(Homer C. Hoeksema [1923-1989] served most of his ministry as professor of Theology in the Protestant Reformed Seminary. The following book, published by the Free Reformed Publishing Association, was out-of-print when this material was posted. We trust that this means will bring the book to the attention of many world-wide.)
The three chapters of this little book were originally three lectures delivered during the winter and spring of 1966 at the First Protestant Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan. It was the purpose of these lectures to give a clear exposition and defense of a precious truth of our Reformed heritage which is under frequent attack in our times, the truth of creation as set forth by Scripture.
Because of the gratifying response from the large audiences which attended these lectures, and because of numerous requests for printed copies, also from many who were not able to attend the lectures, it was decided to publish them.
A spoken message, however, loses something of its effect when it is put on the dead page. For this reason, and for the reason that publication gave me the opportunity to expand several thoughts which I had no time to expand when I lectured, these chapters, therefore, while basically the same as the lectures, are slightly different in form and in length.
It is my hope and prayer that these pages may be instructive and that they may serve to strengthen the resolve of God's children to hold fast to the truth and to call many who have departed or are departing back to the old paths.
The Author
June, 1966
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 : The Divine Foundation: the Infallible Scriptures
Chapter 2: The Creation Record: Literal or Not?
Chapter 3: Genesis and Science
The subject of the infallible Scriptures is almost everywhere today the subject of discussion and of a large measure of controversy in the churches. The inspired Scriptures are the center of much attack; and so this subject may indeed be said to be a very current issue and one of concern to those who would keep the faith once delivered to the saints.
Let me mention some examples.
In the first place, of course, there is out-and-out modernism, which always attacks the Scriptures and which has no real use for Holy Scripture whatsoever. That spirit of modernism has arisen especially since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. With this modernism we are not much concerned; with respect to it the lines of demarcation have been drawn long ago. There is, in the second place, the "new modernism," sometimes called neo-orthodoxy, represented in men like Barth and Brunner and the demythologizing school of Rudolph Bultmann, which also attacks the infallible Scriptures and does not really recognize them as infallible. The more one investigates this new modernism, however, the more one discovers that it is not actually new at all, but essentially the same old modernism. Our concern with it lies in the fact that this theology, with its denial of the Scriptures, has found its way in more than one instance into orthodox areas and even into Reformed churches; and in that respect its influence must be guarded against. Thirdly, as is well known, there has been considerable discussion of this subject of the Scriptures in connection with the recent Vatican Council. There have been those who look, in my opinion, in vain,--for signs that Rome will return to the principle of the absolute and sole authority of Holy Scripture.
Coming a little nearer home, we may point to the fact that among the Lutherans this same subject of Holy Scripture is very much an issue. Particularly among those Lutherans who are classified as orthodox, for example, a denomination like the Missouri Synod,--Scripture is under attack. There is no little degree of stress and strain, and even separation, in that denomination because, principally, of this issue of the infallible Scriptures. In Presbyterian churches, too, the Scriptures have been under attack for a long time already. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, for example, had its origin in part because of the liberal denial of the Scriptures and of their absolute authority that was rampant in the parent denomination. And today still, the issue is a live one, to some extent, in Presbyterianism,--witness the attempt to set aside the Westminster Confession completely in the so-called Confession of 1967 that is being proposed in the United Presbyterian Church.
One finds, still nearer home as far as the Reformed faith is concerned, similar symptoms in the Netherlands today. In the Reformed Churches (Gereformeerde Kerken) of the Netherlands the movement has gained ground, for example, to set aside the decisions of the Synod of Assen in the case which involved Dr. Geelkerken in 1926 and which was concerned really with the first three chapters of the book of Genesis and with those articles of the Confession which deal with the infallibility and authority of Holy Scripture. I read just recently that a decision in that matter has been postponed for another year by the Synod of Lunteren. Nevertheless, this is an example of the ecclesiastical stress and strain which is connected with the question of Scripture and its infallibility and its authority today.
Also in Reformed circles in this country you find phenomena of, this kind. The Reformed Church in America has had its difficulties with this matter of the Scriptures. Particularly in a seminary like New Brunswick the liberal tendencies with a view to Holy Scripture have arisen. Scripture was the basic issue, for example, in the case just a few years back in New Jersey which involved the historicity of the first part of the Book of Genesis. And I have no doubt that somewhere, buried not too deeply among the issues, this same question of Holy Scripture is involved in the merger proposal between the Reformed Church in America and the Southern Presbyterian Church. You find the same phenomena in the Christian Reformed Church in our country. Back in the twenties, of course, there was the Dr. Janssen case, which involved principally this same question of Holy Scripture. In the thirties there was a case which is perhaps less known, the Wezeman case, which also involved the issues of higher criticism. And, more recently, just a few years back, in fact, there was that flurry that resulted in the adoption of a Report on Infallibility and the decision to commend this report to the churches.
Today there is much discussion in various churches centering on questions involving the book of Genesis, especially the truth of creation and the theory of a theistic evolution coming under discussion. And all of this discussion involves, principally, the same issue of the inspiration and infallibility and authority of Holy Scripture.
I mention these items for two reasons. First of all, I want to show how current and how widespread this issue is at present. Various attacks on Holy Scripture have become a very common phenomenon even in churches which are generally to be classified as orthodox. Secondly, however, I mention these various examples in order to point out that in almost all of these instances there is one common element, namely, the element that the entire question of Genesis and of creation and of theistic evolution and the historical reality of the fall and the so-called scientific findings and evidence concerning the age of the earth and concerning evolution,-- that one issue involving Genesis is found in many of these cases which center on the authority of Holy Scripture. For that reason, therefore, in order to discuss the subject of creation, together with the related questions concerning the book of Genesis, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the truth of the infallibility of Scripture.
Let me also say a word about my approach to this subject. I want to emphasize that it is not my purpose to throw barbs at any particular group of churches or at anyone's church, nor to reproach anyone personally. I have no interest in that whatsoever. My subject is far too serious and far too important to use it for such a purpose. In the nature of the case, I am going to be critical; and I am going to be concretely critical of various positions that are held. But I ask you to remember what I have said here about my purpose. My purpose is to clarify the issue and to remind you of the truth that has always been Reformed, and to sound a warning. That is my purpose, for the sake of the truth, the truth of the Reformed faith; and that is my purpose for the sake of the cause of the church of Jesus Christ. This issue is of the utmost importance to the church.
I also want to say from the outset that I shall not attempt to furnish a long discourse and proof and argumentation on inspiration and infallibility. That would take us too far afield and would needlessly lengthen this discussion. I rather wish to set forth briefly and pointedly the truth as it has always been maintained by the Reformed faith and by the churches of the Reformation. And I want to point out the importance of that truth for the entire structure of the truth and of the faith of the church. And I want to point out the practical significance of all this for us as members of Christ's church who seek and love the truth.
Hence, I shall treat my subject, "The Divine Foundation: The Infallible Scriptures," under the following three divisions:
I. The Truth that the Scriptures are Inspired and Infallible.
II. The Truth that those Scriptures Constitute the Foundation of the Church.
III. The Calling Carefully to Guard and Strictly to Adhere to that Foundation.
First of all, our subject is the Scriptures. By the Scriptures we mean the sixty-six books of the Old and of the New Testament, commonly called "the canon of Holy Scripture." I do not intend to discuss that canon as such and the formation of the canon at this point. That is a subject all by itself; and the discussion of that subject would take us too far afield. I will simply proceed on the basis that the sixty-six books mentioned are the canon of Holy Scripture, and on the basis that the so-called apocryphal books are excluded from the area of our discussion. This mention of the term canon, however, provides an occasion to point to the importance of our subject. For the term canon means basically "measuring rod," and therefore, "standard, criterion, rule." It is in connection with that term that the well-known expression,--almost a motto of the Reformation,--has arisen, namely, that the Scriptures are our only infallible rule of faith and life, or of doctrine and practice.
Secondly, it should be kept in mind that when we refer to the infallibility of Scripture, that means, strictly speaking, the Scriptures as they were originally written, or the autographs, as they are called. And those original Scriptures, those autographs, we do not have any more. As you probably know, there are in the original languages only thousands of copies and partial copies of the Scriptures; and the documents as they were written first by the prophets and the apostles are providentially no more in existence today. Now the principle of infallibility, I say, applies, strictly speaking, to those original documents. Nevertheless, I want to add immediately that this does not mean that the infallibility of Scripture for this reason has no meaning for us today. For while we do not have the autographs, that makes no real difference for us for several reasons. In the first place, we should remember that though there are literally thousands of variations in the readings of Scripture in the various manuscripts, or copies, which have been discovered, yet in these many thousands of variations there is not one in which an article of faith is at stake. In the second place, among those thousands and thousands of variations in readings there is only a very small fraction that is of any significance at all for the meaning of the text and for the meaning of Holy Scripture. In the third place, in our time the Biblical science of what is called textual criticism (not to be confused with unbelieving higher criticism), the science which busies itself properly with the question of what is the correct reading of a certain passage from among the various readings, --that science has been very highly developed, so that even with all these variations our Bible is today very accurate. In the fourth place, I would call your attention to the fact that even Scripture itself does not consider the lack of those autographs a serious obstacle. Timothy, in the apostle Paul's time, certainly did not possess the autographs of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Scriptures in which he was trained from his childhood. They were gone. And yet in II Timothy 3:16 the apostle does not hesitate to say concerning those Scriptures as Timothy possessed them and had been instructed in them: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God...." This also applies to the Scriptures as they were mentioned in II Peter 1:20, 21. Those Scriptures as we have them are the Word of God, or, more accurately, the written record of the Word of God.
I would like to stop right at this point for a moment to emphasize that this is a great wonder. We should never forget that. From among all books and all writings you may single out that one Book, the Scriptures, and say, "This Book is the very Word of God Himself!" That, I say, is a tremendous wonder!
Revelation, the fact that God speaks and makes known His Word in earthly language, human language, on our level,--that is a wonder!
And inspiration, the fact that God causes holy men to speak and to write His Word, --that is also a tremendous wonder!
We must, by all means, not forget this!
