Creation of Light in Genesis 1: The Relationship between אוֹר and מְאֹרֹת

Abstract

The primary intent of this study was to ascertain the relationship between אוֹר and מְארֹתֹ . To this end, the researcher makes use of a combination of exegesis and text linguistic/pragmatic approaches. The use of such hybrid method finds its justification in the fact that the word-based or sentence-based approach that characterizes biblical studies has shown its limitations. Recent studies have revealed that text linguistics serves exegesis well, even as it offers the researcher new opportunities to analyzing and comprehending problem passages such as Genesis 1:1-2:3 at the text level. A concise review of relevant literature has revealed that in spite of the tremendous scholarly engagement in the Genesis creation account, literary, historical, and linguistic problems still remain. Among these is the challenge of establishing a relationship between אוֹר and מְארֹתֹ . The lack of scholarly consensus seems to stem from the various schools of thought from which the text is examined. Of the eight paragraphs displayed by the linear/formal structure, four have been delved into in order to elucidate the issues involved in the creation of light, and the interplay between אוֹר “light” and מְארֹתֹ “lights/luminaries.” Upon a thorough investigation into the text, a few conclusions—including the following—have emerged: (1) the light (אוֹר ) on the first day was a new divine act of creation and did not emanate from the sun nor from a non-solar astronomical object but, rather a phenomenon that resulted from a divine pronouncement; (2) the use of the surrogate verb עָשָה instead of בָרָא for the creation of the luminaries implies a new divine activity on day 4; (3) the use of אוֹר on day 1 (Gen 1: 3-5) and not מְארֹתֹ reinforces the opinion that the מְארֹתֹ were not yet created; (4) the fact that the מְארֹתֹ are to separate אוֹר “light” from חשֶֹׁךְ “darkness,” and to divide the day (יוֹם ) which equates אוֹר from לָיְלָה “night,” indicates that אוֹר and מְארֹתֹ are not synonymous neither should they be used interchangeably; (5) Both אוֹר and מְארֹתֹ appear to be closely related, but this does not call for any conflation of the two terms. The study therefore argues that אוֹר is both temporal (daytime) and phenomenal (light), while the מְארֹתֹ are physical time markers designed to complement/enhance the phenomenon of אוֹר “light;” (6) the origins of the universe cannot be explained without the supernatural, as science attempts to do; (7) the clash between science and Scripture is occasioned by naturalistic presuppositions undergirding evolution disguised, nowadays, as modern science.