Israelite Theological Innovations in Genesis

Israel’s creation traditions, as outlined in Genesis, stand out uniquely in their historical and cultural context. Although the inspired biblical authors share much in common in terms of narrative content with their ANE counterparts, they introduce significant theological innovations and counter-cultural assertions about cosmology, the ontology of the divine, and humanity’s relationship with the divine. Before exploring these innovations in greater detail, it is necessary to caution the reader that sacred scripture, especially accounts such as Gen 1, are of a distinct literary genre that is not meant to be taken literally[1]. This not only aids our understanding of scripture but also reinforces the principal of Scriptural Inerrancy. When evaluating sacred scripture, we must consider what the biblical author is asserting in a given text; it is only his assertions that are safeguarded by the Holy Spirit from error. Analyzing the text with respect to its own literary genre, treating scripture canonically, and integrating modern textual critical approaches such as the historical critical method all serve to strengthen our understanding of the Bible and highlight its theological richness in the proper historical context.

Before comparing to its historical counterparts, I will first explore the creation stories in Genesis. The biblical creation story juxtaposes two complementary visions of cosmogony which serve to illuminate the mystery and glory of God’s creation while simultaneously positing a theologically groundbreaking relationship between God and man. Gen 1 describes a transcendental, immanent God who created the universe out of his own goodness. It is wonderful in its simplicity that there seemingly is no reason for the creation of the universe outside the immanent goodness that flows from God’s being. The creation in Gen 1 can be summarized as a series of increasingly complex creations starting with light (Gen 1:3) all the way through the essential divisions of sky, land, and water (Gen 1:9-10), plant life (Gen 1:11), the creation of celestial heavens (Gen 1:14), and animal life (Gen 1:20-22). Mankind bookends the sixth day of creation as God’s most complex creation (Gen 1:26), which is fitting since we are made in His image and likeness (Gen 1:27). Finally, the climax of creation in Gen 1 is culminated in the beginning of Gen 2, on the seventh day of creation, in which God rests and enjoys the good creation which He has thus labored to make (Gen 2:1-3). This first account of creation portrays created reality as a more-or-less natural consequence of God’s immanent and transcendental nature. God is here not depicted as a personal God on a level with creation but as the master architect who exists outside of creation and is responsible for its very being. The theology in Gen 1 is the foundation of the idea of God existing outside of time. Later theologians use this concept to frame God as existence itself, the essence of being and the uncaused cause of the universe[2].

Standing in stark juxtaposition with Gen 1 is Gen 2-3, wherein God is described as forming man in an almost material sense and blowing the breath of life into man’s nostrils (Gen 2:7). God goes so far as to remove the rib from Adam’s body to shape Eve into existence (Gen 2:21-22) which is a far cry from the ex nihilo creation described in Gen 1. In this latter account of creation, the Hebrew tradition successfully assimilates two distinct images of God. The first being the transcendental creator, master of the universe, He who can create everything from nothing. The second being a personal God who accommodates our weakness and lack of perception and condescends to walk among humankind and speak with them in friendship using words that are discernible to man. God, who is perfect intelligence and being, does not think and speak in language the way that humans do but it is in His gratuitous love that he condescends to speak with man (Gen 2:16) in a manner suitable to human hearing and meets us where we are at so that we may in turn strive for godliness.

Most modern translations of Gen 1:26 use image for the Hebrew b?·?al·mê·nu, which is defined as, “image (something cut out)”[3]. This analysis of the Hebrew original lends greater meaning to the significance that we are made in God’s image. In a visceral way, we are “cut out” of God, almost as if we are an outline of God. What does that outline consist of? It is surely not intended in a physiognomic sense, in that we are made to look physically like God, because God is immaterial and invisible. Rather, the outline is characterized by our intrinsic dignity and worth, rational capability, free will, and our ability to commune with the divine. Of all God’s creation, humans are able to hold relation with Him in a special and unique way because he has ordered our souls and minds in a rational way that is an approximation of His perfect rationality. In the same line in Gen 1:26, most translations use likeness for the Hebrew ki?-mu-?ê-nu which is defined as “of son in likeness of father… so also of man in likeness of God”[4]. Here the distinction between likeness and image might be treated simply as synonyms; however, St. Augustine differentiates between the image and likeness of God in his De Trinitate where he describes the image as being our ability to partake in God and likeness as the fulfillment and execution of that ability to achieve spiritual and moral growth, aligning ourselves with His perfect will and goodness[5]. This point enhances our appreciation of Genesis’ theology.

