Creation from nothing? Earth was formless …

Creation from nothing? The earth was formless, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. I think my title summarized the second verse of Genesis pretty well. My software to analyze my chances of ranking well on Google didn’t like it at all. It even said it was negative. I hope you like it better. At least enough to start reading it!

Creation from nothing? Earth was formless ... is article #5 in the series: In The Beginning. Click this button to view titles for the entire series

Important note: As you read this, if it gets to be too much, more detail than you want to get into, don’t worry about it. Just skip this segment.

Future installments will talk a bit about the general ideas, but nothing close to this much detail.

So, if you want to skip this one, just go to part 6 (when it’s available) and pick up with it. There’s still much you can gain without all the academic info in here.

If you read part four of this series, you know there are varying opinions on how to view the second verse of Genesis.

In Genesis 1:2, we’re going to look at three things. That’s a lot in one verse, given everything else we read in Genesis about creation.

In the adjacent image, we see the formless earth, darkness over the surface, and the Holy Spirit representation of the white dove.

However, the first thing we need to do is see how this first in with verses one and three.

Are they all stand-alone? Do they all go together? Are the first two a short version of what follows?

And there are other differences of opinion. Did God create everything from nothing, or did He create everything from something? Also, note that there’s a difference between creating and forming. And what about Satan? Some of these views bring Satan into the picture. Some consider the length of a “day”, others don’t. They’re really all over the map.

As we move through the rest of Chapter 1 in subsequent segments of the series, we’ll look at these various topics as appropriate.

It all gets quite messy, so I removed much of the stuff on grammar, since we looked at that in the previous segment. I also italicized key thoughts to help them stand out.

Creation from nothing – Creation ex nihilo

Before getting into the options, let’s take a slightly deeper look at creation from nothing. It’s one of the factors that sets up some of the variation in beliefs about creation, so we’d best better understand it, at least at a high level.

Christians first began emphasizing creation “ex nihilo” as a means of upholding the Bible’s teaching on the absolute sovereignty of God over creation. Early church fathers, such as Theophilus of Antioch, argued that if matter were uncreated, then God’s authority as the sole ground of all that exists would be diminished; God would, in other words, exist alongside, rather than above, creation. By contrast, Scripture consistently depicts God as occupying a position of utterly unique sovereignty over creation (see, for instance, Job 38–40), having no rival and thus reigning over all unconditionally. Consequently, when creation texts such as Genesis 1:1–3 and John 1:1–4 are read in the light of these pervasive scriptural themes, the Christian doctrine of creation from nothing is judged to be a faithful interpretation of the scriptural notion that creation arose solely “by the word of the Lord” (Ps 33:6; Heb 11:3).

This is largely a Christian viewpoint. As I often point out though, Genesis and the entire Old Testament was first Jewish Scripture. Since the extract in the purple text is from a Messianic Jewish point of view, both Jewish and Christian viewpoints get incorporated.

Jewish and Christian teaching on this topic represented a sharp break from many of the philosophical and theological options available at the time of its earliest formulation. In the ancient Near East, creation myths often presented non-divine reality as the consequence of some kind of primordial struggle amongst the gods, as in the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish, or in terms of the taming of primeval chaos, as in many early Egyptian cosmogonies. The Genesis account, by contrast, attributes the material cause of creation solely to God’s Word: “And God said … and there was …’

That was then. Below is now:

In the modern era, creation ex nihilo is often challenged, on the one hand, by those who reject notions of absolute divine sovereignty (such as process theists) and, on the other hand, by those who regard the first verses of Genesis as grammatically ambiguous and/or as another instance of ancient Near Eastern Chaoskampf (the taming of primordial chaos). Interestingly, these views work at cross purposes, since the first implicitly acknowledges the larger biblical scheme out of which the doctrine first developed (albeit in order to reject it), while the second aims to read these chapters outside of the context of the canon altogether. These criticisms therefore demonstrate how a successful defense of creation ex nihilo ought to be formulated—that is, by reading the key creation texts in dialogue with larger scriptural themes, as indeed the historical framers of the doctrine originally did. ¹Stratis, J. (2018). Creation ex nihilo. In M. Ward, J. Parks, B. Ellis, & T. Hains (Eds.), Lexham Survey of Theology. Lexham Press.

As we saw in previous portions of the series, grammar comes up here. To reiterate my view from earlier, given the lack of higher education prevalent in the Old Testament authors, cultural and language changes over time, and other factors, I have a hard time with changing meanings of biblical text with only grammar as the reason. I feel context within the overall viewpoint of the containing passage, book of the Bible, and indeed the overall Bible, should be taken over grammar when contemplating changing meanings.

We also see in there today, as it was in the early church, differences between what the Bible says and what ono-Jewish and non-Christians think. This kind of follows along with science, not just philosophy and ancient tradition. The Bible should be our source for God’s word. If the other things line up, so be it If not, then, as the extract says, we need to have explanations for what we believe. That’s as opposed to changing what we believe.

