Trinity
Journal 5 NS (1984) 73-82.
Copyright © 1984 by Trinity
Journal, cited with permission;
EXEGETICAL NOTES
GENESIS 1:1-2:4a
JOHN SAILHAMER
Introduction
These Exegetical Notes do not aim at a detailed
verse-by-verse
explanation.
Their purpose rather is to look at the first chapter of
Genesis
from a wider perspective the perspective of the whole of the
Pentateuch.
A secondary purpose of these Notes is to explore in a
general
way the broader question of the meaning of biblical narrative
texts.
How do we go about finding what the biblical writers were teach-
ing
in their carefully wrought narratives? In light of this second pur-
pose,
the Notes will be presented in the form of a general description of
biblical
narrative and the comments on Gen 1:1-2:4a will serve as
examples.
It will be assumed that what is said may be applied generally
to
all biblical narratives in the same way that it is here applied to
Genesis
one.
Historical narrative is the re-presentation of
past events for the pur-
pose
of instruction. Two dimensions are always at work in shaping
such
narrative: 1) the course of the historical event itself and 2) the
viewpoint
of the author who recounts the event. This dual aspect of
historical
narrative means that one must not only look at the course of
the
event in its historical setting but one must also look for the purpose
and
intention of the author in recounting the event.
The ideas of looking beyond the historical event
to the author's ver-
sion
of it does not imply that the author's version is different than the
event
as it actually happened. Rather, in historical narrative what is
given
is the inspired author's evaluation of the meaning and signifi-
cance
of the event. In historical narrative we may be told less than all
that
happened; but we are also told much more than simply that the
event
happened--although we are always being told at least that. We
are
also being told the purpose and significance of the event within the
broader
context of God's revelation in his word.
In what follows, we will outline briefly some
general principles on
how
to go about the task of finding the author's intent and purpose in
recounting
the events in historical narrative.
74 TRINITY
JOURNAL
Assessing the Structure
of the Narrative Account
The most influential yet subtle feature of an
author's work in relat-
ing
historical events is the overall framework within which he arranges
his
account. Some would call this the literary context. Perhaps a more
usable
term would be the structure of the passage. What this means is
that
there is always an internal relationship of each segment of a narra-
tive
to the other segments of the narrative and to the narrative viewed
as
a whole. When we speak of structure, then, we are speaking of "the
total
set of relationships within a given narrative unit."
General structural elements to look for in every
historical narrative
are
simple, but nonetheless important. They include an introduction, a
conclusion,
sequence, disjuncture, repetition, deletion, description and
dialogue.
These elements combine to form the building blocks or seg-
ments
of the larger narrative units.
For example, Gen 1:1-2:4a is clearly
recognizable as a unit of histor-
ical
narrative. It has an introduction (1:1), a body (1:2-2:3) and a con-
clusion
(2:4a). With these three segments a unit is formed. Within this
unit
several structural elements combine to tie this passage (Gen
1:1-2:4a)
together and give it a specific meaning. One of the more
obvious
elements is the repetition of the phrase "evening and morning"
which
divides the passage into a 7-day scheme. Creation forms a
period
of one work week concluding with a rest day. Already in this
simple
structural framework there is the tilting of the account that
betrays
the interests of the author creation is viewed in terms of
man's own work week.
Another, more subtle, structural element tying
the passage together
is
the tight sentence pattern (or sequence) within which the events of
creation
are recorded. This is apparent in the almost monotonous
string
of "ands" in the English Versions of chapter one. In contrast to
this
smooth sequence, however, there is an abrupt disjuncture at 1:2, in
effect,
shoving this verse outside the regular sequence of the chapter. A
study
of the author's style in Genesis shows that when he wants to
begin
a specific topic much narrower than the preceding subject mat-
ter,
he uses such a technique of disjuncture (see Gen 3:1). Here, then, at
the
beginning of the account the structure reveals the aim of the
author:
to narrow the scope of his narrative from the universe (1:1) to
that
of the land (I :2ff.). This is quite a remarkable turning point in the
account
of creation and should not be overlooked by anyone attempt-
ing
to follow the author's intent in this chapter.
Structure, then, implies purpose and that in turn suggests a
central
concern
or integration point which gives a passage its meaning and
direction.
