The purpose of the Bible is to introduce us to God and reveal our need for Jesus. No one has seen God but we have seen Jesus who is the visible likeness of God. Everything is about seeing the revelation of Jesus. Page 1 of the Bible is no different and Jesus is the key to the big picture.
|Created: 2016/08/11. Updated: 2016/08/16.|
So where is Jesus, God the Son?
What does the Bible tell us about the spoken word of God?
What does the Bible tell us about the light? This is a very long list. I am not showing off—you have to know that this theme is prolific:
What does the Bible tell us about Jesus’ role in creation?
The evening-morning-day declarations point to Jesus:
Did you join up all the dots? Let me help you… Jesus is the Word of God and the first spoken word was “let there be light”. Jesus spoke these words—it is not the creation of Jesus but Jesus creating all things. Jesus was with God from the Beginning. All creation was by the Word of God. Jesus initiated the first step (the beginning of creation), and every step because every day begins with the spoken word. In the speaking; in the context of the beginning; and in the links with light; everything in verse 3 is alluding to Jesus as creating all things . By the way, just because the whole universe is created, it is not yet visible just as the earth is not yet visible under the water. The earth and the stars appear on days 3 and 4.
Let me be very clear... The text in verses 3 and 4, “Let
there be light” and “separating light from dark” plainly imply that light, mere
photons, was being created and manipulated. However, in view of the absolutely
prolific association of light, and creation, with Jesus, I claim that this text
is screaming out for someone to see that Jesus is creating all things in His
Now you have the key. Jesus is the key. But you have also
discovered something else profound. The beginning of creation is in verse 3!
Verse 1 is what it always seemed to be, an introduction, just as
I am being very logical, but some of you will already be screaming that I am wrong. You see, the formless and void earth in verse 2 would seem to be a created thing, so how can I say that creation began in verse 3 with the statement about light. Well, before you panic, remember that all creation was through Jesus and the Word of God and that is clearly portrayed as starting in verse 3. Verse 1 is clearly a summary or introductory statement and the only reason that anyone thinks that something was actually created in verse 1 is to explain where the formless and void thing came from in verse 2. Further, if verse 1 did create the earth, it has to also have created the heavens. Now let me say right away, that you can talk your way through this little dilemma, but I have some other solutions that I want to show you.
First, would you like to see some experts in linguistics struggle with this and similarly conclude that verse 1 looks like an introduction (summary or heading) but can’t be because of verse 2? Look at Morning has broken ... but when?, which is at the creation.com website. This has heaps of in depth discussions mainly aimed at rebuking long age theories, and some that might challenge my offering as well. Afterwards there is a blog and one of the responses has a section titled “Leupold summarizes the problems”. Here the author proposes that verse 1 is neither a heading or a summary because it’s attached to verse 2 that is describing a material thing. Instead the author concludes that that verse 1 is a record of the first part of the work on the first day, namely some material representation of the heavens and the earth. Apparently the normal narrative method, which does have some heading, was also omitted by the author’s choice.
That sounded clear, but it failed to explain where the material of the heavens and the earth were created. Apparently this was also simply omitted by the author of Genesis, namely God. There is also no mention of why the strict prefix of, “Then God said…” was also omitted. However, my proposal that all the matter of the universe came into existence in the light of verses 3 to 5, does exactly agree with verse 1 as a record of all that was created on the first day and we can now see where it was created and who created it, so giving glory to God.
I have to say just one more thing about verses 1 and 2 because I frequently encounter the argument that the “plain meaning of the text is...”, to imply that I cannot do what I have done. I respect this argument when it’s used to prevent people re-interpreting Genesis to fit in long ages. Of course I am re-interpreting Genesis to fit in Jesus when I read Jesus, creating all things, into the light of verse 3. This article is all about the precedent for doing just that. But in regard to verse 1, it is plain and clear that this is an introductory statement. Verse 2 is plainly a description of the starting point and creation starts in verse 3. It’s our own limited understanding that has assumed the formless and void thing in verse 2 is a created planet and our failure to see all things created through Jesus that has caused the problems.
