What is the primordial darkness?

[DamianWarS]

in the Genesis creation account (ch 1) it says "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep" (v2) then light is spoken into the darkness (v3). So what is this darkness?

2 Cor 4:6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.

Paul here makes no hesitation to parallel the darkness of creation with that of sin. Light and darkness, in fact, are very common biblical symbols broadly meaning good and evil, and even outside the bible, these are very common metaphors, arguably influenced by the Bible itself (at least in western civilization).

So is the darkness of v2 sin? We know when the fall of man enters the world and will peg that as the moment of sin too, yet the bible makes it clear, darkness pre-existed the fall of man as the light was spoken into darkness and separated from it.

The creation account can be put into a chiastic structure where each part has a contrasted and paralleled part. We see this most clearly in the days. day 1 is paralleled with day 4 (light on day 1, luminaries on day 4) day 2 is paralleled with day 5 (sea/sky on day 2, sea/sky animals on day 5) and day 3 is paralleled with day 6 (land on day 3, land animals on day 6). what we see happening in the first few days is mass organizing and separating, light from darkness, waters from waters, and land from waters. then on the last 3 days these spaces are filled up. (1:1 is also paralleled with 2:1)

we can infer that 7 also is paralleled too, and its parallel is before the light is spoken in v2 which for lack of a better word I'll call day 0 (for reference sake). Day 0 is the antithesis of day 7. it is a dark, unformed empty void of general unrest, unfinished and chaos where day 7 is of light, is formed, is filled, is of rest, and is completed. Day 7 then is the salvation of the darkness.

Using 2 Cor 4:6 as a heuristic we can view the creation account as a type of salvation metaphor, 2 Cor also speaks of a new creation in us (5:17) again a call back look to the beginning and in this metaphor darkness is of sin and the light is Christ. this is a different perspective of the model of original sin looking at darkness as the starting point, not the fall.

So what is this darkness?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

It is a Dark Watery Chaos. There is a compare and contrast going on between the Biblical text and the other creation accounts of the near east where there the god, battles and wrestles a great sea dragon Leviathan and eventually fashions the world out of it's dead body. Here God simply creates order, and Leviathan is just one beast among many that poses no threat to Yahweh whatsoever.

 

[TedT]

Physical light cannot create darkness.
Goodness cannot create evil.

If we apply what we know of physical light to Gen 1:3 and following verses we get mired pretty fast if we see it as only physical light...so I suggest we understand it as alluding to something else.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

WoW - light separated from darkness, with no darkness... IF this light is the visible light our eyes can see, then by making it, impediments create darkness where it is absent. How can light be not separated from darkness (except by light from every direction everywhere wtih no ingredients)or how can it be so separated if it wasn't already separated by the creation of imdediments? Can this really apply to visible light? Doesn't sound like light we know, does it?

So, was GOD doing tricks with visible light or does this point to something else?
1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

Does "GOD is light" refer to a visible glow or shine like a star or sun? This is weird stuff right? Does “Let there be light,” mean HE self created HIMself? Well of course not, so light is a characteristic of GOD, a divine attribute, part of HIS nature:

1 John 1:5 And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you: God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
That God is light - Light, in the Scriptures, is the emblem of purity, truth, knowledge, prosperity, and happiness - as darkness is of the opposite. John here says that "God is light" - φῶς phōs - not the light, or a light, but light itself; that is, he is himself all light, and is the source and fountain of light in all worlds. He is perfectly pure, without any admixture of sin. He has all knowledge, with no admixture of ignorance on any subject. He is infinitely happy, with nothing to make him miserable. He is infinitely true, never stating or countenancing error; he is blessed in all his ways, never knowing the darkness of disappointment and adversity.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
...that is, as light is opposed to the darkness of sin; he is pure and holy in his nature and works, and of such pure eyes as not to behold iniquity; and so perfectly holy, that angels cover their times before him, when they speak of his holiness:

Vincent's Word Studies
God is Light (Θεὸς φῶς ἐστὶν)
A statement of the absolute nature of God. Not a light, nor the light, with reference to created beings, as the light of men, the light of the world, but simply and absolutely God is light, in His very nature. Compare God is spirit, and see on John 4:24: God is love, 1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16. The expression is not a metaphor. "All that we are accustomed to term light in the domain of the creature, whether with a physical or metaphysical meaning, is only an effluence of that one and only primitive Light which appears in the nature of God" (Ebrard). Light is immaterial, diffusive, pure, and glorious. It is the condition of life.