It is very important to remember this, also as far as our approach to the Bible is concerned. From a practical point of view, this is important with respect to the whole matter of inspiration and infallibility and the various problems and questions that may arise in connection with these truths. We are sometimes inclined to forget this, I fear. And when we do forget it, we are inclined to take a rationalistic approach to these matters. We then attempt to meet the opponent of the Scriptures and of infallibility on his own rationalistic ground; and then, when we cannot succeed in overcoming his apparently well-reasoned arguments, we weaken and begin to have doubts concerning inspiration and infallibility, and probably become inclined to compromise.
Hence, we must remember that the Bible and its inspiration and its infallibility are a matter of faith, strictly a matter of faith. This means principally that the whole matter of infallibility is after all a spiritual matter: not, in the first place, a matter of the head, but a matter of the heart. The unbeliever cannot recognize the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God. He cannot! That is a matter of the heart, a matter of faith.
We stand, therefore, on holy ground when we talk about Scripture; and we ought to be deeply aware of this. Faith does not start with the question: Is the Bible the Word of God? Faith starts with the proposition: The Bible is the Word of God. And all the questions and the problems that may arise and may be faced in connection with that Bible,-- and there are undeniably many of them: many problems, many apparent conflicts (even many apparent conflicts which we cannot with our minds reconcile; that makes absolutely no difference, however) -- all these questions and problems must all be considered and discussed within the confines, the limits, of the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God. That means that they must always be considered and discussed, therefore, in reverent fear of God. We must always remember that the Bible as the Word of God in its divinely inspired and infallible character towers far above anything of man. It towers above any human, sinful efforts to contradict that Bible. And it towers above any merely human efforts to defend it. The truth of the Bible depends on neither one of the two. It depends on God! And God's Word and its truth is not dependent on your and my understanding. The matter stands just the other way around. Our understanding is dependent on that Word of God.
With the above in mind, we may next consider the question of inspiration. What is it? What is inspiration? For this matter of inspiration is necessarily involved in the whole question of infallibility. The latter stands or falls with the former.
In general, we may say that inspiration is that wonder of God's grace whereby holy men were so moved by the Holy Spirit that what they spoke and wrote was the Word of God. That is the general statement of the truth of inspiration.
However, this truth of inspiration came under attack. These attacks have arisen, in the main, since the time of the Reformation. They have arisen for the most part since the time when our confessions were written. It is true, of course, that the Reformation itself was concerned with the truth of Scripture. But the concern of the Reformation was principally about the absolute, or sole, authority of Holy Scripture. Rome recognized sources of authority other than and next to Scripture. After the Reformation the attacks upon Holy Scripture took a different form. They took the form of attacks upon the inspiration and the infallibility of Scripture. Also in these attacks, of course, the authority of Scripture is ultimately at stake. Nevertheless, when the Reformation had returned to the principle of the sole authority of Scripture, that authority came under attack by way of attacks upon the inspired character and the infallibility of Scripture.
And over against these attacks various terms came into use which further describe and define the truth of inspiration. Let me briefly call your attention to these terms.
There is, in the first place, the term graphic inspiration. The term graphic comes from a root which means "to write." And the expression "graphic inspiration" simply means that the Holy Spirit inspired, moved, holy men to write the Word of God. Men not only spoke God's Word, but they were also used to write down the Word of God.
But that term, which is certainly quite sufficient in itself, because of attack proved to be insufficient. It was not enough merely to say that men were moved by the Spirit to write the Word of God. Another term came into use as a description of inspiration, a term designed to make the meaning of inspiration more explicit. That term is plenary. Plenary inspiration means that the Bible is fully inspired, that is, totally inspired, inspired in all its parts. That limitation is designed to make it impossible for men to say that they believe the truth of inspiration and at the same time to deny that the Bible is in its entirety the written record of God's Word. It is designed to make it impossible for anyone to say that the Word of God is only in the Bible, so that parts of the Bible are the Word of God and parts of it are not the Word of God. Plenary inspiration insists that the Bible is from beginning to end the written record of the Word of God, the Word of God in all its parts. One cannot go through the Bible picking and choosing what part is the Word of God and what part is not the Word of God, or deciding that one part is inspired and infallible while another part is not inspired and infallible. It is all or nothing!
In the third place, there is the term verbal inspiration. This term also has become necessary because there were and are those who even with the term plenary wanted to say, inconsistently, of course,--that the thoughts of the Bible were inspired, but the expression of those thoughts, the language, the words, in which those thoughts were conveyed, was not inspired. The expression of the thoughts, the language, was left to human writers and is fallible. Now I say again: there is actually no room for any such notion in the concept of inspiration, and especially not in the idea of plenary inspiration. It is simply inconceivable and utterly inconsistent to make such a separation between thoughts and words. But due to the fact that men have very inconsistently attempted to make that distinction, it became necessary to use the term verbal. Verbal inspiration emphasizes that inspiration is such that the Bible is in its very expression, words, language, completely the Word of God.
Finally, the term organic inspiration has arisen. I think that historically it has arisen chiefly because there were those who ridiculed the idea of verbal inspiration as a "dictation theory." This ridicule claims that the whole concept of plenary and verbal inspiration makes of the holy men who wrote the Bible nothing but secretaries, stenographers. That is a very wicked ridicule! For there have been no churches and no theologians of note who have at any time adhered rigidly to a strict dictation theory even though they may have employed the term dictation. The Reformer John Calvin himself used the term dictation; that may be freely admitted. But Calvin did not believe in any dictation theory! But the rise of this ridiculing criticism accounts, at least in part, for the use of the term organic inspiration.
What does this mean?
With respect to the Bible itself, it means that the Bible is an organism, that it is one, has one principle, one center, Christ, and that all its books and writings have their central principle, or, if you will, their root, in Christ. The Bible is the Word of God in Christ. Or you could phrase it this way: principally the whole content of the Word of God is revealed in the protevangel, the great mother-promise, of Genesis 3:15; and all the rest of Scripture is principally nothing else than a further elucidation and an ever clearer and brighter revelation of the promise that was first given in Paradise. It all grows, so to speak, out of that one promise.
But we are interested now in the meaning of this organic conception with respect to inspiration itself and the method of inspiration. What does that imply?
There are especially four elements implied.
First of all, just as God conceived sovereignly and from eternity of His people as an organism in Christ, so He conceived in His eternal counsel of the whole of Scripture as one organism as a revelation of Himself in Christ Jesus, the heart of that entire revelation. In other words, that Bible that was written over the course of many centuries in many different places and by many different men under many different circumstances did not simply come into being by accident. Nor was it mechanically put together, either by God or by men. But it was planned from before the foundation of the world in such a way that all its parts would arise out of and reveal one principle and one idea: the Word of God in Christ. And each book and each part occupies its own place and serves in its own particular way in that whole of the Word of God which was not wholly revealed until John wrote the book of Revelation.
Secondly, organic inspiration means that God from eternity and sovereignly conceived of and determined upon, ordained, special organs of Christ's body as organs of inspiration, to write His Word. I mean that God ordained them entirely. It is not thus, that the Holy Spirit has a certain book and a certain purpose in mind and that He goes about searching for the proper man to write that book. The Holy Spirit does not merely find and use men to write His Scriptures. They were planned, planned from before the foundation of the world. Their personalities, their characters, their talents, their experiences, their time, their historical circumstances, -- all of those things were so planned and designed from before the foundation of the world that each one of those men would be a fit instrument to write a certain part of God's Word and have a place in the writing of the whole of Scripture.
Thirdly, the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of Christ, in time calls and prepares and forms and fits these divinely ordained organs of inspiration for their divinely ordained task. This is also God's work. Isaiah could never have prophesied as he did unless he were Isaiah, with his peculiar character and place in history, and so forth. John would never have been able to write his epistles in exactly the form and style in which he wrote them unless God had made John exactly what he was. All this is the purpose and work of God with a view to the inscripturation of His own Word.
Then, finally, there is the element that the same Spirit actually inspires holy men, moves, carries, illumines, and guides them to write infallibly God's own Word, the Word of the revelation of God in Christ. Hence, men spoke and men wrote; and they spoke and wrote entirely in harmony with their peculiar personality and style and circumstances and experiences and times. But when they spoke and when they wrote, the product was not the word of man, but the Word of God.
That is organic inspiration.
Now when you take all those various aspects of inspiration together, the result is the infallible Scriptures, the written Word of God without error.
Let me say a word about those terms: the term infallible and the term inerrant.
These are also terms which have arisen out of controversy. They have been occasioned by opposition to and denial of the truth. Essentially, of course, it is unnecessary to say that Scripture is infallible. And historically it was not always necessary to say this. You could simply say, "Scripture is the Word of God. Period!" But it became necessary because of denials to emphasize this truth over against the error. It became necessary, on account of error and denial of the truth, to make explicit what is, in fact, implicit in the very fact that the Bible is the Word of God. A fallible Word of God, an errant Word of God, is nothing but a contradiction in terms. That is the simple truth. For a fallible Bible means that God errs, that God lies, that God makes mistakes, that God's speech is inaccurate. We may well remember this. This truth is after all very simple. As soon as you maintain that the Bible is the Word of God, and then at the same time try to maintain that the Bible is fallible, you have a contradiction in terms. Essentially, in order to maintain that Scripture is in any sense fallible, one must first get rid of the idea that the Bible is the Word of God; otherwise he must needs accuse God of fallibility. And thus these terms infallible and inerrant have come into use in order to emphasize the truth over against the error. Inerrant simply means "not erring" or "without error." Infallible is the stronger term; it means "not capable of error."
Hence, these terms, applied to the Scriptures, mean that the Bible as the written record of the Word of God is altogether free from and incapable of error, inaccuracy, mistake, contradiction, conflict. It is altogether the Word of God Who cannot lie and Who cannot make a mistake.
Right here is the proper point to emphasize again that this is a matter of faith. That Scripture is infallible is true whether or not you or I can demonstrate it to be infallible. Our belief in the infallibility of that Word does not depend upon our understanding and our solving whatever problems may arise in our study of Scripture. It does not depend on our ability to answer and to solve various questions and apparent contradictions and conflicts to which men may point. We must not take that approach. We must not question whether the Bible is indeed the Word of God and whether it is indeed infallible. Faith starts out from the position that Scripture is indeed the infallible Word of God.
This, therefore, is the simple truth of infallibility.
This is the Reformed position. It always has been the Reformed position; and it is the Reformed position today. And it is the Reformed position because it is the truth of Scripture.
