CREATION. In the Bible the doctrine of creation is based on divine revelation, this being particularly the case in the NT, where creation is seen in the light of the divine revelation in Jesus Christ and the “new creation” which has already become a spiritual reality through His work.

1. History and creation. The Biblical teachings relating to creation should not be identified or confused with any scientific theory of origins. The narrative material in the early chs. of Genesis consists of ancient efforts at historical composition, and while scientific procedures were by no means unknown in Mesopotamian antiquity, they had no bearing upon the Biblical accounts or doctrines of creation.

a. Mesopotamian cosmogony. No one mythological account has been found to date which deals specifically with the creation of the cosmos in the sense in which the first ch. of Genesis does. Most of the texts referring to creation are part of other literary material involving legendary persons, the organization of early society, and the struggles between the various gods of the pantheons. Some of the Mesopotamian creation stories were linked with particular cities such as Nippur, Lagash, and Shuruppak, and narrated the activities of the creative deity. Thus Enki, the god of the deep and of wisdom, made Nippur the base for a subsequent extension of his influence in Sumeria, creating mankind after the pantheon had been completed, and developing all the early cultural forms in his favorite city. A further myth relating to the exploits of Enki and Ninhursag told how Enki led his forces against Nammu, the wicked primeval deity of the sea, after which with the help of Nin-mah, the earth mother-goddess, he created man from clay. Sumerian cosmogony found its most popular adaptation, however, in the creation myth known as Enuma elish (“When from above”), recovered from the ruined library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh but extant also in fragments from Ashur, Uruk and Kish. This epic mentioned two mythical divine personages of Sumer. tradition, Apsu, the underground sweetwater reservoir, and Tiamat, the salt water ocean. Marduk, patron god of Babylon, slew the latter in battle, established the earth and organized the celestial constellations. The sixth tablet of the epic described how man was created from the blood of Kingu, an ally of Tiamat. Following Sumer. tradition man was regarded as being vastly inferior to the gods, constituting almost an afterthought of divine creativity. Another Sumer. myth spoke of the paradise known as Dilmun, a place now identified with the small desert island of Bahrein in the Persian Gulf, and which in antiquity was a focal point of maritime trade between Mesopotamia and India. In this locale the mother-goddess Ninhursag was believed to have produced offspring painlessly without normal labor. The god Enki decided to eat some of the plants which grew in this paradise, but became ill as a result. The curse was lifted and Enki was restored to health by the intervention of a specially created goddess Nin.ti, whose name means the “lady of the rib” and “the lady who makes live.”

b. Egyptian cosmogony. In predynastic Egypt the cult of Re at Heliopolis maintained that the god had emerged from the waters of the Underworld and was self-created. From him came the other deities such as Isis, Osiris and Set, and these were followed by the creation of human beings. The cult of Ptah in the Thinite period of Memphis gave its chief deity priority over all other gods, regarding him as contemporary with the Underworld waters themselves. Ptah was the great cosmic mind who by the projection of his thought produced the world and its contents. Even the other gods were only manifestations of his creative ideas, and in his utterances there resided almighty power. Yet another ancient cult, that of Thoth of Hermopolis, credited its god with the creation of the world, the control of natural cycles and the bestowing of culture upon the human race. Thoth was venerated as the god of wisdom and was honored by a number of titles which reflected his creative genius.

c. Greek cosmogony. The deities of ancient Greece were not generally held to be responsible for creation, but instead were themselves the creatures of antecedent forces which they replaced. The Theogony of Hesiod gave Chaos the chief position in the pantheon and spoke of his successor as earth who, impregnated by heaven, became the mother of all living things. In the Orphic myth the great creator Phanes emerged from an egg, created the universe and the ancient heroes of the Golden Age, and then retired until his grandson Zeus swallowed him and his creation, after which Zeus recreated the existing world order. The Gr. myths of creation varied considerably in matters of detail, and spoke less of creation as such than development through procreation from vague beginnings.

