DISCUSSIONS AROUND GENESIS 1-3 (IV)

TROWEL & SWORD

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.

DR. LEVER ON GENESIS I

As an orthodox scientist Dr. Lever has, of course, also to deal with Genesis 1. In this chapter the Bible speaks of the great fact of the creation of the creation of all things by the Lord, the God of Israel. The great question is: to what extent does this chapter in its speaking of the fact of creation give us data for natural science?

Dr. Lever rejects this altogether. He writes:

"Also today we often meet with the view in orthodox Protestant groups that Genesis does not only give us truths for our faith, but also concrete data to which the biologist should hold on in his technical work. This opinion includes the view that Genesis, in addition to the proclamation of creation and salvation, gives us indeed exact scientific knowledge, so that the biologist who believes in Scripture should not only confront the Bible and exact science with each other, but that he should measure the truth of scientific data by the literal statements in Scripture" (p.15).

Dr. Lever calls this view 'fundamentalistic' and rejects it. This does not mean that he has no appreciation for the intention behind it. He feels himself one with all 'fundamentalists' in their adherence to "the Bible as the Word of God for the totality of our lives and thus also for every branch of science" (p. 20). The 'fundamentalist', however, makes the mistake of understanding the terms of Genesis 1 in an exact scientific sense. Dr. Lever points to such terms as 'day', 'kind' ("after its kind"), and 'earth'.

What then should be our view? Dr. Lever distinguishes between the 'that' and 'how' of the fact of creation.

"The Bible usually tells us THAT something has 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. We can never derive from Scripture exact physical, astronomical and biological knowledge, and thus also not exact historical knowledge. The Bible simply is not for that purpose" (p. 21).

As to the creation this means that Genesis has been written to reveal to us realities which are of eternal fundamental religious significance and which cannot be discovered by science. Dr. Lever mentions three such realities.

The origin of the world: it is brought into being by God.
The meaning of the world: it exists for God's glory.
The purpose of the world and particularly of man: man is not just accidental, but intended for eternal fellowship with God. These realities can never be discovered by science. They are the result of revelation and as such of immense significance for the scientist, for they provide the religious context of his work. But in the territory of science itself the Bible is not normative (p, 22). "Scien-tific data are not given. Man can find these himself because they exist by the grace of God and because man has been created after the image of God in such a way that he can find them" (p. 24).

THE SPECIAL PLACE OF GENESIS I

Before we try to evaluate Dr. Lever's view, it may be useful to make some general observations about Genesis 1. (When we speak here of Genesis 1, we include the whole passage Genesis 1:1-2:4a, where the first creation story ends).

Genesis 1 definitely has a unique place in the Bible. It is not only the first chapter of the Bible and as such the introduction to the whole Bible history and the history of this world, but it is also in itself of a unique nature. It describes to us the realization in time of the ETERNAL ACT OF GOD IN CREATION. For this reason it is indeed different from all that follows, (also from Genesis 2 and 3). Genesis 1 describes that which precedes all human history. In a sense you could say: it des-cribes God's history. Man is mentioned in Genesis 1:26ff., but only as the result of God's creative activity. The real subject of Genesis 1 is God, man is only the object. Dr. N.H. Ridderbos rightly says that in Genesis 1 we are dealing with the "immediate, direct" work of God. "Genesis 1 relates history, but it cannot be denied that it is a very peculiar sort of history: man plays as yet no role alongside God" (p. 30).

THE MEANING OF GENESIS I

Dr. W.H. Gispen once wrote:

"Genesis 1 and 2 offer no scientific argumentation but rather a necessary prologue to the history of the election of the people of Israel. The purpose of this election is to fulfil the protevangel stated in Genesis 3:15. The theme and centre of the Pentateuch are Ex. 19:5 and 6: 'Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel"'.

We believe there is much truth in this statement. The creation of the world is not mentioned for scientific reasons, still less to satisfy our human curiosity about the origin of all things. Its real purpose is to be an introduction to the story of the covenant. The God of Israel is also the Creator of heaven and earth! Yet on the other hand, it cannot be denied that once this introduction has been given, it does provide us information about the same Covenant-God in his capacity as Creator and about the act of creation itself. In other words, it is not 'only' introduction to the covenant-story, but it enhances our knowledge of the same Covenant-God in His creative activity, preceding the establishment of the covenant (Genesis 3:15).

THE INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS I

But how do we have to read this chapter? Is it meant as a literal description or is it meant as symbolical language?

Let us first make a few negative statements. Genesis 1 is definitely not a poem. All Hebrew scholars agree on this point. Dr. Ridderbos quotes the Roman Catholic scholar J. Vander Ploeg: "In spite of everything, the text of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is sober, not lyrical and certainly no poem" (p. 35). So you cannot solve the problems of Genesis 1 by simply saying: this is 'only' poetical language that need not be taken literally.

It is also clear that Genesis 1 is not meant as a mythological story. Contrary to other ancient creation stories (e.g. the Babylonian), the Bible story does not contain any mythological element. You do not find anything of a struggle between gods or of a divine struggle with stubborn material, which already existed, etc., In Genesis 1 we read of the sovereign, divine speaking that calls into existence a world that did not exist. There is nothing of myth here, but only a plain statement of fact.

