II.

THE EXEGESIS OF THE FIRST SECTION OF GENESIS.

THERE is reason to fear that great damage has been done to the cause of Divine inspiration, so far as it is concerned with this exordium of Genesis, by the endeavour which in various ways has been made to expound its language in such a manner as to rationalise its contents. The method of fair and honest exegesis would have been simply to consider what is the probable meaning of the several clauses, forming our judgment from the grammatical import of the terms employed, and viewing its statements in the light which other passages of the Scripture appear to throw upon their import. But men have too often not been satisfied with adopting this mode of procedure. They have pursued another plan. They have regulated their exegesis by reference to those views of Nature which science has established as true. They have proceeded upon the principle that the God of Revelation is the God also of Nature, and that therefore the notions found in the book of Revelation must exactly represent the truth of things as found in Nature, or at least not be in disharmony with them; and, accordingly, they have affixed to the several terms employed in the record, not the sense which those terms would convey to them to whom the record was originally addressed, or the sense in

which they were probably used by those through whom the revelation was originally made, but the sense which would have been embodied in those terms, or in other terms which might have been employed in their room, by persons who have been enabled to form juster views of Nature than in those early times we know were entertained.

Against any such theory of interpretation Mr. Goodwin strongly protests; and his reclamation, I think, must be admitted. The terminology employed in Scripture can only be taken in the sense in which we have fair reason to believe it to have been used by those whose language the voice of revelation condescended to adopt. Since it was by the medium of such terminology that the revelation was originally conveyed, the revelation, as thus embodied, was not only true, but, as thus embodied, was also just the particular revelation which in each instance was intended to be conveyed. To affix to the terminology a different meaning from that which then it was felt to bear takes us away from the particular point of view in which the revelation contemplated those as placed to whom it originally came, and places us in a different point of view. Is there not a danger that, looking at the revelation from this altered standing-point, we shall find it different from what it originally was- shall hear therein, in fact, another voice than that in which God was then heard to speak? Besides, the views which science has formed of Nature have varied according to the different degrees of scientific culture. If, therefore, the signification attached to the terminology of Scripture is to be regulated by the views of science, it is plain that the meaning of that terminology will be from time to time continually shifting, and thus the interpretation of the revelation

itself be always uncertain. The only stable interpretation of the revelation is that which rests upon those views of the meaning of the terms employed which we may reasonably suppose would be taken by those to whom it was originally addressed. What those views were we must ascertain as well as we can by the grammatical analysis of the words themselves in the language to which they belong, and by the light thrown upon the text by other passages of Scripture.

The reader will be pleased particularly to bear in mind that these remarks relate merely to the import of the terms employed, and to the forms of thought which those terms embody, and not to the purport of the revelation itself. The former must be human; for since the revelation must be made in language intelligible to those to whom it is spoken, the terms and forms of thought which it employs must be those already in men's mouths or minds, and therefore are to be estimated by the language and ways of thinking prevailing amongst those who are addressed. Not so the revelation. The import of that, as coming from heaven and Divine, is not to be estimated merely by the apprehension formed of it either by those to whom it was at the first addressed, or even by him through whom it was communicated. In many instances its import may far transcend both the one and the other (see 1 Peter, i. 10, 11). I am anxious to guard against misapprehension on this point; for the distinction now indicated is not merely of consequence, but is absolutely vital to just views of inspiration generally.

Holding these views respecting the interpretation of Scripture language, I heartily concur with Mr. Goodwin in refusing in every case to ascribe to terms employed in this first section meanings which have been only attri

buted to them on the ground that such interpretation was necessary, in order to make the forms of thought square with those which we ourselves entertain or think reasonable. I am ready further to accept, for the most part, the exposition which he has given of the record; but as in some points I cannot agree with him, and as it is desirable that such as do not happen to have carefully studied the passage should be led to consider its contents more exactly, in order that they may stand in that point of view in which the revelation supposes its readers placed, I shall go a little into the details of its interpretation; after which I shall endeavour to show, that, while we may in the main accept as just Mr. Goodwin's exegesis, we yet are able utterly to reject his inference, that this section is a mere human utterance, and to affirm that it is what the whole of Scripture bids us regard it an utterance of God, of the deepest significance and moment.

The in the beginning of the first verse naturally directs our thoughts to the very first bringing into being of the material substance, out of which the heavens and the earth were subsequently shaped, and leads us therefore to regard the barā (created) of this verse as used in the strict sense of made out of nothing. The verb barā is frequently used of forming things not out of nothing. It is so employed in this very chapter, and in this sense some have understood it in this first verse, which they have taken as a proleptic summary of the whole section. If this view were just, the beginning would be relative to the histories which follow this first section; but since it is probable that this section is a complete independent whole, it is more obvious to understand the beginning as relative to the acts of creation recorded in the section itself, i. e. as referring

It

to the first creation of the matter of the universe. is thus the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews appears to have understood it. (Heb. xi. 3.) And from the nature of the case it may be presumed to be likely that such a statement would stand at the head of the record; for the doctrine of God being at the first the Author of the very substance of all things, and not merely of the present forms of things, is intimately connected with the general import of the section; for it appears to be designed to assert the entire and absolute supremacy of God over all things, as being their original Maker.

The condition of things, after they were originally brought out of nothing, was one of mere wasteness and emptiness (thohu vabhohu). The same words are found combined in Jeremiah (iv. 23), of the desolation produced by the Babylonish invasion: I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was (thohu vabhohu) without form and void, and the heavens and they had no light. And again in Isaiah (xxxv. 11), of the desolation of Idumea: He shall stretch out upon it the line of (thohu) confusion and the stones (=plummet) of (bhohu) emptiness. Bhohu occurs nowhere else; but thohu does repeatedly for waste, wilderness (e. g. Ps. cviii. 40). The two passages in Jeremiah and Isaiah probably were written with a conscious reference to Genesis, and were intended by a poetical exaggeration to describe the desolation of Judea and Idumea as exhibiting a state of things like that of chaos.

Upon the deep of waste waters, both those waters (it should seem) which afterwards were above the firmament and those which were under it, as yet forming one mass, wherewith was blended or wherein was buried the yet unseparated land, there rested darkness. The whole image is that of absolute formlessness and chaos, the pri