Ad Litteram: Some Dutch Reformed Theologians On The Creation Days

by Max Rogland

Max Rogland is Pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Rochester, MN. His Ph.D. is from Leiden University

I am indebted to Mr. J. Anderson, Prof. B. Aucker, Dr. R. Rogland, Dr. W Rose, and Rev. E Storm for comments on earlier drafts of this paper and for assistance in locating some important bibliographical sources.

I. Introduction

One of the welcome results of the debate within contemporary American Presbyterianism over the length of the days in Gen 1 has been the publication of a number of interesting historical studies on the subject. Recent articles have surveyed the views of various theologians from the early church up to and including the period of the writing of the Westminster Confession of Faith.[1] A more recent theological tradition that has dealt extensively with the issue—and that, consequently, should be of particular interest to the current discussion—is late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century Dutch Calvinism. Not only is a study of this theological tradition valuable in its own right, but it is also made especially necessary due to some serious misconceptions that exist concerning the views of some of its most famous theologians. In a recent publication, for example, it is stated that Geerhardus Vos defended the idea that the creation days were “literal” or “ordinary” days and, so it is claimed, that in this “he was holding the position of the orthodox Reformed scholars of the Netherlands, such as Aalders, as well as Kuyper and Bavinck.”[2] Another writer claims that “Vos, Bavinck, Kuyper… hold to a literal six day interpretation of Genesis 1.”[3] Such statements give the unmistakable impression that these Dutch theologians would be in agreement with those today who affirm that the days of Gen 1 are to be understood as twenty-four hours in length. While this is probably true enough as far as Vos is concerned, with respect to Kuyper, Bavinck, and Aalders it is, quite simply, erroneous. If one actually consults their writings it is perfectly clear that they explicitly denied that some (or all) of the days of Gen 1 were “ordinary” ones, and this had significant implications for their views on the precise length of the days. This article will therefore attempt to set the record straight on these theologians, as well as to draw attention to some other important voices in Dutch Calvinism. The focus will be on the largest of the orthodox Reformed denominations, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland), roughly during the half century from the merger of the Kuyper-led Doleantie churches and the majority of the Secession churches in 1892 up to the division into the “liberated” (vrijgemaakt) and “synodical” (synodaal) Reformed Churches in 1944. Brief attention will also be paid to a few important representatives of the Dutch Reformed tradition in America.

II. Dutch Reformed Theologians in the Netherlands

1. Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920)

By way of introduction to Kuyper’s views on the creation days, it may first be observed that he insisted on interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis “literally.” In his work on common grace he emphasizes the fact that these chapters relate historical events which actually took place.[4] He strongly opposes interpretations of these chapters which deny that they deal with facts (re/ten) or reality (werkeljikheid).[5] Gen 1 is not to be understood as mythical or symbolical, but rather as historical.

Kuyper deals more specifically with the creation days in his Dictaten Dogmatiek. Here he asks the question: ‘And how then are we to understand these days? As our days (onze dagen)?”[6] In regard to the first three days of the creation week he answers: “They could not yet have been our days, since they could not be measured according to the rotation of the earth on its axis and its position in relation to the sun.” Kuyper’s point is obvious: if the sun, by the position of which we measure our days, did not yet exist, then we are clearly not dealing with “ordinary days” or “days like ours.” He does think, however, that after God created the sun on day four then the days were “ordinary” ones: “From that time forth they were thus ordinary days (gewone dagen). We therefore should think of the fifth and sixth days just like our own days.”

Kuyper does not state anything here about the length of the days, and hence one could, presumably, argue that even though the first three days were not “ordinary” days they could still have been twenty-four hours in duration. A more explicit statement on this issue can be found in his Van de Voleinding (“On the Consummation”), in which he says forthrightly: “The assertion that this was a period of twenty-four hours lacks any conclusive evidence.”[7] His reason for this is essentially the same as his reason for refusing to call days 1–3 “ordinary.”

After all, this latter period [viz., a twenty-four-hour day] comes about by the rotation of the earth on its axis in connection with the illumination of this world by the light of the sun. One lacks any right to apply this twenty-four-hour period to the first creation day, since this shining of the sun upon the earth is established for the first time on the fourth creation day. The light that began to shine on the first day was light as such, not yet connected with any sun or star.

Later in the book he admits the possibility that “the duration of the first three days and nights could have been considerably longer than our natural days (etmalen) of twenty-four hours.”[8] However, he immediately adds: “Yet some have incorrectly concluded from this that these days therefore could have spanned ages (tijdperken)[9] of thousands of years.” Thus his denial that one can claim that the first three days were precisely twenty-four hours in length and his openness to the possibility that they could have been “considerably longer” than our days does not entail an acceptance of a “day-age” interpretation. The basic point for Kuyper is that it is impossible to determine the length of days 1–3 with any specificity

The creation account of the first day gives us no more of a right to specify another period. Nothing is determined concerning this in Genesis 1. The light that began to shine on the first day, and then set again, only gives us the right to establish that even from the first day a certain passage of time was instituted by God in time, and that already through this, from the very beginning, this entire world was subjected to a certain order in time.[10]

It thus emerges that Kuyper did not think that a literal, historical interpretation of Gen 1 committed one to the “ordinary 24-hour day” view. Or, to put it even more strongly, he explicitly claims to interpret Gen 1 “literally” while denying that days 1–3 were “ordinary days” or “days like ours.” In his opinion, we lack sufficient biblical evidence to determine their length at all, whether as a period of twenty-four hours or as a “considerably longer” period of time.

2. Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)

Bavinck also devoted attention to the days of Gen 1. In his synopsis of his systematic theology, Magnalia Dei, he states that the Scriptures contain evidences which “require us to think of days other than our ordinary (gewoon) ones brought about by the rotation of the earth.”[11] These evidences include such things as the absence of the sun on days 1–3, the extremely full sixth day, and so on. Bavinck not only thinks that days 1–3 “were very certainly dissimilar (ongelik) to ours” but also that it is “not unlikely” that days 4–6 “were dissimilar to ours in many respects.”[12] One of Bavinck’s arguments for this dissimilarity is quite intriguing. He points to the fact that “the period of coming into being” (het tijdperk der wording), i.e. Gen 1, is remarkably different in every respect from “the period of normal growth,” i.e. the world as we now observe it, as well as to the fact that the fall (and later, the flood) brought about changes in the cosmos itself (cf. Gen 3:14–15, 8:21–22; Rom 8:20–21). The point of Bavinck’s argument is that there is no good reason simply to assume that the cosmos as it now exists—including the astronomical relations which determine our current measurement of time—is identical to that of its pristine, unfallen state.

Similar comments on the “extraordinary” character of the creation days and the cosmological changes brought about by the fall can be found in his systematic theology.[13] Here Bavinck pays more attention to the history of the interpretation of Gen 1, noting that Christian theology has traditionally adopted a “literal, historical” interpretation of this chapter.[14] It is surely reasonable to think that he views his own interpretation as maintaining this tradition[15] though he does not emphasize the point to the same degree as Kuyper.

Some very interesting developments in Bavinck’s thought can be observed when one compares the first edition of his systematic theology with the later editions, as Bremmer has noted.[16] He argues that in the first edition Bavinck was inclined to a form of the day-age view. Thus, for example, Bavinck wrote: “[It is] not a priori impossible that the days in Gen. 1 are to be conceived of as ages (tijdperken). But there are also positive evidences, which do not make this exegesis necessary, but nevertheless possible.”[17] He also argues that it is not the purpose of Gen 1 “to show that the creation of all things took place in precisely 6 x 24 hours, not one minute shorter or longer.”[18] Statements such as these indicate that Bavinck saw neither a necessary connection between a literal, historical hermeneutic and an “ordinary 24-hour day” interpretation, nor an inherent contradiction between such a hermeneutic and a day-age interpretation. At the same time, such comments do not indicate an extremely strong commitment to a day-age view either. In fact, these statements are missing in the later editions, in which Bavinck explicitly rejected a day-age view: “Thus for the reasons given, although the days of Genesis 1 are to be taken for days and not identified with the geological periods, they nevertheless have an extraordinary (buitengewoon) character, like the entire work of creation.”[19]

Such developments are indeed interesting, but it would be a grave mistake to interpret them as an acceptance of the “ordinary 24-hour day” view. Throughout the various editions Bavinck argues that the creation days were not ordinary days but rather extraordinary ones, that the fall had far-reaching effects on the cosmos itself, and that it is “not likely” that all of the events of day six occurred within a normal day’s time. At the most one could perhaps say that he adopted a more “agnostic” view of the length of the days than that found in the first edition—which was already very tentatively stated. The most likely explanation for these changes, it seems to me, is that he simply wished to avoid making any kind of dogmatic statement whatsoever on the matter. Bavinck himself draws attention to the remarkable fact that no confession ever attempted to make a pronouncement on the creation days, and he urges theologians as well as geologists to avoid making premature judgments on the issue.[20] It seems reasonable to conclude that he felt it would be premature for him personally to take a firm stand on the issue.

