1998 issue 5 - yea, hath god said? a brief defense of six day creation - counsel of chalcedon

8/12/2019 1998 Issue 5 - Yea, Hath God Said? A Brief Defense of Six Day Creation - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/11

Introduction

This conference is hosted,

by

the Southern California

Center for Christian Studies

(hereinafter: Study Center),

and we emphasize that we are

concerned with

Christian

studies. The Study Center is

unashamedly committed to a

Christian

worldview.

Many Christians, including

evangelicals

of

various stripes,

proud y proclaim that Chris

tianity offers the best

worldview, the

best

ethic, and

the best hope. The

Study Center resolutely

disagrees. We believe,

rather" that Christianity

offers the only

worldview. the

only

ethic, and the

only

hope. Following after

the philosophical studies and

applications in the field of

apologetics by

Dr

Cornelius

Van Til, we are convinced that

Christianity is the

only

defen

sible truth system. God

is

one

(Deut. 6:4). Therefore truth is

one (Rom. 3:4). And the

Christian system contained in

the Scriptures of the Old and

New Testaments is that unified ,

truth.

Christianity and Liberalism

Despite our proud claim to

be

Christians, unfortunately,

Thornisrn, Arminianism,

liberalism, and innumerable

other "isms," dilute and distort

the majesty of Christianity. Dr

J.

Gresham Machen wrote his

1923 book

Christianity and

Liberalism n it he noted that

liberal Christianity is not

Christianity at all It is some-

thing else. It is another reli- ,

gion, because it has so dis

torted and corrupted the

biblical conception of Chris

tianity. Too many claim the

name of "Christian," then

employ it in

an

inappropriate

way evacuating the fundamen

tal,

biblical notion of "Chris

tian." Therefore, we must be

careful when we 'claim a

"Christian" worldview, or

when we claim to believe in

"Christian" ethics. Better we

should say that we believe 'in a

biblical

worldview and a

biblical ethic, for Christianity

has been mutated by its pro

fessing friends and assaulted

by

its committed foes. There

fore, true Christianity is a

Bible-based Christianity, and

not ,Some wax nose, shaped by

the 'latest philosophical and

cultural fads.

Christianity and Theonomy

Let us consider briefly the

field ,of ethics before we

actually delve into some

questions relative to Genesis

and the Creation account. Dr

Greg Bahnsen, the founder of

SCCCS, promoted and de

fended a strongly Bible-based

ethic system known

as

"theonomy." Anyone

who

know his ministry and experi

ence in contemporary Chris

tianity are well aware of the

vehement outcry against this

4 -THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - October/November, 1998

ethical system. Of course the

theonomic thesis was really

not his but derived from the

Bible

and

came to him through

the Refonned

h r i t g Chris- .

tians were angered: it was

simply too biblical to be

tolerable. Theonomy is not

congenial to the modern spirit.

Gary DeMar and I were

invited to Dallas, Texas, in ,

1989 to appear on the John

Ankerburg show

We

were

interviewed by Ankerburg and

were engaged in

an

informal

debate with dispensationalists

Dave Hunt and Tommy '

Ice. n the Question

and Answer session

that followed our

defense of theonornic

ethics, a questioner

asked:

f

the

theonornic ethic is true, isn t

that contradictory

to

the first

amendment of the United

States Constitution?" You see,

defending the biblical

worldview today is seen even

by Christians to conflict with

the prevailing cultural status

quo. Such contradiction inevi

tably brings in non-biblical

authority to define the Chris

tian hope. The Christian,

shocked

and

perplexed at the

theonomic ideal, argues: "This

is where we are in history, and

this is what we must defend

and promote. Not the extreme

position of theonomy."

Interestingly, the

Westminster Theological

Seminary book, Theonomy: A

Reformed Critique

(Zondervan, 1990), saw a

relation between theonomy

and Six Day Creation.The


2/11

diatribe against theonomy

sought to demonstrate the

manifest error of theonomy by

relating it

to

the naive

"biblicism" found in Six Day

Creation doctrine. On page

254 the author states:

"Theonomy shares with con

temporary evangelicalism a

biblicist hermeneutic that

depreciates the role of general

revelation and insists on using

the Bible as if it were a text

book for all of life. Fundamen

talists use the Bible

as

a text

book on geology, finding

evidence of a literal, six-day

creation." Well, theonomists

plead gUilty to using the Bible

as a textbook for all of life.

Likewise,

we

are guilty of

using the lible

to

explain the

cosmology of the

universe-

especially since God was the

only one present at the cre

ation and has specifically

explained it to us .

And so, there is confusion

on this whole idea of creation.

