via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 21 No. 1, March 1995

Point

by Shane Scott

The Bible teaches that God created the universe from nothing. Contrary to naturalistic evolution, it teaches that different kinds of animals were created distinctly. Contrary to theistic evolution, it teaches that man was created separately from all animals and made in God’s image.

But over what kind of time frame did God create our universe? Some Bible believers insist that the world, according to Genesis 1, was created in six twenty-four-hour days. I believe, however, that the days of Genesis 1 should not be interpreted literally.

The Days Cannot Be Literal

The “days” of creation in Genesis 1 cannot be literal because of the parallel account of creation in Genesis 2. After God put man in the Garden, He paraded the animals before Adam, who “gave names to all the cattle, birds, and to every beast of the field” (Genesis 2:20). Adam, however, had no helper, and God created Eve for him. Some amount of time must have passed between Adam’s creation, the naming of the animals, and Eve’s creation. But if the days of Genesis 1 are interpreted literally, all of these events must have occurred in one 24-hour day, because on the sixth day "God created man... male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). Because of all that occurred on the sixth day as described in Genesis 2, the sixth day of Genesis 1 cannot be literal.

The Days Must Be Ages

To prove that the days are ages, consider the seventh day. All the other days of creation ended with, “and there was evening and there was morning, the_____day.” I understand this to mean that each of those days had a distinct conclusion. However, there is no such statement for the seventh day, which must mean that it has not ended. In other words, on the seventh day God ceased creating new life forms, and that day has continued until now because He still “rests” from creating new life.

This view is supported by two New Testament texts. Hebrews 4:1-9 teaches that God’s sabbath rest remains for us to enter. And in John 5:16-18, Jesus justified healing on the Sabbath because “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” Jesus’ point is that He can still do some things even though He is observing the Sabbath, because God the Father can still work (through providence) even though He is still observing His Sabbath (rest from creating new life).

The seventh day of the creation week in Genesis began at the creation of Adam and Eve, and has continued ever since. Thus, this seventh day is an age of thousands of years, and therefore justifies interpreting the other days as ages.

Anticipating Objections

Doesn't “day” always refer to a 24-hour day?

Normally, yom refers to a literal day, but in the context of creation, yom is used in three different ways: day as opposed to night (Genesis 1:16), 24-hour days (Genesis 1:14), and the entire period of creation (Genesis 2:4).

What about the Sabbath command in Exodus 20?

Exodus 20:9-11 does base the Sabbath command on the creation week, and clearly that command was applied to literal days of the week. However, the emphasis of the Sabbath is not on 24-hour days, but on the number seven. After all, the Sabbath principle applied to years (Leviticus 25:4-5). and the jubilee, every seventh sabbath year (Leviticus 25:8-55). In Exodus 20, the seventh day of our week is paralleled to the seventh day of God’s creation week, which we proved earlier is an age of many years.

If the days are ages, how could the universe have existed for three prior ages before the sun was created on the fourth age?

Actually, the sun was already in existence after the first day, because the phrase “God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) refers to the entire universe. What happened on the fourth day was that the sun, moon, and stars became visible to the earth's surface for the purpose explicitly given in Genesis 1:14—“to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.”

Doesn't this interpretation open the door for evolution?

In my opinion, the older the Earth is assumed to be, the more glaring the problems with evolution become. To illustrate, one of the problems with evolution is that there are no transitional fossils that prove that one kind of animal became another. Let’s grant that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In 4.5 billion years, not a single fossil has been found, which supports the transitional forms we should expect to find if evolution were true. In reality, even if our universe is 15 billion years old, as astronomers suggest, that still is not enough time for the random formation of the chemicals needed for human life.

The days of Genesis 1 may be interpreted literally, but that is not the best biblical interpretation. Further, we must refrain from assigning specific dates to creation (such as 6,000 years) when the Bible does not demand such. The length of time God chose to create the world is immaterial, since He is eternal. As Moses wrote in Psalm 90:4, “For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by."

Counterpoint

by Greg Gwin

Shane’s argument is based upon two premises:

1. Everything reported to have happened on day six of the creation week could not have happened in a 24-hour period; and
2. The seventh day of the creation week continues to this day. It is a long “age” and therefore the other days must also be long ages.

I disagree with both premises.

First, it is a mistake to assume that Adam named every living thing. Genesis 2:19 says, “God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” Keil and Delitzsch say that this likely referred to “beasts living in the field“ (game, tame cattle, and the fowls of the air) that “stood in a closer relation to him than water animals or reptiles. God brought the animals to Adam to show him the creatures formed to serve him ... The naming of the animals, therefore, led to this result, that there was not found a help meet for man." (Vol. 1,67,68)

It seems clear that the animals were brought before Adam so that he might see that none was a proper helper for him. He needed a special creation—a woman—to fill this role. But the amount of time involved in this process need not be lengthy. There is no reason to assume that it could not have taken place within 24 hours. I disagree completely when Shane says, “Because of all the things that occurred on the sixth day... the sixth day of Genesis 1 cannot be literal.” He has not proved that these activities would require a long time to complete.

Shane is also wrong about the seventh day. Genesis 1:26-31 shows that man was created before the end of the sixth day. But, if Adam lived for at least part of day six and into the seventh day, and if these days were actually long ages, how long did he live? If Shane’s view is correct, we are forced to conclude that Adam lived an indeterminate length of time. But, we know that he lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5). While this is a long time, it hardly fits the long ages desired by the "day/age" advocates.

Shane argues that the seventh day continues to the present day. His appeal to two New Testament texts to prove this point is inconclusive. While Hebrews 4:1-9 mentions God resting from his creative work (Hebrews 4:4), it is actually used as an analogy suggesting that faithful Christians can enter a rest at the end of their labors (Hebrews 4:1). It does not teach that the seventh day of creation week continues until today, or that we may enter into that same rest. Shane’s use of John 5:16-18 is confusing. The passage mentions God working, not resting. Jesus was addressing the source of His authority—the Father. That is how the Jews understood Him, and they “sought to kill him, because he...said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

The Scriptures teach that there was an end to the seventh day. Exodus 20:11 says, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Notice the past tense verbs made and rested. The seventh day of creation week does not continue until now.

Here are some arguments to support the view that the days of creation were 24-hour days:

• God defined His own “day” in Genesis 1:5 as a period of light followed by a period of darkness. Unless Shane wants to argue that it stayed light for long periods and then stayed dark for long periods, we will have to stand upon this statement and conclude that the days were 24 hours long. Furthermore, Genesis 1:14-18 mentions the sun, moon, and stars and says they were made to be “for signs, seasons, days, and years." If we are to believe that the days were actually long ages, then what were the seasons and years?
• Read Romans 1:20. This verse claims that someone has been here to see and understand God's power ever since the creation of the world. This poses no problem to those who believe man was created in the same actual week as everything else. But those who believe each day represents a long age have a problem. If man was created eons after the other elements of creation, this makes no sense. This line of reasoning is confirmed by Jesus’ own statement in Mark 10:6: “From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” The day/age theory places man at the end of millions or billions of years of geologic time. In light of these verses, it cannot be true.
• If the days were long ages, we would have the wrong chronological order of events. For instance, plants were created on day three, but insects not until day five or six. But many plants depend on insects for cross-pollination, etc. How did plants survive for long ages without their insect counterparts? Other similar problems with chronological order argue against the day/age theory.

I accept Shane's disavowal of theistic evolution, but we know that this day/age theory is commonly held by many who teach this false doctrine. It is not true and is actually an unnecessary attempt to compromise the truths taught in the Bible with the unproven claims of some scientists. They teach that we live in an ancient universe, whereas in fact we live in a relatively young universe created in six literal days by our omnipotent God.