Restart
In the beginning . . . Genesis 1:1 (virtually all translations)
Beginning – If you have been paying attention for the last few years, you know that the opening word of Scripture is bere’shit. It does not mean “in the beginning.” If it did, it would require a definite article (“the”) incorporated into the word (b’hareshit). The JPS translation is a bit closer with “When God began,” but even that has problems. The point of looking at the grammar is not to determine the proper translation but to understand why translations like those in most English Bibles can point us toward some devastating and unwarranted conclusions. Frankly, I’m not sure what the English version of bere’shit should be. I’m not sure there really is one. But I do know that there are implications about “in the beginning” that can cause some serious problems.
Consider this: the usual theological suggestion incorporated into “in the beginning” is that this statement marks the beginning of not just the physical universe but also the temporal domain. In other words, this event separates God (who existed before this event) from everything else. Everything else started here. Everything else is created and separate from the Creator. God is removed from everything that is found within the temporal realm. Two serious conclusions follow. First, God’s transcendence dominates. This includes His sovereignty but it is not limited to ultimate authority. If we postulate that God existed before the creation of time, then in some real but virtually unexplainable way, God is not a part of all creation. He exists outside the rest of everything else. His true existence is not only independent of creation but is ontologically distant from creation. He is not intimately involved. His experience of creation is not like ours at all. It simply can’t be since He does not know temporality like we do. He is the wholly other. What we know about God is really the human reduction of information to a realm that is basically incompatible with who He really is. We believe in a caricature of God, but that is the best we can ever hope for. God isn’t what we might imagine because we can’t imagine anything that isn’t within the temporal frame. Oh, we can postulate negative statements about what that might be, but we have no positive reference for any of His real existence. Frankly, in the end, we don’t know Him and we cannot know Him.
There is a further implication. Everything we read in the Bible about God is ultimately inaccurate. Why? Because the entire text of the Bible treats God as if He also experiences temporality. All the verbs that explain His actions have temporal locality and duration. Everything that describes Him assumes a being who is at home within the temporal frame. All of His instructions, compassion, grace and care reside in the temporal arena. Furthermore, these descriptions strongly suggest that the future is not fixed. It is in the process of becoming, just as we are in the process of becoming. Every act of God entails temporal risk which He has accepted in order to be intimately involved with His creation. Things are determined ahead of time, as if God could open the book and read all future events. That is the idea of fate, and the Bible firmly rejects it. But if “in the beginning” marks a hard distinction between God and all the rest, then all of this biblical verbiage about God’s involvement in life is ultimately human wish-projection.
Let me put it bluntly. If “in the beginning” excludes God, then we have no real reason to believe anything the Bible tells us about Him. But if what the Bible says is true of God, then we share a temporal orientation with our Creator that leaves the door of the universe open. God and humanity have mutual responsibility for creating the future in temporal progress. The ‘olam ha’ba isn’t a fixed world waiting for us to arrive. It is a malleable world arriving as both parties shape what is happening.
Just one more theological thought. Why would anyone want a God who exists outside of the realm of all creation? Why would theologians suggest bere’shit is about a temporal beginning, removing God from all He makes? The answer seems clear. Postulating an extemporal God eternally separates God from Man. It leaves God in the place of absolute control through knowledge and action. It denies that Man has any real input to the plans and purposes of God. It upholds to the highest possible degree the total difference between God and Man. But it comes at a great price. Genesis 1:26-27 must be reinterpreted as so much anthropomorphic chatter. The future turns into something like compulsion rather than choices. And God is ultimately responsible for sin.
Ah, what havoc a tiny word like a definite article can cause.
Topical Index: bere’shit, the, Genesis 1:1, time, creation
While it’s true that the word “the” isn’t in the text. It does, however, mean, literally, in beginning/at first, God created… In the beginning of what? He created something that didn’t exist into something that now did. Which is the heavens, the earth, and everything that is in them,including mankind.
God existed outside of what we perceive, time. And still does.
I just don’t see the “excluding of God” in that. We didn’t make some kind of choice to create, He did. And we don’t “create” the future. We participate in it. He creates, not us. Sure we have choices but, only the Creator creates. Not the created. We are the clay, He’s the potter.
If God didn’t exist before anything and everything else, then that would make no sense to “creation” being created. I mean what was before what we know as His creation? Nothing that we could see, feel and touch. Well, how could it? “We”,”mankind”, didn’t even exist.
It is tough Mark to wrap our thoughts around the abstract. You ask; “If God didn’t exist before anything and everything else…”, which draws us into the conclusion that at one time there was nothing but God and outside of God there was nothing, meaning God was everything.
If that is where we start; Then all that is, is part of the everything that was, and that is God.
I think it is Skip who has written of the root word for Compassion found in Hebrew as being associated with the Hebrew word for ‘Womb’, that protective vassal that contains, protects, within a perfect environment the contained and which serves no other purpose to the bearer than to form a place within the bearer of total security for that which is contained within.
Has God provided a womb within that everything that God is; for the benefit of only that which is within God? Where else might ‘we’ exist? IF all that is, exists within everything?
It does, however, mean, literally, in beginning/at first, God created… In the beginning of what? He created something that didn’t exist into something that now did.
es
Hi Mark, something that you may consider. While the term “rosh” can be translated as “beginning”, it goes beyond that as well. It has, more than, a connotation of “rulership” or headship as well and is often used in that capacity. However, something that we often miss is the aspect of “influence” that is inherent in the word as well. An example of that is the term, “rosh mem”, or poison waters. In that term, it’s the influence of the additive that is brought forward and I would suggest that it is inherent in the other uses and translations as well. In other words, “rosh” as a ruler has a lot to do with the influence a leader has on the people under his covering. “as the king goes, so go the peoples” Going back to what Skip said in the post, perhaps it’s not so much about a “beginning” as much as it may be about the order and relationship “imposed” on what exists. I’m not discrediting “ex nihilo”, just suggesting that it may not be what the text is really about and that we bring that idea to the text because of our training.
YHWH bless you and keep you……
Can the first line be (gramatically) rendered as:
“Elohim bara b’reshit et hashamasim et haeretz”?
Hey Pieter, just out of curiosity. What do you mean by “grammatically” rendered?
Hi Robert,
I do not know Hebrew… but if my understanding is correct, one can put the most important word in a sentence first.
If we do that with the first line of Genesis, it literally scientifically defines the “Big Bang”: “Elohim bara (beginning of) time and space and matter”
The rest of Genesis 1 (1:2 to 2:2a. 2:2b to 2:3 describes the millennium) has been shown to describe the events following the BB.
Shalom
It’s interesting how what motivates us often defines what we see. For example, we seem to want to “prove” that God created the universe, but it doesn’t seem that God bothers so much with that as much as He wants us to know what He does with His universe. He tells us that He makes fat/creates, hovers/contemplates, speaks to, as to His own people, (amar) that He’s engaged and concerned and active in this world. That’s an amazing thought for a bunch of ex-slaves who had been subject to the whims of cruel and indifferent kings and gods for a number of generations. How bout’ today?
Hi Pieter, I have to back up and apologize to you on this one, as I didn’t even attempt to address your query. My mind went another direction and for that, I apologize. Perhaps it’s because I don’t really have the answer you are looking for. 🙂 I will say this though in regards to grammar in Hebrew. I’ve noticed that our modern English structure of emphasis on thought is vastly different than ancient Hebrew, as a matter of fact, modern Hebrew is considerably different than it’s ancient counterpart. it would seem that modern grammatical usage has attempted to be applied to an ancient structure and the result is that there has become a certain convoluting of the intent. I think the best way to understand the text is to read the text in comparison to itself and things begin to unravel over time. Anyway, my apologies again and YHWH bless you and keep you……
Thanks Robert for your honesty.
I refrained from responding to your first answer as I sensed that something was amiss.
I do not need to explain the existence of YHWH, but had this epiphany / revelation about 4 months ago that the first line of Genesis was a statement of the “big bang”. For me this would have been an excellent example of the great and hidden things YaHUHaY have disguised for our pleasure in their TORAH. This greatly excited me but alas, no one, … from street wanderers to nuclear physicists, was interested in considering my postulation.
Shalom
Unfortunately that is a more often than not response. ? We’re told to share, what we’re not told is the response that we may receive. Keep chugging, let God deal with the things outside our control!
Who Created Who?
Who created who? Did God create man or did man “create” God? And yes, let’s “kick it up a notch.” Did the Creator become the created? The Record states: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto HImself.” Did the Infinite humble Himself to become the finite? God in human flesh? Were those tears shed for Lazurus of Bethany and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, human or Divine? (or both?).
Did the earth “self-start?” Are we evolved from monkey to man (and back again..) from some puddle of primordial ooze? And where did this very scientific carbonated “goop” come from? Something comes from nothing — right? Are Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Samaria “real” or “imaginary” places? And what of the people living there.. – are these “real people?”
Oh, how we MUST be “willingly ignorant..” – in a “highly intelligent,” sophisticated sort of way.. Our Bible says it best (of course!), ‘the fool has said in his heart.. “No, God.” The ongoing war seems to be the “authentic” vs. the “artificial.” And again, the scriptures speak: “you (sir) do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”
As for me and my house? Friend, – we will serve the LORD!! (and) “Blessed is the Name of the LORD!” From this time forth and forevermore. Amen.
