Diversity of opinion among the early fathers regarding the
days of creation—Saint Augustine, Philo Judæus, Clement
of Alexandria, Origen, Saint Athanasius, Saint Eucherius,
Procopius—Albertus Magnus, Saint Thomas, Cardinal Cajetan—Inference
from these testimonies—First argument
in favor of the popular interpretation; a day, in the literal
sense, means a period of twenty-four hours—Answer—This
word often used in Scripture for an indefinite period—Examples
from the Old and New Testament—Second argument;
the days of creation have an evening and a morning—Answer—Interpretation
of Saint Augustine, Venerable
Bede, and other fathers of the church—Third argument;
the reason alleged for the institution of the Sabbath-day—Answer—The
law of the Sabbath extended to every seventh
year as well as to every seventh day—The seventh day of
God’s rest a long period of indefinite duration.
No one who will take the trouble to investigate, with
any reasonable diligence and research, the nature of
the Mosaic Days, can fail to be struck with the remarkable
diversity of opinion that existed on the subject
among the early Fathers of the Church. Yet this diversity of
opinion is often overlooked by modern writers. They fancy
that the meaning of the word Day is so plain as to leave no
room for doubt or controversy; that a day can be nothing
else than a period of twenty-four hours, marked by the succession
of light and darkness; and that in this sense the
Mosaic narrative was universally understood until quite
recently, when a new explanation was invented, to meet the
requirements of modern science. All this is far from true.
The meaning of the Mosaic Days has been, in point of fact,
a subject of controversy from the earliest times. And Saint
Augustine tells us that the question appeared to him so
difficult that he could pronounce no decisive judgment
upon it. “As to these Days,” he says, “what kind they
were, it is very difficult, nay, it is impossible to imagine, and
much more so to explain.”136
Nevertheless, this great Doctor, having long pondered
over the subject, and considered it on many sides, does not
hesitate to express his own opinion. And he departs very
widely, indeed, from the literal and obvious interpretation.
He maintains, at great length,137 as we had before occasion
to observe, that God created all things in a single instant
of time, according to the words of Ecclesiasticus, “He
who liveth forever created all things at once.”138 Thus he
is led to infer that the Six Days commemorated by Moses
were, in reality, but one day; and this not such a day as
those which are now measured by the revolution of the
sun, for we find three successive days recorded by Moses
before the sun appeared in the Heavens. It was, in fact,
nothing else than that one single instant of time in which
all things were created together.139
Nor was this opinion peculiar to Saint Augustine. At
the very dawn of the Christian Era it was set forth by Philo
the Jew; and afterward it was maintained by Clement of
Alexandria, and by Origen. The great Saint Athanasius
seems to throw the weight of his authority in the same
direction, when he says, speaking of the Creation, that
“no one thing was made before another, but all things
were produced at once together by the self-same command.”
And after the time of Saint Augustine this figurative interpretation
was defended by Saint Eucherius, Bishop of
Lyons, in the course of the fifth century, and by Procopius
of Gaza in the sixth. In the days of the schools we find it
approved by Albertus Magnus, and treated respectfully by
Saint Thomas; and later still, adopted by Cardinal Cajetan,
in his commentary on the Book of Genesis.140
It will be said, perhaps, that we are here arguing against
ourselves: these eminent writers are in favor of reducing the
days of Creation to one single point of time; whereas it
is our purpose to stretch them out to periods of indefinite
length. But no: our object just now is not precisely
to establish our own hypothesis, but rather to prepare
the way for its discussion. We want to show that we
are quite free to abandon the popular view of the Mosaic
Days if there be good reason for our doing so. And it
seems to us that we have abundantly established this point
by a long list of eminent ecclesiastical writers, who, without
any note of censure, have diverged very widely from
the common interpretation. No doubt they have shortened
the time, and we want to lengthen it. But in this they
agree with us, that the days of Creation are not of necessity
days in the ordinary sense of the word. Nay, Saint Augustine
goes farther, and maintains, from the evidence of the
Sacred Text itself, that they cannot be understood in this
sense.141
Having thus cleared away a serious difficulty that seemed
to obstruct our path, we may proceed without hesitation to
the direct object of our inquiry. The burden of proof, let
it be remembered, is not with us, but rather with those who
contend for Days of twenty-four hours. They must prove
that this word Day in the first chapter of Genesis means a
period of twenty-four hours, and can mean nothing else. If
it may be understood in a wider sense, consistently with the
usage of Scripture, that is quite enough for us. We are
perfectly at liberty to adopt an interpretation which, on the
one hand, the Sacred Text fairly admits, and on the other,
the discoveries of Natural Science would seem to demand.
Let us examine, then, the arguments that are usually
adduced in favor of the popular interpretation.
