Journal: Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
Volume: DBSJ 05:1 (Fall 2000)
Article: A Defense Of Literal Days In The Creation Week
Author: Robert V. McCabe

DBSJ 5 (Fall 2000) p. 97

A Defense Of Literal Days In
The Creation Week

Robert V. McCabea

Over the past decade, there has been a proliferation of articles defending either a literal or a figurative1 interpretation of the days in the creation week.2 While some of the issues associated with the debate about a literal versus a figurative understanding of the creation days in Genesis 1 have been discussed since the early days of the church,3 the figurative interpretation of the creation days representing each day as an extended period of time is of recent vintage.4 Though a few significant

DBSJ 5 (Fall 2000) p. 98

interpreters prior to the Reformation did not consistently interpret the days of the creation week in a literal manner, they clearly did not support, nor could they have even envisioned, a figurative use for each of the creation days representing an extended period of time. However, since the days of the Reformation, with a renewed and more consistent emphasis on a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, a literal interpretation of the creation days has been the prevailing view of orthodox Christianity. This literal interpretation maintains that God created the heavens and the earth and all things therein in six, successive 24-hour days.

The literal interpretation of the creation days has come under a more threatening and increasing assault within the last 150 to 200 years. With the rise of modern geology, it became apparent to many that if modern man were to be able to explain the earth’s topography by the processes that he could observe, he would have to allow for an earth that had existed for millions of years.5 Because the geological data for an old earth seemed so overwhelming, many who claimed loyalty to the teachings of Scripture felt compelled to reevaluate the literal understanding of the days of the creation week. This reevaluation has resulted in a polarization of thought concerning the earth’s age. As in the time prior to the Reformation, two broad interpretative groups have again surfaced: those who interpret the days of creation figuratively and those who interpret the days literally. While those who interpret the creation days figuratively may have some level of hermeneutical continuity with a few pre-Reformation interpreters, their conclusions are radically different: an old earth model supported by modern scientific belief and by scientifically correct re...