This perhaps would be clearer if we went and took a good hard look at the beliefs of paganism, which exclude a personal God Who is intimately involved in His creation. I think the problem is not the wording so much as the paradigms of the world that we bring to it. I would like to implore that we not put the Word on trial: instead let us call to account what each and every one of us bring to that Word, and become as little children, who know that they do not know. Creation itself presupposes that there is the Other that is Not Creation, which is to bring forth something out of nothing – from non-existence to existence – unlike the Begetting, which is to bring forth out of Self, of course.
Unfortunately, I think there is no way to interpret the Word so as to overcome the mindsets and beliefs that we bring to it. I would like to say that none of us were there, so none of us know, so if we want to gang up on something, I could suggest we go after the pagan in all of us that we bring to this subject, which would encompass all Skip has listed, and more. Now, THERE’S a minefield!
“He asked me, “Human being, can these bones live?”
I answered, ” Adonai Elohim! Only you know that!”
I am with Ezekiel – Adonai Elohim ! Only you know that! ……..So I prophesied as ordered…….Ezekiel 37:3-7
I love this glorious mystery that is my Abba and with Carl I say – As for me and my house We will serve the Lord
The Christian apologist William Lane Craig postulated that, “God exists a-temporally sans-creation, and temporally with creation.” This seems to eliminate the inherent contradiction in the concept of something existing “before” time (since “before” is itself a temporal time – sans time, there can be no “before”). It also avoids the “spatialisation of time” fallacy.
One school of Jewish thought expresses it differently. Given that God is infinite, and has “always” existed, there would be no room for creation. There can be no darkness if there is only God. Therefore, God had to “contract” a part of himself (this is the concept of tzimtzum – contraction or restriction) in order to create a space in which to create life, the universe and everything (with apologies to Douglas Adams). The light He created in this universe (when He spoke the words “yehi ohr” – light be!) is but a shadow or reflection of the infinite light of God. Rather than God existing “apart from” or “outside” his creation, creation exists entirely “in” Him. In tzimtzum, He not only contracted a part of Himself, but He also restricts on Himself in how He interacts with His creation. This is the attribute of mercy (chessed), without which judgement (gevurah) would be swift and unrelenting. Skip scratched the surface of some of this in his book, “God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience” (and if you’ve ever read the book you’ll know that that statement implies that these things are very, very deep indeed, if Skip was only “scratching the surface”). Judgement is also associated with restriction and mercy with expansiveness. The two find balance in tiferet (beauty), which is associated with King Messiah.
On another note, it has often been asked why it is that the Hebrew scriptures begin with the letter ֪ב bet, rather than א aleph (the first letter of the aleph-bet). One reason sometimes given is that aleph is silent, like a sigh or a breath. Bet is the first letter that has a sound – the first that can be spoken. Creation began first in the mind of God, with the intent to create, which was silent (א) but its existence began with God speaking. Another explanation has to do with the shape of ב. Remembering that Hebrew is written right-to-left, the ב is closed to the right, above and below and open to the left, as if the rest of scriptures were emanating from the first spoken letter. The sages suggest that what is recorded in the scriptures is open to us, but what is above, what is below and what was before is closed to us. God has told us what He knows we need to know. Our task is to study it and put it into practice – to paraphrase Skip (I think I’m attributing this correctly), “…to bring the rule and reign of God into our world, wherever we go, every day”.
Shalom. And for those remembering Tisha b’Av on Sunday (remembering that it is forbidden to fast on Shabbat), may it be an easy fast.
Oops – typo above. “Before” is itself a temporal term (not time).
Good midrash Rodney. Thanks.
One small technical point, Skip. To incorporate the definite article into a word prefixed with ב requires only that the vowel under the ב be changed to a qamatz (the ה is dropped). Thus, it would be read “ba’reshiyt” rather than “b’reshiyt”. Given that the nikkud post-date the original texts by some centuries, it may well be that the original reading was intended to be “in THE beginning”, rather than “in beginnings”, “when beginning” or “when He began”.
This quote from the Midrash Rabbah is also pertinent here, tying Gen 1:1 to Prov 8:22 (and, by extension, to Prov 3:19):
The Torah declares: ‘I was the working tool of the Holy One, blessed be He.’ In human practice, when a mortal king builds a palace, he builds it not with his own skill but with the skill of an architect. The architect moreover does not build it out of his head, but employs plans and diagrams to know how to arrange the chambers and the wicket doors. Thus Elohim consulted the Torah and created the world, while the Torah declares, IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED (I,1), BEGINNING referring to the Torah, as in the verse, YHWH made me as the beginning of His way (Prov. VIII, 22).
