Genesis 1:1-2 may be the most contested passage of Scripture. A successful attack on a
foundation destroys the superstructure. The importance of these first two verses is
demonstrated in the disproportionate number of pages designated to them by commentators.
In the following I hope to interpret Genesis 1:1-2, understanding the roll of genre, as it bears
significance on the author’s intended meaning, whilst adhering to the golden rule of allowing
Scripture to interpret Scripture.
For many, the genre of Genesis 1:1-2 dictates whether or not it can be taken literally.
Numerous Bible teachers assert the first chapter in the book of Genesis is poetry, others a
narrative. Some understand the chapter as figurative and allegorical, as Origen taught around
250 AD. Regarding the creation account Origen, who derided it’s literal interpretation,
claimed it “is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning maybe indicated
by it.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, p.365). Others see Genesis 1 as poetic, and not to be
taken literally, accommodating such theories as theistic evolution, demonstrated in Tim
Keller’s book, ‘The Reason for God’. Keller writes, “The relationship of science to the Bible
hinges not only on how we read the scientific record but how we interpret certain key biblical
passages such as Genesis 1.” (p.93). He continues, “I think Genesis 1 has the earmarks of
poetry and is therefore a song… There will always be debates about how to interpret some
passages – including Genesis 1. But it is false logic to argue that if one part of Scripture can’t
be taken literally then none of it can be.” Keller concludes, “For the record I think God guided
some kind of process of natural selection”. (p.94). Others argue for a literal approach,
Theodore Epp writes, “There are even some evangelicals who espouse a view that these
chapters constitute a great hymn, a liturgy, a poem or a saga (narrative of heroic deeds) but
are not actual history. To deny the historicity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is to
undermine all the Scriptures.” (Theodore Epp, ‘The God of Creation’ p.14). These examples
highlight the significance of differing genre classifications.
How do interpreters arrive at these differing positions regarding the genre of Genesis 1:1-2?
Origen, for example, was from the Catechetical School in Alexandria, Egypt, which heavily
emphasised allegorical interpretation rooted in Platonic methods and philosophy. (‘The
Oxford Dictionary of the Cristian Church’ p.35, 1008). Therefore, we see with Origen a
presupposed method of interpretation, seemingly disregarding the literary form and plain
meaning of the text, thereby designating the passage as allegorical, and not literal. There is
great danger in imposing our presuppositions on the text rather than allowing the text to
inform our theology. Keller’s conclusion not to take Genesis 1 literally is based on it having
the ‘earmarks of poetry’. He appeals to Exodus chapters 14 and 15, and Judges 4 and 5, as
relating to each other as ‘couplets’, where “in each couplet one chapter describes a historical
event and the other is a song or a poem about the theological meaning of the event.” (‘Reason
for God’, p.93). Keller’s reasoning that the metaphorical language in Deborah’s song is akin
to Genesis 1 is derived from an assumption that Genesis 1 and 2 are ‘couplets’ in the style of
Judges 4 and 5, and can therefore be treated likewise. I believe it is overstretching to make
this comparison and very little textual analysis is employed in arriving at his conclusion.
In a more thorough investigation of the text in Genesis 1, Gordon Wenham deduces, “The
arrangement of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is itself highly problematic. Briefly, the eight works of
creation are prompted by ten divine commands and executed on six different days.”
Concluding, “Genesis 1 is unique in the Old Testament… it seems unlikely that it was used as
a song of praise as the Psalms were. Rather in it’s present form it is a careful literary
composition introducing the succeeding narrative.” (‘Word Biblical Commentary’ p.6, 10.).
Following an exegetical analysis of Genesis 1 as being poetry or not, H. C. Leupold observes
the reliable Jewish tradition of determining the poetic books in the Old Testament canon. He
asserts the method of determining Genesis as poetry involves abandoning “the first principle
of Hebrew poetry (parallelism); it necessitates changes or substitutions of the divine name; it
includes occasional textual alterations merely for the sake of securing the desired meter…
Neither the present text nor the original sources, as others claim, were ever cast in verse form,
with the exception of such minor portions that bear the earmarks of poetry (4:23, 24; 9:25-27;
49:2-27).” Leupold does acknowledge, “Genesis has many portions of very fine rhythmical
prose that rises almost to the level of exalted strains of poetry (cf. 1:27, 28; 12:1-3, and many
other passages).” (‘Exposition of Genesis’ p.10-11). Note how Genesis 1:1-2 is not listed in
the quote just given. Fee and Stuart are in agreement regarding the prominence of parallelism
in Hebrew poetry, listing three main features as synonymous, antithetical and synthetic
parallelisms. (‘How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth’ p.205). Berkeley Mickelson concurs,
“Parallelism is one of the main features of Hebrew poetry.” (‘Interpreting the Bible’ p.324).
Therefore, if the main characteristic of Hebrew poetry, parallelism, is absent from Genesis 1,
and no indicators in the text or elsewhere in Scripture point to allegory, there appears no
reason to object to Genesis 1:1-2 forming part of a narrative. At times high and exalting
language may be used but this does not negate the plain meaning of Genesis 1:1-2. A literal
interpretation should be presented.
