Six Day Creation

I am not sure if my hyper-analytical mind is a blessing or a curse. I can trace it's roots to my home growing up. Being right was prized above all else at my house. As I have carried this need to be right into the wider world, it has caused me no end of trouble. Over the years I have argued my way out of more jobs and relationships than I care to think about.

Another bothersome side effect of my need to be right all the time is a burning desire to get to the truth behind things. I have an almost neurotic compulsion to have clarity on every issue that floats onto the horizon of my awareness. This may explain in part why I have earned several college degrees which have no apparent practical value. It also explains why the ongoing debate about creation and evolution catches my interest. To my dismay, a recent Bible study brought the six day creation issue back onto my radar, and I am forced once again attempt to settle the issue for myself.

I say this dismays me because I have not been able to find the "right" answer, at least, not one that satisfies me. I think I have heard all the arguments made by the young earth, six literal days people. Sadly, none of them, nor the weight of them totalled is completely convincing. I am not going to debate the issue point by point here, but I am going to attempt to clarify my foggy view of it. I hope that in forcing my thoughts into written form I will discover a comfortable place to land, even though I know before I start, my position will not satisfy everyone.

If you are still following this, you probably are aware of at least the broad outlines of the issue. If not, I will offer a brief recap as I see it. Some Bible scholars insist that sincere readers of the Genesis account of creation must accept a wooden, literal interpretation of the words, or else risk losing all the ground supporting the authority of Scripture. Make the six days of creation anything but six twenty-four hour periods, they say, and you destroy the credibility of all that follows. Those who hold this position sincerely believe that all the rules of hermaneutics and logic are on their side. No one I have heard argue this point is a crackpot, nor does the camp following lack intellectual gravitas.

Still I think they are wrong on both the logical and interpretational fronts. I don't mean to say that they are wrong about the young earth implications or the span of time God covered during creation. The God I serve could have done the job in six twenty-four hour periods if He wished to do so. My beef with the six day literalists is that they insist their view is the only way to see creation and still believe everything else in Scripture. I would like to suggest two reasons why I think that God may not have intended us to read time into His creation account.

Let's look at the interpretational problem first. Because determining the genre of a written text is critical, it must be noted that Genesis is not a science text. God delivered the words to a very pre-scientific people; they were barely out of the stone age (bronze, maybe?) There is no evidence that God was trying to satisfy either Newtonian or Einsteinian physicists with the account He repeated to Moses. I believe Genesis is a credal statement. It outlines what is necessary to believe about the material universe and how the Creator is related to it. The account is dogma, teaching material, that reveals who is responsible for the creation and to whom the creation is responsible. The precise chronology and order of events may be exactly as recorded, or those aspects may be symbolic or ritualistic. Genesis was not intended to give us the "how" of creation, but the "who."

The literalists are fond of noting how many foundational doctrines are linked to Genesis, pointing out that even Jesus quoted from it several times. I could not agree more. One can not fully understand anything that flows from Genesis chapter three onward without firmly grasping the import of the creation narrative. I differ from the literalists in that I can accept a ritual or symbolic interpretation of Genesis chapters one and two and still hold firmly to the authority of the remainder of Scripture.

Did God create the universe? Yes. Did God create a literal Adam as a fully developed human, not an evolved animal? Yes. Did a literal Adam and Eve fall from grace through disobedience to God? Yes. Did all God's work in creation take 144 hours? Possibly. Or, just as possibly, God used the six plus one theme to set a standard for us to follow. He asks us to honor His right of ownership by devoting one day in six to Him, following the ritual pattern He laid out to Moses. This concept is so important to God that He included it in the ten most vital things He wanted us to know about our relationship with Him.

The second reason I choose to differ with the literalists is because they are not being consistent in their interpretation method. Inconsistency is ultimately a question of logic. I'm pretty sure all of the scholars I have heard defend the six day mantra also espouse pre-millenial eschatology. Coincidentally, defenders of this end times scenario also claim to be literalists. Yet when one tries to make sense of their argument, one must keep a friendly commentary close at hand to sort out just which passages or terms are actually literal and which figurative. The only consistency I have seen in their treatment is that they consistently choose a literal over a figurative reading except when only a figurative one will support their argument.

Two examples (there are hundreds) will illustrate what I mean. Apocalyptic literature is well laced with figurative language by its very nature. It also forms the core around which end times prophecy is built. Thus the literalists are bent up like pretzels trying to make sense of the figurative language. The interpretation of Daniel's vision by the angel in chapter 12 includes a timeline of a certain number of days. But the supposedly literal premillenial proponents insist that here days mean years. All the same markers exist in Daniel and Genesis, which should lead to a literal interpretation of days in Daniel, as in Genesis.

The second example I will note is in the twentieth chapter of Revelation, a cornerstone of apocalyptic literature for premillenials, the span of one thousand years is mentioned. It comes up in a passage so dripping with figurative language as to be almost surrealistic. Yet in this case, the premillenials pluck the number out of its context and demand a literal reading. This approach betrays a fundamental principle: Bible interpretation must remain consistent within the context. There is no logical reason to single out one aspect of a passage and apply different standards to it.

As I sit writing this, it is the first day of the week, the one day out of seven I choose to honor the Creator. I honor Him in this way in large part because He based His command to do so on the creation "week." I'm not even going to ask why the harsh literalists don't observe the sabbath as literally commanded (the sabbath being the seventh day, Saturday, not Sunday.) I believe everything about the redemption story as recorded in God's holy Word. Leaving open the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis' first chapter does nothing to hinder my complete acceptance of all Scripture as God-breathed and profitable in so many ways.