Commentary on Genesis

The point being made is that in each case God made provision for what was to come, and that that provision is from Him. We may complicate the process by our theories, we cannot evade the fact. Note the parallels between first and fourth, second and fifth, and third and sixth, while at the same time there is continual progression. The whole is planned. Note also that the eight resultants are fitted into a six period (yom) framework. It was necessary for all to be depicted as within the divine ‘seven’ in order to bring out its perfection. To ancient man anything else was unthinkable. Seven was the God number. Even the ‘seven’ periods spoke of God.

1.4-5. ‘And God saw the light, that it was good, and God separated the light from the darkness, and God called the light day (yom) and the darkness he called night. And there was evening and there was morning one day (yom).’

‘God saw the light, that it was good’. It is not that God was in any doubt about the outcome of His word. These words are just to confirm that His word achieved what He wanted to achieve. He saw that it was as good as He knew it would be. His creation was in perfect harmony with His desires. He was satisfied with what He had done.

Now He separates light from darkness so that there will be periods of both, and the periods of light He calls ‘yom (‘day, light period)’ and the periods of darkness He calls ‘night’. We note here that night is seen as following day, and not vice versa.

The naming of both ‘night’ and ‘day by God is significant. It indicates His control and mastery over both.

‘And there was evening and there was morning one yom.’ This is the pattern that follows each time period apart significantly from the seventh when God had ceased working (see 1.8, 13, 19, etc.). Note the close connection between ‘God called the light yom’, and ‘there was evening and there was morning one yom’. If we came to it without previous assumptions we would assume that yom means the same in both cases, a period of light. The first yom had its evening and morning, its end and its beginning. God’s first work period had come to an end. And that gives sense to the reason for mentioning evening and morning. Morning begins the period of light, and evening (twilight) ends the period of light.

Certainly the first yom, if we see it in terms of our 24 hour day, did not begin with an evening. It began with total, perpetual darkness into which light had to be introduced. That is against that common loose interpretation. Evening is mentioned first because the first yom has come to its end, morning is then a reminder of the bringing forth of light. The pattern being established it is then continued throughout except for on the seventh yom which is not said to have an ‘evening’.

Thus the emphasis throughout is on the ‘working day’ (which the period of light was in those days. No nine til five working day then). The difference lies in the fact that this was God’s first working day, which began when God formed light by His word, and ended when He had completed His work on His first ‘working day’.

EXCURSUS.

It will be noted that the above is not the usual rather slack interpretations of these words which ignore both the specific definition of yom and the clear problem of why evening and morning should be seen as constituting what we know of as a ‘day’, a use nowhere clearly found in Scripture.

That interpretation sees evening and morning as indicating the beginning of night followed by the beginning of daylight as then as constituting the modern idea of a twenty four hour ‘day’. But how evening and morning constitutes a full day it is difficult to see (especially as the first day did not commence with an evening), and is never fully explained (which is why I used the word ‘slack’ of this interpretation).

The explanation called on is that the Hebrew ‘day’ began in the evening, but it overlooks the fact that it ends, not with the morning, but with the following evening. Indeed the Hebrews spoke of ‘two evenings’ (Exodus 12.6), the early evening and the late evening. On our interpretation ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are given their full meaning as the beginning and ending of daylight. But the interpretation which thinks of an approximately 24 hour day assumes that ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ is the loose equivalent of ‘night (period of darkness)’ and ‘day (period of light)’. But it is odd why the writer should express night and day (which have just been mentioned) in this way. The only argument that can be made is that by ‘evening’ he is pointing to the commencement of night and by ‘morning’ to the commencement of day, thus indicating that both have occurred. But that is not the impression given by the continual usage, which suggests that evening and morning were to be seen as constituting a ‘day’.

So if we see the final expression ‘one day’ in verse 5 as including both night and day (giving ‘day’ its modern meaning and ignoring the definition given in the same verse) the term ‘yom’ is used in this sentence with two different meanings, and that even though the usages are so closely connected. This appears to us to be inconsistent. Furthermore Scripture constantly distinguishes between ‘night and day’, and speaks of ‘forty days and forty nights’, using ‘day (yom) to mean a period of light, whilst it was Jesus Who pointed out that in the ‘day’ (period of light) there were twelve time periods (not strictly ‘hours’ for they varied from day to day, being determined by how long daylight lasted and the using of a sundial). If someone then points to the use of such phrases as ‘forty days’ it is up to them to prove that that means nights and days rather than periods of light, for it is the latter which is consistent with other Scriptures.

The truth is that these interpretations read back modern usage of the term ‘day’ into ancient times when time was not scientifically determined. Yet even today we can speak of day as contrasting with night, and day as including night, and interestingly, when we speak of an ‘arctic day’, we see it as indicating a long period of light.

Furthermore, this view then assumes that having created the heavens and the earth, with the length of days and nights not determined by the sun and moon (which only come into play on the fourth yom), God artificially waited in each time period for the length of a so-called ‘natural night’ (which did not exist until the fourth yom), before saying ‘let there be light’, and so on, and then produced a ‘day’ of ‘normal’ length, varying it around such of the world as there was. But there is absolutely no reason why He should have done so. God works in His own time, not our time. And this first ‘day’ is certainly extraordinary for in it darkness and light are regulated (without using sun and moon). At first, light pervades the darkness (which surely begins this first yom) and then God acts to separate them so as to form periods of light and darkness (of ‘days’ and ‘nights’) which are not said to be of any determinate length. Light is made the basic yeast of the universe and of the world, rescuing the universe from darkness, and then it becomes something which contrasts with the darkness, and controls darkness. Is this a natural day being described (when there was no sun)? Surely it is rather the principle of light and darkness, and of its fluctuation, that is being established here, without any idea of fixed periods of time. It is saying that He made the process. There is no suggestion that it is formulated into time cycles. That is something that he stresses happened on ‘yom four’, when the sun specifically determines the length of a ‘day’.

