Theology Proper - Lesson5c
Beyond Genesis One
by Pastor Bob Burridge ©2000
God's Decree and the Interpretation of Genesis One (continued)
(Westminster Confession of Faith IV:1)
It would be unwise to accept any proposed view of the events of Genesis
chapter one until other portions of Scripture are taken into account.
God's word must be self-consistent as a whole. It is also important to
consider the interpretive alternatives God in his wise providence has
permitted to emerge in his church.
Other Portions of Scripture
Genesis 2:1-2 Was the seventh day also a literal 24-hour day?
The day after day six, when all of creation was pronounced to be essentially
complete, was a day of non-creation. It began a whole era of non-creation. All
of what was decreed to come into existence had essentially been created.
Genesis 2:1,2 "Thus the heavens and the earth were
completed, and all their hosts. And by the seventh day God completed his
work which he had done and He rested on the seventh day from all His work
which He had done."
On the next 24-hour day which immediately followed day six, God
announced the principle of sabbath (The Hebrew word is shabbat
which means "ceasing"). It would be contrary to his infinite
character to interpret this to mean that God needed to rest or that he
needed a break of some sort. His rest could only have meant a cessation
from what the text said he had been doing. He had been creating new
material classes of things. This ceasing from special creation continues
all the way to the present time and extends to the end of the present
world order.
If the Genesis 2:2-3 Sabbath was literally 24 hours long, then on the eighth
day God must have resumed again what had been suspended at the end of the
sixth day. This would mean that following the seventh day God began again to
create new classes of things and cause them to appear and to display his
glory in the material world. This is contrary to the direct remarks that
begin Genesis 2.
It should also be noted that the formulation of "there was evening and
there was morning..." is not used regarding the seventh day. By removing
this contextual identifier we see a clear break in the record Moses preserved
for us in writing. The previous indicators for taking YOM as a 24-hour period
are no longer presented by the author for his readers.
Therefore this verse defies the necessity of taking the seventh day in the
same sense in which we are to understand the previous six.
Exodus 20:11 Does the Sabbath commandment describe creation as
lasting just 144 hours?
It is always helpful to use inspired references to help us formulate
our interpretation of a text. But the language of Exodus 20:11 is not
exactly as it is usually represented in our translations. The expression
"in 6 days God created..." is literally "because six days Yahveh
made..." (ki shaeshet yamim asah YHVH ...).
The preposition "in" is not in the Hebrew text. Instead of the prefix
baet... , which is the preposition meaning "in", we find the
conjunction ki which is relational or causative. It means
"because of, so that, but, when". The grammatical structure does not
rule out various possible interpretations of the allusion to Genesis
one:
On the one hand it could be an allusion to the six 24-hour inspection days
as mentioned in our proposed view. These are the literal days when God
pronounced each aspect of his decreed work to be essentially complete.
On the other hand, it could be a reference to the six periods of time marked
out by the moments of approbation (taking YOM as an indefinite period of time).
It is undecidable, from Exodus 20:11 alone, to determine which meaning for YOM must be
adopted. Since the word "day" (YOM) does not always refer to a 24-hour period (see the
previous articles in this presentation), and
since this context offers no specifications as it did in Genesis one, we are not able to
demand one meaning over the other. If the word YOM is used in serveral different
senses in the Genesis creation account itself (Genesis 1:5,16 2:4), it would be highly
presumptuous to demand that it must have one particular use in the Exodus reference
which is given in the context of Sinai.
Exodus 20 does not introduce the work of creation for
the purpose of interpreting or of explaining the time frame of Genesis
one. It mentions the work of creation to call upon these events as the
foundation for the Sabbath commandment. A citation used for this purpose
would not be expected to address the separate components of the creative work
(decree, act of creation, additional modifications, inspection, and
pronouncement). Rather it would have in view simply the six aspects of
creation which were presented chronologically in the Mosaic account and
which acts ceased with their completion by the end of the sixth day.
It would hardly serve as a regular reminder of God's work if man worked just seven days of his life,
then ceased working for the remainder of his life just as God ceased from creating
any more new material orders of things when the Sabbath of Genesis 2 began.
The God of Sabbath made the earth's rotation cycle to mark the days of man's labor as
he carried out the creation mandate of caring for and subduing God's earth to bring forth
his daily provisions. To aid in man remembering that God is his Creator and Sovereign
Owner of all that is, he was to work six days (commemorative of the six periods of God's
creative work), and cease from that particular work on every seventh day.
