Genesis One and Beyond: An Investigation of the Temporal Questions of Creation in the

[Dee Dee Warren]

Genesis One and Beyond: An Investigation of the Temporal Questions of Creation in the Biblical Texts


by B.A. Bucher (“BrianB”)
Last Rev: 2003-08-04


Genesis One and Beyond: An Investigation of the Temporal Questions of Creation in the Biblical Texts

INTRODUCTION

This is a "personal position paper" offering my own view on a subject [1].

The purpose of this paper is to examine the biblical texts concerning the questions of creation and origins (Gen 1, etc) and offer what I believe to be the interpretation that best fits the entirety of scripture. Investigation of this topic should be performed apart from any questions that arise from modern empirical study of nature. Our interpretation of different revelations should be performed independently before the results are brought together to check for consistency [2]. And, while a discussion of the methodological issues involved in harmonizing interpretations of general and special revelation is outside the scope of this paper, some resources are noted in an endnote [3].

Given the multitude of different interpretations of the creation account proper (Genesis 1:1-2:3) and other texts, an exhaustive comparison of every position is simply not feasible. For this paper I concentrated on the three major views covered in the book The Genesis Debate, edited by David Hagopian [4]. These are:

• 1. The 24hr Interpretation
  2. The Day-Age Interpretation
  3. The Framework Interpretation
  

As the result of my research, I consider the Framework Interpretation to be the most consistent with the biblical data.

In addition, I've found that non-exegetical factors are often a significant motivation for modern interpreters who hold the other two views. Regarding Genesis 1, modern adherents of both the Day-Age and 24hr views are hampered in their exegesis by their desire to use the text in advancement of certain apologetical positions, neither of which the text is meant to comment on. A defense of this claim is not central to analyses of the positions themselves, and so is relegated to a few endnotes [5, 6].

Additionally, it seems that proponents of the 24hr view often bind themselves to the traditions of the fathers and bring their view not as an option but as a forgone conclusion, even while denying that they do so. Although an interpretation that has the majority report in church history must be taken seriously, it is simply inappropriate to let history dictate our conclusions. As our knowledge of societies and cultures much different than our own increases we must be prepared to revise our views in light of new context. Semper reformanda (always reforming) must be our motto in both word and practice as we investigate what Scripture has to say.

* While Scripture reports accurate history, it always does so with a redemptive-historical purpose, and sometimes a topical framework was chosen for this purpose rather than strict chronological narration. That the Genesis creation account proper is one of these times is the contention of the Framework Interpretation.


DEFINITION

The FI is primarily an interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 that regards the seven-day scheme as a figurative framework. The six days of creation are presented as normal solar days within a larger literary structure, not intended to be understood literalistically [7]. That is, the text explains that God created in history, but it uses a topically-structured narrative unconcerned with chronological order by which to declare God's creative work with the purpose of stressing a major theological teaching [8]. The focus of the narrative is on the person of God. It serves a preamble-like function for the Pentateuch, which thematically seems to follow the structure of ancient covenantal documents [9]. The purpose of such a treaty preamble is to declare that Yahweh, the covenantal Lord of Israel, is the sovereign Creator of the cosmos.

24hr View

As background information, the 24hr view considers the 'days' of Genesis to be strictly 24-hour periods of time. Proponents of the typical 24hr view will claim that God created in six sequential 24-hour periods, and that he did so approximately 10,000 years ago. The universe is usually claimed to be 6,000 years old, sometimes a bit older, but certainly not allowing a billions-year old earth and universe as the Day-Age proponents accept [10].

Day-Age View

Day-Age proponents argue that the days of Genesis 1 are to be understood sequentially, but not as 24 hour periods. They claim that the Hebrew word translated as 'day' can be understood in this context as a long period of time, an age. Each of the 'days' of Genesis 1 is an age. Those who hold the Day-Age view generally accept the findings of modern science regarding the age of the earth and universe, both being billions of years old [11].

Two primary elements distinguish the Framework Interpretation from the Day-Age and 24hr interpretations:

• 1. The Non-literalistic Element
  2. The Non-sequential Element

1. The Non-literalistic Element

The position of the FI is that the 'days' of creation mean normal solar days, but that they do not refer to normal solar days. Some readers may not be familiar with the meaning/referent distinction so a few examples might be helpful.

"Steve Smith's dad just arrived."

In the above sentence the word 'dad' has both a meaning and a referent. Its meaning has to do with relationships between members of a family, specifically between a male parent and his children. In contrast, in this sentence it refers to a specific person. While it refers to a specific person, Jack Smith, the word 'dad' does not itself mean "Jack Smith" since it can be used of other men who have children as well.

Scripture Verse:

Exodus 32:11 - "But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. And he said, “O Lord, why does your anger burn against your people, whom you have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?"

When the Bible speaks of God bringing his people out of Egypt by "a mighty hand," the word hand means hand even though it does not refer to a flesh-and-blood reality. It refers instead to God's powerful abilities.

Finally, when Jesus calls Herod a fox in Luke 13:32, he's not trying to confuse everyone by claiming that Herod is a member of a species of small four-legged mammals. That is what the word itself means, but when seen in the wider context, it's obvious that it is not the referent.

The FI differs from the 24hr view in that the 24hr view claims the 'days' both mean and refer to 24-hour periods. It also differs from the Day-Age view because that view sees the 'days' both meaning and referring to long periods of time. Hopefully the above examples help to explain what is meant by the Framework Interpretation taking the days of creation to mean, but not refer to, normal solar days, set in the larger context of a literary framework.

2. The Non-sequential element

In association with the non-literalistic character of the creation days, the FI also sees a non-sequential aspect in the narrative of God's creation. Moses arranged the record of the eight historical creative acts in a topical framework. Narrative order and historical sequence might coincide, but the order of narration does not by itself determine the historical sequence. For example, the text that discusses Day 4 is a return to the subject matter of Day 1 for further discussion, not necessarily demanding that the events on Day 4 are chronologically after the events of Day 1. The use of non-sequential narration by a biblical author shouldn't come as a surprise. Non-sequential narration, also known as dischronologization, is a literary style easily found in Scripture. Here are some examples:

A. Ezra 4:1-24

Ezra 4 records "the enemies of Judah and Benjamin" offering to help build the temple for YHWH, then being rejected, then doing what they could to oppose and discourage the Jews from their rebuilding program. The narrative flows as follows:

• 1) Verses 1-5 describe events in the reign of Cyrus (559-530)
  2) Verse 6 describes events in the reign of Xerxes (486-465)
  3) Verses 7-23 describe events in the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-424)
  4) Verse 24 describes events in the reign of Darius I (522-486)
  

The text describes opposition to rebuilding temple in the 6th century B.C., opposition to building the walls of city in the 5th, and a return to discussion of temple again in the 6th century. The author decided to arrange his narrative with thematic unity as his concern, not strict chronology. A straightforward reading of the text would lead us to believe that the work on the temple that ceased during the reign of Darius I came after Xerxes and Artaxerxes since there are no literary indications that the narrative is non-sequential. However, we know this is not the case. This is an excellent example of unmarked dischronologization.

B. The Matthean and Lukan Temptation Accounts

When one compares the temptation accounts recorded in Matt 4 and Luke 4, it is obvious that they are narrated in different orders.

Matt 4
Jesus tempted to turn stones to bread
Jesus tempted to throw himself down
Jesus tempted to worship Satan

Luke 4
Jesus tempted to turn stones to bread
Jesus tempted to worship Satan
Jesus tempted to throw himself down

Nothing in either text would lead us to think the narrative was dischronologized, but at least one author has narrated it in a non-sequential way. Here too dischronologization was employed in the absence of identifying markers.

Biblical writers sometimes use a specific type of dischronologization in which something is described and then returned to in order to add further detail. Moses himself uses this literary technique, even in Genesis 1-2.

C. The Creation of Man

Genesis 1:27
"God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them."

Genesis 1:26-28 briefly notes that God creates mankind (both man and woman) before moving on to describe God's resting. Then, in Genesis 2 the narrative returns to the creation event of mankind and offers further details, even stating that the man and women were not created at the same time but that the woman was created after the man named the animals. It states that God created the man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into him. Then, after the man had been created, God created the woman from a part of the man.

In Genesis 1 Moses declares that God created mankind, and Genesis 2 returns to the creation event and adds more detail, describing how God created the man and the woman.