So we are asked by some on this view to assume that God, for the first three ‘days’, artificially made light and darkness appear according to the time span that will be fixed on day four, (varying it, of course, around such of the world as there was?). If this is the ‘natural’ meaning of the words it appears most unnatural. Surely the truth is that we are meant by the writer to see these first periods as being accomplished in God’s time periods, and thus within the time span of His days, not of earth days which are fixed in yom 4, an idea that then carries on throughout the chapter?

‘There was evening and there was morning one day.’ The Hebrew ‘day’ (using it in the modern sense of an approximately 24 hour day) is measured from sunset to sunset, and many thus see this expression as indicating the passing of a modern ‘day’, with night being followed by ‘day’. (using another meaning for the word ‘day’ in the same verse). But if that were so there would have been no evening (sunset, dusk, twilight) opening this first day, which would make the statement descriptively inaccurate (unless we simply see it as merely indicating a period of waiting and relaxing in readiness for the next act and not as having a strict natural meaning). This first yom had certainly not resulted from a sunset, for there was previously no light and no sun. Thus at its commencement it had no ‘evening’. It also raises the question as to why the writer (if he was using the word ‘day’ (yom) in two ways) did not say, ‘and there was night and day one day’. That would be natural after the previous clauses. Indeed a day in the modern sense would include more than evening and morning, (it includes a period of darkness, morning, midday and afternoon) so that this description of ‘night’ followed by ‘day’ would have been more accurate on both counts, and would be utilising the language already used.

The truth is that the Hebrew word for ‘evening’ refers to sunset, dusk, twilight, (of which there was none on the first yom), so that Israelites could even speak of two ‘evenings’ as day passed into night (e.g. Exodus 12.6). The Hebrew word for ‘morning’ indicated the dawning of the day (period of light) and the period which followed roughly up to midday. They are thus strange terms to use in order to indicate all night and all day. But if they indicate the ending (evening) and beginning (morning) of a period of light (a ‘day’ - 1.5), not being in chronological order, they are very descriptive. It would appear to us, therefore, that these words are indicating the ending and the beginning of a period of light, ‘a working day’. Compare John 11.9, ‘are there not twelve periods in the day?’ (The Romans used sundials which divided the period of light into twelve parts). If we ask, ‘why does the writer then put evening before morning?’ we could suggest that this was because the previous clause had ended in a description of night, with the initial ‘evening’ then reflecting the connection in chiastic manner (i.e. 'God called the light day and the darkness He called night, and the evening and the morning were one day'). It is only our modern desire for chronological arrangement which requires morning to be mentioned before evening in the narrative.

The phrase is then metaphorical as describing a morning and an evening as circumscribing God’s activity expressing the beginning and ending of a working day (period of light) of God, concerning which a thousand years is but a watch in the night (Psalm 90.4).

End of Excursus.

Short Note On The Meaning Of Day (yom) In Scripture.

The term yom has already been immediately defined in 1.2 as ‘a period of light’, and that at a time when light did not come from the sun, and was thus not controlled by the activity of the sun. Indeed it is questionable whether ‘yom’ ever in the early days meant a period including both day and night (an approximately twenty-four hour day). Regularly when it is used of periods of time it indicates periods of light and is included with periods of darkness (e.g. ‘forty days and forty nights’ - 7.4, 12). Furthermore ‘forty days’, when used on its own (7.17), does not necessarily indicate a different meaning, for the nights may simply be being ignored (man slept during the night). It may simply indicate that forty periods of light have elapsed. Jesus used the same method when said, ‘are there not twelve periods in the day?’. This would be to use the term ‘day’ consistently. In other words, to the Israelite ‘day’ was the time when life could be lived, ‘night’ was the period when activity as such ceased.

Furthermore ‘yom’ will later mean ‘a period of time’ in 2.4 and in phrases like ‘the day of YHWH’, the period of time when God ‘had His day’. When used in the plural (yamim) it can mean a year or ‘years’.

End of note.

Period Two. The Waters Are Separated So As To Produce An Atmosphere And To Produce The Heavens And The Earth (1.6-8).

It must be remembered that from now on all is looked at as it would be seen from the point of view of where the writer was sitting. He looked up and saw the heavens, held up by he knew not what, and containing clouds of rain, and he looked down and saw water under the earth which he could dig down to discover, water which had once pervaded all things. He recognised that they had all come from the initial ‘waters’. But now light had come and the waters were controlled, and God had now proceeded to make an atmosphere. There are no further creative acts at this point, although God continues to act by His word. But now it is a word of power. The Spirit of God, hovering over the waters (1.2), now proceeds to separate the waters in response to God’s word in order to provide an atmosphere which is necessary for what was to follow (here and from now on the Spirit’s activity is assumed).

