← Defenders Podcast
Defenders Podcast
Defenders 3: Excursus on Creation of Life and Biological Diversity (Part 6): The Days of Divine Proclamation Interpretation
Loading summary
Transcript57 lines
- [00:03]
A
As we continue our discussion of various alternative interpretations of the creation account of Genesis 1, we turn today to a view that I'm calling Days of Divine Proclamation interpretation. This is a different title than on your outline Days of Divine Proclamation interpretation. And I'm using this title to comprise two different interpretations of Genesis one, the first being Days of Divine Fiat and the second, days of Divine Revelation. You'll remember that when we studied creatio ex nihilo in Genesis chapter one, we noticed that we seemed to have in that chapter two different sorts of creation. Creation by God's word and then creation by God's action. And these two traditions seem to be interwoven rather like a braid throughout the six creative days of Genesis Chapter one. Now, the element that is common to both of the views that we're considering today is, is that the six days are days of divine proclamation only, not days of divine working. They differ in whether the divine proclamation occurs before or after the accomplishment of that proclamation. So the first view, the divine fiat is interpretation, holds that at some point in the past, God made a series of divine proclamations over six consecutive 24 hour days. He said, let there be blank. And the word in Latin for this is fiat fiat lux, let there be light. And so these fiats or proclamations were then subsequently fulfilled, perhaps over very long ages, subsequent to the six days of divine proclamation. So on day seven, on this view, God does not cease rather from working as on the traditional interpretation. Rather he ceases from proclaiming. Now, the days of Divine Revelation view differs in that it holds that the seven days of divine proclamation that are spoken of in Genesis 1 are not days prior to the origin of things, but rather later days during which God revealed to Moses or the author of Genesis, whoever he might have been, what God did. So each day is again a literal consecutive day of divine revelation, describing God's creative activity rather than creative days themselves. So both of these views thus separate God's proclamation from God's action and fulfillment of that proclamation, and interprets Genesis 1 to describe six consecutive literal days of divine proclamation. Now, before we give some assessment of this view, is there any discussion by way of a comprehension nature about these two interpretations? Yes, we have a comment here.
- [04:01]
B
So the days of divine revelation does that still, what claim does that make
- [04:06]
A
about the actual creation itself? Though it could have happened over a long period of time, you could imagine indeed an evolutionary history of the earth, much as is described in standard evolutionary theory. But at some point in the relatively recent past, God spoke to Moses or the author of Genesis over six literal consecutive days, telling him what he did in the past to bring about the created order. So these are six days of divine revelation. Okay, okay. Any other discussion what might be said by way of assessment of these views? Well, let's talk first about the divine fiat view. Supporters of this view draw attention to the fact, which we've already mentioned in our assessment of other views, that the fulfillment of God's fiats takes longer than one day to bring about. The most obvious example of this, I think, is day three with respect to the earth's bringing forth vegetation. We shouldn't imagine that the author thought that this was like something happening in time lapse photography. Rather, the fulfillment of the command to let the earth bring forth vegetation bearing seed after its kind, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind took place over much longer than just a 24 hour period of time. But supporters of this view will also draw our attention to the draining of the primordial waters from the land. When God creates the dry land, the primordial ocean didn't drain, just dry up overnight. The subsiding of the waters, the rising of the mountains, and the gathering of the waters into seas and lakes and rivers would take place over very long periods of time, not within an overnight period. Now, although I think that the proponents of this view are quite right in drawing attention to this feature of the text, and this feature is not unique to the divine fiat view, this is equally well explained by taking the days non literally. If we don't take them as 24 hour periods of time, then this feature of the text isn't really surprising. If the days are not literal, then it's no problem that the fulfillment of God's proclamation should take a long time to bring about. Rather, it seems to me that the crucial question facing the divine fiat view is whether we have good grounds in the text for divorcing the fulfillment of the proclamation from the proclamation itself. And here I have to confess that I'm skeptical of this bifurcation that the text seems to imply. I think the fulfillment of each fiat on the day that it was made prior to the commencement of the next day. And two considerations I think come into play here. First, some of the proclamations presuppose the existence of the things previously proclaimed to be. Some of the proclamations seem to presuppose the existence of things previously proclaimed to be so. For example, the proclamation let the earth bring forth on days three and four presupposes that the waters have already drained away and gathered into seas, lakes, rivers, and so on, as God earlier proclaimed. If it seems implausible to think that God proclaims, let the earth bring forth, while in fact the earth is still covered with a primordial ocean, and there was no dry land at that point. Similarly for the creation of man on the fifth day, when the text says, let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth, it presupposes the