In the two examples just cited, the central concern of Gen 1
focuses
on man and the land. Certainly we need more than these two
examples
to be convinced that this is the central concern, but the
cumulative
effect of further observations confirms that this is the direc-
tion
or purpose behind the framework of the account.
When we have observed the internal structure of
a passage, as we
have
briefly done with Gen 1:1-2:4a, we have not completed the task of
assessing
the total structural relationship of the passage to the broader
SAILHAMER: GENESIS
1:1-2:4a 75
context
within which it is found. There may indeed be a whole series of
further
structural ties between the passage and its literary environment.
Here we are faced with the problem of where to
fix the outside limits
to
a passage within an historical narrative. It is very often the case in
the
Old Testament narrative sections that the division of the narrative
into
"books" cuts across very tightly constructed units (e.g. Gen 1-
Exod
1:7 is a structurally complete unit not recognized by those who
divided
the Pentateuch into five parts). Beyond these literary units
there
lie, as well, the larger borders of the Old Testament canon and
the
subsequent canon of the Old and New Testaments. These borders
must
be respected as well if we desire to go beyond exegesis to biblical
theology.
In working with Gen 1:1-2:4a, we can safely set
our perimeters
around
the Pentateuch (Gen--Deut) as the largest meaningful unit
(literarily).
Since it comes first, it also seems safe to say that Gen 1:1-
2:4a
is to be considered an introduction
to the Pentateuch.
Once the largest unit of historical narrative
has been drawn, a two-
fold
task remains: 1) to determine the central concern of this unit and
2)
to develop the contribution of the smaller unit (Gen 1:1-2:4a) to the
concern
of the whole.
The central concern of the large narrative unit
is not always imme-
diately
apparent but usually becomes clearer with a trial and error
effort
to relate the parts to the whole. This amounts, in practice, to
reading
through the entire unit and formulating a general statement of
the
overall theme. This theme is then checked against further readings
of
the text. Each reading should produce a clearer idea of the whole,
which
in turn should cast more light on the parts or segments.
Since we have drawn the Pentateuch as the
largest unit with a mean-
ingful
structural relationship to Gen 1:1-2:4a, the question we should
now
ask is whether there is a center to the Pentateuch. From our study
we
would suggest that the central concern of the Pentateuch should be
described
in the following way.
First, it should be pointed out that the most
prominent event and the
most
far-reaching theme in the Pentateuch, viewed entirely 'on its own,
is
the covenant between Yahweh and
The
meaning of this event as it is described in the Pentateuch can be
summarized
in the following cluster of themes:
1) God comes to dwell with
2)
3) God gives
4)
5) Salvation or judgment is contingent on
If we leave these ideas in their original dress,
we find that they are
clothed
in the metaphor of the ancient Near Eastern monarch: God,
the
Great King, grants to his obedient vassal-prince the right to dwell
in
his land and promises protection from their enemies. Somewhat
more
generally, this cluster of ideas goes by the name theocracy or the
people
76 TRINITY
JOURNAL
There is, however, more to be said about the
intention of the author
of
the Pentateuch. We need to say, secondly, something about what the
author
of the Pentateuch is telling his readers about
the covenant at
Sinai.
This can be summarized in the following three points:
1)
The author of the Pentateuch wants to draw a connecting link
between
God's original plan of blessing for mankind and his establish-
ment
of the covenant with
the
covenant at Sinai as God's plan to restore his blessing to mankind
through
the descendants of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; Exod 2:24).
2) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show
that the Covenant at
Sinai
failed to restore God's blessing to mankind because
to
trust God and obey his will.
3) The author of the Pentateuch wants to show
that God's promise
to
restore the blessing would ultimately succeed because God himself
would
one day give to
30:1-10).
The outlook of the Pentateuch, then, might be
described as "eschato-
logical,"
in that it looks to the future as the time when God's faithful
promise
(blessing) will be fulfilled. The past,
failure
from the author's (Moses') perspective. The message of the Pen-
tateuch,
however, is hope: God's people should
trust and obey God
and,
like Abraham, have faith in his promises.
The
primary subject matter of the
Pentateuch, then, is the Sinai
Covenant.
