The
Copyright © 1991 by Westminster Theological
Seminary, cited with permission;
digitally prepared
for use by
WTJ 53
(1991) 227-240
THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE
Part I: The Meaning
of raqiac in Gen 1:6-8
PAUL H. SEELY
STANDARD
Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars
have
defined the raqiac (fyqr,
"firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome
over the
earth.1 Conservative scholars
from Calvin on down to the present,
however,
have defined it as an atmospheric expanse.2 Some conservatives
have
taken special pains to reject the concept of a solid dome on the basis
that the
Bible also refers to the heavens as a tent or curtain and that
refer-
ences to windows and pillars of heaven are
obviously poetic.3 The word
raqiac, they say, simply means
"expanse." They say the understanding of
raqiac as a solid firmament rests on the
Vulgate's translation, firmamentum;
and that
translation rests in turn on the LXX's translation stere<wma,
which
simply reflected the Greek view of the heavens at the time the trans-
lators did their work.4 The raqiac
defined as an atmospheric expanse is the
historical view
according to modern conservatives; and the modern view of
the raqiac as a solid dome is simply the
result of forcing biblical poetic
language into
agreement with a concept found in the Babylonian epic
Enuma
Elish.5
The historical evidence, however, which we
will set forth in concrete
detail,
shows that the raqiac was
originally conceived of as being solid and
not a
merely atmospheric expanse. The grammatical evidence from the
OT, which we
shall examine later, reflects and confirms this conception of
1
E.g., commentaries on Genesis by S. P. Driver, H. Gunkel,
J. Skinner, G. von Rad, C.
Westermann.
2 J. Calvin, Genesis
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948) 78-79. From the eighteenth century,
e.g., A. Clarke, The Old Testament (
century,
e.g., G. Bush, Notes on the Book of Genesis, (New York: Ivison, Phinney, 1860) 33; R. S.
Candlish, Commentary on Genesis (1868; repr.
e.g., C. E Keil and
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949) 1.52; A. R. Fausset and D. Brown, A Commentary on the Old and New
Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1948) 5; H. L. Ellison and D. E Payne, "Genesis," in
The International Bible Commentary (ed.
E E Bruce;
3 E.g., C.
Genesis, C. Gaenssle,
"A Look at Current Biblical Cosmologies," CTM 23 (1952) 738-49.
4 E.g., L. Haines on
Genesis in the Wesleyan Bible Commentary (
1967) 26; R. L. Harris, "Bible and Cosmology," Bulletin
of the Evangelical Theological Society 5
(1962) 11-17; W. C. Kaiser, Jr., "The Literary Form of
Genesis 1-11," in New Perspectives on
the Old
Testament (ed. J. B. Payne;
5
Kaiser. Literary Form. 52-57.
228
solidity. The
basic historical fact that defines the meaning of raqiac
in Gene-
sis 1 is
simply this: all peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as
solid. This
concept did not begin with the Greeks.
The question, however, arises in the
modern mind, schooled as it is in the
almost
infinite nature of sky and space: Did scientifically naive peoples
really
believe in a solid sky, or were they just employing a mythological or
poetic
concept? Or were they, perhaps, just using phenomenal language
with no
attending belief that the sky actually was a solid object? That is,
were they
referring to the mere appearance of the sky as a solid dome but
able to
distinguish between that appearance and the reality?
The answer to these questions, as we shall
see more clearly below, is that
scientifically naive peoples employed their concept of a solid sky in their
mythology, but
that they nevertheless thought of the solid sky as an integral
part of
their physical universe. And it is precisely because ancient peoples
were
scientifically naive that they did not distinguish between the appear-
ance of the sky and their scientific concept
of the sky. They had no reason
to doubt
what their eyes told them was true, namely, that the stars above
them were
fixed in a solid dome and that the sky literally touched the earth
at the
horizon. So, they equated appearance with reality and concluded
that the
sky must be a solid physical part of the universe just as much as
the
earth itself.
Levy-Bruhl,
commenting on the beliefs of scientifically naive peoples and
quoting from
original reports, wrote,
Their cosmography as far as we know
anything about it, was practically of one
type up 'til the time of the white man's arrival upon the
scene. That of the
Dayaks may
furnish us with some idea of it. "They. . .
consider the earth to be
a flat surface,
whilst the heavens are a dome, a kind of glass shade which covers
the earth, and
comes in contact with it at the horizon. They therefore believe
that, traveling
straight on, always in the same direction, one comes at last, with-
out any metaphor,
to touch the sky with one's fingers." . . . It is the same thing
in the
these islands,
the native drew a line to the west of them and explained in a very
clear and simple
way that yonder, beyond the
was too close to
the earth to permit navigation; the utmost that could be done was
to crawl along
the ground or swim in the sea." . . . Among the Melanesians of the
Loyalty Group, "to the mind of the Lifuan, the horizon was a tangible object at
no great
distance. Many of the natives thought that if they could only reach it
they would be
able to climb up to the sky."