Throughout the first chapter of Genesis the Hebrew
word יוֺם (yom) is everywhere employed by Moses to designate
the Days of Creation. And many writers contend
that the use of this word is, in itself, evidence enough that
he spoke of days in the common sense of the term. It is
plain, they say, from the usage of Scripture, that the
word יוֺם (yom) had a fixed and certain meaning in the
Hebrew language; the same precisely as that which we now
attach to the English word Day. Sometimes, when contra-distinguished
from night, it was applied to the period of
light, from sunrise to sunset; otherwise, it meant the civil
day of twenty-four hours, measured by the revolution of
the Sun. Moreover, it had unquestionably attained this
meaning at the time when Moses wrote, and therefore it
could not have been employed by him in any other sense.
This argument rests upon a false foundation. It is true,
no doubt, that the word יוֺם (yom) was more usually employed
in one or other of the two senses just explained;—that
is to say, (1) for the period of light from sunrise to
sunset, or (2) for the period of twenty-four hours corresponding
to a complete revolution of the Sun. But, for
the validity of the argument, it would be necessary to show
that, beside these two senses, there is no other in which the
word may be fairly understood, conformably to the usage
of the Hebrew language. Now this has never yet been
proved. On the contrary, the Scripture affords abundant
evidence that the word יוֺם (yom) had a third meaning
quite different from the other two; that it was freely used
to designate a period of time much longer than a common
day, and generally of uncertain and indefinite duration. A
few examples will be interesting, we hope, to our readers.
In the second chapter of Genesis, Moses, having completed
his account of the Creation, says (v. 4): “These
are the generations of the Heavens and the Earth when
they were created, in the Day (יוֺם, yom) that the Lord
God created the Earth and the Heavens: (v. 5), and every
plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb
of the field before it grew.” There is a good deal of controversy
about the precise meaning of this passage. But
one thing at least appears to be plain, that the word יוֺם
(yom), is not used to designate a day of twenty-four hours;
nor yet the period of light from sunrise to sunset; but
rather the whole period of the Creation.
On this point almost all our best commentators are
agreed. “It is manifest,” says Venerable Bede, “that in
this place the sacred writer has put the word Day for all
that time during which the primeval creation was brought
into existence. For it was not upon any one of the Six
Days that the sky was made and adorned with stars, and
the dry land was separated from the waters, and furnished
with trees and plants. But, according to its accustomed
practice, Scripture here uses the word day in the sense of
time.” Saint Augustine gives even a wider expansion to
the word when he writes: “Seven Days are enumerated
above, and now that is called one Day in which God made
the Heavens and the Earth, and every green thing of the
field; by which term we may well suppose that all time is
meant. For God then made all time when He made
creatures that live in time; and these creatures are here
signified by the Heavens and the Earth.” Molina on the
same passage says: “Learned writers tell us commonly
that Moses in this place puts the word Day in the sense of
Time, just as in the passage of Deuteronomy, ‘The day of
perdition is at hand.’... And elsewhere in Scripture Day
is often used for Time.” Bannez, too, concurs in this
opinion. “The word Day,” he says, “can be understood
for any duration whatsoever.” Perrerius, answering an
objection taken from this text, says that “Day is put for
Time, as is frequently done in Scripture.” And Petavius
not only adopts this interpretation, but contends that it is
conformable to the usage even of the Greek and Latin
writers. He gives an example from Cicero against Verres:
“Itaque cum ego diem in Siciliam perexiguam postulavissem,
invenit iste qui sibi in Achaiam biduo breviorem diem
postularet.”142 Here, then, is an instance in which Moses
himself uses the word Day (יוֺם, yom) not in the ordinary
sense, but for a long period of time;—for all that time,
whatever it may have been, which elapsed from the first
act of creation to the close of the Six Days.
Another striking example occurs in the prophet Amos.
“Behold, the days are coming, saith the Lord God, and I
will send forth a famine into the land: not a famine of
bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the word of the
Lord. And they shall wander from sea to sea and from
the north to the east; they shall go about seeking the
word of the Lord, and shall not find it. In that day (יוֺם
yom) shall the fair virgins and the young men faint for
thirst.”143 Every one will see at a glance that the word Day
in the latter part of this passage does not mean a day of
twenty-four hours. It evidently refers to the whole period
during which the calamities here foretold were to be inflicted
on the Jewish people. What that period was may be a
question of dispute. By some it is taken for the time
of the Babylonian captivity; by others, for the present age
of the world, in which the Jews are wanderers on the face
of the earth, without a prophet and without a pastor, thirsting
for the word of God, and seeking it in vain. But, in
any case, it is clear from the opening words: “Behold, the
days are coming,” that it was a period not of one day only,
but of many.
Then we have those well known words addressed by
God the Father to His Eternal Son: “Thou art my Son,
this day (יוֺם, yom) have I begotten thee.”144 The Son of
God was begotten of the Father before all ages; and the
day, therefore, on which he was begotten, cannot be a
common day of twenty-four hours, but must rather be the
long day of Eternity, without beginning and without end.
