Days
May 7, 2009
In a previous comment, Chris asked the following:
You also assume that "day" in Gen 1 means a 24 hour period. How do you understand "day" in Gen 2:4? Does that refer strictly to a 24 hour period? "Day" (yom) does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period, throughout the OT it is used to refer to a myriad amount of time periods.
First of all, regarding Genesis 2:4, here is the New American Standard Version:
'This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.'
The New International Version renders the verse as follows:
'This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens -'
The word 'day' in Genesis 2:4 is used in a different way than it is in Genesis 1, in terms of a general time in which something occurred. The phrase 'in that day,' which is found seventy-one times in Scripture, also uses the word 'day' in a similar way. The phrase 'in the day of...' is also used multiple times in Scripture, to refer to a period of time that does not indicate an actual day.
As you pointed out, there are many other uses for the word 'day' in Scripture, so we can't just say that the word 'day,' wherever it occurs, refers to an actual day, consisting of morning and evening. Context is determinative; in those passages, the context makes it clear what the day is referring to, and in Genesis 2:4, the translators of the New International Version make a correct interpretation of the meaning of 'day' in Genesis 2:4; 'day' refers to a period of time, much like the expression that people sometimes use today (that is, in the present time, not this very day!), 'back in the day.'
But the days in Genesis 1 are actual days; not extended periods of time, not eras, not metaphors. Context shows that this was the meaning intended by the author. The days themselves are numbered. The days consist of evening and morning. These are days as we know them in the most basic sense of the word day. Gordon Wenham, who says in his commentary, 'The six-day schema is but one of several means employed in this chapter to stress the system and order that has been built into creation,' writes the following about the word 'day' in Genesis 1:
There can be little doubt that here 'day' has its basic sense of a 24-hour period. The mention of morning and evening, the enumeration of the days, and the divine rest on the seventh show that a week of divine activity is being described here. Elsewhere, of course, 'in the day of' and similar phrases can simply mean 'when' (e.g. 2:4; 5:1, etc.). Ps. 90:4 indeed says that a thousand years are as a day in God's sight. But it is perilous to try to correlate scientific theory and biblical revelation by appeal to such texts. Rather, it is necessary to inquire more closely into the literary nature of Gen. 1 and whether chronological sequence and scientific explanation are the narrator's concern...
Where I differ with Wenham is in his application of the last sentence that I quoted from his commentary. Certainly, there are other concerns at play in the text than 'chronological sequence,' and 'scientific explanation' is certainly not a concern of the author. I won't argue with that at all. There is a divine purpose to the text that goes much deeper than that. However, as I stated before, our interpretation of the text's purpose cannot be separated from the history into which that purpose is embedded.
Here are a couple more examples from Scripture: First, God sent plagues upon Egypt. There's an obvious cycle in the plagues, there's a polemic against the 'gods' of Egypt in the story, there's a definite pattern, and there's a great deal that we can learn (and marvel at, be awestruck by, and glory in!) from the plagues in Egypt. Science is unable to account for the Nile River being turned into blood,and many explanations have come down the pike to attempt to develop naturalistic explanations of these plagues (and all of the other miraculous workings of the Almighty in Scripture, or even in the process of the exodus from Egypt and the wilderness wanderings, for that matter), but the interest of the author of Scripture (ultimately God Himself) is not to tell us how He turned the water of the Nile into blood, the way in which He worked to miraculously change H2O molecules into a liquid made up of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and whatever else is in blood. The fact is, He did it. He's the Almighty God, I have no scientific explanation for how He did it, and it is quite unnecessary to search for one; it's beside the point - it's a miracle, and if there's an Almighty God who created all things and sustains all things, He can do it in whatever way pleases Him.
There is likewise no scientific purpose to the story of Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana. This is not a wine-making treatise. There is a ton of 'theological' significance to the story, but the fact is that the story is a story of a real event in history, something that actually occurred in time and space. Jesus' work of turning water into wine is every bit as unbelievable (to the unbeliever) as God creating the universe in the span of six days. Because the Bible is not a science textbook, should we search for a way to interpret this story without doing violence to God's revelation in nature? After all, God has revealed in nature that wine is produced over an extended period of time by a process of fermentation, and that revelation is clear; God is not a deceiver. Do we need to search for an alternative explanation of this miracle? After all, in order for that wine to have been the best wine anyone had ever tasted, it must not only have had the appearance of age, it must also have exhibited the taste and smell of age as well! Was the Lord Jesus deceiving the people at the wedding by serving this wine that appeared to be much older than it was?
I think not.
I'll follow this up later.
You also assume that "day" in Gen 1 means a 24 hour period. How do you understand "day" in Gen 2:4? Does that refer strictly to a 24 hour period? "Day" (yom) does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period, throughout the OT it is used to refer to a myriad amount of time periods.
First of all, regarding Genesis 2:4, here is the New American Standard Version:
'This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.'
The New International Version renders the verse as follows:
'This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens -'
The word 'day' in Genesis 2:4 is used in a different way than it is in Genesis 1, in terms of a general time in which something occurred. The phrase 'in that day,' which is found seventy-one times in Scripture, also uses the word 'day' in a similar way. The phrase 'in the day of...' is also used multiple times in Scripture, to refer to a period of time that does not indicate an actual day.
As you pointed out, there are many other uses for the word 'day' in Scripture, so we can't just say that the word 'day,' wherever it occurs, refers to an actual day, consisting of morning and evening. Context is determinative; in those passages, the context makes it clear what the day is referring to, and in Genesis 2:4, the translators of the New International Version make a correct interpretation of the meaning of 'day' in Genesis 2:4; 'day' refers to a period of time, much like the expression that people sometimes use today (that is, in the present time, not this very day!), 'back in the day.'
But the days in Genesis 1 are actual days; not extended periods of time, not eras, not metaphors. Context shows that this was the meaning intended by the author. The days themselves are numbered. The days consist of evening and morning. These are days as we know them in the most basic sense of the word day. Gordon Wenham, who says in his commentary, 'The six-day schema is but one of several means employed in this chapter to stress the system and order that has been built into creation,' writes the following about the word 'day' in Genesis 1:
There can be little doubt that here 'day' has its basic sense of a 24-hour period. The mention of morning and evening, the enumeration of the days, and the divine rest on the seventh show that a week of divine activity is being described here. Elsewhere, of course, 'in the day of' and similar phrases can simply mean 'when' (e.g. 2:4; 5:1, etc.). Ps. 90:4 indeed says that a thousand years are as a day in God's sight. But it is perilous to try to correlate scientific theory and biblical revelation by appeal to such texts. Rather, it is necessary to inquire more closely into the literary nature of Gen. 1 and whether chronological sequence and scientific explanation are the narrator's concern...
Where I differ with Wenham is in his application of the last sentence that I quoted from his commentary. Certainly, there are other concerns at play in the text than 'chronological sequence,' and 'scientific explanation' is certainly not a concern of the author. I won't argue with that at all. There is a divine purpose to the text that goes much deeper than that. However, as I stated before, our interpretation of the text's purpose cannot be separated from the history into which that purpose is embedded.
Here are a couple more examples from Scripture: First, God sent plagues upon Egypt. There's an obvious cycle in the plagues, there's a polemic against the 'gods' of Egypt in the story, there's a definite pattern, and there's a great deal that we can learn (and marvel at, be awestruck by, and glory in!) from the plagues in Egypt. Science is unable to account for the Nile River being turned into blood,and many explanations have come down the pike to attempt to develop naturalistic explanations of these plagues (and all of the other miraculous workings of the Almighty in Scripture, or even in the process of the exodus from Egypt and the wilderness wanderings, for that matter), but the interest of the author of Scripture (ultimately God Himself) is not to tell us how He turned the water of the Nile into blood, the way in which He worked to miraculously change H2O molecules into a liquid made up of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and whatever else is in blood. The fact is, He did it. He's the Almighty God, I have no scientific explanation for how He did it, and it is quite unnecessary to search for one; it's beside the point - it's a miracle, and if there's an Almighty God who created all things and sustains all things, He can do it in whatever way pleases Him.
There is likewise no scientific purpose to the story of Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana. This is not a wine-making treatise. There is a ton of 'theological' significance to the story, but the fact is that the story is a story of a real event in history, something that actually occurred in time and space. Jesus' work of turning water into wine is every bit as unbelievable (to the unbeliever) as God creating the universe in the span of six days. Because the Bible is not a science textbook, should we search for a way to interpret this story without doing violence to God's revelation in nature? After all, God has revealed in nature that wine is produced over an extended period of time by a process of fermentation, and that revelation is clear; God is not a deceiver. Do we need to search for an alternative explanation of this miracle? After all, in order for that wine to have been the best wine anyone had ever tasted, it must not only have had the appearance of age, it must also have exhibited the taste and smell of age as well! Was the Lord Jesus deceiving the people at the wedding by serving this wine that appeared to be much older than it was?
I think not.
I'll follow this up later.