(5.) It is objected that the primary sense of the word bara[5] (used here) is not to bring into existence what had no existence before, but “to cut, to cut out, to carve” (Gesenius); “to cut, form, fashion” (Fuerst). But this objection, though plausible to a merely superficial view, is really of very little force. Usage, not etymological relation, gives law to language. The etymological, primary sense of _barak_, the common Hebrew word for _bless_, is to break; then to bend as the knee, to kneel and to cause one to kneel; and then, perhaps from the custom of kneeling to receive the patriarchal benediction, or to implore blessings from God, comes the ultimate and by far the most common significance――to bless. Usage in every case must determine the most common and therefore most probable sense; then the context and the known opinions of the writer come in to aid toward the true sense in any given instance. In the Hebrew verb regard must be had to its form, technically called its “conjugation,” since the sense of the several conjugations from the same root may vary widely. In this verb (bara) the sense of Hiphil conjugation is to _fatten_――which is very remote from the sense of “Kal” and of its passive “Niphal.” In Piel only do we find the etymological sense to cut, to carve out (five times only) and these spoken of human operations exclusively (Josh. 17: 15, 18 and Ezek. 23: 47 and 21: 19). But in Kal and its passive Niphal, we find the word used forty-eight times, and _always of divine operations_――always of some form of creative work wrought by God himself and never by man.[6] The testimony therefore from usage is entirely conclusive to the point that this word in this form of it was specially appropriated to signify God’s creative acts――the exertion of his creative power.――――There are two other Hebrew words having the sense to make, to form, [asah and yatsar], which are sometimes used of God as creating but by far most often of _man’s_ work in forming and molding material things. Now note the argument. The Hebrews had these three words for _making_, out of which one only is used exclusively of God――never of man――as a maker. Now there is one special sense in which God can make and man can not, viz. that of bringing into existence what had no existence before. Over against this, place the fact that their word “bara” is used of God’s making forty-eight times and of man’s making never, and we must conclude that they expressed by this word that distinctive power of God which man never can even approach――viz. the power to _give existence to matter, to mind and to life_. In passages where this sense of “bara” is appropriate, there can be no question that it is the real meaning. 5. _The relation of v. 1 to v. 2 and to the rest of the chapter._