00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
Well, thank you for this opportunity to be with you. It has been a challenge. It's been very interesting and an opportunity, I think, for myself to grow in my own commitment to service to the church. And there's just a few things I want to say. I hope to come back to an issue that I'd like to come back to as soon as I can. But I want to reiterate a couple of things that I think are the issues that I thought were not suitably dealt with and addressed by the papers in particular yesterday, namely the meaning of the word literal. I will not agree to the assertion that my interpretation is non-literal. when the meaning of the word literal in the expression sensus litoralis is properly understood, and that's discussed in a footnote in my paper from the Oxford English Dictionary. Then secondly, I do want to I do want to speak about the tone with which we carry on this discussion. I think it's been, generally speaking, a very high level of discussion here, for which I'm grateful. But we must be very careful about the way we describe things. I think, for example, in Mr. Hall's paper yesterday, he referred to post-Darwinian exegesis. Now, as a simple matter of historical fact, that's wrong. That's, if you want to look in the Turkson from last fall, the standard exegetical moves that are involved in the day-age position, or the gap theory, a lot of these others, were all in place by 1850. That is not post-Darwinian. And to use a term like that, unnecessarily in plain fashion. And I think that is precisely what we don't need to do. We need no inflammatory rhetoric. And likewise, we have to be We have to apply the skills that we learn from critical thinking. And, you know, there's various logical fallacies, like the fallacy of the excluded middle, when you say that something is either-or, to say that it's either Younger Creationism or Theistic Evolution. is a fallacy unless you have proven that those are the only two alternatives. I will insist that they are not the only two alternatives and that there are others. And so we must be very careful with the logic and the structure of our arguments. I'll come back to some of these other issues in just a moment as well. Then there was a demurral from Dr. Piper on the second page of this handout regarding discourse analysis. And he says it's a new field, many areas of disagreement and differences of definition among proponents. And also Mr. Shaw had the same demurral. Well, I will just tell you that there are several reasons why I don't think that's a particularly good argument. First of all, the disagreements among the proponents do not pertain to the matters at hand. And so it's true that there are disagreements, but not on the issues to which I have used this particular discipline. And just as myself, my own orientation is I am a lexicographer and a grammarian. I study word meanings and particularly the verbal system. I like to tell people I'm just a grammarian. That's really all I am, for Hebrew and for Greek. And the understanding of how do you understand words in context with your methodology, how do you understand the verbal system, and how that works in the languages is, because that's what I'm oriented towards, I just am not able to take the approach, well, that's a new field and I can't get into that. I, instead, prefer to make use of whatever tools are available. The better to understand the verbal system and so on in order, the better to understand the text. The text, that's now for the text. That is, after all, what we must be most concerned about. And I want to agree very strongly with Dr. Harris on the matter of the seventh day. in the text of what we call Genesis 1, but strictly Genesis 2 versus 1 to 3, there is what in literary studies is called a gap. That is, something is left open, namely the absence of the refrain. That is a phenomenon which is screaming for an explanation. It demands that you explain it. And I think the I think perhaps we can go into more discussion of this, but as Dr. Harris has observed and as I have observed, it seems to me that we are drawing a fairly simple and straightforward conclusion from the absence of that refrain. And it's one that's as old as Augustine. And actually, it's older than that. Go to John 5 and verse 17. Look at the context. Look at the text of John 5, 17. The issue there is working on the Sabbath. That's what it's about. And what Jesus says is that God is working on His Sabbath. And likewise, Hebrews 4, verses 3-11, He thinks that Dr. Pfeiffer says that the seventh day is a type of God rest. Well, permit me, Dr. Pfeiffer, to enjoy some irony here. I don't want to talk about symbols. I want to talk about reality. Now, if you look at the text of Hebrews 4, and look at my paper. I think a lot of questions were raised. Mr. Shaw asked, why would we read something a certain way? Well, it's all discussed in my paper and in the footnotes and so on. And there may be some things that aren't clear. But I've got a discussion of this passage in Hebrews in a footnote in my paper. But I encourage you, just sit down with a decent translation of Hebrews 4, or read it in the Greek if you're able to. I will draw in some of those things in my own footnotes. And ask yourself, what is this author doing? He is asserting an identity between the rest into which God entered at the end of his creative route and the rest into which we participate when we are joined with Christ by a living faith. And the seventh day, our seventh day, our Sabbath, is not a What type of that? My friends, think of what public worship is, which is the high point of the Lord's Day. This is no type, this is a participation in the reality. Coming into the gathered worship of God's people, that's the doorway between heaven and earth. We're not talking about types and figures and symbols here, we're talking about participation in the reality. So I would strongly, strongly dissent from what you have said about the Seventh Day. And also, then I would, in Tasuko Kehinde-Ripper, who was a fine commentator, I would not take his opinion as the last word. I do not, myself, find