Posted by deangonzales on January 11, 2010
What should Christians think about human culture? Should they be for it or against it? Before we can answer these questions, we have to define the term. The word “culture” doesn’t appear in most English Bibles. The English noun is related to the verb “to cultivate,” which in turn derives from the Latin verb colere. It was initially used in contexts primarily referring to farming or “agriculture.” Over time the term “culture” acquired a broader usage, referring not just to farming but also to all sorts of human endeavor. The first entry in the American Heritage Dictionary (2009) defines “culture” as “the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.” So culture is everything human societies think, feel, and make. The question is whether this concept is found in the Bible. I believe it is. In fact, the Bible not only describes human culture but it also provides us with ethical guidelines by which to assess it.
Human Culture Is Good
In Genesis 1:26-28, we find the origin of human culture.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Not surprisingly, this passage has been called “the cultural mandate.” God not only creates human beings, but he assigns them a task. They’re not to live in isolation from one another. Men are to marry women and produce children. Those families are to become clans. Those clans are to become cities and nations and societies. And those societies are to work together in order to “subdue the earth.” That is, humans are assigned the task of taking earth’s natural resources and developing or cultivating those resources for the good of man and the glory of God.
Note carefully that it’s not the will of God that man leave the world in its natural state, as some radical environmentalists would call us to do. We’re not to go out into the wheat fields and graze like cattle or walk up to a pine tree and chew on its bark, like Euell Gibbons might have encouraged us to do. On the contrary, we’re to grow the wheat, harvest the wheat with the sickle, separate the grain from the chaff, grind the grain into flour, put it into the oven, and consume it in the form of bread. Likewise, man is to domesticate animals so that the animals serve the needs of society. Man is to mine the earth order to extract various metals to make tools and machinery and coinage. Man is to fell trees and cut stones in order to make homes and buildings and cities. Moreover, the cultural mandate includes learning about the world. God commanded man to learn about the animals and name them according to their characteristics. And we can assume that God also wanted man to learn and classify details about the soil, and the water, and the air, and the trees, and the mountains, and the oceans, and the stars. And God intended this knowledge to be passed on from one generation to another, from one society to another. Furthermore, God endowed man with aesthetic capacity so that he could not only enjoy God’s creation but that man might imitate his Creator’s creativity. So men would not merely extract metal and stone from the earth but he would distinguish some as precious metal and stone. Men would not only build places to live but he would design and adorn the buildings so that they looked attractive. And some would refine the art of communication and others painting and others music. We should also note that God expected man to subdue and rule over the earth in a responsible way. On the one hand, man was not to leave creation in its natural state. On the other hand, man was not to exploit or misuse earth’s resources. So while Christians should reject the agenda of radical environmentalists, they should also reject an anti-environmentalist posture. We are to be concerned about the responsible use and maintenance of earth’s resources.
Now if we stopped reading our Bibles at this point, what would we have to conclude about culture? We’d have to assess human culture in precisely the same way God assessed it: “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). Of course, God’s primarily assessing his work not man’s work in this verse. Nevertheless, God’s assessment in this verse embraces or includes the mandate he gave to humanity. In other words, God views human culture as a good thing.
Human Culture Is Bad
But we all know that history doesn’t end at Genesis 1:31. When we come to Genesis 3, we read of man’s rebellion against God and his fall into sin. When we come to Genesis 4, we see that human sin spreads from the first generation to the second, and Cain murders his brother Abel. Perhaps Cain took the very sickle he had made to harvest the field and employed it as the first weapon of violence. By the time we reach Genesis 6, we find that the whole earth is corrupt and filled with violence. We read that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). Men are no longer satisfied with God’s norm of monogamous marriage but they give in to sexual lust and begin building harems. They can’t work together in harmony, so they hate and fight and war against each other. Things get so bad that God has to send a worldwide flood to destroy the whole human race with the exception of one family. But the flood didn’t wash away sin. Not long after Noah’s new beginning, we read of humans employing the tool of human language to unite together to build a city with a tower that would reach to heaven. Was their goal to bring glory to God? No, they say in Genesis 11:4, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves.” This is human rebellion on an international scale! And things haven’t improved much since Babel.
Now, in light of mankind’s fall into sin and his subsequent history, how should we evaluate human culture? At this point, the “counter-cultural” Christians may smile and say, “See, we told you. Culture is bad. We must not accommodate to culture; we must avoid it. We must keep it out of the church. Because of human sin, it’s ‘Christ against culture,’ plain and simple.” If that describes your position, you’re partly in the right. There definitely are aspects and dimensions of human culture that we must reject because they’ve been corrupted by human sin. And when we reject those aspects and dimensions of sinful culture, then we’re being “counter cultural” in the right and biblical sense.
Human Culture Is Both Good and Bad
However, I don’t believe the “counter-cultural only” position is a good position. In the first place, it’s not possible. There’s no way for us to completely escape human culture. Certain sects like the Amish have attempted to do this. But in reality, they’re only exchanging one form of human culture for another. They simply reject the American culture of 2009 and try to revert back to the American culture of the late 1800s. More importantly, if we’re only “counter-cultural,” then we’re only partly biblical. And if we’re only partly biblical, then we’re not fully or truly biblical. In point of fact, to be “partly” biblical is often to be “unbiblical.” Certainly, none of us wants to be unbiblical. Therefore, we need to consider more biblical data in order to have a fuller and more accurate view of human culture.
What biblical reality do we need to add to creation and the fall in order to cultivate a more balanced view of human culture? What part of the biblical picture do the “counter-cultural” only Christians often miss? The simple answer is “grace.” According to the Scriptures, God did not completely abandon mankind in his sinful state, but he showed kindness or favor or grace. To be more specific, he bestowed two kinds of grace: common grace to all fallen sinners and special or saving grace to those God chose to save. I think we’re all pretty familiar with God’s special grace, which enabled us to turn from our sin and trust in Jesus Christ—the grace by which God has endowed us with every spiritual blessing in Christ and has secured for us an eternal inheritance. But sometimes we lose sight of God’s common grace. What’s “common grace” from a biblical point of view?
Like the word “culture,” the phrase “common grace” doesn’t appear in the Bible. But the concept of common grace does. Common grace refers to God’s blessings on the human race that fall short of salvation from sin. Theologians usually classify them as follows:
1. God restrains human sin.
When God confused human speech at Babel (Gen. 11:6-9), he was restraining the extent to which that societal sin would develop. Similarly, God doesn’t allow every human being to develop into an Adoph Hitler or a Charles Manson or a Jeffrey Dahmer. Every human being is totally depraved and has the moral capacity to develop into cruel dictators or serial killers. But God doesn’t allow every human being to become as evil as he could potentially become. Jesus recognizes this when he says to Pilate, “He who delivered me over to you has the greater sin” (John 19:11). Pilate was guilty. But Pilate’s sin was not as grievous or blameworthy as the Jewish leaders who delivered Jesus to Pilate.
In light of this reality, we don’t have to view every unconverted workmate, classmate, next-door neighbor, grocery clerk, or baseball coach in the worst possible light. We don’t have to live in the wilderness of Montana for fear that our next-door neighbors might kill us and eat us. We don’t have to ban our child from Little League baseball team because we’re afraid he’ll be kidnapped and sent to a concentration camp. In fact, here in America there’s been such a high degree of common grace that very few Christians have had to endure serious hostility or persecution from unbelievers. And because of God’s common grace, we have many opportunities to develop relationships with unbelievers in the hopes of winning them to Jesus Christ.
2. God bestows some temporal blessings on human beings indiscriminately.
Jesus alludes to this when he instructs his disciples to love their enemies on the basis of God’s indiscriminate love to mankind. “For,” says Jesus, “[God] makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). God doesn’t just do nice things for Christians and bad things for unbelievers. In this life, God is often kind to both. And Jesus wants us to imitate our heavenly father. He doesn’t want us to form little Christian colonies that are separate from unbelievers. On the contrary, he says to us,
You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden…. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:14, 16).
And the people before whom we’re to shine are not just fellow Christians. Jesus wants us to be engaged with unbelievers. “Father,” he prays in John 17, “I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one” (17:15). Jesus wants us to remain separate from sin. He doesn’t want us to succumb to the wiles of the devil. But Jesus does want us to engage sinners. He wants us be proactive in our gospel outreach. Remember the words of Paul, “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them” (1 Cor. 9:19).
3. God endows unbelievers with knowledge and skills that benefit society as a whole.
Cain was a murderer. And his descendants turned out to be an ungodly lot. Nevertheless, as we read the Genesis account we discover that God was pleased to endow some of them with a great deal of knowledge and skill. In Genesis 4:20-22 we read that Cain’s descendant Jabal, “He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. [And] Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron.” Commenting on this text, John Calvin remarks,
[Moses] expressly celebrates the remaining benediction on that race, which otherwise would have been deemed void and barren of all good. Let us then know, that the sons of Cain, though deprived of the Spirit of regeneration, were yet endued with gifts of no despicable kind; just as the experience of all ages teaches us how widely the rays of divine light have shone on unbelieving nations, for the benefit of the present life.
So Christians are not the only ones who can selectively breed livestock, or make good music, or develop metallurgy. God has endowed many unbelievers with knowledge and skill to provide services, create art, and invent technologies that benefit everybody. In 1 Kings 5:6, we read that Solomon employed the Sidonians to provide him with the timber because no one in the ancient world possessed the same degree of skill as they possessed in cutting timber. And when Solomon began work on the Temple, he sent word to King Hiram of Tyre and asked Hiram to send him a skilled craftsman to oversee the project. So Hiram responded,
Now I have sent a skilled man, who has understanding, Huram-abi …. He is trained to work in gold, silver, bronze, iron, stone, and wood, and in purple, blue, and crimson fabrics and fine linen, and to do all sorts of engraving and execute any design that may be assigned him, with your craftsmen, the craftsmen of my lord, David your father.
So he didn’t place a fellow Israelite over the project. He chose a man from Tyre. The men of Sidon were better lumberjacks and the men of Tyre were better builders. And Solomon doesn’t limit the use of their products to secular buildings. He employs their technology in the Temple of God even though the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon were some of the most notorious sinners in the Bible!
All of us are greatly indebted to the inventions of Thomas Edison. He developed the carbon microphone that would later be used in telephones. He invented the light bulb and then patented a system for electricity distribution in 1880. Later he invented the phonograph and an early motion picture camera called “the Kinetograph.” Think of what life would be like without electricity, light bulbs, audio and video recording. If you’re Amish, you’d probably say, “Better.” But if you’re like the rest of us, you’re grateful for all the technology that came out of Thomas Edison’s inventions. But it’s highly unlikely Edison was a believer. When asked whether he believed in God, Edison responded, “What you call God I call Nature, the Supreme intelligence that rules matter.” And he goes on to assert, “It is doubtful in my opinion if our intelligence or soul or whatever one may call it lives hereafter as an entity or disperses back again from whence it came, scattered amongst the cells of which we are made.”
What’s my point? Not everything produced by an unbelieving world is bad in-and-of-itself. True, unbelievers cannot fill and subdue the earth for the glory of God. So in terms of their motives, unbelievers are unable to do good. Moreover, unbelievers often transgress God’s laws. They take another man’s life or another man’s wife. They steal and lie in order to make money. They use God’s world in ways that God’s word prohibits. Nevertheless, thanks to God’s common grace unbelievers are able to write good books. They’re able to create beautiful music. They’re able to invent surgical techniques and medication that save lives. They’re even able to be kind, fair, generous, loving, and honest.
Concluding Applications
I’d like to conclude this brief study with three practical exhortations in light of our brief theology of human culture.
(1) Let’s thank God for his common grace.
Our freedom to worship God today is largely due to God’s common grace. And think of the ways in which modern technology is making it possible to get the gospel to every tribe and every tongue.
(2) Let’s learn to make distinctions between what is good and what is not good in human culture.
It’s not enough to adopt en toto the “Christ against culture” position. Nor would it be biblical adopt absolutely a “Christ pro-culture” position. In reality, Jesus is opposed to some aspects of human cultures—particularly in relation to evil motives and transgressions of God’s law. On the other hand, there are aspects and dimensions of human culture that can be viewed and enjoyed as gifts from God. Moreover, there are some aspects of human culture to which we may accommodate in order to communicate the gospel more effectively (1 Cor. 9:19-22; 10:31-11:1).
(3) Let’s work towards redeeming culture for the glory of God.
Redeeming or transforming human culture doesn’t necessarily mean starting from scratch. It doesn’t mean that as Christians we have to “reinvent the wheel” just because an unbeliever originally came up with the patent. As we’ve seen, God has endowed many unbelievers with knowledge and skill. As a result, at a certain level they can do a fine job at subduing the earth. If you and I were to watch a video of two expert tire repairmen at work—the one a Christian and the other an unbeliever—what difference would we see? Probably none! The main difference between the two would be a matter of the heart. One would be putting that new tire on the car for the glory of God; the other merely for his paycheck.
That’s the part of human culture we need to change. We also need to change aspects of human culture that are clearly violating Scripture: abortion, euthanasia, divorce, adultery, homosexuality, theft, fraud, perjury, crass materialism, etc. And the best way to transform culture is to preach the gospel so that it can transform the people who make culture. “If any man is in Christ Jesus, he is a new creation; old things have passed away and all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17).
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on November 4, 2009
I think most of my readers are committed to the belief that the Scriptures cannot err because they are the infallible word of God. But I hope we’re also honest enough to admit that our interpretations of Scripture can sometimes be wrong. Therefore, as I noted earlier, it is not always wrong for us to allow science to influence and even correct our exegesis of the Genesis 1 “creation week.” Some Bible scholars have felt constrained by the claims of modern science to reformulate their reading of the creation week and to offer alternative interpretations that allow for a much greater span of time than that permitted by the more traditional six-day framework. We surveyed these modern alternatives in Part 1 of this series.
In my estimation, however, I am not convinced that scientific evidence for an old earth and universe is conclusive. For one thing, history has often witnessed the modification or replacement of older scientific hypotheses with newer ones. The geocentric view of the solar system, which was popularized by the Greek mathematician Ptolemy and endorsed by the early and medieval church, gave way to the heliocentric view advanced by Copernicus. The presuppositions of Newtonian physics had to be significantly modified when Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity gained credibility. My point is that we should not feel constrained to embrace scientific theories about the age of the earth and the universe that are relatively recent and possibly subject to revision as more data is collected in the future. Moreover, many of the modern claims of science regarding the age of the earth and the universe are interpretations of empirical data, which in turn are based upon the faulty presuppositions of an absolute uniformitarianism and a materialistic evolution. In contrast, many Christian scientists who are committed to the authority of Scripture have offered alternative interpretations to the empirical data that suggest a much younger earth and universe. And while it’s possible to get in a spaceship and confirm Copernicus’ view of a heliocentric solar system, it’s not possible to climb into a time machine in order to verify empirically the age of the earth and universe.
In summary, after reviewing the teaching of Scripture in the light of scientific claims, I have found no compelling reason from Scripture or from science to reject the traditional view of six days of Genesis 1. Indeed, I believe the biblical evidence favors the more traditional interpretation of Genesis 1. The following six considerations support the traditional view of the creation account in which God created the universe in a period of time corresponding to six 24-hour days.
1. The first chapters of Genesis are real history.
Advocates of the Mythological view deny that the early chapters of Genesis (usually 1-11) furnish us with a real historical account of origins. And even though Literary Framework advocates will refers to the early chapters of Genesis as “Primeval History,” some of them flatly reject the historicity of these chapters. For example, Howard Van Till, whom I cited in Part 1 of this series as a Literary Framework advocate, writes,
When we Westerners read a story, we expect it to be written as an answer to the question “What happened?” But the stores of primeval history are more like parables than like journalistic reports of events. They illustrate the identity and character and status of God, humanity, and nature. They were never intended to answer questions about precisely what happened…. In typically Eastern fashion, primeval history answers these questions with illustrative stories that share many features with the parables we find elsewhere in Scripture.
Let me illustrate Van Till’s point: Jesus told a story in the gospels about a man who had 100 sheep, but then lost one. So great did the man love each individual sheep that he left the ninety and nine sheep in the open pasture in order to search for the one lost sheep until he found it. Now did that really happen? Was Jesus describing a real historical event? Most commentators concede that Jesus was probably just telling a story as an illustration of spiritual truth.
That’s what Dr. Van Till believes Moses is doing in Genesis one. Moses is just telling us a story. Thus, Van Till goes on to argue: “The days of the Genesis 1 have nothing to do with the cosmic timetable; they are simply literary devices in the story, not actual temporal intervals directly corresponding to events in cosmic history.” If Van Till is correct and these chapters are not dealing with real history, then it makes no difference whether six literal 24-hour days are given. History is not the point. The spiritual truths contained in the passage are the important point. Is this the way we should interpret the Genesis creation account?
There are good reasons, however, for treating the early chapters of Genesis, including chapter one, as real history. To begin with, the early chapters of Genesis contain the kind of language and sentence structure that characterizes straightforward, though highly stylized, historical narrative. Very little poetry is found in the text of Genesis 1-11. Moreover, the language of these chapters is predominantly literal and not figurative. The references to land, sea, sky, stars, grass, trees, birds, fish, and animals are all literal. More importantly, the narrator actually identifies several geographical referents and persons by name, which is not the usual custom of parable. Furthermore, the Hebrew language employs a particular kind of sentence structure for historical narrative, which predominates not only the historical books of the OT, such as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, but also the book of Genesis, beginning with Genesis chapter one.
Second, the early chapters of Genesis are inseparably linked with the other historical narratives of Genesis. Beginning at chapter 12 and reading the text backwards, one may trace the ancestral lineage of the patriarch Abraham to Terah (11:27-32), then further back to Shem (11:10-26), and eventually to Noah (10:1). Proceeding to chapter 5, one finds Adam at the root of Noah’s family tree (5:3). And who was Adam’s father? According to the immediately preceding verse, Adam was created by a direct act of God (5:1-2). And Moses provides a description of Adam’s creation in 2:4a which begins with the introduction: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” The Hebrew phrase translated “these are generations” (‘elleh toledot) or its close equivalent occurs ten other times in the book of Genesis and three times elsewhere. In each case the phrase introduces either a genealogical list or a historical account, and in none of the Old Testament references outside primeval history does the phrase ever preface a non-historical account. Thus, its function in Genesis 2:4 is not to point backward to the Genesis 1 creation account but to point forward to the subsequent history of creation, beginning with Adam, and to mark that narrative as real history. Indeed, the repeated use of the phrase throughout the book of Genesis serves to bind all the narratives together as one historical corpus of literature. Even a critical scholar like Claus Westermann is forced to acknowledge this point and remarks,
What is peculiar to the biblical primeval story is that it links the account of the primeval period with history. Both J and P prefix the primeval story to a history which begins with the call of Abraham. The transition from one to the other is smooth, and herein lies the key to their meaning for Israel. The whole of the primeval story is thereby freed from the realm of myth.
Indeed, the historicity of Adam and Abraham are inseparably linked to the historicity of Jesus Christ. Especially relevant are the genealogies of the chronicler (1 Chronicles 1-9) and Luke who both treat Adam as the historical progenitor of the promised “seed,” whom Luke identifies as Christ (Luke 3:23-38). If one yanks the thread of primeval narrative from the cloth of history, he runs the risk of unraveling the entire garment of redemptive history and undermining the gospel. The testimony of Psalm 136 is also important as the psalmist extols God’s mighty deeds in the historical context of the Exodus (vv. 10-15), the Wilderness (v. 16), the Conquest of Canaan (vv. 17-22), and his own day (vv. 23-25), and he links them with God’s mighty acts in Creation (vv. 5-9), drawing from the very language and sequence of the Genesis creation account.