Randall Buth discusses the phenomena of "unmarked temporal overlay" in ANE literature in which an author will write about events in a non-chronological narrative format without any grammatical indicators to let us know that he's dischronologizing. Buth says:

"As we look at examples of this phenomenon, we will notice two different ways in which the temporal overlay can be signaled outside of the grammar. One method is through lexical reference and/or repetition" [12]

By this he means that the same words or phrases are repeated, indicating a return to the same material. Buth cites Leviticus 16:6-11 as an "extreme case of overlay."

• a. And Aaron will offer his sin-bull
  b. and he will make atonement for himself and his house
  c. and he will take the two goats ...
  i. and Aaron will offer his sin-bull
  j. and he will make atonement for himself and his house
  k. and he will slaughter his sin-bull
  

"In this outline of duties for the Day of Atonement the author consciously repeats details that have already been mentioned. The wayyiqtol system is used throughout for serial actions that are sequential. However, in v. 11 (lines i-j) the description returns to the identical actions of v. 6 (lines a-b). Here, the author not only refers to the same actions, he repeats every word exactly. This can be taken as an extreme case of "overlay."[13]

As a really obvious example, Buth points to the repeated statements showing that the author refers to the same actions even though the grammar would indicate pure sequence. Buth continues:

"Not every word need be repeated in order to provide a lexical signal to a grammatically unmarked temporal overlay. The war of Benjamin in Judg. 20:31-47 provides many examples where one or two words suffice to signal to the reader that the author is going over the same material a second time, adding some details."[14]

Buth goes on to describe how the biblical author uses "lexical reference" of repeating words with the purpose of indicating that the Judges text is not strictly chronological.

The conclusion of Buth's work is that the writers will sometimes use word repetition instead of grammatical indicators to signal dischronologization.

So, a biblical writer might narrate his story in a non-sequential way and instead arrange the material according to thematic concerns [15].

The claim that Scripture relates the events of Genesis 1 in a non-sequential order does not detract from its historicity. We must keep in mind that the primary purpose of the biblical record is not to simply educate us on historical matters (though it does that), but to convey important theological truths by describing God's redemptive-historical acts.

So, the non-literalistic and non-sequential aspects of the Genesis creation narrative are the focus of the Framework Interpretation. We now offer three major exegetical arguments in support.

• 1. Two-Triad Structure
  2. Because It Had Not Rained
  3. A Day Is A Day Is A Day
  

TWO-TRIAD STRUCTURE

We begin with the observation that the account is structured according to a two-triad framework (two sets of three days) climaxing in a final seventh day. The first triad describes the creation of the immovable creation kingdoms while the second describes the creation of the movable creature kings.

Creation Kingdoms******Creature Kings
(immovables)************(movables)
Day 1 Light***********Day 4 Luminaries
Day 2 Sky / Seas ******Day 5 Sea / winged creatures
Day 3 Land ********** Day 6 Land animals
Vegetation *************Man

The Creator King
Day 7 Sabbath

The seventh day, standing apart from the two triads, climaxes with reference to God as the Creator King. On this day, God is enthroned over all of his creation by entering into his Sabbath rest. Several features of this two-triadic framework are prominent.

Kingdoms and Kings

We can summarize the content of triads 1 and 2 as immovable "kingdoms" and movable "kings." The kings of triad-2 are to "rule over" their respective triad-1 kingdoms.

Days 1/4

God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night (Gen 1:16)
The text says explicitly that the luminaries were made to 'rule over' the day and night.

Days 2/5

God blessed them and said, "God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” (Gen 1:22)
"Be fruitful/multiply" is a dominion mandate just like man's dominion mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis 1:28.

Days 3/6

Days three and six are special for several reasons that will be examined more fully below. Here we note that man is not only to rule over the land and vegetation, but over all the birds, fish, cattle, and things that creep on the earth. Man is the consummation of God's creation. He is Yahweh's vassal-king [16].

Day 7
Finally, God is enthroned as the Creator King, the overlord above all things he has created.

The above is a basic exposition of the Framework Interpretation. While some minor objections have been offered claiming that the parallelism isn't perfect, the broad structure is undeniable. The objections will be considered after presenting the three exegetical arguments.

Eight Works in Six Days

Beside the thematic parallels seen in the kings ruling over the kingdoms, the account contains further literary parallels. In The Genesis Debate, Irons/Kline note that liberal-critical scholars have used the occurrence of eight creation events in six days as an argument against its coherence. The liberal scholars argue that a priestly redactor took an old hypothetical creation account and forced it into a six-day scheme to fit the priestly Sabbath theology. Following this, Irons/Kline go on to say:

"Such source-critical speculations are totally unnecessary. The same data can be accounted for by simply recognizing that Moses employed a literary framework. He wanted to highlight the strong connections between Day 3 (vegetation) and Day 6 (man) to set the stage for the institution of the covenant of works in the garden, which was based upon a close relationship between man and vegetation (i.e., the two trees in Gen. 2:9). The dual thematic focus established by the parallel third and sixth day-frames sets the stage for Genesis 2:4-25, which resumes and expands upon this twofold theme of vegetation and man. Moses placed two creative acts on Day 3 and Day 6, while all the other days contain only one fiat, which strengthens the connection between vegetation and man, thus preparing for the subsequent narrative which would explain that connection in greater detail (Gen. 2:4-25)." [17]

Here is how the creative acts of God fit into the literary framework:
Triad 1 Triad 2
A A'
B B'
C D C' D'

Irons/Kline continue:

"We can now appreciate the theological significance of the literary design that brought the first triad of days to a climax in trees and the second triad to a climax in man. In this way, the design set the stage for the crucial connection of the two that would be examined in greater detail in the subsequent narrative of man's unsuccessful probation under the covenant of works (Gen. 2-3)." [18]

Chiastic Relationship of Days Two and Five [19]

The triadic framework described above in the Kings and Kingdoms section shows the broad structural outline. In addition we noted further thematic and structural aspects of the 3/6 day-pair that shows they are linked. Days 2 and 5 also have a unique link in addition to their thematic unity, and that is the chiastic arrangement of the sky/sea kingdoms and kings. The account uses a very common Hebrew chiastic form:


A (Sky kingdom)
B (Sea kingdom)
B' (Sea creatures)
A' (Sky creatures)



Moses could have simply used the same order, but chose to use an additional literary device found very often in the Old Testament.

Parallelism of Days One and Four

Days 1 and 4 show a very strong parallelism by the following:

• 1. Same thematic content
  2. Same language of 'separation'
  3. Same purpose - to 'separate' the light from the dark
  

Both Day 1 and Day 4 deal with the same topic, light/darkness and day/night. There can be no question that the two days are linked thematically. While the two days obviously cover the same theme, an even greater identification is shown by the use of the same language of separation.

Day 1
Gen. 1:4 says: "so God separated the light from the darkness"

Day 4
Gen 1:14 says: "to separate the day from the night"
Gen 1:18 says: "to separate the light from the darkness"

Such usage of the same language seems to qualify as what Buth calls "a lexical signal to a grammatically unmarked temporal overlay." (see discussion above) Some might object that Genesis 1 is not poetry, and therefore it's inappropriate to identify this type of literary structure. However, Buth's example from Judges 20 shows that there are no obstacles from even straightforward historical prose using unmarked temporal overlay (unmarked dischronologization) signaled by lexical reference.

The recognition that the events on both days are described by the same language of separation leads to our third point, which is that the purpose of the creative acts narrated on Days 1 and 4 is the same, to separate. This shows not only that the text is covering similar thematic content, but also that Day 4 is actually returning to the events of Day 1 and offering further commentary.

Similar to Genesis 2 revisiting the creation of man in Genesis 1 in order to add detail about how God created man, Day 4 revisits Day 1 and describes in more detail how God created daylight on the earth and separated the light from the darkness. That is, Day 1 gives us the results, and Day 4 comes back and discusses the means that God used to generate the results of Day 1.

God created man God created light
This is how God created man This is how God created light

God's purpose on Day 1 was to separate the light from the darkness. Did God fail in doing what he set out to do on Day 1 and thus require another attempt on Day 4 with the purpose of separating light from darkness? Of course not. Because of the identical purpose between Days 1 and 4, we can confidently say that the text is simply returning to a previous point in the narrative in order to offer further details, again, a how for the what described on Day 1. For the 24hr and Day-Age views this evidence of non-sequential narration is a big problem because both views interpret the 'days' as happening in sequential order.

