t f p g+ YouTube icon

Science and the Bible: Concordism, Part 3

Bookmark and Share

July 16, 2012 Tags: Biblical Interpretation
Science and the Bible: Concordism, Part 3
Frontispiece to Robert Bakewell's An Introduction to Geology (New Haven, 1839). Courtesy of Edward B. Davis.

Today's entry was written by Ted Davis. You can read more about what we believe here.

In my last two posts, I explained and analyzed Concordism. We conclude today with a short history of Concordism.

Historical Comments

Prior to the 18th Century, the six “days” of creation were often—not always, but more often than not—interpreted literally as ordinary days in succession. During the Reformation and the 17th century, the literal view received very strong support. Allegorical readings that had been viable alternatives in earlier centuries became increasingly unpopular among both Protestant and Catholic scholars. Thus, according to the famous wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was drawn up in 1646, the whole period of creation took place “in the space of six days,” a phrase that even today is very influential on conservative Presbyterian approaches to origins. This language was grounded in the interpretation provided almost a century earlier by the greatest theologian of the 16th century, John Calvin. In his Commentary on Genesis, originally published in Latin in 1554, Calvin said (concerning Genesis 1:5),

Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men… [God] distributed the creation of the world into successive portions, that he might fix our attention, and compel us, as if he had laid his hand upon us, to pause and to reflect. For the confirmation of the gloss above alluded to [see the first sentence], a passage from Ecclesiasticus is unskilfully cited, ‘He who liveth for ever created all things at once,’ for the Greek adverb κοιν which the writer uses, means no such thing, nor does it refer to time, but to all things universally.

In this pithy paragraph, Calvin juxtaposed the two main alternatives available to pre-modern interpreters of Genesis. The option Calvin defended, the literal creation week, was strongly favored by the early reformers and rooted in the earliest Christian commentaries. The option he rejected, in which all things were created instantaneously (sometimes based on Ecclesiasticus 18:1, as Calvin indicated with evident disagreement), fell out of favor in early modern times, but it, too, was rooted in the earliest Christian commentaries—to say nothing of the great Jewish scholar, Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus. For example, around 200 AD Clement of Alexandria asked, “And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist?” For Clement, everything was “created together in thought,” and since “all things [were] originated together from one essence by one power,” the six days could not be taken literally. (Stromata, Book 6, Chapter 16)

The instantaneous view was advanced especially by the most important Western theologian of the first millennium, Augustine of Hippo (354-430), who wrote a work (in multiple versions) called On the Literal Meaning of Genesis (ca. 391). Influenced by Ecclesiasticus 18:1, he taught that in the beginning God made matter and all material things simultaneously. “Those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot arrive at the meaning of Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step.” Some things were created to unfold in time, growing from “seeds” placed in the creation by God, but they were all part of the original conception that was brought into material existence in a single creative event. However, to aid our poor understanding, God told us about it in the pattern of six days. Augustine called the creation days “dies ineffables” (unknowable days), so majestic and profound that we cannot think of them in merely human terms as ordinary days. They indicate logical order, not temporal order, and must be interpreted subtly.

Regardless of which interpretation they favored, commentators have acknowledged a puzzling feature of the biblical text: the Sun is not “made” until the fourth day, yet the Sun is expressly given the task of producing the “day” and the “night” and there have been “evening and morning” since the first day. How can this be? Were the first three days unlike the next three days in some way? As we will see in my next column, the fourth day is crucial to the Framework view, but the questions addressed by that modern view are not modern at all.

Some Observations about Pre-modern Interpretations

Augustine’s view was not identical to any of the modern views I am presenting (Concordism, Framework, and Theistic Evolution), but it resonates in places with each of them, and therefore is often seen as a precursor of such views. Although such comparisons are not without value, we must keep in mind that neither Augustine nor any other early commentator imagined an “old” earth. Before the late 1700s, it was generally assumed that the entire pre-human world was (at most) only a few days older than humans. There was hardly any scientific evidence bearing on the age of humanity, the Earth, or the universe. People interpreted Genesis on its own, without knowledge of modern geology or modern astronomy or Ancient Near East literature. Peter Enns underscores the significance of this in his splendid book, The Evolution of Adam.

Given the pre-modern understanding, the question naturally arises: how old is the Earth, according to the Bible? Because the Bible contains detailed genealogical information about the descendants of Adam & Eve, it’s possible to estimate the date of creation. Several specific dates have been endorsed, all clustering around 6000 years. The traditional Jewish date (since the 12th century) for the creation of the world is either 29 March or 22 September 3761 BC. This reflects an assumption, accepted also by many Christian scholars: God would have placed Adam & Eve into the garden either in the spring or at the harvest, so that food would be abundant. The Byzantine date, based on the Septuagint (in which some of the genealogies are different from the Hebrew version), is 1 September 5509 BC. Martin Luther calculated 3960 BC. By far the most famous date among English-speaking Protestants, however, is the one given by James Ussher, a truly erudite scholar who did things very carefully. He arrived at 4004 BC after a very long and complex chain of reasoning, partly on the basis of the genealogies, partly by comparing the Bible with other ancient chronologies, partly because he knew that Jesus was born no later than 4 BC (in 1583, Joseph Scaliger established that Herod had died in that year), and partly because he liked a version of the traditional “world-week” interpretation of the six days, according to which each “day” of creation represents one thousand years of historical time and there were exactly four thousand years from Adam to Christ.

The literal creation week and the instantaneous creation were the two major alternatives for most of Christian history, but more than a few commentators took intermediate positions that I ignore here. I cannot adequately convey the subtlety and diversity of this grand conversation, stretching nearly 2,000 years, in 2,000 words. Those who want to dig deeper are urged to consult the references at the end.

The Discovery of Deep Time

Concordism in general is as old as references to the “book of nature” as a valid source of truth, supplementing the Bible. These go back at least to the Middle Ages and were very common by the 17th century, when Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and many others acknowledged multiple sources of truth, using the same terminology. Concordism in natural history, however, began in the late eighteenth century, in response to the growing sense that the Earth was vastly older than humanity. Martin Rudwick has written extensively about what he calls “the discovery of deep time,” his term for the idea illustrated in an engraving of Niagara Falls, showing how the gorge was produced by erosion over time, that helped introduce American readers to an ancient Earth in the 1830s. Concordism in natural history is all about reading Genesis in parallel with geology, in order to get a single, consistent picture. The rest of this column outlines key aspects of concordism in America since the 1830s.

Benjamin Silliman (1825), by John Trumbull. Oil on wood panel, 19 ¼” x 15 ¾” National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution; gift of Alice Silliman Hawkes

I introduced readers to Benjamin Silliman in the first part of this column. An outspoken concordist, Silliman explicitly endorsed Galileo’s approach to the Bible and Copernican astronomy. Applying it to natural history, he spoke of the “consistency” of geology with “sacred history.” Mapping geological evidence onto the six “days” of creation, which he interpreted as long periods of time, Silliman noted that the absence (at that time) of fossil humans indicated that “man” appeared only at the end of the geological process—fully consistent with Genesis.

From Sillman’s “Appendix” to Bakewell, An Introduction to Geology (1839). Courtesy of Edward B. Davis.

Silliman’s student, geologist Edward Hitchcock, was also a concordist. Briefly a Congregational minister, he became professor of geology and natural theology at Amherst College, where he also served nine years as president. His textbook, Elementary Geology (1840), the first to be written by an American geologist, contained a lengthy section devoted to biblical and theological issues that still makes fascinating reading today. Hitchcock preferred the “gap theory” over Silliman’s “day-age” view, because he thought it was a more literal translation, but he was careful to offer alternative interpretations and did not push his own view dogmatically.

