Thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2

Are Genesis 1 and 2 true or false? A considerable amount of time and energy are spent (even wasted) in arguments and shouting matches as people attack and defend the scientific (in)accuracy. Yet this whole debate misses the point of Genesis 1 and 2 entirely. Insisting that Genesis 1 and 2 meet scientific standards of accuracy forces Genesis to meet the standards of a worldview foreign to Genesis. Rather than being a narrative of scientific origins (like evolution), Genesis 1 is a liturgical progression celebrating order.¹ On the other hand, Genesis 2 is more focused on the role that humanity plays in the narrative.

In Genesis 1:2 we are told that the earth was תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ (tohu wavohu; traditionally, formless and void). We modern readers often miss the nuance of this short phrase. Yet, it sets the stage for what follows. Not only was this primordial earth a chaotic mess, it lacked meaning. And in the ANE, chaos was evil and order was good. The six days of creation are not about creation from nothing, about creation in a scientific sense. They are God establishing the proper order of the natural world, of which humanity is a part, out of the primeval chaos.

Genesis 1 utilizes an amazing parallel structure to illustrate the intentionality of the creative act:²

Day 1, Separation of light and Darkness (1:3-5)

\\Day 4, Separation of the luminaries in the sky (1:14-19)

Day 2, Separation of the two waters (creation of the sky) (1:6-8)

\\Day 5, Creation of the sea creatures and birds (1:20-23)

Day 3, Seas and dry land/vegetation (1:9-13)

\\Day 6, land creatures (including humans) and vegetation (1:24-31)

Each day is punctuated by the formulaic divine observation that this ordering is "good." After six "days" of creation, God observes that the formerly chaotic and meaningless earth is now "very good" in its order.

While this structure establishes the created order as exactly that, order, it reveals little about "why" it was created.³ Yet, throughout Genesis 1 are keys to answering "Why?" The first thing to understand is that Genesis 1 is highly stylized. There is a clear pattern and, generally speaking, this pattern is not interrupted. That is, it isn't at least until  Day 5. In 1:22, God breaks the pattern of the previous four days with the curious blessing to the fish and the birds: "And God blessed them saying, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters of the sea and let the birds multiply in the land.'" (my translation). This is a curious interruption of the pattern and I am not sure what to make of it.

Things get really strange in Day 6 when the whole pattern is completely interrupted. Instead of God speaking and "it was so," in 1:26 God suddenly engages in an internal dialogue, which is curiously in the plural (let us, in our image). Much ink has been, and will continue to be, spilled attempting to make sense of the plurality of 1:26. While investigation of this curious plurality is important, focusing on it causes us to miss the point. The key verb of this verse is "to rule."

In the modern world, this verb (in conjunction with "subdue" in 1:28) has been interpreted to mean we can do as we wish with the earth. Yet, this is not the case at all. The verb in question is  רדה (radah).

Interestingly, this verb is only used by P⁴ in the Pentateuch and of its 7 occurrences  two are in Genesis, one is in Numbers and four are in Leviticus. This verb clearly indicates a hierarchical relationship, yet the Pentateuch seems to apply an additional layer of meaning which is most obvious in the problematic text of Leviticus 25. Three times Leviticus 25 says "but you shall not rule over him [an Israelite sold into debt slavery]  in harshness." I do not want to downplay the highly problematic (that is an admitted understatement) nature of debt slavery, even in the idealized way it is presented in the Pentateuch, but the use in Leviticus 25 adds a layer of nuance which we cannot capture in English. Within this hierarchical relationship the one doing the ruling has a clear responsibility to the one being ruled. The one being ruled is not a commodity for the ruler to exploit with no concern for the "rulee." To the contrary, the ruler is to care of the "rulee." Yes, humanity is to rule over creation, but that does not give us the right to abuse and exploit creation. In doing so, we violate Torah. As Victor Hamilton points out "even in the garden of Eden he who would be the lord of all must be servant of all."⁵

Further, the langauge of 1:26 and 1:28 is language that is usually reserved for the king in other ANE literature. However, Genesis 1 takes royal language and applies it to all of humanity, male and female (there is no gender hierarchy established in Genesis 1, or 2 for that matter).

