The First Frontier
Subtitle: On Light and Darkness in the Hebrew Scriptures
Introduction
For long years, even up to the present day, questions have abounded concerning the veracity and meaning of the ancient stories of humankind. The opening chapter of the book of Genesis is no exception. Ink has been spilt in copious amounts trying to grasp this beautiful yet obscure text, both what it meant to its original audience and what it means for us today. To be sure, one short paper will not resolve all the prescient issues in the story. However, we will offer a brief treatment of one small problem within the text then propose a solution that may also help answer the greater questions that surround the first part of the book of Genesis as a whole.
We can easily identify this problem by considering the specific paragraph at hand in light of the surrounding context. Our text is Genesis 1:3-5, which reads:
Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good. So God separated the light and the darkness.
And God called out to the light, “Day;” and to the darkness He called out, “Night.”
And there was evening, and there was morning – Day One.
The problem in the passage arises when we read in Day Four that Yahweh (the Hebrew deity, simply called Elohim – “God” – throughout the first chapter of Genesis) creates the sun and moon which provide the light that demarcates day and night back on Days One through Three. At best, the story seems self-contradictory, or at least inconsistent, which is especially problematic given the great care that is taken throughout the Genesis narrative to maintain its internal consistency. At worst, the story is downright false, for it is scientifically impossible to have daylight without the sun. And yet, the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures treat Torah (of which Genesis is a part) as both morally authoritative and historically true. This is indeed a conundrum. Throughout the centuries of biblical scholarship, many alternative interpretations of our text have been offered in an attempt to resolve this issue.
From the outset, we must say plainly that in no place do the biblical writers offer an explanation of this inconsistency. It appears that the Hebrew writers never saw a problem with the text in the first place. From our modern scientific perspective, this seems very odd indeed. How could the ancient writers have missed a problem that seems so glaringly obvious to us in the modern age? Hence, the purpose of our current study is to examine the use of the terms “light” and “darkness” throughout the biblical corpus (with particular attention to the Hebrew Scriptures) to see if the ancient Hebrew writers illumine our text to help us understand how they interpreted the story of Day One of creation. In doing so, perhaps we can more clearly look through their eyes, and our present difficulty with the Genesis text might disappear.
We must also admit the insufficiency of a simple word study to conclusively prove an interpretation of any text. Besides the philological import of individual terms, many other factors must be considered, including the grammatical, literary, historical, and cultural contexts of the writing. Our present endeavor will not determine the authoritative interpretation of our text. We will simply look at the breadth of Hebrew Bible (plus one New Testament Greek passage) to see how the usage of the two Hebrew nouns light and darkness might help answer the question of how the biblical writers interpreted Gen. 1:3-5, also taking into consideration the observations and conclusions of other scholars throughout history. Enhanced linguistic study tools have made this kind of study much more feasible in the modern era, tools which were not available in times past. Hopefully, our study will shine an additional ray of light on an age-old problem.
Genesis 1:3-5 – Prose or Poetry?
When we survey the usage of the nouns light and darkness in the Hebrew Bible, we find that in the narrative prose sections these terms always refer to physical light and physical darkness (Ex. 10:21-23, 14:20; Deut. 4:11, 5:23; Ezek. 8:12). Sometimes these words are translated in various ways into English, such as “morning” (1 Sam. 25:34, NRSV) or “nightfall” (Josh. 2:5, HCSB) or other similar phraseology (Judg. 16:2, 19:26; 1 Sam. 14:36, 25:36; 2 Sam. 17:22; 2 Kings 7:9). But without exception, there is no hint of any usage other than the plain literal sense of both these terms; that is, in the strictly prose portions of the Hebrew Bible. On the surface, this would seem to settle our interpretive question straight away. The continuous string of imperfect main verbs in our text, as well as the presence of the article before certain nouns, suggests a classification of the Day One text as narrative prose.
However, a careful reading of Gen. 1:3-5 reveals many parallelisms characteristic of Hebrew poetry. The complete stanza forms a quatrain of parallel couplets. In each couplet, the second line progresses the idea of the first by repeating one term that unifies the couplet as a whole. The first couplet repeats the same verb-object construction in both parts: the to be verb (in different tenses, but which phonetically sound similar in Hebrew) immediately followed by the object light, which is the unifying term. Both phrases in the second couplet contain the same subject, Elohim, who sees that the light is good and separates it from the darkness. In the third couplet Yahweh names the light and the darkness, and the Genesis writer describes this using a chiastic syntax structure typical of Hebrew poetry – verb : modifying phrase :: modifying phrase : verb. [“And God called out to the light … and to the darkness he called out….”] The repeated term is the verb to call out. The final couplet parallels the first couplet phonetically with the to be verb, repeated in both lines, thus rounding out the complete stanza.
