Correctly Handling the Word of Truth: Reformed Hermeneutics Today

Correctly Handling the Word of Truth

Reformed Hermeneutics Today

edited by

Mees te Velde

and

Gerhard H. Visscher

Correctly Handling the Word of Truth

Reformed Hermeneutics Today

Copyright © 2014 Wipf and Stock Publishers. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Wipf and Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

ISBN 13: 978-1-62564-911-9

EISBN 13: 978-1-63087-858-0

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) 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.

Scripture quotations marked (RSV) are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Contributors

R. Dean Anderson is Minister of the Word, Free Reformed Churches of Australia, Rockingham, Western Australia.

Hans Burger is Postdoctoral Research Fellow of Systematic Theology, Theological University of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Kampen, the Netherlands.

Ad L. Th. de Bruijne is Professor of Ethics and Spirituality, Theological University of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Kampen, the Netherlands.

Arjan de Visser is Professor of Diaconiology, Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Barend Kamphuis is Professor of Systematic Theology, Theological University of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Kampen, the Netherlands.

Gert Kwakkel is Professor of Old Testament, Theological University of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Kampen, the Netherlands and Faculté Jean Calvin, Aix-en-Provence, France.

Jannes Smith is Professor of Old Testament, Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Alan D. Strange is Professor of Church History, Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Dyer, Indiana, USA.

Mees te Velde is Professor of Church History and Church Polity, Theological University of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Kampen, the Netherlands.

Koert van Bekkum is Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Theological University of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Kampen, the Netherlands.

Rob van Houwelingen is Professor of New Testament, Theological University of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, Kampen, the Netherlands.

Cornelis Van Dam is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament, Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Theodore G. Van Raalte is Professor of Ecclesiology, Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Jason Van Vliet is Professor of Dogmatics, Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Cornelis P. Venema is Professor of Doctrinal Studies, Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Dyer, Indiana, USA.

Gerhard H. Visscher is Professor of New Testament, Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Acknowledgments

This book owes its original impetus to a request from the academic faculty of the Theological University of Kampen, the Netherlands, to the academic faculty of the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary to hold a joint conference. The latter agreed to do so and suggested that it be held on a topic as relevant as possible to the question of where our faculties and federations are at present. Hence, Reformed hermeneutics became the theme for the conference. A location was chosen, as were speakers. A wider spectrum of speakers was actually invited—also brothers from the Westminster Theological Seminaries, both in Philadelphia and in California. But perhaps because of the brevity in notice and closer proximity, it was unfortunate that only our brothers at the Mid-America Reformed Seminary were able to join us for the actual conference. We thank them and all those who presented papers, who responded to the papers, contributed to the discussion, and all those who attended the conference. It was, in every way, a success as mentioned also in the Introduction.

With respect to the publication of this book, we thank the Stichting Afbouw Kampen, the Netherlands, and the Publication Fund of the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary. Both made funds available for editing the book. This is also the first volume to appear under the name of a new series connected to the CRTS Publication Fund, namely, Lucerna: CRTS Publications. Hopefully there will be many more.

While both editors were actually quite unavailable—the one for medical reasons and the other for sabbatical and travelling reasons—the real editors actually became Dr. Jason Van Vliet and Dr. Koert van Bekkum, who did much of the work in our absence. We thank them wholeheartedly for their labors and their determination to see this volume in print. We also thank those who graciously assisted them. Dr. William Helder was found willing to give a careful reading of all the papers from our Dutch colleagues to ensure the quality of the English. And Dr. Deanna Smid took a very careful look at the English of all the papers. We thank also Leanne Kuizenga, our Faculty Administrative Assistant at CRTS, for coordinating much of the work.

We also thank those at Wipf and Stock Publishers for their kind co-operation with us to see this volume come into print.

It is our wish that this volume would contribute to a better understanding of the work of our respective seminaries and the challenges of remaining Reformed today.

M. te Velde

G. H. Visscher

Abbreviations

CGK Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland

EABS European Association of Biblical Studies

ET English Translation

GKN(v) Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland vrijgemaakt

HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartener, and J.J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1994–1999

LXX Septuagint

MT Masoretic Text

PKN Protestantse Kerk in Nederland

SBL  Society of Biblical Literature

Introduction

From January 14–16, 2014 the Fourth Annual Conference of the Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, gathered in Ancaster, with speakers from three Reformed theological institutions—in Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands— and with more than one hundred and seventy participants from six continents. The theme of the conference, which also became the title of this book containing its proceedings, was Correctly Handling the Word of Truth: Reformed Hermeneutics Today.