Such an impression is not peculiar to
the races of the Southern Pacific. It is to
be met with in
vault which rests
upon the earth. The point where heaven touches the earth is
called bugimamusi . . . the place where the women can lean
their pestles against
the vault."6
6 L. Levy-Bruhl, Primitive Mentality
(Boston: Beacon. 1966) 53-55.
THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE 229
Among primitive African peoples various
stories reflect their belief in a
solid sky.
The Ngombe say that when the two creatures who hold
the sky
up with
poles get tired, "the sky will fall down." The Nyimang
say that
long ago
the sky was so close to earth that the women could not stir their
porridge
properly with their long stirrers; so one day "one woman got
angry and
lifting the stirrer pierced the sky with the upper end."7
The Dogon tell
of an ancient ancestor who came down from heaven
"standing on a square piece of heaven. . . . A thick piece? Yes, as thick as
a
house. It was ten cubits high with stairs on each side facing the four
cardinal
points."8
On the other side of the world, among
American Indians, the sky was
also
conceived of as a solid dome. As Levy-Bruhl wrote,
In
on all sides by
water and the sky is a solid concave hemisphere coming down at
the horizon to
the level of the earth. In Cherokee and other Indian myths the sky
is continually
lifting up and coming down again to the earth like the upper blade
of a pair of
scissors. The sun which lives outside the hemisphere slips between the
earth and the
sky-line in the morning when there is a momentary slit, and it
returns from the
Western side in the evening in the same fashion.9
This idea of the sky lifting up and down,
opening and closing a space
"between the rim of the sky and the earth" is widespread
among North
American
Indians, some of them believing that this bellows-like movement
of the
sky caused wind. A number of Siberian tribes believe the opening of
the sky
allows migratory birds to fly out of this world in the winter and live
"on the other side of the celestial vault" until spring.
But birds which do
not
hurry "are caught and crushed between the rocks of the sky and the
earth"
when the sky closes down.10
Another common American Indian idea
reflecting the solidity of the sky
is the
story of a hero who gained access to the sky by shooting an arrow into
it and
then another arrow into the first arrow and so on until he had an
arrow
"ladder" by which he could climb up to the sky. There are similar
stories to
this from all around the world. In a Chuckchee story
a hero throws
a
needle upwards ''as a dart, so that it fastens in the sky"; then he climbs
up a
thread hanging from the needle. In
needle, but
a lance that "fastens itself in the celestial vault."11
Still another element reflecting the
solidity of the sky is the idea of a
window or
hole in the sky. This idea is so widespread that one observer
7 S. Feldman, African
Myths and Tales (New York: Dell, 1963) 39-40.
8 B. Sproul, Primal Myths (New York: Harper & Row,
1969) 61.
9
Levy-Bruhl, Primitive, 353-55.
10 G. Hau, Asiatic Influences in American Folklore (
gaard)
78-79. cr. Sproul, Primal,
197.
11 Hatt,
Asiatic, 78-79.
230
concluded it
was "a general human trait."12 The Seneca, for example,
told
of a
woman who fell through a hole in the sky bringing some soil of the sky
with her
which she had clenched in her hands while trying "to hold on to
the edge
of the hole" before she fell.13 The Navaho in their story of
creation
not only
mention a hole in the sky but specifically describe the solidity of
the sky:
They went in circles upward 'til they
reached the sky. It was smooth. [They were
told of a hole in
the sky.] They entered the hole and went through it up to the
surface [of the
second world above]. When they reached the sky [of the second
world] they found it like the sky of the first world, smooth
and hard with no
opening.14
The Cherokee
clearly state that the "sky vault . . . is of solid rock."15
In the far northern reaches of
peoples
there also give evidence of belief in a solid sky. The Lapps say that
the
North Star is a nail which supports the sky, but in the last days when
Arcturus
shoots down the North Star with an arrow "the heavens will fall
crushing the
earth and setting fire to everything."16
In
a
hemi-spherical sky and that "a certain hero rode out once to the place
where
earth and sky touched."17 In some districts the Buriats "conceive the
sky to
be shaped like a great overturned cauldron, rising and falling in
constant
motion. In rising, an opening forms between the sky and the edge
of the
earth. A hero who happened at such a time to place his arrow
between the
edge of the earth and the rim of the sky was enabled thus to
penetrate
outside the world."18
Other stories could be cited, but it is
sufficiently clear that scientifically
naive
peoples around the world from the
from
touching the
earth at the horizon. Nor is this common conception of a
firmament
merely myth, metaphor, or phenomenal language. It is an in-
tegral part of their scientific view of the
universe. It is within the context
12 Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14 C. Long, Alpha:
The Myths of Creation (Chico: Scholars Press, 1963) 46-48. Sproul (Primal)
also mentions an Islamic
commentary which tells of boring "a hole in the sky" and an Eskimo
story of a bird which pecks
"a hole in the sky."
