Affirming 6×24‑hour days, using asah to support Gen 1:1 as the creation event

Conversation
1

I hold to six literal 24‑hour days in Genesis 1, but I’m not talking about gap theory. I’m closer to John Sailhamer’s view: Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of the heavens and the earth, and the six days describe a later, literal week in which God formed, ordered, and assigned functions to what He had already created.

A key part of this comes from the Hebrew verbs Moses uses. He consistently distinguishes between:

  • bara — “create,” used only of God, often referring to the initial act of bringing something into existence
  • asah — “make, do, appoint, assign”
  • yatsar — “form, shape”

In Genesis 1, the initial creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1) uses bara. But the six‑day sequence that follows (Gen 1:3–31) overwhelmingly uses asah and yatsar, which describe God’s forming, shaping, and assigning functions to what He already created.

A good parallel for this functional/appointive use of asah appears in 1 Kings 12:31, where Jeroboam “made” priests. He didn’t create them, he appointed them. This shows that asah can refer to assigning roles or preparing something for its purpose.

This becomes relevant when we look at Exodus 20:11: “For in six days the LORD made (asah) the heavens and the earth…”

Moses does not say God created (bara) the heavens and the earth in six days. Instead, he uses asah, the same verb used in Genesis 1:3–31 for God’s work of forming, preparing, and assigning functions during the six days.

To me, this supports the idea that:

  • Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of the heavens and the earth (bara).
  • Genesis 1:3–31 describes the six literal days in which God formed, ordered, and assigned functions to what He had already created.
  • Exodus 20:11 refers specifically to this six‑day forming/ordering work, not the initial creation event.

So my question is there a linguistic or exegetical reason not to read Exodus 20:11 as referring to God’s six‑day work of forming and assigning (asah), while understanding Genesis 1:1 as the earlier act of creation (bara)?

Seeking additional references and resources

2 Likes
2

I can’t answer your question. But to clarify: Are you just discussing the text? Or do you believe the text is an accurate history of things that actually happened?

3

Yes. It’s an epic poem written to affirm that God created everything. It’s obviously not a scientific text.

4 Likes
4

Welcome to Peaceful SCIENCE.

5

In what sense can it be said that God rested?

1 Like
6

@reichmaj (Jeffrey) Welcome to Peaceful Science! :slight_smile:

@AllenWitmerMiller is well qualified to address this, and possibly others depending on how often they check in.

For my part, I appreciate your exegetical approach to the question, as opposed the the science approach that causes so many arguments. :wink:

Also, is this your work?

1 Like
7

Thanks, Dan, glad to be here. And yes, the post is my own work. I’m focusing specifically on the Hebrew verbs in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 , bara, asah, and yatsar, and how they function in the text. My question is simply whether there’s any linguistic or exegetical reason Exodus 20:11 can’t be referring to the six‑day asah work of forming and ordering, and/or assiging, while Genesis 1:1 refers to the earlier bara act of initial creation.

2 Likes
8

In the Hebrew text, “rest” (shabat) doesn’t imply fatigue or recovery. It means “cease from labor” or “stop the work that was being done.” The point is simply that God completed His asah work and ceased from it. My question is about that asah work itself, the six‑day forming/ordering described in Genesis 1:3–31, and how Exodus 20:11 uses the same verb.

9

I’m not raising a scientific question or a genre‑classification question. I’m looking at the Hebrew verbs Moses uses , bara, asah, and yatsar, and how they function in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20. Regardless of whether someone reads the chapter as poetry, narrative, or something else, the linguistic distinction between those verbs is still there, and that’s what I’m examining.

1 Like
10

I’m discussing the text on its own terms. My question is strictly linguistic/exegetical: how the Hebrew verbs bara, asah, and yatsar function in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20. Whether someone reads the passage as historical or not, the Hebrew distinctions are still there, and that’s what I’m examining.

1 Like
11

Doesn’t the creation of the sky in verses 6-8 point to verse 1 being a summary of what follows rather than a separate act?

2 Likes
12

Weighing possible lexical distinctions between BARA and ASAH basically lays out the foundation for what is usually called the “two-stage” or “functional” creation models.

