Jim and Glenn have been discussing Alan Hayward's 1985 book, *Creation and Evolution: The Facts and Fallacies*. In the course of their discussion, a question was raised concerning my evaluation of Hayward's *fiat* theory, presented in my *The Impact of Evolutionary Theory: A Christian View*. Some of the relevant discussion is given below.
(Because this is a TEXT FILE transmission, I indicate italics in the book by *...*) ***********************
(5) The *fiat* interpretation says that whenever God gave a command, a *fiat* or a "let there be," whatever he decreed was as good as accomplished; it was inevitable. Each "day," the time of the *fiat*, was short. After each *fiat* history unfolded: what God had decreed would happen did happen. The time of unfolding could be a very long time. We work out the history of Creation, that is, the successive unfoldings; we do not observe the *fiat*'s. As a result, the history we work out consists of long periods.
Alan Hayward is the principal modern proponent of this interpretation. Hayward explained the interpretation by "repunctuating" the creation account of Genesis 1:3-2:3. The following, which is part of his repunctuated account, illustrates his procedure. The fulfillment of a *fiat*, the events that took place as history unfolded, is an italicized parenthetical expression:
"And God said, 'Let there be light.' (*And there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night*.) And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
"And God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.' (*And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which...*)"
The control belief here is similar to that held by proponents of the overlapping day-age model with, however, the added stipulation that one may derive new meaning from the text by deducing how it would appear if the biblical authors had modern grammatical tools at their disposal.
In favor of this interpretation is its obviously correct emphasis on the absolute sovereignty of God: he speaks, and whatever he commands comes into existence. This interpretation reminds us to take very seriously the biblical predictions about what is yet to come to pass. God has already spoken, and so fulfillment is inevitable. His people have a sure comfort for the future.
But punctuating a modern translation of the Bible by indicating that certain words were parenthetical (the original languages did not use this kind of punctuation) has obvious problems. Of course, modern translations do assume that certain words were parenthetical. Still, one might be guilty of adding to the Bible when an entire theory of the account of the Creation Week rests on the assumption that certain words were parenthetical.
********************** I added the following note to this part of the text: **********************
The question of punctuation is similar to questions about which words were emphasized or which gestures were made by a speaker whose words the Bible records. The matter of gesture has figured in the long debate over the nature of the Lord's Supper. Thus, when Christ said, "This is my body," what gesture did he make? Did he point to the bread? Or did he point to himself?
**********************
I think Hayward's book is tremendous, and I said so in a fairly long review published in March, 1987, in our faculty quarterly, Pro Rege. As I indicate above, I have questions about the *fiat* theory. But I stand by the last sentence of my review: "It is quite possible that years from now we will look back and realize that this was a landmark book, one that changed the debate."
Russ
--
e-mail: rmaatman@dordt.edu Home address:Russell Maatman 401 Fifth Ave. SE Dordt College Sioux Center, Iowa 51250Sioux Center, Iowa 51250 Home phone: (712) 722-0421