15 H. B. Alexander, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. 10:
16 U. Holmberg, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. 4: Finno-Ugric,
in Hatt,
Asiatic, 50. The Koran speaks of God holding up the heavens "so
that they do not
fall on to the earth"
(22.64).
17 Hatt,
Asiatic, 63.
18 Holmberg, Mythology,
308.
THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE 231
of
geography, astronomy, and natural science that they really believe that
if they
would travel far enough they could "touch the sky with one's fin-
gers," that migrating birds live "on
the other side of the celestial vault,"
that an
arrow or lance could "fasten in the sky," that the sky can have
"a
hole in
it," that at the horizon "the dome of the sky is too close to earth
to
permit
navigation," that where the sky touches the earth you can "lean a
pestle
against it" or "climb up it," that the sky is "smooth and
hard. . .
of
solid rock, . . . as thick as a house," that the sky can "fall
down" and
someday
"will fall down crushing the earth."
Equally important, this perception of the
firmament is not selective. It is
almost
completely universal. True, there are occasional variations on the
solid dome
conception, such as several worlds piled up on top of each other,
each with
its own firmament; but I know of no evidence that any scientific-
ally
naive people anywhere on earth believed that the firmament was just
empty
space or atmosphere. The only exception to this is the Chinese and
that not
until AD 200. Apart from a scientific education, it is just too natural
for
people to think of the sky as something solid. So true is this that it is
generally
regarded by scholars as "the usual primitive conception."19
One
scholar goes
so far as to call it "a general human belief."20
I. The Ancient Eastern View of the Sky
Since scientifically naive peoples
naturally conceive of the sky as solid, it
is no
surprise that the records we have from the ancient East echo the same
viewpoint.
Thus one observer of ancient
thought of
as "an actual place, not more ethereal than the earth. ..but
a high
plane situated above
bridge or
ladder. . . . An arrow shot from earth could reach heaven and
make a
hole in it."21
Joseph Needham tells us the Chinese had
three cosmological views, but
the most
ancient one perceived the earth as an upside down bowl with the
heavens over
it as another upside down bowl, the sky having simply a
greater
diameter than the earth. The sun and moon were attached to the
vault of
heaven, which rotated from left to right carrying the heavenly
bodies with
it.22 Chinese stories mention heaven and earth being separated
from each
other, tell us that the sky was once much nearer to earth than it
19
Freund, Myths of Creation (New York: Washington Square, 1965) 204.
cr. Levy-Bruhl,
Primitive,
353, and Feldman, African, 40. ;11:')
20 Hatt,
Asiatic, 50.
21 Ibid.,
54 n. 2.
22 J.
M. Loewe;
232
is
today, and speak of the place "where heaven and earth meet," ideas
which, if
interpreted within their historical context, indicate they believed
in a
solid sky.23
Interestingly, around AD 200 a school of
thought arose in
posited that
the sky was empty space. This is to my knowledge the first and
only time
that anyone in the ancient Eastern world thought of the sky as
not
being solid. So novel was this idea even to the West that as late as the
sixteenth
century a Jesuit missionary to
that the
sky is not solid is "one of the absurdities of the Chinese"!24
In
from the
middle of the second millennium BC. It contains a number of
passages
which show that Indians of that time believed in a solid firma-
ment. In one creation hymn an unnamed god is
mentioned "by whom the
dome of
the sky was propped up" (10.121.5; cf. 1.154.1 and 2.12.2). An-
other hymn
asks, "What was the wood. . . from which they carved the sky
and the
earth?" (10.81.4). Another says, "Firm is
the sky and firm is the
earth"
(10.173.4). Several hymns mention people who "climb up to the
sky"
(8.14.14; 2.12.12; 1.85.7). Several hymns mention the separation of
heaven and
earth. One says Varona "pushed away the dome of
the sky"
(7.86.1; cf.
10.82.1).25
Equally important, the hymns of the Rig
Veda distinguish the firmament
from the
"middle realm of space," i.e., the space between the earth and the
firmament
(10.190.3; 8.14.7). Indeed, the "realm of space" and the
"sky"
were
created from two different sources (10.90.14). The atmosphere is also
distinguished from the solid firmament (2.12.2; 10.139).26 As W. N.