For instance, the Bible must drive our view of science – we should not change our view of God’s word by science. After all, even the “laws” of science change over time. On the other hand, God did give us minds, did give us the Holy Spirit, and expects us to use both. Therefore, steadfastly hanging on to concepts that no longer appear to be valid can be a problem.

Creation from nothing – or something? Initial Chaotic Theory/Original Creation View

This view sees 1:1 as part of the first day of creation. It is viewed as an independent clause or an independent narrative sentence recording the first part of the work of God on the first day.

It views 1:1 as being creation out of nothing. Then 1:2 is … viewed as three circumstantial clauses that describe the condition of the earth immediately after the creation of the universe. The clauses are all taken in a neutral sense, in a neutral stage, implying only raw material from which God formed the earth as it now exists. Therefore, verse 2 is neither a positive (creative) nor a negative (chaotic), but a neutral element. The chaos occurred in connection with the original creation. In other words, according to this view the chaos occurred at the time of the actual creation of the substance. 

Remember from the previous segment, there’s a difference in the Hebrew wording between the things God created from nothing, and the subsequent things God made/formed from the things created.

Then verse 3 is viewed as an independent narrative sentence showing the manner in which God worked, which is by His Word. There are two variations to this view. One variation is that the two verses in Genesis 1:1–2 are chronological with a gap of time before verse 3. In other words, there is a gap between verse 2 and verse 3. A second variation is that Genesis 1:1–3 are all strictly chronological with no gap. ²Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 26). Ariel Ministries.

The first variation, with the time gap, presents a problem for the six days of creation thinking. That’s because if verse 1 is seen as the first day of creation, then there cannot be any kind of gap between verses 2 and 3 without making the 24-hour day theory impossible.

The second variation, with no time gap, still allows for six 24-hour days.

However, neither view allows for the first two verses of Genesis to be an initial, very short statement about creation – and then verse three beginning the (slightly) more detailed retelling. This style, a brief statement with expanded retelling, is in line with the creation of man, with Chapter 2 giving more detail.

Creation from nothing – or something? Pre-Creation Chaos Theory/The Relative Beginning View

While the “Pre-Creation Chaos Theory/The Relative Beginning View” may be the predominant view today, creation out of something certainly isn’t accepted by everyone.

Basically, this view sees the first sentence as reading, “When God began to create.” This seems to be the majority view today, but there are five different variations of this view.

I wish there weren’t five different views. Given that this is the predominant view today, it would be nice to just have one, even two views to explain. But five? Sorry, but that makes this complicated. And you maybe thought the “six days” was the only problem! I wish.

View #1 – Pre-Creation Chaos Theory/The Relative Beginning View

This first variation views 1:1 as being creation out of something. Then verse 1:2 is viewed as being really the first main clause, the apodosis that describes the condition of the earth when God began to create. Finally, this view sees the chaos as existing before the creation mentioned in 1:1. The chaos pre-existed verse 1; the chaos, therefore, existed before the original creation. ³Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 26). Ariel Ministries.

creation out of something.

chaos existed before verse 1

View #2 – Pre-Creation Chaos Theory/The Relative Beginning View

The second variation of the second view is that of E. A. Speiser as seen in his commentary on Genesis in the Anchor Bible Commentary. In this variation, Genesis 1:1 is viewed as a prologue to the creation accounts, and viewed as being in the form of a temporal clause. The first word, bereishit, is viewed as a noun in construct state with a verbal form. This also sees creation as being out of something. Verse 2 is viewed as being merely parenthetical, which consists of three clauses that are circumstantial to 1:1. It describes the state of things when God began to reshape them. Then 1:3 is viewed as the actual first day of creation. It is an independent narrative sentence, and this is the apodosis of the temporal clause begun in verse 1. ⁴Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., pp. 26–27). Ariel Ministries.

So verse one is like an introduction. Verse 2 is a parenthetical note on the state of things when God began to reshape them.

That makes verse 3 the first day of creation.

The view claims creation out of something. I feel like pure logic does not rule out the possibility of creation from nothing. However, since that’s the view of those who hold to this option – it is what it is, in other words, the view is what its proponents say it is. We can then accept it or not.

Here’s some info on E. A. Speiser, who put forth this view. I think it’s important to understand where he comes from with his view of Genesis.

Speiser’s philological and synthetic studies in Mesopotamian civilization displayed its values, with emphasis upon the centrality of law and the influence of Mesopotamian legal conceptions on peripheral peoples, including Israel. During the last decade of his life he devoted much time to the origin of Israel’s history and faith. He regarded these as both a reflex of, and a critical reaction to, the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures from which Israel emerged. His biblical research culminated in the volume on Genesis in the Anchor Bible (1964).