We are here this evening at a

Creation Conference. Though

this conference is sponsored

by the Southern California

Center for

Christian

Studies,

we are not here ultimately for a

Christian conference, nor to

explicate the Christian doc

trine of creation. We are here

to promote the biblical doc

trine of creation. We must

retain this important distinction

due to the current state of

modem Christianity, and even

of contemporary

evangelicalism. We must

maintain our biblical

distinctives if we are to frame

a

biblical

worldview. The

Bible, as Van Til, Bahnsen, and

the Study Center argues, is the

absolute precondition for

intelligibility, for meaning, for

purpose, and for values. The

Bible is therefore the absolute

foundation for all features of

the Christian worldview, even

the doctrine of creation, even

cosmogony.

he ible and Science

Unfortunately many Chris

tians stand in fear and trem

bling of modern humanistic

science. Contemporary Chris

tians are embarrassed

by

biblical naivete that is associ

ated, they think, with the

biblical account of creation.

n

this embarrassment and awe of

modem man, they attempt to

adapt or rework the Genesis

record. The fear is

so

strong

that Christians will bend over

backwards to reinterpret the

biblical account of creation so

that it will be congenial to the

modem humanistic framework.

Two of the leading Christian

reinterpretations of Genesis are

the Day-Age Theory and the

Framework Hypothesis. In the

Day-Age Theory, each day of

the six-days of creation stands

for an enormously long era of

time. It allows for the hypo

thetical geological time tables

that are necessary for modern

secularistic science.

n

the

Framework Hypothesis, the

evangelical Framework theolo

gians tell

us

that the Genesis

account is not a factual and

historical account. Rather it is

an artistic expression, a divine

metaphor, affirming that God

is the Creator;

it

does not

inform us either of the mecha-

nism or time frame of creative

process.

Yet

with the Study Center, I

think that we must affirm with

Paul, "Let God be true but

every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4).

With Isaiah we must whole

heartedly proclaim, "To the

law and the testimony. If they

do not speak according to the

Word it is because there is no

light in them" (Isa. 8:20) . As

tme Christians committed to

the absolute authority and

basic perspicuity of Scripture,

we must not succumb to the

tempting call of Satan: "Yea,

hath God said?" (Gen. 3:1). f

God said it, we ought to

believe it. Our worldview -

including our scientific inquiry

- ought to be adapted to

God's Word, rather than God'S

Word being adapted to the

changing and shifting tides of

science.

Creationism and

Fundamentalism

The Study Center is com

mitted to Six Day Creationism

as one important feature of the

Christian worldview it seeks to

promote. t does so

for

no

other reason than because it is

biblical.

t

is found in the

Scriptures, the infallible and

inerrant Word of the living

God. The Six Day Creation

model is the result of a sound

exegetical and methodological

interpretation

of

Scripture. By

six day creation, we mean that

God created the entire stellar

universe, the fmitful earth, all

life forms, and man the image

of God, in a period of six,

chronologically successive,

twenty-four hour days. Six day

October November, 1998 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 5


3/11

creation is not, as many would

claim, a fundamentalist issue,

of a low-level anti-intellectual

ism. Nor is it naive obscu

rantism.

John

Cafvin,

the great

theologian

of

the Reformation,

very clearly argued for a

creation in "the space of

six

days":

For

it is too violent a

cavil to

contend that Moses

distributes the work which

God

perfected at once into six

days, for the mere purpose of

conveying instruction.

Let

us

rather conclude that God

himself took the space of six

days,

far

the purpose

of

ac

commodating his works to the

capacity of men" (Calvin,

Genesis at Gen.

1 3;

cpoalso

Institutes 1:14:2). He even

argues that God created the

world less than "six thousand

years" ago (1:14:1). Interest

ingly, Calvin deals with the

question of why

it

took God so

long ( ), since he could have

created the world in a moment,

in

the

twinkling

of

an eye. He

demands the six days

of

creation in direct opposition to

the Platonically-iilfected

momentary creationism

of

Augustine (who was influ

enced by Origen).

The

Westminster Confession

of Faith picks up on Calvin's

phraseology when it repeat

edly asserts that God created

the universe "iri the space

of

six

days" .(WCF 4:1; LC 15; SC

9). The Westminster Standards

clearly' speak of a time frame

denoted by u days, as re

search by David Hall conclu

sively demonstrates ("The

Westminster View of Creation

Days: A Choice between Non

Ambiguity or Historical Revi

sionism" available on the

Internet). The language of the

Confession and the sentiment

of

the Westminster divines is

so obvious that even detractors

from six day' creationism have

admitted the meaning

of

the

Confession. One such oppo

nent

of

six day creation,

Edward D. Morris, writes: "But

the language

of

the Confes

sion, iri the space

of

six days,

must be interpreted literally,

because this was the exact

view pronounced by the

Assembly" (Morris, Theology

o

the Westminster Symbols,

[Columbus, Ohio: 1900], 202.)

Another

of

the great reform

ers, Martin Luther, wrote: "We .

assert that Moses spoke in the

literal sense. That the world

with all its creatures was

created within six days as the

words read" (Martin Luther,

Lectures on Genesis: Chapters

1-5, Luther s Works [SI. Louis:

Concordia, 1958], 1:5. He

dogmatically claims that the

phrase '"evening and moming"

demands the creation day

"consists

of

twenty-four

hours" 1 :42).

