click here to jump to start of article
Join Our Newsletter

Get latest articles and videos with Jewish inspiration and insights​

In The Beginning

In The Beginning

What are the theological implications of modern cosmology?


Until the early twentieth century, astronomers entertained three possible models of the universe:

A) The universe could be static. It might be an infinite splash of stars and planets exhibiting no uniform motion. Even according to this theory, the mutual gravitational attractions of stars and planets might hold these astronomical objects together in the form of solar systems and galaxies. But each of these stellar/terrestrial groups would slide through space along its own random trajectory, unrelated to the courses tracked by other groups of stars and planets. The beauty of the static model is that it works for atheists and believers: Such a universe could have been created by God at some point in history, but it also could have existed forever without God.

(B) The universe could be oscillating. It might be a cosmic balloon alternately expanding and contracting. For a few billion years it would inflate into absolute nothingness. The gravitational attraction of every star and planet pulling on every other would eventually slow this expansion until the whole process would reverse and the balloon would come crashing back in upon itself. All that existed would eventually smash together at the universe's center, releasing huge amounts of heat and light, spewing everything back out in all directions and beginning the expansion phase all over again. Such a universe could also have been created by God or could have existed forever without God.

(C) Or, finally, the universe could be open. It might be a cosmic balloon that never implodes. If the total gravitational attraction of all stars and planets could not halt the initial expansion, the universe would spill out into nothingness forever. Eventually the stars would burn out and a curtain of frozen darkness would enshroud all existence. Such a universe could never bring itself back to life. It would come into existence at a moment in history, blaze gloriously, and then pass into irrevocable night. Crucially, this model proposes that before the one-time explosion, all the universe's matter and energy was contained in a singularity, a tiny dot that sat stable in space for eternity before it detonated. This model proposes a paradox: Objects at rest – like the initial singularity – remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force; and yet, since the initial dot contained all matter and energy, nothing (at least, nothing natural) existed outside of this singularity that could have caused it to explode. The simplest resolution of the paradox is to posit that something supernatural kicked the universe into being. The open model of the universe thus implies a supernatural Creator.

In 1916 Albert Einstein released the first drafts of his Theory of General Relativity and the scientific world went wild. It appeared that Einstein had revealed the deepest secrets of the universe. His equations also caused a few problems -- technical dilemmas, mathematical snags -- but not the sort of thing of interest to newspapers or even popular science journals.

If Einstein was right, the universe must be expanding in all directions at high speed.

Two scientists noticed the glitches. Late in 1917 the Danish astronomer Willem de Sitter reviewed General Relativity and returned a detailed response to Einstein, outlining the problem and proposing a radical solution: General Relativity could work only if the entire universe was exploding, erupting out in all directions from a central point. Einstein never responded to de Sitter's critique. Then, in 1922, Soviet mathematician Alexander Friedmann independently derived de Sitter's solution. If Einstein was right, Friedmann predicted, the universe must be expanding in all directions at high speed.

Meanwhile, across the sea, American astronomer Vesto Slipher actually witnessed the universe's explosive outward movement. Using the powerful telescope at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, Slipher discovered that dozens of galaxies were indeed rocketing away from a central point.

At the end of World War I, de Sitter, Friedman and Slipher independently shared their findings with Einstein, but he strangely resisted their solution – as if, in his brilliance, he realized the theological implications of an exploding universe. Einstein even wrote a letter to Zeitschrift fur Physik, a prestigious technical journal, calling Friedmann's suggestions "suspicious;" and to de Sitter Einstein jotted a note, "This circumstance [of an expanding universe] irritates me." In another note, Einstein reassured one of his colleagues, "I have not yet fallen in the hands of priests" -- a veiled reference to de Sitter, Friedmann and Slipher.

