CRITICAL NOTES.—
Genesis 1:3. And God said] Better (because of the strong waw, and position of verb): “Then said God” = “the state of things being as just described.” From this point the drama is unfolded to the eye. Light] The orig. is indeed inimitable: Yehi’ôr, wá-yehi ʼôr. The nearest approach in Eng. is perh: “Exist, light!—then exists light”
Genesis 1:4. Good] Also: “fair,” “fine,” “beautiful;” Sept. Kalon.
Genesis 1:5. And the e. and the m. were] A dull rendering. The Heb. marks sequence, with some latitude of application, “And so”—or—“And then it became e … became m. one day.”
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Genesis 1:3-5
THE CREATION OF LIGHT
I. Divinely produced. “And God said, Let there be light.”
1. For the protection of life. The Divine Being is gradually preparing the infant world for the habitation of living things. Hence, prior to their creation, He beneficently makes everything ready for their advent. Plants could not live without light; without it, the flowers would soon wither. Even in a brief night they close their petals, and will only open them again at the gentle approach of the morning light. Nor could man survive in continued darkness. A sad depression would rest upon his soul. A weird monotony would come upon his life. He would long for the grave, and soon would his longings be at rest, as life under such conditions would be impossible, and certainly unbearable.
2. For the enjoyment of life. Even if man was permitted to live for a short space of time in a dark world, what practical use could he make of life, and what enjoyment could he have in it? He would not be able to pursue any commercial enterprise. He could not spend his time in study. He would not be able to read. He would not be able to write. For if darkness had remained upon the earth from its creation, an invention for the giving of light would have been impossible, nor would men have been favoured with the artificial advantages now possessed by the blind. It is light that makes the world so beautiful, and that enables the artist to perceive its grandeur, and reproduce it on his canvas. Light is one of God’s best gifts to the world.
(1.) It is inexpensive. The world has to pay for the light produced by man; that created by God, we get for nothing. Man has limitations; God has none. Man is selfish; God is beneficent.
(2.) It is extensive. It floods the universe. It is the heritage of the poor equally with the rich; it enters the hut as well as the palace.
(3.) It is welcome. The light of morning is welcome to the mariner, who has been tossed on the great deep through the dark and stormy night; to the weary sufferer, whose pain has rendered sleep impossible; and how often has the morning dawn over the distant hills awakened the rapture of poetic souls as they have been watching from an eminence the outgoings of the morning.
3. For the instruction of life. Light is not merely a protection. It is not only an enjoyment. It is also an instructor. It is an emblem. It is an emblem of God, it’s Author, who is the Eternal Light. It is an emblem of truth. It is an emblem of goodness. It is an emblem of heaven. It is an emblem of beneficence. It is calculated to teach the world the most important lessons it can possibly learn. All the gifts of God are teachers as well as benefactors. He leads men through enjoyment into instruction.
II. Divinely approved. “And God saw the light, that it was good.”
1. It was good in itself. The light was pure. It was clear. It was not so fierce as to injure. It was not so weak as to be ineffectual. It was not so loud in its advent as to disturb. It was noiseless. It was abundant. There is a great force in light, and yet nothing is more gentle; hence it was as the offspring of Divine power.
2. It was good because adapted to the purpose contemplated by it. Nothing else could more efficiently have accomplished its purpose toward the life of man. Nothing else could have supplied its place in the universe. It is allied to religious ideas. It is allied to scientific investigation. It is allied to every practical subject of life. Hence it is good because adapted to its purpose, deep in its meaning, wide in its realm, happy in its influence, and educational in its tendency.
3. We see here that the Divine Being carefully scrutinises the work of his hands. When He had created light, He saw that it was good. May we not learn a lesson here, to pause after our daily toil, to inspect and review its worth. Every act of life should be followed by contemplation. It is criminal folly to allow years to pass without inquiry into the moral quality of our work. He who makes a daily survey of his toil will be able to make a daily improvement, and secure the daily approval of his conscience.
III. Divinely proportioned. “And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night.”
1. The light was indicative of day. In this light man was to work. The light ever active would rebuke indolence. By this light man was to read. In this light man was to order his moral conduct. Through this light man was to walk to the eternal light.
