Mark Ross took the opportunity yesterday afternoon to announce himself, as it were, as our token liberal. If he's our token liberal, then Joey must be Attila the Hun, and I'm somewhere to the right of that. My task this morning is to give a as we understand it here, the literal day interpretation of Genesis 1. According to the Mishnah, whoever meditates upon four things, it were better for him if he had not come into the world. Among those four was the story of creation. In a similar vein, 40 years ago, Meredith Klein, at the beginning of his article, Because It Had Not Rained, observed, there are no signs that the debate over the chronological data of Genesis 1 is abating. In fact, based upon Dr. Smith's historical survey that we heard last night, I'd say probably at this point the debate, if anything, seems to be heating up, particularly in our denominations, the PCA primarily and the OP, and I suspect to a certain extent in the ARP as well. So it is in the midst of the increasing heat of this debate that we hold this conference. The purpose of my particular presentation is really to, so far we have heard positive presentations of three views which we have denominated non-literal views, that is, they do not hold that the days in Genesis 1 are 24-hour days. The purpose of my presentation is to give forth a view of Genesis 1, an interpretation of Genesis 1, that seeks to understand it in such a way and to hear from the text, hear the text tell us, what in fact those days are. In so doing, I have interacted primarily with the commentary literature, though a little bit with the journal literature as I have deemed fit, which is pretty much what everyone does. You read with the read the literature that you run across or that you deem significant for your case, but I have interacted primarily with the commentary literature because in asking myself how am I going to make this presentation, how am I going to organize my thoughts, I came to the conclusion that the best thing that I could do would be to simply look at the text. look at Genesis 1, go through it, see what it says, see how it says it, and base our conclusions then on that. I do appreciate Dr. Collins' mention and his use of discourse analysis in his presentation yesterday. I myself have eschewed that kind of approach primarily for a couple of reasons. First of all, Discourse analysis is a relatively new field. There are many ways in which the conventions for discourse analysis are not yet set. For example, Collins argues on the basis of discourse analysis that our opening pericope goes from Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 2.3. Another discourse analyst, Nikachi, argues on the same basis of discourse analysis that the first pericope ends, in fact, with Genesis 2.4. And as you read the discourse analysis literature, you find fairly consistently that kind of disagreement among the practitioners. So it seemed to me that in a field in which the things have not quite yet shaken out, that it was best for the purpose of this assembly, where indeed we are, in fact, in agreement on so many things, to simply set that kind of address aside and to approach, nonetheless, to approach the text in the manner that Dr. Collins suggested, as a competent reader. So we begin. Bereshit bara Elohim et ha'shamayim ve'et ha'aretz. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And that's how that verse is translated in most of the translations that we use. It's certainly so in the authorized version. But as you peruse Bible translations, if you're someone like me who has a dozen or so, at least, of different Bible versions hanging around the house, you will find that not all Bible translations take that same approach. You will find that some, in fact, take this beginning verse, this opening verse, as a subordinate temporal clause. The only question, the only point of difference then between these two, between those, well there are essentially two views that take it as a subordinate temporal clause, whether verse one is subordinate to the main clause in verse two, or whether in fact the main clause is verse three. Let me kind of flesh that out for you. Some take it in the sense, when God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Others take it, when God began to create the heavens and the earth, and then a parenthesis, at the time the earth was formless and void, et cetera, then close parenthesis, then God said, hence the the main clause being in verse 3. There are, in fact, a number of problems with that kind of approach. Although, again, as I say, you see that kind of translation in the New English Bible, for example. You see it in the New American Bible, not the New American Standard, but the New American Bible, a Roman Catholic translation, and in the New Revised Standard Version. First, They assume that our opening word, Bereshit, is in the construct state. Now, that's a particular Hebrew grammatical form that would seem to indicate that it was in a temporal connection with what follows in this particular construction. And hence, they have translated it with the preposition then, when God began to create. But that also tends to assume that the verb there, bara, he created, is an infinitive, which in fact it is not. It seems to me, though, as I look at these other translations, though, that they have been more heavily influenced, not so much by the grammar, although the grammar usually gets tossed into the mix, They have not so much been influenced by the grammar as by the supposed parallels between Genesis 1 and ancient Babylonian creation cosmogonies. The most prominent