God created the entire universe and then formed and filled it in six days. He brought order and fullness for humankind to enjoy and to rule over. He then blessed and set apart the seventh day as a memorial of His creative work.19The God of Israel, the deliverer of His people, is the creator of all that exists.
". . . Gen 1:1-2:4a is clearly recognizable as a unit of historical narrative. It has an introduction (1:1), a body (1:2-2:3) and a conclusion (2:4a)."20
"The creation account is theocentric, not creature centered. Its purpose is to glorify the Creator by magnifying him through the majesty of the created order. The passage is doxological as well as didactic, hymnic as well as history. God' is the grammaticalsubject of the first sentence (1:1) and continues as the thematicsubject throughout the account."21
There are three major views concerning the relationship of 1:1 to the rest of the creation account.
1. Verse 1 describes an original creation of the universe. God began fashioning the earth as we know it in verse 2 or verse 3. This view may or may not involve a gap in time between verses 1 and 2.22Some advocates of this view believe that the original creation became chaotic as a result of divine judgment.23
2. Verse 1 describes part of what God did on the first day of creation (1:1-5). It is a general statement followed by specific details.24
3. Verse 1 describes what God did on the six days of creation (1:2-31). It is a topic sentence that introduces the whole creation account that follows.25
The "beginning"is the beginning of the creation of the cosmos, not the beginning of all things (cf. Mark 1:1; John 1:1). This appears to be clear from the context.
The "heavens and earth"refer to the universe as we know it (i.e., the sky above with all that is in it and the earth below). There is no one word in Hebrew for "universe."This is a figure of speech (merism) for totality. God created everything. The translators often rendered the Hebrew word eres(earth) as "land."By translating it this way here we can see that Moses wanted his readers to realize that God created and therefore owned all land (cf. 12:7 and all subsequent references to the Promised Land; Ps. 24:1).26
This verse is important because it contradicts six popular philosophies:
1. Atheism--God does exist.
2. Pantheism--God is distinct from His creation.
3. Polytheism--"Created"is singular in the text.27
4. Radical materialism (matter is eternal)--Matter had a supernatural origin (emphasis on origin).
5. Naturalism (evolutionism)--Creation took place when someone outside nature intervened (emphasis on process).
6. Fatalism--A personal God freely chose to create.
God created the universe from nothing (Latin ex nihilo). While the text does not state this fact per se, the reader can deduce it from the following evidence. The phrase "in the beginning"implies it as do the Hebrew word for "create"(bara) and the expression "formless and void."New Testament passages also support this conclusion (e.g., John 1:3; Rom. 4:17; and Heb. 11:3).28
The emphasis in this verse is on the origin of the universe. God created it.29He alone is eternal, and everything else owes its origin and existence to Him.30
"Verse 2 describes the condition of the land before God prepared it for human beings."31
"Deep"(tahom) describes the world. In the Old Testament tahomrefers to the ocean, which the ancient world regarded as symbolic of chaos and evil that needed overcoming and which Yahweh overcame. However its use in the Pentateuch helps us understand the writer's intent in using this term here.
". . . he calls the global ocean (the deep') in 1:2 a desert.' This is not apparent in the English translation formless,' but the NASB notes it in the margin as a wasteland.' . . . Moses uses this term (Deut 32:10) to describe the desert wasteland where Israel wandered for forty years. Why call an ocean a desert? What better way to teach the people that the God who will lead them out of the wildernessand give them the promised landis the same God who once prepared the landfor them by dividing the watersand producing the dry land'? The God of the Pentateuch is One who leads his people from the wasteland to the promised land."32
"Waters"is also capable of being interpreted the same way as "deep."It probably refers to what covered the earth, but it also suggests chaos.
