How Scholars’ Perceptions of the Semantic Range of יוֹם Have Affected Their Discussions of the Age of the Universe: Part 2

Prologue

I am very thankful for having had the opportunity to do this study, which was facilitated through the guidance of Drs. Richard E. Averbeck and Eric J. Tully at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

I acknowledge with gratitude the kind granting of permission by the Israel Antiquities Authority for the inclusion of its infrared image of the 4QGen^g Dead Sea Scroll fragment of Genesis 1 (fig. 3).

Hebrew Bible quotations are taken from the text of the 1997 2nd ed. of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (based on the Leningrad Codex B19^A), as found in Accordance and BibleWorks, “which has been edited over the years to bring it into greater conformity with the Leningrad Codex” (BibleWorks, WTT Version Info). Both the Accordance and BibleWorks versions of BHS include the 2010 WTM Release 4.14.

Unless indicated otherwise, all Scripture translations into English are my own rendering.

Unless stated otherwise, all instances of emphasis within a quotation are those of the cited author. I have indicated wherever I have added my own emphases, except in the case of Scripture quotations. My preferred means of emphasis is italics. If the quotation already contains italics, then I resort to underlining (and specify so). Additionally, even where the quotation does not contain italics, I sometimes still use underlining for the sake of consistency with underlining in other nearby quotations.

Introduction

This work examines how scholars’ perceptions of the semantic range of יוֹם have affected their discussions of the age of the universe. While each of the key elements in this relationship—the semantic range of יוֹם and the age of the universe—have indeed been studied before, I am not aware of any other study that specifically focuses on the interaction between the two, across a range of scholarly works.

The subject of creation and origins is popular and is often vigorously debated. A key element of enquiry and discussion within this topic is the age of the universe. Some scholars feel that the Bible does not speak to the question of the age of the universe. Certainly, the Bible does not make any outright statement like, “The universe was created by God x thousand or million or billion years ago.” However, other scholars believe that the biblical text does indeed give indications concerning the age of the universe. In their interactions with the text, many such scholars make reference to the Hebrew word יוֹם, usually translated “day,” which occurs 15 times in the 35 verses of the Genesis creation account (Genesis 1:1–2:4). This work examines (1) how scholars have understood the semantic range of יוֹם—whether as always having a narrow, restricted sense, or as having a broad range of meanings across different contexts, or as somewhere in between these two extremes—and (2) how these perceptions have affected their discussions of the age of the universe. Must the word יוֹם always indicate a normal day, or can it refer to a longer period of time? Does its flexibility or inflexibility of meaning have anything relevant to say regarding the age of the universe according to the Genesis account of creation?

There are several reasons why this subject might be viewed as important. Within the Christian church there has been much discussion, sometimes heated and confused, on the issues of creation and, in particular, the age of the universe. It is often asked what the word יוֹם could potentially mean in Genesis. It would be helpful to gain a degree of clarity on the breadth of views regarding the semantic range of יוֹם—including those of lexicographers, theologians, and other scholars—and the kind of reasoning employed in their discussions of יוֹם with respect to the age of the universe. All of this could potentially aid people in making better-informed decisions about how they see the place of יוֹם within the creation debate, and in better understanding those with different opinions from their own.

Outside the Christian church, many people view the Bible as irrelevant or unreliable, especially when it comes to science. Even some biblical scholars believe that the Genesis account of creation has little, if anything, that is pertinent or authoritative to say regarding modern science. The biblical word יוֹם in the creation account can be seen as irreconcilable with the prevailing view of origins. This work may help people understand the various ways that some biblical scholars, by engaging with the semantic range of the word יוֹם, have explained the Genesis account of creation as being relevant to the issue of the age of the universe.

Definitions and Delineations of יוֹם

In order to provide a benchmark for the central
analysis (appearing in the part 3 paper of this study),
this second part of the larger work now examines
definitions and delineations of יוֹם, first within the
Bible itself, and then as presented in lexicons,
dictionaries, and other scholarly works. While most
comments regarding how theologians have
interpreted יוֹם are reserved for the part 3 paper of this study, a few instances are included in this paper
either because they illuminate the discussion, or
because they pertain specifically to theologians’ use
of lexicons and dictionaries.

The distinction between lexicographical work on
יוֹם (part 2) and theological interpretation (part 3) is
one of emphasis and expertise. Lexicographers
specialize in researching the limits of, and categorizing
the nuances of, the semantic range of a term;
theologians specialize in applying lexical insights to
expound theological truth from the Bible. However,
the distinction is not clear-cut, and there is overlap
between the two. Much lexicography includes
theology, as is evident from the titles of works such as
the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, the Theological Dictionary of
the Old Testament, the Theological Lexicon of the Old
Testament, and the Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament. And, conversely, lexical insights are not
limited to lexicographers—theologians are sometimes
able to enhance, or even correct, information found in
published lexical works.

Thus, in using the term ‘benchmark’ for this
paper, I do not mean to imply that lexicons are
perfect, or even consistent. However, they do provide
a helpful standard against which we may compare
the writings of theologians. They may not be our only
source, but “Hebrew dictionaries are our primary
source of reliable information concerning Hebrew
words” (Leupold 1942, 57).

Biblical Delineation of יוֹם

The word יוֹם occurs approximately 2,300 times in
the Old Testament. It is found in every book of the
OT canon.

In Genesis 1:5, God delineates יוֹם (“day”), the first of
five terms that He defines in Genesis 1, the other four
being לַ֫יְלָה (“night,” v. 5), שָׁמ֫יַם (“heavens,” v. 8), אֶ֜רֶץ
(“earth,” v. 10), and יַמִּים (“seas,” v. 10).0). In addition to
the primary delineation of יוֹם on the first day (v. 5),
God provides further explanation on the fourth day of
its setting and function (vv. 14–18). יוֹם is to be
separated from night by the “lights in the expanse of
the heavens” (v. 14a), and to be ruled over by “the
greater light,” i.e., the sun (vv. 16–18). In contrast, the
night is to be ruled over by “the lesser light,” i.e., the
moon (also vv. 16–18), and is further to be distinguished
from daytime by the appearance of “the stars” (v. 16b).
Moreover, יוֹם is set forth as one of several temporal
markers (and collocated, specifically, with “years”—
implying a shared semantic domain) for whose purpose
the same heavenly lights were created (v. 14b).

The pertinent verses from Genesis 1 are reproduced
in Table 1.

It is from these verses, particularly v. 5, that many
scholars draw some of their conclusions about the semantic range of יוֹם. For this reason, I will discuss
below a few of the pertinent exegetical issues in
Genesis 1:5.

In his article, “The Light He Called ‘Day,’” Robert
E. Grossman (1987, 7) sets forth what he sees as the
significance of Genesis 1:5 for interpreting the time
frame of the creation account:

Gen. 1:5 tells us that on the very first day of the
creation week God defined the meaning of “day.” This
divine definition has implications for understanding
the other “days” of Genesis 1 . . . .

It is the conviction of this writer that Gen. 1:4-5
deserves a great deal more serious attention than it
has usually received from Scripture commentators . . . .
What we are contending here is that the Holy Spirit
inspired Moses to define the period of light-separatedfrom-
darkness by the word “day” (Hebrew yom) on
the very first day of creation; that this definition
can only be taken in the sense of an ordinary “earth
day”; and that it must apply throughout the days of
creation.

In the Jewish ArtScroll Tanach commentary
series, Meir Zlotowitz comments, “The intent of this
verse is not that God changed the name of ‘light’ to
‘day’. Additionally the name ‘day’ does not refer to
light itself, but to the duration of its radiance.
Similarly, night is not a title of darkness, but the
term that defines its duration” (Zlotowitz and
Scherman 1995, 43). Likewise, Walton (2001, 79)
explains, “It was not the light itself that God called yom, but the period of light.” According to this line of
reasoning, (1) from the outset יוֹם is used primarily as
a temporal marker, which, (2) after the appearance of
light becomes associated with light, and (3) after the
creation of the sun on the fourth day, becomes fixed
in association with the regular period of daylight.

But how can we explain the second occurrence of
יוֹם in Genesis 1:5? Many commentators have
interpreted v. 5b as inferring that יוֹם primarily means
a full 24-hour cycle, incorporating both the daylight
period and the nighttime period. P. Zerafa (1986,
532) notes, “Most Scripture scholars take it for
granted that the Old Testament day uniformly
covered a 24-hour period; they only disagree about
the start of this period.” Yet, this seems to contradict
the designation that God has just given to the word in
v. 5a. One possible way of solving this apparent
quandary, is to read v. 5b as indicating how days are
to be reckoned (see fig. 1):

1. the daytime-nighttime cycle begins with the
   daytime and is followed by the nighttime;
2. in any daytime-nighttime cycle, the daytime is
   counted, but the following nighttime is not counted.

