Genesis 1

There is symmetry between the days as to the various created domains and what was created to inhabit and order each domain. During days 1–3, God made the forms (or "domains") of the cosmos, and in days 4–6 He filled the void within each domain.

The allusions (and challenges) to other ANE mythological accounts are apparent (e.g., Enuma Elish).

The Nicene Creed affirms God as creator: "I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth…."

Many Fathers emphasize God's creation from nothing (ex nihilo), with the standard Christian prooftext in the early Church being:

I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.

2 Maccabees 7:28

The Fathers also emphasize the role of Jesus (and the entire Trinity) in creation.

16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians 1:16–17

The Nicene Creed further affirms Jesus' role in creation: "… by whom all things were made."

Both Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 begin with "Ἐν ἀρχῇ" (en archē; "In the beginning"), which carries the sense of an originating principle (that from which all else proceeds and on which it depends).

Read in the light of the New Testament, the Church hears this ἀρχῇ Christologically:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:1

The Greek LXX words translated "unsightly" (ἀόρατος / aoratos)¹ … "unfurnished" (ἀκατασκεύαστος / akataskevastos) … "abyss" (ἀβύσσου / abyssou)² are an example of alliteration to translate assonant Hebrew words. Law proposed using another word beginning with the prefix "un–" to translate "abyss" to capture this alliteration (i.e., "unseen… unsorted… unsounded").³ I thought about translating ἀβύσσου (abyssou) as "underworld," but this might lead to confusion with Hades / Sheol.

To modern people, the opposite of the created order is "nothing," that is, a vacuum. To the ancients, the opposite of the created order was something much worse than "nothing." It was an active, malevolent force we can best term "chaos." In this verse, chaos is envisioned as a dark, undifferentiated mass of water.¹

The Genesis account assumes the Mesopotamian worldview that consisted of primordial chaos prior to the functional ontological formation of the cosmic order. This was envisioned as chaotic waters and explains why the Spirit hovered upon the surface (literally "face" in the Hebrew) of such waters (עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם / ʿal-pənê hammāyīm) in the creation narrative.

In Egyptian views of origins there is the concept of the "nonexistent" that may be very close to what is expressed here in Genesis. It is viewed as that which has not yet been differentiated and assigned function. No boundaries or definitions have been established. The Egyptian concept, however, also carries with it the idea of potentiality and a quality of being absolute.²

John Walton refers to this as a "functional ontology."³ As opposed to a "materialist ontology" which views nonexistence as the absence of matter, a functional ontology sees nonexistence as a state of chaos that lacks order (often represented in ancient cultures as primordial waters).

In the ancient world, what was most crucial and significant to their understanding of existence was the way that the parts of the cosmos functioned, not their material status.⁴

The Fathers saw a foreshadowing of Baptism in the Spirit's rushing / hovering upon the water.

The word "good" (Hebrew: טֹ֑וב / tōv; Greek: καλόν / kalon) shows up frequently in the creation narrative. In the Hebrew MT:

The role of the number seven in 1:1–2:3 extends, in fact, beyond the obvious division of the acts of creation into a seven-day sequence. For example, the expression, And God saw that [something He made] was good or very good occurs seven times, but not on every day of the primordial week. Missing on the second and seventh, it appears twice on the adjacent third and sixth days (1:10, 12, 25, 31). Similarly, the word "God" occurs exactly thirty-five times (i.e., five times seven) in our passage, and the section devoted to the seventh day (2:1–3) has exactly thirty-five words in the Heb.¹

While "good" (טֹ֑וב / tōv) occurs seven times in the Hebrew MT, the distribution differs in the LXX and "good" (καλός / kalos) occurs eight times based on my count. I compared this to BHQ. I haven't checked the counts of the other words from this quote.

Most translations (including ENGLXXUP) say "first day" rather than "one day," but "ἡμέρα μία" (hēmera mia) is better translated as the latter. "μία" (mia) is a cardinal number (meaning "one"), whereas "πρῶτος" (prōtos) would be the ordinal number (meaning "first"). For the other days of creation, the ordinal numbers are used, making this distinction intentional and important, and it is present in the Hebrew (יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד / yôm ʾeḥād), Greek (ἡμέρα μία / hēmera mia), and even in the Latin Vulgate (dies unus). This distinction was the subject of several ancient Jewish (e.g., Philo, Rashi) and Christian (e.g., Sts. Basil and Augustine) commentaries.