existence not only of the dry land, but also of all of the animals that God has made over which man is proclaimed to have dominion. So it seems to me that some of these proclamations most naturally presuppose that the entities proclaimed to be in the earlier proclamations have come to exist. Secondly, the word of approval, which is constantly repeated throughout the narrative and God saw that it was good, implies that the divine fiat has been fulfilled, the end result has been accomplished and is now evaluated by God. It's not still future and yet to be fulfilled. And especially at the end of the creative week when the text says, and God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. It seems most plausible to think that God is here giving a positive evaluation of the things that have come to be in fulfillment of the proclamation. And so I'm skeptical of the divorce that this view postulates between the proclamation and the fulfillment of the proclamations. Now, the days of divine revelation interpretation avoids these problems by holding that both the divine fiat and the fulfillment are in the past. Both the fiat and the fulfillment are in the past. What happens over the six days is just God's revealing what he has done. But this view strikes me as rather implausible. There's nothing in the text to suggest that these are revelatory days. The text does not say, for example, and God spoke to Moses saying, etc. Etc. Etc. Rather, the days describe what God does on each day, not what he reveals to Moses on each day. He then pronounces his work good, and each day ends with evening and morning. There's no suggestion that what we have here are days of revelation rather than days of God's creativeness activity. Indeed, quite the contrary, it seems to me. So I do not find the days of divine proclamation interpretations to be the most plausible interpretation of the text. Now, I'm sure there's some discussion at this point, and you're welcome to interact with what I've Said, Okay, Ben, I
- [12:13]
C
was going to wait and see if anybody else was going to say something first. But that criticism I've not heard of my view, and I like hearing criticisms of the view, the idea that the account presupposes the existence of things. I think we have two things going on in the account. The account is a revelation after the fact that it's done to mankind. At some point, God had to reveal what he had done to mankind, done for mankind in the past. But I think he could tell it to the people. To them, everything was completed, so to speak, of a presupposition of fish appearing in the sea that have already been separated, for example, makes sense. But in his proclamation of it in the past, he could have proclaimed it over six days, even though what he had proclaimed wasn't already in existence. Does that make sense?
- [13:20]
A
Well, I take it that just is the view. And the question will be, do we think that's plausible? And here different interpreters obviously can have different points of view on that. It just struck me as implausible, Ben, to think that here is a planet covered with this primordial ocean that is not yet drained away, and God is saying, let man have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and the animals on the land when there aren't any such things. So your point that you're making, I take it, is that when this is revealed to Moses, this is all ex post facto, and so you can look back on it and say that these things did come to exist. The question is whether that's the best interpretation of the proclamation at the time it was given.
- [14:18]
C
If I'm allowed. I mean, if somebody wants to say something, by all means. But I just have two other points that I'd like you to respond to. One would be, I know you take the days as metaphorical. If you take them as literal, though if the days are taken as literal days and what can't be, and what was spoken on that day can't be fulfilled on that day, then my view would sort of naturally follow. If the days are taken as literal and what was spoken can't be fulfilled on that day, then that would have to be the case. So the question, I guess, between us then would be, do we believe the days are literal versus metaphorical?
- [15:06]
A
That seems to me right, if they are literal and chronologically arranged. I'm thinking in my mind right now of the next view. We're going to talk about the literary framework view. I could see where someone might think that if this is Just a literary framework that the days could be literal, but that the fulfillment could take longer. I'm not sure, maybe you're right. But I do think whether or not we construe them as literal consecutive 24 hour days is going to be a really pivotal question.
- [15:45]
C
And that's where I would see the evidence in the text as supporting them being literal days, whereas the framework view would not. But since you bring up the framework view, one of the things that I hold in common with them is the framework view often sees dischronologies in the account. One of the things that I did when I was literally looking at the text and the order of it, it's interesting to notice that there's a five fold pattern. There's a proclamation, there's a fulfillment phrase, there's action phrases of some sort, just extra information. There's the evening and morning phrase and then a numbered day. So you've got those five things appearing on every day. But sometimes the second and third one, the fulfillment phrase, and the extra information are inverted. So sometimes what you have is you have some statements in the account that are obviously out of chronological order. And I wondered why the account is both in chronological order, a numbered series, and evening and morning, and yet contains some things that are logically out of chronological order. And the framework view points some of those out. And that was another thing. That's the reason why I think after God says that his proclamation is fulfilled, the information he gives after that is not necessarily in chronological order.