Speiser’s scholarly, humanistic, and professional distinction was nationally recognized. He was a president of the American Oriental Society, a member of the American Philosophical Society, and a fellow of the American Academy for Jewish Research.

View #3 – Pre-Creation Chaos Theory/The Relative Beginning View

The third variation of the second view is the view of Merrill Unger, who was the Old Testament professor at Dallas Theological Seminary for many years. He viewed Genesis 1:1 as being an independent narrative sentence. It describes, not the absolute beginning, but merely a relative beginning. The word bereishit or In the beginning is a relative beginning in which the cosmos was reshaped for man, though originally designed for sinless angels. Unger viewed verse 1 as the creation out of something. Verse 2, then, is viewed as having three clauses, which are circumstantial to verse 1. All these describe the situation at the time of the principal creation of verse 1 and give the reason for the action. Then verse 3 records the beginning of the first day. Genesis 1:1–2 therefore is the background to verse 3, and Satan’s fall in this view comes before Genesis 1:1. ⁵Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 27). Ariel Ministries.

This one’s interesting in that it’s the first one to bring in Satan.

Given that it’s a re-beginning, it’s creation from something. Better still, re-creation from something. It almost sounds like the new heaven and the new earth, except that in Revelation we see both the old and new earth at the same time. Such is not the case here.

Verse 2 then is the situation at the end of verse 1. It also sets the stage for what God’s going to begin to do in verse 3, which is considered the first day of creation. Again though, it feels more like a re-creation.

The fascinating part is Satan’s fall coming before Genesis 1:1. There are parts of creation, as we’ll see later, that do fit in with this concept. But there’s so little information on Satan, particularly concerning the timing of the rebellion and Satan’s fall.

View #4 – Pre-Creation Chaos Theory/The Relative Beginning View

The fourth variation of this second view is the view of E. J. Young, who wrote a commentary on Genesis. He views verse 1:1 as being a summary topic statement, and the first word bereishit, In the beginning, is a prepositional phrase in the absolute state that describes the absolute beginning. The word for create, barah, refers to a total process of Genesis 1 and the six days of creation. E. J. Young sees 1:1 as being creation out of nothing. Then verse 2 contains three clauses, which are circumstantial to the main clause of verse 3. Verse 2 describes the condition of the earth when created until God began to form it into its present shape. E. J. Young sees the clauses as being neutral, and he points out that the word And in the second verse starts with the Hebrew letter vav. The vav, plus the noun, plus the verb, are to be translated as: now the earth was without form. Then verse 3 contains the main clause describing the first act of God in forming the present universe. This view sees the vav as a vav consecutive plus a prefixed conjunction. It describes the act of creation with the phrase: and God said. ⁶Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 27). Ariel Ministries.

One interesting thing I did find was a quote from him on the length of the days in Genesis: The length of the creation days is not stated. What is important is that each of the days is a period of time which may legitimately be denominated (“day”). The first three days were not solar days such as we now have, inasmuch as the sun, moon, and stars had not yet been made. ⁷EDWARD J. YOUNG | Studies In Genesis One, An International Library of Philosophy and Theology, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964), 104.

The view is for creation out of nothing, with an absolute beginning.

Verse 1 is a summary statement of what’s to come.

Verse 2 is the state of things at the end of verse 1.

Verse 3 is the beginning of God forming things in with what He created. Remember the difference between creating from nothing and forming from something already created.

While the first three days are stated to not be 24-hour days, we seem to be left with the assumption that the remaining days are 24 hours long, since the sun was created on day 4. Although, there’s nothing to say that the 24-hour days didn’t begin until after the sun was created.

It’s difficult to find reliable info on E.J. Young other than: Edward J. Young (1907–1968) was considered one of the ablest conservative scholars in the field of Old Testament, served for many years as Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia.

View #5 – Pre-Creation Chaos Theory/The Relative Beginning View

The fifth variation of the second view is held by Von Rad and Dr. Bruce Waltke, who also for years was in charge of the Hebrew department at Dallas Theological Seminary following Merrill Unger. He views Genesis 1:1 as being a summary statement of everything that is unfolded step by step in the whole chapter. The first word, bereishit, is a temporal prepositional phrase with the noun in the absolute state. According to this view, bereishit does not describe the absolute beginning, but the beginning of the heavens and the earth as they now exist. This is creation out of something, not creation ex nihilo. He then views verse 2 as having three circumstantial clauses, which are introductory to verse 3. The vav is viewed as a vav disjunctive introducing these clauses and so cannot follow verse 1 chronologically. Verse 1 describes the conditions of the earth when God spoke. These clauses are not neutral but describe a world that has passed under divine judgment and is in a chaotic state; it is not simply raw material. If the chaos is a result of Satan’s fall, then Satan’s fall happened before verse 1 and not between verses 1 and 2. Verse 2 describes something that is not good. Finally, verse 3 is an independent narrative sentence describing the first act in the process of bringing the earth into its present form. God created the earth by His Word (Ps. 33:6, 33:9; Heb. 11:3), and God only began to speak with verse 3. ⁸Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., pp. 27–28). Ariel Ministries.

