Now the earth was formless and empty

However, before we do anything else, we must recognize something.

We aren’t looking at the universe now. Our attention, and the narrative is now earth focused!

The earth was formless

Let’s begin with the word read as formless. The Hebrew word that we read as formless has six possible meanings/uses. In our culture today, we seem to be stuck on the concept of the single best answer, whether it’s a question on a test or pretty much anything else. The idea that more than one answer could be right seems to be forgotten.

However, that’s the way Jewish people tend to read their scriptures. They don’t want to put God in a box by limiting Him to the one possible meaning that they choose as the best, thereby ruling out all the others even though they are valid.

In our modern world though, we seem to love picking one thing, then saying everyone who chose anything else must be wrong! It might make someone feel good about being “right”. But how does it help us know our Creator? It doesn’t.

To that end, here are all the possible meanings for תֹּהוּ (tō·hû), which we usually read as formless in Genesis 1:2.

9332 תֹּהוּ (tō·hû): n.masc.; ≡ Str 8414; TWOT 2494a—1. LN 80.1–80.4 formlessness, emptiness, i.e., a state of empty space and so nothingness, so not having a shape, implied to be a state prior to order and form (Ge 1:2; Job 26:7; Isa 45:18; Jer 4:23+), see also domain LN 58.14–58.18; 2. LN 1.86–1.87 wasteland, i.e., what is barren and void of use, as tracts of unpopulated land (Dt 32:10; Job 6:18; 12:24; Ps 107:40+); 3. LN 6.96–6.101 idol, i.e., an object which are worshiped, with a special focus on the uselessness and worthlessness of the fashioned object (1Sa 12:21+); 4. LN 20.31–20.60 ruination, destruction, i.e., what has been destroyed and in chaos and confusion (Isa 24:10; 34:11+); 5. LN 65.1–65.16 vanity, nothingness, i.e., what is worthless and lacking in value, implying a very low status in some contexts (Isa 40:17, 23; 41:29; 44:9; 45:19; 49:4+); 6. LN 33.251–33.255 false testimony, i.e., speech which is empty and void of truth, so false in reasoning or facts (Isa 29:21; 59:4+)  ²Swanson, J. (1997). In Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.). Logos Research Systems, Inc.

“Obviously”, the best choice is #1, which includes formlessness.

But wait! Is that the best answer because it’s correct? Or is it the best answer because we’re using circular logic? Here’s what I mean. We read formless in our English Bibles. We see formless in the possible meaning of the Hebrew word. Bingo! That’s it!

But no! That’s not right. It only works because we chose formless to begin with.

Do you remember the word in Young’s Literal Translation? It was waste. It wasn’t formless. There is a difference. A huge difference.

Think back to the previous segment in this series, Creation from nothing? Earth was formless … You can check it out from the inset box if you’d like to review or read it.

As you can see in the box, there are differences of opinion from Jewish and Christian scholars as to whether God created our universe (not necessarily everything, but specifically our universe) from nothing, or from something that He already created, before what we read in Genesis 1:1.

For some of them, Satan’s fall also enters the picture.

They don’t even agree on the meaning and/or timing of the first three verses of Genesis.

You might, maybe should, wonder how that can be if the word means formless and nothing else.

However, close examination shows that of the six possible meanings of תֹּהוּ (tō·hû), four of them are possible:

1. formless: pretty obvious for most Christians today, because that’s what we read.
2. wasteland: what is barren and void of use, as tracts of unpopulated land
3. ruination, destruction: what has been destroyed and in chaos and confusion
4. vanity, nothingness: what is worthless and lacking in value, implying a very low status in some contexts

The first three make sense. Vanity seems odd, until we read the meaning, and make the connection to nothingness. You may be reminded of some translations of Ecclesiastes, “vanity” in those is from a different Hebrew word.

On the other hand, idol and false testimony make no sense, so they can be safely discarded.

In the end, we’re left with four English words: formless, wasteland, destruction, and nothingness that at least have the possibility of being the meaning of the Hebrew word תֹּהוּ (tō·hû) in this context.

