the fundamentals: volume 8, chapter 6: the doctrinal value of the first chapters of genesis

8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 8, Chapter 6: The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis

1/16

•

•

•

I

•

•

,,

•

•

•

•

•

CHAPTER VI

•

THE

1D0

1

CTRINAL , VALUE

0

1

F THE FIRST CHAPTERS OF GENESIS ·

•

•

•

BY

THE

RE.V.

DYSON

HAGUE, M. A.

VICAR OF THE CHURCH OF .THE EPIPHANY; PROFESSOR OF LIT-

•

URGICS, WYCLIFFE COLLEGE, TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA

The Boo

1

k of · Genesis is. in

many

res

1

pects the most im

portant book in the Bible. It

is

of

the

first ·importance

be-·

cause it answers ., .not exha .ustively, but sufficiently, ·the funda

men .tal qu,estio.ns o,£ th

1

e h·uman mi11d. It contains the first

authoritative information

given

to

the race

concerning thes~

questions of everlasting

interest :

the

Bein.g

of God ; th<

origin of the universe; the creation of man ; the origin of

the

souI ; the

fact

of

revelation ;

the

introduction

of sin;

the

p1·omise of salvation; .the pri1nitive division of the

hum,an

race; the

purpose of

the elected

people;

the

pre liminary

part

in the program of Christianity. In

one

word,

in

this inspired ·

volume of beginnings, we have the satisfactory explanation of

all . he sin and misery and contradiction now in this world, _and

.. .

the reason of the scheme of

re·demption. .

· Or;,

to put it in an

1

other way. Tl1e Boo

1

k

of Gene,sis is

.

the

seed

in which the plant of God's W

1

ord is enfolded. It

is the

starting point

of God's

gradually-unfolded plan

of

the a·ges. Genesis is the .Plinth of 'the pillar of the Divine

revelation. It is the root of the tree of the inspired Scrip

tures. It is the source of the stream of the holy writings

of the Bible. If

the

base

of

the

pillar

is removed,

the

pillar ·

falls. If th,e root of the tr ·e

1

e is cut out, the tree

will wit.her

•

and die. If the fountain head of the stream is cut off, the

stream

will


2/16

Doct1 i1zalValue of

First

Chapters of Genesis

7

•

•

•

either staple, the chain falls in confusion. If the first cl1ap

ters of Genesis are

unr ,eliable,, t~1e

revelation

o,f

the beginni11g

of the universe, the

0

1

rigin of the race, and

tl1e

reason of its

redemption are gone. , If the last cl1apters of Revela .tion are

displaced the consummation of all thi.ngs ·is unknown. 1£

•

you take away Genesis ., you have lost the explanation of

the first heaven, the first

earth,

the first Adam, and the ·fall.

·If you

take

away Revelation

you

have

lost the

completed trutl1

of the new heaven, and the new earth, man redeemed,

and the

se,con

1

d Adam , i.n P aradise

regai11ed.

Further: in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis,

you

h,ave the strong and sufficient foundation of the

Sltb

sequent developments of tl1e

kingdom

of God; the root-germ

,of all

Anthropology, . SoterioJogy,

Christology, Satanology, to

say nothing of the ancient and -modern prob ,lems of the mys

tery and culpability of sin,

tl1e

D·ivine ordinance of the

Lord s

Day,

the

unity

of the

race, and God s

establishment

of matrimony and

the

family life.

We assume from

the start

the I1istoricity of Genesis and

its Mosaic authorship. It was evidently accept .ed. by Ch.rist

the Infallible, our Lord and God, as historical, as one single ·

Cromposition, and

as the work .

of

Moses.

It wa,s (accepted

by .

Paul the inspired. It was accepted universally by the divinely

inspired leaders

of God s chosen people. ( S

1

ee Green

Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch. ) It has validated itself .

to

the universal

Cl1t1rch

h1. ugl1out the ages

by

its realism and

consistency, and

by wh,at

ha s bee11 inely termed its st1bjective

trutl1f

ttlness. We , postt1late especi .al1y

tI1e

historicity

of

the

first chapters. These are not only valuable, they

are

vital. .

They a1·e the esse·nce of G,en

1

esis. The Bo,ol<

1

of Genesis is

neither the work of a theori t or a tribal annalist.

It

is still

~ess the product of some anonymous compiler or co~pilers

in some unknowable era, of a serie s of myths, historic in form

httt. unhistoric in fact. Its op~ning is an apocalypse, a direct

revelation fro1n the God of al.I truth. Whether

it

was gi.ven

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•


3/16

•

-

•

•

•

•

•

76

.

The undamentals

•

•

in a

vision

or

otherwise, it would be impossible to say.

