by jimwalton » Mon Apr 04, 2022 4:12 pm
If you read the text literally, it's about how light functions: it gives us day. Darkness functions to give us night. Any physicist will tell you that you can’t separate light from darkness. What God is separating is a period of light to a period of darkness. The alternating sequence (function) of light and darkness gives us evening and morning. The ancients knew nothing of light as a substance (photons) that had to be brought into being. Their concern, as Moses states, is about how light and dark function, especially in sequence.
If you look at bara' ("created", v. 1) in the rest of Scripture, the subject is always God. The objects are really unusual things, in the categories of abstractions (purity, righteousness), people groups (the nations, Jerusalem). It is never talking about making a thing, but an abstraction rather than material things. It never refers to materials because it is not talking about making a thing but something more abstract, as if in English we said “I created a masterpiece.” You “create” havoc. It has nothing to do with manufacture, and not with things. The thrust of the verb is not that God manufactured out of something or not out of something, but that God assigned roles and functions.
The essence of the word bara’ concerns bringing heaven and earth into existence focusing on operation through organization and assignment of roles and functions. Even in English we use the verb “create” within a broad range of contexts, but rarely apply it to material things (i.e., parallel in concept to “manufacture”). One can create a piece of art, but that expression does not suggest manufacture of the canvas or paint. Even more abstractly, one can create a situation (e.g., havoc) or a condition (an atmosphere). In these cases, the verb indicates the establishment of a role or function. The text asserts that in the seven-day initial period God brought the cosmos into operation (which defines existence) by assigning roles and functions.
Another way to look at a verb is by what the situation was like before the verb is brought to bear on the situation. The “before” picture is Gn. 1.2: The earth (must have been there) was without form (form?) and was dark (Dark? Where did that come from?) The text is talking about order, not about material things.
Look at day 3. It's not telling us anything that was MADE. It's telling us how the earth functions: it brings forth vegetation. The proof is in the Word.
Look at day 4: The sun, moon, and stars function to give us seasons. It's about function, not manufacture.
The concern of the ancients was not about material manufacture, but instead about order and function. Something was considered "created" when it had order and function. In Mesopotamia one way to accomplish this was to name something, because a name designated a thing’s function or role. Thus, in the Babylonian Creation account, bringing the cosmos into existence begins “when on high no name was given in heaven, nor below was the netherworld called by name… When no gods at all had been brought forth, none called by names, no destinies ordained, then were the gods formed.” In the earlier Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld, the first couple of lines read: “After heaven had been moved away from earth, After earth had been separated from heaven, After the name of man had been fixed…”
In Egyptian accounts, existence was associated with something having been differentiated. The god Atum is conceptualized as the primordial monad—the singularity embodying all the potential of the cosmos, from whom all things were separated and thereby created. The Genesis account includes both of these concepts as God separates and names.
They probably viewed light as having existed prior to this time and that at v. 3 it was put into operation on the Earth. They would not have viewed the sun, moon, and stars as the sole source of light, but they certainly recognized their role (function), as in v. 14. So light would have been seen as regulated in the heavenly bodies but having its existence independent of them. We take that same information and seek to theologically establish God as the source of light. To them, that would be silly...of course God is the source of light—whether it comes from the sun or not! People forget that the ancients didn’t know anything about the sun as being a burning mass of gas or the moon as being just a planet that reflects the sun’s light. To them, the sun, moon, and stars were created “things” which God ordained to carry light. Cause and effect was not seen scientifically, but as connected to God. (In our day, we have swung a full 180º and see all cause and effect scientifically.) In reality I suspect that scientific cause and effect and “God cause and effect” are not only interwoven, but are totally the same. So light was independent of the bodies and merely assigned to them.
If you read the text literally, it's about how light functions: it gives us day. Darkness functions to give us night. Any physicist will tell you that you can’t separate light from darkness. What God is separating is a period of light to a period of darkness. The alternating sequence (function) of light and darkness gives us evening and morning. The ancients knew nothing of light as a substance (photons) that had to be brought into being. Their concern, as Moses states, is about how light and dark function, especially in sequence.
If you look at [i]bara'[/i] ("created", v. 1) in the rest of Scripture, the subject is always God. The objects are really unusual things, in the categories of abstractions (purity, righteousness), people groups (the nations, Jerusalem). It is never talking about making a thing, but an abstraction rather than material things. It never refers to materials because it is not talking about making a thing but something more abstract, as if in English we said “I created a masterpiece.” You “create” havoc. It has nothing to do with manufacture, and not with things. The thrust of the verb is not that God manufactured out of something or not out of something, but that God assigned roles and functions.
The essence of the word [i]bara’[/i] concerns bringing heaven and earth into existence focusing on operation through organization and assignment of roles and functions. Even in English we use the verb “create” within a broad range of contexts, but rarely apply it to material things (i.e., parallel in concept to “manufacture”). One can create a piece of art, but that expression does not suggest manufacture of the canvas or paint. Even more abstractly, one can create a situation (e.g., havoc) or a condition (an atmosphere). In these cases, the verb indicates the establishment of a role or function. The text asserts that in the seven-day initial period God brought the cosmos into operation (which defines existence) by assigning roles and functions.
Another way to look at a verb is by what the situation was like before the verb is brought to bear on the situation. The “before” picture is Gn. 1.2: The earth (must have been there) was without form (form?) and was dark (Dark? Where did that come from?) The text is talking about order, not about material things.
Look at day 3. It's not telling us anything that was MADE. It's telling us how the earth functions: it brings forth vegetation. The proof is in the Word.
Look at day 4: The sun, moon, and stars function to give us seasons. It's about function, not manufacture.
The concern of the ancients was not about material manufacture, but instead about order and function. Something was considered "created" when it had order and function. In Mesopotamia one way to accomplish this was to name something, because a name designated a thing’s function or role. Thus, in the Babylonian Creation account, bringing the cosmos into existence begins “when on high no name was given in heaven, nor below was the netherworld called by name… When no gods at all had been brought forth, none called by names, no destinies ordained, then were the gods formed.” In the earlier Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld, the first couple of lines read: “After heaven had been moved away from earth, After earth had been separated from heaven, After the name of man had been fixed…”
In Egyptian accounts, existence was associated with something having been differentiated. The god Atum is conceptualized as the primordial monad—the singularity embodying all the potential of the cosmos, from whom all things were separated and thereby created. The Genesis account includes both of these concepts as God separates and names.
They probably viewed light as having existed prior to this time and that at v. 3 it was put into operation on the Earth. They would not have viewed the sun, moon, and stars as the sole source of light, but they certainly recognized their role (function), as in v. 14. So light would have been seen as regulated in the heavenly bodies but having its existence independent of them. We take that same information and seek to theologically establish God as the source of light. To them, that would be silly...of course God is the source of light—whether it comes from the sun or not! People forget that the ancients didn’t know anything about the sun as being a burning mass of gas or the moon as being just a planet that reflects the sun’s light. To them, the sun, moon, and stars were created “things” which God ordained to carry light. Cause and effect was not seen scientifically, but as connected to God. (In our day, we have swung a full 180º and see all cause and effect scientifically.) In reality I suspect that scientific cause and effect and “God cause and effect” are not only interwoven, but are totally the same. So light was independent of the bodies and merely assigned to them.