RDD  

Setting in Order the Things That Are Wanting

An Exposition of

Paul's Epistle to Titus (8)

Robert D. Decker

   We remind the reader that this exposition of the Epistle to Titus was originally given in the form of “chapel talks” by the author during the weekly Wednesday morning chapel services at the seminary.  The author began this exposition in the 1997-1998 school year and completed the series during the second semester of the 1999-2000 school year.  The exposition is being published in the Journal with the hope that it will prove helpful to a wider audience of God’s people in their study of this brief epistle in the sacred Scriptures.  So that both those familiar with the Greek language and those who are unable to work with the Greek may benefit from this study, all references to the Greek will be placed in footnotes.   The translation of the Greek text is the author’s.  We present this exposition pretty much as it was spoken in the chapel services, application and all.  Perhaps this will help the reader gain some insight into what goes on in the seminary.

Chapter Two
Verse 13

  Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.

      Verse 12, as we saw last time, tells us what the grace of God that appears to all classes of men teaches us, viz., that we are to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world in the way of denying ungodliness and worldly lusts.

      Verse 13 reveals that this godly living is a living in expectation of the blessed hope.  We are looking for or waiting for the blessed hope with eager expectation.¹   We live the Christian life looking eagerly, joyfully, and without doubting for a moment for the blessed hope.  That hope is a certain expectation.  We are sure of the realization of that blessed hope because we live by faith and not by sight. 

      For what are we eagerly looking and waiting?  What is that blessed hope?  Blessed is that hope because it affords us real joy, the joy of salvation from sin and death, also now while we are looking and waiting for its realization.  Here and now in the darkness of this present ungodly world with all of its temptations, its ungodly lusts, its sin and lawlessness, its persecutions and threats of persecution we live joyfully, waiting for the realization of our hope.  Here and now, in this present evil world, in our joys and sorrows, in our good times and bad, in our health and sickness and pain and dying, we live godly lives joyfully and with certainty looking for the realization of our blessed hope.

      But what precisely is that blessed hope?  The answer of the text is, “the appearing of the glory of the great God (and/or) even our Savior, Jesus Christ.”  The question at this point is, are we waiting for the appearance of the glory of our great God and the appearing of our Savior, Jesus Christ, or are we looking for the appearing of the glory of Jesus Christ, our Savior, who is our great God? 

      We refrain from going into all of the arguments put forth in favor of each of these views.²   The author agrees with A. T. Robertson’s interpretation, that we are looking for the appearing of the glory of our Savior, Jesus Christ, who is the Great God.  We agree with Robertson that this is the correct understanding based on the grammar.  Writes Robertson, “This is the necessary meaning of the one article (the) with Theou (God) and sooteeros  (Savior).”³   We could better translate the clause, “looking for the appearing of the glory of the Great God our Savior, even Jesus Christ” (“even” in the sense of “who is” Jesus Christ).⁴   We hasten to add, however, that it makes no essential difference which view we hold.  This is due to the facts that:  1) in either case Scripture (and that over against the error of the Arians) affirms the divinity of Christ and 2) the glory of God is always manifest or revealed in and through the person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ.⁵  

      The glory of Jesus Christ is the shining forth, the manifestation of all the wonderful attributes, virtues of God’s perfect being.  We are given a glimpse of that glory by means of the Word of God.  With eager and certain expectation and with deep longing we look for the full and complete revelation of the glory of God in Christ when Christ returns at the end of the ages to judge all men, to destroy the present heavens and earth and to create a new heaven and earth. 

      This final appearance of Jesus at the end of the ages is the reason He is called “the great God even our Savior.”  Jesus is the only begotten Son of God in our flesh.  He is the one by whom and for whom all things were made.  Jesus is the Word made flesh, the one who dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.   That glory will be completely revealed.   It will appear in all its fullness and perfection when Jesus Christ appears at the end of the ages.

      And Jesus is our Savior!  By means of His atoning death on the cross in the place of and on behalf of all the elect given to Him by God from all eternity, Jesus obtained forgiveness of sin.  In Jesus’ resurrection those elect in Him were delivered from the fear of the bondage of death.  And when Jesus appears the second time, that salvation will be perfectly realized.

      This is our hope.  Certain and blessed hope it is indeed!  This is the blessed gospel we are privileged to preach.  It is this blessed gospel we are privileged to teach you students to preach!  There is nothing more worthwhile, more satisfying, than to be called by God and enabled by His grace in Christ Jesus to preach the good news of this blessed hope! 

… to be continued

A Comparison of Exegesis:

John Calvin

and Thomas Aquinas (concl.)

Russell J. Dykstra

Synopsis of the three preceding installments.

   Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin are theological giants who not only highly esteemed the Bible but also expounded and preached Holy Writ.  As to the exegesis of Scripture, Calvin clung tenaciously to the literal meaning of the text, while Aquinas believed that three additional senses could be discovered on the basis of the literal meaning.  On the matter of the relationship of the authority of Scripture and that of the church, Calvin and Aquinas parted ways.  Scripture is the supreme and only authority, Calvin maintained, and was not bound to the exegesis of the church.  Aquinas, on the other hand, followed the church’s interpretation closely.

   In the last installment, a comparison was made of the exegesis on Ephesians 1:1-14 by Calvin and Aquinas.   In this article, the commentary on Ephesians 6:14-17 by Aquinas and Calvin are compared, and a final evaluation offered.

Ephesians 6:14-17 – The Christian’s Armor.