The earth was … empty

Let’s see the possibilities for the Hebrew word we read as empty, בֹּהוּ (bō·hû) (where “b” is pronounced as “v”).

983 בֹּהוּ (bō·hû): n.[masc.]; ≡ Str 922; TWOT 205a—1. LN 14 emptiness, the void, i.e., an emptiness that shows lack of order (Ge 1:2; Jer 4:23+), note: some interp this as a void from a prior creation, see WBC 1:5; 2. LN 14 unit: תֹּהו וְ־ בֹּהוּ (tōhw w- bō·hû) total chaos, i.e., a physical state of total lack of order (Ge 1:2; Jer 4:23+), note: some give the associative meaning of this chaos as a contest of deities, see WBC 1 for discussion; 3. LN 20.31–20.60 unit: אֶבֶן בֹּהוּ (ʾě·ḇěn bō·hû) plumb line of desolation, i.e., a figurative and ironic meaning of destruction (Isa 34:11+), note: the irony is, of course, that a plummet line is normally used for construction not destruction and the chaos that is associated with destruction.  ³Swanson, J. (1997). In Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.). Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Here, there is only one possibility. Emptiness/void, meaning a lack of order. That’s as opposed to literal nothingness, which is, literally, nothing. The indication is that something does exist, but it has no order, form, or value. Note, this is the same as nothingness in תֹּהוּ (tō·hû).

What does The earth was formless and empty mean then?

Going back to the previous segment, with the three views of Genesis 1:3, here’s how they might view these possibilities.

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.⁴Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., pp. 26–27). Ariel Ministries.

They’re likely to view anything but ruination/destruction as possible meanings for formless and empty. It’s just the way things were after verse 1, but before verse 3.

It’s just an intermediate step along the way from creation from nothing that began in verse 1 and continues from there. Therefore, it’s hard to tell which meaning of formless and empty they might choose.

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

Remember: 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.

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. ⁵Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 26). Ariel Ministries.

Creation from something, but without stating where the something came from can be problematic. It’s not complete.

The earth was formless and empty is still an intermediate state, but with no explanation as to how it got there. Therefore, again, it’s hard to tell which meaning of formless and empty they might choose.

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

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. 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. ⁶Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 26). Ariel Ministries.

Again, it sees creation out of something. Since it views this verse more as a side comment it’s again just a description of some middle state in the process. It views verse 3 as the first day of creation. Therefore, again, it’s hard to tell which meaning of formless and empty they might choose.

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. ⁷Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 27). Ariel Ministries.

This is the first one to bring in the fall of Satan. As such, it’s also the first one to likely view ruination and destruction from the fall as a possibility for explaining the formless and empty earth.

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

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.

Since this one is creation out of nothing, there’s no reason to think ruination or destruction were involved for any reason. On the other hand, wasteland and nothingness could be an intermediate condition of creation, between verses 1 and 3.

The fifth variation views Genesis 1:1 as being a summary statement of everything that is unfolded step by step in the whole chapter. … 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. 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 is creation out of something and it considers the possibility of Satan’s fall being involved. As such, ruination and destruction seem to be at the forefront again.

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

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.  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.  ⁹Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., pp. 28–29). Ariel Ministries.

Verse 1 is considered creation out of nothing. And yet, Satan’s fall is believed to happen between verses 1 and 2. As such, ruination and destruction are almost certainly the prime contender for describing what’s meant by formless and empty.

Where are we after seven views of Now the earth was formless and empty

So, where are we after seven views of Now the earth was formless and empty?

I think it’s safe so say that we’re either nowhere or everywhere. Kind of all over the map without reaching a destination.

Passages to support views with the fall of Satan before Genesis 1:2

Now, each of the views has its passages it points to to justify what they claim. Given the importance of overall context, let’s take a look at several of those verses. However, I won’t say which one uses it, to help keep biases out from denominational beliefs.

A Prophecy Against The King of Tyre

There are disagreements over this passage. This shouldn’t be a surprise anymore. The question comes down to whether or not there are direct, as opposed to indirect/coincidental, references to Satan in it.