I do not intend to argue that point or reason about it at length.
Let me point you to a few passages of Scripture.
There is II Timothy 3:16, which I have already mentioned: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...." The term rendered "given by inspiration of God" is literally "God-breathed." All Scripture is God-breathed. That is a very beautiful idea. Do you realize what that means? It means this: God breathed, and the Bible resulted! That is all; that is inspiration! Notice, by the way, that this passage does not even so much as mention men or the activity of men. They are not even in the picture here. Only this: "All Scripture is God-breathed...."
Then there is the Scriptural proof from II Peter 1:19-21: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Here, to be sure, the human writers are under consideration. But what does the text say about them? Notice: "No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." And again: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man." That is the negative: it came not by the will of man! To be sure, these men did not write inspite of their own will or against their will. Yet the Bible that they wrote was not the product of the will of man. On the contrary, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
In John 10:35 you find the rather well-known statement of our Lord Jesus, "...and the scripture cannot be broken...." In this conversation of Jesus with the Jews this particular statement constitutes the strength, the foundation, of Jesus' argument. If the Scripture could be broken, then Jesus' argument on the basis of Psalm 82 in this connection would simply fall away; it would be of no authority. But it is of authority simply because "the scripture cannot be broken." Its authority is absolute and unimpeachable because it is divine and infallible.
One more significant passage is that from John 5:45-47, a passage which assumes inerrancy and therefore absolute authority with respect to the writings of Moses: "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" Very plainly, according to this passage, if you don't believe Moses (that is, if you don't believe the Old Testament), you don't believe Christ. And, vice versa, if you don't believe Christ, you don't believe Moses. The two are inseparable. It is very evident, therefore, that denial of the inspired and infallible character of the Scriptures of the Old Testament is contrary to faith in Christ.
So much for Scripture quotations.
Let me also point out that this truth of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture is the current thought of those articles of our Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, which speak of Scripture, Articles 3 to 7. It is true, of course, that you do not find all the terms there which I mentioned previously: graphic, verbal, plenary, and organic. For the most part the use of these terms was not necessary at the time when our confessions were written. But there are several expressions in our Confession which are very noteworthy and very clear with respect to the Scriptures.
The whole of Article 3 emphasizes very strongly and without any limitation or qualification that the Scriptures are the Word of God: "We confess that this Word of God was not sent, nor delivered by the will of man, but that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter saith. And that afterwards God, from a special care, which he has for us and our salvation, commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit his revealed word to writing; and he himself wrote with his own finger, the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures."
Article 4 gives the list of the canonical books, but there is a very significant statement in this article which we should note: "We believe that the Holy Scriptures are contained in two books, namely, the Old and New Testament, which are canonical, against which nothing can be alleged." (emphasis mine) The point is that if there were error in these books, you could allege something against them and challenge the rightful place of such errant books in the canon of Holy Scripture. But they are inerrant, infallible. You can allege nothing against them.
Again, in Article 5 there is a significant statement which presupposes infallibility and freedom from error. This is the article concerning the dignity and authority of Scripture. Here we confess: "We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing without any doubt, all things contained in them......" (emphasis mine) This very plainly implies that they are free from error. If these books were known to be fallible and known to contain error, you could never profess to believe all things contained therein. Note, too, that term "all things." This occurs here without any limitation.
Article 6 rather indirectly teaches the same idea when it speaks of the difference between the canonical and the apocryphal books. For this article sets up the canonical books as the absolute standard of authority with respect to the apocryphal books. The church may "read and take instruction from" the apocryphal books "so far as they agree with the canonical books." And the apocryphal books can never "detract from the authority of the other sacred books." This absolute authority of the canonical books again presupposes their infallibility.
Finally, Article 7, which speaks of the sufficiency of Scripture, contains, among several other very clear and strong statements, the well-known statement: "Therefore, we reject with all our hearts, whatsoever doth not agree with this infallible rule, which the apostles have taught us, saying, Try the spirits whether they are of God. Likewise, if there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house."
The above, briefly, is the Reformed and Scriptural truth of inspiration and infallibility from a positive point of view.
This truth is the divine foundation of the church.
In connection with the above statement I refer you to Scripture itself. It speaks of the importance of the Scriptures for the church and for the whole structure of the truth in many places. But l have in mind now especially a passage like Ephesians 2:19, 20: "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone."
This passage plainly refers to the apostles and prophets not as so many persons. In that sense the apostles and prophets are dead and in the grave. But it refers to the teaching and the preaching of the apostles and prophets. In other words, it refers to the Word of God by them as that Word of God has as its chief and determining content, its cornerstone (the determining stone of the entire foundation; not a mere decorative stone, as today) in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. That is the foundation upon which the church, the household of God, the temple of God, is built. Hence, the Word of God, the Scriptures, may rightly be called the foundation of the church.
Now a foundation is of the utmost importance to any building. The foundation of any building determines the building, determines its shape and its size and its outline and its strength. That is true of any building. You cannot build an Empire State Building, for example, on the foundation of a two-stall garage. It will not fit. Such a foundation will not hold up such a building. Well, here in Ephesians you have that figure of the foundation as the determining factor of a building, that which determines the entire building, with respect to the church as the spiritual building of God, in which He dwells and has fellowship with His people. We may conclude from this, therefore, that the whole shape, the whole belief, the whole confession, the whole doctrine, the whole manner of life, the entire manifestation of the church is built upon the Word of God. That is the divine foundation: the Word of God, as it has its infallible written record in all the Scriptures. That is God's own foundation for His church!
You have here, therefore, first of all, the principle of the absolute authority of Scripture. The church, God's church, is only built upon that foundation. That is the only foundation for the church, the only foundation upon which the church can be built up. That foundation determines the building. Anything built upon any other foundation cannot be built as the church. That is plain. If you are not on that foundation, the only proper foundation, the determining foundation for the whole church, then your building, whatever else it may be, cannot be the church! That is important. Any confession, any belief, any doctrine, any manner of life, in order to be recognized as of the church, the house of God, must be found upon Scripture.
This fact is also important from the point of view of the significance of that foundation and attacks upon the divine character and authority and infallibility of that foundation. When you begin to chip away and to hammer away at those Scriptures, you are chipping away at the very foundation of the church. I know: that foundation cannot be destroyed! No one has ever destroyed it yet, and no one will ever destroy it. The foundation of God standeth! There is no question about that! But in the practice and in the confession of a given church or denomination of churches or of a given member of the church here on earth that is indeed possible. You can chip away at the foundation and deny the divine authority and strength of that foundation; that simply means, of course, that you ultimately come to stand on a different foundation, not on God's foundation. But to cling to the figure, you know what happens when the foundation is attacked. If you knock out a whole wall of a foundation, the building is not going to stand. It will tumble and crumble. The same is true of the Scriptures. When you chip away at those Scriptures, you are chipping away at the very foundation of the church. That may seem very insignificant at first, just as you may begin to destroy the foundation of a building by knocking a little chip out of one block in the wall. In fact, that has usually been the way the foundation of the Scriptures has been attacked: just a little chip knocked off! But if you keep on chipping, after a while an entire block goes out of the foundation; and then the whole wall goes out; and finally the entire foundation is gone. And if the foundation is destroyed, the entire building topples; or even if the strength of the foundation is destroyed, the strength of the building is gone too. You cannot build the church, you cannot serve in the gathering and building of the church, on any other foundation than the divinely appointed and the divinely constructed foundation of the Scriptures.
That is why this whole issue of the infallibility of Scripture is so deadly serious. It concerns the foundation, the foundation of the church !
But today attacks are being made on that foundation. That has been done in the past, and it is being done today in many ways. They are chipping away at the foundation!
Let me mention some of these attacks.
There is that totally inconsistent idea of thought--inspiration in distinction from word--inspiration. Under this conception, as you can readily see, there are parts of Scripture that are said not to be the Word of God. Or there are parts which are said to be erroneously or inaccurately or imperfectly recorded and presented.
There is the conception of two factors in the Bible: a divine factor and a human factor. I think that this expression of two factors is used well-meaningly sometimes. But it is a dangerous expression! The Bible is the Word of God, produced by one factor: divine inspiration. To the extent that you speak of a human factor you must also speak of a human word.
The same is true of another expression that is also used sometimes with good intentions. I refer to the idea of a primary Author (God) and secondary authors (men). The trouble with an expression like that is that no matter how mightily you strive to distinguish between the primary and the secondary, you are still saying that men are authors. They are not! The Author of the Scriptures is God! It is His Word! It came not by the will of man, but by the will of God.
Another method of attack is that which denies the historicity and the historical accuracy of various parts of the Bible and covering that up by calling such parts of Scripture figurative or allegorical or mythical, or what have you. The most serious aspect of this particular attack is not that it denies the historicity of a certain passage of Scripture. That is bad enough. But basically such attacks are attacks upon the authority and infallibility of Scripture itself.
The same is true, principally, of the distinction that has been made that the Bible is accurate as far as its revelational purpose is concerned, accurate as far as sacred history is concerned, but that it can be inaccurate when it comes to the periphery and when it comes to mere history and "historiography," as it is called, --the writing of history. It is at this point that the weakness of the Report on Infallibility, commended to the churches in 1961 by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church, is glaring. That report was principally a compromise. It failed to settle the most crucial issue in the whole discussion that occasioned it. It left room. A plain instance of this is seen in the fact that M. Hoogland in the Reformed Journal (November, 1961, pp. 9-12) came right out and said that the report leaves room for historical inaccuracies in Scripture. In his article he makes a rather detailed analysis of this Report; and I could quote several statements in which Mr. Hoogland maintains that the Report leaves room for maintaining that there is a sense in which it can be said that Scripture is inaccurate. The following paragraph is an example:
The report, therefore, supports the conclusion that it is possible to look at inaccuracy from more than one point of view, and consequently that it is possible to speak of historical inaccuracy while at the same time maintaining Scriptural accuracy in terms of sacred history. That is, what is seen as inaccurate from a merely historical point of view is recognized as wholly accurate for the reporting of sacred history. This conclusion being established by the report and the report serving as the larger context in which the synodical declaration of 1959 must be seen (p. 190), it becomes evident that the "actual historical inaccuracies" ruled out by the Synod of 1959 has reference to historical inaccuracies from the point of view of sacred history and not from the point of view of modern historiography.
