Biblical justification for non-historical creation days

Right now the Baptist Theology & Bible Study section includes some quite lively discussions about creation. I'm Mennonite Brethren and not Baptist, so although I've been following some of those threads with interest, I haven't posted. However, I've been a bit disappointed that when the question of a biblical basis for the theistic evolution (TE) position comes up, there's little but silence. Some people, including me, actually came to the TE position based on the biblical evidence and not the scientific evidence. (Earlier I had embraced a version of the gap theory based on scientific evidence for an old earth, but my later acceptance of TE was based on studying Genesis 1-2.)

So, I'd like this thread to be strictly about the biblical issues with the various creation positions. Elsewhere, this question was asked about Genesis 1:

While I wouldn't call the Genesis 1 account an allegory, I do think its framework of days is not intended to be historical. My main reason for this is because it doesn't line up with the order in Genesis 2:4ff and the author/compiler of Genesis seems to have had no problem with that and made no effort to tie the two together. Another reason comes from outside Genesis. The creation week, and particularly the seventh day, is treated as more than a collection of 24-hour days elsewhere in the Bible. Hebrews 3:7-4:13 discusses God's rest after creation. Here's a portion of it:

In verses 4-5, the author goes directly from quoting Genesis 2:2 to quoting Psalm 95:11 which talks about God's rest. The implication is that God's rest after creation is the same rest we can enter (if we don't fall short of it).

Also, note the last part of verse 3 which I bolded above: God's work has been finished since the creation of the world. In other words, even if one believes the world is only 6,000 years old, that means God's rest has been going on for 6,000 years now! When Exodus 20:11 explains the Sabbath command by saying "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day", we know from this passage in Hebrews 4 that "he rested on the seventh day" refers to a rest of at least 6,000 years (and in my view, a much longer time). The symbol of God's rest is a day (the Sabbath) but the reality is much more. In another sense the reality is also less, since God does not rest by ceasing all activity. Both the idea of God physically resting and the duration of his rest are symbolic ways to get across a deeper truth.

Perhaps my way of reading Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 would be made more clear by explaining how I read another verse:

In both verses, an ordinance is being instituted (the Sabbath and the Lord's Supper). In the first, creation is equated with six days and God's rest with the seventh day. In the second, bread is equated with Jesus' body which was given for us. I do not believe the bread really is Jesus' body. I think it's symbolic. Similarly, I do not believe creation really happened in six literal days; I believe the days are symbolic.

In order for us to have a way of remembering what Jesus did for us, he gave us an observance whereby we can remember his sacrifice every time we partake of a piece of bread and a cup of wine in fellowship with believers. The symbolism is detailed more fully in John 6:25-66, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious.

In order for us to have a way of remembering creation, God gave the Israelites an observance whereby they could remember God's act of creation and God's rest through a week of six days' work and a Sabbath rest. The symbolism is detailed more fully in Genesis 1:1-2:3, although not in a way that makes the symbolism obvious.

Now, obviously many Christians will disagree with this -- either with taking the bread symbolically or with taking the days symbolically. I certainly don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of transubstantiation or consubstantiation. But, if you accept this interpretation of either the bread or the days, this comparison may help to show how some people can accept both.

 

That's an interesting statement. It's true that after Genesis 1, there is no place in the rest of the Bible that uses a rigid framework of days similar to this chapter. Even when crucial historical events are recorded, such as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, we don't read about the events in an account clearly divided into days with "and there was evening and there was morning, a ___ day" or a similar refrain after each one. (As evidence of this, just look at all the discussion over the exact day of Jesus' crucifixion!)

Why is that? There's two options that I can see. Either the rest of the bible isn't as historical as Genesis 1, or the rigid account of days in Genesis 1 is a literary device and not an indication of historicity. My belief is that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is absolutely fundamental to the entire Bible. Because of that, I cannot accept a view of the Bible that diminishes the historicity of these events in an attempt to prop up the historicity of Genesis 1.

I addressed those issues in my opening post.

I think you have that backwards. It's only by being sure that Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 are supposed to reconcile that one can force the two into a single chronology. A clear reading of Genesis 2:4-25 (especially in any version other than the NIV) will lead to quite a different chronology than the one in Genesis 1. Very few people dispute this; instead, many Christians propose theories on how the apparent differences should be harmonized, and many non-Christians claim the differences prove the Bible is not even internally consistent.

Some Christians say that Genesis 1 describes creation of plants and animals in general while Genesis 2 only describes the plants and animals in Eden. Others think Genesis 1 describes the creation of all plants and animals, but they didn't sprout or grow until after man was formed in Genesis 2. Others think Genesis 2 constantly jumps around chronologically as it describes various events. Others, like me, take the plain reading of the text and its different chronology when compared with Genesis 1 as an indication that one or the other -- or both -- of the accounts is not intended to be historical.