Sequence of Daytime and Nighttime

With regard to the first point, this traditional
interpretation of daytime preceding nighttime is
deduced from a prima facie chronological reading of
Genesis 1:5, in which the second half of the verse,
“And there was evening, and there was morning— one day,” follows the events of the first day. A
potential alternative reading is that the evening
came first, as עֶ֫רֶב precedes בֹּ֫קֶר in the word order of
5b; in which case 5b would constitute a summary of
the events of the first day. Against this idea, and
supporting the traditional reading, is the fact
that wayyiqtols (
וַֽיְהִי
־עֶ֥רֶב
וַֽיְהִי
־בֹ֖קֶר
י֥וֹם אֶחָֽד
) often
convey sequentiality in narratives, hence, “and
[subsequent to the aforementioned events] there was
evening, and [subsequent to the evening] there was
morning—one day.” Umberto Cassuto (1883–1951)
observes,

When day-time had passed, the period allotted to
darkness returned (and there was evening), and
when night-time came to an end, the light held sway
a second time (and there was morning), and this
completed the first calendar day (one day), which had
begun with the creation of light.

This method of reckoning the day [i.e. a day and a
night] from sunrise appears to be at variance with
the accepted Israelite practice of connecting the daytime
with the preceding night, that is, the custom
of regarding sunset as the starting-point of the day.
(Cassuto [1944] 1989, 28)

Cassuto ([1944] 1989, 29) proceeds to note a
number of inadequate explanations, before setting
forth his own solution:

Throughout the Bible there obtains only one system of
computing time: the day is considered to begin in the
morning; but in regard to the festivals and appointed
times, the Torah ordains that they shall be observed
also on the night of the preceding day. This point is
explicitly emphasized whenever a certain precept
has to be observed particularly at night, like the
eating of unleavened bread on the night of Passover
and fasting on the evening of the Day of Atonement.
In the case of the Sabbath and the other festival days,
however, there was no need to stress that work was
prohibited on the night preceding, since agricultural
tasks (and it is specifically these that the Torah has
in mind) are performed only by day. There is no
discrepancy, therefore, in our verse at all.

Pieter A. Verhoef (1996, 2:412) observes,

In the OT the earlier practice seems to have been to
consider that the day began in the morning. Even in
the creation account the formula “Evening came, and
morning came” (REB, Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31),
must be interpreted in the sense that the day began
in the morning, because in the context of God’s
creation, יוֹם in the broader sense does not have
another beginning than יוֹם in the narrower sense of
daylight only. In Genesis 19:34 the phrase “the next
day” (מָחֳרָת) clearly denotes the morning after the
preceding night. Judges 19:5–10 also offers clear
evidence that early Israel did count the days from
sunrise to sunrise. As the importance of the lunar festivals increased, it became the common practice to
count the days from the evening (Exod 12:18; Lev
23:32; Esth 4:16; Isa 27:3; 34:10).

However, not all scholars are convinced that
daytime precedes nighttime. Averbeck, for example,
feels that the Genesis account indicates that each
day starts in the evening (personal communication,
April 12, 2018).

Reckoning of Days

Regarding the second point concerning the
reckoning of days Zerafa (1986, 534–535) writes,

The peculiar phraseology of the first creation
narrative, « and it was sunset and it was sunrise the
first (or second, third, etc.) day », Gn 1,5.8.13.19.23.31;
has often been explained with reference to a 24-hour
day, beginning at sunset or sunrise. Most probably,
however, sunset and sunrise in this narrative are
not to be understood as chronometric indications
determining the span of the biblical day. They stand
for a full day (sunset) and a full night (sunrise) . . . . God
resumed his creative activity after a full day and a
full night.

This sunrise-to-sunset view of a day is corroborated
by the existence of interchangeable wording, in both
Old and New Testaments, of “x days” and “x days and
x nights.” Trevor Craigen (2008, 202) explains,

The basic meaning [of yôm] is the period of light, that
is, from dawn until sunset, which means that it often
occurs in contrast to the night (e.g., Gen. 8:22; Num.
11:32). The whole period from sunrise to sunrise, or
sunset to sunset, is also covered by that basic unit
of time, for example, 40 days and 40 nights (Exod.
24:18, with both nouns in the singular), whereas the
same time span elsewhere is just “40 days” (Gen.
50:3, with the noun in the singular), obviously, the
latter incorporating the nights as well.

In the New Testament, Matthew tells us, “Jesus
was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be
tempted by the devil . . . . [for] forty days and forty
nights” (Matthew 4:1-2, ESV). Mark records the
same event, omitting “nights,” hence, “The Spirit
immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And
He was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted
by Satan” (Mark 1:12–13, ESV*). “Forty days” is
identical with “forty days and forty nights” for the
simple reason that nights are not reckoned in the
counting of days, because a day is the daylight portion
of the daytime-nighttime cycle (see fig. 2).

Lexical and Dictionary Definitions of יוֹם

Lexicons and dictionaries vary considerably in the
way that they delineate the various uses of יוֹם, some
having numerous divisions and sub-divisions,
especially BDB and DCH. As an example of a
scholarly lexical discussion of יוֹם we will examine M.
Sæbø’s entry in TDOT.

M. Sæbø’s Discussion of יוֹם in TDOT

In his discussion of יוֹם, M. Sæbø (1990, 6:22)
contrasts its “literal usage” (strictly, “the daylight
period”) with its “extended usage,” and further
categorizes its “theological usage,” though he
concedes, “The transition from what might be called
‘secular’ usage (in temporal and extended senses) to
explicitly religious or theological usage is . . . fluid and therefore difficult to define precisely” (6:26). Of
particular significance are his various suggested
extended uses of יוֹם, which include the following:

1. in the singular,
1. to designate a full 24 hour period,
2. as a general word for time, e.g., the “‘day/time of harvest’ [Prov. 25:13],”
3. “hayyôm, ‘today,’ . . . [used] to refer not to a single day but to the present time of the speaker in contrast to a past situation or past events,”
4. with reference to an historic event, e.g., “‘the day/catastrophe of Jerusalem’ [Ps. 137:7]”;
2. in the plural,
1. “with reference to an historical period or epoch,” e.g. “‘in the days/reign of David’ [2 S. 21:1],”
2. as meaning “lifetime,”
3. as meaning “year” (Sæbø 1990, 6:21).

Sæbø (1990, 6:26) acknowledges, “As a general
rule, it is often difficult to make precise distinctions
among the extended uses of the word.”

Elsewhere, Sæbø (1990, 6:16–17) mentions a few
instances where יוֹם can refer to “a lengthy period of
indefinite duration (e.g., Isa. 2:20; 3:18; 4:2; 7:18; Jer.
4:9; Am. 8:3,9; Zec. 14:6f.),” and where it can
“sometimes be used in the extended sense of a human
lifetime, e.g., Job 30:25” (6:19). Many scholars regard
יוֹם יהוה as falling within the former category, viz., a
lengthy period of indefinite duration. Sæbø (1990,
6:31) comments,

Although with the passage of time the eventful
nature of the “day of Yahweh” came increasingly
to be emphasized, along with other attributes, its
temporal nature still was preserved. This is shown by
the various words for time that cluster about the “day
of Yahweh”: bayyôm hahûʾ, “on that day”; bayyāmîm
hahēm, “in those days”; bāʿēṯ hahîʾ, “in that time”;
hinnēh yāmîm bāʾîm, “behold, days are coming”;
b^eʾaḥ^arîṯ hayyāmîm, “at the end of the days.”
Most of these formulas, which have undergone
some development and take on eschatological character only in the later texts, not only define an
eventful point in time, but refer to actual “days” or
“time,” the “time of the end.”

Even-Shoshan’s Dictionary Definition of יוֹם

Avraham Even-Shoshan’s (1991, 267) widely
respected הַמִּלּוֹן הָעִבְרִי הַמְרֻכָּז , drawn from all periods,
defines יוֹם in its most literal senses,1, the time
from the hour of the rising of the sun and until its
setting. 2, a calendar day, day and night, period of 24
hours” (my translation).

Rationalization of Lexical Representation of
the Semantic Range of יוֹם

The semantic range of יוֹם , as represented across
the range of lexicons and dictionaries, can be
rationalized into three major categories:

1. literal uses, primarily “daylight,” but also, by extension, “a period of 24 hours”;
2. idiomatic uses, when יוֹם is in construction with another word, including
1. as the nomen regens, when it is said to have the meaning “a/the time of,” e.g., בְּיוֹם קָצִיר (Proverbs 25:13, “in the time of harvest,” ESV), יוֹם יְהוָה (Isaiah 13:6, “the Lord’s time,” LB)—this category also includes instances in which יוֹם is preceded by an inseparable preposition, especially בְּ, with the meaning “when,” e.g. בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ (Genesis 2:17, “when you eat,” NIV);
2. in הַיּוֹם (“the present time”);
3. non-literal, analogical/metaphorical uses, where יוֹם is said to stand for something significantly different from its basic sense.

Regarding the literal uses there is relatively little
contention. The main issue here is whether “a period
of 24 hours” is understood as the primary sense, or as
an extension of the “daylight” meaning.

