The Lost World of Adam and Eve (4 page)

Such texts express the pre-creation state as one lacking divine agency, a time in which the gods were not yet performing their duties.
5
In Genesis, however, the spirit of God is hovering over the waters—divine agency ready to move into action.

The next step in trying to clarify the nature of the ancient origins account in Genesis is to examine the operative verbs used in the account. The Hebrew verb translated “create” is
bārā
ʾ
(Gen 1:1, 21; 2:3), and the verb translated “made” is
ʿ
āś
â
(Gen 1:7, 16, 25, 26; 2:2, 3). The former occurs about fifty times in the Hebrew text, the latter over 2,600 times. Here I will only summarize conclusions since the detailed study has been done elsewhere.
6

By observing the direct objects of the verb
bārā
ʾ
throughout Scripture, one can conclude that the verb does not intrinsically pertain to material existence. Although a number of occurrences
could
refer to material creation, many of them cannot. Ones that may refer to material existence only do so if we presuppose that materiality is the focus of the verbal activity. Those that clearly do not refer to materiality easily fit into the category that describes activity bringing order, organization, roles or functions (such as rivers flowing in the desert, Is 41:20; a blacksmith to forge a weapon, Is 54:16). Since the “before” picture deals with the absence of order, it is easy to conclude that
bārā
ʾ
pertains to bringing about order, as it often demonstrably does.
7
Absence of order describes nonexistence; to
bārā
ʾ
something brings it into existence by giving it a role and a function in an ordered system. This is not the sort of origins account that we would expect in our modern world, but we are committed to reading the text as an ancient document. In this view, the result of
bārā
ʾ
is order. The roles and functions are established by separating and naming (in the Bible as well as in the ancient Near East). These are the acts of creation. They are not materialistic in nature, and they are not something that science can explore either to affirm or to deny.

The second verb,
ʿ
āśâ,
is more complicated. When beginning Hebrew students learn this vocabulary word, they are told that it means “to do, make.” But that does not begin to cover the scope of this word’s usage. In its more than 2,600 occurrences, it is translated in dozens of different ways. Consequently, one cannot say that the word “literally means ‘make.’” Perhaps even more importantly than the six occurrences of the verb in Genesis 1, the verb is used in Exodus 20:11: “In six days the L
ORD
made [
ʿ
āśâ
] the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.” This verse figures prominently in discussions of the six days of Genesis 1 and what happened in them.

When we look carefully at the context in Exodus 20:8-11, we learn that for six days people are to “do” (
ʿ
āśâ
) all their work, and on the seventh day they are not supposed to “do” (
ʿ
āśâ
) any of their work. We could therefore plausibly conclude that the reason given in the text is that God “did” his work in the six days of Genesis 1. The heavens, earth and sea are his work. In fact, Exodus 20 is alluding to Genesis 2:2-3, where it is indicated that on the seventh day God completed the work (same Hebrew word translated “work” in Ex 20) that he had been “doing” (
ʿ
āśâ
). Then, most significantly, we are told what that work was in Genesis 2:3: the work of creating (
bārā
ʾ
) that he had “done” (
ʿ
āśâ
). In Exodus 20:11, God is doing his work, and that work is the creating described in Genesis 2:3.
Bārā
ʾ
is what God “does.”
Bārā
ʾ
is associated with order and functions, and this is what God did.

If we substitute the verb “do” into all the verses in Genesis 1 that appear in translations as “make,” the result is not a good English idiom (“God did two great lights”). However, other options are readily available. There are numerous places where
NIV
chooses to translate
ʿ
āśâ
as “provide” (18x) or “prepare” (46x). Genesis 1 might be read quite differently if we read “God prepared two great lights” or “God provided two great lights.” Such renderings would be no less “literal.” Perhaps a way to grasp the general sense of
ʿ
āśâ
is to understand that it reflects some level of causation. (Note, for example, verses like Gen 50:20 and Amos 3:6.)
8
To say it another way, causation at any level can be expressed by this verb.
9

Other interesting usages of the verb include the following:

• The phrase
  ʿ
  āśâ nepeš
  can mean “to take people under your care” (Gen 12:5; cf. Eccles 2:8).
  
• For the midwives who defied pharaoh, God
  provided
  families (
  ʿ
  āśâ bāttîm
  , Ex 1:21).
  
• The Israelites are to
  celebrate
  the Sabbath from generation to generation (Ex 31:16; cf. Ex 34:22; Num 9:4-14; etc.).
  
• Responsibilities are
  assigned
  to the Levites (Num 8:26).
  
• Priests are
  appointed
  (1 Kings 12:31).
  
• The phrase
  ʿ
  āśâ šālôm
  means “to establish order” (Job 25:2; cf. Is 45:7).
  

In Genesis 1:26, God determines to “make” (
ʿ
āśâ
) humankind in his own image. This is an important statement, but we should realize that it does not pertain to what he does uniquely for just the first human(s). The Bible is clear in numerous places that God “makes” (
ʿ
āśâ
) each one of us (Job 10:8-9; 31:15; Ps 119:73; 139:15; Prov 22:2; Is 27:11; 43:7).

Finally, when we examine the direct objects used with the verb
ʿ
āś
â
,
we find many examples where they are not material:

• God makes the Israelites (Deut 32:6, 15; Ps 149:2; Hos 8:14) and the nations (Ps 86:9).
  
• God made (
  ʿ
  āśâ
  ) the moon to mark seasons (Ps 104:19);
  10
  cf. lights to govern (Ps 136:7-9).
  
• God made (
  ʿ
  āśâ
  ) constellations (Job 9:9; Amos 5:8).
  
