Posted by John Reuther on December 19, 2009
I commend to our readers this fascinating proposal written by Dr. Robert C. Newman, Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, PA, and Ph.D in astrophysics from Cornell University. You can access a PowerPoint presentation and an audio file for that presentation at the end of this article. His paper presented here is slightly condensed.
Numerous suggestions have been made over the centuries for the identity of the star that led the Magi to Jesus. Some of these proposals may be classified as purely natural, in that no miraculous intervention is postulated – e.g., Halley’s comet, some other comet, one or more of various planetary conjunctions, or an exploding star, such as a supernova. Other proposals can be labeled purely supernatural, since they suggest that a miraculous object – perhaps an angel, the Shekinah glory, or some other local, movable bright light in the sky – was responsible for the phenomenon.
The advantage of this first class of proposals is that it may be possible to find other historical references to the object, or……… even to re-enact the scenario using modern computers. The problem with such proposals is that the bright object, being millions of miles out in space, does not naturally fit Matthew’s comment that the star led the Magi to the place where the child was.
Supernatural models, on the other hand, can be easily imagined in which a relatively local bright object will do the guiding. But it would be very unlikely that such an object would leave any extra-biblical traces in the historical record.
We propose a hybrid model – part natural and part supernatural – that both leaves a distinctive mark for us to investigate two thousand years later, and which will also fit a natural reading of Matthew’s account. Our proposal involves a modification of Ernest Martin’s interpretation of a series of planetary and stellar conjunctions, followed by a localized bright object that would have been recognized by the Magi as the “same” star and which, on that crucial night, led them to the house where the baby Jesus was.
The Natural Part
Although retrospective calculations of planetary positions for ancient times have occasionally been made since the time of Johann Kepler (d 1630), such efforts (being done by hand) were enormously time-consuming, exacting and tedious until very recently. But in 1962, as an early fruit of the electronic computer, Bryant Tuckerman’s tables of Planetary, Lunar and Solar Positions 601 BC to AD 1 were published by the American Philosophical Society.
Within a decade of this publication, Roger Sinnott worked carefully through these tables and located all the close planetary conjunctions that had occurred around the probable time of the birth of Jesus. In particular, Sinnott found one strikingly close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter in the constellation of Leo (the Lion) on the evening of 17 June 2 BC, which would have been quite rare. He proposed that this was the Christmas star, publishing his results in the December 1968 issue of Sky and Telescope, the premier magazine for amateur astronomers. His suggestion has since been adopted and presented each Christmas in many planetarium programs.
Thereafter Ernest Martin developed this suggestion with much additional detail and historical research in his book The Star That Astonished the World (1991). Martin noticed a cluster of additional conjunctions involving one or the other of these two planets within a year of this conjunction, and suggested that these would have had such symbolic significance as to send the Magi to Judea to look for the newborn king of the Jews.
Martin suggests that these conjunctions above, plus a configuration of the sun and moon with the constellation Virgo on 11 Sept 3 BC, would have been read as follows:
12 August 3 BC. Jupiter, the king planet, having left the Sun, the supreme Father, is now conjoined with Venus, the mother. The Sun, Moon and Mercury (the messenger) are also located with Jupiter and Venus in Leo, the lion, representing the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:9). The message of this configuration: some important royal event is to happen among the Jews.
31 August 3 BC. Mercury, the heavenly messenger, having left the Sun, now arrives at Venus, the mother. The Sun is now in the constellation Virgo, the virgin. Mercury and Venus are in Leo and Jupiter is just entering the same. Message: God’s messenger is sent to the mother.
11 September 3 BC. One of the visions in the New Testament book of Revelation, that of the woman about to give birth in chapter 12:1-5, can easily be understood astrologically to mark an exact date. If the woman is taken to be the constellation Virgo, the virgin, then the Sun clothes her body for about one month a year. The moon will pass through that region in the course of its monthly cycle so that it is (just) under her feet on one particular day. In 3 BC, that day is September 11. Martin takes this to be the date of Jesus’ birth.
14 Sept 3 BC, 17 Feb 2 BC, and 8 May 2 BC. Three conjunctions of Jupiter with Regulus, the brightest star in the constellation Leo, the lion, and located between the lion’s feet. Martin notes the prediction in Gen 49:10: “The scepter will not depart from Judah nor the ruler (or ruler’s staff) from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.” Jupiter, the king planet, circles above Regulus, the king star, placing a crown on the king star. See fig. 1.
17 June, 2 BC. A very rare close conjunction of Jupiter and Venus……..Martin sees this conjunction as having the same significance as the one of 12 Aug 3 BC, and suggests it was this 17 June conjunction that sends the Magi on their way, arriving in Jerusalem about December 25.
26 August 2 BC. A close conjunction of Jupiter and Mars (war) in Leo, with Venus and Mercury also in Leo, and the Sun in Virgo. Martin suggests this sign may mean these events will lead to war.
After having explored the Matthew 2 passage with my students in seminary for a number of years, I recently noticed a number of things about these conjunctions that suggest a modification of Martin’s view. When these changes are made, the symbolism of this sequence of events suddenly snaps into focus in a remarkable way. Let’s see:
1. Martin’s 11 September event (which he identifies with Jesus’ birth) comes only two weeks after the 31 August conjunction, in which God’s messenger comes to the mother. This 31 August event sounds like Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary, which would hardly be just two weeks before the birth.
2. Taking 11 September instead as the conception rather than the birth, the really close conjunction of 17 June is just over nine months later. This latter conjunction thus makes best sense as the birth event, which (after all) is what Matthew 1-2 is all about. So Jesus is born 17 June 2 BC.
3. This arrangement gives a different flavor to the three conjunctions of Jupiter with Regulus, as the baby Jesus is in Mary’s womb at this period. Thus Jupiter can be seen as God hovering over him. As an unexpected benefit, the star name Regulus is the Latin diminutive of Rex, “king.” So the king planet is hovering over the little king!
4. The 26 August 2 BC massing of planets – all the anciently-known planets but Saturn clustered within a few degrees of one another in the space between Leo and Virgo (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter) – may indeed imply war, as Martin suggests, given the presence of warlike Mars for the first time in this sequence of conjunctions. If we assume with Martin that the Magi set out from Babylon (or thereabouts) at the really close conjunction of 17 June, they would have just 70 days to get to Judea by this date. This is not unreasonable if they didn’t dawdle.