A Prophecy Against the King of Tyre

…
Eze 28:11 The word of the LORD came to me: 12 “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.

Eze 28:13 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.

Eze 28:14 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.

Eze 28:15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

Eze 28:16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, O guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

Eze 28:17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

Eze 28:18 By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.

Eze 28:19 All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.’ ”

If this is a reference to the fall of Satan, it does fit in with some of the views that placed the fall of Satan within the first two verses of Genesis.

In other words, after verse 1 and before verse 3. That’s because it does allow for creation from nothing in verse 1: Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It also allows for the possible destruction of that creation in verse 2: Now the earth was formless and empty, …

As we’ll see in a later segment, it can also set the stage for verse 3: And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Jerusalem to be inhabited

One argument for creation from nothing to destruction to (re)creation from something is Isaiah 45:18. The reason is, they say, that it “harmonizes well with Isaiah 45:18 (quoted below), which clearly states God did not create the earth in the form described by Genesis 1:2”¹⁰ Fruchtenbaum, A. G. (2008). Ariel’s Bible commentary: the book of Genesis (1st ed., p. 38). Ariel Ministries.

While they call out one specific verse, I included a number of verses related to creation to show that it’s not just one verse out of a huge passage, and therefore not relevant. Verse 18 is underlined so it stands out.

Jerusalem to Be Inhabited

Isa 44:24 “This is what the LORD says—
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:

I am the LORD,
who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,

…

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other;
apart from me there is no God.
I will strengthen you,
though you have not acknowledged me,
Isa 45:6 so that from the rising of the sun
to the place of its setting
men may know there is none besides me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isa 45:7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

…

Isa 45:11 “This is what the LORD says—
the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker:
Concerning things to come,
do you question me about my children,
or give me orders about the work of my hands?
Isa 45:12 It is I who made the earth
and created mankind upon it.
My own hands stretched out the heavens;
I marshaled their starry hosts.

…

Isa 45:18 For this is what the LORD says—
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
“I am the LORD,
and there is no other.
…

What we end up with, from this viewpoint, is that the fall of Satan occurred after verse 1, which caused the chaos evident in verse 2, and since earth wasn’t created to be empty, it cannot stay in this condition.

tohu and vohu together

Taking the previous discussions concerning Satan’s fall and God’s plan for earth to be inhabited, let’s add one more thing. The Hebrew words tohu and vohu (formless and empty in most English translations) only occur together three times. One is Genesis 1:2. Here are the other two.

First, from Isaiah. This is clearly about the future. The emphasis is on showing divine judgment is the cause of what was to happen. Pay special attention to the underlined words in verse 11.

Judgment Against the Nations

Isa 34:1 Come near, you nations, and listen;
pay attention, you peoples!
Let the earth hear, and all that is in it,
the world, and all that comes out of it!

Isa 34:2 The LORD is angry with all nations;
his wrath is upon all their armies.
He will totally destroy them,
he will give them over to slaughter.

Isa 34:3 Their slain will be thrown out,
their dead bodies will send up a stench;
the mountains will be soaked with their blood.

Isa 34:4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved
and the sky rolled up like a scroll;
all the starry host will fall
like withered leaves from the vine,
like shriveled figs from the fig tree.

Isa 34:5 My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens;
see, it descends in judgment on Edom,
the people I have totally destroyed.

Isa 34:6 The sword of the LORD is bathed in blood,
it is covered with fat—
the blood of lambs and goats,
fat from the kidneys of rams.
For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah
and a great slaughter in Edom.

Isa 34:7 And the wild oxen will fall with them,
the bull calves and the great bulls.
Their land will be drenched with blood,
and the dust will be soaked with fat.

Isa 34:8 For the LORD has a day of vengeance,
a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause.

Isa 34:9 Edom’s streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!

Isa 34:10 It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.

Isa 34:11 The desert owl and screech owl will possess it;
the great owl and the raven will nest there.
God will stretch out over Edom
the measuring line of chaos
and the plumb line of desolation.

Isa 34:12 Her nobles will have nothing there to be called a kingdom,
all her princes will vanish away.