• The wind was established (
  ʿ
  āśâ
  ) (Job 28:25).
  
• God makes (
  ʿ
  āśâ
  ) each day (Ps 118:24).
  
• God makes (
  ʿ
  āśâ
  ) lightning to accompany the rain (Ps 135:7; Jer 10:13).
  

These instances show us that the Hebrew communicators did not have to have a material-manufacturing activity in mind when they used the verb
ʿ
āśâ
.

We have looked at only two of the main verbs for the activities of creation. As we look at the wide range of creation statements throughout the Bible, we will discover that the biblical communicators often used words that we tend to think of as referring to material manufacturing for addressing that which is not material, specifically, for cosmic ordering:

• Formed summer and winter (Ps 74:17)
  
• Created the north and south (Ps 89:12)
  
• Mountains born; world brought forth (Ps 90:2; mountains are material, but birthing them is not a material description of their origins)
  
• Planted the cedars of Lebanon (Ps 104:16; trees are material, but planting them is not a material description of their origins)
  
• Created waters above the skies (Ps 148:4-5; terminology applied to that which we know does not exist)
  
• Building the house with Wisdom (Prov 8:12, 22-29)
  
• Forms human spirit (Zech 12:1)
  

In conclusion, we cannot consider these verbs to intrinsically reflect material production, either because the direct objects are not material or because the verbs do not represent any sort of understanding that we adopt as scientifically viable.

Furthermore, we find that the way God carries out these creation activities (created, made, caused) is at times by “separating” and “naming.” To distinguish something from other things is to create it; to name something is to create it. For example, naming a room and giving it a distinct function distinguishes (separates) it from other rooms and represents the “creation” of the room. In our house, a room had previously been used as a dining room by its former owners. We decided we didn’t want it to be a dining room so we called it a “den,” gave it a function as a den, put in it the furniture of a den and began to use it that way. By its name and function it was distinguished from other rooms in the house, and thus the den was created. And it was good (functioned as it was intended to function). This serves as a good illustration of the role that naming, separating and determining a function have in the creation of a room and its existence as that room. It is important to realize that separating and naming are also prime creation activities in the rest of the ancient Near East. Note, for example, the opening lines of the famous Babylonian creation epic,
Enuma Elish
, quoted earlier (p. 29).

At this stage in the discussion, we should say a brief word about the concept of ex nihilo (from Latin meaning “out of nothing”). An interpretation of Genesis 1 that understands the text as concerned with bringing order and functionality instead of producing material objects would recognize that the activity in the seven days is not creation out of nothing. Ex nihilo is a material category, though that was not always its focus.
11
If Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, then ex nihilo would not apply. Please note, however, that when God created the material cosmos (and he is the one who did), he did it ex nihilo. Ex nihilo doctrine comes from John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, not Genesis 1. In both of these New Testament passages, the emphasis is on the authority and status of the Son of God and not on the objects created. In other words, ex nihilo creation is still theologically sound (indeed essential, since God is non-contingent), but literarily it is not under discussion in Genesis 1. The story of material origins is not the story the text is telling here. The authors, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have told the part of the story that is most significant to them (the origins of the ordered, functional cosmos) and, arguably, also most theologically significant. God did not just build the cosmos, he made it work in a certain way for a certain reason and sustains its order moment by moment.

Ancient cosmologies had little interest in material origins, though they recognize that the material cosmos is that which is ordered so that the functions can be carried out. I have elsewhere discussed this at length, so I will not repeat the data here.
12
But, before we conclude, we should note the pervasive lack of material focus in the seven-day account in Genesis. This is the third area of evidence (we have already discussed the starting point and the verbs used for the transition from nonexistence to existence) and is the subject of the next chapter.

In conclusion, the concept that Genesis 1 pertains to the establishment of order carries two corollary ideas that we are going to be bringing forward into the chapters that follow. First, in biblical terms, order is related to sacred space. It is God’s presence that brings order and establishes sacred space. Sacred space is the center of order as God is the source of order. Therefore, when we talk about the establishment of order, we are, in effect, talking about the establishment of sacred space. We will discuss this in more detail in chapter four.

Second, we should keep in mind that all of this discussion is setting up the real focus of this book: the question of human origins. Just as we are finding that the account of cosmic origins is less material than we may have thought from our reading of Genesis 1, we are also going to find that the discussion of human origins has less interest in the material than we may have thought.

Proposition 3

Genesis 1 Is an Account of Functional Origins, Not Material Origins

In the last chapter, I offered evidence that the activity of creation in the ancient world, including the biblical text, was seen largely in terms of bringing order and giving functions and roles. It included naming and separating. This view is also found throughout the ancient Near East. In this chapter, I am going to go the next step to show how the seven-day account focuses on order and function rather than material production.

We saw in the last chapter that the starting point in Genesis 1 was a time when there was no order or function. In the ancient world, that description meant that nothing existed (since existence only pertained to what had been ordered). We are now going to proceed to look at each of the seven days to see whether the emphasis is on material objects or an ordered environment.

Day One

The final result of the activities of day one is the naming of day and night. We note that God does not call the light “light”—he calls the light “day,” and the darkness he calls “night.” Thus, we can see that the focus is day and night rather than light and darkness. “Day” names a period of light, and “night” names a period of darkness (Gen 1:5). Those periods are “created” when they are separated from each other. This is not a discussion of physics, and the Israelite audience would not have seen anything here that was a material object. Right from the first day, then, the text does not recount anything material coming into existence. Instead, the alternating periods of light/day and darkness/night constitute the origins of time. Time orders our existence. It is a function, not a material object. On day one God creates day and night—time. As this origins account begins, the Israelite audience would not view it as focused on material.