Chapter VIII

THAT THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS DIVINELY REVEALED.

(_A._) ITS GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

(1.) Its pure Monotheism; admittedly true.
(2.) Its seven days need not be taken literally.
(3.) Its gradual development; admittedly true.

(_B._) ITS DETAILED ORDER.

(1.) The earliest state of the earth.
(2.) Light.
(3.) The Firmament.
(4.) Dry Land.
(5.) Vegetation.
(6.) The Sun and Moon.
(7.) Fishes and Birds.
(8.) Land Animals.
(9.) Man.

(_C._) CONCLUSION.

The accuracy of the narrative points to its having been
Divinely revealed.

Having decided in the previous chapters on the Existence of God, and that it was credible that He might make a miraculous Revelation to man; we pass on now to the _Jewish Religion_, which (as well as the Christian) actually claims to be such a Revelation.

And the first argument we have to consider in its favour is that afforded by the opening chapter of Genesis. It is urged that this account of the Creation must have been _Divinely revealed_, since it contains a substantially correct account of events which could not have been otherwise known at the time. What then we have to examine is, whether this narrative is nearer the truth, as we now know it from geology and other sciences, than could have been the case, if written by a man ignorant of these sciences. And the ancient narratives of Babylonia, India, Persia, and elsewhere, show how far from the truth mere human conjecture on such a subject is likely to be.

While if we admit a revelation at all, there is nothing improbable in some account of the creation of the world having been revealed to man very early in his history, and being accurately preserved by the Jews, while only distorted versions of it occur among other nations. Indeed considering the common custom among ancient nations of worshipping the heavenly bodies, animals, etc., no subject could have been more suited for a first revelation than the statement in simple language that all these were created by one supreme God. We will now consider the _general principles_ of the narrative, and then its _detailed order_.

(_A._) ITS GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

The most important of these are its pure Monotheism, its seven days, and its gradual development, each of which we will notice in turn.

(1.) _Its pure Monotheism._

This alone renders it almost, if not quite, unique among similar narratives. According to the writer, the whole universe, including sun, moon, and stars, was all due to _one_ God. And this is obvious enough now, but it was not so when the narrative was written. For other ancient accounts are either _Pantheistic_, and confuse God with the universe; or _Dualistic_, and assume two eternal principles of good and evil; or _Polytheistic_, and make the universe the work of several gods. The Jewish writer, on the other hand, has kept clear of all these theories; and he is admittedly right and all the others wrong.

(2.) _Its seven days._

Next as to the seven days. Now it is generally assumed, doubtless from their being referred to in the Fourth Commandment, that the writer intended these _days_ to be ordinary days of twenty-four hours each, but this is at least doubtful. For ordinary days depend on the _sun_, and would therefore have been impossible before the formation of the sun on the _fourth_ day; as the writer himself implies, when he says that the division of time into days and years was due to the sun.

Then there is the difficulty as to the _seventh_ day, when God rested from all His work. This, it will be remembered had no close, or _evening_, and it is implied that it has continued ever since. For if God only rested for twenty-four hours, and then set to work again it would not have been a rest from _all_ His work. But in this case, the seventh day would represent a long period of time, and if so the other days would probably do the same. Moreover the writer, or compiler, of this very narrative, after describing the creation in six days, says it all occurred in _one_ day,[10] so he could scarcely have thought the days to be literal.

[Footnote 10: Gen. 2. 4.]

There are thus great difficulties from the narrative itself in taking the word _day_ in its ordinary sense; and it seems better to consider it (like so many terms in the Bible) as a human analogy applied to God. Then God's _days_ must be understood in the same way as God's _eyes_ or God's _hands_; and this removes all difficulties.

None of these terms are of course literally true, but they represent the truth _to man_ in such a way that he can to some extent understand it. For example, the phrase that God gained the victory _by His own right hand_ clearly means that He gained it not with the assistance of others, or with the help of weapons, but simply by His own unaided inherent strength. It was such a victory as might _in a man_ be described as gained by his own right hand. And the same may be said of the passage, _The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are open unto their prayers_, and many others which occur in the Bible. The terms hands, eyes, and ears, when applied to God, are thus human analogies, which must not be taken literally.