2. The removal of light was indicative of night. In this night man was to rest from the excitement of pleasure, and the anxiety of toil. Its darkness was to make him feel the need of a Divine protection. Let no man seek to reverse the order of God’s universe, by turning day into night, or night into day, if he does, a sure retribution will follow him. Some preachers say that they can study better at night. If they can, it is the result of habit, and not the natural outcome of their physical constitution. God evidently thinks that men can rest better at night, and work better in the day-time. Hence He puts out the great light, and bids the world repose under the care of Him who neither slumbereth or sleepeth.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Verse 3. Light is the first of all creatures that God makes, as being itself most generally useful, especially to the end which God principally aimed at, which was to make all the rest of his works visible.
God loves to do all His works in the light.
1. He dwells in the light (1 Timothy 6:16).
2. Because His works are perfect, and therefore, able to endure the light (John 3:21).
3. In order that He may be seen in His works.
The study of God’s work is:—
1. Pleasant.
2. Profitable.
3. Necessary. Light is an emblem of God:—
1. Glorious.
2. Pure.
3. Diffused in an instant.
4. Searching all places.
5. Useful for direction and comfort. How much more is God the author of wisdom, and understanding, the inward light of the soul.
There was nothing but deformity till God brought beauty into the world.
God often brings light out of darkness:—
1. The light of day from the darkness of night.
2. The light of prosperity from the darkness of affliction.
3. The light of knowledge from the darkness of ignorance.
4. The light of peace from the darkness of strife.
Was light created before the creation of the sun, and other luminous bodies? That this is possible has been shown by Dr. McCaul, “Aids to Faith,” p. 210; but very probably the creation of the sun is related in Genesis 1:1, where under the word heaven (or heavens), may be comprehended the whole visible universe of sun, moon, and stars. Now, the history is going on to the adaptation of the earth for man’s abode. In Genesis 1:2, a thick darkness had enveloped it. In this 3rd verse the darkness is dispelled by the word of God, the light is separated from the darkness, and the regular succession of day and night is established. Still, probably, there remains a clouded atmosphere, or other obstacle to the full vision of sun and sky. It is not till the fourth day that their impediments are removed, and the sun appears to the earth as the great luminary of the day, the moon and the stars as ruling the night. Light may, perhaps, have been created before the sun. Yet the statement, that on the first day, not only was there light, but the succession of day and night, seems to prove that the creation of the sun was “in the beginning,” though its visible manifestation in the firmament was not till the fourth day [Speaker’s Commentary].
One or two facts may be mentioned, as confirming the more recent elucidation of this Scripture statement. Humboldt, in describing the beauty of the Zodiacal light, has said—“The Zodiacal light, which rises in a pyramidal form, and constantly contributes by its mild radiance to the external beauty of the tropical nights, is either a vast nebulous ring, rotating between the Earth and Mars, or less probably, the exterior stratum of the solar atmosphere.” “For the last three or four nights, between 10° and 14° of north latitude, the Zodiacal light has appeared with a magnificence which I have never before seen. Long narrow clouds, scattered over the lovely azure of the sky, appeared low down in the horizon, as if in front of a golden curtain, while bright varied tints played from time to time on the higher clouds; it seemed a second sunset. Towards that side of the heavens, the diffused light appeared almost equal to that of the moon in her first quarter.” Not less striking is his description, in another passage, of a cloud well known to astronomers, passing over the heavens luminously and with great rapidity: “The light of the stars being thus utterly shut out, one might suppose that surrounding objects would become, if possible, more indistinct. But no: what was formerly invisible can now be clearly seen; not because of lights from the earth being reflected back by a cloud—for very often there are none,—but in virtue of the light of the cloud itself, which, however faint, is yet a similitude of the dazzling light of the sun. The existence of this illuminating power, though apparently in its debilitude, we discover also—by appearance, at least—among other orbs.” While these facts prove the existence of light without the sun being visible, it may be urged that the light spoken of in Genesis not only made day and night, but it must have been sufficient to sustain life. To suppose that it was adequate to this end involves no violent hypothesis, for neither plant nor animal life is spoken of until there has been a separation of land and water. In the earlier and more recent geological ages the heat was doubtless greater than it is now; and this, taken in connection with a surrounding vapourous atmosphere, and with such light as existed, may have conduced to the development of whatever plant-forms then prevailed. Difficulty in entertaining this view has been greatly lessened by the fact, that not only plant, but animal life may be sustained under conditions of feeble light, great pressure, and intense heat, which were not long ago deemed incredible [Dr. W. Fraser].
