Category: OT
Review of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One
Over the last five months I have examined the various propositions set forth by John H. Walton in his book The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. I want to put all those post in one place as a “review” for future readers or those who lost track of the series:
John Walton’s eighteenth (and final) proposition on Genesis 1.
In the eighteenth proposition of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One he argues that the classroom of public schools should remain neutral regarding “purpose.”
If Genesis 1 is about functional origins and not materials origins then there should be no problems with teaching whatever modern science proposes regarding the material development of the universe. For Walton those who propose Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught in the classroom make the same mistake a metaphysical naturalist who teach dysteleology (that there is no purpose or goal to the universe). Walton proposes a plain and simple solution: avoid metaphysics and teleology in the classroom (pp. 151-157).
Walton argues that the following constitutes empirical science:
“1. It is based on material ontology and premised on methodological naturalism (this eliminates Genesis from the classroom).
“2. It is focused on scientifically valid descriptive mechanisms with their strengths and weaknesses acknowledged. So it should include critiques of Neo-Darwinism as well as other origins theories that are trying to offer better explanations of current observations.
“3. It must be teleologically neutral (this rules out Genesis, metaphysical naturalism and design).” (p. 158)
So the science classroom can speak of “how” things came to be, but not “why,” and not about the metaphysical possibilities involved. Maybe there is a deity involved, but that is not something science can affirm or deny. That is a philosophical/theological question. Science teachers should neither promote creationism, intelligent design, or metaphysical naturalism.
John Walton’s seventeenth proposition on Genesis 1.
In the seventeenth proposition of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One he proposes that his interpretation results in a stronger theological message.
Walton states that his interpretation of Genesis 1 results in a stronger theology, not a weaker one. Since Genesis 1 is about functional origins and not material origins he argues:
“…that some of God’s work may have taken place over a long period of time rather than instantaneously does not reduce God’s power. God can create any way he sees fit, and it is no less an act of his sovereign power if he chooses to do it over extended billions of years. It is still accomplished by his word.” (p. 141)
One should be able to read Genesis 1 and determine:
- God is involved in everything. We can accept whatever scientific paradigm is offered without feeling like it removes God from the picture. (p. 142)
- God’s role as Creator is ongoing: There is nothing “naturalistic” that functions without God. God is the source of all life, all human births, all plants growing. God is involved in everything. (pp. 142-143)
- God controls functions: It was God would dictated the function of everything. God gives purpose and telos. (pp. 143-144)
- God’s creation is his sacred space: There is no natural/supernatural divide. God created the cosmos as his temple and he has chosen to dwell here. (pp. 144-145)
- God is glorified in Sabbath: If Sabbath is about God taking his place to rule then we don’t observe Sabbath legalistically, but in whatever we do we recognize God as the sovereign over the world. We rest in him and his Christ. (pp. 145-146)
- God provides order: If Genesis 1 is about functions it tells us that God orders everything. We find order in creation and it gives us the imperative to have wise, ordered lives. (p. 147)
- God has chosen humans to have an important role: God made creation for us. God made us in his image. We serve in his cosmic temple. (pp. 147-148)
- God made creation tov: When we speak of the “goodness” of creation in Genesis 1 this means function. God created everything to function as intended and it works. (pp. 148-149)
In summary Walton says his interpretation affirms the following:
1. The world operates by Yahweh’s design and under his supervision to accomplish his purposes.
2. The cosmos is his temple.
3. Everything in the cosmos was given its role and function by God.
4. Everything in the cosmos functions on behalf of people who are in his image. (p. 150)
John Walton’s sixteenth proposition on Genesis 1.
In the sixteenth proposition of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One he denies the natural-supernatural divide, allowing readers to affirm God’s involvement in creation no matter how it occurred.
