Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation

Abstract 

This post is a summary of three viewpoints on the age of the Earth and how the Bible was intended to be interpreted by modern audiences.  Edited by David Hagopian.

Introduction of the Three Views

          Editor David Hagopian reminds us the creation debate "has important ramifications for how we interpret Scripture, proclaim the faith, embrace science, and stand on the shoulders of those who preceded us in the faith”[1]  Three interpretations of the Genesis creation account, considered as orthodox evangelical, are summarized, followed by a topical discussion of the major areas of disagreement.

The 24-Hour View

         Duncan and Hall, representing 24-hour View, interpret events in Genesis 1 as six sequential literal days demarcated by evenings and mornings.[2]  A literal interpretation of (moy) yôm as a 24-hour day is the only correct exegetical interpretation, and was the only interpretation intended by the author Moses.[3]  The Creation account was a refutation of pagan religions and established God's sovereignty as Creator ex nihilo.[4]  They appeal to historical commentary, interpreting a literal 24-hour day from Scripture, and argue "…that the debate over the creation days and their nature and length is strictly recent."[5]  Duncan and Hall make no claim concerning the age of the universe.[6]  

The Day-Age View

          Representing the Day-Age view, Ross and Archer contend the "…Genesis days are literal, chronologically sequenced long days or epochs."[7]  The narrative from "…Genesis 1:2 explicitly shifts the frame of reference, the narrator's vantage point, to the surface of the earth.  That verse describes the initial conditions of primordial earth…With the frame of reference and the initial conditions for the six creations days thus established, a straightforward chronology for the creation days' events unfolds."[8]  The Day-Age View holds that "Scripture leads us to expect an unequivocal consistency between God's written word and creation's facts."[9] 

The Framework View

          According to Irons and Kline, the Framework View holds a figurative interpretation of the creation narrative that is arranged topically, proclaiming an eschatological theology, without reference to sequence or duration.[10]  "The framework interpretation strives to understand the text of Genesis 1:1-2:3 on its own terms, independently of any questions that may arise from the empirical study of origins."[11]  They go on to say that the "…six days are not literal days but frames arranged in two panels.  They provide a literary structure in which the creative activity of God is topically narrated according to the theological concerns of the author."[12]  "  God's workweek of creation, which is revealed in Genesis 1:1-2:3 as a sabbatically structured process, was the archetype (original), while the weekly pattern of life appointed for God's human image-bearer is the ectype (copy)."[13]  In spite of this unique interpretation, Irons and Kline assure us that "…by interpreting the days of creation in a nonliteral manner, we do not, in any way, deny their historicity."[14]

Harmonizing the Bible and Science

          According to Duncan and Hall, the debate over Genesis 1 is "the most important sustained theological controversy in the Western world over the last century ─ resolving the conflicting truth claims between historic Christianity and modern evolutionary science.”[15]  While the Day-Age viewpoint affirms "…the record of nature and the words of the Bible must completely agree,"[16]  Duncan and Hall take their view from Friedrich Delitzsch, who argued that all attempts to harmonize the biblical story of creation with the results of natural science are futile.[17]

          Duncan and Hall raise the alarm that if historical interpretations of Scripture are modified "…to accommodate scientific discoveries and current knowledge, other Biblical interpretations fail, including other theologically sensitive subjects such as Adam, his fall into sin, and the Noahic flood and biblical inerrancy is undermined.[18]  They further assert "...the historical record indicts modern views as innovations manufactured only after, or in response to, the wide acceptance of certain scientific revolutions."[19]  "Even the most intrepid defender of harmonizing the Bible and science faces insurmountable difficulties finding in the creation narrative an original authorial intent that foreshadowed the opinions of modern geology, biology, and physics."[20] 

          In contrast, Ross and Archer observe, "The unique beauty of the day-age creation model is its ability to accurately predict advancing scientific discovery,"[21] embracing the linkage between biblical interpretation and current scientific theory.  "Extrabiblical evidences are not inconsequential.  They are vital.  Christianity's uniqueness resides not only in its gospel message, but also in its testability."[22]  They conclude, "…we must regard any creation account or narrative of human events that clearly contradicts scientific and/or historical data as erroneous, mythical, or fictional."[23] 

