How should we interpret the Genesis week?

I really believe there’s never been a better time to feel justified in crediting God with creating the universe.

With the only two rational choices for answering the primary question of metaphysics, “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” being an eternal universe or aneternal creator, and having so much evidence available today pointing towards a non-eternal universe, the idea of a creator God is looking pretty good.

Physicist Dr. Alexander Vilenkin puts what I think is the nail in the coffin of an eternal universe when he says:

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

Critics of the God hypothesis used to normally punt towards the multi-verse theory to explain away our universe’s beginning, but today many now admit that no empirical evidence supports such a thing (they need faith to believe it) and so are coming around to Dr. Richard Swinburne’s position on the matter: “To postulate a trillion-trillion other universes, rather than one God, in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality.”

Scientists are supposed to follow the evidence instead of their own bias, but resistance towards the idea of God and a universe with a beginning is still strong with some. Dr. John Lennox sums up the incongruity of the situation when he writes,

“It is rather ironical that in the 16th century some people resisted advances in science because they seemed to threaten belief in God; whereas in the 20th century scientific ideas of a beginning have been resisted because they threatened to increase the plausibility of belief in God.”

Even Stephen Hawking admitted that, writing: “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”

Yes, it does.

And the acceptance of divine intervention being needed for reality is making more atheists and agnostics believers. Take, for example, Charles Murray, a political scientist and former agnostic who wrote a book entitled Taking Religion Seriously last year. In his Wall Street Journal review of Mr. Murray’s book, columnist Barton Swaim describes how Murray’s conversion: “Began in the early 2000s, when he read a few theoretical accounts of the universe’s origins, among them Martin Rees’s Just Six Numbers” (1999). So wildly improbable were the conditions necessary for the so-called big bang, it seems to Mr. Murray, that the whole business, whenever it happened, sounded very much like what Christians call creation. “I can’t believe I’m thinking this,” he recalls reflecting, “but it’s the only plausible explanation” — “it” meaning the divine origin of everything. 

Of course, the science and evidence supporting a divine origin always lead back to the Bible and its first book, which means “beginnings” (Genesis), with its opening line: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Such a simple verse, but out of it come all sorts of positions and questions on how God went about creating everything we know. 

And with that follows all sorts of disagreements, divisions, and more that can lead to disruption in the body of Christ. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

A look at the Genesis week

Theologians have different lists as to the various interpretations of the Genesis week (mine has nine). But no matter the list, when you step back and perform some due diligence into what they actually assert vs. the caricatures presented by their detractors, they all affirm at least two things: 1. the direct supernatural creation of everything and the opposition to naturalism; 2. the historicity of Genesis account, meaning actual creative acts took place and the people described are real.

Where they differ is the age of the earth/universe and whether the days/event descriptions are literal or allegorical.

On the young earth side of the house, you have two primary theories: standard six-day creation (which I doubt I need to explain) and one called “ideal time,” which asserts all things were created with the appearance of age. The former has many strong supporters, such as one of my favorite teaching pastors, John MacArthur, whereas the latter hasn’t many followers at present.  

The old earth category has more choices, at least in my list. The “long days” option has the days of Genesis being much longer than our 24-hour day. The “revelatory days” theory says the six days were 24-hour days of revelation that God gave to Moses, who wrote Genesis, with them representing the past series of creation events.

One old-earth theory called “day age” states that the six days were 24-hour days of actual creation, but between each day there was a long period of time. I used to poo-poo this idea until I read John Lennox’s book, Seven Days That Divide the World, in which he makes a pretty good case for it.

Another old-earth option having a growing fan base is “Literary Framework”, which asserts the six days were an ancient writing device used to frame certain periods of time in order to encapsulate them in literary form, much like we use a chapter in a book. C. S. Lewis liked this possibility, saying in his essay Dogma and the Universe: “The first chapters of Genesis, no doubt, give the story of creation in the form of a folk-tale.” Tim Keller prefers this possibility also, as does William Lane Craig.  

A niche old-earth theory is called “Israel focus” and says the first Genesis week speaks only of Israel’s land creation. The last one in my list is called “ruin/reconstruction” or “gap” that claims there is a time gap between the first two verses of Genesis, where verse one has God initially creating everything and then verse two kicks off following an unknown period of time that elapsed with the re-creation of the earth after God decimated it because of Satan’s rebellion.

So, which of these creation theories is correct?

I remember many years ago listening through a series of podcasts from William Lane Craig’s Defenders series on creation while working out at the gym. In his typical style, Craig worked through the various young and old earth theories, stating both the pros and cons of each.

At the end of the last episode, Craig said: “Now I’m sure all of you want to know which theory I believe is correct.” “Finally!”, I thought, so I quickly sat down on a weight bench, eagerly waiting for the answer. Craig paused and then said: “I have no idea.”

NO!

A guy who has two Ph.D.s, was a former seminary professor, and widely acknowledged to be one of the world’s top Christian apologists and thinkers, hadn’t reached a firm conclusion on Genesis? To be fair, Craig did say he found the combination of the literary framework and long days to be in union with Scripture, but maintained he still wasn’t 100% certain how God created everything.

Quite the letdown at the time, let me tell you.

However, one of my takeaways from that experience is that great Christian thinkers who are devoted to Christ can differ on how God went about creating all that we know but still lock arms over affirming a creator God exists and rejecting time + matter + chance being responsible for everything. It’s a great topic of discussion, but not one for caustic division.

No matter which interpretation of the Genesis week you hold to, I think we can all embrace what Francis Schaeffer wrote in his book The God Who is There about the core truths communicated by the Bible’s first book: “Take away the first three chapters of Genesis, and you cannot maintain a true Christian position nor give Christianity’s answers.”

Agreed.