The author sees God's election of
ment
of a covenant at Sinai as a central religious and theological prob-
lem.
The Pentateuch is his answer to the problem raised by the coven-
ant
in the same way that Gal is the Apostle Paul's answer to the same
problem.
It is his explanation of the place Sinai occupies in God's plan
and
his explication of the lessons to be drawn from the experience.
It is of great importance to see that while the
Pentateuch is about the
Sinai Covenant, it is not the document of that covenant. The Penta-
teuch
contains documents of the Sinai Covenant, e.g., the ten com-
mandments,
the covenant code, tabernacle instruction and laws of sac-
rifice,
but the Pentateuch, as a literary document, is fundamentally
different
from a document of the Sinai covenant. What this means is
that
the Pentateuch is a document that looks at the Sinai covenant as
an
object under investigation. It is
attempting to evaluate the Sinai
covenant
from a perspective that is not the same as that of the coven-
ant
itself. Like the other historical books of the Old Testament, the
Prophets
and the New Testament, the Pentateuch represents a look
back
at the failure of Sinai and a look forward to a time of fulfillment
(Deut
30).
It now remains to develop the contribution of
the smaller narrative
unit
(Gen 1:1-2:4a) to the central concern of the whole (Pentateuch).
In
other words, if we are right in saying Genesis 1 is an introduction to
the
Pentateuch, then we should ask what it introduces about the cen-
tral
concern of the Pentateuch: the covenant at Sinai.
The following principles are intended to show
how a segment of his-
torical
narrative can contribute to the central concern of the larger
narrative
of which it is a part.
SAILHAM ER: GENESIS
1:1-2:4a 77
The Principle of
Selectivity
No historical narrative is a complete account of
all that occurred in a
given
event or series of events. The author must select those events that
most
effectively relate not only what happened but also the meaning
and
significance of what happened.
We can formulate a working description of this
principle of selection
in
this way: The author selects and arranges those features of an histor-
ical
event that most characteristically portray the meaning of the event
as
conceived by the author.
A close study of Gen 1:1-2:4a shows that a
careful and purposeful
selection
has been made in the composition of the creation account and
that
the features selected do, in fact, provide an introduction to the
Sinai
covenant--that is, the creation account tells the reader informa-
tion
that makes the author's view of the Sinai covenant understandable.
One way to ferret out this selection is to ask:
What general features
of
creation (the subject matter) would I expect to find in Gen 1:1-2:4a,
but
which I don't find? Where, for example, is the account of the crea-
tion
of the angels? Where, for that matter, is the account of the crea-
tion
of the stars and the galaxies? Certainly the creation of these bodies
is
stated as a brute fact in v 1 and is editorially alluded to in v 16; but
relative
to the detail of the rest of the account in chap. 1, we could
almost
say the author has passed them by. He has chosen rather to
concentrate
on the creation. and preparation of the land. If we judge
from
the topics selected in Gen 1:1-2:4a, we can say the author has
only
three preferred subjects in his account of creation: God, man and
the
land.
Having said there is little mention of the
creation of the rest of the
universe,
we should note that the creation of the sun and moon is given
considerable
attention. But we should be quick to note, as well, that
neither
of these celestial bodies is mentioned in its own right. Rather,
their
creation is recounted in terms of the role they play in the affairs
of
men on the land: "to divide the
day and night and be for signs for
the
seasons and for days and years." (1:14ff.).
At this point we need to show how the two
principles of Structure
and
selectivity work together to give a
narrative passage its meaning.
First, we have already noted that an internal
structural element has
defined
the scope of the Gen 1:1-2:4a creation account. That is, the
disjuncture
at v 2 is employed by the author to focus his creation
account
upon the land. This is consistent
with what our analysis of the
selection
showed: one of the author's three preferential topics is the
land.
Now we can turn to the external structural
relationship of Gen
I:1-2:4a
to the Pentateuch and ask: What does the land
as a subject
have
to do with the Sinai covenant? Or, more precisely stated: How
does
what Gen 1:1-2:4a records about the land serve as an introduc-
tion
to the author's view of the covenant at Sinai? When Gen 1:1-2:4a
speaks
of God's creation and preparation of the land we are, in fact,
introduced
to one of the central elements of the Sinai Covenant: the
promise
of God to give the land to
78 TRINITY
JOURNAL
and
keep my covenant you will be to me a prize possession among all
the
nations because all the land is
mine" (Exod 19:5; cf. Jer 27:5).