This text, we know, is sometimes applied to the day of
our Lord’s Resurrection; and sometimes, too, to the day
of His Incarnation: nor do we want to deny that it may be
thus rightly explained in a secondary and mystical sense.
But in its literal sense we think it plainly refers to the
Eternal Generation of the Son. This meaning is sufficiently
implied by the word begotten, which cannot be understood
with propriety, except of that Generation by virtue of
which our Divine Lord was from Eternity the natural Son
of God. Moreover, this is the sense in which the passage
is adopted by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews.
Wishing to show that Our Lord has received by inheritance
a name more excellent than any given to the Angels, he
argues thus: “For to which of the Angels hath he said at
any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten
thee?”145 Now it seems to us that, unless we understand
these words of the Eternal Generation, the point of the
Apostle’s argument is completely lost. The Angels are
sometimes called in Scripture the sons of God; but they
were only the adopted sons, whereas Our Lord was the
natural Son in virtue of His Eternal Generation. Consequently
it was no other than the Eternal Generation which
made the name of Son more excellent when applied to
Christ than the same name when applied to the angels.
Again, it is quite a common thing, with the prophets
generally, to use the word יוֺם (yom) for the season of tribulation
and affliction, though the same may have extended
over a period of many days or even many years. Jeremias
employs it in this sense when he describes so vividly the
manifold calamities that were impending over the ill-fated
Babylon. “I have caused thee to fall into a snare,
and thou art taken, O Babylon, and thou wast not aware
of it: thou art found and caught because thou hast provoked
the Lord. The Lord hath opened His armory,
and hath brought forth the weapons of his wrath: for the
Lord the God of hosts hath a work to be done in the land
of the Chaldeans. Come ye against her from the uttermost
borders: open, that they may go forth that shall tread her
down: take the stones out of the way, and make heaps,
and destroy her: and let nothing of her be left. Destroy
all her valiant men, let them go down to the slaughter:
woe to them, for their day (יוֺם, yom) is come, the time of
their visitation. The voice of them that flee, and of them
that have escaped out of the land of Babylon: to declare
in Sion the revenge of the Lord our God, the revenge of
His temple. Declare to many against Babylon, to all that
bend the bow: stand together against her round about, and
let none escape; pay her according to her work: according
to all that she hath done, do ye to her: for she hath lifted
up herself against the Lord, against the Holy One of Israel.
Therefore shall her young men fall in her streets: and all
her men of war shall hold their peace in that day (יוֺם, yom),
saith the Lord. Behold I come against thee, O proud one,
saith the Lord the God of hosts: for the day (יוֺם, yom) is
come, the time of thy visitation. And the proud one shall
fall, he shall fall down, and there shall be none to lift him
up: and I will kindle afire in his cities, and it shall
devour all round about him.”146 And in the following
chapter:—“Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I will raise up
as it were a pestilential wind against Babylon, and against
the inhabitants thereof who have lifted up their heart against
me. And I will send to Babylon fanners, and they shall
fan her, and shall destroy her land: for they are come
upon her on every side in the day (יוֺם, yom) of her
affliction.”147
In another place the same prophet applies the word יוֺם
(yom) to the whole duration of a long campaign carried on
by Nabuchodonosor against Pharao Nechao, king of Egypt.
“Prepare ye the shield and buckler, and go forth to
battle. Harness the horses, and get up, ye horsemen:
stand forth with helmets, furbish the spears, put on coats
of mail. What then? I have seen them dismayed, and
turning their backs, their valiant ones slain: they fled
apace, they looked not back: terror was round about, saith
the Lord. Let not the swift flee away, nor the strong
think to escape: they are overthrown and fallen down,
toward the north by the river Euphrates. Who is this that
cometh up as a flood: and his streams swell like those of
rivers? Egypt riseth up like a flood, and the waves thereof
shall be moved as rivers, and he shall say: I will go up
and will cover the earth: I will destroy the city and its inhabitants.