The famed theologian

Francis Turretin also argued

against Augustine's momentary

creation and for a normal six

day view (Turretiri, Institutes

o

Elenctic Theology

[Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyte

rian and Reformed, rep. 1990

(1679-85)], 1:444-445). The

great Southern Presbyterian

theologian

of

the last century,

Robert L. Dabney observed:

"The sacred writer seems to

6 - THE COUNSEL of Cha1cedon - October/November, 1998

shut

us

up to the literal inter

pretation" (Lectures in System-

atic Theology [Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1878, rep. 1972],

254-5). The noted systematic

theologian Louis Berkhof

wholeheartedly concurred,

offering four arguments that

"the literal interpretation

of

the

term 'day'

iri

Gen. I is fa

vored" (Berkhof, Systematic

Theology th

ed.: Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941],

154). Herman Hoeksema

of

the Protestant Reformed

Church held to a literal six day

creation (Hoeksema, Reformed

Dogmatics [Grand Rapids:

Reformed Free, 19731, 178).

Many others who are not of

fundamentalist persuasion,

such as

H. C.Leupold, Franz

Delitzsch, Gerhard Hasel,

Douglas Kelly, Greg Bahnsen,

and many others exegetes,

theologians, and apologists,

affirm that a six -day creation is

intended by the revelation

of

God in Genesis 1. These men

are not naive fundamentalistic

obscurantists. They are world

class theologians.

I

will argue below that the

days of creation as they are

found in Genesis 1-2 must be

understood as revealirig to

us

a

creative process

of

six, chro

nologically successive, twenty

four hour days.

The Days o Genesis 1

The Genesis Narrative

Genesis is manifestly a'

historical book. Genesis I, the

foundation

of

the whole book,

does not possess poetic struc

ture or rhyme, two' leadirig

characteristics of Hebrew

poetry. Genesis 1 is straight-


4/11

forward historical narrative.

Nothing in the Genesis ac

count of creation

is

absurd

i

taken in a literal fashion;

nothing is expressed

in

anthro

pomorphic condescension.

Keil and Delitzsch, in their

classic commentaries well

argue: The account of the

creation, its commencement,

progress, and completion,

bears the marks, both in form

and substance, of a historical

document in which it is in

tended that we should accept

as actual truth, not only the

assertion that God created the

heavens and the earth, and all

that lives and moves in the

world, but also the description

of the creation itself in all its

several stages c. F Keil and

F

Delitzsch, The Pentateuch,

vol. I in [Grand Rap

ids: Eerdmans, rep. 1975], 37).

The biblical record is very

clear: Creation is

effected by a

personal God. The biblical

world view will not allow a

random, impersonal universe

creating itself out of nothing

(the magic o evolution). The

biblical record is even more

clear than that: the biblical

world view demands that God

creates through chronologi

cally successive, divine fiats

over a compacted time frame

of six literal days. The revela

tion

o

God tells

us

this; this is

not the surmisings of man.

This is the revelation of God,

the voice o the Creator,

objectively speaking to

us

in

Scripture.

This assertion is very much

contradictory

to

the secularis-

tic worldview which claims the

universe in its present form has

a ten or twenty billion year

history (depending

on

which

fad is adopted), caused by a

gigantic explosion known as

the big bang. I believe

Meredith Kline, the pre

eminent Framework Theolo

gian today reveals his true

concerns when he states: The

conclusion is that

as

far

as

the

time frame is concerned, with

respect

to

both the duration

and sequence of events, the

scientist is left free of biblical

constraints in hypothesizing

about cosmic origins. (Kline,

Space and Time in the Gen

esis Cosmogony, in

Perspec-

tives on Science and Christian

Faith 48: [1996]: 2).

Like theonomic ethics, six

day creationist cosmology is

an embarrassment to upwardly

mobile Christians. But it ought

not be for those who love the

Lord God with all their heart,

soul, mind, and strength, and

who bow in submission to his

truth as revealed in the Holy

Scriptures.

The Genesis Days

Six-day creation is mani

festly biblical and fundamen

tally important. After all, the

doctrine of creation deals with

the origin o the entire uni

verse. That makes it a big issue

in our worldview. Furthermore,

it holds enormous implications

for both systematic theology

and biblical hermeneutics, as

well

as

for human culture.

Gargantuan issues hang in the

balance. I will be defending

the notion that the Hebrew

word

day yom) is a twenty-

four hour day in the Genesis 1

account. Many Christian

scholars will tell us that the

days of Genesis 1 represent

extended periods o time. I

will provide several exegetical

reasons why Genesis 1 de

mands a straightforward

twenty-four day.

1

The Argument from

Primary Meaning. The pre

ponderant usage o the word

day (Heb. yom) in the Old

Testament is that of a normal

day.

The term appears 2,304

in the Old Testament, being its

fifth most common noun. The

overwhelming majority of

cases clearly speak

o

a normal

day-night cycle. We should

maintain the common usage of

a term unless contextual forces

forbid it.

All o the textual forces in

Genesis 1 however, move us

toward a twenty-four hour day

rather than away from it.