Once again the section is beautifully balanced:

• A And God said
• B “Let there be an expanse (firmament) in the midst of the waters.
• C “And let it separate the waters from the waters.”
• C ‘And God made the expanse (firmament) and separated the waters which were under the expanse (firmament) from the waters which were above the expanse (firmament), and it was so.
• B And God called the expanse (firmament) Sky (or Heaven).
• A And there was evening and there was morning the second day.

Note both the chiastic and progressive features. In B God produces an expanse by His word, and in the parallel He names the expanse by His word. In C He separates the waters from the waters, and in the parallel He makes the atmosphere by separating the waters from the waters. But God’s work progresses forward as He first commands, and then it is done.

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.’

Up to this time there has been no atmosphere, for creation is seen as being one mass of ‘primeval water’. All is ‘liquid’; all is primeval, unshaped, formless matter, but now given body by ‘light’. And now God acts to produce an atmosphere with ‘water’ below and clouds above.

The word for ‘expanse’ or ‘firmament’ is raqia which originally indicated ‘something trodden on and stamped out’, and then ‘to make thin like a piece of metal beaten into shape’, and thus ‘to spread out, to expand’.

The ancients saw the water come down through the atmosphere from the heavens, but we know from later descriptions that they recognised that this came from the clouds (e.g. Deuteronomy 11.11; Judges 5.4; 2 Samuel 22.12; 1 Kings 18.45; Job 36.27). And people then as now had climbed mountains and found themselves above the clouds and above the rain (we must stop thinking of them as stupid).

Thus the writer is not suggesting that there is a physical cupola somehow holding up the water. He is using a vivid metaphorical description to describe a reality, water held above by something ‘stretched out’ by God, and water below. He does not pretend to understand the mechanics of it, he does not try to explain it. He simply describes what he sees. He just knows that God has made some way of holding the water up. He sees that it is so, and He knows that it is so at the behest of God.

The Bible writers give many descriptions of this ‘firmament’. It is described in terms of being like a transparent work of sapphire stone (Exodus 24.10), in terms of a molten mirror (Job 37.18), in terms of the curtains of a tent (Isaiah 40.22; 54.2), but all were vividly descriptive, not an attempt to explain the universe.

We must not over-literalise the descriptions of poetic minds and make them hold views that they did not hold, however simple minded we make them to be. They saw things as an artist sees them, not a scientist. Their very ‘simplicity’ and practicality of mind prevented them from trying to formulate scientific theories, but that did not prevent their ideas from being profound. This writer was not investigating world phenomena, he was taken up with what God was doing. He was not analysing ‘how’, he was asking ‘Who?’ and ‘Why?’, profounder questions far. The ‘how’ he left to God.

1.7-8 ‘And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament Sky (or Heaven). And there was evening and there was morning the second day.’

So by His word the waters were separated to produce atmosphere, and the waters above were held up by His ‘sky’. And it was all done by His word. As we have already seen the writer knew about clouds and rain. He is using metaphorical language to describe what he sees.

The first ‘yom’ has established light as the basis of the positive aspects of the universe, and has established light and darkness and called them ‘day’ and ‘night’. The second ‘yom’ has established an atmosphere above the waters so that fish and birds might enjoy their benefit, and He has called the upper canopy Sky (or Heaven). The giving of names by God is an indication of His authority over them. Man will have no control over them. They are outside man’s control.

‘And there was evening and there was morning the second day.’ Once again the period of light in which God worked began with the dawn (the morning) and ended at twilight (the evening). God’s second ‘working day’ was over. But God did not require a night in which to rest. Thus we do not know how long there was before the commencement of His next ‘working day’. (There was no sun controlling the length of day and night. They were God’s days, not men’s).

Period Three: The Dry Land Appears Out Of The Waters And The Tow Are Separated, And Vegetation Proceeds From The Dry Land (1.9-13).

From out of the waters below the atmosphere God causes dry land to appear. This is made up of the ‘earth stuff’ created in verse 1. It is already there but God causes it by His word to come up from the waters and produce dry land. And from this dry land, in a second activity, He produces vegetation. It will be noted that neither of these is seen as an act of ‘creation’. They come forth from what is already there.

This section is patterned as follows:

• A ‘And God said,
• B “Let the waters that are under the heaven be gathered together in one place.
• C And let the dry land appear,”
• D And it was so.
• C And God called the dry land ‘eretz’
• B And the waters that were gathered together he called seas.
• A And God saw that it was good.
• A And God said,
• B “Let the earth put forth vegetation, herb yielding seed, and fruit tree bearing fruit in which is its seed, each according to its kind upon the earth.”
• C And it was so.
• B And the earth brought forth vegetation, herb yielding seed according to its kind, and tree bearing fruit in which is its seed, each according to its kind.
• A And God saw that it was good.
• A And there was evening and there was morning the third day.’

Note the two chiastic formations centred around ‘and it was so’, both ending with ‘and God saw that it was good’. We note here two specifically different activities, concerning each of which it is said, ‘and it was so’, and concerning each of which ‘God saw that it was good’. The first is the producing of dry land, and the second is the producing of vegetation from that dry land. There is no new act of creation. What comes forth proceeds from what is.

1.9-10. ‘And God said, “Let the waters that are under the heaven be gathered together in one place and let the dry land appear, and it was so. And God called the dry land ‘eretz’ and the waters that were gathered together he called seas. And God saw that it was good.’

