We have seen that, on the first day, God set in motion the diurnal cycle of alternating daytime and nighttime. Last time we dealt with the ‘second day’ of the account of origins in Genesis 1, in which God set in motion the seasonal cycles, with specific reference to sources of water. Today we will look at Genesis 1.9-13, the ‘third day’.
Hebrew text:

9 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים יִקָּו֨וּ הַמַּ֜יִם מִתַּ֤חַת הַשָּׁמַ֙יִם֙ אֶל־מָק֣וֹם אֶחָ֔ד וְתֵרָאֶ֖ה הַיַּבָּשָׁ֑ה וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

10 וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ לַיַּבָּשָׁה֙ אֶ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵ֥ה הַמַּ֖יִם קָרָ֣א יַמִּ֑ים וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃

11 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֗ים תַּֽדְשֵׁ֤א הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ דֶּ֔שֶׁא עֵ֚שֶׂב מַזְרִ֣יעַ זֶ֔רַע עֵ֣ץ פְּרִ֞י עֹ֤שֶׂה פְּרִי֙ לְמִינ֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

12 וַתּוֹצֵ֨א הָאָ֜רֶץ דֶּ֠שֶׁא עֵ֣שֶׂב מַזְרִ֤יעַ זֶ֙רַע֙ לְמִינֵ֔הוּ וְעֵ֧ץ עֹֽשֶׂה־פְּרִ֛י אֲשֶׁ֥ר זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ לְמִינֵ֑הוּ וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹהִ֖ים כִּי־טֽוֹב׃

13 וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם שְׁלִישִֽׁי

Transliteration:
9 way·yō·mer ’ĕ·lō·hîm, yiq·qā·wū ham·ma·yim mit·ta·ḥaṯ haš·šā·ma·yim ’el- mā·qō·wm ’e·ḥāḏ, wə·ṯê·rā·’eh hay·yab·bā·šāh; way·hî- ḵên.
10 way·yiq·rā ’ĕ·lō·hîm lay·yab·bā·šāh ’e·reṣ, ū·lə·miq·wêh ham·ma·yim qā·rā yam·mîm; way·yar ’ĕ·lō·hîm kî- ṭō·wḇ.
11 way·yō·mer ’ĕ·lō·hîm, taḏ·šê hā·’ā·reṣ de·še, ‘ê·śeḇ maz·rî·a‘ ze·ra‘, ‘êṣ pə·rî ‘ō·śeh pə·rî lə·mî·nōw, ’ă·šer zar·‘ōw- ḇōw ‘al- hā·’ā·reṣ; way·hî- ḵên.
12 wat·tō·w·ṣê hā·’ā·reṣ de·še ‘ê·śeḇ maz·rî·a‘ ze·ra‘ lə·mî·nê·hū, wə·‘êṣ ‘ō·śeh- pə·rî ’ă·šer zar·‘ōw- ḇōw lə·mî·nê·hū; way·yar ’ĕ·lō·hîm kî- ṭō·wḇ.
13 way·hî- ‘e·reḇ way·hî- ḇō·qer yō·wm šə·lî·šî.

NIV:
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Study:
In v. 8 we read that God called the רָקִיעַ (raqia) שָׁמַיִם (shamayim). And now in v. 9 we no longer have a reference to the obscure רָקִיעַ (raqia). Rather, now we read about the waters that are below the שָׁמַיִם (shamayim), clearly indicating that the obscure word should be interpreted as ‘sky’. On this third day, God continues his ‘separating’ activity. He now gathers all the waters to one place, thereby allowing the dry land to appear.
And then we read the glorious sentence ‘And God saw that it was good.” Before this, God had, on the ‘first day’ called the light good.

Now he calls the separated earth – seas and dry land – good. The Hebrew word is טֽוֹב (ṭōwḇ). The word ‘good’ does not carry the same connotation as טֽוֹב (ṭōwḇ), which has more to do with something being pleasing and delightful. There is a sensuous aspect to the word that the English word ‘good’ does not have. This is unfortunate because we are then led to believe that this goodness was some abstract quality.

However, we should see here that God was pleased with the separation of water and dry ground. He found it pleasing. He took delight in it.

But here we have a curiosity. In the entire account God we are told that God found something good six times with a seventh at the end stating that he found it ‘very good’. However, we do not have this claim on the ‘second day’. But twice on the ‘third day’ God calls something good. Why this discrepancy? Why does God not call anything good on the ‘second day’ but uses this twice on the ‘third day’? I think this is because the movement that began on the ‘second day’ with the separation of the waters did not reach its completion until the ‘third day’. That is, the waters were separated so that dry ground could be brought up from the waters that were below the sky. Hence, when this movement reaches its conclusion on the ‘third day’ God declares that it was a delight.

Then in v. 11 we read, “Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation.’” Against those who protest evolutionary Biology, John Polkinghorne understands this sentence to imply that God gifts his creation “with the power of true becoming”¹ He argues that here God allows the land to produce vegetation, meaning that God has allowed for life to spring up from the land through natural processes. While I accept that God works through evolutionary processes, I think that Polkinghorne has read too much into the text. Once again, the text is poetic in nature and to press any part of it for scientific processes is to violate the nature of the text.

In the latter part of the account for the ‘third day’ we read that God makes the Earth flourish with vegetation. Having set in motion the diurnal cycle on the ‘first day’ and the seasons on the ‘second day’, God brings forth life for the first time in the text. And we recognize that this was where it was going all the time. The whole idea behind the account so far is that God wants this Earth to abound with life. And so he sets up the various cycles that are needed for life to come into being and calls into being the conditions needed for all the multiplicity of lifeforms to arise on the Earth.

This brings us to the midpoint of the account. In the next post we will take a look at the ‘fourth day’.

Prayer:
Our loving, creator God. You have made this world in which we live abound with life of all sorts. Give us eyes to perceive the vast array of beauty that you have displayed among us. Enable us to resist the temptation to take these wonders for granted and to treat them as commonplace. Help us realize that, no matter what mechanism you used to bring all of this life to this planet, you have placed us here to enjoy it. Enable us to delight in your creation in the same way as you first did. We ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

---

^{1. Polkinghorne, John. The Faith of a Physicist. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), p. 81↩}