Copyright © 1963 by Westminster
Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
THE DAYS OF GENESIS
EDWARD J.
YOUNG
"WE
do not read in the Gospel", declared Augustine,
"that
the Lord said, ‘I send to you the Paraclete who
will
teach you about the course of the sun and the moon’;
for
he wanted to make Christians, not mathematicians".1
Commenting
on these words, Bavinck remarked that when
the
Scripture, as a book of religion, comes into contact with
other
sciences and sheds its light upon them, it does not then
suddenly
cease to be God's Word but continues to be such.
Furthermore,
he added, "when it speaks about the origin of
heaven
and earth, it presents no saga or myth or poetical
fantasy
but even then, according to its clear intention, presents
history,
which deserves faith and trust. And for that reason,
Christian
theology, with but few exceptions, has held fast
to
the literal, historical view of the account of creation."2
It is of course true that the Bible
is not a textbook of science,
but
all too often, it would seem, this fact is made a pretext
for
treating lightly the content of Genesis one. Inasmuch as
the
Bible is the Word of God, whenever it speaks on any sub-
ject,
whatever that subject may be, it is accurate in what it
says.
The Bible may not have been given to teach science as
such,
but it does teach about the origin of all things, a ques-
1 "Non legitur in Evangelio Dominum
dixisse: Mitto vobis Paracletum
qui
vos doceat de cursu solis et lunae. Christianos enim facere volebat,
non
mathematicos" ("De Actis Cum Felice Manichaeo", Patrologia Latina,
XLII,
col. 525, caput X).
2 "Maar als de Schrift dan toch van
haar standpunt uit, juist als boek
der
religie, met andere wetenschappen in aanraking komt en ook daarover
haar
licht laat schijnen, dan houdt ze niet eensklaps op Gods Woord to
zijn
maar blijft dat. Ook als ze over de wording van hemel en aarde
spreekt,
geeft ze geen sage of mythe of dichterlijke phantasie, maar ook
dan
geeft zij naar hare duidelijke bedoeling historie, die geloof en ver-
trouwen
verdient. En daarom hield de Christelijke theologie dan ook,
op
schlechts enkele uitzonderingen na, aan de letterlijke, historische
opvatting
van het scheppingsverhall vast" (Herman Bavinck: Gerefor-
meerde Dogmatiek, Tweede Deel, Kampen,
1928, p. 458).
2
tion
upon which many scientists apparently have little to
say.
At the present day Bavinck's remarks are particularly
in
order, for recently there has appeared a recrudescence of
the
so-called "framework" hypothesis of the days of Genesis,
an
hypothesis which in the opinion of the writer of this article
treats
the content of Genesis one too lightly and which, at
least
according to some of its advocates, seems to rescue the
Bible
from the position of being in conflict with the data of
modern
science.3 The theory has found advocacy recently
both
by Roman Catholics and by evangelical Protestants.4
It
is the purpose of the present article to discuss this hypothesis
as
it has been presented by some of its most able exponents.
I.
Professor Noordtzij and the "Framework" Hypothesis
In 1924 Professor Arie Noordtzij of
the University of
God's
Word and the Testimony of the Ages.5 It is in many
3 Strack, for example (Die Genesis, 1905, p. 9), wrote, "sie (i. e., what
Strack
calls "die ideale Auffassung") hat den grossen Vorteil, class sie bei
dem
Ver. nicht naturwissenschaftliche Kenntnisse voraussetzt, die er aller
Wahrscheinlichkeit
nach so wenig wie irgendeiner seiner Zeitgenossen
gehabt
hat, and indem sie der Bibel wie der Naturwissenschaft volles
Recht
lasst in Bezug auf das jeder eigentumliche Gebiet, hat sie doch
keinen
Konflikt zwischen beiden zur Folge". Professor N. H. Ridderbos,
who
has written one of the fullest recent discussions of the "framework"
hypothesis
entitles the English translation of his work, Is There a Conflict
Between Genesis 1 and
Natural Science?,
nal
work bears the title, Beschouwingen over Genesis I, Assen.
4 See J. O. Morgan: Moses and Myth,
op.
cit.; Meredith G. Kline: "Because It Had Not Rained",
Theological Journal, Vol. XX, No. 2 (May
1958), pp. 146-157; Bernard
Ramm: The Christian View of Science and Scripture,
which
gives a useful summary of various views (see pp. 222-229).
5 A. Noordtzij: Gods Woord en der Eeuwen Getuigenis. Het Oude Testa-
ment in het Licht der
Oostersche Opgravingen, Kampen, 1924. In "Vragen
Rondom
Genesis en de Naturwetenschappen", Bezinning,
17e Jaargang,
1962,
No. 1, pp. 21 ff., attention is called to the position of Noordtzij.
The
position is described as figurative (figuurlijke), and is opposed by
adducing
the following considerations. 1.) The clear distinction between
Genesis
1 on the one hand and Genesis 2 and 3 in itself is not sufficient
ground
for assuming that one section is to be taken literally, the other not.
2.)
Did the writer of this part of Genesis really desire to make a hard and
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 3
respects
a remarkable book and contains a useful discussion
of
the relationship between the Old Testament and archae-
ological
discoveries. Noordtzij has some interesting things to
say
about the days of Genesis. The Holy Scripture, so he
tells
us, always places the creation in the light of the central
fact
of redemption, Christ Jesus.6 When we examine the first
chapter
of Genesis in the light of other parts of Scripture, it
becomes
clear that the intention is not to give a survey of the
process
of creation, but to permit us to see the creative activity
of
God in the light of his saving acts, and so, in its structure,
the
chapter allows its full light to fall upon man, the crown of
the
creative work.7
Inasmuch as the heaven is of a
higher order than the earth
it
is not subject to a development as is the earth.8 It rather
possesses
its own character and is not to be placed on the
same
plane as the earth. The order of visible things is bound
up
with space and time, but not that of invisible things.
Nor
does the Scripture teach a creation ex
nihilo, but one out
of
God's will.9
That the six days do not have to do
with the course of a
natural
process may be seen, thinks Noordtzij, from the
fast
distinction between the creation account and what follows? The objec-
tion
is summarized: "Sammenvattend zou men kunnen zeggen, dat het
argument:
de schepping is iets totaal anders dan het begin der menschenge-
schiedenis
en daarom
en
3, minder sterk is dan het lijkt" (pp. 23 f.).
6 "Der H. S. stelt het feit
der schepping steeds in het licht van het
centrale
heilsfeit der verlossing, die in Christus Jezus is, hetzij Hij in het
Oude
Verbond profetisch wordt aangekondigd, hetzij die verlossing als
uitgangspunt
voor de eschatalogische ontwikkeling wordt gegrepen"
(op. cit., p. 77).
7 "Zoo dikwijls men echter
Gen. 1 beschouwt in het Iicht van de andere
gedeelten
der H. S., wordt het duidelijk, dat hier niet de bedoeling voorzit
om
ons een overzicht to geven van het scheppingsproces, maar om ons de
scheppende
werkzaamheid Gods to doen zien in het licht zijner heilsge-
dachten,
waarom het dan ook door zijn structuur het voile licht doet
vallen
op den mensch, die als de kroon is van het scheppingswerk" (op.
cit., pp. 77 f.).
8 "Maar nu is de hemel, wijl
van een andere en hoogere orde dan deze
aarde,
niet aan ontwikkeling onderworpen gelijk deze aarde" (op. cit., p. 78).
9 "De H. S. leert ons dan
ook niet een „scheppen uit niets" maar een
scheppen
uit een kracht: de wil Gods (Openb.
4:11)" (op. cit., p. 79).
4
manner
in which the writer groups his material. We are given
two
trios which exhibit a pronounced parallelism, all of which
has
the purpose of bringing to the fore the preeminent glory
of
man, who actually reaches his destiny in the sabbath, for
the
sabbath is the point in which the creative work of God
culminates
and to which it attains.10 The six days show that
the
process of origins is to be seen in the light of the highest
and
last creation of this visible world, namely, man, and with
man
the entire cosmos is placed in the light of the seventh
day
and so in the light of dedication to God himself.11 What is
significant
is not the concept "day", taken by itself, but rather
the
concept of "six plus one".
Inasmuch as the writer speaks of evenings and
mornings
previous
to the heavenly bodies of the fourth day, continues
Noordtzij,
it is clear that he uses the terms "days" and
"nights"
as a framework (kader). Such a division of time is
a
projection not given to show us the account of creation in
its
natural historical course, but, as elsewhere in the Holy
Scriptures,
to exhibit the majesty of the creation in the light
of
the great saving purpose of God 12 The writer takes his
10 "De schepping is
aangelegd op het groote, geestelijke goed, dat zich
in
de sabbatsgedachte belichaamt. Daarom en daarom alleen is er in
Gen.
1 van 6 dagen sprake, waarop de sabbat volgt als de dag bij uitnemend-
heid,
wijl het Gods dag is" (op. cit.,
p. 81).
11 "dat Genesis 1 het
wordingsproces ziet in het licht van het hoogste
en
laatste schepsel dezer zichtbare wereld: den mensch, en dat met then
mensch
heel de kosmos gesteld wordt in het licht van den 7den dag en
dus
in het licht van de wijding aan God zelven" (op. cit., p. 79). Even if
the
entire emphasis, however, were to fall upon the seventh day, it would
not
follow that the six days did not correspond to reality. On the con-
trary,
the reality of the sabbath as a creation ordinance is grounded upon
the
reality of the six days' work. If the seventh day does not correspond
to
reality, the basis for observance of the sabbath is removed. Note the
connection
in Exodus 20:8 ff., "Remember the day of the Sabbath to keep
it
holy," "and he rested on the seventh day."
