"The Lost World of Genesis One" - Book Review

What to make of Genesis 1? I've never considered the chapter a straightforward historical account of creation. To the degree that the passage is about historical events, it had to be an accommodation to a pre-scientific culture … as evidenced by passages like verses 6-8. But maybe the passage … taking into the cultural accommodation … still concords with what we know about the scientific record. The general sequence of events is remarkably similar to the order in which scientists understand the world to have developed. Hugh Ross has persistently championed this concordist view and Reasons to Believe. I've read several of his books and find much of his analysis intriguing, but several aspects of his theories are just too big of a stretch. Then, of course, it is entirely possible that the passage doesn't correspond with historical events. It is a literary device to communicate some basic theological truths about origins but little more (i.e., Framework Hypothesis). This is probably the most commonly held view by many within my Mainline PCUSA world. This has always seemed a real possibility to me, but I haven't been able to shake the sense that there was more going on with this passage than crafting great literature. In short, I've never found a key that satisfactorily makes sense of the Genesis 1 … until now.

I've just finished reading John H. Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Walton is a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and an expert in ancient Near Eastern (ANE) culture (a topic I've been trying to better acquaint myself with in recent years.) Walton points out that there was no distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" in the ANE. The gods and not natural laws ran the cosmos. This is significant for ontology … the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of being. Walton proposes that post-Enlightenment folks like us are heavily disposed to think in terms of "material ontology," while the ancients thought in terms of "functional ontology."

Walton asks to consider a chair. We examine its physical properties to ascertain whether it is a chair. This is material ontology. But what do we mean when we say a corporation exists?

Does a company exist when it has filed the appropriate papers of incorporation? Does it exist when it has a building or website? In some sense the answer to these would have to be yes. But many would prefer to speak of a company as existing when it is doing business. (23)

The corporation is understood to "exist" only when it exhibits its function. This is functional ontology.

Walton turns to the phrase tohu wabohu in 1:2 ("fromless and empty" in NRSV). The central point here is not that the earth was barren. The issue is that it served no function. Days one through three describe the establishment of functions, and days four through six describe the installment of functionaries. The functions relate to the three basic needs of humanity: Time, weather, and food.

• Day 1: Time Measurement (light and darkness)
• Day2:  Weather (expanse between waters above and below)
• Day3:  Food (formation of land with vegetation)
• Day 4: Celestial bodies function to mark off days, seasons, and years.
• Day 5: Sky and water creatures are told to be fruitful and multiply… their function is to fill the environments for which they've been created.
• Day 6: Various creatures are "produced by the land" that (like the plants on day 3) reproduce according to their kind … new generations emerge as a function of the previous generations.

Of course, the climax of day six is the creation of humanity … God's supreme functionary with the most important function. Humanity is to exercise dominion over all that God has created. Walton challenges the notion that the repeated phrase "it was good" had to do with assessing aesthetic beauty. Instead, the text refers to the fact that these things served their function, namely, to serve humanity, which in turn serves God. But there is more.

Walton notes that the climactic end in the ANE creation stories was when the gods built their temples and "rested." Rest was not in the sense of becoming idle and taking a siesta. Instead, rest meant ceasing extraordinary labor and settling into life's natural, peaceful ongoing rhythms. So here is Walton's revelation. Creation is God's temple:

"' Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things so they came into being?' Declares the Lord." (Is. 66:1-2a)

On the seventh day, God "rests" from his work and resides within his temple … the earth … with his co-regent human functionaries exercising dominion over all God has made. The Genesis 1 story is not an account of how various material items came into existence but rather an account of the inauguration of God's temple. Walton calls his understating the cosmic temple inauguration view.

The interpretive problem for us is that we are deeply immersed in the post-Enlightenment fixation on material origins. It is not that the ancients would be incapable of thinking about material origins, but they would undoubtedly have been perplexed by the question. What useful purpose would such knowledge serve? The issue is what function things serve and who established their functions.

In light of this, young earth creationism and concordist theories are way off the mark because both presume the text is about material ontology. The Framework Hypothesis may get a little closer to the mark, but even here, there is an assumption that the text is poetically dealing with material origins. The richness of understanding is severely restricted. 

Peter Inns sums up our problem well in a recent post on his blog:

If I may continue a rather reductionistic analysis (which is not accurate on the level of historical analysis, but is alive and well, nonetheless—indeed, perpetuated—in some popular circles): liberals looked at our developing knowledge of the ancient world of the Bible and said "A ha, I told you. The Bible is nothing special. Israelite religion is just like any other ancient faith. You conservatives need to get over yourselves." The fundamentalist response was (fingers firmly planted in ears) "La la la la la la, I do not hear you. There may be a millimeter of insight in some of what you are saying, but if what you are saying is true, our theology—which is the sure truth of Scripture, handed down through the ages—is false, and that is unthinkable."

Battle lines were drawn rather than theological and hermeneutical principles reassessed. ...

Walton has given us a careful reassessment of looking at the text through ancient Near Eastern eyes. I've given you only a cursory overview. The book is laid out in a series of eighteen propositions that build his cosmic temple inauguration view. The book is written for non-specialists and is relatively short. I read it in afternoon. It is, without a doubt, the most helpful book I've read on the topic.

Scot McKnight is starting a discussion of the book in a series of posts beginning this week (I believe) on his Jesus Creed blog. I highly recommend you get a copy and join the conversation.

Comments

[Travis Greene]

The framework hypothesis tends to flatten Genesis into "just" a story (this is usually by the sort of unimaginative people who think reading anything but nonfiction is a waste of time). But nothing is ever just a story, even when it is a story. Just as no sacrament is just a symbol (contra my Baptist upbringing), even when it is a symbol.

Objective, factual accounts are not the only way to convey truth. In fact, they are not even the best way for many kinds of truth.

[Michael W. Kruse]

And I keep returning to the fact that we are "listening in" on conversation between God and the ancient folks. The stuff was not written directly to us. Walton does a great job (not well captured here by me) of getting us into the mindset of the ANE people as they hear the story. It is out of that that we gain context and insight.

[Dana Ames]

Does he reference Margaret Barker's work in his biblio? She is an English Methodist who has written extensively on the meaning of the Jewish temple and temple worship, and says much that is like this. He sounds like he has read Barker, but if not, that is just confirmation for me that she's on the right track.

Barker did much of her work before she ever went to an Orthodox liturgy. When she finally did attend one, she was flabbergasted at all the connections.

http://thinlyveiled.com/barkerweb.htm
John Burnett, where some of Barker's articles can be found, is a friend of mine- and also a big fan of NT Wright.

Dana

[Michael W. Kruse]

I don't see any mention of Baker. The authors he mentions at the end of the chapter on this topic are:

G. K. Beal, Victor Hurowitz, Jon Levenson, J. Lundquist, Moshe Weinfeld, Gordon J. Wenham.

Seems to me I've heard cosmic temple idea before but I don't recall where. What is powerful about Walton's presentation is his ability to us free from material ontology to see how this relates the cosmic temple idea.

Thanks for the link.

[Travis Greene]

The material vs. functional ontology distinction reminds me of the scene in Voyage of the Dawn Treader where they meet the old star-man. Eustace tries to tell him that in his world, stars are giant balls of burning gas. His reply is that even in Eustace's world, that is not what stars are, but merely what they are made of.

[Michael W. Kruse]

".. that is not what stars are, but merely what they are made of."

Bingo!

[Cho]

I have just finished the book. It's a wonderful read. Quite gripping as well. Reminds me of Vern Poythress's 'Redeeming Science".

It would be good to other leading theologians respond to Walton.

It is certainly a landmark book. I have always thought something was missing from existing interpretations.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Glad you found the book as helpful as I did.