 |
|---|
DISCUSSIONS AROUND GENESIS 1-3 (II)
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.
In our first article in these series we briefly outlined the recent
developments on this point in some circles within the Reformed Churches
of the Netherlands. Taking our starting point at the turn of the 19th
century we briefly mentioned the views of Dr. Kuyper, the decisions of
the Synod of Assen in the 'Geelkerken'-conflict, and then dis-cussed the
views of Dr. N. H. Ridderbos and Dr. J. Lever.
Dr. Lever's book, however, was not the end. Last year a special issue of
the magazine 'Bezinning' was devoted to the subject: "questions around
Genesis and the Natural Sciences". It was written by some Reformed
scientists and a Reformed minister.
A. A. MANTEN
The first part, which is from the pen of the
scientist A.A. Manten, gives a short, rather comprehensive survey of the
generally accepted scientific view of the age and origin of the world
and man. The author seems to accept the whole modern scientific picture.
The world exists for about three millions of years. If this duration is
compared with a 'geological clock' of twelve hours every minute of this
clock representing some 7 millions of years, then, starting from 0.00,
animal life must have appeared about half past six. The first mammals
made their appearance about ten to twelve, while man appeared only about
ten seconds to twelve, i.e., about one million years ago. The first
specimens of 'man', however, were only little beyond animals. It took
ages, at least some 25,000 generations (a generation taken as a period
of about twenty years) before these early specimens developed into the
'home Sapiens', the modern species to which we ourselves belong.
H.A.L. VANDER LINDEN
How can all this be squared with the date of the Bible? It is the task
of the Rev. H.A. L.Vander Linden, M.Th., minister of the Reformed Church
of Den Bilt, to show us this. He first informs us that in 1959 he
requested the Synod of the Reformed churches to consider the possibility
of rehabilitating Dr. Geelkerken. In other words, according to him Dr.
Geelkerken was wrongly condemned.
This already intimates that Vander Linden goes much further than Dr.
Ridderbos.
The latter intentionally limited his framework-hypothesis to Genesis 1,
claiming that this chapter is of a different nature from Genesis 2 and
3. Mr. Vander Linden takes Genesis 2 and 3 also into account. Actually
he includes the first eleven chapters of Genesis; even more, the whole
historiography of the Old Testament is implied.
According to Mr. Vander Linden the traditional Reformed exegesis of the
early chapters of Genesis, which takes them as a reliable description of
a historical reality is wrong. Borrowing from Karl Barth (whose name is
not mentioned), he says that we have to distinguish between 'historie'
and 'geschiedenis' (p.26). Genesis 1-11, and Genesis 1-3 in particular,
should not be read as 'historic', that is, as ordinary history which can
be studied by the historian, but as 'geschiedenis', that is, as the
account of God's supernatural work of salvation, "whereby He in the
midst of this world works the miracle of Israel, causes His Son to come
forth, and through Him delivers this world from destruction" (p.27).
This does not mean that the content of Genesis 1-11 can be called
unhistorical. It is not just a fairy tale. There is definitely 'geschiedenis',
divine revelation, in these chapters. "But to what extent this 'geschiedenis'
bears a historical character in our usual sense of the word, we cannot
know" (29).
The Bible authors have used the forms and patterns in which the oriental
histori-ans of their day wrote (symbols, myths, or whatever you may call
them). To derive exact statements from these forms and patterns is
impossible.
EXAMPLES
What Mr. Vander Linden means becomes clear from the examples he gives.
The story of Genesis 11 (the tower of Babel) is not meant as a
historical description of certain datable events, but it is the story of
God's judgment upon the pride of sinful man. Genesis 11:1, for example,
should not be understood as teaching that there was one original
language. This is simply part of the pattern used by the author. Whether
there was such an original language has to be decided by a study of
languages (29).
The story of the Flood (Genesis 6-9) need not be taken as a description
of real history either. The Holy Spirit may have taken a tradition
common to all ancient people, in order to show Israel what is God's
intention with His people.
Yet, in spite of these critical interpretations, the author still
believes that there are "traces of the historical tradition" in the
chapters 5-11.
In Genesis 1-3 the situation is different. As far as creation, paradise
and fall are concerned, we cannot speak of direct historical tradition.
As to creation, man himself was not present for the greater part. As to
paradise and fall, they go so far back in the history of this world that
any reliable historical tradition, handed down over such a long period,
is unthinkable. It is therefore impossible to say whether the tree in
the garden and the serpent were "subject to sense perception and in that
sense historical"(33). Nor do we know whether Adam was a really
historical person. He may be nothing more than an indication of 'man' as
such.
We should not worry about these matters. These chapters contain God's
revelation. "They describe the history of God and His children. They do
it in the form of those days, a form which is sanctified by God. They
give the great story of God's creation of all things and of man as His
image, of man as fallen and as sinner, and of God's salvation, revealed
to Israel. That is enough".
The author himself summarizes his view quite clearly in these words:
"When my catechumens ask the well known question about the origin of the
human race, I usually begin as follows: 'Whenever it will be truly
demonstrated that man descends from the animal, this makes no difference
whatsoever to my faith' ....The Church should give its members freedom
of opinion in this matter" (37).
'ASSEN' AGAIN
As far as we know, up till now no official action has
been taken in the Reformed Churches of Holland with regard to any of
these publications. The only result so far is a lively discussion of
these matters in many circles.
At another point, however, the Churches have taken action. On the table
of last synod was a request of the Rev. Th. D. Delleman, students'
chaplain in the University of Groningen. He asked Synod to state clearly
and unambiguously to what extent members of these Churches are still
bound to the official declarations of Assen, 1926 (the Geelkerken-conflict).
Synod received this request and appointed a committee to report to next
Synod.
In many circles this procedure of Synod was regarded as rather strange.
There was no official complaint about the unscripturalness of the
declarations of 1926. No letter of grievance ('gravamen') was lodged.
For this reason it was to be expected that Synod would decline this
request.. However, it did not do so, but appointed a committee. One
wonders what this means. Does it mean that the whole matter is open
again for discussion? Does it mean that no one is actually bound any
more by the previous decisions?
NEXT ARTICLE
We have given a rather extensive survey of this development. We believe
that this whole matter is of exceedingly great importance for us too.
Surely, it is a rather intricate subject. But we have to face the facts.
In the next article we intend to make some comments on these problems
around Genesis 1-3.
.
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