d. OT creation narratives. The two accounts of creation in the OT (Gen 1:1-2:4; 2:5-25) contain certain elements in common with the general Near Eastern tradition. These are the concept of a primary watery darkness and emptiness, as distinct from a state of chaos; the recognition of creation as a divine act accomplished ex nihilo, and the belief that man was created by divine intent for the service of the gods. It is a mistake to assume that the two Genesis narratives are duplicates, for they actually complement one another. The first outlined the broad processes of creation and showed how all things emerged from the creative power of God, while the second paid greater attention to the creation of man and set him with his mate in a specific geographical location. The first of these accounts is unique for its dignified monotheism and non-mythological nature. There are no struggles between deities or primordial powers, nor is there any attempt to exalt one race or city at the expense of another. The narrative does not support a “three storied universe” of heaven, earth and underworld, as is commonly assumed, and throughout it relates the incidence of phenomena to the control of a consciously organizing Mind. The standpoint of the narrative is an ideal one, being that of a geocentric observer who would experience the unfolding of creation and life differently from what an extra-terrestrial observer would. Given this standpoint the narrative conforms remarkably to what such descriptive sciences as astronomy, biology and geology have to say about the origins of the world. It would be some time before the initial cloud cover thinned out sufficiently to allow the rays of either end of the spectrum to reach the earth, and longer still before sunlight and moonlight as such were recognizable features of existence. Again, the placing of the vegetable creation before that of the animals is not as accidental as was formerly maintained, since the study of photosynthesis has shown that green plants furnish the oxygen necessary for animal existence. On the whole, Genesis 1 has been badly tr. The first Heb. word actually means “by way of beginning,” while the phrase “the heavens and the earth” is an expression known technically as merismus, in which antonymic pairs describe not elements, but the totality of the situation. Thus the phrase should be rendered simply “the cosmos.” The perplexing expression “there was an evening and a morning...” is yet another example of merismus, and should be rendered “this was the first (second etc.) complete phase of the whole cycle.” These are problems of tr., however, and not of the original composer, who under divine inspiration transcended the crudities of Near Eastern polytheism to produce the most magnificent account of creation known to man.

The second narrative gave geographical identity to the home of man, placing it in Mesopotamia. There is no difficulty in this identification if the “rivers” Pishon and Gihon are regarded as “irrigation canals,” since there was no separate word for these two entities in Akkad. The expression “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is also an example of merismus, and refers to a “tree of the entire range of moral experience.” The story of the creation of woman is a classic example of the way in which the Orientals cloaked their deepest and most cherished truths in narrative form so as to protect them from the profane gaze of the scoffer. The word tr. “rib” in Eng. VSS should be more properly rendered “an aspect of personality,” indicating that pristine man was broken down into male and female components, quite similar in character but needing compatible union before the wholeness of the pristine creation could be realized. This fundamental unity, of which marriage was representative, was empasized by Jesus (Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7, 8. cf. 1 Cor 6:16) and related by Paul (Eph 5:31, 32) to the union between Christ and His Church. The material dealing with creation in the first two chs. of Genesis should be treated as a unit for a proper understanding of the theology of creation. The second narrative, which deals more fully with the creation of man and woman, is complementary to the first, which speaks of the world being fashioned for man to occupy. The homogeneity of man with his environment is emphasized in Genesis 2:7, which speaks of him being created from “clay,” i.e., the basic terrestrial elements. When the divine afflatus permeates man he becomes nep̱es or “personality.” This emphasis upon the integration of the human personality as a normative, hea lthy condition is found elsewhere in the OT and specifically in the NT, where the man who is in Christ becomes a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).

Because the Genesis accounts of creation are “pre-scientific” in the western technological sense, and “unscientific” in the Sumer. sense also, it is necessary to urge caution when attempts are made to “reconcile” them to the accounts of creation furnished by the modern descriptive sciences. While there are numerous points of contact there are also natural and obvious differences in standpoint. Although it is perfectly legitimate to recognize that both Genesis and biological science propose some concept of derivation by descent, it is equally wrong to imagine that the Genesis account can be proved or disproved by reference to a theory of biological origins which is itself highly suspect in certain important areas. It has to be recognized that as far as the Bible is concerned, the OT account of creation does not preface the rest of Scripture as though it were an isolated attempt in antiquity to explain the origins of phenomena and human life. Indeed, if the first word of Genesis, b^erēs̱ẖîṯ, is tr. correctly to read “by way of beginning” or “to begin with,” it will relate to something other than an absolute temporal start to creation. What the position of the creation narratives shows, in fact, is that for the ancient Sem. writers creation was the starting point of history. It formed the necessary stage upon which the drama of human sin and redemption could be enacted, a drama in which the nation of Israel, and later the Christian Church, played an important role. Thus it is difficult to separate the creation narratives from the material which follows, since it was the intent of the various writers in antiquity that such a connection should be observed, as much for theological as specifically historical reasons.

