Anide

Interpretation: A Journal of

The Unexpected Uni٧erse: Bible and Theology

2016, ٧ol. 70(1)7-20
© The Author(s) 2015
Emergence, Con٧ergence, and Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPerm issions.na٧
the *O٧erview Effect” DOI: 10.1177/0020964315603350
int.sagepub.com
®AGE

William p. Brown
Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur, GA

Abstract
Employed hermeneutically, science helps to highlight the interrelations between the first creation account
in Genesis and the new creation account in Revelation, the "bookends” of the Bible. Both ha٧e to do,
for example, with processes of emergence and con٧ergence. Moreo٧er, an o٧er٧!ew of creation and new
creation re٧eals an ancient pattern that has important implications for ecological practice today.

Keywords
Creation, Genesis, Revelation, Emergence, Apocalypse, Big Bang, Holy, Sacred, Ecology

The astronomer Fred Hoyle remarked in 1948 that “once a photograph of the Earth, taken from
the outside, is available ...a new idea as powerful as any in history will be let loose.”) One such
photograph, often called “the blue marble,” was taken by the crew of Apollo 17 on December 7,
1972, at a distance of some 45,000 kilometers.2 It quickly achieved iconic status, and some,
including scientists, have wondered whether the most important achievement of reaching the
moon was actually discovering Earth. As Hoyle predicted, a powerful “new idea” was unleashed,
more accurately a set of several interrelated ideas or awarenesses: the earth’s sheer beauty, its
unity and vulnerability., and a new sense of humanity’s place on the planet, all suffused with an
overwhelming sense of awe.

1 Quoted in Kevin w. Kelley, ed.. The Home Planet (Reding, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1988), inside hont
cover.
2 The first time Eartli was pliotograplied and tile piloto broadcast on television was in 1968 by tile crew of
Apollo 8. A “blue marble" Eartli pliotograpli is tile cover illustration for tliis issue.

Corresponding author‫؛‬
William p. Brown, Columbia Theological Seminary, 701 s. Columbia Dri٧e, Decatur, GA 30030, United States.
Email: brownb@ctsnet.edu
8 Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 70(1)

This expenence of being profoundly “Earth-struck” has been called the “Overview Effect” by
Frank White—an experience of radical reorientation that redefines humanity’s responsibility for
the planet Astronaut Michael Collins descnbes it this way:

I rememher so vividly what I saw when I looked hack at my fragile home—a glistening, inviting
heacon, delicate hlue and white, a tiny outpost suspended m the hlack infinity. Earth IS to he
treasured and nurhired, something precious that must endure.4

Such a View of the earth from a distance also inspired Paul and Anne Ehrlich to offer the analogy
of Earth as a spaceship hurtling through space whose rivets are beginning to pop—those rivets
representing rising species extinctions, now over a thousand per year.5

Endzeit in Urzeit
Any overview begins with distinguishing the forest from the trees. It involves stepping back or
“zooming out” to discover an aesthetic whole that remains hidden up close, a new pattern that can
elicit a sense of wonder of the whole. Can one, by analogy., talk about an “overview effect” for the
landscape of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, a sense of being “Bible-stmck”? Perhaps if
one looks “far” enough. To begin to do so, I lift up the bookends of the Bible, namely Genesis and
Revelation, for consideration, m order to gam a vantage point that affords an “overview.” Together
they elicit, with a little hermeneutical help from science, a canonical “overview” m which the end
informs the beginning, and vice versa. Endzeit and Urzeit, eschatology and protology, creation and
new creation: all are brought together within an “overview” from which an evocative, new pattern
of creation emerges.

The book of Revelation features two verses that are key for discerning how the end of creation
informs the beginning of creation. They serve as two pillars upon which one can stand to gam an
overview of the opening and concluding words of Scripture: (1) “And the one who was seated on
the throne said, ‘See, I am making all things new’” (21:5); and (2) “I saw no temple m the city, for
its temple IS the Ford God the Almighty and the Tamb” (v. 22). Both verses at first seem only tan-
gentially related, but together they are critical for a canonical re-readmg of Gen 1:1-2:3. The first
verse has all to do with process, the second with pattern.

Process‫ ؛‬Emergence, Con٧ergence, and Renewal

“See, I am making all things new” (Greek: idou kainapowpanta): such are the penultimate words of
God m Revelation (21:5b). The syntax IS cntical. laterally., the sentence reads, “See, new I am making
all things,” with emphasis on the “new.” The voice from the throne IS clearly not saymg, “See, I am

y Trafikltte, The Overview Effect Space Exploration and Human Evolution, M ‫ﻫﺞ‬. f‫؟‬j‫؛‬Éi,l‫׳‬.
American Instihite of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1998).
4 Michael Collins, “Foreword,” m Roy A. Gallant, Our Universe (Washington, DC: National Geographic
Society, 1980), 6.
‫؟‬ ‫ة‬au\ ÜÜ and tyie 1\‫ﻣﺎ‬, Extinction The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of
Species (New York: Random House, 1981), χι-χιν.
Brown 9

making all new things,”® as if God

were wiping the cosmic slate clean
to start all over again, to create new
things from nothing (ex nihiJo).
For all its accounts of conflict and
destruction, the book of Revelation
is ultimately about the renewing of
creation. Indeed, one can expand
the statement canonically to claim
that everything that God has done
and is doing, beginning with crea-
tion itself, has newness as its goal.
“I am about to do a new thing; now
it springs forth, do you not perceive
Earth from space, December, 1992. NASA photograph taken by it?” announces the prophet of the
Galileo spacecraft from a distance of 1.2 million miles.hhe photo exile speaking on behalf of God
shows Antarctica and the Pacific Ocean. Ann Ronan Picture library.
Photo Credit: HIP:Art Resource. NY.
(,Isa 43:19). What, then, about the
Priestly author of Genesis 1? Does
the new creation of Revelation find a resonant chord in the primordial creation in Genesis? Whether it
does or not, the theme of newness is readily evident in the “old” creation as we explore what actually
constitutes newness, particularly the process of newness, which science helpfully explains.

“See, I am making all things new.” The scientific notion of“emergence” captures well this sense
of the new created out of the old, or creatio ex vetere. 7 Emergence is a process by which something
unanticipated appears, either gradually or suddenly., from existing conditions. The hallmarks of
emergence are complexity and novelty.‫ ؟‬Examples include the emergence of atoms out of primor-
dial plasma, metabolism from organic molecular structures, and consciousness from cognition.
Biologist Harold Morowitz identifies no fewer than twenty-eight emergences that have driven the
history of the cosmos to its current state, from the Primordium of the Big Bang to the apprehension
of the spiritual Of them all, “life is the quintessential emergent phenomenon.”‫®؛‬

6 See the discussion in Brian K. Blount, ÄemWarto‫״‬.‫ ׳‬rt Co‫;״;״‬e‫״‬toí٦‫׳‬, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2009), 376; M. Eugene Boring, Revelation, IBC (Louisville: Westminster Jolrn Knox, 1989), 220.
7 As coined by Jolrn c. Polkinglrome, “Esclratology: Sotrre Questions and Sotrre Insights fiotrr Science,"
rrr The End of the World and tile Ends of God: Sclett.ee and Theology on. Eschatology, ed. 30k
Polkinglrorne and Miclrael Welker, Tlreology for tire Twenty-First century (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press
International, 2000), 29-30.
8 Robert M. Hazen, Getfesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin (Waslrington, DC: Joseplr Henry,
2005), 14.
33 ‫ﻷ‬aro\d 3. Morowrfo, Tlte Emergence of Everything: How tile World Becatn.e Complex (Oxford‫׳‬. Oxford
University Press, 2002). See also Holtrres Rolston III, The Three Big Bangs: Matter-Energy, Life, and
T;'‫(״‬/(New York: Colutrrbia University Press, 2010).
10 Ibid., 13.
l٥ Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 70(1)

Emergence IS not mechanical; neither IS it predictable. Emergence accounts for the complex
interactions of constituent parts that give nse to something far greater than themselves. It IS the
“something more’’ that emerges from the “nothing but.’’‫ ״‬While no physical laws are broken, new
laws may be waiting m the wings withm the process of emergence. According to Robert Hazen,
“each emergent step increases the degree of order and complexity., and each step follows logically.,
sequentially from its predecessor.’’ Nevertheless, what specifically emerges cannot be inferred at
the outset; point B, m other words, cannot be predicted from point A. The actual outcome remains
elusive, and that IS what makes it novel. “The inherent novelty and layered complexity of emergent
phenomena all but preclude prediction.’’‫ ״‬There remains a persistent “ontological gap between one
sort of property and its emergent successors.’’‫ ״‬This IS why cognitive science and evolutionary
biology cannot be reduced to particle physics.14 Emergence IS a master of surprise. “See, I am mak-
mg all new things’’ does not mark a return to the old. It points to a genuinely new creation even as
it IS created out of the old. Interpreting eschatological “renewal’’ through the scientific lens of
emergence enables one to talk about “renewal’’ without the notion of return. There IS no going back
when it comes to emergent phenomena, or as science would say, there IS no “reduction’’ of emer-
gent phenomena. Emergently speaking, renewing IS actually “newmg.’’

