What does it mean that God “rested” on the seventh day?

Explanation:

When one reads an English translation of Genesis 2:2–3 one might be tempted to think that God rested from his work in the human sense of requiring rejuvenation. This would be an anthropomorphism that can be shown by a careful look at the grammar of Genesis 2:2–3.

First, Genesis 2:1 states that the heavens and the earth were finished. The verb is in the passive voice here. The same verb appears again in Genesis 2:2, now in the active voice: On the seventh day God finished his work that he had done. Since we know from Genesis 2:1 that the heavens and earth were finished, it is best to take to finish in Genesis 2:2 in a perfect past tense, had brought to completion. Thus, on the seventh day, God had brought his work to completion; there was no work for God to do on the seventh day.

With this brief analysis in mind, we can consider the nuance of the meaning of the verb שָׁבַת (to cease) in Genesis 2:2–3, which English translations such as the ESV render rest. The verb carries a variety of meanings. For example, in Exodus 12:15 it is used to denote the removal of leaven from one’s house. And in Leviticus 2:13 the verb is used to denote when salt is missing from a grain offering. Still, on other occasions the verb can be used to describe cessation. For example, in Genesis 8:22 we read that God makes a promise to Noah that as long as the earth remains, the seasons will not cease. In light of the fact that the heavens and earth are finished, it seems that when God שָׁבַת on the seventh day, the most appropriate sense is like that of Genesis 8:22, that is, cessation.⁴ In other words, on the seventh day, God ceased working.

Counterargument:

While it seems right to suggest that God ceased from his work rather than rested in the sense of needing rejuvenation, Exodus 31:17 suggests that indeed, God did rest for rejuvenation on the seventh day. After God makes a covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai, his Spirit enters Bezalel to build the tabernacle. Then God reiterates his command for the people of Israel to keep the Sabbath, which is the seventh day. God explains that keeping the Sabbath is paramount because the Sabbath is a covenant sign between Israel and God. God then reminds Moses that the Sabbath is important because after making heaven and earth, God rested (שָׁבַת) on the Sabbath day and was refreshed (Exodus 31:17). While it might be a strange statement, the implication is that God not only ceased working on the seventh day but he also rested and was refreshed.

Response to counterargument:

When we consider the meaning of a phrase, we need to consider that phrase in light of the whole of Scripture. This counterargument is a first step in that direction, but one cannot introduce one verse to draw the meaning of another verse unless one is willing to consider all of the other verses that might inform our interpretative decision. In this case, the Bible reveals that in fact God does not rest and need rejuvenation. For example, Isaiah 40:28 states, The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary. And Psalm 121:4 explains that God is the Maker of heaven and earth who neither sleeps nor slumbers. Added to this, there are numerous verses that explain God’s power and omnipotence, which suggests that it is not likely that God needs rest (see Deuteronomy 10:17; Job 26:14; Jeremiah 10:6; Jeremiah 32:17).

So, we need to keep in mind the broader concept that God never wearies or grows tired when we consider the meaning of Exodus 31:17. Maybe God is offering an intimate example of rest in order to compel Israel that to keep the Sabbath is to align oneself with the pattern of the creator. Or maybe the term refreshed carries the sense of being satisfied. In either case, the broadest themes of Scripture teach that God does not require refreshing in the sense of rejuvenation.

Explanation:

There is an interesting correlation between the creation account and the building of the tabernacle.^5,6,7 First, God creates the universe and later, when he establishes a covenant with Israel, his people build a tabernacle as a dwelling place for him. The account of the construction of the tabernacle is found in Exodus 40, which recalls that after God’s command, Moses erects the tabernacle by setting up its frame on a base and erecting its poles (Exodus 40:18). He then filled the tabernacle with its rightful contents including the ark, the showbread, and the lampstand (Exodus 40:21–24). After the tabernacle was built, Moses washed, and set up the outer court around the tabernacle (Exodus 40:31–33). The account ends with the familiar words that are a kind of echo of Genesis 2:2: So Moses finished the work (Exodus 40:33). Interestingly, Genesis 2:2 and Exodus 40:33 use the same verb כָּלָה (to cease) and the same noun מְלָאכָה (work).

