
sense o f w ho the L o r d is.
T hese m otifs are m ore evident in days
four through six th a n in th e first three days
o f stru ctu rin g . D ays one th ro u g h th ree do
show the narrow ing focus o f G o d s care and
atten tio n , from cosm ic p ro p o rtio n s dow n
to th e d e ta il o f o u r e a rth a n d its lo v in g
preparation as a place w ith resources for life.
T ris focus is unasham edly anthropocentric,
b u t to challenge its objectivity really ju st
begs the question about who Godis. ^ u rn e y s
in to th e m ore alien cosm os o u tsid e have
m ade us appreciate our p lan ets uniqueness
in a w ay s trik in g ly c o n s is te n t w ith th e
anthropocentrism o f Genesis and force us
to take m uch m ore seriously the Bibles view
o f a G od w ho cares for us.

. i

CRUXSpring 2 0 0 7 /V 0 I.4 3 , ^

'

Logical Order

Genesis I

an alm o st in stin ctiv e w orship o f th e m as

divine in pagan cultures.
W h e n G o d blesses th e living creatu res
th a t have arisen in response to his w o rd
in seas a n d skies, s o m e th in g q u ite n ew
appears. Blessing is first o f all perm issio n
or a u th o riz a tio n ; it im plies th e recip ien t
has a p o ten tial or cap ab ility for au th en tic
in d e p e n d e n c e or lib e r ty o f a c tio n . T h e
p h rase a fte r its k in d lays d o w n lim its
and co n strain ts w ith in w hich this freedom
is e x p re sse d (te x tb o o k s o n m o le c u la r
b io c h e m is tr y a n d g e n e tic s t r e a t t h a t
balance in detail); nevertheless, the fifth day
intro d u ces essential novelty, tran scen d in g
th e purely causal stru ctu re o f th e physical
order. This creaturely p o ten tial an d liberty
is d elib erately in te n d e d an d approved by
G od: D o your thing!The them e o f liberty
an d p o te n tia lity delib erately endow ed on
th e creatu re already begins in th e m erely
b io lo g ical c re a tio n th o u g h it develops
m uch further in h u m an beings.
The uniqueness and special creation o f
h u m an beings is supported in Genesis 1 by
the distinctive linguistic usage o fth e H ebrew
( , ra th e r th a n m erely m ake or
fo rm ), a n d by th e s ta te m e n t th a t th e y
uniquely bear G o d s image; it is pow erfully
re in fo rc e d by G o d s u n iq u e b le ssin g to
them . A dding to his earlier com m and to be
fruitful and multiply, G o d s m andate to have
dom inion over the rest o fth e living creatures
sets h u m a n beings ap a rt as a qualitatively
d istin c t creation: th e ir u n iq u e blessing or
calling implies th eir unique being/identity.
D e f in in g m a n /w o m a n as th e r a tio n a l
anim al, th e talking an im al and so forth,
is in a d e q u a te ; such h r a c t e r i s t i c s , each
d is tin c tiv e ly (if n o t p erh a p s exclusively)
h u m a n , are only endowm ents p e rtin e n t to
th e ir u n iq u e n e ss in b io lo g ical cre atio n .
T h e beings created in G o d s im age have a
level o f b eing an d m e an in g tra n sc e n d in g
th e biological gifts su p p o rtin g i t - j u s t as
biological creation, w hile h aving physical
existence, is organized in ways transcending
purely physical process. G o d s in terest in,
c o m m itm e n t to a n d b lessin g o f h u m a n
b ein g s are m a rk e d by a m o re p ro fo u n d

