Genesis 2:3

God "blessed" the seventh day in that He set it apart as different from the other days of creation. It was a memorial of His creative work. Note the unique threefold repetition of "seventh day," highlighting its special significance.

". . . according to one Babylonian tradition, the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of each month were regarded as unlucky: Genesis, however, declares the seventh day of every week to be holy, a day of rest consecrated to God (Genesis 2:1-3)." [Note: Wenham, pp. xlix-l.]

Note that God did not command Adam to abstain from work on the Sabbath; this came later with the Mosaic Law. However, Scripture does teach the importance of periodic rest (cf. Exodus 20:8-10; Exodus 23:10-12; Leviticus 25:2; Leviticus 25:4; Deuteronomy 15:1-18; Hebrews 4:1-11; et al.). Part of bearing the likeness of God involves resting as He did after completing His work. [Note: Sailhamer, "Genesis," p. 39.]

"In the first six days space is subdued; on the seventh, time is sanctified. This day is blessed to refresh the earth. It summons humanity to imitate the pattern of labor and rest of the King and so to confess God’s lordship and their consecration to him. On this day they cease to subdue the earth." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 67.]

The writers of Scripture used the Sabbath to anticipate the hope of Messianic redemption throughout the Old Testament.

In the creation account the Sabbath points forward to the time when God will bring, ". . . a perfect and complete cosmos out of chaos. . . . The weekly rest-experience of the Sabbath [under the Mosaic Law] served to epitomize the future peace and rest of the Messianic age." [Note: Samuele Bacchiocchi, "Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption," Journal for the Study of Judaism 17:2 (December 1986):155, 165.]

The sabbatical and jubilee years in ancient Judaism also pointed to the liberation Messiah would provide for His people. [Note: See John F. Alexander, "Sabbath Rest," The Other Side 146 (November 1983): 8-9; and Gerhard Hasel, "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch," in The Sabbath in Scripture and History, pp. 21-43.]

The structure of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3 bears the marks of literary artistry, as does the structure of the rest of Genesis.

"The correspondence of the first paragraph, Genesis 1:1-2, with Genesis 2:1-3 is underlined by the number of Hebrew words in both being multiples of 7. Genesis 1:1 consists of 7 words, Genesis 1:2 of 14 (7 x 2) words, Genesis 2:1-3 of 35 (7 x 5) words. The number seven dominates this opening chapter in a strange way, not only in the number of words in a particular section but in the number of times a specific word or phrase recurs. For example, ’God’ is mentioned 35 times, ’earth’ 21 times, ’heaven/firmament’ 21 times, while the phrases ’and it was so’ and ’God saw that it was good’ occur 7 times." [Note: Wenham, p. 6.]

These characteristics of repeating important words or phrases in multiples of seven and using them to bracket sections of the narrative continue throughout Genesis, though not consistently. They help the reader of the Hebrew text to identify discrete sections of the text as such.

How long were the six days of creation? This is a problem because the inspired writers used "day" (Heb. yom) in various ways in the Old Testament.

"The simple fact is that day in Hebrew (just as in English) is used in three separate senses: to mean (1) twenty-four hours, (2) the period of light during the twenty-four hours, and (3) an indeterminate period of time. Therefore, we must leave open the exact length of time indicated by day in Genesis." [Note: Schaeffer, p. 57.]

Moses used "day" these three ways in 1-Gen.2" class="scriptRef">Genesis 1, 2 : (1) a 12-hour period of daylight (Genesis 1:5; Genesis 1:14; Genesis 1:16; Genesis 1:18), (2) a 24-hour day (Genesis 1:14), and (3) the entire seven-day period of creation (Genesis 2:4). A few scholars have argued that the sequence of days is not chronologically ordered at all. [Note: E.g,. D. A. Sterchi, "Does Genesis 1 Provide a Chronological Sequence?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):529-36; and M. Throntveit, "Are the Events in the Genesis Account Set Forth in Chronological Order? No," in The Genesis Debate, pp. 36-55.] They believe that Moses numbered the days on the basis of content rather than sequence in time. This view has not enjoyed wide acceptance. Other scholars believe there is some dischronologization in the text. [Note: E.g., Waltke, Genesis, pp. 75-78; and H. Blocher, In the Beginning, p. 78.] There are four major views as to the length of the days of creation.

1. The literal 24-hour day theory. The normal conclusion one would most likely draw from the terminology in the text (e.g., evening, morning, day, night, etc.) is that God created the world in six 24-hour days. This view is most consistent with the principles of literal, historical, and grammatical interpretation. The fact that the number of days corresponds to the number of weekdays also favors this view. Furthermore, whenever "day" (yom) occurs with a numeral in the Old Testament, as here, it refers to a 24-hour period. Some advocates cite Exodus 20:11 as support also. [Note: See Ham, et al., pp. 13-14, 89-101.] The main problem with this view is that the activity of some days (e.g., the sixth) seems to some to require more than 24 hours. [Note: See Ross, Creation and . . ., p. 109.]

2. The day-age (or geologic day) theory. This view interprets the terminology less literally. Advocates argue that the events recorded seem to require more than 24-hour days (e.g., Genesis 2:12). They also point out that solar days may not have begun until the fourth day. Some advocates of this theory are theistic evolutionists. Others are progressive creationists. Progressive creationists generally seek to correlate the geologic ages with the six days of creation. The main problem with the day-age theory is that it interprets terms that seem to have obvious literal meaning figuratively.

3. The literal days with intervening ages theory. This view regards each day as a time of completion of creative activity only. It is an attempt to take the "morning and evening" references seriously but still allow the time that seems necessary within the days (e.g., Genesis 2:12). It is a combination of the two preceding views. However, it strains the text. Also, Moses could have described this method of creation more clearly than he did if long ages interspersed the six days. Few scholars have adopted this view.

4. The revelatory day theory. The least literal interpretation holds that God revealed, rather than accomplished, creation in six days. A major problem with this view is Exodus 20:11 where Moses says God made, not revealed, His creation in six days. A variation of this view understands the days as "structures of a literary framework designed to illustrate the orderly nature of God’s creation and to enable the covenant people to mime the Creator." [Note: Waltke, Genesis, p. 61.]

Presuppositions are extremely important in this controversy. If one believes that scientific "facts" are true, he or she may try to make the Bible fit these. On the other hand, if one believes in an inerrant Bible he or she will give priority to statements in the text. If one believes both are true, he or she will soon learn that both cannot be true. For example, the text says God created the trees before marine life (Genesis 1:11; Genesis 1:20), but most evolutionists believe that trees developed after marine life. Also, the Bible implies that marine life and birds came into existence about the same time (Genesis 1:20), but evolutionists hold that they evolved millions of years apart. [Note: See John Klotz, Modern Science in the Christian Life, pp. 111-12.] No theory explains the conflict between biblical statements and scientific statements adequately. In the end one really comes down to the question, Do I put more confidence in what God says or in what scientists say? [Note: See Duane T. Gish, "Evolution-A Philosophy, Not a Science," Good News Broadcaster (March 1984), pp. 34-37.] One’s presuppositions will also affect whether he or she interprets more or less literally.

Belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not obviate the problem of the age of the earth, however. Several evangelical scholars who are competent scientists and affirm inerrancy believe the proper interpretation of Scripture results in an old earth model of creation. [Note: E.g., Davis Young, Creation and the Flood and Christianity and the Age of the Earth; Robert Newman and Herman Eckelmann Jr., Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth; and Daniel Wonderly, God’s Time-Records in Ancient Sediments; Hugh Ross.] Other equally qualified inerrantists see a young earth model in the Bible. [Note: E.g., John Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution; Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves, The Creation Explanation; Henry Morris, Science, Scripture and the Young Earth; John Whitcomb, The Early Earth; and John D. Morris, The Young Earth.] One writer gave biographical information about Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), whose chronology appeared first in the 1701 edition of the AV and later in the margin of the original Scofield Reference Bible. He also gave an explanation of how Ussher arrived at his dates and a table listing the dates of the more important events in Old Testament history contained in Ussher’s chronology. [Note: James Barr, "Why the World was Created in 4004 B.C.: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology," Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67:2 (Spring 1985):575-608.]

"Clearly a difference between these positions at this precise point of the relationship between science and Scripture is clear and unmistakable. The old-earth view is built on the position that an old universe and an old earth is an established factual base. Thus the Bible at the true meaning level must be interpreted to show that it is not out of harmony with this fact. The young-earth model is based on the position that the scientific data used to establish the concept of an old earth can be interpreted differently and that, strictly speaking, there is no need to defend an old earth. Thus the Bible is approached without this a priori demand for an old earth, and the differences are markedly clear, in this writer’s opinion." [Note: Frederic Howe, "The Age of the Earth: An Appraisal of Some Current Evangelical Positions, Part 2," Bibliotheca Sacra 142:566 (April-June 1985):121. Both parts 1 and 2 of this fine article are very helpful. On the importance of having the correct concept of origins, see Ralph E. Ancil, "Is Creation More Than a Biological Model of Origins?" Creation Social Science and Humanities Review 5:2 (Winter 1982):3-13. See also Ernest Lucas, "Miracles and natural laws," Christian ARENA (September 1985):7-10.]

Evangelicals who believe in a young earth normally do so because they believe that the biblical genealogies in Genesis 5, 11 are complete or very nearly complete. That is the impression the text gives. These genealogies argue for a young earth. I favor the young earth view. [Note: See Appendix 1 at the end of these notes for a summary of five popular views of Creation.]

Where did the names we use for the days of the week come from? They received their names in honor of seven pagan gods whom the ancients associated with the five major planets plus the sun and moon. The names of Germanic (Teutonic) gods replaced those of some Roman gods as time passed. The early church, following Jewish custom, numbered the days of the week to avoid using the names of pagan gods (e.g., Luke 24:1; Acts 20:7). [Note: See David Malcolm, "The Seven-Day Cycle," Creation Ex Nihilo 9:2 (March 1987):32-35.]

"Though historical and scientific questions may be uppermost in our minds as we approach the text, it is doubtful whether they were in the writer’s mind, and we should therefore be cautious about looking for answers to questions he was not concerned with. Genesis is primarily about God’s character and his purposes for sinful mankind. Let us beware of allowing our interests to divert us from the central thrust of the book so that we miss what the LORD, our creator and redeemer, is saying to us." [Note: Wenham, p. liii.]

The main point of the story of creation (Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3) is that God turned chaos into an orderly, blessed, good creation by His word. The original Israelite readers of Genesis would have found encouragement in this revelation to trust God. They would have hoped in Him to transform their national life from chaos in a pagan chaotic environment (Egypt) to order and blessing in an environment He would create for them (Canaan). God’s superiority over forces their pagan neighbors worshipped out of fear (gods of the darkness, the sun, moon, planets, and stars, the watery deep, etc.) would have strengthened their faith. Their God had also created them as a nation, so they could look forward to the future with confidence.

"This passage is significant also in the lives of Christians. Above and beyond asserting the fact of creation in much the same way it did for Israel, the passage provides an important theological lesson. The believer enters into a life of Sabbath rest from works and embarks on a life of holiness in that rest. We learn from the creation account (1) that God is a redeeming God who changes darkness to light, death to life, and chaos to blessing; (2) that God is absolutely sovereign over all life and all pagan ideas that would contend for our allegiance; and (3) that God works by His powerful Word-to create, to redeem, and to sanctify. Obedience to His powerful Word, either the written Word, or the living Word, our Savior, will transform believers into His glorious image." [Note: Ross, Creation and . . ., pp. 114-15.]