      Ephesians 6:14-17 contains the well-known description of the armor that the inspired apostle commands every Christian to put on.  Neither Aquinas nor Calvin has extensive development of the particular pieces of the armor. Calvin tells us immediately that this is his plan, apparently cognizant of other exegesis that dealt expansively with this section.  He writes,

We must not…inquire very minutely into the meaning of each word; for an allusion to military customs is all that was intended.  Nothing can be more idle than the extraordinary pains which some have taken to discover the reason why righteousness is made a breastplate, instead of a girdle.  Paul’s design was to touch briefly on the most important points required in a Christian, and to adapt them to the comparison which he had already used.¹ 

      Calvin’s sermon on the armor likewise gives only a brief treatment of the individual parts.

      Aquinas divides the armor into three groups.  “Some are like clothes, and are meant to cover one.” This will include the first three elements (belt, breastplate, and sandals).  Other parts of the armor are “to protect him” (shield and helmet).  “And still others are for fighting” (the sword).  As stated above, Aquinas’ commentary is brief, but he shows a mild tendency toward allegorizing — finding a spiritual meaning based loosely on the literal text.

      What follows is a comparison of the exegesis of Aquinas and Calvin on the armor.

Loins girt about with truth.

      Both Aquinas and Calvin understand “truth” to refer to a moral quality, rather than the objective truth of God.  They differ significantly on the meaning of girding the loins with truth.

      Aquinas believes that the girding of the loins refers to “check[ing] carnal desires,” since the loins are the place “in which sensuality thrives.”  That this is to be done in truth means, “with the right intention and not with pretense.”

      Calvin begins with truth and contends that it means “sincerity of mind.”   Because the girdle is one of the most important parts of the armor, he concludes that “our attention is thus directed to the fountain of sincerity.”  And how is this done by the “loins girt about with truth”? Writes Calvin, “[T]he purity of the gospel ought to remove from our minds all guile, and from our hearts all hypocrisy.”

Breastplate of righteousness.

      Aquinas links the breastplate of righteousness with having one’s feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace in this way — both are enjoined upon believers in order to warn “them to overcome greed for created things.”   Concerning the breastplate, Aquinas believes that Paul’s point is an injunction not unjustly to “usurp property,” and “justice will look after this.”  This covering is needed because it keeps a man “out of other people’s property.”  Justice is a breastplate, writes Aquinas, “because it covers all the virtues just as a breastplate does the members.”  Aquinas believes he finds a parallel passage to assist his exegesis in Wisdom 5:19 (in the Vulgate; verse 18 in many English translations), a book which the later Protestants rejected as apocryphal — “He will put on justice as a breastplate, and will take true judgment instead of a helmet.”

      Calvin maintains that the righteousness is “a devout and blameless life” not, as “some imagine, … the imputation of righteousness, by which pardon of sin is maintained.”  His interpretation is controlled by the context — “for the subject now under discussion is a blameless life.”  This is significant because the Reformation’s greatest conflict against the Roman Catholic Church was over justification by faith alone — the imputed righteousness of Christ.  Regardless of whether one agrees with Calvin’s exegesis of this passage or not, it indicates that he is not overreacting to this controversy by rejecting the Bible’s use of righteousness in places as describing the believer’s godly life.  In other words, his exegesis is not controlled by the church or determined by a major controversy.  As for the fact that the specific part of armor is a ‘breastplate,” Calvin speaks only of the calling “to be adorned … with a devout and holy life.”

Your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.

      As noted earlier, Aquinas connected this with the previous article of the soldier’s armor as a warning to the Christian to overcome greed for created things.  This particular piece of the armor has to do with the need “to get rid of an excessive care about temporal realities.”  That, because “when we are too caught up with these, our feet are not ready to carry out divine pursuits and proclaim its mysteries.”  According to Aquinas, your feet shod means “one’s inclinations should be determined — with the preparation of the gospel of peace.”  Then he adds a bit of allegorical interpretation:  “As a symbol of this the Lord sent the Apostles shod with sandals.  These have soles underneath, by which the raising of the mind from earthly matters is signified….”  Aquinas adds that this is the gospel “of peace” since “through the gospel peace is proclaimed to us.”  This commentary is not exactly clear in that, on the one hand, Aquinas implies that all must be ready to preach (“proclaim its mysteries”), and, on the other hand, that we need to hear the preaching.

      Calvin clearly states that this peace refers to the effects of the gospel, “for it is the message of reconciliation to God, and nothing else gives peace to the conscience.”  As the greaves of the Roman soldier protected his feet, “so we must be shod with the gospel, if we would pass unhurt through the world.”  Concerning the preparation, Calvin rejects the explanation that we must be prepared for the gospel, for, he reiterates, he considers this term to refer to “the effect of the gospel.”  Rather, he maintains that Paul exhorts us to “lay aside every hindrance and to be prepared both for war and journey.”  The gospel accomplishes this preparation.

In all things taking the shield of faith.

      Aquinas, ignoring the protective character of some of the earlier listed parts of armor, here inserts the comment:  “The second function of weapons is to protect.”  This introduces the shield of faith and the helmet of salvation, and distinguishes them from the “armor of moral virtues” previously listed.  He writes concerning faith that “faith is presupposed to all other virtues just as a shield is basic to all weapons.”

