__________________________________________________________________

           Title: Exposition of Genesis: Volume 1
      Creator(s): Leupold, Herbert Carl (1892-1972)
     Print Basis: The Wartburg Press, 1942
          Rights: Public Domain.
   CCEL Subjects: All; Bible;
      LC Call no: BS1151.B3
   LC Subjects:

   The Bible

   Old Testament

   Works about the Old Testament
     __________________________________________________________________

                             Exposition of Genesis

    By

H. C. LEUPOLD, D. D

   Professor of Old testament Exegesis
   in the
   Capital University Seminary
   Colombus, Ohio

   To the Memory
   of my
   FATHER
   and
   to my
   MOTHER
     __________________________________________________________________

  INTRODUCTION

    Name of the Book

   The name universally used in English for this book is "Genesis." This
   name is a transliteration of the Greek word genesis, which constitutes
   the regular title from of old in the Septuagint and was taken over by
   Jerome into the Vulgate--Liber Genesis. Luther made a new departure
   when he substituted in his German Bible the title "The First Book of
   Moses"--a designation requiring no further commentary. In the Hebrew
   Bible the book constitutes the first part of the Pentateuch. As a
   distinct part it so naturally stands out as a unit that there can be no
   doubt that it was designed to be just such a unit; and so even
   criticism from its point of view is ready to accept the division of the
   Pentateuch as a whole into five parts and that the book of Genesis in
   particular was a part of it at so early a date as at least four
   centuries before the Christian era. Though no evidence is available, we
   are inclined to believe that the Jews discerned the fivefold division
   of the Pentateuch from the time that the work was put into their hands.
   They are wont to refer to the book by the title of Bereshith, the very
   first Hebrew word, meaning: "in the beginning."

    Author

   Genesis contains no statement as to who its author was. Yet we hold
   very definitely to the conviction that , Moses wrote Genesis as well as
   the rest of the Pentateuch, except (Deut. 34). In our day such a
   position is regarded as so utterly outmoded that we must indicate, at
   least briefly, what grounds we have for standing thus. Our grounds are
   those which have satisfied conservative scholarship in the church
   throughout the ages. Neither is the group of those who still accept
   these arguments so inconsiderable as critics would have us believe.

   The internal evidence of the Pentateuch runs as follows. In Exodus the
   passages (17:14; 24:4; 34:27), if rightly construed, indicate that
   Moses wrote more than the specific passages that appear under immediate
   consideration, in fact, all of Exodus. In like manner the numerous
   statements of Leviticus to the effect that "the Lord spake unto Moses"
   ("and unto Aaron"), such as (Le 1:1; 4:1; 6:1, 8, 19, 24; 7:22, 28;
   8:1), etc., again, if rightly construed, lead to the same result, in
   fact, cover Leviticus. For why should the exact nature of the
   revelation be emphasized, unless it be presupposed that this revelation
   was immediately conserved in writing in each case? In fact, the
   assumption that these directions were not committed to writing is most
   unnatural. The same argument applies to much of what is found in
   Numbers; but in this book the special portion that came by immediate
   revelation requires the background of the rest of the historical
   material of the book. (Nu 33:2) is the only passage that refers to the
   fact that Moses wrote, a statement inserted at this point in order to
   stamp even what might seem too unimportant to record as traceable to
   Moses. In Deuteronomy a comparison of the following passages
   establishes the Mosaic authorship: (De 1:1; 17:18,19; 27:1-8; 31:9;
   31:24). If, then, on the basis of the evidence found in these four
   books we may very reasonably conclude that they were written by Moses,
   the conclusion follows very properly that none other than the author of
   these later four books would have been so suitable as the author for
   Genesis also. Certainly such a conclusion is far more reasonable than
   that Genesis--or for that matter the entire Pentateuch--is to be
   ascribed to another one of these genial Nobodies of whom criticism has
   a large number in reserve as authors.

   We shall not now trace down how the Old Testament in its later books
   historical as well as prophetic strongly supports the idea of the
   Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and by implication also of Genesis.
   The critic, misreading the evidence, misdates all these books, and so
   the argument means nothing to him. The man who is not affected by
   critical arguments can find proof more ample than we can here reproduce
   in the writings of Hengstenberg, Keil, Rupprecht and Moeller.

   The support that the New Testament lends to our position is singularly
   strong and, for that matter, even decisive on the whole issue, at least
   for him who believes in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. It
   is sufficient in these introductory remarks merely to list the major
   passages as such, passages that all refer to the Mosaic authorship of
   the whole or of parts of the Pentateuch. In the Gospels we find: (Mt
   8:4; 19:7, 8; 23:2; Mk 1:44; 7:10; 10:3, 4; 12:26); (Lu 5:14; 16:29,
   31; 20:37; Joh 3:14; 5:45; 6:32; 7:19; 7:22, 23). Aside from these
   passages which are from the lips of Christ Himself there are the
   remarks of the evangelists found (Lu 24:27, 44; Joh 1:17). To the
   apostles must be ascribed the following words: (Ac 3:22; 13:39; 15:1,
   5, 21; 26:22; 28:23; Ro 10:5, 19; 1Co 9:9; 2Co 3:15). To attribute
   ignorance on matters involved in literary criticism to Christ or to
   inspired apostles is unwarranted assumption. To class Christ's attitude
   as accommodation to prevalent opinion grows out of failure to apprehend
   the fact that Christ is absolute Truth. Any two or three of the above
   passages are sufficient , to indicate to him that weighs their evidence
   that to Christ and to His apostles the Torah (the Pentateuch) was
   Mosaic.

   In answering the question, At what time was Genesis written? we are, of
   course, entirely, in the field of conjecture. It seems highly probable
   that the bulk, if not practically all of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers,
   was written after the fashion of a kind of journal, especially those
   parts embodying specific words of direction given by God. This would
   naturally suggest some introductory work like Genesis, which could
   easily have been written by Moses during the time of the Wilderness
   Wanderings, which extended over thirty-eight years.

   Since all the things recorded in Genesis transpired before Moses' day
   by more than four hundred years at the least, the question arises, Did
   Moses have sources available for compiling the Genesis account as we
   have it? We cannot deny the possibility that God may have revealed to
   Moses the entire subject matter of Genesis. On the other hand, since
   sources were, , no doubt, available and reliable, we see no reason why
   Moses should not have used all available material and, being guided in
   his task by the Spirit of inspiration, have produced an essential
   portion of divine revelation. For it seems highly probable that godly
   men preserved a reliable record of God's revelation and dealings with
   men, and that with most painstaking care. The Creation record was
   obtainable only by revelation, which revelation would have seemed
   essential for Adam. This as well as all other truth that was left to
   him, as well as a record of his own experiences required but few links
   in the chain of tradition to bring it down to Joseph's time. For a
   careful examination of the Biblical genealogies (Gen. 5 and 11) reveals
   that Adam lived till the time of Lamech; Lamech to the time of Shem;
   Shem to the time of Jacob; Jacob would, without a doubt, transmit what
   he knew to Joseph. Since even Abraham already lived in a literary age,
   and Judah carried a seal (Gen. 38:18), and Joseph was learned in all
   the wisdom of the Egyptians, it seems utterly impossible that these men
   should have refrained from committing this valuable and reliable
   tradition to writing. Such tradition in written form Moses might well
   have found in his day and made extensive use of, nor would such use
   conflict with inspiration in as much as later historical books,
   especially Kings and Chronicles, testify to the abundant use of source
   materials.

    3. Purpose

   The purpose of Genesis may be formulated thus: the book aims to relate
   how Israel was selected from among the `nations of the world and became
   God's chosen people. Since, however, this choice was not made because
   of the merit or the excellence of Israel's ancestors but wholly because
   of God's unmerited and unmeritable mercy, the book may also be said to
   be the story of God's free grace in establishing Israel for Himself as
   His people.

    4. Text

   Two major considerations deserve attention under this head. First, the
   matter of the state of the purity or the integrity of the Hebrew text.
   No one in our day errs in the direction of the one possible extreme,
   namely of venturing to claim that the Hebrew text is in a state of
   virgin purity, exactly as it appeared in the original manuscripts. But
   many err in the opposite extreme of considering the Hebrew text to be
   utterly unreliable and in need of continual correction. Such an
   attitude is dangerous and ungrounded. Occasional errors may be
   detected, a few may be surmised. The Jewish marginal corrections, the
   Keris, may occasionally prove suggestive. But on the whole we have a
   text which is quite pure and satisfactory. It is not to be tampered
   with or modified according to the far less reliable Septuagint, the
   Targums, the Peshitto, or the Samaritan Pentateuch, though occasionally
   these versions (or transliterations) may contribute a bit of material
   valuable from the standpoint of textual criticism. The text is,
   furthermore, not to be modified according to subjective principles,
   such as critical theories or clever conjectures, which are anything but
   scientific. Modern critical editions of the Hebrew text, such as
   Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart, (1929), contain much misleading
   material and must apart from the Masoretic text be used with great
   caution. The traditional Masoretic text is in a good state of
   preservation and deserves far more confidence than is usually accorded
   to it. In our Hebrew Bibles we have a very good Hebrew text.

   The other matter that may be considered in this connection is the
   question whether Genesis is a poem and therefore to be considered as
   Hebrew verse. On the question, which are the poetical books in the
   Canon, the Jews have always had a very reliable tradition. It would be
   strange if they themselves should have lost sight of the poetic
   character of the first one of their sacred writings if it had actually
   been poetic. The method by which outstanding exponents of this unusual
   hypothesis, like Sievers, arrived at their conclusions is enough to
   make anyone suspicious of the idea. This method involves abandoning the
   first principle of Hebrew poetry (parallelism); it necessitates changes
   or substitution of the divine name; it includes occasional textual
   alterations merely for the sake of securing the desired meter; and even
   then the type of meter which seemingly was discovered is not in
   evidence as clearly as we are led to believe. Neither the present text
   nor the original sources, as others claim, were ever cast in verse
   form, with the exception of such minor portions that bear the earmarks
   of poetry (4:23, 24; 9:25-27; 49:2-27). But we are perfectly ready to
   admit that Genesis has many portions of very fine rhythmical prose that
   rise almost to the level of exalted strains of poetry (cf. 1:27, . 28;
   12:1-3, and many other passages).

    5. Historical Character of the Record

   The issue involved briefly stated is: Have we history or legend in
   Genesis? A notable array of famous scholars can be cited in support of
   what the great majority of writers on the subject in our day regard as
   the only tenable view, namely Genesis is legend. From Wellhausen down
   outstanding names are Gunkel, Jeremias, Driver, Skinner, Procksch,
   etc., etc. However, we are not impressed by this array of learning,
   which we must without reservation class as pseudo-science on matters of
   this sort. Strong dogmatic presuppositions are too definitely displayed
   by these scholars: miracles are considered as practically impossible;
   so is plenary inspiration; Israel's history can rise to no higher
   levels than the Babylonian or the Egyptian; an arbitrary evolutionary
   standard is to be employed in measuring historical evidence. Besides,
   the following facts of Israel's history are overlooked:

   a) the utter dissimilarity of the Genesis record and the legends of the
   nations (the sober common sense of average Christians has always been
   able to detect this difference much more clearly than the overtrained
   scholar, who often loses entirely his sense of perspective);

   b) the clear distinction preserved by Israel's sacred records of the
   successive stages of revelation (4:26; 17:22-27; Exod. 6:3; Exod. 20;
   Deut. 18:15,19; I Sam. 3:1, etc.);

   c) the accuracy of Israel's historical tradition (13:10; chapter 14;
   20:20-24; chapter 25; 26:1; cf. also chapter 5 and chapter 10);

   d) distinct efforts by the patriarchs to perpetuate the remembrance of
   events of outstanding religious importance (12:7; 13:18; 21:33; 33:20);

   e) the sober tone displayed in recording the most exalted revelation
   (we refer to the following chapters 12, 15, 18, 22, and 32:23-32); f
   the utter impartiality displayed in recording the history of those who
   are the patriarchs and the fathers of tribes (12:10 fi; 20:1-18;
   26:1-17; 30:1-43; chapter 34; chapter 38). Koenig's Commentary (p. 80
   ff.) gives additional material on this score.

   A proper evaluation of the facts enumerated above leads definitely to
   the conclusion that Genesis gives a sober, accurate, historical account
   of the events that led to the separation of Israel from among the
   nations and to her establishment as a new nation with a divinely given
   destiny. If the other nations of this period are known to have had no
   records that for accuracy and sound historical pragmatism can begin to
   compare with the Biblical accounts, that cannot in any wise impugn the
   singular merit of the latter. Criticism has shown itself singularly
   weak in the direction of evaluating comparatively the merit of Biblical
   history. Attempts to cut everything of superior merit found in Israel's
   Sacred Writings down to the level of contemporary literature is still
   the bane of scholarship in the Old Testament field.

   We may at this point take issue with the claim commonly raised in our
   day that Genesis, as to its contents, as well as other older Biblical
   books falls in the category of poetry rather than history. Apparently,
   they who take this position are reluctant about claiming that such
   books are legendary in character. That would seem derogatory to their
   distinctive character. Yet they would prefer not to be bound to accept
   the Creation account, the record of the Fall, and the like as literal
   history. Then these ancient tales would be a grand poetic conception,
   involving a deeper view of truth yet allowing for a great variety of
   interpretations such as may be suited to the fancy of the individual.
   We are utterly out of sympathy with such an attitude; for it does not
   conform to the facts of the

   It is rather a straightforward, strictly historical account, rising,
   indeed, to heights of poetic beauty of expression in the Creation
   account, in the Flood story, in the record of Abraham's sacrifice of
   Isaac, in Judah's plea before Joseph, and the like. But the writer uses
   no more of figurative language than any gifted historian might, who
   merely adorns a strictly .literal account with the ordinary run of
   current figures of speech, grammatical and rhetorical.

