Jim wrote,
<< THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN GEN 1 IS ACCURATE >>
Although the sequence of events in Gen 1 does not completely match up with
modern science on any day, the most telling act in Genesis 1 which shows that
the sequence does not match the order of modern science is the creation of
the sun on the fourth day. Concordists, of course, can "explain" this; but,
it is important to realize that their "explanation-interpretation" departs
from both the historical interpretation of the Church and from the clear
majority of modern biblical scholars. So, listen up, Jim, there IS a
consensus about the meaning of Day 4 and therein concordism as a whole. It is
that the Bible is saying the sun did not exist as a functioning body until
the fourth day.
Theophilus (2nd century)said, "On the fourth day the luminaries were
made...the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly
bodies..."(Theophilus to Autolycus 2:15 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 2,
pp. 100-101 )
Origen (3rd century) said that on the fourth day "...God orders lights to
come into existence." (Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, Washington, D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press, 1981, p. 53)
John Chrysostom (4th century) said "Sacred Scripture teaches us that the
creation of this heavenly body [the sun] took place three days later, after
the growth of all the plants..." (St. John Chrystostom, Homilies of Genesis
1-17, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1985, p. 84)
St. Basil (4th century) "The first day and night were not ruled yet by solar
motion… …The adornment of the earth [with plants] is older than the sun…"
(cited in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Genesis 1-11, Downers
Grove: IV Press, 2001, 7, 15)
Ambrose (4th century) "Let everyone be informed that the sun is not the
author of vegetation…The sun in younger than the green shoot, younger than
the green plant…Look first on the firmament of heaven which was made before
the sun. …Look at the plants of the earth which preceded in time the light of
the sun….Three days have passed. …the day too has its light, which is itself
the precursor of the sun." (Hexamemeron 3:6, 4:1, cited in Ancient Christian
Commentary on Scripture, Genesis 1-11, Downers Grove: IV Press, 2001, 15, 17)
Ephrem the Syrian (4th century) said, "Light in its primordial form did not
come from the sun, which had not yet been created." (cited in Ancient
Christian Commentary on Scripture, Genesis 1-11, Downers Grove: IV Press,
2001, 7)
Augustine (5th century) , "But the first three days of all had no sun, for
that was made on the fourth day." (St. Augustine, The City of God 11:7, p
3l7) He reiterates this in his Two Books on Genesis against the Manichaeans
1:14.20-23.
Martin of Braga (6th century) said, "Genesis reports that the lights of the
sun and moon were created on the fourth day." ("Easter," in Iberian Fathers
Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1969, p. 106)
John of Damascus (8th century) said, "It was into these luminaries that the
Creator put the primordial light...as we said, the sun was created on the
fourth day." (St. John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith Book 2, Washington, D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press, 1958, PP. 216, 220)
Luther (16th century) commenting on Day 1: "Here, too, arises the question as
to what kind of light that was by which the heavens and the earth in its yet
unshaped and unadorned form was lighted, for then the sun and stars were not
yet created."(Commentary on Genesis, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, repr 1958, 13)
and "...they even discuss why God provided the earth with fruit on the third
day before he had equipped the heaven with stars." (Luther's Works, Vol. 1,
Lectures on Genesis, Chapters 1-5, St. Louis: Concordia, 1958, 38; cf. p. 5)
Calvin (16th century) said, "It did not happen fortuitously that herb and
trees were created before the sun and the moon...in order that we might learn
to refer all things to him, he did not then make use of the sun or moon."
(John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948, p. 82)
This historic interpretation of Day 4 is also supported by the consensus of
modern biblical scholars. I could name more, but let these evangelical OT
scholars suffice:
Keil and Delitzsch: "It is true the morning and evening of the first three
days were not produced by the rising and setting of th sun, since the sun was
not yet created." (Biblical Commentary on the OT, Vol 1, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, repr 1951) 51
H. C. Leupold: "He who notices at once there was no sun to serve as a vehicle
for thelight observes the truth….The last three days are clearly controlled
by the sun, which is created on the fourth day." (Exposition of Genesis,
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950) 52
John Walton: "If we were to ask what the Israelite understanding of the
physical structures connected with light were that allowed it to exist
independently of the sun…[we would have to speculate]" (Genesis, Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001, 79)
Victor Hamilton: "It will perhaps strike the reader of this story as unusual
that its author affirms the existence of light (and a day for that matter)
without the existence of the sun, which is still three 'days' away….What the
author states is that God caused the light to shine from a source other than
the sun for the first three 'days.'" (The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, 121)
Bruce Waltke: "Since the sun is only later introduced as the immediate cause
of light, the chronology of the text emphasizes that God is the ultimate
source of light. The dischronologization probably functions as a polemic
against the pagan religions…" (Genesis, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001, 61)
Kenneth Mathews: "The source of creation's first 'light' is not specifically
stated. Since it is not tied to a luminating body such as the sun…. On this
day [the fourth day] the luminaries are created and placed in the heavens…the
creation of the sun and moon in v. 16 stands as the centerpiece." (Genesis
1-11:26, Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996, 145, 153)
Gordon Wenham: "There is no problem in conceiving of the creatioin of light
before the heavenly bodies (vv 14-19).Their creation on the fourth day
matches the creation of light on the first day of the week." ( Genesis 1-15,
Waco: Word, 1987, 18)
There is a clear solid consensus of Christian scholars both ancient and
modern that Genesis 1 is saying that the sun was not created until Day 4,
after light, after the firmament, after plants. That leaves Concordism's
"interpretation" as a "private interpretation." Concordism is to the biblical
data what creation "science" is to the scientific data. For the sake of a
"private interpretation," they both suppress light.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 23:35:20 EDT