Peter wrote,
<< The day-era interpretation does no violence to the text at all. SNIP but
see below.>>
Peter admits that his interpretation of the fourth day departs from the
historic interpretation of the Church; but, it is significant that it also
departs from the consensus of modern Old Testament scholars--including
evangelicals who are certainly aware of the "day-era" interpretation yet
reject it.
Keil and Delitzsch: "It is true the morning and evening of the first three
days were not produced by the rising and setting of the 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 the light observes the truth’Ķ.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’Ķ[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’Ķ.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’Ķ" (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’Ķ. On this
day [the fourth day] the luminaries are created and placed in the heavens’Ķthe
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 creation 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)
As to the meaning of the Hebrew text, obviously the above scholars have
seriously considered the text and are not just speaking off the cuff. There
is no real question about what the Hebrew text means. S. R. Driver, who was a
leading Hebraist, and one of the main editors of a Hebrew lexicon still
considered one of the two standard Hebrew lexicons, rejected the concordist
interpretation, saying the word "made" in Gen 1:14 is "perfectly unambiguous
and distinct....The writer expresses, as explicitly as it is possible for
language to do, his sense that the luminaries had no existence prior to the
Fourth Day." ["The Cosmogony of Genesis," Andover Review (Dec 1887), pp.
641-2].
Seventy years later Meredith Kline specifically addressed the concordist
interpretation and said, "the most unwarranted notions of the work of the
"fourth day" have been substituted for the straightforward statements of the
text. Gen 1:14-19 declares that the heavenly bodies were on the "fourth day"
created and set in their familiar positions. Moses is certainly not
suggesting merely that hitherto hidden heavenly bodies now became visible on
earth." ["Because It Had Not Rained,"
Westminster Theological Journal 20 (May 1958), p.153].
If the concordists had a strong case for their rejection of the historic and
modern consensual interpretation of the fourth day, doubts as to the
interpretation of the relevant verses would be acknowledged by scholars as
capable and serious as those cited above. But, no such doubts are expressed
by them because the concordists do not have a strong case.
Peter's case is (1) "The day-era interpretation does no violence to the text
at all. "Let there be" (Hebrew "yehee") in v.14 does not indicate an act of
creation.
In Gen.1:3, it similarly says "Let there be light" (Hebrew "yehee or"),
where nothing is created, but light penetrates the darkness."
These are just assertions. He is simply begging the question in both cases.
As far as the above scholars are concerned, it is evident in their comments
that they believe the Hebrew text is saying that light was created on the
first day apart from the sun. The fact that the first evidence Peter offers
against the consensus is simply a begging of the question shows just how weak
the case for the concordist reinterpretation is.
Peter's second reason to support his reinterpretation is, " And for "Let
there be" in v.14, it doesn't even say "yihyoo" (plural), which it should to
refer to the origin of the many lights, but "yehee" (singular): it
introduces one single process, which then resulted in the coming-to-be of
many lights."
This would be a good reason if the Hebrew language followed the syntactical
rules of the English language. Unfortunately, it employs the syntax of
Hebrew, which when the verb comes first not uncommonly employs a singular
verb with a plural subject or object. Thus, in Isa 13:23, the subject,
"wolves" -- in the plural, is linked to a singular verb, "he shall howl" not
"they shall howl." So common is such a thing in Hebrew that
Gesenius-Kautsch, the standard OT Hebrew reference grammar, devotes two
thirds of a page to it, and in the process specifically notes Gen 1:14 as an
example. G-K also notices Gen 5:23, which uses a "yehee" (singular) to speak
of "all the days of Enoch" plural.
Peter's third reason is, " True, in Gen.1:9, "appear" is used: "let the dry
land appear". But in v.14, the idea of appearing is implicitly contained in
"ma'or",
"lights". In English (and German), "light" doesn't distinguish between
light in the sense of illumination and a light in the sense of a lamp or
other source of illumination. But Hebrew uses "ma'or" for the
illumination emanating from a light source, but "ner" for this source of
the light rays, namely a lamp or other circumscribed light source.
Cf. Ezek. 32:8, "All the bright lights [ma'or] of heaven, will I make
dark over you, and put darkness [ghoshek, as in Gen.1:2] upon your land,
says the Lord God." The lights (ma'or, i.e. the bundles of light rays
emanating from the individual light sources) are contrasted with the
darkness, which is not a body, either."
Standard Hebrew lexica, BDB and KB, define a ma'or as "a luminary,
light-bearer, lamp." Literally it means "place of light." It is true that ner
is a Hebrew word for lamp; but, so is ma'or. The normal Hebrew word for the
light rays or the light emanating from a lamp is not ma'or, but simply 'or.
KB defines 'or as "light which emanates from a body" as in Isa 30:26, light
of the moon and of the sun, or Ps 78:14, light of fire. As a "place of light"
the meaning of ma'or may overlap somewhat with the meaning of 'or; but, since
it can mean "lamp" and Hebrew lexica do not even mention the meaning "light
rays," one cannot depend upon the word alone as proving that Day four is
talking about making light rather than lamps. Further, since 'or, light
itself, was already created on Day one, a creation of light on Day four does
not fit the context. Ezek 32:8 is simply saying that God will snuff out the
lamps of heaven, the sun and the moon, and thus put darkness upon the land.
It sustains the historic and consensual interpretation of ma'or as referrring
to the sun and moon.
Peter adds in closing, " Where is the problem? The sky is darkened or
overcast, so sun and moon, as "lights" [ma'or], do not "come through". There
is no change of meaning at all.>>
But, where does Genesis say that the sky is so darkened or overcast before
Day four that the sun, moon and stars cannot be clearly seen? This is an
addition to Scripture.
So here is the case for the concordist reinterpretation of Day four: It rests
on a logical fallacy, ignorance of the Hebrew language, a Hebrew word that
has a primary meaning which perfectly fits the consensual interpretation, and
an addition to the biblical text. How much clearer could it be that this
interpretation has no sound foundation? How much clearer can it be that it
does not arise from the biblical text but is imposed upon the text from a
strong human desire to make the Bible agree with modern science?
The Word of God is not the final authority in Concordism.
Paul Seely
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 04 2002 - 04:03:19 EDT