Deeper Commentary
1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth- Genesis 1 begins with the summary statement
that God created “in the beginning”. But this Hebrew word
reshit can refer to a period of time at the beginning, rather than a
specific moment in time (see Job 8:7; Gen. 10:10; Jer. 28:1). If a single
moment of time was intended, then other Hebrew words could have been used,
e.g. rishonah. How long this
period was, or the processes used, are simply not spoken about. I suggest
that “heavens and earth” is a merism, i.e. putting two words together in
order to describe something greater. I don’t believe, therefore, that we
are to divide the term into “heavens” and “earth”. This verse is a simple
statement that in the beginning, perhaps over a period, all things were
created by God. The process used is not commented upon.
But the zoom of the record then
focuses upon the preparation of the
eretz / the “earth”. Analysis of Gen. 1:2-2:4 demonstrates that we are
reading here of the “earth” being prepared, rather than created. Sure, God
created planet earth and all things else, that much is stated in 1:1. But
the focus of all the cosmos is upon the
eretz , and the structure of the
record goes further and reveals that the pinnacle of that creation was in
the man formed on the sixth day.
One
of the most fundamental differences with the creation myths is that
Genesis 1 presents God as uncreated, having no beginning, and focuses upon
what He created- whereas the other records seek to explain where
their gods came from and how they were created: “These foreign
creation myths recount not only the origins of the visible world, but, at
the same, of the gods. Genesis 1, however, distinguishes itself radically
from these all sincere there is no such theogony. This observation
indicates the grandeur of Israel’s religion” (Hermann
Gunkel, Genesis (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997) p. 126).
1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty; darkness was on the surface of
the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters-There is fair debate over whether Gen. 1:2-2:4 is poetry or not. Redneck
creationists argue it is not- because they consider this is a literal
scientific account of creation. But there is fair evidence that it is in
fact poetry- although the rhyme is in terms of the ideas rather than
assonance of the words. The material is based around the number seven.
Gen. 1:1 has seven Hebrew words, 1:2 has fourteen; 2:1-3 has 35 words
[5x7]; Elohim is used 35 times;
“firmament” and “earth” 21 [3x7] times each; and “it was so” and the
comment that God saw “good” in it occur seven times each. The numerical
value of the Hebrew words is also full of ‘seven’ patterns. This isn’t
quite what one would expect in a scientific account. And what was God
intended to do in explaining origins? To explain them in scientific terms
comprehensible and acceptable to a modern person? Or in terms acceptable
to a primitive Israelite? I suggest He avoids that conundrum by presenting
the creation account as limited only to
eretz Israel, and presenting it
as a drama, a kind of Divine slideshow.
The speeches in the book of Job are likewise poetry; these were therefore
surely not the words that literally fell from the lips of Job and his
friends. But that does not mean that the words are not inspired, nor does
it make them myth. The poetic structure of Genesis 1:2-2:4 can be seen
reflected even in translation; the work of each day is described within
the same rubric: “There was evening and morning… God said… It was so… God
saw that it was good… there was evening and morning”. The account of
creation is not evenly balanced, i.e. there is more detail given to some
things than to others. This isn’t what we would expect if the text is
intended to provide a literal account of creation. The Bible uses various
genres- it is a collection of poetry, direct statement, history, letters
etc.
Inspiration and revelation are two different things. All the Bible is
inspired, but not all of it is a specific “Thus says the Lord…”. The words
of Job’s friends are recorded by inspiration, but God Himself says that
they were not all true. We are to interpret, to perceive the genre, the
essence being communicated. And nowhere is that more true that in the
creation record.
So I suggest that we should read Genesis neither as literal history, nor
as myth. It is a dramatic presentation of the origin of Israel, produced
in a particular context at a specific time, and re-worked in the context
of Judah’s captivity and God’s intention to re-create Israel at the
restoration. The entire text from Gen. 1:1-2:4 is poetic; this itself
surely warns us not to read this as a literal, blow by blow account of
historical creation. If such a historical account was provided, we surely
would find description and argumentation employed. But instead, we have a
kind of poetry. Victor Hamilton has spotted many examples of chiastic
structure within the section, and also within the individual verses. Take
Gen. 1:5- Hamilton translates this as “God named the light ‘Day’; the
darkness he named ‘Night’”; and he observes that the structure of verb-
indirect object / indirect object – verb in the Hebrew text is essentially
poetic. (Victor Hamilton, The Book
of Genesis: Chapters 1–17 (Eerdmans, 1990) p. 118).
The earth- I will be
arguing that eretz
here, as in much of Genesis and the
Hebrew Bible, refers specifically to the land of promise. I have elsewhere
discussed the definition of eretz
at length- see
The Last Days Digression 3 ‘The earth- land-
eretz’.
Understanding
eretz as referring to the land promised to Abraham enables us to
read the account of the flood as describing a local event in that area.
The watery formless waste of the Genesis 1 creation drama is repeated in
the flood; a re-creation occurs, with Noah taking the role of Adam. I
suggest that the same geographical area is in view-
eretz Israel, rather than the
entire planet. Likewise the events of Babel and confusion of languages
make more sense if they refer to a localized situation within the
eretz of greater Israel; the
list of nations descended from Noah’s sons in Genesis 10 all refer to the
peoples within eretz Israel,
rather than having any global reference. The nations mentioned there are
found elsewhere in the Bible- and they refer to peoples within the land
promised to Abraham, and not outside of it. No comment is made about e.g.
Aborigines, African tribes or American Indians. Note also that later
Biblical allusions to the flood speak of it as representative of God’s
judgments upon Israel; and this has an added appropriacy if the reference
is to the same geographical territory. Noah was to take both clean and
unclean animals into the ark, and we are surely intended to think that the
later classification of clean and unclean animals was used. But that
classification concerns animals known in
eretz Israel. The intention was
to keep life going on the eretz
after the flood. There was no classification of all the animals of
Australasia or the Amazon into clean or unclean, and no special comment on
specific animals from those regions; the special comments on clean or
unclean animals were all concerning animals known within the
eretz.
The sons of God
marrying the daughters of men resulted in the
eretz falling into sin; I
suggest this refers to the people of God who had been placed in the
eretz marrying the other
surrounding peoples. The language used about the state of things in the
eretz is exactly that used by
the later prophets concerning the situation in Israel.
We read that people
moved eastward and settled in Shinar before building Babel (Gen. 11:2);
but ‘east’ is relative to a fixed, defined area on earth. If we insist
that it means the entire planet, then it’s hard to conceive where ‘east’
would be on a sphere like planet earth which is rotating on its own axis.
But it makes sense within the boundaries of the
eretz promised to Abraham. The
same can be said of the account of Adam and Eve leaving Eden and moving
east (Gen. 3:24), and the rejected Cain likewise heading east (Gen. 4:16).
Jer. 27:5 alludes to the creation record in speaking of how God had ‘made’
[the Hebrew word means more ‘prepared’ than ‘to create’] “earth” and would
give it to the king of Babylon:
"I have made the earth, the men and the beasts which are on the
face of the earth by My great power and by My outstretched arm, and I will
give it to the one who is pleasing in My sight”. It’s significant that
Gen. 1:1 speaks of God creating all things-
bara. But this word is
paralleled in the later account with another word which has the sense of
'making' / preparing. The “earth” was to be given to
Nebuchadnezzar- clearly it is the specific
eretz of Israel which is in
view, and not the entire globe. Jer. 27:6 actually defines the
eretz as also including Ammon,
Moab, Sidon and Tyre- all areas within the
eretz promised to Abraham.
If we
understand Eden as being within the
eretz Israel, then the Biblical predictions that the ravaged land of
Israel would become as Eden take on an obvious appropriacy (Is. 51:1; Ez.
36:35; Joel 2:3). It is the same geographical area in view. Note that the
garden was in Eden (Gen. 2:8),
on the east of Eden. Adam and Eve were sent forth from the garden to the
east- in the direction of Babylon (Gen. 11:1), which was built east of
Eden. This clearly looks forward to the expulsion of Israel from their
land, to Babylon, and confirms the equation of Eden and
eretz Israel. Adam’s place in
Eden was dependent upon him obeying the “commandment” of Gen. 2:16, and a
related word is used of how Israel’s place in the land /
eretz was also contingent upon
their obedience to Divine commandment (Dt. 30:16).
Now the earth was formless and empty-
This Hebrew phrase tohu wabohu
is important in defining the “earth” spoken of as Israel. The Hebrew
better means
an "uninhabitable wilderness", although there is the idea of chaos also
present. The same phrase is used in Jer.
4:23-26 about
the state of eretz Israel after Israel had been exiled from it and it had been
judged by God. There are other creation allusions in that passage:
"I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void (tohu wabohu); and to the heavens,
and they had no light (cp. Gen.
1:2…
the fruitful land was a wilderness… there was no man, and all the birds of
the heavens had fled”. The first audience of Genesis 1 was
Israel, as they were travelling through a wilderness to the promised
eretz.
It has been claimed that
tohu means “deserted”, and this would have relevance for the Jews in
exile in Babylon, where Genesis was likely edited, being encouraged that
God could indeed re-form the eretz
they had left, and turn chaos into the beauty of His Kingdom.
Note how the NASB margin offers
“wasteland” for “formless”. The same word is used in Dt. 32:10 about the
wasteland where Israel were located when Genesis was first given- for
their instruction. Dt. 32:11 continues the creation allusion by speaking
of God as a bird ‘hovering over’ Israel- the same word used to describe
how God’s Spirit hovered over the surface of the waters (1:2).
As to whether there were previous creations before our own, my basic
sense is 'Yes, probably there were'. The earth being "without form and
void" (Gen. 1:2) uses a phrase elsewhere used to describe the judgment
that has come on an order of things (Jer. 4:23; Is. 24:10; 34:11). It may
be, therefore, that there was a previous creation on earth which was
destroyed in judgment. John Thomas in the first section of Elpis
Israel suggests (without much direct support from the Hebrew, it must
be admitted) that the command to Adam to " replenish the earth" (Gen.
1:28) implies to re-fill, as if there had been a previous creation that
was destroyed, presumably by water. "In the beginning" , perhaps a huge
period of time ago, God created the heavens and earth. But the present
creation can be seen as being constituted some time later, after the
previous creations. When during the six days of creation He said " Let
there be light" this may not have necessitated the actual manufacture of
the sun; this was presumably done "in the beginning" . But the sun was
commanded to shine out of the darkness (2 Cor. 4:6), and therefore from
the viewpoint of someone standing on the earth, it was as if the sun had
been created. The earth was covered with water at the time the present
creation began (Gen. 1:2). This would mean that the destruction of the
earth by the flood in Noah's time was actually a repeat of something God
had previously done. This sheds light on His promise to never again
destroy the earth with water: "I will stablish my covenant with you;
neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood;
neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (Gen. 9:11).
This sounds as if destruction of the earth by flooding had happened
several times before. It's almost as if the God of all grace is showing
Himself progressively gracious to earth's inhabitants: 'I've done it
before several times, but now I promise you humans, you new race of
inhabitants upon whom my special love is to be shown through My Son, that
I'll never do it again'.
Formless-
Later allusions to the creation record parallel God’s creation with His
forming or molding. Isaiah’s descriptions of God forming and molding the
earth to be inhabited by His people clearly refer to His creation of the
specific land of Israel, to be inhabited by the returning exiles (Is.
43:1,7,10,21;
Is. 44:2,21,24;
Is. 45:18). The drama starts off with the land of
promise being formless, waiting for God to form it into something
habitable. I suggest we have here a kind of prologue to the Pentateuch.
The creation is described as a series of six events, observed by someone
standing on earth with it happening all around them. This is how Job
begins. Clearly the book of Job is poetry, it is drama, and whilst Job was
a historical person [at least, other Scripture alludes to him in this
way], it is unlikely that the friends literally spoke in poetry, or that
his loss of children was balanced out by gaining new ones, as if the pain
of the loss was thereby compensated. And so the drama of creation is a
poetic way of explaining to Israel in the wilderness where their promised
land had come from. Just as it would be unwise to push the prologue of Job
into a strictly literal framework of interpretation, so with the drama of
creation which we have in early Genesis. The promised land being initially
empty and formless speaks directly to the situation of the land when
Israel first heard these words of Moses; they were travelling towards that
land, whilst God was preparing it. Creation is therefore described in
these terms, to remind them that the God of the cosmos was no less
powerful in creating Israel. This is the sense of the many creation
allusions in the restoration prophets. The deserted, abandoned land was to
be re-formed by the same creative power which made it in the first place.
The Babylonian invasion had made the land formless, empty and dark (Jer.
4:23), using the very words of Gen. 1:2 about the land before God began to
prepare it for His people.
The surface of the deep- The usage of the more
poetic “deep” rather than “sea” sets up allusion to how the Israelites
came out of the deep to enter the land (Ps. 106:9; Is. 51:10; Is. 63:13), just
as the ‘land’ is portrayed in this drama as it were emerging from the
deep. “The surface of the deep” occurs only three times in the Hebrew
Bible, and one of them suggests that at this time, God was preparing the
land for His people: “When he prepared the heavens… when he set a compass
upon the face of the depth” (Prov. 8:27). The allusion to Genesis 1
presents God as preparing rather than creating
ex nihilo. He as it were is
marking out with a pencil how He is going to prepare the material. And the
focus of all His creative work was the earth, the land, and the people
upon it, i.e. Israel.
God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters- This rare word translated ‘hovering’ is to be found in the description
of God hovering over the wilderness / formless land from whence He took
His people (Dt. 32:11). The point is, what God did at creation, He can do
at any time in the creation / formation of His people. In almost every phrase of the creation account,
there appears reference to the creation of Israel. The land and people of
Israel are frequently identified- appeals for the
land to mourn obviously refer to
the people. The later allusions
to the creation record are therefore far more than simply allusions to
God’s creative power; they are so frequent because the same
eretz or land is in view as that
which is centre stage in the drama of creation
which opens the history of Israel.
In the
first group of three days, we read of things appearing in the sky (days
one and two), then the seas (day three), and then the land (days three and
four). In the second three days, things again appear in the sky (days four
and five), then the seas (day five), and then the dry ground (day six). This
strengthens the impression that we are being presented with a dramatic
presentation, rather than a strictly literal, historical account of
events. I write of ‘impressions’, and of course the interpretation of any
Bible passage is in a sense deeply subjective and personal. I can only say
that reading Genesis 1 and 2 as literature, I don’t get the impression
that this is symbolic; it isn’t a case of dragons with stars on their
tails as we have in the book of Revelation. I also do not get the
impression that there is an attempt to provide a scientific explanation of
the creation process; neither in ancient nor modern terms. I do get the
impression that we are to read the record literally, and later Scripture
clearly takes Adam as a literal person- I don’t see the days as being
presented as anything less or more than literal days. This is evidenced by
the fact Adam was created on the sixth day but died at less than a
thousand years old at some time after the seventh day. And yet clearly the
record has elements of drama to it. I prefer therefore to liken the
‘creation’ account to a Divine drama or slideshow, observed by someone on
the eretz. The events literally
happened, in this dramatic presentation which serves as a prologue to the
Pentateuch; just as the events of Job 1 are a prologue to the book, and
are clearly drama. They happened literally enough- in the drama. But that
is not to say that they are strictly literal, historical, verbatim
1:3 God
said- The creation record emphasizes that God spoke, and it was done.
Creation was through a spoken word. This contrasts with the creation
myths, which nearly all claim that the present world emerged from conflict
between good and bad gods; or that the world came forth as a kind of
self-birth or self-reproduction [the pagan forerunner of atheistic
evolution], or the gods playing with dust in their hands. The Biblical record is strikingly different, demonstrating
that God is omnipotent of Himself, His word is all powerful, and there is
no personal Satan or other cosmic force of evil.
Let there be light, and there was light- The sun was ‘created’,
or appeared, on the fourth day. It has been argued that this light was
therefore the shekinah glory of
God. But I think that is an unnecessary argument. “Let
there be light” doesn’t have to mean that light or the sun was then
created, because I suggest the creation of all things in the cosmos was
already touched on in 1:1.
If we understand the whole record as a drama
unfolding before an observer, we are to imagine dawn breaking, light
appearing- and then on day four we find that this light comes from the
sun.
The same term describes the appearance of light at sunrise; and the sun or
light isn’t created at a sunrise, but it is observed as appearing (s.w.
Gen. 44:3;
Ex. 10:23; Neh.
8:3).
But in the Divine drama now unfolding, light as it were appears upon the
eretz like a spotlight shining
on a dark stage.
Paul powerfully uses this
image to speak of the light of Christ breaking into our otherwise chaotic
and formless lives to re-work that same material into something beautiful.
