Introduction

According to many versions, Proverbs 8:28 speaks of a ‘firm sky.’ For instance, both the NASB and the NRSV read: “When He made firm the skies above…” What basis is there for this rendering? On the other hand, at least as many interpreters have translated šĕḥāqîm – the Hebrew word translated as ‘sky’ above – as clouds, not as sky. If šĕḥāqîm indicates ‘clouds’ here, it would mean this verse makes no reference to a firmament at all. But the somewhat ambiguous nature of this word means we cannot lean to heavily on it alone, which brings the context and other considerations to the fore. What then of this ‘made firm’ business? Well once again we find that many other versions have given a different rendering of the Hebrew verb here, ʾmṣ, such as: “when he established the (clouds / sky) above.” So which one is it? We will see that in fact the literal sense of the verb, ʾmṣ, is simply to be or make strong. We will analyze this word in depth below. We must also come to a right understanding of the second clause of this verse, as it is clearly parallel to the first.

The purpose of this article is to analyze this passage in detail, and in particular to: a) review the way current scholarship and the versions have dealt with it, b) offer a detailed analysis of the Hebrew, giving special attention to the parallel verbs in each clause, and c) explore the larger context of 8:22-30. The conclusion I reach is that many of the interpretations went off course when they interpreted this strengthening language in a highly concrete manner, even though both verbs show little (to no) precedent for those kinds of renderings. Even more important is the context, which shows, I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this ‘strengthening’ language was speaking of abundant waters. This is what the clouds above and the springs of the deep were ‘strengthened’ with, life-giving waters at creation. As such this passage, besides having quite a different meaning than so many have given it, has nothing at all to do with a firmament.

When He made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep … (NRSV)

When He made firm the skies above …” (NASB)

(When He) set Sky firmly in place … (and) built the vast vault of Heaven … (Message)

בְּאַמְּצוֹ שְׁחָקִים מִמָּעַל בַּעֲזוֹז עִינוֹת תְּהוֹם

Proverbs 8:28

Overview of current translations and interpretations

Rather than jump directly into a Hebrew analysis of Proverbs 8:28, let us first review how many versions, commentaries, and lexicons have handled it. There are three main words to keep our eye on in particular:

1. šĕḥāqîm — does this mean ‘sky,’ or ‘clouds’ (or something else)?
2. ʾmṣ (ʾamatz) – two main options predominate: a) ‘to make firm,’ b) ‘to establish,’ and more rarely c) simply ‘to strengthen.’
3. ʿzz (ʿazaz), which verb modifies the springs of the deep. Most translate this along the lines of: ‘when he established,’ or ‘when he fixed securely’ and the like.

While we are particularly interested in how each interpretation deals with clause a, and particularly in whether or not they support a ‘firm sky’ view, we are also interested in how they deal with the entire verse, because as we will see, the second clause, which clearly stands in parallel to the first, is critical to rightly understanding the verse as a whole. All emphases in this article should be considered my own, unless otherwise stated.

• LXX: ἡνίκα ἰσχυρὰ ἐποίει τὰ ἄνω νέφη καὶ ὡς ἀσφαλεῖς ἐτίθει πηγὰς τῆς ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν

  When he made strong the clouds above, and when he made steadfast / unfailing the springs under heaven.

  Most notable is the LXX’s rendering of šĕḥāqîm as ‘clouds’ (νέφος), as well as its literal rendering of ʾmṣ with ἰσχυρός (‘strong’). Only in clause b, with the springs of the deep, do we see the LXX choose a more interpretive route, in which God made them — not ‘strong’ or some other literal rendering of the Hebrew — but ἀσφαλής (secure, stable, steadfast, unfailing, trusty).

• Targum (CAL): כד איגרים ענני שׁמיא מלעיל וכד אעשׁין מעייני ותהומי - When he strengthened the clouds of the heavens above, when he strengthened (/made substantial) the springs and the deeps.

  Most notable is the targum’s rendering of šĕḥāqîm as not just ‘clouds,’ but as ענני שׁמיא – literally ‘clouds of the heavens.’ Was this the Aramaic author’s interpretation of what šĕḥāqîm are? Not just clouds, nor just sky, but a combination of the two? On the verb in clause a (which I rendered above: ‘when he strengthened’), it is a denominative from גרם in the causitive (Aphel); on the form, Jastrow cites this passage as אַגְרֵים (without the initial yod). See HALOT: “*גרם… JArm. to be strong, pa. to strengthen, …” and see also Jastrow (גְרֵם) “Pa. to strengthen, Af. to make substantial, harden.” So it is probably fair to say that the simple sense of ‘strength’ or ‘strengthen’ predominates with this Aramaic verb, but that we can’t rule out an intended sense of ‘firmness,’ making it hard to glean anything from this usage.

• KJV: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep.

• NIV: When he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep.

• NRSV: When he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep.

• NJB (New Jerusalem Bible): When he thickened the clouds above, when the sources of the deep began to swell.

  This is a remarkable translation in comparison to most of the others. We will come back to this later.

• ESV: When he made firm ^a the skies above, when he established ¹ the fountains of the deep.

  The cross reference (note a) is to Genesis 1:6, which obviously shows, given the ‘made firm’ translation, that the ESV takes this as a reference to the firmament. Meanwhile, in note 1 the ESV states: “The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.”

• NKJV: When He established the clouds above, when He strengthened the fountains of the deep.

• OJB (Orthodox Jewish Bible): When He established the clouds above, when He strengthened the fountains of the tĕhôm.

• NET: When he established the clouds above, when the fountains of the deep grew strong.

• NASB: When He made firm the skies above, when the springs of the deep became fixed.¹

  Note 1: Literally became strong.

• NLT: I was there when he set the clouds above, when he established springs deep in the earth.