But

it is possible, f not ·pr·o,bable, that the sam,e Lord God, who

revealed to His serv ,ant as he was, in the

Spirit

on

th.e

Lord s

Day, tl1e apoc,alypse ,of ·tl1e l1u1na11lyunknown and unknowable

events , of n1an s

history

which

will

transpire

wl1en

this

heaven

and this · earth have pas sed away, would also have r1vealed

to His s

1

ervant, b,eing in the

Spirit,

the apocalypse of the

hu1nanly unknowable and unkn,own events

which

transpired

bef o·re this ea,rth s histo ,ry b,egan. It has b,een ass

1

erted that

. the

beginning

,and the

en1d of things a1·e

both

absolute]y hid1en

from science. Sc,i ence has to do with phenomena. It is

whe .re

science

must . conf es,s its

impoten ,ce

that

revelation

steps

in, and, , with the

auth .ority

of God, reveals those tl1ings that

are above it. The begin11ing of G,enes,is, theref ,ore, is a,

diVinely

inspired narrative of the

evenis

deemed

necessary

•

by

God

to

establish

the

f oundatio ,ns for

tl1e

Divine . Law

in

the spl1ere of human life, a11d to set forth the relation be

tween the, o,mn.ipotent Creator and the man. who fell, and the

race that was to be redeemed by t he incarnat ,on of I-Iis Son.

· The

Gern1an ra ,tionalistic

idea,

whJr-~ has

passed

over into

thousands of more or , less orthodox Lhris ·tian tn inds, is that

these earliest chapters

embody

ancient traditions of the

Se1n

itic-orlental mind. Others go farther,

and not

only deny thern

io be the product of the i-evereqt and religious mind of the

Hebrew, but assert they were .

imply

oriental legend s not

born from abov,e and of God but born in the East, and prob-

•

ab1y in p,agan Babyloni ,a.

We would therefore postulate

tl1e

following propo

1

sitions :

l. The Book of Genesis has no doctrinal value if it is

n

1

ot authoritativ ,e.

2., The Book of

Gen,esis

is

not authoritative

if it

is not

true. For

if

it is not

histo,ry,

it is not reliable; and if

it is

not revelation, it

i s

not authorit ,ative. .

3,. The Boole 0

1

f Genesis is not true if it. is no,t f rotn

God.

For if it.

is n,ot from

God,

it

is

not

i,nspired;

and

if it

•

•

•

•

•

•


4/16


5/16

•

I

•

•

i

•

•

•

•

,I

8

The

Fiindamentals

if they a11

o·w

them to ,go out

1

0£

tl1eir

specific provinces without

•

protest. Their assumptions ought to be watc.hed ,vith the ut-

·most vigilance and ,jealousy.

(See

Gladston ,e,

Th ·e

Impreg•

nable Rock of Holy Scriptur

1

e, pp. 62-83.)

But

to resu1ne.

The Book of Genesis is the

foundation

on which the superstructure of the Scriptures rests.

The

•

foundation

1

of

the f

oun

1

dation is the firs,t tl11·ee

chap

1

ters,

which

form in themselves a co:mp,let

1

e monograph

af ·revelation. And

of this final substru

1

cture the first three verses of the first

·chapter are the foundation. .

In th ,e first verse of Genesis in words of superna ·tural gran•

deur, we have

a

revelation of God as ·the

first CS.Use,

he Crea·

·tor

of the

universe , the world and man.

The

glorious Be:ing

of God comes forth ,

without

,explanation, and without apol

1

ogy1

It

is a

I evelation of the one, personal, living,

God. There

·is in the

ancient

p

1

l1ilosop

1

hic

cosmogony no trace of

the

•

idea of su

1

ch

a Being, still less

of

suc·h

a

Creator, for all ot her

systems began and ended with pantheis

1

tic, materialist .ic, 1or

hyloz

1

oistic c,0

1

nce·ptions. TI1e

Divine

W:ord stands u11ique in

declaring the absolut,e idea of the· J,iving God, witho ,ut att etnpt

a·t de1nonstration. The spirituality, infinity, omnipotence, sanc

tity of the Divine Being, all

,µ

,germ lie here. Nay mote.

The later an

1

d more fully 1·evealed d.octrin·e of the

1

u·nity of

God in the Trinity may be s,ai

1

d to lie here in g

1

erm also,

and

the last and deepest revelation to be involv,ed in first and

foremost.

The fact of

God in the

first

o,f Genesis is 11otgiven

as a dedu ,ction of reason or a philos ,ophic

,g

1

eneralization . . It

is a revelation. It is a revelation of that primary truth which

•

· is received

by

the universal human mind as a truth that needs

•

no proof, and is incapable of i t, but which being receiv,ed, is

ve1·ified to the int,e11igent

mi11d

by an irr

1

esis,t·ible

f

orc

1

e not

•

only with ontological and cosmological, but wi·th teleological

and moral arguments. Here ,ve have in this first verse of

Genesis,, not only a postul,ate apart from Rev

1

elatio ,n, but tl1ree

great truths

which

hav

1

e ,c.onstitu ·ted ·the

glory of

our

religion .

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


6/16

•

•

•

•

•

11

Doctr·i ialValiec of

First

hapters of

Genesis

79

•

•

( 1) The Unity of God ; in contradictio ,n to all the poly

theisms and dualisms of ancient and modern pagan

philosopl1y.

(2) The Personality of God; in contradiction to

that

Pantheism whether materialistic or idealistic,

which

recognizes

God s imn1anence in the world, but denies His . transcendence.

For in all its

multitudi11ous

developments, pantheism. has this

•

peculiarity, that it denies the personality of God, and excludes

from the realm of lif-e the need

of

a

Mediator,

a

Sin-Bearer,

and

a

personal Saviour.

(3) The Omnipotence of God ; in contradiction, not ·

only to those debasing conceptions of the anthropomorphic dei

ties of the ancient world, but to all those man-made idols which

the millions of heathenism today adore. God made these starS .

and · suns,

wl1ich ma·n

in

his

1

infatuation fain

would

wor ,ship.

fh~s in contradiction to all human conceptiOns and hu

1nan

evoluti-ons,

there

stands forth

no

mere deistic

abstrac

tion, but the one, true, living and only God. He is named by

the name Elohim, the name of Divine Maj

1

esty, the Adorable

One, our Creator and Governor;

t11esame

God who in a few

Verses ·tater is

revealed

as

J hovah-Elol1im, Jehovah being the

Covenant name, .the God of

revela·tion

and grac

1

e, the Ev ,er ..

Existent

Lord, the

God

and

Fathe1·

of us all. (Green,

Unity

f

G

· 3·1 32 F B.b E ,,, 258 )

enes1s, pp.

1

, . ; _ ausset s 1 . _ ncy., p. .

,Qn ,e

1

0£ the

theories

of modernism is that

the

law

o,f

evo

lution can be traced through tl1e ible in the development of

the

i

1

dea of God. The develo pn1ent of tl1e idea of Go

1

d? Is

there

in the Scriptures any real

trace

of the development of the idea

of

God? There is .an expansive, and richer, and fuller revela

tion of the attributes and dealings and ways an,d workings of

God; but not of the idea of God. The God of Gen. 1 :1 is

. the God of Psa. 90; of Isa. 40 :28; of Heb. 1 :1 ; and Rev. 4 :11.

HJn the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Here in a sublime revelation is the doctrinal foundation of

the creation of the universe, and the co,ntradiction of the an ..

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

·

•

•


7/16

•

•

I

•

•

•

• •

•

•

80

, The

Funda11ientals

·,

•

•

cient and

n1odern

conceptions of the

eternity

of matter. God

•

only is eternal.

One can well

be]ieve

the

s,t,o.ry

of a Japanese

thin ,ke.r

who

took up a strange book, and with wonderment read the first

·senten~e: ''In the

begin11ing

God created the heaven and t·be'

e,arth.''

It struck

him

that

there was

mor.e pl1ilosophy

of a

theological character,

and

satisfying to the mind and sqt.1, in

tl1at .one

s,ente .nce than

in

.all the sacred

·books

of t'he orient.

Th ,at single sentence sep,arates th,e

Scriptures ,

from th

1

e

rest of human pro ,ductions.

The wis,est

philosophy of

the

an

ci1nts,

Platonic-Aristote~ian

or G11ostic,

nev,er reached the point

that the wor ,Jd was created by ·Go1d. in

tl1e

s

1

ense of

abs,ol1Jte

creation. In no cos,mogo,ny outside of the Bible is there a

record of the , idea

·tl1at

God created the heaven arid the earth,

as an effort of His

will ,

and

the

fiat o,f His eter .nal, self-ex-

..

istent Personality. ,

Ex niliilo nihi l

fit

The highest point

reached

by their philosop 'hical specul .ations

wa.s·

a

kind of

at:omi

1

c

theory ; of

cosmic

atom s and

germs , an,d

eggs po

1

s,se,ssed

of some inexplicable

forces

of

develo.pm,ent;

out of which

t'he

pr ,esent

cosm,os was throttgh long

ages evolved~

Matter

was

al1nost. universally b

1

elieved to

h.ave,

exist ,ed

·from

eternity.