      Aquinas makes a point of distinguishing between the use of the previous three parts of the Christian’s armor and the shield of faith.  With the first three (what he calls “moral virtues”), believers “conquer the powers of darkness.”  But Aquinas teaches that the shield of faith “consists of the theological virtue of faith.”   Although he does not explain the differences in his commentary, Aquinas is following scholastic classifications in this distinction of virtues.²   Faith “repels what is aimed against it and gains the victory.”  To be more specific, faith “quenches present and transitory temptations with the eternal and spiritual blessings promised in Holy Scripture.”  Aquinas sets up Jesus as the example who brought forth “authoritative texts of Scripture to oppose the devil’s temptations.”  All this might seem to indicate that Aquinas takes faith to refer to objective faith (faith as the body of truth), but his conclusion indicates otherwise.   Faith is called a shield, Aquinas writes, because “as the shield protects the entire chest, so faith must be in our hearts.”  Although this could mean having the Word of God in one’s heart, it is more likely that Aquinas refers to faith in the subjective sense of believing.

      Calvin understands faith to be the subjective activity of faith.  He maintains that “faith and the word of God are one, yet Paul assigns to them distinct offices.”  He explains, “I call them one, because the word is the object of faith, and cannot be applied to our use but by faith; as faith again is nothing, and can do nothing, without the word.”

      On “the fiery darts of the wicked” Calvin and Aquinas both agree the darts are from the devil, differing only in the exact meaning of burning.  Aquinas writes that these darts “are fiery since evil desires burn,” and apparently means that they destroy men, as he quotes Psalm 57:9, Fire hath fallen on them, and they shall not see the sun.  Calvin, more cautious, says of the darts that they “are not only sharp and penetrating, but — what makes them more destructive — they are fiery.”

The helmet of salvation.

      On this phrase, both Calvin and Aquinas exchange the word hope for salvation.  Aquinas does so without explanation.  His exposition is extremely brief.  He comments, “Hope … is referred to as a helmet because, as a helmet is on the head, so the head of the moral virtues is the end, and hope is concerned with the end.”

      Calvin indicates that he draws from I Thessalonians 5:8, where the helmet is called the hope of salvation.  In that light he writes, “The head is protected by the best helmet, when, elevated by hope, we look up towards heaven to that salvation that is promised.”  Salvation is a helmet, he maintains, only by becoming the object of hope.

The sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.

      Aquinas is vague on the exact meaning of the Word of God. He speaks of preaching being the word of God, ignoring the incongruity of putting the sword of the preaching into the hand of the ordinary Christian.  The reason for not making it simply the Bible may be due to the Church’s oft discouragement of the common man having the Bible.  If so, this is an instance of allowing the teaching of the church to determine the exegesis of the passage.  However, Aquinas is not explicit on this.

      Treating this in connection with the shield of faith, Calvin simply calls this the “word of God,” obviously referring to the Bible.  Without naming names, he takes aim at the Romish Church’s practice of restricting the laity’s use of the Bible.

And what shall we say of those who take from a Christian people the word of God?  Do they not rob them of the necessary armour, and leave them to perish without a struggle?  There is no man of any rank who is not bound to be a soldier of Christ.  But if we enter the field unarmed, if we want our sword, how shall we sustain that character?

Clearly, Calvin insisted that every Christian must take the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God.

Evaluation.

      Making comparisons in the area of exegesis is difficult, and it is even more difficult to remain objective and fair when the two exegetes are separated by nearly 400 years.   The later exegete has the advantage of looking back on, and benefiting from, the exegesis not only of the earlier theologian, but also the many works published in that intervening period.  It stands to reason that the later exegete ought to have a better development in his exegesis.  Taking this into consideration, and having noted some significant differences in the exegesis of Aquinas and Calvin, we still strive for an adequate explanation for these differences.

      First, from a formal point of view, much of the difference is attributable to the differences in the age and circumstances.  For example, the style of the work is largely determined by the literary context of the exegete.  Thomas Aquinas was a scholastic, and his literary style reflects this.  It also affects the exegesis of Aquinas, which consists largely of categorization — dividing and subdividing the text, together with the expounding of fine distinctions, as the scholastics were wont to do.

      One point that ought not to be missed, however, is that Thomas Aquinas’ commentaries are rather innovative for his age.  The Glossa Ordinaria and Lombard’s expansion, the Magna glosatura, so dominated the Middle Ages that most commentators felt obligated to comment on the Glosses, more (perhaps even, rather) than on the actual text of Scripture.  Thomas Aquinas commented on the text of Scripture.  From that point of view, Smalley is correct that “against a background of modern exegesis, one naturally finds the medieval element in them startling; approaching them from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, one is more startled by their modernity.”³ 

      Calvin, on the other hand, was a trained humanist and his style was far more rhetorical as a result.  He does not follow the Glosses at all.  His style is free.   He is far more readable for the modern reader than Thomas Aquinas.

      The comparison of Aquinas and Calvin manifests one additional, immensely significant factor, namely, the knowledge (or ignorance) of the original languages.  Aquinas’ ignorance of the Hebrew and Greek puts him at such a disadvantage that it overshadows all comparisons to Calvin in exegesis.  The language factor has been documented above and this clearly shows the significant effect on Aquinas’ exegesis.  He followed the Vulgate, the official translation of the Church in his day.   The incontrovertible fact is that Aquinas was frequently led astray by the faulty translation.  At the same time, Calvin’s exegesis is not only much more accurate, but deeper, as a result of his knowledge and capable use of these languages in exegesis.

      Nonetheless, even recognizing all the above, there are additional significant differences in the exegesis of the two men which are not attributable to the above factors, so that a further comparison has validity and merit.  Some of these differences are more difficult to document, involving the material differences between the two exegeses.  The subjective evaluation is, admittedly, more on the fore.  Yet, these, i.e., the material differences, are the significant ones, and it is worth our efforts to attempt delineating them.  It is my contention that the root of these differences between the exegesis of Thomas Aquinas and that of John Calvin is the radical effect of the sixteenth century Reformation.

      The term radical is used advisedly, that is to say, the Reformation is of a different root.  The Reformation is not merely the splitting of the church institute into two branches.  It rather reformed (i.e., re-formed, reestablished) the church of Christ, and that, back to the Scriptures.  The essence of the Reformation is a spiritual change.  It began in the heart of Martin Luther over the matter of his salvation.  Through his spiritual struggles and his resulting study of Scripture, Luther became convinced that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone.  It is not in any sense by works.

      This truth laid the ax to the root of the sacerdotal tree of Rome.  The elevated priesthood was demolished.  No longer was the church the only legitimate interpreter of Scripture.  The pope was dethroned as the final and infallible authority on the Bible.  Besides, the Bible was given back to the people.  Being priests, they had the right to interpret it.  Since Scripture is perspicuous, they could interpret it.  And, most significant, the Bible became the sole authority for doctrine and walk.

      Thus there arose out of the Reformation a tremendous emphasis on Scripture.  There was a zeal for and an honoring of the written Word beyond anything that Thomas Aquinas ever evidenced or heard from his contemporaries.  Scripture was everything.  It was the sole source of truth, of theology.  It governed the church and her offices.  Everything depended on the Scriptures.

      This radical change, the Reformation, explains much about the differences in exegesis, even from a formal point of view.  Aquinas’ reliance upon the Vulgate was part of the Church of Rome’s policy — this was the official Bible.  In addition, we find Aquinas quoting from the Apocryphal books in his exegesis, these being canonical according to the Church of Aquinas.  Not so Calvin.  The authority of the canonical books depends not on the declaration of a church, but on the testimony of the Spirit in and concerning these books.

      The doctrines expounded in the commentaries on Ephesians clearly reveal the effect of the Reformation.  Aquinas taught semi-Pelagianism, merit, the elevation of the clergy, and the Romish doctrines of saints.  Calvin emphasized the sovereignty of God and of His grace, absolutely no merit in salvation, free predestination, and the importance of Scripture for the people.

      Another notable dissimilarity is the freedom, or lack thereof, that these men experienced.  Calvin was free from the domination of the church.  The church did not rule his exegesis.  He enjoyed (demanded) the freedom to dissent with other theologians of the Reformation. He was not bound by the exegesis of the fathers, even the most respected, e.g., Augustine.  This is not to say that Calvin would advocate absolute freedom.   No doubt he considered himself bound by the confessions.  History shows that he would not tolerate exegesis that denied the Trinity, for example.  But these doctrines were settled by the church on the basis of the Bible, not on the basis of an infallible priesthood or pope.  Within the limits of these confessions, Calvin the exegete had freedom.

      Aquinas did not enjoy (exercise) such freedom.  The Church claimed the right of infallible interpretation.  Only minor differences would be tolerated.  In this exegesis of Ephesians, Aquinas “toed the line.”   He did not stray far from the official positions or explanations of the Church.  This is a serious weakness in his exegesis.

      To the Reformation also is to be attributed the elimination of allegorical exegesis in Calvin.  In Aquinas we find major improvement over many other exegetes of the Middle Ages.  However, even in this relatively straightforward text in Ephesians, Aquinas occasionally strays into allegory, with scant basis in the text or the rest of Scripture.  For Calvin, his convictions about Scripture do not allow him to play such games with exegesis.  Other exegetes of the Reformation are not so well disciplined, and some still are guilty of allegorizing at times.  But the reformational doctrines of Scripture, and the exegetical principle that “Scripture interprets Scripture,” are the main reason for its demise.

      The Reformation also accounts for another contrast in the exegesis of Calvin as opposed to Aquinas, namely, that Calvin’s was antithetical, even polemical.   In his commentary on Ephesians, Calvin pointed out how and when the text condemned the tenets of this or that group.  In the days of Aquinas, this was not the place of the exegete.   The Church condemned the heretics, and this was not ordinarily done by proving their error from Scripture.  Rather the Church excommunicated by the power of the episcopate, and that because the heretics contradicted the law (or interpretation) of the same.   It is not surprising, then, that Aquinas did little of this in his exegesis.  He did confirm the former condemnation of the Pelagians by the Church and reject the interpretation of Origen, which virtually everyone did.

      The final difference is almost intangible, yet real.  While admitting that subjectivity does play a role here, I contend that there is a certain zeal and enthusiasm that permeates the exegesis of Calvin, which is noticeably absent in the exegesis of Aquinas.  This goes beyond merely the differences in style — scholastic versus rhetorical.  The spirit of the Reformation, particularly the spirit of sola Scriptura, is the difference.

      This contrast in the influence and authority of Scripture for Aquinas and Calvin is obvious when one compares their major theological works, Aquinas’ Summa and Calvin’s Institutes.  Calvin’s lifetime of expounding the Scriptures resulted in his constantly “fleshing out” the Institutes.  The Institutes breathe Scripture.  Not so the Summa.  This is only another indication of the different place that Scripture had in the life, work, and thinking of these two theologians.  These same characteristics are found in their respective commentaries.

      Therefore, in spite of the similarities in the exegesis of these men — as, e.g., the honor paid to Scripture as the Word of God, their striving for brevity and clarity, and their emphasis on the literal meaning — there remain significant differences in style and content, differences rooted in the sixteenth century Reformation as compared to thirteenth century scholasticism.  It is tempting to hypothesize about what Aquinas’ work would have been like were he a contemporary of Calvin.  But he was not. Aquinas, for all his genius, was not able, perhaps not willing, to exegete Scripture with the logical consistency that he required of himself in other aspects of his work.  One can only recognize that the genius of Calvin did flourish in the climate of the Reformation, to yield exegetical fruit having such clarity, brevity, and excellence that the church benefits from it even to the present day.  

… to be continued

In the Space of Six Days (3)

Mark L. Shand

The Fundamental Error

      Having traced the historical view of the “days” in Genesis 1 & 2 from the early church to the present time, we see that the beginning of the nineteenth century saw a marked change in the interpretation given to Genesis 1 & 2 within Reformed and Presbyterian circles.  We see, too, that this change coincided with the development and dissemination of so-called scientific views that maintained that the earth was many thousands, if not millions, of years in age.   The question that needs to be answered is whether the change in thinking was scriptural.¹ 

      This question becomes all the more intriguing when it is realized that many of those who were open to views that accommodated the findings of so-called science acknowledged that the plain meaning of the first two chapters of Genesis was that God created the heavens and the earth in six days of normal duration and rested on the seventh day.

      Charles Hodge, despite his openness to the day age theory, says with respect to the word “day” in Genesis 1:

 

It is of course admitted that, taking this account by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt the other.² [Emphasis MS.]

      Bavinck says of the interpretation of Genesis 1:

Granted:  revelation can exploit all kinds and genres of literature, even the fable;  but whether a given section of Holy Scripture contains a poetic description, a parable, or a fable, is not for us to determine arbitrarily but must be clear from the text itself.  The first chapter of Genesis, however, hardly contains any ground for the opinion that we are dealing here with a vision or myth.  It clearly bears a historical character and forms the introduction to a book which presents itself from beginning to end as history.  Nor is it possible to separate the facts (the religious content) from the manner in which they are expressed.³ 

      Another example is afforded by Nico Ridderbos, who opines:

One who reads Genesis 1 without prepossession or suspicion is almost bound to receive the impression that the author’s intent is to say that creation took place in six ordinary days.  But we cannot stop there.  But it is open to doubt whether that impression is correct….  It is certainly not the product of a naive writer.  Hence we must seriously ask ourselves whether it is possible to understand his meaning at first glance.  Are we to take literally the representation that for every great work (or two works) of creation He used a day?  It is open to serious doubt whether the author of Genesis 1, who proves to have such a sublime concept of God, actually meant to say that.⁴ 

      Edward J. Young, writing on the historicity of Genesis, asserted:

Genesis one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine revelation, accurately records those matters of which it speaks.  That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations.  1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book.   The remainder of the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows.  The two portions of Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another.  2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking.  There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one.  3) The New Testament regards certain events mentioned in Genesis one as actually having taken place.⁵ 

      The CRC report on Creation and Science also acknowledged that the natural meaning of Genesis 1 was that God made the world in the space of six days.

A plain reading of the first chapters of Genesis, as it was almost universally accepted by Christians until the nineteenth century, indicates that God made the world in six days a few thousand years before Abraham, that the various kinds of plants and animals were created by him according to their kind, and that Adam and Eve were uniquely created in God’s image.⁶ 

      If Genesis 1 upon a natural reading revealed itself plainly to be historical narrative, upon what basis were other, non-literal interpretations entertained?  Herman Hoeksema identified the heart of the matter:

In connection with the hexahemeron, or the six-day period of the creation week, the question is, first of all, how we must conceive of the days of Genesis 1.   Must we think of those days as long periods, or of six days as we know them, of twenty-four hours?  This question, we must remember, first of all, is not an exegetical one.  It did not arise out of the exegesis of Genesis 1.   It was rather motivated by the desire to give some satisfaction to so-called science, the science of modern times.  This science came with facts; and the facts cannot be denied.  Those facts bore a testimony.  And this testimony was so overwhelming that apparently the conception that the world existed only a few thousand years and is the product of six days of divine work must be deemed untenable….  In the latter half of the preceding century also those who otherwise reverently bowed before the testimony of Holy Writ became afraid in the light of this so-called testimony of history, especially in the light of the testimony that was borne by the strata of the earth.  It stands to reason that now the question was no longer one of unprejudiced exegesis of the text in Genesis 1, but that it became rather a question whether the first chapter of Genesis could be so explained that it was brought into harmony with the so-called facts of modern science.⁷

      If Genesis 1 is exegeted according to the ordinary historical, grammatical method of interpretation, the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the references to “days” refer to periods of approximately 24 hours duration.  However, exegetes have not focused exclusively upon Scripture, but have sought to marry Scripture with so-called scientific evidence, and that has proven to be a very unhealthy relationship.

      Archibald Alexander, who was the first professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, reflected the early nineteenth century thinking as regards the relationship between Scripture and so-called science when in his inaugural address in 1812 he stated:

Indeed, to speak the truth, there is scarcely any science or branch of knowledge, which may not be made subservient to Theology.  Natural history, chemistry, and geology have sometimes been of important service in assisting the Biblical student to solve difficulties contained in Scripture; or in enabling him to repel the assaults of the adversaries which were made under cover of these sciences.⁸

      As the century progressed, the close association between Scripture and science developed;  a relationship which blossomed in the twentieth century.  Scientific discovery was elevated to new heights, not only in the minds of scientists, but also in the estimation of theologians.  The harmonizing of Scripture with science became a repeated refrain in Reformed and Presbyterian circles.  Charles Hodge sought to justify this adulterous marriage by contending that “nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible, and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science.”⁹ 

      Peter Wallace, commenting on the Princeton theologians, offers this assessment of their view of the relationship between Scripture and science.