It should further be noted that the phrase tBAwa.ha
MOy is not
used in
Genesis
1:1-2:3, nor is there anything in the text which shows that the
six
days are mentioned merely for the sake of emphasizing the concept of
the
sabbath. Man, it is well to remember, was not made for the sabbath,
but
the sabbath for man (cf. Mk. 2:27).
Genesis 1:1-2:3 says nothing about
man's
relation to the sabbath. Man was not created for the sabbath, but
to
rule the earth.
12 "De tijdsindeeling is een
projectie, gebezigd niet om ons het
scheppings-
verhaal
in zijn natuurhistorisch verloop to teekenen maar om evenals elders
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 5
expressions
from the full and rich daily life of his people, for
the
Holy Spirit always speaks the words of God in human
language.
Why then, we may ask, are the six days mentioned?
The
answer, according to Noordtzij, is that they are only
mentioned
to prepare us for the seventh day.
In reply to this interpretation, the late
Professor G. C.
Aalders
of the Free University of Amsterdam had some cogent
remarks
to make. Desirous as he was of being completely fair
to
Noordtzij, Aalders nevertheless declared that he was com-
pelled
to understand Noordtzij as holding that as far as the
days
of Genesis are concerned, there was no reality with re-
spect
to the divine creative activity.13 Aalders then adduced
two
considerations which must guide every serious interpreter
of
the first chapter of Genesis. (1) In the text of Genesis
itself,
he affirmed, there is not a single allusion to suggest
that
the days are to be regarded as a form or mere manner of
representation
and hence of no significance for the essential
knowledge
of the divine creative activity. (2) In Exodus
20:11
the activity of God is presented to man as a pattern,
and
this fact presupposes that there was a reality in the
activity
of God which man is to follow. How could man be
held
accountable for working six days if God himself had not
actually
worked for six days?14 To the best of the present
writer's
knowledge no one has ever answered these two con-
siderations
of Aalders.
in
de H.S. ons de heerlijkheid der schepselen to teekenen in het licht van
het
groote heilsdoel Gods" (op. cit.,
p. 80).
13 "Wij kunnen dit niet
anders verstaan dat ook naar het oordeel van
Noordtzij
aan de „dagen" geen realiteit in betrekking tot de Goddelijke
scheppingswerkzaamheid
toekomt" (G. Ch. Aalders: De
Goddelijke Open-
baring in de eerste drie
Hoofdstukken van Genesis, Kampen, 1932, p. 233).
14 "1°, dat de tekst van
Gen. 1 zelf geen enkele aanvijzing bevat, dat de
dagen
slechts als een vorm of voorstellingswijze zouden bedoeld zijn en
derhalve
voor de wezenlijke kennis van de Goddelijke scheppingswerkzaam-
heid
geen waarde zouden hebben: en 2° dat in Ex. 20:11 het doen Gods
aan
den mensch tot voorbeeld wordt gesteld; en dit veronderstelt zeer
zeker,
dat in dat doen Gods een realiteit is geweest, welke door den mensch
hun
worden nagevolgd. Hoe zou den mensch kunnen worden voorgehouden
dat
hij na zes dagen arbeiden op den zevenden dag moet rusten, omdat
God
in zes dagen alle dingen geschapen heeft en rustte op den zevenden
dag,
indien aan die zes scheppingsdagen in het Goddelijk scheppingswerk
geen
enkele realiteit beantwoordde?" (op.
cit., p. 232).
6
II. Preliminary Remarks About Genesis One
Before we attempt to evaluate the arguments
employed in
defense
of a non-chronological view of the days of Genesis
one,
it is necessary to delineate briefly what we believe to
be
the nature of the Bible's first chapter. We may begin by
asking
whether Genesis one is a special revelation from God
in
the sense that it is a communication of information to
man
from God concerning the subjects of which it treats.
This
question has been answered in the negative by John L.
McKenzie,
S.J. in a recent article. "It is not a tenable view
that
God in revealing Himself also revealed directly and in
detail
the truth about such things as creation and the fall of
man;
the very presence of so many mythical elements in their
traditions
is enough to eliminate such a view".15 If, however,
this
view of special revelation cannot be held, what alternative
does
Professor McKenzie offer? The alternative, it would
seem,
is to look upon Genesis one as in reality a human
composition,
although McKenzie does not use just these terms.
According
to him Genesis one is a retreatment of a known
myth,
in which the writer has radically excised the mythical
elements
and has "written an explicit polemic against the
creation
myth". The polytheism, theogony, theomachy and
the
"creative combat" are removed so that now the act of
creation
is "achieved in entire tranquility".16
What then are we to call the first chapter of
Genesis after
these
various pagan elements have been excised? It is not
history
for "it is impossible to suppose that he (i. e., the
Hebrew)
had historical knowledge of either of these events"
(i.
e., either of the creation or the deluge).17 Nor can Genesis
one
really be called a theological reconstruction or interpreta-
tion.18
What then is this first chapter of Genesis? Actually
15 John L. McKenzie, S.J.:
"Myth and the Old Testament", in The
Catholic Biblical
Quarterly,
Vol. XXI, July 1959, p. 281.
16 Op. cit., p. 277. This position is widely held; cf. Young,
"'The Interpre-
tation
of Genesis 1:2", Westminster
Theological Journal, Vol. XXIII,
May
1961, pp. 151-178, where references to relevant literature will be
found.
17 Op. cit., p. 278.
18 But cf. Gerhard von Rad: Das erste Buch Mose, Genesis Kapitel 1-25,
18,
1953, p. 36, "es (i. e., the creation account) ist Lehre, die in
langsamsten,
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 7
it
is a story which the Hebrews told in place of the story
which
it displaced. It is not, however, a single story, but
rather
represents a multiple approach, and each of its images
has
value as an intuition of creation's reality. These images
are
symbolic representations of a reality which otherwise
would
not be known or expressed. The knowledge of God the
Hebrews
possessed through the revelation of himself, and in
their
handling of the creation account they sought to remove
everything
that was out of accord with their conception of
God.
They did possess a knowledge of God but, even so, the
unknown
remained unknown and mysterious. In speaking of
the
unknown, therefore, all the Hebrews could do was "to
represent
through symbolic forms the action of the unknown
reality
which they perceived mystically, not mythically,
through
His revelation of Himself".19
McKenzie's rejection of the view that Genesis
one is a
special
revelation from the one living and true God is some-
what
facile. He brings only one argument against that posi-
tion,
namely, the assumption that there are mythological
elements
in the first chapter of the Bible.20
Elsewhere we have sought to demonstrate the
untenable-
ness
of the view that there are mythical elements in the first
chapter
of the Bible.21
If, however, one rejects the position that
Genesis one is a
special
revelation of God, as Professor McKenzie does, a
number
of pertinent questions remain unanswered. For one
thing,
why cannot God have revealed to man the so-called
area
of the unknown? Why, in other words, can God not have
told
man in simple language just what God did in creating
the
heaven and the earth?22 What warrant is there for the
jahrhundertelangem
Wachstum sich behutsam angereichert hat". Despite
this
sentence, it is not clear that the positions of von Rad and McKenzie
are
essentially different.
19 Op. cit., p. 281.
20 K. Popma: "Enkele voorslagen
betreffende de exegese van Genesis
1-3",
in Lucerna, 30 Jaargang, no. 2, p. 632, speaks of this as exegesis
"die
haar naam niet meer waard is; t.w. diverse opvattingen van sage,
mythe,
e.d.".
21 Cf. Young: op. cit.
22 In Bezinning, loc. cit., p.
23, the wholesome remark is made, "welke
daad
Gods, op welk moment in de menselijke historie, is niet to wonderlijk
8
assumption
that the unknown could only be represented
through
symbolic forms? Furthermore, if the Hebrews were
guided
in their handling of the creation by the conceptions of
God
which they held, whence did they obtain those concep-
tions?
Were they communicated in words from God himself,
as
when he said, "Ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy"
(Leviticus
11:45b), or did they adopt them as a result of their
reaction
to events in the world which they thought represented
the
acting of God in power? How could the Hebrews know
that
the conceptions of God which they possessed actually
corresponded
to reality?
McKenzie's article shows what difficulties arise
when one
rejects
the historic position of the Christian Church, and
indeed
of the Bible itself, that Scripture, in the orthodox sense,
is
the Word of God and a revelation from him. As soon as
one
makes the assumption that Genesis one is really the
work
of man, he is hard pressed to discover the lessons that
the
chapter can teach. If the work is of human origination,
how
can it have a theological message or be regarded in any
sense
as the Word of God?
The position adopted in this article is that the
events
recorded
in the first chapter of the Bible actually took place.
They
were historical events, and Genesis one, therefore, is
to
be regarded as historical. In employing the word "his-
torical",
we are rejecting the definition which would limit the
word
to that which man can know through scientific investiga-
tion
alone.23 We are using the
word rather as including all
om
haar enigermate letterlijk in onze taal to beschrijven? Is de vleeswording
des
Woords, is de bekering van ons hart minder wonderlijk dan de schepping
van
hemel en aarde?" Those who reject the historic Christian position
that
Scripture is a special revelation from God and yet still wish to regard
the
Scripture as the Word of God have no adequate criterion by which to
judge
the nature of Scripture. Thus, Ralph H. Elliott, The Message of
Genesis,
that
it was up to succeeding generations to translate this event into mean-
ing
"as they analyzed the event and as they comprehended God". But
how
can one be sure that they analyzed the event correctly or that they
comprehended
God correctly unless God himself told them how to do this?
