FACTS AND THOUGHTS

 
RAMBLINGS IN GENESIS

Initial Ramble - First Event
 
 
Ti.... Tic.... Tick.... Tock; Tick, Tock; Tick, Tock; Tick, Tock; Tick, Tock...... Thus the great clock of Time began to run.
And simultaneously with that first "Tick, Tock" there came into existence......
 
No-- That is incorrect. -- Let us begin again:
.... Simultaneously with that first "Tick, Tock" there was produced by an Omnipotent Being the two heavens and the earth.
 
What a tremendous statement!
And what a beginning for the greatest Book in the world!
 
How could seven simple words (seven in the original Hebrew language) say so much?
 
Genius?
 
No:--- Divine inspiration!
 
***
 
Let us look at the first verse of Genesis, breaking it down into four sections. Perhaps we can see, ever so vaguely, the tremendous scope and depth of thought involved here.
 
 
"In the beginning created (the) Omnipotent One the two heavens and the earth."
 
 
THE START
(bray-sheet') --- in the beginning.
 
(NOTE: It appears that fonts are not available on this web-site to write the Hebrew words, and therefore it is necessary to use a transliteration. I have tried to give a spelling in an attempt to convey an approximation of the Hebrew pronunciation. Here the "t'" is really "th" with the "h" almost silent.)
 
"In the beginning."
 
The beginning of what?
 
--- Just: "the beginning."
 
The Beginning: behind which there was no time; beside which there was no space. -- The Start.
 
 
This first Hebrew word is the first word in Genesis. At that starting point in time something happened. Something new.
 
The First Creative Act
 
(Bah-rah) --- he created.
 
This is the second word of the first verse of Genesis. It occupies a place of importance in the verse.
 
At the start there was an action. The Bible does not begin with "God." It begins with a verb: a word of action. He created.
 
The normal order of words in an Hebrew sentence is: (a) the VERB, followed by (b) its SUBJECT, then followed by (3) the OBJECT of the verb. (This was especially true in ancient Hebrew.) This is unlike our English sentence, in which the SUBJECT normally comes first, followed by the VERB, then the OBJECT.
 
Why is this?
 
In our culture and English language, we tend to place great emphasis on the person, the subject. If we hear that some event has taken place, we immediately want to know all about the person or persons who performed the action. So we tend to place the subject first, in the position of emphasis, followed by the verb.
 
But in Hebrew, the emphasis is upon the ACTION, the event, the happening. Only secondarily is the SUBJECT of the action considered. Therefore the verb normally comes first, followed by its subject.
 
Here in Genesis 1:1, the emphasis is placed upon the action of creation. The verb rendered "He created" comes first, before its subject.
 
Many people, not knowing the Hebrew, are wont to say that the Bible starts out with the words, "IN THE BEGINNING GOD." One writer has even gone so far as to say that if we learn these first four words, that is all we need to know. It will surely come as a surprise, therefore, to such persons to learn that the Bible does not say, "In the beginning God." Instead, the original language has it: "In the beginning created God." The emphatic word in the sentence is "created" rather than "God."
 
*
 
What does "create" mean?
 
Some people say that "to create" means "to make something out of nothing." With that definition this writer disagrees.
 
A comparison of Genesis 1:27 and 2:7 makes this evident. Adam--man--was formed out of the dust of the ground, and received a divine injection of breath, and so became a living being. So says 2:7. But 1:27 says Adam was "created." Therefore creation does not mean "out of nothing," because Adam was formed out of dust, and dust is not nothing.
 
What then is the meaning of "create"? May we suggest that it means "to produce something the like of which had not previously existed." There was no heaven nor earth until God produced--created--them.
 
*
 
The Tense of the Verb.
 
The verb "created" is in what is called by Hebrew scholars the "Perfect Tense." Tenses in the Hebrew language have a different connotation from Tenses in the English language.
In our language the time element is predominant. We have various past tenses to describe an action which took place in the past: Simple Past, (He went); Imperfect, (He was going); Perfect, (He has gone); Pluperfect (He had gone). We have tenses for an action currently taking place: the simple Present, (He goes); and the Ongoing Present
(He is going). Then we have the future: both the simple Future (He will go); and also the Future Perfect (He will have gone). In all of these the time element is predominant.
 
