Bereshit, the first word in Genesis translates to "in a beginning"

As it is the opening chapter in Genesis, the Priestly account will be used first to interpret the purpose of the literary presentation of God.  Bereshit, the first word in Genesis, translates as “in a beginning”.  Van Wolde believes the use of the indefinite article indicates that this particular beginning was the beginning of all beginnings.  Therefore, because this is the very first beginning, God must have created everything.  She adds that “throughout Genesis 1 the transcendence of God is evident: God precedes creation, stands above it and brings all things into existence”.

The second verse of Genesis, “the earth was without form and void” (1:2), denotes “a confused, unordered, formless chaos similar to Ancient Near Eastern Creation mythology” according to Davidson.  Therefore, God’s ability to gather together a formless world and make it into an ordered one strongly impresses his sovereignty upon it.  However, there is still some ambiguity in that the “waters” (1:2) were present already.  This contradicts the traditional Christian theories of God making the world out of nothing (ex nihilo) as proposed by Augustine, Aquinas and Swinburne, among others.  Gowan raises the idea of a ‘shaper God’ saying that he “initially created the formless materials of the cosmos, then proceeded to shape something of them”.  However, he notes that the Bible has “nothing to say about what preceded the creation of the world, not even any statement about the prior existence of God”.  This strikes at the heart of the aforementioned traditional Christian theology leaving an air of uncertainty about the nature of God.  Van Wolde offers an alternative that all these phrases are ‘literary techniques’ to denote what the world was like prior to God’s acts of creation.  Indeed she quotes that the “Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians and the Greeks all describe the beginning of time as one great primordial sea”.  In essence, she says, the author was simply setting the scene, as it were, showing that the world was about to begin and was cross-referencing other myths to give a strong, tried and tested base “upon which to build”.

The Hebrew word for a ‘deep sea’ (tehom) reminds the reader of Tiamat’s role in the Babylonian myth when the Priestly author describes the “deep” (1:2) present at creation.  Perry draws upon this, ascribing to the “sea” (1:10) a quality that reminds the reader of “Tiamat’s watery carcass in the Babylonian story”.  Drane says that the Enuma Elish is similar to the Priestly source’s story because both possess dark waters, although in the Babylonian myth Apsu and Tiamat (gods) personify them.  Indeed, he draws a parallel with Middle Eastern tradition where the chaotic waters were “essentially personifications of natural forces that seemed to bring productive life to a standstill at the end of each season”.  In both cases the Priestly author is drawing upon a relatively well-known myth and revising it.  Gowan asks “could the author have been reworking older, mythological accounts of creation?”  Perry explains the reason for the use of myths in relation to God’s activity by saying that “the creation stories contain a timeless religious message…they still contain a number of wise insights essential for becoming authentically human”.   Essentially, this is in agreement with van Wolde as both feel that the Priestly source's use of myth is a literary method.  In this particular example of the ‘primordial sea’, the author portrays an uncontested, effortless creation story.  Perry shows the allusion to Tiamat’s corpse as most likely to be a rejection of the “polytheistic violence that permeates creation in the Babylonian account”.   This demonstrates God’s power in all its glory as it displays the lack of a power struggle showing God to be reigning supreme.

Genesis 1 – 2: 4a does acknowledge evil, though, via its references to the various myths.  However, according to Gowan, the Priestly author deliberately does not ascribe it to God showing him, in fact, to be perfect.  Gowan proposes, as an explanation for the existence of evil, the existence of ‘cosmic evil’ which he describes as “everything we identify as destructive and productive of pain that can in no way be considered a result of human sin.”35.  He bases this conclusion on the presence of verse 2: “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”  He draws the conclusion that because of the verse’s anomalous structure and the abnormality of the content compared with the rest of the passage, it does not fit the “pattern of creation”, which begins with verse 3.  Despite this, the rejection of the myths or the purposeful act of giving God immunity from responsibility for the existence of evil leaves the reader with a wholly pure and perfect God.  Furthermore, the creation story, as has been discussed, was written during a time of exile and so recognizes evil in the world, but implies that it was not God who created it supporting, as Boadt puts it, “fidelity to the covenant through exile and times of loss”.  