As with the word ‘yom’ the word ‘eretz’ is not fixed in meaning. Originally ‘eretz’ was the ‘earth stuff’, the whole universe including the waters (1.1-2), now it is the dry land as opposed to the waters. It can mean the earth as opposed to the heavens (1.1-2), land as opposed to sea (as here), and within that definition a particular area of land. Thus the people of Israel were later the ‘people of the land (eretz)’, which meant Israel. As ‘yom’ means a period of time, so ‘eretz’ means the idea of somewhere to dwell.

God is here causing dry land ‘to appear’ in preparation for animals and man. It was already there but comes out of the sea. The birds too will benefit, as will many river fish. Again the writer expresses satisfaction with the situation by saying that God sees it as good. He is satisfied with the provision He has made for man. Thus we should be filled with praise at His wonderful provision.

Note his emphasis on the fact that ‘God said’ and ‘it was so’. God’s word is seen as always effective, and the product is seen by God as good (a far more important verdict than that of man)..

It will be noted that the dry land is seen as already being under the waters. It is intrinsic within the waters. This is not a new act of creation, but a shaping by His word of what is already there. From the formlessness He produces form. From the shapelessness He produces shape. But those who see ‘evolution’ at work here must recognise that if it did happen, it happens under God’s command and control.

So the dry land is surrounded by water, and there is abundant water above. All are held in their place and controlled by the hand of God. But let God withdraw His hand and total inundation will result, as later it will (chapters 7-8).

So now we have light and shape and differentiation, the building blocks of life are being put in place. But darkness ever threatens to envelop all things if God withdraws His word, and shapelessness will overcome what has been formed unless God sustains it.

1.11-13. ‘And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, herb yielding seed, and fruit tree bearing fruit in which is its seed, each according to its kind upon the earth.” And it was so. And the earth brought forth vegetation, herb yielding seed according to its kind, and tree bearing fruit in which is its seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning the third day.’

Again God commands and then what He commands takes place. Now God provides the sustenance that animals and man will require. Notice the stress on the diversity of what He produces. There is to be plenty of choice. When we enjoy our varied diets we need to be grateful for the way in which He made provision for us.

Furthermore the sustenance is self-sustaining. The world is self-propagating. The verb ‘brought forth’ indicates that what comes forth is already an essential part of what God has already created. As far as the writer is concerned the earth produces it through the activity of God. This is not a new creation, but the outworking of what is already intrinsically there in God’s first creation. This is seen by some as indicating the process of evolution, but again it must be noted that if this is so it was at God’s command. There is no place here for a blind process, it was specifically a process taking place under God’s designing hand. We may read what we like into it. We may fit in our pet theories. But behind all is God.

There is no suggestion that vegetation is ‘created’. It comes forth from the earth by natural process under the hand of God. It is a part of the first three days, preparation for the introduction of life. Unlike the Canaanites, who saw vegetation in terms of dying and rising again, the Israelite saw it as part of a continual process with its idiosyncrasies of growth and adaptation and production of further growth as being controlled by the hand of God.

We are not to see here ‘forced growth’. Time is given for the vegetation to spring forth and grow, producing after their kinds. The picture is of steady progress from wonderful beginnings.

So after three ‘time periods’ the world has been made ready for its essential function, the production of life. From the first ‘day’ there have been periods of darkness and light, but the very fact that controllers are needed demonstrates that those periods did not originally appear in the controlled way necessary for man’s full benefit. If ‘days’ were ‘normal’ at this stage there would have been no need later for a controller. Land has risen from the sea, and atmosphere has been instated. There is water above as well as water below, an essential for the propagation of plant life. The plants have been brought forth by the earth, and are reproducing themselves on the earth. All has been prepared. Now we move into the second phase.

Period Four. Sun And Moon Are Utilised In Order To Control Day And Night, And Seasons And Years, Having Been Made At Some Stage By God (1.14-19).

It should be noted that God’s activity in period four centres on the control of periods of light and darkness, and of sign and seasons, and days and years. It is patterned as follows:

• A And God said,
• B “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.
• C To separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons, for days and years.
• B + D And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens, to give light upon the earth”.
• A And it was so.
• E And God made the two great lights,
• F The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night.
• E He made the stars also.
• D + B And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the world,
• C And to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.
• B And God saw that it was good.
• A And there was evening and there was morning a fourth day.

As will be noted there is a chiastic pattern here, but it is more complicated. The emphasis throughout is that God has acted in order to control light and darkness through secondary means, by setting lights in the skies (sun, moon and stars), rather than directly by His word. When those lights were actually made is secondary. Hebrew tenses are not as specific as English ones. The fourth period is thus of one which prepares the way for living creatures and for men, by establishing a time pattern for life activity. Time did not have to be controlled when God was acting. But it does have to be controlled now, for it is essential for man’s wellbeing.

1.14-15. ‘And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons, for days and years, and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth”. And it was so.’

From now on periods of light and darkness will be determined by the action of sun and moon. No longer will darkness permanently threaten, for it is controlled by God’s lights. It is these lights which will now determine the length of nights and days, and days and years. To ancient man his ideas of time were ruled by the heavenly lights. They were the signs that guided his thoughts on the passage of time. From them he knew the seasons. Days and months and years resulted from their activity. And it was they under God which ensured that permanent, enveloping darkness did not prevail.

They were also the signs to men of God’s continued provision for them. While vegetation has been able to grow without these cycles, it will be better for man that these functions are systematised. No more definite statement could be made that before this act days, years and seasons had not existed as we know them. But now those seasons will be the guarantee of the means of existence, and later the rainbow will be God’s sign of their permanence for man (Genesis 8.22; 9.12-17).

