Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition
by Paul James-Griffiths
After years of agonizing over the literal days of creation in Genesis, I decided
to spend time researching this problem at the London School of Jewish Studies in
Hendon, England. After all, I thought, why shouldn’t I go to the natural Jewish
vine for some answers? (Of course, one should be cautious to distinguish between
real exegesis of the Word of God, which must always overrule the ‘traditions
of men’ (Mark
7:13), and we’ll see some examples. Although not covered here, it
applies especially to modern Judaic revisionism of the Messianic passages after
the rise of Christianity.1)
On my arrival, a Yeshiva (religious study group) was in process among the Orthodox
students. But I was shown to the library where a bearded Rabbi pulled out the best
conservative commentaries on the days of creation, along with the Talmud. This is
the code of Jewish oral tradition interpreting the Torah or the Law of Moses, completed
in the 5th century AD.2
Eager to study, I took notes from these learned works, which had been compiled by
some of the most eminent scholars in Judaism. It was a strange experience being
surrounded by Orthodox Jews meticulously scrutinizing ancient books. After days
of careful study of the conservative Rabbinical scholars, I had my answer: the days
of Genesis were literal.
I turned to Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Genesis. This scholar (c. 1089–1164)
from medieval Spain is highly regarded in traditional Rabbinical circles, and his
commentary was highly commended by Maimonides (1135–1204). Maimonides (a.k.a.
Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, or the acronym Rambam) has been considered the key figure
in Judaism since the Temple was destroyed in AD 70.
In fact, in the preface it says, ‘Ibn Ezra’s commentary constitutes
a major contribution to Biblical Exegesis. One cannot be considered a true student
of the Bible without having studied it.’ Actually, Ibn Ezra was somewhat liberal,
imbibing neo-platonic philosophy, and was a forerunner to the Jewish numerological
mysticism known as the Kabbala.
But on Genesis, he has no doubt: he says very clearly, ‘One day refers to
the movement of the sphere.’ This shows that the common sceptical objection
‘how could the creation days be literal before the sun was created’
was solved in principle centuries ago. The ‘sphere’ referred
to the celestial sphere of the pre-Galilean Ptolemaic cosmology, universally accepted
in the Middle Ages. This is further proof against the idea that the Bible or its
followers promoted a ‘flat earth’.3 But now we would say
that the earth was rotating relative to the light created on Day 1.
The footnote makes sure we get the point when it says, ‘The heavenly sphere
made one revolution. The sun was not yet …’.4 This shows that
they had no problem with the sun being created on the fourth day, as opposed to
‘appearing’ as many long-agers, e.g. Hugh Ross, claim. There is a perfectly
good word for appear (ra’ah), e.g. when the dry land ‘appeared’
as the waters gathered in one place on Day 3 (Genesis
1:9). But it is not used here.
I turned to one of the best commentaries available on Genesis from Talmudic, Midrashic
and Rabbinic sources. I discovered that virtually all the Rabbis had understood
the creation days as literal days.
In fact, some of the Rabbis even tried to work out what happened in each hour
of the creation of Adam on the sixth day! But here they delved way beyond
the information in the text. The Talmud says, ‘In the first hour
his [Adam’s] dust was gathered; in the second it was kneaded into a shapeless
mass; in the third, his limbs were shaped; in the fourth, a soul was infused into
him …’. But on Day 6, God created all the animals and brought them
to Adam to name, then created Eve (Genesis
2:18–24).
However, the Talmud errs more seriously when it claims that in the twelfth
hour Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden.5 Creation was still ‘very
good’ at the end of Day 6, so the Fall of both Satan and the first couple
must have happened after Creation Week. It can’t have been more than a few
days, because Adam and Eve were told to reproduce (Genesis
1:28), and, being physically perfect, they would have been fertile and unlikely
to disobey.
The Rabbis who have compiled this commentary on Genesis write, ‘The Sages
however, tell us explicitly (Yalkut, Tehillim [Psalms] 49;
Midrash; Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 11) that all the
events related here—[creation of man, Fall, etc.] including the birth
of Cain and Abel [Tosaf. Sanhedrin 38b excludes Abel; see Maharsha
ad. loc.] occurred on the very first day of Adam’s creation’.5
This is also wrong, because Cain’s conception occurred after they had fallen
and were expelled from Eden (Genesis
4:1).
We are even told that the ancient Rabbis did not bother to debate about the literal
days so much as the actual month in a solar year when the world was made!
The commentary says, ‘It appears that the ancients referred to Tishrei [September/October]
as the first month, for in it creation was completed.’6
Search as I might, I could not find any reference to a day (Hebrew yôm)
in Genesis 1 meaning any more than a literal 24-hour period. Some of the Rabbis
did debate about Genesis 2:4, which says, ‘This is the
account of the heavens and earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord
God made earth and heaven.’ However, in this case, yôm
is prefixed by the preposition be, so beyôm,
and was just an idiom for ‘when’. The days in Genesis 1 had no preposition,
and had the phrase ‘evening and morning’ and a number, which are always
indicators of ordinary days everywhere else in the Old Testament. None
of the rabbis tried to juggle this ‘day’ (in Genesis 2:4) to suit pagan
philosophy (the Greek philosophers held to a long-ages understanding). Instead,
most of them correctly took ‘day’ here to mean ‘at the time when’
creation took place.7
There was a popular prophetic understanding of a ‘day’ meaning the coming
of the Messiah at the end of the world, but this had nothing to do with creation
itself. The Talmud says, ‘Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one
[thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord
alone shall be exalted in that day. … it is also said, For a thousand
years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past.’8
The Rabbis calculated these six thousand years by basing them on the six literal
days of creation. They reasoned that one literal day of creation prophetically referred
to a thousand years of history.9 This reasoning was the traditional approach
of most of the early Church Fathers, too.10
A number of old-earthers, including Hugh Ross, have misrepresented their teachings
and claimed that they believed in thousand-year creation days, which as we saw above
is not what they taught. Rather, they regarded the creation days as corresponding
to, not equal to, thousand-year periods of earth history, with the seventh
day corresponding to the millennium.11
Turning to some of the more modern Jewish scholars, I discovered a stubborn refusal
to dilute the plain meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. Professor Ginsberg had this
to say:
‘There is nothing in the first chapter of Genesis to justify the spiritualisation
of the expression “day”?. On the contrary, the definition given in verse
5 of the word in question imperatively demands that “yôm”?
should be understood in the same sense as we understand the word “day”?
in common parlance, i.e. as a natural day.’12
Professor Nahum Sarna, who was chairman of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic
Studies at Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, referred to the days in
Genesis as the same kind of days in the regulatory sacrifices in the Book of Leviticus
(i.e. literal days,
Lev. 7:15;
22:30).13
My conclusion had to be that the traditional Jewish understanding of the days of
Genesis is that they are literal. As I left the London School of Jewish studies
and passed a Jewish newsagent on the way back to the tube (London Underground train),
I glanced at the Jewish Chronicle. It was dated in the year 5,760 since
creation. The Rabbis calculated this date 4,000 years after the event, and a lot
of information was missing at the time. With modern knowledge of post-biblical chronology,
we now know they were about 250 years short.
But even so, it is roughly 6,000 years ago with no thought of millions or billions
of years. This shows that they must have accepted a straightforward understanding
of the creation days in Genesis 1 and the chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11.
I smiled and disappeared into the bustle of the London rush hour.
References
- For evidence about how they were historically understood, see Fruchtenbaum, A.G.,
Messianic Christology,
Ariel Ministries, 1998.
- The Talmud comprises the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Mishnah was oral tradition,
which was specifically what Jesus referred to as the ‘traditions of men’
(Mark 7:13). The Mishnah was written down in the 2nd century AD. The
Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnah completed in the 5th century. There
are actually two Talmuds, but when most people say ‘the Talmud’, they
mean the more comprehensive Babylonian Talmud rather than the Jerusalem one.
- See also the articles under, Does the Bible
really teach a flat earth?
- Ezra, I., Commentary on the Pentateuch, Genesis (Bereshit), translated
and annotated by Strickman H.N. and Silver A.M., Menorah Publishing Co., New York,
USA, p. 33, 1999.
- Translation and commentary by Klotowitz R.M., Overviews by Scherman, R.N., Bereishis,
Genesis: A new translation with a commentary anthologised from Talmudic, Midrashic
and Rabbinic sources, vol.1 (a); Art Scroll Tanach Series, Mesorah Publications
Ltd., p. 113, 1977.
- Ref. 5, p. 249.
- Ref. 5, p. 87.
- Shachter, J., Freedman, H. and Epstein, I., Talmud: Sanhedrin,
The Soncino Press, London, 97a and 97b, 1987.
- However, this passage (Psalm
90:4, cf.
2 Peter 3:8) is really teaching that God is outside of time, by contrasting
a short and long period of time: a day and a millennium. Note that the comparison
also includes ‘like a watch in the night’,
but no one tries to claim that a shift of night watch duty had any parallel with
any millennia.
- Examples: Irenaeus (Heresies 5:28:3); Hippolytus (Commentary
on Daniel 4); Methodius (Fragments 9);
Lactantius (The Divine Institutes 7:14); Augustine (City
of God 20:7).
- Note that CMI is not hereby taking a stand on eschatology, but merely reporting
what early commentators believed, and correcting a common deceptive argument.
- Ginsberg; cited in: Wiseman P.J., Creation Revealed in Six Days, Marshall,
Morgan and Scott Ltd., p. 22, 1948. For a critique by a linguist of Wiseman’s
‘days of revelation’ error, see Taylor, C.V.,
Days of Revelation or Creation?
- Sarna, N.M., The JPS Torah Commentary on Genesis, The Jewish Publication
Society, Philadelphia, USA, p. 8, 1989.
| Long before this site existed, many millions searched on the word “creation”. When they do that now they will get to know this site exists and read the evidence that God is Creator. Help reach millions.  | | |
|