3. Anton Gerrit Honig (1864–1940)

Bavinck’s successor as Professor of Dogmatics in Kampen, A. Honig, also wrote a dogmatics textbook. Of particular interest to the present study is his paragraph under the locus of creation entitled “Genesis 1 must be literally understood.”[21] Although he rejects a day-age view of Gen 1, in his discussion of the theory he states: “on the other hand, we believe that those who think that we are dealing here with ordinary days (gewone dagen) of 24 hours are mistaken. No, here it is a question of creation days (scheppingsdagen). Days which, at least as far as the first three are concerned, were longer than our days.”[22] Moreover, he thinks that “if the first three days were creation days, then the following three may also be understood as such.” Bearing in mind that Honig uses the term “creation days” in contrast to “ordinary days” for days 1–3, one is justified in concluding that he does not view days 4–6 as ordinary days.[23] He goes on to state in words very similar to those found in the first edition of Bavinck’s systematic theology: “It is not the Lord’s intention to tell us that the creation was completed in precisely 6 x 24 hours. Rather, that the creation is a work of God and that it was brought about by God’s labor, renewed six times.”

Honig’s views are in basic agreement with those of Kuyper and Bavinck: Gen 1 is understood “literallg” but it is denied that days 1–3 were “ordinary days of 24 hours.” With Bavinck, and against Kuyper, he thinks it likely that days 4–6 were not “ordinary days.” Honig does in fact state things rather more strongly than either of them in that he does not merely claim that days 1–3 could have been a different length than “a normal day of 24 hours,” but that they actually were longer than “our days.” It is possible that Honig is consciously departing from Kuyper and Bavinck on this point, though perhaps this is simply a somewhat careless formulation on his part.

4. Gerhard Charles Aalders (1880–1961)

Aalders was a professor of Old Testament at the Free University from 1920 to 1950 and wrote extensively on Gen 1–3. A detailed discussion of the creation days can be found in his massive monograph entitled Divine Revelation in the First Three Chapters of Genesis.[24] Aalders argues that the days are to be understood as “real days” (werkelijike dagen) and not as “ages” (tijdperken) or as some sort of “ideal” description (as in Augustine’s instantaneous creation theory)[25] Though he is aware that many take “real days” as equivalent to “ordinary days, or days of 24 hours,” Aalders thinks that this is “undoubtedly incorrect” and does not follow from their nature as “real days.” Rather, he thinks that days 1–3 (and most likely 4–6 as well) were “extraordinary days, or days of an extraordinary character” and that it is therefore impossible to specify their length. They could have been longer or shorter than the twenty-four-hour days with which we are familiar.[26] Simply put, the Scriptures never specify the length of the days, and we need humbly to accept that fact.

They are God’s days, by which fact any possibility of specifying their duration evades us. Let us then not attempt to say more of them than God Himself has clearly revealed in His Word. He tells us that He completed the preparation of the world, the second creation,[27] in six days. He emphatically warns us that we should not presume to place an ordinary, human measurement on these days, for when He made the first day the requirements for this measurement were not yet in force, the sun and moon had not yet been set to rule over the day and the night (Gen 1:16). He does teach us that these days were characterized by the shining of light, and that this began and ended again and again (Gen 1:5, etc.). But if we now ask: “And what was the duration of these divine creation days (scheppingsdagen), measured according to our standard of time?” Then the Scriptures are silent; they reveal nothing to us concerning this.[28]

Aalders’s view of the creation days obviously agrees to a large extent with that of Kuyper, Bavinck, and Honig. There is one point, however, which is worthy of attention. Whereas Kuyper and Honig, and to a lesser extent Bavinck, all mention the importance of a “literal” interpretation of Gen 1, Aalders makes practically no use of this expression in his discussion of the creation days. Rather, he speaks of interpreting the days as “real days” (werkelijke dagen). This subtle move away from the language of “literal” interpretation is connected with a great deal of debate over the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis which took place in the 1920s in the Reformed Churches. In what follows we will provide a brief sketch of one of the most important of these debates and its relation to the subject of the creation days in the writings of Aalders’s contemporary, Klaas Schilder.

5. The Synod of Assen and the “Geelkerken” Case

In 1926 the Reformed Churches convened a special General Synod at Assen in order to deal with the case of the Rev. Dr. J. G. Geelkerken. In a sermon he had made statements that appeared to call into question the historicity of various elements in Gen 2–3, such as the tree of life and the serpent. A complaint from a member of the congregation eventually led to an ecclesiastical trial, and the Synod was to examine Geelkerken’s views on these chapters and render a judgment. Though he claimed that he did not actually reject the traditional interpretation of Gen 2–3, Geelkerken felt that the Synod did not have a right to mandate any particular interpretation of them, appealing to his right to “freedom of exegesis.”[29] It might be more accurate to say that what he was claiming in practice was a right to freedom from exegesis: he kept insisting—apparently he did not find the admission embarrassing, despite his office as one called to expound and proclaim God’s word—that he did not have an exegesis of his own to offer on Gen 2–3. Given his lack of specificity the Synod finally asked him to sign the following statement:

The undersigned, having taken notice of the statement of the Synod: “That the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent and its speaking and the tree of life, according to the clear (klaarblijkelijk) intent of the Scriptural narrative of Genesis 2 and 3, are to be interpreted in a true (eigenlijk) or literal (letterlijk) sense and were thus realities (werkelijkheden) observable by the senses; and that consequently the opinion of Dr. Geelkerken, that one can dispute whether these matters and facts (feiten) were realities observable by the senses without coming into conflict with the authority of Holy Scripture confessed in articles 4 and 5 of the Belgic Confession, must be rejected,” testifies that he conforms himself to this decision and accepts without any reservation the Scriptural narrative of Genesis 2 and 3 in accordance with its meaning as indicated in the statement of the Synod and will adopt it as the foundation for his teaching.[30]

Geelkerken refused, and the Synod suspended him for three months. When he defied the suspension by preaching the following Sunday, he was deposed. As a result, he and a number of his sympathizers proceded to form the “Reformed Churches in Restored Federation” ( Gereformeerde Kerken in Hersteld Verband).

One of the consequences of the Geelkerken case was that the length of the days in Gen 1 became a more prominent topic of discussion in the Reformed Churches. At first sight this would seem rather strange, since the Synod had only examined Geelkerken’s views on Gen 2–3 and hence had issued no statement on the days in Gen 1.[31] Yet it was argued that if the Synod took it upon itself to determine the “literal” interpretation of Gen 2 and 3, then a similar pronouncement should be forthcoming on Gen 1; after all, a number of men held to “non-literal” interpretations of the “days.” This point was made by various parties, but it was particularly emphasized by supporters of Geelkerken, who felt that he was being treated unjustly, and they thereby meant to accuse the Synod of inconsistency. Hence a number of appeals were made in the church courts calling for a General Synod to make a pronouncement on the length of the creation days, yet these were rejected for a variety of reasons. In some cases there was the obvious fact that the objection was not really to “non-literal” interpretations of “day” but rather to the treatment of Geelkerken.[32] In other cases it was pointed out that it was illegitimate within the Reformed church-order for the General Synod to take up such questions in the abstract; the issue belonged to the sphere of “purely scientific” discussion as long as no actual case had come through the ecclesiastical courts.[33] For the Synod to address the topic apart from such an occasion would be to turn it simply into a forum for debating any number of desired clarifications or corrections to the Three Forms of Unity as well as a potentially endless list of exegetically difficult passages of Scripture. This indicated a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the General Synod: it was supposed to be a gathering of churches treating specific ecclesiastical and confessional matters, not a convention of theologians or exegetical scholars.[34] In a more humorous (but perhaps still practical) vein, one observer pointed out that even if the Synod were to declare, for example, the “ordinary 24-hour day” view to be official dogma, such a statement would be meaningless unless a pronouncement were simultaneously made as to the precise length of the hours.[35]