• Message: (I was there long before God) set Sky firmly in place … (and) built the vast vault of Heaven, and installed the fountains that fed Ocean.The one thing I appreciate about this rendering is that, at least, it reveals what many interpreters had in mind with their ‘establish’ and ‘make firm’ terminology. ‘Establish’ or ‘set firmly … in place’ interpreted freely as ‘built the vast vault of Heaven.’ A vault that can be built …

• EIN (German Einheitsübersetzung)

  Als er droben die Wolken befestigte und Quellen strömen ließ aus dem Urmeer.

  When he fixed (befestigen) on high the clouds and let flow springs from the deep.

• TWOT (ʾmṣ): when God confirmed (made firm) the skies above.

• BDB (ʾmṣ): 1. make firm, strengthen, … of giving clouds their place.

• HALOT (ʾmṣ): to make firm (clouds).

  HALOT (under šĕḥāqîm) references Krašovec Merismus 35 as saying:

  שְׁחָקִים probably indicates here the etherial heights with the associated clusters of clouds which as such comprise the heavens.

  We will only discuss šĕḥāqîm briefly in this article, but this is an interesting conclusion by Krašovec, particularly in that it melds the two notions of sky and clouds into one. It is hard to know for certain, but I suspect this is close to the truth.

• Bartelmus cites this passage as referring to the sky, of which he translates: “make firm” (Bartelmus 2006, p. 221)

• John Lange’s Proverbs commentary: “When he established the clouds above, when the fountains of the deep raged loudly.”

  Elsewhere though, Lange writes: “When he fixed the clouds above. Literally, “when He made firm, made strong” (בְּאַמְּצוֹ).” ¹ So while Lange importantly confirms the view of many others, that šĕḥāqîm refers to the clouds, he clearly takes the verb to mean something along the lines of ‘make firm.’ Lange goes on to posit the absurd notion, while making reference to Job 26:8 and 38:37, that the reason these clouds could be ‘strengthened’ or ‘made firm’ is because the clouds here are “conceived of as bags, which only in case they are suitably secured and do not burst, prevent the mighty outpouring of the upper waters upon the earth.” It seems clear that Lange was not simply positing this as figure of speech either. This illustrates why it is so necessary to answer what the text meant by God ‘strengthening’ the clouds, even after one has decided that šĕḥāqîm refers to clouds.

• Reyburn and Fry Proverbs commentary: “When he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep.” ²

  It is worthwhile to consider the uncertainty portrayed in the exegetical comments Reyburn and Fry offer on this verse, as it aptly depicts the uncertain (and I believe flawed) understanding of this verse by so many commentaries and versions to date.

  When he made firm the skies above: Made firm or made strong is used in regard to making something strong or resistant; for example, the repaired temple in 2 Chr 24:13. Skies renders a word meaning dust or clouds and in this context refers to the sky or the sky with its clouds. Some translations render this line “when he put the clouds in the sky.”

  When he established the fountains of the deep: Established, as the RSV footnote shows, is uncertain in its meaning. Some interpreters change the word slightly to get a rendering like that of RSV. Others take it to mean to restrain or control. The Septuagint says “made secure.”

Hebrew Analysis

The main words we must analyze are these, as was stated at the top of this article:

1. The verb that modifies these šĕḥāqîm: ʾmṣ (pronounce: ʾamatz). The vast majority of interpreters rendered this as either ‘establish’ or ‘make firm.’ The LXX translated it as ‘to strengthen.’ Which view is correct?
2. šĕḥāqîm: does this mean ‘sky?’ or ‘clouds?’ or is it something in between?
3. The verb that modifies the springs of the deep: ʿzz (pronounce: ʿazaz). Most interpreters rendered this as ‘establish,’ though there were important exceptions. Particularly with Lange (‘when the fountains of the deep raged loudly’), and once again the LXX (‘made steadfast / unfailing’ - ἀσφαλεῖς) and the NJB (‘began to swell’).

In the meanwhile we must also properly understand the verse as a whole, which includes rightly appreciating the parallelism of the two clauses.

The Wider Context: Proverbs 8:22-31

Up to now we’ve been analyzing this passage more or less with a microscope trained upon a few key terms. This needed to be done, but it would be helpful at this point to look at the broader context, which is a brief creation account given by Wisdom (8:22-31):

²² Yahweh acquired me at the beginning of his way, before his ancient deeds. ²³ From eternity I was appointed, from the beginning, from (before) the olden times of the earth. ²⁴ When there were no tĕhômôt (depths / oceans) I was given birth, when there were no springs heavy with water. ²⁵ Before the mountains were sunk in place, before the hills I was given birth. ²⁶ Before he made the earth or its open fields, and the first dust of the world. ²⁷ When he ordered (/prepared) the heavens, there I was! When he marked out a circle on the face of the deep. ²⁸ When he strengthened the clouds above, when the springs of the deep grew strong. ²⁹ When he made a decree for the sea, that (its) waters shall not transgress his command. When he declared (/marked out) the foundations of the earth. ³⁰ Then I was beside him as a master craftsman. I was daily filled with delight, rejoicing before him at all times. ³¹ Rejoicing in the world, his earth. And my delights were with the sons of man.

In this beautiful passage, Wisdom emphasizes the fact that she existed before the creation of the world, and that she was there alongside God when he was creating it. With this emphasis, it is understandable why the events enumerated concerned the large-scale cosmic elements: earth, sky, and seas. That is, all the major elements that might have preexisted her. In every case, she was prior to them.

Verse 24 begins the enumeration of such elements, the first of these being the tĕhômôt, which can variously mean watery depths, oceans, underground-waters, and so forth. This verse is extremely important for how we are to interpret verse 28, because it too mentions the springs of the tĕhôm(ôt) (plural in v. 24, singular in v. 28):

Do we even need to comment on this? Simply pointing to this verse should settle what Proverbs 8:28b meant. For only a few verses before v. 28, the text speaks of the time prior to when the springs of the deep had any water – when they were not yet ‘heavy with water.’ Note that vv. 24-26 are all ‘before there were any’ examples, while in vv. 27ff., we begin to be made privy to the first creation events (with Wisdom declaring at that point: there I was!). The first thing spoken of as being made is the heavens, which is followed by a marking out of a circle on the face of the deep.

