DISCUSSIONS AROUND GENESIS 1-3 (VI)

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.

H.A.L. VAN DER LINDEN ON GENESIS 2 AND 3

As we saw in one of the preceding articles, Dr. N. H. Ridderbos intentionally limits his framework theory to Genesis 1. According to him it is not applicable to Genesis 2 and 3, because these chapters clearly deal with ordinary history. Others, however, go much further. In his article in the magazine 'Bezinning' the Rev. H. A. L. Van der Linden extends this interpretation to Genesis 2 and 3 as well.

He admits that most likely the author of these chapters meant them as a description of history, although there are also indications of symbolical aspects (for the latter he refers to 2:7,19,21,22; 3:6). But we, readers of this time, are certainly not bound to a literal interpretation. The New Testament does not compel us to such a literalism either, for when it speaks of Adam, it means man-in-general. In fact, we should go further than the chapters 2 and 3. All this is equally true of the chapters 1 - 11. Yes, at the end of his article Van der Linden abandons the whole idea of an infallible Bible as far as its account of history is concerned.

And Mr. Van der Linden is not the only one thinking in this direction. Similar ideas are found in the recent booklets of the Rev. Th. Delleman.

WRONG INTERPRETATIONS OF GENESIS 2 AND 3
This interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 (and of the rest:) is, of course, not new. The only new aspect is that it is defended by Reformed theologians in good standing in the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands!

Throughout the centuries several interpretations of these chapters have been de-fended. We will mention several of them and the reasons why we regard them as un-acceptable.

(a) The MYTHOLOGICAL interpretation.

For the last hundred years this has been the common interpretation among the critical scholars. Genesis 2 and 3 do not describe history, but they contain ancient mythical stories intended to "proclaim" in mythological (i.e., purely imaginative language that man is a creature and sinner). They do not describe historical, factual realities.

"The time-element in the myths of Creation and Fall (as in all biblical myths must be discounted: it is not that ONCE (in 4004 BC - or a hundred thousand years ago) God created man perfect and then he fell from grace. God is eternally Creator; he is eternally making man and holding him in being and seeing that his handiwork is good (Gen.1:31). And just as creation is an eternal activity, so the 'Fall' is an ingredient of every moment of human life; man is at every moment 'falling', putting himself in the centre, rebelling against the will of God. Adam is Everyman" (A. Richardson).

It is beyond a doubt that such an interpretation is in head-on collision with the whole nature of the Bible. The Bible is a thoroughly historical book, from beginning to end, and it has no place for mythology. Admittedly, there are in its language, traces of old mythological concepts (e.g., Leviathan and Rahab, the great sea monsters), but the remarkable fact is that these concepts are completely demythologized in the Bible. Take, e.g., Psalm 104:26 and Amos 9:3, which speak of the sea monsters, but they are not God's foes (as in the old Babylonian myths), but rather His servants!

(b) The SAGA-interpretation

This is the interpretation advocated by Karl Barth. According to Barth the word 'myth' is not applicable, because a myth never deals with an historical fact, but is only a poetical explanation of a certain human situation. But Genesis 2 and 3 de-finitely want to speak of certain facts. For this reason Barth prefers the term 'saga', which always indicates that there is a fact behind the story. But the fact is not described in a literal-historical way, but in the way of imagination. The Revs. Van den Linden and Delleman virtually go in the same direction, although. they do not use the word 'saga'.

We gladly note that in this interpretation the FACTUALITY is stressed. From that point of view it is a definite improvement on the first interpretation. Yet we believe that this mere stress on an abstract factuality is not sufficient. For what kind of fact is this, if the description is not a true description? How can we know anything about such a fact? It becomes all so vague that no one knows what it really means. And the final result is that every one gets his own fact! Barth, e.g., denies that Adam ever existed in an unfallen state.

The main question, however, is: where do the chapters themselves say that they are meant as a saga or legend? Surely, many of the things mentioned are strange for us, modern people, but is that proof that they did not really happen? In this way one can do away with the miracles of the Bible too.

(c) SYMBOLICAL LANGUAGE

Some Evangelicals have suggested that we should interpret these chapters as symbolical language, more or less along the lines of the last Bible book. But again we are faced with the problem that the chapters themselves do not speak in symbolical language. Admittedly, there is a symbolical element, but it is embedded in the historical. And what is actually the difference with the two other views (Myth or saga)? Does it not all boil down to the same: no history, but an imaginative story to explain man's creatureliness and predicament?

Of course, all these interpretations have the advantage that there cannot be a conflict between theology and science. Each deals with its own sphere: Genesis 2 and 3 - with the theological aspect, science with the physical and biological. If science speaks of evolution, theology has no objection.

But is this true? Is such a 'partition of the 'estate' really possible? We believe it is not. If one believes that man as created by God was 'very good' and that a real fall took place (in whatever form), one is already in conflict with "the popular modern view of man as a being who, by a slung evolutionary development, has succeeded in ris-ing from the primeval fear and groping ignorance of a humble origin to proud heights of religious sensitivity and insight. The Bible does not portray man as risen, but as fallen and in the most desperate of situations" (P.E.. Hughes, in the New Bible Dictionary, p.414). In other words, a purely symbolical interpretation does not help us in any way in the conflict between the Bible and modern evolutionism.

