ST, I'd argue that time is nowhere intended of day. Not 24 hours, not an unspecified period of time. It is left open-ended.
Furthermore, the structure of "
day one", "
day two" (translations with the definite article i.e., "
the first day", "
the second day" are literally inaccurate), such a structure of "day" following immediately by a number is only ever found in Genesis 1. So contrary to a popular YEC argument promoted by MacArthur, there are no prior exegetical rules that dictate whether such should always be understood as ordinary day, rather than the symbolic variant of
yom that is also found in the Hebrew Lexicon.
Note, and this is a very important point to be clear on, what makes "day" an ordinary day in ancient Hebraic thought are the heavens. This is illustrated in
Joshua's long day where the day does end until the Sun sets. Whether intentional, I notice Jac to his credit has here been a bit more careful here to not inject "24 hours", perhaps due to our past discussions. On this account then, if we take
yom to mean an ordinary day then
we must have the heavens on or prior to Day 1.
It should be understood that many YECs claim the heavens aren't created until Day 4. Such an interpretation breaks away from a literal ordinary understanding of day (
yom). Like Day-Age proponents who argue that
the property of day representing a "start and end" is the symbolic focus of Moses, those YECs who believe the heavens are created on Day 4 say
a different property of day (i.e., the time period of an ordinary day, 24 hours) is the symbolic focus of Moses.
So to be clear here, a strictly literal interpretation of
yom necessitates having the heavens in existence on or before Day 1
otherwise no ordinary day can be had for each day. Any other interpretation turns "day" into a symbol of something else (i.e., "24 hours" or an "age").
Now what of "day" being more of a symbolic reference? Understanding "day" as a literary device symbolic of 'an age' or 'period of time'
is a valid variant found in the Hebrew Lexicon. Another valid symbolic referent is a time period of '24 hours'. In order to understand what variant is intended by the author, we need to closely examine the context and words surrounding where
yom is used. When we do this, provided
we keep to the immediate Genesis 1 text alone, it really is a matter of a coin flip what is to be preferred. I do swing in favour of Moses intending the use of an "ordinary day" from Day 1 which means the heavens were created on or before Day 1 (i.e., "
in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth").
HOWEVER, when we start including Scriptural references elsewhere, like Genesis 2:4 where all days are said to be a day: "
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Also, we understand the theological teachings found in the NT (and Psalm) with entering God's rest, and the seventh day of rest starts to possess a far more spiritually enriching meaning than that of an ordinary day. Just read over Hebrews 4:1-11 where we are to enter God's rest associated with the seventh day (the argument being that the seventh day still remains open to this day and hasn't ended):
- 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.
Now some, such as Jac, argue we should not look to Scripture elsewhere when interpreting Genesis 1; we should focus on the Genesis 1 passage alone. To do otherwise is to break from the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic, a method that attempts to understand a particular passage as the author would have understood it. When we do this, we risk breaking away from a more objective interpretation and being influenced by subjectivity and social contexts (i.e., modern science).
Consider also that a person 1000s of years later can't change what the original author intended. Thus, if the original author intended ordinary days, then it is irrelevant what theological insights about God's seventh day of rest are drawn out 1000 years on. Entering into "God's day of rest" is just a new, albeit parallel insight drawn out, but it doesn't change the original intended meaning of Genesis 1 if an ordinary day was intended.
I'm pretty sure this is one way Jac might respond to the Hebrews passage, because I know he strictly adheres to the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation. I advocate that method too, but am less strict when I see a clear and deeper spiritual or prophetic message in Scripture that I believe is holistically inspired of God.