In 1925, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, dealt the static model of the universe a fatal blow. Using what was then the largest telescope in the world, Hubble revealed that every galaxy within 6 x 1017 miles of the Earth was receding. Einstein tenaciously refused to acknowledge Hubble's work. The German genius continued teaching the static model for five more years, until, at Hubble's request, he traveled from Berlin to Pasadena to personally examine the evidence. At the trip's conclusion, Einstein reluctantly admitted, "New observations by Hubble... make it appear likely that the general structure of the universe is not static." Einstein died in 1955, swayed but still not fully convinced that the universe was expanding.

Ten years later, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were calibrating a super-sensitive microwave detector at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey. No matter where the two scientists aimed the instrument, it picked up the same unidentified background noise -- a steady, three-degree Kelvin ("3K") hum. On a hunch, the two Bell Labs employees looked over an essay on General Relativity by a student of Alexander Friedmann. The essay predicted that the remnants of the universe's most recent explosion should be detectable in the form of weak microwave radiation, "around 5K, or thereabouts." The two scientists realized they had discovered the echo of the biggest explosion in history: "the Big Bang." For this discovery, Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize.

The discovery of the "3K hum" undermined the static model of the universe. There were only two models left: one worked without God and one did not. The last issue to be settled was: Had the primordial universe exploded an infinite number of times (the oscillating model)? Or only once (the open model)? Researchers knew that the issue could be settled by determining the average density of the universe. If the universe contained the equivalent of about one Hydrogen atom per ten cubic feet of space, then the gravitational attraction among all the universe's particles would be strong enough to stop and reverse the expansion. Eventually there would be a "Big Crunch" which would lead to another Big Bang (and then another Big Crunch, etc.). If, on the other hand, the universe contained less than this density, then the Big Bang's explosive force would overcome all the gravitational pulls, and everything would sail out into nothingness forever.

In 1978 Jastrow released NASA's definitive report, shocking the public with his announcement that the open model was probably correct.

Curiously, the death of the static model inspired panic in many quarters of the scientific world. Mathematicians, physicists, and astronomers joined forces to prove the eternity of the universe. Dr. Robert Jastrow, arguably the greatest astrophysicist of the time and director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Center for Space Studies, was named head of the research project. For fifteen years Jastrow and his team tried to demonstrate the validity of the oscillating model, but the data told a different story. In 1978 Jastrow released NASA's definitive report, shocking the public with his announcement that the open model was probably correct. On June 25 of that year, Jastrow released his findings to the New York Times Magazine:

This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth... [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Dr. James Trefil, a physicist at the University of Virginia, independently confirmed Jastrow's discovery in 1983. Drs. John Barrow (an astronomer at the University of Sussex) and Frank Tipler (a mathematician and physicist at Tulane University) published similar results in 1986. At the 1990 meeting of the American Astronomical Society, Professor John Mather of Columbia University, an astrophysicist who also serves on the staff of NASA's Goddard Center, presented "the most dramatic support ever" for an open universe. According to the Boston Globe reporter covering the conference, Mather's keynote address was greeted with thunderous applause, which led the meeting's chairman, Dr. Geoffrey Burbridge, to comment: "It seems clear that the audience is in favor of the book of Genesis – at least the first verse or so, which seems to have been confirmed." In 1998, Drs. Ruth Daly, Erick Guerra and Lin Wan of Princeton University announced to the American Astronomical Society, "We can state with 97.5 percent confidence that the universe will continue to expand forever." Later that year, Dr. Allan Sandage, a world-renowned astrophysicist on the staff of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, was quoted in The New Republic saying, "The Big Bang is best understood as a miracle triggered by some kind of transcendent power." Newsweek columnist George Will began his November 9, 1998 column with this quip: "Soon the American Civil Liberties Union, or People for the American Way, or some similar faction of litigious secularism will file suit against NASA, charging that the Hubble Space Telescope unconstitutionally gives comfort to the religiously inclined." The same year, Newsweek reported a recent and unexpected swing of opinion among the once passionately agnostic: "Forty percent of American scientists now believe in a personal God -- not merely an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a deity to whom they can pray."

There are, of course, mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists who choose not to believe in God today. For a variety of reasons, they choose instead to have faith that new natural laws will be discovered or that new evidence will appear and overturn the current model of an open, created universe. But for many in the scientific community, the evidence is persuasive. For many, modern cosmology offers permission to believe.

