TR: Second day
1. The Silence of the Second Day of Christ’s Death as a Theological Theme
Potential Controversy: Some Evangelicals might feel that focusing on the "silence" of the second day (Saturday) diverts attention from the central events of the crucifixion and resurrection, which are traditionally seen as the key salvific moments.
Response (From Our Hermeneutic): From our hermeneutic, the silence of the second day is not a diversion but a profound moment that highlights the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan. The silence on the second day reflects the tension and incompleteness of Christ’s work on the cross, just as the second day of creation was marked by an absence of the phrase "good." This silence is not a void but a necessary part of the process of reconciliation. Christ's work did not reach its fullness until the resurrection, and the silence mirrors the work of God unfolding, just as silence in creation does not imply inactivity, but preparation for the completion of His work. This theme leads us to appreciate the tension of waiting in the redemptive process, a tension that is resolved on the third day with the victory of the resurrection.
2. Christ’s Separation from the Father on the Second Day
Potential Controversy: Some Evangelicals might be concerned that emphasizing a complete separation between the Father and Son during Christ’s crucifixion could challenge the understanding of the unbroken unity within the Trinity, particularly during the suffering of Christ.
Response (From Our Hermeneutic): While we affirm the unbroken unity of the Trinity, we must also recognize that Christ’s experience of "forsakenness" (Matthew 27:46) was a moment of profound mystery. Christ, in His identification with the fullness of human experience, bore the weight of sin and the alienation it brings. This separation is not ontological—Christ is still fully united with the Father in His essence—but it is relational and experiential. Theologically, this is necessary for the full expression of the cross, as Christ became the "scapegoat" bearing the sins of the world. From a typological perspective, the division between heaven and earth on the second day of creation (separating the waters above from the waters below) parallels the division Christ experienced in that moment, reflecting a necessary separation to achieve reconciliation. This separation is not a denial of the unity of the Trinity but an essential part of God’s redemptive work that reconciles us to the Father through the Son.
3. The Metaphor of the Waters Above and Below
Potential Controversy: The metaphorical use of the separation of the waters above and below in Genesis as a parallel to Christ’s death could be seen as an overextension of typology, which some Evangelicals might find speculative or strained.
Response (From Our Hermeneutic): In line with our hermeneutic, typology is not about imposing meanings on Scripture but discovering the deep, God-given connections between the Old and New Testaments. The separation of the waters in Genesis is indeed a real historical event, but it also carries rich typological meaning. Just as the waters above (heaven) and below (earth) are divided to form the space for life in the creation narrative, so too did Christ’s death create a temporary but necessary division between heaven and earth for the sake of reconciliation. Christ’s suffering, as both fully divine and fully human, brings together these divisions—reflecting the tension that is only resolved in the resurrection. Far from being speculative, this typology unveils the eternal truths of the cross in a way that reveals Christ’s work in creation itself.
4. The Focus on the "Incompleteness" of the Second Day
Potential Controversy: The interpretation that the second day in the creation account represents incompleteness or tension, due to the absence of God’s pronouncement of "good," could be seen as undermining the perfection of God’s work in creation.
Response (From Our Hermeneutic): We understand that the second day in Genesis, while not explicitly called "good," still serves as part of God’s perfectly planned creation. The silence and "incompleteness" are not reflective of any imperfection in God’s work, but rather point to the necessary tension before the completion of His plan. In Christ’s death, the second day’s "unfinished" state reflects the temporary nature of separation and the anticipation of the third day. From a typological standpoint, this incompleteness in the creation narrative is echoed in the tension of the second day of Christ’s death. Just as the separation of the waters sets the stage for life, Christ’s suffering on the cross sets the stage for resurrection and eternal reconciliation. The silence and division in both instances are necessary to bring about God’s full, redemptive work.
5. Theological Reflection on the “Necessary Separation” for Reconciliation
Potential Controversy: Some might feel uncomfortable with the idea that Christ’s separation from the Father during His crucifixion is an essential part of the reconciliation process, fearing that it could undermine the sufficiency and completeness of Christ’s atonement.
Response (From Our Hermeneutic): We affirm that Christ’s work of reconciliation is fully accomplished and that He is the complete and final sacrifice for sin. However, the "necessary separation" is not a denial of Christ’s full sufficiency but an integral part of the process. The separation Christ experienced was part of taking on the full weight of human sin and alienation, which He bore to bring us back to the Father. The typology of the second day in creation reflects this necessary tension, which, though painful, is part of the narrative of redemption. Just as God’s separation of the waters above and below made space for life to emerge, so too did Christ’s moment of forsakenness create the space for reconciliation between God and humanity. This is not a deficiency in Christ’s work but a necessary step in the complete fulfillment of God's plan.
6. The Use of Creation to Illustrate Redemption
Potential Controversy: Some might argue that drawing such a close parallel between the creation account and Christ’s death could be seen as stretching the text, perhaps introducing an allegorical or mystical reading that some Evangelicals might find problematic.
Response (From Our Hermeneutic): We do not seek to allegorize Scripture in a way that undermines its historical and literal meaning but to uncover the deeper, Christ-centered connections that are embedded in God’s Word. The connection between creation and redemption is one of the central themes of Scripture, and the second day’s separation serves as a powerful typological foreshadowing of the separation Christ experienced in His death. As believers, we are called to see the unifying narrative of Christ’s work throughout all Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. This connection is not a forced allegory but an unveiling of God's redemptive plan in Christ, demonstrated in the very structure of creation itself. Through the typology, we see how Christ’s death brings about the restoration of creation, where the separation between heaven and earth will one day be completely undone in the new heaven and new earth.
In summary, these ideas can be defended within our hermeneutic as deeply rooted in Scripture’s typological richness and Christ-centered reading. We see the silence, separation, and tension of the second day as integral to God’s redemptive plan and find a harmonious connection between creation and redemption that deepens our understanding of Christ’s work. The apparent controversy arises only when a more literalistic or narrowly focused approach is used, but when Scripture is viewed as a unified narrative of Christ's fulfillment, these themes align beautifully with the overarching story of redemption.
