2:1 The heavens and the earth were finished, and all their vast array.

A Multidisciplinary Contextualized Analysis of Select Passages From Genesis Version 2.0

² On the seventh day God finished his work which he had done; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. ^2:3 God blessed the seventh [era], and made it holy, because he rested in it from all his work of creation which he had done.

[This is an excerpt from a new edition I’m writing of a personal study of the book of Genesis, the first edition of which can be found here. The purpose of this exercise is to compare a close reading of the text to our current understanding of language, paleontology, and the physical sciences. Constructive discussion on the elements presented is always encouraged!]

While most attention is given to the six “yamim” of creation, it is during the seventh “yom” that “God finished his work which he had done” (Genesis 2:2). The wording in English somewhat suggests that He used that time to finalize His work. But in Hebrew verse 2:1 employs the term “vayikhulu” (וַיְכֻלּ֛וּ) meaning “finished” in the definitive past tense. The implication is that He had ceased efforts prior to the 7th “yom”. We can presume that in this age no new “creations” were made by Him.

Furthermore, "bara" (ברא) is rarely used anywhere else in the Hebrew text in the context of an act of God except when referencing Genesis 1, poetically in a song of worship, or the book of Isaiah where it is found 21 times. This begs the question whether we are still in that seventh age today, or if the seventh era ends with the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies. Or did Isaiah’s author simply leverage the Hebrew terms in a manner different from the author of the Penteteuch?

It is also worthwhile to consider what the definition of “work” or “melakah” (מְלָאכָה) is. For example, in observance of the sabbath per Exodus 20:10, we are to do no “work” or impose work on any living thing we have influence on. “Melakah” (מְלָאכָה) carries with it a context of obligation, necessity, duty, or compulsion. In other words, if it is an effort you would expect compensation for or would pay someone else to do, that is expressly forbidden.

So what is the Biblical basis of these restrictions? Although Genesis 2:2-3 mentions the seventh era being for God’s rest, Exodus 20:10 is the mandate to do no “work” (Melakah מְלָאכָה) or impose work on subordinates during the seventh day of the calendar week. This is repeated in Exodus 35:2 with the rather severe ordinance, “Whoever does any [Melakah מְלָאכָה] in it shall be put to death.”

Other passages include more specific assignments:

• Exodus 16:29 - Do not leave your “place” (taḥ·tāw תַּחְתָּ֔יו)

• Exodus 35:3 - Do not “kindle” (“ba'ar” בָּעַר) a fire. Although typically interpreted as initiating a new fire, this arguably can mean to fuel a fire as well.

• Numbers 15:32-36 seems like an amalgamation of no “work” (Melakah מְלָאכָה) or “kindle” (“ba'ar” בָּעַר) as the man in question was gathering wood.

• Nehemiah 10:31 This verse states that commerce is to be halted on the Sabbath. Although it is Nehemiah’s interpretation, paying or being paid does imply “work” (Melakah מְלָאכָה).

• Jeremiah 17:21-22 states to not lift or carry burdens or loads. Although interpreted to be a generalized rule, it is arguably in the context of “work” (Melakah מְלָאכָה)

However, these alomg ewith other ordinances are specific illustrations of tasks identified as “work” in their time.

To further complicate interpretation, there are suggested or even prescribed activities for the Sabbath. Although Newtonian “work” is involved, these prescriptions suggest that what counts as “work” (Melakah מְלָאכָה) is dependent on intent. For example:

• Leviticus 23:8, Numbers 28:9-10, and Ezekiel 46 describe making offerings and burnt sacrifices which would require lifting, transportation, and fire to accomplish. In fact, any worship activity including community gatherings would be “work” violations except that the intention is to commune with God and/or make contributions from one’s wealth to the community.

• Leviticus 25:6-7 is a curious case where, during the Sabbath year of a plot of land, no one can harvest it formally but still may eat from it as needed.

• Luke 13:15 states that providing relief for those in need or comfort for those in your care is not a violation of the Sabbath. Doing “good” is always acceptable.

• Matthew 12:9-12, Luke 14:1-5 explains that whatever is required to relieve suffering or to address an emergency is not a violation.

• John 5:10-11 challenges the voracity of carrying burdens or loads since the person in question was likely returning home with his modest effects.

Perhaps the unifying thread regarding the intent of “melakah” (מְלָאכָה) is directly reflected in God’s efforts in Genesis. What I refer to as “anti-entropic” acts which seek to actively organize the physical world to our own design or for personal gain. This can be referred to as our producer function. Or, in a Newtonian mode of thinking, acquiring tangible potential.

