Gunton on Genesis 1 and 2

Aspects of Colin Gunton’s Reading of Genesis 1 and 2

Nathaniel Suda


Colin Gunton is a theologian not known for his exegetical powers, and while it would be fair to say that he pursued his theology in commitment to the biblical story, he rarely made direct use of extended biblical passages in his writing. However, Genesis 1 and 2 is at least one exception. Early in his work The Triune Creator Gunton gives a series of readings of key passages in the creation narrative. While even this treatment could not be called a detailed exegesis by most, Gunton’s writing on Genesis 1 and 2 provides us with a remarkable insight into both the doctrine of creation, and Gunton’s theology as a whole. We begin with Gunton’s reading of the Genesis text.

Genesis and the Old Testament

In the second chapter of The Triune Creator, Gunton gives an interpretive reading of five short passages within the account of creation. He begins with:

1.) ‘In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.’ Gunton first notes that exegetical attention on this verse should not centre on the question if or if not the phrase ‘in the beginning’ implies a creation out of nothing. Gunton recognizes that this text does not directly speak of what could be called a creatio ex nihilo, and to make it do so do so, presumably, would be to force an improper understanding on the text. This is significant, for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is critical for Gunton’s larger theological project. However, he does comment that this verse and the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have a large area of overlap. Gunton writes: “Yet the theological function of the expression is clearly similar to that which the doctrine of creation out of nothing was later to perform. It is to show that the world in which we live is established firmly by the action of God . . . something once and for all.” More importantly, thinks Gunton, we should focus on the words ‘heaven and earth’. While this has often been interpreted as the creation of a bipartite creation – the ‘spiritual’ realm of heaven and the ‘material’ realm of the earth, Gunton notes that this verse should be read in conjunction with those verses which follow, specifically those “which affirm the goodness of all realms of creation – the earth (v.10), the heavenly bodies (v.18), the creatures of sea and air (v.21), the beasts of the earth (v. 25) and finally, after the creation of the human race, come the words, ‘God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good’ (v.31).”

Second, 2.) Gunton asks what we should make of the ‘days’ of creation. Are these literal 24-hour periods, eras, or have no temporal reference at all? To introduce his own contrasting opinion, Gunton offers a summary of Augustine’s interpretation: “Like other features of Augustine’s thought, [his embarrassment with this verse] derives from a refusal to recognize the self-limitation of God in creation, the fact that he [God] can be conceived to ‘take his time.’ For Augustine, creation ‘must have been’ instantaneous, and the days only introduced as a concession to human limitation.” Gunton thinks that such understandings of God’s relation to time presume that the act of creation was an act of abstract omnipotence, inadequately relate the act of creation to the doctrine of salvation. For, just as we hear of Jesus of Nazareth’s life to be a divine event that occurred through time, then we should likewise recognize that ‘God allows time for his purposes [of salvation] to be worked out.’ Gunton finds a more adequate interpretation in the thought of Basil of Caesarea. Gunton represents him as saying ‘When scripture says ‘one day,’ he says, it means that it wishes to establish the world’s relation to eternity, and is depicting ‘distinctions between various states and modes of action’ – that is to say, different ways in which God acts towards and in the world.’ In other words, in his creation of the world in days, we see that God works out his purposes for the created world ‘in time’.

Third. 3.) “The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters” Gunton notes that we cannot categorically identify ruach Elohim with what we know as the Holy Spirit, but he remarks ‘we should not be afraid to understand it trinitarianly in the light of later thought.’ In any case, based on other uses of the phrase in the Hebrew Bible, it would be unlikely that this phrase was meant as ‘breath of God’ or ‘wind of God’, but Gunton notes that these interpretations do have some credibility.