We are left with a difficult problem of how to classify our paragraph of text. Is it prose or poetry? Cassuto explains the origin of this complexity:
“The Torah, which is not written in verse but in prose, and employs as a rule simple, not figurative, language, and weighs every word scrupulously, was careful not to introduce ingredients that were not completely in accord with its doctrines. … Nevertheless, the Torah did not refrain from taking over other components of Israel’s poetic tradition, in so far as these did not militate against its spirit. We have already seen above that here and there the style of [Genesis 1] assumes an elevated poetic form, and that it is precisely the metre of epic poetry that is reflected in some of its sentences. This applies also to the content of the story, which has likewise absorbed certain elements of Israel’s ancient poetry. … Choosing only what it deemed worthy, it refined and purified the selected matter, and moulded the entire narrative to a pattern of its own – a pattern befitting its purpose and educational aim.” [Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I, From Adam to Noah, trans. by Israel Abrahams (Varda Books: Skokie IL, 2005), Kindle E-book based on the printed edition published by Magnes Press (Jerusalem, 1989), Location 429-445.]
If we could definitively categorize Gen. 1:3-5 as prose, then we would be constrained (in the lack of any other convincing and contradicting evidence) to interpret the events of Day One of creation in their literal sense and affirm that the text speaks of the creation of physical light. However, we have seen that the narrative of Day One cannot be placed neatly in either category of prose or poetry. If Cassuto is correct, then this entire section of Torah (Gen. 1:1-2:3) has its own style, a kind of hybrid of both types. The text itself suggests this.
For the purposes of our study, we cannot make any interpretive decisions about the Day One narrative based solely on literary style. Therefore, having discussed the meanings of the terms light and darkness in Hebrew prose, we must continue with our survey.
Yhwh, Light, and Wisdom
When we turn our attention to the usage of light and darkness in the poetry sections of Hebrew Bible, we discover a fascinating pattern. There are some times when, similar to Hebrew prose, the terms simply refer to physical light and darkness (Job 5:14, 24:16, 28:3; Ps. 78:14, 104:20, 105:28, 136:7, 139:11-12, 148:3; Ezek. 32:7; Mic. 2:1). But most often in poetry, the term “light” is used emblematically of Yahweh and his attributes. Sometimes the Hebrew writers state the metaphor directly, such as in Ps. 27:1, “Yhwh is my light and my salvation” (see also Ps. 4:6-7, 36:9; Is. 2:5, 60:1,3,19,20; Mic. 7:8; Hab. 3:4). At other times, the allusion is more indirect (Job 29:3; Ps. 43:3, 44:3, 89:15), but the usage is consistent all the way through Hebrew Bible.
The Song of Creation
Psalm 104 will serve as the point of departure for our argument, since it is the most direct of all the passages that treat the Genesis narrative. This psalm, the “Song of Creation”, offers a liturgical and theological commentary on the Genesis 1 account. The psalm begins and ends with a couplet of praise to Yahweh, and between these the succeeding stanzas each correspond to the seven days of creation: Day One, v.1b-2a; Day Two, v.2b-4; Day Three, v.5-18; Day Four, v.19-23; Day Five, v.24-26; Day Six, v.27-30; Day Seven, v.31-35a. We will not reproduce the entire psalm here; the first five couplets will be sufficient for our task:
Bless Yhwh, O my soul!
O Yhwh my God, you are exceedingly great!
You have donned majesty and splendor,
Wrapping yourself in light like a garment;
Who stretched out “Heaven” like a tent,
The one who lays the beams of his roof-chambers on the waters,
The one who sets the darks clouds his chariot,
The one who rides on the wings of the wind,
Who makes the winds his messengers,
His ministers the fire that flames.
We are presently concerned with the second couplet, since this is the part of the song that corresponds to the first day of creation, linked by the subject of light. The other stanzas of the psalm praise Yahweh for His creative work on each particular day, but this couplet is noticeably different. The psalmist does not praise Yahweh for creating light, but rather declares light as an emblem of Yahweh himself (or more strictly, Yahweh’s majesty and splendor) using the metaphor of clothing.
You have donned majesty and splendor,
Wrapping yourself in light like a garment;….
