Should ‘was’ be ‘became’ in Genesis 1:2?

By John W Adey

Roseford Road
CAMBRIDGE
CB4 2HA
01223 – 710647

e-mail: j.adey@ntlworld.com

Question: In Gen. 1:2, is the English translation ‘was’ from the Hebrew hyth [pronounced: ha-yeh-thah], necessarily ‘was’, or can it be ‘became’?

Answer: ‘was’ is both the obvious and the most sustainable sense of the Hebrew. Nor can hyth be ‘was’ with an implied ‘became.’ Re-creation theorists may suppose that planet earth became ‘without form and void’, during some former period of habitation, in a supposed time gap between Gen. 1:1 and 2, but hyth only states what was, not what became. The following article provides a Biblical linguistic argument to show that hyth means ‘was’ and that there is no scope for ‘became.’

In short, in order to establish that a significant time ‘gap’ is possible between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, that argument would have to do so without resort to a ‘became’ sense for hyth. That is, the Gen. 1:2’s ‘was’ would have to be preserved within that view. Alternatively, the following presentation against ‘became’ would have to be faulted.

[1] ‘Was’ is static, or merely links the beginning of Gen 1:1 with a state, a description of the earth as being: "without form and void". ‘Became’ is dynamic, and implies some (cause and) result. With ‘became’ this can be read as: ‘the earth was not always this way’ (that is, ‘without form….’), it had ‘become’ this way.

[2] ‘Was’ is the majority English rendering of this statement. Thus to argue for ‘became’ one would have to contend that the translators missed this meaning in the first instance of this regular ‘be’ verb. Therefore, to promote ‘became,’ or to suppose that sense hovered around this first use of hyth would need solid linguistic justification.

[3] ‘Was’ (Hebrew: hyth) is the natural and usual reading of this ‘be’ verb, given the syntactical constructions in which it is set, and to which it contributes. This can be seen from many other examples in the Hebrew Bible. Some are presented below, with an analysis of how ‘was’ is differentiated from ‘became.’

[4] It is true that forms of the Hebrew verb ‘to be’ like hyth occur in ‘became’ expressions. However, for a ‘became’ sense, hyth (or its cognates) has to be qualified by additional linguistic features in the context, or associated syntax. These are lacking in the immediate environment of Gen. 1:2. Again, this shows, reinforced by the following analysis, that ‘became’ would not be a tenable translation of hyth in Gen. 1:2.

[5] ‘Was’ is about what is (or was) at some early point in Gen 1:1-2. Its temporal antecedent is "in the beginning" (see, [11](d), and [14], below). ‘Became’ introduces a different impression. It suggests another point in time, which is distanced from (or some time after) that beginning. Adherents of some ‘gap’ view between verses one and two would certainly be assisted by a ‘became’ reading.

Yet, combined with ‘finished’ in Gen. 2:1, and "without form and void" ‘was’ (in Gen. 1:2) simply presents a state of affairs on planet earth, relative to ‘in the beginning,’ that is ready for, or requires, development (see [7], and [14], below.) No gap need be presupposed to this. This is how the earth became within the initial conditions of Divine creative activity, not ‘became’ through cataclysm, or chaos. This is what it was like at this stage.

Even those who hold that verses 1-2 are a summary of the ‘local’ action by God on the earth and its (e.g., firmament-)heavens subsequently detailed by days 1-6 (from verse 3), still oppose a ‘gap’ (theory) between verses 1 and 2. This ‘local action’ view means that verses 1-2 are not about the creation of the universe (i.e., ‘the heavens and the earth’ does not equal the Universe), nor about how the earth came to be. On this view the Universe (and that includes the earth) already existed, Day 1 does not include its creation.

[6] Unlike ‘became’, ‘was’ does not import any suggestion that a state-of-affairs had come about on the earth that was different from what it was at a point of origin connected to "in the beginning."

Exodus 20:11 can be cited as support for the KJV ‘was’ type of translation, where it would follow that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 imply no extended time ‘gap,’ but are inclusive of some instantaneous beginning and its subsequent effect:

The Hebrew matches Gen 1:1, i.e., "the heavens [plural] and the earth." One reading is that this speaks of absolute creation. A creation that instantaneously brings into being the matter-energy system that makes up the universe of which we are a part. In this inclusive universe the earth is, and is ready to be acted upon.

