I want to quote Dr. William Lane Craig’s article on Mormonism and creation from nothing. I think this is a major biblical problem with Mormonism:

The traditional Christian doctrine maintains that God is the ultimate Originator of the material universe and all other reality. [10] For instance, the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 formally declared: “We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God . . . creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal; who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing [de nihilo condidit] both spiritual and corporeal creatures.” There are two main features to the doctrine of creation out of nothing:

(1) all things are ontologically dependent upon God for their very being

(2) the universe and all other reality apart from God began and have not always existed. [11]

Now O. Kendall White, Jr., asserts that the “typical” Mormon criticism of ex nihilo creation as absurd misses the point of ex nihilo creation, which is that everything that exists is totally dependent upon God for its being. [12] It is undeniable that some Christian theologians [13] believe creation is nothing more than ontological dependence (i.e., God’s providential sustenance of all existing things, preventing them from lapsing into nonbeing); these thinkers see temporal origination as irrelevant – or nearly so. [14] We shall argue, though, that this view of creation does not capture the thrust of this key Christian doctrine, which declares that God is distinct from all other reality, which he not only sustains but also has brought into being a finite time ago.

Augustine captures the Christian doctrine nicely when he argues that since God alone is Being, he willed to exist what formerly did not exist or had no being. God is not a mere shaper of formless and eternal primordial matter. He adds, “You did not work as a human craftsman does, making one thing out of something else as his mind directs. . . . Your Word alone created [heaven and earth].” [15] For Christians, creation ex nihilo more properly refers to the temporal origination and ontological dependence of the material world on God’s decree. [16]

Now according to B.H. Roberts, “there is nothing in the word [create] itself . . . that demands any such interpretation [i.e., an ex nihilo one] of its use in Holy Scripture.” [17] And again, “there is nothing in the word ‘create’ itself that requires its interpretation to mean ‘create out of nothing.'” [18]

Now it would certainly be unwise to consider the particular word bârâ’ and the Greek word for “create” (ktizô) by themselves as the entire basis for making a case for creation out of nothing since there is more to meaning than that of words alone. (Think of the multiple ways in which the word “run” can be understood: a run in a stocking, a run for the presidency, a run for a medal, etc.). Words by themselves are insufficient to determine meaning. Considerations of context, linguistic structure, authorial corpus, literary genre, and the like must also be taken into account. For instance, when we study Paul’s doctrine of justification or righteousness (dikaiosunê) by faith and see its forensic or imputed nature, [19] we do not simply say the word dikaiosunê is up for grabs simply because Matthew always uses it to express an individual’s behavior rather than an imputed righteousness by faith. [20] While there may be a range of possibilities regarding the meaning of particular words, they are not infinite. So the real question before us is: When we are speaking of the word, how is it to be understood within the particular setting in which the author wrote?

One tack Mormons use is the appeal to a word’s etymology to grasp its meaning. B.H. Roberts does so in the instance of the word create, which is indeed a precarious route to take. He admits what The Jewish Encyclopedia indicates – namely, that “most of the Jewish philosophers find in Gen. 1:1 that ‘creation’ meant ‘creation out of nothing.’ [21] This fact is quite telling and, of course, supports the traditional understanding of creation, as opposed to the LDS view. Then Roberts commits the exegetical fallacy of appealing to etymology to support the LDS interpretation of the text: “The Jewish Encyclopedia says that the etymological meaning of the verb (“create”) is ‘to cut out and [to] put into shape’ [fashion], and thus presupposes the use of material.” [22] He then extrapolates the theological point that God’s creation involved a fashioning “out of pre-existent material.” [23] He adds later: “the etymology of the verb ‘create’ implies creation from pre-existing materials.” [24]

However, modern linguists and exegetes have shown that using etymology to establish word meaning is misguided. For example, the English word nice has apparently been derived from the Latin nescius, which means “ignorant.” [25] So we do not therefore imply that a “nice” person is an ignoramus! In most cases, the synchronic [26] usage of a word rarely means what it originally meant (i.e., etymologically). As biblical scholar Moisés Silva emphatically states: “Modern studies compel us to reject this attitude [i.e., appealing to etymology as giving us the ‘basic’ or ‘real’ meaning of a word] and distrust a word’s history.” [27] Again, James Barr asserts: “The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history.” [28]

Now it is well-known bârâ’ (create) is used for, say, God’s creation of the people of Israel (e.g., Isa. 43:15) or his creation of a clean heart (Ps. 51:12), but obviously this should not be understood as being ex nihilo. More to the point: when we look at specific texts related to God’s creation of the universe, which viewpoint is (best) supported by Scripture—the LDS understanding or the Christian one? And if, at worst, the Bible is neutral about which of these two positions (relative or absolute creation) is true, then Mormon scholars have still failed to prove their claim that the Bible endorses their view.

