Creation was meant to be a place of provision and protection. That’s what the ordering of the six days of creation communicates. But Genesis 1:1-2:3 sets in motion a big idea that drives the whole biblical story from beginning to end. The temple theme is rooted in the seven day structure of creation and opens up the possibility that the author did not use “days” to express length of time, but rather to set up the all important temple metaphor as the lens through which we understand the creation narrative.
The Next Three Posts
I’ve decided to cover this topic in three separate posts in order to keep it simple and clear. In this post I’ll talk about the two short segments of text (Gen 1:1 and 2:1-3) that are our current focus. Why are they separate from the six days, how do they work together? We’ll find another important aspect of symmetry in the text.
In the second post I’ll talk about temples in the ancient Near East (ANE). For people in the ANE, the temple was an ever present picture of how they related to their god(s) in every day life. Worship for them was not a Sunday morning affair. Worship for them determined the success or failure of every aspect of life. Since Moses draws on the temple concept as a way of relating to God in the creation account, we’ll need to start here in order to carefully parse out what Moses is and is not claiming.
Finally, in the third post, I’ll bring together the ideas of the first two posts and show that Moses is trying to make one important point. Creation is a temple. That is an earth shaking revelation but we won’t be able to understand just how earth shaking until we’ve gone through the first two posts.
Creation is a temple.
After all of this, we should be able to see that not only is the creation of Gen 1 not necessarily in chronological order (see the first post), but that the six days of creation plus rest on the seventh are there to create the temple imagery in the text and are not necessarily making any claims about creative acts taking place at a particular time in history or in the span of six, 24-hour days.
Let’s Begin by Reading Through the Proper Lens
In the previous post on the Gen 1 creation account we looked just at the six days of creation in Gen 1:2-31 and we said we would leave Gen 1:1 (the title of the creation account) and Gen 2:1-3 (the seventh day-the day of rest) for a separate post. But is there any really good reason for treating these texts separately?
Two of These Things are Not Like the Others
I’ve already pointed out that Gen 1:2-31 is typical Hebrew narrative from a grammatical-syntactical point of view. There is an introductory sentence (Now the earth was formless…) that gives us basic background information that sets the action of the narrative in motion in verse 3 (And God said). Genesis 1:1 stands outside of this typical Hebrew narrative structure. In my opinion, it serves as a title or summary of all that follows.
Even the seventh day, the day of rest in Gen 2:1-3, is quite different from the other six days. This seventh day does not demonstrate any structural similarity to the six days of creative activity. It doesn’t begin “And God said,” and it doesn’t end, “and there was evening and there was morning” like every other day does. Of course, most obviously, there is no creative activity. God did not create rest on the seventh day and he doesn’t declare anything good. So, like the first verse, this seventh day is outside the structure of the six days of creative activity.
More Symmetry in the Creation Account
Not only do these two segments of text stand apart from the six days of creative activity, but people have noticed they have something in common.
Genesis 1:1 has four major parts. Here they are in the order they appear in Hebrew:
1. In the beginning
2. Created
3. God
4. The Heavens and the Earth.
If you take away “in the beginning” and then look at the seventh day in Gen 2:1-3, you’ll see that all three basic elements from Gen 1:1 appear. It gets more interesting than that, actually, because the three appear in reverse order:
3. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished…
2. on the seventh day God finished his work…
1. on it God rested from all … he had done in creation.
That’s interesting, but does it mean anything? Yes, it certainly does. In the last post I pointed out that symmetry is a way of conserving or communicating meaning. By repeating these key phrases in reverse order the author has created a beautiful symmetry around the six days of creation. This kind of symmetry is typical in Hebrew literature and it has a name—it’s an inclusio. An inclusio typically serves two functions. First, it marks the boundaries of the text. This text begins in Gen 1:1 and ends with Gen 2:1-2. Simple as that. The second function is more important for us to consider because often times, an inclusio serves as an interpretive filter through which we read the main portion of text that lies inside.
OK There’s an Inclusio—What Does that Mean?
It’s one thing to spot an inclusio and say we need to read the whole text through its lens. But what exactly does that mean here? In order to see just what effect this feature has on our reading we need to take a step back and look at temples in the ancient Near East. That will help us put the pieces of this puzzle together.
