According to Genesis 1 and 2, the earth was created in seven days. But what exactly does that mean? Were these literal days, or figurative days? Was each day a thousand years? A million years? An eon? Were there even days at all?
(if you haven’t read it for a while, go and read it)
This is one of those questions that crop up from time to time. I think most Christians ask themselves this question at some point. If you grew up in church, it’s probably something you first pondered shortly out of Sunday school. If you were a latecomer to Christ, it may be one of those questions that kept you out of going to church in the first place.
For some of you, it may be your go-to question in debating Christians on Twitter and Reddit. (welcome, heathens)
Regardless of which bucket you fall into, you probably have it all figured out.
Well, good on you. I don’t.
When it comes to interpreting Scripture, one of my least favorite saying is “Take the Bible seriously, but not literally.”
Bleck.
I’m not 100% sure what it is, but I just find the phrase distasteful. It’s like when you show up late to a BBQ and there are only hot dogs left, but the hot dogs have been sitting in the sun for a couple of hours so they’re lukewarm and spongy. *gags*
Actually, I’m pretty sure I don’t like it because I’ve heard it abused by pseudo-preachers who use it as a means of justifying their social agendas and terrible hermeneutics.
But, to be fair, it’s actually a very important point. There are parts of the Bible that should be taken seriously, but not literally. Not all parts, but some parts. “Thou shalt not kill” is obviously not metaphor. But when David says “The Lord is my rock,” we aren’t left pondering whether God is igneous or sedimentary. It’s a figure of speech, and that’s fine and dandy.
The question, then, is which way should we interpret the seven-day creation account in Genesis? Is it speaking literally or figuratively?
Honestly, there are plenty of reasons to go either way on this:
- Augustine took it to be figurative, but Ambrose of Milan understood it to be literal (and if you aren’t up on your history of early church fathers, those two were pretty tightknit).
- There’s no scholarly consensus. Plenty of Bible-believing, Jesus loving, Christian scholars are represented on both sides of the fence.
- The literary category certainly seems to be that of myth, which is significant. But, as C.S. Lewis once pointed out, the God of Scripture has a fondness for making myth into fact.
All of this is simply to say that I don’t think the answer is obvious. Good cases can be (and have been) made either way.
But here’s what I think: It’s the wrong question.
Really. I think it’s a fun thing to think through. I think it’s a fun matter to debate. But I think the whole matter is somewhat trivial. Or, rather, it’s trivial compared to the question we should be asking.
What does the creation account tell us about the Creator?
Forget the days. If you’ve read Genesis 1 and 2, you’ve just read about a cosmic being that can create worlds from nothing!!! A being that breathes life into inanimate matter! A being that can do anything, create anything, and it chose to make us – and to do so carefully, methodically, and personally.
THAT is not trivial.
There’s nothing wrong with trivia, but it shouldn’t distract us from the things that really matter. And what Genesis 1 and 2 tell us about God really matters.
This article was originally posted on Andrew Haack’s blog ‘Since Nobody Asked.’ Reposted with permission.
This essay was re-posted with permission from Andrew Haack’s blog. Andrew is a spirit-filled sage of great wisdom and a world-renown purveyor of good news and bad jokes. You can find his work on his blog or follow him on Twitter!
Check out the podcast, and CLICK HERE for more great content!
