Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Genesis 2:1 - 2:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
See Gen_1:1 ff for the passage quote with footnotes for Gen_2:1-3
12. Gen_2:1-3. The Divine Sabbath. Gen_2:1. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished.—A solemn retrospect introducing the sabbath of God.—And all their host.—A concrete denoting of the universe from the predominant terrestrial stand-point. The host has reference to the heaven, so far, at all events, as the stars are meant. As the host of the earth, however, denotes its inhabitants (Isa_34:2), so the thought, moreover, gives an intimation of the inhabitants of the heaven. “The passage in the book of Nehemiah (Gen_9:6) that treats of the creation supposes correctly that in the host of heaven ( öְáַà ) the angels are included.” Delitzsch. When he says farther: “The stars, according to the more ancient representation (Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian) are set forth as a host for battle, or that together with the angels they are assigned a portion in the conflict of light with darkness whose theatre is the earth created within the surrounding sphere of the luminous heavenly bodies,”—all such remarks may be taken as Parsic rather than purely Biblical.
Gen_2:2. And on the seventh day God ended His work.—The difficulty that arises from the mention here of a completion of God’s work on the seventh day, as before it seemed to have been on the sixth, has given occasion to the Septuagint, the Syriac, and many exegetes to put the sixth day in place of the seventh. Others (Calvin, Drusius, etc.) have read åַéְëַì as pluperfect (had finished) contrary to the grammar. Knobel explains the word with Tuch and others: God let it come to an end on that day. Delitzsch in a similar manner. Richers wrongly places a completion of the creation on the seventh day. Kurtz speaks of a heptæmeron. It seems to us, however, that the rest of God does not denote a remaining inactive merely, or a doing nothing. The perfecting of the work on the seventh is likewise something positive: namely, that God celebrated His work (kept a holy day of solemn triumph over it) and blessed the sabbath. To celebrate, to bless, to consecrate, is the finishing sabbath-work—a living, active, priestly doing, and not merely a laying aside of action. “The Father worketh hitherto,” says Christ in relation to His healings on the sabbath (Joh_5:17). The doing of God in respect to the completed creation is of a festive kind (solemn, stately, holy), a directing of motion and of an unfolding of things now governed by law, in contrast with that work of God which was reflected in the pressure of a stormy development, and in the great revolutions and epochs of the earth’s formation. “His îְìָàëָä (His work) was the completion of a task which He had proposed.” Delitzsch. God rests now and triumphs in that last finish of His work, the paradisaical man; God’s great festival is reflected in Adam’s holy-day. In accordance with his supposition that the creative days were not numbered from evening to morning, but in the contrary order (which is opposed to the text), Delitzsch holds that not the evening of the sixth day, but the morning of the seventh, was the real beginning of the sabbath (p. 127). But the evening of the sixth day lies back before the sixth day, whilst of an evening and a morning of the seventh day there is no mention at all. Had we taken the creative days as periods generally, or the evenings as merely remissions of the creative activity, the question about the evening and the morning of the seventh day would have had no right sense. If we truly take the evenings as denoting creative crises, then may it be asked: did not a crisis follow upon the creation of Adam? and this may we find intimated (Gen_2:21) in the deep sleep of Adam. Still must we suppose that the completion of Adam’s creation took place towards the evening or decline of the sixth day.
Gen_2:3. And God blessed the seventh day.—The blessing of the seventh day may of itself denote primarily that it was appointed for rest and re-creation, “which is a blessing for the laboring man and beast (Exo_20:10; Deu_5:14).” But the earlier blessings say: Be ye fruitful and multiply, and to bless means to wish for, and to promise one infinite multiplications in the course of life, as to curse means to wish for one an infinite multiplication of evil—that is, to imprecate, or pray against him. The blessing of the sabbath must consist in this, that it gives birth to all the festivals (or rests) of God, and all the festivals of men—that it endlessly propagates itself as a heavenly nature above the self-propagating earthly nature, until it has become an everlasting sabbath. Its most distinct birth is the New Testament Sunday. But this Sunday must mediate the heavenly Sunday. “It makes it to be an inexhaustible fountain of re-creation” (or new life). Delitzsch.—And hallowed it.—To hallow is to take an Object out of its worldly relation, and to devote it to God. There is, indeed, nothing before us here of a worldly relation in a profane sense, and so far can the negative force here have no place in the hallowing. Without doubt, however, the contrast is this: he withdraws it from labor for the sake of the world, and establishes it as the festival for God. In six days’ work had God condescended and given Himself up to live for the world; on the sabbath, He ordains that the world must live for God. He blessed and hallowed it, because He rested therein—that is, He appointed His own rest, as a ground and rule for the rest of man, and of the creatures, on the seventh day (see Exo_20:11; Exo_31:17). “According to the author God made this appointment at the creation, but He leaves its execution to a time after Moses, when, in the desert of Sin, He practically leads Israel to the festival of the seventh day, and thereupon makes publication of the law of the sabbath on Sinai (Exo_31:12; Exo_35:1). There is nothing known of any observation of the sabbath before the time of Moses.” Knobel. This holds good only of the legal establishment of the sabbath, for the custom of keeping a day of rest was not confined to the Jews only. Concerning the name ùַׁáָּú , which the creative account does not contain, see Delitzsch, p. 130. Derivations: 1. From ùַׁáְּúַé , an old name of Saturn; 2. from ( ùִׁáְòַú ) ùַׁáְòַú , the seventh day (Lactantius); 3. contracted from ùַׁáֶּúֶú , the time of holy rest, which is the most likely.—Which He had created and made (marginal reading in English Bible: created to make). Grammatically the infinitive construct ìַòֲùׂåֹú is rendered by the Latin faciendo. Still the explanation: which God being active (that is, by doing, or by an effort) had created, would be quite idle, were it not that one would find in the language the recognition of an antithesis to the doctrines of emanation, or generally, to the supposed heathenish pathological and fatalistic modes of creation. Delitzsch thus modifies the faciendo (or ìַòֲùׂåֹú ): the creating is fundamental, whilst the making, or the forming, is consequential. Then there would be denoted thereby the continuing of the divine activity beyond the time of the creative work. In respect to the four verses that follow, which Delitzsch, too, as well as Ewald and others, would make the subscription of the previous section, not the superscription of the one that follows (as Tuch, De Wette, and others), compare Delitzsch, p. 133. Knobel says (p. 7): “The Elohist has a superscription before every principal section in Genesis, and so much the more must he have had such a superscription placed before his first narration.” Ilgen, Pott, and Schumann have rightly found the same (Gen_2:4) in the words: “these are the origines of the heaven and the earth,” etc. The word tholedoth, then, must have suffered a misplacement. According to Delitzsch it is a closing formula. We hold it to be the superscription to what follows, because the word tholedoth must otherwise have regularly preceded, and because our text regards the tholedoth, or generations of the heavens and the earth, as conditioned in its principles through the creation of the earth and the heavens—that is, the earth, and especially Adam as the principal point of view for the whole.
