Bible difficulties and their alleviative interpretation

Front matter

^srrr-n—

pyright ShelfJ&g,

Chap, „ Copyright No.

Preface

During the past few months, the substance of the chapters comprising this volume was delivered in addresses on consecutive Sunday evenings in the regular course of the author's ministry in the Calvary Baptist Church. He has long felt that most of the difficulties generally supposed to be in the Bible are not really in the Bible ; but are in the human interpretation of the Bible, rather than in the divine revelation itself. It is vastly important to separate between erroneous biblical exposition and the actual truth of divine revelation.

The newer scholarship, it will readily be admitted, has disturbed the faith of some Bible students; but it is absolutely certain that it has given the Bible a fresh interest and an increased value. It is not necessary to accept all the conclusions of the so-called Higher Critics ; indeed, these conclusions are often at variance with one another, and more careful criticism will entirely refute some of the positions taken. But we can readily see that the later criticism has done much to disabuse the minds of some readers of their traditional interpretations and unauthoritative preconceptions of Holy Scripture; and, as a result, the Bible was never so new and so attractive a library as it is at this hour. It never was so io PREFACE.

carefully studied as now ; and it never has been to the church or to the race the blessing which it will be in the near future. The aim of these discourses is to separate between false interpretation and genuine revelation. Miracles which God performs we unquestioningly receive; miracles which men imagine we are free to accept or reject.

This volume contains a selection rather than a collection of difficulties in the Old-Testament Scriptures. Questions asked by members of the author's congregation, and by correspondents in different parts of the country, partly guided him in his selection of the difficulties discussed. Doubtless, many passages of Scripture which are serious difficulties to the minds of some readers have been omitted ; but it was not possible to include all within the limits of a volume of convenient size. Still it is believed that the most serious difficulties are here discussed. The author regrets that these discussions do not more fully combine the results of the latest and most reverent scholarship with the spirit of sincere love to the Holy Book and its divine Author. Of his failures in all respects he is distinctly and deeply conscious; nevertheless, he hopes that as these discussions have proved helpful to many hearers, and also to his own spiritual faith and life, they may be blessed in the wider circle to which, through this volume, they are now introduced. This is his sincere desire and earnest prayer as this volume goes forth.

Calvary Study, New York City, October, 1898.

Contents

Chapter Page

I. Was there Really Light Before the Sun? . . 13

II. Was the World Made in Six Solar Days ? . . 25

I. Was There Really Light Before The

SUN?

WAS THERE REALLY LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN?

Truly sublime are the opening words of Genesis. No other historical writing approaches its first verse in grandeur and majesty. It implies the existence, the eternity, the freedom, the omnipotence, the intelligence, and the goodness of God. The first sentence denies atheism, for it assumes God. It denies materialism, for it asserts Creation. It denies pantheism, for it declares the personality of God. The word bar a, translated " created," is one of three words, the others being yatsar and asa/i, used in this section, and bar a always has God for its subject, whatever its object may be. Yatsar, formed, and asa/i, made, both refer to construction out of pre-existing materials, and both are predicable of God and man. The verb bara, in its simple form, occurs forty-eight times, according to Dr. Murphy, and always in one sense. The word "Elohim," translated God, is found in the Hebrew Scriptures fiftyseven times in the singular, and about three thousand times in the plural, according to the same authority. In the plural it may mean the " Eternal Powers," but it is correctly translated God. Later references will be made to the significance of its plural form, conjoined with verbs and adjectives in the singular, being thus somewhat of an anomaly in language, and giving a suggestion of the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead, which was later fully revealed.

In the preceding verses the inspired writer described the condition of the world while in its chaotic state. Now he enters on the details of that stupendous process by which the whole was reduced to order, and the heavens and the earth were made to appear in their beauty and glory. The great secret of the entire process is the being and the power of God. Remove God from this lofty history, this noble poem, this sublime anthem, this glorious oratorio of primeval wisdom and goodness, and you have nothing left behind but darkness, mystery, and chaos. Insert God in the history, and all becomes perfectly reasonable, and partially explicable. Every thoughtful man must admit that there is far less mystery and difficulty with, than without, God. Eliminate God, and you eliminate reason as well as faith. Atheism has no explanation to give of Creation ; it leaves the whole subject involved in impenetrable darkness and hopeless mystery. Admit God, and the hymn of Creation has beauty, majesty, and glory. Thus it comes to pass that " God said" is the keynote to this sublime song. This word of God removes all ideas of blind force and senseless matter. Thus it is that God's presence and power in the first majestic words of Genesis

WAS THERE LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN? 17

answer a thousand questions of the human mind and heart. Past all the works of Creation we must go to the person of God as the divine Author.

