Should We “Harmonize” Science and Revelation?

Dr. Peter J. Wallace, a minister in the OPC and pastor of a PCA congregation in South Bend, Indiana, tries to answer this question by means of a historical survey of Christian harmonization attempts. The essay is entitled “The Doctrine of Creation in the History of the Church” and can be found here.

Wallace reminds us that while much of the present discussion focuses on the interpretation of the creation account, this is only one incident in the history of the church’s interaction with science, and a recent one at that. It did not begin until about 1800 when geologists, many of them Christians, concluded that the earth must be older than the generally accepted 6000 years. Before that time the length of the days had not really been “an issue” among Christians. What had long been an issue was to what extent science should affect biblical exegesis, not just in Genesis 1 but also elsewhere. And that question, Wallace observes, has been debated ever since the early Christian centuries. He places the present discussion within that larger context and shows that an acquaintance with the past can help us understand and evaluate positions on the issue that are held today.

As Wallace points out, Christians have traditionally followed two approaches with respect to science and revelation, namely conservatism (the church hesitates to accept the science of the day), and concordism (the church attempts to interpret the Bible in terms of the current scientific paradigm). He gives several examples. Among them is the initial rejection and ultimate acceptance of scientific arguments against a flat, four-cornered earth, of a solid, dome-like heavenly structure (Hebrew raqi’a) that prevents the waters above from flooding the earth, and of a moving sun, a stable earth, and an earth-centred universe. In none of these cases did the church justify its decisions on exegetical grounds. Scientific ones were decisive.

Wallace does not believe that we can eliminate the need for concordism. His concern is with the hazards of a concordist approach that tries to interpret the Bible as teaching the current scientific paradigm. Firstly, he observes, this constantly places the church a step behind the science of the day and has more than once led it to back the “wrong” science. Secondly, it threatens to interfere with a careful reading of the biblical message, and therefore with a proper exegesis. Attempts at harmonization, he believes, should never precede the exegetical work of ascertaining what the biblical text is in effect saying. If they do, i.e. if we try to harmonize our exegesis with the current scientific paradigm, we may well miss the theological meaning of the passage. Indeed, “harmonization at the level of exegesis is potentially fatal to a true understanding of the text.”

And therefore, to quote the conclusion of his essay, “If we find that the scripture portrays the sun as going around the earth, we should not seek to repress this but acknowledge that this was the scientific model of the biblical authors – which accurately expresses not only the ordinary observation of humanity, but the biblical teaching that the earth is the centre of God’s purpose in the universe. Likewise, if we determine that the raqi’a is portrayed in scripture as a solid dome or tent, then we should acknowledge that this was the common observation of ancient thinkers, and that it expresses the biblical teaching that the world was formed as a tabernacle where God is worshiped [see, inter alia, Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 78:69, Psalm 150:1]. In the same way, if we discover that the days of creation are portrayed as ordinary days, we should acknowledge that this expresses the biblical teaching that God’s pattern of six days of work and one of rest forms the pattern for our labors. We should not seek to harmonize our exegesis with modern science.”

A similar point has been made by the Dutch theologian A. L. Th. de Bruijne (in C. Trimp., ed., Woord op Schrift, 2002); see on this my article “How Do We Read The Bible?”(Part 3) (under “Collected Papers”; direct link here). De Bruijne deals with the biblical account of Christ’s ascension. In the ancient world that account caused no problems. According to the biblical world picture the earth was below the heavens, and therefore Christ indeed “ascended” – that is, he literally moved to a higher place. In the modern picture of the universe, however, space is boundless, the earth is no longer at the centre, and there no longer is an up and down, an above and below. Some therefore suggest that we are justified in changing the biblical presentation of the ascension with one that describes Christ not as ascending, but as moving to another dimension. De Bruijne disagrees and insists that we read the text as it comes to us. Not to do so, he says, is to misjudge the uniqueness of the language God uses in revelation. The presentation of a literal ascension, for example, involves associations and incorporates meanings that will be lost when we replace it with a modern one. The association of heaven with height is found throughout the Bible, already in the O.T., and again in the New. Jesus receives the highest place; he rises above sin and misery; we can lift up our eyes to heaven; from heaven he looks down to oversee and govern all things; he will come down from heaven to take us to himself, and so on. The fact that God presents the ascension as he does means that this presentation has a particular fitness to be a vehicle of revelation, a fitness that our substitutes lack. Of course, after the text has been explained we can, De Bruijne says, supplement the biblical presentation with a modern one, such as that of a multi-dimensional universe. We should at all times be careful, however, not to absolutize our modern world picture. The Bible should be understood on its own terms.

The exegetical principle of which Wallace and De Bruijne remind us is not new, but it is sometimes forgotten in the heat of the controversy. It does not resolve every problem the Christian church meets in its interaction with science, but it is well to be reminded that the Bible’s message stands, independently of ever-changing scientific paradigms.

Note: Also of interest is Wallace’s study “The Archetypal Week: A Defense of the Analogical Day View” available here along with his other essays.

The Waters Above the Firmament

Below follows a guest post by Ben Vandergugten (B.A., Trinity Western; B.Ed., Simon Fraser) in which he introduces his eight-page article which we have published in our “Collected Papers” (see sidebar). Ben teaches elementary students at William of Orange Christian School in Surrey, B.C. He and his wife, Esther, with their two children, are members of the Canadian Reformed Church in Cloverdale. We thank Ben for his contribution, and welcome the engagement of our readers.

“So God made the expanse (or firmament, dome, vault) and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.” (Genesis 1:7) The interpretation of this text is straightforward, right? God separated the oceans, seas and lakes from the clouds above with an expanse of atmosphere. For a long time I didn’t give this reading a second thought. After all, it was plain and obvious. But this interpretation was not the obvious one until a few hundred years ago. It requires a scientific understanding of the atmosphere, as well as the sun, moon and stars (c.f. Genesis 1:16-18). It is likely that before the 16^th century the “firmament” was considered to be a solid structure by nearly all educated (and probably also uneducated) people in the West. It was certainly assumed to be solid by the Ancient Near Eastern peoples, including Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Canaanites. Since it was amongst these nations that the people of Israel grew into a nation, it would seem most probable that they would also share with them this concept of the firmament.

In an article entitled “The Waters Above the Firmament,” I argue that the “firmament” in Genesis 1 should be understood as a solid structure and that the waters above the firmament are a heavenly ocean, rather than clouds. I discuss some perceptions of the cosmos found in both Hebrew and early Christian texts that compare well with this interpretation. I also consider a small sample of Bible texts that seem to fit better with these concepts of a solid dome and a heavenly ocean. I believe this interpretation takes seriously the ancient cosmology of the day and is most consistent with the Biblical text. This article is not exhaustive, but I hope it will generate some discussion and further research. The implications for this interpretation are significant, but I leave that for you to consider and hopefully discuss on this blog. I have provided some links within the paper to aid in further research. For a more complete argument in favour of this interpretation, see the articles by Paul Seely that I have referenced in the footnotes.

I hope this paper will entice some fruitful discussion, or at least fruitful thinking.