I accidentally started a mini war of sorts last night while chatting in #prosapologian. Someone posted an article (I didn’t copy the URL) and asked if the author was a little harsh, even though he was writing about those who did not hold to a literal six day creation. I pointed out that I do not hold to a literal six day creation. And thus the war began. (Of course I should note there were only three participants in this “war” so it’s not like it was the end of the world or anything.) ;-)
In any case, I figured now would be a good time (while I have a minute) to just quickly sketch out why I don’t hold to a literal six day creationist view. The first thing I would point out is this: When interpreting Scripture, we must be careful not to eisegete a passage. That is, we cannot read a meaning from the outside into the text.
Now YEC (Young Earth Creationists) often accuse people such as myself (I am agnostic and apathetic toward the age of the Earth) of eisegesis. That is, we’re reading Darwin’s time-table into Genesis. But I would simply level this counter-charge: it is the YEC who is eisegeting the text by reading anti-Darwinism into the text.
The fact is, Genesis doesn’t concern itself with Darwinism. Whether you hold to literal days or not, Genesis will never teach Darwinism. Unfortunately, YECs seem to think that if they give up a strict, literal interpretation of Genesis 1 then Creationism as whole tumbles into the dreaded realm of theistic evolution.
But if we take a step back and examine Genesis 1 as it actually is written, we see that the text itself does not demand a literal 24-hour day interpretation. Perhaps this is most easily demonstrated by simply quoting a few Church fathers who happened to write before Darwin, and thus did not have an evolutionary bone to pick.
For instance, we read Cyprian of Carthage (~250 AD) say: “As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years…” (see source (search for “seven thousand” and you’ll get right to the quote).
Clement of Alexandria (~208 AD) wrote:
That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: “This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth.” For the expression “when they were created” intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression “in the day that God made,” that is, in and by which God made “all things,” and “without which not even one thing was made,” points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, “This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; ” that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day.
(See source.)
And finally, Augustine also wrote: “For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (See source.)
Now these were not the only views held at the time, of course. But we do see that a non-literal “day” was held by many people long before Darwin came along. My argument would be that more people would hold to the non-literal day today if it had not been for Darwin. With the advent of Darwinism, however, people feel that they have to accept the literal view in order to be a Christian. As a result, we have a huge conflict over a point of theology that is utterly unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
So let us look quickly at the structure of Genesis 1. First I would note that Genesis 1 is the only place in Scripture that gives us any time indications for the Creation. The rest of Scripture is content merely to state that God has created all things. Thus, we have no other passages to fall back on to support the interpretation either way in Genesis 1 (unlike, for instance, the numerous verses in several books that refer to Christ’s deity). This quickly becomes important as we look at the structure.
The six days of creation are divided into a parallelism. That is, we have the following things created:
Day 1: Light
Day 2: The Sky separates from water
Day 3: Land separates from water
Day 4: The sun, moon, & stars
Day 5: Fish and birds
Day 6: Land animals and man
Now the parallels are clearly seen. Day 1 –> Day 4 (Light –> sun); Day 2 –> Day 5 (Sky separates from water –> air and sea creatures); Day 3 –> Day 6 (Land is created –> Land dwellars).
This structure of parallelisms matches Hebrew poetic expressions, which are themselves highly figurative. Add into the mix Genesis 2, which has a “different” Creation account, and the structure of Genesis 1 now necessitates a figurative view. This is especially pertinent when we realize that each of those days listed above have an “evening” and a “morning”; yet the seventh day, when God rests, never ends. There is no morning or evening cycle there.
Naturally, the use of the term “evening” and “morning” bear some explaining too. The first thing I would note is that these terms are obviously not the same as we hold to them today since the sun was not created until Day 4. Now one person argued in the channel that we could still be refering to a revolution of the Earth in view. I, however, do not find this convincing. In such a case, the Light that God created would need to function exactly like the sun does (in which case one must wonder why God then created the sun when He already had in place something that worked exactly as the sun would later work). In other words, the light would need to be located (from the Earth’s perspective) where the sun is now while the Earth spun as it does now. To me, this renders the creation of the sun superfluous.
So I don’t see how it can be a literal “morning” and “evening” either.
And as to the usage of the word “day”, we of course see in Genesis 2:4 (just the verse after the end of the seven day creation period), “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” To highlight some words, note the word “generations” and the fact that all these days take place “in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” Thus, if we take “day” literally (as 24 hours) in Genesis 1, we cannot take it literally here (for now the day must be at least six days long!). If we take it literally here, we cannot take it literally in Genesis 1. I, personally, do not take either term literally.
What, then, of the 10 commandments. After all, when we are commanded to honor the Sabbath it is stated: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Exodus 20:11).
Before I respond to that, let us first look at why God instituted the Sabbath in the first place. That is found in Hebrews 4:4-10, where we read:
For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said, ”They shall not enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, ”Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
(Note that our heavenly stay is also called a “day.”)
Here, the author of Hebrews links the Sabbath to the rest the believers receive upon entering Heaven. That is, the reason that God rested on the Sabbath was to indicate to us what it would be like after we finish our work on Earth and enter into rest ourselves. God, in other words, set up Creation as a typology. He rested the “seventh day” in order that we will have something to look forward to, based on His pattern for us.
Now let us look back to the commandment. We are to rest on the Sabbath because God rested on the seventh day. We rest every seventh day as a prelude to our future rest in heaven. Our seventh day’s rest is but a mere shadow of what we will receive in the future. It is a copy. It is not an actual yet.
It is based off of the fact that God rested on the seventh day. Is this contradictory with my position of an indefinite day? Not at all. Let us assume that each day represents a billion years (just to go ultra extreme). People do not live that long on earth. Therefore, in order for us to actually have a typology, God would need to shorten the actual length of time creation took in order that we could have a pattern we could physically follow. Therefore, if God uses indefinite days as the Creation pattern by which the Sabbath command would be grounded, thus pointing toward our future rest in Him, there is no contradiction.
Now one person in the channel did argue that typologies are always based on literal things. This, however, does not follow, and I shall give just one example of it (as my lunch break is about to end) from the same book of Hebrews, and that is Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:3 states of Melchizedek: “He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.” Now we know that if Melchizedek resembles the Son of God, he is not himself the Son of God. Further, we know that if he is not the Son of God then he must have had a father or mother and a genealogy. However, this genelogy is not recorded in Scripture. Instead, Melchizedek pops up “out of nowhere” and Abraham gave a tithe to him! Melchizedek was a type of Christ; he was a shadow and a foretaste of the One who would come. He was not Christ himself, but he represented him.
Thus, despite the fact that he does literally have a father and mother, he does not in the typological sense. And therefore, we have a typology that is based on the record of Scripture rather than on a literal being.