it fruitful to rely on appeal to authority, which is done far too much in this discussion. As an exegete, as a historian, I think that Dr. Rankin's paper was just Very, very helpful. And even Mr. Hall's paper, in terms of talking about the sources and so on, instead of relying on the authority, very, very helpful and a very, very important skill and discipline to cultivate. So, you know, in the meaning of Asah, for example, in Exodus 20 and verse 11, you have to look at what it does in its context. That verse is a rationale for why our week is to follow the 6-in-1 pattern. And the rationale is grounded in God's activity. And the use of the verb assah, which looks back to the use of that verb in verse 9, is the context of the Fourth Amendment, and so we must pay attention to the context there. Time does run away from us. Speaking of appeals to authority, I want to come back to some of the issues that Dr. Dyer raised in his New Testament discussion. Certainly, I would be terrified at the possibility of disagreeing with Jesus or with Paul. And so if his arguments were strong and compelling, I would feel myself obligated to change my mind. However, if you look at his arguments based on the Gospels in Matthew 19 and Mark chapter 10, the argument is an appeal to authority. the appeal to person's opinion. And really, as an exegete, my question is, what do the Greek words mean? And the Greek word akle, beginning, just like the Hebrew word breshith, and the English word beginning, are not quite so definite and technical. In any context, you ask the beginning of what? And you can document that in the New Testament. Look at the use of our faith in 1 John, for example. And likewise, the beginning of creation, there is no need to take that as anything other than the beginning of their creation. And, you know, as for the testimony that the creation is there, the creator in Romans chapter 1, the fact that humans might not have been there to receive the testimony is irrelevant. I wasn't there to receive the testimony that the creation was giving 50 years ago. This is an irrelevancy. The creation has been giving its testimony to the creator from its very inception, for sure. But obviously I'm only obligated to respond to the testimony that it's been giving during my lifetime. I mean, I don't understand how you could take that otherwise. Now, as to the matter of death, and I think that's probably where I'm going to run out of time, Dr. Dyer was in an unfortunate position yesterday, and I have to apologize on that. Oh, okay, yeah, I still have five hours left. And partly because, part of his position is the fact that I tend to be an interactive listener, and so I shake my head and nod my head, and I'm sorry if that was off-putting to you. And the other problem is that he was interacting with a An essay of mine which is unpublished, which actually I didn't send to him, and so I'm not sure how it came to him. And there's a reason why it's not published, which is that I haven't worked out all the clarity issues in the essay. So I think he was stumbling over understanding what I was arguing. But in the matter of depth, let's stick to the text. Genesis 2.17, God says to Adam, when you eat of it, you will surely die. The verb inflections are second-person singular, speaking to Adam. You, Adam, will die. And then in the conversation between Eve and the talking snake, it becomes a second-person plural inflection, but it's you, Eve, and Adam who are the references. That is to say, the only preference of that in the Asian group is to human beings. You are importing into the text the idea that animal death is an evil, and by adding a word like suffering, you are actually using an emotional word which skews the discussion, and that shouldn't be done. Now, my particular essay comes out of the problem that arises from taking that as a reference to physical death. Because if you read the commentators, you will see that you get a wide variety of opinions on that. And I don't want to go into all the details. But in particular, James Barr makes the comment that, maybe I'll have to find the comment, Basically, to the effect, ah yes, the serpent was the one who was right in such matters. They did not die. If you interpret that as primarily a reference to physical death, you are led to cast aspersions on the reliability of God. I know you don't want to do that, and neither do I. And so I think there is a call not to do that. But that's not the major point. The major point is to recognize who is under discussion in any of those passages, whether you're talking about Genesis 2 and 3 or if you're talking about Romans chapter 5. It's human beings. Psalm 104 is a reflection on the creation narrative and is taking the view that the creation as the psalmist, and not just the psalmist, but all the psalms are for the public worship of the people of God, is leading all of us as the heirs of that psalmist and the covenant people. to rejoice in the glory and the beauty of the creation which still functions in spite of our sin according to the divine plan. The Bible teaches that we ourselves are the ones who are defective. The creation is not. Our defect, our sinfulness, doesn't quite dethrone us from our headship over creation, but it does lead us to sully every exercise of that headship, which then has its effect on the creation. leads into the proper interpretation of the groaning of this creation in Romans chapter 8. G. K. Chesterton said, there is no such thing as an uninteresting subject, only uninterested people. And there is no such thing as a fallen creation. There are fallen human beings who stain and defile that creation. Where in the text will you get the idea that animal death is an evil? Where in the text of the Bible will you get the idea that volcanoes and tornadoes are in themselves an evil? It is we who are out of filter, we who are out of step with the creation, and these in God's plan are used as a part of his providential disciplining, chastising, of us, his sinful creatures, I think that that is a far, far sounder reading of the text of the Bible, and perhaps we'll have a chance to come back