The primitive religion is to be distinguished from the religion of Abraham by the following points: 1. In the primitive religion, the symbolical sign is first, and the word second; in the patriarchal religion, the word of God is first, and the symbolical sign is second. (See Gen_12:1; Gen_12:7.) 2. In the primitive religion the continuance of the living faith in God is sporadic. This, it is true, is in connection with genealogical relations (Seth, Noah, Shem), as the appearance of Melchisedek especially proves (comp. Heb_7:3); and, as a gradually fading twilight, it goes on through the times until the days of Abraham, forming continually, as natural religion, the background of all the heathenism of humanity. The faith of Abraham, on the contrary, forms with the patriarchal religion a genealogical and historical sequence. The aurora of the morning in Abraham contrasts with the twilight of the evening in Melchisedek. Melchisedek looks, with the faithful of the heathen world, back to the lost Paradise; Abraham looks forward to the future city of God—his religion is the religion of the future. 3. The symbolical primitive religion is yet, in its exterior, overgrown with mythological heathendom. While it forms the bright side of the primal religious world, its dark side arises from the mythologizing of the symbols (Rom_1:19-23). With the patriarchal religion, however, the contrast between the theocratic faith and heathendom has become fixed. 4. With the historic form of this contrast, it is at the same time conclusive that heathendom maintains its relative light side in the history of humanism, and the theocratic popular history its relative dark side, which increases to the rejection of the Messiah and the death on the cross. The material development of salvation among the Jews, and the formal development of the human form of salvation among the heathen (Greeks and Romans), are for each other, just as the evil tendencies of heathendom and Judaism unite with each other in the crucifying of Christ.
2. Within our division appears the beautiful contrast that the creation of the world is once represented in the genetic order as an ascending development of life, so that man seems the aim ( ôÝëïò ) of all things; then, from Genesis 2, 3, onward, in principial order, according to which man, as a divine idea, is the principle with which, and for which, the world, and especially Paradise, was created. The first view is universalistic, and hence Elohistic; the latter is theocratic, and hence Jehovistic.
3. The form of the account of the creation: religious symbolical chronicle; its source: a revealed word or image effected by the vision of a prophecy looking backwards (see Introduction). The objections of Delitzsch against the mediation of the knowledge of creation to men through divine revelation in human vision (see 79 sqq.), rest on a want of appreciation of the scriptural idea of vision, as already indicated. Delitzsch, with the more ancient catholic supernaturalism, explains our account from a divine teaching, which is defined as the interposing voice of the Spirit of God, and the guidance, through it, of man’s own spirit. To this ultra-supernaturalistic view of Delitzsch and Keil is opposed the rationalistic one of Hofmann, namely, that the account of the creation is the transposed impression in history which the world made on the first-created man reflecting on its origin. To the purely historical conception of a wonderfully preserved or regenerated (Delitzsch) tradition of revelation or legend, is contrasted the mythical conception in various forms, effected through the allegorical interpretation of Philo; which is followed by many church Fathers, and by Herder in his adoption of a parabolic hieroglyphic. a. Moral myth as a ground for the commandment of the sabbath (Paulus). b. Philosophical myth, especially the natural philosophical (Eichhorn and others). We have already shown in the Introduction why we cannot join in either the purely historical or the mythical view, but must insist on the specific of a religious symbolical history. The vision might be designated as intuition, in so far as we carry back the respective knowledge to the unfallen man.
4. In our section the world is represented according to its four different relations: 1. As creation; 2. as nature; 3. as cosmos; 4. as æon (see Lange’s “Dogmatics,” p. 222 sqq.). The idea of creation is expressed by the word áøà , as well as by the going forth ten times of the Omnific Word of God. God said, “Let there be, and there was.” The account of nature, 1. through the great contrasts, separations, and combinations: heaven and earth, darkness and light, atmospheric waters and terrestrial waters, firmament and terra firma, land and water, sky and earth. 2. Through the designation of plants, that they should bear seed, each according to its kind. 3. Through the blessing on animals: be fruitful and multiply, and the distinction of various kinds of animals, as also finally the blessing on men. 4. Through the relation of the various creatures to the sphere of birth or life corresponding to them (especially water and earth), through their coming forth from these spheres at the creating word. Especially belong here the picturesque expressions: Thohu, Vabhohu.— úַּãְùֶׁà äָàָøֶõ ãֶùֶׁà ùֶׁøֶõ — òֵõ ôְøִé òֹùֶׂä ôְøִé — òֵùֶׂá îַæְøִéòַ æֶøַò — äָøֹîֵùׂ — ôְøֹåּ åּøְáåּ — åְòåֹó éְòåֹôֵó — éִùְׁøְöåּ äַôַּéִí äָøֶîֶùׁ 5. The six days’ work itself.—The idea of the cosmos. It appears distinctly in all the solemn pauses of the creative work, as they are marked with the sevenfold repetition of the words: and God saw that it was good. The celebration of the sabbath also belongs here, as it points back to the beautiful completion of the universe.—But the idea of the æon appears with the fact that man is made the end and aim of all days of creation, by which it is clearly pronounced that he is the real principle in which the world and its origin is comprehended. The history of the earth is thus made the lifetime of humanity. Its profoundest principle of development and measure of time is the support of man.