Walton proposes that Genesis 1 is about function origins. He writes of Genesis 1:
“…it was intended as an account of functional origins in relation to people in the image of God coming to view the cosmos as a temple. Thought the Bible upholds the idea that God is responsible for all origins (functional, material, or otherwise), if the Bible does not offer an account of material origins we are free to consider contemporary explanations of origins on their own merits, as long as God is seen as ultimately responsible.” (p. 131)
As I said of the last proposition, Walton denies that we can separate natural from supernatural, or naturalistic processes from the work of God. So if evolutionary biology is accurate we are free to find God in it because Genesis 1 doesn’t prevent an evolutionary account of material origins.
Walton is aware of the various theological objections to evolution, but he cites the story of Job to suggest that we must be careful not to tell God that he should have done something the way we would have done it. If God chose evolution he is God. “We can only ask what Scripture requires us to defend (pp. 132-133).”
Walton alludes to Psalm 139.13 which states, “You knit me together in my mother’s womb.” He says we can accept this message and embryology–that natural explanation of how an embryo develops. The same is true of God’s involvement in weather and meteorology or God’s involvement in history and historiography. In other words God works through these naturalistic processes (pp. 133-135).
Walton’s only concern seems to be Genesis 2 with the idea of human evolution. Of course, this is a present concern for many evangelicals and Walton sides with those who think we must retain a historical Adam and Eve as a special work of God. But Genesis 1 remains unaffected by evolutionary theory.
John Walton’s fifteenth proposition on Genesis 1.
In the fifteenth proposition of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One he states that debates over Intelligent Design concern purpose.
Since Walton argues that Genesis 1 is about functional origins and not material origins he doesn’t think it matters if God used various natural mechanisms and forms of evolution. How God created doesn’t determine whether or not God created.
As Christians Walton says we affirm,
“Nothing could be considered accidental. Nothing happens ‘by itself,’ and origins are not just found in the outworking of natural law. Nothing is really coincidence.’ (p. 124)
So God was involved in creation no matter how God did it.
When the debate arises between those who affirm Intelligent Design (ID) and those who affirm Neo-Darwinism Walton suggest that something it is misguided. ID advocates may be right to critique the idea of the universe blindly unfolding, but Walton says they don’t offer an alternative scientific paradigm. Scientist are right to avoid a “God-of-the-Gaps” approach because if the gave metaphysical solutions to all problems science would never progress, but ultimately that doesn’t give scientist the right to address the telos of creation.
So Walton seems comfortable with scientist seeking natural explanations for how things work, but he understands ID’s point that God is behind creation. What he doesn’t like about ID is that they would make a distinction between things that happened because of God and things that did not. When science explains “how” things work this will eventually squeeze God out of the picture. But if we assume that even when we can explain the naturalistic functions that God may be involved this creates a different discussion altogether.
The use of psalms in the Book of Acts.
I want to do a study on how psalms are used in the Book of Acts. Does anyone have any books, sections of books, or articles to recommend on the topic?
John Walton’s fourteenth proposition on Genesis 1.
In the fourteenth proposition of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One he proposes that God’s roles as Creator and Sustainer have more in common that we sometimes think.
Walton says there are two extremes to be avoided (pp. 118-119):
(1) God’s work as Creator is completely finished. This includes the idea that the universe now “runs itself.” Some examples of this would be forms of theistic evolution that remove God from the scenario or deism.
(2) God is a micro-manager, dictating everything that happens as creation develops.
This sounds like a similar contention between some Calvinist and Arminians regarding salvation!
Walton argues that his “functional origins” view allows for us to think of creation as still going forward with God’s involvement, though not as micro-manager. In other words, when we think of God as “sustaining” creation this is also his continual work of creating.
How does this impact how Christians understand evolution? Walton writes:
The existence of biological processes is not a major concern, whereas the denial of any role to God in relation to those biological processes–whatever they are–are theologically and biblically unacceptable. (p. 122)
Annihilation and resurrection in Psalm 1 of the LXX.