to the proper interpretation of the Isaiah 11 passage as well. Thank you very much. Well, I have been grateful for the opportunity to come. In some ways, I feel perhaps I've been unhelpful to you. Insofar as the debate goes on in the PCA, my guess would be that the framework hypothesis adherence are probably more closely aligned with Klein and Picasso than I personally am. As I explained to Dr. Piper at the beginning, I'm a bit of an agnostic, or what I might call minimalist, on many of the questions involved in this. And so I'm not a good representative of Klein and Picasso in all their things, insofar as you'll have to do battle with that or interact with it in that concern. I did come, though, honored to be invited, and glad for the opportunity, because having many unanswered questions myself, I did hope that some of those might be enlightened, and they have been. I have profited from that. The ARP is not in danger of fragmenting over this issue at this point in time. Before you can fragment, you must first at least congeal. or solidify, and we've got some way to go before we're in danger of fragmentation on doctrinal issues such as this. I did, however, come with great concern for the PCA, because I would very much hate to see you fragment over this. And it was at least thought that I might come and demonstrate that a person who has some sympathy with the framework hypothesis might still be one who loves Christ, who loves the Bible, and seeks to listen to it humbly and obediently on that. And I guess in response, because 15 minutes is hardly an opportunity to clarify anything, An hour to make a presentation the other day, and I'm still, I feel, greatly misunderstood, so 15 minutes is not likely to be of any help on there, but I might make a few comments as to where we go from here. First of all, we will need a lot more time for ongoing discussion, just to understand where we happen to be. When I was in seminary and interacted with John Gerstner, I had to learn Gerstner's law. Gerstner's first law was, you never undertake to criticize an opponent until you're able to state his viewpoint with his satisfaction. My viewpoint has not been stated to my satisfaction along the way. With Jack, I would want to say we really don't appreciate being identified as non-literate. The only real quibble I have with these people is on the issue of the word they. I believe in all the other historical events that are talked about there. I certainly don't undertake to turn the whole thing into a metaphor. I didn't use the word poetry. I don't even particularly like the word figurative. Objection was taken to some remarks that I made in Genesis chapter 2, taking verse 4 and 5, following and so on, or refer to the whole earth, but then I find out that you don't want to use it to refer to the whole earth. You want to use it to refer just to the land of Canaan, the immediate garden, that is to the land of Canaan. Well, I don't object to that. I didn't call you being figurative or metaphorical. That just happens to be one of the uses of the word Eretz. It might mean the whole earth, or it might mean a small portion of the earth. It wasn't a figurative use, it was just another of the uses of the word. And I think what we're saying about the word day is that's true. It's not so much that we want to be figurative of a word that is always used with a clearly defined meaning, like the 24-hour day. We simply want to say among the range of uses that we find of this word in the text, and in fact even in the immediate text. The idiom yom means that sometimes the word yom is used without any reference to day at all. It simply means when, in the day of. And that's the only point of quibble that I've got along the way. I think your concern is not just to win the day, in terms of proving the point, but to persuade others. The people you need to persuade are people like me, and it won't help a great deal. to caricature or represent the position in a way that we wouldn't agree. We're trying to understand the literal meaning of the text, that is to say, the intended sense along the way. And the only place we've really demurred, or at least the only place I would demur on the words, happens to be on the word day. And it's not surely an outrageous claim. It is easy to demonstrate that the word day is used in other ways than to describe it in the text itself. It's used to describe the daylight hours, It's used to describe the whole day, and it's used idiomatically just to talk about when, just within the bounds of what we have. So I think, in terms of persuasion, it would be better to avoid a description of the alternative positions as being non-literal. There are semantic difficulties to overcome. In Dr. Piper's paper, the question, is Genesis 2 a narrative concerned with sequence, or is it topical? When I say that I think it's governed by topical consideration, I don't mean to suggest that no sequences may be found in it. I don't mean to deny that the law consecutive never appears. What I'm saying is, it is clear to me that it was not the author's principal concern to write each verse as being consecutively ordered with respect to the ones around it. And that was evident. You've got the type of point out, you get an opening statement, you get two verses followed up that don't use the walk consecutive, you then get some treatment of narrative along the way, then you get a parenthesis about the garden, then you get a blue perfect that comes along. We've got two references in the text to man being put in the garden. So he's either doubled back to the same, or we've got a gap in there, and somehow he was in the garden, got out of the garden, But we've got two references to man being placed in the garden. My only point is that it wasn't the author's principal concern to narrate for you the exact sequence. There was a theology at stake here, and so he doesn't mention the animals to a particular point in the text, because that's going to enable the making of a point that the man and the woman are quite distinct from all the animals on the face of the earth. So that's my only clue. It's not that there's no sequences