J.Morris | Philosophy | Review: Genesis in Space and Time

Review: "Genesis in Space and Time" by Francis Schaeffer

August 2016, edit December 2024

An outline of the chapters:
Ch1 Creation
Ch2 Differentiation and Creation of Man
Ch3 God and His Universe
Ch4 The Point of Decision
Ch5 The Space-Time Fall and its Results
Ch6 The two Humanities
Ch7 Noah and the Flood
Ch8 From Noah to Babel to Abraham

In the Preface, Francis Schaeffer clearly outlines the goal of this book is to guide us in how to interpret Genesis and other early books of the Bible. He is concerned that if Genesis loses its historicity, the important questions about humanity will fall by the wayside. Even worse, he is afraid Genesis may be thought of merely as a fable or nice thought, rather than solid reality (p.10). In Schaeffer's terminology this means the work of Christ becomes "one more upper-story 'religious' answer" indistinguishable from the other religions and myths around it. Sadly, his fear has largely come to pass. Many people today, even some Christians, view Genesis as an absurd collection of stories, or at best, a nice morality tale. Though written in the 1970s, the questions and facts Schaeffer wrestles with are tremendously applicable today.

In the first chapter, Creation, Schaeffer chooses a number of lines of evidence to convince us the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be taken as factual history. He shows the Psalms, and other later figures such as Jesus, take Genesis as history wholesale. Those who take these prophets and Jesus as authoritative, should consider their view on Genesis. He points out the Jewish concept of truth is both rational and historical (p.15-16). Unlike the Greek, or some modern interpretations of truth, where only a "balanced system" of internal consistency matters, truth meant space-time reality to the Jews. Moses, Joshua, and others repeatedly call people to consider what they heard and what they saw as evidence of what the prophets were saying. This presumes verifiable facts in reality were what was in view. These were not merely myths or morality plays to them but space-time reality.

Schaeffer spends some time on how, "In the beginning" in Genesis 1:1 refers to the beginning of our space-time universe, not to the beginning of existence of all things. Many passages such as John 17:5, 1 Peter 1:20, Titus 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:9, and others affirm God existed prior to Genesis 1:1. Therefore this creation account in Genesis 1 does not claim to be the creation of all that is, merely everything in our physical dimensions. Schaeffer calls this prior in sequence rather than prior in time as time does not come into play until Genesis. Here he thinks Christianity has the best answer to the origin of the universe. Modern thinkers such as William Lane Craig, Anthony Flew, and John Lennox make great arguments for this. Consider, there are only a few options for the beginning of the universe:

It came from absolutely nothing
It came from an impersonal something
It came from a personal something
It has always existed eternally

We are left with the same options today. The author asserts few people actually argue the universe came from absolutely nothing. One has to be careful with the terminology here. If some multiverse or quantum energy is mentioned, this is something, not absolutely nothing. An infinite quantum foam is hardly nothing. These answers are examples of the second option of an impersonal force. Most atheists and naturalists today would assert this second option. Schaeffer argues most people press towards a fundamental unity, whether this be searching for the unifying law behind physical laws or the common denominator behind mind and body. The idea of an impersonal beginning was the scientific consensus back then, and still is today to a large degree. It is interesting how radically different worldviews such as the "science has all the answers" in the West or mysticism in the East, both fall back to an impersonal force. Physics and Nirvanna may operate by different laws, but both are functional, unyielding, and impersonal.

Schaeffer argues the universe came from a personal something. It achieves the dream of a single unified force. It explains the order and form in the universe as well as personhood and consciousness. It gives a model and basis for human relationships. It explains why something exists rather than nothing. The nature and need for community are even better explained by the personal something being the Christian Trinity. The base principle of nature is community, rather than a oneness, so creature and relational diversity flow from it. Whereas if everything was one in an impersonal sense, why did it ever break down into all the diversity we see today? Schaeffer points out verses such as Genesis 1:26, "And God said, let us make man in our image" contain the plural. Humans are in the image of God and human community is in the image of Godly community between the three persons in the Trinity. The basis for real love is found in a personal God. Impersonal forces leave us with just chemically conditioned reactions.

In chapter two, Schaeffer discusses the much contested creation of man. He starts off distinguishing between the Hebrew word for "created" and others used throughout the account. God's direct interaction is most clear when he created the universe out of nothing (Genesis 1:1), when he creates conscious life (Genesis 1:21), and when he creates man (Genesis 1:27). He feels it is "as though God put exclamation points here to indicate that there is something special about the creation of man" (p.33). Man and woman being "created" by God is repeated in Genesis 5:1-2. In most of Genesis 1, God just says "let there be this… let there be that", things are guided by his word but it is less explicit he is making something new than in the "create" sections. I am glad Schaeffer points out the Bible is an efficient book and the point of the passage is God's message to fallen man. He notes our frustrations in the lack of details, of scientific particulars, or details on the spiritual realm. This helps us understand why Genesis 1-3 could possibly be so brief! When reading Genesis, we must remember its purpose is theological, not scientific. However, this does not mandate it is a myth or inaccurate, merely it spends the most ink on its primary focus, not ours. Schaeffer makes an interesting aside on the oft cited contraction of light coming before the sun and moon. He points out energy gives off tremendous light and so light would be present at the Big Bang before stars or planets existed.

Was there an actual Adam and Eve? Or did humanity evolve simultaneously from hundreds of ancestors? Schaeffer argues for the literal Adam and Eve. He cites the New Testament authors and Jesus treating them as a real historical couple. Romans 5 discusses how sin entered the world by a single man, Adam. Paul reinforces this with parallelization of the world being rescued by a single man, Jesus. Luke's genealogy of Jesus lists specific people, going back to Adam. He would have to be a real person to father ancestors. Passages such as 1 Timothy 2:13-14 and 2 Corinthians 11:3 presume a historical Eve. If Adam and Eve are a single couple from whom all of humanity descended, this gives a unity to the human race much stronger than being a product of random mutations off other species. God created male and female both and equally. Humanity is differentiated from the rest of creation by being in the image of God. Something about us is unique. Schaeffer says we have no fear of losing our place, even if we build machines stronger and smarter than us, as nothing else in the world nullifies our image.

It is because humanity is in the image of God that we are given dominion over the earth, not because we are the most intelligent. Humanity has seized dominion. We have exercised this guardianship extremely poorly. Humanity is to care for every plant and every animal (Genesis 1:28-29, 2:19-20). Even before the Fall, humanity had a role to play, organizing and maintaining the Garden (Genesis 2:15). Fallen man is still an image bearer and supposed to be a guardian of the earth in his care. Schaeffer points out secular humanists rightly fight for social justice, but have little foundation to do so. The Christian has abundant foundation to do so, "no matter who I look at, no matter where he is, every man is created in the image of God as much as I am" (p.51). Christians have fought for this, during the plagues of ancient Rome, against the slave trade of Colonialism, and for relief and development today. Yet other Christians focus on themselves, soiling the general reputation of the Church.

Some interesting arguments against Deism are made in the chapter God and His Universe. Schaeffer shows the God who created is free to act inside his creation. He notes the flexibility of the word "day" in the early chapters of Genesis, not strictly a twenty-four hour period. He points out creation was at peace and humanity had good relationships with each other and God.

In the next several chapters Schaeffer unpacks and analyzes what theologians call The Fall. In The Point of Decision he notes how "loving a superior is different from loving an equal" (p.70). It has an additional facet of obedience. He says, "If one is a creature in the presence of the Creator, to love includes to obey" (p.70). Only in this context can we make sense of the scene in Genesis 3 in the garden. God did not make an evil tree, for all creation was declared to be good. But He gave the option to disobey so that Adam and Eve's love could be freely chosen or freely cast aside. Schaeffer is wise to point out this has to do with a created being's dependence on God. He explains God as saying, "Believe in me and stand in your place as a creature, not as one who is autonomous" (p.72). As we'll see it is exactly this quest for autonomous greatness which causes all the trouble humanity experiences.