Brown
concluded, the
universe of the Rig Veda "was considered to be composed
of the
earth surface, the atmospheric region, and the sky surface."27
The Sumerologist
Samuel Noah Kramer described the cosmology of the
Sumerians, the founders of the first civilization, in similar
terms. The earth,
they
thought, was a flat disc; heaven, a hollow sphere enclosed at top and
bottom by a
solid surface in the shape of a vault.28 Sumerian literature, like
the Rig
Veda, distinguished between the firmament and the atmosphere.
The
Sumerians made this distinction by attributing to their air god, Enlil,
the
original act of separating heaven from earth. Hence Kramer noted the
Sumerians
believed that between heaven and earth was a substance called
lil or wind which "corresponds roughly
to our 'atmosphere,' " while they
23 Wing-Tsit Chan, Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy (
1963) 247-48; Hatt,
Asiatic, 54 n. 1.
24
25 The Rig Veda
(trans. W. O'Flaherty;
26 (solidity of the sky);
36, 213 (separation of heaven and earth).
26 Ibid.,
31, 34, 159, 160; Sproul, Primal, 182-83.
27 W.
N. Brown, "The Creation Myth of the Rig Veda," JAOS 62 (1942)
85.
28 S. N. Kramer, History
Begins at
THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE 233
thought of
the firmament as solid, possibly composed of tin since the
ian word for tin is literally "metal of
heaven."29
We have no description of the Hittite
cosmology, but we do know they
thought of
the sky as solid, for a recovered text speaks of a time when they
"severed the heaven from the earth with a cleaver."30
The Egyptian Pyramid Texts (ca. 2000 BC)
seem to speak of the sky as
being made
of metal.31 Max Muller accepted this idea and went on to say
the
Egyptians apparently believed the firmament was made specifically of
iron. He
says, "This conception of a metal dome explains some expressions
of
later times, such as the name of iron, be-ni-pet
('sky metal'), or the later
word for
'thunder,' khru-bai (literally, 'sound of the metal')
i.e., thunder was
evidently
explained as the beating of the giant sheets of metal which consti-
tuted the sky."32
Whatever the case may be as to exactly
what material the ancient Egyp-
tians thought the sky was made of, they
certainly believed it was solid. A
number of
texts speak of the time when the sky was literally separated from
the
earth. Pyramid Text 1208c specifically mentions the time "when the sky
was
separated from the earth," and, although this was a historic event of
creation,
Text 854c seems to imply that the sky was separated from the
earth
daily in order to let the sun enter (a concept reminiscent of American
Indian ideas).
Text 1156c mentions that "his (Shu's) right arm supports the sky"; and
2013a says,
"Thou art a god who supports the sky."33 Various of the Coffin
Texts (ca.
2050 to 1800 BC) reiterate these ideas of the sky needing support,
e.g., spells
160, 366, 378, and 664. Pyramid Text 1040c more prosaically
points to
the two mountain ranges on the east and west sides of the
the
"two supports of the sky." In either case the fact that the sky
needed
supporting
clearly shows that the Egyptians thought of it as solid; and Text
299a implies
that if the supporting arms of Shu were hacked off,
the sky
would
fall. Also clearly showing that the Egyptians thought of the sky as
solid is
the fact that they like the Sumerians and Indians in the Rig Veda
distinguished between the sky (firmament) and the atmosphere. The sky
29 Ibid.,
70, 83. cr. S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology
(rev. ed:
30 ANET,
125.
31 Adolph Ennan, The Ancient
Egyptians (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 5. S. A. B. Mercer
understands the
text (305) as being more figurative than literal (The Pyramid Texts in
Translation
and Commentary [3 vols.;
Thoughts on Genesis 1 & 2 and Egyptian
Cosmology," JANES 15 (1983) 45. Cr. RGG
(3d ed.)
3.330.
32 W. M. Muller, The Mythology of All Races. Vol. 12: Egyptian
(repr.
Square, 1964) 35. Cr.
E. A. W. Budge, The Book of the Dead (New York: Dover, 1967 repr.) ci,
ciii; and
Hoffmeier, "Some Thoughts."
33
Cf. ANET; 33 n. 2. The Deir el-Bahri papyrus picture can be seen in IDB 2.57.
