Creation Ex Nihilo: A doctrine created out of nothing?

natitude · Jan 28, 2021

Daniel Marsh said:
One Jewish source from over a century before the time of the New Testament declares:

“I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed,” (2 Maccabees 7:28-29).

An early Jewish Midrash also preserves a conversation between a gentile philosopher and the first-century Jewish sage, Gamaliel, in which Gamaliel refutes the idea that God was merely an artist working with existing material.

The universe from nothing: Did God create ex-nihilo? | carm.org

Gerhard May said:

The best known text, constantly brought forward as the earliest evidence of the conceptual formulation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, is 2 Maccabees 7:28. The need for caution in evaluating this is apparent from the context in which there is talk of creation “out of nothing.” There is here no theoretical disquisition on the nature of the creation process, but a parenthetic reference to God’s creative power: . . . A position on the problem of matter is clearly not to be expected in this context. The text implies no more than the conception that the world came into existence through the sovereign creative act of God, and that it previously was not there. (Gerhard May, Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation Out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought, trans. A. S. Worrall (Edinburgh: Clark, 1994); p. 6, 7)

James Hubler wrote in his dissertation:

Non-being [in 2 Maccabees] refers to the non-existence of the heavens and earth before God’s creative act. It does not express absolute non-existence, only the prior nonexistence of the heavens and earth. They were made to exist after not existing. (James N. Hubler, “Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 90)

The Rev N. Joseph Torchia, O. P., Ph. D. noted:

But the contention that 2Mc 7:28 upholds creation ex nihilo is by no means a universally shared assumption among contemporary scholars. The dispute surrounds the formula ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν (the reading of Lucian 55 311, Origen GCS 10.22.14 on Jn 1:17, Latin M, Syriac) and its unambiguous pronouncement of creation “from what does not exist.” The alternate reading (A V 106, Latin BP, Coptic) of οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων carries the connotation of “not from existent things”, a formula less explicit in its comitment to creation from absolutely nothing at all. In this respect, J. C. O’Neill suggests that the original reading was ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν, stressing that the very need to highlight the “novelty” inherent in this act of making required a formula indicating an exceptional case (even as he concedes that the preposition ἐξ “implied some pre-existing stuff”). (Rev. N. Joseph Torchia, O. P., Ph. D., Creation and Contingency in Early Patristic Thought, Lexington Books: 2019, p 18, 19)

natitude · Jan 28, 2021

Daniel Marsh said:
The earliest Christians clearly understood the Scriptures to teach that God created even the very substance, essence, and material of the world from nothing. He brought it into existence by the power of His Word.

Not true. As I've pointed out this was not the belief before the first half of the second century.

disciple Clint · Jan 29, 2021

natitude said:
That's a good question, but is it the right question? 2 Corinthians 4:18 (see below) speaks of unseen things which are eternal.

Can there be a "first cause" for the unseen eternal things referenced in 2 Corinthians 4:18? They have existed forever.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

2 Corinthians 4:18 Commentaries: while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.
You need to understand what 2 Cor 4:18 means: the “things that are not seen” (the very phrase of Hebrews 11:1) are the objects of faith, immortality, eternal life, the crown of righteousness, the beatific vision. These things are subject to no time-limits, and endure through all the ages of God’s purposes.
The things which are not seen are eternal - Everything which pertains to that state beyond the grave:

(1) God is eternal; not to leave us as our earthly friends do.

(2) the Saviour is eternal - to be our everlasting friend.

(3) the companions and friends there are eternal. The angels who are to be our associates, and the spirits of the just with whom we shall live, are to exist forever. The angels never die; and the pious dead shall die no more. There shall be then no separation, no death-bed, no grave, no sad vacancy and loss caused by the removal of a much-loved friend.

(4) the joys of heaven are eternal; There shall be no interruption; no night; no cessation; no end. Heaven and all its joys shall be everlasting; and he who enters there shall have the assurance that those joys shall endure and increase while eternal ages shall roll away.

(5) it may be added, also, that the woes of hell shall be eternal. They are now among the things which to us “are not seen;” and they, as well as the joys of heaven, shall have no end. Sorrow there shall never cease; the soul shall there never die; the body that shall be raised up “to the resurrection of damnation” shall never again expire. And when all these things are contemplated, well might Paul say of the things of this life - the sorrows, trials, privations, and persecutions which he endured, that they were light, and were for a moment.” How soon will they pass away; how soon shall we all be engaged amidst the unchanging and eternal realities of the things which are not seen!