Furthermore these lights will give light to the inhabitants of earth. The sun will enable them to go about their daily round. At night the moon will guide the hunter and the shepherd. But the main occurrence and emphasis of the fourth period is that the ‘lights’ are called on to establish the times and seasons. Time and provision is systematised and guaranteed.

1.16- 19 ‘And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the world, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning a fourth day.’

Note that the activity on the fourth day is that of the establishing of the lights in the heavens to fulfil their functions. So the first sentence need not necessarily indicate that the Sun and Moon were created at this stage. Indeed we have already been told that God made ‘the heavens’ in the beginning. Now the heavens begin to impinge on earth. As we have seen throughout, God first created and then from that creation produced what He wanted from what had already been established. Thus the actual creation of the lights may be seen as having taken place some time after creation took place almost at the beginning not long after the time when light was first ‘drawn out’ from the primeval stuff. Now they are being brought forth for their tasks, and seen by the world for the first time as the atmosphere grows thinner.

We would say in English, ‘Now God had made the two great lights’, but Hebrew verbs do not have the pluperfect. Hebrew is not specific as to time. Tenses in Hebrew express either completed action (Perfect tense) or incomplete action (Imperfect tense) without saying when they took place. Here the tense is perfect to declare an action which is complete, the making of the great lights by God, at whatever time He made them. This is as an introduction to what He is about to do, the establishing of them in the heavens to control time and seasons as required for life. He had made them to rule, now He establishes their rule.

Notice that the lights are deliberately unnamed. This is in contrast with what has gone before. They are but tools for God’s purposes, inanimate objects not worthy of a name. And the stars are but an afterthought hardly worthy of mention. This is deliberate. In the light of the worship of Sun, Moon and stars by the surrounding nations, the writer wants their position to be made quite clear. They are but ‘lamps’ in the sky.

It is significant with regard to this that ‘naming’ occurs in the first three preparatory days, and that in days five and six what is made is ‘blessed’ as living and reproductive, but the ‘lights’ are neither named nor blessed. God does not give them names indicating their background nature. They control from afar. They are not actively involved, nor are they living. They are ‘formed’ not ‘created’. All thought of their divinity, or importance except as devices, is deliberately excluded.

Their task is clearly stated. They mechanically ruled day and night and separated light from darkness. The latter must mean as related to the length of day and night or else it is just a repetition of ‘day one’. Thus up to this point there have been no evenings or mornings in a literal sense. The phrase ‘and the evening and the morning were of the --- day’ must therefore be metaphorical, denoting ending and beginning (and will continue to be so. They are God’s days, not earthly days).

Period Five: The Creation Of Life, of Water Creatures And Birds And The Command For Them To Multiply (1.20-23).

We now learn initially why God has prepared an atmosphere, dry land, seas, and vegetation, and has controlled the days and the seasons. It is in order that living creatures might flourish and multiply. The section is patterned as follows:

• A And God said,
• B “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life,”
• C “And let birds fly above the earth on the face of the expanse of the heaven”.
• B And God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly according to their kinds,
• C And every winged bird according to its kind.
• B + C And God saw that it was good.
• B And God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas,”
• C “And let birds multiply on the earth.”
• A And there was evening and there was morning a fifth day.

It is noteworthy that the bringing forth of the living creatures, unlike in the case of vegetation, involved a new act of creation (bara). ‘Life’ in vegetation did not involve an act of new creation, life in living creatures did. This was something that neither adaptation, nor evolution if it occurred, could accomplish.

1.20-23. ‘And God said, “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and let birds fly above the earth on the face of the expanse of the heaven”. And God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning a fifth day.’

We note here a remarkable fact. Firstly that God commanded the creatures to be ‘bought forth’ by the waters, and secondly that He ‘created’ them. Thus there would appear to be a twofold process. The first, adaptation from what was in the waters, the second, creation of something from nothing. The creatures are to be seen as a part of that from which they come, and yet also to be seen as being distinctive. Thus the life of living creatures is distinguished from plant life. It is new and unique. They receive their life from God. As with the vegetation God determines that there will be many ‘kinds’ so as to provide diversity. These ‘kinds’ are the result of God’s activity.

‘Living creatures’ - nephesh chayah. The word nephesh comes from Akkadian ‘napishtu’ where it meant throat. That is where the breath was seen as coming from and thus it developed to mean the life within and ‘alive’, thus ‘living things’ The whole phrase therefore means ‘living things that have life’.

‘The great sea monsters’. The writer was aware, as all men were, of huge creatures in the sea. To many they must have seemed terrifying. But he knew that they were creatures of God. Many ancient myths spoke of semi-divine sea monsters (tannin) who caused distress and chaos, (and the Psalmists use the ideas pictorially to demonstrate God’s control over creation), but the writer wants it to be clear that they are no such thing. They are made by God and they are under His control and will.

‘Brought forth abundantly’ from the root ‘to swarm’, thus things which appear in swarms. The waters were filled with swarming things.

‘And every winged bird.’ First the fish and then the birds. These filled the waters and the area under the firmament (verse 7).

‘And God saw that it was good.’ This brings out God’s personal interest in what He has produced. He is, as it were, making sure that the world into which man will come is a good place for him to be. Yes, even the sea-monsters are good in His eyes. They are no enemy to Him.