People's New Testament
John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him. The message heard from Christ, now declared, is that God is light. The source whence all light, whether it be physical, or moral, or spiritual, comes; the Enlightener of the universe. The term denotes luminous clearness, the free and benevolent source from whence flow light, intelligence, purity and blessing, absolutely free from alien intermixture, since in him there is no darkness at all. Light represents truth, knowledge and holiness. Darkness represents ignorance, error, falsehood and sin.

In terms used by the Scripture to define LIGHT in other places, this would mean that GOD created perfect goodness and separated it from evil…a process which we know is by faith in HIM as our GOD and our Saviour.

LIGHT IS FAITH:
LIGHT is the moral attribute of goodness and life by faith unto righteousness while darkness is evil, rejecting GOD by faith, and death. And in Gen 1:4 GOD separated between them: Genesis 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and HE separated the light from the darkness.

This suggests that ALL people created in HIS image, ALL the Sons of GOD in Job 38:7, already existed by the end of verse 2 or between the verses and speaks to the free will decision that was the separation between all those who accepted YHWH as their GOD and those who rejected HIM as a liar false god in the Satanic fall.

Faith is the person's response to GOD's claims to be our creator and our only saviour from all sin. GOD's claims were part of the gospel proclaimed to every person in creation, Col 1:23.

So could not Genesis 1:3 imply: And God said, “Let there be light,” [ie, faith unto righteousness] and there was light [faith]. 4 God saw that the light [faith] was good, and he separated the light from the darkness [evil, rejecters, antagonists to HIS will, the unfaith or never believing that has them condemned already, John 3:18]?

This separation of the light from dark may not be about creation but a foreshadowing of the end of this world, the judgement day and the start of our new life as the Bride of Christ.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

So what is this darkness?

It's more of an explanation of non-Christian mythologies and spiritual presences that seem "old."

The darkness of creation before first light was seen by God as "good."

The "Primordial darkness" may refer to angels assigned to this period of the first day of creation before lucifer was born, (son of the morning) who may have also fallen.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

in the Genesis creation account (ch 1) it says "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep" (v2) then light is spoken into the darkness (v3). So what is this darkness?

2 Cor 4:6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.

Paul here makes no hesitation to parallel the darkness of creation with that of sin. Light and darkness, in fact, are very common biblical symbols broadly meaning good and evil, and even outside the bible, these are very common metaphors, arguably influenced by the Bible itself (at least in western civilization).

So is the darkness of v2 sin? We know when the fall of man enters the world and will peg that as the moment of sin too, yet the bible makes it clear, darkness pre-existed the fall of man as the light was spoken into darkness and separated from it.

The creation account can be put into a chiastic structure where each part has a contrasted and paralleled part. We see this most clearly in the days. day 1 is paralleled with day 4 (light on day 1, luminaries on day 4) day 2 is paralleled with day 5 (sea/sky on day 2, sea/sky animals on day 5) and day 3 is paralleled with day 6 (land on day 3, land animals on day 6). what we see happening in the first few days is mass organizing and separating, light from darkness, waters from waters, and land from waters. then on the last 3 days these spaces are filled up. (1:1 is also paralleled with 2:1)

we can infer that 7 also is paralleled too, and its parallel is before the light is spoken in v2 which for lack of a better word I'll call day 0 (for reference sake). Day 0 is the antithesis of day 7. it is a dark, unformed empty void of general unrest, unfinished and chaos where day 7 is of light, is formed, is filled, is of rest, and is completed. Day 7 then is the salvation of the darkness.

Using 2 Cor 4:6 as a heuristic we can view the creation account as a type of salvation metaphor, 2 Cor also speaks of a new creation in us (5:17) again a call back look to the beginning and in this metaphor darkness is of sin and the light is Christ. this is a different perspective of the model of original sin looking at darkness as the starting point, not the fall.

So what is this darkness?

You are going to totally confuse the salvation message should you choose to make creation a metaphor.

 

[Petros2015]

So what is this darkness?

It is a Dark Watery Chaos.

*to the tune of Paul Simon's KodaChrome*

Physics - “Quantum Foam” Scrubs Away Gigantic Cosmic Energy

Quantum FooOOAm oh yeah...
Mama don't take my Quantum Foam away...

 

[DamianWarS]

The darkness of creation before first light was seen by God as "good."

v4 "God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."

God calls the light good, he does not call the darkness good.

 

[DamianWarS]

You are going to totally confuse the salvation message should you choose to make creation a metaphor.

yet Paul does just that in 2 Cor, going so far as to call it a "new creation" in us. Also, the literalness of the account, whether you accept or not accept it, is not affected by saying the creation account is a salvation metaphor. Two positions can be held at the same time, I'm just focusing on the deeper of the two

 

[Gregory Thompson]

v4 "God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."

