Gen 1:1-5
| Next |
Contents
Questions
- God calls the light "good." As all things have opposites, why does he not call the darkness "good?"
- With a similar account in Gen 2:1-5, is this speaking of a spiritual creation prior to the physical creation? Compare Abr 4:1-5 and Moses 2:1-5
Lexical notes
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes
Exegesis
Comments from Joseph Smith on the first word of the Hebrew bible
"I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of the creation in the Bible--Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith--in, by through, and everything else. Rosh--the head. Sheit--grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, 'The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.' That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council...In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.348)
"God saw the light, that it was good"
There is a general pattern that the verses in this chapter follow. First God says "let" followed by some creative act and then later we see the phrase "and God saw that it was good." In this pattern, the "it" in the phrase "it was good" doesn't clearly refer to any specific item. Instead, it refers more generally to the results of the creation at that stage. This is clear in verses 10, 12, 18, 21, and 25.
It is often noted that God's last creation, the creation of man, is different from God's other creations in that this creation is not followed with the statement "and God saw that it was good." Interestinly, God's first creation also doesn't quite fit the pattern. In this first case only is the reader told specifically what is good. "God saw the light, that it was good." Further, in this case only the "it was good" is moved up so that it immediately follows the "let there be" statement. If it were to fall in its normal spot, the statement would fall at the end of verse 5.
It may be that the reason for these differences is similar to the reason for treating the last creative act differently. Man, collectively, is both good and bad. It is not right to say man is good. In the same way light and darkness are not both good. Light is good, darkness is not.
In the beginning of what?
It seems ironic that the opening words of Genesis could also be among the most theologically significant, yet also among the most ambiguous passages in the Bible. There are four generally accepted ways to interpret the Bible's first few verses. Translating verse one with the King James Version, it could be the title of what follows, or it could be the first act of creation itself. The latter interpretation means God created the world from nothing, whereas the former has no such implication. Others translate the first verse as a temporal clause ("In the beginning, when God created the heaven and earth . . ." or "When God began to create . . . "). In either of these cases, the earth already existed as a vast wasteland of chaotic matter.
All these interpretations have their academic defenders, though admittedly creatio ex nihilo is the oldest known interpretation of the first verse of Genesis. If the oldest interpretation has any relation to original intent, then creation has the strongest case. It should also be noted that, though the Hebrews probably did not think in such terms, they undoubtedly would say God certainly had the power to create the world from nothing. Nevertheless, as Joseph Smith indicated, defending ex nihilo on the basis of the Hebrew word translated "created" cannot be sustained. The word is only used for acts of creation by God, and seems applicable to something only God can do. Beyond that, little else can be said. It should be noted that Moses 2:1-2 seems to favor and strengthen the idea God created the heaven and earth from nothing, but note especially Moses 1:35.
The strength of creation from pre-existing matter comes from parallels in Israel's cultural background at the time the account took its final shape. Genesis 2:5-9 is similarly constructed, and there is no doubt matter already existed when God created the world. Isaiah 45 refers to God's creative action in a way that is foreign neither to the pagan tales of creation nor to Genesis 1. If Moses is ambiguous when it comes to creatio ex nihilo, then the Book of Abraham certainly is not. For Utah Mormons, the account in Abraham and in Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse settles their theological stance.
Related links
- Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links
| Next |
