30. To what is appeal made to support the nonliteral interpretation?
a) To the fact that sun and moon (or rather the rotation of the earth around its axis in relation to the sun) were not yet present. As we know, the length of an ordinary day is determined by this rotation.
b) To the indefinite use of the term “day” in other places in Scripture (Gen 2:4; 5:1; 2 Sam 21:12; Isa 11:16), also to the expression “day of the Lord” (= day of judgment) in the prophets, and to Psa 90:4; 2 Pet 3:8.
c) To the analogy with other things of God. Here we have to do with God’s days. Now the “things of God” are certainly archetypical (exemplars) for the things of men, but they are not completely identical. Thus we have no right, it is thought, to judge that God‘s days are like the days of men.
d) To the fact that the duration of God‘s Sabbath is eternal. That is one of the days here, the seventh day. If the seventh day is not limited to 24 hours, then the six previous days need not be limited to that time span.
On these grounds many, including those who are not intent on a reconciliation of the Scripture with science, accept an extraordinary length for the creation days. This includes many church fathers and theologians of the Middle Ages, and, among more recent theologians, even Charles Hodge inclines to this view.
31. What supports the interpretation that takes “day” in its ordinary meaning?
a) The entire creation aimed at man as its completion. It is difficult to accept that preparing for this goal took thousands of years.
b) All the creation days must have been of the same length. Who can accept, however, that a day on which nothing else occurred than the separation between light and darkness was a day of thousands of years?
c) The fact that the sun and moon, as measures of time, were not present, does not mean that there was no time. Already from the beginning God ordained a rhythm and created the light so that it would alternate with the darkness. When later this light was concentrated in the sun and the other bodies, we are told nothing about it being only then that the 24-hour day began. There was no change at that point. Therefore we have a reason for assuming that before that time the rotation of the earth took place at the same speed and that light was so positioned as was necessary for an alternation of day and night within 24 hours.
d) From v. 14 on the days are unquestionably ordinary days of 24 hours. There God says emphatically of the lights in the expanse that they will be “for days and years.” One might rescue the nonliteral view by assuming for the fourth to the sixth days an extremely slow rotation of the earth about its axis, but what about plant life during those long nights? The night has to have been half of the full day.
e) It is not accurate to say that the days are God‘s days. God ad intra does not have days. Creation is an act proceeding outwardly from God. Appealing to the eternal Sabbath is also of no avail. Although God’s Sabbath is certainly endless, that cannot be said of the first Sabbath (after the six-day creation) for mankind.
f) The use of the term “day” in Gen 9:4 is figurative, but in Gen 1 figurative language is not used. What one must show is another place in Scripture where a first, a second, a third day, etc., are just as sharply separated and nevertheless describe periods of time. The “day of the Lord” in the prophets refers to a specific day, that is, a day on which the Lord appears for judgment, even though His judgment may last longer than one day.
32. Must someone who holds that the days are long time periods be regarded a heretic?
No, in this sense the question is not an essential one. It would only become so if it provided the occasion for granting priority in principle over the Word of God to the so-called results of science.
—Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics (HT: Nick Batzig).
Exodus 20 says that God created in six days and rested on the seventh day. Genesis speaks of an evening and a morning. The Sabbath went from evening to morning as well. I cannot get around this clear language to accommodate “neutral”scientists claims that the Earth is billions of years old and we evolved from lower life forms.
Merry Christmas!
The Sabbath went from evening to morning as well? But the Sabbath is not mentioned in the whole of Genesis. You should argue on the basis of the “seventh day” which would be more Biblical and not appeal to the Sabbath at this point. Another point you could raise is the use of the terms “evening and morning” in all 6 days of creation (not the 7th) which would suggest a 24 hour day. Personally I hold to young earth creationism but I maintain that God created a “mature” world in 6 days that could give the appearance of “billions of years”. Blessed Christmas to you too Ron!
I have two questions:
1) I was surprised at point 30d) above and how the non-literal interpretation would look to the Sabbath as support when I as a literal six day creationist would look to it as support for my view as it seems to offer much support in the opposite direction. The inconsistency that I see is that if the days of creation are to be viewed not as literal 24 hour days, but rather as 6 “periods” or “categories” of creation with one period of rest afterward, then what is the basis for gathering for worship every Lord’s Day (Sunday) rather than gathering for 1 week out of 7 weeks or 1 month out of 7 months, etc? If 30d) is to hold as a support for the non-literal translation, then what Genesis 1/2 is teaching us is that the Sabbath is only eternal and there is no significance for a 24 hour period each week that is set aside as a literal day of rest. Therefore, I would think that if one were to hold to a non-literal interpretation, they would also not be a sabbatarian and not view each 24 hour Sunday as having any significance aside from the fact that we go to church on that day. Further, what does the fourth commandment mean then when it says “six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God”? Should these be viewed as indefinite lengths of time rather than literal days? In Heidelberg Q103 when it speaks of “especially on the day of rest”, it clearly has in mind the Lord’s Day (Sunday), but where is the basis for this if it’s not in the creation narrative? If I am to hold to a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1/2, what basis does the church have for calling it’s members to worship every week, one day of the week? I’m not really asking for an answer to all the subquestions, but rather I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on how to bridge the apparent gap between a non-literal 24 hour Sabbath and the use of a 24 hour day of rest throughout Scripture and in church history and current practice? Am I missing something here?