Some people complain God should not have given humanity this choice. Or God should have made two people who would not succumb. Or he should have created a different world which would not have fallen. Schaeffer takes these objections head on. The tree was not bad, Adam and Eve were not evil, and their knowledge was not deficient. They had everything in their favor. The tree was an opportunity for an experiential knowledge of evil. They could, and did, have an intellectual knowledge of evil from God without it. God had clearly explained the results of their choice beforehand. Schaeffer cites 1 Samuel 23:9-29 against the idea God should have created a different world. God knows all potential futures, even ones not actualized. God knew what would happen and what would have happened in any other possible scenario. For us to say God should have done it another way is for us to claim knowledge of a potential future God did not know about or chose not to implement. We should wonder why God chose to implement this universe given God has the best information. Hopefully, God chose this for a good reason.

Perhaps others object the serpent is allowed to interfere. The serpent is later identified as Satan and is clearly a negative influence on young humanity. Though we may wish we had much more information, the Bible tells us Satan's fall preceded our own. His lies are always the same, arguing for our own pleasure, greed, and pride. We see all of these elements in his temptation of Adam and Eve. The fruit is claimed to be good for food (pleasure), a delight to the eyes (greed), and to make one wise (pride). 1 John 2:15-17 warns us of these same three categories. Satan's tricks have not changed. Nor will they be ignored. God is willing to judge even angels (1 Peter 2) and will condemn Satan (Revelation 20:10). Since Satan has done so much evil in the world, why doesn't God destroy him sooner? Apologists argue Satan's accusation is God is holding back his creatures and does not have their best interests at heart. If God immediately destroyed him, what impression would it leave with the rest of creation? We may wonder if Satan was right. As history stands now, we have seen the horrible folly and destruction of Satan's way and the insanity of his argument against the Lord who died for us. By the time Satan is destroyed, there will be no question as to how wrong he was.

Schaeffer points out Adam did die the day he ate the fruit, but this death consistent of three stages (p.74). He immediately died spiritually. He became relationally separated from God. Second, he was doomed to an eventual physical death, though many hundreds of years later. Third, he was in peril of eternal death, which is the afterlife state the Bible calls Hell. These three states are the situation all of us are born into now. Romans 5 is very clear on this. No one is born a Christian. As Schaeffer says, "Every single man who is now a child of God was at one time a rebel. We are all hewn from the same rock, whether we come from a church background or a non-church background" (p.89). Fortunately for us, all of these stages of death can be reversed thanks to the death and forgiveness of Christ.

An interesting side note is given from 1 Timothy 2:14, where it says "Adam was not deceived." It seems to imply Adam did not buy into Satan's argument as fully as Eve. Schaeffer argues two great drives are built into humanity: the need for a relationship with God and the need for a relationship to the opposite sex. He is right to warn us of compromise for romantic relationships. How often we are willing to bend our consciences or priorities to keep things smooth with our desired partner! We do not know all of Adam's motivations, but he is not recorded as speaking out against Satan or making any move to stop Eve. He does not protect or defend her from these lies, which is even worse if he did not believe them. Ultimately, he makes his own choice by eating the fruit also. He bought into at least part of the lie of autonomy with Eve being preferable to obedience to God's way. Otherwise, he never would have eaten the fruit offered by Eve. Despite his later blame-shifting to Eve, and Eve's to the serpent, God holds all three accountable for their actions. Satan is condemned for his evil influence. Adam and Eve are both condemned for their own actions.

