Introduction

We said last time that the opening chapter of the Hebrew Bible is Christian Scripture. Reading and meditating on this chapter in relation to modern science is a matter of discipleship to Christ. Thus how we handle this text is of great importance. It is part and parcel of our Christian duty to our risen Savior who is Sabbath king, creator and ruler of all creation.

Genesis one opens a wide door to the natural sciences. But some open this door so far that they virtually throw the door off its hinges and demand an interpretation of Genesis one that absolutely conforms to the dictates of modern science. A great deal of pressure is placed on Christians in the university (as students or faculty) to maintain respectability by abandoning what they call "an outmoded, warn out, and pre-modern" worldview. To hold to a literal reading of Genesis one as a historical account of real events is like believing that the earth is flat or that the sun orbits the earth.

At bottom in this pressure is the tendency that we all have of asserting our autonomy rather than humbly submitting to what God has said. This is a caution that is relevant to how we read Genesis one. It is a well-known fact that for most of church history God's people have interpreted Genesis one in a strongly literal or common sense way. With few exceptions (like Augustine), the days of creation have been widely understood as "ordinary" days on a par with the unfolding days of OT history. This changed after Darwin wrote the Origins of the Species in 1859. Since that time there has been a call to re-examine how we read Genesis one lest we do injustice to both science and the Bible (God's word in creation and His word in Scripture). "Fair enough," we have to say because developments in science have helped the church in the past. For example, science helped correct the wrong view that the church had of the solar system before Galileo. Many church people refused to look through the newly invented telescope lest they be drawn away from the "biblical" teaching that the earth is the center of the solar system (that it is a geocentric solar system and universe astronomically). Therefore, developments in science should be taken to heart, weighed carefully, evaluated critically, and they should cause us to take another look at the text of Scripture to see if we are doing justice to it.

But did theology give an inch and the sciences take a mile from 1859 to the present? Has Scripture been forced into a non-Christian mold that distorts its message? To answer this we need to humbly dig into the text. Otherwise we have no guard against hearing the musings of our own hearts and mistakenly identifying them as the thoughts of God.

In this light I want to consider the extraordinary days of creation. My objective will be to get into the text by focusing on the question of the length of these days. They are extra-ordinary but they are still days. And many debates continue over the meaning of these days. What I propose to do is to state and evaluate the six main arguments offered to support the claim that the extraordinary nature of these days argues against understanding them to refer to ordinary lengths of time. (The first five are nicely presented by Bavinck in Our Reasonable Faith, 172-73; the sixth on the length of the Sabbath Day is clearly stated by Ross in Did God Create in Six Days, 121-122 and in the same volume by Collins as the simplest inference, 137. It should be noted that if these six arguments fail, then complimentary arguments such as those based on literary structure, Gen. 2:5, and other subordinate lines of reasoning have a significantly reduced impact with respect to the length of the days.  For example, the filling out on days 4, 5, and 6 of the emptiness present on days 1, 2, and 3 respectively does not in itself necessitate non-chronology. If there is no support for taking the days in some way other than as days of normal length, then the emptiness/filled pattern is easily understood within a chronological structure. Thus, God so created that the first chronological day had an emptiness that God filled on the fourth chronological day, and so forth. ).

1A. The first day is very unusual.

1B. The argument stated

The days are not the same as the festive days of the Jewish calendar. This is so because "Scripture itself contains data which oblige us to think of these days of Genesis as different from our ordinary units as determined by the revolutions of the earth" (Our Reasonable Faith 172; cf. Rogland, WTJ, Fall 2001, 213-215). If 1:1-2 is included in the first day then the first day is "very unusual" because it consisted for a while of darkness preceding the creation of light (Bavinck, 172). And "the length of that darkness which preceded the creation of light is nowhere indicated" (172).

2B. The argument evaluated

To have a day begin in darkness (day one, Gen. 1:2) is surely not the way the other creation days begin for they begin with morning, with daylight that leads to evening through the night and to the next morning. So day one is extraordinary beginning as it does in darkness. And that is not how a day typically begins in our everyday experience.

