Six Days?

THEOLOGY THURSDAY: What time is it about?

Welcome back to Theology Thursday!

This one takes a different shape, with a two-fold goal: to give you a (not-so) bite-sized lesson in Orthodox Biblical doctrine and to promote unity in the gospel amid secondary disagreements.

---

Concept: The “Days” of Genesis 1

Genesis 1 is essentially about three things: God, space, and time. Or to add a fourth, it’s about how God acts in space and time.¹ The question we wrestle with is “What kind of time is it about?” Thankfully, Christianity wasn’t invented last Tuesday, so we’re not the first to think through this matter. In fact, it’s been answered by godly, orthodox Christians in slightly different ways throughout the centuries. Here are 7 (or 8) different orthodox views:

View #1: Instantaneous Time

This view teaches that God created the universe (as the name suggests) in an instant. The universe came into being all at once. The days of Genesis 1, then, are simply God’s method of revealing His creative work to us so we can understand it.

Most popular proponent: St. Augustine

View #2: Revelation Time

This view does not see the days as 24-hour, ordinary days, but merely what God said about what He made, so that the six days are merely the time God took to tell His creatures about creation. In other words, God made all things in a moment, but took six days to tell us.

Most popular proponent: PJ Wiseman

View #3: Indefinite Time (Day-age Theory)

This view teaches that the “days” of creation are not to be interpreted literally, but are figurative expressions of indefinite periods of time. Each “day” equals an age of potentially millions of years.

Most popular proponents: Ireneous; Basil; Origen; Thomas Aquinas; Timothy Keller; Sir William Dawson.

View #4: Gapped Time (Gap Theory or Theories)

This view holds that Genesis 1:2 indicates a gap of millions of years between the beginning of creation (Genesis 1:1) and the first day of creation (Genesis 1:3). After Genesis 1:1, Satan fell and was judged, causing a formless and void world, necessitating God to continue his work of cultivation and creation. Another variation of this view is that there are multiple time gaps in between the days as creation progressed. This is sometimes called “Intermittent time.” (That last line could point to a distinct view from the rest, but I lumped it with the gap theory due to the similarities)

Most popular proponents: Thomas Chalmers; C.I. Scofield; John C. Lennox

View #5: Framework Time (Framework Theory)

This interpretation sees the days of creation as arranged in a topical fashion rather than a chronological one. They are not six literal days that move successively, but Moses, in this view, intended to arrange certain creation days to correspond to other creation days.

Day 1 = Day 4 (Light—>Sun & Moon) Day 2 = Day 5 (Skies & Waters—>filling the sky with birds and sea with fish), etc. If there is any chronology in this view, it emphasizes six topically arranged days followed by one climactic day—the Sabbath.

Most popular proponent: Meredith Kline

View #6: Analogous Time

This interpretation sees the days of Creation as “days” from God’s perspective or “God-days.” God doesn’t have “days” like He doesn’t have an “arm,” etc., since He is immaterial and eternal, not bound by time. Thus, these are not ordinary, literal days, but God simply communicates the creation days to us analogically or in human terms so that we might understand them. The “days” in this view are anthropomorphisms (Attributing human attributes to God so that we would understand his works in the world).

Most popular proponent: W.T. Shed; Jack Collins

View #7: Literal Time (The traditional view)

This interpretation sees the “Days” of Genesis 1 as referring to ordinary, literal 24-hour days. This is the view I hold. Here are a few reasons.

First, I believe the Hebrew prose of Genesis 1 is historical prose. Hebrew Scholar, Jonathan Gibson, points out that, while this is likely “highly stylized Hebrew prose,” there are 55 wayyiqtol verbs (simple past tense verbs, e.g. “And God said…”) that appear continuously from Genesis 1:1-2:3 with no break that takes us off the mainline. This is a key feature of literal historical accounts. Therefore, we have a chronology of six consecutive days (day 1, followed by day 2, etc.) with no break in the narrative, leaving us with no possibility to insert gaps or dechronologize them. As Gibson points out, readers have virtually never dechronologized consecutive days with continuous wayyiqtol verbs since the beginning of the world, so let’s not attempt to do that now with Genesis 1. To do so would be a disservice to the text.

Second, the word “yom,” translated “day” in Genesis 1, is used elsewhere in historical narratives as referring to a literal 24-hour day, so it would be reasonable to conclude that yom in Genesis 1 refers to the same.

Third, later revelation clarifies that Genesis 1:1-2:3 speaks of the absolute beginning of history. The phrase “In the beginning” refers to the absolute beginning of creation and humanity. Jesus and the apostles speak of created things and place them at the “beginning”—Creation of the world (Matthew 24:21; 2 Peter 3:4), male and female in marriage (Matthew 19:4), the work of the devil (the serpent) as a liar and murderer (John 8:4).

In many a debate, there is a ditch on both sides: treating the Bible as a manual that speaks authoritatively on all things science.

While it’s right to see that science and Scripture are in total harmony, what if trying to get a scientific record from Genesis 1 is not the point? What if Genesis 1 is not the science manual God gave us to take down Darwinian Evolution and determine the exact age of the earth? These issues have been placed front and center in our modern minds, giving rise to a loss of the beauty Moses intended to communicate.

The Bible is not a science manual, so we ought not treat it like one. While it speaks accurately and inerrantly whenever it touches those subjects, the doctrine of the Bible’s sufficiency teaches us that the Bible is only sufficient for that for which it was given. That is, to reveal to us who God is and His work of redemption.

I hope to demonstrate this in my next post. I’ll continue my study on creation, and point out the intent of Moses when he wrote, and how later revelation clarifies the intent of the Divine Author when He inspired Genesis 1.

---

1. Jonathan Gibson, “It’s About Time: The Days of Genesis 1” Lecture at Redeemer OPC