Dabney wrote,

The narrative

seems historical, and not

symbolical; and hence the

strong initial presumption is,

that all its parts are to be taken

in their obvious sense ...

t

is

freely admitted that the word

day is often used in the Greek

Scriptures as well

as

the He

brew (as in our common

speech) for an epoch, a sea

son, a time. But yet, this use is

confessedly derivative. The

natural day is its literal and

primary meaning. Now, it is

apprehended that in construing

any document, while we are

ready to adopt, at the demand

of the context, the derived or

tropical meaning, we revert to

the primary one, when no such

October/November,

1998

- THE

COUNSEL

of Chalcedon - 7


5/11

demand exists in the context."

Lectures

n

Systematic Theol

ogy, :454-5).

Berkhof concurs:

In

its

primary meaning the word yom

derlotes a natural day; and

it

is

a good .

ru1e in

exegesis,

not

to

depart from the primary mean

ing

of

a word, unless this is

required by

rl;le

context"

Systematic Theology, 154).

Neither Dabney nor Berkhof

are philosophically naive

fundamentalists. They are

noteworthy, astute, and careful

Reformed

theologians.

Who can read Genesis 1

straightforwardly and see

anything other than six, twenty

four

hour days? This is why

the contrary analyses are so

complicated and convoluted

when

you get down to analyz

ing

the details

,?f

the Frame

work

Hypothesis

or

other

theories.

Hasel cO llilleIits on the

possible non-literal meaniIig of

yom:

The

extended. norl

literal meaJ ings

of.

the term

yom

.are always found in

connection with prepositions,

prepositional phrases with a

verb, compound constructions,

formulas, technical expres

sions. genitive combinations,

construct phrases. and the like.

In

other words, .e) :tended, non

literal meanings

of

this Hebrew

term

have special. inguistic

and contextual

connections

which

indicate clearly that a

non-literal meaning is in

tended. If such special lin

guistic connections are absent,

the term yom does not have an

extended, non-literal meaning;

it

has it normal meaning of a

literal day of 24-hours" (Hasel,

"The

'Days' of

Creation," 23-

24).

Noihingin

the biblical text

indicates any sort of divine

accommodation to a primitive

worldview. When you read the

non-biblical accounts

of

creation from arltiquity you

will discover very obvious

my.thological absurdities. Such

are completely absent froin

Genesis account. God is not

acquiescing to the limited

conceptioIl

of

ancienf man. It

is true that God does not

provide scientific details about

molecular structure or the law

of

entropy. But he clearly

informs us in what

order

and

time frame he created the

universe. By the very nature of

the case creation differs from

providence (cp. WCF ch.

4:1

and ch . 5). Creation involves

miracle while normal provi

dence does not.

2

The Argument from

Explicit Qualification. Moses

consistently qualifies this

yom

so that we cannot understand

it

any other

way.

He informs us

that "evellinll and morning"

demarcate the days. He delib

erately defines the yom of

which he speaks, so that we

cannot escape its meaning and

significance.

Outside of Genesis 1 the

combination

of

"evening and

morning" occurs thirty-seven

times

in the Old Testament. All

of these are used for a

IlOfmal

day. For examples note: "And

so it was, on the next day, that

Moses sat to judge the people;

and the people stood before

Moses from morning until

8 - THE COUNSEL of ChalcedQrt -

October/November,

1998

evening" (Exo.

18

:13).

In

the

tabernae1e of meeting, outside

the vejl which is before

the

Testimony, Aaron and

his

sons

shall tend it from evening until

morning before the LORD"

Exo.

27:21).

Da1 ney observed

in

this

regard: "The sacred writer

seems to shut us up to the

literal interpretation by de

scribing the days

as

comprised

of

its natural parts, morning

and evening.

I t

is hllrd . o see

what a writer can mean by

naming evening and morning

as

making a first or, a second

day, except that he meant us to

understand that time, which

includes just one of each

of

these successive epochs, one

beginning

of

night and one

beginning of day. These

gentlemen cannot construe

these expressions at .all. ,The ,

plain reader has no trouble

with it. When

we

have had one

evenillg and. one morning. we

know we've had

just

one civic

day,

Jar

the intervening hours

have made 'just that time" .

Lectures oli

y s t e m ~ t i c

Theol

ogy, 255 .

But now, what about the

order

of

expression?

You

might

expect the order "morning and

evening" in Oenesis 1; How

ever, the "evening and morn

ing"

order speaks

of

a full day,

and implies that the divine

activity transpires in the day

light part

of

the day ending in

the evening. The next series

of

actions did not begin until the

next morning. God worked in

the daytime; when evenmg

came God ceased his work.

The .next morning he began

it


6/11

anew, at the dawning of a new

day.

3. The Arg umellt from

Numerical Prefix. The days of

Genesis I are recorded with

numerals: first, second, third,

and so on. Numerical adjec

tives occur 119 times

in

Moses' writing, and they

always signify a literal day

The same is true

of

the 357

times numerical adjectives

associated with occur

outside the Pentateuch cf.

Lev 12:3; Ex. 12:15; 24:16).

Genesis 1 consistently attaches

adjective prefixes to the six

days of tile creative action of

God.

Had Moses not intended a

specific order and definition,

why go to

all this trouble?

Why not simply say, '.God

created light, or God created

the seas ? Indeed, ill several

places in the Scriptnres, we

find that where the fact of

creation is the issue-and not

the method

of its accomplish

ment-the

Bible speaks of the

creation without reference

to

the first day or second

day. For instance: Thus says

God tlle LORD, who created

the heavens and stretched

them out, who spread out the

earth and its offspring, who

gives breath to the people on

it, and spirit to tllose

who

walk

in it (Isa. 42:5). Thou alone

art the LORD. Thou hast made

the heavens, the heaven of

heavens with all their host, the

earth and all that is on it, the

seas and all tllat is in them.

Thou dost give life to all of

them and the heavenly host

bows down before Thee

(Neh. 9:6). Elsewhere Scrip

tnre reads: God created all

things (Acts 4:24;

Rev

14:7).

Numerical prefixes are

totally unnecessary and are

absolutely

confusing-unless

the writer is relating an histori

cal reality to his reader.

4 The Argument from

Numbered Series.

In tile Old

Testament, when tile word

day is found in a numbered

series, it is always speaking of

a normal day Consider Num

bers 29:17, 20, and 23. for

example: Then on the second

day: twelve bulls, two rams,

fourteen male lambs one year

old without defect.... Then on

tlle third day: eleven bulls. two

rams. fourteen male lambs one

year old witllout defect. ....

Then on tlle fourth day: ten

bulls. two rams. fourteen male

lambs one year old

witllout

defect..

Hasel observes: When the

word yom. ' day,' is employed

together with a numeral. which

happens 150 times in tlle Old

Testament, it refers in the Old

Testament- invariably to a

literal day

of

24 hours (Hasel.

The Days

of

Creation. 26).

Genesis one has consecutively

numbered days for a reason:

tlle constant purpose in Scrip

tnre of enumerating series

of

days is to specify consecutive

calendrical days.

5. The Argument from

Coherent Usage The word

yom

in tlle Genesis account

occurs also in connection witll

days four. five, and s x

after

the sun is created . On day four

God expressly establishes the

sun to govern days by means

of

light and darkness patterns

(Gen. 1:14-18). The identical

word used in tlle first tllree

days

yom),

along with tlle

same qualifiers (numerical

adjectives and evening and

morning ) appear in days four.

five, and six. As Hasel argues:

This triple interlocking con

nection

of

singular usage,

joined

by

a numeral. and the

temporal definition of 'evening

and morning,' keeps the cre

ation 'day' the same through

out tlle creation account. t

also reveals tllat time is con

ceived 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 lan

guage (Hasel, The Days of

Creation, 26).

Accordingly we discover no

shifting

of

terms or patterns

in

tlle account between the third

and the fourth days; all flows

smoothly along.

We

know that

days four, five. and six are

controlled by tlle sunrise and

sunset. In fact. the very first

day of creation was designed

to produce a day-night pattern

(Gen. 1:3, 5). The light-dark

pattern is already established

by God; then he ignites the

Sun to take over the providen

tial governing of that pattern.

6

The Argument from

Divine Exemplal:

God specifi

cally patterns man's work

week after his own original .

creation week. Man's week,

October/November,

1998 -

THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon -

9


7/11

therefore, is expressly tied to

God s (Exo. 20:9-11). This is

not

for

purposes of analogy,

but imitation. This rationale is

used by Moses on one other

occasion: 'Therefore you are

to observe the sabbath, for it is

holy to you. Everyone who

profanes it shall surely be put

to death; for whoever does any

work

on

it, that person shall be

cut off

from among his people.

For six days work may be

done, but on the seventh day

there is a sabbath of complete

rest, holy to the LORD; who

ever does any work on the

sabbath day shall surely be put

to death (Exo. 31:14-15).

According to Dabney: In

Genesis 2:2, 3 and Exodus

20:11, God s creating the

world and its creatures in six

days and resting the seventh

day, is given as the ground

of

his sanctifying the Sabbath

day. The latter is a natural day.

Why not the former? The

evasions from this seem pecu

liarly weak

Lectures

in

Systematic Theology, 255).

Berkhof concurs Systematic

Theology, 155).

Terence E. Fretheim reso

lutely dismisses the analogy

view: The biblical emphasis is

stated in terms

of

the imita

tion of God or a divine prece

dent that is to be followed:

God worked for six days and

resfed on the seventh, and

therefore your should do the

same (Fretheim, Were the

Days

of

Creation Twenty-Four

Hours Long? in Ronald R.

Youngblood, ed., The Genesis

Debate: .Persistent Questions

About Creation and the Flood

[Nashville: Nelson, 19861, 20).

7 The Argument from

Plural;Expression.

In

Exodus

20:11 the law teaches that God

created the heavens and the .

earth is six days yammim,

plural of

yom).

The plural

yammim occurs 858 times in

the Old Testament, and it is

always used in the normal

sense of twenty-four hour

days. the plural expression in

the Ten Commandments

is

meaningless unless it implies

literal days. Exodus 20: 11 (like

Genesis 1) lacks any kind of

artistic or poetic features; it

assumes a factual accounting.

By this shorthand statement,

God sums up his creative

activity

in

a way that not only

is compatible with, but actually

demands a six day creative

process.

8 The Argument from

Alternative Idiom. Had Moses

intended that six or seven days

represented six or seven eras,

he could have chosen a more

fitting expression, olam> This

word is often translated for

ever, but it also means a long

. period

of

time (cf. Exo. 12:24;

21:6; 27:20; 29:28; 30:21). In

fact, we must wonder why

God's revelation in Genesis

mentions days at all, unless he

intends us to assume literal

days: all of the qualifiers in

Genesis 1 and elsewhere limit

. the creation week to a six day

creative process, followed by a

seventh-day rest.

The Scholarly Consensus

Remarkably, even liberals

and loose neo-evangelicals

who deny Six Day Creationism

recognize Moses meant to

speak

of

literal days:

10 - THE COUNSEL of Chalce don -

October/November,

1998

Form critical scholar

Herman Gunkel observed:

The 'days' are of course days

and nothing else (Gunkel.

Genesis ubersetzt und erklart

[Gottingen: Vandenhoeck

Purprecht, 19011 97. Cited in

Gerhard

F

Hasel. The 'Days'

of

Creation in Genesis

1:

Literal 'Days' or Figurative

'Periods/Epochs'

of

Time? in

Origins 21:1

[19941: 21).

Liberal Old Testament exegete

Gerhard von Rad assertS: The

seven days are unquestionably

to

be understood as actual

days and as a unique,

unrepeatable lapse of time in

the world (von Rad,

Genesis

1-11: A Commentary

[Philadel

phia: Westminster, 19721, 65).

The Brown-Oriver-Briggs

Lexicon defines the creation

days as a normal day as

defined by evening and morn

ing (p. 398). Koehler and

Baumgartiler's

Lexicon

points

to the

dayS of

creation in

. Genesis 1 as evidence for his

definition

of yom

as day of 24

hours Lexicon in Veteris

Testamenti Libros Leiden:

Brill, 19581 372). HOlladay's

Lexicon defines the days of

_creatioIl as each being a day

of 24 hours (William H.

Holladay, A Concise Hebrew

and Aramaic Lexicon

o

the

Old Testament [Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 19711, 130). Noted

Semitic scholar and hermeneu

tics authority James Barr

argues against any figurative

representation

of

the days of

Genesis 1 (Barr,

Fzmdamental

ism [Philadelphia: Westminster,

19781, 40-43). The-

Theologi

cal Lexicon o the Old Testa

ment

defines creation days as a


8/11

'''day (of 24 hours)' in the

sense of the astronomical

or

calendrical unit (Ernst Jenni

and Claus Westermann,

Theo

logical Lexicon o the Old

Testament, trans. by Mark E.

Biddle, vol. 1 [Peabody,

Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997],

528). Old Testament scholar

Victor P. Hamilton stated

the

matter clearly: And whoever

wrote

Gen

. 1 believed he

was

talking about literal days

(Hamilton, The Book

oj

Gen

esis: Chapters

1-17 [Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990], 54).

In summary, I believe it

unambiguously clear that

Moses meant to teach that

God

created the whole universe

ex

nihilo,

out of nothing, in the

span of six, normal, chrono

logically successive twenty

four hour days. This view is

not based on or responding

to

scientific theories; it is firmly

rooted in careful exegetical

analysis of God's authoritative

Word.

The Problem

o

Genesis

2

In this portion of

my

analy

sis I will consider the prob

lem of Genesis

2, as

noted by

Framework theorists. Again I

will not deal with the scientific

evidences but with the biblical

issues. I believe that the

Framework system is so meth

odologically flawed that it

creates exegetical contortions.

In

my

opinion it is

an

example

of a failure to handle accu

rately the

Word

of God

2

Tim. 2:15).

The Framework Hypothesis

suggests that Moses is giving

us a picturesque, artistic

expression-an

extended

metaphor --{)f the fundamen

tal assertion that God has

created all things. When they

present parallels between the

first three days of creation and

the last three, such does sound

quite artistic, providing an

alluring presentation. Certainly

the light of Day 1 balances

nicely with the sun, moon, and

stars of

day

4; the expan

se and

waters of Day 2 with the birds

and the fishes of

Day 5;

the

appearance of dry land in

Day

3 with the land animals and

man of Day 6.

But things are not as harmo

nious

as

they appear; the

beauty of this system is only

skin deep. The Framework

Hypothesis reminds

me

of a

duck quietly gliding along on

the surf


9/11

1)

n the first place this

argument is an argument from

silence. The Genesis text does

not tell us that the Sabbath

of

God continues throughout the

present time. This is an as

sumption imposed upon the

local text rather than being ,

derived from

it

. As we read the

actual text, the seventh day

occurs at the conclusion of a

succession of

~

prior days.

This is the one day

of

the

seven in which God rested; on

the other six he worked.

(2) Moreover. resting on

the seventh day cannot be

speaking of an eternal or

ongoing rest

of

God.

f

it

indicates a continual, ongoing

rest, then a necessary implica

tion follows: that there is also a

continuing blessing upon that

continuing time,

ot

the Lord

blessed the seventh day and

sanctified it (Gen. 2:3). This

would demand that sin had not

entered and that a curse had

not fallen

JIPon

creation.

Consequently, this resting an9

blessing is spoken

of

as a past.

completed action. God blessed

and sanctified ,the original.

particular, historical seventh

day

.

(3) Genesis teaches that

God blessed the seventh day.

As just noted; the text indi

cates a specific day is being

considered. This day is defi

nitely the conclusion to the six

nonp.al days that preceded it A

normal seventh day follows

from the normal six days

preceding. as enumerated by

Moses. This seventh day, in

fact, has also attached to it the

definite article. In fact, in

Exodus 20:

II

God speaks

of

the creation week as involving

, a normal Sabbath day that

becomes a pattern for man.

The normal Sabbath day is. of

course, a normal solar

day

2. Problem Two: The word

day' is used in a different way

in Genesis 2:4.

n Genesis 2:4 we read:

This is the account of the

heavens and the earth when

they were created. in the day

that the LORD God made earth

and heaven. The anti-literal

argument here suggests that

we have warrant

to

reinterpret

the prior six days, since Gen

esis 2:4 compacts the whole

time frame

of

creation into one

day.

This

opens up the

possibility that we wrongly

argued for the nature of

the

first six days as well.

The problem here is really

only a surface one, as the

following observations prove:

1)

Even

i

hat day covers

the entire period, this does not

necessarily undercut the six

day argument. Note well that

in the assertion of Genesis 2:4,

the 'day is not constricted by

the evening and morning

temporal boundary marker. Yet

this qualifier most definitely

and consistently defines the

first six days. Neither is the

day in 2:4 constrained

bya

consecutive numbered pattern

or

attached numerical adjec

tives. So even

i f

we say that

day covers the whole ,cre

ative process. the six day

creation is fundamentally

different because

of

the quali

fiers provided throughout

Genesis 1

12 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - October/November, 1998

(2) Furthermore, this

unique us age in the creation

account could very well point

, back to the final historical day

of the creation week. n the

context, the seventh day has

just been mentioned as the

completion of the creation

week in the irrunediately

preceding verse (Gen. 2:3). On

this analysis, Genesis 2:4 .

would refer back to the sev

enth day when. in fact, the

creation was shown to

be

completed. This would make

day in Genesis 2:3 refer to a

literal day.

(3) Actually though, the

phraseology in that day

(Heb.:

beyom)

is an adverbial

construction with an mfinitive.

This is an idiomatic expression

that carries, the counotation of

uwhen or after that

penect

t

is a temporal

cone

junction (I


10/11

3 Problem Three: Genesis

2 shows that the chtOnology o

the creation account is unim-

portant.

n that the order of creation

differs between Genesis

1

and

2, liberals tell us that Genesis 2

is a second creation account

that contradicts the first: The

J account

of

creation presents

striking differences from P

The order of events is differ

ent; man is the first object

created, woman the last, and

her formation is due to man's

spiritual need for production

(Abingdon Bible Commentary

[Nashville: Abingdon,

1929]

221). Of course, evangelical

Framework interpreters would

not allow a contradiction in the

context

of

Scripture. However,

they resolve this apparent

contradiction in a fWldamen

tally different-and errone

ous-manner than the Six Day

Creationists.

Now how does all of this

apply to the Framework argu

ment? Contrary to the Six Day

Creationist position Frame

work interpreters argue that

since Genesis

1

and

2

contain

a different order

of

creation

and since the Bible is not

contradictory, we may assume

the

apparent chronology

of

Genesis 1 is not historically

significant. n fact,

it

is Moses'

artistic flourish, providing us

with something that strikes

deeply in

our

hearts and

overwhelms

us

with a beautiful

pattern, without giving us

factual, historical, chronologi

cal sequence.

How shall we respond? Is

this the hermeneutic maneuver

necessary to prevent patent

contradiction between Genesis

1 and 7

Actually, Genesis 2 is not a

supplemental account

of

the

creation. n Genesis 2:4 we

read: These are the genera

tions

of

the heavens and the

earth when they were created.

n

the day that the LORD God

made the earth and the heav

ens (NRSV). The Hebrew

word translated generations

is

toledoth.

This word always

serves as the heading for a

new section that follows; it

does not introduce another

account

of

that which pre

ceded. In Genesis the word

toledoth

introduces the

history

of that which has ab'eady been

begotten

not a recounting

of

the history of the begetting

process. n each of the nine

other appearance of

toledoth,

the birth

of

the one whose

toledoth is given is never

mentioned.

For

instance, the

same phraseology occurs in

Genesis 6:9: this is the gene

alogy

of

Noah. Noah's birth is

not

recounted; the section is

concerned with the outcome of

- the issue from-Noah's

life. Accordingly, his descen

dants are recorded.

In Genesis 2:4 Moses is

introducing a section stretch

ing from Genesis

2:5

through

4:26. In this section we have

the history

of

Adam and Eve in

the Garden of Eden, their

temptation and fall into sin,

and the expansion and spread

of

the human race. Genesis 2:4

should then be translated

literally, these are the things

begotten

of

the heavens and

the earth. E. J. Young notes:

Genesis

2:4

in effect declares

that the account of

the

creation

of heaven and

earth

is

com

pleted, and that the author is

now going to focus his atten

tion

upon

what

was begotten

of heaven and earth, namely

man

The

primary refer

ence of this verse is to man,

not to

the

creation (Young,

Genesis 1 [Phillipsburg, N.J.:

Presbyterian and

Reformed,

1964], 60-61).