1) But why must this yield the conclusion that the first day cannot be of the same length as the Jewish festive days or our ordinary days? Simply put, the answer here is that the extraordinary does not rule out the ordinary. For example, the initial relationship between water and the earth is ordinary. The water was not absorbed into the earth nor did it float above the earth as an ocean in the sky. Earth and water had properties that governed their behavior in relation to one another. That behavior is presented as ordinary and stable even though the creation of these things is extraordinary and the first day is extraordinary in that the world system is not yet completed. This ordinary stability is presupposed when dry land is brought forth on day three. Every stage, every day, and the accumulation of stages (1, 1+2, 1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, and 1+2+3+4+5) are all extraordinary. But at each point along the way ordinary relationships between created things are established and sustained as the context for the unusual.

My reply focuses on the meaning of "unusual" or "extraordinary" applied to the creation days. Of course they are extraordinary and unusual. All six are extraordinary days because creation took place within them. And the seventh is an extraordinary Sabbath day as the first pattern setting Sabbath. However, this uniqueness does not necessitate the conclusion that these days cannot have the length of time that days have in the Jewish festive calendar.

2) Furthermore, it makes sense in terms of the progression over the week from nothing created to the completed creation to have darkness before the creation of light. If light were created before darkness then we would have a retrogression rather than progression since darkness is the condition in which man's work normally cannot be done. But God's creation is initially fashioned in darkness without form and empty. This condition of the earth accents the fact that creation is a process that has a beginning that moves in stages to completion, from ground zero to the massive world system we know.

3) Also, the fact that no length of time is specified for the darkness gives us no ground to exclude a normal length to the day. This is a simple non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"); the exclusion of a normal length simply does not follow from the fact that no length is specified. To rule out a normal length to the day on this basis is to get something from nothing. It is an argument from silence, which means it is trying to draw conclusions based on ignorance.

2A. Second, the sun is absent until the fourth day.

1B. Argument

Ordinary length for the first three creation days is denied by appealing to the absence of the sun until the fourth day. Our twenty-four hour days are determined "by the revolutions of the earth on its axis, and by the correspondingly different relationship to the sun which accompanies the revolutions" (172). So even though "the appearance and disappearance of light" distinguishes these days from one another, the relation of the earth to the sun is not established until the fourth day (172). Therefore, "the first three days (Gen. 1:3-13) must have been very unlike ours" (172).

2B. Reply

Of course these days are very unlike our days. It is extraordinary to have three day/night cycles (cf. 1:5) with no sun, moon, or stars. Obviously, if we define an hour as a succession of moments marked by the relationship between the sun and the earth, then there can be no hour without the sun (let alone twenty-four of them).

But what necessitates the conclusion that the length of these days cannot be on a temporal par with the festive days of the Jewish calendar? Must the sun be present in order to have a succession of moments that oscillates between daytime and nighttime? (cf. 1:3-5, there is progress through evening to morning on the very first day). More specifically, is the existence of so many hours of daylight in contrast to so many hours of darkness dependent on the existence of the sun? It all boils down to this question, "Can there be a succession of moments made up of past, present, and future without the sun?" A "yes" here can be supported.

1) Surely there is a succession of moments for the children of God in heaven where there is no sun. Interestingly, there will be days without the sun and these days exist without darkness (Rev. 21:25). What definition should we give to these days in heaven (Rev. 22:5)? They are extraordinary days to be sure but does each day last for eternity? Is it not reasonable to take these days to refer to what we know as human beings bound to a daily cycle of existence? Will they not be equivalent to what we experience as a succession of moments that is marked by the relation of the sun to the earth? The fact of days that are equivalent to solar days but without the sun (and even without darkness) shows that a similar condition is not impossible for the days of creation prior the creation of the sun.

2) The succession of moments of past, present, and future that transpired in the history of the first three days of creation can be equivalent to the time it would take the sun to revolve around the earth even if there is no sun.

If a clock were transported back to creation week to measure the succession of moments of history that unfolded on the first three days, there is no reason to conclude that this clock would not record three twenty-four days. To be sure, we would have to establish the movements of the parts of the clock against the only pattern we know to mark time, by the pattern set before us in the sky. But is the succession of moments marked by the gears of the clock dependent on the existence of the sun? No. It is better to say that the relationship between the movement of one gear and another is dependent on God-given properties of matter.

It takes a succession of moments for a large gear to complete a revolution but as it moves there is a past where it touched another gear, there is a present where it now touches the other gear, and a future where it will eventually touch the other gear. How long it will take depends on the size of each gear, the friction between them as they touch, the amount of energy moving each, and host of other God-given laws by which He governs the relationship between things in the universe. Surely, the succession of moments marked by the relationship between gears in a clock is not bound to the existence of the sun but it can be equivalent.

3) It is better to say that the late player in creation week, the sun, must be "geared" in a way that conforms to the already existing properties of matter. Otherwise, it would not be able to do its job of ruling the day that already existed since day one with the moon ruling the night that already existed since day one (Gen. 1:16 w/ 1:5).

Ultimately, this is saying that the passage of time is determined by the relationship between things that is established and governed by the Creator. In one sense, time is a way of viewing the relationship between things in space. How long it takes for point x on a gear to reach point y on another gear is simply a way of identifying the succession of points that interrelate in getting there. Certain points have already been reached, a point of interfacing now exists, and more points are yet to be reached until x and y meet. The pace of that interfacing and the properties that determine it are not dependent on the sun or its properties but on the Lord Jesus who created and sustains them.

3A. The fall and the flood

Bavinck admits that the second series of three days could have been "constituted in the usual way" but two things argue against this (172). I will discuss the first one here. The fall of angels and men and the Flood of Noah effected various changes in the cosmos from the creation week to our present weekly cycle (172).

Differences between creation days and our days of course exist; there are many of them as noted above. But the key is to determine that the length of the days of creation cannot be on a par with the festive days of Israel. Does that difference exist? Do the changes that resulted from the fall necessitate a difference in the pace of the succession of moments during creation week from what occurs now? Some specific counter points can be cited.

1) This line of thought causes more problems than it solves. How shall we view the passage of time in the period after creation week and before the fall? We do not know how long this period lasted but are we supposed to think that a day in the life of Adam in this period is different in length from a day in his life after the fall? If so, how are we to understand the references to his age when he died? Surely his 930 years (Gen. 5:5) are to be defined in a way that includes the fact that those years are composed of seasons and days (Gen. 1:14).

On the Bavinck view, we have to not only exclude the sixth day of creation from this accounting of Adam's days and years on earth but we also have to exclude the days between creation week and the fall. This holds however many there may have been, or do we not allow for any time of probation? Similarly, the historical accounting of ages that go back before the flood are then composed of days of different lengths and the meaning of a "year" is lost (i.e. for Noah and his sons; also what meaning do we give to the "days" of the flood itself?).

2) Turning the tables, it seems better to argue that since Adam's days began on the sixth day then the sixth and seventh days are days like those that make up the 930 years. This makes them normal days in length. And given that all the days of the first week should be defined in the same way (assigned the same duration), then the days of creation week should be understood on a par with the days that made up Adam's life on earth. By historical analogy, it is further argued that Adam's days and the Jewish festive days are the same in their fundamental make up that determines the pace of the succession of moments that transpire within them.

3) The Jews had a calendar of days, weeks, seasons, and years. How would they understand their history if there were a difference in the meaning of days in the tracing back through Abraham, through Noah, through Adam's 930 years to the days of creation?

4A. The difference between coming to be and being

1B. Argument

It is stated that "in every sphere the period of becoming differs remarkably from that of normal growth" (Bavinck, 172). So, "it seems not unlikely; that the second series of three days also differed form our days in many respects" (172).

2B. Reply

Does the difference between the creation period of coming to be as a world system and its normal functioning as a system necessitate the conclusion that the length of the days of creation cannot be the same as the length of days for the system brought into existence? Straightforwardly, this argument assumes that the properties of matter that determine its fundamental behavior must be significantly different during creation week than after it (cf. the first argument above).

1) But this is highly questionable. That is, once vegetation came to be on the third day, what suggests that the properties instilled by creative design are different after creation week was completed and the normal system became operative? What suggests any difference in their relational properties on the remaining days of creation week itself (cf. roots to earth, etc.)? What was created on the third day is good for food on the sixth.