5. The Creation.—On the dogmatic doctrine of the creation, see Hase, Hutter, Hahn: “Doctrine of Faith,” and Lange’s “Positive Dogmatics.” Here comes especially into consideration 1. the relation of the doctrine of the creation to the Logos, Joh_1:1-3. The first verse of Genesis clearly forms the ground presupposed in that passage, God spake; through His word He created the world, says Genesis; His word is a personal divine life, says John, and the New Testament in general, especially Col_1:15-19; Gen_2:3-9. According to Genesis everything is created through the idea of man in the image of God with a view to this man; according to the New Testament it is through the idea of Christ, who is the principal of humanity, with a view to Christ. As Adam was the principle of the creation, so is Christ the principle of humanity. Therefore it reads: “God hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph_1:4; comp. Joh_17:5). The creation is, in its most essential point, the production of the eternal God-Man in the eternal to-day. In man nature has passed beyond itself, from the relative, symbolical independence, to the perfected and real, to freedom; it has in him the mediator of its redemption, of its glorification. The beautiful cosmos, this unity of all varieties, which combines in it an endless complex of unities, to the production of external harmony and beauty, has, in Christ, the most beautiful of the children of men, its middle point, the centre of its ideal beauty. Finally, the first æon, which is fixed by the life of Adam, has for its core, its root, and its aim, the second æon fixed by Christ. 2. The relation to the Holy Ghost. The spirit is the living, self-impelling unity of spiritual life, the breath of the soul, as the wind forms the spirit of the earth, the vital, ever-active unity of its varieties. The Spirit of God hovering over the waters, is the divine, creative, living unity, which rules over the fermenting process of the Thohu Vabhohu; hence, as the peripheral principle of formation (at one with the central principle of formation, the Logos), it effectuates the separations and the combinations by which the formation of the earth is determined. In the New Testament, however, it appears in its personal strength, as the unity of all works of revelation of the Father and the Son, and as the absolute, spiritual principle of formation which effects the glorification of the world through the separation of the ungodly and the godly, and through the combination of everything godly in the church and the kingdom of God. 3. The relation of the creation to the Divine Being. In the creation, God appears as the creator, who calls forth things as out of nothing. But from the genesis out of the pure nothing, are distinguished the creative things as proceeding from the life or breath of the creator’s word, with which they come forth into existence (Psa_104:30); and finally man stands complete with the features of divine affinity, proceeding from the thought of His heart, from His counsel, as created in His image, and intended to be His visible administrator on earth. In the New Testament, however, the paternal feature of the Divine Being has unvailed itself as a paternity, from which all paternity in heaven and on earth proceeds, but which, in the most special sense, refers to Christ, the image of the Divine Being. By the relation of the work of creation to the coming Christ, the whole creation becomes an advance representation, a symbol of Christ in a series of symbolical degrees, of which each represents in advance the next following one. Through the relation of Christ to the Father, the whole creation receives the mark of the human, especially of revelation, or of the wonderful (as denoted by the lion), of resignation, or of sacrifice (as denoted by the ox), and of the reflection of light, that is, the idea (as denoted by the eagle). But the spirit, as the unitary life of the revelation of the Father and of the Son, is reflected as creative wisdom in all creative movements of the world, and, indeed, in the fundamental forms of separation and combination, of centrifugal and centripetal force, of repelling and attracting operations.—The account of the creation, Gen. Genesis 1, is not a dogma of the trinity of God; the completed creation, however, as a work of God and revelation, is a mirror of the trinity, and a prophecy of the revelation of its future (see Lange’s “Positive Dogmatics,” p. 206 ff. 4. The relation of the creation to revelation. The most general sphere of the revelation of God, that which forms the basis of all future revelations, is the creation of heaven and earth as the objective revelation of God, which corresponds with the subjective revelation of God in his image, Man_1:5. The relation of the doctrine of the creation to the heathen and post-heathen view of the world. It denies polytheism, for the creator of all things appears as the only one, and if his name stands in the plural (Elohim), the element of truth in polytheism (in contrast to Judaism) is therewith recognized, namely, the variety of the revelation of the one God in the variety of his strength, works, and signs, and the variety of the impressions which he thereby produces.
It denies pantheism, for God distinguishes himself by his creation of the world; he creates the world through his conscious word, consequently freely, and stands in personal completion before his work and over it, so that the world is neither to be regarded as an emanation of his divine being, nor especially as a metamorphosis of the divine being, (the second form of it,) or, vice versa, God as the emanation of the world. But it emphasizes also the true in pantheism (in contrast to deism): the animating omnipresence and revelation of God in the world, with his creating word, with his spirit hovering over the formation of the world, with his image in the dispositions and destination of man. It denies dualism, for God appears as the creator of all things directly. He is also the originator of the Thohu Vabhohu of fermenting elements; he finds in the creation no blame, and, at the end of the sixth day, everything is very good. The true in dualism is, however, also retained (against fatalism), namely, the contrast between the materials and the formative power, between the natural degrees and the natural principles, between nature and spirit. But the doctrine of creation denies much more the antichristian polytheism, that is, atomism, even to its most modern form of materialism, as such materialism rejects not only the truth of the spirit, of personal life, of the Godhead, of the immortality of the soul, and of liberty, consequently all ethical principles, but also the physical principia of crystal formation, of the formation of plants and animals. It does this by making matter regarded as devoid of all visibility, and in so far thoroughly hypothetical and abstract, or rather the infinity of feigned abstract substances (with which the Thohu Vabhohu, as a living fermentation of appearing elements, is not to be confounded), the sole God-resembling factor of all phenomena of life, such phenomena consisting of two classes, of which the physical and abstract spiritual is to be in accordance with the play of matter, the ethical, on the contrary, a bare appearance, having no conceivable or comprehensible reality. The living God here stands in contrast with the multitude of these dark idols of a feigned deity, and he places opposite the subordinate elements of life the superordinate vital principles, which give the elements their cosmical form, whilst over all he places the ruler man, with his godlike, spiritual nature.