Sabbatical Symbolism

The Sabbath concept is used in scripture to provide a literary scheme for thinking about redemptive history. Strict literalistic sequence does not always seem to be a concern to the biblical author. He intends on using the sabbatical symbolism to illustrate a theological point. Here are two examples: the seventy-years captivity and Matthew's genealogical structure.

A. The Seventy-Years Captivity

The "seventy years" of the Babylonian captivity is a rounded number from the actual 66-67 years from the first deportation in 605 B.C. to Cyrus's decree of liberation in 538 B.C. This captivity time is described as "seventy years" in order to convey the theological significance of this exile. These years in captivity were to be Sabbath make-ups for the lack of Sabbath-year observance by the Israelites. Moses prophesies this in Leviticus 26:43 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 records it as well (cf. Jeremiah 25:11):

Leviticus 26:43 - The land will be abandoned by them in order that it may make up for its Sabbaths while it is made desolate without them, and they will make up for their iniquity because they have rejected my regulations and have abhorred my statutes.

2 Chronicles 36:21 - This took place to fulfill the Lord’s message delivered through Jeremiah. The land experienced its Sabbatical years; it remained desolate for seventy years, as prophesied

Because Israel refused to obey God's symbolically-rich command to 'rest' the land every seven years, God showed them its importance by the "seventy years" make-up time.
This example shows sabbatical symbolism is used to convey an important theological truth, not concerned with a strict literalistic interpretation of "seventy years."

B. Matthew's Genealogical Structure

In the genealogy of Jesus given in Matt 2, Matthew purposely structures his genealogical account in order to convey theological meaning. It is quite interesting that in something as 'boring' as a genealogy, a biblical author can convey theological truth. Matthew arranges the genealogy so that there are 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 generations from David to the captivity, and 14 from the captivity to the Messiah. This set of 3x14, or 6x7 can be viewed as leading up to the final "seventh seven" where the Messiah brings the inauguration of the Sabbath rest for the people of God. In order to achieve this structure Matthew dropped at least four names and counted David twice, showing that he was structuring his account in order to convey theology without being concerned with strict chronological narration [20].

If later uses of the seven-day scheme in redemptive revelation are symbolic and not necessarily concerned with exact chronological succession, there's no reason to automatically reject such a use of the seven-day framework in the Genesis account. This is not arguing that because sabbatical symbolism is used in scripture it must also be used here, but instead that we shouldn't be surprised if we find the Genesis creation account Sabbatically structured according to theological concerns.

Conclusion

The recognition of the presence of a literary framework as described in the sections above is sufficient to make a topical, non-chronological interpretation plausible. However, literary frameworks do not of themselves completely rule out sequential narration. For that we had to examine the special relationship of Days 1 and 4 in which we saw that Day 4 was a return to the events of Day 1 in order to add more detail concerning how God chose to bring about what he accomplished on Day 1. Thus both the non-literalistic and non-sequential components of the Framework Interpretation have been supported in our first exegetical argument.


BECAUSE IT HAD NOT RAINED

Historically, one of the biggest problems with the 24hr interpretation has been the fact that the Sun wasn't created until Day 4. A common response is that God sustained the day/night cycle by supernatural, non-ordinary means during the first three days. The FI contention is, however, that Gen 2:5 rules out the usage of non-ordinary means because it teaches a principle of continuity between the post-creation period (specifically, during Moses' day) and the week of creation: God was using the same ordinary means of sustaining his creation.

Exegesis

Genesis 2:5 - Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

Genesis 2:5 presents a problem, no shrubs and plants.

When Moses explains why this problem occurs and how it is overcome, we see that he holds the above-mentioned continuity principal as an unargued presupposition. We see this because he offers his audience an ordinary, natural way of explaining why no plant had sprouted:

A. for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth
B. and there was no man to cultivate the ground

Then, to deal with this twofold problem, God supplies rain and a cultivator, both perfectly natural and ordinary ways of overcoming an ordinary problem. To someone in agriculture it's obvious that no rain means no plant growth. That is, unless one irrigates the land. The Israelites would have been very familiar with this problem, seeing as how they lived in an agricultural society and saw (and probably built) irrigation systems in Egypt. What this would have meant to an Israelite is that God did not create vegetation until he had established the natural means of sustaining that vegetation. Moses assumes the Israelites would see the logic of the situation. So, his giving a natural explanation presupposes continuity between the creation world and the post-creation world (the world of his audience) as a general principle:

* During the creation period, God did not rely extraordinary means to sustain his creation once it was created.

Carrying this through, God did not create the light until he had established the natural means of sustaining that light. There was no 'supernatural' mechanism in place to supply the earth with a light/dark cycle during the first three days. Nothing in the text itself would lead us to believe that God used a non-ordinary means of sustaining the light/darkness cycle. Such a speculation is totally foreign to the text. In addition, Genesis 2:5 rules this out as even a possible explanation. God, in his omnipotent power, could have employed extraordinary means for sustaining his creation after the creative acts, but according to his self-revelation in the Scripture, he chose not to. He chose to use ordinary processes to sustain his creation once it was made.


A DAY IS A DAY IS A DAY

The final primary exegetical argument concerns Moses' use of the word 'day' (Hebrew yom - יום) in the narration of the creation week. Perhaps the best way to work through this argument is to see how the 24hr group defends its interpretation and challenges the interpretation of the Day-Age group.

What does יום mean?

Proponents of the 24hr view will vigorously assert that the Hebrew יום of Genesis 1 are to be understood as periods of 24 hours and cannot be understood as long periods of time as the Day-Age view holds. Kenneth Gentry has written the best summary of the arguments for this position in an article entitled In the Space of Six Days. His first argument is:

"Argument from Primary Meaning. The preponderant usage of the word "day" (Heb. יום) in the OT is of a normal diurnal period. The overwhelming majority of its 2,304 appearances in the OT clearly refer either to a normal, full day-and-night cycle, or to the lighted portion of that cycle. In fact, on Day 1 God himself "called" the light "day" (Gen 1:5), establishing the temporal significance of the term in the creation week. As Berkhof declares in defending a six day creation: In its primary meaning the word יום denotes a natural day; and it is a good rule in exegesis, not to depart from the primary meaning of a word, unless this is required by the context" (Systematic Theology, 154)."[21]

The summary statement is:

The primary meaning of the word יום is a normal day.

Day-Age proponents reply by noting two things:
1. The Hebrew word יום is sometimes used in the OT to mean "a long period of time." That is, this meaning falls within the semantic field of the word יום and is therefore a possible interpretation in Genesis 1.

2. Observations of the natural world and the teaching of other biblical texts point to an old earth. For these reasons the Day-Age view is not only possible (from point #1), but superior to the 24hr view.

It is true that the semantic field of יום includes "a long period of time." 24hr proponents acknowledge this, but counter with additional evidences that show יום in this specific context has a narrow semantic field that excludes "a long period of time."

"Argument from Explicit Qualification. So that we not miss his point, Moses relentlessly qualifies each of the six creation days by "evening and morning." Outside of Genesis 1 the words "evening" and "morning" appear in statements thirty-two times in the OT, presenting the two parts defining a normal day (e.g., Ex 16:13; 18:13; 27:21). Robert L. Dabney observed in defending a six day creation: The sacred writer seems to shut us up to the literal interpretation by describing the days as comprised of its natural parts, morning and evening" (Systematic Theology, 255).

Argument from Numerical Prefix. Genesis 1 attaches a numeral to each of the creation days: first, second, third, etc. Moses affixes numerical adjectives to יום 119 times in his writings. These always signify literal days, as in circumcision on the "eighth day" (Lev 12:3; cp. Nu 33:38). The same holds true for the 357 times numerical adjectives qualify יום outside the Pentateuch. ... As Gerhard Hasel observes: This triple interlocking connection of singular usage, joined by a numeral, and the temporal definition of 'evening and morning,' keeps the creation 'day' the same throughout the creation account. It also reveals that time is conceived as linear and events occur within it successively. To depart from the numerical, consecutive linkage and the 'evening-morning' boundaries in such direct language would mean to take extreme liberty with the plain and direct meaning of the Hebrew language" ("The 'Days' of Creation," Origins 21:1 [1984] 26)."[22]


The 24hr proponents have made a very strong case. From a semantic perspective the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of understanding the יום of Genesis 1 as ordinary, normal days. Day-Age proponents commit what D.A. Carson calls the fallacy of Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field. In his book Exegetical Fallacies, Carson writes:

"The fallacy in this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of a word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word's entire semantic range."[23]

Narrowing a Semantic Field

Perhaps some comments on what it means to "narrow a semantic field" might be helpful. Assume we have a text that uses the word 'blah' 100 times. We have previously established that there are four possible ways that this word can be understood. In 40 of the 100 occurrences, a modifier 'foo' is attached to 'blah' and in every case 'blah' has only meaning #2. We can here identify something that these 40 occurrences have in common with each other that the other 60 do not have, and that is the presence of the adjectival modifier 'foo' and they all mean #2. The presence of 'foo' narrows the semantic field of 'blah'.

Now, let's say that we read through the text again and realize that there are 41, not 40 occurrences of 'blah' with 'foo'. For the case of the 41st instance, the context allows any of the four possible meanings to be used. However, because 41 shares the common feature with the other 40 instances, we have to use the exact same meaning as the other 40 instances have (#2). Only if no interpretations that used meaning #2 were available would we be justified in using a meaning not in the narrowed semantic field. This is the case in Genesis 1.

Transcending the disputed cases, there is never a time when Moses uses a numerical adjectival qualifier and means something other than a normal day. Because alternate interpretations are available, the יום of Genesis 1 cannot be understood as long ages.

Much to their credit, 24hr proponents have marshaled a very strong semantically based argument against the Day-Age understanding of the Genesis days. However, and this is where things get very interesting, the evidence brought forth by 24hr proponents used to show that the יום of Genesis 1 must have the same meaning as all the others can be used with as much force against their own position as against the Day-Age view.

Implications

In his article, Gentry offers the following:

"Argument from Coherent Usage. The word יום in Genesis 1 defines Days 4-6—after God creates the sun—expressly for marking off days (Gen 1:14,18). Interestingly, Moses emphasizes Day 4 by allocating the second greatest number of words to describe it. Surely these last three days of creation are normal days. Yet nothing in the text suggests a change of temporal function for יום from the first three days: they are measured by the same temporal designator (יום), along with the same qualifiers (numerical adjectives and "evening and morning"). Should not Days 1-3 demarcate normal days also?" [24]

Gentry is correct in insisting that the first three days of the narrative must be understood in the same way as the second three. He asks "Should not Days 1-3 demarcate normal days also?"

In answer, Framework Interpretation advocates reply with a resounding Yes! and follow up by pointing out that the 24hr interpretation does not do this. As a point of indisputable fact, 24hr proponents must assume that the first three 'days' of Genesis 1 are abnormal, non-ordinary 24 periods of time because they lack the sun. They lack an essential component that all other 100+ occurrences have in common. 24hr proponents have committed the exact same fallacy that they accuse the Day-Age proponents of, and have even gone beyond that and rejected the principle of coherent usage by claiming different meanings of 'day' for the two triads of days. Not only do they use a meaning for the first three days different than those outside the Genesis creation account (which are always solar), but even use a different meaning within the very narrative of the creation account.

To bring this point home, whenever a 24hr proponent says "every time יום is used like this, it always means a normal day," a FI advocate could simply reply with "yes, every time יום is used like this, it always means a normal day, which you reject for the first three days. You appeal to utterly abnormal non-solar 24 hour periods of time."[25]

At this point additional evidence can be offered in favor of the argument. Not only does the 24hr view commit the above-mentioned fallacy, but it also uses a definition for יום that Jew would not have used. They thought of days only as solar days.

Stambaugh's attempt to respond to this objection is telling. He says:

"This objection observes that the sun was not created until the fourth day, and therefore the first three days could not have been the kind of days we are familiar with today. It seems that those who make this objection are not aware that the sun is not necessary to determine a 'day'; all that is needed is some point of light. A 'day' can be defined as follows:

'The time taken for the Earth to spin once on its axis; by extension, the rotation period of any planet. The rotation of the Earth can be measured relative to the stars (sidereal day) or the sun (solar day).'"[26]

Well of course we can define a 'day' in different ways. We could even define it as a specific fraction of the half-life of decaying Carbon-14. The point is not that we in our modern age are capable of defining it in different ways. The question is, how did the Israelites define a day? Jews in the 2nd millennium B.C. defined a day by the rising/setting of the sun. No one had a wrist watch or clock back then, and there's no evidence that a Jew in the Mosaic period even knew what an hour was [27].

Neither is there any evidence that Moses' audience would have thought of a day as the time taken for the Earth to spin once on its axis. That is entirely a modern concept.

One of the most prominent of the Young Earth Creationists agrees with me. Jonathan Sarfati (of Answers In Genesis) says:

"It is only recently that the astronomical fact has been realized that a day-night cycle needs only light plus rotation. Having ‘day’ without the sun would have been generally inconceivable to the ancients."[28]

The claim that they would have made a conceptual jump to a non-solar 'day' instead of simply recognizing the presence of literary devices, of which they were much more accustomed to than us, requires significant evidence that I have not yet seen.

Conclusion

Given the strength of the semantic argument, neither the Day-Age nor the 24hr views are acceptable, especially since a plausible alternative interpretation is readily available. Because the Framework Interpretation claims that the יום of Genesis 1 retain the exact same meaning as the other occurrences that use numerical modifiers, it alone avoids the fallacy of Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field and retains consistent usage within the creation account itself.


OBJECTIONS

Before examining other texts, we will consider some objections that have been raised against the FI.

Objection: Exodus 20/31

Exodus 20:11 - For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.

Exodus 31:17 - ...for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

Advocates of the 24hr position appeal to these texts, arguing that they show that the days of Genesis 1 are "clearly" to be understood as normal days.

"Perhaps the most frequently raised objection to the framework interpretation is that it cannot deal with the divine commandment to labor for six days and rest on the seventh (Exo. 20:8-11). Noel Weeks argues that "Exodus 20:8-11 is significant in that it gives us a clear answer to the debated question about whether the 'days' of Genesis are to be taken literally. The commandment loses completely its cogency if they are not taken literally."[29]

Two central objections come to mind, one methodological and one exegetical.

First, those who attempt to utilize this approach to biblical exegesis are using a faulty methodology. It is improper to appeal to a short allusion as a grid by which to interpret a previously-given extended exposition of a topic. Moses is not here dictating how the creation account (which was itself the exposition) is to be understood, but appealing to it only as a model. The proper methodology is to understand the full exposition where the topic is dealt with in detail before attempting to determine what is meant by the much shorter allusion.

Second, the Exodus texts cannot be understood literalistically. Here Irons/Kline are right when they say that not only does this fail as an argument against the FI, but that it actually argues in favor of it. It demonstrates that the language of God's working and resting must be understood metaphorically and not literalistically.

Exodus 31:17 says "on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed."

Irons/Kline point out that the verb "to refresh oneself"[30] is only used two other times in the Hebrew Bible, both indicating that the one who refreshed himself was weary from exhaustion.

Exodus 23:12 - For six days you may do your work, but on the seventh day you must cease, so your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female servant and your slave may refresh themselves.

2 Samuel 16:14 - The king and all the people who were with him arrived exhausted at their destination, where David refreshed himself.

If the passages have to be interpreted literalistically, then we would have to acknowledge that God actually gets weary. FI proponents are unwilling to do this and therefore interpret the passages metaphorically, consistent with the metaphorical interpretation of the days in Genesis 1 [31].

Gentry's other remarks [32] about the analogy being useless unless God created in a literal week, and that viewing Genesis 1 as a literary framework "inverts reality" seem to be nothing more than bald assertions, and not even good ones at that.

Supporting the FI, the Exodus 20/31 texts offer additional evidence for a metaphorical interpretation of the days, contradicting a literalistic interpretation.

Objection: Broken Parallelism

Grudem brings the following two objections against the parallelism describe in our first exegetical argument.