          

          Ross and Archer also assert "…the framework interpretation offers no model for life's history and, therefore, cannot be tested."[24]  "Day-age creationists…see the Genesis creation narrative as an artistically exquisite and objectively provable account…."[25]  Irons and Kline counter that "…it does not seem plausible to treat Genesis 1 as a sort of prophecy that is confirmed by modern scientific discoveries since the text contains no internal pointers suggesting the possibility of future confirmation."[26]  Duncan and Hall summarize the dispute:  "Because science, by its very nature is provisional, the Church must remain critical of theories that conform to science.  Proven truth should prevail until those who question it can demonstrate, if ever, that their conclusions are based on superior exegesis."[27]

Figurative Versus Literal Interpretation of Creation Account

          "The question before us…is whether the creation week is literal or figurative… both literal and figurative approaches to the days are attested throughout Church history."[28]  The primary justifications given for a figurative interpretation are the creation of the sun and moon on the fourth day after light was created on the first day, the apparent busyness, and extended duration of the sixth day, and the seventh day having no apparent ending at all. 

Day One / Day Four Problem

          Irons and Kline assert "…the institution of solar day on the fourth day, after the creation week as already begun, indicates the days are not to be understood literally as solar days."[29]  "Our argument is that Genesis 2:5-6 informs us that the mode of divine providence during the creation period was ordinary rather than extraordinary.  This rules out the possibility that the daylight was caused by a supernatural or nonsolar light source for the first three days, thus forcing us to view the fourth day as a temporal recapitulation and the days in general as being nonsequential."[30]  

          Duncan and Hall counter that, "One simple solution to this objection is to understand that God, the Creator, may have employed non-solar sources of light before creating the sun."[31]  "….The text explicitly says that God 'made' (v. 16) the luminaries on Day 4 and employs the same fiat-fulfillment language employed on the other five days for acts of creation."[32]   Duncan and Hall offer Calvin's explanation that "The sun, moon, and stars were gods to many, but Moses' God is so independent of creation that He did not hasten to create those grand luminaries until the halfway point in His work."[33] 

          Ross and Archer claim the 24-hour View is implausible because "...plants would need a surrogate sun identical to the sun we now orbit.  Plant life would also need virtually all the effective characteristics of the moon as well...to stabilize the tilt of the Earth's rotation axis."[34]   Likewise, Irons and Kline note that a "...literal interpretation requires God to have established the day-night cycle prior to establishing the earth's rotation with respect to the sun (Day 4)."[35]   "…this scenario calls the wisdom of God into question, for it implies some deficiency in the original light-producing mechanisms, requiring its replacement by the sun and stars."[36] 

Day Six Duration and Activities

          Ross and Archer infer a long duration of the Sixth Day. "…Trees were permitted to grow and mature from seeds….  Adam was diligently occupied with his assigned tasks of pruning, harvesting, and keeping the ground free of brush and undergrowth."[37]  "Altogether, many weeks', months', or even years' worth of activities took place in this latter portion of the sixth day."[38]  Duncan and Hall respond "...the question before us presents no real problem, especially if we assume the miraculous.  This interpretation is not new."[39]  Yet Irons and Kline take them to task for this response.  "…The 24-hour view must repeatedly appeal to supernatural providence between creative acts to explain how events could occur in such a brief timespan.  Positing extraordinary providence between acts of supernatural origination is …exegetical presumption."[40]

          Ross and Archer argue that interactions with Adam on the Sixth Day imply it was much longer than 24 hours.  "As God introduces Adam to the three levels of His creation ─ the physical, the soulish, and the spiritual ─ He teaches and prepares Adam for life on earth and for the care and keeping of the land, the plants and the animals.  He teaches Adam the value and blessings of a wife."[41]  "Adam's exclamation on seeing Eve is recorded in Genesis 2:23 as happa'am.  This expression is…roughly to our equivalent English expression 'at last'."[42]