The Bib

1

l.e teaches

that

the universe

was not

causa sui

or

a

· mere ·passive

evo·lutio11

a£ His nature, , nor

a

mere transition

from one forn1 o·f'

being

to,

another,

f'·o,m ·rton-being to being.

but that

it

was a, direct

Ct 'eation

of the pe,rsonal, living,

wo1·k

ing God, who

c1Aeated

ll things out of nothing,.

but

the fiat

of His will, and the in:strttmentality of the

eter,nal

Logos. In

glori .ous contrast t,o

a,gi1o_t,c

science with i.ts lamentable creed,

''I believe that behin ,d and

above

and around the

phenomena

of matter and force remain .s the unsolved my·stery of the uni -

verse,'' the

Chris ,tian

holds

forth .hi,s triump ·hant solution,, ''I

believe

that

iii the

beginning God created the h.eaven and

tl1e

•

earth.'' ·,(John 1; 1-3; Heb. 1 :1; C'ol. 1 :16, The first verse

,of t'he

Bib,Je

is

a proof

tl1a,t

the Bo,ok is

of

G

1

od.

•

•

•

•


8/16

•

,

•

And so with regard to the subsequent verses. Gene,sis

is

. admittedly . not a

scientific

history. It

is a

narrative for man

lcind to show

that th.is

world was

made by God

for

the

habita

tion of man, and was

gradually

being fitted for

God s

chil

dren.

So in a series of successive creativ

1

e developments

from the

formless

chaos, containing in en1bryonic

conditi@n

all el

1

emental constituents, chemical and 1nechanical, air, earth,

fire,

and

water, the sublime process is recorded, according to

the Genesis narrative in tl1e fallowing order:

1. Th ,e creation

by

direct Divine act of

matter

in

its gas

eous, aqueous, terrestrial

and mineral

condition successively.

( Gen.

1

:1-10,; cf. Col. 1 :16;

Heb.

11

:3.) .

2. The

emergence

by

Divine creative

power

of the lowest

.

-

forms of sea and land

life ,.

(Gen. 1:11-13.)

3. The creation

by dir ,ect Divin

1

e act of ta ,rger forms of

life,

aq1:1atic

nd terrestrial;

the

great sea monsters

and gigan~

tic

rep,tiles

(the sheretjim and tanninim) . . (Dawson, Origin

of the World, .

p~

213; Gen. 1 :20-21.) . .

4. The emergence by Divine creative power of land ani

mals

of

higher organization,

herbivora · and

smaller

mammals

and carnivora.

(_Gen. 1

:24-25.)

5. And finally the creation

by

direct

Divine

act

1

0f

.man.

(Gen. 1

:26,

27.) Not first but last.

The

last for · which

the

first wa~ made, as Browning so finely puts it. Herein is the

compatability of Genesis

a11d

science,

for

this sublime order

is

just the

order

that

sotne

of

the f

oremOst of the

nineteenth

and twentieth century scientists have proclaimed. · It is re

inarkable, too, that the word for absolutely new creation is

only used

in

connection

with the

introduction

of

life. (

Gen.

•

1

:1,

2, 27.)

These

three points where the

idea

of absolute

creati

1

on

is

introdu

1

ced

are

t he

three

n1ain

points

at which

mod

ern

champions of evolution find

it impossible to

make their

•

connection.

· Next we have in thi ,s sub.lime

revelation

the doctrinal

foundation

£,or the beginning of

mankind. ,

•

•

•

•

•

• t

•

•

•

•


9/16

I

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

82

•

The

Fundamen i·als

•

Man was

1

creat

1

ed., not evolved. That is,

.he

,did not com

e

fr,om p

1

rotoplasmic .mud-mass, or sea. ooze bat·h.yb.ian, or by

. descent from fish

or

frog, or ·

ho

rse,

or

a.pe ;.

but

at

once,

d.irect,

full made, did. man co

1

me forth ·from God. When y·ou read

what som.e wr.iters, prof ess.e,dly r ,eligio,us, s·ay about :man

and

his be.s,tial origin

you.r

sho·ul,de,r.s,

uncons,ciously

droo1 ; yo.ur

head han,gs down; yoitr h·eart feels, sick, Your se·Jf . ·esp,ect

bas rec

1

eived a blow, When

y,ou r,ead

Gene:si.s,

your

s,hot11ders

strai .ghten, your · chest emerges. You feel p

1

r

1

0,ud to be

that

thing that is called .

man. .

up

goes ,.

your hear ·t, and.

up

goes

your head. The Bible stands openly against

tl1 e

evolutio·ll'

ary developme11t,o·f· man, and h .i:s gradual a,sc:eint ·thr,o,u,gh in#

,detin.ite aeons from the anima .l. Not a.gainst the id,ea

of .

the

1

development of the,

p'l.ans

of·

the

Creator in nature, or a

varia~

ti

1

on of species

by

means of

enviro,111nent

and p1ocesses

of

time.