The “heavens and earth” were already in existence (1:1); therefore all we
now read about can’t refer to their creation, but rather their appearance
in the drama which is being unfolded. The whole language of “let there be
light” doesn’t sound as if the creation of light is in view; but rather
pre-existing light is summoned to appear. Rev. 22:5 pictures a return to
beginnings in saying that there will be light in the new Jerusalem, but no
need of the sun [not ‘no sun’, but no need of it]. We see here how the
provenance of ‘creation’ in Gen. 1:2- Gen. 2:4 is paralleled with the
new Jerusalem, suggesting that
the old creation drama was likewise centered around the
old Jerusalem.
It would seem from later Scripture that the orders and intentions
outlined by God on the six literal days are still being
fulfilled. Take the command for there to be light (Gen. 1:3,4). This is
interpreted in 2 Cor. 4:6 as meaning that God shines in men's hearts in
order to give them the knowledge of the light of Christ. The command was
initially fulfilled by the Angels enabling the sun to shine through the
thick darkness that shrouded the earth; but the deeper intention was to
shine the spiritual light into the heart of earth-dwellers. And this is
still being fulfilled. Likewise the resting of God on the seventh day was
in fact a prophecy concerning how He and all His people will enter into
the "rest" of the Kingdom. The Lord realized this when He said that
even on Sabbath, God was still working (Jn. 5:17). The creation work had
not really been completed in practice, although in prospect it
had been. In this very context the Hebrew writer comments that although we
must still enter into that rest, "the works were finished from the
foundation of the world" (Heb. 4:3).
The Genesis creation account repeatedly alludes to the Baal myths of
creation- in order to show that it is God and not Baal who controls the
cycles of nature and has brought an ordered creation out of chaos. Moses
states early on in his inspired account that God created light. The
Egyptians considered that light was in itself a great god, Re. And “in
Persian cosmology…light…is uncreated and eternal” (J.
Skinner,
Commentary On Genesis
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1956)).
So to say that the one true God created light, and light is not a god in
itself, was a radical thing. And hence the account of the fourth day of
creation is longer than the accounts of the other days; because the sun,
moon and stars were seen as gods in themselves. The moon god, Sin, was
thought to be the one who “fixes day, month and year”. But Genesis 1
teaches that it is the one God who created the moon, who set the moon and
stars to define time periods. There was only one God, one creator. We are
to look beyond all created things to the Creator behind them. The peoples
around the Israelites worshipped created things as if they were God. Moses
was teaching that no, there is only one God, and we must primarily worship
Him rather than anything which He has made. Paul brings out the error of
worshipping the created rather than the Creator. And this echoes down to
our day; where we can so easily worship the ‘idols’ of which this world is
so full, rather than the ultimate Creator. That there is only one
Divine Creator is a challenge to any form of idolatry.
1:4 God saw the light, and saw that it was good- This shouldn't be read as meaning that God looked at what He had created, and was impressed by His own handiwork when He saw it in physical existence. That would seem strange for an omnipotent and omniscient God. The idea could equally be that God looked at the light because it was good, recognizing it was good, whereas He doesn't look at the darkness; His looking at the light as it were made it "good". The light of the new creation is clearly presented in John's gospel as the Lord Jesus, who was alone "good" in God's eyes. Seeing or looking in Hebrew thought is connected with presence. The Father in that sense cannot look upon evil (Hab. 1:13), but He looks upon the Son, and we are in Him, and thereby in His presence acceptably.
God divided the light from
the darkness- This is the language of
God’s ‘creation’ of Israel when He gives them light and divides them from
the darkness of Egypt (Ex. 10:21; 14:20). The division of light from
darkness was the prelude to Israel’s inheritance of the prepared land; and
thus it was at the beginning of creation. Likewise, prior to their
entrance to the land, they heard the voice of God Himself coming out of
the thick darkness (Dt. 5:23) just as it did in this record of the
creation of the land. Judah in Babylon were in darkness (Is. 42:7); a
darkness created by God just as much as the light (Is. 45:7). They were
brought to light in their return to a restored land: “Darkness shall cover
the land, and gross darkness the peoples; but Yahweh will arise on you,
and His glory shall be seen on you” (Is. 60:2). This imagery is taken
directly from the drama of creation, and the same ‘land’ is surely in
view. The connections between the restoration prophecies and the creation
record are so strong that my personal belief is that Moses’ initial
creation account was re-written in Babylon, under inspiration. I suggest
Moses was the original inspired author because of the way parts of the
Pentateuch are attributed to him in other Scripture, and because of the
obvious relevance of the work for Israel in the wilderness, whom he was
leading and teaching.
1:5 God
called the light day, and the darkness He called night- To name something was understood as effectively creating it
(see on 2:20). So this naming was not
per se creating these things,
for they were already created in 1:1. Likewise Adam’s naming of the
animals didn’t literally create them, but effectively brought them into
known existence. And again likewise with God’s calling or naming of things in the
creation account after 1:1.
Paul, writing to those who thought they believed in the unity of God, had
to remind them that this simple fact implies the need for unity amongst us
His children, seeing He treats us all equally as a truly good Father: " If
so be that God is one... he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and
[likewise] the uncircumcision through faith" (Rom. 3:30 RV). Unity amongst
us is inspired by the fact that God seeks to be one with us, exactly
because He is Himself 'unity', one in Himself. The Rabbis have always been
at pains to point out the somewhat unusual grammar in the record of
creation in Genesis 1, which literally translated reads: "One day... a
second day... a third day", rather than 'One day... two days... three
days', as we'd expect if 'Day one' solely referred to 'firstness' in terms
of time. "The first day" (Gen. 1:5) therefore means more strictly 'the day
of unity', in that it refers to how the one God sought unity with earth. "Yom
ehad, one day, really means the day which God desired to be one
with man... the unity of God is a concern for the unity of the world" (Abraham
Heschel, Man
is Not Alone (New
York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1979) p. 123).
1:6 God said, Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters- The language of "an expanse" is to me one of the clearest evidences that we are reading a reported drama and not a scientific, historical account of creation. Some creationists claim that it refers to a water or ice canopy which came to earth at the flood. But this just will not do, for the same word translated “expanse” or “firmament” occurs later in the Bible, as if it still existed (e.g. Ps. 19:1; Ps. 150:1; Dan. 12:3). And the water released at the flood came from the clouds as well as from beneath the earth; there is no mention of this ‘firmament’ dissolving. God had already created the heavens and earth in Gen. 1:1, so the ‘firmament’ cannot refer to space or the atmosphere; that was already there if the heavens were already created. Further, the Hebrew word itself refers to something which is beaten out, a dome covering the land. It was intended to separate the waters from the waters, and something solid is implied by that alone. If it were indeed a canopy of water, then it would not be separating the upper waters from the lower waters- because it would itself be water. Gen. 1:20 in Hebrew speaks of the birds flying on the face or surface of this ‘firmament’, as if it were a constraining dome. We are invited to picture the clouds pinned to it above, and birds constrained by it beneath. Seeing that birds can fly through clouds, it will not do to claim that this “firmament” is merely the sky or a water canopy. A water canopy would have made the earth too hot for humans to live on. Why use the unusual and hard to define Hebrew term translated “expanse” or “firmament” if in fact merely the sky or atmosphere was intended? And why use a word which implies something tangible and material? There are other Hebrew words which mean ‘space’ as in the gap between two objects; but they aren’t used here [consider the Hebrew words used for ‘space’ in Gen. 32:16; Josh. 3:4; 1 Sam. 26:13]. Rather is there the idea of a “firmament”; this is not the same as saying ‘there was a space’. Job 37:18 uses the verb related to the noun “firmament” in saying that God “spread out [‘firmamented’] the sky, which is strong, as a molten looking glass”. The allusion is clearly to a common Ancient Near Eastern belief that there was such a dome over the earth. But later Biblical allusions to the firmament state that it is the platform upon which God sits and His cherubim ride (Ez. 1:23,25,26; 10:1 etc.). The firmament was understood as a solid structure and not simply the atmosphere. Is. 40:22 continues this understanding, although in the context of Israel, by saying that God “stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in”. Moses saw God Himself enthroned upon such a blue firmament. My suggestion is that this was a prop, as it were, in the drama of creation; and above it is enthroned God and the Angels. But they are enthroned upon and over Israel. That is the point. Perhaps this is why day two of creation is the only one which lacks the Divine comment, that He saw what He had made and it was good. This expanse / firmament was part of the furniture on the stage, as it were, and not a reference to anything which He had materially created. The description in :14 and :17 of the planets as “lights” firmly located or “set” within this ‘firmament’ again gives the impression of a fixed dome, into which the lights are inset like spotlights shining down on a stage. And again, this is all appropriate to a person standing upon earth; for in reality, the planets are located at vastly differing distances from planet earth. We have similar language in Ezekiel 32, where we read of a kind of de-creation of Egypt, with the lights in her firmament going out as if they were strobe lights being turned off over a stage: "When I shall extinguish you, I will cover the sky and make its stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of the sky will I make dark over you and set darkness on your land, says the Lord Yahweh" (Ez. 32:7,8).