"1. First, the proposed correspondence between the days of creation is not nearly as exact as its advocates have supposed. The sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day as "lights in the firmament of the heavens" (Gen.1:14) are placed not in any space created on Day 1 but in the "firmament" (Heb. Raqia- רקיע) that was created on the second day. In fact, the correspondence in language is quite explicit: this "firmament" is not mentioned at all on Day 1 but five times on day 2 (Gen.1:6-8) and three times on Day 4 (Gen.1:14-19). Of course Day 4 also has correspondences with Day 1 (in terms of day and night, light and darkness), but if we say that the second three days show the creation of things to fill the forms or spaces created on the first three days, then Day 4 overlaps at least as much with Day 2 as it does with Day 1."[33]

Apparently Grudem is either unaware of, or misunderstands the argument as put forth by Kline.[34] Genesis 1:16 and 1:18 explicitly state what the luminaries are to rule over (the argument does not concern the 'filling' but the 'ruling' of the creature kings), and that is the "day and the night" and "the light and the darkness." The placement of the luminaries in the 'firmament' is irrelevant regarding what they are explicitly stated as created to rule over.

2. Grudem's second objection is somewhat more interesting, but also offers little force. The claim is that the seas were not actually formed until the 3rd day when land was created to separate them, and so the fish and sea creatures created on Day 5 correspond to Day 3 rather than Day 2.

It is true that the fish are commanded to "fill the waters in the seas." However, while I can understand the desire for a more exact language parallel, it would not have been possible for Moses to call the waters on Day 2 "seas" because this implies waters bounded by dry land. The waters that composed the seas (the "waters of the seas") were made on Day 2 and bounded on Day 3 as a secondary byproduct of God's creation of dry land. The focus is on the environment that they are to rule over, which was created on Day 2. We might desire a greater linguistic parallel (seas on Day2 without being bounded by land?) but it's difficult to regard this as a serious objection to the two-triad structure of the creation account.

Objection: No death before the Fall

Since the Framework Interpretation does not necessarily imply death before the fall, this argument does not have any direct force against it. Regardless, I believe it can be demonstrated that not only does Scripture allow for death before the Fall, it even seems to imply that there was death amongst non-humans. Admittedly, this was the most difficult issue for me in even considering the claims of Old Earth Creationists. It was only after I studied the issue in some depth that I came to accept the fact that the Bible's teaching on death as a consequence of sin is only applicable to mankind. For more information, see Lee Irons' article "Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?"[35] and, eventually, my position paper (forthcoming, really!).


OTHER TEXTS AND ARGUMENTS

In addition to the primary arguments given above, several other supporting arguments can be offered [36].

Eternal Seventh Day

The eternal nature of the seventh day is another evidence of non-literalistic interpretation required for the days of Genesis 1. Two points need to be made.

1. The seventh day means a normal solar day. It has a numerical qualifier that serves to narrow the semantic field allowing only for a normal day interpretation, just like the other six occurrences in Genesis 1.

2. The seventh day refers to a long and even unending time. This is perhaps hinted at by the lack of the "evening and morning" refrain. It is certainly suggested by the nature of the day as God's rest, meaning his enthronement over his creation that will never cease.

The exegesis of New Testament authors supports this interpretation as well.

Hebrews 4

Hebrews 4 concerns the promised Sabbath-rest for the people of God. God rested in Genesis 2:2, and because we are to imitate him, it is our eschatological focus as ones made in the divine image to enter into his rest. While God rested on the seventh day, his rest that we are called to enter into is still ongoing as shown by several texts in Hebrews 4. Verse one tells us that the promise of entering his rest still stands:

Heb 4:1 - Therefore we must be wary that, while the promise of entering his rest remains open, none of you may seem to have come short of it.

In fact, the author of Hebrews appears to equate the seventh day of creation with his rest:

Heb 4:4-5 - For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” but to repeat the text cited earlier: “They will never enter my rest!”

If God's rest is still ongoing, and the "seventh day" is his rest as the author of Hebrews says, then this means that the seventh day is still ongoing.

John 5:17

In John 5:16ff, the Jews persecuted Jesus because he "was doing these things on the Sabbath." Their argument is that Jesus shouldn't be 'working' on the Sabbath.

One of the most important principles of the father/son relationship in Judaism is the principle of imitation. Sons are to imitate their fathers and bring honor to them through their good conduct. It is on this commonly understood basis that Jesus offers a defense of his actions. He defends his working on the Sabbath by appealing to the imitation principle, that he is simply imitating what God is doing, doing good works on his Sabbath.

The Jews claim is: "You are working on the Sabbath, which is not allowed."

Jesus' response is: "In order to be a good son, I am to imitate my father, and since he is working on his Sabbath, that is sufficient to justify my working on the Sabbath."

If Jesus was not appealing to God's working on his Sabbath in order to justify his own working on his Sabbath, then what is he saying?

Both the OT and the NT support the claim that the seventh day, God's Sabbath rest, has an eternal nature. How can the seventh 'day' mean a normal solar day and refer to an eternal period of time? Only if it is used metaphorically as the Framework Interpretation contends.


CONCLUSION

The following six points summarize why I consider the Framework Interpretation to be the most consistent with the biblical evidence.

• 1. The obvious two-triadic literary framework in Genesis 1.
  
  2. The evidence that Day 4 is a return to the events of Day 1 and describes in more detail how God separated the light from the darkness.
  
  3. The principle of continuity, showing that God established the ordinary means of sustaining a creation before he created it.
  
  4. The argument from semantics showing that the days must mean normal solar days. Neither abnormal non-solar 24-hour periods nor long ages can be considered within the semantic range of the Genesis 1 creation 'days'.
  
  5.The metaphorical interpretation of the Exodus 20/31 passages is most consistent with the FI view on Genesis 1.
  
  6. The eternal nature of the seventh day requires a metaphorical interpretation.
  

So far I've been entirely unimpressed with the critiques of the Framework Interpretation. Even though I consider my views on this topic to be tentative, I can't help but think of the weakness of the arguments I've seen against it as an indication of the strength of the view that I've come to hold [37].


SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archer, Gleason L. Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, revised (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994).

Blocher, Henri, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1984).

Buth, Randall "Methodological Collision Between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis: The Problem of 'Unmarked Temporal Overlay' and the Pluperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol," Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen (Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994) pp 138-154.

Futato, Mark D. "Because It Had Rained: A Study of Gen 2:5-7 with Implications for Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3," WTJ 60 (1998): 1-21. Available from http://www.thirdmill.org

Gentry, Kenneth, "In the Space of Six Days," Ordained Servant vol. 9, no. 1 (January 2000) pp. 12-16. Available at http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1d.html

Gentry, Kenneth, "Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation," Available at http://www.the-highway.com/creation_Gentry.html

Green, William H., "Primeval Chronology” Bibliotheca Sacra (April, 1890) pp. 285-303. Available at http://www.girs.com/library/theology...ion_green.html

Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995).

Hagopian, Daivd G., ed., The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001).

Hasel, Gerhard F., "The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1: Literal "Days" or Figurative "Periods / Epochs" of Time?" Origins 21(1):5-38 (1994). Available at http://www.ldolphin.org/haseldays.html

Irons, Lee, "Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary," Ordained Servant 9:1 (January, 2000) pp. 7-11. Available from http://www.upper-register.com

Kline, Meredith G., "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony," Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 48:2-15 (1996). Available at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html

Kline, Meredith G., "Because It Had Not Rained," WTJ 20 (1958):146-157. Available at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/WTJ/WTJ58Kline.html

Kulikovsky, Andrew S., "A Critique of the Literary Framework View of the Days of Creation," 2001. Available at
http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/herm.../Framework.pdf

Pipa, Joseph, "From Chaos to Cosmos: A Critique of the Framework Hypothesis," (Draft January 13, 1998). Available at http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm

Ross, Hugh, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress, 1994).

Sarfati, Jonathan, " How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?" http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1203.asp

Stambaugh, James, "The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach" CEN Technical Journal 5(1):70-78, 1991. Available at http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4204tj_v5n1.asp

"Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation - A Brief Statement" Available at http://www.wts.edu/news/creation.html

NOTES

[1]While these are my views, I cannot help but note that they are not original with me. For much of the outline and content of this paper I relied on the Irons/Kline presentation of the Framework Interpretation in The Genesis Debate. While departing in places, it should be obvious that I borrowed heavily from them. An appendix contains a short bibliography of relevant literature that was used in the course of my research. Scripture quotations are taken from the NET bible, available at http://www.netbible.org, unless otherwise noted.

[2]This would apply to the interpretations of different biblical texts as well. One must interpret material in Paul's letter to the Romans independent of the content of John's epistles. The results are to be systematized and checked for consistency only after they are interpreted as individual units.

