Creation Controversy: The Rival Interpretations of Genesis One

For the past 150 years, Genesis One has been one of the most hotly debated and controversial chapters in the Bible. Until the 19th century, the Bible’s account of creation was pretty much taken as a straightforward description of historical events (though there were always a few theologians who did not read Genesis in this way). But since the development of the modern sciences of geology, biology and astronomy, Genesis One has been at the centre of what is still an ongoing controversy. Unfortunately discussion of what Genesis One means can leave Christians embroiled in arguments and can even cause divisions between Christians. But it needn’t be like that. It should be possible for Christians to show maturity and recognise that sometimes people will come to different conclusions on a subject and that it is okay to disagree sometimes without things turning nasty.

In this paper we will review four main ways in which Bible-believing Christians have interpreted Genesis One, and say a little bit about the strengths and weaknesses of each interpretation. Then in the final section we will look at a few things every Christian can agree on (whichever view of Genesis One we take) regarding the difference that believing God created this world makes to us and about how we live our lives in the 21st century.

Well, maybe the first thing to point out is that there are good reasons people take different views of Genesis One, not only because the text itself is capable of being taken in different ways, but also – and some might say more importantly – because some interpretations seem to take better account of interpreted information gathered from the natural world. In other words, some interpretations fit more comfortably than others with what natural science tells us about the age of the earth, the size and age of outer space, and the way natural processes and natural laws operate.

Some interpretations, if true, demand that we re-look at what science tells us and change how we interpret the scientific evidence. Those interpretations do not fit well with what science tells us. Some people think the most likely interpretation is the one that is the simplest and most straightforward when we look only at Bible; others are convinced that as the same God who gave us the Bible also created the world we see and so we should expect what the Bible tells us and what our observations of the world around us tell us to be in harmony. They would say that all truth is God’s truth whether we find it in the Bible or in a mathematical formula. If that is so then the most obvious interpretation of the creation account might not be the best one.

I should also say that I am not going to deal specifically with the subject of evolution. A lot of what I say might touch on this question, but I am not specifically addressing this subject. In particular, it should be noted that it is possible to deny that evolution is true and yet not accept Genesis One is a literal account of creation, and it is also possible - though I would argue inconsistent - to accept evolution is true and accept that Genesis One is true.

The Literal Interpretation

Okay so the first interpretation we’re going to look at is usually known as the Literal interpretation. This view is in many ways the most straightforward interpretation of the biblical text but it is the hardest to reconcile modern science – in fact it cannot really be reconciled with what modern science tells us about the age of the earth and the processes that led from the first moment of the Big Bang through to life on earth as we know it. The literal interpretation says that the account of creation we find in Genesis 1 is to be taken exactly as we find it – as a historical description of what actually happened during the first week of time. It states that God created the entire universe, the earth, the sun and moon, all the plants and animals and human beings in the space of six ordinary days of exactly or approximately 24 hours duration.

This view has several strengths and should not be dismissed as unthinking fundamentalist ranting. The literal interpretation is, I think, the most straightforward reading of Genesis 1. It takes the passage at face value – which is actually a good rule of interpretation. Unless we have good reason to think otherwise, the plain meaning of a passage in the Bible is probably correct. The chapter mentions “days” and those days have mornings and evenings. And they go together to form what appears to be an ordinary week of seven days as we know it. Would anyone, would the original recipients of the Book of Genesis, interpret this account in any way other than that they are ordinary days and it is an ordinary week that it took God to create everything?

Furthermore, later on in Exodus 20 when Moses received the Ten Commandments, this view is backed up by what we find there (Exodus 20:8-11):

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God…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. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

As I said this interpretation should not be dismissed lightly. It is the predominant interpretation of Genesis One for over 1800 years of church history, from the early church through till the 19th century. That itself should make us pause for thought before we cast this interpretation aside.

That said, there are problems with the “literal 24 hour day” view. One of the main ones is that though it is very straightforward in its interpretation of the Bible, it is far from straightforward in its interpretation of science (or more generally, of how we perceive the universe around us). There are many different, independent scientific tests and observations that all tell us the universe is something of the order of 12 billion years old. The literal view of Genesis 1, even making generous allowances, struggles to come up with a figure of more than 20,000 years for the age of the universe. Obviously this is a huge difference. The literalists answer this in one of two ways. Either scientific measurement is way out in its estimation of the age of the universe or the universe was made with the appearance of age and maturity so that what we observe appears to be older than it really is. For example if a scientist met Adam a minute after he was created, since Adam was created as a fully mature adult male, the scientist might conclude that Adam was 20 or 30 years old and so the apparently “observable” facts might not be in accordance with true age. Similar arguments apply to the fossils, the age of the stars and so on, to explain away what scientific investigation seems to tell us. But, it must be pointed out that though these are ingenious explanations, they require quite a degree of speculation that goes well beyond what the Bible explicitly says! So maybe the literal view is not really much more literal overall than other views. It is just literal in terms of the length of the days in Genesis One.

That leads on to a second problem with the literal view. The problem is that the Genesis account – though supposed to be straightforward history – obviously contains a number of figurative elements within it, on any reading of the text – and so is simply not straightforward history. For example, the account talks about God “resting” on the seventh day when he had finished his work. Clearly this is figurative, because elsewhere Scripture teaches that God is an all powerful being who never grows weary.

Isaiah 40:28: “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.”

Psalm 121:2-4: “My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth. He will not let your foot slip— he who watches over you will not slumber; indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.”

So not everything in Genesis One and Two can be taken absolutely literally. This raises the question of what other parts of the narrative may be figurative or semi-poetic rather than literal.

A third problem with the literal view is what it implies about the character of God. If God created a universe with the apparent age of 12 billion years – I mean one in which every measurement we can make indicates it is a very old universe – yet he created it no more than 20,000 years ago (which is what the literal view demands we accept), then why did God do that? Does the Bible indicate that God sets out to deceive people? Or does it indicate he is open and transparent in his character and honest in his actions? Proponents of the literal view would counter that it is possible for us to be wrong in our interpretation of scientific data. However, if science is wrong, then it is very, very wrong. Science says the universe is about 60,000 times older than the young earth, literal creationist view. Many people find that hard to accept and point out that young earth creationism has its own set of presuppositions that are themselves not derived purely from the Bible.

So that’s the literal view – which we could sum up as the simplest interpretation, but the most difficult to reconcile with science.

The Gap Theory

The second interpretation is known as the Gap Theory. There are very few people who still accept this interpretation, though it was fairly popular in the 19th century. In fact it was first put forward by the famous Scottish minister, Thomas Chalmers. Basically the Gap theory teaches that there is a gap in time – a huge gap of millions of years – between the first and second verses of Genesis 1. So, the original creation, millions and millions of years ago is described in verse 1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Within that verse, the Gap theory puts the Big Bang, the origin of life on earth, the dinosaurs and so on. It then assumes there was a cataclysmic event that destroyed the world. Some say it was a spiritual event such as the fall of Satan and the evil spirits from heaven. Others say it was the meteor that destroyed almost all life on earth including the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago. Others say a combination of the spiritual and the physical. But the earth was destroyed. According to the Gap theory, the six days of creation in Genesis One are really six days of “re-creation” or reconstruction during which geology settled down, the heavenly bodies became visible again and the plant and animal kingdoms were restored.

The Gap theory says verse two should be translated as: “And the earth became formless and desolate” rather than “And the earth was formless and desolate.” It also refers to verse 28, which in the King James Bible is translated: “God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Replenish can mean to re-fill or re-stock something that was full and is now empty. The Gap theory seized on this word to imply that the creation account is a refilling of the earth with life, which implies that life previously had filled the world.

The Gap theory has serious problems too and is not very widely supported today. Most Old Testament scholars say that verse 2 cannot properly be translated “And the earth became formless and void.” Which itself deals a severe blow to the theory. And then secondly, the Hebrew word translated “replenish” simply means “to fill” not necessarily to “refill”. More significantly, there is absolutely nothing in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible to suggest that Satan’s fall had such a catastrophic effect on earth as the Gap theory requires. There is also not an inkling from the text itself that there is meant to be a gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis One.

I think that the Gap theory is ingenious, very very clever indeed, but I leave it to you to decide whether it is really something we learn from the Bible or something we need to read into the Bible in order to find it there.

The Day-Age Interpretation

The third interpretation is usually called the Day-Age theory. This also has its origin in a 19th century Scottish theologian, called Hugh Miller. The Day-Age theory remains fairly popular to this day as a way of reconciling Genesis One to the claims of modern science.

The Day-Age theory points out that the Hebrew word “Yom” (Day) can be used to mean a long, unspecified period of time, and not necessarily a period of 24 hours. Just like the English word “day” does not always refer to a period of 24 hours. For example in the expressions “This would never have happened in my day” or “In this day and age, you would think that people could do such and such…” There are clearly places in the Old Testament where Yom is obviously not referring to a 24-hour day. In this sense, the Day-Age theory is technically a possible interpretation of Genesis One.