The Sabbath is therefore a period in which we cease such directed productive efforts allowing entropy to dominate the physical realm. This isn’t to imply anarchy is the goal, but that we switch our function to consumption of potential. We consume or distribute some of what we have produced. And it is this periodic time of physical rest, consumption, and distribution which strengthens the community and ourselves.

My summary of the Sabbath and its examples are:

• Cessation of anti-entropic or commercially viable “work” (Melakah מְלָאכָה).

• Consumption and distribution of potential.

• Actions that protect the lives of others and foster a relationship with God are consistently valued throughout the Bible. Exceptions are always granted to those ends.

Although there are examples and specific ordinances which seem to punish individuals for seemingly simple tasks, like the story of Numbers 15:32-36, the parsimonious writing of those passages as well as the context needs to be considered. If the man collecting wood in that account was doing so to benefit himself commercially that would seed division in the community.

Also, during “the wandering” as described in Numbers, there were many threats from not only the environment but marauders. Staying in one’s “place” during the Sabbath would be just as important tactically for defense as it was for rest and community. Leaving one’s home defenseless or going out on one’s own would be a risk to the community.

Throughout the Bible there are different ordinances to how the Sabbath is observed. However, since they are peppered throughout different books, this implies that they are mostly timely interpretations. The entirety of Isaiah 58 hinges on the premise that simply complying with the Sabbath but without reflecting the meditative or compassionate acts it is reserved for makes it a meaningless endeavor.

The examples given by Jesus often are considered the abolition or revision of various Sabbath and kosher laws. To the contrary, like Isaiah He was contextualizing the Sabbath ordinances by addressing intent in each case. This is the same case for many kosher laws where the likely purpose is to minimize mortality and morbidity. This is dependent on not only regionally available cuisine but on sanitation and food preparation practices.

Considering the context of intent or the act of defying entropy, this is where we recognize how the Sabbath relates to God. In the six eras of creation, He performs “work” (Melakah מְלָאכָה) by the inception of the grand constructs of physics and the anti-entropic meddlings necessary to create diverse species with intelligent life. These emergences for which modern science has no definitive explanation are God’s version of “work”. The compensation He expects in return is for His creation to be “fruitful and multiply.”

So if the position of this study is that Genesis is strictly sequential and including the hypothesis that we are currently in God’s Sabbath age, then what of the many acts of God throughout the Bible? As mentioned previously, it is interesting that Adam is “formed” for the purpose of communing directly with man, and Eve is “built” to be his companion. These were not acts of “creation” or “work” in an obligatory or compensatory condition. These as well as all other acts of God are performed to “do good” on behalf of His creation.

If verse 2:1 is read independently from the Genesis 1 narrative, it may sound like an exposition for the next story. This was likely the popular interpretation in the 13th century when Archbishop Stephen Langton arbitrarily added this chapter break. And this seventh “yom” does deviate from the preceding six in several ways:

There isn’t a declaration, but then there isn’t any new creation effort either. Nothing is named, but then no new physical principle is formed.

This “yom” also lacks an “evening and morning” reference. But as discussed earlier that is only meaningful after a period of creation to define the end to the day or as a reference to His anti-entropic efforts. Although there is a continuum of geological and evolutionary change over time, the fits and starts of these processes can resemble cycles of work and rest. As described in each of the “yamim”, there is a notable accomplishment followed by “evening and then morning”. A possible interpretation is that each era had a period of notable new developments which were followed by a period of thematically similar progress. Effectively a sustaining downtime before the next major shift would take place.

That there is no “evening and morning” could also imply that the era of God’s rest has not yet ended. I estimate this seventh era begins somewhat after the dawn of anatomically modern man and that it persists today.

• Each age includes one or more “let there be” or "yehi" (יְהִ֣י) declaration. Those statements initiate each of the major creative acts, but one is not made on the 7th “yom”.

• The “evening” (erev עֶ֤רֶב) and “morning” (boker בֹ֖קֶר) statement is absent.

• e at least one declaration. These even though there is a deviation from that pattern, following the trend in the previous several “yamim” there is a blessing that comes before that era’s footnote.

Alternatively, this is supportive of the “mixture to clarification” interpretation. Since the anti-entropic efforts of God to impart order on reality are no longer being performed in this age, there is no need to declare “evening and morning”. In this context it is not defining the passage of time but the evolution of the work being done.