The Evangelical’s Creation Conundrum: Navigating the Scylla and the Charybdis of Science and Scripture
- The Evangelical’s Creation Conundrum: Navigating the Scylla and the Charybdis
- Designed for Order: The ANE Wisdom Worldview
- The Fear of Yahweh is the Beginning of Wisdom: The Israelite Wisdom Worldview
- Consilience: The Unity of Science and Scripture in the Matrix of Wisdom
- Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star, How I Wonder When You Are
- The Structural Symmetry of the Six Days of Creation
- Creation is a Temple: Reading Creation through the Proper Interpretive Lens
- Creation is a Temple: The Temple in the Ancient Near East
- Creation is a Temple: The Temple in Moses’ Creation Account of Genesis 1
- Reading Genesis 1 as Literature and the Three Problems it Creates for Evangelicals
- How Plato and Aristotle Took Us on a 2,500 Year Detour: Why Mimesis Makes All the Difference
- Why We Don’t Have to and Shouldn’t Give Up on Inerrancy: Maps, Metaphor, Mimesis and Isomorphisms
David Duff says
2017-04-20 at 13:36Inclusio – so I’m learning a new term. You’d better have the next installment soon – this one was a cliffhanger. And can you give me a few other examples of narrative inclusios in Scripture so I can compare? Thanks!
Todd Patterson says
2017-04-20 at 14:43Thanks for commenting! I’ll try to follow up quickly but I do have a packed month or two coming up. We’ll see.
As for the use of inclusio in other places. There are some book level examples. For example the book of Judges has a double introduction and a double conclusion. The first introduction and last conclusion have parallel ideas and the second introduction and first conclusion have parallel ideas. This creates an envelope around the whole book A-B || B’-A’. Where A (Judges 1:1-2:5) is wars with Canaanites where the Canaanites are “devoted to destruction” (see Dt 7) and A’ (Judges 19:1-21:25) is war with an Israelite tribe that is “devoted to destruction.” And where B (Judges 2:6-3:6) is Israel serving false gods due to Canaanite influence and B’ ( 17:1-18:31) is Israel serving false gods due to influence from within Israel.
Joshua may also have an inclusio around the book. Compare 1:1-5:12 and 22:1-24:33. If this is not an inclusio it would only be because the whole book is shaped by an A-B-B’-A’ pattern. Same with 1Kings 1-11, the story of Solomon, which begins with three opponents (1:1-2:46 and 11:14-43) and ends with three opponents. But there may be a more complete chiastic structure here as well (A-B-C…C-B-A).
An example on a smaller scale is Psalms 1 and 2. These Psalms are usually considered to work together as the intro to the book of Psalms. The inclusio is the “blessed is/are” in 1:1 and 2:12.
Also see Psalms 103 and 104, “Bless the Lord, Oh my soul!” at the beginning and end of each of these Psalms.
They can be found on even smaller scales (verse level) in poetic literature (prophets and psalms) but I don’t remember specific examples of those off the top of my head.
Inclusios (A-main text-A) are common and they are similar to chiasms (A-B-C-B-A) where whole texts are arranged in a parallel or symmetrical structure. In fact, “inclusio” and “chiasm” is our terminology, not theirs. These are our categories for special cases of a broader principle of Hebrew literature (and ANE literature in general, both narrative and poetic texts) that it was common to use various modes of repetition to structure a text on every level from book level to verse level and everything in between. It is ubiquitous. In Genesis, for example, look at 9:6a which is made up of 2 lines of three words each:
who-spills blood of-man (A-B-C || C-B-A) by-man his-blood let-spill
What’s more, there are many other ways that repetition is used to structure a text. We saw this in the six days of creation. Watching for repetition and the way that repetition structures a text is an important part of learning to do a close reading of the biblical text. We certainly get the gist of what the author is saying without noticing the chiasm, but we fine tune our reading and gain confidence that we are reading correctly when we notice these structural features.