The first part of this theme refers to a passage from Scripture itself, that is, the encouragement of Timothy by Paul in one of his pastoral letters (2 Tim 2:11–19). What is happening in this verse (15)? The dying apostle is seeking to instruct the younger Timothy about how he ought to give leadership to the people of God, also after he, Paul, has gone on to glory. And he suggests, as he does throughout these epistles, that above everything else, Timothy needs to handle the word of truth ever so carefully. Correctly handle the word of truth. The verb here seems to refer to highway building, to the life of a construction engineer. It’s talking about cutting a path in a straight direction, cutting it straight . . . (cf. Prov 3:6, 11:5, Septuagint). The idea is that just as the Roman roads back then—many of which are still used today—are marvelous examples of careful and skillful work, so Timothy must use skill and care as he teaches, preaches, and handles the Word of God.

This is, in a sense, the task of the big word hermeneutics. It is not a science and it is certainly not a form of engineering. There are no absolute rules, no essential computer algorithms, despite the fact that digital analysis has become part of the exegetical process. At the same time, however, it is more than an art. Most people teaching hermeneutics in theological seminaries, both at the introductory as well as the advanced level, would like to think of it as a discipline wherein we learn to read God’s Word better and in a more aware fashion—aware of the gaps in our world and theirs, aware of what we ourselves bring to the text in the reading process, aware also of the weakness of our own hearts and minds. Correctly handling the word of truth calls for precision, accuracy, and even, for preparing your own heart. In the first century sloppiness in building a road from Rome to Jerusalem would be disastrous. So too, sloppiness today in building a road from our places to the New Jerusalem will be disastrous.

This naturally leads to the second part of the theme of the conference. What does it mean to read the Scriptures in the tradition of the Reformers in the (post)modern, globalized world of the twenty-first century? If correctly handling the word of truth implies reading the Scriptures in a more aware fashion, then it is important that we actually meet the challenges of building these roads in this century. Accordingly, this book addresses nine important issues relating to these challenges.

The first topic is The Two Books Debate: Scripture and Science and the relation between special and general revelation. In his contribution (Chapter 1) Dr. Jason Van Vliet argues that the key to grasping this issue is in properly understanding general revelation. Creation reveals how great and truly divine God is, but mankind receives God’s invisible qualities in such a rebellious way that general revelation is sufficient to convict men and leave them without excuse (Belgic Confession, Article 2). Human knowledge about creation cannot be used to overrule the special revelation in Scripture, and special revelation, not general revelation, sets the pace and the parameters for understanding God’s revelation. This also applies to the how of creation and the interpretation of the word day in Genesis 1.

In his response Dr. Barend Kamphuis agrees that the knowledge of nature as such is not the same as God’s general revelation. General revelation is about the knowledge of God, and that is something different. It should be added, however, that also special revelation is about the knowledge of God and the work of God. That is why it is not possible to draw scientific conclusions from, for instance, Genesis 1. Only by acknowledging the limits of scientific knowledge on the one side, and by reading the Holy Scriptures as the book that teaches us about God and our salvation on the other side, can Christians accept the differences between Scripture and science without losing their faith.

Finally, Van Vliet explains in a rejoinder why he thinks that Kamphuis’ response has the wrong emphasis in his approach to Genesis 1, and why he maintains that the chapter is about the how of creation.

The second issue is the relation between the (Post-)Critical and Confessional Reading of the Scriptures, which is addressed by Dr. Cornelis P. Venema (Chapter 2). Venema offers an overview of the history of pre-critical, historical-critical, and post-critical approaches to biblical interpretation and an evaluation of the emergence in contemporary (evangelical) theology of an interest in the theological interpretation of Scripture from the perspective of a confessional hermeneutic. Venema’s main point is not that a classic, orthodox view of the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible provides an easy solution to all the challenges of biblical interpretation. His point is that only an ecclesiastical reading of the Bible will overcome the historical distance between the ancient text and the modern reader. Liberal approaches that do not privilege the final authority of the biblical canon inevitably lead to methods of interpretation that deconstruct the biblical texts and look for their meaning behind or outside of their canonical context.