6. Klaas Schilder (1890–1952)

One of the attacks on the decisions of Assen came in the form of an anonymously published brochure entitled “Are the men of Assen themselves assailants of the authority of Scripture?”[36] In this brochure, the writer (who was later revealed to be the Rev. J. L. Jaspers) asserted that the “literal hermeneutic” which the Synod of Assen was requiring of Geelkerken was not followed by the members of the Synod themselves. Jaspers argued his point in a number of ways. For example, some members of the Synod did not think that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, and, according to Jaspers, the “literal” hermeneutic which had condemned Geelkerken would require a belief in Solomonic authorship if applied consistently. Another one of Jaspers’s arguments—the one which is of interest to the present study—deals with the length of the days in Gen 1. Jaspers claimed that the decisions of Assen necessarily implied a “literal” interpretation of “day,” that is, as precisely twenty-four hours in length. Some of the members of the Synod, however, did not hold to this view. Ergo, the Synod was inconsistent in its “literal” hermeneutic (and hence hypocritical in its condemnation of Geelkerken). In reality, according to Jaspers, the two parties had precisely the same view of Scripture.

Questions of church order aside, such arguments required a response: Was the Synod indeed being theologically inconsistent in condemning Geelkerken’s openness to a “non-literal” interpretation of Gen 2–3 while failing to condemn “non-literal” interpretations of the days of Gen 1 ? A thorough refutation of Jaspers’s arguments, including the issue of the creation days, appeared in a counter brochure written by Klaas Schilder.[37] As a preliminary remark it should be noted that Schilder repeatedly refuses in this brochure to take a position on what he calls “the incidental question of the length of the days.”[38] Nevertheless, his discussion of the issue is extremely interesting and important for understanding the more explicit statements on the subject which he would make later.

Schilder prefaces his response to the creation-days argument by urging caution for a careless use of the term “figurative” or “metaphorical” (oneigenlijk) interpretation or “non-literal reading”: “after all, the question is first, what domain one is dealing with.”[39] For Schilder, the real issue in the Geelkerken case was not so much about literal interpretation per se. He could easily point to the minutes of the Synod in which it was explicitly stated that there are elements in Gen 2–3 which are not to be taken “literally” (such as anthropomorphisms). What Jaspers failed to understand was that the real concern of the Synod of Assen was one of history. Thus, rather than it being a question of literal vs. non-literal interpretation, it was one of history vs. a “higher reality” (a hogere werkeljikheid, as Geelkerken maintained), history vs. “a form of presentation” (inkleding), reality in time and space vs. “symbolical representation.”[40] Then Schilder asks: ‘And what now do THOSE questions have to do with some people’s interpretation of the word ‘day’?” His answer: “Not a whit, absolutely nothing.” The reason for this is that the members of the Synod were all agreed that the creation days occurred in space and time; this was true whether one understood the days as twenty-four hours, more than twenty-four hours, or simply as periods of time which could not be fixed with certainty.

Schilder develops this point by showing that Jaspers uses as synonyms a number of terms which are in fact quite different in meaning. Jaspers continually switches between the contrast “literal/non-literal” (letterlijk/niet letterlijk) and “true/metaphorical” (eigenlijk/oneigenlijk). But this, Schilder argues, is illegitimate, since the terms are not synonymous; rather, these deal with a “completely different contrast.” To make matters worse, Jaspers then switches these terms with the contrasts “real/unreal” (werkelijk/niet werkelijk) and “higher/lower reality” as if they were all simply interchangeable. Schilder exclaims:

But you can’t just do that! And it is a mystery to me how men who call themselves intellectual can just overlook these things. A day of 24 hours, or of 25 hours, or of 240 hours, or 2400 hours, etc., etc., —such a ‘day’ still remains a period in an ordinary ‘reality’, a concept of ‘time’, a very ordinary reality, certainly no ‘higher’ reality. When Dr. Geelkerken says: “That tree…, is not to be understood as a tree, and that ‘eating’ was perhaps no eating at all,” and so forth, then that is a completely different matter than if one says: “The 6 days were periods which could be measured in time, but we only differ in opinion over the question whether those periods are periods as we now measure them or rather of a different measurement.” But periods of time, units of time—they were that in any event/That has nothing to do with “unreal” or “metaphorical.” Not even with “literal” or “non-literal” reading.[41]

It is clear that for Schilder the sine qua non is that the events of the first chapters of Genesis need to be understood as narrating God’s acts in history, in space and time. In his opinion, if one believes this then one is taking the word “day” in its “true” (eigenlijk) and even “literal” (letterlijk) sense.[42] He protests the fact that some view a non-twenty-four-hour interpretation of “day” as the same thing as the non-literal interpretation of anthropomorphisms in the Bible. On the contrary, he maintains that “the contrast in this ‘day’-question is a completely different one than that of ‘literal’ versus ‘metaphorical’.”[43]

Thus, if one accepts that Gen 1 narrates historical realities, he thinks that legitimate differences of exegetical opinion can exist as to the precise length of the creation days: “the debate over the ‘days’ of Genesis 1 remained within the sphere of ‘exegesis,’ while the dispute over the trees, the serpent and related matters was about the fact, the reality and the concept of ‘history’.”[44] As he states elsewhere in dealing with other objections by Jaspers: “If only the fundamental things are established, then one can differ over the details as much as one likes.”[45] The fact that Schilder defends the Synod of Assen, though some of the members either did not accept a twenty-four-hour view or did not think it was required by Scripture, indicates that he thought that it was not one of the “fundamental things” but rather a “detail.”

One might well ask what Schilder viewed as the “fundamental things.” He writes:

even the most confident opponent of the non-24-hour interpretation of the days can concede to me that justice is done to the Scriptures in principle if three things stand firm: First, that not a single notion enters into our believing thought unless one in good conscience thinks that they may be derived from Scripture and can be linked to Scripture; Second, that scientific research which pays no respect to Scripture can never be a binding standard (maatstaf) for our believing thought (it always can, may and even must be an INDUCEMENT [aanleiding] for a closer examination of our views, since we can always have been mistaken in asserting: ‘this or that is taught by Scripture’; but it may never be a standard; so that when it is certain that Scripture teaches something then no science may place itself as a judge over Scripture); Third, that the reality (werkelijkheid) which is spoken of remains one of time, in which we live along with every creature here on earth, and one of space, in which the world has been placed by God.[46]

According to Schilder, it was the members of the Synod, and not Geelkerken, who met these requirements, and consequently did justice to Scripture in principle (even if some of them could have been exegetically mistaken in regard to the creation days). He therefore totally rejects Jaspers’s suggestion that the Synod’s view of Scripture is similar to that of Geelkerken. One can see that his primary concern here is with the basic presuppositions of the Synod and of Geelkerken.

Let me put it crassly: Someone can speak the truth, but arrive at that truth through illogical reasoning in an argument which is otherwise principially wrong. And another can declare a falsehood though illogical, inconsistent reasoning in an argument which is otherwise principially pure. In such a case the first man, who is correct on that incidental point, is principially a heretic, and the second, who is incorrect in that incidental case, is principially orthodox. 