Aussie Pete · Jan 29, 2021

natitude said:
Edwin Hatch notes that Hermas adopts the technical language for creation from relative non-being ek tou me ontos which makes it fairly clear that God created what is from potential being, not from absolute nothing or ex nihilo. (Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, 197)

What does "potential being" mean exactly?

hedrick · Jan 29, 2021

public hermit said:
Don't Protestants believe other things not explicitly revealed in the scriptures, but implied nonetheless, e.g. the orthodox formulations of the Trinity and Incarnation?

Yes. But I'm not clear that this is implied. God could have brought order out of chaos and the Bible would still work.

There's even some question as to what creation from nothing means. We don't have a full picture of things yet, but at the moment it looks like our universe might well have come from what one might reasonably call nothing. But that creation might have been part of something larger. Would the big bang qualify as creation from nothing even if it was a part of a larger process?

I think the Bible implies that there were other supernatural creatures around at creation. That implies some kind of realm beyond what is created in Genesis 1, in which God and probably other things live. Nothing is said about its nature or eternity.

Personally, I don't try to get cosmology out of the Bible. There's no reason to think that ancient Israel knew much about that. But I do think it's worth observing that it is consistent with a more complex view of reality.

BobRyan · Jan 29, 2021

BobRyan said:
In the case of animals : God formed animals from the dust

Gen 1:
24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the animals of the earth

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

=========================

In the case of the universe and Sun and moon - there is no "formed out of something else" statement.

In the beginning -
Gen 1:1 does not say "from something else"

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Gen 1: Day 4
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night -- the stars also. 17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Ps 33:
6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their lights.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He puts the depths in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
9 For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood firm.

So then we have in the above example TWO applications for made/create in the one case it is "from the dust of the ground" but in the other cases it is from nothing.

natitude said:
2 Points:
1. Since we know that "create" mean "fashioning something out of existing matter", Genesis 1:1 could realistically be written as "In the beginning God fashioned out of existing matter the heavens and the earth".

1. No such rigid definition for the term.
2. Inserting the words you are suggesting into the text is eisegesis - and not allowed in exegesis.

Create: Gen 1:1 Strong's H1254 - bara'
has no such rigid definition as you suggest.

Many uses:

The KJV translates Strong's H1254 in the following manner: create (42x), creator (3x), choose (2x), make (2x), cut down (2x), dispatch (1x), done (1x), make fat (1x).

2. 2 Peter 3:5 nicely fills in a detail left out of Genesis 1:1

But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

As noted in my post some usages are stated as created from something - and other cases not.

There is no "sun formed out of water" or "formed out of something" in Genesis or any other bible text.
There is no "moon formed out of water" or "formed out of something" in Genesis or an other text.
There is no "stars formed out of water" or "stars formed out of something" in Genesis or any other text.

In some cases you do see "out of the dust of the ground" or "out of water" but not always - different contexts.. different meaning

cvanwey · Jan 29, 2021

natitude said:
Given the overwhelming evidence of the meaning of "creation" in the Bible, shouldn't Bible-based Christian denominations be teaching that divine creation is "ex-materia" (from previously existing matter), instead of "ex-nihilo" (from nothing)?

I have a feeling this topic will strike a nerve or three?.?. Many Christians claim 'creatio ex nihilo' exists, and that God is the responsible party.

However, say you are completely correct. The OT is speaking about creation ex materia. Or rather, God merely repurposed former material to be what we know as our current state of being. In the case for us, God is the 'change agent'.

The bigger question then becomes, is 'creatio ex nilhilo' even a thing? If not, then many questions may then come to pass?

Daniel Marsh · Jan 29, 2021

natitude said:
Edwin Hatch notes that Hermas adopts the technical language for creation from relative non-being ek tou me ontos which makes it fairly clear that God created what is from potential being, not from absolute nothing or ex nihilo. (Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, 197)

I guess you read The Church and the Ministry: A Review of the Reverend E. Hatch's Bampton Lectures (1882). Edwin Hatch, Charles Gore. which states Hatch's work is based on too many "unproven assumptions" to be taken seriously.