The term light stands in apposition to the pair of nouns majesty and splendor. In the song specifically, these are the things with which Yahweh clothes himself. Throughout the corpus of Hebrew Bible in general, the Hebrew writers consider majesty and splendor as attributes of Yahweh, things that inhere in His nature, in His divinity, in His identity as the One True God. The psalmist here affirms that light, referencing the creation story of Genesis 1 as a source text, symbolizes the glory and majesty of Yahweh.
If indeed the psalmist in this verse refers to physical light in the creation story, it is not the light of any celestial body, but rather the light of Yahweh’s glory made visible on the first day of creation. That much is clear. However, the psalmist’s emblematic interpretation of Day One is not dependent on the literal interpretation of the text, i.e. the origin of physical light. In other words, the psalmist does not say that God created physical light on Day One (although it might be the case, the psalm does not draw a conclusion on this). The psalmist simply says that light is an emblem of God’s majesty and splendor. Why? The simplest explanation is that the psalmist’s method for interpreting the text is not literal, but emblematic. Whether the events of Day One physically happened has no bearing on the meaning of the story when considered from the perspective of the psalmist.
This understanding of light as the emblem for Yahweh and his attributes finds overwhelming evidence throughout the rest of Hebrew Bible. We see light as an emblem of good in contrast with evil (Job 24:13; Ps. 4:6-7, 37:6, 97:11; Prov. 4:18-19, 6:23, 13:9; Is. 51:4, 58:10, 59:9; Hos. 6:5); wisdom as opposed to folly (Eccl. 2:13); salvation as opposed to judgment (Job 33:20,28; Ps. 27:1; Mic. 7:8); life as opposed to death (Job 3:20, 33:30; Ps. 36:10, 56:13). Conversely, the Hebrew poets use darkness to symbolize the opposite of these things: including judgment (1 Sam. 2:9; Ps. 35:6; Prov. 20:20; Ezek. 32:8; Joel 2:2, 3:4; Amos 5:18-20; Nah. 1:8; Zeph. 1:15); gloom (Job 10:21; Ps. 107:10; Is. 29:18, 58:10, 59:9; Joel 2:2; Amos 5:20; Zeph. 1:15); folly (Job 12:25; Eccl. 2:13-14); even humanity in contrast to Yahweh (2 Sam. 22:29; Job 37:19; Ps. 18:29; Eccl. 5:17).
Thus, we have seen how Psalm 104 illustrates the biblical writers’ emblematic interpretation of the story of Day One in Genesis, and suggests that Genesis 1:3-5 was the source text for their consistent usage of light as emblem of Yahweh (and his attributes) throughout the entire corpus of Hebrew poetry.
The Song of Lady Wisdom
To demonstrate how rigorously the biblical writers maintained this consistency throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, let us consider another creation text, the Song of Lady Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31. The Hebrew writers considered wisdom an attribute of Yahweh, symbolized by light throughout Hebrew poetry (based on the interpretation of Day One confirmed in Psalm 104). And when we read the song of Lady Wisdom with this understanding, it matches the story of Genesis 1 exactly.
Yhwh created me the beginning of his work,
The foremost of his works of old.
From antiquity I was installed,
From the first, from the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no springs abounding with water.
When not yet the mountains were settled,
Before hills I was brought forth.
When he had not yet made earth and fields
And the first of the dusts of the world.
When he established “Heaven,” I was there,
When he traced the circle over the face of the deep.
When the clouds above were made firm,
When the fountains of the deep grew strong;
When he set to the sea its boundary,
And the waters shall never pass over its mouth;
When he inscribed the foundations of the earth:
Then I was beside him, a master-craftsman;
And I was a delight day by day,
Playing before him at all times;
Playing in the world of his earth,
And my delight was the sons of men.
Several indicators in the text suggest that the author here is alluding to the Genesis creation account, although not in as organized or systematic a way as in Psalm 104. The terms heaven/earth (v.26-27) and seas/land (v.24-25, 29-30) are set in parallel in the song, similar to the separations that God makes in the Genesis narrative. Other textual markers that link this text to Genesis 1 include: the repetition of “days” (v.30); the culmination of the song in created humanity (v.31); the theme of creation as God’s work (v.22). The author may have been drawing from other material within the corpus of Israelite epic poetry as well, but we do not know for sure because those poems are no longer extant. However, we can affirm with reasonable confidence that the author used the Genesis narrative as a source text when writing the Song of Lady Wisdom.