234
was
personified by one goddess, Nut, while the air which upheld the sky was
personified by
an entirely different deity, Shu.34
In Babylonian thought the solidity of the
firmament is most clearly seen
in
Tablet IV of Enuma Elish,
particularly in lines 137-38 where Marduk,
having
killed Tiamat, "split her in half like a
shellfish, and from one half
made and
covered the heavens." Or, as Heidel translated
the passage, with
half of Tiamat Marduk "formed the
sky as a roof."35 The solidity of the sky
is also
seen in Tablet V:9-11 where Marduk "opened gates
on both sides"
so that
the sun could pass through morning and evening; and then "In her
belly he
placed the zenith" (i.e., the Pole star).36
This brings us to the historical meaning
of raqiac in Genesis 1. Everyone
agrees that
raqiac means "sky," but modern
conservatives deny the mean-
ing "solid sky" or "literal
firmament." But on what basis can it be denied
that the
Hebrews believed the sky was solid? Scientifically naive peoples
everywhere have
believed the sky was solid, and there is no reason to believe
the
Hebrews were any less scientifically naive than their neighbors. Since,
from a
cultural standpoint, the Hebrews' pre-Solomonic
architecture and
pottery were
"vastly inferior" to that of their neighbors, one might gather
that the
early Hebrews were possibly more scientifically naive than their
neighbors, but
certainly not less so.37 Similarly, the fact that it was not the
Hebrews but
their neighbors who led the technological advance from the
use of
bronze to the use of iron (cf. Josh
anything,
that the Hebrews were more scientifically naive than their neigh-
bors. It certainly does not suggest that they
were less so. Nor do we know
of any
evidence from biblical times that suggests the Hebrews were ever
more
scientifically sophisticated than their neighbors.38 Accordingly, it
seems most
probable that so far as the physical nature of the sky is con-
cerned, the Hebrews, as a typical scientifically
naive people, believed the
raqiac was solid.
The voice of the past would also have had
a strong influence upon the
thinking of
the Hebrews as it has on all peoples and especially ancient
peoples for
whom the voice of the past was the voice of authority. For the
34 S.
Morenz, Egyptian Religion (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1960) 173-74. Cf. J. A.
and "supported"
see Mercer, The Pyramid Texts, 299a, 854c, 952d, 1040c, 1101c, 1156c,
1208c,
1528a, 1778b, 2013a, 2091a; and R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient
Egyptian Coffin Texts (3 vols.;
Wanninster: Aris & Phillips, 1973) spells 61, 160, 366, 378, 664,
and 948. For a picture and
a statue of Shu separating and supponing the
sky, see ANEP, 183-84, and E. Hornung,
Conceptions of God in Ancient
and n. 36.
35 A. Heidel, The Babylonian
Genesis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951) 42.
36 ANET;
67. B. Landsberger and J. V. K. Wilson,
"The Fifth Tablet of Enuma Elish,"
JNES 20 (1961) 173. M.
K. Wakeman, God's
37 M. Burrows, What
Mean These Stones? (New York: Meridian, 1957) 99, 140-41,
166-8.
38 See n. 41 and cf. P. Seely, Inerrant Wisdom (Portland, OR: Evangelical Reform, 1989) 1-9.
THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE 235
Hebrews the
voice of the past was the voice of the patriarchs and Abraham
in
particular, men who most likely held the Babylonian view of the sky as
solid. The
Babylonian background of Genesis 1-11 can scarcely be missed,
and if
one were to date that background it appears to come from the time
of the
patriarchs.39 Taken within its historical context, then, the
probability
again is
that the raqiac in Genesis 1 was
understood to be solid.
At the same time Egyptian influence should
not be totally disregarded.40
Not only did
the Hebrews spend several centuries in
through whom
much of the higher theology came (and who wrote Genesis
1 according
to conservative thought), was schooled in the thinking of the
Egyptians. That
schooling would certainly have included the assumption
that the
sky was solid, a belief that forty years of living with a primitive
tribe
(according to Exod
course, the
Hebrews had a continuing relationship with
their
history. With this Egyptian background in mind we must again say
that
probably the raqiac of Genesis 1
should be defined as solid.
It is true
that Genesis 1 is free of the mythological and polytheistic
religious
concepts of the ancient Near East. Indeed it may well be anti-
mythological. But, as Bruce Waltke noted when
commenting on the higher
theology of
stands in
contrast to
gious knowledge of
was
expressed through the religious cultural forms of the time.
priesthood, and
sacrifices, for example, were common to all ancient Near
Eastern
religions.42 It should not surprise us then
to find the religious
knowledge of
of the
time.43
Considering that the Hebrews
were a scientifically naive people who
would
accordingly believe the raqiac was
solid, that both their Babylonian
and
their Egyptian background would influence them to believe the raqiac
was
solid, and that they naturally accepted the concepts of the peoples
around them
so long as they were not theologically offensive, I believe we
have
every reason to think that both the writer and original readers of
Genesis 1
believed the raqiac was solid. The
historical meaning of raqiac in
Gen 1:6-8
is, accordingly, "a solid sky."
39 K. A. Kitchen, The Bible in Its World (London: InterVarsity, 1977) 35-36. W. G. Lambert,
"A New Look at the Babylonian Background or Genesis" JTS
16 (1965) 300. W. F. Albright,
Yahweh and the Gods of
40 Hoffmeier, Some Thoughts, 45. cr. C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11
(
1984) 22-47.
