Wednesday, July 14, 2010

In the Beginning: The Seventh Day... Today?

In "Evening and Morning—Days Not Ages" we looked at the so-called "days of creation" in Genesis 1, and learned that the author's use of the phrase, "there was evening and there was morning," strongly suggests that he had ordinary, 24-hour days in mind. There are additional reasons to understand the passage in this way, but before we look at those, I want to address an argument I had never heard until a couple of days ago. In short, this argument is that the book of Hebrews claims that the seventh "day" of creation is ongoing, presumably even to this day. If true, then we would be forced to understand the "days" of creation as being long ages of time, despite the author's use of "evening" and "morning."

UPDATE: Before you read this, if it's the first time you're doing so, read this brief update. I just spoke with Greg on his show about this (9/5/2010) and he explained that he was only using Hebrews 4 as a defeater to an argument some YEC's level against his view. By the end of the call he agreed that that passage does not necessitate his understanding, and that many a competent theologian legitimately understand Hebrews 4 otherwise. Thanks, Greg, for taking my call!

Greg Koukl's Stand to Reason apologetics ministry is one which I'm thus far inclined to recommend. Koukl's emphasis is not so much on teaching Christians what to think, but more so on how to think—a skill we Christians need to constantly be developing. I began listening to the Stand to Reason Audio Podcast last week at the suggestion of a friend, and so far have disagreed with Koukl very little, and where we disagree it is not on any of the "essentials" of the Christian faith.

However, it was in one of these episodes that I heard this argument for the first time. To supply the context, the podcast is basically an archive of the Stand to Reason call-in radio show, and in a recent episode, "How to Think about Questions," a caller in with a question concerning what the Bible has to say about the age of the universe. The caller asked Koukl, a self-professing "Old-Earther" (he believes the universe is billions of years old), reconciles his views with Exodus 20:11 which reads, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

Now, if I understood Koukl's response correctly, he basically said that the real issue is the meaning of the "days" of creation. Whether they were ordinary, 24-hour days or "ages" of indeterminable length, either view, Koukl's response seemed to me to be, is compatible with Exodus 20:11 because the meaning of the word "day" intended by the author would apply to both Genesis and Exodus. I don't particularly disagree with this response. However, one line of reasoning given by Koukl for understanding the "days" as very long periods of time surprised me and, in my opinion, fails the test of reason.

"THE SEVENTH DAY ISN'T A DAY"

In answering the caller's question, Koukl began with, "Two things come to mind. One of them is a problem immediately that I see with taking this verse and applying it in that fashion. 'In six days He made the heavens and the earth.' By the way, on this view [the Young Earth view] how long are those days?" The caller responded saying the view they were discussed holds that they were 24-hour days. Koukl continued, "Fair enough. I agree that that's what the view holds...'And rested on the seventh day.' And how long is that day?" The caller answered, "Some people say we're still in the seventh day." Koukl responded saying, "That's because it's good theology."

He goes on to say, "So it's clear that the seventh day isn't a day, yet the word 'day' is used there to describe it, isn't it? It isn't a 24-hour solar day." Now, of course Koukl's particular Old Earth view holds that the seventh "day," like the other "days" of creation, are long periods of time. This was nothing new to me. However, what surprised me was the bald assertion that "it's clear that the seventh day isn't a day" and that "it's good theology." How, I wondered, does Koukl conclude that "it's clear that the seventh day isn't a day?" So I listened with anticipation to hear this assertion defended.

Upon returning from a commercial break Koukl continued his argument. "The difficulty here as I pointed out initially was that the Sabbath isn't a solar day long. It is a solar day in application in Exodus, but it is not a solar day in reality in terms of the creation week. He started on the seventh day to rest and He still is in His rest according to the book of Hebrews...That observation alone, it seems to me Nick, ought to raise some question about what might be a fairly wooden reading of this passage." Koukl goes on to point out the problem one runs into in understanding the first six "days" of creation as 24-hour days but the seventh as ongoing to this day. But is his premise correct? Does, in fact, the book of Hebrews teach that the seventh day continues to this day?