A crucial theological issue discussed in Hitchcock’s book is what he, himself, called “death before the fall,” which he took as an incontestable fact of natural history. “Not only geology, but zoology and comparative anatomy, teach us that death among the inferior animals did not result from the fall of man, but from the original constitution given them by their Creator. One large class of animals, the carnivores, have organs expressly intended for destroying other classes for food.” Even herbivores “must have destroyed a multitude of insects, of which several species inhabit almost every species of plant,” not to mention the destruction of “millions of animalcula [microscopic organisms], which abound in many of the fluids which animals drink, and even in the air which they breathe… In short, death could not be excluded from the world, without an entire change in the constitution and course of nature; and such a change we have no reason to suppose, from the Mosaic account [Genesis], took place when man fell.”

Indeed, Hitchcock argued, on biblical grounds alone, apart from geology, one might have to allow animal death before the fall. Romans 5:12 (“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men...”) explicitly limits the scope of death to humanity: death passed upon all men. And, unless Adam himself had seen death, how could the threat of death for disobedience have real force? At the same time, Hitchcock still accepted the traditional link between animal death and human sin. But, he also accepted the fact of animal death before the fall. To put these two truths together, he appealed to his Calvinist theological convictions: God had foreseen the fall and planned accordingly, creating a world in which animal death preceded the fall chronologically, but not theologically—if God in his foreknowledge had known that Adam & Eve would not sin, the creation would have been different.

Hitchcock’s way of reconciling sin and death with an old Earth was not very influential, but from his day forward most conservative Protestant writers accepted an ancient earth and animal death before the fall. However, William Dembski has revived Hitchcock’s theodicy (and explicitly credits it to Hitchcock) in his recent book, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (2009). I said quite a bit about this in part two, so here I simply note the historical continuity and invite readers—especially fans of Dembski—to peruse the selection from Hitchcock linked above.

Concordism received a powerful boost in the mid-20th century, when Bernard Ramm published The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954), which I have already introduced to readers. It was partly to counter Ramm’s considerable influence that Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr., wrote The Genesis Flood (1961). One measure of the ongoing importance of Concordism is the fact that Scientific Creationism arose partly in response to it, and YEC leaders continue to devote significant energy to combatting contemporary advocates of Concordism, especially Hugh Ross. Theologian and ethicist John Jefferson Davis of Gordon-Conwell Seminary (not related to me) offers a different style of Concordism in his book, The Frontiers of Science & Faith (2002). The title of one of his chapters shows the continued relevance of Ramm: “Is ‘Progressive Creation’ Still a Helpful Concept? Reflections on Creation, Evolution & Bernard Ramm’s Christian View of Science and Scripture.” Davis originally published that material in the ASA’s journal, so it’s available on their website. If you get a chance to read it, please let me know what you think. Thus, Concordism remains a viable option for evangelicals today.

Looking ahead

My next column, on Tuesday, July 31, lays out the Framework View. Since it’s such a modern position, there will be less to say about it: don’t let the amount of coverage lead you to think that it’s less important than the other views. It’s not!

For further reading

As I’ve said before, most of the best material about Christianity and science is available only in print. If your interest in this topic is keen, the need to visit a library will not hold you back!

James Barr, “Why the World Was Created in 4004 BC: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67 (1984-85): 575-608.

Andrew James Brown, A History of the Christian Interpretation of the Days of Creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3: From the Apostolic Fathers to Essays and Reviews (1860). PhD Thesis, The University of Queensland, 2010. [There is no substitute for this very detailed account, but unfortunately it is very hard to obtain. A much shorter work by the same author is readily available here.

Edward B. Davis, “The Word and the Works: Concordism and American Evangelicals.” In Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, ed. Keith Miller (Eerdmans, 2003), 38-60.

Edward B. Davis, “Science Falsely So Called: Fundamentalism and Science.” In The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity, ed. J. B. Stump and Alan G. Padgett (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2012), 48-60.

William A. Wallace, Appendix 7 in William A. Wallace, ed., Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae: Volume 10, Cosmogony: 1a. 65-74 (Cambridge University Press, 1967).