Sabbatical Symbolism of Seventh Day

          The Sabbath symbolism of the Seventh Day raise issues about the nature and length of the other six creation days.[43]  Irons and Kline posit, "The unending character of the seventh day is supported by several exegetical factors.  First, the seventh day lacks the concluding evening-morning formula, thus suggesting that it is still ongoing….Since the seventh day consists of God taking His throne in the completed cosmic temple as the eternal King of Glory, and since that royal Sabbath rest is…unending, the seventh day must be unending as well."[44]  They continue: "…the seventh day is actually an eternal day (as Heb 4:4-10 clearly teaches), and yet as such, it provides the pattern for man's observation of a weekly Sabbath (Exo 20:11)."[45] 

          Duncan and Hall explain that "The Church has long understood that God's creation work was completed by the original Sabbath."[46]  In a rare moment of agreement with the 24-hour View, Ross and Archer note that "…interpreting Day 7 as eternal implies that God will never create again.  But this implication contradicts Revelation 21-22, 1 Corinthians 2:9, and 2 Corinthians 4:16-18….the seventh day must end, and a new creation era must begin."[47]

Historical Church Commentary

          Significant content was devoted to appeals to historical church commentaries for various viewpoints.  The 24-hour View opened with an extensive review of ecclesiastical commentary by Basil, Ambrose, Anselm, Clement of Alexandria, Lombard, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Ussher, Babington, Lightfoot, as well as Puritans, John Ley, William Gouge, and Daniel Featly, the Geneva Study Bible of 1562 and seventeenth century commentators including Turretin where the interpretation of 'normal' creation days was held.[48]  Day-Age and Framework viewpoints countered with interpretations variously held by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Augustine, Lactantius, Victorinus, and Methodius.[49] 

          Regarding the proper amount of influence given to historical interpretations,  Irons and Kline argue "…Duncan and Hall's thesis gives undue weight to ecclesiastical tradition…[engaging] in a type of exegesis driven by…Church tradition."[50]  Duncan and Hall counter, "The framework team senses but misstates our dominant thesis.  It is not that tradition determines the truth.  Rather, it is that there is a long practice of biblical interpretation, and those interpreters are more correct than the modern scientifically based tradition…."[51]  The Day-Age view holds this discussion to be largely irrelevant, noting, "Prior to 1650 exegetes gave little attention to the length of the creation days.  Of the approximately two thousand extant pages of creation-day commentary by early Church fathers, only a total of about two pages address the duration of the creation days."[52] 

The Meaning of the Word yôm

          The correct interpretation for the word yôm is a significant area of controversy. The 24-Hour view defended its namesake definition.  "When the Fourth Commandment enjoins God's people 'six days you shall labor and do all your work' (Exodus 20:9), it does not suggest that those days are anything other than 24-hour days."[53]  "The clear intent in [Exodus 31:17] is that God created in six days and desired to be understood for perpetuity as having done so."[54]  "Moreover, were we to take day in [Genesis] 1:14 in other than its literal sense, consistency also would require us to bracket as nonliteral the terms "seasons" and "years," which, in the context is nonsensical."[55]  Duncan and Hall preemptively argue, "To present a compelling case, advocates of long days will have to address two key hermeneutical questions...Where in Scripture is the affirmative statement to prove that the days of creation refer to anything other than normal days... and why didn't any interpreters discover long days...until after certain scientific revolutions?"[56]

  

          Ross and Archer rightly point out that unlike English, "…biblical Hebrew as no word other than yôm to denote a long timespan."[57]  In Genesis 2:4, "the word day refers to all six creation days (and the creation events prior to the first creative day).  Obviously, then, it refers to a period longer than 24 hours."[58]  Noting that since "…all Hebrew lexicons cite three different literal definitions for yôm…[Ross and Archer] can authoritatively state that there are three possible literal interpretations of the Genesis creation days: six daylight periods, six 24-hour periods, and six long timespans."[59]

          Irons and Kline take a different approach, interpreting 'day' analogically.  "The word yôm in Genesis 1 denotes an ordinary, lower-register solar day.  Yet it is being used to metaphorically describe an upper-register unit of time that is not defined by the earth's rotation with respect to the sun."[60]  "The complete seven-day framework is a metaphorical appropriation of lower-register language denoting an upper-register temporal reality.  With their evenings and mornings, the six days do not mark the passage of earthly time in the lower register, but of heavenly time in the upper register."[61]

Theological Issues

          Some arguments presented in defense of various viewpoints entailed significant theological implications.  The appearance of age in the universe, with the implications of a Young Earth position, as well as God's use of secondary processes during creation were all robustly debated topics.