Isa 34:13 Thorns will overrun her citadels,
nettles and brambles her strongholds.
She will become a haunt for jackals,
a home for owls.

Isa 34:14 Desert creatures will meet with hyenas,
and wild goats will bleat to each other;
there the night creatures will also repose
and find for themselves places of rest.

Isa 34:15 The owl will nest there and lay eggs,
she will hatch them, and care for her young under the shadow of her wings;
there also the falcons will gather,
each with its mate.

Isa 34:16 Look in the scroll of the LORD and read:
None of these will be missing,
not one will lack her mate.
For it is his mouth that has given the order,
and his Spirit will gather them together.

Isa 34:17 He allots their portions;
his hand distributes them by measure.
They will possess it forever
and dwell there from generation to generation.

Verse 2 shows this is Divine judgment.

Then, in verse 11, chaos is תֹּהוּ (tō·hû) and desolation is בֹּהוּ (bō·hû).

The final instance of tohu and vohu together is in Jeremiah. Notice that it appears to be related to creation, although it’s about destruction.

Disaster From the North

Jer 4:5 “Announce in Judah and proclaim in Jerusalem and say:
‘Sound the trumpet throughout the land!’
Cry aloud and say:
‘Gather together!
Let us flee to the fortified cities!’

Jer 4:6 Raise the signal to go to Zion!
Flee for safety without delay!
For I am bringing disaster from the north,
even terrible destruction.”

…

Jer 4:18 “Your own conduct and actions
have brought this upon you.
This is your punishment.
How bitter it is!
How it pierces to the heart!”

…

Jer 4:22 “My people are fools;
they do not know me.
They are senseless children;
they have no understanding.
They are skilled in doing evil;
they know not how to do good.”

Jer 4:23 I looked at the earth,
and it was formless and empty;
and at the heavens,
and their light was gone.

Jer 4:24 I looked at the mountains,
and they were quaking;
all the hills were swaying.

Jer 4:25 I looked, and there were no people;
every bird in the sky had flown away.

Jer 4:26 I looked, and the fruitful land was a desert;
all its towns lay in ruins
before the LORD, before his fierce anger.

Jer 4:27 This is what the LORD says:
“The whole land will be ruined,
though I will not destroy it completely.

Jer 4:28 Therefore the earth will mourn
and the heavens above grow dark,
because I have spoken and will not relent,
I have decided and will not turn back.”

Jer 4:29 At the sound of horsemen and archers
every town takes to flight.
Some go into the thickets;
some climb up among the rocks.
All the towns are deserted;
no one lives in them.

Jer 4:30 What are you doing, O devastated one?
Why dress yourself in scarlet
and put on jewels of gold?
Why shade your eyes with paint?
You adorn yourself in vain.
Your lovers despise you;
they seek your life.

Jer 4:31 I hear a cry as of a woman in labor,
a groan as of one bearing her first child—
the cry of the Daughter of Zion gasping for breath,
stretching out her hands and saying,
“Alas! I am fainting;
my life is given over to murderers.”

Several verses point directly to Divine judgment.

And there in verse 23 is the familiar formless and empty.

Is there more to these “parallel verses”?

These last three passages are examples of using parallels, for instance, creation and destruction using the same thoughts and examples. Here’s one explanation for the Jeremiah passage we just looked at:

4:23–26 / Jeremiah uses creation language to describe the coming destruction. As a matter of fact, he describes it as a reversal of creation. Genesis 1:2 says that God created the tohu wabohu, that is, formless and empty matter. God then took this unformed blob and shaped the creation out of it. Sin reverses the order of creation and so God basically says that he is going back to square one.

This thought is carried further when he says that the light (presumably the sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day) of heaven is going to go out. Furthermore, the mountains, which are the height of stability in the creation, will actually begin quaking and swaying.

This is a literary theme that occurs in a number of places in Scripture and is associated with the appearance of the Divine Warrior (Nah. 1:5), God, who comes to punish. Turning to the animate part of creation, we see that people and birds also are gone. The fruitful land turns into a desert. “The dissolution of Judah is itself an undoing of creation” (Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, Volume 2: Israel’s Faith, p. 247).  ¹¹Longman, T., III. (2012). Jeremiah, Lamentations (W. W. Gasque, R. L. Hubbard Jr., & R. K. Johnston, Eds.; p. 51). Baker Books.

