 |
|---|
DISCUSSIONS AROUND GENESIS 1-3 (I)
With a special view to recent publications
within the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands.
Dr. K. Runia
This is a six part series, the remaining articles follow on from April to August 1963. Alternatively the six articles can be read as one item by clicking here.
The theory of evolution is one of the most common
scientific theories of our day. Although we may not know all the details
of the theory - in fact, it is rather difficult to know them, because
there are so many conflicting views within the evolutionary camp - we
all know the theory in its main outline. Our own children are almost
daily confronted with it in their studies in high schools and
universities, and sometimes even in the primary schools.
For many years the theory was strongly condemned in Reformed circles by
both theologians and scientists. It was felt to be in evident conflict
with the Bible, in particular with the first chapters of Genesis. While
the evolution theory teaches that man descends from the animal world,
the Bible seems clearly to teach the origin of man as the direct result
of God's creative activity. While evolutionism has no place for a first
man in a state of integrity from which he falls into sin, the Bible
clearly teaches that man was created after the image of God, therefore
was in a state of integrity and subsequently fell away from God in
disobedience.
DR. A. KUYPER
Around the turn of the century all leading
theologians in the Reformed Churches of Holland, such as Dr. A. Kuyper
and Dr. H. Bavinck, utterly rejected evolutionism. They also rejected
all attempts to mediate between the two views, in particular the many
forms of so-called 'theistic evolution', often defended in Britain and
America. In his famous lecture on 'Evolution' (1899), which opens with
the words: "Our 19th century dies away under the hypnosis of the
evolution dogma", Kuyper admits that theoretically religion as such does
not forbid the idea of the evolution from a cell to more complicated
organisms. "We are not allowed to impose our style upon the Supreme
Architect... If it had pleased God not to create the species themselves,
but to cause species to come forth from species, so that he would have
adapted the preceding species to the production of the following higher
species, Creation would have been just as wonderful" (47). Later on he
even adds that texts such as Gen. 1: 24. ("let THE EARTH bring
forth...") seem to indicate that God did not place "cattle and creeping
things" on the earth, as pieces on a chess board (49). But then he
immediately continues by saying: "Although there are points of contacts,
which we should not neglect, the basic antithesis between theory and
theory remains unimpaired and irreconcilable. Man is and remains created
after the image of God, and the nature of the animal has not determined
our human existence, but, on the contrary, the entire lower cosmos was
determined, as after a pattern, by the central position of man" (p.49).
THE GEELKERKEN CONFLICT
In the first decades: of this century the view of
Kuyper and Bavinck was generally accepted in Reformed circles.
Evolutionism was rejected on the ground of the teaching of the Bible, in
particular of the first chapters of Genesis, which were taken
historically, i.e., as a reliable description of a truly historical
reality. How much the last addition characterizes the situation clearly
appeared in the so- called Geelkerken-conflict. In the twenties Dr.
Geelkerken, minister of the Reformed Church of Amsterdam, questioned the
historical reliability of the Paradise story. He wished to leave it an
open question whether the trees in Gen. 2 and 3 were real trees, etc.
The Synod of Assen, 1926, condemned his view and deposed him from the
ministry.
For many years after 'Assen' it remained quiet in the Reformed Churches
of Holland on this point. Hardly any major publication appeared. One of
the exceptions was Prof. Berkouwer's 'Het Problem der Schriftcritiek'
(The Problem of Higher Criticism), published around 1935. This book was
a clear defence of the 'isolated position' of the Reformed doctrine of
Scripture, also in the particular form in which it had been stated in
Assen.
In recent years, however, the situation has completely changed. Several
publications have followed one another in rapid succession, and an
increasing criticism of the old view can be heard.
DR. N. H. RIDDERBOS
The first significant publication was the Free
University lecture of 1954 by Dr. N.H. Ridderbos, on the topic
"Reflections on Genesis I" (later on translated into English and
published by Eerdmans under the title: "Is there a conflict between
Genesis I and Natural Science?", 1957). In this lecture Dr. Ridderbos
revived and defended the so-called FRAMEWORK-HYPOTHESIS, which already
in 1924 had been suggested by Prof. A. Noordtzij of Utrecht in his book
"God's Word and the Testimony of the Ages". According to. Dr. Ridderbos,
now professor of Old Testament in the Free University, Genesis 1 does
not offer us an exact historical description of the divine work of
creation and of the order in which the various parts of creation were
made. The real intention of the author of Gen. 1 is to tell us that God
created EVERYTHING. To put it in Dr. Ridderbos' own words:
"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 framework: 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 that in celebrating the Sabbath man must be God's imitator"(p.
45).
But if Gen. 1 does not teach us the exact order of God's works in the
act of creation, what then does it teach? The answer is: "Genesis 1
reveals that God is Creator of all things; it calls upon us to reject
all materialism, pantheism, etc.; and this is of great significance for
natural science.... (In addition) Gen. 1:26 ff. tells us of the unique
position of man and gives us basically the correct insight into the
distinction between man and animal. These verses speak of the ruling
position of man; and the mandate to rule and to subdue implies the task
of investigat-ing nature. Besides, these verses teach us, particularly
when read in the light of Scripture as a whole, that the human race has
one ancestral head" (p. 69). For the rest, however, scientists in their
investigations of nature are not bound. If they discover that the order
of development has been different from that indicated in Gen. 1, there
is no real conflict, for Gen. 1 was never meant to give us an exact
description of the various stages in God's work of creation.
DR. J, LEVER
The publication of Dr. Ridderbos was only the
beginning. Soon afterwards followed the book of Dr. J, Lever, professor
of biology in the Free University, on the subject of 'Creation and
Evolution, (1956, published in an English translation in 1958, Grand
Rapids).
In the first chapter he deals with the problem of 'The Bible and
Reality'. He clearly states that to him the Bible is the Word of God.
Yet he cannot accept the traditional exegesis of the first chapters of
Genesis, which he calls 'fundamentalistic'. The Bible as a whole,
including the first chapters of Genesis, should be seen as a miracle of
revelation. God gives us "revelation" about the reality of this world,
also about its origin, and thus gives us insights which we cannot obtain
otherwise. The Bible does that in a very concrete form.
"Scripture does not say God has made everything, there was no sin
originally, this came into existence only after the Fall, and so on. It
is not a theoretical treatise. No, the Bible says that God made birds'
fish, man. God speaks about man by name and surname, about a garden of
Eden, about trees and fruits... The concrete language of Scripture is
for us essential in its very concreteness. We are told that THIS world,
this human being, that what has been created good, this sin, this
redemption are indissolubly connected, and cut into the sphere of this
reality and this history.,.. But Genesis does this in such a way… that
we may not consider the language that is used as scientific concepts,
indeed, not at all as scientifically qualified language. This means that
the Bible usually tells us THAT something happened, but not HOW it
happened. The HOW sometimes lies in the terrain of science, The Bible
gives us the high points, science sometimes can discover the lines
between them" (21).
With this view, which in fact means a partition
between the sphere of revelation (THAT God did it) and the sphere of
science (HOW God did it), Dr. Lever has no difficulty in accepting
evolution as the method of God's creative activity. He emphatically
states that man himself should not be excluded beforehand. Although he
does not say that man has, in fact, descended from the animal world, he
still declares: "We may not reject in advance the POSSIBILITY that the
genesis of man occurred by way of a being that, at least with respect to
the characteristics of its skeleton, was an animal, according to our
norms and criteria" (P.,197,, cf. 221).
At the same time he emphasizes throughout his book that the whole
process of evolution, from the beginning to the end, is God's work, He
utterly rejects modern evolutionism, which makes evolution a self
contained process. It is God who guides all these processes by His
almighty hand (pp. 205 ff.).
It should further be noted that Dr. Lever also tries to do justice to
the historical details in Gen. 2 and 3, and following chapters. Although
it is rather difficult on his starting point (and one is inclined to
says rather unnecessary), he tries to save the idea of a Paradise but it
is put back into the beginning of the Pleistocene period, some 500.000 -
one million years ago. He also maintains the unity of the human race.
Biblical persons such as Enoch, Jubal and Noah were most likely
historical persons - although the genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11 are not
to be taken literally or historically.
NEXT ARTICLE
In the next
article we hope to discuss a still more recent publication, namely, the
special issue of the Reformed magazine "Beziruzing", subsequently
published as a separate pamphlet: "Questions around Genesis and the
Natural Sciences" (J.H. Kok, N.V., Kampen, f. 1, 50).
Back to top
Back to March 1963 index
Back to 1963 Index
Return to Features Year Selector
All material on this site © 2004 Trowel & Sword