Interpreting Genesis 1

The Unique Character of Genesis 1

It is instructive to note the absolute unique character of the account in Genesis from an ANE (Ancient Near East) reader’s perspective. The nation of Israel came out of Egypt, where the universe was conceived in terms, not of things, but of beings^[1] created by the bodily emissions of the relevant god (sperm, saliva or mucous). In Babylon (where Israel was exiled), the primal elements were brought into being through a battle between the gods. This is a simplified summary of the many (and often complex) creation myths and cosmogonies that existed in the ANE.

Scholars refer to these myths with the terms ‘Theogony’ (the genealogy or birth of the gods) ‘Cosmogony’ (origins of the cosmos) and ‘Theomachy’ (a battle among the gods or against them).[2] In this context the world view presented in Genesis is completely different to that commonly found in the ANE. Genesis does not “bring gods into existence” nor does it identify gods with primal elements or natural phenomenon (the sun or moon etc). The God of Genesis is not “self-developing” nor is the God of Genesis emerging from primal elements. The God of Genesis stands outside and above his creation (and yet is intimately involved with it) – the God of the Bible is both omniscient and omnipotent and the religion of Israel is (unlike its contemporaries) monotheistic. There was therefore no place for a theogony and no theogenic element in Israelite cosmogony. In fact, G. Hassel highlights the polemical nature of the Genesis account – as an argument against the prevailing contemporary worldviews[3] – he speaks of the biblical narrative not as reflecting the contemporary worldview but of overcoming it.[4]

The diagram above is by S. H. Hooke,[5] and is a fairly typical example of how many commentators depict Israelite Cosmology (for example, see the quote from D. J. A. Clines later). The sky is understood as a solid dome punctuated by “windows” in order to enable the “waters above” to fall on the earth (which is supported by pillars).[6]

Many of the texts employed to reconstruct this hypothetical cosmology are either found in the wisdom literature (like Job or Psalms) or by comparison with other ANE creation myths. However, wisdom literature is known for its extensive metaphoric, hyperbolic and poetic imagery and therefore literalism cannot be pressed. Comparative exercises with other creation myths need to demonstrate dependency and/or semantic equivalence; a difficult task considering the small range of texts that are available. For example, on the issue of translating rāqîa‛ [7](firmament) as “solid dome” A. Perry observes,

However, it is because ANE cosmologies have multiple elements of a solid sky, air, an atmosphere, clouds, and wind that it is not historically out of place to read the reference to a rāqîa‛ in Genesis in terms of what was apparent from the ground and in phenomenal terms.[8] The historical meaning of rāqîa‛ should and can be established from the Hebrew texts alone without referring to ‘the ancients’ of other ANE cultures. When we give proper priority to the Hebrew text and the literature of which it is a part, it is clear that the balance of argument favours ‘expanse’. We should do this against the prevailing world-view of both today and former ages.[9]

The historical description of the flood speaks of “windows” and “fountains” in Gen 7:11 “…the fountains of the great deep broken up and the windows of heaven were opened.” The expression is a rhetorical parallelism, a phenomenon common to the Hebrew language; the parallelism here is about what is above and what is below:

When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep. Prov 8:28

By his knowledge the depths (i.e. the floods or waters) are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew. Prov.3:20

The opening of the windows of heaven betokens the breaking of the clouds where the water is contained: while at other times “the Lord binds the water in the clouds, and the cloud is not rent under them” (Job 26:8), now the Lord loosed the clouds, which being made as if full of windows, poured forth all the water kept in them. Note that the water is bound in the cloud (it does not come from a reservoir above the clouds). Job is quite aware that rain comes from clouds.

The problem of understanding for the modern reader lies not with ancient Israelite cosmology but with incorrect reconstructions that fail to recognize the Hebrew idiom employed in poetic literature and theories that place too much weight on comparative oriental creation myths. The use of similar ANE terms does not necessitate that they were understood the same way in their new context – especially with the OT penchant for demythologizing and polemical usage.

Let us contemplate the absolute unique quality of the Genesis account for a moment. It was an earth shattering revelation for ancient readers who were surrounded by mythical aetiologies and infantile theogonies and fear of offending an unknown deity (even the clever Greeks). Genesis acted as a corrective to the other world views. The case that Genesis makes is so powerful that it stood unchallenged for thousands of years because mankind had nothing else to offer. It is only the last two hundred years that we have become too clever for Genesis. Let us not forget then that for many thousands of years the Genesis account shined light into heathen darkness – the Genesis account was a unique and unprecedented revelation.

