One thing should not be overlooked. It was science that denied the possibility of the truths basic to salvation. And the church allowed itself to be carried along by the dictates of science. Today the church is again faced with a question thrust upon it by science: What shall we do with the first chapters of Genesis?

If this article seems somewhat belated the fault does not lie with the writer. It was written at the time when its subject matter was a live issue in The Banner and Professor Clarence Menninga of Calvin College took a prominent part in the discussions. His name is mentioned here because the quotations. with the exception of the one from Professor Lever, are from him. It should be mentioned too that upon different occasions the writer was given de6nite assurance that his contribution would be given a part in the discussion. But since he can no longer expect that this will happen the article is now being offered to THE OUTLOOK. Finally, the contents of the article are as timely today as when they were first written; and a Synodical resolution contained in Report 44 definitely encourages what the writer aims at when it left an open door for further discussion on Biblical authority.

A major concern of long standing – For many decades the threats of Modernism have been for the church a major concern. Many pulpits through the infiltration of the movement are no longer bringing a true Gospel. And sometimes voices of concern for our own Christian denomination are making themselves heard.

The memory of the conflict in the Presbyterian Church which involved Professor J. Gresham Machen has not entirely died out. The doctrinal points that disturbed this champion for the truth were primarily the denial of the virgin birth; of the bodily resurrection of Christ; and of His ascension and bodily return. What the denial of these basic truths means to the Gospel of salvation is plain, and what the consequences of this has been for the Presbyterian Church need not be elaborated on here.

One thing should not be overlooked. It was science that denied the possibility of the truths mentioned above basic to salvation. And the church allowed itself to be carried along by the dictates of science. Today the church is again faced with a question thrust upon it by science; what shall we do with the first chapters of Genesis? The answer to that question may have far-reaching consequences for the church, and the correct answer may have much to do with the future well-being of our denomination.

A myth, symbolism, or what? – What shall we do with the first chapters of Genesis? (Although this article concerns itself primarily with the creation account, other parts of Scripture enter in also.) As for the creation account some call it a myth. Others call it poetry or symbolism. There is also the claim that it is prophecy. And we are all aware of the belief that the creation days are to be understood as so many long periods of time.

It has come to our attention too that there presumably is good reason exegetically to take the six days of creation for normal days but with the possibility that they were interspersed with long periods of time. One more interpretation may be summarized as follows: Genesis 1 is a logical arrangement of historical facts put in symbolic Conn. This interpretation is gleaned from the following quotation (Voices, The Banner, Jan. 14, 1972): “I also think that we will abandon the idea held by some, that the six days of Genesis 1 correspond to six long time periods. The sequence of events in Genesis 1 is not consistent with the sequence in geologic history. The account in Genesis 1 is logical but not chronological.” The author proceeds to call this record symbolism.

Referring to an article, “His Word and His World” (The Banner, Nov. 7, 1970), there is a statement which reads thus: “Many of us are still struggling against accepting the conclusion that the earth is very old, and that the fossil remains of living organisms are found in rocks ranging in age from very recent up to three billions years, with the simpler organisms found in the older rocks and progression to more and more recent sedimentary deposits.” (parenthetically it should be stated here that the author in a later article modified the first part of this quotation as follows: “I think that most of us in the CRC have finally conceded that the earth is very old.”)

These conclusions, so the author claims, are based on overwhelming scientific evidence. I see very little difference between this and what Professor Lever says in his interview with De Spiegel (The Banner, Jan. 10, 1969, p. 9) and there is no reason to think that the professor has changed his ideas on this point, when he states: “In all this the point of departure should be that all the data that science offers must be accepted. This means with respect to the general evolution idea (as to which Lever claims Darwin’s idea is correct – RS.) we must accept that the origin of organic life has taken billions of years. There is evidently a succession of types to be recognized in the direction of continually higher structured forms, and therefore; out of simpler animal forms higher animals have developed.” It is because of this fundamental conception offered us in the field of science that we are now struggling with many different interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis; and in a state of confusion we are wondering which interpretation is correct.

The period idea of creation days may sound to some as a good solution to the problem. However let it be remembered that Professor Lever cannot fit his evolutionary explanation of origins into this interpretation and therefore does away with period days. It is a question too whether anyone cherishing Lever’s idea of origins can avoid coming to the same conclusions.

And if Christian convictions do not permit accept· ing any of the other views mentioned above (mythology, poetry, symbolism, or prophecy) the so-called compelling force of geological findings seemingly demands discarding the period idea as well. At least the quotation in the last of the various interpretations of Genesis 1 mentioned above gives us a clear indication of this. In this situation to get out of the confusion of interpretations of Genesis 1 there remains no alternative but to take the chapter and with it succeeding chapters at face value just as God gave them to us.

But, say some today, even as science in times past compelled a different understanding of certain passages of Scripture like Joshua 10:12–14, Psalm 93:1, Ecclesiastes 1:4, 5, describing the order of the solar system, so now we are at the point where scientific evidence demands a different reading of the 6rst chapters of Genesis.

