Section Introduction
Few stories possess the enduring power and theological significance of the biblical creation narrative found in Genesis 1-2. From the account of creation ex nihilo to the crucial figures of Adam and Eve, the Genesis Creation Narrative stands as a timeless testament to the profound interplay between faith, reason, and the miracle of existence. The ancient text has sparked millennia of debate, contemplation, and interpretation, captivating the minds and hearts of many across countless cultures and civilizations. Since the late 19th century however, developments within science, textual scholarship, and cultural shifts have provoked an exponentially increased level of scrutiny and confusion surrounding how to interpret these two critical opening chapters. Through this series, I attempt to provide a comprehensive examination of Genesis 1-2 and the surrounding questions and controversies, exploring the depths of its symbolism, historical context, and theological implications. By navigating through the complexities of creation, the figures of Adam and Eve, and their various interpretations, we can shed light on the intricate complexity and beauty of this foundational text.
Genesis 1
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1 stands as perhaps the most recognizable quote in the entirety of Scripture, setting the stage for perhaps the most recognizable narrative of Genesis 1. Despite its significance, the narrative has been subject to great oversimplification. It has caused even the brightest minds to unfairly criticize the text and proclaim its compatibility with the findings of modern science. In this section, I examine Genesis’ first chapter with the intent to avoid such mistaken conclusions and unground the true meaning intended by the biblical author. In doing so, we will get our first taste of the literary complexity and beauty the scriptures subtly entail.
Science and Old Earth
Stephen Hawking, widely acknowledged as one of the most distinguished physicists in history, stated in 1996: “All the evidence seems to indicate that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.”[1] Today, it is accepted as scientific fact that the universe and earth are billions of years old. However, the creation narrative of Genesis 1 seems to posit that God created the universe, Earth, and all of creation in six days only a few thousand years ago! Does modern science undermine the credibility of the creation narrative, and consequently, pose a substantial challenge to the authenticity of Christianity and all Abrahamic religions?
In my observation, the objection raised above appears to be one of the most prevalent and perplexing apparent “contradictions” encountered by many individuals. There is a pervasive belief that science and the creation story of Genesis 1 are irreconcilable—a belief that is simply unwarranted. While it is accurate that certain interpretations of the text may be challenged by this scientific discovery, I posit that the scientific discovery has served to convey a more accurate understanding of the creation narrative.
Interpretations
Countless interpretations have been proposed regarding Genesis 1; too many to cover here in this essay. That being said, Renowned Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin provides five of the most popular interpretations that stand out as sufficient for comprehensive coverage[2].
The Ordinary Day Interpretation
The Ordinary Day Interpretation posits that God created the universe in six 24-hour days, then took a day of rest within a regular week. This interpretation is a straightforward, literal understanding of the text. It’s an interpretation that a reasonable person could arrive at when reading the text casually, and as a result, has been the overwhelmingly dominant interpretation throughout history.
The Day-Age Interpretation
The Day-Age Interpretation holds that each of the six days of creation represents a long and undefined period rather than a 24-hour day. The interpretation suggests each day could span billions of years, aligning the Genesis 1 chronology with the timeline of modern science. While the process God undertook for creation remains consistent, this interpretation allows for more time between each of the symbolic days mentioned in the text.
The Gap Interpretation
The Gap Interpretation of Genesis 1 introduces the idea of a gap or interval of time between the initial creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the subsequent re-creation mentioned in Genesis 1:2 and onwards. Much like the Day-Age Interpretation, This interpretation allows for some reconciliation between the biblical narrative and certain scientific findings proposing an ancient Earth and universe.
The Revelatory Day Interpretation
The Revelatory Day Interpretation proposes that the six days of creation described in Genesis 1 are not literal, sequential periods but rather represent a visionary or revelatory experience granted to the biblical author. It posits that God revealed a series of visions, perhaps to Moses, at a pace of one per day, unveiling the mysteries of creation. In this interpretation, Genesis 1 functions as a journal chronicling these visionary experiences.
The Framework Interpretation
The Framework Interpretation posits the six days of creation in Genesis 1 is a literary framework or structure rather than a chronological account. According to this perspective, the days are organized to convey theological themes rather than a strict sequence of events. The framework of a Hebrew week is implemented by the author who uses the parallelism between the first three days and the subsequent three days, emphasizing the creation of realms (days 1-3) and corresponding inhabitants (days 4-6). Much like the Revelatory Day Interpretation, this interpretation is a symbolic understanding of the text, suggesting that the focus is on conveying a message of God’s creative power rather than providing a precise chronology.
Church Teaching
Before moving forward, we must ask: Does the Church permit non-literal interpretations of the Creation Narrative? In 1992, with the release of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a pivotal declaration was made: “God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day.”[3] This statement, enshrined within the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, unequivocally asserts that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days.” For the Catholic faithful, this stands as a clear, concise, and authoritative pronouncement of symbolic support. While this perspective originates from the Catholic tradition, it’s noteworthy that some evangelical and Protestant denominations are also beginning to entertain the possibility of non-literal interpretations of the narrative.
Process of Elimination
Having presented our various interpretations, we can begin the process of elimination. As alluded to above, the Big Bang Theory and the concept of an ancient Earth, an Earth that formed over billions of years through cosmic evolutionary processes, stand essentially as scientific facts. Few theories rival the certainty of these understandings. Thus, we can rule out the Ordinary Day Interpretation. Although this interpretation has been historically popular, and I do have much respect for it, adhering to it requires dismissing modern scientific knowledge—a significant challenge that has some detrimental consequences. However, this is not the only place where inconsistencies and contradictions can be found surrounding the Ordinary Day Interpretation.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.[4]
The Sun Before The Day?
It is fairly easy to find some inconsistencies within the text itself. The creation of the sun on the fourth day contradicts the understanding that the sun is essential for the day-night cycle, which is created on the first day. The creation of vegetation on the third day, before the creation of the sun on the fourth day, contradicts the process of photosynthesis which relies on sunlight. The creation of birds on the fifth day before land animals on the sixth conflicts with scientific evidence suggesting the reverse order. If one insists on interpreting the timeline in Genesis 1 as a literal and chronological sequence, major issues arise which can easily render it false.
At this point, a crucial decision must be made: either persist with a literal reading, thereby disregarding scientific and basic logical reasoning (that tells us that the day-night cycle does not predate the sun), or entertain the possibility that the six-day timeline and the order of creation are not intended to be taken literally. The most logical choice is to recognize Genesis 1 as non-literal. Consequently, we can dismiss the Day-Age Interpretation, the Gap Interpretation, and again the Ordinary-Day interpretation. Although the former two allow for a more extended timeline, they still adhere to the notion that the order of events are literal.
We are left with the Revelatory Day Interpretation and the Framework Interpretation. Although both propose a non-literal reading of Genesis 1, they differ significantly in their strength of supporting evidence. As Jimmy Akin points out, the issue with the Revelatory Day Interpretation is that there is no indication in the text to support it. The text does not have the usual language of biblical prophecy, nor do we have the biblical author writing anything that even slightly indicates the days were derived from revelation. Worse, the first day is presented with the creation of the day-night cycle. This seems to strongly indicate the interpretation of the six days as being days in which the world is created rather than days in which the creation is revealed. The Revelatory Day Interpretation lacks substantiating evidence, both internally and externally, leading us to dismiss it from consideration. Consequently, the Framework Interpretation remains the sole contender.
Revisiting the Framework Interpretation
It is within this interpretative framework that the evidence finds its place. Not only does it align with modern scientific understanding, but the textual evidence also proves to be remarkably substantial. To further appreciate this, it is beneficial to revisit the days of creation:
Day 1: God creates light and separates it from darkness, establishing the day-night cycle.