Then comes our verse, v. 28. No longer are the springs of the tĕhôm(ôt) empty and devoid of waters, as it was in v. 24. Now they have become strong. In context of v. 24, this must mean strong with an abundance of waters. With regard to the šĕḥāqîm then, the parallelism of the two clauses (above || below, clouds || springs, strengthen || strengthen) gives us every reason to interpret their strengthening as referring to waters as well. Which is to say, at this time, God ‘strengthened’ the clouds above with the very thing clouds are useful for … life-giving rains.

The Second Day of Genesis 1 Describes … What?!?

Then God said: ’Let there be a rāqîaʿ in the midst of the waters, and let it keep separating the waters from the waters. So God made the rāqîaʿ, and he separated the waters which were under the rāqîaʿ from the waters which were above the rāqîaʿ. And it was so. Then God named the rāqîaʿ: “Sky! (/ Heavens!)” And there was evening, and there was morning, the second day. – Genesis 1:6-8

For thousands of years this passage has been an enigma for interpreters of the Bible. ¹ What is the meaning of this word ‘rāqîaʿ,’ and what exactly were these waters that it divided? Was this simply describing the creation of the atmosphere? Do these upper waters simply refer to the clouds? Or are there details in this passage that make those interpretations problematic? Looking at this passage within its context, we must also wonder: What is it about this event that an entire day of creation was devoted to it? And what relation does it have to the works God performed on the other five days of creation?

While it may come as a surprise to many, modern scholarship has long argued that the Hebrews, along with most other ancient peoples, believed that the heavens (as in ‘the sky’) ²  were made of some kind of solid substance, whether it be of bronze, iron, or precious stone. This heavenly vault or dome had hatches in it, so it is argued, that released the waters that were contained above it. According to this view, this was the ancient explanation for where rain comes from. While this modern scholastic view goes well beyond what pious ancient interpreters thought, we can conveniently group together all views that thought of the rāqîaʿ as a solid object the firmament concept. ‘Firmament’ being the well-known King James Version translation of the Hebrew word rāqîaʿ.

One may question if such a view is nothing more than a modern scholarly invention. As understandable as that would be, the very etymology and long-term usage of the (English) word firmament testifies that the notion of a cosmic ‘vault,’ or conversely of some kind of crystalline celestial sphere (which concepts, however, are far from identical), ³ has long been believed in. Firmament is a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate’s firmamentum, the Vulgate being a 1,600 year old translation. The Vulgate itself was influenced by the Septuagint’s στερέωμα (stereōma), the Septuagint itself being a 2,300 year old translation. Stereōma comes from the word στερεόω (stereoō) – ‘to make or be firm or solid.’ While secular scholarship and conservative belief alike distinguish between the original intent of the Bible and later interpretations of it (no matter how old those interpretations may be), it is nonetheless a remarkable fact that the earliest ever translation of the Hebrew Bible, from circa 250 B.C., interpreted the rāqîaʿ as referring to some kind of hard heavenly object.

In summary, this ‘dome theory’ or ‘firmament notion’ represents the almost unquestioned consensus view of modern scholarship, while ancient Jewish and Christian interpretation has itself long supported important aspects of this model. Furthermore, while a segment of scholars, almost entirely from the evangelical community, previously opposed this view, particularly in light of the scientific problems it introduces, an increasing number of professing evangelical scholars have now openly embraced the firmament interpretation. The earlier evangelical view is represented by the translation of rāqîaʿ as an expanse, rather than as a firmament or dome:

NIV (1984): Let there be an expanse between the waters … NRSV: Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters …

<

p class=“Citation”> Typically, those arguing for this alternative explanation imagined that this expanse (i.e. the rāqîaʿ itself) represented the atmosphere, ⁴ as opposed to a solid cosmic vault. A crux of their argument was that even though the root word behind rāqîaʿ (rqʿ) can indeed denote the notion of solidity, that it could also denote the verbal notion of expansion. From this latter sense they advocated that the rāqîaʿ should be translated an expanse. Nonetheless, the proponents of the firmament view argue that even aside from this word’s etymology, there are many contextual and historical lines of evidence that seem to strongly support the firmament interpretation.

Typical Descriptions of the Firmament Model

To get a better idea of what modern scholarship imagines when they speak of the firmament, as the purported view of the ancient Hebrews and their Scriptures, consider the following depictions, which are just a few out of the tens, if not hundreds, that one encounters:

The description given in Genesis 1:6-7 of the creation of the heaven indicates clearly that the Hebrew cosmologist conceived the sky to be a rāqîaʿ, a solid material stretched out, which contained within its upper surface ‘the waters above.’ Old Testament man saw ‘that inverted bowl we call the sky’ as a solid, crystalline material, above which ‘the waters which are above the firmament’ were contained, and within whose solid, transparent mass the heavenly luminaries performed the mechanical function assigned to them by the Creator… (David Neiman, “The Supercaelian Sea,” JNES 28:4 (1969): 243)

And:

The ‘classic’ cosmology [of the Hebrews], originating in its fundamentals in Mesopotamia, … took on quasi-canonical authority through the influence of Gen 1. In it, heaven is a solid vault (Ps 19:2[1]), which keeps the waters of chaos above and beside it from invading the cosmos (Gen 1:6-8; Ps 148:4). To it are attached as lights the sun, moon, and stars (Gen 1:14-17). It has openings through which the waters of chaos can once more invade the world during the deluge (Gen 7:11; 8:2…; 2 Kngs 7:2,[19], which Hertzberg erroneously mentions in the same breath, has to do with hatches that Yahweh could make in heaven: there is no mention of any cloudburst). According to 2 Sam 22:8 and Job 26:11, this enormous bell-shaped firmament rests on a foundation (pillars, analogous to the išid šame of the Babylonians), as do the earth (Ps 75:4[3]; 104:5; Job 9:6 …) and the mountains (Ps 18:8[7]). (G. Bartelmus, “שָׁמַיִם,” TDOT 15:211.)