Young Earth Implications

          Duncan and Hall attempted to distance themselves from the Young-Earth viewpoint,[62] however, Ross and Archer challenged them on the implications of a literal six-day creation week.  "Stars were created before Adam….[and they] rely upon the consistency of all four fundamental forces of physics (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force), the gas laws, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics.  Any change or discontinuity in any of these laws would destroy the possibility of their existence."[63]  "The universe by its sheer vastness testifies to a beginning much earlier than just a few or even several hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago.  That testimony comes from light, which takes a certain amount of time to travel a given distance."[64]

  

          Meanwhile, Irons and Kline maintained the Framework View is "not bound to any particular view of the age of the earth or universe."[65]  They noted that while the 24-Hour View "may not identify with everything that goes by the label 'young-earth creationism,' their position logically disallows an old earth/universe."[66]

Apparent Age of the Universe

          Another theological issue raised was whether the appearance of age in the universe is actual or supernatural.  Ross and Archer argue, "From the logician's standpoint, appearance of age represents a 'non-falsifiable proposition,' an assertion that cannot be proved or disproved…. We could have been created just a few hours ago with implanted scars, memories, progeny, photographs, material possessions, liver spots, and hardening of the arteries to make us appear, feel, and believe ourselves to be older than we really are."[67]  They continue, "The Big Bang, and consequently a cosmic creation date in the 12- to 15-billion year range, can no longer be written off as an 'opinion' or 'passing scientific trend.'"[68]   

          Duncan and Hall respond, and "…disagree that the Bible views things as Ross-Archer suggest: "A galaxy measured to be about 13 billion light years away must have existed about 13 billion years ago."  That is to put God in a box or to expect Him to march to our watches."[69]  However, Ross and Archer reply that God "…would not force cosmic clocks to run millions of times faster than 'real' time.  To do so would have been deceptive and, thus, out of character."[70]  Ross and Archer conclude that, "…if we accept the notion of apparent, but unreal age, we cannot be certain that our memories reflect actual past events."[71]

Creation Ex Nihilo versus Secondary Operations

          Irons and Kline raised the issue of modes of God's providential action during the creation, arguing that "…the 24-hour view cannot be correct since its literal, sequential interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3 repeatedly creates tension with the principle disclosed in Genesis 2:5-6."[72]  "Duncan and Hall are surveying the totality of biblical teaching to demonstrate, not that the days are 24-hours long, but that after the initial ex nihilo event, God's subsequent cosmos-forming acts were…instances of direct, instantaneous divine activity unmediated by secondary causes."[73]  Ross and Archer concur: "Duncan and Hall's interpretation of Genesis 1 permits only transcendent miracles.  We believe that the four different Hebrew verbs for God's creative activity in Genesis 1 (bara, asa, haya, and dasha) allow for God's exercise of both transcendent and manufacturing-type miracles."[74]  Duncan and Hall reply that "…to impose what we denominate as 'normalcy' on the text is to distort the text itself.  Frequently, those who approach the texts confuse the normal operation of providence after creation's completion with distinct acts of creation, which, because they are by nature miraculous, did not operate under normal providence."[75]

Conclusions

          While a number of smaller issues were also debated, including theological implications of sin, death, and extinction before Adam, the numbering system of the days of creation, and discussion of the triad structure of the creation days, they did not seem to advance the debate toward any one viewpoint.  The arc of the debate across all three viewpoints focused on whether the record of nature, seen through the lens of science, could ever be harmonized with a literal, historical exegesis of Scripture, and whether these creation narrative passages could rightly be interpreted figuratively and analogically.  At the conclusion of the book, the debate appeared to remain unresolved.

