In this paper, I will explore whether or not there is biblical, philosophical and scientific support for creation ex nihilo. First, I will explore the biblical text challenging and supporting the relevant passages concerning creation ex nihilo. Second, I will consider the philosophical arguments for and against whether an actual infinity can exist; which directly impacts whether creation ex nihilo is possible. Finally, I will consider the scientific evidence challenging and supporting creation ex nihilo.

Does the literal translation of the Bible support creation ex nihilo or does it support God creating the heavens and the earth from pre-existent, eternal matter? In 24 of the 25 most widely read Reformed Bibles (according to bible.org)1 and the Roman Catholic Bible, the text clearly reads that God created the heavens and earth out of nothing. Many liberal and some conservative theologians disagree. They believe that Genesis 1:1 does not demand a temporal beginning.

The first sentence of the Bible immediately confronts us with this conundrum. According to Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, there are two major translations which modern bible scholars use to view Genesis 1:1. The first way argues that Genesis 1:1 reads as a construct and does not necessarily imply a temporal beginning. The second way to read the text is to consider that Genesis 1:1 is a completed thought or a title to the rest of Genesis. Since many scholars use Genesis 1:1 as a primary proof for creation ex nihilo, we must consider the opposing contexts closely.

Interestingly, the first two readings of Genesis 1:1 does not necessarily pit conservative scholars against liberal or critical scholars. There are conservative scholars or biblical literalists that view Genesis 1:1 as a construct. Viewing Genesis 1:1 as a construct does not explicitly implying God created out of nothing. In Young’s Literal Translation, we see the first verse and part of the second verse of Genesis are written, “In the Beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and earth, the Earth hath existed waste and void.” Young’s translation combines Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 as a conjoined thought. Young’s translators argue that Moses saw God’s act of creation as if he were there in person. Therefore, he was viewing the act of creation in process and the total act was successive. The exegesis does not refute creation ex nihilo, but does not view communicating the fact of creation ex nihilo as an implicit part of the text.

Other moderate to conservative theologians tend to agree. They would argue that Genesis 1:1 does not necessarily need to be read as an absolute statement, but as a construct. For instance, John Polkinghorne wrote that “creation is concerned with ontological origin, not temporal beginning.” Alister McGrath tends to believe that the genesis of creation out of nothing was a reaction to Platonism and Gnostic ideas. Both of these theologians do not necessarily disagree with creation ex nihilo, but believe that the idea grew out of an apologetic reaction to second century challenges to the Christian faith. This position is supported by other scholars like Gerhard May and James Hubler.

Some very influential scholars and theologians have gone much further and have declared, “Creation out of nothing is not a biblical concept.” Those holding this position hold to a panentheistic model of the God which stresses the ontological dependence of the universe on God. They tend to use Acts 17:28 (In him we live and move and have our being) as justification for their position. In doing so, they completely deny that creation ex nihilo is a Biblical concept. They argue that the immanence of God is the biblical text’s intent and God most likely created out of a Platonic like pre-existent chaotic matter.

Commentators like Coote and Ord agree and have echoed the construct approach to reading scripture. They have stated that defining Genesis 1:1 as a declarative, stand alone sentence is patently false. They assert, “Historians are generally aware of this, but translations continue to render the Hebrew in this way because it is so traditional.”

The Bible translations that seem to place an emphasis on creation ex nihilo tend to see Genesis 1:1 as a completed action, an absolute title and the main clause. For instance, the New Life Version states, “In the Beginning, God made from nothing the heavens and earth.” This reading implies that the universe was created completely new out of nothing. In fact, according to Hershel Shanks, people who take the construct view of Genesis 1:1 are refuted, “when we see that ‘the heavens and the earth is a merism.”

Theologians Claus Westermann and Bill T. Arnold agree. They believe that Genesis 1:1 is an absolute and shows that God created by the power of his word out of nothing. Westermann regards Gensis 1:1 as a “principal sentence” . This principal sentence serves to praise God and separate itself from the Ancient Near East Myths. Implicitly, the principal sentence was there to separate Genesis from the Ancient Near East myths.

Bill T. Arnold argues that though some scholars argue that Genesis 1:1 is a construct because there is no definite article, which is common in a definitive statement, there are other examples in the Bible where this same formula is followed. Therefore, we do not have to assume that it is a dependent and temporal clause. Furthermore, he states, “all the ancient translations of the Old Testament and the vast majority of the contemporary translations assume the traditional understanding of the opening words as an independent main clause.”

Scholars who argue that creation out of nothing is implicit in the text point to the use of “bara” as support for “creation ex nihilo”. An important point is that God is always the subject of “bara”. Though “bara’ is not exclusively used to imply creation out of nothing, the context of the passage can imply creation out of nothing. Also, the writers used many other words like “asah” when God showed that he or man made things out of existing materials or when he was fashioning. This supports the case that scholars argue that Genesis 1:1 fits this formula because no pre-existent materials were mentioned in the text.

With all the other passages where “bara” is used, Copan states that scholars notice that God’s activity never mentions pre-existent materials. “As Breward Childs states, the product is always mentioned-but never any material.” To further support Genesis 1:1, we can look to Isaiah 44:24 which states, “All things had a beginning and God is their originator.” This is supported in Revelation 1:8 where we see God as the Alpha and Omega. This is foreshadowed by Isaiah 44:6 which say are that God is “the first and the last.” The medieval Jewish commentator nicely sums up his support of creation ex nihilo. “Now we have an expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word ‘bara’.”

The arguments put forward by Coote, Ord, McGrath and Polkinghorne do not seem justified. The arguments that creation ex nihilo is a construct used as an apologetic in the mid second century seem to be undermined by the implicit Biblical text as well as extra-biblical texts that existed before the second century. For instance, in the second century BC, in 2 Maccabees, we see the text explicitly state, “I beg you, child, look at the sky and the earth; see all that is in them and realize that God made them out of nothing.”

Furthermore, when also looking at the term “bara”, the arguments for Genesis 1:1 being an absolute statement and God creating by his Word alone; not out of pre-existent material, the text seems to clearly support creation ex nihilo. Genesis 1:1 seems very clearly like a heading because the act seems to be one of totality. Also, many other scriptural references throughout the Old and New Testament seem to support creation ex nihilo. Perhaps one of the strongest supporting statements comes from John 1:3. “All things came into being by him; and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being.” (NASB) This scripture, along with many other scriptures that seem to clearly indicate that there is a beginning to time, seems to dramatically outweigh the argument that the Bible is silent on the issue of creation ex nihilo.

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...