However, before we press the point too far let us take careful note of the following facts.

Source of Moses’ knowledge – When Bible writers express themselves in the form of the one time popular conception of the solar system they did so to bring out the unfailing faithfulness of God in His loving concern and care for His children. This being their purpose they had no inspired thought of how the sun, moon, and stars in their movements stood related to the earth in producing day and night. Therefore the idea of a stable earth with the sun, moon, and stars moving in their courses around it did not come from special divine revelation, but was a universally accepted notion believed in because things appeared that way to the eye. Hence for lack of knowledge the Bible writers could not express themselves differently.

But Moses did not build the Biblical record of the first chapters of Genesis on popular notions. His information was that of divine revelation infallibly inspired whether oral, written, or direct. So for the benefit of science the practice to draw a parallel between what Joshua says and what is said in related statements elsewhere in Scripture on the one hand and the Mosaic record on the other must go by the board.

Now let us pursue in this connection a little farther some of the thinking of the Reformation. We have confessional declarations which are a systematization of Biblical truths put in the form of confessions. These declarations are not to be accepted at face value, but the truth of them is to be confessed as Biblical so that for each declaration there is ample Scriptural evidence to sustain it. And the confessor is not to subject this Scriptural evidence to his own interpretation. Should he do so he would thereby invalidate it as proof for the truth for which it stands, putting his own interpretation ahead of Scripture. The truth of this statement is clearly born out by a careful look at the Heidelberg Catechism. The subject matter of each Lord’s Day is amply substantiated by an abundance of Scriptural evidence. One does not first subject this Scriptural evidence to his own interpretation before he uses it as proof for the truth confessed.

And if we let Cod speak to us directly without interpretation when we bolster our confessions with His Word then surely we must let Him speak to us in the same way when it comes to the historical parts of Scripture, and for that matter other passages too. But we are primarily concerned with Bible history here.

If I accept at face value the following from the records of Scripture: the building of the tower of Babel; the call of Abraham; the story of Jacob and the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt and their deliverance; Israel’s march through the wilderness and their occupation of the land of Canaan; the history of the Judges, kings, and Israel’s eventual banishment and return from captivity; the birth of Jesus; His public ministry; His crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension; the outpouring of the Holy Spirit; Paul’s conversion and his missionary journeys and the establishment of the New Testament Church; John’s banishment to the Isle of Patmos; then what right have I not to take the clear and simple account of the first chapters of Genesis in the same way?

Nature not an infallible revelation – But, say some: the scientific evidence to the contrary is too overwhelming.

Just a moment, please! God has not given us in nature an infallible revelation. This hits the point where sometimes special revelation and general revelation are put on a par. Both are deemed in infallible. But this view is definitely contradicted by Scripture. The Bible claims for itself to be Cod’s holy and infallibly inspired revelation. But these same Holy Scriptures definitely state that the phase of God’s general revelation which concerns itself with the geological structure of the earth (not to mention all aspects of God’s general revelation) is under a Divine curse.

Thus we read: “Cursed is the ground for thy sake.” Therefore the geological aspect of God’s general revelation, also called the book of nature, is under God’s curse. And what the potentialities of this curse were is clearly seen in man’s labors and toils to eke out a living, and the great catastrophic overturn of the Biblical Flood. And it might well be interspersed here that the forces operating in the Hood catastrophe of Genesis may well have so interfered with the normal operation of the elements used in geological dating that they are by that very fact untrustworthy. A book that is so cursed cannot very well be called infallible. But the Holy Scriptures are not so cursed and that is an all important factor in their infallibility.

A lesson from Job – It may be well too before too much certainty is expressed in the conclusions drawn from geological findings that the history of Job be given some thought. Job was so very sure of his position that he went so far as to accuse God of unrighteousness. Upon this God asked him scores of questions pertaining to the marvels of His natural creation, but Job was not able to answer one of them.

It is true that in recent years science has disclosed many things about nature which were not known before. But if in our scientific studies covering the geological structure of the earth God should confront us questioningly as He did Job, how greatly we might find ourselves astonished at the meagerness of our knowledge. And might this not in turn lead us to be a bit more cautious about the dogmatic statements we sometimes make as to the origin of the earth running back billions of years, especially when these are in direct conflict with the plain teachings of Scripture?

Perhaps the example of Mary the sister of Lazarus might be of some benefit here. She once sat at the feet of Jesus to listen to His words. Mary did not burden her listening posture with her own interpretations of what Jesus said, but she just drank in the words of her Master. Instead of plaguing ourselves with so many interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis why not just sit down at the feet of God and quietly listen to Him as He narrates to us the bringing forth and formation of His marvelous creation?

And if our scientific conclusions do not agree with our Great Narrator would it not then be the part of wisdom to consider it a God-given task to rethink the propositions that led to the conflict rather than make an attempt to bring Scripture in line with our conclusions?

Ring Star is a retired CRC minister living in Jenison, Michigan.