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. But Genesis 1:16 reads, “God made two great lights.” In the one, we have “bara,” create; in the other, asáh, He made or fashioned, or appointed, of materials or objects already created, or existent, the sun to be a light-bearer; and so also the moon, which is known not to have light either in itself or immediately surrounding it. The Creator adopted and employed for this purpose the sun and moon, and may have introduced, for the first time, such relations as now exist between them and our atmosphere. Adopting the latitude of interpretation, which is warranted by the use of the distinct terms, bara and asáh, we suggest another view. When, after the deluge, God “Set His bow in the cloud to be a token that the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy the earth,” it is not necessarily an inference that the rainbow had never before appeared. As all the physical conditions, on which it depends had existed during man’s history, it may have been visible; and, assuming that it was so, it only received a new historical connection when it was made a token of the covenant. In the same manner the sun and moon and stars may have been visible long before they were appointed to be “for signs and for seasons,” and to fulfil a new historical relation to man, as they ever afterward rule his day and night [Dr. W. Fraser].
Genesis 1:4. God’s view of His works:—
1. To rejoice in them.
2. To support them.
3. To direct them.
Let us review the works of God:—
1. As a good employment for our minds.
2. As a comfort to our souls.
3. As increasing our love for Him.
4. As inspiring us with praise.
The work of God is good:—
1. Because it must answer to the workman.
2. Because no one else can augment its perfection.
3. Because it is the vehicle of truth.
4. If it proves not so to us it is because we are out of harmony with it.
5. Let us try to imitate God in his method of works as far as possible.
Light is good:—
1. Therefore thank God for it.
2. Therefore use it well.
3. Therefore strive to reflect it.
Light and darkness succeed each:—
1. Each useful in its turn.
2. We should prepare for darkness.
3. We may anticipate heaven where there is no night.
Genesis 1:5. All light is not day, nor all darkness night; but light and darkness alternating in a regular order constitute day and night [Augustine].
None but superficial thinkers can take offence at the idea of created things receiving names from God. The name of a thing is the expression of its nature. If the name be given by man, it fixes, in a word, the impression which it makes upon the human mind; but when given by God, it expresses the reality, what the thing is in God’s creation, and the place assigned it there by the side of other things [Keil & Delitzsch].
In what sense is the word “day” to be understood in this narrative? To simplify the subject I make the single issue—is it a period of twenty-four hours, or a period of special character, indefinitely long? The latter theory supposes the word to refer here not so much to duration as to special character—the sort of work done and the changes produced during the period contemplated. Turning our attention to this latter theory, we raise these inquiries:
1. Do the laws of language and especially does the usage of the word “day” permit it? Beyond all question the word “day” is used abundantly (and therefore admits of being used) to denote a period of special character, with no particular reference to its duration. We have a case in this immediate connection (Genesis 2:4) where it is used of the whole creative period; “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” (See 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Peter 3:12; 2 Corinthians 6:2; Ephesians 4:30, Joel 2:2; Ecclesiastes 7:14.) To set aside this testimony from usage as being inapplicable to the present case, it has been said—i. That here is a succession of days, “first day,” “second day,” and that this requires the usual sense of days of the week. To which the answer is that here are six special periods succeeding each other—a sufficient reason for using the word in the peculiar sense of a period of special character. Each of these periods is distinct from any and all the rest in the character of the work wrought in it. The reason for dividing the creative work into six periods—“days,” rather than into more or fewer, lies in the Divine wisdom as to the best proportion of days of man’s labour to the one day of his rest, the Sabbath. ii. It will also be urged that each of these days is said to be made up of evening and of morning—“The evening and the morning were the first day.” But the strength of this objection comes mainly from mis-translation. The precise thought is not that evening and morning composed or made up one full day; but rather this: There was evening and there was morning—day one, i.e., day number one. There was darkness, and there was light, indicating one of the great creative periods. It is one thing to say, There were alternations of evening and morning—i.e., dark scenes and bright scenes—marking the successive periods of creation, first, second, third; and another to affirm that each of these evenings and mornings made up a day. Let it be considered, moreover, that while in Hebrew, as in English, night and day are often used for the average twelve hours duration of darkness and of light respectively in each twenty-four hours, yet in neither language are the words evening and morning used in this sense, as synonymous both night and day. Indeed, “evening” and “morning” are rather points than periods of time; certainly do not indicate any definite amount of time—any precise number of hours; but are used to denote the two great changes—i.e., from light to darkness, and from darkness to light; in other words, from day to night, and from night to day. Therefore, to make evening and morning, added together, constitute one day is entirely without warrant in either Hebrew or English usage, and cannot be the meaning of these passages in Genesis.
2. Apart from the bearing of geological facts, are there points in the narrative itself which demand or even favour this sense of the word? i. Throughout at least, the first three of these creative epochs, there was no sun-rising and setting to mark off the ordinary day. These, therefore, were not the common human day; but, as Augustine long ago said, these are the days of God—Divine days—measuring off His great creative periods. ii. In some, at least, of these creative epochs, the work done demands more than twenty-four hours. For example, the gathering of the waters from under the heavens into one place, to constitute the seas or oceans, and leave portions of the earth’s surface dry land. Nothing short of absolute miracle could effect this in one human day. But miracle should not be assumed here, the rule of reason and the normal law of God’s operations being never to work a miracle in a case where the ordinary course of nature will accomplish the same results equally well. We must the more surely exclude miracle, and assume the action of natural law only throughout these processes of the creative work, because the very purpose of a protracted, rather than an instantaneous creation, looked manifestly to the enlightenment and joy of those “morning stars,” the “sons of God,” who beheld the scene, then, “sang together and shouted for joy” (Job 38:7.) We may say moreover, in regard to each and all of these six creative periods, that if the holy angels were indeed spectators of these scenes, and if God adjusted His methods of creation to the pupils—these admiring students of His glorious work—then surely we must not think of His compressing them within the period of six human days. Divine days they certainly must have been, sufficiently protracted to afford finite minds scope for intelligent study, admiring contemplation, and as the Bible indicates, most rapturous shouts of joy. In this case, should geology make large demands for time far beyond the ordinary human day, we shall have no occasion to strain the laws of interpretation to bring the record into harmony with such demands [Dr. Cowles].
Arguments for the literal interpretation of the Mosaic day:—“It was evening, and it was morning, the first day,” or, “evening came and morning came, one day,” are terms which can never be made to comport with the theory of indefinite periods; and especially when there follows God’s resting from His works, and hallowing the seventh day, as a day of sabbatical commemorative celebration of the work of the other six. Was that, too, an indefinite period [Dr. Wardlaw].
It is certain that in the fourth commandment, where the days of creation are referred to (Exodus 20:9-11), the six days’ labour and the sabbath spoken of in the ninth and tenth verses, are literal days. By what rule of interpretation can the same word in the next verse be made to mean indefinite periods? Moreover, it seems from Genesis 2:5, compared with Genesis 1:11-12, that it had not rained on the earth until the third day; a fact altogether probable, if the days were of twenty-four hours, but absurd if they were long periods [Hitchcock].
On the supposition that geological discoveries necessitate the admission of a more remote origin and a longer existence to our globe than a few thousands of years, the true explanation lies in the first verse of Genesis, which leaves an undefined interval between the creation of matter and the six days’ work. Why, then, should we not regard the days described by Moses as natural days? Chalmers, Buckland, Sedgwick, Dr. Kurtz, and Archdeacon Pratt and many other writers of eminence, adhere to this view, “that the days of Genesis are literal days; that the ages of geology are passed over silently in the second verse, and that the passage describes a great work of God at the close of the ‘Tertiary Period,’ by which our planet, after long ages, was finally prepared to be the habitation of man.” [Birks].
Again, let it be observed that the whole notion of equality of endurance, or of close succession, of these “days” of Creation, is imaginary, and imported into the narrative. The story of Creation is arranged in these periods, familiar to us; the great personal cause of every step in it is God, and God’s will. But it is as irrevelant and as foolish to inquire minutely into the lower details following on a literal acceptance of the terms used in conveying this great truth to our minds, as it would be to take the same course with the words, “God said,” to inquire in what language He spoke, and to whom. It never can be too much impressed upon the reader that we are, while perusing this account, in a realm separated by a gulf, impassable for human thought, from the matter-of-fact revelations which our senses make to us. We are listening to Him who made the world, as He explains to us in words; the imperfect instruments of our limited thoughts. His, to us, inscrutable procedure [Alford].
