Timing of Creation Events – The View from the Bible

In my last post, we looked at the timing of creation events from the perspective of science. We saw that the scientific data indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old. In this post we are going to look at the view from the Bible.

There is disagreement among conservative Christian theologians about the meaning of the “days” in the creation account of Genesis 1-2:3. There are four main interpretations: the 24-hour day view, the day/age view, the literary framework view and the Walton view. These differences stem in part from ambiguity about the meaning of the Hebrew word for “day”, yom, which can mean a 24-hour day, the period of daylight or a long period of time. There is also disagreement about the meaning of the Hebrew word for “create” (bara).

Twenty four-hour day view. This view sees the days of Genesis 1-2:3 as literal 24-hour days. Proponents argue that it is the most natural way of reading this account. It is supported contextually by the evening/morning motif at the end of days 1-6 and by the sequential ordering of the days. The most common use of yom is for a 24-hour day and it was the traditional view of many of the early church fathers. Moreover, the Ten Commandments seems to refer to the days of Genesis 1 as a normal work week made up of seven 24-hour days.

The biggest problem with this view is that according to Genesis 1:14-19 the sun was not created until day 4. We now understand the day/night cycle to be due to the rotation of the earth on its axis against a point light source (the sun). This raises the problem of how to account for the day/night cycle mentioned on days 1-3. While some have proposed an alternate light source during days 1-3 or the clearing of the earth’s atmosphere, neither of these interpretations is explicitly supported by the Biblical text.

Another important problem is the absence of the evening/morning motif in the description of Day 7. This suggests that it is continuing, thus weakening the argument that the evening/morning motif is indicative of a 24-hour day.

Some interpreters see Genesis 2 as an expanded account of the sixth day of creation. If this is true, another problem with the 24-hour day view is that there are too many events during the sixth creation day to be accounted for in a single 24-hour day. These events include: the creation of land animals, the creation of Adam, creation of Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. Additionally, God planted a garden in Eden which implies that there must have been a period of time to allow the garden to grow before the creation of Adam and Eve. Finally, God had Adam name all of the animals God had created.

Day/Age View. This is really two closely related views in which the days of Genesis 1 are either viewed as six long periods (ages) of creation or as six literal days that initiate the creation periods. In the first view the Hebrew word yom is interpreted as an indefinite period of time. With respect to the second view, there is no definite article before the word yom so the account can be translated as a first day, a second day, etc. Thus in this view the days would not have to be consecutive.

There are two main problems with the day/age view. First, this view, like the 24-hour view, also suffers from the problem with the sun not appearing until day 4. What is the source of light during the long ages leading up to day 4? Secondly, there is no confirmation in other parts of Scripture that the days of Genesis 1 were long days.

Literary Framework View. This is the view that the days of Genesis 1-2:3 are a literary device rather than actual 24-hour days. There is a neat correspondence between the events of days 1-3 (God forming spaces) and days 4-6 (God filling spaces).

Literary Framework View

 

This interpretation neatly solves the problem of the late appearance of the sun since in this view the days do not have a literal meaning. Thus in this view, the Genesis 1-2:3 account does not say anything about the timing of creation events. This eliminates the need for an exact concordance between Biblical and scientific descriptions of the timing of the events in creation.

There is general agreement that the framework structure is there, but the presence of the framework does not necessarily mean that the days don’t have a chronological function as well. In fact, Wayne Grudem states:

the strongest argument against the literary framework view, and the reason why comparatively few evangelicals have adopted it, is that the whole of Genesis 1 strongly suggests not just a literary framework but a chronological sequence of events.

Walton View. This view sees the creation account of Genesis 1-2:3 as occurring over seven 24-hour days but differs from the “24-hour day view” in its understanding of what it means “to create”.

In a previous post I argued that Genesis 1-2:3 is set within the context of an ancient Near Eastern understanding of the cosmos and therefore does not teach modern science. Thus God was speaking to his people in terms that they could understand rather than through a modern scientific account which would have been incomprehensible to them. John Walton has taken this a step further and argues that Genesis 1-2:3 does not teach material creation but instead has a functional orientation. John Walton is a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and an expert in the ancient Near Eastern background of the Old Testament. Walton says:

in the ancient world and in the Bible something was considered to exist not when it took physical shape but when it had been separated from other things and given a name and a role within an ordered system.