In my analysis of this question, we shall refer frequently to Gerhard May, Professor of Theology at the Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet in Mainz, Germany. In his book Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of “Creation out of Nothing” in Early Christian Thought, he expresses the commonly-held LDS view that the text of the Bible does not demand belief in creation ex nihilo. [29] Unfortunately, May—along with Mormon scholars in general—does little to defend this claim. While he makes passing reference to certain biblical passages that seem to hint at the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, he does not seriously interact with them, seeming to pass them off lightly. He focuses on patristic study (as his subtitle indicates) rather than on biblical exegesis. It is intriguing that Mormon scholars refer to May [30] or cite works which depend on May’s analysis, but this ends up weakening their argument: these sources tend to pass over the exegesis of biblical texts (as May does) and move immediately into the theological discussion of rabbis and theologians. [31] Mormon scholarship itself is remarkably silent on biblical exegesis regarding creation.

May’s own silence on scriptural analysis ends up weakening his position because, if properly done, sound biblical exegesis refutes the notion that creation out of nothing is a mere theological invention. For instance, Romans 4:17 (where God is said to call into being things that are not) and Hebrews 11:3 (where the visible world is not created from anything observable) are passages which May simply writes off as fitting in with other statements of Hellenistic Judaism—statements that seem to affirm absolute creation out of nothing but are actually only asserting belief in world-formation out of pre-existent material.

One wonders if that is all there is to the matter. It seems that such assertions, given without any arguments whatsoever, can be rather misleading. Indeed, May gives the false impression that creatio ex nihilo was nothing more than the invention of well-meaning Christian theologians who were trying to defend what they believed to be the biblical notions of God’s absolute sovereignty, freedom, and omnipotence in the face of heretical gnostic doctrines. We believe that examining the relevant biblical passages more extensively will adequately show that the traditional teaching of creatio ex nihilo has strong biblical grounds as opposed to the notion of creation from eternally pre-existent matter.

Walter Eichrodt expresses the implicit assumption that the Old Testament makes regarding absolute creation: “The idea of the absolute beginning of the created world thus proves to be a logical expression of the total outlook of the priestly narrator.” [32] For example, Isaiah 40:21, which refers back to Genesis 1:1 but utilizes the parallel expression “from the foundation of the earth,” is “a clear reference to an absolute beginning” and not an “arbitrary judgment,” according to Eichrodt. [33] He considers the doctrine creatio ex nihilo as being “incontestable” [34]—especially in light of the author’s strict monotheism as well as his radical distinction between ancient cosmogonies, in which the gods emerged out of pre-existing matter, and his own. Eichrodt argues that “the ultimate aim of the [creation] narrative is the same as that of our formula of creation ex nihilo.” [35] Although this formula does not occur in the Old Testament, the object of God’s creative activity is “heaven and earth and all that is in them”; so God’s creation cannot be restricted to “the stars and things on earth” but must include “the entire cosmos.” [36] The fact that “heaven and earth” is a merism signifying “the totality of cosmic phenomena” points us toward an absolute beginning of the universe—including matter. [37] In fact, there is “no single word in the Hebrew language” to express totality; thus this phrase is used. [38] Claus Westermann agrees: Genesis 1:1 does not refer to “the beginning of something, but simply The Beginning. Everything began with God.” [39]

Another Old Testament scholar, R.K. Harrison, asserts that while creatio ex nihilo was “too abstract for the [Hebrew] mind to entertain” and is not stated explicitly in Genesis 1, “it is certainly implicit in the narrative.” [40] The reader is meant to understand that “the worlds were not fashioned from any pre-existing material, but out of nothing”; “prior” to God’s creative activity, “there was thus no other kind of phenomenological existence.” [41] Similarly, Edwin Hatch admits that while Greek Platonic language helped give “philosophical form” to the developed Christian doctrine of creation, the belief that God was “not merely the Architect of the universe, but its Source” had “probably been for a long time the unreasoned belief of Hebrew monotheism.” [42] That is, metaphysical language and systematization would later flesh out what was indicated by the Old Testament creation texts.

