The Lost World of Genesis One-Session 5

Why didn’t God simply call light “light”? This was one of the questions that first got me started on the journey that has resulted in the interpretation of presented in this book. It was not the function orientation found in the ancient Near Eastern literature that changed my way of thinking about —it was the text of . The whole process begins with verse 5, the concluding verse of the account of day one:

English Standard Version Chapter 1

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

God called the light “day” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning—the first day. (niv)

First of all it should be observed that light is never treated as a material object in the ancient Near East, despite our modern physics. It is rather thought of as a condition, just as darkness is. So even if light were being created, one would not be able to make the claim that this is a material act. In fact, however, light itself is not the focus of this day’s activities. What is the text talking about when it indicates that God called the light “day”? After all, that is not what light is. The solution is not difficult to find. Some would even consider it transparent and hardly worth even noticing. If something connected with light is named “day” we can deduce that it is not light itself, but the period of light, for that is what “day” is. Since “day” is a period of light, and “day” is the name given, we conclude that we are dealing with a rhetorical device called

metonymy

in which a noun can reasonably be extended to a related concept. In this case then, the author intends for us to understand the word “light” to mean a period of light. Otherwise the verse would not make sense. As a result, “God called the period of light ‘day’ and the period of darkness he called ‘night.’ ”2

With this information from verse 5, we can now proceed backward through the text to verse 4. There we are told that “God separated the light from the darkness.” Again we note that this statement does not make any sense if light and/or darkness are viewed as material objects. They cannot logically be separated, because by definition they cannot exist together in any meaningful scientific or material way. The solution of verse 5 works equally well here as the verse takes on its obvious meaning with God separating the period of light from the period of darkness. These are the distinct periods that are then named day and night in verse 5. So far so good.

Now comes the clincher. If “light” refers to a period of light in verse 5 and in verse 4, consistency demands that we extend the same understanding to verse 3, and here is where the “aha!” moment occurs.

We are compelled by the demands of verses 4 and 5 to translate verse 3 as “God said, ‘Let there be a period of light.’ ”

If we had previously been inclined to treat this as an act of material creation, we can no longer sustain that opinion. For since what is called into existence is a period of light that is distinguished from a period of darkness and that is named “day,” we must inevitably consider day one as describing the creation of time. The basis for time is the invariable alteration between periods of light and periods of darkness. This is a creative act, but it is creation in a functional sense, not a material one.

This interpretation solves the long-standing conundrum of why evening is named before morning. There had been darkness in the precreation condition. When God called forth a period of light and distinguished it from this period of darkness, the “time” system that was set up required transitions between these two established periods. Since the period of light had been called forth, the first transition was evening (into the period of darkness) and the second was morning (into the period of light). Thus the great cycle of time was put in place by the Creator. As his first act he mixed time into the features of the cosmos that would serve the needs of the human beings he was going to place in its midst.

A second conundrum that this resolves is the detail that many have found baffling over the ages as they ask, How could there be light on day one when the sun is not created until day four? Two observations can now be made: First, this is less of a problem when we are dealing with “time” in day one rather than specifically with “light.” But this does not really resolve the problem without the second observation: If creation is understood in functional terms, the order of events concerns functional issues, not material ones. Time is much more important than the sun—in fact, the sun is not a function, it only has functions. It is a mere functionary. More about this in the next chapter.

Day Two

English Standard Version Chapter 1

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

Day two has been problematic at a number of different levels. In antiquity people routinely believed that the sky was solid. As history progressed through the periods of scholasticism, the Renaissance, the Copernican revolution and the Enlightenment, verse 6 became more difficult to handle. For if the Hebrew term is to be taken in its normal contextual sense, it indicates that God made a solid dome to hold up waters above the earth. The choice of saying the Bible was wrong was deemed unacceptable, but the idea of rendering the word in a way that could tolerate modern scientific thinking could not be considered preferable in that it manipulated the text to say something that it had never said. We cannot think that we can interpret the word “expanse/firmament” as simply the sky or the atmosphere if that is not what the author meant by it when he used it and not what the audience would have understood by the word. As we discussed in the first chapter, we cannot force Genesis to speak to some later science.

We may find some escape from the problem, however, as we continue to think about creation as ultimately concerned with the functional rather than the material. If this is not an account of material origins, then is affirming nothing about the material world. Whether or not there actually are cosmic waters being held back by a solid dome does not matter. That material cosmic geography is simply what was familiar to them and was used to communicate something that is functional in nature. Instead of objectifying this water barrier, we should focus on the important twofold cosmic function it played. Its first role was to create the space in which people could live. The second and more significant function was to serve as a mechanism by which precipitation was controlled—the means by which weather operated. Order in the cosmos (for people especially) depended on the right amount of precipitation. Too little and we starve; too much and we are overwhelmed. The cosmic waters posed a continual threat, and the “firmament” had been created as a means of establishing cosmic order. That we do not retain the cosmic geography of the ancient world that featured a solid barrier holding back waters does not change the fact that our understanding of the Creator includes his role in setting up and maintaining a weather system. The material terms used in day two reflect accommodation to the way the ancient audience thought about the world. But it doesn’t matter what one’s material cosmic geography might look like—primitive or sophisticated—the point remains that on the second day, God established the functions that serve as the basis for weather.

