Skip to main content

The Concept of Creation (1)

Text file

     As we have previously noted, belief in God stems from the perusal of the four tomes that we have before us: the soul, the world, history and the Torah.  The search for God in nature finds expression in the term "providence."  This quest involves an examination of the world, which can lend to several conclusions.  However, the heart of this approach is undoubtedly to be found in the wondrous order that we behold.  It cannot be accidental.  The order teaches us of the existence of an organizer.  This is the most elementary, simple proof; yet, at the same time it is the most powerful.  In the fashion of Rabbenu Bachye, in his work "Chovot Ha-levavot," we may ask whether, if a man throws letters randomly, these letters will form the encyclopedia.  Would we seat a line of monkeys before typewriters and expect them to accidentally type out the telephone directory?  The order bears witness to the organizer.  It reveals the existence of God.

 

     We will now attempt to summarize the theory of creation in Jewish thought.  This summary will demonstrate that the concept of creation contains at least four elements: generation, "yesh me-ayin" [creatio ex nihilo, the creation of something from nothing], dependence, and will.

 

Generation

 

     In order to understand the concept of generation, I invite the reader to join me in a simple mental exercise.  Let us assume that we are traveling back in time in a time machine, passing through human history as though we were rewinding a film.  What will happen?  Let us imagine that we are passing through the history of the earth even before the appearance of mankind.  Will the rewound film ever reach its beginning, or will the rewinding process never end?  We do not know the answer; we must guess.  Conceivably, if we were to ask our wise and sophisticated friends we would hear three opinions that describe three potential scenarios.  In this lecture we will discuss the first two opinions.  The third opinion, cyclical history, will be addressed at a later stage.

 

A: Generation:

 

     This approach claims that in rewinding every film we will reach a point where we must stop.

 

B: Eternal existence:

     This is the second possibility, which claims that the film is endless and if we stop rewinding and glimpse at it we will always see the same theme: people, animals, civilizations, cultures, just as we find them today.  This is the "orthodox" Aristotelian approach.

 

     In our day any attempt to recreate the intellectual significance of the claim of eternal existence faces enormous difficulties.  Although, as we shall see later on, other positions were prevalent, this theory was dominant in its day.  In its most consistent form, the theory of eternal existence claimed that humanity always existed.  The world has followed the same course forever.  Those philosophers loyal to the Torah battled this approach.  Some even believed this issue to be paramount in any discussion of the world's origins.  Surprisingly, in today's intellectual atmosphere the scriptural approach, which claims that both the world and mankind had a beginning, has generally been accepted.  The world is not eternal.  The findings of archeology and geology constitute a crushing disproof of Aristotelian doctrines.  These disciplines would have confounded not the Torah faithful but the strict Aristotelians, since, ironically, modern science has made use of their methods in order to conclude that man is created, meaning that he did not eternally exist.  Although the big bang theory does not agree with our traditional computation of the world's age, it does teach us once again that there was a beginning.  The claim that the world had a beginning, returns us to the enigma of creation and the creator.  Thus, after almost a thousand years of winding roads full of twists and detours, arguments and theories, we have returned to the basic scriptural thesis regarding the world's origins.  Although Rihal's picture of the world's beginnings may not be completely acceptable to us, were we to transpose that picture from one world onto another, we would find his central concept appearing, this time, as a proven scientific theory.

 

     Jewish philosophers of the Middle Ages attempted to prove the theory of generation.  We will attempt to explain the approach of medieval philosopher Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon, known by his acronym, Rasag, which agrees with the approach brought by Rihal in the fifth section [5:18].  The central thesis is based on the principle that endless time is a logical impossibility.  It is an absurdity.  We will attempt to illustrate Rasag's proof with a parable, which is a variation on one of his major themes.

 

     Imagine two planets, A and B, separated by the distance that we will call x.  What is the value of x?  We cannot be sure.  We only know that if we were to send a mail rocket from planet A towards planet B it would never reach its destination, no matter how great its speed.  Can the inhabitants of planet B send a rocket to planet A that will reach its target?  Obviously, if both rockets were to travel at the same speed, their fate would be identical.  However, on second thought, even were we to increase the speed of the rocket leaving point B over and over, it would not reach planet A.  If I cannot get from point A to point B, then the opposite possibility is equally remote.  This is the meaning of infinite distance.

 

     Now, we will discuss the interpretation of the parable.  Let us conjure up a time machine and return with it back in time.  Of course, if the world has existed forever, we will never reach the starting point.  However, if this is how matters stand, how did the world reach us?  How did it travel across infinite distance?  How is it possible that an infinite process that already concluded has taken place?  For, in order for us to exist in the present, in a world which has existed forever, infinite time has passed, and an infinite number of changes must have occurred.  If so, how has the world reached this point in time?

