Basic HTML Version
142
with the geological periods. The opinion that these days were not ordinary days of twenty-four
hours was not entirely foreign to early Christian theology, as E. C. Messenger shows in detail in
his learned work on Evolution and Theology. But some of the Church Fathers, who intimated
that these days were probably not to be regarded as ordinary days, expressed the opinion that
the whole work of creation was finished in a moment of time, and that the days merely
constituted a symbolical frame-work, which facilitated the description of the work of creation in
an orderly fashion, so as to make it more intelligible to finite minds. The opinion that the days
of creation were long periods came to the foreground again in recent years, not, however, as
the result of exegetical studies, but under the influence of the disclosures of science. Previous
to the nineteenth century the days of Genesis were most generally regarded as literal days. But,
of course, human interpretation is fallible, and may have to be revised in the light of later
discoveries. If traditional exegesis conflicts, not merely with scientific theories — which are
themselves interpretations —, but with well established facts, re-thinking and reinterpretation
is naturally in order. It can hardly be maintained, however, that the assumed geological periods
necessitate a change of front, since they are by no means generally recognized, even in
scientific circles, as well established facts. Some Christian scholars, such as Harris, Miley, Bettex,
and Geesink, assume that the days of Genesis are geological days, and both Shedd and Hodge
call attention to the remarkable agreement between the record of creation and the testimony
of the rocks, and are inclined to regard the days of Genesis as geological periods.
The question may be raised, whether it is exegetically possible to conceive of the days of
Genesis as long periods of time. And then it must be admitted that the Hebrew word yom does
not always denote a period of twenty-four hours in Scripture, and is not always used in the
same sense even in the narrative of creation. It may mean daylight in distinction from darkness,
Gen. 1:5,16,18; day-light and darkness together, Gen. 1:5,8,13 etc.; the six days taken together,
Gen. 2:4; and an indefinite period marked in its entire length by some characteristic feature, as
trouble, Ps. 20:1, wrath, Job 20:28, prosperity, Eccl. 7:14, or salvation II Cor. 6:2. Now some
hold that the Bible favors the idea that the days of creation were indefinite periods of time, and
call attention to the following: (a) The sun was not created until the fourth day, and therefore
the length of the previous days could not yet be determined by the earth’s relation to the sun.
This is perfectly true, but does not prove the point. God had evidently, even previous to the
fourth day, established a rhythmic alternation of light and darkness, and there is no ground for
the assumption that the days so measured were of longer duration than the later days. Why
should we assume that God greatly increased the velocity of the earth’s revolutions after the
light was concentrated in the sun? (b) The days referred to are God’s days, the archetypal days,
of which the days of men are merely ectypal copies; and with God a thousand years are as a
single day, Ps. 90:4; II Pet. 3:8. But this argument is based on a confusion of time and eternity.
God ad intra has no days, but dwells in eternity, exalted far above all measurements of time.