On the first day, God makes light and proceeds to “separate it from darkness” (1:4). After this he names “Light ‘day’ and the darkness…’night’” (1:5).  Gowan describes light as being “essential for life” as it is created first.  He also says the “symbolic value of light is representing the presence of God”38.  Indeed, he adds, “One of the symbols of formlessness, disorder and the threat to life – darkness – was thus brought under control”38.  Taking this into account, Gowan also says light is “good because it is suitable for God’s intended purpose”38 illustrating God’s good intentions.  Drane agrees, saying that “the Genesis God is…a moral God”.  The actual action itself is without solidity as Gowan writes, “light does appear to be a substance that can exist without a physical source”.  This shows God’s sheer power to make something ex nihilo.  In a broader perspective God affirms “his sovereignty over both light and darkness by naming them”.  Van Wolde confirms this saying that “only after God has said ‘let there be light does the narrator state there was light as if the authority of the speech is God’s”(1:21)a.

Drane ascribes to the P account a hymn-like quality saying it has “a poetic style that we find in Psalms and especially in certain passages in the book of Isaiah”.  He holds this view mainly because of its rhythmical nature exemplified by the recurring phrase, “and there was evening, and there was morning”.  Following each of these lines comes the number of the day.  Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg singles out the first day noting that it is simply “one day” taking this as a “reference to primordial unity”.  In other words the “first day” (1:4) confirms that God is ‘one and all’.

The heavens, translated as “firmament”, meaning ‘sky’ as opposed to the Christian Heaven, are created on the second day, when “God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it…God called the expanse the sky” (1:8).  Perry describes this as an allusion to the Enuma Elish account, whereupon Marduk creates the “firmament from the corpse of the Tiamat and this made up the ‘vault of heaven’”.  This reference further affirms that there is no struggle or competition and displays the fact that God is absolutely unchallenged.

The separation of dry land from the seas is the next act.  Here God says “let the water under the sky be gathered to one place…let dry ground appear” (1:9).  Gowan says the boundaries’ limits are “an affirmation of God’s control”.  Everything God has done in the first three days involves separation – the dark from the light, the high water from the low water and now dry land from the seas.  It seems reasonable to say that Gowan’s statement about setting limits works for all of God’s separation acts.

God also tells the land to “produce vegetation” (1:11).  Gowan decides that the Priestly source thought of “the earth’s vegetation as a part of God’s provision of space in which the land animals will live”48.  He goes on to say, “the reader is reminded that God put regularity and predictability into his world”48.  This conforms to the theme of having an ordered and omnipotent, sovereign God but it also reflects the politics of the time.  The exile of the Jewish people was causing them problems and therefore, the idea that everything comes from God, and thus is perfect, provides them with reason, comfort, and a feeling of solidarity.  This is highlighted in recurring phrase “according to their kind”, which amplifies the organization and order in the world.  Perry focuses upon the author who explicitly ascribes the creation of vegetation to God.  He also describes the focus on the monotheistic God throughout the Priestly account because the author constantly demonstrates creation to be by God, shown by the repetition of phrases such as “God created”.  This is due to the Priestly source worrying about “the seductive glitter of Babylon’s glittering polytheistic culture”.

The Priestly author’s account of the fourth day is simple and straightforward, dealing only with the creation of the celestial bodies; the sun, moon and the stars.  Simply, “God made two great lights…He also made the stars” (1:16).  Gowan explains that the author “doesn’t even mention the Hebrew names, shamash and yareah”.  He purports that this is done in order to draw attention away from the luminaries, which were worshipped in nearby pagan cultures, and on to God and his unity.  Perry confirms this, saying that “the author stresses that the sun, moon and the stars were created by the only true God”.

There are particular formulae used by God throughout the Priestly account for his creation.  One phrase, “according to their kinds”, is repeated such that it takes on a formulaic quality.  It shows the complexity and order of the Priestly God.  “It was good” also gives this effect.  One very well known formula is in the often used “Let there be” which demonstrates the de facto nature of God’s words – that God only has to speak and his word is, in essence, the action demonstrating his immense power.  It also enhances the lack of struggle or violence in the creation of a good world.  This is further amplified by the repetition of “it was good”, as this describes the perfection of the creation and absence of any evil within it.  Drawn together, all the formulae point to everything coming from God, as van Wolde argues “the initiative in speaking and creating and the starting point lies with God”.  Van Wolde puts forward a final point, which stresses the excellence of creation.  The words asa and bara (‘make’ and ‘create’ respectively) occur seven times from Genesis 1 through to Genesis 2:4a.  Seven is the “number of whole perfection” in Jewish thought, thus this literary technique denotes the intrinsic harmony of God’s creation.  Furthermore, in the creation of animals, ”God makes use of both the earth and water in bringing forth life”;  Gowan feels that through this “God’s mastery over everything is nicely alluded to”61.  Indeed “Bara reappears for the first time since the first verse”.  The point Gowan makes is that this also shows God is the origin of all.  Perry selects a differing aspect but he portrays the same argument: God saying, “be fruitful and multiply” (1:22) proves that the “one true God is the sole source of life and blessing, not the gods of fertility mistakenly worshipped by other nations”.  In both cases, the scholars feel that the Priestly author is trying to stop the Jews from straying from their faith because of the harsh exile they were living in at the time.  Gowan describes how the animals “receive a blessing, unlike the previously created and the intent of the blessing is the ability to reproduce”.  This shows the compassion of God.

The method of creation on the sixth day differs from the traditional formula used in the Priestly account.  God uses the royal plural when he says “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” (1:26).  Gowan postulates that this plural is a reference to 1 Kings 22:19-22, where God is shown to be “sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven”, and Job 1:6-2:6 where God consults with his angelic court, perhaps referring to the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Etienne Charpentier presents another opinion, reasoning that the “plural Elohim denotes his majesty, like the royal we”.  This shows God as an even more imposing figure, because either he is actually made up of three wholly separate constituents and so is even more powerful, or he is considered as the monarch of the universe.

Being made “in the image of God” (1:26) could mean several things.  Van Wolde believes that “the word tselem (‘image’) is never used for a concrete visual representation but only for the pure image that has no concrete content or form”.  Thus, she explains that tselem is seen to be a general word denoting a relationship, indicating an analogy and making present something that is absent.  A modern equivalent would be the Nike ‘tick’ indicating athletic excellence.  As such, tselem is best translated as ‘sign’ and so, according to the concept of imago dei, “the human being is put in the world as a sign of God, to make God present”.  Drane states that the main reason for humans being above the rest is that they are capable of communication with God, unlike animals.  This suggests that man is “intended for fellowship with Him”.  Davidson confirms this, explaining man’s ability of holding a “a personal relationship with God”.  In spite of the differing reasons for uniqueness, all the scholars agree that man is undoubtedly made higher than the other creatures and so demonstrates that man is more important to God.  Charpentier explains this, saying that “the most important figure comes last” and so is given the “responsibility of organizing the universe and making it habitable”.  

On the seventh day, God “rested from all work” (2:2).  However, this does not mean that day seven is not part of the actual creation process.  In fact, the seventh day is key because it is the day God implicitly pronounces his creation “finished” (2:2).  Perry feels that because the Priestly account is dated to the exile of the Jews from Jerusalem, there is an underlying sense of an attempt by the author to stop Jews from being “tempted to abandon their newly found monotheistic faith”.  To do this, the source decided to give some sort of law upon the earth which would unite them.  This law comes in the manner of the Sabbath “preserving the monotheistic Jewish faith”76.  This is one of the reasons why the Sabbath account is included by “providing a divine precedent for the observance of the 7th day”.  Therefore the Sabbath is holy, because God himself made it, and so everyone should follow his example. Gowan looks from a different perspective, one which reflects God’s characteristics.  He describes the seventh day as serving “primarily as the final proof of the sovereignty of God over the entire cosmos”.  In other words the seventh day is evidence for God’s power, control and perfection.  Gowan concludes that the Priestly account confirms that the “whole world belongs to God”.