It is therefore pure nonsense to ask if Dr. Geelkerken could perhaps be correct on the issue of the “days”… I repeat: It is foolishness to ask if Dr. Geelkerken is correct in regard to the incidental question of the length of the six or seven “days” or if someone else is incorrect. The question is, what is their line of reasoning, how do they principially stand in regard to the concept of revelation of the Holy Scripture, and how far are they prepared, or not prepared, to submit to what Scripture says once it has become clear: The Scripture says this explicitly.[47]

Schilder does not leave the (“incidental”) exegetical question entirely unaddressed, however. The Synod had stated that it was not permissible to take some element from a narrative that intended to describe history in a figurative or metaphorical (oneigenlijk) sense “unless valid reasons for doing so could be adduced from Scripture itself.”[48] As Schilder points out, Jaspers’s argument concerning the “literal” meaning of “day” in Gen 1 is based upon the assumption that anyone who does not hold to twenty-four-hour days cannot produce any valid reasons for such a view. But in fact all the members of the Synod who thought that the days were not intended as “24 hours, down to the minute” tried to show this from Scripture—something which Geelkerken never tried to do when he spoke of the “higher reality” of Gen 2–3. Schilder mentions some of the reasons which they gave, such as the absence of the sun on days 1 3, and although he does not commit himself to any exegesis here it does become apparent that, at the very least, he thinks it impossible to specify their length with certainty: “The fact is… that the great pendulum, which in the world’s clock measures hours for the earth, is for the first time set in motion for the earth on the fourth day. With this all certainty comes to an end concerning the day- and hour-measurement of the creation ‘days.’”[49] Perhaps indicative of Schilder’s own exegetical opinion is the following statement:

We only ask that the writer first study a bit of logic before he gets involved in an historic ecclesiastical debate which will be of signficance for decades to come. And that he seriously consider the question of whether it is really so foolish to accept the possibility that our rest- and work-week consisting of seven 24-hour periods is a REFLECTION (afspiegeling) of God’s 7-period creation- and sabbath-week.[50]

Before leaving the Schilder-Jaspers interchange to examine some of Schilder’s other writings on the creation days, it is of interest to take note of one further argument which Jaspers raises in connection with Gen 1: the slippery slope towards an acceptance of evolution. In the brochure Jaspers expressed his “fear” that a failure to interpret the days as twenty-four hours in length would open the door to evolutionary teaching. Given the emphasis which we have seen that Schilder places on the importance of rigorous reasoning and biblical presuppositions, his response is perhaps not all that surprising: “Here it is simply the question of how one arrives at his ‘exegesis.’” He explains in more detail:

The results of exegesis do not create a philosophical, epistemological or religio-historical “viewpoint” or “starting point” (uitgangspunt). It is precisely the other way around: One exegetes according to one’s starting point. Someone who, for reasons found outside of Genesis 1, sympathizes with evolutionary teaching, and yet for one reason or another still wants to carry a Bible to church or to school, will naturally attempt to make the “days” into ages (tijdperken), preferably of millions of years. But THEN it is not the “exegesis” of the days as ages which has taught him evolution, but rather evolution has taught him the (entirely lame, unbelieving, Biblically-critical caricature of) exegesis as “ages.” The starting point with such a person is no good; and there’s the rub. 

If two people do the same thing, it still isn’t the same thing. The one can say “I believe in ages” and can intend that in a good way, the other can say the same thing and yet be a heretic to the core; particularly if he tries to force the Bible to his own will. And if someone should come along who, on these grounds and with this desire, seeks a refuge in the “age”-view for his already unbelieving science, then the possibility exists that someone else, who also believes in ages, but on completely different grounds, would have to condemn him as a heretic. 

It is therefore so shallow and so misleading when one blindly begins with a certain result of reasoning. What always matters the most is the reasoning itself… On what foundation is someone’s argument based, what are the fundamental ideas being presupposed? That is the question. Naturally not the only one. But in questions concerning the Scripture certainly one of the first ones. And therefore I do not hesitate to declare that someone who, for the sake of “natural science,” or for the sake of his own ideas of what is or is not possible, extends the “days” of Genesis 1 to ages, without it making a difference to him if someone shows him at some point: “But honest exegesis excludes that”—that that person should be disciplined by the confessing church. And then they may complain as much as they like about “judging with two different standards,” but I insist that it is theoretically possible … that there could also be among those who signed the condemnation men who said: “They are ages.” Because if they believe that on other grounds, being ready to abandon the idea immediately if someone can prove that the Bible does not permit it, then they are being perfectly honest. Because no one is accepted or rejected on the basis of a single result of exegesis or anything else by itself. Nothing stands “by itself”[51]

For Schilder, evolution and divine revelation are two mutually exclusive presupositional commitments:[52] you begin by accepting either the one or the other. It is for this reason that he thinks it “shallow” as well as “misleading” to suspect someone of being on the slippery slope towards evolution on the basis of one’s views of the creation days alone; one’s interpretation could at best be a symptom of a prior acceptance of evolutionary thinking, rather than being a cause of it.[53] Lest someone accuse Schilder of simply skirting the issue, he does specify what would prevent persons who reject a twenty-four-hour day interpretation from embracing evolution: “holding firm to the concept of ‘creation,’ and to the transcendental meaning of ‘God said,’ and to the distinction between the first and second creation, and to the doctrine of the Logos, and to the absolute ‘in the beginning,’ and so on …”[54] These were all affirmed by the members of the Synod, including those who accepted a non-twenty-four-hour view. Schilder thus thinks that such “fears” on Jaspers’s part are unfounded?[55]

As mentioned above, Schilder does not commit himself to an interpretation of the creation days in this brochure. More explicit statements to this effect can be found in the church paper De Reformatie, of which he had become an editor in 1924. In one issue Schilder reprinted a lengthy citation of Aalders in which he set forth his views on the nature and length of the creation days, followed by the simple comment: “This is the view which is also maintained by our paper over against De Wekker[56] and which, in our opinion, rightly rejects its dilemma (24 hours or else no “real” [werkelijk] days).”[57] This brief statement is of considerable interest for two reasons. First, Schilder explicitly endorses Aalders’s view of the creation days, which, as we saw above, was not an “ordinary 24-hour day” view. Second, it is also a clear statement of what has been implicit in the various views examined above, namely, that the (common?) assumption that either one believes in twenty-four-hour creation days or else one denies that they are “real days” creates a false dilemma which is to be rejected.

Though Schilder was quite enthusiastic about Aalders’s writings on Gen 1–3,[58] including the issue of the creation days, others were less so. Aalders received criticism from very different theological camps.[59] Not only did liberal theologians and those attracted to Barthian theology (such as the Geelkerken group) attack him, but so did orthodox Reformed groups. One particularly egregious misreading of Aalders came from the Rev. G. H. Kersten of the Reformed Congregations, who charged him with teaching a day-age theory—this despite the fact that he had repeatedly and explicitly rejected such a view.[60] Heavy criticism also came from Christian Reformed Churches in their paper De Wekker. In one issue, for example, Brunner is cited, followed by the comment: “This statement of Brunner’s agrees to a large extent with what Prof. Aalders teaches.”[61] As if the insinuation were too subtle, the writer later states: “In our country dialectical theology appears to have supporters even among its…, opponents. The paradox?” The concluding question is most likely a not-so-veiled reference to Schilder’s doctoral dissertation Zur Begriffsgeschichte des “Paradoxon.”[62] The obvious charge against Aalders and Schilder is that a rejection of twenty-four-hour creation days is more in line with neo-orthodoxy than with classical Calvinism.

Schilder was, as a matter of fact, one of the first theologians in Holland to see the dangers of dialectical theology, and he polemicized incessantly and vociferously against Barth.[63] Hence the notion that he had neo-orthodox sympathies has very little prima facie plausibility. One can only wonder what De Wekker would have written had Barth already published his Lehre von der Schöpfung, in which he stated his opinion that the author of Gen 1 understood the “days” to be twenty-four-hours long![64] In any event, such “guilt by association” arguments are, as everyone ought to know, logically invalid, and Schilder—who earned a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Erlangen—was not about to let such an obvious blunder go by: “Anyone can figure out that this is foolishness.”[65] It was quite easy for him to supply numerous references to Aalders’s writings to demonstrate that De Wekker simply had not bothered to read Aalders carefully and that on several points he was by no means saying the same thing as Brunner. There was, in fact, only one point on which the two agreed: both thought that the world was older than the traditional Jewish reckoning (according to which it was created around 4000 B.C.). Yet picking up a theme from his earlier brochure in defense of the Synod of Assen, Schilder argued that “if two say the same thing, it isn’t the same thing.” That is to say, Brunner and Aalders were starting from fundamentally opposed presuppositions and therefore had completely different reasons for their opinions: “Brunner doesn’t for a moment find it difficult to have a Bible which makes mistakes, because he’s convinced of that; Aalders, however, holds firmly to what the Bible says, and thinks that his chronology perfectly agrees with that of the Bible.”

In addition to such criticisms of the (supposed) content of Aalders’s work, De Wekker also stated a little more playfully:

Brunner enables one to see what it means to meddle with the days of Gen l, because, as he says, it is a not a question of history, but of divine truth. But there are Reformed theologians who think that Gen 1 allows them to give free play to their ingenuity, and then in Gen 2 to pick up the strict line of history again.