2. Biblical doctrine of creation —the thought of the ancient Hebrews consistently related all existing phenomena to God as the one ground or source of existence. Because of this specifically monistic attitude there could never be any place in their concept of creation for the kind of dualism entertained by some other religions. To God as the sole Creator belonged the responsibility for the world of nature and men, and though there were facets of His creation which did not reflect His high moral and ethical character, even these were ultimately reconcilable to belief in the activity of one creative deity. The relationship between God and His creation is a contingent one, for it is the Lord who makes all things (Isa 44:24), and His handiwork is absolutely dependent upon Him for its ordering and survival. When the OT writers spoke about the idea of creation they were making a religious affirmation to the effect that God was sovereign and Lord of the cosmos.

a. Creation by the Word. As a regularized expression of the way in which God formed the world, the idea of creation by the Word is rather late. It is, however, implicit in Genesis 1, and also in the thought of some OT writers, notably the psalmists (Ps 33:9; 148:5; cf. Isa 45:12), who emphasized the transcendent majesty of the Creator. The best expressions of this concept are found in the NT (John 1:1-3; Heb 11:3; and 2 Pet 3:5, 6), which also attributed dynamic qualities to the Word. The latter was synonymous with that sovereign power which shaped the course of history and the lives of men alike, being supremely manifest in the creation of the world. The account in Genesis 1 is marked by the phrase “and God said” at the beginning of each new stage in the creative process. This situation may be of more than passing interest if the “wave” theory of creation is scientifically correct, since it would depict God at work on the basic units from which the cosmos was constructed. Whatever the meaning of the phrase, there can be no doubt that the narrative as a whole ascribes the processes of creation to the free and spontaneous activity of God. The Word of the Lord is that power which when placed in the mouths of the prophets, makes them spokesmen for God and gives them a position of authority in dispensing the divine oracles (Jer 1:9, 10). The Word also has a vitality which makes it sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb 4:12; cf. Rev 19:13-15), and in the person of the incarnate Logos (John 1:1-18) establishes a relationship of a particularly efficacious sort between the Creator and His creation.

b. Creation ex nihilo. As a formal expression of belief this concept is again a comparatively late development (2 Macc 7:28; cf. Rom 4:17; Heb 11:3), enhancing the idea of the creative sovereignty of God. Creatio ex nihilo as a philosophical postulate is undoubtedly too abstract for the Heb. mind to entertain, and while it is not specifically stated in Genesis 1, it is certainly implicit in the narrative. The reader is meant to understand that the worlds were not fashioned from any pre-existing material, but out of nothing, and that this proceeded from the activity of the divine Word. Prior to the creative fiat there was thus no other kind of phenomenological existence. Creatio ex nihilo, therefore, rules out the idea that matter is eternal, and also rejects any kind of dualism in the universe in which another entity, power or existence stands over against God and outside His control. The Creator of the world is thus not bound by chaos, as in the Babylonian creation myth, which portrayed the gods emerging from the waters of chaos. Indeed, the concept of a created chaos was foreign to the Genesis narrative, which maintained that creation was an ordered process and as such the opposite of chaos. Furthermore, the concept of creation from nothing affirms that God is separate from His creation, and denies that the latter is a phenomenal manifestation of the Absolute, as Pantheism maintains.

c. Man’s place in creation. The concept of creation out of nothing applies, of course, to the formulation of the cosmos, and does not exhaust the Biblical teaching on the subject of creation. Thus man was not created ex nihilo, but from previously prepared material, the “dust from the ground” (Gen 2:7), as were also the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air (Gen 2:19). This has been described as secondary creation, to denote an activity which makes use of material already in existence but which is nevertheless integral to the concept of primary creation. The harmony which is represented in the world and its inhabitants is in fact a divinely-imposed order in which each creature fulfills the will of God. In every instance the creative fiat not merely brings entities into existence but relates them to some specific function within the larger structure. Because of the personal relationship which exists between God and His creation there can be no room in Scripture for the idea of “nature” as an autonomous power set in motion by a First Cause. God is depicted as being at all times in control of the world (cf. Job 38:33; Jer 5:24, etc.), which needs His continual undergirding if it is to continue (cf. Ps 104:29, 30). Where there is the expression of the regularity of natural forces, as in the promise given to Noah (Gen 8:22), it is based upon the covenant mercies and faithfulness of God.