Here we learn that the earth was "formless and empty"(a hendiadys meaning thoroughly disorganized) before God graciously prepared it for human habitation.33Moses pictured the Spirit as a wind--the words are identical in Hebrew--moving over the unorganized creation. As God did His work of creating by means of His Spirit, so believers are to do our work by His Spirit.34
"Hitherto all is static, lifeless, immobile. Motion, which is the essential element in change, originates with God's dynamic presence."35
Verse 2 seems to me to describe conditions that existed on earth whenGod created it originally. Whereas verse 1 explains the origin of the universe, verse 2 pictures its original condition. Verses 3-31 describe this original condition in more detail and explain the process of creation by which God formed what was formless and filled what was void.
There are two basic theories of the creation process that have grown out of the interpretations of verse 2.
The gap theory
Statement: The classicstatement of this theory contains the following ideas, though there have been many variations on this theory.
1. There is an indefinite time gap (hence the name of the theory) between 1:1 and 1:2.
2. Verse 1 reveals the creation of a perfect heaven and earth very different from what we see around us now.
3. A preadamic race of humans inhabited this original creation.
4. Lucifer (unfallen Satan), whose "headquarters"was in the Garden of Eden, ruled over this race of people.
5. When Lucifer rebelled--many advocates see this in Isaiah 14--sin entered the world.
6. Part of God's judgment of this rebellion was the destruction of the earth with a flood (in Noah's day) followed by a global ice age, which accounts for the fossils.36
History:This is a very old theory that certain early Jewish writers and some church fathers held. Thomas Chalmers propelled it into prominence in 1814.37Chalmers' purpose was to harmonize Scripture with Scripture, not Scripture with science.38Darwin's Origin of Speciesfirst appeared in 1859, but Chalmers published his theory in 1814. Franz Delitzsch supported it in 1899.39G. H. Pember's book Earth's Ancient Ages(1907) gave further impetus to this view. Many Christian geologists favored the view because they saw in it "an easy explanation for the fossil strata."40Harry Rimmer supported it41as did Arthur W. Pink.42L. S. Chafer held it43but did not emphasize it. Arthur Custance is one writer who has defended it fairly recently.44
Arguments and Responses:
1. The first word in verse 2 (waw, "and") is a conjunction that indicates consecutive occurrences. It introduces something that happened after what precedes. Response. The verb tense and word order in this sentence do not permit this use of this conjunction (vv. 1-2). Rather here, as is normal, the conjunction indicates a break in the consecutive order of events and introduces a circumstantial (independent) clause (v. 2) that describes something in a preceding clause (v. 1). A better translation of the wawwould be "now."In short, the Hebrew grammar does not allow for a chronological gap between verses 1 and 2.
2. The verb (hayata, "was") can and should read "became."The translators have rendered it this way in many other places in the Old Testament. Response. This is a legitimate translation, but "became"is not always the best translation (cf. Jonah 3:3; Zech. 3:3). Here the translation should be "was."
3. The chaos (tohu wa bohu, "waste and void,"perhaps another hendiadys) describes an evil condition (cf. Isa. 24:1; 45:18; Jer. 4:23). Response. This is usually the case, but not always (cf. Deut. 32:10; Job 6:18; 12:24; 26:7; Ps. 107:40). It is not so here.
4. "Darkness"is a symbol of evil in Scripture (cf. 1 John 1:5). This supports the badness of the condition that resulted from Satan's rebellion. Response. This is true in some cases, but not always (cf. Ps. 104:19-24). Consider too that evening was part of the days God declared good.
5. The two primary words for "create"(baraand asahused respectively in 1:1 and 1:25) refer to two different kinds of creativity. Barausually refers to primary creative activity. Since Moses used barain 1:1 this was the original creation and not just a general description of the process that follows (in 1:3-5 or 1:3-31). If 1:1 was a general description he would have used asahsince some of what God created in the six days He formed out of previously existing material (e.g., man and woman). Response. These two words are not so distinct. For example, Moses used baraof the creation of man out of previously existing material (1:27), and he used asahof the whole creation as the primary creative activity of God (Exod. 20:11). Furthermore, he used baraof the creation of some animals (1:21) and asahof the creation of other animals (1:25). The real difference between these two words is that Moses used baraonly of divine activity and he used asahof both divine and human activities.45Thus, baraand asahare very close together in meaning. We cannot distinguish them on the basis of baradescribing primary creative activity and asahreferring to the reforming of previously existing material.
