THE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS 1

GENESIS 1

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day

(Genesis 1:31).

Historically the church has generally interpreted the six days of Genesis 1 as twenty-four hour days. After the rise of modern science, however, the question was raised whether or not Genesis 1 should be so interpreted. Most scientists, after all, say the universe came into being over eons of time.

Because the Hebrew word for day (yom) is used in a wider sense elsewhere in the Old Testament (day, lifetime, age) another position sets forth that the days of Genesis 1 were ages of time—the “day-age theory.” This viewpoint, however, has been difficult to maintain because it would mean that vegetation grew for an “age” before the sun and moon were created. Also, the order of events in Genesis 1 still would not correspond to the order set by modern science.

A third approach has been to place a “gap” between the first two verses of the chapter. This “gap theory” says God created the universe at some point in the distant past and then it became void as a result of the fall of the angels. Thus, Genesis 1:3–31 describes the re-creation of the earth, not the creation. This allows for eons of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and can accommodate modern science. However, the gap theory has few scholarly proponents because it puts a strain on the grammar of verse 2 to translate was as “became” making it unlikely from a grammatical point of view.

A fourth approach is to take notice of the literary structure of Genesis 1 saying that day is simply used as a structuring device. The first three days create realms, while the last three establish rulers. The first three days show acts of “forming,” while the last three show acts of “filling.” Because it focuses on the literary structure of Genesis 1, this is called the “framework hypothesis.”

Advocates of the literal-day position point out that this structure is present in the text, but that the structure of Genesis 1 is more complex than the framework hypothesis allows. They also say that just because God acted in a structural manner does not mean He did not use six 24-hour days. We should remember that God reveals Himself in Scripture and in nature. Therefore the work of science in understanding natural revelation is something to be sought, not feared. Neither the scientist nor the commentor is yet finished.

CORAM DEO

Genesis 38–40

Matthew 12:22–50

There are different interpretations as to the means behind God’s creation. Without minimizing the importance of which interpretation is most accurate, don’t be so concerned about how God created that you miss the wonder, glory, and majesty of what He created.

For further study: Psalm 90:1–6 • 2 Peter 3:8–10

thursday

january