Scripture often shows the Holy Spirit in some way just before God moves dramatically:
Genesis 1:2 uses ruach meaning ‘breath, wind, spirit’ and that is the reason why different translations talk about the wind or spirit moving over the waters. The point is that the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit is always pictured as moving at the start, never as an after-thought. The obvious implication here is that Genesis 1:2 is a prelude to creation.
I started by asking where Jesus was in the creation account. Certainly God would have wanted to give glory to His son, and He certainly took the trouble to acknowledge His Spirit. So I feel that the text is inviting us to see Jesus. But let me ask this provoking question… Where is the light without a light source today? The waters that cover the earth are still present. The sky or expanse from day 2; the dry land and vegetation from day 3; the sun, moon and stars from day 4; and the fish birds and animal of days 5 and 6 are all still here. Where is the light without a light source from verse 3?
There is no problem when you realise that the light is alluding to Jesus. But if you insist that it can only be a stream of photons from some unexplained origin, that seems to have now mysteriously ceased, you do have a problem. Now this is an argument I don’t need to win. If you want to hold true to the simplified understanding then I’m pretty sure that you are also locked into Jesus as your saviour. I just want to rock the boat enough to suggest that you can be Biblically consistent and see the lamp of heaven, Jesus, as this light source. Then follow that by seeing Jesus creating all the matter in the universe in the light of His face.
If you go back and read chapters 23 and 26 in “God’s way” to see that verse 2 is God prophetically describing that which is about to take place. I called it “The Father’s heart view”. You should really read those chapters to see how this unfolds. I’ll just repeat the following scriptures here to remind you:
Essentially, God’s ways are not our ways and so it’s nice
to let Him see the earth before we see it. But that does not really sit well
with a lot of people. I’m completely sympathetic to that opinion. I have often
complained to God about why He could not have made this clearer, and without
realising it, I think He did
First of all, God did make it simple. One night Moses
stood beside the Red Sea. The wind blew that night and in the morning there was
a path of dry land through the middle of the sea.
Eventually man figured out that the earth was a round planet covered mostly by water and spinning on its axis as it orbited the sun. (Yes, the Bible hints at the earth being a sphere in several places, but I am talking about how ordinary people initially and then later pictured verse 2.) So, quite logically and naturally, we switched verse 2 into a picture of a water covered planet floating in a dark void. But this was not the picture Moses would have envisaged. It’s OK. God had it covered. But there were a few down sides. We also figured out that the blue sky; the light without a light source, was just backscatter of sun light from the upper atmosphere. Now we had to explain where the light without a light source, pictured so easily by Moses, came from. OK, we talk around it and propose the light that shines from the face of God. Then we need to be careful not to ask the question of why this light source disappeared without explanation in scripture.
The point here is that this was all caused by man’s
incomplete knowledge of what really happened.
Up until now, I have not talked about the COI model. I have exclusively used the Bible to interpret the Bible. Perhaps you don’t agree with every suggestion I have made but you simply cannot say that my proposal is not Biblical or not supported from the Bible. My proposal so far is that the text, as plainly read offers an introduction in verse 1 followed by this strange formless and void thing. The rigid format of the text, with every day beginning with “then God said…” is screaming out that creation started at verse 3. The Holy Spirit moving in verse 2 is the prelude to this creation.
When we recognise the prolific links between Jesus and light, and acknowledge that all things were create by and through and for Jesus, then we are actually failing to give God the Son glory, if we continue to picture the first day as mere photons. If we assume that creation somehow occurred before verse 3, then we fail to acknowledge that all things were created by the Word of God. You may well believe this, but you cannot point to it in the Genesis account.
None of the assertions so far are dependent on the COI model. They are not dependant on any presumed science. They are just based only on God’s Word. You may have sorted out everything to you own personal satisfaction and see no issues, but what I have pointed out is fairly plain and deserves a clear explanation, because God does not make mistakes. I have pointed out one such clear solution in the prophetic understanding of verse 2.