The Structure of Genesis 1

The macro structure of Genesis 1 presents as a chiastic staircase parallelism which also encompasses micro chiasms (see below). This demonstrates a carefully planned literary structure where theological considerations and the need for symmetry took precedence. The macro chiasm shows that the introduction to Genesis 2 belongs with the structure of Genesis 1. We note that (A) “In beginning”, and (B) “God moving” at the commencement of Genesis 1 forms an inclusio with (A’) Finished and (B’) “God resting” at the commencement of Genesis 2.[10] The earth was initially “without form and void” (KJV) and the Genesis account then proceeds to inform us how “form” is given (how the earth is organised into day/night/seasons etc.) and how the void is filled (with vegetation/creatures etc.).

A	In beginning [1:1]
		B	God moving [1:2]
			C	Light divided from Darkness [vv. 2-5]: one day
				D	Waters divided – waters above (heaven) and waters below (sea) [vv. 6-8]: day second
					E	Earth separated from Sea – Earth filling with vegetation [vv. 9-13] : day third
			C’	Day and Night divided by Luminaries [vv. 14-19] : day fourth
				D’	Waters filled with life – waters above (birds) waters below (fish) [vv. 20-23] : day fifth
					E’		Earth filled with living creatures and man [vv. 24-31] : day the sixth
A’	Finished (2:1)
		B’	God Resting (2:2) : day the seventh

A carefully planned literary structure is also shown by William D. Ramey who summarises some of the structural elements as follows:

The correspondence of the first paragraph, Genesis 1:2 with 2:1-3, is underscored by the number of Hebrew words in both being multiples of seven. Genesis 1:1 consists of seven (7×1) Hebrew words, Genesis 1:2 consists of fourteen (7×2) words, and Genesis 2:1-3 thirty-five (7×5) words. In addition, “God” is mentioned thirty-five (7×5) times, “earth” occurs twenty-one (7×3) times, and “heaven/firmament” also twenty-one (7×3) times.

The number “seven” also dominates Genesis 1:1—2:3 in a startling way, not only in the number of words in a particular section, but also in the number of times a specific word or phrase recurs, which in all comprises the sevenfold patterning of this section. The arrangement of Genesis 1:1—2:3 consists of an introduction and seven paragraphs. The introduction identifies the Creator and creation (Gen. 1:1-2); six paragraphs correspond to the six creation days (1:3-21). The seventh paragraph marks the climactic seventh day, the day of consecration (2:1-3).

The announcement of the commandment: “And God said”, while occurring ten times, is grouped into seven (7×1) groups (Gen. 1:3; 6; 1:9; 1:11; 1:14, 1:20; 1:24; 1:26, 28, 29).

The order formula: “Let there be…”, while occurring eight times, the formula is grouped into seven (Gen. 1:3; 1:6, 9; 1:11; 1:14; 1:20; 1:24; 1:26).

The fulfilment formula: “And it was so” occurs seven times (Gen. 1:3; 1:7; 1:9; 1:11; 1:15; 1:24; 1:30).

The execution formula: “And God made” occurs seven times (Gen. 1:4; 1:7; 1:12; 1:16; 1:21; 1:25; 1:27).

The approval formula: “God saw that it was good” occurs seven times (Gen.1:4; 1:10; 1:12; 1:18; 1:21; 1:25; 1:31).

The subsequent divine word: God’s naming or blessing occurs seven times (Gen. 1:5²; 1:8; 1:10²; 1:22; 1:28).

Seven days affirmed: There are seven days mentioned (Gen. 1:5; 1:8; 1:13; 1:19; 1:23; 1:31; 2:2).