Another important way that Genesis 1 constructs meaning is made obvious when it is put in conversation with other ANE creation accounts. In the Babylonian Enuma Elish, the universe is created via a cosmic battle between Marduk and Tiamat. Humanity is created to serve the needs of the lazy gods. This is in contrast to the nonviolent ordering of creation in Genesis where humanity is created to care for the created order as a part of that created order. 

This contrast is even more obvious in Egyptian creation literature.⁶ Egyptians creation myths (esp. the Coffin and Pyramid Texts) have far too many similarities with Genesis for it to be coincidental. In the Egyptian literature there is primeval chaos, the breath/wind of a deity moves over the waters, the waters are separated to form dry ground and the overall storylines are parallels (pre-creation chaos → breath/wind moves on the water → creation of the sky → formation of the heavenly ocean by the separation of the waters → formation of dry ground).

But the similarities make the contrasts even more obvious: Creator deity (Atum) is created (either by the receding deep or by the creation of light), creation of humanity is accidental (the tears of joy or sorrow of the creator deity), only Pharaoh is created in the image of the divine

Genesis 1 and 2 read very differently when placed in literary and theological contrast to the literature of its historical and geographical context than when we try to pit Genesis against science (or try to make science fit Genesis). When making Genesis scientific, we miss the theological and literary points of the text. In ancient creation myths, the point is not to provide a scientific explanation of how the world came to be. Instead, the point is to describe why the world is like it is, or how the world should be. This does not mean that science is unimportant or has nothing of value to offer. Mythic narratives provide answers to questions that science is not asking (the philosophical or theological questions), just as science is providing answers to questions that philosophy isn't asking. It is time to engage Genesis on its own terms (at least as much as is possible) rather than forcing science into the framework of Genesis.

---

<sup>1. Samuel E. Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of Worship (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 83.
 
2. See Ben C. Ollenburger, “Creation and Peace: God and Creature in Genesis 1 – 11.” Pages 143-158 in The Old Testament in the Life of God’s People: Essays in Honor of Elmer A. Martens (ed. Jon Isaak; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009).
 
3. Without delving into the complexities of the issue, in this context "created" clearly does not mean ex nihilo. Rather, the "creating" is more of a separation. Recently Ellen Van Wolde, Robert , Bob Becking and Marjo Korpel engaged in a lively debate about the exact meaning of the verb  ברא (bara, to create). See Ellen Van Wolde "Why the Verb ברא Does not Mean 'to Create' in Genesis 1.1-2.4a," JSOT 34 (2009): 3-23; Bob Becking and Marjo Korpel, "To Create, to Separate, or to Construct: An Alternative for a Recent Proposal as to the Interpretation of ברא in Gen 1:1-2:4a," JHS 10, artcile 3 (2010): http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_131.pdf; and Ellen Van Wolde Ellen Van Volde and Robert Rezetko, “Semantics and the Semantics of ברא: A Rejoinder of the Arguments Advanced by B. Becking and M. Korpel” JHS 11, article 9 (2011): http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_156.pdf.

4. Though I am assuming the Documentary Hypothesis, I am not doing so without acknowledging the problematic nature of this theory. Eventually, even the foundational and leading DH theorists had to admit that their analysis did not necessarily  run through the whole Pentateuch. For example, Martin Noth conceded that "if one took [Numbers] by itself, one would not easily arrive at the idea of 'thoroughgoing sources,' but would more likely arrive at the idea of an unsystematic combination of numerous transmission pieces" (Martin Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri [ATD 7; Gottigen: Vandenhoeck and Puprech 1977], 8; quoted in Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible[SipLTHS 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010], 91). Konrad Schmid notes that a big problem with the DH is that "pentateuchal research has been determined by theories that were first explored and defended in Genesis and then assumed to be equally applicable in Exodus-Numbers" (Schmid, 91). At the very least, we can still (generally) apply this theory to Genesis.</sup> 

  

^{5. Victor Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 138.}

^{6. See Gordon H. Johnston, "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths," Bibliotecha Sacra 165 (2008): 178-194.}