John Sailhamer ( Pentateuch as Narrative, The ) suggests that, contrary to most interpretations, Genesis 1:14 does not describe the creation of the sun, moon, and stars.  He argues instead that the heavenly lights existed from the moment “God created the heavens and the earth” (taken as a merism for the whole universe).  The fourth day displays the “author’s concern to emphasize that God alone created the lights of the heavens” and also states that the lights were put there for a purpose - to divide day and night and for “seasons, days, years.”  (Interestingly, he says nothing about the sun and moon as “governors.”)

His argument is partly from the syntax of 1:14.  He points to the difference between the syntax of the Hebrew in verse 6 and that of verse 14.  Verse 6 states, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters.”  Sailhamer takes this as a straightforward statement of creation from nothing; before God said there should be a firmament, there wasn’t one but after he spoke there was one.  Verse 14, however, uses the “let there be” with an infinitive that states purpose, and Sailhamer argues that the syntax should be read “let the lights in the expanse be for separating . . . .”

Suppose he’s right.  What would that mean for creation week?

If Sailhamer is right, it would mean that the sun, moon, and stars were already there in the sky prior to Day 4, but were given a particular task and function on Day 4.  Is that a problem?  It doesn’t seem to be a huge one in itself.  Sun, moon, and stars existing in some fashion prior to Day 4 would be elevated to rule and to keep time on Day 4.

I don’t think Sailhamer is right, however.  The syntactical argument is not very strong.  Verse 6 doesn’t use an infinitive with a purpose clause, but instead repeats the “let there be” in order to state the purpose: Let there be a firmament (creation of firmament) and let it be (for the purpose of) separating the the waters from the waters.”  Verse 14 also states two things: “let there be luminaries (creation) for the purpose of separating day and night.  The syntax differs, but the meaning is virtually identical, and the syntactical difference is a pretty slim reed on which to rest an argument.

Sailhamer has problems with verse 16 as well.  He thinks that the phrase “it was so” ends the report about the work of Day 4, which leaves verse 16 as a statement reiterating that God, not anyone else, made the heavenly lights.  But verse 16 cannot function simply as a summary statement about what has come before, since verse 16 adds information.  From verses 14-15, we know only that God made light-bearers; we don’t yet know that there is a great light, a lesser light, and stars also, something we learn only from verse 16.  We also don’t know that God “placed” them in the firmament to “govern,” something we learn from verses 16-17.  The procedure is the same as the creation of man in 2:7-8: First, Yahweh forms man, then plants a garden, and then places the man in the garden.  Adam is the earthly luminary, placed in the “firmament” of the garden to govern; soon, he will be joined by a lesser light.

Given that parallel, the sequence of making-placing in 1:16-17 cannot function as a simple theological conclusion: God made it all.  That’s true, but that’s not the concern of the author.  His concern is to tell us that God spoke lights (1:14-15), and in the working-out of that speech, he made them (v. 16), then placed them (v. 17).