2) Does the non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1/2 also extend to Genesis 6-9? Was Noah’s Flood global or local? Or maybe it doesn’t matter at all just like they would argue that the length of the days of creation don’t matter?
Thanks,
Jason
if the days of creation are to be viewed not as literal 24 hour days, but rather as 6 “periods” or “categories” of creation with one period of rest afterward, then what is the basis for gathering for worship every Lord’s Day (Sunday) rather than gathering for 1 week out of 7 weeks or 1 month out of 7 months, etc?
If the days of creation must be literal 24 hour days in order to ground the sabbatarian week, then what is the basis for the Jubilee year, every 7×7 years?
If I am to hold to a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1/2, what basis does the church have for calling it’s members to worship every week, one day of the week?
RSC disagrees with me on this, but Calvin sez: “But some one will say, “We still keep up some observance of days.” I answer, that we do not by any means observe days, as though there were any sacredness in holidays, or as though it were not lawful to labor upon them, but that respect is paid to government and order — not to days.” (Commentary on Col 2) ” I do not cling so to the number seven as to bring the Church under bondage to it, nor do I condemn churches for holding their meetings on other solemn days, provided they guard against superstition. This they will do if they employ those days merely for the observance of discipline and regular order. The whole may be thus summed up: As the truth was delivered typically to the Jews, so it is imparted to us without figure; first, that during our whole lives we may aim at a constant rest from our own works, in order that the Lord may work in us by his Spirit; secondly that every individual, as he has opportunity, may diligently exercise himself in private, in pious meditation on the works of God, and, at the same time, that all may observe the legitimate order appointed by the Church, for the hearing of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and public prayer” (Inst II:8)
You asked “If the days of creation must be literal 24 hour days in order to ground the sabbatarian week, then what is the basis for the Jubilee year, every 7×7 years?”.
The Jubilee year found it’s basis in the teaching of Sabbath and a looking forward to the eternal rest that we will have when Christ comes again. It was a clearer reminder for the Israelites where they would rest for a year, more clearly pointing to the eternal rest (not just a year) that we would have in Christ. In this way, I don’t think it needed a literal six days of work and one day of rest, unlike the fourth commandment. The Jubilee year was also part of the ceremonial law though and so it doesn’t continue to today.
In the fourth commandment, the Israelites were commanded to work a literal six days and rest a literal one day which was grounded in God’s work week (work six literal days and rest one literal day). Were the days mentioned in the fourth commandment literal for the Israelites, but non-literal for God? Seems a bit odd to me if that is the case. When one believes in six literal days of creation, this passage makes more sense: as God worked six days and rested the seventh, so are we to do the same.
This was the inconsistency I was trying to point out, of believing in a non-literal interpretation of the creation days, but still holding to a sabbatarian view of the Sabbath (rest from your work and worldly activities, etc). RubeRad, I gather from your comments that you believe in a non-literal interpretation of the creation days; do you also not hold to the sabbatarian view of the Sabbath? If so, I disagree with you on both accounts, but your view seems consistent. Dr. Clark also believes in a non-literal interpretation of the creation days (correct me if I’m wrong), but I believe he holds to the fourth commandment as still binding, calling us to rest from our worldly activities on the Lord’s Day. To me, this seems like an inconsistency and thus my initial questions.
By the way, I might have to take issue with Calvin there…although I believe he did hold to a literal six days of creation…
What one must show is another place in Scripture where a first, a second, a third day, etc., are just as sharply separated and nevertheless describe periods of time.
I would argue that the prophecy in Ez 43 (“On the day”, “On the second day”, “For seven days”, “Seven days”, “When they have completed these days, then from the eighth day onward…”) is not talking about literal 24-hour days.
Anyone wading through the current scholarship in Genesis will have to deal with the position of John Walton, whether or not they agree with it. He avoids much of the sloppiness of Enns, who punts to an quasi-errant, “mythical” reading of the Genesis cosmogony on the basis of the situatedness of Genesis in Ancient Near East culture/literature. Walton, however, argues that the Israelites, and Moses (as the likely author of the Genesis account) exist within the culture of the ANE. Because of this context it is perfectly clear what Genesis is about: the formation of the functional universe as the Divine cosmic temple, with man as his image bearer fulfilling a kingly and priestly role on earth. The primary concern of Genesis, as he argues is that the earthly realm functions for man’s habitation of it and is the ideal setting for him to carry out his divinely appointed role.
Since the concerns of Genesis, rooted in the cultural mindset of the ANE, are functional as opposed to material, setting up the moral, ethical, and spiritual foundations of how man would relate to God and the world, we should not expect Genesis 1-2 to gives a material or mechanical answer for the creation of the universe. So, while he interprets the days of Genesis 1 to be “literal”, they are concerned with the formation of the cosmic temple, which God takes his rest in on the 7th day. Meaning that what form the earth and the cosmos’ existence takes on before the creation account in Genesis is outside the concerns of the text.
He has several lectures on this view available online, the best of which can be found on iTunes U, at the Azusa Pacific Center for Research in Science.
This sounds like it has a lot of elements in common with Kline’s Framework. Do you think they are equivalent, or does Walton differ at some points?