23 Cf. e. g., W. F. Albright: From the Stone Age to Christianity.
1957,
p. 399, and a discussion of this view in Young: Thy Word Is Truth,
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 9
which
has transpired. Our knowledge of the events of creation
we
receive through the inscripturated revelation of God.
The
defense of this position will be made as the argument
progresses.
At this point, however, it may be well to note
that
the New Testament looks upon certain events of the
creative
week as genuinely historical. The creation itself is
attributed
to the Word of God (Hebrews 11:3), and Peter
refers
to the emerging of the earth as something that had
actually
taken place (II Peter 3:5b).24 There is no question
in
Paul's mind about the historicity of God's first fiat (II
Corinthians
4:6). According to Paul, the same God who
commanded
the light to shine out of darkness has also shined
in
the hearts of believers. Hebrews 6:725 seems to reflect upon
the
bringing forth of herbs on the third day, and Acts 17:24
to
the work of filling the earth with its inhabitants. Likewise
I
Corinthians 11:7 asserts that man is the image of God, and
his
creation is specifically mentioned in Matthew 19:4.
It is furthermore necessary to say a word about
the relation-
ship
between Scripture and science. For one thing it is difficult
to
escape the impression that some of those who espouse a
non-chronological
view of the days of Genesis are moved by a
desire
to escape the difficulties which exist between Genesis
and
the so-called "findings" of science.26 That such
difficulties
24 Commenting on II Peter 3:5b,
Bigg, (The International Critical Com-
mentary,
the
emerging of the earth from the waters (Gen. i.9) in which it had lain
buried,
and the majority of commentators appear to adopt this explana-
tion".
Bigg, himself, however, thinks that the reference is to the material
from
which the earth was made. In this interpretation we think that Bigg
is
mistaken. What is clear, however, is that Peter is referring to the event
in
Genesis, as something that actually occurred. 1 o Peter the event which
he
describes as gh? e]c u!datoj kai> di ] u!datoj
sunestw?sa was
just as his-
torical
as that which he relates in the words di ] w$n o[
to<te ko<smoj u!dati
kataklusqei>j a]pw<leto.
25 James Moffatt (The
International Critical Commentary,
1924,
p. 81) thinks that Hebrews 6:7 contains reminiscences of the words
of
Genesis 1:12.
26 Cf. Morgan: op. cit., pp. 17-46.
The chronological order of Genesis
is
thought to be practically the reverse of that of geology (p. 36). Morgan
mentions
four attempts to "effect a conciliation between the postulates
of
the natural sciences and the Mosaic cosmogony" (p. 36). One of these
is
described as ingenious, "but it must inevitably prove unacceptable to
the
scientist" (p. 37). The Idealist theory in its various forms is said to
10
do
exist cannot be denied, and their presence is a concern to
every
devout and thoughtful student of the Bible.27 It is for
this
reason that one must do full justice both to Scripture and
to
science.
Recently there has been making its appearance in
some
evangelical
circles the view that God has, in effect, given one
revelation
in the Bible and another in nature. Each of these
in
its own sphere is thought to be authoritative. It is the work
of
the theologian to interpret Scripture and of the scientist to
interpret
nature. "Whenever", as Dr. John Whitcomb de-
scribes
it, "there is apparent conflict between the conclusions of
the
scientist and the conclusions of the theologian, especially
with
regard to such problems as the origin of the universe,
solar
system, earth, animal life, and man; the effects of the
Edenic
curse; and the magnitude and effects of the Noahic
Deluge,
the theologian must rethink his interpretation of the
Scriptures
at these points in such a way as to bring it into
harmony
with the general consensus of scientific opinion on
these
matters, since the Bible is not a textbook on science,
and
these problems overlap the territory in which science
alone
must give us the detailed and authoritative answers”.28
It
would be difficult to state this approach more concisely
and
accurately. One manifestation thereof maybe found in a
recent
issue of Bezinning, in which the
entire number is de-
be
more satisfactory, and Lattey's view (i. e., a form of the non-chrono-
logical
hypothesis) is described as "eminently satisfying" (p. 39).
27 It certainly cannot be
expected of any mere man that he possess
sufficient
knowledge to state accurately the full relationship between
Genesis
and the study of God's created phenomena, let alone that he be
expected
to resolve whatever difficulties may appear. A truly humble
student
will acknowledge his ignorance and will make it his aim to be
faithful
to the holy and infallible words of Scripture.' Marty of the alleged
difficulties,
such as the creation of light before the sun, are really not basic
difficulties
at all, for there are at hand reasonable explanations thereof.
And
let it be remembered that scientists often adduce as "facts" that
which,
as a result of further research, turns out not to be fact at all. The
treatment
of this question in Bezinning (loc. cit., especially pp. 16 ff.) is
in
many respects unsatisfactory and disappointing.
28 John C. Whitcomb, Jr.: Biblical Inerrancy and the Double Revelation
Theory, Presidential Address
given at the Seventh General Meeting of
the
Midwestern Section of the Evangelical Theological Society, May 4,
1962,
Moody Bible Institute.
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 11
voted
to the subject, "Questions Concerning Genesis and the
Sciences".29
In the introduction to this work we are told
that
a conflict between Genesis and science can only be avoided
when
we maintain that the Bible is not a textbook of science
but
"salvation-history", and that the writers of the Bible
spoke
with the language and in the pictures of their time.30
What strikes one immediately upon reading such a
state-
ment
is the low estimate of the Bible which it entails. When-
ever
"science" and the Bible are in conflict, it is always the
Bible
that, in one manner or another, must give way. We are
not
told that "science" should correct its answers in the light
of
Scripture. Always it is the other way round. Yet this is
really
surprising, for the answers which scientists have pro-
vided
have frequently changed with the passing of time.
The
"authoritative" answers of pre-Copernican scientists are
no
longer acceptable; nor, for that matter, are many of the
views
of twenty-five years ago.
To enter into a full critique of this thoroughly
unscriptural
and,
therefore, untenable position, would be out of place in
the
present article.31 There is, however, one consideration
that
must be noted, namely, that the approach which we are
now
engaged in discussing is one which leaves out of account
the
noetic effects of sin. It is true that the heavens declare
the
glory of God, but the eyes of man's understanding, blinded
by
sin, do not read the heavens aright. The noetic effects of
sin
lead to anti-theistic presuppositions and inclinations. We
must
remember that much that is presented as scientific fact
29 Op. cit., pp. 1-57.
30 "Een conflict tussen
Genesis en wetenschap
geval
worden vermeden wanneer men vasthoudt dat de Bijbel geen hand-
boek
is voot natuurwetenschap, maar Heilshistorie, en dat volgens het
woord
van Calvijn, God in de H. Schrift tot ons spreekt als een moeder
tot
haar kinderen" (op. cit., p. 2). Cf. Herman Ridderbos' discussion,
"Belangrijke
publikatie" in Gereformeerd
Weekblad, Zeventiende Jaargang,
Nr.
40, p. 314, and the valuable remarks of Visee, in Lucerna, loc. cit.,
pp.
638-639. Particularly timely is his comment, "De Schrift verhaalt
ons
heilsfeiten, maar deze waarheid houdt ook in dat we hier met feiten
to
doen hebben" (p. 639).
31 Cf. Cornelius Van Til: The Defense of the Faith, Phila., 1955.
Visee
(op.
cit., p. 641) rightly applies the old and pertinent rule, "Lees wat er
staat,
en versta wat ge leest".
12
is
written from a standpoint that is hostile to supernatural
Christianity.
In the nature of the case God's revelation does
not conflict
with
itself. His revelation in nature and that in Scripture are
in
perfect accord. Man, however, is a rational creature, and
needs
a revelation in words that he may properly understand
himself
and his relation to the world in which he lives. Even
in
his unfallen state, God gave to Adam a word-revelation, for
by
his very constitution as an intellectual being, man must
have
such. The word-revelation, therefore, must interpret
revelation
in nature. Fallen man must read general revelation
in
the light of Scripture, else he will go basically astray. Of
course
the Bible is not a textbook of science, but the Bible is
necessary
properly to understand the purpose of science.
Perhaps
one may say that it is a textbook of the philosophy
of
science. And on whatever subject the Bible speaks, whether
it
be creation, the making of the sun, the fall, the flood, man's
redemption,
it is authoritative and true. We are to think
God's
thoughts after him, and his thoughts are expressed in
the
words of Scripture. When these thoughts have to do with
the
origin of man, we are to think them also. They alone
must
be our guide. "Therefore", says Calvin, "while it be-
comes
man seriously to employ his eyes in considering the
works
of God, since a place has been assigned him in this
most
glorious theatre that he may be a spectator of them,
his
special duty is to give ear to the Word, that he may the
better
profit".32 And what Calvin so beautifully states, God
himself
had already made known to us through the Psalmist,
"The
entrance of thy words giveth light" (Psalm 119:130).
By way of summary we may state the three basic
considera-
tions
which will undergird the position adopted in this article.
1.
Genesis one is a special revelation from God.
2. Genesis one is historical; it relates matters
which actually
occurred.
3. In the nature of the case, general revelation
is to be
interpreted
by special revelation, nature by Scripture,
"science"
by the Bible.
32 Institutes of the Christian Religion,
translated
by Henry Beveridge.
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 13
III. Evaluation of Arguments used to Defend
the "Framework"
Hypothesis
1.