6. Adam was to "replenish"the earth (1:28, AV) implying a previous race. Response. The Hebrew word used means "fill,"not "refill."Many modern translations so render it.
Summary:Though many evangelicals still hold the gap theory, very few Hebrew scholars do because the Hebrew grammar does not favor a chronologically sequential reading of verses 1 and 2. Rather, verse 2 in some way describes verse 1.46
The no-gap theory
The crux of the 1:2 interpretive problem lies in the identification of the chaos (tohu wa bohu, "formless and void") mentioned. There have been three primary views concerning the chaos referred to in this verse.
1. The chaos was a condition that resulted afterGod judged the universe that He had originally created.47
Explanation: 1:1 refers to God's original creation of the universe. 1:2 is a reference to the form He gave it thereafter. 1:3 refers to the beginning of the process of reforming the judged universe into the form in which we know it.
Vocabulary: We should translate the first word in the verse (waw) "and"or "then"(not preferable grammatically) and the verb (hayeta) "became"(possible but not preferable). We should interpret the chaos (tohu wa bohu) as an evil condition (not necessarily so).
Sequence: This interpretation permits but does not require a gap in time between 1:1 and 1:2.
2. The chaos was the condition that characterized the universe whenGod created it.48
Explanation: 1:1 states the creation of the universe as we know it, and it is a general statement of some kind. 1:2 describes the universe at the time of its creation. 1:3 describes God's bringing order out of chaos that continued through the six creative days.
Vocabulary: We should translate waw"now"(better) and hayeta"was"(also better). We should also take tohu wa bohuto mean either unformed or evil.
Sequence: This interpretation involves no gap in time between 1:1 and 1:2.
3. The chaos existed beforeGod began creating.49
Explanation: We should take 1:1 the same as in view 2. 1:2 describes conditions as they existed before creation. We should also take 1:3 the same as in view 2.
Vocabulary: Advocates translate and interpret the key Hebrew words the same as in view 2.
Sequence: This interpretation involves no gap in time between 1:1 and 1:2.
". . . the disjuncture at v 2 is employed by the author to focus his creation account upon the land."50
The more popular theory among evangelicals now is the no-gap theory in either one of the last two forms described above. Let me restate these last two views.
1. View 2 above: God created the universe in a formless and void state. He then proceeded to give it form and to fill it.51
"We would affirm that the first verse serves as a broad comprehensive statement of the fact of creation. Verse two describes the earth as it came from the hands of the Creator and as it existed at the time when God commanded the light to shine forth. The first recorded step in the process of fashioning the earth into the form in which it now appears was God's remarkable utterance, Let there be light' [verse 3]."52
Problem: It seems unusual that God would create the universe formless and then form it. It seems more likely and consistent with His activity in 1:3-31 that He would create it fully formed.
Answer: The whole process of creation in 1:3-31 is a movement from a more primitive to a more advanced stage of existence.
2. View 3 above: Before God created the universe there was nothing where it now exists, and verse 2 describes that nothingness.53
Problem: Some terms in verse 2 (darkness, surface, deep, waters) imply that something existed at this time suggesting some creative activity before verse 3.
Answers: Verse 1 may be part of the first day of creation. Moses may have used these terms to describe in terms we can begin to understand (i.e., figurative terms) a condition that is entirely foreign and incomprehensible to us.
Cosmic order consists of clearly demarcating the various elements of the universe. God divided light and darkness, waters and dry land, the world above from the world below. Likewise people should maintain the other divisions in the universe.54In three days God made the uninhabitable earth productive, and in three more days He filled the uninhabited earth with life.
"2:1-3 echoes 1:1 by introducing the same phrases but in reverse order: he created,' God,' heavens and earth' reappear as heavens and earth' (2:1) God' (2:2), created' (2:3). This chiastic pattern brings the section to a neat close which is reinforced by the inclusion God created' linking 1:1 and 2:3."104
The mood of the narrative also returns to what it was in 1:1-2. Silence and calm prevail again.105
2:1 Moses probably meant everything that existed above the earth and on the earth when he wrote "their hosts."The host of heaven usually refers to the stars in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. 4:19) more than the angels (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19), so the sun, moon, and stars are probably in view here.