T'hat is

seen

in

Gene.sis, a·n.d

throughout ·the B

1

ibl

1

e., and

•

in this world. Bt1t th.e Bible

,d,oes.

stand

plai .nly

ag,ainst that:

gari .s,h

th ,eory

tha·t

all

.species,·veg,eta'ble an

1

d

animal, have

o.rig

inated thr ,ough e:volutio,n

f roin

lower farms t11rough long na·t,

ural processes. T:he mater ·ialistic f,orm of thi ·s the:o·ry

to

the

Christian is mo .st offensive. It p,ractically

SUbstitutes

an

a·tt-en-·

•

g,en·d~ring pr.otop,la.smic call for th

1

e only and trµ ,e

1

God. But

. even

the

theis,tic-supernat ur .alisi'ic t.heory

is

1

opp

1

0,sed to

the

Bible

a11d

o .Scienc

1

e ·for these r,easo11s.

•

1. There i,s no such univ,ersal law ,0

1

f-development.

1

0lf

t'h·e contrary, scientifi.c

eviCtlence

is now

standing for det·eriora·

tion. The fl.ora and the fauna

0£ t·t1e

1ate,st p

1

eriod show

no

. trace ·of improveme·nt, .and

,ev,e·n

man,

proud

man, from t_be

bio

logical

,a·nd physi,ological standpo ·int

has gained nothing

t:o speak of from the ·dawn of '

histoi'·y.

The earliest .ar

1

chreolog

ical remains of Egyp,t, As,syria, Bab,yl.onia, s·how no ·trac,e of

slow emergence from barbarism .. That sp

1

ecies

can b1 arti

ficially improv ,ed is true , but that is not transmutati :on of sp

1

e~

\ cies. (.Dawson, ''Ori .git;

0

1

f

the Worl ,d,'' pp •.

22'7-2'77.)

1

•

2. N,o n.ew

t,ype

has ever be·en di.scovered.

Sc~ence is

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


10/16

• as

=

a :

•

•

•

•

•

unive,rsally proclaiming the truth af

Gen,, l

:11,, 12,

21,

24, 2,5

''after his kind,'' ~'after their kind'' ; that is, species by species.

Geology with its five

hundred

or so species of ganoids

pro ..

•

claims the fact of

the

non-trans1nt1tation of

species. If

as

•

they say, the strata tell the story of

countless

aeons, , it i:s

strange that during those countles,s aeons the trilobite never

Produced anythin ,g but a trilobi 'te,

no1·

has ·the amn1onite ever

produced anything but an an1monite. The elaborat

1

ely a.rtifi

cial exception 1S

o,f n10,dern ,s,cience o,nly confirm the

rule. (

See ,

Townsend,. 'Collapse of Evolution.'')

•

, · 3.

Nor is the~e any

trace of

transmutation of

spec·ies .

Man develops £ram a single cell, ·and the

cell

of a monkey

•

is said to be indistinguishable from that

of

a man. But the

fact that

a

man cell d.evelops into

a man

and

the

monkey cell .

develops into a monkey, show ·s th·ere is. an

im,1neasurable

dif

ference

b1tween

them. And t.he

developmen .t.

from

a

cell into

la man has nothing whatever to do with the evolution of one

species into another. ''To science, species are practically un

changeable units'' ( ''

1

0rigin of the

1

World,'' p

1

•• 227). Man is

the

so1e

,s1pecies of

his

genus .

and the sole representative

of

'his

species.

The

abandonment

of ·

any original type is said

to

be

soon followed by the

comple·te extinctio

1

n

0

1

f

the family.

4. Nor has th

1

e.

missing

link

be·en found.

The

lat.e Rob

ert Etheridge of the British Mttseum, head of the geologicaJ

department, and one of the ablest of British paleontologists,

has said: ''In all

that

great museum there

is

not a particle of ·

evi

1

dence of tran smutation of species..

Ni.ne-tenths

of

the

talk

of evolutionists is not founded on observation, and is whol ly

Unsupported by ·facts.'' And Profe ,ssor Virchow is

1

said to have

declared with vehemence .rega di ng evolution: . ~'It's all non- ·

sense. Y

1

ou are as far as ever

you,

we.re

from

establishing

any

connection between man and the ,ape,.'' A great

gt1lf

is fixed

between the theory of evolution and the sublime statement of

Gen. 1 :26, 27

·

These verses give man his true place in the

Universe as

the

consummatio .n of creation. Made out

of the

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


11/16

•

84

The Fundamentals

I

dust of the ground, and created on the same day with

the

highe st group of animals, man has physiological affinities with

the animal creation. But he was made in the image of God,

and therefore transcendently superior to any animal. Man

is a walker, the monkey is a climber, said the great French

scientist, De Quatrefage s, years ago. A man does a thou~

sand things every day that a monkey could not do if he

tried ten thousand year s. Man has the designing, controlling,

order ing, constructive, and governing faculties. Man has per

sonality, under standing , will, conscience. Man is fitted for

apprehending God, and for worshipping God. The Genesis

account

of

man is the only possible basis

of

revelation. The

revelation of fatherhood; of the beautiful, the true, the good;

of purity, of peace; is unthinkable to a horse, a dog, or a

monkey. The most civilized simian could have no affinity

with such ideas. There is no possibility of his conceiving

such conceptions, or of receiving them if revealed. It is,

moreover, the only rational basis for the doctrine of regen

eration in opposition to the idea of the evolution of the hu

man character, and of the great doctrine of the incarnation.

Man once made in the image of God, by the regenerating

power of the Holy Ghost is born again and made in the image

of

God the Son.

Further, we have in this sublime revelation

of

Genesis

the doctrinal foundation of-

1. The unity of the hutnan race.

2.

The fall of man.

3. The plan of redemption .

1.

With regard to the first, Sir William Dawson has said

that the Bible knows but one Adam. Adam was not a myth,

or an ethnic name. He was a veritabie man, made by God;

not an evolutionary developn1ent from some hairy anthropoid

in some imaginary continent of Lemuria. The Bible knows

but one species of man, one primitive pair. This is confitmed

by

the Lord Je sus Chri st in Matt.

19

:4. It is re-affirmed


12/16

•

•

•

•

DOctrinal

Value

of

First Chapters of

Genesis 8,5

. .

by

Paul in Acts ·

17 :26,

whichever reading

may

be

take11,

and

in

Rom. 5 :12;

Cor. 15

:21,

47

49. Nor is there any

ground

for

supposing

that

the wo,rd Adam

is

used

in

a col

leCtive sense,

and

thu s

leave room

for

the hypotheses of

the

evolutionary development of a

large

number of human pairs.

All things in both physiology and ethnology, as well as in the

sciences, which bear on .the

subject,

confirm the idea of the

•

unity of the

human race. ( Saph:ir,

p.

206.)

2.

With regard to

the

f

a11

of

man. The foundation

of

all

Han1artology and

Anthropology lies in the first three chapter s of .

Ge11esis_

t te aches

us

that 1nan

·was

originally

created for com-

munio ,o with God, and

that

whether his personality was dichot

omistic

or

trichotomi stic,

he

was entirely fitted for personal,

in- .

telligent

fellowship

with .his

Maker,

and

was united ·with I-Iim

in

the bonds of lo ve

and

kno wledge.

Eve.ry

element

of the Bible

.

•

story recommends itself as a l1istoric

narrative.

Placed in

Eden

by his

God., with

a work to do,

and a trial-command,

tnan was potentially perfect, but with the possibility of fall,

Man

fell,

thot1gh

it was God's will

that

man

should

rise

fro1n

that human posse non peccari as a free agent into the Divine

non posse

peccarf.

(Augustine, ''De Civitate

Dei ,,

Book 22,

Chap.

30.)

Man fell

by

disobedience, and through the power

of a supernatural deceiver called

that

old serpent, the devil

and Satan, who from

Gen.

3 to Rev. 19 appears as· the im

placable enemy of the

hun1an

race, and the head of

tl1at

fallen

angel-band which abandon ,ed

through

the sin

of

pride tl1eir

first

principality. ·

This story is incomprehensible if only a myth. The great

•

Dutch theologian,

Van

Oosterzee says ,

''The

narrative

pre -

sents

itself

plainly as history. Such an historico-fantastic

clothing

of

a pure philosophic ·idea accords little with the

genuine

spirit of

Jewish antiquity. (Dog. ii, p. 403.)

· Still

more incomprehen sible is it, if

it

is merely an allegor y

wl1i.ch refers fruit serpent woman tree eating etc. to en-

tirely

different things from

those

mentioned in

the

Bible.

It

•

•

•

•

•

-

•

•

•

•


13/16

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

86

Tlie undamentals

\

•

is history. It~is treated as such h,y our Lord Jesus Christ,

•

who

surely

would not

1nistak-e

a

myth

for

history,

and

by St.

Paul, who hardly

built

Rom. 5, and 1 Cor.

15,,

on

cleverly

coin·

po,sed fables. It is the o,nly sat ·i.sfactory

expl.a.11ation

of the

. corruption of the race. From Adam's time death has reigned.

This story of the fall stands, moreover, as

a barrier

against

all Manicheism, and ag.ainst that Pelagianism which declares

· that man is not so bad after all, and d

1

erides the ,doct ·rine of

original sin which in all our Church confessions

disti11ctly

de ..

c1ares the possession by every one from birth of this sinfttl

nature. (See, e.g., Art. IX of .''Anglican Church.'') The pen-

alty and horror of sin, ·the corr11ption of our human nature,

and the hopelessness of our sinful estate ar~ things definitely

set

forth in the Holy Scripture, and are St.

Paul's

divinelyp

inspired deductions from this fact of the incoming of sin and

death thrott.gh the disobedience and fall of Adam, the original

he

1

ad of ·the l1uman race. Tl1e race is. in a sinf 'ul condition .

•

(Roni, 5 :12.) Manki .nd is a solidarity. As tl1e root of a tree

lives in s·t

1

em, branch, leaf and fruit; .s.o in Adam, as Anselm

· says, a person made nature sin£ul, in his post ,erity nature

made persons sinful. Or, as Pascal finely puts it, origina1

sin is folly in the sight of man, but

this

folly is wiser than all

•

,

the wisdom of man. Fo1· without it, who could have said ·

what

man is.

His

whole condition depends

upon

this imper-

ceptible

point. (

''Thoughts,'' ch. xiii-11.) This

Genesis

story

•

further is the

f

1

oundation

0

1

f

the Scriptur

1

e doc·trine of all

htt-

man resp,onsiblity, and accountability to God. A lowered

anthropology always means

a

~owered theology, for if man

was not

a direct

creatio :n

of G

1

od,

if

he

was

1

a

inere

i11direct

I

devel,opment, through .slow and painful p·ro,cess., of no· one

knows what, or l1ow, or wl1y, or when, or wl1ere, the main

spring of moral .ac,countability is gone. The

f

at ,alistic con

ception of man's personal and moral life is the deadly gift of

•

naturalistic ·evolution to our age, said Prof, D. A. Curtis re-

centJy. .

•

•

\

•

•

•

,


14/16

•

Doctrinal Value of First hapters of Genesis ·

87

•

•

•

•

•

.

3. With regard to our redemption, the third chapter of

·G,enesis is the basis of all Sot,eriology .If there Y{asno £,all,

· there wasl no conde1nnation, no separa .tion and no

ne,ed

1

0£

reconciliation. If

there was. n

1

0 need o,f

reconciliation, there

was no need of redemptio11; and . if there was no nee~ of r·e

demption, the Incarnation ,vas a superfluity, and the crucifixion

folly. ( Gal. 3 :21.) So closely does the apostle link the fall

,,

of Adam

and

the

deat h of

Christ, that ' ithout

Adam's fall

the science of theology is evacuated of its most salient feature,

•

tl1e a·tonement. If the first Adam was. not ma,de a livin,g 'Soul

and fell,. there was no rea son for the work of the Second

•

Man, the Lord from heaven. The rejection of the Genesis

•

story as a myth, tends to the reje .ction of the Gospel of salva-

tion. One of the chief

C

1

orner stones of the Christian doc

tr ,i11e s removed, if

th

1

e

historical

re,a1ity of

Adam and Eve

is

abandoned, for the

fall will

ever remain

as

tl1e

starting

point

of special revelation, of salvatio11by grace, and of the need of

personal regeneration. In it lies the germ of the entire apos-

tol.ic

Gospel. ·

Finally, we have in Gen. 2 the doctrinal foundation of

those great fundamentals, the necessity of labor, the Lord' s .

Day

of

rest,

the Divine

ordinance of matrimony, and the

home life of mankind. The weekly day of rest was .provided

for man by his God, and is planted in the very forefront of

revelation as a Divine ordinance, and so also is marriage an

1

d ·

the l10n1e. ,Our Lord J~st1s Christ en

1

dorses the Mo·saic s,tory

of tl1e creation of Adam and Eve, refers to it as the explana

tion of the Divine will 1·egar,ding divorce, and san

1

ctions by His

inf

a]lible

imprim

atur

that most

mo111entous

of

ethical ques

tions, monogamy. .Thus the great elem-ents of life as God

intended

it,

the

thr ,ee itniv ·ersal

f actor .s of happy, healthy,

..helpful life, la.w, labor, love, are laid down in the beginning

of God' s Book. · ·

•

Three other remarkable .

features

in. the first cl1apters oi ·

•

Gene,sis

deserve

a

brief

reference .

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


15/16

88

The Funda nentals

The first is the assertion of the original unity of the lan

guage of the human race. (Gen. 11:1.) Max Muller, a fore

most ethnologist and philoiogist, declares that all our language s,

in spite of their diversities, must have originated in one con1-

1non source. ( See Saphir, Divine Unity, p. 206; Daw son,

Origin of the World, p. 286; Guinness, Divine Pro

gramme, p. 75.)

The second is that miracle of ethnological prophecy by Noah

in Gen. 9 :26, 27, in which we have foretold in a sublime epit

ome the three great divisions of the human race, and their

ultimate historic destinie s. The three great divisions, Ha

mitic, Shemitic, arid Japhetic, are the three ethnic group s into

which modern science has divided the human race. The fact s

of history have fulfilled what was fo~etold in Genesis four

thou sand years ago. The Hamitic nations, including . 'the

Chaldean, Babylonic, and Egyptian, have been degraded, pro

fane, and sensual. The Shemitic have been the religious with

1

the line of the coming Messiah. The Japhetic have been the

enlarging, and the dominant race s, including all the great

world monarchie s, both of the ancient and modern times, the

Grecian, Roman, Gothic, Celtic, Teutonic , British and Ameri

can, and by recent investigation and discovery , th~ races of

India, China, and Japan. Thu s Ham lost all empire centurie s

ago; Shem and his race acquir ed it ethically and spirituaPy

through the Prophet , Prie st and King , the Messiah; while

Japheth, in world-embrac ing enlargement and imperial su

premacy, has stood for industrial ., commercial, and politi cal

dominion.

The third is the gloriou s promi se given to Abraham, the

man to whom the God of glory appeared and in whose seed,

personal and incarnate, the whole world was to be blessed.

Abraham' s per sonality is the explanation of the monothei sm

of

the three greate st religion s in the world. He stands out in

majestic proportion, as Max 1'1uller says, as a figure, second

only to One in the whole world' s history. Apart from that


16/16

•

•

•

•

D octrinal

Value

of F irst Chapters

,of Gene,sis·

89

•

•

p,1·ornise

the m,iracu1ous history of the Hebr

1

ew

,race is inex

p1icab1e. In him c,enter ,s,, and on him hangs, the c,entra1 fact

of the

who,Je

of

the

Old Te stament,

the

pr ,omise of t he S,a-

viour

and

His glorious salvation. ( Gen. 11 :3; 22 :18; Gal.

3:8-16.) · -

In an age, th

1

ere,for ·e, when the

1

cri·tics are waxing bo1d in

claiming settledness

fo.r

.the

assured results o·f their

hypothetic

eccentricities, Christian s should wax bolder in contending

earnestly for

the

as sured results

of

the revelation in

the open-

ing chapters of

Genesis. ·

The

attempt

o:f

modernism

to

save

the

supernatural

in

the second part of the Bible by mythicalizing

the super

natural

in the

first p,art, is

a.s

unwise

a,s it

is fatal. Ins ,tead

of lowering

tl1e

dominant of faith amidst the choru s

of

doubt,

and admitting

that

a chapter is doubtful

beca·use

some

doc-

·tr1naire

has questioned it, ,or a ·do,ct1·ine is les.s authentic be-

cause s.omebody

has flo,ated

an

unve1·ifi.able

h.ypothesi .s,

it

would

be

better to take our stand with such men as Romanes,

Lord Kelvin, Vire .how, and Liebig, i·n the ·ir ideas of a Creative

Power, and to side with Cuvier, the eminent French scientist,

who said that Mo,ses, while brought up in all the science

of Egypt, was superio :r to h.is .age, and has l,ef

t

us a cos

mogony, the exactitude of which verifies itself every day in

a

reasonable nianner; with Sir William Dawson,

the

eminent

•

Canadian scientist, who declared that Scripture in all its de-

tails contradicts no received result o·f science, but anticipates

ma.ny of its discove1·ies.;. with Prof ess

1

or D,ana, , the e1ninent ·

•

American scientist, who said, after examining the first chapters .

of Genesis as a geologist, I find it to be in perfect accord with

known science ; or, best of all, with Him who said, Had ybu

believed

Moses,

you would have believed Me, £or he wrote of

Me. But if you believe not his writings, how shall you be-

1ieve My words?~ (John S :45, 46j)

•

•

•

•

•

...

the fundamentals: volume 8, chapter 6: the doctrinal value of the first chapters of genesis

Documents