Welcome to Marscast, a podcast from Mid-America Reformed Seminary, where our faculty members address all things theological and cultural through a Reformed lens. I'm your host, Jared Luchowar, and I'm joined today by our good friend and emeritus professor of Old Testament Studies, Rev. Mark Vander Hart. Good to have you here. Say hello to our listeners. Hello. So it's been a while since we've had you on the show. I thought it'd be a good idea to bring you back for at least a couple of episodes. And in thinking of what we would want to hear from you, I thought to myself, you know, what are some questions a lot of those in our constituency may have that they'd want faithful reformed answers to? I trust. And how else to stir the pot than posit questions related to creation and the flood? Reverend Vander Hart's giving me a disturbed look here. So that's what we're going to talk about. In this episode, we're going to look at a reformed view of the days of creation. And then next time, we're going to examine the flood and hear Reverend Vander Hart's thoughts on a global versus a local flood. But Reverend Vander Hart, let's just jump right into it. We're going to talk about creation. We're going to look at the account of Genesis primarily. And in your role as an Old Testament professor, can you give us a bird's eye view sketch of the traditional Reformed interpretation of the creation days in Genesis? You asked a question about the traditional Reformed understanding, and now that could be understood to mean the understanding since the time of the Reformation. And even that understanding has a bit of historical backdrop to it. For example, Augustine believed everything was created in a moment, but the account in Genesis 1 was written in order to just sort of lay a framework or a foundation for the normal seven days of the creation week. And so, basically, Augustine understood the Genesis 1 account as sort of a poetic or maybe mythical explanation for why we have seven days, though the real event was an instantaneous creation. When we come to the time of the Reformation, Luther, who wanted to get away from allegory and mythical understandings, wrote this. He said, I hold that Moses spoke literally and not figuratively or allegorically, telling us that the world, with all its creatures, was made within six days, just as the words read. or the words read rather. And so he's trying to move away from an allegorical understanding in order to establish the literal sense of scripture as the true spiritual sense. Calvin similarly wrote, let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men. Now, that phrase, in the space of six days, entered into the language of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 4.1. And again, I believe the Westminster divines were trying to move the understanding of the Reformed and Presbyterian church world away from a mythical or an allegorical understanding of the creation week, Genesis 1. When we come down to the 20th century, the debate continues, the discussion continues, because of a number of factors. For example, the so-called two different creation accounts, Genesis 1 through 2 verse 3, versus or over against or next to the account as we have it in Genesis 2 verse 4 and following, seems to give two different accounts of how creation began. And that has led to the development of the so-called framework hypothesis, also held by many within the Reformed world, in that we have six creation days described in Genesis 1. They are real days, but they are arranged in a framework. to, number one, refute paganism and Baalism, and culminate, in the second place, with the Sabbath. Everything is moving towards the Sabbath. And so, in the prevailing framework hypothesis, day one, the creation of light, is paralleled by day four, the creation of the light bearers. Day two, the separation of the firmament leads to the occupation of the firmament by the birds and the fish on day five. And day three, the gathering of the waters for the seas and the emergence of the dry land makes possible the living space for land creatures and culminates in the creation of man. Now, okay, that kind of works on one level. The problem that that introduces is that the notion of sequential days is now lost. Real days, but arranged according to a literary framework for a theological purpose. No doubt there are theological, even apologetic, elements in Genesis 1. That's certainly true, but how does one read the text in its plain sense, in its, shall we say its normal sense, if we have a description of day one, evening and morning, that's day one, evening and morning, day two, evening and morning, the third day, et cetera, et cetera, as we work through the several days. So, there are many or there are at least several different understandings within the Reformed tradition, broadly speaking. Others would hold to six literal days, 24 hours, sequential, consequential to each other, and that is their understanding of the text. And so, Is there one Reformed understanding? I would opt for one particular understanding, but to say that there is only one in the history of the Reformed Church is probably to overstate it. There are a number of understandings of Genesis 1 within the Reformed tradition. Could you tell us the particular view