GENESIS 1:31-2:4

When the first Christian scholar in the Middle Ages devised our present chapter divisions, he apparently was at a loss as to where the line should be drawn after the Creation Story. Most scholars today feel that he made a mistake in this particular case, although exactly where that chapter division should have been drawn is not quite clear.

On the one hand, the repeated formula beginning with “God said, 'let...'; continuing with 'and God saw it was good'; and concluding with 'There was evening and there was morning, the...day' concludes at 1:31. But on the other hand, the Hebrew wording in Genesis 2:4 obviously harks back to that in Genesis 1:1, appearing to form an envelope around all of Genesis 1:1-2:3.

So I would like to look at these transition verses, Genesis 1:31-2:3 in a little more detail, beginning with the analysis below in which parallel thoughts are more clearly shown. Note that God's name in the sections labeled A appear to be symmetrically spaced apart as do the four counted days in sections D. However, one can certainly not claim that there is complete symmetry to the whole section, as one sees throughout the rest of the Bible, including the New Testament.

                                   Figure 1: The Literary Structure of Genesis 1:31-2:3

A. God

        B. all which he had made

                C. beheld it was very good.

                        D. Evening and morning was the sixth day

                                E. and finished heaven and

                                E. all the host of them finished (1:31)

A. God

                        D. on the seventh day.

        B. His work which he had made

                                E. and he rested

                        D. on the seventh day

        B. from all the work which he had made and (2:1-2)

A. God

                C. blessed

                        D. the seventh day and

                C. sanctified it

                                E. because he rested

        B. from all the work

A. God

        B. [had created] (2:3)

The “D” Sections

Figure 1 indicates that God “resting” from his work is equivalent to His “finishing” creation, and there are indications in various commentators' writings that this is indeed the intended meaning.

Ellul explains that “the sabbath was not created because of the six days but the six days were created with a view to the sabbath. The rest was not one of idleness but of completeness, when everything was very good.”

“This finishing of God's work assigned to day seven is not a further creating, for it is paralleled by God's resting. Both finishing and resting are viewed positively and characterize the seventh day as a distinct state of triumphant consummation for the Creator...The sabbath day in particular was sanctified to be a constant source of blessing to man as the sign of eternal hope.” (Kline)

Brotzman and Tully note that the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls, in contrast to the standard Hebrew text, clearly “state that God finished creating the world on the sixth day rather than the seventh.” This was perhaps to remove any suspicion as to whether God had worked on the Sabbath.

Van Leeuwen asks, “In what sense is creation in Genesis 1 'finished' (Gen 2:1-3)?...At the end of 2:3, the cosmos is complete. Yet this complete world does not preclude development and change within the limits and possibilities established at creation. It is ready to bring forth the (human) generations announced in the 'toledoth' of 2:4.”

“It should be noted that the verb sabat ('to rest') does not carry the modern connotation of resting because of exhaustion. It means 'to cease', and in reference to the rest at creation it signifies a celebration of the completion of the week...De Vaux explains it this way: 'Creation is the first action in the history of salvation; once it was over, God stopped work, and he was then able to make a covenant with his creatures.'” (Ross)

And Carr states, “This day is the point to which the whole seven-day scheme has led. God does not command the sabbath, but he does rest (Heb. 'shabat') on the seventh day and bless it, weaving the seven-day rhythm into creation.”

“God's creation moves to a climax not in the making of humanity, but in rest and celebration (Gen 2:1-3). The days of actual work are called 'good,' but the day of rest and reflection upon the good is called 'holy' (2:3).” (Hamilton)

Kaiser: “All had been completed. Everything had been done. It was all 'good'; in fact, it was all 'very good' (Gen. 1:31). Every function, every being, and every blessing necessary to carrying out life and its joys were now at hand.”

“Genesis 1:31 has God looking at what he had done and finding it 'very good'...'very good' means sharing in God's one goodness!” (Collins)

The Role of Genesis 2:4

As alluded to above, there is some doubt as to how this verse functions in the scheme of things, i.e. whether it best fits with the previous section or with the following one. There are at least four hypothetical possibilities: (1) it is a superscription to introduce the rest of the material in Genesis 2; (2) it acts as a subscription to close out what has preceded; (3) the first part of the verse closes out the previous material while the second half introduces what follows; or (4) Verse 2:4a introduces what follows in Chapter 2 while 2:4b closes out the creation story in Genesis 1:1-2:3.

