The following article by Dr. E. J. Young is being reprinted by permission from the January-April 1968 issue of INTERNATIONAL REFORMED BULLETIN at this time in view of the action taken at the CRC Synod a month ago.
This article was one of the last to be written by Dr. E. J. Young, Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. Dr. Young passed away suddenly in February 1968. The occasion for this article by Dr. Young at that time was the reconsideration being given to the so-called Geelkerken case in the Netherlands.
In 1926 at Assen the General Synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands definitely repudiated the view of those who called into question or denied that the tree of lire, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. and the serpent that spoke must be understood as “sensuously perceptible entities.” The position taken by Dr. J. G. Geelkerken and those likeminded was not to be tolerated. The result was that thousands left the Reformed Churches to go elsewhere.
Then about forty years later, in 1967, the Dutch church did an about face on this matter. It was then decided:
“that the declaration of the special General Synod held in Assen:
“a. that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent and its speaking, and the tree of life, according to the obvious intention of Genesis 2 and 3 are to be understood in a real or literal sense and thus as sensuously perceptible realities; and
“b. that therefore the opinion of Dr. Geelkerken, that one could render disputable whether these mat· ters or facts were sensuously perceptible realities without coming in conflict with what is confessed in Articles 4 and 5 of the Belgic Confession, must he rejected,
“is no longer in force as a doctrinal declaration.”
The sad developments in the Dutch church since then are familiar to our readers. It was in view of this new stand of the Dutch church as it was developing that Dr. Young wrote as he did in this article.
And now please read carefully elsewhere in this issue about the action taken by the CRC Synod in refusing to sustain the appeal of the Dutton (Mich.) CRC concerning the approval by Classis Grand Rapids East for the ordination of Candidate Verhey and it will become clear why we reprint this article of Dr. Young at this time.
May God graciously grant that EVERYONE in the CRC (AND ESPECIALLY ALL CONSISTORY MEMBERS) may realize what is happening and also what may be expected to follow in the wake of this action taken by Synod!
As is well known a Synod of the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands was held in 1926 at Assen to consider the question whether a minister in good and regular standing in the church could hold that the serpent and its speaking, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were sensory perceptible objects. Could these objects have been known through the senses? The Synod decreed that according to the literal interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 this was the case, and that it was not permissible to maintain a contrary opinion.
In recent times this position has been severely challenged, and a report which was presented to the Synod of 1967 maintains that the Synod of Assen was in error and that it is permissible for a minister to hold that these objects of which Genesis two and three speaks were not necessarily sensory perceptible. The writers of the report themselves, if we understand them aright, do not insist upon this as their own personal view, but they hold that it is legitimate to accept such views and still remain a minister of the church. A minority report, signed by only one man, upheld the position of the Synod of Assen. Thus the question of the proper interpretation of Genesis two and three has again been brought to the fore, not by unbelievers who wish to destroy faith in the inerrant Scriptures, but by believers who profess that they wish to maintain the authority of God’s Word.
The Argument of the Majority Report
The first recommendation presented to the Synod of 1967 asserts that the progressive study or Scripture since 1926 has placed in a clearer light the fact that Genesis 2 and 3 contain history writing of a very special kind. That these chapters contain a special kind of history writing is said to be shown by the fact that no one could have been present at the creation of man (Gen. 2:7) or at the creation of woman (Gen. 2:21, 22). Furthermore, it is said to be doubtful that there was an unbroken chain of tradition (Joshua 24:2, 14) by which such facts could have been transmitted. Also, there is a great deal of anthropomorphic language from the beginning to the end of the account (Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 3:21); the order of creative events in Genesis 2 can hardly be taken as it stands and it is difficult to establish the relationship between the serpent and Satan. Hence, upon the basis of these considerations just mentioned, it is held that in the second and third chapters of Genesis we find a special kind of history writing, and so, it may be that the serpent and trees are not sensory perceptible objects.
Evaluation of the Argument of the Majority Report
Our first task is to ascertain whether the matters just mentioned constitute sufficient evidence for the assertion that there is a special kind of history writing in the second and third chapters of Genesis. Certainly no one will deny that there was no human eyewitness present at the creation of Adam. And whereas Adam was present at the creation of Eve, he was in a deep sleep. We may note, however, that he accurately described the woman who had been taken from his body (Gen. 2:23, 24). Yet must we conclude that inasmuch as there was no human eyewitness present at these two events, therefore Genesis 2 contains a special type of history writing? Is that not rather a gigantic leap in logic?
It may be remarked in passing that no human eyewitness was present at the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is true that there were those who saw Him soon after His resurrection just as Adam was present to behold Eve immediately after her creation, but there was no one who actually saw the Lord rise from the dead. Are we therefore to maintain that at this point the Gospels contain a special kind of history writing, and that the tomb was not a sensory perceptible object? Would not consistency drive us to such a conclusion? If the fact that no one was present at the creation of Adam and at the creation of Eve is evidence that the Scripture which relates these events is a special kind of history writing, why does it not follow that, inasmuch as no man was present to behold our Lord rise from the dead, the Gospels at this point also contain a special kind of history writing? In his excellent minority report (which should be translated into English and widely distributed for the general good of the Church of Christ) the Rev. Mr. J. Schelhaas Hzn. points out that there are also other events in Scripture where no man was present. Among these is the death of Moses (Deut. 34) and the fact that details concerning the death of Samson are mentioned although no human eyewitness was present (Judges 16:23–
If the Bible is the Word of God, in the sense that all Scripture is God-breathed, why cannot God Himself have revealed to the human writers of Scripture information which they could not have obtained by means of their own investigation or by means of tradition, and why could He not so have superintended them in their writing down of this revelation that what they wrote was the very Word of God, precisely what He desired them to write? Does not II Peter 1:21 assert that such was the case? Hence the mere fact that Genesis 2 and 3 relates events which could not have been witnessed by human beings does not mean that we are dealing with a special kind of history writing. We are to interpret these chapters in the sense in which the author intended them to be understood. We are to apply the ordinary rules of exegesis and regard these chapters as meaning just what they say.
In the second place we may note that it does not really matter whether there was an unbroken chain of tradition by which facts such as the creation of Adam and Eve could have been handed down to the writer of Genesis, whom we believe to be Moses. The statement in Joshua 24:2, 14 does not necessarily preclude such an unbroken line of tradition. The fact that there were idolaters among the ancestors of the Israelites does not demand the conclusion that the truth was completely suppressed and could not have been transmitted from one generation to the next.
Must we however, assume that Moses had to depend upon tradition for the information which he received about Adam and Eve? There are those, such as Jean Astruc, who seemed to think that such was the case. There is however, a verse in the Bible that we must not overlook In Psalm 103:7 it is expressly stated: “He made known his ways to Moses; his acts to the sons of Israel.” This verse explicitly declares that God did give revelation to Moses; it is, of course, not the only verse that so declares, the Bible has many such verses, but this one will suffice for the sake of the argument. Inasmuch therefore, as God did speak to Moses, as the Bible so often says He did, why may God not have revealed the truth to Moses concerning the creation of Adam and Eve? Even, therefore, if there were not an unbroken tradition from Adam to Moses, indeed He spake with Moses as with no one else in the Old Testament, for with this faithful servant of His, He spake mouth to mouth and face to face (Num. 12:6 and Deut. 34:10). The fact then that there may have been no unbroken line or chain of tradition from Adam to Moses, even if it were true, does not all show that Genesis two and three contain a particular or special kind of history writing. In fact, this consideration is irrelevant to the question under discussion.
Thirdly, we are told that from the beginning to the end of Genesis 2 and 3 there is a great deal of anthropomorphic language. The word anthropomorphic means “in the form of a man,” and when applied to Cod simply means that the Bible speaks of God as it would speak of a man. For example we are told that God formed man, that God breathed, that He fashioned a rib into a woman, to mention two or three examples. There is of course, serious question as to whether the term anthropomorphic is a suitable term to employ. In the year 1953 C. Visee wrote some very penetrating articles on this subject and we agree with his conclusion that it is more Scriptural not to employ the term anthropomorphic. L Cf. the discussion of anthropomorphism in the early chapters of Genesis in my Studies In Genesis One, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1964. Visee’s studies are found in De Reformatie, 28c Jahrgang, Nos. 34–45, 1953. For the sake of the present argument, however, we shall use the term. Let it be noted then that man always speaks of Cod anthropomorphically, for man is a finite creature and God is the infinite Creator. Let it also be noted that what is commonly called anthropomorphic language is used elsewhere in the Bible. Let it also be noted that the anthropomorphisms of Genesis 2 and 3 are in no sense crude. The statement “God formed man dust from the ground,” is often appealed to as showing that Cod was a potter. Indeed, in his mammoth study on the questions Eden and Paradise, the late Juan Alzuguren goes so far as to speak of the potter God (Yahve-Alfarero). 2. Juan Erranclonea Alzuguren: Eden y Paraiso, Madrid, 1965, p. 27. This is certainly not warranted.
How else could one say that God gave a form to the body of man? Scripture simply states that God formed man and thus gives expression to the profound truth that the material element of man‘s being, the body, does possess a form. What is crude about that? How else, we repeat, could one state the truth as succintly as the Bible does? But, even though these anthropomorphisms are present in Genesis how do they possibly show that we are dealing with a special type of history writing? This is a nonsequitur. The type of history writing in Genesis two and three must be determined upon other grounds.
What about the order of the creative works in Genesis two? We are told that only with difficulty can these be accepted as they stand ( . . . kan moeilijk in de voor de hand liggende zin worden opgevat). Elsewhere in the majority report we are told that if the events of Genesis two be taken as they stand they would bring us into conflict with Genesis one. Inasmuch as the order in Genesis one is said to have a more natural character than that of Genesis two, it would seem rather than Genesis two, to be determinative (“Nu heeft de volgorde van Gen. 1 ongetwijfeld een meer natuurlijk karakter dan die van Gen. 2, en daarom schijnt het geraden te zijn, bij het zoeken naar overeenstemming tussen beide verhalen van de eerstgenoemde uit te gaan,” pp. 7, 8). This statement however, rests upon a misunderstanding of the nature of Genesis two. Inasmuch as I have written elsewhere in greater detail upon the subject, I shall here merely indicate the relationship between the two chapters. 3. Cf. Studies in Genesis One, pp. 73–75.
Cenesis two is not a second or duplicate account of creation. In fact, its subject matter is not the creation but rather the preparation of the Garden of Eden for man to inhabit. The introductory words, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 2:4a) mean that these things which are now to be related are the offspring or products of the heaven and earth. It is perfectly clear that the order of events in Genesis two is not intended to be chronological (did God, for example, place man twice in the garden?). Rather, in this chapter the writer presents his material in the order of emphasis, leading up step by step to the paint where we are prepared for the events of chapter three. Frankly, we are somewhat surprised that eight scholars would sign a document in which ther express the thought that the verb in Genesis 2:19 should not be rendered by the pluperfect (“Het lijkt ons echter niet juist, deze overeenstemming hierin te vinden, dat de werkwoords vormen in Gen. 2 als voltooid verleden tijd opgevat zouden moeten worden,” p. 8). Certainly it is not necessary to translate the verbs in this way, but it is grammatically possible. 4. Cf. K. A. Kitchen: Ancient Orient and Old Testament, Chicago, 1966, pp. 118, 119.
At any rate, there is nothing in the order of state· ment of Genesis two which demands that we regard the chapter as containing a special kind of history writing. There are places in the Gospels where a chronological order is not followed, but who would assert that upon that basis we were to regard these Gospels as containing a special kind of history writing and therefore not to be taken at face value? Cf. the order of events as related in Matthew 10:1fI with that of Mark 2:23–25; 3:14–19 and Luke 6:1–16. I have discussed these matters in Thy Word Is Truth, 1960, p. 135. If Genesis two contains a special kind of history writing that fact is not dependent upon the order of events stated in the chapter.
Lastly, even if it is difficult to see how the relation. ship between the serpent and Satan is to be established, we fail to perceive how this supports the position that Genesis two contains a special kind of history writing. At this point we would enter a word of caution against the wrong use of what many today call Biblical Theology. In the interpretation of the Bible, inasmuch as the Bible is God’s Word we must bring to bear upon every passage all that the Scripture has to say. It is true that Biblical Theology (in the proper sense) furnishes us with the materials for Systematic Theology, but it is also true that Systematic Theology alone enables us to understand Biblical Theology. We must always use the analogy of Scrip· ture in interpreting any passage, and when we fail to do this, we fail properly to understand the Scripture. It is perfectly true that Satan is not explicitly mentioned in Genesis three, but from later passages of the Bible we know that Satan did employ the serpent. And Adam and Eve came to know that the voice which spoke to them in contradiction of God‘s Word was the most deep-seated wickedness. Any serious reading of Genesis three must make it clear that we are dealing with more than a mere snake. The remainder of Holy Scripture identifies the author of the serpent’s lie.
In concluding this brief survey of the arguments adduced in the majority report to show that Genesis two and three contain a special type of history writing we must state that we God all these arguments in· conclusive. What has surprised us is that the signers of the report have not used any Biblical evidence to show that Genesis two and three are to be understood in any sense other than that of straightforward, narrative history. The arguments which they have presented do not prove their case. In fact, they prove too much; if they prove that Genesis two and three contain a special type of history writing, then they also prove that other portions of the Scripture, such as narratives of the resurrection, likewise contain a special type of history writing.
The Serpent and the Trees are Sensory Perceptible Objects
Inasmuch as these two chapters of Genesis are said to contain a special kind of history writing, it is argued that it is not necessary to believe that the serpent and the trees of the garden, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, are sensory perceptible objects. In what we have written above, we have sought to show that the majority report does not prove its point, namely, that in the second and third chapters of Genesis there is a special kind of history writing. It is now well to consider more thoroughly than we have heretofore done, what the nature of these two chapters is.
In the first place, therefore, it should be noted that the book of Genesis is divided into two main divisions, I. The Creation (1:1, 2:3) and n. The Generations (2:4–50:26). This latter section is again divided into ten sub-divisions, each entitled “Generations.” Thus, to take an example, the division which runs from 10:1 to 11:9 bears the heading, “These are the generations of the sons of Noah.” The nature of this large second division of Genesis, then, is genealogical, and its purpose is to trace the history of the chosen race from its very beginning in Adam until it becomes a people which goes down into Egypt. In that Genesis two and three are an integral part of this genealogical section of Genesis, it may be expected that they are to be regarded as present. ing straightforward history, as do the other chapters of this section.
And this is precisely the manner in which the New Testament understands these chapters. In the fifth chapter of Romans Paul regards the fall of Adam as an historical act. Indeed, one may go so far as to say that if the fall of Adam is not an historical act, then Paul’s argument completely loses its force. And if Paul did not believe in the historicity of Adam, we may well ask whether it is necessary to believe in the historicity of Christ.
Once we grant that Adam was an historical char. acter, and the majority report does do this, we are compelled, if we would be faithful to Scripture to maintain, even to insist, that the serpent and the trees of the garden were sensory perceptible objects. The serpent is expressly said to be a beast of the field (Gen. 3:1). The serpent is described as speaking to the woman and she is replying to him. In verses fourteen and fifteen the Lord pronounces a curse upon the serpent. If the serpent were not sensory perceptible to Adam and Eve, these verses, to put it bluntly, would make no sense. If the serpent was not then and there present for the man and the woman to see, what would be the point in the Lord cursing the serpent? Furthermore, how would Adam and Eve know that a promised deliverance would come through the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head if all along they had not seen any serpent? If then we hold that the serpent was not a sensory perceptible object to Adam and Eve. it follows that the Messianic promise of Genesis 3:15 is meaningless. Adam, how. ever, in an act of faith responded to this promise in that he named his wife Eve. In thus acting he showed that he believed that she would give birth to a seed which would bruise the serpent’s head. What a foolish thing to do if there were no serpent present, or if Adam a1l along could not have seen the serpent! The Messianic promise of 3:15 demands that we understand the serpent as a sensory perceptible object. Furthermore, what was the point of cursing the serpent and declaring that its mode of locomotion would be upon its belly if there were no serpent visible? How could Adam and Eve possibly have understood such words?
It may very well be that in ancient times the serpent was regarded as an embodiment of demonic powers in a good and bad sense (p. 8). Possibly the Gilgamesh Epic could be appealed to in support of such a position. Genesis three, however, is the revealed Word of the God of Truth—may we Christians never forget that fact—and in our interpretation of Genesis or of any portion of Holy Scripture, we are 6rst of all to allow the Scripture to speak for itself. What is here related concerning the serpent is unique –its analogue is not found anywhere else in the world. Here is no mere snake talking as though in a fable. Here is a snake from whose mouth come the words of Wickedness. For that reason and also because of what later Scripture teaches. we believe that the historic church is correct in asserting that Satan used the serpent as his instrument.
As to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life, it is obvious that Eve considered these to be sensory perceptible objects. She spoke of touching the tree, a rather difficult thing to do if one could not see the tree. The location of the trees is given, a rather useless procedure if the trees could not be seen. Eve looked at the tree and saw (which proves that the tree was sensory perceptible) that its fruit was good for food. Furthermore, she took of the fruit and gave to her husband and he with her ate thereof.1
Suppose however that the trees were not sensory perceptible, what are the consequences? Tn our opinion, they are most serious. If the trees were not objects of a sensory perceptible nature, it follows that the whole question of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God was an inner experience and not an overt transgression. There was no act of disobedience on Adam‘s part but simply an inner experience wherein he became at enmity with God. How can one escape such a conclusion? Now, such a conclusion is at variance with what Genesis clearly teaches. Genesis explicitly states that Adam partook of the forbidden fruit; by a deliberate, definite act, he disobeyed the command that God had given. The very command not to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is practically meaningless, if Adam could not see the tree and there was no fruit visible for him to eat. Can we seriously accept any interpretation of the chapters which sees in the prohibition only a part of a general picture designed to show that the first man became a sinner? Certainly, Genesis itself does not permit such an interpretation.
Nor does the New Testament pennit such an interpretation. According to Homans, the act of transgression of Adam is compared with the righteous act of Christ (cf. Romans 5:18). If Adam did not definitely commit an act of transgression, then there is no point of comparison with Christ‘s righteous act of deliverance. In this section Paul’s contrast is between WORK (not the inner experiences) of Adam on the one hand and that of Christ on the other. If there be no act of transgression all that the New Testament says of the work of the second MAN is without much point.
Herein lies the seriousness of regarding the trees as not sensory perceptible objects, for it is only when we consider them as sensory perceptible that we can do justice to the fact that Adam transgressed a command of God. We do not agree that the Synod of Assen was too facile (vlot) in its treatment of the question. And we do not agree that there have been any discoveries since 1926 which would in any sense permit us to regard the serpent and the trees as not sensory perceptible objects. The majority report has not really presented any evidence that there have been such discoveries. Nor have Biblical studies so progressed that there is now available knowledge which was not available to the Synod of Assen which would permit us to consider these entries as not sensory perceptible. Were a Christian church to adopt the recommendations of the majority report it would be a sad day in Christendom, for, whether, intended or not, it would be but a further step in the weakening of the authority of God’s holy, inerrant, infallible Word of Truth.