THERE REMAINS A SABBATH REST

I listened on to see if Koukl would defend his claim, but he did not. He repeated his argument several times, that the fact that the seventh day is not a 24-hour day strongly suggests that the previous six are not, either. However, he never provides an exegesis of the book of Hebrews demonstrating that the author says we are in the seventh day today. However, I was able to find examples of this argument elsewhere. Here is how this article puts it, referring to the opening verses of Hebrews 4:

This important passage of scripture related to the creation details the “rest” of God, referring to the seventh day of creation...It is clear throughout the passage that the author is looking forward to entering God’s rest. The real question is…what is God’s rest? In verse 4, the author clearly ties God’s rest to the seventh day of creation, saying “And God rested on the seventh day,” and in verse 5, “They shall not enter My Rest,” and on into verse 6, the key verse, “Since therefore it remains for some to enter it.” How could it remain for someone to enter it, if God’s rest on the seventh day was over? Clearly, the author of Hebrews indicates in these verses that the seventh day of rest and “God’s rest” are one in the same…there can be no mistaking such a clear teaching from these verses. Young earth creationists, on the other hand, do ignore this plain teaching. According to young earth creation science, the seventh day is also a 24 hour day.

The article goes on to attempt to refute what it claims are four common Young Earth arguments against this view. Three of the four arguments (two through four, in case you read it) the article claims to refute are not arguments I would make, and are, in my opinion, easily refuted. However, let's look at how the article addresses the argument I would make.

PRESENT REST, DAY LONG PAST

Here is how the article presents and addresses my argument:

God’s present rest does not logically imply a long seventh day [is the Young Earth argument and mine against this understanding of Hebrews 4]. This argument is based on the acceptance of the days of creation as 24-hour days. Yes, logically, if I accepted the days of creation as 24 hours long, I would logically have to accept the seventh day as 24 hours. However, since the days of creation were millions of years long, logically I would accept the seventh day as a long period of time. Therefore, it makes logical since [sic] for young earth creationists that Day 7 is 24 hours, and it makes logical sense for old earth creationists that Day 7 is a long period of time. For point number one, it all depends on your beliefs about the length of the days of creation.

Now, I want you to once again read what the article says before it presents my argument: "Clearly, the author of Hebrews indicates in these verses that the seventh day of rest and 'God's rest' are on in the same...there can be no mistaking such a clear teaching from these verses" (emphasis mine). But then, in addressing my argument, the article changes its tune, saying, "it makes logical since [sic] for young earth creationists that Day 7 is 24 hours, and it makes logical sense for old earth creationists that Day 7 is a long period of time." Well wait a second. I thought the ongoing 7th day teaching was "clear" in Hebrews, that "there can be no mistaking" it. Apparently, it's not so clear.

Koukl tells us, "it's clear that the seventh day isn't a day," and this article says, "there can be no mistaking such a clear teaching." Yet, as the article goes on to admit, the understanding of God's rest on the seventh day as taught in Hebrews "depends on your beliefs about the length of the days of creation." If that's true—and I think it is—then what the author of Hebrews has to say about God's rest cannot be used as an argument against the Young Earth view that the "days" of creation were 24-hour days. So, let's take a look at the passage in question and see if it's as "clear" as Koukl would have us believe.

BE DILIGENT TO ENTER THAT REST

1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS"; 5 and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST." 6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 He again fixes a certain day, "Today," saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS." 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:1-11, NASB)

The article argues that "the author clearly ties God’s rest to the seventh day of creation, saying 'And God rested on the seventh day.'" The question, however, is what is intended by that connection? What was the author's purpose in mentioning the seventh day? Verse 3 answers that question for us: "His works were finished from the foundation of the world." It's immediately following that verse that the author reminds the reader that "GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS." In other words, it seems obvious to me, but at the very least reasonable, that the seventh day is brought up as evidence supporting the author's claim that "His works were finished from the foundation of the world."

Notice that there is no mention of the seventh day of creation anywhere else in this passage. Believers are repeatedly told to enter into God's rest, and that this Sabbath rest remains for us to this day. And it is clear that the author is saying that rest began on the seventh day of the creation week. However, nowhere does this passage say that God's rest equals the seventh day, nor does it say that the seventh day of creation remains to this day. Those are assumptions read into the text by Koukl and the author(s) of this article. The words of the hypothetical objector as given in the article is correct: "God’s present rest does not logically imply a long seventh day."

A REST NOT ENDING WITH THE SEVENTH DAY

Perhaps I'm missing something. Perhaps it is, in fact, clear that the author of Hebrews is saying that the seventh day is ongoing. If this teaching is so obvious, we ought to be able to find a preponderence of theologians throughout history who've seen this as well. However, this does not appear to be the case. What follows is a summary of commentators I've found who either support on ongoing seventh day or reject it (either explicitly or by teaching that the first six were 24-hour days). In an appendix at the end of this article, I quote them in defense of my categorization.

  • Supports Ongoing 7th Day:
    • James Burton Coffman
    • A. T. Robertson
  • Rejects Ongoing 7th Day:
    • A. R. Fausset
    • Robert Jamieson
    • John Calvin
    • Matthew Henry
    • John Gill
    • John Wesley
    • Adam Clarke
    • John S. C. Abbott
    • Jacob Abbott
    • David Guzik

Now, I recognize that this list is likely nowhere near exhaustive. However, I made an earnest and sincere effort to sift through the commentaries I was able to find online; I did not knowingly leave any commentators out who would fall into one of the above camps. It is interesting, then, that so few commentaries identify the teaching that is allegedly so "clear" and "plain" in Hebrews 4. Instead, most commentaries seem to reject an ongoing seventh day and instead understand all seven days in Genesis 1-2 to be 24-hour solar days.

As such, the most one could say is that one cannot confidently conclude from Hebrews 4 whether the seventh day of Genesis continues to this day or not. Rather, as the article I've linked to puts it, "it all depends on your beliefs about the length of the days of creation." The view shared by the seeming majority of commentators, that the seventh day is long past, seems perfectly compatible with this passage in Hebrews.

DEPENDS ON THE DAYS OF CREATION

In his radio show, Greg Koukl said that "it's clear [from Hebrews 4] that the seventh day isn't a day," and that this "ought to raise some question about what might be a fairly wooden reading of" the creation "week" spoken of in Genesis and Exodus. The article, likewise, asks "If God entered the seventh day of rest over 6,000 years ago, how could some people still enter that rest? If the day is over, this is not possible." Therefore, we are told, we must understand the seventh day as ongoing to this day, and thus all of the "days" of creation as long periods of time.

As we've seen, however, and as the article goes on to admit, the reality is that Hebrews 4 can be understood to teach an ongoing seventh day or one which ended long ago! And it would seem as though many commentators throughout history have understood it in the latter fashion. The author(s) is right, then, in saying of this passage, "it all depends on your beliefs about the length of the days of creation." In other words, Hebrews 4 can't be used to argue that we should understand the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 and elsewhere as being long periods of time, and instead we must do the reverse. We must interpret Hebrews 4 in light of what is taught in Genesis 1.

APPENDIX: QUOTES FROM COMMENTARIES

Here are quotes from the commentators listed earlier in this post which I believe support the manner in which I've categorized them:

SUPPORTS ONGOING 7TH DAY

James Burton Coffman wrote in his commentary on Hebrews 4 that "One of the most significant revelations of this chapter is that the seventh day of Creation is still in progress. God rested on the seventh day from all his works (of creation). God is still resting, Heb. 4:6,11. People should take pains to enter that rest because it is yet available. The Bishop of Edinburgh stated that, "From this argument, it is mandatory to conclude that the seventh day is still in progress?"

A. T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures of the New Testament for Hebrews 4:4, that "the seventh day of God's rest was still going on (clearly not a twenty-four hour day)."

REJECTS ONGOING 7TH DAY

A. R. Fausset wrote in his commentary on Hebrews 4 concerning the rest mentioned, "a rest not ending with the seventh day, but beginning then and still continuing, into which believers shall hereafter enter." The implication is that though the seventh day ended, God's rest did not end with it.

Robert Jamieson wrote in his commentary on Genesis 1:5 (which is included in a commentary on the whole Bible with Fausset's commentaries), acknowledged that the first day was "a natural day, as the mention of its two parts clearly determines."

John Calvin wrote in his commentary on Genesis 1:5, "it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days." To make it more clear, he writes in his commentary on Genesis 2:3, "I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the consideration of his works. He had the same end in view in the appointment of his own rest, for he set apart a day selected out of the remainder for this special use." By saying God chose one day "out of the remainder" as His day of rest, Calvin clearly indicates the seventh day ended long ago and was 24 hours in length.

Matthew Henry wrote in his commentary on Genesis 1:5, "This was not only the first day of the world, but the first day of the week. I observe it to the honour of that day, because the new world began on the first day of the week likewise, in the resurrection of Christ, as the light of the world, early in the morning." By saying the "first day" was "the first day of the world" and "the first day of the week," it is clear Henry believed it was the first 24-hour solar day. In his commentary on Hebrews 4 he says nothing which suggests he believed the seventh day is ongoing.

John Gill wrote in his commentary on Genesis 1:5, "in the space of twenty four hours there was a vicissitude of light and darkness." Obvious enough. In his commentary on Hebrews 4:3 he writes, "though the works of creation, that God designed to make, were finished and perfected within the first six days of the world, and then God rested, or ceased to work in a creative way; yet this is not the rest designed in the passage of Scripture cited, nor is it that rest which believers enter into." In other words, whatever rest we have to enter into is not exactly the same rest God speaks of in Genesis.

John Wesley wrote in his commentary on Genesis 1, "The evening and the morning were the sixth day - So that in six days God made the world. We are not to think but that God could have made the world in an instant: but he did it in six days." If it is not clear enough that by "six days" Wesley meant six solar days, in his commentary on Hebrews 4 he wrote, "That psalm mentions a rest:yet it does not mean, God's rest from creating; for this was long before the time of Moses." If the rest from creating is equal to the rest we have to enter into, it could not have been "long before the time of Moses."

Adam Clarke wrote in his commentary on Genesis 1, "It is somewhat remarkable that through the whole of this chapter, whenever the division of days is made, the evening always precedes the morning. The reason of this may perhaps be, that darkness was pre-existent to light, 1:2, And darkness was upon the face of the deep, and therefore time is reckoned from the first act of God towards the creation of the world, which took place before light was called forth into existence. It is very likely for this same reason, that the Jews began their day at six o'clock in the evening in imitation of Moses's division of time in this chapter." It seems evident that by saying "darkness was pre-existent to light" and "time is reckoned from the first act of God towards the creation of the world" that Clarke had 24-hour days in view. After all, the "days" were long ages, it would have been evening and morning and evening and morning and evening and morning and so forth, all within each creation day. Additionally, in his commentary on Hebrews 4 he writes that it "refers to the completion of the work of creation, and the setting apart the seventh day as a day of rest for man, and a type of everlasting felicity." By saying the seventh day of God's rest was set apart as "a day of rest for man," and that it is a "type" of the everlasting rest into which we can enter now, it is clear that that typological day ended long ago in Clarke's view.
 
In their commentary on Hebrews 4, John S. C. Abbott and Jacob Abbott write that the purpose "seems to be to show that the rest promised, on condition of obedience, to the Jews of old, did not refer either to the rest which God is spoken of as having taken on the seventh day of the creation." They go on to say that these verses suggest that "[God's] threatening that they should not enter into his rest was made in the time of Moses, although his rest from the work of creation had been long since past, having taken place when the works were finished at the foundation of the world." God's rest from His works, then, according to the Abbotts, took place long, long ago, and is not the same rest into which we can enter.
 
David Guzik wrote in his commentary on Hebrews 4 that "This rest is after the pattern of God's own rest on the seventh day from all His works, as described in the quote from Genesis 2:2." He goes on to say, "God rested from His works on the original Sabbath of Genesis 2:2 because the work was finished." Guzik's statement that the rest we have to enter into is "after the pattern" of God's seventh-day rest, and that the seventh day was "the original Sabbath," suggests strongly that Guzik does not believe the seventh day is ongoing today. He also states in his commentary on Genesis 1 that "Though there is disagreement among Christians on this, the most plain and simple meaning of the text is that He created in six days as we think of days." The implication is that Guzik thinks this is how we should understand it.

No comments:

Post a Comment