Some people say, for example, that based on the grammar of Gen 1 we can clearly see that it is Hebrew historical narrative. And they’re right. The problem is, they sometimes conclude that therefore it is not poetically shaped. But that is just false. The whole book of Genesis is Hebrew historical narrative and is poetically shaped. Three out of five major narrative sections Gen 6-9 (flood narrative), 11-24 (Abraham narrative), and 26-35 (Jacob narrative) are all arranged from beginning to end in a chiastic pattern. Poetic shaping is very much a part of Hebrew historical narrative no matter where you look.
Don Hedges says
2017-04-21 at 15:35Todd, I just wondered if you’d yet had a chance to view the conversation between Drs. Collins and Mohler on the topic, “Does Scripture Speak Definitively on the Age of the Universe?” sponsored by the Henry Center (http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/resource/genesis-the-age-of-the-earth-does-scripture-speak-definitively-on-the-age-of-the-universe/)–and if so, what you thought about it.
Todd Patterson says
2017-04-22 at 00:32Hi Don. Thanks for reading and thanks for the question. I decided to answer it in a new post I called, “Why Al Mohler Should not Play Poker and Other Words of Wisdom Relating to the Age of the Universe.“
Rick Duff says
2017-04-23 at 23:57Enjoyed this first writing of the bookends found around chuncks of scripture. Plenty was provided for me to digest 🙂 Have you written, or found theologians you support who use descriptions of the human body as a temple model of communion with the Holy Spirit? Would enjoy your thoughts about this disconnection from the external dwelling places being Earth, Heaven, and structural temples compared to the biological temples God creates to allow for the indwelling and personal meetings with His Holy Spirit.
Todd Patterson says
2017-04-24 at 19:52Hi Rick, thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I really appreciate it.
In a series that I did, but never quite finished, on the Book of Acts, I have a post called, “Mount Sinai and the Pentecost: Recreating the People of God.”
In that post I talk about Pentecost being an intentional reference to Exodus. In Exodus, after the tabernacle and the sacrificial system is set up the covenant between God and his people is established. Once established, God’s presence (the pillar of fire or smoke) comes down from Mt. Sinai and rests over the tent of meeting. In other words, God is present with his people in the midst of the camp.
In Acts, because of what Christ has done, God’s Spirit now comes down from heaven in little pillars of fire that rest over each believer. Each believer is now a dwelling place for the glory of God.
Because Christ has justified us, we stand before God holy and we no longer need the sacrificial system to mediate our relationship to God. God dwells within us, we are a holy of holies.
I’m afraid I’m not sure which commentary or book you would find this interpretation or what further reading you could do on this topic but if I run into something I will let you know.
Thanks again!
Brian O'Malley says
2017-05-09 at 18:04I’m probably nit-picking a bit here on the inclusio. But in Gen 2:1-3, I see “the heavens and the earth”, God, God, created, God. Instead of seeing A-B-C-C’-B’-A’, I see A-B-C-C’-B’-B’-A’-B’. Then again, Dr. V always thought I saw things as too black and white. 🙂 I think it might be a stronger argument to let A = God created and B = the heavens and the earth, which yields A-B-B’-A’. The space between B’ and A’ expands on a few things: God completed His works and He rested on the 7th day. God blessed the 7th day and He set it apart/made it holy … for on it He rested from all His works which God created (A’).
Todd Patterson says
2017-05-10 at 13:26Nice catch! You’re right. Thanks for taking the time to look at the Hebrew and for asking a question I left out in the interest of space. I don’t think you’re too black and white. I think what you’ve noticed is just the right kind of thing we need to think about because we need to think carefully about whether or not what we see in the text is really there.
There are a couple of things that make this seem like a less than perfect symmetrical pattern. For example, even though he uses the word “create” only near the end of verse 3, he does use the word “make” several times (2x verse 2, once more verse 3). You pointed out that even the word “create” occurs between the second and third occurrence of “God.”
In the end, we have to answer the question: “Did the author do this on purpose or did this just happen because it naturally (without the author’s design) works out that way?” If the author did this on purpose then we can say there is an intentional connection with the potential for significance. To me, the idea of writing out these structures as A-B-C, etc. (like I do with the symmetry of the six days of creation) is our way of getting a grasp on the literary shaping of the text that is helpful for us but probably overly schematic, not just for an ancient author, but authors in general. I think there are other aspects of the text we need to consider in order to evaluate whether or not these kinds of structures are intentional shaping. Here’s how I generally think about it.