Get ye up on horses, and glory in chariots,
and let the valiant men come forth, the Ethiopians and the
Lybians, that handle the shield, and the Lydians that
handle and bend the bow. For this is the day (יוֺם, yom)
of the Lord the God of hosts, a day of vengeance that He
may revenge Himself of His enemies: the sword shall devour,
and shall be filled, and shall be drunk with their
blood: for there is a sacrifice of the Lord God of hosts in
the north country, by the river Euphrates.... Furnish
thyself to go into captivity, thou daughter inhabitant of
Egypt: for Memphis shall be made desolate, and shall be
forsaken and uninhabited. Egypt is like a fair and beautiful
heifer: there shall come from the north one that shall
goad her. Her hirelings also that lived in the midst of
her, like fatted calves are turned back, and are fled away
together, and they could not stand: for the day (יוֺם, yom)
of their slaughter is come upon them, the time of their
visitation.”148
The prophet Ezechiel, too, furnishes a forcible illustration
when he thus foreshadows the course of a second expedition
against Egypt undertaken by the same prince:—
“Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will set
Nabuchodonosor the king of Babylon in the land of Egypt:
and he shall take her multitude, and take the booty thereof
for a prey, and rifle the spoils thereof: and it shall be
wages for his army; and for the service he hath done me
against it: I have given him the land of Egypt, because he
hath labored for me, saith the Lord God. In that day
(יוֺם, yom) a horn shall bud forth for the house of Israel,
and I will give thee an open mouth in the midst of them:
and they shall know that I am the Lord.”149 And a little
further on:—“For the day (יוֺם, yom) is near, yea the day
of the Lord is near: a cloudy day, it shall be the time of
the nations. And the sword shall come upon Egypt: and
there shall be dread in Ethiopia, when the wounded shall
fall in Egypt, and the multitude thereof shall be taken
away, and the foundations thereof shall be destroyed.
Ethiopia and Lybia, and Lydia, and all the rest of the
crowd, and Chub, and the children of the land of the covenant,
shall fall with them by the sword.... And they
shall know that I am the Lord: when I shall have set a
fire in Egypt, and all the helpers thereof shall be destroyed.
In that day (יוֺם, yom), shall messengers go forth from my
face in ships to destroy the confidence of Ethiopia, and
there shall be dread among them in that day (יוֺם, yom) of
Egypt: because it shall certainly come.”150
Once more, this word is applied to the period of Our
Lord’s life upon earth, and even to the whole duration of
the Christian Church. Sophonias, for example, thus foretells
the coming of the kingdom of Christ. “Wherefore
expect me, saith the Lord, in the day of my resurrection
that is to come, for my judgment is to assemble the Gentiles,
and to gather the kingdoms.... From beyond the
rivers of Ethiopia shall my suppliants, the children of my
dispersed people, bring me an offering. In that day (יוֺם,
yom) thou shalt not be ashamed for all thy doings, wherein
thou hast transgressed against me: for then I will take away
out of the midst of thee thy proud boasters, and thou shalt
no more be lifted up because of my holy mountain....
Give praise, O daughter of Sion: shout, O Israel: be glad
and rejoice with all thy heart, O daughter of Jerusalem.
The Lord hath taken away thy judgment, he hath turned
away thy enemies: the King of Israel the Lord is in the
midst of thee, thou shalt fear evil no more. In that day
(יוֺם, yom) it shall be said to Jerusalem: Fear not; to Sion:
Let not thy hands be weakened. The Lord thy God in the
midst of thee is mighty, He will save: He will rejoice over
thee with gladness, He will be silent in His love, He will
be joyful over thee in praise.”151
And Isaias: “Is it not yet a very little while, and Libanon
shall be turned into a charmel, and charmel shall be
esteemed as a forest? And in that day (יוֺם, yom) the deaf
shall hear the words of the book, and out of darkness and
obscurity the eyes of the blind shall see. And the meek
shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor men shall
rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.”152 That this passage
refers to the time of the Christian Church there can be no
doubt; for our Lord himself appeals to it in proof of His
divine mission: “Go and relate to John what you have
heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers
are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor
have the Gospel preached to them.”153
We may trace this use of the word even in the New
Testament. Our Lord says, arguing with the Jews: “Abraham
your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it
and was glad.”154 Saint Paul, too, though writing in the
Greek language to the Corinthians, does not hesitate to
adopt a passage from Isaias, in which the same meaning is
conspicuously brought out: “And we helping do exhort
you, that you receive not the grace of God in vain. For
he saith: In an accepted time have I heard thee, and in the
day of salvation have I helped thee. Behold, now is the
acceptable time: behold, now is the day of salvation.”155 And
finally, Our Divine Lord, in His last touching address to
the city of Jerusalem, applies the word day to the season of
grace and mercy: “When he drew near, seeing the city,
He wept over it, saying: If thou also hadst known, and that
in this thy day, the things that are to thy peace: but now they
are hidden from thy eyes. For the days shall come upon
thee; and thy enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and
compass thee round, and straiten thee on every side.”156
So much, then, for the first argument. From the numerous
examples we have given it is plain enough that the
word יוֺם (yom), in Scripture language, was often used for
a period of many days, and even many years; nay sometimes
for a period of many centuries. If so, Moses was free
to use it in this sense. And consequently, as far as the
word itself is concerned, it affords no conclusive proof that
the Days of Creation were days of twenty-four hours only:
we may hold them to belong and indefinite periods of time,
without departing in any degree from the established usage
of Scripture.