In the following sections I am going to continue to talk about the Word of God, but also show how man’s expanding understanding allows us to offer a better explanation of verse 2. Then finally I will show you that the COI model fits in very nicely.
I have talked about the prolific links between Jesus and light. But light, and the speed of (c), is woven into the fabric of this universe. Einstein’s iconic equation E=mc2 relates energy (E) and mass (m) via the speed of light. So light is involved in the transformation of the Energy into the matter of this universe. Even distance is now measured via the speed of light and time.
Notice that verses 3-5 only talk about light and time. I think that ‘space’ and ‘matter’ already existed by virtue of the formless and void thing in verse 2, but this could be me just reading more into the text than is there. I mention it now to distance my COI model from Big Bang style proposals that have space and matter as well as time suddenly appearing.
Would you like to try something a little scary? Let’s imagine a universe where it was not merely dark, that is, lacking in visible frequency photons; but a universe where electromagnetic radiation is not yet supported, right across the spectrum. Obviously it is dark, but heat exchange is also blocked when we loss the Infra-Red wavelengths. UV, X-ray, microwave frequencies are all absent. Electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus cannot transition between energy levels by emitting or absorbing a photon. It would seem that chemical reactions are on hold. You might even wonder if gravitational interaction was possible since this seems to propagate at the speed of light. Frankly, if matter could exist in the state that we currently recognise it, I think it would look a lot like time had simply stopped. Of course, that is exactly what I suggest that verse 2 is describing. All I have done is to take God’s declared state of ‘darkness’ to its logical extreme.
I have not yet talked about the COI model. I have still not explained what verse 2 is picturing if it is not the planet earth in some early state. I have established that it seems to be before the beginning of time and before the beginning of creation in this universe. What is it that God has seen in verse 2 that is so important, knowing the confusion this would cause modern day man? Don’t you just love it and hate it when He frustrates the wisdom of man (Psalm 33:10, 1 Corinthians 1:19-20, 1 Corinthians 3:19).
Let’s put all the hints together:
Bingo—I’ve just described the starting state for the COI Universe model. Namely, and for the lack of a better physical description, a matter–space universe. The speed of light is absolutely fundamental to the physics behind the COI model and the start of time, as implied by verse 3.
Jesus is the beginning and the end; the first and the last.
In the COI universe, our galaxy, the Milky Way, was created last but because
of time dilation, it is the oldest galaxy, and so it is like the first born
by age. So, the COI
model captures this apparent paradox in its physical existence. If I have not convinced you
yet then this little metaphor probably won’t win you over either. After all, you
probably see yourself in a battle against me; fighting to preserve to authority of
scripture. But really, I think you are just fighting to preserve your own
understanding of scripture
Try this last test... The COI model sees time as starting from the outside in. So God can quite easily have created the entire universe, including the Milky Way galaxy, before the start of time in this solar system or planet. So you can have the COI process creating the entire universe and then follow that by the creation and start-of-time at this planet. So God created the heavens and then the earth. But when God named the light as day-time He defined the start of time here on earth.
Or how about this... God created the heavens and the
earth. He set the heavens aside while the dust settled and the glue dried and
continued to customise this planet; then, when the time was right (day 4), He
inserted this planet into the centre of the heavens. But for an observer on
earth this would look like the sun, moon and stars were suddenly set in place
All I have done here is to allow scripture to set the stage and surprise, surprise, the COI model seems to drop in perfectly. That does not mean the COI model itself is a perfect representation of the process. It just fits the starting point and description in verses 2-5. Perhaps some technical aspects of the COI model will be found not to work. Remember, it’s only a model of a supernatural process ordained by God. But at its core, it explains distant star-light and the bubbly distribution of galaxies, and who knows how much more, so it has definite ticks. It also guts the god-less alternatives with their deep time.
The COI model gives glory to God by showing that what He dictated to Moses 3,500 years ago, is correct. Man has come to understand God’s process of life through our DNA, and we who believe give Him glory as we are amazed by all that we discover. Similarly, as we visualise the creation of the universe, now completely focused on us at the centre, we can be amazed and glorify our God.
Further valuable Biblical support is available in the following supplements: