Justin Taylor has directed us to an article that might be helpful in shaping our perspective on the Creation debates. In a day when some suggest that any divergence from the "Genesis 1-2 = 7 days" interpretation is a fundamental compromise that rejects the clear, plain reading of the text, it might be instructive to consider what people who were committed to the complete reliability and authority of Scripture believed—before we felt compelled to read the text as an explicit refutation of Darwinism. Taylor points us to an article that raises the provocative issue of what orthodox believers prior to the rise of Darwinism and modernism understood to be clear, or perhaps not so clear.
To be sure, some interpretations of Genesis 1-2 are incompatible with ex nihilo creation, Divine sovereignty, the reliability and authority of Scripture, and Adamic headship—not to mention other biblical texts. Some of these interpretations have direct implications for our understanding of the gospel, and not in a good way. But these are some interpretations. Which particular interpretation is correct is a question that, as Taylor notes, "must be settled by careful exegesis" (not by church history).
Sometimes, the Bible doesn't say everything we wish it said, even if our wishes are motivated by our desires to defend it. What's more, the Bible is not our tool to refute the views we don't like, even if they're really harmful views. The Bible is God's tool. It's sufficiently clear to accomplish what he intends. But let's be cautious towards the assumption that what seems clear to us is the final authority on what must be clear to everyone. A better awareness of church history may be instructive toward that end.
22 comments:
Hey Ben,
Just curious, as it appears to me that the following two sentences from your post appear to be contradictory.
"Which particular interpretation is correct is a question that, as Taylor notes, "must be settled by careful exegesis" (not by church history)."
"A better awareness of church history may be instructive toward that end."
Just wondering if the "apparent" is with me and I'm missing something.
Mike, maybe I should have italicized "that" in the last sentence. My meaning is this: Church history is not the arbiter of what the Bible says (your first quote). But church history speaks with greater authority on what Christians in various ages and contexts have understood to be clear, or not clear, in Scripture (your second quote). If Christians prior to the rise of modernism and Darwinism didn't find the case for 7-day creationism in Gen 1-2 to be a slam dunk, maybe we would ask ourselves some questions. And the first questions might be whether our desire to respond definitively to modernism and Darwinism might not be unhelpfully shaping our interpretation of the text, and whether our dogmatism is justifiable.
I suspect some of the dogmaticism about 6 day/young earth belief is that we fear we give away too much of the foundation for belief in the rest of Scripture.
In other words I think there is an underlying fear that when we're witnessing to someone that they'll perceive us to accommodate science when they ask about (or we appeal to) origins if we allow for any other view than the most literal and be lest likely to "need" to embrace the fact of God, His holiness, our guilt.
Which sounds alot like argumentum ad consequentiam.
I don't know if you actually looked at Letham's paper (not just the snippets JT took out) but it seems rather selective in the research. As well, he basically assumes that unless someone says "literal days" or "normal" or "24-hour" that they don't necessarily hold literal 6 days (e.g., Calvin). Therefore, his conclusions seem a bit forced. I think a much better look at this issue comes from James Mook in his chapter “The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth” (from “Coming to Grips with Genesis”) His conclusion:
“Most of the fathers held to the six days as being literal 24-hour days. At the very minimum, they all believed that creation was sudden… No father proposed anything that could be taken as affirming deep time. It does not follow logically that if a father did not specify the exact length of each creation day, or even treated them as purely symbolic, then he would not see the time frame of creation as being important, or that deep time was a viable option. The oft-used counter examples of Clement, Origen, and Augustine, best understood through the lens of Alexandrian allegorical hermeneutics, all held that creation had been fully completed in an instant.”
Ben Edwards
As I said at JT's blog, I'm not sure what he (and Letham) were trying to prove. I don't know of any serious YEC who is arguing that there were no other interpretations prior to Darwin, but that the traditional/historic position of the church was 6-day. After all, I think AiG is about as strong as you can get on YEC, but even they aren't claiming uniformity prior to Darwin. IOW, the post is a refutation of an argument no one is making (though it's presented as a refutation of an argument people are making).
Ben Edwards
For in six eras of indeterminate length the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh era: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11
There doesn't seem to be much doubt how the inspired recording given to us in the Ten Commandments views the days of creation. I don't understand the need some people feel to "expand" on a fairly clear and plain statement of fact in Scripture to accommodate "science falsely so-called." (Well, actually I think I probably do understand it, but my New Years' Resolution to be more charitable kicked in as I was typing.)
d4,
What you're describing (in a negative light) is precisely what I'm arguing we shouldn't do.
Ben E.,
1. This isn't a conversation that's limited to the people the article cites or the church fathers. That article is one piece of a broader conversation. How pre-Christian Hebrew commentators understood Gen 1-2 is another piece of the puzzle, and they're not unanimous either.
2. This isn't a conversation that's limited to whether the "days" are 24-hour days. Some speakers/writers lightly dismiss other views—various permutations of the gap theory, including what land is in view in the text. There are probably others that aren't leaping into mind.
Let me be exceedingly clear, because this is an issue that people are deeply invested in emotionally, and because sometimes I overestimate how carefully people read blogposts:
This is not a post about whether the days in Genesis 1-2 are 24-hour days. This is not a post about whether that is clear to you. This is not a post about whether you think it ought to be clear to everyone else. And this is not a post about whether everything that happened in Genesis 1-2 happened within the scope of those 7 days (because that's a separate question from how long the days were).
Once I push the "publish your comment" button, any comments that make any of those points will be deleted.
Hey, we agree! :^)
I hope you won't delete a post in which I affirm for the record my belief in a 7 day/young earth creation event , but in the even that that you would, I'll post it another time.
@D4, because you play nice I'll let it slide. But I want you to know that I resisted the urge to clarify my own beliefs in an attempt to garner credibility. Credibility is for neo-evangelicals. So you just better watch yourself . . .
Ben,
I guess I don't get what you're trying to communicate with this post then.
If you (by citing JT/Letham) are saying that interpretation of Gen 1 is not uniform through history, then I'd say "Yes. Who's saying anything different."
If you are only saying we need to be willing to play nice in these discussions, then I'd say "Mostly yes, but what does the history of interpretation have to do with that?" (The "mostly yes" is b/c I think it depends on what the discussion is about: the historicity of Adam is something I think we could get a little mean about)
If you're just saying that we shouldn't assume our interpretation of a passage is correct, then I'd say "Sure." But then why would it matter what happened in church history? Even if everyone had agreed or disagreed with your interpretation, that would not necessarily prove anything.
If you are saying that the existence of other interpretations means we can't be dogmatic on the issue, I'd say "It depends." I don't think you'd have any problem being dogmatic (to a point) on the hypostatic union or justification by faith, even though others have not interpreted it that way.
If you are saying that the existence of other interpretations means the text is not clear, I'd say "Not necessarily." There are a lot of people who argue that 1 Tim 2:12 is not clear and have offered other interpretations, but does that mean you're ok with people ordaining women b/c the text isn't clear and doesn't say what we wish it did? (I'm pretty sure the SBC has taken a definitive stand on that issue...are they wrong to do so?)
So, maybe I'm missing the point of the post, but I think Letham's article does not prove what he thinks it does (i.e., no consensus of interpretation), so his conclusions do not follow. And, if his conclusions do not follow, then I'm not sure why you'd want to base any argument on them.
Ben Edwards
PS I've tried to remove all emotion from my person in writing this post :)
Ben E., here are a couple comments I made above that get to the heart of my point. I'm speaking towards the simplistic dismissiveness that often pervades our argumentation.
1. "Let's be cautious towards the assumption that what seems clear to us is the final authority on what must be clear to everyone."
2. "Maybe we would ask ourselves whether our desire to respond definitively to modernism and Darwinism might not be unhelpfully shaping our interpretation of the text, and whether our dogmatism is justifiable."
