|
Day
One
of Creation: Then God Said
Genesis
1:3. The Significance of
the Word Order, "Then God said,"
“Then God said,” Gen. 1:3.
With
the exception of Day One (in my view), these words mark the beginning
of each of the six days of creation (Gen.
1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24).
For this reason, many evangelical writers have insisted that Genesis 1:3 rather than Genesis 1:1 marks the beginning of Day
One of creation (e.g. Allen P. Ross, Genesis, (see his comments on Gen. 1:3-5),
Vol. I, The
Bible Knowledge Commentary; Thomas Constable, Dr.
Constable’s Notes on Genesis. (Constable has labeled Gen. 1:3-31 as “The six days of
creation,” and he has labeled Gen. 1:3-5 as “The first day.” In
fairness, he does state that “Gen. 1:1 may be part of the first day of
creation,” but he has not labeled it that way.)
Admittedly,
the positioning of the phrases, “Then God said” (vayomer Elohim) is mildly problematic for
the exegete defending the view that Genesis 1:1-2, as well as Gen. 1:3-5, describes what happened
on Day One of creation. A closer examination of the actual text,
however, reveals that the phraseology used is far from formulaic in Genesis 1:1-2:3. In fact, as we shall see,
it is easy to defend the notion that there is not a
uniform formula. The following table illustrates the variety of uses of
the Hebrew words God (Elohim) and said
(amar) in Genesis 1:1–2:3.
In the table below, green
represents as formulaic (column 4) the Hebrew phrase “then said God”
using the proper words in the proper order (column 2) at the start of a given day (column 3), and as expressing a
command of creation (column 5). Similarly, yellow
represents as non-formulaic (column 4) words out of order or using a
different verb tense or omitting a word (column 2) and as expressing
something other than a command of creation (column 5). Finally, magenta
represents as non-formulaic the placement (column 4)
of phrases after the start of a given day (column 3).
|
1
Scripture |
2
Heb.
Word Order |
3
Location
in Day |
4
Formulaic? |
5
Analysis |
| Gen.
1:3 |
Then
said God |
After the start of day one |
Words,
Yes
Placement,
No |
Command
of Creation of
Light |
| Gen. 1:6 |
Then
said God |
Start of the second day |
Words,
Yes
Placement,
Yes |
Command
of Creation of
“Expanse” |
| Gen. 1:9 |
Then
said God |
Start of the third day |
Words,
Yes
Placement,
Yes |
Command
of Arrangement
of Waters and Dry Land |
| Gen. 1:11 |
Then
said God |
After the start of the third day |
Words,
Yes
Placement,
No |
Command
of Creation of
Vegetation |
| Gen. 1:14 |
Then
said God |
Start of the fourth day |
Words,
Yes
Placement,
Yes |
Command
of Creation of
“Lights” |
| Gen. 1:20 |
Then
said God |
Start of the fifth day |
Words,
Yes
Placement,
Yes |
Command
of Creation of
Fish and Fowl |
| Gen. 1:22 |
And
blessed them – God – saying |
After the start of the fifth day |
Words,
No
Placement,
No |
Verbalization
of Blessing issuing in a Divine Command of Productivity to Fish and Fowl |
| Gen. 1:24 |
Then
said God |
Start of the sixth day |
Words,
Yes
Placement,
Yes |
Command
of Creation of
Land Animals |
| Gen. 1:26 |
Then
said God |
After the start of the sixth day |
Words,
Yes
Placement,
No |
Divine
Discussion of Creation of Man (followed by
Creation) |
| Gen. 1:28 |
And
blessed them - God – and said to them - God |
After the start of the sixth day |
Words,
No
Placement,
No |
Verbalization
of Blessing issuing in a Divine Command of Human Productivity and Rule |
| Gen. 1:29 |
Then
said God |
After the start of the sixth day |
Words,
Yes
Placement,
No |
Divine
Speech of Provision and Instruction |
| Gen. 2:3 |
Then
blessed - God |
Indeterminate with reference to the
seventh day |
Words,
No Placement,
No |
Description
of Divine Blessing of
the Seventh Day |
In
the table above, we give the reference in Genesis (column 1), duplicate the Hebrew
word order (column 2), indicate the location in each
day when God (Elohim) said (amar) something (column
3), and categorize the nature of that conversation (column
5). In column 4 we have attempted to identify if
there is a repeated formula (a)
in what God says and (b) in
the placement of His communication in regard to the start of the day.
What we observe is that the text is not nearly as formulaic as some
have made it out to be. Let us note the specifics.
With
respect to column 2, we find eleven uses of Elohim and amar in close proximity. Nine
of them are identical with regard to vocabulary and word order. The two
that break the pattern both have to do with God’s blessing. In Gen. 1:22 God blessed the fish and
fowl He had created at the beginning of the Fifth Day, instructing them
to be fruitful and multiply; in Gen. 1:28 He blessed the humans whom
He had created after the start of the Sixth Day, instructing them to be
fruitful and multiply. In Gen. 2:3, on the Seventh Day, the
pattern breaks down altogether. Though the word God (Elohim) is
used, the word for speaking (amar) is not used at all.
However, just as in the two previous instances of disjuncture, God does
indeed bless, but what He says is not quoted. This time He does not
bless physical entities He has created, but He blesses a unit of
measurement of time He has instituted, the Seventh Day.
With
respect to column 3, which is really the main
point of this table, a startling departure from
formula exists with regard to the words Elohim and amar. There are five instances
of uniformity
as regarding maintaining the formula of God speaking as inaugurating a
new day. Thus, God (Elohim) speaks
to inaugurate the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Days. (I
believe I am justified in excluding Day One from this category (a) on
the basis of a proper understanding in context of the vocabulary used
on Day One (Gen.
1:1-2) and (b)
on the basis of Yahweh’s having explicitly stated that He had created
the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything that exists in
them in the space of six days [Ex. 20:11].
That being the case, Gen. 1:1-2 must necessarily describe
that which occurred on Day One. There is no other feasible option.) But
though there are five instances of uniformity, we find
that there are at least six instances of non-uniformity!
Let me list them.
(a)
God (Elohim) spoke (vayomer), commanding
light into existence after
the start of Day One (Gen. 1:3).
(b)
God (Elohim) spoke (vayomer), commanding
vegetation
into existence after
the start of the Third Day (Gen. 1:11).
(c)
God (Elohim) spoke (lemor),
verbalizing blessing upon fish and fowl after
the start of the Fifth Day (Gen. 1:22).
The precise words are as follows: “And blessed them, God, saying, ‘Be
fruitful and multiply…’” The verbal form saying is lemor, a Qal infinitive
construct of amar. Heretofore, the pattern
has been, “Then said God,” Vayomer Elohim. Vayomer is a Qal waw consecutive
imperfect, third masculine singular. (The initial letter waw
is translated “and” or “then.”) Some might object that this instance in
Gen.
1:22 does not
fit the pattern because amar is an infinitive construct (with the
initial letter lamed),
and should therefore be excluded from evidence. I agree that it does
not fit the pattern, but I argue that evidence should not be
“cherry-picked.” This evidence should be included in the discussion
since it is an occurrence of God (Elohim) and speaking
(amar).
My point is that a neatly-packaged uniformity does not
exist, and that the evidence shows it is not
abnormal for God to speak after the start of a given
day.
(d)
God (Elohim) spoke (vayomer),
discussing His imminent creation of man after
the start of the Sixth Day (Gen. 1:26).
(e)
God (Elohim) spoke (vayomer) to the newly created
couple in the format of a blessing after
the start of the Sixth Day, commanding their performance (“be fruitful
and multiply and fill the earth”), and empowering their limited
sovereignty (“and subdue it and rule over” [the animals]) (Gen. 1:28).
(f)
God (Elohim) spoke (vayomer) to the newly created
couple after
the start of the Sixth Day, informing them He had provided both them
and the animal kingdom with every kind of vegetarian provision they
needed for their sustenance (Gen. 1:29).
(g)
As we have already learned, the pattern breaks down altogether on the
Seventh Day (Gen. 2:1-3), for though the text states that God (Elohim) blessed
the Seventh Day, it nowhere records that He spoke. Every form of amar is absent. Therefore the
data on the Seventh Day is indeterminate.
As such, the Seventh Day, along with Day One, represent a departure
from the formula introducing days two through six.
Conclusion: The evidence is
conclusive that there is not
a consistent pattern in the uses of God (Elohim) and said (amar).
It is true that God says something to inaugurate the Second to the
Sixth Days, but it is equally true that, just as often, He says
something after the start of certain days. If Day One
appears to be an anomaly, then the Seventh Day is an even greater
anomaly, for though the word God (Elohim) is used, the word said (amar) never is! My whole point
is that it is a fallacy to argue that, just because the words God (Elohim) and said
(amar) inaugurate the Second
through Sixth Days, they must necessarily inaugurate Day One. The
evidence does not fit that arbitrary conclusion.
With
respect to column 4, which is really a summary
column, we can see visually that the instances of disjuncture, or
non-formulaic uses of Elohim and ’amar actually outnumber the
formulaic instances. Instances in which the words,
in their proper order, and their placement
at the beginning of a day are five in number, and are
thus formulaic. These include Genesis
1:6, 9, 14, 20, 24. Instances in which the words
are formulaic, but their placement
after the start of a given day are
non-formulaic, are four in number. These include Genesis
1:3, 11, 26, 29.
Instances in which the words
are out of order (or words
are missing) and, in addition, their placement
is after the start of a given day are three in number.
These include Genesis
1:22, 28; 2:3.
Thus, with respect to word selection and placement in a given day,
there are five formulaic occurrences, but there are a total of seven
non-formulaic occurrences. The conclusion is that there is no
statistical or linguistic evidence that Genesis 1:3 must necessarily mark the start of Day One of creation.
With
respect to column 5, we are able to visualize
the content of the words associated in the context of God (Elohim) speaking (amar).
We can observe that there are some qualitative differences in the
content of God’s speech.
First
of all, there are six instances in which God’s speaking amounted to a “Command
of Creation.” These include Genesis
1:3, 6, 11, 14, 20, 24. By “Command of Creation,”
I refer to the instances in which God spoke, commanding some new entity
or entities into existence. These new entities include light (Gen. 1:3),
an “expanse” (atmosphere) (Gen. 1:6),
vegetation (Gen.
1:11),
celestial bodies (sun, moon, stars) (Gen. 1:14),
fish and fowl (Gen. 1:20), and land
animals (Gen. 1:24).
These six instances reveal a certain formula
used in Genesis 1:1-2:3 describing God’s speech. The formula
is that God
speaks, commanding something into existence that has not been there
before, and that entity is created by God’s speech.
Second,
there are another six instances in which God’s speaking amounted to something
other than a “Command of Creation.” These represent a departure
from formula. (1) At
the start of the Third Day, God’s speech amounted to an arrangement or
rearrangement of existing entities, not an actual creation. Nothing new
was formed, but existing entities were rearranged (Gen. 1:9-10).
Water and soil already existed, but all of the soil was submerged, and
most likely a significant portion of the soil was in suspension. God’s
creative speech rearranged the water and soil so that a certain
quantity of soil was elevated above water level. This elevated soil is
identified as “dry land” (yabbasah).
God called it “earth” (erets).
This “Command
of Arrangement” is a departure from the formula since nothing
new was created, but only rearranged. (2)
After the start of the Fifth Day, God’s speech consisted of a blessing
upon His newly created fish and fowl (Gen. 1:22-23).
In blessing, He commanded them to “be fruitful and multiply” in their
respective environments. This Verbalization
of Blessing, followed by a Command
of Productivity represents a departure from formula, since
nothing was created. (3) After
the start of the Sixth Day there was a Divine discussion about creating
man (Gen. 1:26):
“Then God (Elohim) said (amar),
“Let us make man in Our image according to Our likeness.” So God
discussed creating man, but that discussion is different than a
“Command of Creation,” “Let there be man!” In fact, no “Command of
Creation” was stated to be used in the creation of man. The text merely
states, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He
created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). Elohim is present in the text,
but amar is missing. This Divine
Discussion of Creation represents a departure from formula. (4) After God had already created
man, the text states that God blessed man, and that this blessing
issued in a “Command
of Productivity” followed by a “Command
to Rule.” Literally, the text reads, “Then blessed them – God –
and said (amar) to them – God (Elohim),
‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth [Command
of Productivity], and subdue it; and exercise dominion over the
fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens, and over every
living thing, the one moving about on the earth” [Command
to Rule] (Gen. 1:28, author’s literal
translation). Again, since there is no “Command of Creation,” there is
a departure from formula. (5)
After God has completed His work of creation on the Sixth Day, God said
something (using the formulaic words), but what He said was
non-formulaic (Gen. 1:29-30).
God spoke to the couple, instructing them that He had given to them
every plant which had seed and every tree bearing fruit with seed as a
source of food both for humans and for animals. Since what God said
amounted to a Divine
Speech of Provision and Instruction, and did not create a new
entity, it was a departure from the formula. (6) On the Seventh Day, there was a
profound departure from formula. God created nothing, and He rearranged
nothing. Of greatest significance to our present discussion is this:
though Moses used the word God (Elohim),
He did not use the word said (amar) at all in discussing the
Seventh Day. God had completed His work of creating the heavens and the
earth and everything in them. Consequently, He rested from all the work
He had done. Because He had completed His work, God “blessed (barak) the seventh day and
sanctified it” (Gen. 2:1-3). Since God rested and did not create, and
because the word said (amar) is not even used, the Description
of Blessing on the Seventh Day constitutes a remarkable
departure from formula. If it be argued, “We cannot count the Seventh
Day in our discussion of formula and non-formula because God had
finished creating,” I would respond, “Ah, but the Creation Week
consisted of seven days, not six.” Further, I would argue, “If the
Seventh Day is fundamentally different, why can there not be a less
remarkable difference on Day One?” At least God said (amar) something
on Day One. The fact that God said something after the
start of Day One is not so remarkable when one examines all the
other departures from formula in the Creation Week.
