The Lost World of Genesis One (27 page)

Q. When and how did God create the material world?

A: According to the interpretation offered in this book, the Bible
does not tell us, so we are left to figure it out as best we can with
the intellectual capacity and other tools that God gave us. But the
material world was created by him.

QQ Where do the dinosaurs and fossil "homo" specimens fit in?

A: In the view presented in this book, these creatures could be
part of the prefunctional cosmos-part of the long stage of development that I would include in the material phase. Since the material phase precedes the seven days of Genesis 1, these would all
be relegated to the obscure and distant past. The anthropological
specimens would not be viewed as humans in the image of God.
They would not be assessed morally (any more than an animal
would), and they were subject to death as any animal was. Most
did not survive alongside the humans that the Bible discusses, and
others would have died off early.

Q. Isn't this just really a dodge to accommodate evolution?

A: The interpretation set forth in this book arose out of my desire
to fully understand the biblical text. Understanding evolution and
its role is a much lower value. Evolution represents the current
scientific consensus to explain the many observations that have
been made in paleontology, genetics, zoology, biochemistry, ecology and so on. The question is how much of what is involved in
biological evolution runs counter to what I understand to be biblical claims and theological realities. In the interpretation of the
text that I have offered, very little found in evolutionary theory
would be objectionable, though certainly some of the metaphysical claims of evolution remain unacceptable.

Q. Why don't you want to just read the text literally?

A: I believe that this is a literal reading. A literal reading requires
an understanding of the Hebrew language and the Israelite culture. I believe that the reading that I have offered is the most literal reading possible at this point. Someone who claims a "literal"
reading based on their thinking about the English word "create"
may not be reading the text literally at all, because the English
word is of little significance in the discussion.

Q. What would people have seen if they were there as eyewitnesses (i.e., what "really happened") on these days?

A: We overrate eyewitnesses in our culture. The Bible is much
more interested in understanding what God did rather than what
an eyewitness would see. For example, an eyewitness would have
seen the waters of the Red Sea part, but would have no physical
evidence that God did it. Genesis 1 is an account of creation intended to convey realities about the origins of the cosmos and
God's role in it and his purpose for it. Most importantly it is designed to help the reader understand that the cosmos should be
understood as a temple that God has set up to operate for people as he dwells in their midst. The perspective of an eyewitness
would be inadequate and too limited to be of any good. Genesis 1
is not intended to be an eyewitness account.

Q. Why can't Genesis 1 be both functional and material?

A: Theoretically it could be both. But assuming that we simply
must have a material account if we are going to say anything
meaningful is cultural imperialism. We cannot demand that the
text speak to us in our terms. Just as we cannot demand a material
account, we cannot assume a material account just because that is
most natural to us and answers the questions we most desire to
ask. We must look to the text to inform us of its perspective. In
my judgment, there is little in the text that commends it as a material account and much that speaks against it. (See pp. 93-94.)

QQ If this is the "right" reading, why didn't we know about it until
now?

A: While this reading is initially based on observations from the
biblical text (as opposed to observations about the ancient worldview), without an understanding of the ancient worldview, it
would have been difficult to ask the questions that have led to this
position and nearly impossible to provide the answers to the questions that we have proposed. The worldview of antiquity was lost
to us as thinking changed over thousands of years, and the language and literature of the ancient world was buried in the sands
of the Middle East. It was only with the decipherment of the ancient languages and the recovery of their texts that windows were
again opened to an understanding of an ancient worldview that
was the backdrop of the biblical world. This literature and the
resulting knowledge has made it possible to recover the ways of
thinking that were prominent in the ancient world and has given
us new insight into some difficult biblical texts (see my Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2006]).

Q. Why would God make it so difficult for me to understand his
Word?

A: Given God's decision to communicate, he had to choose one
language and culture to communicate to, which means that every
other language and culture has their work cut out for them. As
readers from a different language and culture, we have to try to
penetrate the original language and culture ifwe are to receive the
maximum benefits of God's revelation. We also need to seek
greater understanding when we are confronted with information
from outside the Bible (whether ancient or modern) and want to
figure out how it integrates into what we believe the Bible is saying. It is relieving to recognize that the basics of God's revelation
of himself (including his Creator role) are easily skimmed off the
surface, but it is not surprising that God's Word contains infinite
depth and that it should require constant attention to study with
all the tools we have available. God is not superficial, and we
should expect that knowledge of him and his Word would be
mined rather than simply absorbed. This means that all of us will
be dependent on others with particular skills to help us succeed in
the enterprise of interpretation. This is not elitism; it is the interdependence of the people of God as they work together in community to serve one another with the gifts they have.