And again:

In the Hebrew Bible ‘heaven’ is sometimes used as a synonym for ‘firmament’ (Heb rāqîaʿ) to describe the dome-shaped covering over the earth that separated the heavenly waters above from the earthly waters beneath…. Whereas the firmament referred specifically to the canopy covering the earth, heaven often had a broader meaning, referring to all that was above the earth, including the firmament. (Mitchell G. Reddish, “Heaven,” Anchor Bible Dictionary 3:90.)

I will refer to this consensus view as the firmament concept, and will only use the term ‘firmament’ when referring to that notion. ⁵ Conversely, I will use the word rāqîaʿ and the designation rāqîaʿ concept as a way of referring to this scriptural entity in an interpretation neutral manner. It must be emphasized that the firmament concept is not limited to instances in which the word rāqîaʿ is used, which in fact only occurs in six chapters of the Bible.  To the contrary, in the vast majority of cases in which a reference to the cosmic vault is supposed, the underlying Hebrew word is šāmayim or one of its synonyms rather than rāqîaʿ.

Summary of the Evidence for the Firmament Model

The firmament concept of modern scholarship can be seen as resting on five chief arguments:

1. The root rqʿ (the reader may pronounce this ‘raqah’) has the basic notion of stamping or of hammering something out thin, often in reference to a metallic substance.
2. Numerous passages throughout the Bible seem to depict heaven as something solid, if not even as a solid vault (e.g. Job 37:18).
3. Occasional statements concerning the ‘windows of heaven’ as well as references to ‘the heavens being opened’ in conjunction with heavy rainfall (Gen 7:11) are thought to refer to hatches within the cosmic vault whose openings release the waters above.
4. It is claimed that virtually all ancient peoples thought of “heaven” or of “sky” as being a solid object, or, that some such solid object existed within the (spacious) sky.
5. Although used in an auxiliary manner, it is noted that the later Jewish and Christian interpretations anteceded today’s consensus view by as much as a couple thousand years.

To see my answer to all of this, continue reading here.

The Sky, Earth, And Seas Simply Defined

Then God said: Let there be a rāqîaʿ … so God made the rāqîaʿ … and God called the rāqîaʿ: ‘Sky!’ (šāmayim)…. Then God said: Let the waters … be gathered… and let the dry land (yabbašâ) appear.… Then God called the dry-land (yabbašâ): ‘Earth!’ (ʾereṣ), and the gatherings-of-water (mikwê hammayim) he called: ‘Seas!’ (yammim).

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי רָקִיעַ … וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ … וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ שָׁמָיִם … וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם … וְתֵרָאֶה הַיַּבָּשָׁה … וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לַיַּבָּשָׁה אֶרֶץ וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים

– Genesis 1:6 - 10

According to Genesis 1, the rāqîaʿ is not some entity situated above the (spacious) skies, as it is often portrayed, rather it is the basic definition of the sky according to a straightforward reading of the text. The purpose of this article is to take a close look at the nature of this definition, and then to see how the information gleaned might inform this debate. We will do this first and foremost by comparing the creation of the sky in Genesis 1 with the creation of the other two ‘cosmic regions,’ namely the creation of the earth and the seas which occurred on day 3. What we find is an identical pattern in how each ‘cosmic region’ is created: First God calls one of the cosmic regions into being, but at this initial point he only refers to it by what we might call a simple but technical term, rather than by the commonly used name for that region (e.g. ‘sky,’ ‘earth,’ or ‘seas’). This ‘technical term’ provides a simple description of but a single physical characteristic of that region. Only after that region is ‘finished off’ does God give it its commonly used name, which in all three cases happens to be the most frequently used term in the Hebrew Bible for that ‘cosmic region.’ In contrast, the three ‘technical terms’ are only infrequently used in the bible.

A preliminary note on vocabulary is required at this point: ‘Sky’ and ‘heavens’ are both valid translations of the Hebrew word šāmayim, so whenever I use the word ‘sky’ in this article, you can just as well replace that with the word ‘heavens.’ At other times I will use the phrase ‘sky-heavens’ so as to try and pick up connotations of both (English) words at once. If we could marry those two, it would more nicely communicate the Hebrew word šāmayim in my opinion. I more often use the word ‘sky’ instead of ‘heaven’ or ‘heavens’ for practical purposes, that being this: When most people hear the word ‘heaven’ or ‘heavens,’ they immediately think of a supernatural place that transcends the physical cosmos (I’ve learned this over the years in talking with people about this subject matter). Now there is no doubt that the Hebrew Bible supports a dynamic interchange between the physical world and ‘the heavenly,’ but the problem is that what Genesis 1 says about the ‘the heavens’ refers primarily to the physical or natural ‘skies above.’ There can be no doubt about that. Unfortunately though, neither option is perfect. For the word ‘sky’ more often is limited to the sense of ‘the earth’s atmosphere,’ instead of to the entirety of the cosmos. This is just one of a multitude of ‘communication problems’ we must deal with when merging two distinct languages, the problem in this case being that there is no perfect 1 to 1 correspondence between words.

It is not my intent to say everything that needs to be said about Genesis 1 and the rāqîaʿ in this article. We will have to deal with the rest of the day 2 event and related matters in full elsewhere. Even so, it must be understood just how significant this single chapter, Genesis chapter 1, is to a proper understanding of the rāqîaʿ. Consider:

• Over half of the occurrences of this term (9 of 17) occur in Genesis 1.
• This is the only place that offers a direct description of what the rāqîaʿ is, or that defines the rāqîaʿ in some sense (by reverse definition: the rāqîaʿ is defined as the Sky itself).
• Even more, an entire day of creation is devoted to the creation of this entity, the ‘rāqîaʿ,’ in this passage.

Given all of these points, any study on the meaning of the rāqîaʿ should be expected to make Genesis 1 front and center in its analysis, and to plumb deeply into its textual testimony. This provides reason enough for the extended analysis we offer below with regard to the ‘definitional’ nature of the word rāqîaʿ in Genesis 1.

