|
Summary of _The Divine Days of Creation_
Dr. Coppes
(condensed from the last chapter by Shawn C. Mathis; this is an outline and summary of a detailed book. This is here to whet your appitite; if you desire more detail, then, please, buy the book (250pp, 5$)
Outline:
The discussion of the basis for the divine day view began with a longer definition of the view. In chapter three it had been shown that the Ancient Near Eastern materials argue for the ordinary or solar day view. On the other hand, it is shown here that the Bible argues otherwise. The following points are offered to demonstrate that exegetically the length of the days cannot be determined:
- (1) The argument was developed by reminding the reader that the day yom in itself does not define the length of the day.
- (2) The phrase “there was an evening, and there was a morning” was reviewed briefly reminding the reader that although the couplet cannot signify a nighttime or an ordinary day, it can represent a true day (historical period of time) whose length is not determined – as it is used in Daniel 8:14 and 8:26.
- (3) The couplet night and day is the idiom used to represent an ordinary day, and since it is not used in the creation record (especially in days 1 and 4), it seems that the writer intends to teach these are not ordinary days but are days whose length cannot be determined from the text.
- (4) The seventh day of the creation account lacks the concluding and closing coda but does evidence the definite article appended to the word day in its coda. These phenomena are consistent with the conclusion that the seventh day is the last day of the creation week, but a day that continues on after the creation account itself is finished1.
- (5) This conclusion finds additional support in the way the seventh day is used and presented in Hebrews 4 and John 5:16ff. These two texts present God’s seventh day as continuing until the end of the creation. As such, the seventh day argues against many of the propositions being offered in defense of the ordinary day view. This means that the use of the word day, the use of the ordinal, etc., all offer no evidence for the ordinary day argument because all of these items are attached to the seventh day of the creation that Jesus (John 5:16ff.) and the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 4) understand to be still continuing. If these arguments do not prove the seventh day is an ordinary day, they do not prove the other days are ordinary days.
- (6) The continuation of the seventh day is not contradictory to what is said in the fourth commandment because the commandment assumes a comparison between God’s days of creation (whose length cannot be determined from the Bible) and man’s day of ordinary providence. A similar comparison appears in 2 Peter 3:8 (chapter five). To understand the fourth commandment otherwise requires one to view what it says as an equation of God’s days of creation and man’s days of ordinary providence. Such an equation runs contrary to many Old Testament passages and what the creation account itself teaches (as just summarized).
Summary:
In the second major part of this book several chapters deal with exegetical matters undergirding a proper understanding of the length of the days of Genesis. When one reads the Genesis record in Hebrew he meets many lexicographical, grammatical and stylistic peculiarities. Young’s book deals with many of these matters (e.g., the significance of he opening phrase “in the beginning,” the exegetical function and interdependence of the first three verses, etc.). With regard to the first creation day (that starts with “in the beginning”), then, we passed over the words,
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.
We addressed the major difficulties encountered from this point on. First, the grammar of the coda is unusual, viz., “and there was an evening, and there was a morning.” This grammar is quite unique and unexpected. Moreover, assuming the writer’s intent was to speak of an ordinary day, this grammar encases a very unusual use of the words “evening” and “morning” (as will be presented below). The reader familiar with Hebrew idioms expects that the night and day previously mentioned would be used to close the day – this will be discussed below. Finally, there is the unusual grammar of the phrase “first day.” One expects “the first day.” The absence of the definite article when the “one day” is evidently definite contextually - is most unusual. This problem is enhanced when one reads the rest of the account and encounters the expected grammar at the end of both days 6 and 7. This means that the unusual omission of the definite article is not just a stylistic variation. All these unusual features tell the Hebrew reader that there is no intention that the evening and morning phrase be understood as representing a nighttime of an ordinary (solar) day.
The meaning and use of the Hebrew word translated “day” was examined in chapter four. This study substantiated that this Hebrew word had a diversity of connotations including numerous occurrences in which it signifies a real day (a length of history) of unspecified length. Later, these results were used in understanding 2 Peter 3:8, and they support the interpretation that Peter in referring to Psalm 90:4 uses “day” to represent a divine day, as a period of historical time of indeterminable length. Thus, 2 Peter 3:8 stands as a good illustration and repetition of the use of the word “day” in the codas of the creation account.
The chapter on the couplet use of the words evening and morning produced significant results (cf., chapter six). It documented that the 37 occurrences of the couplet outside the Genesis creation account (it occurs there 6 times), never signifies an ordinary day. Usually it is used of the two parts of an ordinary day (35 times), as is suggested by the English words translating the originals. The two words together infrequently stand at the termini of a night-time, as some think they do in the creation account, and such a usage always involves a preposition or prepositions to specify this meaning. Outside the creation account there is no non-prepositional usage where the couplet signifies a nighttime.
The key to understanding the 6 uses of the couplet in the Genesis record lies in the two uses of the evening-morning couplet in Daniel 8:14, and 26 where it appears asendetically (one word immediately after the other) and descriptionally represents a “day” - although not an ordinary (solar) day. This usage led back to consider those uses of the couplet indicating the times of the daily sacrifices, viz., that they were offered in the evening and in the morning in actuality. This equivalence use, in turn, points to a representative function whereby the sacrifices although offered sporadically were continuous in significance and, hence, they are called continual burnt offerings - the couplet has a symbolical significance. How is this relevant to the creation days? It is relevant because the order of the two words in nearly every mention of the sacrifices is evening and then morning. So, although the couplet does not describe an ordinary day or represent a nighttime, the continual evening and morning offerings symbolically accomplish the offering all day, every day. God in His infinite wisdom tied the worship days to the creation days – they are related by the order evening and morning2. Thus, it was affirmed that these Daniel uses accord well with the use of the couplet in the creation account where it descriptionally represents, i.e., describes, a day, but not an ordinary day.
Understood in this way the evening and morning couplet of the Genesis account makes more sense. Something strange is being said, so unusual grammar is employed - the syntax of the two clauses embodying the two words announces the unusual usage. For the same reason, an unusual idiom is used, viz., the evening-morning couplet. The order of the two words “evening” and then “morning” conforms to the order of the divine work – viz., there was darkness and then light was created. (Also note that the chapter on the length of the creation days (chapter 9) discussed the problems involved with understanding the evening and morning couplet as signifying a nighttime of a solar day.)
The couplet day and night was examined in chapter seven. The result was that this couplet, appearing some 47 times, was demonstrated to be the ordinary Hebrew idiom for a solar day. It is used of an ordinary day whether it is modified by definite articles or no definite articles and whether there are prepositional phrases or whether there are none. This is the ordinary or usual idiom for an ordinary or solar day. Again, note that the absence of this couplet in the coda of the first day (and the fourth day) is particularly remarkable, indeed is problematical if the intent was to speak of an ordinary day – especially since both in this day and day four the expected and required words, night and day, are readily available.
|