Alternatively, in the local space view, Exod. 20:11 is still taken to confirm that there is no gap between Gen. 1:1-2.

[7] The question of something ‘all-inclusive’ is found in Gen. 2:1: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." This ‘finishing’ did not take aeons of time, but six days from the beginning of that work. (Clearly, the scope of ‘all-inclusive’ would be read differently by interpreters depending on their stance on Gen. 1:1-2.)

Where Gen. 1:1-2, and 2:1, may be considered to speak in a more extended way of (perhaps) a "closed universe" – "all the host of them" may represent that ‘inclusive’ totality.

On any view of origins from science, or its application to the interpretation of Genesis, the following caution is apt: "‘Science’ is not some abstract eternal truth. It is what scientists produce fallibly. It is revisable. It is prone to error…."

[8] hyth becomes ‘became’ only when it is accompanied (more often followed) at some point within the sentence by an additional linguistic component, like the Hebrew letter ‘l’ (‘lamed’). Without this additional (prepositional) ‘l’ component hyth could not have the sense of ‘became,’ it would remain ‘was.’

This additional ‘l’ element acts as a preposition: ‘to’ (sometimes there may be another preposition. See [11](a), and n.5). In ‘became’ translations this Hebrew ‘l’ (‘lamed’), in English ‘to,’ is rarely apparent. This is because ‘became’ is a composite of ‘l’ (or some other preposition) combined with the verb ‘to be’ (e.g., ‘was’). It could be put literally as: ‘it was to’ = ‘became.’

In fact, in Gen 2:10 the translators actually have gone further and added ‘(in)to’ in their ‘became’ rendering!

Of course, hundreds of instances of this ‘became’ (= ‘was’ plus ‘to’) construction exist in the Hebrew Bible.

[9] ‘Became’ is introduced in Genesis 2:7:

‘Became’ introduces the result of a cause-effect sequence. ‘Was’ would not be able to do this.

This first instance of ‘became’ has a related form of hyth (‘was’), and the Hebrew ‘l’ (English ‘to’) is attached to nephesh (‘soul’), giving lenephesh (or more conventionally transliterated, with consonants only: lnpš). Word-for-word this is: ‘and there was the ’adam to soul living’ [Hebrew: wyhy h’dm lnpš Ê yh.]

1 Corinthians 15:45 confirms this ‘became’ sense, here: "The first man, Adam, was made (Gk. egeneto = ‘became’) a living soul."

Paragraph [11], below, looks in more detail at the Greek term for ‘was made’/’became’ – egeneto. This term is differentiated from ‘was’ in the Greek NT. Both Greek terms have distinct roles in parallel with the Hebrew ones.

[10] The difference between hyth = was, and hyth l = became (to), is clear in 1 Kg 2:15:

[11] (a) A New Testament quotation of Psalm 118:22 assists in confirming this distinction between ‘was’ (hyth) and ‘became’ (hyth l). The Psalm’s translation ‘is become’ is from hyth l:

This text is cited four times in the Greek New Testament (Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10; Lk. 20:17; 1 Pet. 2:7). ‘Became,’ or ‘is become,’ is from egenēthē [cf. ginomai]. Egenēthē is not the Greek ‘(he/it) was,’ that is ēn (cp. John 1:1-2 in (d), below). So, the Greek ‘became’ [egenēthē] aligns with the Hebrew hyth l, thus supporting the Hebrew form’s ‘became’ sense.

(b) Another case is ‘…is become of him’ from Exodus 32:1, 23, cited in Acts 7:40. The Hebrew for this expression is hyh lw and correlates with the Greek: egeneto autō. The Greek egeneto is related to ‘is become’ [egenēthē] in [11](a), above. Here is another case distinguishing ‘was’ from ‘become,’ that also shows how ‘become’ in Hebrew is constructed.

