The question of origins pieces from whence one has come to understand better where one is to go to build a complete narrative based upon the foundation and logic of the past to look forward to what will be. One will understand that much of my foresight is rooted in hindsight which drives my teleological readings of just about all I see. Such coherence plots out previous intersections’ points to posit plausible trajectories for what is to come in a now unto the not yet sense. Much appears “unseen” in Genesis’s opening lines to which modern auditors gravitate who remain far apart from the appropriate context to have the need perspective to comprehend the intricacies involved in, e.g., the grammar and culture required to avail oneself of such delicacies.
While some tend to see some places of congruence with modern theories in science, what largely gets overlooked is perhaps what the ancient audience would have inferred as of most import. Has that animus lost its realia entirely upon the most modern readings? It would seem so based upon the current foci mainly in play in this chapter’s present discussions. Thus, it will become evident I do not concord much as there is so much which cannot be aligned lest one fall in the trap of “flattening the earth” so to speak as to lose momentum toward the ascension one is to make as one charts one’s way onward.
To waste energy in “concording” what one can while dancing about what one cannot removes the focus away from the original intent meant for the reader to ascertain. Games like this might be fun to play, but in the end, is not the actual game afoot then cast aside for something far less provocative? When what is central is shifted, the passage loses its resonance. The reader falls out of cadence with the intended rhythms to navigate the flow sensibly and sensitively for best comprehension of much of what is to follow.
Regardless of one’s attempted “mission,” what is faithful to the text for all has been diverted to what is deemed valid for only a portion of its audience down through the ages. The text’s telos is dropped for the reader’s own creation narrative to make it whatever the reader desires while allowing oneself to be unbounded from what the author had wanted to convey. While this may seem plausible in some senses, to lose sight of its initial meaning might cause one to err in alternative readings if one is not careful. Such efforts should only be encouraged after the original intent has been mastered to ground one into forays never intended by the author without the appropriate authority.
Wasted opportunities warrant more careful renderings to garner much-needed insight. To each his own, I suppose or as Genesis puts it more aptly here perhaps, “each after its own kind.” YHWH has an intendment that seems at least to this auditor to bear upon all who would wish to partake. If not heeded, the balance of YHWH’s messaging can easily set one on courses never meant. Balance and caution must rule the day when one wishes to lose reservations without carefully considering where such methods may lead, especially those who follow such diversified readings if the original intent gets lost in those excursions.
Thus, in the beginning, there is only God. Yes, in the Hebrew, this word is plural as in אֱלֹהִים/ʾĕlōhîm. The verb ברא/brʾ, though, requires it in its pertinent morphology to be translated singularly utilizing a possible “plural of majesty” construct, which fits nicely in many places in the Hebrew Bible. The concept cannot be so easily managed in other contexts like vs. 26 as there is no such construct in Hebrew Grammar support any such first-person plural usage.[1] Often, what is said in vs. 1 gets correlated to other passages without the correct grammar skills to guide one from making such errors.
For those in the traditions so caught up on the five solas, here is the first of all solas—“In the beginning, God…” Out of reverential respect, the plural may have been applied to reflect the majesty of YHWH. Before anything came to be known, the only reality was God—God, and God alone. However one wishes to parse “God” in a Judeo-Christian background, it is just God.
Many have highlighted concerning the verb ברא/brʾ, God remains, in the Bible, its only subject. Only God can or ever does ברא/brʾ anything. But that is not the only thing God does in Gen 1, and when he does, one should take note of its significance as to when it appears and what its context is as opposed to when it does not appear in this chapter. What else remains to be seen in this chapter? What else lurks beneath the text remains to be seen in future posts. Please stay tuned.
[1] See §114e in Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), n2; also § 136d.
