One of the most important rhythms in my life at the start of every new year is beginning my annual Bible reading plan. I’ve used several plans over the years, but the one I return to most often is the simple approach that takes me through the entire Bible in a year.
And that means that every January I find myself right back at two familiar, and uniquely significant, places in Scripture: Genesis 1 and Matthew 1.
Genesis 1 opens with creation: God speaking all things into existence, ordering what is formless, filling what is empty, and declaring it all “very good.” Matthew 1 opens with a genealogy: a list of names that roots the coming of Jesus in real history and reminds us that God’s promises are fulfilled through real people, often messy people, by sheer grace.
In other words, one chapter begins with the making of the world, and the other begins with the making of a people; a family line through whom the Savior would come. One introduces the story of creation; the other introduces the story of redemption. Together, they set the stage for everything else the Bible teaches.
So I thought I’d take the next couple of weeks and write about both of these chapters, not to overwhelm you with details, but to help clarify, explain, and (I hope) deepen your understanding of two pivotal passages that shape the whole storyline of Scripture.
This week, we’ll begin with Genesis 1.
Many of us know Genesis 1 well. We can quote parts of it. We’ve heard it taught since childhood. But what some Christians may not realize is that among evangelicals—people who believe the Bible is the inerrant, inspired, and authoritative Word of God—there has been a range of views on questions like:
Personally, I believe this is an area where Bible-believing Christians can somewhat differ, disagree, and hold a variety of viewpoints—provided those views remain orthodox and do not deny any of the fundamental truths of the Christian faith (i.e. the direct creation of man by God, not some evolutionary process, the goodness and perfection of God’s creation, sin entering the world through Adam, etc.). At the same time, there are other positions that, in my judgment, genuinely compromise biblical authority and therefore should be rejected (man came into being through an evolutionary process).
With that in mind, in this post I’m not aiming to argue for my own interpretation of Genesis 1 or the “days” of creation. Instead, I want to lay out the major views that Christians have held throughout the centuries, briefly explain what each position teaches, and note some of the strengths and weaknesses of each position. My hope is that doing so will help us better understand these viewpoints, read Scripture more thoughtfully, and engage these questions with clarity, humility, and charity.
Again, I want to reiterate that I am not championing them all! They cannot all be right. I myself would align most closely somewhere around view 5: “Historical Creationism” or view 6: “Young Earth Creationism.” I believe both hold excellent arguments and they best explain the biblical text. Please note also that my description of each position will be brief without lots of explanation. If you’d like, I can provide more in the days ahead.
How the views are commonly grouped
(Non-literal days / Old earth)
What it teaches:
God created the world but used the natural process of evolution to bring about life over millions of years. God may have intervened at key moments (the creation of matter, the first life, possibly humanity), but otherwise allowed evolution to proceed.
Strengths (if there are any, I’m trying to be charitable here) :
Weaknesses:
Representative voices:
Notes:
Personally, I have major concerns with any Christian who would hold to this position. Many proponents of this view are motivated by a desire to integrate evolutionary science with Christian theology. Positions within this camp vary widely, especially regarding Adam, the Fall, and original sin, but as several theologians have noted, this view often imports assumptions from scientific naturalism that reshape how Scripture is read, rather than allowing Scripture to set the framework.
(Non-literal days / old earth)
What it teaches:
The six “days” of creation represent long geological ages rather than 24-hour periods. The Hebrew word yom (“day”) can refer to varying lengths of time, and the seventh day (God’s rest) is viewed as ongoing.
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Representative voices:
Notes:
This view is common among Christian apologists who wish to affirm both biblical authority and the scientific consensus regarding the age of the universe.
(Days may or may not be literal / age of earth unspecified)
What it teaches:
Genesis 1 is structured as a literary framework rather than a chronological account. The days are arranged topically: God forms creation (days 1–3) and then fills it (days 4–6).
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Representative voices:
Notes:
This view emphasizes the theological and literary structure of Genesis rather than chronological sequencing.
(Literal days / Old earth)
What it teaches:
There is a long gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. An original creation existed, fell under judgment (possibly connected to Satan’s fall), and the six days describe a later re-creation.
The main argument for this view comes in Genesis 1:2 where we read, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.” The words “without form and void” picture the earth, according to this view, as suffering the effects of God’s judgment. Darkness in Scripture is associated with judgment and “formless and void” or “void and empty” refers to places like deserts that have suffered the consequences of God’s judgment against sin.
This view became popular with the release of the Scofield Study Bible in 1909 (the study Bible that also popularized dispensationalism). In fact, the Scofield Bible comments on Genesis 1:2 saying, “Clearly this verse indicates that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as a result of divine judgment…The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe…which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels.” It also notes on vs. 2, “the earth became formless and void,” instead of, “the earth was formless and void.”
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Representative voices:
Notes:
While this view was extremely popular in the early 1900s, especially among dispensational Christians, it has declined significantly among contemporary evangelical scholars.
(Literal 24-hour days / Old earth possible)
What it teaches:
Personally, I think this view holds a lot of weight, though still growing in my understanding of the position. God created the entire universe in Genesis 1:1 during an unspecified period of time (“the beginning”). The six days that follow describe God preparing a specific land (Eden) for humanity in literal 24-hour days.
This view is most clearly articulated by John Sailhamer, in his book Genesis Unbound, and focuses on how the original audience would have understood terms like “land” (eretz) and “heavens and earth.” Sailhamer agues that “formless and void” is better translated as “uninhabitable wilderness” (see Jeremiah 4:23-26). And so, as a result of this popular translation, many view God’s creation prior to Genesis 1:3 as this shapeless mass of material. However, Sailhamer argues that early Jewish interpreters understood the phrase to mean an inhospitable wasteland so that “the land” / “the earth” (eretz) is going from wasteland to Promised Land.
Also, the phrase “heavens and earth” is a Hebrew ‘mereism’ expression for everything, meaning that the universe and everything in it was created “in the beginning” at an unspecified period of time before the six days of preparing the land in Genesis 1:2-2:4.
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Representative voices:
Notes:
This view is less common but has gained interest because it attempts to take the Hebrew text, biblical theology, and the storyline of Scripture very seriously while maintaining six literal days.
(Literal 24-hour days / Young earth)
What it teaches:
I tip my hat to this view as a very strong position that is the most literal reading of the biblical text, while I also am seeking to grapple with “Historic Creationism.” God created everything in six literal 24-hour days less than 10,000–20,000 years ago. This means when earth was created mature, with the appearance of age. Many geological features are explained through Noah’s flood. This also means that humanity is relatively young based on the genealogical records we have in the Bible, not millions and millons of years old.
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Representative voices:
Notes:
This is likely the most widespread view among evangelicals historically, particularly at the popular and pastoral level. It strongly emphasizes the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture and a straightforward reading of Genesis.
It’s important to remember that Genesis was not written to satisfy modern scientific curiosity, although I do think it aligns with science. But the main emphasis of Moses is to declare who God is, who we are, and why the world exists. The central truths are clear:
We should hold our convictions with humility, charity, and confidence in Scripture. Christians may disagree on some points of how God created, but must stand united on the clarity, inerrancy, inspiration, and authority of God’s Word.