But it is urged—and this is the second argument,—that,
whatever may be the meaning of the word יוֺם (yom) elsewhere,
in the first chapter of Genesis it must mean a day of
twenty-four hours. For we are not merely told that there
was a First Day, and a Second Day, and a Third Day; but
each day is in a manner analyzed by the sacred writer, and
its component parts set forth for our instruction. There
was evening and there was morning, he says, the First Day;
there was evening and there was morning the Second Day;
there was evening and there was morning the Third Day; and
so on. Now if the word were understood of those indefinite
periods we have been speaking about, there would be no
meaning in this analysis: for it could hardly be maintained
that each of those periods had but one evening and one
morning like an ordinary day. Furthermore, it is argued
that there is a peculiar appropriateness in this phrase, which
goes far to confirm the common interpretation. Amongst
the Jews it was usual to compute the civil day from sunset
to sunset. The civil day began then with the evening. And
accordingly Moses, in describing the Days of Creation,
puts the evening first, and says: There was evening and
there was morning the First Day; there was evening and
there was morning the Second Day; and so for the rest.
All this reasoning seems to us unsatisfactory and inconclusive.
In the first place, it is not a fact, as would seem
to be supposed, that the civil day is made up of evening and
morning. The evening and the morning do not make the
whole day; they are only certain periods of the day. Neither
do they mark the limits of the day: for, though it is quite
true that, in the computation of the Jews, the civil day began
with the evening, it certainly did not end with the morning.
If, then, by the word Day, Moses here meant the civil
day of twenty-four hours, how is this clause to be understood,
There was evening and there was morning the First
Day? It cannot mean that the evening and the morning
put together made up the First Day: for this is not a fact.
It cannot mean that the evening marked the beginning of
the day, and the morning marked its close: for the period
included between the evening and the morning is not the
day but the night. What does it mean, then?
Many writers seem to suppose that the evening and the
morning are intended by Moses to designate the night and
the day;—that is to say, the whole period of darkness and
the whole period of light, which put together make up
the civil day of twenty-four hours. If the text could be
explained in this way, it would fit in, no doubt, much more
appropriately with the theory of ordinary days than with the
theory of indefinite periods. But the text cannot be explained
in this way. The evening is not the whole period
of darkness, and the morning is not the whole period of
light. No English writer could say, with propriety, that the
Day is made up of the evening and the morning. Neither
could Moses have meant to say this in the first chapter of
Genesis: for the Hebrew words ערב (Ghereb) and בקר (Boker)
which are found in the original text, have a meaning not
less fixed and definite than the corresponding words Evening
and the Morning in the English language.
To prove the truth of this assertion by an investigation
of all the passages in the Hebrew Bible, in which these
words are found, would be a tedious and uninteresting
task. But it may be easily tested in another way. If the
words ערב (Ghereb) and בקר (Boker) were ever used to
mean, not strictly the evening and morning, but the whole
period of night and the whole period of day, this fact would
surely have become known in the course of time to some of
the many eminent and accomplished Hebrew lexicographers.
We ask, then, is there one Hebrew lexicon of note which
assigns the sense of night to the word ערב (Ghereb) and the
sense of day to the word בקר (Boker). For ourselves, we
have searched several of the best of them, and we have not
found a single one that even hints at such an explanation.
Perhaps, however, some of our readers might be unwilling
to accept the authority of lexicons as conclusive on a
point of this kind; seeing that lexicons very often represent
but imperfectly the full power of a language. Well,
then, there is another process, and a simple one enough,
by which they may demonstrate the inaccuracy of our statement,
if inaccurate it be. Let them produce any passage
from the Hebrew Bible in which the words ערב (Ghereb)
and בקר (Boker) are employed to designate the whole night
and the whole day. If they fail to do so,—and as far as
we are aware, no such passage has yet been discovered,—then
surely we may fairly contend that the interpretation
which thus explains the words in the first chapter of Genesis
cannot be regarded as certain: nor can the argument
founded on that interpretation be received as conclusive.
There is a text in the eighth chapter of the prophet
Daniel which might, perhaps, appear at first sight to militate
against our opinion. The prophet had a vision in
which it was foreshadowed that Antiochus Epiphanes should
come and prevail against the Jews, and should profane
the temple of God, and should abolish the daily sacrifice.
One of the Angels in the vision is heard asking of another,
for how long should the daily sacrifice cease, and the sanctuary
remain desolate. And the answer is given in these
words: “Unto evening-morning (עד ערב בקר, ghad ghereb
boker) two thousand three hundred; then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed.”157 Now, this is commonly understood
to mean that the daily sacrifice should be abolished
for two thousand three hundred days. And therefore, it
would seem that, in this passage, the evening and morning
are used to signify the whole civil day of twenty-four hours.