Then God blesses the creatures. Again this is new, stressing that a new distinctive beginning has been achieved. The vegetation was not ‘blessed’. The heavenly lights were not blessed. The creatures are seen as in some special way distinctive and personal. The main blessing is that those who have received life can pass on life. They can be fruitful, and multiply. Sexual functions, rightly used, are blessed by God to the furtherance of life. A clear distinction is made between animate life and inanimate life. Animism, the belief that inanimate objects have souls, is here rejected by God. Such objects are not ‘blessed’ for they have no ‘life’.

Period Six. The Bringing Forth Of Land Creatures (Presumably From The Sea Creatures And Birds) And The Separate Creation Of Man (1.24-31).

On this final day of formation and creation God produces land creatures, and creates man. Man is the ultimate aim of His creative activity. He is to have within him not just life, but heavenly life. He is the crown of creation, and set over the rest of creation.

The complicated structure of this section is as follows:

Part 1.

• A And God said,
• B “Let the earth bring forth living creatures, according to their kinds,
• C Cattle
• D And creeping things
• E And beasts of the earth according to their kinds.”
• A And it was so.
• E And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds,
• C And cattle according to their kinds,
• D And everything that creeps upon the earth according to its kind.
• B And God saw that it was good.

Part 2.

• A Then God said,
• B “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,”
• C “And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth”.
• B So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.’
• A And God blessed them,
• C And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the face of the earth”.
• B And God said, “Behold I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit you shall have them for food.
• C And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food”.
• A And it was so.

Part 3.

• And God saw everything that he had made and behold it was very good.
• And there was evening and there was morning a sixth day.

1.24-25 ‘And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures, according to their kinds, cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds”, and it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.’

We note here that God is not said to ‘create’ these living creatures. Thus their created life must in some way be derived from the previously mentioned living creatures (v.21). This shows a continuity of a process which began with the latter.

Again it is stressed that God planned a diversity of creatures, each according to its kind. Diversity in creation is not blind chance, but results from the purpose of God. Note that His plan included both animals that would later be domesticated, and what we would call ‘wild animals’. Man’s good is clearly in mind.

The creation includes ‘everything that creeps’, including the tiny scavengers that clean up the world. All have their place in God’s creation.

Now we come to the moment that it was all leading up to, the creation of man in God’s image. Everything that has gone before was subordinate to this. It is for man that the world has been made.

1.26 ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth”.’

‘Let us make man.’ The thought is intimate and personal, and carefully considered. Here will be one who has connections with the infinite, and Heaven is called on to consider this special act of creation, and indeed to participate in it to some extent, for it will affect them too. But as v.27 makes clear, ultimately it was the act of God Himself.

So the next question that this verse raises is, who is the ‘us’? The answer is not difficult. We can compare its use in Isaiah 6.8 when God is surrounded by seraphim. The writer could only have in mind the spiritual beings, called in the Old Testament ‘the sons of God’ (Genesis 6.2; Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7 - see also 1 Kings 22.19 etc; Isaiah 6.2 etc), from whom came His messengers (‘angels’) that He would send to earth, and one of whom was Satan himself (Job 1.6). In Hebrew the term ‘sons of --’ indicates not those who have been born from, but ‘those who are connected with’ or sometimes ‘those who behave like’. Thus these ‘sons of God’ are those connected with the sphere in which God operates rather than with the sphere in which man operates. They are not literally His sons.

This brings out the meaning of the remainder of the verse. Man was to have the ‘image and likeness of the heavenly beings, of the elohim’. While the word ‘elohim’ usually means God it can, as we have seen, also refer to ‘out of this world beings’ e.g. 1 Samuel 28.13. Man was thus to have heavenly status and a spiritual and moral nature capable of communion with God, of active choice and of moral behaviour. While in one sense an earthly creature, bound to earth, he would also have a spiritual nature which could reach into the heaven of heavens.

Note that God said ‘OUR image’. Thus He associated Himself in this with the heavenly beings. The image in which man is made is not the unique image of God but that which He shares with the elohim. This justifies the above interpretation. Man is made a spiritual being.

But the idea of ‘in our image’ possibly also includes the idea that man is placed in a position of dominion. He is to stand in the place of God and His court. In a later period ancient kings would erect their images in subservient countries as a reminder of their authority. In Zechariah 12.8 ‘the house of David (the royal house) shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them’. In the same way man is here seen as present to represent God’s court on earth. This was what warranted his being placed over all that God had made.

We might differentiate by saying that as the image of God he stands in God’s place and has dominion, while as the likeness of the elohim he can communicate with God in spiritual terms, but the separation must not be pressed. The two ideas are inter-linked and merge into one. ‘Likeness’ is intended to limit ‘image’. Later ‘like God’ signifies ‘knowing good and evil’ stressing the moral aspect of the likeness (Genesis 3.5) .

(As mentioned the phrase ‘sons of God’ does not suggest direct relationship, but that such beings are closely connected with God. The Old Testament can, for example, also speak of ‘sons of Belial’ (Judges 19.22; 1 Sam 2.12; 2 Sam 23.6) as describing those who behave like Belial. They are not literally seen as being born from Belial).

‘Let us make man (adam).’ The word ‘adam’ always appears in the singular. It is a collective noun signifying mankind as a whole. But the verse goes on to say ‘and let them have dominion’. Man’s procreation is immediately in view. Sovereignty is not given to one man but to all mankind.

‘Over all the earth.’ Man’s dominion is not limited to the living creatures. He is to dominate the earth for its good.