Third, Jesus and the Apostles treat the early chapters of Genesis as historical. Of special interest is Paul’s use of the Genesis two account of Adam and Eve’s creation to support male-headship in 2 Timothy 2:13: “For it was Adam who was first (protos) created, and then (eita) Eve” (emphasis mine). Contrary to the Literary Framework interpreters, Paul appears to interpret the Genesis creation account chronologically! In light of these considerations, we who believe in the inspiration of Scripture cannot adopt any view that denies or downplays the historicity of the Genesis creation account. The Genesis creation account is not Moses’ version of Aesop’s fables. It is not just a nice bedtime story. If it the story of creation is fable and a lot of wrapping paper which we can discard, as Dr. Van Till claims, then what should we think about other Biblical teachings that find their roots in the first chapters of Genesis?
Take, for example, marriage. When Christ or the apostles are talking about marriage, or divorce, or the woman’s role in marriage, where is their doctrine grounded? Their doctrine is grounded in something God did in time-space history. God actually created a man whom He named Adam and a woman to be his helper, whom Adam named Eve. That really happened! And because God really did create one man and one woman in time-space history, then polygamy, adultery, homosexuality, and feminism are wrong. But if we do away with the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2, then we are left with a story of events that did not really happen the way they are told. We are left without a foundation for monogamous marriage. What about sin? Is sin just a genetic defect? Is sin merely some kind of animal mechanism? Or does sinful human behavior stem from a real historical fall? Was there a real Devil who tempted mankind to rebel against God? Was there a real historical Adam and was there a real Eve who took the forbidden fruit and sinned against God? Was Paul referring to historical events when he wrote in Romans 5:19, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous”? If Adam’s fall was just a myth or story, then what does that say about Jesus’ death on the cross? What about human death? Is human death purely natural? According to evolution it is. In fact, in evolution death means progress, and therefore death is something good. It is a means by which the human species evolves into something better. But that’s not what the third chapter of Genesis teaches us. The third chapter of Genesis links death to a point in history when man rebelled against God and when God pronounced a curse upon man. The point I am trying to underscore is that many important doctrines in our Bible rest upon the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis. If we are to give a solid Biblical answer to such issues as pornography, homosexuality, feminism, racism, euthanasia, and divorce, then we must zealously guard the historical foundation upon which the rest of the Bible answers those questions. For “if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).
2. The six days of Genesis 1 most likely convey a chronological and not merely a topical structure.
Not everyone who espouses the Literary Framework view denies the historical character of Genesis 1. For example, writers like Meredith Kline and Lee Irons strongly affirm that Genesis 1 describes real events that took place in time-space history. They insist, however, that the narrative structure is not chronological but topical in character. For example, they highlight an apparent symmetry between the first three days and the last three days. Day One, which describes the separation of light and darkness, corresponds to Day Four, which describes the light bearers, the sun, moon, and stars. Day Two, which describes the sea and the sky, corresponds to Day Five, which describes the creation of sea creatures and winged creatures. Day Three, which describes the separation of land from water and the sprouting of vegetation, corresponds to Day Six, which describes the creation of land animals and mankind. To summarize, the first three days describe realms or kingdoms, whereas the last three days describe inhabitants or rulers. The following table should help to illustrate this literary structure:
Others have proposed a similar scheme, viewing the first three days as God’s response to the earth’s “formless” condition and the last three days as God’s response to the earth’s “empty” condition (Gen. 1:2). It seems clear that there is a parallel literary structure in the text. But there are several reasons for interpreting the narrative Genesis 1 chronologically, despite the presence of literary parallelism. To begin with, the presence of a carefully crafted literary parallelism need not preclude chronological sequence. In fact, the entire narrative of Genesis is replete with examples of literary parallelism that in no way compromises or precludes chronological sequence. For example, the obvious chiastic parallelism of the Tower of Babel narrative in no way precludes chronological sequence:
Other examples could be cited. As one critic of the Literary Framework view has observed,
What difficulty would it be for [the Author of the Universe] to cause the most complex, refined literary form to coincide with the very way in which He Himself created all things in six days? Artistic form is in no sense opposed to an actual relation of facts, especially since the Author of the account is none less than the actual Creator of the facts which are described in that account.
So the mere fact that there is a literary structure and parallelism in the text does not ipso facto rule out the possibility of chronological sequence. Moreover, if Moses only desired to convey non-chronological information, then why did he bother to present that non-chronological information in the language of six successive days? Presenting God’s creative activity in terms of six successive days gives the natural impression of historical sequence. Derek Kidner has noted this point when he writes, “To the present writer the march of days is too majestic a progress to carry no implication of ordered sequence.” Finally, the narrative employs the kind of sentence structure that normally characterizes historical sequence. Therefore, despite the undeniable literary parallelism of Genesis 1, there is no good linguistic reason for denying the apparent historical sequence of the text.
3. The six successive “days” of Genesis 1 most likely correspond to six 24-hour days.
In chapter one of Genesis, the Bible describes each of the six units of time in which God created the heavens and the earth as a yom [יום] (vv. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). The question we need to answer is: What does the Hebrew word yom means in this passage? If we were to consult a standard Hebrew lexicon, we would discover that the term yom is primarily used to designate a 24-hour solar day. However, we would also discover some other usages as well. The term can also refer to daytime as opposed to nighttime or to an indefinite period of time. In fact, both of these secondary usages are found in the creation account: “daytime” (Gen 1:5, 14, 16, 18) and “a period of time” (Gen 2:4). This last reference speaks of “the day” in which “the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Obviously, in this verse the word “day” is referring to a period of time longer than just 24 hours.
That brings us to six yoms of Genesis one. Those who advocate the “Day-Age” view argue that the six yoms of Genesis 1 are just like the yom in Genesis 2:4. They’ַre referring to indefinite periods of time, i.e., “ages.” “If the term yom means more than 24 hours in 2:4,” they argue, “then why can’t it mean more than 24 hours in chapter one?” That’s a good question, and it deserves a good answer. I offer the following response:
Since the primary meaning of yom is a full day of 24 hours, then we should interpret the yoms of Genesis 1 as such unless something in the context indicates otherwise (as in the case of Gen 1:5, 14, 16, 18 and Gen 2:4). If we examine the context of Genesis one, we find a recurring phrase that helps us determine what Moses intended by the six days of creation. The phrase “evening and morning” occurs just prior to each of the creative yoms (vv. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). If each of the six creative days are made up of two phases—evening and morning—then it seems highly probable that Moses is referring to a unit of time that corresponds in terms of length to a 24-hour solar day. Even the Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist James Barr, who is no friend to fundamentalism, concurs when he writes,
So far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers … that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.
Moreover, as far as I can tell, whenever the word yom is used with an ordinal number, such as “first”, “second,” “third,” etc., it designates a 24-hour day (cf. Exod. 12:15, 16, 18; 16:22, 29; 24:16; Lev 7:17, 18; 12:3; Num 19:12, 19; Josh 6:4, 15; Judg. 19:8; etc.). Furthermore, if an indefinite period of time were intended, the author of Genesis could have used the common Hebrew word for age, namely, ‘olam (”age”). Finally, if we still have any doubt, Moses provides us with an interpretation of the six days of creation in Exodus 20:8-11 and 31:15-17:
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.
These passages are difficult to harmonize with the Day-Age Revelatory-Day views. To begin with, notice that God commands the Israelites to structure their life according to the pattern that He established at creation: six days of labor; one day of rest. Because man is the image of God, his pattern of labor and rest is to resemble God’s pattern of labor and rest. And contrary to the Day-Age view, that pattern is not six ages consisting of millions of years followed by a seventh age. Rather, God by His own example instituted the seven-day week at creation. Furthermore, these texts in Exodus do not teach us that God “revealed” His creative activity in six days. Rather, they clearly state that God “made” (‘asah) the world in six days, employing the same word used in Genesis for God’s creative activity (1:7, 25, 26, 31; 2:2, 3, 4, 18).
4. God’s creative activity described in Genesis 1:1 is not distinct from God’s creative activity in Genesis 1:2-31.
Verse one gives us the scope of God’s creative activity: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” We can interpret the phrase “the heavens and the earth” as a literary device (merismus) referring to the entire universe. Or we can interpret as referring to both the spiritual world (‘the heavens’) as well as the material world (‘the earth’). In either case, it’s referring to the whole of created reality. Then verses 2 through 31 describe the six-day creative process whereby God takes the raw materials He has created ex nihilo (v. 1; cf. Heb. 11:3) and fashions them into an orderly and beautiful world. The reference to the dividing of light from darkness (v. 4), the dividing of the waters (v. 6), the formation of continents and seas (vv. 9-10), the placement of heavenly bodies (vv. 14-18), and the creation of animals and human beings (vv. 24-28) certainly gives the impression of a worldwide creation rather than a mere localized creation. God is not merely creating the Land of Eden. He is forming the entire earth. The worldwide scope of this account is further confirmed by the fact that author attributes the creative activity to Elohim rather than to Yahweh-Elohim. The name Yahweh is reserved for chapter two when Moses does narrow his focus to the Land of Eden. Therefore, I find no support in Genesis 1 for the Limited Geography view.
What of the Gap theory? Advocates of the Gap theory argue that we should see two distinct creations in Genesis one with an indefinite gap of time in between. Genesis 1:1 refers to an original creation. But that original creation came under divine judgment, which they believe is alluded to in verse two. They point out that the phrase “formless and void” (tohu wabohu) is used elsewhere in Scripture to describe a land under divine judgment (Jer 4:23, 26-28). For that reason, they translate verse two, “But the earth became formless and void [emphasis added].” Sometime after this judgment, they argue, God began to recreate the world again (vv. 3-31).
In response to this view, the following points should be noted. First, the phrase translated “formless and void” means nothing more and nothing less than simply “formless and empty.” As such, it may describe a once civilized land that became a desolate wilderness by means of divine judgment (Jer. 4:23). But it may also describe a newly created earth that was about to be fashioned and populated by the creative power of God (Gen. 1:2). Second, the translation of verse 2—“But the earth became”—and the translation of verse 3—“replenish the earth”—do not accurately convey the Hebrew words and syntax. Third, if the sun, moon, and stars were not created until verses 14-19, then the Gap theory would require the existence of a previous world without sun, moon, and stars, which is very unlikely! In conclusion, it seems the Gap theory and the Limited Geography views are classic examples of reading ideas into a passage (eisegesis), rather than deriving them out of a passage (exegesis).
5. The Genesis creation account is neither primitive science nor modern science. It is God-breathed, supernatural science!
