The next step in our process in determining if the author(s) of Genesis followed this same pattern of thinking is to jump right in and examine the word "create". What does this word mean? I hope I'm just restating the obvious, but it goes without question that we cannot determine what this word means by looking at it in English. Yes, we translate the Hebrew word with our word "create", but even that English word has a wide variety of meaning. So, it is imperative to go to the Hebrew.
What I am about to say is very important, so please listen closely. Determining what a word "means" in an ancient language such as Hebrew is not as simple as turning to a BDB, HALOT, or Vines dictionary of Hebrew words. First, we were not handed down a dictionary from the ancient Israelites telling us what their words mean. We have to determine this through context, comparative languages, translators who have gone before us, and numerous other ways. Second, one of the main ways that translators and scholars figure out the meaning of a word is by its usage. The meanings of words are determined by the way in which they are used. It is context and syntax that helps us determine what a word means, and also how it is being used- whether metaphorical, technical, etc. This means that if someone is going to say that such and such Hebrew word means X, then they had better offer evidence from usage to support their claims. Third -and this is just a personal pet peeve of mine as both a reader of ancient languages and amateur scholar- if you do not know Hebrew or Greek, do not act like you do. I hear this ad nauseam in churches. Some one is teaching a lesson or a Bible study, and then they say that they looked up word X and it means Y, and then proceed to say something crazy. It's not that simple. Words are nuanced, especially in Hebrew, and tend to have an enormous semantic range. To say that Hebrew word X means Y in English is beyond an oversimplification. So, please, if you are that person, stop. If you don't know the language, please don't try to act like you do. It does more harm than good. I digress. Back on point. Thank you for your cooperation.
The Hebrew word that we translate as "create" is bara. But herein lies the problem with that translation for a 21st century audience. When we think of "create", we think in material terms. That in and of itself is reason to ditch this translation. So, what does bara mean? Let me just say that our lives would be so much easier if the writers of the Old Testament would have given us an explanation of their words. For example, there is no passage that says, "by bara I mean _________. This means that we have to rely on context. In doing so, we are going to examine the word bara in its linguistic context to see what it means (don't worry, this isn't going to be overly technical).
In his book, The Lost World of Genesis One, John Walton gives a pretty thorough examination of the word bara. I am indebted to him for what I am writing here, and my thoughts come from his analysis. Also, over the years, I have gone back through the Hebrew and read these verses and am 100% convinced that his analysis is correct.
Our examination of bara is going to begin with looking at the subjects that are used in conjunction with it. When we do this, we quickly discover that the divine is always the subject or the implied subject (when the verb is passive). This means that this activity is an activity that is strictly a divine activities. Nothing else in creation can bara.
Usually, the train stops here. Bara is a divine activity. Yet we would be sloppy investigators if we didn't examine the other parts of speech that can be used in conjunction with verbs- that of objects. In other words, sure, God is doing the bara, but what is being bara(ed)? This is where commentators have been negligent and sloppy. A simple examination of the objects of the verb show that bara does not have to do with the creation of things material. In other words, if the objects of the verb are consistently material, then we should definitely take bara as referring to the creation of material things. However, the antithesis serves true as well. If the objects of bara consistently functional, then we have no right to read material origins into Genesis.
"Hold on," you may be thinking, "but what about ambiguous usages?" Sure. They are bound to exist, and yes, the verb could be broad enough to include both material and functional, or both. So what are we to do with the ambiguous ones? Context. Context is the answer. If it is ambiguous, look at the context and see what it is talking about. Must it be understood in material terms, or does a functional ontology suffice? If all the instances were material, with only a few ambiguous passages, then we must reject the functional interpretation. However, if most of the instances are functional, with only a few ambiguous passages, then we must reject the material interpretation. I wish I had an image of the extensive chart that Walton did, but since I don't, I'll briefly summarize the findings.
His list shows that the objects of the verb bara are not easily identified as material objects. In the instances that they could be, it is doubtful that the context is referring to them in material terms. There are also many cases where the meaning is ambiguous. This means that there is no clear example in Scripture that out right demands us to see bara as referring to creating material things. Granted, this data cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that every instance of bara explicitly refers to only function, but it does offer support that like the rest of the ancient world at that time, the Israelite understood the word to convey creation in functional terms. This probability is raised beyond reasonable doubt when we look at it in the creation accounts. As we have seen already, the other ancient creation accounts of the ANE speak in functional terms. Since Genesis uses much of the same imagery, the context then screams to us that the early chapters of Genesis refer to functional origins, not material. Therefore, for modern readers, Genesis 1:1 should be translated as "In the beginning, God assigned functions to the heavens and the earth."
Now that we have established that bara refers to functions in the early chapters of Genesis, in the next post, we will examine the role, function, and meaning of Genesis 1:1.