John Calvin Commentary Genesis 1

In the beginning. To interpret the term “beginning” as referring to Christ is entirely frivolous. For Moses simply intends to assert that the world was not perfected at its very beginning, in the manner in which it is now seen, but that it was created an empty chaos of heaven and earth.

His language therefore may be explained as follows: When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste. He furthermore teaches by the word “created” that what previously did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term יצר, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or form, but ברא, (bara,) which signifies to create. Therefore, his meaning is that the world was made out of nothing.

Therefore, the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity, and who gather nothing else from the account of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments and received a form of which it was previously lacking. This indeed was previously a common fable among pagans, who had received only an obscure report of the creation and who, according to custom, adulterated the truth of God with strange fabrications. But for Christians to strive (as Steuchus does) in maintaining this gross error is absurd and intolerable.

Let this, then, be maintained in the first place: that the world is not eternal but was created by God. There is no doubt that Moses gives the name of heaven and earth to that confused mass which he, shortly afterwards (Genesis 1:2), calls waters. The reason for this is that this matter was to be the seed of the whole world. Besides, this is the generally recognized division of the world.

God. Moses has it Elohim, a noun of the plural number. From this, the inference is drawn that the three Persons of the Godhead are here indicated. But since, as a proof of so great a matter, it appears to me to have little validity, I will not insist upon the word, but rather caution readers to beware of forced interpretations of this kind. They think that they have testimony against the Arians to prove the Deity of the Son and of the Spirit, but in the meantime, they involve themselves in the error of Sabellius, because Moses afterwards adds that the Elohim had spoken, and that the Spirit of the Elohim rested upon the waters.

If we suppose three persons to be indicated here, there will be no distinction between them. For it will follow both that the Son is begotten by himself, and that the Spirit is not of the Father, but of himself. For me, it is sufficient that the plural number expresses those powers which God exercised in creating the world. Furthermore, I acknowledge that Scripture, although it mentions many powers of the Godhead, yet always recalls us to the Father, and his Word, and spirit, as we shall shortly see.

But those absurdities to which I have alluded forbid us to subtly distort what Moses simply declares concerning God himself, by applying it to the separate Persons of the Godhead. This, however, I regard as beyond controversy: that from the specific context of the passage itself, a title is here ascribed to God, expressive of those powers which were previously in some way included in his eternal essence.

And the earth was without form and void. I will not be very concerned about the explanation of these two terms, תוהו, (tohu,) and בוהו, (bohu.) The Hebrews use them when they describe anything empty and confused, or vain and worthless. Undoubtedly, Moses used them both in contrast to all those created objects that contribute to the form, adornment, and perfection of the world.

If we were now to remove, I say, from the earth everything that God added after the time referred to here, then we would have this raw and unrefined, or rather shapeless, chaos. Therefore, I consider what he immediately adds, that darkness was upon the face of the abyss, as a part of that confused emptiness, because the light began to give some external appearance to the world.

For the same reason, he calls it the abyss and waters, since in that mass of matter nothing was solid or stable, and nothing was distinct.

And the Spirit of God—interpreters have twisted this passage in various ways. The opinion of some that this phrase refers to the wind is too weak to require refutation.

Those who understand by this phrase the Eternal Spirit of God are correct; yet not all grasp Moses' meaning within the context of his discourse. This is why there are various interpretations of the participle מרחפת, (merachepeth.) First, I will state what, in my judgment, Moses intended.

We have already heard that before God perfected the world, it was an unformed mass; He now teaches that the power of the Spirit was necessary to sustain it. For this question might arise: How could such a disorderly heap stand, seeing that we now observe the world preserved by governance or order?

He therefore asserts that this mass, however confused it might be, was made stable for the time by the secret power of the Spirit. Now, there are two meanings of the Hebrew word (merachepheth) that fit the present context: either that the Spirit moved and stirred over the waters in order to exert power, or that He hovered over them to cherish them.

Since it makes little difference to the outcome whichever of these explanations is preferred, the reader's judgment may be left free. But if that chaos required the secret inspiration of God to prevent its quick collapse, how could this order, so beautiful and distinct, exist by itself unless it derived strength from elsewhere? Therefore, that Scripture must be fulfilled:

Send forth thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth (Psalms 104:30).