But how is this statement meant? Is it to be taken literally? For example, are the days to be taken as ordinary days of 24 hours, as the whole story seems to suggest (cf. "and there was evening and there was morning...", etc.)? Some Reformed scholars are inclined to say Yes (e.g. Hepp and Berkhof). Others speak of "God's" days, the length of which we cannot decide (e.g. Bavinck and Aalders). Others again say that we should not take this description as factual but as a literary framework, which the author adopted for the description of this mighty act of God, which is beyond all human imagination (e.g. Noordtzij and Ridderbos).

It is clear from these divergent opinions that it is not an easy matter to determine the question of the interpretation of Genesis 1. This should warn us not to be too dogmatic at this point. Even in the days of the Geelkerken conflict these three views were held side by side and NONE of them was ever condemned or recommended by any Synod. We believe that there should be a freedom of interpretation at this point. All these views have their attractive sides, all three have their difficulties as well.

We should further realize that whichever of these three interpretations one accepts, the results are almost identical. The main difference seems to be that in the case of the first two we accept the order of the creative activities as a literal-historical description, while the framework hypothesis makes the order only symbolical. For the rest the results are practically the same. Dr. C. F. Henry mentions the following relevant truths: "that a sovereign, personal, ethical God is the voluntary creator of the space-time universe; that God created out of nothing by divine fiat (=decree; that the stages of creation reflect an orderly rational sequence; that there are divinely graded levels of life; that man is distinguished from the animals by a superior origin and dignity; that the human race is a unity in Adam; that man was divinely assigned the vocation of conforming the created world to the service of the will of God; that the whole creation is a providential and teleological (=directed towards a purpose order..."). Yet in no case do we receive any information about the exact 'how' of the various creative acts. We are not told HOW God made the firmament, HOW the waters were gathered together in one place, HOW the earth put forth vegetation, HOW God made the lights, or HOW God made man (even Genesis 2:7 does not give us an exact description.

"THAT" AND "HOW"

Does this mean that we fully agree with Dr. Lever who also distinguished between the 'that' and the 'how' of creation? No. We believe that Dr. Lever goes too far and uses this distinction too easily. According to him the Bible does not give any scientific data in Genesis 1. But this is certainly not true. It may be so that Genesis 1 is not meant as a textbook for natural science (but who in the world does really say that?), but as the Book of God's self-revelation it does give us certain data which have a direct bearing on science. At least two can be mentioned.

The world is not eternal, but has a definite beginning.
The human race is a unity deriving from the first two humans.

These two facts, though not in first instance meant as scientific facts, are definitely facts and of decisive importance for every Christian scientist. In fact, Dr. Lever himself accepts both of them, for the latter, see p. 174. This cannot be proved scientifically. Yet Dr. Lever accepts it as a basic fact upon which he builds his theory.

From these examples it is clear that it is TOO EASY to call every view that believes that Genesis "does not only give us truths for our faith but also concrete data to which the biologist should hold on in his technical work", fundamentalistic, By his own standards Dr. Lever is also fundamentalistic, although perhaps less than other 'fundamentalists'!

Also in our interpretation of Genesis 1 we should not too soon be overawed by the claims of science. On the other hand, we should not be too quick in our condemnation of science either! If most scientists (including most orthodox scientists believe that there are good grounds for a much older age of the universe than the Church (and the world has believed for many centuries, we should not easily dismiss these grounds on the basis of a certain exegesis of Genesis 1.

DR. CHARLES HODGE

At this point we will do well to listen to the wise words of the great Reformed scholar of Old Princeton, U.S.A., Dr. Charles Hodge, who in his Systematic Theology wrote:

"There is a distinction to be made between the Bible and our interpretation. The latter may come into competition with settled facts; and then it must yield. Science has in many things taught the Church how to understand the Scriptures. The Bible was for ages understood and explained according to the Ptolemaic system of the universe; it is now explained without doing the least violence to its language, according to the Copernican system. Christians have commonly believed that the earth has existed only a few thousand years. If geologists finally prove that it has existed for myriads of ages, it will be found that the first chapter of Genesis is in full accord with the facts, and that the last results of science are embodied on the first page of the Bible. It may cost the Church a severe struggle to give up one interpretation and adopt another, as it did in the seventeenth century, but no real evil need be apprehended. The Bible has stood, and still stands in the presence of the whole scientific world with its claims unshaken" (Vol. I, 171)

NEXT ARTICLE

In the next article we will discuss the question: Does Genesis 1 allow an 'evolutionary creation', as defended by Dr. Lever and others? (Note. For a good survey of the various interpretations of Genesis 1 we may refer the reader to a lecture of Prof. Van Groningen on: "Genesis 1. Theories concerning Origins and Fundamental Terms", and an article of the Rev. B. Wentzel (translated by Prof. J.A. Schep) on: "Theories about the Creation-Days".

All reports of problems and comments concerning this site: webmaster@trowelandsword.org.au

Privacy