Again, as at the beginning of the Priestly account, with the Yahwistic account there is uncertainty as to which literary clause is the dominant one.  Deciphering this would enable a better understanding of the nature of God’s creative activity.  Here the question is whether God’s first creative act is in verse 6: “but streams/mist came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground” or verse 7: “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being”.  Von Rad decides that verse 6 is an “intermediary sentence which follows the negative details and precedes the positive ones”.   The negative situation the Yahwist describes, “an arid, plantless, uninhabited wilderness” according to Davidson, is not necessarily just because of the absence of God but of the situation prior to his creative acts in verses 4b and 5.  Incidentally, these verses are similar to verse 2 of the Priestly account in what they describe.  Von Rad goes on to assert that the  Yahwist describes a “man’s world” and so he draws the conclusion that the water in verse 6 is merely an “assisting element of creation”83, in contrast to the Priestly source in which it is conceivably its enemy.  Therefore, due to the anthropocentricity of the Yahwist’s account, verse 7, the creation of man, is the main clause of the lengthy sentence.  Perry agrees with this saying that “The Yahwistic creation myth…was meant to explain the origin of humans” and, therefore, as Benno Jacob puts it, “in chapter 2 [man is] the centre of a circle” implying that everything else is built around him.  This leads to a similar concept of man’s role as in the Priestly account because in both, as van Wolde explains, “human beings are made to point to God” 

In the Yahwistic account, and only very rarely elsewhere in the Pentateuch, God is enigmatically referred to as YHWH Elohim which is traditionally translated as Lord God.  Van Wolde explains that YHWH “seem[s] to indicate an immanent God or to point to that dimension of God which is concerned with the earth”.  However, due to a possible attempt at connecting Chapters 1 and 2 by a later redactor, Elohim has become “indissolubly connected and cannot be separated”87 from YHWH.  It results in a construct element which draws out God’s immanence and transcendence by YHWH and Elohim respectively.

The Yahwist author describes God as also fashioning man “from the dust and the ground” (2:7) and so from the outset man has a rapport with God.  Gowan believes that humans are fully dependent upon God giving the reader the impression of a munificent and compassionate God, for he provides everything that man needs.  Davidson further develops this saying that God blesses man and gives him a “dominion over all other living creatures”.  He equates this to the “Mesopotamian mythology of a king as primordial man, who is placed in a divine garden” amplifying the ideas of kingship.

Drane claims that the relationship between God and man is enhanced by interaction saying that “communication was always intended to be delightful and personal”.  Thus it is possible to ascribe to God the quality of personal relationship because he identifies with man through the personal communication described.  However, for the idea of a personal God to work, he must be given certain anthropomorphic attributes of man so that man may identify with him, such as the ability to be “walking in the garden” (3:8) to give one example.  Boadt agrees with Drane’s view observing that “the author speaks almost as in a fairy tale – God walks with his man and woman and talks to them, he thinks out loud, he works as a potter, fashioning people from mud and breathing life into them”.  Davidson develops this point comparing the Genesis creation stories to an Egyptian parallel, where the god of the story, Khnum, fashions man upon a potter's wheel.  Charpentier describes all these creation myths/stories as “extremely serious; they are the first reflections of humanity.  We can understand why the Bible took up this language to expresses its own reflections”.  Therefore, it is possible to apply this to mean that, through the use of myth, the idea of a single, true God who, made man by himself, is emphasized.

On the issue of creation of woman from a rib of man (2:21) Trible says that “animals aren't enough for the man and thus he has to create woman”.  Drane adds that there is emphasis on “mutual sharing of one person with another”, with regards to the relationship between the man and the woman.  This is highlighted by the allusion, as Gowan sees it, of equality between the two with their “becoming one flesh” (2:24).  Thus, Gowan claims that all these points indicate God’s “loving care by providing a partner”.

