Ancient Theologians weigh in on Genesis: Basil’s reflections on creation (part 6)

This post is part of a series looking at Basil’s views on the creation account in Genesis. If you have not already read it, I recommend starting with part 1.

In prior posts we have seen how Basil understood the waters of creation. In this concluding post we will once more touch on these concepts as we look at how Basil understood the firmament itself.

The earth was created underwater


During his homily Basil explores why the earth was “invisible and without form”. The use of the term “invisible” instead of “empty” may indicate that Basil is using the LXX (ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος) instead of the Hebrew text. While it could be debated whether the Hebrew term encompasses the idea of being invisible or just that the earth was barren prior to the rest of creation, Basil is working off of that text and translation.

As nothing of all this [growth of all kinds of plants] yet existed, Scripture is right in calling the earth without form.

The formless earth was also invisible because it was submerged under a large body of water.

The earth was invisible … because being submerged under the waters which over-flowed the surface, it could not be seen, since the waters had not yet been gathered together into their own places, where God afterwards collected them, and gave them the name of seas.

… The earth was invisible. Why? Because the deep was spread over its surface. What is the deep? A mass of water of extreme depth. But we know that we can see many bodies through clear and transparent water. How then was it that no part of the earth appeared through the water? Because the air which surrounded it was still without light and in darkness. The rays of the sun, penetrating the water, often allow us to see the pebbles which form the bed of the river, but in a dark night it is impossible for our glance to penetrate under the water. Thus, these words the earth was invisible are explained by those that follow; the deep covered it and itself was in darkness.


 Let us understand that by water water is meant;

Basil (Homily III)

What is the firmament?

As Basil tackles the creation of the firmament (or expanse) which separates the waters, he notes that this entity is also called “heaven”. He reflects on the opening passage where it states that God created “the heavens and the earth” and asks “does the firmament that is called heaven differ from that [which] God made in the beginning?”

Basil acknowledges that within the church there are differing opinions.

Continue reading

Ancient Theologians weigh in on Genesis: Basil’s reflections on creation (part 3)

This post is part of a series looking at Basil’s views on the creation account in Genesis. If you have not already read it, I recommend starting with part 1.

The Genesis account according to Basil

To explore this idea of fitting the creation account into the prevailing view of the universe a bit further we will use Basil’s Hexaemeron (The Six Days) as a case study. We introduced Basil in a prior post, but as a quick reminder he was a bishop during the late fourth century. “The Six Days” is a series of homilies written about the Genesis creation account. In the first two posts in this series we learned that Basil rejected allegorical interpretations, instead approaching the creation account as a historical narrative of the events. Through each homily he unpacks each day in the creation account and compares it to the prevailing cosmology of his day. His cosmology is of course rooted in the philosophical and scientific (or pre-scientific if you prefer) ideas that were prevalent during the fourth century. At times he will refute some of the ideas philosopher/scientists offer but throughout much of the work Basil interprets the creation account in line with those theories. Although a fourth century cosmology was much closer to what Moses and the Israelites might have understood about the universe, Basil’s ideas differ from both the ANE myths and modern scientific models.

What we will find is that Basil was generally able to take the cosmology of the fourth century and read that into the creation account. With the benefit of living more than 1600 years later and having the advantage of understanding the universe in much greater detail, especially with the advancements in science over the last 400 years, we can clearly see that some of Basil’s proposals, being rooted in a flawed cosmology, are incorrect. With his failed attempts before us it should help us reconsider how we approach the creation account today. We must ask ourselves, are we not in danger of doing the same thing? Further, if Basil could see the science of his day in the account and was clearly wrong, what makes us think we can do better? We have already seen our own modern failed attempts in the water vapor canopy and gap theories. Lest we are too critical of Basil and his interpretations, his intentions were noble as he sought to help his listeners more fully appreciate the Creator.

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that everywhere, wherever you may be, the least plant may bring to you the clear remembrance of the Creator.

Basil (Homily 5)

What would a fourth century cosmology look like?

If Basil’s understanding of the universe was rooted in fourth century cosmology we would need to ask ourselves what that entails. The primary understanding of the universe during Basil’s time would have been governed by the Ptolemaic system. Built upon Aristotle and others, this system was proposed around 150 AD and benefited from being able to explain the erratic orbits of the celestial bodies around the earth. It prevailed until the late 16th and early 17th centuries when Kepler, building off Copernicus and Brahe, worked out a heliocentric model.

Continue reading

Ancient Theologians weigh in on Genesis: Basil’s reflections on creation (part 2)

This post is part of a series looking at Basil’s views on the creation account in Genesis. If you have not already read it, I recommend starting with part 1.

Throughout history there have been attempts to reconcile the Genesis creation account with the theories of science and what is understood about the universe. Answers in Genesis (link) asserts that the creation account is historical and “gives us our only eyewitness testimony of the first events of the universe”. In advocating that view, they are constantly updating explanations describing how modern understandings of the universe fit with the events and entities in Genesis. However, many challenges arise when we approach the creation account as an accurate scientific description of the events that occurred “in the beginning”. Further complicating things, the interpretation of what an entity in the creation account aligns to in a modern cosmological model could mean that the original audience and people in prior ages had no ability to understand what Genesis was saying.

Consider the water vapor canopy model and the gap theory, two modern attempts to reconcile what is known about the universe with the creation account.

The Water Vapor Canopy Theory

“Sea Sawdust” in the Southwest Pacific Ocean (

When the description of the expanse and the waters it separates is taken as a literal and accurate description of the universe it becomes very hard to correlate these entities to modern constructs. We have to account for three entitles: the expanse and both the waters above and below.

A largely discredited modern view known as the water vapor canopy model tackled identifying these three entities. This theory suggested that the waters above the expanse surrounded the earth’s atmosphere and provided the immense water needed for the flood. It also postulates that this canopy explains long human life spans and other pre-flood characteristics of the world.

A half-century ago, most recent creationists subscribed to the canopy model, the belief that the expanse is the earth’s atmosphere with the waters above being in a sort of canopy over the atmosphere. The canopy model hypothesized that the water canopy collapsed at the time of the flood. …While some creationists still support the canopy model, most creation scientists do not

– AiG (What were the Waters on Day 2)

Basil also understood the “waters above” to be actual water. However, this was not a water vapor canopy, but the source of all rain upon the earth.

Continue reading