In the Hebrew language there are only two tenses: Perfect and Imperfect.
 
In neither of these is the time element predominant. (Note: the Hebrew participle is used to express an ongoing, "all the time" action.)
 
The Perfect Tense is used to speak of an action regarded as completed, finished, not to be repeated. Usually this refers to an action performed in the past, but it may refer to an action being completed in the present. Also in prophecy, because when God promises an action He guarantees to perform it, the Perfect Tense may be used to describe an action yet future but certain to be performed.
 
A parody of the prophetic Perfect Tense is found in the well-known Gilbert and Sullivan operetta, "The Mikado." The Mikado, the Emperor of Japan, has noted that no execution has taken place in a certain community and orders the Lord High Executioner to perform such. Later, when the Mikado himself comes to town, upon ascertaining that no execution has yet taken place, he demands an explanation. The Lord High Executioner, realizing his own life is a stake, offers a fanciful reason: "Your Majesty ordered an execution. Now when Your Majesty orders an execution, it is of course certain to be done. In fact, it is as good as done. So we may say, "it has been done." Now if an execution has thus been done, it is not necessary to perform it."
 
On the other hand, the Imperfect Tense describes an action not yet completed -- perhaps not yet even started -- or an action which, although done, needs to be repeated.
 
In neither tense, however, is the time element predominant.
 
In Genesis 1:1, the verb "created" is in the Perfect Tense. This means it has been accomplished, completed, and need not be repeated. The time element is found not in the verb itself, but in the adverbial word "in the beginning." It was in the beginning that the creative action both took place and was completed.
 
AN IMPORTANT NOTE: When speaking of the Creation, one tends to think of the so-called "Big Bang," and in fact one tries to read the Big Bang into this first verse of Genesis. Let us be very cautious about this. The Big Bang is only a theory, and although it looks extremely promising, it is still only a theory. In fact, some scientists are now beginning to question its validity, on the ground, among other things, that it does not adequately explain the rotation movement of some galaxies.
 
What we are saying here is: do not try to prove a statement in Scripture by some scientific theory. The Bible, being inspired by God, is its own proof. Rather, we should bring these scientific theories up to the Bible and test them by the Scripture. Insofar as they agree with Scripture, they have passed a basic test; if they are contradicted by Scripture, they are false, no matter how plausible they may sound.
 
We need test all theories by Scripture. We are not to test Scripture by any theories.
 
*
 
One further item to be noted about the verb: its form is in the third person masculine singular. That is, it means "he created." More will be said about this when we come to discussion of the word translated "God."
 
***
 
The Omnipotent One Who Created.
(Elohim) -- Omnipotent One. (God)
 
By the will and Word and work of an Omnipotent Being a vast universe was flung across that great void we ignorantly call "space."
 
But who was that Someone Who could do all this? No amplifying statement identified such a Being. We call Him "God," and capitalize the word to stress our ignorance.
 
Upon consulting the dictionary, the writer found this definition of the word "god": "a being of more than human attributes and powers." But just what does that mean? Birds have the attribute of flying, man does not. Fish have the attribute of swimming indefinitely under water;; man does not. Does this make birds and fishes gods? No. -- On the other hand, the elephant has much more power than an human being. Does that make an elephant a god? Of course not! So what does the definition mean? And then we capitalize the word and say that this "God" is the Supreme Being and Creator of the universe. What a confession of ignorance! --- And what a poor, inadequate translation is the word "God" of the rich Hebrew word transliterated "Elohim." Better to have left the transliterated-but-untranslated "Elohim" than to try to translate it by the word "God."
 
The start of progressive revelation.
The Bible does not tell us everything about God all at once. We are told little by little. It is only when we finish all sixty-six books of the Bible that we find out all that God wishes to say about Himself. And so the beginning of the Progressive Revelation of God is to express what He did rather than Who He is.
 
