“Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.’ And it was so.” Some day-age proponents claim that since vegetation does not usually sprout within the confines of a single calendar day, this passage implies that the third day was longer than a mere 24 hours.{i} The obvious response to this is that there wasn’t anything usual about it: it was a miracle. Dead people don’t usually rise, either.
It seems to me, though, that this argument can’t be dismissed so quickly. The focus must be on God’s relationship to the action, and God’s statement “Let the land produce vegetation,” implies that he mediated the result (the sprouting of vegetation) through the earth. In other words, there are two actions being performed here: the enabling of the land to produce vegetation, and then the land actually producing the vegetation. The first action, the enabling, is something that God did directly, whereas the subsequent growth is something that God did indirectly through the medium of the land. That is, while God’s enabling of the land to sprout vegetation was probably a supernatural act, the actual sprouting itself is a natural process relegated to the land. If so, then the second action was not supernatural, and would refer to a process which would require the passage of an amount of time in excess of a calendar day.
This, of course, doesn’t mean that vegetable life can begin to exist on its own without God. He still has to enable the land to produce vegetation in order for it to do so. The text does not specify whether this enabling is just the way God created matter “in the beginning,” or if it means that he created life supernaturally on the third day (perhaps he created the life as seeds which then sprouted according to natural processes). Of course, God is the ultimate cause of these natural processes, but he’s also only indirectly the cause of the effects produced thereby, in the same way that he was the indirect cause of the parting of the Red Sea by sending a strong wind which blew all night (Exod. 14:21). Just because God relegates the action to the elements of nature, using them to accomplish his purposes, it doesn’t mean that he didn’t cause it.
There’s still a problem with this argument, though: later on in the same chapter, God creates animal life in the exact same manner: “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds” (v. 24). Obviously land is not a medium for the production of animal life in a natural sense. So while the “mediation” of an effect through the elements of nature is certainly something God does, this does not necessarily imply that the action in question is purely natural in character. Therefore, we cannot assume that the land’s production of vegetation on day three was a natural phenomenon, and so it could have been done within a calendar day.
But wait! There’s more! After God states his intentions for the vegetation on day three, the text continues by saying “And it was so. The land produced vegetation…” (v. 11-12). But after God states his intentions for the animals on day five, the text continues by saying “And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds…” (v. 24-25). Now we’re left wondering: is this a significant difference? If so, the land producing vegetation on day three may have been a natural event directed by God, while God’s making the wild animals on day five was supernatural—in which case the events of day three could not have occurred within a single calendar day. If not, “let the land produce” may just be an idiomatic way of referring to an act performed by God, and is synonymous with “God produced”—in which case the events of day three (and five) could refer to either natural or supernatural processes. If the latter is the case, the events of day three could have occurred within a single calendar day. This is somewhat perplexing, and I haven’t yet made up my mind about it (and have no intention to in the future), so I don’t know whether this argument ultimately succeeds.
A parallel argument sometimes put forth is that in Gen. 2:9 when God caused the plants of the garden of Eden to grow, this took place on day six, which was therefore not a mere calendar day. However, in Gen. 2:9 God is very clearly named as the cause of the plants’ growth in the garden—which suggests he is the direct cause of their growth, not their indirect cause. Therefore, Gen. 2:9 does not imply a process which would necessitate an amount of time in excess of a calendar day.
Genesis 1:14
“And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years.’” This is a bit confusing, since we have already been told that God created the light, separated it from darkness, and called them “day” and “night” respectively, on the first day of creation (1:4-5). This difficulty has led to many divergent interpretations throughout Church history: some have concluded that this is a contradiction if it’s describing physical events, so Gen. 1 must not even be referring to the creation of the physical universe at all, but should be understood spiritually or allegorically. Others have concluded that the same event is being described on days one and four, and that therefore the days of creation should not be understood as sequential periods, but as a literary framework.
I disagree with these views, because these events, while very similar, do not seem to be identical (and thus do not contradict each other or refer to the same event). Day one deals with day (light) and night (darkness), but does not assign them their calendrical roles—that is, it is sometimes light and sometimes dark, but not as the composites of a strict 24-hour period. Day four, then, introduces the concept of the calendar day when it says that the sun, moon, and stars would be for marking days, seasons, and years.