My scheme thus looks like this, with a date or two adjusted to fit the results of my own planetarium program:
12 August 3 BC. Jupiter, the king planet joins with Venus the mother in Leo. An important royal event – presumably a birth – is about to occur in Judah.
26 August 3 BC. Mercury, the heavenly messenger comes to Venus the mother. The message is delivered to the mother-to-be.
11 September 3 BC. The Sun clothes the body of the Virgin while the Moon is under her feet. The child is conceived.
14 September, 17 February and May 8, now 2 BC. Jupiter the king planet hovers over Regulus, the little king, who is in his mother’s womb.
17 June 2 BC. The rare close conjunction of Jupiter with Venus in Leo, almost exactly the same distance East of Regulus as the earlier 12 August 3 BC conjunction was West of Regulus. See fig. 1. The birth. The Magi set out for Judea and Jerusalem, its capital.
28 August 2 BC. The clustering of Sun, Moon, Jupiter, Venus, Mercury and Mars. This means war. The Magi arrive, and Herod makes his move to kill the baby Jesus.
How rare is the sequence of events we are considering here? See our calculations in the appendix (refer to the links at the end of this article). As noted above, this will depend on the separation of Jupiter and Venus at the close conjunction of 17 June 2 BC. With Sinnott’s suggested separation of 3 minutes, this sort of conjunction will occur in Leo about every 1154 years. With Martin’s separation of 0.5 minute, it will occur about once every 6923 years. With Carroll’s separation of 0.1 minute, this will be once every 34,615 years.
The event is seen to be even rarer when we add in the triple conjunction of Jupiter with Regulus, which only occurs in this particular year because the eleven degree wide loop made by Jupiter at opposition happens to lie across the position of Regulus. This has a probability of 11 degrees divided by 360 degrees, or about .03. Thus the frequency of this close Jupiter-Venus conjunction plus the triple conjunction with Regulus can be expected to happen once every 38 thousand years (Sinnott), every 228 thousand years (Martin), or every 1 million 142 thousand years (Carroll). A rare event indeed!
The symbolism of these events (and their chronological order) is also impressive:
12 August 3 BC. Magi pay attention! A royal birth in Judah.
26 August 3 BC. The heavenly messenger informs the mother.
11 September 3 BC. The conception occurs.
The triple conjunction. The king of the gods hovers over the little king.
17 June 2 BC. The birth occurs.
28 August 2 BC. This means war.
The apologetic value of this sequence of events – which can easily be reconstructed two thousand years later by anyone on a home computer using a planetarium program – is enormous.
The Supernatural Part
The purely natural models tend to run aground in dealing with the text of Matthew 2:9-10:
(9) After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east (or, “star when it arose”) went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. (10) When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.
The problem here is that objects at astronomical distances cannot guide someone to explicit places on the surface of the earth by mere movement alone. Instead this is characteristic of objects that are only a few tens of feet above the ground, as for example, the pillar of cloud and fire that guided the Israelites in the wilderness.
Martin’s model takes the verb “stopped” in verse 9 to be used in a technical astronomical sense, for Jupiter ceasing its westward motion relative to the stars, and beginning to move eastward once more, which he sees as happening about 25 Dec 2 BC, when he believes the Magi were at Jerusalem. But this is nothing an observer would notice by watching Jupiter that night. Its stopping would only become apparent over the course of many nights as its relative motion among the stars would gradually come to a halt and then change direction. And “stopped over the place” Martin takes to mean that when the Magi came out of Jerusalem that night to go to Bethlehem, they saw Jupiter “stopped” in the southern sky over the village of Bethlehem, not over the particular house in which the baby Jesus was located. Since the Magi would need to know that Jupiter had reached its stopping point (before moving east again) by means of calculations or charts they had prepared in advance, they would hardly be surprised or overjoyed as Matthew tells us they were. This Greek expression Matthew uses is quite emphatic.
An alternative suggestion for using an astronomical object to mark a location on the surface of the earth appears in E. W. Maunder’s article on the “Star of the Magi” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1939) 5:2849, under the section “The Legend of the Well.” Maunder reports a legend at Bethlehem that one of the Magi, looking down into the well at the inn, saw the star reflected in it (so it was directly overhead) and knew they had come to the right place. This is a clever suggestion, but it hardly does justice to the details of the text of Matthew.
Supernatural models, by contrast, handle this problem easily. An object which is only a few tens of feet above the earth can easily guide people by moving at a speed they can keep up with and by stopping over the location to which the people are being led. In fact, the terminology used in the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament to describe the guidance provided by the pillar of fire and cloud is rather close to that used by Matthew here. Matthew uses the verb proago to indicate that the star “went before” them or “led” them, the verb erchomai to indicate its “moving” or “coming” and histemi to indicate its “stopping” or “standing.” In Exodus 13:21 God “leads” them (ago) by a pillar of cloud to show Israel the way. In Ex 14:19 the angel of God “goes before” them (proerchomai), and to protect them from the Egyptians, he moves the pillar of cloud to “stand” (histemi) behind them. In Ex 33:9, whenever Moses would enter the tent of meeting, the pillar of cloud would descend and “stand” (histemi) at the door of the tent, and when the people saw the pillar “standing” (histemi), they would each stand at the door of their own tents and worship. In Numbers 14:14, Moses tells God that the Egyptians have already heard that God=s cloud “stands over” Israel (ephistemi) and that by/in the pillar of cloud He “goes before” them (poreuomai proteros). The verb poreuomai is pretty much a synonym of erchomai. In Deuteronomy 1:33, Moses rebukes Israel for not trusting God who “went before” (proporeuomai proteros) them in fire by night and cloud by day to search out places to camp and show them the way they should go.
So, let us summarize. With a purely natural model, no ordinary reading of the text of Matthew or the phenomena of conjunctions will guide the Magi to Jesus. In a purely supernatural model, this is handled easily, but the events described above in our section “The Natural Part” are just an astonishing (but meaningless) fluke. But how about a hybrid model? The natural part is open to retrospective calculation, while the supernatural part fits the Matthew narrative naturally and gets the Magi to the right house in Bethlehem. Such a natural-supernatural hybrid might also make sense of the extreme joy which the Magi experience when they see the star again.