   The various other types of construction put particularly upon the
   patriarchal stories, like the tribal or ethnological theory; the astral
   myth theory; the purely mythical theory, and the like are evaluated at
   the beginning of the patriarchal record (Gen. 12).

   Rather closely tied up with the question of history is that of
   chronology. The prevailing attitude on questions of chronology is to
   discard the Biblical data and to accept as authoritative the far more
   difficult and uncertain Babylonian and Egyptian systems of reckoning,
   as they are computed in our day. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible,
   (Philadelphia, 1937), p. 56-61, gives the beginner a good idea how
   these computations are made and how far back they reach with a fair
   measure of accuracy. But it must be said with emphasis that the
   Biblical chronology excels all others in completeness, simplicity and
   accuracy; and, though, indeed, there are unsolved chronological
   problems, the Biblical chronology deserves our fullest confidence also
   for the pre-Mosaic age and for the earliest history of mankind.
   Michell, The Historical Truth of the Bible, (London, 1926) shows
   excellently how Babylonian and Egyptian chronology, rightly construed,
   agrees with the Biblical system of chronology.

    6. Criticism

   Unfortunately, in the field of the Mosaic writings negative literary
   criticism--higher literary criticism so called--has wrought
   incalculable confusion and still is the bane of fruitful investigations
   in this field. Therefore it behooves us, first of all, very briefly to
   summarize the critical position in reference to Genesis or, for that
   matter, in reference to the entire Pentateuch. This summary is designed
   primarily for non-theologians and, therefore, makes no claim to
   completeness.

   Critics speak with much assurance, as though the proof for their
   position were unassailable, , of the various sources that have been
   worked into the Pentateuch as we now have it; and they assure us that
   this composite work was finally compiled by an editor- commonly called
   Redactor (R)--after the time of the Exile perhaps as late as 400 B. C.
   The four major documents that have been worked into the Pentateuch are
   not only occasionally discernible in the work as a whole, but the cord
   has, as it were, been unravelled, and the four strands that compose it
   are laid before us side by side. The names given to these four
   documents or their authors are: (a) the Elohistic document, written by
   the Elohist--abbreviated designation E-;( b) the Jahvistic or Yahwistic
   document--described as J; (c) the Priestly document or P; and (d) the
   Deuteronomic document--or D. Some critics consider E, J, D, and P as
   persons, others regard them as literary schools.

   The reasons advanced for the separation of the whole into four major
   documents are again mainly four. First and foremost to this day the use
   of the divine names is a mark of authorship. Thus: the Jahvist (or
   Yahwist) uses the divine name Jehovah or Yahweh almost exclusively; the
   Elohist uses Elohim, the common name for God in the Hebrew; the
   Priestly writer also prefers Elohim; the Deuteronomist is marked by
   other characteristics. Secondly, each of these writers is said to have
   developed a vocabulary which is distinctly his own. However, in the
   case of J and E this is not as prominent a feature as in reference to P
   and D. Thirdly, certain types of subject matter are found quite
   regularly in certain of these original documents: J likes narratives
   whose scenes are laid in Judah; E prefers those that played in the
   territory of the Northern Kingdom; P deals with matters of legislation;
   and D is hortatory in his treatment of all he presents. Lastly, the
   style of these four presents quite naturally four different aspects: "J
   excels in picturesque `objectivity' of description"; "E, on the other
   hand, frequently strikes a vein of subjective feeling, especially of
   pathos"; P is precise and formal; D is the orator. It must be admitted
   that an imposing array of arguments confronts us here. Certainly, an
   immense amount of labour has been expended on these studies. Many of
   the issues involved are of a so highly technical nature as to confuse
   the layman, especially when Hebrew terms multiply, that he believes the
   issues must be left to professional theologians and is all too ready to
   follow their guidance if they adopt, as is often the case, a tone of
   utter finality.

   First of all, on the matter of the use of the divine names, are we not
   taking a higher and more reasonable ground if we assume that they were
   used primarily according to their specific meaning and not merely
   because the writer in question knew only the one or tried to reflect a
   period where only the one was known, or was addicted to the stylistic
   peculiarity of the use of the one rather than the other? A good
   parallel on the New Testament level is the fine distinction observed by
   all the writers between the personal name "Jesus" and the official
   title "the Christ." Surely, if the one or the other had used the one of
   these names exclusively, it would have been a failure to appreciate
   deeper and vital issues. So on the Old Testamerit level "Elohim" is the
   generic name for God from the root which signifies "to fear" or
   "reverence." Therefore Elohim is the divine being whose power and
   attributes inspire mortals with due fear. "Jehovah," more correctly
   written "Yahweh," signifies the Abiding, Changeless, and Eternal One,
   and therefore describes God as the one true to His covenant
   relationship in reference to His people. When the writer desires to
   express the thought that the one or the other aspect of the divine
   character was especially displayed in a certain event, he uses the name
   appropriate to this purpose. That does not say that the other aspect of
   the divine character was not in evidence at all. In fact, we might in
   some instances even have been inclined, but for the author's suggestive
   use of the divine name, to think the other of the two characteristics
   predominated. In the following exposition of Genesis we hope we have
   demonstrated the fine propriety that from this point of view is
   discernible in the use of the divine names according to their sense.

   This approach of ours to the problem of the use of the divine names is
   by no means in conflict with Exod. 6:3: "I appeared unto Abraham, unto
   Isaac, and unto Jacob as God Almighty; but by My name Jehovah I was not
   known to them." For, in the first place, of course, "name" according to
   the Hebrew significance of shem means about as much as "character." The
   statement, however, though made absolutely, is meant relatively, as are
   many other statements in Scripture (Hos. 6:6; Matt. 5:34; I John 3:9 by
   way of example). The revelation of God's Yahweh-character given to the
   patriarchs is so far below the revelation of the same character that is
   about to be displayed in the Exodus that by comparison one would say
   that now this character is first really being manifested. The critics
   had better not press the literal meaning of this passage (Exod. 6:3)
   too much, for then it becomes a sharp two-edged sword. For when they
   use it to prove that there was an earlier period where Elohim was used
   and not Yahweh, this passage is having a new element foisted upon it by
   them. Exodus 6:3 does not set Eiohim and Yahweh in contrast but 'El
   Shadday (God Almighty) and Yahweh, a thought which the critical
   position cannot use at all, in fact, a very embarrassing thought. It
   militates directly against the earlier use of Elohim.

   The seemingly formidable argument from vocabulary, separate and
   distinct vocabularies for the four source documents--especially where
   long lists of words appear used only in the one document--this argument
   we say loses its imposing character when we discern on what ground it
   is built. Leaving J and E aside because the argument carries little
   convincing weight under this head, we notice what happens in the case
   of P and D. Everything of a priestly legislative character is primarily
   assigned to P as well as everything that is presented after a more or
   less formal pattern like Gen. I as well as summaries. From these
   portions primarily deductions are made as to P's vocabulary. Naturally
   quite a substantial list results. Then other passages in the Pentateuch
   that use these distinctive terms are stamped as coming from P, whenever
   possible. Note how in the. last analysis in legislative portions like
   Leviticus, where matters of priestly interest certainly predominate, a
   distinctive vocabulary has to be used and can very readily be listed.
   The fact of the matter really is not that a different writer is at work
   but that the same writer is dealing with an entirely different subject.
   No man can write a law book with the vocabulary of a book on history.
   From another point of view the argument practically amounts to this
   that one man could not write E or J and also P, because one man could
   not write both history and law. In like manner D's style, which is
   supposed to involve "a long development of the art of public oratory,"
   covers the major part of the book of Deuteronomy as well as of later
   books whenever they con, in hortatory passages after the manner of
   Deuteronomy. One can quite readily build up a separate vocabulary out
   of such sections. In the final analysis this is tantamount to saying
   that Moses could not have written such admonitions and exhortations as
   well as laws and history. The critics operate on the assumption that
   such flexibility of style is beyond the range of the capabilities of
   one man.

   The other peculiarities that these major sources are supposed to
   display are most readily understood on the following assumption: take
   any longer work and divide it up into four portions on the basis of an
   approach that groups kindred things together, and the resultant four
   parts will naturally each have something distinctive.

   There are other failings that mark the critical approach to the
   problem. The argument in a circle is, for example, employed frequently.
   We shall draw attention to quite a number of instances in the course of
   the following exposition. Passages having a certain type of vocabulary
   are assumed to belong to one source; when that type of vocabulary is
   discovered, the proof that there is such a source is treated as
   complete. Again, when added details appear that were not indicated at
   the commencement of a narrative, these added details, though they are
   merely supplementary to the original statements, are construed as being
   at variance with the original, and so evidence for the existence of two
   or more separate sources is manufactured, whereas, in reality, other
   sides of the matter are merely coming to the surface, as every unbiased
   reader can readily detect.

   Again and again the critical approach gives evidence of being guided by
   purely subjective opinion instead of by valid logical proof. The critic
   expected that the writer would proceed to follow up a certain approach
   by a certain type of statement--at least the critic would have followed
   up by such a statement. The author's failure to offer what the critic
   expected is supposed to constitute sufficient proof that the case in
   point is an instance where two documents have been welded together
   rather crudely. Equally common is the critical practice of conjecturing
   how the Hebrew text may. originally have read, especially if the Hebrew
   text offers material conflicting, with the critical theories, and the
   Septuagint happens to disagree more or less with the Hebrew. Strangely,
   in such cases the conjectures as to the original form of the text
   always offer support to the critical position.

   Analogous to the above point is this: when the different aspects of a
   case are presented, critics quite regularly fail to discern the deeper
   harmony that prevails in spite of the surface disagreement. So very
   frequently, after one motive for a deed has been indicated, the mention
   of a second motive is treated as proof of a divergent approach by a
   different writer, as though life were always so simple a thing, as to
   allow for the operation of but one motive at a time, instead of the
   complex thing that it is, where motives, counter-motives, and
   subsidiary motives run crisscross through one another.

   Of the failings of the critical approach perhaps the greatest of all is
   the failure to evaluate rightly the attitude and the words of Christ
   and His apostles in reference to books like those of Moses. As Christ
   treated Moses' writings so should we. His clear words attributing them
   to Moses dare not be ignored. This is not treating the Old Testament
   without regard for the distinction between the Old and the New
   Testament. This is following the excellent Reformation principle:
   "Interpret Scripture by Scripture"; and a sounder principle cannot be
   found. Critics dismiss the Saviour's attitude with a shrug of the
   shoulder.

   Unfortunately, it is impossible to treat the Old Testament in an
   expository way without taking the major features of the critical
   approach into consideration, especially since these critical findings
   have been popularized and appear on the shelves of public libraries, as
   does Dummelow's One Volume Commentary. Surely, the main errors of
   criticism should be shown in order to combat the evil at its source.
   Those who do not stand in need of the aid that a refutation may offer
   or are not impressed by the critical claims may, of course, leave those
   paragraphs that deal with critical matters aside. We have sought to let
   this apologetic material occupy a place of very inferior importance.
   Hardly five per cent of the total deals with critical problems.

   We shall leave aside all the very able constructive works that orthodox
   teachers of the church have provided under this head: the works of
   Haevernick, Hengstenberg, Keil, Rupprecht, and Moeller. These men have
   ably refuted all critical contentions; only the critics fail to discern
   that they have been answered. Those who would specialize on these
   matters will find most ample treatment of the subject in the works of
   these men. We for our part prefer in this exposition to follow the
   course of showing in our own way the beautiful and the consistent
   harmony of the individual accounts, a harmony which is in itself the
   strongest index of single rather than of composite authorship.
   Occasional critical questions naturally come in for their share of
   attention. Our treatment will show that we have drawn upon the above
   mentioned Old Testament scholars, a fact that we have acknowledged
   wherever feasible. It will also appear that much can be learned from
   the more recent Eduard Koenig, though in a number of cases his works
   must be used with caution.

    7. Outline

   Of course, the book naturally is divided into two halves: the first
   (chapters 1-11) dealing with the general history of mankind; the second
   (chapters 12-50) with the special history of God's people. Going into
   greater detail, we could devise many other subdivisions. However, the
   author himself has provided an outline indicated by special headings,
   for he uses the heading 'elleh toledoth, "these are the generations"
   (A. V.) =" this is the story," ten tiptoes and actually treats under
   this heading the story indicated by the heading, as of Adam, 5:1-6:8,
   etc. This is more than a formal division. If the inferior elements
   receive but scant consideration, viz. Shem, Ishmael, and Esau, in some
   cases, in fact, only about seven verses, that merely indicates that
   there are things of minor as well as of major importance to be treated
   in a work such as this. If the author provides an outline and clearly
   indicates what it is, why reject it and try to devise a better one
   especially in an inspired book? In the following outline we have merely
   shown the subdivisions of the ten toledoth or the Ten "Histories."

   Introduction (1:1-2:3)

   Introduction--the Creation Account.
    1. The First History--that of Heaven and Earth (2:4-4:26).