Gen. 1:5 has already been discussed in chapter 2, but here it is necessary to reiterate its relationship to 1:14. As just stated, verse 5 states that God separated the light from the darkness and called the former “day” and the latter “night.” If there were no further qualification to this, one could understand this as referring to day and night in the sense of the constituent parts of a 24-hour period, or calendar day. But there is further qualification—in verse 14. This verse not only introduces the celestial objects, but also states that their purpose is to separate days, seasons, and years; it introduces the day as a calendar concept. The significance of this for our study is that it is difficult to claim that the first three days of creation should be understood as calendar days when calendar days aren’t even demarcated until day four.
Another difficulty is the fact that 1:14 introduces the sun et al. This will be discussed further in chapter 7, but for our present purposes I’ll just point out that it is questionable whether the ancient Hebrews could have even conceived of a “sunless” 24-hour day. That is, their conception of a 24-hour day was (in all likelihood) inextricably bound up with the role the sun played therein. In other words, a 24-hour day meant a solar day. So, again, since the sun is not introduced until the fourth day of creation, it is difficult to claim that the first three days of creation should be understood as solar days. At the very least, we would have to conclude that the first three days of creation were radically dissimilar from calendar days or solar days.
Genesis 2:4
“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth in the day [beyom] they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.”{ii} This is one of the most frequently quoted verses in defense of the day-age theory, going all the way back to the early church.{iii} There have been three ways of interpreting its placement: first, it’s been understood as a summary of the creation account in Gen. 1:1-2:3; in which case the phrase “in the day” (beyom) refers to creation days one through seven. Second, it’s been understood as an introduction to the account of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden; in which case it refers to the period between the creation of “the heavens and the earth” on day one to the creation of Adam and Eve on day six. Third, the first half has been understood as a summary, and the second half as an introduction (“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth in the day [beyom] they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…”). In this case it would imply both conclusions. So no matter how it’s interpreted, this is supposedly an example of yom referring to a longer period of time than a solar/calendar day in the direct context of creation.
However, there are two problems with inferring from this that the creation days must be understood in like manner. First, when the word yom is used with a preposition (such as beyom), as it is in Gen. 2:4, it’s often being used idiomatically to mean “when” or “then.” This doesn’t mean that it can only have this meaning when it is prefixed with a preposition—indeed, this has direct bearing on the word’s semantic range. But by itself it is insufficient. The way the term is used in an idiom may have some bearing on how it is used elsewhere, but that is all. To show that it does have such bearing in a particular case we need more exegetical evidence.
Second, there is a similar passage in Num. 7 where the twelve tribes brought offerings to the tabernacle on twelve consecutive “yom”s to dedicate it. Verse 84 summarizes this event by stating, “These were the offerings of the Israelite leaders for the dedication of the altar when [beyom] it was anointed.” Just because beyom is used in the context to refer to a longer period of time doesn’t allow us to assume the same is true for the other uses of yom in this passage.
Another aspect of this verse that is sometimes appealed to by day-age proponents is the use of the phrase “the toledot (“generations” or “genealogies”) of the heavens and the earth” to describe the seven days of creation. In reference to human generations this term implies the passage of a significant amount of time. However, toledot is being used here in the context of the heavens and earth and this might imply the passage of even more time than would mere human generations. In Scripture, human life is pictured as momentary and fleeting in comparison to the elements of nature (Job 15:7; Ps. 89:37, 47; 90:2-6; Ecc. 1:4), so the generations of the heavens and earth could entail the passage of much more time than a mere seven 24-hour periods. In response, however, it must be pointed out that, just as dor (generation) only refers to the passage of time incidentally,{iv} so does toledot. It’s more often translated as “genealogies.” Therefore, while Gen. 2:4 is certainly suggestive, I don’t believe that it can be considered definitive in regards to the length of the days of creation.
Genesis 2:17
“…but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when [beyom] you eat of it you will surely die.” This verse was understood by some of the Church fathers of the first few centuries AD to mean that the days of creation were 1,000-year periods.{v} Their argument was: a) Adam ate the fruit; b) he didn’t die that calendar day, but died much later at the age of 930 (Gen. 5:5); c) but since “a thousand years in God’s sight are like a day” (Ps. 90:4) d) the day in which Adam would die upon eating the fruit refers to the 1,000-year period which contained his life; e) Adam’s life began when he was created on the sixth day of creation; f) therefore, the sixth day of creation refers to the thousand year period which contained Adam’s life.
This argument seems stronger to me than the similar one made for Gen. 2:4. As noted above, the phrase “in the day” is often an idiom in Hebrew meaning “when.” However, the context in this verse may be specifically referring back to the sixth day of creation. This is at least possible, whereas with Gen. 2:4 there is no exegetical evidence beyond the idiom itself.
However, it should also be noted that the death Adam died didn’t merely refer to his physical death, but to his spiritual death, i.e. separation from God, as well (Rom. 5:12-21); and this occurred instantaneously upon his eating the fruit. Moreover, Ps. 90:4 is a poetic statement that God’s experience of time is radically different than ours; we shouldn’t try to apply it too stringently. Therefore, I conclude that this argument is also suggestive, but cannot be considered definitive about the temporal length of the days of creation.
Psalm 90:4
“For a thousand years in your [God’s] sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” As just noted, the early Christians thought that this referred to the days of creation.{vi} Young-earth advocates challenge this by saying that the context does not make this connection.
I think the context does warrant this connection. First, both Ps. 90 and Genesis are traditionally ascribed to the same author (Moses), and thus this psalm should be included in the Mosaic corpus. Second, the days of creation are God’s days and make up God’s week. The seventh day of creation is God’s day of rest. Ps. 90:4 is a commentary on the fact that God’s experience of time is dramatically different from ours, and this should affect our understanding of the days of creation since they are God’s week, not ours.
However, I have to supplement this by pointing out (again) that this passage is poetic, and shouldn’t be read too rigidly. After all, it says that a thousand years are like a day, not that they are a day.
Hosea 6:2-3
“After two days [meyammaim]{vii} he will revive us; on the third day [yom] he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.” The “us” in this passage refers to Israel, although some commentators think it may typologically refer to Jesus’ resurrection as well.{viii} As a prophecy about Jesus, yom would obviously refer to calendar days, but as a prophecy about the nation Israel, it refers either to the 70-year Babylonian exile, or to the almost 1,900 years between the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the re-establishment of the nation Israel in 1948 (or possibly even further into the future). Therefore, this is an example of yom referring to a long period of time despite being modified by an ordinal number (third). The point being that this refutes the claim that whenever yom is modified by a number, its meaning is limited to a 24-hour period.
Zechariah 14:7-8
“It will be a unique day [yom echad], without daytime [yom] or nighttime [layelah]—a day{ix} known to the LORD. When evening [‘ereb] comes, there will be light [or]. On that day [beyom] living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half to the eastern sea and half to the western sea, in summer and in winter.” This verse tells us that there is a day known only to God in which there will be no daylight and no night, and which will encompass the annual seasons. As such, the day in question is an extended time period.
The significance of this passage is twofold: first, it contains the phrase yom echad. This is the same phrase as Gen. 1:5, “and there was evening and there was morning, yom echad.” Although most translations don’t render this phrase as “one day” or “day one,” it is the same phrase in Hebrew. This, then, is another example of yom being used with a numerical qualifier and referring to a long time period.
Second, the word yom is used twice in close proximity, but has two different definitions: daylight and an indefinite period of time. Thus, there’s nothing unusual in claiming that Gen. 1:5 has these same two definitions as well, if the context allows. In fact, Zech. 14:7 exactly parallels Gen. 1:5, since it has the word yom referring to daylight, and the phrase yom echad referring to a long period of time. As noted in chapter 2, these are the only two instances of yom echad in the entire Old Testament. This passage also contains several of the other terms in Gen. 1:5, such as layelah (night), ‘ereb (evening), and or (light), and is thus the closest semantic parallel to Gen. 1:5 in the entire Bible.
It might be objected that the phrase beyom is used again, and so should be understood idiomatically. But in this context, it is specifically referring back to the day that had just been defined: the day without daytime or nighttime.
2 Peter 3:8-9
“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness.” In this passage, the apostle Peter takes the theme Moses introduced in Ps. 90 and expands upon it. Whereas Ps. 90 only goes one direction, Peter goes in both directions—not only are a thousand years like a day to God, but a day is like a thousand years to God as well. This further emphasizes the point that God’s experience of time is entirely different from our own, and we should take this into account when we look at God’s workweek and Sabbath day.
It’s important to note that in this passage Peter is not talking about the days of creation, but is addressing the concern that Christ seems to be taking a long time in returning; and this involves a factor which is irrelevant to the timing of creation: namely, that the reason he’s waiting a long time to return is because he is being patient, so that everyone has a chance to turn to him. However, it’s still applicable to the study at hand because Peter is arguing from the premise that God’s experience of time is radically different from ours to the conclusion that Christ’s return may be delayed from our perspective. But as long as the premise that God’s experience of time is not the same as ours is given, then this applies to other statements which relate to his experience of time; and the days of creation are just such statements.
Other passages
Additionally, there are various biblical passages which, although not directly relevant to the day-age theory, certainly seem to imply that the earth is ancient:
This [Pentecost] is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams” (Acts 2:16-17, cf. Joel 2:28).