Thus, in Genesis 2:4 our

attention turns from the

cre

ation account to its point

or

outcome. Why is

the creation

here? Moses now begins the

history of man,

the high point

of

creation. This is confirmed

not only by the presence and

usage of

toledoth,

but in

other

interesting, subtle ways

in

Genesis 2:4.

(1) Notice the unusual

order of reference:

the

earth

and heavens.

Only

one

other

time is this order utilized

in

biblical reference to creation.

The earth is being

thrown

foreword in the

statement

for

emphasis.

We

know

where

the

heavens originated, but they

now recede into

the back

ground. This supports

the

Genesis 2 focus on man. His

abode is now moved to

the

forefront as Moses begins

consideration of his life.

2)

Here we

have the

first

appearance of the

personal

covenant name of the Creator:

LORD God

(c f

. Exo. 3: 14).

The covenant God is involved

in creating

man's

abode. The

emphasis will now be

on

the

covenantal love, grace, and

October/November, 1998 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 13


11/11

mercy of God in relation

to

the

man he has created. Hence, the

sudden appearance of his

covenant name in 2:4. We

must have the history of

Genesis 2 through 4 to prop

erly introduce the message of

the Bible: God s redemptive

program for man. This story is

introduced in Genesis 2-4 and

is continued throughout the

remainder of Genesis.

Now we must consider:

Why does Moses allow a

different order in chapter

2?

Why does Genesis 2 mention

plants and animals after man?

Moses is now providing a

topical, non-chronological

presentation. All chronologi

cal features are noticeably

absent; the chronological

account of creation is con

cluded in chapter 1. The

resultant creation work is

beautiful, orderly,

aI)d

mature.

Now the focus turns to man in

creation, in order to set him in .

the ethical context where he

will be tested to see

i f

he will

love the Lord his God. Will

Adam obey the LORD God

who has provided him with

such a beautiful home? This is

the point of Genesis 2 - not

chronological development;

not the whole creation story

again.

4 Objection Four: Moses

account in Genesis

1 is

topical

ot

sequential.

The Framework

Hypothesis notes some beauti

ful parallelisms in the creation

account: n the first three days

we discover the creation of the

realm; in the last three days the

creation of the ruler of the

realm. On day one, light is

created,

and on

day 4,

the

light

bearers, the sun, moon, and

stars. On day two, the waters

and the firmament are created,

and on day five, the fish

and

the fowl that lives in the waters

and the firmament. On

day

three, the dry land, and

on

day

six the land animals and man

that live on the dry land. We

have a ruler paralleling the

realm in each case. Thus,

Moses concern was not chro

nological sequence or order of

creation in Genesis 1 but

artistic parallel. What is the Six

Day Creationists response?

1)

f these topical parallel

isms exist, they

do

not neces

sarily undercut a sequential

history. God is a God of order,

and this is the particular order

he happened to employ in

creating the universe. For

instance, we cannot dismiss

the historicity of the resurrec

tion of Christ on the third

day

because we can also discern a

parallel with Day 3 of creation:

Christ arising from the earth,

following the pattern of

the

earth arising from its watery

grave. There may be some

beal)tiful parallel between

Christ s resurrection and the

arising of land, but such does

not discol)nt the historical

reality of either event. Like

wise artistic beauty of

Genesis I with its realm-ruler

parallel does not mitigate

against a sequential pattern.

(2) The topical arrange

ment breaks down npon closer

analysis; it s beauty is only

skin deep. f Moses was

at-

tempting artistry, he failed.

Structural pandemonium

14 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - October November, 1998

destroys the parallelism.

Notice that the light bearers of

day four are put in the firma

ment, but the firmament is not

created until day two. On day

five, the fish swim in the seas

but these are not created until

day three. The primeval waters

are created on day two. The

birds fly in the

Sky,

but they

are related

to

the earth, not the

sea (cf. Gen. 1 20-22).

Due to space constraints I

cannot deal with a remaining

objection by the Framework

interpreters: The barrenness

mentioned in Genesis 2:5. I

will save that response until a ,

later time.

Conclusion

Sound exegesis indicate that

the Scriptures clearly teach a

six-day creation, composed of

six, twenty-four hour days, of

sequential events, of God s

created activity. The liberal

attempt to cause Genesis 1 and

2 to clash vanishes away when

we consider the local nature of

Genesis 2 (focus

on

man in

Eden)

and

the topical nature

(focus

on

man s ethical trial),

as

opposed

to

the Universal

and sequential nature of

chapter

1.

Furthermore,the

evangelical attempt to UI'tder-

cut

the

sequential day pattern .

of Genesis

I

evaporates when

we consider their objections to

it. n my humble opinion, we .

need

to

let God be true but

every man a liar.

1998 issue 5 - yea, hath god said? a brief defense of six day creation - counsel of chalcedon

Documents