I’m writing about Jonathan Burke’s helpful historical review of ‘The Two Books’ principle (J. Burke, “The Two Books: An Early Christadelphian Exegetical Principle”, EJBI (July 2012): 37-44). I believe this is an important contribution since it addresses areas that can lead to exposure of (representations of meaning in) the Bible to easy criticism due to ill-informed claims about Science. One example that comes to mind is the apparent unassailable and comprehensive range of scientific conclusions showing that planet earth is very old against the claims of young earth creationism that seeks to show planet earth is young. Yet the Bible does not claim, and therefore does not require belief in, a young planet earth; and within such a handling of Scripture the meanings of both of the two books are more easily harmonised.
It is clear from this that disciples of Christ should not high-handedly, or ignorantly, dismiss the findings of Science but rather, in the spirit of the Bereans, address challenges that scientific conclusions present to us by honest reappraisal of relevant parts of scripture. It is plain that scientific discoveries can be helpful in testing long-held scriptural interpretations and sometimes inform our understanding of God’s word.
Metaphoric reference to creation as a book is not only a helpful principle, it is one that is portrayed in Scripture. Psalm 19 tells us that the heavens “declare” the glory of God, that the firmament “shows” his handiwork, daily, that they “utter speech” and that by night they “show knowledge” (Ps 19:1-2); likewise, creation has a “voice” which is heard and “words” that go to the ends of the earth (Ps 19:3-4). “Declare (spr)” is the verb related to the noun for “book (spr)” (e.g. Gen 5:1); “show (ngd)” is used of the prophetic word of the Lord (e.g. Is 46:10); “speech (’mr)” is used of the Lord’s word (e.g. Ps 68:11); “show (hwh) [knowledge]” is employed by Elihu claiming he speaks for God (Job 36:2); “voice (qwl)” needs no explanation; and “word (mlh)” is used of the Lord’s word (e.g. 2 Sa 23:2). Thus, the spirit in David in Psalm 19 comprehensively employs the language of God’s words and speech multiple times about creation, employing this language in a metaphor for what his creation does.
But since creation is metaphorically offered as a second book, it is appropriate to borrow some words of the Lord regarding it: “How do you read it?” (Luke 10:26). Jesus’ question to this lawyer speaks of the prevalence of mis-reading Scripture, a problem which has persisted through the ages as evidenced by Roman Catholic and other orthodox churches, mainstream protestant churches and higher critics. It is evident from this, by analogy, that it is possible to mis-read the second book. As Bro. Burke himself caveats, both books are harmonious witnesses when “interpreted correctly”; as Scripture instructs, both books must be rightly divided (2 Tim 2:15) and not handled deceitfully (2 Cor 4:2). Especially since this second book is a metaphor it is appropriate to seek out its purpose and function as delimited by its author, God himself. God’s explanation of the second book’s purpose and function is that it shows his glory, handiwork and power; for example:
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork… (Ps 19:1)
…the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead… (Rom 1:20)
Many scientific discoveries from the cosmological expanse to sub-atomic matter have enhanced our ability to see God’s glory, handiwork and power in his creation. But that this is the stated purpose of the second book signals an inevitable shortfall of Science of which we need always to be mindful, otherwise we risk mis-reading this second book. Scientific explanations of that which is seen can never be exactly or fully synonymous with the second book’s meaning. This shortfall derives from the nature of the scientific process which excludes divine intervention as a starting premise and which intrinsically cannot discover God or his handiwork by its methodologies (though many scientists believe in God and his creation). Setting these limitations of scientific process alongside God’s explanation of the second book’s function and purpose yields the clear conclusion that scientific discoveries can only ever be an approximation, sometimes, no doubt, a close approximation but still only an approximation, of the second book’s true meaning; exclusion of God and his handiwork from an evaluation of scientific results by imposing solely naturalistic explanations will always lead to conclusions that are flawed to a lesser or greater extent. When the scientific process draws conclusions from observations and, as a necessary and integral part of this, excludes God and his handiwork and imposes an entirely naturalistic explanation, it is not surprising that the conclusions do not include concepts such as design or creative purpose in them. On the other hand, disciples of Christ, whether they are scientists or otherwise, should read this second book always seeing God’s glory, handiwork and power. We are helped in this, of course, by the first book: whenever Scripture describes creation, its perfection (Ps 19:7-9; 2 Tim 3:15-17) guarantees that its representation of the second book’s meaning is likewise perfect (though we all need to bring humility and diligent care to the first book’s reading lest we mistakenly presume our long-held beliefs are what the first book says when it is not).
By way of illustration of this point, climatologists, geographers, geologists, biologists, zoologists and others can provide persuasively convincing and scientific, and entirely naturalistic, explanations of the way the environment and topology in different localities supports life. But Psalm 104 stands out as an example of God’s description of creation that shows entirely naturalistic explanations of that which can be seen fall short. This psalm clearly speaks of God’s continuing creative activity in creation to sustain the earth and the life on it that he made. Undoubtedly, the conclusions of the foregoing scientists approximate to what is true but when entirely and solely naturalistic functions are pressed to the exclusion of God, they are ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The conclusion to be drawn from these considerations is to recognise it would be a mistake to take uncritically all that peer-reviewed and accepted science says about the world as an accurate reading of the second book. Scientific explanations of that which can be seen which posit solely naturalistic processes to the exclusion of God’s historic and ongoing creative intervention by which creation speaks of his glory, handiwork and power falls short of the second book’s function and purpose. Without making the mistake of high-handedly and ignorantly dismissing Science, and rather continuing with a readiness to follow the Berean spirit when Science challenges our scriptural interpretations, it is the case that when Scripture describes the second book in a way that is contrary to Science, the science is wrong.
Sample Correspondence Content Type