    1. Supplementary details of the Creation count (2:4-25).
    2. The Temptation and the Fall (chapter 3).
    3. The Early Development of the Sinful Human Race (chapter 4).

     The History of Adam (5:1-6:8).
    1. The Separate Development of the Godly (chapter 5).
    2. The Commingling of the Two Races (6:1-8).

     The History of Noah (6:9-9:29).
    1. Noah's Piety (6:9-12).
    2. How Noah was preserved (6:13-9:17).
    3. The Future of the Races of Mankind Foretold (9:18-29).

     The History of the Sons of Noah (10:1-21:9).
    1. The Sons of Japheth (10:1-5).
    2. The Sons of Ham (10:6-20).
    3. The Sons of Shem (10:21-31).
    4. The Tower of Babel, or The Confusion of Tongues (11:1-9).

     History of Shem (11 :10-26).

     The History of Terah (11:27-25:11).
    1. The Life of Terah (11:27-32).
    2. The Life of Abraham (12:1-25:11).

    1. The Call of Abraham and the Exodus from Haran (12:1-9).
    2. A trip to Egypt during a Famine (12:10-21).
    3. Separation from Lot (13:1-18).
    4. The Defeat of the Kings by Abraham (14:1-24).
    5. God's Covenant with Abraham (15:1-21).
    6. The Birth of Ishmael (16:1-16).
    7. The Covenant Sealed by New Names and by Circumcision (17:1-27).
    8. The Manifestation of Yahweh at Mamre (18:1-33).
    9. Guilt and Destruction of Sodom (19:1-38). Sequel: Lot's
       Degeneration.
   10. Abraham and Sarah at Gerar (chapter 20).
   11. Birth of Isaac and Expulsion of Ishmael (21:1-21).
   12. Abraham's Covenant with Abimelech at Beersheba (21:22-34).
   13. The Sacrifice of Isaac (22:1-19).
   14. Nahor's Descendants (Rebekah) (22:20-24).
   15. Death and Burial of Sarah (23:1-20).
   16. Isaac's Marriage (16:1-67).
   17. Abraham's Second Marriage and His Death (25:1-11).

     The History of Ishmael (25:12-13).

     The History of Isaac (25:19-35:29).
    1. Birth and Early History of the Twin Brothers (25:19-34).
    2. Various Scenes from Isaac's Life (chapter 26).
    3. Isaac blesses Jacob (27:1-45).
    4. Jacob's Dismissal from Home and His First Vision (27:46-28:22).
    5. Jacob's Double Marriage (29:1-30).
    6. Jacob's Children and His Increasing Wealth (29:31-30:43).
    7. Jacob's Flight from Laban; their Treaty (31:1-54).
    8. Preparations for Meeting Esau (31:55-32:32).
    9. Reconciliation with Esau; Settling in Canaan (33:1-20).
   10. The Outrage on Dinah Avenged by her Brothers (chapter 34).
   11. The Last Events of Isaac's History (35:1-29).

     The History of Esau (chapter 36).

     History of Jacob (37:2-50:26).
    1. Joseph Sold into Egypt (37:2-36).
    2. The Danger that Threatened Jacob's Sons (chapter 38).
    3. Joseph's Imprisonment because of his Steadfastness (chapter 39).
    4. Interpretation of the Prisoners' Dreams by Joseph (chapter 40).
    5. Joseph's Exaltation (chapter 41).
    6. The First Journey of Joseph's Brethren to Egypt without Benjamin
       (chapter 42).
    7. The Second Journey to Egypt with Benjamin (chapter 43).
    8. The Test Successfully Met by Joseph's Brethren (chapter 44).
    9. Joseph Revealed to his Brethren; The Family Summoned to Egypt
       (chapter 45).
   10. The Temporary Emigration of Israel to Egypt (chapter 46).
   11. Israel Established in Goshen; Egyptian Famine Measures (47:1-26).
   12. Jacob's Preparations for his End (47:27-49:32).
   13. Jacob's Death and Burial (50:1-14). 14. Conclusion of Joseph's
       History (50:15-26).

    8. Mode of Interpretation

   There are several modes of interpretation current in our day that
   deserve to be stigmatized as inadequate and unsatisfactory. Some still
   prefer to allegorize portions of Scripture rejecting the literal sense
   and seeking a hidden spiritual meaning, although hardly any would
   venture to follow this procedure exclusively and consistently. In
   rejecting this type of interpretation we do not question the validity
   of the interpretation that sees types of Christ in outstanding Old
   Testament characters especially where the New Testament suggests such a
   use. Much more common in our day is the fault of attempting to press
   Old Testament Scriptures down to the level of the sacred writings of
   the heathen, making them to be works patterned particularly after
   Babylonian source material. This type of interpretation includes what
   for want of a better name must be described as
   "debunking"--interpretation that speaks irreverently of venerable Old
   Testament characters, imputes the lowest possible motives to them, and
   so utterly fails to understand their ofttimes great and heroic faith.
   This approach often attempts nothing less than to discredit these
   sacred Scriptures as unworthy of use by the New Testament church--an
   approach common in Germany at the present. Of course, there still is
   need of reminding that sound interpretation dare not disregard the
   difference between the Old and New Testament levels of revelation. Good
   exegetes, even up .to the Reformation age, failed to reckon with the
   fact that the unchanging truth was revealed with ever increasing
   clearness and fulness, a revelation culminating in Christ Jesus. The
   fuller revelation of a later age was at times imputed to an earlier
   word that did not as yet embody the fuller expression. Of course, we do
   not for a moment imply any such thing as man's progressive achievement.
   Our principle of interpretation is to unfold the fulness of revealed
   truth by careful examination of the grammatical statement as well as of
   the historical circumstances of the inspired text in dependence upon
   the Spirit of revelation, who alone is able to lead us into all truth.

    9. Value and Importance of Genesis

   In a general way it would be correct to say that this book is singular
   in its kind, for it offers the only correct and satisfactory
   information that we possess concerning prehistoric times and the
   Urgeschichte ("history of the primitive ages"). It goes back beyond the
   reach of available historical sources and offers not mythical
   suppositions, not poetical fancies, not vague suggestions, but a
   positive record of things as they actually transpired and, at the same
   time, of matters of infinite moment for all mankind. But more
   specifically, all this material relative to prehistoric times and the
   Urgeschichte really provides the most substantial and even fundamental
   theological concepts. The major theological concepts are incomplete and
   leave much to be desired, if the content that Genesis offers should be
   subtracted. Before God can be known as Saviour, He must be understood
   as the Creator of humankind and of the world. Just what manner of
   Father and Creator He is we find displayed in the two Creation
   chapters, Genesis I and 2. In like manner no adequate and correct
   conception of man is possible without a knowledge of the essentials
   concerning his creation, his original state, the image of God, and the
   like. Again, the problem of sin will constitute much more of a problem
   if the origin of sin, that is to say, the Fall into sin be not
   understood. With that fact correctly apprehended, we achieve a correct
   estimate of the degree of depravity that is characteristic of fallen
   men. Without the promise of ultimate victory through the Seed of the
   Woman all further revelations concerning the salvation to come must
   stand minus an adequate base upon which they can successfully build. In
   other words, certain vital questions in reference to the type of
   revelation that mankind needs find a satisfactory answer in Genesis and
   nowhere else. Concerning some of these matters the legends and the
   traditions of mankind offer a bit of material, most of which is
   distorted by error; some of which, in the elements of truth that it
   contains, is too weak to be of any actual value. An illustration of the
   extent to which this material is available is the vague report current
   among the ancients that there once had been a Golden Age. The
   unreliability of such material is demonstrated by the utter absence of
   any tradition concerning a Fall into sin. Disregarding the material
   relation to matters theological, we find that Genesis also provides the
   much needed foundations for all history. The vague surmises as to man's
   past prior historic times all stand corrected by the story of the
   beginnings of the human race in Adam, or by the story of the second
   beginning in Noah. Equally important are the very valid data concerning
   the unity of the human race as provided basically in Genesis 1 and in
   greater detail in chapter 10, incomplete though this latter chapter may
   be in regard to a few matters. So, too, the question as to the origin
   of the multiplicity of languages is disposed of by the account
   concerning the confusion of tongues. Similarly, the singular position
   of Israel among the nations, a challenge to every historian, finds an
   adequate explanation in the Call of Abraham. Of course, from that point
   onward Genesis no longer records general history but only the history
   of the Kingdom of God.
     __________________________________________________________________

   If at this point we append a summary of certain of the better known
   cosmogonies, or at least of those which have a certain affinity with
   the Biblical account, anyone can judge for himself whether the Biblical
   account in any sense seems to be a derivative. The most famous of the
   non-biblical cosmogonies is the Babylonian or the so-called "Chaldean
   Genesis," which created such a stir at the time of its publication in
   1876 after it had been unearthed as a part of the library of
   Ashurbanipal at Nineveh by George Smith in 1873. The several tablets on
   which the account is written are in a fairly good state of
   preservation. The story begins with an account that is a theogony--an
   account of the origin of the gods--in itself already an indication of a
   far inferior level. The true God did not come into being by a certain
   process, nor were there originally several deities. Now of these
   various deities one stood out as particularly aggressive and ferocious,
   the unsubdued Tiamat--again a decidedly inferior point of view. For the
   struggle that impended Tiamat, the old mother of gods, enlists as many
   of the old gods as she can and a whole crew of horrid monsters. The
   resulting conflict for supremacy (note the low moral level even among
   gods) is a truly titanic struggle in which the forces of the opposition
   are led by the great Babylonian deity Marduk. Marduk proves himself the
   stronger. He prevails over Tiamat, cleaves her into two montrous
   halves, the upper of which he fixes in place as the heavens, in which
   in turn he fixes the heavenly bodies; and the lower of which halves, on
   the other hand, he sets in place as the earth. Then he compounds
   material of his own blood for the creation of man, the chief purpose of
   whose creation is "that the service of the gods may be established."
   This account of creation is so pronouncedly different from the Biblical
   account that the points of difference completely overshadow the
   incidental points of resemblance. To speak of a "striking resemblance
   between the two cosmogonies" certainly is a partisan overstatement of
   the case; and to go on to say that "the cosmogony of Genesis I rests on
   a conception of the process of creation fundamentally identical with
   that of the Enuma elis (the opening words of the Chaldean Genesis)
   tablets" is simply a distortion of the truth. Of the Phoenician
   cosmogony it is sufficient to remark that it contains the idea of the
   world-egg, hatched out to produce the world. Analogous to this from
   this point of view is the Indian conception. The uncreated Lord
   appeared in chaos. The next step was to render this world visible by
   means of the five elements, by shining forth in brightest light and
   dispelling darkness. Into the water, which he creates first, he lays a
   germ cell. This becomes a gleaming egg in which Brahma is found, the
   source principle. A protracted period of hatching brings him to light.
   Aside from fantastic and confused elements it may well be that even
   this cosmogony carries within it certain echoes of the Genesis account
   which are all but forgotten. The Parsee Genesis, appearing in a late
   book of the Bundehest, has at least this sequence of created things: 1.
   heaven, 2. water, 3. earth, 4. planets, 5. animals, 6. man. Nothing is
   said concerning the creation of light. The partial correspondence with
   the account of the Bible is obvious. But since this is a late book,
   this correspondence may have resulted from an acquaintance with the
   Biblical record. Still more nearly parallel to the Biblical account is
   the cosmogony attributed to the Etruscans by the writer Suidas, who
   lived in the tenth century A. D. For the sequence runs thus: 1. heaven
   and earth, 2. firmament, 3. sea and water, 4. sun and moon, 5. souls of
   animals, 6. man. To the six items six `periods of a thousand years each
   are assigned. Yet the influence of the Bible record is so very likely
   in the case of a writer of the tenth century of the Christian era that
   there is great likelihood that the writer's Christian ideas will `have
   led him to find these successive items, which another might not even
   have noticed in the same material. Or else the ancient Etruscan
   tradition had absorbed a high percentage of Biblical thought on matters
   such as these. One would expect the Persian cosmogony to be radically
   different and in conformity with the principles of dualism. In the
   Avesta time and light and darkness are uncreated. These constitute the
   true spiritual world. They are eternal because Mazda, the god of light,
   is himself eternal. Hesiod informs us how the Greeks conceived of the
   origin of things. First there existed Chaos; there-upon the earth; next
   Tartarus; then Eros (Love), the most beautiful of the deathless gods.
   Out of Chaos night is born. The earth begets the heavens; then the
   ocean comes into being. After these Saturn, father of gods, existed.
   The rest of the pantheon follow him. To the Egyptians several views on
   the origin of the earth are to be attributed. Some regarded the god
   Ptah as the craftsman who built the world. Others held that it was the
   goddess Neith who wove its fabric. The fundamental principle from which
   all things take their origin was thought to be water, for in it were
   fancied to be the male and the female germs of life. Even the great god
   Ra was supposed to have sprung from it, though others believed that he
   had been hatched out of an egg. We may well say that these cosmogonies
   are the best available outside the Genesis account. A man does not need
   any supernatural enlightenment to discern that not one of all these can
   compare even remotely with the scriptural account for depth of thought,
   simplicity, propriety and beauty. All the others disappoint us by their
   incompleteness, or by their confusion, or by their lack of sequence, or
   as being the embodiment of some deep-seated error. Their conception of
   God is most unsatisfactory and unworthy. Or if they rise to a higher
   level, we have reason for believing that the better element is
   traceable to the Bible as the source.

