Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

description of the history of man, arranges its material to suit this purpose, and only
repeats so much of what was said in the previous chapter, without any consideration of
chronological order, as is necessary for the author’s purpose.
5. ATTEMPTS TO HARMONIZE THE NARRATIVE OF CREATION WITH THE FINDINGS OF
SCIENCE.
a. The ideal or allegorical interpretation. This gives prominence to the idea rather than
to the letter of the narrative. It regards Genesis 1 as a poetic description of the creative
work of God, representing this from different points of view. But (1) it is quite evident
that the narrative is intended as a record of history, and is clearly so regarded in
Scripture, cf. Ex. 20:11; Neh. 9:6; Ps. 33:6,9; 145:2-6; (2) the opening chapter of Genesis
“lacks nearly every element of acknowledged Hebrew poetry” (Strong); and (3) this
narrative is inseparably connected with the succeeding history, and is therefore most
naturally regarded as itself historical.
b. The mythical theory of modern philosophy. Modern philosophy has advanced beyond
the preceding position. It rejects not only the historical narrative of creation, but also the
idea of creation, and regards the contents of Genesis 1 as a myth embodying a religious
lesson. There is no intentional allegory here, it is said, but only a naive mythical
representation with a religious core or nucleus. This is also contrary to the fact that Gen.
1 certainly comes to us with the pretension of being a historical narrative, and in the
cross references, referred to above, it certainly is not regarded as a myth.
c. The restitution theory. Some theologians attempted to reconcile the narrative of
creation with the discoveries of science in the study of the earth by adopting the
restitution theory. It was advocated by Chalmers, Buckland, Wisemann, and Delitzsch,
and assumes that a long period of time elapsed between the primary creation
mentioned in Gen. 1:1 and the secondary creation described in Gen. 1:3-31. This long
period was marked by several catastrophic changes, resulting in the destruction
supposedly described in the words “waste and void.” The second verse should then
read, “And the earth became waste and void.” This destruction was followed by a
restitution, when God changed the chaos into a cosmos, a habitable world for man. This
theory might offer some explanation of the different strata of the earth, but it offers no
explanation of the fossils in the rocks, unless it is assumed that there were also
successive creations of animals, followed by mass destructions. This theory never found
favor in scientific circles, and finds no support in Scripture. The Bible does not say that
the earth became, but that it was waste and void. And even if the Hebrew verb hayetha
can be rendered “became,” the words “waste and void” denote an unformed condition,
172