This is also in line with the place of Genesis in the Scripture. It is part of what we call "The Pentateuch" -- the first five books of the Old Testament.
 
Jews call the Pentateuch "the Torah." (The word is usually translated "Law.") Learned Rabbis will tell us that the primary meaning of the word is "teaching." Because God teaches with authority, His teaching is to be obeyed: therefore "law." Genesis 1:1 is part of this Torah.
 
Now an important element in good teaching is to impart slowly, little by little, the data to be learned. Isaiah expressed it thusly: "For it is precept upon precept; precept upon precept; line upon line; line upon line; here a little, there a little." (Isaiah 28:10.)
 
So Genesis starts out by the simple statement that a creation took place, a creation performed by One called "Elohim."
 

The meaning of "Elohim."

Those who know the Hebrew language well tell us that the abbreviated word "El" has the meaning of "powerful" or "mighty," and occurs in many ancient primitive languages, always referring to deity. "El" is found many times in the Old Testament, usually in compound form, as in the following examples:
 
El Elyon -- God most high. (Genesis 14:18);
El Roi --- God of seeing (Genesis 16:13);
El Shaddai - God Almighty (Genesis 17:1);
El Bet'el -- The God of Bethel (the house of God) (Genesis 31:13);
etc.
 
From this we get the expanded form "Eloah," a masculine singular noun, which occurs 57 times in the Old Testament, mostly in the book of Job. The plural form of this word is produced by adding "im" to the end (and dropping the "a") and thus we have the word "Elohim."
 
*
 
"Elohim," the plural form, occurs about 3000 times in the Old Testament, and seems to have several meanings, including the following:
It is used of human beings, especially when they occupy positions of authority. For example, in Psalm 82:6 it is addressed to human judges in Israel, where it is written: "I said, Ye are gods (Elohim,) and all of you sons of the Most High." It will be recalled that Jesus quoted this statement when defending Himself against those who accused Him of blasphemy (John 10:34.)
 
Again the word is sometimes used for the gods of the heathen (e.g., Psalm 86:8.)
 
For long time many Bible scholars have believed and interpreted that the word "Elohim" is sometimes applied to angels. Some instances are Psalm 97:7 and 138:1.
 
But by far the vast majority of times the word "Elohim" refers to the Deity Himself. More than 2500 times, in fact.
 
*
 
The grammatical paradox: a plural subject governing a singular verb.
The real problem with the word "Elohim," however, is the fact that it, a word with a plural ending ("-im") goes with a singular verb, "he created." By most rules of grammar in any language, this is a no-no. But here it is. Why?
 
Several explanations have been given. All have some merit. In each case, there are problems. Some of these explanations are:
There is the so-called "plural of majesty." Royalty, in speaking of themselves, often speak in the plural.
 
The story has been told about the Queen of Great Britain, H.R.M. Elizabeth II, who was entertaining certain guests in her palace. One of the company recited an anecdote which the Queen found offensive. Now any one of us might have objected by saying, "I don't think that is funny at all." But the Queen was quoted as saying, "We are not amused." She was speaking, not as a private person, but as the Sovereign of the Realm, and she used the "plural of majesty."
 
This sounds like a possible valid explanation of the plural "Elohim," but it has the problem that so to interpret is to "read into" a primitive narrative an usage arising much later, after the rise of royalty. This is eisegesis, and eisegesis is always dangerous.
 
The plural form is seen by some as "the plural of powers or offices." The Almighty is powerful, He is ruler of heaven and earth, He exercises freedom and administers justice for all, He is the giver of light and life, He is the Redeemer; -- we can go on and on. To use a modern saying, "The Almighty wears many hats."
 
There is real merit in this argument. However, like the previous suggestion, it involves reading into this beginning Scripture several doctrines which are not introduced or developed until much later. We previously spoke of the Bible as presenting to us a "progressive revelation." To interpret the plural form of the subject as meaning a plurality of powers, here at the very beginning of the Bible story, is to violate the principle that the doctrine of God is developed slowly and simply.
 
An explanation favoured by many is to interpret the grammatical difficulty by the doctrine of "the Trinity." "Elohim," being in the plural, refers to three or more persons, while "bah-rah," being singular, speaks of the action of the "One God."
 
But there is a difficulty in accepting this interpretation uncritically, and we must face the problem. As stated before, we have in the Bible a progressive revelation of God. In the first verse of Genesis we have the unexplained word "Elohim," and the chief emphasis of the verse, as noted before, is not so much on His Person as upon His activity. He created. Later we will find other names for the Deity, and more presented as to His character and activity.
 
However, we have no direct statement for the Trinity in the entire Old Testament. All the evidence seems to be for the singularity of God. (See, for example, Israel's great "Shema": Deuteronomy 6:4.) It is not until we come to the New Testament, with its testimony about Jesus, then later the testimony about the Holy Spirit, that we begin to see a plurality in the Godhead. Even the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. That term was apparently first used by Tertullian late in the Second Century A.D., and was later formalized in church councils in later centuries.
 
Therefore to read "Trinity" into the plural form "Elohim" back here in the beginning of Genesis seems to partake of eisegesis, the reading into Scripture more than is intended. It is a dangerous method of interpretation and should be used only with great caution. Now it may well be true that the Trinity is involved in the word "Elohim," but prudence recommends that we not insist on it here in Genesis 1:1.
 
This writer would like to suggest a possible fourth interpretation. His own study has led him to this, but he has subsequently found a little support for at least part of his theory. As briefly as possible, he is his view:
 
Although the Hebrew word "Elohim" is almost universally considered to be a noun, sometimes it has an adjectival quality. The writer's own Hebrew professors have both long ago passed away, and he has no-one of adequate knowledge of such matters whom he may consult, so he must risk his own unsupported judgment. It is to suggest that perhaps the word "Elohim" is really an adjective, although usually used as a substantive. Grammar was not handed down as fiat, but rather was developed by analysis of the speech forms of a people.
We have already noted that the root meaning of the word "Elohim" is "powerful," "mighty" --- words of descriptive quality.
 
Sometimes the word "Elohim" seems definitely to be used as an adjective. Such a case is found in Genesis 23:6.
This was the occasion when Abraham, seeking a burialplace for his wife Sarah, approached the children of Heth in Hebron. They agreed to help him, saying (according to the King James Version): "Thou art a mighty prince among us." Now the word translated "mighty" is in the original language "elohim." Although most modern translations change the text to read "Prince of God," the writer believes there is justification for retaining the KJV translation.
 
On the one hand, the "children of Heth," being Hittites (Genesis 49:30,) would hardly be expected to use a term as lofty as "prince of God." On the other hand it was a compliment to the perceived greatness of Abraham to call him "mighty prince."
 
We are told that Abraham owned herds of livestock, of various kinds, perhaps numbering into the thousands of heads. (Genesis 12:16; 20:14.) We are told that the herds of both Abraham and Lot were so great that they were overgrazing the land (Genesis 13:6.) We know that Abraham employed at least 318 men to manage his property (Genesis 14:14.) He also was wealthy in silver and gold (Genesis 13:2.) By all the evidence, he maintained a thriving and very large operation, and probably was a very influential person in all that area. No wonder he was called a "mighty prince."
 
The writer therefore feels that the KJV translation more accurately conveys the true viewpoint of the children of Heth. We see that the KJV clearly treats the word "elohim" as an adjective in this place.
 
(c-) Adjectives have a special property not available to nouns. They have comparative and superlative degrees: big, bigger, biggest; small, smaller, smallest; good, better, best; etc.
 
The Hebrew plural form has a slightly different meaning than the English plural. Whereas in English the singular means "one," and the plural means "two or more"; in Hebrew there are three forms: singular (one); dual (two); and plural (three or more.) The word "Elohim" is plural, i.e., "three or more."
 