What,
then, does Gen 1:1-2:4a tell us about the land? It tells us that
God
is its owner. He created it and prepared it, and he can give it to
whomever
he chooses (Jer 27:5). In the ancient world, and our own,
the
right to own land and grant it to others formed the basis of an
ordered
society. The author of the Pentateuch, then, is quick to point
out
that the promise of the land to
covenant,
was in every way a right justly belonging to God.
Another example of the interrelationship between
structure and
selection
can be seen in the view of God in Gen 1:1-2:4a. When viewed
as
an introduction (structure) to the covenant at Sinai, we can see that
Gen
I presents a very important view of the covenant God: he is the
Creator
of the universe (Gen 1:1) Because Israel had come to know
God
through the covenant in a close and personal way, a certain theo-
logical
pressure existed which, if left unchecked could, and at times
did,
erode a proper view of God. This pressure was the tendency to
localize
and nationalize God as the God of Israel alone (Mic 3:11)--a
God
who exists solely for
this
lesser view of God, however, stands the message of Gen 1 with its
clear
introduction to the God who created the universe and who has
blessed
all mankind. From the point of view
of the author of the Pen-
tateuch,
the God of the Covenant is the Creator of the universe; and he
has
a plan of blessing for all men. Here lies the theological foundation
of
all subsequent missionary statements in the Bible.
We can conclude this section with a summary of
Gen 1:1-2:4a. The
author
of the Pentateuch intends his creation account to relate to his
readers
that God, the Creator of the universe, has prepared the land as
a
home for his special creature, man, and has a plan of blessing for all
his
creatures.
The Discourse Principles
of Theme and Rheme
An historical narrative is a form of discourse
between the author and
his
audience. The author must always write with his audience in view
and
he must assume certain common knowledge and shared experi-
ences
with this audience. On its most basic level this means that the
author
has to use a language that his audience will understand. The
Old
Testament was written in Hebrew not simply because that was the
writer's
language but more importantly because that was the language
of
those to whom the books were written.
At a level of interpretation, however, this idea
of an audience means
the
author can and must assume that he can use certain terms which
are
already known on the basis of his common experience with his
audience.
It also means, in the case of literature, that the author can
use
terms which will take on specific sense
in the course of the literary
work
itself. We should expect, then, to come across two different kinds
of
terms in any given narrative unit: those terms which the author
assumes
his reader will already know or will subsequently come to
more
fully understand in the work itself (theme)
and those terms which
the
author must elaborate himself in the passage at hand (rheme).
SAILHAMER: GENESIS
1:1--2:4a 79
Since the author will develop the meaning of
rheme terms in the
passage
at hand, there is little difficulty in dealing with them in narra-
tive.
All that is really necessary is a sensitivity to the author's help in
developing
the meaning of these terms for his reader.
When the author assumes that his readers already
have an under-
standing
of a term he uses (theme) the
question at once faces the mod-
ern
reader: Where does one look for the meaning of a term that is not
explained
by the ancient writer? We may have to go outside the text
altogether
for a general understanding of the term and then attempt to
fit
this within the specific text at hand. Usually, however, there is a
safer
approach.
As a working guide we might suggest that in
searching for the mean-
ing
of a term not explained in a given passage (theme),
we follow the
external
structural relationships back to a passage where the term in
question
is in fact developed (if such a passage does exist). An example
from
Gen 1:1-2:4a may help to clarify this point.
The author of Gen. 1:1-2:4a uses several terms
with the full expecta-
tion
that his audience will comprehend them without explanation: "the
deep,"
"the expanse," tohu wahohu
("formless and void"), "signs,"
"seasons,"
"the great sea monsters," and so on. How do we find the
meaning
intended by the author for these terms? If we follow the struc-
tural
ties already delineated above, being careful to remain within the
boundaries
of the Pentateuch (structure), the meaning of these terms,
as
used by the author, is close at hand.
The term "signs," for example, calls
to mind many things to a mod-
ern
reader; most recently, to many, the terms may recall the signs of
the
zodiac. Could this have been the meaning intended by the author
when
he recounted that the sun and moon are put in the heavens as
"signs"?
If we look at the use of this term in the broader structural
context
(Pentateuch), we can readily see that such a meaning would
have
been completely inappropriate to the author and his original
audience.
The term "signs" has been given special attention by the
author
elsewhere in the Pentateuch. For example, the so-called
"plagues"
of
Pentateuch
(e.g., Deut 29:2-3). The meaning given this term in the
Exod
account (here the term is rheme, not theme) is that the acts of
God
in the bringing of disorder upon the Egyptians were "signs" that
God
was more powerful and majestic than the Egyptians' gods. This
sense
of the term "signs" fits well in Gen 1:14. The author says that not
only
are the sun and moon to give light upon the land but they are to
be
visual reminders of the power and majesty of God. They are "signs"
of
who the God of the covenant is. They are "telling of the glory of
God,"
as the psalmist puts it (Ps 19:1). Not only does the term "signs"
serve
as a reminder of the greatness and glory of God for the author of
the
Pentateuch, "signs" are also a frequent reminder in the Pentateuch
of
his grace and mercy (Gen 4, 9, 17).
Another example of a theme term in Gen 1:1-2:4a
is the term "sea-
sons."
Here our English word "season" suggests something like "win-
ter,
fall, etc.," but again, the broader context of the Pentateuch gives a
80 TRINITY
JOURNAL
more
precise meaning. In Lev, in fact, there is an entire chapter
devoted
to the term "seasons." This is not easy to see in some English
versions
because the term is rendered "feasts" in Lev. Strictly speaking
the
term means "appointments." These appointments were the annual
days
when all
covenant
and celebrate the covenant relationship (Lev 23). If this is the
meaning
of the term in Gen 1, we see that the author had something
very
specific in his mind when he wrote of the creation of the sun and
moon.
They were not mere lights or reminders of God's glory, they
were,
as well, calendars for the celebration of the covenant. The world
is
made for the covenant. Already at creation, the land was being pre-
pared
for the covenant.
In Gen 1:1--2:4a there is also the development
of new terms (rheme)
in
the narrative. In fact, the concept of man's creation in the "image"
of
God finds its only explanation in this narrative. The explanation of
the
term comes from the way in which the author selects two features
in
man's creation: the deliberation of God before creating man and
God's
blessing of man after his creation. Both features have an impor-
tant
bearing on the author's view of the Sinai covenant.
First, God's deliberation shows that he has
decided to create man
differently
from any of the other creatures--in his image and likeness.
God
and man share a likeness that is not shared by other creatures.
This
apparently means that a relationship of close fellowship can exist
between
God and man that is unlike the relationship of God with the
rest
of his creation. What more important fact about God and man
would
be necessary if the covenant at Sinai were, in fact, to be a real
relationship?
Remove this and the covenant is unthinkable.
Secondly, in Gen 1, man, the image bearer, is
the object of God's
blessing.
According to the account of creation in Gen 1, the chief pur-
pose
of God in creating man is to bless him. The impact of this point
on
the remainder of the Pentateuch and the author's view of Sinai is
clear:
through
restored
to all mankind.
The Principle of
Contemporization
Often in the writing of historical narrative,
events of the past find
new
meaning and significance in relation to certain issues and ideas
present
in the author's own day. Thus the author views past events
with
a certain eye to the present, and he would assume his narrative
would
be read in that way. From this fact a principle emerges: look for
thematic
development of ideas and issues current during the author's
own
time. This presupposes that we have some indication of when the
narrative
was written and that we know something of the historical-
cultural
setting of the narrative's composition. If we do not know when
or
to whom a book is written, it may mean that the book has been
intentionally
generalized as well as contemporized so that it may speak
to
many succeeding audiences in many different contexts.
This principle can be detected in Gen 1 by the
way in which the
author
of the Pentateuch uses terms in unusual contexts. For example,
SAILHAMER: GENESIS
1:1-2:4a 81
he
calls the global ocean (the "deep") in 1:2 a "desert." This
is not
apparent
in the English translation "formless," but the NASB notes it
in
the margin as a "wasteland." If we again use the notion of theme
terms
and search for the meaning of this word within the Pentateuch
itself,
we can see its typological significance. Moses uses this term
(Deut
32:10) to describe the desert wasteland where
for
forty years. Why call an ocean a desert? What better way to teach
the
people that the God who will lead them out of the wilderness and
give
them the promised land is the same
God who once prepared the
land for them by dividing
the waters and producing the
"dry land"?
The
God of the Pentateuch is One who leads his people from the waste-
land
to the promised land.
Summary
We close with one further example of the role of
structure and selec-
tion
in determining the meaning of a unit of historical narrative like
Gen
1:1-2:4a. This example should serve also as a summary of the
approach
taken in this paper.
We have already seen that the overall purpose of
the author of the
Pentateuch
seems to be to show that the Sinai covenant failed for lack
of
an obedient heart on the part of God's people
seen
that his intention in writing the Pentateuch is not to look back in
despair
at the failure of man but to point in hope to the faithfulness of
God.
The hope of the writer of the Pentateuch is clearly focused on
what
God will do to bring his covenant promises to fulfillment.
Nowhere
is he more clear on this than at the (structural) conclusion to
his
work: Deut 30:1-10, where Moses tells the people of
they
will fail and that they will be cursed, but God's work with them
will
not end there. The Lord will again bring them into the land,
ering
them from all the lands where they have been exiled. But this
time,
things will be different.
to
give them a heart that will obey, a heart that will love the Lord and
keep
his commandments. It is on this high note that the Pentateuch
finally
draws to a close.
If we go beyond the Pentateuch to the other
historical books, the
Prophets
and finally to the New Testament, the fulfillment of Moses'
hope
is made certain. It is also clear in these later books how God is
going
to give his people a new heart: "I will give you a new heart, a
new
Spirit I will put within you; I will turn away the heart of stone
from
your flesh and I will give you a heart of flesh. My Spirit I will put
within
you and I will make you walk in my statutes and my judgments
you
will keep" (Ezek 36:26, 27). It is
by means of God's Spirit that his
people are able to do
his will.
No one is clearer on this point than the
apostle
Paul (Rom 8:4). What is often overlooked, however, is that we
needn't
go beyond the Pentateuch itself for exactly the same conclu-
sion.
The author of the Pentateuch has as one of his central purposes
to
show that God's work must always be done in God's way: by means
of the Spirit of God. To show the centrality
of this idea in the Penta-
teuch
we need only compare the author's description of God's own
82 TRINITY
JOURNAL
carrying
out of his will (Gen 1:2b) with that of man's obedience to
God's
will (Exod 31:1-5).
Viewed on its own, the description of the Spirit
of God in Gen 1:2
has
often been only remotely related to the rest of the chapter. Some
interpreters
have even chosen to eliminate this reference to God's Spirit
altogether
and render the passage simply as "a mighty wind was blow-
ing
over the surface of the waters." When viewed as structurally related
to
Exod 31, however, this brief notice regarding the Spirit of God takes
on
a whole new importance for the meaning of the Pentateuch.
In Exod 31:1-5, God has chosen Bezalel to do the
work of building
the
tabernacle. What God has commanded Moses, Bezalel is to per-
form.
In order to insure his accomplishment of the work, the author of
the
Pentateuch tells us, the Lord filled Bezalel with the Spirit of God
"to
do all of the work . . . which I have commanded you." For the
author
of the Pentateuch, to do the work of God successfully (with
wisdom),
one must be filled with the Spirit of God. We may recall
what
Moses says to Joshua when he complains that someone "unoffi-
cial"
may have received the Spirit of the Lord: "Would that the Lord
would
put his Spirit upon all of them [his people]" (Nurn 11:29).
If this is one point that the author of the
Pentateuch is intending to
make
throughout this major biblical book, then his comment at the
beginning
(Gen 1:2b) makes perfectly good sense. Even God the Crea-
tor,
when he does his work of creating, does so by means of the Spirit
of
God. How much more then should his people do his will by means
of
his Spirit.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
Trinity
Journal
2065 Half
Day Rd.
www.tiu.edu/trinityjournal/index.html
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: