Journal: Westminster Theological Journal

Volume: WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999)

Article: “In The Space Of Six Days”: The Days Of Creation From Origen To The Westminster
Assembly
Author: Robert Letham

WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 149

“In The Space Of Six Days”: The Days Of Creation From Origen To
The Westminster Assembly
Robert Letham*
But some have thought that the nature of water is suspended above the firmament,
not in view of vaporous thinness, but in virtue of icy solidity. After all, the crystal
stone, which is of great solidity and great transparency, is made from water by
freezing: so it should not be surprising that up there the upper waters should be
solidified in one great crystal. But as Augustine says, “However it may be that those
waters are there, and of whatever kind they may be, let us not have the slightest
doubt that they are there. The authority of this text of scripture is greater than that
of all the power of human ingenuity.” Robert Grossteste, Hexaëdemeron, 3.III.3, 7
This comment from the great Bishop of Lincoln (c. 1230–35) alerts us to the dangers of a facile
identification of the meaning of Scripture with our own particular interpretation of the text. It
also encourages us to reflect on the interaction of general and special revelation. Why most of us
today do not immediately understand the reference in Genesis 1 to the waters above the
firmament in the way Augustine and Grossteste did is due to advances in natural science rather
than biblical studies. As our understanding of nature has developed so it has impinged on our
exegesis of the Bible. It is doubtful if any today hold that the authority of Scripture is tied to
there being solid, icy, transparent, crystalline waters “up there.”1
This article focuses on how the six days of creation inGenesis 1 have been understood in
exegetical history until the time of the Westminster Assembly. In recent years the idea has
gained ground in conservative circles that these are to be understood as days of twenty-four
hours. The books of John Whit comb and Henry Morris have been instrumental in the popularity
of this view. 2 Many argue that to adopt any other interpretation is to capitulate to evolutionary
theories. Herman Hoeksema suggested this and E. J. Young, while remaining agnostic on the
question, opposed the framework hypothesis on the grounds that it undermined the authority of
Scripture by departing
*Robert Letham is senior pastor of Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Wilmingon, Delaware.

WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 150

from a historical approach to Genesis in the face of pressure from modern science.3 This, we
must confess, is an “arid question” 4 but one forced upon us by strident attitudes implying truth
is on one side only. We will not argue that any one position on the question is the right way to
understand Genesis. We will simply ask how the matter has been viewed in the past, for if it is as
obvious as some make out we might expect a broad measure of agreement to exist.

1. Origen (c. 185-254)

Origen discusses the six days of creation in two of his major works. InContra Celsus, (c. 246) he
rebuts a raft of accusations against Christianity by an opponent from the previous century. We
only know of Celsus’ views from Origen’s response. From 6.50, it seems that Celsus had pointed
to an apparent contradiction in Genesis between God creating the heavens and the earth in six
days, and the later comment in Genesis 2:4 that he made them in one day. Origen replies that
Moses was hardly forgetful! Rather, he had a special meaning in mind. Moreover, Celsus is on
weak ground in regarding the six days indiscriminately, since “some of them elapsed before the
creation of light and heaven, and sun, and moon, and stars, and some of them after the creation
of these.” Here Origen points to distinctions in meaning of the word “day” (yom), and indicates
that the creation of sun and moon on the fourth day requires the interpreter to distinguish
between the first three and the last three of the six days. Evidently, even if the last three were
solar days, the first three were not.5
In 6.60 he mentions that earlier in this work, and in his (now lost) notes on Genesis he found
fault “with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six
days was occupied in the creation of the world.” 6 Here he agrees that the apparent meaning is
that creation took six days, but argues that this interpretation is wrong. Why he distanced
himself from this reading is evident in his extensive discussion of Biblical interpretation in his
earlier work, the great De Principiis (Περι Αρχων) (220–30).
In De Principiis Origen defends the OT against critics who pointed to what they saw as abhorrent
moral practices and logical absurdities. In
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 151

doing so he shows his strong reliance on Platonist philosophy and on a system of allegorical
interpretation that had found favor in Alexandria from the time of the first-century Jewish
scholar, Philo. According to Origen, human nature is tripartite—body, soul, and spirit—and
Scripture itself follows this pattern. The flesh of Scripture, the obvious interpretation, is for the
simple man. The man who has made some progress will be edified by the soul, containing moral
precepts, while he who is perfect (or mature) will be edified by the spiritual law. The Spirit’s aim
is to teach us the latter—pre-eminent realities of a heavenly nature. These secret things are
concealed behind a narrative containing a record of the visible creation. The bodily sense may
convey useful teaching for the masses but the spiritual man will seek to progress behind these
“stumbling-blocks, hindrances, and impossibilities.” Both testaments contain history which did
not actually occur. “Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is
agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, second, and
third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, moon, and stars? and that
the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?” (4.1.16).7 In short, the literal (bodily)
interpretation of Genesis 1 is impossible, as any intelligent reader will realize.
It is clear from this that Origen firmly rejects a literal view of the days ofGenesis 1. It is obvious
that he was not reacting against Darwinian evolution! However, it is equally evident that his own
neo-Platonist leanings influenced what he was able to see in the text.8 For this reason, he may
not be the most reliable guide to understanding Genesis. At the same time, he was an extremely
influential hermeneut and had a lasting impact on generations of theologians and exegetes.
Moreover, he had a fine sense of the richness of the text of Scripture.9 It follows that a non-
literal view of Genesis 1 has a pedigree reaching back to the third century.

2. Basil the Great (330-379)

Basil’s work on the first chapter of Genesis, theHexaëdemeron (a series of Lenten sermons
preached in one week sometime before 370), is very different.10 Basil distances himself from
Origen’s threefold interpretation. Although he
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 152
doesn’t name him it is obvious whom he has in mind when he refers to those “ingenious …
inventors of allegories” who concoct “old women’s tales” (3.9).11
I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others.
There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for
whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, a fish, what
their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their
allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them
serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I
take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel.” … giving
themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, [they] have undertaken to give a
majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the
Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear
Scripture as it has been written (9.1).12
The key for Basil in all exposition of the Bible is the edification of the church—this, he says, is his
one object in all he does (7.6, 1.8).13
Basil remarks on the good order evident in creation (1.1).14 The world is a work of art on display
for all to admire, so they will know who made it. Its different parts are in perfect accord, like a
harmonious symphony, sustained by the creator’s power (1.7-9).15 The world was created ex
nihilo. It had a beginning and is not eternal. It will also come to an end (1.2-4).
16 The invisible,

intellectual world was first created, and then the visible world of the senses (1.5).17 The world
was not conceived by chance and without reason, but for a fitting end, a training ground where
reasonable souls learn to know God. This beginning was instantaneous. Creation took place “in
less than an instant,” in a “rapid and imperceptible moment.” The beginning is indivisible and
instantaneous.
Thus then, if it is said, “In the beginning God created,” it is to teach us that at the will
of God the world arose in less than an instant, and it is to convey this meaning more
clearly that other interpreters have said: “God made summarily” that is to say all at
once and in a moment (1.6).18
As created, the world was invisible—either because man was not yet made or because it was
submerged beneath the water that overflowed the
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 153

surface (2.1).19 The earth was still incomplete (2.3).20 Some interpreted the darkness in Genesis
1:2 as evil but Basil strongly refutes this. Evil is not a sovereign force at enmity with good. Nor
does it originate with God. It is simply the condition of the soul devoid of virtue. We should not
look beyond ourselves for the origin of evil or imagine that there is an original state of
wickedness. Darkness is simply a condition produced in the air by the withdrawal of light (2.4-
5).21 The same verse refers to the Holy Spirit as active in creation (2.6).22 The first word of God
created light, a primitive light determined by God (2.7-8).23 This occurred on the first day or, as
Basil emphasizes, on “one day.” Why does Scripture say “one day” and not “the first day”? It is
to determine the measure of day and night. Twenty-four hours make up one day. It is the time
taken by the heavens starting from one point to return there. But was there a mysterious reason
for this? At root this is called “one day” to establish the relationship between time and eternity.
Both revolve upon themselves in cycles, going nowhere. He states:
It follows that we are hereby shown not so much limits, ends and succession of ages,
as distinctions between various states and modes of action…. Thus it is in order that
you may carry your thoughts forward towards a future life, that Scripture marks by
 the word “one” the day which is the type of eternity, the first fruits of days, the
contemporary of light, the holy Lord’s day, honoured by the resurrection of our
Lord.24
Later, Basil connects the fourth day, when God created the luminaries, with the first day or “one
day” when light was made. Then the actual nature of light was produced. Now the sun is
constructed to be a vehicle for the original light (6.2-3).25 However, he does not develop this kind
of connection, to the relation between the second and fifth days, for instance. It appears that
Basil’s more literal method of exegesis would lead him to consider the days of creation as solar
days. However, he also affirms that creation took place in less than an instant. In addition, most
notably he sees these days as having a typological significance, related to eternity and the
resurrection of Christ.