example being a text called the Enuma Elish, which begins something along the lines, when in the beginning, et cetera, et cetera. The view for a long time, particularly among critical scholars, is that Genesis 1 is dependent in some way or other upon these Babylonian texts. And hence, the idea being that their structure as well, the structure of Genesis 1 as well, has come, in some sense, in a dependent form on those supposedly parallel texts. However, a careful examination of the Enuma Elish and other cosmogonic texts from the ancient Near East show that the parallels in content between Genesis 1 and these other texts are almost non-existent, which would indicate then that the supposed parallels in structure are perhaps also non-existent as well. So again, it's certainly an option that is entertained by certain scholars, but again, I think we're in agreement here. The first verse stands by itself in a certain sense as a pronouncement, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. However, the question immediately comes then, what is the connection between Genesis 1.1 and Genesis 1.2? Is it simply a title to what follows? In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Bold caps, middle of the page, and then you move down to the first paragraph. Or is it rather the beginning of the narrative, only the starting point? And again, here in the literature, even the reformed literature, you will find some disagreement. Young, for example, seems to hold to the view that one-one is essentially titular and that it simply introduces or is the summary statement of what follows then in verses 2 through verse 31. But it seems to me that this view founders both on grammatical and theological considerations. If in fact verse 1 is a title Then, by implication, you begin with an eternal matter, because immediately verse two begins, and the earth was formless and void. God created the heavens and the earth, title, but then when you begin the narrative, the earth is already there, which certainly seems to imply an eternal matter. But further, notice, and again, Your translation should generally reflect that. Verse 2 begins with a connective, begins with a Vav, which presumes a connection with what proceeds. That, to my mind, is sufficient to argue against the view that verse 1 is separate from verse 2 and 3. No, verse 1 is the beginning of the narrative, which then continues in verses 2 and following. Now the earth. The narrative picks up there in verse two. It does not continue with the vayiptol form of the vav consecutive, as you've already heard that term tossed about, but rather with the vav connected to the noun, the earth, because the intent then is to shift the focus from the entirety of the picture, if you will. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, the whole thing. There's the beginning laid out for you. Now, let's shift focus. particularly to the Earth. And so the transition then is made by the focus and the Earth was Tohu Vabohu. I'm sure you may have heard those terms tossed about as well, and we'll get to them in a moment. But for example, Derek Kidner, the commentator on Genesis and the Tyndale series, says the Earth and the Earth, would be better translated, now the earth, for the construction is exactly that of Jonah 3.3. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city. Such a view is also reflected, for example, in Kisuto and Wenom. Now the earth was formless and void. Now, before I go on, a note about bara, the word create. I will admit that Barah does not necessarily mean creation ex nihilo, creation out of nothing. But I think it is certainly the case that the context here demands that sense in verse 1. Even, for example, the critical views of Genesis that suppose chapter one to be the work of a post-exilic priestly writer recognize that the assertion of creation ex nihilo is what is intended in this chapter. Even Gerhard von Raad, the staunch liberal that he was, says, it is correct to say that the verb bara, create, contains the idea both of complete effortlessness and creatio ex nihilo, since it is never connected with any statement of the material. Moving on then to verse two. Now the earth was empty and uninhabitable, with darkness upon the face of the deep, But the Spirit of God was hovering upon the face of the waters. Now, my translation there differs probably in some details from the one sitting in front of you. The earth was empty and uninhabitable. Those two words, tohu vavohu, occur together in two other passages, Isaiah 31.11 and Jeremiah 4.23, both of which are clearly dependent upon this text. Those are the only texts in which the term bohu occurs, but when we look at the other word, tohu, we find very clear that the sense conveyed by it is that of an empty waste, very much the term wilderness, a barren place, any place that because of its barrenness, its emptiness, its lack of resources, if you will, is uninhabitable. Hence my translation, now the earth was empty and uninhabitable. But there is one other thing that characterizes this earth as creation begins, and that is darkness is upon the face of the deep. Those, as it were, are the negatives with which creation begins. God has spoken, things are in existence, but there is emptiness, there is waste, and there is darkness. But, it's not a strong but, it's simply a vav here, it's simply connective, but the spirit of God was hovering upon the face of the waters. Now you will read occasional commentaries and occasional translations, for example, the New Revised Standard Version, that translates that last phrase, the last clause, as, a