This author, and others, consider these types of things to be literary themes, or literary devices. Designed to draw our attention to things. But not, for some reason, to link them at a deeper level.

I always wonder, why not?

Look at all the descriptions we have of Jesus. The Second Adam. The once for all sacrifice. The suffering Servant and the conquering King. There’s quite a bit of symmetry in the Bible. Why not here? It feels as if, once again we’re putting God in a box. He couldn’t have meant to do that! But why not?

The concept of creation from nothing, the fall of Satan (who was in the Garden of Eden as an (unfallen) angel, (re)creation, our fall from Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and then a new heaven and a new earth – if true – that’s an incredible symmetry. And wouldn’t that show the power of God? To do all that? Not only that, but it would be proof that God really can create a new earth for us in the next life, because He already re(created) the one we’re on right now. That is – if this viewpoint is true. But we don’t know.

Passages to support views from a Wesleyan point of view

Given that the church I belong to is based on Wesleyan traditions, I’m going to present that as the alternative to what we just looked at. I have two main reasons for that. If I use this in a class, this needs to be in it. Plus, it does have some counterpoints to the previous look at Satan’s fall being involved.

The account of the creation of the world by God is stated in the most brief, most complete, or most exalted way. The opening words in Genesis have caused much discussion: In the beginning God created … (Gen. 1:1). This traditional translation makes the phrase an independent clause. It affirms that everything that came into being afterwards was entirely God’s work.  ¹²Williams, W. G. (1999). Genesis: A Commentary for Bible Students (p. 27). Wesleyan Publishing House.

After this, the book goes into reasons why alternative viewpoints are incorrect.

While anything God created would have had the appearance of age, it does seem unlikely that He would have created such things as fired pottery, put it in a buried context to make it appear older than it really was, so that people who would declare the numerous time measuring devices which operate by laws He created are all in error, and by so doing express great faith by affirming, without any supporting evidence, that the pottery was really made and used at a much later period of time.

We read this in an earlier segment. I’m still not happy about making assumptions about why or why God God might or might not do something. All sorts of things are possible, beyond the simple example above. For instance, I can postulate that God could have created a young earth that has all the characteristics of a billions of years old earth for a reason.

One of those reasons includes all the resources that we use, even depend on, that we have because of the laws of chemistry, physics, etc. which depend on things like tremendous weight, heat, time, and the like to turn dinosaurs into oil. Doing that allotws for us to learn thobe se laws, use the resources, and so on. At the same time, it requires us to think about where they came from. Then, faith can come from either an old earth where those things happened in real time, a young-ish earth where God essentially sped up time, an even newer earth where God made things in the state they would’ve been in if the earth really was billions of years old.

An all-powerful God could do any or all of those things. Why must we be forced to pick one, when the Hebrew language the creation account is written in doesn’t do that?

One theory as to how God could have created our world much earlier than six thousand years ago takes Genesis 1:1 as separated in time from the remainder of the chapter by a gap of undetermined length. This view is strengthened by the description that God’s first day did not end at 1:5, where the Hebrew, translated literally, has “One Day,” or “Day One.” It rather ends at 1:1, where we are told that God created the heavens and the earth in a completed, orderly form. While the original Hebrew describes all the other days with ordinal numbers—such as second day (1:8), third day (1:13), and fourth day (1:19)—the writer described only Day One differently. Further, this view calls for a translation of 1:2 to read, Now the earth [became]. Though was is the more common translation of the Hebrew word used here, on occasion the word correctly means became.

We’ve already seen one example of why day 1 might be different. Namely, that it was the “original” creation. That creation was then corrupted by Satan. Of course, there are other possibilities as well.

We haven’t gotten there yet, but Day Seven is also described differently.

There are schools of thought that do look at the Hebrew word being defined as became. In fact, it’s necessary, if Satan’s fall is involved and a re-creation/reshaping is needed.