in any way to be found. In the case of Ordinary Providence, that the framework that people want to say. I understand from Dr. Piper, who knows Klein, and who talked to him personally, and has spoken with him, and I have not had the opportunity either to know them or speak with them. that they are committed to the idea that ordinary providence can handle the whole ball of wax in them. I'm certainly not committed to that. I would actually believe that perhaps despite their personal acquaintance and opportunities to talk, they probably need to talk a little bit further along the way. I've never gotten the impression from either one of those men that they really felt that the origination of Adam, for example, and all of his parts, that could be explained by ordinary providence. It seems to me that all that the framework person is meaning at this point in time is to say that there are indications, both in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, that ordinary providence is at work. Not that it explains the whole ball of wax, but just that there is some ordinary providence at work in bringing the past. An appeal to divine fiat is no guarantee that we're dealing with a supernatural past. Ordinary providence may be the result of the divine fiat. The first divine fiat, let there be light, certainly appears to be a creatio ex nihilo. But let the earth bring forth? It's not a creatio ex nihilo. Now, it could have happened to humanity. I'm not saying it did happen to humanity. All I'm saying is I think there's some room for discussion there. And from the framework people, I think by and large we're committed to a discussion, not of divine possibilities, but of what is actually being taught in the text. You have to really shout loud and often at the framework hypothesis to make people understand that when we talk about the fourth day and the issue of the sun and the light and whatnot, There surely isn't any doubt that God could have created light without the sun, and that there might have been light without the sun. Our God can take stones and turn them into children of Abraham, and he can make light to shine out of darkness. The only question is, what did he do, and what does the text say? I was helped by my dear friend, former colleague of students, Ben Shaw, for this. And I put this up not to deceive him, but to essentially give him an explanation as to why the fourth day is so important in our discussion. As a chiasm makes a prayer, he, the very center of the chiasm, where all the focus comes, is God's name to keep great light. It's the great event of the fourth day. Where does it stand after? What are the two A's? A and A prime. To divide the day from the night, to divide the light from the darkness. That had already happened on day one. That's our concern. That had already happened. Why is it being mentioned again? Is there a substitute source of life? Is there first one source of life, now another? I'm just raising a question. It's very interesting that day four repeats the work of day one, either by introducing a new substitute source of that life, It worked. Perhaps we're now getting detail from day one that we didn't get the first time around. Namely, the way by which God brought light into the world was by means of these things. And the light which he brought in was indeed the very day and night that goes on. So, is it so outrageous that a person might read day four and think to himself, I wonder if day four is entirely separate from day one? or if there's some degree of overlap. Thus calling into question whether all the days are the same. So he raised the question along the way. Other helpful suggestions along the way. Dr. Dyer suggested that the day age view, of course I'm not here to represent that, was too much prelude for too little program. Dear brother, it's not a helpful comment along the way. It was not a waste of space for God to create this seemingly infinite and continually expanding universe to deal with people only on one planet. And the program was not just a story of redemption in the life of Jesus, it was the eternal Sabbath rest. If it had taken God billions and billions of years to bring it to the point where at last he brought man into the world of the demons, he still set eternity before it, such that in comparison with eternity, the billions of years are as a drop in the bucket. along the way. So it's not too much prejudice to see that it's broken. It's a very great prejudice for an enormous program along the way. And that's for the framework hypothesis of being so many words to say so very little. It seems to me that these brothers are deeply concerned with a great deal of theology, a theology that I think we rejoice in, the culmination of the great Sabbath rest, and God's design that we should enter into that Sabbath rest. It's not mere literary artistry, it's not a dismissal of the historicity of the events that are being described. There's some very serious theological work going on here, even if exegetical mistakes were made along the way. The effort was not mere literary artistry, but an effort to understand the theology of the text, which I think is a concern that all of us have. And I think that's pretty much all I need to say. Thank you, Mark. My boss, a retired judge, is going to be my timekeeper, so I won't be able to fudge on you either. Let me say that we appreciate some of the constructive things, so we'll work with some different terminology than non-literal. What we're talking about are simply the extent of the days. We're not saying that that you don't believe in the history or that God did those things as his first acts in all of space and time. But we'll work on that, I think, and we'll pass on today. But I agree that it's not post-Darwinian, it's post-lisle. Exegesis is what we should be talking about and not... We'll push it back 20, 30 years and that doesn't explain everything. That does bring me to one thing with respect to Dr. Harris, because at least it seems as he speaks that he has assumed the base of uniformitarianism, and thus we must exegete the text in light of long-term economy. I misunderstood