To my knowledge, Historians do not take Hatch as a serious source because it is based on the old copycat thesis refuted and rejected by Historians of Church History and by Historians of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures.

By using Hatch, you have shown that your sources are a joke.

Daniel Marsh · Jan 29, 2021

The context and meaning of Gen 1:1 use of create from nothing is clear to all my Jewish friends and Rabbi's I know.

Daniel Marsh · Jan 29, 2021

Hatch's quote from page 197 about the Shepard of Hermas does not exist.
https://ia800503.us.archive.org/7/items/influenceofgreek1890hatc/influenceofgreek1890hatc.pdf

Daniel Marsh · Jan 29, 2021

natitude said:
Gerhard May said:

The best known text, constantly brought forward as the earliest evidence of the conceptual formulation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, is 2 Maccabees 7:28. The need for caution in evaluating this is apparent from the context in which there is talk of creation “out of nothing.” There is here no theoretical disquisition on the nature of the creation process, but a parenthetic reference to God’s creative power: . . . A position on the problem of matter is clearly not to be expected in this context. The text implies no more than the conception that the world came into existence through the sovereign creative act of God, and that it previously was not there. (Gerhard May, Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation Out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought, trans. A. S. Worrall (Edinburgh: Clark, 1994); p. 6, 7)

James Hubler wrote in his dissertation:

Non-being [in 2 Maccabees] refers to the non-existence of the heavens and earth before God’s creative act. It does not express absolute non-existence, only the prior nonexistence of the heavens and earth. They were made to exist after not existing. (James N. Hubler, “Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 90)

The Rev N. Joseph Torchia, O. P., Ph. D. noted:

But the contention that 2Mc 7:28 upholds creation ex nihilo is by no means a universally shared assumption among contemporary scholars. The dispute surrounds the formula ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν (the reading of Lucian 55 311, Origen GCS 10.22.14 on Jn 1:17, Latin M, Syriac) and its unambiguous pronouncement of creation “from what does not exist.” The alternate reading (A V 106, Latin BP, Coptic) of οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων carries the connotation of “not from existent things”, a formula less explicit in its comitment to creation from absolutely nothing at all. In this respect, J. C. O’Neill suggests that the original reading was ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν, stressing that the very need to highlight the “novelty” inherent in this act of making required a formula indicating an exceptional case (even as he concedes that the preposition ἐξ “implied some pre-existing stuff”). (Rev. N. Joseph Torchia, O. P., Ph. D., Creation and Contingency in Early Patristic Thought, Lexington Books: 2019, p 18, 19)

Joseph's book is here Creation and Contingency in Early Patristic Thought

reading it in context, Joseph supports the translation I gave of II Mac 7 and indicates by Hellenistic thought the belief was in fact universal of creation out of nothing. And, II Mac 7 is well before your original souce.

wife is home, bye

natitude · Jan 30, 2021

None of the verses below support creation ex nihilo.

Daniel Marsh said:
Psalms 33:6 (RSV) By the word of the LORD [i.e., not by existing matter] the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth.

All this verse says is that God's creative process was initiated by God. It does not suggest that the process of creation was initiated by preexisting matter. But neither does it state that preexisting matter was not utilized.

Daniel Marsh said:
Isaiah 44:24 . . . “I am the LORD, who made all things . . . “

Wisdom 1:14 For he created all things that they might exist, . . .

John 1:3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

Romans 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. . . .

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Ephesians 3:9 . . . God who created all things;

Colossians 1:16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities — all things were created through him and for him.

Hebrews 2:10 . . . he, for whom and by whom all things exist . . .

Revelation 4:11 “. . . our Lord and God, . . . didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created.”

I can only assume that your highlighting "all things" in each of these verses means that you include the building blocks of matter (i.e., protons, electrons, neutrons, etc.) as part of "all things". But I'm just guessing and please feel free to clarify.

There are many places in the Bible where the phrase "all things" is utilized to mean "many other things" and clearly does not mean every last single solitary thing.

Take Colossians 1:20 for example:

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Do you think Paul meant to say that Satan and all wicked people will be reconciled to Christ? I don't.

Paul even clarifies this in 1 Corinthians 15:27

For the Scriptures say, “God has put all things under his authority.” (Of course, when it says “all things are under his authority,” that does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.)