The Use of Anthropomorphic Language
In defense of the non-chronological hypothesis
it is argued
that
God speaks anthropomorphically. "Is ... the author not
under
the necessity", asks Professor N. H. Ridderbos, "of
employing
such a method, because this is the only way to
speak
about something that is really beyond all human
thoughts
and words?"33 And again, "Does the author mean to
say
that God completed creation in six days, or does he make
use
of an anthropomorphic mode of presentation?"34
If we understand this argument correctly, it is
that the
mention
of six days is merely an anthropomorphic way of
speaking.
We are not to interpret it, as did Luther and
Calvin,
to mean that God actually created in six days, but
merely
to regard it as an anthropomorphic mode of speech.
Genesis
2:7, for example, speaks of God forming the body of
man
of dust from the ground, but this does not mean that God
acted
as a potter, nor does Genesis 3:21 in stating that God
clothed
Adam and his wife mean to say that God acted as
a
"maker of fur-clothes". Again, when we are told that God
rested
(Genesis 2:2) are we to infer that "God had to exert
Himself
to create the world?”35
It is of course true that the term
"anthropomorphism" has
often
been employed with reference to such phrases as "the
mouth
of the Lord", "and God said", "and God saw", and other
similar
expressions.36 It is certainly true that God did not
33 "The Meaning of Genesis
I", in Free University Quarterly,
Vol. IV,
1955/1957,
p. 222 (hereafter abbreviated Quarterly).
34 Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 And Natural Science?, p. 30
(hereafter
abbreviated Conflict). Ridderbos gives three examples of
"anthropomorphisms".
35 Op. cit., p. 30.
36 A series of penetrating
articles on the question of anthropomorphism
by
G. Visee appeared in De Reformatie
(28e Jaargang, Nos. 34-43, 1953)
under
the title "Over het anthropomorphe spreken Gods in de heilige
Schrift".
He concludes that to talk of an "anthropomorphic" revelation
in
the usual sense of the word is not justifiable, and that it is better not to
use
the term. In Lucerna (loc. cit., pp.
636 f.) he writes, "Ik ontken en
bestrijd
heel de idee van een „anthropomorphe" openbaring. God heeft
14
speak
with physical organs of speech nor did he utter words
in
the Hebrew language. Are we, however, for that reason,
to
come to the conclusion that the language is merely figurative
and
does not designate a specific divine activity or reality?
If we were so to conclude we would not be doing
justice
to
the Scriptures. The phrases which have just been quoted
are
not devoid of significance and meaning. Rather, the state-
ment,
"and God said", to take one example, represents a
genuine
activity upon the part of God, a true and effectual
speaking
which accomplishes his will.37 There are at least two
reasons
which substantiate this conclusion. In the first place
genuine
content is attributed to God's speaking, namely, the
words,
"Let there be light". This is strengthened by the
remarkable
usage which Paul makes of the passage in II
Corinthians
4:6a.38 In the second place, that which God
speaks
brings his will to pass. It is powerful and efficacious.
"For
he spake and it was done; he commanded, and it stood
fast"
(Psalm 33:9); "Through faith we understand that the
worlds
were framed by the word of God" (Hebrews 11:3a).
These
passages teach that the Word of God is efficacious.39
van
het begin der wereld aan in mensentaal gesproken en gezegd wat Hij
to
zeggen had in de taal, welker vorming hij blijkens Genesis 2:19 opzettelijk
aan
de mens had overgelaten".
37 With respect to the words
"and God saw", Keil comments that it
"is
not an anthropomorphism at variance with enlightened thoughts of
God;
for man's seeing has its type in God's, and God's seeing is not a
mere
expression of delight of the eye or of pleasure in His work, but is of
the
deepest significance to every created thing, being the seal of the perfec-
tion
which God has impressed. upon it, and by which its continuance before
God
and through God is determined" (Biblical Commentary on the Old
Testament,
38 According to Paul, the content
of God's speaking (o[ ei]pw<n) is found
in
the words e]k sko<touj fw?j la<myei. In this remarkable
utterance
Paul
also emphasizes the distinction between light and darkness. Perhaps
a
reflection of the truth that God spoke is found on the Shabaka stone, in
which
Atum's coming into being is attributed to the heart and tongue of
Ptah.
Cf. James Pritchard: Ancient Near Eastern
Texts,
p.
5a.
39 Cf. also Deut. 8:3; I Kg.
8:56; Ps. 105:8; 119:50; 147:15; Isa. 45:23;
55:11
ff.; Matt. 24:35; Lk. 4:32; 24:19; Heb. 4:12; I Pet. 1:23; II Pet. 3:5.
In
these passages it is well to note the connection between word and deed.
The
word is powerful and accomplishes the purpose for which it was
spoken.
It is also necessary, however, to note that there is no power re-
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 15
Hence,
whatever be the term that we employ to characterize
such
a phrase as "and God said", we must insist that the
phrase
represents an effectual divine activity which may very
properly
be denominated “speaking”.40
It is necessary, however, to examine the extent
of "an-
thropomorphism"
in the passages adduced by Professor Rid-
derbos.
If the term "anthropomorphic" may legitimately be
used
at all, we would say that whereas it might apply to some
elements
of Genesis 2:7, it does not include all of them. In
other
words, if anthropomorphism is present, it is not present
in
each element of the verse. The words "and God breathed"
may
be termed anthropomorphic,41 but that is the extent to
which
the term may be employed. The man was real, the dust
was
real, the ground was real as was also the breath of life.
To
these elements of the verse the term "anthropomorphism"
cannot
legitimately be applied. Nor can everything in Genesis
3:21
be labeled with the term "anthropomorphic". We need
but
think, for example, of the man and the woman and the
coats
of skin.
What, then, shall we say about the
representation of the
first
chapter of Genesis that God created the heaven and
siding
in the word conceived as an independent entity divorced from God.
God's
Word is powerful because God himself gives power to it, and brings
to
pass what he has promised. If the same "Word" were spoken by any-
one
other than God, it would not accomplish what it does when spoken
by
him.
40 At the same time we cannot
state specifically what this speaking of
God
is. There is an infinite difference between God's speaking and man's.
Although
both may legitimately be designated "speaking", yet they cannot
be
identified, for man as a finite being speaks as a creature; the speaking of
God
on the other hand is that of an infinite being.
41 The phrase "and God
formed" is not merely figurative and devoid of
meaning.
Although with physical hands God did not form the body of
Adam,
nevertheless, God did produce Adam's body from the dust in such
a
way that his action may accurately be designated a "forming".
Even
the words "and God breathed" indicate a definite action on God's
part.
The divine breathing was not accomplished by means of physical,
material
organs. It was a divine, not a human, breathing. Although the
term
"anthropomorphic" may be applied to the phrase "and God
breathed",
nevertheless, the phrase is not empty of content. This is true,
even
though one cannot state precisely what the divine breathing was.
Cf.
Visee, op. cit., pp. 636 f.
16
the
earth in six days? Is this anthropomorphic language? We
would
answer this question in the negative, for the word
anthropomorphic,
if it is a legitimate word at all, can be
applied
to God alone and cannot properly be used of the six
days.
In speaking of six days Moses may conceivably have
been
employing figurative, literal, or poetical language, but
it
was not anthropomorphic. Hence, we do not believe that
it
is accurate to speak of the six days as an anthropomorphic
mode
of expression.
From the presence of "anthropomorphic"
words or ex-
pressions
in Genesis one, it does not follow that the mention
of
the days is anthropomorphic nor does it follow that the
days
are to be understood in a topical or non-chronological
order
rather than chronologically. If the days are to be in-
terpreted
non-chronologically, the evidence for this must be
something
other than the presence of anthropomorphisms in
the
first chapter of Genesis. The occurrence of anthropomor-
phic
language in Genesis one in itself, if such language really
does
occur, sheds no light one way or another upon the ques-
tion
whether the days are to be understood topically or chrono-
logically.
For that matter even the presence of figurative
language
or of a schematic arrangement, taken by themselves,
would
not warrant the conclusion that the days were not
chronological.
2.
The Appeal to Genesis 2:5
One of the strongest arguments in favor of a
nonchrono-
logical
order of the days is thought to be found in an appeal
to
Genesis 2:5.42 The presupposition of this verse, it is held,
is
that during the period of creation divine providence was
in
operation "through processes which any reader would
recognize
as normal in the natural world of his day".43 If in
Genesis
2:5 ff. there is embedded the principle that God's
providence
during the creation period operated in the same
manner
as it does at the present time, then the view that the
days
of Genesis one were twenty-four hours in length would
42 Kline: op. cit., pp. 146-157.
43 Op.
Cit., p. 150.
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 17
scarcely
be tenable. For, to take an example, if the third
day
began with an earth covered with water and then in the
course
of that day dry land emerged, the evaporation would
have
to take place at such a rate of speed that it would not be
the
normal ordinary working of divine providence. Even if
the
days be regarded as longer than twenty-four hours, so the
argument
runs, difficulty appears, for then we must hold
that
there was vegetation without the sun.
The question to be considered is whether upon
the basis of
Genesis
2:5 we are justified in believing that the method in
which
divine providence operated during the creation period
was
the same as that in effect at present. To answer this
question
it is necessary to consider briefly the relation of
Genesis
1 and 2. In the first place Genesis two is not, nor does
it
profess to be, a second account of creation.44 Although it
does
mention creative acts, it is a sequel to the creation narra-
tive
of Genesis one and a preparation for the history of the
fall
contained in chapter 3. This is proved by the phrase
"These
are the generations of the heavens and the earth"
(Gen.
