Was Genesis 1:1 the Original Creation?

- a word study on Genesis 1:1 "In the Beginning"

- Tom Henderson April 2002 draft

 

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Questions: Was the original creation Genesis 1:1? Was there possibly an indefinite period of time before the Creation week day 1 citation beginning in verse 3 (or verse 1)?

Notes: As I am not a Bible authority, I utilize many quotes of Bible commentary resources authored by conservative theologians. Their views mostly fall into two camps on the first question ("yes" or "no"). I group their views within these two categories.

Use of the Bible term "In the beginning"

"In the beginning" = Heb. transliteration = reshith = first, former [Ref. 2 p. 83]

resiyt (51 times) = first (13), beginning(s) (7+1), when (1) [Ref 7 p.125, 1611]

1.  William White rejects translating reshith as "when" due to its other occurrences and the fact that John 1:1 follows the LXX translation of the Gen. 1:1 occurrence. White concludes "Gen. 1:1 opens with the very first and initial act of the creation of the cosmos." [Ref. 1 #2097f, 1: 826]

 

2.  Kyle Yates commentary on "In beginning" = Heb. bereshith:

"The author takes the reader back before time, into the unfathomable reaches of eternity, though language fails him as he seeks to suggest the state of things before time was. He gives no hint of a tangible date for this beginning. His account reaches back into the time before dating of events." [Ref 6 p.2]

 

Bruce Waltke views Genesis 1:1 as a "summary statement of the creation of the cosmos", with the creation week beginning in verse 3.

"In the beginning. The daring claim of verse 1, which encapsulates the entire narrative, invites the reader into the story. Its claim and invitation is that in the beginning God completed perfectly this entire cosmos. ‘Beginning’ refers to the entire created event, not something before the six days nor a part of the first day. (Note: This is a relative beginning. As verse 2 seems to indicate, there is a pre-Genesis time and space.) Although some have argued that 1:1 functions as merely the first event of creation, rather than a summary of the whole account, the grammar makes that interpretation improbable. (Note: Those who hold to that view believe that 1:2 clarifies 1:1, that is, God creates the earth as an unformed mass.)" Waltke notes that Martin Luther and John Calvin took this position. [Ref 9 p.55, 58]

 

Matthew Henry views "In the beginning" as the beginning of time. [Ref 11 1:2]

Allen P. Ross [Ref 3, 1:28] cites Unger [Ref 4, 1:5]

"It is more likely that verse 1 refers to a relative beginning rather than the absolute beginning."

"The chapter would then be accounting for the Creation of the universe as man knows it, not the beginning of everything, and verses 1-2 would provide the introduction to it." [Ref 3, 1:28].

These two quotes occur within a paragraph mentioning the "gap" theory interpretation and appear to prefer the idea that the fall of Satan and entrance of sin occurred before verse 1 rather than in a "gap". I haven’t yet read the context of Unger, but I strongly oppose both a gap and the fall of Satan being before the Creation week. This context makes me uncomfortable with Ross’ citation of Unger.

Also see Ref 5 development by Ross. I included this interpretation as Option 1 of my on-line article: "The Distant Starlight Problem for Young-age Creation Models"  [Ref. 12]

 

Unger discusses alternative views of "In the Beginning"

.. the phrase "in the beginning" of John 1:1 antedates the time "in the beginning" of Gen. 1:1, even if the later is interpreted as the original creation of the earth and the universe.

The original earth created ex nihilo was brought into being by the hand of God ...

If "in the beginning" is a relative beginning with regard to the late-comer man, then "created" does not refer to God’s activity in bringing the universe into being ex nihilo (out of nothing), but His refashioning the earth and its sidereal heavens at a much later period in geological history. [Ref 8 p. 37, his emphasis]

Unger entertains the possibility of a "gap" before Genesis 1:1 in the following quote.

"Genesis 1:2 and the Gap Theory. This verse has been sometimes held to portray a chaotic visitation of divine judgment upon the original earth and made a slot to pigeonhole scientific difficulties. To place this gap in 1:2 is untenable as is proved by the Hebrew text, which shows that all three clauses of 1:2 are circumstantial either to the main clause in 1:1 or that in 1:3. Presumably 1:2 is circumstantial to 1:1, putting the gap not in 1:2 but before 1:1. This is a possible interpretation that must be reckoned with in an era of alleged conflict between the Genesis account of creation and modern science." (My emphasis)[Ref 8 p.37-38]

I don’t like the idea of a relative beginning or creating a gap merely to accommodate current evolutionary views of the age of the cosmos. Young-age creationists are actively exploring alternatives. I note some in Reference 12. Two of these do allow undefined time before 1:3 or 1:1. In fact the purpose of this study is to explore those two options further.

 

Sidenote: For the fall of Satan I cite Ezekiel 28 to suggest Satan was unfallen after the Creation week. Charles H. Dyer supports this interpretation [Ref 3 1:1283]

Ezekiel 28:12niv "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "'You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

13  You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.

14  You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.

15  You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.’"[Ref 10]

 

Conclusion: It is difficult to draw conclusions on Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning", for conservative theologians disagree. As a general principle, I tend to hold my views loosely on matters like this. After all, no one’s Bible interpretations are infallible. I invite comments and feedback.

 

Refs.

  1. Harris, R. Laird; Gleason L. Archer, Jr.; Bruce K. Waltke, editors. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1980.[up]

  2. Young, Robert. Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible New York, Funk & Wagnalls, 1936. [This source used to identify words in the original languages.][up]

  3. Ross, Allen P. (Genesis); John F. Walvoord & Roy B. Zuck, editors. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.[up]

  4. Unger, Merrill F., Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981, 1:5.[up]

  5. Ross, Allen P., Creation & Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. Baker, 1988, Appendix 1 "The Interpretation of Genesis 1:1-3", pp 718-723[up]

  6. Yates, Kyle M., Jr. (Genesis author); Charles F. Pfeiffer (Old Testament), Everett F. Harrison (New Testament), editors. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Nashville: The Southwestern Company, 1962.[up]

  7. Goodrick, Edward W. & others, editors, The NIV Exhaustive Concordance. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.[up]

  8. Unger, Merrill F., Unger’s Bible Handbook. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.[up]

  9. Waltke, Bruce K., Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001[up]

  10. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973[up]

  11. Henry, Matthew; Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the whole Bible. Marshallton DE: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1972 [London, Fisher edition, 1845][up]

  12. Henderson, Thomas H.; The Distant Starlight Problem for Young-age Creation Models. , 1999 [up]

Copyright © 2003, Thomas H. Henderson

Return to Creation Home Page Return to Tom Henderson Home Page
Revised 7/25/03.  You are invited to e-mail comments, questions or suggestions: