Making sense of Genesis 1
by Paul Williamson
No chapter in the Bible has given rise to more controversy over the years than the very first — Genesis chapter 1. It has been the main battleground in the creation-evolution debate for many years. Indeed, for some this chapter's major contribution relates to its expose of modern scientific theories of how and when the earth came into being. When we take time to reflect, however, it quickly becomes obvious that such an interpretation has somehow lost sight of the original theological purpose(s) of this opening chapter of Genesis. Outside the context of the theory of evolution, the issues of when and how long it took God to create the universe become less important, indeed in many respects rather academic. Would ancient Israelites really have been as concerned as many contemporary readers are about the mechanics of God's creative work? Surely the primary issue(s) for the author and original readers of this material lay elsewhere? As Gordon Wenham helpfully points out:
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 . . . 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.1
Rather than offering us a kind of scientific logbook of God's creative activity, the author of Genesis is doing something quite different. Genesis 1 supplies us with the theological framework in which we are to read the subsequent narrative plot (the story of God's saving acts). Genesis 1 establishes not only who this saving God is, but why he alone deserves our worship, trust and obedience. In this chapter we have the first example of apologetics in the Bible. There is nothing original or novel about such a suggestion; several scholars have detected polemical or apologetic features in the text,2 and these are highlighted in the larger commentaries. These polemic features, as we shall see, suggest that the primary issue in this text is not the creation but the Creator, or more precisely, the role of the Creator in relation to his creation.
Whatever the historical backdrop one assumes for Genesis 1, the core theological issue is the same: who is supreme — the God of Israel, or the rival deities of other nations? When we keep this question uppermost in our minds it should become obvious that the primary intent of the author does not relate to questions of a scientific nature. Neither the author nor his original audience would have been overly concerned with the question of how or when the world was created; rather, their primary interest would have been the issues of who and why: Who was responsible for creation? And why did God create? These are the crux issues when this important passage is considered in its literary context. As David Atkinson observes, 'we mistake the purpose of this chapter if we expect it to answer all the questions we, with the benefit of modern science, want to ask about creation.'3 We must constantly remind ourselves that this passage is more concerned with presenting a theological message than with supplying scientific information. This is not to deny that Genesis 1 may in fact shed some light on scientific knowledge; for example, even if one accepts a 'big bang' theory or a neo-Darwinian evolutionary model, several of the causation factors remain unexplained. The role of an intelligent Creator alone explains such enigmas. Even so, it is important to remember that Genesis 1 provides us with 'a doctrine of a Creator rather than a doctrine of creation'.4 It is a part of a theological treatise, not a textbook on geology, biology or any other science.
Such a conclusion is supported by the actual contents of the passage itself. The basic structure of Genesis 1 is as follows. After an initial creative act (recorded in v. 1)5 eight subsequent creative acts are compressed into a six-day pattern with the following sequence:
Announcement
'God said',
vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26
Creative command
'let there be/let the ...',
vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14f., 20, 24, 26
Accomplishment
'it was so/God made'
vv. 3-4, 7, 9, 11, 15f., 21, 24-25, 27
Naming/blessing
'God called/ blessed'
vv. 5, 8, 10, 22, 28
Evaluation
'God saw ... good'
vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31
Chronology
'there was ..., day ...'
vv, 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31.
The account follows a clear pattern, though it also has variety in the order, length and presence of these component elements. Careful symmetry in the structure is clearly discernible when days 1-3 and days 4-6 are compared; the second three days correspond in some way to the first three, days 3 and 6 both incorporating two creative acts. If we think in terms of a landscape painting, the first three days paint the background whereas the second three days fill in the foreground, Thus:
Day 1 Creation of light
Day 2 Creation of sky and sea
Day 3 Creation of land/vegetation
Day 4 Creation of luminaries
Day 5 Creation of birds and fish
Day 6 Creation of animals/humans
Day 7 Rest
The author's deliberate arrangement serves to explain what are otherwise anomalous features of the text; viz, how there can be 'days' without the sun or how there can be plant-life (Day 3) before sunlight (Day 4). As Henri Blocher observes, 'If the principle which directs the distribution of the works is their classification into two categories, the places and their occupants, then the creation of the luminaries is in its proper, logical position.'6
A second observation — and perhaps the more significant factor — which supports the conclusion that Genesis 1 is concerned more with theology than with science is the fact that as a creation account it is not unique, Genesis 1 has certain features in common with other ANE epics which recount, among other things, the creation of the world. Enuma elish, the so-called Babylonian creation story, was the focus of scholarly attention in the early part of the 20th century. More recent comparative studies have focused on the earlier Atrahasis epic which presents the primaeval history in same sequence as Genesis 1-11 (i.e. Creation, followed by divine displeasure and a subsequent flood), and in Egyptian creation texts which also show some resemblance to Genesis 1 and 2.