    10. Bibliography

   A. Commentaries

   Delitzsch, Franz, Commentar ueber die Genesis, Leipzig: Doerffling and
   Franke, 1872.

   Dillmann, August, Die Genesis, Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 4. edition. 1882.

   Dods, Marcus, The Expositor's Bible (Genesis), New York: George II.
   Doran Co. No date.

   Gunkel, IIerman, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, W. Nowak, editor.
   Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. 1901.

   Jamieson, Robert, A Commentary Critical and Explanatory, (Jamieson,
   Fausset and Brown). New York: George II. Doran. No date.

   Keil, C. F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Genesis), (Keil
   and Delitzsch), Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1875.

   Koenig, Eduard, Die Genesis, Guetersioh: Bertelsmann. 1919.

   Lange, J. P., Bibelwerk (Genesis), Bielefeld: Velhagen und Klasing.
   1864.

   Luther, Martin, Saemtliche Schriften (Genesis), St. Louis, Mo.
   Concordia Publishing House. 1881. (2 vol.)

   Procksch, Otto, Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Genesis), Ernst Sellin,
   editor. Leipzig: Deichert. 1913.

   Skinner, John, International Critical Commentary (Genesis), Driver, et
   al, editors. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1925.

   Strack, Hermann L., Kurzgefasster Kommentar (Genesis), Strack and
   Zoeckler, editors. Muenchen: C. H. Beck. 1905.

   Vilmar, August Fr. C., Collegium Biblicum (Genesis), Christian Mueller,
   editor. Guetersloh: Bertelsmann. 1881.

   Whitelaw Thomas, The Pulpit Commentary (Genesis), H. D. M. Spence,
   editor. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Co. 1882.

   References to these commentaries have been made exclusively by the
   author's name, as Delitzsch. Quotations appear, of course, under the
   verse that is being treated. Consequently, reference to pages was
   consistently omitted.

   As to the position taken by these commentaries, works such as those of
   Dillmann, Dods, Strack may be classed as moderately critical. Gunkel,
   Procksch and Skinner belong into the class of the extremely critical.
   Delitzsch finally yielded to the blandishments of the critical approach
   and accepted at least the source theory in its major features but still
   put the critical work into the category of secondary importance.
   Jamieson disregards critical issues. Keri, seconded in many a case by
   Lange, did very substantial work in the direction of establishing the
   validity of the conservative approach. Whitelaw works in a similar
   spirit. Luther's comments naturally have a very different purpose but
   are still to be read .with profit. Koenig does the most constructive
   work among modern writers, but unfortunately, he yielded to the source
   theory, though even in this his position is moderate.

   B. Dictionaries

   Buhl, Frants, Gesenius' Handwoerterbuch ueber das alte Testament;
   Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel. 1905.

   Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
   Testament (based on Gesenius). New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. 1907.

   Koenig, Eduard, Woerterbuch zum Alten Testament. Leipzig: Dieterich.
   1922. (2. and 3. edition.)

   C. Versions

   Holy Bible, Revised Version, American Standard Edition. 1901.

   King James Version.

   Luther's German Bible.

   Smith, J. M. Powis, The Old Testament, An American Translation (Genesis
   by Theophile J. Meek). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1927.

   Rahlfs, Alfred, Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Wuertembergische
   Bibelanstalt. 1935.

   Onkelos, Targum, New York: Hebrew Publishing Co. No date.

   D. Other Helps copiously used

   Bailey and Kent, History of the Hebrew Commonwealth (revised edition).
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1935.

   Barton, George A., Archaeology and the Bible (seventh edition).
   Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union. 1937.

   Edersheim, Alfred, Bible History (The World before the Flood. Vol. I).
   New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.

   Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm, Beitraege zur Einleitung ins Alte
   Testament (Die Authentie des Pentateuches), Berlin: Oehmigke. 1836.

   Hengstenberg, E. W., Die Buecher Moses und Aegypten, Berlin: Oehmigke.
   1841.

   Hengstenberg, E. W., Christologie des Alten Testaments, Berlin:
   Oehmigke. 1854.

   Hengstenberg, E. W., Geschichte des Reiches Gotres unter dem Alten
   Bunde. Berlin: Schlawitz. 1869.

   Hofmann, J. C. K., Weissagung und Erfuellung. Noerdlingen: Beck. 1841.

   Jeremias, Alfred, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients.
   Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1904.

   Kittel, Rud., Biblia Hebraica (Genesis), Stuttgart: Priv. Wuert.
   Bibelanstalt. 1929.

   Koenig, Eduard, Geschichte der Alttestamentlichen Religion. Guetersloh:
   Bertelsmann. 1912.

   Koenig, E., Geschichte des Reiehes Gottes. Berlin: Warneck. 1908.

   Koenig, E., Die Messianischen Weissagungen des Alten Testaments.
   Stuttgart: Belser. 1923.

   Koenig, E., Theologie des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Belser. 1922.

   Michell, G. B., The Historical Truth of the Bible. (Part I. The
   Comparative International History of the Old Testament) London:
   Marshall Bros. 1925.

   Moeller, Wilhelm, Biblische Theologie des AIten Testaments, etc.
   Zwickau: Herrmann.

   Oehler, Gust. Fr., Theologie des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart:
   Steinkopf. 1882.

   E. Grammars

   Gesenius, Wilhelm, Hebraeische Grammatik (revised by E. Kautzsch). 27.
   ed. Leipzig: Vogel. 1902.

   Koenig, Eduard, Lehrgebaeude der Hebraeischen Sprache. (Part II.
   Syntax.) Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1897.

   F. Abbreviations of the titles of the above works commonly used

   A. V. King James Version.

   A. R. V. American Standard Edition of the Revised Version.

   B. D. B. Gesenius' Lexicon by Brown, Driver, Briggs.

   B. T. Moeller's Biblische Theologie.

   G. A. T. Koenig's Geschichte der Alttestamentlichen Religion.

   G. K. Gesenius' Grammatik rev. by Kautzsch.

   G. R. G. Koenig's Geschichte des Reiches Gottes.

   K. C. Koenig's Kommentar on Genesis.

   K. S. Koenig's Syntax.

   K. W. Koenig's Woerterbuch.

   T. A. T. (K,) Koenig's Theologie des Alten Testaments.

   T. A. T. (0.) Oehler's Theologie des AltenTestaments.


     __________________________________________________________________

The Author--Dr. H. C. LEUPOLD
     __________________________________________________________________

   Dr. Herbert Carl Leupold, Columbus, Ohio, was born at Buffalo, N. Y.,
   on July 23, 1891. He received his early education in the Lutheran
   parochial schools at Buffalo and later finished his elementary and
   secondary education in the Buffalo public schools. He received his
   pre-seminary and seminary training at the Martin Luther Theological
   Seminary at Buffalo, NY., which was discontinued when the Buffalo Synod
   became a part of the American Lutheran Church. Dr. Leupold graduated
   from the Martin Luther Seminary on June 24, 1914. Thereupon he served
   as pastor of a mission, Ascension Lutheran congregation in Buffalo, and
   at the same time held an assistant professorship at the Martin Luther
   Seminary until 1922. He served as professor of historical theology at
   the Martin Luther Seminary from 1922 to 1929. In 1929, when the Buffalo
   Synod dosed Martin Luther Seminary, Dr. Leupold was transferred to the
   Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary at Capital University,
   Columbus, O., where he became professor of Old Testament Theology, in
   which capacity he is serving at the present time. He was elected
   secretary of the Theological Seminary faculty in 1941. Dr. Leupold
   received the Bachelor of Divinity degree from the Chicago Seminary in
   1926 and the Doctor of Divinity degree from Capital University in 1935.

   Dr. Leupold has gained renown as an Old Testament scholar and an
   authority on liturgics. He has become a well-known lecturer and writer
   in these fields.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER I

    The Introduction--The Creation Account (1:1-2:3)

   The object of this double title is to indicate that on the one hand,
   this is the Introduction which Moses has provided for the entire book
   of Genesis as well as, on the other hand, that this Introduction is
   given in the form of an account of creation.

   It requires no deep insight to discern the basic character of this
   Introduction, both for the book as well as for all revelation. Man will
   go back in his thinking to the point where the origins of all things
   lie; he will desire to know how the world as well as all that is in it,
   and, most particularly, how he himself came into being. Here is the
   record, complete and satisfactory from every point of view, even if it
   does not perhaps answer every question that a prying curiosity might
   raise. He, however, who will ponder sufficiently what is here actually
   offered, will find facts of such magnitude as to stifle unseemly
   curiosity as to secondary matters.

   Enthusiastic have been the comments of all who have read this account
   in an attitude of faith. Believing hearts are moved to devout praise of
   God and to adoration of His unbounded wisdom, power and mercy. Over
   against the criticism of our day even moderately critical writers offer
   comments such as Skinner (p. 11): "It is a bold thing to desiderate a
   treatment more worthy of the theme, or more impressive in effect, than
   we find the severely chiselled outlines and stately cadences of the
   first chapter of Genesis." Proksch, contrasting the basic thought of
   the chapter with all other literatures, advances the claim: "That the
   universe rises out of nothing by the almighty creative power of God is
   a thought so broad in its poetic as well as in its theological scope
   found nowhere in such clear-cut outlines in world literature before P."

   The Scriptures themselves treat this account as pure history. Note the
   following passages: (Ex 20:9-11; 31:17; Ps 8; Ps 104; Mt 19:4-6; 2Pe
   3:5; Heb 4:4)

   When the question is raised as to the. sources of the truths set forth
   in this Introduction, we must freely admit that we know nothing about
   them. There are several possibilities. That Moses himself received the
   whole chapter by direct revelation is possible. Equally, if not more,
   reasonable is the assumption that divine revelation communicated to our
   first parents the account of creation. From them it came by tradition
   to Moses, who recorded the whole under divine inspiration, purging it
   from errors or inaccuracies, should any have begun to creep into the
   traditional version of it by this time. That, however, such tradition
   may have continued relatively, if not entirely, pure appears from the
   following three facts: first, the number of links in the chain of
   persons from Adam to Abraham was very few because of man's longevity at
   this time, and Abraham's time was already one of intense literary
   activity; secondly: godly men who perpetuated this tradition would have
   employed extreme care to preserve it correct in all its parts; thirdly,
   the memory of men who trusted more to memory than to written records is
   known to have been unusually retentive. But whatever explanation an
   individual may devise to make plain to others that tradition may have
   played a part in bringing this priceless record to us, and even if he
   grant the possibility of written records of this tradition prior to the
   time of Moses, all such supposition dare never be construed as
   conflicting with the very basic fact that Genesis 1 is revelation.

   Suppositions like that of Dillmann and many others that the Israelitish
   mind was equipped with a better understanding of God and let the light
   of this insight, be trained on the problem of the origin of all things
   and devised this which is to date still the best solution; are not
   satisfactory. Such claims are an attempt to dispose of immediate
   revelation as well as of plenary inspiration and are besides hardly
   reasonable. How could human ingenuity ever have penetrated into the
   divine order and manner of creation, when no witness to these works
   could ever be found? In any case, such explanations as to how the
   account was derived make of it a series of surmises and remove entirely
   the possibility of the objective correctness and the complete
   reliability of this record. All that remains is that of all
   speculations man ever elaborated about the origin of the world this is
   still by all odds the best. The claims and the attitude of the
   Scriptures, however, are met only by the explanation that says: This
   chapter was received by divine revelation; it contains full and
   absolute truth and only truth.

   In order to make this scriptural account appear as just one more
   cosmogony it has become a common procedure to make more or less
   extensive Comparisons with other cosmogonies as they are found here and
   there in the records of the traditions of the nations. We offer,
   however. a more extensive examination of these so-called "creation
   accounts" above in our Introductory Remarks (p. 27). A fair comparison
   with such materials makes our remarks above appear all the more
   reasonable.

   Taking this creation account as a whole, how shall we arrange the work
   of the six days? Is there any possibility of grouping within the six
   days? Most schemes that are advanced are not entirely perfect, but they
   may yet contain a generous element of truth. It seems as though the
   best pattern or the categories that man employs are not of a big enough
   mould to serve for the creation as God brings it about. Let a few of
   these subdivisions be submitted. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), mentioned
   by Strack, suggested two triads of days, the first three concerned with
   works of division, the second three with works of embellishment. Yet
   the third day's work in its second half certainly comes under the head
   of embellishment. A second suggestion notices the manifest parallel
   between the two triads of days, pointing to the fact that both the
   first and the fourth days are concerned with a work that begins on high
   with light (or light bearers). Then in the work of the second and the
   fifth days the work drops to a lower level, namely, to the firmament
   and to the birds of the air. Lastly, on the third and the sixth days
   the creative work moves on the level of the earth and accomplishes a
   double objective, namely on the third, separation of dry land and water
   and the production of green things, whereas on the sixth day comes the
   creation of land animals and man. The correspondence of the two triads
   from this point of view cannot be denied, but to try to imagine it as
   entirely adequate would overlook the work of the fifth day, which is
   double in character and drops not only to the level of the creation of
   the birds of the air but also, unfortunately, to the submarine level of
   the creation of fishes of the sea. More satisfactory is Koenig's
   arrangement which sees four deficiencies or four instances of relative
   incompleteness listed in a definite order and sees the successive
   creative acts as removing these four in inverse order, as we shall
   presently demonstrate.