The only thing that endures as an element of truth in materialism is the infinite and subtle conformity to law that is found in material things, a fact which spiritualism nowadays far too much disregards. The doctrine of creation also denies with increased emphasis the intensified pantheism, i.e., the most modern pantheism as opposed to personality—the pantheism which makes everything proceed from an impersonal thought, in order to let everything again disappear through continual metamorphoses (morphologism) in impersonal thoughts; for the scriptural doctrine makes all thoughts of creation proceed from an unconditioned personality, pass through fixed forms, and culminate in a conditioned personality. The truth that lies in such self-deification is recognized in this, that all works of the absolute thinking are themselves thoughts. He has spoken thoughts which have become works of creation. Finally, it denies the dynamical dualism (or the dualism of power), i.e., that hierarchical absolutism which holds as evil not only the material world, but still more the entire realm of spirit and spiritual life regarded as something to be controlled with infinite care, and with the infinite art and power of an abstract authority; for it testifies for the word of God as immanent in the world, and thereby holds fast the element of truth in that hierarchism, according to which the spirit of God hovers over the waters, and man as the administrator of God is commanded, with reference to all animal life in the world: Rule over them, and make them subject to you.
At the very first verse and word of Genesis, it clearly steps over that impure sink of dualism beyond which the entire heathen and philosophical view of the world could never go. It does this, by contrasting God in his eternal self-perfection to the creation which arose with time. The doctrine of the creation is the first act of revelation and of faith in the history of the kingdom of God. It would lead too far, should we attempt to show how the three heathen errors of religion are ever present with each other, although at one time polytheism, at one time pantheism, and at another time dualism, prevails. We make this observation, however, to indicate thereby that we do not ignore the pantheistic basis of Gnosticism, even when it plays with polytheism, since we present it according to its prevailing characteristic as dualism. But not only are the coarse ground-forms of the ancient and modern darkening of the doctrine of the creation to be judged by the first chapter of Genesis, but also the more subtle, Christianly modified forms, as, on the one hand, they present themselves in Gnosticism, (with which we also reckon Manichæism and its later shoots, extending to our time: Priscillianism, Paulicianism, Bogomiles, Albigenses, dualistic theosophs of Jacob Böhm), and, on the other hand, in Ebionitism, as it has found its continuation in the later Monarchianism, and still more modern deism. The Gnostics ground their opposition to the Old Testament on a paganistic misinterpretation of the New, and thus they may be ranged according to their more or less hostile attitude to the Old Testament, and as representing various heathenish views of the world which, after the manner of old Palimpsests, placed one upon the other, appear through the overlying Christianity. Among such Palimpsests, on which a form of Christianity has been overwritten, may be reckoned the Samaritan (Simon Magus), Syrian (Saturninus, etc.), Alexandrian (Basilides), old-Egyptian (Ophiten), Hellenic (Karpocrates), Ponto-Asiatic (Marcion), and Persian Gnostics (Manes). Finally, in Mohammed, the Arabian Gnosticism and Ebionitism ran together, as the again broken forms of Subordinatianism and Monarchianism ran together in Arianism. Through the manifold modifications which Christian dualism experienced immediately, and especially in the course of time, one must not be led astray in respect to the Unity of the genus. Just so, pure Ebionitism, whose naked image is Jewish Talmudism (as it is to be recognized throughout by its oblique position to the New Testament and the New Testament elements in the Old), has passed through various mutations whose ground-thought remains the same: namely, a fatalistic, eternalized, ontological divorcement between God and the world, through the law of religion or nature, whether the form of the change be called deism, naturalism, or rationalism. And, finally, the mixed form of gnostic Ebionitism, which was prepared through the Alexandrian system of Philo, and whose naked image is the Jewish Kabbala, has remained unchanged, through all mutations, in its ground-thoughts, whether they appear as Montanism, Donatism, or pseudo-Dionysian, mediæval and modern ultra-supernaturalism, as inflexible baptismism, or yielding spiritualism. Together with the true difference between God and the world, the doctrine of creation expresses also the true combination between both, and finds the living mediation of this contrast in the man created in the image of God; whereas, dualism makes the difference a separation, while pantheism makes the combination a mixture, and the still observable, polytheistic reminiscence in Christendom vacillates, in its love of fables, between creature deification and creature demonizing.
6. The relation of the temporal creation to the eternity of God. It is quite as wrong to transfer gnostically the origin of the real world to the eternity of God, to fix the existence of God according to theogony by speaking of a becoming of God, or of an obscure basis in God (Böhm), or of an origin of the material contemporary with the self-affirmation of God (Rothe), as it is to declare, with scholastic super-naturalism, that God indeed might have left the world uncreated. Against the first view, there is the declaration that the world had a beginning, which, a little farther on, is fixed as the beginning of time. Against the latter, there is the declaration that God chose believing humanity from eternity in Christ, as it is also indicated in our text, by the decree of God at the creation of man, and by the image of God. The world rests therefore, as an actual and temporal world, on an eternal ideal ground. Its ideal preparation is eternal, but its genesis is temporal, for it is conditioned by the gradual growing, and the beautiful rhythm of growth is time.
