The sun vs. the Son: Why this common argument defies common sense

One of the most popular arguments against the Genesis creation account is that the days cannot have been literal days, because the sun was not created until the 4th day. Atheists and Old Earthers argue that it is therefore illogical for days 1 - 3 to have been actual days. Some even go further and point out that a day only really works on Earth, because days on other planets pass at different rates.

In this article, I want to focus mainly on the Christians. Not that atheists are irrelevant, it's just that they have no problem admitting they don't believe the Genesis account at all, and so proving the correct interpretation thereof will do absolutely nothing. At best, it will give them a greater understanding of a religion they don't believe. Christians, by contrast, at least claim to believe the Bible is true, even if they don't necessarily accept what it says.

More specifically, as Christians, we base our faith on one man: The Lord Jesus Christ. You are literally not a Christian if you do not believe Jesus, and in fact it has to be the same Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4). Basically, the historical Jesus is kind of a big deal in our religion. He cannot be ignored, and what He says goes. So, first, let us consider two important things He did say.

To begin with, Jesus put a lot of stock in the words of Moses, staking His very credibility on this particular prophet. In John 5, debating the Pharisees (whom He had already accused of being children of the devil), Jesus said "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”" (John 5:45-47).

We see, then, that Jesus puts a lot of stock into Moses. He's talking to people who claim (hypocritically) to believe Moses, yet it is this same Moses whom Jesus says will accuse His Pharisaical interlocutors on the day of judgement. Why? Because they didn't believe what he wrote. If they did, they would also have believed Jesus Himself.

But Jesus goes further. He's not just saying "you claim to believe Moses, but you don't really". Which, side note, imagine if the Pharisees had turned around and said "no, we believe him, we just disagree with your interpretation". It's exactly the same logic being used here; if you don't believe what Moses wrote, you can say "well I just interpret it differently", but it's precisely that different interpretation that ultimately means you don't believe it. And so Jesus says "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”"

Well surely that applies regardless of whether or not you claim to believe Moses? Of course, it would seem to be a rhetorical question: "how will you believe My words?" But the logical answer is you can't. Not consistently. If you can just reinterpret the Bible according to your preferences or preconceptions, why stop with Moses?

Aside from a heavy reliance on Moses, Jesus does actually say a lot about what he wrote, including interpreting things that are relevant to the discussion of the days in Genesis. We can start with Mark 2:27-28, in which we read "And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”"

Here, Jesus makes two major claims. First, He claims to be Lord of the Sabbath. That's no small claim, and indeed, we shouldn't expect it to be as Christians. Of course Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. He is the Creator Himself, made flesh (John 1:1-3). He's not just a prophet, but God Himself. For this reason, He has authority over it, and can provide greater insight into it than Moses Himself. Moses tells us what the Sabbath is, but Jesus tells us why. Specifically, the Sabbath was made for man. That matters a lot when we look into the Sabbath itself:

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:9-11).

Notice the direct connection here. The Jews worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th because God worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th. And again, we are told that this was by design. It was intentional, the Sabbath was made for man. So, man works for 6 days because God worked for 6 days, but it also works in the reverse: God worked for 6 days and rested on the 7th because He intended to give man a rest every 7th day. God could have snapped the universe into existence in a span of time so small as to defy human language. Instead, He chose to take 6 days and rest on the 7th.

To contend that the 6 days of the Jewish work week were different kinds of days than the 6 days of the creation week requires evidence that has never been presented, and indeed it is too late to present. But what of the sun argument? Does this not count?

Not even close. First, even by the definition of the chapter itself, we see that God does not call the sun "day", but rather, we read "Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1:3-5).

So, notice, even before the sun was created, the light is identified as day, not the sun. Then, the evening and morning were the first day. From here, you may ask two extra questions: How can the light exist before the sun, and how can there be evening and morning without the sun?

Regarding the question of the light, take a look at your screen for a moment. Ask, how are you viewing this article? I do of course have to consider the existence of printers, it's not guaranteed that you will be reading it on an electronic device, but it is, in fact, written on an electronic device. In fact, by sheer providence, I have a sleeping disorder that means I am writing it in what would be pitch black if the sun was the only possible source of light. But of course, it is not. Many light sources exist.

In fact, depending on how you interpret the book of Revelation, it seems Heaven will be entirely devoid of this grand celestial gas ball. "The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light." (Revelation 21:23). "There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever." (Revelation 22:5). Of course, you do not necessarily have to assume this is literal - Revelation is considered by many to be a highly symbolic book, and I would say for good reason. But even if you reject this as a literal statement, you must nevertheless accept that this is literally possible for God. He is more than capable of creating light without creating the sun, which Genesis 1:3-5 clearly says He did.

But on the second question, we actually receive an almost direct answer in Genesis 1: "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also." (Genesis 1:14-16).

Notice, the sun and moon were made for signs and seasons, for days and years. Furthermore, the sun rules the day. Now, do signs create the thing they signify? Of course not. In most cases, the reality precedes its signs. That obviously might not always be the case, like the numbered birthday candles you might buy before you turn the age they symbolise. But typically, a sign assumes a pre-existing reality.

This pre-existing reality was followed quite diligently. Human beings have always had a concept of a day, though it's interesting to note that we have not always held to the same concepts of other time divisions. The week itself is not tied to any natural cycle. We base days, months, and years on the sun and the moon, but the 7 day work week is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christianity. Other cultures did have similar concepts, such as the Roman nundinal cycle (8 days), or the Egyptian decans (10 days, with 5 intercalary days at the end of the year). But even these are based on the concept of a literal day. They weren't fully arbitrary, as it's obviously natural for mankind to seek and create intermediate times between a day and a month. The specific 7 day week we use today, however, was heavily influenced by the Jewish Sabbath. In other words, the Western week isn't contributing to our interpretation of Genesis. Rather, Genesis contributed to our Western interpretation of a week!

We see, then, that arguing that days cannot precede the sun is logically equal to saying hours couldn't exist apart from a pocket watch. It's a level of absurdity that Christians should be far above indulging. Why, then, do so many indulge it? An atheist may indulge it for sake of making the Bible out to be incoherent bronze age mythology, but as Christians, we ought to hold to a higher standard. It's time to retire the sun argument and unite under the Son of God, the Lord of the Sabbath. That unity will weaken the same argument when it is used against our faith by those who have no motive to compromise the plain teaching of the text.

AI usage

1. The header image was generated by ChatGPT.