What is important for our purposes is that Exodus 40:33 clearly has in mind taking the verb כָּלָה (to cease) in the sense of to bring to completion. There is no mention of Moses resting or looking on his work with satisfaction. Rather, as soon as the work is complete, the glory of the Lord fills the tabernacle so that Moses is not able to enter (Exodus 40:34–35).

The parallels between these suggest that just as God ceased from his work on the seventh day, so Moses ceased from building the tabernacle just before the Lord’s glory entered it.

Counterargument:

The fact that Exodus 40:33 used the same verb and noun as Genesis 2:2 is not enough to establish that these are parallel passages. If these were parallel passages one would expect to find the rhythmic quality of Genesis 1:1–31 to describe the building of the tabernacle. Instead, Exodus 40:1–38 is written in a genre of narrative, which simply describes the facts of Moses building the tabernacle according to God’s command. That the account ends with Moses’ completing his work is no connection to Genesis 2:2; rather, it is the logical conclusion of an important building project. Once Moses built the tabernacle, the work was done.

Response to counterargument:

It is not necessary for both accounts to be in the same genre in order for them to be parallel. Rather, in this case, we have parallels of content, not form. The author of Exodus 40:1–38 is mimicking the content of the creation account, although he is doing so in the genre of historical narrative. God creates the universe and fills it with its inhabitants (fish, birds, plants, people); after this, God ceases from his work and blesses the Sabbath day. Similarly, Moses builds the tabernacle and fills it with its inhabitants including (the ark, bread, lampstand). After this, Moses ceases from his work and his work is blessed when the glory of the Lord fills the tabernacle.

Exodus 39:1–43 uses similar creation language when the people bring the completed materials to Moses. The account explains that after the people made the fine garments, lampstand, and tabernacle materials, Moses saw all the work, and behold, they had done it; as the Lord had commanded, so had they done it. Then Moses blessed them (Exodus 39:43).⁸

Possible weakness:

The weakness of this view is that it fails to consider the significance of the Sabbath in Israelite theology. We do not want to think that God gets tired or needs rejuvenation, but still, our aim as exegetes is to get at the author’s original intention. The fact that the author builds the creation account around the week established by God for the Israelites might suggest that the author has deeper purposes in mind. The notion of whether God literally gets tired or if rest simply means cease could be rather foreign to the author. Rather, his point may be to use an anthropomorphism to demonstrate the importance of setting aside one’s work on the seventh day, just as God did. If this is the author’s intention, he wants us to think of God as taking a rest, not because God needs rest but because the comparison is a powerful motivator for his audience to follow God’s example. Of course, this view depends on the notion that Genesis 1:1 – 2:3 bears the influence of an Israelite narrator after the Sabbath has been established as a fact of life in Israel.

Explanation:

It is possible that the author of the creation account of Genesis is a member of the priestly caste in Israel. His aim is to understand his present reality in light of the past, so he is incorporating his own theological insights into creation traditions that have been passed down to him.⁹ One of the elements that is common among ancient Near East creation accounts, and likely passed down to the writer of Genesis, is the notion of rest. For example, Ptah, the god of ancient Egypt, also rested after his creative activity.¹⁰ The general meaning of this rest in other ancient Near Eastern religions is that, once the work of creation is complete, the god who creates no longer intervenes in the order he has established. The implication is the creation is a primeval event that transpires even before the beginning of history.¹¹

Since the writer of the creation account in Genesis is likely working with these older motifs, we should assume that he has them in mind when he writes that God rests. At the same time, the author introduces new theological insight by making the day of God’s rest the seventh day, thereby establishing an important connection with the purpose of God’s creation and the human week.¹² By doing this, the author of Genesis not only maintains that God will not intervene with his newly established created order, but he also draws the creation activity into a historical act by recalling it on the framework of a week.

Counterargument:

The problem with this view is that there is no evidence offered from other ancient Near East creation accounts that show that when the account has the creator god resting, the intended meaning is that the laws of physics have been established so he will no longer intervene. To assert that other ancient Near East accounts end this way is not the same as showing that this is their meaning through plausible examples. 

Possible weakness:

The problem with this interpretation is not that the interpretation is inconsistent with the rest of the passage. Indeed, it makes sense to think that the term rest implies that God would no longer intervene with the order he established. Still, just because an interpretation is consistent with the teaching of a text does not mean that it is the author’s intended meaning. To establish the author’s intended meaning, we need plausible arguments, and unfortunately, this view falls short of offering any.