In composing her song, Lady Wisdom puts herself into the Genesis creation story. Lady Wisdom declares that she was not pre-existent but was created by God. This distinction seems problematic at first, because the Hebrew Bible universally considers wisdom an attribute of Yahweh. But Lady Wisdom does not put herself in the story as an attribute of Yahweh; rather, she says that she was the first thing that God created. Furthermore, she goes on to say that she was present when God created Heaven, which was the second of his creative acts in the Genesis story. She was there when the seas were gathered into one place and the land poked up through the oceanic waters. Unequivocally, she equates herself with the light of Day One.
This is important for our study because it demonstrates the universal consistency with which the Hebrew writers applied their emblematic understanding of the story of Day One of creation. Not only this, but without this emblematic understanding, another textual problem arises. Lady Wisdom calls herself a created object (light) rather than an attribute of Yahweh, as all the other Hebrew writers do. However, the emblematic understanding of Gen. 1:3-5 resolves the problem perfectly. If the Day One story intends to declare light as an emblem of Yahweh and his attributes (including wisdom!), then Lady Wisdom has put herself in the story exactly where she belongs.
The textual evidence suggests that the Hebrew writers did not interpret the story of Day One literally but emblematically, affirming the meaning of light as an emblem of Yahweh and His attributes (including wisdom). When we consider this evidence, our modern haziness begins to clear away. Not only do we understand why Lady Wisdom equates herself with the light of Day One, but we may also begin to understand why the biblical writers never saw any problems in the creation narrative in the first place.
The Meaning of Light
To review, the weight of evidence points to the conclusion that, when the biblical writers provide poetic commentary on the events of Day One of creation, they interpret the text as affirming the meaning of light as an emblem of Yahweh. This emblematic interpretation of the Genesis text, as explained by the biblical writers, stands apart from any literal interpretation of the text. In other words, the Genesis text might be talking about the creation of physical light, but maybe not. In either case, it’s not what the story means.
The point of the Genesis text, from the evidence of the psalmist and corroborated by other writers, is to describe the meaning of light, not necessarily the origin of light. However, this is left open as an additional, but not an alternate, interpretation. Our study of the terms light and darkness has not provided enough data to decide the matter.
Once again, this study does not conclusively prove that the emblematic understanding of Gen. 1:3-5 is the authoritative interpretation of the text. We are only saying that the evidence of the philological data throughout the Hebrew Scriptures strongly suggests it. This result must be weighed against the data from the other spheres of literary context before coming to a final conclusion. As mentioned previously, this lies outside our present scope.
It is possible that the reader is not yet convinced by the argument presented thus far. After all, our entire argument hangs on the interpretation of a single versicle in one psalm; and strong as the corroborating evidence might be, it is less than fully persuasive. Yet, when we read the creation theology in the Gospel of St. John, we find the exact same pattern as in Hebrew poetry. The Evangelist interprets light as an emblem of Yahweh on the basis of the creation narrative; again, without regard to whether the light referred to in the ancient text is physical light or not.
We should recall that the Evangelist was a Jewish author who was intimately familiar with the Hebrew Bible and who wrote in the same tradition as the Hebrew writers. The Gospel was written in Greek instead of Hebrew because Greek was the prevailing language of the day, even for Jews, many of whom had been scattered across the known world in the Diaspora. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that we include the Evangelist’s treatment of the creation account in our survey, especially because light is such a prominent theme throughout the family of New Testament writings attributed to St. John.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. … What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
There was a man, sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’”) … No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known. [John 1:1-18, NRSV]
The Evangelist, while patterning the prologue to his gospel after the creation account in Genesis, refers to Jesus as the “true light.” The key term here is the word true, and the question that arises on account of this word is, “What is the Evangelist saying about Jesus? Jesus is the true … what?” We know the answer is “light,” but what does that mean given the context in which the Evangelist uses the term?
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Evangelist interprets Day One in a strictly literal way. The light of Day One is physical light, and physical light only. Now, the Evangelist says that Jesus is the true “physical light.” The image is non-sensical. The Evangelist is clearly NOT trying to demonstrate in the Gospel that Jesus is physical light. Also, if Jesus is the “true physical light,” how then did the Evangelist understand the physical light of creation? Was it somehow less than “true?” If so, then the Evangelist would be compromising the literal interpretation of the creation story.