Our main focus in this study will be on the following pattern: When Genesis 1 describes God’s act of creating each of the three ‘cosmic regions’ (sky, earth, and seas), all are first defined by a simple but technical term. Only after that technical entity is completed does God give it its common name. What we find is that the technical term or phrase that is first used occurs only infrequently in the Hebrew Scriptures, while the common name given that entity occurs hundreds or thousands of times, as the following tables make clear. ¹

Occurrences in the Bible of the Technical or ‘Essential’ Terms for the Cosmic Regions

Occurrences in the Bible of the ‘Common Names’ of the Cosmic Regions

Thus, in the day 3 creation event, ‘dry land’ (yabbašâ - pronounced: ‘yab-bah-SHAH’) is brought into being, and only after this technical entity is formed does God give it the name ‘earth’ (ʾereṣ - pronounced: ‘AIR-etz’). Likewise, God calls into being a ‘gathering of waters’ (mikwê hammayim), and only after its formation does God name this entity seas (yammim). This is precisely the same pattern that is used for the creation of the Sky: first a technical entity, a rāqîaʿ, is created, and only after the rāqîaʿ is made is it given its common name of Sky (šāmayim - pronounced: ‘shah-MAI-eem’).

The fact that the rāqîaʿ is given the name šāmayim (‘sky’ or ‘heaven’) would have provided a good enough reason to assume that these are basically equivalent entities. But this pattern allows us to assert with more precision what type of equivalency is being made. Let’s first see how this works with the land and seas in more detail:

The Land and Sea Defined

First Created, Then Filled, ‘With All Precious and Beautiful Treasures’

In the case of all three cosmic ‘regions’ (sky, earth, and seas), their ultimate purpose is only revealed when they are inhabited or filled, be that with life and with living things, or with created objects that complement that cosmic region. It is true that God names the technical entities before they have been filled, but that is clearly in anticipation of the filling that is soon to come. Until then, those demarcated regions are only a blank canvas, waiting to be painted with meaning. A fitting analogy may be found in Proverbs 24 with regard to the relationship between the technical term and the named term:

“By wisdom a house is built, and by understanding it is established; by knowledge are its rooms filled with all precious and beautiful treasures.” בְּחָכְמָה יִבָּנֶה בָּיִת וּבִתְבוּנָה יִתְכּוֹנָן׃ וּבְדַעַת חֲדָרִים יִמָּלְאוּ כָּל־הוֹן יָקָר וְנָעִים‎ – Proverbs 24:3-4

According to this analogy, we may see the technical term (be that rāqîaʿ, mikwê hammayim, or yabbašâ) as an uninhabited region which has the capacity to be inhabited, like the basic structure of a house that has not yet been ‘moved into’ or filled. The common names however are given in anticipation of these entities being filled, just as the rooms to this house are “filled with all precious and beautiful treasures.” The three regions, heaven, earth and seas, had to first have their basic substance or essence established or delimited before they could be inhabited.

As for earth and seas, the word ‘filled’ (מלא‎) is in fact used for both:

• Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas…” - פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־הַמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים (Gen 1:22, said to the sea creatures)
• Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth… - פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ (Gen 1:28, said to mankind)

While the dry land is also filled with vegetation on day 3, the next day sees the equivalent ‘filling’ of the heavens with the two ‘great lights’ and with the stars. However, we would not expect the same ‘filling’ and ‘be fruitful’ terminology to be used for the inanimate cosmic bodies, which of course do not ‘multiply’. So even though the word ‘fill’ is not used, these objects were still ‘placed in’ the heavenly ‘expanse’:

• And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens (birĕqîaʿ haššāmayim) to give light upon the earth -ויִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם לְהָאִיר עַל־הָאָרֶץ (Gen 1:17)

This verse presents an obvious problem to the firmament view. For if the sun, moon and stars were thought of as bodily objects that could be placed within the rāqîaʿ, then it would seem that the rāqîaʿ is a spacious entity – a region or an area within which something could be placed. So how does the alternative view deal with this problem? What they do is treat this passage as if it represents engraving language. As if the sun, moon and stars are but etchings that were etched into the solid dome, or like lights that were pinned upon the ‘firmament.’ We will dedicate a separate article to this passage, but suffice it to say, this suggestion is quite lacking. The Hebrew language is not lacking with regard to engraving language, but none of the direct engraving words or terminology is used here. Meanwhile, most passages in scripture treat the cosmic bodies (at least the sun and moon) as bodily objects, and that is certainly true in the case of this passage. The text clearly describes God as making these luminaries, and then placing them in the ‘expanse.’ Other scriptures quite clearly treat the cosmic bodies as bodily objects that travel their courses in the heavens. I do not think we can absolutely rule out these alternative readings, even though they are weak in comparison to this straightforward reading. However, there is at least one other passage that unambiguously treats the rāqîaʿ as something that can be filled … even by God himself! It is the evidence as a whole that ultimately must settle this matter.

The Reason for the Expression ‘The Expanse of the Heavens’ (rāqîaʿ haššāmayim)

Let there be luminaries in the rāqîaʿ of the heavens so as to separate between the day and between the night… And let them be luminaries in the rāqîaʿ of the heavens to give light upon the earth… So God made the two great luminaries … and the stars, and God set them in the rāqîaʿ of the heavens to give light on the earth.

יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה … וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם לְהָאִיר עַל־הָאָרֶץ … וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת־שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים … וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם לְהָאִיר עַל־הָאָרֶץ

– Genesis 1:14-17

One objection that can be raised to the assertion that the word rāqîaʿ forms a basic or essential definition of the šāmayim (the sky) in Genesis 1 is the seemingly redundant phrase rāqîaʿ haššāmayim (‘expanse of the heavens’), which is repeated three times in Genesis 1:14-17. What is the reason for this seemingly redundant phrase? And if these two words, the šāmayim and the rāqîaʿ, are not much more than synonyms for the same thing, why repeat the two together? The problem this raises is the possibility that these two words in fact represent two different entities, which of course would destroy the central point of everything we have been asserting in this article. If they were actually being spoken of, via this phrase, as two separate entities, then it would clearly lend support to the firmament notion, which typically has the solid-dome arched over the spacious skies above.