Fourth, 4.) “Then God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for says and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth’; and it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; he made the stars also. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.” While some interpreters suggest a similarity to Babylonian creation myths, Gunton follows Westermann that this passage highlights the differences between a Babylonian and Hebrew view of creation: ‘What distinguishes the priestly account of creation among the many creation stories of the Ancient Near East is that for P there can be only one creator and that all else that is or can be, can never be anything but creature.’ Gunton continues, ‘Everywhere else in the ancient world the sun and the moon – and it is significant that here they are not named, but simply described as lights – were at least semi-divine agencies, who ruled the earth, but not in the merely subordinate way they are here allowed.’ Gunton finds similar features in the treatment of water in the story of Noah, which he conceptually links by the mention of water in Genesis 1:2 ‘and the ruach Elohim was moving over the surface of the waters’. The treatment of water in the Noah story being out two points Gunton thinks are pertinent to keep in mind when reading the account of the creation of ‘the lights’. The first is that God is at all times sovereign over his creation. ‘That story [Noah] is also testimony at once to God’s dominion over the water and his use of it as a medium of judgement and salvation. As merely H2O, it remains subordinate to the creator.’ This point is especially pertinent in the story of ‘the lights’, which Gunton wants to contrast heavily with the Babylonian creation myths. The second point is that God maintains his sovereignty over creation to keep stability within it, and to use his creation to realize its eschatological destiny. As Gunton comments ‘The rainbow in Genesis [is] a symbol of both irrigating water and ripening sun servers to represent the providential stability of creation, that creation’s bounds are maintained by the creator. Baptism similarly uses the water that drowns as the vehicle of saving judgement, and as a promise that evil will be overcome: ‘and there was no more sea’ (Revelation 21:1)’ Gunton doesn’t do a great job of pointing out the conceptual links in this second point, but it serves to illustrate an important feature of Gunton’s thought which he elsewhere explains very convincingly. Gunton’s point is this: God’s act of creation, while an act of sovereignty, is not voluntarist – it is not an expression of ‘pure will’, but it is an action undertaken in love, directed towards the end of God’s communion with his creation in Christ; thus Gunton’s reference to baptism and the promise that evil will be overcome. We will hear more of Gunton’s Christological reading of Genesis later in this paper.

Fifth, 5.) Gunton questions the significance of verse 27: ‘male and female he created them’. While not wanting to enter the history of interpretation of this verse, particularly in regards to sexual differences as constitutive of the image of God, Gunton seeks a much simpler interpretation. He simply wants to suggest that this verse indicates ‘that our material constitution is in a central way important for the writer, as it is for the rest of the Old Testament. The general point is that Genesis represents the close relations of the human species with God, on the one hand, and with nature, on the other.’ If this is an evasion of the text’s mention of sexual differentiation, we will let the reader decide. However the important point to remember is that for Gunton, our creation by God shows that humanity are in a particular relation to God in contrast to the rest of creation, but also a close continuity with creation on the basis of our physicality.

Gunton closes his interpretative notes on Genesis with two concluding thoughts. The first is that Genesis does not have a monopoly on the Old Testament material on the act of creation. Gunton mentions in particular Psalms 33, 104, 139, Isaiah 40:28, Job 38-41, and the Proverbs and Wisdom literature generally. The themes Gunton finds in these passages are a.) divine action continues in creation through God’s providential action in the world which is to be understood as a project, b.) the world as the reliable and meaningful creation of God (affirming materiality), c.) the absolute sovereignty of God over the created order, and d.) God as ‘the creator of the ends of the earth’. Each in their own way, these Old Testament passages support what Gunton finds in Genesis 1 and 2. The second concluding thought is that while a firm doctrine of creation out of nothing cannot be gleaned from Genesis 1 and 2, ‘the Old Testament came very near to later teaching both in its assertions of divine sovereignty and in affirmations . . . that the earth has been established by God once and for all.’ Gunton continues in a passage ripe with insight into his style of reading the biblical text:

‘The grounds for later doctrines of creation are undoubtedly present, particularly in the expressions of the freedom and sovereignty of God which are everywhere to be found. They are to be found above all in, first, the way in which the language of myth is transformed in order to remove any suggestion that this God, unlike the gods of other cultures, was in any way limited by any other reality; second, in passages like Isaiah 48:7, 43:19 and 45:7, where ‘creation’ language is used of God’s redemptive action in history; and third Ezekiel 37:1-14, where the Spirit of God is shown to be in sovereign interrelation with the created world. In that latter vision of the transformation of the dry bones, we read an anticipation of what was to find more systematic expression in New Testament and early theology.’