The voice from the throne, thus, IS making a claim of emergence, of “(re)newmg” creation m the
end. But does this have anything to do with creation “m the beginning’’? As IS often noted, the first
creation account of Genesis begins with the pre-creative condition of darkness, water, and God’s
“breath’’ (;mah) suspended over it all (1:2), an initial state of “void and vacuum’’ (1töhü wäböhü), a
pnmordial soup of sorts.15 It IS from and within this dark watery mess that God creates, beginning
with the dramatic moment of light’s appearance. laterally., God’s command IS “Let light be’’ or “Let
light become’’ (yëhî ’or), and the result IS light unleashed, the Big Flash.‫ ״‬Yes, one could think of
the Big Bang, that inflationary astrophysical fraction of a moment when an infinitesimally small
and immensely dense point of quantum energy bursts forth, producing space-time and eventually
matter. But, of course. Genesis IS not making a scientific claim; it IS offering a theological account
of cosmogony m which light plays a fundamental role. Tight, God’s first creation, IS associated
with divine nature, an effulgent, radiant presence, as m Ps 104: l-2a:

Bless the Lord, ٥ my soul.

٥ Lord my God, you are veiy great.
You are clothed with honor and majesty,
wrapped m light as with a gament.

11 Ursula Goodenough, The Sacred Depth·¡ ofNature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 28.
12 Hazen, Gerresis, 245.
\2 1‫ا؛ا‬١١‫ ع‬ltd, Divine Action Examining God’s Role m an Open and Emergent Universe ‫؟‬Ί‫؛‬Α
Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation, 2007 [1990]), 63.
14 hid., 3. Of course, at the quanhim level uncertainty abounds.
15 Compare 2 Macc 7:28, which represents a much later perspective that comes close to the doctrine of
creatio ex mklo. See also Isa 45:6-7; luh. 2:2-3.
16 See Mark s. Smith’s detailed discussion of the “emergence” of light, as opposed to Its absolute creation,
m Genesis 1 m The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 71-79.
Brown II

God wrapped m light, God’s shining countenance (Pss 44:3; 80:16; 90:8), the “sun of righteous-
ness’’ (Mai 4:2): m these passages light IS associated with divine presence. So it IS also m Gen
1:3. God-given light suddenly emerges out of the darkness; it IS unleashed, and the first separation
follows, the first, m fact, of many (Gen 1:4; cf. vv. 6, 7, 9, 14, 18). Beginning with light, creation
according to Genesis IS creation by differentiation and increasing complexity., of emergence and
“evolution,’’ not unlike the scientific account of cosmic evolution.‫ ״‬Creation IS the first emergence,
something new created out of dark formlessness: light m creation, from which everything else fol-
lows, including life. Creation “m the beginning’’ IS already creation made new.18

More explicit references to emergence m Genesis are found m the creation of life, both terres-
trial and marine.

Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every
kind on earth that hear fault with the seed m It.” And It was so. (Gen 1:11)

God does not say, “Let there be plants’’ (with fingers snapped). Instead, God commands the earth
to produce, and plants emerge from the ground. They are “put forth” by the earth, God’s creative
partner m the fashioning of life on the land. Indeed, the earth itself experiences its own emergence
m the previous verses: the waters are commanded to separate themselves, and the earth arises from
its submerged state:

And God said, “Let the waters under the sky he gathered together into one place, and let the dry
land appear.” And It was so. (1:9)

The earth had been submerged all this time, and its “creation” was made possible by the parting
of the waters, commanded by God. Henceforth, the waters and the earth, far from being inert enti-
ties, act powerfully at God’s behest. They are bona fide agents of creation, as demonstrated also m
the creation of animal life: the earth IS commanded to bring forth land animals, and the waters are
beckoned to produce sea life.

And God said, “Let the waters produce swams of living creatures, and let hirds fly above the
earth across the dome of the sty.” (1:20)

And God said, “Let the earth hrmg forth living creatures of eveiy kind: cattle and creeping things
and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” (1:24)

17 This IS not to claim that the Genesis account of creation and modem cosmology are compatible; see
'IWtmGM'i, The Seven Pillars ofCreation The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder fOifotd‫׳‬.
Oxford University Press, 2010), 73-76. Nevertheless, both accounts, ancient and modem, stress the
increase of complexity and differentiation m creation’s “evolution.”
18 Pora people either m exile or recovering from exile, the Priestly account of creation would have offered
a message of hope: the God of Genesis proves to be the God of new beginnings even m the darkest of
moments.
12 Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 70(1)

To be sure, such creations are described as divinely accomplished acts:

So God created the great sea monsters and every living creahire that moves, of which the waters
produced swams. (l:21a)

So God made the wild animals, each according to Its kind, and domestic animals, each according
to Its kind. (1:25a)

Nevertheless, asv. 21 makes clear, divine agency IS accomplished through the agency of the waters
and the earth. God works with the elements of creation, not despite them, much less without them.
The results reflect a convergence of divine and creational powers, of God, earth, and the waters
acting together. When it comes to divine action m creation according to Genesis 1, God pnmar-
lly acts convergently with the elemental powers of creation, which serve as God’s “empowering
environments.”« Indeed, the fact that the divine word, which initiates each step m the creative
process, IS cast as a jussive m Hebrew (“Let. . .”) suggests more an invitation than a direct com-
mand, setting the stage for convergent work on the part of both God and creation. Convergence
and emergence, divine collaboration and nsmg complexity, top down complementing bottom up
activity., are the hallmarks of God’s creative way m Genesis.

