Of Rethinking the Six Days of Genesis 1
I have heretofore always favored an understanding of the six days of creation in the first chapter of Genesis as literal twenty-four-hour periods. My primary reason for this has been that our faith is radically historical--its veracity stands or falls on various historical claims--and that the book of Genesis very plainly presents itself as an historical narrative. I still think this is a terribly important point. However, the changing face of my understanding of both biblical hermeneutics and physical science leads me to think that the literal twenty-four-hour periods interpretation is largely incoherent, and suggests to me an interpretation more consonant with what we now know of the nature of physical reality, as well as what the text actually says, while retaining the deeply historical character of the Genesis narrative. Now it may very well be that what I am presenting has already been suggested by dozens of others I am unaware of, perhaps more cogently, and may have been refuted by others still. If so, I would appreciate people pointing me in their direction.
The problem that I see with a "literal twenty-four-hour days" approach to the Genesis 1 creation account lies in its implicit assumption of Newtonian time, and its reification of what are actually descriptive, conditional time-units. One of the implications of General Relativity is that mass-energy is ontologically precedent to space-time. Time is not a container-like matrix within which "things" interact and "events" occur. Rather, time is a property of "things"--more specifically of ordered systems of "things"--and has no meaning or reality apart from the interactive systems from which it is derived. If we are to think of the days of creation as twenty-four-hour periods, we must reify time by assuming it exists apart from the systems that sustain it and give it meaning.
Let me illustrate how this works. At the beginning of the Genesis 1 creation account, we have God alone in a pre-creation that is "formless" (undifferentiated, unstructured, chaotic) and "void" (vacuous, empty). These are conditions under which what we experience as time does not exist. Even if you were going to say that scripture is speaking hyperbolically at this point, and that some fundamental physical order is already in place by verse 2 (which seems to go against the narrative flow), thus making time possible, you are still asserting that "days" as twenty-four-hour periods have some meaning or existence apart from the rotation of the earth about its axis in relation to the other celestial bodies (earth can't even "rotate" by itself, without other bodies to rotate in relation to)--all of which are as yet uncreated. In fact, if you go to the text without assuming that the creation days must be twenty-four-hour periods, it seems remarkably clear that God doesn't even create time as we experience it until day four, along with the heavenly bodies that give it meaning.
This view makes the Genesis creation account compatible in a couple of interesting ways with what is often seen by evangelical Christians as a big, scary scientific ogre: the Big Bang Theory (which, for the record, has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and in fact proved itself against overwhelming resistance from materialist scientists who thought it was dreamed up to justify the doctrine of divine creatio ex nihilo). First, the Big Bang Theory predicts what has sometimes been seen as an absurdity in the Genesis account: the existence of light before the creation of the various luminaries which, in our present time, are its sources. The Big Bang Theory requires that light and heat exist (in great plenitude) in the universe from the very beginning, before even the simplest elements are formed. Secondly, the arising of time out of the formation of material systems, primarily stellar bodies, as the Big Bang Theory explains, seems remarkably like what is described in Genesis 1:14-19.
But what then is meant by the "days" of Genesis 1? I answer with another question: What is meant by the phrase "day of the Lord?" Certainly not a twenty-four-hour period. Rather, the "day of the Lord" is a complete, historical
act of God. I think the language of Genesis 1 suggests a similar treatment of the creation days: each "day" is a single constitutive, decretive act of the Creator-God. The framing of each "day" around a creation-act, along with the "evening and morning" trope (in Hebrew, the word for"evening" means "covering," "weaving," and "surety of covenant"; while the word for "morning" means "breaking-forth," "harvest," and "appraisal"), suggest it strongly. The "days" of Genesis 1 are days of "divine time" (see
the article from two posts ago)--manifestations of the inner life and relationality of the Godhead, of his will and purpose. Genesis 1 is, after all, a
theocentric account of the creation, culminating in God's rest after the creation of mankind. In Genesis 2, the creation account begins over again, from an
anthropocentric viewpoint, which more or less holds for the rest of scripture (this distinction nullifies fears that anything but a literal-twenty-four-hour-days interpretation of Genesis 1 casts doubt on all subsequent biblical history).
Obviously this is not an exhaustive look at the implications of rethinking the Genesis 1 timescale, and there are undoubtedly many things I have overlooked. Hopefully, you in blogland can help point them out to me. Nevertheless, the insufficiency of a literalistic view of the Genesis 1 creation days, in the face of our present-day, relativistic understanding of time, as well as less wooden and fundamentalist hermeneutics, seems to me increasingly plain.
posted by Jeremy at 4:55 PM
4 Marginalia:
Before asking my bland questions I wanted to give a shout-out to you, Tank, for having a blog which does not compel me to mentally correct grammar and spelling. It feels very safe.
At a base level I'm not sure I'm understanding what makes the distinction between what you are proposing now and what was proposed in the light of Darwinian evolution. You're saying, "We've made these advances in science, and we'll only look stupid if we hold out on this issue." When we talked about this previously that wasn't exactly the vibe I got, but maybe I was missing it.
The fact thatin the text YHWH divides light and darkness and designates them as day and night, makes it difficult for me square the interpretation you're proposing. Perhaps this is just Stubborn Presbyterianism vs. Kinder Gentler Anglicanism, but I see a lot of good reason not to do violence to the text.
That aside, I would describe myself as very open to an understanding of Creation that works with the text and Quantum Time (probably not accurate terminology?) to demonstrate something different than we've previously understood. But I find it hard to square a non-literal Genesis with a literal-literal rest of the Bible. Maybe your answer to this is in the Theocentric and Anthropocentric thing you mentioned there, but I would need you to explain a bit more to me.
And what would you say of the "days" of the fourth commandment?
The world is a better place because you like wierd things, Tank. But do you really want to be in a camp saying that the first Monday was epochal while Friday (post heavenly-body creation)lasted for only a moment?
[How does Thanksgiving in Moscow sound?]
Thanksgiving in Moscow sounds awesome. I don't know if I could afford the trip, though.
, at
11:25 AM