(c) Equally, the 'became' sense is distinguishable in NT Greek from ‘was’ in 1 Cor. 13:11. As in: "When I became [Gk. gegona, cf. ginomai and thus related to egeneto] a man," contrasted with: "When I was a child." ‘Was’ [ēmēn] in this NT text is connectable grammatically to the verb ‘to be’ in Gen 1:2’s ‘was.’ (Cp. the Greek first person past tense ‘I was’ [ēmēn] with the third person past tense ‘it/there was’ [ ēn ] in Jno. 1:1-2. See [11](d), below.)

The Greek NT, then, can be used comparatively both with the Hebrew, and with itself, to demonstrate the distinction between ‘was’ and ‘became.’ This can be applied to hyth (‘was’) in Gen. 1:2.

(d) If one compares John 1:1-2 with Gen. 1:1-2 ‘was’ is the first instance of a ‘be-verb’ usage in both. ‘Was’ (Hebrew hyth, and Greek ēn ) is linked to a state of affairs in both texts associated with ‘in the beginning’: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."

The typical copulative (linking) and narrative past tense role of ‘was’ occurs in other sentences in this context, like Jno. 1:4: "In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

Egeneto, rendered in KJV as ‘was made,’ or ‘become,’ also occurs repeatedly in this context (from Jno. 1:3ff.) It is clearly to be differentiated from ‘was.’

[12] The Hebrew verb form hyth has a simple Past Tense role for reporting in a recount (or historical narrative), some state-of-affairs, or condition. As shown above, syntactically it has a copulative (connecting) function, like ‘is’ does. ‘Was’ is like ‘is’ in the past, in these typical contexts:

Gen. 29:17, Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was [hyth] beautiful and well favoured. (So, in 2 Sam 14:27, re. Tamar.)

Gen. 36:12, And Timna was [hyth] concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son

Gen. 38:21, 22, And they said, There was [hyth] no harlot in this place.

‘Was’ records how Rachel looked naturally. There is no suggestion that something happened to cause her to ‘become beautiful’!

[13] Conclusion from this linguistic analysis: hyth in Gen. 1:2, is the first occurrence of the verb ‘to be’ in The Bible. There is no verb parallelism, nor any other linguistic device in this context, that would modify hyth to ‘became.’

Comparing Scriptural usage yields distinct expressions for ‘was’ and ‘became.’ They are thus able to be clearly differentiated and their function, or application, described or generalised.

‘Was’ is the sense of the Hebrew hyth in Gen. 1:2. ‘Became’ would be a loaded sense, extra-Biblically influenced (e.g., directed by concerns from modern science.)

[14] What this outcome means. Without ‘became’ some other way of arriving at a void and formless earth, in some ‘gap’ of time since the beginning, would need to be presented and proved. Even if the earth is old, some other way of establishing this would be required, ‘was’ does not apparently help!

With no 'became' language to say it 'became' (any how, or any way) ‘without form and void,’ that it was so, in this state, relates textually to ‘in the beginning.’ Thus, this condition of the earth did not come about in some 'gap' (missing from the text) since ‘the beginning,’ but ‘in the beginning’.

This is important. For this implies that, until God in that beginning created the heavens and the earth, there was not an earth to be of the form or voidness recorded. Therefore, in terms of Genesis 1:1-2, this outcome - 'was without form and void' - relates to the initial creative act, not to some intervening cataclysm.

[15] Later Scripture (e.g. John 1 and Colossians 1) sees the physical creation as encoding (for) the spiritual in Christ. The material stuff that now is, is nevertheless the basis of (for) the ultimate: "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Rev. 4:11).

[16] The future "new heavens and earth wherein dwells righteousness" (2 Pet. 3:13), with its prophetic background in Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22, introduces the idea of a transition from a ‘former’ state, to a ‘newly made’ one. What Isaiah foretells is of a ‘re-development’ of our existing earth (and heavens).

This is the only time in the Old Testament that we get a ‘previous’ creation, or a ‘re-development’ of the earth vista. Nevertheless, it shows the sort of language that we might have expected in Genesis 1:1-2 if such a transformation were depicted there after some global cataclysm.

Finally, the word ‘new’ in these prophetic contexts is used of a future (re-)creation. The Genesis work of making and creating does not include ‘new’ as if to imply ‘old,’ or ‘former.’ This also ought to have some bearing on how ‘was’ is not ‘became.’