SUGGESTIVE ILLUSTRATIONS
And God said. How long did the spirit brood over chaos? When did God say, “Let there be light?” Moses does not tell us. He states results, not processes. He brings the thing produced into close proximity with the producing cause. The instrumentality employed, as well as the time engaged, are not mentioned. Man is not forbidden to enquire concerning these; but Moses did not write to gratify such a spirit. He wrote to teach that it was at the bidding of the Almighty that light dawned—that the waters retired within the limits assigned to them—that the vast continents and mountain chains lifted their heads—that the flowers looked forth in beauty in the valley; and that the great lights of the firmament took each its station on high, and began to run its appointed course in the heavens. It was by this word—in fine—that the world passed through all its various stages of progress from chaos to the wondrous scene of order and beauty which filled the eye of Adam; and the first of these stages of progress was the call to light.
“Let there be light,” said God—and forthwith light,
Ethereal first—of things—quintessence pure—
Sprang from the deep, and from her native east
To journey the airy gloom began,
Sphered in a radiant cloud, for yet the sun
Was not; she in a cloudy tabernacle
Sojourned the while [Milton].
All Nature, (says a thoughtful mind) is one storehouse of parables to the thoughtful mind. Science, even when most careless, can hardly help stumbling on some of them in its way. But the more carefully we weigh its discourses, the richer we shall find them to be in lessons of wisdom. The links which bind the planets to their sun are not so firm as those which bind the outward world of sense and matter to the higher and nobler truths of the spiritual world. Nature is one vast mirror in which we may see the dim reflection of a nobler field of thought than the conflict of jarring atoms, or integrels of atomic force can ever supply. We need first to gaze downward that presently we may look upward; and turning (says Birks) from the shadows to the substance—from things seen and temporal to the unseen and eternal—may veil our faces before the mission of a greatness that is unsearchable and a goodness that is unspeakable, and in the spirit of Christian faith and hope may gaze on the uncreated light, and rejoice with trembling while we adore.
Light! There is more than sublimity in these words; there is prophecy. As it was in the beginning, so shall it be once again before time shall close. The scene here is a predictive type—a germinal budding (to use Bacon’s expression) of the earth’s moral regeneration in a future age, both
(1.) as to the order in which it was done, and
(2.) as to the time it occupied. At present the waters of superstition lie deep on the face of the earth while the spirit has been moving on the space of those waters—the great moral chaos for 6,000 years. The Divine voice shall again be heard saying, “Let there be light;” and the light, which has struggled ineffectually with the darkness for 6,000 years, shall break forth on all sides, and with boundless brilliancy and prevailing power dart its rays to the very ends of the earth, so that the magnificent appeal of the seraphic Isaiah will receive its full consummation: Arise, shine! for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.
Of old,
Messiah—riding on the heavens serene—
Sent forth His omnipresent Spirit to brood
Over the troubled deep: then spake aloud,
“Let there be light!”
So shall it as certainly be when the reign of grace has closed—when the brooding of the spirit—for regenerative purposes has ceased. The Divine Word shall send forth His eternal fiat over the moral and spiritual chaos; and straightway shall at His command,
Light pierce the canopy of surging clouds,
And shoot its penetrative influence through
Their masses. Then shall the broken clouds
Melt into colours as a dream.
Creation! Here we have:—
1. The Author;
2. The Order;
3. The Purpose; and
4. The Period of Creation! In all times, and in every heathen land, people have had their thoughts and dreams about the way in which this fair world and yonder bright heavens came to be. One asserts the eternity of matter, another argues that they originated in chance; and both of these rank in wisdom with the quaint explanation of Topsy—that they grew. The Bible clears up all obscurity by declaring that whatever wonders Science may reveal in heaven and earth, the simple truth remains that God created all—not at once, but gradually and progressively: i.e.,
(1.) from the lowest to the most perfect forms of being, and
(2.) during unknown and indefinite periods of time:—
God is a God of Order, though to scan
His works may pose the feeble powers of man.