Again, however much one loads this word with theological significance, bârâ’ does not by itself entail creation out of nothing—or reorganization, for that matter. Shalom M. Paul, an Assyriologist cited by Stephen Ricks, [43] points out that bârâ’ by itself “does not imply” creation ex nihilo (although Paul admits that 2 Maccabees 7:28 does). [44] However, the significance about bârâ’ is that God is always the subject of this verb. A related Hebrew word ‘asah (“make”) is different in that anyone could make something—that is, from preexisting materials. Moreover, when bârâ’ is used, there is never any mention of preexisting materials that God used. The product is always mentioned—never any material. [45] Thus bârâ’ is a word best-suited to express the concept of creation out of nothing. In fact, no other Hebrew term would do. Furthermore, the idea of creatio ex nihilo is implied in Genesis 1:1 as no “beginning” for God is mentioned. [46]

Because God is always the subject of bârâ’; thus interpreters regularly recognize that the word create inescapably refers to divine activity. [47] German theologian Jurgen Moltmann captures this well:

In light of this, Joseph Smith’s understanding of the Hebrew word create is mistaken as he was applying reorganization to bârâ’ when it should properly have been applied to asah.

In contrast to ancient cosmogonies, in which there was no absolute beginning, Genesis distinguishes itself by positing an absolute beginning. Elohim was not limited by chaos when creating (as was so in the Babylonian cosmogony) but is sovereign over the elements. Genesis 1:1 stands as an independent assertion, claiming that God created the entire cosmos. In fact, the very structure of Genesis 1:1 argues for creation out of nothing. Grammatically and contextually, a very good case can be made for seeing Genesis 1:1 as referring to absolute creation. [49] John Sailhamer remarks,

Moltmann comments on bârâ’, which is used “exclusively as a term for the divine bringing forth.” [51] He points out that since bârâ’ does not take an accusative (i.e., some object) of a material out of which something has been made, this reveals that “the divine creativity has no conditions or premises. Creation is something absolutely new. It is neither potentially inherent or present in anything else.” [52] As Werner Foerster has written, creation in Genesis 1 “arises out of nothing by the Word of God.” [53] Consequently, Genesis should not be translated, “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland . . .,” as the New American Bible does. [54] Even Bernhard Anderson, who sees Genesis 1:2 as referring to creation out of chaos, concedes that “stylistic studies” favor Genesis 1:1 as being an “absolute declarative sentence.” [55] This absolute understanding of Genesis 1:1 and its status as an independent clause is borne out by the Septuagint’s rendering [56] as well as “all the ancient versions.” [57] Commentators Keil and Delitzsch declare that the phrase translated “in the beginning” (berêshît) “is used absolutely,” and a translation such as “In the beginning, when. . .” simply “cannot” be a reasonable treatment of the text. [58] In their estimation, “the context” indicates “the very first beginning.” [59]Thus the eternity of the world or the existence of any “primeval material” is ruled out by language such as the absolute phrase “in the beginning” or the totalistic merism “the heaven[s] and the earth,” which was, again, the very best the Hebrews could do to express entirety. [60] Bruce Waltke notes the unanimity in “both the Jewish and Christian tradition” about the first word in the Bible being in an “absolute state” and that the first verse is “an independent clause.” He then comments: “Moses could not have used any other construction to denote the first word as in the absolute state, but he could have opted for a different construction to indicate clearly the construct state.” [61]

Old Testament scholar Thomas McComiskey concurs that the word bârâ’ emphasizes the initiation of the object, the bringing about of something new. [62] Further support is garnered from Edward P. Arbez and John P. Weisengoff, who show that besides there being nothing in the text of Genesis to affirm that chaotic matter existed before God’s action, [63] the use of the verb bârâ’ in the context of Genesis 1 makes the best sense if it is understood as creation ex nihilo. For instance, God’s activity (expressed by bârâ’) brings about the universe (“heavens and earth”) “in the beginning” (i.e., the universe had a beginning through the action of God). Nor is there any mention of anything pre-existent which God used. “To create” is more fitting a translation than is “to fashion” or “to shape” or the like. [64] These scholars conclude quite forcefully that