To be sure, the coming to be of vegetation by God's creative command is dramatically different from the functioning of vegetation once it exists. This is just to say that the "laws" operating in creating something are radically distinct from the "laws" in place governing that thing. By creation God instills those laws or properties and by providence He sustains them. But what is it about the difference between creation and providence (making and sustaining) that demands the conclusion that the length of the days in which creation took place and providence began cannot be the same in length as the days now governed by providence?

2) It seems better to turn the tables here and argue that since providential sustaining of things at work in creation week is presumably the same after it, then the properties of matter that determine the succession of moments would be the same in both as well. In the growing complexity of the world system being formed day by day there is continuity beginning with day one to the end of the week. These are extraordinary days and that does not exclude the ordinary; it is built on it (the regular is the context for the extraordinary).

5A. The many events of the sixth day

1B. Statement

Finally, Bavinck argues that too many things took place on the sixth day to allow us to conclude that that day was "a day as we now know the length of days to be" (173; cf. 1:24, land animals created; 1:26, man created; 2;8, garden planted; 2:16, probation command given; 2:20, naming the animals; 2:21, Adam's deep sleep; 2:22, creation of Eve).

2B. Reply

However, the very fact that the sixth day is an extraordinary creation day provides the answer to this line of thought.

1) Things like the creation of animals, the planting of the garden, and the creation of Adam and Eve had an extraordinary character as creative acts. They occurred by divine fiat.

2) But what is to be said about the giving of the probationary command, the sleep of Adam, and the naming of the animals? Of these things only the naming of the animals would involve some duration of time beyond a few moments. But if we grant (for sake of argument) that the sixth day is the same length as the rest of Adam's days on earth then we would have to conclude that the naming of the animals took place within a short period of time (less than a normal day). If we draw this conclusion we need to ask if there is anything in the text that contradicts it. Nothing is said as to how the naming was done or how long it took. What must we assume in order for the naming to disallow a normal length to the sixth day? We must assume that it had to be a greatly prolonged process. But that assumption is unwarranted. Perhaps we can say that it may be true but on what basis do we make this assumption with certainty? The sixth day has extraordinary elements. It was a creation day, a day in which God brought original creation to a close. Adam was given image-bearing qualities and he had them in a sinless state. Surely the assumption that his mind would therefore function in some enhanced way unclouded by sin is reasonable. Also, the naming could have merely begun on the sixth day (i.e. he eventually named them all but got the lesson of being alone early in the sixth day). These facts lead to the conclusion that the naming cannot be used with certainty to exclude a normal passage of time on the sixth day.

6A. The Sabbath is an eternal "day"

1B. Argument

Very simply put, the argument goes like this: "The rest that is God's is ongoing, and it is for us to enter that rest. This is God's Sabbath rest, in which He now lives…God's Sabbath, then, is not a twenty-four hour day. It spans the whole of earth history from the end of the sixth day…and then it goes on into eternity" (Ross, Did God Create in Six Days, 122). Additionally, it is claimed that the lack of a morning/evening refrain at the end of the seventh day shows it to be unending.

2B. Reply

1) However, God's continuing rest beyond the first seventh day in no way excludes an initiation of that continuing Sabbath by resting on a seventh day of ordinary length. That the seventh day is ordinary in length is of course overshadowed by its special nature as a divine inaugural day and therefore by its sanctity and blessedness. Because the first seventh day of earth history is a divine inaugural day (because on it God rested) all the remaining ordinary seventh days of earth history are impacted by the extraordinary character of the first seventh day.

2) What about the evening/morning refrain? Each day extends to a point up to the morning but not including it. Entering the morning (operating within it) means entering into a new day. Each day as a whole includes both daytime and then nighttime. Once the day/night cycle was established, daytime ends with evening (the last part of daylight that closes it) and nighttime ends with morning (cf. 1:3, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31), the dawn of each new day. Evening is the last part of the passing daylight whereas morning is the first part of the coming daylight.

Does the lack of this refrain with respect to the seventh day yield "the simplest conclusion" that the seventh day is unending and so all the days must be of unspecified length (Collins, 137)? I think not. In reply, is it not just as simple to conclude that the lack of a refrain for the seventh day indicates that the narrative is not going on to the eighth day and so forth? For six days in succession the narrative concentrated on what was accomplished each day bringing one day to completion and anticipating the work of the next day. The refrain marks a completed day (evening) and opens the door to the dawn of a new day (morning). But the account of the seventh day breaks that pattern. It looks back over all the stages of creation and it does not look ahead to any further work of creation. A simple explanation is that there is no evening/morning refrain because the narrative is not going to proceed to the eighth day. After the account of the seventh day the narrative shifts to a recap or recapitulation of creation that centers on the creation of Adam and Eve (2:4-25).

Concluding remarks

1) We learn what we are to believe about God

a) This text teaches us that God does extraordinary things within history in a day by day manner. He does extraordinary things within the normal, regular and ordinary unfolding of time from the very beginning. God set history in motion in these extraordinary days of creation. In other words, the fact that such extraordinary things took place in the space of six ordinary days teaches us that God works out His purposes in history in a day by day manner. Creation week shows us that He is pleased to work within history in daily stages. Each day He brings another part of His plan to realization. The steady movement from dawn to dusk through the night and back again to dawn is the context in which God does His work of creation and providence.

To be sure, something is different about providence during creation week from providence after creation week because the sustaining of an incomplete world system and the sustaining of a complete world system are different. The providential maintaining of the day/night cycle for three ordinary days before the creation of the sun and moon is truly extraordinary. But the fact that these are ordinary days as to the succession of moments that took place within them shows the regular operation of providence that is underlying and fundamental from the very beginning. Perhaps we may simply say that the circumstances are extraordinary but the providential working of the Lord that sustains each advancing stage is ordinary. That is the great lesson of the establishment of the daily cycle. Namely, God works within history day by day.

b) His work is thus very deliberate and patient. We cannot hurry Him nor can we slow Him down. The majestic march of days that began with the first day of creation marches on by His sustaining work. The present moment keeps moving into the future by an irresistible force, by the power of His word and command. It is marvelous to think of what is truly being said by the phrase: "One day at a time." God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth is working out His sovereign purposes one day at a time.

c) As He values each day and delights to work within the daily cycle, likewise, He also values each week. The weekly cycle of history is given a value by the Lord in a distinct, unique, and permanent way by the creation narrative. This week stands in a remarkable place in relation to the canon of Scripture and thus in relation to all of redemptive history because it initiates and defines history itself. There is a grand movement from work to rest that promises eternal Sabbath rest at the end of history. He makes and keeps covenant.

d) He values the seventh day in the weekly pattern and honors it. He blessed it and set it apart in the very first week of earth history. Then He blessed the seventh day by making our risen Savior the Lord of the Sabbath on Sunday. So the man of Galilee is the Sabbath king, creator of all, ruler of history, and our redeemer by His death and resurrection.

2) We learn what duty God requires of us

a) God's work in the days of the first week gives us a special sense of value to each unfolding day we experience. I can say and you can say that each day (Monday, Tuesday, and so forth) has value as another day in the outworking of our Savior's deliberate, day by day, way of working out His purposes. So my day, this day, today for me, has a marvelous value even if it is difficult for me to see how that is the case. So, no matter how confusing any given day in my life may be, no matter how apparently worthless and insignificant, it is comforting to know that it is another stage in the outworking of my Savior's plan. I must therefore seize the moment for the glory of Christ, daily. What a great duty/privilege is here.

b) God's work in the days of the first week gives us a special sense of value to the weekly cycle with Sunday as the highpoint of the week. In this pattern of living out my days I honor the Sabbath Day and in honoring the Sabbath Day I honor the Lord Jesus Christ. I must therefore size the moments of this special memorial that centers on Jesus as my risen Sabbath king.

c) We learn to look patiently forward and upward. Patience with circumstances and others is God-like. And we are taught to wait in hope. The deliberate succession of moments and the weekly passing of time lunge forward with the promise of eternal life. Eternal Sabbath rest has been provided by the death and resurrection of the son of man who is also Lord of the Sabbath.