“The Bible says it! I believe it! That settles it!” So reads the evangelical bumper sticker which most all of us have seen on the back of some cars while sitting in traffic. Sure, if the Bible says it, we are to believe it; evangelicals agree on that. But what is it that the Bible says? This is a question of Biblical hermeneutics and is a subject that evangelicals often do not agree on. A prime example of this hermeneutical disagreement is the account of the days of creation as recorded by Moses in the first chapter of Genesis.

The issue of what the creation account actually says seems to be a pivotal issue indeed. The first chapter of Genesis tends to raise questions in the minds of many evangelicals as to the length of the days of creation, the order of the days of creation, and the time before the days. The results of such debates often affect the church in positive and negative ways. We as evangelicals must learn to harness the benefits while eliminating the harm.

The issue surrounding the creation account of Moses has bothered evangelicals for some time. Many evangelicals believe that an old earth threatens Biblical authority and implies naturalistic evolution. Evangelicals need not fear a loss of Biblical authority, however; for the God who created the world is the same God who wrote the Bible. Having the same Author, nature and Scripture are not able to contradict each other (Ross, 12). Any conflict between science and theology must be attributed to human misunderstanding, not divine error. As far as evolution goes, Dr. Jack Collins, seminary professor, states that “the Darwinian theory of evolution is not credible, regardless of the age of the earth” (Collins, 111). Dr. Hugh Ross, astrophysicist, concurs with Collins by saying that even if the days of Genesis are hundreds of billions of years old, “these time frames would be too brief by countless orders of magnitude for simple life to arise and become complex by natural processes” (Ross, 80).

There are, however, two crucial issues at stake surrounding the creation account. The first is the issue of Biblical hermeneutics. That is, how are we to properly interpret various portions of the Bible? The second is the issue of the validity of science. In other words, is science trustworthy? (Collins, 112) Though both issues are important, the issue to be focused on at this time is that of Biblical hermeneutics.

Perhaps the most commonly asked hermeneutical question concerning the days of Genesis is “How long are the Genesis days?” There are various views among evangelicals concerning this issue. Among these are the views of the young-earth creationists, the day-age creationists and the anthropomorphic creationists.

Young-earth creationists hold to the view that God created the universe in six literal twenty-four hour days. Their prime argument for such an interpretation is the claim that this interpretation alone does justice to the “plain, normal sense of the passage” (Waltke, 44). Appealing to some of these “face value” evidences, Jordan claims that in this first chapter of Genesis, the word day means “light-time”; that is, a day in Genesis is the period of time in which light is visible. To support his claim, he appeals to Genesis 1:5 which says, “And God called the light day.” According to this verse, it seems that day indeed means “the visibility of light.” To add to his argument, Jordan points out that these days in Genesis are begun by mornings and ended by evenings, implying literal days (Jordan, 2).

Jordan goes on supporting the young-earth interpretation of twenty-four hour days by saying that God commands us to rest on the seventh day of the week, just as he did on the seventh day of creation (Jordan, 2). Of course, Jordan is referring to Exodus 20:8-11 which states the following: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work... for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth... and rested on the seventh day.” According to Jordan, since God was setting an example for us to follow by His resting on the seventh day of creation, the seventh day of the week on which we are to rest must be essentially the same kind of day, that is, the same length.

A weakness in this argument is the assumption that God requiring us to follow his example necessarily implies that a day of creation is the same length as a day of the week, which is itself the very issue at hand. According to Perry G. Phillips, “it appears as though God’s rest on the seventh day is used as a basis for three Sabbath principles: rest on the seventh day..., the seventh year..., and the jubilee year [after forty-nine years]” (Phillips, 11). Opponents of the young-earth view readily point to this fact and claim that since the seventh day of creation is the basis for various Sabbaths of different lengths, it cannot be maintained that the length of the seventh day of creation is determined by the length of one of those Sabbaths.