And then there's the point I didn't make yet, which is that we can get so caught up using the Bible as a stick to beat down other views (even if we're right and they're wrong) that we marginalize the central point(s) of the text. In other words, I don't think the main point that we are supposed to take away from Genesis 1-2 is that it all happened in 6 days, but that can be what absorbs our attention when we start looking at the text.
Ben,
If that's all you're saying, I'm largely in agreement. I think my confusion is that's not what JT or Letham are trying to say, so you're linking to them as "helpful in shaping our perspective on the Creation debates" seems irrelevant to what you're saying (i.e., Letham's article does nothing to contribute to those points. Those are just generally good ideas, regardless of the history of interpretation).
JT's blog post was intended to be "a helpful reminder for us not to assert or assume that the history of interpretation before Darwin was uniform." Maybe you've interacted with people making that claim (so that's why you post it) but I never have.
I have heard people say that it is the traditional interpretation (which JT points to at the beginning of his post, which makes it confusing which he is actually addressing) and Letham does nothing to overturn that belief.
And people who hold that it's the traditional interpretation are not saying "it's clear to me so it should be to you" but "if this is the traditional interpretation of the church, why are we so quick to find other explanations just b/c of Darwinian science."
However, I'm still interested to get your take regarding 1 Tim 2:12. Would you say the same thing to people who hold that it teaches complementarianism? (i.e., it may be clear to them but that doesn't mean it's clear, so don't hold it dogmatically; and maybe their desire to fight against feminism in our culture is actually what led them to that interpretation.) It seems that if this thinking applies in Gen 1-2, it should also apply in 1 Tim 2.
BE
Ben,
I don't want to overwhelm this post with my comments, but I did want address briefly your third point you just brought up (we might miss the real meaning of the text.)
First, if the text does teach that God made the world in 6 days, then it's obviously not wrong to emphasize that to a degree (even if it's not the main point.)
Second, if there is an issue of debate in a passage, it is not surprising that the point of debate will get significant attention. Thus, the people pushing 6-day are not necessarily saying it's the central idea. They just emphasize it b/c it's the point under debate.
Third, most of the people I read arguing for 6-day also emphasize the main point of Gen 1-2 (i.e., God is the Creator of all and he sets the rules/defines good). Ken Ham (who is probably one of the most dogmatic YEC people) continually points out that a proper understanding of Genesis is necessary for a proper worldview, and the reason that society is in the mess it is in today is b/c it has denied the teaching about God as creator.
FWIW,
BE
Ben E.,
1. Regardless of how broad or narrow is Taylor's purpose, the summary statements in the article show that the linked author's point is broader, and that's what I'm picking up on. Taylor's point doesn't limit mine.
2. I do think there are people who hold to the Gen 1-2 = 7 X 24 interpretation who argue that it's the plain, obvious, clear, normal reading of the text. I'm suggesting, with Letham, that if Calvin and Augustine cautioned against speculation or dogmatism, we ought to be careful about it. Those guys weren't influenced by Darwinism or academic credibility. Nor were B.C. Jewish commentators who didn't hold the "traditional" view.
3. To your second post, I'm happy for people to preach what they're convinced the text says, but surely excessive attention to particular details in a text can be a distraction. I think we see that in places like Daniel and Revelation all the time when we focus more on timetables and charts than what the text reveals about God and his interaction with humanity.
4. Finally, to 1 Tim 2, that's a complex conversation because it applies to all sorts of issues and texts, not just that text and Gen 1-2. But ultimately, where the rubber hits the road is . . . (dare I say?) . . . separation! Or fellowship/non-fellowship and cooperation/non-cooperation. I'll argue that gender roles in the church obviously affect the scope of possible fellowship and cooperation within and between local churches, particularly congregational churches. It's difficult for me to see how at least some of the non-"traditional" views are obstacles to fellowship at most meaningful levels. As I noted in my original post, some interpretations strike at foundational issues—even the gospel. That flips the switch, IMO, to preclude many or all levels of Christian fellowship and cooperation.
Ben,
On points 1 and 2, that's why I'm saying that Letham's article is not well done and thus does not support his conclusions. For example, neither Augustine nor Calvin felt problems being dogmatic on the age of the earth (do you feel that is more clear than 6-day?):
“They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe.” Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2:925
“They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. AUGUSTINE, CITY OF GOD BOOK XI p. 232 ”
As well, I think both Calvin and Luther were pretty dogmatic on 6-day:
“Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men.” (Calvin Genesis, 1554; Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, UK, 1984, p. 78.)
"He [Moses] calls ‘a spade a spade,’ i.e., he employs the terms ‘day’ and ‘evening’ without allegory, just as we customarily do we assert that Moses spoke in the literal sense, not allegorically or figuratively, i.e., that the world, with all its creatures, was created within six days, as the words read. If we do not comprehend the reason for this, let us remain pupils and leave the job of teacher to the Holy Spirit."
Martin Luther in Jaroslav Peliken, editor, “Luther’s Works,” Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1-5, Vol. 1 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), pp. 3, 6.
So, if they were willing to be dogmatic on these issues (contra Letham's claims), is there still a problem for people today being "dogmatic" or believing there interpretation is clear?
BE
Ben,
One more comment on point 4 above. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that wrong views of 1 Tim 2 could limit fellowship, whereas some wrong views of Gen 1-2 do not. I agree with that, but I don't know how that fits your point (unless being dogmatic means limiting fellowship/cooperation).
Are you saying the regardless of whether or not the text in 1 Tim 2 is clear enough for you to be dogmatic, the implications of other interpretations could limit fellowship? I would think in order to limit fellowship you'd have to feel pretty confident in your interpretation of the text, but the reverse is not necessarily true (i.e., you could be confident and dogmatic in your interpretation of the text without necessarily limiting fellowship).
So, if you're willing to limit fellowship, you must feel that your interpretation of 1 Tim 2 is at least close to the "plain, obvious, clear, normal reading of the text" even though not everyone agrees with you. And if you're willing to take a stand there, what's wrong with someone else taking a stand in Gen 1-2? That was my point in bringing 1 Tim 2 up.
BE
Ben E.,
Sorry to be out of commission for so long. I picked a bad time to start too many active comment threads.
First, I want to concede that my introduction of the term "dogmatism" may have unhelpfully shaped this discussion. I don't mean to argue that we shouldn't pursue truth aggressively and hold our conclusions firmly. By "dogmatism," I've meant to suggest that we ought to recognize the complexity of the interpretive issues and avoid lightly dismissing all views that are not "the earth is 10K years old max." And we particularly need to recognize that there are a variety of views that are not THAT view, which are compatible with the orthodox view of Scripture and gospel. We also ought to be open to the possibility that the intent of Genesis 1-2 may not specify any particular view on the age of the earth.
And as I've argued all along, this debate doesn't entirely hinge on what Augustine and Calvin thought. I don't remember anymore which of these commentators refer to which older sources, but Wenham, Sailhamer, and Westermann stick in my mind as sources that surveyed pre-Christian Jewish interpretations, which also were not unanimous. Maybe Köhler and Cassuto too.
Summary: I seem to hear way to many conservatives assuming that the popular conservative view is the only possible faithful view.
Ben E., to your final comment, I think complementarianism has more direct implications on our ability to fellowship in the context of a local church or in cooperative missions/church planting ventures than some non-"traditional" views of Gen 1-2. I am more confident in my views of complementarianism than my views of creation, but that's less significant, IMO, than the nature of the cooperation.
Ben E., I'm not sure why your comment this morning didn't appear here. Did you delete it? It came through to my e-mail.
I'd be happy to post it for you or e-mail it to you so you can. Whatever you prefer.
Ben,
I'm not sure why the comment didn't appear either. I didn't delete it (at least, not intentionally :) )
If you wouldn't mind posting it, that would be fine with me.
Thanks,
BE
Ben, may I suggest this change to your statement in the first paragraph: "it might be instructive to consider what people who were committed to the complete reliability and authority of Scripture believed—before we felt compelled to read the text as somehow supporting Darwin."
Post a Comment