wind from God was blowing over the waters, or some such variation like that. It is true that the Hebrew noun ruach can be translated wind, it can be translated breath, it can be translated spirit, and any number of passages in scripture where it's used, you can point to any of those three or more uses. But the phrase Ruach Elohim, which is what we have here, is never otherwise translated a wind of God. Some commentators want to argue that Elohim here is being used as a superlative. And it is true that on A couple of occasions, the word El, which normally means God, seems to be used to indicate a superlative. However, there are no clear cases where the word Elohim is used as a superlative, and I would refer you to the standard reference Hebrew grammars for that. But also, the Lost my train of thought there, sorry. The Ruach Elohim, a great wind, which is what, again, for example, the new RSV does, a mighty wind blowing. The verb there is simply not susceptible of sustaining the sense blow. It simply means to hover. The other uses that we have of that term have the image of a bird hovering over her nest. There's not the idea of rapid or radical or extreme motion that would be included in the sense and connotation of the term to blow, but rather the idea of hovering, that the Spirit of God, as it were, is brooding Further, it seems to me that the idea of Ruach Elohim as a mighty wind or a wind from God is theologically unlikely. Again, if you look at the theology of the chapter as a whole, whether you regard these as 24-hour days or not, I think the theology of the chapter as a whole argues against this idea of a mighty wind or a wind from God. There is no other occurrence of this phrase, Ruach Elohim, where it means, where it even can mean in the context, a wind from God. The other uses of the phrase are quite clear, that Spirit of God is what is intended here. And as the Jewish scholar, Tuvia Friedman remarks, therefore translators of Ruach Elohim as Spirit of God, refer to God's creative force. And that is the straightforward Bible. So we find ourselves, the earth empty, uninhabitable, dark, but the spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, let there be light. and there was light, and God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided between the light and the darkness, and God called the light day, and the darkness he called night, and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day. Verse three begins with the Vav consecutive, the Vayikthal. Now, a Vav consecutive does not begin the narrative. The narrative begins with the perfect form of the verb, or the Katal form, of the verb, and then the narrative builds from there. Genesis 1, with the perfect form of the verb there, begins the narrative. The Vajiptol, or the Vav consecutive, simply indicates the continuance of the narrative as it proceeds. We can consider, as Dr. Collins spoke yesterday about about the perfect or catal form providing background information. I won't quibble about that, but my own sense is that's not particularly a helpful way of stating it, because it seems to imply that things were already, that background information is somehow separate from the narrative, when in fact it is not. It's the actual beginning of the narrative. I've recently been reading some Tom Clancy. And his book, Executive Orders, begins with a prologue. And I've discovered many of his books begin with a prologue. And the prologue is that a Japanese airliner has just crashed into the Capitol building during a joint session of Congress and killed most of the US government. I know that some of you think that may not be such a bad thing. But that is, he calls it the prologue, but as a matter of fact, that's the beginning of the narrative. It's not background information. It's essential to where the narrative goes from there. And if you really want the background, you have to go to the previous novel, Debt of Honor, if you have time. So what we have then in verse three is the continuation of the narrative. God said, and God said, let there be light. It's the view as we've heard yesterday of the framework hypothesis that verse three speaks of the creation of the sun and the other lights, which are then addressed in more detail on day four. That God has some mysterious reason, which I have not yet heard explained, for delaying the specification of the lights until the fourth day. John Sailhammer in his commentary, for example, says, it should be noted, however, that the sun, moon, and stars are all to be included in the usual meaning of the phrase heaven and earth. Thus, according to the present account, these celestial bodies were all created in verse one. And then the light comes from those celestial bodies. As I The problem with this view is, as I have said, that it gives no adequate explanation for the three-day separation between the actual creation of the heavenly bodies and the description of them being made. I'm not convinced by Meredith Klein's kingdoms and rulers paradigm. Further, it seems to miss the point of the narrative. The assertion that the creation of the light bodies is actually spoken of here seems to me to miss the point of the narrative that the light is not necessarily connected with the luminaries. That yes, God deigns later on in the creative week to connect the light with the luminaries. But that is not essential to the task. Rather, what we find here is that light is somehow connected with God himself. It's curious to me that Sailhammer seems to recognize, or that Sailhammer recognizes, that the use of bereshit in the beginning implies