Day 2: God separates the waters above and below, creating the sky or firmament.
Day 3: God gathers the waters to reveal dry land, forms seas, and brings forth vegetation on the land.
In the initial three days, God has divided one thing from another: day (light) from night (darkness), waters above from below, and waters below from each other. This process is traditionally recognized as the work of division or distinction.
Day 4: God creates the sun, moon, and stars to govern the day and night.
Day 5: God forms sea creatures and birds, filling the waters and skies.
Day 6: God creates land animals and, finally, forms humans in His image, both male and female.
During the subsequent three days, God revisits the domains he created through division and proceeds to populate or adorn them. He populates the day and night with the sun, moon, and stars. He populates the waters above with birds and the waters below with fish. Lastly, he populates the land with animals and humans. This process is traditionally referred to as the work of adornment.
This literary device is also reflected at the beginning and end of the narrative. In the beginning, the text states, “the earth was without form and void” (Gen. 1:2). The work of distinction addresses the issue of being “without form,” while the work of adornment addresses the “void” (empty) condition. Similarly, at the end of the narrative, we learn that “the heavens and the earth were finished (through distinction), and all the host of them (through adornment)”[5].
The Framework Interpretation emerges as the sole interpretation that harmonizes all internal and external factors. Offering a non-literal account of creation, it aligns with the conclusions of science, suggesting the possibility of an Old Earth. It addresses internal “contradictions,” such as the presence of the sun before the establishment of the day-night cycle and the creation of plants preceding the appearance of the sun. With its clear and impressive literary structure, the Framework Interpretation presents a compelling case for understanding the author’s true intent, and in my opinion, leaving little room for doubt or questioning.
Historical Context
Genesis 1 tells us what God did, that is, create the universe, Earth, and everything in existence, without attempting to tell us in a literal fashion when God did it. Instead, the facts of creation have been fitted into the framework of a single Hebrew week containing a remarkable literary structure. This is the conclusion we have drawn from our analysis thus far. However, there is much more. As biblical scholars John Bergsma and Brant Pitre point out, the full significance of the Genesis 1 creation account becomes more clear when contrasted with other ancient Near Eastern creation narratives/cosmologies.
In the Babylonian story, the Enuma Elish, written possibly in the 14th century B.C., the creation of the world is the unintended consequence of a battle among the gods. Marduk, the patron god of Babylon, kills Tiamat, the goddess of the depths of the sea, and forms the world from her dead corpse. Later Tiamat’s husband, Kingu, is also killed and human beings are formed from his blood, as slaves of the gods, to perform menial tasks so the gods may take their case.
The Sumerian cosmology, as previously discussed (Post #5), unfolds at the beginning of time when only the gods exist and they find themselves burdened with labor. Frustrated, the gods complain to Nammu, Enki’s mother, who suggests that Enki creates “substitutes” to perform the work. Enki agrees, leading to the creation of humans. The Sumerians offer a second creation account, wherein humans are created mistakenly during a drunken divine challenge between Enki and Ninmah.
The Akkadian Atrahasis epic (Post #5) begins by detailing a prehistoric era when the gods endured the burden of daily work. The laboring gods (the Igigi) subsequently launch a rebellion against the superior gods (the Anunnaki). In response to the revolt, the god Enlil requests the mother goddess, Mami, to create humanity and free the Igigi from their labor. With the assistance of the magician god Enki, she brings humans into existence.
In Egypt, while there are fewer cosmologies, the ancient Egyptians have left behind an abundance of iconography that represents their understanding of the universe. The illustration above, dating back to 500 B.C., serves as an excellent example. In this depiction, the female sky god Nut arches over the male earth god Geb. The sun-god, Amon-Ra, is observed ascending Nut’s body in the east in his ship and descending in the west. For the ancient Egyptians, the entire cosmos was deified; every aspect of the natural realm was considered divine, embodying a god or goddess.
Bergsma and Pitre highlight a stark contrast between cosmologies in the biblical account of Genesis 1. Unlike the gods depicted in the Enuma Elish, the God in Genesis creates without conflict with any rival deities; with peace and supreme authority. In contrast to the Egyptian concept of natural divinity, Genesis 1 portrays the earth, sea, sky, and sun as obedient creations of God, each crafted for its own specific purpose. Unlike the narratives of Sumerian and Akkadian traditions, the God of Genesis 1 does not create humanity as labor slaves, nor portrays them as a drunken mistake. Instead, humans are created in God’s image and likeness out of love, a creation that he deems “very good.” The relationship between God, man, and creation in the biblical account is inherently much more positive and optimistic than in the cosmologies of the ancient Near East. It appears to stand in direct opposition to the narratives and conveyed messages of Israel’s neighboring cultures[6].
Furthermore, when considering the author’s use of the Near Eastern “dual-creation” literary framework discussed in the previous post (#5), it becomes crystal clear that it is a motivation for the biblical author to actively engage with and challenge the prevailing local narratives of the time. Made evident by the deliberate contrasts within Genesis 1 against the backdrop of contemporary cosmologies situated in the region’s commonly utilized dual creation structure, the author’s intent is not only to highlight the uniqueness of God’s creative process but also to facilitate a clearer understanding of the intended message for the audience. This audience would be familiar with the structure and stories he is engaging with, thereby emphasizing the significance of his message amidst the prevailing cultural narratives.
Conclusion
Upon our examination of Genesis 1, a comprehensive interpretation of how the text should be understood and read can be constructed. While this is solely my perspective, I believe the evidence reviewed in the post adds weight to these conclusions.
In general terms, the author of Genesis 1 recounts what God did (created the universe, Earth, and all things in existence) without explicitly specifying when the actions took place. Instead, the facts of creation are woven into the framework of a single Hebrew week. This is achieved through a clever literary device centered around the themes of division and adornment—the Framework Interpretation. The Framework Interpretation presents a clear and compelling proposition. It aligns seamlessly with the text of Genesis and is consistent with modern scientific understandings. It is the most plausible view upon careful consideration of the text. This makes it (in my perspective) the appropriate way to understand Genesis 1.
Additionally, profound and deeper theological messages can be found when juxtaposing Genesis 1 with other ancient Near Eastern creation accounts. It seems the biblical author, knowing his original audience to be familiar with these popular stories, intentionally aims to draw comparisons and contrasts with the ancient Near Eastern creation accounts and their corresponding gods. Set against the backdrop of familiar ancient Near Eastern stories and within their literary structures (Post #5), this intentional theological messaging not only underscores the distinctiveness of the biblical worldview but also highlights divine order, purposeful creation, and the elevated status of humanity. It effectively serves to establish the supremacy of the God of Israel over the gods of the East. One can only imagine the profound literary impact this direct opposition would have had on the early Israelites.
Within just the very first chapter of the Bible, one can see the profound literary and contextual depth that the Scriptures embody. Upon thorough analysis, the Bible consistently evokes awe through the sheer amount of complexity it reveals. It stands as a literary masterpiece, often unveiling hidden beauty when the text is examined in depth.
Sources
[1] “Stephen Hawking Estate.” Stephen Hawking Estate, 1996, https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time.
[2] Akin, Jimmy. “Genesis One – Jimmy Akin.” Jimmy Akin, 2 February 2006, https://jimmyakin.com/2006/02/genesis_one.html.
[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed., Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2019, para. 337.
[4] Genesis 1, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
[5] Akin, Jimmy. “The Six Days of Creation.” Catholic Answers, 1 January 2003, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-six-days-of-creation.
[6] Bergsma, John Sietze, and Brant James Pitre. A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament. Ignatius Press, 2018. pp. 98-99