3. Ambrose (c. 339-397)

In his Hexaëdemeron Ambrose follows the more literal interpretation of Basil, rather than that of
Origen. He expressly understands the six days as days
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 154

of twenty-four hour duration.26 However, he tries to combine this with an idea that one day
recurred seven times.27

4. Augustine (354-430)
There are two main passages in his works where Augustine discusses creation at some length. In
his De Civitate Dei (413–26, in a section composed in 417–18) he stresses that God created the
world, and that it is not eternal. Its well-ordered changes and movements testify to this (11.4). 28
Time was also created (11.5).29 As for the days of creation “it is extremely difficult, or perhaps
impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (11.6).30 If we compare these days
with our days we recognize the difference easily. “Our ordinary days have no evening but by the
rising, of the sun; but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to
have been made on the fourth day” (11.7).31 As for the light, “it is beyond the reach of our
senses; neither can we understand how it was, and yet must unhesitatingly believe it.” It was
either some material light or, under the name of light, it signified the holy city. When Scripture
recounts these days it never mentions night, only morning and evening. The knowledge of the
creature is, in comparison with knowledge of the creator, mere twilight, while when the creature
returns to the praise and love of the creator morning returns. When it does so in the knowledge
of itself, that is the first day; when in the knowledge of the firmament or sky, that is the second
day and so on. The days of creation are therefore stages in the creature’s knowledge of creation,
either in itself or in praise and love of God. As to their duration, it is beyond our knowledge.
There is no mention in Genesis of the creation of angels. However, God rested on the seventh
day from all the works he had made, while before the creation of heaven and earth he seems to
have made nothing. Scripture elsewhere describes the angels as made by God. Therefore, the
angels were made at some point covered by the six days. They were made before the stars,
according to Job 38:7, and thus before the fourth day. They could not have been created on the
third or second days so therefore they were made on the first day. There is no question, then,
that they are
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 155

the “light” called “day” whose unity Scripture recognizes by calling that day “one day” (11.9).32
Here Augustine mentions that the second and subsequent days are not other days than the “one
day.” Rather, the same “one day” is repeated to complete the number six or seven (he may
have borrowed this from Ambrose) so that there should be knowledge both of God’s works and
of his rest. The angels were created as sharers of the eternal light, the only-begotten Son of God,
so that they might become light and be called day.
These themes Augustine develops at greater length in his earlier work,In Genesim ad Litteram
(401–15).33 Augustine was influenced by number theory as expounded by Nicomachus of Gerasa
in his Introductio Arithmetica, translated into Latin by Apuleius. He is greatly interested that God
apportioned creation into six days and finds support in the number six. Six is a perfect number,
the sum of its parts. It is the smallest of such numbers. It has three parts which, when added
together, make six. “God, therefore, accomplished the works of his creation in six days, a perfect
number of days.” Even more intriguing for Augustine is that creation is ordered like the number
six, which rises in three steps from its parts. On one day, light was created. On the two following
days, the universe was created in its higher and lower parts. On the remaining three days those
things were created that are contained within the universe. This supports the words of Scripture
“You have ordered all things in measure, number, and weight” (4.1-3). 34 The number six is not
perfect because God creates all things in six days, but rather God created in six days because
the number six is perfect! (4.14).35 After six days, God rested from creating new things and now
works by governing what he made (4.21-23).36
Augustine then turns to consider the nature of the six days. The seven days of our experience
follow each other in succession, marking off the division of time. However, those first six days
occurred “in a form unfamiliar to us as intrinsic principles within things created. Hence evening
and morning, like light and darkness, that is, day and night, did not produce the changes that
they do for us with the motion of the sun. This we are clearly forced to admit with regard to the
first three days, which are recorded and numbered before the creation of the heavenly bodies”
(4.33). 37 God finished the works of creation at the conclusion of the sixth day, so it is not clear
when he created the seventh day for on that day he rested from
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 156

all that he had made. In fact, he did not create it. But in that case how could he have rested on a
day he did not create? The solution to this enigma Augustine finds in that God created only one
day, which recurred seven times and, by its recurrence, many days passed by. So it was not
necessary for God to create the seventh day, for it was made by the seventh recurrence of the
one day he had created (4.37, cf. 5.1-3). 38 As for the obvious problem of how God made present
seven times the light he had made on the first day, this is beyond our experience. We do not
know, especially as it relates to the spiritual dimension of creation. Morning and evening are the
knowledge of the angels, knowing the creation in itself (evening) and in the light of the word of
God (morning) (4.38-41).39
All creation was finished by the sixfold recurrence of the day whose evening and morning
consists in angelic knowledge. The angels knew the things created in God in whom they were
made and in themselves as they were actually made. Thus the day which God has made recurs
not by a material passage of time but by spiritual knowledge.
Thus, in all the days of creation there is one day, and it is not to be taken in the sense
of our day, which we reckon by the course of the sun; but it must have another
meaning, applicable to the three days mentioned before the creation of the heavenly
bodies. This special meaning of “day” must not be maintained just for the first three
days, with the understanding that after the third day we take the word “day” in its
ordinary sense. But we must keep the same meaning even to the sixth and seventh
days. Hence, “day” and “night,” which God divided, must be interpreted quite
 differently from the familiar “day” and “night,” which God decreed the lights that he
created in the firmament should divide…. For it was by the latter act that he created
our day, creating the sun whose presence makes the day. But that other day which
he originally made had already repeated itself three times when, at its fourth
occurrence, these lights of the firmament were created. (4.43)40
These days “are beyond the experience and knowledge of us mortal earthbound men.”
Augustine issues a clear warning. If we want to understand this “we ought not to rush forward
with an ill-considered opinion, as if no other reasonable and plausible interpretation could be
offered.” Our terrestrial days indeed recall the days of creation “but without in any way being
really similar to them” (4.44; cf. 5.4). 41 Augustine denies that this is a figurative or allegorical
interpretation. Material light is not literally “light” and the light to which Genesis refers only
metaphorical. This latter light is more
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 157

excellent and therefore more true than the material light we experience. Yet Augustine does not
advance his interpretation dogmatically, for he does not rule out the possibility that a better one
may be found (4.45).42
In reflecting on the ability of the angelic mind to grasp things simultaneously, he goes on to ask
whether all things were made simultaneously or whether they were created at different times
and on different days. He favors the first alternative, for if creation took place over a process of
time plants and vegetation would have required many days to germinate beneath the ground
and could not have sprung forth in one day. Moreover, while Scripture says God created in six
days it also is written that he created all things together (Sir 18:1). He created all things
simultaneously and also created this one day, seven times repeated. The need for these six days
to be set out was to teach those who could not understand simultaneous creation. In other
words, God accommodated himself to the capacity of weaker intellects and presented creation
as if it were a process (4.51-52; cf. 5.5). 43 Augustine presents an argument drawn from our
observation of the sun rising to show that our vision traverses the distance between us and the
sun in an instant, while also passing through the intervening space in an orderly progression
(4.53-55).44 Thus, the days of creation do not teach a temporal succession but a connexio
causarum (5.12).45