an acharite, an afterword, or an end, that is a beginning implies an end, For example, he says, the author's depiction of the creation appears to be controlled by an eschatological anticipation of the end times. And I would agree. I think there is, in a very real sense, an eschatological, this is an eschatological beginning that looks to an eschatological end. The whole narrative of scripture is forward looking. It is looking, it looks back to the beginning, but always toward the end. The depiction of creation appears to be controlled by an eschatological anticipation of the end times. But Seilhamer then misses the fact that at the beginning and end of things, light is not connected with luminaries, but rather with God himself. Even as Genesis begins with the light emanating from God, so at the end, we read in Revelation 21, 23, The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb." Victor Hamilton, in his commentary, I think recognizes this when he says, the Bible begins and ends by describing an untarnished world that is filled with light, but no sun. Should not the one who is himself called light, 1 John 1, 5, have at his disposal many sources by which he dispatches light into his creation. We then note that God sees the light and pronounces on its character. The light, as it were, shares in the goodness of God. Even as Jesus tells the rich young ruler that there is none good but God, so those such as Salehammer who think that the good is that which is beneficial for man are in error. Rather, that is good which shares in the character of God. Thus, the light and all other things produced in the course of the creation week are good not because they are beneficial for man. They are. And I wouldn't want to deny that. The things that God creates are, many of them, most of them, created for man's benefit. But that is not what makes them good. They are good, rather, because God has put in them something of his own goodness. We all recognize that goodness is one of God's communicable attributes. And in some way, he communicates that attribute to his creation. So the goodness is not in the fact that these are for the benefit of man, but rather that in some way they partake of the very goodness of God himself. God then proceeds to separate or divide the light from the darkness and he names them both. It is widely recognized that the process of naming in the Bible, well, I'm sorry, I'll just set that apart. The alternation of evening and morning, which concludes then the day there in verse five. And God called the light day, And there was evening and there was morning one day, or the first day. The alternation of evening and morning does not indicate that the day began with the evening and ended with the day. And many point, for example, to the current Jewish practice, that the day begins apparently at the evening. For example, the Sabbath begins on Friday evening in contemporary Jewish practice. And many have the idea that that's kind of what's in view here in Genesis 1. No, rather, the arrival of evening and the arrival of morning signify the endings of the two parts of the day. In other words, and there was evening indicates the end of the first daytime, and the and there was morning indicates the arrival of the second morning. hence the end of the first complete day, day and night. This is, I think, essentially the view that Casuto sets forth. Further, again, note that the alternation of the day and night is expressed by the use of the Vav consecutive. The intent, again, is to indicate the regular sequence of time. As for the first day, or some of you may have it translated one day, You have here the use of the ordinal number, I'm sorry, the cardinal number with the noun. The observation of Kyle as to the use of the ordinal, I'm sorry, yes, the ordinal number to indicate the beginning of the sequence is apropos. He says such a use of echad, well, Again, I just summarized from Kyle, such a use of Echad is widely recognized by the grammars so that Sailhammer's, and again, I think there are many commendable things about John Sailhammer's commentary on Genesis in the expositors Bible commentary. But again, I must say that his convoluted protestation against the translation the first day reads to me very much like special pleading. I'll say more then about the length of days and their sequence when I come to my concluding remarks. And we then move to the second day. And God said, let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it be a separator between the waters and the waters. And God made the expanse And he divided between the waters that were under the expanse and the waters that were above the expanse, and it was so. And God called the expanse heavens, and there was evening and there was morning the second day. I've chosen that fairly neutral term, expanse, to translate the Hebrew word rakia, which is often has often in the debate tended to be defined more from its etymology than from its contextual usage, usually in order to impose on the ancient Hebrews the idea of the heavens or the sky as a solid vault covering the earth with waters perched somehow outside that vault. Rather, I think, the very definition in the text Of God calling the expanse, heavens makes it clear that what is in view here is the sky. Remember our geocentric perspective here, our phenomenal perspective, looking at things as they appear from the earth. And so the waters above are simply the clouds that we find later on in the text, the birds flying upon the face of the rakia, the expanse, or the sky. I think that sense of it is fairly clear. And again, I