2:4a).
To understand the significance of this phrase we
must note
the
word tOdl;OT in which is obviously derived from dlayA, "to
bear",
and in the Hiph'il stem with which it is related, the
meaning
is "to beget". The tOdl;OT therefore are "those
things
which are begotten", and Genesis 2:4a should then be
translated
literally, "These are the things begotten of heaven
and
earth". The section of Genesis beginning with 2:4 is an
44 This statement is made in the
light of the constant affirmations to
the
contrary. Thus, Ralph H. Elliott: op. cit.,
p. 28 speaks of "The First
or
Priestly Account of Creation (1:1 to 2:4a)" and "The Second Creation
Account
(2:4b-25)" (p. 41). Perhaps it is an encouraging sign that von
Rad
labels 2:4b-25 "Die jahwistische Geschichte von Paradies" (Das
erste Buch Mose,
"The
Yahwistic Story of Paradise" (Genesis,
translated
by John H. Marks, p. 71). On the other hand the following
comment
of von Rad is very disappointing, "Die kosmologischen Vorstel-
lungen,
von denen unser jahwistischer Schopfungsbericht ausgeht, sind
also
sehr verschieden von denen, die uns bei P. begegnet sind and mussen
aus
einem ganz anderen Uberlieferungskreis stammen" (op. cit., p. 61).
Once,
however, we abandon the untenable documentary hypothesis and
recognize
the true nature of Genesis, we can understand the proper rela-
tionship
between the first and second chapters.
18
account
of those things which are begotten of heaven and
earth.
This is not to say that it is silent on the subject of the
heaven
and earth themselves, but it is not an account of their
origin.45
It deals rather with what was begotten of them,
namely,
man, whose body is of the earth and whose soul is of
heavenly
origin, inbreathed by God himself.46
It is necessary to examine more closely the
usage of this
phrase
in Genesis. Genesis is divided into two great sections
I.
The Creation of Heaven and Earth, and II. The Genera-
tions.
The second section is again subdivided into ten sections
each
being introduced with the word tOdl;OT. In each case
this
word indicates the result or product, that which is pro-
duced.
With the genitive, however, in this case "the heavens
and
the earth", Moses refers to a point of beginning.47 In
Genesis
11:27, for example, we read, "these are the generations
of
Terah". This does not mean that we are now introduced
to
an account of Terah ; rather, the account of Terah is com-
pleted.
There may, indeed, be certain statements about Terah
to
follow, but the section before us is concerned with an ac-
count
of those begotten of Terah, in this case, Abraham.
Genesis 2:4 in effect declares that the account
of the creation
45 Skinner (The International
Critical Commentary, Genesis,
1925,
p. 40) states that it is doubtful whether the word ni-i5in can bear
the
meaning "origin". Driver (The
Book of Genesis, London, 1926, p. 19)
asserts
that "generations" is applied metaphorically to "heaven and
earth"
and
denotes the things which "might be regarded metaphorically as pro-
ceeding
from them, . . . i. e., just the contents of ch. 1". Such, however,
is
not the force of the phrase.
It is practically an axiom of modern
negative criticism that 2:4a belongs
to
the so-called P document. What follows, however, is said to be JE.
Hence,
it is claimed, 2:4a cannot be a superscription to 2:4b ff. Von Rad
(op.
cit., p. 49) candidly acknowledges this. But why may not Moses have
employed
previously existing documents and himself have united them by
means
of the phrase tOdl;OT hl.Axe? Is there any reason
why 2:4a cannot
serve
as a superscription to the second section of Genesis? Why in the
interests
of a supposed diversity of documents destroy a fundamental
unity
as clear-cut and beautiful as that which underlies the structure of
Genesis?
46 Cf. William Henry Green: The Unity of the Book of Genesis,
1895,
pp. 7-20.
47 This phrase has been most
competently discussed in recent times by
B.
Holwerda: Dictaten, Deel I, Historia Revelationis Veteris Testamenti,
Eerste
Aflevering, Kampen, 1954, pp. 9-17.
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 19
of
heaven and earth is completed, and that the author is now
going
to focus his attention upon what was begotten of heaven
and
earth, namely, man. It is in the light of this fact that
Genesis
2:5 is to be understood. The primary reference of
this
verse is to man, not to the creation, and the purpose of
chapter
2 is to manifest the goodness of God in giving to man
a
paradise for his earthly dwelling. "The earth is the Lord's
and
the fulness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein"
(Ps.
24:1). Although the earth is the Lord's and although he
might
cause man to dwell on it where he would, nevertheless
he
prepared a wondrous garden for his guest. To emphasize
the
beauty of the garden, but above all the goodness of God,
a
contrast is introduced. Man is to dwell as God's guest not
in
a waterless waste, but in a planted garden. The waterless
ground
of Genesis 2:5 stands in contrast to the well-watered
Two reasons are given why plants had not yet
grown.
On
the one hand it had not rained, and on the other there
was
no man to till the ground. The garden cannot be planted
until
the ground has been watered, nor can it be tended until
man
is on hand. Both of these reasons, therefore, look for-
ward
to man's home, the garden, and to the one who is to
inhabit
that garden. At this point, however, an exegetical
question
arises. Does Genesis 2:5 intend to state that the
entire
earth was barren, or is its purpose rather to show that
in
contrast to a waterless waste, the abode of man was to be
a
garden? Perhaps this question cannot be settled entirely,
and
it is the part of wisdom not be dogmatic, although the
latter
alternative has much to commend it.49
48 The theme of refreshing waters
is carried throughout Scripture. In
particular
we may note Exodus 17:6; Ps. 65:9; Prov. 21:1; Isa. 12:3; 32:2;
Jn.
4:10 ff., 7:38; Rev. 21:6; 22:1, 17. Visee makes a pertinent comment
(loc.
cit., p. 638), "Genoemde gegevens weerspreken elke gedachte als zou
het
in deze hoofdstukken verhaalde passen in een, primitief milieu, een
door
de cultuur nog niet opengelegd en onontslaten gebied". T. C. Mitchell
("Archaeology
and Genesis I-XI", Faith and Thought,
Vol. 91, No. 1,
Summer
1959, pp. 28-49) gives an interesting discussion of this question.
49 Some commentators assume that
the reference is to the entire earth.
Procksch,
however (Die Genesis ubersetzt and erklart,
Leipzig, 1913, p. 21),
states
that "das Weltbild ist bier dem Steppenlande entnommen". hd,WA,
is
"not 'the widespread plain of the earth, the broad expanse of land,'
20
Whichever of these positions we adopt, we may
note that
the
fulfillment of at least one of the two requirements necessary
for
plant growth could have been accomplished by ordinary
providence.
If, as is sometimes held, the watering of the
ground
was the work of subterranean waters,50 did they water
but
a field of arable land, soil fit for cultivation which forms only a part
of
the ‘earth’ or ‘ground.’" "The creation of the plants is not alluded
to
here
at all, but simply the planting of the garden in
p.
77). "All the faces of the ground" is also said to be a phrase which
"ist
auch
hier nicht die gesamte Erdflache (YAK), sondern nur das anbaufahige
Erdreich"
(Procksch: op. cit., p. 22).
50 The various interpretations of
`h may be found in Kline: op. cit.,
p.
150. Konig (Die Genesis eingeleitet, iibersetzt and erklart, Gtitersloh,
1925,
pp. 198-200) is one of the strongest defenders of the view that iM
means
mist (Dunst), for he thinks that the rising of a mist is a natural
preparation
for rainfall. "Denn selbstverstandlich ist gemeint, dass der
aufsteigende
Wasserdunst sich wieder als Regen gesenkt habe" (p. 199).
Konig
thinks that it is a wrong method to derive the meaning of a Hebrew
word
directly from the Babylonian. edu, therefore, is not to determine
the
meaning of dxa. Aalders (op. cit., p. 114) also adopts this
position.
He
asserts that the mist (damp) arose from the earth, which could hardly
be
said of a flood. In Job 36:27 the meaning "flood" is thought not to
be
suitable.
In the formation of the rain clouds, says Aalders, despite the
difficulties
of Job 36:27, "mist" is understandable, but not "flood".
It should be noted, however, that none of
the ancient versions rendered
this
word as "mist". Thus, LXX, phgh<;
fons;
Syriac XXXXX. What really rules out the rendering "rain" or
"mist"
is
the verb hqAw;hiv;. The causing of the earth to drink is the work of the
dxe which arises from the ground. Obviously, a mist
which arises may
moisten
the ground, but how can it, inasmuch as it comes up from the
earth,
cause the earth to drink? The translation "mist" must be abandoned.
Albright's
suggestion ("The Predeuteronomic Primeval", Journal of
Biblical
Literature, Vol. 58, 1939, p. 102) that the word dxe be traced to
the
Id, the subterranean source of fresh water, has much to commend it.
All
mythological or polytheistic associations, however, are completely
missing
in Genesis 2:5. In support of Albright's position appeal may be
made
to Samuel N. Kramer: Enki and Ninhursag,
p.
13, lines 45, 46, " `mouth whence issues the water of the earth,' bring
thee
sweet water from the earth". Even if we adopt the view that dxe
means
"mist" or "cloud" and that the reference is to a mist which
arises
from
the ground and returns to water it in the form of rain, that does not
prove
that ordinary providential activity prevailed on the third day. On
the
third day there were two works, and both were creative works, namely:
1.
FIAT - FULFILLMENT (Gathering of the waters into one place
and
appearance of the dry land).