Many significant conclusions could be drawn from Gunton’s reading of Genesis 1 and 2 just on his treatment of those texts alone. However, for the moment, we will resist the urge to draw those conclusions until we have briefly covered his parallel treatment of the New Testament, as it sheds much light on his reading of the Old.



The New Testament

Gunton begins his treatment of the doctrine of creation in the New Testament with these two sentences “In the New Testament there are to be found a number of creedal affirmations of the doctrine of creation in general. Some are almost certainly dependent upon Genesis 1, and it may be that it operates as an invisible matrix for one of them, Hebrews 11:3.” For Gunton, the biblical narrative of creation is not limited to Genesis, but extends throughout the entire corpus of the canon – indeed; some of the most important passages are to be found outside the Old Testament. While the New Testament is very important theologically for understanding Genesis, Gunton’s treatment of it in relation to his exegesis of the Genesis account is very brief and topical. His interest focuses on two aspects of the New Testament narrative – the role of the Son and the Spirit in creation and recreation. With regards to the role of the Son, Gunton first wants to affirm His role in the act of creation. To do this, he enlists the aid of John 1:1 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. Gunton points out that the latter verse likely ‘reflect[s] very early tradition as a confession of belief appealed to by Paul . . . placing Christ alongside God the Father as co-agent of creation.’ Later tradition in Colossians 1:16 alludes to the second point Gunton wishes to make of the role of the Son in the act of creation – namely that he sustains and redirects creation towards its telos. The verse in Colossians speaks of Christ as the one in whom ‘all things were created, in heaven and on earth . . . all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together’. Gunton finds a similar idea in Hebrews 1:2f. The significant theological point Gunton takes from a reading of Christ ‘in [whom] all things hold together’ is ‘that it is possible to treat creation as an externalization – the creation of a reality outside of the being of God – without the perils of deism. It is created in the past in such a way that already provision is made for a conception of God’s continuing interaction with it.’ In other words, as the one who is uniquely divine and human, Jesus Christ is able, as God, to mediate divine action in the created world. Further, Gunton concludes that the narrative of Jesus’ life shows God’s sovereignty and loving purposes in creation. This is exhibited in the miracle accounts, particularly in the driving out of demons, which show ‘Jesus a not merely a teacher, but one exercising – or rather reasserting – God’s lordship over the created order . . . they are concerned with God’s sovereignty over the created order, its exercise and reassertion, in the interest above all of human healing and wholeness’. While the Christological and eschatological aspects of God’s sovereignty over creation are exhibited in the miracle accounts, the importance of these accounts is overshadowed, in Gunton’s opinion, by the resurrection. Gunton writes ‘There is little doubt that a major impulse for the development of a Christological and pneumatological treatment of creation came from the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. It suggests two things: first, the freedom of God’s action in and towards the created order; and second, that the fate or destiny of creation is in some way bound up with Jesus of Nazareth. That the body of Jesus is raised shows that God’s redemptive activity is concerned with the whole of human life, not merely the ‘moral’ or ‘spiritual’, in the narrower sense sometimes given to the latter word.’ The resurrection is extremely important for Gunton’s doctrine of creation, and a theological idea he uses in a great variety of contexts. The resurrection shows God’s interest in, and affirmation of, the materiality of creation. It also shows God’s sovereignty over creation, not only by performing an act which ‘breaks the laws of nature’, but also as an event which redirects the course of human history – directing it away from sin and death and towards communion with the Father. Further, Gunton later argues that the resurrection shows that creation has an absolute beginning and absolute end. He argues if creation is understood to have a telos – an (end) point, then it must also have a starting point, at which time the end was conceived.