John Walton and John Sailhamer are probably the names most associated with these models. As I recall—it’s been a long time ago for me—Walton emphasized the FUNCTION in his cosmic temple model while Sailhamer promoted a more localized “Edenic viewpoint.” (Another old man flashback: Sailhamer used to fund his sabbaticals by selling off the huge litters of pups he would get every other year from his massive Great Dane. [Or perhaps it was another giant breed. I just remember the dog in his living room much like a horse strolling through. Those are memories from 1989, I think.])

I was able to find on my computer some relevant drafts of something I posted on a blog years ago:

“By interpreting the term as a duration without a definite article, Sailhamer suggests that Genesis 1:1 refers to an unspecified amount of time during which God created the entire universe (the “heavens and the earth” idiom) prior to the specific events of the six days. This grammatical distinction allows him to separate the initial creation of the cosmos from the subsequent preparation of the “land” (the promised land/Eden) described in the remainder of the chapter.”

“Walton argues that BARA specifically pertains to the inauguration of functions or the “bringing into existence” of a system, wherea ASAH frequently denotes the fashioning, making, or ordering of pre-existing materials. Genesis 1:1 can therby be interpreted as an introductory statement or an initial act of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), while the “six days” described in Exodus 20:11 refer specifically to the asah work of terrestrial preparation and functional assignment. This allows for a temporal or conceptual gap where the “heavens and earth” are brought into being first, and the subsequent six-day cycle focuses on the “forming and filling” of the environment for human habitation.”

I’m far from a Classical Hebrew expert but I remember coming out of grad school with the impression that the ASAH and BARA patterns were more about sylistic choice/variation than something which could be over-exegeted to produce bold contrasts in meaning. (Indeed, I could say that for a lot of hyper-exegesis, then and now.)

What I found most fascinating on Genesis 1:1 was how much scholars/translators could disagree on whether it should imply the definite article (“the”). As written, obviously, BARASHIT lacks a “H-” which a first year Hebrew student might expect to find—because most English translations say something like “in THE beginning”. But actually, with certain prefixes the “H-” can disappear but linger as a “ghost form” in the subtle detail of the particular first vowel of a word. And in the first word of Genesis 1:1, even that “ghost” of the definite article is missing. So why did so many English translations choose to add the “THE”? That’s a story on its own. Another time perhaps. But it leads me to this advice: Go to some website where you can easily compare through an interlinear format various English translations for Genesis 1:1 (and the other passages you referenced). And notice where/how the Jewish Publication Society translations and others which were compiled by rabbinical and other Judaic scholars render the same texts. In Genesis 1 they leave out the traditional “THE”. And that has implications for your question.

By the way, a few months ago I “tested” various A.I. engines with questions of how particular Bible scholars differed in their view of passages like Genesis 1:1ff. I was impressed. It was a great memory refresher and it was like having a tutor pulling the different commentators/sources together for me in seconds.

5 Likes
13

Much like the verbs “do” and “make” in English (compare the massive entries for each in the Oxford English Dictionary), the Hebrew verbs ASAH and BARA each possess a broad semantic domain. While ASAH is a general-purpose term for “doing” or “making” BARA is a more specialized theological term. Both can shift meaning significantly within idiomatic or technical contexts. In a ancient/dead language, it is often difficult for modern readers to distinguish between a literal description and a functional idiom that would have been obvious to an ancient Israelite.

Yes. My favorite analogy which I’ve used hundreds of times in classrooms and general Q&As is the courtroom near-cliche: “Your Honor, the defense rests.” It doesn’t mean the lawyer got tired and needed a nap. It means his/her work is completed.

2 Likes
14

John Sailhamer’s work is actually what underlies my post.

1 Like
15

I would say that any such distinctions are far less significant in poetry than in narrative.

Are you really trying to claim that verbs are not used metaphorically in poetry? Or that Hebrew is somehow completely different from English?

16

In a much more modern turn of phrase, “It depend on what the meaning of the word ‘IS’ is.” :wink:

3 Likes
17

Jordan Peterson, is that you?

1 Like
18

Neither just that the verbs are not interchangeable and have the own unique meaning

19

I don’t believe that anyone was claiming they were interchangeable. Allen, an actual Hebrew scholar, stated that their meanings overlap, so that’s not compatible with “unique meaning” either.

2 Likes
20

My point was many (in particular YEC) often argue the verbs are used interchangeable but that isn’t supported in scripture nor based upon the Hebrew def.