As a boy growing up in a fundamentalist church, I was taught that God created the heavens and earth some six thousand years ago. I took at face value the \u201cB.C. 4004\u201d marginal heading to Genesis 1:1 in my Scofield Reference Bible. At Bible college, Whitcomb and Morris\u2019s The Genesis Flood<\/i> was still considered to be the final word on the matter. For most of my life, then, I assumed that to be opposed to Darwinian evolution required one to embrace young-earth creation. That assumption was challenged, however, as I studied the Hebrew text of the creation account in its historic, literary and cultural context. As I did, I realized the author\u2019s primary purpose for this account was not to date the universe and the earth. The text, while leaving absolutely no room for Darwinian evolutionary theory, did not rule out either view on the age of the universe\u2014young-earth or old-earth. For me this was a turning-point in my thinking about the Genesis account.<\/p>\n
As evangelicals, it is imperative that we give careful thought to these issues. A growing number of academics in the evangelical camp are comfortable with some degree of Darwinian evolutionary theory. On the other end of the continuum are conservative evangelicals who act like young-earth creationism is the sine qua non <\/i>of orthodox faith. Neither of these positions is helpful, since they both fail the science and Scripture test. In the former, Darwinian evolutionary theory is scientism not science, while scriptural testimony is not given its due weight. In the latter, the creation account is read in a way that supports only recent creationism while scientists continue to corroborate the age of the universe as somewhere around 14 billion years and the earth 4.5 billion years. We evangelicals can do better; we must do better. Corban is thus to be commended for drawing attention to the creation motif in this current edition of its online journal.<\/p>\n
This article is a study of the creation account itself (Genesis 1-2). This study does not concern itself with the origin of mankind; it deals only with the question of the age of the universe and the earth. These are separate issues and should not be confused. The text of Scripture in no way allows for any theory of evolution, including theistic evolution; the same however, cannot be said of the age of the universe and earth.<\/p>\n
As I approach this subject, I do so with the highest regard for the text of the creation account. The fact that I no longer advocate young-earth creationism is due primarily to my conviction that the focus of the creation account lies elsewhere and thus leaves the age of the universe an open question. Because it is an open question, I welcome the input of science. My goal is to encourage evangelicals toward a more accurate understanding of the creation account as well as to encourage them to be open to objective scientific findings with respect to the age of the cosmos. Scripture and science should not be viewed as adversaries in the pursuit of truth, but rather as partners working in separate, but related fields of study. The ideal, in the case of the origin of the universe and the earth, would be an interpretation of the creation account that would allow for, not contradict, objective, reasonable scientific findings since God is the source of Word and world. Nelson and Reynolds, in the Counterpoints series book, Three Views on Creation and Evolution<\/i>, write the article in defense of Young Earth Creationism. In their lead essay they aim at this ideal of finding common ground between biblical knowledge and scientific knowledge.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n Nelson and Reynolds discuss the tension they feel between what they consider to be a reasonable interpretation of the age of the universe by modern science and a proper reading of the creation account. They admit that current estimates of the age of the universe present \u201ca very plausible scientific picture of an \u2018old\u2019 cosmos.\u201d [2]<\/a> However, while believing that an old cosmos is \u201cvery plausible\u201d from a scientific viewpoint, they nevertheless hold to the young-earth viewpoint because old-earth creationism is, in their judgment, based on a \u201cless natural reading [of the text].\u201d My contention is that young-earth creationists such as Nelson and Reynolds have erred in their judgment of what constitutes a \u201cless natural reading\u201d of the text and as a result have needlessly, and tragically, dismissed a \u201cvery plausible\u201d proposal for the age of the cosmos. In this article I will attempt a reading of the text that allows for, rather than excludes, the current consensus among scientists on the age of the universe and earth. I will begin by pointing out that the message for the original audience was not how old the universe was; rather, it was worship resulting from a proper understanding and application of the principle of divine rest imbedded in the seventh day, the Sabbath. I will then point out that a \u201cnatural reading\u201d of the text need not necessarily eliminate the possibility of an ancient cosmos.<\/p>\n Genesis 1 as Background for the Sabbath Command<\/b><\/p>\n The relationship of Genesis 1 to the command to Israel to observe the Sabbath cannot be overemphasized. From a strictly literary viewpoint, the seventh day stands out as the most important of all the days of creation. Genesis 2:1-3 closes the first pericope of the creation account and climaxes it. The emphasis upon the seventh day is unmistakable: \u201cThus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and he rested on the seventh day from all His work which he had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.\u201d<\/p>\n If we want to discover from the text itself a clue as to why the creation account is recorded as it is, we need look no further for at least one major purpose revealed in it\u2014to show Israel the origin of the Sabbath command and to introduce the theology behind it. John H. Walton develops the theme of the Sabbath in connection with his larger theme of Yahweh preparing Eden (and the cosmos) to be his temple.<\/p>\n Given the view of Genesis 1 presented in this book, we get a new way to think about the Sabbath.\u00a0 If God\u2019s rest on the seventh day involved him taking up his presence in the cosmic temple which has been ordered and made functional so that he is now ready to run the cosmos, our Sabbath rest can be seen in a different light. Obviously, God is not asking us to imitate his Sabbath rest by taking the functional controls. I would suggest that instead he is asking us to recognize that he is at the controls, not us.\u00a0 When we \u201crest\u201d on the Sabbath, we recognize him as the author of order and the one who brings rest (stability) to our lives and world.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n Walton and others have recognized in the Genesis creation account what can easily be missed if the account is examined primarily for evidence supporting one or another proposal for the material origin of the universe and mankind.<\/p>\n The theology of rest spans the entire biblical record, from Genesis, where the concept of divine rest is first introduced, through the time of Moses, in which the Sabbath rest becomes institutionalized, then through the time of Joshua, in which Yahweh promised to bring the nation to a resting place, through the time of the prophets, who connected the theme to the messianic age, and finally, to the consummation of history in which God\u2019s people finally experience salvation rest. The author of Hebrews takes advantage of this eschatological, all-encompassing theology of rest and uses it to encourage his readers to stay faithful to their commitment to Christ (Heb. 4:1-11). In Christ, humanity already (the already\/not yet scheme) has come to experience the Sabbath rest that God has provided (vv. 9-11). God\u2019s final rest for his people will be consummated in the re-creation of the heavens and earth, when sin and death will forever be banished and God\u2019s people experience the rest that is God himself.<\/p>\n The main theme that Walton develops is that the creation account should be understood in a way similar to other ancient Near East creation accounts, that of deity taking up residence in a temple. Key to developing that theme is his emphasis that Genesis 1 is about functionality, not material origins. The creation account is about Yahweh preparing a place\u2014a temple\u2014in which he can dwell, a place of worship and rest for his people. If Genesis 1 is primarily (exclusively, for Walton) concerned with how things already in existence become functional, then we should be less inclined to come to the text hoping to find evidence supporting either the young-earth or old-earth model. Where do we see this principle of functionality expressed in the record of the six days? Walton uses the record of the third day as an example of the functionality motif. The third day records gathering of waters into one place and the earth producing vegetation.<\/p>\n It is amazing to notice as this point that some interpreters are troubled by their observation that God doesn\u2019t make anything on day three. We can imagine their quandary\u2014how can this be included in a creation account if God doesn\u2019t make anything on this day? By this point in the book, the reader can see the solution easily. Day three is only a problem if this is an account of material origins. If it is understood as an account of functional origins, there is no need for God to make something. Instead, we ask what function(s) were set up, and to that question we find ready answers.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n The emphasis on the functional nature of day four\u2014the luminaries\u2014is obvious (\u201csigns, seasons, days and years\u201d are pertinent to humans), and realizing this should help, in Walton\u2019s view, to ease the frustration experienced by those expecting to find some clarification on the problem of having light created in the first day, with the luminaries created on the fourth.<\/p>\n The text offers no indication of the material nature of the celestial bodies, and all it says of their material placement is that they are in the firmament\/expanse.\u00a0 This is, of course, problematic if one is trying to understand the text scientifically. On the functional side of the equation, we find that they separate day and night (thus the link to day one), that they provide light and that they serve for \u201csigns, seasons, days and years.\u201d Finally we are told that their function is to govern the day and night\u2014the closest the text comes to personification.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n Generally speaking, Walton\u2019s thesis that Genesis 1 has to do with function rather than origin makes good sense, although one does not necessarily rule out the other.[6]<\/a> But to his point, the Israelites, as any other people group in the ancient Near East, would never have questioned the idea that the universe was created; a statement on the origin of things might not have been deemed necessary. Of course the universe was created and, of course, a divine being (in their case, the one true God) created it. What other possibility could there be? If Walton goes too far in denying any reference to material origins in the creation account, he correctly asserts that the author\u2019s main intent is to describe how an already-existing earth (1:2; how long it had been is a question not addressed in the text) was made habitable for mankind by Yahweh, thus becoming a place in which humans could worship and serve their God.<\/p>\n Walton merges the idea of Yahweh entering his temple with the emphasis on the seventh day in the creation account, in which God comes to rest in his creation.<\/p>\n This is what makes day seven so significant, because without God taking up his dwelling in its midst, the (cosmic) temple does not exist. The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place for God\u2019s presence. Though all of the functions are anthropocentric, meeting the needs of humanity, the cosmic temple is theocentric, with God\u2019s presence serving as the defining element of existence.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n Temple and worship are themes that have often been noted in the creation account by Old Testament scholars. God\u2019s command to Adam that he \u201ccultivate and keep\u201d the garden (1:27) has been seen as an implied reference to the tabernacle, both terms used regularly to describe the work of the Levites and priests. Sailhamer makes this observation, as do Wenham[8]<\/a> and Mathews[9]<\/a> in their commentaries on Genesis. Sailhamer feels that it is justified to translate \u201ccultivate and keep\u201d by \u201cworship and obey.\u201d\u00a0 While this may push the point too far, it highlights the larger idea that \u201cMan\u2019s life in the garden was to be characterized by worship and obedience.\u00a0 He was to be a priest, not merely a worker and keeper of the garden.\u201d[10]<\/a>\u00a0 For a fuller discussion and defense of this position, see Walton\u2019s more detailed treatment of this in his commentary on Genesis.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n Also highlighting the seventh day is a literary feature of the text that has been the subject of much study and controversy, the so-called \u201cframework hypothesis.\u201d<\/p>\n The Parallel Arrangement of the Framework Hypothesis<\/b>[12]<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Hamilton begins his commentary on Genesis 1-2 by observing, \u201cIt is obvious that the first six days fall into two groups of threes. Each day in the second column is an extension of its counterpart in the first column. The days in the first column are about the creation (or preparation) of environment or habitat.\u201d[13]<\/a> He includes the following table that serves to highlight the seventh day.<\/p>\n