As for the role of the Holy Spirit, Gunton briefly mentions him in relation to the renewal and redirection of humanity, as the one who ‘raised Christ from the dead’ (Romans 8), and as the one who leads creation back to the Father, by providentially breathing life into creation (cf. Ezekiel 37:1-10). Gunton closes his brief treatment of the New Testament with a short summary which makes for a nice transition into the next phase of our discussion: ‘He is creator and not creation, but he is also, in realisation rather than denial of that transcendence, one who in Christ becomes part of the creation, freely involved within its structures, in order that he may, in obedience to God the Father and through the power of his Spirit, redirect the creation to its eschatological destiny. It is because of this that we are able to look back at the Old Testament passages and see them as in their own way witnessing to the God made known in the revelation in Jesus Christ.’



Observations

We began this paper noting that Gunton is not well known for his work as an exegete. In fact, what we are here calling his ‘exegesis of Genesis’ is less like an exegesis, and more like a Midrash on the text. In many ways similar to the way Gunton reads the theological tradition, Gunton reads Genesis very selectively, and also very briefly. He is more concerned to get the ‘gist’ of a text, and then consider the possibilities theologically, especially in relation to other brief passages, than he is to engage in a laboured and exacting discussion. This is not necessarily a criticism. Gunton’s theological instinct is often correct, and enables him to read Genesis and the New Testament, the narrative of Jesus in particular, in parallel, and argue a theological point by moving between the two as though they existed in the closest proximity within the canon. This is our first observation of Gunton’s reading of Genesis 1 and 2; he reads Genesis and the life of Jesus in such an integrated manner that his reading of Genesis aids him in reading the theological meaning of narratives of Jesus, and his reading of the life of Jesus aids him in uncovering the theological meaning of Genesis. To fully explain this interrelation would be at least dozens of pages in and of itself, but here we will offer a few examples in outline. First ways in which Gunton’s reading of Genesis informs his reading of the New Testament. 1.) The most obvious is the affirmation of the material aspects of creation. In the act of creation, God repeatedly pronounced creation ‘good’, and once ‘very good’. This gives us sufficient reason to take the Son’s incarnation seriously as a real incarnation of the Son in material, human, bodily existence. 2.) It is also clear that by his act of creation, God is the ruler of creation. He called the world into being. Just as God called the world into being, so he can freely become incarnate within it, and redirect created reality from sin to communion. There are other examples, but for now we will move to ways in which Gunton’s reading of the New Testament informs his reading of Genesis. 1.) The incarnation, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ further affirm our material existence, and support that reading of the creation account. 2.) The explicit eschatological emphasis given to creation in the resurrection provides, on Gunton’s account, sufficient ground for the doctrine of creation out of nothing. This in turn allows a much clearer reading of Genesis 1 and a heightened appreciation of God’s sovereignty in the act of creation. 3.) The life of Jesus Christ, while at the same time a divine action and a human life lived over the course of human time shows that God can and does act in a temporally extended manner. Therefore the ‘days’ of creation can be understood as in some sense temporal – the beginning of a creation which, to use Gunton’s vocabulary, is a project, ‘stretched out’ in time. 4.) Since the Son was a co-agent in the act of creation, we can conclude that the incarnation was intended from the beginning of the world, and a reading of Genesis must keep in mind the soteriological and eschatological aspects of creation. While only a few examples, hopefully these begin to show that, on Gunton’s account, the acts of creation and the incarnation and life of the Son are so intimately connected that it is truly impossible to say anything of one without saying equally as much about the other. That this has not always been the case in the history of Christian theology represents for Gunton the worst perversion of the gospel. In sum, the story of the act of creation is not to be found soley in chapters 1 and 2 of the Book of Genesis. It is found throughout the canon of scripture. We cannot expect to read simply Genesis and expect to understand the Gospels, nor can we read simply the Gospels and understand Genesis. These two crucial points in the biblical narrative, as well as everything that is in between and comes after, must be read simultaneously, both texts continuously interpreting the other and in turn itself.