In answer, let us first consider two significant problems this phrase raises for the alternative view:

1. First off, at the creation of the rāqîaʿ in Genesis 1:6-8, which notably took an entire day of creation, we have already seen how šāmayim is simply the name given to the rāqîaʿ. There is simply no denying this. ‘Heaven’ is the name for the technical entity known as ‘rāqîaʿ,’ according to this very account, just as ‘seas’ is the name given to the technical entity ‘gatherings of water.’
2. But even if we were to ignore this point, we would still have to ask: Why go to all the trouble of speaking of ‘the firmament of the heavens anyways?’ In other words, the phrase would still be redundant! For let’s pretend for the moment that the rāqîaʿ of Genesis 1 actually refers to a dome-firmament … would there be even the slightest possibility that the reader thought the rāqîaʿ is somehow associated with the seas? or with the dry-land? As if anyone might have mistaken a plain reference to ‘rāqîaʿ’ as actually referring to ‘the firmament of the seas,’ or to ‘the firmament of the earth.’ Of course this is absurd. So we are left with the conclusion that in any case, this phrase still seems redundant. Making rāqîaʿ a separate entity from šāmayim does not really get rid of the seeming redundancy.

So what is the answer then? I believe what we have learned previously about the definitional nature of much of Genesis 1 well explains this seemingly redundant phrase. In fact, we might have predicted it, if we were astute enough readers. We have seen how this account saw fit to first describe all three cosmic regions in terms of their basic, ‘technical’ substance. The seas are essentially gatherings of water; the earth is essentially dry land, and the sky-heavens are essentially (according to our view at least) an expanse of cosmic space which was enlarged by God’s command on day 2 amidst the waters. The word ‘heavens’ however connotes more than just ‘cosmic-space,’ for it connotes the whole finished product, which has been filled with the ‘hosts of heaven.’

With that summary given, I think the simplest answer is that this expression continues the concern expressed within this account for defining things according to their core realities (this is true throughout Genesis 1). And thus, in Gen 1:22, we also see that the sea life is not simply commanded ‘to fill the seas,’ but rather, ‘to fill the waters of the seas.’ That may seem to be redundant, but it fits the concerns of this scriptural account of continually defining the creation in terms of their basic essences. So just as the sea creatures fill ‘the waters of the seas,’ so the cosmic bodies were to abide not only ‘in heaven,’ but ‘in the expanse of heaven.’ This seems to be the reason that the seemingly redundant phrase rāqîaʿ haššāmayim was used.

Implications and Summary

The primary conclusion to be drawn from the above analysis can be introduced with this question:

What is the relationship between the rāqîaʿ and the heavens (šāmayim) in Genesis 1?

That is an important question, because while we know very little about the rāqîaʿ from its scriptural occurrences (with only 8 occurrences outside of this chapter), we know a lot about the šāmayim, the most used word in the Hebrew Bible for ‘sky’ or ‘heavens,’ as it occurs some 421 times. The pattern we have traced in Genesis 1 should make the answer to this question abundantly clear: The rāqîaʿ constitutes the basic or fundamental essence of what the sky-heavens (šāmayim) are, just as the dry-land (yabbašâ) constitutes the basic essence of what the earth (ʾereṣ) is, and just as the gatherings of water (mikwê hammayim) constitute the basic essence of what the seas (yammim) are. Furthermore, the word šāmayim is simply the name God gave to the rāqîaʿ, a point which further emphasizes the direct equality between the two. With regard to this naming process, it is instructive to see that while God brought the animals to Adam for him to name, God himself reserved the responsibility to name these major parts or regions of the cosmos, after they had been created (just as Adam only named the creatures after they were fully created). The dry-land God named: ‘earth,’ the gatherings of water he named: ‘seas,’ and the rāqîaʿ he named: ‘sky.’

The first implication of this conclusion is that Genesis 1 gives no support whatsoever for the notion that there is a spacious sky that is overarched by a separate solid dome-like entity, namely a firmament. To stay true to the Genesis text, the most the proponents of the firmament view can say is that the sky of Genesis 1 is, plain and simple, a firmament. Many do say this, of course, but not infrequently you will hear these proponents speaking as if a solid-dome overarches an otherwise ‘spacious sky.’ Ruling out such a view, at least in the case of Genesis 1, is a big step to make. Indeed, if Genesis 1 had been shown to be referencing, or even seem to be referencing, two separate entities, that could only support the firmament view or something like it.

Another important implication can be introduced, again, with a question:

Why was the word rāqîaʿ used in the first place? There is already a main word for ‘sky’ in Hebrew (šāmayim), so why introduce this quite frankly enigmatic word into the text?

This is an important question. The mere fact that some entity, with a totally unrelated etymology to the typical words for ‘sky’ in Hebrew, is spoken of in the text, and indeed spoken of in a primary sense, can quite understandably seem to support the notion that it really does refer to something other than the (spacious) sky. For why else would such an enigmatic word even be spoken of in the first place? To fully address this question, we must of course get into the etymology of the word, which is a major task that must be addressed elsewhere. But with the etymology aside for now, the exciting thing about the research we have just offered is that it not only offers a satisfactory answer to this question, quite beyond that, this research in fact would have lead us to expect and even predict that some word like this be used at this point!

So in light of the pattern we analyzed above with respect to the creation of the cosmic regions, we would have expected the account to provide a simple but technical term that describes the basic essence of what the sky is. Based on the characteristics of the ‘technical’ term for the other two cosmic regions, we would expect this word to be a noun that provides a simple physical description of but one characteristic of that region. Rāqîaʿ fits this description perfectly. This does not in itself rule out the alternative ‘firmament’ explanation (that the sky is a firmament). As I will explain in a bit, we need the rest of Scripture to settle that question.