5. Bede (c. 673-735)

In his De Natura Rerum, written in 731, Bede describes the works of God as fourfold. The first
kind is eternal, such as his predestination of us to his kingdom. Second is creation, which he
regards as instantaneous. Third, is his formation of things in heaven and earth in six days, which
did not take place at once. Fourthly and finally, are those works by which God governs the
world.46 Here Bede distinguishes between an instantaneous act of creation and a process of
formation spread over six days.
This distinction Bede develops further in his commentary on Genesis, composed in various
stages between 703 and 731. Commenting on Genesis 1:1 he points out that unlike man, who
builds a house in stages from the planning process to completion, God created all things at the
same time. Here he clearly follows Augustine, from whom he borrows freely in this
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 158

commentary. 47 Creation was made in Christ, Bede suggests, and he goes on to warn against
using allegorical exegesis in such a way as to undermine the historical basis of the faith (an
important point for the father of English church history).48 He points to the heavens being
overlooked in the creation account and to our human ignorance, exemplified by the Lord’s
rhetorical question to Job “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4),
both expressing our profound ignorance of the work of creation.49 Following and citing Basil,
Bede points to the whole trinity being involved in creation.50 Indeed, the declarations by God
recorded in the chapter did not involve the sound of a bodily voice but are to be understood in a
higher sense, of God making all things through his word, his only begotten son.51
Bede’s caution against undue allegorizing comes to expression when he turns to the process of
formation or adornment 52 described in Genesis 1:3ff. The first day, in which God created light,
was a day of twenty-four hours.53 However, he does not abandon allegorical exegesis entirely.
The seven days of Genesis 1:1–2:3 represent seven ages of world history. What points him in this
direction is the absence of reference to evening and morning in the seventh day. Due to this, it
prefigures the resurrection and the eternal heavenly rest.54 Consequently, the first day
prefigures the time from the creation to the flood, the second day represents the period from the
flood to the tower of Babel, the third points to the time from the patriarchs to the start of Israel’s
monarchy, the fourth prefigures the monarchy from David to the exile, the fifth is indicative of
history from the return from exile to subjugation by Rome, the sixth comprises the time between
the two comings of the second Adam, and the seventh (as we saw) has no evening and is a type
of the eternal rest.55 At root, however, the six days are the equivalent of solar days and contain
the adornment by God of his creation. 56
One further point remains. Bede comments on the statement inGenesis 2:4, that God created in
only one day. This expression, Bede states, refers to
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 159

the whole process described in chapter 1,57 for neither in one day nor in six were the heavens,
the earth and the constellations made. The word, he indicates, is used in similar ways elsewhere
in Scripture, by the apostle Paul (now is the day of salvation) and by the prophets (in that day
the deaf shall hear his voice). More particularly, he sides with the idea that the expression refers
to the statement in 1:1 that in the beginning God created all things together, or at the same
time.58 Afterwards the earth was adorned in the space of six days.59 To sum up, Bede sees
creation as instantaneous (following Augustine), but (following Ambrose) considers adornment to
cover six solar days, which in turn (following Basil) typify the subsequent ages of the world,
culminating in the resurrection and eternal rest.

6. Anselm (c. 1033-1109)

Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 until his death, Anselm completedCur Deus Homo? in 1098
in Italy. He refers to the exegesis of the days of creation in passing in 1.18, in his discussion of
the abstruse (and to us absurd) question of whether the number of the elect will exactly replace
or surpass the number of the fallen angels. “If the whole creation was produced at once, and the
days of Moses’ account, where he seems to say that the world was not made all at once, are not
to be equated with the days in which we live,” Anselm cannot see how the angels could have
been made in a perfect number to begin with. Rather, if all things were created at once, angels
and the first two human beings would appear to have been in an imperfect number. 60 Here
Anselm appears to consider the most obvious meaning of Genesis to refer to a sequential
creation—Moses “seems to say that the world was not made all at once”—with the duration of
the creation unspecified. At the same time, he recognizes the possibility of understanding the
text to refer, in Augustine’s sense, to an instantaneous creation. Later in the same section, he
asserts that it is likely that the angels did not constitute the perfect number (and so the number
of the elect will exceed that of the fallen angels). “This is possible, even if man was not created
at the same time as the angels, and it seems necessary if they were created together—as the
majority think, because it is written, ‘He that liveth
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 160

forever created all things together’.”61 The point here is that Augustine’s exegesis of the days of
creation—all things, including men and angels, created together—commands the support of the
majority of exegetes at the end of the eleventh century, nearly seven hundred years after he
advanced it. At the same time, Anselm himself appears to prefer a sequential understanding of
the chapter, although he does not specify exactly how he would view such a sequence.

7. Robert Grossteste (c. 1168-1253)

In his great work, The Hexaëdemeron (1230–35),62 Grossteste attempts a synthesis of all major
interpretations hitherto given in the church. Aiding him in this task is his hermeneutic, in which
he builds on Origen’s fourfold method of interpretation. Grossteste follows this consistently
throughout, deviating only to present a sixfold interpretation to match the six days of creation.
He accepts Augustine’s idea that the six creation days exist because of the perfection of the
number six.63 “There are, then, to sum up, six different ways of understanding and expounding
this opening which deals with the creation of the world in six days. Perhaps these six ways of
expounding are hinted at by the six days and their works.”64 The archetypal world is the creation
of light, the begotten wisdom of the Father. The second day could be the created intelligence of
the angels. The third day is the bringing of matter and form into existence out of nothing. The
fourth day is the foundation and ordering of the church. The fifth day is the formation of the
wavering soul. The sixth day is the making of the visible world over six days. Here there are
unmistakable traces of Origen, reinforced later when Grossteste, expounding the third day,
states:
“Earth” can also mean the literal sense of Scripture, which feeds the simple with the
humble simplicity of a moral interpretation, just as animals are fed by some herbs.
The lofty heights of the allegorical and anagogical interpretation give fruit to the
wise, and are like great trees that give food in rational human beings. This spiritual
sprouting from the spiritual earth is seen by God with a gaze of good pleasure: he
sees that it is good. He also sees the natural sprouting from the natural earth and
sees that this is good, as signifying the spiritual sprouting in all its natural properties
and benefits.65
Hence, whatever the natural sense of the text, it is there to signify spiritual realities that
transcend it. Grossteste appears to support the idea that the
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 161

six days are of twenty-four hour duration. However, this overall interpretative framework must
be borne in mind. For instance, in discussing the first day, he argues that the creation of light
was physical light, according to the literal sense, and this light on the first three days was of
twenty-four equinoctial hours. However, in the same breath, he discusses at length objections to
this position and proceeds to consider Augustine’s claim (without disapproving it) that the days
consisted in the knowledge of the angels. 66 In short, he uses the multiple sense of Scripture to
support a wide variety of interpretations in his bid to synthesize the past. The most valuable
meaning is that which lies behind the natural sense.
Grossteste also pays attention to the literary structure of the chapter. The luminaries are placed
in the middle, on the fourth day. He detects a chiasmus:
It is fitting to the beauty of a disposition that when things are disposed according to
 an odd number, the first should match the last, the second the penultimate, and the
third the antepenultimate, and so on: until one reaches the one in the middle, which
has a special privilege relative to the things that are disposed on either side.
So light was created on the first day, the first of the works of God, while God rested from his
works on the seventh day. If the light is the mind of the angels turned back to God, there is a
matching of light and rest, since the light of the mind of the angels in God’s eternity is in a state
of greatest rest. The firmament made on the second day is compared to the animals and man
made on the sixth, for the firmament contains and envelopes bodily things, while man contains
worldly things within his power. The plants created on the third day, dried of waters, match the
things begotten in the waters on the fifth day. 67
Grossteste also considers the chapter to follow a pattern of ordering (the first three days) and
adornment (the second block of three days). The adornment consists in the adorning of the
bodies made on the first three days. The adornment matches the ordering. The first thing made
is light, then comes the firmament and the gathering of the waters, then the dry land and the
establishment of things fixed into the land by roots. Once these things are established in that
order, in a matching order the firmament is adorned by luminaries, the air and water are
adorned with birds and fish, and the earth is adorned with animals and human beings.68 The
luminaries are therefore part of another creation than the first. They belong to the adornment of
the firmament.69 Here, in this medieval scholastic bishop, lie the roots of what eventually
became known as the framework hypothesis.
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 162

This does not exhaust the structural possibilities for Grossteste. He follows Augustine’s
discussion of the number six, contending that the perfection of the world follows from the
perfection of the number six as effect from cause. 70 There is also a triangular arrangement. The
parts of the number six build up a triangle, fixing one at the vertex, then two arranged in a line,
and then three in a line equidistant relative to the two, in such a way that from the one first
placed a perpendicular line can be drawn down to the middle unit of the three. Thus, on the first
day light was made. On the second and third days, the firmament and earth were made, like the
two-unit line put after the unit. On the three following days the adornments of the fabric of the
world was made and ordered in a three-line unit. On the fourth day, heaven was adorned with
stars. On the fifth day, the liquid elements were adorned with fish and birds. On the sixth day,
the earth was adorned with earthly animals. On this basis, the structure is threefold: day 1
standing by itself, days 2 and 3 comprising a single unit, with the remaining days connected
together into a third unit.71
An important point to note, underlying Grossteste’s structural suggestions, is that the statement
in connection with the fourth day “and for seasons” tells us, following hints from Augustine, that
time begins only with the fourth day. “Therefore the three days before this were not days of
time, but should be distinguished in the mind of angels; the evening and the morning were the
beginning and the end of the thing created, or the formation of the living and the privation of its
form, or something similar.” 72 He points out that, even among those who thought that the first
three days were days of time, two senses of time were to be distinguished. In one sense, time
means the extent of duration that passes from future expectation, through the present to the
past. This existed even when there were no luminaries, providing some form of change affected
bodies and spirits. On the other hand, time also refers to that which comes to be through the
stars, the measurements that mark our own durations.

8. Aquinas (1225-1274)
In his massive Summa Theologiae Aquinas considers Genesis 1 to convey a threefold division.
First of all, there is the work of creation itself, denoted by Genesis 1:1. In this the heaven and the
earth were produced, but without form. Then the first three days concern the work of distinction,
in which the various parts of creation are distinguished from one another—the heaven (day one),
water (day two), and the earth (day three). Heaven and earth are perfected, either by giving
them form or by granting the intrinsic order and beauty due them. The final three days are
devoted to the work of adornment,
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 163

in which extrinsic matters are given to the distinguished parts of heaven and earth. On day four
lights are given to adorn the heaven. On day five birds and fish are created to make beautiful the
intermediate element. On day six animals are brought forth to live and move on the earth. (Q 70,
Art 1).
The first part, then, is distinguished on the first day, and adorned on the fourth, the
middle part distinguished on the middle day, and adorned on the fifth, and the third
part distinguished on the third day, and adorned on the sixth. (Q 74, Art 1)
A generation or so after Grossteste’s masterpiece, Aquinas also provides a basic groundwork for
what is now known as the framework hypothesis. He asks how this relates to Augustine’s
position and finds no incompatibility (Q 70, Art 1, Q 74, Art 1), for the works of creation and
adornment could be said to take place within a day, while the work of creation could be
simultaneous. Indeed, on the question of whether the days were one day repeated seven times
(as Augustine taught but others denied, arguing that there were seven distinct days), Aquinas
holds that the difference is more apparent than real (Q 74, Art 2) but appears to come down on
the side of an order and sequence in creation. God created all things together (Sir 18:1) but not
in terms of distinction and adornment.

9. Martin Luther (1483-1546)

In his Lectures on Genesis (1535) Luther draws attention to Jerome’s comment that the Rabbis
prohibited anyone under thirty from expounding the first chapter of Genesis. “They wanted to
have a good knowledge of Scripture before getting to this chapter.” 73 He argues that there had
not been anyone in the history of the church who had explained everything in the chapter with
adequate skill. This appears to be a blanket condemnation of the exegetical tradition of
Augustine, for he immediately states that we know from Moses that the world was not in
existence before 6, 000 years ago. Theologians had agreed on ex nihilo creation but little else,
Hilary and Augustine arguing that the world was created instantaneously. 74
Luther rejects the allegorical interpretation and prefers a straightforwardly literal view. “Nor does
it serve any useful purpose to make Moses at the outset so mystical and allegorical…. Therefore,
as the proverb has it, he calls ‘a spade a spade,’ i.e., he employs the terms ‘day’ and ‘evening’
without allegory, just as we customarily do.” Moses spoke in the literal sense “that the world,
with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read.”75 If we do not understand
why this is so we should leave
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 164

the matter in the hands of the Holy Spirit. Luther is therefore the first of the major exegetes we
have considered who without ambiguity adopts the interpretation that the days of creation are of
twenty-four hour duration, at the same time arguing that the earth is only six thousand years
old.
Luther indicates that the chapter was written for those with little learning or experience. Moses
wrote what these people needed to know, passing over other information that was not so useful
like the origin of angels.76 Other astronomical questions he leaves in the hands of the scientists
and philosophers. Into this category come questions like the identity of the waters above the
firmament, and whether there are icy, crystalline waters above the sky. 77 “It cannot be denied
that, as Moses says, there are waters above the heavens, but I readily confess that I do not know
of what sort those waters are.”78 Astronomy should not be disregarded, “for as a whole it
concerns itself with the observation and contemplation of the divine works, something which is a
most worthy concern in a human being. Therefore men of the highest ability have engaged in it
and have taken delight in it.”79 Later, however, Luther acknowledges that the word “day” (yom)
is used in a figurative sense in 2:4 (“on the day the Lord made the earth and the heaven”),
referring to indefinite time. Moreover, in commenting on the seventh day he is silent on the
absence of the previous refrain “and there was evening and there was morning,” an absence
that seems to set this day apart from the other six and thus to pose questions as to the nature of
the six. He recognizes that the seventh day has a typological connection with eternity but he
does not draw any conclusions from it.80

10. Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)

In his Decades (a series of sermons preached in 1550–51) Bullinger makes no mention of the
question. Indeed, he has very little on creation, merely a paragraph as he expounds the
Apostles’ Creed. Evidently, there was no controversy on the matter. Of significance is that in
1577 John Whitgift made this work required reading for clergy in his diocese when he was Bishop
of Lincoln, and followed with an identical edict twelve years later when Archbishop of
Canterbury. These volumes became staple reading for English clergy and many who later were
members of the Westminster Assembly are likely to have read them.81

11. John Calvin (1509-1564)

Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis (1554), does not deal directly with the details of the
discussion on the days of creation. This, in itself, may be
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 165

significant, for he steadfastly refused to engage in speculation, confining himself to what was
clearly revealed. This may indicate he regarded this matter as a barren speculation the expositor
would be wise to avoid. In the preface to the commentary he stresses that we are unequal to the
task of examining the works of God in creation.
Since the infinite wisdom of God is displayed in the admirable structure of heaven
and earth, it is absolutely impossible to unfold the history of the creation of the world
in terms equal to its dignity. For while the measure of our capacity is too contracted
to comprehend things of such magnitude, our tongue is equally incapable of giving a
full and substantial account of them.82
Consequently, if we wish to benefit from a study of the works of God in creation we must bring
with us “a sober, docile, mild, and humble spirit” ready to receive only a moderate taste, suited
to our capacity. “It is vain for any to reason as philosophers on the workmanship of the world,
except those who, having been first humbled by the preaching of the gospel, have learned to
submit the whole of their intellectual wisdom to the foolishness of the cross.” 83
Calvin emphasizes that God reveals himself in creation. We know the invisible God through his
works. The Lord, wishing to invite us to the knowledge of himself, places the fabric of heaven and
earth before our eyes “rendering himself, in a certain manner, manifest in them.” The heavens
are eloquent heralds of his glory, the beautiful order of nature proclaiming his wisdom.84 In
short, the world is a mirror in which we can see God, for “he clothes himself with the image of
the world in order to present himself to our contemporaries.” He is “magnificently arrayed in the
incomparable vesture of the heavens and the earth.”85 There is a symmetry in his works to
which nothing can be added (on 1:31).86 The divine Artificer arranged the creation in such a
wonderful order “that nothing more beautiful in appearance can be imagined” (Institutes
1.14.21). In the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1541) he says that the world is a kind of
mirror in which we may observe God.87

Calvin teaches that the world was created and is not eternal (onGenesis 1:1, 2:4).88 More to the
point as far as we are concerned, the one orthodox figure he opposes here (although he does not
mention him by name) is Augustine. In line with his warning against philosophical speculation,
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 166

he opposes the idea of instantaneous creation. On1:5, where “the first day” is mentioned, he
says, “Here the error of those is manifestly refuted who maintain that the world was made in a
moment Hic manifeste refellitur eorum error qui momento uno volunt conditum esse mundum.”
He points to the linguistic error that lay behind the interpretation of Sir 18:1. The Greek word
Augustine cited κοινη (common), does not refer to time but to all things universally.89 Modern
translations of the Apocrypha follow this. Augustine knew little Greek and even less Hebrew and
so was dependent on a Greek translation of the Apocrypha.90
This might lead us to suppose that Calvin favors six days of twenty-four hours, particularly when
he argues that the six days of Genesis 1 are not for the mere purpose of conveying instruction
(on 1:5). He suggests so much in Institutes 1.14.1–2, where he expressly rejects Augustine’s
position of instantaneous creation and argues that the earth is less than six thousand years old,
and where later in the same chapter he expresses a clear preference for the more literal
interpretations of Basil and Ambrose (1.14.20). However, before reaching such a conclusion we
must bear in mind two vital principles he unfolds in his discussion of this chapter. The first
principle is divine accommodation. The account here is given “for our sake, to teach us that God
has made nothing without a certain reason and design.”91 In considering the separation of light
and darkness on the first day, and reflecting on the differences in the ancient world in reckoning
when the day actually ended and began, Calvin says that Moses “accommodated his discourse
to the received custom.” God “accommodated his works to the capacity of men,” fixing our
attention and compelling us to pause and reflect.92 There is nothing here but that which relates
to the visible form of the world, “the garniture of that theatre which he places before our
eyes.”93 This is in line with Calvin’s overall claim that in all God’s revelation he accommodates
himself to our capacity. Indeed, it has been persuasively argued that, for Calvin, God not only
accommodates his revelation to our level but also accommodates himself, speaking to us in the
prattling babble of baby-talk (balbutire, to prattle, is a favorite verb of Calvin’s in this
connection). 94 Again, Calvin is prepared to describe the Genesis account in terms of the
distinction/ adornment model of Grossteste and Aquinas ( Institutes 1.13.14). Thus, it is as idle to
speculate on the time of creation (when it was made) as on the
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 167

space of creation (where it was made).95 The second important factor is Calvin’s insistence on
the integrity of scientific activity. In discussing the seeming impossibility of having waters above
the firmament, and how this might appear to contradict common sense, Calvin says
… to my mind, this is a general principle, that nothing is here treated of but the
visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let
him go elsewhere.96
In short, Genesis does not teach astronomy or “other recondite arts.” It speaks in the simple
language of everyday observation. A casual reader unacquainted with Calvin might think that he
was being dismissive of science in this statement. This is far from the case. Indeed, if we reflect
on the connection between Calvin’s comments here and the citation at the start of this article,
we will see that he is correcting Augustine and Grossteste on the basis of scientific discovery. In
doing so, he recognizes the value and importance of natural science. On 1:15, for instance, he
stresses that to understand Moses it is not necessary to soar to the stars. Those who accuse him
of lacking the exactness needed for a scientific account of the universe miss the point. “For as
became a theologian, he had respect to us rather than to the stars.” However, he was not
ignorant of astronomy, as neither was Calvin, who proceeds to a lengthy discussion of the moon,
sun and stars according to the astronomical knowledge of his day.
Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which, without
instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand;
but astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the sagacity of the human
mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this
science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject
whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very
useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of
God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honoured who have expended useful
labour on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect
this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in
omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a
teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise
fulfil his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he
spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse
that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly, since the Spirit of God here
opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those
subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the
actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is
something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather
adapts his discourse to common usage Ergo Moses ad usum potius se convertit … for
he does not call us up into heaven,
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 168

he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess
their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon
the splendour of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they
acknowledge the beneficence of God.97
This leads us back to our initial reference to Calvin, where he remarks on the great difficulty of
grasping the history of creation, since it deals with matters that are beyond us. Nevertheless,
God has revealed the greatness of his works in creation itself and in Holy Scripture. At the same
time, we must bear in mind that in doing so he has stooped to our level to talk to us as a father
to his infant child. Such parameters warn us against undue dogmatism on recondite matters.

12. Pietro Martire Vermigli (1500-1562)

The main place where Vermigli discusses creation is in his commentary on Genesis (1558).The
smaller section in the Loci Communes is taken straight from this commentary. 98 Vermigli begins
by stressing that creation was not from pre-existent matter. 99 We are unable to reflect on
(cogitari) the original unformed and confused (rudis et indigestae) state of creation since we are
used to seeing the world in its present finery. 100 The original matter was in an unformed
condition. Darkness was not part of its nature or essence but it rather was the absence of light
(luminis absentia). Vermigli follows the Fathers in regarding “the spirit of God” (1:2) as the Holy
Spirit and so the three persons of the Trinity concurring in creation. This is reinforced in 1:3,
where God speaks, for if words are affectionem animi creation is in mente divina lateret creandi
propositum atque consilium .101
The first word of God creates the nature of light by which the darkness flees. Not only does he
create it, he approves it and preserves it.102 How are day and night distinct when the sun and
stars are not yet created? Abenezra suggested that these were perfect days (perfectus dies) but
Vermigli prefers
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 169

the idea that God sent out and withdrew light.103 It is clear that three things were created on the
first day—heaven, earth, and light. Heaven and earth are that unformed mass (molem illam
rudem) which is distributed into two parts, higher and lower. Evening and morning are the
furthest parts of the day and night—the end of the day is evening, the end of the night is
morning. Why is it said “one day” and not the “first day”? It is a Hebrew phrase. Since there are
two parts set in place (darkness and light) the phrase points to the integrity of the day, as if to
say that the two constitute one day. Moreover, if all things were made by the word of the Lord,
they are not so immovably and necessarily established that they might not exist otherwise for he
could easily make them in another form. This is the strength of our faith, that all things are
established by the word of God.104
On the creation of the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day 1:14)
( Vermigli mentions those who
think this refers to the first creation of light by the word as if it was made by the two luminaries.
But he goes on to say that we will be able to understand this if we examine the thought of the
physicists.105 Here Vermigli occupies similar ground to Calvin in granting integrity to science and
natural philosophy, allowing it to assist Biblical exegesis. Nor does Vermigli dismiss an allegorical
interpretation of this chapter. 106 Useful comparisons (utiles comparationes) with the luminaries
can be drawn. Christ teaches us as much when he refers to the sun rising on both the good and
the evil. Paul also compares the church to light. 107 Again, on the seventh day (2:1–3) allegory
can help us understand why evening and morning are not mentioned, for this is a permanent
rest for the sons of God. Man is bound to the worship of God and, immediately after his creation,
is led into the benediction and sanctification of the sabbath.108 Vermigli sees 2:4 as a
recapitulation or epilogue of what was previously announced. There is no evidence that Vermigli
understands the days of Genesis 1 as of twenty-four hours.