The response to this contribution by Dr. R. Dean Anderson highlights that a belief in the inspiration and authority of the Bible also encourages a real attempt to think through God revealing himself in history, even where that is not explicated in Scripture.

In a rejoinder to this response, Dr. Venema argues that this is indeed the case, although it is more important to observe that the present situation of the church is not radically different from that of the church throughout its history.

The third topic is the Hermeneutics of Dogma. In his contribution addressing this issue (Chapter 3) Dr. Barend Kamphuis discusses the historicity of dogma and of the confessions. In his view, dogmas always call for an interpretation against the background of their time of development. Historicity can even be called the power of dogma. The gospel could be confessed not only in the discussions with Pharisees and Sadducees, but also in later times against Gnostics and Neoplatonic philosophers. In a similar way, the confessions of the church are not timeless summaries of the Bible, but the confession of the truth of the Bible in a specific historical situation, so that they are able to oppose their times and to preach the gospel. In this way, the Christian commitment to dogmas and confessions is a clear expression of openness and catholicity, for they are of great help in listening to believers from other cultures and times and in continuing to search for images which are apt for the mystery of the gospel and for language which we can understand today.

In his response Dr. Arjan de Visser observes a change in emphasis in Kamphuis’ treatment of revelation and Scripture. Twenty-five years ago, in his inaugural address, he highlighted the clear language and perspicuity of Scripture. Now he stresses the fact that revelation is pure, but not adequate. Accordingly, the emphasis is now on the metaphorical nature of dogmas. This seems to imply that the clarity of revelation is undermined. How is the perspicuity of Scripture to be defended and what are the controls in his quest for a new language?

In a rejoinder to these critical questions Kamphuis states that his understanding of the perspicuity of Scripture has indeed been enriched, in particular with regard to the openness and catholicity of this doctrine: if you believe in the clarity of Holy Scripture, you always have to listen to other people who listen to the same Word.

A fourth topic is the use of Methods in Biblical Exegesis. In his contribution (Chapter 4) Dr. Cornelis Van Dam offers a thorough discussion of a distinction that is often used in evangelical, Presbyterian, and Reformed circles in analyzing historical narratives, that is, the distinction between truth claim and truth value. In his view, both the origin of this distinction and the outcome of its use show that it does not do justice to the nature of Scripture as God’s Word which is perspicuous and sufficient. In addition, it ultimately makes certainty about the historicity of an event dependent on human reasoning. In a concluding section Van Dam proposes what he thinks to be a more biblical approach to historical narrative.

With help of the elements text, past, and intended audience, and based on the principle of sola Scriptura the contribution of Dr. Koert van Bekkum (Chapter 5) sketches a more general outline of the Reformed hermeneutics of historical narrative. In addition, he considers how literary devices in ancient Hebrew narrative can be used to understand the literary, (redemptive-)historical, and theological meaning of a biblical narrative. He uses the story about King Jeroboam, two prophets, two donkeys, and a lion in 1 Kings 13 as an example.

The value of rhetorical criticism for Reformed exegesis is the focus of the contribution of Dr. Jannes Smith (Chapter 6). The author presents a hypothetical structure for the Book of Jeremiah. Since it is one thing to have a hypothesis, and quite another to determine whether it will hold up to critical scrutiny, a second part introduces and applies some critical methods to test the validity of the hypothesis. Finally, Smith assesses the profits and perils of the critical methods themselves and suggests what a Reformed Old Testament scholar can and cannot say. In this way the structure of the book of Jeremiah functions inductively as a test case for the interplay of confessional integrity and quality control.

A fifth important hermeneutical issue is the Understanding of Biblical Texts Against their Social-Historical Background, for instance with regard to the commands of the apostle Paul concerning the role of women in the church. The contribution of Dr. Gerhard H. Visscher on Paul’s injunction about women in 1 Timothy 2 (Chapter 7) takes its point of departure from a 2013 Report for the Synod of the Reformed Churches (Liberated) in the Netherlands in favor of women in office in the church. Visscher notes how in the history of interpretation scholars have used contextual and background issues to explain 1 Timothy 2:11, places the arguments of the verses 13–15 in the broader context of Paul’s teaching, and asks whether the regular hermeneutical principles have been followed or ignored. In this way Visscher presents his exegetical and theological objections to the outcome of the Report.