But there is no doubt that our explanation fits this pattern at least equally as well. For if the word ‘rāqîaʿ’ can responsibly be taken to mean ‘expansion’ or ‘expanse,’ then we find this perfectly fits the pattern we found with the other two cosmic regions. For the sky of course has as one of its central characteristics that it is a wide-open and expansive space. Some words that come to mind are: large, expansive, huge, broad, wide-open and otherwise spacious. These are not advanced scientific notions. They call Montana the “Big Sky Country,” and which one of us has never looked up at the sky and felt its expansive and overwhelming largeness? Nor is such a perspective limited to Montana or to modernity. For instance, amongst the ancient Greeks, Homer would quite frequently speak of ‘the broad heaven’ (οὐρανὸς εὐρύς, e.g. Il. 3:364) and of ‘the great (mega) heaven’ (μέγας οὐρανός, e.g. Il. 5:750).

So then, we can quite easily read this account as saying that before God made the heavens / the skies, no such expanse existed, only the primal waters. But if the universe God was making was indeed created so as “to be inhabited,” ³ then of course the first thing God would have to do is to to enlarge an expansive space amidst those waters (we will talk about the waters elsewhere), thereby creating cosmic space. Cosmic living room if you will, not only for us humans, but for all things God was to create in the cosmos thereafter (including even the land and seas).

So it should be no surprise that the fundamental characteristic of the ‘sky’ that this account emphasized, or rather that God himself emphasized, was the wide-open and expansive aspect of the sky and heavens. It was the creation of this very ‘wide-openness’ that created a cosmos that could be filled in the first place. The only thing left to prove is that the root word rqʿ can actually connote the verbal sense of expansion alone, which question we will address elsewhere.

In close, while we have learned a lot here, the definitive answers we are looking for can ultimately be found only by looking throughout the whole of the scriptural witness. Because it would be hard to fully exclude the firmament interpretation (that the sky represents a solid-dome) as a possible interpretation of this text, taken all on its own. What we need is further witness outside of this single chapter, while we ask the question: Does the rest of scripture ever, much less frequently, speak of the sky as a solid object? Or does it to the contrary typically if not always speak of the sky as a spacious region that can be inhabited? This is where the many texts that have been taken to speak of a solid or firm sky must be analyzed in depth.

Thesis Statement

In light of the consensus view on ‘the firmament’ that we just laid out, I present the following alternative view: Not only did the Hebrews not believe in any such ‘firm sky’ notion, apparently, neither did their ancient contemporaries. In short, there has never been any wide-spread ‘firmament’ notion in antiquity. What there has been is a confluence of cultural and linguistic misunderstandings and misreadings of ancient texts. In the case of the Hebrews, these misunderstandings started early in the history of biblical interpretation.

Many will read these claims with incredulity. But this is true in large part because most people have only been familiar with the evidence at a distance, being influenced mostly from popular level summary views on the purported ‘Hebrew Conception of the Universe.’ Most of these depictions, even if we were to accept the firmament notion, are highly selective with the evidence, giving the impression that the cosmic vault of the sky notion could be found on every other page of the ancient source material, when the direct opposite is the case. In the vast majority of cases, when the Bible or when other ancient peoples spoke of the sky, they spoke of it as a spacious region which could be inhabited: by birds, by the cosmic bodies, and then most importantly, by God himself (by ‘the gods’ for the non-Hebrews). The actual ratio might be closer to 1,000 to 1.

As such, these common depictions are at best highly misleading in their portrayal of the ‘cosmic worlview’ of any of these peoples. Because of this, most people do not know that some of the greatest experts in the field have claimed that many an important ANE culture never had any such ‘firmament’ conception at all. And with regard to the Bible, little do they know that some scholars (even liberal, German-schooled scholars) have claimed that the Hebrew Bible itself betrays two different cosmological understandings, with one of these betraying no knowledge of a ‘firmament’ at all! Never will you hear such evidence from the popular level summaries, the like of which you find in abundance in scholastic sources and throughout the internet. Once people have been disabused of the claim of a monolithic, universal notion in antiquity of a physio-mechanical vault in the sky, it becomes easier for us to critically examine the remaining texts that seem to support that view (for example see here and here).

What then did Genesis 1 mean by the word rāqîaʿ? And what in general did the Genesis day two event represent? I argue that the Genesis day two event represents the creation of the spacious expanse of the heavens (šāmayim), which God enlarged or expanded at this time, thereby creating world-space. This ‘cosmic stretch’ did not exist at the very beginning, not until God called it into being, thereby creating a cosmic space to live in (a cosmic ‘living room’). The term ‘rāqîaʿ’ perfectly conveys these notions of expansion and enlargement (of the skies and universe). This use of a simple-technical word to describe the ‘cosmic region’ of sky / heavens fits precisely with the pattern in Genesis 1, in which the other major cosmic ‘regions’ (seas and earth) were first described with a simple-technical word, before being given their common name (that being šāmayim — ‘heavens’ / ‘skies’ in the case of the rāqîaʿ). While this term quite aptly conveyed the senses I have just described, of course the same root word unfortunately brought with it some other possible meanings, which is the main reason we have had all of these misconceptions throughout the millenia. One might understandably question if the notion of ‘space’ was too abstract of a concept for the ancients, but this is very far from the truth, as we will see.

In identifying the rāqîaʿ as the spacious expanse of the heavens, this thesis stands in continuity with the ‘expanse’ interpretation many scholars have advocated in decades past. However: 1) despite some excellent but brief defenses of this view in the last half century, never has a comprehensive case been made for this view (to say the least). 2) I reject some of the common descriptions that went with this view, such as the anachronistic argument that ‘the expanse represents the earth’s atmosphere.’ 3) And lastly, the number of proponents of this view, even within evangelical scholarship, seems to be dwindling by the year. Few seem to be making this case in recent decades, much less in earnest! Even so, a fundamental argument made by these scholars that we accept as valid is that the root word rqʿ (raqah) could fairly be interpreted in its verbal sense of ‘expansion’ alone, without necessarily having to carry with it the ‘metal-working’ or ‘beating’ senses that it often carries elsewhere. This core argument is what permitted any alternative view to the firmament interpretation in the first place.