We will not dispute the correctness of the interpretation
which is here set forth, although the words of the Angel
are explained in a very different sense by many eminent
commentators. But we think that the passage, even when
understood according to this interpretation, cannot fairly be
brought in evidence against us. The evening and the
morning do not make up the whole day: but they occur
once, and only once, in each day. Therefore a period
of many days may be properly signified by noting the
recurrence of the evening and morning a certain number
of times. And in point of fact, a usage of this kind
seems to prevail in most languages. The common word
fortnight, in English, affords a good illustration. It signifies
a period of fourteen nights and days: yet it does not
specify the recurrence of fourteen days, but only the recurrence
of fourteen nights. Again, the poet says:
“Fair was she to behold, that maiden of seventeen summers.”
Nobody would argue from these examples that the word
summer means a period of twelve months; or that the
word night means a period of twenty-four hours. And so,
in the case before us, the recurrence of the evening and
morning two thousand three hundred times may be pointed
out to mark a period of two thousand three hundred days,
although the evening and morning are not the whole day,
but only certain parts of the day. Nay, more; we fancy
we can see a good reason why the Angel in the vision
should single out the evening and the morning for special
notice. He had been asked about the profanation of the
sanctuary, and the abolition of the daily sacrifice. Now it
was in the evening and the morning that the daily sacrifice was
wont to be offered. And the Angel seems to answer: The
evening and the morning shall return two thousand three
hundred times; and there shall be no evening and morning
sacrifice: but, after that time, the sanctuary shall be
cleansed and sacrifice restored.
So far we have been arguing from the common usage of
Scripture that the evening and the morning mentioned in
the history of the Creation cannot mean the whole night
and the whole day. But there is a special objection against
this interpretation from the history of the Creation itself.
The fifth verse in the first chapter of Genesis runs thus:
“And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And there was evening and there was morning the
First Day.” In the first sentence it is recorded that God,
having divided the light from the darkness, gave to each its
proper name: He called the light, Day; and the darkness,
Night. Is it not highly improbable that, after this announcement,
the sacred writer would himself, in the very next sentence,
employ names altogether different, if he wished to
designate the period of light and the period of darkness?
We are not maintaining that the phrase under consideration—“there
was evening and there was morning the First
Day”—cannot be explained on the hypothesis that the Days
of Creation were days of twenty-four hours. But we do
contend that it affords no conclusive proof in favor of that
hypothesis; because even in that hypothesis the meaning of
the phrase is still doubtful and obscure. For ourselves, we
candidly confess we can offer no explanation that seems to
us, in any system of interpretation, altogether satisfactory.
We may be allowed, however, to call attention to an opinion
put forward by Saint Augustine, which fits in very appropriately
with the doctrine that the Days of Creation were
long periods of time. The distinctions of evening and
morning, he says, are not to be understood in reference to
the rising and setting of the Sun, which, in point of fact,
was not created until the Fourth Day; but rather in reference
to the works themselves that are recorded to have been
produced. In this way the evening will naturally represent
the bringing to an end of the work that had been
accomplished; and the morning, on the other hand, the
coming in of the work that was to be. This opinion was
afterward adopted by Saint Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons,
who seems almost to borrow the very words of Saint
Augustine; and also by Venerable Bede, who says:
“What is the evening, but the completion of each work?
and the morning, but the beginning of the next?” In the
twelfth century we find it again set forth by Saint Hildegarde,
who was considered by Saint Bernard, as well as by
Pope Eugenius the Third, to have been gifted with the
spirit of prophecy.158 This interpretation, it is true, does
not explain the words evening and morning according to
their literal signification: but then the metaphorical sense
it ascribes to them is both simple and appropriate; more
especially if we understand the word Day in the sense of a
long and indefinite period. As the morning literally means
the break of day, and the evening its decline, the Sacred
Writer might, not inaptly, have employed these words to
represent metaphorically the opening and the close of the
various works which are ascribed to each successive period
in the history of the Creation.
It may be observed, moreover, that this explanation
seems quite in accord with the etymology of the Hebrew
words עֶרֶב (Ghereb), and בּקר (Boker). The latter is formed
from the root בּקֶר (Bakar), to lay open, and used to signify
the morning, because in the morning the light of the sun is,
as it were, unveiled, and laid open to the earth. Hence, the
word might be applied with much propriety, in a metaphorical
sense, to the unfolding of the various works of God, as
each new period was, in its turn, ushered in with a new act
of Creation. On the other hand, עֶרֶב (Ghereb) seems to be
derived from ערב (Gharab), to mingle, and has probably
come to signify the evening, as the famous Hebrew scholar,
Aben Ezra, suggests, because, in the uncertain light of evening,
the forms of external objects lose their distinctness of
outline, and become, in a manner, blended together. And
so this word might have been employed, not unfitly, to represent
the close of each period in the creation, which was
marked, as Geologists tell us, by the gradual dying out or
extinction of the various forms of life peculiar to that period.
Anyhow, in following the opinion of so ancient and so venerable
an authority as Saint Augustine, we cannot be charged
with unduly straining the Sacred Text to meet the exigencies
of modern science.
The next argument is founded on a passage in Exodus, to
which we have already had occasion to refer: “Six days
shalt thou labor, and do all thy work. But the seventh day
is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work
on it, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant,
nor thy maid-servant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger
that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made
the Heavens and the Earth, and the sea, and all that in
them is, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord
blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.”159 We are to work
upon six days, and to rest upon the seventh; because in six
days God accomplished all the works of the creation, and
rested on the seventh. There can be no mistake as to the
meaning of this commandment. The six days on which it is
lawful to labor are, beyond all doubt, six days in the common
sense of the word; six days of twenty-four hours each:
and the seventh day, on which it is forbidden to work, is a
day of the same kind. But the example of God’s labor and
God’s rest is set forth, in the text, as the pattern after which
this law of the Sabbath was framed. And therefore, the
six days in which God furnished and embellished the
earth must have been likewise six days of twenty-four
hours each. This argument is regarded by many writers
as decisive.
To us, on the contrary, it seems by no means necessary
to understand the days on which God labored and rested,
in precisely the same sense as the days on which it is enjoined
that we should labor and rest. The examples of
God is, no doubt, represented in the Sacred Text as the
reason for the Jewish Sabbath: “Six days shalt thou labor,
and rest upon the seventh; for in six days the Lord made
the Heavens and the Earth, and rested on the seventh.”
But, suppose for a moment that the days of creation were
long periods of time, will not the significance of this reason
remain unchanged? As God, in the great work of the
creation, labored for six successive periods, and then rested
for a seventh, so shall you likewise do all your work during
six of those successive periods into which your time is divided,
and rest upon the seventh.
In support of this view, we may observe that the Jews were
commanded to abstain from work, not only every seventh
day, but also every seventh year. “Six years thou shalt
sow thy ground, and shalt gather the corn thereof; but the
seventh year thou shalt let it alone, and suffer it to rest, that
the poor of thy people may eat, and whatsoever shall be left,
let the beasts of the field eat it: in like manner shalt thou
do with thy vineyard and thy oliveyard. Six days shalt thou
work: the seventh day thou shalt cease, that thy ox and
thy ass may rest; and the son of thy handmaid and the
stranger may be refreshed.”160 And in another place we read:
“When you shall have entered into the land which I will
give you, observe the rest of the Sabbath to the Lord. Six
years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune
thy vineyard, and shalt gather the fruits thereof; but in the
seventh year there shall be a Sabbath to the land, of the resting
of the Lord; thou shalt not sow thy field, nor prune
thy vineyard. What the ground shall bring forth of itself
thou shalt not reap: neither shalt thou gather the grapes of
the first fruits as a vintage; for it is a year of rest to the land:
But they shall be unto you for meat; to thee, and to thy
man-servant, and to thy maid-servant, and to thy hireling,
and to the strangers that sojourn with thee, to thy beasts of
burden, and to thy cattle, all things that grow shall be for
meat.”161 The seventh year, then, according to Divine command,
was a year of rest among the Jews, just as the seventh
day was a day of rest; and it is evident that the one precept,
no less than the other, was founded on the great example of
God’s rest when He had finished the work of Creation. We
are satisfied, therefore, that whatever may have been the
length of those six days in which God labored, and of the
seventh day on which He rested, His example might still be
properly set forth as the model on which the law of the Sabbath
was founded.
It is urged, however, that in this passage of Exodus, we
have the same word יוֺם (yom) applied in the very same
context to the six days of the Creation and to the six days
of the week; and it can hardly be supposed that the
inspired writer would pass thus suddenly from one meaning
of the word to another, and a very different meaning,
without giving any intimation to his readers of such a transition.
If this argument is a good one, we can only say
that it completely oversets the opinion of those against
whom we are contending. In the fifth verse of the first
chapter of Genesis we read: “And God called the light
Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was
evening and there was morning the first Day.” Now, those
who reject the theory of long periods, maintain that by the
word Day in the latter part of this verse, is meant the
whole civil day of twenty-four hours; while it is plain that,
in the earlier part of the verse, the same word Day is emphatically
applied to only a part of that period—that is, to
the time of light as distinguished from the time of darkness.
Therefore, they are themselves, in fact, upholding an interpretation
which supposes the inspired writer to pass from
one meaning of the word Day to another, without any intimation
of a change of meaning.
But we do not want to shrink from dealing with this
argument on its merits. The principle on which it is
founded seems to us unsound and inconsistent with the
evidence of the Sacred Books themselves. It is quite a
common thing, we contend, in Scripture, for the writer to
pass from one meaning of a word to another without any
explicit indication of such a transition, when, as in the case
before us, the two senses, though different, are analogous:
the one being, as it were, the figure, or the symbol, or the
pattern, of the other. A few examples will make this clear.
In the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, we
read as follows: “For the charity of Christ presseth us:
judging this, that if one died for all, then all were dead;
and Christ died for all.”162 Here, when it is said that “all
were dead,” the meaning is, that all men were dead spiritually
by sin; whereas, in the clause immediately preceding, and in
the clause immediately following, the same word is used in
its literal sense for the death of Christ upon the cross.
And yet the Apostle, though he thus passed from the literal
to the metaphorical sense of the word, and then back again
from the metaphorical sense to the literal, gives no express
indication of these transitions.
Again, in the Gospel, when a certain man, being called
by our Lord, said: “Lord, suffer me first to go and bury
my father,” Jesus reproved him in these words: “Let
the dead bury their dead; but go thou and preach the
kingdom of God.”163 There is some difference of opinion
amongst commentators as to the exact meaning of this
phrase. But whatever interpretation be adopted, it seems
evident from the context that the dead to be buried were those
who were literally dead; whereas, the dead who were to
bury them were manifestly not those who were literally dead,
but those who were dead in some analogous or metaphorical
sense. Another example occurs in the twentieth chapter
of Saint John. Christ says to His Apostles: “I ascend
to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”164
When He says, “I ascend to my Father,” the meaning is,
“to Him who has begotten me from all eternity.” When
He adds, “and your Father,” the meaning is, “to Him who
has adopted you for His children.” Here, then, the word
Father is first used in the sense of a natural father, and
immediately after in the sense of a father by adoption, without
any explicit declaration of a change in meaning.
The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans furnishes an
instance in which the transition from one meaning to
another occurs in the case of the word Day itself: “The
night is passed, and the day is at hand. Let us, therefore,
cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armor of
light. Let us walk honestly as in the day.”165 The word
Day, in the earlier part of this passage, is used by Saint
Paul for the Day of Eternity which is to follow the darkness
of this life; while, in the next sentence, it means
clearly the period of light between sunrise and sunset.
Another illustration of the same kind occurs in the first
Epistle to the Thessalonians. “But you, brethren, are
not in darkness that that day should overtake you as a thief;
for you are all the children of light and the children of the
day.”166 No one familiar with the language of Scripture
can doubt that the first day here is the Day of Judgment;
and it is quite plain that the second day is not the Day of
Judgment.
Our next example, and one most appropriate to our
purpose, is taken from the prophet Amos: “And it shall
come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will
make the sun go down at noon, and I will darken the
earth in the clear day.”167 This prophecy is commonly
referred by the Fathers to the time of our Lord, when the
earth was darkened in the clear day on the occasion of
His crucifixion; but some eminent authorities, with Saint
Jerome at their head, explain it of the Captivity in Babylon.
Either interpretation will suit our argument. The sacred
writer first employs the word Day for a long period of time,
and afterward proceeds to use it in its more ordinary sense,
without giving his readers any express intimation of such a
transition.
We hope it is now pretty clear that neither the reason
assigned for the institution of the Sabbath Day, nor the
particular form of words in which that ordinance is set forth,
offers any insurmountable obstacle to the opinion we are
defending. And this is quite enough for our purpose.
For we would again remind our readers that we are not
attempting to prove from the Sacred Text that this opinion
must be true, but only that it may be true. Our object
has been sufficiently attained if we have succeeded in showing
that the hypothesis which makes the Days of Creation
long periods, is not inconsistent with the language of
Scripture.
We are tempted, however, in the case of this objection,
to go somewhat further than the scope of our argument
strictly demands. The text we have just been discussing
brings before us, in fact, a consideration of great weight in
favor of the system of long periods. “In six days the Lord
made the Heavens and the Earth and the sea, and all that
in them is, and rested on the seventh day.” Now, what was
this Seventh Day on which God rested? Was it a common
day of twenty-four hours? or was it not rather a long and
undefined period of time? Saint Augustine answers plainly
enough: “The seventh day,” he says, “is without an
evening, and has no setting.” And Venerable Bede, asking
why the sacred writer had assigned no evening to the
seventh day, gives this answer: “Because it has no end,
and is shut in by no limit.”168
The common sentiment of Theologians, as far as we
know, seems to point in the same direction. They tell us
that God is said to have rested, inasmuch as He ceased
from the creation of new species; and they hold that since
the close of the Sixth Day no new species have been
brought into existence. But whether this be true or not,
it would be very difficult, we think, to point out any sense
in which God can be said to have rested after the work of
the Six Days, and in which He is not resting at the present
moment. If so, the day of His rest is still going on; and
it is not a period of twenty-four hours only, but a period
of many thousand years. Now, if the Seventh Day on
which God rested is a period of many thousand years, are
we not fully justified in supposing that the Six Days on
which He formed and furnished the Heavens and the Earth
were likewise periods of many ages?