In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light “day”, and the darkness he called “night”. There was evening and there was morning, the first day.
God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse “sky”. There was evening and there was morning, a second day.
God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear;” and it was so. God called the dry land “earth”, and the gathering together of the waters he called “seas”. God saw that it was good. God said, “Let the earth yield grass, herbs yielding seeds, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with their seeds in it, on the earth;” and it was so. The earth yielded grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with their seeds in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs to mark seasons, days, and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth;” and it was so. God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light to the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
God said, “Let the waters abound with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.” God created the large sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind. God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind;” and it was so. God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.
God said, “Let’s make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so.
God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31 Since the infinite wisdom of God is displayed in…
Since the infinite wisdom of God is displayed in the admirable structure of heaven and earth, it is absolutely impossible to unfold The History of the Creation of the World in terms equal to its dignity. For while the measure of our capacity is too contracted to comprehend things of such magnitude, our tongue is equally incapable of giving a full and substantial account of them. As he, however, deserves praise, who, with modesty and reverence, applies himself to the consideration of the works of God, although he attain less than might be wished, so, if in this kind of employment, I endeavor to assist others according to the ability given to me, I trust that my service will be not less approved by pious men than accepted by God. I have chosen to premise this, for the sake not only of excusing myself, but of admonishing my readers, that if they sincerely wish to profit with me in meditating on the works of God, they must bring with them a sober, docile, mild, and humble spirit. We see, indeed, the world with our eyes, we tread the earth with our feet, we touch innumerable kinds of God’s works with our hands, we inhale a sweet and pleasant fragrance from herbs and flowers, we enjoy boundless benefits; but in those very things of which we attain some knowledge, there dwells such an immensity of divine power, goodness, and wisdom, as absorbs all our senses. Therefore, let men be satisfied if they obtain only a moderate taste of them, suited to their capacity. And it becomes us so to press towards this mark during our whole life, that (even in extreme old age) we shall not repent of the progress we have made, if only we have advanced ever so little in our course.
The intention of Moses in beginning his Book with the creation of the world, is, to render God, as it were, visible to us in his works. But here presumptuous men rise up, and scoffingly inquire, whence was this revealed to Moses? They therefore suppose him to be speaking fabulously of things unknown, because he was neither a spectator of the events he records, nor had learned the truth of them by reading. Such is their reasoning; but their dishonesty is easily exposed. For if they can destroy the credit of this history, because it is traced back through a long series of past ages, let them also prove those prophecies to be false in which the same history predicts occurrences which did not take place till many centuries afterwards. Those things, I affirm, are clear and obvious, which Moses testifies concerning the vocation of the Gentiles, the accomplishment of which occurred nearly two thousand years after his death. Was not he, who by the Spirit foresaw an event remotely future, and hidden at the time from the perception of mankind, capable of understanding whether the world was created by God, especially seeing that he was taught by a Divine Master? For he does not here put forward divinations of his own, but is the instrument of the Holy Spirit for the publication of those things which it was of importance for all men to know. They greatly err in deeming it absurd that the order of the creation, which had been previously unknown, should at length have been described and explained by him. For he does not transmit to memory things before unheard of, but for the first time consigns to writing facts which the fathers had delivered as from hand to hand, through a long succession of years, to their children. Can we conceive that man was so placed in the earth as to be ignorant of his own origin, and of the origin of those things which he enjoyed? No sane person doubts that Adam was well-instructed respecting them all. Was he indeed afterwards dumb? Were the holy Patriarchs so ungrateful as to suppress in silence such necessary instruction? Did Noah, warned by a divine judgment so memorable, neglect to transmit it to posterity? Abraham is expressly honored with this eulogy that he was the teacher and the master of his family, (Genesis 18:19.) And we know that, long before the time of Moses, an acquaintance with the covenant into which God had entered with their fathers was common to the whole people. When he says that the Israelites were sprung from a holy race, which God had chosen for himself, he does not propound it as something new, but only commemorates what all held, what the old men themselves had received from their ancestors, and what, in short, was entirely uncontroverted among them. Therefore, we ought not to doubt that The Creation of the World, as here described was already known through the ancient and perpetual tradition of the Fathers. Yet, since nothing is more easy than that the truth of God should be so corrupted by men, that, in a long succession of time, it should, as it were, degenerate from itself, it pleased the Lord to commit the history to writing, for the purpose of preserving its purity. Moses, therefore, has established the credibility of that doctrine which is contained in his writings, and which, by the carelessness of men, might otherwise have been lost.
Read full note →
I now return to the design of Moses, or rather of the Holy Spirit, who has spoken by his mouth. We know God, who is himself invisible, only through his works. Therefore, the Apostle elegantly styles the worlds, τὰ μἡ εχ φαινομένων βλεπόμενα, as if one should say, “the manifestation of things not apparent,” (Hebrews 11:3.) This is the reason why the Lord, that he may invite us to the knowledge of himself, places the fabric of heaven and earth before our eyes, rendering himself, in a certain manner, manifest in them. For his eternal power and Godhead (as Paul says) are there exhibited, (Romans 1:20.) And that declaration of David is most true, that the heavens, though without a tongue, are yet eloquent heralds of the glory of God, and that this most beautiful order of nature silently proclaims his admirable wisdom, (Psalm 19:1.) This is the more diligently to be observed, because so few pursue the right method of knowing God, while the greater part adhere to the creatures without any consideration of the Creator himself. For men are commonly subject to these two extremes; namely, that some, forgetful of God, apply the whole force of their mind to the consideration of nature; and others, overlooking the works of God, aspire with a foolish and insane curiosity to inquire into his Essence. Both labor in vain. To be so occupied in the investigation of the secrets of nature, as never to turn the eyes to its Author, is a most perverted study; and to enjoy everything in nature without acknowledging the Author of the benefit, is the basest ingratitude. Therefore, they who assume to be philosophers without Religion, and who, by speculating, so act as to remove God and all sense of piety far from them, will one day feel the force of the expression of Paul, related by Luke, that God has never left himself without witness, (Acts 14:17.) For they shall not be permitted to escape with impunity because they have been deaf and insensible to testimonies so illustrious. And, in truth, it is the part of culpable ignorance, never to see God, who everywhere gives signs of his presence. But if mockers now escape by their cavils, hereafter their terrible destruction will bear witness that they were ignorant of God, only because they were willingly and maliciously blinded. As for those who proudly soar above the world to seek God in his unveiled essence, it is impossible but that at length they should entangle themselves in a multitude of absurd figments. For God — by other means invisible — (as we have already said) clothes himself, so to speak, with the image of the world in which he would present himself to our contemplation. They who will not deign to behold him thus magnificently arrayed in the incomparable vesture of the heavens and the earth, afterwards suffer the just punishment of their proud contempt in their own ravings. Therefore, as soon as the name of God sounds in our ears, or the thought of him occurs to our minds, let us also clothe him with this most beautiful ornament; finally, let the world become our school if we desire rightly to know God.
Here also the impiety of those is refuted who cavil against Moses, for relating that so short a space of time had elapsed since the Creation of the World. For they inquire why it had come so suddenly into the mind of God to create the world; why he had so long remained inactive in heaven: and thus by sporting with sacred things they exercise their ingenuity to their own destruction. In the Tripartite History an answer given by a pious man is recorded, with which I have always been pleased. For when a certain impure dog was in this manner pouring ridicule upon God, he retorted, that God had been at that time by no means inactive because he had been preparing hell for the captious. But by what seasonings can you restrain the arrogance of those men to whom sobriety is professedly contemptible and odious? And certainly they who now so freely exult in finding fault with the inactivity of God will find, to their own great costs that his power has been infinite in preparing hell for them. As for ourselves, it ought not to seem so very absurd that God, satisfied in himself, did not create a world which he needed not, sooner than he thought good. Moreover, since his will is the rule of all wisdom, we ought to be contented with that alone. For Augustine rightly affirms that injustice is done to God by the Manichaeans, because they demand a cause superior to his will; and he prudently warns his readers not to push their inquiries respecting the infinity of duration, any more than respecting the infinity of space. We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center. They who take it amiss that the world was not sooner created, may as well expostulate with God for not having made innumerable worlds. Yea, since they deem it absurd that many ages should have passed away without any world at all, they may as well acknowledge it to be a proof of the great corruption of their own nature, that, in comparison with the boundless waste which remains empty the heaven and earth occupy but a small space. But since both the eternity of God’s existence and the infinity of his glory would prove a twofold labyrinth, let us content ourselves with modestly desiring to proceed no further in our inquiries than the Lord, by the guidance and instruction of his own works, invites us.
Now, in describing the world as a mirror in which we ought to behold God, I would not be understood to assert, either that our eyes are sufficiently clear-sighted to discern what the fabric of heaven and earth represents, or that the knowledge to be hence attained is sufficient for salvation. And whereas the Lord invites us to himself by the means of created things, with no other effect than that of thereby rendering us inexcusable, he has added (as was necessary) a new remedy, or at least by a new aid, he has assisted the ignorance of our mind. For by the Scripture as our guide and teacher, he not only makes those things plain which would otherwise escape our notice, but almost compels us to behold them; as if he had assisted our dull sight with spectacles. On this point, (as we have already observed,) Moses insists. For if the mute instruction of the heaven and the earth were sufficient, the teaching of Moses would have been superfluous. This herald therefore approaches, who excites our attention, in order that we may perceive ourselves to be placed in this scene, for the purpose of beholding the glory of God; not indeed to observe them as mere witnesses but to enjoy all the riches which are here exhibited as the Lord has ordained and subjected them to our use. And he not only declares generally that God is the architect of the world, but through the whole chain of the history he shows how admirable is His power, His wisdom, His goodness, and especially His tender solicitude for the human race. Besides, since the eternal Word of God is the lively and express image of Himself, he recalls us to this point. And thus, the assertion of the Apostle is verified, that through no other means than faith can it be understood that the worlds were made by the word of God, (Hebrews 11:3.) For faith properly proceeds from this, that we being taught by the ministry of Moses, do not now wander in foolish and trifling speculations, but contemplate the true and only God in his genuine image.
It may, however, be objected, that this seems at variance with what Paul declares:
“After that, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom knew not God, it seemed right to God, through the foolishness of preaching, to save them who believe,” (1 Corinthians 1:21.)
For he thus intimates, that God is sought in vain under the guidance of visible things; and that nothing remains for us but to retake ourselves immediately to Christ; and that we must not therefore commence with the elements of this world, but with the Gospel, which sets Christ alone before us with his cross, and holds us to this one point. I answer, It is in vain for any to reason as philosophers on the workmanship of the world, except those who, having been first humbled by the preaching of the Gospel, have learned to submit the whole of their intellectual wisdom (as Paul expresses it) to the foolishness of the cross, (1 Corinthians 1:21.) Nothing shall we find, I say, above or below, which can raise us up to God, until Christ shall have instructed us in his own school. Yet this cannot be done, unless we, having emerged out of the lowest depths, are borne up above all heavens, in the chariot of his cross, that there by faith we may apprehend those things which the eye has never seen, the ear never heard, and which far surpass our hearts and minds. For the earth, with its supply of fruits for our daily nourishment, is not there set before us; but Christ offers himself to us unto life eternal. Nor does heaven, by the shining of the sun and stars, enlighten our bodily eyes, but the same Christ, the Light of the World and the Sun of Righteousness, shines into our souls; neither does the air stretch out its empty space for us to breathe in, but the Spirit of God himself quickens us and causes us to live. There, in short, the invisible kingdom of Christ fills all things, and his spiritual grace is diffused through all. Yet this does not prevent us from applying our senses to the consideration of heaven and earth, that we may thence seek confirmation in the true knowledge of God. For Christ is that image in which God presents to our view, not only his heart, but also his hands and his feet. I give the name of his heart to that secret love with which he embraces us in Christ: by his hands and feet I understand those works of his which are displayed before our eyes. As soon as ever we depart from Christ, there is nothing, be it ever so gross or insignificant in itself, respecting which we are not necessarily deceived.
And, in fact, though Moses begins, in this Book, with the Creation of the World, he nevertheless does not confine us to this subject. For these things ought to be connected together, that the world was founded by God, and that man, after he had been endued with the light of intelligence, and adorned with so many privileges, fell by his own fault, and was thus deprived of all the benefits he had obtained; afterwards, by the compassion of God, he was restored to the life he had forfeited, and this through the loving-kindness of Christ; so that there should always be some assembly on earth, which being adopted into the hope of the celestial life, might in this confidence worship God. The end to which the whole scope of the history tends is to this point, that the human race has been preserved by God in such a manner as to manifest his special care for his Church. For this is the argument of the Book: After the world had been created, man was placed in it as in a theater, that he, beholding above him and beneath the wonderful works of God, might reverently adore their Author. Secondly, that all things were ordained for the use of man, that he, being under deeper obligation, might devote and dedicate himself entirely to obedience towards God. Thirdly, that he was endued with understanding and reason, that being distinguished from brute animals he might meditate on a better life, and might even tend directly towards God, whose image he bore engraved on his own person. Afterwards followed the fall of Adam, whereby he alienated himself from God; whence it came to pass that he was deprived of all rectitude. Thus Moses represents man as devoid of all good, blinded in understanding, perverse in heart, vitiated in every part, and under sentence of eternal death; but he soon adds the history of his restorations where Christ shines forth with the benefit of redemption. From this point he not only relates continuously the singular Providence of God in governing and preserving the Church, but also commends to us the true worship of God; teaches wherein the salvation of man is placed, and exhorts us, from the example of the Fathers, to constancy in enduring the cross. Whosoever, therefore, desires to make suitable proficiency in this book, let him employ his mind on these main topics. But especially, let him observe, that ever Adam had by his own desperate fall ruined himself and all his posterity, this is the basis of our salvation, this the origin of the Church, that we, being rescued out of profound darkness, have obtained a new life by the mere grace of God; that the Fathers (according to the offer made them through the word of God) are by faith made partakers of this life; that this word itself was founded upon Christ; and that all the pious who have since lived were sustained by the very same promise of salvation by which Adam was first raised from the fall.
Therefore, the perpetual succession of the Church has flowed from this fountain, that the holy Fathers, one after another, having by faith embraced the offered promise, were collected together into the family of God, in order that they might have a common life in Christ. This we ought carefully to notice, that we may know what is the society of the true Church, and what the communion of faith among the children of God. Whereas Moses was ordained the Teacher of the Israelites, there is no doubt that he had an especial reference to them, in order that they might acknowledge themselves to be a people elected and chosen by God; and that they might seek the certainty of this adoption from the Covenant which the Lord had ratified with their fathers, and might know that there was no other God, and no other right faith. But it was also his will to testify to all ages, that whosoever desired to worship God aright, and to be deemed members of the Church, must pursue no other course than that which is here prescribed. But as this is the commencement of faith, to know that there is one only true God whom we worship, so it is no common confirmation of this faith that we are companions of the Patriarchs; for since they possessed Christ as the pledge of their salvation when he had not yet appeared, so we retain the God who formerly manifested himself to them. Hence we may infer the difference between the pure and lawful worship of God, and all those adulterated services which have since been fabricated by the fraud of Satan and the perverse audacity of men. Further, the Government of the Church is to be considered, that the reader may come to the conclusion that God has been its perpetual Guard and Ruler, yet in such a way as to exercise it in the warfare of the cross. Here, truly, the peculiar conflicts of the Church present themselves to view, or rather, the course is set as in a mirror before our eyes, in which it behaves us, with the holy Fathers to press towards the mark of a happy immortality.
Let us now hearken to Moses.
1. In the beginning. To expound the term “beginning,” of Christ, is altogether frivolous. For Moses simply intends to assert that the world was not perfected at its very commencement, 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 thus explained. When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste. He moreover teaches by the word “created,” that what before did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term יצר, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or forms but ברא, (bara,) which signifies to create. Therefore his meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. Hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity; and who gather nothing else from the narration of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments, and received a form of which it was before destitute. This indeed was formerly a common fable among heathens, who had received only an obscure report of the creation, and who, according to custom, adulterated the truth of God with strange figments; but for Christian men to labor (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.) denominates waters. The reason of which 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. Whence the inference is drawn, that the three Persons of the Godhead are here noted; but since, as a proof of so great a matter, it appears to me to have little solidity, will not insist upon the word; but rather caution readers to beware of violent glosses 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 subjoins that the Elohim had spoken, and that the Spirit of the Elohim rested upon the waters. If we suppose three persons to be here denoted, 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. Moreover I acknowledge that the Scripture, although it recites 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 with subtlety to 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 peculiar circumstance of the passage itself, a title is here ascribed to God, expressive of that powers which was previously in some way included in his eternal essence.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29 This word signifieth the beginning and generation of the…
This word signifieth the beginning and generation of the creatures.
First of all, and before that any creature was, God made heaven and earth of nothing.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven…
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Ver. 1. In the beginning.] A BEGINNING there was then, whatever Aristotle {a} fancied of the world’s eternity. So true is that of a learned Italians - Philosophy seeks after truth; divinity only finds it; religion improves it. {b} { Veritatem quaerit philosophia, invenit theologia, &c.} But the philosopher would be yet better satisfied. He had read (say some) {c} this first of Genesis, and was heard to say thereupon, Well said, Sir Moses; how prove you what you have so said? { Egregie dicis, domine Moses; sed quomodo probas?} An ancient {d} answereth, I believe it, I need not prove it. { credo, non probo} Another, {e} we believe the holy penmen before heathen wise men. { piscatoribus credimus, non dialecticis} A third, {f} The mysteries of the Christian religion are better understood by believing, than believed by understanding { Multo melius credendo intelliguntur, quam intelligendo creduntur fidei Christianae mysteria. Abbas Tuiciensis.} Theologia non est argumentativa. {g} But, best of all, the apostle, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God; so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." {Heb 11:3} Divinity doth not use to prove her principles, whereof this is one. No, not Aristotle’s own divinity, (his Metaphysics, I mean) wherein he requires to be believed upon his bare word. Albeit, if Ramus may be judge, those fourteen books of his are the most idle and impious piece of sophistry that ever was set forth by any man. {h} Thus, "Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools." {Rom 1:22} "Behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?" {Jer 8:9}
Read full note →
Plato had read Moses, whatever Aristotle had done; and held truly, that the world had a beginning. So did all the philosophers that were before Aristotle, except the Chaldeans, and Hossellus Lucanus, the Pythagorean, out of whom Aristotle took his arguments, which are to be read, {Physic, viii. c. 8, and ii. and l. 1. De Coelo, c. 1, and l. xii.; Metaphysics, c. 7.} But it is more than probable that he taught the world’s eternity in opposition to Plato and others, who rightly concluded the world must needs have had a beginning; otherwise we could not know whether the egg or the bird, the seed or the plant, the day or the night, the light or the darkness, were first; sure it is that he held that opinion rather out of an affectation of singularity, than for any soundness of the matter or strength of argument. Himself, in his first book of Topics, and ninth chapter, saith that it is no more than a topical problem: he should have said a plain paradox, yea, a mere falsity. For "In the beginning," the Jerusalem Targum hath "In wisdom," that is, in God the Son, saith Augustine, according to Joh 1:3 Heb 1:2 Col 1:16. And indeed God created all things by his Son Christ; not as by a concreating cause, but as by his own essential Wisdom. {1Co 1:24; Pro 1:20; Pro 8:1} And of this mystery and appellation some suppose the heathens had some traditional knowledge; for aa Christ, the Wisdom of the Father, was eternally and ineffably begotten in the divine essence, so they worshipped a goddess whom they called the goddess of wisdom, and feigned that she was begotten by Jupiter of his own brain; and they called her Aθηνη, which word is much like in sound with the Hebrew Adonai, as a reverend man {i} hath well observed.
God created.] Heb. Dii creavit. {Plural subject "Dii" (Gods) singular verb "creavit" . Editor.} The Mystery of the blessed Trinity, called by Elihu, {Job 35:10} Eloah Gnoscai, "God my Makers"; and by David, {Psa 149:1} "The Makers of Israel," and "Remember thy Creators," saith Solomon. {Ecc 12:1} To the same sense, sweetly sounds the Haphtera, or portion of Scripture which is read by the Jews, {j} together with this of Moses, viz., Isa 42:5. And that of the psalmist, {Psa 33:6} "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath [or spirit] of his mouth": that is, God the Father, by the Son, through the Holy Ghost, created all. This Trismegist, {k} an ancient Egyptian (for he flourished before Pharaoh), acknowledged, and thence had his name. The Hebrews also of old were no strangers to this mystery, though their posterity understood it not. Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, writing on that, {Son 1:11} "We will make," &c., interprets it, "I and my judgment hall." Now a judgment hall in Israel consisted of three at least, which in their close manner of speech, they applied to God, who is Three in one, and One in three.
Rabbi Simeon, the son of Johai, brings a place out of Rabbi Ibba, on Deu 6:4, "Jehovah Elohenu, Jehovah Echad, ‘The Lord our God is one Lord.’" Here the first Jehovah, saith he, is God the Father, Elohenu, the Son (who is fitly called our God, because he assumed our nature, as is well observed by Galatinus), the third Jehovah is God the Holy Ghost. Echad, one, showeth the unity of essence in this plurality of persons; wherefore, saith Luther, doth not Moses begin thus, "In the beginning, God said, Let there be a heaven, and earth," but because he would set forth the three persons in order; the Father, when he saith, God created; the Son, when he saith, God said; and the Holy Ghost, when he saith, God saw the light that it was good?
Created.] Made all things of nothing, in a most marvellous and magnificent manner, as the word signifieth. This Plato doubts of, Aristotle denies, Galen derides as a thing impossible, {l} because, with Nicodemus, he cannot conceive how these things can be. "The natural man," the mere animal, {Qυχικος, 1Co 2:14} whose reason is not elevated by religion, "pereeiveth not these things of the Spirit of God: they are foolishness unto him." The cock on the dunghill meddles not with these matters. Well might St Paul tell the men of Athens, {Act 17:23-24} (and yet Athens was the Greece of Greece, Eλλας Eλλαδος {m} and had in it the most mercurial wits in the world), that God, "that made all things of nothing," was to them the "unknown God": and Lactantius fitly saith of Plato (who yet merited the style of Divine amongst them), that he dreamed of God, rather than had any true knowledge of him. {n} He nowhere called God the Creator, but Dημιουζγον, the workman; as one that had made the world of a preexistent matter, co-eternal to himself. Atheists of old scorned at the work of creation; and asked, "Quibus machinis," with what tools, engines, ladders, scaffolds, did the Lord set up this mighty frame? But, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed" (set in joint, ξατηζτισηαι, Heb 11:3, the word signifieth, as all the members of the body are tied together by several ligaments), "by the word of God," without either tool or toil. {Isa 40:28} He not only formed and made, but created all by the word of his power: see all these ascribed unto him in Isa 43:7. There were four errors, saith a late learned man, {o} about the creation: some affirmed that the world was eternal; some that it had a material beginning, and was made of something; some held two beginners of things: that one beginner made things incorruptible, and another made things corruptible. Lastly, some said God made the superior creatures himself, and the inferior by angels. This very first verse of the Bible confutes all four. In the beginning, shows the world not to be eternal. Created, notes that it was made of nothing. The heaven and the earth, shows that God was the only beginner of all creatures. God created all: this excludes the angels. In the government of the world, we grant they have a great stroke. {Eze 1:5-6; Dan 10:1-21; Dan 11:1-45} Not so in the making of the world, wherein God was alone, and by himself. {Isa 44:24} And, lest any should imagine otherwise, the creation of angels is not so much as mentioned by Moses, unless it be tacitly intimated in these words - "The heavens and the earth"; {p} "The world and all the things that are therein"; {Act 17:24} "Things visible and invisible"; {Col 1:16} "whether they be thrones or dominions," &c., called elsewhere "angels of heaven"; {Mat 24:26; Gal 1:8} because, probably, created with, and in the highest heaven, as Christ’s soul was created with, and in his body, in the Virgin’s womb, the self-same moment. The highest heaven, and the angels were of necessity, say some, to be created the first instant, that they might have their perfection of matter and form together; otherwise they should be corruptible. For whatsoever is of a pre-existent matter is resolvable, and subject to corruption; but that which is immediately of nothing is perfectly composed, hath no other change, but by the same hand to return to nothing again.
Ques. But if this were the heaven, what was the earth here mentioned?
Answ. Not that we now tread upon, for that was not made till the third day; but the matter of all that was afterwards to be created - being all things in power, nothing in act.
The Cabbalists observe that there are in this first verse of the Holy Bible six Alephs: and therehence they conclude, that the world shall last six thousand years. But they may be therein as far out as that wise man {q} was who, A.D. 1533, affirmed that the world would be at an end that very year, in the month of October, and that he pretended to gather out of those words, Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum: and again those, Videbunt in quem transfixerunt. So some {r} since that, but little wiser, have foretold as much concerning the year of grace 1657, from those words mundi conflagratio; and because the universal flood fell out in the year of the world 1657. According to these groundless conjectures, confuted already by time, some have argued, that because Solomon’s temple was finished in the year of the world three thousand, therefore the spiritual temple shall be consummated in three thousand more. This reckoning comes up to that of the Cabbalists above mentioned; and to that known prophecy of Elias (but not the Tishbite), that as there were two thousand years, plus minus, before the law, and two thousand under the law, so there are to be two thousand under the gospel.
{a} Aristotle’s Physic.; vide Sharpei Symphon., p. 11, Pliny, l. i., c. 1. 2 Jo. Picas Mirand.
{b} Jo. Picus Mirand.
{c} D. Prid. Cathedra.
{d} Augustine
{e} Ambrose
{f} Rupet
{g} Alsted.
{h} Aristotle’s Sοφια, seu Theologia, sophistica, est, omnium quae literis unquam mandata sunt, maxime stulta, maximeque impia. - Ramus in Theolog.
{i} Mr Manton upon Jude.
{j} Moses was read every Sabbath, {Act 15:11} with a lecture out of the prophets, {Act 13:15}
{k} ηκμασε δε προ του φαραω - Suidas. τρις μεγιστος, in Poemandro. Nam haec propria est Hebraei verbi significatio. Jun.
{l} Irridet Galenus Mosen eo quod dicat Deum ex nulla praeexistente materia condidisse mundum. - Buch.
{m} Athenaeus.
{n} Somniaverat Deum, non cognoverat. - Instit., l. v. c. l4.
{o} Zanchi.
{p} Kοσμος μεν εστι συστημα εξ ουρανου και γης και των εν τουτοις περιεχομενων φυεων - Aristotle, De Mundo, c. 2. Yates’s Model of Divinity.
{q} Bucholcer., Chronol.
{r} Alsted., Chronol.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 In the beginning, to wit, of time and things,…
In the beginning, to wit, of time and things, in the first place, before things were distinguished and perfected in manner hereafter expressed. Or the sense is this, The beginning of the world was thus. And this phrase further informeth us, that the world, and all things in it, had a beginning, and were not from eternity, as some philosophers dreamed.
God created the heaven and the earth; made out of nothing, either,
Read full note →
1. The heaven and earth as now they are with their inhabitants. So this verse is a summary or brief of what is particularly declared in the rest of this chapter. Or,
2. The substance and common matter of heaven and earth. Which seems more probably by comparing this verse with the next, where the earth here mentioned is declared to be without form, and the heavens without light; as also with Gen 2:1, where the heavens and the earth, here only said to be created, are said to be finished or perfected. Yet I conceive the third heaven to be included under the title of the heaven, and to have been created and perfected the first day, together with its blessed inhabitants the holy angels, as may be collected from Job 33:6-7. But the Scripture being written for men, and not for angels, the Holy Ghost thought it sufficient to comprehend them and their dwelling-place under that general term of the heavens, and proceedeth to give a more particular account of the visible heavens and earth, which were created for the use of man. In the Hebrew it is, the heavens and the earth. For there are three heavens mentioned in Scripture: the aerial; the place of birds, clouds, and meteors, Mat 26:64; Rev 19:17; 20:9. The starry; the region of the sun, the moon, and stars, Gen 22:17. The highest or third heaven, 2Co 12:2; the dwelling of the blessed angels.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29, 31 In these verses we have the work of creation…
In these verses we have the work of creation in its epitome and in its embryo.
I. In its epitome, Gen 1:1, where we find, to our comfort, the first article of our creed, that God the Father Almighty is the Maker of heaven and earth, and as such we believe in him.
Read full note →
1. Observe, in this verse, four things: -
(1.) The effect produced - the heaven and the earth, that is, the world, including the whole frame and furniture of the universe, the world and all things therein, Act 17:24. The world is a great house, consisting of upper and lower stories, the structure stately and magnificent, uniform and convenient, and every room well and wisely furnished. It is the visible part of the creation that Moses here designs to account for; therefore he mentions not the creation of angels. But as the earth has not only its surface adorned with grass and flowers, but also its bowels enriched with metals and precious stones (which partake more of its solid nature and more valuable, though the creation of them is not mentioned here), so the heavens are not only beautified to our eye with glorious lamps which garnish its outside, of whose creation we here read, but they are within replenished with glorious beings, out of our sight, more celestial, and more surpassing them in worth and excellency than the gold or sapphires surpass the lilies of the field. In the visible world it is easy to observe, [1.] Great variety, several sorts of beings vastly differing in their nature and constitution from each other. Lord, how manifold are thy works, and all good! [2.] Great beauty. The azure sky and verdant earth are charming to the eye of the curious spectator, much more the ornaments of both. How transcendent then must the beauty of the Creator be! [3.] Great exactness and accuracy. To those that, with the help of microscopes, narrowly look into the works of nature, they appear far more fine than any of the works of art. [4.] Great power. It is not a lump of dead and inactive matter, but there is virtue, more or less, in every creature: the earth itself has a magnetic power. [5.] Great order, a mutual dependence of beings, an exact harmony of motions, and an admirable chain and connection of causes. [6.] Great mystery. There are phenomena in nature which cannot be solved, secrets which cannot be fathomed nor accounted for. But from what we see of heaven and earth we may easily enough infer the eternal power and Godhead of the great Creator, and may furnish ourselves with abundant matter for his praises. And let our make and place, as men, remind us of our duty as Christians, which is always to keep heaven in our eye and the earth under our feet.
(2.) The author and cause of this great work - God. The Hebrew word is Elohim, which bespeaks, [1.] The power of God the Creator. El signifies the strong God; and what less than almighty strength could bring all things out of nothing? [2.] The plurality of persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This plural name of God, in Hebrew, which speaks of him as many though he is one, was to the Gentiles perhaps a savour of death unto death, hardening them in their idolatry; but it is to us a savour of life unto life, confirming our faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, which, though but darkly intimated in the Old Testament, is clearly revealed in the New. The Son of God, the eternal Word and Wisdom of the Father, was with him when he made the world (Pro 8:30), nay, we are often told that the world was made by him, and nothing made without him, Joh 1:3, Joh 1:10; Eph 3:9; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2. O what high thoughts should this form in our minds of that great God whom we draw nigh to in religious worship, and that great Mediator in whose name we draw nigh!
(3.) The manner in which this work was effected: God created it, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. By the ordinary power of nature, it is impossible that any thing should be made out of nothing; no artificer can work, unless he has something to work on. But by the almighty power of God it is not only possible that something should be made of nothing (the God of nature is not subject to the laws of nature), but in the creation it is impossible it should be otherwise, for nothing is more injurious to the honour of the Eternal Mind than the supposition of eternal matter. Thus the excellency of the power is of God and all the glory is to him.
(4.) When this work was produced: In the beginning, that is, in the beginning of time, when that clock was first set a going: time began with the production of those beings that are measured by time. Before the beginning of time there was none but that Infinite Being that inhabits eternity. Should we ask why God made the world no sooner, we should but darken counsel by words without knowledge; for how could there be sooner or later in eternity? And he did make it in the beginning of time, according to his eternal counsels before all time. The Jewish Rabbies have a saying, that there were seven things which God created before the world, by which they only mean to express the excellency of these things: - The law, repentance, paradise, hell, the throne of glory, the house of the sanctuary, and the name of the Messiah. But to us it is enough to say, In the beginning was the Word, Joh 1:1.
2. Let us learn hence, (1.) That atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest fools in nature; for they see there is a world that could not make itself, and yet they will not own there is a God that made it. Doubtless, they are without excuse, but the god of this world has blinded their minds. (2.) That God is sovereign Lord of all by an incontestable right. If he is the Creator, no doubt he is the owner and possessor of heaven and earth. (3.) That with God all things are possible, and therefore happy are the people that have him for their God, and whose help and hope stand in his name, Psa 121:2; Psa 124:8. (4.) That the God we serve is worthy of, and yet is exalted far above, all blessing and praise, Neh 9:5, Neh 9:6. If he made the world, he needs not our services, nor can be benefited by them (Act 17:24, Act 17:25), and yet he justly requires them, and deserves our praise, Rev 4:11. If all is of him, all must be to him.
II. Here is the work of creation in its embryo, Gen 1:2, where we have an account of the first matter and the first mover.
1. A chaos was the first matter. It is here called the earth (though the earth, properly taken, was not made till the third day Gen 1:10), because it did most resemble that which afterwards was called earth, mere earth, destitute of its ornaments, such a heavy unwieldy mass was it; it is also called the deep, both for its vastness and because the waters which were afterwards separated from the earth were now mixed with it. This immense mass of matter was it out of which all bodies, even the firmament and visible heavens themselves, were afterwards produced by the power of the Eternal Word. The Creator could have made his work perfect at first, but by this gradual proceeding he would show what is, ordinarily, the method of his providence and grace. Observe the description of this chaos. (1.) There was nothing in it desirable to be seen, for it was without form and void. Toho and Bohu, confusion and emptiness; so these words are rendered, Isa 34:11. It was shapeless, it was useless, it was without inhabitants, without ornaments, the shadow or rough draught of things to come, and not the image of the things, Heb 10:1. The earth is almost reduced to the same condition again by the sin of man, under which the creation groans. See Jer 4:23, I beheld the earth, and lo it was without form, and void. To those who have their hearts in heaven this lower world, in comparison with that upper, still appears to be nothing but confusion and emptiness. There is no true beauty to be seen, no satisfying fulness to be enjoyed, in this earth, but in God only. (2.) If there had been any thing desirable to be seen, yet there was no light to see it by; for darkness, thick darkness, was upon the face of the deep. God did not create this darkness (as he is said to create the darkness of affliction, Isa 45:7), for it was only the want of light, which yet could not be said to be wanted till something was made that might be seen by it; nor needs the want of it be much complained of, when there was nothing to be seen but confusion and emptiness. If the work of grace in the soul is a new creation, this chaos represents the state of an unregenerate graceless soul: there is disorder, confusion, and every evil work; it is empty of all good, for it is without God; it is dark, it is darkness itself. This is our condition by nature, till almighty grace effects a blessed change.
2. The Spirit of God was the first mover: He moved upon the face of the waters. When we consider the earth without form and void, methinks it is like the valley full of dead and dry bones. Can these live? Can this confused mass of matter be formed into a beautiful world? Yes, if a spirit of life from God enter into it, Eze 37:9. Now there is hope concerning this thing; for the Spirit of God begins to work, and, if he work, who or what shall hinder? God is said to make the world by his Spirit, Psa 33:6; Job 26:13; and by the same mighty worker the new creation is effected. He moved upon the face of the deep, as Elijah stretched himself upon the dead child, - as the hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and hovers over them, to warm and cherish them, Mat 23:37, - as the eagle stirs up her nest, and flutters over her young (it is the same world that is here used), Deu 32:11. Learn hence, That God is not only the author of all being, but the fountain of life and spring of motion. Dead matter would be for ever dead if he did not quicken it. And this makes it credible to us that God should raise the dead. That power which brought such a world as this out of confusion, emptiness, and darkness, at the beginning of time, can, at the end of time, bring our vile bodies out of the grave, though it is a land of darkness as darkness itself, and without any order (Job 10:22), and can make them glorious bodies.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 In the beginning God created the heaven and the…
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. By the heaven some understand the supreme heaven, the heaven of heavens, the habitation of God, and of the holy angels; and this being made perfect at once, no mention is after made of it, as of the earth; and it is supposed that the angels were at this time created, since they were present at the laying of the foundation of the earth, Job 38:6 but rather the lower and visible heavens are meant, at least are not excluded, that is, the substance of them; as yet being imperfect and unadorned; the expanse not yet made, or the ether and air not yet stretched out; nor any light placed in them, or adorned with the sun, moon, and stars: so the earth is to be understood, not of that properly so called, as separated from the waters, that is, the dry land afterwards made to appear; but the whole mass of earth and water before their separation, and when in their unformed and unadorned state, described in the next verse: in short, these words represent the visible heavens and the terraqueous globe, in their chaotic state, as they were first brought into being by almighty power. The prefixed to both words is, as Aben Ezra observes, expressive of notification or demonstration, as pointing at "those" heavens, and "this earth"; and shows that things visible are here spoken of, whatever is above us, or below us to be seen: for in the Arabic language, as he also observes, the word for "heaven", comes from one which signifies high or above (a); as that for "earth" from one that signifies low and beneath, or under (b). Now it was the matter or substance of these that was first created; for the word set before them signifies substance, as both Aben Ezra and (c) Kimchi affirm. Maimonides (d) observes, that this particle, according to their wise men, is the same as "with"; and then the sense is, God created with the heavens whatsoever are in the heavens, and with the earth whatsoever are in the earth; that is, the substance of all things in them; or all things in them were seminally together: for so he illustrates it by an husbandman sowing seeds of divers kinds in the earth, at one and the same time; some of which come up after one day, and some after two days, and some after three days, though all sown together. These are said to be "created", that is, to be made out of nothing; for what pre-existent matter to this chaos could there be out of which they could be formed? And the apostle says, "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear", Heb 11:3. And though this word is sometimes used, and even in this chapter, of the production of creatures out of pre-existent matter, as in Gen 1:21 yet, as Nachmanides observes, there is not in the holy language any word but this here used, by which is signified the bringing anything into being out of nothing; and many of the Jewish interpreters, as Aben Ezra, understand by creation here, a production of something into being out of nothing; and Kimchi says (e) that creation is a making some new thing, and a bringing something out of nothing: and it deserves notice, that this word is only used of God; and creation must be the work of God, for none but an almighty power could produce something out of nothing. The word used is Elohim, which some derive from another, which signifies power, creation being an act of almighty power: but it is rather to be derived from the root in the Arabic language, which signifies to worship (f), God being the object of all religious worship and adoration; and very properly does Moses make use of this appellation here, to teach us, that he who is the Creator of the heavens and the earth is the sole object of worship; as he was of the worship of the Jewish nation, at the head of which Moses was. It is in the plural number, and being joined to a verb of the singular, is thought by many to be designed to point unto us the mystery of a plurality, or trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence: but whether or no this is sufficient to support that doctrine, which is to be established without it; yet there is no doubt to be made, that all the three Persons in the Godhead were concerned in the creation of all things, see Psa 33:6. The Heathen poet Orpheus has a notion somewhat similar to this, who writes, that all things were made by one Godhead of three names, and that this God is all things (g): and now all these things, the heaven and the earth, were made by God "in the beginning", either in the beginning of time, or when time began, as it did with the creatures, it being nothing but the measure of a creature's duration, and therefore could not be until such existed; or as Jarchi interprets it, in the beginning of the creation, when God first began to create; and is best explained by our Lord, "the beginning of the creation which God created", Mar 13:19 and the sense is, either that as soon as God created, or the first he did create were the heavens and the earth; to which agrees the Arabic version; not anything was created before them: or in connection with the following words, thus, "when first", or "in the beginning", when "God created the heavens and the earth", then "the earth was without form", &c (h). The Jerusalem Targum renders it, "in wisdom God created"; see Pro 3:19 and some of the ancients have interpreted it of the wisdom of God, the Logos and Son of God. From hence we learn, that the world was not eternal, either as to the matter or form of it, as Aristotle, and some other philosophers, have asserted, but had a beginning; and that its being is not owing to the fortuitous motion and conjunction of atoms, but to the power and wisdom of God, the first cause and sole author of all things; and that there was not any thing created before the heaven and the earth were: hence those phrases, before the foundation of the world, and before the world began, &c. are expressive of eternity: this utterly destroys the notion of the pre-existence of the souls of men, or of the soul of the Messiah: false therefore is what the Jews say (i), that paradise, the righteous, Israel, Jerusalem, &c. were created before the world; unless they mean, that these were foreordained by God to be, which perhaps is their sense.
(a) "altus fuit, eminuit", Golius, col. 1219. (b) "quicquid humile, inferum et depressum" ib. col. 70. Hottinger. Smegma Orient. c. 5. p. 70. & Thesaur. Philolog. l. 1. c. 2. p. 234. (c) Sepher Shorash. rad. (d) Moreh Nevochim, par. 2. c. 30. p. 275, 276. (e) Ut supra. (Sepher Shorash.) rad. (f) "coluit, unde" "numen colendum", Schultens in Job. i. 1. Golius, col. 144. Hottinger. Smegma, p. 120. (g) See the Universal History, vol. 1. p. 33. (h) So Vatablus. (i) Targum Jon. & Jerus. in Gen. iii. 24. T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 54. 1. & Nedarim, fol. 39. 2.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29, 31 The holy scripture, being designed to maintain and improve…
The holy scripture, being designed to maintain and improve natural religion, to repair the decays of it. and supply the defects of it, since the fall, lays down at first this principle of the unclouded light of nature: That this world was, in the beginning of time, created by a Being of infinite wisdom and power, who was himself before all time, and all worlds. And the first verse of the Bible gives us a surer and better, a more satisfying and useful knowledge of the origin of the universe, than all the volumes of the philosophers. We have three things in this chapter.
I. A general idea of the work of creation, ver. 1, 2.
Read full note →
II. A particular account of the several days work, distinctly and in order. The creation of light, the first day, ver. 3-5. Of the firmament, the second day, ver. 6-8. Of the sea, the earth and its fruits, the third day, ver. 9-13. Of the lights of heaven, the fourth day, ver. 14-19. Of the fish and fowl, the fifth day, ver. 20-23. Of the beasts, ver. 24, 25. Of man, ver. 26-28. And food for both, the sixth day, ver. 29, 30.
III. The review and approbation of the whole work, ver. 31.
1. Observe here.
1. The effect produced, The heaven and the earth - That is, the world, including the whole frame and furniture of the universe. But 'tis only the visible part of the creation that Moses designs to give an account of. Yet even in this there are secrets which cannot be fathomed, nor accounted for. But from what we see of heaven and earth, we may infer the eternal power and godhead of the great Creator. And let our make and place, as men, mind us of our duty, as Christians, which is always to keep heaven in our eye, and the earth under our feet. Observe
2. The author and cause of this great work, God. The Hebrew word is Elohim; which (1.) seems to mean The Covenant God, being derived from a word that signifies to swear. (2.) The plurality of persons in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The plural name of God in Hebrew, which speaks of him as many, tho' he be but one, was to the Gentiles perhaps a favour of death unto death, hardening them in their idolatry; but it is to us a favour of life unto life, confirming our faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, which, tho' but darkly intimated in the Old Testament, is clearly revealed in the New. Observe
3. The manner how this work was effected; God created, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced. The fish and fowl were indeed produced out of the waters, and the beasts and man out of the earth; but that earth and those waters were made out of nothing. Observe
4. When this work was produced; In the beginning - That is, in the beginning of time. Time began with the production of those beings that are measured by time. Before the beginning of time there was none but that Infinite Being that inhabits eternity. Should we ask why God made the world no sooner, we should but darken counsel by words without knowledge; for how could there be sooner or later in eternity?
2. Where we have an account of the first matter, and the first Mover.
A chaos was the first matter. 'Tis here called the earth, (tho' the earth, properly taken, was not made 'till the third day, ver. 10) because it did most resemble that which was afterwards called earth, a heavy unwieldy mass. 'Tis also called the deep, both for its vastness, and because the waters which were afterwards separated from the earth were now mixed with it. This mighty bulk of matter was it, out of which all bodies were afterwards produced. The Creator could have made his work perfect at first, but by this gradual proceeding he would shew what is ordinarily the method of his providence, and grace. This chaos, was without form and void. Tohu and Bohu, confusion and emptiness, so those words are rendered, Isaiah xxxiv, 11. 'Twas shapeless, 'twas useless, 'twas without inhabitants, without ornaments; the shadow or rough draught of things to come. To those who have their hearts in heaven, this lower world, in comparison of the upper, still appears to be confusion and emptiness. And darkness was upon the face of the deep-God did not create this darkness, (as he is said to create the darkness of affliction, Isaiah xlv, 7.) for it was only the want of light.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31 -Year before the common era of Christ, 4004.
THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES CALLED GENESIS
-Year before the common era of Christ, 4004.
Read full note →
-Julian Period, 710.
-Cycle of the Sun, 10.
-Dominical Letter, B.
-Cycle of the Moon, 7.
-Indiction, 5.
-Creation from Tisri or September, 1.
CHAPTER I
First day's work-Creation of the heavens and the earth, 1, 2.
Of the light and its separation from the darkness, 3-5.
Second day's work-The creation of the firmament, and the separation
of the waters above the firmament from those below it, 6-8.
Third day's work-The waters are separated from the earth and formed
into seas, c., 9,10. The earth rendered fruitful, and clothed with trees, herbs, grass,
c., 11-13.
Fourth day's work-Creation of the celestial luminaries intended for
the measurement of time, the distinction of periods, seasons, &c., 14 and to illuminate the earth, 15. Distinct account of the formation of the sun, moon, and stars, 16-19.
Fifth day's work-The creation of fish, fowls, and reptiles in general,
20. Of great aquatic animals, 21.
They are blessed so as to make them very prolific, 22, 23.
Sixth day's work-Wild and tame cattle created, and all kinds of animals
which derive their nourishment from the earth, 24, 25. The creation of man in the image and likeness of God, with the dominion
given him over the earth and all inferior animals, 26. Man or Adam, a general name for human beings, including both male and
female, 27. Their peculiar blessing, 28. Vegetables appointed as the food of man and all other animals, 29, 30. The judgment which God passed on his works at the conclusion of his
creative acts, 31.
NOTES ON CHAP. I
Verse 1. בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ Bereshith bara Elohim eth hashshamayim veeth haarets GOD in the beginning created the heavens and the earth.
Many attempts have been made to define the term GOD: as to the word itself, it is pure Anglo-Saxon, and among our ancestors signified, not only the Divine Being, now commonly designated by the word, but also good; as in their apprehensions it appeared that God and good were correlative terms; and when they thought or spoke of him, they were doubtless led from the word itself to consider him as THE GOOD BEING, a fountain of infinite benevolence and beneficence towards his creatures.
A general definition of this great First Cause, as far as human words dare attempt one, may be thus given: The eternal, independent, and self-existent Being: the Being whose purposes and actions spring from himself, without foreign motive or influence: he who is absolute in dominion; the most pure, the most simple, and most spiritual of all essences; infinitely benevolent, beneficent, true, and holy: the cause of all being, the upholder of all things; infinitely happy, because infinitely perfect; and eternally self-sufficient, needing nothing that he has made: illimitable in his immensity, inconceivable in his mode of existence, and indescribable in his essence; known fully only to himself, because an infinite mind can be fully apprehended only by itself. In a word, a Being who, from his infinite wisdom, cannot err or be deceived; and who, from his infinite goodness, can do nothing but what is eternally just, right, and kind. Reader, such is the God of the Bible; but how widely different from the God of most human creeds and apprehensions!
The original word אלהים Elohim, God, is certainly the plural form of אל El, or אלה Eloah, and has long been supposed, by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a plurality of Persons in the Divine nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the sacred writings to be confined to three Persons, hence the doctrine of the TRINITY, which has formed a part of the creed of all those who have been deemed sound in the faith, from the earliest ages of Christianity. Nor are the Christians singular in receiving this doctrine, and in deriving it from the first words of Divine revelation. An eminent Jewish rabbin, Simeon ben Joachi, in his comment on the sixth section of Leviticus, has these remarkable words: "Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone, and yet notwithstanding they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other." See Ainsworth. He must be strangely prejudiced indeed who cannot see that the doctrine of a Trinity, and of a Trinity in unity, is expressed in the above words. The verb bara, he created, being joined in the singular number with this plural noun, has been considered as pointing out, and not obscurely, the unity of the Divine Persons in this work of creation. In the ever-blessed Trinity, from the infinite and indivisible unity of the persons, there can be but one will, one purpose, and one infinite and uncontrollable energy.
"Let those who have any doubt whether אלהים Elohim, when meaning the true God, Jehovah, be plural or not, consult the following passages, where they will find it joined with adjectives, verbs, and pronouns plural.
"Ge 1:26; Ge 3:22; Ge 11:7; Ge 20:13; Ge 31:7; Ge 31:53; Ge 35:7.
"De 4:7; De 5:23; Jos 24:19; 1Sa 4:8; 2Sa 7:23;
"Ps 58:6; Isa 6:8; Jer 10:10; Jer 23:36.
"See also Pr 9:10; Pr 30:3; Ps 149:2; Ec 5:7; Ec 12:1;
"Job 5:1; Isa 6:3; Isa 54:5; Isa 62:5; Hos 11:12,
or Hos 12:1; Mal 1:6; Da 5:18; Da 5:20; Da 7:18; Da 7:22." - PARKHURST.
As the word Elohim is the term by which the Divine Being is most generally expressed in the Old Testament, it may be necessary to consider it here more at large. It is a maxim that admits of no controversy, that every noun in the Hebrew language is derived from a verb, which is usually termed the radix or root, from which, not only the noun, but all the different flections of the verb, spring. This radix is the third person singular of the preterite or past tense. The ideal meaning of this root expresses some essential property of the thing which it designates, or of which it is an appellative. The root in Hebrew, and in its sister language, the Arabic, generally consists of three letters, and every word must be traced to its root in order to ascertain its genuine meaning, for there alone is this meaning to be found. In Hebrew and Arabic this is essentially necessary, and no man can safely criticise on any word in either of these languages who does not carefully attend to this point.
I mention the Arabic with the Hebrew for two reasons.
1. Because the two languages evidently spring from the same source, and have very nearly the same mode of construction.
2. Because the deficient roots in the Hebrew Bible are to be sought for in the Arabic language. The reason of this must be obvious, when it is considered that the whole of the Hebrew language is lost except what is in the Bible, and even a part of this book is written in Chaldee.
Now, as the English Bible does not contain the whole of the English language, so the Hebrew Bible does not contain the whole of the Hebrew. If a man meet with an English word which he cannot find in an ample concordance or dictionary to the Bible, he must of course seek for that word in a general English dictionary. In like manner, if a particular form of a Hebrew word occur that cannot be traced to a root in the Hebrew Bible, because the word does not occur in the third person singular of the past tense in the Bible, it is expedient, it is perfectly lawful, and often indispensably necessary, to seek the deficient root in the Arabic. For as the Arabic is still a living language, and perhaps the most copious in the universe, it may well be expected to furnish those terms which are deficient in the Hebrew Bible. And the reasonableness of this is founded on another maxim, viz., that either the Arabic was derived from the Hebrew, or the Hebrew from the Arabic. I shall not enter into this controversy; there are great names on both sides, and the decision of the question in either way will have the same effect on my argument. For if the Arabic were derived from the Hebrew, it must have been when the Hebrew was a living and complete language, because such is the Arabic now; and therefore all its essential roots we may reasonably expect to find there: but if, as Sir William Jones supposed, the Hebrew were derived from the Arabic, the same expectation is justified, the deficient roots in Hebrew may be sought for in the mother tongue. If, for example, we meet with a term in our ancient English language the meaning of which we find difficult to ascertain, common sense teaches us that we should seek for it in the Anglo-Saxon, from which our language springs; and, if necessary, go up to the Teutonic, from which the Anglo-Saxon was derived. No person disputes the legitimacy of this measure, and we find it in constant practice. I make these observations at the very threshold of my work, because the necessity of acting on this principle (seeking deficient Hebrew roots in the Arabic) may often occur, and I wish to speak once for all on the subject.
The first sentence in the Scripture shows the propriety of having recourse to this principle. We have seen that the word אלהים Elohim is plural; we have traced our term God to its source, and have seen its signification; and also a general definition of the thing or being included under this term, has been tremblingly attempted. We should now trace the original to its root, but this root does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. Were the Hebrew a complete language, a pious reason might be given for this omission, viz., "As God is without beginning and without cause, as his being is infinite and underived, the Hebrew language consults strict propriety in giving no root whence his name can be deduced." Mr. Parkhurst, to whose pious and learned labours in Hebrew literature most Biblical students are indebted, thinks he has found the root in אלה alah, he swore, bound himself by oath; and hence he calls the ever-blessed Trinity אלהים Elohim, as being bound by a conditional oath to redeem man, c., c. Most pious minds will revolt from such a definition, and will be glad with me to find both the noun and the root preserved in Arabic. ALLAH [Arabic] is the common name for GOD in the Arabic tongue, and often the emphatic [Arabic] is used. Now both these words are derived from the root alaha, he worshipped, adored, was struck with astonishment, fear, or terror and hence, he adored with sacred horror and veneration, cum sacro horrore ac veneratione coluit, adoravit. - WILMET. Hence ilahon, fear, veneration, and also the object of religious fear, the Deity, the supreme God, the tremendous Being. This is not a new idea God was considered in the same light among the ancient Hebrews; and hence Jacob swears by the fear of his father Isaac, Ge 31:53. To complete the definition, Golius renders alaha, juvit, liberavit, et tutatus fuit, "he succoured, liberated, kept in safety, or defended." Thus from the ideal meaning of this most expressive root, we acquire the most correct notion of the Divine nature; for we learn that God is the sole object of adoration; that the perfections of his nature are such as must astonish all those who piously contemplate them, and fill with horror all who would dare to give his glory to another, or break his commandments; that consequently he should be worshipped with reverence and religious fear; and that every sincere worshipper may expect from him help in all his weaknesses, trials, difficulties, temptations, c, freedom from the power, guilt, nature, and consequences of sin; and to be supported, defended, and saved to the uttermost, and to the end.
Here then is one proof, among multitudes which shall be adduced in the course of this work, of the importance, utility, and necessity of tracing up these sacred words to their sources; and a proof also, that subjects which are supposed to be out of the reach of the common people may, with a little difficulty, be brought on a level with the most ordinary capacity.
In the beginning] Before the creative acts mentioned in this chapter all was ETERNITY. Time signifies duration measured by the revolutions of the heavenly bodies: but prior to the creation of these bodies there could be no measurement of duration, and consequently no time; therefore in the beginning must necessarily mean the commencement of time which followed, or rather was produced by, God's creative acts, as an effect follows or is produced by a cause.
Created] Caused existence where previously to this moment there was no being. The rabbins, who are legitimate judges in a case of verbal criticism on their own language, are unanimous in asserting that the word ברא bara expresses the commencement of the existence of a thing, or egression from nonentity to entity. It does not in its primary meaning denote the preserving or new forming things that had previously existed, as some imagine, but creation in the proper sense of the term, though it has some other acceptations in other places. The supposition that God formed all things out of a pre-existing, eternal nature, is certainly absurd, for if there had been an eternal nature besides an eternal God, there must have been two self-existing, independent, and eternal beings, which is a most palpable contradiction.
את השמים eth hashshamayim. The word את eth, which is generally considered as a particle, simply denoting that the word following is in the accusative or oblique case, is often understood by the rabbins in a much more extensive sense. "The particle את," says Aben Ezra, "signifies the substance of the thing." The like definition is given by Kimchi in his Book of Roots. "This particle," says Mr. Ainsworth, "having the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet in it, is supposed to comprise the sum and substance of all things." "The particle את eth (says Buxtorf, Talmudic Lexicon, sub voce) with the cabalists is often mystically put for the beginning and the end, as α alpha and ω omega are in the Apocalypse." On this ground these words should be translated, "God in the beginning created the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth," i.e. the prima materia, or first elements, out of which the heavens and the earth were successively formed. The Syriac translator understood the word in this sense, and to express this meaning has used the word [Arabic] yoth, which has this signification, and is very properly translated in Walton's Polyglot, ESSE, caeli et ESSE terrae, "the being or substance of the heaven, and the being or substance of the earth." St. Ephraim Syrus, in his comment on this place, uses the same Syriac word, and appears to understand it precisely in the same way. Though the Hebrew words are certainly no more than the notation of a case in most places, yet understood here in the sense above, they argue a wonderful philosophic accuracy in the statement of Moses, which brings before us, not a finished heaven and earth, as every other translation appears to do, though afterwards the process of their formation is given in detail, but merely the materials out of which God built the whole system in the six following days.
The heaven and the earth.] As the word שמים shamayim is plural, we may rest assured that it means more than the atmosphere, to express which some have endeavoured to restrict its meaning. Nor does it appear that the atmosphere is particularly intended here, as this is spoken of, Ge 1:6, under the term firmament. The word heavens must therefore comprehend the whole solar system, as it is very likely the whole of this was created in these six days; for unless the earth had been the centre of a system, the reverse of which is sufficiently demonstrated, it would be unphilosophic to suppose it was created independently of the other parts of the system, as on this supposition we must have recourse to the almighty power of God to suspend the influence of the earth's gravitating power till the fourth day, when the sun was placed in the centre, round which the earth began then to revolve. But as the design of the inspired penman was to relate what especially belonged to our world and its inhabitants, therefore he passes by the rest of the planetary system, leaving it simply included in the plural word heavens. In the word earth every thing relative to the terraqueaerial globe is included, that is, all that belongs to the solid and fluid parts of our world with its surrounding atmosphere. As therefore I suppose the whole solar system was created at this time, I think it perfectly in place to give here a general view of all the planets, with every thing curious and important hitherto known relative to their revolutions and principal affections.
