Six Day Creation: Interpret Genesis in light of Exodus or other way?

[Afterthought]

We should interpret Scripture by Scripture. However, is there a way to tell which passage to interpret in light of the other? Some argue that the days in Genesis 1 are unspecified periods of times, rather than an ordinary day. When one counters with Exodus 20 (which presupposes interpreting the days of Genesis 1 in light of Exodus 20), the response is that we should interpret Scripture with Scripture and so "God's days" mentioned in Exodus 20 ("for in six days...rested the seventh day") should be interpreted in light of what Genesis 1 says those days are. Hence, we can conclude that man's work week is analogous, not identical to God's.

On the other hand, sometimes it is said that the days of Genesis 1 seem to be ordinary days but should be interpreted by Exodus 20, which is claimed to show that man's work week are analogous of God's. Hence, the days of Genesis 1 are analogies, rather than ordinary days. Of course, there is also the gap theory, which if Exodus interprets Genesis, cannot be allowed; but if Genesis interprets Exodus, the possibility remains.


So this raises two questions.

(1) Which should interpret which? Genesis in light of Exodus or Exodus in light of Genesis? Or is there a third option?

(2) Is there a way to tell in general which passage to interpret in light of another? It seems to me the only way is to show that one falls into a contradiction on one scheme, or that the passage being used to interpret another cannot be understood in the way the interpreter intends. Or perhaps if we can show from the text that one text actually is an interpretation of another?


Of course, this argument is ad hominem. If one treated the passages in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 separately, one could independently arrive at their meaning (although the arguer might then say we need to interpret Scripture by Scripture, so that one of these passages needs to be interpreted in light of the other). But it would be useful to end the argument with Scripture interpreting Scripture between these two passages if there is a way to objectively do so.

 

[Romans922]

Scripture interprets Scripture. That which is clear interprets that which is less clear.

Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 20 are both very clear. 6 days work and 1 day rest, same in both.


Both are historical narrative. Both give no suggestion or implication that the days are not normal full days. It is only man's fallible logic and wisdom and thinking that messes all this up by starting with science first or attempting to explain away the miraculous.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

It is interesting that only philosophers and theologians would suggest that Genesis 1 is non-literal. I can't think of a single Hebrew scholar who would argue that Moses (or whoever they think wrote it) did not intend to convey that the days of creation were literal twenty-four hour periods. Here is a good journal article on the subject. http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/45/45-4/45-4-PP577-584_JETS.pdf

 

[Afterthought]

It is interesting that only philosophers and theologians would suggest that Genesis 1 is non-literal.

I hadn't noticed that. That is interesting.

Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 20 are both very clear. 6 days work and 1 day rest, same in both.

So you wouldn't argue ad hominem then? What if you did decide to do so? How would you answer? Or do you believe it is not possible to argue ad hominem in this case, so the assumptions need to be attacked instead?

 

[Romans922]

So you wouldn't argue ad hominem then?

I don't get what would/wouldn't be argued 'ad hominem' to answer your question, even from your original post. It is not clear to me.

 

[Afterthought]

I don't get what would/wouldn't be argued 'ad hominem' to answer your question, even from your original post. It is not clear to me.

Sorry. The idea is this. We can determine the meaning of Genesis and Exodus independently. However, when looking at someone's non-literal interpretation, one will find that either Genesis or Exodus will be interpreted as being non-literal. When one objects to the non-literal interpretation saying we should interpret Scripture by Scripture, the non-literal interpreter agrees. One then goes to Exodus or Genesis to interpret Genesis or Exodus, respectively. But the non-literal interpreter will say we should interpret the passage the other way around.

For example, suppose the non-literal interpreter says the days of Genesis are non-literal. You then say we should interpret Scripture by Scripture. The non-literal interpreter agrees. You then go to Exodus to interpret Genesis. But the non-literal interpreter then says we should interpret Exodus in light of Genesis, so "God's days" mentioned in Exodus must be non-literal, even though man's work week in Exodus is literal. I am curious how one would respond to this: How would one know whether to interpret Exodus in light of Genesis or the other way around? Because arguing in this manner presupposes the non-literal interpreter's assumptions up to that point (since one can determine the meaning of Exodus or Genesis independently of each other), I called it arguing ad hominem.


