When Darkness is Upon the Face of the Deep - Genesis 2:16-17

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”


In these two trees, we have the whole of the Gospel. Before looking at these two trees and what they symbolize, I would like to go back and take another look at Genesis 1:2. "Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God hovered over the waters." What we have in Genesis 1:2 is a chiastic structure. A chiastic structure is a form in literature where two things are being compared to one another. In the case of Genesis 1:2, we have the face of the deep being compared with the waters, and the darkness being compared with the ruach (Spirit). The question to ask is this: are they being likened to one another, or opposites?

Simple logic would say that the deeps are being likened to the waters, therefore the darkness is being likened to the Spirit of God. Now, lets take a moment and break down this Hebrew phrase ruach elohim merachepheth. The verb is merachepheth. It is a piel participle of rachaph. Rachaph means to relax, the piel conjugation simply meaning that we intensify the verb. This particular verb is only found in the piel participle one other time in Scripture: Deuteronomy 32:11. "Like an eagle that stirs up its nest and hovers over its young, that spreads its wings to catch them and carries them on its pinions..." Notice here that the verb is being compared with a stirring up of the young.

The verb, scholars say, denotes an intense vibration. However, lets not lose the fact that it comes from the root rachaph, which means "to relax." There is something about the Spirit of God being at rest that caused for an intense vibration. My question is this: what was vibrating? Is it possible that the vibrations weren't from the Spirit, but instead from the creation? Obviously the verb is supposed to be describing the Spirit, but what if this is a better description of what the Hebrew word ruach is? Ruach is used in relationship to God, and only God. It is His Spirit, but it is sometimes translated as breath or wind. This movement of air, whether by breath or wind, might actually give us a clue.

I find it much more satisfying to translate this passage as "the Divine Essence (Spirit) stirred up the waters." Now, I want you to remember the whole verse. "Darkness was upon the face of the deep." So, what is being compared is still the Spirit with darkness. That isn't to say that God is darkness, but to say that there is a positive relationship between God and darkness. I think we've all felt formlessness, emptiness, and darkness. We've all felt the sensation of, "If God exists, then why would He allow this?"

It is precisely in those moments that we find the "Spirit stirs up the creation." What is being spoken here is an intense poetry. Every Christian can give their testimony of how God has helped them through even the darkest and most chaotic moments in life. This is the positive relationship between God and darkness. Even though He cloaks Himself in darkness, and speaks out of the cloud of thick darkness, He doesn't leave us there without stirring up those deeps and saying from the inside out, "Let there be..."

Now, when we get to Genesis 2:16-17, we need to keep in mind that those two trees represent the two opposites mentioned in Genesis 1:2. Though darkness and the Spirit are being likened to one another, God is still light. In Him there is no darkness. In order for God to have fellowship with His creation, He has had to clothe Himself in darkness. We cannot see Him in full unadulterated splendor and live. But the darkness is not permanent. In Revelation 21-22, we find that there is no darkness. So there is a glory still to come where we will see God as He is, and we will not be harmed.

These two trees represent the clash between choosing to serve in that final Kingdom without darkness, and desiring to have our own thoughts and opinions outside of God. To take of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to say, "I can decide this on my own. I have freewill, and God gave me a good enough mind to come to my own conclusions." At the center of what these two trees represent, we find the heart of all of our disputes in Christendom. Do we come to conclusions because of philosophy, intellect, or some other form? Or do we wait until Divine inspiration inserts the correct understanding into our hearts?

I know a lot of information. I have a good understanding of what the Bible says. But I could not tell you what my opinion is on whether we ought to follow the Law. My wife tells me all the time what it means to observe the Law, and how much we're required to keep, and that if I really want to know, I should just look to the words of Jesus. But there is a difference between mental ascent and revelation. I can mentally go through the doctrine and Scriptures and come to a pretty good conclusion. In fact, I have done that. But there is knowing and knowing. There is taking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and thus having an opinion and an understanding. Then there is taking of the tree of life, and because of the revelation of Christ, I am changed in the deepest parts of who I am.

What is it that you are content with? Are you content with a knowledge simply because you took a class, got a degree, studied it out for yourself, etc? Or is there something in you that says "deep calls unto deep," and until I know deeply, I don't truly know? This one thing alone will actually set you free from almost every deception. There is a phrase in the New Testament that actually expresses this concept perfectly: "A love of the truth." In 2 Thessalonians 2:10, we read that the only thing to keep us from deception and strong delusion is a love of the truth. That love is something deeper than a respect. We don't subscribe to doctrines, but desire the reality in the inner parts of who we are.

These two trees are two value systems. What do you desire more? Do you desire intimacy with God, or knowledge about God? Do you desire life or knowledge? The latter will come, but it only comes when God has shared His knowledge. If God doesn't share, and instead hides from us this or that understanding, we don't go to seek understanding on our own, but we rest in the fact that we aren't required to at this time know and understand. When that serpent comes to say, "I know something you don't know!" we respond with, "So?"

It isn't for me to know everything, and I thank God for it. The darkness upon the face of the deep is something that is difficult to wade through, but I'm not alone. I might not understand it now, but when I get through it, I'll be able to look back and see that God has been redeeming every moment.

What is Divine Inspiration?

I've been challenged to provide a definition of inspiration. Words have meaning. Therefore, it behooves us to come to terms seeking to understand what that term means. To place upon a word our own interpretation of that word is both disservice and dangerous. The most extreme case to point to would be Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Both Hitler and Stalin redefined what it meant to be a person. Because they redefined what it means to be a person anyone who does not add up to that definition is then less than human - subhuman. Subhumanity is dispensable, so can we truly say that the annihilation of 6,000,000 Jewish people is really that terrible? You get my point.