---

[1] David G. Hagopian, ed., The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, Inc., 2001), p. 18

[2] J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall, "The 24-Hour View," The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. David G. Hagopian, (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, Inc., 2001), p. 16

[3] Duncan & Hall, pp. 23, 31

[4] Duncan & Hall, pp. 26-28, 31

[5] Duncan & Hall, p. 22

[6] Duncan & Hall, "The 24-Hour View," p. 22

[7] Hugh Ross and Gleason Archer, "The Day-Age View," The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. David G. Hagopian, (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, Inc., 2001), p. 144

[8] Ross & Archer, p. 135

[9] Ross & Archer, p. 77

[10] Hagopian, p. 16

[11] Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline, "The Framework View," The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, ed. David G. Hagopian, (Mission Viejo, CA: Crux Press, Inc., 2001), p. 217

[12] Irons & Kline, "The Framework View,"  p. 248

[13] Irons & Kline,  p. 184

[14] Irons & Kline, p. 220

[15] Duncan & Hall, "The 24-Hour View," p. 21

[16] Ross & Archer, "The Day-Age View," p. 156

[17] Duncan & Hall, p. 134

[18] Duncan & Hall, p. 30

[19] Duncan & Hall, "The 24-Hour View," p. 105

[20] Duncan & Hall, p. 30

[21] Ross & Archer, "The Day-Age View," p. 139

[22] Ross & Archer, p. 73

[23] Ross & Archer, p. 192

[24] Ross & Archer, p. 139

[25] Ross & Archer, p. 143

[26] Irons & Kline, "The Framework View," p. 183

[27] Duncan & Hall, "The 24-Hour View," p. 58

[28] Irons & Kline, "The Framework View," p. 89

[29] Irons & Kline, pp. 219-220

[30] Irons & Kline, p. 86

[31] Duncan & Hall, p. 52

[32] Duncan & Hall, "The 24-Hour View," p. 185

[33] Duncan & Hall, p. 32

[34] Ross & Archer, "The Day-Age View," p. 74

[35] Irons & Kline, "The Framework View," p. 233

[36] Irons & Kline, p. 282

[37] Ross & Archer, p. 144

[38] Ross & Archer, p. 145

[39] Duncan & Hall, p. 53

[40] Irons & Kline, "The Framework View," p. 234

[41] Ross & Archer, "The Day-Age View," p. 75

[42] Ross & Archer, p. 145

[43] Duncan & Hall, "The 24-Hour View," p. 35

[44] Irons & Kline, p. 87

[45] Irons & Kline, p. 250

[46] Duncan & Hall, "The 24-Hour View," p. 171

[47] Ross & Archer, "The Day-Age View," p. 193

[48] Duncan & Hall, pp. 48-52, 99-104

[49] Ross & Archer, pp. 68-69

[50] Irons & Kline, "The Framework View," p. 90

[51] Duncan & Hall, "The 24-Hour View," p. 110

[52] Ross & Archer, "The Day-Age View," p. 203

[53] Duncan & Hall, p. 37

[54] Duncan & Hall, p. 38

[55] Duncan & Hall, p. 54

[56] Duncan & Hall, p. 46

[57] Ross & Archer, "The Day-Age View," p. 125

[58] Ross & Archer, p. 147

[59] Ross & Archer, p. 200

[60] Irons & Kline, "The Framework View," p. 251

[61] Irons & Kline, p. 248

[62] Duncan & Hall, "The 24-Hour View," p. 167 

[63] Ross & Archer, "The Day-Age View," p. 71

[64] Ross & Archer, p. 128

[65] Irons & Kline, "The Framework View," p. 217

[66] Irons & Kline, p. 292

[67] Ross & Archer, "The Day-Age View," p. 130

[68] Ross & Archer, p. 76

[69] Duncan & Hall, "The 24-Hour View," p. 173

[70] Ross & Archer, p. 201      

[71] Ross & Archer, p. 203

[72] Irons & Kline, "The Framework View," pp. 233-234

[73] Irons & Kline, "The Framework View," p. 88

[74] Ross & Archer, "The Day-Age View," p. 202

[75] Duncan & Hall, "The 24-Hour View," p. 53