Volume 4 Issue 1
Page 1

April 1999

To God be the Glory!

The New Jersey Case of 1990

by TE S. Scott Willet

If you were not at the 1998 General Assembly, you should know that the most substantive debates centered on the doctrine of creation, specifically the length of the creation days. A study committee, charged to provide non-binding advise and counsel, was established to research the issue for the consideration of the whole Church. That study committee was created in response to two overtures, one from our own Presbytery. Yet far more significant in its immediate application was the decision on Judicial Case 97-5, the "New Jersey Case." Even if you were at the Assembly and voted, you might have been wondering what that case was all about. What did the vote actually mean? What was actually decided?

I was amazed to listen to the arguments of both the majority and the minority of the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) in presenting their sides, a Commission divided by a 12 to 9 vote. I was even more amazed as I afterward evaluated what I had heard. In some ways, both sides had agreed on many things. The case wasn't so much about the issue of the length of days in Genesis 1. Actually, the focal point of the case was on the meaning of our Confession of Faith, which states that God made all things of nothing "in the space of six days"(WCF, Chapter 4:1). That language is repeated in the answers to question 9 of the Shorter Catechism and question 15 of the Larger Catechism.

To evaluate that debate and the SJC decision in its simplest form, I believe that it is fair to say that the majority view (which was adopted by the Assembly) declared that the confessional language of length of the days is open to a variety of interpretations. In other words, as the majority argued successfully, the issue of the length of the days of creation is analogous to the issue of the millenium, something upon which we have historically differed with great tolerance. Just as neither the a-mil, post-mil, nor historic pre-mil view constitutes an exception to our Constitution, neither does the literal day view, the day- age view, or the framework hypothesis view (poetic parallelism view). All are allowed within the meaning and intent of the words "in the space of six days." And, with persuasive argument, the majority declared that the view of the minority to definitively link our confessional language to only the one view of literal days would actually constitute a change in our Constitution through judicial activism. Thus, they determined that New Jersey Presbytery acted in accord with the Constitution when they developed their own Presbytery guidelines which allowed for those three views as being in accord with our Constitution. The General Assembly, much to my dismay, concurred.

Yet, that line of argument used by the majority was actually taken from the written record of the minority view of the SJC, which contended that our confessional language is sufficiently clear and does define the view of literal, 24-hour days. Thus, according to the minority report, the majority view of allowing at least three different interpretations actually changes our Confessional Standards through judicial activism!

I wholeheartedly believe the minority view is correct. The majority claims that the Confession is intentionally vague, yet cannot produce the writing of a single Westminster divine who supports a long geologic period as a creation "day." In fact, [TE] David Hall, defending the minority view on the floor of the Assembly, offered hard-to-get tickets to a St. Louis Cardinals game to anyone who could produce a single written citation to the contrary. While his research has turned up at least 20 Westminster divines who endorsed a 24-hour creation day, the tickets remain unclaimed. Not one Westminster divine is on record supporting what our General Assembly now says was within the scope of what they wrote. I believe Mr. Hall is accurate to label that "historical revisionism."

To go back to the language of the Confession, we read that the creation occurred "in the space of six days." Those wishing to defend the notion that the earth is millions or billions of years old declare that that language merely reflects the language of Scripture, which, they assert, is also vague. In other words, therefore, since the Hebrew word "yom" can and does sometimes mean something other than a simple "day," we cannot say for certain that it means a normal day when it is used in Genesis 1. As a consequence, the language of the Confession is equally vague. In that regard, the SJC majority has declared that in their majority opinion that "the framers of the 16th Century Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms adopted substantially the words of the English translation of the Bible, without elaboration or interpretation," namely "in the space of six days."

Such arguments truly astound me. It is one thing to say that the Hebrew word "yom" is indeterminate in its meaning, but to assert that the carefully debated and crafted statement of out Confession is indeterminate seems incredulous. The word day in our Confession is not the Hebrew word "yom." It is the English word "day." And it is used in a theological paradigm, not in a poetic framework. The very point of the Confession was to DEFINE doctrine, not to declare it indeterminate. In the frequently alluded to case of the millenium, the Confession IS vague. That is, vague in its silence! In addressing the doctrines of eschatology, the Confession does not use the disputed words of Revelation 20 regarding the "thousand years." With regard to that issue the Confession is intentionally SILENT. But in this case, with regard to the length of the days of creation, the Westminster divines did not merely repeat the words of Scripture. They did not merely adopt "substantially the words of the English translation of the Bible, without elaboration or interpretation." In fact, they added to those words of Scripture, and such an addition must be seen as an explanation. They wrote, as our Church has adopted, that creation took place "in the SPACE of six days." The days were defined with space, that is, length. That language is not found in Scripture, but is to be found in Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1, words used to forcefully argue in defense of 24-hour days. The words "in the space of six days" are not indeterminate!

It seems to me that in fairness, with intellectual integrity and unbiased scholarship, every man among us ought to believe that our Constitution is determinate with regard to the length of the days of creation. Our Constitution declares those days to be days-normal, solar, 24-hour days. Any other view would, therefore, constitute an exception. Such a view may well be an allowable exception, but it must be stated as an exception nonetheless.

In this regard, I was actually encouraged to speak to a man shortly after the General Assembly vote who openly declared himself to be a "day-age man." Yet he voted for the minority report on this case, because, in his own words, "I voted for the Constitution." He believes in long ages of time for each "day," but at least he is willing to admit that he disagrees with our Confession. he has stated his exception to the Confession before his own Presbytery. In conscience, he was not willing to say that the Confession meant something that it didn't, even though he personally wished that it did!

All of that, however, is only the surface of this particular issue. The issue which is far deeper than "what does the Confession teach?" is the issue of what Scripture teaches. Since the Confession is a fallible, human document framed specifically to explain Scripture, it is a proper question to ask, "Is the Confession correct?" That, of course, is to ask the question, "What does the Bible teach?" This issue must be addressed. This is a debate from which we ought not to shy away, and in that debate, with zeal for the peace and purity of the Church, we should also examine why this issue has properly come to such preeminence in recent years. Indeed, it is insufficient cause to deny the propriety of this debate merely because of historical precedent, merely because many of our godly, reformed forefathers held to divergent views. Instead, may we continually aspire to the noble calling of the Bereans, of whom we are told not only received the Apostle's teaching with great eagerness, but also "examined the Scriptures every day" to see if what they were being taught was true (Acts 17:11). May we commit ourselves to nothing less.

About the Author:

Teaching Elder S. Scott Willet is Pastor of the Bible Presbyterian Church, Concord, NC.