Possibility #1

The first usage of toledot (“generation(s)”) in Genesis does not actually occur until Gen. 2:4a, where there is the question of whether it signals the beginning or conclusion of a passage. Since most subsequent occurrences of this marker appear to begin new sections, the majority of commentators feel that the word functions in the same manner in this verse.

For example, Carr states that 2:4a is “probably not the conclusion of the Priestly creation story, but a separate superscription introducing the following material, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 5:1; 6:9; 10:11).”

“Many scholars have identified the boundary of the book's opening unit as extending to 2:4a rather than 2:3, primarily based on vocabulary typical of the priestly stratum. Yet, the clause 'This is the story of' (2:4) is used consistently elsewhere in Genesis at the beginning of new movements in the narrative. As Wenham points out, 2:4 also has a tightly knit chiastic structure quite distinct from 2:1-3. Furthermore...elements of 2:1-3 provide a closing to an inclusio [a set of bookends] opened at 1:1. For these reasons, the unit should be marked as extending from 1:1 to 2:3...” (G.H. Guthrie)

And Childs overstates his case drastically when he says that “the first occurrence of the formula in 2.4: 'these are the generations of the heavens and the earth...' serves as a superscription to the account which follows and can, under no circumstances, either be shifted to a position preceding 1.1, or be treated as a subscription to 1.1-2.4a.” Thus, consider the following information:

A dissenting view was voiced by Wiseman, who cited Babylonian cuneiform evidence that toledot might have a retrospective function as a colophon instead. One literary observation possibly supporting such a use, at least in Gen. 2:4b, is that the chiastic pair “heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1) ---------earth and heaven (Gen. 2:4b)” may be intended to serve as an inclusio for the first major section of the book. However, there are alternative explanations for this phenomenon and a more elaborate inclusio exists between Gen. 1:1 and 2:1-3.

Turner also brings up caveats. Besides agreeing with Wiseman regarding the function of toledot at Gen. 2:4a, he points out, “Additional uses of the formula or equivalent occur, which summarize (Gen. 10:32) or reiterate (Gen. 25:13; 36:9) a toledot already introduced, but these do not have a structuring function.” This last assertion needs a little clarification considering that Gen. 36:9 can be seen, along with 36:1 to mark the beginning of two A units in the genealogy section Gen. 36:1-43, and this is a definite structuring function, though not in the same manner as most of the other toledot introductions.

        A. The descendants of Esau (36:1-5)

                B. Narrative Unit (36:6-8)

        A'. The descendants of Esau (36:9-43)

Turner also notes that 5:1 departs from the traditional toledot formula by saying “This is the book of the descendants of...” So we certainly cannot make any hard and fast judgments ahead of time regarding the exact manner in which these formulae should function.

Possibility #3

B.W. Anderson says of 2:4b-3:24, “This is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2.4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman.”

At this point, you may be tempted to agree with the conclusion of Ellison: “Whether v. 4 is taken as the conclusion of the former story [Possibility #1]...or as the introduction to the second story [Possibility #2]...is of little importance...In fact (in opposition to MT [i.e. the standard Hebrew text]), Skinner, Speiser, NEB, JB, and GNB divide the verse between the two stories [in agreement with Possibility #3]...“It does not seem to make much difference to our understanding.” Ellison may well be correct, but in fact, he has left out one more possible way to look at this swing verse 2:4, as unlikely as this last theory may seem to be.

Possibility #4

As you can see from the above comments, there appear to be equally good reasons behind these first three views. And one way in which to at least partially agree with all three of them is to propose a rather counter-intuitive fourth possibility.

In the first place, it is almost universally recognized that the parallels between Gen. 1:1-2:3 and 2:5-25 are so strong that a two-part organization to these combined chapters seems inevitable, whether one treats the second half as a reiteration of the first creation or a special creation in a special location. By viewing it in this manner, the structural function of Gen. 2:4 becomes obvious and explains why the function of this swing verse here is so controversial. This key verse contains two lines:

    “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” (v. 4a)

    “In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...” (v. 4b)

Note the chiastic (i.e., mirror-image) elements within these semi-poetic lines. This verse takes the form of introverted parallelism found quite often in the Psalms. And this even extends to the reversed order of the two elements “heavens and earth” in the last line – a sure sign of an inclusio marking out the borders of this one verse as a literary unit in its own right.

                                              Figure 2: The Structure of Genesis 2:4

These are the generations (toledot) of

        the heavens

                and the earth

                        when they were created.

                        In the day that the LORD God made

                the earth and

        the heavens.