2:2 "Seventh"comes from a Hebrew root meaning "to be full, completed, entirely made up."106"Rested"means ceased from activity (cf. Exod. 40:33). There is no implication that God felt fatigued by His creative activity and needed to rest. He simply stopped creating.
2:3 God "blessed"the seventh day in that He set it apart as different from the other days of creation. It was a memorial of His creative work.
". . . according to one Babylonian tradition, the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of each month were regarded as unlucky: Genesis, however, declares the seventh day of every week to be holy, a day of rest consecrated to God (2:1-3)."107
Note that God did not command Adam to abstain from work on the Sabbath; this came later with the Mosaic Law. However, Scripture does teach the importance of periodic rest (cf. Exod. 20:8-10; 23:10-12; Lev. 25:2, 4; Deut. 15:1-18; Heb. 4:1-11; et al.). Part of bearing the likeness of God involves resting as He did after completing His work.108
The writers of Scripture used the Sabbath to anticipate the hope of Messianic redemption throughout the Old Testament.
In the creation account the Sabbath points forward to the time when God will bring, ". . . a perfect and complete cosmos out of chaos. . . . The weekly rest-experience of the Sabbath [under the Mosaic Law] served to epitomize the future peace and rest of the Messianic age."109
The sabbatical and jubilee years in ancient Judaism also pointed to the liberation Messiah would provide for His people.110
The structure of 1:1-2:3 bears the marks of literary artistry, as does the structure of the rest of Genesis.
"The correspondence of the first paragraph, 1:1-2, with 2:1-3 is underlined by the number of Hebrew words in both being multiples of 7. 1:1 consists of 7 words, 1:2 of 14 (7 x 2) words, 2:1-3 of 35 (7 x 5) words. The number seven dominates this opening chapter in a strange way, not only in the number of words in a particular section but in the number of times a specific word or phrase recurs. For example, God' is mentioned 35 times, earth' 21 times, heaven/firmament' 21 times, while the phrases and it was so' and God saw that it was good' occur 7 times."111
These characteristics of repeating important words or phrases in multiples of seven and using them to bracket sections of the narrative continue throughout Genesis, though not consistently. They help the reader of the Hebrew text identify discrete sections of the text as such.
How long were the six days of creation? This is a problem because the inspired writers used "day"(Heb. yom) in various ways in the Old Testament.
"The simple fact is that dayin Hebrew (just as in English) is used in three separate senses: to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by dayin Genesis."112
Moses used "day"these three ways in Genesis 1 and 2: (1) a 12 hour period of daylight (1:5, 14, 16, 18), (2) a 24-hour day (1:14), and (3) the entire six-day period of creation (2:4). There are four major views as to the length of the days of creation.113
1. The literal 24-hour day theory. The normal conclusion one would most likely draw from the terminology in the text (e.g., evening, morning, day, night, etc.) is that God created the world in six 24-hour days. This view is most consistent with the principles of literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation. The fact that the number of days corresponds to the number of weekdays also favors this view. Furthermore, whenever "day"(yom) occurs with a numeral in the Old Testament, as here, it refers to a 24-hour period. Some advocates cite Exodus 20:11 as support also.114The main problem with this view is that the activity of some days (e.g., the sixth) seems to some to require more than 24 hours.115
2. The day-age (or geologic day) theory. This view interprets the terminology less literally and more figuratively. Advocates argue that the events recorded seem to require more than 24-hour days (e.g., v. 12). They also point out that solar days may not have begun until the fourth day. Some advocates of this theory are "theistic evolutionists."Others are "progressive creationists.""Progressive creationists"generally seek to correlate the geologic ages with the six days of creation. The main problem with the day-age theory is that it interprets terms that seem to have obvious literal meaning figuratively.