41 B. Waltke, Creation and Chaos (Portland, OR: Western
Conservative Baptist Seminary,
1974) 46.
42 H.
endon,
1951). Also M. Smith, "The Common Theology or the Ancient Near East," JBL 71
(1952) 135-47.
43
Cf. Seely. Inerrant
Wisdom. 1-43.
236
Only by
taking Genesis l out of its historical context could one say that
raqiac means merely "an atmospheric
expanse" or, as the more sophisti-
cated conservatives say, "just phenomenal
language." In the ancient world
the sky
was not just phenomenal. The ancients did not just refer to the
appearance of
the sky as being solid. They concluded from the appearance
that the
sky really was solid, and they then employed this conclusion in
their
thinking about astronomy, geography, and natural science. The raqiac
was for
them a literal physical part of the universe, just as solid as the earth
itself.
Solidity is an integral part of its historical meaning.
When the original readers of Genesis 1
read the word raqiac they thought
of a
solid sky. And so did virtually everyone else up to the time of the
Renaissance!
After the time of Christ there were occasional dissenters, but
by and
large Jews and Christians, Greeks and barbarians all believed the
firmament was
solid.
Jews speculated as to what material the
firmament was made of: clay or
copper or
iron (3 Apoc. Bar. 3.7). They
differentiated between the firmament
and the
empty space or air between it and the earth (Gen. Rab.
4.3.a; 2 Apoc.
Bar. 21.4). They
tried to figure out how thick it was by employing biblical
interpretation (Gen. Rab. 4.5.2). Most
tellingly they even tried to calculate
scientifically the thickness of the firmament (Pesab.
49a).
Christians speculated as to whether it was
made of earth, air, fire, or
water (the
basic elements of Greek science). Origen called the
firmament
"without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on
Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose,
commenting on
Gen 1:6, said, "the specific solidity of this exterior firma-
ment is meant" (Hexameron,
FC 42.60). Augustine said the word firmament
was used
"to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that
it
constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the
waters
below" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).
Greeks from Anaximenes
to Aristotle set forth as scientific fact that the
firmament was
made of a crystalline substance to which "the stars are fixed
like
nails."44 This idea was passed on for centuries via Ptolemy's Almagest.
The
barbarians meanwhile worried about the sky falling on them if they
did not
keep their promises!45
Astonishing as it may seem to the modern
mind, with very rare excep-
tions the idea that the sky is not solid is a
distinctly modern one. Historical
evidence
shows that virtually everyone in the ancient world believed in a
solid
firmament. Accordingly it is highly probable that the historical mean-
ing of raqiac
in Genesis 1 is a solid firmament. Certainly anyone denying the
solidity of
the raqiac in Genesis 1 bears a
heavy burden of proof. It seems
to me
that nothing short of a clear statement to the contrary made by an
OT writer
could allow one in good conscience to set aside this clear his-
torical meaning.
44 P. Wheelwright, The Presocratics
(New York: Odyssey, 1966) 63, 153. Aristotle, De caela
2.8
and 3,1.
THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE 237
II. The Biblical-Grammatical Meaning
of raqiac
Does any statement or phrase appear in the
OT which clearly states or
implies that
the raqiac is not solid? Does
anything in Genesis 1 state or imply
the raqiac was not (or was) solid? The fact that
it was named "heaven(s)"
in Gen
1:8 and birds fly in the heaven(s) (Deut
raqiac was not solid. But the word samayim (heaven[s]) is broader in meaning
than raqiac. It encompasses not only the raqiac (v. 8; Ps 19:6; 148:4) but the
space
above the raqiac (Ps 2:4; 11:4;
139:8) as well as the space below (Ps
8:8; 79:2).
Hence birds fly in the heavens, but never in the raqiac.
Rather,
birds fly
upon the face or in front of the raqiac
(Gen
This phrase upon the face (surface) or in front of
the raqiac is important in
that it
implies the raqiac was neither
space nor atmosphere. For birds do not
fly upon
the surface or in front of space or air, but rather in space
or air. This
distinction is
illustrated in the case of fish, which no one would say swim
upon the
surface or in
front of the water (Gen
Exod 7:
18, 21).
Gen 1:17 also testifies that the raqiac is not air or atmosphere for it
says
that God
placed the stars (and probably the sun and moon) "in the raqiac
or the
heavens." But the stars are not located in the air or atmosphere. So
we know
the raqiac (in which
sphere.
Even if 1:17 is construed as phenomenal language, the raqiac
still
cannot be
air or atmosphere. For the stars do not look like they are located
in the
air or atmosphere. Rather (as anyone can tell on a clear night away
from city
lights) they look like they are embedded in a solid vault which is
exactly why
scientifically naive peoples believe in a solid vault, and why
1:17, in
accordance with that belief, says God placed the stars in the raqiac.