God calls the light good, he does not call the darkness good.

However, after creating everything, God saw that all of it was good.

This includes the night.

 

[DamianWarS]

However, after creating everything, God saw that all of it was good.

This includes the night.

the account shows the darkness preexisting creation. often people will point to 1:1 as the first creation action, but v1 functions more of an intro, a bookend that is paralleled with 2:1. 1:1 opens the account and 2:1 closes it, this fits within the chiastic structure. So the first creative action is described in day 1 and darkness preexists it. What God calls good is the things he made (v31) and within the text this would exclude darkness.

Is. 46:7 may add some thoughts saying God created both light and darkness. Ancient Hebrew (the language) is through the lens of the Ancient Hebrew (the person). Hebraic block logic is a common theme where accounts exists in their own blocks of information and are goal driven within those blocks but another block may actually present conflicting ideas. Both can be true at the same time because they are goal driven and the details in the account are their to support the goal and can be somewhat fluid.

A perfect example are two creation account back to back in genesis, genesis 1 and then another in genesis 2. Both have different goals in mind and so the details take different shapes. Genesis 1 is broadly about introducing monotheism to a pagan Israel and show God is the above all things and the source of all things. Where Gen 2 is uniquely a focus of the creation of man and setting up the events surrounding the fall.

Using 2 Cor 4:6 as a heuristic for the creation account darkness is of sin and light is of Christ, thus is clear enough from the 2 Cor text but it also shows us it goes deeper than just day 1. The creation account places darkness separate to what God proclaims as good and the anthesis to day 7. Day 7 is the goal and the answer to the problem presented in 1:2. Reading 1:2 it is written intentionally to cue up the light and in this sense, darkness is predicated by the light. The whole account contrasts this darkness/void of 1:2.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

the account shows the darkness preexisting creation. often people will point to 1:1 as the first creation action, but v1 functions more of an intro, a bookend that is paralleled with 2:1. 1:1 opens the account and 2:1 closes it, this fits within the chiastic structure. So the first creative action is described in day 1 and darkness preexists it. What God calls good is the things he made (v31) and within the text this would exclude darkness.

Is. 46:7 may add some thoughts saying God created both light and darkness. Ancient Hebrew (the language) is through the lens of the Ancient Hebrew (the person). Hebraic block logic is a common theme where accounts exists in their own blocks of information and are goal driven within those blocks but another block may actually present conflicting ideas. Both can be true at the same time because they are goal driven and the details in the account are their to support the goal and can be somewhat fluid.

A perfect example are two creation account back to back in genesis, genesis 1 and then another in genesis 2. Both have different goals in mind and so the details take different shapes. Genesis 1 is broadly about introducing monotheism to a pagan Israel and show God is the above all things and the source of all things. Where Gen 2 is uniquely a focus of the creation of man and setting up the events surrounding the fall.

Using 2 Cor 4:6 as a heuristic for the creation account darkness is of sin and light is of Christ, thus is clear enough from the 2 Cor text but it also shows us it goes deeper than just day 1. The creation account places darkness separate to what God proclaims as good and the anthesis to day 7. Day 7 is the goal and the answer to the problem presented in 1:2. Reading 1:2 it is written intentionally to cue up the light and in this sense, darkness is predicated by the light. The whole account contrasts this darkness/void of 1:2.

I get the sense you're picking and choosing scriptures to prove a thesis. The following passages came back to remembrance.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

This passage says God creates darkness, you stated that He didn't.

Then Solomon spoke: “The LORD said He would dwell in the dark cloud. (2 Chronicles 6:1, 1 Kings 8:12)

If God chooses to dwell in darkness, what does your thesis about darkness say about Him?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

yet Paul does just that in 2 Cor, going so far as to call it a "new creation" in us. Also, the literalness of the account, whether you accept or not accept it, is not affected by saying the creation account is a salvation metaphor. Two positions can be held at the same time, I'm just focusing on the deeper of the two

Naming creation a metaphor does subtract from the glory and power of God. Hebrews..a later account.than Genesis..in the later Greek...still acknowledges God's literal creation...which is miraculous...faith was still evident in these Bible believers:
Hebrews 11:3:
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
The "new Creation" is the instilling of the Holy Spirit within a believer and He comes by faith in Christ Jesus.
And here is another OT account which continues the literal understanding of creation:

Psalm 33:8-10:
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;
let all the people of the world revere him.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.

10 The Lord foils the plans of the nations;
he thwarts the purposes of the peoples.

 

[fhansen]

in the Genesis creation account (ch 1) it says "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep" (v2) then light is spoken into the darkness (v3). So what is this darkness?