A GENERAL VIEW OF THE WHOLE SOLAR SYSTEM
TABLE I. - THE REVOLUTIONS, DISTANCES, c., c., OF ALL THE PRIMARY PLANETS
TABLE II.-SATELLITES OF JUPITER
TABLE III.-SATELLITES OF SATURN
TABLE IV.-SATELLITES OF HERSCHEL, OR THE GEORGIUM SIDUS
OBSERVATIONS ON THE PRECEDING TABLES
IN Table I. the quantity or the periodic and sidereal revolutions of the planets is expressed in common years, each containing 365 days as, e.g., the tropical revolution of Jupiter is, by the table, 11 years, 315 days, 14 hours, 39 minutes, 2 seconds i.e., the exact number of days is equal to 11 years multiplied by 365, and the extra 315 days added to the product, which make In all 4330 days. The sidereal and periodic times are also set down to the nearest second of time, from numbers used in the construction of the tables in the third edition of M. de la Lande's Astronomy. The columns containing the mean distance of the planets from the sun in English miles, and their greatest and least distance from the earth, are such as result from the best observations of the two last transits of Venus, which gave the solar parallax to be equal to 8 three-fifth seconds of a degree; and consequently the earth's diameter, as seen from the sun, must be the double of 8 three-fifth seconds, or 17 one-fifth seconds. From this last quantity, compared with the apparent diameters of the planets, as seen at a distance equal to that of the earth at her main distance from the sun, the diameters of the planets in English miles, as contained in the seventh column, have been carefully computed. In the column entitled "Proportion of bulk, the earth being 1," the whole numbers express the number of times the other planet contains more cubic miles, c., than the earth and if the number of cubic miles in the earth be given, the number of cubic miles in any planet may be readily found by multiplying the cubic miles contained in the earth by the number in the column, and the product will be the quantity required.
This is a small but accurate sketch of the vast solar system; to describe it fully, even in all its known revolutions and connections, in all its astonishing energy and influence, in its wonderful plan, structure, operations, and results, would require more volumes than can be devoted to the commentary itself.
As so little can be said here on a subject so vast, it may appear to some improper to introduce it at all; but to any observation of this kind I must be permitted to reply, that I should deem it unpardonable not to give a general view of the solar system in the very place where its creation is first introduced. If these works be stupendous and magnificent, what must He be who formed, guides, and supports them all by the word of his power! Reader, stand in awe of this God, and sin not. Make him thy friend through the Son of his love; and, when these heavens and this earth are no more, thy soul shall exist in consummate and unutterable felicity.
See the remarks on the sun, moon, and stars, after Ge 1:16. See Clarke on Ge 1:16.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 Gen 1:1. In the beginning — That is, of…
Gen 1:1. In the beginning — That is, of this material, visible, and temporal world, (which was not without beginning, as many of the ancient heathen philosophers supposed,) and of time with relation to all visible beings. The creation of the spiritual, invisible, and eternal world, whether inhabited by the holy or fallen angels, is not here included or noticed. God — The Hebrew word אלהיםElohim, here and elsewhere translated God, has been considered by many learned men as signifying God in covenant, being derived from the word אלהAlah, he sware, or bound himself by an oath. It is in the plural number, and must often, of necessity, be understood as having a plural meaning in the Holy Scriptures, being a name sometimes given to the false gods of the heathen, who were many, and to angels and magistrates, who are also occasionally called elohim, gods. When intended, as here, of the one living and true God, which it generally is, it has, with great reason, been thought by most Christian divines to imply a plurality of persons or subsistences in the Godhead, and the rather, as many other parts of the inspired writings attest that there is such a plurality, comprehending the Father, the Word, or Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that all these divine persons equally concurred in the creation of the world. Of these things we shall meet with abundant proof in going through this sacred volume Created — That is, brought into being, gave existence to what had no existence before, either as to matter or form; both making the substance of which the different parts of the universe were formed, and giving them the particular forms which they at present bear. How astonishing is the power that could produce such a world out of nothing! What an object for adoration and praise; and what a foundation for confidence and hope have we in this wonderful Being, who thus calls things that are not as though they were! The heaven and the earth — Here named by way of anticipation, and spoken of more particularly afterward.
The aerial and starry heavens can only be included here. For what is termed by St. Paul the third heaven, 2 Corinthians 12., the place where the pure in heart shall see God, and which is the peculiar residence of the blessed angels, was evidently formed before, (see Job 38:6-7,) but how long before, who can say?
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24 - Section I - The Creation
- Section I - The Creation
- The Absolute Creation
Read full note →
ראשׁית rḕshı̂̂yt, the “head-part, beginning” of a thing, in point of time Gen 10:10, or value Pro 1:7. Its opposite is אחרית 'achărı̂̂yth Isa 46:10. בראשׁית rê'shı̂̂yth, “in the beginning,” is always used in reference to time. Here only is it taken absolutely.
ברא bārā', “create, give being to something new.” It always has God for its subject. Its object may be anything: matter Gen 1:1; animal life Gen 1:21; spiritual life Gen 1:27. Hence, creation is not confined to a single point of time. Whenever anything absolutely new - that is, not involved in anything previously extant - is called into existence, there is creation Num 16:30. Any thing or event may also be said to be created by Him, who created the whole system of nature to which it belongs Mal 2:10. The verb in its simple form occurs forty-eight times (of which eleven are in Genesis, fourteen in the whole Pentateuch, and twenty-one in Isaiah), and always in one sense.
אלהים 'ĕlohı̂̂ym, “God.” The noun אלוה 'elôah or אלה 'eloah is found in the Hebrew scriptures fifty-seven times in the singular (of which two are in Deuteronomy, and forty-one in the book of Job), and about three thousand times in the plural, of which seventeen are in Job. The Chaldee form אלה 'elâh occurs about seventy-four times in the singular, and ten in the plural. The Hebrew letter ה (h) is proved to be radical, not only by bearing mappiq, but also by keeping its ground before a formative ending. The Arabic verb, with the same radicals, seems rather to borrow from it than to lend the meaning coluit, “worshipped,” which it sometimes has. The root probably means to be “lasting, binding, firm, strong.” Hence, the noun means the Everlasting, and in the plural, the Eternal Powers. It is correctly rendered God, the name of the Eternal and Supreme Being in our language, which perhaps originally meant lord or ruler. And, like this, it is a common or appellative noun. This is evinced by its direct use and indirect applications.
Its direct use is either proper or improper, according to the object to which it is applied. Every instance of its proper use manifestly determines its meaning to be the Eternal, the Almighty, who is Himself without beginning, and has within Himself the power of causing other things, personal and impersonal, to be, and on this event is the sole object of reverence and primary obedience to His intelligent creation.
Its improper use arose from the lapse of man into false notions of the object of worship. Many real or imaginary beings came to be regarded as possessed of the attributes, and therefore entitled to the reverence belonging to Deity, and were in consequence called gods by their mistaken votaries, and by others who had occasion to speak of them. This usage at once proves it to be a common noun, and corroborates its proper meaning. When thus employed, however, it immediately loses most of its inherent grandeur, and sometimes dwindles down to the bare notion of the supernatural or the extramundane. In this manner it seems to be applied by the witch of Endor to the unexpected apparition that presented itself to her 1Sa 28:13.
Its indirect applications point with equal steadiness to this primary and fundamental meaning. Thus, it is employed in a relative and well-defined sense to denote one appointed of God to stand in a certain divine relation to another. This relation is that of authoritative revealer or administrator of the will of God. Thus, we are told Joh 10:34 that “he called them gods, to whom the word of God came.” Thus, Moses became related to Aaron as God to His prophet Exo 4:16, and to Pharaoh as God to His creature Exo 7:1. Accordingly, in Psa 82:6, we find this principle generalized: “I had said, gods are ye, and sons of the Highest all of you.” Here the divine authority vested in Moses is expressly recognized in those who sit in Moses’ seat as judges for God. They exercised a function of God among the people, and so were in God’s stead to them. Man, indeed, was originally adapted for ruling, being made in the image of God, and commanded to have dominion over the inferior creatures. The parent also is instead of God in some respect to his children, and the sovereign holds the relation of patriarch to his subjects. Still, however, we are not fully warranted in translating אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym, “judges” in Exo 21:6; Exo 22:7-8, Exo 22:27 (Hebrew versification: 8, 9, 28), because a more easy, exact, and impressive sense is obtained from the proper rendering.
The word מלאך mel'āk, “angel,” as a relative or official term, is sometimes applied to a person of the Godhead; but the process is not reversed. The Septuagint indeed translates אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym in several instances by ἄγγελοι angeloi Psa 8:6; Psa 97:7; Psa 138:1. The correctness of this is seemingly supported by the quotations in Heb 1:6. and Heb 2:7. These, however, do not imply that the renderings are absolutely correct, but only suffiently so for the purpose of the writer. And it is evident they are so, because the original is a highly imaginative figure, by which a class is conceived to exist, of which in reality only one of the kind is or can be. Now the Septuagint, either imagining, from the occasional application of the official term “angel” to God, that the angelic office somehow or sometimes involved the divine nature, or viewing some of the false gods of the pagan as really angels, and therefore seemingly wishing to give a literal turn to the figure, substituted the word ἄγγελοι angeloi as an interpretation for אלהים 'ĕlohı̂ym. This free translation was sufficient for the purpose of the inspired author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, inasmuch as the worship of all angels Heb 1:6 in the Septuagintal sense of the term was that of the highest rank of dignitaries under God; and the argument in the latter passage Heb 2:7 turns not on the words, “thou madest him a little lower than the angels,” but upon the sentence, “thou hast put all things under his feet.” Moreover, the Septuagint is by no means consistent in this rendering of the word in Similar passages (see Psa 82:1; Psa 97:1; 1Sa 28:13).
With regard to the use of the word, it is to be observed that the plural of the Chaldee form is uniformly plural in sense. The English version of בר־אלהין bar-'elâhı̂yn, “the Son of God” Dan 3:25 is the only exception to this. But since it is the phrase of a pagan, the real meaning may be, “a son of the gods.” On the contrary, the plural of the Hebrew form is generally employed to denote the one God. The singular form, when applied to the true God, is naturally suggested by the prominent thought of his being the only one. The plural, when so applied, is generally accompanied with singular conjuncts, and conveys the predominant conception of a plurality in the one God - a plurality which must be perfectly consistent with his being the only possible one of his kind. The explanations of this use of the plural - namely, that it is a relic of polytheism, that it indicates the association of the angels with the one God in a common or collective appellation, and that it expresses the multiplicity of attributes subsisting in him - are not satisfactory. All we can say is, that it indicates such a plurality in the only one God as makes his nature complete and creation possible. Such a plurality in unity must have dawned upon the mind of Adam. It is afterward, we conceive, definitely revealed in the doctrine of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
שׁמים shāmayı̂m, “skies, heavens,” being the “high” (shamay, “be high,” Arabic) or the “airy” region; the overarching dome of space, with all its revolving orbs.
ארץ 'erets, “land, earth, the low or the hard.” The underlying surface of land.
The verb is in the perfect form, denoting a completed act. The adverbial note of time, “in the beginning,” determines it to belong to the past. To suit our idiom it may, therefore, be strictly rendered “had created.” The skies and the land are the universe divided into its two natural parts by an earthly spectator. The absolute beginning of time, and the creation of all things, mutually determine each other.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Gen 1:1. This great introductory sentence of the book of God is equal in weight to the whole of its subsequent communications concerning the kingdom of nature.
Gen 1:1 assumes the existence of God, for it is He who in the beginning creates. It assumes His eternity, for He is before all things: and since nothing comes from nothing, He Himself must have always been. It implies His omnipotence, for He creates the universe of things. It implies His absolute freedom, for He begins a new course of action. It implies His infinite wisdom, for a κόσμος kosmos, “an order of matter and mind,” can only come from a being of absolute intelligence. It implies His essential goodness, for the Sole, Eternal, Almighty, All-wise, and All-sufficient Being has no reason, no motive, and no capacity for evil. It presumes Him to be beyond all limit of time and place, since He is before all time and place.
It asserts the creation of the heavens and the earth; that is, of the universe of mind and matter. This creating is the omnipotent act of giving existence to things which before had no existence. This is the first great mystery of things; as the end is the second. Natural science observes things as they are, when they have already laid hold of existence. It ascends into the past as far as observation will reach, and penetrates into the future as far as experience will guide. But it does not touch the beginning or the end. This first sentence of revelation, however, records the beginning. At the same time it involves the progressive development of what is begun, and so contains within its bosom the whole of what is revealed in the Book of God. It is thus historical of the beginning, and prophetical of the whole of time. It is, therefore, equivalent to all the rest of revelation taken together, which merely records the evolutions of one sphere of creation, and nearly and more nearly anticipates the end of present things.
This sentence Gen 1:1 assumes the being of God, and asserts the beginning of things. Hence, it intimates that the existence of God is more immediately patent to the reason of man than the creation of the universe. And this is agreeable to the philosophy of things, for the existence of God is a necessary and eternal truth, more and more self-evident to the intellect as it rises to maturity. But the beginning of things is, by its very nature, a contingent event, which once was not and then came to be contingent on the free will of the Eternal, and, therefore, not evident to reason itself, but made known to the understanding by testimony and the reality of things. This sentence is the testimony, and the actual world in us and around us is the reality. Faith takes account of the one, observation of the other.
It bears on the very face of it the indication that it was written by man, and for man, for it divides all things into the heavens and the earth. Such a division evidently suits those only who are inhabitants of the earth. Accordingly, this sentence Gen 1:1 is the foundation-stone of the history, not of the universe at large, of the sun, of any other planet, but of the earth, and of man its rational inhabitant. The primeval event which it records may be far distant, in point of time, from the next event in such a history; as the earth may have existed myriads of ages, and undergone many vicissitudes in its condition, before it became the home of the human race. And, for ought we know, the history of other planets, even of the solar system, may yet be unwritten, because there has been as yet no rational inhabitant to compose or peruse the record. We have no intimation of the interval of time that elapsed between the beginning of things narrated in this prefatory sentence and that state of things which is announced in the following verse, Gen 1:2.
With no less clearness, however, does it show that it was dictated by superhuman knowledge. For it records the beginning of things of which natural science can take no cognizance. Man observes certain laws of nature, and, guided by these, may trace the current of physical events backward and forward, but without being able to fix any limit to the course of nature in either direction. And not only this sentence, but the main part of this and the following chapter communicates events that occurred before man made his appearance on the stage of things; and therefore before he could either witness or record them. And in harmony with all this, the whole volume is proved by the topics chosen, the revelations made, the views entertained, the ends contemplated, and the means of information possessed, to be derived from a higher source than man.
This simple sentence Gen 1:1 denies atheism, for it assumes the being of God. It denies polytheism, and, among its various forms, the doctrine of two eternal principles, the one good and the other evil, for it confesses the one Eternal Creator. It denies materialism, for it asserts the creation of matter. It denies pantheism, for it assumes the existence of God before all things, and apart from them. It denies fatalism, for it involves the freedom of the Eternal Being.
It indicates the relative superiority, in point of magnitude, of the heavens to the earth, by giving the former the first place in the order of words. It is thus in accordance with the first elements of astronomical science.
It is therefore pregnant with physical and metaphysical, with ethical and theological instruction for the first man, for the predecessors and contemporaries of Moses, and for all the succeeding generations of mankind.
This verse forms an integral part of the narrative, and not a mere heading as some have imagined. This is abundantly evident from the following reasons: 1. It has the form of a narrative, not of a superscription. 2. The conjunctive particle connects the second verse with it; which could not be if it were a heading. 3. The very next sentence speaks of the earth as already in existence, and therefore its creation must be recorded in the first verse. 4. In the first verse the heavens take precedence of the earth; but in the following verses all things, even the sun, moon, and stars seem to be but appendages to the earth. Thus, if it were a heading, it would not correspond with the narrative. 5. If the first verse belongs to the narrative, order pervades the whole recital; whereas; if it is a heading, the most hopeless confusion enters. Light is called into being before the sun, moon, and stars. The earth takes precedence of the heavenly luminaries. The stars, which are coordinate with the sun, and preordinate to the moon, occupy the third place in the narrative of their manifestation. For any or all of these reasons it is obvious that the first verse forms a part of the narrative.
As soon as it is settled that the narrative begins in the first verse, another question comes up for determination; namely, whether the heavens here mean the heavenly bodies that circle in their courses through the realms of space, or the mere space itself which they occupy with their perambulations. It is manifest that the heavens here denote the heavenly orbs themselves - the celestial mansions with their existing inhabitants - for the following cogent reasons:
1. Creation implies something created, and not mere space, which is nothing, and cannot be said to be created.
2. Since “the earth” here obviously means the substance of the planet we inhabit, so, by parity of reason, the heavens must mean the substance of the celestial luminaries, the heavenly hosts of stars and spirits.
3. “The heavens” are placed before “the earth,” and therefore must mean that reality which is greater than the earth, for if they meant “space,” and nothing real, they ought not to be before the earth.
4. “The heavens” are actually mentioned in the verse, and therefore must mean a real thing, for if they meant nothing at all, they ought not to be mentioned.
5. The heavens must denote the heavenly realities, because this imparts a rational order to the whole chapter; whereas an unaccountable derangement appears if the sun, moon, and stars do not come into existence till the fourth day, though the sun is the center of light and the measurer of the daily period.
For any or all of these reasons, it is undeniable that the heavens in the first verse mean the fixed and planetary orbs of space; and, consequently, that these uncounted tenants of the skies, along with our own planet, are all declared to be in existence before the commencement of the six days’ creation.
Hence, it appears that the first verse records an event antecedent to those described in the subsequent verses. This is the absolute and aboriginal creation of the heavens and all that in them is, and of the earth in its primeval state. The former includes all those resplendent spheres which are spread before the wondering eye of man, as well as those hosts of planets and of spiritual and angelic beings which are beyond the range of his natural vision. This brings a simple, unforced meaning out of the whole chapter, and discloses a beauty and a harmony in the narrative which no other interpretation can afford. In this way the subsequent verses reveal a new effort of creative power, by which the pre-Adamic earth, in the condition in which it appears in the second verse, is prepared for the residence of a fresh animal creation, including the human race. The process is represented as it would appear to primeval man in his infantile simplicity, with whom his own position would naturally be the fixed point to which everything else was to be referred.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 14, 16, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29 Beginning. As St. Matthew begins his Gospel with the…
Beginning. As St. Matthew begins his Gospel with the same title as this work, the Book of the Generation, or Genesis, so St. John adopts the first words of Moses, in the beginning; but he considers a much higher order of things, even the consubstantial Son of God, the same with God from all eternity, forming the universe, in the beginning of time, in conjunction with the other two Divine Persons, by the word of his power; for all things were made by Him, the Undivided Deity. (Haydock) --- Elohim, the Judges or Gods, denoting plurality, is joined with a verb singular, he created, whence many, after Peter Lombard, have inferred, that in this first verse of Genesis the adorable mystery of the Blessed Trinity is insinuated, as they also gather from various other passages of the Old Testament, though it was not clearly revealed till our Saviour came himself to be the finisher of our faith. (Calmet) --- The Jews being a carnal people and prone to idolatry, might have been in danger of misapplying this great mystery, and therefore an explicit belief of it was not required of them in general. See Collet. &c. (Haydock) --- The word bara, created, is here determined by tradition and by reason to mean a production out of nothing, though it be used also to signify the forming of a thing out of pre-existing matter. (ver. 21, 27.) (Calmet) --- The first cause of all things must be God, who, in a moment, spoke, and heaven and earth were made, heaven with all the Angels; and the whole mass of the elements, in a state of confusion, and blended together, out of which the beautiful order, which was afterwards so admirable, arose in the space of six days: thus God was pleased to manifest his free choice in opposition to those Pagans who attributed all to blind chance or fate. Heaven is here placed first, and is not declared empty and dark like the earth; that we may learn to raise our minds and hearts above this land of trial, to that our true country, where we may enjoy God for ever. (Haydock)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 The Genesis of the World and of the Primitive…
The Genesis of the World and of the Primitive Time of the Human Race, as the Genesis of the Primitive Religion until the Development of Heathendom, and of its Antithesis in the Germinating Patriarchalism. Genesis 1-11
——————
Read full note →
FIRST PART
THE GENESIS OF THE WORLD, OF THE ANTITHESIS OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, AND OF THE PRIMITIVE MEN. Ch. 1 and 2
FIRST SECTION
The Heaven, the Earth, and Man. The Creation and the World in an Upward series of Physical and Generic Development. Universalistic.
Gen_1:1 to Gen_2:3
A.—The Antithesis of Heaven and Earth, the Symbol of all Religion
1In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
B.—The Three First Creative Days. The Great Divisions (by means of Light, Heat, and Chemical Affinity), or the Three Living Contrasts: Light and Darkness (or the Dark Spherical Material); the Ætherial Waters (or the Vapor-Form) and the Earthly Waters (or the Fluid Precipitate); the Water Proper and the Land. The nearest Limit of these Divisions: the Vegetable World as a Symbolic of Commencing Life analogous to the Result of the Three Last Creative Days in the Appearing of Man.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved [hovered, brooded]1 upon the face of the waters. 3And God said: Let there be light, and there was light. 4And God saw the light [the beauty of the light] that it was good [טוֹב, good and fair; as the Greek καλὸν, fair and good]; and God divided the light from the darkness [made a division between the luminous and the dark element]. 5And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night [source of day, source of night]. And the evening and the morning were the first day [i.e., by this division is measured one divine day, or day of God—one day here is for first day]. 6And God said: Let there be a firmament [extension, expansion] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.2 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9And God said: Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together [combining] of the waters [as water proper] called he Seas; and God saw that it was good [second pause of contemplation]. 11And God said: Let the earth bring forth grass [grow grass], the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth; and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit whose seed was in itself after his kind. And God saw that it was good [third pause of contemplation]. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
C.—The Three Last Creative Days. The Three Great Combinings: 1. The Heavenly Luminaries and the Earth generally; 2. the Heavenly Luminaries and Water and Air; 3. the Heavenly Luminaries and the Earth-Soil as a Pre-Conditioning of Individual Formations. Or the Three Parallelisms of the Three First Creative Days.
1st day, The Light;4th day, The Luminaries;2d day, The Waters under and above the Firmament;5th day, The Fishes in the Seas and the Birds of the Heavens;3d day, The Liberated Earth-Soil, and the Plants upon it;6th day, The Land-Animals, and over them Man.14And God said: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years. 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth. And it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth; 18And to rule over the day, and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good [fourth pause of contemplation]. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20And God said: Let the waters bring forth abundantly [Lange: Let the waters swarm] the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly [Lange and English marg. rendering: Let fowl fly] above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind. And God saw that it was good [fifth pause of contemplation]. 22And God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas; and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind. And it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind. And God saw that it was good [sixth pause of contemplation].
D.—The Limit, Aim, of all the Creative Days (especially of the three last), the Antitype of the Vegetable Creation at the End of the Third Day: which Antitype is Man, the Likeness of God, and the Sabbath, in which God rests from His Work.
26And God said: Let us make man in our image after3 our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them. Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruitof a tree yielding seed; to you shall it be for meat; 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat. And it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good [seventh pause of contemplation] And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen_2:1-2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested [had begun to rest] from all his work which [he as] God created and made [Lange: um es zu machen; English marg.: created to make]. 4
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. See on the Introduction to Genesis, and under the head of Literature, the catalogue of cosmological works that belong here. Compare, especially, the Literature Catalogue given by Knobel and Delitzsch.
2. The passages of Scripture that have a special connection: Job; Psalms 8, 19, 104; Proverbs 8; Isaiah 40; Joh_1:1; Col_1:16; Heb_1:2; Heb_11:3; Rev_21:1
3. This account of the world’s creation evidently forms an ascending line, a series of generations whose highest point and utmost limit is reached in man. The six days’ works arrange themselves in orderly contrast; and in correspondence to this are the sections as they have been distinguished by us: a. The creation of heaven and earth in general, and which may also be regarded as the first constituting of the symbolical opposition of the two; b. the three first creative days, or the three great divisions which constitute the great elementary oppositions or polarities of the world, and which are the conditioning of all creature-life: 1. The element of light and the dark shadow-casting masses, or the concrete darkness, and which we must not confound with the evening and the morning; 2. the gaseous form of the æther, especially of the atmosphere, and the fluid form of the earth-sphere; 3. the opposition between the water and the firm land. In respect to this it must be observed that the waters, of Gen_1:2, are a different thing from the waters of Gen_1:6; Gen_1:9, since it still encloses the light and the matter of the earth. Moreover, “the waters” of Gen_1:6 is not yet properly water; since it encloses still the earth material. The first mention of elementary water in the proper sense, is at Gen_1:9. c. The three last creative days, wherein the above parallel is to be observed; d. the limit or aim of creation—man—the sabbath of God.
4. Gen_1:1-2, the ground-laying for the creation of the heaven and the earth. Considered cosmologically and geologically.—In the beginning.— The construction maintained by Bunsen and others (Raschi, Ewald, Aben Ezra) is as follows: In the beginning when God created heaven and earth, and when the earth was waste and desolate, and darkness was over the primeval flood, and the breath of God moved upon the waters, then God said, Let there be light, and there was light. This construction is, in the first place, opposed throughout to the language of Genesis, as in its brief yet grand declarations it proceeds from one concluded sentence to another. Secondly, it contradicts the context, in which the creation of light is a significant, yet still an isolated, moment. If we were to follow Bunsen, it would be the introduction of the Persian light-religion rather than the religion of the Old Testament. And, finally, in the third place, it obliterates that distinguishing ground-idea of the theocratic monotheism with which, in the very start, the word of revelation confronts all pagan dualism,—in other words, the truth, that in regard to the manner of creation, God is the sole causality of heaven and earth in an absolute sense. The view of Aben Ezra that בְּרֵאשִׁית is ever in the construct state, and that it means here, “in the beginning of the creation of the heavens and the earth,” etc., is contradicted by the occurrence of the word in the absolute state, Deu_33:21.—בְּרֵאשִׁית (from רֹאש = רֵאשׁ). The substantive without the article. It is true, this cannot be rendered in the beginning, taken absolutely, so that the beginning should have a significance, or an existence for itself. It would be, moreover, a tautology to say in the beginning of things when God created them, etc., that is, when there was the beginning of things; or else we must take bereshith mystically: in principio, that is, in filio, as Basil, Ambrose, and others (see Leop. Schmid, Explanation of the Holy Scriptures, p. 4), which is not allowable, although it is true that the New Testament doctrine advances at once to the determination that God created all things through the Son (Joh_1:3; Joh_1:11; Heb_1:2; comp. Psa_33:6). It is not easy to take the word adverbially: originally, or in the first place (Knobel); for the immediately following enumeration of the creative days shows that the author would have time begin with the creation of the world. According to Delitzsch the author does not mean “to express the doctrinal proposition that the world had its beginning in time, and is not eternal, but only that the creation of the heavens and the earth was the beginning of all history.” This interpretation seems arbitrary. Bereshith relates especially to time, or to the old, the first time (Isa_46:10; Job_42:12). It may be further said that בְּ can mean with or through. It is, therefore, the most obvious way to interpret it: in a beginning, and that, too, the first, or the beginning of time, God created the heavens and the earth (with the time the space; the latter denoted through the antitheses of heaven and earth). From that first beginning must be distinguished the six new beginnings of the six days’ works; for the creating goes on through the six days. In a beginning of time, therefore, that lies back of the six days’ works, must that first foundation-plan of the world have been made, along with the creation of the heaven and the earth in their opposition. The first verse is therefore not a superscription for the representation that follows, but the completed ouranology despatched in one general declaration, although the cosmical generation, which is described Gen_1:3 and Gen_1:14, is again denoted along with it. That the sun, moon, and stars are perfected for the earth on the fourth day, is an indication that God’s creating still goes on in the heavens, even as the creating of the periods of development in the earth, after its first condition as waste and desolate, when it went forth from the hand of God as a spherical form without any distinct inward configuration.—בָּרָא, in Piel to cut, hew, form; but in Kal it is usually employed of divine productions new, or not previously existing in the “sphere of nature or history (Exo_34:10; Num_16:30, and frequently in the Prophets), or of spirit (Psa_51:12, and the frequent κτίζειν in the N. T.); but never denoting human productions, and never used with the accusative of the material.” Delitzsch. And thus the conception of creating is akin to that of the miraculous, in so far that the former would mean a creating in respect to initial form, the latter in respect to novelty of production. (On the kindred expressions in the Zendavesta, see Delitzsch.) It is to be noted how בָּרָא differs from עָשָׂה and יִצֶר (Gen_2:2 and Gen_1:7). That in this creating there is not meant, at all, any demiurgical forming out of pre-existing material, appears from the fact that the kind of material, as something then or just created, is strongly signified in the first condition of the earth, Gen_1:2, and in the creation of light. This shows itself, in like manner, in the general unconditioned declaration that God is the creative author, or original, of heaven and earth.—Elohim, see the Divine Names in the Introduction.—הַשָׁמַיִם. According to the Arabic it would denote the antithesis of the High (or the height) to the Lower—that is, the earth. The plural form is significant, denoting the abundance and the variety of the upper spaces.5 This appears still more in the expression, the heaven of heavens (Deu_10:14, and Psa_68:34).
5. Gen_1:2-5. Preparation of the geologico-cosmological description of the days’ works. First Creative Day.—תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ. The earth was. This is spoken of its unarranged original or fundamental state, or of heaven and earth in general. Thohu Vabohu, alliteratives and at the same time rhymes, or like sounding; similar alliteratives occurring thus in all the Pentateuch as signs of very old and popular forms of expression (Gen_4:12; Exo_23:1; Exo_23:5; Num_5:18; Deu_2:15). We find them also in Isaiah and elsewhere as characteristic features of a poetical, artistic, keen, and soaring spirit. They are at the same time pictorial and significant of the earth’s condition. For, according to Hupfeld and Delitzsch, תֹהוּ passes over from the primitive sense of roaring to that of desolateness and confusion. The last becomes the common sense, or that which characterizes the natural waste (Deu_32:10) as a positive desolation, as, for example, of a city (Isa_34:11). It is through the conception of voidness, nothingness, that Thohu and Bohu are connected. Delitzsch regards the latter word as related to בהם, which means to be brutal. Both seem doubtful, but the more usual reference to בהה in the sense of void or emptiness is to be preferred. We have aimed at giving the rhyming or similarity of the sounds in our translation (German: öden-wüst and wüsten-öd). The desert is waste, that is, a confused mass without order; the waste is desert, that is, void, without distinction of object. The first word denotes rather the lack of form, the second the lack of content in the earliest condition of the earth. It might, therefore, be translated form-less, matter-less. “Rudis indigestaque moles, in a word, a chaos,” says Delitzsch. It would be odd if in this the biblical view should so cleanly coincide with the mythological. Chaos denotes the void space (as in a similar manner the old Northern Ginnun-gagap, gaping of yawnings, the gaping abyss, which also implies present existing material), and in the next place the rude unorganized mass of the world-material. There is, however, already here the world-form, heaven and earth, and along with this a universal heaven-and-earth-form is presupposed. It is not said that in the beginning the condition of the heavens was thohu and bohu,—at least of the heavens of the earth-world, as Delitzsch maintains; at all events, the earth goes neither out of chaos, nor out of “the same chaos” as the heavens. It is clean against the text to say that the chaos, as something that is primarily the earth, embraces, at the same time, the heaven that exists with and for the earth. For it is very clear that the language relates to the original condition of the earth, although the genesis of the earth may serve, by way of analogy, for the genesis of the universe. וְחשֶׁך, the first condition of the earth was תְהוֹם (from הום, to roar, be in commotion), wave, storm-flood, ocean, abyss. The first state of the earth was itself the Thehom, and over this roaring-flood lay the darkness spread abroad. It is wholly anticipatory when we say that “this undulating mass of waters was not the earth itself in the condition of thohu and bohu, but that it enclosed it; for on the third day the firm land (אָרֶץ) goes forth from the waters.” Delitzsch. Further on, Psa_104:6 is cited to show that, originally, water proper surrounded the firm earth-kernel, and Job_38:8, according to which the sea breaks forth out of the mother’s womb (the earth)—poetical representations that are true enough, if one does not take them according to the letter; in which case they are in direct contradiction to each other. The waters, of Gen_1:2, is quite another thing than the water proper of the third creative day; it is the fluid (or gaseous) form of the earth itself in its first condition. 2Pe_3:5 is not opposed to this; for as the water takes form, the earth breaks out of the water, just as the water comes forth from the earth in consequence of the creative division. The darkness is just the absence of the phenomenal, or the absence of light (for the vision view) in the condition of the earth itself,—in other words, night.—וְרוּחַ, But the spirit of God hovered over (Ang., moved upon). The breath of man, the wind of the earth, and the spirit, especially the spirit of God, are symbolical analogies. The breath is the life-unity and life-motion of the physical creature, the wind is the unity and life-motion of the earth, the spirit is the unity and life-motion of the life proper to which it belongs; the spirit of God is the unity and life-motion of the creative divine activity. It is not a wind of God to which the language here primarily relates (Theodoret, Saadia, Herder, and others), but the spirit of God truly (wherefore the word רחף, Delitzsch; comp. Psa_33:6). From this place onward, and throughout the whole Scripture, the spirit of God is the single formative principle evermore presenting itself with personal attributes in all the divine creative constitutions, whether of the earth, of nature, of the theocracy, of the Tabernacle, of the church, of the new life, or of the new man. The Grecian analogue is that of Eros (or Love) in its reciprocal action with the Chaos, and to this purpose have the later Targums explained it: the spirit of love. It was מְרַחֶפֶת (hovering) over the waters. The conception of brooding cannot be obtained out of Deu_32:11 (Delitzsch), for the eagle does not brood over the living young, but wakes them, draws them out (educates), makes them lively.6 The mythological world-egg of the Persians has no place here. Should we adopt any view of this formative energy of the spirit of God (which may have worked upon the unorganized mass through the medium of a great wind of God) it would consist in this, that by its inflowing it differentiated this mass, that is, conformably to its being, called out points of unity, and divisions which fashioned the mass to multiplicity in the contrasts that follow. It separated the heterogenous, and bound together the homogenous, and so prepared the way for the dividing the light from the darkness. It cannot be said, however, that “all the co-energizing powers in the formation of the world were the emanations or determinations of this spirit of God.” For we must distinguish the creative words with בָרָא from יָצַר, or the forming by the spirit of God.7 The object, however, of this forming is not the primitive matter, but the flowing earth-sphere. Just as little can one say that the six days’ works have their beginning in Gen_1:3; for the result of the first day is not the light merely, but also the darkness (see Isa_45:7). Concerning the theosophic interpretation of thohu vabohu as a world in ruins which had come from God’s judgment on the Fall of the Angels (see Gen_1:3).
Gen_1:3. Let there be light.—Here begin the geologico-cosmical creative periods. This new beginning, therefore, must be distinguished from that first creation of the heavens and the earth which is to be regarded as having no creative beginning before it. Henceforth the treatment is that of a sacred geology, yet regarded in its biblical sense as geologico-cosmological. Hence, in Gen_1:3, the creation of the light-heaven; Gen_1:8, the creation of the air-heaven; Gen_1:14, the creation of the star-heaven; Gen_1:26, the creation of the heavenly core of the earth itself.8—And God said.—“Ten times is this word, וַיּאֹמֶר, repeated in the history of the seven days.” The omnipotence of the creative word, Psa_33:9 : He spake and it was done, he commanded and it stood (Rom_4:17). The creative-word in its deeper significance: Psa_33:6; Isa_40:26; Joh_1:1-3; Heb_1:2; Heb_11:3; Col_1:16. The light, the first distinct creative formation, and, therefore, the formation-principle, or the pre-conditioning for all further formations. Of this formative dividing power of light, physical science teaches us. It is now tolerably well understood, that the light is not conditioned by perfected luminous bodies, but, on the contrary, that light bodies are conditioned by a preceding luminous element. Thus there is set aside the objection taken by Celsus, by the Manichæans, and by rationalism generally, namely, the supposed inversion of order in having first the light and afterwards the luminous body. And yet the light without any substratum is just as little conceivable as the darkness. The question arises, how the author conceived the going forth of the light, whether out of the dark bosom of the earth-flood, or out of the dark bosom of the forming heaven? As the view of the heavenly lights (light bodies) Gen_1:14, is geocentric, so may the same view prevail here of the heaven-light itself. By this is meant that in the fact of the first illumination of the earth the author presents the fact of the birth of light generally in the world, without declaring thereby that the date of the genesis of the earth’s light is also the date of the genesis of light universally. But we may well take the birth of light in the earth (or the earth becoming light) as the analogue whereon is presented the birth of light in the heaven, just as in the creation of man there is symbolized the creation of the spirit-world collectively. We let alone here the question whether the light is an emanation (an outflowing) of a luminous element, or an undulation from a luminous body; only it may be remarked that sound goes on all sides, and may, therefore, be supposed to undulate in sonorous waves, whilst the ray of light, on the other hand, goes directly, for which reason the application to it of such an undulation of sonorous waves would seem unsuitable. The idea of an ætherial vibration may make a medium between emanation and undulation. Without doubt, however, the meaning here is not merely a light-appearing which goes forth out of the heaven-ground,9 and breaks through the dark vapor of the earth, or from heavenly clouds of light (such as the primary form of the creation may have appeared to be), but an immediate lighting up of the luminous element in the earth itself, something like what the Polar night gives rise to in the northern aurora; enough that it is said of the contrast presented between the illuminating and the shade-producing element. The light goes, however, in the first place, out of the dark world-forms (not the mere world material) after that the spirit of God, as formative principle, has energized in them. The spirit of God is the spiritual light that goes out from God; therefore its working goes before the creation of the outer light; and therefore, too, it is that this light is the symbol, and its operation similar to the operation, of the spirit—that is, the formation and the revelation of beauty.—And there was light.—The famed sublimity of this expression as given by Longinus (in a somewhat doubtful text) and others, is predicated on the pure simplicity and confidence with which it sets forth the omnipotence of the creative word.—And God saw the light that it was good.—The first beauty is the light itself. For the Hebrew טוֹב denotes the beautiful along with the good, even as the Greek καλὸν denotes the good along with the beautiful. The sense: that it was good, does not seem easy; and therefore Tertullian (and more lately Neumann) have accepted the quia of the Itala. On the other hand, Delitzsch remarks: “The conclusion is that to God each single work of creation appears good.” The conclusion lies, perhaps, in the pause of solemn contemplation, out of which, at the end, goes forth the perfect sabbath. It is because the religious human soul recognizes the fair and the good in the event of the appearing, that there is therein reflected to it the fountain of this spiritual ethical satisfaction, namely the contemplation of God Himself. Still the contemplation of God does not regard the object as though captivated by it because it is fair, but it rejoices therein that it is fair; or we may say that, in a certain manner, it is the very efficacy of this contemplation that it becomes fair.—And God divided between the light and the darkness.—Although it is farther said that God named the light day and the darkness night, still it must not be supposed that here there is meant only the interchange between day and night as the ordaining of the points of division between both, namely morning and evening. Although light and darkness, day and night, are called after their appearing, yet are they still, all the more, very day and night, in other words, the very causalities themselves. The light denotes all that is simply illuminating in its efficacy, all the luminous element; the darkness denotes all that is untransparent, dark, shadow-casting; both together denote the polarity of the created world, as it exists between the light-formations and the night-formations—the constitution of the day and night. “One sees,” says Delitzsch, “how false is the current and purely privative conception of darkness; as when, for example, a mediæval interpreter (Maxima Bibl. Lugd. vi. p. 868) says: sicut silentium nihil est, sed ubi vox non est silentium dicitur, sic tenebrœ nihil sunt, sed ubi lux non est tenebrœ dicuntur.” It is true, there must be presupposed for the daylight an illuminating source or fountain of light, and so for the darkness a shadow-casting causality (Jas_1:16); but it would be quite wrong to say that light and darkness are two principles (according to the course of the earlier theosophists: Jacob Böhm, and a later school: Baumgarten and others). If it is farther said that the darkness has not the witness טוֹב (good), it may be replied that it certainly has it mediately, Gen_1:31. It is indeed said still earlier: “We do not read that the tohu and bohu, that the tehom with the darkness lying over it originated in the divine call into being (fiat), therefore they had their origin in some other way.” This is a very unwarranted conclusion; so also, then, must the heavens have originated in some other way. The heaven, however, has its origin in the word of the Lord (Psalms 33), and so also the night and the darkness (Isa_45:7) as well as the abyss (Psa_104:8). It is, therefore, a hard inconsequence when Delitzsch, following the mythological views, regards the thohu wabhohu as the chaos enclosing even the heaven in its birth (p. 93), and still farther regards it theosophically as the ruined habitation of condemned demons. In the historical derivation of the last opinion (p. 105) Delitzsch appears to have confounded two distinct views: the scholastic, that God had formed the human world for the purpose of filling up the void that arose in heaven after the fall of the angels, and the theosophic, that the terrestrial region of the world was, in the earlier time, the abode of Lucifer and his companions, which afterwards, through their guilt, became a thohu vabhohu out of which God laid the foundation of a new world. In this view the thohu vabhohu is “the glowing material mass into which the power of God’s wrath had melted the original world after it had become corrupted by the fall of the spirits (pp. 105 and 114 below),—or it was the rudis indigestaque moles into which God had compressed and precipitated that spiritual but now ungodly world condemned to the flames in consequence of its materializing, and this for the purpose of making it the substratum of a new creation which had its beginning in the fact that God had placed the chaos of this old fire-invaded world wholly under water.” One might well ask: shall the fire-brand itself (the old burnt-up earth) be the chaos, or the divine reaction through the quenching in water? Was the fire-brand the work of the demons, or did it come through God’s judgment and counteraction? All such resolutions of the difficulty are in a state of mutual confusion. And this is no wonder, for a certain theosophic hankering after dualism with its two principles can only veil itself in dark and fantastic phrases. In opposition to these gnosticising representations of matter, the demands of a pure monotheism require of us an acquiescence in the idea that matter too is good, because it is from God,—in so far, indeed, as we can speak of pure matter in general terms. The more particular fountain of this view—after certain older preludes and popular representations (Delitzsch, p. 106) derived from Gnostic traditions—is Jacob Böhm (Myst. Magn. p. 67) and the Gnostic teachers that arose after him, Friedrich von Meyer, Baumgarten (Genesis), and others. With peculiar zeal hath Kurtz also taken part in these theosophic phantasies, as also in those other of the miscegenations or sexual confusions between the angels of heaven and the daughters of earth (Genesis 6). The grounds presented by Delitzsch, in opposition to his earlier contrary view (as given in the first two editions of his Commentary), are the following: 1. In the interpretation aforesaid one would, to be sure, expect וַתְּהִי instead of וְהָיְתָה, but the conscious connection need not lie precisely in the consciousness of the writer; he relates simply a matter of fact. And yet he must have been more enlightened in respect to the nature of things than our scientific man. A blind narration of facts would here be as inconsistent as a pure indication of a theosophic sense in thohu vabhohu. 2. Thohu has, indeed, a predominating privative character; it arises, however (Isa_34:11; Isa_24:10; Jer_4:23), from a positive destruction. But how natural was it to apply the pictorial thohu vabhohu to such a condition. What more purely privative than the word nothing? and yet we say it of positive states of destruction. According to Delitzsch, in the methods of its construction (world-brand, quenching-water) must Plutonism and Neptunism have reached their deepest grounding. The grounds that follow are in no respects better (p. 104). What have rendered the hypothesis suspicious from its beginning hitherto are its apocryphal or popular origin (Delitzsch, p. 105), its Gnostic coloring, and its affinity to that other scholastic phantasma that God had created men to fill up the vacuum in the fallen angel-world. It must, however, become very evident that the representation of an “overcoming of the darkness,” in the physical sense in which it here presents itself, is utterly foreign to the holy text; it is like the mingling of conceptions, namely of a physical and an ethical darkness. The representation, then, of Gen_1:2 will be clearly a picturing of the primitive condition of the earth, as it became in consequence of the first general creation, Gen_1:1. Besides, this hypothesis obliterates that line which everywhere else appears between the angelic and human regions and natures. Finally, Gen_1:2, as a representation of the flowing, form-receptive condition of the earth-mass gives the bases for all farther ascending formations. Add to this that, in such case, the region of Lucifer would have been visited by the fire-judgment earlier than Lucifer himself—a representation which runs counter to the usual order of things—not to say, that, on such a supposition, Lucifer himself should have been rightly banished from the whole extent of the earth-region. Or, can it be that God has built the new house of humanity upon the foul beams of a demoniac power? But it is not worth our while to dwell more fully upon a representation which is so characterized by its own sharp contradictions.—And there was evening and there was morning.—Here, in the first place, we must not suppose that the evening and the morning were merely the sequence of the preceding darkness and of the light that followed it, notwithstanding that the first evening and morning so fittingly append themselves to such a contrast. Still less are we to think of the usual evening and morning, since the earth had not yet been astronomically arranged. Evening and morning denote rather the interval of a creative day, and this is evidently after the Hebrew mode of reckoning; the day is reckoned from sunset. The morning that follows stands for the second half of the day proper. In the same manner was the day reckoned by the Arabians, the Athenians (νυχθήμιρον), the Germans, and the Gauls. It is against the text for Delitzsch to put as the ground here the Babylonish reckoning of the day, namely from the dawning of the morning. The earlier theological representation, that by the creative periods were to be understood the usual astronomical days, is now only held by individuals (Baumgarten, Calwer Handbuch, Keil’s Genesis). It is opposed to this, in the first place, that the creative days are already numbered before the determination of the astronomical relation of the earth to the sun, although on other grounds must we hold that the days from the fourth onward were not astronomical; there are in the way, secondly, the idea of the first day whose evening had its beginning in that dark thohu vabhohu which had no evening before it, as well as the idea of the seventh day, the day of God’s rest, which is not defined by an evening and a morning, but runs on through the ordained course of the world; there is, thirdly, the idea of the day of God as it is given to us in the 90th Psalm, which is traditionally ascribed to Moses (Gen_1:4). That this time-determination of a thousand years does not denote an exactly measured chronological period, but still a period defined by essential marks of time, appears from the converse of Psalms 90. in 2Pe_3:8 (a thousand years as one day, and one day as a thousand years), and also from the thousand years of the judgment-time as the transition period from the present state of the world to that which lies beyond (Revelation 20). This comprehensive significance has the divine day (God’s day) or the judgment-day pre-eminently in the Old Testament (Isa_2:12; Joe_1:15; Eze_13:5). Delitzsch, who also holds that the creative days are periods, reckons, as another argument, that in Gen_2:4 the six days are denoted as one day. Add to this the very usual mode of speech, according to which, day in the Old Testament often denotes a longer duration of time, for example, in the formula even to this day. We are not, however, to conceive of the evening and morning of the single creative days as merely symbolic intervals of the day of God. According to the analogy of the first day, the evening is the time of a peculiar chaotic fermentation of things, whilst the morning is the time of that new, fair, solemn world-building that corresponds to it. With each evening there is also indicated a new birth-travail of things, a new earth-revolution which elevates the old formation that went before it—a seeming darkening, a seeming sunset or going down of the world; and so later with this same appearance came on the flood; and so, too, in ZaGen Gen_14:7, the day of the commencing judgment is, with the highest significance, denoted an evening. No less significant is it in the eschatological words of our Lord: and the sun shall withdraw its light, Mat_24:29. With each morning, on the contrary, there is a new, a higher, a fairer, and a richer state of the world. In this way do the evening and morning in the creative periods have the highest significance for an agreement of the sacred geology with the results of the scientific geology. The meaning would seem to be incorrectly taken by Delitzsch when he says: “With each effort of the divine creating is it morning, with each remission it is evening” (p. 106). The most peculiar work of God, we may rather say, would appear to be each of those stormy revolutions, in which the spirit of God hovers like an eagle over the chaotic fermentations; in the creative mornings, on the contrary, come in the holy rests when God surveys the new work and sees how good it Isa. (Comp. Von Rougemont, History of the Earth, p. 7: “Evening: a dark return of chaos.” Doubtless the designation lacks propriety in all respects, and yet it may lead to the right.)
[Note on the Relation of the First Verse of Genesis 1. to the Rest of the .—Among all the interpretations of Genesis 1., the most difficult as well as the most unsatisfactory is that which regards the first verse as referring to a period indefinitely remote, and all that follows as comprised in six solar days. It is barely hinted at by some of the patristic writers, but has become a favorite with certain modern commentators, as furnishing them with a method of keeping the ordinary days, and yet avoiding the geological difficulty, or seeming to avoid it, by throwing all its signs of the earth’s antiquity into this chasm that intervenes between the first and second verses. The objections to it may be thus stated:
(1) Besides the peculiar difficulties that attend any view of ordinary solar days, such as a morning and evening without a sun, or the language of succession, of growth, and of a seeming nature, without any consistent corresponding reality, there is another and greater incongruity in connecting this with a former and very different state of things, or mode of proceeding, with which, after all, it has no real connection either in the realm of nature or of divine providence.
(2) It is a building of this world on the ruins of a former, without any natural or moral reasons therefor. The states preceding, as understood by this hypothesis, were in no sense preparatory. The catastrophe which makes way for it seems entirely arbitrary, and in no sense resembles the pauses described in Genesis, each one of which is in the upward order, and anticipatory of the work that follows.
(3) It is evidently brought in as a possible escape from the difficulties of geology, and would never have been seriously maintained had it not been for them.
(4) It has to make the heavens of the first verse a different heavens from that of the eighth, without any exegetical warrant therefor. This is a rationalizing interpretation, carrying with it a conception of our modern astronomy, and almost wholly unknown to the Scriptures, which everywhere speaks of the heavens and the earth therein mentioned as one system. It is the heavens of our earth, built upon it as described in Gen_1:6; Gen_1:8; Psalms 104; 1Sa_2:8, etc., and always taken in connection with it; not a far-off astronomical heavens, though the rudiments of such an idea come afterwards into the Hebrew. Thus in predictions, whether of destruction or of renovation, the heavens and the earth go together. “I create new heavens and a new earth,” Isa_66:22; Psa_102:27, and other passages. The language is exactly parallel to that of Gen_1:1, and yet we cannot suppose that there is included here the astronomical heaven of stars and planets, at least according to the conceptions of our modern astronomy. It is a renewal of the earth, in some way, together with those celestial or sky phenomena that are in connection with it, as parts, in fact, of the tellurian system. It is the same language, the same mode of conceiving, as late down in Scripture as the 2d Epistle of Peter Gen_3:5-7—the “earth and heavens” that were of old before the flood are put in contrast with “the earth and heavens that are now,” and which are to be changed for “a new earth and heavens” “according to the promise (Gen_1:13) to which we look.” It is the same language that occurs repeatedly in the Revelations (Gen_21:1), and which, whatever we may think of its prophetic meaning, shows the fixedness of the conception down to the latest times of the scriptural canon.
(5) It violates the principles of a rational and grammatical exegesis, in making a separation between the first and second verses, of which there is no trace or reason in the language itself. If used in the same way in narrating historical events, in any other part of the Bible, no one would have thought of the verb בָּרָא, in the first, and הָיְתָה, in the second verse, otherwise than as cotemporaneous or, in direct continuation at least, with no chasm of time between them long or short. It would have been interpreted like the precisely similar sentence, Job_1:1 : “There was a man in the land of Uz, and the man was, etc., הָיָה אִישׁ בְאֶרֶץ־עוּץ וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ. Who would think of separating the second הָיָה here from the first, or sundering the evident continuity? If it be said that the context in Job controls, and the very nature of the subject, so should it also in Genesis, unless we make a new context after our own imaginations, especially as there are clear ways in Hebrew of expressing such a parting of the terms, had it been designed to do so.
Besides this, it is opposed to the usual force of the conjunction ו. Taken even as a mere copulative, it would not allow of such a sharp and remote severance. But ו is much more than this in Hebrew. It is seldom without a time sense, or an inferential sense, showing a connection, not only of mere event, but also of reason and causality. So here it shows the reason for the use of בָּרָא in the preceding verse. “In the beginning God created,” formed, fashioned, the earth; for it was formless and void, or when it was formless and void, etc. Let one take Noldius’ Concordance of the Hebrew Particles, and see how often (in the great majority of cases, we may say) the conjunction wau has this close-joining inferential sense. It is much more usual than its bare copulative force, but even this is out of harmony with the hypothesis of severance as commonly presented. See also Introd. to Genesis 1. pp. 129, 130.—T. L.]
6. Gen_1:6-8. Second Creative Day.—Let there be a firmament.—Rakia (from רָקַע, to stretch, spread out, beat out) an extension or expansion, rendered in the LXX and by others, στερέυμα, and in the Vulgate firmamentum,—names which are more material than רָקִיעַ. Knobel: “The heaven was to the Hebrews a material substance (Exo_24:10), a fixed vault established upon the waters that surrounded the circle of the earth (Pro_8:27), firm as a molten mirror (Job_37:18), and borne up by the highest hills, which are therefore called the pillars and foundations of the heaven (2Sa_22:8; Job_26:11); openings or doors are ascribed to it (Gen_7:11; Gen_28:17; Psa_78:23). There are the same representations elsewhere.” But we must not forget that Hebrew modes of expression for objects that have a religious bearing, do ever contain a symbolical element which disdains the literal pressure. Therefore the stars which in Gen_1:17 are fixed in the heaven, can nevertheless, according to Isa_40:26, set themselves in motion as a host of God; and hence it is that the one heaven expands itself into a heaven of heavens. And thus the heavens bends down to the earth (Psa_18:10); or is spread out like tapestry (Psa_104:2), or its beams are waters (Gen_1:3), whilst the same heaven again is called the footstool of God.—In the midst of the waters.—We must beware here of thinking of a mass of elementary water; quite as little could a fluid mass which is yet identified with the light be elementary, and just as little can it be a flood, or collection of water, which consists of the three factors air, earth, and water. At this point then is completed the second division. The true standpoint of contemplation would seem to be the view, that in the azure welkin of the sky the clouds appear to give out their evaporation, and to withdraw themselves behind the blue expanse like a supercelestial gathering of water (Psa_104:3; Psa_104:13). It follows from this, however, that the visible clouds and the rain may be assigned to the lower collection of waters, and that there is meant here the gaseous water as it forms a unity with the air, and so makes an ethereal atmosphere (not “the water-masses that hover over the air-strata of the atmosphere”). Delitzsch here mistakes the symbolical element. “It must be admitted,” he says, “that in this the Old Testament is chargeable with a defect, for a physical connection between the descending rain-waters and the heavenly waters, which is also indicated in the New Testament (Rev_4:6) cannot be maintained.” Indeed, it is with the actual physical connection between the invisible collection of water (the gas-formed) and the visible, that the contrast is established; it is the polaric tension which even the phenomenological extension brings to view. But why should the Septuagint correct the text here with the addition, Gen_1:8 : And God saw, whilst the Hebrew text has it not? Had the prophetic author some anticipation that the blue vault of heaven was merely an appearance, whilst the savans of the Septuagint had no such anticipation, and, therefore, proceeded to doctor the passage? There may, indeed, be an exaggeration of this conception of the upper waters, since Philoponus and the other church fathers understand by the same the ether that is beyond the earth’s atmosphere; nevertheless, their view would seem to be more correct than that which refers the expression to a proper cloud-formed atmospheric water.—And God named the firmament heaven, שָׁמָיִם. See Gen_1:1. Delitzsch: Here is meant the heaven of the earth-world; Gen_1:1, on the contrary, refers to the heaven and the heaven of heavens. But if the firmament is “the immeasurable far-reaching height,” there is a failure, or falling short, in the limiting of the conception. A main point appears to be, that the rakia is presented to view as the symbolic dividing of the super-earthly heaven, a phenomenal appearance of that house of God to which all who pray to God look up. For the later cosmological interpretations of the upper waters, see Delitzsch, p. 108.
7. Gen_1:9-13. Third Creative Day.
Gen_1:9. Let the waters be gathered together.—The bringing the earth into form and the creation of the vegetable world.—That the physical dividing of the earth-mass and of the water-mass is here presented, is clear. There would appear, however, to be signified a preceding chemical separation of both elements, which had withdrawn themselves from the inner or under core of the earth. The expression יקָּווּ הַמַּיִםdenotes properly not merely an outward assembling, but an intensive close combining (see Gesenius, קָוָה). Upon the formation of the water proper, as it is now introduced, is conditioned the firm underlying of the earth. The completing of this division, however, has for its consequence that flowing together of the water into its peculiar place, with which immediately the self-forming earth-soil now comes into visibility. It is thereby implied that the elevations and depressions of the earth’s surface—the hills and vales, the highlands and the ocean-depths—are here formed, just as it is so precisely set forth, Psa_104:6-8 (with which compare Pro_8:24). And so, too, the creation of the hills is here only indicated, or rather presented, as a consequence of the creation of the sea (see Psa_90:2; Deu_33:15; Hab_3:3). Thus much is clear: as long as the water and the earth-mass are not divided, there can be no mention of any origination of the hills. With the sea-life, however, must begin also the earth-life, that is, the working of the inner earth-fire that causes the up-heavings. It is a wrong apprehension of the waters of Gen_1:2 and Gen_1:6, when one takes the story of cretion as favoring a one-sided Neptunism (Wagner). The volcanic action of the earth in the formation of the earth, is not expressed, indeed, but it is throughout freely implied; it would appear to be indicated, Psa_104:8. There is truly no difficulty in supposing that the formation of the hills kept on through the succeeding creative days. In respect to this, Delitzsch expresses himself better than Hofmann: “Generally,” says he, “the works of the single creative days consist only in laying foundations; the birth-process that is introduced in each, extends its efficacy beyond it, and, in this sense we say with Hofmann (i. p. 278): ‘Not how long, but how many times, God created is the thing intended to be set forth.’ ” Much more have we to distinguish between the distinct creative acts and the creative evolutions. Even after the creative division of the first day the evolving of light may still go on, and the same thought holds good of the efficacy of the succeeding acts of each of the other days. The act itself means the introduction of a new principle out of the word of God, which, as such, has the form of an epoch-creating event.