Yesterday I shared some comments on Psalm 1 (see “Psalm 1: comments and grammar chart”). In that post I mentioned that it seemed like the Septuagint (LXX) rendering of 1.5a could have easily been interpreted by early Christian exegetes as a reference to resurrection. As passages like Luke 24.25-27 and John 5.39 state, many early Christians believed that Jesus had taught his disciples to read Scripture seeking to know more about him. If you read the Gospels or the Pauline Epistles you will have many opportunities to see this in action. So it in an interesting exercise to ask what passages might have influenced early Christian doctrine. I think Psalm 1.4b-5a if one of those passages.
In 1.4b the LXX says of the wicked, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ὡς ὁ χνοῦς, ὃν ἐκριπτεῖ ὁ ἄνεμος ἀπὸ προσώπου τῆς γῆς. The LXX adds word that we do not find in the MT, “…from the face of the earth (ἀπὸ προσώπου τῆς γῆς).” So the wicked are like chaff blown away by the wind (as the MT says as well) from the face of the earth (which goes beyond the MT).
This last statement adds emphasis to the judgment. I don’t know if Christians would have seen this as an annihilation of sorts. As I mentioned yesterday the following verse (v. 5a) reads, διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀναστήσονται ἀσεβεῖς ἐν κρίσει. The wicked will not “rise up” in the judgment. This word ἀναστήσονται from ἀνίστημι was used by early Christians to depict Jesus’ resurrection. In conjunction 1.4b-5a could have easily been read to say that the wicked are destroyed, removed from the face of the earth, and at the judgment they will not experience “resurrection.”
J.K. Gayle shared some thoughts on this subject as well. See “Interpretive Spins in the Ψαλμοὶ: the first twists.”
Psalm 1: comments and grammar chart
Psalm 1 introduces the Psalter as Torah. We are to read and meditate upon the Psalms.
In this Psalm there is a juxtaposition of two types of people: the righteous and the wicked. In v.1 we are told that the righteous one is “blessed” or “happy” (אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי) if they do not “walk in the counsel of the wicked (1.1b);” “stand in the path of sinners (1.1c);” or “sit in the seat of scoffers (1.1d).” Through parallelism we learn that the wicked, sinners, and scoffers are essentially the same type of person
It is important to realize what the psalmist does with these images. While the righteous avoid the counsel, way, and seat of the wicked it is the wicked who will be forbidden from “arising” (לֹא־יָקֻ֣מוּ) at the judgement, sitting in the congregation of the righteous, or participating in the way of the righteous.
Righteous avoid/wicked are forbidden:
- walking in the counsel of wicked (1.1b)
- standing in the “path” or “way” of sinners (1.1c)/wicked cannot “arise” at the judgement (1.5a)and the “way” (דֶּ֣רֶךְ) of the wicked is destruction (1.6b)
- sitting in the assembly (or seating place) of scoffers (1.1d)/sinners forbidden from assembly of the righteous (1.5b)
The righteous “delights” in the Torah of YHWH (1.2a). This is the starting point of differentiation. While it is true that this can refer to Torah as in the Books of Moses, it likely refers to the Psalter itself as well. It has been noted that the Psalms consist of five books (like Torah): 1-41; 42-72; 73-89; 90-106; 107-150. Each of these books ends with a doxology. Whoever arranged the Psalter was intention about creating a “musical Torah” if you will. So when Psalm 1.2 says that the blessed person “delights in the Torah of YHWH” and meditates on “his Torah…day and night” the Books of Moses are in view, but so is the Psalter that this psalm introduces.
Prior to the juxtaposition between the righteous and the wicked at the end of the psalm we find one of imagery in the middle. Since the righteous one delights in the Torah and meditates on it he becomes “like a tree (1.3a)” that is “planted by/upon streams of water (1.3b)” always producing its fruit in season (1.3c) and never experiencing a withering of its leaves (1.3d). It is as if the righteous one is a new “Tree of Life.” Everything that the righteous one does will prosper (an odd claim when we consider the psalms to come, 1.3e).
The “wicked are not so” in that they are compared to dried, dead “chaff” easily blown away by the wind (1.4) This preludes the statement in v. 6: YHWH knows the way of the righteous (hence, security), “but the way of the wicked will perish.”