[3]See my position paper "On the Methodological Issues Involved in Harmonizing Interpretations of Biblical and Natural Revelations," forthcoming. As I remember/see helpful resources, I'll note them here in future revisions.

[4]Hagopian, David G., ed., The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001).

[5]Hugh Ross is probably the most well known proponent of the Day-Age position. As much as I respect Dr. Ross, it seems to me his writings indicate that he approaches the question of Genesis 1 with an improper methodology. His thinking appears to be that we need a testable creation model, so that means that we have to interpret Genesis to give us a model. Such an approach is improper. Whether or not we desire to extract a testable model from Genesis 1 is irrelevant to whether or not it speaks to the issue. We must not force the text to speak on a matter on which it is silent. Let exegesis determine whether or not the text can give us a model before digging one out of it.

[6]24hr proponents often improperly link the age of the earth/universe with biological evolutionary issues. One of Hasel's comments is representative of this mindset:

"This short time in the creation account is under debate on the basis of the current naturalistic theory of evolution."

Gentry offers another in Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation:

"Though most Reformed scholars would decry evolutionism, they often capitulate to the evolutionary elite, being pressured to re-interpret Genesis in order to maintain academic credibility. This is a tragic surrender of orthodoxy to the reigning cultural mythology of our day: chance-oriented, naturalistic evolutionism."

The argument runs something like this:

"Evolution is anti-Christian. We cannot allow the text to make room for evolution by interpreting it to allow a billions-year-old earth. Once that is done, we've opened up a way to explain life without God."

Simply because an interpretation opens the door to allow the possibility of Darwinian evolution in no way justifies such an approach to the text. One might well argue that we cannot interpret the Bible to teach any type of subordination of the Son to the Father, since this opens the door to the possibility of the Son as a lesser being than the Father. Such an approach would rule out the biblical teaching of functional subordination of the Son to the Father. Clearly, such an approach is wrong.

[7]Here I draw a distinction between 'literal' and 'literalistic' that most commenting on this issue do not. When Jesus says "I am the door" we are to interpret his words literally, meaning within their literary context (symbolically) but not literalistically. That is, he's not actually claiming to be a piece of wood with hinges, which is what the 'literalistic' interpretation would be. He's speaking metaphorically.

[8]That major theological teaching is that God is enthroned above his creation by entering into his Sabbath rest and that we are to have an eschatological outlook on life, looking forward to our glorification wherein we imitate him and enter into eschatological rest, ruling with him.

[9]See especially The Structure of Biblical Authority by Meredith G. Kline. See also Ancient Orient and Old Testament (p 90ff) by Kenneth Kitchen.

[10]In addition to the relevant sections in The Genesis Debate, the following resources are representative of the Young Earth Creationist camp:

Morris, Henry M., The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976).

Kelly, Douglas, Creation and Change (Fearn, Ross-shire, U.K.: Christian Focus, 1997).
Answers In Genesis - www.answersingenesis.org
Institute for Creation Research - www.irc.org

[11]Hugh Ross, one of the Day-Age contributors in The Genesis Debate, is probably the most well-known proponent. See his website Reasons to Believe (www.reasons.org) for representative resources in addition to the relevant sections in the book.

[12]Buth, Randall, "Methodological Collision Between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis: The Problem of 'Unmarked Temporal Overlay' and the Pluperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol," Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994) p 142.

[13]Buth, p 143.

[14]Buth, p 143. My italics.

[15]Oswald T. Allis, in his work The Old Testament: Its Claims and Critics also discusses this issue. See especially the section in Chapter 2 called "Summary Followed by Details" (p 82) where Allis begins:
"We often find that in describing an event, the biblical writer first makes a brief and comprehensive statement and then follows it with more or less elaborate details. This may involve some repetition and is at times confusing."

See also the subsection "Sequence Not Necessarily Chronological" (p 105)

[16]A vassal-king is a servant-king in the suzerain/vassal covenant relationship. The suzerain is the overlord.

[17]Hagopian, The Genesis Debate, pp 227-228.

[18]Hagopian, The Genesis Debate, p 228.

[19]I would not consider this a strong argument. It is unlikely to convince someone who is already not persuaded of the FI, but once one accepts the FI, this is just one more small piece of the puzzle.

[20]Hagopian, The Genesis Debate, p 227.

[21]Gentry, Kenneth, "In the Space of Six Days," Ordained Servant vol. 9, no. 1 (January 2000), pp. 12-16. Available at http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V9/1d.html

[22]Ibid.

[23]Carson, D.A., Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996).

[24]Gentry, Kenneth, "In the Space of Six Days"

[25]Just one of many examples of this can be seen in Stambaugh's paper, "The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach." He says: "This paper has focused on presenting positive evidence that demonstrates the 'days' of Genesis 1 were solar days." But his desire is actually not to show that they were solar days, because Days 1-3 are non-solar on his view. If he showed they actually mean solar days, he would defeat his own position.

[26]Stambaugh, James, "The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach"

[27]Electronic searches through online versions of the Old Testament show no uses of 'hour' as a measurement of time. It is only when we get to the New Testament that we see the writers referring to 'hours.' The people marked their time by the rising and setting of the sun, not by abstractions that we are able to use today (hours, minutes, seconds).

[28]Sarfati, Jonathan, "How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the Sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?" see his endnote #2.

[29]Hagopian, Genesis Debate, p 249.

[30]"To refresh oneself" is their translation of the verb. Whether this translation or any other normal translation is used makes no difference.

[31]For an alternate take by someone I highly respect, see http://www.tektonics.org/godtired.html

[32]See his "In the Space of Six Days" paper under the subsection "Argument from Divine Exemplar"

[33]Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995) p 302.

[34]Pipa certainly misunderstands, as he added the following italicized comment to his quote of Grudem in From Chaos to Cosmos: "but if we say that the second three days show the creation of things to fill the forms or spaces created on the first three days (or to rule the kingdoms as Kline says), then Day 4 overlaps at least as much with Day 2 as it does with Day 1."

[35]Available from www.upper-register.com

[36]I'm persuaded from the evidence that the biblical writers viewed God's creation as what Kline has called a two-register cosmology. See his article entitled "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony," published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Two things strike me as supporting this view. First is the presence of two-register cosmologies in Ancient Near East thought. "A quite literal case of the two-register format is seen in graphic representations like the Assyrian reliefs that picture the king in a lower register, whether driving forward in battle or returning triumphantly, and in a higher register the god in a matching stance." (Kline, Space and Time)

The other is that biblical texts such as Colossians 1:16 show a distinction between "invisible" things in heaven and "visible" things on earth. The verse has a chiastic structure:

A things in heaven
B and on earth
B' things visible
A' and invisible

(see Hagopian, The Genesis Debate p 300)

One of the most dramatic scenes in which we can see the two-register cosmology is when Elisha's servant has the proverbial veil lifted from his eyes so that he might see into the upper register, and there he sees the armies of the Lord protecting his master. (2 Kings 6:17)

[37]I'd like to thank Pastor Gordon Hugenberger of my church (www.parkstreet.org) for my initial exposure to the Framework view. His enthusiasm for God's word is wonderfully contagious.

[align=left]

---

[/align]


TheologyWeb thanks BrianB for submitting this very well-written piece that is sure to inform and educate and at least allow the brethren to come to a better understanding of this minority view within the various Genesis debates.

[align=left]

---

[/align]

Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statementor be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Notice

This commentary thread is not going to “open” debate but rather is restricted to theists who hold the book of Genesis to be authoritative to their faith and non-theists who can interact using the book of Genesis as authoritative. I also ask the participants that we do not make “science” the main focal point as the piece is a hermeneutical piece and not a scientific treatise. Of course the point will come up, just please do not make it the focus. Thanks – let’s discuss!

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[twohumble]

"2. The seventh day refers to a long and even unending time. This is perhaps hinted at by the lack of the "evening and morning" refrain. It is certainly suggested by the nature of the day as God's rest, meaning his enthronement over his creation that will never cease."

I think we see evidence of a pyrimid of inferences not supported by the text. In the above quote from your paper, you have gone from "a long" period , to "even unending time." This is not in line with scripture, since we know that Gods "rest" from creation will cease. His "rest" relates to a cessation of his activity in relation to creation, not just "meaning his enthronement over His creation". Although His enthronement will never cease, the 7th day certainly will. We are told in Revelation that He will re-create, or create anew or again, this marks the end of the 7th day.