(Genesis Rabbah 1:5)
[Pro 3:19 KJV] 19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.
(In Proverbs 8, “me” or “I” is the personification of Wisdom, which the Midrash Rabbah here links to the Torah).
Note that all of these references refer to a definite beginning of creation by an existing God, but not one who is removed from Creation, rather one who is seen in and through creation and who is “in search of man” (ref. Heschel) to restore him to his original place of relationship with the Creator.
Thanks Rodney.
As for the reference to Proverbs 8, I also see Wisdom as participant in the action. But, of course, this is reflection on the text some centuries after the supposed authorship of the Genesis account. And that’s also the caveat with the rabbinic material. My question is what would it have meant to the original audience, despite the later articulations. It seems quite impossible to me that any ex-slave from Egypt would view the process in such a way as to include an extemporal God. And I find the logic of extemporaneity as espoused by Aquinas and others to be internally flawed if not downright contradictory. So even if the original was intended to be “in THE beginning,” this does not eliminate the temporality of God’s being. Again, it depends on the THEOLOGICAL assumptions rather than the strict reading of the text as it might have appeared.
Anyway, it’s a very complicated issue which, in my view, is better settled by examining the implications.
Rom 11:36 seeing that out of Him and through Him and for Him is all: to Him be the glory for the eons! Amen!
According to this literal translation, God did not create everything out of nothing. No. Everything came out of Him, is through Him and is for Him. That makes more sense. How can something come from nothing? And it is more satisfying, making the connection to us, and indeed everything, personal to God. As Laurita and Richard indicated, it is more like an internal begetting from the womb than a creation from a cold and foreign outsider.
God is not separate or removed from everything else. With the understanding that all is out, through and for Him, I don’t see any problem with believing God existed before the creation of the universe, or even before time itself.
The other day I was reading about the size of the universe.
Not too long ago, we knew of one galaxy in the universe, the Milky Way.
Now, two more have been discovered: Andromedia and the Triangulum galaxies,
thanks to the Hubble Telescope and supercomputers.
But that’s just the beginning! Astronomers at the Univ. of Auckland estimate
there are roughly 100 to 200 billion other galaxies, possibly up to 500 billion.
Considering His eye can be focused on a single small sparrow, even numbering
the hairs on our heads, it makes me scratch my head to consider just how great
He actually is!
Truly so, Rich! The more so we appreciate the magnitude, if that can be measured, of His chesed and rachamim (mercies) He ever extends to us, and mankind, for the beasts we are, exhibiting such arrogance and pride, towards each other and to Him.
YHWH’s awesomeness is way beyond our finite knowledge and comprehension.
Shalom!
Very intriguing thoughts here! It IS complicated and perhaps men have made it so over the centuries since God created and began this journey. I don’t see Him as being out there unattached to His creation (extemporaneous) at all. That just doesn’t make sense and I am no scholar as some are here. Some thoughts written are beyond my simple mind but then again, some are helpful to me.
I think God’s magnitude is beyond my comprehension. I know He created all (gave birth to) and in the Garden there was harmony between all. I sense that, living in His creation with His creatures.
I surely appreciate this stretching of my mind as it helps me wade through the paradigms here on Earth. When I see how much of what I believe has been shaped by this church or that church, it makes me dig deeper to see what the text “really” says. It is my thought that most churches impose serious limits on God and His abilities (not to mention tend to make Him mystical) and that seriously shortchanges folks and limits their thinking.
“”Let me put it bluntly. If “in the beginning” excludes God, then we have no real reason to believe anything the Bible tells us about Him. “”
The opening verse reads “In the beginning God created (Aleph-Tav)…”
the silent Aleph-Tav is the personal connection, the Messiah can be Absolute, God is limitless
Time and God’s place in it seem to be quite a conversation! I’d highly recommend reading Skip’s dissertation paper on time (I think it was a dissertation paper). It’s quite a read, but it’s got a ton of good and interesting thoughts about God and where/how/if he fits into our view of time. I think it’s somewhere on the site, but I don’t remember where.
Just a thought. 🙂
Amanda
John 1:1-4 Gen 1… Are these versus saying the same thing, or maybe supplementing each other to try and prevent misunderstanding of the biblical records thereby implying that for a purpose God made the earth and what was to follow… A timeline of events to materialise in an end result. This not being the beginning of the creation but rather the begining of God achieving His goal. Here the NT refers to humans accepting the word to become sons and daughters… Implying what participaters in working towards the manifestation of Gods will. Or doers of specific deeds to sustain the progress to achieving Gods goal.
Lovely indepth discussion of the words used. Thank you.