him, I'm sorry. It seemed to be that what he's saying, he compared it with Copernicus and with other of those types of situations, which are really quite different. In my paper, I have a section on the approach to science, as well as the contrast between the Pernikin Revolution and what we have now in the debating of uniformitarianism. As I began the conference, I pointed out that I do not think that any of Surely, our brothers that are here as our guests are in any way evolutionists, and I've known what Dr. Rankin just discovered, that that was not any big problem in the PCA. It's a big problem in the OPC, but not in the PCA, for which I'm very thankful. And that helps our discussion as we will work together. It's true that the Westminster Divine held to Usher's dates, but we have to understand that Calvin and Luther didn't hold to Usher's dates, nor many other fine exegetes who have been driven by the text. With respect to that then, this matter of appeal to authority, appeal to authority may be only used for confirmation. And part of what's done in the papers, when others are quoted, is to, in the first place, show that there are other valid exegetical interpretations. For example, Dr. Geyer, maybe in the abbreviated presentation of his paper, gave the appearance that he would not infer it, but he didn't. In his paper, he has a very fine exegetical development, I think you've read. except to confirm. And basically, at that point I say, I'd rather have the confirmatory authority of the exegesis of Piper from Calvin or Kyle of Dalish, or the exegesis of Collins from other people, because basically we're authority. We're doing exegetical work, and the only way that we avoid the problem of the hermeneutical circle is with the contributions of historical theology. With respect to that type of appeal. Obviously, I think we have surely, one good thing that's come out of the conference is I think we can define the area now of future discourse on this subject, and I think we'll need to do a great deal of discussion with respect to the seventh day and the two New Testament texts. That's good, that helps us. One thing that occurred to me as we've had our little discussion this morning is that we need to distinguish between God and the works that are outside of God. God is, by nature, eternal. Thus, God does not have an eternal Sabbath that began on the seventh day. I think by the very nature of who He is, we've not noted that, you see. The fact that God ceased from creation did not mean that God entered into an eternal reign. God is eternal rest. That's why I still believe that mine and confirmed by a host of historical exegesis that what we have is the interaction of God's rest is in itself an offer to man to enter into his eternal rest and thus the seventh day is appointed. None of us have denied that the rest of God from the work of creation is in fact eternal, but that is very different from saying that God has entered into an eternal Sabbath. And we just need to work on the semantics and the discussion of that, thought back and forth. John 5.17, in God's providence, reading that this morning in shame, is very interesting because the big context has nothing to do with Sabbath breaking. It has to do with Jesus doing the works of the Father. And I think we need then to talk about that, that the reason that what he was doing was wrong, not wrong, is because he is the father's equal. The father works until now, and he works, and the works he goes into then, as was pointed out by somebody I had not thought about, the works of redemption. but that God is working every day of the week and thus what the mediator does on the seventh day is simply the work of God. So we need to discuss that. We need to discuss Hebrews 4 because again what we have is simply a statement that the rest that the children of Israel have failed to enter into because of unbelief is God's rest. The text is given from Genesis 2, but that still doesn't prove that God's Sabbath began as the eternal Sabbath on that day. What is the open-endedness of it? Again, the thing that, the grammatical points. There are sound grammatical reasons, there are sound typological reasons why that day is left open-ended, but the fact is the day, there is a specific day that is blessed. So see, we're not arguing that it doesn't that God's not saying things in his rest, but that God appointed a specific seventh day, and Murray is a great person to see that parallel as he asserts the open-endedness of God's rest, but in typical Murray fashion with a little Scottish understatement, is there any good reason not to believe as well that this is a particular day? It is a day blessed by God set aside. And when we go back to the text, we have to go over then to Exodus 20 and realize it was a day that was blessed and sanctified. But that's a good area for us to continue in our discussion. Discourse analysis, it's unfortunate that all we have there are my remarks on the paper. I did not deal with that approach to structure If I had, what I would have pointed out is that some of the world's leading grammarians, like Bruce Waltke, are saying what I'm saying here. And it doesn't really matter that at this point, no difference amongst some, because I took discourse analysis, and I believe that I can show from discourse analysis, temporal sequence, taking some of the work on paragraph development out of this course analysis and to show that we've got seven days here in sequence with no analogical. We have to impose an analogy on the discourse. The discourse can tell us the direction of the text. It can't tell us, apart from comparing scripture with scripture, how the original hearers heard that text. We also need to hear an answer with respect to where did the weak come from? In all cultures, they're not something that was passed on by oral tradition from the beginning. From the beginning, by the way, is a technical phrase. It's true that persheath or archaic can be used in a number of ways, but they're not, they're used with prepositional constructs that do seem to be technical phrases, at least in some of the passages to which Dr. Dyer