However, if the Evangelist sees the light of Day One in the same way as the other Hebrew poets, the emblematic interpretation fits perfectly with what he goes on to explain about his view of Jesus of Nazareth. The Evangelist references the Genesis text assuming that his readers understand the emblematic meaning of light in the creation story. The Evangelist interprets the light of Day One of creation as the emblem of Yahweh, which he then applies to the person of Jesus. The Evangelist’s use of the term “true” is not in the sense of saying that light itself was a false emblem for Yahweh, but rather that Jesus is the perfect, or complete, emblem of Yahweh. He is saying that what old Hebrew writers said about light in their poetical tradition and interpretation of Genesis 1 can now be said about Jesus of Nazareth, only to the ultimate degree. This is the main thrust of the entire Gospel, as the Evangelist claims in the last paragraph of the prologue:
And [Jesus] became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. … No one has ever seen God. It is [Jesus], who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made [God] known.
Let us now summarize the concluding position. While the biblical writers never explicitly resolve the inconsistency of the light of Day One and Day Four of the creation saga, their poetry offers evidence of how they interpreted the story of Day One of creation. Based on the usage of the nouns light and darkness throughout Hebrew Bible, the evidence suggests that the biblical writers interpreted the story of Day One emblematically, declaring light as an emblem of Yahweh and his attributes.
The evidence also suggests that this interpretation of Day One stands apart from any literal interpretation of the text. The philological evidence that we have examined does not prove whether or not the biblical writers interpreted the events of Day One as literally and historically true. That question must be answered on separate grounds. But the evidence definitively suggests that the biblical writers interpreted the story of Day One as explaining the meaning of light, not necessarily the origin of light.
The specific textual evidence that proves the case conclusively is the prologue to the Gospel of St. John, where the Evangelist, writing in the Hebrew tradition, applies the emblematic interpretation of Day One to the person of Jesus of Nazareth in calling him the “true light.” In saying this, the Evangelist affirms a correlation between light and Jesus, once again, using the Genesis story as the source text. Without the emblematic understanding of the Genesis text, the argument of the Evangelist is non-sense.
Thus, on the basis of our study, we see that the Hebrew writers left open the possibility of a literal reading as an additional, but not alternate, interpretation of the account of Day One of creation. If the literal sense of the passage is true as well, then the evidence suggests that the biblical writers would have agreed with Calvin in his solution to the problem: “Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon.” [John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, Volume 1, trans. by Rev. John King, M.A. (Christian Classics Ethereal Library: Grand Rapids MI, Kindle E-book), Location 925.]
A Reasonable Explanation
When we consider the evidence that the biblical writers interpreted the story of Day One of creation emblematically, this leaves open the possibility of a harmonization of the creation story as a whole on the basis of a thorough philological study. However, a conclusive harmonization would require a study of the entire section (Gen. 1:1-2:3) and not simply one portion of it, as we have done here. As it is, our study has not provided an authoritative interpretation of Day One of the creation text; our findings must pass the tests of the other circles of literary context before they can be confirmed as conclusive.
Nevertheless, our study has enlightened much. The inconsistency in the Genesis creation narrative only occurs if a literal hermeneutic is applied all the way through the entire seven days of the story. We have demonstrated that a philological study of the terms light and darkness in the Hebrew Scriptures points toward an emblematic interpretation of Day One. Therefore, we need not conclude that the story is self-contradictory, while at the same time admitting that a full harmonization of the story lies outside the purview of this paper and remains to be completed. At the very least, our inquiry has uncovered a reasonable explanation why the biblical writers did not see any problem with the Genesis story speaking of light in Day One prior to the creation of the sun in Day Four.
Readers of the Genesis creation stories have long puzzled over this and other apparent difficulties in the records, especially those readers who hold these documents as part of their sacred religious texts. By surveying how the biblical writers interpreted just this one small section of the story (which they themselves considered sacred and religious), we have moved yet one step closer to understanding how these stories were interpreted by the ancient Israelites – the people who originally heard them and told them to generations of their children. We need not be trapped in the darkness of our own modernist preconceptions and scientific interpretations. By learning from these ancient poets and story-tellers, we can still appreciate their wisdom and artistry for the enrichment of our lives today; not only when speaking of the stories recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, but in all stories that are told, both old and new.
We are presently concerned with the second couplet, since this is the part of the song that corresponds to the first day of creation, linked by the subject of light. The other stanzas of the psalm praise Yahweh for His creative work on each particular day, but this couplet is noticeably different. The psalmist does not praise Yahweh for creating light, but rather declares light as an emblem of Yahweh himself (or more strictly, Yahweh’s majesty and splendor) using the metaphor of clothing.