First, is a careful reader (not a casual reader and not a close reader, but one who is careful and familiar with literary conventions of the day) going to notice a connection between Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:1-3 that is going to cause them to go back and take a closer look? I think the answer to that question is yes. The three key terms of Gen 1:1 all appear in Gen 2:1-3. Also, there is the fact that Gen 2:1-3, the seventh day, is unlike any of the other six days of creation. It sticks out. These two aspects of the text will show up to the careful reader.
Second, spotting a connection between the texts should cause the careful reader to go back and take a closer look—”Is there something going on that I need to pay attention to?” Again, I think the careful reader will discover more connections. Even though the seventh day is really about God setting it apart as a holy day of rest, the idea of God creating the heavens and the earth runs through all three verses from beginning to end with strange emphasis. Strange emphasis implies intentionality and so he’s clearly trying to connect the seventh day to Gen 1:1. Now, given that connection, it becomes interesting to note that the three (out of four) key lexical elements from Gen 1:1 make their appearance in Gen 2:1-3 in reverse order. First heaven and earth show up as the subject of a passive verb (this verb is a passive /Pual/ in only 2 of its 416 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible), then the word “God” makes its appearance and finally “create.” To me it is important that it would have been really natural to say in Gen 2:1 “And so created God the heavens and the earth” as a clear connection to Gen 1:1. But he makes the verb passive so he doesn’t have to use “God” as the subject (he can keep it back for later) and he uses “completion” and “make” several times in order to hold off “create” for the end of the verse. All of these things should confirm to the careful reader that the author has done something intentional. (You can see this is my first level of explanation in direct answer to your comment. The key words reappear in reverse order even though they get repeated more often and maybe even “out of order.”)
But why? This is the third factor in evaluating a structure. When I step away from evaluating the fine details of the structure, is there anything the author wants to say by it? In poetic texts I’ve often seen shaping that doesn’t have an immediate meaning associated with it. Or at least I can’t figure it out. But in narrative texts that are poetically shaped I can’t think of an instance where there isn’t some reason for it. In this case, I think I see a clear reason. Rather than just repeating Gen 1:1 at the end as a way of tying the beginning and end together, Moses has intertwined the creation of heaven and earth with the consecration of the seventh day. The seventh day is the consummation of creation. Creation is the seventh day, the seventh day is creation. That is his point. But what does that mean? That’s what the next two posts are about and my argument here won’t really be complete until I show why that is. But once I do, I think it will “just fit” and provide a very satisfying reason that Moses wrote the text in just this way.
So yes, “God” shows up again after the word “create” and screws up a nice A-B-C-C-B-A pattern. But I think those patterns are our inventions that are helpful for us to see better what’s going on. But I don’t think we should evaluate the structure of the text on the basis of a lettered pattern. We need to continually move down into the details of the structure while staying rooted in the level of the text as a whole. We have to be more gestalt.
Helmut Welke says
2017-08-08 at 21:22While I appreciate Todd and his family and their commitment to Christian missions, many of you who have read my comments here, realize that Todd and I do not agree on the use of ANE poetry techniques as a method to interpret to the Inspired Word if God. More importantly Todd admits he does not know much about the science used to justify a billion year old and the strong scientific problems with them – that in fact most verifiable facts of science indicate our planet and solar system cannot be millions of years old, let alone billions. As a result of our meetings last year, I was inspired to bring some verifiable Creation Science info to TEDS and Trinity International University. Working with a local group, we are holding a Creation Truth conference at the AT Olson chapel in Deerfield, Il on Sept. 23, 2017. Two of our key note speakers are world class scientists who have published in secular peer reviewed science journals. Dr. John Sanford is a recognized world leader in Genetics and Dr. Steve Austin is a field researcher with a PhD in Sedimentary Geology from Penn State. (Steve was just featured in the recent film, “Is Genesis History?” – too bad this film was not available while Todd was in the States) Our 3rd keynote is David Lovi who is a local pastor at an E.Free Church and holds 2 masters degrees from TEDS. You can learn about the conference and registration at MidwestCreationFellowship.org/TruthConf or you can email me for info and registration by mail.. – Helmut Welke- [email protected]