Response to Dave DeJong
May 18, 2010
Dave wrote the following comment, and I thank him for it (and its gracious tone, which should also be in greater evidence in my writing), and respond here.
Hi Jim,
I worry that you're writing as if there's only two options: a 6/24, YEC, 6000 year old earth view or all-out theistic evolution and the denial of Gen 1-11. In fact, there are a range of views that can be held exegetically. Certainly I don't think Reformed theologians should be making a "young earth" a litmus test for orthodoxy: someone could conceivably hold to an old earth and still be 6/24 creationist, as I used to be (gap between Gen 1:1-2 and the first day).
Anyway, I know you're aware the issue is complex; I would encourage you to be sensitive to that in your writing on it.
Blessings!
Dave deJong
First of all, as you said, I'm aware of the complexity of the issue. Not the complexity of the issue as it appears in Scripture, though, since I don't believe that there is a lack of clarity in Scripture on the issue. I believe that, as people have a tendency to do, various groups have made the issue of creation, the days of creation, and the age of the earth, far more complex than it needs to be.
My argument is not, as I mentioned previously, a special concern about the age of the earth ('as if the earth were 6001 years old I would no longer believe in the resurrection'). Neither is it about the mathematical specifics about the length of the days of creation. My focus in this discussion was meant to be on how we read Scripture. I believe that is the root point of the matter – that's where the 'rubber hits the road.'
My concern is this: what has been happening in the interpretation of Scripture is an atomizing of the Book as a whole, and its overarching message. I do not believe that the issue of creation is the only place where this happens; I believe there are plenty of examples of this tendency, and I have written about them on this blog before. This also relates to Dave's other question:
What are the redemptive-historical particulars of Gen 1 that determine its shape/structure/message? How are those redemptive-historical particulars to be understood in the New Covenant?
I believe that there is a tendency to try to extract the 'message', which is the 'essence' of the text, from the shape and structure thereof, and I believe that tendency is destructive to the unity of Scripture. Is there a polemical purpose to the creation account? Most assuredly, given the antithesis, there is; there is a polemical purpose to all of Scripture. As the people of the Book, this Book should shape us, in stark opposition to those who disregard its teachings, which are the teachings of God. Therefore, all of Scripture is polemical.
Is there a didactic purpose to Genesis 1? Yes, I believe there is. These words are meant to teach us that the Almighty God, the One God, created the world by His Word. He is not like the 'gods' of the nations, either of the gods of the nations that surrounded Israel, or of the gods of the nations in which we live as modern-day Christians.
So the polemical and didactic purposes of the text may differ based on the historical situation and cultural situation of God's people, living under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, living in the post-modern western world and living in what little pre-modern society still remains. The fact that the sun and moon are not named in the Genesis creation account may have had a specific point, that God created these 'lights', and that they are not deities in themselves. That would have been particularly meaningful, and is still particularly meaningful, in a society in which the heavenly bodies are worshipped as gods. In Canada, apart from some self-conscious pagan revivalists, this is not an issue. The shape and structure of the message affect us in different ways than they did the original readers, because the issues we face are different, and because the situation we live in is different, historically, covenantally, socially.
But the shape and structure are there. The form of the account is there. It remains. And on a redemptive-historical level, we are looking at these accounts from a new vantage point, with concerns that outwardly differ (although at bottom, those concerns have the same basis). But my point is this: we simply cannot artificially distinguish the shape and structure of the message from the message itself. Scripture is, to use a phrase that some don't like, an organic unity. In a way, as Marshall McLuhan said, 'the medium is the message.” And the medium of Scripture and its message are a unity.
But there's another problem, and that's dividing the shape and structure of the message from the events that are recorded in the message. Scholars have looked at, for example, the accounts of Abraham and Isaac's relations with Abimelech, and they have seen the similarity in both the form and the content of the stories. Because of this, many have assumed that this is kind of a 'stock' story, which doesn't really have a basis in what actually happened. Since it seems like the same thing happened to Isaac and Rebekah as had previously happened to Abraham and Sarah, it is argued, the events that occurred in history can not be reliably distinguished, and the stories themselves may be ahistorical. Yes, we can learn something from these stories. Yes, we can see a kind of 'mythical' account of the man having his wife taken from him, and saying that she is his sister. But that message is separated from the underlying events, as if the events themselves can be 'discarded,' while the core message that the account of these events gives us is retained.
Again there is a tearing apart of the unity of Scripture and the story of God's actions in history. I believe that Abraham and Isaac experienced very similar situations with men named Abimelech, and these are recorded for us in Scripture because God had a purpose for it. And the important issue is, regardless of what side of the cross we live on, this is our story, the story of God's people as a unity, crossing historical and cultural boundaries, because God's people are one, living under different dispensations of the covenant of grace, but united in the true faith.