Ted Davis is Fellow of the History of Science for the BioLogos Foundation and Professor of the History of Science at Messiah College. At Messiah, Davis teaches courses on historical and contemporary aspects of Christianity and science and directs the Central Pennsylvania Forum for Religion and Science.

< Previous post in series Next post in series >

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Page 2 of 2   « 1 2
Francis - #71208

July 19th 2012

Jon Garvey,

“What arguments from authority would I value? If you ask anyone round here you’ll find it’s the unchanging word of God. But the authority comes from the word, not from the poor way it’s often handled by those presenting the arguments.”

Such authority is no authority at all.

As I’ve posted elsewhere, nobody believes the Bible. They believe what THEY think the Bible verses mean.

By what authority can you say that some others are presenting their Bible-based arguments in a “poor way”?

Eddie - #71218

July 20th 2012

Francis (71208):

You appear to be making unnecessary conversational difficulty.  Jon Garvey is saying that authority for him rests in the word of God.  Of course he is well aware that different Christians interpret the Bible in different ways—his postings here show that he has extensive education in theology.

He certainly is not claiming any “authority” for his own readings of the Bible.  His point is that he tries to base his theological views on the Bible.  You asked him what the ultimate source of authority was for him, and he answered:  the Bible.  

I’m sure he would be the first to admit that any judgments he makes about “poor” interpretations of the Bible are his own, not the judgments of God.  But he has every right to make such judgments.  He knows that such judgments can be challenged, and he’s willing to learn from others who can show him a better way of reading the Bible.  So if you object to any of his judgments about particular parts of the Bible, then by all means state your objections.  But don’t go after him for claiming “authority”; he’s not doing that.

Francis - #71224

July 20th 2012


You note that Jon Garvey “has extensive education in theology” but also acknowledge his opinions about the Bible and its meanings have no authority.

So, Jon’s words are just an opinion. Everyone’s got an opinion.

I’m not much interested in opinions. I’m a lot more interested in the truth.

Thanks for the heads up, it may save me some time. I’ll likely just skip over Jon’s posts in the future.

Eddie - #71226

July 20th 2012

Francis (71224):

“Just an opinion”?  You seem not to care at all about the difference between any old opinion and educated opinion.  The opinion of the Secretary of State on the situation in Afghanistan is more significant than the opinion of a bus driver who only reads about Afghanistan in the papers and couldn’t find it on the map.  The opinion of St. Augustine on creation is weightier than the opinion of a pastor in a small town in Kentucky whose total education beyond high school is two years in an obscure Bible college.  More generally, the opinion of someone who has spent years receiving formal training in philosophy, theology, history, Biblical languages, etc. is of more weight than the opinion of an autodidact who thinks he can figure everything out himself just from reading his King James.

Jon Garvey’s opinions aren’t “authoritative”; but you can learn more about theology from him than from almost anyone else who posts here.  If you turn a deaf ear to a potential teacher, you will be the loser.

As for “truth” we’d all love to possess it.  Unfortunately God doesn’t hand it to us on a silver platter.  We have to work towards it by exchanging opinions, and criticizing each other’s opinions, and being willing to swallow our pride and admit it when someone has taught us something.  

If you have criticism of any particular opinion of Jon’s, I’d love to hear it.  But a general complaint that he lacks “authority” is useless, since, by your own argument, you too, and everyone else on the planet—except maybe the Pope, if you incline that way—lacks authority.  If we were afraid of offering theological opinions without authority, we’d all have to stop talking about theology altogether.  Only God knows the answers for certain, and he doesn’t speak them directly into anyone’s ear—not even yours.  When it come to Biblical interpretation, we all have to live without the benefits of “authority”—unless, as I say, you accept that certain people—such as the Pope—have been given authority on earth to “settle” interpretive questions.  But if you are a Protestant evangelical—and you sound like one—you can’t possibly accept that anyone on earth has such authority.  So it’s down to sola scriptura, and a humble exchange of opinons over what it means.  That’s the position we’re all in.  It’s wrong to demand anything more of anyone here.  

Francis - #71232

July 20th 2012


Let’s see, bus driver vs. Secretary of State, small town pastor vs. St. Augustine. How about one more:

How would you value the theological opinion of a blue-collar fisherman versus that of a highly-educated/trained theology teacher (i.e. Pharisee)?


“you can learn more about theology from him [Jon Garvey] than from almost anyone else who posts here.”

Now, that truly is a matter of opinion. But not mine.


“If we were afraid of offering theological opinions without authority, we’d all have to stop talking about theology altogether.”

Silence is golden.


“So it’s down to sola scriptura, and a humble exchange of opinons over what it means.”

“Sola scriptura”. That sure is a fancy-sounding name. It’s even Latin-y. Where does “sola scriptura” come from?


“we all have to live without the benefits of “authority” … you can’t possibly accept that anyone on earth has such authority.”

Two thousand years ago folks accepted the beneficent, God-given authority of the Apostles. I guess those folks were just fortunate to be born in that particular time. They got to listen to authoritative teaching and direction:

“I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority which the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.” 2 Cor 13:10

“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” Titus 2:15

“and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and wilful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones” 2 Pet 2:10

“I have written something to the church; but Diot’rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.” 3 John 1:9

“Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.” Jude 1:8

Those fortunate folks. Too bad for the people born later. Because I guess that authority died with the Apostles.

Just as preaching and baptizing (Mat 28:19) died with the Apostles.

Wait a minute…


Oh, one other thing you said: “… That’s the position we’re all in. It’s wrong to demand anything more of anyone here.”

St. Paul seemed to demand more (again, just from those lucky ancients, I guess):

“if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15


Time for dinner.

Eddie - #71234

July 20th 2012

Francis, you wrote:

“How would you value the theological opinion of a blue-collar fisherman versus that of a highly-educated/trained theology teacher (i.e. Pharisee)?”

On theoretical questions about time, eternity, the creation of the world, etc.?  The Pharisees, hands down.  They were smarter, better educated, more used to abstract thinking.  And it’s such theoretical questions—the origin of the world and its relation to divine action and to nature as we know it—that we are discussing here.

On other questions, sometimes, the fisherman.  But even there, not always.  The Gospels show that the disciples were sometimes pretty thick.

I assume you are joking when you write as if you don’t recognize “sola scriptura.”  If you truly don’t recognize the phrase, honestly, you shouldn’t be in the discussion.  It would be like discussing evolution when you don’t know the meaning of “cell,”, “gene,” etc.

You say we should accept the authority of the Apostles.  Fine.  But they are dead.  They left us the New Testament.  We can’t ask them what it meant.  We have to interpret it without their help.  Who has the “authority” to do that?  You?  If so, who gave you such authority?  And if not, why are you asking Jon to prove that he has authority?

I have a sense that we are not going to get very far.  You do not seem to have respect for theological learning.  You seem to think that you can just pick up the Bible, and find out its meaning, as if it’s plain as day, and that no thinking is required.  If that is indeed what you think, you couldn’t be more wrong.  Despite the popular, small-town American conception that the Bible was written so that simple folks could understand all of it without the slightest intellectual exertion or anything resembling serious study, the Bible was written by intelligent people and was meant to be read and studied slowly and carefully, and chewed upon, and wrestled with.  Those who want quick spiritual “sound bites” that require no effort to grasp would be better off with the folksy sayings of Will Rogers, or even Mr. Rogers.

Francis - #71236

July 20th 2012


You said of me “you write as if you don’t recognize “sola scriptura.” If you truly don’t recognize the phrase, honestly, you shouldn’t be in the discussion.”

Oh, I’m familiar with the term “sola scriptura” and its meaning.

However, you didn’t answer my question about it:

Where does “sola scriptura” come from?

Eddie - #71237

July 20th 2012

Francis (71236):

I suspect your question about sola scriptura is rhetorical.  Presumably you know that it was a slogan of many of the Reformers, starting with Luther.   But why are you raising the question of authority in the first place?  No one ever claimed any authority here.   If you don’t agree with Jon’s Biblical interpretation, just say you don’t, and explain why, point by point.  What you are doing instead sounds more like razzing and catcalls from the cheap seats.  Let’s have a constructive theological discussion.  That means no griping about claims of authority that no one is making, and no strings of Biblical proof-texts out of context.  It means carefully chosen Biblical passages, addressed to the subject at hand, and with adequate exposition.  If I see a change in your style of dialogue, I’ll respond constructively; if not, I’ll not respond at all.   Best wishes. 

Francis - #71260

July 21st 2012


I wonder if anyone has ever surveyed or measured just how frequently accusations of taking “Biblical proof-texts out of context” are leveled by sola scripturans against others. Yea, the “scripture alone”, but when you present scripture verses supporting a belief/idea they don’t like, they throw the red flag of “taken out of context”. Or just ignore your point and the verses altogether.

It’s happened to me plenty of times. Including directly above.

Eddie, would you be so kind as to instruct me on exactly how I took “out of context” the verses I quoted above on the vital importance of authority and of its earthly locale (1 Tim 3:15)? And, of course, please do so “point by point” with “carefully chosen  Biblical passages, addressed to the subject at hand, and with adequate exposition.”

I’m always willing to learn, even up here in the “cheap seats”.

Wait a minute… how could I possibly learn from you? You’ve already admitted you speak with no authority. Your instruction could be right, wrong or indifferent. And you wouldn’t even be able to say which of the three it is.

It would be as bad as relying on a roll of the dice, and worse, not knowing what the winning numbers are.

So, on second thought, no need to spend a lot of time and energy answering my request for instruction. It’s up to you. Whatever.


Lastly, I thought you made a strange choice of words in calling “sola scriptura” a “slogan” of Martin Luther & Co. “Slogan”? I think of a slogan as a relatively short-lived, somewhat nebulous catch phrase for an idea, movement, etc. [Like “Hope and Change”. I don’t think that’ll be used again. And hope FOR what? Change TO what?]

“Sola scriptura”, on the other hand, is not nebulous but fairly specific and concrete (Scripture alone. Scripture alone is the authoritative source of all truth in, and instruction on, matters of faith and morals.)

And “sola scriptura” has proven it’s definitely not short-lived. It’s still spouted today.

But more importantly, sola scriptura is the very bedrock of the faith of many. Including yours. As you said “So it’s down to sola scriptura, and a humble exchange of opinons over what it means.”

Yes, I knew “sola scriptura” started with Martin Luther, 1,500 years after the founding of Christ’s church.

So, let me rephrase my question:

Where did Martin Luther get the idea for sola scriptura?

Was it from a bad dream or indigestion or something else? It obviously wasn’t from Scripture.

Ted Davis - #71263

July 21st 2012

Francis and Eddie,

You are both raising some issues relevant to the topic of concordism, esp that of the role of religious authority (both human and divine), but let’s please cease the somewhat personal nature of the argument. Indeed, it would probably be best if the exchange itself terminates at that point. I think you’ve both made your overall attitudes toward religious authority clear enough, and I doubt that any further comments will either resolve the disagreement or make the difference of opinion even clearer.

Thank you.

Francis - #71313

July 23rd 2012

Saved by the bell.

Eddie - #71318

July 23rd 2012

You certainly were.  :-)

Eddie - #71486

July 30th 2012

Dr. Davis:

I cannot master this nested reply system; it doesn’t work with my browser.  So I’m simply replying to your July 30th post here.  

I put in a reply to your remarks back on the Keathley thread of Feb. 29th.  You can reply there if you wish, or here if you wish.


Page 2 of 2   « 1 2