God Not Eliminated.

Behind the visible universe stands God. Men talk of the laws of nature. What do they mean? What is a law? A law is only a name which we give to the manner in which we have observed some force to act. If the force be physical, we have a physical law; if moral, we have a moral law. A law is not a force, but a form; not a motor, but a motion; not a power, but a process. Law implies a lawgiver, evolution an evolver, order an ordainer. There stands God. We have often permitted ourselves to be confused as to the true definition of law. We have allowed ourselves to think of law as if it were endowed with power and possessed of personality. Even if evolution were fully established, it would not eliminate God. Nothing can be evolved that has not first been involved. There stands God. Back of all processes is God as the almighty power. But how are we to understand the words " and God said"? Did God literally utter His voice in that primeval solitude? Did His voice echo through that chaotic abyss? This we cannot suppose. We have here an example of the application to God of terms which usually are applied to human beings. In this way the Bible often speaks of iS OLD TESTAMENT DIFFICULTIES.

God's face, ear, hand, and voice. In harmony with this usage the Bible speaks of God as repenting and as performing other acts characteristic of man. This usage is what the theologians call an example of anthropomorphism. If God is to communicate with men He must adopt methods which men can understand, and if men are to speak of God, they must use the only language which it is possible for them to employ. " God's speaking is His willing, and His willing is His doing." This is the first time that the phrase " God said" is used in this narrative, but it is used in all ten times in the account of the creation. It is also a characteristic form of expression in the Old Testament. We have it in such forms as "God spake, saying," "Thus saith the Lord of hosts," and such other expressions as " the word of the Lord came, saying."

On reading the first chapter of Genesis we are reminded of the first chapter of John's Gospel, " In the beginning was the Word." Observe the similarity between these two great opening chapters. What is the irresistible conclusion? The " God-said" of the Old Testament is the God-word of the New Testament. The Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Jesus of the New Testament. In John we further read that Jesus made all things which were made. At this point also the two records harmonize. In Genesis we have the majestic words, " Let there be light, and there was light"; or, more literally, "Light be, and

WAS THERE LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN? 1 9

light was." The sublimity of these words in the original cannot be fully reproduced in English. It appears more completely in the Greek of the Seventy and in the Latin Vulgate. Longinus, the famous Platonic philosopher and finished rhetorician, born at Athens or in Syria, about 213 a.d., a student in Alexandria and filially a teacher in Athens, the man whose knowledge was so great and varied and his critical taste so acute that he was called a "living library" and a " walking museum," refers to these words as an illustration of his theme when writing of the Sublime. The Eternal Word speaks, and light is. Finely has Dr. George Dana Boardman said: "Man's words are but sounds, God's words are deeds. He but speaks, and lo! light, sky, ocean, mountain, tree, animal, man, star, universe. He spake, and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast."

Light before the Sun.

But just here a difficulty arises. Whenever the mind of the Infinite comes into contact with the finite, an insoluble problem emerges. The finite can apprehend, but cannot comprehend the Infinite. Now we know God, not as He is, but as we are. Now at best we see through a glass darkly. Could there have been light before the sun's creation? Can there be any alleviative explanation? Assuredly there can. We are told that the sun is the primary source of light, and, in a measure, the statement is true. We are now, let it be borne in mind, in the first day of Creation, but when we reach the fourth day we are told that God made the sun. We immediately ask, " How, then, could there have been light on the first day?" At this point many are embarrassed and some are staggered. I well remember how I once was puzzled because of this apparent contradiction in the inspired narrative. Sceptics quickly seized upon these statements as if they were the result of crass ignorance on the part of the writer of the Creation records. As early as the days of Celsus, who lived in the second century after Christ, and wrote about 150 a.d., this objection to the Mosiac record of the Creation was urged. But in wonderful ways have the authoritative conclusions of science come forward as witnesses to the truth of this sacred story.