Another weakness in the young-earth view is their treatment of the words evening and morning. Acknowledging that words often have a variety of meanings and must be interpreted within their given contexts, they attempt to lock down the meaning of the word day by claiming that it is defined by these evenings and mornings. They fail, however, in taking into consideration what is meant by the words morning and evening themselves. The word day can be shown to be literal only if the words morning and evening are meant literally as well. In addressing this issue, Phillips points to Psalm 90:5-6, one of many examples where the words morning and evening are clearly non-literal. This passage refers to men who are “like the new grass of the morning--though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered.” This Psalm is plainly a genre of a figurative nature, as is most poetry, and intends for the words morning and evening to be taken as “the period of growth” and “the period of death” (Phillips, 3). Therefore, since the words morning and evening are often used figuratively, it cannot be assumed that just because they define the word day that the word day is therefore to be taken literally.

A second view concerning the length of the days of creation is that of the day-age creationists. According to this view, the word day used in the creation account is strictly symbolic for “age.” Day-age creationists hold this view in order to harmonize the Bible with science. To support their view, they appeal to the wide range of lexical meanings for the Hebrew word for day. They point out that this Hebrew word can indeed have meanings other than “a twenty-four hour period.” An example of this kind of usage is Genesis 2:4, where the phrase “in the day” refers to the entire creation event as recorded in the first chapter of Genesis (Waltke, 44).

After considering the range of lexical meanings for the word day, day-age creationists then claim that there is far too much activity during the sixth day of creation to be squeezed into a twenty-four hour period (Collins, 119). This piece of evidence has to do with the cultural context of the creation event itself. The occurrences on the sixth day begin with God planting a garden in Eden and causing “all kinds of trees to grow out of the ground.” It is observed that the trees were made to grow, which clearly takes a large amount of time. Then, after receiving command from God, Adam worked at caring for the garden God had made. It is claimed that though this garden clearly needed care over the long haul, it could have sustained itself for just one day. Then Adam proceeded to name all the animals God had created. Again, it is claimed that this was not something Adam could have done quickly. For just as Adam called his wife “woman” because she was taken out of man, so he named the animals after taking the time to observed each of their unique characteristics. Finally, after God had performed surgery on Adam, forming Eve from one of his ribs, Adam saw his wife and exclaimed “at last,” as if to say, “I’ve been waiting all this time” (Ross, 51). To the day-age creationist, all of these sixth-day occurrences spell out a time period much longer than twenty-four hours.

The first objection that is commonly raised to the view of the day-age creationist is that it goes against the plain sense of the passage, which is to take the days literally. To raise such an objection, however, is really to beg the question. For the very issue itself is what is meant by the word day.

One more legitimate objection to this view, however, is the implication it makes concerning death. If these days are really long ages, and if the animal fossils are from the time before man was created (as day-age creationists affirm), then this directly implies that there was death before sin. This seems to clearly contradict Romans 5:12 which states: “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.” Ross, however, gives a possible solution as he points out that the universe of discourse is “all men,” not the animals (Ross, 61).

Another objection that is sometimes raised over the day-age view is the claim that the day-age creationists interpret the creation account as they do only because of what the scientific community says, not because of sound exegetical principles. This objection arises from the misconception that before the scientific revolution, the traditional view of the first chapter of Genesis was that of the young-earth creationists. This misconception is put to rest, however, when it is made clear that many notable people from the first four centuries (long before the scientific revolution) objected to the young-earth view. Among these are Philo, Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine. As an example, Augustine, who wrote more on the days of Genesis than any other early church leader, wrote: “As for these ‘days,’ it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think--let alone explain in words--what they mean” (Ross, 20).

Another view concerning the length of the days of creation is the anthropomorphic view. According to this view, the account of creation is divine activity (which we cannot understand) recorded in human terms (which we can understand). In other words, the creation account is not to be taken at face value, for how can man understand the workings of God? Collins asks the question: what does it mean for God, who is above time, to act in time? (Collins, 120) Collins is claiming, along with the rest of anthropomorphic creationists, that the length of the days of creation is not the issue; indeed, the length of these days is really absent from the text, as it is in the rest of Scripture as well (Collins, 116).

In support of this view, there are various anthropomorphisms which even the young-earth creationists acknowledge (Jordan, 4). Among these various anthropomorphisms are the phrases “God said” and “God called.” Young acknowledges that “God did not speak with physical organs of speech not did he utter words in the Hebrew language” (Waltke, 45). So the anthropomorphic creationist reasons that if there are indeed anthropomorphisms in the text, it shouldn’t be implausible to consider the days of Genesis as anthropomorphisms as well (Roehrs, 321).