While the world was intended to display the glory of God, it was also fashioned as the dwelling place for man (Isa 45:18), the crown of divine creation. Man (āḏām ẖa̱ was fashioned from the ground (hā^aḏāmāh) to which he ultimately returns when he dies. While the animals and plants stand in an indirect relationship to the Creator, since they are brought forth by the earth, man is the direct product of creative activity, and is dignified in a special manner by being the recipient of the “living breath” of God. Stress is laid upon the nature of man as the highest form of created life in both accounts, where in Genesis 1:26, 27 homo sapiens is described as made in the divine image. This can only mean that man in his complete bodily existence was patterned after the image of God. The fact that the same concept was applied to Seth as a son of Adam (Gen 5:3) argues firmly against any attempts to reduce the imago dei to man’s “spiritual self,” “soul” or some such concept. The reference in Genesis 2:7 is also illuminating in this connection, for it speaks of man becoming a nepes hayyāh. The rendering “living soul” is less satisfactory than that of “personality,” since it is the totality of man which is again in view. Hebrew thought consistently viewed man as a personality, and the numerous OT references to the relationship between emotions and bodily changes demonstrate a concern for the integration of the personality of a kind which has been re-emphasized by modern psychosomatic medicine. Man is not just a “body” into which a “soul” has been placed. Instead he is a living personality which has physical extension in time and place. When living by divine law he is neither “body” nor “soul,” but a unified being in which all aspects of existence are designed to function in an integrated manner to the glory of God. Because man is in effect the living image of God upon earth, he is given the task of serving as the divine representative and ordering the ways of those aspects of creation which are put under his control (Gen 1:28). Though he has been made in the image of God, man is still inferior to the deity in stature (Ps 8:6-8). Nevertheless he is crowned with glory and honor because he has been made esp. to enjoy fellowship with the Creator. Unlike the animal creation, which has to obey instinctive impulses and laws, man has been given a freedom of will as part of his spiritual heritage. While his prime vocation is to serve God in the world of nature, he is unique in being the only creature which can respond to God in disobedience as well as in faith and trust. He can revile God as well as praise Him, and can separate himself from the divine presence just as easily as he can have fellowship with God. Certainly the latter function was the clear intention of the Creator, since no other species can articulate the divine praises. Thus man was made to communicate meaningfully and intelligently with God, an ideal which was subsequently attributed to the nation in covenant relationship with Him (Isa 43:21).

d. Threats to creation. The creation narratives contain no hint of foreboding for the future, for everything has the seal of perfection stamped on it. Until the declension of man and woman from pristine grace, the prospect for the future was one of continuous and untrammelled fellowship with God. When sin entered human experience it cast a blemish upon all created life (cf. Hos 4:7; Rom 8:21, 22) and threatened the future of man by separating his personality from God. Thereafter it became necessary for the Creator to make specific provision for human spiritual needs, first by the promise of one who should effectively break the power of the tempter (cf. Gen 3:15), then by the provision of a sacrificial system which would enable the penitent worshiper to renew his fellowship with God, and finally by revealing that at some specific point in history the Creator’s purpose would be entirely realized, and a new heaven and earth would replace the existing order of things. The end of the sequence does not seem to have concerned the earlier figures in Heb. history, and it was only as the covenant relationship became progressively weakened that an other-worldly perspective came into prominence. Even then the eschatology of both pre-and postexilic prophets tended to think of a recreated theocratic society upon this earth, rather than the newly-fashioned heaven and earth of NT thought (Rev 21:1), although Isaiah emphasized recreation in the NT sense (Isa 66:22). Consistently throughout the OT, however, the greatest menace to the divine creation was the fact of sin, particularly where it represented a violation of the covenant obligations. The covenant community was itself a special creation, intended as a witness in pagan society to the nature and power of the one true God and a means of His expression in the world. Many of the prophets diagnosed the nati onal malaise in terms of sin and rebellion against God (Isa 1:3; Jer 8:7; Hos 14:1, etc.), and Hosea went so far as to assert that the perverted will (cf. Jer 17:9) of Israel had even affected the natural creation (Hos 4:3).

3. The new creation in Christ. The NT authors agreed with Judaism that God alone was the creator of the world through His Word, but in the light of the fuller revelation of God in Christ they viewed the process of creation Christologically. In Jesus all things cohered (Col 1:17), and the unity of creation in Him was demonstrated further as part of the divine purpose in history (Eph 1:9, 10). He it is who upholds the universe by His powerful word (Heb 1:3), and brings meaning to the historical process as the Savior and Redeemer of the world. In the light of this conviction it was possible for the members of the primitive Church to assert that human salvation was predestined in Christ before the founding of the world (Matt 25:34; Eph 1:4; 1 Pet 1:20, etc.). Everything centers upon the first-born of all creation (Col 1:15), since it has been created through Him and unto Him, who is the beginning and the end. The NT authors were insistent that the new kingdom of grace, long promised by prophecy, had already appeared with the incarnate Christ. The new creation was actually a promise of future glory (cf. Eph 1:14; Rev 21:1-4), when all redeemed creatures would laud their creator (Rev 4:8-11; 5:13). Christ was the new man whom Adam foreshadowed (Rom 5:12-14; cf. 1 Cor 15:21, 22), the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15) whose death would redeem the world from bondage to sin and make individual salvation possible. In the work of Calvary Christ has paid the penalty for human iniquity and has opened the way for renewal of the individual personality through confession, surrender, and the acceptance of His saving grace by faith. When one has identified himself completely with the work of Calvary and has received cleansing and pardon, he is “in Christ.” The Savior has restored the human pattern which God planned at the first, and those who are His are themselves new creations by divine grace. See Cosmogony.

Bibliography' H. W. Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (1946), 4-33; E. Jacob, Old Testament Theology (1958), 136-150; G. A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament (1959), 107-118.