Pattern‫ ؛‬Sacred Space

With each day building on the previous one, light emerges dramatically from the darkness; the
earth emerges out of its submerged state; plants are “put forth” from the soil; terrestrial life and
manne life are the products of their respective domains, all at God’s behest. What then about the
finished product, creation as a whole? Often noted IS the symmetrical stmcture that unfolds withm
the first SIX days:

DOMAINS DENIZENS

Day 1 (1:3-5) Day4 (1:14-19)

Light Lights
Day2 (1:6-8) Day5 (1:20-33)
Waters above (sky) Aviary Life
Waters below Marine Life
Day3 (1:9-13) Day 6 (1:24-31)
Land Land Animals
Humans
Vegetation Food

According to their thematic correspondences, the first SIX days of creation line up to form two
parallel columns, establishing a well-coordmated balance. Days 1-3 delineate the cosmic domains,
which are then populated by various entities or agencies (“denizens”) that inhabit these domains

19 To borrow fiom Michael Welker (Creation and Reality, trans. John F. Hoffmeyer [Minneapolis: Fortress,
1999], 40, 42), who focuses only on the productive agency of the earth.
Brown 13

(Days 4-6). Vertically, the two columns address the two abject conditions of lack referenced m 1:2,
formlessness and emptiness. The left column (Days 1-3) recounts the cosmos bemgfomed, while
the right column (Days 4-6) describes the cosmos being filled. Day 3, moreover, serves as the link
by depicting the emergence of land fully “vegetated,” thereby equipped to provide the means for
sustaining life. Days 46 report the filling of the empty domains with their respective inhabitants,
from the celestial spheres, which “mle” both day and night (1:14-18), to human bemgs, who exer-
cise “dominion” (1:26-28). Astral bodies and human bodies thus bear a functional correspondence:
both are given the task of mlmg. With the stars set m the heavens and the various forms of life, each
according to its kind, filling sky, land, and sea, creation proceeds from emptiness to fullness m the
right column, just as it had proceeded from formlessness to form-fullness m the left.

While the six-day schema exhibits a tightly wrought symmetry of correspondence across
domains and denizens or inhabitants, the stmcture IS by no means perfect. Within its literary pat-
ternmg, the creation account features a number of what j. Richard Middleton calls “nonpredictable
var1at10ns,”2٥ or literary imbalances, clearly evident when one examines the text up close.
Vegetation, for example, occurs on Day 3, concluding the left column, even though plants, like the
animals, are meant to cover the land.21 The sixth day, it seems, might have been a better fit for the
creation of plants. In addition. Days 5 and 6 are one-sidedly weighted with the language of bless-
mg, which bears no correspondence to Days 2 and 3. Whereas the animals on Day 6 are created
from the earth, humankind IS made m the “image of God,” which finds no correlation with Day 3.
Structurally, certain literary building blocks such as the fulfillment report and the transition for-
mula (“and it was so”) either do not appear m a consistent order or, m certain cases, are entirely
absent.22 Finally, of all the days enumerated m the account, only “the sixth day” and “the seventh
day” bear definite articles m Hebrew. The text as a whole manifests a symmetry supple enough to
allow for variation, a unity that accommodates diversity.

Such variations, however, pale m comparison to the most significant case of dissymmetry m the
text, namely the additional seventh day (2:2-3). Having no corresponding partner, the seventh day
stands alone; it finds no place among the series of horizontal correspondences featured m the SIX-
day schema (l.e., the Hexameron). The seventh day IS unique m both content and form. God “says”
nothing to formally introduce this new day, and nothing gets created on it. By all appearances this
final day seems superfluous, particularly m light of 2:2.20 21 22

20 j. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image The Imago Del in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005),
278.
21 The creation of vegetation on Day 3, unlike that of the animals on Days 5 and 6, lacks the divine com-
mission to “fill” the land. Thus, plants are deemed part of the “empowering environment” for the suste-
nance of land animals, including humans (see Gen 1:29-30).
22 For example, the transition fomula (“and It was so”) IS found at the end of 1:7 rather than at the end of
V. 6, which IS more typical (cf. vv. 9, 11). Also, the fillfillment report IS entirely lacking m w. 9-10. No
divine approbation IS given on Day 2. Indeed, the SepUiagmt reflects a more consistent text, reflecting
either a hamomzmg tendency or an older textual tradition that the Masoretes saw fit to alter. I suspect
the latter. Fora listing of texhial anomalies, see the table m Middleton, The Liberating Image, 281.
14 Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 70(1)