D ays four th ro u g h six show a parallel

n arro w in g o f focus. T h e cre atio n o f th e
heavenly bodies on the fo u rth day has an
im p o rta n t subtext: they are n o t divinities
governing h u m a n lives an d destinies, b u t
r e g u la to r y a r r a n g e m e n ts fo r y et m o re
significant creaturely being. H ebrew s were
n o t unable to appreciate foe m ajesty o f the
heavens (cf. Ps 19, Is 40 ) bu t understood
them in term s o fth e relation o f all creation,
and especially hum ans, to a living G od.
M a n y o f th e p e c u lia rly
foreshortened ideas o f creation
fostered by m o d e rn ity resu lt
ftom our p reoccupation w ith
the physical w orlds regular and
mechanistic structure, as if that
were the ultim ate reality. We are
fixated on fo u rth day s tu f f ;
even m o d e rn p h ilo s o p h ic a l
and theological problem s have
reflec te d o u r obsession w ifo
ideas of causation, deterministic
re la tio n s a n d c o m p u te r-lik e
co n tro l o f events. G iven th e
success o f m o d e rn p h y sic al
. science, th e one area w here
we m ay be said to have some
real k now ledge o f c re a tio n s
ch a racter a n d processes, th is
m y o p ic fix a tio n is p e rh a p s
u n derstandable. H ow ever, by
the fo u rth days end G od has
h a rd ly b e g u n c re a tin g ; th e
really in te re s tin g a n d novel
w ork still lies ahead.
T h e blessings u tte re d by
G o d in the fifth days creation
o f liv in g c re atu res a n d th e n
finally o f h um an beings on the
six th day p o in t to creaturely poten tiality ,
creaturely freedom , divine generosity an d
divine involvement. N o blessing is given to
the celestial objects because none is needed;
they do exactly w hat they were program m ed
to d o , o b e y in g th e c a u s a l p r in c ip le s
d e te rm in in g th e ir regular behavior an d
no more. Theres a striking contrast between
fo i H ebraic sense o f th e ir m atter-of-fact
existence as things m ade for our needs, and

The blessings
uttered by God
in thefifth days
creation ofliving
creatures and
thenfinally o f
human beings
on the sixth day
point to creaturely
potentiality,
creaturely
freedom, divine
generosity
and divine
involvement.