You have imposed extraneous meaning on His "rest" and improperly surmised that the 7th day is eternal, when the new creation is the beginning of the 8th day. Hence, I see no need to interpret the 7th day as metaphor.

[twohumble]

You have not indicated what one who holds to the FI, would believe regarding the age of the earth, and sciences "evidence". Can you elaborate?

In your definitions of the three theoretical interpretations, you note that day/age hold to sciences finding, and that young earthers generally dispute scientific findings, but I did not see mention of FI's position here.

[BrianB]

Hi twohumble,

Thank you for being the first to post a response to my paper with constructive criticism. I'll take some time to mull over your thoughts on the 7th day and get back to you after I've thought it through some more.

As far as my understanding of the implications of the FI go, I do not believe that it commits one to either an old earth or a young earth. What it does commit one to (via the Because It Had Not Rained argument) is that God did not rely on extra-ordinary means to sustain his creation once it was created. I guess you might say that this "agrees with science" in some respect, but as far as the age of the earth/universe issue the FI is agnostic.

I hope that helps, and thanks again.
Brian

[twohumble]

Today @ 08:21 PM post located here
BrianB:

.....God did not rely on extra-ordinary means to sustain his creation once it was created. I guess you might say that this "agrees with science" in some respect, but as far as the age of the earth/universe issue the FI is agnostic.

I hope that helps, and thanks again.
Brian

Thank you for your reply

If I understand your position as stated above, God does not intervene in a "miraculous" sense, as it relates to creation? By miracle, I mean, God, imposing His will over the laws of nature once He set them in motion.

I also wonder, since the debate or discussion of the exegesis of Gen 1 centers around the "time frame of reference" for the purpose of understanding age issues, why is FI silent on this subject? It seems that in its silence, it circumvents the purpose of the entire disussion.

In Christ
Dave

[Warcraft3]

Hey Brian whats up?

As you already know, I think your article is excellent and I find the FI view in general to be very interesting.

I think the ideas presented in the section "Because it had not rained" are very important when looking at the Genesis text.
I think you did an excellent job in that section presenting your argument.



Russ

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...318#post279318

"2. The seventh day refers to a long and even unending time. This is perhaps hinted at by the lack of the "evening and morning" refrain. It is certainly suggested by the nature of the day as God's rest, meaning his enthronement over his creation that will never cease."

I think we see evidence of a pyrimid of inferences not supported by the text. In the above quote from your paper, you have gone from "a long" period , to "even unending time." This is not in line with scripture, since we know that Gods "rest" from creation will cease. His "rest" relates to a cessation of his activity in relation to creation, not just "meaning his enthronement over His creation". Although His enthronement will never cease, the 7th day certainly will. We are told in Revelation that He will re-create, or create anew or again, this marks the end of the 7th day.

You have imposed extraneous meaning on His "rest" and improperly surmised that the 7th day is eternal, when the new creation is the beginning of the 8th day. Hence, I see no need to interpret the 7th day as metaphor.

Hi twohumble, I've given some thought to your critique and offer these comments in reply.

You seem to offer two main propositions in your post:

1. God's "rest" will cease.
2. The end of the 7th day is when God's "rest" from creation ceases.

Since you equate God's re-creation with the end of the seventh day, you consider the '7th day' to be a very long period of time (from creation to new creation). I take it you are a Day-Age person? If so, then you must mean that the 7th 'day' both means and refers to an age of finite time, and not an ongoing state.

At this point I think my contention that they day should be taken metaphorically has been established, even I accepted your view on the _length_ of the 7th day.

Based on:
1. The Argument From Numerical Prefix (narrowed semantic field of 'day' when modified by a numerical adjective) and
2. The Argument From Coherent Usage (the 'day' of the 7th day should be understood in the same way the other 6 'days' are)
we should take the 7th 'day' to _mean_ an ordinary day. The point of the 7th day argument as I presented it was that it _refered_ to something other than an ordinary day, whether it is a finite Day-Age or an indefinite state of affairs. The difference between you and I on this point therefore appears to be whether the '7th day' refers to a finite or indefinite period of time. I'll explain further why I think that the 7th day is indefinite, but I should note that I'm tentative on this point and would have no problem changing my view if I can be convinced otherwise (is that a tautology? heh). The new creation as the '8th day' is certainly a live possibility.

Here's why I don't think that the 7th day is finite. I don't think that God's 'rest' will cease, since the 'rest' doesn't refer only to God's intial creative activities, but goes beyond that and includes his enthronement. Since his enthronement (which is part of the rest) certainly will not cease, the rest itself will not cease. I believe that the author of Hebrews agrees. When he says:

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own
work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every
effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their
example of disobedience.

He's not talking about us entering God's ceasing from his creative work, but instead about us entering God's enthronement-rest. We too will be made kings and given authority to rule upon our redemption and glorification. We will begin to rule faithfully over God's creation, fulfilling the command that God first gave to mankind back in Genesis 1:26.

Perhaps a good perspective-question to ask is, what is the dominant teaching that Moses intended to have his readers to understand from the Genesis text?
1. God stopped creating
2. God is enthroned above all as the Creator King

I wouldn't say that I understand everything about Genesis and the creation texts. Far from it! It'd be an arrogant thing for me to think I have a complete grasp of every detail. However, the view I've presented makes the most sense to me, and that is why I hold it to be the correct interpretation.

Thanks again for your comments. :)

Brian

[BrianB]

Hi Dave,

11-11-2003 @ 09:12 PM post located here
twohumble:



Thank you for your reply

If I understand your position as stated above, God does not intervene in a "miraculous" sense, as it relates to creation? By miracle, I mean, God, imposing His will over the laws of nature once He set them in motion.

Hmm, I wouldn't put it like that, I don't think. God does still 'intervene' in his creation both by being present as theophanies and as performing miracles, such as raining fire from heaven on Elijah's water-soaked offering. It's not that God's normative way of operating is the only way he operates, but that he didn't create things until they could be sustained by his normative way of operating.

I also wonder, since the debate or discussion of the exegesis of Gen 1 centers around the "time frame of reference" for the purpose of understanding age issues, why is FI silent on this subject? It seems that in its silence, it circumvents the purpose of the entire disussion.

In Christ
Dave

Well, if the discussion centers around the question "does the Genesis text teach that the earth/universe is young or old" then the FI would answer that the question itself contains an unwarrented presupposition...that the text even speaks to the issue. So yes, the FI answers that that quesiton is out of place because the text doesn't speak to the age of the earth/universe.

Hope that helps,
Brian

[BrianB]

11-11-2003 @ 09:47 PM post located here
steadele:

Hey Brian whats up?

As you already know, I think your article is excellent and I find the FI view in general to be very interesting.

I think the ideas presented in the section "Because it had not rained" are very important when looking at the Genesis text.
I think you did an excellent job in that section presenting your argument.



Russ

Thanks Russ! It's a blessing to see notes of encouragement like yours. Feel free to jump into the discussions at any time too. :)

Brian

[jhappel]

What is the authors opinion on the flood of Noah's day? My prediction he believes in either a tranquil or local flood.

[Ted]

I must admit that BrianB’s discussion of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account is careful and scholarly. But I will suggest that it errs in certain details that are seriously harmful to his thesis.

Two-Triad Structure
Brian presents the parallel structure of the first six days of creation, arguing in essence that they are presented as a literary myth. The theological purpose of the account is therefore to ascribe authority to Yahweh. The literal fact of Yahweh as Creator is therefore necessarily called into some degree of question. But if we look at the sum of the rest of scripture, Yahweh’s authority exists for the simple reason that he is the Creator. And that rests on the veracity of the creation account. To consider this further, let us revisit his “two-triad structure.”

The creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:3 is NOT a two-triad structure. Before you reach for the tomatoes, allow me to expand. The account is a Hebrew poem. The rhyme is topical, not auditory.

Gen 1:1 begins the poem with the ascription of creation to Yahweh (literally elohim in the text). Verse 2 continues this prolog with, “the earth was unformed and unfilled.” This statement creates the structure of the account. Yes, day 1 & 4, 2 & 5, and 3 & 6 are matched. On the first of the pair, a particular element is formed, and on the second it is filled. After the completion of the poem’s body, it ends with a matching epilog, the Sabbath. The structure looks like this:

Prolog: “In the beginning...unformed and unfilled”
1 - Form light............4 - Fill light with sun, etc.
2 - Form sea/sky.......5 - Fill with birds/fish
3 - Form dry land......6 - Fill with animals/man
Epilog: Sabbath rest.

The Sabbath is an inherent part of that structure, and does match the Exodus 20:11 citation. There are many reasons for this conclusion, but they are outside the scope of this discussion. We may simply note that the Hebrews 4 contra-argument fails because sabbatismos is attested in non-canonical literature as “seventh-day Sabbath-keeping.” Further, the writer of Hebrews uses the Sabbath, a day, as a type for an antitypical eschatological rest.

The use of poetry is common in the Old Testament. One of its key purposes is to emphasize the truth of what is being said. Thus the literary structure emphasizes the literal truth of the story.

Toledoth
A related item here is the use of “toledoth” structures in Genesis. Scholars recognize this word as a key to understanding the nature of the book (used 13 times). This word is used to emphasize the nature of the account in which it occurs as being authentic family history. If we trace this word through the OT, we find it is used exclusively to emphasize authenticity. Its first occurrence is in Gen 2:4, where “This is the account (lit: the generations of) of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.” Thus, the creation account is being presented as authentic, not literary.

Next, toledoth occurs in a colophon, as it does in every Genesis account. Thus, it comes after the account in question. Further, it indicates, at least in the earlier Genesis accounts, an eyewitness family history. This would indicate that God composed the creation account, and passed it to Adam. Because of the importance of these histories, they would have been memorized and passed on.

Thus, Moses did not compose the creation account, nor did any Priestly or Yahwist author. P. J. Wiseman notes a total of 12 independent lines of evidence within the book of Genesis that show that it is far older than Moses, and was passed down in written form (see 5:1, “the book”), with tag lines and colophons constructed so as to maintain sequence. (New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis)

Eight works in six days
Brian brings in the Genesis 2:5ff account as an expansion of the creation account, adding two items, the plant of the field and the shrub of the field, to the items created in the six days. This premise is erroneous.

The “plant of the field” is ehseb hasadeh, a generic description of grain plants that have to be cultivated to produce a crop. Since Adam and Eve were to simply harvest plant foods as their diet in Eden (1:29), the “plant of the field” is not a part of God’s original creation, but is a result of the curse after the fall (3:17). The “shrub of the field” is siyach hasadeh, a generic description of thorny xerophytes. These are also a result of the curse, and also not part of the original creation (3:18).

Rain obviously came after the fall, since the ground was watered by dew before (2:5). What about “man to till the ground?” Once again, we must consider the original Hebrew. This passage does not mean that man did not exist. Rather, it is a compound construction stating that there was no man who needed to till the ground. Put simply, there was no need to till before the curse, but there was after (3:17).

Thus, 2:5-9 is not the beginning of a parallel creation account. Rather, it is an introduction to the story of the fall. That story ends in 5:1-2. Notice the construction:

“1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.”

It does not refer in any way to the genealogy that follows. (5:2 is a tag line matching 5:1 that ties the two histories together in proper sequence.)

A Day is a Day is a Day
Brian argues that all the lexical evidence showing that yom means an ordinary day in Genesis 1 argues against a literal understanding of the passage. I must admit I had not seen this argument until Brian’s post. He says:

Gentry is correct in insisting that the first three days of the narrative must be understood in the same way as the second three. He asks "Should not Days 1-3 demarcate normal days also?"

In answer, Framework Interpretation advocates reply with a resounding Yes! and follow up by pointing out that the 24hr interpretation does not do this. As a point of indisputable fact, 24hr proponents must assume that the first three 'days' of Genesis 1 are abnormal, non-ordinary 24 periods of time because they lack the sun. They lack an essential component that all other 100+ occurrences have in common. 24hr proponents have committed the exact same fallacy that they accuse the Day-Age proponents of, and have even gone beyond that and rejected the principle of coherent usage by claiming different meanings of 'day' for the two triads of days. Not only do they use a meaning for the first three days different than those outside the Genesis creation account (which are always solar), but even use a different meaning within the very narrative of the creation account.

I submit that this assertion is false. It relies on a definition of day and night that require the rotation of the earth and a lit sun. In contravention, please note:

Revelation 21:23-25 23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 And the nations shall walk by its light, and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it. 25 And in the daytime (for there shall be no night there) its gates shall never be closed;

Most of us will recognize that the new earth is a re-creation of the Eden that was lost in the de-creation at the fall. Thus, there are a number of elements in it that should reflect the original Eden. Day in the new earth is defined as the period when God provides the light, not when the sun shines or the earth rotates. While some may argue that this is symbolic, we should be careful in dismissing the argument on that ground. After all, God did provide light at night for the Israelites in the wilderness. (Again, the ramifications of this discussion proceed beyond the topic at hand.)

The natural definition of “day” in scripture is the light part of the 24 hour cycle. There has never been a day without the sun while man has been on the earth, since the sun was lit on day 4 and man created on day 6. So it should be no surprise that no ANE writer would have conceived of a day without the sun. (Once again, an argument for the divine authorship of Gen 1:1-2:4.) But it says nothing about the period before man. The source of the light for the first three days is not revealed, since it is not God’s purpose to provide a detailed scientific treatise. Rather, His intention is to provide a factual account in a way that emphasizes its truthfulness. And the source of the light is not relevant to whether the day was “normal.”

Conclusion
While Brian has been careful in his study, it appears that certain facts have eluded his attention. When those facts are considered, the Framework Interpretation, while far better than the day-age abomination, still is less faithful to scripture than the plain reading. God created our habitable world and its original inhabitants in 6 ordinary sequential physical days, and rested on the seventh.

[tschmidt]

Genesis 2:4 uses "Day" to refer to the whole process of creation. That rules out 24-hour day and day-age creation in my book.

[jhappel]

Yesterday @ 08:57 PM post located here
tschmidt:

Genesis 2:4 uses "Day" to refer to the whole process of creation. That rules out 24-hour day and day-age creation in my book.

But there is no number associated with this usage nor is there an evening and morning. So to compare this use of day to the days of creation is comparing apples and oranges.

[twohumble]

Yesterday @ 03:29 PM post located here
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...318#post279318

Based on:
1. The Argument From Numerical Prefix (narrowed semantic field of 'day' when modified by a numerical adjective) and
2. The Argument From Coherent Usage (the 'day' of the 7th day should be understood in the same way the other 6 'days' are)
we should take the 7th 'day' to _mean_ an ordinary day. The point of the 7th day argument as I presented it was that it _refered_ to something other than an ordinary day, whether it is a finite Day-Age or an indefinite state of affairs. The difference between you and I on this point therefore appears to be whether the '7th day' refers to a finite or indefinite period of time. I'll explain further why I think that the 7th day is indefinite, but I should note that I'm tentative on this point and would have no problem changing my view if I can be convinced otherwise (is that a tautology? heh). The new creation as the '8th day' is certainly a live possibility.

Here's why I don't think that the 7th day is finite. I don't think that God's 'rest' will cease, since the 'rest' doesn't refer only to God's intial creative activities, but goes beyond that and includes his enthronement. Since his enthronement (which is part of the rest) certainly will not cease, the rest itself will not cease. I believe that the author of Hebrews agrees. When he says:

There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own
work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every
effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their
example of disobedience.


................................."


Brian

Again, thank you for your response.

However, I am dubious on the position that the numerical prefix is a valid exegetical tool. Certainly some very credentialed exegetes, do not hold to that rule as it relates to Gen 1 (Walter Kaiser from Gordon Conwell being one, Gleason Archer another).

In addition, this was not used as an position by early church fathers, and no one that I am aware, in the pre-16th century era believed Genesis 1 to be a 24 or 12 hr time frame.

In regard to the 7th day relating to Christs reign or enthronement, I am not sure where you place "His rest" with "His enthronement". He was enthroned, before His rest, and before the foundation of the world.

The promise of a new creation, and not merely a remaking of the old, is a clear cessation from a rest from "creating". He will once again done the hat of "Creator" as he remakes the universe.

The Sabbath rest that Hebrews 4 refers to is certainly a rest from our work and toil, which brings our strife and anxiety. Since we will not ever need to "re-enter" our "work" we will remain in the sabbath rest forever. This does not support, in my view, your position.

As always, in Christ
Dave