Kenneth Mathews’ analysis of Genesis 1 leads him to conclude: “The idea of creatio ex nihilo is a proper theological inference derived from the whole fabric of the chapter.” [66]

We must also clear away the confusion that comes with the Septuagint’s rendering of Genesis 1:2 (hê de gê ên aoratos kai akataskeuastos = “And the earth was unseen/invisible and unformed” This translation of 1:2 clearly reflects a Hellenistic influence, [67] and English versions such as the AV and RSV hellenize the phrase tôh˚ wabôh˚ into “without form and void.” Translating it thus has actually contributed to a somewhat Greek outlook in the thinking of many Christians. According to this reading, the earth is some amorphous mass. But the wording of this phrase, when taken in consideration to later biblical usage (some of which harks back to Genesis 1:2) leads us to the better (and less-hellenized) rendering of the land as being desolate and inhabitable: a desert and a wasteland, as Victor Hamilton translates it. [68] Medieval Jewish interpreters who were not influenced by the Septuagint took this perspective as well. [69] Further reinforcing the point is the fact that later Greek versions of the Septuagint departed from a Platonic view of creation to a more biblical one: (Aquila: “empty and nothing”; Symmachus (“fallow and undistinct”). [70] Furthermore, our earliest Semitic (Palestinian) Targums, which are interpretive renderings of the Hebrew Bible, have “no trace of the concepts” found in the Septuagint. [71] For example, the targum Neophiti I (which is no later than the third century A.D. and is possibly pre-Christian) renders Genesis 1:2 as “desolate without human beings or beast and void of all cultivation of plants and of trees,” which captures the Hebrew usage. Ironically, it is the LDS cosmology that appears more influenced by Greek thought than they realize!

So there is no need to see Genesis 1:2 as referring to eternally pre-existent matter. As Keil and Delitzsch offer: “‘and the earth was without form and void,‘ not before, but when, or after God created it.” [72] Rather, “there is nothing belonging to the composition of the universe, either in material or in form, which had an existence out of God prior to this divine act in the beginning.” [73] Although LDS scholars appear to assign exegetical priority to Genesis 1:2, this is misguided. And the fact that, in the Hebrew, 1:2 begins with a waw-consecutive [“and the earth/land . . .”] indicates the temporal priority of verse 1:1 to 1:2. [74]

Lending further support to creatio ex nihilo in Scripture is that God (or Christ) is said to be the Creator or the ultimate Source of the totality of existing things. Although May leads one to believe that the biblical evidence for creation out of nothing is ambiguous, it is hard to improve upon the totalism of biblical language: “from him . . . are all things” (Rom. 11:36); “through [Christ] are all things” (1 Cor. 8:6); “God, who created all things” (Eph. 3:9); “by him all things were created” (Col. 1:16; cp. 20); “you created all things and because of your will they existed and were created” (Rev. 4:11). The clear implication of Yahweh’s title “the first and the last” (Isaiah 44:6) or “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev. 1:8) is that he is the ultimate originator and only eternal being. Proverbs 8:22-26 states that before the depths were brought forth (i.e., most likely the “deep” of Gen. 1:2), Wisdom was creating with God. Nothing else besides the Creator existed—and this would preclude any pre-existent stuff.

In addition, the notion of creatio ex nihilo is reinforced when Scripture declares the eternality and self-sufficiency of God in contrast to the finite created order (Ps. 102:25-27; cp. Heb. 1:10-12). The God “who called forth creation out of nothing has power also to reduce it to nothing again.” [75] Implicit throughout Isaiah 40-48 is the supreme sovereignty and utter uniqueness of Yahweh in creation, besides whom there was no other god—or anything else—when he created: “I am the first and the last” (44:6; cp. 48:12); “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things” (44:24); “I am the LORD, and there is none else” (45:18; cp. 46:9). As Wolfhart Pannenberg comments,

Moreover, the doctrine of creation assumes that God’s word alone is what brings the universe about—not simply God’s word acting upon previously existing matter. Psalm 33 declares that it was simply “by the word of the Lord [LXX: tô logô tou kyriou]” and “the breath of his mouth” that “the heavens were made”; he “spoke” or “commanded,” and it was “created/established [LXX: ektisthêsen]” (6, 9). [77] There are simply no preexisting conditions to which God is subject; it is God’s commanding word that brings creation into being. [78]

Thomas McComiskey, summarizes nicely the thrust of the Old Testament understanding of creation

Regarding the New Testament, a passage that deserves significant attention is Hebrews 11:3: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen [to blepomenon] was not made [katêrtisthai] out of what was visible [mê ek phainomenôn].” This text declares that the visible universe “was not made out of equally visible [pre-existent] raw material; it was called into being by divine power.” [80] Jaroslav Pelikan states that this passage, along with Romans 4:17 “explicitly” teaches creation out of nothing. [81] LDS scholar Keith Norman actually misquotes Foerster (who, ironically, presents a powerful defense of the biblical doctrine of creation out of nothing) in his comments on Rom. 4:17, claiming that Foerster says that “One can call forth only that which already exists” rather than out nothing, which is a “logical impossibility.” [82] However, Foerster continues, “But God calls forth what does not yet exist, and we must not try to take “the mê onta [things which do not (yet) exist] as though in some sense they were onta [existing things].” [83] In the preceding paragraph he said that creation “arises out of nothing by the Word of God.” [84] Further, 2 Cor. 4:6 (echoing Genesis 1:3), where God calls the light out of darkness, is another reference to creation out of nothing by God’s word. [85]

The word order of the phrase mê ek phainomenon is common in Classical Greek and should be rendered “from things unseen.” [86] The philosophical sense of ta phainomena referred to sense experience. [87] The physical worlds (tous aiônas) are described as being that which is seen (to blepomenon); this is in contrast with that which is invisible—namely, the word of God. [88] Paul Ellingworth argues that the phrase in Hebrews 11:3 rhêmati theou—“the word/command of God” (which reflects the thinking of Psalm 33:6)—would “conflict” with any idea that the visible world was made out of materials in the invisible world. It is much more satisfactory to understand tois aiônas as referring to the visible world, and thus as synonymous with to blepomenon. [89]

In Hebrews 11:3, C.F.D. Moule states, “the reference seems to be to creation ex nihilo, the visible having come into being out of the invisible.” [90] Commentator William Lane remarks that although Hebrews 11:3 does not state creatio ex nihilo in positive terms, but negatively, “it denies that the creative universe originated from primal material or anything observable.” [91] Lane goes on to assert that the writer’s insistence that the universe was not brought into being from anything observable

So contrary to May’s assertion, Hebrews 11:3 states something that is quite distinct from Classical Greek concepts of creation.

Referring to creation, John 1:3 unambiguously states that all things—that is, “the material world,” came into being through the Word. [93] The implication is that all things (which would include pre-existent matter, if that were applicable to the creative process) exist through God’s agent, who is the originator of everything. [94] This is borne out by the fact that though the Word was (ên), the creation came to be (egeneto). [95] Raymond Brown comments: “Thus the material world has been created by God and is good.” [96] So when Scripture speaks of God’s creation, there is an all-embracing nature to it. Despite their lack of precise formulation of a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, the biblical writers have “a natural habit of speaking as comprehensively as possible about Yahweh’s creative power.” [97]

Colossians 1:16-17 speaks comprehensively when it declares that all things were created in and through Christ. The totalistic merism in Genesis 1:1 (“the heavens and the earth”) is expressed in the phrase “all things.” The mention that he has created things “in heaven and on earth”—which corresponds to or parallels [98] “things visible and invisible” (ta orata kai ta aorata)—indicates that these expressions “embrace everything for there are no exceptions.” [99] N.T. Wright declares that “all things” could be translated “the totality.” [100] Not only this, but Christ is before all things. The implication is that there was a state of being in which Christ existed and the universe did not. As F.F. Bruce notes: “the words [‘before all things’] not only declare His temporal priority to the universe, but also suggest his primacy over it.” [101] The text of Colossians 1:16-17 suggests two affirmations: [102] (a) Christ’s creating (bringing all things into being) and (b) his sustaining them in being. The fact that in him “all things hold together” (1:17) emphasizes his sustaining “what He has brought into being.” [103] Without such an activity, “all would disintegrate.” [104]

In light of the above discussion, it is a serious distortion to portray the doctrine of creation out of nothing as a purely post-biblical phenomenon, as Mormonism does. Where in the relevant scholarly references to which LDS scholars point is there rigorous exegetical treatment of the relevant biblical passages on creation? The silence is deafening. Yet the biblical data indicate that God was in some way prior to all that is (i.e., there was a state in which God existed and nothing else), which is the basis for the doctrine creatio ex nihilo. Just as the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly found within Scripture (despite the fact that Arianism later flourished) though it was not formulated until Tertullian’s time, so the doctrine of creation out of nothing is biblical (despite the flourishing of Middle Platonist thought and its influence on Jewish and Christian thinkers) even though it was clearly articulated and expanded upon in the latter part of the second century.