You have donned majesty and splendor,
Wrapping yourself in light like a garment;….
The term light stands in apposition to the pair of nouns majesty and splendor. In the song specifically, these are the things with which Yahweh clothes himself. Throughout the corpus of Hebrew Bible in general, the Hebrew writers consider majesty and splendor as attributes of Yahweh, things that inhere in His nature, in His divinity, in His identity as the One True God. The psalmist here affirms that light, referencing the creation story of Genesis 1 as a source text, symbolizes the glory and majesty of Yahweh.
If indeed the psalmist in this verse refers to physical light in the creation story, it is not the light of any celestial body, but rather the light of Yahweh’s glory made visible on the first day of creation. That much is clear. However, the psalmist’s emblematic interpretation of Day One is not dependent on the literal interpretation of the text, i.e. the origin of physical light. In other words, the psalmist does not say that God created physical light on Day One (although it might be the case, the psalm does not draw a conclusion on this). The psalmist simply says that light is an emblem of God’s majesty and splendor. Why? The simplest explanation is that the psalmist’s method for interpreting the text is not literal, but emblematic. Whether the events of Day One physically happened has no bearing on the meaning of the story when considered from the perspective of the psalmist.
This understanding of light as the emblem for Yahweh and his attributes finds overwhelming evidence throughout the rest of Hebrew Bible. We see light as an emblem of good in contrast with evil (Job 24:13; Ps. 4:6-7, 37:6, 97:11; Prov. 4:18-19, 6:23, 13:9; Is. 51:4, 58:10, 59:9; Hos. 6:5); wisdom as opposed to folly (Eccl. 2:13); salvation as opposed to judgment (Job 33:20,28; Ps. 27:1; Mic. 7:8); life as opposed to death (Job 3:20, 33:30; Ps. 36:10, 56:13). Conversely, the Hebrew poets use darkness to symbolize the opposite of these things: including judgment (1 Sam. 2:9; Ps. 35:6; Prov. 20:20; Ezek. 32:8; Joel 2:2, 3:4; Amos 5:18-20; Nah. 1:8; Zeph. 1:15); gloom (Job 10:21; Ps. 107:10; Is. 29:18, 58:10, 59:9; Joel 2:2; Amos 5:20; Zeph. 1:15); folly (Job 12:25; Eccl. 2:13-14); even humanity in contrast to Yahweh (2 Sam. 22:29; Job 37:19; Ps. 18:29; Eccl. 5:17).
Thus, we have seen how Psalm 104 illustrates the biblical writers’ emblematic interpretation of the story of Day One in Genesis, and suggests that Genesis 1:3-5 was the source text for their consistent usage of light as emblem of Yahweh (and his attributes) throughout the entire corpus of Hebrew poetry.
The Song of Lady Wisdom
To demonstrate how rigorously the biblical writers maintained this consistency throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, let us consider another creation text, the Song of Lady Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31. The Hebrew writers considered wisdom an attribute of Yahweh, symbolized by light throughout Hebrew poetry (based on the interpretation of Day One confirmed in Psalm 104). And when we read the song of Lady Wisdom with this understanding, it matches the story of Genesis 1 exactly.
Yhwh created me the beginning of his work,
The foremost of his works of old.
From antiquity I was installed,
From the first, from the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no springs abounding with water.
When not yet the mountains were settled,
Before hills I was brought forth.
When he had not yet made earth and fields
And the first of the dusts of the world.
When he established “Heaven,” I was there,
When he traced the circle over the face of the deep.
When the clouds above were made firm,
When the fountains of the deep grew strong;
When he set to the sea its boundary,
And the waters shall never pass over its mouth;
When he inscribed the foundations of the earth:
Then I was beside him, a master-craftsman;
And I was a delight day by day,
Playing before him at all times;
Playing in the world of his earth,
And my delight was the sons of men.
Several indicators in the text suggest that the author here is alluding to the Genesis creation account, although not in as organized or systematic a way as in Psalm 104. The terms heaven/earth (v.26-27) and seas/land (v.24-25, 29-30) are set in parallel in the song, similar to the separations that God makes in the Genesis narrative. Other textual markers that link this text to Genesis 1 include: the repetition of “days” (v.30); the culmination of the song in created humanity (v.31); the theme of creation as God’s work (v.22). The author may have been drawing from other material within the corpus of Israelite epic poetry as well, but we do not know for sure because those poems are no longer extant. However, we can affirm with reasonable confidence that the author used the Genesis narrative as a source text when writing the Song of Lady Wisdom.
