5th Week in Ordinary Time: Monday Reading 1

GENESIS 1: 19

REFLECTIONS ON THE BIBLE

THE BOOK OF GENESIS (Lectionary Year C – Reading 1)

Monday of the 5th Week in Ordinary Time 2025

Genesis 1: 1-19

The ‘beginning’ marks time frame. Prior to the ‘beginning’ of what begins, which we shall refer to as ‘X’ only God is. The anti-thesis of God is ‘Void’ in the absolute sense that, firstly - God has no anti-thesis; and secondly, there is nothing to contrast the ‘nothing’ with, as in opposition. Hence, the result is - God only IS.

The addition that the ‘void’ means ‘empty’ is an explicatory one. But a bad augmentation. ‘Empty’ presupposes a container. And a ‘container’, the ‘contained,’ that is thing. the implication being that, there was a vast eon of emptiness. The fact is that there was not anything at all, not even a vastness of ‘empty space’ since space itself ‘came into being.’

Let us examine as a thought experiment what the ‘void’ means - take ‘emptiness’ in its container sense as given in the text. It did not exist. Darkness, in the sense of ‘absence of light,’ also did not exist. This is a total and absolute Nothingness, but GOD. In other words, there is nothing to juxtapose with God as its nemesis, in anyway whatsoever. What IS, is one; and it is God. There is no space, no time, no possibilities in or out of God. Hence, the Scripture takes the term ‘void’ seriously. It is not a nothing as in ‘no-thing,’ but as in only God is. There is no negation of being, since the ‘BE(ING) that is, is incapable of negation.  

God commands, ‘let there be...’ and what emerges is that which was-not, and now-is. There is a movement, on the part of the moved. It is moved from not-being, to ‘being.’ But if God is the absolutely ‘BE’ - that which is moved as a response to God’s command, is (be) differently. It is (be) in the sense of moved from not-be(ing) to be(ing). In the movement, it emerges as a ‘whole’ whatever it is. Hence, in the nature of ‘be’, whether as ‘BE’ or ‘be’, wholeness is a necessity. The emergent be(ing) is the being that can be opposed to the void. It relates to the Void not as a ‘vastness of emptiness,’ but as that ‘out of which’ it emerged as a result of the command to ‘be.’ The emergence becomes its formal delimit, and the ‘out of’, that is – void, intrinsically related to it, is its material delimit. But that which is twice determined by form and matter is ‘be(ing)’ hence the delimitation is a reduced capacity on the received as ‘be(ing).’ Since ‘be(ing)’ is whole, full, and complete – the delimitation is wholesome, although conditioned.

The ‘wholeness’ means, that any ‘X’, granted that it is (be), is completely itself. It requires not anything else in its being, precisely as being. It is as it is. For instance, if it is a given species, named ‘Y’ it emerges as ‘Y’ whatever Y-be(ing) is.

When God says, ‘Let there be ‘X’...’ the ‘X’ that emerged was the ‘wholeness’ that constitutes it. If it was a composite totality, e.g. the universe, then even the absolute singularity was-not; and when God commanded, ‘let there be ‘X’, being the absolute singularity, the universe exploded into ‘be(ing).’

The fact that there is a definite singularity does not limit God to this form of singularity. There may be other singularities simultaneously, or successively; there may even be other singularities that are not in any way identical to ours, they may even be inaccessible to our singularity. All we can say, is that given our singularity, the Absolutely Absolute BE(ING) can will any other ‘X’s in versions identical or totally other from ‘our own.’ In the philosophical debate about ‘whether this world is the best possible world,’ the medieval thinkers saw the singularity as an ‘only one,’ and thought that God’s act is grounded on perfection, which makes this singularity the best possible of God. Then they had to grapple with the problem of evil. In this view, ‘best’ is a category of the Good, by way of comparison. If the singularity that we are in is absolute, then there is nothing to compare it with. This leaves ‘best’ to an examination of divine possibilities. Such a concept is un-divine. God creates out of ‘willing,’ and although willing can never be ‘evil’ in God, it does not have to be comparative-goodness, but an ontological goodness.

The spontaneous eruption, not without an extrinsic force, out of a Nothingness that is nothing-being-like, emerges. In the ‘bursting-out,’ two things simultaneously arise: firstly, the emergent as a response to the command ‘to be,’ which is itself the first-act; and secondly, the ‘activity’ of the emergent as ‘flowing-out’, thus constituting temporality.