A PROPHETIC DESCRIPTION OF HISTORY

The only possible interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 is that which takes these chapters as a description of an historical reality. Taking the whole testimony of the Bible (esp. also of the N. T,) into account, there cannot be any doubt that the facts described in Genesis 2 and 3 are meant as real, historical facts. !?t the en, of his discussion of the various N.T. -passages that speak of Adam Prof. John Murray writes:

"This persuasive allusion, sometimes emplicit and sometimes implicit, demonstrates that the N.T. assumes the historicity of Adam and of the events pertaining to him as well as the authenticity of the record which the early chapters of Genesis pro-vide. It is not feasible to maintain the doctrine which our Lord and the apostles elicit from these assumed facts . . . , if we deny the historicity of the events them-selves. We cannot so dissociate the lessons for faith and practice from the historicity of the events to which these lessons are attached, that we may retain the doctrinal and practical significance while rejecting the historical character of the alleged events. Herein rests the importance of the N.T. witness respecting Adam" (The Bible Dictionary, p. 14).

It is a description of HISTORY. But we have to go on immediately and say: it is a PROPHETIC description. The Bible is never, interested in mere history as such, but it always describes history from God's point of view and as a proclamation of divine truth. It is generally agreed that the historiography of the Bible has such a peculiar character. For this reason there are often two dimensions in one story. The basic dimension is the historical fact that is related. But added to it, permeating it, is the prophetic dimension, bringing out the theological (or kerugmatic) significance of the fact. Of course, in the one story this is clearer than the other. In the case of fundamental facts the prophetic aspect stands out very strongly.

It is not surprising that especially in Genesis 2 and 3 the prophetic dimension again and again lights up. Adam is a historical person, the first human being, but he is also 'man', the representative of all others. Eve was created out of Adam, but this story is also - and it is no doubt the main thing - divine preaching of the unity of man and woman. The serpent is a real serpent, but he is also the mouthpiece of Satan, who is the real tempter. The words spoken by the serpent were real words, but they also reveal the real and deepest nature of sin: to be like God. Paradise is a physical reality, but it also speaks of man's unfallen existence in God's sight. The two trees are real trees, but they also have a deep religious meaning.

ADAM - CHRIST

But why this insistence on historical factuality? If we believe that man was created 'very good' and fell by temptation and willful disobedience, is this not enough? In a way it is. These are the two great realities described in these chapters.

But - these realities do not stand by themselves. They are the background of the whole history of salvation, in particular of the centre of this history: Jesus Christ, the Son of God who was incarnate and became man, for our sin and our salvation, and died for us on the cross. His history is based on the original history. And if we begin to tamper with this original history, the effects will be of great consequence for the doctrine of Christ. We see that in all modern theology, liberal. (Bultmann and Tillich), neo-liberal (Niebuhr) and neo-orthodox (Barth and Brunner).

We see it also in Mr.Van der Linden's article. Paul's view of Adam becomes a matter of accommodation. The apostle does not really teach that Adam was the first man (although he says so), but accommodates himself to the prevalent view of his day. Every accommodation theory, however, is deadly dangerous. Where is the limit? For example, is Paul's speaking of a pre-existence of Christ also accommodation, as many modern theologians believe? Why should the answer here be No?

THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE

Of course, one has to be careful With the "argument of consequences". Fortunately people often do not draw all the consequences hidden in their starting point. Yet in the case of the Rev. H.A.L. Van der Linden we see clearly that certain consequences cannot be avoided. Perhaps the main consequence is that one has to give up the classical Reformed doctrine of Scripture. Van der Linden rightly perceives that one cannot stop at the end of Genesis 3. He goes on and uses the same de-historizing method for the interpretation of the chapters 4 - 11. But why stop at the end of Genesis 11?

Again he goes on and points to several inaccuracies in the rest of the Bible. The final result is that he advocates a "Scriptural criticism of Scripture" (Schriftuur-lijke Schrifcritiek)

We do not blame Mr. Van der Linden for the consequences he draws from his starting point. We believe he is correct in doing so. But does this not convincingly prove that the whole starting point is utterly wrong? To ask the question is to give the answer.

AT LAST!

The series of articles on this subject has become longer than we at first envisaged. We hope that our readers have not lost their patience. But these questions are really too important and too intricate to discuss them in a superficial way. And even now, in these six articles, we could only touch some of the main points! Yet we do hope that they have assisted our readers towards a better understanding of modern theories and their and weakness, and above all about Scripture itself.

There may be difficulties in the interpretation of certain aspects of Scripture, but taken as a whole its message is clear, also in the first chapters of Genesis. Let us beware of the temptation to exchange this clarity for modern theories, such as those propagated by Van der Linden and Delleman, which seem to be so helpful but in reality land us into thick, unpenetrable fog. It is deplorable that these theories now are advocated in Reformed circles. As we said before: the theories are not new. The only new thing is that they are propagated in our Reformed circles. And we observe this with great concern. May the Lord grant that all Reformed Churches all over the world have the faith and courage to resist these theories. They are not only unfruitful (for they do not add anything to our knowledge of God's revelation), but can easily become detrimental to the WHOLE Christian faith..

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

Privacy