Q. How can this view of Genesis be taught to children in Sunday
school and Christian elementary schools?

A: The most important aspects of Genesis 1 to emphasize for children is that God was involved at every level and that he is responsible for setting up the world so that it works. This is the theological side of the question. On the textual side of the question, when Genesis 1 is the basis for a Bible story, we can emphasize what is
most important: functions and operations. The teacher would not
need to get into the issue of Genesis 1 not being an account of
material origins. That could come at later levels of study. It would
be important, however, not to criticize evolution as contradictory
to the Bible. Rather statements can be made that whatever processes were involved, God was controlling those processes.

Proposition 1: Genesis 1 Is Ancient Cosmology

'For examples of ancient thought in numerous categories of science, see
Denis Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and
Stock, 2008), pp. 105-47.

'One of the most common examples given by those who suggest there is
a latent scientific consideration is that Is 40:22 posits a spherical earth.
This cannot be sustained because its terminology only indicates a disk,
not a sphere.

'Richard Bube, The Human Quest (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1971), pp. 26-27.

'See the contrast between the extremes of deism and micromanagement discussed in Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old TestamentsA Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005),
pp. 7, 22-24.

5This observation came from my student Jeremey Houlton.

Proposition 2: Ancient Cosmology Is Function Oriented

'For more extensive summary and discussion, see John Walton, "Creation," in Dictionary of the Old Testament.- Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond
Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 2003), pp. 155-68.

'For a good treatment of the ancient Near Eastern creation texts see
Richard Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the
Bible, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 26 (Washington,
D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1994).

'Ibid., p. 28, translated into English from J. van Dijk's French translation in "Existe-t-il un `Poeme de la Creation' Sumerien?" in Kramer
Anniversary Volume. Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer,
ed. B. Eichler et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker, 1976),
pp. 125-33.

4James P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy ofAncient Egyptian
Creation Accounts (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Egyptological Seminar,
1988), pp. 57-58: "Creation is the process through which the One became the Many."

'Coffin Texts, spell 76, translation by James Allen, in Context of Scripture 1.6, ed. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger (Leiden: Brill, 1997), p. 10.

6Ibid., p. 16.

7Harry A. Hoffner Jr., "Song of Ullikummi," in Hittite Myths, Society
of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World 2 (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1990), p. 59, §61. The speaker is Ubelluri, a god similar to Atlas in Greek mythology, who holds up the cosmos from his
place in the netherworld.

'Translation from Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 3:210-11.

9See Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology ofAkkadian Literature, 3rd ed. (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2005), p. 464; Wayne
Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1998), pp. 117-18.

10For this interpretation see Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography,
p. 117.

"The Debate Between Winter and Summer 5.3.3, lines 1-11 .ox.ac.uk>.

12For the machine vs. kingdom contrast see John Stek, "What Says the
Scripture?" in Portraits of Creation, ed. H. J. van Till (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990), p. 255.

Proposition 3: "Create" (Hebrew bara') Concerns Functions

'One might claim that this puts us at the mercy of Hebrew scholars,
but remember, it was Hebrew scholars who gave us the English verb
"create" to begin with in our translations, so nothing has changed, we
have just faced reality.

'From a practical standpoint, we know that this is true. Unfortunately,
sometimes when we get to scholarly analysis we forget how the world
of words generally works and try to use etymology rather than usage,
even though we know that in the language we speak, etymology is an
unreliable guide to meaning. We know that "awful" does not mean
"full of awe" and that "understand" does not mean "to stand under."
We must resist the temptation to use etymology in word analysis. The
only reliable guide is usage.

'For a discussion with examples and a bit more linguistic detail see
John Walton, "Principles for Productive Word Study," in The New
International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed.
W. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 1:161-71.

'Direct objects in the Dead Sea Scrolls include: vault, light, morning,
evening, age, spirit, spice, treasury, sanctuary, people, deed, righteous
one, wicked one, flesh, evil and shame. See full citations in Dictionary
of Classical Hebrew, ed. D. J. A. Clines (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1993-2001), 2:258-59; and discussion in H. Ring-
gren, "tA7: Barn ," Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974- ), 2:249. The study of the objects with similar conclusions was done by John Stek, "What Says the Scripture?" in
Portraits of Creation, ed. H. J. van Till (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990), pp. 203-65, see particularly p. 208. The conclusion he reaches
is that "In biblical language, bara' affirms of some existent reality
only that God conceived, willed, and effected it" (p. 213). He also catalogs biblical references where barn' involves providential processes
over time (p. 212).

5See Stek, "What Says the Scripture?" pp. 203-65 (especially p. 208).

61t should be noted, however, that in a large percentage of the cases
where the usage is ambiguous, a further explanation is offered that indicates a functional interest (noted in the last column).

'Our discussion here can only be summary. For detailed discussion see
John Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001), pp. 67-70; John Walton, Genesis One asAncient Cosmology (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming).

'John Sailhamer, Genesis Unbound (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 1996),
p. 38. Detailed discussion may be found in Sailhamer's Genesis commentary in the Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 2:20-23, and a summary by Bill
Arnold in the article on resit in New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. W. A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 3:1025-26.

Proposition 4: The Beginning State in Genesis 1 Is Nonfunctional