Click here to read Part 1, and here to read Part 2.
My confusion was deeper than ever. I knew that the universe was nearly 14 billion years old, so young-earth creationism was out. I also knew that the six days of creation were normal 24-hour days (there goes the Day–Age view) and that there was no gap between the first and second verses of Genesis 1 (there goes the Gap view), therefore old-earth creationism was out. What was left? I had no idea. I couldn't even imagine an interpretation of Genesis 1 that accounted for all these things being true—at least not one with an evangelical commitment to the authority of Scripture as the infallible word of God. And to put tighter constraints on my search, it was my opinion that for any view to be credible it had to take Adam seriously as a historical figure with an integral role in redemptive history. There was never the slightest inclination to regard either Adam or the creation account as an epic myth (in the sense of "this is not history").
How could all these things be true within a uniform and coherent biblical world-view? I didn't know, to be perfectly honest. The challenge was too intimidating for me at that point so I put the whole thing on the back burner (as the idiom goes). I had other issues to deal with at the time anyhow, far more interesting and edifying issues. It was roughly during this same period that I was beginning to embrace the Protestant theology of the early Reformers, so I was intensely preoccupied with studying the five solas of the Reformation, [1] the doctrines of grace, and covenant theology, as well as certain confessional documents such as the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession of Faith. These studies would consume most of the next five years or so, up until about 2010. (My personal library also expanded enormously during this period.)
But there were times when the pace of my studies would slow down and I was able to divert some attention to other matters, and invariably those matters would pertain to origins in one way or another. For a very brief period I was exploring a view known as the Framework Hypothesis, under which the days of Genesis 1 are not a chronological sequence of events but a literary framework for God's creative activity. [2] Yet I was barely introduced to this view when my studies were sidelined by a book recommended to me by Amazon. The author was a gentleman named John H. Walton and the book was called The Lost World of Genesis One (2009). [3] This professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and Wheaton Graduate School presented an interpretation which was genuinely unique, fascinating, and richly rewarding theologically.
According to the extensive historical and grammatical exegesis he presented—which was far more careful and detailed than anything I had ever read before—it appeared that Genesis 1 had nothing to do with the dawn of natural history. [4] We quite naturally think that to create is to bring something into existence, which is understood in material terms, but that is precisely the problem: it is "we" who think that way, and it's so intuitive and ingrained that we've never thought to question it. And we simply imposed our modern categories on this ancient text without a second thought, taking it for granted that people over three thousand years ago thought in the same terms. But maybe there are some important questions we need to ask related to responsible and meaningful exegesis, important historical and grammatical questions. The ancient Israelites didn't view the world, as we do, in terms of its material structure and properties, as if it was a vastly complex machine engineered by a transcendent designer. They viewed it in terms of its order and function, as if it was a sacred kingdom with a sovereign ruler. [5]
Consistent with the larger context of Genesis and the rest of Scripture, the creation account was concerned with the dawn of redemptive history, as distinct from natural history, describing creation in terms of a cosmic temple inauguration over seven 24-hour days, which was to function as sacred space for God's image-bearers with whom he would dwell. This cosmic temple inauguration view Walton proposed was exegetically sound and theologically robust, and I was especially struck by how well it dove-tailed with what I had learned from Gregory K. Beale and his book, The Temple and the Church's Mission (2004). [6]
So if this was about the dawn of redemptive history roughly 6,000 years ago, the question of natural history going back several billion years is left unfettered. In other words, the days of creation are normal 24-hour periods and the universe is nearly 14 billion years old. Both are true. First was the dawn of natural history (during which the cosmic temple was constructed), which was followed by the dawn of redemptive history (when the cosmic temple was inaugurated over seven days). This, therefore, is how I understand the relationship between revelation (Scripture and nature) and interpretation (theology and science): Natural history disclosed through general revelation has its meaning and purpose unveiled in redemptive history disclosed through special revelation.
My confusion was gone, my faith was invigorated.
John M. Bauer
@JohnMBauer1
Approx. 900 words
Footnotes:
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[1] The five solas are: (1) sola Scriptura, (2) sola gratia, (3) sola fide, (4) solus Christus, and (5) soli Deo gloria. I would recommend the 1996 Cambridge Declaration for more information.
[2] See for example Henri Blocher, In the Beginning (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 39–59.
[3] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009). I have a fourth printing from 2009, which ended up becoming very worn and battered, thus I also have a 12th printing from 2013. For whatever reason, the page numbers are not the same. So the page numbers cited refer to the 2013 printing.
[4] Ibid., 95. "Viewing Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as temple does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story."
[5] The differences between our modern cognitive context and that of the ancient Israelites are remarkable. Even regarding something as mundane as the earth being a planet, they didn't have that understanding. "The Hebrew word for 'earth' was the word for 'land' or 'soil,' not 'planet'." Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011), 233n10. There is good reason to think that they didn’t even have a concept of planets.
[6] Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
No comments:
Post a Comment