Although there are ten announcements of the divine word (#1 above) and eight commands actually cited (#2 above), the formulae are grouped in sevens. The intentional sevenfold patterning of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is only maintained by our author skilfully and intentionally omitting some of these formulae: the fulfilment formula is omitted in Genesis 1:5 (Day 5), the description of the act in Genesis 1:9 (Day 3), and the approval formula in Genesis 1:6-8 (Day 2). Whereas in each case the Septuagint (LXX; the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures by seventy men) mistakenly adds the appropriate formula, these additions obscure the original sevenfold pattern of this section.[11]

The Days of Genesis

Before we discuss the “days” of Genesis it is instructive to determine what the text actually says. The Hebrew employs different kinds of numbering for the days. Both ordinal and cardinal numbering are employed (literally):

…and was evening and was morning: one day	….cardinal number
…and was evening and was morning day second	…..ordinal number
…and was evening and was morning day third	…..ordinal number
…and was evening and was morning day fourth	…..ordinal number
…and was evening and was morning day fifth	…..ordinal number
…and was evening and was morning day the sixth	…..ordinal with article
….and finished God on day the seventh	…..ordinal with article (no evening formula)

Nearly all translations render Gen 1:5 as the “first day”, but the Hebrew is literally “one day” in stark contrast with second, third, fourth etc. Andrew Steinman does a thorough analysis on the Hebrew usage of ordinal and cardinal numbers and concludes that Gen 1:5 expresses: Evening + morning = one day[12] and concludes that the use of dta (one; echad) in Gen 1:5 and the following unique uses of the ordinal numbers on the other days demonstrates that the text itself indicates that these are regular solar days.[13]

If that interpretation is correct then Gen.1:5 stands as a definition of what compromises “a day”. However, we immediately encounter a problem because the day is firstly defined as the period of light (12 hours… God called the light Day) but then it continues by calling the darkness night and adding the evening and morning formula. It seems that we are dealing with synecdoche (a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something), so that the term “day” can also include a full 24 hour cycle.

The evening formula suggests that the “day” starts at the point of darkness (the Jews celebrate the Sabbath from Friday evening until Saturday evening) but even here difficulties present themselves because the Jews themselves argued about when the “day” commenced.[14] A solar calendar (such as used by some Jewish sects) has the day starting in the morning – an evening commencement (more accurately a day consisting of – evening/morning/evening) would suggest a lunar calendar.

Many of the Jewish feasts commenced in the evening – some scholars suspect an early switch from a solar to a lunar calendar (and then back to solar by some sects). Whatever the case might be (I think evening commencement the most likely in conjunction with a lunar calendar) it appears that a 24 day-night cycle is intended.

H. Walton observes that,

God called the light [ ’ôr] ‘day’ [yôm] , and the darkness he called ‘night.’ If God called the light yôm, why does the text continue throughout the OT to call the light ’ôr ? It is a question that anyone could answer with a little thought: It was not the element of light itself that God called yôm but the period of light. There is a term for the semantic phenomenon that is observed here, namely, metonymy. In metonymy the meaning of a term is extended to include things closely related to it. When the White House makes a statement it is understood that the building is not talking. And so it is not the physicist’s light that is being named yôm but rather the period of light –obvious enough because that is what yôm is often used to refer to in the rest of Scripture. But if the word ’ôr refers to a period of light in Genesis 1:5, what about in 1:4? There God separates the light from the darkness. Again, I find “period of light” much more plausible here. The physicist’s light cannot be separated from darkness, but alternating periods of light and darkness can be set up. Still, we cannot stop there. If the text means for us to understand “period of light” in both Genesis 1:4 and 5, what about 1:3? Hermeneutical consistency, I think, would lead us to believe that when God said “Let there be ’ôr , we must then understand it as, “Let there be a period of light.” We could only conclude, then, that day one does not concern itself with the creation of the physicist’s light, that is, light as a physical element with physical properties. Day one concerns itself with something much more significant, something much more elemental to the functioning of the cosmos and to our experience of the cosmos. On day one God created time. This is the first of the functions that God is going to use to bring order to the chaos of the cosmos: the orderly and regular sequence of time.[15]

Although Walton’s approach holds merit, it is metaphysical and functional but somewhat abstract because the passage of time on earth can only then have been measured initially by alternating sequences of light and dark. Darkness is the primordial state; darkness cannot be created as it is the absence (and antithesis) of light.[16] When light is first introduced it is without reference to darkness (Gen 1:3), up to that point there had only been darkness (Gen 1:2) – we move from complete darkness (1:2) to complete light (1:3) on earth, and then to a “period of light” called “day” which includes (and alternates) with night within an “evening/morning” framework. It is then the “evening/morning” sequence of light/dark commencing which marks the passage of time.