In his response one of the authors of the Report, Dr. Rob van Houwelingen, offers additional exegetical observations, further explains the hermeneutical model and stresses that the church can still learn from 1 Timothy 2. In his view, Paul’s reference to the history of Adam and Eve in Paradise is only one of the arguments besides those referring to the social background of Ephesus during the first century. In his proscriptions Paul was still able to make links with a non-Christian environment. In the twenty-first century, however, a direct application of these proscriptions creates or strengthens an isolation from society that might unnecessarily hinder the proclamation of the Gospel. After all, the church of today also offers a different application of many other elements in the apostles’ instructions.

In his rejoinder to this response Visscher argues that while he agrees with the general hermeneutical method of the report, he opposes an application of a biblical teaching that is in his view completely different from what a biblical author says to the people in his own historical context. In addition, when an inspired author such as Paul backs up his argument with a reference to creation, he is making a reference to what God demanded of mankind from the very beginning and what he still demands today of our culture and all cultures.

A sixth hermeneutical subject is the Use of the Bible in Christian Ethics. In his contribution (Chapter 8) Dr. Ad de Bruijne uses the example of the Bible and homosexual practice to show that the traditional use of the Bible is experiencing a crisis affecting many orthodox and evangelical churches in the Western world. In answer to this crisis he sketches a third way between modernist orthodox certainty and postmodern relativism. In his view, this third way should choose as its starting point the Bible’s grand salvation-historical narrative. In addition, a modern epistemological foundation should be exchanged for trust that God spreads enough light through the Bible to find out what is pleasing to God and what attitude and practice best suits God’s purposes and coming kingdom in the given situation. According to De Bruijne, the key question with regard to homosexuality should be: how can we deal with it in a manner that does justice to God’s salvation-historical course in Christ with men and women, and with sexuality, from creation to the coming kingdom? Only in this way will Christians learn to use the practical gift of discernment and to experience that not they, but God himself uses the Bible in order to show a way forward.

In his response Dr. Theodore G. Van Raalte argues that the traditional use of the Bible has always been going through a crisis and has survived so many other trials that it most certainly can also survive the most recent postmodern challenges. Furthermore, the common practice of using the Ten Commandments and systemizing scriptural data cannot be qualified as foundationalist. According to Van Raalte, the work of someone like the French Reformer Antoine de Chandieu (1534–1591) shows that it is precisely by conforming to the canons of reason that we can be certain that our theological definitions reflect the truth of Scripture. Christians should still be able to say, Thus says the Lord, because he himself has pronounced distinct and clear commands on the issue.

A seventh topic is a hermeneutical question concerning the extent to which faith in Christ leads to a Christian Understanding. In his contribution (Chapter 9) Dr. Hans Burger reflects on the New Testament notion that in Christ, Christians find all treasures of wisdom, knowledge, and the renewal of their understanding. He starts by describing the negative influences of modern foundationalism on Dutch Neo-Calvinism and proposes to take our participation in Christ as a hermeneutical starting point in order to overcome these problems. In his view it is important to pay attention to the dynamics of sin and salvation and to emphasize what is given in Christ. We need to reflect on the moral, spiritual, and hermeneutical formation of individual Christians and vital Christian communities where faith, love, and hope are nourished. In this way, reading the Scriptures will lead to a new Christian understanding of God, of the world, and of ourselves and our neighbors—in the light of Scripture.

In his response Dr. Alan Strange agrees with Burger’s criticism of the Western obsession with epistemology. He is more critical, however, of the critical realism that is underlying Burger’s view. With help from the work of Cornelis Van Til and his disciples he offers an alternative biblical epistemology based on 1 Corinthians 2.

The eighth subject is the postmodern attention on the Reader as a Focal Point in Biblical Exegesis. The contribution of Dr. Gert Kwakkel (Chapter 10) evaluates in general terms the claim that texts get their meaning from readers and then relates the results of this evaluation to reading the Scriptures. In his view, there is much reason to be critical of the idea that the meaning of a text depends entirely on the individual reader. But confronting this view can help interpreters to develop a more accurate understanding of the process of interpretation. Moreover, it reminds Christians that the Bible should be read in the context of God’s communication with his people and in connection with the congregation of Jesus Christ. Using some examples from the Book of Hosea, Kwakkel shows that focusing on the reader may be a helpful interpretive tool, in particular when it makes sense to go beyond what was meant or intended by the human authors of the biblical books.

The last hermeneutical topic is the question of the extent to which the Reformed notion of Accommodation of Divine Revelation needs further qualification, since the principle that God accommodated his message to its recipients has been contested in recent theological reflections. In his contribution (Chapter 11) Dr. Theodore G. Van Raalte shows that the notion is used by a variety of scholars. He opts for a strong defense of the traditional notion of accommodation. Without guidelines and boundaries, however, the principle can undermine scriptural authority and become destructive to the very revelation and to the very God Reformed theologians purport to explain. In his view, it is important both to realize that accommodation is not an accommodation of the truth as such, but of the means or modes of revealing this truth, and also to distinguish between ontological and soteriological forms of accommodation. Finally, Van Raalte offers an evaluation of the varying uses of the principle throughout history and offers some guidelines for the employment of accommodation in the Reformed confessional context.

The contributions about these nine concrete issues, as well as the responses and rejoinders, offer an excellent overview of the way Reformed theologians deal with contemporary hermeneutical challenges. In this discussion confessional scholars speak for themselves and have a fair and brotherly debate about Reformed hermeneutics today. The conference was not meant as a meeting between the Canadian Reformed federation and the federation of the Reformed Churches (liberated) in the Netherlands. Accordingly, the debates in this book cannot be read as a discussion between these churches or between two or three seminaries. Nevertheless, generally we see a clear difference in emphasis between the theological approach in the contributions, responses, and rejoinders from the Netherlands and those from Canada and the United States. The latter scholars primarily stress the importance of Scripture as the ultimate foundation of faith and theological reflection, accentuate obedience to God, highlight principles, and offer clear-cut theological outcomes; while the former underline spiritual formation and the limited nature of human knowledge, and underscore that Christians only worship God as God if they acknowledge the open, catholic character of Reformed principles like sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture. Obviously all of us as Reformed scholars agree on the importance of all of these aspects, but the differing views might just be due to a trend to rank some of these aspects higher than others. This difference in emphasis appears in the reflections on the notions of metaphor and accommodation in divine revelation (Chapter 2–3; Chapter 11); in the approach of questions regarding the historicity of Old Testament narratives (Chapter 4 and 5); in the views of the use of the Bible in Christian ethics (Chapter 8); and in the underlying philosophical positions in rethinking the Christian understanding of reality (Chapter 10).

These differences even lead to diverse concrete results in the reflections on general and special revelation (Chapter 1) and on Paul’s injunctions about women (Chapter 7). During the conference, the Dutch theologians wondered why it is necessary to declare that the understanding of the word day in Genesis 1 as ordinary day is more biblical than other views of Genesis 1. This might be justified from an exegetical perspective, but, in their view, this does not say very much about the nature of creation. Moreover, an exegetical error is not the same as a confessional error.

The North American theologians, in turn, were surprised to observe that their Dutch colleagues did not agree with one another on the issue of women in office, but also stated that these differences in opinion did not affect the confessional character of their theology. From the North American point of view it was clear from the outset that it is not a valid option to suggest that in a Reformed church it is just as acceptable for women to be in office as not to be in office, and so to give equal plausibility to both positions.

During the conference, several terms were used to characterize the differences in emphasis and position: a common-sense view versus a continental approach to theological problems; a scholastic versus a monastic tradition in theology; a modern, foundationalist Reformed theology versus a postmodern version of it; Reformed versus non-Reformed theology, or an approach narrowing Reformed tradition versus an open Reformed theology.

For us, as Principal and Rector of the institutions involved and as editors of this book, this is not the place to choose one of these classifications or to judge which approach is more biblical. We are happy to testify that during the conference, the participants were open and frank with each other, enjoying Christian fellowship and also vigorous discussions at times as we called each other to account. Undoubtedly, the diverse theological positions are influenced by our cultural and philosophical contexts. But all Reformed theologians agree that the Gospel is not only colored by its environment, but also deeply counter-cultural, for God’s Word is not chained.

We hope and pray that this book will contribute in a similar way to the conversation among Reformed and evangelical people all over the world. As Paul says, we seek our approval from God, and that ultimately it is not just before people that we don’t need to be ashamed, but before God. This then is God’s Word to everyone who speaks or responds in these days: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15).

Dr. Gerhard H. Visscher

Principal, Canadian Reformed Theological Seminary, Hamilton, Canada

Dr. Mees te Velde

Rector, Theological University, Kampen, The Netherlands

1

The Two Books Debate

What if Scripture and Science Seem to Say Different Things?

Jason Van Vliet

Joe had a lingering, niggling problem. Let me explain.¹

Joe grew up in a solid, Reformed home. And whether it was at home, or in church, or at school, the message concerning the beginning of this world was always the same. God miraculously created all things in six days. In fact, to this day Joe can still remember the big chart that Miss Jansen, his kindergarten teacher, put up on the wall with beautiful pictures of what God created on each day. A bright patch of light on the first day. Sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. An elephant, a horse, and of course Adam and Eve, on the sixth day. He never forgot Miss Jansen’s large, colorful creation chart.

So far, so good. Now, after high school, Joe studied engineering and eventually got a job in a robotics firm. He also loved to read up on the latest scientific developments: astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology . . . he loved them all. He was also impressed by all the new discoveries: from the stunning hi-res photography sent by the Mars Rover to the exploration of microbial life at the bottom of the Mariana Trench—some ten kilometers below the surface of the ocean. It was all very fascinating stuff!

But for Joe it also caused a problem. The same scientists who were making all these great discoveries also said that the universe is about thirteen billion years old, and that life forms developed, by a process of evolution, over millions of years. What’s more, these scientists held that death was commonplace in the world long before human beings ever walked the face of the earth. And all of these discoveries did not seem to fit with what the Bible says. It was all so very different compared to what Miss Jansen taught him with that big, colorful chart in kindergarten.

One day Joe finally shared his problem with a Christian brother at church, Bob. Like Joe, Bob was into scientific things. Much to his relief, Joe learned that Bob had also experienced the same tension. However, Bob said to Joe, You just have to work through it using the two books doctrine. What’s that? asked Joe. Well, basically, it’s like this, Bob explained. What God wants us to know about salvation he teaches us in the Bible, and what God wants us to know about creation he teaches us through science. The Bible is one book, creation is another book. They don’t contradict each other. They’re just teaching us about different topics. It’s even in one of our confessions, right at the beginning of the Belgic Confession somewhere. Joe thought that Bob made an interesting point about the two books. But was Bob correct? That’s another—and a very important—question.

* * * *

It’s not uncommon for people to refer to the two books of God.² The first one is the book of God’s word in Scripture, and the second one is the book of God’s works in creation.³ These two books are also sometimes called special revelation and general revelation, respectively. Moreover, it is often said that the first book, Holy Scripture, teaches us about salvation, while the second book, creation, teaches us about science.⁴ So, at first glance, it would seem that as long as we go to the Bible for answers about salvation and to creation for answers about science, all should be well. For instance, this is precisely what Roland Frye has argued:

Science and faith will conflict irreconcilably only if we insist upon confusing and conflating the two books of God. And if we do that, the result will be either bad for science or bad for religion, or bad for both. Our purpose should be to avoid such confused readings, and to concentrate upon getting the most we can out of each of these books.⁵

In theory that might sound reasonable. Yet, as Joe discovered, in practice it’s just not that easy. For example, the first book, the Bible, does speak about how God created the heavens and the earth. It may not contain every detail that our curious minds would like to know about how he did it. Yet certainly God does speak about it in his Word. He even says how long it took him to do it. Genesis 1 speaks of six days.⁶ However, after carefully and thoroughly studying creation, a rather substantial number of scientists have come to different conclusions. They have concluded that the development of life forms on earth took millions of years and involved some sort of evolutionary process.

So it looks like we’ve reached an impasse. God’s Word in Scripture seems to say one thing, and God’s work in creation seems to say another. The two books appear to contradict each other. And yet we firmly believe that God does not speak out of two sides of his mouth: God is not man, that he should lie (Num 23:19). In fact, he is the truth (Isa 65:16; John 14:6). So, from the very start we can establish that God does not deceive us!

Yet what do we do with Joe’s lingering problem? The answer to that question has everything to do with hermeneutics, which is the study of how we correctly interpret the Word of God. To be more specific, should the book of creation cause us to interpret the book of Scripture differently? In other words, should general revelation guide us as we interpret special revelation? Or is it the other way around? Should special revelation teach us how to use general revelation?

In answer to these questions, here is the main point that I’ll aim to put forward in this article: If we elevate the role of general revelation beyond what God intended it to accomplish, then we may very well begin to feel tension between what Scripture says