The
restoration prophets speak of how God will as it were re-create Israel
when He restores His people to their land. And the verb
raqa, to spread out, to
‘firmament’, is used about the earth / land of Israel, paralleling the
spreading out of the land to the spreading out of the heavens above it:
“He that created the heavens, and stretched them out; He that spread forth
the land” (Is. 42:5); “He that stretches forth the heavens alone, that
spreads abroad the earth / land by Himself” (Is. 44:24); “Him that
stretched out the land / earth” (Ps. 136:6). Clearly, the ‘firmament’ was
seen as a dome over the land of Israel; what was seen in the drama of
creation was going to be repeated at Israel’s restoration. That
restoration will not involve a literal creation of land out of nothing.
The idea of the creation scene occurring
beneath a covering is one of many connections between the creation record
in Genesis 1, and the tabernacle. There are so many points of contact:
-
As creation was achieved
by a series of successive Divine commands being fulfilled, so the
tabernacle was created in obedience to Divine commands, and was inspected
by God and found good, and was blessed (Gen. 1:31 = Ex. 39:43).
-
The creation was
“completed” (Gen. 2:1) as the tabernacle was (Ex. 39:32).
-
God finished His creation
work (Gen. 2:2), as the tabernacle was a “work” that was “finished” (Ex.
40:33).
-
The completed creation and
tabernacle were both Divinely blessed (Gen. 2:3 = Ex. 39:43); and creation
and tabernacle were both “sanctified” on completion (Gen. 2:3 = Ex. 40:9).
-
The tabernacle was built
in response to seven successive Divine speeches to Moses, each beginning
with “The Lord spoke to Moses” (Ex. 25:1; 30:11,16,22,34; 31:11,12). This
obviously connects with the seven days of creation, and some Jewish
commentators perceive similarities between the events of the creation
days, and the material constructed for the tabernacle in each of the
matching sections of Ex. 25-31. Thus “sea” was created on the third day
(Gen. 1:9-11), and it was in the third command that the bronze laver or
“sea” was commanded (Ex. 30:16-21). And the seventh speech (Ex. 31:12-17)
mentions the need to keep the Sabbath, which was the theme of the seventh
day of creation.
-
The significant theme of
‘separation’ in creation (Gen. 1:4,6,7,14,18) is reflected in the
‘separation’ of holy and less than holy in the tabernacle (Ex. 26:33) and
the associated legislation regarding separating clean from unclean.
-
Both creation and the
construction of the tabernacle were the work of God’s Spirit (Gen. 1:1;
Ex. 31:3; 35:31).
-
The tabernacle was
finished as the new started (Ex. 40:17), continuing the connection between
tabernacle and creation.
-
The “firmament”, literally
‘the beaten thing’, uses the same word found in Ex. 39:3 and Num. 16:39
for the beating of metals into material for tabernacle usage. The precious
stones of Gen. 2:12 are the very stones found in the breastplate.
-
Adam’s role was to dress
and keep the garden (Gen. 2:15); but the Hebrew words used are elsewhere
used for “worship” and for dressing and keeping the tabernacle.
The point is that the
eretz and Eden were presented as God’s tabernacle, with the man of
the eretz, Adam the first
Israelite, intended to keep God’s ways and do His service within it. My
point is that the focus of Genesis 1 is upon Israel and God’s people
within that eretz, rather than
being a literal account of the creation of the cosmos from nothing.
We note again as on Gen. 1:4,5 the idea of division; as light was separated from darkness, so the waters were divided. The new creation is very much about division and separation- not simply from evil, but more positively, unto God's things.
1:7
God made the expanse- A different word to
that translated “created” in 1:1. It has been well observed that in
the six days of creation God is preparing this
land for man and not creating it. Indeed,
the Hebrew word translated ‘made’ in the context of creation can be used
just as in English we speak of ‘making a bed’. We don’t mean we created a
bed, but that we prepared the existing materials for usage. The Hebrew
word is used in just this sense in places like Dt. 21:12 [to ‘make’
fingernails]; 2 Sam. 19:25 [to ‘make’ feet] and 2 Sam. 19:24 [to ‘make’ a
beard]. And this is exactly relevant to Israel in the wilderness being led
to a land which their God had prepared for them. The
eretz is presented to us in
terms of its relation to the seas (:10)
and sky (:20)-
rather than with reference to the further cosmos, stars etc., as would be
required if the eretz referred
to the whole planet.
And divided the waters- A phrase repeatedly used
of the dividing of the Red Sea so that Israel could pass on “dry land”
(:9). The creation and formation of Israel is consistently described in
creation language- because it was exactly their creation which the
creation drama speaks of.
1:8 God
called the expanse sky. There was evening and there was morning, a second
day- The Hebrew means to call out, to proclaim. This fits the idea
of a Divine drama unfolding, with the voice of God as the narrator. The
idea of a drama or slideshow helps us better address the question as to
whether the events of Genesis 1 literally happened. ‘What happened in the
film’. ‘What happened next in the slideshow?’- such questions have a
‘literal’ answer. The observer, in whose shoes we are placed by the drama,
saw these things literally happen as they were presented to him. Whether
that is what literally happened in order to create the cosmos is not the
question in view. The creation of all things was briefly addressed in 1:1,
and then the spotlight moved on to
eretz Israel. Likewise the New Testament presents Adam as the first
man, and yes indeed he is presented as the first man in the Genesis
record. But that record is a drama of creation, focusing specifically on
eretz Israel and the man and
people of God upon it. No attempt is made at wider explanations concerning
the rest of the planet or indeed the cosmos. The things recorded were
indeed literally seen by the observer; I am not much attracted by attempts
to make the events all purely symbolic or mythical. They are presented as
literal events.
1:9 God said, Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place- See on 2:24. "One place" means just that, and the term often refers to the Jerusalem sanctuary or tabernacle. The reference does not fit comfortably with the idea of all water on the globe being gathered into the various ocean basins. Which is how we have to read this if we want to understand the record here as explaining the literal creation of planet earth. There are inland seas, and the distribution of the oceans hardly fits the idea of "one place" as it is Biblically used. The gathering of the seas or peoples is envisioned as being to "one place", the sanctuary of Yahweh.
Let
the dry land appear- This hardly sounds like the actual creation of
the dry land; rather does it fit admirably with the idea of a drama or
slow motion slide show [as it were] being recorded in words, from the
standpoint of an observer.
The events of the various days of creation are visions, acts in a drama,
whereby the eretz of promise
appears, as it were, out of the sea; the mist covering it is gathered up
into clouds, the dry land appears etc. The drama is recorded from the
standpoint of a human standing on the already created earth, watching it
happen. This was God’s creation story; it was how He wished Israel to
dramatically conceive of the creation of their land, as opposed to
accepting the fanciful creation myths they had encountered in Egypt.
The “seas” are spoken of in the plural whereas the
eretz is singular. There are
various islands and continents on planet earth; the focus is on a
particular land mass, the
eretz of Israel. If we wish to read this as referring to the emergence of the continents, then "land"
would have to be in the plural; but it isn't. A particular land is in
view.
1:10 God
called the dry land earth-
This does not specifically state that the earth is flat, but it’s
significant that there is no mention of it being a sphere; and the words
would rather suggest that a flat earth was in view. But this makes sense
if the “land” in view is that of Israel. This would also explain why there
is no obvious reference in Genesis 1 to the ‘earth’ as being spherical,
which we would rather expect if the global planet was in view. This
explains why Is. 40:28 speaks of ‘God creating’ (the same words as in
Genesis 1) “the ends of the earth / land”. The Hebrew for “ends” means a
frontier, a border, a corner. If we are insistent upon understanding the
eretz as referring to the whole
planet, then we are left with the conclusion that the Bible speaks of a
flat earth, with literal ends and boundaries to it. I suggest however that
Isaiah is understanding the Genesis creation as referring specifically to
the bringing about of the land of Israel. The borders were created, in
that they were defined by God and then the enclosed territory was promised
to Israel. In the same way we read of God creating the north and south- of
the land of Israel. We have similar language in Is. 45:18, where the
‘creation of heaven and earth’ is cited as evidence that God didn’t
therefore create the earth / land in vain, but to be inhabited; and this
is in the context of God assuring Judah that they would return to their
land, for He had created the heavens and land of Israel in order that the
land should not remain waste, for that would have meant creation in vain,
but rather to be inhabited- by the returned exiles. The new ‘heavens and
earth’ which were to be created are defined specifically as being
Jerusalem and a restored Judah (Is. 65:17,18).