Nowhere do we meet with conflicting plans. All is created in the order of progression. Throughout all Nature, from the earliest zoophyte and seaweed of the Silurian rocks, to the young animals and plants that came into existence to-day—and from the choice gems that were produced when the earth was without form and void, to the crystals which are now forming—one golden chain of harmony links all together, and identifies all as the work of the same Infinite Mind. As Paley says: “We never find traces of a different creator, or the direction of a different will. All appears to have been the work of ONE, more so than appearances in the most finished machine of human construction; for—
In human works—though laboured on with pain,
A thousand movements scarce one object gain:
In God’s, one single can its end produce,
Yet serves to second, too, some other use.
Darkness and Light! How great is this mystery! And, as the light cast upon a diamond only brings out its beauties, so the light of Science only reveals more and more the mysteries of darkness and light. The prism of late has been unusually rich in new discoveries. The pathway in which Newton took the first main step has been explored anew, and secret marvels have been disclosed in every step of the progress, opening up a wondrous field of beauty in the Divine enquiry: “Knowest thou the pathway of light?” The waves of light, from 4,000 to 6,000 in one inch—these swift undulations, hundreds of millions of millions in one second, baffle and confound the mind. The beautiful gradation of tint and shade deduced from the pure white of the sunbeam—the strange fusion with heat at one end of the scale, the passage into magnetic force at the other—the dark lines that take their stations, like sentinels, in the midst of LIGHT itself, and turn in other cases into lines of double brightness—all stimulate the curiosity of Science, while they disclose depths of mystery in the Scripture flat: “Let there be light!”
“Let there be light!” O’er heaven and earth,
The God, Who first the day-beams poured,
Uttered again His fiat forth,
And shed the Gospel’s light abroad—
And like the dawn, its cheering rays
On rich and poor were meant to fall,
Inspiring their Redeemer’s praise,
In lowly cot and lordly hall.
Light! Biblical criticism and scientific research are more in harmony than ever on the great questions and problems of Genesis. It is McCosh who says that Science and Religion are not opposing citadels, frowning defiance on each other, and their troops brandishing armour in hostile attitude. There was a time when that fratricidal strife was indulged in; but, happily, a change has taken place. Men of science now agree with Herschel that the creation of the world is a subject beyond the range of science; while some are prepared to follow Hugh Miller, when he says that even its present formation is beyond that range. The greater number readily accept the definition of Chalmers—that Nature is the handmaid of Revelation, and that it is for Nature’s students to aid her in washing the hands and feet of Revelation as she struggles against principles of atheism and sin. As the students of Nature, men of science, while maintaining that the truths of Revelation do not inform them of the deductions of Physical Science, as strongly assert
(1.) that the study of Nature teaches not the truths of Revelation; though
(2.) that it does confirm and illustrate those truths. This is especially the case with reference to Genesis 1, and notably of the statements as to “LIGHT.” These statements have been held up to ridicule—have been treated with contempt—have been pounded with the scientific mortar mercilessly—have been flung into the crucible of human intellect, set over a fire of scientific knowledge, heated sevenfold; with what result? The account as to “light” has been found to harmonize in every point with the ascertained deductions of Natural Science. The great difficulty was: “How could light be before the sun?” All perplexity has disappeared, as autumn mists before the glorious orb of day. Science has discovered that light is not conditioned by perfected luminous bodies, but that light bodies are conditions of a preceding luminous element: i.e., that light could exist before the sun. Did it so exist in Genesis 1?—Revelation alone can tell. Some assert
(1.) that the sun did not exist till the fourth day, and that the light sufficed for all plants previously formed; others declare
(2.) that the sun did exist, but that his light was retarded by the mists and exhalations. It matters not, therefore, whether that light
(1.) emanated from a luminous element—a sea of subtle and elastic ether—
“Immense, imponderable, luminous,
Which—while revealing other things—remains
Itself invisible, impalpable,
Pervading space;”
or
(2.) undulated from a luminous body; whether that light
(1.) was independent of the sun, or
(2.) came through mists from the sun. It is, however, worthy of notice that the Hebrew makes a definite distinction between the light of the first and that of the fourth day, from which distinction it is not unreasonable to infer that there is no necessary connection between light and luminousness! i.e., that luminaries are after all only a concentration of particles of light previously existing as light.