When it comes to events for which there are no human witnesses, I don't really care about the exact chronology. It doesn't matter to me exactly how God created the world or the exact order of Jesus' temptation by Satan. What is more important is that God did create the world (even bacteria, seaweed, angels and other things not mentioned in Genesis 1 or 2), and that my Saviour was tempted in every way (even in ways that aren't recorded), but without sinning. If God and the writers he inspired wanted to convey the details of those events with an order and focus that was selected for reasons other than chronology, that's fine with me.

That's true, but the absence of those sequences does not mean the account has no chronology. If that were so, then there'd be no way for us to know the chronology of events at Jesus' crucifixion either, since the gospels also lack those sequences. But, we can understand the chronology quite well. In general, in a narrative account (whether historical, parable, or otherwise), things are assumed to have happened in the order they are recorded unless there are clues to the contrary.

One type of clue is when a passage uses chronological recapitulation -- the return to an event that has already been described. For example, Genesis 5:1 recapitulates to Genesis 1:27. Rather than taking this as a creation of a second Adam (as some do), this should be viewed as a return to an earlier point. Another example is the placement of Adam in Eden. If we read the account in context, it's fairly clear that God first formed Adam, v.7; then planted a garden, v.8a; and then placed Adam in this garden, v.8b. At that point, the account gives a larger description of the garden and its creation (v.9-14). Then, the account returns to its chronological description of events by once again mentioning the placement of Adam in the garden (v.15).

Another example can be found in Genesis 1 and its treatment of the separation of day from night. This event first happens in v.4-5, and then is recapitulated in v.14. Both verses specifically mention the separation of day from night. This separation could only have occurred once, unless we want to speculate that it somehow didn't "stick" the first time and had to be redone three days later. But if this event only happened once, why is it recorded on two separate days? It's a strong clue that the days of Genesis 1 are not intended to give chronological, historical information.

Just to be clear, chronological recapitulation is not unique to historical accounts and can also occur in stories or parables. So, finding it in a passage does not show whether or not a passage is historical. It just helps to clarify the intended chronology of the account in question.

Yes, the phrasing is unique within the Bible, even though the Bible contains many historical accounts.

 

Yes, I think it's quite possible for there to be a spiritual meaning in a passage as well as a literal meaning. That's similar to what the author of Hebrews does in 4:24-31. The figurative interpretation is in addition to the historical truth, and not in place of it. However, there's other cases where everyone agrees that the figurative meaning is the main one (such as Jesus' parables, many of which are clearly marked), and there's other cases such as this where the intended meaning is hotly debated.

One of the reasons I am very happy to be in the TE camp is that it acknowledges real theological truths in Genesis 1-2. Unfortunately, many (not all) in the Scientific Creationism camp focus so much on the historical accuracy of all the details that they ignore these truths. It's almost as if they've unwittingly bought in to the naturalist argument that the only truth is scientific truth, so Genesis 1-2 must convey truth on those grounds. That's much like being so preoccupied with which day Jesus was crucified and rose from the grave that one ignores what those natural and supernatural events mean for our own salvation and what they say about God's nature.

I think the discussion about the historicity of early Genesis is important, but we must not reduce the text to a history and/or science lesson. Genesis 1 in particular does not read like the gospels, or Acts, or Kings. If it is a historical record, it is the only one of its form in the Bible.

 

Bob, do you disagree that an ordinance can be instituted using symbolic terminology? As I said last post to you, I addressed this issue in my first post. You never replied to my argument, but rather asserted that it was wrong. Do you believe in transubstantiation? If not, then what is the problem with seeing that another ordinance could be instituted in a similar fashion?

I'm having trouble following you. I specifically referenced Hebrews where it shows that the seventh day of creation is ongoing -- much more than a literal day. This is counter to a literal, historical reading of the chronology. In my last post to you I mentioned how day 1 and 4 recapitulate the same event -- something very strange if the days are indeed chronologically separated. You have not responded at all to the first argument and seemed to miss the point of the second, and yet you say that I've "caved in". Like I said, I don't follow.

This "point" is really an assertion: that only one account has a chronology. As I already mentioned, if that were true, it would mean that we could not get any chronological details from the gospels because they do not use an evening/morning itemization of each day. I reject that approach because it undermines the historicity of the entire Bible after Genesis 1.

That's false witness, Bob. I never claimed that Genesis 2 has no chronology. In fact, I claimed that Genesis 2 does have a chronology in my second post that you were apparently responding to: "A clear reading of Genesis 2:4-25 (especially in any version other than the NIV) will lead to quite a different chronology than the one in Genesis 1. ... Others, like me, take the plain reading of the text and its different chronology when compared with Genesis 1 as an indication that one or the other -- or both -- of the accounts is not intended to be historical." Note my repeated statements that Genesis 2 does have a chronology. Do not mistake the presence of a chronology with historicity; Jesus' parables have chronology too.

It's there in my Bible. In the account for day four it says, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and it was so." If your Bible doesn't have this, which version are you using? I'm quoting the NASB.

No, God can do whatever he pleases. However, there is no reason to speculate that God made a light that somehow burnt out after three days and needed to be replaced. The light of day 1 was declared to be "good". Why would it be insufficient?

Also, God is aware in his creation of natural needs for the things he creates. Genesis 2:5 makes this clear. The plants needed a water supply and a gardener, so man is created and rivers water the garden. Rather than God creating supernatural means to temporarily sustain his creation, Genesis 1-2 describe God creating the natural means that sustain creation (with the single exception of the tree of life that presumably gave immortality to humans).

Here is another story with no explicit chronological references:

There was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce. The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them. But afterward he sent his son to them, saying, "They will respect my son." But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance." They took him, and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

No days, no reference to morning or afternoon or specific hours. It does have general terms like "then" and "afterward", but similar terms are found in Genesis 2. Do you really claim that in this parable you have no idea about the chronological order the events occurred in? What did the landowner do first, plant a vineyard or build a tower or rent out the vineyard? If you can understand the chronology here, then what's the problem with Genesis 2:4-25?

[ January 19, 2005, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

Oops, I see the parable I quoted at the end of my last post mentions "harvest time". That's what I get for reading it in the ESV and then copy-and-pasting from the NASB. Anyway, hopefully it still serves to make the point, and if not, I can easily find another example.

Perhaps a more obvious one would be Genesis 3, since its only time references are the same ones found in Genesis 2: "then", "when" and "in the day". Does Genesis 3 not have a chronology either, Bob?

[ January 19, 2005, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

I'm still hoping for some Baptist responses to this topic. I know there's got to be at least a few YEC Baptists out there ( ), so hopefully some of them will see this thread and address some of the issues raised in it.

Maybe a summary is in order. Generally, the debate over creation is made on scientific grounds. Whenever the evidence becomes hard for young-earth creationists to deny, they pull out the trump card: none of this matters because science is just opinion and the Bible disproves an old earth and all that goes along with it. To see this trump card being played repeatedly, just wander over to the Baptist Theology & Bible Study section.

This thread is a discussion of the validity of that trump card. Is there any basis aside from science to take Genesis 1 as something other than a historical record of events spanning 144 hours? I've suggested that there are a few reasons from the Bible itself to do so:
</font>

1. The seventh day of creation is referred to in Hebrews as God's ongoing rest that we can still enter, if we don't fall short of it. This implies that the seventh day represents far more than a 24-hour time period. If the seventh day is symbolic of much more, then it is reasonable to conclude that the other six days are also symbolic of something more (namely, of God's creation work, whether it spanned a moment or millennia). (See opening post for details.)
   .</font>
2. When an ordinance is instituted, it is common biblical practice to equate the symbol with what it represents. Jesus said "this is my body..."; Moses said "for in six days...". Of course, this language has caused many throughout the church's history to take the statements literally, and in both cases taking the ordinance as something far less than what it represents is a minority view -- although I believe it's the correct view. (See opening post for details.)
   .</font>
3. A straight-forward reading of Genesis 2:4-25 leads to a far different order of creation than the one described in Genesis 1. It takes all sorts of interpretational gymnastics to get the two to line up, begging the question of whether they were intended to fit together into a single chronology in the first place. (See my second post for details.)
   .</font>
4. There is chronological recapitulation between the first and fourth day of creation. On day one, God creates light (called Day) and separates it from darkness (called Night). On day four, God creates luminaries to separate day from night. Since the same one-time event (the separation of day from night) is described on two non-consecutive days, this is a neon sign that the days are not historical or chronological. (See my second post for details.)
   .</font>
5. If the rigid structure of Genesis 1 with its repeated refrain of evening and morning is taken as a further indication of its historicity, it begs the question of why other events whose historicity is more important (such as Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection) do not use similar language. It is more likely that the rigid division of days is a literary device, especially since there is obvious symmetry in the way the two sets of three days are described. (I may expand on this symmetry in a future post, although its well documented and easy to find.)</font>

Those are the main reasons that I brought up so far to treat the days of Genesis 1 as having a literary basis more than a historical basis. No appeals to science, no appeals to ancient near-east myths or the documentary hypothesis, just evidence within the Bible. I am not attempting to show that the creation event is not true, but rather that it is presented in a framework of days that serves other purposes.

As a final note, I should point out that this view of Genesis 1, commonly called the framework interpretation, neither supports nor denies evolution. It does not deal with that question. In fact, [this page] presents a good outline of the view by someone adamantly opposed to evolution, and up until his "evolution disclaimer", he makes many of the same points I've made here.

So, the points need to be addressed on their own merits, not on whether they lead to scientific theories that a person finds distasteful. Is there anybody, especially any Baptist, who would like to respond to any of these points?