Furthermore, we’ve already seen that the Hebrew word for day (yom) does have a number of special case uses, one of which is a “creation day” that’s not 24 hours long.

What we end up with this strict Wesleyan description is an explanation that appears to be only from the few verses at the beginning of Genesis. So far, it hasn’t used any context from any other portions of the Bible.

Those who hold this view find evidence of it in Jeremiah 4:23–26, where the prophet Jeremiah spoke of a vision he had in which he “looked at the earth, and it was formless and empty.… [He looked] at the heavens and their light was gone.…” While Jeremiah wrote this in the context of the coming devastation on Judah, the view is that he saw, as a result of the disobedience of the people, a return to the state that occurred after God’s perfect creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1).

Yes, there’s a reference to the verses we looked at in Jeremiah. But it’s only to question them. That questioning continues.

If God created a perfect heaven and earth on the first day (Gen. 1:1), then was Satan, after failing to take over heaven, “hurled to the earth, and his angels with him” (Revelation 12:7–9)? And did this cause a destructive disorder to occur? One theory holds that after a great gap of undetermined time God reconstituted the world, as described in Genesis 1:2 through 2:1–2, which had been caused by Satan’s fall to become formless and empty. If this was so, the first earth could have been where dinosaurs and even a prehistoric human-like animal (all now extinct) once lived. Note also, Isaiah 45:18 declares that God “did not create it [the earth] to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited.” Further, this theory speculates that Satan caused the earth to be void. If we translate Genesis 1:1 traditionally, we get a picture of God creating chaos first, out of which He later brought order. Those who hold this view believe a gap of undetermined duration occurred, after which God returned the heavens and earth to their original condition.

The argument above doesn’t properly state the viewpoints we just looked at.

It wasn’t Satan, by himself, that is the presumed cause of the destruction between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis. It was God’s judgment, Divine judgment, as we just saw. That’s important, because it ties back to the verses in Isaiah and Jeremiah – the only other verses with toho and vohu together.

It’s not necessary to think that God created chaos in Genesis 1. Depending on the various possible meanings of the Hebrew words, as we saw, it’s also possible to interpret them as God’s perfect creation in verse 1, Satan’s fall + God’s judgment, then the resulting chaos from those two things resulting in the chaos we read in verse 2. That then either, depending on the interpretations, can result in a second creation from something – or a remaking/reshaping of the earth we live on now beginning in verse 3.

Also, notice that this is about the earth. It’s not a look at the heavens. We don’t know what happened in the rest of the universe, if anything.

In Genesis 1:2, God intentionally narrowed the focus to the earth, for the word earth has more significant emphasis by being placed at the beginning of the sentence. Perhaps God knew man would eventually have an inclination to worship heavenly bodies, so nothing more was said about the heavens after 1:1.

We read that earth, at the time of 1:2, was formless. Isaiah used the same word in Isaiah 34:11, where it was translated “desolation.” This indicated that the earth lacked any orderly definition. It was in a chaotic state.
Next we read that the earth was empty (Gen. 1:2) or void of anything that grew. It had the barrenness of a moonscape. The same Hebrew word used here is found in Job’s description of God’s spreading “out the northern skies over empty space” and hanging “the earth on nothing” (Job 26:7). The earth was bleak, barren, and devoid of any living thing (Gen. 1:2).  ¹³Williams, W. G. (1999). Genesis: A Commentary for Bible Students (pp. 29–30). Wesleyan Publishing House.

For whatever reason, God chose to not include anything about other parts of the universe. We have enough trouble just with our own planet, so I guess that’s just as well.

Did I just trash the Wesleyan view?

No, I didn’t trash the Wesleyan view. It’s very short and concise. However, it does leave us to make a lot of conclusions for ourselves, with no information as to how to do it.

As I mentioned, it also doesn’t use any other portions of the Bible to give us clues.

But, Hesus did tell us:

The Greatest Commandment – Matthew

22:34-40 pp — Mk 12:28-31

Mt 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Mt 22:37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

If we love God with all our mind, as Jesus commanded, isn’t learning what we can about God part of loving Him?