7. In the significant number ten, the number of actual historical completion, the account is repeated: God said, Let there be, and there was. The speaking of God now certainly indicates the thinking of God, and it thence follows that all works of creation are thoughts of God (idealism). But it indicates also a will, making himself externally known, an active operation of God, and thence it follows that all the works of creation are deeds of God (realism). Both, however, thinking and operating, are one in the divine speaking, the primal source of all language, his personally making himself known, although we cannot bring up the thought of this speaking to the conception (personalism). Through creating, speaking, making, forming, the world is ever again and again denoted as the free deed of God.
8. Theological definitions of the creation. The creatio is distinguished as a single act and as a permanent fact. A third period is, however, at the same time pointed out, namely, the continuance of the doing in the deed, so that the world would not only fall to pieces, but would pass away, if God withdrew himself from it. The thought that he cannot withdraw from it in his love, should not be confounded with the untenable thought that he might not be able to withdraw from it in his omnipotence. The absolute dependence of the world on God is at all times the same (see Psa_104:30; Col_1:17; Heb_1:3). On the relation of the creation to the trinity, compare Hase, Hutter, p. 149, and Lange’s “Positive Dogmatics,” p. 206 ff.—The expression, creation from nothing, is borrowed from the apocryphical word, 2Ma_7:28 : ἐî ïὐê ὄíôùí ; comp. Heb_11:3. It denies that an eternal material, or indeed that anything, was present as a (material) substratum of the creation. One can, however, misinterpret the expression by making the act of creation one of abstract will, absolved from any divine breath of life (Güntherianism). On determining the creatio ex nihilo we distinguish the nihil negativum, by denying the eternity of matter as substratum of the creation, and the nihil privativum, by assuming that God at first created matter as nihil privativum, then the forms in the hexaëmeron. This the modus creationis: first, matter; then, the form. This idea of a matter as something before form, does not correspond, however, to the idea of a quickening or life-giving activity in creation. With the beginning of creation there is immediately established the contrast of heaven and earth, i.e., different spheres, which as such are not mere matter; and with the Thohu Vabhohu of the first earth-form there is immediately established the constructive activity of the spirit of God. The demiurgic conception presupposes an eternal world-matter, whether regarded according to the Persian idea as evil, or according to the Greek as blind, heterogeneous, and antagonistic, or according to the Indian idea as magically mutable, which eternal world-matter must, in all cases, make the demiurgic formation a thing of mere arbitrary sport. The true idea of the work of creation lies between this and the theurgo-magical, according to which God had made the universe, in abstract positiveness, a pure material contrast of His divine being. This is a conception in which the creating word, the spirit of God hovering over the waters, the image of God, or even the omnipresence of God in the world, do not receive their just due. As the aim of the creation finally (finis creationis), there have been distinguished the highest or last aim, God’s glorification, and the intermediate aim, the welfare of his creatures and the happiness of man. But it must be observed that God glorifies himself in the happiness of men, and that the latter should find their happiness in contemplating the glory of God.
9. The Relation of the Mosaic Account of the Creation to the Mythological Legends of the Creation.—The cosmogonies of the heathen are confounded with their theogonies, as their gods with primeval man. See Lücken: “The Traditions of the Human Race, or the Primitive Revelation of God among the Heathen,” Münster, 1856. “These cosmogonies are all very similar to each other. At first chaos is placed at the head as a disordered mass (chaos alone?). This chaos develops or forms itself into the world-egg. This egg, which plays a certain part in the cosmogonies, is only a conception called forth by the apparent form of the earth, so that the sky presents itself as the shell and the earth as the yolk of this great egg. With this shaping of chaos into a world-egg, or earth-sphere, arises then, according to the representation of these cosmogonies, the first being, the ‘first-born,’ or the first man. This first man originating with (out of) the world-egg, the father and founder of all life, is now, according to the popular conception, a giant-like being. As the present man, according to primitive conception, is a microcosm, so is that first being, in heathen conception, the macrocosm itself, originating all life in nature by developing from himself the various parts of the world-organism, heaven and earth, sun and moon, mountains and rivers. Now by dividing or killing this macrocosmic being, or by mingling its generating parts with earthly things (especially fertilizing water, as in the story of Chronos), the lower life of nature begins, and things can multiply in sexual division and separation. This is the whole nucleus of all cosmogonies. And we would here observe, how frequent it is in heathen conceptions that all primitive generating being is imagined under the form of a great world-animal (as an immense ox or goat, for example), and as such worshipped. Thus the first being of the Persians is the ox Abudad, and the Egyptians worshipped it as a goat under the name of Mendes.” Here, however, the following is to be observed: 1. Behind, beside, or over the chaos, or the disordered matter, usually stands a mysterious form of the highest divinity: Brahma among the Indians, Fimbultyr among the Teutons, Ormuzd among the Persians. 2. With the Hesiodic Gaia, which proceeds from chaos (i.e., from boundless empty space), there is also Eros; so in the Chinese legend the first macrocosmic man or giant (Panku) is formed with the earth. In like manner Brahma with the Indians, and Ymer with the Teutons, become, by the division of their limbs, the foundation of the world. 3. Matter is always fixed with the divinity, or the divinity with matter. But matter is coherent with God in the predominantly pantheistic systems of emanation. According to the Indo-Brahmic, Platonic, and Alexandrian system of emanation, matter emanates with the world from divinity; according to the Egyptian and mythologico-Grecian system, divinity emanates from the world, from chaos, or the ocean. According to the predominantly dualistic systems, the world arises from a mixture in the conflict between the emanations of the predominantly spiritual, light, good God, and the emanations of the predominantly material, dark, wicked God—sometimes in a decidedly hostile position of the two powers, as in the Persian mythology, sometimes in a more peaceful parallelism, as in the Slavonian. For the various cosmologies, compare the quoted work of Lücken, p. 33; Delitzsch, pp. 81, 83, and 609; Hahn: Compendium, p. 374, with reference to Wuttke: “The Cosmogonies of the Heathen Nations before the Time of Jesus and the Apostles,” Hague, 1850. The Chaldean myth of the creation, as given by Berosus, is found in Eusebius: “Chronicles,” i. p. 22; Syncellus, i. p. 25; the Phenician myth as given by Sanchoniaton in Eusebius: Præparatio Evangelica, i. p. 10; the Egyptian myth in Diodorus Siculus, i. 7 and 10; a Grecian myth in Hesiod’s Theogony, Gen_2:1-16 sqq.; the Indian myths in P. von Bohlen: “Ancient India,” i. p. 158; Lassen: “Indian Antiquities,” iii. p. 387 (at the beginning of the code of Manu); the Zend myth in Avesta, the Etrurian myth in Suidas under Tyrrhenia (see the “Commentary” of Keil and Delitzsch, p. 8); the Scandinavian myth in the Edda, etc.
According to the older conceptions of the days of creation as combined with biblical chronology, one could speak of a date of the creation. Starke is satisfied with the correctness of the date: 23d of October, 4004 before Christ. Schröder makes the date the 1st or 17th of September, 4201, but adds; “The Son of Man knew not the day nor the hour when heaven and earth should pass away, but the child of man would know the year and the day when heaven and earth arose.” The autumn seems to have been chosen on account of the ripe fruits, without reflecting that on the entire earth it must ever be autumn somewhere.
10. The World as Nature. a. The Ancient View of the World, that of the Bible and of Modern Times.—The world-view of the ancients was based on appearance, according to which the earth formed a centre reposing under the moving, rolling starry world; this geocentric view received a scientific expression in the well-known Ptolemaic system. This system was abandoned in the time of the Reformation for the helio-centric system of Copernicus. But because the Bible, with respect to astronomical matters, speaks the language of common life, which is yet authorized in accordance with appearances (the sun rises, sets, etc.), it was supposed that the Copernican system contradicted the teaching of Holy Writ, and not only the papal council imagined that in its treatment of Galileo, but even Melancthon was of the same opinion, and to the present day such protests, even on the Protestant side, have not entirely died away (see the attacks on Dr. Franz in Sangerhausen in Diesterweg’s “Astronomy,” p. 104; also p. 20, especially p. 325). These prove how often a contracted Bible belief can injure more than profit the faith. The Copernican theory was especially supposed to be in contradiction with the passage in Jos_10:12-13. While men were torturing themselves with this difficulty springing from a blind adherence to the literal rendering, a much greater one was gradually stepping forth out of the background. The consequences of the Copernican system were developed, according to the discoveries of Herschel, in this wise: the sun among its planets is only a single star of heaven, and the earth is one of its smallest planets. Since now the fixed stars of heaven are nothing but suns, and these suns are all, according to the analogy of ours, surrounded by planetary groups, there appear to be countless numbers of planets, of which very many are larger than our earth. How shall we now retain the thought, that the earth is the sole scene of the revelation of God, as Holy Writ declares: the scene of the incarnation of God, and the centre of a reconciliation, dissolution, and glorification of the world, embracing heaven and earth.
The Hegelian philosophy sought at first to meet this difficulty in its own interest. In order to make the earth the sole arena of the evolutions of mind, which was to reach the full glory of its self-consciousness in the Hegelian system, the whole starry world was declared to be destitute of spirits and in the main spiritless—mere films of light, etc. (see Lange’s “Positive Dogmatics,” p. 279). The effort was made to render this barren view agreeable to theology with the pretence that it was in accordance with the Bible, and favored the faith (“Land of Glory,” p. 12 ff.). Against this insinuation the author wrote the articles which are collected in the work: “The Land of Glory” (Meurs), Bielefeld, 1838, with reference to the work of Pfaff: “Man and the Stars.” The results of modern astronomy (according to Struve, Mädler, Schubert, etc.), viz., that the other planets of our solar system have not, in the first place, the same plastic consistency nor the same planetary relations as our earth, and secondly, that the stellar world is divided into a solar planetary region like our solar system, and a solar astral region (the world of double stars, of eternal sunshine), were applied to the biblical Christian view of the world as recognizing (in its conception of various places of discipline and punishment) a place beneath the world on the one hand, and a place above it on the other; consequently the contrast of a region of growing and a region of perfected life, of the church militant and the church triumphant, of the earthly and the heavenly, of the earthly-human and the angelic life. Above all, it was observed that with the doctrine of the ascension of Christ the existence of a land of glory, in contradistinction to the earthly sphere of day and night, birth and death, or the sphere of the creative, was settled. This work was followed by the work of Kurtz: “Bible and Astronomy,” 1st ed. 1842. In the meanwhile there sprung up a third representation of cosmology, which was again to fix the geocentric stand-point in a spiritual respect. This was mainly induced by A. von Schaden, but diligently prosecuted by Dr. Ebrard, recently in his work: “The Results of Natural Science,” Königsberg, 1861. With respect to our planetary system, the said work endeavors to prove that the earth is its teleological centre, and to that end, farther, that the other planets could be either not at all or only partly inhabitable; that they are only accretions to the planetary nature, having their places there simply on account of the earth; and that considered under any other point of view they could only appear as caricatures of the planetary nature.
Delitzsch (p. 614) is in general inclined to this view. He permits, however, a natural philosopher by profession (Prof. Franz Pfaff), to speak for him, who nevertheless acknowledges (after a severe criticism of the plant-family) that there may be imagined elsewhere such beings as are organized in correspondence to the prevailing relations on other heavenly bodies. But one cannot see how the conceptions in question can be called “creatures of fantasy.”
We consider the view of the pure unreality of the extra-earthly planetary world as neither cosmologically grounded, nor of wholesome tendency in aid of a biblical view of the world. As respects the first point, one must clearly distinguish between an inhabitability of the planets of our solar system for beings of our earthly organization, and a similar inhabitability for spiritual beings in general. If the earthly organization of man is to fix the measure for the habitableness of supra-terrene bodies, then must we also apply the analogy to the most beautiful and brilliant stellar-world. And what must become of the departed human souls, separated from their bodies? How shall there be found a native region for angelic spirits? But it would redound little to the glorification of the living God of Holy Writ to consider the whole planetary group of our sun, the earth alone excepted, as spiritless wastes. Whatever in this respect is true of the Hegelian system in general, in its relation to the stellar-world, is true of the said view in special reference to our planetary system.
[Note on the Astronomical Objection to Revelation.—The question of the planets’ inhabitability, especially in its religious and biblical bearings, has been very ably and scientifically discussed in a work entitled “The Plurality of Worlds” by Prof. Whewell of Oxford. The author maintains a view similar to that of Dr. Ebrard, that the earth is the advanced planet of the system, and that the most scientific evidence goes to show that the others (especially the largest, or those of least density) are in a rudimentary or inchoate state. The same may be true of all the visible bodies of the stellar spaces. The only reasoning against it is simply the question, why not, pourquoi non, as Montaigne employs it, without any inductive evidence. This author employs also the modern view in geology with great pertinence and force: Immense times without life or with only the lowest forms of life! If this is not inconsistent with the divine wisdom and goodness, then immense spaces without life, or with only the lowest forms of life, for a certain time, is no more inconsistent.
So far, however, as this presents a difficulty to revelation and Christianity, it is not due to modern science alone, or even mainly. The inhabitability of the planets, and the “plurality of worlds,” are as much a priori thoughts, that is, rising of themselves to the musing meditative mind, as they are the results of any scientific or inductive reasoning. In both cases, imagination is the chief power of the mind employed, though modern science has furnished it with its stronger stimulants. As such a priori or independent thought, the notion of a plurality, or even an infinity, of worlds, was very ancient. It was, however, larger than the modern notion, being rather a plurality of êïóìïὶ , or mundi (that is, total visible universes) than of worlds used, as the name is now used, of planetary or stellar bodies. It was the old question of the soul demanding a sufficient reason for the non-existence, the absence of which reason seemed to be itself a proof of the actual existence. Why not? If one world, why not two—three—more—numberless? See Plutarch: De Placitis Philosophorum, vol. v. p. 239, Leip. ed., where among other statements and arguments he quotes the saying of Metrodorus: ἄôïðïí åἶíáé ἐí ìåãÜëῳ ðåäßῳ ἕíá óôÜ÷õí ãåíçèῆíáé , êáὶ ἑíá êüóìïí ἐí ôῷ ἀðåßñῳ , “it is absurd (incredibly strange) that there should be but one head of wheat in a great plain, and no less so, that there should be but one cosmos in infinite space.” The other idea of the planets’ inhabitability appears also in the Greek poetry. See especially the fragment given by Proclus:
ἄëëçí ãáῖáí ἀðåßñáôïí ἥíôå óåëÞíçí ἀèÜíáôïé êëῄæïõóéí , ἐðé÷èüíéïé äÝ ôå ìÞíçí ἡ ðüëë ’ ñὔñå ’ ἔ÷åé , ðüëë ’ ἄóôåá ðïëëὰ ìÝëáèñá .
Another land of vast extent,
Immortals call Selene, men, the moon,
A land of mountains, cities, palaces.
The Bible is charged with narrowness in its space conceptions, but how narrow is that science, or that philosophy, which while vaunting itself, perhaps, on its superior range of view, has no idea of any higher being than man, and sometimes would seem to reject any other conception of deity than that of a developed humanity, slowly becoming a god, an être suprême, to the nature still below. How glorious the Scripture doctrine appears in the contrast, as starting with an all-perfect personal being: Jehovah Tzebaoth, Jehovah of Hosts, with cherubim and seraphim, ἀñ÷áß , êõñéüôçôåò , living principles, ruling energies, angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers. If not in space conceptions, yet how sublimely in the higher idea of ascending ranks of being do the Scriptures surpass the low and narrow views of Herbert, Comte, and Darwin. After a past eternity of progress, nature and the cosmos have just struggled up to man! This is the highest limit yet reached after a movement so immeasurably long, yea, endless in one direction; and that, too, not man as the Scripture represents him, a primus homo, an exalted being, so constituted by the inspiration that gave him birth, and signed him with the image of the eternal God, but man just rising above the ape, just emerging from that last growth of nature that preceded him in this interminable series of chance selections at last falling into some seeming order, and of random developments that never came from any preceding idea. Man as he now appears on earth, and whom Scripture pronounces a fallen being, the highest product of an endless time! Such is “the positive philosophy,” so boastful of its discoveries in width and space, but so exceedingly low and narrow in respect to the other and grander dimension! It discards theology and metaphysics as belonging to a still lower stage of this late-born child of nature, but alas for man if all the glory of his being, all his higher thinking, has already thus passed away! We may thank the Living God for giving to us an ideal world, as in itself a proof of something above nature, and of a higher actual even now in nature than our sense and our science ever have drawn, or may ever expect to draw, from it.
The objection to revelation to which Lange here alludes as drawn from the modern astronomy is itself simply anthropopathic. They who make it imagine Deity to be just such a one as themselves. If He has two worlds to take care of, it is incredible that His providence should be as particular, and His interest as near, as though He had but one to govern. Such a mode of thinking makes worth, too, and rank, wholly quantitative and numerical, banishing, in fact, all intrinsic quality, and intrinsic value, from the world of things and ideas. The bigger the universe in space, the less the worth in each part, as a part, and this without any distinction between the purely physical or material to which such a quantitative rule of inverse proportion might apply, and the moral and spiritual, which can never be measured by it.
The force of this objection comes from the fact of the imagination overpowering the reason. The lower though more vivid faculty impedes or silences for a time the higher. Reason teaches intuitively, or as derived from the very idea of God, that His care and providence towards any one rational and moral agent cannot be diminished by the number of other rational and moral agents, or be any less than it would be if such agent had been alone with Deity in the universe. The light and heat of the sun are the same whether the recipients are few or many. The case, therefore, may be thus stated: If a certain manifestation of the divine care for, and interest in, our world and race (namely, such as is revealed in the Bible) would not be incredible on the supposition of their being but one such world or race, then such credibility is not at all diminished by the discovery that there are others, few or many, to any extent conceivable. We must hold firmly to this as a pure rational judgment against the swaying imagination invading the reason, and even assuming to take its place. If the interest revealed by Christianity could be pronounced credible before the discoveries of astronomy (and this is assumed as the ground of the argument), then such measure is equally credible now, or we are convicted of judging God anthropopathically, however we may dignify the feeling with the name of an enlarged and liberal philosophy.
Besides, there is no end to the argument until it banishes all providence, all government, all divine interest conceivable in the cosmos—everything, in short, which distinguishes the divine idea from that of a wholly impersonal nature. On a certain scale of the universe the Old Testament becomes incredible. On a wider sweep Christianity, the old Christianity of the Church, can no longer be believed. The incarnation and the atonement must be thrown out; God could not have cared to that extent for this petty world. Turn the telescope, so as to enlarge the field, or, through its inverted lenses, behold the objects still farther off, and “liberal Christianity” disappears. Even that has too much of divine interest for the new view. Draw out the slide still farther, and the very latest and faintest “phase of faith” departs. Everything resembling a providence or care of any kind for the individual becomes incredible in this time and space ratio. Prayer is gone, and hope, and all remains of any fear or love of God. Farther on, and races are thrown out of the scale as well as individuals; even a general providence of any kind becomes an obsolete idea. Not only the earth but solar and stellar systems become infinitesimals, or quantities that may be neglected in the calculus that sums the series. There is no end to this. We have no right to limit it by the present size or power of our telescopes. The present visible worlds of astronomy may be no more—they probably are no more—to the whole, than a single leaf to the forests of the Orinoco. The false idea must be carried on until every conception of every relation of a personal deity to finite beings, of any rank, utterly disappears, and a view no better than blank atheism—yea, worse than atheism, for that does not mock us with any pretense of theism—takes the place of all moral fear as well as of all religion.
And this raises the farther question: If such be the diminishing effect on the religion, what must it be on the science and the philosophy? If human sins and human salvation become such small things when seen through this inverted glass, what becomes of all human knowledge, human genius, and human boasting of it? We do not find that the men who make these objections, as drawn from the magnitude of the universe, are more humble than others; but surely they ought to be so, after having thus shown their own moral and physical nothingness, and, along with it, the utter insignificance of their science.
In one aspect, his mere physical aspect, man is indeed insignificant. The Scripture does not hesitate to call him a worm. It pronounces all nations “vanity”—“the small dust of the balance,” unappreciable physically in the great cosmical scales—“less than nothing and emptiness.” Such is its view of man in one direction, whilst in the other his value is to be estimated by the incarnation of Christ, and the very fact that the Infinite One condescends to make a revelation of Himself to such a being.—T. L.]
The cosmology of the Bible is geocosmic in its practical point of view. After it has presented to us the creation of the heavens and the earth, it lets us conclude from the development of the earth the development of the heavens, namely in respect to the creation of light and of man. From the spirit-world of earth we are to conclude a spirit-world of heaven. But it superabundantly indicates a development of the earthly solar system parallel with the development of the earth (Gen_1:14). That heaven is an inhabited region, appears from many passages, e.g., Gen_28:12; and also that this region is divided into a rich multitude of various departments. And the question is not only of heaven, but also of the heaven of heavens (1Ki_8:27). Christ teaches us too: In My father’s house are many mansions (Joh_14:2). But finally the Holy Writ informs us clearly, that notwithstanding the changeability, and necessity for rejuvenation, of the entire universe (Psa_102:27; Isa_51:6), there is yet a contrast between the regions of growth on this side, and of perfection on the other (Eze_1:21; 1Pe_1:4; 2Pe_3:13, etc.). In this respect the newest and purest astronomical view of the world corresponds entirely to this biblical distinction between the regions of growth here, and of perfection beyond. But the Bible also promises for the form of the world, even on this side, a new structure and perfection. Once all was night; but in the present order of things day and night alternate; in the future the new world shall be raised beyond the contrast of day and night (Revelation 21). Formerly all was sea; the present order consists in the contrast of land and sea; in the new world the sea shall be no more.
b. The Idea of Nature in the Bible. The Bible and the Investigation of Nature.—We have shown in passing that the Scriptures fully recognize the idea of nature, i.e., of the conditioned going forth of the fixed life of nature from a fundamental principle peculiarly belonging to it. Every creative word becomes the ideal dynamical basis of a real principle. At first appear the principles of the separation. The separation of heaven and earth has the more general signification of universe on the one side, and of a special world-sphere on the other as represented by the earth, of which we now speak. At the second separation (light and darkness) the co-operation of the spirit of God is brought out, i.e., of the creative formative activity of God; at the third separation (water and land) the co-operation of light is presupposed. The natural law set up by Harvey (see Lange’s “Positive Dogmatics,” p. 259): omne vivum ex ovo, has been again brilliantly restored in modern times by the exact investigation of nature in opposition to the theory of generatio œquivoca, which natural philosophy had taught (see Sobernheim: “Elements of General Physiology,” Berlin, 1844). In Delitzsch also the conception of the generatio œquivoca plays a part in the account of the creation (p. 111)