In composing her song, Lady Wisdom puts herself into the Genesis creation story. Lady Wisdom declares that she was not pre-existent but was created by God. This distinction seems problematic at first, because the Hebrew Bible universally considers wisdom an attribute of Yahweh. But Lady Wisdom does not put herself in the story as an attribute of Yahweh; rather, she says that she was the first thing that God created. Furthermore, she goes on to say that she was present when God created Heaven, which was the second of his creative acts in the Genesis story. She was there when the seas were gathered into one place and the land poked up through the oceanic waters. Unequivocally, she equates herself with the light of Day One.
This is important for our study because it demonstrates the universal consistency with which the Hebrew writers applied their emblematic understanding of the story of Day One of creation. Not only this, but without this emblematic understanding, another textual problem arises. Lady Wisdom calls herself a created object (light) rather than an attribute of Yahweh, as all the other Hebrew writers do. However, the emblematic understanding of Gen. 1:3-5 resolves the problem perfectly. If the Day One story intends to declare light as an emblem of Yahweh and his attributes (including wisdom!), then Lady Wisdom has put herself in the story exactly where she belongs.
The textual evidence suggests that the Hebrew writers did not interpret the story of Day One literally but emblematically, affirming the meaning of light as an emblem of Yahweh and His attributes (including wisdom). When we consider this evidence, our modern haziness begins to clear away. Not only do we understand why Lady Wisdom equates herself with the light of Day One, but we may also begin to understand why the biblical writers never saw any problems in the creation narrative in the first place.
The Meaning of Light
To review, the weight of evidence points to the conclusion that, when the biblical writers provide poetic commentary on the events of Day One of creation, they interpret the text as affirming the meaning of light as an emblem of Yahweh. This emblematic interpretation of the Genesis text, as explained by the biblical writers, stands apart from any literal interpretation of the text. In other words, the Genesis text might be talking about the creation of physical light, but maybe not. In either case, it’s not what the story means.
The point of the Genesis text, from the evidence of the psalmist and corroborated by other writers, is to describe the meaning of light, not necessarily the origin of light. However, this is left open as an additional, but not an alternate, interpretation. Our study of the terms light and darkness has not provided enough data to decide the matter.
Once again, this study does not conclusively prove that the emblematic understanding of Gen. 1:3-5 is the authoritative interpretation of the text. We are only saying that the evidence of the philological data throughout the Hebrew Scriptures strongly suggests it. This result must be weighed against the data from the other spheres of literary context before coming to a final conclusion. As mentioned previously, this lies outside our present scope.
The Evangelist’s “True Light”
It is possible that the reader is not yet convinced by the argument presented thus far. After all, our entire argument hangs on the interpretation of a single versicle in one psalm; and strong as the corroborating evidence might be, it is less than fully persuasive. Yet, when we read the creation theology in the Gospel of St. John, we find the exact same pattern as in Hebrew poetry. The Evangelist interprets light as an emblem of Yahweh on the basis of the creation narrative; again, without regard to whether the light referred to in the ancient text is physical light or not.
We should recall that the Evangelist was a Jewish author who was intimately familiar with the Hebrew Bible and who wrote in the same tradition as the Hebrew writers. The Gospel was written in Greek instead of Hebrew because Greek was the prevailing language of the day, even for Jews, many of whom had been scattered across the known world in the Diaspora. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that we include the Evangelist’s treatment of the creation account in our survey, especially because light is such a prominent theme throughout the family of New Testament writings attributed to St. John.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. … What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
There was a man, sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify to the light. The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. (John testified to him and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’”) … No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known. [John 1:1-18, NRSV]
The Evangelist, while patterning the prologue to his gospel after the creation account in Genesis, refers to Jesus as the “true light.” The key term here is the word true, and the question that arises on account of this word is, “What is the Evangelist saying about Jesus? Jesus is the true … what?” We know the answer is “light,” but what does that mean given the context in which the Evangelist uses the term?
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Evangelist interprets Day One in a strictly literal way. The light of Day One is physical light, and physical light only. Now, the Evangelist says that Jesus is the true “physical light.” The image is non-sensical. The Evangelist is clearly NOT trying to demonstrate in the Gospel that Jesus is physical light. Also, if Jesus is the “true physical light,” how then did the Evangelist understand the physical light of creation? Was it somehow less than “true?” If so, then the Evangelist would be compromising the literal interpretation of the creation story.