In those ancient and classical commentaries on this biblical text, moreover, we find the common assertion that the words "one day" served to elevate that day of Creation to something more than part of a sequence. There is a profound reason why the original day of Creation is appropriately called "one," whereas the second day is not appropriately called "two," nor the third day "three," and so forth. The original day is "one" in a manner analogous to the number itself. "One" is not simply the numeral that precedes two; it is, rather, the number out of which that second number comes. There is a formal disparity between one and the other numbers. One (to hen) is the font determining the identity of two and the subsequent numbers. "One" is not just "first" as part of a sequence; it is what we call a principle, an arche. On "day one," then, God creates light, which He thereby separates from darkness. It is out of this light, which is the product of God’s first creating word, that all the rest of Creation comes. All things that God makes are filled with His light. God's light lies shining at the heart of the world.¹

This theme of the "one day" was also associated with the eighth day (Sunday) and connected to the Orthodox liturgical calendar (specifically, Pentecost in the below example). St. Basil explained why the Church teaches to stand in prayer on Sunday:

We say our prayers standing on the first day of the week, but not all know the reason why. By standing for prayer we remind ourselves of the grace given to us on the day of the resurrection, as if we are rising to stand with Christ and being bound to seek what is above. Not only this, it also seems somehow to be an image of the age to come. On account of this, although it is the beginning of days, Moses names it not "first" but "one." For it is written, "There was evening, and there was morning, one day" (Gen 1:5), as if the same one often repeated. Now, "One" and "Eighth" are the same, which indicates of itself that the really "one" and true "eighth"—which the Psalmist mentions in some titles of psalms—are the state after this time, the unceasing, unending, perpetual day, that never-ending and ever-young age. Necessarily, then, the Church teaches her foster children to pray standing on this day, so that we would not neglect the provisions for our journey to everlasting life by a constant reminder of it. And the whole of Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection to come in eternity, for that "one" and first day, multiplied by seven seven times, fills up the seven weeks of sacred Pentecost. It begins on the first day and ends on the same day, revolving fifty times through similar days in between. Eternity is like a circular movement, beginning from the same points where it ends. The ordinances of the Church well taught us to prefer to stand at prayer on this day, as if we were leading our minds from the present to the future. With each going down on the knee and rising up we indicate in deed that we have fallen through sin to the earth and are called up to heaven by the love of our creator.²

There was no sun and moon (luminaries) until day four, and yet there was light (and darkness) as of day one (cf. vv. 3-5. In the age to come, all creation is illuminated by the glory of God (cf. Isaiah 60:19-20, Revelation 21:23, 22:5).

Further, the luminaries are not explicitly named but are called the "greater" and "lesser light." This could be a polemic against worshipping them (cf., e.g., 4 Kingdoms (2 Kings) 23:5).¹

Various commentators have indicated that the creation account parallels the assembly of the tabernacle in Exodus. For example, in the Hebrew MT, מְאֹרֹת֙ (meorōt) is used for "lights" (or "luminaries"), which is the same word used to describe the lights in the tabernacle lampstand (e.g., Exodus 25:6; 27:20; 35:14). In the Hebrew MT, מְאֹרֹת֙ (meorōt) appears 5 times in Genesis (all uses in vv. 14–16). The LXX equivalent is φωστῆρες (phōstēres), which appears 4 times in these verses.

The seven lamps on the lampstand may have been associated with the seven light-sources visible to the naked eye (five planets, sun and moon)…. [Walton] proposed that the cosmos itself was conceived of as a huge temple.²

The Hebrew MT has the the word תַּנִּין (tannin) which is frequently translated as "sea monster" (but also can also carry the sense of "snake" or "serpent" and is sometimes also translated "dragon"). The LXX translated this as κῆτος (kētos), the corresponding Greek word for "sea monster" ("such as tried to swallow Andromeda" in Greek mythology.¹ In contrast to the clear early Greek understanding of this Hebrew word, the KJV and Brenton both (poorly) translated it into English as "great whales," which was perhaps a deliberate choice to avoid implications of mythology (even the Latin Vulgate here has cētus, a cognate of the Greek lemma).