Let us look at some of the explanations which have been offered. Some say that the sun was created at the first a perfectly luminous body, but that the vapors arising from the condition of the world at the time shut out his light, and that when God said, " Let there be light," He simply dispersed these mists and vapors and thus caused the light of the sun to be seen. They thus make the light only a manifestation of what was previously in existence, and not the creation of something which until then had no existence. But they have still to account for the creation of the sun, or at least for the narrative touching that point in

WAS THERE LIGHT BE TORE THE SUN? 21

the history of the fourth day. This they do by supposing that there we have not the account of the sun's creation, but only the record of the command that the sun was appointed to rule by day. Augustine thought that this was simply spiritual light; and Calvin recognized the distinction between this light and that mentioned in connection with the creation of the sun, but he had no very clear explanation to give. But the narrative tells us not simply that light began to be visible, but it asserts that light began to be; and it seems certain that the majestic language here attributed to Elohim is too lofty and sublime to be applied to so comparatively unimportant an event as the scattering of the mists and clouds. Here comparatively late discoveries, or at least applications, of scientific knowledge come forward to solve the problem. We know that light was once supposed to be a distinct element or substance ; but now it is believed to be simply a mode or condition of matter. Thus it is now known that the light-giving qualities of many bodies are due to their condition of incandescence. It is certainly known that light is not entirely dependent on the sun. No one who is at all familiar with the subject now doubts that there is a kind and degree of light apart from the sun ; and it is certain that this chemical or cosmical light possesses some qualities conducive to the growth of vegetation. It is beyond any question true that " any solid body can be rendered incandescent by being heated up to between 700 and 8oo° Fahrenheit," and liquids also which are capable of being heated up to the required degree emit light. We know also that fire-flies, certain kinds of wood, and still other substances in their normal condition, throw out light. We know, indeed, that there are many theories as to the phenomenon of light, but much connected with it is still wrapped in mystery. It travels much faster tham sound. When a cannon is fired at a distance w r e first see the flash and then later hear the sound. Light travels 186,000 miles a second, or more than a million times faster than sound. It therefore takes the light of the sun eight minutes to travel from the sun to the earth. Light travels farther as well as faster than sound ; in proof of this statement is the familiar fact that we often see lightning so far off that we cannot hear the thunder which accompanies it at the point of its origin. But much as we know of it, it still has its mysteries. The Pythagorean and Newtonian theory was that light was transmitted to the eye by the emission of small particles of luminous matter. This is called the emission corpuscular theory. The earlier theory made light an attenuated, imponderable substance ; the undulatory theory makes light to be propagated by the vibrations of matter called ether. These theories were long rivals, but the undulatory theory lias completely triumphed over the other.

Professor Dana affirms that the wave lengths in the vibration of molecular force have been as-

WAS THERE LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN? 23

certained. He also reminds us that the laws of heat and of electrical and chemical action are so involved with those of light that all these conditions are convertible and one in molecular origin. The nebular hypothesis of La Place, who stood second to none but Newton in the great science of mathematical astronomy, asserts that the condensation of the originally void, dark, gaseous chaos would be accompanied by intense molecular or chemcial activity, and so would assuredly emit light. Infidelity called Moses a blunderer and the Bible a fraud for affirming that there was light before the sun ; and now all the scientists declare that this very result must have occurred. Moses was no scientist ; he lived in an age when nothing was known of molecular activity. He never heard of Newton or La Place ; he could not have understood the nebular hypothesis if he had heard of it. How came he to anticipate the conclusions of modern science? God taught him ; he was inspired of the Almighty. Let infidelity be dumb ; let it hide its empty head. God taught Moses, and Moses teaches the scientists of the nineteenth century. In medicine, as in astronomy, Moses is abreast of the science of to-day. Regarding all sanitary laws, the medical profession of to-day is only struggling up to the point reached by Moses ages ago. Who taught Moses? The Almighty. How came the cosmogony of Moses to be right, according to the latest dicta of science, while the cosmogonies of all heathen nations excite the laughter of all scientific men to-day? There stands God. It is high time for a shallow atheism to be entirely silent, or to speak with great modesty. Let all believers in divine revelation rejoice in God's Word, the glorious old Bible, which God is magnifying in the halls of scientific learning, in the homes of devout believers, and in the churches of Jesus Christ throughout the world!

II. Was The World Made In Six Days?

II.

WAS THE WORLD MADE IN SIX DAYS?

In Genesis, the first chapter and the fifth verse, our attention is called to the first day in the history of Creation. In the same verse we are told that God called the light day, and the darkness night. We need not be surprised that God gave names to the things which He had created. The names given to things by us express the impression which they have made upon our minds ; but the names given by God express the nature of the things to which they are given. It seems certain that God, in naming the day and the night, had reference to their phenomena rather than to their duration. The names were not for the benefit of men when first given, as there were no human beings then to make use of the names which God gave ; but these names were rather a declaration of the qualities or nature of the things to which they were applied. It is still true that, in a real sense, " words are things." We may be absolutely certain that there was a significance in the words employed by God, which made it fitting that they should be applied to the things which He made. We cannot, for a moment, suppose that the name given to one object could with equal propriety have been given to another. But it must be admitted that there is still much uncertainty as to the etymology of the words which God employed. The Hebrew word translated day is yom % and the word translated night is laycla. These names, let it be borne in mind, were descriptions of nature rather than measures of time.

Some scholars suggest that yom expresses " the tumult, stir, and business of the day. " Those who give it this meaning probably connect it with the word yam y which depicts the boiling or foaming of the sea. They make layela refer to " the yelling or howling of wild beasts at night," and so connect it with the Latin ululate. But probably Gesenius and others are more nearly correct in deriving the word yom from a root meaning " to be warm, to glow with heat." This derivation makes it analogous to the Arabic, yahina, to glow with anger. It has been well said that in a sultry climate, like that of the East, this would be a suitable description of the day to distinguish it from the night. Gesenius and other Hebrew scholars associate the word for night with the rare Hebrew root /?//, meaning to roll up; and the idea suggested is that night rolls up or wraps all things in the curtains of obscurity and darkness. We may be quite sure that there was entire appropriateness in the terms applied by God to the day and the night. God has a reason, doubtless, for every name He gives and for every act He performs ; and whether or not we fully understand the etymology of these words, we may be sure that they point out the distinguishing peculiarities of the objects to which they are applied. A similar remark will apply to the names given to the heavens and the earth, to the sea and to the dry land, and to all the other objects named in the account of Creation.

We read in the latter part of this fifth verse, " And the evening and the morning were the first day. " The more literal translation is, " And evening was, and morning was, day one. " Because the darkness preceded the light, the evening is probably mentioned first ; and it is likely that for this reason the Jews began their day of twenty-four hours from the evening. There has always been some difference of opinion as to the exact meaning of the language here used. Some have affirmed that we have here an ordinary solar day of twenty-four hours. This, it is claimed, is -the natural meaning of the language here employed ; and the words of the fourth commandment are quoted to show that here we have simply an ordinary astronomical day. But some who so affirm reckon the day from daybreak to daybreak, while others reckon it from sunset to sunset.

Meaning of "One."

Let us look carefully into the Scriptural use of the two words " day one. " Let us entirely free our minds from any real or supposed necessity, as the result of modern scientific discovery in geology or any other science, to understand the word " day" as meaning a period of indefinite duration. Let us, without prejudice one way or the other, get the heart meaning and the Scriptural usage of these two words translated in our version " first day" and more literally "day one." The two words in Hebrew are yom % day, and ahad, one. The numeral " one " is several times used in Scripture when clearly it means certain, peculiar, special, unique. It is in these passages used in the sense of the Latin quidam. Thus we have the word in Daniel viii. 3 : " Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. " The word ahad is certainly used here to describe a ram of a peculiar character; that is, one having two horns of unequal height, and so a certain, a peculiar, a unique ram. So in Ezekiel vii.5, it is used of an evil, an only evil ; that is, an evil of an unwonted character, an evil of a peculiar nature. In Solomon's Song vi.9, we have the words: " My dove, my undefiled is but one, she is the only one of her mother." It is quite certain that in this passage also the word "one" expresses the idea of something peculiar, something especially distinguished, something quite out of the ordinary character of things and persons of the same general class. It would be easy to give still other references illustrative of the same meaning of the word. Now, apply this Scripture use of the word one to the case in hand, and the meaning, will be, " And evening was, and morning was, a peculiar or unique day. " Thus we see that the evening and the morning here mentioned were, according to this explanation, a certain, a peculiar, a unique, and not an ordinary day. This so-called day, as we shall later more fully see, constituted an epoch, an era, a period of time of indefinite duration.

Scientific and Other Considerations.

