Introduction
A major goal of the writers of the Bible appears to have been to teach readers God’s perspective on life, which was often different than the view of their contemporaries. Tim Keller suggested, “Imagine that Christianity is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God. If that were the case we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect” (2018, 75). Never is this concept more applicable than it is regarding Genesis 1 (ESV). With Genesis 1, Moses corrected his contemporaries’ understanding of Creation, and his depiction still informs the discussion of origins in the twenty-first century. As Genesis 1 distinguished a true, godly cosmology from the prevalent ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cosmologies, it also points modern people to a proper cosmological framework.
Valid biblical interpretation begins with an analysis of the passage’s original impact. Samuel Ngewa advised, “Read each passage in the Scriptures in the way the author intended it to be read” (2006, 10). The interpretation must be the interpretation the author would have expected his contemporaries to understand (Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard 2017, 315). Hence, the interpreter of Genesis 1 needs to understand some things about how Moses and his contemporaries viewed the world.
Valid interpretation follows the principle, Scripture interprets Scripture. Gary Schnittjer observed, “The Torah was the Bible, or at least part of it, for biblical writers like David, the prophets, the Gospel writers, and Paul, whose writings offer an opportunity for us to apprehend how the Bible read the Bible” (2006, 24). The later biblical writers also submitted a model for applying the teachings of Genesis 1 to modernity. According to Schnittjer, “The permanence of God’s word means both that it will endure through the generations and that it will testify in the same way that it always has. The Torah speaks today just as it has through the centuries” (2006, 27). Genesis 1 continues to correct thinkers regarding the discussion of the development of life. The Bible teaches the writer’s perspective and corrects our perspective. Thus, its application in the twenty-first century requires us to interpret modern culture as well as the biblical text. We will begin with the biblical text as it would have impacted the original readers/hearers.
The Original Impact of Genesis 1
Ernest Lucas suggested, “Strictly speaking,” Genesis 1 “is a cosmogony” (2003, 135). A cosmogony is a people group’s view of the origin of things that exist. A culture’s cosmogony is important for their understanding of the world. According to Lucas, “Cosmology refers to the understanding of the whole universe as an organized, structured entity,” and “cosmologies are often rooted in cosmogonies” (2003, 130, italics added). Lucas continued, “A worldview is…shaped to some degree by the cosmology held by the person or the community” (2003, 131). Cosmogonies point to worldviews; therefore, Genesis 1 points to the biblical worldview. To understand the Genesis 1 cosmogony, the interpreter must first understand some things about ANE cosmology in general. That way, we can understand the perspective into which Moses was writing.
ANE Cosmology
The Mesopotamians, Canaanites, and Egyptians each followed distinct cosmologies, which shared some common characteristics. Ancient Mesopotamians had “at least two different cosmogonic traditions” stemming from the Atrahasis Epic and Enuma Elish (Lucas 2003, 132). Both accounts involved battles between the gods from which the universe structure arose with a “threefold division” (Lucas 2003, 133). In Atrahasis, “creation takes place through the union of heaven (the god An) and earth (the goddess Antum or Ki)” (Lucas 2003, 132). In Enuma Elish, the god Enki created “the spring water that fertilizes the earth by means of rivers and canals,” from which life arose (Lucas 2003, 132). Lucas added, “In both traditions humans are seen as existing to serve the gods, to save them from having to work” and are assigned destinies at birth (2003, 132). In the Mesopotamian view, Creation emerged incidentally from existing material, and the gods created humans because they needed servants.
Canaanite cosmology followed a similar framework. Originally, the chief god was called El, and he had a wife named Asherah (Lucas 2003, 133). Other gods were born from El’s sexual activities (Lucas 2003, 133). Baal, the god of the storms, was one of El’s kiddos. He defeated El and Asherah and became the ruler of the gods (Lucas 2003, 134). In this cosmology, Baal also created humans to become his servants (Lucas 2003, 134). In both of these cosmogonies, the gods created humans to serve as slaves.