In ANE mythologies, creation results from the slaying of a sea monster, and this imagery shows up throughout the Old Testament. Such references, including other mentions of sea monster(s) in the LXX, include 3 Maccabees 6:8; Psalm 73(74):13–14; Job 3:8; 9:13; 26:5–13; Wisdom of Sirach 43:25; Jonah 2:1–2, 11; Isaiah 27:1; 51:9–10; Daniel 3:79).

I think this contains an intentional affront to Ugaritic (i.e., Canaanite) mythology. This affront is clearer in Psalm 73(74), which connects the slaying of the dragon (sea monster) to creation, alluding to common ANE creation mythology.

God created humans according to the divine image (εἰκών / eikōn) or icon and likeness (ὁμοίωσις / homoiōsis). The Fathers at times maintain a distinction between Jesus, who "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation,"¹ and humans, who are created according to God's image.

A number of Fathers also discuss how human beings were created according to the divine image but lost the likeness.²

And then, again, this Word was manifested when the Word of God was made man, assimilating Himself to man, and man to Himself, so that by means of his resemblance to the Son, man might become precious to the Father. For in times long past, it was said that man was created after the image of God, but it was not [actually] shown for the Word was as yet invisible, after whose image man was created. Wherefore also he did easily lose the similitude. When, however, the Word of God became flesh, He confirmed both these: for He both showed forth the image truly, since He became Himself what was His image; and He re-established the similitude after a sure manner, by assimilating man to the invisible Father through means of the visible Word.³

The divine image in the ANE context brought with it an understanding of shared essence when applied to idols.

In the ancient world an image was believed to carry the essence of that which it represented. An idol image of deity, the same terminology as used here, would be used in the worship of that deity because it contained the deity's essence. This would not suggest that the image could do what the deity could do, nor that it looked the same as the deity. Rather, the deity’s work was thought to be accomplished through the idol. In similar ways the governing work of God was seen to be accomplished by people. But that is not all there is to the image of God. Genesis 5:1–3 likens the image of God in Adam to the image of Adam in Seth. This goes beyond the comment about plants and animals reproducing after their own kind, though certainly children share physical characteristics and basic nature (genetically) with their parents. What draws the idol imagery and the child imagery together is the concept that the image provides the capacity not only to serve in the place of God (his representative containing his essence) but also to be and act like him. The tools he provided so that we may accomplish that task include conscience, self-awareness and spiritual discernment. Mesopotamian traditions speak of sons being in the image of their fathers (Enuma Elish) but do not speak of humans created in the image of God; but the Egyptian Instructions of Merikare identifies humankind as the god's images who came from his body. In Mesopotamia a significance of the image can be seen in the practice of kings setting up images of themselves in places where they want to establish their authority. Other than that, it is only other gods who are made in the image of gods.⁴

Bearing God's image carried the idea of ruling authority in the ANE and was reserved for kings traditionally. Hence it is radical for the Bible to indicate that all human beings were created according to the divine image.

In the Ancient Near East, only the king was held to be the "image and likeness" of God on earth; therefore, only the king could be the latter's sole representative with authority over other men….

Thus, in a masterly way the author planted at the heart of the creation story the central characteristic of the biblical view: that God himself is the king, the sole king, the king who rules the world without any mediation. Nevertheless, God preserves the right to choose any man (as he did the prophets) to speak on his behalf at any time….

The polemical aspect of this teaching can be better appreciated when one recalls that Ancient Near Eastern mythologies depicted the history of mankind as a lineage of kings who ruled from the beginning of creation. Moreover, creation itself was generally conceived as the orderly realm of the king’s city…. The biblical writer, on the other hand, replaced the royal genealogies of extra-biblical histories with the genealogies of mere men.⁵