2. FIAT - FULFILLMENT (Earth sending forth
grass, etc.).
If
Genesis 2:6 is to be fitted in here, it obviously must fall between the
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 21
the
entire surface of the globe? If they did, then such a work,
while
not the method that God today employs to water the
whole
earth, nevertheless may have been a providential work.
To
water the ground, therefore, may have been accomplished
by
a modus operandi similar to that by
which God today
works
in his providential activity. Nevertheless, it was a
unique
act, and one never to be repeated. If it was a provi-
dential
work, it was unique and distinct, for God has never
again
watered the entire earth in this manner. If, on the
other
hand, the hmAdAxE here has a somewhat restricted sense,
as
is probably the case, then we certainly cannot in any sense
appeal
to this verse for help in the interpretation of Genesis
one,
for in this case the verse merely emphasizes that the
paradise
was planted in what once was wasteland.51
In the second place, the fulfillment of the need
for man to
cultivate
the garden was not met by means of ordinary provi-
dential
working. To meet this need there was special super-
natural
activity, namely, the divine forming and the divine
inbreathing.52
What relationship, then, does Genesis 2:5ff.
sustain to the
third
day of creation mentioned in Genesis one? If Genesis
first
and second fiat. Activity by means of "fiat" creation however, is not
the
modus operandi of divine providence.
If, therefore, divine providential
activity
was introduced after the accomplishment of the first fiat, it was
interrupted
again by the second fiat and its fulfillment. Even, therefore,
if
Genesis 2:5 ff. could be made to show that divine providence was present
during
the third day, what is stated of the third day in Genesis 1 makes it
clear
that divine providence did not prevail during the third day.
51 It is well to note the
distinction between hmAdAxE and Cr,xA which is
found
in this section. Whereas Cr,xA refers to the earth generally, hmAdAxE is
the
ground upon which man dwells. The hmAdAxE is more restricted in
refer-
ence
than Cr,xA,
and it is also that ground which produces the sustenance
that
will sustain the life of MdAxA and which MdAxA must cultivate.
Procksch
comments,
"MdAxA
und hmAdAxE sind aufeinander angewiesen, der Mensch ist
dem
Wesen nach Bauer" (op. cit., p. 22), but such a conclusion does not
necessarily
follow.
52 In the following comment
Gunkel presses the language of Scripture in
an
unwarrantable manner: "Diese Zeit weiss noch nichts von dem Super-
naturalismus
der spateren Epoche, sondern sie erzahlt unbefangen, dass
,,Gott
Jahve" seine Geschopfe „formte", d.h. sie mit seinen eigenen
Patriarchen,
p.
55)).
22
2:5
has reference to the entire globe, it applies to the third day
and
merely describes the "dry land" of the third day. But if
that
be the case, the verse does not show that the present
modus operandi of divine providence,
while it may have been
present,
necessarily prevailed on the third day. At the most it
teaches
that God watered the ground by means of an dxe that
kept
rising from the earth.53 If, on the other hand, Genesis
2:5ff.
simply describes the preparation of the garden of Eden,
it
may not be applicable at all to the third day, but may
rather
be fitted into the sixth day. While there are difficulties
in
the interpretation of the verse, it is clear that it cannot be
used
to establish the thesis that the present modus
operandi
of
divine providence prevailed during the third day. At most
it
shows that such a mode may have been present.
The appeal to Genesis 2:5a, it must be
remembered, to
establish
the thesis that during the days of creation the modus
operandi of divine providence
was the same as is at present in
effect,
can only have validity if it proves that there was no
supernatural
intrusion such as might be found, for example,
in
the working of miracles. But such supernatural intrusion
was
certainly present in the creation of man (Gen. 2:7).
And
the only works ascribed to the third day are creative
works,
not those of ordinary divine providence. Indeed, on
no
viewpoint can it be established that ordinary providential
working
prevailed on the third day. The only
works assigned
to
this day were the result of special, divine, creative fiats.
If
ordinary providence existed during the third day, it was
53 The force of hlAfEya must be noted.
Delitzsch takes it as indicating a
single
action "normirt durch den historischen Zusammenh. in Imperfectbe-
deutung"
(Commentar uber die Genesis, Leipzig,
1860, p. 140). Tuch,
however
(Commentar uber die Genesis, Halle,
1871, p. 52) takes the verb
as
in verse 10, and Isa. 6:4 "von der werdenden, allmalig erst geschehenden
Handlung".
The latter is a more accurate representation of the He-
brew.
Driver believes that the imperfect has frequentative force,
"used
to go up" (A Treatise on the Use of
the Tenses in Hebrew, Ox-
ford,
MDCCCXCII, p. 128). Gesenius, Kautzsch, Cowley state that
the
imperfect here expresses an action which continued throughout a
longer
or shorter period, "a mist went up, continually" (Gesenius' Hebrew
Grammar,
the Hebrew Language,
"not
only at the moment of time previously referred to but from that time
onward".
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 23
interrupted
at two points by divine fiats. Even apart from
any
consideration of Genesis 2:5, therefore, it cannot be held
that
the present modus operandi of divine
providence prevailed
on
the third day, nor does the appeal to Genesis 2:5 prove
such
a thing. On the contrary, all that is stated of the third
day
(Gen. 1:9-15) shows that the works of that day were
creative
works and not those of ordinary providence. An
appeal
to Genesis 2:5 therefore does not support the position
that
the days are to be taken in a non-chronological manner.54
3.
The Schematic Nature of Genesis One
A further argument adduced to support the
non-chrono-
logical
view is found in the claim that Genesis one is schematic
in
nature. Thus, the author is said to divide the vegetable
world
into two groups, plants which give seed by means of the
fruits
and plants which give seed in a more direct way. In
verses
24ff. something of the same nature is said to be found.55
It may very well be that the author of Genesis
one has
arranged
his material in a schematic manner. On this par-
ticular
question we shall have more to say when presenting a
positive
interpretation of the chapter. At this point, however,
one
or two remarks will suffice. In the first place, from the
fact
that some of the material in Genesis one is given in
schematic
form, it does not necessarily follow that what is
stated
is to be dismissed as figurative or as not describing
what
actually occurred. Sometimes a schematic arrangement
may
serve the purpose of emphasis. Whether the language
is
figurative or symbolical, however, must be determined upon
exegetical
grounds. Secondly, a schematic disposition of the
material
in Genesis one does not prove, nor does it even
54 Even if dxe referred to evaporation
(and as shown in note 31 this is
not
possible) it is difficult to understand how it could have provided rain-
fall
sufficient for the entire earth. And if the reference is local, how can
evaporation
have arisen from a land in which there had been no rain or
dew,
and how on this interpretation can Genesis 2:5 be fitted into the
third
day of Genesis 1? These considerations support the view that the
dxe designates subterranean waters, waters which
may have entered the
earth
when the division between seas and dry land was made.
55 Quarterly, p. 223.
24
suggest,
that the days are to be taken in a non-chronological
sense.
There appears to be a certain schematization, for
example,
in the genealogies of Matthew one, but it does not
follow
that the names of the genealogies are to be understood
in
a non-chronological sense, or that Matthew teaches that
the
generations from Abraham to David parallel, or were
contemporary
with, those from David to the Babylonian
captivity
and that these in turn are parallel to the generations
from
the Babylonian captivity to Christ.56 Matthew, in other
words,
even though he has adopted a certain schematic ar-
rangement,
namely, fourteen generations to each group, is
not
presenting three different aspects of the same thing. He
is
not saying the same thing in three different ways. He has a
schematic
arrangement, but that does not mean that he has
thrown
chronology to the winds. Why, then, must we con-
clude
that, merely because of a schematic arrangement, Moses
has
disposed of chronology?
4. Is the First-Hand Impression of Genesis One
Correct?
In defense of the non-chronological view of the
days it is
asserted,
and rightly, that Genesis one is not the product of a
naive
writer.57 At the same time, so it is argued, if we read
Genesis
"without prepossession or suspicion" we receive the
impression
that the author meant to teach a creation in six
ordinary
days and, more than that, to teach that the earth
was
created before the sun, moon and stars. This impression,
apparently,
is to be considered naive. "Is it good", asks
Ridderbos,
"to read Genesis one thus simply, 'avec
des yeux
ingenus'?"58 It
is, of course, true that the first-hand impression
that
comes to us upon reading certain passages of the Bible
may
not be the correct one. Further reflection may lead to a
re-evaluation
of our first-hand impression and to the adoption
of
a different interpretation. But if we label a first-hand
56 Cf. Matthew 1:1-17. Verse 17
gives a summary comment. It would
certainly
be unwarranted to conclude that, merely because of the schematic
arrangement
in Matthew, the names were to be interpreted figuratively or
symbolically.
57 Conflict, p. 29.
58 Ibid., p. 29.
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 25
impression
naive, we cannot do so merely upon the basis of
our
own independent and "autonomous" opinion as to what is
naive.
Only exegesis can tell us whether a certain impression
is
or is not naive. We ourselves, upon the basis of our subjec-
tive
judgment, are not warranted in making such a pronounce-
ment.
If the first-hand impression that any Scripture makes
upon
us is naive, it is Scripture alone that can enable us so to
judge,
and not we ourselves apart from the Scripture.
If we understand it correctly, the argument now before
us
is
that the prima facie impression which
we receive from
Genesis
one is naive, and not to be accepted.59 This considera-
tion
raises the question why it is naive to believe that God
created
all things in six ordinary days or that the earth was
created
before the sun? This line of argumentation would
prove
too much, for it could be applied to other passages of
Scripture
as well. One who reads the Gospels, for example, is
likely
to receive the impression that they teach that Jesus
rose
from the dead. But can we in this day of science seriously
be
expected to believe that such an event really took place?
