by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Any attempt to deny a process of creation involving a series of successive divine fiats stretching out over a period limited to six literal days is manifestly contrary to the plain, historical sense of Scripture. This may be demonstrated from a variety of angles. The Hebrew word “yom” (“day”) in the Genesis 1 account of creation should be understood in a normal sense of a 24- hour period, for the following reasons:
(1) Argument from primary meaning. The preponderate usage of the word “yom” (“day”) in the Old Testament is of a normal day as experienced regularly by man (though it may be limited to the hours of light, as per common understanding). The word occurs 1704 times in the Old Testament, the overwhelming majority of which have to do with the normal cycle of daily earth time. Preponderate usage of a term should be maintained in exegetical analysis unless contextual forces compel otherwise. This is particularly so in historical narrative.
R. L. Dabney points out that: “The narrative seems historical, and not symbolical; and hence the strong initial presumption is, that all its parts are to be taken in their obvious sense.... It is freely admitted that the word day is often used in the Greek Scriptures as well as the Hebrew (as in our common speech) for an epoch, a season, a time. But yet, this use is confessedly derivative. The natural day is its literal and primary meaning. Now, it is apprehended that in construing any document, while we are ready to adopt, at the demand of the context, the derived or tropical meaning, we revert to the primary one, when no such demand exists in the context.” [Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1878, rep. 1972), 254-5).
(2) Argument from explicit qualification. Moses carefully qualifies each of the six creative days with the phraseology: “evening and morning.” The qualification is a deliberate defining of the concept of day. Outside of Genesis 1 the words “evening” and “morning” occur together in thirty-seven verses. In each instance it speaks of a normal day.
Examples from Moses include:
R. L. Dabney argues that this evidence alone should compel adoption of a literal day view: “The sacred writer seems to shut us up to the literal interpretation, by describing the day as composed of its natural parts, `morning and evening.’... It is hard to see what a writer can mean, by naming evening and morning as making a first, or a second `day’; except that he meant us to understand that time which includes just one of each of these successive epochs: — one beginning of night, and one beginning of day. These gentlemen cannot construe the expression at all. The plain reader has no trouble with it. When we have had one evening and one morning, we know we have just one civic day; for the intervening hours have made just that time” (Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 255).
(3) Argument from ordinal prefix. In the 119 cases in Moses’ writings where the Hebrew word “yom” stands in conjunction with a numerical adjective (first, second, third, etc.), it never means anything other than a literal day. The same is true of the 357 instances outside of the Pentateuch, where numerical adjectives occur.
The Genesis 1 account of creation consistently applies the ordinal prefix to the day descriptions, along with “evening and morning” qualifiers (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
(4) Argument from coherent usage. The word “yom” is used of the creative days of four, five, and six, which occur after the creation of the sun, which was expressly designated to “rule” the day/night pattern (Gen. 1:14). The identical word (“yom”) and phraseology (“evening and morning,” numerical adjectives) associated with days four through six are employed of days one through three, which compel us to understand those days as normal earth days.
(5) Argument from divine exemplar. In Exodus 20:9-11 (the Fourth Commandment) God specifically patterns man’s work week after His own original creational work week. Man’s work week is expressly tied to God’s: “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth” (Exo. 20:11).
On two occasions in Moses’ writings this rationale is used:
Dabney’s comments are helpful: “In Gen. ii:2,3; Exod. xx:11, God’s creating the world and its creatures in six days, and resting the seventh, is given as the ground of His sanctifying the Sabbath day. The latter is the natural day; why not the former? The evasions from this seem peculiarly weak” (Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology, 255).
(6) Argument from plural expression. In Exodus 20:11 God’s creation week is spoken of as involving “six days” (yammim), plural. In the 608 instances of the plural “days” in the Old Testament, we never find any other meaning than normal days. Ages are never expressed as yammim.
(7) Argument from alternative idiom. Had Moses intended to express the notion that the creation covered eras, he could have employed the term olam. Even the resting of God on the “seventh day” does not express His eternal rest, for it would also imply not only His continual rest but also His continual blessing of creation, as if sin never intervened: Genesis 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
Any attempts to re-interpret Genesis 1 in order to allow for enormous stretches of time, are manifestly contra-Scriptural. If the Bible has any meaning at all, we who profess to believe it must acknowledge its clear teaching regarding creation in six twenty-four hour days.
Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry is the Director for NiceneCouncil.com. He received his B.A. in Biblical Studies from Tennessee Temple University (1973, cum laude). After graduating he enrolled at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. After two years at Grace Seminary (1973-1975) he left dispensationalism, having become convinced of a covenant and Reformed theology. He transferred to Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi (1975-1977). Upon completing studies at Reformed Theological Seminary he was awarded the M.Div. in 1977. After several years of pastoral ministry, he earned a Th.M. (1986) and a Th.D. (1987, magna cum laude) from Whitefield Theological Seminary, both in the field of New Testament. He is the author of over two dozen books from such publishers as Zondervan, Baker, P & R, Kregel, CMF, Apologetics Media, and others.
Discuss this article and other topics in our Discussion Board