This is already getting long for a blog post, but I'll conclude with this: I know that many of those who support the 'Framework Hypothesis' or the 'analogical view' of the creation account are just as opposed to the idea of theistic evolution as I am. I know that our brothers at Westminster Seminary in California are just as concerned with the truth of Scripture as I am. I am not calling that into question. But I do think that, at bottom, those who support the Framework Hypothesis or hypotheses like it are doing exactly the same thing that theistic evolutionists do with Scripture. Their handling of Scripture leads them to different conclusions, but I believe that this is because of their presuppositions rather than any difference in their hermeneutic. The hermeneutic winds up being the same; the result is different. In either case, I believe there is a serious problem.
Hi Jim,
I worry that you're writing as if there's only two options: a 6/24, YEC, 6000 year old earth view or all-out theistic evolution and the denial of Gen 1-11. In fact, there are a range of views that can be held exegetically. Certainly I don't think Reformed theologians should be making a "young earth" a litmus test for orthodoxy: someone could conceivably hold to an old earth and still be 6/24 creationist, as I used to be (gap between Gen 1:1-2 and the first day).
Anyway, I know you're aware the issue is complex; I would encourage you to be sensitive to that in your writing on it.
Blessings!
Dave deJong
First of all, as you said, I'm aware of the complexity of the issue. Not the complexity of the issue as it appears in Scripture, though, since I don't believe that there is a lack of clarity in Scripture on the issue. I believe that, as people have a tendency to do, various groups have made the issue of creation, the days of creation, and the age of the earth, far more complex than it needs to be.
My argument is not, as I mentioned previously, a special concern about the age of the earth ('as if the earth were 6001 years old I would no longer believe in the resurrection'). Neither is it about the mathematical specifics about the length of the days of creation. My focus in this discussion was meant to be on how we read Scripture. I believe that is the root point of the matter – that's where the 'rubber hits the road.'
My concern is this: what has been happening in the interpretation of Scripture is an atomizing of the Book as a whole, and its overarching message. I do not believe that the issue of creation is the only place where this happens; I believe there are plenty of examples of this tendency, and I have written about them on this blog before. This also relates to Dave's other question:
What are the redemptive-historical particulars of Gen 1 that determine its shape/structure/message? How are those redemptive-historical particulars to be understood in the New Covenant?
I believe that there is a tendency to try to extract the 'message', which is the 'essence' of the text, from the shape and structure thereof, and I believe that tendency is destructive to the unity of Scripture. Is there a polemical purpose to the creation account? Most assuredly, given the antithesis, there is; there is a polemical purpose to all of Scripture. As the people of the Book, this Book should shape us, in stark opposition to those who disregard its teachings, which are the teachings of God. Therefore, all of Scripture is polemical.
Is there a didactic purpose to Genesis 1? Yes, I believe there is. These words are meant to teach us that the Almighty God, the One God, created the world by His Word. He is not like the 'gods' of the nations, either of the gods of the nations that surrounded Israel, or of the gods of the nations in which we live as modern-day Christians.
So the polemical and didactic purposes of the text may differ based on the historical situation and cultural situation of God's people, living under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, living in the post-modern western world and living in what little pre-modern society still remains. The fact that the sun and moon are not named in the Genesis creation account may have had a specific point, that God created these 'lights', and that they are not deities in themselves. That would have been particularly meaningful, and is still particularly meaningful, in a society in which the heavenly bodies are worshipped as gods. In Canada, apart from some self-conscious pagan revivalists, this is not an issue. The shape and structure of the message affect us in different ways than they did the original readers, because the issues we face are different, and because the situation we live in is different, historically, covenantally, socially.
But the shape and structure are there. The form of the account is there. It remains. And on a redemptive-historical level, we are looking at these accounts from a new vantage point, with concerns that outwardly differ (although at bottom, those concerns have the same basis). But my point is this: we simply cannot artificially distinguish the shape and structure of the message from the message itself. Scripture is, to use a phrase that some don't like, an organic unity. In a way, as Marshall McLuhan said, 'the medium is the message.” And the medium of Scripture and its message are a unity.
But there's another problem, and that's dividing the shape and structure of the message from the events that are recorded in the message. Scholars have looked at, for example, the accounts of Abraham and Isaac's relations with Abimelech, and they have seen the similarity in both the form and the content of the stories. Because of this, many have assumed that this is kind of a 'stock' story, which doesn't really have a basis in what actually happened. Since it seems like the same thing happened to Isaac and Rebekah as had previously happened to Abraham and Sarah, it is argued, the events that occurred in history can not be reliably distinguished, and the stories themselves may be ahistorical. Yes, we can learn something from these stories. Yes, we can see a kind of 'mythical' account of the man having his wife taken from him, and saying that she is his sister. But that message is separated from the underlying events, as if the events themselves can be 'discarded,' while the core message that the account of these events gives us is retained.