At
the same time, the Gospels can hardly be called the products
of
naive writers. Are we, therefore, able to understand the
writers'
meaning at first glance? Do the writers really intend
to
teach that Jesus rose from the dead or may they not be
employing
this particular manner of statement to express
some
great truth?
Only solid exegesis can lead to the true
understanding of
Scripture.
If, in any instance, what appears to be the prima
59 At this point Ridderbos quotes
the well-known statement of von
Rad,
a statement which he thinks "is of importance here" (Conflict, p. 29),
namely,
" `It is doctrine which has been cautiously enriched in a process
of
very slow, century-long growth' " ("es ist Lehre, die in langsamstem,
jahrehundertelangem
Wachstum sich behutsam angereichert hat" (von
Rad,
op. cit., p. 36). In the sense
intended by von Rad, however, this
statement
cannot be accepted, for there is no evidence to support it. If
Moses
had before him written documents which he employed in compiling
Genesis
1, these documents simply reflected an original revelation con-
cerning
the creation. When Moses as an inspired penman wrote, he was
superintended
by God's Spirit, so that he wrote precisely what God wished
him
to write. The form and content of Genesis 1 were the work of Moses
writing
under the inspiration of God's Spirit, and the words of Genesis 1
are
God-breathed words (cf. II Tim. 3:16).
26
facie meaning is not the true
one, it is exegesis alone, and not
our
independent judgment that the apparent prima
facie
meaning
is naive, that will bring us to the truth.
5. The Author of Genesis had a Sublime Concept
of God
Somewhat similar is the argument that inasmuch
as the
author
has such a sublime concept of God, we cannot believe
that
he meant to say that God used a day for each of his
great
works.60 The same objection must be raised against
this
type of reasoning as was urged against the idea that some
of
the representations in Genesis one are naive. It is not the
prerogative
of the exegete on his own to determine what a
sublime
conception of God is.
It might also be remarked in this connection
that if the
idea
of creation in six days really does detract from a sublime
concept
of God, the author of Genesis was certainly ill-advised
in
using it. If the author really possessed this sublime con-
cept,
why did he employ a scheme which would detract from
that
concept? Would it not have been better if he had simply
told
us the truth about creation in a straightforward manner,
rather
than used a scheme which presents a way of creation
inconsistent
with a sublime concept of God?
6. Parallelism of the Days
In favor of a non-chronological order of the
days, it is also
argued
that there exists a certain parallelism between the
first
three and the last three days. Thus, it is held, the six
days
are divided into two groups of three each. The parallelism
is
thought to be seen in the light of the first day and the
light-bearers
of the fourth.61 Again, on the second day the
firmament
is created which divides the waters above and
below
it, and on the fifth day the waters are filled with living
creatures.
On the third day dry land appears, and on the
sixth
the inhabitants of earth are created.
6o Conflict, p. 31. "Are we really to take literally the
representation
that
for every great work (or two works) of creation He used a day?"
61 Quarterly, p. 223.
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 27
Assuming that such parallelism actually exists,
at best it
proves
that days four, five and six parallel days one, two and
three.
Even on this construction, however, a certain amount
of
chronology is retained. Days two-five must follow days
one-four,
and days three-six must follow days two-five. Hence,
even
here there would be chronological order, namely, days
one-four,
two-five, three-six.
As soon as one examines the text carefully,
however, it
becomes
apparent that such a simple arrangement is not
actually
present. We may note that the light-bearers of the
fourth
day are placed in the firmament of heaven (1:14, 17).
The
firmament, however, was made on the second day (1:6, 7).
Inasmuch
as the fourth day is said to parallel the first, it
follows
that the work of the second day (making the firma-
ment)
must precede that of the first and fourth days (i. e.,
placing
the light-bearers in the firmament). If the first and
fourth
days are really parallel in the sense that they present
two
aspects of the same thing, and if part of the work of the
fourth
day is the placing of the luminaries in the firmament,
it
follows that the firmament must be present to receive the
luminaries.
The firmament therefore, existed not only before
the
fourth day, but, inasmuch as it is a parallel to the fourth,
before
the first day also. This is an impossible conclusion, for
verse
three is connected with verse two grammatically, in
that
the three circumstantial clauses of verse two modify the
main
verb of verse three. At the same time by its use of the
introductory
words Cr,xAhAv;, verse two clearly introduces the
detailed
account of which a general statement is given in verse
one.
Verse two is the beginning of the section or unit, the
first
action of which is expressed by the main verb of verse
three.62 To hold that days
two-five precede days one-four is
simply
to abandon all grammatical considerations.
Furthermore, if day five is a parallel to day
two, and day
two
is earlier than days one-four Genesis one is practically
reduced
to nonsense. On the fifth day the birds fly in the
open
firmament of heaven, and the fish fill the seas. This
may
cause no difficulty as far as the fish are concerned, but
62 Cf. "The Relation of the
First Verse of Genesis One to Verses Two
and
Three",
pp.
133-146.
28
light
has not yet been created, and light is a prerequisite for
the
life of birds. A further difficulty also emerges. The fish
are
to swim in the seas (Mymi.ya), but the seas were not formed
until
the third day. Day five, it must be noted, does not
refer
to the primeval ocean, but to the seas. From these
brief
considerations it is apparent that we cannot regard
Genesis
one as containing two groups of three days, each day
of
one group being a genuine parallel to the corresponding
day
of the other set.
It is now in place to ask in how far there
actually does exist
parallelism
between two groups of three days each. That
there
is a certain amount of parallelism cannot be denied.
The
light of day one and the light-bearers of day four may be
said
to sustain a relationship to one another, but they are
not
identical. They are not two aspects of the same thing.
The
light of day one is called "day" (MOy) and the heavenly
bodies
of day four are made to rule the day. That which rules
(the
heavenly bodies) and that which is ruled (the day) are
not
the same. In the very nature of the case they must be
distinguished.
The production of each is introduced by the
short
yhiy;
("let there be"). At this point, however, the cor-
respondence
ceases.
Even though there may be a certain parallelism
between
the
mention of light on day one and the light-bearers of day
four,
it is but a parallelism in that light and light-bearers
bear
a relationship one to another. What is stated about the
light
and the light-bearers, however, is quite different. The
creation
of light is the result of God's fiat. God himself then
divides
between the light and the darkness. On the fourth
day
God makes the light-bearers. Unlike the light of day one,
they
do not spring into existence at his creative word.
It
must also be noted that the functions of the light and
those
of the light-bearers are not parallel. In fact, no function
whatever
is given for the light of day one.63 On the other hand,
the
light-bearers of day four are brought into existence for
the
purpose of serving a world in which dry land and seas
have
been separated, a world on which plant and animal life
63 It is true that God
calls the light "day", but no statement of function
is
made such as is found in connection with the sun and moon.
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 29
can
exist. The division between light and darkness which
God
made on day one was at a time when the world was
covered
with water, and there was no firmament.64 The light-
bearers,
on the other hand, were placed in the firmament of
heaven,
a firmament that was brought into existence only on
the
second day. It is obvious, then, that the work of day one
and
that of day four are two distinct and different works.
They
do not parallel one another, other than that light char-
acterizes
one day and light-bearers the other.
Do the second and fifth days parallel one
another? On day
two
there is a twofold fiat ("let there be a firmament ...
and
let it divide") and the fulfillment consists of two acts
of
God ("God made ... divided"), followed by a further act
("God
called"). On the fifth day there is also a twofold fiat
("let
the waters bring forth ... and the fowl let it fly") and
then
comes a fulfillment consisting of a threefold creative act
of
God ("God created ... great whales. .. every living thing
...
every winged fowl") and this is followed by two addi-
tional
acts of God ("God saw ... God blessed"). As far as
form
is concerned, the parallelism is by no means exact.
Nor is there exact parallelism in content. The
swarming
waters
and their inhabitants which were created in the fifth
day
are not to be identified with the primeval waters of day
two.
Rather, it is expressly stated that the fish are to fill the
waters
in the seas (verse 22), and the seas were brought into
existence
on the third day.65 For that matter, if a mere
parallel
with water is sought, we may note that "the waters"
and
the "abyss" are mentioned in verse two also.
The birds are created that they may fly above
the earth
upon
the faces of the expanse of heaven (verse 20). Is this a
parallel
to the work of day two? Actually the only parallel
consists
in the mention of the word "firmament". Now, it is
true
that the birds fly in the firmament, but they also belong
64 Although it is not explicitly
stated in verse 2 that the earth was
covered
with water, this seems to be implied, and the fiat of verse 9
shows
that such was the case. Cf. "The Interpretation of Genesis 1:2",
65 Ridderbos says that this must
not be given much weight (Conflict,
p.
35). It is sufficiently weighty, however, to show that the alleged par-
allelism
between days two and five is an illusion.
30
to
the earth. They are created first of all to fly above the earth
(Cr,xAhA
lfa) and
are commanded to multiply in the earth
(Cr,xABA
br,yi JOfhAv;).
The sphere in which the birds are to
live
is explicitly said to be the earth, not the firmament; and
the
earth, capable of sustaining bird life, did not appear until
the
third day. In the light of these emphases it is difficult to
understand
how a parallel between days two and five is present.