Edit: I'm kind of wondering if there is a vicious circle of reasoning that goes on here. When the non-literal interpreter says Exodus should be taken non-literally since Genesis is, it seems to beg the question with regards to the days of Genesis. Rather, when interpreting Scripture by Scripture, we would have to interpret Exodus in its own right--independently of Genesis--before interpreting Genesis in light of Exodus? Of course, since Scripture interprets Scripture, it cannot be done fully independently, but I guess that's the "hermeneutical spiral" (?).

 

[David Pope]

Raymond,

I don't think "ad hominem" means what you think it means. An "ad hominem" attack is one directed (usually spitefully) against a person rather than the argument that they are logically presentinng.

David

 

[Afterthought]

I don't think "ad hominem" means what you think it means. An "ad hominem" attack is one directed (usually spitefully) against a person rather than the argument that they are logically presenting.

Yes, that is what I had been taught too. However, I have also seen it used for another, non-fallacious sort of reasoning e.g., Oliphint. Admittedly, I have yet to see it used that way in a standard philosophical work. The "real" name of this kind of argument escapes me though.

 

[Romans922]

Okay. I get what you are saying I think.

I wouldn't actually go to the Scripture interprets Scripture part. They are arguing for non-literal days. To do that they will start in Genesis, I say this because I've never seen anyone do it from Exodus though it could be done and would ultimately come back to Genesis as I think we would all argue anyway (even though for us on the PB, generally speaking, going to Exodus makes the point of the days of creation since we are to follow the example).

So going to Genesis, I would just look at the text itself. Given it is biblical historical narrative, the constant repeating of "and then (this happened)" almost every verse shows it is just that historical narrative. As well as many other key indicators. That is everything happening in Genesis is happening sequentially. The language of 'morning and evening' seems clear enough to indicate literal days. And the very use of the word day to describe the 'days' is clear. I believe there is only one example in all of Scripture (could be wrong, doing this from memory) in which day is not used literally and that being in 2 Pt 3:8, "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." But of course this isn't used nor can be used to define what a day is, rather only to show the Lord's desire for judgment and that with Him there is no time either long or short for He is eternal. But when we think of waiting for the judgment promised it seems it is taking a long time.

Those who say Genesis 1 and 2 are separate accounts are confused since 2:1 starts with a 'Therefore' or 'Thus' or 'and'...."it was completed (the heavens and earth)" Genesis 2 summarizes what has happened and then gives more detail of it.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks!


I was just thinking that the "gap" theories might pose more of a difficulty when it comes to deciding which passage should interpret which. However, in light of the principle of "more clear" interpreting "less clear" and the charge of a vicious circle that I mentioned, it would appear one would have to interpret Genesis in light of Exodus, if it came down to it.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Sometimes we make things more complex and difficult than need be; people with extremely high intelligence sometimes do this. I found that this article by Pastor Rick Phillips in Reformation21, Is Evolution Biblically Acceptable? The Question of Genesis 1, was very clear, and in this light Exodus 20 is not even needed as a hermeneutic aid. Apparently Pastor Phillips is going to be doing further articles on this topic.

 

[Afterthought]

That is very interesting, thank you! I wish the references would appear.

 

[Free Christian]

Some argue that the days in Genesis 1 are unspecified periods of times, rather than an ordinary day.

Iv heard that a lot. Even a couple of people say that the seventh day has not ended and we are still in it! How they come to that I wont bother saying.
To me, I have heard it explained and see it this way too, in Genesis 1 the term day is used with numbers, 1st day, 2nd day as well as the words evening and morning and it cannot be anything but a literal 24hr period. How on earth some interpret this as being thousands or millions of years is beyond me.
To do so, with gaps and millions of years, suggests an incomplete creation account from our perfect God and Creator leaving the created beings the task of explaining it properly.