Additionally, this distinction between image and likeness is important as we consider the Fall. Humans are naturally ordered to goodness, which is God, but we are also given free will which is demonstrated in Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God’s command in the garden to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:6). This disobedience is the Original Sin which perpetuates through natural generation from Adam (Gen 3:16-19). This tragic affair frames humanity’s relationship with God poignantly; we are capable of partaking in the divine good (image) and ordered toward His good (likeness), but through Adam and Eve’s misuse of freewill and succumbing to the temptation of the serpent in the garden, now mankind is cursed with a disordered heart. We have retained our capability and image of God, but we are now burdened with a degraded likeness of God and our race is doomed to sin which degrades our relationship with God and banishes us from the spiritual Eden of His friendship (Gen 3:23).

We can better appreciate the theological innovations described above by comparing them with the cognitive environment in which they originated from. Although creation stories in the ANE share some details, the differences are striking in their framing of the divine and humanity. In the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish, creation is described as a successive series of generational revolution among the gods where murder and revolt are the cause of created reality[6]. Whereas Gen 1 describes God peacefully and effortlessly parting the primordial waters, Enuma Elish describes Marduk murdering Tiamat and rending the goddess’ body to form the world[7]. It is not only a matter of difference in tone, but the gods are also qualitatively distinct from the God of Gen 1. John Walton explains that the ANE gods are wielders of “control attributes”, functional concepts or activities whose origin is not of the gods but simply wielded by them and can be passed on from god to god over time[8]. In this cultural milieu, we see the Israelite creation myth as countercultural and innovative in its definitionally distinct treatment of God as moral exemplar, outside of creation not of it, the origin of all, including the “control attributes” which Babylonian gods merely seize for moments of time, and God as perfectly self-sufficient and unassailable who need not defend himself from external threats or other gods. Comparative mythology also demonstrates the distinct view of humans’ relationship with the divine as in the Epic of Atrahasis where the gods flood Earth to kill humans because they are excessively noisy and preventing the gods from sleeping[9]. Compare this with Gen 6 where God brings the flood, not because of annoyance, but because of man’s utter ruination and sinful actions (Gen 6:11-13). This further emphasizes the difference in the greedy ANE pagan gods and the Israelite God who is morally perfect and demands justice for sin. Finally, the Flood story in Genesis, and the subsequent first covenant between God and creation (Gen 9:13-16), initiates a sort of new creation in the broader cosmogony. Due to man’s corruption, God restores order to a disordered world and through the covenant establishes the initial bridge required to rebuild the relationship between God and man. The Flood brings death to sinful man and gives a new chance at a life ordered toward the good. This sets the tone of future covenants in the Bible and establishes the precedence that their purpose is to bring man closer to God.

The theological innovations in Israel’s creation stories are remarkable, but our understanding and appreciation are enriched further by contrasting them with their ANE counterparts and considering how they differ among their peers in the distinct treatment of God, humanity’s relationship with the divine, cosmogony, and general morality. Such a view also aids our view of the Bible as a canonical narrative of salvation, culminating in Jesus Christ.

[1] For a detailed treatment of this topic, see Vatican II, “Dei Verbum [Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation],” November 18, 1965, par. 12, accessed June 14, 2024, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html. The Church teaching herein states that interpreters of Sacred Scripture must take into account “literary forms” to properly extract the author’s intent and assertion.
[2] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947), I, q. 2, art. 3. Accessed June 14, 2024, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm. This is situated in St. Thomas’ famous Five Ways for proving God’s existence. In the Third Way, St. Thomas relates that God is the uncaused cause which causes all other things’ existence, since there cannot be an infinite chain of causality. This builds upon the implicit theology in Gen 1 that God exists before and outside of creation and is the sole reason for existence itself, thus necessitating that He is actuality itself.
[3] "Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon," StudyLight.org, accessed June 15, 2024, https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/6754.html.
[4] "Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon," StudyLight.org, accessed June 15, 2024, https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/1823.html.
[5] St. Augustine, De Trinitate, XIV, in “From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers”, First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Accessed on June 15, 2024 at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1301.htm
[6] Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, (New York: Paulist Press, 1997), 14-15.
[7] Matthews and Benjamin, Ancient Near East, 17.
[8] John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2018), 193.
[9] Matthews and Benjamin, Ancient Near East, 39.