Let us briefly examine the relationship between
the third
and
sixth days. There are three fiats on the third day (
ters
... dry land ... earth). The first two are followed by a
threefold
act of God ("God called ... called he ... God saw")
and
the third fiat is followed by a twofold act ("the earth
brought
forth ... God saw"). On the sixth day, following the
fiat
and fulfillment with respect to the living creatures, a
unique
method of statement is introduced, which has no
parallel
in the description of the third day. Indeed, it is
difficult
to discover any parallel of thought with the third
day.
At best it may be said that the dry land of day three is
the
sphere in which man and the animals live. This, however,
is
a parallelism which applies only to a part of the third day.
A word must be said about the view that days
one, two and
three
present the realm and days four, five and six the ruler
in
that realm, and that therefore there are two parallel trios
of
days.66 With respect to days one and three we may remark
that
light is not the sphere in which the light-bearers rule.
The
sphere of the primitive light, however, is the day. "God
called
the light day." On day four the sphere in which the
light-bearers
rule is the day and night to give light upon the
earth.
It is true that they are placed in the expanse of heaven,
but
this is in order that they may give light upon the earth.
The
sphere of the sea creatures of day five is not the firma-
ment
of day two but the seas (verse 22) of the earth, and the
sphere
in which the birds rule is also the earth (verse 22).
66 This view was set forth by V.
Zapletal: Der Schopfungsbericht,
1902.
Zapletal rejects what he calls the scholastic distinction of "opus
distinctionis
et opus ornatus", a distinction which, he claims, is influenced
by
the Vulgate translation of 2:1 "et omnis ornatus eorum". Instead, he
would
emphasize the Hebrew xbAc; and speak of "die Schopfung der
Heere
(sabha)"
and "die Schopfung der Regionen, der Kampfplatze dieser Heere,"
i.
e., "productio regionum et exercituum" (p. 72).
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 31
The
same is true of the land animals and man; the spheres
in
which they rule is not merely the dry land of day three,
but
the entire earth, including the fish of the sea, which God
has
prepared for them. The matter may be set forth in tabular
form
as follows:
RULER REALM
day four light-bearers the earth
day five sea creatures seas of earth
winged fowl earth
day six land animals earth
man earth
Thus,
the view that days one, two and three present the realm
and
days four, five and six the ruler in that realm, is contrary
to
the explicit statements of Genesis.
7. The Historiography of Genesis One
The historiography of the Bible, it is said, is
not quite the
same
as modern historiography.67 Genesis one is thought to
contain
a peculiar sort of history, for man is not present to
play
a role alongside of God. Often, it is argued, the biblical
writers
group their facts together in an artificial manner and
deviate
from a chronological order, without any indication of
the
fact being given. Indeed, without warning, the biblical
writer
may deviate from a chronological order and arrange
his
material artificially.
Ridderbos has aptly called attention, for
example, to Genesis
two
as a passage in which a certain schematic arrangement is
present
and he rightly points out that Genesis two is an
67 Quarterly, p. 225; Conflict,
p. 30. Visee (op. cit., p. 636) does
not wish
to
apply the word "history" to Genesis 1, inasmuch as he thinks it is
not a
suitable
word to use ("niet juist"). Nevertheless, his comments are true
to
Scripture. He regards Genesis 1 as a factual account of what actually
took
place, but withholds from it the term "history" because it is not an
eyewitness
account or the fruit of historical investigation. There can be
no
serious objection to this position, although we prefer to apply the term
history
to all that has happened, even though our knowledge thereof should
come
to us through special divine revelation (e. g., Genesis 1) instead of
by
historical investigation.
We do not see what is gained, however, by labelling
Genesis 1, Ver-
bondsgeschiedenis (Popma, op. cit., p.
622). Genesis 1 is the divine revela-
tion
of the creation. That point must be insisted upon.
32
introduction
to the account of the fall of man.68 Genesis two
may
well serve as an example of a passage of Scripture in
which
chronological considerations are not paramount. This
will
be apparent if we simply list certain matters mentioned
in
the chapter.
1. God formed man (verse 7).
2. God planted a garden (verse 8a).
3. God placed the man in the garden (verse 8b).
4. God caused the trees to grow (verse 9a).
5. God placed the man in the garden (verse 15a).
It
is obvious that a chronological order is not intended here.
How
many times did God place man in the garden? What did
God
do with man before he placed him in the garden? How
many
times did God plant the garden, or did God first plant
a
garden and then later plant the trees? Clearly enough Moses
here
has some purpose other than that of chronology in mind.
In chapter two events are narrated from the
standpoint
of
emphasis, in preparation for the account of the fall.69
Looked
at from this viewpoint, the chapter is remarkably
rich
in meaning. First of all we may note that it is not a
duplicate
or second account of creation. Hence, we should
not
make the mistake of trying to force its "order of events"
into
harmony with the order of events given in chapter one.
The
section begins by giving us a barren earth, for there
had
been no rain and there was no man to till the ground.
God,
however, did not desire man to dwell in a barren earth
but
in a garden, for man was to be God's guest on this earth.
Hence,
God will prepare a dwelling place for him. First the
ground
is watered and then man is created. For man the
garden
is made, God's garden, and man is placed therein.
The
garden, however, is a place of exquisite beauty, and trees
are
made to grow therein. Thus we are prepared for the
prohibition
not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge
of
good and evil. Further information about the location of
the
garden and its well-watered character is then given, that
we
may learn that its trees will truly thrive. There, in a place
of
great charm, man is placed as God's servant to work the
68 Op. Cit., pp. 26 f.
69 Cf. W. H. Green: The Unity of the Book of Genesis,
pp.
7-36, for an excellent discussion of the nature of Genesis 2.
THE DAYS OF GENESIS 33
garden.
The garden is not Adam's but God's, and God alone
may
prescribe the manner in which Adam is to live therein.
Adam
is forbidden to partake of the tree of the knowledge of
good
and evil.
When this important matter is disposed of, Moses
then
introduces
a question that has to do with man's relation to
his
environment. His relation to God, however, must first be
made
clear (verses 16, 17) and then that to his environment.
He
is not to live alone, but is to have the animals as his
helpers.
Yet they are not sufficient to correspond to him;
only
the woman can be such a help. Her creation is then
related,
and Adam recognizes her who was to show herself a
hindrance
as a help that is essentially one with himself. One
final
point must be mentioned to prepare for the account of
the
fall. Adam and Eve were naked, yet not ashamed. They
were
good, and no evil was found in them.
What Moses does in Genesis two is truly
remarkable. He
emphasizes
just those points which need to be stressed, in
order
that the reader may be properly prepared to understand
the
account of the fall.70 Are we, however, warranted in
assuming
that, inasmuch as the material in Genesis two is
arranged
in a non-chronological manner, the same is likely to
be
true of Genesis one? It is true that in Genesis one man is
not
present until the sixth day, but is this sufficient warrant for
claiming
that the days are to be taken in a non-chronological
manner?
In the very nature of the case Genesis one is sui generis.
Its
content could have been known only by special communica-
tion
from God. Obviously, it is not a history of mankind,
but
it is the divine revelation of the creation of heaven and
earth
and of man, and it is to be interpreted only upon the
basis
of serious exegesis. The fact that Genesis two discusses
its
subject in a partly non-chronological manner really has
70
"This phenomenon (i. e., that in prophetic and apocalyptic writings
"events
are telescoped, grouped, and arranged in a given manner") should
make
us hospitable toward the idea that in Genesis 1, which treats not the
distant
future but the unimaginable distant past, we should encounter the
same
sort of thing" (Conflict, p.
39). But Genesis 1 is sui generis; it
is
to
be interpreted only on its own merits, and only by means of a serious
attempt
to ascertain the meaning of the author.
34
little
bearing upon how Genesis one is to be interpreted.
Genesis
one must be interpreted upon its own merit.
8. Analogy of Other Passages
This same consideration must be emphasized in
answer to
the
appeal made to other passages of Scripture. Thus, it is
pointed
out that certain visions of John, although they are
heptadic
in structure, nevertheless, do not exhibit a strictly
chronological
sequence. Whether they exhibit a chronological
sequence
or not may sometimes be difficult to determine, but
it
is really an irrelevant consideration, for even if all the
events
in Revelation were narrated without regard for chrono-
logical
considerations, that fact in itself would not prove that
the
first chapter of Genesis was to be so interpreted. Although
the
book of Revelation is identified as containing words of
prophecy,
it nevertheless is an apocalypse in the sense that
Daniel
also is an apocalypse. Together with the book of
Daniel
it forms a unique literary genre which is not matched
or
equalled by the non-canonical apocalypses. It is not always
to
be interpreted in the same manner as writing which is
truly
historical. If, therefore, there are passages in Revelation
which
are to be interpreted in a non-chronological manner,
this
in itself is really an irrelevant consideration. It has noth-
ing
to do with the manner in which the historical writing of
Genesis
one is to be interpreted. If Revelation is to be a
guide
for the interpretation of Genesis one, then it must be
shown
that Genesis one is of the same literary genre as Revela-
tion.
This, we believe, cannot be successfully done.
In this connection it may be remarked that
appeal to other
passages
of Scripture in which a non-chronological order of
statement
is found is really beside the point. No one denies
that
there are such passages. What must be denied is the idea
that
the presence of such passages somehow supports the view
that
Genesis one is to be interpreted non-chronologically.71
(to
be concluded)
71 The following passages are
generally adduced in this connection,
Gen.
2; II Kg. 23:4-10; Ps. 78:44 ff.; Matt. 4:1-11; Lk. 4:13, 16-30;
Matt.
13:53-58. Cf. Conflict, pp. 37f.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
2960
www.wts.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu