"2:1-3 echoes 1:1 by introducing the same phrases but in reverse order: he created,' God,' heavens and earth' reappear as heavens and earth' (2:1) God' (2:2), created' (2:3). This chiastic pattern brings the section to a neat close which is reinforced by the inclusion God created' linking 1:1 and 2:3."104
The mood of the narrative also returns to what it was in 1:1-2. Silence and calm prevail again.105
2:1 Moses probably meant everything that existed above the earth and on the earth when he wrote "their hosts."The host of heaven usually refers to the stars in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut. 4:19) more than the angels (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19), so the sun, moon, and stars are probably in view here.
2:2 "Seventh"comes from a Hebrew root meaning "to be full, completed, entirely made up."106"Rested"means ceased from activity (cf. Exod. 40:33). There is no implication that God felt fatigued by His creative activity and needed to rest. He simply stopped creating.
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.
". . . 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 (2:1-3)."107
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. Exod. 20:8-10; 23:10-12; Lev. 25:2, 4; Deut. 15:1-18; Heb. 4:1-11; et al.). Part of bearing the likeness of God involves resting as He did after completing His work.108
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."109
The sabbatical and jubilee years in ancient Judaism also pointed to the liberation Messiah would provide for His people.110
The structure of 1:1-2:3 bears the marks of literary artistry, as does the structure of the rest of Genesis.
"The correspondence of the first paragraph, 1:1-2, with 2:1-3 is underlined by the number of Hebrew words in both being multiples of 7. 1:1 consists of 7 words, 1:2 of 14 (7 x 2) words, 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."111
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 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 dayin 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 dayin Genesis."112
Moses used "day"these three ways in Genesis 1 and 2: (1) a 12 hour period of daylight (1:5, 14, 16, 18), (2) a 24-hour day (1:14), and (3) the entire six-day period of creation (2:4). There are four major views as to the length of the days of creation.113
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.114The 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.115
2. The day-age (or geologic day) theory. This view interprets the terminology less literally and more figuratively. Advocates argue that the events recorded seem to require more than 24-hour days (e.g., v. 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 creation 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., v. 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.
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 (1:11, 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 (1:20), but evolutionists hold that they evolved millions of years apart.116No 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?117One'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.118Other equally qualified inerrantists see a young earth model in the Bible.119
"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 mustbe 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 dataused 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 prioridemand for an old earth, and the differences are markedly clear, in this writer's opinion."120
Evangelicals who believe in a young earth normally do so because they believe that the biblical genealogies in Genesis 5 and 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.121
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).122
"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."123
The main point of the story of creation (1:1-2:3) 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, and 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."124