Gen_1:10. And God named the dry earth land, that is, earth-soil in the narrower sense, and, therefore, it is that אֶרֶץ has no article.—And the water named he sea.—Properly seas, “or rather ocean; for it is more intensive than a numerical plural, and is therefore (as in Psa_46:4) construed in the singular.” Delitzsch. On the other hand, Knobel would make prominent the singleness of the seas in the rendering Weltmeer, or world-sea, main sea, or ocean.—And God saw.—Now has the earth-formation come into visibility, though only in its first outlines, or, according to the idea of the naturalist, as an insular appearing of the land-region as it unfolds itself to view.—Let the earth bring forth (sprout, germinate).—It is agreeable to the nature of the earth as well as of the plant that both are together as soon as possible. The earth has an inclination to germinate, the plant to appear. In truth, its origination is a new creative act. In the proper place is this creation narrated; for the plant denotes the transformation of the elementary materials, earth, air, water, which are now present in organic life through the inward working of the light. It forms the preconditioning, as the sign or prognostic, of the awaiting animal creation. And though it has need of the light too in some measure, it does not yet want the sunshine in its first subordinate kinds. The question now arises, whether we must distinguish three kinds of plants: דֶּשֶׁא, tender green;עֵשֶׁב, herbs and shrubs, vegetables and grain (or the smaller growths generally), and עֵץ כְּרִי, fruit-tree, according to the view of Knobel, embracing all trees inasmuch as they all bear seed. Delitzsch, as well as Knobel, assumes this threefold division. Farther on, however, we see that the more general kinds precede (lights, water-swarmings), in order that they may become more or less specific. And here דֶּשֶׁא may present the universal conception of all vegetable life in its first germination (although including along with it the more particular kinds of cryptogamic and the grasses), whilst in this way the contrast between the herbaceous plants and the trees becomes more prominent (Umbreit, Ewald). Thence, too, it appears that the sign of seed-formation, of propagation, and of particular specification, is ascribed to all plants. Closer observations in respect to single particulars may be found in Knobel. We must protest against the exposition of Delitzsch: “Its origination follows in that way which is unavoidable to a creative beginning, and which is to it essentially what is called a generatio equivoca; that is, it does this in measure as the earth, through the word of the divine power, receives strength to generate the vegetable germ.” The sentence contains a contradiction in so far as the question still relates to the divine word of power; but this divine word of power creates not merely a strength, or force, in general;10 each new and distinct creative word introduces a new and distinct principle into the already existing sphere of nature—a principle which hitherto had not been present in it. Along with the various species and seeds, along with the determinate propagation of plants, each after its kind, there clearly and distinctly comes in that conception of nature which is already announced in the great contrasts. The words: upon the earth, עַל־הָאָרְץ (Gen_1:11), are interpreted by Knobel of the high growth of the trees (over the earth) in contrast with the plants which cleave closer to the ground, and which are regarded by Delitzsch as a present clothing of the earth. With respect to Gen_1:20, we may assume that Knobel is right. In the contemplation of the young world, this majestic rising above the earth in the case of the tall trees, as in that of the birds, has a peculiar excitement for the imagination. With the plants there appears the first thing that is distinctly symbolic of life as well as of their individual beauty.
8. Gen_1:14-19. Fourth Creative Day. Beginning of the second triad.—The preconditions of the now expectant animal and human life, are the lights of heaven, the stars, or heavenly bodies, partly as physical quickening powers, and partly as signs of the division of time for the human culture-world. It is theirs, in the first place, to make the distinction between day and night, between light and darkness, and to rule over the day and night—to make that great contrast upon which the human developments, as well as the animal nature-life, are essentially conditioned, such as sleep, waking, generation, diversities in the animal world—animals of the day and animals of the night, etc. It agrees well with the text, that again, whilst it makes a more special mention of the ordinance of the heavenly bodies, it gives the chief prominence to their spiritual or humane appointment: let them be for signs and for festivals, and for days, and for years. The question arises here, whether these appointments are to be taken as four (Luther, Calvin, Delitzsch, Knobel); or that three are meant: namely, for signs of times, for days, and for years (Rosenmüller, Eichhorn, De Wette, Baumgarten); or only two: for signs, for times, including in the latter both days and years (Schumann, Maurer). For the first view, indeed, there speaks the simple series of the appointments, but there is, too, the consideration that the spiritual (or ecclesiastical) appointments of the heavenly bodies are not exhausted in the chronological. The sign אוֹת has oftentimes in the Old Testament a religious significance. Thus the rainbow is established for the sign (אוֹת) of the covenant between Jehovah and Noah, together with his sons (Gen_9:12). Later, Abraham receives in the starry heaven a sign of the divine promise. But when it is said (Jer_10:2): Ye must not be afraid of the signs of heaven, there is not reprobated therein the meaning of the signs of heaven in their right significance, but only the heathenish misconception of them. The primitive religion was throughout symbolic; it was a contemplation of the invisible deity through symbolic signs, and the most universal of them were sun, moon, and stars. It was thus that the primitive symbolic religion became heathenish; the religious symbolic degenerated into an irreligious mythical; the glory of God was suffered to pass away in the form of transitory signs; it became identified with them, whilst men utterly lost the consciousness of the difference. The true representatives of the primitive religion on its light-side held fast this consciousness, as in the example of Melchizedek; but they reverenced God as such under the name El Elion (God Most High). It is an improper inference when Knobel here would refer this to the unusual phenomena of the heaven, such as the darkening or eclipse of the sun and moon, the red aspect of the latter (in an eclipse), the comets, the fiery appearances, etc. Moreover, we cannot find indicated here, as Delitzsch does, an astrological importance of the heavenly bodies, on which he remarks: “This ancient universally accepted influence is undeniable, a thing not to be called in question in itself considered, but only in its extent.” The question refers to the signs of the theocratic belief, such as are celebrated Psalms 8. and Psalms 19, from which the culture-signs of agriculture, navigation, and travel, must not be excluded. Thence, by right consequence, must be added the festival signs, מוֹעֲדִים. Moed, it is true, denotes, in general, an appointed time, but it comes in close connection with the word Jehovah before the festival seasons. The significant time-sections of the Israelites were, moreover, religious sabbaths, new moons (Psa_104:19), and yearly festivals which were likewise regulated by the moon. Upon the two religious appointments of the heavenly bodies (signs of belief, signs of worship) follow the two ethical and humane: the determination of the days and therewith of the days-works—the determination of the years and therewith the regulation of life and its duration. Hereupon follows the more common determination of the heavenly lights for the animal life in general.—To give light upon the earth.—With the light of the sun there is also determined its vital warmth. Thus the text speaks first of the appointment of the heavenly bodies for the earth-world (Gen_1:14-15), and then of the creation of the luminaries in their variety and distinct appointments, in which the stars form a special class, Gen_1:16. After this there is mention of their location and their efficacy; their place is the firmament; their primary operation is to give light; next follows their government, that is, that peculiar determination of the day and night that is necessary for the preservation of life. The third thing is the division between light and darkness, the instituting of the vicissitude of day and night. For here must the dividing of light from darkness denote something quite different from that of Gen_1:4; it is not the division of the luminous and the shadowy, but of the day-light and the night-shadow themselves. But now arises the question: How comes it that the first mention of the creation of the heavenly bodies is on the fourth day? It follows from the fundamental cosmical laws that the earth, before the sun, was not prepared for bringing forth the plants. It is saying too little to affirm that this place must only be understood phenomenally, or that the earlier created heavenly bodies make their first appearance on the fourth day along with the clearing-up of the atmosphere. But, on the other hand, surely, it is saying too much, when we assume that the formation of the starry world, or even of our own solar and planetary system, had its beginning in the fourth creative period. This representation is inorganic, abnormal. It is just as little supported by any sound cosmogony as demanded by the scriptural text. As little as the text requires that in general the first light of the universe should have its origination cotemporaneous with the light out of the thohu vabhohu of the earth, just as little does the place before us demand that we should date the absolutely first formation of the heavenly bodies from the fourth creative day. This, however, agrees well with our text, that both the appearing of the starry world, and the development and operation of the solar system, were first made ready for the earth on that same day in which the earth became ready for the sun. On the fourth creative day, therefore, there is completed the cosmical regulation of the world for the earth, and of the earth for the world. See more under the Theological and Ethical.
9. Gen_1:20-23. Fifth Creative Day.—Corresponding then to the second day (of the first triad) we have here (on the second day of the second triad) the animation of the water and the air in the marine and winged creatures. The creation of the marine animals begins first. It is not only because they are the most imperfect creatures, but because the water is a more quickening and a more primitive conditioning of life than the earth. The like holds true of the air. It is clear, moreover, that the land-animals in their organization stand nearer to men than the birds; nevertheless they are not, in all respects, more perfect than the birds; and of these latter, as of the trees, it is emphatically said that they hover high over the earth. Indeed, as birds of the heaven, they are assigned to the heaven, as the fish to the water, as the land-animals to the earth, and so far correctly, since they not merely soar above the earth, and have their proper life in the air, but also because they are in part water-fowl and not merely land-birds. This graphic nature-limning is, moreover, to be noticed here in the formation of the fishes and the birds, as at an earlier stage in the formation of the plants. The first animals are now more carefully denoted as living souls, נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּח (soul of life). On this Delitzsch remarks: “The animal does not merely have soul, it is soul; since the soul is its proper being, and the body is only its appearing.” That might hold in respect to men, but it could hardly be said of the animal (see Psa_104:29-30). It is true, the beast is animated; it has an animal principle of sensation and of motion which is the ground of its appearing, but as soul it is inseparably connected with all animal soul-life,11 that is, the life of nature. Knobel translates: Let the waters swarm a swarm. This conception is still more lively and pictorial than that of our translation (es sollen wimmeln die Wasser vom Gewimmel, let the water swarm with or from a swarm); nevertheless we hold the latter to be more correct, since the causality of the swarm cannot lie in the water itself,12 but in the creative word.—And let birds fly and fly (fly about).—The strong sense of the Hebrew conjugation Pilel (יְעוֹפֵף) cannot be expressed by the simple words let fly. The element of the formation, the air, is not here given; for it is clear that they are not referred to the water in their origin.13 One might think here in some way of the upper waters; but the birds are under the firmament. Their element is the very firmament of heaven, just where the two waters are divided. On its underside, or that which is turned towards the earth (עַל־פְּנֵי), must the birds fly. They belong just as much to the earth as to the water and the air; therefore are they assigned to no special district, Gen_1:21. The great water-animals (תַּנִּין, long-extended), a word which is elsewhere used of the serpent, the crocodile, the marine monsters, but not specially of fishes. “These, with the insects that live in the water, worms, etc., are all here to be understood under נֶפֶשׁ הַיָּה (soul of life).” Knobel. That the animal creation had its beginning mainly with the water-animals we learn from natural science; but whether with the vertebrated animals? (Delitzsch.) All birds of wing, translates Knobel. We would rather take כָּנָף as a more general designation: winged, which would also include the insects. Delitzsch correctly rejects the old view, which is restored by Knobel, namely that the author meant to represent God as having always created each species of animals in one pair; for one pair cannot swarm, and with a swarm the animal creation begins. With good ground, however, does Delitzsch maintain that for the animals there were determined central points of creation, p. 117. None the more, however, can we approve what he says of the generatio æquivoca of the water and air-animals out of water and earth; since we must throughout acquiesce in the opinion that the creative word establishes something new—new life-principles, and here also the respective animal-principles, in water and air.
Gen_1:22. And God blessed them, and said.—We must hold as scholastic the question started and debated by Chateaubriand and others, whether God blessed also the animals that were buried in the hills. The special consecration to fertility, in the case of the fishes and birds, carries back a fact of the nature-life to the divine causality; we refer to their infinitely abundant multiplication. Besides, it suits well the fifth day, or the number five, that the symbols of mightiest life-motion, the fishes and the birds, are created on this day. The animals of lesser physical motion, but of more intensive individual sensation, come after them.
10. Gen_1:24-25. Sixth Creative Day. First half.—The creation of the land-animals stands in parallelism with the creation of the firm land on the third day. On the third day, remarks Delitzsch, וַיֹּאמֶר (and he said) is repeated only twice, but on the sixth day four times. “Truly is this day thereby denoted as the crown of the others (the crown of all is the sabbath). The sixth day’s work has its eye on man. In advancing nearness to him are the animals created.” The general creation of נֶפֶשׁ הַיָּה (soul of life, or living soul) divides itself here, 1. into cattle (בְּהֵמָה from בָהַם), the tame land-animals (not utterly dull or stupid; for the horse is less dull than the sloth) to whom in their intercourse with men speech appears wanting; 2. into the reptile that crawls upon the soil (whether it be the footless or the thousand-footed) and the other animals that move about upon the earth as the birds fly about in the heaven; 3. beasts of the earth, or the wild beasts that roam everywhere through the earth.—Let the earth bring forth: That is, in the formative material of the earth, in the awakened life of the earth, the creative word of God brings forth the land-animals. According to the older opinions (see Knobel) it was the greater power of the sun that woke up this new animal life; according to Ebrard it was the volcanic revolutions of the earth. Delitzsch disputes this, p. 119. We must distinguish, however, between a volcanic commotion of the earth’s crust and its partial eruptions. At all events, the land-animals presuppose a warm birth-place. And yet the Vulcanism, or volcanic power, must have been already active at a far earlier period, on the third day at least, and as long as the water was not water (proper) must the creative power of fire have been in the water itself.
11. Gen_1:26-31. Sixth Creative Day. Second half. The Creation of Man.—Wherefore does the creation of man and of the land-animals fall on one and the same creative day? It is because man, as to his bodily appearance, has his being from the earth in common with the animals, and because the formations of the sixth day correspond to that formation of the earth which took place on the third day From this it follows that on the third day the formation of the earth was the main thing rather than that of the sea. At all events, there comes here between the two creative acts a solemn pause resembling a creative evening. God, as it were, stays his hand, and holds a special counsel before he goes on with the work; whereas he had always, until now, immediately uttered the creative word. The idea of man becomes the clear decree for his creation.—We would (or, We will) make man.—It must not be read as though it were a rousing of Himself: Let us make man. But why the plural? There are various explanations: 1. The plural is without meaning (Rosenmüller, and others); 2. it is a self-challenging (Tuch); 3. the three persons of the Trinity (church-fathers, Paschasius, and others in the middle ages; Calvin, Gerhard, etc.). That the Old Testament knows nothing of a divine tri-unity, as Knobel will have it, is not true; yet the trinitarian idea only unfolds itself germinally in the Old Testament, and here it had not yet come to its development. 4. God’s taking counsel with the angels (Targum of Jonathan, the Jewish interpreters;14 Delitzsch, with reference to the Babylonian and Persian myths; yet the passage must not be so understood that the angels take part in the creation except by way of communication; God communicates to them his resolution). Of angels, however, the text has no trace, and the places cited by Delitzsch, Psalms 8; Heb_2:7; Luk_20:36, prove nothing. Although the angels are called spirits and sons of God, yet the Scriptures accurately distinguish between the angelic and the human nature, and there seems to be an impropriety in the mingling of the divine and the angelic image. Moreover, from this human creation it is that we have the first disclosure of the existence of any spirit-world in general. 5. Pluralis majestaticus, or pluralis intensivus (Grotius, Gesenius, Neumann, Knobel). It must be noted that the plural is carried into the word בצלמנו (in our image), etc. This appears to go beyond the pluralis majestaticus, and to point to the germinal view of a distinction in the divine personality, directly in favor of which is the distinction of Elohim and Ruah Elohim, or that of God and his Wisdom, as this distinction is made, Proverbs 8, with reference to the creation. Although צלם and דמות, as well as the particles בְּ and כְּ, are used promiscuously (Knobel, Delitzsch), yet still the double designation does not serve merely to give a stronger emphasis to the thought (Knobel). In that case the stronger expression צלם ought to come last. צלם is the shadow of the figure, the shadow-outline, the copy, and therefore also the idol. דמות is the resemblance, the comparison, the example, the appearance. And whilst בּ denotes the near presence of an object, as in, or within, close to or in it, into, whether in a friendly or a hostile sense, near by, etc., כְּ expresses the relation of similarity or likeness, as as, in some degree, like as, instead of, etc. The former preposition denotes the norm, the form, mass, number, and kind of a thing; the latter its relation, similarity, equality, proportion, in reference to some other thing. According to this, in our image means, after the principle, or the norm of our image; but as our likeness means, so that it be our likeness. The image denotes the ideal, and therefore also the disposition, the being, the definition; the likeness denotes the actuality, the appearing. As the likeness of God, man is set (placed, appointed); but the image of God he is made to become (fit, factus est) through his most interior assimilation, his ideal formative impulse (or that tendency that forms him to the idea).15 For the dogmatic treatment of this, see farther below. Knobel and Delitzsch, following the Syriac Version, are of opinion that חַיַּת (beast) has fallen out before הָאָרֶץ (the earth); but wherefore should the dominion of man be limited merely to the animal-world? Through his lordship can man domesticate the wild beast; he may also rule over the plant-world, and over the earth absolutely. This, in its widest acceptation, is set forth, Gen_1:28. In this divine viceroyship must his possession of the image first reveal itself; it must be the likeness of his higher and more intense conformity.
Gen_1:27. Very explicitly is this divine-imaged nature of man presented, in a twofold manner along with his creation.—As man and woman.—Properly, as male and female created he them. Rightly does Umbreit remark: “The language here soars to a most concise song of triumph, and we meet, for the first time, with the parallelism of members.” In three parallel members, and therefore in the highest poetical form, does the narrative celebrate the creation of man. Concerning the derivation of men from one pair, see below.
Gen_1:28. And God blessed them (אוֹתָם, them, not אוֹתוֹ, him, according to the Septuagint) and said to them.—“God blesses, too, the new created man but with two blessings. For besides the power of propagation which they have in common with the beasts (Gen_1:22), they hold moreover the dominion over them. The same is enlarged after the flood.” Knobel. “The striving after the rhythmical-poetical parallelism presents itself in these words:
and Elohim blessed them,
and Elohim said unto them.” Delitzsch.
Yet the blessing sounds hardly “like a summons to the subjection of hostile powers.” The relation of the soul to the outer world, especially “the feature of self-hood in all creature-life,” was not originally adverse, as is held by Bellarmin, or even by Zwingli. And thus is man first pictured to us, and then his calling, to which it belongs that he must rule his own proper sensual nature, as he rules all living, or all that is animal in the earth—the word being taken here in its most universal sense. The laborer is worthy of his reward. The ruler of the earth is himself conditioned. He needs nourishment, and, therefore (Gen_1:29), there is pointed out to him his sustenance.—Behold, I have given you (Lange’s translation: I have appointed for you).—Together with the nourishment of man (Gen_1:29) there is appointed the nourishment of the beasts (Gen_1:30). What is common to both is the appointment of the use of vegetable food; the distinction is that man shall have the use of the herb with its seed, that is in itself, and of the fruit-tree, whilst the beast, on the other hand, has the green of the herb. The meaning of this is, that for man there is the corn (or core) of nature, for the beast the shell or husk. “According to the Hebrew view, therefore, men, at first, lived only upon vegetables, and at a later time there first came in the. use of flesh (Gen_9:3). The rest of antiquity agreed with this.” Knobel. For the citations from Plato, Plutarch, etc., that belong here, see p. 20. According to Delitzsch, this is not a mere view of antiquity, but farther, he says, “God did not originally will the violent breaking up of the life of one living thing by another for the purpose of enjoying its flesh, since that would be utterly against his clearly expressed will in their creation.” Oerstedt (in his “Spirit in Nature”) avers “that we have clear proofs that corporeal evil, ruin, sickness, and death, were older than the fall.” Delitzsch characterizes this “as a shout of triumph which ever becomes clearer in favoring the grossest materializing atheism.” And so also he says, with A. Wagner (in his “Primitive World”), that as the body of man after his fall underwent an essential alteration in its material ground, so likewise there must have gone before an analogous change and transformation in the animal-world. We see not how a naturalist can think of such a transformation of organic nature; still less how we can call in question the fact of a death that had come upon all species of animals before the fall of Adam, without taking along with it the theosophic interpretation of the thohu vabhohu as a Golgotha of the Devil’s kingdom. On this supposition, too, it is not easy to explain the difference of the cattle and the wild creature in our chapter—just as little, too, the fact that immediately after the fall the skins of animals are at hand for the clothing of man; or that it is the pious Abel who brings the animal sacrifice to the altar, and not Cain. Again, it will help us very little to call in aid, as Delitzsch does, the Brahmanic and the Buddistic laws, and the Pythagorean doctrines (p. 125). In truth, there is still a great chasm between the tenable supposition that the paradisaical man put to death no animal, or could do so, and the arbitrary inference that even within the animal-world itself everything was so disposed that no beast even ate another. Moreover, in this view, the representation of death itself is not wholly freed from the fear of death. The consequence of this same theory would be, that even an insect that had once lived could never die. But shall a natural death, so called, as when an old hind expires from want of air, or from hunger, be regarded as any more natural than the death which takes place under the jaws of the lion? In this all too gentle representation there lacks the heroic power—the spirit of sacrifice. May one suppose that the first specimens of the beasts had not been disorganized like the later animal, and that they did not experience any important transformations, still a literal change of a grass-eating into a flesh-eating lion must be regarded as a radical transformation. As for the rest, our text denotes only the basis of the law of nourishment for the animal existence, and this basis is for man the fruit, the herb, the grain, for the cattle the pasturage and the fodder. In indulging our idealizing view of the primitive world, that it was wholly without death, we should not overlook the fact that it was an ill habit of the old heathenism, in its view of the world, to confound sin with death, or even with the natural unfolding of life. Thus the poems that Knobel too makes mention of, and according to which even the ravenous beasts originally lived upon vegetable food.
Gen_1:31. And, behold, it was very good.—At the seventh time it is said not merely good, but very good, because in man the keystone of creation is reached. The possibilities of the ruin of man and of the world are for the pure paradisaical state curæ posteriores, just as the destinies of manhood are for the thinking of the child. For the theosophic view, the undivine lay only bound under the new order of things. That in general the demoniac evil was already in the world is not denied, but the six days’ work, taken as the world in general, or as God had made it, was very good, that is, perfect; κόσμος, κάλλιστον (Thales).16
Footnotes:
1[Gen_1:2.—Brooded (מְרַחֶפֶת). Lange has here in brackets belebend, vivifying, though he afterwards rejects the metaphor of incubation.—T. L.]
2[Gen_1:7.—And it was so. Lange: Und es ward also, rather better than our translation, since also differs from our so as denoting more of reason and consequence. Both, however, fail of the full force of the Hebrew כֵּן. This, to be sure, is most commonly a particle, ita, οὕτως, etc., but it never loses the other or adjective sense of firmness, rightness, soundness (integer), as more allied to the primary sense of the verb כון which becomes the Arabic verb for being. And it was firm; the word was accomplished; the firmament stood just as commanded. It was the beginning of a nature. Compare Psa_33:9 : “He commanded and it was, he spake and it stood.” So Maimonides on the passage: “And why does he add: יְהִי־כֵן? It is equivalent to saying that it was to be so continually all the days of the world as cohering with that which comes after it.” It takes its fixed place in the system. So also the verb כון itself, in the Pilel form, is used as a word of creation. See Deu_32:6 : הוּא עָשְׂךָ וַיְכֹנְנֶך, He made thee and established thee.—T. L.]
3[Gen_1:26.—Lange renders here, als unser Gleichniss, as our likeness, and in a sentence in brackets denies the correctness of the other rendering, after our likeness. The Hebrew כ in כְּדְמוּתֵנוּ may give either shade of meaning. The difference may seem slight; and yet it may be a question of some theological importance, whether man is the image of God, primarily, or made after that image—the word image per se being reserved for Him who is called, Heb_1:3, the express image, χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, the image of the substance; Col_1:15, the eikon, or image of the invisible God, εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου (compare 1Co_11:7; 2Co_4:4), and who is styled, Joh_1:9, the light that lighteth every man. If we regard Him as pre-eminently the image, or eikon, in this high and perfect sense, as carrying with it the very substance or being of that which was imaged, then it would be more reverent as well as more in accordance with the text, we think, to say (with our English version) man was made after that image; his light is a reflection from that eternal mirror, or the ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, the “Brightness of Glory,” the “Outbeaming of Glory,” as it is called, Heb_1:3.—T. L.]
4Gen_2:3.—The farther words: these are the genealogies [Ang., generations] of the heavens and the earth, are not the conclusion of the first piece (as held by Delitzsch, Bunsen, etc.), but the commencement of the one that follows, as is also shown by the use of the name Jehovah Elohim.
5 [There must have been something more definite in the early conception that gave rise to this form of the word. It looks like a dual, and this would suggest that the thought of the heavens, out of which it arose, may have been that of a hemi-sphere, and of the whole mundus as having a spherical form. The phenomenal shape of the sky would give the idea of a counterpart. The roundness of the mundus, and, as a necessary inference, the roundness, or two-sidedness of the earth, must have been a conception much more ancient than we imagine. It must have occurred to a thoughtful mind every time there was witnessed the phenomena of the sun setting (the sun going under) and the sun rising (its coming up from the world or sky below the earth). Comp. Psa_19:5; Ecc_1:4; Job_26:7. Such a notion, however, would be more for the reflexive thought than for the sense; but its early existence is perfectly consistent with other language drawn from the more direct and near appearance of the earth as an extended plane. A dual idea may also have been suggested by that of the waters above and waters below (Gen_1:7), thus giving the notion of a double heavens divided by the rakia.
The word, however, is more probably a plural. This appears from some of its connections, and from a comparison of its form in all the ether Shemitic languages. The י is in the place of the ׳ה as it appears in the root שָׁמָה, to be high. Since there is nothing arbitrary in language, especially in early language, this plural form must represent the notion that would very early arise, of something above the רָקִיעַ, or that the rakia itself was merely an optical appearance in which were shown the forms of things that were really at vast and vastly varying distances beyond it. Such a thought was earlier in the Hebrew mind than in the Greek, though the latter, as usual, when they came to entertain it, made much more of the idea in the way of definiteness, number, and locality,—treating it with less reverence, and giving it up more to the license of the imagination. So was it with the idea of a spirit-world. It was older in the Shemitic than in the Javanic mind; but the Greeks gave it more of topography and scenery, whilst upon the Hebrew thought there seems to have been ever thrown a holy reserve, or rather, a providential restraint upon the imagination, until the coming of Him who was the Resurrection and the Life. In both cases the latter were content with the general thought, namely, another life, especially for the people of God who “is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Mat_22:32; Exo_3:15), and other heavens beyond that which primarily presents itself to the sense.
We may, therefore, ascribe this early plural form to that vivida vis animi which first pierces through the seen into the unseen. From the single appearing rakia, or expanse, above, came the thought of a heaven over that, and of a “heaven of heavens” higher still, from which God looks down to “behold the things that are in heaven (the near heavens) and the earth.” Psa_113:5 : Who dwelleth so high (מַגְבִּיהִי לָשָׁבֶת), who stoopeth so low (מַשְׁפִּילִי), even to look down into these lower earth heavens (בַּשָּׁמַיִם לִרְאית), as though immensely remote as seen from so superlative a height. The very anthropopathism adds to the grandeur of the conception. He “stoopeth down to look,” as though not only the earth and man, but the heavens that surround them, were so far off, or so far below, as to be hardly visible to the divine eye.
[From such a germ the conception grew in the Hebrew mind, until, there came out of it a number of other words denoting different supposed departments of the great spaces above. Still later the Jewish Rabbins got from these their notion of the Gilgallim, or seven heavens (regarded as wheels, Eze_1:16, or spheres), and to which they give distinct names having, most of them, some philological and conceptual ground in the old scriptures. They are thus reckoned by them: וילון ,רקיע ,שׂחקים ,זבול ,מעון ,מכון ,ערבות, Vilon, Rakia, Shehakim, Zebul, Maon, Makon, Aráboth. The first of these is the only one not found in the Bible. It is a Rabbinical word from the Latin velum. It is used for the very lowest heavens, or the supposed sphere below the rakia. It is the veil, or sky of clouds which intercepts the light but permits the heat to pass through, and in this sense Jarchi alludes to it in his interpretation of Psa_19:7 : “there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.” So also Rabbi Jehoshuah says, Berach 58, 1: “the וילון is that space or sphere through which, when broken and rolled away, there appears the light of the open expanse.” All the rest of those names belong to the old Hebrew, and are found in the Old Testament Scriptures in such connections as to justify the Rabbins in regarding them as denoting different regions, to say the least, in the upper spaces or heavens. See Psa_57:11; Psa_36:6; Job_38:37; Job_37:18; Psa_89:7; Hab_3:11; Psa_33:13-14; Isaiah 58:15; Psa_68:6; Deu_26:15; 2Ch_30:27; Psa_90:1; Isa_63:15. The word עֲרָבוֹת, Psa_68:5, is rendered heavens in our version: To Him who ridcth upon Araboth in his name Jah, Jehovah; rideth upon the highest or outer heaven, according to the Jewish scale. Almost all the modern commentators give it a different sense here, and with apparently fair reasons. Our English translation, however, is countenanced by the old versions, besides being fully sustained by the traditional rendering of all the Jewish commentators and translators, ancient and modern. According to them, it is the highest sphere corresponding to the δεδεμμένη of the Greeks, or the fixed sphere, where all is immovable, whilst everything below is undergoing change. It is where God specially dwells, שׁכֵן עַד, inhabiting eternity, sedens in perpetuum, Isa_57:15. Hence they render it, not riding, though that would give a most sublime image if we regarded this great sphere as rolling, but sitting, like one throned, and that corresponds well to the primary sense of רכב in all the Shemitic tongues, which is not motion, a meaning which it never has, unless demanded by something else in the context, but super-position. Comp. with Isa_40:22, הַיּשֵׁב עַל־חוּג אָרֶץ, “He that sitteth upon the orb of the earth,” though so high that “the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers.” The other words are also used to denote the divine throne or the divine dwelling. This Rabbinical astronomy may be said to have its germ in the Scriptures, though its expansion and arrangement are to be ascribed to the later imagination. It was the natural outgrowth of that mode of thinking and conceiving that first gave rise to the plural שָׁמַיִם. Comp. also the word מְזָלוֹת, 2Ki_23:5, as used for the heavenly spheres or houses (from נזל with its Arabic sense of dwelling), and מזרות, Mazzaroth (which is the same word etymologically), Job_38:32. See also the Arabian tradition of the seven heavens as given in the Koran, Surat 17:46; more fully, Surat 41:11; also 23:17, with Alzamakshari’s comment on the upper stories or gradations of the heavens. These Arabian traditions have every appearance of being ancient, and of having aided the Rabbinical scheme, rather than of having been derived from it. The Shemitic languages are certainly peculiar in these plural words for heaven. The New Testament οὐρανοὶ is a pure Hebræism. The Shemitic word excels also in its radical significance. Οὐρανος (ὅρος οὖρος) has simply the idea of limit. It is the vertical horizon, or the horizon above. The. Latin cœlum is simply concavity (τὸ κοῖλον); so is the Saxon heaven (heave arch). In the Hebrew, the natural image is height, and this reduplicated and carried upward by the plural form. In this respect the Hebrew words for the great spaces are like the great time pluralities to which we have referred in the Introduction to the First Chapter of GenesIsa. The heavens and heavens of heavens, the שמים and שמי שמים, are like the שולם and the עלמים, the olam, and olam of olams, so frequent in the Old Testament, yet so obscured in the translations. There is another Shemitic plural equally suggestive, and which is not found in other families of languages. It is the word for life (חיים, lives), denoting a plurality in this idea as well as in the words for heaven and eternity. Instead of being despatched as a mere usus loquendi, this, and other peculiarities of the earliest tongues are well worthy our deepest attention. The plurality of life, of the great spaces, and the great times, seem all to have come from a way of viewing the works of God which has no parallel in the representations of other human languages.—T. L.]
6[Still the conception of brooding, cherishing (fovens), is fundamental in the word רחף. Its primary sense is a vibrating, throbbing motion, most emblematic of the beginning of life—especially as traced in the egg-form—the first beginning of heat and pulsation. Its primary significance is onomatopical—rahap, to flutter (regular pulsatile motion). Hence it becomes very early one of the verbs of loving, being closely allied, both in sound and sense, to the Hebrew רחם. In Syriac it is the common word for loving, warming, cherishing. In the Arabic the middle guttural has softened down to aleph, and we have ֳׁَََ, denoting intense and cherishing love. No word could have been better adapted to the idea, intended in this place, of an inward, life-giving power, rather than a mere mechanical outward motion, such as is given by the translation “blew” or “moved upon.” Nowhere else in all the usage of the Hebrew or Syriac is רחף ever employed in the sense of blowing. The Piel form here makes the inward sense of throbbing the more intensive. We see no harm to the Scriptures from the supposition that this idea of the cherishing spirit was the origin of the fable of Eros, or of the mythological World-egg, whether regarded as Persian or Greek. See Aristophanes, Aves, 694.—T. L.]
7 [The word יָצַר is more formative than בָרָא, but not less creative. The latter is used more of the primary divisions, if not of the primary matter itself. The former denotes generally the more artistic or architectural work, the handy work, מַעֲשַׁה יָדָיו, Psa_19:2, or מַעֲשֵׁה אֶצְבְעוֹתֶיךָ, Psa_8:4, “the work of thy fingers.” It is, according to one view we may take of creation (see Introd. to Genesis 1. p. 128), the higher work, the greater work of the divine artistic wisdom as distinguished from the mere divine power. In its most outward primary applications, יִצֶר denotes the elaborate shaping formations, such as that of a statue, or idol, Hab_2:18; Isa_44:9-10. Hence it becomes the appropriate word to express inward formation—form in the more interior sense—law, structure, constituting state—in a word, idea in distinction from idolon. As a word of physical creative constitution, it is variedly and impressively used to denote the appointed arrangements in the seasons, as Psa_74:17, קַיִץ וָהרֶף אַתָּה יְצַרְתָּם, “summer and winter thou hast formed them”—Isa_45:7, יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חשֶׁך, “who formed the light and created darkness” (the light the more ideal or artistic creation). “He made the sea, עֹשֶׂה, and his hands formed, יִצְרוּ, the dry land,”—gave it its greater variety and beauty of form. So Amo_4:13, “who created the wind, or air (וּבֹרֵא), who formed the mountains” (יוֹצֵר). It is used to denote the formation of a people by law and providential guidance: Isa_43:21, עַס-זוּ יְצַרְתִּי לִי, “this people that I have formed for myself.” Isa_45:18, בֹּרֵא is used of the heavens, and לצֵר of the earth. This might seem opposed to the distinction we have made, but the context that follows shows why the more ideal or formative word is thus used of the earth—כוֹנְנָהּ לֹא־תֹהוּ—“who formed the earth and made it, who established it (gave it a nature, Syr. כינא) that it might not be a tohu (a formless waste), who made it to be inhabited.” It is used of the human body, or rather of the whole human physical constitution. Gen_2:7 : “And the Lord God formed man,” (Gen_1:8) “and he put the man whom he had formed.” It is, in like manner, most impressively applied to the most exquisite and divine processes in the human structure. Psa_94:9 : אִם יוֹצֵר עַיִן הַלֹא יַבִּיט, “He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” Hence, in a more interior sense still, it is used of the very constitution of the soul: ZaGen Gen_12:1, “who stretcheth out the heavens, and foundeth the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him,” בְּקִרְבּוֹ, in interioribus ejus. Deeper still, it is used of the heart, or the moral constitution: Psa_33:15, הַיּוֹצֵר יַחַד לְבָּם, “that forms their heart alike.” It carries the same idea as a noun, and this gives rise to its use as denoting the forming or imaging faculty of the soul, as in the striking passage, Gen_6:5 : וְכָל-יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבוֹת לִבּוֹ, “and every imaging of the thoughts of his heart.” יֵצֶר is the form of the thought, as the thought is the form of the emotion, or of the deep heart that lies below all.
One of the most noteworthy uses of the verb יצר is its application to the human generative process; it is also to be observed how this is ascribed directly to God, as though, in every case of the individual gestation in the womb, there was something of a creative power and process: see Jer_1:5, בְּטֶרֶם אֶצָרְךָ בַבֶּטֶן, “before I formed thee in the womb.” Compare Ecc_11:5, where this formative process is presented as one of the deep mysterious things known only to God, and especially Psa_139:13-16, whether the language there denotes the individual or generic formation, or both—“when I was curiously wrought,” etc.; “and in thy book all ray members were written, יָמִים יֻצָּרוּ, the days they were being formed” (see remarks in Introd. to Genesis, p. 135).
[If the Hebrew had developed itself into a philosophical language, from this root would have come their name for formal cause, causa formalis, that which gives idea to anything, or makes it what it is, in distinction from the causa finalis, or causa efficiens. In fact, it is in this very way that such a term has been formed in Arabic, and in the Rabbinical Hebrew, only they have employed for this purpose the kindred צור, which connects the idea of formation with that of binding or inward unity.—T. L.]
8[Man is thus called by Lange as the causa finalis of all the other earth formations.—T. L.]
9[Himmelsgrunde. We fail in translating this to get any better word to represent the frequent German Grund (in composition) than our word ground. Foundation presents an incongruity of figure which is less in the more general term ground. Plane would be too indefinite.—T. L.]
10 [The argument from exegesis here would depend very much upon the view taken of the words מַזְרִיעַ זְרַצ. They are rendered by the LXX. σπεῖρον σπέρμα. The Vulgate, faciens semen, and our translation, yielding seed, are better, since the Hiphil form seems to demand a causative or producing sense. The rendering of the LXX. would do for the other form זוֹרֵעַ זֶרַע, which occurs Gen_1:29, representing the plant, after it was made, as casting its seed upon the earth. If we take it in the causative or seminative sense, there is still the question, whether it is merely descriptive of the plant in general as distinguished from other created things, or whether it sets forth something in the very creative or first generative process. If it were the former, it would seem to demand the article, הַמַּזְרִיעַ, the plant that bears or seminates seed. As it stands, however, the whole force of the word (as emphatic) and of the context, would favor the latter idea: “Let the earth bring forth the plant as geminating,” or in its semination, that is, as growing from a seminal power in the very beginning. It may not be easy to understand, conceptually, how this can be without a previous material seed (seed-vessel) or a previous plant from which the seed came, but still, as a fact, it may be clear, and clearly stated. The opposite notion is, that the plant was outwardly and mechanically formed with its stem, leaves, limbs, seed-vessel, etc., all perfect, and then, in some way, connected with the ground, which, after all, has nothing to do with its first production. Or it might be thought that merely the seed (seed-vessel) was thus mechanically made (that is, by a force acting on the outside of it), and then this seed placed in the ground to grow. Either of these latter views is attended with great difficulties, increasing ever the more they are contemplated, though as a mere conceptual view it might seem at first the easiest. It may be said, too, that they are not favored by the language which assigns to the earth an important part in the process, and seems to make the very semination an original act. We gain nothing by regarding it as the mechanical creation of the seed-vessel, since that is not, in itself, the seminating power, any more than the entire plant, but only the seat of its nearer residence, or its more interior wrapper as it may be called. Every plant that now grows springs from an immaterial power (and that not a blank force, but conditioned by an idea) brought in certain relations to the earth. This power is not the seed as seed-vessel, for that dies (dissolves) in the process (see Joh_12:24), and by such dissolution sets free the immaterial life to work again, as at first, in gathering from the flowing outward conditions the material for its new manifestation, and arranging such flowing material in the fixed order commanded and demanded by its unchanging מִין, species, εἶδος, law, or idea. In the beginning the command of the Logos places it in immediate connection with such outward conditions. There is no need of any protoplast whether in the form of plant or seed. The tree, regarded materially, or as φαινόμενον, is as much a flowing thing as a river, although it flows much more slowly. It is, therefore, alike irrational to think of God’s making either of them outwardly, or immediately, instead of the causation from which they respectively proceed. In the case of things that are intended to reproduce themselves, this primitive seminal power is afterwards deposited in a seed-vessel from whence to come forth for all future manifestations; but it is the same power—the same that was first created—the same species (unum in multis) in the myriad manifestations outwardly existing at the same time, and in all succeeding times as long as the power lasts, or is able to find the conditions under which it appears. It may be regarded too, with all reverence, as the same process, except that at each intermediate beginning it starts with its liberation from the holding seed-vessel to work anew in building itself a new house, but in the same manner, after such liberation, as when it first issued from the divine fiat. For a moment, too, may this immaterial power be said to become disembodied, as in the instant of passing from the old perishing organization into the commencing new—each being successively its work, deriving from it structure, form, and outward species. It is not made by the organization—for then chemistry might find it. It is before the organization, thus making the latter a real organism produced, as at first, by a force and a law working from within, and building around itself, instead of an artificial semblance having its idea outwardly or mechanically introduced into the matter after the way of human art. We may say, therefore, that it is the same original life, the going forth of the same unspent energy, the prolonged utterance of the same Word sounding on in nature, and obeyed now, each time, with the same alacrity as when it first felt the pulsations of the voice that said: תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ, “Let the earth germinate,” let the earth bring forth. It is mother-earth that gives the plant its body, its outward manifestation, so far as that alone may be called the plant, but not its idea, its law, or even its immaterial power. And it is this which makes it something quite different from the generatio equivoca of some naturalists, and to which Delitzsch unfortunately compares it. The very term implies a blank, blind, and doubtful force that might produce one thing as well as another. But here there is a conditioning power bringing out the plant לְמִינֵהוּ according to its species. It is God’s word appearing (speaking) through the earth; it is “the Lord hearing the heavens, and the heavens hearing the earth, and the earth hearing the corn, the wine, and the oil,” Hos_2:22-23. Hence the exceeding significance as well as beauty of one of the Hebrew names for plants. They called them אוֹרוֹת, lights, manifestations, see Isa_26:19, טל אוֹרוֹת, the “dew of herbs,” to which is compared the resurrection-power (or “resurrection-rain” as the Jewish Rabbins call it), which shall revive the bodies “sown” in the earth.
[Whatever difficulty there may be in such views of the original growth, it is far less than that which attends the mechanical notion, if we push it to all its consequences. It would follow that the earth did not really bring forth the first plants (as Scripture expressly says it did), unless we take it in some more magical sense, or think of some sudden starting out of the earth independent of any nexus of physical causation. We must also, in that case, give up the idea of the species determining the construction instead of the construction the species. But the strongest argument for the commentator is that the exegesis will not bear it. In such an outward mechanical view the words מַזְרִיעַ ,תַּדְשֵׁא lose all their causative force, and thus become merely redundant cyphers in the account. The language of causation where there is in reality no causative process is simply magical and unmeaning. Had מַזְרִיעַ here meant nothing more then casting or sowing seed, as the LXX. interpret it, there would only have been need of the present Kal participle זוֹרֵעַ, as in Gen_1:29, where the plant is spoken Of after its erection, and as carrying on its processes of reproduction. Had “yielding seed” been the sense intended, there are other words that would have better expressed it. This Hiphil form occurs only in one other place in the Hebrew Scriptures, namely Lev_12:2, where it evidently bears exclusively the conceptive or seminating sense. Its choice here, therefore, shows that the writer had something else in view than an outward construction, either of the plant as a whole, or of the seed-vessel whether regarded as separate from, or as contained in, the plant.—T. L.]
11[Thierseelenleben. Lange evidently forms this German word with reference to the peculiar Hebrew phrase נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, nephesh hayya, or soul of life, rendered in our English Version living soul. We use the word animal, in translating, from an aversion to the English word beast, which has fallen much below the German Thier.—T. L.]
12[This reasoning seems doubtful. There is no more need of such an argument to avoid naturalism here than in interpreting the similar language תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ, Let the earth bring, Gen_1:11. The causality here, as there, is double, but there is certainly a secondary causality in the earth which justifies us in giving its obvious active transitive meaning to the denominative verb שָׁרַץ: Let the waters swarm a swarm. The verb is evidently made from the noun שֶׁרֶץ, reptilia, the lowest and most prolific kind of animals. So the Jewish-Arabic translator renders it by a similar denominative verb made from ײָֹََّ, a lizard ַבדֱַ ײָםָ םײָָ, Let the water bring forth lizards, or swarm with lizards.—T. L.]
13[This is not so clear as Dr. Lange may think, although he has on his side most of the modern commentators. The Hebrew words וְעוֹף יְעוֹפֵף, as they stand connected, cannot, we think, be properly rendered in any other way than as we find it in our English Version: and birds that fly, and in all the ancient Versions; LXX.: πετεινὰ πετόμενα; Vulgate: producant aquæ reptile et volatile; the Syriac is exactly like the Hebrew in its construction, and can have but one possible sense, birds that fly. So Luther: es errege sich das Wasser mit Thieren und mit Gevögel das fliege. The valuable translation, Arabs Erpenianus, has it ם״םׁ ז״ַםַׁ, which can only be rendered, in the connection, birds that fly. The idiom of the Hebrew seems fixed, requiring us in such a case to regard the future as descriptive, like participle or an adjective. In the Arabic the corresponding usage is so established as to put any other translation out of the question. It occurs frequently in the Koran with the same subject, and in just such a connection as we have it here. The other rendering, and let birds fly, would require a different order of the words, וַיְעוֹפֵף הָעוֹף, as just before ישְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם let the waters swarm. The more modern rendering has come from the fear of what would seem gross naturalism, namely the eduction of the birds from the water; but we know nothing here except as we are taught. There is nothing more incredible in such an eduction than there would be in affirming it of any other form of that unknown and wonderful thing we call life. It may be very far back, this coming of the bird-nature out of the waters, but the naturalist finds the fish-type in the birds, all of which may have been originally water-fowl, and this would seem to be in harmony with the declaration of the text, strange as it may sound to us. Dr. Conant, we find, translates as Lange does; but with all our respect for that excellent Hebrew scholar, we are compelled to think him wrong. So Bush, Jacobus, and others.—T. L.]
14 [Among the Jewish interpreters the view of Maimonides is peculiar and noteworthy, though it may at first strike us as strange and irreverent. It is God, he thinks, speaking to the earth, or rather, to the nature already brought into being by the previous utterances of the word, and which, in the commands preceding, had been addressed in the imperative third person: “Let the earth bring forth,” etc. Now, when man is to be made, there is a change to the first person imperative, that is, nature is addressed more as an associate than as a servant: “Let us make man,” the higher work in which both co-operate—God directly and sovereignly, nature mediately and obediently through the divine word. From the one comes his body, his physical, from the other his diviner life and image. “In regard to the lower animal and vegetable life,” says this great critic, philosopher, and theologian, “the language (המאמר, the word) was תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ, let the earth bring forth; but in respect to man it is changed to נַעֲשֶׂה, let us make man,’ that is to say, ‘I and the earth,’—let the latter bring forth his body from the earthly elements, even as it did in the case of the lower things that preceded him. For this is the meaning of that which is written (Gen_2:7): ‘Jehovah Elohim formed man (וַיִּצֶר, see note, p. 164) from the dust of the earth, but he gave him a spirit from the mouth of the Most High;’ as it is written, ‘He breathed into man,’ etc., and said, moreover, ‘in our image, according to our likeness,’ meaning that he should be like to both, that is, in the composition of his body a likeness of earth (or nature) from which he was taken, and in his spirit like to the higher order of being in that it is incorporeal and immortal. And so in what follows, he says, in the image of God (alone or unassociated) created he him, to set forth the wonderful distinction (פּלא, the miracle) by which man is distinguished from the rest of the creatures; and this is also the interpretation that I have found given by Rabbi Joseph Kimchi.” Maimon. Comm. in locum.
Of all these views the pluralis majestaticus has the least support. It is foreign to the usus loquendi of the earliest language; it is degrading instead of honoring to Deity, and Aben Ezra shows that the few seeming examples brought from the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Num_22:6; Dan_2:36, do not bear it out—the latter, moreover, being an Aramaic mode of speech. If we depart at all from the patristic view of an allusion to a plurality of idea in the Deity, the next best is that of Maimonides. In fact, if we regard nature as the expression of the divine Word from which it derives its power and life, the opinion of the Jewish Doctor approaches the patristic, or the Christian, as near as it could come from the Jewish stand-point.—T. L.]
15 [We have found it difficult to express the thought of Lange here, and especially to give the force intended in the German werden. “The image,” he says, “is the ideal, die Anlage, das Wesen.” So Maimonides here calls צֶלֶם the specific form, צירה המינית the species determining form, or that which makes a thing inwardly what it is, in distinction from הצורה האומנית, the architectural form. The manner in which the two words are used would warrant the interpretation that צֶלֶם (image) is to man what מִין is to the vegetable and animal species, or rather, that in man, as created after this higher idea, the צֶלֶם (image) is the מִין (species). This is most important in respect to the question: in what consists the unity of the human race? Oneness of physical origin and physical life (מִין) undoubtedly belongs to the idea of species, but in a much higher sense is this unity conserved by the צֶלֶם, the higher species, the one spiritual humanity in all men. It is on proofs of this, and not on facial angles or length of heels that the argument should be built. Of the animals it is said, לְמִינֵהוּ, each one according to his kind. This is never said of man, but instead of it, it is בְּצַלְמֵניּ, in our image. In the next verse it is said God created man בְּצַלְמוֹ, “in his image”—that is, God’s image, though some of the Jewish interpreters, as referred to by Aben Ezra, would make the pronoun in צַלִמוֹ relate to man (his image, man’s image), but still that which God had specifically given as his divinely distinguishing idea. So also in the צַלְמֵנוּ, our image, they interpret it, the image that we have given, as in Gen_6:3, רוּחי, my spirit, is the spirit or life that I have given. So in Psa_104:29-30 : “Thou gatherest in, רוּחָם, their spirit”—again: “Thou sendest forth, רוּהֲךָ, thy spirit,” the life that thou hast given. It is the same spirit in both verses.
There is in מִין, also, the radical sense of image, as we see in the derivative תְּמוּנָה, Psa_17:15, joined, too, with a pronoun referring to God, תְּמוּנָתֶךָ, “thy image.” “I shall be satisfied when I awake, thy likeness.” So in a fearful passage directly the reverse of this, צֶלֶם seems to be used for the bad image, or the stamp of the Evil One in wicked men, as in Psa_73:20 : “As a dream when one awaketh, so, O Lord, in the awaking (not “thy awaking,” for which there is no pronoun and no warrant whatever), in the great awaking (בָּעִיר), in the arousing (the dies retributionis), thou wilt reject their image,” צַלְמָם תִּבְזֶה.
In what this image consists, and whether lost, or to what extent lost, by the fall, are mainly questions of theology instead of interpretation, but that there is still in man what in a most important and specific, or constituting, sense, is called “the image of God,” most clearly appears from Gen_9:6, where it is made the ground in the divine denouncement of the atrocity of murder.
The reasons are strong for interpreting “man from the earth,” as we interpret, the fish and the reptile from the waters. If the formative word יָצַר is used in the one case, so is בָּרָא, which some regard as the more directly creative, employed in the other: “And God created the great whales, and the moving thing which the waters swarmed,” that is, all the marine animals from the greatest to the least. The one language is no more inconsistent with the idea of a process than the other. There is nothing then to shock us as anti-scriptural in the thought that man, too, as to his physical and material, is a product of nature. As such physical being he has his מִין (physical species), and may be said to be לְמִינֵהוּ, as well as the other animals. But he is also a metaphysical, a supernatural, a spiritual being, and here it may be questioned whether he can be said to be לְמִינֵהוּ. To describe him in this respect there is used the higher word צֶלֶם, the image, the image of God, in distinction from his male and female conformations which belong wholly to the physical. We are expressly taught that this latter does not belong to angels, or any purely spiritual beings. They have no sex, and it may be doubted whether they can properly be said to have species, unless it may be affirmed of bad spirits who are greatly mingled with the physical, and whose deformed image God despises or rejects, Psa_73:20. That there is specific variety, or species, among such may be inferred from our Saviour’s language, Mat_17:21 : “This kind (τὸ γένος) goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
The image of God the distinguishing type of man: Hold fast to this in all its spirituality as the mirror of the eternal ideas, and we need not fear naturalism. Many in the church are shivering with alarm at the theories, which are constantly coming from the scientific world, about the origin of species, and the production of man, or rather the physical that may have become man, through the lower types. The quieting remedy is a higher psychology, such as the fail interpretation of the Bible warrants, when it tells us that the primus homo became such through the inspiration (the inbreathing) and the image of God lifting him out of nature, and making him and all his descendants a peculiar מִין, species, by the possession of the צֶלֶם, or image of the supernatural.—T. L.]
16 [טוֹב מְֹאד: “Good exceedingly.” It would seem to be not merely a benediction, but an expression of admiration, as we may say without any fear of the anthropopathism—euge, bene, præclare! It suggests a declaration in the Timæus of Plato so remarkable that it is no wonder that some should have regarded it as a traditional echo of this old account. At the completion of the great cosmical ζῶον, the animated universe, with its body and soul (its nature), both of which Plato represents as the work of God, He (God) beholds it moving on in its beautiful constancy, an image of the eternal powers, or ideas. At the sight of this the everlasting Father (ὁ ἀΐδιος πατήρ) is filled with joy and admiration, εὐφρανθεὶς ἠγάσθη—the strongest term to express such an emotion that could be found in the Greek language, ἄγαμαι, ἀγάομαι. There seems, too, to be implied in both expressions, the Hebrew and the Greek, the emotion of love, and this, as it were, reciprocal—the kosmos responding and moving on through a principle of attraction rather than of projection, or outward mechanical force. Κινεῖ ὡς ἐρώμενον, he moves it (or, it moves it) as being loved; such are the words of Aristotle (Metaph. xi. (xii.) c. 7), describing the first principle of motion in the heavens as it proceeds from the First Mover. This language is truly wonderful in itself, and all the more so when we consider its author, the dry and rigid Aristotle, the lumen siccum, or pure abstract intellect, as he has been called. Nature, the kosmos, moving on through love of the First Fair and the First Good—drawn, rather than impelled—it has a Platonic richness of conception which seems strange in the more purely logical writer. Of both, however, it may be said that they produce less impression upon us than the pure grandeur and simplicity of the Bible language: “And God beheld everything that He had made, and, lo, it was good, exceeding good.” With all the splendor of Plato’s language in the Timæus, there is still lurking about it his besetting inconsistency—the thought of something evil, eternal in itself, and inseparable from matter and from nature.
It may be said, too, that this great problem of evil seems to haunt some of our best commentators in their exegesis of this passage. They find here an implied reference to future evil. All is yet good, they would have it to mean, and so they regard it as a Verwahrung, or defence of God against the authorship of evil. See Delitzsch, p. 126. But this mars the glory of the passage. It is simply a burst of admiration and benediction called out by the Creator’s surveying His works. The anthropopathism is for us its power and its beauty, which are lessened by any such supposed hint or protestation.—T. L.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 24, 26, 28 the earth was without form and void--or in "confusion…
the earth was without form and void--or in "confusion and emptiness," as the words are rendered in Isa 34:11. This globe, at some undescribed period, having been convulsed and broken up, was a dark and watery waste for ages perhaps, till out of this chaotic state, the present fabric of the world was made to arise.
the Spirit of God moved--literally, continued brooding over it, as a fowl does, when hatching eggs. The immediate agency of the Spirit, by working on the dead and discordant elements, combined, arranged, and ripened them into a state adapted for being the scene of a new creation. The account of this new creation properly begins at the end of this second verse; and the details of the process are described in the natural way an onlooker would have done, who beheld the changes that successively took place.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 26 The Creative Beginning, 1-2.
The Creative Beginning, 1-2.
Gen_1:1 is to be taken as a heading to the present section, (Gen_1:1 to Gen_2:3,) corresponding to the headings of the other sections. Comp. Gen_2:4; Gen_5:1; Gen_6:9; Gen_10:1; Gen_11:10, etc. This first section has not the common formula, “These are the generations,” etc.: for this first chapter is a history of creations, not of generations. This is a distinction to be kept constantly in mind. See below, on Gen_1:2, and notes on chap. 2:4.
Read full note →
In the following notes an effort is made to indicate as fully as practicable the grammatico-historical meaning of the language of this most ancient Scripture. The world is full of attempts to “reconcile Genesis and geology:” we assume no such task, but endeavour to keep prominent the query, whether the vast amount of learned labour bestowed upon such attempted reconciliation has not been wasted over a false issue. Our exposition does not essay to solve the mysteries of creation, but merely to determine, as far as the original meaning and usage of his words admit, the most obvious import of the Hebrew writer’s language. See Introduction, pp. 56-67.
1. In the beginning — At the commencement of that series of events with which the creation and history of the human race are associated. Here is no necessary reference to the origin of matter, but simply to the opening of an epoch.