One unusual feature of this verse is that its first line appears to point forward to the rest of Gen. 2 as similar occurrences of toledot do. However, Gen. 2:4b looks backward to the very beginning of Genesis where the same phrase is used with another reversal of the same “heaven and earth” elements. Thus viewed, the structural function of ellah toledot here is neither as an opening nor closing phrase. Instead it is part of a hinge verse securely tying together the two halves of Gen. 1-2 in an interlocking pattern. Similar examples of such “reversed” hinge verses and sections appear elsewhere in the Bible, such as in seen, in a slightly different manner, the structure of the book of Daniel.

Thus, J.L. Collins states, “The most perplexing anomaly lies in the fact that the division on the basis of form and date does not coincide with the division on the basis of language.” In other words, why is Dan. 1 in Hebrew instead of Aramaic as are the other court stories of Daniel, and why isn't Dan. 7 in Hebrew with the other visions of the second half of the book? The answer to the second question at least is seen in the overall structure of the book, which is composed of two entirely different types of literature. Figure 3 shows how Chapter 7 serves to tie Parts I and II together by utilizing the language of the bulk of Part I while taking the literary form of Part II.

                                         Figure 3: Overall Structure of the Book of Daniel

                I. Court Stories (Daniel 1-6)

                                Chapter 1 in Hebrew

                                        Chapters 2-6 in Aramaic

                II. Prophecies (Daniel 7-12)

                                        Chapter 7 in Aramaic

                                Chapters 8-12 in Hebrew

What is the relationship between Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:5-25?

Assuming now that Genesis 2:4 acts as a swing verse in one manner or another between the longer sections on either side, that still leaves open the question as to whether (1) these are two varying, and differing accounts of the same creation event or (2) the bulk of Chapter 2 describes events subsequent to those in Chapter 1.

View #1

Ellison feels that these are two versions of the same creation event, not from different sources but written with two completely different perspectives in mind, 1:1-2:3 being from God's standpoint while 2:4-25 treat it from man's viewpoint.

Hamilton distinguishes these two parallel accounts in a different manner: “Both the OT and other ANE [i.e. Ancient Near East] literature know of only four methods of creation: by speech, by action, by sexual activity, or by combat with forces of evil. Gen 1 highlights the first of these, while 2:4-25 focuses on the second of these.”

As a key similarity between the two, Vorlander points out, “In both accounts of creation (Gen. 1:1ff; 2:4b ff.) the creation of man is the high-point.”

“If we turn to chapter 2, we immediately recognize that we are being given a complementary, and perhaps alternate, account of certain aspects of creation. The beginning of verse 4 seems at first to be merely a summary of what we have already been told...But then we read further...and the more we read, the clearer it is that the creations of the fifth and sixth days of chapter 1 are being reformulated, with a different order and with a different emphasis.” (Gros Louis)

At this point we should point out that although both Vorlander and Gros Louis feel that this is to some extent an alternative account of creation from that in Chapter 1, one states that the emphasis is the same in both while the other says that there is a different emphasis in Chapter 2.

And we could add the opinion of Van Leeuwen, who sees the relative emphases in these parallel accounts in yet a different manner: “If the portrait of creation in Gen 1:1-2:3 emphasizes God's sovereign transcendence as he orders creation by separations, 2:4-25 complements the former text by its picture of Yahweh's creative activity as immanent...Moreover, in Genesis 2, the emphasis is not on the separations in the cosmic order, but on the bonds that connect man and soil..., man and women, God and humans..., and humans and animals...”

Freitman makes this same point using another observation: “The OT begins with reference to Elohim rather than Yahweh (Gen 1:1); this may indicate that it more readily carried a universal sense for that audience than the personal name Yahweh. The addition of Yahweh to Elohim, 'LORD God,' in Gen 2:4-3:23 may be meant to claim that this universal creator God is none other than Israel's personal God.”

View #2

In favor of the second creation accounts covering later historical events, scholars have often pointed out that a common literary Hebrew pattern was to broadly describe an event and then proceed to go into increasingly more detail. This can be seen in the creation story with a general introduction given in Gen. 1:1, followed by more details in 1:2-2:4a, and finally zeroing in on a particular geographical location and human couple in 2:4b-25.

Kline: “Since the genitive in this formula [2:4] is uniformly subjective, the reference is not to the origin 'of the heavens and the earth' but the sequel thereof, particularly the early history of the earthlings. The first part of this verse, therefore, must be taken not with the preceding but the following account, which is not, then, presented as another version of creation.”