Some scholars argue that instances of the second
category support the idea of יוֹם having the meaning
of an indefinite period of time. This is particularly
noticeable when it comes to בְּיוֹם in Genesis 2:4.
Among many, Beall (2017, 159) believes, “Yôm may
mean an indefinite period of time in 65 instances in
the OT (such as Gen. 2:4)”; and Lewis and Demarest
(1990, 24) assert, “Yôm in Scripture frequently
connotes an extended period of time (Gen. 2:4 . . .).”
However, others believe that, in such idiomatic
uses, the meaning of יוֹם does not greatly diverge
from its primary literal sense. Sæbø (1990, 6:15)
suggests, “B^eyôm with an infinitive (almost 70
times) [is used] as a general indication of time or a
temporal conjunction meaning ‘when,’ although the
basic meaning ‘day’ need not be totally absent (cf.
the important passage Gen. 2:4b following the
seven-day schema of creation).” A similar dichotomy
of interpretation exists concerning the phrase
יוֹם יְהוָה, with many scholars reading it as an
extended period of time, while others see it as an
ordinary day.

It is the third category that is of particular interest
to this study, and especially where יוֹם occurs in the
singular, as is primarily the case in the creation
account. Most, if not all, scholars would agree that
the plural, יָמִים, can be used to designate a long
stretch of time. But such an observation does not
necessarily impinge upon the semantic range of יוֹם. Indeed, Simon J. DeVries (1975, 43) notes,

There is a striking contrast between the singular and
plural use of yôm. The plural is used . . . to identify and
specify the duration of a period of time, whether this
be limited or unlimited, definite or indefinite. The
definite length of such a period could be stated by
adding a specific number to the plural, yamim. An
indefinite period might be yāmîm alone or yāmîm ʾeḥādîm (“some days,” “a few days”) if it was short;
if it is was long it would be yāmîm rabbîm (“many
days”).

For example, the phrase יָמִים רַבִּים (“many days”) is
seen to equate to time frames extending from a
lengthy period of a woman’s bleeding (Leviticus
15:25), or mourning for the dead (Genesis 37:34; 2
Samuel 14:2; 1 Chronicles 7:22), or the 180 days
during which King Ahasuerus “showed the riches of
his royal glory and the splendor and pomp of his
greatness” (Esther 1:4, ESV), right up to 400 years
(compare Genesis 15:13 with Numbers 20:15). But
this is a function of the flexibility of the adjective —רַב
it is not a function of the semantic range of יוֹם.

Observations Regarding Extended Lexical Meanings of יוֹם, and יוֹם in the Creation Account

Table 2 presents data on יוֹם from the most
respected lexicons and dictionaries. Specifically, it
shows (1) any discussion regarding unambiguously
non-literal, analogical/metaphorical uses of יוֹם
(singular, or of unspecified number), where it may
stand for something significantly different from its
basic sense; and (2) any discussion of יוֹם in the
creation account. For example, in TWOT, Coppes
(1980, 1:370–371) (1) asserts that יוֹם “can denote . . . a
general vague ‘time,’” and (2) acknowledges his belief
that the days of Genesis 1 are “of indeterminable
length.”

Several points can be discerned from the lexical
entries regarding the semantic range of יוֹם, and its
meaning in the creation account:

1. There is scant support among most respected
   modern lexicons and dictionaries for the notion
   that יוֹם can refer, intrinsically, to an indefinitely
   long period of time. Sæbø’s (1990, 6:16–17) article
   in TDOT makes reference to such possible
   meanings. But even then, he points only to a couple
   of specific contexts: primarily in the phrase bayyôm hahû, when it occurs in future-oriented texts,3 and
   one example in Job (Job 30:25).4
2. A cursory glance at the sub-headings in lexical
   entries may give the false impression that יוֹם can,
   intrinsically (i.e., in the singular), mean a long
   time. But in most instances it is the plural form,
   יָמִים, that is in view. For instance, Koehler and
   Baumgartner’s (2001, 400–401) seventh category
   is “period of time: year,” but upon closer inspection
   it becomes evident that all the examples given are
   plural.
3. Two popular sources, in particular, give the overt
   impression that יוֹם intrinsically has a broad
   semantic range, and can readily be understood as
   referring to an extended period of time, viz., Coppes
   (1980) in TWOT, and Wilson ([1870] 1990) in
   WOTWS. As noted earlier, the former asserts that
   יוֹם “can denote . . . a general vague ‘time,’” and
   discloses his belief that the days of Genesis 1 are
   “of indeterminable length” (Coppes 1980, 1:370–
   371). The latter is even bolder regarding the
   flexibility of יוֹם , stating from the outset, “ יוֹם a day;
   it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long
   time; a whole period” (Wilson [1870] 1990, 109).
   That this has impacted the interpretation of the
   days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time is evident,
   for instance, in the writings of Fischer (1990, 17;
   citing Wilson [1870] 1990), and those of the
   influential evangelicals, Ross and Archer (2001,
   125; citing Coppes [1980] and Wilson [{1870}
   1990]). Additionally, even Stambaugh (2003, 52),
   who defends a young universe interpretation,
   draws from Coppes (1980) for his “basic semantic
   range of יוֹם.”
4. Regarding the meaning of יוֹם in the creation
   account, the majority unequivocally supports a
   literal reading. Only Coppes (1980, 1:371) in
   TWOT (“days . . . of indeterminable length”)
   explicitly departs from this position.

Lexical Competence

DCH is an example of a lexicon that provides a
comprehensive and detailed appraisal of the range
of uses of each lexeme. This includes giving priority
“to the most commonly attested sense,” (Clines
1993, 1:15) and providing examples of each potential
semantic and syntactic construction. Not all lexicons
attain such a high standard. Milton Eng (2011, 25)
observes, “A common lament among linguists is
the unsystematic and confusing classifications of
meanings within typical dictionary entries.”

Indeed, a major, general shortcoming in some
lexicons is that they give little, or misleading,
information about the frequency of occurrence and
validity of each suggested sub-category of meaning
for any given term. For example, Coppes (1980, 1:370)
lists five possible denotations for יוֹם, with no
indication of frequency, such that the reader may be
left with the impression that “a general vague ‘time,’”
is as valid and as common a gloss as “the period of
twenty-four hours.” Worse still, Wilson ([1870] 1990,
109, emphasis added) provides erroneous information
when he asserts that “ יוֹם . . . is frequently put . . . for a
long time; a whole period.” Even a cursory glance
through a concordance demonstrates the falsity of
this claim—יוֹם is given its literal meaning in the vast
majority of occurrences.

This problem can lead to a ‘candy-store’ approach
to exegesis, where the interpreter picks the lexical
sub-category that best suits their presuppositions,
with little discernment as to the appropriateness of
applying that sense in the given context. For example,
Fischer (1990, 17) cites Wilson ([1870] 1990) in
WOTWS, and then concludes, “The ‘days’ of creation
certainly do appear to be periods of extraordinary
happenings which fit ‘a long time’ definition better
than a 24-hour definition” (emphasis added). Even
Stambaugh (2003, 52), who goes to great lengths in
trying to demonstrate in various ways that יוֹם in
Genesis 1 is a literal day, claims, “The semantic
range of יוֹם does allow the interpreter to select from
a variety of meanings of ‘day.’” Thomas R. Schreiner
([1990] 2011, 126) comments, “The careful
interpreter will always carefully consider the
semantic range of a word and the particular context
in which a word is used . . . . Lexical study is one of
the most important elements of the exegetical
process. Unfortunately, it is also an area that suffers
from great abuse.”

In 1942, H. C. Leupold (1891–1972) asserted,
“There ought to be no need of refuting the idea that
yôm means period. Reputable dictionaries like Buhl,
B D B or K. W. know nothing of this notion. Hebrew
dictionaries are our primary source of reliable
information concerning Hebrew words” (Leupold
1942, 57). Similarly, in discussing the Day-Age
theory, Weston W. Fields (1976, 169) advises, “As in
the case of other problems involving meanings of
words, our study must begin with Hebrew
lexicography. Nearly all the defenders of the [Day-
Age] theory fail, however, to give any lexical backing
to the theory. The reader is left completely
uninformed concerning the uses of yôm (day) in the
Old Testament.” Fields’ statement could be qualified
by noting that, while some Day-Age advocates do
indeed draw upon lexical definitions of יוֹם to support
their position, they tend to make use of, arguably,
the two poorest examples, TWOT and WOTWS.

Fields (1976, 172) proceeds to reproduce, in
abridged form, the lexical entries for יוֹם in BDB and
KB, before concluding,

Now these are the meanings the lexicons give. For
the reader interested in all the evidence, here it is.
We must immediately raise the question: where is
the lexical support for identifying the days of Genesis
as long periods of time? Far from supporting the
notion that the creative days of Genesis 1 are vast
ages, extending, perhaps, over millions of years,
the lexicons suggest that “day,” as used to refer to
creation is of the normal 24 hours duration. This is
the natural interpretation.

Fields’ appraisal may be regarded by some as
simplistic. Yet, others may feel he is right to expose
the inadequacy of arguments for long creation days
that either have no lexical support, or that cherry-pick
from questionable sources. Earlier, Bernard Ramm
(1954, 222), while not favoring a literal-days reading
of Genesis 1, nevertheless had admitted, “Though
not closing the door on the age-day interpretation of
the word yom, we do not feel that lexicography of the
Hebrew language will as yet permit it” (underlining
added).

Other Scholarly Studies Pertaining to the Semantic Range of יוֹם

In his article on “Time” in one of the IVP
Dictionaries of the Old Testament, Todd Pokrifka
(2008, 820) begins his discussion of יוֹם by noting th
the “primary meaning is the period of light as opposed
to night.” However, he immediately follows this with
the assertion, “Yet it is an exceptionally flexible
term,” adding that it can be “used to refer to . . . a more
general time period (Job 15:23; 21:13; 38:23; Ps 102:2;
Prov 11:4; Lam 2:16, 21)” (821). Thus, readers are
given the idea that יוֹם has a broad semantic range.at

A different impression is obtained from one of the
most substantial monographs relating to יוֹם,
DeVries’s 1975 book, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Concluding his tome, DeVries (1975, 336–
337) wrote,

Little may have been added to the dictionary meaning
of time-words, but our study has proven to have
important implications for the Hebrew language of
time in the broader sense.

Yôm [is] the elemental Hebrew word for time. This
reflects the psychological and ideological impact of
the day upon the primate Hebrew (and early Semite)
mentality. Only the day (and alternating night) had
independent significance; all other divisions of time,
whether extensions of the day (week, month, year,
etc.) or fragments of it (“watches” of the day and
night) were artificialities and semi-abstractions.

There is little wonder, then, that so much emphasis
seems to be placed on the quality of particular days.

With regards to possible extended meanings of יוֹם, he noted,

Although yôm in all its combinations retains its
reference to this elemental unit of time (bayyôm hahûʿ never means merely, “then”), it is what fills a day with
meaning and gives it its uniqueness, rather than its
chronological dimensions, that makes it important. It is
for this reason that very occasionally (I Sam. 25:10, Jer.
34:15), hayyôm comes to refer to the present time as a
period or situation; the day on which the speaker speaks
is typical and representative of other days characterized
by a special situation. (DeVries 1975, 337)

A decade after the publication of DeVries’s book
P. Zerafa (1986, 532) wrote a journal article entitled,
“The Old Testament Day.” He began by observing,

For all practical purposes, civil and religious, the
modern Jewish day is reckoned on a 24-hour basis,
and runs from sunset to sunset. The 24-hour day
was a standard unit of time in ancient Egypt and
Mesopotamia: the Egyptians started their day at
sunrise; the Mesopotamians began theirs at sunset.

However, Zerafa (1986, 533) asserts, contrary to
the opinion of most biblical scholars, “Actually, the 24-
hour reckoning did not serve as a basis for the daily
life in the Old Testament.” He proceeds to discuss
this in light of various cultic and social practices
throughout the Old Testament period, ending with
the following conclusion:

The Old Testament day covered the hours of daylight
(sunrise to sunset). Towards the end of the Old
Testament, the eves were introduced as pre-festive
celebrations. The observation of the eves paved the
way to a 24-hour festive repose starting at sunset.
Later on, the 24-hour reckoning was extended to
cover every aspect of the Jewish life. This innovation
was possibly brought about by the loss of national
autonomy: the continued adaptation to a foreign culture
that reckoned the day on a 24-hour basis, led the Jews
to accept the sunset to sunset reckoning of the festive
repose as a base rule of daily life. (Zerafa 1986, 544)

Thus, according to Zerafa, during the majority of
the OT period, יוֹם was understood primarily in its
narrowest sense, viz., the daylight portion of the
daytime-nighttime cycle.

The following decade Walton touched upon the
semantic range of יוֹם in his contribution to the “Guide
to Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,” which,
along with ten other articles, comprises the
substantial introductory material in NIDOTTE. In
“Principles for Productive Word Study,” Walton
(1996, 1:167) observed,

The claim is often made that the word יוֹם, day
(H3427), can mean a period of undetermined length.
However, most, if not all, of the occurrences where
such flexibility can be demonstrated are related to
idiomatic phrases. The aspects of the semantic range
connected to idiomatic phrases cannot be extended to
nonidiomatic occurrences.

References

Beall, Todd S. 2017. “Days of Creation (24-Hour Day View).” In Dictionary of Christianity and Science: The Definitive Reference for the Intersection of Christian Faith and Contemporary Science, edited by Paul Copan, Tremper Longman III, Christopher L. Reese, and Michael G. Strauss, 158–162. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren, eds. 1977–2006. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. (1907) 1979. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. Citations refer to the 1979 edition.

Cassuto, Umberto. (1944) 1989. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part I: From Adam to Noah, Genesis I—VI 8. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Orig. pub. in Hebrew in 1944. Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes Press. Citations refer to the 1989 edition.

Clines, David J. A., ed. 1993. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield, United Kingdom: Sheffield Academic Press (vols. I–V); Sheffield Phoenix Press (vols. VI–VIII).

Coppes, Leonard J. 1980. “ יוֹם .” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, 1:370–371. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press.

Craigen, Trevor. 2008. “Can Deep Time Be Embedded in Genesis?” In Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, edited by Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury, 193–210. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books.

DeVries, Simon J. 1975. Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow: Time and History in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. (1977) 1997. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 2nd ed. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Citations refer to the 1997 edition.

Eng, Milton. 2011. The Days of Our Years: A Lexical Semantic Study of the Life Cycle in Biblical Israel. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 464. New York: T&T Clark International.

Even-Shoshan, Avraham, ed. 1991. הַמִּלּוֹן הָעִבְרִי הַמְרֻכָּז. Jerusalem, Israel: Kiryat-Sefer.

Fields, Weston W. 1976. Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory. Collinsville, Illinois: Burgener Enterprises.

Fischer, Dick. 1990. “The Days of Creation: Hours or Eons?” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 42, no. 1 (March 1): 15–22.

Grossmann, Robert E. 1987. “The Light He Called ‘Day.’” Mid-America Journal of Theology 3, no. 1: 7–34.

Groves-Wheeler Westminster Morphology and Lemma Database (version 4.14 [2010; accessed via BibleWorks version 10]). Chestnut Hill (Philadelphia), Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 2008.

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds. 1980. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press.

Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. 1971. Theologisches Handwörterbuch Zum Alten Testament. 2 vols. Munich, Germany: Kaiser.

Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. 1997. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Kelly, Douglas F. 2017. Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1–2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms. Revised and Updated Edition. Fearn, United Kingdom: Mentor (Christian Focus).

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. 1958. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. 2001. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: Study Edition. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. 2 vols. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Leupold, H. C. 1942. Exposition of Genesis, Volume 1: Chapters 1–19. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Lewis, Gordon R., and Bruce A. Demarest. 1990. Integrative Theology, Volume Two: Our Primary Need, Christ’s Atoning Provisions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books, Zondervan.

Pokrifka, Todd. 2008. “Time.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, edited by Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns, 820–826. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic.

Ramm, Bernard. 1954. The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Ross, Hugh and Gleason L. Archer. 2001. “The Day-Age View.” In The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, edited by David G. Hagopian, 123–163. Mission Viejo, California: Crux Press.

Sæbø, Magne. 1990. “ יוֹם (Sections II–VI).” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, VI:12–32. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Schreiner, Thomas R. (1990) 2011. Interpreting the Pauline Epistles. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Stambaugh, Jim. 2003. “The Days of Creation: A Semantic Approach.” Journal of Ministry and Theology 7, no. 2 (Fall): 42–68.

VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. 1996. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Verhoef, Pieter A. 1996. “ יוֹם .” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, edited by Willem A. VanGemeren, 2: 411–416. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Walton, John H. 1996. “Principles for Productive Word Study.” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, edited by Willem A. VanGemeren, 1:158–168. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Walton, John H. 2001. The NIV Application Commentary Genesis: Genesis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Wilson, William. (1870) 1990. Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies. Orig. pub. 1870 (London, United Kingdom: Macmillan) under the title: The Bible Student’s Guide to the More Correct Understanding of the English Translation of the Old Testament by Reference to the Original Hebrew. 2nd ed. Reprint. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. Citations refer to the 1990 edition.

Young, Edward J. 1964. Studies in Genesis One. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Presbyterian and Reformed.

Zerafa, P. 1986. “The Old Testament Day.” Angelicum 63, no. 4: 532–544.

Zlotowitz, Meir, and Nosson Scherman. 1995. ספר בראשית Bereishis: Genesis—A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources. 2nd ed. 2 vols. ArtScroll Tanach Series: A Traditional Commentary on the Books of the Bible. New York, New York: Mesorah Publications.

Abbreviations

https://answersingenesis.org/hermeneutics/semantic-range-yom-age-of-universe-2/ This article originally appeared on answersingenesis.org

Views: 1