Moreover, one wonders what LDS scholars would take as unambiguous evidence for creation out of nothing in Scripture (or even extra-biblical sources). It seems that they would not be satisfied with any formulation in a given text other than “creation out of absolutely nothing” or the like before admitting to the possibility of finding clear evidence of the doctrine creatio ex nihilo.

So the doctrinal formulation of creation out of nothing is, as Moltmann puts it, “unquestionably an apt paraphrase of what the Bible means by ‘creation.'” [105] As Foerster notes: “creation out of nothing by the Word explicitly or implicitly underlies the NT statements [regarding creation].” [106]

Apart from the strong case just made for the biblical doctrine of creation out of nothing, we must note that even if the biblical evidence were ambiguous and that the biblical writers took no position on this issue, the LDS view does not win by default. Rather, it has its own burden of proof to bear. We are not dealing with an either-or situation (viz., either the Bible explicitly teaches creation out of nothing or the LDS view is true by default). On the one hand, Mormons have either refused or neglected to interact with biblical scholarship; on the other, have they put forth no significant positive exegetical evidence for their own position. The LDS view does not win due to the Bible’s silence. So if the Bible were indeed silent, then Mormons should themselves keep silent about the typical charge that Church Fathers imposed their theology on the text. In this case, Mormons would be just as guilty. So we would challenge LDS scholars to interact more intentionally with the biblical text and with biblical scholarship and to set forth their case.

B. Theological Arguments

The noted philosopher of science Ian Barbour has boldly declared, “Creation ‘out of nothing’ is not a biblical concept.” [107] Rather, it was merely a post-biblical development to defend God’s goodness and absolute sovereignty over the world against “Gnostic ideas regarding matter as evil or as the product of an inferior deity.” [108] Furthermore, according to Barbour’s thinking (as well as that of Mormons), the Bible is not simply ambiguous about the nature of God’s relationship to creation but actually asserts that God created from pre-existent materials:

Thus the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is not theologically necessary: “this is not the main concern expressed in the religious notion of creation.” [110]

In the last section, we pointed out—and gave reasons for rejecting—Gerhard May’s statement that the doctrine of creation out of nothing is “not demanded by the text of the Bible.” [111] May offers no substantiation for this claim. Indeed, we have seen that the opposite is the case. The substance of May’s (and Barbour’s) argument is that Christian thinkers in the second century tried to formulate a doctrine of creation in response to Gnosticism (with its emphasis on emanations) and Middle Platonic thought (with its emphasis on eternally preexistent matter), resulting in their formulation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. [112] Up until this point, there had been no explicit formulation of precisely how God created the world.

This is just the line of reasoning that Mormons take. LDS scholar Hugh Nibley says that it is not until we get to the “Doctors of the Church” that we hear of creation ex nihilo. [113] Prior to this time, we have “the creation everywhere being conceived of as the act of organizing ‘matter unorganized’ (amorphos hylê), bringing order from disorder . . . .” [114] Stephen Robinson makes a similar point: “There is no evidence for creatio ex nihilo in Judaism before the Hellenistic period, nor in early Christianity before the late second century.” [115] The doctrine of creation out of nothing is a theological add-on to Scripture, and Robinson points to a particular article by B.W. Anderson on creation (as do Mormon scholars Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks). [116]

However, Robinson’s own assertion is not quite accurate either. The fuller context of Anderson’s point makes plain that the Old Testament—not the New Testament or the early church fathers—is in view:

We have already dealt with matters biblical on the subject of creation. But what about the claim that this doctrine was a theological innovation or invention? We shall argue that this, too, is false.