The gathering together of the waters He called seas- Perhaps a reference to the three ‘seas’ which are spoken of in Israel, the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee and the “Great Sea”, the Mediterranean. Waters and flooding are Biblical symbols of judgment. God can be seen as gathering together the previous judgments, and bringing order and beauty out of condemnation. Which is exactly why the creation narrative is so repeatedly used as the pattern for our transformation by the work of the same Spirit.
God saw that it was good- This comment is
specifically about the earth / eretz
which has now ‘appeared’. The
eretz is very often called the “good” land, using the same Hebrew word
translated “good” in the repeated declarations that the created
eretz and all in it was “good”
(Gen. 49:15; Ex. 3:8; Num. 14:7; Dt. 1:25,35; 3:25; 4:21,22; 6:18; 11:17
and many other times).
1:11 God said, Let the earth sprout
vegetation, plants yielding seed- The same words used in Amos 7:2
for how the “grass of the earth”, i.e. the land of Israel, was eaten up by
her invaders.
And fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with its seed in it, on
the earth; and it was so- This particular emphasis
upon fruit trees with edible fruit appears strange if the whole planet is
in view. But it suddenly makes sense if the
eretz in view is in fact the garden, to which we will be introduced
in Genesis 2. That garden was full of fruit trees which had fruit on them.
Likewise the reference to “grass” is relevant to the land of Israel; for
not all areas of planet earth have grass or fruit trees.
1:12 The
earth sprouted vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind- Again this is not the language of creation
from nothing. Rather is the visual impression given of vegetation arising,
having already been created and now planted in the earth of the
eretz.
And trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God
saw that it was good-
The record focuses on the grass and fruit trees- characteristic of Israel.
There is no attempt to mention every aspect of the plant and animal
creation, but only those things which are felt to characterize Israel.
There is no focus upon the creation of bushes, or even trees generally;
the focus is on fruit trees. The text is clearly not even attempting a
scientific explanation; rather are we seeing something impressively
visual, fruit trees, appearing on the stage in the drama being unfolded.
1:14 God
said, Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the
night-
The Hebrew idea is: 'Let the lights in the expanse be for separating the
day and night...'. The actual planets, sun and moon etc. were already
created in the “beginning” (1:1); but now in this Divine slideshow
presentation, they play a specific role over the
eretz of Israel.
Let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years- This is the language of the Mosaic feasts. The GNB offers “religious
festivals” as a fair translation here. The stars were placed in order to
tell Israel beneath them when to perform the rituals of Divine worship.
Again, we are invited to see the ‘land’ upon which these heavenly bodies
shined as the land of Israel, inhabited by God’s people.
1:15 Let
them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth-
The “lights” in view are hardly the entire cosmos, because not all planets
shed light upon planet earth. The stars likewise are spoken of giving
light on earth (:16,17). If we are going to limit the reference of the
lights and stars to those relevant to planet earth, we are tacitly
admitting that the creation record is not speaking of the creation of
literally all planets, or all things. It is therefore no problem, surely,
to accept that in fact the record here may not be speaking simply of part
of the cosmos, i.e. planet earth, but of a part of the planet, the
eretz promised to Abraham. We
note that God “prepared” the “light [s.w.] and the sun” (Ps. 74:16). This
is a direct statement that the ‘creation’ record in Genesis 1 speaks of
the preparation of things rather than their creation
ex nihilo. Note that the moon is
not of itself a light source- it reflects light. Yet in this drama of
creation, the moon over the eretz
is presented as a bulb which is switched on, thus giving light on
eretz Israel.
1:16 God
made the two great lights- I have noted earlier that ‘made’ is used in
the sense of ‘preparing’, as in ‘making a bed’. The heavens and earth, a
merism for ‘everything’, had already been created in 1:1. We are to
imagine at this stage of the drama the preparation of two great lights,
and then placing them inset into the ‘firmament’ or dome (:17). The plants
and vegetation had already appeared on the previous day, which would have
been impossible without the sun. Their appearance was apparently
instantaneous. Clearly this is all part of a drama which we are invited to
watch unfolding, entering into the man standing on earth seeing it all
come about, rather than seeking to read all this as literal acts of the
historical creation. This answers the obvious objection:
"How could light be produced on the first day, and the sun, the
fountain of it, not be created till the fourth day?". In the drama presented, the sun is only revealed on ‘Day Four’. This is
strong evidence for thinking that the whole drama is being recorded from
the viewpoint of a person standing on earth. It is not, therefore, a
literal explanation of the historical creative process.
It’s possible to perceive significance in the
colours of the things created. The record starts with black and white, day
and night; then the blue sea and sky; then green grass; now yellow sun;
and finally man is created from the
adamah, the red soil. This would then complete a rainbow, and we note
a rainbow appears when God as it were re-creates the
eretz after making it a watery
mass again at the flood. Again we are invited to see the provenance of the
flood as being that of the eretz of Genesis 1, and there are good reasons for believing the
eretz of the flood to refer to a
specific part of the Middle East rather than the entire planet.
He also made the stars- This is added as an
afterthought, almost. The focus is upon sun and moon. Seeing sun and moon
are almost insignificant compared to the other stars in the cosmos, we are
obviously being given a very earth-centred account, rather than an
explanation of the entire cosmos. The pagan creation myths gave priority
to the stars, which they considered critical in determining human fortune;
but God’s account says that He brought them into being, but gives no great
emphasis to them. Joel 3:15 speaks of the sun, moon and stars no longer
shining when Israel is overcome by; again, the message is that the
creation record is focused upon
eretz Israel. The literal stars are billions of light years away, and
if they were suddenly created, they would not be immediately observed by
an observer standing on earth. Again it stands to reason that we are not
reading a literal account of creation, but rather a dramatic presentation
of how things appeared to an observer on
eretz Israel.
1:18 And
to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the
darkness. God saw that it was good- The sun, moon and stars do not
literally divide light from darkness. This would support my suggestion
that Genesis 1 describes a kind of slideshow of creation, with a material
dome in which the planets are set. The planets all being set within the
same dome, or firmament, they divided light from darkness in that they
were located on the dome [“firmament”] which did so. This all sounds like
a description of some kind of model, a theatrical set above which lights
appear, waters gather, land appears, grass shoots forth etc.
1:20 God
said, Let
the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures- “Swarm” translates a
word implying that the waters “brought forth” these creatures. The
literalist reading, following the KJV, would have to conclude that the creatures somehow
originated from H2O. The sentence makes more sense surely if we read this
as drama- the spectator saw the creatures swarming out of the water. This
was how it appeared, visually, to the observer. But that was for the
purpose of the dramatic scene, and shouldn’t be read to mean that the
creatures evolved as it were out of water.
The creation account was the basis for the de-creation, if you like, of
Egypt through the plagues. The same Hebrew term for ‘the waters swarming’
is used in Ex. 8:3 about how the Nile water swarmed with frogs.
And let
birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of sky-
The idea is that the birds arose out of the water. This is clearly not a
scientific statement, but rather a visual account of how the scene looked
to the observer of the drama. The AV more correctly reflects the Hebrew
word for “firmament”: “fowl that may fly above
the earth in the open firmament of heaven”. The birds are described in
Hebrew as flying ‘across the face of’ the “firmament” rather than “in” it.
This further supports the idea of a dome, arching across an area of flat
land, with the birds moving across the surface of it- the same surface
where the planets are spoken of as being “set”. This is clearly not a
literal scientific explanation of material creation, but rather does it
seem to describe the appearance seen by the observer of this Divine drama
in which the dome or firmament is a major stage prop.
1:21 God created- Again, the idea is that He "made" things, but 'making' is used about making things out of pre-existing material, rather than creation from nothing, ex nihilo.