This work consists of two main parts:

Part I. A Reappraisal of the Rāqîaʿ Concept within the Hebrew Bible.

In this part we will thoroughly reassesses the biblical evidence, passage by passage and topic by topic. This will constitute a comprehensive reappraisal of claims that have been made from the Hebrew bible in support of the firmament notion, both small and large. On the other hand, a positive case will be made for what we have advocated above: that the rāqîaʿ was originally intended to represent ‘world space,’ the great ‘cosmic stretch’ of the cosmos, which is the simple definition Genesis 1 gave for what the heavens and sky are in their most basic sense: the space God created between the primeval waters, thereby making it possible to have a cosmos.

Part II. A Reappraisal of the Rāqîaʿ Concept(s) of Ancient Antiquity.

In part II we will reassess the purported non-Hebrew ‘firmament’ notions of antiquity, with the conclusion being that, as we have already stated above, there has never actually been any wide-spread ‘firmament’ notion in antiquity. But if that was all, then the proper name for this part would simply be: “A Reappraisal of the Firmament Concept(s) of Ancient Antiquity.” But we have even more striking evidence to present than this! Namely, while there is no convincing evidence of a wide-scale ‘firmament’ notion, there is on the other hand some striking parallels to the rāqîaʿ notion of the Bible. We will see how the notion that ‘cosmic space’ had to be created in the beginning does in fact have important and even striking parallels in many non-Hebrew cosmologies. These parallels are in fact so blatantly evident, I can only assume that the firmament viewpoint has simply obscured them.

Intro

בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֗ה נִבְקְעוּ֙ כָּֽל־מַעְיְנֹת֙ תְּה֣וֹם רַבָּ֔ה

On this very day, all the springs of the great deep burst forth. (Gen 7:11)

Even before the Flood account speaks of waters from heaven, it mentions these waters that came from “the great deep.” But this brings up a load of questions:

• What are these “springs”?
• What does it mean that they “burst forth” (NIV), or “burst open” (NAS), or “were broken up” (NKJV)?
• What is the “great deep”? Does that refer to the whole oceans, or rather to some kind of subterranean waters (or aqueducts, etc)?
• Why does it speak of all the “springs of the great deep” (bursting forth)?

I’m not trying to answer all these important questions, so this will have to serve as the limit of my prose take on these matters. For this post I’m just putting forth some notes on some of these key terms.

But actually, for context, let me first quickly give my current thinking on these matters, as it should help to explain the direction I’m taking in terms of focus with some of the notes below:

My current understanding: The oceans burst forth onto the dry land

That may seem like a boring take compared to some other options, but in any case:

1. Least controversial here and so not my focus in these notes: There are good reasons to take “the great deep” (tehom rabbah) to be referring to the ocean depths, that is, to the seas. I am not saying that excludes other possibilities, but this one should not be excluded by any means. Particularly with the modifier ‘great’; there is indeed no greater body of water than the major oceans of the earth, and the ancients of course knew this. It also seems they did not often do deep ocean shipping, but rather their ships would more often than not skirt not too far off the coasts if they could help it (I think that is true anyways). Speaking of the tehom and in particular of the great tehom may have been a way to in particular focus on the greatest (and for them I think: mysterious) greater ocean depths.

2. Hebraic or overall Semitic ‘spring’ language is not necessarily what we are used to, and in particular: ‘springs’ (mayan / mayanot) may come to refer to any water source that originates somewhere and causes a continuous gush or flow of waters from that source, without having to necessarily match the limited sense we are used to when we hear the words “spring” or “well.” More often than not our limited sense does match theirs (particularly with tens of named ‘springs’ in Scripture), but there are cases where a rushing river (better: nahal / wadi, or roughly speaking, a seasonal ‘river’) can be described in part with the word ‘mayan’ or spring. In these cases, it does not necessarily have to be specified where exactly those waters ultimately originated.

3. Such “springs” don’t necessarily have to be well defined with regards to what their “source” actually is, or what underlying mechanism caused them to gush forth. That has often been our focus, and I believe many of our popular suggestions certainly have biblical support that can fit them as well (such as subterranean notions).

4. That baka’, while certainly able to support the “break up” ideas, can also be used simply as a way of saying a water source burst forth. This may even be idiomatic. Like a river torrent that gushes forth onto the land. To be clear, there are still may cases where baka’ is used where for instance a rock actually did split or break up, which caused a gush of water. But I am claiming sometimes that break up aspect is never in view. What’s more, outside of water flow scenarios, there are other uses of this word where not literal “breaking up” is every possible, i.e. where it clearly only speaks of something bursting forth powerfully (like light, or a rush of men into battle).

As found by morph search in LBH on נטה lemma (), then under Analysis tab, grouped by “Sense,” which value I think was set by the Bible Sense Lexicon

lemma.h:=נטה

(https://support.logos.com/hc/en-us/articles/360016188011?utm_campaign=help_cards&utm_content=bible_sense_lexicon&utm_medium=help_cards&utm_source=logos_desktop)

• to extend (thrust out): 35
• to stretch out (28)
• to incline (ear) (26)
• to be stretched out (25)
• to incline (14)
• to pitch / spread out (13)
• to deviate (13)
• to turn (10)
• to pervert (8)
• to extend (make available) (5)
• to outstretched (4)
• to mislead (deceive) (4)
• to cause turn away (4)
• to support (political) (3)
• to lead (guide) (3)
• to be spread out (3)
• to lead astray (2)
• to cause to turn away (2)
• to bend (an object) (2)
• - (2)
• to run (extend) (1)
• to plot (1)
• to lie (bodily position) (1)
• to hurl (1)
• to guide (course) (1)
• to bow (1)
• to bend (1)
• to be extended (1)