This one’s very complex and not at all definitive:

Verse 1 is a summary of Chapter 1.

It’s not an absolute beginning, but the beginning of the heavens and the earth as they are now. Since it’s not the beginning, it must be a reshaping. That thought is confirmed by the creation from something claim.

Again, Satan appears. It’s possible that the chaos was a result of Satan’s fall. It’s part of God’s divine judgement. Question – if not Satan, then what was the cause of this judgement?

Verse 3 is then where God forms (or maybe reforms) things.

Creation from nothing – or something? Gap Theory/Restitution Theory

This commentator (meaning the author of the excerpts in purple, not the me writing this site) prefers the third view, held by Pember and Schofield. In this view, Genesis 1:1 is viewed as an independent narrative sentence and not a summary of the whole chapter. Verse 1 describes the original perfect creation, which was a creation out of nothing. There are three reasons for holding this view.

• First, verse 1 has the form of a narrative declarative statement and not merely a superscription or a title.
• Second, the conjunctive vav connects verse 1 with verse 2, which cannot be if verse 1 is only a heading or a summary statement or a topical statement.
• Third, verse 2 speaks of the earth as already existing, which must have come into existence in verse 1. Then between verses 1 and 2 there is a gap of time. In this gap of time was the fall of Satan and other angels, resulting in the divine judgment of the earth.

More will be said about this in the exposition. Then verse 2 is viewed as an independent narrative sentence containing three subordinate circumstantial clauses describing what the earth looked like some time after Genesis 1:1. Verse 2 thus describes the earth that resulted from the fall of Satan; it contains disjunctive clauses describing a state of chaos.

There are two variations to this position. One variation is that Genesis 1:2 is a sequential clause after Genesis 1:1, or Genesis 1:2 is a circumstantial clause with Genesis 1:1. Finally, in this view, verse 3 is an independent narrative sentence describing the first step of the reconstruction and the reformation of a judged earth. The six days of creation actually begin with verse 3. So verses 1 and 2 are not part of the first day of creation; verse 3 describes the first day of creation.  ⁹Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., pp. 28–29). Ariel Ministries.

Obviously, this one has a lot more description accompanying it. Why not? It’s the preferred option from the author of the text I used for this segment.

It’s the original creation. In fact, he calls it perfect creation, which is how he regards creation from nothing.

Verse 2 is then the state of things, at some point apparently unspecified, of the state of the earth after verse 1,

This one views verse 2 as the state of the earth after Satan’s fall, which must’ve happened between verses 1 and 2. That’s how things became chaos.

Verse three then becomes the reconstruction, reforming, of earth after judgement on Satan.

Verse 3 is therefore the first day of creation, which is apparently viewed as a reforming of something already created back in verse 1.

Whew – that’s it! You made it.

Conclusion – Earth was formless, darkness was over the surface, God was hovering

That’s a lot to read. Even more to understand and remember.

Not to worry though. We’ll get back to these things as we go along.

Ultimately, the goal is to learn what the various beliefs from Christian and Messianic Jewish scholars involve. Each has reasons for what they propose. Given that we’re talking about God and His creation, for which we have precious little information, differences are bound to arise.

Therefore, the best we can do is to try to understand, put these things together with beliefs we already have about God, and try to have a greater understanding of what He created for us.

In addition, as we go along, we’ll be looking at more Hebrew concepts that bring in thoughts and ideas that Christians don’t often get into. The first of these we already saw is the creation day.

When we dive into the Earth was formless, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters, we’ll learn about Jewish thinking on each of them.

Put it all together, and we should end up with not complete, but a much deeper understanding of God’s creation, His message to us in Genesis, and a deeper relationship with the creator of everything, including us.

Hope to see you in part 6 of In The Beginning.

---

Image by Bing Chat / DALL-E

---

Footnotes

• 1
  Stratis, J. (2018). Creation ex nihilo. In M. Ward, J. Parks, B. Ellis, & T. Hains (Eds.), Lexham Survey of Theology. Lexham Press.
• 2
  Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 26). Ariel Ministries.
• 3
  Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 26). Ariel Ministries.
• 4
  Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., pp. 26–27). Ariel Ministries.
• 5
  Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 27). Ariel Ministries.
• 6
  Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 27). Ariel Ministries.
• 7
  EDWARD J. YOUNG | Studies In Genesis One, An International Library of Philosophy and Theology, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1964), 104.
• 8
  Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., pp. 27–28). Ariel Ministries.
• 9
  Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., pp. 28–29). Ariel Ministries.