The
skeptic might demand, “Give me one good reason why, stylistically,
I should believe that Day One begins at Genesis 1:1 and not at Gen. 1:3 – because each of the
subsequent days, Second through Sixth, all begin with the formula “Then
God said.” Let me attempt to answer that objection.
(1)
It is impossible to answer that demand with certainty. Some day,
perhaps, I will broach that subject with God and Moses. The best answer
I can give is this, that apparently the Divine and human authors of
Genesis believed it was important to communicate to the readers what
God created initially on Day One, and the conditions
of the terrestrial part of that creation, and the activity
of the Spirit of God upon that creation before they communicated what
God said. Genesis 1:1-2 records what God did on Day One, but the earth at that point was
completely uninhabitable by design. God’s speaking
light into existence on Day One (Gen. 1:3) was the first step in
making the fledgling earth habitable. And, to be straightforward, that
is what each of God’s speeches and activities on each of the succeeding
days accomplished. As it stands, the first verse of the Bible,
stylistically, is a supreme perfection of simplicity and profundity:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
Stylistically, how can we possibly improve upon that? If Genesis 1:1 had begun, “In the
beginning, God said, ‘Let there be the heavens and the earth’”, we
would have missed that marvelous word bara, created. And we would
feel that there was an opening prologue that was missing. And we still
would have been faced with the following: “Now (NIV) the earth was
formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and
the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the deep” (Gen. 1:2).
Those influenced by the dogma of evolution would still
be wanting to insert vast eons of time in there somewhere. Gap
theorists would still hold onto their Gap Theory. Progressive Creationists would still
insist that the days of creation cannot be taken literally, and
represent instead, vast reaches of time. Theistic Evolutionists would still
insist that Gen.
1 is poetry,
not historical narrative, and they would stretch the Biblical days into
millions of years in order to accommodate evolution. And those who hold
to the Chaos
Theory of Origins would still
say the original earth had been created in the dateless past.
Stylistically, the opening statements of Genesis would suffer.
Stylistically, what God said and the way He said it are magnificent.
Let it stand as it is!
(2)
We have already mentioned that it is imprecise exegesis to exclude the
Seventh Day from the discussion. The Seventh Day is just as much a part
of the Creation Week as are the preceding six days. God is not reported
to have “said” (amar) anything at all on the
Seventh Day. The word blessed (barak) is used, but not the word
said (amar).
Stylistically, there is already a difference in the Seventh Day of
Creation. Why not also on Day One?
(3)
I believe that the most formidable answer to that objection lies within
the larger structure of the book of Genesis as a whole. Every reader of
Genesis in Hebrew is familiar with the importance of the word toledoth in the structural, or
stylistic format of Genesis. Toledoth appears in Genesis
thirteen times: Gen.
2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1, 32; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 13, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2. Toledoth (a plural noun) most often
is translated as generations (KJV, NASB). In Genesis
it generally means “the account of” or “what became of”. Thomas
Constable uses this word as a basis for outlining Genesis (Notes
on Genesis).
His outline goes as follows: I. Primeval events (Gen. 1:1-11:26);
A. The story of creation (Gen. 1:1-2:3);
B. What became of the creation (Gen. 2:4-4:26);
C. What became of Adam (Gen. 5:1-6:8);
D. What became of Noah (Gen. 6:9-9:29);
E. What became of Noah’s sons (Gen. 10:1-11:9);
F. What became of Shem (Gen. 11:10-26); II.
Patriarchal narratives (Gen. 11:27-50:26); A. What became of Terah
(Gen. 11:27-25:11);
B. What became of Ishmael (Gen. 25:12-18);
C. What became of Isaac (Gen. 25:19-35:29);
D. What became of Esau (Gen. 36:1-37:1);
What became of Jacob (Gen. 37:2-50:26).
What is particularly
germane to the discussion at hand is this: notice that the outline indicators
do not start at the beginning of the book! Toledoth does not occur until Genesis 2:4. But Genesis 1:1-2:3 cannot be excluded from
what happened in Genesis any more than Genesis 1:1-2 can be excluded from the
Creation Week recorded in Genesis 1:1-2:3! Genesis 1:3-2:3 tells how God sequentially
upgraded the heavens and earth that God began creating on Day One in Genesis 1:1-2. Had God left the earth in
the condition He first created it (Gen. 1:1-2),
it would have been uninhabitable
and thus empty. But He did not
create the earth to be “a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited” (Isa. 45:18). Conclusion:
The account of the Creation Week begins at Genesis 1:1; Day One begins at Genesis 1:1! Just because God is not
recorded as saying something until Genesis 1:3 does not preclude His
creative activity from beginning on Day One in Genesis 1:1.
|