13. Sixteenth-century Reformed Confessions

None of the great Reformed confessions make any comment on the matter. The French
Confession (1559) concentrates on creation as a work of the trinity (Chapter 7).109 T h e Scots
Confession (1560) stresses the sovereign action of
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 170

God in creating all things for his own glory (Articles 1–2).110 The Belgic Confession (1561) states
that the Father created ex nihilo all creatures “as it seemed good to him, giving to every
creature its being, shape, form, and several offices to serve its creator” (Article 12).111 The
Heidelberg Catechism (1563) focuses on the ex nihilo nature of God’s creative act and does not
remotely come near mentioning the process of creation (Q 26). 112 The Second Helvetic
Confession (1566) attempts a trinitarian doctrine of creation, opposes the Manicheian idea that
evil was co-created but neither does it approach our topic (Article 7). 113 The Thirty-Nine Articles
of the Church of England (1563, 1571) do not deal with creation at all! This universal absence of
any reference connected even remotely to the issue of the days of creation establishes that it
was not a confessional issue in the slightest in the Reformed churches. It was not a matter of
definition since it was not a matter of controversy or even a point for discussion, despite the
varying views in exegetical history. Consistently, the confessions present theological accounts of
creation without reference to the exegesis of Genesis.114

14. Richard Greenham (d. 1591)

In his A Short Forme of Catechising Greenham follows the Heidelberg Catechism by making the
idea of comfort central to the catechism. As with the great earlier catechism he has no
speculation on creation. He simply stresses that God created ex nihilo.115

15. William Perkins (1558-1602)

Perkins, in his Foundation of the Christian Religion in Six Principles makes only cursory reference
to creation, exclusively focusing on the creation of man and angels.116 He says nothing on the
six days of creation. However, his much larger work An Exposition of the Symbole or Creed of the
Apostles includes a significant section on creation. Creation is a work of the Trinity. He made
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 171

all things without labor, simply at his bidding. They were all good and made for his own glory.
Perkins maintains that Moses recorded precisely the time that elapsed from creation to his own
day but “for the exact amount of yeares Chronologers are not all of one minde.” He cites a range
of authorities who speculate that between 3,900 and 4, 000 years passed from creation to the
birth of Christ. He goes on to say “… some might aske in what space of time did God make the
world?” Perkins allows that God could have made all things in one moment “… but he beganne
and finished the whole worke in sixe distinct daies.” After listing the six days of Genesis 1 and
the contents described in the chapter he concludes “… in sixe distinct spaces of time, the Lord
did make all things.” In so doing God teaches us to consider distinctly each part of creation, he
shows his power and liberty over creation since, in giving light to the world, he is not bound to
the sun or any other creature, and in addition he demonstrates his wonderful providence.117
Perkins clearly favors a sequential understanding of the days of creation and opposes the view of
Augustine. The balance of evidence suggests he considers the days to be of twenty-four hours,
since he interprets the chronology of Genesis literalistically. However, he also acknowledges that
the first three days of Genesis 1 are not solar days, since they show that God is not bound to the
sun in creating light—“he made the light when there was neither Sun nor Moone, nor Starres.”
The days are certainly “distinct spaces of time” but he does not comment directly on the precise
length of that time.

16. James Ussher (1581-1656)

The Irish Articles of Religion (1615), compiled by Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh from 1625, are
the first confessional documents to refer to God creating all things “in the space of six days.” He
gives greater attention to creation in his Body of Divinity (1631).118 Creation is trinitarian, ex
nihilo, subject to time and therefore not eternal.119 The world was created 4, 000 years before
the birth of Christ and so was 5, 614 years old when he wrote. The order of years is set down so
clearly in Scripture so as to convince the heathen, give light to the sacred histories of the Bible,
and show the time of the fulfilling of God’s prophecies. God did not make it sooner due to his free
power and good pleasure. As to how long he was creating it, the answer is “six daies and six
nights.”
In answer to Augustine, Ussher points out why God took so long to create, rather than doing it all
in an instant. Ussher’s reasons seem rather
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 172

lame. By doing it this way, God showed the variety and excellence of his creatures, teaches us
better to understand their workmanship, admonishes us to spend more time knowing them,
gives us a reason to complete our work in six days and rest on the sabbath, and teaches us to
see that many creatures were made before their causes (light before the sun and moon, trees
and plants before the sun).120 First he created dwelling places, then creatures to dwell in
them,121 the thought that undergirds the later framework hypothesis, foreshadowed in
Grossteste and Aquinas.
Like Luther before him, Ussher omits any reference to the seventh day, passing straight from the
creation of man on the sixth day to providence. Nor does he mention 2:4.122 Both could
undermine his argument, in the sense that the word “day” (yom) is used in obviously different
ways than solar days. In a work as detailed as the Body of Divinity, these omissions are striking.
The end result is that Ussher considers only part of the evidence and presents it as if it is the
whole.

17. William Ames (1576-1633)

In his Medulla Theologiae Ames discusses the question briefly. “The creation of the world is one
according to numerical unity and in terms of order and end, but it has parts that are
distinguishable by position, essence, and existence” (8:27). 123 Here Ames’ Ramism is clearly in
evidence, encouraging him to view creation (as every other topic) in terms of subdivisions.124 In
the section immediately following his comment is important for it foreshadows the cryptic
reference in The Westminster Confession of Faith.
The creation of these parts of the world did not occur at one and the same moment,
but was accomplished part by part in the space of six days.
This is evidently a rejection of Augustine. Ames leaves the six days undefined, but puts them in
antithesis to an instantaneous creation of the parts. The Westminster Assembly will use this
exact phrase, implying that it saw the matter like Ames, as a rebuttal of Augustine’s view,
without any commitment to a particular position on the nature of the six days, other than that
they are sequential.
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 173

18. Members of the Westminster Assembly (1643-49)

“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?” “To the curious
incident of the dog in the night-time.” “The dog did nothing in the night-time.” “That
was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.125
The single most astonishing and noteworthy feature of English Puritan theology before 1647,
and the Westminster divines in particular, is the virtually complete absence of interest in
creation. This, despite the strong Puritan influence on the Royal Society that was to follow its
foundation in around 1645. It is astounding in view of the scientific, cultural and philosophical
ferment of the times, spearheaded by the work of Copernicus. So far our searches in Pollard &
Redgrave and Wing have yet to unearth a single work specifically on creation or the book of
Genesis composed before 1647 by any member of the Westminster Assembly or other leading
Puritan, such as Perkins, Ames, Owen, Cartwright, or Fenner. Evidently the Puritans were too
concerned with afflicted consciences (Greenham and Perkins), or with lifting up the downcast
(Bridge), as the Scots with opposing Popish ceremonies (Gillespie).126 John Leith’s strictures are
very appropriate. He remarks that, whereas “Calvin had been alive to the great creative forces
of humanism…. By the time of Westminster, orthodox theology was already being carried on in
isolation from the intellectual currents of the day.” In particular, Leith draws attention to the
Assembly’s isolation “from the issues that were surely latent in the scientific development that
had begun with Copernicus’ publication De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium, in 1543.”127 One
obvious conclusion is that the days of creation were not a matter of contention, although
divergent views existed.128
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 174

19. Concluding observations

(1) Before the Westminster Assembly there were a variety of interpretations ofGenesis 1 and its
days. If the text of Genesis is so clear-cut why did the church down the centuries not see it that
way? Does that not say something not only about the interpreters but also the text? Claims that
a literal reading of the days of Genesis 1 is obvious fall down when the history of interpretation is
taken into consideration.
(2) We will be wise to heed the warnings Augustine and Calvin give on the difficulty of
interpreting this chapter, and so beware of dogmatic claims they themselves did not advance.
Jerome pointed to the Jewish rabbis’ refusal to let anyone under thirty interpret it. Creation
transcends our knowledge and experience. A heavy dose of medicine from Job 38:1ff is in order.
As with any other passage, Genesis 1 must not be interpreted in isolation but in the context of
the whole of Scripture.
(3) Until the mid-sixteenth century the interpreters we cited were all abreast of the philosophy
and science of their day, and often made use of it in biblical interpretation. That we reject many
of their scientific beliefs is because of our own scientific knowledge. That we place implicit faith
in the laws of gravity is due to what we know scientifically, rather than from the Bible. So far I,
for one, have found this reliable! Calvin allows and supports scientific work. He indicates Genesis
is of a different literary genre than a science text book.
(4) The Reformed tradition of the sixteenth century interpreted creation theologically. The classic
Reformed creeds consider it in the context of the doctrine of God, as an ex nihilo work of the
Trinity. In so doing, they affirm their continuity with the historic teaching of the church. The
question of the days of creation was not even a matter of discussion. It does not appear in
theses for debate by students. Its absence is striking. It was never a matter of confessional
significance.
(5) The Puritans until the time of the Westminster Assembly are significantly different from the
historic church in their conspicuous lack of interest in creation in general and Genesis in
particular. They never even attempted a serious theological interpretation of creation. Nor were
they interested in interacting with contemporary science. At a time of such scientific and
philosophical ferment this is astounding. Their interests had switched to the narrowly
soteriological and ecclesiastical. Evidently, the focus of this article was not a matter of
controversy for them.

