Theology Proper - Lesson5b Among those who firmly adhere to the biblical teaching of special creation, the question of the age of the universe often becomes a major issue. While the Bible never directly gives an age for the earth, various approaches yield either greater or lesser degrees of certainty about how long ago the first elements of our universe were called into being by God, and of the degree to which God by his sovereign providence dealt with the universe after each item was specially created. Some understand Scripture as demanding a relatively young age for the universe. Others are not convinced that the passages of Scripture often used necessarily indicate a more recent origin of all things. As our knowledge of the physical world increases, we have enormous amounts of data to consider as we attempt to obey the biblical mandate of beholding God's revealed glory, truth, power and nature in all that he made (Psalm 19:1-2 and Romans 1:20). These texts, and others like them, imply that an objective study of nature is a legitimate discipline yielding reasonably understandable and meaningful results, though clearly the effects of sin obscure our ability to neutrally interpret what we observe. Obviously God's self-revelation is always consistent with itself. When our interpretations appear to conflict, it's fair to re-evaluate our approach to the physical universe and to make certain that our understanding of Scripture is accurate. We must always attempt to remove the inconsistencies that could only have come from our own imperfect understanding. Published results in the fields of geology, planetology, astrophysics, nucleonics, thermodynamics, genetics and paleontology regularly make claims to great antiquity. They base their conclusions on observed measurements and interpretations that consider currently accepted values of specific physical constants and their mathematical relationships. There have also been some who dissent from the majority by insisting that the evidence could also be interpreted in a way consistent with a presumed young earth. Many who are pledged to fidelity regarding the biblical texts have also published results that imply that Genesis one indicates a fairly recent time of creation compared with the antiquitous claims of the majority in the scientific community. Others, equally dedicated to the full inerrancy of the Bible, disagree. It is therefore important to ask if the conclusions drawn from the data in Genesis one are based on superficial appearances rather than what is necessarily deduced from the inspired text alone. It is also fair to ask if we are justified in finding time clues in passages which were not used in that way by the inspired writers. This perceived tension has produced many views of Genesis one that attempt to reconcile these two aparently opposite conclusions. We cannot escape our contemporary context when we consider the natural and scriptural data. Our goal as Reformed interpreters of Scripture must be to discover the boundaries set by God's word and to understand all our sensory and theoretical information within the limits of those boundaries. To clarify those boundaries we must examine certain intervals of time between major events in the biblical record. Some of those intervals are well attested by direct biblical statements. Others involve less direct data and must rest upon that which can be directly deduced from the information God has given us in his word. Primarily this depends upon our interpretation of genealogical records and of the days and events of Genesis one. A Graphical Chart Showing the Intervals Between Major Events
Creation of the universe and of our planet Filling in the Gaps Those in the various schools of thought concerning the age of the universe and the days of Genesis chapter one tend to agree on the approximate dating of the era of Abraham. They all place him within the same order of magnitude in years B.C. It appears that he lived nearly 2000 years before the birth of Jesus Christ, about 4000 years before the present. The quesion then comes down to how much time elapsed from Noah to Abraham and then from Adam to Noah. These intervals are addressed only in the genealogies of Genesis 5, 10 and 11. Prior to the time of Adam, we have the information given in Genesis one of the things God made before he created the first man. Some understand our observed measurements of the universe as giving an age in the realm of several billions of years. Others insist that the biblical data cannot be expanded to more than a few million years B.C. for the time of creation. Some say that the earth can be no older than about six to ten thousand years. To fairly evaluate those opposing claims we will first look at the genealogical information, then at the exegesis of the first chapter of Genesis and related passages. From Abraham back to Adam
The Genealogies of Genesis
William Henry Green Primeval Chronology B.B.Warfield On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race The conclusion drawn in these studies is that the genealogies of the Bible should not be used to produced exact dates for the time of Noah and Adam. The purpose of Hebrew Genealogies is to show line of descent, not contiguous lineage. They indicate that the years in ancient biblical genealogies are not intended to be added up to obtain the age of mankind. For example, in Matthew 1:1 Jesus is called the son of David, and the son of Abraham. This verse obviously omits many generations between each. Yet anyone familiar with Scripture, as were the original readers of Matthew's gospel, would not make the mistake of assuming that the immediate father of Jesus was David, or that his immediate grandfather was Abraham. A little farther on in the same chapter (Matthew 1:8) the statement that "Joram begat Uzziah" omits mention of intervening generations such as Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:25), Joash (2 Kings 12:1), and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1). In Matthew 1:11 the genealogy omits Jehoiakim after Josiah (2 Kings 23:34 and 1 Chronicles 3:16). A comparison of the genealogies in the Old Testament show similar gaps. The genealogy in Ezra 7:3 says that Azariah was the son of Meraioth. But when compared with 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 it becomes evident that the names of six entire generations were left out. Many such examples are cited in the works of Green and Warfield. Such genealogical omissions occur regularly in the Bible. The original Hebrew readers would have expected such gaps. There is no error. The genealogies were never intended to be complete records showing all steps linking each person named. Such regularity in the omission of generations should caution us in using Genesis 5 and 11 to establish precise time charts. Consideration of the inspired use of the linking terms shows us that the expression "son of" is better translated "descendent of". The expression "begat" is better translated "became ancestor of". The intent is to show lineage without implying generational contiguity between the individuals mentioned. It must be admitted that nowhere in the Bible are the years of genealogies added up, nor is there any biblical support showing that it would be valid to add them up for such a purpose. Its always dangerous to introduce methods of interpretation not themselves derived from biblical example. It is fair then to ask, "Why do the numbers in the Genesis genealogies show the person's age when the begetting (or ancestoring) took place?" The years show the age at which each person in the line being traced conceived children. When it says that "Enoch lived 90 years and begat Kenan" it means that Enoch became the ancestor of Kenan when he was 90 years old. This is an amazing and noteworthy fact considering his advanced age. That Enoch was 90 years old when he fathered a child shows us that the ancestor of Kenan became such at what we would consider a very advanced age. The significance of that could be left to various speculations and theories. Clearly there may be other explanations for the numbers. But however we theorize, the facts remove the argument that biblical necessity demands that that they were given to aid us in establishing an exact chronology. Internal consistency problems arise when the genealogies are simply added up contrary to their actual use in Scripture. If the years are taken without the implied and understood gaps, it would mean that Adam would have been alive at the same time as Enoch, Methuselah and Lamech. It would mean that in the 120 years prior to the flood (when the Bible says there was no righteous man but Noah) Methuselah and Lamech would still have been alive. Noah would have been still alive in time of Abraham, and Noah's son Shem outlived Abraham. These situations are not impossible, but are not very likely considering the accounts as recorded and referred to by the Scriptures themselves. When gaps are assumed according to the established biblical useage, the dating of Noah and Adam becomes impossible. Its even been suggested that some of the names in ancient genealogies may refer to the rise of nations rather than just the individuals identified, perhaps as the founders. This is why some who hold to a young earth view find little problem with extending the time of Adam to an era tens of thousands of years ago. Some will, by the same arguments, comfortably allow the date of Adam to be some powers of ten greater than that obtained by simply adding up the numbers in the genealogies. From Adam back to the beginning of creation
The Term Day in Genesis One
As we procede it must always be our goal to determine to the best of our ability the meaning intended as the Holy Spirit moved Moses to write Genesis. We must ought not be tempted to focus our concerns on trying to defend the meaning of a particular term which we believe fits best with what we would like to conclude. A strong expectation will tend to prejudice the process. Our theories of origins must emerge from the facts rather than shape the lines of study.
Question 1: What is the meaning of the Hebrew term for day?
There are four basic meanings for the word YOM.
Given this broad range of meanings for YOM we are left with each context to determine what is meant in any given case. This does not leave us confused. In most contexts there is little doubt as to what is meant. A study of how we use the English word "day" shows the same broad categories. Clearly we are not confused when we hear someone make mention of how things were "in my day" or "in the day of Moses". We do not become puzzled as if only one 24-hour period was meant. If we say that we would rather do our work "during the day" we would naturally understand that we would rather do it in daylight rather than during the part of every 24-hour period when it is dark.