Matthew 2:9-10 tells us that they again saw the star which they had seen in the east, so there is a strong indication that we are to identify the star they now see with that which sent them on their way. In the model we propose, if they arrive in Jerusalem on or about 28 August of 2 BC, then the cluster of Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter in Leo-Virgo will set with the Sun. Since in fact the Sun is then the easternmost member of this group, it will set last. So if we imagine the Magi coming out of Jerusalem shortly after the Sun sets, we can construct a scenario that would work very well:
Suppose (we speculate) they see a supernatural light about the size and brightness of the Jupiter-Venus conjunction of 17 June. It arises in the west from where the Sun has just set and comes toward them until it is low overhead. The “star” then turns southward and leads them (like the pillar in the wilderness) until it stops over the house where Joseph, Mary and the child Jesus are now living. After all their travels, wouldn’t that be something to make the Magi “rejoice exceedingly with great joy” (a literal approximation to the Greek)?
That is my proposal for a reconstruction of the phenomenon of the Christmas star.
Dr. Robert C. Newman, Professor Emeritus, Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, PA. Robert C. Newman is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, Pennsylvania, and Director of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute. His doctorate is in theoretical astrophysics from Cornell University, and he has a M.Div. from Faith Theological Seminary, and an S.T.M. in Old Testament from Biblical Theological Seminary. He has done additional graduate work in cosmic gas dynamics at the University of Wisconsin, in religious thought at the University of Pennsylvania, in hermeneutics and biblical interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary, and in biblical geography at the Institute for Holy Land Studies (now Jerusalem University College).
He is a past President of the Evangelical Theological Society, a professional society of nearly 3000 theologians. He has done scientific research for the U.S. Weather Bureau and the Franklin Institute. He is a fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation, a society of some 2500 Christians in the sciences, a member of the editorial board of its journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and was formerly Chairman of its Commission on Creation.
Here are the links:
For the Powerpoint Presentation on the Star of Bethlehem:
http://www.newmanlib.ibri.org/NewmanPpt/StarBeth.htm
And the link to the audio file – scroll down the list of presentations to the “Star of Bethlehem” and you will see the audio file on the far right.:
http://www.newmanlib.ibri.org/NewmanPpt/AbstractsTopically.htm
Sources:
Carroll, Susan S. “The Star of Bethlehem: an Astronomical and Historical Perspective,” 1998 <http://sciastro.net/portia/articles/thestar.htm> accessed 26 Sept 2000.
Chester, Craig. “The Star of Bethlehem,” Imprimis (December, 1993): 1-4.
Martin, Ernest L. The Star That Astonished the World. Portland, OR: ASK Publications, 1991.
Maunder, E. W. “Star of the Magi,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1939).
Sinnott, Roger. “Thoughts on the Star of Bethlehem,” Sky and Telescope (December 1968): 384-386.
Tuckerman, Bryant. Planetary, Lunar, and Solar Positions 601 B.C. to A.D. 1. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1962.
My simulations of the sky were made using the program SkyGlobe 3.6 for DOS, copyright 1993, Klass M Software.
My calculations for the frequency of conjunctions of Jupiter and Venus were made using my own program FCONJ, written in QBasic 4.5.
Posted by deangonzales on November 4, 2009
I think most of my readers are committed to the belief that the Scriptures cannot err because they are the infallible word of God. But I hope we’re also honest enough to admit that our interpretations of Scripture can sometimes be wrong. Therefore, as I noted earlier, it is not always wrong for us to allow science to influence and even correct our exegesis of the Genesis 1 “creation week.” Some Bible scholars have felt constrained by the claims of modern science to reformulate their reading of the creation week and to offer alternative interpretations that allow for a much greater span of time than that permitted by the more traditional six-day framework. We surveyed these modern alternatives in Part 1 of this series.
In my estimation, however, I am not convinced that scientific evidence for an old earth and universe is conclusive. For one thing, history has often witnessed the modification or replacement of older scientific hypotheses with newer ones. The geocentric view of the solar system, which was popularized by the Greek mathematician Ptolemy and endorsed by the early and medieval church, gave way to the heliocentric view advanced by Copernicus. The presuppositions of Newtonian physics had to be significantly modified when Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity gained credibility. My point is that we should not feel constrained to embrace scientific theories about the age of the earth and the universe that are relatively recent and possibly subject to revision as more data is collected in the future. Moreover, many of the modern claims of science regarding the age of the earth and the universe are interpretations of empirical data, which in turn are based upon the faulty presuppositions of an absolute uniformitarianism and a materialistic evolution. In contrast, many Christian scientists who are committed to the authority of Scripture have offered alternative interpretations to the empirical data that suggest a much younger earth and universe. And while it’s possible to get in a spaceship and confirm Copernicus’ view of a heliocentric solar system, it’s not possible to climb into a time machine in order to verify empirically the age of the earth and universe.
In summary, after reviewing the teaching of Scripture in the light of scientific claims, I have found no compelling reason from Scripture or from science to reject the traditional view of six days of Genesis 1. Indeed, I believe the biblical evidence favors the more traditional interpretation of Genesis 1. The following six considerations support the traditional view of the creation account in which God created the universe in a period of time corresponding to six 24-hour days.
1. The first chapters of Genesis are real history.
Advocates of the Mythological view deny that the early chapters of Genesis (usually 1-11) furnish us with a real historical account of origins. And even though Literary Framework advocates will refers to the early chapters of Genesis as “Primeval History,” some of them flatly reject the historicity of these chapters. For example, Howard Van Till, whom I cited in Part 1 of this series as a Literary Framework advocate, writes,
When we Westerners read a story, we expect it to be written as an answer to the question “What happened?” But the stores of primeval history are more like parables than like journalistic reports of events. They illustrate the identity and character and status of God, humanity, and nature. They were never intended to answer questions about precisely what happened…. In typically Eastern fashion, primeval history answers these questions with illustrative stories that share many features with the parables we find elsewhere in Scripture.
Let me illustrate Van Till’s point: Jesus told a story in the gospels about a man who had 100 sheep, but then lost one. So great did the man love each individual sheep that he left the ninety and nine sheep in the open pasture in order to search for the one lost sheep until he found it. Now did that really happen? Was Jesus describing a real historical event? Most commentators concede that Jesus was probably just telling a story as an illustration of spiritual truth.
That’s what Dr. Van Till believes Moses is doing in Genesis one. Moses is just telling us a story. Thus, Van Till goes on to argue: “The days of the Genesis 1 have nothing to do with the cosmic timetable; they are simply literary devices in the story, not actual temporal intervals directly corresponding to events in cosmic history.” If Van Till is correct and these chapters are not dealing with real history, then it makes no difference whether six literal 24-hour days are given. History is not the point. The spiritual truths contained in the passage are the important point. Is this the way we should interpret the Genesis creation account?
There are good reasons, however, for treating the early chapters of Genesis, including chapter one, as real history. To begin with, the early chapters of Genesis contain the kind of language and sentence structure that characterizes straightforward, though highly stylized, historical narrative. Very little poetry is found in the text of Genesis 1-11. Moreover, the language of these chapters is predominantly literal and not figurative. The references to land, sea, sky, stars, grass, trees, birds, fish, and animals are all literal. More importantly, the narrator actually identifies several geographical referents and persons by name, which is not the usual custom of parable. Furthermore, the Hebrew language employs a particular kind of sentence structure for historical narrative, which predominates not only the historical books of the OT, such as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, but also the book of Genesis, beginning with Genesis chapter one.
Second, the early chapters of Genesis are inseparably linked with the other historical narratives of Genesis. Beginning at chapter 12 and reading the text backwards, one may trace the ancestral lineage of the patriarch Abraham to Terah (11:27-32), then further back to Shem (11:10-26), and eventually to Noah (10:1). Proceeding to chapter 5, one finds Adam at the root of Noah’s family tree (5:3). And who was Adam’s father? According to the immediately preceding verse, Adam was created by a direct act of God (5:1-2). And Moses provides a description of Adam’s creation in 2:4a which begins with the introduction: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” The Hebrew phrase translated “these are generations” (‘elleh toledot) or its close equivalent occurs ten other times in the book of Genesis and three times elsewhere. In each case the phrase introduces either a genealogical list or a historical account, and in none of the Old Testament references outside primeval history does the phrase ever preface a non-historical account. Thus, its function in Genesis 2:4 is not to point backward to the Genesis 1 creation account but to point forward to the subsequent history of creation, beginning with Adam, and to mark that narrative as real history. Indeed, the repeated use of the phrase throughout the book of Genesis serves to bind all the narratives together as one historical corpus of literature. Even a critical scholar like Claus Westermann is forced to acknowledge this point and remarks,
What is peculiar to the biblical primeval story is that it links the account of the primeval period with history. Both J and P prefix the primeval story to a history which begins with the call of Abraham. The transition from one to the other is smooth, and herein lies the key to their meaning for Israel. The whole of the primeval story is thereby freed from the realm of myth.
Indeed, the historicity of Adam and Abraham are inseparably linked to the historicity of Jesus Christ. Especially relevant are the genealogies of the chronicler (1 Chronicles 1-9) and Luke who both treat Adam as the historical progenitor of the promised “seed,” whom Luke identifies as Christ (Luke 3:23-38). If one yanks the thread of primeval narrative from the cloth of history, he runs the risk of unraveling the entire garment of redemptive history and undermining the gospel. The testimony of Psalm 136 is also important as the psalmist extols God’s mighty deeds in the historical context of the Exodus (vv. 10-15), the Wilderness (v. 16), the Conquest of Canaan (vv. 17-22), and his own day (vv. 23-25), and he links them with God’s mighty acts in Creation (vv. 5-9), drawing from the very language and sequence of the Genesis creation account.
Third, Jesus and the Apostles treat the early chapters of Genesis as historical. Of special interest is Paul’s use of the Genesis two account of Adam and Eve’s creation to support male-headship in 2 Timothy 2:13: “For it was Adam who was first (protos) created, and then (eita) Eve” (emphasis mine). Contrary to the Literary Framework interpreters, Paul appears to interpret the Genesis creation account chronologically! In light of these considerations, we who believe in the inspiration of Scripture cannot adopt any view that denies or downplays the historicity of the Genesis creation account. The Genesis creation account is not Moses’ version of Aesop’s fables. It is not just a nice bedtime story. If it the story of creation is fable and a lot of wrapping paper which we can discard, as Dr. Van Till claims, then what should we think about other Biblical teachings that find their roots in the first chapters of Genesis?
Take, for example, marriage. When Christ or the apostles are talking about marriage, or divorce, or the woman’s role in marriage, where is their doctrine grounded? Their doctrine is grounded in something God did in time-space history. God actually created a man whom He named Adam and a woman to be his helper, whom Adam named Eve. That really happened! And because God really did create one man and one woman in time-space history, then polygamy, adultery, homosexuality, and feminism are wrong. But if we do away with the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, then we are left with a story of events that did not really happen the way they are told. We are left without a foundation for monogamous marriage. What about sin? Is sin just a genetic defect? Is sin merely some kind of animal mechanism? Or does sinful human behavior stem from a real historical fall? Was there a real Devil who tempted mankind to rebel against God? Was there a real historical Adam and was there a real Eve who took the forbidden fruit and sinned against God? Was Paul referring to historical events when he wrote in Romans 5:19, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous”? If Adam’s fall was just a myth or story, then what does that say about Jesus’ death on the cross? What about human death? Is human death purely natural? According to evolution it is. In fact, in evolution death means progress, and therefore death is something good. It is a means by which the human species evolves into something better. But that’s not what the third chapter of Genesis teaches us. The third chapter of Genesis links death to a point in history when man rebelled against God and when God pronounced a curse upon man. The point I am trying to underscore is that many important doctrines in our Bible rest upon the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis. If we are to give a solid Biblical answer to such issues as pornography, homosexuality, feminism, racism, euthanasia, and divorce, then we must zealously guard the historical foundation upon which the rest of the Bible answers those questions. For “if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).
2. The six days of Genesis 1 most likely convey a chronological and not merely a topical structure.
Not everyone who espouses the Literary Framework view denies the historical character of Genesis 1. For example, writers like Meredith Kline and Lee Irons strongly affirm that Genesis 1 describes real events that took place in time-space history. They insist, however, that the narrative structure is not chronological but topical in character. For example, they highlight an apparent symmetry between the first three days and the last three days. Day One, which describes the separation of light and darkness, corresponds to Day Four, which describes the light bearers, the sun, moon, and stars. Day Two, which describes the sea and the sky, corresponds to Day Five, which describes the creation of sea creatures and winged creatures. Day Three, which describes the separation of land from water and the sprouting of vegetation, corresponds to Day Six, which describes the creation of land animals and mankind. To summarize, the first three days describe realms or kingdoms, whereas the last three days describe inhabitants or rulers. The following table should help to illustrate this literary structure:
Others have proposed a similar scheme, viewing the first three days as God’s response to the earth’s “formless” condition and the last three days as God’s response to the earth’s “empty” condition (Gen. 1:2). It seems clear that there is a parallel literary structure in the text. But there are several reasons for interpreting the narrative Genesis 1 chronologically, despite the presence of literary parallelism. To begin with, the presence of a carefully crafted literary parallelism need not preclude chronological sequence. In fact, the entire narrative of Genesis is replete with examples of literary parallelism that in no way compromises or precludes chronological sequence. For example, the obvious chiastic parallelism of the Tower of Babel narrative in no way precludes chronological sequence:
Other examples could be cited. As one critic of the Literary Framework view has observed,
What difficulty would it be for [the Author of the Universe] to cause the most complex, refined literary form to coincide with the very way in which He Himself created all things in six days? Artistic form is in no sense opposed to an actual relation of facts, especially since the Author of the account is none less than the actual Creator of the facts which are described in that account.
So the mere fact that there is a literary structure and parallelism in the text does not ipso facto rule out the possibility of chronological sequence. Moreover, if Moses only desired to convey non-chronological information, then why did he bother to present that non-chronological information in the language of six successive days? Presenting God’s creative activity in terms of six successive days gives the natural impression of historical sequence. Derek Kidner has noted this point when he writes, “To the present writer the march of days is too majestic a progress to carry no implication of ordered sequence.” Finally, the narrative employs the kind of sentence structure that normally characterizes historical sequence. Therefore, despite the undeniable literary parallelism of Genesis 1, there is no good linguistic reason for denying the apparent historical sequence of the text.
3. The six successive “days” of Genesis 1 most likely correspond to six 24-hour days.
In chapter one of Genesis, the Bible describes each of the six units of time in which God created the heavens and the earth as a yom [יום] (vv. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). The question we need to answer is: What does the Hebrew word yom means in this passage? If we were to consult a standard Hebrew lexicon, we would discover that the term yom is primarily used to designate a 24-hour solar day. However, we would also discover some other usages as well. The term can also refer to daytime as opposed to nighttime or to an indefinite period of time. In fact, both of these secondary usages are found in the creation account: “daytime” (Gen 1:5, 14, 16, 18) and “a period of time” (Gen 2:4). This last reference speaks of “the day” in which “the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Obviously, in this verse the word “day” is referring to a period of time longer than just 24 hours.
That brings us to six yoms of Genesis one. Those who advocate the “Day-Age” view argue that the six yoms of Genesis 1 are just like the yom in Genesis 2:4. They’ַre referring to indefinite periods of time, i.e., “ages.” “If the term yom means more than 24 hours in 2:4,” they argue, “then why can’t it mean more than 24 hours in chapter one?” That’s a good question, and it deserves a good answer. I offer the following response:
Since the primary meaning of yom is a full day of 24 hours, then we should interpret the yoms of Genesis 1 as such unless something in the context indicates otherwise (as in the case of Gen 1:5, 14, 16, 18 and Gen 2:4). If we examine the context of Genesis one, we find a recurring phrase that helps us determine what Moses intended by the six days of creation. The phrase “evening and morning” occurs just prior to each of the creative yoms (vv. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). If each of the six creative days are made up of two phases—evening and morning—then it seems highly probable that Moses is referring to a unit of time that corresponds in terms of length to a 24-hour solar day. Even the Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist James Barr, who is no friend to fundamentalism, concurs when he writes,
So far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers … that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.
Moreover, as far as I can tell, whenever the word yom is used with an ordinal number, such as “first”, “second,” “third,” etc., it designates a 24-hour day (cf. Exod. 12:15, 16, 18; 16:22, 29; 24:16; Lev 7:17, 18; 12:3; Num 19:12, 19; Josh 6:4, 15; Judg. 19:8; etc.). Furthermore, if an indefinite period of time were intended, the author of Genesis could have used the common Hebrew word for age, namely, ‘olam (“age”). Finally, if we still have any doubt, Moses provides us with an interpretation of the six days of creation in Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:15-17:
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.
These passages are difficult to harmonize with the Day-Age Revelatory-Day views. To begin with, notice that God commands the Israelites to structure their life according to the pattern that He established at creation: six days of labor; one day of rest. Because man is the image of God, his pattern of labor and rest is to resemble God’s pattern of labor and rest. And contrary to the Day-Age view, that pattern is not six ages consisting of millions of years followed by a seventh age. Rather, God by His own example instituted the seven-day week at creation. Furthermore, these texts in Exodus do not teach us that God “revealed” His creative activity in six days. Rather, they clearly state that God “made” (‘asah) the world in six days, employing the same word used in Genesis for God’s creative activity (1:7, 25, 26, 31; 2:2, 3, 4, 18).
4. God’s creative activity described in Genesis 1:1 is not distinct from God’s creative activity in Genesis 1:2-31.
Verse one gives us the scope of God’s creative activity: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” We can interpret the phrase “the heavens and the earth” as a literary device (merismus) referring to the entire universe. Or we can interpret as referring to both the spiritual world (‘the heavens’) as well as the material world (‘the earth’). In either case, it’s referring to the whole of created reality. Then verses 2 through 31 describe the six-day creative process whereby God takes the raw materials He has created ex nihilo (v. 1; cf. Heb. 11:3) and fashions them into an orderly and beautiful world. The reference to the dividing of light from darkness (v. 4), the dividing of the waters (v. 6), the formation of continents and seas (vv. 9-10), the placement of heavenly bodies (vv. 14-18), and the creation of animals and human beings (vv. 24-28) certainly gives the impression of a worldwide creation rather than a mere localized creation. God is not merely creating the Land of Eden. He is forming the entire earth. The worldwide scope of this account is further confirmed by the fact that author attributes the creative activity to Elohim rather than to Yahweh-Elohim. The name Yahweh is reserved for chapter two when Moses does narrow his focus to the Land of Eden. Therefore, I find no support in Genesis 1 for the Limited Geography view.
What of the Gap theory? Advocates of the Gap theory argue that we should see two distinct creations in Genesis one with an indefinite gap of time in between. Genesis 1:1 refers to an original creation. But that original creation came under divine judgment, which they believe is alluded to in verse two. They point out that the phrase “formless and void” (tohu wabohu) is used elsewhere in Scripture to describe a land under divine judgment (Jer 4:23, 26-28). For that reason, they translate verse two, “But the earth became formless and void [emphasis added].” Sometime after this judgment, they argue, God began to recreate the world again (vv. 3-31).