We shall soon take up the Scripture use of the word day ; but there are a few antecedent considerations which ought to receive our passing attention. Geology has long declared that the earth required vast epochs to bring it into its present condition ; but it is not proposed to burden this article with geological technicalities, or any other form of wearisome scientific terminology. It may, however, be safely affirmed that science probably shows that the order of creative development was that of the Mosaic record, first plants, then fish and fowl, and finally animals and man. If we were to go carefully into the testimony of rocks and were to consider that testimony as admissible, it would certainly be strongly in favor of an era of indefinite duration rather than a day of twenty-four hours, an era perhaps of thousands, possibly of millions, of years. Indeed, without any special scientific knowledge it can readily be scon that the works of the different days o\ Creation could not be put into the compass of days of twenty-four hours each, except by continuous miracles of the most stupendous character. That God could do this, no one who rightly believes in His omniscience and omnipotence can for a moment doubt; but that God did this is open to doubt so strong as to be virtually a denial. Such enormous haste as the hypothesis of days of twenty-four hours would necessitate is not in harmony with God's methods, as we see them in Creation or providence. Take, for example, the work of the sixth day. On that day the animals were created ; Adam was made ; the animals were collected together and named as they passed in review before Adam; on that day he was cast into a deep sleep by God, and a rib was taken from his side, was fashioned into a woman, and she was presented to Adam. If these were days of twenty-four hours each, then all that is recorded in the first five verses of the first chapter of Genesis took place in twenty-four hours. Who can believe it? No one doubts that God cou/dhave done this, but it is difficult to believe that God did all this in that time. If these were days of twenty-four hours each, then the world could' not have been more than one hundred and forty-four hours older than man; and if he were created in the early part of the sixth day, the world was not even that much older than man. Is this conceivable? It is so only, as already remarked, by sup-

WAS THE WORLD MADE IN SIX DAYS? S3

posing continuous miracles of the most stupendous character ; but in the economy of God, so far as we can learn His ways, He has always kept the miraculous displays of His power within economical limits. The length of the seventh day determines the length of the other six; but most commentators consider that God's Sabbatic day extends from Creation to the present hour. Must not then the other six days be days of indefinite duration? If the six days mentioned in Exodus xx. 1 1 are days of twenty-four hours each, so must the seventh day be one of twenty-four hours ; but God is represented as having rested on that day from His creative labors. If that day is still continued, and so is one of indefinite duration, are we not justified in affirming that the other six were also periods of undefined length?

Attention has often been called to the fact that many heathen cosmogonies give indirect confirmation to the view here presented. Egyptian, Persian, Indian, and Etruscan legends are named by different writers on this subject, and while not of authority in themselves, they may be quoted as showing that this idea was widely diffused. Many Christians can remember how a generation ago their simple Christian faith was rudely shocked by scientific affirmations that the world was not made in six days of twenty-four hours each. The writer well remembers that in his boyhood his faith was greatly disturbed, and for a time almost wrecked, by statements of men older 3 and wiser than himself, men who read widely in the scientific literature of the times, and who affirmed that the statements of the Bible were disproved by the absolutely conclusive demonstrations of science. He was not able to refute these statements ; he thought the Bible taught that the world was made in six days, of twenty-four hours each. He thought he must hold on to the twenty-four-hour theory or reject the Bible. Thank God ! we now see that neither science nor Scripture teaches that the world was made in six days of twenty-four hours each ! To believe the Bible is one thing, but to believe all the interpretations which some men choose to give the Bible is quite another thing.

Scripture Use of the Word "Day."

Xow, let us look at the Scripture use of the word "day." Perhaps the highest Hebrew authority favors the etymology which refers the word to a root meaning " to be warm, to be hot, to glow with heat," as already suggested. If this origin of the word be correct, it might refer to the glowing or heated periods through which the world passed in its successive developments. But the purpose at this point is simply to refer to the Scriptural use of the word ; thus Scripture will interpret Scripture. Nothing is more certain than that the word yom, day, is repeatedly used in the Scripture when reference is made to epochs, eons, periods of indefinite length. We have the first instance in this immediate connection in the record of Creation itself; the word is found in Genesis ii.4. There we read: " These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day {beyotri) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. " Here the word " day" is clearly not a solar day ; it is most certainly used to cover the entire period of Creation. This is the first time the word occurs after the history of the day of the creative week, and it will be admitted by all that it is here applied to the entire period. It would seem as if there were a providential purpose to show us at this point that the word " day" in the account of Creation meant an epoch, and not a period of twenty-four hours. It is strange that many of the readers of the Bible seem to have overlooked this verse, when they have insisted that the six days of Creation were days of twenty-four hours each. It is astonishing that traditional interpretations often close the eyes of even scholarly commentators to the plain reading of God's Word. The Hebrew Scriptures generally clearly show that the word "day" often denotes a period of past or future time without limit. In Isaiah xxx. 8, we read, " Xow go . . . and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." The phrase " time to come," as seen in the margin of our Bibles, literally means, u the latter day." Nothing could be clearer than that the word " day" here refers to an