The large sea creatures- Most of the other Biblical occurrences of the
Hebrew word refer to large creatures which live in rivers- serpents,
crocodiles etc. Why the strange focus upon just one kind of water
creature? Surely because the record is focusing upon the animals of the
eretz which lived in the rivers
which formed the boundaries of eretz Israel. Remember that “sea” can refer to any body of water,
and not necessarily a saltwater ocean.
And every winged bird after its kind. God saw that it was good- It might seem axiomatic
that birds have wings, but the stress upon wings may well be because of
the pagan, and Babylonian specifically, belief in winged gods. This is
another reason for believing that the Genesis record was edited, under
inspiration, whilst the Jews were in Babylon. The point being that it was
Israel’s God who had created all winged beings.
1:22 God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas- This is presented as a command which the animals, especially fish, had the capacity to understand and choose to obey. For the same language will later be used in the command to Adam and Eve. Again we are being nudged to perceive that this record of creation is intended to be understood as having a strong figurative element to it. For fish in their literal sense do not listen to Divine commandment and then decide as to whether or not to obey. If there is no element of choice implied, then the concept of commandment seems misplaced and inappropriate.
And let birds multiply on the earth- The same words used about the multiplication of
animals in the land / earth which had been the territory affected by the
flood (Gen. 8:17; 9:1). This command of God to animals surely wasn’t
understood by them; it makes more sense as part of a dramatic
presentation, where Yahweh’s voice addresses the scene rather than
literally the animals.
1:24
God said-
One major difference between Genesis and the pagan creation myths was that
Moses told the Israelites that God created everything by His word. He
spoke, and it was done. This was markedly different to the [then] popular
myths of gods hatching eggs, or procreating to produce the world.
Repeatedly, later Scripture alludes to the fact that it was by the word of
God that the world was created; and that same powerful, re-forming, saving
word was and is that heard by His people still (Ps. 33:6,9; 104:7;
147:15-18; 148:3-5; Is. 40:26; 44:23; 48:13; 50:2; 55:10). A. Heidel
comments: “The word of the Babylonian deities was not almighty. On the
contrary, the word of the creator in Gen. 1 is almighty. He commands and
the result is in perfect conformity to his command…there is a profound
difference between the Bible and non-biblical religions” [on this point of
the word being the agency of creation]. This feature of Genesis 1 paves
the way for Ex. 25:1 and many other passages later in the Pentateuch
recording how “God said…”, and Israel therefore ought to obey His word of
command in ‘creating’ the tabernacle out of existing materials. Thereby
they would show themselves at one with the Angel-elohim, who had earlier
likewise obeyed God’s word of command in creating the world. God spoke,
and it was done. And so when God speaks now to His elohim, His
people- it ought likewise to be done.
Let the earth produce living creatures after their kind, livestock,
creeping things-
The Hebrew translated “produce” has a wide range of meaning. The account
of the emergence of animals from Noah’s ark is clearly intended to be
understood as a re-creation on the
eretz. The same word is used of how the animals ‘came out of’ the ark
and likewise began to reproduce abundantly in the earth (Gen. 8:17,19;
9:10). This doesn’t mean they were created
ex nihilo, they appeared on the
eretz; and that is the same
picture we have here in Genesis 1. The word is used of how rivers were
produced, or sprung out, of the land of Israel (Dt. 8:7), and frequently
of the ‘coming forth’ of Israel from Egypt. So I suggest the drama of
creation at this point saw the animals of the
eretz arising out of the
eretz. This is not to say that
animals were created from dust, because that would require a different
Hebrew word. Here, eretz, the
land, is used.
God created matter. Ultimately, all that exists was made by Him; and by
faith we believe that things which now exist were not made from what
already existed apart from God. The Genesis record of creation, however,
emphasizes how God brought order out of chaos. He brought this present
world of beauty and order out of a darkness that brooded upon a sea, and
from an earth that was “without form and void”, the Hebrew images behind
the words implying ‘a chaos’. The frequent references to the earth and sea
‘bringing forth’ (e.g. Gen. 1:12,24 "produce") use a Hebrew word which
means ‘to let something which is within to come out’. The present world
was created by a re-organization of things which existed in some form
before. This means that when our own lives, or the collective life of
God’s people, appears to be in chaos- then we can in faith reflect that
God has brought beautiful order out of chaos, and He can likewise
powerfully bring order to what seems hopeless. This is the context of the
creation allusions in the laments of Ps. 74:12-17; 89:10-15; Is. 51:9 etc.
And animals of the earth after their kind; and it was so- We can understand this
as the observer of the drama viewing specifically the animals native to
the earth / land of Israel appearing; likewise the birds which appeared on
the eretz in :22 would refer
specifically to birds known to eretz
Israel. Likewise the lists of clean and unclean animals we encounter later
in the Pentateuch are all animals known within eretz Israel, they
are not a global list. If the intention of the record is to describe the entire animal
stock of the planet, the emphasized additional phrase “of the earth” would
appear superfluous. This would explain too why there is particular
emphasis upon fruit trees. Such trees are not in every land of planet earth, but
they were characteristic of Israel.
1:25 God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind- As noted on :24, the reference here is to the specific animals of the eretz, the land promised to Abraham. The command in :24 to "let the earth produce..." these animals is now put into operation by God. The idea is that He states His intention, and then puts His word into operation on the ground. The impression is given that His word is then operationalized. And His spoken word to this day has that same pregnancy of power. The oft repeated "after their kind" suggests that all the various animals within their respective families were created. The impression is of the creation of families, even within the animal kingdom. And as we will see later in the Genesis record, the creative purpose of God operates through families.
And everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it
was good- The same word used later in the
Pentateuch for the “creeping” animals which were unclean. But here we
learn that even those ‘creepers’ were created by God and pronounced
“good”. Hence Paul argues that there is nothing unclean in itself (Rom.
14:14).
1:26 God
said, Let us make
man-
Adam is presented as the first man, and the genealogies of Genesis 5 and
10 trace the developments of genealogy from him. But the list of nations
in Genesis 10 relate specifically to the peoples found in the land
promised to Abraham. This relieves us from worrying about whether there
were other people around before Adam, or from where his children found
marriage partners. The focus of the account is upon the land promised to
Abraham; and the later Biblical mentions of Adam as the first man can be
understood as continuing this Israel-centered focus which we find
throughout the Bible. The Bible is the Divine history of His relationship
with His people and their land; it doesn’t attempt to chronicle human or
global history beyond that.
The Hebrew construction used here has been described as “a plural of
deliberation”. C. Brockelmann describes it as “a form of speech which
occurred primarily in self-deliberation”. In other words, an individual
may use a plural to describe his or her decision. Take David’s words in 2
Sam. 24:14: “Let us fall into the hand of the Lord…but let not
me fall into the hand of man”. Ezra 4:18 has a King saying: “The
letter ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me”. In
Is. 6:8 we read the same of God Himself: “Whom shall I [singular]
send, and who will go for us?”. And this would enable us to better
understand God’s decision making in Gen. 11:7: “Go to, let us go
down, and there confound their speech”. The same sort of thing occurs in
modern English slang: “Let’s see…” = ‘let me personally consider’; ‘Give
us that pen’ = ‘Give me that pen’; ‘We was just…’ = ‘I was just…’. So “Let
us make man…” may refer to God’s personal self-deliberation in
making human beings; to a Semitic reader of the original, it would
emphasize the vast passion which God Almighty put into this decision. And
it therefore follows, that He passionately wishes to have a very definite
purpose with us, that He so loves us, and wishes only our eternal
good.
In our image- The kings of Babylon and the ancient world were called ‘the image of God’. Here we see the huge value ascribed by God to the human person. It’s not at all that the leaders are God’s image and the rest of humanity of no significance. All God’s people are His king-priests to reign on the earth (Rev. 5:10). Many of the creation myths emphasize the infinite gap between the gods and man, and how this was particularly manifest at creation. But the true account of creation emphasizes God’s closeness to man and His particular focus upon not only the earth and solar system, but specifically eretz Israel.
When we read that we are made in God’s image, the Hebrew word for ‘image’
is that to be used later throughout the Old Testament concerning the
‘images’ of idols. Hence the awfulness of Israel making images of the
false gods, in human likeness (Ez. 16:17)- because this was a studied
statement that they rejected the one true God as their creator, in His
image. If we are made in God’s image, then we simply cannot admit the
existence of any other image of God- which, in the end, is what all the
gadgetry and idols of this world amount to.
After our likeness-
And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds
of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creeps on the earth- This continues the use
of royal language which we noted in the idea of the image of God. It was
royalty who ‘exercise dominion over’, but here that invitation is to Adam.