Schilder’s response, however, is surprisingly earnest:

I do not hestitate to say that if the editor of De Wekker values his name then he will retract this statement, along with his entire article. Because what you have here is a public sin against the ninth commandment. It is suggested here that Prof. Aalders abandons “the strict line of history” in Genesis 1. Now we will not allow the writer to save himself from the difficulties with the childish remark: “Didn’t I say the strict line of history?” Because then he would just have to tell us what the non-strict line of history is. He knows very well that his good-natured readers will take his comments in this way: that the historical “line” concerning Genesis 1 is abandoned. This conflicts with the most categorical statements of Prof. Aalders.

Thinking that the comparison of Aalders with Brunner was valid, De Wekker issued a “choose you this day whom ye will serve” (Josh 24:15) to the Reformed Churches: “And yet here one has an either/or: One must choose either the one or the other. Brunner is right, then forward with Brunner; or Brunner is wrong, but then not a single step on that slippery path.” Schilder replied:

This either/or naturally doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. Because: a. I’ve already pointed out that Brunner isn’t drawing a “consequence” from his “standpoint” if in this particular case he rejects believing the Bible; and b. Prof. Aalders has not taken one single step on his slippery path (that of starting with the Biblically-critical notion that it is quite possible for the Bible to make mistakes, and that a good Christian has no reason to be upset about this if he dialectically distinguishes between the “Word of God” and “Scripture”). Nota bene, he himself settles accounts with Brunner. One could just as easily argue that Brunner doesn’t believe Genesis 1 and drinks coffee, and Prof. Aalders drinks coffee, and that he therefore doesn’t believe Genesis 1—because hasn’t he taken a step on that slippery path of Brunner’s, who also drinks coffee?[66] But drinking coffee doesn’t make Brunner’s path slippery. The paths only get slippery through misunderstanding.

It was only by “willful misunderstanding”[67] that Aalders or Schilder could possibly have been considered neo-orthodox on the basis of their interpretation of the creation days. A careful examination of what they actually wrote and their reasons for it (not to mention the fact that both were avowed opponents of dialectical theology) would have been enough to show such charges to be groundless. That such demonstrably false allegations were made in a denominational paper makes them all the more difficult to excuse.

7. Summary

The views of Kuyper, Bavinck, Honig, Aalders, and Schilder on the days of Gen 1 display a remarkable degree of similarity.[68] All of them reject a “day-age” interpretation, though Bavinck was at first inclined to such a view. All are agreed that days 1–3 are not “ordinary” days due to, e.g., the absence of the sun. They instead refer to the days as “God’s workdays” (werkdagen Gods), “creation days” (scheppingsdagen), “extraordinary days” (buitengewone dagen), and so on. Only Kuyper affirms that days 4–6 are “ordinary days”; the others are inclined to view them as having the same extraordinary character as days 1–3. In regard to the duration of the days, all are agreed that nothing can be said with certainty for days 1–3 (or 1–6) due to their extraordinary nature. That is, they could have been shorter or longer than the twenty-four-hour days with which we are familiar. Nevertheless, they argue that Gen 1 is to be interpreted “literally.” With Aalders and Schilder we see a preference for terminology which refers to notions of, e.g., “reality” (werkelijkheid) and “history” (historie). In substance this is what was meant by a “literal interpretation,” yet the change is nonetheless significant in that such terms indicate more explicitly the nature of the problems being debated in regard to Gen 1–3. The term “literal” was no longer felt to be the most useful one in this regard, and given the growing influence of dialectical theology this is hardly surprising: Barth, for example, could agree that the writer of Gen 1 intended the days as twenty-four-hour (supposedly “literal”) days, yet he nonetheless rejected the historicity of the creation narrative.[69]

The preceding survey does not claim to be exhaustive, yet at the very least it can safely be said that “non-ordinary” or “non-twenty-four-hour” interpretations of the days of Gen 1 were well-established in the Reformed Churches, being held by a number of its most prominent theologians. We may also briefly mention some other influential figures who held or were at least open to such views: Wilhelm Geesink (1854–1929), a theological professor at the Free University and a colleague of Kuyper and Bavinck; Jan Ridderbos (1879–1960), the professor of Old Testament in Kampen; Frederik Willem Grosheide (1881–1972), professor of New Testament at the Free University; and most likely Prof. Cornelius van Gelderen (1872–1945), who taught Semitic languages and Old Testament at the Free University.[70] It is worth drawing attention to the fact that Honig, Aalders, Geesink, Ridderbos, Grosheide, and Van Gelderen were all advisors to the Synod of Assen, and Schilder, though not taking an official part in the Synod, viewed its decisions as having immense theological significance and he vigorously defended them.[71] None of them saw a contradiction between maintaining the historical character of Gen 2 and 3 and interpreting the days of Gen 1 as “extraordinary” ones. Serious exegetical attempts to defend other views during this period were, to the best of my knowledge, rare.[72]

III. Dutch Reformed Theologians in America

1. Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949)

In his 1900 Systematische Theologie Vos poses the question of whether the days in Gen 1 are to be understood as “ages” (tijdperken) or as “ordinary days” (gewone dagen), and he affirms the latter, denying that they are “God’s days” (Gods dagen): “That the days are God’s days is not correct. God, for His part, has no days. God’s Sabbath is certainly without end, but not the first Sabbath of Man.”[73] Vos’s views here are straightforward enough, though it should be pointed out that his statement of the question is too simplistic. For him it is a question of either “ages” or “ordinary days,” whereas his contemporaries Kuyper and Bavinck accepted neither of these options.

Vos’s treatment of the creation days in his 1910 Gereformeerde Dogmatiek is greatly expanded and appears at first sight to evince much more subtlety.[74] The question which he poses here has been significantly reworded:

Q. 29. Should the word ‘day’ be understood here in its common sense (in den gewonen zin) or in that of an undetermined period (onbepaalde periode)? 

There is much debate over the subject. The decision here must not be made dependent on geological considerations and so forth, but on purely exegetical ones. 

Q. 30. Is one justified in saying that the metaphorical (oneigenlijk) interpretation is something new, to which theologians have been driven by the development of modern science? 

No, those who say that are mistaken. Augustine already said: “What sort of days these were is extremely difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, let alone to speak of.”

He then lists the exegetical reasons in favor of the “metaphorical” interpretation, and concludes: “On these grounds many accept an exceptional duration for the creation days, even such as are not out to reconcile Scripture and science. Many Church Fathers and medieval theologians. [sic] Among more recent ones even Charles Hodge is inclined towards such a view.” This last remark is particularly interesting, as it seems to indicate that Vos thought that Hodge’s openness on the creation days was not simply a concession to modern science.[75]

Vos then discusses the exegetical reasons for taking “day” in its “ordinary meaning” (gewone betekenis), and he continues to favor this view. He also asks the practical question: “Should one view someone who views the days as ages (tijdperken) as a heretic?” He answers: “No, the issue is not essential in that sense. It only becomes essential when it offers someone the opportunity principially to give priority to the so-called results of science over the Word of God.” Two comments are called for here. First, the phrasing of this last question indicates that Vos is again speaking specifically about a “day-age” (tijdperk) theory. Hence, even though he began by distinguishing between “day in the ordinary sense” and “an undetermined period,” it appears that he has difficulty in seeing this “undetermined period” as anything other than an “age.”[76] This becomes even more evident when one examines some of his exegetical reasons in favor of the “ordinary meaning” of “day.” For example:

1. The whole creation is aimed towards man as its completion. It is difficult to accept that the preparing of this goal would be slowed down by thousands of years.
2. All of the creation days must have been of a similar length. Now who can accept that a day on which nothing happened other than the separation of light and darkness was a day of thousands of years?[77]

It would thus appear that Vos still views it simply as a matter of “ordinary days” vs. “ages.” Second, it is interesting to observe that Vos views the “non-ordinary day” interpretation as taking the word “day” in a “metaphorical” (oneigenlijk) sense. As we have seen, Schilder would later protest strongly against Jaspers’s use of the term “metaphorical” as a description of non-twenty- four-hour day interpretations of Gen 1.