that you hold to? Yeah, I understand that the days are defined as evenings and mornings. Evenings and mornings. And that would then have an understanding of the word day, especially as creation days, as ordinary days. I don't use the language of 24 hours. Now some may be critical of me for that. But that is a very specific, almost scientific designation of the length of a day. And I just say, well, I believe Moses stood with his feet in Middle Eastern territory, and so a day was understood to be a period of evening and morning. The first three days are not solar days. On the other hand, we are not given to believe that those first three days are in any way significantly different than the last three days of the creation week. I understand the days to be ordinary, normal days, sequential to each other. What you're saying is then contra, um, any sort of theistic evolutionary view of, of the creation days. That's not in this picture. Um, so like, you know, predatory behavior of animals, uh, before the fall, for example. Yeah, there's a lot about that I'm really not qualified to address, the predatory nature of certain animals or species before the fall. I am prepared to say, and even go to the mat on, my rejection of theistic evolution hinges on a number of factors, but the chief one is this. According to Romans 5, death enters because of sin. And here I'm not talking about the death of plants, we're talking about breathing creatures. Okay, because the creatures, man is described as becoming a living being, a breathing being, nefesh chayah is the Hebrew phrase. But also non-human creatures are described as nefesh chayah, they are breathing creatures. Okay, and so if death enters because of sin, And then theistic evolution posits that for a long period of time, let us say four billion years or maybe 14 billion years, God was directing the nature of evolution. And then emerged a particular pre-human hominid creature that eventually becomes man or God, maybe especially creates man out of, it is still necessary for theistic evolution to work that there was death in the universe before the creation of man. That is a given for the theory to be true. But if that's true, that death occurred on planet Earth before the creation of man as we know it, then that verse in Romans 5 that says death came because of sin is not true. It is not true. But if that verse is not true, then what other verses are not true? I remember an article in a church periodical a number of years ago which said, this was the summary point of the article, the writer said, look folks, We all know that theistic evolution is true. But if that's true, then let's be consequential. Let's follow through and revisit all of our doctrines of the nature of humanity, of Christ, and especially the doctrines of salvation. We have to revisit them and revise them. In other words, a total reevaluation of Christianity is looming over us. Do we have the courage to face that task and to do it? Tie this all into how this affects our understanding of Adam and Eve as historical figures, and maybe even tie this into the incarnation of Jesus as well, if you can. Well, once again, Romans 5 sets up Christ as the antitype to the first man. Romans 5 reads, just as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses. even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." The understanding clearly is that Adam, and with him Eve is his helper, suitable for him, were historical figures. And if Adam is only a mythological picture of early man, then what happens to Christ? That whole type-antitype connection begins to flounder. And further, Adam is portrayed here as the covenantal head of the human race. His fall led to sin spreading to the entire human race. And he is seen, therefore, as a type of the second Adam, the last man, Jesus Christ, through whom redemption comes to all of God's elect. In other words, the type-antitype connection between Adam and Eve falters. Now, on a slightly different point, I once read an article in a church periodical that said, well, maybe made from the dust, Genesis 2, made from the dust of the earth is simply a poetic way of describing animal ancestry. And I'm thinking to myself, well, any Reformed schoolboy or Reformed schoolgirl could see through that, because God says in Genesis 3, from dust you are made and dust you will return. When man sins, he doesn't return to animal ancestry, he returns literally to dust, because that was what he was made from. It is not a poetic way of saying animal ancestry. The scriptures is clear. There was a real Adam and Eve, and they are the ancestors of the human race. Wise words, Reverend Vander Hart. Thank you for sharing. Well, in our next episode, Reverend Vander Hart is going to tackle the question of a local flood versus a global flood. And really, does it matter? Well, if you've enjoyed this episode of Marscast, please consider subscribing and telling others who might be interested. Also consider leaving a review. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated and they help us to enhance our content further. Your support allows us to produce engaging content to build a community of lifelong learners and thoughtful practitioners. I'm Jared Luchobor, signing off for now. See you in the next episode of Marscast.