God created — ברא אלהים; a plural noun with a singular verb. Some have supposed this plural form of the name of God to be a relic of primitive polytheism, but its construction here with a verb in the singular, and its frequent use in the Hebrew Scriptures as the name of the One only God, forbids such a conclusion. The plural form of the name denotes rather the manifold fulness of power and excellency that exists in God. Not without reason have many Christian divines suggested that in this plural of majesty may also be an intimation of the plurality of persons in the Godhead. No sound logician, however, would cite this as a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is to be mentioned only as a suggestion — a profound intimation — of the plurality of Eternal Powers in the Creator. It will be noticed that the writer does not here formally state the existence of God; much less does he attempt to prove his existence; but he simply assumes it as a fact. The word ברא, which means, primarily, to cut, to cut down, (a meaning preserved in the Piel form of the verb, Jos_17:15; Jos_17:18,) and thence by a natural and easy process, to construct, to fashion, to produce, is in the Kal and Niphal always used to denote divine creations. It is never used to denote human productions. In Gen_1:21 it denotes the creation of “great sea-monsters;” in Gen_1:27, the creation of man; (comp. also Gen_5:1-2; Gen_6:7; Deu_4:32; Psa_89:47;) in Psa_89:12, the establishing of the north and the south; in Isa_4:5, the creation of “a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night;” in Isa_45:7, the creation of darkness and evil, and in Isa_57:19, the creation of “the fruit of the lips” — praise to God, or prophecy. This varied usage of the word shows, that to create out of nothing is not its legitimate meaning: for pre-existing material is commonly supposed. Hence the meaning to found, to produce, to cause to arise. Applied thus uniformly to divine creations, בראis a more elevated word, and also more specific, than עשׂה, to make, which occurs much more frequently. This latter word is also used of divine creations, and so far may be said to be interchangeable with ברא. Thus in Gen_1:7, “God made the firmament” — Gen_1:16, “God made two great lights” — Gen_1:25, “God made the beast of the earth” — Gen_1:26, “Let us make man” — Gen_1:31, “Every thing that he had made” — Gen_2:2, “His work which he had made” — Gen_5:1, “In the likeness of God made he him” — Gen_9:6, “In the image of God made he man” — Exo_20:11, “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth.” But though applied to every thing to which we find ברא applied, the word עשׂה has a much wider and more general application, referring to any work of man, as to make a feast, (Gen_19:3; Gen_21:8; Gen_26:30;) to make a heap of stones, (Gen_31:46;) to do wickedness, (Gen_39:9;) to do or show mercy, (Exo_20:6;) to accomplish a desire, (1Ki_5:8;) and so in a great variety of ways.
Another word of kindred meaning is יצר, to form, to fashion. This is used in Gen_2:7-8, “The Lord God formed man of the dust;” and “the man whom he had formed;” and also in Gen_1:19 : “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.” It is used of the forming of the dry land, (Psa_95:5;) and of leviathan to play in the broad sea, (Psa_104:26;) of the fashioning of a graven image, (Isa_44:12;) and of clay by the hand of a potter. Isa_29:16; Isa_64:8. These three synonyme words are used together in Isa_43:7; Isa_45:18 : “I have created him for my glory; I have formed him; yea, I have made him.” The distinction to be drawn between these words seems to be this: ברא denotes especially the bringing something into being; causing something to arise which had not appeared before; עשׂהis a less dignified expression, indicating in general the same idea, but often applied to things and predicated of subjects which are never construed with ברא. The word יצר, on the other hand, conveys the idea of giving particular form or shape to something. In this narrative of creation the three words are all alike applied to the divine production of man and beast upon earth. Comp. Gen_1:21; Gen_1:25-27, and Gen_2:7-8; Gen_2:19.
The heaven and the earth — Rather, the heavens and the land. What mean these words? It has been the prevailing assumption that in this first verse of the Bible they must stand for the entire universe. They have been explained as equivalent to the primordial matter of the universe; the original substance out of which the universe was subsequently formed. But why not allow the sacred writer to explain his own words? In Gen_1:8, we are told that God called the firmament (or expanse above the land) Heaven, and in Gen_1:10, the dry ground is called ארצ, Land. According to the constant usus loquendi of the Hebrew language, שׁמים, heavens, denotes the ethereal expanse above us, in which the luminaries appear to be set, and the birds fly, and from which the rain falls. Comp. Gen_1:14-15; Gen_1:17; Gen_1:20; Gen_1:26; Gen_1:28; Gen_1:30; Gen_2:19-20; Gen_6:7; Gen_6:17; Gen_7:3; Gen_7:11; Gen_8:2, etc. This may be safely said to be the common and almost universal sense of the word. When occasionally used of the abode of God, it is from the natural conception of him as the Most High, who is exalted above the heavens. Psa_57:5; Psa_57:11; Psa_113:4. The word is dual in form, perhaps from some notion of the expanse as a divider of the waters above and below it, as described in Gen_1:7. Tayler Lewis regards the word as more probably a plural which originated in the effort of the early world to penetrate in thought beyond the visible heaven, and conceive of a heaven beyond that, and a heaven of heavens higher still, from which God looks down to “behold the things that are in heaven (that is, the nearer heavens) and the earth.” Psa_113:6. It is equally plain that the Word ארצ, land, denotes (not the cubic or solid contents of the earth, considered as a globe; such a conception seems never to have entered the Hebrew mind) an area of territory, a country, a region. The word occurs over three hundred times in this Book of Genesis alone, and in most of those places it can have no other meaning than that which we give above, and in no place does it require any other word to represent it than our word land. The word earth, in our modern usage, is so commonly applied to the matter of the earth, or to the world considered as a planet, or solid sphere, that it misleads us when used as a translation of the Hebrew ארצ.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 1–5. The Beginning of all Things, and the First…
1–5. The Beginning of all Things, and the First Creation Day
1. In the beginning] B’rêshîth: LXX ἐν ἀρχῇ: Lat. in principio. This opening word expresses the idea of the earliest time imaginable. It contains no allusion to any philosophical conception of “eternity.” The language used in the account of Creation is neither that of abstract speculation nor of exact science, but of simple, concrete, and unscientific narrative.
Read full note →
The opening words of John’s Gospel (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, Gen_1:1) are based upon this clause. But, whereas St John refers to the Word’s eternal pre-existence before time, the Hebrew writer simply speaks of “the beginning” of the universe as the historic origin of time and space.
In the Hebrew Bible the book of Genesis is called “B’rêshîth,” deriving its title from this first word.
God] Elohim: LXX ὁ Θεός: Lat. Deus. See Introduction on “The Names of God.” The narrative begins with a statement assuming the Existence of the Deity. It is not a matter for discussion, argument, or doubt. The Israelite Cosmogony differs in this respect from that of the Babylonians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, &c. The Cosmogonies of the ancients were wont to be preceded by Theogonies. The existence and nativities of the creating divinities were accounted for in mythologies which were often highly complicated, and not seldom grotesque. The Hebrew narrator, by beginning with the Creation, emphasizes his entire freedom from, and exclusion of, polytheistic thought. If Polytheism had existed in the earliest Hebrew times, it had been abandoned in the growing light of the Israelite religion. “God” is infinite; He was before all time: “In the beginning God created.” Upon the subject of the Divine Existence prior to “the beginning” the writer does not presume to speculate. That Israelite imagination did not wholly avoid the subject, we know from Job_28:25-28, Pro_8:22-30, Wis_9:9, Sir_24:9.
Concerning the Israelite conception of God (Elohim), we learn (1) from the present verse, that He (i) is a Person, and (ii) exists from all eternity; (2) from the whole passage, Gen_1:1 to Gen_2:4 a, that He is (i) supreme in power, and (ii) perfect in wisdom and goodness. The attribute of power is shewn in creative omnipotence; that of wisdom in the orderly sequence of creation; that of goodness in the benevolent purpose which directed its successive phases.
created] The word so rendered (bârâ, LXX ἐποίησεν, Lat. creavit) is used especially of the acts of God, in doing, or calling into existence, something new or marvellous: cf. Exo_34:10, “I will do marvels such as have not been wrought (Heb. created) in all the earth”: Psa_51:10, “Create in me a clean heart.” In the present section it occurs again in connexion with (1) the creation of living organisms (Gen_1:21); (2) the creation of man (Gen_1:27); (3) the creation of the whole universe (Gen_2:3-4). It is used in Psa_148:5, “He commanded, and they were created,” where the reference is to this section.
A different word, “made” (‘âsâh), is used in connexion with the “firmament” (Gen_1:7), the heavenly bodies (Gen_1:16), the terrestrial animals (Gen_1:25).
It is, however, a mistake to suppose that the word bârâ necessarily means “to create out of nothing.”
the heaven and the earth] These words express the Hebrew conception of the created universe. They do not denote, as has of late been suggested, “matter” in the mass, or in the rough. They embrace sky, earth, and ocean: cf. Gen_14:19; Gen_14:22, Gen_24:3; Deu_3:24.
Attention should be called to an alternative rendering of this verse, preferred by many eminent commentators. It turns upon the grammatical point that the first word of the verse, “B’rêshîth,” means literally “In beginning,” not “In the beginning,” which would be “Bârêshîth.” Consequently, it is contended that “B’rêshîth,” being grammatically in “the construct state,” should be translated “In the beginning of,” or “In the beginning when”; and not, as if in “the absolute state,” “In the beginning.” If this contention, i.e. that b’rêshîth is in the construct state, be correct, Gen_1:1 will be the protasis; Gen_1:2 will be a parenthesis; Gen_1:3 will be the apodosis: “In the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth (now the earth was waste, &c.… upon the face of the waters), then God said, ‘Let there be light.’ ”
In comparison with our familiar translation (in both R.V. and A.V.) the alternative rendering seems to present the serious disadvantage of opening the book with a long, cumbrous, and involved sentence. The reply, that the second creation narrative (Gen_2:4-7) opens with a similarly long sentence, hardly meets the objection. The opening words of the whole book can hardly be compared with the opening words of a subsequent section.
The simplicity and dignity of the short opening sentence in the familiar translation impress themselves upon every reader. The author of the Fourth Gospel was evidently conscious of it.
The force of the grammatical objection is weakened by the parallel case of the anarthrous use of b’rêshîth in Isa_46:10. It is doubtful whether rêshîth is found with the article. In the present instance, it may be pleaded that the absence of the article lends a significant indefiniteness. The rendering of the LXX, in ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, which supports the anarthrous b’rêshîth (ἐν ἀρχῇ, not ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ), was evidently the traditional rendering of the Jews in at least the third century b.c. The rendering of the Targum of Onkelos, “In the first times” (b’qadmin), supports it in the second century a.d.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31 THE CREATIVE WEEK (Gen_1:1 to Gen_2:3).
THE CREATIVE WEEK (Gen_1:1 to Gen_2:3).
(1) In the beginning.—Not, as in Joh_1:1, “from eternity,” but in the beginning of this sidereal system, of which our sun, with its attendant planets, forms a part. As there never was a time when God did not exist, and as activity is an essential part of His being (Joh_5:17), so, probably, there was never a time when worlds did not exist; and in the process of calling them into existence when and how He willed, we may well believe that God acted in accordance with the working of some universal law, of which He is Himself the author. It was natural with St. John, when placing the same words at the commencement of his Gospel, to carry back our minds to a more absolute conceivable “beginning,” when the work of creation had not commenced, and when in the whole universe there was only God.
Read full note →
God.—Heb., Elohim. A word plural in form, but joined with a verb singular, except when it refers to the false gods of the heathen, in which case it takes a verb plural. Its root-meaning is strength, power; and the form Elohim is not to be regarded as a pluralis majestatis, but as embodying the effort of early human thought in feeling after the Deity, and in arriving at the conclusion that the Deity was One. Thus, in the name Elohim it included in one Person all the powers, mights, and influences by which the world was first created and is now governed and maintained. In the Vedas, in the hymns recovered for us by the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, whether Accadian or Semitic, and in all other ancient religious poetry, we find these powers ascribed to different beings; in the Bible alone Elohim is one. Christians may also well see in this a foreshadowing of the plurality of persons in the Divine Trinity; but its primary lesson is that, however diverse may seem the working of the powers of nature, the Worker is one and His work one.
Created.—Creation, in its strict sense of producing something out of nothing, contains an idea so noble and elevated that naturally human language could only gradually rise up to it. It is quite possible, therefore, that the word bârâ, “he created,” may originally have signified to hew stone or fell timber; but as a matter of fact it is a rare word, and employed chiefly or entirely in connection with the activity of God. As, moreover, “the heaven and the earth” can only mean the totality of all existent things, the idea of creating them out of nothing is contained in the very form of the sentence. Even in Gen_1:21; Gen_1:27, where the word may signify something less than creation ex nihilo, there is nevertheless a passage from inert matter to animate life, for which science knows no force, or process, or energy capable of its accomplishment.
The heaven and the earth.—The normal phrase in the Bible for the universe (Deu_32:1; Psa_148:13; Isaiah 2). To the Hebrew this consisted of our one planet and the atmosphere surrounding it, in which he beheld the sun, moon, and stars. But it is one of the more than human qualities of the language of the Holy Scriptures that, while written by men whose knowledge was in accordance with their times, it does not contradict the increased knowledge of later times. Contemporaneous with the creation of the earth was the calling into existence, not merely perhaps of our solar system, but of that sidereal universe of which we form so small a part; but naturally in the Bible our attention is confined to that which chiefly concerns ourselves.
EXCURSUS B: ON THE NAMES ELOHIM AND JEHOVAH-ELOHIM.
Throughout the first account of creation (Gen_1:1 to Gen_2:3) the Deity is simply called Elohim. This word is strictly a plural of Eloah, which is used as the name of God only in poetry, or in late books like those of Nehemiah and Daniel. It is there an Aramaism, God in Syriac being Aloho, in Ohaldee Ellah, and in Arabic Allahu—all of which are merely dialectic varieties of the Hebrew Eloah, and are used constantly in the singular number. In poetry EJoah is sometimes employed with great emphasis, as, for instance, in Psa_18:31 : “Who is Eloah except Jehovah?” But while thus the sister dialects used the singular both in poetry and prose, the Hebrews used the plural Elohim as the ordinary name of God, the difference being that to the one God was simply power, strength (the root-meaning of Eloah); to the other He was the union of all powers, the Almighty. The plural thus intensified the idea of the majesty and greatness of God; but besides this, it was the germ of the doctrine of a plurality of persons in the Divine unity.
In the second narrative (Gen_2:4 to Gen_3:24), which is an account of the fall of man, with only such introductory matter regarding creation as was necessary for making the history complete, the Deity is styled Jehovah-Elohim. The spelling of the word Jehovah is debatable, as only the consonants ( J, h, v, h) are certain, the vowels being those of the word Adonai (Lord) substituted for it by the Jews when reading it in the synagogue, the first vowel being a mere apology for a sound, and pronounced a or e, according to the nature of the consonant to which it is attached. It is generally represented now by a light breathing, thus—Y’hovah, ‘donai. As regards the spelling, Ewald, Gesenius, and others argue for Yahveh; Fürst for Yehveh, or Yeheveh; and Stier, Meyer, &c, for Yehovah. The former has the analogy of several other proper names in its favour; the second the authority of Exo_3:14; the last, those numerous names like Yehoshaphat, where the word is written Yeho. At the end of proper names the form it takes is Yahu, whence also Yah. We ought also to notice that the first consonant is really y; but two or three centuries ago j seems to have had the sound which we give to y now, as is still the case in German.
But this is not a matter of mere pronunciation; there is a difference of meaning as well. Yahveh signifies “He who brings into existence;” Yehveh “He who shall be, or shall become;” what Jehovah may signify I do not know. We must further notice that the name is undoubtedly earlier than the time of Moses. At the date of the Exodus the v of the verb had been changed into y. Thus, in Exo_3:14, the name of God is Ehyeh, “I shall become,” not Ehveh. Had the name, therefore, come into existence in the days of Moses, it would have been Yahyeh, Yehyeh, or Yehoyah, not Yahveh, &c.
The next fact is that the union of these two names—Jehovah-Elohim—is very unusual. In this short narrative it occurs twenty times, in the rest of the Pentateuch only once (Exo_9:30); in the whole remainder of the Bible about nine times. Once, moreover, in Psa_1:1, there is the reversed form, Elohim-Jehovah. There must, therefore, be some reason why in this narrative this peculiar junction of the two names is so predominant.
The usual answer is that in this section God appears in covenant with man, whereas in Gen_1:1 to Gen_2:3 He was the Creator, the God of nature and not of grace, having, indeed, a closer relation to man, as being the most perfect of His creatures (Gen_1:26), but a relation different only in degree and not in kind. This is true, but insufficient; nor does it explain how Jehovah became the covenant name of God, and Elohim His generic title. Whatever be the right answer, we must expect to find it in the narrative itself. The facts are so remarkable, and the connection of the name Jehovah with this section so intimate, that if Holy Scripture is to command the assent of our reason we must expect to find the explanation of such peculiarities in the section wherein they occur.
What, then, do we find? We find this. The first section gives us the history of man’s formation, with the solemn verdict that he was very good. Nature without man was simply good; with man, creation had reached its goal. In this, the succeeding section, man ceases to be very good. He is represented in it as the object of his Maker’s special care, and, above all, as one put under law. Inferior creatures work by instinct, that is, practically by compulsion, and in subjection to rules and forces which control them. Man, as a free agent, attains a higher rank. He is put under law, with the power of obeying or disobeying it. God, who is the infinitely high and self-contained, works also by law, but it comes from within, from the perfectness of His own nature, and not from without, as must be the case with an imperfect being like man, whose duty is to strive after that which is better and more perfect. Add that, even in the first section, man was described as created “in God’s image, after His likeness.” But as law is essential to God’s nature—for without it He would be the author of confusion—so is it to man’s. But as this likeness is a gift conferred upon him, and not inherent, the law must come with the gift, from outside, and not from himself; and it can come only from God. Thus, then, man was necessarily, by the terms of his creation, made subject to law, and without it there could have been no progress upward. But he broke the law, and fell. Was he, then, to remain for ever a fallen being, hiding himself away from his Maker, and with the bonds of duty and love, which erewhile bound him to his Creator, broken irremediably? No. God is love; and the purpose of this narrative is not so much to give us the history of man’s fall as to show that a means of restoration had been appointed. Scarcely has the breach been made I before One steps in to fill it. The breach had been caused by a subtle foe, who had beguiled our first parents in the simplicity of their innocence; but in the very hour of their condemnation they are promised an avenger, who, after a struggle, shall crush the head of their enemy (Gen_3:15).
Now this name, Y-h-v-h, in its simplest form Yehveh, means “He shall be,” or “shall become.” With the substitution of y for v, according to a change which had taken place generally in the Hebrew language, this is the actual spelling which we find in Exo_3:14 : namely, Ehyeh ‘sher Èhyeh, “I shall be that I shall be.” Now, in the New Testament we find that the received name for the Messiah was “the coming One” (Mat_21:9; Mat_23:39; Mar_11:9; Luk_7:19-20; Luk_13:35; Luk_19:38; Joh_1:15; Joh_1:27; Joh_3:31; Joh_6:14; Joh_11:27; Joh_12:13; Act_19:4; Heb_10:37); and in the Revelation of St. John the name of the Triune God is, “He who is and who was, and the coming One” (Gen_1:4; Gen_1:8; Gen_11:17). But St. Paul tells us of a notable change in the language of the early Christians. Their solemn formula was Maran-atha, “Our Lord is come” (1Co_16:22). The Deliverer was no longer future, no longer “He who shall become,” nor “He who shall be what He shall be.” It is not now an indefinite hope: no longer the sighing of the creature waiting for the manifestation of Him who shall crush the head of his enemy. The faint ray of light which dawned in Gen_3:15 has become the risen Sun of Righteousness; the Jehovah of the Old Testament has become the Jesus of the New, of whom the Church joyfully exclaims, “We praise Thee as God: we acknowledge Thee to be Jehovah.”
But whence arose this name Jehovah? Distinctly from the words of Eve, so miserably disappointed in their primary application: “I have gotten a man, even Jehovah,” or Yehveh (Genesis 41). She, poor fallen creature, did not know the meaning of the words she uttered, but she had believed the promise, and for her faith’s sake the spirit of prophecy rested upon her, and she gave him on whom her hopes were fixed the title which was to grow and swell onward till all inspired truth gathered round it and into it; and at length Elohim, the Almighty, set to it His seal by calling Himself “I shall be that I shall be” (Exo_3:14). Eve’s word is simply the third person of the verb of which Ehyeh is the first, and the correct translation of her speech is, “I have gotten a man, even he that shall be,” or “the future one.” But when God called Himself by this appellation, the word, so indefinite in her mouth, became the personal name of Israel’s covenant God.
Thus, then, in this title of the Deity, formed from the verb of existence in what is known as the future or indefinite tense, we have the symbol of that onward longing look for the return of the golden age, or age of paradise, which elsewhere in the Bible is described as the reign of the Branch that shall grow out of Jesse’s root (Isa_11:4-9). The hope was at first dim, distant, indistinct, but it was the foundation of all that was to follow. Prophets and psalmists were to tend and foster that hope, and make it clear and definite. But the germ of all their teaching was contained in that mystic four-lettered word, the tetragrammaton, Y-h-v-h. The name may have been popularly called Yahveh, though of this we have no proof; the Jews certainly understood by it Yehveh—“the coming One.” After all, these vowels are not of so much importance as the fact that the name has the pre-formative yod. The force of this letter prefixed to the root form of a Hebrew verb is to give it a future or indefinite sense; and I can find nothing whatsoever to justify the Assertion that Jehovah—to adopt the ordinary spelling—means “the existent One,” and still less to attach to it a causal force, and explain it as signifying “He who calls into being.”
Finally, the pre-Mosaical form of the name is most instructive, as showing that the expectation of the Messiah was older than the time of the Exodus. The name is really man’s answer to and acceptance of the promise made to him in Gen_3:15; and why should not Eve, to whom the assurance was given, be the first to profess her faith in it? But in this section, in which the name occurs twenty times in the course of forty-six verses, there is a far deeper truth than Eve supposed. Jehovah (Yehveh) is simply “the coming One,” and Eve probably attached no very definite idea to the words she was led to use. But here He is called Jehovah-Elohim, and the double name teaches us that the coming One, the future deliverer, is God, the very Elohim who at first created man. The unity, therefore, and connection between these two narratives is of the closest kind: and the prefixing in this second section of Jehovah to Elohim, the Creator’s name in the first section, was the laying of the foundation stone for the doctrine that man’s promised Saviour, though the woman’s seed, was an Emmanuel, God as well as man.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. H. Mackintosh 1880 · Public Domain On v1 Genesis 1
Genesis 1
There is something peculiarly striking in the manner in which the Holy Ghost opens this sublime book. He introduces us, at once, to God, in the essential fullness of His Being, and the solitariness of His acting. All prefatory matter is omitted. It is to God we are brought. We hear Him, as it were, breaking earth’s silence, and shining in upon earth’s darkness, for the purpose of developing a sphere in which He might display His eternal power And Godhead.
Read full note →
There is nothing here on which idle curiosity may feed - nothing on which the poor, human mind may speculate. There is the sublimity and reality of DIVINE TRUTH, in its moral power to act on the heart, and on the understanding. It could never come within the range of the Spirit of God to gratify idle curiosity, by the presentation of curious theories. Geologists may explore the bowels of the earth, and draw forth from thence materials from which to add to, and, in some instances, to contradict, the divine record. They may speculate upon fossil remains; but the disciple hangs, with sacred delight, over the page of inspiration. He reads, believes, and worships. In this spirit may me pursue our study of the profound book which now lies open before us. May we know what it is to "enquire in the temple" May our investigations of the precious contents of holy scripture be ever prosecuted in the true spirit of worship.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The first sentence in the divine canon sets us in the presence of Him who is the infinite source of all true blessedness. There is no elaborate argument in proof of the existence of God. The Holy Ghost could not enter upon anything of the kind. God reveals Himself. He makes Himself known by His works. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork." "All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord." "Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty." None but an infidel or an atheist would seek an argument in proof of the Being of One who, by the word of His mouth, called worlds into existence, and declared Himself the All wise, the Almighty, and the everlasting God. Who but "God" could "create" anything. "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number; he calleth them all by names, by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth." (Isa. 40: 26) "The gods of the heathen are idols, but the Lord made the heavens." In the Book of Job 38-41 we have an appeal of the very grandest description, on the part of Jehovah Himself, to the work of creation, as an unanswerable argument in proof of His infinite superiority; and this appeal, while it sets before the understanding the most vivid and convincing demonstration of God’s omnipotence, touches the heart, also, by its amazing condescension. The majesty and the love, the power and the tenderness, are all divine.
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Here was, in good truth, a scene in which God alone could act. Man, in the pride of his heart, has since proved himself but too ready to interfere with God in other and far higher spheres of action; but, in the scene before us, man had no place until, indeed, he became, like all the rest, the subject of creative power. God was alone in creation. He looked forth from His eternal dwelling-place of light upon the wild waste, and there beheld the sphere in which His wondrous plans and counsels were yet to be unfolded and brought out - where the Eternal Son was yet to live, and labour, and testify, and bleed, and die, in order to display, in the view of wondering worlds, the glorious perfections of the Godhead. All was darkness and chaos; but God is the God of light and order. "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." Darkness and confusion cannot live in His presence, whether we look at it in a physical, moral, intellectual, or spiritual point of view.
"The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." He sat brooding over the Scene of His future operations. A dark scene, truly; and one in which there was ample room for the God of light and life to act. He alone could enlighten the darkness, cause life to spring up, substitute order for chaos, open an expanse between the waters, where life might display itself without fear of death. These were operations worthy of God.
"God said, Let there be light: and there was light." How simple! And yet how Godlike! "He spake, and it was done. He commanded, and it stood fast." Infidelity may ask, "How? where? when?" The answer is, "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Heb. 11: 3) This satisfies the teachable spirit. Philosophy may smile contemptuously at this, and pronounce it rude ignorance, or blind credulity, suitable enough for an age of semi-barbarism, but quite unworthy of men living in an enlightened age of the world’s history, when the museum and the telescope have put us in possession of facts of which the inspired penman knew nothing. What wisdom? What learning? Yea, rather, what folly What nonsense What total inability to grasp the scope and design of sacred scripture? It, assuredly, is not God’s object to make us astronomers or geologists; or to occupy us with details which the microscope or the telescope lays before every school-boy. His object is to lead us into His presence, as worshippers, with hearts and understandings taught and duly governed by His holy Word. But this would never do for the so-called philosopher, who, despising what he terms the vulgar and narrow-minded prejudices of the devout disciple of the Word, boldly seizes his telescope, and therewith scans the distant heavens, or travels into the deep recesses of earth in search of strata, formations, and fossils - all of which, according to his account, greatly improve, if they do not flatly contradict, the inspired narrative.
With such "oppositions of science, falsely so called," we have nothing to do. We believe that all true discoveries, whether "in the heavens above, in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth," will harmonise with that which is written in the word of God; and if they do not thus harmonise, they are perfectly contemptible in the judgement of every true lover of scripture. This gives great rest to the heart in a day like the present, so productive of learned speculations and high-sounding theories, which, alas in too many instances, savour of rationalism and positive infidelity. It is most needful to have the heart thoroughly established as to the fullness, the authority, the completeness, the majesty, the plenary inspiration of the sacred volume. This will be found to be the only effectual safeguard against the rationalism of Germany and the superstition of Rome. Accurate acquaintance with, and profound subjection to, the Word, are the great desiderata of the present moment. May the Lord, in His great grace, abundantly increase, in our midst, both the one and the other.
"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night." Here we have the two great symbols so largely employed throughout the Word. The presence of light makes the day; the absence thereof makes the night Thus it is in the history of souls. There are "the sons of light" and "the sons of darkness." This is a most marked and solemn distinction. All upon whom the light of Life has shone - all who have been effectually visited by "the dayspring from on high" - all who have received the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ - all such, whoever and wherever they may be, belong to the first class, are "the sons of light, and the sons of the day."
On the other hand, all who are still in nature’s darkness, natures blindness, nature’s unbelief - all who have not yet received into their hearts, by faith, the cheering beams of the Sun of righteousness, all such are still wrapped in the shades of spiritual night, are "the sons of darkness," "the sons of the night."
Reader, pause and ask yourself, in the presence of the Searcher of hearts, to which of these two classes do you, at this moment, belong. That you belong to either the one or the other is beyond all question. You may be poor, despised, unlettered; but if, through grace, there is a link connecting you with the Son of God, "the light of the world," then you are, in very deed, a son of the day, and destined, ere long, to shine in that celestial sphere, that region of glory, of which "the slain Lamb" will be the central sun, for ever. This is not your own doing. It is the result of the counsel and operation of God Himself, who has given yon light and life, joy and peace, in Jesus, and His accomplished sacrifice. But if you are a total stranger to the hallowed action and influence of divine light, if your eyes have not been opened to behold any beauty in the Son of God, then, though you had all the learning of a Newton, though you were enriched with all the treasures of human philosophy, though you had drunk in with avidity all the streams of human science, though your name were adorned with all the learned titles which the schools and universities of this world could bestow, yet are you "a Son Of the night," "a son of darkness;" and, if you die in your present condition, you will be involved in the blackness and horror of an eternal night. Do not, therefore, my friend, read another page, until you have fully satisfied yourself as to whether you belong to the "day" or the "night."
The next point on which I would dwell is the creation of lights. "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
The sun is the great centre of light, and the centre of our system. Round him the lesser orbs revolve. From him, too, they derive their light. Hence, he may, very legitimately, be viewed as an apt symbol of Him who is soon to arise, with healing in His wings, to gladden the hearts of those that fear the Lord. The aptness and beauty of the symbol would fully appear to one who, having spent the night in watching, beholds the rising sun gilding, with his bright beams, the eastern sky. The mists and shades of night are all dispersed, and the whole creation seems to hail the returning orb of light. Thus will it be, by and by, when the Son of righteousness arises. The shadows of night shall flee away, and the whole creation shall be gladdened by the dawning of "a morning without clouds," the opening of a bright and never-ending day of glory.
The moon, being in herself opaque, derives all her light from the sun. She always reflects the sun’s light, save when earth and its influences intervene.* No sooner has the sun sunk beneath our horizon than the moon presents herself to receive his beams and reflect them back upon a dark world, or should she be visible during the day, she always exhibits a pale light, the necessary result of appearing in the presence of superior brightness. True it is, as has been remarked, the world sometimes intervenes; dark clouds, thick mists, and chilling vapours, too, arise from earth’s surface, and hide from our view her silvery light.
{*It is an interesting fact that the moon, as viewed through a powerful telescope, presents the appearance of one vast ruin of nature.}
Now, as the sun is a beautiful and an appropriate symbol of Christ, so the moon strikingly reminds us of the Church. The fountain of her light is hidden from view. The world seeth Him not, but she sees Him; and she is responsible to reflect His beams upon a benighted world. The world has no other way in which to learn anything of Christ but by the Church. "Ye," says the inspired apostle, "are our epistle,....known and read of all men." And again, "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ." (2 Cor. 3: 2, 3.)
What a responsible place! How earnestly should she watch against everything that would hinder the reflection of the heavenly light of Christ, in all her ways! But how is she to reflect this light? By allowing it to shine upon her, in its undimmed brightness. If the Church only walked in the light of Christ, she would, assuredly, reflect His light; and this would ever keep her in her proper position. The light of the moon is not her own. So is it with the Church. She is not called to set herself before the world. She is a simple debtor to reflect the light which she herself receives. She is bound to study, with holy diligence, the path which He trod, while down here; and by the energy of the Holy Ghost, who dwells in her, to follow in that path. But, alas! earth with its mists, its clouds, and its vapours, intervenes, and hides the light and blots the epistle. The world can see but little of the traits of Christ’s character in those mho call themselves by His name; yea, in many instances, they exhibit an humbling contrast, rather than a resemblance. May we study Christ more prayerfully, that so we may copy Him more faithfully.
The stars are distant lights. They shine in other spheres, and have little connection with this system, save that their twinkling can be seen. "One star differeth from another star in glory." Thus will it be in the coming kingdom of the Son. He will shine forth in living and everlasting lustre. His body, the Church, will faithfully reflect His beams on all around; while saints individually shall shine in those spheres which a righteous Judge shall allot to them, as a reward of service during the dark night of His absence. This thought should animate us to a more ardent and vigorous pursuit after conformity to our absent Lord. (see Luke 19: 12-19.)
The lower orders of creation are next introduced. The sea and the earth are made to team with life. Some May feel warranted in regarding the operations of each successive day, as foreshadowing the various dispensations, and their great characteristic principles of action. I would only remark, as to this, that there is great need, when handling the word in this way, to watch, with holy jealousy, the working of imagination; and also to pay strict attention to the general analogy of scripture, else we may make sad mistakes. I do not feel at liberty to enter upon such a line of interpretation; I shall therefore confine myself to what I believe to be the plain sense of the sacred text.
We shall now consider man’s place, as set over the works of God’s hands. All having been set in order, one was needed to take the headship. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." My reader will observe the change from "him" to "them." We are not presented with the actual fact of the formation of the woman, until the next chapter; though here we find God blessing "them" and giving "them" jointly the place of universal government. All the inferior orders of creation were set under their joint dominion. Eve received all her blessings in Adam. In him, too, she got her dignity. Though not yet called into actual existence, she was, in the purpose of God, looked at as part of the man. "In thy book were all my members written, which, in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."
Thus it is with the Church - the bride of the Second Man. She was viewed from all eternity in Christ, her Head and Lord; as we read in the first chapter of Ephesians, "According as He hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love." Before a single member of the Church had yet breathed the breath of life, all were, in God’s eternal mind, predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son." The counsels of God render the Church necessary to complete the mystic man. Hence the Church is called "the fullness [pleroma] of Him that filleth all in all." This is an amazing title, and it develops much of the dignity, importance, and glory of the Church.]
It is too common to view redemption as bearing merely upon the blessedness and security of individual souls. This is entirely too low a view to take of the matter. That all which pertains, in any way, to the individual is, in the fullest manner, secured, is, blessed be God, most true. This is the least part of redemption. But that Christ’s glory is involved in, and connected with, the Church’s existence, is a truth of far more dignity, depth, and power. If I am entitled, on the authority of Holy Scripture, to regard myself as a constituent part of that which is actually needful to Christ, I can no longer entertain a doubt as to whether there is the fullest provision for all my personal necessities. And is not the Church thus needful to Christ? Yes, truly. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." And, again, "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man; neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.... Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman. neither the woman without the man in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." (1 Cor. 11: 8-12) Hence, it is no longer the mere question whether God can save a poor, helpless sinner - whether He can blot out his sins, and receive him in the power of divine righteousness. God has said, "it is not good that the man should be alone." He left not "the first man" without "an help meet;" neither would He leave the "Second." As, in the case of the former, there would have been a blank in the creation without Eve, so stupendous thought! - in the case of the latter, there would be a blank in the new creation without the Bride, the Church.
Let us, now, look at the manner in which Eve was brought into being, though, in so doing, we shall have to anticipate part of the contents of the next chapter. Throughout all the orders of creation there was not found an help meet for Adam. "A deep sleep" must fall on him, and a partner be formed, out of himself, to share his dominion and his blessedness. "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, builded* he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man." (Gen. 2: 21-23.)
{*The Hebrew word which is rendered "builded" in the margin the LXX. render by οκοδομεσεν]. A reference to the original of Eph. 2: 20, 22 will show the reader that the words rendered "built" and "builded together" are inflexions of the same verb.}
Looking at Adam and Eve as a type of Christ and the Church, as scripture fully warrants us to do, we see how that the death of Christ needed to be an accomplished fact, ere the Church could be set up; though, in the purpose of God, she was looked at, and chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world. There is, however, a vast difference between the secret purpose of God and the revelation and accomplishment thereof. Before the divine purpose could be actualised in reference to the constituent parts of the Church, it was necessary that the Son should be rejected and crucified - that He should take His seat on high - that He should send down the Holy Ghost to baptise believers into one body. It is not that souls were not quickened and saved, previous to the death of Christ. They assuredly were. Adam was saved, and thousands of others, from age to age, in virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, though that sacrifice was not yet accomplished. But the salvation of individual souls is one thing; and the formation of the Church, as a distinctive thing, by the Holy Ghost, is quite another.
This distinction is not sufficiently attended to; and even where it is in theory maintained, it is accompanied with but little of those practical results which might naturally be expected to flow from a truth so stupendous. The Church’s unique place her special relationship to "the Second Man, the Lord from heaven" her distinctive privileges and dignities - all these things would, if entered into by the power of the Holy Ghost, produce the richest, the rarest, and the most fragrant fruits. (See Eph. 5: 23-32.)
When we look at the type before us, we may form some idea of the results which ought to follow from the understanding of the Church’s position and relationship. What affection did not Eve owe to Adam? What nearness she enjoyed! What intimacy of communion! What full participation in all his thoughts! In all his dignity, and in all his glory, she was entirely one. He did not rule over, but with her. He was Lord of the whole creation, and she was one with him. Yea, as has already been remarked, she was looked at, and blessed in him. "The man" was the object; and as to "the woman," she was needful to him, and therefore she was brought into being. Nothing can be more profoundly interesting as a type. Man first set up, and the woman viewed in, and then formed out of him-all this forms a type of the most striking and instructive character. Not that a doctrine can ever be founded upon a type, but when we find the doctrine fully and clearly laid down in other parts of the Word, we are then prepared to understand, appreciate, and admire the type.
Psalm 8 furnishes a fine view of man set over the work of God’s hands: "when I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers; the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained: what is man that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the sea." Here man is looked at, without any distinctive mention of the woman; and this is quite in character, for the woman is looked at in the man.
There is no direct revelation of the mystery of the Church, in any part of the Old Testament. The apostle expressly says, "in other ages it was not made known to the sons of men us it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets (of the New Testament) by the Spirit." (Eph. 3: 1-11) Hence, in the Psalm just quoted, we have only "the man" presented to us; but we know that the man and the woman are looked at under one head. All this will find its full anti type in the ages to come. Then shall the True Man, the Lord from heaven, take His seat on the throne, and, in companionship with His bride, the Church, rule over a restored creation. His Church is quickened out of the grave of Christ, is Part "of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." He the Head and she the body, making one Man, as we read in the fourth chapter of Ephesians.
"Till we all come, in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." The Church, being thus part of Christ, will occupy a place, in the glory, quite unique. There was no other creature so near to Adam as Eve, because no other creature was part of himself. So, in reference to the Church, she will hold the very nearest place to Christ, in His coming glory.
Nor is it merely what the Church will be that commands our admiration; but what the Church is. She is now the body of which Christ is the Head; she is now the temple of which God is the Inhabitant. Oh what manner of people ought we to be? If such is the present, such the future dignity of that of which we, through God’s grace, form a part, surely a holy, a devoted, a separated, an elevated walk is what becomes us.
May the Holy Ghost unfold these things, more fully and powerfully, to our hearts, that so we may have a deeper sense of the conduct and character which are worthy of the high vocation wherewith we are called. "The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope, of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." (Eph. 1: 18-23.)
C. H. Mackintosh, Notes on the Pentateuch — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 THE BEGINNING. (Gen_1:1-31; Gen_2:1-3)
THE PRIMEVAL AGE OF THE WORLD (GENESIS. 1-9.). FROM THE CREATION TO THE DELUGE.
THE BEGINNING. (Gen_1:1-31; Gen_2:1-3)
Read full note →
CHAPTER 1:1, 2.
I THAT this initial section is not history is apparent from the circumstance that the occurrences it describes belong to a period of time which antedates the dawn of history. That it is not science is evinced by the fact that, in some, at least, of its particulars, it refers to a condition of our globe concerning which even modern research has attained to no definite conclusions, while in all of them it claims to be regarded not as uttering the findings of reason, but as declaring the course of nature. That still less can it be myth must be obvious to any who will carefully contrast it with those heathen cosmogonies which it is said to resemble. Only the most absolute devotion to preconceived opinion can render one oblivious of its immense superiority, to them in respect of both simplicity of construction and sublimity of conception. The absurdities, puerilities, and monstrosities that abound in them are conspicuously absent from it. It alone ascends to the idea of a creation ex nihilo, and of a supreme Intelligence by whom that creation is effected. Unlike them, it is destitute of either local coloring or national peculiarity, being no more Jewish than it is Assyrian or Indian, Persian or Egyptian. The inspired original, of which heathen creation-stories are the corrupted traditions, it may be; impartial reason and honest criticism alike forbid its relegation to a common category with them. Since, then, it is neither history, nor science, nor mythology, it must be REVELATION; unless ill-deed it be regarded as either "the recorded intuition of the first man, handed down by tradition," a theory successfully demonstrated by Kurtz to be altogether inadequate, or the inductive speculation of some primitive cosmogonist, a solution of its genesis scarcely less satisfactory. To characterize it as a pious fraud, of post-Mosaic origin, written to uphold the Jewish week cycle and the institution of the Jewish sabbath, is not only to negative its inspiration, but to invalidate the Divine authority of the whole book, to which it serves as an introduction. Happily its inspiration is a much less violent supposition than its invention , and one which is susceptible of almost perfect demonstration. Rightly viewed, its inspiration is involved in the simpler question of its truthfulness. If the Mosaic cosmogony is true, it can only have been given by inspiration; and that it is true may be said to be, with rapidly augmenting emphasis, the verdict of science.
II As to the precise manner in which it was imparted to its author, THE VISION THEORY of Kurtz, though declared by Kalisch to be "a complicated tissue of conjectures and assumptions utterly destitute of every, the faintest and remotest, Biblical foundation," is perhaps, with certain modifications, the best. Rejecting the idea of a series of creative tableaux without any solid substratum of actual fact, there is clearly nothing in the nature of the case to discredit the hypothesis that the far past may have been disclosed to the writer of this ancient document in the same fashion as we know the remote future was discovered to the later prophets. On the contrary, there is much in Scripture to warrant the assumption that, as Daniel heard the speaking between the banks of the Ulai," and received dream-revelations of the four great world monarchies, and as John beheld visions and heard voices concerning the things which were shortly to come to pass, so the Jewish lawgiver, or the primitive Nabi to whom this revelation was imparted, may have beheld in sublime panorama the evolution of the light, the uplifting of the atmosphere, the parting of the waters, the placing of the orbs, the filling of the land, sea, and sky with life, while he listened with awestruck silence to the voices of Elohim, as they were uttered at the opening of each creative day. Something like this, Professor Lewis aptly remarks, appears necessary to explain the reception by the prophet"s mind of those ineffable ideas of which previously he had no types or conceptions.
III Though not poetical in the sense of being composed in ornate and figurative language, the present section may be truthfully described as rhythmical in structure, possessing an artificial and orderly arrangement, much obscured by its division in the English version into chapters and verses, which almost justifies its designation as The Primeval Song, or Hymn of Creation, with which may be compared the lyric poem in Psalm 104., and the post-Exilian ode in Psalm. 136., in both of which a Hebrew bard recites the story of creation.
In the beginning, Bereshith, is neither "from eternity," as in, Joh_1:1; nor "in wisdom" (Chaldee paraphrase) as if parallel with Pro_3:19 and Psa_104:24; nor "by Christ," who, in Col_1:18, is denominated ajrch; but "at the commencement of time." Without indicating when the beginning was, the expression intimates that the beginning was. Exo_20:11 seems to imply that this was the initiation of the first day"s work. The formula, "And God said," with which each day opens, rather points to ver. 3 as its proper terminus a quo, which the beginning absolute may have antedated by an indefinite period. God Elohim (either the highest Being to be feared, from alah, to fear, Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Keil, Oehler, &c., or, more probably, ;the strong and mighty One, from aul, to be strong Gesenius, Lange, Tayler Lewis, Macdonald, Murphy, &c.) is the most frequent designation of the Supreme Being in the Old Testament, occurring upwards of 2000 times, and is exclusively employed in the present section. Its plural form is to be explained neither as a remnant of polytheism (Gesenius), nor as indicating a plurality of beings through whom the Deity reveals himself (Baumgarten, Lange), nor as a plural of majesty (Aben Ezra, Kalisch, Alford), like the royal "we" of earthly potentates, a usage which the best Hebraists affirm to have no existence in the Scriptures (Macdonald), nor as a cumulative plural, answering the same purpose as a repetition of the Divine name (Hengstenberg, Dreschler, and others); but either
(1) as a pluralis intensitatis, expressive of the fullness of the Divine nature, and the multiplicity of the Divine powers (Delitzsch, Murphy, Macdonald); or,
(2) notwithstanding Calvin s dread of Sabellianism, as a pluralis trinitatis, intended to foreshadow the threefold personality of the Godhead (Luther, Cocceius, Peter Lombard, Murphy, Candlish, &c.); or
(3) both. The suggestion of Tayler Lewis, that the term may be a contraction for El-Elohim, the God of all superhuman powers, is inconsistent with neither of the above interpretations That the Divine name should adjust itself without difficulty to all subsequent discoveries of the fullness of the Divine personality and nature is only what we should expect in a God-given revelation. Unless where it refers to the angels, (Psa_8:5) or to heathen deities (Gen_31:32; Exo_20:3; Jer_16:20) or to earthly rulers, (Exo_22:8, Exo_22:9) Elohim is conjoined with verbs and adjectives in the singular, an anomaly in language which has been explained as suggesting the unity of the Godhead. Created.
Bara, one of three terms employed in this section, and in Scripture generally, to describe the Divine activity; the other two being yatzar, "formed," and asah, "made both signifying to construct out of preexisting materials (cf. for yatzar, Gen_2:7 Gen_8:19; Psa_33:15; Isa_44:9 for asah, Gen_8:6; Exo_5:16; Deu_4:16) and predicable equally of God and man. Barn is used exclusively of God. Though not necessarily involved in its significance, the idea of creation ex nihilo is acknowledged by the best expositors to be here intended. Its employment in vers. 21, 26, though seem ugly against, is really in favor of a distinctively creative act; in both of these instances something that did not previously exist, i.e. animal life and the human spirit, having been called into being. In the sense of producing what is new it frequently occurs in Scripture (cf. Psa_51:12; Jer_31:12; Isa_65:18) Thus, according to the teaching ofthis venerable document, the visible universe neither existed from eternity, nor was fashioned out of pre-existing materials, nor proceeded forth as an emanation from the Absolute, but was summoned into being by an express creative fiat. The New Testament boldly claims this as a doctrine peculiar to revelation. (Heb_11:3) Modern science explicitly disavows it as a discovery of reason. The continuity of force admits of neither creation nor annihilation, but demands an unseen universe, out of which the visible has been produced "by an intelligent agency residing in the unseen," and into which it must eventually return ("The Unseen Universe," pp. 167, 170). Whether the language of the writer to the Hebrews homologates the dogma of an "unseen universe" (mhnon), out of which tomenon gegonenai, the last result of science, as expressed by the authors of the above-named work, is practically an admission of the Biblical doctrine of creation. The heavens and the earth (i.e. mundus universus Gesenius, Kalisch, &c. Cf. Gen_2:1 Gen_14:19, Gen_14:22; Psa_115:15; Jer_23:24. The earth and the heavens always mean the terrestrial globe with its aerial firmament. Cf. (Gen_2:4; Psa_148:13; Zec_5:9) The earth here alluded to is manifestly not the dry land (ver. 10), which was not separated from the waters till the third day, but the entire mass of which our planet is composed, including the superincumbent atmosphere, which was not uplifted from the chaotic deep until the second day. The heavens are the rest of the universe. The Hebrews were aware of other heavens than the "firmament" or gaseous expanse which over-arches the earth. "Tres regiones," says Poole, "ubi ayes, ubi nubes, ubi sidera." But, beyond these, the Shemitie mind conceived of the heaven where the angels dwell (1Ki_22:19; Mat_18:10) and where God specially resides (Deu_26:15; 1Ki_8:30; Psa_2:4) if, indeed, this latter was not distinguished as a more exalted region than that occupied by any creature as "the heaven of heavens," the pre-eminently sacred abode of the Supreme (Deu_10:14; 1Ki_8:27; Psa_105:16) The fundamental idea associated with the term was that of height (shamayim, literally, "the heights Gesenius, Furst). To the Greek mind heaven meant "the boundary" (ouJranov, from oJrov Arist.), or, "the raised up" (from ojr to be prominent Liddell and Scott). The Latin spoke of "the con cavity" (coelum, allied to koilov, hollow), or "the engraved" (from coelo, to engrave). The Saxon thought of the heaved-up arch." The Hebrew imagined great spaces rising tier upon tier above the earth (which, m contradistinction, was named "the flats"), just as with regard to time he spoke of olamim (Gr. aijwnev). Though not anticipat Lug modern astronomical discovery, he had yet enlarged conceptions of the dimensions of the stellar world (Gen_15:5; Isa_40:26; Jer_31:37; Amo_9:6) and, though unacquainted with our present geographical ideas of the earth"s configuration, he was able to represent it as a globe, and as suspended upon nothing (Isa_40:11; Job_26:7-10; Pro_8:27) The connection of the present verse with those which follow has been much debated. The proposal of Aben Ezra, adopted by Calvin, to read, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was" is grammatically inadmissible. Equally objectionable on the ground of grammar is the suggestion of Bunsen and Ewald, to connect the first verse with the third, and make the second parenthetical; while it is opposed to that simplicity of construction which pervades the chapter. The device of Drs. Buckland and Chalmers, so favorably regarded by some harmonists of Scripture and geology, to read the first verse as a heading to the whole section, is exploded by the fact that no historical narration can begin with "and." To this Exodus 1. It is no exception, the second book of Moses being in reality a continuation of the first. Honest exegesis requires that ver. I shall be viewed as descriptive of the first of the series of Divine acts detailed in the chapter, and that ver. 2, while admitting of an interval, shall be held as coming in immediate succession an interpretation, it may be said, which is fatal to the theory which discovers the geologic ages between the creative beginning and primeval chaos.
HOMILETICS.
Ver. 1.
The visible universe.
I ONE, yet NOT SIMPLE.
1. One. In age, origin, and nature one, "the heavens and the earth" also constitute one vast system. Cohering physically through the force of gravitation, which, in its ultimate analysis, is simply an expression of the Divine power, they are unified spiritually by Christ, who is the impersonation of the Divine wisdom and love (Joh_1:3, Joh_1:9; Col_1:15, Col_1:17) Hence, as constituting one stupendous system, they are not independent, but mutually influential physically according to science, spiritually according to Scripture (Luk_15:7, Luk_15:10; Eph_3:10; 1Pe_1:12, &c.); Yet
2. Not simple, but complex, consisting of two parts of this mundane sphere, with its diversified contents of men, animals, and plants; and of those shining heavens, with their starry hosts and angelic races. Hence the histories of those two realms may be widely divergent an inference which astronomy warrants as to their physical developments, and revelation endorses with regard to their spiritual experiences. Hence to argue from the one to the other is to reason hypothetically; as, e.g., to conclude that the planets must be inhabited because the earth is, or to affirm that the Divine treatment of the human and angelic races must of necessity be alike.
II VAST, yet NOT INFINITE.
1. Vast. Enlarged as were Shemitic notions of the dimensions of God"s universe, modern astronomy, by the grandeur and sublimity of its revelations, gives definite shape to what were then only vague and shadowy conceptions. Imagination becomes bewildered in the attempt to comprehend the circle of the universe. Commencing with the sun, the central body of our planetary system, with a diameter about three times our distance from the moon, and passing, on her outward journey, no fewer than seven worlds in addition to our own, most of them immensely larger, she only reaches the outskirts of the first department of creation at a distance of 2, 853, 800, 000 miles. Then, when to this is added that the nearest fixed star is so remote that three years are required for its light to reach the earth; that from some of the more distant nebulae the light has been traveling for millions of years; that the number of the stars is practically infinite; and that each of them may be the center of a system more resplendent than our own, even then it is but a faint conception which she reaches of the dimensions of the universe. (Job_26:14) Yet
2. It is not infinite. Immeasurable by man, it has already been measured by. (Isa_40:12) Undiscoverable by science, its limits are known to its Creator. (Act_15:18) The stars which man is unable to compute God calls by their names (Psa_147:4; Isa_40:26) That the universe must have a boundary is involved in its creation. Two finites cannot make an infinite. Hence the measured earth (Hab_3:6) and the bounded heavens (Job_22:14) cannot compose an illimitable universe. Still less can there be two infinites, one filling all space, and another outside of it. But Elohim is such an infinite (Isa_57:15; Jer_23:24) hence the universe is not such another.
III OLD, yet NOT ETERNAL.
1. Old. How old God has not revealed and man has not discovered; geology and astronomy both say millions of years; one hundred millions at least, Sir W. Thomson alleges the sun to have been burning. Genesis gives ample scope to physicists in their researches by saying they may go as far back as "the beginning;" only that beginning they must find. For
2. The universe is not eternal, though its antiquity be vast. The frequency and certainty with which Scripture enunciates the non-eternity of the material universe is one of its most distinguishing characteristics (Psa_90:1 Psa_102:25, Psa_102:26; Heb_1:10) This may also now be regarded as the last word of science: "We have thus reached the beginning as well as the end of the present visible universe, and have come to the conclusion that it began in time, and will in time come to an end" ("The Unseen Universe," p. 93).
IV EXISTENT, YET NOT SELF-EXISTENT.
1. Existent; i.e. standing out as an entity in the infinite realm of space; standing out from eternity in the sphere of time; and also standing out from God, as essentially distinct from his personality. Yet
2. Not self-existent, not standing there in virtue of its own inherent energy, being neither self-produced nor self-sustained; but standing solely and always in obedience to the creative fiat of Elohim, the almighty and self-existent God.
HOMILIES BY J.F. MONTGOMERY
Ver. 1. is a word familiarly on our lips; but, for the most part, we mean only rearrangement, or the commencement of one link in the chain of events. But who can conceive the beginning of creation? Who can travel back in thought to the first moment of its existence, and look into the eternity beyond? The Bible carries us back to that beginning, the first moment when the universe existed. How far back was the starting-point of time we know not, nor in what form the universe came into being, whether completed, or in germs to be developed in the course of ages. Only we are taught that before that "beginning" the universe was not, and that "the worlds were framed by the word of God" (Heb_11:3) their substance, and the laws by which they are governed. With this the conclusions of science agree. They point out that the forces of nature tend to extinction, and hence must have had a beginning. To the question what was that beginning, the Bible gives the answer.
1. What was before the beginning? God was; he created all; (Psa_90:2) and if it surpass our power to conceive an eternal self-existent Being, still less can we realize life, power, law coming into existence without a cause. And in the beginning was the Word;" and the Holy Ghost, through whom Christ offered himself. (Heb_9:14) But further, before the beginning the Lamb was slain, (Rev_13:8) i.e. the necessity for redemption was foreseen and the plan provided and we were chosen, (Eph_1:4) and a kingdom prepared for us. (Mat_25:34) Thus, redemption was no afterthought, no repairing of failure; but God"s purpose from eternity, and therefore that which is best.
2. What was the "beginning"? The creation of a field on which God"s plans were to be carried out and his perfections manifested. And in the course of his work the creation of beings to whom and in whom he might make himself known, who might glorify him here and enjoy him forever.
3. We mark then At the beginning God brought forth what had been ordained in eternity his plan complete to the end our salvation redemption as well as creation. "Very good" (Gen_1:31) went far beyond the things then existing on the earth. And if it be urged, How is "very good" consistent with sin? An enemy has sown tares and marred the Creator"s work the world is a ruin. Oh, faithless! why fearful? If God could give life to dry bones, (Eze_37:6) if he could of stones raise up children to Abraham, can he not out of seeming ruin raise up a more glorious temple? But thou sayest, How can this be? Canst thou solve one of the least mysteries of creation? And is it strange thou canst not solve that mystery into which angels desire to look? Enough to know "where sin abounded," &c.; (Rom_5:20) to remember, "we see not yet," &c.; (Heb_2:8) and humbly to wait our Father"s time and way.
4. For personal encouragement. Our state fore seen and provided for from the beginning. Thus our right to trust God"s promises depends not on anything in us, but is part of his original plan. Our Lord"s call to sinners is in closest agreement., with what was ordained "in the beginning." "Whosoever will (Rev_22:17) but echoes the word which called the universe into being. M.
HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD
Vers. 1-5. A true and firm foundation of revelation and faith must be laid in a Divine doctrine of "Genesis," the beginnings out of which have come both the world of nature and the world of grace. In this book we are taught what is the order by which all things must be tried. Coming forth from Elohim, from the Infinite Personality; flowing in his appointed course. The genesis of heaven and earth becomes the genesis of the human family. Out of the natural chaos is brought forth the Eden of rest and beauty. Out of the moral waste of a fallen humanity is formed, by the gracious work of a Divine Spirit, through a covenant of infinite wisdom and loves a seed of redeemed and sanctified human beings, a family of God. The genesis of the material creation leads on to the genesis of the invisible creation. The lower is the type and symbol of the higher. The first day is the true beginning of days. See what is placed by the sacred writer between that evening and morning.
I THE COMING FORTH OF THE EVERLASTING, UNSEARCHABLE SECRET OF THE DIVINE NATURE INTO MANIFESTATION. God created." The word employed denotes more than the bare summoning of existence out of nothingness. The analogy of human workmanship ("cutting," "carving," "framing") suggests the relation between creation and the God of creation. The heaven and the earth reflect their Maker. Works embody the mind, the spirit, the will, the nature of the workman. Although the name Elohim, in the plural form, cannot be taken as an equivalent of the Trinity, it points to the great fundamental fact of all revelation, the Divine Unity coming forth out of the infinite solitude of eternity, and declaring, in the manifold revelations of the visible and invisible worlds, all that the creature can know of his fathomless mystery.
II HERE IS A GLIMPSE INTO GOD"S ORDER AND METHOD. In the beginning," the immeasurable fullness of creative power and goodness. Formless void, darkness on the face of the deeps apparent confusion and emptiness, within a limited sphere, the earth; at a certain epoch, in preparation for an appointed future. Chaos is not the first beginning of things; it is a stage in their history. The evening of the first day preceded the morning in the recorded annals of the earth. That evening was itself a veiling of the light. Science itself leads back the thoughts from all chaotic periods to previous developments of power. Order precedes disorder. Disorder is itself permitted only as a temporary state. It is itself part of the genesis of that which shall be ultimately very good.