However, again there are problems with this view. The fact that the seven days are presented to us as a week of days and the fact that each day has a morning and an evening strongly suggests that ordinary days are in view here and not long unspecified periods of time. It has also been pointed out that had Moses intended to be clear that he meant the six creation periods were long epochs of millions of years each, then there is another Hebrew word that he could have used for this. In addition, the day-age theory is itself contrary to science and so in that sense does not solve the problem. Because it would mean that there were millions of years (day three) when plants existed before the sun was created on day four!

Defenders of the day-age theory have answers to some of these criticisms but they are not very convincing. For example, some day-agers maintain that the sun was created on day one and only appeared visible in the sky when clouds cleared on day four.

The Framework Hypothesis

The fourth theory is usually known as the framework hypothesis or the framework interpretation. The framework view says that Genesis One is a literary construction – a narrative device – a semi-poetic hymn – designed to present God’s creative acts as a week of ordinary days, but that this creation week should not be taken as a literal week. The framework hypothesis says in effect that Genesis One is like an art gallery showing a series of pictures, each portraying a creative act of God, and together forming a comparison between God’s work of creation and our weekly pattern of work and rest.

It should be noted that the pictures are of real, historical events, but they remain distinct from the events themselves. Just as a passport photograph of a person is a true depiction of the person, but the picture is not the person, and is neither the same size nor shape as the person, so the days of Genesis One, the framework view says, are depictions of creation on the scale of a week of days, rather than descriptions of actual days.

Another important aspect of the framework view is that it sees the arrangement of the six days in topical order rather than in chronological order. It places the six days of creation in two groups of three days each, and it claims this is how Moses intended the week to be read. Days One to Three depict the creation of what have been called three “creation kingdoms” – the sky, the air and sea, and the land. Days Four to Six depict the creation of what have been called three “creation kings” to rule the kingdoms – the sun and moon to rule the sky, the fish to rule the sea and the birds to rule the air, and animals to rule the land. Day Six also features the creation of God’s overlords, human beings, to oversee and rule all the rest of creation for God.

According to this view, the fact that light and darkness are created on day one, but the sun and moon on day four does not matter. Because the days may be describing things that took place at the same time from two different perspectives.

The framework view claims to be an interpretation of Genesis that is derived from the text itself, in fact that is demanded by the text itself. But since this view also realises that Genesis One is a pre-scientific text and one that was written with theological concerns in mind and not scientific concerns, it leaves us free to accept Genesis One as true in what it actually states and also accept what science tells us is true. At least, it means there is more room for agreement between theology and science than the literal view would allow. According to the framework theory, Genesis One answers why questions; science is free to answer how and when questions.

The main criticism of this view is that it does not regard Genesis One as being a straightforward, linear, historical account of a series of successive acts by God. But the fact is that every theory is faced with issues of when to be literal and when to be figurative. No one interprets Genesis One and Two completely literally throughout, because that would mean that Genesis One and Two contradict each other, and we know that all Scripture is inspired by God and that the Holy Spirit cannot have inspired two contradictory creation accounts. What I mean by here is that in Genesis One, the animals are created before man, and man and woman are created at the same time; but in Genesis Two, if we take it all literally, the man is created first, then the animals, and finally woman. So some of these narratives must be interpreted figuratively. It seems to me, the framework hypothesis makes a good case for saying that the week of days is a way of presenting creation history to us in a way that every reader of the Bible, of all cultures and all ages and all levels of intelligence can read and understand.

The Meaning of Creation

With what has just been said very much in mind, I want to move on from the different theories and interpretations that people take on Genesis One to discuss that all interpretations agree on and that challenge how we live our lives.

There are four things:

1. The universe was created on purpose by a personal, loving God.
2. Creation is not a god to be worshipped.
3. God has given creation to human beings to act as stewards who care for it, look after it and use it to do good.
4. Human beings, male and female, were created in the image of God and therefore we all have an inherent dignity and worth that should be respected and nourished by others in this life.

Okay, I’ll just go over these very briefly.

The universe was deliberately and carefully created by a personal, loving God. The universe is not the accidental result of a series of random events: it has all been fearfully and wonderfully made.

Whatever view we take of how and how quickly and when God accomplished his creation, we must make an absolute stand before the world that our God – the God that the Bible says loves and cares for all of us, and who is deeply concerned with each one of us and our lives – he is the one who is the Maker of heaven and earth. He made it. It did not just happen by accident. And as such, it means that life is not meaningless. The world, life, everything has a purpose and a reason because ultimately God, the God of love, is behind it all working to accomplish his plans and purposes. And central to what God does is his own Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Perhaps we find the most all-encompassing vision of what that ultimate plan and purpose is in Paul’s words in Colossians 1:15-20:

Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the first-born Son, superior to all created things. For through him God created everything in heaven and on earth…God created the whole universe through him and for him…Through the Son…God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself. God made peace through his Son’s sacrificial death on the cross and so brought back to himself all things, both on earth and in heaven.

So creation has a purpose. And creation – indeed the whole of history – is heading towards a goal that God had in mind from the very beginning. And that purpose is to bring all things in heaven and on earth – in other words all created things – under Christ’s rule and headship.

Second, in our time, we need to remember that creation is not a god. This was in many ways the point that Moses wanted to Israelites to grasp when they first read Genesis One. Many of other nations around Israel worshipped gods of nature, gods of fertility, gods of the sun and moon and so forth. But Genesis One proclaims against all kinds of paganism that Yahweh, the God of Israel is the maker of the land and sea, the maker of the sun and moon, and so all these things are not things to be worshipped. Many pagan cultures worshipped the stars. Modern day astrology is a remnant of these ancient religions. By stark contrast, Genesis One is almost dismissive of such ideas with it’s short pithy sentence: “He also made the stars” as if the creation of outer space were nothing for our God – and of course the whole work of creation is but a trifle for the Almighty God we serve.

We need to stand against pagan ideas of worshipping nature, or getting involved in astrology, new age religion, white magic, witchcraft, and so on. Creation is not god, it is but the work of the one true God’s hands to achieve his purposes and plans. We are to worship him and look after creation for him, not worship it.

Thirdly, God has given creation to human beings to act as stewards who care for it,
look after it and use it to do good. You see, just as worshipping creation is wrong, so is abusing creation. Too often in history Christians have lined up with those who want to make a fast profit by exploiting natural resources, polluting the planet, and ruining the environment. And that was wrong – that was bad stewardship – and Christians need to be open and honest about the mistakes the Church made in the past.

Our duty is to look after the planet for God. This means, in my view, that green issues (for want of a better phrase) should matter to Christians. You might have heard of the three R’s in this area: reduce, re-use and recycle. We should try to reduce the amount of materials we use, re-use things when we can rather than buying into the “throw away” culture all around us, and recycle things like glass, paper and plastics. The more we can do the better in this area. In our generation, loving our neighbour means we are called, I believe, helping to make sure that pollution and global warming are kept under control and natural resources are used carefully and for the benefit of everyone and not just a few.

Fourthly, human beings, male and female, were created in the image of God and therefore we all have an inherent dignity and worth that should be respected and nourished by others in this life.

In a world where bureaucracy can make us feel like we’re just a number in a computer, just an entry in a database; in a world where sometimes human life seems cheap and people slaughter each other in never ending, senseless wars; in a world where human beings seem to come second to abstract concepts like “the economy”, where we are daily de-sensitised to human suffering and the evil that men do, and in a world where many people tell us that we are all just animals controlled by our genes, living meaningless lives before a death that has nothing beyond it – in this world, the Bible thunders forth its message that cuts through all the nonsense, all the rubbish and states that we do matter.

We are important after all. We are not just resources or statistics. We are people, people who share the personhood of God. We are special. We are human beings. We are created in the image of God. We have the worth and dignity that comes from being God-ordained Lords of creation and spiritual beings capable of a loving relationship with each other and with our Creator.

It means that human life is not cheap. It is valuable. It is priceless. And it should be cared for, protected, nourished and cherished everywhere.

Tomorrow, I want you to try to think about just for a split second about each person you come into contact with. And I want you to say to yourself, “This person is a human being created in the image of God.” And at the end of the day, look back and see if you felt differently about them, if it changes your perception of other people. I think that’s how Jesus always reacted to people – even those whom respectable society had no time for (like tax collectors and prostitutes) and even those with whom he disagreed totally like the Pharisees. He always treated them as real people, and not just potential converts, or de-personalised “sinners”.

There’s an old hymn that sums up so many truths about creation and I want to end by reading it. It goes like this:

This is my Father’s world,
and to my listening ears all nature sings,
and round me rings
the music of the spheres.
This is my Father’s world:
I rest me in the thought of rocks and trees,
of skies and seas;
his hand the wonders wrought.

This is my Father’s world,
the birds their carols raise,
the morning light, the lily white,
declare their maker’s praise.
This is my Father’s world:
he shines in all that’s fair;
in the rustling grass I hear him pass;
he speaks to me everywhere.

This is my Father’s world.
O let me ne’er forget
that though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father’s world:
why should my heart be sad?
The Lord is King; let the heavens ring!
God reigns; let the earth be glad!

This is our Father’s world. He made it and he made us. Let us rejoice in that fact. Let our view of creation affect us and how we live. Let it change us and everyone around us. And let it be a foretaste of the new creation that one day Christ will rule over forever.