2. William Wijand Heyns (1856–1933)

Heyns was a professor of Practical Theology at the Theological School in Grand Rapids, but he also wrote a short dogmatics textbook in which he devoted some attention to the creation days.[78] In his treatment he opposes any sort of unbelieving evolutionary theory, yet he admits that there is “an evolutionary theory which may not be called an unbelieving theory (ongeloofstheorie),” which interprets the Hexameron as six “very long periods” (zeer lange perioden). While he admits such a possibility, he nonetheless rejects it for exegetical reasons and concludes: “The traditional interpretation of Gen. 1 is certainly not infallible, but it is not advisable to alter it without good reasons, and as far as we can see, such reasons are lacking.” Two similarities to Vos’s discussion may be noted. First, though Heyns prefers an exegesis which takes the days as “ordinary” ones, he does not think that an acceptance of a “day-age” view is necessarily a sign of “unbelief.” Secondly, he also views the exegetical choice to consist of either “ordinary” days or “very long periods” (i.e., “ages”); other possibilities are not considered.

3. Louis Berkhof (1873–1957)

It is already well-known that Berkhof held to “ordinary” or “natural” creation days,[79] yet a few brief comments are necessary on his discussion of the historical-theological aspect of the question. Specifically, it needs to be pointed out that his description of the views of Kuyper and Bavinck is not entirely accurate and potentially misleading. He states: “Kuyper and Bavinck hold that, while the first three days may have been of somewhat different length, the last three were certainly ordinary days.”[80] As we saw above, Bavinck clearly did not think that days 4–6 “were certainly ordinary days,” but in fact was inclined towards viewing them as “extraordinary” ones. Berkhof has simply misread Bavinck here. In contrast, Berkhofs statement regarding Kuyper is, strictly speaking, true: Kuyper did indeed assert merely the possibility that days 1–3 could have been a different length than twenty-four hours, and he did affirm that days 4–6 were “ordinary” ones. Nevertheless, this can give the wrong impression if one neglects to mention some of Kuyper’s strong statements regarding the (im)possibility of determining the length of days 1 3 (see above), such as: “the assertion that this was a period of 24 hours lacks any conclusive evidence.” In fairness to Berkhof it must be stated that it is not his intent to give a detailed account of the history of the doctrine here. Yet it seems likely that it is his discussion which is the source of some of the current misconceptions of Kuyper and Bavinck mentioned in the introduction above.

4. Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987)

In light of the preceding discussion, it is perhaps not surprising that it has proved difficult to ascertain the views of Cornelius Van Til on the creation days: he would have had to part ways on the subject either with his esteemed teacher Vos or with a number of eminent scholars from the Netherlands, not to mention several important representatives of the Princeton tradition in which he was trained. Smith thinks that there is evidence “which strongly suggests that he held to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account” and that Van Til “seems” to have held to twenty-four-hour creation days.[81] As evidence he provides the following citation: “Neo-orthodox theologians do not take the Genesis creation and fall accounts seriously as historical narratives in the common sense notion of ‘historical’ (events in the phenomenal world). In recent years some Reformed theologians under the influence of neo-orthodoxy are trying to make adjustments on this point.” The problem is, such an understanding of the “historical” nature of the creation account would have been affirmed by, e.g., Schilder, who utterly rejected neo-orthodox theology and nevertheless did not hold to “ordinary 24-hour days” in Gen 1. Hence this statement of Van Til’s can by no means be taken as an indication of his view on the precise length of the days. It is interesting to note that from 1935 to 1940 Van Til was a contributor to De Reformatie, which had an outspoken “extraordinary days” position (see above on Schilder). This does not necessarily mean that Van Til personally endorsed the view, however, and none of his contributions to the paper give a clear indication of his own opinion. If he did differ on the subject with Schilder, he apparently did not feel strongly enough about it to publish any kind of response, nor did he seem to find it problematic to be professionally associated with theologians who openly advocated non-twenty-four-hour views. A certain indifference to such issues can perhaps be detected in a statement which he made elsewhere: “I’m not sure how long ago man existed on this earth and I’m not sure this makes that much difference.”[82]

5. Summary

Despite the uncertainty concerning Van Til’s position, the views of Vos, Heyns, and Berkhof on the days of Gen 1 are certainly clear enough. It is quite striking to see them differing from so many of their colleagues in the Netherlands by interpreting the days as “ordinary days,” which is probably rightly taken to mean days of twenty-four hours. The evidence could perhaps be indicative of a more widespread divergence between the American and Continental schools on this issue, but further investigation would be necessary to prove or disprove such a thesis. In any event, one should be careful not to misinterpret the significance of these diverging views. As pointed out above, for Vos and Heyns the exegetical choice is one of “ordinary days” as opposed to “ages” or “very long periods,” and to state the question this way is to exclude the position of the theologians in the Netherlands. One is disappointed to see that in his later discussion Vos continues to view the question in this way, despite what initially appear to be some promising nuances on his earlier treatment. Hence it would be inaccurate to say that Vos and Heyns actually rejected the “extraordinary day” view; what they rejected was a day-age (tijdperk) interpretation, but, as we have seen, this was also rejected by Kuyper and the rest. It appears, then, that Vos and Heyns either were unaware of the actual position of their colleagues in the Netherlands, failed to understand it, or simply chose not to interact with it. Whatever the reason might have been, this diminishes the usefulness of their writings for the present discussion to no small extent.

IV. Conclusion

There is nothing in the Three Forms of Unity which could be even remotely considered as requiring a particular interpretation of the Hexameron.[83] The issue of the length of the days simply is not an issue in the confessional standards of the Dutch Reformed tradition. This, in addition to the significant fact that the Reformed Churches never thought it necessary to require a particular position on the days of Gen 1, make it impossible to claim that any interpretation was the orthodox view. Accordingly, even proponents of twenty-four-hour creation days treat the question primarily as an exegetical one, rather than as a test of orthodoxy or confessional fidelity.[84] Hence the charges of “doctrinal drift,” “perverting and twisting the Scriptures,” or even “heresy” which one encounters in some American Presbyterian circles[85] appear to be largely (if not entirely) absent from discussions of the issue in the Dutch Reformed tradition. Though it is not claimed here that any interpretation was the orthodox view in the Reformed Churches, nevertheless, if we are allowed to make a judgment based on the two theological faculties which trained the denomination’s ministerial candidates,[86] then it is no exaggeration to say that the “extraordinary day” interpretation gives the definite impression of being the majority view.

Notes

1. See D. Hall, “What Was the View of the Westminster Assembly Divines on Creation Days?” in Did God Create in Six Days? (ed. J. Pipa, Jr. and D. Hall; Taylors: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1999), 41–52; R. Letham, “‘In the Space of Six Days’: The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly,” WTJ 61 (1999): 149-74; W Barker, “The Westminster Assembly on the Days of Creation: A Reply to David W Hall,” WTJ 62 (2000): 113-20.
2. M. Smith, “The History of the Creation Doctrine in the American Presbyterian Churches,” in Did God Create in Six Days?, 12.
3. J. Pipa, Jr., “From Chaos to Cosmos: A Critique of the Non-Literal Interpretations of Genesis 1:1–2:3, ” in Did God Create in Six Days?, 192 n.107.
4. A. Kuyper, De Gemeene Gratie (4 vols.; 4th ed.; Kampen: Kok, n.d.), 1:100–101.
5. Ibid., 1:95-100.
6. A. Kuyper, Dictaten Dogmatiek, Locus de Creatione (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: J. B. Hulst, n.d.), 85.
7. A. Kuyper, Van de Voleinding (4 vols.; Kampen: Kok, 1929), 1:23.
8. Ibid., 1:388.
9. In discussion of the days of Gen 1 the Dutch theologians typically use the word “tijdperk” as a technical term to refer to a period of thousands (or millions) of years corresponding to a geological period. This view is usually called the “concordist” interpretation and is what we would today call the “day-age” view.
10. Kuyper, Van de Voleinding, 1:23.
11. H. Bavinck, Magnalia Dei (Kampen: Kok, 1909), 182; this was translated into English by H. Zylstra under the title Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 172. It is extremely difficult to understand how Pipa can refer to this translation of Bavinck’s book (“From Chaos to Cosmos,” 190 n.98) and yet in the same article claim that Bavinck held to “literal” (i.e., 24-hour) days (see n.3 above). Bavinck’s statement of his position here is surely not that ambiguous.
12. Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 183 (Our Reasonable Faith, 172).
13. H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (4 vols.; 4th ed.; Kampen: Kok, 1928 30), 2:462–63. The locus of creation has recently been translated into English by J. Vriend and edited by J. Bolt as In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999). See esp. pp. 124–25.
14. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 2:458 (In the Beginning, 120).
15. Cf. H. van der Vaart Smit, “De Scheppingsweek,” Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 28 (1927–28): 147 and 149.
16. See R. Bremmer, Herman Bavinck als Dogmaticus (Kampen: Kok, 1961), 212; cf. J. Stellingwerf, De Vrije Universiteit na Kuyper (Kampen: Kok, 1987), 154. The first edition of his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek was produced from 1895 to 1901 while Bavinck taught at the Theological School of the Reformed Churches in Kampen, the later editions after he had become Professor of Dogmatics at the Free University in Amsterdam.
17. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (1st ed.), 2:479.
18. Ibid., 2:481.
19. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (4th ed.), 2:462 (In the Beginning, 124).
20. Ibid., 2:458-59 (In the Beginning, 120-21).
21. A. Honig, Handboek van de Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Kampen: Kok, 1938), 317–23.
22. Honig, Handboek, 319.
23. Further on Honig writes: “This makes it, however, all the more probable, that we are not dealing with six ordinary days (gewone dagen) but rather with six creation days (scheppingsdagen)” (Handboek, 320).
24. G. Ch. Aalders, De Goddelijke Openbaring in de Eerste Drie Hoofdstukken van Genesis (Kampen: Kok, 1932), 229–63. His discussion is so detailed and nuanced that only a very brief summary can be given here; one should consult his monograph directly for the full argument.
25. Ibid., 246.
26. Ibid., 246-50.
27. The “first creation,” i.e., Gen 1:1, is considered a separate creative act which precedes the “second creation,” i.e., the Hexameron. See n.68 below.
28. Aalders, Goddelijke Openbaring, 250. One is at a loss to explain how anyone could claim that Aalders held to “literal” or twenty-four-hour days (see n.2 above), since his views are clearly set forth in his commentary on Genesis, which has been available in English for some time. See Genesis (trans. “W. Heynen; 2 vols.; BSC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 1:58–59: “There have been many attempts to measure the creation day which God first established in terms of our standard of measuring time. There are still those today who are convinced that the creation days were simply 24-hour days. This is certainly without any substantiation in Scripture. It is obvious that the creation day was limited by morning and evening, by the beginning and ending of the beaming of light. Our 24-hour day includes the night and as such is a different concept in itself. But beyond that, when the first day (actually the first three days) was established, the standard by which we measure our days had not yet been created. The solar system by which we measure time was not created until the fourth day. In addition to all that, when we speak of the ‘days of creation’ we are not talking about days in relationship to human beings because they had not yet been created. We are speaking rather about a day of God. It should be obvious that the standard by which we currently try to measure our days, namely the turning of the earth on its axis, in no way was a limiting standard for God the Creator of it all. It will always remain an idle effort to measure the length of the creation days. It behooves us to humbly limit ourselves to the data given in the text of Scripture. All we can do, on that basis, is to accept the fact that God established the first day by setting limits to the beaming of the light he had created. How these limits were set and how long the interval was between these boundaries of the beginning and ending of the beaming light, we are not told in Scripture. We should therefore not presume to say anything further about this.”
29. Ironically, Geelkerken’s behavior actually endangered the notion of “freedom of exegesis,” according to the Synodical advisor who arguably had (at least initially) the most sympathy for Geelkerken, Prof. C. van Gelderen of the Free University. See the fascinating correspondence published by C. Houtman, “Achter de Schermen van de Synode van Assen. Prof. Dr. C. van Gelderen en de kwestie Dr. J. G. Geelkerken,” Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 80 (1980): 178-201, esp. 195.
30. Acta der Buitengewone Generale Synode van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, Gehouden te Assen van 26Januari tot 17 Maart 1926 (Kampen: Kok, n.d.), article 149.
31. The Synod had specifically excluded Gen 1 from the investigation. The motivation for doing so was frequently called into question by critics of the Synod (e.g., it was suggested that the Synod was carrying out a vendetta against Geelkerken, which might not have been successful had this chapter been included, since opinions were more divided as to its exegesis). However, according to one of the advisors to the Synod, Prof. W. Grosheide, this was done simply because the classis to which Geelkerken belonged appeared to be satisfied with his answers regarding Gen l, and hence there was no reason to discuss the matter at the Synod. See his comments in De Reformatie 7, no. 33 (13 May 27): 263; cf. C. Trimp, Om de Klaarheid der Waarheid. Een Taxatie van de Leeruitspraak van “Assen-1926” en Haar Terzijdestelling in 1967 (Groningen: De Vuurbaak, 1967), 72 n.48.
32. See the Acta der Generale Synode van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, Gehouden te Groningen van 16 Augustus tot 9 September en van 25 tot 27 October 1927 (Kampen: Kok, n.d.), article 262; cf. De Reformatie 7, no. 52 (23 September 1927): 384-85.
33. See the Acta der Generale Synode (1927), article 30.
34. See the remarks of Profs. Grosheide and Bouwman in De Reformatie 7, no. 33 (13 May 1927): 263 and 7, no. 35 (28 May 1927): 279, respectively, and K. Schilder, Een Hoornstoot tegen Assen? (Antwoord op een “Conscientiëkreet”) (Kampen: Kok, 2d ed. 1929), 49–50.
35. See De Reformatie 8, no. 26 (30 March 1928): 204.
36. Zijn de Mannen van Assert Zelf Aanranders van her Schriftgezag? Een Conscientiëkreet door een Gereformeerde Predikant (Bloemendaal: Gramme & Eikelenboom, 1928).
37. Schilder, Een Hoornstoot tegen Assen?, esp. pp. 39–46. Mention should also be made of an extremely interesting interchange between H. Van der Vaart Smit and N. D. van Leeuwen in Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 27 (1926–27), in which the subject of the creation days played a significant role. Though van der Vaart Smit certainly was not an entirely uncontroversial figure (e.g., he would later become an open supporter of the Dutch Nazi movement), at this time he strongly defended the position of Assen against van Leeuwen, a vocal critic of the Synod’s decisions. See: van der Vaart Smit, “Historic en Exegese,” 10–35; van Leeuwen, “Contra,” 116–25; van der Vaart Smit, “Handhaving der Critiek,” 178–92; van Leeuwen, “Iterum Contra,” 274–81; van der Vaart Smit, “Eenige Opmerkingen over de Leer der Organische Inspiratie,” 412–35.
38. Schilder, Een Hoornstoot tegen Assen?, 44.
39. Ibid., 39.
40. It is only fair to mention that in a response to Schilder’s brochure Jaspers rejected these contrasts; see J. L. Jaspers, Niet Gerustgestdd. Her Antwoord van Ds. Schilder op “den Consciëntiekreet” te Licht Bevonden (Bloemendaal: Firma Grammé & Eikelenboom, 1929), 31. Jaspers speaks rather of “history and higher reality. Higher reality in history. Higher reality, which is itself history…” It is questionable, however, whether Jaspers is using the term “history” in the same way as Schilder.
41. Schilder, Een Hoornstoot tegen Assen?, 42–43.
42. Ibid., 45-46.
43. Ibid., 46 n. 1. It should be noted, however, that Aalders (Goddelijke Openbaring, 252) does refer to this understanding of “day” as an “anthropomorphism.”
44. Ibid., 46.
45. Ibid., 29; see also p. 20.
46. Ibid., 44.
47. Ibid., 44-45.
48. In an earlier article Schilder points out that the Synod did not say that statements of Scripture could never be taken figuratively, but rather that this could not be done arbitrarily; one needs to be able to supply reasons for such an interpretation. See “Schepping en Paradijsverhaal. III (Slot),” De Reformatie 6, no. 16 (16 April 1926): 222-23.
49. Schilder, Een Hoornstoot tegen Assen?, 44.
50. Ibid., 45.
51. Ibid., 48-49.
52. See J. J. C. Dee, Een Schrift-geleerde aan her Woord. Een keuze uit de preken van prof dr. K. Schilder (2 vols.; Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1995), 1:35.
53. Schilder would thus completely disagree with Pipa (“From Chaos to Cosmos,” 197–98), who sees, e.g., the acceptance of macro-evolution, the rejection of an historical Adam, and so on, as consequences of what he considers a non-“literal” interpretative method. For Schilder, these are not the exegetical results of an interpretative method but are already determined by one’s presuppositions regarding Scripture itself.
54. Schilder, Een Hoornstoot tegen Assen?, 49.
55. That Schilder did not think that acceptance of non-twenty-four-hour creation days necessarily entailed a capitulation to evolution is particularly evident in his unpublished lecture notes Christelijke Religie, Over de Nederlands Geloofsbelijdenis, (6th ed.; Kampen, n.p., 1977), 38.
56. De Wekker was a paper published by the “Christian Reformed Churches” (Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken—not to be confused with the North American denomination with the very similar name of “Christian Reformed Church”).
57. De Reformatie 12, no. 32 (6 May 1932): 254-55.
58. See his glowing reviews of Aalders’ Goddelijke Openbaring in De Reformatie 13, no. 11 (16 December 1932): 82; 13, no. 13 (30 December 1932): 98; 13, no. 17 (27 January 1933): 130.
59. See De Reformatie 12, no. 37 (10 June 1932): 290-91; 12, no. 42 (15 July 1932): 335.
60. See, e.g., Goddelijke Openbaring, 252.
61. Cited in De Reformatie 13, no. 43 (28 July 1933): 341.
62. Schilder, Zur Begriffsgeschichtedes ‘Paradoxon’; mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Calvins und des nach-kierkegaardschen ‘Paradoxon’ (Kampen: Kok, 1933).
63. See J. J. C. Dee, K. Schilder. Zijn Leven en Werk (Goes: Oosterbaan & Le Cointre, 1990), 150–57; G. Harinck, De Reformatie. Weekblad tot Ontwikkeling van het Gereformeerde Leven, 1920–1940 (Ten Have/ Baarn: Passage, 1993), 135; P. Veldhuizen, God en Mens Onderweg. Hoofdmomenten uit de Theologische Geschiedbeschouwing van Klaas Schilder (Leiden: J. J. Groen en Zoon, 1995), 55–58. Veldhuizen draws attention to the connection between Schilder’s rejection of dialectical theology and his defense of the Synod of Assen. Aalders also criticized Brunner and Barth in Goddelijke Openbaring, 40–48.
64. K. Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik III/ 1 : Die Lehre von der Schöpfung (Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1945), 139.
65. De Reformatie 13, no. 43 (28 July 1933): 341-42.
66. There appears to be a significant typographical error in the original article (De Bazuin 81, no. 29 [21 July 1933]: 4), which was not corrected when reprinted in De Reformatie. The sentence reads as follows: “Man kan even goed beweren, dat Brunner Genesis 1 gelooft en koffie drinkt, dat ook Prof. Aalders koffie drinkt, en dat hij dus Genesis 1 niet gelooft, wijl hij een stap zet op het glibberig pad, waarop Brunner staat, die immers koffie drinkt?” But the thrust of Schilder’s argument surely requires us to assume that he meant to write “… dat Brunner Genesis 1 niet gelooft en koffie drinkt … “
67. Cf. Aalders’s complaints in the Leidersblad, reprinted in De Reformatie 12, no. 32 (6 May 1932): 254; 12, no. 42 (15 July 1932): 335.
68. The focus here has been on the hermeneutics of Gen 1 and on the nature and length of the creation days. These scholars naturally discuss many other exegetical issues which could not be dealt with here, though they would well repay further study. For example, it is noteworthy that all of them understand Gen 1:1–2 to be separate from the Hexameron (cf. n.27 above); see Kuyper, Locus de Creatione, 82 and 84; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (4th ed.), 2:440 (In The Beginning, 121); Magnalia Dei, 183 (Our Reasonable Faith, 172); Honig, Handboek, 312–13; Aalders, Goddelijke Openbaring, 263; Schilder, Een Hoornstoot tegen Assen?, 33; De Reformatie 13, no. 43 (28 July 1933): 341.
69. Compare n. 64 above with K. Blei, “Van Christus uit de Schepping Geloven. De Scheppingsleer bij Barth en Noordmans,” in Kerk Onderweg. Over Geest, Kerk en Oecumene (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1997), 28–43, at 29–30; cf. G. C. Berkouwer, Karl Barth (Kampen: Kok, 1937), 53.
70. See W. Geesink, Van’s Heeren Ordinantiën (4 vols.; 2d ed.; Kampen: Kok, n.d.), 1:245–46; J. Ridderbos, Het Verloren Paradijs (Kampen: Kok, 1925), 14, 31, and 35; on Grosheide see De Reformatie 7, no. 33 (13 May 1927): 263 and Aalders, Goddelijke Openbaring, 252 n.1. In responding to one critic of his involvement in the Geelkerken case, van Gelderen wrote (Houtman, “Axchter de Schermen,” 194): “The conservatism of ‘our people’ is not as rigid as you think. When someone on valid, objective grounds contradicts their…, opinions they sputter, but in the end they accept it. So it is with the creation days in Gen. 1 and the chronology in Gen. 11. In both cases one can demonstrate with precise reasons, which with Gen. 1 lie ha the domain of geology and with Gen. 11 in that of history.” Admittedly, these comments do not make his own views explicit, but at the very least suggest an openness to a non-twenty-four-hour view.
71. G. C. Berkouwer, Zoeken en Vinden. Herinneringen en Ervaringen (Kampen: Kok, 1989), 238: “It becomes increasingly apparent that for him it was not merely a question of the doctrine of the ‘Authority of Scripture,’ but rather that in maintaining the historicity of Paradise, the Fall, the serpent and the trees he saw a decision which was of immense importance for the entire structure of Christian doctrine and especially for the doctrine of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.” See also Dee, K. Schilder 159; Veldhuizen, God en Mens Onderweg, 54.
72. So far I have only encountered one detailed argument for twenty-four-hour days (W. van Gelder, “Over de ‘Dagen’ van Genesis 1, ” Gereformeerd Theologtsch Tijdschrift 29 [1928-29] : 449–68) and one for a form of the framework view (A. Noordtzij, Gods Woorden der Eeuwen Getuigenis [2d ed.; Kampen: Kok, 1931], 114–20). Van Gelder (“Over de ‘Dagen’,” 453) was unaware of any serious supporter of a day-age view, and the only tentative proponent I have found is Bavinck in the first edition of his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (see discussion above). Despite the criticism of “non-literal” views published in the Christian Reformed Churches’ De Wekker, Van der Vaart Smit complained of being unable to provoke it to publish a positive exegetical statement of its views; see De Reformatie 8, no. 9 (2 December 1927): 70; 8, no. 22 (2 March 1928): 172-73. A study of the issue within other Reformed denominations, as well as of earlier views (i.e., before Kuyper and Bavinck), would be most welcome.
73. G. Vos, Systematische Theologie (5 vols.; Grand Rapids: n.p., 1900), 1:46–47.
74. G. Vos, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (5 vols.; Grand Rapids: n.p., 1910), 1:167–70.
75. Contrast, e.g., Smith, “The History of the Creation Doctrine,” 12–13.
76. Interestingly, Jaspers also argued that to hold to “days whose length cannot be specified” was “precisely the same” as holding to a day-age theory (Zijn de Mannen van Assen Zelf Aanranders van het Schriftgezag?, 15).
77. G. Vos, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1:169, emphasis added.
78. W. Heyns, Gereformeerde Geloofsleer (Kampen: Kok, 1916), 56–57.
79. L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939–41), 154–55.
80. Ibid., 154.
81. Smith, “The History of the Creation Doctrine,” 14–15.
82. See J. Barlow, “What Was Cornelius Van Til’s Position on the Age of the Earth?” n.p. [cited 28 January 2001]. Online: http://www.crta.org/index2.html.
83. Cf. Letham, “In the Space of Six Days,” 170; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (4th ed.) 2:458 (In the Beginning, 120).
84. See, e.g., Van Gelder, “Over de ‘Dagen’,” 459. At first Vos maintained that “it is exclusively an exegetical question” (Systematische Theologie, 47), though this is somewhat qualified in his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (see above).
85. See, e.g., the debates on the website for the Presbyterian Church in America [http://www2. pcanews.com/editorial_opinion/monthly_umpired_debate/monthly_umpired debate.taf ? topic -ID=5] or the April 18, 1998 declaration of the Westminster Presbytery of the PCA, “Declaration on Creation,” n.p. [cited 28 January 2001]. Online: http://capo.org/wp/declartn.htm.
86. In 1933 Schilder succeeded Honig as Professor of Dogmatics in Kampen.