Some of the similarities between Genesis 1 and other ancient accounts of creation are as follows: A primeval watery chaos, which initially covered the earth (moreover, the name denoting this watery chaos in some accounts has some assonance with the word translated 'the deep' in Genesis 1); the idea of primeval darkness; the existence of light and the alteration of day and night before the creation of luminous bodies; the creation of the firmament accompanied by a division of the primeval waters; the heavenly luminaries (sun, moon and stars) serving to provide light and to regulate time; the creation of humanity as the final act of creation, to which some special significance is attached; humankind being made from clay, being infused with life and sharing some divine properties; the deity resting after the completion of creation; a six plus one structure or sequence of events.
Ever since the discovery and publication of other creation stories from the ancient world scholars have engaged in comparative studies, often concluding that the close similarities betray literary dependence. It is not necessary, however, to insist on literary dependence in one direction or the other. Even so, as Wenham observes, 'the known links of the Hebrew patriarchs with Mesopotamia and the widespread diffusion of cuneiform literary texts throughout the Levant in the Amarna period (late 15th century) make it improbable that the writers of Genesis were completely ignorant of Babylonian and cognate mythology.'7 Therefore, the similarities between Genesis 1 and other oriental creation stories are probably not coincidental.
Nevertheless, it is important to underline that as well as the above similarities there are equally striking and theologically crucial differences:
- Perhaps the most obvious difference is that Genesis 1 is patently monotheistic, whereas other ANE creation stories are crudely polytheistic. For example, in Enuma elish, written to honour the Babylonian deity Marduk, the account begins with a watery mother-figure, Tiamat, from whom (along with the help of Apsu, her male consort) the gods are born. Apsu is killed by Ea, and with his carcass the subterranean sea is formed. Tiamat, on the other hand, is killed by Marduk who splits her corpse into two, one half forming the sky and the other half forming the world. The difference between this and Genesis is obvious.
- Unlike the other creation stories, there is absolutely no trace of theogony (i.e. no explanation of the origin of the deity) in the Genesis account; rather, God's existence is simply assumed and not explained.
- Rather than being part of eternal matter and being subordinate to it, God in Genesis 1 is transcendent and sovereign, creating matter out of nothing. Admittedly, not all are agreed that this latter concept can be inferred from Genesis 1 (in that the Hebrew verb for 'create' does not necessarily imply creatio ex nihilo; cf. Gen 1:21, 27; 2:3; 5:1-2; also Isa 43:15). Nevertheless, it is at least implicit in v.1, especially in light of the use of the term translated, 'In the beginning'. In other creation stories all the deities (including their 'ancestors') were living, uncreated world matter: 'in them were contained all the elements of which the universe was later made'.8 Matter in these other cosmologies, was therefore eternal. Only God is pre-existent and eternal in Genesis 1.
- Genesis deliberately avoids any suggestion that any part of God's universe is more than just part of the created order. The fact that the sky (v.7), the sea (v.10), the sun, moon and stars (v.16), and the great 'sea creatures' (v. 21) are no more than part of God's creative handiwork makes the biblical account clearly distinct. The other accounts depict these features as part of the pantheon (i.e. as deities in their own right). The fact that the usual terms for sun and moon are not employed, and that the stars are parenthetical in Gen 1, is probably quite deliberate. Enuma elish refers to the celestial bodies in the reverse order (stars, moon and sun) — not surprising in view of the great significance of the stars in the lives of the astronomically and astrologically minded Babylonians.