However, if the Evangelist sees the light of Day One in the same way as the other Hebrew poets, the emblematic interpretation fits perfectly with what he goes on to explain about his view of Jesus of Nazareth. The Evangelist references the Genesis text assuming that his readers understand the emblematic meaning of light in the creation story. The Evangelist interprets the light of Day One of creation as the emblem of Yahweh, which he then applies to the person of Jesus. The Evangelist’s use of the term “true” is not in the sense of saying that light itself was a false emblem for Yahweh, but rather that Jesus is the perfect, or complete, emblem of Yahweh. He is saying that what old Hebrew writers said about light in their poetical tradition and interpretation of Genesis 1 can now be said about Jesus of Nazareth, only to the ultimate degree. This is the main thrust of the entire Gospel, as the Evangelist claims in the last paragraph of the prologue:
And [Jesus] became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. … No one has ever seen God. It is [Jesus], who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made [God] known.
Conclusion
Let us now summarize the concluding position. While the biblical writers never explicitly resolve the inconsistency of the light of Day One and Day Four of the creation saga, their poetry offers evidence of how they interpreted the story of Day One of creation. Based on the usage of the nouns light and darkness throughout Hebrew Bible, the evidence suggests that the biblical writers interpreted the story of Day One emblematically, declaring light as an emblem of Yahweh and his attributes.
The evidence also suggests that this interpretation of Day One stands apart from any literal interpretation of the text. The philological evidence that we have examined does not prove whether or not the biblical writers interpreted the events of Day One as literally and historically true. That question must be answered on separate grounds. But the evidence definitively suggests that the biblical writers interpreted the story of Day One as explaining the meaning of light, not necessarily the origin of light.
The specific textual evidence that proves the case conclusively is the prologue to the Gospel of St. John, where the Evangelist, writing in the Hebrew tradition, applies the emblematic interpretation of Day One to the person of Jesus of Nazareth in calling him the “true light.” In saying this, the Evangelist affirms a correlation between light and Jesus, once again, using the Genesis story as the source text. Without the emblematic understanding of the Genesis text, the argument of the Evangelist is non-sense.
Thus, on the basis of our study, we see that the Hebrew writers left open the possibility of a literal reading as an additional, but not alternate, interpretation of the account of Day One of creation. If the literal sense of the passage is true as well, then the evidence suggests that the biblical writers would have agreed with Calvin in his solution to the problem: “Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon.” [John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, Volume 1, trans. by Rev. John King, M.A. (Christian Classics Ethereal Library: Grand Rapids MI, Kindle E-book), Location 925.]
A Reasonable Explanation
When we consider the evidence that the biblical writers interpreted the story of Day One of creation emblematically, this leaves open the possibility of a harmonization of the creation story as a whole on the basis of a thorough philological study. However, a conclusive harmonization would require a study of the entire section (Gen. 1:1-2:3) and not simply one portion of it, as we have done here. As it is, our study has not provided an authoritative interpretation of Day One of the creation text; our findings must pass the tests of the other circles of literary context before they can be confirmed as conclusive.
Nevertheless, our study has enlightened much. The inconsistency in the Genesis creation narrative only occurs if a literal hermeneutic is applied all the way through the entire seven days of the story. We have demonstrated that a philological study of the terms light and darkness in the Hebrew Scriptures points toward an emblematic interpretation of Day One. Therefore, we need not conclude that the story is self-contradictory, while at the same time admitting that a full harmonization of the story lies outside the purview of this paper and remains to be completed. At the very least, our inquiry has uncovered a reasonable explanation why the biblical writers did not see any problem with the Genesis story speaking of light in Day One prior to the creation of the sun in Day Four.
Readers of the Genesis creation stories have long puzzled over this and other apparent difficulties in the records, especially those readers who hold these documents as part of their sacred religious texts. By surveying how the biblical writers interpreted just this one small section of the story (which they themselves considered sacred and religious), we have moved yet one step closer to understanding how these stories were interpreted by the ancient Israelites – the people who originally heard them and told them to generations of their children. We need not be trapped in the darkness of our own modernist preconceptions and scientific interpretations. By learning from these ancient poets and story-tellers, we can still appreciate their wisdom and artistry for the enrichment of our lives today; not only when speaking of the stories recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, but in all stories that are told, both old and new.
Labels: Scripture Studies
posted by Joel @ 2:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home