points, particularly in Mark chapter 10. I do believe as well that from Romans 8 and Isaiah 65, I would agree with Dr. Collins, at least the tertiary way, that Isaiah 11, probably not referring to five minutes, thank you sir, end of time, but Isaiah 65 does seem to be. Even if it is used there as a metaphor or a figure, it does seem to show that the restoration that is going to come about through the completed work of the Savior as a restoration that allows natural predator and prey again to dwell together in peace. So there are other texts, and again, we don't stop with Romans 2.17. We read Romans 2.17 in light of subsequent developments, and we also have to realize that Our standards take Romans 2.17 in some context as typical of that. Genesis 2.17, thank you. Semantic range is very different, as Dr. Ross will agree, from figurative uses of words. And we can look at the semantic range of Eretz and know that it has a number of meanings we must come at from the context. A figurative use of Eretz would be if it was speaking of something such as Herod talks about. Christ says Herod was a fox. That's not within the semantic range of fox. Geographical land is in the semantic range of Eretz. Our question is, the reason we use this, the semantic range of Yom. Again, we don't want exegesis by assertion. Where are the figurative uses that makes it an analogy? You want to use analogical days rather than non-literal days. Give us something in the semantic range. We go to the context and you are talking about non-literal days in terms of the way the text presents itself. The other question that is going unanswered still is this matter of the ordinal number. With Jung, I was hoping that Dr. Collins would clarify, maybe in the question and answer time, what he means then about statistical, a lack of statistics, because we have no other passage like this, when all of Moses' writings, which I think is a fairly fair statistical evaluation, I believe it's over a hundred times that Moses uses Yom with the Ordinal Day every time is a literal day in sequence. You've got to answer that. You just cannot come back and say that this text rises up to a higher level because of a certain thing like this. I still believe we can take the same chiasm and prove that the emphasis is that God made the day. And with respect to that, yes, the work of day one was incomplete. That's why the it was good was expressed after the creation of light and not after the division of light. And I tried to show that in the grammatical structure, just as the way of day two was incomplete, not complete until day three. And thus there was no it was good after day two. So the very narrative itself shows us that there are incomplete acts that are brought to completion later. Light was good. The vision of light was, by the absence of it, was good. And then by seeing what happens in day four, shows that it was incomplete. Not a substitute. Day three doesn't substitute for day two. It's an advance. And that's how the text presents itself with the vow of consecutive. And with this clear emphasis, what does the chiasm point to? Not an appointment of lights. God making the two great lights. to do, yes, one thing that he did to divide light from darkness, but how many other things, at least four other things now, that heavenly bodies do that were not done in day one. And thus I believe we have a clear advance. Thank you. Again, with a demurral on the use of the term literal, I'm not comfortable with classifying my brethren's use of the term as non-liberal. And I don't think, in the course of my paper, I classified any of your views as non-liberal, simply because the word has become a loaded term and is subject to all sorts of abuse. So I simply avoided that altogether. Now, with regard to Mr. Dr. Ross's complaint about the understanding of his position, I think he recognized in his original presentation that the framework, in fact, I think he said in just these terms that the framework view is something of a moving target. That when you consider the proponents of the so-called framework view that you find quite a variety of differences among the particular scholars who hold to something that is called a framework view. And in that sense, I think perhaps the framework view may be called or may be identified a little bit like theonomy. It kind of depends which theonomist you're talking to as to what theonomy is. And so it kind of depends which framework man you're talking to as to what constitutes a framework analysis. And so I would hope that Dr. Ross would grant us the consideration, particularly in Dr. Piper's response to what he has called non-liberal views, that the framework view that he is attacking on a particular point may not, in fact, be yours. And if so, don't feel attacked. But again, I think also Dr. Ross does recognize that in Dr. Piper's paper, there was a massive job involved there in trying to address a number of different views and critique them all in the course of one presentation. I'm simply dealing with the scattering of topics that occurred to me in the presentations of the men up to this point. With regard to discourse analysis, I'm not opposed to the use of discourse analysis. My demurral that I gave yesterday was simply why I wasn't using it in this case. I do think that there is still a case to be made for the withholding, if you will. I think it's significant, for example, that Dr. Collins in fact disagrees. with one of his, if you will, authorities on discourse analysis with regard to the extent of the very passage that we're dealing with. And that when Dr. Collins himself, an authority on discourse analysis, says it's from 1.1 to 2.3, and Nekatchi, another authority, says it's from 1.1 to 2.4, it seems to me that there are still some problems with discourse analysis that need to be ironed out before we can begin to look at it as a reliable plan, as a reliable tool, if you will. That brings me, then, to the appeal to authority. Dr. Collins demurs from the references to and use of the pseudonym. That's certainly his privilege. Particularly, I can't speak for Dr. Piper, but I don't think he did. I don't feel to pseudo because I think trotting to pseudo in front of somebody is going to convince them where the fact that I say it would not. I use it, as Dr. Piper noted earlier, in a confirmatory sense that What I'm trotting out here is not something new. It's not something unusual. It's not something extraordinary. It's illustrative in that sense. And I will say that if Dr. Collins is going to level the charge of appeal to authority, then I wish he would demur from using such terms in his own references as, Nekachi is a world-class grammarian. Or, broad ideas are accepted by a scholar of the caliber of Desmond Alexander, who has done important work. See also the articles by prominent experts in the ancient Near East. If that is not an appeal to authority, for the purpose of the authority, I don't know what it is. It seemed to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that I heard Dr. Collins speak of a fallen creature inhabiting an unfallen creation. That was certainly the impression I got. I think it was certainly the impression that others here got. It's interesting that if you look at Genesis 3, verses 14 and following, that as a matter of fact, the two things that are not cursed are the woman and the man. God says to the serpent, because you have done this, cursed are you above all the creatures of the field. And then later to the man he says, because you have done this and have listened to your wife, cursed is the ground on your account. So that a number of more liberal scholars have made, and you can consult the commentary in the journal literature on this, have made the point that, as a matter of fact, there is no curse pronounced on a human race in that passage. And so they demur from the idea of a fall, and original sin, and all of that. So that perhaps Dr. Collins was speaking without the opportunity to have reflected on that, but I would like some further elucidation on that. Because it does seem to me, and Romans 8 I think goes right along with it, that we have here not an unfallen creation inhabited by a fallen race, nor do we have an unfallen race inhabiting a fallen creation, but that we have a fallen totality. And so I think the reference by others to hurricanes and tornadoes and volcanoes and that kind of thing was not at all out of line. And I think, well, I think that's sufficient. Now, as for the seventh day, why is the refrain missing? Well, two reasons, at least, I suggested yesterday. First, because the very formula, there was evening, there was morning, X day, implies a movement into the subsequent day. And therefore, at the end of the seventh day, since the narrative was not going to move into the eighth day, but was in fact going to move back, into a reconsideration of particular aspects of day six, the formula for, if you will, grammatical syntactical reasons was omitted by Moses. But, I would say that Moses also omitted that for theological reasons because the seventh day was indeed set aside as the human Sabbath and is looking forward to, and I would not quibble, I would not disagree much with Dr. Collins' characterization of the seventh day as our, in public worship, entering into that rest. I'd say it's more in the way of a foretaste, but I would be, I suppose, in general agreement with him on that. Again, it seems to me that's a valid, exegetical consideration of why there is no formula for the seventh day. And finally, and this was a point I was alluding to in the closing moments of my presentation yesterday, it does seem to me that there is, in the creation account in Genesis 1, very much, and it's in my paper, it was one of those things that I skipped yesterday. When we speak about creation, I think we generally think about God creating space, God creating matter, God creating the heavens and the earth. But the other thing I think that we sometimes neglect to consider is that in fact God created time as well. And so we have here in Genesis 1 the creation of time and the origination of its divisions. And that is the work of God Himself. And it seems to me that God is condescending to His creation, particularly man for which He is preparing this creation, that He is condescending and entering into the constraints of that time. Certainly, I understand that my brethren here do not agree with me, Dr. Harris and Dr. Ross. Mr. Coffin and others, Dr. Collins, but it does seem to me that God is committing himself to our time and our space and that in that he specifically sanctifies the Sabbath day, but I think implicitly he sanctifies time as well and enters into it condescendingly coming to our own state. My two preceding colleagues have stolen most of my thunder. I would like, first of all, to thank Dr. Collins and also Dr. Roth for their critique of some of the things that I've said, and I do appreciate that. If you have any further words for me, I would be very pleased to know before we get to go to the presentation. Something that has missed, we seem to have missed something quite simple on this matter of the seventh day, which I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet. Hebrews chapter 4, in that text where we find this reference to the Sabbath rest, it says in verse 4, rested on the seventh day from all his works. Rested is a historic tense. It doesn't say that God is resting on the seventh day. It says that he rested. That's an historic event. I think that's exegesis too. If God did indeed rest on the seventh day, that does not mean that he isn't resting now. But it does say that he rested on the seventh day, and I still hold to my contention that yes, the day is historical, but the rest continues. Also, I'd like to point out that there's, as Dr. Piper's already mentioned in the matter of the beginning, Mark does say, and I think they marked the record of our Savior's statement, that it is the beginning of the creation that God made them male and female. And I would simply affirm that It does fit very well with the 6.4-hour-a-day interpretation of Genesis 1, to see that that is the actual creation. And if you look elsewhere, where the word the creation, that term expression, the creation, is used, even if you read Paul in Romans chapter 8, it does not refer to the creation of mankind, specifically, but rather through the creation. In fact, I would like to look back in Romans chapter 8 again I can appreciate Dr. Collins' comment about appealing to authorities. I think that he has indeed touched on a very important point that we all need to make sure that we do things on exegetical grounds, not just appealing to authorities. But I would like to explain one thing. I was dealing with the entire New Testament. not just one chapter of the New Testament. And one of the problems with dealing with things in breadth is that they suffer in depth. And so sometimes the appeal has to go more to confirm than to say, as Dr. Piper very Appropriately, it's pointed out that since it is appropriate for you to appeal to authority, let's be sure. I mean, let's face it, every text of Scripture has a history of interpretation. Now there may be a longer or shorter history for a different text, We would all recognize that every text of Scripture has a history of interpretation, and I think it's wise for us to acknowledge that, and when we find earlier Exodus used to, or contemporary Exodus used to agree with us, I think it's perfectly legitimate to show that we're not alone in our belief. Looking at Romans chapter 8, again, I was not able, in fact, I just briefly touched on this in my talk, It's really important to understand how Paul is setting up his argument here. He starts off with the creation suffering. He's trying to comfort Christians in their suffering. In fact, in the entire discourse here, he explains that there's three groanings. There's the creation groaning, Christ's people are groaning, but also we find later on that the Spirit groans as well in the course of our praying and so forth. And I think it's very interesting that he starts with creation as a means of helping us to understand that, yes, we suffer too. Now, when you look at the impact of that, I think you can see that, well, let's look at it. Starting with verse 19, it says, for the earnest expectation of the creation, there's that term, obviously you can't be referring to, in fact, this has to be apart from us, apart from mankind here, I think, eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God, for the creation was subjective. to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it in hope. Who subjected it? Not mankind. Not fallen man subjecting the creation to his own state. But it was God himself who subjected it. And then, simply moving on, And he says, because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption. Now that bondage of corruption, mankind didn't produce that. That was God's doing. into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Now, I have this in my paper. Technically, this should be, into the glory of the liberty of the children of God. The glory of the liberty of the children of God. And what that means is, excuse me, it's the liberty of the glory. I have my text in front of me. Well, anyway, the liberty of the glory of the Son of God. What that means is the glory deliberate. So when we're glorified, we will be liberated, but also the creation will also then participate in that glory, and therefore that's how they will be deliberate. The creation will be deliberate as well. So I think that there is strong evidence. I think Professor Dock made a good point there about the matter of the person. I can appreciate the comment that Dr. Ross made about my comment about too much saying too little. I was a little concerned about mischaracterizing the positions by both kinds of statements, but let me clarify that I'm referring to this by contrast to my position. In my position, looking at the Genesis chapter 1, I believe that indeed the full revelatory meaning of the text is there. My understanding of the Kramer hypothesis, not as Dr. Roth has defined it, but by others, and this may not set the right history, is that there really is just a minimum of things that we can really say, this is what happened. And so that's why I said that we have too much saying too little. I'm just trying to sum up my position, and it's by comparison. Also, By saying that you have too much prologue, I mean you have a prelude for too little of program, now I have to admit that when you look at it from the total perspective, that's a valid point. But the point that I was not able to really get thoroughly covered in my talk yesterday was that I see such a unity between the doctrines of creation and redemption. that from my perspective, if creation and redemption are relatively close together temporally, then indeed, and that's what we're living on the earth now for, because we're living in creation and we're seeing God's work of redemption being carried out through history on this world, I do see that having eons and eons of time in creation prior to redemption. When I say, the only program I'm talking about is redemption. And I think that right now, As I see it, with the Earth not being able to be, I don't believe the Earth can be older than 10,000 years, that's just scientific evidence for that. In my perspective, it is too much for too little for too good. It would be like having hours and hours and hours of training for a five-minute process, by comparison. Because already, if we look at the history of redemption, I think, in my mind, going back to Adam, this has been a relatively short period of time compared to the amount of time it would have taken by those hundreds of thousands of years where it would have taken to have it created. I just want to, I'd rather, it's easier for me to see the creation and redemption going together. That was the point. If that's a mischaracterization, I'd be glad to see it.
Questions and Answers, Pt 1
Series 1999 GPTS Spring Conference
Q&A from the 1999 Spring Theology Conference presented by Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. The theme of the conference was 'Did God Create in Six Days?'
Sermon ID | 32210100523 |
Duration | 1:07:49 |
Date | |
Category | Teaching |
Language | English |
Documents
Add a Comment
Comments
No Comments
© Copyright
2025 SermonAudio.