Source: Arvin Gouw, Ph.D.
Editor: Juan Nicohlas
When discussing the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis, the most frequently asked question is “Is the concept of a ‘day’ in that account the same as we understand it today—that is, one day consisting of 24 hours—or is one day equivalent to billions of years?”
How does the historical approach interpret the days in the creation narrative?
A History of the Interpretation of the Six Days of Creation
The Church Fathers initially posed questions that were fundamentally different from modern debates concerning creation.
- Does the order of creation describe a temporal sequence, a logical sequence? Or both?
- Simultaneously or Gradually?
- Can the meaning of the word ‘day’ (Yom) represent geological time?
These questions intersect with the narrative that questions why God had to create everything one by one. Surely, as the Almighty, God should be able to make everything happen simultaneously?
Philo of Alexandria held the view that the Almighty God did not require six periods of time to create the world and its contents. The six days represent an order or pattern of creation, not a limit on the duration required by God.
Philo also regarded the number six as a number considered “perfect” and in keeping with the orderly cosmos. However, on the other hand, Philo did not teach the modern idea that each day of creation represents millions or billions of years.
Clement of Alexandria integrated the creation narrative into a symbolic and numerical interpretation, suggesting that the six days possess a theological significance that transcends simple chronology. Meanwhile, Origen questioned how the first, second and third days could have had an evening and a morning before the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day.
The Middle Ages: Luther and Calvin
Martin Luther rejected the idea that Moses merely divided and recorded the narrative of creation into a six-day framework in a literal sense. Luther viewed and treated the sequence of the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis as a series of actual days of creation.
John Calvin rejected the view that the world was formed in a single moment. He stated that God “took six days” to accommodate His workto human understanding.
A History of Interpretations of the Age of the Earth
Pre-modern Christians (before the 16th century) assumed that the Earth was young, both literally and allegorically. Pre-modern Christians calculated, based on biblical chronology, that the world should be thousands of years old, not billions of years old. James Ussher became a prominent figure for his efforts to construct a biblical chronology that placed the creation in the fourth millennium BC.
However, believing in a young Earth is not the same as Modern Young Earth Creationism. Pre-modern Christians did not develop an alternative perspective to modern geology because, at that time, the science of geology had not yet developed. Their narratives and thinking were based on the genealogies and history found in the Bible.
Modern Science
During the 18th century, interpreters began to compare the creation narrative with natural phenomena, including geology. History and natural phenomena became sources for reconstructing the Earth’s past, thereby transforming understanding and debate regarding the creation narrative. The science of geology in the 18th and 19th centuries clearly demonstrated that the Earth has a very long history. This was also supported by Darwin’s theory, which required a long geological timescale, as outlined in his book, On the Origin of Species.
Many Christians can accept geological findings that indicate the Earth’s great age, but they reject Darwin’s theory of evolution.
How Can Geology Be Reconciled with the Creation Narrative?
There are two theories that seek to reconcile geological findings with the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis.
1. The Gap Theory
This theory places the lengthy geological narrative before the sequence of creation events within the creation account. What geology describes regarding the Earth’s long history is considered to have occurred within the timeframe preceding the days of creation, that is, before verse 5.
2. The Day-Age Theory
The Day Theory-Age Theory regards the days in the creation narrative not as 24-hour days, but as periods of time that may have lasted for thousands or even billions of years.
Through these two theoretical approaches, an attempt is made to reconcile geological theory with the creation account in the Book of Genesis.
Fundamentalists
Early Fundamentalists did not hold a uniform view regarding the young age of the Earth. The Fundamentalist movement itself arose in response to the modernist movement of the 20th century. The Fundamentalist movement opposes the theory of evolution and theological modernism. However, opposing the theory of evolution does not mean rejecting the view that the Earth is old. Some Fundamentalists accept that the Earth is old, but still believe that humans were created specifically, namely Adam and Eve.
In the book The Fundamentals, fundamentalists continue to uphold the authority of the Bible and traditional Christian doctrines, such as Christology, atonement and the resurrection. However, the young-earth view and the geology of the Flood are not established as fundamental principles determining Christian orthodoxy.
The Flood
Ellen G. White of the Seventh-day Adventist Church offers a different perspective from the Gap Theory and the Day-Age Theory. For Ellen, the Flood experienced by Noah transformed many things, particularly the geological structure of the Earth. Ellen described the Flood as a formative force that radically reshaped the Earth’s structure. The Flood is used to explain the existence of buried organisms (dinosaur fossils) and various geological disturbances.
George McCready Price developed Flood geology. He accepted Ellen G. White and sought to uphold the historical account of the Earth’s history based on scientific explanations. Basil of Caesarea interpreted the days of creation as ordinary days centuries before Price. Thus, Price’s contribution lay in his efforts to reconcile this belief with an alternative geological explanation of the fossil record and stratigraphy. The development of Flood geology became a key aspect of Price’s contribution, rather than merely a belief in a literal interpretation of the days of creation.
Many conservative Protestants were suspicious of Seventh-day Adventism and, consequently, many Protestant groups were reluctant to accept the young-earth geology developed by Price. The Gap Theory and the Day-Age Theory remained the prevailing theories amongst conservative Christians during that era.
Henry M. Morris initially accepted the Gap Theory. However, after reading Price’s book, Morris eventually came to favour Flood Geology, as he considered it to offer a more consistent alternative explanation of Earth’s history. Morris subsequently became one of the most influential proponents of modern Young Earth Creationism.
Henry M. Morris partnered with John C. Whitcomb Jr. to publish the book The Genesis Flood (1961), which combines the traditional six-day creation, recent creation, the Universal Flood, and Flood Geology. This book became significant for reviving belief in a literal six-day creation.
2 Claims to Avoid
- Not all Christians throughout history have interpreted the Book of Genesis as six ordinary days, each consisting of twenty-four hours. Origen and Augustine provide clear examples of non-chronological interpretations.
- To claim that non-literal interpretations only emerged following the development of modern science is incorrect. Origen and Augustine developed non-chronological readings long before the advent of modern geology or Darwin’s theory.
Conclusion
Christianity has never had a completely uniform interpretation of the days of creation in the Book of Genesis. Non-chronological interpretations have been known since ancient times, long before the development of modern geology. Meanwhile, interpretations that understand the ‘days’ as ordinary days also have strong precedents dating back to ancient times. Discoveries regarding geological time have also shaped the debate by introducing new insights into the physical history of the Earth, which in turn have influenced biblical interpretation.
Conclusion
The creation narrative has been the subject of lengthy discussion and has given rise to a variety of interpretations. The Christian faith can withstand the various scientific changes that have occurred throughout the ages because theological truth does not depend solely on scientific explanations. Therefore, do not be afraid or doubtful when the Christian faith is confronted with challenges from science.
This article is adapted from the Bible Seminar. Watch the full video version on LAI’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AGG2V3pGXo