2 I Thus the heavens and the earth and all their hosts were completed. 2 2 ٥٥ the seventh day God
finished the work that he had done; he ceased23 on the seventh day from all the work that he had
done. 2 3And God hlessed the seventh day and made It holy, because on It he ceased from all the
work that God had done m creat10n.24 (2:1-3)

But, as IS often asked, isn’t it at the end of the sixth day that creation IS completed‫ ؛‬once the pro-
nouncement of “veiy good” IS uttered m 1:31, as confirmed in 2:1? Why, then, this additional day,
which IS distinctly post-creational m content? On the surface, the seventh day redundantly marks
God’s cessation of activity., for God already ceased creating at the end of the sixth day. Why, then,
this “extra” day?

Apart from introducing the theme of holiness, the addition of the seventh day serves to
restmcture the entire schema of creation itself, a rather unanticipated outcome. To borrow from
the language of physics, the seventh day IS a stellar example of “symmetry breaking.” With the
m-breaking of the seventh day, the self-contained symmetry IS shattered, but, as I hope to show,
something new emerges (!) from the dissymmetry, a new pattern that builds upon but transcends
the old.

The generative power of dissymmetry IS well noted m science. Cosmic evolution, for example,
IS made possible through the interplay of symmetry and dissymmetry.26 Symmetry at the cosmic
level comes m many forms: there IS “translational symmetry” or “invariance,” which assures that
the laws of physics apply everywhere throughout the universe. There IS “rotational symmetry,”
which grants every spatial direction an equal footing. Rotate the universe on any axis, and it will
look nearly the same. On the 300 million light year level (or 1024 meters according to others), the
universe exhibits a near perfect homogeneity, the result of an overall uniform distribution of matter
and energy from the Big Bang. Uniformity IS how the universe began, still evident at the largest
scale of perspective.

But zoom m more closely and you will find countless irregularities. “Clumpmess,” for one. The
galaxies, stars, and planetaiy systems that populate the cosmic expanse are the result of gradual
“clumping” or stellar condensation, as the universe expanded and cooled, thanks to gravity. Such
developing variations can be traced back to quantum level fluctuations at the time the universe was
infinitesimally small and unimaginably hot.

One case of symmetry-breaking m the course of cosmic evolution that made, literally., a world
of difference was the production of matter and antimatter soon after the Big Bang (1054‫ ־‬seconds23 24 25 26

23 From Hebrew sbt, commonly translated as “rested,” hut whose firndamental meaning IS “cease.” See the
following verse. For discussion, see Smith, Priestly Vision, 105-6.
24 Literally, “created by doing.”
25 The Sephiagmt translates Gen 2:2 with “sixth” instead of “seventh” day.
26 For further discussion, see Brown, Seven Pillars of Creation, 51-53; idem. Sacred Sense Discovering
the Wonder of God’s Word and .‫־‬w (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 15, n. 29.
Brown 15

after o). When the universe cooled sufficiently for quarks and anti-quarks to “condense out,’’
each pair resulted m total annihilation, releasing a photon of energy. Fortunately, the symmetry
between matter and antimatter was skewed ever so slightly: for about eveiy billion pairs of quarks
and anti-quarks engaged m mutually shared destruction, there was an extra quark, a positive odd-
ball upon which the entire future of the universe hung. If perfect symmetry had mled the “day’’ (or
millisecond), the universe would have quickly evolved into a random collection of gamma rays.
Owing to this slight imbalance, cosmic evolution was weighted toward matter, resulting ultimately
m life m all its complexity.

Cosmic history IS littered with broken symmetries, those anomalies and variations that have
propelled the cosmos toward new levels of self differentiation and complexity^? As physicist
David Gross observes, “The secret of nature IS symmetry, but much of the texture of the world IS
due to mechanisms of symmetry breaking.’’28 Perfect symmetry ultimately makes for a uniform,
lifeless universe.25

Genesis 1:1-2:3 can be viewed as a case of broken symmetry resulting m an entirely new pat-
tern, a new symmetry. The result can be illustrated as follows.

