Hovering Over the Face of the Deep: The Spirit in Creation
For all our debates about the nature and genre of the Creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, I’m amazed by the lack of discussion surrounding the meaning of the Spirit’s activities in 1:2 where the text reads, “And the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep.”
We’ve been so sidetracked by other questions, often questions the text isn’t even asking, that we’ve overlooked this odd and fascinating feature of the Creation narrative – the presence and activity of God’s Spirit.
Neglecting the Spirit’s role in creation is easy for us, not only because we’re distracted by the Creationism vs. Evolution questions, but also because we’ve severely limited the Spirits role in the Christian life to conviction of sin and assurance of salvation. Or, more specifically, we’ve limited the Spirit’s role to our subjective devotional lives.
But prior to the need for conviction of sin and the need for assurance of salvation, the Spirit was involved in the work of creation. Contrary to our privatized Pneumatology, the fingerprints of the Spirit are clearly displayed in the cosmos.
But what do those finger prints look like? And why was the Spirit hovering over the deep?
By placing the Spirit within Genesis 1:2, where we have the beginning of a movement from darkness and void to order and light, the author suggests the Spirit is the agent by which creation is given form and order. The Spirit is not removed from the creation; the Spirit is intimately with the creation, guiding its development and progress along with the spoken word of God.
The Spirit’s hovering over the face of the deep is significant. For the ancient Hebrews, the sea was a force of chaos and unruliness. Often mythologized in Babylonian religions, the chaotic character of the sea is confirmed by numerous biblical accounts: Noah’s Flood and the destruction of the entire world, the crossing of the Red Sea, Jonah and the whale, Jesus and the calming of the Storm. Even more telling is in Revelation when the sea is the place from which the great Beast comes (13:1) and, ultimately, a place to be destroyed in the new creation: “and there was no longer any sea.”(21:1)
Furthermore, within our narrative, it is important to note that the deep is possibly a subtle reference to a Babylonian deity, Tehoim, “a belligerent and monstrous ocean goddess.” If so, Genesis 1:2 would have been an especially comforting verse for ancient Hebrews wrestling with the constant pressures of Babylonian culture and religion. Not only are the chaotic waters of the deep under the Spirit’s dominion, but implicitly and subversively, Babylonian religion is stripped of its power and demonstrated to be inferior to the religion of Yahweh. For in our narrative, the Spirit is holding at bay the chaotic forces of the world – Babylonian religious and cultural influence, to be more specific. The Spirit drifts over the deep and demonstrates the dominion of God over the disorder soiling the life of an exiled people attempting to be faithful to Yahweh’s covenant “in a foreign land.” (Ps. 137:1-4)
I know the objections will be that there are no forces of evil yet b/c Genesis 3 has not yet occurred. But, again, like the Creationism debates, I don’t think that’s the question the narrative asks.
Rather, it assumes some sort of rebellion has already occurred. You see, the pre-Fall narrative is replete with numerous subtle references to Babylonian deities, and even words which indicated violent subjugation (1:28). Furthermore, such an answer also accounts for the mysterious serpent in Genesis 3 – another possible allusion to a Babylonian deity, and one which would, again, make a lot of sense to an ancient Hebrew person struggling with the constant influences of Babylonian religion and culture.
Thus, what we’re learning from Genesis 1:2 is that those forces of chaos, those things in the world that are disorderly and unruly, are still held in check by the Spirit. The Spirit is already at work to bring the creation back to its original intention – the order of God.
The implication of this is, yes, that there were forces of death operative within creation prior to Genesis 3, but these forces were not yet operative within humanity or the earth in which humanity resided. But these forces of death are being checked by the Spirit. Indeed, even though the narrative makes subtle references to pagan deities, these subtle references are subtle precisely because the narrator wants the reader to see that the sea was created by God and that God is in control. The sea is not a deity, it is part of Yahweh’s creation and He is sovereign over it as the Spirit hovers over the deep and keeps it in its place (Ps. 140:9). “The author here plainly understands God’s act of creation to have involved some type of conflict with cosmic chaos, but also clearly portrays Yahweh as being more than up to the task.”
So what is the Spirit doing hovering over the face of the deep? Displaying and maintaining God’s sovereignty over creation. Demonstrating God’s intimate concern for the details of His creation. And ensuring the ancient reader that God maintains control over the chaotic influences and forces of false religion. The gigs up: the Sea is demythologized and shown to be part of creation. It is not an independent agent, and insofar as chaotic forces do control the sea, Genesis 1 will not allow us to despair, as if Yahweh has lost his sovereignty.