Thus creation in this context has a functional rather than a material orientation. This view is pervasive in ancient Sumerian, Akkadian and Egyptian literature. Walton says that the reason modern interpreters have viewed the Genesis 1-2:3 creation account in terms of material creation is because of our modern understanding of existence in material terms.

In Walton’s view, the seven creation days of Genesis 1-2:3 are about establishing functions and installing functionaries in the cosmos. Days 1-3 are about establishing the functions of time, weather and food while days 4-6 are about installing functionaries. For example, on day 1 God established the function of time by separating the period of light (day) from the period of darkness (night). Then on day 4 God installed the sun, moon and stars as functionaries to “govern the day and the night” and to “serve as signs to mark the seasons and days and years.”

Walton views day 7 as the most important day of the creation account. The Bible states that “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.” Both in the Bible and in the ancient world “rest” did not refer to inactivity but rather describes the point in which the deity begins to direct the normal operations of the cosmos. In the ancient world divine rest always takes place in the temple which in Walton’s view is closely related to the cosmos. If these ideas are correct then one could view the Genesis creation account as a ceremony which inaugurates God’s temple by identifying its functions and installing its functionaries. This view would see the creation account occurring over seven 24-hour days but it doesn’t suffer from the problems associated with the “24-hour day view” mentioned above because the account has nothing to do with material creation.

Walton’s view has been criticized for its over reliance on ancient Near Eastern texts versus the Bible for interpretation. Also, while most commentators would agree that Genesis 1-2:3 is concerned with functional origins, many would also see a concern for material origins of the functionaries as well (e.g. the sun, moon and stars). Finally some see the concept of the cosmos as God’s temple and Genesis 1-2:3 as an account of temple inauguration as far-fetched. For example, if this account is about temple inauguration why isn’t this stated more explicitly?

Conclusion. The ages of the universe and the earth are a significant source of apparent tension between science and the Bible. In this post we have seen that there is no consensus among conservative theologians about the meaning of the days of Genesis 1-2:3. There are four main views that can be supported on the basis of scripture alone (24-hour day view, day/age view, literary framework view, and Walton view). Of these views only the 24-hour day view is in conflict with science.

In a previous post, we found that the main message of Genesis 1-2:3 revolved around four great themes: God alone is creator of all things, God created with wisdom and order, God is sovereign over his creation, and man is the pinnacle of God’s creation. While the question of the timing of the days of Genesis is certainly an interesting one, perhaps given the ambiguity about the meaning of the days, the question of timing is not as important as some might think. Thus the meaning of the days of Genesis 1-2:3 would not seem to be an issue over which Christians should be willing to fall on their swords about.

Next in the  Christianity and Science series.  In my next series of posts we will be looking at a second point of tension between Genesis 1 and science, namely the mechanism underlying the events of creation. First we will be look at the scientific perspective which is the theory of evolution (Part 1). Then we will address Christian questions about the validity of this theory and whether it is compatible with Christian belief.

Questions for further reflection:

1. Which of the four views about the meaning of the days of Genesis 1 do you favor? Why?
2. How important is the question of the days to the message of Genesis 1 and its function in the Bible?

Suggestions for further reading:

• Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? Denis Alexander. Monarch, 2008.
• The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, John H. Walton. InterVarsity Press, 2009.
• Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design,  Deborah B. Haarsma and Loren D. Haarsma. Faith Alive Christian Resources, 2011.
• Three Views on Creation and Evolution, J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, General Editors. Zondervan, 1999.
• Added by the editor:  PDF  with the titles and links to the posts in  Tom Ingebritsen‘s  Christianity and Science series. Yes, this was created to meet the requests of readers and will be updated. Your interest in and encouragement of this series is much appreciated.

Correction (Thomas B. Grosh IV): 1/25/2014. 1:45 pm. Denis Alexander is  now emeritus director at Faraday Institute for Science and Religion. In early 2013, Denis retired and Bob White (a geologist) took over as director. Click here to “get-to-know” and come to appreciate the Faraday staff. Thank-you to Dave Vosburg for the correction (in the below comment section).