A Multidisciplinary Contextualized Analysis of Select Passages From Genesis:

“Creatio ex potentia” ‘vs’ “creatio ex nihilo”

[This is a rough draft for a new chapter to be included in a new edition of a personal study of the book of Genesis, the first edition of which can be found here. NOTE: THIS IS VERY ROUGH. Most of the details will be integrated into the final draft but may appear elsewhere.

The purpose of this exercise is to compare a close reading of the text to our current understanding of language, paleontology, and the physical sciences. Constructive discussion on the elements presented is always encouraged!]

Most interpretations of Genesis presume “creatio ex nihilo” or “creation out of nothing”. In other words, the conjuring of matter and manifestation of the volume of space itself from nothingness. Especially if one considers 1:1 to be an action, then that seems necessarily so.

As we continue to verse 1:2, “The earth was formless and empty,” implies that where the earth is there is nothing tangible at this time as if it is itself an intangibly large hole. But despite this vacuous appearance, the exposition continues, “Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.” This also implies that something imperceivable is within this “hole”. For those that believe 1:1 is an act of God, then it is He who manifested the “waters” as well as the volume of the universe within which our globe is or will precipitate.

However, as is shown in this analysis, all of God’s actions are initiated by decree occurs first in 1:3. This understanding is echoed on several occasions throughout the Bible:

• Psalm 33:6, 9, 168:5

• Hebrews 11:3

• 2 Peter 3:5

Each of these passages emphasizes that it is God’s spoken word that initiated creation. In the case of 2 Peter 3:5b it is deliberately stated “an earth formed out of water and amid water by the word of God”. This suggests that the interpretation of Genesis 2,000 years ago (at least where the author of 2 Peter is concerned) was that the earth formed from the “waters” as described in Genesis 1:9.

The implication is that our globe was not created in Genesis 1:1 and the verse is a broad-stroke summary headnote to this tale. It is then the details in 1:2 that reveal an initial condition to the volume we call the universe. This brief introductory exposition prior to God's first action suggests that He did not make the universe from nothing, but creation is the utilization of the materials that already existed in this space.

Alternatively, one could say that God selected or defined this volume and had it filled with primordial energy which He then used for forming His creation. For example, that a farmer finds a plot and supplies a sack of seeds is not itself farming. Those elements are necessary, but it is the utilization of the potential that is the act of farming. In this way, God’s definition of our space and supplying primordial energy into it (consider the Higgs Boson theory) can be considered “ex nihilo” preparation while the act of creating in this space with those energies is performed “ex potentia”.

This principle of “creatio ex potentia” or “creation from potential” is found throughout the Bible. It is consistent with not only the various “yom” of creation, but how God formed Adam from dust in 2:7, and built Eve by repurposing a part of Adam as described in 2:22a. Even the various miracles and signs found throughout the Bible do not create new matter but manipulate what already existed in that space.

Collaterally, there are many warnings against occult practices (divination, sorcery, witchcraft, mediums, spell casting, omens, and the like). All religious practices for the sake of endowing humans with supernatural abilities are frowned upon.

1 Kings 18:20-40 is one of the strongest examples of God’s disdain for religion and the occult. In brief, it is through the simple act of obedience from God’s representative, Elijah, which He acknowledges by a show of power. Interestingly, once his prescribed tasks were complete, Elijah feared repercussions for God’s actions. He realized that he did not wield any power himself, but served only as the spokesperson of God.

At face value, and due to the popular English translation of “qanna'” (קַנָּא) as “jealous”, this makes God out to be one who is stingy with His powers. That the relationship He seeks is unidirectional to His satisfaction. But with a relatively earnest reading of the Bible, it becomes clear that “qanna'” (קַנָּא) would be better translated as “ardent”. It is God’s passionate dedication to His creation’s well-being that is also a source of great frustration. The Bible throughout does not promote religion, but a direct relationship with Him without intermediaries or secretive rituals. Although the occult is considered to be false, it is the means by which we hope to gain these powers that humanity commits the greatest atrocities against each other.

Unique to the Bible is the principle that all supernatural acts come from God and at His discretion. No human can manifest His power or coerce Him into acting without His consent. What few examples where people appear to be wielding extra-human capacities have always been by explicit authorization. These extraordinary exploits also carry no assurance things will turn out well for the executor.

The empirical point to this aside is that there is an insurmountable matter of scale between God and humans. Yet passages including Psalm 50:10-11, Job 38:41, and Matthew 10:29-31 establish His interest in our well-being. Therefore, much of what might be considered religious practice may in fact be safety protocols. Leviticus 10:1-3 shows the results of a lapse in protocol, and 2 Samuel 6:6-7 the result of direct contact with an object imbued with significance directly by God.

Myself being a caretaker for several small companion birds is analogous to this relationship. There is an insurmountable difference in scale, capabilities, and awareness between a human and a budgerigar. Even a minor error in judgment on either party's part can have dire results, in particular for the smaller of the two. And even if there is an intellectual understanding between them, the lesser one could never successfully emulate the greater.

The other protocols expected to be followed were not significantly different from those meant to respect any head of state at the time. These requirements were largely pedestrian for the time, but unique in that the sacrifice of human life or the cosmetic alteration of one’s body were discouraged by God. Even the various offering obligations seemed to motivate self-reliance and social prioritization by which greater success is always statistically realized. This further supports the narrative of a benevolent creator who sought practical means by which His creation could thrive.