The Six-Days of Creation: Some Modern Interpretations of the Creation Week in Genesis One
Posted by deangonzales on November 2, 2009
24 Comments
In light of the claims of modern science, many have also moved away from a more literal reading of the chronology of the creation week in Genesis 1. A survey of the relevant literature reveals at least eight new ways to interpret the “six days.” Because we live in the age of modern science and because a growing number of evangelical scholars espouse these newer interpretations, I’d like to make my readers aware of these new approaches to the six days of the Genesis creation account.
1. The Primitive Science view
Liberals scholars see a genuine contradiction between the Bible and modern science. Consequently, they view the Genesis account of creation as a primitive and erroneous attempt to describe the origin of the universe. Some conservative scholars, like Benjamin Warfield, have tried to harmonize this interpretation with an evangelical view of Scripture.1
2. The Mythological view
Other liberal scholars have compared the Genesis account with other mythological accounts of creation found in ancient Near Eastern literature.2 After highlighting certain parallels between Genesis and these creation accounts, they posit the idea that Moses simply borrowed from the literature of his day, and then modified that literature to fit his own monotheistic theology.3
3. The Day-Age view
One of the earliest attempts to harmonize the long ages demanded by science with the teaching of Genesis was the Day-Age view. The Day-Age view points out that the Hebrew word for “day,” יום, yom, doesn’t always refer to a literal 24-hour day. For example, in the very Genesis account the term is used in at least two others ways. In Genesis 1:5 the Hebrew word yom is used to refer to the period of daylight as opposed to the period of darkness or night. In this sense, the term “day” is used to refer to a period less than 24 hours. In Genesis 2:4 the term yom refers to the entire period of creation: “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day (יום) that the LORD God made earth and heaven.” Even in English we can refer to “the day of horse-drawn carriages” or “the customs of Christ’s day,” and mean a period much longer than a mere 24-hours. So on the basis of the flexible meaning of the Hebrew term yom, Day-Age advocates argue that the six days of Genesis One are not 24-hour periods of time but rather six indefinite epochs or spans of time. This appears to have been the position of such Reformed theologians as Charles Hodge,4 William G. T. Shedd,5 and E. J. Young.6 It has recently been defended by R. Laird Harris7 and the Christian astronomers Hugh Ross8 and David Snoke.9 A variation of this view interprets the six days as literal 24-hour periods that either precede or conclude long ages.10
4. The Catastrophe view (or Gap Theory)
Unsatisfied with the Day-Age interpretation of the Genesis account, other conservatives offered a different method to harmonize the long ages demanded by modern science with the teaching of Genesis one. They proposed an indefinite gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2ff. Genesis 1:1, they argue, refers to an original creation. This original creation was at some later time destroyed by a catastrophic divine judgment, which is alluded to by the phrase, “without form and void.” This view is further encouraged by the wording of the KJV in verse 28, which says that God commanded Adam and Eve to “replenish the earth,” implying a previous creation. Thus, this view would allow for a literal interpretation of the six days (vv. 3-31) and also allow for a great age for the origin of the earth. This view was suggested by Thomas Chalmers11 and popularized by The Scofield Reference Bible.12
5. The Revelatory-Day view
According to the Revelatory view, the six creative “days” are to be interpreted as literal 24-hour days. However, these six days do not refer to the time it took God to create the world. Rather, they refer to the time it took for God to reveal the world’s creation to Moses. Percy J. Wiseman has articulated this view in his book, Creation Revealed in Six Days:
[The Genesis account] is a record of the six days occupied by God in revealing to man the story of creation…. It is narrative of what ‘God said’ to man, there is no suggestion that the acts or processes of God had occupied those six days. During the daylight hours of those six days God told man how in the ages past He had ‘commanded and it stood fast’ and in such a simple way that man could understand how He had created the world and introduced life upon it.13
6. The Literary Framework view
Towards the latter half of the 20th century another approach to interpreting the Genesis creation account has gained a widening acceptance among evangelicals. The Literary Framework view regards the six days of Genesis merely as a literary device used to convey theological truth rather than scientific data. Advocates of this view argue that we should not view the creation week of Genesis as chronological or historical, but rather as topical and thematic. Howard Van Till, professor of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College, is a representative of this view. According to him,
The seven-day chronology that we find in Genesis 1 has no connection with the actual chronology of the Creator’s continuous dynamic action in the cosmos. The creation-week motif is a literary device, a framework in which a number of very important messages are held. The chronology of the narrative is not the chronology of creation but rather the packaging in which the message is wrapped. The particular acts depicted in the Story of the Creator are not the events of creative action reported with photographic realism but rather imaginative illustration of the way in which God and the Creation are related.14
Reformed scholars such as Meredith Kline,15 Bruce Waltke,16 Henri Blocher,17 and Lee Irons18 have also defended this view. In fact, this view seems to be an increasingly popular view among evangelical scholars today.