It seems to me that we are speaking of the ordinary “day” as the basic unit of time. Interestingly, the sequence climaxes with activity on the sixth day (note the article) and rest on the seventh day. This intimately links day six and seven (man/God/rest), and day seven is not modified with the evening formula. This suggests that day seven is to be understood in an eschatological sense. Day seven (rest) is the teleological objective of creation and is therefore not limited by the ordinary passage of time.

Creation of the Sun and Moon

Genesis 1:14-19 apparently describes the ‘creation’ of the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, however, firstly we should note that the Hebrew word ‘create’ is not used on day four and, secondly, we ought to note that the words for the sun and moon are not used – they are simply called lamp-lights – the ‘greater light’ (sun) and the ‘lesser light’ (moon). This is obviously intended as polemic against the gods of the nations (sun/moon), and therefore they are not even named, moreover they are purposefully not mentioned on the first day (creation of light) to ensure that they have no participation in the creation process. Rather, they are regarded as mere physical objects given by God to regulate priestly functions (festivals and Sabbaths).

After extensive semantic analysis David J. Rudolph presents (in my view) a conclusive case for translating d[wm[17] in Gen 1:14 as “festivals” or “festivals and seasons” rather than just “seasons” which is more common. The word is often translated as ‘appointed time’ in relation to feasts/festivals (e.g. Exod 13:10 23:15; NASB). Moreover, it is interesting that this is the word usually translated ‘congregation’ in the phrase ‘tent/tabernacle of the congregation’, which lends itself to the thought that the tabernacle was an appointed place for appointed times.

The use of the term rwam (‘lamp-light’) as a metonymy for the sun and moon is consistent with the priestly overtones of the fourth day. All other occurrences of this word in the Torah refer to lamps in the tabernacle of the congregation (Exod 25:6; 27:20; 35:8, 14, 28; 39:37; Lev 24:2; Num 4:9, 16). In this way, the inspired writer depicts the sun and moon as being like ‘sacred lamps in the sanctuary of the universe’.[18] We are clearly dealing with priestly language as Roger Beckwith notes; “…when the lunar calendar appears in the Old Testament, it is often precisely in priestly, or cultic, contexts that it does so. Thus, it is hard to believe that Gen. 1:14-16 and Ps. 104:19 are referring simply to secular ‘seasons’”.[19]

So the luminaries (lamps) are appointed (not made) in the heavenly sanctuary (God’s temple) in anticipation of the appointed times (festivals) that Israel will celebrate in the earthly tabernacle (appointed place).

Creation-Uncreation-Recreation

David J. A. Clines observes that an important principle of distinction and separation governs the creation process:

Perhaps the most prominent feature of the account of creation in Genesis1 is the fact that creation proceeds by a process of separation. Light is separated from darkness (1:4), the heavenly waters are separated from the earthly waters by a solid firmament (1:6-7), the dry earth is separated from the watery sea (1:9-10, the verb “to separate” not appearing here, however), the day is separated from the night (1:14) and light is thus separated from darkness (1:18). The separation of each element in creation from every other element is emphasized again by the repeated phrase “according to its kind”, which occurs five times in Genesis 1 (11, 12, 21, 24, 25). We touch here the fundamental outlook of the priestly author responsible for Genesis 1 and for much else in the Pentateuch,[20] especially Leviticus. According to the priestly worldview, observance of distinctions is essential: between clean and unclean, between holy and common, between Israel and what is not Israel, between the sexes. Mixtures of “kinds” are anathema: a field must not be sown with two kinds of seed, a garment must not be made of two kinds of cloth Lev.19.19). The world is created as an ordered whole, everything has a place and is in its place. The naming of the elements of the created order (day, night, sky, earth, seas belongs with this stress on the individuality of the components of the world order. Separation and distinction are what makes creation a cosmos. The alternative is chaos.[21] The structuring of the narrative of creation into the works of six days is another instance of the priestly ordering principle.[22]

Accordingly, Clines sees that the flood narrative is a reversal of the creation process; creation is undone (chaos ensues) and then creation is renewed (but not in the former unblemished state). He observes,