1.27 ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.’

Now man’s privilege is stressed. He is created in God’s own image. Notice the stress on the fact that he is ‘created’, deliberately repeated three times in the verse. Three represents completeness. Again this is something totally new which does not come from what existed before. While his body is of the earth, his essential being is made in the likeness of God and the angels. However the link with the ‘sons of God’ in the previous verse shows that we must not read this as the ‘divine spark’ in man. Man does not share divinity. He shares the spiritual nature of the ‘elohim’, which they share with God.

Yet, in order that God’s intimate concern and interest may be shown, the writer in this verse stresses that man is made in God’s own image. The warning has been given that we must not apply this too rigidly, but he nevertheless wants us to recognise the privilege that is ours. We are on the heavenly side rather than the earthly side.

Note also the mention of the female. Both were made to share the task of dominion. Both share in the image, the privilege and the responsibility. So from the beginning it is stressed that the woman is not inferior to the man, and they are equally instructed by God. The fact that man’s new nature is ‘created’ demonstrates that we must not see this as a receiving divine life. Note that there is really no ground for arguing that they were both necessarily created ‘at the same time’ in contrast with chapter 2, any more than we need see all the animals as made at the same time. The point is that He made them, not when they were made.

1.28 ‘And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the face of the earth”.’

Like the living creatures man is ‘blessed’. They are to produce children and populate the earth. This again brings out that sexual functions, rightly used, are blessed by God. The verb ‘subdue’ is strong, as is ‘have dominion’. The latter means ‘trample down’. There is no suggestion that man’s task will be easy. The subjugation of the animal world will be hard and demanding. But man has been given what is necessary for victory and control.

So man’s function is twofold. To people the earth and to be master over it. But privilege brings responsibility and in that man failed.

1.29-30 ‘And God said, “Behold I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food”. And it was so.’

God reminds man that He has made full provision for them, providing a storehouse that will propagate itself. Man may eat of the seeds of plants and of fruit. They are God’s provision for them, and are provided in abundance for their enjoyment. They will not have to be fought for or toiled for, for they reproduce themselves. These two verses are the purpose to which the whole narrative leads up. They are God’s covenant with man around which the context is built.

So the whole narrative is built around this covenant with man in verses 28-30. The whole chapter is the historical background preparing for this covenant in which Man is given his instructions, and has explained to him his purpose and the provision that God has made for him.

Why was there a creation in the first place? It was so that man could be created and could multiply, enjoying the full benefits of God’s provision. God has fulfilled His responsibility in making full provision for man and by giving him life. Man’s responsibility on the other hand is to watch over the world that God has made.

The suggestion is also here that God’s ‘intention’ was that the world would progress without bloodshed. Both animals and man could live from the fruit and vegetation of the earth. ‘Nature red in tooth and claw’ is therefore seen as an aberration from God’s purposes. What caused such a change of situation we are not told, but the strong language of v.28 suggests it already has to be contended with when man appears on the scene. The animals need to be ‘subdued’, to be tamed. Thus ‘nature’ is already getting out of hand. In the ‘ideal’ world of the future there would no longer be bloodshed (Isaiah 11.6-9; 65.25).

There are differences of viewpoint as to when in translation ‘mankind’ becomes ‘Adam’. The answer is found in when he became a worshipping creature. It was then, whenever that was, that the image of God’ was revealed. All viewpoints seem, however, to be agreed that mankind came from a single original pair.

1.31 ‘And God saw everything that he had made and behold it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning a sixth day.’

The world has been prepared for man and man can be satisfied because God is satisfied with it from start to finish. His final day of work is over. Evening has fallen and He has now completed His work satisfactorily and can leave it in man’s hands. Whatever happens it will not be His fault. Up to now things have been ‘good’. Now it is all ‘very good’. This stress clearly has in mind the following chapters when that ‘goodness’ will be marred by the effects of the fall.

2.1 ‘Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them.’

This use of the word ‘host’ is unusual. Here it signifies the totality of creation, including sun, moon and stars, the different types of vegetation, fish, creatures and animals, and man, everything contained therein. Nothing remains unfinished. Every part has its place and it is completed to the last dot.

Note that ‘the heavens and the earth’ refers back to verse 1. Thus what has been described is the detail of the fulfilment of that verse. This would seem to confirm that ‘heavens’ in 1.1 primarily meant the material heavens

2.2-3 ‘And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made, and he rested (ceased work) on the seventh day from all the work which he had made. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because that in it God rested from all his work which God had created and made.’

It is probably significant that this day has no ‘morning’ or ‘evening’. It is open ended, and is still continuing. Note the distinction again brought out between ‘created’ and ‘made’. There is a clear distinction in activity. God both created and made. First He created the matter which He then through some unexplained process fashioned into our world. Then He created life and again proceeded over time to ‘bring forth’ various living creatures. And finally He created man with the ability to know God and pierce the spiritual realm, to be ‘like the elohim’.

‘Finished the work which He had made.’ It was complete. We would say ‘had finished’. Nothing remained to be done.