Time and Logical Order

Genesis 1

CRUXSpring 2 0 0 7/V 01.43, ^

.1

involvem ent, signaled in the conversation

to such a m in o r co n cern as th e tech n ical
an d m u tu ality o f purpose o f persons w ithin
process o f creation and a literal chronology
o f th a t process, is to m iss alm o st en tirely
God. W e are closer to the tru th th en ifw e
say th a t h u m a n beings d iffe r from o th e r
its real m essage a b o u t G o d s p u rp o se in
biological creatures by being persons', we can
creation. T h a t is th e stro n g est reason
^
grasp h u m an transcendence w ith respect to
should feel a d eterm in ed passion to refute
oth er living creatures only, to the extent we
the abuse and m isuse o f S cripture im plicit
in young-earth creationism.
u n d e rsta n d w h at tru e personhood im plies
and requires.
D ivine Transcendence and Genesis 1
M o st C h ristia n reflectio ns on hum an
T hese discussions have a co m m on thread:
id e n tity co ncede h u m a n p o te n tia lity for
th e p ersp e ctiv e o f G enesis 1 is in som e
c re a tiv ity , n o v e lty a n d lib e r ty as g ifts
way profound ly detached, b o th from w hat
conferred on us by G od; we adm it it whenever
follows in the Pentateuch and from the sense
we acknow ledge the genuine freedom (in
tim e and place com m on to our :maturely
principle) o f the h u m a n w ill. H ere 1 have
experience. T h is d etac h m en t was obvious
argued th at G ods purpose of giving freedom
to th e r a b b in ic a l sc h o la rs
to his creation is n o t m anifested only at the
w ho argued th a t it speaks
creation o f hum anity; hum an beings are the
G o d s tim e, n o t ours. It is
culm ination o f a movement already begun in
im plicit in view ing Genesis 1
the purely biological creation. From the very
as a prologue explaining th at
b eg in n in g , G o d has deliberately intended
the universes tru e beg in n in g
th a t all his creatures shall participate, w ith
arose fro m o u ts id e itself.
the various capacities each has, in a glorious
U sing a single w eek o f seven
lib e rty ; otherw ise we can m ake no m ore
days as a literary fram ew ork
th a n p o etic ense o f R om ans 8 :1 8 -2 5 in
to project the divine purposes
relarion to the non-h1]m3n creation.
in c r e a t i o n a n d t h e i r
G enesis 1 offers a fu rth e r, very subtle
c o m p le tio n in th e S a b b a th
h in t o f generosity in G o d s purpose, t r o u g h
rest onto the m oving screen
1:28, G o d s speech in creating is entirely in
o f our tim e, G enesis 1 draws
the im perative mode, th a t is, he com m ands
o u r a t t e n t i o n aw ay f ro m
or authorizes. But in 1 : 2 9 0 G od speaks to
c r e a tu r e ly o b se ssio n w ith
the hum ans in the indicative, conversational
process to a contem plation o f
m ode, assu m ing th e ir legitim ate capacity
divine p u rp o se a n d its fin al
to u n d e rs ta n d h is p u rp o se s as th o se in
c o m p le tio n . T h e im p lie d f l f l d l C O T V l p i C t l O T l
personal relation to him . Such a m ode o f
p ersp ectiv e is d iv in e r a t h e r ____________________________
speaking with, no t merely speaking to, offers
th a n creaturely, eternal rather
deep u n d erstanding o f th e unique vocation
th a n tem poral. To argue th a t th e ordering
an d privilege conferred on h u m an s. T h is
logic o f Genesis 1 is n ot inherently a chronoconception o f a liberty and relation to him
logic is merely to pursue this idea to its end.
in dialogue as being deliberately intended
1 th in k th is sense o f d e ta c h m e n t, o f
by G o d in creating is unique to the Bible.
an etern al, d iv in e v ie w p o in t on creation,
It is th e essence o f prophetic m in istry and
is deliberately in tended by th e text, an d is
d iv in e in sp ira tio n in S crip tu re; a n d it is
intim ately connected w ith biblical theology.
en tirely m issing in th e n o tio n o f h u m a n
T h e b ib le b eg in s w ith th e c re a tio n
relationship to A llah in the religion o flslam ,
accounts G enesis, b u t for G o d s people
for example.^
the inform ation in these accounts is not rheir
O th e r developm ental them es appear in
original knowledge o f G od. The ground for
Genesis 1, b ut these suffice for m y argum ent.
the covenant oflaw is: la m the LoRDyour God,
To claim in stea d th a t th e progression o f
who broughtyou out ofthe land ofEgypt, out o f
logical th o u g h t in Genesis 1 is tied merely

...Genesis 1
draws our
attention away
from creaturely
obsession with
process to a
contemplation
ofdivine
purpose an d its

CRUXSpring 2 0 0 7 /V 0 I.4 3 , N o .