2 Cor 4:6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.

Paul here makes no hesitation to parallel the darkness of creation with that of sin. Light and darkness, in fact, are very common biblical symbols broadly meaning good and evil, and even outside the bible, these are very common metaphors, arguably influenced by the Bible itself (at least in western civilization).

So is the darkness of v2 sin? We know when the fall of man enters the world and will peg that as the moment of sin too, yet the bible makes it clear, darkness pre-existed the fall of man as the light was spoken into darkness and separated from it.

The creation account can be put into a chiastic structure where each part has a contrasted and paralleled part. We see this most clearly in the days. day 1 is paralleled with day 4 (light on day 1, luminaries on day 4) day 2 is paralleled with day 5 (sea/sky on day 2, sea/sky animals on day 5) and day 3 is paralleled with day 6 (land on day 3, land animals on day 6). what we see happening in the first few days is mass organizing and separating, light from darkness, waters from waters, and land from waters. then on the last 3 days these spaces are filled up. (1:1 is also paralleled with 2:1)

we can infer that 7 also is paralleled too, and its parallel is before the light is spoken in v2 which for lack of a better word I'll call day 0 (for reference sake). Day 0 is the antithesis of day 7. it is a dark, unformed empty void of general unrest, unfinished and chaos where day 7 is of light, is formed, is filled, is of rest, and is completed. Day 7 then is the salvation of the darkness.

Using 2 Cor 4:6 as a heuristic we can view the creation account as a type of salvation metaphor, 2 Cor also speaks of a new creation in us (5:17) again a call back look to the beginning and in this metaphor darkness is of sin and the light is Christ. this is a different perspective of the model of original sin looking at darkness as the starting point, not the fall.

So what is this darkness?

As darkness is conceived as the absence of light, it can be paralleled to evil being the absence of good, the ultimate evil being the absence of God which presumably makes hell what it is.

Otherwise, the Hebrew word for “nothing” is darkness, I believe. So in Genesis they were simply relating no thing to the closest conceptual experience they had: the absence of light. “Nothing” is an abstract concept that doesn’t relate to any thing that we experience, because we only perceive things.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

“Nothing” is an abstract concept that doesn’t relate to any thing that we experience, because we only perceive things.

yes, that makes sense.

Since our minds are formed around there being "things," then the absence of things may lead to the conclusion there is no light reveal what is there.

However, the truth of the matter is more unnerving, since the human mind does not like to imagine nothing, usually one thing replacing another.

But if there is a "nothing" then it means reality is not absolute, an important concept when studying the judgment.

 

[DamianWarS]

yes, that makes sense.

Since our minds are formed around there being "things," then the absence of things may lead to the conclusion there is no light reveal what is there.

However, the truth of the matter is more unnerving, since the human mind does not like to imagine nothing, usually one thing replacing another.

But if there is a "nothing" then it means reality is not absolute, an important concept when studying the judgment.

Ancient Hebrew is a very concrete language and it's no surprise abstracts like "nothing" are formed out of things that are more observable like darkness (although I'm not quite sure if thats the case) Darkness itself has little meaning without light so in that sense darkness is predicated by the light not light by the darkness.

1:1 says the earth was "formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters" these are describing the absence of things needed. Saying the earth is in this states is a call for it to be formed, filled and for light to cover it. Even the deep waters calls for land. And this is exactly what happens in creation, the light is spoken into the darkness, it organized and formed, land emerges and then the skies, waters and land are filled.

The completion ushers in day 7 which is the exact opposite of the formless empty earth. The metaphor is not hard to see. Christ speaks into the darkness of our lives, forms and shapes it as a potter to the pot, then fills it building to a state where his work in us is complete which ushers in rest.

 

[DamianWarS]

As darkness is conceived as the absence of light, it can be paralleled to evil being the absence of good, the ultimate evil being the absence of God which presumably makes hell what it is.

Otherwise, the Hebrew word for “nothing” is darkness, I believe. So in Genesis they were simply relating no thing to the closest conceptual experience they had: the absence of light. “Nothing” is an abstract concept that doesn’t relate to any thing that we experience, because we only perceive things.

I see the darkness as predicated by he light. Without light, darkness cannot be constrasted so it's formless and empty, the exact state the earth is in 1:2

 

[DamianWarS]

Naming creation a metaphor does subtract from the glory and power of God. Hebrews..a later account.than Genesis..in the later Greek...still acknowledges God's literal creation...which is miraculous...faith was still evident in these Bible believers:
Hebrews 11:3:
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
The "new Creation" is the instilling of the Holy Spirit within a believer and He comes by faith in Christ Jesus.
And here is another OT account which continues the literal understanding of creation:

Psalm 33:8-10:
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;
let all the people of the world revere him.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.