7. The Anthropomorphic Day view
C. John Collins agrees with those who hold the Literary Framework view that the days of Genesis 1 should be taken figuratively. Since the six days are describing divine activity rather than human activity the days are anthropomorphic in character. That is, they describe God’s creative timeframe using human language that is should not be interpreted literally, anymore than we should ascribe to God a “hand” or “eyes” simply because Scripture sometimes describes divine activity using human body parts (Exod. 7:5; 9:3; Deut. 2:15; 11:12; Prov. 15:3). Nevertheless, Collins disagrees with the Literary Framework view in that he does see chronological sequence. In some ways, this view is a combination of the Day-Age view and the Literary Framework view.19
8. The Limited Geography view
More recently John Sailhamer, an evangelical Old Testament scholar, has advocated a new approach to Genesis one. Like the Gap theorists, Sailhamer separates Genesis 1:1 from the rest of the chapter and views the two sections as descriptive of two different events or two different stages of the same event. Genesis 1:1 is referring to the original creation of the entire universe—”the heavens and the earth.” But from Genesis 1:2 and onward, the focus is upon the Land of Eden and the creation of mankind. In other words, the reference to the creation of light and the land and the sea and the trees and the birds and the fish and the animals is not so much a reference to the original creation. Rather, it is a reference to God preparing the Land of Eden as man’s special dwelling place. Instead of viewing chapter one as depicting God’s creation of the whole earth and chapter two as narrowing the focus to Eden, Sailhamer limits the universal statement to Genesis 1:1, and begins with the Land of Eden in Genesis 1:2.20 This allows Sailhamer to take the six days of Genesis 1:3-31 literally without applying them to the age of the universe or the earth. Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has recently espoused this view in an expositional series on Genesis.21
How should we assess these modern interpretations of the Genesis 1? May we still hold the traditional view of creation, which sees “six days” of Genesis 1 as a reference to six literal 24-hour days? Or should we feel constrained to abandon the traditional view and opt for one of the new interpretations? Should we allow the claims of modern science to influence our interpretation of Scripture? Most of us would instinctively answer that last question in the negative. We’re aware of the unbelieving, anti-Christian bias present in much modern science. Consequently, we may feel inclined simply to ignore the challenge of modern science and maintain the traditional view of the Genesis creation account. However, before we jump to a conclusion, let me point out that it is not always wrong for us to allow science to influence and even correct our exegesis.
For example, in the 16th century Nicholas Copernicus rejected the common assumption that the earth was at the center of the solar system. He argued instead that the earth revolves around the sun. If you were a Christian in Copernicus’ day, how would you have responded to his claim? Here is how Martin Luther reportedly responded:
So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth.22
Luther was right to take his stand ultimately upon the teaching of Scripture. But Luther was wrong in his interpretation of the Bible, in particular his interpretation of Joshua 10. When the inspired writer describes the sun as “standing still,” he is not using scientific language. Rather, he is using phenomenological language, that is, the language of simple observation,23 much like you and I do when we speak of the sun “rising” in the east and “setting” in the west. In this case it would have been appropriate for Luther to reexamine his exegesis of Joshua 10 and to readjust his view of the solar system.
Similarly, the church today should be willing to reexamine traditional views of Scripture in the light of scientific claims. As the theologian John Frame has properly remarked,
We should not assume at the outset that the scientists are wrong. It is also possible that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, though it is not possible for Scripture itself to be wrong. We must be humble enough and self-critical enough to reexamine these questions, even under the stimulus of scientific claims with which we may be initially unsympathetic. This is part of our apologetic mandate to bring every thought captive to Christ. In that sense, it is right for our exegesis to be ‘influenced’ by science.24
On the other hand, there are some claims of modern science that are clearly contrary to the teaching of Scripture. In reality, these so-called scientific claims are sinful distortions of the truth (Rom 1:18). For example, I think the naturalistic philosophy behind the modern theory of evolution is totally incompatible with the teaching of Scripture. Moreover, I am not convinced that the scientific arguments for an old age for the earth have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And although the day age and literary framework views might be plausible ways to interpret Genesis 1,25 I think the exegetical evidence still favors the traditional view as the more plausible reading. In Part 2, I’ll offer some arguments for reading of the six-days of the Genesis creation week as periods corresponding to a 24-hour solar day.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
- Warfield conceded that an inspired writer could “share the ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its relation to the sun; and, it is not inconceivable that the form of his language when incidentally adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of such a presumption.” “The Real Problem of Inspiration,” in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1948), 166-67. See Paul H. Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above,” WTJ 53 (1992): 31-46; “The Geographical Meaning of ‘Earth’ and ‘Seas’ in Genesis 1:10,” WTJ 59 (1997): 231-55. For a refutation of Seely’s views, see “Appendix C” in James B. Jordan, Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 1999), 227-33. In my opinion, this view loses sight of the dual authorship of Scripture. When Moses and the other Scripture writers speak of stars, they do not differentiate between true stars, i.e., suns, planets, galaxies, supernovae, etc., because of their limited empirical and scientific perspective. The fact that God employs language that may be limited by the human author’s conceptual framework or worldview need not imply that God is affirming or endorsing that worldview. Modern meteorologists continue to speak of the sun “rising” and “setting,” expressions whose origin can probably be traced to pre-scientific views of the world. But no one would accuse a weatherman of endorsing or affirming an out-dated worldview because he uses that language. [↩]
- James Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 3-11, 37-103, 501-03. [↩]
- See especially Friedrick Delitzsch’s provocative Babel and Bible (New York: G. P. Putnum’s Sons, 1903). For a critical overview and assessment of this approach, see John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989). [↩]
- Systematic Theology (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 1:568-74. [↩]
- Dogmatic Theology (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1888), 1:475-77. [↩]
- Studies in Genesis One (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964). [↩]
- “The Length of the Creative Days in Genesis 1,” Did God Create in Six Days? ed. Joseph A. Pipa Jr. (Taylors, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999), 101-11. [↩]
- Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), 45-72. [↩]
- A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006). [↩]
- This variant has been called the “intermittent day view.” For proponents, see J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 132-37; Robert C. Newman, “Old Earth (Progressive) Creationism,” in Three Views on Creation and Evolution, ed. J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 107-08. [↩]
- Works, I, 228; XII, 369. Cited in Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), p. 135. [↩]
- See p. 4, n. 3. [↩]
- Creation Revealed in Six Days, 3rd ed. (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1958), 40; Bernard Ramm also appears to support this view when he writes, “We believe … that creation was revealed in six days, not performed in six days…. The days are means of communicating to man the great fact that God is Creator, and that He is Creator of all.” The Christian View of Science and Scripture, 151. [↩]
- The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us About Creation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 84-85. [↩]
- “Because It Had Not Rained,” WTJ 20 (1958): 146-157; “Space and Time in Genesis Cosmogony,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48 (March 1996): 2-15. [↩]
- “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One,” Crux 27:4 (1991): 2-10; Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 73-78. [↩]
- In the Beginning: The Opening Chapter of Genesis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 39-59. [↩]
- “The Framework View,” in The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. David G. Hagopian (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, 2001), 217-56, 279-303. [↩]
- “How Old Is the Earth? Anthropomorphic Days in Genesis 1:1-2:3,” Presbyterian 20 (1994): 109-130; “Reading Genesis 1:1-2:3 as an Act of Communication: Discourse Analysis and Literal Interpretation,” Did God Create in Six Days? eds. Joseph A. Pipa Jr. and David W. Hall (Taylors, S.C.: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999). [↩]
- Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1996). Interestingly, Sailhamer identifies the Land of Eden with the Land of Canaan. [↩]
- Driscoll’s sermon can be accessed here. [↩]
- Table Talk, trans. Theodore G. Tappert, vol. 54 of Luther’s Works, ed. Helmut T. Lehman (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 358-59. The reader should keep in mind that Table Talk is not a collection of Luther’s writings but a collection of written and edited reports of what Luther said. As the editor notes in the introduction, “It is too much to claim that even the manuscripts provide us with verbatim reports” (xxii). Nevertheless, “it must … be added that the texts are reasonable trustworthy in reporting the subject matter and the directions which the conversation took. In other words, the Table Talk is less reliable than writings which we have from Luther’s own hand but not on this account to be dismissed as fiction” (xxiii). [↩]
- The Hebrew words translated “stop” (v. 12), “stood still” (v. 13) and “stopped” (v. 13) may refer to the cessation of brightness rather than the cessation of movement. In this case, Joshua was praying for the sun to stop shining and his prayer was answered beyond his expectations when God sent a hailstorm that routed the enemy (v. 11). Thus, to use Walter Kaiser’s language, we should not speak of “Joshua’s long day” but of “Joshua’s long night.” More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 123-26. [↩]
- The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002), 303. [↩]
- Many who defend these views are orthodox scholars who are committed to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. For this reason, I hesitate to be too dogmatic or make the six literal days view a test of orthodoxy. John Frame, a proponent of the traditional view, agrees and writes, “I myself see no reason to suppose that the creation week was longer than a normal week. But I see no reason either to require that view as a test of orthodoxy.” The Doctrine of God, 302-06. [↩]
Recently, colleges and universities around the country celebrated the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. Not everyone in America finds Darwin’s birth an occasion for celebration. Throughout Western history, most people accepted Biblical creationism—until Darwin introduced his theories. The rapid advance of evolutionary theory has now relegated creationism to the realms of faith and superstition. It must remain there, because if creationism were true, evolutionists would be forced to face their greatest fear.