“Day” 0
Creation Incomplete (1:2)

Day 1 (1:3-5) Day 4 (1:14-19)

Light Lights
Day 2 (1:6-8) Day 5 (1:20-23)
Sky Aviaiy life
Waters below Marine life
Day 3 (1:9-13) Day 6 (1:24-31)
Land Land animals
Humans
Vegetation Food

Creation Complete (2:1-3)

Day 7

This final odd day establishes a vertical correspondence with creation’s initial, pre-creative con-
dition described m 1:2, which I paradoxically call “Day 0’’ for the sake of illustration, the “day’’
before time, as it were, a “day’’ that does not count as a day of creation, to be sure, yet sets the stage27 28 29

27 For firrther discussion of “spontaneous symmetry hreakmg,” see lee Smolm, The Life of the Cosmos
(London: Phoenix, 1997), 61-68; Michio Kaku, Parallel Worlds A Journey through Creation, Higher
Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos New York: Anchor, 2006), 95-98.
28 Quoted m Kaku, Parallel Worlds, 97.
29 Ibid., 98.
I Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 70(1)

for those that do. In astrophysical terms, it IS analogous to t=0, the stellar state of infinitesimal size
and seemingly infinite density and energy at the moment of the Big Bang, the moment of unmflated
inflation. lust as the laws of physics break down at this “moment,” so also biblical language when
it comes to describing “Day 0” (tôhû wâbôhû).30 Moreover, one could also say paradoxically that
Day 7 creates “Day 0,” given the surprising affinity the final day has with pre-creation. Together
these two “days” form a subtle correspondence: nothing IS created on either day, the static “day” of
non-creation and the “theo-static” day of completed creation. The timeless character of “Day 0,”
moreover, shares a particular kinship with Day 7. Both lack the temporal formula “evening came
and then morning.” As “Day 0” IS the day “before” created time, so Day 7 IS the day suspended
above time. Nevertheless, these two “days” could not be more different: “Day 0” refers to crea-
tion’s formless, empty state, whereas Day 7 marks creation fully formed and filled (2:1).3‫ ا‬The
Priestly account of creation IS thus bounded by primordial chaos, on the one hand, and holy cessa-
tion, on the other. The SIX days of creation, or Hexameron, are bracketed by pre-creation (“Day 0”)
and post-creation (Day 7).

But there IS more. The final day serves as the capstone for an entirely new stmcture. Without this
symmetry-breaking seventh day, the resulting creation pattern would lose a distinction that remains
largely hidden to modern readers, or at least those not acquainted with the ancient architecture of
sacred space. Therein lies the “overview effect” of Genesis. Put cognitively., the “overview” IS
gained through pattern recognition, carefully stmctured by the Priestly author. Ancient readers of
Genesis would have recognized the resulting pattern as a threefold structure reflecting the architec-
ture of the temple (1 Kgs 6-8), as well as that of the tabernacle described m the latter half of
Exodus.32 In the mstmctions for building the tabernacle given m Exodus, three discrete areas are
identified: the outer court (hàsër), the “holy place” (1haqqddes), and the inner sanctuary or “most
holy place” (1qddes haqqodasm) (Exod 26:33-34).

Similarly., Solomon’s temple IS descnbed m 1 Kings 6-8 as consisting of three spatial parts: the
vestibule or portico ( ulam), the nave (hêkâl), and the innermost sanctum located at the far back of
the temple, the “inner sanctuary” (dëbîr, e.g., 6:5, 16, 20-23; 7:50; 8:6-8). This threefold arrange-
ment of sacred space corresponds precisely to the way m which the various days of creation are
distributed both chronologically and thematically. The first SIX days, by virtue of their correspond-
ence, demarcate the architectural boundaries of sacred space. The last day, given its uniqueness, IS
lodged m the most holy space, a space that IS uniquely unbounded since it lacks final boundaries
by virtue of its transcendent status (see below).

30 Cf ‫ل‬er 4:23, in which the conjunction of these two tems appears only one other time, suggesting an
artificially created farrago.
31 See Middleton, Liberating Image, 75-76.
32 For architechiral details of Syro-Palestiman temples, see Mark B. Hundley, God,·¡ in Dwellings Temples
and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East, WAWSS 3 (Atlanta: Society ofBihlical Literature, 2013),
105-14.
Brown 17

Day 1 Day 4
Vestibule
(Outer Court)
Day 2 Day 5
Nave
(Holy Place)
Day 3 Day 6
Inner Sanctum
(Holy of Holies)
Day 7

The Priestly overview, m short, casts the cosmos m the image of the temple or tabernacle. The uni-
verse, m other words, IS God’s cosmic sanctuary! Creation’s “entrance,” as it were, IS demarcated
by Days 1 and 4, featuring the creation of light and lights. Not coincidentally., the Solomonic tern-
pie m Jemsalem, like many temples of its time and vicinity, faced eastward toward the rising sun,
whose rays helped illuminate the temple’s gilded fiirmshmgs. On the other end chronologically
(and spatially), the holy seventh day marks God’s completion of creation, God’s “rest,” which cor-
responds to the sanctum where God IS said to reside m “thick darkness” (see 1 Kgs 8:12).33 Divine
rest and residence, m other words, find their holy correspondence m creation and temple. The tern-
pie IS tmly a microcosmos, and the universe, m turn, IS a macro-temple. Biblically speaking, then,
creation IS God’s first temple.34