1But see Paul H. Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above Part I: The Meaning ofraqiaʾ in
Gen 1.6-8, ” WTJ 53 (1991) 227-240; idem., “The Firmament and the Water Above Part II: The
Meaning of ‘The Water Above the Firmament’ in Gen 1.6-8, ” WTJ 54 (1992) 31-46
2E.g., John C. Whitcomb and Henry Madison Morris,The Genesis Flood (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian
& Reformed, 1989).
3 Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association,
1966) 178ff; Edward J. Young, Studies in Genesis One (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 1975) 43ff. See also Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1–2:4 in the
Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, 1997).
4Colin Gunton, The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), 71.
5 J. P. Migne et al., ed., Patrologia Graeca (Paris, 1857-1866) 11:1375–8 [hereafter MPG].
6MPG 11:1389–390. For an English translation see Alexander Roberts and Jones Donaldson, eds.,
The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 4:596 [hereafter ANF].
7 Ibid., 11:373–378. ANF, 4:365.
8 Gunton, Triune Creator, 41–70.
9 See Moisés Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? The History of Interpretation in the Light of
Current Issues (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987); Bertrand de Margerie, S.J.,An Introduction to
the History of Exegesis: I: The Greek Fathers (Petersham, Massachusetts: Saint Bede’s, 1993),
95–116; Henri Crouzel, Origen (trans. A. S. Worrall; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989); Manlio
Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic
Exegesis (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 34–52.
10 MPG, 29:1–208.
11 Ibid., 29:73–76. For an English translation see Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds.,A Select
Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1989), 8:71 [hereafter NPNF2].
12 Ibid., 29:187–90. NPNF2, 8:101.
13 Ibid., 29:159–64; 29:19–22. NPNF2, 8:93; 8:56.
14 Ibid., 29:3–6. NPNF2, 8:52.
15 Ibid., 29:17–24. NPNF2, 8:55–57.
16 Ibid., 29:5–12. NPNF2, 8:53–54.
17 Ibid., 29:13–16. NPNF2, 8:54–55.
18 Ibid., 29:15–17. NPNF2, 8:55.
19 Ibid., 29:27–30. NPNF2, 8:58–59.
20 Ibid., 29:33–36. NPNF2, 8:60.
21 Ibid., 29:33–42. NPNF2, 8:60–62.
22 Ibid., 29:41–44. NPNF2, 8:62–63.
23 Ibid., 29:43–52. NPNF2, 8:63–65.
24 Ibid., 29:51–52. NPNF2, 8:64–65.
25 Ibid., 29:119–126. NPNF2, 8:82–84.
26 “Praeclare etiam unum non primum diem dixit; nam secuturo secundo, et tertio die, et
deinceps reliquis primum potuit dicere: et hoc ordinis videbatur, sed legem statuit, ut viginti
quatuor horae diurnae atque nocturnae diei tantum nomine definiantur, ut si diceret: Viginti
quatuor horarum mensura unius dici tempus est.” Ambrose, Hexaëdemeron, 1:X:37, J. P. Migne
et al., eds., Patrologia Latina (Paris 1878–90) 14:155 [hereafter MPL].
27 “Nam plerique etiam hebdomadum unam unum diem dicunt; quod in se quasi in unum redeat
diem, et quasi septies in se recurrat” MPL, 14:156.
28Ibid., 41:319–320. For an English translation see Philip Schaff, ed.,A Select Library of the
Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, (1887; reprint, Peabody,
Massachusetts: Hendrikson Publishers, 1995), 2:206–207 [hereafter NPNF1].
29 Ibid., 41:320–321. NPNF1, 2:207–208.
30 Ibid., 41:321–322. NPNF1, 2:208.
31 Ibid., 41:322–323. NPNF1, 2:208–209.
32 Ibid., 41:323–325. NPNF1, 2:209–210.
33 Ibid., 34:246–486. For an English translation seeSt. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis,
trans. John Hammond Taylor (New York: Newman Press, 1982) [hereafter LMG].
34 Ibid., 34:295–297. LMG, 103–105.
35 “Sed senarius Deum sex diebus perfecisse opera sua, quia senarius numerus perfectus est.”
Ibid., 34:301. LMG, 112.
36 Ibid., 34:303–305. LMG, 116–118.
37 Ibid., 34:308–309. LMG, 124–125.
38 Ibid., 34:310–311; 34:321–322. LMG, 127–128; 146–148.
39 Ibid., 34:311–313. LMG, 128–132.
40 Ibid., 34:314. LMG, 134.
41“… in hac nostra mortalitate terrena experiri ac sentiri non possumus”; “non debemus
temerarium praecipitare sententiam, tanquam de his aliud sentiri congruentius probabiliuque
non possit”; “… ut non eos illis similes.” Ibid., 34:314; 34:322. LMG, 135, 148.
42 Ibid., 34:314–315. LMG, 135–136.
43 Ibid., 34:317–318; 34:322–323. LMG, 141–142; 149.
44 Ibid., 34:319–320. LMG, 143–145.
45 Ibid., 34:325–326. LMG, 154.
46 “Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul … quod eadem materies, secundum causas simul
creatas non iam simul, sed distinctione sex primorum dierum in caelestem terrestremque
creaturam, formatur.” De Natura Rerum Liber, I, in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina: CXXIIIA;
Bedae Venerabilis Opera: Pars VI: Opera Didascalia I (Turnholt: Brepols, 1975), 192 [hereafter
CCSL].
47Libri Quatuor in Principium Genesis usque ad Nativitatem Isaac et Eiectionem Ismahelis
Adnotationum, in CCSL: CXVIIIA; Bedae Venerabilis Opera: Pars II: Opera Exegetica (Turnholt:
Brepols, 1967), 3.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid., 4.
50 Ibid., 7.
51 Ibid., 8.
52 See his comments on Genesis 1:14 for further evidence of this distinction; ibid., 15.
53 “Et huc usque dies expletus est unus, viginti scilicet et quatuor horarum.” ibid., 9.
54 Ibid., 34-35. It would perhaps be more accurate to describe Bede’s method as typological
rather than allegorical.
55 Ibid., 35-39.
56“… quo ornavit eorum per opera sex dierum ad illam usque perfectionem quae superius est
designata pervenit.” Ibid., 40.
57 “sed aperte intelligi quia ‘diem’ hoc loco scriptura pro omni illo tempore posuit quo
primordialis creatura formata est … ,” ibid.
58 “Ceterum difficile intellectu est quomodo in uno die fecerit Deus caelum et terram et omne
virgultum agri omnemque herbam regionis, nisi forte dixerimus quod in materia informi pariter
omnis creatura sit facta,” Ibid., 40; “Ideoque si hoc dicimus, ad eundem revolvitur memorata
quaestio finem, ut appellationem ‘diei’ pro significatione ‘temporis’ positam intellegamus, illius
videlicet quo haec Deus in principio simul cuncta creavit … Quod si in ‘die’ quem dicit, ‘tempus’
intellegimus illud designatum quando, ante omnem huius seculi diem, facta sunt omnia simul …
,” ibid., 40–41.
59 Ibid., 41.
60Eugene R. Fairweather, ed., A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1956), 127.
61 Ibid., 128.
62Robert Grossteste: On the Six Days of Creation: A Translation of the Hexaëdemeron by C. F. J.
Martin (Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1996).
63 Ibid., 269 (9:I:1).
64 Ibid., 50 (1:III:2).
65 Ibid., 154 (4:XXIX:6).
66 Ibid., 87-96 (2:IV:1–2:VIII:2).
67 Ibid., 159-160 (5:I:1–2).
68 Ibid., 160 (5:I:3).
69 Ibid., 160-161 (5:II:1).
70 Ibid., 269 (9:I:1–2).
71 Ibid., 269-270 (9:I:2).
72 Ibid., 173 (5:XII:1).
73 Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther’s Works (Saint Louis: Concordia, 1958), 1:3.
74 Ibid., 4.
75 Ibid., 5.
76 Ibid., 23.
77 Ibid., 28.