3. The literal days with intervening ages theory. This view regards each day as a time of completion of creation only. It is an attempt to take the "morning and evening"references seriously but still allow the time that seems necessary within the days (e.g., v. 12). It is a combination of the two preceding views. However, it strains the text. Also, Moses could have described this method of creation more clearly than he did if long ages interspersed the six days. Few scholars have adopted this view.
4. The revelatory day theory. The least literal interpretation holds that God revealed, rather than accomplished, creation in six days. A major problem with this view is Exodus 20:11 where Moses says God made, not revealed, His creation in six days.
Presuppositions are extremely important in this controversy. If one believes that scientific "facts"are true, he or she may try to make the Bible fit these. On the other hand, if one believes in an inerrant Bible he or she will give priority to statements in the text. If one believes both are true, he or she will soon learn that both cannot be true. For example, the text says God created the trees before marine life (1:11, 20), but most evolutionists believe that trees developed after marine life. Also, the Bible implies that marine life and birds came into existence about the same time (1:20), but evolutionists hold that they evolved millions of years apart.116No theory explains the conflict between biblical statements and scientific statements adequately. In the end one really comes down to the question, Do I put more confidence in what God says or in what scientists say?117One's presuppositions will also affect whether he or she interprets more or less literally.
Belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not obviate the problem of the age of the earth, however. Several evangelical scholars who are competent scientists and affirm inerrancy believe the proper interpretation of Scripture results in an old earth model of creation.118Other equally qualified inerrantists see a young earth model in the Bible.119
"Clearly a difference between these positions at this precise point of the relationship between science and Scripture is clear and unmistakable. The old-earth view is built on the position that an old universe and an old earth is an established factual base. Thus the Bible at the true meaning level mustbe interpreted to show that it is not out of harmony with this fact. The young-earth model is based on the position that the scientific dataused to establish the concept of an old earth can be interpreted differently and that, strictly speaking, there is no need to defend an old earth. Thus the Bible is approached without this a prioridemand for an old earth, and the differences are markedly clear, in this writer's opinion."120
Evangelicals who believe in a young earth normally do so because they believe that the biblical genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are complete or very nearly complete. That is the impression the text gives. These genealogies argue for a young earth. I favor the young earth view.121
Where did the names we use for the days of the week come from? They received their names in honor of seven pagan gods whom the ancients associated with the five major planets plus the sun and moon. The names of Germanic (Teutonic) gods replaced those of some Roman gods as time passed. The early church, following Jewish custom, numbered the days of the week to avoid using the names of pagan gods (e.g., Luke 24:1; Acts 20:7).122
"Though historical and scientific questions may be uppermost in our minds as we approach the text, it is doubtful whether they were in the writer's mind, and we should therefore be cautious about looking for answers to questions he was not concerned with. Genesis is primarily about God's character and his purposes for sinful mankind. Let us beware of allowing our interests to divert us from the central thrust of the book so that we miss what the LORD, our creator and redeemer, is saying to us."123
The main point of the story of creation (1:1-2:3) is that God turned chaos into an orderly, blessed, good creation by His word. The original Israelite readers of Genesis would have found encouragement in this revelation to trust God. They would have hoped in Him to transform their national life from chaos in a pagan chaotic environment (Egypt) to order and blessing in an environment He would create for them (Canaan). God's superiority over forces their pagan neighbors worshipped out of fear (gods of the darkness, the sun, moon, planets, and stars, the watery deep, etc.) would have strengthened their faith. Their God had also created them as a nation, and they could look forward to the future with confidence.
"This passage is significant also in the lives of Christians. Above and beyond asserting the fact of creation in much the same way it did for Israel, the passage provides an important theological lesson. The believer enters into a life of Sabbath rest from works and embarks on a life of holiness in that rest. We learn from the creation account (1) that God is a redeeming God who changes darkness to light, death to life, and chaos to blessing; (2) that God is absolutely sovereign over all life and all pagan ideas that would contend for our allegiance; and (3) that God works by His powerful Word--to create, to redeem, and to sanctify. Obedience to His powerful Word, either the written Word, or the living Word, our Savior, will transform believers into His glorious image."124
