Neither the Bible nor nature are self-interpreting, so our interpretations in either realm are always potentially fallible and wrong.- Gordon Fish, Ph.D. physicist and patent agent

Unwillingness to critically challenge one’s interpretative methods sounds dangerously close to declaring personal infallibility.- Stephen Ashley Blake, President of Realm Entertainment

We mentioned last week that there’s evidence that God in his kindness used the language of a six-day work week to help us relate to what we really can’t fathom; that is, how he created the world. Further, we noted that many scholars with a high view of Scripture show strong textual support that the days of Genesis 1 are a logical way to order events —like six hooks to hang information on—rather than a literal chronology and scientific description of exactly what took place in 144 hours.

This week, I’d like to show how a close reading of Genesis 1-2 gives two major clues to steer us away from young-earth or “sudden” creationism.

The first clue comes in Gen.1:3-19. Here are select verses from the larger passage:

• And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day… (3-5)
• And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. (14-19)

Notice that “evening and morning” (1:3) appear three days before the sun and moon, which are explicitly stated to “separate the day from the night” and serve as “signs to mark seasons, days, and years” (1:14; see also Psa. 104:19).  Dave Snoke, Physics professor at the University of Pittsburg, articulates well the point I wish to make here:

“How can we insist on twenty-four hour days when the clock that defines twenty-four hour days, the sun, was not created until the fourth day?  For that matter, the moon defines the week… since the seven days of the week correspond to the four phases of the moon and its twenty-eight-day cycle.”[1]

The point? A literal, chronological account of sequential, 24-hour days makes no sense scientifically given the author’s careful placement of the events of day four after the events of day one. This placement, however, is consistent with a literary purpose where the “days” are one of several poetic ways to emphasize, not literal time but, the system and order built into creation.[2]

The second clue comes in Genesis 2 where “the creation narrative is retold in Genesis 2, this time through the metaphor of the garden, rather than the temple”:[3]

“When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground…” (Gen. 2:5, ESV)

This verse suggests that the existence of plants came through normal, secondary causes (water), not a miracle of “sudden creation”. Further, on day three, God says, “Let the land produce vegetation,” rather than “let there be vegetation” (Gen. 1:14). The main point here is why would any discussion of rain be necessary if bushes and plants had just suddenly appeared?

Again, if the days of creation are literary devices to tell a true but incomprehensible story—not literal scientific descriptors meant to suggest time or chronology, there’s no difficulty.

Yet, some young-earth and day-age advocates[4] see Ex. 20:8-11 as proof that the days of Gen. 1 should be related to time:

“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor…For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth , the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day and made it holy.”

In view of these verses, their argument is:

“God’s Sabbath rest is used as an example for our own rest. If God did not really work six days and rest on the seventh day, how can this be an example for us?”[5]

Meredith Kline easily answers this, however, by pointing out that “our ordinary week recalls, but is not the same as, the week of creation.”[6]

In conclusion, the two clues described above related to the amazing and inscrutable work of God are beautifully expressed in Psalm 65:

Those who live at earth’s farthest bounds are awed by your signs;

you make the gateways of the morning and the evening shout for joy.

You visit the earth and water it,

you greatly enrich it;

the river of God is full of water; (8-9, NRSV)

This last image of the “full” “river of God” is a symbol of God as the infinite source of life; his blessing, goodness, presence, and the grace that flows from his throne. All these things permeate our existence and fill many of our hearts with joy!

“There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God…” (Psa. 46:4, ESV)

Here are this week’s take-aways:

• The Bible doesn’t teach an exclusive scientific view that the world was created in six literal days or is only 6-10,000 years old. The days of Genesis 1 are literary pictures, not literal scientific time markers. Further, a close reading of the creation accounts suggests gradual changes over time involving normal secondary causes (Gen 2:5).
• Correctly handling God’s Word and understanding the above gives freedom and flexibility:
  • Freedom- Scientists can “observe away” and Christians can learn without fear.
  • Flexibility- Genesis 1 is not tied to the latest scientific discovery.

Next week, we’ll look more at God’s awe-inspiring handiwork.

 

 

[1] Dave Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 105.

[2] Again, this is called the literary framework or pictorial day view and is associated with Meredith Kline, Henri Blocher, Bruce Waltke, and others. Gordon Wenham supports a similar schematic view and illustrates well the many devices used in Gen. 1:

• the use of repeating formulae
  • announcement of the commandment “And God said”-10x
  • order “let there be”- 8x
  • fulfillment formula “And it was so”-7x
  • execution formula or description of act “And God made”-7x
  • approval formula “And God saw that it was good” 7x
  • subsequent divine word, either of naming or blessing 7x

• the tendency to group words and phrases into tens and sevens
  • “God”- 35x
  • “earth”- 21x
  • “and it was so”- 7x
  • “God saw that it was good”- 7x

• literary techniques such as chiasm
  • 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
  • 2:1 “heavens and the earth”
  • 2:2 “God”
  • 2:3 “created.”

• the arrangement of creative acts into matching groups
  • FORMING          FILLING
  • Day 1  Light       Day 4  Luminaries
  • Day 2  Sky         Day 5  Birds and fish
  • Day 3  Land       Day 6  Animals and Man
  •          (Plants)                (Plants for food)

[3] Iain Provan, Seriously Dangerous Religion (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 34. Also, to learn more about the “temple inauguration view,” click here.

[4] The “day-age” view sees the days of creation as longer sequential ages of time, not literal 24-hour “evening and morning” periods.

[5] Dave Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 100.

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