We continue our study with a close look at Genesis 1.2. Some interpreters have proposed that there is a gap between verses 1 and 2. But this is mainly to allow for the age of the earth, which current science places at around 4.5 billion years, and the seven day account of Genesis 1. We will look at the Gap Theory of Genesis in the next post in this series. In any case, the view I will be proposing for interpreting Genesis 1 does not rely on the hermeneutic used to interpret the ‘days’ of Genesis 1. So let us proceed with our study.

Hebrew text:  

וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃

Transliteration:

wə·hā·’ā·reṣ,  hā·yə·ṯāh ṯō·hū wā·ḇō·hū, wə·ḥō·šeḵ  ‘al- pə·nê ṯə·hō·wm; wə·rū·aḥ ’ĕ·lō·hîm,  mə·ra·ḥe·p̄eṯ ‘al- pə·nê ham·mā·yim.

NIV:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Study:

In the previous study on Genesis 1.1, I mentioned John Walton’s proposal that בָּרָ֣א (bara) refers not to the material creation of things but to the functional aspect of God’s work. We see further hints of this in v. 2 as well. Right after we have read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” we are told that the earth was תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ (ṯō·hū  wā·ḇō·hū), which the NIV renders as ‘formless and empty’. At the point referred to by v. 2, the earth existed, but was characterized as ‘formless and empty’. And so we can understand that what follows v. 2 is the description of how God gave form to the earth and filled it with meaning and purpose.

The second word in the construction, בֹּהוּ (ḇō·hū), seems strange to me. It appears in only three places in the Old Testament (Genesis 1.2, Isaiah 34.11, and Jeremiah 4.23) and in all three places it occurs along with תֹּהוּ (ṯō·hū). In addition to this, all three places are poetic in nature. Moreover, the Strong’s entry for בֹּהוּ (ḇō·hū) indicates that the origin of the word is unknown. It is quite likely, in my view, that this was never a proper word, but was used in these poetic places to give emphasis to the first word. This is somewhat like saying, “Easy, peasy.” ‘Peasy’ is not a proper word, but is often used informally to emphasize that something is easy.

In anticipation of the creation of light in v. 3, we read that “darkness was over the face of the deep”. The word translated ‘deep’ is תְה֑וֹם (ṯə-hō-wm), which is used 36 times in the Old Testament and most often in poetry, another indication that this account of origins is poetic in nature.

Once again, anticipating that something was going to happen soon, we read “and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the deep”. There was darkness, but now that darkness is not going to be all encompassing. Rather, the Spirit of God was hovering over the deep. The word translated ‘was hovering’ is רָחַף (rā·ḥă·p̄h), which occurs in only two other places in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 32.11 and Jeremiah 23.9). The idea behind the word seems to be that of fluttering or shaking.

It is likely that the Israelites were stressing, through this account of origins, that even the chaotic primeval waters were ultimately in that state because of the action of God’s Spirit. This would have been a source of comfort for them since, if the tumult of the deep is due to the Spirit of God, then there is nothing to fear.

Prayer:

Spirit of the living God, you who are the Sovereign over even all that we may perceive to be ‘chaotic’, we ask you to fill us with your deep peace, enabling us to weather the storms in our lives, knowing that you are in control of everything that happens to us and knowing that we are loved by you. We ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.