In response to this view, the following points should be noted. First, the phrase translated “formless and void” means nothing more and nothing less than simply “formless and empty.” As such, it may describe a once civilized land that became a desolate wilderness by means of divine judgment (Jer. 4:23). But it may also describe a newly created earth that was about to be fashioned and populated by the creative power of God (Gen. 1:2). Second, the translation of verse 2—“But the earth became”—and the translation of verse 3—“replenish the earth”—do not accurately convey the Hebrew words and syntax. Third, if the sun, moon, and stars were not created until verses 14-19, then the Gap theory would require the existence of a previous world without sun, moon, and stars, which is very unlikely! In conclusion, it seems the Gap theory and the Limited Geography views are classic examples of reading ideas into a passage (eisegesis), rather than deriving them out of a passage (exegesis).
5. The Genesis creation account is neither primitive science nor modern science. It is God-breathed, supernatural science!
Webster’s dictionary defines the human endeavor of “science” as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.” A secondary definition given is “knowledge, esp. that gained through experience.” If Webster’s Dictionary has accurately defined the human endeavor of science, then such an endeavor by itself can tell us nothing about the origin of the world and mankind for the simple reason that no human being was present “in the beginning” to observe and experience creation! As Herman Bavinck rightly observes,
The question as to the origin of things, of man and animal and plant, and of the whole world, is an old question, but it always remains an appropriate one. Science can supply no answer to it. Science is itself a creature and product of time. It takes its position on the basis of things it investigates; from the nature of the case, therefore, science cannot penetrate to the moment when they were given reality.
There is One, however, who can “penetrate to the moment” of creation. The Creator Himself was present, and He has furnished us with an “eyewitness account” of His supernatural creative activity. Thus, it is inappropriate to speak of Genesis one as “primitive science” or “modern science.” I prefer not to refer to Genesis one as “scientific” at all since there was no human observer. But if one insists that the Genesis 1 creation account is scientific, then he must think of it as divinely revealed science.
6. Some of the claims of modern science regarding the great age of the universe are based upon faulty assumptions and are therefore unreliable.
Modern methods for dating the universe are often based upon uniformitarian and evolutionary assumptions. Absolute uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes operating today have been operating at the same rate in the past. Materialistic evolution assumes a natural origin and gradual development for creation. Both of these assumptions are unproven and contradict the teaching of Scripture. According to Scripture, God supernaturally created the universe out of nothing. Moreover, creation by its very nature requires some appearance of age. Furthermore, if the catastrophe of a worldwide flood disrupted the natural order, then attempts to date the earth based on the current rate of natural processes would seem questionable.
This is not to deny that there are scientific claims that are difficult to harmonize with a young earth. Nor do I intend to imply that any Christian who believes in an old universe also embraces absolute uniformitarianism or materialistic evolution. In fact, there are a number of Christian scientists who completely reject the doctrine of evolution but still believe in an old earth on the basis of their interpretation of astronomical and geological evidence. Nevertheless, it is my conviction that we should embrace the most natural reading of the biblical text until there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that constrains a different interpretation. In the end, we may discover that it was not Christians who needed to modify their interpretation of Scripture. Rather, we may learn that it was the modern scientists who needed to modify their dating methods based on the teaching of Scripture.
In summary, I find no compelling reason from Scripture or from science to reject the traditional view of six days of Genesis one. It seems to me that the most responsible interpretation of Genesis 1 reads the six days of creation as a timeframe corresponding to six 24-hour days.
Concluding Applications
In closing, I’d like to highlight several practical lessons that we might draw from our consideration of the creation week of Genesis 1.
(1) Although science may prompt us to reexamine traditional interpretations of Scripture, we must never allow science to be the final authority in interpreting the Bible.
Some discoveries in modern science may inform our interpretation, but they should never be made the ultimate basis or authority for our interpretation. The London Baptist Confession teaches in chapter one, paragraph ten:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but he Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.
So when modern science tells us the traditional interpretation of Genesis one is wrong, we should not unquestionably submit to these claims. We may examine the passage again in light of the claims of modern science. But we must let the Scripture be our ultimate guide.
(2) We must approach the claims of modern science critically and biblically.
An increasing number of scientists today are writing books refuting the theory of naturalistic macro-evolution. In light of these attacks, some evolutionists are beginning to concede the lack of evidence for their theory. For example, one evolutionist has made the following concession.
It should be noted at the outset that substantial fossil remains are known for all the species listed below [monkeys], but that there is virtually no fossil evidence relating to human evolution, other than a few fragments of dubious affinities…. The preceding period of human evolution therefore remains a complete mystery and an unfortunate major gap exists whatever view one takes of the time of divergence of hominids and great apes.
Let it be fixed in our minds, there is no conclusive evidence for macro-evolution. In my opinion, so-called theistic evolution is an oxymoron.
But what about the alleged “evidence” for an old earth and universe? Evolution may only be a theory, but has not the great age of the earth and universe been proven as a fact? Isn’t there geological evidence for an old earth? And don’t the immense size of the universe together with the speed of light suggest a creation much older than several thousand years? Perhaps. But there may be other valid explanations for the apparently great age of the earth. First of all, God’s original creation would have appeared older than it really was. If you and I were transported back in time to the sixth day of creation, the earth would have appeared much older than a few days. Adam and Eve would have appeared to be grown adults, not tiny zygotes or fetuses. In reality, they were only a day old. But in appearance, they looked to be in their twenties or thirties. Thus, the appearance of an old universe does not prove an old universe. Furthermore, biblical creationist scientists have suggested many other scientific models that harmonize the scientific evidence with the teaching of Scripture. The bottom line is that we should not simply swallow the claims of modern scientists. We should assess them critically and biblically.
(3) We must beware of equating any scientific theory even if proposed by a creationist with the teaching of Scripture.
As I indicated above, many Bible-believing scientists have proposed various scientific theories that seek to harmonize the teaching of Scripture with what we know from modern science. For example, some creationists account for the volume of water it took to cover the world with a universal flood by positing a pre-flood canopy of water that was in the atmosphere above the earth. But another creationist has recently rejected this theory and suggested that the waters came from an underground cavern beneath the crust of the earth. Who is correct? They both may be partially correct. Neither may be correct. Or one may be right and the other wrong. But the Bible does not demand that we take sides. The Bible teaches that there was a flood. The Bible speaks of rain from heaven and it also speaks of the fountains of the deep. But it does not provide us with much more detail regarding the origin of the floodwaters.
Based upon what we know of the speed of light, modern scientists argue that the starlight we presently see must have originated millions and billions of years ago. However, creationist scientists have proposed other theories to account for account for starlight and a relatively young universe. Astronomer Barry Setterfield argues that light used to travel much faster when the universe was created than it does today based on a series of historical measurements of the speed of light that seem to indicate a decrease of velocity over time. Dr. D. Russell Humphreys takes a slightly different approach and argues that time itself is not constant in relation to one’s position in the universe. These theories about varying speed of light or relativity of time may prove to be true. But they are just theories. It is not necessarily the teaching of Scripture. The Bible does provide us with information about the speed of light or rate of time at different points in the universe. Therefore, we must be careful not to equate any scientific theory with the teaching of Scripture, even when a Bible-believing scholar proposes that theory. It was not the Christian church that first expounded the view that the earth was the center of the solar system. Claudius Ptolemaeus, a 2nd century mathematician and astronomer first systematically expounded that view. But the Christian church made the fatal mistake of equating the Ptolemaic view with Scripture. We must avoid that mistake.
(4) We should beware our interpretation of Scripture is not motivated ultimately by a desire to please men but by a desire to please God.
Many evangelicals believe the view we have just espoused hinders our witness to the modern scientific community. For example, Hugh Ross, a Christian astronomer and advocate of the Day-Age view, writes
I see the community of scientists, including astronomers and astrophysicists, as an ethnos. God calls us to reach out to them as He does to every other group on the planet. And though He warns that the childlike simplicity of trusting Jesus will be a stumbling block for many, we have unwittingly placed another barrier in their path; the dogma of a few-thousand-year-old earth. I cannot imagine a notion more offensive to this group.
We can appreciate Dr. Ross’ desire to avoid placing unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of unbelievers. Certainly, we should remove any unnecessary offenses from our proclamation of the gospel. But I think we can imagine a notion more offensive to unbelieving astronomers and astrophysicists than a young earth. How about this one: “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). My point is not to discount Dr. Ross’ call for sensitivity. My point is to caution us against an unbiblical attempt to make the message of Scripture completely acceptable and palatable to the modern man. There will always be something offensive in the Bible’s message to the modern man. Therefore, let our motives for interpreting the Scripture be driven ultimately by a desire to be true to God’s word rather than a concern to satisfy the unbeliever.
(5) When a scientific claim appears to cast doubt upon the integrity of Scripture, we must trust in God’s Word even when we don’t have all the answers.
Modem science may at times raise questions which are difficult to answer, and may seem, at least on the surface, to contradict the teaching of Scripture. Evolution really came to the forefront in the early and mid 19th century. In 1859, Charles Darwin published his work, and initially many Bible believing Christians had a difficult time sufficiently answering the proponents of evolution. Even great theologians like Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield had a difficult time answering the critics. It seemed for a time that the Bible may be wrong, and as a result the faith of many was shaken.
But in time, the weaknesses and fallacies of evolution became more obvious and visible. Before long, even non-Christian scientists were questioning the theory of evolution. And by the second half of the 20th century, many excellent refutations of the theory of evolution have appeared. What’s the lesson? We must trust in God and in His Word, even when we don’t have all the answers. Eventually, they’ll come, or God may decide that we don’t need to know them. John L. Dagg, a Baptist theologian and contemporary with Charles Darwin, stated it this way:
The infidel delights to point out apparent discrepancies in Scripture, and he exults when he can announce some supposed discovery of science inconsistent with the word of revelation. While the infidel triumphs, men of weak faith stagger; but it is truly a weak faith that cannot withstand such a shock. We might as well doubt whether the sun shines, when its brilliance is eclipsed by a passing cloud. The mass of evidence that the Bible is the true word of God is so great that we can well afford to wait till the temporary cloud passes, with the confident expectation that the light will again shine, perhaps with increased splendor.
Has modern science ever cast a shadow of doubt upon your Christian hope? Has your faith been shaken? If it hasn’t already, God may permit to be in the future. The lesson is trust in God. That dark cloud does not cancel out the existence of the sun. The sun is still there; you just can’t clearly see it. Wait. Be patient. In God’s timing the clouds will break and the light of God’s Word will be brighter than it ever was before!
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on November 2, 2009
In light of the claims of modern science, many have also moved away from a more literal reading of the chronology of the creation week in Genesis 1. A survey of the relevant literature reveals at least eight new ways to interpret the “six days.” Because we live in the age of modern science and because a growing number of evangelical scholars espouse these newer interpretations, I’d like to make my readers aware of these new approaches to the six days of the Genesis creation account.
1. The Primitive Science view
Many modern scholars see a genuine contradiction between the Bible and modern science. Consequently, they view the Genesis account of creation as a primitive and erroneous attempt to describe the origin of the universe. Some conservative scholars, like Benjamin Warfield, have tried to harmonize this interpretation with an evangelical view of Scripture. Warfield argued, for instance, that an inspired writer could “share the ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun; and, it is not inconceivable that the form of his language when incidentally adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of such a presumption.” More recently, this view has been defended by Paul H. Seely.
2. The Mythological view
Other modern scholars have compared the Genesis account with other mythological accounts of creation found in ancient Near Eastern literature. After highlighting certain parallels between Genesis and these creation accounts, they posit the idea that Moses simply borrowed from the literature of his day, and then modified that literature to fit his own monotheistic theology.
3. The Day-Age view
One of the earliest attempts to harmonize the long ages demanded by science with the teaching of Genesis was the Day-Age view. The Day-Age view points out that the Hebrew word for “day,” יום, yom, doesn’t always refer to a literal 24-hour day. For example, in the very Genesis account the term is used in at least two others ways. In Genesis 1:5 the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to the period of daylight as opposed to the period of darkness or night. In this sense, the term “day” is used to refer to a period less than 24 hours. In Genesis 2:4 the term yom refers to the entire period of creation: “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day (יום) that the LORD God made earth and heaven.” Even in English we can refer to “the day of horse-drawn carriages” or “the customs of Christ’s day,” and mean a period much longer than a mere 24-hours. So on the basis of the flexible meaning of the Hebrew term yom, Day-Age advocates argue that the six days of Genesis One are not 24-hour periods of time but rather six indefinite epochs or spans of time. This appears to have been the position of such Reformed theologians as Charles Hodge, William G. T. Shedd, and E. J. Young. It has recently been defended by R. Laird Harris and the Christian astronomers Hugh Ross and David Snoke. A variation of this view interprets the six days as literal 24-hour periods that either precede or conclude long ages.
4. The Catastrophe view (or Gap Theory)
Unsatisfied with the Day-Age interpretation of the Genesis account, other conservatives offered a different method to harmonize the long ages demanded by modern science with the teaching of Genesis one. They proposed an indefinite gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2ff. Genesis 1:1, they argue, refers to an original creation. This original creation was at some later time destroyed by a catastrophic divine judgment, which is alluded to by the phrase, “without form and void.” This view is further encouraged by the wording of the KJV in verse 28, which says that God commanded Adam and Eve to “replenish the earth,” implying a previous creation. Thus, this view would allow for a literal interpretation of the six days (vv. 3-31) and also allow for a great age for the origin of the earth. This view was suggested by Thomas Chalmers and popularized by The Scofield Reference Bible.
5. The Revelatory-Day view
According to the Revelatory view, the six creative “days” are to be interpreted as literal 24-hour days. However, these six days do not refer to the time it took God to create the world. Rather, they refer to the time it took for God to reveal the world’s creation to Moses. Percy J. Wiseman has articulated this view in his book, Creation Revealed in Six Days:
[The Genesis account] is a record of the six days occupied by God in revealing to man the story of creation…. It is narrative of what ‘God said’ to man, there is no suggestion that the acts or processes of God had occupied those six days. During the daylight hours of those six days God told man how in the ages past He had ‘commanded and it stood fast’ and in such a simple way that man could understand how He had created the world and introduced life upon it.
6. The Literary Framework view
Towards the latter half of the 20th century another approach to interpreting the Genesis creation account has gained a widening acceptance among evangelicals. The Literary Framework view regards the six days of Genesis merely as a literary device used to convey theological truth rather than scientific data. Advocates of this view argue that we should not view the creation week of Genesis as chronological or historical, but rather as topical and thematic. Howard Van Till, professor of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College, is a representative of this view. According to him,
The seven-day chronology that we find in Genesis 1 has no connection with the actual chronology of the Creator’s continuous dynamic action in the cosmos. The creation-week motif is a literary device, a framework in which a number of very important messages are held. The chronology of the narrative is not the chronology of creation but rather the packaging in which the message is wrapped. The particular acts depicted in the Story of the Creator are not the events of creative action reported with photographic realism but rather imaginative illustration of the way in which God and the Creation are related.
Reformed scholars such as Meredith Kline, Bruce Waltke, Henri Blocher, and Lee Irons have also defended this view. In fact, this view seems to be an increasingly popular view among evangelical scholars today.
7. The Anthropomorphic Day view
C. John Collins agrees with those who hold the Literary Framework view that the days of Genesis 1 should be taken figuratively. Since the six days are describing divine activity rather than human activity the days are anthropomorphic in character. That is, they describe God’s creative timeframe using human language that is should not be interpreted literally, anymore than we should ascribe to God a “hand” or “eyes” simply because Scripture sometimes describes divine activity using human body parts (Exod. 7:5; 9:3; Deut. 2:15; 11:12; Prov. 15:3). Nevertheless, Collins disagrees with the Literary Framework view in that he does see chronological sequence. In some ways, this view is a combination of the Day-Age view and the Literary Framework view.
8. The Limited Geography view
More recently John Sailhamer, an evangelical Old Testament scholar, has advocated a new approach to Genesis one. Like the Gap theorists, Sailhamer separates Genesis 1:1 from the rest of the chapter and views the two sections as descriptive of two different events or two different stages of the same event. Genesis 1:1 is referring to the original creation of the entire universe—”the heavens and the earth.” But from Genesis 1:2 and onward, the focus is upon the Land of Eden and the creation of mankind. In other words, the reference to the creation of light and the land and the sea and the trees and the birds and the fish and the animals is not so much a reference to the original creation. Rather, it is a reference to God preparing the Land of Eden as man’s special dwelling place. Instead of viewing chapter one as depicting God’s creation of the whole earth and chapter two as narrowing the focus to Eden, Sailhamer limits the universal statement to Genesis 1:1, and begins with the Land of Eden in Genesis 1:2. This allows Sailhamer to take the six days of Genesis 1:3-31 literally without applying them to the age of the universe or the earth. Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has recently espoused this view in an expositional series on Genesis, and Pastor John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church says he “leans” toward this view
How should we assess these modern interpretations of the Genesis 1? May we still hold the traditional view of creation, which sees “six days” of Genesis 1 as a reference to six literal 24-hour days? Or should we feel constrained to abandon the traditional view and opt for one of the new interpretations? Should we allow the claims of modern science to influence our interpretation of Scripture? Most of us would instinctively answer that last question in the negative. We’re aware of the unbelieving, anti-Christian bias present in much modern science. Consequently, we may feel inclined simply to ignore the challenge of modern science and maintain the traditional view of the Genesis creation account. However, before we jump to a conclusion, let me point out that it is not always wrong for us to allow science to influence and even correct our exegesis.
For example, in the 16th century Nicholas Copernicus rejected the common assumption that the earth was at the center of the solar system. He argued instead that the earth revolves around the sun. If you were a Christian in Copernicus’ day, how would you have responded to his claim? Here is how Martin Luther reportedly responded:
So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.
Luther was right to take his stand ultimately upon the teaching of Scripture. But Luther was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, in particular his interpretation of Joshua 10. When the inspired writer describes the sun as “standing still,” he is not using scientific language. Rather, he is using phenomenological language, that is, the language of simple observation, much like you and I do when we speak of the sun “rising” in the east and “setting” in the west. In this case it would have been appropriate for Luther to reexamine his exegesis of Joshua 10 and to readjust his view of the solar system.
Similarly, the church today should be willing to reexamine traditional views of Scripture in the light of scientific claims. As the theologian John Frame has properly remarked,
We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong. It is also possible that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, though it is not possible for Scripture itself to be wrong. We must be humble enough and self-critical enough to reexamine these questions, even under the stimulus of scientific claims with which we may be initially unsympathetic. This is part of our apologetic mandate to bring every thought captive to Christ. In that sense, it is right for our exegesis to be ‘influenced’ by science.
On the other hand, there are some claims of modern science that are clearly contrary to the teaching of Scripture. In reality, these so-called scientific claims are sinful distortions of the truth (Rom 1:18). For example, I think the naturalistic philosophy behind the modern theory of evolution is totally incompatible with the teaching of Scripture. Moreover, I am not convinced that the scientific arguments for an old age for the earth have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And although the day age and literary framework views might be plausible ways to interpret Genesis 1, I think the exegetical evidence still favors the traditional view as the more plausible reading. In Part 2, I’ll offer some arguments for reading of the six-days of the Genesis creation week as periods corresponding to a 24-hour solar day.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
