The Lost World of Genesis One (15 page)

In short, by naming the functions and installing the functionaries, and finally by deity entering his resting place, the temple
comes into existence-it is created in the inauguration ceremony.

A good biblical example can be seen in the tabernacle account in
Exodus 35-39, which concerns the material phase. Exodus 39:32
gives the report on the material phase: "So all the work on the tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting, was completed. The Israelites did everything just as the Lord commanded Moses." In Exodus 39:43, after
they have brought everything to Moses, he inspects it, and judges it
worthy of blessing. Exodus 40 describes the inauguration-this is the
creation of the tabernacle. The chapter reports everything being put
in its place, anointed and consecrated (Ex 40:9-16). When all of this
is done, the inauguration is completed by the glory of the Lord filling
the tabernacle (Ex 40:34). In Exodus we are not told whether all of
this was done in one day or over several days, but we do see that it is
done in connection with the New Year (Ex 40:2, 17).

Inauguration ceremonies are described in the Old Testament
with various levels of detail, including the activities of cultic ritual
for consecration and sacrifices that initiate the operation of the
sacred space. The Hebrew term is hanukka (see Num 7:10-11, 84,
88; 1 Kings 8:63; 2 Chron 7:5; note also Ps 30). The dedication is
the celebration of the people that typically follows, though perhaps at times overlaps with, the inauguration. In the account of
the construction of Solomon's Temple the inauguration includes a seven-day dedication to which is added a seven-day feast/banquet
(1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chron 7:9). Solomon's dedicatory prayer proclaims the functions of the temple:

• place for seeking forgiveness (1 Kings 8:30)

• place for oath swearing (1 Kings 8:31-32)

• place for supplication when defeated (1 Kings 8:33-34)

• place for supplication when faced with drought/famine/
blight (1 Kings 8:35-40)

• place for the alien to pray (1 Kings 8:41-43) • place for petition for victory (1 Kings 8:44-45)

In the ancient world the building or restoration of a temple was
one of the most notable accomplishments that a ruler could undertake. It was believed to bring the favor of the god, to bring
benefits to the city and to bring order to the cosmos. Of course
when the temple project was complete there were inauguration
activities, consecration, cultic acts, dedication and great public
ceremonies. But that was not the end of it. Temple inauguration
could also be reenacted on a yearly basis, and pieces of literature
like the Sumerian Temple Hymns may have served as the liturgy
for such annual celebrations. In Babylon one of the most wellknown festivals was the Akitu festival, often celebrated in connection with the New Year, which reinstalled the deity in the
temple and reasserted the king's selection by the gods. The Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish, was read in connection with
this festival as it recounts the god Marduk's ascension to the head
of the gods and his building of the temple along with his acts
of creation.

Long controversy has existed as to whether Israel practiced
similar enthronement festivals or New Year celebrations that reaffirmed creation, temple presence and royal election. The Bible contains no clear evidence of such festivals, but some see hints
that they think point that direction. It would be no surprise if
they had such a festival and would be theologically and culturally
appropriate. Moshe Weinfeld has suggested that Genesis 1 could
have served very effectively as the liturgy of such a festival,' and
the suggestion has much to commend it both textually and culturally, though definitive evidence is lacking. In this way of think
ing, Genesis 1 would be a recounting of the functional origins of
the cosmos as a temple that was rehearsed yearly to celebrate
God's creation and enthronement in the temple.

In this view of Genesis 1, it is evident that the nature of the
days takes on a much less significant role than has normally been
the case in views that focus on material creation, in that they no
longer have any connection to the material age of the earth. These
are seven twenty-four-hour days. This has always been the best
reading of the Hebrew text. Those who have tried to alleviate the
tension for the age of the earth commonly suggested that the days
should be understood as long eras (the day-age view). This has
never been convincing. The evidence used by the proponents of the
day-age view is that the word translated "day" (yom) is often a
longer period of time, and they chose that meaning for the word in
Genesis 1. The first problem with this approach is that the examples generally used of yom referring to an extended period of time
are examples in which the word is being used idiomatically: "in
that day." This is a problem because words often take on specialized meaning in idiomatic expressions. So in Hebrew, the phrase
"in that day" is simply a way for Hebrew to say "when." The word
yom cannot be removed from that expression and still carry the
meaning that it has in the expression. Second, if it could be established that the word yom could refer to a longer period of time, the
interpreter would still have the responsibility for determining
which meaning the author intended in the passage. Word mean ings cannot be chosen as if we were in a cafeteria taking whatever
we like. Third, the attempt to read long periods of time is clearly a
concordist resort,5 which will be discussed in chapter eleven.

The day-age theory and others that attempt to mitigate the force
of the seven days do so because they see no way to reconcile seven
twenty-four-hour days of material creation with the evidence from
science that the earth and the universe are very old. They seek a
solution in trying to stretch the meaning of vbm, whereas we propose that once we understand the nature of the creation account,
there is no longer any need to stretch yom.

In summary, we have suggested that the seven days are not
given as the period of time over which the material cosmos came
into existence, but the period of time devoted to the inauguration
of the functions of the cosmic temple, and perhaps also its annual
reenactment. It is not the material phase of temple construction
that represents the creation of the temple; it is the inauguration of
the functions and the entrance of the presence of God to take up
his rest that creates the temple. Genesis 1 focuses on the creation
of the (cosmic) temple, not the material phase of preparation. In
the next chapter we will track the implications of the idea that the
seven days are not related to the material phase of creation.

PREVIOUS CHAPTERS PROPOSED that Genesis 1 is not an account
of material origins but an account of functional origins, specifically focusing on the functioning of the cosmos as God's temple.
In the last chapter we identified the seven days of creation as literal twenty-four-hour days associated with the inauguration of
the cosmic temple-its actual creation, accomplished by proclaiming its functions, installing its functionaries, and, most importantly, becoming the place of God's residence.

One of the most common questions about this view comes
from those who are struggling with the worldview shift from material orientation to functional orientation (a difficult jump for all
of us). In a last effort to cling to a material perspective, they ask,
why can't it be both? It is easy to see the functional orientation of
the account, but does the material aspect have to be eliminated
altogether?

In answer to this question, if we say that the text includes a
material element alongside the functional, this view has to be
demonstrated, not just retained because it is the perspective most familiar to us. The comfort of our traditional worldview is an insufficient basis for such a conclusion. We must be led by the text.
A material interest cannot be assumed by default, it must be demonstrated, and we must ask ourselves why we are so interested in
seeing the account in material terms. In previous chapters I have
proposed the following:

• The nature of the governing verb (bard, "create") is functional.

• The context is functional (it starts with a nonfunctional world
in Gen 1:2 and comes back to a functional description of creation after the flood in Gen 8:22).1

• The cultural context is functional (ancient Near Eastern
literature).

• The theology is functional (cosmic temple).

These provide some significant evidences of the functional
perspective.

If we turn our attention to the possible evidences for the material interests of the account we find significant obstacles:

• Of the seven days, three have no statement of creation of any
material component (days 1, 3 and 7).

• Day two has a potentially material component (the firmament,
ragi a), but no one believes there is actually something material there-no solid construction holds back the upper waters.
If the account is material as well as functional we then find
ourselves with the problem of trying to explain the material
creation of something that does not exist. The word ragi `a had
a meaning to Israelites as referring to a very specific object in
their cosmic geography. If this were a legitimate material account, then we would be obliged to find something solid up
there (not just change the word to mean something else as concordists tend to do). In the functional approach, this compo nent of Old World science addresses the function of weather,
described in terms that they would understand.