- The primeval watery chaos, both before and after the completion of creation in Genesis 1, is absolutely under the control of God.
- Unlike the other creation stories, Genesis contains absolutely no concept of a divine struggle in the creative process; for example, in Genesis 1 the separation of the waters is portrayed as an effortless divine act, not a struggle between rival deities. Admittedly there are other OT texts which allude to such a conflict (e.g. Is. 27:1; 51:9-10; Pss. 74:12-17; 89:9-12; Job 9:13-14; and 26:12-13). This, however, makes the absence of such mythological language in Genesis 1 all the more striking (and significant). Repeatedly the author of Genesis reminds us that God called everything into existence by divine command: 'God said, "let there be ..." And there was ...' Moreover, by naming the various aspects of his creation God asserts his sovereignty over them. Such is the connotation of naming in the OT (cf. Gen. 2:20; 2 Kgs. 23:34; 24:17).
- In other creation stories people were created as an afterthought, to do menial work for the gods and to provide for the gods' needs; in Genesis humankind is created to rule the earth and subdue it. Humankind has therefore a dignity in Genesis 1 which is not reflected elsewhere.
These differences provide the key to a theological interpretation of Genesis 1. The original readers would have been aware of the creation myths current in contemporary cultures. Contrary to what is sometimes thought or inferred, the ancient Israelites were not living in a religious vacuum; they were not protected by a spiritual cocoon from the polytheistic societies all around them. Rather, the ancient Israelites were exposed to the various philosophies current in their day. By implicitly contrasting his account with those current in his day the author of Genesis 1 'shows that he was aware of other cosmologies, and that he wrote not in dependence on them so much as in deliberate rejection of them.'9 In a similar vein Hyers observes, 'In the light of this historical context it becomes clearer what Genesis 1 is undertaking and accomplishing a radical and sweeping affirmation of monotheism vis-a-vis polytheism, syncretism and idolatry.'10
Therefore, although Genesis has several features in common with other ANE creation stories, its theological message sets it apart.
- Genesis 1 affirms the unity of God over against the polytheism current elsewhere in the ANE. In particular it insists that the sun, moon, stars, and sea creatures (monsters) — powerful deities according to pagan mythology — are merely part of God's creation.
- Genesis 1 emphasises that all things were created effortlessly by God, over against the popular concept of a divine struggle which had to be re-enacted annually in order to ensure that the dark forces of chaos did not re-establish themselves.
- Genesis 1 asserts that humanity has a central and crucial role in God's creation, over against the contemporary mythologies which portrayed humankind as a divine afterthought, created to do menial tasks for the gods.
It is not difficult to imagine what a rock of stability this chapter provided for the people of God faced with the lure of rival deities and sophisticated mythologies. Indeed, when looked at in this light, the relevance of Genesis 1 for every generation is obvious. This chapter declares the superiority of God over all rival systems of belief — whether those current in the ancient world or those prevalent as we enter the twenty-first century. When faced with the lure of the philosophies of this world, 'Genesis 1 calls us back to the worship of the one sovereign majestic Lord, who, in the transcendent freedom of his creative Word, is the source of all things, all ; life, all creatures, all people.'11
While this in no way exhausts the teaching contained in Genesis 1, if we overlook these truths, if we have surely lost sight of the wood for the trees. Therefore, when we read this opening chapter in the Bible, it is crucial to remember that the author is not addressing issues raised by contemporary scientific investigation; rather, he is countering the ideas that were current in the ancient world. As Wenham helpfully advises, 'Modern readers should concentrate on these original intentions of Genesis and not bring to the text scientific issues which are foreign to its purpose.'12 Only in this way can we hope to bridge the hermeneutical gap and grasp the abiding significance of this theologically rich passage in the gold mine of God's Word.13
Paul Williamson, ‘Making sense of Genesis 1’, 17 December 2007, Gilnahirk Baptist Church Web site. http://www.gilnahirkbaptist.org.uk/resources/frontiers/3/4/williamson-genesis-1.php (accessed 6 Feb 2012).
This article first appeared in Frontiers, 3.4 (Summer 1999):12-15, and is used with permission.
