|
Chapter 3 - Current Theories and the
Fourth Commandment
The Fourth Commandment says: “Remember the sabbath
day, to keep it holy, six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work:
but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt
not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant,
nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all
that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed
the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:8-11). There can be no doubt whatever about the answer. A simple
but serious misinterpretation has led to an assumption that both Genesis
and the Fourth Commandment were intended to teach that God CREATED the
heaven and the earth and all plant, marine and animal life, as well as
man, in six ‘days’ of some sort. Because of this false supposition
some reject the ‘days’ of whatever length (and the narrative);
others deny either the literalness of the six, or else that of the seventh
day; others lengthen either the sixth or the seventh day to thousands
or millions of years. Even the group of expositors who suggest that someone
saw creation in a vision usually explain the six days literally, but interpret
the ‘rest’ of the seventh day as a long period of unknown duration.
At the same time all interpret the six days of work and one of rest which
the Israelites were to observe as literal days. I suggest that every time
the days are mentioned in both these passages they are intended to be
taken literally as ordinary days. We are all liable to identify our own particular interpretation
of the meaning of a Bible statement with the Bible statement itself. Consequently,
when our own special theory as to its interpretation is doubted, we are
sometimes apt to assume that the doubter is challenging not merely our
interpretation but also the accuracy of the Bible narrative. For reasons
which I hope to explain later, I believe that the days in both the narrative
of creation and the Fourth Commandment are literal. But ever since I have
considered these passages in the light of what is said about them in the
rest of the Bible, and of what is known of literary methods prevailing
in ancient times, none of the theories mentioned above have appeared to
be satisfactory. The Geologic Age Theory If the ‘days’ are interpreted as geologic periods
of unknown length, then the explanation does what those who adopt it desire
to do: it enables Genesis to be reconciled with science in regard to the
slow and gradual formation of the heavens and the earth, and of the appearance
of life on it. As to the time occupied by these geologic days Sir William
Dawson in his Meeting Place of Geology and History (p. 18) says: “Man
is of recent introduction on the earth. For millions of years the slow
process of world-making has been going on with reference to the physical
structure and to the lower grades of living creatures.” But is this explanation in general agreement with science?
Sir William thinks that he can relate the last three geologic ages with
the last three ‘days’ of Genesis. Even if it is conceded that
this explanation makes Genesis agree with science, does it agree with
the Bible? Can we interpret either the Genesis narrative or the Fourth
Commandment consistently so as to give the word ‘day’ the significance
of an untold number of millions of years? We may well believe that the
geologic formation of the earth occupied a very long period of time, but
is it not difficult to interpret the seventh day as lasting for an equivalently
long period of millions of years? And if all the days are to be interpreted
as millions of years then the Fourth Commandment is difficult to interpret. In fairness to the advocates of this theory, it must be
emphasized that it was not invented in recent times simply in order to
harmonize Scripture with science. The interpretation is at least 1600
years old. Before Christian thought was pressed by science to allocate
a very long time to the geologic formation of the earth, men felt that
there was something wrong with an interpretation of Genesis which involved
the creation of all things within a period of 144 hours. Professor Dickie
in The Organism of Christian Truth, p. 121, says, “The theory was
widely held that the six days of creation meant six extended periods of
time. It commended itself among others to Augustine . . . but neither
Augustine nor modern harmonizers of Genesis and science get the theory,
whether true or false, from Scripture. There is nothing in the Bible even
to suggest it. On the contrary it has always been read into the Bible
from without, on scientific or quasi-scientific grounds.” Is this theory able to give a satisfactory explanation of
the seventh day on which God ceased from His work? If the six ‘days’
are intended to be read as six long geologic periods extending to millions
of years, how long a period are we to assign to the seventh day which
God sanctified or set apart by ceasing from His work? No one doubts that
the six days’ work and the seventh day’s rest which the Israelites
were enjoined to observe were just ordinary days. Why then should we assume
that the seventh day is used for a period amounting to thousands of years?
and in what sense is the present age which has continued since creation
hallowed or sanctified? and can we say that God has rested or ceased from
creation every since? On the use of this word ‘day’ that great Hebraist,
Dr. Ginsburg, wrote, “There is nothing in the first chapter of Genesis
to justify the spiritualisation of the expression ‘day’ On the
contrary, the definition given in verse 5 of the word in question imperatively
demands that ‘yom’ should be understood in the same sense as
we understand the word ‘day’ in common parlance, i.e. as a natural
day. But the greatest defect of this theory is that it does not
deal with the six ‘evenings and mornings’; it either ignores
or fails to make any reasonable interpretation of them. Was each of them
an indefinitely long night in which there was no light? Was the geologic
night as long or almost as long as the geologic ‘day’? The words
‘evening and morning’ seem very unnatural to describe such a
geologic night. Was there in any sense an evening and morning to that
kind of day, and in what sense has there been an hallowing of the sabbath
day which is alleged to have lasted from creation till now? A variation of the geologic age interpretation should be mentioned - it is that put forward by Mr. Hugh Capron in his Conflict of Truth. He says that on each of the six ordinary days God issued a commandment, or pronounced the laws upon which the production of phenomena depends, that just as a man might say “I will build a house” or “I will make a garden” the resolution takes but a moment, but its accomplishment may take much time. While Mr. Capron has rightly stressed the reiterated statement that Genesis purports to be an account of what God said, he also fails to deal with the ‘evenings and mornings’. While an ‘evening and morning’ is a most natural phrase to separate one day from the next, Mr. Capron’s interpretation does not convince that an ‘evening and morning’ is an appropriate method of dividing periods which may have occupied millions of years. The Six Days Re-Creation Theory The remaining verses (3-31) are said to refer to the six
literal days in which God re-created the earth; the light is made to appear
again, the waters which had covered the earth are made to recede so that
dry land appeared and all plant, animal and human life are re-created
- all in six ordinary days of twenty-four hours each. This theory then
assumes that chapter 2:1-4 refers only to the second or re-creation period. Here again it is obvious that this interpretation has been
adopted because of the impossibility of compressing the geologic formation
of the earth into a period of six ordinary days(1). This difficulty is
obviated by stating, what is doubtless true, that the period occupied
by the events of verse 2 may be a vast number of millions of years. But
it is equally obvious that the theory creates more difficulties than it
attempts to solve (2). While it provides the long periods required by
geology, and also adheres to the Scripture narrative as to the literalness
of the six days, it gives no satisfactory reason for the ‘evenings
and the mornings’. Notwithstanding Pember’s insistence that
those who adopt the geologic ages theory fail to explain these ‘evenings
and mornings’, it is very significant that he himself fails to do
so. Are we to suppose that God re-created the earth and all life upon
it in six ordinary days, and then only during the daylight hours of those
six days? It is submitted that Scripture gives us no information whatever
about these alleged two quite distinct and complete creations separated
from each other by millions of years. And science for its part has no
knowledge of the alleged universal destruction of all marine, animal and
human life in one catastrophe; nor is it aware of an infinitely long period
of perhaps millions of years when, after all forms of life had existed
on the earth, there was left no kind of life whatever on it. Isaiah 45:18
is sometimes quoted as evidence that the second verse in Genesis refers
to a catastrophic ruin which had overwhelmed the earth and all life on
it. Does the statement “He created it not in vain, He formed it to
be inhabited” imply any such thing? Is not this verse in entire agreement
with Genesis 1:2, that the formlessness and emptiness does not express
God’s final purpose for the world? It must be borne in mind that
the second verse in Genesis refers to a time when the Spirit of God was
working on the earth. Those who adopt this re-creation theory say that subsequent to the second verse (except presumably to the sun and the moon in verses 14-18) the whole passage relates to the earth. It is said that it is the earth only, not the heavens, which were re-created in the six days. Seeing that they assume the Fourth Commandment refers to the six days as being the time occupied by God in creation, they appear to have overlooked the fact that according to this assumption the Fourth Commandment says that God did something relating not only to the earth, but also the heavens during the six days.
The Vision Theory It is also said that the earlier chapters of the Bible are like the last chapters. They are, but with this important difference: the one is a narrative, the other a vision. A comparison shows the difference of style. In the Book of Revelation we read, “I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away . . . and I heard a voice out of heaven saying . . .” Such phrases as “I turned to see”, “after this I looked and lo”; the constantly repeated “I saw” are entirely absent from the Genesis account. Dr. S. R. Driver (Genesis, p. 23) stated, “The narrative contains no indication of its being the relation of a vision (which in other cases is regularly noted, e.g. Amos 7-9; Isa. 6; Ezek 1, etc.); it purports to describe not appearances (‘And I saw and behold . . .’), but facts (‘Let the earth . . . and it was so’), and to substitute one for the other is consequently illegitimate.” I agree entirely with his statement that “it purports to describe not appearance but facts”. A still less satisfactory way of dealing with the narrative is to say that it must be read as poetry. It is sufficient to cite Dr. Ginsburg’s comment on this, “there is in this chapter none of the peculiarities of Hebrew poetry”. It is prose, not poetry, and purports to be an account of what ‘God said’. The Antedate or Artificial Week Theory Dr. Driver having adopted the theory that the Genesis narrative in its present form is a comparatively late production and that the Fourth Commandment pre-dated it, some such explanation became necessary. But I suggest that it is a most remarkable fact that the alleged unknown writer of Genesis does not mention the word ‘sabbath’. Surely he would have done so if he had been engaged on such an attempt to ‘fake’ the narrative as described by Dr. Driver. Not to have done so would be fatal to his purpose. This antedate theory generally rejects the Genesis narrative as real history. It is said by this school of ‘critics’ that the creation narrative is nothing else than the common stock of oral traditions of the Israelite nation which had been originally borrowed from Babylonian sources and that it was put into writing about the eighth century B.C. That this is not the case will be seen in later chapters. The Myth or Legend Theory There is also the person who tells us that religious truthfulness and scientific truthfulness are not the same thing. If what is meant by this is that Biblical and scientific explanations of events are not at all likely to be made in the same way, we agree; but if it means that the truth of one may in reality be misleading error, then we disagree. Surely Truth is one and is not divided against itself. I submit that all these theories and ‘explanations’ fail to determine in a complete and reasonable way what God did for six days and why he ceased on the seventh day. What then, is the explanation? Before an answer can be given we must enquire precisely what the Fourth Commandment says and also what Genesis says. In the remaining part of this chapter we will examine the words used in the Fourth Commandment, leaving the Genesis account to the next chapter. If words mean anything, it is obvious that the revelation from God on Mount Sinai was of the greatest possible significance. I do not stay to discuss this with those who would deny its actual occurrence. Nowhere in the Old Testament is there anything to equal it in awe and solemnity; if the nineteenth chapter of Exodus is read, it will be seen how important was the occasion. Nearly two centuries had passed without any exceptional revelation from heaven, then we read, “And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the Mount and be there; and I will give thee tables (tablets) of stone, and a law, and Commandments which I have written” (Exod, 24:12). Those ‘Ten words’ thereafter had a special significance. “Thus saith the Lord” prefaces the utterances of the prophets, yet a clear distinction was drawn between these prophetic revelations and the giving of the law on Sinai; a difference not so much in degree of the revelation as in its status and circumstances. The law had been given by God speaking ‘face to face’ with Moses; it is said to have been personally communicated to him in a most exceptional manner. When did the seventh day’s rest originate? There can be no doubt that it was introduced at a very early date (that this could not be the first day after the creation of the first man will later become evident seeing that many important incidents are stated to have occurred between the creation of the man and that of the woman). But obviously it had lost much of its proper significance by the time of the Exodus, for on Mount Sinai God called upon the Israelites to “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy”. Specific directions were then given as to the manner in which it should be kept. Unlike the early Babylonians the Egyptians apparently did not keep a seventh day’s rest so that the Israelites who had been slaves in Egypt had not been permitted this rest. The fact that the seventh day had a recognized significance, prior to the introduction of the sabbath, may be clearly seen by reference to Exodus 16 where the cessation of the manna is recorded; for this incident happened before the Fourth Commandment was given. Moreover, evidence of the institution of an observance of the seventh day may also be seen during the Flood (Gen. 7:4; 8:10-11). The division into weeks can also be seen in the history of Jacob (Gen. 29:27-28). There is however no sufficient reason to suppose that the Patriarchs were required to keep the seventh day in precisely the same way as the Israelites were commanded to keep the sabbath after the giving of the law. (3) Precisely what does the Fourth Commandment say about the seven days? The Authorized version translates it: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.” First we notice that in the Hebrew version we find that the word ‘in’ does not appear. And the best manuscripts of the Septuagint version omit ‘the sea’, in editions such as Professor Swete’s Cambridge Septuagint these words form no part of the text. Moreover, the word ‘seventh’ is found instead of ‘sabbath’. The word translated rested, like the same word in Genesis 2:3, simply means ceased, or desisted. It does not necessarily mean the rest of relaxation; for this, quite a different Hebrew word is used. In Arabic the word sabbatu means to cut off, to interrupt, and in Assyrian to cease. Another word which needs comment is the Hebrew word malach translated work. It expressly refers to ordinary word and Dr. Driver renders it business; it simply means occupation. Delitzsch says of it, “It is not so much a term denoting a lighter kind of labour as a general comprehensive term applied to the performance of any task whether easy or severe.” The idea of creation is not in any way inherent in it. Finally the precise significance of the word translated made must be understood, because the meaning of the passage which has caused so much difficulty is dependent upon the sense in which it is used in this verse. It is a translation of the Hebrew word asah, a very common Hebrew word which is used over 2,500 times in the Old Testament. On more that 1,500 occasions it is translated ‘do’ or ‘did’. The word itself does not in any way explain what the person ‘did’ or what was ‘done’. As Dr. Young says, “The original word has great latitude of meaning and application. In verse 11 it means to make or yield fruit. In 2 Samuel 19:24 to dress (or trim) a beard.” Yet notwithstanding that this word has such a wide application, there has been a tendency to elevate its meaning in this Fourth Commandment to the equivalent of the word ‘created’. It necessarily means no such thing. It simply says that God did something and what God did on the six days can only be discovered by the context in which the word appears. One thing however is quite clear, the Fourth Commandment does not use the word ‘bara’ or create, or say that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. The use of the word in the immediate context is illuminating: If only the translators of the Authorized Version had translated the word asah in verse 11 in precisely the same way as they had the two preceding verses, the difficulties we have experience would possibly never have arisen. Its literal translation would then have read “For in six days the Lord did the heavens and the earth . . . and rested the seventh day”. We should then have asked what the Lord did for the six days, and why He rested on the seventh day. Instead of which it has been incorrectly assumed that during the six days He was creating the earth. Further instances of the exceptionally wide meaning possessed by the Hebrew word asah, translated made, may be seen by reference to any good Hebrew concordance. In Brown, Driver and Briggs edition of Gesenius the following meanings are assigned to it: do, make, produce, yield, acquire, appoint, ordain, and prepare. It is therefore obvious that the word must be translated in the light of its context. Here are some translations of this word as they appear in the Authorized Version. Genesis 18:8 the calf he had dressed. It is obvious that in such an instance as Genesis 18:8 the word asah is not intended to convey the idea that Abraham either created or made the calf he was preparing for a meal. There would have been no difficulty, for instance, if this word had been rendered in exactly the same way as did the translators of the Authorized Version over 300 years ago and as the Revisers did 250 years later, in the following passages: Genesis 19:19 which thou hast shewed. If the Fourth Commandment had been similarly translated it would have read, “For in six days the Lord shewed the heavens and the earth and all that in them is and rested on the seventh day.” What did the Israelites of that day understand by the Fourth Commandment? Surely this, that because God did something for six literal days and ceased on a seventh day, they too were required to work for six days and to cease on the seventh. There is not the slightest indication, or any impression that there had been some miracle of speed in creation, or that the Creator of the heavens and the earth had need of a day’s rest after six days’ work, or that the Commandment referred to six long geologic ages, or that the day of God’s cessation was also a correspondingly long geological period of time. Neither here nor anywhere else is there anything which would lead them to infer that all had been accomplished as in a flash, or that creation occupied a limited period of time, or that it relates to a second Creation or to six literal days of re-creation and a very long period for the seventh day. They accepted the plain and obvious meaning that God did something for six ordinary days and ceased on a seventh literal day. Read in the sense of its use in other passages in the same documents, the word asah would not convey to them the meaning of creation in six days, but of something done in six days. If then God was not creating the heaven and the earth during these six days what was He doing? The Genesis narrative considered in the next two chapters will help us to answer this question. 1. It may be mentioned that the length of the day in the
remote past was, according to the mathematical astronomers, little different
to that of the present day. “The moon causes tides to sweep round
the earth in just under twenty-five hours. In the deep oceans little friction
is caused by such action; but in shallow seas tidal action causes much
fluid friction, which leads to the dissipation of energy as heat. This
energy comes mainly from the earth’s energy of rotation, so that
tidal friction lessens the rate of rotation of the earth and therefore
lengthens the day. Of course the effect is very small. The earth has a
vast stock of rotational energy; and, even though it has been calculated
that the tidal friction leads to a rate of dissipation of energy equal
to some two thousand million horse-power, the day is thereby only lengthened
by 1/1200 of a second per century” (Scientific Theory and Religion,
p. 329). |