And it is to us too, insofar as we dominate the natural mind and extend
Kingdom rule over all creation.
1:27 God
created man in His own image- The impression is again given that God
states His word of intention, and then fulfils it. His word is, therefore,
pregnant with power and certain of fulfilment. This is the inspired narrator’s comment
upon the preceding account of how God had decreed “Let us make man in our
image”. This comment shows that the
elohim in view amount to God Himself personally- not so much Angels,
and certainly not a Trinitarian godhead, which is unknown to the Bible
text. If any plurality was in view, the narrator here would have written
of God creating man ‘in our
image’. The plural I therefore take as being an insight into God’s mind,
just a man may say to Himself “Let’s [‘let us’] see… let me just make
this…’.
In God’s image He created him; male and female He created them- This comment seeks to
show in what we are differentiated from God. And in contrast to the
animals, there are no species of human beings, all humans are one and the
same.
The Babylonian Marduk myth and Ras Shamra epic has the creation story
reaching a climax and crowning conclusion with a temple being built for
Marduk the creator. The Biblical record is quite different- the climax to
the story is the creation of a man. We see in this the supreme importance
attached to humanity by the one true God; and this tacitly paves the way
for the explicit New Testament teaching that the human body is the temple
of God (1 Cor. 6:19)- supremely of course demonstrated in the Lord Jesus,
who was in person the temple (Jn. 2:21).
1:28 God blessed them-
No pagan creation myth includes the idea of the Divine Creator then
blessing His creation. Here we see the surpassing grace of God. He
lavishes His love upon what He created. None of the creation myths include
such a wonderful feature. Within Genesis, this idea of blessing of course
paves the way for God promising to “bless” the children of Abraham, and
the blessings upon them with which Deuteronomy concludes (see too Lev.
9:22; Num. 6:22-24). The pagan creation stories sometimes spoke of the
things created by the gods then blessing them. The Sumerians
recorded that at ‘creation’, “The whole universe, the people in unison, to
Enlil in one tongue gave praise” (S.N.
Kramer,
Sumerian Literature and the Bible (Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblica, 1959) p.107). But the true God, the
God of all grace, not only creates His people and other creatures, but
then blesses them! And the spirit of that grace should be seen in
all our relationships. The Sumerian and Babylonian myths speak of people
being created in order to serve the gods, “to bear the yoke of the gods”
(S.G.F. Brandon, op cit p. 115), to relieve them in their everyday
work. But the Genesis creation has God creating man and giving him great
freedom, and blessing him. It has often been rightly observed that the
first use of a word in Scripture should influence how we later understand
it as we read through the Bible. ‘Blessing’ in Gen. 1 is clearly related
to the ideas of fertility and reproducing. When we later read that God has
‘blessed’ us His people with the Abrahamic blessing of forgiveness (Acts
3:24-26), the implication is that this must lead to some bringing forth of
fruit. We can’t simply be passive to what we’ve received. We must go forth
and multiply it, in sharing it with others, in bringing forth spiritual
children, in creatively forgiving others…
And God
said to them, Be
fruitful, multiply- This contrasts sharply with the pagan ideas that
fertility and reproduction required rites and sacrifice. The silence of
the Biblical record about anything like this stands in opposition to this.
The simple statement is that human reproduction is a result of God’s
gracious blessing of man, and requires no ritual to realize it. “Be
fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth” is the language of Israel
multiplying in the land of Israel (Dt. 6:3; 30:5,16; Josh. 24:3). Adam,
the first Israelite, was intended to do this; but like Israel, he was
distracted by the serpent, whom he failed to dominate and subdue as
commanded.
What happened in Eden was that the garden was planted, Adam was placed in
it, and commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge. The animals are
then brought before him for naming; then he is put into a deep sleep, and
Eve is created. Then the very first command Adam and Eve
jointly received was to have children, and go out into the whole earth
(i.e. out of the garden of Eden) and subdue it to themselves (Gen. 1:28).
The implication is that this command was given as soon as Eve was created.
There he was, lying down, with his wife beside him, " a help meet" ;
literally, 'an opposite one'. And they were commanded to produce seed, and
then go out of the garden and subdue the earth. It would have been obvious
to him from his observation of the animals that his wife was
physiologically and emotionally designed for him to produce seed by. She
was designed to be his 'opposite one', and there she was, lying next to
him. Gen. 2:24 implies that he should have cleaved to her and become one
flesh by reason of the very way in which she was created out of him. And
yet he evidently did not have intercourse with her, seeing that they
failed to produce children until after the fall. If he had consummated his
marriage with her, presumably she would have produced children (this deals
a death blow to the fantasies of Adam and Eve having an idyllic sexual
relationship in Eden before the fall). Paul saw Eve at the time of her
temptation as a virgin (2 Cor. 11:2,3). Instead, Adam put off obedience to
the command to multiply. There seems an allusion to this in 1 Cor. 7:5,
where Paul says that married couples should come together in intercourse "
lest Satan (cp. the serpent) tempt you for your incontinency". Depending
how closely one reads Scripture, there may be here the suggestion that
Paul saw Adam's mistake in Eden as not 'coming together' with his wife.
Replenish the earth, and subdue it-
I suggest that this is parallel to caring for the garden of Eden, which is
therefore the eretz. See on
2:15. The only other references to ‘subduing’ in the Pentateuch are to
Israel subduing eretz Israel
(Num. 32:22,29; Josh. 18:1). The
eretz was to be understood as Israel.
There is good internal reason to think that the Pentateuch likewise was
re-written in places to bring out the relevance of Israel's past to those
in captivity. Consider the use of the word pus, 'scatter'. It was
God's intention that mankind should scatter abroad in the earth and subdue
it (Gen. 1:28); but it required the judgment of the tower of Babel to
actually make them 'scatter' (Gen. 11:4). Thus even in judgment, God
worked out His positive ultimate intentions with humanity. And this word
pus is the same word used with reference to Judah's 'scattering'
from the land into Babylonian captivity (Ez. 11:17; 20:34,41; 28:25). The
intention, surely, was to show the captives that they had been scattered
as the people had at the judgment of Babel / Babylon, but even in this,
God was working out His purpose with His people and giving them the
opportunity to fulfil His original intentions for them.
Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and
over every living thing that moves on the earth- The Hebrew word for
"dominion"
likewise elsewhere refers to having dominion over
eretz Israel by driving out or conquering the peoples who lived
there (1 Kings 4:24). The Messianic King was to have dominion over the
land promised to Abraham, the eretz
(Ps. 72:8).
The most basic principle behind the symbolism of the
beast is found in Gen. 1:28, where man is told to " have dominion over"
(Heb. 'to break to powder', cp. Dan. 2:35) the beasts. This
was to teach him the need to dominate the bestial instincts of the flesh.
Thus the beasts are set up as representative of the flesh.
Indeed, Strong defines the Hebrew word for 'beast' as fundamentally
meaning 'raw flesh'. It is therefore understandable that the
devil (sin), the beast and the serpent are linked in Rev. 12:9, and that
Prov.28:15 parallels " a wicked ruler" with a wild bear or lion; the beast
epitomizes the sinful person who controls it. The Apocalyptic
beast of the earth (Rev. 13:11) must look back to the common phrase "
beast of the earth" in Genesis (e.g. Gen. 1:25).
1:29 God
said, Behold, I
have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all
the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be
your food- Surely this doesn’t mean that Adam was to literally eat of
every tree and herb on the planet. Adam was invited to eat from all the
plants which were on the surface of the
eretz. Unlike in the present
creation, they were all edible by him. Again we have the implication that
we are not reading here of how our current planet came about, but of
something more specific and local, with especial reference to Adam. The parallel account in
chapter 2 says “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat” (Gen. 2:16). I
suggest that the eretz in view
is the garden of Eden. See on Gen. 2:19. Not all plants on the surface of the
planet are edible, and so this sits more comfortably with reference to a
specific, localized area of planet earth. The objection of course is that
such inedible plants were a result of the fall. But the Biblical record of
the fall doesn’t say anything to the effect that once Adam sinned, the
Angels, as it were, sped around the planet smashing the place up and
making many plants inedible. This is an argument from silence. The Genesis
record doesn’t state that- although it is required by those who believe
that the eretz includes the
whole planet, and that references to all plants and animals on “earth” is
to be read on a global level. This creates all manner of practical and
moral difficulties; were the Siberian tigers only created after the fall,
when their habitat had become cold and inhospitable, etc etc. For the
record stresses that everything was created according to its species, both
plant and animal, before the fall. It is far more natural to read the
changes required by the fall as applying to Eden /
eretz Israel, rather than the
whole planet.
