Created to Prosper

Genesis 2:3 provides a majestic conclusion to the opening account of creation. The NIV translation should serve as a good example of how this verse is commonly understood: “Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” However, the simple English of the concluding relative clause “that he had done” obscures a syntactical difficulty in the Hebrew text. The final verb is a Hebrew infinitive, which means that the literal rendering of the relative clause is “that God created to make.” This article proposes an alternate reading of the infinitive and its relative clause as: “that God created in order to be productive.” Such a reading better conforms with the general use of a Hebrew infinitive with the preposition ל (lamed) to express purpose or result, and better aligns with other uses of the infinitive of purpose throughout Genesis 1. Moreover, this alternate reading is appropriate to the context of the creation narrative. It provides a summation of creation’s purpose by linking it to the will, presence, and blessing of God. It is within the will, presence, and blessing of God that creation is able to produce, thus, to be “prosperous.” This interpretation aligns with the biblical understanding of prosperity as linked to utility and suggests that this may be the better reading of a complex Hebrew syntax of Genesis 2:3.

The issue of how to read the Hebrew clause “that God created to make” not only affects the translation of the Hebrew into receptor languages but was also the focus of some debate among Rabbinical scholars. The NIV translation, which renders the infinitive in the past tense, describes God as having rested “from all the work of creating that he had done.” This follows the interpretative tradition of the midrashim, which tie the infinitive “to make” with the preceding verb “ceased” (Sarna 1989, 15) and understand the clause to mean that God had ceased from all the work that there was to do, effectively indicating that the Hebrew infinitive denotes a past tense action. While this is one position taken by many English translations, it is grammatically possible to tie the infinitive “to make” with the immediately preceding verb “created.” One option is then to read the relative clause as a form of tautology, that is to say that God “created all his work by making it” (Bandstra 2008, 116, cf. NET), or that God had “created and made all his work,” a reading favoured by the NKJV.

Generally, however, the Hebrew infinitive construct, when it is preceded by the inseparable preposition ל (“to”), as with the verb “to make” (laʿăśôt) in Genesis 2:3, expresses purpose or result. Indeed, the infinitive construct with the inseparable preposition ל is used to express purpose in Gen 1:14, 15, 17, etc., so this use would not be unique to 2:3. Consequently, the reading, “which God created [for the purpose of] making” is syntactically possible and reduces the perceived complexity of the grammatical structure. Ibn Ezra was an advocate of this interpretation, and he understood the relative clause to mean the God had ceased from “all the work that he had created to make.” In other words, God had created the various creatures, both animal and vegetable, who would now produce offspring “according to their kind” (1:12) (Carasik 2018, 25).

This reading of the Hebrew text is significant because it accounts for the juxtaposition of the different verbs “create” and “make” while reducing any sense of redundancy in the relative clause. Most significantly, it repeats the thematic and theological focus of Genesis 1, where God is recorded to have blessed his creation twice (1:22, 28) so that it may be “fruitful and multiply.” In Genesis 2:3 the same blessing is implied. While the blessing is decreed over the sabbath rest, it is decreed so that the creature may produce in abundance. Moreover, the sanctification of the sabbath rest suggests that God’s inherent holiness has been transmitted to creation at this point in time (Moskala 2002, 56, 61), implying his presence within the sabbath. Thus, creation is productive, abundant, or prosperous, according to the plan and pattern of God, in a sense that is pleasing to him (1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) when it is blessed by him, and by his presence.

Viewed in this light, Genesis 2:3 agrees with the general biblical understanding of “prosperity,” being that it is to successfully accomplish a task. The creation account makes it clear that that which God defines as “good” is not only pleasing, but also utilitarian, and suggests that the author of Genesis expresses some degree of function ontology in how he understood creation and purpose. While the concept of prosperity may certainly be linked to wealth—note, for example, Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 16:2—this is merely one possible marker of how prosperity may be measured. The Greek word (euodoō) that Paul uses for prosperity in 1 Cor 16:2 is also used in Romans 1:10 to communicate his hope that he will succeed in visiting the Roman church. The word literally means “to have the road opened for one,” thus to have a good journey, and, figuratively, to have success (GE). Similarly, one of the Hebrew words used to denote prosperity in the Old Testament, ṣlḥ, means “to be useful” or “to successfully accomplish” (DCH).

A cursory overview of how this word is used in the OT reveals the general biblical principle of prosperity. In Genesis 24 we are told of the quest of Abraham’s servant, who was sent to procure a wife for Isaac. Verse 21 describes how the servant gazed upon Rebekah to determine if his journey had been “successful” (ṣlḥ). There is no indication of financial benefit in this context. Similarly, the prophet Isaiah (55:10) defines the “prosperity” of the word of the Lord when he proclaims that it will be “prosperous in its purpose, accomplishing that for which it/he was sent.” Even as a slave and prisoner, Joseph (Ge 39:2, 23) was “prosperous” in all that he did, meaning that he was a successful administrator of his master’s estate and the warden’s prison. This last example is particularly inciteful, for the reader is told precisely why Joseph was prosperous: “the Lord was with him; and the Lord made whatever he did prosper” (Gen 39:21 NASB). The formulation that defines and qualifies “prosperity” is thus the same as Genesis 2:3. It is in the presence of God that the creature is blessed in order that it may “be fruitful and multiply” by successfully accomplishing his purpose.

Consequently, when the final relative clause of Genesis 2:3 is understood to contain an infinitive of purpose (“that God created in order to be productive”) the verse not only clarifies the theological position of Scripture with regards to prosperity, it also helps to define that prosperity. Since the creation account is the first introduction to such concepts as “blessing” and “abundance” as the expression of God’s will it is essential that Genesis 2:3 be understood correctly. To conclude, it is within the will, presence, and blessing of God that creation is able prosper. This suggests that any systematic, theological definition of the notion of “prosperity” must consider utility and the accomplishment of purpose as the primary sense of the concept, and not just external markers such as wealth, rulership, or peace.