Scholars agree that with Irenaeus, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was well established. Irenaeus also argued that the world was not coeternal with God:

Later, Augustine himself simply declared that God “created heaven and earth out of nothing.” [119]

Certainly some Christian theologians (not to mention Philo of Alexandria) who were influenced by Middle Platonist thought such as Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa maintained that matter had existed co-eternally with God. However, they did view matter as being in some sense contingent and dependent upon God.[120] Incidentally, Mormon scholar Stephen Ricks misreads Gerhard May’s analysis of the emergence of creatio ex nihilo in the second-century Gnostic thinker Basilides when he says, “At root, this orthodox Christian doctrine [of creation] may have been a Gnostic heresy.” [121] May affirms that Basilides’ (rather un-Gnostic) formulation of this doctrine arose independently from later orthodox Christian theologians, his thought being “left without any broad effect” on them. [122]

Despite the undeniably strong influence of Middle Platonism upon these thinkers, we must be cautious about attributing ambiguity to the biblical text about creation out of nothing simply because the overlapping of certain concepts common to both Middle Platonism and Scripture may blur one’s perspective somewhat. F.F. Bruce reminds us that “the idea of imposing form on pre-existent matter is Greek rather than Hebrew in origin.” [123] It must be remembered that Jewish thought was preoccupied with the God of the cosmos rather than with the cosmos itself, [124] with the creatio rather than the ex nihilo. [125] The Old Testament’s writers viewed natural phenomena primarily as pointers to God who created them and whose glory was revealed through them. For example, Psalm 104, which describes the awe-inspiring natural world, begins:

To these writers, God was the “King of the Universe.” [126]

We can go further by asserting that the Umwelt of Old Testament Judaism (and, by implication, that of early Christianity) furnished an appropriate context for belief in creation out of nothing. Such a belief would not have been foreign to the Hebrew (and early Christian) mentality. To give support to this claim, we will note a variety of relevant extra-biblical Jewish and Christian passages that attest to the fact that creatio ex nihilo was not alien to biblically-influenced thinking.

Many have suggested that the intertestamental book of 2 Maccabees (in 7:28) states clearly the traditional doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. There a mother pleads with her son to willingly accept torture rather than recant his beliefs:

Bernhard Anderson sees the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo set forth in this passage. [127]

Gerhard von Rad maintains, “The conceptional formulation creatio ex nihilo is first found” in this passage. [128] The Jewish understanding of creation was that “the world as a whole can only be understood in the context of its coming into being,” [129] according to Claus Westermann. It is, then, not a far step from this assumption to state that 2 Maccabees 7:28 indeed speaks of creation out of nothing. [130]

Perhaps no better place do we see an ex nihilo understanding of creation during this period than we do with the writings of the Qumran community. For example, we see reference to creation out of nothing in “The Rule of the Community” (1QS III.15-16):

Another quotation from the same scroll (1 QS XI.11) echoes this same idea of God’s absolute creation:

The Qumran writings notably stress God’s absolute sovereignty: God creates for his own glory, and the very being of the universe originates from him. “[Without you] nothing is done, and nothing is known without your will” (1 QH IX.8). Not only has God created everything physical, but the invisible realm of spirits as well: “You have fashioned every spirit” (1QH IX.20-31). Another segment (1QH IX) that reinforces these themes reads:

God’s creative action takes place by his wisdom (and power)—not pre-existing materials. Reading the “Hymn to the Creator in Psalms” (11 Q5 XXVI.9-15), we see that God “established the dawn with the knowledge of his heart”; he “made the earth with his strength” and established “the world with his wisdom.” “With his knowledge he spread out the heavens.” [132] Again, we are pointed toward creation ex nihilo rather than away from it.

The noted first-century rabbi, Gamaliel, seems to have reflected this concept of creation in his thinking. A philosopher challenged him, “Your God was indeed a great artist, but he had good materials [unformed space/void, darkness, water, wind, and the deep] to help him.” Gamaliel, wishing that this philosopher’s spirit burst (or “give up the ghost”), [133] declared, “All of them are explicitly described as having been created by him [and not as preexistent].” [134]

In the Shepherd of Hermas, the first command is to believe that God brought all things “into existence out of non-existence.” [135] In light of this reference, Denis Carroll comments that this is the first allusion to creatio ex nihilo in Christian literature. [136]

The Jewish pseudepigraphal book Joseph and Aseneth, whose date ranges from as early as the second century B.C. through the second century A.D., contains a passage which also seems to imply creatio ex nihilo. Aseneth, having thrown her idols out of the window and put on sackcloth for a week, addresses the God of Joseph:

Second Enoch, which was written in the late first century A.D. also reflects the doctrine of creation out of nothing in a couple of places: “I commanded…that visible things should come down from invisible” (25:1ff.); “Let one of the invisible things come out solid and visible” (26:1).