the house o f bondage. [Therefore] you shall have

no othergods before [beside] me. This ^incip le
remains the same in the N ew Testament. The
creation accounts ht into this prim ary context
as further knowledge about that G od who is
firsr our
avior and Deliverer.
The Bible condem ns and forbids idolatry,
no t only as im m oral, as a m isleading an d
ultim ately powerless projection o f our own
desires and needs, and as a pow erful delusion
con tin u ally attractive to us as creatures
b ut above all, as unrealistic and untrue. G od
is not like any created being, and to depict
h im in th a t fashion is to constru ct w hat is
not: H e is who H e is.
f o r m a n y p h y s ic a l s c ie n tis ts , th e
conclusion o f m odern cosm ology th a t b oth
tim e and space are mere aspects o f creation,
in h e re n t in th e existence o f m a tte r an d
energy, has com e as som ething o f a shock
because th a t is ju st w h at th e Bible always
claim ed. It is an interesting (but probably
fruitless) sp eculation to consider w h at we
m ight otherw ise have eventually supposed
about tim es reality, w ithout having first been
n u rtu re d im ellectually by the biblical view
th a t eternity is more fundam ental th a n tim e
because G o d is eternal: The H igh a n d Lofty
One who inhabits eternity. Today C hristian
theological reflection on the relation o f tim e
and eternity (and the im plications o f G o d s
decision to becom e incarn ate in C hrist) is
an im p o rtan t task; this is partly due to our
realization th a t based on the best scientific
evidence our entire universe, including tim e,
has a purely contingent existence.
I find it helpful to im agine an inform al
r a t i o n a l e fo r th e tw o b ib lic a l c re a tio n
accounts: in th e m G o d is co n cern ed n o t
only to place his involvement w ith us in the
context o f space-time (the second account o f
creation); but first, to m ake clear th a t there
exists a m ore fu n d am e n tal perspective on
w ho we are, w hat this universe is and w hat
ou r calling is, th a n any view point available
from w ithin space-tim e. This transcend en t
perspective is really inaccessible to us as
c re a tu re s it is u n iq u e ly G o d s. e t th e
tem ptation to idolatry is irresistible w ithout
som e u n d e rsta n d in g th a t th is view o f o u r

Time and Logical Order Genesis /

universe an d its p u rp u se even exists an d

th a t its priorities and ends shape everything
we are an d m ay becom e. It seem s to me
th a t G enesis I, w ith its p ec u lia r sense o f
detachm ent from creaturely tim e, creaturely
ends an d creaturely agency, is deliberately
m eant to provide such understanding. X
Endnotes
1 This point needs emphasis, since the tradition
o f source criticism has often argued that G enesis
111 cannot be considered as history in any sense and
should be treated purely as mythic material. A helpfui discussion o f important issues related to the early
chapters o f Genesis as intentionally historical is given
by Walter c. Kaiser Jr., The O ld Testament Documents:
Are They Reliable a n d Relevant? (Downers (Trove, If:
Interarsity Press, 2001).
2 Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The o pening
Chapters ofGenesis (Downers Grove, If: InterVarsity
Press, 1984); Derek Kidner, Genesis: A n Introduction
a n d C o m m e n t a r y , T y n d a le Id T e s ta m e n t
Commentaries, ed. D. j. Wiseman (Downers Grove,
If: InterVarsity Press, 1967).
3 Jonathan R. W ilson, The Peace o f Creation:
Recovering a Treological Balance, CRUX 40, no. 3
(September 2004): 2 - 8 , based on a paper presented at
a Conference for Environmental Professionals hosted
at Trinity Western University, fangley, BC.
4 1 am indebted to Thomas F, Torrance for pointing out (in private com m unication) that medieval
thinkers at least as far back as the time o f Aquinas,
Scotus and others had already recognized the :ssential
distinction required between necessary logical direction or implication in an argument, and the chronolog'/ -/ unavoidable in learning or understanding
such structure conceptually and had thought a good
deal about metaphysical implications o f this fact for
our grasp of created reality. Part of what makes problems tense logic so complex is the fact that these two
quite distinct dim ensions o f progress or developmental order are entangled in them.
5 Interpretations o f G enesis 1 claim in g that
this statement describes the catastrophic result o f a
destructive enemys attack on an earlier creation (summarized in verse 1) are typical of the conceptual errors
generated when we assume that temporal is as
ultimate from G ods perspective as it is for us. They are
also bizarrely inconsistent with the overall atmosphere
and literary character o f the prologue, in which God is
the only planner, speaker and agent; everything happens completely in accordance with his purposes, and
no opposition or will contrary to G od s is ever manifested or even mentioned.
6 In the prophets (see especially Isaiah, Jeremiah
and Ezekiel) prophetic insight is closely linked to conversational communication between the prophet and
the L r d . D ivine revelation is not merely handed
down imperatively but arises from intimately shared
understanding.


Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreement.
No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.