Gen 1:14-17
is such a clear proof that the raqiac
is not air or atmosphere
that some
conservatives have tried to dissociate the raqiac
in vv. 14-17 from
the raqiac in vv. 6-8. But the statement in
v. 14, "Let there be lights in the
firmament or
heaven," immediately raises the question, What "firmament
of
heaven"? To which the context immediately replies, the firmament of vv.
6-8 which was called heaven. The contextual identity of the two firma-
ments is really beyond question. Taken in
context it is impossible to say the
raqiac of vv. 6-8 was just air or atmosphere.
On the contrary.
For when God divided the light from the darkness (two
intangibles)
nothing was made. But in order to divide the tangible upper
ocean from
the lower ocean the raqiac was made
(hWf).
The combination or
dividing two
tangibles (as opposed to intangibles) with something that was
made (hWf), a
verb which often means "manufacture," implies a tangible,
i.e., solid divider. It would be unnatural to use hWf to say that God made
space. Nor
is it a particularly apt word for saying God made air. If a
nonsolid
divider had been in mind for separating the primeval ocean, the
idea could
have been communicated in a much more natural way. It could
have been
simply said that God put room (Mvqm) or space (Hvr ) as in Gen.
238
32:16 (17), or space (qvHr) as in Josh 3:4, between the two bodies
of water.
If air (a
word never appearing in the OT) had been in mind as the divider,
Hvr ("wind") could have been used,
as in Exod 14:21, or hmwn ("breath")
as in
Gen 2:7; Ps 150:6.
If the writer wanted to communicate the
idea of a nonsolid divider, his
choice of
the word raqiac was particularly
unfortunate since its verbal cog-
nate raqac
("stamp, beat, spread out") is used of hammering metal into thin
plates (Exod 39:3) and hence suggests that a raqiac
was something ham-
mered out, an idea consonant with both Egyptian
and Sumerian views of
the sky.
In addition a Phoenician cognate (mrqc)
means "plating."46
Conservative writers usually try to avoid
this implication of solidity by
stressing the
meaning "expanse" or "thinness" for raqiac
and pointing out
that
Isaiah also speaks of the sky as a curtain or tent (Isa
40:22) or scroll (Isa
34:4). But
in Isa 42:5 the earth is called an
"expanse" (raqiac)
without in
any way
implying that it is not solid. So even if the raqiac
in Genesis is
translated
"expanse," this in no way implies that it is not solid. And even
though gold
can be beaten very thin, it never loses its solidity.
As for Isaiah, he never says God made a
curtain or tent or scroll as Genesis
says God
made a raqiac. Rather he says the
sky is like a curtain or tent or
scroll. His
statements are always poetic similes, but Gen 1:7 is not a simile
(nor is it just phenomenal language). Gen 1:7 makes a prosaic
statement
about the
creation of a part of the universe, a part just as physical as the
earth, sea,
sun, or moon. The statements in Genesis and Isaiah are not
really
comparable.
We see then that Gen
atmosphere. The
verbal cognate of raqiac, as well
as the use of the verb hWf
("made"), in 1:7 imply the raqiac
was solid. More important, the purpose
and
function of the raqiac imply its
solidity, for it functions as a horizontal
dam (cf.
water
above the firmament is not clouds as some rationalize (and we shall
delineate this
fact more fully in Part II), for while the sun, moon, and stars
are in
the raqiac (v. 14), the waters of
the upper primeval ocean are above the
raqiac (v. 7).47 This
ocean over the raqiac, indeed
resting upon it (Gen
8:2; Ps
148:4), tells us quite clearly that the firmament is a physical part of the
universe. It
is not just phenomenal language as it might have been if Genesis
were a
modern Western book. Rather it is an ancient Near Eastern concept
similar to
if not related to that found in Enuma Elish Tablets IV and V
As for the
rest of the OT, the word raqiac is
used a number of times but
usually in
contexts that do not help us define the word any further than
saying it
means "sky." But in Ezekiel 1 the nature of a firmament is de-
scribed.
This is the clearest description of a raqiac
found in the OT. It was
46 E. J. Young, Studies
in Genesis One (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1964) 90 n.
94.
47
Ibid.
THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE 239
a divider
of some kind over the heads of four cherubim (vv. 22-25), and on
top of
it was a throne with a man on it (v. 26). As to the composition of this
firmament, it
looked like "terrible crystal or ice."