The Flood, however, represents a reversal of these principles of order. Joseph Blenkinsopp has exactly described the significance of the Flood as ‘uncreation’: “The world in which order first arose out of a primeval watery chaos is now reduced to the watery chaos out of which it arose―chaos-come-again”. If Genesis 1 pictures the establishing of a firmament to keep the heavenly waters from falling upon the earth except in properly regulated measure, 7:11 depicts the “windows of heaven” as opening to annihilate this primal distinction. Likewise the distinction between the lower waters and the earth established in 1:9 is obliterated by the breaking forth through the earth of the “fountains of the great deep” (7:11). Significantly too “the destruction takes place in much the same order as Creation”: the water first covers the earth and its high mountains, then birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures, and men (7:19ff.). [23]

A larger pattern exists, encompassing both the Old and New Testaments, were creation repeatedly falls into chaos before it is renewed:

• Creation – ordering chaos – by separation/division
• Sanctuary (Eden) – be fruitful and multiply
• Transgression (boundaries crossed) – expelled from Eden–creation degenerates
• Flood – “uncreation”, reverting to chaos–recreation/restoration
• Babel –races in chaos (divided by language Gen 10:25)
• Abraham – separated (called) – be fruitful and multiply
• Sanctuary (Tabernacle) (Jerusalem Temple)
• Transgression (boundaries crossed)
• Flood (Jer 47:2) Jews expelled from the sanctuary by the Babylonians
• –the Land degenerates, “uncreation” (Jer 4:23-26) –recreation/restoration
• Sanctuary (Christ the Temple John 2:19)
• Babel-reversed (Acts 2:4-6)
• Nation created (Rom 9:25-26) –separated (called)
• Fire (2 Pet 3:7), the Jews expelled from the sanctuary by the Romans
• –the Land degenerates, “uncreation”–recreation/restoration

Scripture depicts a “pattern” of creation, “uncreation” (chaos) and recreation; “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt 24:35); “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea” (Rev 21:1). Although this language of destruction/creation is metaphorical it does establish divine processes – God allows the old to pass away and fall into chaos before establishing a new order.

Priestly Creation Themes

We have already noted that the priestly themes of separation and division are integral to the creation account. We have also noted the reference to “festivals” anticipating the religious feasts of Israel within a normal working week culminating in the Sabbath. Moreover, the “announcement command”, which occurs ten times, anticipates the Ten Commandments – the ordering of the moral framework given at the creation of the nation. To this we must add the creation of Eden (the sanctuary where man had communion with God) which bears a striking resemblance with the Tabernacle (and Temple).

Unlike the religions of the ANE who worshipped the “sun, moon and stars”, ancient Israelite religion comprehensively demythologized the “host” and subjected it to the creator. The heavenly sanctuary formed the “pattern” (Exod 25:40; Heb.8: 11) for the earthly tabernacle (and subsequent temple). Thus, we have a worldview which understands an intimate link between heaven and earth.

The first Sanctuary was the Garden of Eden: the entrance to Eden and the Tabernacle was from the east (direction of the rising sun); Cherubim guarded the way to the garden and tree of life and also the ark, which contained within the symbols of new life (the resurrection);[24] the tree of life (in Eden) is represented by the seven-branched Menorah (in the tabernacle); and the description of the candlestick in the tabernacle clearly mimics the parts of a tree – trunk, branches, knops, flowers and almond fruit (Exod 25:31-37). However, the “heavenly sanctuary” was itself merely a representation, Solomon recognised that the even the “heaven of heavens” could not contain God, much less the temple that he had built (1 Kgs.8: 27).

For the Israelites the “heavenly sanctuary” had come down to earth. They had been chosen as a holy nation – God had made a “new heavens and earth”, a holy people consisting of priests and kings (Exod 19:6) to administer, not only Israel, but eventually the whole world. There is a persistent nexus between the heavenly realm and the realm of the world.

Conclusion

The priestly creation account in Genesis 1 cannot be detached from subsequent Israelite history and theology. When Genesis 1 is placed in a wider context it moves from the universal (mankind) to the specific (the Jews) and anticipates the separation and calling out of a nation for close communion with God. It represents a careful account of ordering and separation, set within the framework of an ordinary “working week” such as experienced by Israelites. Biblical chronology indicates that this creative ordering of chaos occurred within memory of the appearance of the first ancient civilizations (Gen 4:18-21) and the violent movement away from a pastoral lifestyle to an agricultural one (Cain and Abel). Furthermore, the location of these events is centred in the Ancient Near East. We are not informed what occurred before Gen 1:1 as it is not important to our salvation.