1:30 To
every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything
that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green
herb for food; and it was so- The animals and birds were given all the leafy plants
of the earth as food, whereas Adam was given all the fruit bearing plants
to live from (:29). This sounds like a special situation in a localized
area. Because some species are designed to eat other animals, some plants
aren’t edible by animals, and some fruit bearing plants aren’t edible by
man; some birds only eat fish, not plants. To argue that this was all a
result of the curse means that we are positing that new species were
created after the fall. But the record appears to disallow that. I suggest
all manner of logical and scientific problems are avoided by reading the
“earth” here as a specially designated area on the planet, where there
were special conditions. The message seems to be that in the
eretz, which I suggest was the
same as Eden, there were only herbivores. When Adam sinned and was exiled
from the garden and eretz
Israel, the carnivores from the surrounding world moved in. And that is
exactly what happened when Israel sinned “like Adam” and were exiled from
their land; the carnivorous beasts moved in. And the beasts of Daniel and
Revelation refer, I suggest, to Israel’s enemies moving in upon her land
and sanctuary.
1:31 God
saw everything that he had made- The
“everything” refers to the creation of man on the sixth day. Man was God’s
“everything”; the rest of creation had been described as “good” in God’s
eyes, but man was seen as “very good”. The drama of creation has come to a
climax. Gen. 1:1 begins with the comment that God created literally all
things, and then from Gen. 1:2 the focus is upon the creation of
eretz Israel, and now the focus narrows down to man within that
land- God’s people. And we sense the especial Divine focus and thrill in
Adam.
There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day- The English translations
generally miss the point that days one to five are described as e.g. ‘a
second day’, ‘a third day’. But the determinate “the sixth day” (Hebrew-missed by many translations, including NEV) is different, to highlight the importance of the
creation of Adam. This is yet another reflection of the supreme value and
meaning God attaches to the human person. And His perspective is to be
ours.
Previous Creations
As to whether there were previous creations before our own, my basic
sense is 'Yes, probably there were'. The earth being " without form and
void" (Gen. 1:2) uses a phrase elsewhere used to describe the judgment
that has come on an order of things (Jer. 4:23; Is. 24:10; 34:11). It may
be, therefore, that there was a previous creation on earth which was
destroyed in judgment. John Thomas in the first section of Elpis
Israel suggests (without much direct support from the Hebrew, it must
be admitted) that the command to Adam to " replenish the earth" (Gen.
1:28) implies to re-fill, as if there had been a previous creation that
was destroyed, presumably by water. " In the beginning" , perhaps a huge
period of time ago, God created the heavens and earth. But the present
creation can be seen as being constituted some time later, after the
previous creations. When during the six days of creation He said " Let
there be light" this may not have necessitated the actual manufacture of
the sun; this was presumably done " in the beginning" . But the sun was
commanded to shine out of the darkness (2 Cor. 4:6), and therefore from
the viewpoint of someone standing on the earth, it was as if the sun had
been created. The earth was covered with water at the time the present
creation began (Gen. 1:2). This would mean that the destruction of the
earth by the flood in Noah's time was actually a repeat of something God
had previously done. This sheds light on His promise to never again
destroy the earth with water: " I will stablish my covenant with you;
neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood;
neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth" (Gen. 9:11).
This sounds as if destruction of the earth by flooding had happened
several times before. It's almost as if the God of all grace is showing
Himself progressively gracious to earth's inhabitants: 'I've done it
before several times, but now I promise you humans, you new race of
inhabitants upon whom my special love is to be shown through My Son, that
I'll never do it again'.
All That Fall
It was presumably in one of the previous creations that the Angels were
developed. They have knowledge of good and evil, just as fallen man has
(Gen. 3:22). This could suggest that they too had the experience of
temptation and choice between sin and obedience. Job speaks of the angels
who were charged with folly as if this fact was well known (Job 4:18).
Bro. Thomas suggests that the " angels that sinned" in 2 Pet. 2:4 lived at
this time. There is no doubt that this passage in Peter, and the parallel
in Jude, has some reference to Korah's rebellion. However, there are many
such warnings to God's people which combine reference to more than one
historical event, and it could be the same here: as if to say, 'History
repeats itself. The angels that sinned so long ago went through in
principle the same process of apostasy as Korah's company, and you too are
capable of falling from grace in the same basic way'.
Apostasy has a long continuity; all who fall follow a similar pattern,
ultimately sharing the same apotheosis. It could even be that the fall of
the Kings of Tyre and Babylon (Is. 14; Ez. 28) are recorded in the
language of an angel / " anointed cherub" who wanted superiority over the
others, and who then fell from Heaven (Ez. 28:14; Is. 14:13,14 cp. Eph.
4:10). There are strong similarities between these passages and the Jewish
understanding of Angels that sinned before creation. These similarities
would be in order to show the same kind of historical continuity: between
the Angels who once sinned, and spiritually blessed men who turned away
from what they could have had. The fact that all the Angels
now are righteous and incapable of sinning (cp. Lk. 20:35,36) doesn't
mean that Angels never sinned in a previous creation. But the point to
note is that they are now in the grave, chained in darkness- not running
around as evil spirits causing mischief. They are " reserved unto
judgment" (2 Pet. 2:4), when " we shall judge angels" (1 Cor. 6:3).
The Wonder Of It All
From these thoughts comes a powerful devotional point. God, who existed
from eternity, has doubtless been active from eternity. He is
Spirit, and His Spirit is essentially His power in action. There was at
least one previous creation, involving the Angels. The fossil record, if
indeed it can be taken seriously, would suggest that there were plants and
animals (e.g. dinosaurs) which lived millions of years ago. These may have
been part of those previous creations. And yet Adam was the first human
being (1 Cor. 15:45), created around 6,000 years ago.
The human race which descended from him has generally rejected God. The
majority of His chosen people, Israel, rejected Him to the point of
crucifying His Son. But for such a small group of people, existing at such
a small time and in such a tiny physical area in the perspective of
infinite time and space, God gave His only begotten Son. The Lord Jesus
didn't physically exist before His birth; He wasn't some kind of time
traveller who had shown up in previous creations. The only begotten
Son of God was born for the very first time. This is the pure wonder
of the narratives of His birth. He was a human being, not an Angel,
because He shared the nature of those He came to redeem (Hebrews 2
develops this at length). The only and begotten Son of
God was a human being because He came to save just a few million (or
however many) little human beings on this little insignificant planet, a
pin prick in the vastness of space even within this present creation,
people who lived out their history for just a few thousand years compared
to infinity. And this only son of His was born to an illiterate young
girl, and then the crying, gurgling Son of God was laid down in a
cattle stall (Luke, the doctor who appreciated the need for hygiene, so
emphasizes this: Lk. 2:7,12,16), because the other guests in that cheap
hotel couldn't make space for a heavily pregnant woman (again, Luke the
sometime-gyn doctor would've sensed the shame of it). And this was
the beginning of the only and ever begotten Son of God, who dwelt
light years away from that humble barn. It's almost too wonderful to
believe. There will be many " ages" to come, as there have doubtless been
many " ages" of previous creations already (Rom. 1:25; 9:5; Heb. 13:8);
but for our " age" alone was the only begotten Son of God given as a
representative of us, the humans who live in this brief " age" .
God thus describes Himself as a first timer falling in love with His
people; as a young marries a virgin, so God marries us (Is. 62:5); Israel
were as the lines graven on a man's palm, with which he was born (Is.
49:16). Thus from absolute eternity, we were the great " all things" to
Almighty God, the God of all, all past and future creations.
We may well ask why space is so big, why there were countless previous
creations, why out of all the teeming species and forms of life on this
planet (and perhaps others), God's salvation in Christ is only for
human beings, whom He represented in His very nature; why out of all
humans, only a few are called, and why out of those few called are even
fewer chosen; why in the past He delighted to chose Israel,
one of the smallest and unlovely nations, and their small, despised land,
as His land and His people (and in principle He has done
the same in His calling of the new Israel)... and the answer may be that
God has arranged it this way in order to show us the magnitude of His
humanly senseless love; that He has given so much, even His Only
Son, for so very few in such a very small geographical area in
such a very short time span. Brethren, think on these things. Look
up at the night sky and like father Abraham, struggle, successfully, to
believe the wonder of it all.
Previous Chapter