78 Ibid., 31.
79 Ibid., 32.
80 Ibid., 79-83.
81The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 5 vols. (Cambridge University Press for the Parker Society,
1849).
82John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1948), 57; Ioannis Calvini. Opera quae supersunt omnia, 59 vols., eds., Guilielmus
Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, Eduardus Reuss (Brunsvigae, 1863–1900), 33:5 [hereafter CO].
83 Ibid., 63; CO 33:10.
84 Ibid., 59; CO 33:7.
85 Ibid., 60; CO 33:8.
86 Ibid., 100; CO 33:30.
87 Calvin:Theological Treatises, ed., J. K. S. Reid (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), 93–94.
88 On Genesis, 69–72, 108–109; CO 33:14–15, 34.
89“Hic manifeste refellitur eorum error qui momento uno volunt conditum esse mundum.” Ibid.,
78; CO 33:17.
90 See also his comments on 2:1, and Institutes (1559) 1:14:2.
91 “… verum id fit nostra causa …”, On Genesis, 77; CO 33:17.
92“… sed receptae consuetudini … accommodant sermonem suum … Quin potius Deus ipse, ut
opera sua ad hominum captum temperaret, sex dierum spatium sibi sumpsit.” Ibid., 78; CO
33:17–18.
93 Ibid., 80; CO 33:18.
94 David F. Wright, “Calvin’s Accommodating God,” in Wilhelm H. Neuser and Brian G.
Armstrong, eds., Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex: Calvin as Protector of the Purer Religion
(Kirksville, Missouri: Sixteenth-Century Essays & Studies, XXXVI 1997), 3–19.
95 On Genesis, 61–62; CO 33:8–9.
96 “astrologiam et alias artes reconditas aliunde discat qui volet.” Ibid., 79; CO 33:19.
97“spiritus Dei promiscuum omnibus scholam aperiat … Ergo Moses ad usum potius se
convertit .” Ibid., 85-86; CO 33:21–22.
98 The Common Places of the most Famous and Renoumed[sic] Divine Doctor Peter Martyr,
divided into foure principall parts, trans. Anthonie Marten ([London, 1583]), 110–113. STC 24669.
On the Apostles’ Creed Vermigli has nothing on the days of creation; see Joseph C. McLelland,
ed., Peter Martyr Library: Volume 1; Early Writings: Creed, Scripture, Church (Kirksville, Missouri:
Sixteenth-Century Essays & Studies, XXX, 1994), 30–32. The “Theses for Debate: Strassburg
1543–1547,” Ibid., 81-95, has a number of propositions for discussion on the first chapter of
Genesis but none of them relate to our question. This underlines the fact that, despite the
obvious differences of interpretation, it was not a matter of debate at the time—still less an issue
of controversy.
99Pietro Martire Vermigli, In Primum Librum Mosis, qui vulgo Genesis dicitur (Zurich:
Christophorus Froschauer, 1579), 2a.
100 Ibid., 2b.
101 Ibid., 3a.
102 Ibid.
103 “Sed mihi maxime placet, quod ab aliis dicitur, id fuisse factum, luce illa condita sese aut
diffundente, debito ac a Deo constituto temporis spacio.” Ibid., 3b.
104 Ibid.
105 “Sed si nos physicorum sententiam hac de re exploremus, hoc inveniri a nobis poterit.” Ibid.,
5a.
106 The commentary itself is laced, like Augustine, with typological exegesis—seePeter Martyr
Library, 1994, 84.
107 Ibid., 5b.
108“Et ideo si allegri |γk|gq|gs intelligatis, haec dies septima nec mane nec vesperam habere
nominatur, quia vere filiis Dei perpetua est haec requies.” Ibid., 9a.
109 Phillip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1969), 3:363–364.
110 Ibid., 3:439–440.
111 Ibid., 3:395–396.
112 Ibid., 3:315–316.
113 Ibid., 3:246–247, 841–842.
114 David Pareus (1548–1622), writing in 1616 in completing Ursinus’ Commentary on the
Heidelberg Catechism, asserts that the earth is less than 6, 000 years old. It did not suddenly
occur “in a moment of time, but in six days,” for God “created all things successively … at a
certain definite time,” so “it is now, counting from this 1616 of Christ, 5, 534 years since the
creation of the world.” However, Pareus at no point commits himself to how long the six days
were. The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism,trans. The Rev. G.
W. Williard (1852; reprint, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, n.d.), 145.
115The Works of the Reverend and Faithfull Servant of Iesus Christ M. Richard Greenham
(London: Felix Kingston for Robert Dexter, 1599), 423–424. STC 12312.
116 William Perkins, An Abridgement of the Whole Body of Divinity(London, 1654), 15–23 (a
series of extracts from Perkins’ works compiled by Thomas Nichols). Idem, The Foundation of
Christian Religion (London, 1590), 18–40. STC 19709.
117 The Workes of that Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge, Mr.
William Perkins (London: Iohn Legatt, 1612), 1:143–144. STC 19650.
118 James Usher [sic], A Body of Divinity (London: Tho. Downes and Geo. Badger, 1649), 93–107.
Wing 154.
119 Ibid., 94-95.
120 Ibid., 96.
121 Ibid., 98.
122 Ibid., 102-107.
123 John D. Eusden, ed. and trans., The Marrow of Theology: William Ames 1576–1633 (Boston:
Pilgrim Press, 1968), 102.
124See Walter J. Ong, Ramism: Method and the Decay of Dialog (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University, 1958); Donald K. McKim, Ramism in William Perkins’ Theology (New York: Peter Lang,
1987); R. W. A. Letham, “Ramus, Petrus,” in Sinclair Ferguson, et al., eds., New Dictionary of
Theology (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1988), 557–558.
125From “Silver Blaze” in The Complete Sherlock Holmes: by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (New York:
Doubleday, 1927), 347.
126 E.g., Obadiah Sedgwick, A Short Catechisme (London, 1647). Wing 2380A. This was written
for the ignorant helping them to prepare for the Lord’s supper. It has a brief reference to God as
creator, but nothing more. Creation comes into the picture only in reference to the doctrine of
man and thus as a prelude to soteriology. Sedgwick was a member of the Assembly.
127John Leith, Assembly at Westminster: Reformed Theology in the Making (Richmond, Virginia:
John Knox, 1973), 34–36.
128 One clear conclusion is drawn by Alex F. Mitchell—that the Assembly did not require a
commitment to twenty-four hour days. See “Introduction” to Minutes of the Sessions of the
Westminster Divines, eds. Alex F. Mitchell and John Struthers (Edinburgh: William Blackwood &
Sons, 1874); also Alex F. Mitchell, “The Theology of the Reformed Churches with Special
Reference to the Westminster Standards,” John B. Dales and R. M. Patterson, eds., in Report of
Proceedings of the Second General Council of Presbyterian Alliance Convened in Philadelphia,
September 1880 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Journal Company, 1880), 474–484. Even if a majority
of the Assembly supported days of twenty-four hours, this no more made it confessionally
binding than its clear infralapsarianism (WCF III:6–7) bound supralapsarians such as Rutherford
and the prolocutor Twisse. On the Westminster documents and Twisse on the order of decrees,
see Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 2:317. On Rutherford,
see Thomas F. Torrance, Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 93–111.
current : : uid:1317 (drupal)