Composed around 100 A.D., the Odes of Solomon (written originally in, most probably, Syriac) [137] indicate creation out of nothing:

In the early second century, the author of Second Baruch (21:4) penned these words: “O thou . . . that hast fixed the firmament by the word, . . . that hast called from the beginning of the world that which did not yet exist.” In his dissertation on 2 Baruch, Frank James Murphy comments that creatio ex nihilo is being expressed here, indicating that the present visible world is not eternal. It had a beginning. [138]

A final example is taken from the Apostolic Constitutions, which was written perhaps as early as the mid-second century A.D. and which reflects a belief in creation out of nothing. The “one who is truly God” is “the one who is before things that have been made . . . the only one without origin, and without a beginning.” The eternal God is the one through whom “all things” have been made. He is “first by nature and only one in being.” [139]

One final point: Mormon scholars [140] will periodically cite a source such as Jonathan Goldstein, who says: “medieval Jewish thinkers still held that the account of creation in Genesis could be interpreted to mean that God created from pre-existing formless matter.” [141] This is simply not true and is a misreading of these exegetes. Rather, all the medieval Jewish exegetes uniformly follow Rashi (Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rambam, etc.) in presupposing creation out of nothing. How so? They assume, for example, that because water already exists in Genesis 1:2, this could not be absolute creation (i.e., out of nothing). That is, the creation described in 1:1 is not the first thing God creates. Interestingly, Rashi was the first, so far as we know, to read berêshît (“in the beginning”) as construct (“in beginning”) rather than absolute (“in the very beginning”). [142] Absolute creation took place before, and here God is working with his own created materials to create further. It was not grammatical grounds that led Rashi to formulate berêshît as a construct, but rather the subject matter (e.g., water). Ibn Ezra, who followed Rashi in the “construct” view, believed that God had previously created the water, which he then later used to create within selective aspects of the universe. Old Testament scholar John Sailhamer summarizes:

Thus, these medieval Jewish exegetes did not believe that God created out of eternally pre-existing material. Rather, according to their thinking, God was the very originator of any finite materials he may have used to create in Genesis 1. As Foerster comments, “In later Judaism, both in Rabb[inic] and pseudepigr[aphal] writings, it is clearly stated that God alone created the world by His Word, i.e., that He called it into existence from nothing,” [144] he goes so far as to say that “the idea of a pre-existence of matter” was “alien” in rabbinic literature. [145] So in the end we see a remarkable continuity amongst those who penned 2 Maccabees, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint in later Jewish translations, the Semitic Targums, and various medieval Jewish commentaries.

Hence, the conviction that God created absolutely everything is taken for granted by a good number of pertinent independent sources. The Mormon view of creation, which is perhaps most compatible with process theology, [146] cannot be sustained.

So despite the commonly-heard assertions of Greek influence upon Christian theology—that there was “wholesale adoption of Greek philosophical metaphysics,” [147] it is clearly the Christian doctrine that is not influenced by Greek thought at this juncture. Ironically, it is the LDS conception of creation that is more obviously in line with Greek thought—a variation of neo-Platonic thinking, to be exact. It is the Mormons who follow Plato’s character Timaeus, who asserted:

To sum up thus far: we have tried to show that LDS belief that God created the world out of eternally pre-existing, unorganized material or chaos does not square with the biblical text, and their cited literature consistently fails to grapple with it. To the contrary, we find the doctrine of creation ex nihilo faithfully formulates the biblical teaching. It is in truth extremely difficult to imagine how an un-Hellenized Hebrew would conclude from the biblical text that God and some unorganized matter (or chaos) co-existed from eternity. Moreover, there is good warrant for asserting that the doctrine of creation out of nothing was not itself constructed ex nihilo by second-century Christian theologians; this view was held by Jewish and Christian writers alike prior to this time. It is, rather, the LDS view which is found to be incompatible with Scripture.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/christianity-other-faiths/creatio-ex-nihilo-a-critique-of-the-mormon-doctrine-of-creation

Further Suggestion:

Creator Over All

Creation Ex Nihilo and Genesis 1

The Omniscient Lord: How Does God Know Things?