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. In 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 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. In the Question
and Answer session
that followed our
defense of theonornic
ethics, a questioner
asked: "If the
theonornic ethic is true, isn't
that contradictory to the first
amendment of the United
States Constitution?" You see,
defending the biblical
world view 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
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.
The Bible 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. In
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. In 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). If
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. It does so for no
other reason than because it is
biblical. It 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
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; cpo also
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 su 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
of 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
of 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 [4th. 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 of 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-
forward historical narrative.
Nothing in the Genesis ac-
count of creation is absurd if
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 <Commentary on the
Old Testament> [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 of 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 of God tells us this; this is
not the surmisings of man.
This is the revelation of God,
the voice of 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 of the entire uni-
verse. That makes it a big issue
in our world view. 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 of 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 of 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 of a normal
day-night cycle. We should
maintain the common usage of
a term unless contextual forces
forbid it.
All of 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 .... It 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
demand exists in the context."
(Lectures in 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 fromthe 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. linguistic
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. It is hllrd. to 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 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
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 <yom> 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 six- 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. It
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
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 of 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 of the Old Testa-
ment defines creation days as a
'''day (of 24 hours)' in the
sense of the astronomical or
calendrical unit" (Ernst Jenni
and Claus Westermann, Theo-
logical Lexicon of 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 of 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 expanse 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<\ce of a pe<\ceful pond.
But once you look below the
surface, you will discover
some fancy footwork going
on. If you look below the
beauty of the Framework
Hypothesis, you will also find
a lot of fancy exegetical
footwork going on, trying to
make to make the system work
despite the obvious contrary
evidences in the text.
The real "problem" of the
Genesis six day creation
account is not its exegetical
awkwardness. Rather it is the
"embarrassing" fact that it
conflicts with the generally
prevailing modern, secular,
naturalistic assumptions of
evolutionary science. The
evolutionary-controlled disci-
plines of geology, astronomy,
and anthropology are the
problem, not the Bible. The
Bible is clear. Yet, alleged
biblical problems are urged
against the Six Day Creationist
model that I presented in the
first portion of this stndy. I
want to consider at this time
some of the leading "biblical"
problems of the six-day cre-
ation model.
1. Problem One: "The
seventh day is longer than
twenty-jour hours."
In Genesis 2:1-3 we read:
"Thus the heavens and the
earth were completed, and all
their hosts. And by the seventh
day God completed His work
which He had done; and He
rested on the seventh day from
all His work which He had
done. Then God blessed the
seventh day and sanctified it,
because in it He rested from all
His work which God had
created and made."
Some argue that since God
rested on the seventh day
(Gen. 2:1-2), and since the
creative process has ceased
forever, God must still be
restiug. Therefore, tlle seventh
day upon which God rested is
an ongoing reality. It has lasted
since the conclusion of the
original creation week. Thus,
if he rested on the seventh
yom, and that seventh yom
continues to the present time,
the word yom can signify an
enormous period of time.
Interestingly, it does so in the
very context of Genesis I and
2. Framework interpreters
would set this as
countervailing evidence to the
six, twenty-four days advo-
cated by six day creationists.
Let me briefly respond to this.
October/November, 1998 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 11
(1) In 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 s ~ 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. If it
indicates a continual, ongoing
rest, then a necessary implica-
tion follows: that there is also a
continuing blessing upon that
continuing time, fot 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."
In 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 if that 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 if 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. In 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 ~ p
penect. It is a temporal cone
junction (I<laus Westermann,
Genesis 1 :11 : A Commentary
[London: SPCK], 198). Gen-
esis 2:4 can legitimately be
translated-and grammatically
ought to be-as: "after the .
Lord created the heavens and
the earth." In fact, the NlV
translates the text: "This is the
account of the heavens and the
earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the
earth and the heavens',' (Gen.
2:4). The NAB translates it:
"Such is the story o the
heavens and the earth at their
creation. At the time when the
LORD God made the earth and
the heavens." This is not
dealing with a "day" at all.
3. Problem Three: "Genesis
2 shows that the chtOnolo gy of
the creation account is unim-
portant."
In 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. In 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 27
Actually, Genesis 2 is not a
supplemental account of the
creation. In Genesis 2:4 we
read: "These are the genera-
tions of the heavens and the
earth when they were created.
In 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. In 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" (cf. 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
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 if 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
not sequential. The Framework
Hypothesis notes some beauti-
ful parallelisms in the creation
account: In 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 Creationist' s response?
(1) If 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 t ~ 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. If 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. In my humble opinion, we .
need to let God be true but
every man a liar.