Webster’s dictionary defines the human endeavor of “science” as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.” A secondary definition given is “knowledge, esp. that gained through experience.” If Webster’s Dictionary has accurately defined the human endeavor of science, then such an endeavor by itself can tell us nothing about the origin of the world and mankind for the simple reason that no human being was present “in the beginning” to observe and experience creation! As Herman Bavinck rightly observes,
The question as to the origin of things, of man and animal and plant, and of the whole world, is an old question, but it always remains an appropriate one. Science can supply no answer to it. Science is itself a creature and product of time. It takes its position on the basis of things it investigates; from the nature of the case, therefore, science cannot penetrate to the moment when they were given reality.
There is One, however, who can “penetrate to the moment” of creation. The Creator Himself was present, and He has furnished us with an “eyewitness account” of His supernatural creative activity. Thus, it is inappropriate to speak of Genesis one as “primitive science” or “modern science.” I prefer not to refer to Genesis one as “scientific” at all since there was no human observer. But if one insists that the Genesis 1 creation account is scientific, then he must think of it as divinely revealed science.
6. Some of the claims of modern science regarding the great age of the universe are based upon faulty assumptions and are therefore unreliable.
Modern methods for dating the universe are often based upon uniformitarian and evolutionary assumptions. Absolute uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes operating today have been operating at the same rate in the past. Materialistic evolution assumes a natural origin and gradual development for creation. Both of these assumptions are unproven and contradict the teaching of Scripture. According to Scripture, God supernaturally created the universe out of nothing. Moreover, creation by its very nature requires some appearance of age. Furthermore, if the catastrophe of a worldwide flood disrupted the natural order, then attempts to date the earth based on the current rate of natural processes would seem questionable.
This is not to deny that there are scientific claims that are difficult to harmonize with a young earth. Nor do I intend to imply that any Christian who believes in an old universe also embraces absolute uniformitarianism or materialistic evolution. In fact, there are a number of Christian scientists who completely reject the doctrine of evolution but still believe in an old earth on the basis of their interpretation of astronomical and geological evidence. Nevertheless, it is my conviction that we should embrace the most natural reading of the biblical text until there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that constrains a different interpretation. In the end, we may discover that it was not Christians who needed to modify their interpretation of Scripture. Rather, we may learn that it was the modern scientists who needed to modify their dating methods based on the teaching of Scripture.
In summary, I find no compelling reason from Scripture or from science to reject the traditional view of six days of Genesis one. It seems to me that the most responsible interpretation of Genesis 1 reads the six days of creation as a timeframe corresponding to six 24-hour days.
Concluding Applications
In closing, I’d like to highlight several practical lessons that we might draw from our consideration of the creation week of Genesis 1.
(1) Although science may prompt us to reexamine traditional interpretations of Scripture, we must never allow science to be the final authority in interpreting the Bible.
Some discoveries in modern science may inform our interpretation, but they should never be made the ultimate basis or authority for our interpretation. The London Baptist Confession teaches in chapter one, paragraph ten:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but he Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.
So when modern science tells us the traditional interpretation of Genesis one is wrong, we should not unquestionably submit to these claims. We may examine the passage again in light of the claims of modern science. But we must let the Scripture be our ultimate guide.
(2) We must approach the claims of modern science critically and biblically.
An increasing number of scientists today are writing books refuting the theory of naturalistic macro-evolution. In light of these attacks, some evolutionists are beginning to concede the lack of evidence for their theory. For example, one evolutionist has made the following concession.
It should be noted at the outset that substantial fossil remains are known for all the species listed below [monkeys], but that there is virtually no fossil evidence relating to human evolution, other than a few fragments of dubious affinities…. The preceding period of human evolution therefore remains a complete mystery and an unfortunate major gap exists whatever view one takes of the time of divergence of hominids and great apes.
Let it be fixed in our minds, there is no conclusive evidence for macro-evolution. In my opinion, so-called theistic evolution is an oxymoron.
But what about the alleged “evidence” for an old earth and universe? Evolution may only be a theory, but has not the great age of the earth and universe been proven as a fact? Isn’t there geological evidence for an old earth? And don’t the immense size of the universe together with the speed of light suggest a creation much older than several thousand years? Perhaps. But there may be other valid explanations for the apparently great age of the earth. First of all, God’s original creation would have appeared older than it really was. If you and I were transported back in time to the sixth day of creation, the earth would have appeared much older than a few days. Adam and Eve would have appeared to be grown adults, not tiny zygotes or fetuses. In reality, they were only a day old. But in appearance, they looked to be in their twenties or thirties. Thus, the appearance of an old universe does not prove an old universe. Furthermore, biblical creationist scientists have suggested many other scientific models that harmonize the scientific evidence with the teaching of Scripture. The bottom line is that we should not simply swallow the claims of modern scientists. We should assess them critically and biblically.
(3) We must beware of equating any scientific theory even if proposed by a creationist with the teaching of Scripture.
As I indicated above, many Bible-believing scientists have proposed various scientific theories that seek to harmonize the teaching of Scripture with what we know from modern science. For example, some creationists account for the volume of water it took to cover the world with a universal flood by positing a pre-flood canopy of water that was in the atmosphere above the earth. But another creationist has recently rejected this theory and suggested that the waters came from an underground cavern beneath the crust of the earth. Who is correct? They both may be partially correct. Neither may be correct. Or one may be right and the other wrong. But the Bible does not demand that we take sides. The Bible teaches that there was a flood. The Bible speaks of rain from heaven and it also speaks of the fountains of the deep. But it does not provide us with much more detail regarding the origin of the floodwaters.
Based upon what we know of the speed of light, modern scientists argue that the starlight we presently see must have originated millions and billions of years ago. However, creationist scientists have proposed other theories to account for account for starlight and a relatively young universe. Astronomer Barry Setterfield argues that light used to travel much faster when the universe was created than it does today based on a series of historical measurements of the speed of light that seem to indicate a decrease of velocity over time. Dr. D. Russell Humphreys takes a slightly different approach and argues that time itself is not constant in relation to one’s position in the universe. These theories about varying speed of light or relativity of time may prove to be true. But they are just theories. It is not necessarily the teaching of Scripture. The Bible does provide us with information about the speed of light or rate of time at different points in the universe. Therefore, we must be careful not to equate any scientific theory with the teaching of Scripture, even when a Bible-believing scholar proposes that theory. It was not the Christian church that first expounded the view that the earth was the center of the solar system. Claudius Ptolemaeus, a 2nd century mathematician and astronomer first systematically expounded that view. But the Christian church made the fatal mistake of equating the Ptolemaic view with Scripture. We must avoid that mistake.
(4) We should beware our interpretation of Scripture is not motivated ultimately by a desire to please men but by a desire to please God.
Many evangelicals believe the view we have just espoused hinders our witness to the modern scientific community. For example, Hugh Ross, a Christian astronomer and advocate of the Day-Age view, writes
I see the community of scientists, including astronomers and astrophysicists, as an ethnos. God calls us to reach out to them as He does to every other group on the planet. And though He warns that the childlike simplicity of trusting Jesus will be a stumbling block for many, we have unwittingly placed another barrier in their path; the dogma of a few-thousand-year-old earth. I cannot imagine a notion more offensive to this group.
We can appreciate Dr. Ross’ desire to avoid placing unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of unbelievers. Certainly, we should remove any unnecessary offenses from our proclamation of the gospel. But I think we can imagine a notion more offensive to unbelieving astronomers and astrophysicists than a young earth. How about this one: “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). My point is not to discount Dr. Ross’ call for sensitivity. My point is to caution us against an unbiblical attempt to make the message of Scripture completely acceptable and palatable to the modern man. There will always be something offensive in the Bible’s message to the modern man. Therefore, let our motives for interpreting the Scripture be driven ultimately by a desire to be true to God’s word rather than a concern to satisfy the unbeliever.
(5) When a scientific claim appears to cast doubt upon the integrity of Scripture, we must trust in God’s Word even when we don’t have all the answers.
Modem science may at times raise questions which are difficult to answer, and may seem, at least on the surface, to contradict the teaching of Scripture. Evolution really came to the forefront in the early and mid 19th century. In 1859, Charles Darwin published his work, and initially many Bible believing Christians had a difficult time sufficiently answering the proponents of evolution. Even great theologians like Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield had a difficult time answering the critics. It seemed for a time that the Bible may be wrong, and as a result the faith of many was shaken.
But in time, the weaknesses and fallacies of evolution became more obvious and visible. Before long, even non-Christian scientists were questioning the theory of evolution. And by the second half of the 20th century, many excellent refutations of the theory of evolution have appeared. What’s the lesson? We must trust in God and in His Word, even when we don’t have all the answers. Eventually, they’ll come, or God may decide that we don’t need to know them. John L. Dagg, a Baptist theologian and contemporary with Charles Darwin, stated it this way:
The infidel delights to point out apparent discrepancies in Scripture, and he exults when he can announce some supposed discovery of science inconsistent with the word of revelation. While the infidel triumphs, men of weak faith stagger; but it is truly a weak faith that cannot withstand such a shock. We might as well doubt whether the sun shines, when its brilliance is eclipsed by a passing cloud. The mass of evidence that the Bible is the true word of God is so great that we can well afford to wait till the temporary cloud passes, with the confident expectation that the light will again shine, perhaps with increased splendor.
Has modern science ever cast a shadow of doubt upon your Christian hope? Has your faith been shaken? If it hasn’t already, God may permit to be in the future. The lesson is trust in God. That dark cloud does not cancel out the existence of the sun. The sun is still there; you just can’t clearly see it. Wait. Be patient. In God’s timing the clouds will break and the light of God’s Word will be brighter than it ever was before!
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
The recent earthquake in Haiti (January 12, 2010), which has claimed the lives of tens of thousands and has brought terrible grief and misery to hundreds of thousands, raises the age-old question, Why does God permit pain and suffering? In the video below, Pastor John Piper provides a biblical answer to that question. While the answer does not remove all mystery, it goes a long way toward making human pain and suffering intelligible, and it highlights the oft-repeated biblical principle that God is wise and powerful and good enough to overrule evil for the ultimate good of humanity and glory of his name.