Regarding theology as the queen of sciences, the Princetonians believed that all natural investigation was, in the final analysis, to submit to revealed truth, yet generally showed a willingness to reconsider particular interpretations of Scripture if the scientific evidence seemed compelling.¹⁰ 

      The contention that both Scripture and science are both the Word of God and so are to be accorded equal authority has become a common plank in the argumentation of those who seek to harmonize Scripture with the findings of so-called science.  The pivotal place of such thinking is demonstrated by John De Vries:

The Christian recognizes that there are two documents, with regard to the formation of the universe and its inhabitants, at his disposal.  The first, and most important, of these is the Bible, which comes to us with the authority of its sacred inspiration.  This revelation fitly opens with a brief account of the creation of the material world, animated nature and man himself.  Side by side, we have another manifestation of the same divine mind, the book of nature, itself the work of God, which is open to our curious gaze.  To man alone, among all created beings, has been granted the privilege of reading in it.  This he does by patient and intelligent researches.  Both these books are legitimate sources of knowledge, but we must learn to read them aright.  We should not hope to gain, much less ask, from science the knowledge that it can never give, nor seek from the Bible the science which it does not intend to teach.  As the opening chapter of this volume seeks to demonstrate, we should receive from the Bible, on faith, the fundamental truths to which science cannot attain.   The results of the scientific research must serve as a running commentary to help us to correctly understand the comprehensive statements of the Biblical account.  Only in this way can we truly see that the two books, given to us by the same author, do not oppose, but complete each other.  Together they form the whole revelation of God to man.¹¹ [Emphasis MS]

      Such thinking was also foundational to the report prepared in 1991 by the Committee on Creation and Science for the CRC.  One of the conclusions of that report read, “The authority of general revelation, no less than that of special revelation, is a divine authority, which must be acknowledged without reservation.”¹²   That conclusion was adopted by the synod of the CRC the same year.  The statement adopted by the synod read, “The church confesses that both general and special revelation, each in its own unique way, address us with full divine authority.”¹³ 

      But is it correct to characterize Scripture and general revelation as being both possessed of divine authority and as such to be acknowledged without reservation?  Or to put it another way, was Hodge correct when he asserted that nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible, and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science?

      It is true that the revelation of God is twofold.  God reveals Himself most fully in Scripture.  However, he also reveals Himself in all the works of His hands, which include the entire universe and its related history, or, to put it slightly differently, it includes God’s work in creation and His providential dealings with the creation.¹⁴  This latter aspect of God’s revelation is often styled general revelation, while the former is designated special revelation.  However, it is wrong to conceive of general and special revelation as representing two different and unconnected revelations of God.  The revelation of God is one.  Therefore, general and special revelation form a harmonious whole and do not conflict in any way.¹⁵ 

      G. I. Williamson emphasizes that point when he writes:

If “genuine science” be taken to mean “truth” drawn from natural revelation, such is impossible, for the simple reason that God is the author of both the “book of nature” and the “book of life” (the Bible).  Truth is simply that which really is.  There is only one truth, because there is only one reality.  Therefore, if the scriptures are true, they merely tell us what really is (or was, or will yet be).  When by investigation men also discover what really is in the world of nature, they simply grasp another aspect of the same total truth.  So there cannot be any conflict between them.  The only reason for conflict is that men have erred either  (a) in their investigation of the facts, or  (b)  in their theories about the facts, or (c) in both.¹⁶ 

      To maintain that nature or general revelation should be accorded the same status as the revelation of God in Scripture is a serious error.  The end result of such an approach is that so-called scientific discoveries dictate the interpretation of Scripture; and that is precisely what has happened in the case of those who have rejected the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2.  Scientific discovery has overtaken and distorted the true exegesis of Scripture.  Exegetes have allowed themselves to be enveloped by a plethora of so-called scientific data which has influenced their analysis of Scripture.  Referring to the relationship between Scripture and science advocated by John DeVries, Homer Hoeksema observes correctly:

Put in plain language, this statement means that science, — what we read out of the book of creation and what we derive by way of interpretation of that book of “nature,” — must explain the Bible.  Scientific theories and conclusions must rule Scriptural exegesis.   The book of God in creation must interpret the book of God in Scripture, this method is exactly a case of putting the cart in front of the horse.  At root it is a denial of the sole authority of Scripture.¹⁷ 

      This is the fundamental error.  To place God’s revelation in the book of creation side by side with His revelation in Scripture is to deny the sole authority of Scripture.  This thread has been woven into the exegetical thinking of Reformed and Presbyterian theologians.

      Neither general revelation nor so-called science may ever be permitted to dictate the meaning of Scripture.¹⁸   They are not even to be placed on a par with Scripture.  To raise either general revelation or so-called science to an authoritative position alongside Scripture is to deny the fundamental Reformation principle of sola Scriptura.  Scripture alone is to be the only authority for the church.

      G. C. Berkouwer is correct when he states:

We may, and must emphatically protest against any two-sources-theory, which places Scripture and tradition, or Scripture and nature or Scripture and history, on one line, as sources of knowledge of equal import.  Any such equalization has always resulted in a devaluation of Holy Scripture.¹⁹

      The proper approach is to start and end with Scripture.  This is not to maintain that Scripture speaks in scientific language or that it presents scientific analysis of all that is seen in the world.  However, Scripture does record that which is true; it records that which is factual.  Therefore, when it comes to analyzing the data of the universe and to determining the origins of the earth, what Scripture maintains is to be taken as truth and not subjected to scientific scrutiny.