III THE GREAT VITAL FACT OF THE WORLD"S ORDER IS THE INTIMATE UNION BETWEEN THE SPIRIT OF GOD AND THAT WHICH IS COVERED WITH DARKNESS UNTIL HE MAKES IT LIGHT. The moving of the Spirit upon the face of the waters represents the brooding, cherishing, vitalizing presence of God in his creatures, over them, around them, at once the source and protection of their life. Breath;" "wind," the word literally means, perhaps as a symbol at once of life, or living energy, and freedom, and with an immediate reference to the creative word, which is henceforth the breath of God in the world. Surely no candid mind can fail to feel the force of such a witness in the opening sentences of revelation to the triune God.
IV TO US THE BEGINNING OF ALL THINGS IS LIGHT. The word of God "commands the light to shine out of darkness." "God said, Let there be light," or, Let light be. The going forth of Gods word upon the universe very well represents the twofold fact,
(1) that it is the outcome of his will and nature; and
(2) that it is his language the expression of himself.
Hence all through this Mosaic cosmogony God is represented as speaking to creation, that we may understand that he speaks in creation, as he is also said to look at that which comes forth from himself to behold it, to approve it, to name it, to appoint its order and use. Such intimate blending of the personal with the impersonal is the teaching of Scripture as distinguished from all mere human wisdom. God is in creation and yet above it. Man is thus invited to seek the personal presence as that which is higher than nature, which his own personal life requires, that it may not be oppressed with nature s greatness, that it may be light, and not darkness. There is darkness in creation, darkness in the deep waters of the worlds history, darkness in the human soul itself, until God speaks and man hears. Light is not, physically, the first thing created; but it is the first fact of the Divine days that is, the beginning of the new order. For what we have to do with, is not the. infinite, secret of creation, but the manifestation of the visible world" God manifest. The first day m the history of the earth, as man can read it, must be the day when God removes the covering of darkness and says, "Let there be light." The veil uplifted is itself a commencement. God said that it was good. His own appointment confirmed the abiding distinction between light and darkness, between day and night; in other words, the unfolding, progressive interchange of work and rest, of revelation and concealment, the true beginning of the world s week of labor, which leads on to the everlasting sabbath. How appropriately this first day of the week of creation stands at the threshold of God"s word of grace! The light which he makes to shine in our hearts, which divides our existence into the true order, the good and the evil separated from one another, which commences our life; and the Spirit is the light of, his own word, the light which shines from the face of him who was "the Word," in the beginning with God," "without whom nothing was made that was made. R.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31 In the beginning God created the heavens and the…
Gen_1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
Read full note →
The Christian doctrine of creation
In considering the subject of creation we see, first of all, that a distinction must be drawn between what I would call primary and secondary creation.
Primary creation is creation proper. It is that grand act whereby Almighty God in the beginning called into being the finite world. Secondary creation, on the other hand, belongs to the sphere of Providence, or to the sphere of the history of the finite world. If we look at the history of the finite world, we see that during its course a vast series of beings have been called into existence. All the generations of mankind have come into existence during ages gone by. In like manner all the countless hosts of living creatures, the animals and plants that inhabit the world. Nor is this all. Men of science now tell us, that even the earth itself, the sun, the moon, and the planets, have come into existence during the history of the world. There was a time in the history of the finite world when there was neither sun, nor moon, nor earth, when the matter of which all these bodies are composed was diffused in a previous state. They have, therefore, like ourselves, received their existence during the history of the world. Now, the origination or bringing into existence of all these things I call a creation. Creation is that which is the work of an intelligent being. It is the giving of existence, by an intelligent being, to that which had previously none. And since all these things have received existence, and have received it at the hand of God, their origination is a creation.
I. In regard to SECONDARY CREATION, the great difficulty is this--If you will think over what I have been saying to you about it, you will see that the truth of my view all depends upon this, that the laws of nature alone and unaided are not sufficient to govern the course of nature. The view which I have given requires us to suppose that, in addition to the laws of nature, there is needed the Divine Intelligence to combine and direct them. In a word, we must suppose that the Divine Intelligence never leaves nature, but continually guides and directs its course to those great ends and purposes which God has in view. Now here it is that the difficulty comes in. It is held, by a large class of reasoners, that the laws of nature alone and unaided are perfectly sufficient for the purpose indicated. But is this view true? I think not. In fact there are many ways in which I could show its inadequacy were this the place to discuss the question. I shall not attempt any such discussion, but shall content myself with simply pointing out one fact which makes it impossible; I mean the fact that the course of nature is a history. If the course of nature were governed solely by the laws of nature, it must, as a necessary consequence, flow in grooves or cycles. But, in point of fact, it does neither. If we look at the course of nature, we see that it is a varied and ever-varying stream. From the beginning of the world up to the present moment, no two events, and no two objects, however similar, have been exactly the same in all respects. The course of nature is a free, orderly, progressive sequence, or series of events flowing towards, and attaining high ends and purposes. The course of nature being thus confessedly a history, what principle is it, which alone can account for it? You may ponder over the matter as much as you please, you may turn it and twist it in every possible way, but you will in the end be obliged to confess that the only principle sufficient for the purpose, is Intelligence. No other principle but Intelligence can account for the order of a free, varied, and progressive whole such as the course of nature actually is. Why is it that the conviction of a never-ceasing Providence in the affairs of the world is written in such living characters on the hearts of all men? It is from the perception that the course of nature is a history, and the inference which is instantaneously drawn, that it must be ordered by intelligence. The result then is, that the course of nature cannot be conceived by us as possible apart from the Divine Intelligence. We must suppose that the Divine Intelligence presided over it in the beginning and has ever since continuously guided its course. Now what follows from this? It follows that the first chapter of Genesis is literally true, in the sense in which the ordinary English reader understands it. It is still literally true that God created the sun, the moon, the sea, the dry land, the various species of plants and animals. For God prepared the conditions under which all these things came into existence. He guided the course of nature so that it should aid or abut in their production. They are, therefore, His creations; and owe their existence to His creative fiat. I wish I could stay to point out the many striking consequences which flow from this view--the air of grandeur and living interest it imparts to nature, the Divine light it sheds into every corner and crevice of it. But I must content myself with merely indicating one point, viz., how this view satisfies all our religious aspirations. It brings us very near to God. It brings God all round us and within us. But what comes home especially to the religious mind is the assurance which this view gives us, that we, as individuals, owe our existence not to dead and unintelligent laws, but to the will and purpose of the living God. Our individual existence was prepared and intended by God. We are His creation.
II. We have next to consider PRIMARY CREATION, which is far more difficult. Primary creation, as I have said, is that grand act whereby God called into being the finite world. It differs from secondary creation in these two respects: first, that there were no pre-existent materials out of which the finite world was formed, and secondly, in that the process whereby it was made was not one of natural law, but a process of intelligence. The difficulties which have been raised in modern times against this cardinal doctrine have been very great, and in dealing with them I do not well know how to make myself intelligible to some of you. One of the most perplexing of these difficulties is the view which regards creation as a breach of the law of continuity. The law of continuity obliges us to suppose that each state of the material world was preceded by a previous state. Hence, according to this law, it is impossible that the material world could ever have had a beginning. For the law compels us to add on to each state of things, a previous state, without ever coming to a stop. If we do stop short we break the law. And hence those who take this view would exclude creation, as being nothing else but a stopping short, and consequent breaking of the law. Creation, they say, is the doctrine that there is an absolutely first link in this grand chain, and if we are to adhere to the law of continuity we must exclude it. But this whole view of the matter is radically wrong. In supposing creation to be the first link in the chain of continuity, we necessarily suppose that, like all the other links, it took place in time. There was a time before, and a time after it. But if you will think over the matter, you will see that this could not be; for time only came into existence when the creative process was completed. In fact, space and time, the laws of nature, and the law of continuity, are all relations of the finite world; and they could not possibly have any existence till the finite world itself existed, that is, till the creative act was completed. Hence, if we would grasp in thought the creative act, we must transcend the law of continuity; we must transcend all the laws of nature; we must transcend and forget even space and time. If we would understand aright the creative act, we must view the finite world solely in relation to the Divine Intelligence, of which it is the product. The great question in regard to primary creation is, Is it conceivable by us? There is a sect of people called agnostics, who say that it is utterly inconceivable, that no intelligible meaning can be attached to the word. They have wrongly compared creation to a process of natural law, and finding no analogy in this comparison, they have rashly set it down as unthinkable by us. But I have shown you that creation is not a process of natural law; I have shown you that it transcends natural law; I have shown you that it is purely a process of intelligence. Regarded in this point of view, I will now show you that it is intelligible to us, not, perhaps, perfectly intelligible, but still so much so, as to afford us a very tangible notion. The Bible conception of creation is simply this. The finite world as a whole, and in each one of its details, was formed as an image or idea in the Divine Intelligence, and in and by that act of formation it obtained objective or substantial reality. God had not, like us, to seek for paper whereon to describe His plan, nor for materials wherein to embody it. By His absolute power, the image of the world formed in the Divine Intelligence became the actual, substantial, external world. It obtained, as we say, objective reality. Thus the finite world was not a creation out of nothing, neither was it the fall of the finite out of the infinite, nor a necessary evolution out of the Divine Essence, it was the objectified product of the Divine Intelligence. It may, however, be said that this goes a very little way in making the act of creation conceivable to us, for we have no experience of the immediate and unconditioned externalization of a mere mental idea, and we cannot imagine how it could be possible. I admit that we have not the experience indicated. And yet, I would ask you, which is the most marvellous point in the whole process--the act by which the image of the finite world was constituted in the Divine Intelligence, or the act by which it obtained objective reality? Plainly it is the former. It is far more marvellous that the finite world in its first beginning, and in its whole subsequent development, should be imaged forth in the Divine Intelligence, than that this image should crystallize into concrete objective existence. Thus the very point of creation which is the most difficult is made conceivable to us by being reflected in the processes of our own minds. We can create to the extent of forming the mental image. It is only in the externalization of our idea that we are hemmed in and hampered by conditions. I maintain, therefore, that the Bible doctrine, whether we believe it or not, is conceivable by us. We have, first of all, a clear notion of the human intelligence, which is infinite and absolute in one of its aspects; this gives us a notion, inadequate no doubt, but still a tangible notion of the Divine Intelligence which is infinite and absolute in every aspect. Then we have a clear notion of the origination or creation of mental images or plans of things by the human intelligence; this enables us to understand how the plan or pattern of the finite world originated in the Divine Intelligence. The last point, viz., the externalization of the Divine idea, is the most difficult. But though a hard one to you and me, you see it did not present the same elements of difficulty to those great men who had made the powers and processes of intelligence their peculiar study. But I will say more for the Bible doctrine. It is the only philosophical account of the finite world that does not throw human knowledge into irretrievable confusion. The bearing of the question is simply this. If we view the finite world apart from intelligence, the moment we begin to reason on it, we fall into contradiction and absurdity. The consequence of this is, that we land ourselves first of all in agnosticism, and then in utter scepticism; disbelieving in God, in the moral world, nay, even in the most assured results of physical science. Hence, if we would save human knowledge, the finite world must be viewed in relation to intelligence; and the whole question lies between the Bible and a doctrine such as that of Fichte. Is the finite world the product of our intelligence? or is it the product of the Divine Intelligence? We cannot hesitate between the two. Indeed the logic of facts has already decided for us. (D. Greig, M. A.)
Import of faith in a Creator
When man looks out from himself upon the wonderful home in which he is placed, upon the various orders of living things around him, upon the solid earth which he treads, upon the heavens into which he gazes, with such ever-varying impressions, by day and by night; when he surveys the mechanism of his own bodily frame; when he turns his thought, as he can turn it, in upon itself, and takes to pieces by subtle analysis the beautiful instrument which places him in conscious relation to the universe around him; his first and last anxiety is to account for the existence of all that thus interests him; he must answer the question, How and why did this vast system of being come to be? Science may unveil in nature regular modes of working, and name their laws. But the great question still awaits her--the problem of the origin of the universe. This question is answered by the first verse in the Bible: In the beginning God created, etc. And that answer is accepted by every believer in the Christian Creed: I believe in one God, etc.
I. WHAT IS MEANT BY CREATION? The giving being to that which before was not. Creation is a mystery eminently satisfactory to reason, but strictly beyond it. We men can do much in the way of modifying existing matter, but we cannot create the minutest particle of it. That God summoned it into being is a truth which we believe on Gods authority, but which we can never verify.
II. BELIEF IN THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE OUT OF NOTHING IS THE ONLY ACCOUNT OF ITS ORIGIN WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH BELIEF IN A PERSONAL AND MORAL GOD.
1. Men have conceived of the relation between the universe and a higher power in four different ways. Either God is a creation of the world, that is to say, of the thinking part of it; or God and the world are really identical; or God and the world, although distinct, are co-existent; or God has created the world out of nothing.
(1) If God is a product of human thought, it follows that the universe is self-existent, and that it alone exists. A purely subjective deity is in truth no deity at all.
(2) If God and the world are two names for the same thing, though the name of God be retained, the reality has vanished as truly as in the blankest atheism. For such a deity is neither personal nor moral. Murder and adultery become manifestations of the Infinite One as truly and in the same sense as benevolence or veracity.
(3) If, to avoid this revolting blasphemy, we suppose God and the world to be distinct, yet eternally co-existent, do we thereby secure in human thought a place for a moral and personal God? Surely not. God has ceased to be if we are right in imagining that there never was a time when something else did not exist independently of Him.
(4) It is necessary, then, to believe in the creation out of nothing, if we are to believe also in Gods self-existent, personal, moral life.
2. Again, belief in the creation of the universe by God out of nothing naturally leads to belief in Gods continuous providence; and providence, in turn, considering the depth of mans moral misery, suggests redemption. If love or goodness was the true motive for creation, it implies Gods continuous interest in created life.
3. Belief in creation, indeed, must govern the whole religious thought of a consistent believer. It answers many a priori difficulties as to the existence of miracle, since the one supreme inexplicable miracle, compared with which all others are insignificant, is already admitted.
4. Once more, belief in creation is of high moral value. It keeps a man in his right place. It is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves. At first sight, man is insignificant when confronted with external nature. Yet we know that this is not so. The heavens and the earth will pass away. But the soul will still remain, face to face with God. (Canon Liddon.)
The Creator and the creation
I. THE WHOLE TRINITY, each in His separate office, though all in unity, addressed themselves to the work of creation.
1. The Holy Spirit brooded over the watery chaos.
2. The Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, was that power, or Arm of the Lord, by which the whole work was executed. In the beginning was the Word.
3. The Fathers mind willed all, planned all, and did all.
II. God created ONLY the heaven and the earth. He provided a heaven, but He did not provide a hell. That was provided, not for our world at all, but for the devil and his angels.
III. If we ask WHY God created this universe of ours, three purposes suggest themselves.
1. It was the expression and out-going of His wisdom, power, and love.
2. It was for the sake of His noblest work, His creature, man.
3. The heaven and the earth were meant to be the scene of the exhibition of His own dear Son. Remember, that marvellously grand as it was, that first creation was only a type and earnest of a better. (J. Vaughan, M. A.)
The Creator and His work
I. THEN ATHEISM IS A FOLLY. Atheism is proved absurd--
1. By the history of the creation of the world. It would be impossible for a narrative to be clearer, more simple, or more divinely authenticated than this of the creation. The very existence of things around us is indisputable evidence of its reality.
2. By the existence of the beautiful world around us. The world standing up around us in all its grandeur--adaptation--evidence of design--harmony--is a most emphatic assertion of the Being of God. Every flower is a denial of atheism. Every star is vocal with Deity.
3. By the moral convictions of humanity. There is probably not an intelligent man in the wide universe, who does not believe in, and pay homage to, some deity or other.
II. THEN PANTHEISM IS AN ABSURDITY. We are informed by these verses that the world was a creation, and not a spontaneous, or natural emanation from a mysterious something only known in the vocabulary of a sceptical philosophy. Thus the world must have had a personal Creator, distinct and separate from itself.
III. THEN MATTER IS NOT ETERNAL. In the beginning. Thus it is evident that matter had a commencement. It was created by Divine power. It had a birthday.
IV. THEN THE WORLD WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A FORTUITOUS COMBINATION OF ATOMS. In the beginning God created. Thus the world was a creation. There was the exercise of supreme intelligence. There was the expression in symbol of great thoughts, and also of Divine sympathies.
V. THEN CREATION IS THE OUTCOME OF SUPERNATURAL POWER. In the beginning God created. There must of necessity ever be much of mystery connected with this subject. Man was not present to witness the creation, and God has only given us a brief and dogmatic account of it. God is mystery. The world is a mystery. But there is far less mystery in the Mosaic account of the creation than in any other, as it is the most natural, the most likely, and truly the most scientific, as it gives us an adequate cause for the effect. The re-creation of the soul is the best explanation of the creation of the universe, and in fact of all the other mysteries of God. (J. S.Exell, M. A.)
The theology of creation
Man naturally asks for some account of the world in which he lives. Was the world always in existence? If not, how did it begin to be? Did the sun make itself? These are not presumptuous questions. We have a right to ask them--the right which arises from our intelligence. The steam engine did not make itself; did the sun? In the text we find an answer to all our questions.
I. THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE. There is no attempt at learned analysis or elaborate exposition. A child may understand the answer. It is direct, positive, complete. Could it have been more simple? Try any other form of words, and see if a purer simplicity be possible. Observe the value of simplicity when regarded as bearing upon the grandest events. The question is not who made a house, but who made a world, and not who made one world, but who made all worlds; and to this question the answer is, God made them. There is great risk in returning a simple answer to a profound inquiry, because when simplicity is not the last result of knowledge, it is mere imbecility.
II. THE ANSWER IS SUBLIME. God! God created!
1. Sublime because far reaching in point of time: in the beginning. Science would have attempted a fact, religion has given a truth. If any inquirer can fix a date, he is not forbidden to do so. Dates are for children.
2. Sublime because connecting the material with the spiritual. There is, then, something more than dust in the universe. Every atom bears a superscription. The wind is the breath of God. The thunder is a note from the music of his speech.
3. Sublime, because revealing, as nothing else could have done, the power and wisdom of the Most High.
III. THE ANSWER IS SUFFICIENT. It might have been both simple and sublime, and yet not have reached the point of adequacy. Draw a straight line, and you may describe it as simple, yet who would think of calling it sublime? We must have simplicity which reaches the point of sublimity, and sublimity which sufficiently covers every demand of the case. The sufficiency of the answer is manifest: Time is a drop of eternity; nature is the handiwork of God; matter is the creation of mind; God is over all, blessed for evermore. This is enough. In proportion as we exclude God from the operation, we increase difficulty. Atheism never simplifies. Negation works in darkness. The answer of the text to the problem of creation is simple, sublime, and sufficient, in relation--
1. To the inductions of geology.
2. To the theory of evolution.
Practical inferences:
1. If God created all things, then all things are under His government.
2. Then the earth may be studied religiously.
3. Then it is reasonable that He should take an interest in nature. (J. Parker, D. D.)
What we learn here about God
1. His being.
2. His eternity.
3. His omnipotence.
4. His absolute freedom.
5. His infinite wisdom.
6. His essential goodness. (J. White.)
A revelation of God and of nature
I. A REVELATION OF GOD.
1. His name: names have meaning.
2. His nature: spirituality, personality.
3. His mode of existence: manifold unity.
II. A REVELATION OF NATURE.
1. Matter not eternal.
2. The antiquity of the earth.
3. The order of creation. (Pulpit Analyst.)
Love in the fact of creation
I. WHAT IS CREATION? Creation is a work of free condescension on the part of God. There was a time when it was not, and God willed that it should be. It was by Him called into existence out of nothing. It is not only not God, but it is not Divine--partakes in no way of His essence, nor (except in one, its spiritual department, where He has specially willed it) of His nature; has in itself no principle of permanence, cannot uphold itself, but depends altogether for its being, and well being, on the good pleasure of Him, whose Divine love created and upholds it. The world is a standing proof of Gods condescension--that He lowers Himself to behold the things which are in heaven and in earth, which He needeth not. Creation, viewed in its true light, is as really a proof of the self-forgetting, self-humbling love of our God, as redemption; for in it He left His glory which He had, the Father with the Son, and the Holy Spirit with both, before the worlds began, and descended to converse with and move among the works of His own hands; to launch the planets on their courses through space, and uphold in them all things living by His ever-abiding Spirit.
II. WHY IS CREATION? May we presume to ask, What moved Him who was perfect in Himself, who needed nothing beyond Himself, whose character of love was fulfilled in the unity of the Three Persons in the God-head--what moved Him to lower Himself to the creation and upholding of matter, and of life organized in matter? We have already attributed the act to free condescending love; but what love--love for whom? Here again Scripture gives us an answer. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand. By Him (the Son) were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible--all things were created by Him and for Him. I hesitate not then in saying that all creation was the result of the love of the Father for the Son; the result of His Almighty will to carry forward, and to glorify, His Divine character of love, by the glorification of His beloved and only-begotten Son. This world is Christs world--made by and made for Christ--made as the theatre whereon, to all created beings, and even to the Father Himself, was to be shown forth the glorious self-denying love of the Son of God. Thus the world is to the Christian a fact in the very path and process of his faith, and hope, and love. Thus creation is to him part of redemption; the first free act of love of his God, which provided for his being called into existence, as the next free act of love provided for his being called to be a partaker of the Divine nature. (Dean Alford.)
Creation
I. GOD. No attempt made to prepare mind of reader for idea of God; as though every human being had this naturally; and so they all have.
II. CREATED. God made world out of nothing; then He must have absolute power over it and all in it. Nothing can hurt those whom God loves, and protects. Events of world are still in His hands. All must work for Him.
III. COURSE AND PROGRESS OF CREATIONS WORK.
1. Gradual, in measured stages, deliberate. But, observe, never lingering or halting; no rest until complete. Each day has its work; and each days work, done for God, and as God appoints, has its reward. Result may not always be seen; as seed is not seen unfolding beneath ground, yet as truly growing there as when it shoots up green in face of day. So in a good mans life. He looks onward.
2. Orderly. (C. P. Eden, M. A.)
Creation
The language of man follows things and imitates them; the Word of God precedes and creates them. Man speaks because things are; but these are because God hath spoken. Let Him speak again, and things will revert together with man who speaks of them, to nothing. Let us be content to perceive in creation a character which belongs only to God, and which distinguishes His work from that of His creatures. The human mind works only with the materials with which God supplies it; it observes, imitates, combines, but does not create. The best painter in the world, composing the most beautiful picture that ever proceeded from the hand of man, creates nothing: neither the canvas, nor the colours, nor the brushes, nor his own hands, nor even the conception of his work, since that conception is the fruit of his genius, which he has not given unto himself. Trace to the origin of each of the several things which have combined to form this picture, and you will find that all the channels from which they came, converge towards, and meet in the Creator, who is God. In thus showing us from its first page that the visible world has had such a wonderful beginning, the Bible informs us that it is also as a Creator that God saves souls. He not only develops the natural dispositions of our hearts, but creates in them new ones, For we are labourers together with God; but labourers working like the painter, with what God has given to us. We hear, read, seek, believe, pray, but even these come from God. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure; and if we seek the principle of our salvation we shall find that we owe all to God from the beginning, and from the beginning of the beginning. For we are His workmanship created in Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. You have been taught in Christ, writes St. Paul to the Ephesians, to put off the old man, to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and to put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. Thus speaks the New Testament. The Old uses the same language. Not only does David, rising from his fall, pray in these words by the Spirit: Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me (Psa_51:12); but all the Lords dealings towards the people of Israel, that type of the future Church, are compared by Isaiah to a creation--I am the Lord, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your Isa_43:15). If He alternately deals out to them good and badfortune--He creates. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I, the Lord, do all these things (Isa_45:6-7). If He tries them for a time by chastisingthem through the hands of their enemies, He creates: Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument of destruction for his work (Isa_54:16). If He raises up prophets to them, He creates: I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace, to him that is far off, and to him that is near (Isa_57:19); and if ultimately He give to that people, after many vicissitudes, happier days and an eternal rest, He will create: For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: but be ye glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing (Isa_65:17-18). The creation of the world affords us a new lesson as to the manner in which God acts in the dispensation of grace. There again, all that God makes is good, and very good; what is evil proceeds from another source. For all that is good and holy, let us ascribe the glory to God; for what is evil let us accuse ourselves. This doctrine, too, is necessary in order that you should not make a false application of what you have just heard respecting the sovereignty of God. He acts as Creator, we should say in things which belong to His government, but He only uses this sovereign power for good; He only gives birth to good thoughts, holy desires and dispositions, consistent with salvation. God creates, but how does He create? At first view we only see here the sovereign Lord, alone at first in His eternity, alone afterwards in the work of creation. But a more deliberate contemplation leads us to discern in this singleness a certain mysterious union of persons previously hidden in the depths of the Divine nature, and displaying itself at the creation, as it was to be manifested at a later period in the redemption of our race. And have you the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? The Three unite in the creation of the world; they unite in the redemption of man; are they also united within you? Are you born of the Father, and become His children? Are you washed in the blood, of the Son, and become members of His body? Are you baptized with the Spirit, and become His temples? Ponder upon these things; for it is not a vain thing for you, because it is your life. Finally, God creates, but for what purpose? does He only wish to spread before you an enchanting exhibition? No, He has nobler designs. The Lord has created all things for His glory, and His first object is to render visible the invisible things hidden within Himself, by giving them a body, and, if one may so speak, by exhibiting them in the form of flesh. (A. Monod, D. D.)
Chance cannot explain order in creation
How often might a man, after he had jumbled a set of letters in a bag, fling them upon the ground before they would fall into an exact poem, yea, or so much as make a good discourse in prose! And may not a little book be as easily made by chance as this great volume of the world? How long might a man be in sprinkling colours upon a canvas with a careless hand before they could happen to make the exact picture of a man? And is a man easier made by chance than his picture? How long might twenty thousand blind men, which should be sent out from the several remote parts of England, wander up and down before they would all meet in Salisbury Plains, and fall into rank and file in the exact order of an army? And yet this is much more easy to be imagined than how the innumerable blind parts of matter should rendezvous themselves into a world. (Archbishop Tillotson.)
Chance not creative
Athanasius Kircher, the celebrated German astronomer, had an acquaintance whom he much esteemed, but who was unfortunately infected by atheistical principles, and denied the very existence of a God. Kircher, sincerely desirous to rescue his friend from his mistaken and ruinous opinion, determined to try to convince him of his error upon his own principles of reasoning. He first procured a globe of the heavens, handsomely decorated, and of conspicuous size, and placed it in a situation in his study where it would be immediately observed. He then called upon his friend with an invitation to visit him, which was readily responded to, and on his arrival he was shown into the study. It happened exactly as Kircher had planned. His friend no sooner observed it than he inquired whence it had come, and to whom it belonged. Shall I tell you, my friend, said Kircher, that it belongs to no one; that it was never made by anyone, but came here by mere chance? That, replied the atheist, is impossible; you jest. This was Kirchers golden opportunity, and he promptly and wisely availed himself of it. You will not, with good reason, believe that this small globe which you see before you originated in mere chance, and yet you will contend that those vast heavenly bodies, of which this is but a faint diminutive resemblance, came into existence without either order, design, or a creation! His friend was first confounded, then convinced, and, ultimately abandoning all his former scepticisms, he gladly united with all who reverence and love God in acknowledging the glory and adoring the majesty of the great Creator of the heavens and earth and all their host.
Order no proof of evolution
His (Professor Huxleys) conclusion is an hypothesis evolved from an hypothesis. To see that this is indeed the case, let us put his argument in syllogistic form. It is as follows: Wherever we have an ascending series of animals with modifications of structure rising one above another, the later forms must have evolved themselves from the earlier. In the case of these fossil horses we have such a series, therefore the theory of evolution is established universally for all organized and animal life. Now, even if we admit his premises, everyone must see that the conclusion is far too sweeping. It ought to have been confined to the horses of which he was treating. But passing that, let us ask where is the proof of the major premise? Indeed, that premise is suppressed altogether, and he nowhere attempts to show that the existence of an ascending series of animals, with modifications of structure ascending, one above another, is an infallible indication that the higher members of the series evolved themselves out of the lower. The existence of a series does not necessarily involve the evolution of the higher members of it from the lower. The steps of a stair rise up one above another, but we cannot reason that therefore the whole staircase has developed itself out of the lowest step. It may be possible to arrange all the different modifications of the steam engine, from its first and crudest form up to its latest and most complete organized structure, in regular gradation; but that would not prove that the last grew out of the first. No doubt in such a case there has been progress--no doubt there has been development too--but it was progress guided and development directed by a presiding and intervening mind. All present experience is against this major premise which Huxley has so quietly taken for granted. It is a pure conjecture. I will go so far as to say that even if he should find in the geologic records all the intervening forms he desires, these will not furnish evidence that the higher members of the series rose out of the lower by a process of evolution. The existence of a graduated series is one thing; the growth of the series out of its lowest member is quite another. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
The creation
I. In the first place, THE OBJECT OF THIS INSPIRED COSMOGONY, OR ACCOUNT OF THE WORLDS ORIGIN, IS NOT SCIENTIFIC BUT RELIGIOUS. Hence it was to be expected, that while nothing contained in it could ever be found really and in the long run to contradict science, the gradual progress of discovery might give occasion for apparent and temporary contradictions.
II. Then again, in the second place, let it be observed that THE ESSENTIAL FACTS IN THIS DIVINE RECORD are,--the recent date assigned to the existence of man on the earth, the previous preparation of the earth for his habitation, the gradual nature of the work, and the distinction and succession of days during its progress.
III. And, finally, in the third place, let it be borne in mind that the sacred narrative of the creation is evidently, in its highest character, MORAL, SPIRITUAL, AND PROPHETICAL. The original relation of man, as a responsible being, to his Maker, is directly taught; his restoration from moral chaos to spiritual beauty is figuratively represented; and as a prophecy, it has an extent of meaning which will be fully unfolded only when the times of the restitution of all things (Act_3:2-11 have arrived. Conclusion:--The first verse, then, contains a very general announcement; in respect of time, without date,--in respect of space, without limits. (R. S. Candlish, D. D.)
On the existence and character of God
I. THE ARGUMENT FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF CAUSATION. The belief in causation is one of the primary convictions of the human mind. It will be unnecessary for the purposes of this argument to discuss its origin. It is also certain that this conviction is not the result of any conscious process of reasoning. We acquiesce in it because we cannot help doing so. Anyone may satisfy himself that this is the case, by trying whether it is possible for him to believe that any particular phenomenon has come into existence without a cause. One of these primary beliefs is that every phenomenon must owe its existence to a cause adequate to produce it. This proposition therefore constitutes one of the highest rectitudes which is attainable by man, and lies at the foundation of all reasoned truth. Such being the case, it becomes necessary to determine what we mean by the term cause, not what philosophers mean by it, but what is the idea which the common sense of mankind attaches to it? Unless we are under the bias of some particular theory, we invariably associate the idea of efficiency with that of cause. We may frequently mistake non-causes for causes, but efficiency, i.e., power to produce the effect, is the fundamental idea which underlies the conception of cause in the minds of ordinary men. This being so, the following important consequences follow.
1. Whatever exists in the effect, must exist either actively or potentially in the cause.
2. The cause of one effect may be the effect of some preceding cause.
3. Various things, which philosophers and men of science have designated causes, are not causes, but necessary conditions of the existence of a particular thing. Thus space is the necessary condition of the existence of extended bodies, but is certainly not the cause of their existence. In a similar manner, in the language of the Darwinian theory, the environment of a thing is frequently spoken of as its cause. It may be the necessary condition of the existence of a thing in that particular form, but to designate it its cause is an inaccuracy of thought. The truth is, necessary conditions limit the action of causes, and may direct their activity into this or that channel; but to treat them as causes is absurd, for they neither do, nor can produce anything.
4. Law is not a cause. The readers attention cannot be too carefully directed to this fact, for, in scientific language, law is habitually used as the equivalent of force, and the greatest confusion of thought has been the result; nay, more, it is frequently personified even by those who refuse to allow that we have any means of knowing that the First Cause of the universe is a personal Being. Thus even scientific men are constantly in the habit of affirming that the laws of nature effect this or that; and that feeble man is unable to resist their overwhelming power. The truth is, that while the forces of nature effect much, the laws of nature can effect nothing. What are the laws of nature? They are merely expressions of the definite order of the occurrence of phenomena. I must now recur to one more point above referred to, as fraught with consequences of extreme importance. I have observed that the very conception of an efficient cause (and an efficient cause is the only one which satisfies the idea of real causation), involves the consequence that it must contain within itself, either actively or potentially, all the effects of which it is the cause; otherwise, such portions of the effects which are not inherent in the cause must be self-produced, which is a self-contradiction, or be produced by the energy of an independent Creator, a conclusion which the theist will readily accept. This being so, all the effects, or in other words, the phenomena, which exist in the universe, must exist either actively or potentially in its first cause, i.e., in God. Now, one of the phenomena of the universe is intelligence. Intelligence therefore must exist in God. Another of its phenomena is the moral nature of man, and the principles of morality founded on the moral law. God therefore must be a moral Being. Another of its phenomena is free agency as it exists in man. The first cause of man (i.e., God)
must therefore be a free agent. Another of its phenomena is will, for it exists in man. Volition therefore must exist in God. Another of its phenomena is personality, for it exists in man. Personality therefore must exist in God. Another of its phenomena is that its forces act in accordance with invariable law, from which action the order of the universe springs. Invariable law therefore must be an expression of the Divine will, and the love of order must exist in God. This argument may be pursued to a much greater length; but this will be sufficient to indicate its character.
II. THE ARGUMENT FOUNDED ON THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE. This argument proves that its first cause (i.e., God)
must be possessed of intelligence. It is one of the instinctive beliefs of our minds, when our rational powers have attained their full development, that whenever we contemplate an orderly arrangement of a complicated character, we instinctively draw the inference that it denotes the presence of intelligence. We feel that this is an inference which we cannot help drawing, for order and intelligence are in our minds mutually correlated. Observe, I make this affirmation under the qualification that we cannot help drawing this inference when our rational powers have attained to their full development. I do so because I maintain that the ideal of human nature and the testimony which its constitution affords to the realities of things, are to be found in the perfect and not in the imperfect man. The opponents of theism dispute the correlation of order and intelligence on two grounds. First, they affirm that the conception is an anthropomorphic one, inapplicable to the works of nature. Secondly, that the production of all the phenomena of the universe by the unintelligent forces of nature, acting in conformity with laws from which they are incapable of varying, is an adequate account of these orderly arrangements. With respect to the tact of these objections to the validity of our argument, I answer--First, that our belief in this correlation between order and intelligence is not a relative, but an absolute belief, embracing all things, all places, and all times. Secondly, that even if the objection were valid, it makes no attempt to propound an alternative theory of the origin of these orderly arrangements. Thirdly, the affirmation that the alternative theory, viz., that all existing phenomena have been evolved by the action of the unintelligent forces of nature, in conformity with invariable law,--affords an adequate account of the existence of this order, contradicts alike our reason and our experience. First, it contradicts our reason. What, I ask, is the conclusion which we draw, when we contemplate an orderly arrangement of a complicated character? I answer that we cannot help inferring that it has originated in intelligence. If the suggestion is made, that it is due to what is commonly called chance, we reject it with scorn. Scientific unbelief, I know, affirms that there is no such thing as chance. Let me adduce one or two simple illustrations. Suppose a traveller had met in some foreign country a construction (it is my misfortune, and not my fault, that I can only express myself in language which has the appearance of assuming the point at issue), which on examination he found to bear a striking resemblance to the machinery in the arsenal at Woolwich, and that no one could tell him how it had originated. Further, that he succeeded in setting it in motion; and that after carefully observing it, he discovered that all its movements took place in a constantly recurring definite order. Let us also further suppose, that on making inquiry how it got there, he was told that during some distant period of the past, a number of the unintelligent forces of nature, after a prolonged struggle, had succeeded in evolving this singular result. Would he, I ask, consider this an adequate account of its origin, or view it as an attempt to impose on his credulity? Or let us take a case nearer home, the library of the British Museum for example, or its collections of minerals or fossils. On walking round them he could observe that their contents were arranged in a certain definite order, yet he is entirely ignorant how they got arranged in this order. But he would scorn the idea, if it were suggested to him, that these arrangements were the result of the concurrence of a number of unintelligent forces, and would without a moments hesitation draw the conclusion that they were due to the agency of intelligence. Of this he would feel as certain as of his own existence. These instances will be equally suitable as illustrations of the argument from adaptation. But it will be needless to multiply examples. I therefore ask if in these, and in an indefinite number of similar cases, we esteem this conclusion to be one of the most unquestionable of certitudes, why should the inference become inconclusive, when we observe similar arrangements in the phenomena of nature, the only difference being that the latter are on a vaster scale, and in an endless variety of complication? It follows, therefore, that the alternative suggested by unbelief contradicts the convictions of the reason of an overwhelming majority of civilized men. Secondly, the alternative theory derives no support from experience. No one has ever witnessed an orderly arrangement issue from the meeting together of a number of the unintelligent forces of nature. If on throwing up twelve dice an equal number of times, they invariably fall in the same order, the conclusion is inevitable--they are loaded. In a similar manner the conclusion is equally inevitable, when we contemplate the orderly arrangements of the universe. They are loaded with a Divine intelligence.
III. THE ARGUMENT FOUNDED ON THE INNUMERABLE CORRELATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS WHICH EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE, COMMONLY CALLED THE ARGUMENT FROM FINAL CAUSES. The argument from adaptation may be best exhibited under two heads. First, those adaptations which denote plan, or the realization of an idea through a gradual course of evolution; and, secondly, those adaptations by which a particular result is produced, and which alone render its production possible. To take an example of each. The human hand, if contemplated as a piece of mechanism, is one of the most wonderful of contrivances. We all know the innumerable and the delicate functions which it is capable of executing. It consists of a number of parts marvellously adjusted and correlated together, which, if any one of them had been different from what it is, or had been differently correlated one to the other, the mechanism in question would either never have come into existence, or it would have failed to produce the results which it is now capable of accomplishing. This serves as an illustration of the argument from both kinds of adaptation above referred to. This marvellous instrument, as it exists in man, is found in embryo in the fore feet of the lowest form of vertebrate animals. Its parts are all found there, yet in such a form that they are utterly unable to produce the results which they do in man. They exist there in type only, or idea, of which the human hand is the realization. Before it has attained to this realization it has appeared in different orders of animals, each time making a nearer approach to the realization which the idea has received in the hand of man, and each time correlated to a corresponding advance in mind. Throughout the whole series of these improvements in the instrument, we recognize what in ordinary language we designate a plan, or, the gradual realization of an idea, commencing in a very rudimentary form, and gradually attaining to higher stages of perfection, until it has culminated in the human hand. A process of this kind, when we witness it under ordinary circumstances, we designate a plan. But a plan implies the presence of intelligence. When, therefore, we see such plans carried out in nature, which only differ from ordinary ones in the multitude of the adaptations and correlations which are necessary to enable them to become realities, we may surely draw the inference that they must have originated in intelligence. But the hand forms an apt illustration of the other kind of adaptation. I have already observed that it is admitted on all hands to be a marvellous piece of mechanism, so constituted as to be capable of executing an almost endless variety of functions. The unbeliever, however, asks us to believe that this affords no proof that it has originated in intelligence. But if he were to fall in with an instrument devoid of life, which was capable of executing only ball of the functions which are performed by the human hand, he would not only infer that it had had a contriver, but he would be loud in the praises of his ingenuity. Why then, I ask, should the contemplation of the one piece of mechanism afford unquestionable evidence of the presence of an intelligent contriver, and the contemplation of that of which it is the copy, only far more elaborate and perfect, afford none? The reason why the opponent of theism accepts the one inference, and rejects the other, must be left to him to explain. I will only adduce one further illustration, viz., our faculty of hearing, because this is effected by three sets of adjustments, each of which is entirely independent of the others; and each of which consists of a number of complicated correlations. The first of these adjustments consists of the vocal organs, which form a musical instrument of a far more complicated character than has ever been invented by man. Be it observed also that this musical instrument is so constituted, that it subserves a multitude of purposes beyond the production of noise. Yet exquisite as this instrument is, it never would have produced a single sound unless it had been correlated to the atmospheric air, or the air to it, in such a manner that its waves should correspond with the different movements of the instrument. These correlations, in order theft they may produce musical sounds, must be of the most complicated character; and yet the one set are absolutely independent of the other. Yet both these sets of marvellous adjustments and correlations would fail to produce a single sound, except for the existence of another highly complicated set of correlations and adjustments, independent of both, viz., the human ear, adapted to receive the impressions of the waves of sound, the auric nerves, and the brain to perceive them, and the human mind to interpret their meaning. Each of these is composed of a number of the most complicated adjustments; and unless the entire series, of which all three sets of adaptations are composed, had been mutually correlated the one to the other, with the utmost care, hearing would have been impossible, and the remaining complicated adjustments would have existed in vain. I have only adduced these two examples for the purpose of illustrating the nature of the argument. The reader must estimate its force, remembering only that the universe is admitted on all hands to be full of similar adjustments, in numbers which surpass the powers of the human intellect even to conceive. What then must be the conjoint force of the whole? Let me draw the inference, Reason affirms that the theory that these adaptations, adjustments, and correlations, with which every part of the universe abounds, have originated in an intelligence which possesses a power adequate to their production, is an account of their origin which satisfies the requirements alike of common sense and a sound philosophy; or to employ the metaphor used above, these adjustments, adaptations, and correlations proclaim the fact that the forces of the universe are everywhere loaded with intelligence. This argument acquires an additional conclusiveness, the amount of which it is difficult to estimate, from considerations derived from the mathematical doctrine of chances. I have already observed that these adjustments and correlations are conditioned on a number of the forces of the universe concurring in meeting together at the same time and place; and that if any one of them had failed to do so, the result produced by their correlation would have either not existed at all, or would have been a different one from that which would have been produced by the conjoint action of the whole. Now, it is obvious that if these adaptations, etc., have not been produced by a superintending intelligence, they can only have been the result of that fortuitous concurrence of forces which we have above described as constituting what is popularly designated chance. This being so, the production of those sets of complicated correlations, which I have above described as necessary for the production of that infinite variety of sounds which the ear is capable of distinguishing, by the fortunate meeting together of a number of independent forces at the same time and place, in accordance with the mathematical doctrine of chances, could only be expressed by a fraction, which, if its numerator is unity, its denominator would be some number followed by an array of ciphers, the length of which I must leave to the reader to conjecture. But this is only an inconsiderable part of the difficulty which besets the theory which I am controverting. This process would have to be repeated in the case of every independent correlation in the universe; and to get at the combined result, these fractions would have to be multiplied together; and the result would be a fraction whose numerator is unity, having for its denominator some number followed by an array of ciphers continued ad infinitum. According, then, to the mathematical doctrine of chances, it is an improbability, amounting to an impossibility, that these adaptations and correlations can have been the result of a fortuitous concurrence of the unintelligent forces of nature. They must then originate in intelligence. The theory which opponents of theism ask us to accept, as affording a rational account of the origin of those adaptations and correlations with which the universe is full, is this. The forces of the universe have gone on energizing in conformity with laws from which they cannot deviate during the eternal ages of the past; and in their course have passed through every possible combination. The unstable ones have perished, and the stable ones have survived, and by means of this ever-reiterated process have at length emerged the order and adaptations of that portion of the universe which is destitute of life, without the intervention of intelligence. How these forces originated, and became endowed with their specific qualities, which have rendered them capable of effecting such marvellous results, we are asked to believe to be a secret into which the limitations of the human mind render it impossible for us to penetrate, and which must therefore remain forever unknown. But with respect to the process by which animated existence has been evolved, its language is less vague. Its theory is as follows. The original germs of life, the existence of which it is compelled to postulate, and which, in a manner wholly unaccounted for, became possessed of a most convenient power of generating their like, with a number of inconsiderable variations, produced a progeny greatly in excess of their means of subsistence. Hence originated among them a struggle for life, with the effect that the weaker living forms have perished, and the stronger, i.e., those better adapted to their environment, have survived. This struggle has been continued during an indefinite number of ages. This theory is called the theory of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence; and modern atheistic unbelief propounds it, aided by another theory, viz., that of sexual selection, and a third, viz., that of the accumulation of habits through a long succession of transmissions from remote ancestors, which have gradually become fixed, as an adequate account of the origin of all the adaptations and correlations which are presented in the existing forms of animal and vegetable life. This theory utterly breaks down, as affording even a specious account of the origin of these adaptations and correlations at several points. First, it fails to account for the origin of life, or to show that it is possible to produce living out of non-living matter. Until it can effect this, it is simply useless for the purposes of atheism. Strange to say, unbelief is now compelled to live by faith. It is confident that the discovery will be made hereafter. Secondly, it fails to give any account of the origin of those qualities, which the original germs of life must have possessed, in order that a starting point may be found for the course of evolution which it propounds. Thirdly, it assumes the concurrence of a multitude of fortunate chances (I use the word chance in the sense above described), so numerous as to approximate to the infinite, of what common sense and reason refuse to believe to be possible, and which hopelessly conflicts with the mathematical doctrine of chances and probabilities. Fourthly, it demands an interval of time for the carrying out of this vast process of evolution, which although abstractedly possible, other branches of science refuse to concede to it as lying within the existing order of things. Fifthly, it utterly fails to bridge over that profound gulf which separates the moral from the material universe, the universe of freedom from the universe of necessity. All that it can urge with respect to the origin of life and of free agency, is that it hopes to be able to propound a theory at some future time which shall be able to account for these phenomena. Sixthly, the theory in question, including the Darwinian theory of the production of the entire mass of organisms that have existed in the past, and exist in the present, by the sole agency of natural selection, without the intervention of intelligence, is, in fact, a restatement in a disguised form of the old theory of the production of all the adaptations and correlations in the universe, by the concurrence of an infinite number of fortunate chances--a theory which contradicts the primary intuitions of our intellectual being. Seventhly, as a fact, the recorded observations by mankind for the last, say, four thousand years, show no instance of evolution of one species from another, but display variation, not infinite but limited, and recurrent to the original form. Eighthly, as a fact, geology (Palaeontology) shows the same absence of such evolution and of indefinite variation. Ninthly, all the ascertained facts point only to creation by a plan, or in accordance with a rule, which permits variability within discoverable limits, and requires adaptation, and therefore furnishes no evidence of evolution of species. Let me set before the reader in two sentences the result of the foregoing reasonings. The atheistic theory of evolution utterly breaks down as affording a rational account of the origin of adaptations and correlations with which every region of the universe abounds. Consequently the theistic account of their origin, which satisfies alike sound philosophy and common sense, is the only adequate one; or, in other words, they have originated in an intelligence which is possessed of a power adequate to their production.
IV. THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS FURNISHED BY CONSCIENCE AND THE MORAL NATURE OF MAN. Two universes exist beside each other. One, in which the laws of necessity dominate; the other in which free agency is the essential factor. The first may be designated the material, and the second the moral universe. These are separated from each other by a gulf which no theory of evolution can bridge over. When the first free agent came into existence, a power essentially different from any which had preceded it was introduced into that universe, where necessary law had hitherto reigned supreme. The question therefore presents itself, and demands solution: How did it originate? It could not have produced itself. It therefore issued from a cause adequate to produce it. That cause must ultimately resolve itself into the first cause of the universe, that is, God. From this follow the following conclusions--Man is a free agent; therefore God must be a free agent. Mans free agency is limited by conditions; but God is not limited by conditions. Therefore His free agency is more absolute and perfect than the free agency of man. A moral universe exists. God is the cause of its existence. Therefore the essential principles of morality, as affirmed by conscience, and witnessed by the moral nature of man, must exist in God. Personality exists in man as an essential portion of his moral nature; therefore, He who framed man, i.e., God, must be a person, who is at the same time the Creator, the Upholder, and the moral Governor of the universe which He has created. Such are the inferences which we are entitled to draw by the aid of our reason respecting the existence and the moral character of God. (Preb. Row, M. A.)
Pantheism
We object to this system as follows.
1. Its idea of God is self-contradictory, since it makes Him infinite, yet consisting only of the finite; absolute, yet existing in necessary relation to the universe; supreme, yet shut up to a process of self-evolution and dependent for self-consciousness on man; without self-determination, yet the cause of all that is.
2. Its assumed unity of substance is not only without proof, but it directly contradicts our intuitive judgments. These testify that we are not parts and particles of God, but distinct personal subsistences.
3. It assigns no sufficient cause for that fact of the universe which is highest in rank, and therefore most needs explanation, namely, the existence of personal intelligences. A substance which is itself unconscious, and under the law of necessity, cannot produce beings who are self-conscious and free.
4. It therefore contradicts the affirmations of our moral and religious natures by denying mans freedom and responsibility; by making God to include in Himself all evil as well as all good; and by precluding all prayer, worship, and hope of immortality.
5. Our intuitive conviction of the existence of a God of absolute perfection compels us to conceive of God as possessed of every highest quality and attribute of men, and therefore, especially, of that which constitutes the chief dignity of the human spirit, its personality. (A. H. Strong, D. D.)
The end of God in creation
I. LET US FIRST EXPLAIN WHAT WE MEAN BY THE END OF GOD IN CREATION. It will be seen at once that an ultimate end, or that for which all other ends in the series exist, and from which they derive their importance, is in the mind of the agent his chief end. It is contended by some that the same series of subordinate ends may have more than one ultimate end, of which one may be chief, and the others inferior ends. This was the opinion of Edwards. He says: Two different ends may be both ultimate ends, and yet not be chief ends. They may be both valued for their own sake, and both sought in the same work or acts, and yet one valued more highly and sought more than another. Thus a man may go a journey to obtain two different benefits or enjoyments, both which may be agreeable to him in themselves considered, and so both may be what he values on their own account, and seeks for their own sake; and yet one may be much more agreeable than the other; and so be what he sets his heart chiefly upon, and seeks most after in his going a journey. Thus a man may go a journey partly to obtain the possession and enjoyment of a bride that is very dear to him, and partly to gratify his curiosity in looking in a telescope, or some new invented and extraordinary optic glass. Both may be ends that he seeks in his journey, and the one not properly subordinate, or in order to another. One may not depend on another, and therefore both may be ultimate ends; but yet the obtaining his beloved bride may be his chief end, and the benefit of the optic glass his inferior end. The former may be what he sets his heart most upon, and so be properly the chief end of his journey. Our view differs somewhat from that of Edwards upon this point. As these different objects are to be obtained by the same course of action, or by the same series of subordinate ends, we believe it would be speaking more correctly to represent them as forming one compound ultimate end, rather than two distinct ultimate ends. Again: The ends or purposes of intelligent beings are divided into subjective and objective ends. The subjective end has reference to the feelings and desires of the agent or being, which are to be gratified by the selection and accomplishment of the objective end. It consists in the gratification of these feelings and desires. The objective end is the thing to be done or brought to pass, and to the accomplishment of which the agent is prompted by these feelings, affections, or desires. It is not the subjective end of God in creating the universe that we seek. We know this must have been based in the perfections of His character; it must have been for the gratification of His infinite benevolence, His boundless love, that He adopted and spake into being the present system of things. But there must be some objective end toward which He is impelled by His benevolence and love, and for the accomplishment of which the present system was caused to exist. It is this objective end that we are endeavouring to ascertain.
II. WE PROCEED TO POINT OUT WHAT WE CONSIDER GODS END IN CREATION TO HAVE BEEN. And here we premise that whatever this end was, it was something in the order of time future; that is, something yet to be obtained or accomplished. It would be absurd to suppose a being to adopt and carry out a plan to obtain a good, or to accomplish an end which was already obtained or accomplished. We are now prepared for the general statement that, according to our view, the end of God in creation is not to be found in Himself--that God is not His own end. The differences between Edwards and ourself upon this point may be traced mainly to a distinction which he has omitted to make, but which we deem of great importance. We mean the distinction which exists between the display of the attributes and perfections of God, and the effect produced by that display upon the mind of the beholder. These attributes and perfections belong to God; their display is the act of God; but the impression made upon the mind of another, by this display, forms no part of God; it is not the act of God, but the result of that act; it is an effect which was not produced, nor does it exist in the mind of God, but which was produced and exists in the mind of the creature. The importance of this distinction will be made apparent hereafter. That God could not have been His own end in creation, we argue from the infinite fulness of His nature. We can conceive of but one way in which a being can become his own objective end in anything he does, and that is by supposing that he is destitute of something of which he feels the needs, and consequently desires for himself. To illustrate: Take the scholar who pursues with diligence his studies; he may do this because he delights in knowledge, and his ultimate objective end may be an increase of knowledge; or he may do it because knowledge will render him more worthy of esteem. In either case, the ultimate end is to be found in himself, and in both the idea of defect on the part of the agent is prominent. Were his knowledge already perfect, there would be no need that he should study to increase it. Now until some defect is found to exist in God--until it can be shown that He does not possess, and has not from eternity possessed, infinite fulness; that there is in His case some personal want unsupplied, it is impossible to show that God is His own end in creation. But it may be well to dwell more at large upon this part of the subject.
1. Gods own happiness could not be His ultimate end in creation. It will be borne in mind, that the ultimate end is something in the future, something yet to be accomplished. Gods happiness can be made His end in creation in only two ways--by increasing it, or by continuing it, But this happiness can never be increased, for it is already perfect in kind, and infinite in degree. And the only way in which the continuance of this happiness can be made Gods end in creation is by supposing it necessary order to the continued gratification of His benevolent feelings. While the feelings of Gods heart are fully gratified He must be happy; and we admit that His failing to accomplish any purpose, and thus failing to gratify these feelings, would disappoint and render Him unhappy. So that the continued gratification of these feelings, and thus the continuance of His happiness, was undoubtedly an end of God in creation; but, as we have seen, this was His subjective, and not His objective end. We perceive, then, that Gods happiness, either in its increase or continuance, is not the end for which we seek.
2. Gods attributes, natural or moral, could not have been His end in creation. The only ways in which we can conceive the attributes of God to be His end in creation, are to increase them, to exercise them, or to display them. The first could not have been His end, for the increase of attributes already infinite is impossible. It will be seen that Edwards makes the exercise of Gods infinite attributes a thing desirable in itself, and one of His ends in creation. If we understand him, he teaches that God exerted His infinite power and wisdom in creation for the sake of exerting them; their exercise was in itself excellent, and one ultimate object or end which Deity had in view in exerting them, was that they might be exerted. That is, the exercise itself, and the end of that exercise, are the same thing. To show the absurdity of this position, we remark--
(1) The moral attributes of God were not exercised at all in the work of creation. Benevolence cannot create, nor justice, nor mercy. The only attributes which were, or could have been exerted by God in the work of creation, are His infinite wisdom to contrive, and His eternal power to execute. We admit that the gratification of the benevolent feelings of Gods heart led Him to exercise these natural attributes in one direction rather than another; but the gratification of these feelings, as has been already shown, is the subjective end of God in creation. But it may be asked, Did not the work of creation furnish an occasion for the exercise of Gods moral attributes, viz., His benevolence, justice, and mercy? Certainly it did. But that which is a mere incident of creation cannot be its end.
(2) To suppose God to exercise His natural attributes or powers, simply for the sake of exercising them, or that this forms any part of His ultimate end in exercising them, is a supposition entirely unworthy of Deity. We deny that there is anything excellent in itself in the exercise of natural powers, simply for the sake of exercising them: and this denial holds good whether these powers are finite or infinite; whether they belong to the creature or to the Creator. The truth is, that all the excellence which attaches to the exercise of natural powers, depends upon and is borrowed from, their designed results. The exercise of Gods wisdom and power in the work of creation is excellent, because the designed result is excellent, and for no other reason. It is evident, then, that the mere exercise of Gods attributes, whether natural or moral, forms no part of His ultimate end in creation. Nor can the mere display of His attributes form any part of Gods end in creation. Now the position we take is, that such a display as this, considered separately from any effect to be produced upon mind by it, formed no part of Gods end in creation. We are led to this conclusion, because such a display, simply in the light of a display, and aside from the effect it produces upon intelligent mind, is entirely valueless. God understood and delighted in His own attributes just as perfectly before this display as afterward, and, aside from its effect upon other minds, it must be made in vain; which is unworthy of the Great Supreme. What would be thought of an author who should write and publish a book simply to display the powers of his mind, without any idea of having it read to produce an effect upon other minds? Let us recapitulate, and see to what point we have arrived. We started with the proposition, that God was not His own end in creation; or that Gods end in creation cannot be found in Himself. We have shown that Gods happiness was not His end; that His attributes, natural and moral, whether we consider their increase, their exercise, or their display, were not, and could not have been His end. We have shown that His end, could not consist in any good which He expected to receive, or was capable of receiving from His creatures, owing to impressions made upon their minds by the display of His attributes in the work of creation. We know of no other way in which God can be His own end in creation. And if there is no other way, then the end which we seek is not to be found in God, and we must look for it in some other direction. To this view it is objected by Edwards, that the supposition that Gods end is out of Himself militates against His entire and absolute independence. We must, says he, conceive of the efficient as depending on His ultimate end. He depends on this end in His desires, aims, actions, and pursuits; so that He fails in all His desires, actions, and pursuits, if He fails of His end. Now if God Himself be His last end, then in His dependence on His end, He depends on nothing but Himself. If all things be of Him, and to Him, and He the first and last, this shows Him to be all in all: He is all to Himself. He goes not out of Himself for what He seeks; but His desires and pursuits, as they originate from, so they terminate in Himself; and He is dependent on none but Himself in the beginning or end of any of His exercises or operations. But if not Himself, but the creature, be His last end, then, as He depends on His last end, He is in some sort dependent on the creature. The fallacy of the position assumed in this objection lies in the supposition that the relation which subsists between the happiness of a being and the accomplishment of his ends has to do with his independence. The question of independence is based upon entirely a different principle, viz., that of the power or ability of the being. If he possesses in himself the power to accomplish his ends, without aid from any other source, then, as far as they are concerned, he is entirely independent; and this is equally true, whether these ends are within or without himself. If a being had no power, or not power sufficient to accomplish his ends, were they all within himself, he would still be dependent: on the other hand, if he has within himself absolute power to accomplish all his ends, although these ends are out of himself, he is still independent. The question of independence has nothing to do with the position of these ends; but it has everything to do with the ability of the agent to execute them. So the question of Gods independence does not depend upon the position of His ends, but upon His perfect ability to accomplish them, whatever they are, and wherever they may be located. Having shown that Gods end in creation is not in Himself--and having answered the objection of Edwards to this position, the question returns, Where and what is this end? We shall now attempt to answer this question by the following train of reasoning:--
1. The attributes of God are most wonderfully displayed in the work of creation. His power and wisdom are everywhere conspicuous. So, likewise, the moral excellencies of His character are written in sunbeams upon the works of His hand: and to minds not darkened by sin, these excellencies stand out in bold relief. Now a display of this character must produce a powerful effect upon intelligent mind; and upon the supposition that the mind is perfectly formed and rightly attuned, the effect must be blessed indeed. The result to which we come, then, is, that the display of the Divine perfections would produce an effect upon mind, perfectly organized and undisturbed by adverse influences, which would cause the recipient to admire and love the Lord his God with all his heart, mind, and strength; and this effect would be limited only by his capacity.