So, on the other hand, as soon as the Lord takes away His Spirit, all things return to their dust and vanish away (Psalms 104:29).

And God said. Moses now, for the first time, introduces God in the act of speaking, as if He had created the mass of heaven and earth without the Word. Yet John testifies that

without Him nothing was made of the things which were made, (John 1:3).

And it is certain that the world had been begun by the same efficacy of the Word by which it was completed. God, however, did not put forth His Word until He proceeded to originate light, because in the act of distinguishing, His wisdom begins to be conspicuous. This alone is sufficient to refute the blasphemy of Servetus.

This impure caviler asserts that the first beginning of the Word was when God commanded the light to be, as if the cause, indeed, were not prior to its effect. Since, however, by the Word of God things which were not came suddenly into being, we ought rather to infer the eternity of His essence.

Therefore, the Apostles rightly prove the deity of Christ from this: since He is the Word of God, all things were created by Him. Servetus imagines a new quality in God when He begins to speak. But we must think very differently concerning the Word of God: namely, that He is the Wisdom dwelling in God, and without which God could never be; the effect of which, however, became apparent when the light was created.

Let there be light. It was fitting that the light, by which the world was to be adorned with such excellent beauty, should be created first; and this also was the commencement of the distinction (among the creatures). It did not, however, happen through thoughtlessness or by accident that the light preceded the sun and the moon.

To nothing are we more prone than to confining the power of God to those instruments He employs. The sun and moon supply us with light; and, according to our notions, we so attribute this power to give light to them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain.

Therefore, the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that He holds in His hand the light, which He is able to impart to us without the sun and moon. Furthermore, it is certain from the context that the light was so created as to alternate with darkness.

But it may be asked whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn over the entire world, or whether darkness occupied one half of it while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate; but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided, nor is it very necessary to be known.

And God saw the light. Here, Moses portrays God surveying His work, so that He might take pleasure in it. But He does this for our sake, to teach us that God has made nothing without a specific reason and design. And we should not understand the words of Moses as if God did not know that His work was good until it was finished. Instead, the meaning of the passage is that the work, as we now see it, was approved by God.

Therefore, nothing remains for us but to acquiesce in this judgment of God. And this admonition is very useful. For while humans ought to apply all their senses to the admiring contemplation of God's works, we see what license they really allow themselves in detracting from them.

And God called the light. That is, God willed that there should be a regular alternation of days and nights, which also followed immediately when the first day ended. For God removed the light from view, so that night might be the beginning of another day. However, what Moses says admits a double interpretation: either that this was the evening and morning belonging to the first day, or that the first day consisted of the evening and the morning.

Whichever interpretation is chosen, it makes no difference to the meaning, for he simply understands the day to have been made up of two parts. Furthermore, he begins the day with the evening, according to the custom of his nation. It is pointless to dispute whether this is the best and legitimate order or not. We know that darkness preceded time itself; when God withdrew the light, he closed the day. I do not doubt that the most ancient fathers, for whom the coming night was the end of one day and the beginning of another, followed this mode of reckoning. Although Moses did not intend here to prescribe a rule that it would be criminal to violate, yet (as we have now said) he adapted his discourse to the received custom. Therefore, just as the Jews foolishly condemn all the reckonings of other people, as if God had sanctioned this one alone, so again are those equally foolish who contend that this modest reckoning, which Moses approves, is absurd.

The first day. Here the error of those who maintain that the world was made in a moment is clearly refuted. For it is too extreme a quibble to contend that Moses distributes the work, which God perfected at once, into six days merely for the purpose of conveying instruction.

Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days to adapt his works to human capacity. We carelessly pass over the infinite glory of God, which shines forth here. From where does this arise, if not from our excessive dullness in considering his greatness?

Meanwhile, the vanity of our minds carries us away to other things. To correct this fault, God applied the most suitable remedy when he distributed the creation of the world into successive portions, so that he might fix our attention and compel us—as if he had laid his hand upon us—to pause and reflect.

For the confirmation of the interpretation mentioned above, a passage from Ecclesiasticus is incorrectly cited: He who lives forever created all things at once . For the Greek adverb κοινῇ, which the writer uses, means nothing of the sort; nor does it refer to time, but to all things universally.