Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

140

GENESIS II, 4-7: AN EXPOSITION.

THE paragraph contained within the limits of the verses indicated above acquires special interest at the present day, because of a very important controversy which has gathered around it. With this paragraph a new section of the Book of Genesis begins, and the question of dispute is—whether it be continuative and supplementary of the foregoing narrative of the creation, and produced by the same writer; or whether it be part of a separate and independent narrative of creative work, having for itself also a separate penman. It is observed that, up to the beginning of our text, the Creator receives uniformly the name "God" (Elohim), and that in the text the divine name becomes "Lord God" (Jehovah Elohim). Ever since the days of Astruc, a French physician, this fact has given occasion to a certain number of biblical critics to assume a diversity of authorship for the Book of Genesis, and also the existence of separate independent documents which, when put together somewhat as they now appear, constitute the book. Professor Smith, in his article "Bible" (Encyclop. Britan. Ed., ix), thus writes approvingly of this document-theory—“ Of these the most important are: 1. The Jehovistic narrative, which also begins with the creation, and treats the early history more in the spirit of prophetic theology and idealism, containing, for example, the narrative of the fall, and the parts of the history of Abraham, which are most important for Old Testament theology. That this narrative is not a mere supplement to the other, but an independent whole, appears most plainly in the story of the flood, where two distinct accounts have certainly been interwoven by a third hand. 2. Many of the finest stories in Genesis, especially great part of the history of Joseph, agree with the Elohim document in the name of God, but are widely divergent in other respects. Since the researches of Hupfeld, a third author, belonging to northern Israel, and specially interested in the ancestors of the northern tribes, is generally postulated for these sections. His literary individuality is in truth sharply marked, though the limits of his contributions to the Pentateuch are obscure."

The above quotation makes it clearly apparent that the existence of separate original documents is assumed, mainly on account of the manner in which the divine names Elohim " and "Jehovah" occur in the sacred narrative.

Notwithstanding the support given to this document-theory, it is destitute of any valid ground of support. (1.) The evidence claimed for it is purely subjective or imaginative. (2.) It

is rationalistic in nature. Some passages contain the reverse of the kind of evidence required, in respect to the characteristics of style and expression, to support the theory. But this "occasions no difficulty to the critics, as they at once assume that there has been an interpolation from the other document, or that the anomaly is owing to the oversight of the compiler." (Imperial Bible Dictionary). (3.) It is so undefined and indefinable, that it cannot on any solid ground solicit acceptance. Since its origination, more than a century ago, it has continued changing its aspect in a Protean fashion, its newest forms supplanting the older. "The scheme itself has been subjected to modifications which continually present it in new aspects. Ilgen would improve it by rejecting the interpolations of Eichhorn, and assuming the existence of three original documents instead of two; the result of which was, that passages which, on leaving the hands of Eichhorn, had some extent and uniformity, were, by Ilgen's process, reduced to a complete mosaic. Other theories speedily followed, differing from the original and from one another." (Ibid.) De Wette favoured it; but in view of the opposition it had to contend with, changed his ground with almost every successive edition of his "Introduction" (Einleitung). (4.) It is destructive in its nature. It disintegrates the elements of a compactly united whole, making the sacred narrative appear as a crude compilation of unsymmetrical records, each imperfect in itself, and ignoring, at the same time, the idea of the oneness of an original divine source, and the oneness of an original inspired diction. The disintegrating principle involved in the document-theory furnishes to sceptical minds a very appreciable theme. Bishop Colenso adopts it with zest, and, as might be expected, runs it to seed. And it affords equal delight to the arch-atheist, Mr. Bradlaugh, to find the Bishop describing four authors and one editor for the Book of Genesis, the first Elohist, the second Elohist, the first Jehovist, the second Jehovist, and the Deuteronomist. The last of these terms denotes a supposed later editor of the Pentateuch, whose precise time of life is fixed about the period of Josiah's reign. Mr. Bradlaugh writes "In a synoptical table in Part V of the Pentateuch, the Bishop presents the result of the critical analysis of the Book of Genesis, and apportions the 1,533 verses of the Book of Genesis as follows: to the first Elohist, 336 verses; to the second, 106 verses; to the first Jehovist, 1,028 verses; to the second, 24 verses; and to the Deuteronomist, 39 verses." The destructive uses to which this document-theory is put, and the uncertainty pertaining to its necessary indefiniteness, afford evidence of its unsoundness, and of the dangerous extremes to

which it may lead. Moreover, it is a violent and an altogether unnecessary exegetical hypothesis.

From the beginning of Genesis on to the end of the third verse of the second chapter, we have the account proper of the creation systematically and particularly given. But when we reach the first verse of the paragraph on which our comment is founded (ii, 4), we come to a new and an entirely different portion of the book. It is not a second account of the creation in any such sense as the first is; but the first part of human history, with a short introduction; and that introduction lays the basis of the history to be given, in a few supplementary facts, which shed light on the creation of man and those things immediately bound up in the conditions of his being, and which could not be passed over if an intelligent account were given. Indeed, the mere connection between the text and the foregoing narrative is inexplicable on the assumption that there are two records of the creation, or on the assumption of the documenttheory: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" (ii, 4) are words which look back on the record proper, and intimate an advance beyond it. They cannot be explained as looking forward, for no such account as they indicate follows. It is therefore impossible that they can refer to a parallel record of the creation. Neither can these words constitute the beginning of a second record, for why should it as a separate record presuppose a foregoing one? Both are manifestly component parts of one progressive whole, as compactly and as naturally joined together as the new annual growths are to the pre-existing stems of a tree. Moreover, nothing can seem more befitting than the explanation thus given. In the account of the creation proper, the Creator is named Elohim (God). And can there be no inference drawn from this but that of separate authorship, and that the author of this portion merely made it his custom so to name the Divine being? How much more likely that when a record of creative power was given the writer should use, or be guided to use, the term which implies the possession of the excellence of all power! Then, when we come to the first part of human history in the Bible, what term could be more appropriately used than "Jehovah," which implies the self-existence of the Creator, and the great truth that it is because he thus lives as the selfexistent one that man can live and have a history? When God said to Moses, to encourage him in his work in Egypt, "I Am that I Am," did he not refer to his name Jehovah, and to such a meaning of it, as we now indicate? "I am Jehovah, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed," clearly intimates the same thing. Then, how beautiful and

[ocr errors]

appropriate is the term "Jehovah Elohim” (Lord God) in Gen. ii, 4! It intimates that the Being who creates is also the Being who ever upholds. God did not create the world, and leave it alone, as some evolutionists would have us believe; but he is continually upholding it. In him we are living, and moving, and having our being. This use of the term Jehovah Elohim, instead of being calculated to disrupt, binds the two sections already referred to in a very close union. 'Jehovah" does not intimate a new being from the "Elohim" who created, but only indicates another aspect of his character-an aspect by which all created beings can live and have a history. The words of the late Dr. Candlish may be here appropriately cited-"God is called by a name not used in the preceding section; the name 'Lord,' or 'Jehovah,' being joined to the name 'God.' The reason may be this: The single name 'God,' denoting power or might, is more suitable, while the process of creation, by God's mighty power, is described, as it were, on the side of his Sovereign creative fiat, 'Let it be,' 'Let us make.' Now, however, in reviewing the work as complete, and entering into its providential phase, the additional idea involved in the name "Jehovah'-that of self-existence and unchangeable majesty, with special reference to his providence-becomes appropriate. All things are made by him as the Almighty God. They subsist by him as being also the Everlasting Jehovah, 'the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.'"

The "generations," or genealogies of the heavens and of the earth (ver. 4) denote the account of the beginnings of the aerial heavens-the atmosphere, and of the earth, as given in the preceding part of the book. The writer manifestly looks backward to "the day"-the period of six natural days, when the Creator accomplished these beginnings of reconstruction, to make the earth a fit habitation for man.

In the 5th verse, we have some exceedingly important particulars recorded regarding the creation of plants. But if our text is not a part of a second record of the creation proper, why have we so much said about creative work? The answer is simple and obvious. In order to give an intelligent account of the first beginning of human history, it was absolutely necessary to refer to the creation of plants, and to the Garden of Eden, that man's relation to these, and his conduct and fall, should be intelligibly stated. The Book of Genesis thus appears to be no mere piece of patchwork, or compilation of separate independent documents, but a most closely compacted, a most lucid and harmonious whole.

By "every plant of the field," Lange understands the nobler species of herbs which depend on culture,-paradisaical plants,

which were created during the sixth day. This is obviously a mistake a mistake, indeed, that assumes two separate creations of plants-one on the third, and another on the sixth day. Lange further mistakes when he assumes that the plants referred to in the text "presuppose man," by being plants that "are the growth of culture;" for the inspired writer distinctly says "there was not a man to till the ground when the Lord God made every plant of the field," and "every herb of the field." He says much more. He states also that every plant of the field was made "before it was in the earth," and obviously, therefore, before it could have grown from the earth, and that every herb of the field was made “before it grew," in short, before it could have grown naturally; for as yet "the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth." The totality of plants created immediately before the advent of man is here referred to, and it is obvious that all were created by way of miracle. For they were made apart from natural conditions. Before they had taken hold of the soil, before they grew, before there was rain to water this renovated earth; and before there was a man to till the ground, they existed. The writer manifestly takes us back to the work of the third creative day, and gives us very clear indications that the Creator did not work by any process of development in the creation of plants, but by miraculous operations of power. The doctrine of evolution can on no possible ground be reconciled with the statements of Moses given in the text.

It may safely be inferred from the 5th verse, which is now under notice, that the earth was very dry on the third creative day, so dry that the plants could not have grown for want of moisture. If this be not meant, what could be the force and propriety of the statement-" the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth"? This leaves it to be inferred that moisture, a natural means of growth, was wanting, and that, therefore, the plants then created did not exist because of natural means. If our inference be correct, we are justified in supposing that the water did not cover all the ground at the time when God began to gather them together into one place. For this was accomplished on the third day, the very day on which the plants were created. Had the water been but newly removed when the plants were created, there would have been plenty of moisture to nourish them, and no propriety that we can see in saying that rain had not yet fallen on the earth, especially when this is said to indicate that at first the plants existed apart from the natural means of growth. From all this it seems apparent that the part of the

« AnteriorContinuar »