The account of creation in Genesis, particularly the passages relating to humankind’s dominion over the rest of creation, and its creation in the divine image, has often been read as a doctrine on the constitution of the created world. Genesis 1 and 2 have often been read as about humankind and the rest of creation. However, while Gunton is interested in the ramifications of these two chapters for our understanding of anthropology and the rest of the created world, the doctrine of creation is, first and foremost for Gunton, a doctrine about God. God’s act of creation shows especially his sovereignty over creation, as has been mentioned several times in various contexts in this paper, but it also shows much more besides. The Genesis account, when read alongside the New Testament narrative, shows that God created out of an act of will, not necessity, and his will was a will directed towards creation, intending its eschaton from the moment of creation. Just as God’s decision to create is internally necessary and intrinsic to himself, so is his loving relation to creation. We can see in God’s act of creation that this was an act which took place over an period of time – the ‘days’ of creation, and God is able to interact with creation in such a way as to preserve its temporality. Similarly, we can also see that God interacts with his creation in a non-competitive manner. God’s affirmation of material existence means that the material creation does not have to aspire to a non-material ‘spiritual’ existence, nor does God have to debase himself to interact with the material world as such. The distance is one of difference, not hierarchy. Of course there is a division created by sin and the distinction of creator and creature, but God in his interaction with humanity does not create any metaphysical problems of a spiritual God interacting with a material world. As even a brief read of Gunton’s other works will confirm, it is in the act of creation that God discloses many of the fundamental characteristics of his being, and any doctrine of God would be wise to begin, of course with copious reference to the incarnate life of the Son, with the act of creation. In sum; God created, therefore God is the creator. In the manner of his creation, and in the manner of his providential action God discloses positive content about himself. Albeit in a non-competitive way, in his actions God is the subject of those actions.

So far we have been by in large affirmative of Gunton’s reading of Genesis 1 and 2, and with good reason. However, there is one aspect of his reading of the account to which we must draw attention, and distinguish our own position. That is, Gunton understands the act of creation as an act of creation. For various theological reasons, Gunton is eager to affirm that God discloses himself in his actions. This is a theme which has dominated Gunton’s works right from his PhD thesis. There is good theological reason for such a position; however, in Gunton’s case it clouds his reading of Genesis 1, and perhaps, causes a serious flaw in his theology. Simply, the problem is this: Gunton reads God’s creation as an act, rather than as a speech-event. Throughout Gunton’s theology, he can only conceive of God’s interaction and communication with creation as by act, rather than by his Word in divine speech. Gunton is very fond of Irenaeus’ metaphor of God’s ‘two hands’, i.e., the Son and the Spirit, but here especially, it seems that that metaphor operates in a highly material meaning in Gunton’s thought to the effect that Gunton ignores those details of the Genesis account where we find it written ‘ . . .and God said . . . and there was . . .’. God’s Word is not the only way by which God created, but it is surely a significant one. Gunton’s inability to give an adequate account of the creative power of God’s speech in creation, either as symptomatic of other theological concerns, or the root cause, leads to huge problems within his theology – virtually ignoring the entire Old Testament prophetic tradition, no mention of God’s verbal communication in guiding and counselling the believer, specifically exhibited in his complete lack of any language of prayer, and more generally a difficulty in treating the existential aspects of the Christian life, not to mention the failure to address Jesus’ parables or his significance as a teacher. These are critical aspects of the biblical text, and failure to incorporate them leads to a very imbalanced understanding of who God is, and the manner and content of his character. It is apparent from the Genesis text that God’s Word has efficacious creativity in itself, and any doctrine of creation should highlight that aspect of God’s act of creation. God is not bound to mediate his will or his love through actions which need to be understood in some way as material. God’s Word has an immediate power in itself as God’s Word. This is exhibited time and again throughout the Bible. Because of the clear textual connections between ‘. . . and God said . . . and there was . . .’, the doctrine of creation seems an ideal place to begin a doctrine of the power, sovereignty, and love of God’s Word.