Part 3 (1/2)
The earth, as we have seen on a former occasion, is described as immovable, in the centre of the universe, and the heavenly bodies as revolving round it diurnally. The firmament over us is represented as a solid, extended substance, sustaining an ocean above it, with openings, or windows, through which the waters may descend. In respect to the human system, the Scriptures refer intellectual operations to the reins, or the region of the kidneys, and pain to the bones. In short, the descriptions of natural things are adapted to the very erroneous notions which prevailed in the earliest ages of society and among the common people. But it is as easy to interpret such descriptions in conformity to the present state of physical science, as it is to divest the scriptural representations of the Deity of their material dress, and make them conform to the spiritual views that now prevail. No one regards it as any objection to the Old Testament, that it gives a description of the divine character so much less spiritual than the views adopted by the theologians of the nineteenth century; why then should they regard it as derogatory to inspiration to adopt the same method as to natural objects?
These considerations will afford us some a.s.sistance in rightly interpreting the description of the creation, in the first chapter of Genesis, to which we will now turn our attention.
_In the beginning G.o.d created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void. And darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G.o.d moved upon the face of the waters. And G.o.d said, Let there be light, and there was light. And G.o.d saw the light that it was good. And G.o.d divided the light from the darkness, and the light he called day, and the darkness he called night. And the evening and the morning were the first day._
The first question that arises, on reading this pa.s.sage, is, whether the creation here described was a creation out of nothing, or out of prexisting materials. The latter opinion has been maintained by some able, and generally judicious commentators and theologians, such as Doederlin and Dathe in Germany, Milton in England, and Bush and Schmucker in this country. They do not deny that the Bible, in other places, teaches distinctly the creation of the universe out of nothing. But they contend that the word translated _to create_, in the first verse of Genesis, teaches only a renovation, or remodelling, of the universe from matter already in existence.
That there is a degree of ambiguity in all languages, in the words that signify to _create_, to _make_, to _form_, and the like, cannot be doubted; that is, these words may be properly used to describe the production of a substance out of matter already in existence, as well as out of nothing; and, therefore, we must resort to the context, or the nature of the subject, to ascertain in which of those senses such words are used. The same word, for instance, (_bawraw_,) that is used in the first verse of Genesis, to describe the creation of the universe, is employed in the 27th verse of the same chapter, to describe the formation of man out of the dust of the earth. There was, however, no peculiar ambiguity in the use of the Hebrew words _bawraw_ and _awsaw_, which correspond to our words _create_ and _make_; and, therefore, it is not necessary to be an adept in Hebrew literature to judge of the question under consideration. We have only to determine whether the translation of the Mosaic account of the creation most reasonably teaches a production of the matter of the universe from nothing, or only its renovation, and we have decided what is taught in the original.
Now, there can hardly be a doubt but Moses intended to teach, in this pa.s.sage, that the universe owed its origin to Jehovah, and not to the idols of the heathen; and since all acknowledge that other parts of Scripture teach, that, when the world was made, it was produced out of nothing, why should we not conclude that the same truth is taught in this pa.s.sage? The language certainly will bear that meaning; indeed, it is almost as strong as language can be to express such a meaning; and does not the pa.s.sage look like a distinct avowal of this great truth, at the very commencement of the inspired record, in order to refute the opinion, so prevalent in early times, that the world is eternal?
The next inquiry concerning the pa.s.sage relates to the phrase _the heavens and the earth_. Does it comprehend the universe? So it must have been understood by the Jews; for their language could not furnish a more comprehensive phrase to designate the universe. True, these words, like those already considered, are used sometimes in a limited sense. But in this place their broadest signification is in perfect accordance with the scope of the pa.s.sage and with the whole tenor of the Scripture. We may, therefore, conclude with much certainty, that G.o.d intended in this place to declare the great truth, that there was a time in past eternity when the whole material universe came into existence at his irresistible fiat:--a truth eminently proper to stand at the head of a divine revelation.
But when did this stupendous event occur? Does the phrase _in the beginning_ show us when? Surely not; for no language can be more indefinite as to time. Whenever it is used in the Bible, it merely designates the commencement of the series of events, or the periods of time, that are described. _In the beginning was the word_; that is, at the commencement of things the word was in existence; consequently was from eternity. But in Genesis the act of creation is represented by this phrase simply as the commencement of the material universe, at a certain point of time in past eternity, which is not chronologically fixed. The first verse merely informs us, that the first act of the Deity in relation to the universe was the creation of the heavens and the earth out of nothing.
It is contended, however, that the first verse is so connected with the six days' work of creation, related in the subsequent verse, that we must understand the phrase _in the beginning_ as the commencement of the first day. This is the main point to be examined in relation to the pa.s.sage, and therefore deserves a careful consideration.
If the first verse must be understood as a summary account of the six days' work which follows in detail, then _the beginning_ was the commencement of the first day, and of course only about six thousand years ago. But if it may be understood as an announcement of the act of creation at some indefinite point in past duration, then a period may have intervened between that first creative act and the subsequent six days'
work. I contend that the pa.s.sage admits of either interpretation, without any violence to the language or the narration.
The first of these interpretations is the one usually received, and, therefore, it will be hardly necessary to attempt to show that it is admissible. The second has had fewer advocates, and will, therefore, need to be examined.
The particle _and_, which is used in our translation of this pa.s.sage to connect the successive sentences, furnishes an argument to the English reader against this second mode of interpretation, which has far less force with one acquainted with the original Hebrew. The particle thus translated is the general connecting particle of the Hebrew language, and ”may be copulative, or disjunctive, or adversative; or it may express a mere annexation to a former topic of discourse,--the connection being only that of the subject matter, or the continuation of the composition. This continuative use forms one of the most marked peculiarities of the Hebrew idiom, and it comprehends every variety of mode in which one train of sentiment may be appended to another.”--J. Pye Smith, _Scrip. and Geol._ p. 195, 4th edit.
In the English Bible this particle is usually rendered by the copulative conjunction _and_; in the Septuagint, and in Josephus, however, it sometimes has the sense of _but_. And some able commentators are of opinion that it admits of a similar translation in the pa.s.sage under consideration. The elder Rosenmuller says we might read it thus: ”_In the beginning G.o.d created the heavens and the earth. Afterwards the earth was desolate_,” &c. Or the particle _afterwards_ may be placed at the beginning of any of the succeeding verses. Thus, In the beginning G.o.d created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was desolate, and darkness was upon the face of the waters. _Afterwards_ the Spirit of G.o.d moved upon the face of the waters. Dr. Dathe, who has been styled, by good authority, (Dr. Smith,) ”a cautious and judicious critic,” renders the first two verses in this manner: ”In the beginning G.o.d created the heavens and the earth; but afterwards the earth became waste and desolate.” If such translations as these be admissible, the pa.s.sage not only allows, but expressly teaches, that a period intervened between the first act of creation and the six days' work. And if such an interval be allowed, it is all that geology requires to reconcile its facts to revelation. For during that time, all the changes of mineral const.i.tution and organic life, which that science teaches to have taken place on the globe, previous to the existence of man, may have occurred.
It is a presumption in favor of such an interpretation that the second verse describes the state of the globe after its creation and before the creation of light. For if there were no interval between the fiat that called matter into existence, and that which said, _Let there be light_, why should such a description of the earth's waste and desolate condition be given?
But if there had been such an intervening period, it is perfectly natural that such a description should precede the history of successive creative acts, by which the world was adorned with light and beauty, and filled with inhabitants.
But, after all, would such an interpretation have ever been thought of, had not the discoveries of geology seemed to demand it?
This can be answered by inquiring whether any of the writers on the Bible, who lived before geology existed, or had laid claims for a longer period previous to man's creation, whether any of these adopted such an interpretation. We have abundant evidence that they did. Many of the early fathers of the church were very explicit on this subject. Augustin, Theodoret, and others, supposed that the first verse of Genesis describes the creation of matter distinct from, and prior to, the work of six days.
Justin Martyr and Gregory n.a.z.ianzen believed in an indefinite period between the creation of matter and the subsequent arrangement of all things. Still more explicit are Basil, Csarius, and Origen. It would be easy to quote similar opinions from more modern writers, who lived previous to the developments of geology. But I will give a paragraph from Bishop Patrick only, who wrote one hundred and fifty years ago.
”How long,” says he, ”all things continued in mere confusion after the chaos was created, before light was extracted from it, we are not told. It might have been, for any thing that is here revealed, a great while; and all that time the mighty Spirit was making such motions in it, as prepared, disposed, and ripened every part of it for such productions as were to appear successively in such s.p.a.ces of time as are here afterwards mentioned by Moses, who informs us, that after things were digested and made ready (by long fermentation perhaps) to be wrought into form, G.o.d produced every day, for six days together, some creature or other, till all was finished, of which light was the very first.”--_Commentary, in loco._
Such evidence as this is very satisfactory. For at the present day one cannot but fear that the discoveries of geology may too much influence him insensibly to put a meaning upon Scripture which would never have been thought of, if not suggested by those discoveries, and which the language cannot bear. But those fathers of the church cannot be supposed under the influence of any such bias; and, therefore, we may suppose the pa.s.sage in itself to admit of the existence of a long period between the beginning and the first demiurgic day.
Against these views philologists have urged several objections not to be despised. One is, that light did not exist till the first day, and the sun and other luminaries not till the fourth day; whereas the animals and plants dug from the rocks could not have existed without light. They could not, therefore, have lived in the supposed long period previous to the six days.
If it be indeed true, that light was not called into existence till the first day, nor the sun till the fourth, this objection is probably insuperable. But it would be easy to cite the opinions of many distinguished and most judicious expounders of the Bible, showing that the words of the Hebrew original do not signify a literal creation of the sun, moon, and stars, on the fourth day, but only const.i.tuting or appointing them, at that time, to be luminaries, and to furnish standards for the division of time and other purposes.
The word used is not the same as that employed in the first verse to describe the creation of the world; and the pa.s.sage, rightly understood, implies the previous existence of the heavenly bodies. ”The words [Hebrew]
are not to be separated from the rest,” says Rosenmuller, ”or to be rendered _fiant luminaria_, let there be light; i. e., _let light be made_; but rather, _let lights be_; that is, serve, in the expanse of heaven, for distinguis.h.i.+ng between day and night; and let them be, or serve, for signs,” &c. ”The historian speaks (v. 16, end) of the determination of the stars to certain uses, which they were to render to the earth, and not of their first formation.” In like manner we may suppose that the production of light was only rendering it visible to the earth, over which darkness. .h.i.therto brooded; not because no light was in existence, but because it did not s.h.i.+ne upon the earth.
Another objection to this interpretation is, that the fourth commandment of the decalogue expressly declares, that _in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is_, &c., and thus cuts off the idea of a long period intervening between the _beginning_ and the six days. I acknowledge that this argument carries upon the face of it a good deal of strength; but there are some considerations that seem to me to show it to be not entirely demonstrative.
In the first place, it is a correct principle of interpreting language, that when a writer describes an event in more than one place, the briefer statement is to be explained by the more extended one. Thus, in the second chapter of Genesis, we have this brief account of the creation: _These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord G.o.d made the earth and the heavens._
Now, if this were the only description of the work of creation on record, the inference would be very fair that it was all completed in a single day.