Seven Reasons Genesis 1 is Not a Material Story

As iconic opening statements go, Genesis’ “In the beginning,” is up there with “Once upon a time” and “A long time ago.”

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

— Genesis 1:1

Not only is this first verse simple and understated, it’s also brilliantly profound. This is an origin story but not of the God who does the creating. This God has no beginning and needs no introduction.

Verse 1 then informs us that what immediately follows is going to explain the origins of our world. It’s one of twelve such verses spread throughout the book of Genesis that act as single-verse summaries of what follows.

The problem is, we make a dangerous assumption at this point. We assume we’re going to be reading a material origin story. We don’t even consider there could be another way to read it.

Since the dawn of modern science nearly 500 years ago, people have sought to discover the material building blocks of our universe. Everyone born into this worldview—including you and I—inherits an understanding of creation as a process that gives material properties to something.

And the thing is, reading the ancient origin story found in Genesis as a modern material narrative is an awful fit. Not only does it fail to make sense of the text, it leaves important aspects of our faith optional, while also putting the Church at odds with a scientific community that’s been warning us about climate change for almost five decades.

God and the material

In a moment, I’ll reveal seven reasons a material reading of Genesis 1 doesn’t fit the text. But, before I do so, I want to state that I believe God created the physical world. To affirm this belief, however, I don’t need to quote from Genesis 1 because other verses in Scripture proclaim God to be the creator of everything physical.

For example, in Nehemiah and Colossians.

And Ezra said: “You are the LORD, you alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. To all of them you give life, and the host of heaven worships you.”

— Nehemiah 9:6 NRSV

For everything was created by him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him.

— Colossians 1:16 CSB

So, while I appreciate the premise of this first chapter of Creation and A Nonviolent God may concern you, the existence of these other verses saying God did it! means it isn’t essential for Genesis to narrate a material origin.

Accepting how Genesis 1 may tell a different kind of creation story will not risk or diminish your faith in God as creator, but it may make your faith fuller and wider and more expansive than it’s ever been before.

And who knows? After reading the following seven reasons, perhaps you’ll even agree with me that a different story is definitely being told in Genesis 1.

1. The existence of pre-creation material

The first clue that Genesis 1 doesn’t tell the material story we’re expecting appears in the second verse.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

— Genesis 1:2 NIV (emphasis mine)

What’s the earth doing there?
Where have the deep waters come from?

If this story is about the birth of the material universe, then why do material things already exist? It makes absolutely no sense. Surely, a material story would begin with nothing because that’s the opposite of something. Even science’s Big Bang Theory gets that right.

Before the first day of creation has even begun, the author of Genesis is telling us that both the earth and the deep waters are physically real already.

Excuse the pun, but what on earth is going on?

2. Light is not called "light"

When the first day begins, it continues to defy our expectation.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

— Genesis 1:3-5 NIV

We all know that most of our universe’s visible light comes from stars like our sun. However, these do not appear until day four. So, in day one, the light being talked about has no physical source.

If we try to view light itself as a material object, we run into issues. In simple terms, light is energy. In more precise language, light is electromagnetic radiation that we can detect using the human eye. Other forms of electromagnetic radiation are radio waves, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma-rays. All of which are invisible to our eyes.

Nothing material is being created on day one.

When God names the newly created light “day” rather than “light,” we really should have realised that another story is being narrated.

3. The "vault" God creates is not physically real

On the second day, God creates something material, but there’s a slight hitch... It’s not physically real.

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

— Genesis 1:6-8 NIV

The Hebrew word used here for “vault,” in its normal context, means “a solid dome.” Ancient people believed the sky was solid in order to support the residences of the gods and hold back an ocean of water. How else do you explain rainfall if there wasn’t an ocean up there?

If we insist on reading this as a material event, we have God creating a structure that isn’t real to support a sky that isn’t solid in order to make a home for an ocean above that isn’t really there.

Anyone else beginning to wonder what’s going on?

4. God makes nothing on day three

When we move on to the third day, things don’t improve for a material understanding of creation.

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed- bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning— the third day.

— Genesis 1:9-13 NIV

A material story would have God creating a new material thing each day. Yet for the second time in the first three days of creation, he makes nothing.