*I reserve the right to change my mind later about any of this.*
I highly, highly recommend reading Catherine Keller’s “Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming.” Keller builds a tremendous theology starting with those first few verses of Genesis. Her book is very influential in my thoughts below.
First, I would point out that we shouldn’t equate “chaos” and “evil.” Chaos, or the lack of strict order, can be a tremendous space for life and creativity. Seeing chaos as bad tends to cause serious problems with othering IMO. By putting such strong negative feelings on chaos, we can easily associate those same negative feelings with anyone/anything that may bring a little “chaos” into our lives.
Second, I don’t see how one can read Genesis and find the sea/deep to be “created.” It’s there with God/The Spirit at the beginning. Genesis 1-3 does not promote a creation ex nihilo. If God created it, the text doesn’t tell us that. This point leads me into my next.
I personally currently struggle with the varied ramifications of ideas around God’s “sovereignity.” It seems that your current reading of the text is shaped by a strong notion of God’s sovereignity. Thus, God must have created the sea/deep, for if the sea/deep co-exists with God, that would somehow be an affront to God’s sovereignity. Normal ideas of God’s sovereignity seem to replicate heavily patriarchal ideas of kingly sovereignity. While such ideas can be politically expedient to marginal/oppressed groups, I don’t see how God as emperor somehow solves all the problems surrounding an earthly emperor. Is God so uncreative that S/He can only mimic our earthly expectations of power and hierarchy? Are we so creatively bereft that we can’t envision a God that challenges our earthly expectations of a ruler?
These are just some issues I’m struggling with, mulling over in the back of my mind. I hope I don’t come off as too critical, I just hope to contribute to the conversation.
Thanks Ham. I always appreciate your comments.
To your first point:
First let me say that I agree that chaos and evil must not necessarily always be in connection with one another. However, I think they are here. The fact that the deep is associated with a pagan deity and is continually and always something that Yhwh must defeat and overcome in other narratives and Psalms is my evidence for this. Genesis 1:2 is ambiguous in itself, but I think the later historical and poetic commentaries on it provided in the Hebrew Bible provide good insight into how an ancient Jew would have read this text.
Furthermore, I suppose I have no ethical problems with the statement. I see no compelling reason why chaos equaling evil must mean I will absolutize the ‘other’ as negative. Christ’s command to love my enemies is enough to keep this in check. And, besides, the biblical narrative is filled with polemics that ‘other.’ So, even if I dispensed with it here, I would have other places to deal with it.
Also, I suppose I don’t have the same problem with the other b/c I don’t necessarily see this as ‘othering’ against people, but against Babylonian deities, ideology, and religion. Sure, people are invovled, but the overall pull of the Bible is polemicizing deities, ideology’s, and religion, while loving people. (Though, certainly, there are some exceptions.)
To your second point:
I wasn’t arguing the traditional ‘ex nihilo‘ argument. I do think the sea was created, but that is an inference from other texts, not necessarily this one. So, I agree that Genesis 1:2 does not support a reading that says the sea was created.
Second, I know many people who do read Genesis 1:2 that way, and I don’t necessarily have a problem with them. The first few verses of Genesis are really, really difficult in the Hebrew. So, though I disagree with it, I don’t have a problem with people who read the text in such a way as to suggest that the ‘heavens and the earth’ included the ‘deep.’ This is a grammatically possible reading – one that, though I don’t agree with, I do find compelling in some ways.
To your last point:
I have no problems with sovereignty language. But I don’t think you’ve represented my position well – I don’t think the co-existence of the sea is an affront to God’s sovereignty. I don‘t think it co-exists with God, but if it did, that would do nothing to my theology or reflection on this text.
Finally, sovereignty is a metaphor used to communicate ideas – as all metaphors are, this one is limited and we can’t expect it (or any) to be 100% beyond critique.
If a warfare worldview is being thrust upon the reader here – then certainly, the idea of sovereignty rules the day. We’re not talking in Genesis 1 about an egalitarian culture; we’re talking about a culture which views the world invovled in contant spiritual warfare. Sovereignty language may be unappealing to us postmoderns, but it would have been especially comforting to Jews surrounded by the onslaught and lure of Babylonian religion. In other words, I’m much more interested in this post with what the original reader would have found interesting, than how this text might communicate or miscommunicate in my culture. (I know that’s a taboo thing to say in biblical studies today, but that’s my attempt anyway.)
