Dubious and dangerous exposition
A review of The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins
Debate by John H. Walton
Intervarsity Press, IL, 2009
by Dominic Statham
The first verse of the first book of the Bible teaches, “In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) and the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews asserts,
“By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command,
so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Heb. 11:3). Throughout history, the church has held that
such statements from Scripture provide the basis for the doctrine of creatio ex
nihilo (creation out of nothing). The first line of the Apostles’
Creed reads, “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and
earth”, and the first line of the Nicene Creed, “We believe in one God
… maker of heaven and earth and everything that is, seen and unseen.”
The Shorter Westminster Catechism states, “The work of creation is God’s
making all things of nothing.”
According to Walton, the church has misunderstood Genesis for centuries
According to Walton, however, this view of Genesis is wrong, and the church has
misunderstood its real meaning for many centuries. The first book of the Bible,
he argues, does not provide an account of material origins, but functional
origins. The ancients, he maintains, thought of existence in terms of function in
society and culture, and, in their view, true existence is not even achieved until
people and God are there to benefit from these functions (pp. 27, 36). The Genesis
account, he claims, refers to a literal seven day period in history, sometime after
the material creation, when God assigned the cosmos its real intended functions, prior to his
taking up residence in it as his temple. So, according to Walton, the Creation Week
should be understood as follows. On Day 1, God’s command, “let there
be light”, and his “separating” light from darkness inaugurated
temple time. The expanse (sky), ordained on Day 2, is established as the space in
which his people live and would function in the new order to control rainfall and
irrigation for their benefit. On Day 3, God “separated” the waters on the earth so
that plants could grow on the dry land, providing us with food. On Day 4, the “lights
in the sky” were dedicated as separators of day and night and markers of seasons,
days and years. On Day 5, the roles of fish and birds are assigned their temple
function, this being to fill the waters and fly in the sky. Similarly, on Day 6,
the terrestrial creatures are ordained to reproduce and fill the land. Man is brought
into being as a spiritual creature, carrying the image of God, and his function
is established, to exercise dominion over the earth under God. Finally, on Day 7,
God’s resting from his work should be understood as his taking up residence
in the cosmos, thus making it his temple. Hence, the seven days refer to an inauguration
ceremony where God’s temple is “created” and made functional (pp.
87–88).
According to Walton, however, this view of Genesis is wrong, and the church has
misunderstood its real meaning for many centuries.
According to Walton, the reason why the church has almost universally misunderstood
Genesis is that knowledge of the ancients and their world-view had been lost for
many centuries. However, in recent years, as archaeologists have recovered many
ancient texts, and linguists have re-learnt the ancient languages, it has been possible
for scholars to regain an understanding of how the ancient world thought. Now, through
his study of ancient near eastern beliefs, Walton claims, he has been able to correctly
interpret the first book of the Bible. He writes:
“While this reading [Walton’s interpretation of Genesis] is initially
based on observations of the biblical text … 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 question
that we have proposed” (p. 171).
Scripture must interpret Scripture
In evaluating Walton’s claims, we must apply the usual rules of hermeneutics
and, particularly, that Scripture must be used to interpret Scripture. Our interpretation
of any one passage must be such that it is harmonious with and sits comfortably
with our interpretation of related passages. This could not be said of Walton’s
exposition of Genesis.
NASA
Did God just name the stars on Day 4, or did he make them?
In general, both OT and NT references to creation emphasize its material nature
and often celebrate God’s power and wisdom. For example, in Is. 40:25, 26, God asks, “To whom will you compare
me? Or who is my equal? … Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: who created
all these?” and in Is. 40:28 we read, “The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding
no-one can fathom.” Jer. 10:12 confirms “God made the earth by his power;
he founded the world by his wisdom”. (See also Is. 42:5; Ps. 33:6, 9; Ps. 102:25; Job. 38:44ff; Neh. 9:6.) According to the Apostle Paul,
God’s act of creation makes his power and divine nature plain so that unbelievers
“are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20, 25). The first verses of John’s Gospel
are also particularly relevant here. “In the beginning” is clearly a
reference to Genesis 1, yet verse 3 speaks of the Word creating all things.
And, again, in Col. 1:16, Christ is said to have created all “things
in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible”.
The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is essential in defending the Judeo/Christian
view, making clear that God is sovereign, and the only creator of everything.
Moreover, Walton’s rejection of Genesis 1 as an account of material origins hardly fits
the statement of Gen. 2:2–3, which makes clear that, after Day 6, God
ceased from work. If God had not created anything material, but simply
proclaimed the functions of that which already existed, what work had he done? It
hardly fits the sense of Ex. 20:8–11 either, which likens God’s work
of creation to the physical work done by the Israelites. Furthermore, Walton’s
argument that the ancient Israelites’ understanding of the Hebrew word ‘bara’
(translated ‘create’) would have emphasized function is hardly a reason
to reject the view that it also refers to a material creation. Would God have created
something without intending it to have purpose? In Gen. 1:14 we read, “God said, ‘Let there be
lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night’”,
suggesting both creation from nothing and assignment of function. If assignment
of function was the only intended meaning, why does the text not read, “Let
the lights in the expanse of the sky separate day from night”? Similarly,
why does v. 6 not read “Let the expanse separate water from water” instead
of “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water”?
Walton admits that his view is not one which would be supported by many other scholars
(p. 44) and, indeed, this is true. James Barr, who was Professor of the Interpretation
of Holy Scripture at Oxford University, wrote:
“ … probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or
Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s)
of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the
ideas that
a. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of
24 hours we now experience
b. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition
a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical
story.”1
It is difficult to accept the idea that the vast majority of Christian and Jewish
scholars have been wrong about the Bible’s account of creation for so many
centuries. Moreover, if Genesis made no reference to material origins, how were
the Israelites to counter the creation accounts of other religions? The doctrine
of creatio ex nihilo is essential in defending the Judeo/Christian view,
making clear that God is sovereign, and the only creator of everything. He existed
before the material universe and is not co-eternal with matter. He was not limited
in creation by what already existed: rather, being omnipotent, he produced whatever
material was needed to form whatever he wanted to create. The universe is his design
and ordered entirely according to his own plan and purposes. Moreover, he did not
create out of his own substance and is therefore not a part of the fallen world.
Walton claims that his exposition of Genesis solves many problems that have beset
the church in recent years. For example, since, according to this view, the Bible
makes no statement regarding the age of the earth, it can accommodate any hypothesis
that might be supported by science (p. 95). Similarly, since Genesis is not an account
of material origins, it would be perfectly admissible to consider an evolutionary
account of life, so long as it is accepted that God is ultimately responsible for
its existence. In answer to the question, “Where do the dinosaurs and fossil
‘Homo’ specimens fit in?” he answers that:
“ … these creatures could be part of the prefunctional cosmos—part
of the long stage of development that I would include in the material phase …
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” (p. 169).
Moreover, he claims, “In the interpretation of the text that I have offered,
very little found in evolutionary theory would be objectionable” (p. 170)
and “Biological evolution is capable of giving us insight into God’s
creative work” (p. 138).
Walton’s God is not the God of the Bible
The idea that millions of years passed before God conferred human status on a sufficiently
evolved ape, however, does not sit comfortably with the words of Christ, who maintained
that “at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and
female’” (Mark. 10:6). Moreover, a view of the pre-fallen world full
of bloodshed, disease, desperate competition and death hardly squares with God’s
assertion that his creation, in every respect, was very good (Gen. 1:31). Presumably, in Walton’s view, Adam and
Eve, in their originally perfect state, would have been surrounded by this ruthless,
violent world. One wonders how Walton would answer the non-Christian Philosopher
of Science, Professor David Hull, who wrote:
“Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory … may be like, He
is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who
cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book
of Job. The God of the Galapagos [evolution by natural selection] is careless, wasteful,
indifferent; almost diabolical. His is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone
would be inclined to pray.”2
The answer to Professor Hull, of course, is that God did not create through evolution.
Rather, as the Bible teaches, God created plants, animals and people fully formed
and perfect (Gen. 1:31). The suffering and death we see all round us
came into the world later, because of Adam’s sin, and is a salutary lesson
for all of us as to sin’s terrible nature. But praise God that, one day, he
will restore the world to its original beautiful form, reflecting his own beautiful
nature, and where “the wolf will live with the lamb and the leopard will lie
down with the goat … [and] the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Is. 11).3
The doctrine of creation matters
The biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo lies at the heart of the Christian
faith and we should be careful not to diminish its biblical basis. It affirms that
God is sovereign and that He can be trusted to do all that He has promised. There
are no other gods who compete with Him and He alone merits our worship. The universe
belongs to Him, and He will do with it whatever He pleases. By beholding his creation,
we are enabled to glimpse something of his greatness and beauty. By recalling that
He brought everything into being simply by his word, we begin to realise something
of his awesome power. And we are reminded that, as well as being the only creator,
He is the only Saviour.4
Readers’ commentsJoseph C., Australia, 30 March 2012
Cheers for this review Dominic, it's a great service you guys provide, I just heard about this book from a friend and thought "hey, a book on creation, CMI might have a write up on that". and here I am! thanks heaps.
Garth M., New Zealand, 6 May 2012
The comment "Walton admits that his view is not one which would be supported by many other scholars (p. 44)" risks distorting what Walton actually writes i.e. "This is not a view that has been rejected by other scholars, it is simply one they have never considered because their material ontology was a blind presupposition..." Accurate representation is desirable for credibility. Dominic Statham responds:
Walton is correct in arguing that, historically, his view has never been seriously considered by other scholars. This is because it has so little basis in either the text of Genesis or the rest of the Bible.
Walton's whole argument is at variance with the principle of the perspecuity of Scripture. This maintains that God intended ordinary people, guided by the Holy Spirit, and using sound rules of hermeneutics, to understand the Bible's fundamental doctrines. We do not require elite scholars, whether they be theologians or scientists, to interpret the Bible for us. This was the great mistake of the Church of Rome at the time of the Reformation.
Robert B., United States, 14 May 2012
I really appreciate the scripture references provided by Dominic in reviewing this book. I have been pursuing a line of thought in writing an essay for my belief in biblical creation that looks at scriptures where God declares his personal involvement in the direct creation of all things visible and invisible. It likely has no persuasion to one who is committed to a system of evolution that offers an explanation of origins, but I hope it appeals to Christians, who have been deceived by the claims of evolutionists, into re-examining biblical creationism and embracing the same. Great work, Dominic! |
Related articles
Further reading
References
- Barr, J., letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984. Cited
by Sarfati, J., Refuting
Compromise, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, p. 137, 2004.
Return to text.
- Cited by Grudem, W., Systematic Theology, Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, MI, p. 302, 1994. Return to text.
- Gurney, P., The carnivorous nature and suffering
of animals, J. Creation 18(3):70–75, 2004; creation.com/carniv.
Return to text.
- It is significant the Hebrew word ‘bara’ (‘create’)
is used in the context of both creation and salvation. See, for example, Is. 43:1ff and Ps. 51:10. Return to text.
| Manna from heaven? Because this site and the information it contains is free, you might think so. However, lots of hard work went into producing it. Your gifts help to produce this ‘manna’ for others.  | | |
|