The Septuagint has an interesting statement in v. 5a that makes me curious to how the early Christians would have read it. It says,οὐκ ἀναστήσονται ἀσεβεῖς ἐν κρίσει. This can be translated, “…the wicked will not arise in the judgement.” Interestingly enough ἀναστήσονται (ἀνίστημι) is the word uses for resurrection.
I have put together a grammatical flow chart to compare the MT and LXX if you are interested. That can be accessed here: LePort. Psalm 1. LXX.MT.Chart. Feedback is welcome.
John Walton’s Thirteenth Proposition: “The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture is Metaphysical in Nature”
In the thirteenth proposition of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One he proposes that Genesis 1 doesn’t conflict with science because they speak to two different subjects.
For Walton,”God is the one responsible for creation in every respect (p. 117).” God is the primary cause of all that exists and he says that this is what Genesis 1 addresses. If someone reads Genesis 1 through the lens of his “functional cosmic temple” interpretation then there is no need to pit the depiction given in Genesis 1 against the findings of modern science.
Walton’s argument is that Genesis 1 and science address two different “layers” of meaning. Science cannot address whether God exists or whether or not God is the Creator since science is restricted to “things that are demonstrable, and more importantly, those things that are falsifiable…(p. 114).”
Now this is where the division between function and ontology matter to Walton’s thesis. If someone doesn’t find his argument convincing that there is a clear distinction between function and ontology in Genesis 1, then this point is weakened. If they do agree, then it is strengthened.
John Walton’s twelfth proposition: “Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough”
In the twelfth proposition of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One he addresses problems with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, the Framework Hypothesis, and other theories.
For Walton the main concern with these views is simple: ”…they struggle to reconcile the scientific findings about the material cosmos with the biblical record without compromising either (p. 112).” He suggest that his “functional cosmic temple” reading doesn’t need to do this because it argues that Genesis 1 doesn’t address material origins.
For Young Earth Creationist “everything must be recent” because of their interpretation of Genesis 1. Walton argues that the mistake is reading Genesis 1 about material origins. He agrees that yom is a literal day, but the days aren’t about the physical world coming into existence.
Old Earth Creationist (like Hugh Ross) attempt to reconcile science with Scripture. Again, the concern with material origins is the motivation. Walton says, “It is proof of our ingenuity rather than evidence of some ingrained underlying science (p. 109). ” Yes, God is the “author” of Scripture, but did he speak his word in a way that conveyed the findings of modern science in some encoded fashion? Walton doesn’t think so.
Walton likes the literary/framework hypothesis, but he thinks it doesn’t go far enough. He sees no reason to settle for a mere “theological” or “literary” interpretation. Walton’s approach allows for a literal reading. Walton writes, “While no objection can be raised against the literary structure and no disagreement with the theological points, one has to ask whether Israelites thought of this text in only literary/theological terms (p. 111).”
Other approaches such as the “Gap Theory” fall prey to the same problem. There is no need to reconcile Genesis 1 with material origins. They are about functional origins of God’s cosmic temple.
What defines our gender identity?
For Christians the prototypes of Adam and Eve establish a foundational narrative for gender identity, but does this make it any easier to determine what is intuitively masculine and feminine?
Don and Betty Draper of the hit show Mad Men. (courtesy of moviespad.com)
Whether or not you affirm a literal Adam and Eve you likely agree that their role in Scripture has something to do with establishing the “norm” of gender distinction and gender identity. Male and female are different. There is much that is shared, but at a very basic level we are different biologically. It is from this difference that we humans construct gender distinction through cultural expressions. And while many cultures share similar traits it is hard to find many things that transcend cultures and epochs as universal “masculine” or “feminine” traits.
In Scripture the Apostle Paul seems to argue that head-coverings or possibly uncut hair are norms taught to us by nature (unless he is quoting something said by the Corinthians as some argue). He writes that nature itself teaches us that men should have short hair and women long hair, but does it (οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ διδάσκει ὑμᾶς ὅτι ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ, ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστιν, γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ, δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν; ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίουδέδοται, 1 Corinthians 11.14-15)? What if Paul would have encountered people groups in Africa or modern women in the United States? Why don’t they seem aware of this?
What may seem obviously masculine or obviously feminine in one culture is not so in another. There was a time when it was masculine to join the army and go to war. Women and children remained behind, likely because one man can produce many children, but every pregnancy requires an individual woman, so we humans learned that our survival allows for many men to expire, but not many women. For various reasons this is not a convincing argument for preventing a woman from joining the United States Army. What changed?
If you’ve read anything from people like Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, et al., you realize that there are many male Christian leaders and thinkers who are concerned with the changes they see in culture. Often they appeal to a “biblical manhood” that looks more like something you’d see on Mad Men than first century Galilee or ancient Israel (remember: the “Proverbs 31 woman” is an entrepreneurial figure who works, does business, does politics, and finds herself fully integrated into ancient Israelite society…she is no Betty Draper)!
I sense that Christians are quite confused at this juncture in the history of western society. We are transitioning out of the industrial age, many men seeing their manual labor jobs given to machines, and many more women are entering the workforce (rightfully so). I know of some youth pastors who say that it is difficult to know how to teach young men how to embrace and express their maleness. I assume this is why some of the aforementioned folk gravitate toward expressions of gender from a more black-and-white era. Yet anyone who knows anything about the 50′s and 60′s is very, very aware that it was unfair to both men and women. Women weren’t allowed to fulfill their full potential as humans and neither were men who were taught that their role was that of a “bread winner” whose sole job was to “provide.” Many of these men found themselves retired as strangers to their wife and children. Many of these women found themselves experiencing an existential crisis realizing that there is more to life than reproducing and washing dishes (though there is nothing wrong with those tasks, obviously, there is more to being a woman than those things).
So returning to a “golden age” to recover “the way we never were” (as sociologist Stephanie Coontz describes it) is not the best idea in my estimation, nor a realistic one.
Yet (!) we know as men and women we are different, even if it is at a very basic, minimal level. What does it mean to create and maintain healthy gender distinctions so that people can develop a gender identity? Surely it has nothing to do with boys wearing blue and girls wearing pink or boys playing with trucks while girls play with dolls. This is inculturation, whether good, bad, or neutral. It has little to nothing to do with being ontologically male or female. If a girl wants to play baseball and a boy wants to be a pastry chef we know this is fine, even if there are gender stereotypes associated with them. A boy can do ballet while retaining a masculine identity. A girl can joined the armed forces while retaining a feminine identity.
So what does it mean to be made in the image of God–male and female? What makes masculinity and femininity? What role does culture have in establishing norms and how to we avoid “othering” people who don’t align to our superficial stereotypes?
Thoughts?
Individual psalms in the Book of Psalms.
The Book of Psalms contains one hundred and fifty individual psalms. Each psalm has an individual message that morphs when read as part of a collection. What does reading the Book of Psalms teach us about reading Scripture in general?
In Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook (p. 57) Mark D. Furtado asks, “Are the psalms a random anthology of prayers and praises or an intentional collection with a clear purpose and unified message?”
I want to answer: both. I could sit down with Psalm 1, read it, and hear its message loud and clear without the other one hundred and forty-nine psalms. I would know that the blessed/happy person doesn’t do what the wicked do, but meditates on Torah receiving transformation from this practice. I would know that this immersion in Scripture stabilizes me “like a tree planted by streams of water (v. 3a, NIV)” while the wicked “…are like chaff that the wind blows away (v. 4a, NIV).” I would learn that YHWH watches over the righteous, but that the wicked do not have this protection.
As soon as I read Psalm 1 next to Psalm 2 the meaning doesn’t morph drastically, but the context changes a bit. I realize that part of being righteous rather than wicked is submitting to God’s chosen King, his Son, the ruler over the nations. Together the definition of the righteous and that of the wicked change. Yes, Torah matters, but Torah without obedience to God’s anointed one puts me back on the side of the wicked. I wouldn’t know this without the canonized message of the collection.
What does this mean for our reading of Scripture?
Is there a sense in which (like the psalms) we can read the Gospel of Matthew alone, then the Gospel of Mark alone, then the Gospels of Luke and John alone, but when we put them together we should anticipate a fuller, more complex message? I hear many speak of giving each book its own voice, paying attention to “authorial intent,” and the like. There are others who emphasize the message of these various works in the context of the canon. Does it need to be either-or?
Does reading the psalms both individually and together establish a model for how to read Scripture as a whole? If so, how? If not, why not?
John Walton’s eleventh proposition: “Functional Cosmic Temple” Offers Face-Value Exegesis
In the eleventh proposition of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One he critiques other approaches to reading Genesis 1 suggesting that his “Functional Cosmic Temple” reading makes the most sense of the text.
Yesterday someone commented on my post on Walton’s tenth proposition (see here) saying, “I guess it was God’s will that Christians all across the world, for thousands of years, to read Genesis for what it was until the day that he appointed John Walton to enlighten us through the 10th proposition in his book.” This remark is a good segue to proposition eleven. Walton argues that his reading of Genesis 1 is how the ancients would have understood it. In other words, he is not the revisionist.
Walton critiques four other approaches to reading Genesis 1:
(1) The “theological” reading emphasizes the “theological” points like God as Creator and Sabbath observance.
(2) The “literary” reading that relegates the problematic language of Genesis 1 to poetics.
(3) The “polemical” reading that assumes Genesis 1 shares a worldview with other ancient near eastern cultures, but differs where the Israelites seek to offer a critique of the stories of other people groups. What is important here is to note what is different about Genesis 1 to see how the Israelites thought of their God in contrast to other gods.
(4) The “concordist” reading that assumes that since this text is God’s Word we should be able to find places in the text that connect with modern science. For instance, since God knew of the “Big Bang” he inspired language about his speech bringing things into being and now we have the science to correspond to it.
Walton doesn’t deny that there are theological, literary, or polemical aspects of Genesis 1. He is much harder on concordist. All four views fall short of his view though (pp. 102-105).
Walton states, “…the most ‘literal’ understanding, if you will–is the one that comes from their world nor ours (p. 105).” In Walton’s estimation his view does the following:
1. “recognizes Genesis 1 for the ancient document that it is”
2. doesn’t “impose a material ontology on the text”
3. doesn’t need to concord with modern science
4. “avoids reducing Genesis 1 to merely literary or theological expression”
5. “poses to conflict with scientific thinking”
John Walton’s tenth proposition: The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins.
Alright, now that I am through graduation weekend it is time to resume my reading of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One. Last time I addressed proposition nine (see here). Today I move to proposition ten: The seven days of Genesis 1 do not concern material origins. This chapter builds on those previous chapters that emphasize the “functional” aspect of creation. This has been Walton’s argument throughout. We moderns think of “creation” in terms like “The Big Bang” while ancients (at least ancient Israelites) were concerned not with how the great lights came into being but how they came to have the purpose given to them by God.
Walton argues that Genesis 1 provides internal obstacles for reading the creation narrative as being about material origins, e.g. (1) some days have no material origins (1, 3, and 7); some things like the “firmament” has a potentially material component, but Walton doubts that it was understood to be “material”; the “material” components of days 4 and 6 are dealt with at a functional level only; day 5 seems to be about function, especially in light of his earlier discussion of bara (pp.93-94).
Walton makes sure to clarify that his argument doesn’t deny God’s role in the creation of the material world. Rather, this is not what Genesis 1 addresses (pp. 95-96).
As a side bar the question of death is addressed at the end of this chapter. Walton doesn’t think there was no death at all before “the fall.” He think bugs died, skin cells, et cetera. But the Tree of Life in the Garden is what allowed humans to live without dying. Their death resulted in being expelled from the Garden and therefore the Tree of Life.