   But quite apart from such attempts to fit the whole creation into a
   pattern of our own devising it is immediately apparent that the account
   as a whole proceeds from the lower to the higher, providing first the
   basic essentials for existence as well as for plant and for animal
   life, then running to a climax in the creation of man for whose
   well-being and well-ordered existence all previous steps in creation
   provide the adequate setting. So the account abundantly displays that
   God is a God of order. The very general formula devised by Driver
   (quoted by Skinner) is as satisfactory as any: "The first three days
   are days of preparation, the next three are days of accomplishment."

   1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

   The phrase "in the beginning" (bereshith) refers to the absolute
   beginning of created things, to the Uranfang. This fact is supported by
   the following arguments in the face of many and strong claims to the
   contrary. 1. The corresponding phrase in Greek, en arch, which the
   Septuagint translators used here and which appears at the beginning of
   John's Gospel, is plainly a reference to the absolute beginning. 2. The
   noun reshith appears without the article, appearing in use practically
   as a proper noun, Absolute Beginning (K. S. 294g). The Greek Hexapla of
   Orion supports this, for its transliteration with few exceptions gives
   bohsin, seldom baohshn. 3. The rendering which takes the expression as
   referring to the absolute beginning of things makes for a simple,
   natural progression of thought and avoids that peculiar periodic
   sentence structure, which shall presently be discussed as highly
   unnatural.

   Because this noun bereshith is without the article, that does not allow
   for its being taken as a genitive or construct case, viz. "in the
   beginning of God's creating," etc., for with that rendering attention
   is at once centred on the second verse and no reason appears for
   mentioning "the beginning" at all.

   Here, then, at the opening statement of sacred Scripture we are taken
   back to that point to which the human mind naturally will revert and in
   reference to which it asks: "What was the beginning of things?" This
   solemn and pithy statement gives man the information: the beginning was
   made by God in His creation of heaven and earth. As far as this world
   is concerned, it simply had no existence before this time.

   He that did the creative work is said to be God, 'elohim. This Hebrew
   name is to be derived from a root found in the Arabic meaning "to fear"
   or "to reverence." It, therefore, conceives of God as the one who by
   His nature .and His works rouses man's fear and reverence. It is used
   2,570 times (KTAT-(K) p. 144). This name is not a characteristic mark
   of a particular source as E, or in a measure also P, as Old Testament
   criticism is in the habit of claiming. It is used by Moses in
   accordance with its meaning. The work recorded in chapter one in a very
   outstanding way sets forth God's mighty works of power and majesty.
   God's omnipotence outshines all other attributes in this account.
   Omnipotence rouses man's reverence and holy fear rather than his love.
   In other words, it brings the Creator to man's notice rather as 'Elohim
   than from any other point of view. In stressing this we are not blind
   to the fact that this chapter also shows forth God as Yahweh, the
   faithful, merciful one. The claim, however, , that Yahweh might just as
   Well be employed as 'Elohim, if the meaning of these names is to be
   considered, really ignores the facts we have just emphasized above
   --facts which criticism, by the way, gives heed to far less carefully
   than conservative writers give attention to the arguments in favour of
   the various sources, E, J, P, D, etc.

   A thought by Procksch should be noted here: "It so happens very
   appropriately that the first named subject of Genesis as well as of the
   Bible is `God'."

   The verb describing God's initial work is "created" (bara'). This verb
   is correctly defined as expressing the origination of something great,
   new and "epoch-making," as only God can do it, whether it be in the
   realm of the physical or of the spiritual. The verb bara' does not of
   itself and absolutely preclude the use Of existing material; cf. Isa.
   65:18b: "Behold I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy."
   Also note v. 27 of this chapter. However, when no existing material is
   mentioned as to be worked over, no such material is implied.
   Consequently, this passage teaches creatio ex nihilo, "creation out of
   nothing," a doctrine otherwise also clearly taught by the Scriptures;
   (Ro 4:17; Heb 11:3); cf. also (Ps 33:6, 9; Am 4:13). The verb is never
   used of other than DIVINE activity.

   The bero', which Kit. proposes in the margin in conformity with the
   claims of many, for bara', i.e. the infinitive for the finite verb, and
   which yields the translation, "in the beginning of God's creating,"
   etc., is not only entirely unnecessary but unfortunately, leads to an
   involved and confused sentence structure in place of a simple and a
   clear one. Besides, such a change is born entirely out of the desire to
   make room for a particular interpretation, viz. the interpretation that
   claims long ages of the earth's existence prior to the creative work
   here to be described. To use this change of vowels is the equivalent of
   substituting a confused road for a straight and a simple one.

   The object of God's creation was "the heavens and the earth." We should
   have said, He created: "the universe." Since the Hebrew has no word for
   the universe and can at best say: "the all" cf. (Jer 10:16; Isa 44:24;
   Ps 103:19; 119:91; Ec 11:5), certainly the far more colourful "heavens
   and earth" is to be preferred. Besides, there is a deeper truth
   involved. In reality the world is bipartite; it is not a unit as far as
   we are concerned. The two parts constituting the world or the universe
   were originally in perfect harmony with one another. Now there exists a
   deep breach between the two. The term shamssyim signifies the "upper
   regions" (K. W.) and is a plural form, a plural of intensity (K. C.),
   pointing to the heavenly spheres or regions which rise one above the
   other. This explanation is to be preferred to the other (e. g. K. S.)
   which makes this a dual in reference to the two halves of the heavens
   which stretch each from the zenith to the horizon. The word for
   "earth," 'erets, bears a meaning which may be "that which is lower,"
   des Niedere.

   Over against the claim that "the heavens and the earth" may well be the
   equivalent of "the universe" it is contended that "heavens" here can
   only mean the "firmament," as in v. 8, and "earth" can only refer to
   the "dry land," as in v. 10. But then the very proper question arises:
   why single out "heaven and earth" in this sense at all and mention
   their creation in v. 17 Besides, in this creation account another word
   is used in a broader and in a narrower sense; cf. "day" in 5a with
   "day" in 5b with "day" in 2:4--actually three meanings.

   Now is this first verse a heading or a title? By no means; for how
   could the second verse attach itself to a heading by an "and"? Or is
   this first verse a summary statement akin to a title, after the Hebrew
   manner of narrative which likes to present a summary account like a
   newspaper heading, giving the gist of the entire event? Again, No. For
   if creation began with light and then with the organizing of existing
   material, the question would crowd persistently to the forefront: but
   how did this original material come into being? for v. 1 could not be a
   record of its origin, because it would be counted as a summary account
   of the things unfolded throughout the rest of the chapter. Verse one is
   the record of the first part of the work brought into being on the
   first day: first the heavens and the earth in a basic form as to their
   material, then light. These two things constitute what God created on
   the first day. The Hebrew style of narrative just referred to may or
   may not be employed on occasion, depending on the author's choice. Here
   it does not happen to be used.

   Here also the statement may be disposed of which says: The initial
   creation was a chaos. Such an assertion is misleading. It may be meant
   in a way which Would be entirely wrong. If it implies that as the
   record stands v. 1-2 show an unsatisfactory state of achievement, it is
   all wrong. However, if the disorganized state of the first steps of
   creation is called "chaos," with the reservation that this implies no
   criticism but is necessarily only the first and unavoidable step from
   lower to higher forms, then the statement may be used. Or if it is only
   intended as a statement which covers what v. 2 covers with other terms,
   it cannot be said to be wrong.

   Before dropping this verse we should take issue with the question:
   "Does the term 'Elohim, being a plural, embody a reference to the Holy
   Trinity?" Two extremes must be guarded against in submitting an answer.
   He goes too far who sees in this plural a direct and explicit reference
   to the Holy Trinity. The plural is a potential plural (K. S. 263 a-c)
   indicating the wealth of the potentialities of the divine being,
   chiefly in so far as God by His very nature and being kindles man's
   deepest reverence. However, what all the wealth of this
   reverence-inspiring Being is, is not fully revealed in all detail by
   the Old Testament, least of all in the time of Moses. The term 'Elohim,
   however, allows for all that which the fuller unfolding of the same old
   truth brings in the course of the development of God's Kingdom. When,
   then, ultimately the truth concerning the Trinity has been revealed,
   the fullest resources of the term 'Elohim have been explored, as far as
   man needs to know them. Consequently, he who would claim that the term
   can have no connection with the truth of the Holy Trinity goes too far.
   Nor dare it be forgotten, as we shall show in connection with v. 2 and
   3, that the text itself introduces references to the persons of the
   Trinity without definitely indicating, of course, that they are
   distinct persons in the Godhead. In that connection certain New
   Testament words will be seen to have bearing upon the case.
   Consequently Luther's statement, made in reference to v. 2, is quite in
   order when he says: "Consequently the Christian Church on this point
   displays a strong unity that in this description is to be founds the
   mystery of the Holy Trinity." Even a second statement of Luther's may
   be accepted, if it be construed in the sense of the first: "But we have
   clear testimony that Moses aimed to indicate the Trinity or the three
   persons in the one divine nature."

   Before we examine v. 2 by itself it is necessary to see how v. 1-3
   stand related to one another. There would be no occasion for giving
   attention to this matter if the familiar English versions (King James
   or A. R. V.) and the German are followed, for these very correctly
   indicate that the sequence of clauses is as natural as it can be. But
   two translations, diverging from the familiar form, have thrust
   themselves to the forefront, leaning for support on eminent Hebrew
   scholars. As representative of the one may count what Meek submits (The
   Old Testament, An American Translation): "When God began to create the
   heavens and the earth, the earth being a desolate waste, with darkness
   covering the abyss and the spirit of God hovering over the waters, then
   God said: `Let there be light.'" This translation makes v. 2 a
   parenthesis, or it would practically have it set off by dashes and
   makes of v. i the protasis and of v. 3 the apodosis. The second makes
   v. 1 protasis and v. 2 apodosis, thus: "When God created the heavens
   and the earth, then the earth was, etc. ... and God said, etc." (Raschi
   et al.). A third might be listed here, although it has been disposed of
   above. It is that which makes v. 1 the heading and then proceeds with
   v. 2 and 3 as follows: Now as the earth lay there, a waste and empty
   mass--and darkness, etc. --then God said, etc., (Procksch). The last
   mentioned having been refuted, we shall dispose of the details involved
   in the first two as we examine v. 2 and v. 3 more fully. For a summary
   refutation let the following points be noted, Grammatically such
   translations as Meek and Raschi offer are possible but in this case
   highly improbable. The Hebrew does co-ordinate clauses where we prefer
   subordination. Longer sentences of involved structure are found also in
   (Ge 5:1) and (Nu 5:12-15; Jos 3:14-16) and in many other instances. But
   a chapter marked throughout by very simple sentence structure would
   never begin with so complicated a structure as any of the ones noted
   above. Besides, against the first combination it must be noticed that
   the first word of v. 2 could hardly be ha'arets but would have to be
   wattehi, in spite of occasional exceptions noted here and there for
   emphasis' sake. Wellhausen's dictum in regard to this modern
   translation is worthy of being preserved; he called it a "desperately
   insipid construction" (verzweifelt geschmacklose Construction).

   2. And now, as far as the earth was concerned, it was waste and void,
   and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was
   hovering upon the face of the waters.

   Of the two parts of the universe mentioned the author abandons the
   first, "the heavens," as lying outside of the sphere of the present
   investigation, for of its creation we need not know or perhaps could
   not understand its details. Moses definitely limits himself to the
   second of the two parts by emphatically setting "the earth" first in
   the sentence. This yields a shade of thought which our translation
   above tries to reproduce by saying: "And now, as far as the earth was
   concerned." Or one might render: "Now this earth," etc. As has been
   remarked, from this point onward the point of approach may be said to
   be geocentric.

   By an outstanding double expression (cf. for similar combinations 18:27
   and 21:23) an almost onomatopoeic effect is secured to describe the
   utmost of an unformed and unshapen mass: "waste and void" --tohu
   wavohu. Tohu is really a noun used as an emphatic adjective (K. S. 306
   r), as is also, of course, bohu. The verb "it was," hayethah, cannot
   bear the emphasis in a sentence where two such significant predicates
   follow (K. S. 326 b). It must merely serve as a copula (K. S. 338 q).
   Consequently, all attempts to put into this verb some thought like: the
   earth then was there, or lay thus for quite a time, are grammatically
   quite inadmissible. Now tohu as such means originally unformedness (K.
   W.) and so can come to mean a "waste" only in the sense of being not
   yet put into shape, not in the sense of having been laid waste by some
   catastrophe, as all those would postulate who try at every point to
   make room for geologic periods of development. All later usage of the
   word points in the same direction. It occurs once again with bohu, (Jer
   4:23). In (De 32:10) the parallel thought is "wilderness." Isaiah uses
   it to describe the unreality of idols. In (Isa 41:29), where it is
   rendered "confusion," its parallel is "wind," and similar terms are
   "vanity" and "nought." Similarly, (Isa 40:17) offers as parallels:
   "nothing" and "less than nothing." Cf. also (Isa 40:23; 49:4; 1Sa
   12:21). The passage (Je 4:23) is not at variance with these claims, for
   though it pictures a state of desolation by the quotation of the whole
   phrase tohu wavohu, it evidently means that the land is again to be
   reduced to a state like unto the primeval chaos. (Isa 24:10) is
   analogous. Bohu is derived from a root "to be empty," therefore
   "emptiness." It is applicable to a region without inhabitants of any
   kind. Its thought is clearly distinct from tohu. Both terms together
   then indicate two directions in regard to which the newly created world
   will undergo further changes: first, it must be shaped and formed into
   definite molds; secondly, it must be peopled with all kinds of
   inhabitants or beings.

   The next sentence, "and darkness was upon the face of the deep,"
   indicates the last two deficiencies or incompletenesses characteristic
   of this newly formed earth--"deficiencies" being here taken not in the
   sense of a positive defect but negatively as mere want of those things
   which in the purpose of God were consecutively to be supplied. The verb
   "was" carries over from the preceding clause and need not be repeated
   here. All of what had thus far come into being was wrapped in complete
   and absolute darkness. This is the first deficiency. The second touched
   upon in this sentence is that which lay under the darkness was "the
   deep." Yet even here the expression used is not merely "upon the deep"
   but "upon the faces of the deep." This "deep" had a variety of aspects,
   "faces." In fact, since "deep," tehom, from the root hum, "to resound,"
   signifies the surging, raging primeval waters, the term implies
   anything but a monotonous peace and uniformity. Besides, the absence of
   the article stamps the word as a kind of proper noun, viz. that one and
   only primeval deep. Whether now this original form is characteristic cf
   the whole earth or merely of its surface; whether it involved an earth
   that had, as it were, a solid kernel but merely a disturbed surface; or
   whether solid matter and water were originally churned up into one vast
   conglomerate neither solid nor liquid, no investigation on our part
   will ever determine.

   In fact, whatever efforts are made to throw light upon the matter by
   drawing upon Babylonian myths, and particularly upon the monstrous
   deity Tiamat, only confuse the issues. Those who at once identify tehom
   with Tiamat do so without any warrant. The mere similarity of names
   does not make the Biblical account a derivative from Babylonian
   sources. As K. W. rightly remarks: "The spirit of the Old Testament has
   disavowed the personification of the term as well as its mythological
   implications." The holy writer was not going afield among the grotesque
   mythological figures of the Babylonian pantheon. His statement is too
   sober and the term employed quite uncontaminated by crude heathen
   notions. If any connection exists between the true; sober `Biblical
   term tehom and the mythological Tiamat, the latter in the sober light
   of facts must be a derivation form the former during the process of the
   degeneration of the original truth possessed by mankind. Tiamat lies so
   much farther down the scale as to appear as a very manifest corruption.
   That mere "waters" are meant here by tehom is also apparent from the
   next clause, where the term "waters" is actually substituted for it.

   Note well that we have above carefully avoided that rendering of the
   last clause of v. 2 which makes the verb involved to mean "brooding." A
   good example was set by the Septuagint translators who used the term
   epefereto, "was borne along"; "moved" (A. V.) is less colourful but not
   wrong. The verb rachaph from which the piel participle is used, mera
   (ch) chepheth, signifies a vibrant moving, a protective hovering. No
   single instance of the Biblical usage of the verb would suggest
   "brooding," a meaning which was foisted upon the word in an attempt to
   make it bear resemblance to various old myths that speak of the
   hatching out of the world egg--a meaning specially defended by Gunkel,
   the strong advocate of mythical interpretation. (De 32:11) surely will
   not allow for the idea of "brooding." An eagle may brood over eggs but
   not over "her young."` The fact that the Syriac root does happen to
   mean "brood" cannot overthrow the Biblical usage, which takes strong
   precedence over mere similarity of root in kindred languages. Koenig
   (K. W.) rightly shows how such similarity may mislead. The Syriac and
   the Aramaic melakh, which is the Hebrew malakh, means in Syriac and
   Aramaic "to give counsel and incidentally "to rule," but in Hebrew it
   signifies "to be king." Comparative philology has its limitations. Or
   the Arabic hsslika, "to perish," appearing as the Hebrew verb halakh
   signifies "to go."

   But what exactly is "the Spirit of God"? Since in this account the noun
   for God 'elohim is without a doubt definite, the word "spirit" also
   becomes definite, according to a simple rule of Hebrew syntax.
   Consequently, the thought must be ruled out that we are dealing with
   some such concept as "divine Spirit." It must definitely be rendered
   "the Spirit of God." Nor is there any warrant for rendering ruach as
   "wind" in this instance. The verb with which it is construed implies
   too much to let the statement merely mean that a wind fanned the face
   of the waters. Since, then, it actually is God's Spirit, the question
   might definitely be formulated thus: "Does ruach `elohim mean God's
   spirit or God's Spirit? Is it a mere potency in God or is it the Holy
   Spirit who is involved?, Or does the term refer to a principle or to a
   person?" We must guard against overstatement of the case, but we
   maintain very definitely: the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit, the
   third person in the Trinity. For all the attributes ascribed to this
   divine person in the Old Testament agree fully with what is revealed in
   the New Testament concerning His person and His work. Absolutely none
   other than the Holy Spirit is here under consideration. Yet it would be
   inaccurate and premature to claim that this passage alone conveys this
   fact clearly to the mind of man. It may have been much later in the
   course of the fuller unfolding of divine revelation that the truth came
   home distinctly to the mind of believers that God's spirit was God, a
   separate person or hypostasis. Yet the harmony of the Word within
   itself and its inspiration by this same Holy Spirit necessitated that
   the statements made in earlier stages of revelation, nevertheless, are
   in accurate and full conformity with the truth. It may require the full
   light of New Testament revelation to enable us to discern that the
   Spirit of God here is the same as He who in the New Testament is seen
   to be the Holy Spirit; but having that light, we need not hesitate to
   believe that it sheds clear light back on the Old Testament usage of
   the expression. Davidson and Koenig in their Theology of the Old
   Testament may deny this. Even Oehler may hesitate to make a clear-cut
   assertion. This explanation, nevertheless, does better justice to the
   facts. Does it not seem reasonable that the Spirit of inspiration
   should have so worded the words that bear upon His activity that, when
   the full New Testament revelation has come, all statements concerning
   the Spirit are in perfect harmony with this later revelation?

   We could never believe that this hovering of the Spirit over the face
   of the waters was idle and purposeless. From all other activities that
   are elsewhere ascribed to the Holy Spirit we conclude that His work in
   this case must have been anticipatory of the creative work that
   followed, a kind of impregnation with divine potentialities. The germs
   of all that is created were placed into dead matter by Him. His was the
   preparatory work for leading over from the inorganic to the organic.
   K.C. feels impelled to interpret this "hovering" as "an intensified and
   vitalized type of vibration." We should not be averse to holding that
   the foundation -L-or all physical laws operative in the world now was
   laid by this preparatory activity. Other passages relative to the
   Spirit as "the formative cause of all life" are to be found: (Job
   26:13; 27:3; Ps 33:6; 104:30; 143:10; Isa 34:16; 61:1; 63:11).

   From the grammatical point of view it may be remarked that the
   participle mera (ch) chepheth refers to the past in a context which
   refers to the past (K. S. 237 a). Besides, as a participle it embodies
   the thought of continuation as well as the idea of repetition (K. S.
   238 a). This "hovering" was not a single and instantaneous act. It
   rather describes a continued process. Mssyim, "waters," is plural of
   extent not dual (K. S. 259d). The article before "waters" is the of
   "relative familiarity."

   3. And God said: Let there be light! and there was light.

   Nothing could be more uncalled for and unnatural than to try to make
   this verse a part of a complicated sentence structure. The simple
   statement wayyo'mer, "and He said," is apt to be estimated too lightly
   in this connection. It shows the manner in which God worked--by His
   Word. Heb. 11:3 gives the clearest expression of this fact. That in
   reality this creation was in and through the Son .of God, who is also
   called the Word, appears from (Col 1:16; Joh 1:3; 1Co 8:6); so that the
   second Person of the Holy Trinity is seen to be involved in the work of
   creation. True, this is but obscurely taught at this point, but it
   becomes a matter that is clearly confirmed by the New Testament. In the
   light of these later passages we must admit that the truth itself is
   provided for by the nature of the statements found in this basic
   record. All this serves to explain and to confirm more fully what we
   said above on v. 1 as conveying a reference to the Holy Trinity.

   But besides it is here very clearly taught in what manner the creative
   work proceeded. It was all wrought by God's omnipotent word, not by
   mysterious emanations from the divine being, not by natural processes,
   not by self-causation, but in a manner worthy of God and revealing the
   character of God. He is at once discerned to be divinely powerful,
   intelligent, and far above the level of His poor creatures: "He speaks
   and it is done; He commands and it stands fast" (Ps 33:9). Nothing is
   altered in reference to this fact if it be pointed out that as we now
   read the record the primal substance, "heaven and earth," was not said
   (v. 1) to have been made by a divine word. To argue that it was not is
   to use the poor argument from silence. We do not know how this was
   made. But that for all the works that follow God is said to have spoken
   simply aims to bring that mode of the process more strongly to our
   attention.

   After the primary substance on the first day the most ethereal of all
   things is brought into being, "light." It is at the same time the most
   essential prerequisite for life and existence. Since God proceeds in an
   orderly fashion, He begins at the natural starting point. We may not be
   shooting wide of the mark if we infer, that with light that other form
   of energy, heat, must have sprung into being. How inextricably both are
   interwoven in the sun we all clearly see.

   The Hebrew is really more expressive than the English for the word
   spoken by God which we render: "Let there be light." It is a vigorous
   imperative of the verb hayah, "to become": "Become light" and "became
   light." The German comes closer to the original: Es werde Licht und es
   ward Licht. He who notices at once that there, was no sun to serve as a
   vehicle for the light observes the truth. But it ill behooves man to
   speak an apodictic word at this point and to claim that light apart
   from the sun is unthinkable. Why should it be? If scientists now often
   regard light as merely enveloping the sun but not as an intrinsic part
   of it, why could it not have existed by itself without being localized
   in any heavenly body? If, then, another hasty deduction is based upon
   this observation in reference to the length of the first three days, as
   though they could not have been twenty-four hour days because they were
   not regulated by the sun, the serious limitations of this argument are
   palpably apparent. The last three days are clearly controlled by the
   sun, which is created on the fourth day, and all of them are described
   in the same terms used for indicating the nature, and the course of the
   first three--a strong argument that the first six days were alike in
   length and in nature and normal days of twenty-four hours.

   No one need think it strange that an inanimate object is addressed as
   animate when God speaks to the light. The situation is really even
   stranger: God speaks to the things that are not that they might be. The
   nature of creation requires just that. K.C. need hardly list instances
   where inanimate objects are addressed; they do not constitute real
   parallels, for in-every case objects already in existence are referred
   to: (Isa 43:6; Am 9:3; Na 1:4; Hag 1:11).

   So of the four deficiencies listed above one has been removed,
   "darkness."

   A certain order prevails in regard to significant terms employed in
   this account. Delitzsch first drew attention to it. He finds ten
   creative words introduced by "and He said." Seven times the expression
   "and there was" is found, chronicling the result. "And He called" is
   found three times; "And He blessed," three times; "good" is used seven
   times. Whether these numbers were designed and counted by the author we
   cannot say. In any case, they tally with reality as it actually appears
   in the account: just so many times God spoke, blessed, etc. Even as in
   the world of nature certain things now appear in stated sequence or
   Uniformity according to regular patterns, so God Himself, being a God
   of order, operates after a pattern of order in harmony with His own
   being. For seven is the number of divine works and operations; three,
   the mark of the divine person; ten, the mark of completeness. In God
   there is nothing that is accidental. Even the number of steps taken by
   Him in His work are in fullest harmony with His nature and being.

   4. And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light
   from the darkness.

   Any account may be misread, and thoughts may be imputed to it that are
   utterly unworthy of it. So here it would surely be beneath the level of
   the pure and worthy conception of God which pervades the account to
   make this verse yield the thought that upon inspection God discerned
   that the work had turned out well, and so He promptly expressed His
   approval. Rather, this is, on the one hand, for our definite
   information that we might note that all works wrought by God were
   actually good and perfect and in every sense adequate for their
   purpose. There was no experimentation of an unskilled craftsman. There
   was no trying and testing after the fashion of toiling men. In fact,
   another very noble conception pervades it all; since there are no other
   beings to herald the Creator's praise, He, having achieved so
   praiseworthy a work, in this account Himself voices His approval that
   all men might know that in the very highest sense His work merited
   praise. The word for "good," tobh, is perhaps best rendered as
   "excellent" in these instances (B D B).

   The construction of the first clause is marked by a slightly unusual
   order of words. It literally runs thus: "God saw the light that it was
   good" (A. V.), the noun "light" being taken into the first clause by
   "anticipation," also called antitopsis (K. S. 414 b). Besides, the
   conjunction ki is used more commonly than 'asher to introduce such
   object clauses (K. S. 384 f).

   It had better also be noted that we have thus far had two so-called
   anthropomorphisms: "God said" (v. 3) and "God saw" (v. 4). This should
   be remembered over against those who attempt to set chapter one to 2:3
   over against the rest of chapter two as though two divergent accounts
   were being presented by different authors, who held variant conceptions
   of God, the author of chapter one being usually regarded as having a
   more exalted conception of God, and the author of chapter two as
   presenting a more anthropomorphic and less exalted view of the divine
   nature. Anthropomorphisms are certainly found also in chapter one.

   When the next clause states, "God separated the from the darkness,"
   this does not mean "separated" in the sense of "disentangled." They
   were not commingled together. Wayyabhdel means literally, "And he
   caused a division," that is in point of time, one functioning at one
   time, the other dominating at another. One is as much an entity or
   principle as the other. "Darkness" is not Cancelled and put out of
   existence. We can perhaps go so far as to claim that a "spatial"
   separation was also involved according to the terms of this account.
   (Job 38:19), though largely a poetic statement, seems to give warrant
   for such a deduction. To make the idea of separation still more
   prominent the preposition "between" is repeated before the second noun,
   and both nouns are given the article. "Light" appeared already at the
   beginning of the verse with the article of relative familiarity (K.
   C.).

   5. And God called the light day and the darkness He called night. Then
   came evening, then came morning-the first day.

   On "came evening" see v. 8; also on the derivation of "evening."

   To appreciate what this act means it is necessary to bear in mind what
   the Hebrew idea of giving a name or "calling a name" to an object
   implies. For this includes not only finding a convenient label to
   attach to a thing that it might thereby be identified, but especially
   the idea of expressing the very nature of a thing. In this act God did
   not find names for man to use when speaking of day and night; there was
   not even a man present to hear these names. But this act reports that
   God fixed day and night separately for their respective purposes. This
   concluded the first day's work, for now the light prevailed that man
   might put it to the uses for which God intended it, and night was fixed
   to fit the general scheme.

   In the interest of accuracy it should be noted that within the confines
   of this one verse the word "day" is used in two different senses. "Day"
   (yom) over against "night" (lssyelah) must refer to the light part of
   the day, roughly, a twelve hour period. When the verse concludes with
   the statement that the first "day" (yom) is concluded, the term must
   mean a twenty-four hour period. If any attempt is made to fix the time
   of the year when the creative work was done, the vernal equinox seems
   most likely to fit the needs of the case.

   Extensive discussion has centred around the last statement of v. 5:
   "Then came evening, then came morning--the first day." To try to make
   this mean that the day began with evening, as days did according to the
   later Jewish reckoning (Le 23:32), fails utterly, because verse 5
   reports the conclusion of this day's work not its beginning. Or again,
   to make this statement refer to two parts of a long geologic period:
   the first part a kind of evening; the-second a kind of morning; both
   together a kind of long period, runs afoul of three things: first, that
   "evening" nowhere in the Scriptures bears this meaning; secondly,
   neither does "morning"; thirdly, "day" never means "period."

   One major difficulty lying in the path is the attempt to make this
   whole statement like a problem in addition: evening plus morning,
   result: one day. Luther's translation, somewhat free at this point,
   seemed to support this view: da ward aus Abend und Morgen der erste
   Tag, i.e. "evening and morning went to make Up the first day." In
   reality, a vast absurdity is involved in this point of view. An evening
   may be stretched to include four hours, a morning could be said to be
   four or even six hours long. The total is ten, not twenty-four hours.
   The verse, however, presents not an addition of items but the
   conclusion of a progression. On this day there had been the creation of
   heaven and earth in the rough, then the creation of light, the approval
   of light, the separation of day and night. Now with evening the divine
   activities cease: they are works of light not works of darkness. The
   evening ('erebh), of course, merges into night, and the night
   terminates with morning. But by the time morning is reached, the first
   day is concluded, as the account says succinctly, "the first day" and
   everything is in readiness for the second day's task. For "evening"
   marks the conclusion of the day, and "morning" marks the conclusion of
   the night. It is these conclusions, which terminate the preceding, that
   are to be made prominent. They are "the terminations of the two halves
   of the first day" (Procksch).

   There ought to be no need of refuting the idea that yom means period.
   Reputable dictionaries like Buhl, B D B or K. W. know nothing of this
   notion. Hebrew dictionaries are our primary source of reliable
   information concerning Hebrew words. Commentators with critical
   leanings utter statements that are very decided in this instance. Says
   Skinner: "The interpretation of yom as aeon, a favourite resource of
   harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of
   the passage and has no warrant in Hebrew usage." Dillmann remarks: "The
   reasons advanced by ancient and modern writers for construing these
   days to be longer periods of time are inadequate." There is one other
   meaning of the word "day" which some misapprehend by failing to think
   through its exact bearing: yom may mean "time" in a very general way,
   as in 2:4 beyom, or Isa. 11:16; cf. B D B, p. 399, No. 6, for. numerous
   illustrations. But that use-cannot substantiate so utterly different an
   idea as "period." These two conceptions lie far apart. References to
   expressions like "the day of the Lord" fail to invalidate our
   contentions above. For "the day of the Lord." as B D B rightly defines,
   p. 399, No. 3, is regarded "chiefly as the time of His coming in
   judgment, involving often blessedness for the righteous."

   Other arguments to the contrary carry very little weight. If it be
   claimed that some works can with difficulty be compressed within
   twenty-four hours, like those of the third day or the sixth, that claim
   may well be described as a purely subjective opinion. He that desires
   to reason it out as possible can assemble fully as many arguments as he
   who holds the opposite opinion. Or if it be claimed that "the duration
   of the seventh day determines the rest," let it be noted that nothing
   is stated about the duration of the seventh. This happens to be an
   argument from silence, and therefore it is exceptionally weak. Or
   again, if it be claimed that "the argument of the fourth (our third)
   commandment confirms this probability," we find in this commandment
   even stronger confirmation of our contention: six twenty-four hour days
   followed by one such day of rest alone can furnish a proper analogy for
   our labouring six days and resting on the seventh day; periods furnish
   a poor analogy for days. Finally, the contention that our conception
   "contradicts geology" is inaccurate. It merely contradicts one school
   of thought in the field of geology, a school of thought of which we are
   convinced that it is hopelessly entangled in misconceptions which grow
   out of attempts to co-ordinate the actual findings of geology with an
   evolutionistic conception of what geology should be, and so is for the
   present thrown into a complete misreading of the available evidence,
   even as history, anthropology, Old Testament studies and many other
   sciences have been derailed and mired by the same attempt. We believe
   that writers on the subject like Price and Nelson deserve far more
   consideration than is being accorded them.

   Now follows in v. 6-8 the creative work of the second day, the creation
   of the firmament or the lower heavens (Erdhimmel).

   6. And God said: Let there be a firmament in middle of the waters, and
   let it be causing a division between waters and waters.

   Again a creative word having the same power as the one of the first
   day, in reference to which Luther said: "God does not speak grammatical
   words but real things that actually exist." The "firmament" that
   results is called raqia'. It comes from the root meaning "to hammer" or
   "to spread out." Therefore, by some the word is rendered "expanse." Our
   "firmament" is from the translation of the Vulgate, firmamentum, which
   involves the idea of something that firmly put in place. The Greek
   sterewma conveys same idea. Yet the raqia' is the vault or dome of the
   heavens, or "that immense gaseous ocean, called the atmosphere, by
   which the earth is encircled" (Whitelaw). That so widely differing
   definitions as "dome" and "gaseous ocean" can be given in one breath is
   due to the fact, that whole set of physical laws is involved which
   makes the lower heavens possible: an air space encircling the earth,
   evaporation of waters, rising of gaseous vapours, etc. For the purpose
   of the firmament is declared to be that it be "in the middle of the
   waters" and "causing a division between waters and waters." Apparently,
   before this firmament existed, the earth waters on the surface of the
   earth and the cloud waters as we now know them were contiguous without
   an intervening clear air space. It was a situation like a dense fog
   upon the surface of the waters. Clear vision of all except the very
   nearest objects must have been impossible. Free activity unhampered by
   the fog blanket would have been impossible. Man would not have had an
   appropriate sphere for activity, nor could sunlight have penetrated
   freely to do its beneficent and cheering work. Now the physical laws
   that cause clouds and keep them suspended go into operation. These
   clouds constitute the upper waters. The solid masses of water collected
   upon earth constitute the lower waters. He who has observed that the
   heavens may pour down unbelievable quantities of waters will not
   hesitate to call these upper lighter cloud masses "waters" also. The
   languages familiar to us have the same viewpoint as v. 8, which calls
   this firmament "heavens." The cloud heaven is the one we mean. The
   English word "heaven" is from the root "to heave" or "lift up."

   Very queer constructions have been put upon this raqia'. A. Jeremias
   wrapped up in his speculations on Babylonian mythology and the great
   importance the signs of the zodiac played in Babylonian thought,
   identifies the raqia' with the zodiac (Tierkreis). A sober reading of
   the definition v. 6-8 gives of the "firmament" ought to make such an
   attempt impossible. Far more common is that view which imputes singular
   crudities to the Biblical narrative at this point. Let Dillmann furnish
   the picture: The raqia'" was in olden times conceived of as made out of
   more or less solid matter, firm as a mirror of glass, ... supported by
   the highest mountains as by pillars ... having openings," namely the
   windows of heaven through which rain might be dropped upon the earth.
   But in spite of passages like (Re 4:6; 15:2; 22:1) there is no doctrine
   of the Scriptures to the effect that there were "ethereal waters," and
   though the "windows of heaven" are referred to (Ge 7:11; Ps 78:23; 2Ki
   7:2; Isa 24:18), these purely figurative expressions (also e. g. (Job
   26:11)) are such as we can still use with perfect propriety, and yet to
   impute to us notions of a crude view of supernal waters stored in
   heavenly reservoirs would be as unjust at it is to impute such opinions
   to the writers of the Biblical books, The holy writers deserve at least
   the benefit of the doubt, especially when poetic passages are involved.
   Again: the view expressed in this verse is not crude, absurd, or in any
   wise deficient. Its simple meaning has been shown above.

   The expression wihi mabhdil, "and let it be causing a division,"
   presents a very strong case where the participle is used to express
   duration or permanence of a certain relationship (K. S. 239 b; G. K.
   116 r). Yehi is repeated to make the separate parts of the process
   stand out more distinctly (K. S. 370 s).

   7. And God made the firmament and He caused a division between the
   waters under the firmament and the waters above the firmament: and it
   was so.

   With a certain measure of circumstantiality the author reports in
   detail that God actually made those things-that He had bidden come into
   being. This now does not imply that the initial word (v. 6), "Let there
   be a firmament," was inadequate to cause it to come into being, and so
   God actually had to "make" ('asah) it. This mode of statement of v. 7
   merely unfolds in greater detail that the initial command to come into
   being involved, the full exercise of God's creative power, which
   continued operative after the word had been spoken until the work was
   brought to completion. For "he made" ('asah) dare not be construed, as
   involving a mode of operation radically different from creating
   (bara'), for a comparison of the use of the two verbs in v. 21 and in
   v. 25 shows that they may be used interchangeably. From one point of
   view one and the same task is created, i. e. is one of those
   marvellous, epoch-making achievements characteristic of God; from
   another point of view this task is made, i. e. God-employs His almighty
   power and energy to carry it through till it is completed.

   A textual problem needs to be considered here. Kit. in the margin
   suggests removing the "and it was so" (wayhi khen) from the end of v. 7
   and appending it to the end of v. 6 after the example of the Septuagint
   translators and after the analogy of v. 9, 11, 15, 24, 30, where it is
   inserted before the actual carrying out of the thing ordained is
   reported. However, though a certain quite stereotyped pattern is
   followed by the author throughout the account in recounting the work of
   the individual days, the adherence to fixed forms need not be so rigid
   as to preclude the slightest departure from them. The situation at the
   close of v. 26 is the same as that of our verse. There the Greek
   translators did not insert the wayhi khen, proving themselves
   inconsistent in their corrective endeavours. The text here needs no
   improvement.

   No effort should be made to render literally the compound preposition
   mittsschath le, "from under to." Mittsschat alone means only "under."
   Compound prepositions are wont to be followed by le (K. S. 281 p, and
   G. K. 119 c2).

   8. And God called the firmament heavens; and came evening, and came
   morning--second day.

   Again, the giving of the name to the object just created is more than
   an outward thing. What the term "heavens" implies, that is what the new
   arrangement will serve to be for man. All this, especially the term
   "heavens," gives us warrant for describing this creative work as we did
   in connection with v. 6.

   Our rendering, as in v. 5, "then came evening" is not as exact from one
   point of view as it might be. Wayhi is not the verb "come," but is from
   hayah, "to be," or even better "to become." This latter idea to show
   the progression of time we felt could well be marked by the English
   idiom, "then came evening," etc. The word for "evening," 'erebh, is
   commonly derived from the corresponding Hebrew root whose Arabic
   parallel means "to enter," "to go in." So, apparently, a poetic thought
   is involved in that the sun is thought of as going into its chamber, a
   thought found also in Ps. 19:5.

   After "one" the ordinals are used, "day the second" (K. S. 315 n).

   There follows in v. 9-13 the double work of the third day.

   9. And God said: Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together
   unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.

   The second day's work may still be regarded from one point of view as
   being connected with the work of the first day. The light of the first
   day requires a free space, the clear atmosphere, in order that it might
   make its life-giving work felt upon plants and upon man. So "the
   heavens" (v. 6-8), i. e. the firmament, aids in the distribution of
   light. But three of the deficiencies noted under v. 2 still prevail.
   The tekom is now to be disposed of in the work of the third day.

   The expression "waters under the heavens" must be taken in the light of
   the preceding division made on the second day. The "waters above the
   heavens" are the clouds. The waters on the unformed surface, perhaps
   seething and surging as tekom suggests, are here under consideration.
   Waters are to be gathered together to be by themselves; dry land is to
   assemble by itself. If the waters are to be gathered together "unto one
   place," this expression may be regarded as sufficiently general to
   cover all oceans, or "the seven seas" for that matter. These water are
   by themselves; that is their "one place." So again "the dry land,"
   hayyabbashah, literally: "the dry," involved a limitation in the figure
   of synecdoche; the term really means continents, but continents are
   primarily "dry land." The verb "let be seen," tera'eh, is an imperfect
   used as an optative (K. S. 183 b).

   The verse concludes with the customary "and it was (or became) so" to
   indicate that which is bidden to come into being at once forms itself.

   As to the method followed in the separation of dry land and water we
   can Say little, Did depressions form and the waters rush down into
   them? We might think so. Or did elevations and mountains thrust
   themselves upward in the process of the congealing of the-dry land and
   shed the waters as they rose? (Ps 104:7-9), in describing the work of
   this day, seems to imply the latter Course, though the expressions used
   may be poetic rather than exact. No one, it seems, will ever be able to
   speak a final verdict in regard to this question.

   But, surely, in the course of these gigantic, upheavals, not
   catastrophic in nature because they involve organization rather than
   disruption, there was a tremendous amount of geologic formation. In
   fact, it would be perfectly safe to assume that all basic and all
   regular, formations were disposed of in this day's work. As a result,
   indeed, no record of the rapidity with which, certain formations took
   place is written upon the various formations, for vast as these
   formations were, they were controlled by the orderly operations of
   divine omnipotence and by these potentialities, no doubt, which the
   Spirit "hovering over the face of the waters" had implanted. Even these
   basic forms might, therefore, offer to him who acts on the assumption
   that there never were any accelerated formations the appearance of
   things laid down by the slow process of nature that we see in operation
   at this late day. But this ninth verse surely teaches that what we call
   geologic formations took place in titanic and gigantic measure at a
   vastly accelerated pace in a truly miraculous creative work as
   astounding as the rest.

   As far as the expression yammim, "seas," (v. 10) is concerned, it must
   be noted that it is used in a loose sense so as to include every body
   of water, like inland lakes and also `the rivers. But since the area of
   the seas is vastly in excess of that of the smaller bodies, the name is
   taken from the outstanding part, a parte potiori.

   Just because the Greek translators misread the word miqweh,
   "collection," for the word maqom, "place," that does not give any
   better reading or occasion for a textual change (Kit.). To call the
   newly assembled waters "the collection of waters" is most appropriate
   (v. 10); to say that they are to collect in "one place" is equally
   appropriate (v. 9). The clause added by the Septuagint is a pedantic
   attempt at improvement.

   10. And God called the dry land earth and the collection of waters He
   called seas; and God saw that it was good.

   The meaning of the word "earth" was discussed under v. 1. The propriety
   of the use of the term "sea" Was treated just before this verse. What
   God's calling signifies was shown in connection with v. 5.

   Here is the place for discussing what reasonable explanation may. be
   offered for the fact that at the conclusion of the work of the second
   day the customary approval of the Creator is not recorded (v. 8); but
   that it does appear now at the conclusion of the work of the third day
   (v. 10). As was shown at the beginning of the explanation of v. 9, the
   work of the second day reaches back and completes the work of' the
   first day from one point of view. In a more decided sense the work of
   the third day reaches back and completes the work of the second in
   reference to the separation of water. The second day merely raises the
   surface fogs making them clouds, but the earth waters are still
   entangled with the solid matter. So the work of the second day was
   relatively incomplete, so much so that the divine approval, "it was
   good," was withheld, but it is in reality included in the approval
   bestowed upon the third day.

   Note the chiasmus of v. 10: verb, object--object verb (K. S. 339 o).

   11. And God said: Let the earth produce grass, and herbs yielding seed,
   and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind whose seed is in them
   upon the earth; and it was so.

   The second half of the work of the third day is here recorded. This
   work attaches itself quite naturally to the preceding work the dry land
   just formed is at once to bring forth all forms of vegetation. The work
   of this half of the day is not immediate creation in the sense of the
   works preceding. For in the instances that went before the word was
   spoken and the result followed. In this instance the earth is the
   mediate agent, being bidden to produce whatever vegetation is necessary
   by a process of highly accelerated growth. Such a work is neither of a
   higher nor of a lower character than are the other works. Upon closer
   reflection this verse is seen to answer a question often asked, whether
   the. plant preceded the seed, or the seed the plant. Since the seed is
   not bidden to bring forth but the earth is, and since, the things
   brought forth are first to produce seed, and since nothing indicates
   the prior creation of seed, the only possibility left open to us is to
   believe that plants and herbs came first. This still leaves room for
   the possibility that the Spirit in His hovering implanted the
   potentialities that here unfold themselves.

   How do the things produced by the earth differ from one another? The
   three orders mentioned are (1) grass, (2) herbs, (3) trees. Some put
   the three items down as independent classes in an ascending scale (e.
   g. Delitzsch). Some make (2) a genitive dependent on (1), having as a
   result a pair of doubles "grass of herb" and "tree of fruit," as the
   Greek version botanhn cortu and eulon carpimon. Still others make (1)
   the general term covering all and (2) and (3) subdivisions of (1). We
   feel that the first point of view alone is correct and does justice to
   the meaning of the words employed. "Grass" represents the word deshe',
   whose root signifies "to be damp." Whatever grows in a well-watered
   spot will be of a fresh green, therefore the word is rendered frisches
   Gruen. Since, no doubt, these three classes aim to cover all vegetation
   in so far as it is of interest to man, the word deshe' may well be said
   to include such things as mosses and other plants designed to carpet
   the earth. The second term, "herbs," is a singular collective noun
   'esebh, also translated "herbage." That the word is really distinct
   from deshe' in meaning appears first from its use in passages like (2Ki
   19:26) and (Isa 37:27) where in an enumeration both are mentioned
   separately. Again the characteristic mark ascribed to it in this verse
   is noteworthy: mazria' zera', literally, seeding seed, therefore
   "yielding seed." Grasses, for that matter, yield seed too, but if
   specific mention of the seed is made only in the second class,
   apparently this refers to something like seed-bearing pods which make
   the seed more prominent as a separate feature. According to scriptural
   usage man eats 'esebh; see 1:29 and 3:18. So do cattle, (De 11:15).
   This being a broad class name, it must include things such as
   vegetables, or at least, generally speaking, everything between grass
   and trees and, without a doubt, the various grains.

   So, too, the last term must be used in a very broad sense.
   "Fruit-bearing trees," again a singular collective 'ets peri, must
   include both trees that bear fruit as well as trees yielding nuts and
   cones and, surely, all bushes yielding berries. For the expression
   translated literally means only "tree of fruit." Two other marks,
   however, are appended to this class: first, these fruit trees bear
   fruit "after their kind," a peculiar and definite limitation, which all
   those understand best who have seen how the "kind" sets limitations
   upon all who would mix kinds and cross them. Nature itself here is seen
   to have definite limits fixed which appear as constant laws or as
   insurmountable barriers. The last mark stamped upon this third class of
   vegetable growth is "whose seed is in them upon the earth." The seed
   needed for the propagation of the particular kinds is seen to be in the
   fruit. So whether the fruit be edible or not, as long as it has seed
   qualities, it meets the requirements of this mark. The concluding
   phrase for this mark, "upon the earth," might perhaps better have been
   rendered as "above the ground." For to try to make this phrase modify
   the verb tadhshe' at the beginning of the sentence certainly removes it
   far from the word modified. Besides, the characteristic thing about
   this "fruit-bearing seed" is that it usually hangs at some distance
   above the ground. Then, too, 'erets does mean "ground," and 'al does
   mean "above."

   These three broad classes of vegetation may not coincide with botanical
   distinctions as science now makes them. But, assuredly, they are seen
   to be a general and a very appropriate type of division as far as man's
   use of them is concerned, and in some ways the distinctions made are
   seen to be very apt. The lines of demarcation drawn at creation are
   just as sharp now as they were then.

   This verse closes with an, "and it was so," to indicate again how
   immediate was the fulfilment of the thing commanded.

   Tadshe' is, of course, a jussive or a yakteel elevatum (K. S. 189), and
   deshe' and zera' are cognate objects.

   We should yet draw attention to the fact that the things mentioned in
   2:5 are not to be included in the above classification, and so
   reservations must be made in reference to our use of the terms
   "vegetables" and "bushes" in the above discussion.

   If above in v. 7 the "and it was so" stood after it had been reported
   that the individual things to be created had actually come into being,
   here in v. 11 the "and it was so" precedes this latter statement, (K.
   S. 369b).

   12. And the earth produced grass and herbs yielding seed after their
   kind and trees yielding fruit whose seed was in them after their kind;
   and God saw that it was good.

   The accomplishment of the things ordered in v. 11 is reported in this
   verse in terms that are not a wooden repetition of v. 11; for after
   "seed" is inserted "after their kind'" to emphasize how the "kind"
   limitation also applies to the herbs, though this had not been
   mentioned previously. So, too, after "trees" the word "of fruit" is
   omitted, since this idea is covered by the qualifying phrase "bearing
   fruit." The work of the second half of the third day is also to be
   found "excellent" in divine approval, so that the statement, "and it
   Was good," appears for each of the two halves of this day.

   13. Then came evening, then came morning, --the third day.

   On this verse compare above v. 5.

   It is true that the first three days have no sun and no moon to furnish
   and to measure the needed light. But that fact does not in any wise
   warrant trying to make these days appear as different from the
   following three or four, for the pattern into which all six days of
   work fall is consistently the same for all, "then came evening, then
   came morning." It is the author's purpose by this means emphatically to
   declare the six days alike as to length and general character regular
   twenty-four hour days. Nothing but the desire to secure harmony with
   the contentions of certain physical sciences ever could have induced
   men to tamper with this very plainest of exegetical results.

   Follows the work of the fourth day in v. 14-19.

   Since this has to do with the appointment of luminaries, we see, first
   of all, how this day's work attaches itself to the work of the third
   day, as well as how it reaches over to the works that are yet to
   follow. For the vegetation that was brought into being by the work of
   the preceding day needs not only light but also seasons with
   modification of light. Consequently, that intricate set of operations
   that brings seasonal changes for vegetation and for man now
   appropriately follows.

   14, 15. And God said: Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the
   heavens to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs and
   seasons and for days and years; and let them be for luminaries in the
   expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth; and it was so.

   It at once stands out in reference to the work of this day that the
   purpose of the things that are made to function is stated in a far more
   detailed fashion than is the ease in regard to any other of the
   creative works. Nothing in the text explains this greater fulness of
   statement, but the suggestion advanced by Dillmann and others may be as
   satisfactory as any: "is there perhaps a silent contrast involved with
   the superstition of the heathen that is wont to attach itself to the
   stars?" The statement, therefore, is unusually exhaustive in order to
   show what purposes the Almighty fixed for the heavenly bodies and to
   leave no room for heathen misconstruction.

   At once now the next problem suggests itself: how do the "luminaries"
   stand related to the light which was created on the first day? With
   this is involved a second question: how do these luminaries stand
   related to the heavens, which were created on the first day (v. 1)? The
   analogy of "the earth" created simultaneously with "the heavens" (v. 1)
   and its equipment and arrangement up till this point through v. 2-13
   points in the proper direction. In other words, the earth is created in
   the rough, subject to certain deficiencies or incompletenesses which
   are removed one by one through the following days; similarly the
   heavens are created in the rough, heavenly bodies in vast spaces, not
   yet functioning as they shall later. What still remains to be done in
   and with them is now completed on the fourth day. The sun, moon and
   stars were in existence but were not yet doing the work which gets to
   be theirs in the fourth day's work. Light was in existence, but now
   these heavenly bodies come to be the ones that bear this light in
   themselves--"light-bearers," "luminaries," me'oroth. Heavenly bodies
   were in existence, but from this point onward they begin to serve a
   definite purpose in reference to the earth. Consequently, we are out of
   keeping with the plan according to which the course of creation has
   been proceeding if we separate the elements of 14a so as to make a
   definite pause after the statement, "let there be luminaries." This
   would imply the initial creation of all heavenly bodies. Rather,
   translating still more literally, the thing that is to transpire is
   this: "Let there become luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to
   divide the day from the night," etc. This really involves a double
   achievement: the non-luminous heavenly bodies become bearers of light,
   and this for the purpose of dividing the day from the night. The
   expression, "let there be lights"( A. V.) and Lichter (Luther) is
   inaccurate and misleading. "Light" in Hebrew is 'or; here stands the
   word ma'or, "light-bearer." This does not, however, now mean that "the
   atmosphere being completely purified--the sun, moon and stars were for
   the first time unveiled in all their glory in the cloudless sky"
   (Jamieson), for such a result would have been achieved automatically
   without divine fiat by the work of the second day. More reasonable is
   the assumption that the existing light, by being allocated to the sun,
   was tempered specifically to the needs of plant and animal life upon
   our planet. In any case, the purposes following arc definitely tied up
   ; with having the sun in particular function, as the primary
   light-bearer.

   Consequently, though day and night following One another in rotation
   function satisfactorily as day and night without sun and moon, from
   this point onward the dividing of day and night is tied up specifically
   with these luminaries. So this purpose is stated first. The adver