Inasmuch as the throne mentioned was
apparently sitting on this firma-
ment (cf. Exod
24:10) and the firmament looked like crystal or ice, it is
apparent that
the firmament is solid and is certainly not mere atmosphere
or
space or simply phenomenal language. Nor does anyone to my knowl-
edge
doubt that it was solid. Even conservatives admit the firmament in
Ezekiel 1 is
solid. Having then this clear definition of a raqiac as a solid
divider, one
is hermeneutically bound to interpret the raqiac
in Genesis as
solid
unless there is some clear reason to differentiate the one from the other.
As it turns
out there is no reason to differentiate the raqiac
in Ezekiel 1
from the raqiac in Genesis 1. On the contrary,
there is good reason to
identify the
one with the other. For we can see in Ezekiel that above the
firmament is
the throne of God in glory (vv. 26-28) just as above the
firmament of
heaven described in Genesis is the throne of God in glory (1
Kgs
22:19; Ps 2:4; 11:4; 103:19; Isa 6:1;
Ezekiel
looked like it was made of crystal, exactly the substance that prim-
itive peoples believed the sky was made of.48
These two similarities between
the
firmament in Ezekiel and the firmament in Genesis could hardly be
coincidental. The firmament in Ezekiel 1 must be related to the firmament
in
Genesis 1, and a number of commentators have made the identifica-
tion.49 Eichrodt, for example, calls the
firmament in Ezekiel a "copy of that
vault of
heaven." The NT confirms the virtual identity of the firmament in
Ezekiel and
the firmament in Genesis by combining them into one image
(Rev 4:6;
15:2).50
We ought then on both biblical and
hermeneutical grounds to interpret
the
nature of the raqiac in Genesis 1
by the clear definition of raqiac
which
we have
in Ezekiel 1, and all the more so since the language of Genesis 1
suggests
solidity in the first place and no usage of raqiac
anywhere states or
even
implies that it was not a solid object. This latter point bears repeating:
there is
not a single piece of evidence in the OT to support the conservative
belief that
the raqiac was not solid.51
The historical meaning of raqiac,
so far
48
See nn. 46, 51, and M. Eliade,
Shamanum (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1964)
13J-39.
49 See commentaries on
Ezekiel by W. Brownlee, W. Eichrodt, C. E Keil, H. May, and W.
Zimmerli. See also b. Hag. 12b.
50 Note the
"sea"(Genesis 1) and the "eyes" (Ezekiel 1) in Rev 4:6. See
also commentaries
on Revelation, especially
by R. H. Charles. It might also be noted that although Exod
24: 10
does not use the word raqiac, it testifies to the solidity of
the firmament as well as to the idea
that it was crystalline by
saying that the "pavement" under God's feet was "like the
material
or substance of heaven in
transparency."
51 The conservative
interpretation (if an interpretation that rejects the historical-gram-
matical
meaning of Scripture can be called conservative) rests on two arbitrary
assumptions.
One, that
ancient men would conceive of the sky the same way modern men do (cf. J. Orr,
240
from
being overthrown by the grammatical evidence, is confirmed by it.
The
historical-grammatical meaning of raqiac
in Gen 1:6-8 is very clearly
a
literally solid firmament.
It is to the credit of E. J. Young that,
although believing in biblical
inerrancy as
much as any other conservative, he alone did not alter or
rationalize the
historical-grammatical meaning of raqiac.
In his Studies in
Genesis One
he defined raqiac as
"that which is hammered, beaten out" and
noted that
"the LXX stere<wma and
Vulgate firmamentum are satisfactory
renderings."52
Additionally and finally, the
historical-grammatical meaning of raqiac
possibly
illustrates the words of B. B. Warfield, who said as he defined
biblical
inerrancy, that an inspired writer could
share the
ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope
of his teachings,
as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its
relation to the
sun; and, it is not inconceivable that the form of his language when
incidentally
adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of
such a
presumption.53
Certainly the historical-grammatical
meaning of raqiac is "the
ordinary
opinion of
the writer's day." Certainly also it is not the purpose of Gen 1: 7
to
teach us the physical nature of the sky, but to reveal the creator of the
sky.
Consequently, the reference to the solid firmament "lies outside the
scope of
the writer's teachings" and the verse is still infallibly true.
1544 S.B.
in principle by C. Gaenssle, "A Look"). Two, that
God would not speak in Scripture to ancient
men in terms of the
ordinary opinions of their own day (cf. article 12 from the International
Council on Biblical Inerrancy's Nineteen Articles in R. C. Sproul,
Explaining Inerrancy, ICBI
1980, 28-27). Both
assumptions are contrary to Scripture (cf. Seely, Inerrant
Wisdom).
52 Young, Studies, 90 n. 94.
53. B. B. Warfield, "The Real Problem of Inspiration,"
in The Inspiration and Authority
of the Bible
(Philadelphia, Presbyterian &
Reformed, 1948) 166-67.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
2960
www.wts.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu