AND GOD SAID, "LET THERE BE LIGHT"

There is considerable debate over the creation of light and the heavenly bodies as recorded in the book of Genesis. We find that God created light on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:3-5). But it wasn't until day four that He created the heavenly bodies (Genesis 1:14-18). Many questions can be asked about the relationship of these two passages. For instance, what was the source of the light created on day one? Was the sun created on day one or day four? Is it possible that the light from the sun, moon, planets, and stars was `put into its place' on day one and then on day four the bodies which serve as the sources for this light were put into their places? And there are no doubt many other legitimate questions which can be asked.

As we examine the record of the creation we find that, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) I have heard some express the idea that this is a very brief synopsis of the creation as a whole which is then elaborated on in the remainder of the chapter. I do not share this view. It appears to me that God begins with the creation process here in verse one and continues it without interruption through the rest of this chapter.

Many of our forefathers are now chided for their egocentric attitudes concerning the importance of the earth in the universe. Until the time of Galileo it was almost universally accepted that the earth was at the center of the universe which God had created. It stood to reason, they argued, that God would certainly put His greatest achievement in creation, mankind, at the very center of the universe. This view was prevalent but there were those, including Greeks as early as the third century B.C., who did not agree with it. Modern astronomy has now shown this whole idea to be completely baseless. The earth orbits a very ordinary star, which lies more than half way from the center of a very ordinary spiral galaxy, which is the second largest member of the relatively unimpressive, Local Group of galaxies. Not only are we not at the center of the universe, we don't even have a clue as to where the center might be!

While the earth might not be at the center of the universe, I believe it is at the center of the creation. The earth was the first and most important of the heavenly bodies God created. His main goal all along was to create man, and everything else in the universe simply serves as a backdrop for our existence. And if man was the focus of the creation it would seem logical that God would begin by creating a place for man to dwell. This is why the earth was the first thing created and was indeed the focal point of creation throughout the process. The physical position of the earth in the universe is meaningless, it is its importance which really matters.

The first step of the creation was the forming of the earth as verse one tells us. Then in verse two we find the condition in which the earth was created. "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Genesis 1:2) The earth was featureless, there were no continents or land masses of any kind, nor were there any mountains to break through the water's surface. The entire globe was covered with an unbroken sea. We also see something else which is very important, darkness ruled the earth. This means that when the earth was created no luminous bodies were simultaneously created. It would not preclude the creation of nonluminous bodies such as the moon or the planets, but I see no reason to believe they were created at the same time the earth was.

Finally, at some point on day one, after the earth had been created, "God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Genesis 1:3) The question is though, what was the source of this light? Was it the sun? I don't believe so, because the creation of the sun is mentioned on day four. Then what could it have been? Could it have been that this light was the light from the sun, moon, planets, and stars even though these bodies did not yet exist? Certainly if God has the power to create these bodies from nothing He also has the power to create light which has no apparent source. When Saul had a light from heaven shine round about him (Acts 9) did God have to create a heavenly body to generate this light? Of course not. But just because God could have done things this way, it does not mean that He did. And in fact I do not believe this was what happened at all.

In verse four we find that, "God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." (Genesis 1:4). My interpretation of this is that the earth was dark and God decided to `shed a little light on the subject.' After He turned the lights on He liked what He saw. Then He "divided the light from the darkness." I gather from this that when He initially turned the lights on He lit up the entire earth. Then He decided that there should be both darkness and light and He divided the two. Presumably doing this by allowing light to fall on one side of the earth and causing the earth to rotate. The first day concluded with God establishing day and night as the names of the light and darkness respectively (verse 5).

The second day does not seem to shed any `light' on our discussion. God created the firmament, or atmosphere, and divided the waters so that some were above and some were below the firmament (verses 6-8).

On day three God created the dry land (verses 9 & 10). Then the first life was created when God populated the dry land with vegetation (verses 11 & 12). We now see why it was necessary to have light on the earth by this time. The vegetation requires light to survive, therefore the origin of light had to precede day three.

The fourth day is of primary interest to us. "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:14-18)

On day one God had created light and divided the light and darkness. There the source of the light was unnamed. Here on the fourth day we find that God creates Heavenly bodies to "divide the day from the night." This indicates to me that there is to be a difference here from the light which has ruled since day one. I believe these lights were meant to replace the temporary light `source' which was originally used. It is also interesting to note that on day one there was light, now on day four there are lightS. This indicates a single source on day one and multiple sources on day four. At the least, this tells us that the light from the moon and stars was not falling on the earth until day four. It is, however, still possible that the light from the sun, which had yet to be created, was falling on the earth from day one.

It seems quite clear to me that ALL of the heavenly bodies, except the earth, were created on the fourth day. From the detailed description given in this passage it appears that prior to this time there had been only ONE light but now there were many and they could be used to determine "signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." If these lights had been put in place on the first day then why wasn't their function mentioned there? I believe the answer is quite clear, there was initially only one light. But now there is a permanent light to rule the day, the sun, and a permanent light to rule the night, the moon.

If we were to accept the notion that God put the light from all heavenly bodies in place on day one and only made the bodies themselves on day four, there is a question I am unable to answer. Why would God put the light in place without the bodies which generate the light, and then go back later and create the bodies? It is not a question of whether God could have done this, because He certainly could. The question is why He would do something which to me is illogical and meaningless. And God never does anything without a purpose behind it. The logical course of action would be to create the bodies and the light simultaneously.

However, could we not also raise a similar objection to the sequence of events as I have proposed them? Why would God create a temporary `source' of light, only to replace it three days later, instead of creating from the start the sources and their light which He intended to be permanent? I believe there is a logical reason for this. The earth is the center of the creation and He wanted to make that point clear. Had He created all of the heavenly bodies on the same day He created the earth then what real preeminence could we argue for on behalf of the earth? By proceeding in the order He did He showed not only that the earth is the central focus of the creation but also that the earth can exist without the rest of the universe, and even support life without the rest of the universe.

This also brings about a powerful argument against the existence of extraterrestrial life. Now no one can argue that God simultaneously created life on many planets scattered across the universe. Since the earth was the only body which existed when life began we can prove conclusively that life was created here first. It does not prove without a shadow of a doubt that God did not also create life elsewhere at a later time, but this seems very unlikely. We can know that God's overall purpose for the creation was not merely to create life on many different worlds; His purpose was to create life on the earth. And, at the least, all of this does show the preeminence of the earth above all other planets. It would be very difficult for anyone to now refute the central importance of the earth in the creation.

Thus, I think there was quite a compelling reason for God to delay the creation of the other heavenly bodies until after He had created life. I realize this does not exclude at least the possibility that God did put the light from all the host of the heavenly bodies in place on day one, but again I must ask for what purpose? The earth was completely alone in the universe, you could even say it was the universe, until day four when the entire universe as we know it, saving for the earth, was created.

Was there really a reason for the light of stars to be reaching the earth on day one? Who or what was here to see it? What purpose would it serve? Would God not wait until day four when He knew He was going to create the heavenly bodies to also create their light? I believe the only reason light was created on day one anyway, is because it is so fundamental in nature. It is actually more fundamental than matter itself.

The first need for light was on day three when the vegetation was created. But all that plants require is a source of light which will allow them to undergo photosynthesis. The existence, or lack thereof, of the heavenly bodies was immaterial. The heavenly bodies were created on day four because their presence would be required on day five. It was on day five that God created all the sea creatures and the fowls of the air. Without the presence of the heavenly bodies, or at least the sun and moon, there would be no tides. And to certain sea creatures which live near the shore the tides are necessary for their survival. And it is well known that the position of the moon has an effect on most if not all living creatures. Periods of greater activity and lethargy can be correlated with the movement of the moon. This would have been important on day five and on day six when the remainder of the animals were created.

It seems very logical to me based on all of this that God created only a single ‘source’ of light on day one. Then on day four He ‘turned off’' this light and created all the heavenly bodies. I can conceive of no other possibility which I find to be acceptable in the face of what Genesis chapter one says and what logic would tend to indicate.