‘God rested.’ Elsewhere God’s resting is seen, not as suggesting a need for recuperation, but as indicating His permanent condition in His dwellingplace as He presides over creation and receives man’s worship. In His ‘resting’ He is present in His creation overseeing all that goes on and accepting man’s homage. Thus in Isaiah 66.1a, having identified heaven and earth as his royal dwellingplace YHWH asks Israel: “What manner of house will you build for me and what shall be the place of my rest?” (Isaiah 66.1b; cf. 2 Chronicles 6.18, 41ff; Acts 7.49). And their reply should be that the only place suitable for His rest is in the Heaven of heavens to which men should look in worship. In the same way David spoke of his desire “to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of YHWH and for the footstool of our God” (1 Chronicles 28.2), while Psalm 132.7-8 further exhorts, “Let us go to his dwelling place, let us worship at his footstool. Rise up, YHWH, from your resting place, arise from the ark of your strength” (Numbers 10.35-36). And it adds in verses 13-14, “for YHWH has chosen Zion, He has desired it for His dwelling --. This is My resting place for ever, here I will dwell”. It is true that the verbal root used here is menuchah (“rest”), and not shabath, but menuchah is the verb used of ‘rest’ in Exodus 20.11 of God’s seventh day rest.

It is interesting that no ending to this day is ever mentioned. No reference is made to ‘the evening and the morning of the seventh day’. This must surely be seen as deliberate. God’s ‘week’ is over and there will be no repetition. The seventh ‘day’ does not end, for there is no eighth day. The work of creation is complete and God has no further work to do. He has seen it as ‘very good’. This is yet another indication that we are not thinking of ‘natural’ days. The suggestion of God resting is thus anthropomorphic, simply meaning that He ceased His creative activity, and indicative of the fact that all now being completed He can take up His position over the Universe. In other words He ‘ceases work’. There is no indication that God is tired.

There may also be the thought here that God has now appointed someone to take care of His creation, man, so that the necessity for His direct action has ceased. The writer may indeed be thinking in his own mind, ‘and then ........ His rest was broken by man’s failure!’

It should especially be noted that the description of the final day is solely in the writer’s words. God does not Himself act or speak. It is the writer who describes the seventh day as the culmination of the work of creation, as the ‘day’ on which God ‘finished his work, and rested’. Previously when God is said to have blessed, this is followed by His words explaining the blessing, but there are no words of explanation here. It is the writer who sees it as a day blessed and hallowed by God because it was the day when the work was finished.

But notice that he does not connect this with the observance by his people of the Sabbath (a word probably taken from sabat = cease, desist), the day when they too cease work. There is in fact no suggestion that the pattern is incumbent upon mankind, and it is noteworthy that no suggestion of the Sabbath appears elsewhere in the book of Genesis. The Sabbath would later arise from this idea, not this idea from the Sabbath.

The question whether man was able to keep count of days and observe the seventh day before he was able to count and calculate does not therefore arise. It is only later when the account of creation in six ‘days’ followed by a day of rest has become an accepted part of worship, that recognition of the day follows, and it is seen as applicable to daily life. We are never told when this was. Thus there are no specific grounds for seeing this as ‘the institution of the Sabbath’.

‘So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it.’ This is the writer’s comment. It may refer to a later gradual recognition of the seventh day as a day for worship, so that it has become officially recognised by the writer’s time, or indeed to the later sanctifying of the day in the time of Moses, for it is not said that God blessed it at the time, as He had the living creatures. Or it may simply meant that as the day on which nothing further needed to be done it was a blessed day, and was uniquely different from the others.

The first known application of the Sabbath as a strict day of rest is in the time of Moses (Exodus 16). There the people were gathering the manna provided by God on a daily basis, and they were forbidden to keep any until the morning after. But on the sixth day they were to gather two days supply (v.5). This is the first introduction of what would later (Exodus 20.11) be instituted in God’s covenant, the day special to God. When the leaders of the people come to Moses to point out that the people are gathering two days supply on the sixth day (gathering for more than one day has previously caused problems), Moses at that point explains the law of the Sabbath.

Had the Sabbath already been strictly in practise these leaders would have known this and would not have expected people to gather on the Sabbath. This suggests that, although up to this stage it may have been generally observed by custom, it was at this point that it became in its strict state a newly ordained institution. Later God would relate it to the ‘days’ of creation (Exodus 20.11). The wording with which it is expressed in Exodus 20.11 suggests that by that stage this creation account had been written under God’s inspiration, and could thus be used as a pattern of, and justification for, the Sabbath. Note that Deuteronomy 5.12-15 and Ezekiel 20.12-21 both stress the connection of the giving of the Sabbaths with the deliverance from Egypt and not with creation.

So in Exodus 16 the leaders on the one hand are not aware of the strict observance of the Sabbath, but the people on the other are aware of some kind of distinction, suggesting a conception which was not yet fully formed.

This does not necessarily mean that there had been no recognition of the seventh day previously, only that it had not previously been strictly related to total cessation of work. It may well be, possibly again arising from the Creation story, that the seventh day was previously looked on as special , although we have nowhere else any earlier indication of it. The Sabbath was in fact unique to Israel and is not paralleled elsewhere (despite numerous attempts to suggest otherwise). There is no ‘race-memory’ of a Sabbath.

(The Babylonian ‘sabbatum’ was not in fact a day of ceasing from work, as various labour contracts demonstrate, and those things that were excluded on the ‘sabbatum’ were excluded because of the danger of ‘ill luck’ not because they were work. Furthermore the Babylonians had a ‘five day’ week).

2.4 ‘These are the generations of (or this is the history of) the heavens and the earth when they were created.’

This apparent colophon suggests that the account was once recorded separately on a clay or stone tablet. It tells the prospective reader what he will find on the tablet. It is a record of the history of the creation of heaven and earth.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?