      Creation is to be interpreted in the light of Scripture; not the reverse.   The most basic rule of proper exegesis is that Scripture must be its own interpreter, and the basis for that contention lies in the recognition of the absolute authority of Scripture.  This has always been the approach of the Reformed exegete.  It is the testimony of the Reformed creeds.  The Belgic Confession of Faith, in maintaining “The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to be the Only Rule of Faith,” states:

Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value 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, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself.²⁰ 

      The Westminster Confession of Faith lays down the following hermeneutical principle which stands in stark contrast to the approach advocated by Hodge:

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself:  and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.²¹

      Calvin states plainly that creation must be interpreted in the light of Scripture, to assist the dullness of our eyes:

Now, in describing the world as a mirror in which we ought to behold God, I would not be understood to assert, either that our eyes are sufficiently clear-sighted to discern what the fabric of heaven and earth represents, or that the knowledge to be hence attained is sufficient for salvation.  And whereas the Lord invites us to himself by the means of created things, with no other effect than that of thereby rendering us inexcusable, he has added (as was necessary) a new remedy, or at least by a new aid, he has assisted the ignorance of our mind.  For by the Scripture as our guide and teacher, he not only makes those things plain which would otherwise escape our notice, but almost compels us to behold them; as if he had assisted our dull sight with spectacles.²²

      In considering these matters, it must also be remembered that the ungodly always hold under the truth that God makes known in the creation. Romans 1: ">²³   They do so in unrighteousness.  This is true of the ungodly scientist.  His ability to analyze and probe into the creation around him is severely limited.  His eyesight is untrustworthy.

      Calvin states in his Institutes that as a result of sin, each man’s mind is like a labyrinth of error.  Rashness and superficiality are joined to ignorance and darkness.  He says of man’s ability to interpret what he sees in the creation:

It is therefore in vain that so many burning lamps shine for us in the workmanship of the universe to show forth the glory of its Author.  Although they bathe us wholly in their radiance, yet they can of themselves in no way lead us into the right path.  Surely they strike some sparks, but before their fuller light shines forth these are smothered. For this reason, the apostle, in that very passage where he calls the worlds the images of things invisible, adds that through faith we understand that they have been fashioned by God’s word [ Hebrews 11:3 ].  He means by this that the invisible divinity is made manifest in such spectacles, but that we have not the eyes to see this unless they be illumined by the inner revelation of God through faith.  And where Paul teaches that what is to be known of God is made plain from the creation of the universe [ Romans 1:19 ], he does not signify such a manifestation as men’s discernment can comprehend; but, rather, shows it not to go farther than to render them inexcusable.²⁴ 

      Not only can the unbeliever not see God in the creation, nor can he understand the creation itself, because God does not enter into his thoughts.

      Even for the believing scientist who has spiritual eyes to see, general revelation does not control Scripture.  He does not interpret Scripture in the light of general revelation; much less does he interpret Scripture in the light of the findings of his unregenerate colleagues.  What is to be his approach?

He comes with his science to the Scriptures, and he is willing to bow before the Scriptures with his science.  And if apparently there is disharmony between the two, he says, “I will have to re-examine and adjust my science and my scientific conclusions so that they are in harmony with Scripture.”²⁵

      The impact of the fall is virtually disregarded or negated by those who seek to harmonize Scripture with so-called scientific discovery.  This is particularly evident in the CRC report on Creation and Science, which works the error of common grace into the equation.  Addressing the impact of the fall upon general revelation, the report maintained:

The fall into sin neither eroded the content of general revelation nor destroyed its authority.  The fall did turn humanity into an unfaithful respondent to this revelation of God coming to us through creation and history.  Consequently, the sinner needs the Scriptures as the “spectacles” by which, through faith in Jesus Christ, one is enabled to read God’s revelation in creation faithfully.  We now need both books of revelation to understand each.

      In response to the question, “Have not sin and unbelief so suppressed [the unbelieving scholars’] receptivity to the truth that their work can no longer have any benefit for us?”, the report stated:

Although some Christian traditions may affirm such a position, the Reformed tradition does not support such a stance….  the Reformed tradition places on its adherents a moral obligation, in fact, a religious duty, to acknowledge truth wherever it is found. How the tradition accounts for moments of truth in an unbelieving response to revelation is not the key issue for us.  Calvin spoke of a “general grace,” the subsequent Reformed tradition of “common grace,”….  In any case, the tradition does not allow us an easy appeal to the noetic effects of the fall as a reason for simply dismissing secular or unbelieving scholarship.  We are at least compelled in any specific case to assess the extent (if any) to which sin has distorted the truth.²⁶ 

      The report contends that God’s common grace is working in the unregenerate scientist who is thereby enabled to receive and interpret the testimony of nature.  From this it is argued that the believer is obliged to receive the testimony of the unregenerate scientist and to accept that the earth is billions of years old.  Having done so, the believer is confronted with special revelation, which teaches something that appears to be entirely different.  Being confronted with two apparently conflicting words of God, the believer is compelled to accept a reinterpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 to allow for an old earth.  The result is that God’s common grace, as disclosed in nature, overwhelms special revelation and that, as we have noted, is contrary to the Reformed tradition.

Conclusion

      Closely allied with a failure to accord Scripture its rightful place is the ultimate rejection of the foundation of the Christian faith.  The attempt to harmonize Scripture and science contradicts the very heart of faith.  True faith holds for truth all that God has revealed in Scripture.  It does not do so because everything in Scripture can be established to the satisfaction of the mind.  Rather, it does so because Scripture is the very Word of God.  Therefore, true faith cannot be induced by any evidence or argument that can be adduced from the creation, to doubt or deny what God has revealed explicitly in His Word.

      Now the reaction of the natural man is to regard such thinking as absurd.  But does the appearance of absurdity in the eyes of the world mean that those things which the believer maintains  are not true?  Does it mean that to believe such things is absurd?  Absolutely not!  Faith believes many things that men consider to be absurd.  It maintains things that the natural man considers to be impossible.

      Faith believes that Jonah, having been swallowed by a great fish, lived for three days in the belly of that fish.  It believes that Lazarus, who had been dead for four days, was raised to life again; it is not overwhelmed when Scripture declares that Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin and that He died on a cross, only to rise from the dead after three days. Can such things be proven?   The answer is no.  Do they accord with the reasoning of men?  No, to the natural man the thought of such things is absurd.  Dead men cannot be brought back to life, nor can a virgin conceive and bear a son.  But the Christian believes those things;  he holds them for truth, not because they can be proven, but because God declares them to be so in His Word.   So too with the creation of the world in six natural days.  “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrews 11:3 ">²⁷ 

      If the Christian is obliged to harmonize Scripture with the claims of so-called science, then he ought also harmonize all of the miracles of the Scripture with the demands of science.  The result is that all of the miracles will be rejected as being scientifically unsustainable.  However, the reason that they are scientifically unsustainable is that they are what they claim to be, miracles, and without the eyes of faith they appear ridiculous in the sight of men.

      To pander to the demands of those who seek to harmonize Scripture with so-called science has resulted and will continue to result in the destruction of the Christian faith.  Where is our faith, if there was no incarnation or if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead?  If those truths are rejected, then the modern day Huxleys can say with justification that orthodox Christianity has been forced to retire from the lists, not just bleeding and crushed, but totally annihilated.  This is ultimately what is at stake when the literal interpretation of the “days” of Genesis 1 & 2 is abandoned.

      Does the believer comprehend all things concerning the creation of the world?  Is he able to reconcile all things concerning the days of Genesis 1 & 2 to his ultimate satisfaction?  No, but he would do well to heed the advice of Luther:

If, then, we do not understand the nature of the days or have no insight into why God wanted to make use of these intervals of time, let us confess our lack of understanding rather than distort the words, contrary to their context, into a foreign meaning….  If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit.²⁸

---

 Appendix A

The French Confession (1559)

Article VII

      We believe that God, in three co-working persons, by his power, wisdom, and incomprehensible goodness, created all things, not only the heavens and the earth and all that in them is, but also invisible spirits,[1] some of whom have fallen away and gone into perdition,[2] while others have continued in obedience.[3]  That the first, being corrupted by evil, are enemies of all good, consequently of the whole Church.  The second, having been preserved by the grace of God, are ministers to glorify God’s name, and to promote the salvation of his elect.

The Scotch Confession of Faith  (1560)

Article II  Of the Creation of Man

      We confess and acknowledge this our God to have created man, to wit, our first father Adam, to his own image and similitude, to whom he gave wisdom, lordship, justice, free-will, and clear knowledge of himself, so that in the whole nature of man there could be noted no imperfection.

The Belgic Confession of Faith  (1561)

Article XII  The Creation of All Things,

Especially the Angels

      We believe that the Father by the Word, that is, by His Son, has created of nothing the heaven, the earth, and all creatures, when it seemed good unto Him;  giving unto every creature its being, shape, form, and several offices to serve its Creator; that He also still upholds and governs them by His eternal providence and infinite power for the service of mankind, to the end that man may serve his God.

      He also created the angels good, to be His messengers and to serve His elect; some of whom are fallen from that excellency in which God created them into everlasting perdition, and the others have by the grace of God remained steadfast and continued in their first state.  The devils and evil spirits are so depraved that they are enemies of God and every good thing; to the utmost of their power as murderers watching to ruin the Church and every member thereof, and by their wicked stratagems to destroy all; and are, therefore, by their own wickedness adjudged to eternal damnation, daily expecting their horrible torments.

      Therefore we reject and abhor the error of the Sadducees, who deny the existence of spirits and angels; and also that of the Manichees, who assert that the devils have their origin of themselves, and that they are wicked of their own nature, without having been corrupted.

Article XIV  The Creation and Fall of Man,

and His Incapacity to Perform What Is Truly Good

      We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth, and made and formed him after His own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will agreeably to the will of God. But being in honor, he understood it not, neither knew his excellency, but wilfully subjected himself to sin and consequently to death and the curse, giving ear to the words of the devil.  For the commandment of life, which he had received, he transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God, who was his true life; having corrupted his whole nature; whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death.  And being thus become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, he has lost all his excellent gifts which he had received from God, and retained only small remains thereof, which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse; for all the light which is in us is changed into darkness, as the Scriptures teach us, saying: The light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not; where St. John calls men darkness.

      Therefore we reject all that is taught repugnant to this concerning the free will of man, since man is but a slave to sin, and can receive nothing, except it have been given him from heaven. For who may presume to boast that he of himself can do any good, since Christ says: No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him?  Who will glory in his own will, who understands that the mind of the flesh is enmity against God?  Who can speak of his knowledge, since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God? In short, who dares suggest any thought, since he knows that we are not sufficient of ourselves to account anything as of ourselves, but that our sufficiency is of God?  And therefore what the apostle says ought justly to be held sure and firm, that God worketh in us both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. For there is no understanding nor will conformable to the divine understanding and will but what Christ has wrought in man; which He teaches us, when He says: Apart from me ye can do nothing.