In the first part of day three, God doesn’t create the dry ground, he simply moves aside the pre-existing water (from v.2) to gather it together, which reveals the pre-existing earth (also from v.2) underneath. He then names this dry earth as “land.”

In the second half of the day, we’re told this land (and not God) produces vegetation. Again, this makes no sense. Why would a material creator not take credit for 82% of all biomass on Earth?

5. Ancient people saw celestial bodies as lights

On day four, God says, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky” (1:14 NIV). If you remember, “vault” means “a solid dome.” So, this verse is saying that God puts lights on the underside of a solid dome which holds up an ocean of water.

We can work out from the context that day four is talking about the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. However, as the text shows, ancient people didn’t understand what these were. They were completely unaware of how the sun is a ball of hot plasma and the moon a giant rock that reflects sunlight. They thought they were just lights and didn’t have a clue that they were physical bodies in outer space.

How can they be describing the material origins of something they didn’t even realise was material?

This ancient creation story had to make sense to the people telling it or it would have not affected their lives or worship.

6. God creates humans in his image

If we limit ourselves to just Genesis 1, then there is no physical creation of human beings in this origin story. Instead, the author tells us that on day six, God says, "Let us make mankind in our image" (Gen 1:26 NIV). Each mention of humankind’s creation explicitly links it with God’s image.

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

— Genesis 1:27 NIV

Now, none of us believe God looks like us with our bipedal legs, opposable thumbs, and mop of head hair. We actively oppose this way of thinking. We believe that our physical composition and appearance have nothing to do with the image of God.

Which is ironic, given how a physical depiction of God’s image would be the most logical conclusion to make in a purely material creation story.

We instinctively know something else is being meant here, yet we don’t follow that thought throughout the rest of the story.

7. The Hebrew verbs don't depict a material action

We naturally read the English verbs "created" or "made" as material events. If the authors of the Hebrew Scriptures saw things the same way, we would expect them to use Hebrew verbs that consistently depicted a material action, too.

In Genesis 1, the Hebrew verb we translate into "created" is bārā, while the word we translate into "made" or "make" is āśâ.

Let’s start with the very common āśâ. Āśâ is a generic action word that is used 2,627 times in the Old Testament (including 5 times in Genesis 1) and translated into nearly 400 different words in the NIV!

We translate āśâ into words such as "do," (as well as "did," "done," "doing," and "does"), and as "follow," "prepare," "celebrate," "deal," "obey," "show," "carry out," "act," "sacrifice," "committed," "provide," "keep," "gave," "observe," and "accomplish."

As you can see, the Bible’s authors predominantly associate āśâ with doing or completing an action. Therefore, āśâ’s primary usage is about making something happen rather than making something material.

In contrast, bārā is far less common and only used within a context where God's activity is being narrated. It appears 50 times in the Old Testament, including 5 times in the first chapter of Genesis.

Again, our assumptions go unmet. In each case, the thing being created—the cosmos, people, groups, individuals, phenomena, or geography—is not being objectified.

Take, for example, how God “created (bārā) the north and south” (Ps. 89:12 NIV), or is “creating (bārā) praise” on the lips of mourners (Isa. 57:19 NIV), or he’s being called “Israel’s Creator (bārā)” (Isa. 43:15 NIV). None of these are material actions.

The verbs we think promote a material creation in English appear to promote the opposite understanding in the original Hebrew.

Genesis 1 is not a material origin story

For some of you, it will feel as if the Genesis you grew up with is under threat. You may even consider it essential to your beliefs to declare God as the material creator using Genesis 1. To therefore have me challenge that troubles you. However, I want to reiterate that I’m not challenging whether God is the material creator, but whether Genesis 1 tells a material story. Because other Bible verses attest to how God is the material creator, we can allow Genesis 1 to tell a non-material story if it fits better.

For others of you, my seven observations will feel like a strange relief. Perhaps you’ve noticed some of these issues before and are yet to receive satisfactory answers about how they fit into a material story. Maybe you feel exhausted by having to park your intellectual honesty next to your car each time you step into a church because of how our material reading of Genesis 1 pits faith against science. If we’ve been misreading Genesis, then that sounds like a balm for your weary soul.

The best way we can respond to this realisation is not to double-down on a material story by explaining away these blatant discrepancies, but to ask if there’s another kind of origin story it’s trying to tell.

Spoiler alert: there is.