- [17:17]
A
Actually, Ben, before you began to attend this class, when we discussed creatio ex nihilo, I also presented such a position with respect to some of those elements of that second braid that I described. You've got creation by the word, creation by action. And what I suggested following John Sailhammer, was that this may not be the braiding together of two different creation traditions, but rather the second braid may be simply the comment of of the author on the creation by divine fiat, and therefore doesn't necessarily follow chronologically. This is most plausibly the case with respect to the creation of the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. On the view that we're talking about the divine fiat view, these were actually created prior to the first day when God created the heavens and the earth. And that when it says on the fourth day God made these celestial bodies, it's simply telling us who is responsible for placing them in the firmament or in the sky, but not necessarily implying that they were created on the fourth day. And I'm very open to that. That view. That's also part of the divine fiat view, as you explicate it.
- [18:48]
C
One more.
- [18:48]
A
All right, one more. And then we'll. You'll have.
- [18:51]
C
Because you brought up day four, and it's a perfect example. Day four. God says, let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens for the following three reasons to give light on the earth to mark days and weeks and signs and seasons. And then he. Then it says, and it was so.
- [19:08]
A
Yes.
- [19:08]
C
Okay, so there's the fulfillment phrase, what God proclaimed, and it was so. And then verse 16 adds in and God made the lights. Okay, so my point, there would be. It can't be so until the lights are made. But yet the lights are made. The mentioning of it is mentioning after the. That's why it can't be in chronological order. Day four also presents the example, one of the examples that I give to show that what God actually proclaimed on that day could not happen on that day, because he says two things. Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens, and let them be for these reasons. They couldn't have been used for those reasons until mankind appeared on the earth to use them for those reasons. So the fulfillment of the proclamation on day four can't be fulfilled until at least day six, when mankind is there to use the lights for those purposes.
- [20:11]
A
Yes, that's a good point. Thank you. Anyone else? Bruce?
- [20:20]
B
Might as well. I don't get wrapped around the axle on any of these, as we've talked about before, bring Romans 4:17 to bear here that God calls all things as though they are. And so. But with respect to this view.
- [20:38]
A
Now, wait a minute, Bruce, what are you reading into Romans 4:17?
- [20:41]
B
Well, because this is a question of what came before and after, and whether this is in the mind or not in the mind. But Romans 4:17 is. God calls all things as though they are.
- [20:55]
A
Yeah. No, but that translation you're quoting is rather misleading. It makes it sound as though they're not, but God calls them as though they are. Kind of fictionalism. But let me read you the RSV for that passage. What it says is that God gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. I take that to be an affirmation of creatio ex nihilo. He. He calls things into existence.
- [21:25]
B
Exactly. But it's taking away our perspective. Time. All these views are trying to introduce how we see time and days. So I see the time and days as secondary in the fact that God created and man fell. These are the primary Issues. But with regard to this particular view, this was going to be a lead into the discussion. On this particular view, you examples in the Old Testament where God calls either before the fact he's going to do something or after the fact and is done. Like in the case of Aaron, he said one day go up with your son Eleazar up to the mountain because he's going to take over. You're going to go up, but you're not coming down. Same thing with the death of Moses. I think he gave revelation to Moses about his own death and that was fulfilled.
- [22:20]
A
Okay, now let's understand whether we agree or not, at least the point of my critique. In both of those cases, Eleazar and Moses exist, right? So of course God can give prophecies of what's going to be done in the future. But the prophecy concerns something that exists when he says take your son Eleazar, etc. There is such a person. But on this view, when God says let the dry land bring forth vegetation and fruit trees, there isn't any dry land. It's still this primordial ocean that's slowly draining away.
- [23:03]
B
Sure, but he knows there is going to be dry land, right?
- [23:06]
A
Of course. Okay, so. And then that will. You can weigh for yourself then whether or not that's a problem for the, the interpretation or not. Brad,
- [23:26]
D
I keep hearing the statement that of course this couldn't happen in a day. You couldn't have all of the seas dry up from the land in a day. You couldn't have the plants grow in one day. It'd be like time lapse photography and everything else. It's God. I totally reject uniformitarianism, that everything that we see happening here and the time that we see happening here had to be applied to the first days. I think that's ridiculous.
- [24:04]
A
After class last week, Brad, I reflected a little bit on your comments from last week on this very head. And it seemed to me that there's a misunderstanding here of the point that the critics of the day age interpretation or the proponents of the divine fiat view are making. The claim is not based on naturalism or anti supernaturalism or bias against miracles. Of course God could make the plants pop up like on a film going on fast forward. But of course he could just make the seas and the lakes instantly. Why drag it out over six days in fact. So the point is not about what God could do. Nor is this critique based on some sort of anti supernaturalism. Rather it's based solely on what does the text say God did. And here I think that the proponents of the divine fiat view are quite right in saying that when you look at the, what the text actually says, it is most plausible to think that it's describing processes that would take a long time to fulfill. And it would be very anachronistic, I think, to project back onto the author of Genesis things like time lapse photography and films being run on fast forward. That is very, I think, anachronistic to read in that light. We want to read it in the way that it would have been understood at that time. And the seas gathering together describes a process that would, that normally takes a long time. And there's nothing in the text to indicate that this took place in a sort of speeded up kind of fashion.
- [26:00]
D
I think if I can.
- [26:03]
A
Yes, of course, disagree.
- [26:06]
D
This is all anachronistic. It is describing what happened in those six days. So to say I'm going to have to explain this using the processes of today, of how the world was created applies a requirement to this revelation that is, I think, unfair.
- [26:31]
A
Well, now remember, it's not just today. It would be the day, the time of the author, God's doing. He's familiar with plants sprouting and bearing seed and bearing fruit. And there's nothing to me that would suggest that this author is thinking of this in terms of these sorts of speeded up, ultra fast kind of processes.
- [27:00]
D
That's where we differ because I, I keep saying God is the author of Genesis. The structure of Genesis, the writing of Genesis, it is so perfect. There's no way Moses could have written it other than being told exactly what to write. I think God has to be the author of this.
- [27:23]
A
That's not in dispute.
- [27:24]
D
And that Moses going, oh, well, of course it couldn't have have happened in a day.
- [27:31]
A
Yeah, you're talking about could. Yeah, it's not what could have happened, it's what did happen. Yeah, okay.
- [27:39]
D
I mean, you're saying that. I guess what I'm saying is that the way it's written, if you say, I don't apply uniformitarianism to it, I don't apply that to it, the waters could be dried up in a day. The plants could have. The earth could have generated plants in a day. And notwithstanding photography effects or anything else, Moses didn't have to understand that he was told that that happened and that's what God told him. And I believe that.
- [28:14]
A
Do you think that God couldn't have used figures of speech in revealing this to Moses or that it couldn't have been.
- [28:22]
D
Absolutely, absolutely. He absolutely could have used figures of speech. The revelation to provide a revelation with figures of speech is not a revelation of what happened then.
- [28:38]
A
Well, now, boy, Brad, you've got to be careful. I mean, you would admit that divine revelation includes all kinds of figurative language. For example, in the Psalms, where God is portrayed as riding on the clouds with fire coming out of his nostrils and other sorts of figurative descriptions. I mean, Even in Genesis 2, you have God walking in the garden in the cool of the day and exhaling into Adam's nose to make him come alive. I mean, there's a lot of figurative speech right there. And to say that the author of scripture, I mean, God, the source of divine revelation, isn't free to use literary metaphors, but it comes out in the
- [29:23]
D
writing what is literal and what is figurative.
- [29:28]
A
Most oftentimes it comes out in what?
- [29:30]
D
In the writing, in the form of the writing. Is it poetry or.
- [29:34]
A
Yes, yes. Okay.
- [29:36]
D
And we started off with this series by saying, well, this isn't necessarily literal. And I disagree that. I insist say anything, but I disagree that that.
- [29:47]
A
Okay, well, we need to go back to that first section then on a literal interpretation, where I looked at the reasons that were offered for thinking that it's literal and found them to be inadequate. What Sarfatti argued was that because it's narrative, it's not poetry. Is correct, but it doesn't follow from that that it's literal. Narrative can be fable, mythology, folk tale. The narrative form of the text doesn't say anything about whether it's to be literal. So I yet to see a demonstration that it is meant to be taken. That way you can have the last word and then we'll move on. Go ahead.
- [30:32]
D
I think, yes, indeed, one could say all of Genesis is figurative. The idea of Adam and Eve, that's figurative. The idea of the creation of the world, that's all figurative. Let's make it all myth and figurative. I think God is revealing something not only to Moses, but to us in this day and time of what he revealed in Genesis. And if we take what is written in Genesis as saying, ah, it's all just figurative, then I start to lose any understanding that the Bible is true.
- [31:09]
A
I said you could have the last word.
- [31:10]
D
Wait a minute. Come on now.
- [31:12]
A
Hold on. I'm gonna. I'm gonna stay. I'm gonna stay by my word. But when we look at some further interpretations of Genesis over the next two weeks, or not the next few weeks, let's keep in mind your comments. Okay? All right, someone else.
- [31:39]
E
So you mentioned in your explanation here, something that probably should be addressed every time. But when God says he saw that it was good, this message of approval, I find that very interesting. Because why would God say that? Because anything he does should be good, like he doesn't make any mistakes. But here he says he saw that it was good. And he says this every time. So is he waiting till there's enough light or enough life that he says, okay, that's good enough, not too much, not too little, and now we can move on, now the earth can continue? I don't know what your thoughts on that.
- [32:17]
A
Well, that is rather similar to my second criticism of the divine fiat view is that God sees the vegetation that he has created, he sees the animals that now populate the land, and he evaluates it and says, this is good. And now I'm going to do the next step. Now I'm going to proclaim that man will come into being. So I do think that what you're saying is very similar to the second point that I was trying to make.
- [32:45]
E
To which view do you think that applies most, this particular message? Because this is written in the Bible and I think it has. Every one of these views have to take this into consideration.
- [32:54]
A
Consideration, yes, yes, I think that's quite right. And I think that this point would tell most against the divine fiat view. I can't think that it would apply to the day gap view or the day age view or the literal view that we've talked about so far, or the gap theory. It seems to me in all of those they could accept the point that at the end of each period of time or day, God evaluates what has been created and says it's very good or it is good. Okay, someone else, Jim,
- [33:40]
C
Does the creation
- [33:41]
A
of mankind as a mature, complete adult
- [33:49]
C
rather than a process raising from a
- [33:51]
A
child to an adult. Cap off this pattern that we see. Could not God create mature vegetation that can produce seeds and each day be complete in itself as a completed process? Mature? I'm so glad you've raised that point, Jim, because I think that the difference between the creation of man and the creation of the plants and animals is telling. In the case of man, we do have an instantaneous mature creation. Adam is formed out of the earth or Eve out of his rib, and God breathes into Adam the breath of life. There is no suggestion here that the earth brings forth Adam and that he grows up and becomes an adult. He is formed as a mature, fully formed adult. And what a contrast with the way in which the vegetation, the fruit trees and the animals are created. In that case, it says, let the earth bring forth vegetation and fruit trees and so forth. So would the trees in the Garden of Eden have had growth rings in them? Young Earth creationists that I've read have said, no, there were no growth rings inside the trees because they were just formed fully mature. And in the same way that Adam had no navel, the trees in the garden had, or none of the trees on earth had any growth rings. And that seems to me to be really in direct contradiction to the idea that the earth brought forth these plants and they grew. Now you could say, well, wow, that was speeded up. And so they would have had growth rings. But it took place ultra rapidly. And my view, indifference from Brad is I don't see that in the text. I don't see that he's imagining that taking place. But the difference between Adam and the formation of plants and animals, I think is a good contrast. Ben, this will be the last comment. We're about out of time.
- [36:01]
C
I'm going to try to make this quick. By the way, day two does not have and God saw that it was good. I've heard somebody quip that day two would have been a Monday. So God didn't think it was good to work on a Monday. So I always thought that was hilarious. In response to what you were just saying there, I would point out that Genesis 2:19 actually says the animals and the birds were created from the dust of the ground also. But yet verse 24 of chapter 1 says, Let the earth produce land animals. So it does seem to be that there's a bit of a contrast going on there. In response to his comment, I like to point out the fact that I like to take the text as literally as I can, and I think the literal meaning of the text is that it took a while for those proclamations. God intended for it to be that way. And a good example is on day five, God says, let the sea abound with an abundant variety of animals. And then he blessed the sea creatures to fill the sea. So my question is, who filled the sea with sea creatures? Not God. God blessed them to fill the sea with sea creatures. He had to make the sea creatures. But he said, be fruitful and multiply and fill the sea, and let birds multiply on the land. So he creates a few, and then it takes a while for the sea to be filled.
- [37:30]
A
Okay, good. Thank you, Ben. All right, well, we'll continue this discussion next week, but for now, let's close with a word of prayer, shall we? Our Father again, we're so thankful that we can meet together to sharpen one another by dialogue and ironic conversation and disagreement, even over these interesting questions. We pray that as we go out into the world this week, that, as was prayed earlier, that you would give us courage and boldness to stand for Christ in whatever opportunities we might have and wherever we might be. Through Jesus name we pray. Amen.