We know then things are not the way they should be when we observe humanity. It is easy to dream of better. The Bible says how things are is not indicative of how they should be. In the curse of Genesis 3:14-19, several things change. Woman's sorrow in childbirth is increased. Schaeffer argues the multiplication applies both to pain and to the number of children following KJV's "multiple thy sorrow and thy conception." But many modern, superior translations such as NIV, NET, and ESV do not follow this interpretation. The amount of pain in the world increases in other dimensions. A skewing of man-woman relationships is clear from verse 16. Schaeffer thinks the idea of the husband's headship as taught in Ephesians 5:23 originates here. He feels once humanity falls, true democracy is no longer possible (p. 93). This role, as opposed to status, is to be loving as sacrificially as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25). I have never heard this argued but it makes some sense. Headship is a contested point across many parts of the Church. Schaeffer readily admits fallen men have used this improperly as an excuse for slavery of wives to husbands. Such a slavery is evil and directly contradicts biblical teaching. Another point of divergence from how things should be is, "sexuality loses its personal dimension; men and women treat each other as things to be exploited" (p.99). Emotional exploitation is also common. We do not see relationships functioning as they should when we observe humanity.

Schaeffer notes much of the curse is to the external world. Nature is no longer what it was. As humanity's dominion and care for the earth is abnormal and no longer fueled by a perfect relationship with God, we see the material world is warped. Early humans realized this was the case (c.f. Genesis 5:29). Schaeffer comments, "It is interesting that in each of the steps of God's judgment toil is involved: The serpent goes upon his belly; the woman has pain in childbirth; the man has toil in his work" (p.96). We all dream of meaningful work that is not tremendously difficult. This is what we would have had pre-Fall and what we will have in heaven when the curse is lifted.

In The Two Humanities the separation of humans from God and from each other is discussed in depth. Federal headship, acceptable worship, and the increasing alienation between people are all covered. Schaeffer argues for the historicity of Cain and Abel. I like how his comments that ancient man knew about clean and unclean animals, sacrifices, and perhaps many other things we may not give them credit for. They were operating with more knowledge than we are explicitly told in the first couple chapters of Genesis. This makes sense since hundreds of years have passed. God talks directly to Adam's descendants such as Cain, Noah, and Abraham. Schaeffer asserts the largest distinction between the godly line of Abel, later Seth, and Cain is their attitude towards the Lord and towards others. This mirrors the greatest commandment according to Jesus.

Schaeffer argues against taking these early genealogies as chronology, saying it is pointless to try to date these events using only the Bible. We know from internal biblical evidence, the genealogies are incomplete. We do not get our first correlations with known history until about the time of Abraham (around 2,000 BC). Schaeffer gives both options on the debate about the Nephilim. These mysterious beings are powerful and either some sort of man-angle hybrid or just powerful men. He seems to lean towards them men.

Noah and the Flood gives us a more personal look at the faith of one man, Noah. This account serves as an example to all. Noah's righteousness is legendary, giving him a mention in the Hebrews 11 hall of faith. Ezekiel lists him as one of the three examples of righteousness (c.f. Ezekiel 14:20). What made his faith special? He fixed his eyes on things unseen, trusting God despite what would have been a huge embarrassment up until the rains came. The boat he built was huge. The land arid. Water nowhere close. Noah must have been mocked by his neighbors. Schaeffer says, "In 2 Peter 3:3-7 the flood is again paralleled to the second coming of Christ. Prior to the time when Jesus is to come, there will be scoffers who will say, 'Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation'" (p. 132). Both Noah's day and in the future, the mockers are wrong. Things usually continue as they have but not always. The flood shows God's patience only goes so far, as 2 Peter 3:9 promises. The God who stepped into history in the past will do so again. This time, may more than eight people be ready! God does not want you to perish but the time to respond to him is now. Schaeffer says, "The problem for man is moral, for by choice he stands in rebellion against God. And any appropriate solution must fill this moral need. He who is the seed of the woman has bruised the serpent's head. But what good is that to us if we will not listen? If we won't listen we won't understand" (p.160). Things will not always be the way they are. Humanity is fallen and needs Christ's forgiveness to be made whole. Are you ready?

References

Schaeffer, Francis. Genesis in Space and Time. InverVarsity Press; Madison, WI. 1972.