would note here that at the end of day two, there is no benediction pronounced on the day. Now the Septuagint text, the ancient Greek version, adds, and God saw that it was good, in verse eight, but this is surely not original. Ronald S. Hendel, who has put together perhaps the most thorough textual commentary A text critical commentary on Genesis 1 through 11 says, it is more likely that the harmonizing tendency previously noted in the Septuagint is responsible for this addition. Likewise, Casuto says the Greek translator has added at this point the usual formula for the sake of mechanical uniformity. This is typical of his method throughout the section. I'd simply make the point that the benediction is not given here because the work is, as it were, in process. It is simply not complete. The completion of this work is preserved for the next day. And so to the third day we turn. And God said, let the waters under the heavens be gathered to one place and let the dry land appear. And it was so. And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, let the earth, and I've gotten fairly literal here just to kind of pick up on the Hebrew wordplay, let the earth shoot shoots upon the earth, herbs seeding seed, fruit trees making fruit according to its kind with its seed in it. And it was so. And the earth put forth shoots, herbs seeding seed according to its kind, and trees making fruit with its seed in it according to its kind, and God saw that it was good, and there was evening and there was morning the third day. On the third day, we find that two creative acts take place. The first is the separating out of the dry land from the waters under the heavens. The purpose for this separation then follows in the production of plants. Both acts receive the divine benediction. As others have noted, there is a geocentrism in the account that is consistently displayed. First, God creates the heavens and the earth. The attention immediately shifts to the water-covered earth. God, by means of the heavens, separates the waters and the attention shifts again to the earth. The waters under the heavens God then separates from the dry land. It is at this point that the earth, that is the dry land, becomes capable of holding vegetation. I'd make a point here that Dr. Piper has already alluded to, and that is that Genesis 1 is concerned with the entirety of the earth. And that has to be said in point or in light of the fact that some, particularly Sailhammer, but there are other commentators currently beginning to argue that, in fact, Genesis 1 is not concerned with the entirety of the earth, but rather is concerned simply with the land of Canaan. and is concerned simply with the promised land and then carrying that over when they get to the flood account, for example, to arguing for a local flood of the land of Canaan. If you wanted me to, I could spend some time arguing the points, but I don't think it's pertinent to our purpose today. But again, I think Genesis 1 the entire Earth. Genesis 2, I think, shifts then to the particular area that becomes then the Garden of Eden. And I think particularly in Genesis, you see this shifting back and forth from the broad to the narrow. You see it from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2. With Genesis 4, you shift back out via the Genesis 4 and 5 via the genealogies. You shift back out to the entire earth and the entire population of the earth up through the Tower of Babel episode. Then what do you do? You focus down again on Abraham. So that I find that alternation, if you will, of the universal and the particular characteristic of narrative in Genesis. The narrative essentially classifies all vegetation under two kinds, herbs and trees. The first term, there are actually three terms used here that I have translated shoots, herbs, and trees. Shoots is kind of a generic term, and the other two terms seem to be the two subcategories, if you will. Now, the categories are not to be so strictly defined that they do not allow. It's true that in the latter part of this chapter, these same kinds of plants are identified with the plants approved for human and animal consumption. But the categories are not to be so strictly defined that they do not allow for inedible plants. Klein equates the plants in these verses with those referred to in Genesis 2.5. However, it should be noted that though the plants mentioned in 2.5 are similar, the terms used are similar to those used here, they are modified in a different way. They are particularly modified by the the noun sade, which means field, which can mean open country in contrast to a city or a village, but it can also mean cultivable land in contrast to the term midbar, which generally is translated wilderness. And it seems to be that this A latter sense is more likely the case in Genesis 2.5, that the concern there in Genesis 2.5 is not with plants in general, and I think that's where Klein makes his mistake, but rather simply with cultivable plants. Further, we have here in day three the mention of kind. The significance of this word I think can be overstated in one way but cannot be overstated in another. The word kind tells us something about the order that God has established in his creation from the beginning. The recognition of divinely imposed order, even on the lesser parts of creation, is of significance in the law. For example, the prohibition of the mixing of kinds. and of significance for Christian ethical reflection. I think that will be apparent at least to those among us who teach ethics on occasion. As Wenham says, Wenham in the word biblical