The phrase "all things" used in the Bible is clearly not all encompassing.

Daniel Marsh said:
2 Peter 3:5 . . . by the word of God [i.e., not by existing matter] heavens existed long ago . . .

But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

Daniel Marsh said:
Creation Ex Nihilo is in the Bible

Au Contraire

natitude · Jan 30, 2021

Aussie Pete said:
The question then arises, where did the previously existing matter come from?

Well, if God has always existed, why can't the elements have always existed?

natitude · Jan 30, 2021

Daniel Marsh said:
I guess you read The Church and the Ministry: A Review of the Reverend E. Hatch's Bampton Lectures (1882). Edwin Hatch, Charles Gore. which states Hatch's work is based on too many "unproven assumptions" to be taken seriously.

I can't say I have.

Daniel Marsh said:
To my knowledge, Historians do not take Hatch as a serious source because it is based on the old copycat thesis refuted and rejected by Historians of Church History and by Historians of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures.

By using Hatch, you have shown that your sources are a joke.

Please provide specific points as to why Hatch is an unreliable source. Otherwise this comment is just an attempt to discredit the messenger.

Daniel Marsh said:
Hatch's quote from page 197 about the Shepard of Hermas does not exist.
https://ia800503.us.archive.org/7/items/influenceofgreek1890hatc/influenceofgreek1890hatc.pdf

Perhaps you overlooked footnote #3.

natitude · Jan 30, 2021

This link has a few dozen quotes from scholars regarding the existence of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo in the Bible.

cvanwey · Jan 30, 2021

natitude said:
Well, if God has always existed, why can't the elements have always existed?

I'll bite

If 'material' has always existed, how exactly does the concept God fit into the equation?

I trust you understand that many Christians argue that 'you cannot get something from nothing', which seems to require the necessity for a 'god'?

Daniel Marsh · Jan 30, 2021

natitude said:
None of the verses below support creation ex nihilo.

All this verse says is that God's creative process was initiated by God. It does not suggest that the process of creation was initiated by preexisting matter. But neither does it state that preexisting matter was not utilized.

I can only assume that your highlighting "all things" in each of these verses means that you include the building blocks of matter (i.e., protons, electrons, neutrons, etc.) as part of "all things". But I'm just guessing and please feel free to clarify.

There are many places in the Bible where the phrase "all things" is utilized to mean "many other things" and clearly does not mean every last single solitary thing.

Take Colossians 1:20 for example:

And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Do you think Paul meant to say that Satan and all wicked people will be reconciled to Christ? I don't.

Paul even clarifies this in 1 Corinthians 15:27

For the Scriptures say, “God has put all things under his authority.” (Of course, when it says “all things are under his authority,” that does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.)

The phrase "all things" used in the Bible is clearly not all encompassing.

But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

Au Contraire

Yes friend, all things refers to atoms and matter too.

In fact, God holds all things together.

Colossians 1:17
Contemporary English Version
17 God’s Son was before all else,
and by him everything
is held together.

Hebrews 1:3
Contemporary English Version
3 God’s Son has all the brightness of God’s own glory and is like him in every way. By his own mighty word, he holds the universe together.

After the Son had washed away our sins, he sat down at the right side of the glorious God in heaven.

How does God holding all things together jive, fit with LDS theology of God?

Daniel Marsh · Jan 30, 2021

natitude said:
Well, if God has always existed, why can't the elements have always existed?

Hi friend, there is no need for the elements to always exist. In Christian Theology God is powerful enough to call something into existence that did not exist already.

Unless I misunderstand LDS theology of God, there is a need for matter always existing since he is nothing more than a glorified created(birth if you will) being.

Daniel Marsh · Jan 30, 2021

natitude said:
I can't say I have.

Please provide specific points as to why Hatch is an unreliable source. Otherwise this comment is just an attempt to discredit the messenger.

Perhaps you overlooked footnote #3.

I am an University trained Historian, if you want to look weird or get a good laugh, Hatch is one of many such names to bring up.

Daniel Marsh · Jan 30, 2021

natitude said:
This link has a few dozen quotes from scholars regarding the existence of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo in the Bible.

the quote of Umberto Cassuto in your link(thanks for that) is teaching God created matter in the opening words of Genesis ... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth(dirt). ...

Creation Ex Nihilo: A doctrine created out of nothing?

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads