here covers a survey of all that has been made, and rises to the superlative 'very good.'
Vv.29f. differ significantly in their phraseology from the preceding
sections: thus (
Hebrew characters) instead of (Hebrew characters) (11. 12); (Hebrew characters) instead
of the far more elegant (Hebrew characters); the classification into beasts,
birds, and reptiles (ct. 24. 25); (Hebrew characters) of the inner principle of life instead
of the living being as in 20f. 24; (Hebrew characters) instead of (Hebrew characters). These linguistic
differences are sufficient to prove literary discontinuity of some kind.
They have been pointed out by Kraetschmar (Bundesvorstg. 103 f.), who
adds the doubtful material argument that the prohibition of animal food
to man nullifies the dominion promised to him in vv.26. 28. But his inference
(partly endorsed by Ho.) that the vv. are a later addition to P
does not commend itself; they are vitally connected with 92ff., and must
have formed part of the theory of the Priestly writer. The facts point
rather to a distinction in the sources with which P worked,—perhaps
(as Gu. thinks) the enrichment of the creation-story by the independent
and widespread myth of the Golden Age when animals lived peaceably
with one another and with men. The motives of this belief lie deep
in the human heart—horror of bloodshed, sympathy with the lower
animals, the longing for harmony in the world, and the conviction that
on the whole the course of things has been from good to worse—all
have contributed their share, and no scientific teaching can rob the idea
of its poetic and ethical value.
II. 1-3. The rest of God.—The section contains but
one idea, expressed with unusual solemnity and copiousness
of language,—the institution of the Sabbath. It supplies
an answer to the question, Why is no work done on the
last day of the week? (Gu.). The answer lies in the
fact that God Himself rested on that day from the work
of creation, and bestowed on it a special blessing and
sanctity.—The writer's idea of the Sabbath and its sanctity
is almost too realistic for the modern mind to grasp: it is
not an institution which exists or ceases with its observance
by man; the divine rest is a fact as much as the divine
working, and so the sanctity of the day is a fact whether
man secures the benefit or not. There is little trace of the
idea that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for
the Sabbath; it is an ordinance of the kosmos like any
other part of the creative operations, and is for the good
of man in precisely the same sense as the whole creation is
subservient to his welfare.