This essay presents an extremely abbreviated version of the cosmological argument. For a more detailed presentation see the author's essay in Permission to Believe (Jerusalem: Targum/Feldheim, 1990).

June 15, 2002

Give Tzedakah! Help create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.
The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 10

(10) Bruce V. Hoffinger, May 31, 2007 10:19 AM

Religious Ignorance

The first sentence in the Old Testament (Torah) does not say: "In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth." This is due to an ignorance of the Hebrew language (Biblical Hebrew, Loshon HaKodesh).
There is a book which explains this, and why many scientists laugh at the Torah, understandibly; because the translation is flawed. "The Bible Unauthorized" H. Moose.
Simply put the first sentence really says: "In the beginning of G-d's continual creating..."
Also, to pin deism or atheism on galactical evidence is foolish. Why? Because Loshon HaKodesh is FAR more advanced a language than English, or any other language. If we 'evolved' not 'devolved' why is our language 'backwards' and bastardized? Go to or use a search engine for 'mystical Hebrew.' Hebrew is everybody's language. G-d spoke and created the world.
Want some concrete examples? Contact me. Scientists are people. Amongst them, like all groups, there are the righteous, the average and the wicked.

(9) Craig Feinstein, December 27, 2004 12:00 AM


I just read my comments that I made more than 2 years ago. In my opinion, I was definitely too harsh on the authors Keleman and Schroeder and I apologize to them. But I still believe that the universe is 5765 years old (updated from 5762 a few years ago) and that all of the "scientific" arguments out there claiming that it is billions are mere speculation.


(8) leo, November 9, 2004 12:00 AM


Every once in awhile I re-read this article, and every time I love it!

thanks again!

(7) Adam Slipher, July 29, 2002 12:00 AM

This is interesting stuff. It's always good to hear different perspectives on the theories.

(6) Anonymous, June 26, 2002 12:00 AM


Dear Mr. Feinstein,

It would be deceitful to falsify either biblical or scientific claims just for the sake of harmonizing the two fields. However, we have no duty to make up contradictions where they do not exist. The age of the universe is such a case. Three approaches entirely resolve the biblical and scientific sources.

The first emanates from Adam's maturity at the moment of creation. The man whom God commanded, on the sixth day, to "be fertile and multiply; fill the land and conquer it; dominate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every beast that walks the land" (Genesis 1:28) could not have been a newborn infant. When Adam appears, he strikes us as fully developed. (It is interesting to note that the Midrash and Talmud, in texts recorded no later than 505 C.E., explicitly state that God created a fully developed world (see tractate Rosh Hashanah 11a), that Adam and Eve were created twenty-years old (see Bereshis Rabbah 14:7), and that this "first" couple were preceded by 974 generations (see tractate Chagigah p.13b). Similarly, when God created trees, He could have created them as normal and fully developed too -- with rings indicating their history. Theoretically, a scientist present on the third day could have read these rings and described weather conditions that reigned in the months and years preceding Creation. In short, this solution posits that about 6,000 years ago God created a 15 billion year-old universe.

This is not to say that God perpetrated a fraud, that He created a universe that looked fifteen billion years old. Rather, this solution suggests that God created a world with a real history. If this solution is correct, then hominids might really have been extant during the 95,000 years before Adam arrived on the scene. Theoretically, an omnipotent God could create such a reality, even after the fact.