Another major piece of evidence that the anthropomorphic creationists turn to is the very purpose for which the Genesis creation account was written. Taking notice of the cultural context of the time, the anthropomorphic creationists claim that the creation account was not written to give a scientific dissertation examining the manner in which the world came into being. (Waltke, 3) On the contrary, as 2 Timothy 3:15 states, the very purpose of Scripture itself is to “instruct [us] for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (Roehrs, 302). The goal of the Bible is spiritual salvation, not scientific explanation. With this in mind, the anthropomorphic creationists claim that the creation account was written primarily with a salvation purpose in mind. At the time Moses wrote this creation account, the Israelites had just been delivered from Egypt and were threatened by the paganism and pantheism that surrounded them in the world. So, in order to safeguard them from such influences, Moses wrote the account of creation. Conrad Hyer explains this writing as follows:

Each day of creation takes on two principal categories of divinity in the pantheons of the day, and declares that these are not gods at all, but creatures--creations of the one true God.... Each day dismisses an additional cluster of deities, arranged in a cosmological and symmetrical order. (Waltke, 3)

In light of this apparent lack of concern for scientific accuracy, the anthropomorphic creationists claim that we should not attempt to make judgements of nature based on this passage. This includes the length of the days of creation.

The next hermeneutical question that evangelicals often ask concerning the days of Genesis is “In what order are the Genesis days?” As with the question of how long the days are, there are various evangelical views concerning this question as well. Among these are the Framework Theory and the views represented by Dr. Hugh Ross.

According to Ross, the creation account is scientifically accurate, but the order of the days is too often misinterpreted because of a misplaced vantage point. Ross claims that many make the mistake of placing the point of view of the creation account in the heavens, while the Bible itself puts it on the surface of the earth (Ross, 144). To support his view, Ross appeals to verse two: “Darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” In light of this environmental context of the creation event, Ross claims that “this simple statement suggests that the reader interpret the events of creation from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the earth” (Ross, 149). Ross then claims that we must understand that the initial conditions of the earth were unfit for life (“formless and void”), a condition which included an opaque atmosphere and interplanetary debris (Ross, 144). Holding to the anthropomorphic view of the days, Ross claims that the order of the days understood from this proper Biblical understanding are perfectly consistent with the facts of science (Ross, 151).

By misplacing the vantage point in the heavens, Ross argues, we are forced to conclude that plant life was created before the sun, which is a scientific impossibility (Ross, 149). By having the vantage point correctly placed on the surface, however, the reader sees that plant life was created (the third day) after the light from the sun broke through the transformed atmosphere and the cleared interplanetary debris (the first day). Then, after the atmosphere had continued to be transformed and the interplanetary debris continued to dissipate, the sun, moon and stars themselves (not just the light from them) became visible and distinguishable on the forth day (Ross, 149). So Ross claims that if one remembers that the proper vantage point of the creation event is on the surface and the initial conditions of the earth are formless and void, then the order of the days of Genesis becomes evident. Though this view seems to reconcile nature and the Bible, the problem that many raise is that the Bible says that on the forth day, “God made the sun,” not “God made the sun visible.”

Another view concerning the order of the days of Genesis is known as the Framework Theory. Being nonconcordists, supporters of the Framework Theory claim that the word “day” is not used as an indicator of time, but as a framework to categorically order the creative acts of God (Young, 45). Roehrs observes that in the creation account, “a rhythmic balance is patent in the overall symmetrical arrangement of its parts.” In support of such an artistic genre, he goes on to point out that “the recurring and therefore symbolic use of the number three is regarded as significant: three times names are given... three blessings... three kinds of plants... three kinds of animals... three times the Hebrew word bara (which is set apart to mean divine creation) is used in the creation of man” (Roehrs, 319). Likewise, Noordtzij states that in the text there are “two trios which exhibit a pronounced parallelism, all of which has the purpose of bringing to the fore the preeminent glory of man” (Young, 46). The first of these trios is the first three days, in which the unformed earth is formed. The second of these trios is the last three days, in which the unfilled earth is filled. So no longer is the earth “formless and unfilled,” but it is now “formed and filled” (Waltke, 4). In light of such an artistic genre, it is claimed that theological instruction, not scientific accuracy, must have been the goal. As a result, the order of these days of Genesis is topical, not chronological.

The final hermeneutical question in consideration which evangelicals often disagree over is “What, if anything, happened before the first day of Genesis?” This issue deals specifically with Genesis 1:1-3. Again, there are various views on this topic in the evangelical community.

According to one view, the situations described in verse two belong to the same time period as verse one (Waltke, 42). Waltke affirms that this view indeed has the support of Hebrew grammar in its favor. However, Skinner claims that the Hebrew phrase for heaven and earth “is a Hebrew designation of the universe as a whole... the organized universe, not the chaotic material out of which it was formed” (Waltke, 43). Since this universe was organized from the beginning, it could not be chaotic as in verse two, claims Skinner. Thus, according to Waltke, verse one and verse two could not be contemporaneous.

Another well known view concerning the relationship of these first few verses is called the Gap Theory. According to this view, there was a massive amount of time which transpired between verse one and verse two. The theory is that God first created the world millions of years ago and destroyed it due to the rebellion of the spiritual beings of that time. Then God created again about six thousand years ago. This view harmonizes the Bible with modern science by claiming that most fossils are the remains of that first creation. In support of their view, re-creationists (as they are called) point to the fact that the word was in verse two can be translated became. Thus, the proper interpretation would not be “and the earth was formless and void,” but rather “and the earth became formless and void” (Waltke, 43). This interpretation would clearly indicate that the time of verse two was after the time of verse one. One clear weakness in this argument is that, although it harmonizes the Scripture with modern science, there seems to be little to no exegetical support for the necessity of such an interpretation.

A third way to understand the first few verses of Genesis one is to see verse one as a dependent clause (Waltke, 43). In keeping with this view, the New English Bible translates Genesis 1:1-2 as follows: “In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was without form and void.” This interpretation is consistent with the transformationalist view, implying the existence of time and matter before Genesis. As with the previous view, there is no exegetical evidence for or against this view, as the Hebrew grammar allows such an interpretation but does not demand it (Waltke, 43).

A forth way of understanding the setup of the first few verses of Genesis is to see verse one as a summary statement of the creation account which matches the concluding statement in Genesis 2:1 (Waltke, 43). According to this view, the creation account would begin by saying, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and would summarize by saying, “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed.” Waltke seems to think that this is the most probable interpretation.

In light of the great debate over this issue of the days of Genesis, what application is there for the church today? First of all, while acknowledging our differences of interpretation, we should agree to remain unified in our stand on the authority of the Word of God and the truthfulness of God’s creation. In addition, when we see what appears to be a discrepancy between the Bible and nature, we must recognize that the problem is with our interpretation of one or the other. Finally, we must at all times remain full of grace and truth, for such is the example of our Lord.

Collins, C. John. “How Old Is the Earth? Anthropomorphic Days in Genesis 1:1-2:3.” Presbyterion. 1994; 109-130.

Jordan, James P. A Chronological and Calendrical Commentary on the Pentateuch. Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1995; 2-6.

Kepler, Johannes. Astronomia Nova (1609). Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1983; 318-322.

Phillips, Perry G. Are the Days of Genesis Longer than 24 Hours? The Bible Says “Yes!”. Hatfield, PA: IBRI, 1991.

Roehrs, Walter R. “The Creation Account of Genesis: Guidelines for an Interpretation.” Concordia Theological Monthly. May 1965; 301-321.

Ross, Hugh. Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994.

Waldron, Samuel E. A Critique of Howard J. Van Till’s The Fourth Day. Grand Rapids: Truths for Eternity Ministries, 1988.

Waltke, Bruce. “The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One.” Crux. Dec. 1991; 2-10.

Waltke, Bruce. “The First Seven Days: What is the Creation Account Trying to Tell Us?” Christianity Today. 12 Aug. 1988; 42-46.

Young, Edward J. Studies in Genesis One. Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964; 43-76.

people have visited this page.