 

     In his commentary on the Book of Creation, Rasag built a alternative model.  Let us assume that Reuven, who has never entered Shimon's house, swears that he will not enter Shimon's house unless he has previously entered Shimon's house.  Reuven can only enter Shimon's house if he has fulfilled the condition.  However, the condition is entrance to Shimon's house, which compels him to perform the condition once again ... and so on into infinity.  The conclusion: an action which requires the fulfillment of an infinite number of conditions such as these can never take place, because the fulfillment of the conditions can never begin.  Time, according to the theory of eternal existence, constitutes a bizarre chain such as this.

 

     This is the initial difficulty inherent in the theory of eternal existence which was discussed by the medieval sages.  The theory compels us to accept an odd concept: infinity which has  materialized and passed.  This proof stood at the center of a fierce argument during the Middle Ages between those who accepted it, such as Gersonides, and those who negated it, such as the Rambam.  The proof is based on the distinction between active and potential infinity.  To explain this, let us imagine a balloon being blown up.  Let us assume that we have a balloon made of a unique elastic material which self-inflates, and its diameter increases by one centimeter per minute, without any danger of popping.  This is not irrational.  This is potential infinity.  On the other hand, if we were to imagine a balloon that had been inflated since the world had come into existence, we will face a very peculiar result; a balloon whose diameter is infinite.  The theory of the big bang sees the world as such a balloon, and therefore scientists felt certain that the world was "created" such and such years ago.

 

     Is this proof valid?  We will leave the decision to the reader.  Some sages were willing to make peace with the perplexity and live with the paradox.  The Rambam was unconvinced by this argument.  He spoke of an "accidental infinity" which didn't cause any such philosophical difficulties.  However, it is hard to understand why he was willing to sanction such an "infinity."  This is the focal point of Gersonides' criticism.  He thought that the proofs for the existence of God were much stronger than the proofs for creation.  Therefore, he felt that the construction of a system of faith upon the concept of creation was a mistake, just as it is a mistake in chess to endanger a queen in order to defend a rook.  Creation is a fact; however, the logical proofs that we discussed previously are problematic, and must therefore be discussed separately.  Whatever one's opinion about the age and origin of the world, the existence of God is not in doubt.  It is not dependent upon the system of considerations that guide one's decision regarding creation.

 

     If someone were to tell me that he cannot be convinced of the fact of the creation of the world, or that he cannot prove it with his intellect, I would accept his statement.  He would have proven once again that the intellect is not omnipotent.  I would accept his statement; however, I would demand honesty of him, the honesty to proclaim that anything he will consequently profess is a statement of faith.  If the intellect were to stubbornly insist that it has a complete monopoly on reality and can solve any riddle, given the time, I would be less tolerant.  Then, I would insist that the very concept of infinite time THAT HAS ALREADY PASSED is absurd.

 

     The question of infinity is one of the most important focal points of human thought, and is deeply and significantly connected to basic theological questions in general.  It is possible to view the span of philosophy according to each generation's approach to the concept of infinity.  In some generations the negation of infinity was absolute.  They could not accept the existence of infinity, even with regard to God.  Contrasting approaches saw in infinity the ultimate divine trait.  The Kabbala, for example, uses the term "ein-sof" [infinity] in this manner.  Jewish philosophers tended not to use the term ein-sof; they  preferred the phrase, "bilti ba'al takhlit" [without end].

 

     The Ancients believed in a finite world.  Aristotle posited that our world was finite in terms of space, yet infinite in terms of time.  Gersonides demonstrated that Aristotle's position placed him in a logical bind.  How may we accept the claim that the world is infinite in terms of time while remaining finite in terms of space?!  This is not a logical approach, claims Gersonides, since any statement that is appropriate for space is equally appropriate for time.  Aristotle was imprisoned in his conception of an eternal, yet finite, world.  Rabbi Chasdai Crescas broke through the boundaries of Aristotle's claim, and ushered in the picture of the world that was later to be developed by Newton.  Einstein restored the concept of a finite world, which is nonetheless limitless.  We continue to oscillate between the two theories.

 

     The question of creation leaves us, of course, with a conundrum: "and what came before this?"  However, this question loses significance if we assume that the world and the concept of time were created simultaneously.  Rabbi Eliyahu, the Gaon of Vilna, and Rabbi Ovadia Mi-sforno before him, explain that the term "Be-reshit" ["in the beginning"] rather than the term "Ba-rishona" ["at the start"] is used in Genesis because "Ba-rishona" denotes a relative beginning whereas the term "Be-reshit" indicates that time itself was created, that prior to this "beginning" absolutely nothing existed.  The world exists in time, yet for God the concept of time is meaningless.  A thousand years are the same as yesterday, future is past; God exists beyond the fetters of time.  This fact will have important ramifications in the realm of foreknowledge and free choice, which we will discuss later.