This brings us to the second question:
Considering the basic meanings of the word YOM as summarized above, we can immediately eliminate the first definition. The days in Genesis one can't be just the period of daylight since each of the six is designated by the expression "and there was evening and there was morning". Since evening is associated with the beginning of the period of darkness which then extends until the sun rises in the morning, there is no way to read this without including darkness. The expression "and there was evening and there was morning" seems to imply a literal 24 hour day which is made up of an evening and a morning. It certainly does not seem to fit the usual way we would describe long periods of time, either of definite or of indefinite length. While its true that such an expression could be used in a figurative sense, there is nothing in the immediate context that would direct the reader to suspect a non-literal meaning for such common terms as evening and morning. It appears that the 24-hour meaning of the word YOM is the most reasonable in this context.
This brings us to a third question which is much more complex:
Structure of the "day passages"
Notice there are six general elements associated with the first creative period as presented in Genesis 1:3-5. They fall into three more basic categories: the decree of what is to be created, the acts of God in realizing his decree, and the final approbation that what he had decreed had come into physical existence.
First: declaration
Second: creation
Third: preliminary observation
Fourth: modification:
Fifth: final declaration
Sixth: day-marker
The completion of the first creation period is marked out by an evening
and a morning, the usual Hebrew way of reckoning a standard calendar
day. The final act of approbation was an observance by God which would have taken
but an instant and certainly would have occurred on a particular and literal
24-hour day. It is designated Day One. It is the first day
marking a period of creation being completed.
But a key question is, which of the events mentioned in verses 3 through 5
should be understood as having taken place on the day numbered at the end
of the passage?
There is little doubt in the context of Genesis 1:5 that the day
included the act of God's naming the light day and the darkness
night. But the other events are not as clearly shown to have
occurred on the day when God made his final approbation by giving
an actual name to his completed work.
We then need to ask: Which of the events of Genesis 1:3-5 necessarily
took place on the same literal day as God's final approbation? The events
are listed as follows:
It is unsound to claim with certainty, using this inspired text alone,
that all the events associated with the creating of light necessarily took
place on the same literal day when God gave his final approval of his work.
To do so would violate the exegetical minimalism demanded in WCF 1:6.
To state this in terms of a specific interval of time necessitates a cautious
degree of uncertainty. We cannot rule out that all of these events may have been
accomplished by God on one literal day. But likewise, the evidence does
not demand that all the events took place on that one literal day of God's
final approval. The text simply does not say.
A suggested conclusion:
After an unspecified period of time (moments or eons) light had attained
the state of being in the universe that essentially fulfilled its decreed
nature. At some point God observed the light and determined that his
decree had essentially reached one part of its goal. He then pronounced
that the light was good.
Then a further process took place. Light was divided from darkness. We
understand darkness to necessarily imply that either sufficient quantities
and appropriate states of matter had been brought into existence to act as
an absorbing buffer causing the photons of light to be kept from some
parts of space, or that energy fields of some kind contained the photons
from entering certain spaces. This is the definition of physical darkenss
assumed all through Scripture and which is consistent with our natural
observation of the handiwork of our Creator.
Then, after another unspecified period, long or brief, God made his
final pronouncement concerning this aspect of his decree of creation
by calling the light day, and the darkness night. This last
act is marked out as occupying a specific moment when this first stage of
God's creation was essentially complete. This would have occurred on one
particular 24-hour day which commemorates the completeness of this segment
of created physical reality. Therefore it is called day one.
It's helpful to note that it does not say "the first day." It uses the
Hebrew cardinal number 'akhad (one), not the ordinal number rishon
(first). This is the day of completeness "number one". There are five more such
days on which other aspects of his decree of creation would similarly be
pronounced complete. Then, when the acts of special creation cease, a
seventh day would be designated as commemorative of the completeness of
the whole process and declared as Sabbath. More will be said about the
designation of the seventh day as Sabbath in a later chapter of this study.
Nothing in the inspired text alone presses the reader to conclude that the
first declaration of God concerning light and the act of bringing it into
existence, and the subsequent actions of God upon existing light, and
his final declaration, all occurred within the boundaries of the 24
hour day with which the final approbation is associated. The decree and
the actual processes described following it may have all taken place
within moments, or over a very long period of time. This is not stated
here and therefore cannot be determined from this text by itself.
The thesis proposed here is that given the possibility that only the
final event of the first creative period can necessarily be bound to the
24-hour day numbered as one, then the period of time God used in
his special creation of light must remain uncertain and an absolute time
period cannot be assigned with the degree of certainty required to bind
the conscience of a believer.
The same principle may be extended to the record of the other creative
periods.
There are three essential elements in each creative period:
a declaration to create.
The chart below identifies the key elements that make up each period of creation.
Period
Decree
God's Act(s)
Approval
1 3 Let there be light
3 and there was light 4 God saw the light, that it was good
2 6 Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and
let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 and God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under
the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament
8 God called the firmament Heaven
3a 9 Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto
one place, and let the dry land appear
9 and it was so.
10 God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters
called he Seas God saw that it was good.
3b 11 Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit
tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth
11 and it was so 12 God saw that it was good
4 14,15 God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and
for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth:
15 and it was so 18 God saw that it was good
5 20 God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature
that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the
waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind:
21 and God saw that it was good. 6a 24 God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind
24 and it was so.
25 and God saw that it was good.
6b 26 God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them. 30 and it was so.
The chart illustrates that the specific events associated with the literal
24-hour day that ends each period includes God's final act of approbation of
a particular part of his over-all decree to bring the universe and our world in
particular into physical existance. It may or may not include the other events
associated with that particular period of creation.
At the beginning of each creative period God announces that some aspect
of his eternal decree was to be brought into being. He then brings it
into being. Some modification, statement or further process is often
mentioned such as gathering together or bringing forth
shaping that aspect of creation toward its intended end. Finally God
observes and announces that the pronouncement has been essentially
fulfilled. Because this last element is the only one clearly established
to occur on each of the days mentioned in Genesis one, this interpretation
of Genesis one is sometimes called the Inspection Day View
or the Approbation Day View.
The actual days mentioned may or may not have been contiguous with one
another with the exception of the seventh day which by virtue of its
purpose and definition is contiguous with the sixth.
This view does not necessarily demand a young or old earth view. It
allows for both as to the theological conclusions drawn from the text.
The only data that would tend toward limiting the age of the universe
would come from external sources derived from scientific observations
not driven by the imagined boundaries of a preconceived assumption about
the age of the universe. Therefore such a view must not be employed in
the formation of a creedal statement of revealed theology which would
bind the conscience of a believer or a minister of the word beyond what
is either directly stated or is necessarily derived from God's inspired
word alone.
Of course other portions of the Bible must be considered along with
Genesis chapter one before such a conclusion could be safely made.
This will be the subject of the next chapter in this study.
This view allows for a possible overlapping of the periods of creation
and an interaction of the elements of each creative interval as they
were nearing completion. It removes the issue of the dependence of animals
upon certain plants and plants upon certain animals. While God was calling
into existence the creatures affirmed to have been made as he specified on
the fifth day, those of the third day may still have been in the process of
being formed by special creation and sovereign providence. Again this is not
part of this view. But it is allowed within the boundaries set by this exegesis.
The quesions of sequence and contiguity are resolved very simply. The
days of approbation certainly occur in the chronological sequence given
in Genesis one. This is absolutely affirmed in the numbering of the
days. It also appears from the text that the declarations that began
each period of creation are sequential, though not necessarily waiting
to take place until the completion of the previous creative period. God
may have declared his creation of the animals of the fifth day and begun
his work in specially creating them before the approbation of the work
of the third and fourth periods. The term then which begins each
portion (the simple conjunctive prefix "v") would indicate sequence to
the entire process, not just to the last part of it. Therefore the days,
as times of divine observation and affirmation, are sequential, literal
24-hour days. But they are not necessarily contiguous with one another.
Limitations Set and Areas of Theological Freedom
This does not mean that the raising of the question has no value.
Controversy has repeatedly been used to force the church to reexamine
its presumptions and its processes of doing theology. This is the
providential method of grace whereby our creeds are brought into better
agreement with what God has spoken. Along the way, we are bound to
appreciate better the content of revealed truth, even if we never reach
the certainty we seek about the original question asked.
There are other texts that come to mind in our interpretation of Genesis chapter
one. Do they set boundaries which negate the exegetical minimalism sought after
in this study? This is the subject of our next study ...
return to the top of this Page
|