In these last days he [God] has spoken to us by his Son (Heb. 1:2).
But now he [Jesus] has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb. 9:26).
He [Jesus] was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake (1 Pet. 1:20).
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour (1 Jn. 2:18).
The point here is that we are now nearly 2,000 years and counting into “the last hour” and “the end of the ages.” It is difficult to claim, then, that the ages themselves consisted of only a few thousand years.
Similarly, the age of the earth (or heavens or mountains) is frequently appealed to as a metaphor for God’s eternity, or simply called “ancient.”
Your father’s [i.e. Jacob’s] blessings are greater
than the blessings of the ancient mountains,
than the bounty of the age-old hills.
Let all these rest on the head of Joseph,
on the brow of the prince among his brothers (Gen. 49:26).
Sing to God, O kingdoms of the earth,
sing praise to the Lord, Selah
to him who rides the ancient skies above,
who thunders with mighty voice.
Proclaim the power of God,
whose majesty is over Israel,
whose power is in the skies (Ps. 68:32-34).
His [David’s] line will continue forever
and his throne endure before me like the sun;
it will be established forever like the moon,
the faithful witness in the sky (Ps. 89:36-37).
He [God] stood, and shook the earth;
he looked, and made the nations tremble.
The ancient mountains crumbled
and the age-old hills collapsed.
His ways are eternal (Hab. 3:6).
Other passages include Job 38-41; Ps. 90:2-6; Prov. 8:22-31; Ecc. 1:3-11; Mic. 6:2; Rom. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:5; etc. Some of these passages specifically contrast the fleeting nature of human life with the seeming endlessness of God’s creation (Job 15:7; Ps. 89:37, 47; Ecc. 1:4). Since these passages (and many others) were written sometime between 2,000 BC and AD 100, it is again, difficult to see how the preceding few thousand years could rightly arouse such sentiments—especially when we consider that the Bible states the first human beings lived for about 1,000 years each (Gen. 5).
Objections and responses
Objection: In Gen. 1:14, the Creator of the universe could certainly create light before creating the sun. Therefore, the fact that God didn’t create the sun until the fourth day of creation doesn’t mean that the first three days weren’t calendar days.
Response: This isn’t the argument. The argument is that the text specifically introduces the calendar day in v. 14. So regardless of what the light and darkness prior to this verse refer to, the first three days of creation shouldn’t be understood as calendar days. Moreover, as will be noted later, v. 14 isn’t necessarily saying that God created the sun on the fourth day, but that the sun appeared in the sky and was given the specific purpose of separating day from night on the fourth day.
Objection: Just because the text introduces calendar days on day four, it doesn’t mean that the three days prior to this weren’t calendar days. Time passed, and so could be demarcated into periods of specific lengths.
Response: Sure, but the phenomena of light and darkness did not function as markers of calendar days until day four. Of course, 24-hour periods occurred before this (as did 25-hour periods, 26-hour periods, etc.). But it was not until day four that God demarcated light-darkness cycles as calendar days. This objection seems to assume that the Bible makes a distinction between 24-hour periods and calendar days: the first three days of creation could be instances of the former, even though the latter were not established until day four. I simply see no evidence from the Bible or from what we know of the ancient Hebrew language and culture to justify such a distinction.
Objection: The fact that something is not mentioned until a certain point in the text doesn’t mean that it only applies to what follows. Just because calendar days aren’t mentioned until Gen. 1:14 doesn’t mean that there weren’t calendar days before this.
Response: This is certainly true as a general point, but again, this isn’t the argument. Gen. 1:14 is not merely the first time that calendar days are mentioned, it is when calendar days are established. From this it follows that, prior to the fourth day of creation, calendar days were not established, and as such, the first three days of creation could not have been calendar days.
Objection: There is no exegetical connection between Ps. 90 and Gen. 1. Therefore there is no reason to think that the days of creation were long periods of time.
Response: There is an exegetical connection between these two verses. First, they have the same author, and second they address the same concept: God’s experience of time.
Notes:
{i} Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe (1997), 33.
{ii} My translation.
{iii}
{iv} See chapter 1.
{v} Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 81; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:23:2
{vi} Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 81; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:23:2
{vii} Hebrew, and other Semitic languages, have dual forms in addition to singular and plural, so yammaim means “two days” (with a prefix in this case).
{viii} C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (2006), 81.
{ix} This occurrence of the word “day” is not in the Hebrew. The NIV inserted it for clarification.