Day Three

English Standard Version Chapter 1

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.I

It is amazing to notice at this point that some interpreters are troubled by their observation that God doesn’t make anything on day three. We can imagine their quandary—how can this be included in a creation account if God doesn’t make anything on this day? By this point in the book, the reader can see the solution easily. Day three is only a problem if this is an account of material origins. If it is understood as an account of functional origins, there is no need for God to make something. Instead, we ask what function(s) were set up, and to that question we find ready answers.

First of all we note that just as day two separated and differentiated cosmic space, so day three differentiates terrestrial space. The act of separating, a key creation activity from a functional perspective, continues in prominence. Commonly in the ancient literature, these same differentiations can be seen.

Even as some commentators ponder the absence of material creation in day three, others often observe that the day seems to contain two separate acts (water/dry land and vegetation). From a functional perspective, the soil, the water and the principle of seed bearing are all very much related as essential to the production of food. The emergence of dry land from the waters is a common element in Egyptian cosmology, and there it has a definite referent. That is, the emergence of the primeval hillock in cosmology reflects the yearly reality of the fertile soil emerging in the aftermath of the inundation of the Nile. Thus it is clear that the emergence of dry land is associated with the growing of food.

Day three reflects the wonder of the ancient world at the whole idea that plants grew, dropped seed, and that more of the same plant came from that tiny seed. The cycle of vegetation, the principles of fertilization, the blessing of fecundity—all of these were seen as part of the amazing provision of food so necessary for people to survive.

So on day one God created the basis for time; day two the basis for weather; and day three the basis for food. These three great functions—time, weather and food—are the foundation of life. If we desire to see the greatest work of the Creator, it is not to be found in the materials that he brought together—it is that he brought them together in such a way that they work. Perhaps we can feel the same wonder when we consider how, even given all that we know about the physiology of the eye, that beyond all of our material understanding, through these bundles of tissue we can see. We should never lose the wonder of this. Functions are far more important than materials.

We should not be surprised to find that the three major functions introduced in the first three days of are also prominent in ancient Near Eastern texts. These texts have already been cited in chapter two. Note again the three lines near the beginning of Papyrus Insinger:

He created day, month, and year through the commands of the lord of command.

He created summer and winter through the rising and setting of Sothis.

He created food before those who are alive, the wonder of the fields.

Likewise in Marduk’s creative activity in Enuma Elish tablet five:

• Lines 38–40: night and day

• Lines 47–52: creation of the clouds, wind, rain and fog

• Lines 53–58: harnessing of the waters of Tiamat for the purpose of providing the basis of agriculture, piling up of dirt, releasing the Tigris and Euphrates, and digging holes to manage the catchwater

But these functions feature prominently not just in other ancient cosmologies. In Genesis, after the cosmos is ordered, a crisis leads God to return the cosmos to an unordered, nonfunctional state by means of a flood. Here the cosmic waters are let loose from their boundaries and again the earth becomes nonfunctional. What follows is a re-creation text as the land emerges again from the waters and the blessing is reiterated. Of greatest interest, in that context God makes the Creator’s promise in :

English Standard Version Chapter 8

22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

As long as the earth endures,

Seedtime and harvest,

Cold and heat,

Summer and winter,

Day and night

Will never cease.

Here we find the same three major functions in reverse order: food, weather and time, never to cease. The author is well aware that these are the main categories in the operation of this world that God has organized.

In this chapter we have attempted to establish, first, that functional concerns rather than material ones dominate the account. Indeed the only appearance of what might be considered material in these three days is the firmament—the very thing that we are inclined to dismiss as not part of the material cosmos as we understand it. In contrast the functions of time, weather and food can be clearly seen in the text and recognized as significant in ancient Near Eastern cosmologies. More importantly, we can see that the prominence of these three functions is common to the ancient world. Perspectives on the material universe will vary from era to era and culture to culture. It would be no surprise then that God’s creative work should be proclaimed relative to those issues that serve as the universal foundation of how people encounter the cosmos.

We should not worry about the question of “truth” with regard to the Bible’s use of Old World science. As we mentioned before, some scientific framework needs to be adopted, and all scientific frameworks are dynamic and subject to change. Adoption of the framework of the target audience is most logical. The Old World science found in the Bible would not be considered “wrong” or “false” as much as it would just offer a perspective from a different vantage point. Even today we can consider it true that the sky is blue, that the sun sets and that the moon shines. But we know that these are scientifically misleading statements. Science, however, simply offers one way of viewing the world, and it does not have a corner on truth. The Old World science in the Bible offers the perspective of the earthbound observer. One could contend that there are some ways in which it is more true that the earth is the center of the cosmos. This does not mean to suggest that there are many truths, but that there are many possible different perspectives that can each offer truthful information. The way any culture describes the makeup of the material cosmos may vary considerably from how another might. A century ago the idea of an expanding universe would have seemed ludicrous, while today the steady-state universe has fallen into disfavor. This is all part of fine-tuning cosmic geography.

God did not give Israel a revised cosmic geography—he revealed his Creator role through the cosmic geography that they had, because the shape of the material world did not matter. His creative work focused on functions, and therefore he communicated that he was the one who set up the functions and who keeps the operations going, regardless of how we envision the material shape. This creation account did not concern the material shape of the cosmos, but rather its functions.

Technical Support

Seely, P. “The Firmament and the Water Above.” Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992): 31–46.

———. “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in .” Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997): 231–55.[1]

[1] Walton, J. H. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (pp. 53–61). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Related Media

Related Sermons