Another solution is based on some classical Jewish writings. The Talmud (Sanhedrin p.97a) states that "the world will exist for six thousand years and be destroyed in the seven-thousandth year." A first century talmudic scholar, Rabbi Nechunya Ben-Hakanah, explained (Sefer Ha-Temunah) that this passage describes a single "Sabbatical Cycle," but that the world will pass through seven of these (7,000 year) cycles. Rabbi Isaac of Akko, one of the foremost kabbalists of the thirteenth century, taught that we are currently in the seventh of these cycles. He wrote, "Since the Sabbatical Cycles existed before Adam, their chronology must be measured, not in human years, but in Divine years". Rabbi Isaac was alluding to the biblical verse, "A thousand years are, in Your eyes, but a single bygone day" (Psalms 90:4). Since a Divine day is 1,000 human years, then a Divine year -- consisting of 365¼ Divine days -- is equal to 365,250 years. Thus, when Adam was created our universe was (6 cycles) x (7,000 Divine years/cycle) x (365,250 human years/Divine year) = 15,340,500,000 human years old. The Orthodox Jewish scholar Rabbi Israel Lipschitz (1782 to 1860), author of one of the most widely used Talmudic commentaries, worked with these sources and taught that fossil finds were indeed remnants of previous Sabbatical Cycles. (See Rabbi Israel Lipschitz, Derush Or Ha-Chayim.)

As you alluded, M.I.T.'s Professor Gerald Schroeder offers a third possible solution to the dating problem. He first describes this 1972 experiment reported in Science (14 July 1972, Volume 177 (1972), pp. 168-9): Researchers from Washington University and the U.S. Naval Academy placed highly accurate cesium-beam clocks on TWA and Pan Am flights. Before take-off the scientists synchronized the onboard clocks with a land-based clock, and after landing they checked to see if the onboard units still showed the same time as the land-based one. In keeping with Einstein's prediction that time moves more slowly onboard moving objects, the onboard clocks lost time relative to the land-based clock. In essence, time slowed down aboard the jets.

Next Dr. Schroeder describes the state of the universe 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang. The temperature was 1032°K, and all that existed was "a melee of random high-energy collisions." As the universe cooled, physical particles formed and aggregated. Because time is relative, the "clock" aboard each of these billions of aggregations operated at a different speed. According to which of these billions of clocks did the Creation take six days? Indeed, why should God have chosen any particular star or planet's clock over its neighbor's? Since man -- the purpose of Creation -- did not yet exist, no single location was more central or significant than any other.

"The compromise," Dr. Schroeder theorizes, "was to choose, for the time preceding Adam, the Creator's own reference frame that viewed all the universe as a single entity." According to Dr. Schroeder's calculations, the period of time that would measure 15 billion years from the earth's perspective would measure about about six days from an overall perspective. Then, once Adam was created, "that part of the universe where man dwells started to operate in the same space-time reference frame as its Creator." In essence, God threw away His Divine clock and started measuring time according to the earth's perspective. As corroboration for his theory, Dr. Schroeder points out that:

Biblical dating is not totally at odds with archaeology. Within the total time span of the biblical calendar, we find no conflicts between its chronology and scientifically established dates for the entire post-Adam period, that is, the 57 centuries since Adam... Only the early part of the Bible's calendar, which relates to events of the six days that precede Adam, appears to be in contradiction with the results of modern scientific inquiry.

As an example, Dr. Schroeder compares the dates given by the Torah and by archaeologists for the Bronze Age:

Using a midpoint of the age of Noah for the time that [the biblical character] Tuval-Cain invented forging, we can place the early Bronze Age at approximately 1,350 years after the appearance of Adam, or 4,400 years (5750 minus 1,350) before the present. The archaeology section of the Israel Museum houses examples of early brass tools. Their first appearance is dated at approximately 2,400 B.C.E. or approximately 4,400 years ago.

As I point out in Permission to Receive: Four Rational Approaches to the Torah's Divine Origin (in the chapter entitled "The Empirical Issue"), the dates indicated for the flood by more than a half dozen nonbiblical tablets also correspond with the biblical record.

All three of these solutions resolve the dating dilemma. Whether six thousand years ago, in six 24-hour days, God created a genuinely old universe; or whether the Torah's six days of Creation began after 15 billion years of previous sabbatical cycles; or whether six days and 15 billion years are really the same era timed from different space-time reference frames; the result is the same. The Torah and science can harmonize. If, indeed, all other details of the biblical record conform to known historical facts, then the early dates implied for the universe's creation and man's appearance do not compromise the document's credibility.


Lawrence Kelemen

See All Comments

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.

  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment