058. V. Mosaic Cosmogony And Science.

V. Mosaic Cosmogony And Science.

1. Historic Character of the Mosaic Narrative.—So ancient and remarkable a document could not escape a most searching criticism. A chief aim of such criticism has been to discredit its historic character. Thus it has been treated as a compilation of more ancient documents, which contained the traditional notions of creation; as a poetic effusion; as a mythical or allegorical composition; as a philosophical speculation of a devout Hebrew upon the origin of the world. In such modes it has been attempted to discredit the Mosaic narrative of creation.

There are no decisive proofs of a compilation. Nor would such a fact affect the character of the narrative, unless it could be proved to have only a pagan source. There is no proof of such a source, but much disproof. In some pagan cosmogonies there are points of likeness to the Mosaic, but also points of very marked difference. The pagan, as Tayler Lewis points out, have a pantheistic cast, and are as much theogonies as cosmogonies.^[295] The definite and lofty theistic conception of the Mosaic determines for it a distinct and higher source. The question of a compilation is quite an indifferent one with those who maintain the historic character of this narrative. This is the position of thoroughly orthodox and conservative divines. A compilation, while not complete in originality, may be thoroughly genuine and historical.

^[295]The Six Days of Creation, p. 287. Nor is this narrative a poetic effusion. It might be poetic, and yet truly historical. It is not a poem either in form or style. “But every thorough Hebrew scholar knows that in all the Old Testament there is not a more simple, straightforward prose narrative than this first chapter of Genesis.”^[296] “There is certainly poetry in other parts of the Bible, and the opening account might have been in the same style, designed like all other poetry, to excite strong emotion—to impress us feelingly with the thought of the wisdom and goodness and greatness of the First Cause, without claiming exact credence for the literal prosaic truth of the representations employed for such an emotional purpose. But the opening narrative of the Bible has not the air and style of poetry, although the subsequent Hebrew poets have drawn largely upon this old store-house of grand conceptions, and thereby thrown back upon it something of a poetical tinge.”^[297] Dr. Strong says: “The first chapter of Genesis lacks nearly every element of acknowledged Hebrew poetry.”^{[298] [296]} Terry:Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 548.

^[297]Lewis:The Six Days of Creation, pp. 18, 19.

^[298]McClintock and Strong:Cyclopaedia, “Cosmology.”

Against the assumption of a mythical or allegorical cast of this narrative we may place the decisive evidences of an historical character. “We have no difficulty in detecting these styles—he mythical and parabolical—in the Scriptures wherever they may occur. When we meet with such a passage as this—‘The trees said to the bramble, Rule thou over us’—or, ‘Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt and planted it’—or, ‘My beloved had a vineyard in a very fruitful hill’—or, ‘A sower went forth to sow, and as he sowed some seed fell by the wayside’—we have no trouble in determining its character. Every intelligent reader, whether learned in the original languages or not, says at once, if he understands the terms, this is myth—this is parable—this is allegory—this is poetical or figurative language. We fail to detect any of these well-known marks of style in the account of the creation. It professes to narrate the order of facts, or the chronological steps, in the production of our present earth. It is found in Scriptures well known to have existed in our Saviour’s day—Scriptures with which he was familiar, which he styled holy, and to which He, the Light of the world, appealed as of divine, and, therefore, unerring, authority. Whatever, then, be its fair meaning, that meaning, we say again, is for the believer the actual truth, the actual fact or facts, the actually intended teaching; and is to be received as such in spite of all impertinent distinctions between the natural and the moral, or any arbitrary fancies in respect to what does or does not fall within the design of a divine revelation.”^{[299] [299]} Lewis:The Six Days of Creation, p. 19.

“If we pass to the contents of our account of the creation, they differ as widely from all other cosmogonies as truth from fiction. Those of heathen nations are either hylozoistical, deducing the origin of life and living beings from some primordial matter; or pantheistical, regarding the whole world as emanating from a common divine substance; or as mythological, tracing both gods and men to a chaos or world-egg. They do not even rise to the notion of a creation, much less to the knowledge of an almighty God, as the Creator of all things. . . . In contrast with all these mythical inventions, the biblical account shines out in the clear light of truth, and proves itself by its contents to be an integral part of the revealed history, of which it is accepted as the pedestal throughout the whole of the sacred Scriptures.”^[300] “Not a few, as Eichhorn, Gabler, Baur, and others, have here found a so-called philosophical myth, wherein a highly cultured Israelite has given us the fruit of his reflections as to the origin of all things, clothed in the form of history. That, however, neither the contents, nor the tone, nor the place of the narrative of creation speaks in favor of this construction is at once apparent to every one. By all later men of God, as also by Jesus and his apostles, the contents thereof are manifestly regarded as history. The form in which the genesis of all things is here clothed can be just as little explained from the mythical standpoint as can the particular object contemplated by the anonymous thinker. . . . By what fatal accident came the thinker on the genesis of the world, who stood so much higher than the most renowned philosophers, to remain unknown to posterity? Assuredly, ‘the historical account which is given there bears in itself a fullness of speculative thoughts and poetic glory; but it is itself free from the influences of human philosophemes: the whole narrative is sober, definite, clear, concrete.’”^{[301] [300]} Keil and Delitzsch:On Genesis, pp, 39, 40.

^[301]Van Oosterzee:Christian Dogmatics, vol. i, p. 319. The facts thus given respecting the Mosaic narrative are decisive of its historic character. There could be no other intention than to give the facts of creation in an orderly form. Any other view severs the connection of this narrative with the remainder of the book, which is clearly intended for history. Indeed, the whole stream of biblical history is cut off from its fountain. Its similarities to some other cosmogonies may point to an earlier record more or less common to itself and them, but its own profound distinctions and incomparable superiority assert for itself a divine original which the others cannot claim.

2. Theories of Mosaic Consistency with Science.—With the historical character of the Mosaic narrative, the question arises respecting its consistency with science, particularly with geology. It is now above question that geology discloses a process of cosmogony running back through measureless ages; whereas the Mosaic cosmogony is seemingly brought within a few thousand years of the present time. This apparent discrepancy in time is the real question of adjustment. “When the great age of the world, and not only as a physical body, but in manifold forms of life, came to be manifest in the light of geology. Dr. Chalmers met the issue with the declaration that “the writings of Moses do not fix the antiquity of the globe; and that if they fix any thing at all, it is only the antiquity of the human species.” At a later period, and with the work of the six days in view, he said: “The first creation of the earth and the heavens may have formed no part of that work. This took place at the ‘beginning, and is described in the first verse of Genesis. It is not said when the beginning was.”^[302] This position was not wholly new, though mainly so to modern Christian thought. The chief merit of Chalmers, as concerned in this question, lies in his ready apprehension of the issue involved, and in his prompt and confident enunciation of the principle of adjustment. There is no other principle. Yet, while the only one, it is open to different modes of application. It is only in the application that a distinction of theories appears in the reconciliation of Genesis with geology.

^[302]Cited by Macdonald:Creation and the Fall, pp. 82, 83.

One mode of adjustment, and the one that Chalmers propounded, proceeds on a distinction of creations as expressed in the first verse of Genesis, and in the account of the six days. There was “in the beginning” a creation of the heavens and the earth. This is the creation the date of which is not fixed, but which is assumed to provide for all the ages of geology. Then there was a second and more recent creation; so recent as to accord with biblical chronology. In the further development of the theory it is maintained that, after long ages of geological history, a cataclysmic disturbance reduced the world to a formless and void mass. All forms of life perished. Some at least hold this view, while others may be less positive of so utter a desolation. Then followed a second and modern creation, the products of which are man and the forms of life cotemporary with him. This creation was the work of six literal days, as detailed in Genesis, and within the reach of biblical chronology.^[303] Such is one mode of reconciling the Mosaic cosmogony with geology. If the facts are as posited, the reconciliation is complete.

^[303]McClintock and Strong:Cyclopedia, “Cosmogony.”

There is another theory of reconciliation, which, however, is but a modification of the previous one. The same facts of two creations are posited, but the desolation which preceded the modern creation of the six days was only local. After the long ages of geological history arising out of the first creation, with all the actualities of life which this history discloses, a portion of the earth, most likely in south-western Asia, suffered an inundation which destroyed all forms of life therein, and reduced it to a state of chaos. This local section was the scene of the second creation as detailed in the six days of the Mosaic record. These were literal days, and man, with the forms of life more directly related to him, the product of this creative work. Again the reconciliation is complete, if the facts are as given in this modified view.^{[304] [304]} Pye Smith:Scripture and Geology; Murphy:On Genesis, chap. i.

There is a third mode of reconciliation, which agrees with the previous ones in that the Scriptures do not fix the antiquity of the earth, but differs from them in other leading facts. This theory holds the Mosaic and geological cosmogonies to be the same, and provides for the harmony of the two records in the element of time by an extension of the days of creation into geological ages. Such is the distinctive fact in this third mode of adjustment. If such extension is warranted, or even permissible, the adjustment may be accepted as entirely satisfactory. We know not any other than these three modes of bringing the two records into harmony. There are attempts in fanciful methods, which may be passed without notice.

3. Concerning a Second and Modern Creation.—Most that can be said for this mode of adjustment is that it preserves the literal sense of the days of creation, which, upon the face of the record, seems to be their true sense, and, further, that it answers to the reason for the Sabbath as given in the fourth commandment. It will hardly be pretended that there are interior facts of the records which require such an interpretation. The theory is open to the question whether the interior facts, and the facts of geology as well, are not against the interpretation.

It is surely difficult to read the ideas of this interpretation into the Mosaic narrative, or into the many references of Scripture to the work of creation. Through the whole there runs the sense of an original and completed work, with an unbroken continuity. The absolute silence of Scripture respecting the long ages of life between the creation of the first verse of Genesis and the chaos of the second, the complete overleaping of these ages, and the introduction of a second and modern creation, while the narrative reads just like a history of unbroken continuity, are facts which it is most difficult for the theory to dispose of on any admissible laws of interpretation. There are also very serious difficulties for the theory in the facts of geology, particularly in the unbroken continuity of life since its first inception in the creative work of God.

Against the modified form of the theory, which posits a local chaos, and a local second and modern creation, there are insuperable objections. The continuity of the history is sundered. The grand march of the narrative perishes in the disruption. The sublime work of a universal creation sinks into the narrow limits of a local one. The creative fiat, “Let there be light,” has no higher meaning than a clearing up of the local atmosphere, so that the rays of the sun might again reach the local scene of the second creation. This narrow sense cannot be reconciled with the narrative which places the creation of light and appoints the sun as its perpetual source before the creation of the higher forms of life. Such is the order of facts in the narrative and in the requirement of geology. The theory robs the creation of light of its profound meaning and lofty sublimity. Hugh Miller might well say: “I have stumbled, too, at the conception of a merely local and limited chaos, in which the darkness would be so complete that, when first penetrated by the light, that penetration could be described as actually a making or creating of light.”^{[305] [305]} Testimony of the Rocks, p. 156. The theory requires unwarranted and inadmissible changes in the use of הׇאׇרֶין—the earth. In the first and second verses of Genesis the word clearly means the same whole earth, whereas for this theory it means in the second only a small section, reduced again to a state of chaos. Then the theory must force the same narrow sense upon the term in other places which utterly refuse it (Genesis 2:1; Exodus 20:11). “The heavens and the earth, and all the host of them,” of the former, and “Heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,” of the latter, are clearly the creation of the six days, and such expressly in the latter. It is impossible to reduce such a creation to the narrow sense of this theory.^{[306] [306]} Macdonald:Creation and the Fall, pp. 86-91.

4. Mosaic Days of Creative Work.—The question is, whether these are literal days, as now measured to us, or indefinite and prolonged periods. The latter are the proper alternatives of the former; for if we depart from the literal sense, the length of the days becomes entirely subordinate to the order of divine works in the process of creation.

Mostly the Christian interpretation of these days has given them the literal sense. Recently, however, there are many exceptions. It may gratify the rancor of infidelity to attribute this change to an exigency created by the disclosures of modern science. Such an occasion may readily be admitted, while all sense of serious perplexity is denied. While the Scriptures are divine, their interpretation is human, and new facts may help to a truer rendering. However, the now rendering is new only to the common view of the later Christian centuries. All along the centuries, and without any exterior pressure, such a sense has been. given, and by most eminent Christian authors—for instance, Augustine and Aquinas. Other names are given by Mivart,^[307] and also by Cocker. ^[308]An indefinite and prolonged duration of these days is not therefore a new meaning forced upon Christian interpreters by the discoveries of modern science, but an earlier one which, in the view of many, the interior facts of the narrative required.

^[307]Lessons from Nature, pp. 141, 142.

^[308]Theistic Conception of the World, pp. 150, 151. On a casual reading of this record, the days of creation would be taken in a literal souse. In this case, however, as in many others, a deeper insight may modify the first view. The question has no decision, on purely philological ground, for the reason that יום—yom—is used in both a definite and indefinite sense. Respecting the former use there is no question. A few instances by reference may suffice for the latter (Genesis 2:4; Job 14:6; Isaiah 12:1; Micah 4:1). As yom—day—is so frequently used in both senses, we must look to the connection for its meaning in any particular place. In the verse where the word first appears it is need for different periods: one, the period of light; the other, the period of the darkness and the light (Genesis 1:5). For the first three days there was no ruling office of the sun to determine their time-measure. Nor is there any apparent law of limitation to a solar measure. There is nothing in the direct account of these three days against the sense of indefinite and long periods. This is the most rational interpretation. With this fact, it seems clearly permissible so to interpret the remaining three days.

5. The Six Days and the Sabbath.—The reason for the Sabbath, as given in the fourth commandment (Exodus 20:11), is specially urged against an indefinite sense of the days of creation. The point is made that the force of the reason for the Sabbath lies in the literal sense of the days of God’s working. If this be valid, the literal sense must be true of all the six. It is impossible, however, as we have seen, to fix this sense in the first three. Further, if this reason for the Sabbath requires definite solar days of God’s working, it must equally require such a day of his resting, and also a resumption of his work at its close; for his resting as much concerns this reason as his working. Such a consequence proves the groundlessness of this argument for the literal sense of the days of creation.

If the grounds of the Sabbath were the same for God as for man there might be some force in this argument. There is, however, no sameness, not even a similarity, of grounds in the two cases. We need the Sabbath on both physiological and moral grounds—not to name many others. There is no such need in God. Work does not weary him. His resting has no sense of recuperation or repose. Nor is the Sabbath any requirement of his moral nature. Hence the reasons for its observance arising out of his example cannot require a limitation of the days of his working and resting to a definite solar measure. That God wrought through six periods in the upward progress of his creative work and then ceased, however indefinite or long the days of his working and resting, gives all the reason for the Sabbath, as arising out of his example, which is expressed in the fourth commandment.

G. Consistency of Genesis and Geology.—We have presented the three leading modes of reconciling the Mosaic narrative of creation with the disclosures of geology. While we much prefer the third, and think the others open to objection, we know that they have the preference and support of some leading minds. Were they the only resource of Christian exegesis, it would not be forced into any very serious strait. With the sense of ages for the Mosaic days, which we have found clearly permissible, the reconciliation is complete. Scientists find an accordance between the two records which, beyond the attainment of consistency, proves the divine original of the Mosaic.

It may be objected that scientists are rarely philologists, and the obiection might have weight if this were purely a question of philology. It is not such. Nor is any profound attainment in philology requisite to an intelligent treatment of the question. Only one word is directly involved. As it is used in different senses, its meaning in any particular place must, as we have seen, be found in its connections. These connections are open to clear eyes, even without a profound philology. It is not thus conceded that the learned in biblical philology are generally against the age-sense of day in the Mosaic record. Far from it. Neither is proficiency in science generally, or in geology in particular, necessary to an intelligent treatment of this question. The leading fact to be known is that the geological history of the world is a record of long ages, and, with this, some clear view of the successive stages of its upward progress. One may know all this without being a geologist in any scientific sense. Hence Dr. Cocker, with the requisite knowledge of science and philology, though skilled in neither, might with propriety treat the question as a philosopher. This he has done with rare ability, and with a result which leaves no apparent conflict between science and the Mosaic cosmogony.^{[309] [309]} Theistic Conception of the World, chap. v.

Macdonald and C. H. Hitchcock have treated the question rather as theologians or expositors, but with an intelligent apprehension of the facts concerned, as embodied in the cosmogony of science. The former, after a comparison of the two cosmogonies, says: “It is not too much to assert that the harmony above traced, and the peculiarities of the Mosaic narrative of creation, botli as regards manner and matter, are explicable only on the principle that the Creator of the earth, of its rocks and mountains, its rivers and seas, plants and animals, is also the Author and Source of this record of the wonderful production of his almighty power.”^[310] Dr. Hitchcock holds, with many others, the rather poetic view of a revelation of the Mosaic cosmogony through a process of daily visions. This allowed him a primary literal sense of the days; which, however, he holds in a symbolical form. Time-symbols frequently occur in Scripture. There is such a use of day or days and other time-measures in prophetic utterance (Daniel 8:14; Daniel 9:24-26; Daniel 12:11-12; Revelation 9:15; Revelation 11:2-3). As future events were prophetically expressed in a symbolical use of days, so in a like use the successive stages of creation were retrospectively expressed. Further, as the events which fulfill the prophecies reveal the symbolical sense of their time-measure, so the age-sense of day in the narrative of creation is revealed in the light of modern science. It is this sense which enables the author to find in Genesis the cosmogony of science. “A review of the work of creation as described in nature and revelation convinces us of the essential harmony of the two records.”^[311] This is the conclusion after a full comparison of their respective contents.

^[310]Creation and the Fall, pp. 85, 86.

^[311]Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1867.

Eminent scientists, proceeding with the sense of geological ages in the days of creation, not only find no serious contrariety between Genesis and geology, but do find a marvelous accordance in the cardinal facts of the two records. Such facts are placed in parallel columns, that the agreement may at once be clear to the eye and the clearer in the mind. This is no “deadly parallel” for Moses, but the proof of a divine original of his cosmogony. Its great facts were, in his time, beyond the reach of the human mind, and remained so until within a century of the present. Only the divine mind could then have communicated these truths.

Hugh Miller, thoroughly Christian in faith and life, was a man of rare intelligence, and eminent in geology. He profoundly studied and compared the cosmogonies of Genesis and geology, so as to command the clearer view of their likeness in the account of the successive stages of the world’s creation. We need not follow the author in this discussion, but may give the result as reached in the full persuasion of his own mind. “Now, I am greatly mistaken if we have not in the six geological periods all the elements, without misplacement or exaggeration, of the Mosaic drama of creation.” “Such seems to have been the sublime panorama of creation exhibited in vision of old to ‘The shepherd who first taught the chosen seed, In the beginning how the heavens and earth Rose out of chaos;’ and, rightly understood, I know not a single scientific truth that militates against even the minutest or least prominent of its details.”^{[312] [312]} Testimony of the Rocks, pp. 204, 210.

Professor Winchell was a distinguished scientist, and thoroughly versed in the questions which concern the cosmogony of Genesis. He also instituted a comparison, and found a wonderful agreement between the two records. The upward progress and completion of the world as detailed in the two is, day for day, substantially the same. “The author of Genesis has given us an account which, when rightly understood, conforms admirably to the indications of latest science.” After a further unfolding of the two records, Winchell says: “Now compare the work of these ‘days’ with the events of the seven ‘periods’ before indicated, and judge whether the correspondence is not real, and, indeed, much greater than we could expect of a history written in an age before the birth of science, and (according to the popular chronology) 2,500 years after the close of the events which it narrates.”^{[313] [313]} Reconciliation of Science and Religion, pp. 358, 361. The eminence of Dr. Dawson for scientific learning is well known. He, too, finds a “parallelism of the scriptural cosmogony with the astronomical and geological history of the earth,” at once illustrative and confirmatory of the former. After a thorough study and lucid comparison of the two histories, he gives the result, modestly, indeed, but clearly without any hesitation in his own mind: “The reader has, I trust, found in the preceding pages sufficient evidence that the Bible has nothing to dread from the revelations of geology, but much to hope in the way of elucidation of its meaning and confirmation of its truth.”^{[314] [314]} Origin of the World, p. 859. On this question Professor Dana has coupled the name of Professor Guyot with his own: “The views here offered, and the following on the cosmogony of the Bible, are essentially those brought out by Professor Guyot in his lectures.”^[315] Dana repeats this statement in a fuller treatment of the biblical question.^[316] We thus have the common view of two very distinguished scientists.^[317] “Professor Dana, of Yale, and Professor Guyot, of Princeton, belong to the first rank of scientific naturalists; and the friends of the Bible owe them a debt of gratitude for their able vindication of the sacred record.”^[318] The details of this vindication must be passed simply with the references. Both hold the age-sense of day in the Mosaic record, and in the discussion there is disclosed a wonderful harmony between the cosmogonies of science and Genesis; a harmony which is explicable only with the divine original of the latter. “The order of events in the Scripture cosmogony corresponds essentially with that—of science—which has been given.” “The record in the Bible is, therefore, profoundly philosophical in the scheme of creation which it presents. It is both true and divine. It is a declaration of authorship, both of creation and the Bible, on the first page of the sacred volume. There can be no real conflict between the two books of the Great Author. Both are revelations made by him to man—the earlier telling of God-made harmonies coming up from the deep past, and rising to their height when man appeared, the later teaching man’s relations to his Maker, and speaking of loftier harmonies in the eternal future.”^{[319] [315]} Manual of Geology, p. 472.

^[316]Bibliotheca Sacra, January and July, 1856.

^[317]Rev. J. O. Means gives a formal statement of Guyot’s doctrine inBibliotheca Sacra, April, 1855.

^[318]Hodge:Systematic Theology, vol. i, p. 573.

^[319]Dana:Manual of Geology, pp. 744, 746.

General reference.—Much of the literature of theism, as previously given, relates to the question of creation. The question is discussed in works on systematic theology and commentaries on Genesis; and the later more directly meet the issues raised by modern science.

Pearson: Exposition of the Creed, article i; Howe: The Oracles of God, part ii, sec. 2; Dwight:Theology, sermons xvii-xxii; Venema: System of Theology, chap, xix; Martensen: Christian Dogmatics, sees. 59-78; Hodge: Systematic Theology, vol. i, part i, chap, x; Van Oosterzee: Christian Dogmatics, secs. 56-58; Shedd: Dogmatic Theology, Theology, chap, vii; Oehler: Theology of the Old Testament, part i, sec. 2; Ladd: Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, part ii, chap, ii; Hickok: Creator and Creation; Macdonald: Creation and the Fall; Lewis: The Six Days of Creation; Lange, Murphy, Delitzsch, Dods, Quarry, severally on Genesis; Buckland: Bridgewater Treatise; Miller: Footprints of the Creator; Murchison: Siluria; Mantell: Medals of Creation; McCausland: Sermons in Stones; Cook: Religion and Chemistry; Fraser: Blending Lights; Agassiz: Structure of Animal Life; Herschel; Discourse on Natural Philosophy.