Considering the statement of our Confession
Does the statement of the Westminster Confession rule out the non-contiguous
view of the Approbation Day concept by saying, "in the space of six days"?
Clearly the scholars who wrote this statement did not have before them the various
interpretations we deal with today. The question was not being asked then in the same
way that it is being asked in our era. Therefore we would not expect them to formulate
wording that would answer that unasked question.
There were some variations known at that time, such as the instantaneous creation concept
of the church fathers. They took care to rule out that alternative since it is contrary to
sound exegesis of all the texts involved. But they were very careful to refrain from inserting
their own limited understanding into the confession of the church. By selecting an expression
that simply reflects the wording of the law in Exodus 20:11 they provided room for
interpretation within the boundaries set by God's word. Very probably they did not
anticipate the latitude their words would provide. But in God's providence, their
strict adherance to the terms of Scripture do not rule out ideas they had not considered.
The wording "... in the space of six days" is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith
4:1, Shorter Catechism question 9, and a similar expression in Larger Catechism question
15.
In As with Exodus 20:11, the term "day" employed by the confession may be taken in
various ways.
While the scholars who wrote this statement may have personally had
dispositions as to how the term day was intended here, their care to limit expressions to
what could be either directly read or deduced necessarity from Scripture, has left us
with a statement able to withstand the growth of our understanding of God's word as
time tests our exegetical conclusions.
Criticism of a few popular hypotheses
The Appearance of Age Theory
This is sometimes called the Pro-chronic Creation Theory. It suggests
that God made things with an appearance of age. The universe and earth
were created to look mature and therefore older than they really were.
This view is primarily an attempt to accommodate the biblical record with
scientific observations. However, it is in one sense strictly a non-scientific view.
It implies that all tests and measurements should be expected to yield a great age,
since all things were made in an aged form containing evidences that they had a
history which in fact they did not have. This position must therefore
admit that the universe does appear to be older than it is. They suggest
that in spite of what scientific measurements are expected to show, the
universe is actually very young. Creation, by its appearance of age,
intentionally and inescapably deceives the uninformed observer.
Critics of this view argue that, if accepted, this approach would make
God's revelation in nature unreliable. The message of creation (as
described in Psalm 19:1-4, and other similar passages) becomes deceptive
instead of revelatory of God's glory, nature, truth and power. God, they
would have to say, made things so that man's investigation of the
created universe should yield an untruth. It makes it hard to understand
how Paul could write in Romans 1:20 that God's revelation in creation
concerning his divine attributes, power and nature could leave man without excuse.
Believers who hold to this model therefore attempt to find justification
within the text of Scripture that would necessarily lead a faithful
exegete to conclude that scientific observations are not reliable when
investigating the age of things ranging back to the time of creation.
They usually cite the completed form of Adam (who would have had the
appearance of age considering our experience that adults come from children
who come from babies), the immediate creation of trees (which we presume would
have had concentric rings usually interpreted as being the result of age), and
other such evidences inherent in every created thing brought into being
instantly but in an adult completed form .
However, the appearances they speak of, often do not stop with revealed
examples such as Eden's tree rings or a mature Adam. Many proponents
wander far from exegesis and speak of the light from distant stars as
containing false data. When spectral absorption lines are observed from
distant stars and galaxies, they are shifted by measurable amounts that
appear to reveal particular information about their source and the
environment they have passed through. Yet this view claims that the
light never came from that source and never went through the environment
whose signature appears in the spectral lines. The gasses that appear to
have produced the absorption lines never actually filtered the light.
Furthermore, the band splitting and shifting we see was not done by the
influences to which the lines appear to testify. The light was created
to look as if all this had happened when it did not.
It is one thing to question the validity of natural observations. It is
quite another thing to assume theologically that God's creation is a
carefully planned deception. Taken to this extreme, this would be a very
dangerous approach unless clear biblical data can be presented to
justify such a non-natural interpretation. Where creation might deceive
us we would expect the Creator to tell us clearly in his written word.
It is a huge leap of logic to extend the apparent age of Adam, which is
clearly affirmed in Scripture so we would not be deceived, to the shifting
of spectral lines in light from distant cosmic objects.
Scripture is intended to present creation as a declaration of truth
concerning God's character and nature. Many holding to this view come
close to denying God's integrity in revealing himself in creation, since
the first objects he made uniformly present false information about
their age and history.
This view is based upon and employs assumptions that are not directly
stated in Scripture. They must be derived by good and necessary
deductions. But the presumption that, since God made an adult human
immediately with an appearance of maturity, therefore he must have
made all things in the same completed form is hard to derive with such
certainty. No one would dispute that God could have done so. The
question is, is there any biblical evidence that shows that he made all
things with an appearance of age?
This hermaneutic reduces logically to an anti-scientific position. It
insists that our investigations and any scientific tests performed would
show that the universe appears old. The results are interpreted as
proving their opposite, that God has created a perfectly mature
appearing universe that defies those who expect to discover its age. The
chronology as observed is never what it appears to be.
If the motive of those holding this view is to attempt to reconcile what
they see as a disparity between what we observe in nature and what they
believe is stated in the Bible, then this theory is of no real help. If
they mean to simply state what the Bible demands, they are to be
commended for their attempt. But should be warned of the highly
speculative nature of the principles of extending the data beyond its
intended purpose. They should also be cautioned about the uncertainties
introduced for those intending to observe God's revealed nature in
creation as we are told to do throughout Scripture.
The failure of certain arguments such as "appearance of age" does not
refute that the earth is young, nor affirm that it is old. If we are
to understand what God is declaring in creation then we need to avoid
explanations that only complicate the issue and obscure its challenges.
Flood Geology
This view does not attempt to interpret Genesis one by reasoning from
biblical information alone. Its primary motive is to use biblical data
to explain geological findings. The fundamental assumption is that the
flood in the days of Noah accounts for the seeming antiquity of the
earth. The geological strata and the placement of the fossils, are
explained in terms of flood dynamics including erosion and tidal
effects. Some include atmospheric changes they say were tied to the
flood to account for changes in the rates of radioactive isotope decay
which are necessary to support their view.
While its proponents all believe that the Bible demands a young earth,
their arguments tend to center mostly upon scientific theories. The
scientific model they adopt follows an approach that was popular in
the late nineteenth century which sees sudden cataclysmic events rather
than slow processes as the most significant cause of change in the
physical world since its origin.
Critics of Flood Geology say that it is based upon a forced
re-interpretation of scientific data motivated by assumptions about the
age of the earth and the rejection of what it calls "uniformitarianism".
Among its assumptions is that the earth can be no older than a few
thousand years which they believe is an absolute limit set by a literal
interpretation of Genesis one.
One of the problems in dealing with this position is that it rarely
differentiates between uniform processes and uniform laws. It labels
them both "uniformitarian". On the one hand Flood Geology discounts
uniformity in studying ancient processes since we cannot know for
certain that things operated as they do now. The radioactive decay of
certain isotopes is often said to have changed its rate and perhaps its
process after the flood. But if physical laws as well established as
nuclear decay are brought into question, one might wonder how they can
be so sure that the process of flood dynamics was the same then.
Obviously they do not believe that physical laws have changed or their
whole scientific approach would be self-discounted.
Sadly, some proponents of Flood Geology have been guilty of basic
inaccuracies. The current positions of other theories (both Christian
and non-christian) are misrepresented and misstated. They seldom seem
aware that the evolutionary scientists do not teach the kind of
uniformitarian philosophy they spend so much time attacking. Most
anti-creationists today agree that the process of change often ocurred
very suddenly and was often the result of cataclysmic events. Current
evidences that conflict with their re-interpreted scientific
observations are regularly omitted from their monographs and text books.
Many of their arguments are based upon ideas that have been withdrawn by
those originally proposing them. Yet they never mention such updates.
Responses and criticisms of their position by the scientific community
are often never addressed. They keep using arguments that have long been
shown to be contradicted by improved measurements. Flood dynamics
totally fails to deal with astrophysical data, since flood geology can
apply to earth structures only. Other theories must be incorporated to
explain the things we observe in the universe such as the analysis of
spectral lines from distant cosmic objects.
Totally unsupported conjectures have been made to explain some of their
proposals. Many Flood Geologists imagine that an ice canopy existed over
the earth prior to the flood which, it is claimed, would have affect
nuclear decay rates and fusion rates. However no confirmable mechanism
has been found to support such a claim. Some, in support of the old
canopy theory, even speculate that it never rained before the flood. But
the only biblical reference cited refers to a period prior to the
creation of plants when there had not yet been rain. It can be argued
from the language and flow of thought in Genesis 2:5 that rain began
prior to the creation of plants, long before the flood.
This theory appears to be motivated more by its attempt to deal with
scientific observations, than with deriving a position from Scripture
alone. God's word should not need the invention of ice canopies, or
theories of geological stratification and fossil deposition to make
sense to the modern reader. A reaction to Darwinian thinking appears to
have been more the cause of this approach than a serious attempt to
exegete Scripture and be satisfied with what it says.
Again, the failure of these arguments neither refutes that the earth is young,
nor affirms that it is old. It harms our view of Scripture when poor
evidence and reasoning are used as the foundation for our biblical faith.
Synthesis of the Appearance of Age and Flood Geology Views
Most who defend the young earth view hold to a combination of the two
previously examined theories. They say the earth is young, created
full-grown with an appearance of age. Yet they use flood geology to
account for the phenomenon of old age where they believe they can do so.
If further appearances of age were added by the dynamics of the flood,
then some things obviously didn't have an appearance of age, or not as
great an age, until the time of Noah. If the flood can reliably be shown
to account for some observations, then these did not have an appearance
of age originally, at least not in the same sense as they do today.
Basically, when one view fails to account for some particular detail,
the proponents call upon the other view.
Critics point out that they have an inconsistent uniformitarian
approach. Supporters often present alleged scientific data to prove that
the earth and the universe were more recently created. They usually base
their position upon observations which are then extended back in time
uniformly to show that they could not have been in operation for
billions of years. Are the flood dynamics findings evidences of matters
where God missed giving them an appearance of age at creation and so
added it at a later time? If, as they claim, they have discovered some
observations that show that the earth is young, then the whole universal
appearance of age idea is discredited.
It is convenient to be able to adopt two totally different views. When
flood dynamics or their current scientific theories cannot account for
some observation in connection with their young earth assumptions, they
simply appeal to the appearance of age argument.
The problems cited for each of the component theories are usually
applied to the synthesis of the two. Many see the view as
self-defeating. On the one hand it claims that geological phenomena do
not have an appearance of age. They are just evidences produced by flood
waters and atmospheric canopies operating within the bounds of uniform
physical laws. On the other hand they say that God made everything with
an appearance of age and that the use of uniform physical processes to
explain what we observe is to be doubted.
Those holding this view have often vascillated between explanations. For
example, a rock may be dated by radioactive methods which appear to give
it great age. On the one hand they would say that the age of the rock
was built into it at creation when God inserted various levels of
isotopes in it to make it appear older than it really is. On the other
hand, they would say that since the collapse of the pre-flood canopy the
decay rates have changed which account for the faulty finding. One often
gets the impression that the answer is pragmatic. What ever works best
in supporting a young age for the earth is adopted.
A more helpful approach is to re-examine the actual statements of Scripture
to limit our affirmations to what it actually says. When human theories blend
sometimes adverse principles to support what the Bible doesn't directly state,
the reliability of God's revelation in Scripture is marginalized. If the earth
is young then it must be accepted as young based upon the sound exegesis of biblical texts
alone. If it is old then we need to be willing to set aside historic assumptions
to the contrary if they are not delivered to us by God's prophets and apostles.
Covenantal Language:
Some have attempted to remove the question of age entirely from Genesis One
by adopting a view that God employs covenantal language divorced entirely from
any attempt to describe physical processes. When we read Moses, we are looking at
literature intended for a very different culture than what we generally expect.
I will not deal at length with this view since it is covered in much detail in
the PCA Creation Committee Report refrenced in the main index of this syllabus
sub-heading. When considering literary approaches it is important to preserve
the view that all Scripture is inerrant and infallible because of it's inspiration
from God. Many who hold to this view remain totally faithful to the view of
inspiration long held by the conservative churches.
Concluding Statements
It is the opinion of this author that the age of the universe, the age of our earth, and the
antiquity of man are matters not intended to be revealed by God in Scripture. This view
as presented would be consistent with either a young or old earth view. It does not rule
out either position. It does preserve the idea that Genesis one is a literal,
chronological, physical account of the bringing into existence of physical reality
supernaturally by the God who has made covenant with his people and who has
revealed himself and preserved that revelation for us in the Bible.
The Bible regularly points us to behold in nature the truly revealed glory, power and
nature of its Creator. It also cautions us that our perceptions of general revelation are
neither infallible nor inerrant. Matters of science yield degrees of probability and
likelihood, not certainty. They are limited by our own sampling of data and by our
understanding of the variables that effect how natural principles operate in various
circumstances. Creation infallibly and inerrantly declares truth about God day and
night. But due to the distortions imposed on our understanding by the fall of man in
Adam, we need to rely only upon the direct statements made in Scripture, and those
that can be necessarily derived from Scripture. This data alone should be employed in
the forming of statements of doctrinal certainty. This is the goal of this minimalistic
approach to exegesis.
return to the top of this Page
