Doy Moyer

Controversy brews over the first chapter of Genesis. It is not a recent controversy, but it is one that has found renewed life today. Since Genesis is at the foundation of who we are, it is not a book we can pass lightly over. We should rather drink deeply from its well in order to understand that we are created by God and are, therefore, amenable to Him as our Creator. When the foundation of Genesis is removed, as is done with such theories as Darwinism, chaos is the result. The more we put God the Creator out of our minds, the farther we will travel into moral decay and idolatrous thinking (Rom. 1).

There are many positions taken on Genesis one. One of the major questions of the chapter has to do with the period of time involved in the seven days. Is each day only a 24-hour period of time? Is each day an age of perhaps millions of years? Are the days revelatory instead of actual days of creation? There are many ways these are interpreted. (A brief synopsis of some of the major positions on "days" is given elsewhere in this issue.) Yet obviously they cannot all be correct. The following comments are more like notes than they are detailed arguments.

Concerns and Non-concerns

I am not concerned about how old the earth is here. I don’t think it necessary to delve into this here; this is not my present concern.

Further, I am not concerned here about the latest interpretations of modern science. Scientific interpretations continue to change, and I think it a mistake to base our views of Genesis strictly upon the latest views. While we might take into consideration certain scientific principles, and we want to make sure that we do not ignore scientific data, these are not, in themselves, the determining factors of how Genesis is to be interpreted. Science can be helpful, but it is not the final commentary on the Bible.

What I am concerned about is the historical integrity of Genesis. I may disagree with some on particular aspects of Genesis 1, but I think that anyone who takes Genesis out of the realm of the historical has gone beyond the parameters of acceptable hermeneutic. Even when I disagree, I can at least appreciate efforts to explain it within a historical framework. I believe this is paramount in Genesis 1.

Further, I am concerned about proper interpretation of Scripture. This includes properly understanding what the text actually says, as well as refraining from too much speculation about what the text does not say. Some concepts (e.g., the "Gap Theory") may find solace in the silence of God, but full-blown theories based upon God’s silence are not a safe ground on which to play.

Finally, I am concerned about humility. I cannot help but think of Job 38-41 when thinking about God’s creation. Anytime someone appears to approach Genesis and creation with all the answers, watch out. We weren’t there, and there is much we do not know because it is still tucked away safely in God’s mind. There is nothing shameful about being able to admit, "I don’t know" when it comes to certain questions about an issue like this. That is far better than trying to supply answers based upon ignorance and God’s silence. Great care must be taken not to overstep the bounds of what we can really know. Genesis 1 is a short chapter, especially in comparison to the wisdom and knowledge of God. There is so much more He could have said, but in His wisdom He chose not to say it. If not careful, we may be guilty of darkening counsel "by words without knowledge."

A Simple Argument on Days

I’ve done quite a bit of reading about this issue over the last few years, and have considered several views. In some cases I’m left wondering, "huh?" and, "Is it really meant to be so complicated?" And I end up right back where I began. I believe that the days in Genesis 1 are 24-hour periods, with the seven days corresponding exactly to our week. In my mind, the strongest argument for this is the simplest argument: the natural reading of the text itself. Just read it and ask yourself, what impression would any normal person of average intelligence have upon reading this chapter? With the phrase "evening and morning," I think there is clear indication that these days are to be understood as normal, ordinary days.

I do not want to unnecessarily oversimplify matters. The Bible does use literary devices. There are figures of speech, poetic language, and differences in literary technique; and understanding these things are a part of our Bible study. But I think it obvious that Genesis is historical narrative, and, as such, should be read in a historically straightforward way. There is little doubt that Jesus and Paul read Genesis as historical narrative, since they appealed to Genesis as history (cf. Matt. 19:4-5; 1 Tim. 2:13-14); and I have no reason to question that approach here. Reading it this way, it is evident to me that the days are 24-hour periods. In a nutshell, that is the most effective approach I know to take.

One point I find interesting is that the motion of the earth accounts for two natural time divisions: one rotation of the earth defines a 24-hour day, and one revolution around the sun defines a year. But there appears to be no natural or obvious seven-day rhythm with the earth’s motions. Genesis 1:14 says that lights were given to indicate the time-frames involved in days and years, but nothing is said about the week. Where does our week come from? Does it not seem to be a direct reflection of the cycle stated by God in Genesis? Comparing Genesis 2:2-3 with Exodus 20:11 supports this point: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy." Once again, the natural reading of this seems clear enough. And today, our 7-day week reflects the days of creation.

Many other arguments might be made here, but for my present purposes, I rest with this one. Opponents of this, at this point, would be under obligation to show why the straightforward reading of Genesis 1 as historical narrative, as evidenced by Jesus and Paul, is not the correct way to read it. This is the first challenge that must be met. I have read several attempts to do this, but remain unconvinced by them. So this is where I start.

Problems

I recognize that there are difficulties in the text of Genesis. In fact, some of these difficulties may help account for why some have abandoned the 24-hour day view. What seems to be a "simple" reading does indeed have some complications. But are these enough to overturn the verdict? For example: How could Adam have done everything he is said to do in one day? Since Gen. 1:14 indicates that the sun and stars were made on day 4, does that mean the first three days are different? Do astronomical evidences appearing to make the earth look very old disprove that the days were 24 hour periods? Many questions can be asked, for which we may not have all the answers; and possible answers can be given, though the specific answers are not given in the text. In some cases, all we can do is speculate. But please note: asking questions does not prove a point. In other words, asking the question, then proceeding on the assumption that it disproves the position, is not a logical mode of operation. If I said, "I don’t know," does that therefore mean that my position on the days is wrong? I would hope that I am allowed to have some questions that are not completely answered in my mind. That does not cause me to toss out my understanding of the days based upon the reading as historical narrative. Many sources have devoted much time to answering such questions; one may disagree with the possible answers, but the possibilities do exist.

One factor that must be remembered about creation is that it involves God’s miraculous power and activity. I think this implies that there are some things about creation that may not be discoverable by merely natural studies. If we look in Genesis and try to explain it all through natural means, I’m afraid we have made a wrong turn somewhere. I cannot possibly understand or explain everything relative to creation. Only God can do that, and He chose to leave some things unexplained. The question is, can we be satisfied with that, or must we have all the answers?

Job’s friends were so confident that they had the right position on the problem of suffering. There was no doubt in their minds, and they left no room whatsoever for the possibility that they might be wrong. Yet, they were sorely mistaken. Even though Job wanted an explanation, God’s answer did not provide one. There are just some things we cannot fully know or explain; and we must trust God. He is, after all, the One who was there at creation. He told us that He created everything in six days, and the text gives all indication that these were normal days. And by the way, if He did really do it in six 24-hour days, what else might He have said to leave us the impression that that is exactly what He did?

So even though some difficulties exist, this does not change the main thesis that Genesis is historical narrative. I can equally point out many difficulties with other positions. The day-age view has many such problems (e.g., How did plants exist for so long before the sun was made?). Other views are plagued with difficulties, and I suppose we could mention the difficulties all day long, but what would it prove? The safest way to approach this, given that all positions have their difficulties, is to read the text as historical narrative and leave the difficulties in the hands of the One who did it. Difficulties do not equal contradiction or error; and I see nothing in the problems that cause the 24-hour view to be self-contradictory or opposed to anything else we know. That may not be enough for some, but just remember that it is the nature of historical narrative not to answer every single question that may arise from a given situation (see below).

So What?

Here’s an important question: "So What?" The "so what," I believe, has to do with the historical integrity of Genesis, and our approach to understanding the text of any scripture. In hermeneutics, it is important to read a particular text as it was meant to be read. We don’t read the poetic passages the same way we read the historical passages. If we know what we are reading in Genesis (what type of literature it is), then I think the issue is simplified somewhat. Genesis is historical narrative, and this is the deciding factor for me. Fee and Stuart make these important points about narratives:

"Old Testament narratives are not allegories or stories filled with hidden meanings. But there may be aspects of narratives that are not easy to understand. The ways that God works in history, the ways he influences human actions and implements his own will via human beings … are not always comprehensible to us. We are often not told precisely all that God did in a certain situation that caused it to happen the way the Old Testament reports it. And even when we are told what he did, we are not always told how or why he did it.

"In other words, narratives do not answer all our questions about a given issue. They are limited in their focus, and give us only one part of the overall picture of what God is doing in history. We have to learn to be satisfied with that limited understanding, and restrain our curiosity at many points, or else we will end up trying to read between the lines so much that we end up reading into stories things that are not there, making allegories of what are in fact historical accounts. As is the case with parables, narratives can be abused in this manner." (How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, p. 81).