When I first heard the Genesis creation story as a child it seemed clear to me that God himself was saying that he created the universe in six days, each of which had a morning and evening. If I had never heard some of the alternative views — most, if not all, of which have arisen in the church since the time of Charles Darwin — I don't think I ever would have imagined that any other view was possible. It has also impressed me, as a pastor, that many older saints who had been well instructed in the word of God still firmly believe in six day creation. More than a few have expressed to me, in one way or another, their chagrin because so many today (including many ministers) seem to be uncertain about what these mature believers saw as clear biblical teaching.

Well, I agree with them. I have been impressed with the fact that theological studies, by erudite scholars, will often admit that six-day creation does very much seem to be the teaching — even the intended teaching — of Genesis 1 and 2. And then they will go on and on, at great length, with intricate arguments, analogies and brilliant new in­sights designed to show two things that I cannot bring into harmony in my understanding. These two things are:

1. that God did not create the universe in six days, and

2. that he is, nevertheless, an almighty creator who can do more than we can ask or even think.

In some of these scholarly papers I've read things to this effect: "God is not a God of deception!" (I agree with that, of course.) But then they say that since the universe as we encounter it has the inescapable appearance of age — (they would say "evidence of age") — we simply cannot go on believing that God created the universe in six "ordinary" days because that would contradict the evidence he himself gives us in what he has created.

My response is quite simple — so simple that I'm sure many who are more erudite than I am will say that I am a simpleton! But if that is the case, so be it! And one rea­son for this is that I can't escape the influence of a paper I read many years ago by one of the original members of the faculty of Westminster Seminary (in Philadelphia), Dr. Oswald T. Allis. Dr. Allis argued that in order to un­derstand God's work of creation we need to give a large place in our thinking and argument to Jesus Christ our Lord. After all, the Apostle John calls him "The Word" who was with God in the beginning, and that he himself is God (John 1:1). John also said, "All things were made through him, and that without him nothing was made that was made" (1:3). But, fortunately for us, he not only displayed his power to create in the beginning (as record­ed in Genesis 1 and 2) but also during his earthly minis­try. Yes, Jesus created food to feed 5000 people. He also changed water into wine (John 6:1-9). And the wine he created that day had the appearance of age (6:10). Was that appearance of age a deception? Not at all! It was a glorious demonstration of the fact that the Creator of the universe does not need a long time to create things that look old. Time itself is created by him because everything that is not God was created by God, out of nothing.

An old widow who died here not so long ago was quite willing and able to believe this. So were other old-timers that I have ministered to over the years. They were able to see through this argument about God deceiving people by creating a universe that looks old to them. The wine that Jesus made that day looked old to the people who received it. But it was not old. It was new and so it was with the universe when this same Jesus created it.

I was present a few years ago at a General Assembly of the OPC at which a final appeal was heard in an impor­tant judicial case. The question was this: may a man serve as an office bearer in the church if he wants to remain free to teach that Adam may have had pre-human an­cestors? The resounding answer of the General Assembly was "No!" I mention it because, in the course of the de­bate, the elder concerned was asked if he accepted and believed the literal and factual truth of what is stated in Genesis 2:21-22.

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman, and he brought her to the man.

To my joy and amazement this elder said "Yes." And he meant it. Further discussion made it clear that he accepted what is stated in those two verses with the same simplicity that I, as a child, accepted what is stated about six-day creation. But this left me with a big question. If someone can ac­cept the story of the sudden creation of an adult-sized female as literally true, then why would that same person have problems accepting "the rest of the story"?

Recently I read, with appreciation, the words of Dr. R. C. Sproul in his commentary on the Westminster Confes­sion of Faith.

For most of my teaching career, he writes, "I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possibil­ity. But I have now changed my mind. I now hold to a literal six day creation...Genesis says that God created the universe and everything in it in six twenty-four-hour periods. According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to es­cape the plain meaning of Genesis 1-2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days."

I think he is right. It is high time that we return to the simplicity of our fathers who did "follow the plain sense of the text" when they said — three times over: in the Westminster Confession IV, again in the Larger Catechism 15, and yet again in the Shorter Catechism 9 — that God created the universe "in the space of six days, and all very good." The Lord knew ahead of time that if he revealed this creation story to Moses — in the way that he expressed it in words in Genesis 1-2 —believers through many generations would "follow the plain sense of the text" and believe in six-day creation. I am convinced that this is exactly what he intended. I also think that these believers were, and are, right to believe in six-day creation for, as Dr. Sproul rightly put it, that is "the plain meaning of Genesis 1-2."