 

"Yesh Me-ayin:"  Something from Nothing

 

     We have spoken until this point of one of the dimensions of the theory of creation, that of time, or generation.  In order to understand the issue of creation we must discuss another dimension, which, although connected to the theory of generation, is not identical to it.  The conflict surrounding this issue has been explicitly raised in the writings of our sages.  In Bereshit Rabba (parasha 1) we read of a debate with a philosopher of that period:

 

     'A philosopher questioned Rabban Gamliel.  He said to      him, your God was a great artist but he had good   materials to help him; [Rabban Gamliel] said, where?    [lit. what were they?]  He answered, "matter and form and      darkness and water and wind and chasms" (Genesis, 1:2).    [Rabban Gamliel] said to him, may the spirit of this man     depart!  [For] is it not written that [these things] were     created?  [Regarding] matter and form and darkness and    water [it says]"and creator of evil" (Isaiah 45:7);      [Regarding] darkness,"maker of light and creator of darkness"; water, "Praise Him, heavenly skies and      water..." (Psalms 148:4)  Why?  Because "He decreed and      they were created" (ibid., verse 8); wind, "behold [He      is] the maker of mountains and the creator of wind" (Amos 4:13); chasms, "[When] no chasms [existed] I came into    existence" (Mishlei 8:24).

 

     The same anonymous philosopher vividly expressed the position that believes in a creation that made use of preexisting materials (known in Jewish philosophical terms as "yesh me-yesh," literally, something from something), a position that was identified in the Middle Ages with the Platonic school.  And, indeed, the problem can be defined in strict philosophical terms.  However, I prefer to view the problem from a different angle.  Let us look at the ancient cultures and ask ourselves a question that touches not on the concepts themselves but rather on the language used to express these ideas: how did different people speak about creation?  What models were used to understand this concept?

 

     I  have found three basic models which have been utilized to express the concept of creation:

1.  In various idolatrous cultures, such as the Far East, we find the model of birth.  The god or goddess give birth to the world, with pregnancy and labor.  This is a primitive position; however, this model expresses an approach which achieves its ultimate, sophisticated and subtle form in the philosophical concept of emanation, as well as in the Pantheistic approaches.

2.  The model of the artisan.  This model finds a more sophisticated expression in the words of that philosopher who argued with Rabban Gamliel, which we mentioned earlier.  Creation is likened to the work of an artist who uses colors and natural extracts in order to paint, or to a potter who uses raw materials to create his pottery.  Thus, God, in the philosopher's view, created the world from the elements that were at his disposal.  This is the doctrine of the hylic inchoate or ageless) matter which formed the basis of Greek thought.

3.  In contrast with these two models we find in Scripture a different model, the model of speech.  It finds expression in prayer and blessings, such as the blessing over food, "Blessed are You, our God ... who created everything with His utterance."  God created the world, without strain or effort and without pre-existing materials, with utterances, through speech.  This is the fundamental expression of the doctrine of creation.

 

     The blessing, "who created everything with His utterance," constitutes a Jewish philosophical declaration, which conflicts with the other positions.  It gives voice to the approach that would eventually clash sharply with Greek thought, which made a clear and marked distinction between matter and form; between that which rules in the lower world, the matter, and what in their view was typical of the upper world which contains the angels and God: the form.  The idea that the lower world could stem from the upper world seemed logically absurd to the Greeks, although they were willing to accept the assumption that the upper and lower worlds interrelate and affect one another.

 

     The conflict with the doctrine of pre-existing matter can be described as a chapter in the history of an ongoing conflict.  The first act describes the conflict with classical idolatry, which reached a system of many gods from observing the manifold phenomena of nature, and claimed: the source of light cannot be the source of darkness, nor can the ruler of earth be the ruler of heaven.  The second act can be seen as the conflict with the religion of Persia.  Persia's many gods represented not the physical properties of the world but rather its ethics.  The prophet Isaiah's words, "producer of light and creator of darkness, maker of peace and creator of evil," express the protest of the belief in divine unity against those who claimed that the existence of good and evil in the world necessitate the existence of two divine powers.  In the Middle Ages we find the third act in the biography of this idea.  This time, the gap between the two powers surrounds the metaphysical distinction between matter and form.  Matter is perceived by the body and the senses while form is perceived only by the intellect.  These are two separate worlds.  Rabbi Chasdai Crescas was the first to note that this distinction stems from an inability to perceive the unity which hides behind numbers.  He demonstrated that the position that believes in preexisting matter in essence assumes the existence of two parallel gods: God, and the inchoate matter.

 

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!