Indeed, God not only creates a female complement to man but he also “made all kinds of trees...trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food” (2:9) expressing God’s use of beauty in his creation.  Indeed as described in Ezekiel 31: 8, the Garden was full of all sorts of trees: pines, cedars, plane trees and, in Genesis 3: 7, the fig tree demonstrating further God’s omnipotence through the vast diversity of his creation.  Gowan believes that this shows God's intention to bless humans .  Perry describes the inclusion of trees as symbolising “a test of the man's willingness to trust and obey God”.  Derek Kidner disagrees saying that “the trees could be meant as metaphors for the respective means of gaining...forbidden knowledge”. Davidson elaborates upon this, stating that “the knowledge of good and evil…is used to convey the idea of everything” because then they were at absolute opposite ends of the scale  and thus represented everything.  Therefore, all creation is attributed to God alone, for were man to gain knowledge of ‘good and evil’, and so everything, then they would be claiming equality with god in their omniscience.

“God made the earth” (2:4) but Gowan also feels that he made it for the benefit of humans, exemplifying God’s benevolence.  Drane feels that this, along with other benevolent acts, “demonstrates God's active and loving concern for his people”.  This shows that the Yahwist source concurs with the Priestly source on the matter of man being the main purpose for creation.  However, there is an element of warning from God, alluded to by John Rogerson, who explains that “the garden of Eden was reminiscent of the Solomonic royal park” which demonstrates that, as Perry describes, the Yahwist wrote his account partly in order that King Solomon would take a lesson from Genesis about the downfall of man.  

When Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (3:6) they cross the “God…given limits” by default, according to Drane because they are making an attempt to become “controllers of their own destiny”107 and so “human life has moved from a position of fellowship with God to a position of rebellion”107.  Davidson believes that the knowledge of good and evil is used here again “to convey the idea of everything”.  Trying to become equal to God is the sin.  The myth which the Yahwist source will have been referencing here is the Legend of Adapa.  Therefore, the use of myth and the allusion to knowing everything shows that God’s level is unattainable for anyone other than God himself.

God’s nature through his judgment is presented very boldly in its literary terms and is demonstrated, according to Kidner, by the “prose here [giving] way to rhythmic speech”.  This switch conveys the seriousness of the situation to draw the reader’s full attention, showing how the Fall of Man is the main focus in the Yahwist source’s argument.  Davidson explains this, arguing that the third chapter has “a strong aetiological element in the judgment.  It provides answers to a whole series of puzzling ‘whys’”.  These answers include the nature of pain at childbirth and the nature of male dominance in marriage.  God tells the woman that “with pain you will give birth to children.  Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (3:16).  Above all, according to the traditional Christian belief exemplified by Augustine in his work Confessions and explained by Davidson, the Fall of Man is the “root of evil and friction in the world”.  However, despite God appearing to be vengeful, von Rad argues that “for the first time we see the Creator as the preserver!”.  Bonhoeffer elaborates upon this, saying that God “accepts men as those who are fallen.  He does not compromise them…God’s activity keeps pace with man”.  Drane explains this by stating that “man is incomplete without God.  They are intended for fellowship with him”.  A good example of this is when God “made garments of skin” (3:21) after their sinning had taken place.  Boadt uses this act to show that “God remains tenderly” showing loving concern for his creation.  Gowan agrees, noting that the “relationship is maintained by a sorrowing God”.  However, this makes God more personal by giving him emotions.

God is shown to be omnipotent and omniscient in Genesis 1-3 primarily because of the creation of the universe.  He is also shown to be benevolent and compassionate because of the manner in which he treats man, particularly in the Yahwistic account.  These characteristics are very evident in traditional Christian beliefs.

In Genesis 2-3, God is portrayed as a very personal, anthropomorphic God, who is “walking in the garden” (3:8).  This contrasts strongly with the very transcendent God present in Genesis 1.  However, van Wolde combines the two qualities in her interpretation of the construct relation of YHWH elohim.

The Yahwist and Priestly sources do agree that God alone created the universe, but according to Grisez, “the metaphysical difficulties attending that cosmological dimension have prompted its abandonment by some religious writers; and Christian discourse may then be taken to be essentially and solely moral discourse.”.  Therefore, the explicit qualities of God described in Genesis 1-3, such as his power and perfection, may only be spiritual truths, as it is widely accepted that the world was not created in the seven days as shown in the Priestly account.  Furthermore, as everything in Genesis is relative to man, objective observations about God cannot be made.  It is not possible for man to comprehend God and the nature of his activity.

---