‘Bereishit’ is the first word of the Bible, meaning ‘beginning’, the second word is ‘bara’
meaning created. According to Arnold Fruchtenbaum ‘bara’ is used only in connection with
God’s work to produce “new, fresh and good creation.” (Ariel’s Commentary on Genesis’
p.31). The third word ‘Elohim’ is a plural noun for ‘God’ pointing to a plural Godhead. We
see in Genesis 1:26 a divine plurality when God says, “Let Us make man in our image”, and
verse 27, “God created man in His own image”, refuting the notion that the ‘us’ in verse 26 is
referring to angels. Furthermore, Genesis 2:4 demonstrates ‘Elohim’ is also ‘Yahweh’. The
following words ‘samayim’ meaning ‘heavens’ and ‘eres’ translated ‘earth’ are the creation.
The simplicity of the statement in verse 1 has not prevented a wealth of interpretations, some
seeing the first verse as a dependant clause expressing “When God began to create”. Others
determine an independent clause. Victor Hamilton presents four varying translations of
Genesis 1:1, leading to differing views on it’s connection to second verse. (‘The Book of
Genesis’ Chapters 1-17’ p.103-104). Hamilton suggests a conclusion cannot be based on a
study of the Hebrew alone, as competent Hebrew linguists propound all four translations. We
must move onto the proceeding verse.
Examining verse 2 the controversy continues as the earth takes centre stage. Some propound
the state of chaos in the second verse as already existing, out of which God created, hence,
verse one being a dependant clause summarising the proceeding creation account. The NEB
translates along these lines, “when God made…” However, Romans 4:17 teaches God does
create out of nothing, ‘ex nihilo’. Wenham sees verse 2 as a disjunctive describing earth’s
condition being circumstantial to verse 3, earth’s state before God’s first command. (‘WBC’
p.15). Arnold Fruchtenbaum presents an interpretation often called the ‘gap theory’ viewing
verse 1 as an independent narrative, not a chapter summery. It describes a perfect creation out
of nothing, with a gap, or an unspecified period of time following, allowing for Satan’s fall
bringing judgement on the earth resulting in formlessness and void. Fruchtenbaum asserts the
Hebrew ‘vav’ in verse 2 is a disjunctive, and can be translated “Now the earth was…” He also
states the Hebrew word ‘hayetah’, the feminine form of ‘hayah’ meaning ‘was’, can also be
translated ‘became’, for example Genesis 3:20. (Genesis, p.35-36). The earth becoming chaos
subsequent to God’s perfect creation. ‘Tohuw’ and ‘Bohuw’, translated, ‘formless’ and
‘void’, appear together twice in Scripture, and only as a result of God’s judgement. (Isaiah
34:11, Jeremiah 4:23). Every occurrence of ‘tohuw’ in the Old Testament is negative, Isaiah
even proclaiming God did not create the earth ‘tohuw’, waste. (Isaiah 45:18). This is an
important statement from the prophet, as it presents earth’s condition in Genesis 1:2 as not
resulting from God’s creative work but as a consequence of something else, making ‘hayetah’
‘became’, not, ‘was’. Thus, verse 1 would seemingly be an independent clause and verse 2 a
disjunctive.
The Spirit of God is introduced using language mirrored elsewhere in Scripture. Royce
Powell observes a parallel in Deuteronomy 32:9-11, where we find God’s people Jacob,
found in a waste ‘tohuw’ place, and the Lord ‘hovering’ (‘rachaph’, the same Hebrew word
for ‘moving’ in Genesis 1:2) over him, just as the Spirit hovered over the waters. (‘Kingdom
Studies in Genesis’ p.3). The hovering protective element of the Spirit implied in both
instances strongly supports the view of this being the Holy Spirit, not just a wind. If a parallel
is intended, both passages describe the restoration of a previous creation given into bondage.
The darkness mentioned could refer to a state of obscurity, even wickedness. (1 Samuel 2:9,
Job 3:5).
Based on the evidence, an accurate translation of Genesis 1:1-2 points to a literal narrative,
showing God in an undated beginning, creating out of nothing a perfect creation. The Hebrew
grammar being supported by other passages of Scripture, demonstrates the earth’s condition
in verse 2 as not part of God’s creation, but the result of Divine judgement. Hence, I find a
‘gap theory’ interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 the most satisfactory. The importance of using a
multifaceted method of interpreting God’s Word is demonstrated in no better place than in
it’s beginning.
Bibliography
New American Standard Bible, (The Lockman Foundation, 1977)
New English Bible, (Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, 1970)
Origen, ‘De Principiis’, ‘The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.4’ (Cosmo Classics, 2007)
Keller, Tim, ‘The Reason For God’, (Hodder & Stoughton, 2008)
Epp, Theodore, ‘The God of Creation, vol. 1’ (The Good News Broadcasting Association,
Inc. 1972)
Cross, F, L, Livingstone, E, L, (Editors), ‘The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church’
(Oxford University Press, Second Edition, 1983)
Wenham, J, Gordon, ‘Word Biblical Commentary Genesis 1-15’, (Word, Incorporated, 1987)
Leupold, H, ‘Exposition of Genesis’, (Evangelical Press, 1972)
Fee, D, Gordon, Stuart, Douglas, ‘How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth’, (Zondervan,
Fourth Edition, 2014)
Mickelson, A, Berkeley, ‘Interpreting The Bible’ (Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1976)
Fruchtenbaum, G, Arnold, ‘Ariel’s Bible Commentary, The Book of Genesis’, (Ariel
Ministries, 2009)
Hamilton, P, Victor, ‘The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, The Book of
Genesis, Chapters 1-17’, (Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990)
Powell, Royce, ‘Rule and Reign: Kingdom Studies in Genesis’, (Millennial Kingdom Press,
Second Edition, 2018)