In its emergence absolutely as the ‘X’, it is at ‘once’ its first-instance in ‘be(ing)’ hence as temporality, it is wholly itself. Its ‘be(ing)’ is spatial. But as it ‘flows-out’, it spatiality takes up a character of temporality. But temporality is the ‘moving-out’ from itself, as ‘itself’, in the stretching-out of its possibilities. Be(ing) guarantees the ‘wholeness,’ that is - unity in the differences wrought by temporality. Internal differences (temporality) are unified by ‘be(ing)’ into the ‘unity of experience,’ while the external differences, that interrupts the unity of spatiality, are gained by expansion. Both the spatial and the temporal are principles other than being, but parasitic on it. Being is ‘unity’, spatiality is difference by disintegration, and temporality is difference by motion. Hence, being unites spatiality by integration; and temporality by stretching. But ‘be(ing) in itself, is wholeness (absolutely).

Spatiality is dependent of ‘be(ing)’ in order to disintegrate. An ‘X’ must first ‘be’ for disintegration to happen. But disintegration cannot happen, without motion, that is - temporality. Space is actual as result of spatiality, which is the material-possibility, of temporality. And Time is actual as a result of temporality, which is the formal-possibility, of be(ing).

Spatiality is twice removed from being, and temporality is once removed from being. Being empowers, that is - grants act to temporality, thus rendering it as an activity. The act of being, by which temporality is empowered, into an activity; acts on spatiality, so that it becomes, actually space. In this correlativity as empowered in a twofold manner by being, the actuality of spacetime of science is manifested.

Space is an actuality, and time is actuality. The two are interdependent, a dependence which is granted by be(ing). Spacetime of physical science is ‘thing.’ Spatiotemporality of philosophy is not an actuality (thing), it is a possibility - for spacetime.

The question remains: whence cometh ‘be(ing)? If spacetime is an actuality, and therefore a field of physical sciences, then - it is a condition for the ‘physical things.’ Science cannot transcend the actual, or the physical into the ontological. It must give way to philosophy to probe the realm underneath the physical. The subatomic realm is still physical (matter), since particles and waves are measurable. But even more intriguing, is the ‘behavior’ of these wave-particles on account of the ‘freedom’ of be(ing).

Be(ing) is free, and the nearest to the act of freedom is ‘will(ing).’ Language is always-already spatiotemporally determined. But ‘will’ in the ontological sense, is non temporal. The ‘temporal will’ is ‘future’ in tense. It is a ‘full’ like being, but as a ‘not-yet’, but what is a ‘not-yet’ is lacking in ‘be(ing)’ hence cannot be in the ontological order. The very instance (temporality) of an ‘X’s emergence, as a ‘whole’ cannot be a ‘future.’ It is a present. The fullness claimed by the time-future is an idea without content. If an ‘X’ is not, it cannot be ‘full.’

The temporal reality that indicates a fullness, and therefore actually relates to ‘be(ing) is the very first instance of emergence prior to the flow, in expansion as spacetime configuration. It is the moment when, the holistic emergence happens, it is instantaneous and without measure. It is a presence that is non-temporal, and non-spatial; it does not exclude them, but renders them captive until such a time that they are empowered by be(ing) to disclose being spatiotemporally. In actual fact, spatiotemporality, through spacetime, do not reveal ‘be(ing), rather - being discloses them as constraints to its freedom. Spacetime enable ‘being’ to appear in their form-matter configuration. Perception reveals the material element in the configuration; Intellection, in its discursive mode dependent on perception, formally imitates ‘being.’ It presents the fleeting perception into a stable ‘thought’ formally in the mind. But ‘thought’ looks out to the spatiotemporally configured, it does not look in, into ‘be(ing).’ At the realm of temporality, the motion is denominational in nature. It is formal by virtue of being, and the form is as a propensity for spatiality. The ‘Time’ factor as an actuality is numerical, and linear since it tends to abstraction mathematically rather than to ‘thing’ ontologically. In its denominating character, temporality turns by virtue of ‘being’ into life; and in its enumerating character, time is akin to thought as number that numbers.

The ‘be(ing) of thought, although not-being in itself, nevertheless offers insight into the understanding of being. It must be clarified that understanding is ‘thought’ but being cannot be-thought. The insight gained in the understanding of the ‘being-of-thought’, after shedding out the perceptual in it, is the tool for gaining insight into the character, rather than nature of ‘being’ however relative it is. Though, however being of a ‘this’ or a ‘that,’ is one, whole, complete. It forms the ground of judgment by affirmation or denial. Hence, guarantor of truth. By comparing, two thoughts, whether artistic or intellectual, each within its category, thought confirms the beauty of the one, as true. But while Thought deals with comparisons, ‘be(ing) does not compare. Hence, unity, truth, and beauty, best express ‘be(ing) by way of thought. But more importantly, is the ‘good.’ It is the quality, which within spatiotemporality, the integrity of ‘being’ affected spatiotemporality is regained. Prior to regaining, that which is presupposed is ‘good.’ Thought, dependent on perception which is spatiotemporal, and although it sheds off spatiotemporality, is nevertheless formal. Be(ing) by freedom, breaks the boundaries necessitated for knowing, such that being is truly unknowable.

The first and second verses of the Book of Genesis has revealed the redactor’s conflation of two theories: firstly, that ‘BE(ING) is contrasted to the void; and secondly, the Chaos theory - that the Demiurge ordered the chaos into the good by a principle of ‘attraction,’ called ‘love.’ The second theory can only be accepted consequent to creation, and only as things spatiotemporally move to their spatiotemporal-fullness, always-already, having the terminus a quo, as full - ontologically. But even then, the ‘waters’ are a primeval evil, it is the abode of the evil-forces. The Spirit of the Lord hovering over these forces only highlight the power of God over evil. and in no way is it avowal to a counter-acting principle to God. Even if there would be evil, it would be contrasted to creation as a response to the call of God ‘to be.’ Evil would be, having-been - as a result of creation (good), one refuses to ‘expand’ in the direction of fullness, rather undergoes by choice to the opposite direction of disintegration. Here it takes on a moral character rather than the ontological one that this work intends to pursue.

  And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness.

5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.1

1 The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), Ge 1:3–5.

The passage quoted presents a descriptive view of creation. Granted that non-being is described as darkness over the deep, two creatures are implied: the physical as the ‘deep’ although it is only as a container, that is - spatial configuration. But the reality of ‘being’ troubles the redactor. What is in the deep? Water? Let us take a look. Light is needed. Hence, creatively, it is light that arises as the ‘first of beings’ which out of temporality, in the primeval fight, the cyclic victories over light and darkness constitute days and night. The very first of which is the first day.

The Uncreated Water is ordered into the ‘waters above’ (rain), and the waters below (seas and rivers); which simultaneously divides the realms into heavenly and earthly; constituting the second day. The earthly brings forth earthly things, and that is the third day. The Fourth day raises an organizational problem. Light is already present in day one. But another source of light is created in day four together with other heavenly bodies. What is the ontological significance of the first light, and its difference from the ontic lights of the fourth day? The first light, or the light of the first day has ontological priority over the lights of the fourth day. The writer of the Fourth Gospel says this, in John 1: 4 , ‘In him was life: and life was the light of men.’

The Light that the author of the Fourth Gospel talks about is ‘him, through whom all things came ‘to be,’ that is the Eternal Word of God. But here, it is the Eternal Word (BEING), in the manifestation of the Father ad intra, eternally; now (time) taking up that very manifestation of the Father, ad extra - spatiotemporally in creation, as the ‘first born of all creation,’ so that he is ‘the life that enlightens all men.’ The distinction is very important here - God, the absolutely absolute is free as Will (absolutely); God the Eternal Word is the free determination, that is - the intellectual presentation, in the human form, albeit - only intellectually, of the Indeterminable Absolute Freedom, God; in himself as the Thought (Light), but also as ‘thought’, human-intellect.

The Father is God, absolutely and without form in himself. In his Son, ad intra, for his self-awareness, that is - internal self-manifestation (God thinking God), his only begotten Son emerges, logically in thought, but ontologically the same as the Father. This ‘Logically Second,’ as the Eternal Word, takes up creaturely state, in which be is determined spatiotemporally. The spatiotemporal determination renders him a ‘first’ ontologically of creation; but ontically - it is in the incarnation that he is spacetime determined, without losing the ontological status of BEING nor the spatiotemporal priority of a ‘first-born’ in creation. The phases of the Eternal Word is two fold, relative to the Father is identity with God, confirmed by the Spirit, who is equally identically God. In reference to creation: he is the first response to ‘be(ing)’ as a call of the Father; the response that is only formal - that is ‘temporally.’ But which would become material, so that formally (time), materially (space), and ontologically (God-the-Eternal Word) he is Jesus, the Son of Mary - the Son of God.

It is this Light, that the Fourth Gospel says, ‘light shines in the darkness, but darkness did not comprehend it,’ v.5. The brokenness, by virtue of spatiality, and the flow towards nothing, by means of temporality, are incongruent with the Light (Jesus), coming to put an end to the directionality of the spatiotemporal flow. The flow must move toward ‘being’ into BEING rather than from BEING into spatiotemporality into spacetime that ends in NOTHING. Darkness cannot overcome light in the sense that, even if there would be no change of directionality, the ‘end’ would be that of spatiotemporality and its spacetime configuration, that cannot overcome be(ing), that empowers it. Nevertheless, the ‘new nothing’ or the ‘second death’ is worse than the first.