Previous Lecture | Next Lecture
Interpretations: Days of Divine Proclamation
-
Introduction:
- This category covers interpretations where the six “days” are periods of divine proclamation rather than directly describing God’s creative work within those periods.
- It addresses the observation of two seemingly interwoven aspects in Genesis 1: creation by word (“Let there be…”) and creation by action (“God made…”).
- Common element: Days are periods of divine proclamation, not creative working.
- Difference: When the fulfillment of the proclamation occurs (before or after the days).
-
Divine Fiat Interpretation:
- Definition: God made a series of divine declarations (“Let there be…”) over six consecutive 24-hour days in the past. The fulfillment of these declarations occurred subsequently (perhaps over long ages).
- Advantage/Motivation: Accounts for descriptions in Genesis 1 (like vegetation growth or seas draining) that seem to require more than 24 hours for fulfillment.
- Critique:
- This feature (fulfillment taking time) can also be explained by simply interpreting the “days” as non-literal periods, not uniquely supporting this view.
- Skepticism about Divorce of Fiat and Fulfillment: The text seems to imply that the fulfillment happened on the same day as the proclamation, before the next day began.
- Presupposition Argument: Some later proclamations (e.g., Let man have dominion) presuppose the existence of things created by earlier fiats (dry land, animals). It’s implausible God would proclaim dominion over non-existent things at the time of the fiat.
- Divine Approval (“God saw that it was good”): This repeated phrase implies the completed result of the fiat has been achieved and is being evaluated, not that the fulfillment is still future. The final evaluation (“very good”) at the end of Day 6 reinforces this.
-
Days of Divine Revelation Interpretation:
- Definition: The seven days are literal, consecutive days during which God revealed to the author (Moses) what He had done in the past (which could have occurred over a long period). These are days of revelation, not creative activity.
- Assessment:
- Implausibility: There is no textual indication that these are days of revelation. The text describes God acting on these days, not speaking to Moses on these days.
- The narrative structure focuses on God’s creative acts (“God made,” “God separated”), divine evaluations, and the passage of time (“evening and morning”), not a reporting event.
-
Overall Conclusion on Divine Proclamation Views:
- Both interpretations are seen as less plausible interpretations of the text compared to others, primarily due to the lack of textual support for divorcing the proclamation from its fulfillment or for interpreting the days as solely revelatory periods.
Discussion
- Q1: In the Divine Revelation view, does the interpretation make claims about the actual creation itself? A: Yes, the actual creation could have happened over a long period, potentially even mirroring an evolutionary timeline. The view focuses on the timing of the revelation about creation, not the timing of the creation itself.
- Q2: If the days are taken as literal 24-hour days, and the things described couldn’t realistically happen in 24 hours (like plants growing), wouldn’t the Divine Fiat view (fulfillment later) naturally follow? A: Yes, if one insists the days are literal 24-hour days and acknowledges the implied processes take longer, then divorcing the fiat from fulfillment becomes a plausible way to maintain both. The core difference then becomes whether the textual evidence for literal days is stronger than the textual evidence against the divorce of fiat and fulfillment.
- Q3: The Genesis account seems to have a five-part pattern for each day (proclamation, fulfillment phrase, action phrases, evening/morning, numbered day). Sometimes the order of fulfillment/action seems non-chronological. Could this support the idea that the information isn’t strictly chronological within a day, supporting a view like Divine Fiat? A: Yes, the presence of seemingly dis-chronological elements or complex braiding of divine word and action descriptions in Genesis 1 (e.g., God proclaiming lights, then mentioning making them, then stating their purpose for mankind who isn’t created yet) could support interpretations where the presentation isn’t strictly a chronological report, including possibly the Divine Fiat view or a Literary Framework view.
- Q4: Day 4 is a prime example of this: God proclaims lights, says “it was so,” then mentions God made them for purposes (marking time for mankind) that cannot be fulfilled until Day 6. Doesn’t this prove the events aren’t in chronological order within a day? A: This is a strong point against a strict chronological reading of Day 4. The stated purpose of the lights for mankind (who doesn’t exist until Day 6) makes it difficult to see the “and it was so” as the fulfillment of the stated purpose on Day 4. This could support the idea that the making of the lights on Day 4 is the placing or assigning the purpose of objects already created in Gen 1.1, or that the sequence is not strictly chronological.
- Q5: Romans 4:17 (“calls into existence the things that do not exist”) is about creatio ex nihilo, not God speaking about things as if they already exist when they don’t. A: Correct. The translation “calls all things as though they are” is misleading. The verse affirms God’s power to create what doesn’t exist by calling it into existence. It doesn’t support the idea of God speaking about things that will exist as if they do exist at the moment of speaking, in a way that implies they weren’t immediately brought into existence by the speaking.
- Q6: The argument that things like seas draining or plants growing “couldn’t happen in a day” relies on uniformitarianism (assuming present processes determine past rates). God can obviously perform miracles instantaneously. A: The critique isn’t based on naturalism or denying God’s power to act instantaneously. It’s based on how the text describes the process. The language “Let the earth bring forth…” or the gathering of waters suggests processes that the original audience would understand as taking time, not instantaneous magical appearances. It’s about interpreting the author’s intended description of the event, not limiting God’s power. The contrast with the creation of Adam (formed and breathed into, no suggestion of “earth bringing forth”) supports this distinction.
- Q7: Day 2 lacks “and God saw that it was good.” Is there significance to this? A: Yes, this omission is noted by interpreters and will be relevant to other interpretations, particularly the Literary Framework view. (Student humorously suggests it’s because it was a “Monday”).
- Q8: Gen 2.19 says animals were formed from the ground, while Gen 1.24 says the earth brought forth land animals. Is this a contrast? A: Yes, this is another textual point (a minor discrepancy or difference in description between Genesis 1 and 2) that interpreters discuss and which may bear on the genre and interpretation of these chapters.
- Q9: In Day 5, God blesses the sea creatures and birds to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the sea/earth.” This implies God created a few and then let them fill the world over time. A: This is a good point. The blessing to “be fruitful and multiply and fill” does suggest a command for ongoing propagation and filling, which would naturally take time, rather than an instantaneous filling of the world at that moment. This lends support to the idea that the creative acts initiated a process that unfolded over time, further challenging strict 24-hour days for all aspects described.