Genesis and Myth
Robert Letham
Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 9, no. 1 (January 2000), pp. 17-19
Over the past year or two many correspondents have urged the OPC to commit itself to a binding belief that the days of Genesis 1 are periods of twenty-four hours. Throughout these communications two myths constantly recur.
Myth #1: The idea that the days of Genesis 1 are not to be interpreted literally is a recent development. It follows that those who read Genesis this way are capitulating to evolutionary theory. This is simply wrong. A figurative interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 was advanced a millenium and a half before Darwin was ever heard of.
As early as the third century Origen (c. 185-254) dismisses a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 as impossible. "Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?" De Principiis (4:1:16). See also Contra Celsus (50, 60).
In De Civitate Dei (11:6-7) Augustine (354-430) argues that the meaning of the details of Genesis1 surpass our ability to grasp. "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!' but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was". Earlier, in his important De Genesi ad Litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) he develops at length a view of simultaneous creation. God created only one day, recurring seven times (4:20,26)
"...and it is not to be taken in the sense of our day, which we reckon by the course of the sun; but it must have another meaning, applicable to the three days mentioned before the creation of the heavenly bodies. This special meaning of 'day' must not be maintained just for the first three days, with the understanding that after the third day we take the word 'day' in its ordinary sense. But we must keep the same meaning even to the sixth and seventh days" (4:26).These days "...are beyond the experience and knowledge of us mortal earthbound men. And if we are able to make any effort towards an understanding of the meaning of those days, we ought not to rush forward with an ill-considered opinion, as if no other reasonable and plausible interpretation could be offered. Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its settting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them." (4:27)
Augustine is not dogmatic about this. He says "I certainly do not advance the interpretation given above in such a way as to imply that no better one can ever be found" (4:28). In Genesis 1 God accommodated himself to the capacities of those unable to grasp simultaneous creation. Elsewhere in Scripture it is written that God created all things simultaneously—"Those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot arrive at the meaning of Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step" (4:33).
Much later, Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033-1109), in Cur Deus Homo? (1:18) in discussing the abstruse (and to us absurd) question of whether God intends the elect to make up the number of the fallen angels, refers to one's interpretation of the days of Genesis 1 as having tangible effect on the issue. While he does not commit himself to any particular view, he considers Augustine's proposal as a legitimate option. "But if the whole creation was produced at once, and the 'days' of Moses' account, where he seems to say that the world was not made all at once, are not to be equated with the days in which we live, I cannot understand how the angels were made in that complete number".
Calvin (1509-1564) in his Commentary on Genesis does not address the question. But, in the midst of some superb exposition of the theology of creation and God's self- revelation in it, he stresses that God is accommodating himself to our limited human understanding, speaking to us on a simple, barbaric level. It is written like this 'for our sake' (on v 4) for Moses 'accommodated his discourse to the received custom' (on v 5). He continues, on verse 16:
"Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which, without instruc tion, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labour whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend....but because he [Moses] was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfil his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction."In the documents of the Westminster Assembly (1643-1649) the most obvious reading supports the literal view of the six days. However, the Westminster divines were not ignoramuses. They knew and read Augustine, Origen and Anselm. Their statements simply reflect the language of Genesis 1 and make no attempt to define it further. (WCF 4:1, WSC 9, WLC 15)
Myth #2: Those who interpret the days of Genesis 1 in a non-literal manner are basing their interpretation of Scripture on anti-Christian scientific theory. They prefer to follow modern science rather than the plain teaching of the Word of God.
This is a serious accusation. If true, it would justify charges of violating ordination vows. It implicitly impugns the integrity of those who hold this position. Conversely, if false it borders on slander.
Reasons for taking a nonliteral view of the days of Genesis 1 stem from the Bible, the text of Genesis itself, and it should be on that basis that the issue is discussed.
The word yom (day) is used in four different ways in the context;
(1) for daylight as opposed to darkness, in 1:5,
(2) for the seventh day, of which no end is specified, in 2:2-3 (cf Heb 4:1-11, where the seventh day is equated with eternity, God's rest, which he calls us to enter),
(3) for the one day in which God created the heavens and the earth, in 2:4 (obscured by the NIV translation), and
(4) the sense under discussion. Of course, it does not necessarily follow that because yom has these other meanings elsewhere in the context that it does here too. But it at least poses a major question mark over adopting a literal reading here and so restricting valid interpretations of Genesis 1 to but one. On the other hand, the absence of the sun and the moon in the first three "days" reinforces the likelihood of a flexible and figurative meaning at this point too.
Again, the literary structure of Genesis 1 shows two parallel sets of three days. In the first three days God creates light, the expanse and dry land, while in the second set of three days he creates objects and sentient beings to inhabit or direct these spheres. This argues more for a topical than chronological interest in Genesis 1 and so for a figurative, rather than literal, view of the six days.
I am not arguing here that the literal view of the days of Genesis 1 is impermissible, nor even that it is wrong. After all, it has the weight of Karl Barth to back it, in his extensive exegesis of the chapter in his Church Dogmatics 111/1:99-228. Sufficient to say that it is not the only interpretation of this passage that can claim the sanction of Scripture. Speaking for myself, the text of Scripture is determinative, for it is the word of God. However, this chapter has yet to disclose all its secrets.
These myths rest on ignorance and misrepresentation. The first is lamentable, but can be corrected in time. The other is far more serious. It affects the way we treat other people. Attacking people's motives is a dangerous business. It calls for more than a realignment of our exegesis.
As an antidote I suggest a thorough reading of Calvin's commentary on Genesis. He does not address this topic but what he does do is immeasurably better. He unfolds the lavish theology of creation taught here. More attention to this would do wonders. In many ways the creation science debate has brought in its wake pernicious damage, robbing the church of its birth-right. Amidst the rich jewels of the Scriptural revelation of God, man and creation in Genesis 1, many are looking in the wrong direction, at minute pebbles that have nothing to do with the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures or with the awesome grandeur of God's infallible revelation in creation.
Dr. Robert Letham is the Senior Pastor of the Emmanuel OP Church in Wilmington, Delaware. For more on this consult Dr. Letham's article entitled "In the Space of Six Days: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly" in the recent issue of the Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 61 (1999):149-74.