The Foundations of the Faith

Studies in Genesis 1-11

Sermon Number Three: The Days of Creation

Jim Bordwine, Th.D.

Introduction

In this sermon, I am going to address the issue of the nature of the days in Gen. 1. There are two main reasons which have influenced me to treat the days of the creation account in a separate sermon in this ongoing serious on Gen. 1-11. First, this is one of the primary topics being discussed and debated within our denomination and the implications of this continuing deliberation are substantial; second, the interpretation of the creation account, including the nature of the days of Gen. 1, establishes a method which, presumably, will be applied by the interpreter to the rest of Scripture. So, the manner in which one interprets Gen. 1, assuming the interpreter is consistent, determines the approach taken to the whole Bible.

As just indicated, when we speak of the “days” of creation, we are touching upon an issue which has produced significant discussion and argument in the present era. I am referring to disagreement within the camp of those who believe the Bible is infallible, who believe that the Bible speaks authoritatively on every subject it mentions. As most of us are aware, there are interpretive models being promoted which see Gen. 1 as something other than historical narrative. These models necessarily understand the “days” of the creation account to be something other than normal days, as commonly conceived. Some of these models represent efforts to establish compatibility between the record of creation found in Gen. 1 and the pronouncements of the scientific community. However, to be fair, this is not the motivation behind all non-literal interpretations of Gen. 1. Some propose non-literal interpretations of the days of the creation record because they believe the text itself supports such an approach.

In this sermon, I will not be dealing with the various theories and interpretations which I have just mentioned. My aim is to do what should always be done as a first step in the interpretation of any portion of Scripture, which is the production of an explanation based upon an ordinary reading of the text. This is the very first thing any interpreter does—or, for that matter, it is the first thing which any reader of the Bible does. As we read a passage, we formulate some kind of understanding in our minds based upon the words and their arrangement. From that starting point, we examine the context and other passages which might provide commentary on the verses under consideration. This is what I plan to do in this sermon.

From my perspective, it is not acceptable for someone to propose a theory to explain the nature of the days in Gen. 1 without first dealing with the plain reading of the text. If something in the text leads to the conclusion that an ordinary understanding of the words is not intended, or if other passages exist which suggest that an ordinary understanding of the words is not intended, then we are justified in putting forth a view which states that that the days of Gen. 1 were not regular days. Otherwise, it seems to me that we are bound to consider the days of the creation account as regular, literal days. To depart from this principle is to invite theological confusion.

If we do not assume that an ordinary reading of the Bible will give us the information God wants us to possess—barring, as I said, some indications to the contrary found in the Bible itself—then what are we to assume? We have to assume that the interpretation of the Bible is a task for which most Christians are not suited; we have to assume that God did not intend for His Word to be read and rightly understood by any other than those specially trained. I reject this notion and, instead, believe that God’s Word is written so that it can be understood; and I believe that reading the text in an ordinary fashion and comparing Scripture with Scripture will give us a right interpretation. In terms of the passage now under consideration, I will say that I believe any child capable of reading can take up the Bible, read Gen. 1 and know for certain how God created this universe. In my opinion, Genesis 1 is not a myth nor is it an example of God accommodating our limited abilities by telling us that He created in a manner which, in fact, He did not.

In this sermon, I will do nothing more than repeat what has been the established position of the Church until modern times. Once again, in fairness, let me add that the fact that the Church has held a particular interpretation of some issue to be the right interpretation does not, by itself, mean that the established position is beyond further investigation. The Church must always be willing to re-examine Her settled opinions if sufficient cause can be shown from the Scripture. However, if the “cause” for re-examination is something other than insight gained from the continuing study of God’s revelation, then we have to exercise caution.

I will now read Gen. 1 and, as I do, I will ask you to pay particular attention to the understanding of creation which will develop in your mind as we pass from one verse to another. It is my contention, as I have just indicated, that the understanding which naturally develops in our minds as we read this chapter is the proper understanding of how God created this existence.

Read Gen. 1

1. The Clarity of the Text

Moses uses a familiar refrain throughout this chapter. It appears first in vv. 3-5:

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

This latter phrase is repeated in vv. 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31 at the conclusion of specific acts on the part of the Creator. This statement serves to demarcate the creative activity of God. It seems that Moses wished to distinguish between what God created at one time and what He created at another time. Unless the manner in which Moses writes of creation is completely meaningless, we have to conclude that God created sequentially; we have to conclude that some parts of creation existed before other parts. If Moses’ references to “days” really does not mean days, as we commonly think of them, then we must ask why he would choose to communicate in such a fashion. The fact that Moses uses the same refrain repeatedly—“And there was evening and there was morning”—indicates a desire to be precise, not ambiguous.

Those who deny that these are literal days face significant questions here. Why would Moses speak so specifically, why would he write in such a way that the reader naturally concludes that literal days are being discussed if he did not mean literal days? If the opening words of Genesis really are poetry, as some say, and not meant to be taken literally but only meant to convey the truth that God is the Creator, what about that which follows this account? If the days of Gen. 1 really were not days, as we think of them and according to the predominant use of the term elsewhere in Scripture, what about the other material found in the first few chapters of the Bible? What about God’s relationship with Adam and what about the fall of mankind in Adam?

Are these literal records of what really happened or are they sagas meant only to convey general truths, not specific detail? Are these records what they appear to be upon first reading or are they allegorical? Is it really legitimate to say that Moses begins with poetry designed to communicate broad truths, not specific details, but then switches to specific details when it comes to Adam’s creation, Adam’s relationship with God and the account of the fall? Where does Moses acknowledge the transition from allegory to historical narrative? These questions illustrate what I stated in the Introduction, namely, that the method of interpreting Gen. 1 has enormous implications for the manner in which one interprets the rest of the Bible, especially these crucial chapters of Gen. 1-11. We could continue and ask if Cain really killed Abel and if there really was a flood that covered the whole earth killing everyone except Noah and his family.

Let me say again that if the text leads us to the conclusion that a literal understanding is not the correct understanding, then, by all means, we need to find some other explanation for the days of Gen. 1. However, it seems to me that the words of Moses, read plainly, lead to the conclusion that he is describing literal days. Further, therefore, it appears that the burden of proof rests with those who propose that the days of Gen. 1 are something other than normal days.

2. The Commentary of Other Passages

The opening verses of Scripture are alone sufficient to produce many troubling questions for anyone who wants to interpret the days of creation as something other than real days. But this is not all; there is more to the Biblical account than what we find here in Gen. 1. There are other passages in which this description of God’s creative activity is mentioned; and, in my opinion, these other passages only add to the burden borne by those who support non-literal theories or explanations of Gen. 1.

Consider, for example, what is, by far, the most significant commentary on the days of Gen. 1 found anywhere in the Bible; I’m referring to the text of the Fourth Commandment in Ex. 20:

8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

The Fourth Commandment is given to regulate life; it is a law designed to ensure that man apportions his time in a proper manner. This Commandment provides for the orderly division of life into labor and rest, or times of work and times of worship. Even a brief survey of this law’s place in Old Testament society shows that the Fourth Commandment was at the center of existence; if kept faithfully, this law guaranteed a peaceful, happy and prosperous existence for the individual and the nation. The six plus one pattern contained in this law reorientates life one each week so that the relationship between God and His people does not deteriorate. At a time when the nation was at its worst, morally speaking, God Himself cited obedience to the Fourth Commandment as a means of restoration (cf. Isa. 58:13, 14). This is how fundamentally important this law is to living rightly before God.

What is important to our present study is the reasoning which God gives for this six plus one pattern for living: “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (v. 11) Where does the division of life into six periods that belong to man, so to speak, and one period that belongs to God come from? What example existed prior to the giving of this all-important law? The law itself declares that the six plus one pattern for living comes from the example of the Creator at the time of creation; He labored for six days in the creation and then rested, as it were, on the seventh day. God Himself established the six plus one pattern that is to govern our work and worshipful rest.

Consider, then, the implications if we conclude that the days of Gen. 1 are not real days. What does this say about the reasoning attached to the Fourth Commandment? The Fourth Commandment rests upon the account in Gen. 1; the Fourth Commandment requires a six plus one pattern for life and this pattern comes from the example of God. It seems that the Fourth Commandment loses its authority if God really did not “work” for six days and rest on the seventh day. The reasoning supplied in v. 11 would be unnecessary and even misleading if the days of Gen. 1 do not correspond to the days being experienced by those obligated to keep this law.

Some might say, of course, that those who first received this law understood that the days of Gen. 1 were only figurative; some might say that the people knew that the duty being required by this Commandment had reference to literal days even though non-literal days were the basis for it. This explanation, though, is asking a lot; in fact, I think that it is asking too much. We would have to be willing to believe that the “days” of vv. 8-10 were not intended as references to the same thing as the “days” of v. 11. However, the natural conclusion reached when we read the text of the Fourth Commandment is that it has reference to literal days, both in the expression of the law, seen in vv. 8-10, and in the basis for the law, seen in v. 11.

I want to mention what follows Ex. 20:8-11; what follows, of course, is the Fifth Commandment: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.” (v. 12) It is worth noting that again we have a reference to days and no one can deny that the “days” of the Fifth Commandment have reference to literal days. If we suppose that the days of Gen. 1 are non-literal days, then we have Moses referring to literal days in vv. 8-10, non-literal days in v. 11, and literal days in v. 12 all without a word of acknowledgement from him and all without a word of explanation concerning those non-literal days. Surely we have to agree that this could lead only to confusion; we have to assume that the people of God would have understood Moses to be referring to literal days throughout this section of Scripture. To suggest otherwise is to go beyond the limits of credibility.

I will admit that what I’ve said does not, by itself, prove that the days of Gen. 1 could not be anything other than literal, 24-hour days; but this portion of Scripture in Ex. 20 certainly adds to the burden of those who say that God did not create in six literal days. The information in Ex. 20, added to the impression left by a plain reading of Gen. 1, produces a number of difficult and unavoidable questions for those who defend novel views of creation. Frankly, I don’t see how any explanation of the days of Gen. 1 other than the literal explanation can be sustained. If we allow that the days of the creation account were not normal days, then we run into problems here in Ex. 20, as I have explained. This is an example of how the hermeneutics used in the opening chapters of Genesis can and must affect the interpretation of the rest of the Bible.

Another passage to be considered is found in Ex. 31. In a repetition of the Sabbath legislation, we read:

12 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. 14 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. 15 For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. 16 So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’ 17 “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased  from labor, and was refreshed.”

In this record of the Sabbath law, the LORD says that this Commandment is to be observed perpetually and that it serves to remind the people of their relationship to God (cf. vv. 12, 13). The seriousness of the Sabbath law is indicated in this passage when God orders capital punishment for anyone who violates this requirement: “Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death…” (v. 14) This alone tells us that the six plus one pattern given by God is literally essential to life (note that this pattern is mentioned in v. 15). Again, the continuing obligation to keep this law is cited: “So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.” (v. 16)

At this point, as we saw in Ex. 20, a reason is given for the Sabbath law: “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased  from labor, and was refreshed.” (v. 17) The reference to God’s example at the time of creation takes on even more importance in this passage; I say this because here in Ex. 31, two elements are added to the Sabbath law. First, it is identified as a “perpetual covenant,” which establishes this obligation as permanently binding and forever a sign of the relationship that exists between God and His people; second, the penalty of death is specified for those who break this law.

We must ask ourselves if it is reasonable to assume, given the extremely serious nature of this law and its enforcement, that Moses purposely, without explanation, referred to literal days when speaking of Israel’s obligation, but non-literal days when speaking of the theological and historical foundation for this law. If we are willing to make this assumption, then we must be willing to say that the Bible is deliberately unclear. We cannot resort to the explanation that the people of God would have known that literal days were meant when Moses told them how they were to live, but non-literal days were meant when Moses cited the creation account. This is, as I’ve already said, asking too much.

Before offering some words of application, let me answer this question: What are we to conclude based upon our study of these few passages? As I have stated already, the plain reading of Scripture leads to the conclusion that the days of Gen. 1 were literal days. This does not, as I also have stated, answer all the questions that might arise when we interpret those days as literal days, but this does appear to be the teaching of Scripture and no alternative explanation should be offered simply to eliminate some puzzling elements in the account of creation. I think we have seen that when such alternative explanations are given, they result in far more serious and numerous questions. I might add that if the days of Gen. 1 were not literal days, then proponents of such a view have quite a job ahead of them; they must explain not only what those days were, but they also must explain why the Bible, everywhere else, seems to leave us with the impression that those days were normal, literal days.

There is much, of course, which I have not covered in this sermon. I haven’t spoken about the Hebrew word yom, which is translated “day”; nor have I talked about the structure of the Hebrew text in Gen. 1. As I said, my purpose in this sermon was a simple one: I wanted to show the reasonableness of taking Gen. 1, as it appears in our English Bibles, at face value. I am not saying that the theories that have been proposed should be ruled incorrect simply because they suggest something different or something that the Church has not yet embraced. But I am saying that any alternative explanation of the days in Gen. 1 should be evaluated in the light of the Bible’s plain reading and in light of how the Bible uses references to those days in other parts of Scripture. When this is done, as we have seen, the idea that the days of Gen. 1 were non-literal days faces considerable difficulty.

Application

For our application, I want to emphasize an issue which I only mentioned briefly in the sermon and that is the relation between the Bible and what we call “science.” I stated before that it is certainly true that not every view of Gen. 1, which sees the days as non-literal, is based upon some foreseen conflict with science. There are some, again as I acknowledged, who maintain that the Scripture itself leads the interpreter to the conclusion that the days of the creation account are not to be understood in a literal sense. Personally, I think this is a very difficult position to defend. However, in this application, I do not want to address that view; I want to say a few words about those who do take into account the declarations of science as they offer interpretations of Gen. 1. (NOTE: Read from the Kline’s paper)

With the exception just described, I believe that one of the chief motivating factors behind the various theories that have been proposed regarding the days of Gen. 1 is the desire to reconcile the record of Scripture to the beliefs of the scientific community. The pronouncements of worldly scholars are, generally speaking, received as truth by the average man; this is particularly the case when these pronouncements are made again and again to the point that they become engrained in the popular mind. When the traditional interpretation of Scripture is found to be at odds with one of these weighty opinions of the university, some believers feel compelled to justify the Bible or, even worse, reconcile the Bible to the teachings of science.

What we must keep in mind is that the word of God is not subject to the opinions of men. The Bible’s trustworthiness is not established by the findings of scientists, nor is it discredited by the pronouncements of these same scientists. If, therefore, the motivation for redefining the days of Gen. 1 is so that the Biblical record might be made more respectable in the eyes of the scientific community, then this is dreadfully wrong. Science is subject to the Bible, not vice versa. The fact that scientists insist that the universe is so many millions of years old should not be the factor which causes Christians to re-examine the days of Gen. 1. We should feel no compulsion to account for what unbelievers say is the age of creation; we are not bound to take into account modern thinking while endeavoring to maintain our commitment to the Bible as the Word of God. The Biblical view is that science should be corrected by the revelation of the One who made this universe; the Biblical position is that where science differs with the Bible, science is wrong.

Apart from some convincing statements in the Bible or some characteristics of the text itself, there is no valid reason for Christians to question the notion that the days of Gen. 1 are literal days. The beliefs of the scientific and academic communities are of no consequence whatsoever if they contradict Scripture. These beliefs have practically no value because they have no bearing upon the nature of Scripture. The Bible is God’s word, the word of the Creator. Every word of man, every opinion and every pronouncement either conforms to the word of the Creator or it is to be discarded. Let us remember that the most respected scientists and the most accomplished professors are fallen creatures who are in rebellion against their Creator. They are as incapable of studying this creation and arriving at proper conclusions as the most savage brute found anywhere in the world. In fact, scientists and professors are probably less capable of forming correct opinions because they are convinced of their own superiority even as they are convinced of the ignorant nature of the Bible when it comes to scientific inquiry.

We have to realize what is at stake here. Is the Bible trustworthy or not? Can the Bible be believed when it reports as truthful the record of creation? Must the Bible be reinterpreted as man’s beliefs change? Can our children read Gen. 1-3 and actually know how this world came to be and actually know what happened to our first parents? Lest I be misunderstood, I am not anti-science or anti-learning; I very much support scientific investigation as long as it is subject to God’s word and I very much support learning as much as possible about all aspects of God’s creation. However, we have to guard against an unbalanced view of revelation and science. Revelation is absolutely trustworthy and can be believed and can be the ground in which we stake our eternal destinies. Science, on the other hand, can make no such claims.

Let’s remember that science tells us that a world-wide flood is impossible, that belief in divine plagues is purely superstition, that no army can destroy a city simply by marching around it several times and blowing trumpets; science tells us that dead men don’t rise, that no one can walk on water, that 5000 men cannot be fed with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. (NOTE: Again I call attention to the relationship between how one interprets Gen. 1 and how one interprets the rest of the Bible) Ought we to be bothered when science contradicts Scripture? I’m not demeaning technology or advancements in medical treatments or the quest for a better understanding of this universe, but I am saying that the Bible is not subject to the approval of man’s so-called science and I am saying that we need to keep in mind that, compared to God’s revelation, science is an inferior and error-prone discipline. Only revelation is trustworthy and only God word is revelation.

Conclusion