And in one passage at least the word _day_ is used in a similar sense; for we read "Hast thou eyes of flesh or seest thou as man seeth? Are thy days as the days of man, or thy years as man's days?"[11] Here it will be noticed _days_ and _years_ are applied to God in precisely the same manner as _eyes_ and _seeing_.

[Footnote 11: Job 10. 4, 5.]

Moreover similar terms occur all through the present narrative. Even the simple words _God said_ cannot be taken literally, for there was no one to speak to. They must be meant in the sense that God _thought_, or that God _willed_. And we have no more right to suppose the days to be literal days than to suppose that God literally spoke. What we are to suppose in the one case is that God--the Almighty One, for whom nothing is too hard--created all things in such a way as might _to man_ be best represented by a simple word of command. And what we are to suppose in the other case, is that God--the Eternal One, to whom a thousand years are but as yesterday--created all things in such periods of time as might _to man_ be best represented by six days. Vast as the universe was, man was to regard it as being to God no more than a week's work to himself. In short, the time of creation, however long in itself, was utterly insignificant in its relation to God; to _Him_ each stage was a mere day.

And this it may be added, is not a purely modern theory, made to reconcile the narrative with science; for the Greek Jew, Philo, born about B.C. 20, who knew nothing of geology, ridicules the idea of the days of Genesis being literal, or representing any definite periods of time.[12]

[Footnote 12: Works of Philo Judæus, First book of Allegories of the Sacred Laws, Yonge's translation, 1854, vol. i., p. 52.]

(3.) _Its gradual development._

Next, it must be noticed that, according to Genesis, God did not create a perfect world all at once, but slowly built it up step by step. At first the earth was waste and void, and only after it had passed through several stages did it become fully inhabited. Moreover, at every step (with two exceptions, the firmament and man, noticed later on), God examined the work and pronounced it _good_. He seems thus to have discerned a beauty and excellence in each stage; though it was not till the close of the whole work that He was completely satisfied, and pronounced it all _very_ good.

And the narrative appears to be quite correct. For geology shows that the formation of the earth, with its various inhabitants, was a _gradual_ process, not accomplished all at once, but slowly step by step, through successive ages. And it also shows that these ages were of such magnitude and importance that we cannot regard them as mere preparations for man's coming, but as having a beauty and excellence of their own, so that they well deserved to be called _good_. But we may ask, how did the writer of Genesis know all this?

And then as to the way in which this development was brought about. According to Genesis, each stage was due to what we may call a _Special Divine force_, represented by a word of command from God. And this also seems correct, for we cannot otherwise account for the first appearance of the various groups, such as plants, animals, and men. It is not disputed that these various stages may have been evolved from the previous ones, _e.g._, the living from the not-living, which the narrative itself suggests in the words, _Let the earth put forth grass_; and also at its close, when it speaks of _the generations_ of the heaven and of the earth; which implies some kind of organic descent, or evolution. Indeed the common expression that God _made_, is probably used in the sense of _evolved_; since the same word is employed in ver. II of fruit-trees _making_ fruit (translated _bearing_ or _yielding_ fruit); yet we know they do not _make_ fruit suddenly out of nothing, but slowly produce it.

What is disputed is, that this evolution took place merely under the influence of natural development, and without the additional influence of a new Divine force. And considering that all attempts to effect a similar transition _now_ have failed completely, it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some other and special Cause at work _then_. Nor is it easy to see how some of the changes could have been otherwise produced. Take, for instance, this very subject of the origin of life. As far as we know, the only natural mode in which life can begin is from a living parent, yet there was a time when there were no living parents on this earth. How, then, could it have originated, except by some process other than natural, _i.e._, supernatural? Or, again, to take another instance, when the first _free being_, whether animal or man, appeared on this planet, a force totally different from all natural forces was introduced, and one which could not have been derived from them alone.

And then there is another, and very interesting point, to notice. It is that according to Genesis, these steps were not all of equal importance. For while it describes most of them by the word _made_, which, as just said, seems to mean here _evolved_; on three occasions, and only three, it uses the word _create_. These refer to the origin of the _universe_, of _animal life_ (fishes and birds), and of _man_. And this is very significant, when we remember that these correspond to the beginning of _matter_, _mind_, and _spirit_; and are therefore (as said in Chapter IV.) just the three places where something altogether _new_ was introduced; which could not, as far as we can see, have been evolved from anything else. And this double method of producing, partly by _creating_, and partly by _making_ or evolving, is again referred to at the close of the narrative, where we read that God rested from all His work, which He had _created and made_. So much for the general _principles_ of the narrative, we pass on now to its detailed _order_.

(_B._) ITS DETAILED ORDER.

It will be remembered that in Genesis, after describing the earliest state of the earth, there are eight stages in its development; two of which occurred on the third, and two on the sixth, day. We have thus altogether nine subjects to examine.

(1.) _The earliest state of the earth._

Now according to Genesis, the earth was at first _waste and void_ and in _darkness_, and apparently surrounded by _the waters_. And if we adopt the usual nebula theory, and refer this to the first period after it became a separate planet, and had cooled so as not to give out any light itself, these statements seem quite correct. For we know from geology that the earth was then waste and void as far as any form of life was concerned, while it was probably surrounded by a dense mass of clouds and vapours sufficient to produce darkness. Genesis then starts from the right starting-point, but again we must ask, how did the writer know this?

(2.) _Light._

The first step in the development of the earth was, we are told, the introduction of _light_. That this is what Genesis means seems plain, for the _light_ must refer to the _darkness_ of the previous verse, and that referred to the _earth_. As to whether light previously existed in other parts of the universe, Genesis says nothing, it is only concerned with this earth. And in the development of this earth, _light_ (which in nature always includes _heat_) must obviously have come first. For on it depend the changes in temperature, which lead to the formation of winds, clouds, and rain; while it also supplies the physical power that is necessary for the life of plants and animals; so in placing _light_ as the first step, Genesis is certainly correct. Of course, the _source_ of light at this early period was the remainder of the nebula from which our planet was thrown off. It was thus spread over an immense space, instead of being concentrated like that of our present sun; and probably only reached the earth through a partial clearing of the clouds just alluded to.

(3.) _The firmament._

The next step was separating the waters _above_ (_i.e._, these dense clouds) from the waters _below_ which are stated to be the seas (v. 9-10) and forming between them a firmament or _expanse_ (see margin), that is to say, the _air_. The idea that the writer thought this expanse meant a solid plane holding up the waters above (because it is perhaps derived from a word meaning firm or solid) is scarcely tenable. For the firmament was called _heaven_, and the upper waters, above this _heaven_, must mean the sources from which the _rain_ usually comes, since it is called _rain from heaven_.[13] And these sources are easily seen to be _clouds_; and no one could have thought that a _solid_ firmament was between the clouds, and the seas.

[Footnote 13: Deut. 11. 11.]

Moreover this same word _heaven_ (though used in various senses) is translated _air_ later on in this very narrative when it speaks of fowls of the _air_ (verses 26-28, 30). And it also occurs in other passages, in some of which it cannot possibly mean anything but the air, _e.g._, 'any winged fowl that flieth in the _heaven_,' and 'the way of an eagle in the _air_,'[14] which is an additional reason for thinking that it means the air here.

[Footnote 14: Deut. 4. 17; Prov. 30. 19.]

And the omission, before noticed, to say that God saw that the firmament was _good_, is quite natural, if this means only the air, _i.e._, the space between the clouds and the seas; just as an artist, though he might examine his pictures to see that they were _good_, would not examine the spaces between them. But it is difficult to account for, if it means a _solid_ firmament, which would seem to require God's approval like everything else.

On the other side, we have the expression about opening the _windows_ of heaven when it rained at the time of the Flood,[15] which is sometimes thought to imply openings in a solid firmament. But it need not be taken literally, any more than that about the _doors_ of the sea;[16] especially as in another place the _heavens dropping water_ is explained as meaning that the clouds dropped it.[17] And since God promised that in future when a _cloud_ was seen it should not cause another _flood_,[18] it is clear that the flood was thought to have come from the clouds, and not from any openings in a solid reservoir in the sky.

[Footnote 15: Gen. 7. 11; 2 Kings 7. 2; Mal. 3. 10.]

[Footnote 16: Job 38. 8-11.]

[Footnote 17: Judges 5. 4 (R.V.).]

[Footnote 18: Gen. 9. 14.]

There is also the passage about the sun and moon being _set in the firmament_. But the writer cannot have meant they were _fastened_ to the firmament, since the moon keeps changing its position relatively to the sun, just as a rainbow often does in regard to the cloud in which it is also said to be _set_.[19] Of course their being in the firmament at all, is not correct if this means only the air. But the word may be used here in a wider sense, like the English word _heaven_, to include both the air, and the space beyond. For we speak of the clouds of heaven, and the stars of heaven, and in neither case with any idea of their being _heaved up_, which is said to be the literal meaning of the word. And in its primary sense, as we have shown, the firmament or _expanse_ between the upper and lower waters (the clouds and the seas) must mean the _air_. And the order in which this is placed after light, and before plants and animals is obviously correct.

[Footnote 19: Gen. 9. 13.]

(4.) _Dry land._

We now come to an important point, the appearance of _dry land_. According to Genesis, there was not always dry land on the earth; the whole of it was originally covered by the waters. And science shows that this was probably the case; the earth being at first surrounded by watery vapours, which gradually condensed and formed a kind of universal ocean. And then, when the surface became irregular, through its contracting and crumpling up, the water would collect in the hollows, forming seas, and dry land would appear elsewhere. But how was it possible for the writer of Genesis to know all this? There is nothing in the present aspect of nature to suggest that there was once a time when there was no _dry land_; and if it was a guess on his part, it was, to say the least, a very remarkable one.

(5.) _Vegetation._

We next come to vegetation; and it is placed in exactly its right position. For it requires four things: _soil_, _air_, _water_, and _light_ including heat; and these were the four things which then existed. The narrative, it will be noticed, speaks of three groups, _grass_, _herbs_, and _fruit-trees_; and it seems to imply that they appeared at the same time. But since its general plan is that of a series of events, the other view, that they appeared successively, is at least tenable.

There is, however, this difficulty. None of these groups were complete before the following periods. Some plants, for instance (including both herbs and fruit-trees), appeared long after the commencement of fishes and birds, and similarly some fishes and birds after the commencement of land-animals. But the difficulty is due to the fact that the classes _overlap_ to a large extent. And the order given in Genesis is nearer the truth than any other would be. Had the writer, for example, placed them plants, animals, birds, fishes; he would have been quite wrong. As it is, by placing them plants, fishes, birds, animals, he is as near the truth as he can be, if classes which really overlap have to be arranged in a consecutive narrative.

(6.) _The sun and moon._

We next come to the formation (that is the _making_, or evolving) of the sun and moon. The stars are also mentioned, but it is not said that they were made on the fourth day, and they are not alluded to in the opening command. Now, this alleged formation of the sun _after_ that of light is certainly the most striking point in the narrative, and was long thought to be a difficulty. But science has now shown that it is correct. However strange we may think it, light did undoubtedly exist long before the sun. In other words, the original nebula of our solar system was luminous, and lighted the earth, long before it contracted into a body with a definite outline, and producing such an intense and concentrated light, as could be called a sun. And since the earth would cool much quicker than the large nebula from which it was thrown off, vegetation might commence here before the nebula had become a sun, though this latter point is doubtful.

Two objections have now to be noticed. The first refers to the _moon_, which must have been thrown off from the earth long before the dry land and vegetation appeared; and being so small, would have consolidated sooner. But when considered only as _lights_, as they are in the narrative, it is quite correct to place the moon with the sun; since moonlight is merely reflected sunlight, and must obviously have commenced at the same time. The other objection is, that according to Genesis, the earth seems to be the centre of everything, and even the sun exists solely for the sake of lighting the earth. But (as before pointed out) the narrative is only concerned with this earth; and while we know that sunlight is of use to the inhabitants of our planet, we do not know that it serves any other useful purpose.

These, however, are but minor matters; the important point, as before said, is that Genesis places the formation of the sun _after_ that of light. This must have appeared when it was written, and for thousands of years afterwards, an obvious absurdity, since everyone could see that the sun was the source of light. We now know that it is correct. But how could the writer have known it, unless it had been divinely revealed?

(7.) _Fishes and birds._

We next come to fishes and birds, which formed the commencement of animal life, and thus involved the beginning of _mind_ in some form; so Genesis (as before said) appropriately uses the word _create_ in regard to them. It is not clear whether the narrative means that they appeared at the same time, or successively, though here, as in other cases, the latter is the more probable. And science entirely agrees in thus placing fishes before birds and both of these after plants. This latter point indeed must be obvious to every naturalist, since the food of all animals is derived, either directly or indirectly, from the vegetable world.

And Genesis is equally correct in emphasising the great abundance of _marine_ life at this period--the waters were to _swarm with swarms of living creatures_ (R.V. Margin), and also in specially alluding to the great _sea-monsters_ (wrongly translated _whales_ in A.V.), since these huge saurians were a striking feature of the time. The Hebrew word is said to mean _elongated_ or stretched-out creatures, and as several of them were over 50 feet long, no more suitable term can be imagined. But again we must ask how did the writer know that such creatures were ever plentiful enough, or important enough, to deserve this special mention?

What are called _invertebrate_ animals, such as insects, and shell-fish, do not seem to be included in the narrative. But it never claims to describe everything that was created; and its extreme brevity, combined with the insignificance of these creatures, may well account for their being omitted.

(8.) _Land animals._

We next come to land animals, which we are told the earth was to _bring forth_. As however it is said in the next verse that God _made_ (or evolved) these creatures, this need not mean that they were produced directly from the earth, as in the case of plants. And the position in which they are placed, after fishes and birds and before man, is again correct. It is true that a few animals such as kangaroos, seem to have appeared as early as birds, but land animals as a whole undoubtedly succeeded them. Three classes are mentioned, _beasts of the earth_, _cattle_, and _creeping things_, probably small animals, since another Hebrew word is used for them, later on, which is said elsewhere to include weasels and mice.[20]

[Footnote 20: Gen. 7. 21; Lev. 11. 29.]

(9.) _Man._

Last of all we come to the creation of man. Four points have to be noticed here. The first refers to the _time_ of man's appearance, which everyone now admits was not till towards the close of the Tertiary or most recent group of strata; so Genesis is quite correct in placing him last of all. As to the actual date, it says nothing; for its chronology only leads back to the creation of _Adam_ in chapter 2, and not to that of the _human race_ (male and female) in chapter 1. And it is implied in several places, that there were men before Adam[21] and this was in consequence maintained by some writers long before geology was thought of.[22] We need not therefore discuss the difficulties connected with the story of Adam and Eve, as to which the present writer has never seen a satisfactory explanation.

[Footnote 21: Gen. 4. 13-17, 26; 6. 2-4.]

[Footnote 22: _E.g._, Peyreyrius, A.D. 1655, quoted in the Speaker's Commentary.]

Secondly, the creation of man is represented as of an altogether _higher order_, than any of the previous ones, since God did not say, "Let the earth bring forth a thinking animal" or anything of that kind, but '_Let us make man_.' And this also is quite correct, for man, as we know (Chapter IV.) has a _free will_, which makes him a personal being, and therefore far above everything else on this planet.

And when we consider the vast possibilities, involved in the creation of such a being,--able to act right or wrong, and therefore able, if he wishes, to act in opposition to the will of his Maker, thus bringing sin into the world with all its consequent miseries,--it seems only suitable that such a momentous step should have been taken with apparent deliberation and in a manner different from all the others.

And it explains why no such expression as _after its kind_, which is so frequently used of plants and animals, is ever applied to man; for he is not one of a kind in the same sense. Each man is _unique_, a separate personal being, distinct from all else in the world, and not (like a tree for instance) merely one example of a certain way in which molecules may be grouped.

It also explains why man (unlike plants, animals, etc.) is not said to have been created _good_. For goodness in a free being must include moral goodness, or _righteousness_; and, as explained in