2. There is another display or exhibition secured by, or consequent upon, the work of creation, viz., that of the attributes, both natural and moral, of the creatures themselves.
3. There is still another effect secured by the work of creation, and the display consequent upon, it, viz., that produced upon a being by the display of his own powers, attributes, or qualities. These he becomes acquainted with by consciousness, and by a careful observation of their workings in various directions. The impression which these attributes of self must make upon the mind of self, provided this mind is perfect in its organization, and undisturbed by adverse influences, will be in exact proportion to the worth of self in the scale of being. This is self-love as distinguished from selfishness; which is self-love overleaping its boundaries, or overflowing its banks. We have arrived, then, at the following result, viz., that the effect which the display of character consequent upon the work of creation is calculated to produce upon perfect mind, is admiration of love toward, and delight in God, to the full extent of the powers of the creature, and love to self, and all creature intelligences, measured by their worth in the scale of being. In other words, it is entire conformity to the moral law, which consists in loving God with all the soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbour as ourself. This is the result of the action of perfect mind in the direction of perfection itself, it is easy to perceive that perfect bliss, happiness, or delight midst inhere in, or constitute a part of such action--and this, not merely in the sense of art effect, but that it must be woven into its very texture, so as to form a part of its web and woof. This effect is denominated holiness; and as it is produced in the mind of the creature, and not in the mind of God (who was perfectly and infinitely holy before creation began), we call it creature holiness, i.e., holiness belonging to the creature; and the happiness which inheres therein and forms a part of it is, for the same reason, creature happiness. The production of this effect upon the minds of intelligent creatures, we believe to have been Gods end in creation--that end without which the universe would not have existed. This position thrown into the form of a proposition would run thus: Gods last end in creation was to secure the greatest possible amount of creature holiness, and of that happiness which inheres in and forms a part of such holiness. Or thus: The ultimate, objective end for which God created the universe, was the production of the greatest possible amount of creature holiness and happiness. We use the term creature holiness and happiness in opposition to the position of Edwards, that this holiness and happiness are emanations from God in such a sense, that they are communicated to the creature from His fulness; so that, in fact, they are Gods holiness and happiness diffusing themselves among the creatures of His empire. He holds that communication of holiness and happiness formed a part of Gods last end, or one of His ultimate ends, in creation. But then, to carry out his theory, which makes God His own end, he calls this holiness and happiness an emanation from Deity Himself, like a fountain overflowing its banks, or sending forth its waters in streams. The idea that creation is an emanation from God is not strictly true. It is a production of God, and a production of something out of nothing, not an emanation from Him. We can see how the benevolence of God could lead Him to purpose from all eternity to create the universe at a certain time,--in which case, the universe would not exist until that time arrived. But we cannot see how an original tendency can exist in God, for something to flow out of Himself, as water streams from a fountain, unless the flowing out co-exists with the tendency; and if so, then the universe has co-existed with God, that is, it has existed from eternity. The phraseology used by Edwards would go to show that the universe is a part of God; and that the holiness of the creature is simply Gods holiness communicated to the creature. He says: The disposition to communicate Himself, or diffuse His own fulness, which we must conceive of as being originally in God as a perfection of His nature, was what moved Him to create the world.. . .But the diffusive disposition that excited God to give creatures existence was rather a communicative disposition in general, or a disposition in the fulness of the divinity to flow out and diffuse itself. If these statements are correct, then the creation must be a part of the fulness of God. If the act of creating was the flowing out and the diffusion of the Divinity itself, then the result must have been a part of that divinity; or, in other words, the universe must be a part of God. Again, in speaking of the knowledge, holiness, and joy of the creature, he says: These things are but the emanations of Gods own knowledge, holiness, and joy. So that the universe is not only a part of God, but the very attributes of His intelligent creatures, their perfections, their holiness and happiness, are only communications of the perfections, the holiness and happiness of God: they are Gods perfections, Gods holiness and happiness, communicated by Him to the creature. We believe that the universe, instead of being an emanation from Deity, is the work of His hand; instead of being the overflowing of His fulness, it is a creation of His omnipotence--a causing something to exist out of nothing; and the holiness and happiness of creatures, instead of being the holiness and happiness of God communicated to them, consists in their conformity to the rule of right, and that delight which inheres in and is consequent upon such conformity. The production of these, or the securing them to the greatest possible extent, we hold to be Gods last end in creation. We repeat, then, that the ultimate objective end of God in creating the universe was, to secure the greatest possible amount of creature holiness and happiness. Our reasons for this opinion are as follows:
1. As we have seen, Gods ultimate end must be something desirable in itself, and not desired merely as a means to an end. The holiness of God is the most excellent thing in the universe; and next to it, is the holiness of His creatures. Gods end in creation could not have been to promote the former, for it was perfect from eternity. It must, therefore, have been to promote the latter, which is so excellent in itself, and so much to be prized for its results, that it is entirely worthy to be the ultimate end of Jehovah. But it may be asked, May not Gods end in creation have been to display His own holiness, on account of the delight He takes in having that holiness praised, loved, and adored? No doubt God delights to have the perfections of His character praised, loved, and adored; but, is this delight selfish, or is it benevolent? If selfish, then it is sin. If benevolent, then it is a delight in holiness. God delights to be praised, loved, and adored, because this praise, love, and adoration, form the principal ingredient in holiness; and as it is the creature who praises, loves, and adores, so that this effect is produced in the mind and heart of the creature, we call it creature holiness.
2. We argue that creature holiness is the end of God in creation, from the fact that for God to promote His own glory, or to promote such a state of mind in the creature as will lead the creature to glorify Him, is the same thing as to promote holiness in the creature. The Scriptures teach that God does what He does for His own names sake, or, which is the same thing, for His glorys sake; and we are commanded, whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, to do all to the glory of God. If, therefore, Gods glory, and Gods being glorified, as they are set forth in the Scriptures, differ from creature holiness, then His holiness is not the end of God in creation; but if they can be shown to be the same thing, then is it His last great end in creating the universe. Gods glory consists either in that which constitutes His intrinsic glory, or in that in which He delights and glories, as something which He desires and seeks to accomplish above everything else; or in that state of mind in others, which leads them to praise and glorify Him. That Gods intrinsic glory was not, and could not have been His end in creation, is evident from the fact that it was and is the same from eternity, before creation existed; it has never been in any sense changed or altered, nor is it possible that such change should take place: and it is perfectly evident that that which existed before an event, and is not in the least changed by the event, could not have been the end or object of that event. Again: If we mean, by Gods glory, that in which He delights and glories, as something which He desires and seeks to accomplish above everything else; then, as we contend, this something is holiness: and as it cannot be His own holiness (for He cannot seek to accomplish what is already accomplished), it must be creature holiness. That holiness is what God delights in above everything else, and desires to promote, is evident from the following considerations:
(1) It is the most excellent or desirable thing in the universe, and, therefore, God must delight in it supremely; it must be that in which He glories. This we have already illustrated.
(2) The moral law contains the foundation and essence of true holiness; and, if this law is (as it is universally admitted to be) a transcript of God, then does He delight supremely in holiness.
(3) The rewards and penalties which God has attached to His law, and the development which He has made of his feelings in the death of Christ, and the work of the Spirit, all go to show that He has set His heart supremely upon holiness, that He delights and glories in it, and seeks, above everything else, to promote it.
(4) The Scriptures teach that, without holiness, it is impossible to please God; and that faith is peculiarly pleasing in His sight, because of its relation to holiness; it appropriates the righteousness of Christ; it purifies the heart, and produces good works.
(5) It must be evident to every student of the Bible, and close observer of the providences of God, as they are developed in the history of the Church, that the whole economy of grace has for its object the production and conservation of sanctification or holiness; and that, when this is accomplished, the gracious economy will he exchanged for one purely legal.
(6) The transcendent glory of heaven consists in its holiness--nothing unclean or impure shall be admitted into it. These considerations go to show that God delights supremely in holiness, and that its production to the greatest possible extent is the thing upon which He has supremely set His heart. Again: If we mean by Gods glory, the impression made upon the minds of others, which leads them to praise and glorify Him, then vie say, This impression is holiness, and as it is made in the minds of creatures, it is creature holiness. When we love the Lord our God with all our soul, mind, and strength, we glorify Him for what He is in Himself; and when we love His creatures, according to their worth in the scale of being, we glorify Him through His creatures, as the servants of His household, and the subjects of His empire. If we are holy, we shall glorify God; and if we glorify God, we shall be holy. The one cannot exist without the other; and they resolve themselves into the same thing. This view perfectly accords with the Scriptures. As our limits forbid an extended examination, we will select from those passages quoted by Edwards, to prove that God is His own end in creation. The first class are those which speak of God as the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Isa_44:6; Rev Rev_1:11). These passages simply teach the eternity and absolute sovereignty of God. They have nothing to do with His end in creation; and the wonder is that a divine like Edwards should have quoted them for such a purpose. A second class of passages are those which declare everything to have been created for God (Col_1:16; Heb_2:10). These texts teach that God is the Creator and Proprietor of all things--that they were made by Him, and for His use; but they do not decide what use God intends to make of them, nor what end He means to accomplish by them. They have no sort of bearing upon the question under discussion. A third class are those passages which speak of Gods glory as the end of all things. They may be arranged under three heads.
1. Those passages which speak of what God does as being done for His names sake, or for His own glory (Isa_43:6-7; Isa_60:21;2Sa_7:23; Psa_106:8). These texts teach that God does what He does, to lead His subjects to praise and glorify Him, and to magnify His great and holy name; in other words, to love Him with all their soul, mind, and strength: and what is that but creature holiness?
2. Those passages which enjoin it upon the creature to do what he does to the glory of God (1Co_6:20; 1Co_10:31).
3. Those passages which speak of the glory of God as the result of certain acts of the creature (Php_1:11; Joh_15:8). But how is itthat, being filled with the fruits of righteousness, and bearing much fruit, glorifies God? It does this in two ways: These fruits are holiness embodied in the life, and they present the transcendent excellence of Gods ultimate end in creation. They produce their effect upon other minds, and lead them to praise and glorify God, and thus promote holiness in them. To love and adore God with all the heart, is to glorify God; and to love and adore God with all the heart, is holiness in exercise: so that, in this sense, Gods glory and the exercise of holy affections are the same thing. And to lead others to love and adore God with all the heart, is to lead them to glorify God; and to lead others to love and adore God with all the heart, is to lead them to exercise holy affections: so that to promote the glory of God in others, and to promote holiness in them, is the same thing. The end of God in creation, then, as we think we have shown, is not in Himself, but consists in the promotion of creature holiness, and that happiness which may appropriately be called the happiness of holiness. (W. C. Wisner.)
The creative laws and the Scripture revelation
It is proposed to examine the general teaching of the Scriptures in the light of six laws, according to which, by the common consensus of competent authorities, the Creator worked in the production of this present terrestrial order.
1. The first of these laws is the law of progress. It may be taken as a fact, settled by overwhelming scientific evidence, and no less clearly affirmed in Genesis, that the world was not created all at once, and that there was a certain order in which its various parts appeared. It was, without an exception, an order under a law of progress; first, that which was lower, afterward that which was higher. The illustrations are so familiar that they scarcely need to be mentioned. Is this law of progress still in force; or is the progress ended, and is man, as we know him, the last and highest form of life that earth shall see? The impossibility of further progress cannot therefore be argued on the ground of inconceivability. It can only be established if it be proved beyond controversy that the end of creation has been reached in man. Is there sufficient reason to believe this? Reason itself teaches that if there be a personal God, the Creator of all, then the self-manifestation of God must be the highest end of the earthly creation. When, therefore, the Holy Scripture tells us of the appearance on earth of a God-man, the perfect image of the invisible God, and of a new order of manhood begotten by a new birth into union with this second man, and renewed after the image of the Creator, to be manifested hereafter in a corresponding embodiment and in a changed environment, through a resurrection from the dead, all this is so far from being contrary to the order established in creation, that it is in full accord therewith, and only furnishes a new illustration of that law of progress according to which God worked from the beginning.
2. A second law which has been discovered to have been characteristic of the creative process, is the law of progress by ages. That this was the law of Divine procedure is clear both from the book of revelation and of nature. There were periods of creative activity. The work had its evenings and its mornings, repeatedly recurring. The line of progress was not a uniform gradient; not an inclined plane, but a stairway, in which the steps were aeons. In each instance a new idea in the system of progress was introduced, and that fact constituted, in part at least, the new age. But it may be further remarked, that each new age was marked, not merely by the presence, but by the dominance, of a higher type of life than the one preceding. Now we have seen that, according to Scripture, the law of progress is still in force; after man as he now is, shall appear manifested in the earth a humanity of a higher type than the present animal man, namely, the spiritual man, as Paul calls him. Does the Scripture also recognize this plan of progress by ages as still the plan of God? The contrast between the present age and that which is to come, is indeed one of the fundamental things in the inspired representation of the divinely established order. And we can now see how, in this mode of representation, the Scriptures speak with scientific precision, and harmonize completely with the best certified conceptions of nineteenth century science. Not only, according to their teaching, is there to be still further progress, progress manifested in the introduction of a new and higher type of manhood, even that which is from heaven, but the introduction of that new manhood of the resurrection to dominance in the creation is uniformly represented as marking the beginning of a new age. And just herein, according to the Scripture, lies the contrast between the age which now is and that which is to come; that in the age which is now, the dominant type of life is that of the natural, or animal, man; in that which is to come, the dominant type of life shall be spiritual or resurrection manhood, manifested in men described by our Lord as those who cannot die any more, but are equal unto the angels.
3. Another law of the Divine working in the bygone ages of the earths history, we may call the law of anticipative or prophetic forms. This law has been formulated by Professor Agassiz in the following words, which have been endorsed by the most recent authorities as correctly representing the facts: Earlier organic forms often appear to foreshadow and predict others that are to succeed them in time, as the winged and marine reptiles of the Mesozoic age foreshadow the birds and cetaceans (that were to succeed them in the next age). There were reptiles before the Reptilian age; mammals before the Mammalian age. These appear now like a prophecy in that earlier time of an order of things not possible with the earlier combinations then prevailing in the animal kingdom. Such, then, has been the law in all the past ages. Is it still in force, or is its operation ended? What a momentous question! How full of both scientific and religious interest! For even on scientific grounds, as has been shown, we are led to anticipate an age to come which shall be marked by the dominance of a type of life higher than the present. And, as we have seen, the suggestion of science is in this case confirmed by Scripture, which describes the life and characteristics of that age to come, as science could not. Such descriptions are not very minute, but so far as they go they are very definite and clear. Perhaps the most full and clear single statement is that found in the words of Christ to the Sadducees, to whom He spoke of an age to follow the present, to be inherited by men in resurrection; a type of men who neither marry nor are given in marriage. Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luk_20:35-36). Men incapable of subjection to death, sons of God, perfectly holy--such is the race which shall come to headship in creation in the future age. Herein again, then, the record of Scripture is consistent at once with the system of law as revealed in the past, and with itself, in that, having predicted an age to come, to be inherited by the higher order of resurrection manhood, it sets forth also, as historic fact, the appearance of anticipative forms in the age which now is. Not to speak of the cases of Enoch and Elijah, we have an Illustrious instance of a prophetic type in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. In Him was manifested a type of life transcending beyond measure embodied life as we know it here. It appeared in One who claimed to be the Son of God, and who manifested powers, in proof of this claim, such as well befitted it--powers which later, by one of His disciples, were suggestively called powers of the age to come, and who finally became the firstborn from the dead, being the firstborn son of the resurrection.
4. Another law to be observed in the Divine working in the early history of the earth, is the law of creative interpositions. We must, on scientific grounds, affirm creative intervention at least in the origination of matter, and of life, and of free moral agents. The only alternative is absolute agnosticism on this subject. So much, then, as regards the past. Creative interposition appears as included in the system of law. How is it as regards the future? Are we now done with these manifestations of creative power, or shall they, according to the Scripture, be witnessed again in the future? For we are taught, as we have seen, that the present age, marked by the presence and dominance of the animal man, shall end; and that another age shall then follow, marked by the introduction of a new physical order, a new heavens and a new earth,--an order of things to be inherited by an order of men called by our Lord children of God and sons of the resurrection, sexless, sinless, and incapable of dying. Has the man of the present age power to raise himself into this exalted order of life? No one will pretend this. In particular, the natural, or psychical, animal man of the present age cannot by any self-development or self-culture raise himself into the order of the spiritual manhood of the coming age. For regeneration and for resurrection alike he is powerless. Hence Holy Scripture tells us with utmost plainness that what has been in time past, is now and shall be again. It tells us that even in this present age the creative power of God is secretly working, in the new birth of those who are chosen to become the sons of God and heirs of the age to come, and therefore styles the regenerated man a new creature. As yet, however, it is but the faint dawn of the creative morning. When the day breaks, the same Scriptures teach us, shall be seen a new and magnificent display of the creative might of God, introducing a new heavens and a new earth, and bringing in also the sons of the resurrection with their spiritual bodies to inherit the glory. For as the new order of the new age shall itself be introduced by creative power, so shall the new manhood which is destined to inherit that order. For resurrection is by no possibility the outcome of a natural process; it will be the direct result of an act of the almighty power of God.
5. Reference may be made to another law of the Divine administration in the earlier terrestrial history. It may be called the law of exterminations. The rocks bear testimony to the fact that from time to time during the long creative ages, at the close of one great period after another, there occurred exterminations, more or less extensive, of various orders of life. Professor Dana, for instance, tells us, At the close of each period of the Palaeozoic ages, there was an extermination of a large number of living species; and, as each epoch terminated . . . one, in most cases, less general. In particular, he says, again, that at the close of the Cretaceous age there was an extermination remarkable for its universality and thoroughness; the vast majority of the species, and nearly all the characteristic genera disappeared. The same thing occurred again at the close of the Tertiary, and again in the Quaternary. The causes of these various exterminations were different in different instances. Often they were due to the elevation or submergence of extensive areas of the earths surface; sometimes to the more sudden and rapid action of earthquakes; sometimes, within narrow limits, they were caused by fiery eruptions from the interior of the earth. Sometimes, again, they were due to changes of climate more or less extensive, through the operation of causes which need not be here detailed. As a matter of fact, it appears that the inbringing of a higher order of life and organization commonly involved the extermination of various genera and species unsuited to the new environment. This was demonstrably a part of the plan of God in the development of His creative thoughts. Even lesser divisions of the great creative aeons were sometimes marked in like manner. Up to the present human period, therefore, there has been in force a law of exterminations, operating under the conditions specified. But yet another age, according to Scripture, is to succeed the present. Is there reason to anticipate that when the point shall be reached of transition from the present to the coming age, the law of exterminations will again take effect? Does Scripture give any hint in answer to this question, and is it here again in harmony with scientific discovery as regards the laws of the past? The reader will have anticipated the answer which must be given. For it is the repeated declaration of the New Testament Scriptures that the present age shall end, as earlier ages have sometimes ended, with catastrophic changes; this next time, with a catastrophe, not of water, but of fire, giving a new and very terrible application of the ancient law of exterminations. For we are told that a day is coming when the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. The day for which the present heavens and earth are reserved into fire, shall also be a day of the perdition of ungodly men. 2Pe_3:7).
6. Yet one other law of the creative working may be discerned as we study the record of the rocks. We may well call it the law of preparation. It were thinkable, since God is almighty, that each age should have been introduced as something absolutely new, having no connection with the ages that had preceded it; that He should have prepared the earth for the new orders of life which were to inhabit it, by a direct act of creative power. But, as a matter of fact, God did not do in this way. On the contrary, He so constituted the successive ages in the earths history that each was a preparation for that which was to come afterward. Illustrations are as numerous as the ages and periods of geologic time. Each age had its roots, so to speak, in the age or ages that had preceded it. Indeed, the whole Scripture history is a series of illustrations of this law. Just as in the geologic ages, here were subordinate periods, less sharply distinct indeed, into which the greater ages were subdivided, so the Scriptures divide the whole present age of the natural man into what, in theological and biblical language, we call successive dispensations. In the case of each of these we may see this law of preparation exemplified. Each dispensation was in order to another which was to follow. The Adamic age prepared for the Noachian; the Noachian, for the Mosaic; the Mosaic--and indeed all of these again--for the Christian. So also, according to the same revelation, shall it prove to be as regards the whole great age of the natural man. In a manner still more momentous and comprehensive, this age is set forth as a preparation for the age which is to come, the resurrection age. This may be true even in a physical sense. For in the new age, according to Isaiah, Peter, and John, there is to be a new earth, which shall appear out of the fires which shall yet consume the present world; and for this and the physical changes which shall thus be brought about, we know not what forces may not even now silently be working beneath our very feet. They teach this as regards regeneration and sanctification. These are preparatory in their nature. It is thus that the new man is made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Even death, whether it be of the saint or of the sinner, has its part in the preparatory plan. The application of this is evident. Whence such a harmony in the one case, and in such unexpected directions, for which we search in the authoritative books of other religions in vain? Whence had these men who wrote the Scriptures this their wisdom? Assume what they claim for themselves, a special inspiration from the Former of the universe Himself, and then the harmony with the original system of natural law which pervades the representations of the past, present, and future, is what we should expect. Deny this, and how shall the fact be explained? Further, it is evident that the facts to which our attention has been directed, reverse the argument which one often hears from unbelievers against the probability of the truth of Scripture history and prophecy, derived from the observed uniformity of the system of natural law. Instead of saying that the observed invariability of the system of natural law makes the Scripture teachings with regard to the incarnation, the resurrection, the new heavens and the new earth, and the judgment by which they shall be introduced, to be intrinsically improbable, we must say the opposite! These thoughts also have a bearing on the theodicy. Much in the present age is dark with painful mystery. If there be a God infinite in holiness, goodness, and power, then, it has been asked in all ages, Why such a miserable, imperfect world? Why the earthquake, the pestilence, and the famine, with the destruction and agony they bring? Why sorrow, and sin, and death? Why the disappointed hopes, the darkened homes, empires wrecked, races degenerating, and disappearing from sight at last in a morass of moral corruptions? These questions burden the holy, while the scoffer answers in his desperation, There is no God such as you dream! If this were the last age of earth, it is hard to see how such questions could be answered. But if we recall to mind the ancient law of progress, and progress by ages, and that other law of preparation, we may be able to see--not indeed the answer to our questionings, but so much as shall enable us to hold fast, without wavering, our faith in the God of nature, of history, and of revelation. (S. Kellogg, D. D.)
Creation
I. DEFINITION OF CREATION. By creation we mean that free act of the triune God by which in the beginning for His own glory He made, without the use of pre-existing materials, the whole visible and invisible universe. In explanation we notice--
1. Creation is not production out of nothing, as if nothing were a substance out of which something could be formed.
2. Creation is not a fashioning of preexisting materials, nor an emanation from the substance of Deity, but is a making of that to exist which once did not exist, either in form or substance.
3. Creation is not an instinctive or necessary process of the Divine nature, but is the free act of a rational will, put forth for a definite and sufficient end. Creation is different in kind from that eternal process of the Divine nature in virtue of which we speak of generation and procession. Begetting is eternal, out of time; creation is in time, or with time.
4. Creation is the act of the triune God, in the sense that all the persons of the Trinity, themselves uncreated, have a part in it--the Father as the originating, the Son as the mediating, the Spirit as the realizing cause.
II. PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION. Creation is a truth of which mere science or reason cannot fully assure us. Physical science can observe and record changes, but it knows nothing of origins. Reason cannot absolutely disprove the eternity of matter. For proof of the doctrine of Creation, therefore, we rely wholly upon Scripture. Scripture supplements science, and renders its explanation of the universe complete,
III. THEORIES WHICH OPPOSE CREATION.
1. Dualism. Of dualism there are two forms.
(1) That which holds to two self-existent principles, God and matter. These are distinct from and co-eternal with each other. Matter, however, is an unconscious, negative, and imperfect substance, which is subordinate to God, and is made the instrument of His will. This was the view of the Alexandrian Gnostics. It was essentially an attempt to combine with Christianity the Platonic conception of the ὕλη. In this way it thought to account for the existence of evil, and to escape the difficulty of imagining a production without use of preexisting material. A similar view has been held in modern times by John Stuart Mill, and apparently by Frederick W. Robertson. With regard to this view we remark:
(a) The maxim ex nihilo nihil fit, upon which it rests, is true only in so far as it asserts that no event takes place without a cause. It is false, if it mean that nothing can ever be made except out of material previously existing. The maxim is therefore applicable only to the realm of second causes, and does not bar the creative power of the great first Cause. The doctrine of creation does not dispense with a cause; on the other hand, it assigns to the universe a sufficient cause in God. Martensen, Dogmatics, 116--The nothing out of which God creates the world, is the eternal possibilities of His will, which are the sources of all the actualities of the world.
(b) Although creation without the use of pre-existing material is inconceivable, in the sense of being unpicturable to the imagination, yet the eternity of matter is equally inconceivable. For creation without pre-existing material, moreover, we find remote analogies in our own creation of ideas and volitions, a fact as inexplicable as Gods bringing of new substances into being. Mivart, Lessons from Nature, 371,372--We have to a certain extent an aid to the thought of absolute creation in our own free volition, which, as absolutely originating and determining, may be taken as the type to us of the creative act. We speak of the creative faculty of the artist or poet. We cannot give reality to the products of our imaginations, as God can to his. But if thought were only substance, the analogy would be complete. Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1.467--Our thoughts and volitions are created ex nihilo, in the sense that one thought is not made out of another thought, nor one volition out of another volition.
(c) It is unphilosophical to postulate two eternal substances, when one self-existent Cause of all things will account for the facts.
(d) It contradicts our fundamental notion of God as absolute sovereign to suppose the existence of any other substance to be independent of His will.
(e) This second substance with which God must of necessity work, since it is, according to the theory, inherently evil and the source of evil, not only limits Gods power, but destroys His blessedness.
(f) This theory does not answer its purpose of accounting for moral evil, unless it be also assumed that spirit is material--in which case dualism gives place to materialism. The other form of dualism is:
(1) That which holds to the eternal existence of two antagonistic spirits, one evil and the other good. In this view, matter is not a negative and imperfect substance which nevertheless has self-existence, but is either the work or the instrument of a personal and positively malignant intelligence, who wages war against all good. This was the view of the Manichaeans. Manichaeanism is a compound of Christianity and the Persian doctrine of two eternal and opposite intelligences. Zoroaster, however, held matter to be pure, and to be the creation of the good Being. Mani apparently regarded matter as captive to the evil spirit, if not absolutely his creation. Of this view we need only say that it is refuted
(a) by all the arguments for the unity, omnipotence, sovereignty, and blessedness of God;
(b) by the Scripture representations of the prince of evil as the creature of God and as subject to Gods control.
2. Emanation. This theory holds that the universe is of the same substance with God, and is the product of successive evolutions from His being. This was the view of the Syrian Gnostics. Their system was an attempt to interpret Christianity in the forms of Oriental theosophy. A similar doctrine was taught, in the last century, by Swedenborg. We object to it upon the following grounds:
(1) It virtually denies the infinity and transcendence of God--by applying to Him a principle of evolution, growth, and progress which belongs only to the finite and imperfect.
(2) It contradicts the Divine holiness--since man, who by the theory is of the substance of God, is nevertheless morally evil.
(3) It leads logically to pantheism--since the claim that human personality is illusory cannot be maintained without also surrendering belief in the personality of God.
3. Creation from eternity. This theory regards creation as an act of God in eternity past. It was propounded by Origen, and has been held in recent times by Martensen. The necessity of supposing such creation from eternity has been argued upon the grounds--
(1) That it is a necessary result of Gods omnipotence. But we reply that omnipotence does not necessarily imply actual creation; it implies only power to create. Creation, moreover, is in the nature of the case a thing begun. Creation from eternity is a contradiction in terms, and that which is self-contradictory is not an object of power.
(2) That it is impossible to conceive of time as having had a beginning, and since the universe and time are co-existent, creation must have been from eternity. But we reply that the argument confounds time with duration. Time is duration measured by successions, and in this sense time can be conceived of as having had a beginning.
(3) That the immutability of God requires creation from eternity. But we reply that Gods immutability requires not an eternal creation but only an eternal plan of creation.
(4) That Gods love renders necessary a creation from eternity. Although this theory claims that creation is an act, in eternity past, of Gods free will, yet its conceptions of Gods omnipotence and love, as necessitating creation, are difficult to reconcile with the Divine independence or personality.
4. Spontaneous generation. This theory holds that creation is but the name for a natural process still going on--matter itself having in it the power, under proper conditions, of taking on new functions, and of developing into organic forms. This view is held by Owen and Bastian. We object that
(1) It is a pure hypothesis, not only unverified, but contrary to all known facts.
(2) If such instances could be authenticated, they would prove nothing as against a proper doctrine of creation--for there would still exist an impossibility of accounting for these vivific properties of matter, except upon the Scriptural view of an intelligent Contriver and Originator of matter and its laws. In short, evolution implies previous involution--if anything comes out of matter, it must first have been put in.
(3) This theory, therefore, if true, only supplements the doctrine of original, absolute, immediate creation, with another doctrine of mediate and derivative creation, or the development of the materials and forces originated at the beginning. This development, however, cannot proceed to any valuable end without the guidance of the same intelligence which initiated it.
IV. GODS END IN CREATION. In determining this end, we turn first to--
1. The testimony of Scripture. This may be summed up in four statements. God finds His end
(1) in Himself;
(2) in His own will and pleasure;
(3) in His own glory;
(4) in the making known of His power, His wisdom, His holy name.
All these statements may be combined in the following, namely, that Gods supreme end in creation is nothing outside of Himself, but is His own glory--in the revelation, in and through creatures, of the infinite perfection ofHis own being. Since holiness is the fundamental attribute in God, to make Himself, His own pleasure, His own glory, His own manifestation, to be His end in creation, is to find His chief end in His own holiness, its maintenance, expression, and communication. To make this His chief end, however, is not to exclude certain subordinate ends, such as the revelation of His wisdom, power, and love, and the consequent happiness of innumerable creatures to whom this revelation is made.
2. The testimony of reason. That His own glory, in the sense just mentioned, is Gods supreme end in creation, is evident from the following considerations:
(1) Gods own glory is the only end actually and perfectly attained in the universe. But while neither the holiness nor the happiness of creatures is actually and perfectly attained, Gods glory is made known and will be made known in both the saved and the lost. This, then, must be Gods supreme end in creation. This doctrine teaches us that none can frustrate Gods plan. God will get glory out of every human life.
(2) Gods glory is the end intrinsically most valuable. The good of creatures is of insignificant importance compared with this. Wisdom dictates that the greater interest should have precedence of the less.
(3) His own glory is the only end which consists with Gods independence and sovereignty. If anything in the creature is the last end of God, God is dependent upon the creature. But since God is dependent only on Himself, He must find in Himself His end. To create is not to increase His blessedness, but only to reveal it.
(4) His own glory is an end which comprehends and secures, as a subordinate end, every interest of the universe. The interests of the universe are bound up in the interests of God. Glory is not vain-glory, and in expressing His ideal, that is, in expressing Himself, in His creation, He communicates to His creatures the utmost possible good. This self-expression is not selfishness but benevolence. No true poet writes for money or for fame. God does not manifest Himself for the sake of what He can make by it. Self-manifestation is an end in itself. But Gods self-manifestation comprises all good to His creatures.
(5) Gods glory is the end which in a right moral system is proposed to creatures. This must therefore be the end which He in whose image they are made proposes to Himself.
V. RELATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION TO OTHER DOCTRINES.
1. To the holiness and benevolence of God. This is not a perfect world. It was not perfect even when originally constituted. Its imperfection is due to sin. God made it with reference to the Fall--the stage was arranged for the great drama of sin and redemption which was to be enacted thereon. We accept Bushnells idea of anticipative consequences, and would illustrate it by the building of a hospital room while yet no member of the family is sick, and by the salvation of the patriarchs through a Christ yet to come. If the earliest vertebrates of geological history were types of man and preparations for his coming, then pain and death among those same vertebrates may equally have been a type of mans sin and its results of misery. If sin bad not been an incident, foreseen and provided for, the world might have been a Paradise. As a matter of fact, it will become a paradise only at the completion of the redemptive work of Christ.
2. To the wisdom and free-will of God.
3. To providence and redemption. (A. H. Strong, D. D.)
The creation as a revelation of God
1. His omnipotence.
2. His wisdom.
3. His goodness.
4. His love. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
The world according to its various forms
1. As creation.
2. As nature.
3. As cosmos.
4. As aeon. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
The work of God and the work of man
What is different, and what is common to both.
1. The order.
2. The constancy.
3. The gradual progression.
4. The aim. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
The creation and revelation of life from God
1. The foundations of life in the elementary world.
2. The symbolical phenomena of life in the animal world.
3. The reality and truth of life in the human world. (J. P.Lange, D. D.)
The birth of the world also the birth of time
1. The fact that the world and time are inseparable.
2. The application.
(1) The operations in the world are bound to the order of time.
(2) Time is given for labour. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
The outline of creation
heaven and earth:--
1. Heaven and earth in union.
2. Earth for heaven.
3. Heaven for earth. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
Creation
How to begin to write the Bible must have been a question of great difficulty. The beginning which is given here commends itself as peculiarly sublime. Regard it as you please, as literal, historical, prabolical, it is unquestionably marked by adequate energy and magnificence of style. He finds that he must say something about the house before he says anything about the tenant, but he feels that that something must be the least possible.
I. THIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION IS DEEPLY RELIGIOUS, and from this fact I infer that the whole book of which it is the opening chapter is intended to be a religious and not a scientific revelation.
II. THIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION EVIDENTLY ADMITS OF MUCH ELUCIDATION AND EXPANSION. Moses does not say, I have told you everything, and if any man shall ever arise to make a note or comment upon my words, he is to be regarded as a liar and a thief. He gives rather a rough outline which is to be filled up as life advances. He says in effect This is the text, now let the commentators come with their notes. This first chapter of Genesis is like an acorn, for out of it have come great forests of literature; it must have some pith in it, and sap, and force, for verily its fertility is nothing less than a miracle.
III. This account of creation, though leaving so much to be elucidated, is in harmony with fact in a sufficient degree to GIVE US CONFIDENCE IN THE THINGS WHICH REMAIN TO BE ILLUSTRATED.
IV. THERE IS A SPECIAL GRANDEUR IN THE ACCOUNT WHICH IS HERE GIVEN OF THE ORIGIN OF MAN. Let Us make man--make, as if little by little, a long process, in the course of which man becomes a party to his own malting! Nor is this suggestion so wide of the mark as might at first appear. Is man not even now in process of being made? Must not all the members of the Us work upon him in order to complete him and give him the last touch of imperishable beauty? The Father has shaped him, the Son has redeemed him, the Spirit is now regenerating and sanctifying him, manifold ministries are now working upon him, to the end that he may come to a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. (J. Parker, D. D.)
God the Maker of heaven and earth
I. As regards the time of creation we are told nothing. There is no note of date or time until after the creation of Adam. Six successive periods of creation are spoken of, with no indication as to the length of each.
II. There is no contradiction, I think, between any result as to the worlds age at which science may arrive, and the record with which the Book of Genesis opens. Are there not clear indications that the creation of the world was not the result of the omnipotent act of a moment, but of the Divine creative energy working (as we ever still see it working) through gradual processes, through successive gradations?
III. As long as science keeps to her own great sphere of discovering and codifying facts, we have only to thank her for her labours. I need scarcely say, however, that a certain school of scientific men are not content with this. They leave the boundaries of science, and enter the domain of theology. They say, because we find these successive stages of progress in creation--this development of one period from another--we will regard matter as having in itself all power and potency of life. They will not mention God at all, or if they do it is merely as another name for law. In the law which they discover from its operations--in the potency which they find in matter itself, they see sufficient to account for all creation; and we can dispense with that myth which we call God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. It is here they impugn Genesis. It was not God who created these things; they were evolved from eternal matter, in accordance with irresistible law. The Bible is primarily a religious book. This chapter is not meant to tell us all the varied processes through which God carried on His great creative work. The lesson Moses had to tell the people he ruled when he brought them out of a land where material force was everything; where men worshipped the physical universe--the fruits of the field, and the moon and stars of heaven--was, that there was a God beyond all these; that these were only the works of His creative power. Without Him they could not be. It was not a scientific view of the material universe, but a religious view, that Moses wished to give these people. He sought to impress on them that, though these things passed through various add successive stages, God was there. God did it. (T. T. Shore, M. A.)
The creation
We must judge the book by the times.
I. The first principle to be inferred is that of THE UNITY OF GOD. One Divine Being is represented as the sole Cause of the universe. Now this is the only foundation of a true religion for humanity.
II. The next principle in this chapter is that ALL NOBLE WORK IS GRADUAL. God spent six days at His work, and then said it was very good. In proportion to the nobility of anything, is it long in reaching its perfection. The greatest ancient nation took the longest time to develope its iron power; the securest political freedom in a nation did not advance by bounds, or by violent revolutions, but in England broadened slowly down from precedent to precedent. The greatest modern society--the Church of Christ--grew as Christ prophesied, from a beginning as small as a grain of mustard seed into a noble tree, and grows now more slowly than other society has ever grown--so slowly, that persons who are not far-seeing say that it has failed. The same law is true of every individual Christian life. Faith, to be strong, must be of gradual growth. Love, to be unconquerable, must be the produce not of quick-leaping excitement, but of patience having her perfect work. Spiritual character must be moulded into the likeness of Christ by long years of battle and of trial, and we are assured that eternity is not too long to perfect it.
III. Connected with this universal principle is another--that THIS GRADUAL GROWTH OF NOBLE THINGS, CONSIDERED IN ITS GENERAL APPLICATION TO THE UNIVERSE, IS FROM THE LOWER TO THE HIGHER--is, in fact, a progress, not a retrogression. We are told in this chapter that first arose the inorganic elements, and then life--first the life of the plant, then of the animal, and then of man, the top and crown of things. It is so also in national life--first family life, then pastoral, then agricultural, then the ordered life of a polity, the highest. It is the same with religion. First, natural religion, then the dispensation of the law, then the more spiritual dispensation of the prophets, then the culmination of the external revelation through man in Christ, afterwards the higher inward dispensation of the universal Spirit, to be succeeded by a higher still--the immediate presence of God in all. So also with our own spiritual life. First, conviction of need, then the rapture of felt forgiveness, then Gods testing of the soul, through which moral strength and faith grow firm; and as these grow deeper, love, the higher grace, increasing; and as love increases, noble work and nobler patience making life great and pure, till holiness emerges, and we are at one with God; and then, finally, the Christian calm--serene old age, with its clear heaven and sunset light, to prophesy a new and swift approaching dawn for the emancipated spirit.
IV. The next truth to be inferred from this chapter is that THE UNIVERSE WAS PREPARED FOR THE GOOD AND ENJOYMENT OF MAN. I cannot say that this is universal, for the stars exist for themselves, and the sun for other planets than ours; and it is a poor thing to say that the life of animals and plants is not for their own enjoyment as well as ours! but so far as they regard us, it is an universal truth, and the Bible was written for our learning. Therefore, in this chapter, the sun and stars are spoken of only in their relation to us, and man is set as master over all creation. It is on the basis of this truth that man has always unconsciously acted, and made progress in civilization.
V. The next principle is THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF REST AND WORK. The Sabbath is the outward expression of Gods recognition of this as a truth for man. It was commanded because it was necessary. The Sabbath was made for man, said Christ. And the same principle ought to be extended over our whole existence.
VI. Lastly, there is one specially spiritual principle which glorifies this chapter, and the import of which is universal, GOD MADE MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE. It is the divinest revelation in the Old Testament. In it is contained the reason of all that has ever been great in human nature or in human history. In it are contained all the sorrows of the race as it looks back to its innocence, and all the hope of the race as it aspires from the depths of its fall to the height of the imperial palace whence it came. In it is contained all the joy of the race as it sees in Christ this great first principle revealed again. In it are contained all the history of the human heart, all the history of the human mind, all the history of the human conscience, all the history of the human spirit. It is the foundation stone of all written and unwritten poetry, of all metaphysics, of all ethics, of all religion. (Stopford A. Brooke, M. A.)
Creations birth
1. What a strange opening to a book! Without observation, parade, flourish.
2. Strange that there is no argument on the being of God. The Architect is simply named in the description of the building. A portrait in oil suggests a painter.
3. There is a gradual unveiling of God as you proceed with the book. God reveals Himself to us by slow processes.
I. What was BEFORE the beginning?
1. God in underived and perfect existence.
2. God dwelling in the silence and grandeur of His own eternity.
II. What was IN the beginning?
1. When was the beginning? Date not fixed here. We only know the fact, that there was a beginning.
2. What occurred in the beginning? The material universe began to be.
III. What FOLLOWED the beginning?
1. Law.
2. Life.
3. History.
4. Redemption.
Remarks:
1. From a beginning we know not what may come.
2. The beginning contains what follows. (J. S. Withington.)
God first
I. THE DEVOUT RECOGNITION OF GOD SHOULD PRECEDE ALL PHILOSOPHY. The God whom we worship is not a metaphysical idea; a form of thought; a philosophical abstraction; but a living, personal, eternal Being, apart from and prior to all human thought. He is not a creation of the intellect, but the intellects Creator. We must begin with Him. Is not this one of the childs first thoughts, and one which lifes long experience but deepens and confirms--that it was God who created all things? Does not the bare statement carry with it its own conviction? What need is there of proof? Who argues that there is a solid earth on which he stands; a sun shining in midday sky? Who constructs arguments to prove his own existence? And does not God stand at the beginning of all thought and all argument? And is not the denial of Him a sheer and wilful absurdity which no attempt at proof can make even plausible?
II. THE DEVOUT RECOGNITION OF GOD SHOULD PRECEDE ALL SCIENCE. The fact of His existence lies at the foundation of all physical science, and must be admitted as its first and most essential fact. For what is science in general, or a science in particular, but the knowledge of facts--their qualities, relations, and causes--arranged and classified? But if science begins by refusing to admit, or by failing to perceive, the First Fact, and the Great Cause of all things? Does nothing exist but what the knife of the anatomist, or the tests of the chemist can detect? Matter and force do exist, or matter under some plastic power passing through innumerable changes. But what is it? And is this all? Are there no marks of intelligence?--purpose?--will? Is there no distinction of beauty?--of right and wrong? And what are these but marks of the ever-present God? Atheism explains nothing, and Pantheism nothing. No! Science cannot discover God. It is in the light of Gods presence that science is best revealed. Science and philosophy alike presuppose HIM.
III. THE DEVOUT RECOGNITION OF GOD PRECEDES ALL MORALITY AND RELIGION. It lies at the basis of any sound ethical theory, and any true religious system of doctrine and practice. Religion, whether natural or revealed, is based on this fact. It is no more the part of religion than it is of philosophy and science to discover or to demonstrate the existence of God, but to worship Him. (F. J. Falding, D. D.)
The creation
I. THERE WAS A BEGINNING, AND THIS WAS THE ACT OF GOD.
II. THE DISORDER OF PRIMAL CREATION IS REDUCED TO ORDER BY THE POWER AND INTELLIGENCE OF THE DIVINE WILL. The life of God is imparted to the chaotic world.
III. THIS PROGRESS OF CREATION PASSES FROM ORDER, THROUGH ORGANIZATION, INTO LIFE, UNTIL IT CULMINATES IN MAN. Plants and animals are after their kind. Not so with man. He is after the likeness of God. Lessons:
1. The adaptation of this world to be mans place of abode while God tries him by the duty He has placed upon him to perform.
2. All things are subject to mans use and government.
3. The human race is of one blood, derived from one pair.
4. God loves order. (L. D. Bevan, LL. B.)
Creation
This simple sentence--
I. DENIES ATHEISM. It assumes the being of God.
II. DENIES POLYTHEISM. Confesses the one eternal Creator.
III. DENIES MATERIALISM. Asserts the creation of matter.
IV. DENIES PANTHEISM. Assumes the existence of God before all things, and apart from them.
V. DENIES FATALISM. Involves the freedom of the Eternal Being. (James G. Murphy, LL. D.)
Moses and Darwin
Though the Hebrew prophet was not a teacher of science, he has in this chapter given us the alphabet of religious science. The great principles of things were disclosed to him, and in these verses he has given us a rapid and suggestive sketch of the great outlines of Gods creative work. His instructions were not incorrect, but incomplete, in order to meet the pupils capacity.
I. LOOK AT THE HARMONY BETWEEN MOSES AND DARWIN.
1. According to Moses, creation has its origin in God. Darwin has gone down into the bowels of the earth, he has traced this globe to a nebulous light, and pursued the molecules to their furthest point. But he has confessed that beyond there is a mystery which baffles all skill, and this mystery he calls God. According to him the material universe has a spiritual origin, and before and after each creation he would write the word God.
2. According to Moses, Gods method of creation was by slow development. Evolution is the great faith of the scientific world today. It directs us to trace everywhere the processes of unfolding growth. And according to Darwin these processes are the methods of creative wisdom.
II. THE GROUNDLESSNESS OF ALL FEARS FROM THE TEACHING OF TRUE SCIENCE.
1. No honest criticism can destroy Gods truth.
2. Evolution does not banish God or design from nature.
III. LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF DARWIN.
1. Patience and perseverance in study. He accumulated facts, but he took time to reflect upon them before he formed them into systems. All great work is slow work.
2. Darwin loved nature, and therefore could interpret her.
3. Darwin lived a simple, true, and loving life. (D. B. James.)
The creation
I. THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE.
1. The universe not self-existent, self-evolved, or eternal, but
created.
2. Brought into existence by the exercise of Divine power. God created.
3. Stages in process of formation implied.
II. THE ORIGIN OF THE PRESENT ORDER OF OUR PLANET.
1. The chaotic condition of the planet described.
2. The Divine Author of the present order.
3. The first recorded fiat.
III. THE SUMMARY OF THE CREATIVE WEEK (Gen_2:4-8). Lessons:
1. Learn the comprehensiveness of the opening sentence of the
Bible.
2. Learn to appreciate this clear, refreshing, and authoritative declaration that the origin of the universe and of man is a personal, all-wise, almighty, and loving God.
3. Learn the lofty dignity of our primal spiritual nature in its identification with the ineffable nature of God.
4. Learn that to worship, love, and obey God, is our reasonable service. (D. C. Hughes, M. A.)
Genesis of the universe
I. A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION. What is the origin of things? Perhaps the sublimest question mortal man can ask. A profoundly religious question, going down to the very roots of Truth, and Science, and Theology, and Character, and Worship.
II. THE PRECISE PROBLEM. It is not touching the shaping of matter already existing; it is touching the origin of matter itself.
III. IMMENSITY OF THE PROBLEM. The universe, practically speaking, is infinite.
IV. THE PROBLEM ITSELF. Here are sixty or seventy elements which, so far as we know at present, make up the existing universe. And the point to be exactly observed is this: not one solitary atom of these elements which make up the universe can man make. All that man can do is to operate on these elements, compounding them in various proportions, using the compounds in various ways, shaping them, building with them, and so on. In short, man must have something on which, as well as with which, to operate. Here, then, is the mighty question: How account for this tremendous fact? Whence came this inconceivable amount of material?
1. The question is legitimate. We cannot help asking it. Every effect must have a cause. Here is a stupendously measureless effect: what caused it? Not one man, not all mankind together, with the most perfect machinery conceivable, can make one solitary atom of matter. Where, then, did all this measureless, unutterable, inconceivable quantity of matter composing this material universe come from? Suppose you say it came from a few cells or germs, or perhaps one. That does not answer the question. The axiom, Every effect must have a cause, implies another axiom: Effects are proportional to their causes--that is to say, causes are measured by their effects. If the whole material universe came from a few germs and from nothing else, then the weight of these germs must be equal to the weight of the universe. You cannot get out of a thing more than is in it.
2. Only two answers are possible.
(1) The answer of logic. The first is this: Matter never had any origin at all; it has always existed. It is the one and only conclusion at which the logician, trusting solely to the logical processes and denying miracles, can possibly arrive.
(2) The answer of Scripture. The other answer is the first verse of the Book of God: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Ah, here comes out the infinite difference between man and God: Man is only a builder, constructing with materials; God is a Creator, constructing without materials. God creates atoms; man fashions molecules.
3. Grandeur of the answer. Thus this word create is the divinest word in language, human or angelic. It is the august separatrix between the creature and the Creator, between the finite and the Infinite. Well, then, may our text stand forth as the opening sentence of Gods communication to man. For all theology is wrapped up in this one simple, majestic word--Created. It gives us an unbeginning, almighty, personal, self-conscious, voluntary God.
4. Final cause of creation. Why did God create the material universe? Let us not be wise above what is written. And yet I cannot help thinking that there is a reason for the creation in the very constitution of our spiritual nature. We need the excitation of sensible objects. We need a material arena for self-discipline. As a matter of fact, we receive our moral training for eternity in the school of matter. It is the material world around us, coming into contact with our moral personalities through the senses of touching and seeing, and hearing and tasting, which tests our moral character. And so it comes to pass that the way in which we are impressed by every object we consciously see or touch probes us, and will testify for us or against us on the great day. But while this is one of the proximate causes of the creation, the final cause is the glory of God. It is the majestic mirror from which we see His invisible things, even His eternal power and Godhead (Rom_1:20). (G. D. Boardman.)
Creation
I. THE MAKER OF THE WORLD, God. The great I AM. The First Cause.
II. THE MAKING OF THE WORLD.
1. By Gods Word.
2. By Gods Spirit.
III. THE MEANING OF THE WORLD. God created the world--
1. For His own pleasure and glory (Rev_4:11).
2. For the happiness of all His creatures (Psa_104:1-35).
LESSONS:
1. Faith in God, as the Almighty, the All-wise Creator.
2. Reverence for God, as wonderful in all His doings.
3. Gratitude to God, as providing for the wants of His creatures. (W. S. Smith, B. D.)
The word earth as used in Scripture
In Scripture, as well as in ordinary language, the word earth is used in two different meanings: sometimes it means the whole globe on which we live; and sometimes only the solid dust with which the globe is covered, which is supposed not to be much more than from nine to twelve miles in thickness.
1. The word earth is used to express the whole globe in the 1st verse of Genesis--In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; and it is so used also in the 40th chapter of Isaiah, verse 22; and again in the 26th chapter of Job, verse 7, where we are told that the Lord hangeth the earth upon nothing.
2. The word earth is also used to express the solid and rocky crust with which our globe is everywhere covered, and on which rest the vast waters of the ocean. It is used in this sense in the 10th verse of the 1st chapter of Genesis: God called the dry land earth. Earth is the dry land as distinguished from the sea; it means the continents and islands which appear above the waters.
(1) You know that it is round.
(2) We know that our earth goes round the sun once every year in an immense oval course, turning round upon itself at the same time as a ball does when it rolls along.
(3) The earth has been measured. It is 25,000 miles all round, or in circumference, and nearly 8,000 miles straight through, or in diameter. You may imagine its size when I tell you that it has been reckoned that Mont Blanc, the highest mountain of Europe, is no larger when compared with the earth than the thickness of one of your hairs is to your head, or like a small grain of sand placed on a house twenty feet in height.
(4) This earth, although covered all round with a solid crust, is all on fire within. Its interior is supposed to be a burning mass of melted, glowing metals, fiery gas, and boiling lava. This was mentioned in the Bible long before learned men had found it out for themselves by observation. It is spoken of in the Book of Job, about three thousand years ago (Job_28:5). We often read also in Scripture of the mountains being melted like wax, rising and leaping like Iambs, and raised from the depths of the earth by the force of the inward fire (Psa_97:5). We read in the Psalms of a time before the mountains were brought forth (Psa_90:2); and we read also in Proverbs of a time before the mountains were settled Pro_8:25), while they were yet being tossed and thrown up by the mighty power of fire. So great is the heat within the earth, that in Switzerland and other countries where the springs of water are very deep, they bring to the surface the warm mineral waters so much used for baths and medicine for the sick; and it is said that if you were to dig very deep down into the earth, the temperature would increase at the rate of a degree of the thermometer for every hundred feet, so that at the depth of seven thousand feet, or a mile and a half, all the water that you found would be boiling, and at the depth of about ten miles all the rocks would be melted. (Prof. Gaussen.)
Design
Creation is not caprice or chance. It is design. The footprints on the sands of time speak of design, for geology admits that her discoveries all are based upon design. And this verse, as the whole creation narrative, confirms the admission of science as to design. Therefore, both the Revelation of God and the Revelation of Nature go hand in hand. Which, then, is the higher? Surely, Revelation. And why?
1. Because Revelation alone can tell the design. Nature is a riddle without revelation. I may admire the intricate mechanism of machinery, or even part of the design hanging from the loom; but all is apparent confusion until the master takes me to the office, places plans before me, and so discloses the design. Revelation is that plan--that key by which man is able to unlock the arcana of natures loom.
2. Because that design is the law of Christ. All are parts of one mighty creation, of which Christ is the centre. (Wm. Adamson.)
On beginnings
I. VARIOUS KINDS OF BEGINNINGS.
1. Some beginnings are thoroughly evil, and their evil nature is beyond dispute. To begin to steal, however small the theft; to begin to lie, however trifling the falsehood; to begin selling things for what they are not, and by false weight and measure, however the deception may escape discovery; to begin to swear, however silent the oath may be kept; to begin dissolute practices, however trimly they may be dressed up.
2. Other beginnings are innocent, but such as are easily turned into an evil course. One begins to take proper recreation, and ends in a pleasure seeking, self-indulgent, idle, undutiful habit.
3. Other beginnings are a mixture of good and evil. It is undoubtedly well that a drunkard should become a total abstainer; but it is not an unmixed good when with his abstention he mingles self-righteous pride and unjust reflections on others.
4. Moreover, there are good beginnings whose good character is complete and unquestionable. It is always good to set ourselves, for Christs sake, to do honestly, to work diligently, to show mercy, to pray believingly, to help and succour, and sympathize with one another. Every really Christian beginning is an entire good.
II. HOW BEGINNINGS ARE MADE.
1. Bad beginnings are made without forethought and resolve, without definite intention, choice, and premeditation; in a word, heedlessly.
2. Good beginnings are made with forethought, and election, and predetermination. What shall I do with my life? is a question for every man who would be right minded.
(1) Good beginnings are made in the light. An enlightened choice is a first requisite.
(2) Good beginnings are made with worthy ends in view.
(3) Good beginnings are to be made earnestly. If our desire is for the beginning of the goodness of God in our characters, it is a desire which shames sloth. (J. E. Gibberd.)
God the Author of all things.
In the corner of a little garden, said the late Dr. Beattie, of Aberdeen, without informing any one of the circumstance, I wrote in the mould with my finger the initial letters of my sons name, and sowed garden cress in the furrows, covered up the seed, and smoothed the ground. Ten days after this he came running up to me, and with astonishment in his countenance told me his name was growing in the garden. I laughed at the report, and seemed to disregard it, but he insisted on my going to see what had happened. Yes, said I carelessly, I see it is so, but what is there in this worth notice? Is it not mere chance? It cannot be so, he said, somebody must have contrived matters so as to produce it. Look at yourself, I replied, and consider your hands and fingers, your legs and feet; came you hither by chance? No, he answered, something must have made me. And who is that something? I asked. He said, I dont know. I therefore told him the name of that Great Being who made him and all the world. This lesson affected him greatly, and he never forgot it or the circumstances that introduced it.
Seeking the true God
Twenty years ago, when Christian missions scarcely existed in Japan, a young Japanese of good family met with a book on geography in the Chinese language, which had been compiled by an American missionary in China. It began with these words: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. What could this mean? Who was that God? Certainly He was not known in Japan; perhaps He might live in America, whence the author of the book came. The young man determined to go to America and seek for God. He left Japan secretly, at the peril of his life; for the old law was then still in force, under which death was the penalty incurred by any Japanese who quitted his country. He made his way to China, and thence to the United States. There, after some perplexing experiences, he did find the God he had been seeking, and with his whole heart embraced the faith of Christ. That young man, Joseph Nisima, is now Principal of a Native Christian College at Kioto, the ancient sacred capital of Japan. (E. Stock.)
A question for atheists
Napoleon the First, with all his disdain for men, bowed to one power that he was pleased to regard as greater than himself. In the heart of an atheistic age he replied to the smattering theorists of his day, Your arguments gentlemen, are very fine. But who, pointing up to the evening sky, who made all these? And even the godless science of our times, while rejecting the scriptural answer to this question, still confesses that it has no other to give. The phenomena of matter and force, says Tyndall, lie within our intellectual range; and as far as they reach we will, at all hazard, push our inquiries. But behind, and above, and around all, the real mystery of the universe lies unsolved, and as far as we are concerned, is incapable of solution. But why incapable of solution? Why not already solved, so far as we are concerned, in this simple, unequivocal, exhaustive, majestic alpha of the Bible--In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth? (J. B. Clark.)
The folly of atheism
A suggestive scene took place lately in a railway car that was crossing the Rocky Mountains. A quiet business man, who with the other passengers, had been silently watching the vast range of snow-clad peaks, by him seen for the first time, said to his companion: No man, it seems to me, could look at that scene without feeling himself brought nearer to his Creator. A dapper lad of eighteen, who had been chiefly engaged in caressing his moustache, pertly interrupted, If you are sure there is a Creator. You are an atheist, said the stranger, turning to the lad. I am an agnostic, raising his voice. I am investigating the subject. I take nothing for granted. I am waiting to be convinced. I see the mountains, I smell the rose, I hear the wind; therefore, I believe that mountains, roses, and wind exist. But I cannot see, smell, or hear God. Therefore-- A grizzled old cattle raiser glanced over his spectacles at the boy. Did you ever try to smell with your eyes? he said, quietly. No. Or hear with your tongue, or taste with your ears? Certainly not. Then why do you try to apprehend God with faculties which are only meant for material things? With what should I apprehend Him? said the youth, with a conceited giggle. With your intellect and soul?--but I beg your pardon--here he paused--some men have not breadth and depth enough of intellect and soul to do this, This is probably the reason that you are an agnostic. The laugh in the car effectually stopped the display of any more atheism that day.
Creation a comforting thought
When Mr. Simeon, of Cambridge, was on his dying bed, his biographer relates that, After a short pause, he looked round with one of his bright smiles, and asked, What do you think especially gives me comfort at this time? The creation! Did Jehovah create the world, or did I? I think He did; now, if He made the world, He can sufficiently take care of me.
Mans limited knowledge of nature
Systems of nature! To the wisest man, wide as is his vision, nature remains of quite infinite depth, of quite infinite expansion; and all experience thereof limits itself to some few computed centuries and square miles, The course of natures phases, on this our little fraction of a planet, is partially known to us, but who knows what deeper courses these depend on! What infinitely larger cycle (of causes) our little epicycle revolves on! To the minnow every cranny and pebble, and quality and accident, of its little native creek may have become familiar; but does the minnow understand the ocean tides and periodic currents, the trade winds and monsoons, and moons eclipses; by all which the condition of its little creek is regulated? (T. Carlyle.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v1 Genesis 1 and 2
THE CREATION
Genesis 1 and 2
Read full note →
IF anyone is in search of accurate information regarding the age of this earth, or its relation to the sun, moon, and stars, or regarding the order in which plants and animals have appeared upon it, he is referred to recent textbooks in astronomy, geology, and palaeontology. No one for a moment dreams of referring a serious student of these subjects to the Bible as a source of information. It is not the object of the writers of Scripture to impart physical instruction or to enlarge the bounds of scientific knowledge. But if any one wishes to know what connection the world has with God, if he seeks to trace back all that now is to the very fountain-head of life, if he desires to discover some unifying principle, some illuminating purpose in the history of this earth, then we confidently refer him to these and the subsequent chapters of Scripture as his safest, and indeed his only, guide to the information he seeks. Every writing must be judged by the object the writer has in view. If the object of the writer of these chapters was to convey physical information, then certainly it is imperfectly fulfilled. But if his object was to give an intelligible account of Gods relation to the world and to man, then it must be owned that he has been successful in the highest degree.
It is therefore unreasonable to allow our reverence for this writing to be lessened because it does not anticipate the discoveries of physical science; or to repudiate its authority in its own department of truth because it does not give us information which it formed no part of the writers object to give. As well might we deny to Shakespeare a masterly knowledge of human life, because his dramas are blotted by historical anachronisms. That the compiler of this book of Genesis did not aim at scientific accuracy in speaking of physical details is obvious, not merely from the general scope and purpose of the Biblical writers, but especially from this, that in these first two chapters of his book he lays side by side two accounts of mans creation which no ingenuity can reconcile. These two accounts, glaringly incompatible in details, but absolutely harmonious in their leading ideas, at once warn the reader that the writers aim is rather to convey certain ideas regarding mans spiritual history and his connection with God, than to describe the process of creation. He does describe the process of creation, but he describes it only for the sake of the ideas regarding mans relation to God and Gods relation to the world which he can thereby convey. Indeed what we mean by scientific knowledge was not in all the thoughts of the people for whom this book was written. The subject of creation, of the beginning of man upon earth, was not approached from that side at all; and if we are to understand what is here written we must burst the trammels of our own modes of thought and read these chapters not as a chronological, astronomical, geological, biological statement, but as a moral or spiritual conception.
It will, however, be said, and with much appearance of justice, that although the first object of the writer was not to convey scientific information, yet he might have been expected to be accurate in the information he did advance regarding the physical universe. This is an enormous assumption to make on a priori grounds, but it is an assumption worth seriously considering because it brings into view a real and important difficulty which every reader of Genesis must face. It brings into view the twofold character of this account of creation. On the one hand it is irreconcilable with the teachings of science. On the other hand it is in striking contrast to the other cosmogonies which have been handed down from prescientific ages. These are the two patent features of this record of creation and both require to be accounted for. Either feature alone would be easily accounted for; but the two co-existing in the same document are more baffling. We have to account at once for a want of perfect coincidence with the teachings of science, and for a singular freedom from those errors which disfigure all other primitive accounts of the creation of the world. The one feature of the document is as patent as the other and presses equally for explanation.
Now many persons cut the knot by simply denying that both these features exist. There is no disagreement with science, they say. I speak for many careful enquirers when I say that this cannot serve as a solution of the difficulty. I think it is to be freely admitted that, from whatever cause and however justifiably, the account of creation here given is not in strict and detailed accordance with the teaching of science. All attempts to force its statements into such accord are futile and mischievous. They are futile because they do not convince independent enquirers, but only those who are unduly anxious to be convinced. And they are mischievous because they unduly prolong the strife between Scripture and science, putting the question on a false issue. And above all, they are to be condemned because they do violence to Scripture, foster a style of interpretation by which the text is forced to say whatever the interpreter desires, and prevent us from recognising the real nature of these sacred writings. The Bible needs no defence such as false constructions of its language bring to its aid. They are its worst friends who distort its words that they may yield a meaning more in accordance with scientific truth. If, for example, the word "day" in these chapters, does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless. Indeed if we are to bring these chapters into any comparison at all with science, we find at once various discrepancies. Of a creation of sun, moon, and stars, subsequent to the creation of this earth, science can have but one thing to say. Of the existence of fruit trees prior to the existence of the sun, science knows nothing. But for a candid and unsophisticated reader without a special theory to maintain, details are needless.
Accepting this chapter then as it stands, and believing that only by looking at the Bible as it actually is can we hope to understand Gods method of revealing Himself, we at once perceive that ignorance of some departments of truth does not disqualify a man for knowing and imparting truth about God. In order to be a medium of revelation a man does not need to be in advance of his age in secular learning. Intimate communion with God, a spirit trained to discern spiritual things, a perfect understanding of and zeal for Gods purpose, these are qualities quite independent of a knowledge of the discoveries of science. The enlightenment which enables men to apprehend God and spiritual truth has no necessary connection with scientific attainments. Davids confidence in God and his declarations of His faithfulness are none the less valuable, because he was ignorant of a very great deal which every schoolboy now knows. Had inspired men introduced into their writings information which anticipated the discoveries of science, their state of mind would be inconceivable, and revelation would be a source of confusion. Gods methods are harmonious with one another, and as He has given men natural faculties to acquire scientific knowledge and historical information, He did not stultify this gift by imparting such knowledge in a miraculous and unintelligible manner. There is no evidence that inspired men were in advance of their age in the knowledge of physical facts and laws. And plainly, had they been supernaturally instructed in physical knowledge they would so far have been unintelligible to those to whom they spoke. Had the writer of this book mingled with his teaching regarding God, an explicit and exact account of how this world came into existence-had he spoken of millions of years instead of speaking of days-in all probability he would have been discredited, and what he had to say about God would have been rejected along with his premature science. But speaking from the point of view of his contemporaries, and accepting the current ideas regarding the formation of the world, he attached to these the views regarding Gods connection with the world which are most necessary to be believed. What he had learned of Gods unity and creative power and connection with man, by "the inspiration of the Holy Ghost," he imparts to his contemporaries through the vehicle of an account of creation they could all understand. It is not in his knowledge of physical facts that he is elevated above his contemporaries, but in his knowledge of Gods connection with all physical facts. No doubt, on the other hand, his knowledge of God reacts upon the entire contents of his mind and saves him from presenting such accounts of creation as have been common among polytheists. He presents an account purified by his conception of what was worthy of the supreme God he worshipped. His idea of God has given dignity and simplicity to all he says about creation, and there is an elevation and majesty about the whole conception, which we recognise as the reflex of his conception of God.
Here then instead of anything to discompose us or to excite unbelief, we recognise one great law or principle on which God proceeds in making Himself known to men. This has been called the Law of Accommodation. It is the law which requires that the condition and capacity of those to whom the revelation is made must be considered. If you wish to instruct a child, you must speak in language the child can understand. If you wish to elevate a savage, you must do it by degrees, accommodating yourself to his condition, and winking at much ignorance while you instil elementary knowledge. You must found all you teach on what is already understood by your pupil, and through that you must convey further knowledge and train his faculties to higher capacity. So was it with Gods revelation. The Jews were children who had to be trained with what Paul somewhat contemptuously calls "weak and beggarly elements," the A B C of morals and religion. Not even in morals could the absolute truth be enforced. Accommodation had to be practised even here. Polygamy was allowed as a concession to their immature stage of development: and practices in war and in domestic law were permitted or enjoined which were inconsistent with absolute morality. Indeed the whole Jewish system was an adaptation to an immature state. The dwelling of God in the Temple as a man in his house, the propitiating of God with sacrifice as of an Eastern king with gifts; this was a teaching by picture, a teaching which had as much resemblance to the truth and as much mixture of truth as they were able then to receive. No doubt this teaching did actually mislead them in some of their ideas; but it kept them on the whole in a right attitude toward God, and prepared them for growing up to a fuller discernment of the truth.
Much more was this law observed in regard to such matters as are dealt with in these chapters. It was impossible that in their ignorance of the rudiments of scientific knowledge, the early Hebrews should understand an absolutely accurate account of how the world came into being; and if they could have understood it, it would have been useless, dissevered as it must have been from the steps of knowledge by which men have since arrived at it. Children ask us questions in answer to which we do not tell them the exact full truth, because we know they cannot possibly understand it. All that we can do is to give them some provisional answer which conveys to them some information they can understand, and which keeps them in a right state of mind, although this information often seems absurd enough when compared with the actual facts and truth of the matter. And if some solemn pedant accused us of supplying the child with false information, we would simply tell him he knew nothing about children. Accurate information on these matters will infallibly come to the child when he grows up; what is wanted meanwhile is to give him information which will help to form his conduct without gravely misleading him as to facts. Similarly, if any one tells me he cannot accept these chapters as inspired by God, because they do not convey scientifically accurate information regarding this earth, I can only say that he has yet to learn the first principles of revelation, and that he misunderstands the conditions on which all instruction must be given.
My belief then is, that in these chapters we have the ideas regarding the origin of the world and of man which were naturally attainable in the country where they were first composed, but with those important modifications which a monotheistic belief necessarily suggested. So far as merely physical knowledge went, there is probably little here that was new to the contemporaries of the writer; but this already familiar knowledge was used by him as the vehicle for conveying his faith in the unity, love, and wisdom of God the creator. He laid a firm foundation for the history of Gods relation to man. This was his object, and this he accomplished. The Bible is the book to which we turn for information regarding the history of Gods revelation of Himself, and of His will towards men; and in these chapters we have the suitable introduction to this history. No changes in our knowledge of physical truth can at all affect the teaching of these chapters. What they teach regarding the relation of man to God is independent of the physical details in which this teaching is embodied, and can as easily be attached to the most modern statement of the physical origin of the world and of man.
What then are the truths taught us in these chapters? The first is that there has been a creation, that things now existing have not just grown of themselves, but have been called into being by a presiding intelligence and an originating will. No attempt to account for the existence of the world in any other way has been successful. A great deal has in this generation been added to our knowledge of the efficiency of material causes to produce what we see around us; but when we ask what gives harmony to these material causes, and what guides them to the production of certain ends, and what originally produced them, the answer must still be, not matter but intelligence and purpose. The best informed and most penetrating minds of our time affirm this. John Stuart Mill says: "It must be allowed that in the present state of our knowledge the adaptations in nature afford a large balance of probability in favor of creation by intelligence." Professor Tyndall adds his testimony and says: "I have noticed during years of self-observation that it is not in hours of clearness and vigor that [the doctrine of material atheism] commends itself to my mind-that in the hours of stronger and healthier thought it ever dissolves and disappears, as offering no solution of the mystery in which we dwell and of which we form a part."
There is indeed a prevalent suspicion, that in presence of the discoveries made by evolutionists the argument from design is no longer tenable. Evolution shows us that the correspondence of the structure of animals, with their modes of life, has been generated by the nature of the case; and it is concluded that a blind mechanical necessity and not an intelligent design rules all. But the discovery of the process by which the presently existing living forms have been evolved, and the perception that this process is governed by laws which have always been operating, do not make intelligence and design at all less necessary, but rather more so. As Professor Huxley himself says: "The teleological and mechanical views of nature are not necessarily exclusive. The teleologist can always defy the evolutionist to disprove that the primordial molecular arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena of the universe." Evolution, in short, by disclosing to us the marvellous power and accuracy of natural law, compels us more emphatically than ever to refer all law to a supreme, originating intelligence.
This then is the first lesson of the Bible; that at the root and origin of all this vast material universe, before whose laws we are crushed as the moth, there abides a living conscious Spirit, who wills and knows and fashions all things. The belief of this changes for us the whole face of nature, and instead of a chill, impersonal world of forces to which no appeal can be made, and in which matter is supreme, gives us the home of a Father. If you are yourself but a particle of a huge and unconscious universe-a particle which, like a flake of foam, or a drop of rain, or a gnat, or a beetle, lasts its brief space and then yields up its substance to be moulded into some new creature; if there is no power that understands you and sympathises with you and makes provision for your instincts, your aspirations, your capabilities; if man is himself the highest intelligence, and if all things are the purposeless result of physical forces; if, in short, there is no God, no consciousness at the beginning as at the end of all things, then nothing can be more melancholy than our position. Our higher desires which seem to separate us so immeasurably from the brutes, we have, only that they may be cut down by the keen edge of time, and wither in barren disappointment; our reason we have, only to enable us to see and measure the brevity of our span, and so live our little day, not joyously as the unforeseeing beasts, but shadowed by the hastening gloom of anticipated, inevitable, and everlasting night; our faculty for worshipping and for striving to serve and to resemble the perfect living One, that faculty which seems to be the thing of greatest promise and of finest quality in us, and to which is certainly due the largest part of what is admirable and profitable in human history, is the most mocking and foolishest of all our parts. But, God be thanked, He has revealed himself to us; has given us in the harmonious and progressive movement of all around us, sufficient indication that, even in the material world, intelligence and purpose reign; an indication which becomes immensely clearer as we pass into the world of man; and which, in presence of the person and life of Christ, attains the brightness of a conviction which illuminates all besides.
The other great truth which this writer teaches is, that man was the chief work of God, for whose sake all else was brought into being. The work of creation was not finished till he appeared: all else was preparatory to this final product. That man is the crown and lord of this earth is obvious. Man instinctively assumes that all else has been made for him, and freely acts upon this assumption. But when our eyes are lifted from this little ball on which we are set and to which we are confined, and when we scan such other parts of the universe as are within our ken, a keen sense of littleness oppresses us; our earth is after all so minute and apparently inconsiderable a point, when compared with the vast suns and planets that stretch system on system into illimitable space. When we read even the rudiments of what astronomers have discovered regarding the inconceivable vastness of the universe, the huge dimensions of the heavenly bodies, and the grand scale on which everything is framed, we find rising to our lips, and with tenfold reason, the words of David: "When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers: the moon and the stars which Thou hast ordained; what is man that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that Thou visitest him?" Is it conceivable that on this scarcely discernible speck in the vastness of the universe, should be played out the chiefest act in the history of God? Is it credible that He whose care it is to uphold this illimitable universe, should be free to think of the wants and woes of the insignificant creatures who quickly spend their little lives in this inconsiderable earth?
But reason seems all on the side of Genesis. God must not be considered as sitting apart in a remote position of general superintendence, but as present with all that is. And to Him who maintains these systems in their respective relations and orbits, it can be no burden to relieve the needs of individuals. To think of ourselves as too insignificant to be attended to is to derogate from Gods true majesty and to misunderstand His relation to the world. But it is also to misapprehend the real value of spirit as compared with matter. Man is dear to God because he is like Him. Vast and glorious as it is, the sun cannot think Gods thoughts; can fulfil but cannot intelligently sympathise with Gods purpose. Man, alone among Gods works, can enter into and approve of Gods purpose in the world and can intelligently fulfil it. Without man the whole material universe would have been dark and unintelligible, mechanical and apparently without any sufficient purpose. Matter, however fearfully and wonderfully wrought, is but the platform and material in which spirit, intelligence, and will may fulfil themselves and find development. Man is incommensurable with the rest of the universe. He is of a different kind and by his moral nature is more akin to God than to His works.
Here the beginning and the end of Gods revelation join hands and throw light on one another. The nature of man was that in which God was at last to give His crowning revelation, and for that no preparation could seem extravagant. Fascinating and full of marvel as is the history of the past which science discloses to us; full as these slow-moving millions of years are in evidences of the exhaustless wealth of nature, and mysterious as the delay appears, all that expenditure of resources is eclipsed and all the delay justified when the whole work is crowned by the Incarnation, for in it we see that all that slow process was the preparation of a nature in which God could manifest Himself as a Person to persons. This is seen to be an end worthy of all that is contained in the physical history of the world: this gives completeness to the whole and makes it a unity. No higher, other end need be sought, none could be conceived. It is this which seems worthy of those tremendous and subtle forces which have been set at work in the physical world, this which justifies the long lapse of ages filled with wonders unobserved, and teeming with ever new life, this above all which justifies these latter ages in which all physical marvels have been outdone by the tragical history of man upon earth. Remove the Incarnation and all remains dark, purposeless, unintelligible: grant the Incarnation, believe that in Jesus Christ the Supreme manifested Himself personally, and light is shed upon all that has been and is.
Light is shed on the individual life. Are you living as if you were the product of blind mechanical laws, and as if there were no object worthy of your life and of all the force you can throw into your life? Consider the Incarnation of the Creator, and ask yourself if sufficient object is not given to you in His call that you be conformed to His image and become the intelligent executor of His purposes? Is life not worth having even on these terms? The man that can still sit down and bemoan himself as if there were no meaning in existence, or lounge languidly through life as if there were no zest or urgency in living, or try to satisfy himself with fleshly comforts, has surely need to turn to the opening page of Revelation and learn that God saw sufficient object in the life of man, enough to compensate for millions of ages of preparation. If it is possible that you should share in the character and destiny of Christ, can a healthy ambition crave anything more or higher? If the future is to be as momentous in results as the past has certainly been filled with preparation, have you no caring to share in these results? Believe that there is a purpose in things; that in Christ, the revelation of God, you can see what. that purpose is, and that by wholly uniting yourself to Him and allowing yourself to be penetrated by His Spirit you can participate with Him in the working out of that purpose.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 21, 24, 29 Gen_1:1. In the beginning] Or, “at first,” “originally,” “to…
CRITICAL NOTES.—
Gen_1:1. In the beginning] Or, “at first,” “originally,” “to start with:” Sept. en archê (εν αρχῃ) as in Joh_1:1. God] Heb. ’Elohim (אֱלֹהִים): w. ref. to this frequent and interesting Divine Name, note
Read full note →
(1.) its radical conception—that of POWER;
(2.) its form—PLURAL, either “of excellence” (Ges. and others), or “of abstraction,” as in “lordship” for “lord” in English (B. Davies);
(3.) its construction—gen. w. SING. VERS, AND PRONOUN, as here w. bârâʾ (בָרָא), he created,—serving as an ever recurring protest against the wild vulgarity wh. wd. here understand “angels,” and as a plea for the unity of the Divine Nature. Elohim ═ “the Putter-forth of manifold powers, or the Living Personification of power in its most radical conception,” occurs about 2,500 times in O. T.
Gen_1:2. And the earth] Here “the e.” is emp. by position (Ewald); and, as emphasis implies contrast, shd. be introduced by “but:” “But THE EARTH!”—a strangely overlooked hint for the expositor—“But THE EARTH had become,” &c.,—whether by first creation or subseq. catastrophe, it does not say. Without form and void] Heb. thóhu and bhóhu: words inimitably expressive ═ “wasteness and emptiness.” B occurs only thrice, each time with T: here, and Is. 34:11; Jer_4:23. Deep] Heb. thehôm ═ “roaring deep:” Sept. and Vulg. abyss. Moved] Heb. participle expresses the continued process of life-giving love.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH—Gen_1:1-2
THE CREATOR AND HIS WORK
I. Then Atheism is a folly. “In the beginning God.” There have always been men who have denied the existence of God. All down through the ages their voices have been heard—their books have been read, and their arguments have been promulgated. Atheism is the supreme folly of which man is capable. It divests life of all spiritual enjoyment—of real nobility of character, and degrades almost to the level of the brute. The atheist must be blind to all the appearances of Creation, for one sincere outlook upon them would demonstrate the mockery of his creed. The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God. He dare not loudly articulate a conclusion, which his inner consciousness tells him to be so utterly devoid of truth, so criminal, and so likely to attract the retribution of heaven. Atheism is proved absurd:—
1. By the history of the creation of the world. It would be impossible for a narrative to be clearer, more simple, or more divinely authenticated than this of the creation. The very existence of things around us is indisputable evidence of its reality. If this history be a myth, then the world and man must be myths also. But if the universe is a fact, then it follows that this ancient narrative must be so. Then this chapter is perfectly natural in its subject matter. We should have antecedently expected that the first word of a Divine revelation would be of the Being of God, and that it would also acquaint us with the history of creation. Here, then, we have a cause adequate to the effect, for admitting an Omnipotent Being, there is no difficulty in the creation of the universe. A man who would reject the plain statement of this Book, to be consistent, would have to reject all history. True, we may imagine the pen of man as incompetent and unequal to record the creative fiat and energy of God. It would be difficult for him to spell the words, to mark the punctuation, to catch the accents of the Divine language. And who has not felt that the first verse of this chapter, trembles and is almost broken by the majesty and weight of the thought and revelation that resides within it. But this is no argument against the historical veracity of the writer, but rather the contrary, in that thoughts so sublime were ever conceived by the human mind, and crowded into the broken syllables of men.
2. By the existence of the beautiful world around us. The world standing up around us in all its grandeur—adaptation—evidence of design—harmony—is a most emphatic assertion of the Being of God. Every flower is a denial of Atheism. Every star is vocal with Deity. And when we get away from the merely visible creation into the inner recess and quietude of Nature, where are seen the great sights, and are heard the mysterious voices, when permitted entrance to the spiritual meaning of the things we see, we acknowledge ourselves to be brought into undeniable communion with the supernatural, and are ready there and then to worship at its altar.
3. By the moral convictions of humanity. There is probably not an intelligent man in the wide universe, who does not believe in, and pay homage to, some deity or other. The temples of the heathen filled with idols, are a permanent demonstration of this. Man’s conscience will have a god of some kind. That there is a deity is the solemn conviction of the world. Hence the folly of Atheism.
II. Then Pantheism is an absurdity. We are informed by these verses that the world was a creation, and not a spontaneous, or natural emanation from a mysterious something only known in the vocabulary of a sceptical philosophy. Thus the world must have had a personal Creator, distinct and separate from itself. True, the Divine Being is present throughout the universe, but He is nevertheless independent of, and distinct from, it. He is the Deity of the Temple. He is the King of the realm. He is the Occupant of the house.
III. Then matter is not eternal. “In the beginning.” Thus it is evident that matter had a commencement. It was created by Divine power. It had a birthday. We wonder that any number of intelligent men should have credited the eternity of matter. The statement involves a contradiction in terms. How could matter be eternal? It could not have produced or developed itself from some generic form, for who created the generic form? The world must have had a commencement. The Mosaic record says it had. This is the only reasonable supposition.
IV. Then the world was not the result of a fortuitous combination of atoms. “In the beginning God created.” Thus the world was a creation. There was the exercise of supreme intelligence. There was the exercise of an independent will. There was the expression in symbol of great thoughts, and also of Divine sympathies. There is nothing like chance throughout the whole work recorded in this chapter. If atoms were originally gifted with such intelligence and foresight as to combine themselves instinctively into such beautiful forms, and wonderful uses, as seen in the world, how are we to account for their degeneracy, as at present they appear utterly devoid of any such power. How is it that we are not the spectators of a little spontaneous creation now, similar to that of the olden days?
V. Then creation is the outcome of supernatural power. “In the beginning God created.” There must of necessity ever be much of mystery connected with this subject. Man was not present to witness the creation, and God has only given us a brief and dogmatic account of it. God is mystery. The world is a mystery. How very limited then must be the knowledge of man in reference thereto? Science may vaunt its discoveries, but the mystery of creation is open more to the prayerful reader of this record, than to the philosopher who only studies it for the purpose of curious inquiry. But there is far less mystery in the Mosaic account of the creation than in any other, as it is the most natural, the most likely, and truly the most scientific, as it gives us an adequate cause for the effect. The re-creation of the soul is the best explanation of the creation of the universe, and in fact of all the other mysteries of God.
THE THEOLOGY OF CREATION
Man naturally asks for some account of the world in which he lives. Was the world always in existence? If not, how did it begin to be? Did the sun make itself? These are not presumptuous questions. We have a right to ask them—the right which arises from our intelligence. The steam engine did not make itself, did the sun? In the text we find an answer to all our questions.
I. The answer is simple. There is no attempt at learned analysis or elaborate exposition. A child may understand the answer. It is direct, positive, complete. Could it have been more simple? Try any other form of words, and see if a purer simplicity be possible. Observe the value of simplicity when regarded as bearing upon the grandest events. The question is not who made a house, but who made a world, and not who made one world, but who made all worlds; and to this question the answer is, God made them. There is great risk in returning a simple answer to a profound inquiry, because when simplicity is not the last result of knowledge, it is mere imbecility.
II. The answer is sublime. God! God created!
1. Sublime because far-reaching in point of time: in the beginning. Science would have attempted a fact, religion has given a truth. If any inquirer can fix a date, be is not forbidden to do so. Dates are for children.
2. Sublime because connecting the material with the spiritual. There is, then, something more than dust in the universe. Every atom bears a superscription. It is something, surely, to have the name of God associated with all things great and small that are around us. Nature thus becomes a materialized thought. The wind is the breath of God. The thunder is a note from the music of his speech.
3. Sublime, because revealing, as nothing else could have done, the power and wisdom of the Most High.
III. The answer is sufficient. It might have been both simple and sublime, and yet not have reached the point of adequacy. Draw a straight line, and you may describe it as simple, yet who would think of calling it sublime? We must have simplicity which reaches the point of sublimity, and sublimity which sufficiently covers every demand of the case. The sufficiency of the answer is manifest: Time is a drop of eternity; nature is the handiwork of God; matter is the creation of mind; God is over all, blessed for evermore. This is enough. In proportion as we exclude God from the operation, we increase difficulty. Atheism never simplifies. Negation works in darkness. The answer of the text to the problem of creation is simple, sublime, and sufficient, in relation.
(1) To the inductions of Geology.
(2) To the theory of evolution. Practical inferences:—
1. If God created all things, then all things are under His goverment.
2. Then the earth may be studied religiously,
3. Then it is reasonable that He should take an interest in creation [City Temple].
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen_1:1.
I. A revelation of God.
1. His Name: names have meaning.
2. His nature: spirituality, personality.
3. His mode of existence: manifold unity.
II. A revelation of nature.
1. Matter not eternal.
2. The antiquity of the earth.
3. The order of creation [Pulpit Analyst].
Creation:—
1. In what it consisted.
2. When undertaken.
3. By whom accomplished.
Creation:—
1. Its commencement.
2. Its progress.
3. Its completion.
Creation:—
1. As a history.
2. As a doctrine.
3. As a prophecy.
This history of creation:—
1. Contains a rich treasury of speculative thought.
2. Capable of poetical glory.
3. Free from the influence of human invention and philosophy.
Our history of creation differs from all other cosmogonies as truth from fiction. Those of heathen nations are either hylozoistical, deducing the origin of life and living beings from some primeval matter; or pantheistical, regarding the whole world as emanating from a common divine substance; or mythological, tracing both gods and men to a chaos or world-egg. They do not even rise to the notion of a creation, much less to the knowledge of an Almighty God, as the Creator of all things [Keil & Delitzsch].
God:—
1. Before all things.
2. The cause of all things.
3. The explanation of all things.
4. The destiny of all things.
In the beginning:—
1. The birth of time.
2. The birth of matter.
3. The birth of revelation.
This verse assumes:—
1. The Being of God.
2. His eternity.
3. His omnipotence.
4. His absolute freedom
5. His infinite Wisdom
6. His essential goodness.
Admonitory lessons to be learned from the Divine-creation of the world:—
1. To admire it carefully.
2. To trust it cautiously.
3. To rely on God entirely.
The first circumstance which here offers itself to our consideration and observation, is the phrase and manner of speech which the Holy Ghost makes choice of, in this narrative, which we see, is as plain as it is brief, without any manner of insinuation, by way of preface, and without any garnishing by art, or eloquence, which men usually make use of, for the setting out, and gracing of their writings: the Spirit of God suddenly, as it were, darting out the truth which he delivers, like the sunbeams breaking in an instant as out of a cloud, as being a light visible, and beautiful in itself, and therefore needing no other ornament, or varnishing, to commend it to the world [J. White]
“The heavens and the earth”:—Heaven is named first, as being first, if not in time, yet at least in dignity.
1. Let us make heaven our chief desire.
2. Learn from the heavens to stoop to these below us.
Heaven:—
1. The sign of man’s origin.
2. The direction of his prayer.
3. Inasmuch as the earth is contained in this narration, we must regard it as the work of God, and associate it with our thought of heaven.
We are all of us familiar with this idea, that in contemplating the works of creation, we should ascend from Nature to Nature’s God. Everywhere we discern undoubted proofs of the unbounded wisdom, power, and goodness of the great Author of all things. Everywhere we meet with traces of just and benevolent design which should suggest to us the thought of the Almighty Creator. It is most pleasing and useful to cultivate such a habit as this; much of natural religion depends upon it, and Holy Scripture fully recognises its propriety: “The heavens declare the glory of God,” &c.; “All Thy works praise Thee,” &c. It is apparent, however, that even in these and similar passages, that created things are mentioned, not as arguments, but rather as illustrations; not as suggesting the idea of God the Creator, but as unfolding and expanding that idea, otherwise obtained. (Rom_1:20) [Dr Candlish].
Thus, in a spiritual view, and for spiritual purposes, the truth concerning God, as the Creator, must be received, not as a discovery of our own reason, following a train of thought, but as a direct communication from a real person—even from the living and present God. This is not a merely theoretical and artificial distinction; it is practically most important. Consider the subject of creation simply in the light of an argument of Natural Philosophy, and all is vague and dim abstraction. It may be close and cogent as a demonstration in Mathematics, but it is cold and unreal; or, if there be emotion at all, it is but the emotion of a fine taste and a sensibility for the grand and lovely in nature and thought. But consider the momentous fact in the light of a direct message from the Creator Himself to you—regard Him as standing near to you, and Himself telling you, personally and face to face, all that He did on that wondrous week—are you not differently impressed and affected?—
1. More particularly,—see first of all, what weight this single idea, once truly and vividly realized, must add to all the other communications which He makes on other subjects to us.
2. Again, observe what weight this idea must have if we regard God Himself as personally present, and saying to us, in special reference to each of the things which He has made—“I created it, and I am now reminding you that it was I who made it.” What sacredness will this thought stamp on every object in nature [Dr. Candlish].
In the first two chapters of Genesis we meet with four different verbs to express the creative work of God, viz:—
1. To create.
2. To make.
3. To form.
4. To build.
This narrative bears on the very face of it the indication that it was written by man and for man, for it divides all things into the heavens and the earth. Such a division evidently suits those only who are inhabitants of the earth. Accordingly, this sentence is the foundation-stone of the history, not of the universe at large, of the sun, of any other planet—but of the earth, and of man, its rational inhabitant. The primeval event which it records, in point of time, from the next event in such a history; as the earth may have existed myriads of ages, and undergone many vicissitudes in its condition, before it became the home of the human race. And, for aught we know, the history of other planets—even of the solar system—may yet be unwritten, because there has been as yet no rational inhabitant to compose or peruse the record. We have no intimation of the interval of time that elapsed between the beginning of things narrated in this prefatory sentence, and that state of things which is announced in the following verse [Dr. Murphy].
Taken along with the context, the drift of the whole verse seems to be to give, in a brief and compendious form, a summary of the work of creation, which is more fully detailed in its various particulars in the account of the six days following. Such general statements but unfrequently occur in the sacred writers as a preface to more expanded details that follow. Thus it is said, in general terms (Gen_1:27) that, “God created man in His own image, male and female created He them;” whereas the particulars of their creation are given at full length—Gen_2:7; Gen_2:18; Gen_2:25 [Bush].
The Eternal God hath given being to time.
The Almighty Creator hath made all things to be out of nothing.
The vast heavens and all therein are God’s creatures.
THE TEACHING OF CHAOS
Gen_1:2.
I. That the most elementary and rude conditions of things are not to be rejected or overlooked. “And the earth was without form and void.”
1. This may be true of the world of matter. The earth was at the time of this verse in a state of utter desolation. It was without order—it was without furniture. There was not a human being to gaze upon its chaos—there was not a voice to break its silence. There were no animals to roam amidst its disorder. There were no trees, or flowers to relieve its barrenness. The earth was desolate.
2. This may be true of the world of mind. There are many minds in the universe whose intellectual condition would be well and fitly described by the language of this verse. They are desolate. They are not peopled with great thoughts. They are not animated by great and noble convictions. They are destitute of knowledge. The intended furniture of the mind is absent. The cry “Let there be light” has not been heard within their souls. Darkness is upon the face of the deep.
3. This may be true of the world of the soul. How many souls are there in the universe—in the town—in the village—whose moral condition is well described by the language of this verse? Their soul-life lacks architecture. God designed that it should be based on elevated principles, animated by lofty motives, and inspired by great hopes; but instead of this it is based on expediency, and is but too frequently animated by the delusion of the world. Their souls ought to be occupied with divine pursuits, whereas they are busy with the transient affairs of time; they ought to be filled with God, whereas they are satisfied with little rounds of pleasure; they ought to be enraptured with the visions of eternity, whereas they are spell bound by the little sights of time. Such a soul is in a state of chaos far more lamentable than that of the world at the Creation, inasmuch as the one is matter, and the other an immortality. But chaos is not irretrievable. It must not be despised.
II. That the most rude and elementary conditions of things, under the culture of the Divine Spirit, are capable of the highest utility and beauty.
1. This is true of the material world. The earth was without form and void; but now it is everywhere resplendent with all that is esteemed useful and beautiful. It opens up realms of knowledge to the scientific investigator. It discloses beauties that kindle the genius of the artist. It manifests a fertility most welcome to the husbandman. Whence this transition? Is it to be accounted for on the principle of development? Is it the result of atmospherical influences? Is it to be accounted for by the law of affinity or attraction? Is it attributable to the achievements of human effort? True, man placed the seed into the soil; he cultured it, but where did the life come from? That must have been a creation, and not an education. It was the gift of God. It was the result of the Spirit’s hovering over the darkness of Nature. So it is the Divine agency, however many human instrumentalities may be employed, that makes the desolation and solitude of nature wave with fields of plenty, and echo to the joyful cry of the reaper. The world is under a Divine ministry.
2. This is true of the world of mind. The chaos of the human mind is turned into order, light, and intellectual completion, by the agency of the Divine Spirit. True, the man is naturally a student; he is diligent in the pursuit of information, and he has a fine opportunity for mental culture. But who has given him the power of intelligent inquiry, the disposition of diligent study, and the means of education? They are the gift of God. The avenues of the human mind are under the guardianship of the Spirit much more than we imagine, and all the noble visitants that enrich our intellectual life are largely sent by Him. The brooding of the Divine Spirit over the darkest human mind, and the voice of God sounding in its empty abyss will produce light, and, ultimately, the highest manifestation of thought. A noble education is the gift of God, and so are great ideas. A man may have much knowledge and yet great chaos: hence, God not only gives the life-principle to the mind, but also its harmonious development and growth to a complete and orderly mental world.
3. This is true of the world of soul. The chaos of the soul of man can only be restored by the creative ministry of the Holy Spirit. He will create light. He will restore order. He will cause all the nobler faculties of the soul to shine out with their intended splendour. He will make the soul-a fit world for the habitation of all that is heavenly. This ministry of the Spirit should be more recognised by us. Despise not the chaos—the darkness. It may yet be turned into a world of glory—a realm of light, by the kindly hovering of the Divine Spirit.
The earth:—
1. Without form.
2. Without light.
3. Without life.
4. Not without God.
The Spirit of God:—
1. Removes darkness.
2. Imparts beauty.
3. Gives life.
The Spirit of God:—
1. Separating.
2. Quickening.
3. Preparing.
Without form and void:—
1. A type of many souls.
2. A type of many lives.
3. A type of many books.
4. A type of many sermons.
5. A type of many societies.
All things are empty until God furnisheth them.
SUGGESTIVE ILLUSTRATIONS FOR CHAPTER 1
BY THE REV. WILLIAM ADAMSON
Gen_1:1
Science, Godless. Godless Science reads nature only as Milton’s daughters did Hebrew; rightly syllabling the sentences, but utterly ignorant of the meaning [S. Coley].
Design! Creation is not caprice or chance. It is design. The footprints on the sands of time speak of design, for geology admits that her discoveries all are based upon design. And this verse, as the whole creation narrative, confirms the admission of science as to design. Therefore both the Revelation of God and the Revelation of Nature go hand in hand. The one has on its bosom the finger marks of God, the other wears in its heart the footprints of God. Both of them sketch cartoons more wonderful than Raphael; friezes grander than those of Parthenon; sculptures more awe-inspiring than those of Karnac and Baalbec; which then is the higher? Surely, Revelation. And why?
(1.) Because Revelation alone can tell the design. Nature is a riddle without revelation:—A Dædalian labyrinth with Gen_1:1 for its gold thread. I may admire the intricate mechanism of machinery; or even part of the design hanging from the loom; but all is apparent confusion until the master takes me to the office, places plans before me, and so discloses the design. Revelation is that plan—that key by which man is able to unlock the arcana of nature’s loom.
(2.) Because that design is the law of Christ. All are parts of one mighty creation, of which Christ is the centre. He is the Alpha and the Omega—the eternal pivot of creation, like Job’s luminous hinge (chimeh, a pivot), known as Alcyone, around which Madler has established that the universe revolves in wondrous circuit, and of which Jehovah asks the patriarch: “Canst thou bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades?” The Pythagorean idea of the “music of the spheres” has its origin after all from the design displayed by Revelation. And it is that design—that Divine law in Nature we accept; not Darwin’s theory of development—not Powell’s universal dominion of law—not Wallace’s “law a necessity of things.” When he asserts that he is merely saying a loud Amen! to the simple, sublime, and sufficient solution that the grand ideal of Revelation and Nature is the glory of the God-man, who is the brightness of the Father’s glory and the express image of His person.
As Layard and Rawlinson have proved the truth of the Scripture narrative from relics left behind in the mounds of Khorsabad and Temples of Memphis and Thebes—as the Palestine Exploration have established the truth of the sacred assertions as to ancient Jebus, and the huge foundation stone and water seas of Solomon’s temple—as Professor Porter has substantiated the Mosaic account of the Giant Cities of Bashan by discovering the ruins of these vast stone fortresses, towns—and, as Mr. George Smith has, by exploring the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, confirmed the Noachic narrative of the Deluge from the brick and tile slates in broken fragments; so pious-minded geologists have dived among the pages of Nature’s volume, and from the remains of the Pre-Adamite world constructed the successive scenery wrapt up in Gen_1:1-2. Still, even then they are as far as ever from the Beginning, and are glad to fall back upon the simple, sublime, and sufficient solution: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
The mind of the atheist is like a vessel which has been filled with paint, and into which water is subsequently poured; it retains its prejudices, so that its conclusions are affected by them.
Atheism, Wilful.
The owlet Atheism,
Sailing on obscene wings across the moon,
Drops his blue-fringed lids and shuts them close,
And, hooting at the glorious sun in Heaven,
Cries out, “Where is it?” [S. T. Coleridge].
If heathenism is like the North Pole in its natural characteristics, by laying too much stress upon the bare letter of creation (see Romans 1); then Atheism is like the North Pole, by laying too little stress. It, i.e. positive philosophy—as Mr. Harrison and John Stuart Mill euphoniously style Atheism—strangles all life, and leaves creation like the inaccessible and impenetrable wilds of the Antartic Circle—bleak, dreary, dead.
If the charge has been true in past times that some students of Revelation wished to make Revelation an inverted pyramid resting on a narrower apex; it is certainly far more justifiable to assert that these Atomic philosophers would make Revelation like a broken pillar in the churchyard of death; whereas God has made it a temple—not only radiant with fair colours and radiating with sapphires—but teeming with living worshippers.
Cultivation. The eye can be trained to discover beauty in the landscape, and in works of art—or it may have its many powers of vision impaired and destroyed, by gazing at the sun, or on the snow. So man may train his mind to discern the beauties of Divine wisdom, power, and goodness in the processes of nature. Or still further to pursue this subject: if a person in perversity shuts out the light from his dwelling, and lives for years in darkness, the effect would be that eventually he would grow sickly and wretched—like those plants which are reared in cellars, from which all sunlight is rigidly excluded. The mind that shuts out God from nature, becomes sickly, and loses the power of enjoying the sunlight. It is therefore not only pleasing, but profitable to cultivate the habit of tracing tracks of the Divine foot-prints on Nature’s breast. To him, who can read it aright, that surface is covered with celestial types and prophetic hieroglyphics—marked like the dial-plate of a watch. Not that Nature has on her page hieroglyphics, which spell out a pardon for sin. Those marks only tell of His wisdom, benevolence, and majesty; and so far as Nature is concerned, the proposition, that must be solved before my dying pillow can be peace, remains unexplicated—unreconciled—and unknown.
Reason and Revelation. Sailing over the great oceans of our earth, the voyager sometimes sees on the far-off horizon a thin mist-cloud or streak, which to my telescope leaps up a green island, cut off from the mainland by a broad belt of waters, too broad to look across, and whose indwellers have no means of passage, well represents our world regarded apart from revelation. You stand on the highest hill in the island, and you see nothing but the girdling sea. The people of the island “dwell alone.” There are traditions, it may be, of white-sailed ships, and of visitors from lands across the ocean; but these traditions belong to the far-vanished past. The little sea girt island sits in the sea, alone, and is sundered from all intercourse, other than chance or shipwreck bring from the mainland. Now, as I have said, may I not thus symbolize our earth apart from the Bible? To sense and unaided reason, we too seem to occupy just such an ocean-girt island, divided and sundered from the spirit-realms. But it is not so. This earth of ours is not the lonely place it seems. Far up above its din, and tumult, and dust,—
“Beyond the glittering starry skies,”
is a pure and blessed world—sinless, sorrowless—where “the High and Lofty One” unveils His glory to the blessed dwellers; and with this high and holy, and radiant world we are connected. Do you ask me how? My answer is, by the mediation of Christ, our High-Priest—by the thousand thousand cries of prayer—by the magnanimous abiding of the Holy Spirit—by heaven peopled from earth—by the ministration of angelic visits—by the well-nigh infinite outgoings of grace [Grosart].
Reason and Faith. We would represent Reason and Faith as twin-born; the one in form and features the image of manly beauty—the other, of feminine grace and gentleness; but to each of whom, alas! is allotted a sad privation. While the bright eyes of Reason are full of piercing and restless intelligence, his ear is closed to sound; and while Faith has an ear of exquisite delicacy, on her sightless orbs, as she lifts them towards heaven, the sunbeams play in vain. Hand in hand the brother and sister, in all mutual love, pursue their way through a world on which, like ours, day breaks and night falls alternate; by day the eyes of Reason are the guide of Faith, and by night the ear of faith is the guide of Reason. As is wont with those who labour under these privations respectively, Reason is apt to be eager, impetuous, impatient of that instruction which his infirmity will not permit him readily to apprehend; while Faith, gentle and docile, is ever willing to listen to the voice by which alone truth and wisdom can effectually reach her [Prof. Rogers].
Sciences, Human. Human sciences are like gaslights in the streets. They serve our purpose only while the heavens are dark. The brighter the sky, the more dim and useless they become. When noontide floods the town, they are buried though they burn. No sooner will the sun of absolute truth break on the firmament of our souls, than all the lights of our poor logic shall go out. Knowledge, it shall vanish away [Dr. Thomas].
Science only an Agent. We glory in the conquests of science, but we look upon science as merely an agent. Science may be a botanist, but who started the vital fluid in the veins of the herb and flower? Science may be a geologist, but who wrote the rock-covered page, whose hieroglyphics she would translate? Science may be an astronomer, but who built the worlds, who projected the comets, whose mysterious path she traces? Science may be an agriculturist, she may open the earth’s breast and cast in most precious seed, but if the fountains of dew be stayed, Science herself will die of thirst! Be it observed, then, that science is an agent, not a cause, and that while we rejoice in its agency, we are bound to acknowledge the goodness of the INFINITE INTELLIGENCE [Dr. J. Parker].
Creation. A gentleman, being invited to accompany a distinguished person to see a grand building, erected by Sir Christopher Hatton, desired to be excused and to sit still, looking on a flower he held in his hand, “For,” said he, “I see more of God in this flower than in all the beautiful edifices in the world.”
Not a flower
But shows some touch. in freckled streak or stain
Of His unrivalled pencil. He inspires
Their balmy odours, and imparts their hues,
And bathes their eyes with nectar, and includes,
In grains as countless as the seaside sands,
The forms with which He sprinkles all the earth [Cowper].
Creation was Adam’s library; God bade him read the interesting volumes of His works, which were designed to make known the Divine character [Legh Richmond].
Atheism Modern. The Atheism of this age is chiefly founded upon the absurd fallacy that the idea of law in Nature excludes the idea of God in Nature. As well might they say the code of Napoleon in France excludes the idea of Napoleon from France. To me, no intuition is clearer than this—that intelligent control everywhere manifests the presence of a ruling mind. To me, physical law, in its permanence, expresses the immutable persistence of His will; in its wise adjustments, the infinite science of His intellect, in its kindly adaptations, the benevolence of His heart [Coley].
Reason! Atheism! Whilst expressing sorrow, the thoughtful and pious student of science can hardly refrain from smiling at the extreme deductions of what is called “the Modern School of Philosophy.” This modern school has its numerous and divergent theories on the Origin of Nature; but all these diversities have their common root “in the evil heart of unbelief.” A system of Metaphysics and Psychology based entirely on the perceptions of the senses, like that of Spencer, Bain, and Mill; a system of Morals recognising no test of duty but public utility in the interest of the race; the natural evolution of Darwin—the Lucretian doctrines of Tyndall—the automatous frogs of Mr. Huxley—the religion of humanity of Congreve and Conte—the lamentations of Gregg over the enigmas of life—and Arnold’s last caricature of the Deity, have all a common source. That source is “antagonism to the Cosmogony of the Bible.” Their views are the natural growth of a false and shallow philosophy, which excludes from its sphere of vision the very conception of a power in Nature, yet ABOVE Nature, and which denies the evidence of the spiritual origin and destiny of our being. To borrow an illustration from a German seer, men see the spinning-wheel but not the spindle, and then declaim against the senseless clatter of the world. We regard them with sorrow, as the disciples of a corrupt and degraded school of thought, who are resolved not to see the bright, unfading star of hope—
To quench the only ray that cheered the earth,
And leave mankind in night which has no star.
Gen_1:2
Darkness and Deep! Nothing could be more erroneous than the impression that by “deep” is meant the “waters” of Gen_1:6. By “deep” here is meant the fluid surface of the earth—upon which darkness was. But what does the phrase import? Does it mean
(1.) Nothing more than a mere negation? or
(2) Something more than a mere negation, i.e., obstruction. AGAIN, was it (a) Nothing more than a mere natural obstruction? or (b) Something more than a mere natural obstruction, i.e., a Satanic struggle to suspend the Divine Creative procedure? This brings up the subtle speculation as to whether Satan had fallen previously to the “deep,” when—
… What were seas
Unsounded, were of half their waters drained,
And what were wildernesses ocean beds;
And mountain ranges, from beneath upheaved,
Clave with their granite peaks primeval plains,
And rose sublime into the water floods.
Floods overflow’d themselves with seas of mist,
Which swathed in darkness all terrestrial things,
Once more unfurnished—empty—void, and vast.
Some authors maintain that he had, and that the obstruction was not only “natural,” but “angelic”—i.e., that Satan, as the prince of darkness, endeavoured to hinder the great development of Creative Providence. Others have taken up the view that the temptation in Eden was the first overt act of rebellion on Satan’s part. If this be so, it is clear that the obstruction was only “natural”—darkness was upon the face of the deep. Whichever is correct, in whole or in part, it seems clear to us that the “darkness” has a double reflection, backwards and forwards:
(1.) Light must ever precede ere there can be darkness; and
(2.) Darkness must ever be the shadow of coming light, as holding it back. And two things follow upon this:—
1. It sweeps away entirely the whole notion that the “light” in Gen_1:3 means “primal origination.” Did light exist previous to the Divine fiat in Gen_1:3? It did; for as the Prince of Light existed before the prince of darkness, so did the natural light before the natural darkness.
2. It confirms the view that between Gen_1:1-2 there was a long period (or series) of successive eras of light and darkness, ending in that chaotic gloom of Gen_1:2, which preceded God’s recreative command:—
Such universal chaos reigned without;
Within, the embryo of a world.
That chaotic gloom was night, figurative of the morning struggle between light and darkness now. There is an endless strife between moral light and darkness. The armies of light and darkness are contending in fierce fight. Darkness is upon the face of the deep; but the night—the moral night—of evil is far spent (Romans 13). The triumph of the prince of darkness and his phalanxes of sin is near its close. The dawn is near. The Divine fiat will soon be heard: “Let there be light;” for at eventide (i.e., our dark hour before the dawn) it shall be light (Zec_14:7). Darkness overtakes not that day, for there shall be no more night (Revelation 21); but the Lord shall be the Everlasting Light (Isa_60:19). Between the “original creation” of light and the terrestrial era in Gen_1:2 there may have been cycles of millennial days completed.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 I. What is meant by creation? The giving being…
Gen 1:1
I. What is meant by creation? The giving being to that which before was not. The expression, "the heavens and the earth," is the most exhaustive phrase the Hebrews could employ to name the universe, which is regarded as a twofold whole, consisting of unequal parts. Writing for men, Moses writes as a man. The moral importance of the earth, as the scene of man’s probation, is the reason for the form which the phrase assumes. The truth of the creation governs the theology of the Old and New Testaments, and may have influenced the formation of heathen cosmogonies, such as the Etruscan and the Zendavesta. Creation is a mystery, satisfactory to the reason, but strictly beyond it. We can modify existing matter, but we cannot create one particle of it. That God summoned it into being is a truth which we believe on God’s authority, but which we can never verify.
Read full note →
II. Belief in the creation of the universe out of nothing is the only account of its origin which is compatible with belief in a personal and moral God.
Creation suggests Providence, and Providence leads the way to Redemption. If love or goodness were the true motive in creation, it implies God’s continuous interest in created life. By His love, which led Him to move out of Himself in creation at the first, He travels with the slow, onward movement of the world and of humanity, and His Incarnation in time, when demanded by the needs of the creatures of His hand, is in a line with that first of mysteries, His deigning to create at all. Belief in creation keeps man in his right place of humble dependence and thankful service. A moral God will not despise the work of His own hands, and Creation leads up to Redemption.
H. P. Liddon, University Sermons, 2nd series, p. 38.
The Bible spoke in the language and through the knowledge of its time. It was content to reveal spiritual truth, but left men to find out scientific truth for themselves. It is inspired with regard to principles, but not as regards details of fact. The principles laid down in this chapter are: (1) the unity of God; (2) that all noble work is gradual; (3) the interdependence of rest and work; (4) that man was made in the image of God.
S. A. Brooke, Sermons, p. 222.
I. Man naturally asks for some account of the world in which he lives. The answer of the text as to the creation of the heavens and the earth is: (1) simple; (2) sublime; (3) sufficient.
If God created all things, then (a) all things are under His government; (b) the heavens and the earth may be studied religiously; (c) it is reasonable that He should take an interest in the things which He created.
II. Biblical theology teaches: (1) that creation is an expression of God’s mind; (2) that creation may form the basis for the consideration of God’s personality and character; (3) that God’s word is its own security for fulfilment; (4) that the word which accounts for the existence of nature accounts also for the existence of man.
Parker, People’s Bible, vol. i., p. 118.
The whole Trinity, each in His separate office, though all in unity, addressed themselves to the work of creation: (1) the Holy Spirit brooded over the watery chaos; (2) the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, was that power, or "Arm of the Lord," by which the whole work was executed,—"In the beginning was the Word;" (3) the Father’s mind willed all, planned all, and did all. God created only "the heaven and the earth." He provided a heaven, but He did not provide a hell. That was provided, not for our world at all, but for the devil and his angels. If we ask why God created this universe of ours, three purposes suggest themselves: (1) it was the expression and out-going of His wisdom, power, and love; (2) it was for the sake of His noblest work, His creature, man; (3) the heaven and the earth were meant to be the scene of the exhibition of His own dear Son. Remember, that marvellously grand as it was, that first creation was only a type and earnest of a better.
J. Vaughan, Sermons, 15th series, p. 37.
References: Gen 1:1—H. P. Liddon, Penny Pulpit, No. 205 (see Old Testament Outlines, p. 1); J. Van Oosterzee, The Year of Salvation, vol. ii., p. 320; H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. iv., p. 1; A. P. Peabody, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 333; J. Cumming, Church before the Flood, p. 79; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 87, vol. iv., p. 420; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xx., p. 19, vol. xxii., p. 82; S. Leathes, Truth and Life, p. 1; J. E. Gibberd, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvii., p. 249; M. G. Pearse, Some Aspects of the Blessed Life, p. 25; C. Kingsley, Discipline and other Sermons, p. 112; C. Kingsley, The Gospel of the Pentateuch, p. 1; R. S. Candlish, The Book of Genesis, Discourses, vol. i., p. 18; B. Waugh, The Sunday Magazine (1887), p. 59. Gen 1:1-3—F. W. Robertson, Notes on Genesis, p. 1. Gen 1:1-5.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xi., No. 660.
Gen 1:2
We should be sure we understand both Nature and Scripture before we pronounce certainly on their agreement or disagreement, and it can hardly be said that either is quite understood. To attempt to reconcile all the expressions in this chapter with the details of science is a mistake. It has certain true things to declare, facts of nature which have a religious bearing, and are a needed introduction to the revelation which follows; and these facts it presents in the poetic form natural to the East, and most suited to impress all kinds of readers. The "six days" are fit stages in a poetical account of the great evolution, even as a play acted in a few hours represents the events of years. Three great lessons are impressed in this chapter: (1) that God is the Maker of heaven and earth; (2) that by means of His operation on dead and formless matter the order and beauty of the varied and living world were produced; (3) that the change was gradual. The Spirit of God brought order and development to the material world. We cannot see the Intelligence, the Mind which directs the works of nature; but it is equally true that we cannot see them in the works of man. It is truer to say that the Invisible Mind, the unseen Spirit of God, moved upon the formless earth and brought it to its present ordered form, than to say it happened so. The Spirit of God moved, i.e., brooded as a bird over her young. This indicates the quiet, untiring ways in which God works in the heavens and the earth. The Spirit of God must bring order and development (1) to the spiritual world, (2) to the individual soul. The Spirit of God must move or brood upon the worse than darkness of sinful and godless hearts.
T. M. Herbert, Sketches of Sermons, p. 1.
References: Gen 1:2—R. M. McCheyne, Additional Remains, p. 88; Sermons for the Christian Seasons, 2nd Series, vol. ii., p. 593; R. W. Evans, Parochial Sermons, p. 237; Bishop H. Browne, Old Testament Outlines, p. 2; A. P. Stanley, Good Words (1875), p. 273; B. Waugh, Sunday Magazine (1887), p. 63. Gen 1:3—A. P. Stanley, Church Sermons, vol. i., p. 171 (see also Old Testament Outlines, p. 3); B. Waugh, Sunday Magazine (1887), p. 61. Gen 1:4.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxi., No. 1252; Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 5; Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, pp. 5, 192; Parker, Pulpit Notes, p. 148; Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 113.
Gen 1:5
Joh 4:4
(1) One of the first lessons which God intends us to learn from the night is a larger respect for wholesome renovation. Perhaps this may not show itself in any great lengthening of our bodily life, but rather in a more healthy spirit, less exposed to that prevailing unrest which fills the air and which troubles so many minds. (2) The night is the season of wonder. A new and strangely equipped population, another race of beings, another sequence of events, comes into and fills the world of the mind. Men who have left their seal upon the world, and largely helped in the formation of its deepest history,—men whose names stand up through the dim darkness of the past, great leaders and masters, have admitted that they learned much from the night. (3) The next thought belonging to the night is that then another world comes out and, as it were, begins its day. There is a rank of creatures which moves out into activity as soon as the sun has set. This thought should teach us something of tolerance; senses, dispositions, and characters are very manifold and various among ourselves. Each should try to live up to the light he has, and allow a brother to do the same. (4) Such extreme contrasts as are involved in light and darkness may tell us that we have as yet no true measure of what life is, and it must be left to some other conditions of existence for us to realize in anything like fulness the stores, the processes, the ways of the Kingdom of the Lord which are provided for such as keep His law. (5) Let us learn that, whether men wake or sleep, the universe is in a state of progress, "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together." (6) Let us learn to use day rightly and righteously, to accept the grace and the forces of the Lord while it is called today, and then the night shall have no forbidding, no repulsive significance.
H. Jones, The Family Churchman, Oct. 20th, 1886.
References: Gen 1:5—Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 153; Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 193. Gen 1:5-6—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. vi., p. 38. Gen 1:11.—B. Waugh, Sunday Magazine (1887), p. 65.
Gen 1:14
There are few words much oftener in our mouths than that short but most important word, "Time." It is the long measure of our labour, expectation, and pain; it is the scanty measure of our rest and joy. And yet, with all this frequent mention of it, there are, perhaps, few things about which men really think less, few things upon which they have less real settled thought.
I. Two remarkable characteristics make up the best account which we can give of time. The one, how completely, except in its issue, it passes from us; the other, how entirely, in that issue, it ever abides with us. We are the sum of all past time. It was the measure of our opportunities, of our growth. Our past sins are still with us as losses in the sum of our lives. Our past acts of self-denial, our struggles with temptation, our prayers, our times of more earnest communion with God,—these are with us still in the blessed work which the Holy Spirit has wrought within us.
II. Such thoughts should awaken in us: (1) deep humiliation for the past; (2) thankfulness for the past mercies of God; (3) calm trust and increased earnestness for the future.
S. Wilberforce, Sermons, p. 73.
References: Gen 1:14.—H. Macmillan, Two Worlds are Ours, p. 18. Gen 1:14, Gen 1:15.—A. P. Stanley, Good Words, 1871, p. 453. Gen 1:14-19—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. vi., p. 39.
Gen 1:16
It is noticeable that while this chapter does not profess to be a scientific account of creation, not only is creation represented as a gradual process, but the simpler living forms are introduced first, and the more advanced afterwards, as the fossil remains of plants and animals prove to have been the case. God has seen fit to appoint, in the world of mind as well as of matter, great lights, and lesser lights, and least lights, answering to the daylight, moonlight, and starlight of the heavens.
I. Consider the lights of angels, of men, and of animals. The angels behold the face of God and watch His plans from age to age. Compared with us, they live in the blaze of day: we have the lesser light of human reason, which relieves, but does not banish, the night. There are around us other conscious creatures, endowed with still feebler powers, who grope in the dim starlight of animal existence. God is the "Father of all lights."
II. The lights of Heathenism, Judaism, and Christianity. What a glimmering starlight of religious knowledge is that of the heathen millions! How partial and imperfect was the knowledge that even the Jews possessed! At last "the Sun of Righteousness arose with healing in His wings." The world has not exhausted, it has scarcely touched, the wealth of spiritual light and life in Him.
III. The lights of childhood, manhood, and the heavenly state. The faint gleam of light in childhood develops into the stronger light of manhood, but even that does not banish the night. "In Thy light we shall see light.
T. M. Herbert, Sketches of Sermons, p. 16.
References: Gen 1:21.—Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iv., p. 191. Gen 1:24.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. vi., p. 40. Gen 1:24-26.—Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 371.
Gen 1:26
It is not too much to say that redemption, with all its graces and all its glories, finds its explanation and its reason in creation. He who thought it worth while to create, foreseeing consequences, can be believed, if He says so, to have thought it worth while to rescue and to renew. Nay, there is in this redemption a sort of antecedent fitness, inasmuch as it exculpates the act of creation from the charge of short-sightedness or of mistake. "Let us make man in our image," created anew in Jesus Christ, "after the image of Him that created him."
Notice three respects in which the Divine image has been traced in the human.
I. "God is Spirit," was our Lord’s saying to the Samaritan. Man is spirit also. This it is which makes him capable of intercourse and communion with God Himself. This it is which makes prayer possible, and thanksgiving possible, and worship possible in more than a form and name. Spirituality thus becomes the very differentia of humanity. The man who declares that the spiritual is not, or is not for him, may well fancy himself developed out of lower organisms by a process which leaves him still generically one of them; for he has parted altogether from the great strength and life of his race.
II. Spirituality is the first Divine likeness. We will make sympathy the second. Fellow-suffering is not necessarily sympathy. On the other hand, sympathy may be Where fellow-suffering is not. Love is sympathy, and God is love. Sympathy is an attribute of Deity. When God made man in His own likeness, He made him thereby capable of sympathy. Spirituality without sympathy might conceivably be a cold and spiritless grace; it might lift us above earth, but it would not brighten earth itself. III. The third feature is that which we call influence, the other two are conditions of it. Influence is by name and essence the gentle flowing in of one nature and one personality into another, which touches the spring of will and makes the volition of one the volition of the other. It is indeed a worse than heathenish negation of the power and activity of God, the source of all, if we debar Him alone from the exercise of that spiritual influence upon the understanding, the conscience, and the heart of mankind, which we find to be all but resistless in the hands of those who possess it by His leave. "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our own likeness."
C. J. Vaughan, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xix., p. 369.
References: Gen 1:26.—Parker, vol. i., p. 164; C. Kingsley, Gospel of the Pentateuch, p. 18; Bishop Woodford, Sermons Preached in Various Churches, p. 33; H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1491; E. M. Goulburn, Pursuit of Holiness, p. 102; J. Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man, p. 98; Smith, Donellan Lecture (1884-85), p. 173; H. Grey, A Parting Memorial, p. 286; A. Murray, With Christ in the School of Prayer, p. 137; S. T. Williams, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 218. Gen 1:26-31.—F. W. Robertson, Notes on Genesis, p. 9. Gen 1:26, Gen 1:27. —Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. x., p. 214.
Gen 1:27
Man is one, yet threefold: he has mind, body, and soul, a mind ruling the body, a body executing the decrees of the mind, a soul giving life to and energising the body. On the mind alone there is a triple stamp of the Creator; in the mind of man are Intelligence, Will, and Memory. Intelligence, whereby he can understand about God; Will, whereby he may seek Him; Memory, whereby he may recall the blessings God has showered upon him. Before these three powers can obtain their perfect satisfaction in God, the three wounds of man must be healed. By his fall from God the Father, who is Omnipotence, man has contracted infirmity; by withdrawing from God the Son, who is the Wisdom of God, he has contracted ignorance; by withdrawing from the Spirit, who is the Goodness of God, he has contracted love of evil. These three wounds will be healed by Faith, which will illumine man’s ignorance; by Hope, which will sustain his infirmity; and by Charity or Love, which will counteract his evil concupiscence.
S. Baring-Gould, Village Preaching for a Year, vol. ii., p. 9.
I. God’s image in man consisted: (1) in the possession of moral powers and susceptibilities; (2) in the pure and righteous state of his whole nature; (3) in his relative position toward other terrestrial creatures.
II. The blessedness involved in the possession of God’s image consisted in making human nature: (1) a mirror of God in itself; (2) a mirror of God to other creatures; (3) a mirror in which God saw Himself.
S. Martin, Westminster Chapel Pulpit, 1878, p. 210.
References: Gen 1:27.—B. Waugh, Sunday Magazine (1887), pp. 133, 207, 278, 427; Bishop W. Basil Jones, Old Testament Outlines, p. 4; T. G. Bonney, Oxford and Cambridge Undergraduates’ Journal, May 10th, 1887; Sermons for the Christian Seasons, 1st series, vol. i., p. 205; J. W. Burgon, Oxford Undergraduates’ Journal, June 12th, 1884; Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, vol. v., p. 1; Bishop Alexander, Norwich Cathedral Discourses, 4th series, No. 1; H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. iv., p. 35; F. Temple, Bampton Lecture (1884), pp. 37, 69; S. A. Brooke, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 17. Gen 1:27, Gen 1:28.—F. A. Tholuck, Hours of Christian Devotion, p. 370.
Gen 1:28
Does this command mean for the human race a destiny of progress or poverty? This question is being pressed upon us to-day from many directions. It is asked, not only by theologians and economists, but as a vital question of daily bread by English labourers and workmen. In the power to bring social questions within the range of a common religious teaching is to be found, in these days, the true "note" of a standing or falling Church. If Christianity still holds the key to all the unsolved problems, both of society and of the individual, it is for the Church of the present to grasp, if she can, and set forth, whether by word or deed, the bearing which Christianity has upon the social life of man.
I. Is poverty a perpetual ordinance of God, to be accepted as an essential part of the providential scheme of government? To any one who believes in the daily prayer Christ taught us, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," there can be no doubt as to the true answer to that question. We believe in the perfectibility of humanity. The grand sweep of things is from the lower to the higher. So far from attributing the state of poverty to the providential order of society, it is to that social order that we attribute all victories which have been won over poverty. Study the laws of Providence, strive to co-operate with them, and you shall see accomplished in humanity this double manifestation of progress,—all men approximating to a common level, and a level which is continually rising.
II. How shall we explain Christ’s apparent exaltation of poverty and depreciation of just those social elements which seem most characteristic of modern civilisation?
Jesus Christ did not come into the world to give men a new system of morality, but to give us a new motive to be good and to do right. His denunciation of riches and exaltation of poverty must not be separated from the conditions under which He spoke, much less from the real object which He had in view. His method always was to put the abstract principle into concrete shape. We must not go to the New Testament as to a code of maxims and dicta; we must imbue ourselves with the mind of Christ, and let our behaviour flow freely from it.
III. Let us not rest satisfied with the message of the man of science, of the sociologist who tells us that our only hope is in the slow progress of social evolution; let us go down into the thick of the fight, into the grimy street and monotonous village, and there, amid the "dim common populations," let us do journeyman service.
C. W. Stubbs, Oxford and Cambridge Undergraduates’ Journal,, March 1st, 1883.
Gen 1:31
No one can prove to us that God made the world; but faith, which is stronger than all arguments, makes us certain of it.
I. All which God has made is good, as He is, and, therefore, if anything in the world seems to be bad, one of two things must be true of it: (1) either it is not bad, though it seems so to us, and God will bring good out of it in His own good time; or (2) if the thing is really bad, then God did not make it. It must be a disease, a mistake, a failure of man’s making, or of some person’s making, but not of God’s making. For all that He has made He sees eternally, and, behold, it is very good.
II. God created each of us good in His own mind, else He would not have created us at all. Why does God’s thought of us, God’s purpose about us, seem to have failed? We do not know, and we need not know. Whatever sin we inherited from Adam, God looks on us now, not as we are in Adam, but as we are in Christ. God looks not on the old corrupt nature which we inherited from Adam, but on the new and good grace which God has meant for us from all eternity, which Christ has given us now.
III. That which is good in us God has made; He will take care of what He has made, for He loves it. All which is bad in us God has not made, and therefore He will destroy it; for He hates all that He has not made, and will not suffer it in His world. Before all worlds, from eternity itself, God said, "Let us make man in our likeness," and nothing can hinder God’s word but the man himself. If a man loves his fallen nature better than the noble, just, loving grace of God, and gives himself willingly up to the likeness of the beasts that perish, then only can God’s purpose towards him become of none effect.
C. Kingsley, The Good News of God, p. 268.
References: Gen 1:31.—T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. ii., p. 238, vol. vi., p. 1; F. W. Farrar, Ephphatha, Sermons, p. 157; Outline Sermons to Children, p. 1; T. Birkett Dover, A Lent Manual, p. 19; Archbishop Thomson, Lincoln’s Inn Sermons, pp. 138, 155; Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxv., p. 42.
Genesis 1
It is possible that God made at first only one kind of matter, the germ of all the universe. Indeed, Scripture seems to hint this in the sublime record of the origin of light: "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light." Here light is evidently regarded as the first of all sublunary things.
The principal agent in this work was the Son of God. He had made the third heaven. He had created angels. The strong Satan himself was originally the workmanship of Christ. It is no strange hand that moulded the worlds. Go wherever you may, the hand of Christ has been before you, and He Who made all these strange suns, and all these mighty systems, is the very Victim that suffered, bled, and died on Calvary.
I. The creation was a gradual process, a process probably extending over millions of ages; not merely a process, but a procession of things and beings, from inferior to superior, from the less to the more perfect. The reasons might be: (1) to show that God’s works were not the offspring of hasty impulse, but that they were planned from everlasting, and executed with minute and lingering care; (2) to discover the variety of methods which a God infinitely rich in resources can employ in effecting His great purposes. This gradual creative work occupied the Creator for millions of ages. This we gather, not from the Bible, but from the discoveries of geology.
II. The creative process at last came to a point in man, who, amidst ten thousand other animated forms, alone was made, in the full sense of that word, perfect, and who became the best and highest work of God. From the Scripture statements about the creation of man we deduce the following principles: (1) that man was formed by a direct act of Omnipotence; (2) that he was made after the model of his Maker, and therefore perfect; (3) that he was immeasurably superior to the lower animals, and entitled to dominion over them; (4) that he was the object of God’s peculiar blessing; (5) that one main purpose of his creation was to subdue and cultivate the earth; (6) that he consisted of two parts—a body taken out of the dust of the ground, and an immaterial part breathed into him by his Creator; (7) that although created a unit, he was potentially plural, too, and was destined to be joined by a companion in his original state of innocence and purity; (8) and that he was in a state of probation, and exposed to temptation and the hazard of fall.
G. Gilfillan, Alpha and Omega, vol. i., p. 49.
References: Gen. 1.—H. Alford, Meditations in Advent, p 71; S. Leathes, Studies in Genesis, pp. 5, 17; Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iv., p. 191, vol. vii., p. 444; 3rd series, vol. iii., p. 354; Parker, vol. i., pp. 103, III. 1-2:4.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 34; J. Monro Gibson, The Ages before Moses, p. 55.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v1 Division 1. (Gen 1:1-31; Gen 2:1-25.)
Division 1. (Gen 1:1-31; Gen 2:1-25.)
Creation, -type of new creation; its stages, whether in the individual or in the dispensations.
Read full note →
Subdivision 1. (Gen 1:1-31; Gen 2:1-3.)
God’s work, of and by Himself.
Notes.
1.
Seven words describe the original creation of the first verse. In the second, the earth, -emphasized in contrast with the heavens -is waste and void. Darkness is on the "face of the deep" -not every where, -and the light of the first day is not created then, but called into existence there where (now) it was not. The "deep," too, is not a true chaos, (nor is the earth that,) but "waters," under which the earth lies buried, and which are removed on the third day, so that the dry land appears. All this shows a state of things quite in accordance with the idea of some cataclysmic overthrow succeeding the geologic ages whose remains are entombed in the strata, and immediately preceding the introduction of man and the animals that came in with him.
This thought of a ruined condition of the earth succeeding its original creation, so far from being merely an attempt to meet the demands of geology, is no less required by the typical view. It is the new birth of a fallen creature which is depicted in the first day’s work. Here how truly the ruin and vanity of the natural - man are only concealed by the moral darkness which is the result of being away from God! The Word of God acts in conjunction with the Spirit, and man is brought into the presence of God, who is light, -a light by which we are discovered to ourselves. All that we become sensible of is ruin -a lost condition, -and yet here, in repentance, true judgment of ourselves before God, the first step in fellowship with Him is found. This is the type in its individual application, and it is easy enough to read.
Dispensationally, it is the age of promise that is pictured, -the time before the flood, when simply the prophecy of the woman’s Seed and the enjoined sin-offering (see Gen 4:7) cast light upon man’s condition, and cheer with the commencement of a new day. But as to the earth, God does not interfere with it, and the general state is such that it ends in almost universal judgment.
The evening and the morning throughout these days are in beautiful accordance with the typical significance. The darkness is called "Night" but, in fact, when light is once come, there is never again absolute night. Evening" already tells of the influence of light, and is followed by the morning. Man, according to his reckoning of it, begins and ends his day in darkness. How different is God’s! See the beautiful use of the expression "evening-mornings" in that darkest of times for Israel depicted in Dan 8:14, while the sanctuary and host are being trodden under foot. But the end brings deliverance and blessing.
2.
In the expanse of the second day, again, we have not the absolute heavens of the beginning, but the earth-heavens, -although through these alone the higher ones are seen. The expanse is the effect of the atmosphere when in its normal condition, lifting by evaporation the clouds from the waters beneath, that, purged of their saltness, they may become the fertilizing "bottles of heaven." What is this ethereal, purifying, fructifying agency but the type of the new nature in the child of God? By and by, in these heavens a sun will shine, and below, the enfranchized earth will repay these influences with fruits and harvests. At first, there is rather conflict and unrest; but it is a step, and an important one, to the full blessing.
Dispensationally, we shall easily read the type if we remember that in Scripture, at least, the "heavens" always "rule." (Dan 4:26.) But the type of supreme authority, the sun, is yet wanting. There is an "above" and "below," but only waters, the very type of instability, are separated from the waters. Hence it is an apt representation of human government, established first in Noah’s time in the divine injunction, "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed." But how unstable are all human governments! and how little difference really in the distinctions of upper and under among men! -it is but still "waters" from "waters."
3.
And now the earth is brought up from under the waters. These stand, as we have seen, for the evil within us, of which the restless sea is the type. "The wicked are like the troubled sea when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt." This last is the action of the surf upon the shore, and such chafing against its bounds is typically characteristic: "The mind of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."
The flesh is not removed as long as we are here: "If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin." (Rom 8:10.) But when the true power of resurrection is known in the soul, and the law of the Spirit delivers from the law -the dominion -of sin and death, our third day is reached, and the true sanctification of the Christian man is known. With stability -the dry ground -fruit is found, -fruit, too, whose seed is ever in itself. Upon the doctrine of all this I cannot, however, enter here; it will be considered elsewhere.
Dispensationally, we have the sanctification of Israel to God -the earth separated from the waters; for the Gentile is just man left to himself, and his picture the "sea" has already given us: comp. Rev 17:15.
4.
On the fourth day, the luminaries are presented in their practical relation to the earth; and it is as the glory of Christ shines on us we become practically the "epistle of Christ, known and read of all men" (comp. 2Co 3:3; 2Co 3:18; 2Co 4:4; 2Co 4:6). It is the practical effect of occupation with Christ which comes under the eye of men, and which is emphasized here. In this way the numerical stamp is seen here. It is now night; for Christ (the sun) is absent, and we (moon-like) are His representatives.
Dispensationally, the number may therefore easily speak of the present going forth of the gospel, world-wide in its aspect, and characteristically Gentile, as the Church is. As the third day speaks of separation, so does the fourth day of dispersion.
5.
The fifth and sixth days are in some of their details most difficult to read, and yet their general application is quite easy. The waters speak, as we have seen, of the sin and evil in man; and here yet we see produced by the waters, through the fiat of God, the living soul, -type of the affections and emotions, which in Scripture are associated with the "soul," and not with the spirit. So "tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope." The very sin within, over which we groan, makes us long for the redemption which is yet to come. (Rom 8:23.) This seems clearly the lesson here.
Dispensationally, Scripture teaches us to anticipate, after the present day of grace is over, a time of trouble such as never was, and such as never again will be upon earth (Mat 24:21; Mat 24:30), closed only by the coming of the Son of Man from heaven; -a time which will be that of Israel’s travail-pains, when the nation comes to the birth and is born in one day, and out of this "great tribulation" a countless multitude of all nations will be brought who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. This will be the preparation-time for millennial blessing. Those who know it as the time of Antichrist and other forms of portentous evil will not wonder to hear of the great "sea-monsters" here; for Antichrist himself; with all the powers and faculties he perverts to his own destruction, is still the creature of God and in His hand: "He that made him," as God says of behemoth (Job 40:19), "can make His sword approach unto him."
6.
Finally, on the sixth day, it is the earth produces the living soul, and then the lord of the whole scene, the summit of God’s work, is introduced into it, and all is put into his hand. He is to "subdue" and "hold" it "in subjection." Mastery is evidently here a principal thought, as we see it is in what we shall find to be in designed connection with this sixth day’s work, -the life of Joseph.
And if Christ be the true "Image of God," Joseph is more than any other of the types of Genesis the image of Christ. Would we could tell more of what this type is! But just enough is plain to make us long for more.
Dispensationally, we have undoubtedly the millennial reign of Christ and His bride over the earth. The limiting of food to fruit and herb seems to speak of the reign of peace under the Prince of Peace.
7.
The seventh, as the day of God’s rest, is surely typical of that full rest, which is necessarily God’s, into which the saints shall enter. It is called a "sabbatism," a Sabbath-keeping: "There remaineth therefore a sabbatism to the people of God." (Heb 4:9.) Here, what we call "dispensations" end; for their work is done.
{Critical notes.
Creation.
Only three times in this account is creation spoken of: first, it is of the heavens and earth at the beginning; secondly, of the living soul, -the animal creation; thirdly, of man, who is spirit, as well as soul. In each case in which it is used, therefore, a new thing is brought into being, not developed out of pre-existing material. That the word is used elsewhere in a less exact way is true, and not hard to understand either; but to the six days’ work as a whole it is never applied: "in six days the Lord made," not "created." The closing words, which I have rendered literally, make a distinction between creating and making, and affirm the making here to be a purpose of the original creation.
When men are born again, here also they are "created" in Christ Jesus, and have a new, "divine nature," which is "eternal life."
The "Days."
In spite of what seems the general tendency of modern thought, Scripture shows plainly enough that the "days" are literal days. 1. The terms "evening" and "morning" naturally convey this thought; these having reference to the "light" which had just been called forth. The puzzle which would make the preceding darkness part of the first day is thus very simply set aside; for "evening" already speaks of the action of light, and shows that the first day begins with that. But a long period, divided thus into an "evening and a morning" by the absence or presence of light, can hardly be contended for.
2. The "fruit-tree bearing fruit" on the third day evidently implies the presence of man, or at least animals, without ages to intervene. The tender reference to man all through indeed is unmistakable.
3. Man himself is created the sixth day, and on the seventh, the whole creation was pronounced very good: how long must he have lived in paradise unfallen, if the period-theory be true? or was it only at the very end that he was brought into being? Notice, too, that God appoints their food, to beast and man respectively, after the creation of the latter, and the following "and it was so" shows that this actually began at that time. Were they all created at the end of the sixth period, not the beginning?
Yet the days being literal does not at all forbid the thought that the geological periods may be represented -find their type and similitude in the literal days. And the researches of geologists have really developed such a correspondence. They have shown us in the periods
(1) the earth brought up from under the waters;
(2) a progress in the development of life upon it;
(3) man as the end of this progressive series.
Thus the different views are not contradictory, save as they assume, on either side, to be exclusive of the other. It is quite according to what we know of the divine working, that the six days, though really that, should exhibit the same plan as the strata have disclosed to us. There is here a testimony to the truth of the record which challenges the reverence and faith of the true inquirer.
Light Before the Sun.
The typical meaning may here, as elsewhere, confirm the literal interpretation. That "God is light," Scripture declares, and science in the most beautiful way illustrates it. Light it has proved to be a trinity of color, the blue, red, and yellow rays uniting to produce the one white one; while it is a trinity of power also, the luminous, heat-giving, and actinic, or chemical, rays being similarly distinct, and yet united; the chemical rays, in their invisible, impalpable operation, seem to set forth in a striking way the analogous working of the Spirit of God.
But if God be light, Christ is the sun; in which the earth-body is clothed with the glory of the light, and radiates it to us. But Christ came in the fourth day of the world’s history, not its first, -exactly according to the order here. The literal and typical meanings mutually confirm each other, and bear united witness to the truth of this wondrous revelation.
The Image and Likeness of God.
It is in the possession of spirit that man is by creation "the offspring of God" (Act 17:29), who is "Spirit" (Joh 4:24), and "the God" and "Father of spirits (Num 16:22; Heb 12:9); -that is, of angels, who are "sons of God" (Job 38:7), and of men; not beasts, who yet have and are living souls." The son is in the image of his parent, and in man, in whom the spirit controls (of right) both soul and body, the image of God is plainly found. Were he soul and body alone, as many teach, he would be but in the image of the beast. The image of God consists, not in his sovereignty over the earth, (for he was created in it,) but it fitted him for this. But we must not confound this natural image, which every one has, with the "image in righteousness and true holiness," which only the new-born child of God has. (Eph 4:24.)
The question of "likeness" is more difficult. I think, however, that "in our image as our likeness" identifies one with the other. Man is in God’s likeness, not from his bodily form, nor merely from his dominion over the creatures, but from a real resemblance: an image is not always "like."
Man’s Sovereignty Over the Earth.
I have translated "hold in subjection." (v. Eph 4:26.) The word (radah) is literally "tread down," and connects plainly in thought with the subduing" of the earth in the twenty-eighth verse. There is, in fact, a certain plasticity of nature in man’s hand which marks, in a peculiar way, his sovereignty. The fruits of the earth, under his cultivation, mellow and throw off even poisonous qualities, developing in a multitude of varieties, from which he chooses, retaining or rejecting according to his will. The domestic animals, as the dog, similarly develop, in a single species, what might well seem generic differences. Ignorance of the meaning of this fact has favored the modern theories of evolution. But if man does not hold nature in subjection, it soon re-asserts its independence, and the forms thus produced are merged into the uniformity of the wild condition.}
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v26 Gen 1:26 - Gen 2:3.
Genesis
THE VISION OF CREATION
Read full note →
Gen 1:26 - Gen 2:3.
We are not to look to Genesis for a scientific cosmogony, and are not to be disturbed by physicists’ criticisms on it as such. Its purpose is quite another, and far more important; namely, to imprint deep and ineffaceable the conviction that the one God created all things. Nor must it be forgotten that this vision of creation was given to people ignorant of natural science, and prone to fall back into surrounding idolatry. The comparison of the creation narratives in Genesis with the cuneiform tablets, with which they evidently are most closely connected, has for its most important result the demonstration of the infinite elevation above their monstrosities and puerilities, of this solemn, steadfast attribution of the creative act to the one God. Here we can only draw out in brief the main points which the narrative brings into prominence.
1. The revelation which it gives is the truth, obscured to all other men when it was given, that one God ‘in the beginning created the heaven and the earth.’ That solemn utterance is the keynote of the whole. The rest but expands it. It was a challenge and a denial for all the beliefs of the nations, the truth of which Israel was the champion and missionary. It swept the heavens and earth clear of the crowd of gods, and showed the One enthroned above, and operative in, all things. We can scarcely estimate the grandeur, the emancipating power, the all-uniting force, of that utterance. It is a worn commonplace to us. It was a strange, thrilling novelty when it was written at the head of this narrative. Then it was in sharp opposition to beliefs that have long been dead to us; but it is still a protest against some living errors. Physical science has not spoken the final word when it has shown us how things came to be as they are. There remains the deeper question, What, or who, originated and guided the processes? And the only answer is the ancient declaration, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.’
2. The record is as emphatic and as unique in its teaching as to the mode of creation: ‘God said . . . and it was so.’ That lifts us above all the poor childish myths of the nations, some of them disgusting, many of them absurd, all of them unworthy. There was no other agency than the putting forth of the divine will. The speech of God is but a symbol of the flashing forth of His will. To us Christians the antique phrase suggests a fulness of meaning not inherent in it, for we have learned to believe that ‘all things were made by Him’ whose name is ‘The Word of God’; but, apart from that, the representation here is sublime. ‘He spake, and it was done’; that is the sign-manual of Deity.
3. The completeness of creation is emphasised. We note, not only the recurrent ‘and it was so,’ which declares the perfect correspondence of the result with the divine intention, but also the recurring ‘God saw that it was good.’ His ideals are always realised. The divine artist never finds that the embodiment of His thought falls short of His thought.
‘What act is all its thought had been?
What will but felt the fleshly screen?
But He has no hindrances nor incompletenesses in His creative work, and the very sabbath rest with which the narrative closes symbolises, not His need of repose, but His perfect accomplishment of His purpose. God ceases from His works because ‘the works were finished,’ and He saw that all was very good.
4. The progressiveness of the creative process is brought into strong relief. The work of the first four days is the preparation of the dwelling-place for the living creatures who are afterwards created to inhabit it. How far the details of these days’ work coincide with the order as science has made it out, we are not careful to ask here. The primeval chaos, the separation of the waters above from the waters beneath, the emergence of the land, the beginning of vegetation there, the shining out of the sun as the dense mists cleared, all find confirmation even in modern theories of evolution. But the intention of the whole is much rather to teach that, though the simple utterance of the divine will was the agent of creation, the manner of it was not a sudden calling of the world, as men know it, into being, but majestic, slow advance by stages, each of which rested on the preceding. To apply the old distinction between justification and sanctification, creation was a work, not an act. The Divine Workman, who is always patient, worked slowly then as He does now. Not at a leap, but by deliberate steps, the divine ideal attains realisation.
5. The creation of living creatures on the fourth and fifth days is so arranged as to lead up to the creation of man as the climax. On the fifth day sea and air are peopled, and their denizens ‘blessed,’ for the equal divine love holds every living thing to its heart. On the sixth day the earth is replenished with living creatures. Then, last of all, comes man, the apex of creation. Obviously the purpose of the whole is to concentrate the light on man; and it is a matter of no importance whether the narrative is correct according to zoology, or not. What it says is that God made all the universe, that He prepared the earth for the delight of living creatures, that the happy birds that soar and sing, and the dumb creatures that move through the paths of the seas, and the beasts of the earth, are all His creating, and that man is linked to them, being made on the same day as the latter, and by the same word, but that between man and them all there is a gulf, since he is made in the divine image. That image implies personality, the consciousness of self, the power to say ‘I,’ as well as purity. The transition from the work of the first four days to that of creating living things must have had a break. No theory has been able to bridge the chasm without admitting a divine act introducing the new element of life, and none has been able to bridge the gulf between the animal and human consciousness without admitting a divine act introducing ‘the image of God’ into the nature common to animal and man. Three facts as to humanity are thrown up into prominence: its possession of the image of God, the equality and eternal interdependence of the sexes, and the lordship over all creatures. Mark especially the remarkable wording of Gen 1:27: ‘created He him male and female created He them.’ So ‘neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman.’ Each is maimed apart from the other. Both stand side by side, on one level before God. The germ of the most ‘advanced’ doctrines of the relations of the sexes is hidden here.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Creation
The Creation
'The foundation of foundations and pillar of all wisdom is to know that the First Being is, and that He giveth existence to everything that exists! 'Thus wrote Moses Maimonides, a Jewish scholar of the 12th cent, a.d., concerning whom the Jewish proverb runs: 'From Moses to Moses there arose none like Moses.' He had in his mind the opening chapter of the Bible, the object of which is to lay this foundation; to declare the existence of the One God; to teach that the Universe was created by Him alone, not by a multitude of deities; that it is the product of a living, personal Will, not a necessary development of the forces inherent in Matter; that it is not the sport of Chance, but the harmonious result of Wisdom. The writer, and the Blessed Spirit who guided him, had but one object in view, to insist on the two truths which underlie all others, the Unity of God and the derivation of all things from Him If we remember that, we shall be relieved of a difficulty which has greatly troubled devout and thoughtful men. Many are the essays and books which have been written on the discrepancies between the scientific account of the mode in which our globe came into being, and the account given in this first chapter of the Bible. Astronomy has shown it to be highly probable that, millions of years ago, an inconceivably immense mass of glowing gas gradually cooled down and took the form of a rotating sphere. This threw off the planets, our earth amongst the number. The central part is now the sun. The earth by slow stages grew fit to be the abode of life. Assuming that the astronomers are right, or, indeed, on any reasonable supposition, the sun and moon were not created later than the earth, on the Fourth Day (Gen_1:16-17). Again, Geology has proved that animal life cannot be dated later than vegetable (Gen_1:11-12 compared with Gen_1:24), and the remains of animals found in the rocks testify by their structure to their feeding on other animals, not on fruit and herbs (Gen_1:30) But such discrepancies do not detract from the real value of our narrative, which is intended to teach Religion, not Science. For the exercise and training of human faculties God, in His Wisdom and Goodness, has left men to find out physical truths by the use of; the powers He has given them. The biblical writer availed himself of the best ideas on i the subject then attainable, put them into a worthy form, freed them from all disfigurements, stamped them with the impress of Religion. And the miracle of it is that the result continues valid and precious for all time, a noble presentation of the Unity and Spirituality of. God, of the Omnipotence of His Will and of the Wisdom of His operations. (For a fuller consideration of this subject see art. 'Creation Story and Science.' The question will be asked, whence did the OT. writer derive his ideas about the creation of the world which we find in this passage? It used to be generally supposed that they were given to him by direct revelation of God. Some competent authorities maintain that, if not appearing for the first time in his work, they were at least original to the nation to which he belonged. Something may be said for this view, but the majority of scholars, upon historical and literary grounds, incline to the opinion that they were more or less derived. All the great nations of antiquity, it is argued, endeavoured to account for the origin of the world, and there are striking similarities in the pictures they drew. There is little doubt that the Hebrews were deeply affected by Babylonian influences, political and literary, and the Creation Story written on the clay-tablets of Babylonia has so many features in common with that before us as to warrant the conclusion that there is a historical connexion between them.
Read full note →
In an article 'Genesis and the Babylonian Inscriptions,' extracts are given from the Babylonian stories of the Creation and the Flood, and the relationship of the two accounts is discussed. It is sufficient to say here that nowhere is the force of inspiration more manifest than in the way the whole subject is treated in the Bible. The Babylonian poem describes the Creation as an episode in the history of the gods; the Bible places it in its right position as the first scene in the drama of human history: the former represents the deities themselves as evolved from Chaos; the latter assumes God to be before all things, and independent of them: the former loses itself in a confused, conflicting medley of deities; to the latter there is but One God: the wild grotesqueness of the one story is in startling contrast with the gravity, dignity, and solemnity of the account with which we have been familiar from childhood, which has also its message for our maturer years.
The present passage is full of the characteristics which mark the Priestly source. See on Gen_2:4; and art. 'Origin of the Pentateuch.'
1-3. Render, 'In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth—now the earth was waste and void, and darkness was over the deep, and the spirit of God was brooding over the waters—then God said: Let there be light.' On this rendering 'Creation' is not 'out of nothing,' but out of preexisting chaos. Gen_2:1 and Gen_2:3 tell how, when God determined on the creation of the ordered universe, the first work was the formation of light as essential to life and progress. The first half of Gen_2:4 was probably prefixed originally to Gen_2:1. See on Gen_2:1-3.
2. God] Heb. EloMm. The word probably signifies 'strength,' but the etymology is obscure; cp. Arabic Allah. The Heb. word is plural in form, but as a rule it is significantly followed by verbs in the singular, except when used of heathen gods. The plural form may be used to express the variety of attributes and powers which are combined in the divine nature, or it may indicate that with the Hebrews one God had taken the place of the many gods who were worshipped by their heathen kindred. Created] Heb. Bara; a word used only of the creative action of God. The heaven and the earth] the ordered universe as contrasted with the dark watery waste of Gen_1:2. The creation of the heaven and the earth did not precede the work of the six days, but comprised it, cp. Gen_2:1. There was no 'heaven' until the second day. With the whole v. cp. Col_1:16-17, Heb_3:4; Heb_11:3. Without form (RV 'waste') and void] The word rendered void is bohu. It reminds us of the Phœnician myth that the first men were the offspring of 'the wind Kolpia and his wife Baau which is interpreted Night,' and of the yet earlier Babylonian Bau, 'the great mother,' who was worshipped as the bestower of lands and flocks on mankind, and the giver of fertility to the soil. The deep] Heb. tehom: the mysterious primeval watery mass which, it was conceived, enveloped the earth. The Babylonians personified it as Tiamat, the dragon goddess of darkness whom Merodach must conquer before he can proceed to the higher stages of creation. The Spirit (RV 'spirit': lit. 'breath' or 'wind') of God] In the Bab. myth the gods are first evolved from the primeval deep: here the Divine agency is described as working on formless matter from the beginning. Moved] rather, 'was brooding' with life-giving power as a bird on her nest.
3-5. First day:—Creation of Light.
3. And God said, Let there be light] A sublime sentence! 'By the word of the Lord were the heavens made.' Light and darkness are regarded as two objects, each occupying a place of its own (Job_38:19). Light is created on the first day, the luminaries on the fourth. Not as an explanation, for this it is not, but merely as an illustration, it may be remembered that, according to the generally approved modern theory, the matter composing our solar system existed at first in the shape of an inconceivably vast mass of fiery vapour, which gradually cooled down and took the form of a rotating sphere. This threw off the planets, our earth amongst the number. The central part is now the sun. So that light in itself may be regarded as prior to the specific lights that stood related as luminaries to the earth. The earth by slow stages grew fit to be the abode of life.
4. Good] i.e. perfect for the purpose for which God designed it.
5. And the evening, etc.] RV 'and there was evening and there was morning, one day.' In the endeavour to bring the Creation story into harmony with the ascertained results of science, it is often maintained that the writer meant indefinite periods of time by the term 'days.' But the science of Geology was entirely unknown to the ancients, and it is not legitimate to read a knowledge of modern discoveries into these ancient records. The author meant days in the sense of Gen_1:16. Evidently, he had in mind the Jewish week, which he regarded not only as prefigured, but rendered obligatory, by God's example in creating the world, as God worked six days, and rested the seventh: so the week was to consist of six working days, and a Sabbath day of rest. At the same time the writer intended to show that there was an orderly process in the work of creation. Note that evening is put before morning, probably because the Jewish day began at sunset.
6-8. Second day:—Creation of the Firmament.
6. The firmament] the sky, heavens. The word means something 'solid' or 'beaten out,' like a sheet of metal. The ancients supposed that the sky was a solid, vaulted dome stretched over the earth, its ends resting on the mountains, and the heavenly bodies fastened to its inner surface. It served as the throne of God, cp. Exo_24:10; Eze_1:26. Its purpose here was to divide in two the primeval mass of waters. Above, it supported the upper waters which fell upon the earth through 'the windows of heaven (Gen_7:11) in the form of rain; below were the waters on which the earth rested, and from which it emerged. These waters were supposed to form a subterranean abyss which supplied the springs and seas; for the idea cp. Gen_7:11; Gen_49:25; Deu_33:13; Job_38:16; Psa_24:2; Pro_8:28, also Exo_24:10; Eze_1:26; This thought of the division of the primeval ocean into an upper and lower portion is represented in the Babylonian story by the cleaving of the body of Tiamat.
9-13. Third day:—Separation of land and wator. Creation of vegetation.
Let the dry land appear] by emerging from the flower waters which were now gathered into seas. See Psa_104:6-8.
11, 12. Grass.. herb yielding seed.. tree yielding fruit] a dimple and popular classification of the vegetable? world. Whose seed is in itself] RV 'wherein' (i.e. in the fruit) 'is the seed thereof.' After his kind] i.e. according to their several species.
14-19. Fourth day:—Creation of sun, moon, and stars.
The special value of this part of the story lies in its opposition to the worship of the heavenly bodies as deities, which was such a prominent feature of heathenism in Babylonia and elsewhere. Here they are declared to be created for the service of man, fulfilling a definite purpose. That purpose was threefold: (a) 'to divide the day from the night'; (b) to be 'for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years,' i.e. to give the means of reckoning time; (c) 'to give light upon the earth.'
14. Lights] rather, 'luminaries,' to hold and distribute the light created on the first day. In] rather, 'on' or 'before' the firmament; so Gen_1:17-20. See on Gen_1:6. Signs.. seasons.. days.. years] For some of the modes in which the heavenly bodies were believed to serve as signs see 2Ki_20:8-11; Isa_7:11; Jer_10:2; Joe_2:30; Mat_2:2; Mat_24:29. The seasons of the year arc of course determined by them. The sun and moon rule the day and night; the length, temperature, etc., of day and night depending on their positions.
20-23. Fifth day:—Creation of fishes and birds.
20. Let the waters] render, 'let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,' animalculæ, insects, fish, etc. Fowl that may fly] RV 'let fowl fly.'
21. Great whales] Heb. denotes rather creatures like serpents, crocodiles, etc.
22. Blessed them] As animate creatures they received a divine blessing, which suggests God's pleasure in the creation of beings capable of conscious enjoyment.
24-31. Sixth day:—Creation of animals and man.
26. Let us make man] the crowning work of creation and its highest development. The plural form 'us,' which occurs again Gen_3:22; Gen_11:7 and Isa_6:8, has been interpreted of the Holy Trinity, but this would be anticipating a doctrine which was only revealed in later ages. The thought is perhaps that of God speaking in a council of angelic beings, or the form of the word may indicate a plural of majesty: see on 'God' Gen_1:1. The point of the expression, however, is that it marks a closer relation of God to man than, to the rest of His creation. It is not 'Let man be made' but 'Let us make man.' Man] Heb; adam, the name of the race which becomes the name of the first man.
In our image, after our likeness] The. likeness to God lies in the mental and moral features of man's character, such as reason, personality, free will, the capacity for communion with God. These distinguish man from the animals with which on the physical side he has much in common, and inevitably ensure his dominion over them (cp. Psa_8:5-6). When the perfect Image of the Father (Heb_1:3) had fully manifested His character, it became possible to declare, in yet more adequate language, what true likeness to God is (Eph_4:24; Col_3:10).
27. Male and female] There is nothing in this account of the Creation to suggest that the sexes were not simultaneously created: contrast Gen_2:21-23, which is from the earlier document.
29, 30. The writer of the Priestly narrative here represents men and animals as living only on vegetable food. We seem to trace the thought of a primitive golden age, when the animals did not prey on each other, but lived at peace together: cp. Isa_11:6-9; Isa_65:25; Hos_2:18. It is he also who records the permission to use animal food after the Flood (Gen_9:2-3). But the parrallel narrative from the Primitive document refers to the keeping of flocks (Gen_4:2, Gen_4:4, Gen_4:20), and takes no notice of any prohibition of animal food.'
31. Very good] Certain systems of philosophy and morality, ancient and modern, have proceeded on the assumption that evil is inherent in matter, and therefore that God and the world are antagonistic. This idea is quite foreign to the Scriptures, which teach that 'every creature of God is good.' Genesis teaches that evil enters the world from without: see on Gen_3:1.
Gen_2:1-3. Seventh day:—God ceases from His work and sanctifies the day on which He rests.
Gen_1:1-3 clearly belong to the first narrative of the Creation, of which they form the natural conclusion. The first part of Gen_1:4, 'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,' has probably been transposed from its original place before Gen_1:1, as in all other cases the phrase stands at the beginning of the section to which it refers, cp. Gen_5:1; Gen_6:9; Gen_10:1. The second account of Creation begins in the latter half of Gen_1:4, and should have formed the commencement of Genesis 2.
1. All the host of them] i.e. 'all the contents of heaven and earth.'
2. He rested on the seventh day] God ceased (as the word means) from His creative work.
3. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified (RV 'hallowed') it] This is adduced in Exodus as the ground for the observance of the sabbath (see Exo_20:8-11 notes, Exo_31:17; Heb_4:4). It was separated from ordinary days, and set apart as a day for rest, and at a later time for holy observance. Further instructions as to its use will be found in Exo_31:13; Exo_36:2; The Babylonians observed the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st and 28th days of the lunar month, as days when men were subjected to certain restrictions: the King was not to eat food prepared by fire, nor offer sacrifice, nor consult an oracle, nor invoke curses on his enemies. But the weekly sabbath came to have a peculiar religious significance among the Hebrews, which is not evident among other nations; and by its regular recurrence every seventh day it was dissociated from its connexion with the moon, and with lunar superstitions.
4. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created] i.e. this is the history of their creation. See on Gen_1:1-3. The phrase 'These are the generations' occurs ten times in Genesis, viz. Gen_2:4; Gen_5:1; Gen_6:9; Gen_10:1; Gen_11:10; Gen_11:27; Gen_25:12; Gen_25:19; Gen_36:1; Gen_37:2.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26, 28 without form and void
without form and void
Jer 4:23-27; Isa 24:1; Isa 45:18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting imitations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels.
Read full note →
See Eze 28:12-15; Isa 14:9-14 which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 Analysis and Annotations
Analysis and Annotations
I. THE CREATION ACCOUNT
Read full note →
The manner in which the book of Genesis begins leaves no doubt that it is the revelation of God. The creation account is historical truth. The question is how was it given? An answer to this question claims that the Jews obtained the account from the records of other nations concerning the origin of the universe and that they altered it according to their own religious ideas. This is an impossibility. The ancient heathen nations considered God and the universe one and had absolutely no knowledge of the existence of God independent of the universe, nor did they know anything of a creation of the world. Here is something wholly different from all the theories, mythologies and other inventions of the human race. How then was it given? By revelation of God is the only answer.
No human being knew anything about the origin of the heavens and the earth. Man cannot by searching find out God, nor can man discover how the earth was created and all things came into existence. How ridiculous the statements and opinions on the creation of men called great thinkers, not to speak of the equally foolish beliefs of the nations of the past. But here is what God makes known, how He called all things into existence. He makes known that the universe is not eternal but that He created it. The whole account is of wonderful grandeur and yet of the greatest simplicity; so simple that a child can read it and understand the truth, but so profound that the greatest men have bowed before it.
It is not the purpose of this Bible study course to enter into details or we would write at length on the evolution theory with its invented “protoplasm.” There are many questions which the evolutionists cannot answer and many difficulties which they cannot explain. Their scientific assertions and speculations require one to believe what is against reason, while God never expects us to believe what is contrary to reason. It is far more simple to accept God’s revelation. “By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the Word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear” (Heb 11:3). This disposes of evolution and the other theories of unbelieving men, who reject God’s Word.
The statement which one hears so often from sneering lips that the creation account is unscientific has no foundation. That it is non-scientific is an entirely different matter. Galileo, the astronomer, truthfully said, “The Scriptures were given, not to tell us how the heavens go, but to teach us how to go to heaven.” Yet, as already mentioned in our introduction, science had to acknowledge over and over again the correctness of the creation account and withdraw the objections and assaults which had been made.
THE ORIGINAL CREATION OF GOD (1:1)
A ruined creation and the brooding spirit (1:2)
The Restoration of the Earth
1. The first day--light (Gen 1:3-5)
2. The second day--The dividing of the waters (Gen 1:6-8)
3. The third day--The earth out of the waters and vegetable life appears (1:9-13)
4. The fourth day--The lights in the heavens (Gen 1:14-19)
5. The fifth day--Living creatures in the waters and in the air (Gen 1:20-23)
6. The sixth day--Living creatures made and man created in God’s image (Gen 1:24-31)
7. The seventh day--God’s rest (Gen 2:1-3)
The first verse of the book of Genesis and of the whole Bible stands alone in majestic greatness. Like some mountain peak rising from the valley in solitary grandeur with its snow-capped summit, it inspires awe. In the Hebrew the verse is composed of seven words. When that beginning was in which God created the heavens and the earth is not revealed. It must have been many millions of years ago; God only knows it and science can never discover it. It is incorrect to say that it was 6,000 years ago. God does not speak of Himself; no statement concerning His existence or His eternity is given. How different from the myths and speculations of pagan nations. God’s Name mentioned for the first time in the Bible is “Elohim.” It is in the plural indicating God’s great dignity and power as well as the fact that God is triune. (See the “Let us make man,” in Gen 1:26.) Elohim is God’s name as Creator. This verse answers all the different “isms” about God and His creation, while its depths cannot be sounded. Here atheism is answered; polytheism (the many gods of the heathen) is exposed to be false. The verse disproves materialism as well as pantheism, that God and the universe are one.
It is of the greatest importance to understand that the condition in which the earth (not the heavens) is described in the second verse is not how God created it in the beginning. Scripture itself tells us this. Read Isa 45:18. The Hebrew word for “without form” is _tohu, which means waste. “The earth was waste and void.” But in the passage of Isaiah we read, “He created it not a waste.” The original earth passed through a great upheaval. A judgment swept over it, which in all probability must have occurred on account of the fall of that mighty creature, Lucifer, who fell by pride and became the devil. The original earth, no doubt, was his habitation and he had authority over it which he still claims as the prince of this world. Luk 4:5-6 shows us this. The earth had become waste and void; chaos and darkness reigned. What that original earth was we do not know, but we know that animal and vegetable life was in existence long before God began to restore the earth. The immense fossil beds prove this. But they likewise prove that man was not then on the earth. Between the first and second verses of the Bible there is that unknown period of millions of years of which geology gets a glimpse in studying the crust of the earth. God waited His own time in majestic calmness when He would begin to carry out His plans He had made before the foundation of the world.
When that time arrived God began to bring order into the chaos and restored His creation so that the earth which is now and the heavens above came forth. The Spirit moving (brooding) upon the waters and His Word were the agents through which it was accomplished. Read Joh 1:1-3; Col 1:15-16; Heb 1:2-3. We do not follow the historical account and the six days’ work, but call attention to the correspondency between the first three days and the last three. The seventh day stands by itself.
First day: Light Second day: Dividing of waters Third day: The earth out of the waters and vegetable life Fourth day: Solar system and lights Fifth day: Life in the waters Sixth day: Life on the earth and man created Seventh day: God rests
The word “create” is used only three times. In the first verse it applies to the original creation, when God called everything into existence out of nothing. Then we find it in verse 21 (Gen 1:21) in connection with the calling forth of living creatures (nephesh--soul) and in Gen 1:27 in connection with man. The other word used is the word “made.” This necessitates the existence of material which is shaped into something; the word “create” does not require existence of matter. The light which came forth on the first day was light before the sun, a fact well known to science.
The creation of man is the crowning act of the Creator and precedes His rest. “Let us make man” is the counsel of the Godhead. God then created man in His own image. In the second chapter we read that He formed him out of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils and man became a living soul.
The deeper Lessons of the Creation. The Creation account has a most interesting typical and dispensational meaning. In dealing with the individual in redemption and dealing with ruined creation by the fall of man, God follows the order of the six days work. (F.W. Grant’s Genesis in the Light of the New Testament develops this fully.) We give a few hints. The ruined creation wasted and void, covered with the dark waters and in darkness is the picture of fallen man. The two agents God used in the restoration of the ruined creation, the Spirit and the Word are the agents of the new birth. “Born of the Spirit” and of the “incorruptible seed of the Word of God.” In redemption God uses the word “create” not the word “made,” because what we receive by faith in His Son is not a mending of an old nature, but we are a new creation; created in Christ Jesus. David prayed, “Create in me a clean heart.” The work of the first day is touched upon in 2Co 4:6. “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts.” When that light shines upon us it reveals the ruin of ourselves. The second day brings before us the separation, which follows the manifestation of the light. The third day stands for resurrection, for the earth came out of the waters and brings forth grass, herbs and trees, yielding fruit. Throughout the entire Bible this meaning of the third day may be traced. (It is the day of resurrection and restoration. Gen 22:4; Gen 40:20-22; Gen 42:18; Exo 15:22; Exo 19:11; Num 7:24; Jos 2:16; 2Ki 20:5; Est 5:1; Est 9:18; Hos 6:2, Joh 2:1; Luk 13:33.) The spiritual truth here is that if the Light has shone in and we believe we are “risen with Christ” and the fruit bearing, which is the result of this.
The fourth day directs our attention heavenward; there we are seated together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. The fifth day brings before us again the restless waters and the life manifested there. Out of the midst of these waters life comes. Even so in Christian experience down here. The sixth day points to the time of the completion of the new creation, while the seventh day reveals the eternal rest.
Dispensationally the lessons from the first chapter in Genesis are still more interesting.
The first day: The age before the flood: The light shines in.
The second day: The age of Noah.
The third day: The age of Abraham and his seed.
The fourth day: The present age: Christ the Sun; the moon typical of the church. Individual believers represented by stars.
The fifth day: The restless waters: The times of the Gentiles ending; “the sea and the waves roaring.” The great tribulation.
The sixth day: The kingdom rule established over the earth in the second coming of Christ.
The seventh day: The eternal ages: God is all in all.
It is equally interesting to see that the same dispensational truths gather around the names of seven of the prominent actors of the book of Genesis. These are: Adam, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. We quote from another:
Adam gives us the beginning, when, with the entrance of God’s Word, light comes into the soul of a sinner, and God meets him as such with the provision of His grace (chapter 3).
Then (4-5), we have the history of the two “seeds,” and their antagonisms story which has its counterpart in the history of the world at large, but also in every individual soul where God has wrought, and where the “flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other.”
Next, Noah’s passage through the judgment of the old world into a new scene, accepted of God in the sweet savor of sacrifice, is the type of where salvation puts us--”in Christ, a new creation: old things passed away, and all things become new” (Gen. 6-11:9).
Abraham’s Canaan-life--pilgrim and stranger, but a worshiper, gives us the fruit and consequence of this--a “walk in Him” whom we have received (Gen 11:10-21).
Then, Isaac, our type as “sons” (Gal 4:28), speaks to us of a self-surrender into a Father’s hands, the door into a life of quiet and enjoyment, as it surely is (22-24:33).
Jacob speaks of the discipline of sons, by which the crooked and deceitful man becomes Israel, a prince with God--a chastening of love, dealing with the fruits of the old nature in us (Gen 26:34; Gen 37:1).
While Joseph, the fullest image of Christ, suffers, not for sin, but for righteousness’ sake, and obtains supremacy over the world and fulness of blessing from the Almighty One, his strength (Genesis in the Light of the New Testament).
How marvellous all this is! And yet we touch only upon the surface. The highest evidence for the Word of God is the Word itself. No man or human genius could have ever produced such a document as the first chapter of Genesis, which contains in embryo all the subsequent revelations of God. It is God’s revelation.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 26 The Creation of Chaos and Light
The Creation of Chaos and Light
v. 1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. In the beginning, Cf Joh 1:1, that is, when time first began, when time was first measured; for as long as God alone existed, there was no time. God created, He brought forth out of nothing, He brought into being something that had not been in existence before, namely, the heaven, or heavens, and the earth, the material out of which they were constructed.
Read full note →
v. 2. And the earth was without form and void. The material substance of which the earth consists was in a state of chaos, the various elements being intermingled in utter disorder. And darkness was upon the face of the deep. There was, as yet, no elemental light; the great sea of the chaotic materials was covered with an impenetrable veil of the blackest darkness. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The third person of the Holy Trinity is represented as taking part in the work of creation by way of brooding over the waters, by making use of His divine power in causing the elements to combine in the form which they now have,
v. 3. And God said, Let there be light; and there was light. God spoke; the almighty Word of God is here introduced, the second person of the Godhead, Joh 1:3. The creation of the world is a work of the Triune God. By the word of His power He created light, elemental light, brought it into being in the midst of the darkness, commanded it to shine out of darkness, 2Co 4:6.
v. 4. And God saw the light that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. The light was good, it was a perfect creature of God’s almighty power; and so God separated between the light and the darkness, so that they were no longer in a chaotic state.
v. 5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. Time had begun for the earth, and therefore the Lord made this rule for the division of light and darkness, as they follow each other in regular order, and did so even before the creation of the light-bodies. He Himself defined the unit of time which He thus ordered. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And there was evening, when the darkness had ruled alone, and there was morning, when God’s almighty power created light and separated it from the darkness. Ever since the first day of the world the regular recurrence of darkness and light marks the period of one day, as we now divide it into twenty-four hours. This is the fundamental meaning of the Hebrew word here used, which must be assumed even Psa 90:4 (Cf 2Pe 3:8), where the Lord accommodates Himself to human speech and limitations, for the sake of comparison.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the…
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth
"This is about how God made the heavens and the earth in the beginning." This statement summarizes the rest of the chapter. Some languages translate it as "A very long time ago God created the heavens and the earth." Translate it in a way that shows this actually happened and is not just a folk story.
Read full note →
In the beginning
This refers to the start of the world and everything in it.
the heavens and the earth
"the sky, the ground, and everything in them"
heavens
This refers here to the sky.
without form and empty
God had not yet put the world in order.
the deep
"the water" or "the deep water" or "the vast water"
the waters
"the water" or "the surface of the water"
translationWords
God
create
heaven
Holy Spirit
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 14, 16, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 1:1–2:3 These verses introduce the Pentateuch (Genesis—Deuteronomy) and teach…
1:1–2:3 These verses introduce the Pentateuch (Genesis—Deuteronomy) and teach Israel that the world was created, ordered, and populated by the one true God and not by the gods of surrounding nations. • God blessed three specific things: animal life (1:22-25), human life (1:27), and the Sabbath day (2:3). This trilogy of blessings highlights the Creator’s plan: Humankind was made in God’s image to enjoy sovereign dominion over the creatures of the earth and to participate in God’s Sabbath rest.
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth: This statement summarizes the entire creation account (1:3–2:3). Already a key question—Who created the world?—is answered (see also Prov 8:22-31; John 1:1-3). Although the modern naturalistic mindset rejects this question and that of creation’s purpose, Genesis affirms God’s role and purpose in creation. • The common name for God (Hebrew ’elohim) emphasizes his grand supremacy. The word ’elohim is plural, but the verbs used with it are usually singular, reflecting the consistent scriptural proclamation of a single, all-powerful God. • created (Hebrew bara’): In the Old Testament, God is always the agent of creation expressed by this verb. It describes the making of something fresh and new—notably the cosmos (1:1, 21; 2:3), humankind (1:27), the Israelite nation (Isa 43:1), and the future new creation (Isa 65:17). • The heavens and the earth are the entire ordered cosmos.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.