01.1 - Chapter 1:1-11

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

Genesis 1:1-11 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: (Exodus 20:9-11; Exodus 31:17; Psalms 8:1-9; Ps 104; Matthew 19:4-6; 2 Peter 3:5; Hebrews 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."

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The phrase "in the beginning" (berêshîth) 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 rêshîth 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 berêshîth 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, ’elohîm. 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 ’Elohîm 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 ’Elohîm, 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.Isaiah 65:18 - "Behold I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy." Also note Genesis 1:27 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; (Romans 4:17; Hebrews 11:3); cf. also (Psalms 33:6-9; Amos 4:13). The verb is never used of other than DIVINE activity. The berõ’, 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. (Jeremiah 10:16; Isaiah 44:24; Psalms 103:19; Psalms 119:91; Ecclesiastes 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," ’érets, 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 Genesis 1:8, and "earth" can only refer to the "dry land," as in Genesis 1:10. But then the very proper question arises: why single out "heaven and earth" in this sense at all and mention their creation in Genesis 1:17 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 Genesis 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 Genesis 1:1 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 Genesis 1:1-2 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 Genesis 1:2 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 ’Elohîm, 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 ’Elohîm, 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 ’Elohîm 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 Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3, 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 Genesis 1:2, 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 Genesis 1:2 by itself it is necessary to see how Genesis 1:1-3 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 Genesis 1:2 a parenthesis, or it would practically have it set off by dashes and makes of Genesis 1:1 the protasis and of Genesis 1:3 the apodosis. The second makes Genesis 1:1 protasis and Genesis 1:2 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 Genesis 1:1 the heading and then proceeds with Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3 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 Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3 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 (Genesis 5:1) and (Numbers 5:12-15; Joshua 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 Genesis 1:2 could hardly be ha’arets but would have to be wattehî, 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).

Genesis 1:2 - 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 Genesis 18:27 and Genesis 21:23) an almost onomatopoeic effect is secured to describe the utmost of an unformed and unshapen mass: "waste and void" —tóhû wavóhû. Tóhû is really a noun used as an emphatic adjective (K. S. 306 r), as is also, of course, bóhû. 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 tóhû 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 bóhû, (Jeremiah 4:23). In (Deuteronomy 32:10) the parallel thought is "wilderness." Isaiah uses it to describe the unreality of idols. In (Isaiah 41:29), where it is rendered "confusion," its parallel is "wind," and similar terms are "vanity" and "nought." Similarly, (Isaiah 40:17) offers as parallels: "nothing" and "less than nothing." Cf. also (Isaiah 40:23; Isaiah 49:4; 1 Samuel 12:21). The passage (Jeremiah 4:23) is not at variance with these claims, for though it pictures a state of desolation by the quotation of the whole phrase tóhû wavóhû, it evidently means that the land is again to be reduced to a state like unto the primeval chaos. (Isaiah 24:10) is analogous. Bóhû 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 tóhû. 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," tehôm, from the root hûm, "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 Tiâmat, only confuse the issues. Those who at once identify tehôm with Tiâmat 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 tehôm and the mythological Tiâmat, 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. Tiâmat lies so much farther down the scale as to appear as a very manifest corruption. That mere "waters" are meant here by tehôm 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 Genesis 1:2 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) chépheth, 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. (Deuteronomy 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 ’elohîm 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 rûach 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 rûach ‘elohîm 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 £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; Job 27:3; Psalms 33:6; Psalms 104:30; Psalms 143:10; Isaiah 34:16; Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 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."

Genesis 1:3 - 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 wayyó’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. Hebrews 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 (Colossians 1:16; John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 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 Genesis 1:1 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" (Psalms 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 (Genesis 1:1) 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: (Isaiah 43:6; Amos 9:3; Nahum 1:4; Haggai 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.

Genesis 1:4 - 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 kî 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" (Genesis 1:3) and "God saw" (Genesis 1:4). 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.).

Genesis 1:5 - 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 Genesis 1:8; 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" (yóm) 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" (yóm) 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 Genesis 1:5: "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 (Leviticus 23:32), fails utterly, because Genesis 1:5 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 (’érebh), 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 yôm 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 yôm 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: yôm may mean "time" in a very general way, as in Genesis 2:4 beyôm, or Isaiah 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 Genesis 1:6-8 the creative work of the second day, the creation of the firmament or the lower heavens (Erdhimmel).

Genesis 1:6 - 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 raqîa’. 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 raqîa’ 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 Genesis 1:8, 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 raqîa’. 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 raqîa’ with the zodiac (Tierkreis). A sober reading of the definition Genesis 1:6-8 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 raqîa’" 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 (Revelation 4:6; Revelation 15:2; Revelation 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 (Genesis 7:11; Psalms 78:23; 2 Kings 7:2; Isaiah 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 wîhî mabhdîl, "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). Yehî is repeated to make the separate parts of the process stand out more distinctly (K. S. 370 s).

Genesis 1:7 - 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 (Genesis 1:6), "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 Genesis 1:7 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 Genesis 1:21 and in Genesis 1:25 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 Genesis 1:7 and appending it to the end of Genesis 1:6 after the example of the Septuagint translators and after the analogy of Genesis 1:9; Genesis 1:11; Genesis 1:15; Genesis 1:24; & Genesis 1:30, 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 Genesis 1:26 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).

Genesis 1:8 - 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 Genesis 1:6. Our rendering, as in Genesis 1:5, "then came evening" is not as exact from one point of view as it might be. Wayhî 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," ’érebh, 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 Psalms 19:5.

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

There follows in Genesis 1:9-13 the double work of the third day.

Genesis 1:9 - 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" (Genesis 1:6-8), i. e. the firmament, aids in the distribution of light. But three of the deficiencies noted under Genesis 1:2 still prevail. The tekôm 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 tekôm 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? (Psalms 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 yammîm, "seas," (Genesis 1:10) 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 maqôm, "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 (Genesis 1:10); to say that they are to collect in "one place" is equally appropriate (Genesis 1:9). The clause added by the Septuagint is a pedantic attempt at improvement.

Genesis 1:10 - 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 Genesis 1:1. 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 Genesis 1:5.

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 (Genesis 1:8); but that it does appear now at the conclusion of the work of the third day (Genesis 1:10). As was shown at the beginning of the explanation of Genesis 1:9, 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 Genesis 1:10: verb, object—object verb (K. S. 339 o).

Genesis 1:11 - 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 déshe’, 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 déshe’ 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 ’ésebh, also translated "herbage." That the word is really distinct from déshe’ in meaning appears first from its use in passages like (2 Kings 19:26) and (Isaiah 37:27) where in an enumeration both are mentioned separately. Again the characteristic mark ascribed to it in this verse is noteworthy: mazría’ zéra’, 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 ’ésebh; see Genesis 1:29 and Genesis 3:18. So do cattle, (Deuteronomy 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, ’érets 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 déshe’ and zéra’ are cognate objects.

We should yet draw attention to the fact that the things mentioned in Genesis 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 Genesis 1:7 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 Genesis 1:11 the "and it was so" precedes this latter statement, (K. S. 369b).