commentary says, the Old Testament in describing how our world came to be is at the same time suggesting a moral stance to be adopted toward the natural order. Things are the way they are because God made it so. and men and women should accept his decree. However, the word kind should not be taken for a precise technical term. It is the language of appearance, as is much of the language in Genesis 1. That it does not indicate a precise scientific taxonomy, though, in no way lessens its theological importance. The mixing of kinds is contrary to the created order, the observance of kinds. And I would say, for example, that the clear statement regarding kinds here completely writes out of the possibility the idea of macroevolution, which by its very implication involves the transition from one kind into another. We come then to what is, I suppose, the key day in our examination, and that is the fourth day. And God said, let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens. Well, I won't read the whole paragraph, but except for the sixth day, day four is the longest account. And there is, as Wenham shows, and I've adopted this outline from Wenham, a certain chiastic structure to the account that is set forth as you see on the overhead. A and A prime to divide the day from the night, found at the beginning and end of the paragraph. And then secondarily, for signs, for seasons, for days and years, paralleled with B prime to rule the day and the night. C and C prime to give light on the earth. D and D prime to rule the day and the night, and then in the center God made the two great lights. So that the structure of this paragraph is unified. You have a unified structure to the paragraph that fits in the chiastic structure, this bottom drawing down here, simply to illustrate for those of you who aren't familiar with that kind of terminology, from the Greek word chi, which looks like an X, the X-shaped outline of the thing, the chiastic or calistrophic structure, a structural inversion, as it's sometimes called, are a fairly common feature of Hebrew prose. And if you take a look, for example, at Wenham's commentary on Genesis, he tends to note these as he goes through his commentary. And you'll be surprised, I think, by the number of them in the book of Genesis. So again, this kind of thing is a fairly common feature of Hebrew prose. And the occurrence of these palistrophes does not indicate any sort of poetry or exalted prose but rather, I think, is simply typical of the kind of sophisticated narrative that is characterized of the Old Testament. We sometimes tend to think, I suppose, of the Old Testament as being, the stories at least, perhaps being a little bit simplistic. Well, they're not. They're very sophisticated works of literature. And perhaps one of these days when all the disagreements get shaken out in discourse analysis, we can learn even more about that. It is the fourth day that gives the framework hypothesis, its biggest concern about the intent of the text. After all, how can there be light without the sun? Well, we've already, at least to an extent, dealt with that, that somehow, either perhaps by the physical manifestation of his own glory, God creates the light, or perhaps through some mechanism that we do not understand, God has light without luminaries for the first three days. However, there are others who have argued, Sailhammer and Dr. Collins have suggested, that the creation of the lights that denies that the lights are created on the fourth day. The framework people generally argue that the first day is really parallel to the fourth, and so There isn't a time sequence here anyway, so that issue is irrelevant. But Dr. Collins has suggested that, in fact, we're not speaking here in day four of his commentary. He argues, first of all, that heavens and earth in verse one refers to the entirety of the universe, which must include the heavenly bodies. Second, he argues that the syntax of verse 14 is different from the syntax that we find in verse six, which he sees as parallel. Thus, verse 14 refers to the appointment of the previously created heavenly bodies to a distinct task. Third, verse 15 ends the report of the work, and verse 16 begins the author's comment on the work. It is, as Sailhammer says, quote, a remark directed to the reader drawing out the significance of that which had previously been recounted. In response, point by point, Salehammer first of all says, heavens and earth, verse one, refers to the entirety of the universe, which must include the heavenly bodies. We admit, That heavens and earth refers to the entire universe. However, it is clear from the narrative following, it refers to the beginning of the creation in its empty, uninhabitable, and dark form. The creation was not complete. It was only begun. And hence, we can't say anything at all about whether the lights of necessity have been there. In regard to the question of syntax, He sees a parallel with verse 6, and God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let there be a division, or let it be a division between the waters and the waters. The sailhammer points out that while at first glance verses 6 and 14 seem to be similar, they are in fact quite different. Verse 6 contains two justives, let there be an expanse and let it be a division. Verse 14, however, has only one. Let there be lights in order to divide. He argues that this assumes that the lights already existed and were now merely being appointed to a particular task. Teaching Hebrew is always an interesting exercise. You learn so much. I remember In class several years ago, we were going over the exercises, and one student gave a reading of a sentence that was patently wrong. And I said, no, that's right. And he said, but could you translate it that way? And Hebrew is, in some ways, more like English than just like Greek. It's relatively heavily dependent on word order, although it can do things with word order that English cannot. And I stopped and I thought about it. It dawned on me that, yes, I suppose in a certain sense you could translate it the way this student was suggesting. And so I said to him, well, yes, you could, but why? And I would pose the same question to Sailhammer and actually to Dr. Collins here. Yes, you could say that make here simply means a point or to set up for, but why? What is there in the text that would actually lead you to that conclusion? I would argue that there's nothing there. It's possible. But it seems to me more likely that the emphasis in verse 14 is the other way. That the emphasis in verse 14 is not on simply the appointment, but that now there will be lights where there were not, in fact, lights before. Now let there be lights to divine. On the first three days, the division between light and darkness was simply that, the alternation of the two that was divinely provided. Now, God makes creatures for the express purpose of continuing to provide that distinction and to provide further distinctions as well. Signs, seasons, days, and years, as the text tells us. So, as for Sailhammer's third point to the effect that verse 15 concludes the report and verse 16 begins the comment, Such a view would require that, and God made, in verse 16, should really be translated, God had made. Again, I think there are a number of problems with Salehammer's view, but essentially it would destroy the structure of the paragraph as we have seen it. And I would comment further that most of the commentators, even those who hold to some sort of framework hypothesis or analogous days or day age, seem to hold that day four in fact gives us the creation, the ontological origination of the lights. Let's move on. We have much to say and little time in which to say it. The fifth day. God said, let the waters team with teams of living creatures. And so we have the filling then of the seas, and we have the filling of the skies. Here, the creative work has to do with the population of the expanse created on day two by means of the birds, and the populating of the seas created on day three. And this is something that Jung points out, that the alleged parallelism between the The two sets of three days begins to break down by means of the sea monsters and fish. The other factor of significance that I would note on the fifth day is the blessing. This is the first blessing that we see in the account. It's pronounced on the created animals, which consists primarily in their reproduction after their kind. And Casuto notes a number of other passages in Genesis where the idea of blessing is linked particularly with this idea of fruitfulness or fecundity. Let's move on then to verse six, and again, This is the longest day in the entire account, the longest account in the entire narrative. Here we find a dual focus, the land animals and man. There is more here than simply the filling of the realm of the dry land. Not only are these creatures brought into existence, but they are specifically given divine provision. There is no mention, for example, of the provision of food for the sea creatures in day five. But the birds are included here in day six with a statement for their provision. The types of land animals, not including the birds, are described as of three kinds. The terms here generally refer to wild animals, tame animals, and then creeping animals, small animals, or animals that live close to the ground. As for man, he is created in God's image. Although I would comment on this, that the text of Genesis 1 tells us very little about what constitutes God's image in man. It gives us a hint in that man is appointed vicegerent over the creation. But as far as filling out what constitutes God's likeness in man, Genesis 1 leaves that to the further exploration of the biblical text for us to consider and for us to conclude. Finally, you have the blessing of man and the creatures, both with fruitfulness. But the blessing of man also includes placing man in subordinate leadership over creation. And finally, the provision then for man's and the animal's physical sustenance. It is also the sixth day that receives the designation as very good. The narrative has in mind the pronouncing of the benediction not simply upon the sixth day, but upon the culmination of the work of the first six days. For the reference is to all that he had made. And here again, the verb is assah, to make. It is this pronouncement that makes it clear that God has completed his work on the sixth day. Again, there would be more to say, but I move on to the seventh day. Three things distinguish the seventh day. First, it is set apart by God's rest. It has been noted by many that the verb Shabbat does not mean properly to rest, but rather to abstain or desist from work. It's a deliberate act, if you will, a deliberate not doing, rather than a simply relaxation. Second, the day is set apart by God's blessing. It is indeed most unusual for a thing to be not only the object of God's blessing, but of His sanctifying as well. Perhaps something like the following is in view. As the previous six days shared in God's goodness, He pronounced them good, so the seventh day partakes of God's holiness and also of God's power to bless, as God himself pronounces this grand benediction upon the day. This is hinted at, for example, by the following statement from Wenham. Partly the Sabbath is blessed by being hallowed, but there is also the suggestion that those who observe the Sabbath will enjoy divine blessing in their lives. The seventh day is the very first thing to be hallowed in scripture, to acquire that special status that properly belongs to God alone. Moving on then to a very hurried survey of Genesis 1, still a number of points to be addressed. First, the length of the days. Second, the sequence of the days. Third, the connectedness of the days, and fourth, the significance of the days. As for the length of the days, my own conclusion is really summed up in a quote from John Skinner. Actually, I want to begin with a quote from Derek Kidner. on the length of the days and then respond to him. The days of creation may be similarly understood. They give the reader a simple means of relating the work of God in creation to the work of God here and now in history. While a scientific account would have to speak of ages, not days, and would group them to mark the steps that are scientifically significant, the present account surveys the same scene for its theological significance. With this in view, it speaks of days, not ages, and groups them into a week. The significance of the week is explicit in the Sabbath hallowing. A number of difficulties with the day-age view or a framework view, first of all, with regard to the length of the days. First of all, it seems to presume that the creation process actually took much longer than one regular week. And I would ask them, what is the basis for that conclusion? Second, Kidner and others presume that the seven-day grouping is artificial or arbitrary. This, again, is based on, it seems to me, certain presumptions about creation and the length of time taken for it, rather than on the biblical text itself. There does not seem to be anything in the text that suggests that the days are arbitrary or artificial, or the presentations of my compatriots to the contrary. I simply do not find that there. Third, in saying that days are not essential to the idea of the Sabbath, which is something that Kidner said in the section I didn't read, Kidner and others ignore the point that the sabbatical year and the jubilee grow out of the weekly Sabbath, not vice versa. Finally, it seems to me this view ignores the importance of the statements in Exodus 20, 11, and 31.17. where therefore during six days God made the heavens and the earth. The use there of the adverbial use of in six days implies, it seems to me, two things. Both the days were normal days and that they were contiguous. Thus, the dayness of the six days, as well as the seventh, is essential to the meaning of the Sabbath commandment. It is not simply an analogy. God rested one period after six periods, so in a similar way we rest one day after six. Rather, because God made the six days and the seventh, rested the seventh, we work the six days and rest the seventh. As for the length of the day, I'll simply defer to Skinner. The interpretation of Yom as Eon, a favorite resource of harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of the passage and has no warrant in Hebrew usage. It is true that the conception of successive creative periods extending over vast spaces of time is found in other cosmogonies, but it springs in part from views of the world which are foreign to the Old Testament. To introduce the idea here not only destroys the analogy on which the sanction of the Sabbath rests, but misconceives the character of the priestly code. If the writer had had eons in mind, he would hardly have missed the opportunity of stating how many millenniums each embraced. With regard to the sequence and connectedness of the days, I refer to the syntactic oddness of the first day, the second day, that the definite article, as is often noted in the commentaries, is missing. Again, I simply defer to Kyle on this part, on this point, and I also refer you to Casuto because I think he says very much the same thing. Echad, let's see, like the numbers of the days which follows, it is without the article, he's referring to the first day, to show that the different days arose from the constant recurring of evening and morning. It was not until the sixth and last day that the article is employed to indicate the termination of the work of creation upon that day. And further, I would note that the reason that evening and morning the seventh day is not added at the end of the seventh day is because of the very implication that the narrative would continue into day eight, which it does not. In fact, it goes back to day six. And so for typical, for the reasons of type and for the reasons of narrative, the definition of the seventh day is left open. As for the significance of the days, creation and Sabbath, I'll sum it up that quickly. It is the testimony of all history and almost every culture that man operates on a seven-day week. Yet this week cannot be defined on the basis of solar, lunar, or stellar cycles. It is a cycle imposed on man by God And I would argue that we note in it the condescension of God to man. And this condescension is not in the analogy, but in the reality that God condescends to man in time, working in six normal days, so that the imposition on man of that Sabbath week, of that weekly cycle, is an imposition which God made upon himself. It is a cycle imposed on man for his benefit and for God's glory. Solely by the power and the definition of man's Creator may he be blessed forever. Amen.