Given the stmctural parallel between creation and sanctuary, one could press the analogy further
with regard to the issue of holiness. The temple, as also its foreninner (the tabernacle), was stmc-
hired according to a hierarchy of h0hness.35 While the inner sanctum was considered the holiest
part of the temple/tabernacle, the whole structure was also deemed holy—holy by degree or grada-
tion. Something similar, I submit, can be said about creation from the Pnestly perspective. To be
sure, the creation account posits what appears to be a categorical difference between the “good,”
which applies to creation fashioned m SIX days, and the “holy,” reserved for the seventh day.
Nevertheless, it IS no coincidence that the word “good” (tob) occurs not SIX but seven times m the
creation account, corresponding to the day of holiness, the Sabbath day (2:1-3). Moreover, the
demarcation between “good” and “holy” lies on the boundary established by Days 3 and 6, both of
which have to do with the land and its life, including human life. That boundary, not coincidentally..

33 Reference to “thick darkness" m the temple, similar to the description of pre-creation m Gen 1:2, pre-
selves God’s transcendence heyond time and space.
34 This observation IS nothing new. Wat IS relatively new IS the temple nature of creation demonstrated
from the text’s own literary strachire. See s. Dean McBride Jr., “Divine Protocol: Genesis 1:12:3 as
Prologue to the Pentateuch," m God Who Create,·¡ Essays in Honor of w Sibley Towner, ed. William
p. Brown and s. Dean McBride, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 12-15.
2‫؛‬ See ‫؟‬. )enson¡. Graded Holiness Á Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, ySOTSuy \%
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); and, most recently, Michael B. Hundley, “Sacred Spaces, Objects,
Offerings, and People m the Priestly Texts: A Reappraisal," JBL 132 (2013): 749-67.
18 Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 70(1)

corresponds to the curtain or veil that separates the inner sanctuaiy, the most holy place or “holy of
holies,’’ from the outer sanctuary or nave, the “holy place.’’ The parallel between creation and tab-
ernacle/temple suggests that holiness IS not the exclusive reserve of the seventh day. What the
seventh day adds to creation’s integrity IS a measure of holiness to the entire structure.“ Just as the
tabernacle’s integrity, indeed its holiness, IS dependent on God’s holiness, made spatially manifest
m the “holy of holies,’’ so creation’s integrity (its “goodness’’) IS infused with a level of holiness
because of the holiest day. The broken symmetry introduced by the seventh day results m a holy
integrity for the entire structure.

Here lies the tension regarding creation’s “holiness’’: separation and contact. On the one hand,
holiness connotes separation, such as God’s separation from the created order, established on the
seventh day. On the other hand, holiness connotes a special relationship to God, specifically a
heightened sense of belongingness to God as it pertains to sacred objects and spaces, to those things
that are not m and of themselves holy but become holy m relationship to the divme.37 It IS this
second aspect of holiness that pertains to creation as a whole m Genesis 1 (cf. Ps 24:1). The first
aspect pertains exclusively to the seventh day of God’s rest and residence, while the second per-
tarns to all creation. Nevertheless, the boundary IS porous, for God’s pronouncement of “very
good’’ m Gen 1:31 (fob më’ôd), marking creation’s completion, facilitates the transition from
“good’’ to “holy,’’ which also marks creation’s completion. On the seventh day, holiness and whole-
ness are bound together.

In sum, the chronological layout of Genesis 1 reflects the spatial framework of the temple/tab-
ernacle. In the seven days of creation lies the threefold structure of sacred space. The Priestly
author, m other words, has an edifice complex, but not just any edifice. In God’s cosmic sanctuaiy,
time and space are wedded together. Einstein would be proud. Perhaps also Rachel Carson, for the
central message of Genesis IS that all creation, from every living thing created “according to its
kind’’ to the celestial spheres regulating the seasons, has a rightful place m God’s cosmic temple,
all belonging to God. In God’s cosmic temple, all life shares its habitation on Earth, and each form
of life, according to its kind, belongs to God. Creation IS a living temple, fiirmshed with life accord-
mg to its various kinds. In Genesis, NASA’s “blue marble’’ meets the Priest’s “green sanctuary.’’
Both are equally compelling images of an integrated, aesthetic, sacred whole.“

So what IS the “effect’’ of the overview of creation as God’s cosmic temple? I can only speak for
myself, but at a fundamental level an overview of Gen !:1-2:3 engenders an awe and respect for

36 Wy creation as a whole IS not explicitly called holy in Gen 1:1-2:3 IS simple: the seventh day was not
established until after creation was complete. Creation’s holy integrity can only he inferred from the
overview.
37 This double nature of holiness IS nicely summarized m Hundley, “Sacred Spaces," 752-53. This double
sense can also he found m Exod 19:5-6.
38 The connection between temple and creation IS not the exclusive purview of the Priestly account. See
particularly Isa 66:12b, m which the totality of creation (l.e., heaven and earth) IS cast as God’s cosmic
throne room, the inner sancftim (cf 1 Kgs 8:27).
Brown 19

creation’s sacred integrity. Perhaps such respect has no greater biblical warrant than here “m the
beginning” (and m the end, as we shall see). Respect for creation IS tantamount to reverence of
God, the Creator of all and holy inhabitant of creation. Creation IS God’s holy sanctuary; the
“depths of nature” are truly sacred.39

New Creation
With creation completed on the seventh day m Gen 2:1-3, the day of God’s rest, the completion
of the new creation IS found m God’s residence on earth m Revelation 21-22. John’s conclud-
mg vision of the new heaven and new earth IS established by the descent of the new Jemsalem
and God’s declaration of dwelling on earth (Rev 21:2-4). Glonous descent, rather than rapturous
ascent, IS the movement charted m this final vision (21:2). The apocalypse ultimately has to do with
God coming down to Earth to dwell, with God’s cosmic indwelling or “tabernacling.” This IS, as
Barbara Rossmg aptly calls it, “rapture m reverse”: God coming home to creat10n.4٥ The new crea-
tion marks God’s complete, fully immanent move toward creation.

And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out ofheaven from God, prepared as a
hride adorned for her hushand. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saymg, “See, the home
of God [hë skënë tou theou] IS among mortals. He will dwell [skënôseï] with them as their God;
they will he his peoples, and God himself will he with them. (21:24)

The language IS not without precedent. John’s vision of the consummation m Revelation builds
on the description of Christ’s incarnation m John’s Gospel: “The Word became flesh and made his
home [eskënôsen] among us” (John 1:14; cf. Col 1:19). Two different “Johns,” yes, but strikingly
comparable visions; one represents the culmination of the other. The apocalypse IS the final, cos-
mic event of God dwelling “among US.” John’s apocalyptic consummation IS the incarnation taken
to a new level, that of God’s cosmic indwelling. It IS the resurrection taken to a new level, that of
cosmic transformation. As the first fnut of the new creation, Christ’s resurrection leads to crea-
tion’s resurrection, the final fruits. Again, the voice from the throne says it all: “See, I am making
all things new” (Rev 21:5). The apocalypse, m the end, marks God’s resolve to renew, not destroy.,
to transform, not abandon.

John’s vision of the new creation marks nothing less than the convergence of heaven and earth,
making cosmic the temple, the holy conduit between heaven and earth. With the descent of the holy
city, heaven itself comes to rest upon the earth, a vivid description of convergence from the “top
down,” and as a result some things drop out: the sea, the sun, and the moon, all replaced by God’s
radiant, life-givmg, cosmic presence (21:22-23). The sea IS singled out because from John’s per-
spective it IS the domain of imperial chaos, the chaos of rebellion against God (e.g., 13:1), where
the monsters of Rome and Babylon reside. Thus, the “sea,” the empowering environment of

39 See Goodenough, Sacred Depth·¡ ofNature.

4Q Barbarai Bo‫؛‬n%, The Rapture Exposed The Message ofHope m the Book ofRevelation tytewAorV.
Westview, 2004), 141-58.
20 Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 70(1)

imperial hegemony, has no place m the new creation (21:1). The night, too, has no place m the new
creation, for God’s glory, whose light IS the Lamb, will provide unmternipted illumination (v. 23).

So also the temple: “I saw no temple m the city, for its temple IS the Lord God the Almighty and
the Lamb” (21:22). In the new creation, there IS no localized temple, for God’s holy, cosmically
expansive, wholly immanent presence renders any and every temple obsolete. At the completion of
the Jemsalem temple, Solomon asked, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and
the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built!” (1 Kgs 8:27). John
answers with a resounding “Yes!” For the entirety of creation, both heaven and earth, has been
God’s temple from the very beginning. The end mirrors the beginning, recalling the Priestly view
of creation as God’s cosmic sanctuary, and the beginning mirrors the end m God’s work of“makmg
new.” The result IS the holy habitation of the Most High... on Earth! The innermost sanctum IS no
longer innermost.

The overview from Genesis to Revelation discloses a trajectory that has all to do with creation,
renewal, and divine indwelling, with “top down” and “bottom up” activity, convergence and emer-
gence. In the beginning, God constmcted a cosmic temple, both good and holy. In the end, God
enters and rebuilds the cosmic sanctuary to dwell m it permanently. In the new creation, rest, resi-
dence, and renewal find their convergence. The timeless seventh day “m the beginning” portends
the consummation at the end of time, a Sabbath consummation m which creation is completed once
and for all, renewed and hallowed, fully indwelled and utterly upheld. The arc of the universe.
Scripture testifies, ultimately bends toward holy newness, toward sacred emergence and conver-
gence, and the “effect” of such an overview lies m the eye, and hands, of the beholder.
 ATLV

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, downioad, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by u.s. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.