Plus, we have the Great Commission:

The Great Commission

Mt 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

That means speaking with non-believers. Some of them refuse to believe because we take some of the things from Genesis, by themselves with no supporting text from other portions of the Bible, and come up with some conclusions that appear to be quite out there to those non-believers.

How can we talk to them about God if they can’t get past six 24-hour days and a few thousand year old earth?

I often use the little kid’s rhyme Jesus loves me, this I know, ’cause the Bible tells me so. That’s great got little kids. And it’s great for adults who know who Jesus is. But what about someone who doesn’t know? Or someone who’s been taught that religions are frauds, or for people who need false comfort, or they control the masses, or stuff like that? Simple rhymes and things we know aren’t going to help.

So why don’t we use the evidence in the Bible itself?

That’s my point about what’s in the Wesleyan Bible commentary. It’s just not enough, given everything else that’s in the Bible. People who already have faith, for whatever reasons, don’t need more than what they know already. Assuming it’s not blind faith, which isn’t really faith in God, since they don’t know God.

I always try to remember back to the days when I was trying to learn about computers. Back when there were no PCs, Macs, smartphones, and all those other devices we depend on now. No one would help unless you already knew. That’s pointless. And so annoying.

After I finally did learn, after way too much time and effort that could’ve been spared with even a little help, I decided I wasn’t going to be like the ones who wouldn’t help me.

Now, that’s one of the reasons I started writing. I have a mind. I’m in a good position, after all my years in IT, to do this website with all the stuff it takes to make it look like it does and have all the options for you. And I use my time to try to put out what I’ve learned. to help others. Not to mention, I’m still learning.

And that’s why I have a hard time with things like that short description of creation from the Wesleyan viewpoint. There’s so much more available.

By the way, there are also other viewpoints, besides the Wesleyans, that don’t have Satan’s fall in the creation process either. As I said, these are just the two I chose to provide. Just this one segment, let alone the series, is already long. No time for more, or I’m afraid I’ll lose more people than I probably already have.

Conclusion – Now the earth was formless and empty

Do you see now what I meant in the opening paragraph?

In the beginning. Or maybe shortly after the beginning. Either way, at some point, the earth was formless and empty. What does that mean? Was it the beginning or not? Is there any significance to formless and empty?

What do you think? We’ve seen the main beliefs that are out there today.

They all view verse 2 as a statement of the condition of the earth at the time.

However, some view it as creation from nothing, while others view it as creation from something.

If it’s creation from something, then it’s more of a reshaping/forming/re-creation than actual creation, using the Jewish meaning of the words. This is because creation, in the sense of the Hebrew words, is creation from nothing. Once something exists, then it’s shaping, making, and the like out of existing creations.

And then there’s Satan. What to do with the fall of Satan. We know Satan fell by the time Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. But how can God’s creation be very good if Satan fell before creation even began?

So much to think about. Hope you continue with the series, where we’ll continue to look at the Jewish and Christian views, and yes, add more on Satan in that light.

You may have thought about this already, but notice that Satan’s fall coming in the first couple verses of Genesis might impact our thoughts on creation and/or re-creation being involved. Here’ some food for thought on that one:

The order of creation, especially for planet earth, is found in Genesis 1. This does not include the creation of angels (Ps. 148:2–5; Col. 1:16), nor does it include the creation of the “guardian cherub” (Ezek. 28:14–16), elsewhere called the devil and Satan. Presumably God’s creation of angels preceded the creation of the universe, though this cannot be determined with certainty. The statement that “the earth was formless and empty” (Gen. 1:2) may suggest that an original creation was judged by God in conjunction with angelic sin (Isa. 14:12–15), because God “did not create” the earth “to be empty” (45:18).  ¹⁴Witmer, J. A. (2000). Creation. In C. R. Swindoll & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Theological Wordbook (p. 75). Word Publishing, Inc.

Truth be told, I’m still not sure where I fall on this, at the time of this writing. This is a learn as you go, for me as well as many of you.

---

---

Image by Bing Chat / DALL-E

---