Multiple Egyptian cosmology treatises have survived, but they all follow the same outline (Lucas 2003, 134). Lucas observed, “Most of the Egyptian cosmogonies are in reality theogonies, concerned with the origin of the gods,” and “it is rare to have any account of the creation of plants, animals, and humans” (2003, 134). Gods were more important than humans to the Egyptians. Each cosmogony began with “limitless waters” and a self-existent creator-God (Lucas 2003, 134). Like the Mesopotamians, the Egyptians visualized a three-fold partition of the universe. The primordial state was similar to its counterpart in the Canaanite and Mesopotamian accounts, as was the view of human beings, but the Egyptians distinguished themselves with the idea of a self-existent god.
Although ANE cosmologies were not monolithic, they followed similar outlines. John Walton summarized, “Ancient traditions do not typically begin with nothing. Instead, they start with a condition devoid of order, function, or purpose. Creation then takes place by giving things order, function, and purpose, which is synonymous with giving them existence” (2003, 156). Gods did not create from nothing; they organized pre-existing material. Usually the organization of the material ensued incidentally as the result of either a battle or in some cases sexual intercourse between two gods. Walton continued, “Ancient sources are unanimous that the primal chaotic conditions included two characteristics: water and darkness” (2003, 157). Humans, when mentioned, emerged solely for the function of serving the gods. Humans were not very important in ANE cosmology, and only gods came in the image of gods (Walton 2003, 160). Hence, all the ANE myths included theogonies, stories of the creation of gods, and none were monotheistic.
Genesis 1 in Light of ANE Cosmology
According to Walton, “The creation account in Genesis parallels the framework of the creation accounts in the ancient world…Their departure from the traditional ancient worldview was theological, not cosmological” (2003, 161). This observation is not fully accurate. Josh and Sean McDowell correctly qualify, “The uniqueness of Genesis 1 among the ANE creation accounts is primarily theological” (2017, 404, italics added). The primary differences are theological, but there are some framework differences as well, involving creating order from chaos, the nature of God, and the creation of natural beings.
The Genesis creation account paralleled the ANE accounts in describing the progression from order to chaos. The difference was in the details. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:1–2, italics added). These first two verses depict chaos, which was similar to the ANE creation myths. However, Lucas observed, “Genesis 1:2 depicts, in contrast to the other cosmogonies, a state of ‘quiescent chaos’ (a dark, empty formlessness) with God poised for action” (2003, 135, italics added). With the myths, the potential for life inhered in the emptiness; in Genesis, the potential for life resided in the mind of God alone until He acted.
From this emptiness, God began His process of Creation over the course of seven “yôm” (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; 2:2). Commentators have debated the meaning of the word yôm, translated day, since commentaries existed. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, and many early church fathers posited that “the Hebrew word used for ‘day’ in Genesis 1 could be interpreted as an epoch or age” (McDowell and McDowell 2017, 406). Others, such as Ambrose, “held the twenty-four hour view of the creation days” (McDowell and McDowell 2017, 407). The debate continues today with no sign of anyone winning anytime soon (Badger and Tenneson 2014, 36). However, although the meaning of yôm became important for subsequent biblical interpretation, the length of the days of Creation was not as important for Moses’ original point, which is presumably why he did not specify. Moses intended to emphasize “that the creation is planned and ordered,” not to discuss chronology (Lucas 2003, 136). Unlike Marduk, Enki, or Baal, Yahweh is portrayed as the One who brings order from chaos by His plan, not anything inherent in the chaos.
Moses’s account differed sharply from the other accounts in his description and assumptions regarding the nature of God. First, Moses wrote from a monotheistic perspective. When he stated, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” he wrote about one uncreated God (Gen. 1:1). God existed prior to Creation because He was the one who created. There were no theogonies because there was only one eternal God.
Scholars have debated the extent of the creation discussed in Genesis 1. Many exegetes have understood Genesis 1:1 to be an assertion regarding the creation of the universe from nothing, but others have disagreed (McDowell and McDowell 2017, 412). According to Walton, “Though theological belief based on all of Scripture would appropriately affirm that God made all of the matter of which the cosmos is composed (and that he made it out of nothing), lexical analysis does not lead to the conclusion that Genesis 1 is making such a statement” (2003, 162). In Walton’s view, before Creation, substances existed, but they were chaotic, “without form” (Gen. 1:2). Walton suggested that the Hebrew word bārāʾ, translated in Genesis 1 “created,” means something closer to “to design” (2003, 162). In this view, Moses described the process by which God organized existing matter into something purposeful, the result of which was the immanently inhabitable planet Earth. Thus, Moses followed the ANE cosmological framework regarding creating order from chaos. This idea will be discussed further below.