Again there is a tearing apart of the unity of Scripture and the story of God's actions in history. I believe that Abraham and Isaac experienced very similar situations with men named Abimelech, and these are recorded for us in Scripture because God had a purpose for it. And the important issue is, regardless of what side of the cross we live on, this is our story, the story of God's people as a unity, crossing historical and cultural boundaries, because God's people are one, living under different dispensations of the covenant of grace, but united in the true faith.
This is already getting long for a blog post, but I'll conclude with this: I know that many of those who support the 'Framework Hypothesis' or the 'analogical view' of the creation account are just as opposed to the idea of theistic evolution as I am. I know that our brothers at Westminster Seminary in California are just as concerned with the truth of Scripture as I am. I am not calling that into question. But I do think that, at bottom, those who support the Framework Hypothesis or hypotheses like it are doing exactly the same thing that theistic evolutionists do with Scripture. Their handling of Scripture leads them to different conclusions, but I believe that this is because of their presuppositions rather than any difference in their hermeneutic. The hermeneutic winds up being the same; the result is different. In either case, I believe there is a serious problem.
David DeJong says:
May 19, 2010 @ 17:11 — Reply
Hi Jim, Thanks for the lengthy interaction with my comments! A brief response to a few of the points you raise: I believe that, as people have a tendency to do, various groups have made the issue of creation, the days of creation, and the age of the earth, far more complex than it needs to be. I would say this understates the actual geological evidence for an old earth (see, e.g., Ryan and Pitman, Noahs Flood). The issue is complex, because the book of nature also tells a story, one that sits uneasily with a 6000 or even 10000 year old earth. A more basic point is that you as a theologian will get nowhere by telling a scientist he is over-complicating a simple matter. Perhaps you feel you dont want or need to get anywhere with scientists in this debate. But to write off their concerns about placing unwarranted obstacles in the way of faith as simply emoting (as you said in a previous post) fails to treat this problem with the care and seriousness it deserves. My concern is this: what has been happening in the interpretation of Scripture is an atomizing of the Book as a whole, and its overarching message. Thats precisely my concern with the focus of the literalists. We spend all this time defending six literal days and a young earth and completely miss what Genesis 1 is saying in the context of its time and in the context of Scripture. But the shape and structure are there. The form of the account is there. It remains. . . . We simply cannot artificially distinguish the shape and structure of the message from the message itself. Your concern seems to be that a focus on the particular cultural context of Genesis 1 threatens to distill it to an abstract message and then discard it. I resonate with that concern. However, for me it is not as though there are polemical bits and pieces in Genesis 1 (e.g. the sun) which reflect the culture while the substance of the text can be interpreted in an absolutist, de-contextualized way. The entire text is culturally bounded. Focusing precisely on the shape and structurethe formis the key here. But there's another problem, and that's dividing the shape and structure of the message from the events that are recorded in the message. . . . there is a tearing apart of the unity of Scripture and the story of God's actions in history. I believe that Genesis 1 is not to be taken as historiography, at least not in the way that your example of the endangered wife stories are. My evidence for this is the structure of Genesis itself: Gen 1 is deliberately placed outside of the 10 generations formulae that structure the historical accounts of the book. So theres a debate about genre to be had. My current thinking is that Gen 1 reflects a genre widely used in the ANE, but one with which we are no longer familiar. It has to do with temple building and enthronement accounts. Search on Bibleworks the phrase rested from his work as it occurs in Gen 2:3 and youll see those terms occur in the accounts of the building of the tabernacle and the temple. The structure of the commands to build the tabernacle in Exod 25-31 is analogous to Gen 1 (cf. Jim Jordan). This is also the basic similarity between Gen 1 and the Enuma Elisha, another creation account about chaos, ordering, working, and resting. Of course, this only begins to address your basic concern about the relationship between text and event. This is a profound philosophical question, one that we often glide over too easily. Even in the examples you cite about Abraham and Isaac, there are clear questions that an appeal to faith cannot simply stifle. When we understand the fact that there are no pure reports of what happened to be found anywhere in Scripture, and recognize that this is not a problem, we can begin thinking about this complex topic with the care it needs. Consider for a moment that with the rest of Scripture, the role and situation of the human author is something we take into account in order to understand the text. If we are interpreting the letters of Paul, everything we can know about Pauls context is important. Why is the real Israelite human author of Genesis 1 ignored? Why do we absolutize it as though it were an unmediated Word of God to us? It is the Word of God, but it is always mediated. To me, Sinai is the presupposition already for Genesis 1 (hence, Sabbath). Blessings! Dave DeJong