As always, Matt, I enjoy hearing your thoughts and the things you wrestle with in your own attempts to seek God’s face. I hope my response has been as thoughtful and gentle as yours.
Tom
Tom,
As always, I love this series as it is very thought provoking and brings in questions that I might not have asked before. Thank you brother.
I noticed that it seems you assume a late date by the references to Babylon and its deities, religions, and ideologies. However, there is a growing number of Christian scholars (i.e. Dr. James Pratt of RTS–I think he might have left) who argue that this text is a polemic against Egyptian narratives of creation. This would put the text during the time of Moses and give it an earlier date. Would your thoughts here change any, if at all, if one assumes this text to be a Mosaic polemic against Egypt? I’m not asking for argumentation for a later date vs and earlier date. Assuming the polemic against Egypt, does this post change any? I’m just curious to know.
love the disclaimer! Seriously, the ‘pre-fall’ existence of chaos and trouble and all those ‘enemies’, even death, paves the way for a full consciousness of evolution as the mechanism of creation – see notes at Metacatholic for instance.
Hank, I’m so glad you’re enjoying these posts. A lot of it is thinking out loud, so it’s so good to get critical feedback and questions from intelligent people.
To be honest, I know very little about Egyptian mythology. I do know there are aspects of the Genesis narrative which reflect in some ways certain Egyptian ideas – for instance, there is a case in one Egyptian mythology where a deity creates humanity and breathes into humanity’s nostrils the breath of life.
Let me say this, though. I do hold to a later date for Genesis, BUT that is a later redaction, not necessarily a later writing. So, I have no problem saying that many of the Genesis traditions went back to Moses, but were finally edited by someone during the Babylonian exile or at earliest Solomon’s reign.
Since I think the traditions may go back to Moses, I think there may very well be left-over polemics against Egyptian religion. This would make sense, for it would explain why these traditions survived and gave life to the community of Yhwh for so long before the Exile. It would also explain how the traditions could be edited so easily as to make them also apply to their new Babylonian situation, where similar kinds of religious, cultural and ideological pressures were on them.
Hope that is somewhat helpful….or at least thoughtful.
Cheers to you, brother,
Tom
Bob,
Thanks for the comment. And I agree, it certainly does leave open that possibility. Primarily b/c the actual order of events/time/mechanism of creation is not what the author of Genesis is ultimately interested.
in reality, though, the naturalistic worldview of the Babylonian mythologies is what the author here rails against – in Babylonian religion, matter was the only eternal thing and the gods were all created. This is in stark contrast to the monotheistic (henotheistic?) religion of the Hebrews where God is eternal and matter is created.
Glad you like the disclaimer – Since most of this is thinking out loud, I wanted to give myself an ‘out’ if ever I changed my mind.
Thanks for putting this into a Series. i tried to figure out how early on, but couldn’t. Is there any way we can also get the original “Too Skeptical For the Holy Spirit” in the list?
absolutely, I will add it later today. Maybe some evening this week I can show you how to do this.
What do you all think about the connection between the Spirit of God in Gen. 1 and the Holy Spirit? Can we say there is a definite connection? Is this something we can be confident or dogmatic about? Is it exegetically unsound?
I have always been very hesitant to say that the Spirit of God in Genesis 1 is the Holy Spirit because I’m not certain the original Hebrew/Jewish audience wouldn’t have seen it that way. I, as a Trinitarian, do see this as HS but I think that is reading my NT understanding of God back into this passage. I believe we can be confident that it is the HS, but neither absolutely certain nor dogmatic because the exegesis to bring it to such an understanding I believe has to start with the NT first and reading it back into the Genesis text. Just like I am really not certain that every time the Greek phrase pneuma hagiou should be seen as Holy Spirit but could be seen as “spirit of holiness” (cf. Psalms 51 and the phrase “take not your Holy Spirit from me”).
I have to echo what Hank is saying up there. They way I read it as a 21st century American trinitarian Christian, that is definitely the HS there. However, that is a reinterpretation and would have been completely foreign to Jews before Jesus (and still today). Taking it on its own – no. But within my interpretive schema, yeah, it seems to be the case. I think identifying the spirit of God in Gen 1:2 with the Holy Spirit is justified and useful.