When we come to the idea of inspiration, we use phrases that are very fuzzy. I've heard that Divine inspiration means that the Bible says the words that God had intended the Bible to say. Well, who gets to determine what exactly that means? Or the classic example of what I've heard Divine inspiration would mean would be to say that the words are "God breathed." Yet, once again, we don't have a very specific idea as to what that means. These are general definitions, but I'm afraid that our definitions are intentionally fuzzy so that we are not required to take a stand.

Then there are the King James only-ers. These are people that aren't necessarily wrong in criticizing English translations of the Bible - many times quite accurately. Yet, the problem that I have is that they use unequal weights and measures. For example, the Hebrew is poetic. Words are not simply translated because "ruach" means spirit. Ruach has three "translations": spirit, breath, and wind. Which of those three translations do we choose? Oh, well you choose whichever fits the best. But the problem really lies in that Hebrew paints pictures with its words. Ruach is the Divine energy that stirs up the creation. So, if we're going to translate it as wind, we would be correct. In fact, it is equally as correct as breath and spirit. So how do we translate it? That's the difficulty.

I'm not going to say that any one translation is better than another. I think that all English translations have their shortcomings, and the different manuscripts that we have of both Hebrew and Greek show slight variations. They are very slight, but they exist. So, if we're going to say that Divine inspiration means that God had literally breathed this version of the Bible, and every other version must line up to this plumb line, we're left with a difficulty. Which one do we pick? If we say that the King James Version is the ultimate, then what about the later versions that had better technique and understanding in how to translate the biblical Greek?

But then this also goes with all the other versions. If we say that the New International Version of the Bible is the absolute authority, then we end up having to ask about those pesky verses that are omitted from the Bible. But what if we're actually going about this all wrong? I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, and therefore I believe in a literal creation of the world exactly as it is stated in Genesis 1-11 (or so). I believe that when the prophet spoke, they spoke the very words of God.

So how would I define inspiration if not by saying that these are the very words of God in textual form? In order to answer that, we only need to ask why it is important to have an inspired text? What is the point of Divine inspiration?

When I engage, or I hear of others engaging, in dialogue about the Bible, the most common criticism is that the manuscripts aren't exactly the same, and we really can't be sure that they were written when we say they were written, and how do we know that this wasn't added years later? The attack isn't so much about what is said, but instead on when it is said. The attack isn't so much on whether what was said is true or not, but instead on whether it was ever said, or if we just made the whole thing up. Why? It is easier to attack the manuscripts and say that we can't be certain of their validity than it is to disprove the statements. If the texts that make the statements can be proven fallacious, then the whole of the text is fallacious.

So Divine inspiration is really getting at the heart of, "Yea, hast God said?" This isn't an issue of whether the Bible is correct when it uses this word rather than that, but instead an issue of the revelation of God. So when we're trying to define what Divine inspiration is, we need to stand it up against the understanding that this reveals God as He is. Divine inspiration, then, is not found in the original texts, nor in the modern English versions. It is found solely in the person of Jesus Christ. From that revelation, we come to a further questioning of the texts. Does what is written here in my English version align with the person of Christ Jesus and who He has revealed God to be?

The debate is not over textual analysis and whether we translated the words correctly. The debate is over whether this reveals the heart of God, or whether it instead reveals something contrary to God. So debates on whether this or that passage/verse is supposed to be in here, should we go with the Texas Receptus, or the Latin Vulgate, or the Massoretic, or the Septuagint, etc are really only a little higher than nonissue. What is first and foremost to be presented is Christ and the character of God. Once we have that established, lets then go into the texts and decide as to which one seems to fit the best. Slight copyist errors and other minor variations in the original manuscripts can be trifled about later. First and foremost, we need to ask whether this is truly revealing God, or if it is a perversion.

Divine inspiration is the idea that God has breathed the whole of Scripture to reveal Himself. That is slightly different than saying that this or that version is the word of God. It is taking up the whole counsel and then wrestling from that revelation of Christ with the smaller details. Lets first and foremost get the foundation laid. When we're debating with atheists or Muslims or our Jewish brethren over whether the New Testament documents are valid, the best thing to do is not to quarrel over various texts and we believe the King James, but instead to display the glory of Christ and how the whole of the Bible displays the progressive revelation of God.

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God because I read "All Scripture is inspired..." I believe the Bible is the word of God because God has revealed Himself to me through the eternal Spirit giving illumination. God took out my heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh. Now when I read the Bible, whether I'm reading the NIV, NASB, NKJV, KJV, or the Message, I have something greater than the words on the page to line up to. Sometimes things just aren't worded correctly, and when we go back to original language we ask, "Why did they translate it like that?" Sometimes we need to read a cumulative and broad range of English versions to understand the point being made. But the reason I read the Bible the first place was because of the Spirit bearing witness in me. It was not until later, after I had learned a bit more about the whole of the Bible, that I started even asking such questions.

Ultimately, I think that when we simplify too much we lose a lot of doctrinal reality. God is Triune, therefore I believe that He has and does communicate with Himself. He has also communicated and revealed Himself to His creation through speaking. Because He has communicated Himself, I have every reason to believe that He has given us an inspired Word that reveals Him perfectly - not because such and such text is 100% accurately speaking the very inclinations and thoughts of God, but rather because God has given a revelation of Himself through those texts.

There are sometimes where I would say, yes, God is speaking directly through this text the very words out of His mouth. There are other times, like in the book of Job, where there is a revelation of God being expressed. God was upset with Job's friends because they did not accurately depict Him. That is the beauty of inspiration. It shows us God as He in fact is, so that when we read His word we can better understand His heart through the revelation that He continues to express through the Spirit. We don't read it as undiscerning nincompoops. We have been given every tool necessary to discern the text for what it is truly saying. That is the Divine inspiration: the Spirit bearing witness.