The Pulpit Commentary — Genesis — Section 83

the simplor question of its truthfulnoss. If cxxxvi., in both of which II Hebrew bard the Mosaic cosmogony is true, it can only red tos the story of crCR tion. ha,e been ~iYcn b)• inspiration ; e.nd that it is ~'or. 1.-In the beginning, Bereshitli, is tnrn may be said to be, mth rapidly aug- ne,thor "from etel'llity," asin John i. l; 11or menting emphasis, the ,erdict of science. "in wisdom" (Chaldeo paraphrase), a., if II. As to the precise manner in which it parallel "1;t11 Prov. iii. 19 e.nd Ps. civ. 24; nor "by Christ," who, in Col. i. 18, is dc,noruin- was imparted to its author, THE vrsroN ated apx,); but "at tho corumoncoment of inEon, of Kurtz, thongl, declnred by Kalisch ti_me:" Without indicating 1ohen the be• to be "a complicat.cd tissue of conjectures gmnmg was, the expression intimates that nnd assnmptions 1ttterlv destitute of every, the beginning was. Exod. x.x. 11 seems to the .faintest and 1·emotcst, Biblical .fom1da- imply that this wns the initiation of the first day's work. The formula "And God tio11," is p~rhaps, witl, certain modifications, said," with which each day ~pens, mther the best.. Rejecting the idea of n series of points to vcr. 3 ns its proper terminus a r,rcati.e fahleaux "';thout any solid substra- quo, which the beginning absolute m11y have tum of actual fact, there is clearly nothing antedated by au indefinite period. God. in the 1rntnre of the case to discredit the Elohim (either the hi,ghest Being to be feared, from alah, to foar,-Hengstenberg, h~-pothcsis tl1at the far past may have been Delitzsch, Keil, Oehler, &c., - or, moro disclosed to the writer of this ancient docu- probably, the str<Yn{J and mighty Orie, from ment in the same fashion e.s we 1-now the aill, to be stron~-Gesenius, Lange, Tayler remote future ,,:u; discovered to the later Lewis, Macdonald, Jllurphy, &c.) is the prophets. On the contrary, there is much most frequent designation of the Supreme Being in the Old Testament, occurring up- in Scripture to 'ii arrant the ossumption the.t, wards of 2000 times, and is exclusively em- as DaniP-1 heard " the speaking between the ployed in the present section. Its plural banks 0f the mai," and received dream- form is to be explained neither as a remnant revelations of the four great world monarch- of polytheism (Gesenius), nor ns indicating n plurality of beings through whom the Deity ies, and as John beheld visions and heard reveals himself (13anmgarten, Lange), nor as voices concerning the things whicl1 were a plural of majesty (Aben Ezra, Kalisch, shortly to rome to pass, so the Jewish law- Alford), like the royal "we" of earthly civer, or tlie primitive Nabi to whom this potentates, a usage which the best Hebraists rcnhtion was imparted, mny have beheld in affirm to have no existence in the Scriptw-es (Jllacdonald), nor a., a cumulative plural, suhlirne panorama the evolution of the light, answering the same purpose as a repetition the uplifting of tl,c atmosphere, the parting of the Divine name (Hengstenberg, Dreschler, 0f the waters, the placing of the orhs, the and others); but either (1) as a pluralu in- filling of the land, sea, and slqr with life, tensitatis, expressive of the fulness of the while he listened with awestruck silence to Divine nature, and the multiplicity of the Divine powers (Delitzsch, Murphy, Mac• the voices of Elohim, as they were uttered at donald) ; or, (2) notwithstanding Calvin's the opening of each creative day. Some- dread of Sabellianism, as e. pluralis t1-ini- thing like this, Professor Lewis e.ptly re- tatis, intended to foreshadow the threefold marks, appears necessary to explain the personality of the Godhead (Luther, Cocceius, reception by the prophet's mind of those Peter Lombard, Murphy, Candlish, &c.); or (3) both. The suggestion of Tayler Lewis, ineffable ideas of which previously he had no that the term may be a contraction for El- types or conceptions. Elohim, the God of all superhuman powers, II I. Th ougl, not poetical in the sense of is inconsistent with neither of the above being composed in ornate e.nd figurative interpretations. That the Divine name should adjust itself without difficulty to all sub- language, the present section me.y be truth- sequent discoveries of the fulness of the fully described as rhythmwal, in structure, Divine personality and nature is only what possessing an artificial and orderly arrange- we should expect in a God-given revelation. ment, much obscured by its division in the Unless where it refers to the angels (Ps. E11glish version into chapters and verses, viii. 5), or to heathen deities (Gen. xxxi. 32; Exod. XL 3; Jer. xvi. 20), or to earthly ,vhieh almost justifies its designation as The rulers (Exod. xxii. 8, 9), Elohim is c011- Primeval Song, or Hymn of Creation, with joined with verbs and adjectives in the which may be compared the lyric poem in singular, an anomaly in language which has Pc. civ., and ~he post-Exilian ode in Ps. been explained a. nggesting tho unity of  (]If. 1. 1, 2.J THE DOOK OF Qio;NESIS. 3