Therefore it is the theory of the writer that "Elohim," being an adjective, uses the plural form to express the superlative degree." If this be the case, then "Elohim" may not be plural but rather superlative: "very mighty" or "mightiest." (There will be further use of this concept in the coming Second Chapter of this essay.) As a result, being superlative rather than plural, it would really be in agreement with the singular verb "he created." Since the root meaning is "powerful," "mighty," it could be translated as "all powerful." Accordingly, when the writer finds "Elohim" used in reference to the Deity, he renders it "Omnipotent One."
 
Consonant with the beginning lesson in the progressive Torah (teaching) about God, if the word "Elohim" be an adjective, He is here not so much identified but rather described, as almighty in power. Therefore "Elohim" is really not so much a name but rather a title -- perhaps His fundamental title.
 
A further word needs to be said regarding the four aforementioned interpretations. They are not necessarily mutually-contradictory. We know oh, so little about God, and that only what He has revealed about Himself. Furthermore we do not know even how to interpret that which He has revealed. So all four theories may be true in part. We perhaps need not choose between them, but rather accept them all: the plural of majesty, the plural of offices, the plural of Trinity, and the adjectival superlative.
 
The Moslems say: "Allah Akbar" -- God is great. We too can say "God is great, far greater than any of us can imagine." Elohim: the Omnipotent One! How much more meaningful is it to translate "Elohim" as "Omnipotent One" rather than by the indefinite word "God" -- even though capitalized!
 
The Created Universe.
(et' ha-shamayim w'et' ha-aretz) -- the two heavens and the earth.
 
This act of creation was so great and so vast that it involved the production of both the heavens and the earth -- in other words, the entire universe that we know.
 
The more we learn about the immensity and complexity of the universe -- and with the new Hubbell telescope in use, astronomers are discovering how much more vast is the universe than previously thought -- the more we ought to appreciate the infinite greatness of the Omnipotent One Who created it.
 
And this creation by the Omnipotent One was not even His handiwork. David the Psalmist, tending his sheep and looking at the night sky resplendent with moonglow and the light of a million stars, called it all the work, not of God's hands, but of His fingers. (Psalm 8:3.) This vast creation was but little finger-work on God's part.
 
The word for "the heavens" (ha-shamayim) appears to be in the dual form: i.e., "two heavens." There is the atmospheric heaven, where the birds fly, and there is the sidereal heaven, where the stars are located. It is perhaps significant that the Apostle Paul spoke of one being caught up into a "third heaven" (II Corinthians 12:2), identified as "Paradise." Here in Genesis we have "two heavens," which with the earth constitute the entire physical universe.
 
When did all this act of creation take place? How long a time did it take to create it all? We are not told. It was simply "in the beginning." Was it from twelve to twenty-two billion years ago (a time frame often allotted to the so-called "big bang")? Was it farther back than that? Was it less time than that? We are not told. It was only "in the beginning." All we know is that it was completed -- finished -- not needing either to be repeated or to be corrected. It was a perfect accomplishment, which only an Omnipotent One could do.
 
The Completeness of the Entire Sentence.
The sentence constituting this first verse of Genesis is a complete sentence. It is a plain statement of fact, unembellished. Some modern translators try to preface the statement with the adverb of time "when" and thus would make it dependent upon verse two. We need not do this. The emphatic word of the second verse, and the verbs of the second verse, in the writer's opinion deny this. The first verse is a sentence standing alone, both in form and in meaning. It described an event preceding all others. It was a statement needing no further embellishment or explanation. Rather, all other events in time take the described event as precedent and prerequisite.
 
Finally, it is the event precedent to, and typifying, the "new creation in Messiah Jesus" (see II Corinthians 5:17), which is the ultimate New Testament counterpart. No more grand or glorious statement could have been made to begin the Divine Revelation we call The Bible.
 
In the beginning created (the) Omnipotent One the two heavens and the earth.
 
 

.... tick, tock; tick, tock; tick, tock; tick, tock ....

 
 
--- Norman L. MacLeod Jr.
 

FACTS AND THOUGHTS

 

INDEX