ISTHESEVENTHDAYOFGODSRESTSTILLCONTINUING?

Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

On occasion, those people who believe in what is known as
the Day-Age Theory (the idea the each of the days of Creation
as recordedinGenesis 1were longages of time of millions or
billions of years each) sometimes suggest that the seventh day
still iscontinuing. Their argument isthat sinceeveningandmorn-
ing is not mentioned in regard to the seventh day, it must not
have beena 24-hour day. Therefore, we are livinginthe seventh
daya position they must defend to remain consistent. There
are, however, a number of serious problems withthis approach.
Thefirst has beenexplainedbyWoods.
Jehovahfinishedhis labors at theendof thesixthday, and
onthe seventh rested. The narrative provides nobasis for
theassumptionthat thedayheresteddifferedinanyfash-
ionfromthose whichprecededit. It evidentlywas marked
out and its length determined in the same manner as the
others. If it was not a dayof twenty-four hours, it sustains
no resemblance to the sabbath which was given to the Is-
raelites (1976, pp. 17-18).
Mosesobvious intent was for the reader tounderstandthat God:
(1) rested (past tense); and (2) gave the seventh day (the Sab-
bath) as adayof rest becauseHehadrestedonthat day.
There is a secondproblemwiththe viewthat the seventhday
still is continuing. James Pilgrimhas addressedthat problem.
...if the day-age theorists accept day seven as an age
also, we ask, What about day eight, or day nine, or day
ten...? On the assumption that the earth is 7,000 years
old(amost distinct possibility), let theday-ageproclaim-
ers put 2,555,000 days (7,000 years at 365 days per year)
on a page. Nowlet themcircle the day which began the
normal 24-hour day. Let themalsogive just one scripture
reference tosubstantiate the validityof that circle. Canthey
do it? No! Will they do it? No! (1976, 118[33]:522, emp.
inorig.).
The third problemwith the idea that the seventh day is continu-
inghas todowithAdam, as Woods has noted:
Adam, the first man, was created in the sixth day, lived
through the seventhday, and into at least a portion of the
eighth day. If these days were long geologic periods of
millions of years in length, we have the interesting situa-
tionof Adamhavinglivedina portionof one age, through
the whole of another age, and into at least a portion of a
thirdage, inwhichcase he was manymillions of years old
whenhe finallydied! Sucha viewof course is absurd; and
so are the premises which would necessitate it (p. 18,
emp. inorig.).
Whitcomb has explained why these things are true:
...Genesis 2:2 adds that He rested on the seventh day. That
dayalsomust havebeenliteral, becauseotherwisethesev-
enth day which God blessed and sanctified would have
been cursed when God cursed the world and cast Adam
andEve out of the Garden. Yousee, the seventhdaymust
haveendedandthenext weekcommencedbeforethat Ad-
amic curse couldhave come. AdamandEve livedthrough
theentireseventhdayandintothefollowingweek, whichis
simplyaconfirmationof thefact that eachof thedays, in-
cludingtheseventh, was literal (1973, 2:64-65).
It also has been suggested that Hebrews 4:4-11, where the
writer speaks of the continuation of Gods Sabbath rest, pro-
vides support for the Day-Age Theory. First, I would like to pre-
sent thepassageinquestionalongwiththeargument madefrom
it. Then I would like to offer an explanation of why the passage
does not lend credence to the Day-Age Theory and why the ar-
gument based on it is faulty. Here is the passage.
For hehathsaidsomewhereof theseventhdayonthis wise,
And God rested on the seventh day fromall his works;
andinthis place again, Theyshall not enter intomyrest.
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter there-
into, andtheytowhomthegoodtidingswerebeforepreach-
edfailedtoenter becauseof disobedience, heagaindefineth
a certain day, Today, saying in David so long a time af-
terward (even as hath been said before), Today if ye shall
hear his voice, Hardennot your hearts. For if Joshua had
given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of
another day. There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for
the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest hath
himself also rested fromhis works, as God did fromhis.
Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that
nomanfall after thesameexampleof disobedience.
Here is the argument. Proponents of the Day-Age Theory sug-
gest that since Gods Sabbath Day (the seventh day of the crea-
tion week) continues to this very day, then it follows logically
that theother days of thecreationweekwerelongperiods of time
as well (see Ross, 1994, pp. 48-49,59-60; Geisler and Brooks,
1990, p. 230). Insupport of thisposition, HughRosswrote: Fur-
ther information about the seventh day is given in Hebrews 4....
we learn that Gods day of rest continues (1994, p. 49).
Wrong! Here is the correct meaning of the passage. While
the text speaks clearlyof the cessationbeginningonthe seventh
dayof Gods creative activity, that text nowhere suggests that
Gods seventh day has continued fromthe past into the present.
Nor does the passage speak of the duration of the seventh day.
VanBebber andTaylor haveaddressedthis point.
Like David in the Psalms, the writer of Hebrews is warn-
ingthe elect not tobe disobedient andhard-hearted. Thus,
healludes toIsrael inthewilderness whobecauseof their
hardhearts couldnot receiveGods promiseof rest inCa-
naan. Rest, as used in these verses by both David and
the writer of Hebrews, hada specific historic reference to
the promised land of Canaan. The Hebrewword used by
Davidfor restwas menuwchah, whichis ageneral term
for rest whichhasaspecial locational emphasis(e.g., the
resting place or abode of resting) [see Brown, et al.,
1979, p. 629b]. This concept is echoed by the author of
Hebrews whouses theGreekwordkatapausis, whichalso
mayrefer toanabodeor locationof resting(Hebrews 4:1,
3-5,8).
ARTICLE REPRINT
APOLOGETICS PRESS
At the climax of this passage, the author promises a fu-
ture dayof rest (Hebrews 4:9, Greek: Sabbatismos). This
is the only time in the New Testament that this word for
rest is employed. It seems to be a deliberate reference
to Day Seven of Creation. The author does not say, how-
ever, that the seventhdaycontinues onintothe future. He
uses Sabbatismos without an article (like saying a Sab-
bath, rather than the Sabbath). In Greek, this grammati-
cal structure would generally represent the character or
nature of Day Seven, without really being Day Seven.
That is, the context makes it clear that the future day of
rest will be similar to the original seventh day. The task
will be complete; we will live with Christ eternallyour
workonearthwill bedone(1996, pp. 72-73, emp., paren-
thetical, andbracketeditems inorig.).
The passage in Hebrews is using the essence of the seventh day
of creationtorefer tothecomingessenceof heaveni.e., aplace
of rest. It is not speaking about the actual lengthof that seventh
day. Furthermore, the fact that God has not been involved in cre-
ative activity since the close of day six says absolutely nothing
about thedurationof theindividual days of creation. WhenGod
completedthe creation, He restedbut onlyfromHis workof
creation. He is verymuchat worknowbut inHis workof re-
demption, not creation. Jesus Himself said: MyFather worketh
evenuntil now (John5:17). While it is correct tosaythat Gods
rest from creative activity continues to this very hour, it is not
correct tosaythat His SabbathDaycontinues. That was not the
point the Hebrewwriter was trying to make, and to suggest that
it was represents either a misunderstanding or misuse (or both)
of thepassage.
Godwas not saying, viatheHebrewwriter, that Hewantedto
share a literal Sabbath Days rest with His creation. Rather, He
was saying that He intended to enjoy a rest that was typifiedby
the SabbathDays rest. The Israelites whorebelledagainst God
in the wilderness were not able to share either a rest by enter-
ing into the physical presence of the promised land or a rest
by entering into the eternal presence of God. Lenski commented
onthetext as follows:
The point lies intakingall these passages together. The
rest fromwhich the Jews of the Exodus were excluded,
intowhichweareentering, is Gods rest, thegreat Sabbath
since the seventhday, of course not of the earthlydays and
years that have rolled by since then and are still continu-
ingbut the timeless, heavenlystate that has beenestab-
lished and intended for men in their glorious union with
God.
These are not different kinds of rest: the rest of Godsince
creationandafuturerest for hispeople; or arest intowhich
menhavealreadyenteredandonethat has beenestablished
since the redemptive work of Jesus, into which they are
yet to enter; or a rest at the conclusion of the history of
mankind. The seventh day after the six days of crea-
tion was a day of twenty-four hours. On this day God
did not create. Thus God made the first seven-day week
(Exod. 20:8-11; 31:12-17), and the Sabbath of rest was
a sign (v. 17) so that at every recurrence of this seventh
dayIsrael might notethesignificanceof this sign, this sev-
enthday of rest being a type and a promise of the rest in-
stituted for man since the days of creation. Like Canaan,
the Sabbath was a type and a promise of this rest (1966,
pp. 132-133, emp. added).
Additionally, evenif it couldbeprovensomehowthat thesev-
enth day of creation were longer than the others (which it can-
not), that still wouldestablishonlyone thingthat the seventh
daywas longer. It wouldsayabsolutelynothingabout the length
of the other sixdays. Andconcerningthose days, the Bible could
not be any clearer than it is in explaining their duration of ap-
proximatelytwenty-four hours. Genesis 1defines themas peri-
ods of evening and morning (1:5, 8,13,19, 23,31). While Gods
activity within each literal day may have been miraculous, there
is nothing miraculous about the length of the days themselves.
Theywere, quitesimply, thesamekinds of daysthat wetoday
enjoy. Attempts to reinterpret the message of Hebrews 4 do not
alter that fact.
I would like to offer those who are enamored with the Day-
Age Theory the following challenge (as set forth by Fields) for
serious and thoughtful consideration:
It is our conclusion, therefore, that the Day-Age Theory
is impossible. It is grammatically and exegetically pre-
posterous. Its only reason for existence is its allowance
for the time needed by the evolutionary geology and bi-
ology. We wouldlike tosuggest twocourses of actionfor
those who so willingly wed themselves to such extrava-
gant misinterpretations of the Scripture: either (1) admit
that the Bible and contemporary uniformitarian geology
are at odds, reject biblical creation, and defend geologi-
cal and biological evolution over billions of years; or (2)
admit that the Bible and contemporary uniformitarian ge-
ology are at odds, study all the geological indications of
the recent creationof the earth, accept the implications
of Noahs flood, andbelievetherecent creationismof the
Bible. One must choose either the chronological scheme
of uniformitarianismor the chronological scheme of the
Bible, but theinconsistencies of this sort of interpreta-
tionof theHebrewtext forthepurposeof harmonizing
mutually exclusive and hopelessly contradictory po-
sitions can no longer be tolerated (1976, pp. 178-179,
emp. inorig. except for last sentence).
REFERENCES
Geisler, NormanL. andRonaldM. Brooks (1990), WhenSkeptics Ask
(Wheaton, IL: Victor).
Fields, Weston W. (1976), Unformed and Unfilled (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1966), TheInterpretationof theEpistletotheHebrews
andof theEpistleof James(Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Pilgrim, James (1976), DaySeven, Gospel Advocate, 118[33]: 522,
August 12.
Ross, Hugh (1994), Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: Nav-
press).
Van Bebber, Mark and Paul S. Taylor (1996), Creation and Time: A
Report ontheProgressiveCreationist BookbyHughRoss (Gil-
bert, AZ: EdenCommunications).
Whitcomb, John C. (1973), The Days of Creation, And God Cre-
ated, ed. Kelly L. Segraves (San Diego, CA: Creation-Science
ResearchCenter), 2:61-65.
Woods, Guy N. (1976), Questions and Answers: Open Forum (Hen-
derson, TN: Freed-HardemanUniversity).
ARTICLE REPRINT IS THE SEVENTH DAY OF GODS REST STILL CONTINUING? Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
ARTICLE REPRINT
Distributed by
Apologetics Press, Inc.
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117-2752
(334) 272-8558
Originally Published In
Creation Compromises, second edition
Apologetics Press, Montgomery, Alabama
2000, pp. 211-216