Moses certainly exceeded the ANE myths in his description of God’s power (Walton 2003, 162). All of the creating acts ensued directly from God’s planned actions. “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness” (Gen. 1:4–5, italics added). Moses proceeded in this manner throughout the passage regarding the separation of the earth from space (1:6–8), the separation of land from waters (1:9–10), the emergence of plants (1:11–13), the institution of seasons (1:14–19), the creation of animals (1:20–25), and the formation of humans (1:26–27). There was no straining, and there were certainly no godly battles, as in the ANE myths. Walton observed, “In the Genesis creation narrative, the serenity and effortlessness of the creation process stand in stark contrast to the uproar and confusion that often characterizes the ancient Near Eastern myths” (2003, 163).
Moses followed the ANE contextual framework by explaining Creation in terms of God’s purpose, elucidating the function for which God created the various elements rather than the process. God ordained the purpose of the things He created. In ANE cosmology, “the greatest exercise of the power of the gods was not demonstrated in the manufacture of matter but in the fixing of destinies” (Walton 2003, 162). Moses explained how Yahweh fixed destinies. God commanded the plants to yield seeds, and He commanded the animals to populate the earth (1:12, 22).
God reserved a special role for humans and once more differed sharply from the prevailing cosmology. “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image’” (1:26). God created humans to become His partners in subduing the world. He made order from the chaos and asked His human partners to continue ordering the chaos by filling and subduing the earth (1:28). Lucas observed, “Humans have a much higher status than they do in the Mesopotamian creation stories, in which they are created to be the slaves of the gods… The creation of humans is the climax of God’s acts of creation” (2003, 136).
Moses reinforced the importance of humanity to Yahweh by discussing Creation from the human perspective. When “God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse,” He carved out of the expanse a place for humans to live (Gen. 1:7). The waters above the expanse were the rest of the universe. The waters below the expanse were the items that God would form into Earth. The perspective is from Earth, which would become the home of the humans. When Moses wrote, “God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,” he explained the role of the sun, moon, and stars from the perspective of human beings (1:14). God created the animals and the plants over which people would “have dominion” (Gen. 1:28). Once more, it is the human perspective that drives the narrative.
Original Ramifications of Genesis 1
The first thing to notice is the impact of the days of the Genesis creation account upon civilization. “The seven days set a pattern for a complete week” (Schnittjer 2006, 61). The Hebrews consistently utilized this seven-day-week pattern, and most, if not all, cultures do the same today. This pattern affected Hebrew theology as well, which will become important.
Moses also emphasized the fact that God is all-powerful. Lucas counted, “Eight times in this account God speaks and things come into being” (2003, 135). God’s creative speaking included the heavens, Earth, land, plants, animals, heavenly bodies, and, of course, humans. At no point did God fail to do anything, which leaves the image of a God who cannot fail.
As Creator, God decided the destiny or function of the things He created. God conceived a plan for each creation and created the things in the image He conceived. Hence, the structure precedes the function. According to Schnittjer, “The phrases ‘after their kind’ for animals and ‘in his image’ for human beings underscored the categorical difference between humankind and all other created beings” (2006, 64). God’s plan for everything He created involved humans intimately. The animals would fill the earth, but only the humans would have the capacity to subdue it. John Oswalt explained, “Human beings are the apex of creation” (2003, 856). Moses repeatedly quoted God’s description of Creation as good (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). There was nothing negative in it when God finished with Creation and noted that it was “very good” (1:31). Only humans, made in God’s image, had the capacity to alter Creation from its “very good” state (1:26, 31).
Origins of the Cosmos Part 1
I appreciate your work to quote other authors. Interesting how genesis compares to other cultures of the time. Two comments:
1) creating heaven and earth strongly suggests something from nothing, not just organizing chaos.
2) Moses did specify what day (yom) meant. He said “there was evening and morning, the second day”. He defined and numbered each of the days of creation week. Exodus 20:11 quotes God saying He created all in 6 days and rested on the seventh. Seems pretty clear to me.