A debate continues among literalists who interpret Genesis as literal days of 24 hours, and allegorists who interprets the six days of creation as either longer periods (thousands of years) or eras or periods of creation.

A first observation is that in church history, the issue of creation days was never considered as a matter of dogma. When the fundamentals of the Christian faith were attacked by heresy, Christians debated, met in councils which have issued rulings that clearly state the true faith. These decisions of councils have served as defensive walls against heresies and debates behind them has faded or disappeared completely. So it was condemned Arianism and Nestorianism, Monophysitism and Docetism, and many other heresies. However, there is edicts of councils concerning the interpretation of creation days, such interpretations remaining as theologumena, that theological statements are personal opinions and not doctrine or dogma.

The discussion about the interpretation of creation days gained new momentum in our time, when the discoveries of science sheds new light on the subject. Interestingly, however, who believed Christians of the first centuries, they did not have knowledge of astrophysics that we hold, and thus reach conclusions based solely on searching the Scriptures and traditions they inherited. Studying the writings of the fathers of the first centuries, we meet a variety of views, which again confirms the freedom of opinion in this matter by the Church.

Regarding the interpretation days of creation, the church fathers can be divided into literalists and allegorists, and some of them fall into one category or another, by the following:

Literalist: Lactantius, Victorinus, Ephrem the Syrian and Basil.

Allegorists: Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose and Augustine.

Perhaps the closest that a modern and complete understanding of the creative days is St. Augustine. Here’s what he wrote:

By our reckoning, seven days – model creation days – doing a week. By passing such week progresses, and they one day is determined by sunrise and sunset; but bear in mind that while they [ordinary days we live] is like the days of creation, they are not the same [of this kind] with them. (About Genesis literally 4:27 [AD 408]).

…

We know at least that it [day of creation] is different from what we are used today (5: 2).

…

For in those days [of creation] mornings and evenings are counted, until the sixth day God made all things are finished, and the seventh day we mystically sublime announced God’s rest. What kind of day is it is extremely difficult or impossible for us to conceive. (On the City of God 11: 6 [year 419 d. AD.])

Arguments holy fathers whom they classified as allegorists (in the days of creation) are therefore based on the following observations.

As the sun appears just created on the fourth day, it is impossible to treat the days of creation as ordinary days 24 hours. The first three days are defined by the words “there was evening and there was morning.” In these circumstances we cannot count the day, evening and morning as having a literal sense.

Genesis 2: 4: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” In this text, one day is equivalent to the six days of creation. The only reconciliation between the verse and Genesis 1 is based on the idea that the creation account, “Day” means a day no ordinary 24 hours, but probably indeterminate period of time.

The phrase “there was evening and there was morning” used on the first six days of creation appears not applied to the seventh day. This leads us to believe that the seventh day is not complete, so there might have been 24 hours.

Let us remember therefore:

Fathers of the first centuries churches have expressed different opinions and sometimes contradictory on the interpretation of creation days, but these differences have not led to disputes that create schisms and heresies.

Interpretation of “allegorical” the story of creation in Genesis is sensible and it occurs even in the absence of modern knowledge of physics and astronomy.

Some, like St. Augustine, showed some humility and caution on the understanding of creation, leaving room for interpretations more precise with increasing scientific knowledge.

This humble spirit is the best antidote, on the one hand against modern “scientism” which excludes any theological reflection on creation, on the other hand against a dangerous bigotry who refuse to accept scientific facts well established.