The Days of Genesis 1

Are each of the six "days" in Gen 1 'twenty-four hour days'? Though the question has attracted a great deal of attention in modern times especially in the light of the challenges posed by the theory of evolution, interest in the question actually goes much further back. Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea (c.329-379), had already insisted that the six days were to be understood literally as twenty-four hour intervals determined by revolutions of the sun. Augustine of Hippo (354-430), on the other hand, felt that it is difficult to know exactly what a "day" can mean in the creation story, that it is extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible, for us to conceive what kind of days these were and how much more could be said about them.1

In considering a response we need to keep in mind the the following:

1. It is wise counsel to remember, first of all, that the literal understanding of 'day' is not necessarily a more spiritual and biblical interpretation. It is, therefore, not inherently preferable.2 Ken Ham writing in Answers In Genesis, e.g., is insistent on the six literal days because,

If we don't agree that the Bible teaches six literal days, if we allow ourselves to be influenced by the millions of years, and we don't read the text as written . . . right there in Genesis 1, we've lost the battle. The battle is lost because the messege to the people is, 'We don't have to take the Bible seriously here.' That compromises opens a door that leads to disaster.3

This is "interpretation driven by fear." It is reactive and, therefore, weak; it does not represent an responsible handling of the Word of God, even if the concern is well-intended.

2. The word 'day' is used in normal speech to refer to three things: a) as the period from any hour to the same hour of the next day, i.e., what we call a 24-hour-day, b) as the period from dawn to dust, and c) as a period of indeterminate duration. All the three meanings are found in this first account of Genesis: 'a 24-hour period' in 1:5b, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; 2:2,3; the second in 1:5a, 14, 16, 18; and the third in 2:4 ("In the day the Lord God made the earth and the heavens").

3. Proposals that the 'days' were either '24-hour periods' or 'epochs of indeterminate period' (what is known as 'day-age') are both possible but also equally fraught with exegetical as well as scientific problems. It is important to recognize that the need to defend either position assumes questions and agendas that may be important to us within the intellectual context of our times, but that are almost without doubt non-issues to the narrator. Between the two, a '24-hour day' would seem to have been the natural way an ancient Israelite audience thought of it, if for no other than the simple reason that the idea of a long period of time (such as needed by evolutionary theories) would not have occurred to them as an alternative to be considered. The alternative to a 24-hour day is, therefore, a modern innovation having gained traction particularly after theories of evolution requiring long periods of time became intellectually acceptable since the latter half of the 19th Cent.

4. A '24-hour day' is not necessary for understanding the message of Gen 1, which is about who God is, not the science of the origin of the universe. (See 'Resouces' below.)

5. The details in the text itself do not provide us with an adequately defensible case for a '24-hour day' as is often asserted by "creationists" to be. A '24-hour day' is, by definition, "one rotation of the earth on its axis as it revolves around the sun." Scientifically, this is what gives it the day and night. Without a sun, any argument for a '24-hour day' is moot. In Gen 1, the sun was not set in the heaven until Day 4. What then are we to make of Days 1-3? They certainly cannot be defined as '24-hour' days. To suggest that the first three days are different in nature from the the later ones raises more difficult problems than the one it seeks to solve.

6. The literary structure of Gen 1 in which the elements of Days 1-3 are balanced by those of Days 4-6 suggests strongly that it is unwise to make too literal a use of the details for establishing a science of the origin of creation. There is nothing in the text itself that hints to us that the ancient Hebrews had such an interest in the origin of the world and that the details given in the account may, therefore, be legitimately used for such a purpose.

7. Besides the options of a '24-hour-day' and the "period of indeterminate duration," there is in fact another option that sees the 'day' as non-chronologic, i.e. it has nothing to do with time. Rather the 'days' are understood as "structures of a literary framework designed to illustrate the orderly nature of God's creation."3 This option is particularly appealing because it is exegetically and stylistically consonant and it serves particularly well to emphasize the theological thrust of the account.

By way of a conclusion, let me quote :

The argument is made that, as a reaction to the advent of Darwinism evolution, people began to no longer approach the days of Genesis 1 as solar days. Actually, the testimony of church history is that the approach is mixed from the beginning. But after the rise of evolution, as a reaction, we began to see the rise of creationism, and a dogmatic requirement of adherence to a literal six days. One has to ask: Which approach, then, is driven more by the argument of the day, and which is driven by Scripture?4

Resources & Readings

Bob Utley, "Special Topic: Day (yom)," Bible Lessons International. 2014.
html R 5 (Open on Phone)

John Snow, "How Long Is the Sixth Day?" Reprinted, with permission, from Robert C. Newman & Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr., Genesis One & the Origin of the Earth (Downers Grove: InterVarstiy Press, 1977), 125-135.
Pdf N

John James, "The Age of the Earth: A Plea for Geo-Chronological Non-Dogmaticism," Foundations 71 (November 2016): 39-51.
html/pdf N 6 (Open on Phone)