No one challenged the above statement or the article in which it appeared. The sad part is that the whole issue seems, at least for the present, to be buried in silence. That is a bad thing. I predict that in some form or other that same issue of Scripture's infallibility is going to arise again because principally it was not settled.
The above are some of the implications of this foundation--idea and some of the methods of attack upon the foundation.
All these devices have this one element in common, that they exalt man's subjective judgment above the Word of God. Man, then, decides what is the Word of God and what is not, what is accurate and what is inaccurate, what is truth and what is error. This may be done with regard to relatively insignificant things at first; it often begins that way. That has been the history of every attack on the authority of Scripture. But the principle is the important thing here. When you begin to follow this method and this principle, then principally you have sacrificed the whole truth of infallibility. And if you don't back-track and return to the strict principle of infallibility, that error is going to blossom out and have dire effects in time to come. That also is history.
Hence, that divine foundation must always be built on. Every thought must be in submission to the Scriptures, the only infallible rule. All our doctrine and all our life must conform to that rule. It is the absolute authority. We must not come with outside evidences and philosophy and science in order to see whether we can make Scripture conform. It is the other way around. This principle is important for all the truth and life of the church. But I have in mind particularly the rather wide-ranging discussions on the various questions that are at stake in the book of Genesis: creation, the flood, evolution, the age of the world, etc. Those questions must be decided solely in the light of and on the basis of Scripture. It is especially to some of those questions that we will give our attention in our next two chapters. But that must be done on the basis of the position taken in the present chapter.
In conclusion, let me emphasize, first of all, that we must guard that foundation.
We must never allow anyone to chip away at it. If this is allowed, then soon nothing will be left. The large denominations today that have departed completely from the infallible Scriptures began that way. They all did. You cannot compromise when it comes to Scripture. You cannot allow yourself to compromise even in this regard, that you will stand side by side in the same church-communion and act as though you are standing on the same basis with men who do deny or compromise this truth of Scripture. That is an inconsistent position. If you do that, you lose your ability to fight for the maintenance of the truth.
We must adhere strictly to this as churches, in our doctrine, in our confession, in our teaching and preaching.
That is important for the preaching too, something that might well be kept in mind today. This means that the preaching that comes from any pulpit of a church which holds to the infallible Scriptures must be expository preaching. Its content must be that Word of God. We must not have all of this topical preaching and preaching on the social issues of the day which is so common today, even in Reformed churches. We must expound the Scriptures. This is important because it is after all the preaching of the Word that is the strength of the church. The preaching, therefore, must never depart from that foundation of the Scriptures!
As individual members of the church, too, we must all adhere to this principle. We must be on our guard in this respect. I would say that especially young men and young women, and especially young people of intellectual inclination, who can very easily be flattered that they are intellectuals, and who can have their ego tickled by the idea that they can really learn something from philosophy and science as over against Scripture,--such young men and young women must be on guard.
One of the favorite ways of the devil is to attack the faith of young people with respect to the Word of God. Hold, therefore, to the Word of God as infallible in your personal faith, as members of the church.
This also includes the calling to speak out on this issue. You must speak out on it not only in discussion and in writing. That is good; but ultimately, if nothing more is done, that will do no good. If the Scriptures are attacked, speak out officially. Speak out ecclesiastically. Whether such protest looks hopeful or hopeless, that makes no difference. It is your right and your calling as members of the church, as children of the Reformation, to speak out in the church. You must speak out, or ultimately you will lose this principle by default.
Let us hold to these Scriptures, therefore. We cannot stand on two different foundations. We cannot stand on a half foundation. We cannot stand with those who attack the very foundation. We must be uncompromising!
Finally, I want to emphasize that our Protestant Reformed Churches, who stand on the basis I have outlined above, pledge help and support, and, if need be, shelter to anyone who wants to stand foursquare on that foundation, the only foundation on which the church may stand.
Return to Table of Contents
The subject of this chapter is in question form, and this requires a word of explanation.
The alternatives posed in the subject might seem to suggest that the question which we are about to answer is an open question, a matter that is in doubt, and that we are about to conduct an investigation of this question in order to determine whether or not we can arrive at a firm answer, and whether that answer must be that the creation record is to be literally or non-literally understood. Hence, I want to state from the outset that to me this is not an open question. It shall be the position of this chapter that there is but one possible sense in which the creation record must be understood, and that that one sense is the literal sense. If I were to state the subject of this chapter positively, therefore, I would phrase it this way: The Creation Record, Strictly Literal.
Why, then, is this question form employed? And why is this particular question asked?
The first reason is that, as is well known, there is currently much discussion and questioning about this subject of creation and the creation record. How is it to be understood? What does it mean? Does it allow room for any kind of theory of evolution? Can the findings of science be harmonized with the account of creation? How are we to understand the days of creation week? These, and many related questions, are being raised currently. Besides, it is also well known that in many quarters there is a growing tendency to depart from positions which were formerly held with respect to the subject of creation. I think this can stand without proof. Anyone who follows the religious press will be acquainted with this fact. Also in the Reformed community, both in this country and in the Netherlands, this subject is getting much attention. I feel, therefore, that this question states a very important issue which confronts the churches today.
In the second place, this particular formulation was chosen because it states the basic issue in the entire discussion about creation. That discussion must needs get down to the question of the creation record as it is set forth by the Bible, particularly in the first part of the book of Genesis. There may be many other questions raised; and those questions may be legitimate or improper ones. But the deepest question in this entire discussion is: what does the Bible say, and how does your presentation of creation look in the light of Scripture. That is the unavoidable question for the Bible-believing church and for the Bible-believing child of God. For that reason this chapter purposes to discuss Scripture's account of creation.
In the third place, I believe that this particular question, whether the creation record is literal or not, accurately expresses the fundamental issue in the entire discussion of creation and the creation record. This, it is hoped, will become clearer in the course of the discussion.
It is probably well to say a few words also about the basis of the present chapter. In this chapter I will proceed on the basis that the foundation of this chapter was laid in Chapter 1. The infallible Scriptures are the only possible basis upon which the church and the individual child of God can stand and dares to stand in dealing with any phase of the truth. That is a general principle. The Scriptures, infallible from beginning to end, constitute the foundation of the entire structure of the truth, particularly, however, with respect to this truth of creation and the issue of creation versus evolution or of creation versus so-called theistic evolution, and the question of the relation between creation and science's claims,--all related subjects in current discussions,--particularly in this sphere the truth of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture comes into rather sharp focus. Scripture's authority has become unavoidably an issue in the whole discussion concerning creation. Ultimately, of course, whether one admits this or not, the denial of creation involves the denial of Scripture. Hence, Scripture as the written Word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, and that too, as absolutely infallible, is our basis. And those Scriptures constitute the sole and absolute authority to which appeal must be made in regard to the subject under discussion. The Scriptures constitute the sole authority in all things. But I want to emphasize that particularly with respect to the subjects discussed in this chapter and the next one. It is very necessary that we do not allow other authorities, next to that of Scripture, to have a place.
Closely connected with the infallibility and authority of Holy Scripture, and also belonging to the basis on which we must proceed in our discussion of the creation record, is the truth that Scripture is perspicuous. It is not obscure, not dark, but clear,--so clear that any child of God can understand it. One need not be a theologian or an exegete or a scientist or some other kind of well-educated expert to understand the Scriptures; but any child of God can apprehend the truth that is revealed in them. This is fundamental. If Scripture is not perspicuous, then you must needs take the position that it is, for the most part, after all a closed book. This perspicuity, or clarity, of Scripture belongs to our Reformation heritage; and it forms part of the basis on which we proceed, a rather important part with respect to the particular subject of this chapter.
We are now ready to turn to our subject, THE CREATION RECORD: LITERAL OR NOT? The three main divisions of our discussion will be the following:
I. The Real Issue At Stake.
II. Various Interpretations of the Creation Record, Both Non-Literal and Literal.
III. The Proper Scriptural Interpretation.
First of all, we face the question: what is the issue at stake in this question concerning the creation record? My answer to this question may probably be shocking in its bluntness, but I will nevertheless state it. The issue is: creation versus evolution.
Let me explain.
What is creation? Creation may be defined as that act of the almighty will of God whereby He, through His Word and by His Spirit, gave to the entire universe, and to all the individual creatures of that universe, (things as they eternally exist in God's eternal thoughts, in His counsel) existence in distinction from Himself and His own Being.
Evolution stands diametrically over against the truth of creation.
Evolutionism is the view, the theory, that maintains, first of all, that the world began somehow of itself. Secondly, it holds that from that early but unexplained beginning,--a very obscure beginning, really no beginning at all, --from that early, unexplained beginning the whole universe evolved, developed, gradually. This development allegedly took place, first of all, as far as the inorganic, the non-living, creature is concerned. It developed; it took definite shape and form and place in the whole of the universe through evolution. It evolved and developed from the less refined and the less definite to the more refined and the more definite. Then somehow in that evolving universe a principle of life came into being. And all the forms of the organic creature, the living creature, developed out of that one cell, that one seed of life. They developed from the lower to the higher forms, from the simple to the complex forms. Man himself is also a product of such development. In the third place, evolutionism, of course, holds that all things thus developed over a period of hundreds of millions and even billions of years, until the world and the human race as we now know it came into existence.
This is the theory of evolution, briefly, as far as the origin of things is concerned. Evolutionism includes much more than this. It is not only concerned with the origin of things, but it is also an entire philosophy of the world and of history. Moreover, this far-reaching philosophy of the world and of history is inseparably connected with evolutionism's theory concerning the origin of things. But this aspect of evolutionism, though very important, is not directly a part of our present discussion.
You probably say, "But in the above sense evolutionism certainly cannot be an issue and a question for the child of God." And I agree. We are not surprised that unbelief, the outstanding sin of the world, invents its own theory of the beginning of the world, mark you well, a beginning without God! That is the fundamental thing: a beginning without God! Unbelief wants to get God out of the world. And in order to get God out of the world it aims to get God somehow out of the beginning. For if He is out from the very beginning, He is out of this world entirely. That is unbelief's striving. It wants a beginning without God. God is not in all the thoughts of the unbeliever, even the "religious" unbeliever.
Now it is certainly true, from that point of view, that it is below the dignity of faith, the dignity of the Christian, to enter into any scientific debate with the evolutionist whatsoever. Why try to meet him on his own ground, without the Bible? Why try to gainsay by human logic and ingenuity such a monstrosity of sin as the theory of evolution is? The Christian rather says of faith: "In the beginning God....." The Christian rather says: "Give me God, and I can explain the world. Take my God away, and I must sit down in despair." For "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear," Hebrews 11:3. The evolutionist is after all like the fool who desires to employ his human keenness to show me that I had no father and that I was not born. All one can do with such attempts is to turn away in complete disgust.
Indeed, in that blunt, direct form, evolutionism cannot be and is not an issue for the Christian and in the church.
But that same theory of evolution has been developed and refined and has become the more insidious in the form of what is called "theistic evolution," or in the form of what is really the same thing in more palatable terminology, "progressive creationism." The latter is a refinement in terminology: progressive creationism. But it is the same as theistic evolutionism.
What is this theory?
It is the theory that seeks to maintain all the tenets of evolutionism, but attempts to insert God into that process of evolution as an intelligent and controlling power. It is the theory that maintains that God created the principle of all things, and that then that divinely created principle of all things evolved, developed, right along the lines in which the evolutionist proper presents it as evolving. It is the theory that God never works in this universe except through ordinary ways, by second causes, according to what are called "natural laws." Even creation, according to this theory, is by law. God uses the physical laws of this universe to produce things specifically new. New species, or kinds, are produced in the vegetable and in the animal world. Finally man himself is produced according to those same physical laws and out of that same originally created principle of life. All things have developed out of original matter or from an original life-cell according to divine design and divine purpose and as a result of a divine operation through second causes and natural laws.
The preceding will serve as a description of the theory.
But let us analyze this rather widely taught theory a little. What is it really? We must confront this question too.
I say again: one can say many things also about this particular brand of evolutionism that is called theistic evolutionism. For the theory of evolution is really an entire philosophy, a world-and-life view; properly speaking, if you begin with evolutionism of any kind, you must adopt the whole thing, and you must end where evolutionism ends. And I think that historically the adoption of evolutionistic theories concerning the origin of things has led exactly to that consequence. That also holds for the adoption of theistic evolution. To mention just one example, in the area of eschatology, the doctrine of the last things, it has led to post-millennialistic conceptions.
One might also point out that through the adoption of this theory the element of the miraculous is eliminated. It is first eliminated from the origin of the universe. But inevitably, because the theory proceeds on the basis that God never works in this universe except through ordinary ways and according to "natural laws,"--inevitably the wonder is eliminated everywhere. This also is history. When the leaven of this theory has worked through, the result has been that the wonder of grace is completely eliminated and denied. For all the miracles some naturalistic explanation is found; and the historical reality of such wonders as the incarnation and the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ is also denied.
But what is this theory as far as its origin is concerned? How did it arise? Where did it come from?
There is but one answer to these questions. Theistic evolutionism is an attempted compromise. It is an attempted synthesis of worldly theory, worldly philosophy, and Scriptural truth. It is an attempted mixture of the lie and the truth.
Such compromise simply does not work. It never does. The truth and the lie simply cannot be mixed. And if such a mixture is nevertheless attempted, the result is inevitably that the truth is denied. Let me emphasize this from the outset, even as I may state frankly from the outset that I believe that the creation record is strictly literal. Progressive creationism, or theistic evolutionism, -- contrary to its claims to be "creationism" and to be "theistic", --does not really believe that creation record. But at the basis of the entire position of theistic evolutionism is a fundamentally wrong method and approach. Theistic evolutionism, or progressive creationism, does not operate from the principle of the antithesis of the truth and the lie, of faith and unbelief; but it operates from the principle of synthesis. And this principle of synthesis is the principle of world-conformity. The attempt is made to synthesize creationism and evolutionism, theism and atheistic philosophy, Biblical faith and worldly science (note: I do not say science, but worldly science), Scripture and the rationalistic and unbelieving theories and hypotheses of worldly science. Such a mixture never works. You cannot mix opposites. The result of an attempted mixture is always a denial of the truth. This is also the result in a very practical sense. Just inquire as to what receives the emphasis in so-called theistic evolutionism. Is it the theism that is emphasized? Not at all; the theism is never emphasized until the evolutionism comes under attack. The theory simply tries to allow room for the whole theory of evolutionism and at the same time to allow room for the evolutionist to say after all, "I believe in God too." The same is true of that supposedly more palatable expression, "progressive creationism." In practice, it puts all the emphasis upon the "progressive" and leaves the "creationism" out of the picture. This is done in order to go along as much as possible with worldly evolutionary theory. And then, when criticism of this progressivism arises, the progressive creationist thinks he can respond to that criticism by saying, "But I believe in creation too; only my idea of creation is that it was progressive." In other words, even from a practical point of view the "theism" and the "creationism" come crippling behind the "evolutionism" and the "progressivism" of these theories.
But it is by way of that mixture, or attempted mixture, that the entire issue of creation versus evolution has found its way into the church. Moreover, this has become an issue not only in the church at large, but also in the Reformed community of churches, both in the Netherlands and in this country. In its blunt and direct form the theory of evolution could not be an issue for a church which at all claims to adhere to Scripture. But under the form of so-called theistic evolutionism and progressive creationism the cargo of the evolutionary theory has been smuggled into the church; and thus creation-versus-evolution has become an issue in the church. And this brand of evolutionism has made no small degree of progress, even in Reformed circles. Books and articles are written which uphold and promote the theory. It is taught in the schools. And especially in certain educated and scientific circles what is referred to as the traditional creationist view has come under more or less open attack as an impossible and preposterous and grossly old-fashioned theory.
It is in connection with that introduction of what is claimed to be a Christian and a Biblical brand of evolutionism into the church that the literal or non-literal character of the creation record has become an issue confronting the church today. That is the issue stated in the title of this chapter.
How does this become the issue?
First of all, this theory of progressive creationism (a theory which is really identical with theistic evolutionism) comes face to face with the creation record. Evolutionism is not troubled by this. Simple, blunt evolutionism has nothing to do with creationism; it denies all creation; it is a theory that places itself over against all creation-faith. But the compromise theory necessarily confronts the creation record of Scripture. It is a theory which arises in the church, not in the world. It is theory which claims to be consistent with Christian faith. It is a theory which claims to be theistic, to be consistent with belief in God, the Creator. It is a theory which claims to be just a modification of creationism, claims to be consistent with belief in the doctrine of creation. Hence, it is a theory which must reckon with Holy Scripture and which must take into account, somehow, what the Bible says about creation.
In the second place, the theory of theistic evolution especially comes face to face with the time-element in Genesis 1. There are many other, connected difficulties which the theory faces in the Biblical record when it attempts to reconcile this brand of evolutionism with the statements of Scripture concerning creation. But the most crucial problem is that of the time-element. Evolution requires time. It needs large quantities of time. It needs millions upon millions and hundreds of millions and even billions of years. This is a well-known characteristic of the theory of evolution; and it is also a chief characteristic of the theory of theistic evolution, or progressive creationism. Time, long ages of time, --that is of the essence. The processes of evolution cannot really be explained; but all the riddles of evolution are hidden in the dim reaches of those billions of years. In this connection, scientists have developed many alleged evidences of such long periods of time in the history of the universe. (This is not within the scope of the discussion of the present chapter, but belongs to the next chapter. Nevertheless, the reader should note that I did not say "evidences" but "alleged evidences" of long periods of time.) Hence, when theistic evolutionism, with its requirement of billions of years, comes face to face with the Scriptural record of creation as it is contained in Genesis 1, it faces the necessity of making room in that presentation of Genesis 1 for those long periods of time. And what was the conclusion? Did the theistic evolutionist arrive at the conclusion that Genesis 1 simply did not allow room for billions of years, and that therefore he must drop his theory of evolution? Not at all; on the contrary, he "interpreted" Genesis 1 in such a way as to fit his theory.
This, in the third place, gives rise to the question of the historicity of the record of creation in the book of Genesis. It gives rise to this question: is that creation record the record of historical fact, the record of historical events? Did the things that are recorded in Genesis 1 actually take place as they are recorded in that chapter? That question is, of course, unavoidable. It is unavoidable because with that historicity, after all, stands or falls the reality, the factualness, of the creative work. Either the record of Genesis is the record of real, historical events, and then God's work of creation actually took place, is a fact of revelation; or the record of Genesis is not the record of real, historical events, and then creation and the act of creation, even though men may continue to use these terms, are not facts.
To this unavoidable question concerning the historicity of the creation record the theistic evolutionist must try to give an affirmative answer. As a theist, the theistic evolutionist feels bound to do so; and as a creationist, the progressive creationist feels compelled to answer affirmatively. For after all, it is an article of the Christian faith, "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth." Hence, they must attempt and they do attempt to maintain somehow that the creation record is an historical record, and that creation is an historic fact: it actually took place. But they do that on their own terms. In answer to the question concerning historicity, they say: "Yes, provided we interpret Genesis 1 and 2, and also Genesis 3 to an extent, correctly." And by "correctly" they mean the way they want to interpret it. For they must find ways and means of maintaining that the creation record is not ordinary history, not even ordinary sacred history, but history that is recorded in some unusual, some strange way. They must keep the record of Genesis as far as the language is concerned, but pour into it a content that harmonizes with their evolutionist or progressivist theories.
It is in this way that various theories of interpretation have arisen and are maintained today, in order to accommodate that alleged scientific evidence and the theory of theistic evolution, which requires millions and billions of years. But it is for this reason that you can no longer be satisfied with the mere question whether the creation record is historical. That allows room for evasion of the issue. You must specify. You must pin-point the issue. You must find out what they mean by "historical." And therefore you must ask: is the creation record literally historical? Is that creation record to be interpreted literally or non-literally?
At this point, of course, we get to the meat of our subject.
Concerning this key issue I want to make, first of all, a few general observations.
In the first place, we must insist that this is a matter of Scripture, the infallible Word of God, and that as surely as it is a question of Scripture, so surely it is, in the deepest sense of the word, strictly a question of exegesis.
This is of the utmost importance.
Nothing else, and I mean that in the absolute sense of the word,--nothing else, no science, no scientific theory, no rationalism, no self-made doubts and questions, no theological opinions,--absolutely nothing outside of Scripture may enter into the making of the answer to this question. It is strictly an exegetical question, a question of Scripture and Scripture's meaning, a question of the authority of Scripture. Exegesis, you know, is a question of the meaning of the Word of God. Exegesis inquires into that meaning, into the truth of the Word of God. It presupposes that the Word of God is understandable, that it is clear, perspicuous, and that therefore the truth of that Word of God can be readily ascertained. And ultimately exegesis, therefore, is a matter of bowing before the authority, the divine authority, of that Word of God. This must be stressed. It is of the essence in this entire discussion. The decisive factor is not at all what this or that scientist thinks, or what he claims to have evidence for. The decisive question is not what this or that theologian thinks. Not at all! In coming to a conclusion on this issue it is of absolutely no benefit to engage in "name-dropping." Moreover, no matter how much respect we may have for certain church fathers, and no matter how much we may respect their learning and their contributions to the development of doctrine, it is not a question of whether some of the early church fathers maintained such a thing as the period theory or the framework theory. Apparently some did so. It is not a question of whether Abraham Kuyper or Herman Bavinck allowed room for leaving the days of creation longer than mere days, --not the question at all. Nor is it a question of what Herman Hoeksema taught or of what Homer Hoeksema thinks about this matter. Neither is it a question, ultimately, of what this or that church thinks about this issue or has expressed officially about it. I will go a step farther: ultimately this is not even a question of what this or that confession says. Also the confessions are subject solely to the authority of Scripture; and they are of authority only as they give expression to the truth of Holy Scripture. In other words, the Bible is the only court of appeal in this discussion. Let us remember this!
This is a cardinal principle of our Reformed faith. It is the plain teaching of our Confession of Faith, the Belgic Confession, in Article 7. That article speaks of the sufficiency of Scripture as the only rule of faith. Among other things, it states the following: "Neither do we consider of equal value any writing of men, however holy these men may have been, with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God; for the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself." Nothing else, therefore, is to be placed in equal authority next to those Scriptures. Let that be established.
In the second place, I want to stress that exegesis is an exact science. There is much talk about science and about scientific evidence and about the exactness and fool-proofness of science in connection with this subject. And the position is sometimes taken that one must be a fool to quarrel with science's alleged discoveries and evidences, and that to disagree with what the scientists say, for example, about the age of the world is simply to fly in the face of facts and incontrovertible evidence. We shall return to this subject in particular in our next chapter. But at present I want to emphasize, over against that attitude, that the exegesis of Holy Scripture is a science also. It is the practical science of the interpretation of Scripture. In fact, if there was ever any science that was exact and that requires exactitude, it is the science of exegesis. Exegesis takes place according to certain definite rules. The most fundamental of those rules is that Scripture itself must interpret Scripture. That is a very simple, but a very fundamental rule. Scripture must speak for itself. Our interpretations must indeed be interpretations. They must not stand in the way of the speech of Scripture. An interpretation of Scripture must be the one, necessary interpretation that is demanded by Scripture itself.
Moreover, exegesis must be unbiased. Science likes to speak of this being unbiased, unprepossessed, as a fundamental tenet of the scientific method. We may accept that in the good sense of the word. And we do accept that also with application to exegesis. All exegesis of Scripture must be unbiased. The exegete must approach Scripture absolutely without any prepossession, except the prepossession, the bias, of faith. He must put away everything except that faith. He must not attempt to say something of himself about that Word of God, but he must let the Word of God speak. The bias of faith means that he is prepared to listen and to bow unconditionally before the authority of Scripture.
That must be our approach.
We are now ready to turn to a description and criticism of the various views concerning the creation record.
Among the various non-literal interpretations, there are some which we may immediately rule out. They are not maintained in any orthodox church. They are not only non-literal, but they are altogether non-Biblical. They are unbelieving. They are far-fetched in relation to the Biblical record. They are distant, too, as far as maintaining any truth of creation is concerned. And the reaction of the Bible-believing child of God is spontaneously against these theories. The mythical theory is among these. That is the theory that Genesis is a myth, Israel's national myth concerning the origin of things. Many ancient nations had such myths, according to this theory; and Israel also had such a myth, possibly borrowed from one or more of the other nations. That is unbelief. It involves higher criticism. It denies the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Genesis record. Faith cannot even consider such a theory. Among these I would also classify the allegorical and poetical theories. They not only deny the literal character of the Genesis record; but they deny the historicity of creation altogether. These theories are not very much in vogue today. But we need not concern ourselves with these theories for the simple reason that they are too obviously contrary to the entire presentation of Genesis: they do not even have a semblance of being interpretations, but are superimposed upon the text. There is not the slightest hint in Genesis itself, nor anywhere in Scripture, that we are dealing with an allegory or with poetry in the first chapter of Genesis. I would also include in this group the saga theory of Karl Barth. We need not go into detail as to this theory. But we do not have to be troubled by it because of the fact that Barth, after all, denies the infallibility of Scripture. On the basis of that denial there simply is no common ground for discussion.
However, there are several more proximate and more current theories.
First of all, there are three theories that are known as the concordistic theories.
The first of these is known as the restitution theory, the theory that in Genesis 1:1 there is recorded the creation of a first world, but that following that first creation there was a series of mighty catastrophes which destroyed it and left it "without form and void," (vs. 2), and that out of this desolation was created by a second creation-act the present universe. This theory is not very popular at present, at least in as far as it presents the present world as a restitution of a previous world. Its advantage is supposedly that it leaves a very indefinite time-gap between verse 1 and verse 3 of Genesis 1; it leaves room for a long period of time. However, it also has a notable disadvantage for the theistic evolutionist in that it does not leave enough room for his theory and especially does not leave room in the remainder of creation-week. And the progressivist, or evolutionist, needs such room throughout creation-week, and not only on the first day or before the first day.
Undoubtedly the most popular and widely accepted of these concordistic theories is the period theory. It claims to interpret the term "day" in Genesis 1 as a period of hundreds of millions of years. Each of the six successive days of creation week was such a long period. And thus this theory makes room, as far as the crucial time element is concerned, for the possibility of a so-called theistic evolution, or progressive creation. All things came into being, not in six regular days (which is impossible, according to this theory), but over the course of billions of years. We should note that it is the claim of this theory that this is an interpretation of the term "day" in Genesis 1. All of these theories, of course, claim to be interpretations. I deny that they are indeed interpretations, that they are legitimate exegesis of the text of Scripture. But we merely note now that this is the claim of the period theory.
There is a third theory which does not tamper with the days of creation week themselves, but inserts between those days, -- between the first and the second days, between the second and the third days, etc., a period of many millions of years. This is known as the inter-period theory. This theory also allows the necessary time for a process of evolution. However, this theory is not very commonly held today.
Finally, as far as the more proximate non-literal interpretations are concerned, there is what is called the framework theory. The theory itself is not new; but recently it has become more popular among those who do not hold to the literal interpretation. To be fair, I want to let an advocate of this theory tell us himself what he means by it. The following is quoted from Dr. N.H. Ridderbos's book, "Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 And Natural Science?" (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich.), p. 45:
By the framework-hypothesis I mean the following. In Genesis 1 the inspired author offers us a story of creation. It is not his intent, however, to present an exact report of what happened at creation. By speaking of the eightfold work of God he impresses the reader with the fact that all that exists has been created by God. This eightfold work he places in a frame work; he distributes it over six days, to which he adds a seventh day as the day of rest. In this manner he gives expression to the fact that the work of creation is complete; also that at the conclusion of His work God can rest, take delight in the result; and also (cf. pp. 40-42) that in celebrating the Sabbath man must be God's imitator. The manner in which the works of creation have been distributed over six days is not arbitrary (see pp. 32-35).
Let us stop to analyze the above quotation for a moment. I trust that I need not state that it is not my intention to impugn anyone's motives In this criticism, least of all those of Dr. Ridderbos. I am not interested in that in the least. In fact, I do not know Dr. Ridderbos, except from some of his writings. I am merely interested in an analysis and criticism of these theories.
Concerning the above description of the framework hypothesis, let me point out that this theory seems to succeed in maintaining that Genesis is inspired. It speaks of the inspired author. It seems, too, to maintain that creation is historical, that is, that it actually took place. To that extent it is history. But note, first of all, that Genesis 1 is called "a story of creation." In this connection, too, it is claimed that it is not the author's intent "to present an exact report of what happened at creation." Note, in the second place, that it seems to preserve the idea of the six days of creation week. However, those six days are only a literary framework in which God's work of creation is placed by the inspired author. They are not the framework in which the work of creation actually took place, but the literary framework in which the report of creation has been placed by the author of Genesis. In other words, this framework of six days is not a reported historical event, but something that has been imposed upon the divine work of creation. The days are not real. Genesis 1, according to this theory, says absolutely nothing about the actual time and order of creation. It tells us nothing whatsoever about how long it took to create, or when God created, or whether God actually created in six days. This theory leaves the whole question of the exact historical event of creation and the time of creation and the duration of the creative work wide open, wide open for the theory of theistic evolution, with some of whose proponents this framework hypothesis has become rather more popular than the period theory. This framework hypothesis solves all the troublesome problems of the theistic evolutionist, in effect, by getting rid of the problems.
Next, there are some more literal theories. One such theory is the theory that the days of creation week were real days, but not ordinary days. This is the view of Dr. G. Ch. Aalders. Concerning this "real days" which were not ordinary days, he writes: "They need not have lasted longer than our days, they may have been much shorter; they may by our chronometric standards have lasted only a few seconds." I have a great deal of difficulty understanding such a presentation. Again, I am not impugning anyone's motives. But I cannot understand the necessity for such a presentation. What are real days which are not ordinary days ? What is the meaning of such an expression? Our only point of comparison for the conception of a "real day" is the day that we know, that is, an ordinary day. In other words, when Scripture speaks of days and in every way refers to those days in terms of the only days that we know, we have no recourse but to understand those days as ordinary days. Those are the only real days that we know. This, of course, is entirely apart from the question whether those days were extraordinary, not ordinary, from the point of view of their events.
Other exegetes hold to the view that creation took place in six ordinary days; but they do not consider this question of the days to be a crucial issue of interpretation, and they do not regard it as binding that the days were indeed six ordinary days.
In distinction from all of the above theories stands what I call the literal interpretation of the Genesis record ( sometimes called the realistic view), namely: that God created the universe on six successive days, limited by morning and evening, -- six real, ordinary days like our days of twenty-four hours.
Now the question confronts us how to evaluate and judge these various theories.
I do not intend in this connection to criticize each theory in detail and to examine the various arguments advanced in support of each. Nor do I intend to examine and to answer every objection that is raised against the literal interpretation. That could be done very successfully, I am sure. But that would make our discussion in this connection far too lengthy; and, what is more important, that is not necessary at all. I want to get down to something more fundamental.
I ask the reader to consider these theories with me, to take up these theories with Genesis 1 in hand. Some of these theories are elaborately devised. Some of them have what are claimed to be Scriptural arguments behind them. But let us put them to the test of Scripture, the test of Scripture without anything additional, the test of Scripture approached unprepossessed, except for faith, --the test of Scripture as any ordinary child of God can read those Scriptures and understand them.
What is the conclusion?
Take, for example, the period theory.
Genesis 1 speaks of six successive days in which God created. It speaks of days that are delineated by evening and morning. It speaks already with respect to the first day of a distinction between the light and the darkness, between day-time and nighttime. Can those days, -- that is a simple question, -- can those days by any stretch of the imagination, no, by any stretch of exegesis, be changed into periods of hundreds of millions of years? Is that actually a matter of interpretation? Can an appeal properly be made to the idea that this is all a matter of how one "interprets" Genesis 1 ?
To ask such a question is really to answer it.
By definition such an "interpretation" is impossible. A day, particularly a day delineated by morning and evening and consisting of day-time and night-time, simply is not a period of years, of millions of years. A year itself is already a large number of days; and a period of millions of years certainly cannot properly be described as such a day. That is plainly the case by definition.
You can test that theory and test the above objection by paraphrasing the text in Genesis in terms of periods. Let us try that. Let us read Genesis 1 as though it spoke of periods of hundreds of millions of years. It does not even begin to make sense. What becomes of a verse like Genesis 1:5 when you do that? What do you get? This: "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first two hundred million years." Or again, in Genesis 1:8: " .... And the evening and the morning were the second two hundred million years." Or try that with the Fourth Commandment, which makes clear reference to the creation ordinance: "...Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God (already here, according to sound exegetical practice, you would have to change these "days" to periods, H.C.H.) .... For in six periods of two hundred million years the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh period of two hundred million years: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath period of two hundred million years, and hallowed it." Very obviously, this "interpretation" is absurd! It is sheer nonsense! It cannot legitimately be called an interpretation. But remember: Genesis 1 is Scripture! Perspicuous Scripture! Any child of God is able to read it and understand it! And I ask: what becomes of perspicuous Scripture when it must be "understood" in this fashion?
I am well aware that other claims are made in connection with this period theory. The attempt is made to give it some Scriptural and exegetical foundation. But these attempts fail, one and all. For example, appeal is made to a text like II Peter 3:8: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Now, apart from any other considerations, apart from the fact that the text is obviously speaking basically of God's eternity and of the fact that God does not view time as we view it, let it be noted that in this argumentation the last part of this text is conveniently overlooked: "....and a thousand years as one day." But, above all, let it be noted that the text in Peter does not identify one day and a thousand years, but compares the two with respect to God: "...one day is with the Lord AS a thousand years, and a thousand years AS one day." Appeal is also made to the sabbath of the seventh day. The claim is made that when Scripture tells us that God rested on the seventh day, that day cannot possibly be taken as a twenty-four hour day. For the sabbath never ends for God: He does not rest for twenty-four hours, but eternally. Now that argument is exegetically specious: for the sabbath of the seventh day can only be the revelation of God's eternal rest into which man enters in time. But let us accept the proposed exegesis of the period theoreticians for a moment. If you apply that argument, you soon discover that it proves far too much. For the result is not periods of a few hundred million years, but unending periods. If the sabbath of the seventh day is unending, then all the first six long periods were unending. This is the only possible conclusion, on the basis of the sound rule of exegesis that the same term in the same connection means the same thing unless there are clear reasons in the text and context why it should not mean the same thing.
The same fundamental objection may be applied to the framework theory as to the period theory. It claims to have some arguments in its favor. But I submit, first of all, that if you take that framework theory in hand and put away your theistic evolutionary eye-glasses, your prepossessions, and put out of your mind for the moment so-called scientific evidences, and simply read Scripture and let Scripture speak then that framework hypothesis simply does not fit the text of Genesis. It is preposterous! You cannot find a hint of it in the text. Again, without impugning anyone's motives, I say that that framework hypothesis from an exegetical point of view, when you read the simple record of Genesis 1, leaves the impression of being a cunningly devised fable! Nothing less!
What an altogether strange impression the infallible and perspicuous Word of God in Genesis 1 must make on the unsuspecting reader if the framework hypothesis is true! How altogether impossible it becomes to read any historical account and to grasp its fundamental meaning and message if this is the way that Scripture must be read! One would always have need of an expert theologian and exegete near at hand if the Scriptures were to be read in this fashion. Genesis 1 leaves no other impression than that of an exact report of the wonderful work of creation day by day. But when we read it, according to this theory, we must always remember that it is a creation story, not an exact report. It does not actually tell us what God did. You can distill out of it the fact that somehow all that exists has been created by God. You can extract from it that the work of God was eightfold. You can conclude from it that the work of creation is complete, that at the conclusion of it God can rest, can take delight in the result, and that in celebrating the Sabbath man must be God's imitator. But that is all. When all is said and done, you know nothing as to what actually took place or how it took place. Moreover, when Genesis speaks of six days and leaves on any reader no other impression than that they were six days, you must nevertheless remember that there were not really six days, but that the scheme of six-plus-one-days is only an artificial scheme, a literary framework, in which the very vague and inexactly reported work of creation is fitted.
I say again: how strange! How impossible it becomes to read and understand Scripture in this way!
Again, I am aware that the attempt is made to find Scriptural support for the possibility of such a framework interpretation. Something akin to such a framework, for example, is supposed to be found in "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ" in Matthew 1. As is well known, Scripture there presents an artificial, or schematic, arrangement of the generations of Jesus Christ, not an exact chronological and genealogical line. Some generations are skipped. You find there three times a set of fourteen, or two-times-seven, generations. But there are some important factors which should be considered here. In the first place, what we find in Matthew 1 is far from a literary framework. It is correct that certain generations are skipped, and that due to these omissions there is no exact chronological and genealogical line in Matthew 1. But does that make it a framework? By no means: for the over-all presentation is nevertheless that of a progressive genealogy from Abraham to Christ. That is far different from the vague literary framework which is postulated for Genesis 1. In the second place, Scripture itself suggests that in Matthew 1 we have a schematic arrangement of the generations of Jesus Christ: for in verse 17 of that chapter we read specifically: "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." Besides, in the third place, we have the evidence of Scripture itself in the Old Testament that there are indeed generations that have been omitted from the series in Matthew. Hence, in Matthew 1 you do not find an instance of Scripture fraudulently foisting a story which is not exact upon an unsuspecting reader, as is the case with the framework hypothesis of Genesis 1. Nor is it difficult at all to interpret Matthew 1 in complete harmony with the fundamental rule of exegesis that Scripture must interpret Scripture, a rule which is violated by the framework hypothesis as imposed on Genesis 1 without any ground and without any occasion being offered by Scripture itself and without any clear and incontrovertible Scriptural warrant.
This, negatively, is the significance of the principle that we must proceed exegetically with respect to Genesis 1. One must not merely impose alleged interpretations upon Scripture. He must not merely suggest possible, abstractly possible, explanations. He must show by incontrovertible evidence from the text, from the immediate context, and from the broader context of the whole of Scripture, that a given explanation is the only possible meaning of the text, that it is on a Scriptural basis absolutely necessary. Moreover, in order to make way for such an other-than-literal interpretation, he must first show with incontrovertible evidence from Scripture itself not from science, or from claimed scientific data that the literal interpretation is impossible, absolutely impossible, and that therefore Scripture itself demands some other kind of interpretation.
That is sound exegetical practice. That is responsible exegesis. That is, if you will, "scientific."
On the above basis, the literal interpretation stands.
God created.
He did not providentially control and cause all things to develop in that creation work. He did not operate through second causes and according to natural laws, as He is sometimes presented as doing in His work of providence. The work of creation and the work of providence, both of them divine works, are not to be confused. In creation God does not uphold and govern all things according to so-called natural laws,-- more properly, creation ordinances. No, He laid down those creation ordinances in the beginning.
He created! He spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. God spoke. He spoke His Word of power. That was real speech. It was divine speech; but it was real, literal speech of God, producing what it uttered. "Let there be light .... let there be a firmament .... let the dry land appear .... let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree .... let there be luminaries in the firmament of the heaven .... let the waters bring forth abundantly .... let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind .... let us make man in our image," etc. And by that almighty speech of God all was produced. Moreover, all those creative works of God took place in six ordinary days: not because God needed twenty-four hours in order to create one kind of creature. He did not, no more than He needs millions of years. He is God, the Creator, Who spoke, and it was done! But, in the first place, it took place in six ordinary days simply because the Bible says so. That is all; and that is enough. That is enough for me; and that is enough for faith. I don't ask you to bow to me; I ask you to bow with me before simple Scripture. And, in the second place, we must remember that with that creation God also created time, and He increated in the entire universe the week, the six plus the one, the labor plus the sabbath. Thus, all creation is the direct product of His sovereign will.
Such is the presentation of Scripture. And not a hint of anything different is ever found in Scripture. Not so much as a hint! That can only come from outside of Scripture. This is not to say that there are no exegetical difficulties, problems, with respect to the details of the work of creation. There undoubtedly are some. Nor does the maintenance of the literal interpretation imply that we can comprehend, fathom, the wonderful work of God. God is incomprehensible in all His works. He is God, the God of the wonder! The creature can only fathom a speech which calls things which are; he cannot comprehend the speech of God whereby He calls the things which are not and whereby things which are made were not formed of things which do appear. Romans 4:17; Hebrews 11:3. But this in no wise detracts from the reality and the factualness of the wonder-work of God; and this is no wise gives warrant for any kind of naturalistic and evolutionistic presentation. All Scripture speaks one language with respect to creation and the creative act, turn where you will, to Genesis itself, to Hebrews 11, to John 1, to Colossians 1, to Psalm 33. They all speak the same language.
The result of that creative work of the Almighty was, first of all, that the whole creation, God's handiwork, the product of His Word, was very good, as it stood in its pristine perfection, under its first head and king, Adam. It was all designed to serve man, in order that man, reading God's Word in all the works of his Creator, might tell God's wonderful works and serve his God.
Still more. We must remember, -- because all this is intimately connected with the gospel, -- that from the historical point of that "very good" at the end of Genesis 1, at the conclusion of creation, the line is not the evolutionistic line onward and upward, from good to better to best. The line is downward. It is the line of the fall into sin and death and the curse. Why? Because God, with His first creation, had in view His better purpose, another purpose, some better thing, for us, His people in Christ Jesus. That first world was designed with a view to the second world, the better world, the heavenly creation, where all things shall be united in Christ Jesus our Lord. That first world was designed to serve as the stage for the beautiful drama of sin and grace, the drama of redemption. It was to serve as the stage for the perfect realization of God's everlasting covenant of grace in Christ Jesus. And thus, created by God's hand, and therefore providentially controlled by His hand, that world moves from the bereshith the beginning, of Genesis 1, to the telos, the end of all things, the final consummation, in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. It can do so because it is God's world. It shall do so because it is God's world. Then He Who created all things in the beginning shall make all things new in the way of the final catastrophe and the final wonder of grace. Then all the scoffers, who maintain that things continue as they were in the beginning, shall be put to nought; and God's people shall sing the praises of their Creator forever.
In that sense, this is my Father's world, -- the world of "the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them; who likewise upholds and governs the same by his eternal counsel and providence)," and Who "is for the sake of Christ his Son, my God and my Father..." Heidelberg Catechism, Qu. 26.
This is the simple and perspicuous truth which we confess when we say, "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth." This is the language, unencumbered by the compromising weight of any evolutionism or progressivism, which we find in Article 12 of our Confession of Faith: "We believe that the Father, by the Word, that is, by his Son, hath created of nothing, the heaven, the earth, and all creatures, as it seemed good unto him, giving unto every creature its being, shape, form, and several offices to serve its Creator." This is the speech of faith.
Finally, I can in my imagination hear some objections. What about all the scientific evidences? What about the results of natural science? With regard to this matter, I make bold to state, in the first place, that even if all those evidences cannot be explained, Scripture stands, and the believer must without compromise stand strictly on its basis. In the second place, however, I believe that the Genesis record, the literal Genesis record, and true science are entirely compatible. For a discussion of this, I invite you to turn to the next chapter.
But my concluding word is this: let the church, let the believer stand fast on this only foundation of Scripture!
Return to table of contents
By way of introduction, I wish to call attention to the formulation of the subject of this chapter, "Genesis and Science." The material of this chapter goes beyond the more limited subject of Creation and Science. To be sure, the maintenance of the creation doctrine in connection with some of the scientific data and evidences that have been collected and that are frequently used to deny the truth of creation is involved in this discussion. In a way this is even our chief interest in this discussion. However, a proper discussion of this subject must needs go beyond the creation record. To an increasing extent in current discussions, both on the part of those who deny the truth of creation and on the part of those who maintain it, the entire first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis have become involved. And, as will become evident later in this chapter, I certainly believe that a Christian view of science in relation to the truth of creation must take into account much more of Scripture, and particularly of Genesis, than the creation record of Genesis 1 and 2. Ultimately, of course, the whole principle of Scripture itself, but also essentially the whole content of Scripture becomes involved in this discussion. But we shall concentrate especially on Genesis in relation to science.
In the second place, I must needs emphasize that this chapter does not concern Genesis versus Science, or Science versus Genesis. That would imply that there is a conflict between the two; and I do not believe that there is such a conflict. Genesis and science, I believe, are quite compatible. As soon as you pervert science into a religion or set of beliefs which stands opposed to Genesis, then you no longer have science, but scientism. But Scripture and science, properly conceived, are compatible. Otherwise, it stands to reason, of course, that a Christian could never be a scientist. Hence, our discussion in this chapter centers on "Genesis and Science." We are interested in the relation between Genesis and science and between Genesis and some of the data which science has compiled and which are pertinent to this subject. We are also interested in Genesis in relation to some of the allegedly scientific conclusions that have been reached and that are maintained in connection with what Genesis teaches concerning creation.
The subject of this chapter, therefore, rather naturally arises in connection with the position taken in the previous chapter. There I took the position, strictly on the basis of Scripture, that the doctrine of creation must be literally maintained, and that, on the basis of clear and simple exegesis of the Word of God, it must be maintained that creation took placed in six real, ordinary days. I also suggested that perhaps this position raised questions in the minds of many concerning all the alleged scientific data and claimed scientific evidence which seem to contradict the literal creation doctrine. To those questions this chapter is devoted.
Before entering into the discussion of this subject, I wish to make a few observations as to my approach.
First of all, I want to insist, as I also maintained principally in the previous chapter, that the doctrine of creation, the literal creation doctrine, does not depend on science or on scientific evidences. Nor does it depend on one's ability or inability to explain any alleged scientific evidences to the contrary. This point I deem very important, and I hope this will become increasingly clear in the course of the discussion. But I want to emphasize this point from the outset. This is the strength of the Christian's position. His belief in the literal creation doctrine depends emphatically on the Bible, and on the Bible alone. Let me emphasize that very strongly in this way: even if I could not explain the data produced by science at all, I think it can be explained, by the way, -- but even if I could not explain it, even if no suggestion of an explanation could be made, I would nevertheless maintain the literal creation doctrine, solely on the basis of Scripture. To me, that is simply a matter of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
I repeat: that is very important, and it constitutes the strength of the Christian's position. This has often been forgotten; and I think it is often forgotten today. People of God have allowed themselves to be swayed by influences other than the authoritative influence of Holy Scripture. That is per se wrong. It is a violation of the principle of the authority of Scripture. I am very well aware of the fact that there are scientists today, also Christian scientists, who sneer at that. They call it Fundamentalism, and they claim that it is three hundred years behind the times. That makes no difference to me, for the simple reason that this sneering constitutes neither a Christian attitude nor a sound argument.
This, therefore, is my starting-point in this chapter.
In the second place, although we are dealing in this chapter with science, I must emphasize that my approach is not that of a scientist. I am not a scientist. I would not even dare to call myself an amateur scientist. And I certainly do not write these lines as a scientist.
I do not, however, mention this as an apology, or excuse. Nor do I mention it because I have no respect for scientific disciplines and research. The contrary is true. I believe that science is proper and that scientific research is beneficial, yea, that science is necessary. Moreover, I believe that the area of science is a proper one for the Christian's labors. Let me make myself crystal clear on that point. I am not opposing science in this chapter.
But I mention this because it affects my approach to this subject. I happen to believe also that a good scientist can meet and destroy many of the arguments of an evolutionistic scientist on a scientific basis and can show those arguments to be grossly unscientific. In the course of this chapter I shall make a few passing references to such attempts. However, the emphasis of this chapter will not be on that aspect of our subject. That is not my sphere for the simple reason that I am not a scientist. Nor will my fundamental approach be the scientist's approach. But there is a deeper reason why that will not be my approach. Principally I believe that the heart of a sound defense of the faith, the heart of what is called in theology a sound apologetics, is Biblical, not rationalistic. And it is on that Biblical basis that I will approach the subject of this chapter. You might, of course, expect that of a preacher. Nevertheless that is very important. The question which confronts you and me with respect to every aspect of life, science included, is: what does the Word of God say?
We now turn to the subject: GENESIS AND SCIENCE. There are three aspects of this subject which we shall consider in the course of our discussion, as follows:
I. The Proper Relation Between Genesis and Science;
II. Scientific Data in the Light of Scripture;
III. Suggestions Toward a Positive Scriptural Approach.
In discussing the relation between Genesis and science we must, first of all, have a clear understanding of these terms. What is Genesis? And what is science?
As far as Genesis is concerned, I may be very brief. The previous two chapters have been devoted largely to this question and have dealt both with the authority and with the teaching of Genesis concerning creation. To summarize, Genesis is the infallible record of the revelation of God in Christ concerning the beginning of all things; Genesis is perspicuous, clear; and Genesis is literal sacred history, -- teaching, as far as our immediate subject is concerned, the literal creation doctrine expounded in the previous chapter.
The other subject under discussion here is science. What is meant by that?
The term "science" comes from the Latin word scientia, which simply means "knowledge." True science, therefore, is knowledge; and as a discipline aims at discovering knowledge. We must know more, however, than this mere derivation of the term. As a working definition of science from the formal point of view, the definition furnished by the Oxford Dictionary will serve our purpose. Science is "a branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain."
In connection with the preceding, I wish to point to a few significant items.
In the first place, science is concerned with facts and laws which have been demonstrated. It is important to remember this, so that we may understand that this is the limitation of all true science. All is not science that passes for science. Any alleged science or scientific conclusion that goes beyond this limitation of demonstrated or demonstrable facts and laws has no right to the name science. In close connection with this stands a second item, namely, that the scientific method involves the method of experiment and what is called "experimental reproducibility." In the third place, it lies in the very nature of science that it is strictly limited to the measurement and study of present phenomena and processes. Those things which can be or have been observed and studied in the present, or such data as have been recorded by men in the historic past (so that there is a historical record of them), -- such things are the proper object of scientific study and investigation and knowledge.
Exactly at this point it is necessary to point out emphatically that science, therefore, is not inference and is not speculation or speculative theory. Science is bound to observed facts and demonstrated truths; and it is limited to the present and the historic past. This is characteristic of science from a formal point of view, -- and science is, indeed, a very formal discipline. It is precisely at this juncture that one of the main problems from a formal and scientific point of view arises in connection with the subject of this chapter and in connection with evolutionistic theory. This is frequently forgotten. The attitude is assumed that evolutionism is highly scientific and that creationism is extremely unscientific (and I mean by creationism the belief in a literal six-day creation). The two are frequently made to oppose each other on this ground, as though the creationist blindly flies in the face of science. Also those who attempt to compromise between creationism and evolutionism like to present matters in this way, as though strict, Biblical creationism is s