10 The Lord foils the plans of the nations;
he thwarts the purposes of the peoples.

I'm not negating the literalness of the account I just don't find it interesting. Paul already starts the metaphor, I'm just using that as a heruristic to look at the whole account.

To be perfectly honest light is spoken without the sun, moon or stars. What exactly did you think this was?

 

[DamianWarS]

It is a Dark Watery Chaos. There is a compare and contrast going on between the Biblical text and the other creation accounts of the near east where there the god, battles and wrestles a great sea dragon Leviathan and eventually fashions the world out of it's dead body. Here God simply creates order, and Leviathan is just one beast among many that poses no threat to Yahweh whatsoever.

Yes I agree, (the video) I think the literalness of the account is not the goal. I approach the goals as 2 main parts, the immediate which is an focus of anti-pagan themes as well as the prophetic that is layered in itself but broadly pointing to Christ.

 

[DamianWarS]

I get the sense you're picking and choosing scriptures to prove a thesis. The following passages came back to remembrance.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

This passage says God creates darkness, you stated that He didn't.

Then Solomon spoke: “The LORD said He would dwell in the dark cloud. (2 Chronicles 6:1, 1 Kings 8:12)

If God chooses to dwell in darkness, what does your thesis about darkness say about Him?

the creation account can stand alone because it has different goals in mind. and the account is not really about where darkness came from, but rather the answer to the darkness (or the unformed empty earth). Certainly, God is the source behind all things which means the light as well as the dark. That may be a focus of other scripture I just don't see it in Genesis 1.

I'm not trying to challenge the idea that God created darkness but I am challenging that idea as a focus within the creation account. Perhaps you see that as too much of a compromise and if one scripture affirms it then it immediately back fills all other references. I am looking at Gen 1 using the details it reveals to see what it is trying to say. When I read it, I do not get a sense God creating darkness nor does God call it good but I do get a sense he defeats darkness which I think may be a more noble goal of the account.

Day 1 very clearly separates light from darkness then calls that light good. This would be the best time to add that God also calls the darkness good. The end of the account he calls all his creation good but this is relative to the creative actions revealed in the account such as what we see in days 1-6. The account does not show us God creating darkness and based on context it is removed from his proclamation of being good. On a more abstract and philosophical level even darkness may be called good as ultimately all things are used to give glory to God and to accomplish his plan. This may work on an Intelectual level in the account but I don't think that's the focus.

This is not a compromise to me, both may be true at the same time, and again it is a common way to express ideas of tension within the block logic. The conflict of God both creating darkness and calling his creation good is certainly a worthy subject with the right sort of tension to call for it to be separated to show different perspectives so that different goals may be accomplished and sustained.

1) darkness preexists creation, is separated from light, and is not call good.
2) God created darkness

both are true

 

[Gregory Thompson]

the creation account can stand alone because it has different goals in mind. and the account is not really about where darkness came from, but rather the answer to the darkness (or the unformed empty earth). Certainly, God is the source behind all things which means the light as well as the dark. That may be a focus of other scripture I just don't see it in Genesis 1.

I'm not trying to challenge the idea that God created darkness but I am challenging that idea as a focus within the creation account. Perhaps you see that as too much of a compromise and if one scripture affirms it then it immediately back fills all other references. I am looking at Gen 1 using the details it reveals to see what it is trying to say. When I read it, I do not get a sense God creating darkness nor does God call it good but I do get a sense he defeats darkness which I think may be a more noble goal of the account.

Day 1 very clearly separates light from darkness then calls that light good. This would be the best time to add that God also calls the darkness good. The end of the account he calls all his creation good but this is relative to the creative actions revealed in the account such as what we see in days 1-6. The account does not show us God creating darkness and based on context it is removed from his proclamation of being good. On a more abstract and philosophical level even darkness may be called good as ultimately all things are used to give glory to God and to accomplish his plan. This may work on an Intelectual level in the account but I don't think that's the focus.

This is not a compromise to me, both may be true at the same time, and again it is a common way to express ideas of tension within the block logic. The conflict of God both creating darkness and calling his creation good is certainly a worthy subject with the right sort of tension to call for it to be separated to show different perspectives so that different goals may be accomplished and sustained.

1) darkness preexists creation, is separated from light, and is not call good.
2) God created darkness

both are true

I could also say as when man was created, God said it is not good for man to be alone, perhaps it is the same with darkness. Without light, darkness is not good. However, darkness and light as a pair are good.