Category: Scholars and/or Theologians
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)
Commentary Review: Craig A. Evans’ Matthew (NCBC)
Evans, Craig A. Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Craig A. Evans, ‘Matthew’ in the NCBC series.
I received Craig A. Evans Matthew from the New Cambridge Bible Commentary as a gift for my indexing work on the project. I knew from the digital version I viewed that it was going to be a useful volume. Now that I have spent some time with it in print I can say that it is worth adding to your library.
The New Cambridge Bible Commentary uniquely combined in-depth scholarship with readability and a user friendly structure. There are some commentaries that are so meticulous that they are difficult to read. There are others that are easy to read, but the content is too brief. This series seems to do a fine job at providing a middle ground. I have Bill T. Arnold’s Genesis from the same series.
The series is edited by Ben Witherington III and it appears to span the broad spectrum of New Testament scholarship including people like Arnold, Evans, Witherington, and others like Walter Brueggemann, Craig S. Keener, Amy-Jill Levine, and Duane F. Watson.
The introduction is simple and straightforward. The commentary flows nicely addressing manageable portions of text. There are occasional supplementary sections called “A Closer Look” that appear in gray boxes throughout the commentary providing an aside on subjected like “The Holy Spirit,” “Josephus on John the Baptist,” ”Demons in the Desert,” and “The Disciples in the Talmud.”
Evans does interact with other commentaries, but he is intentional about limiting the attention given to secondary literature. He prefaces that his primary conversation partners are the commentaries of John Nolland, R.T. France, Robert Gundry, and Craig S. Keener (p. xv). This doesn’t mean that there is a lack of sources cited (I know, I did the indexing), but that the commentary does a solid job of being selective when mentioning and interacting with secondary literature so that the text itself is primary.
This is the work of a confessional scholar. Evans affirms the historicity of Jesus, the virgin birth, and so forth, but he does serious historical-critical work as well. I don’t think I have to defend his reputation as a serious scholar of Christian origins and literature and Second Temple Judaism.
The commentary is 487 pages of content. If you have any questions about the book feel free to ask in the comments. Here are some pictures to provide a visual (click to enlarge):
Introduction
Text and Commentary
e.g. ‘A Closer Look’
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.
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)
C.S. Lewis on marriage governed by the State and marriage governed by the Church.
C.S. Lewis and his wife, Joy Davidman.
Yesterday I proposed that we should make a distinction between civil unions recognized by the State (for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike) and marriage, something to be offered by churches, synagogues, mosques, and other visible religious institutions in ”A commonsense solution on same-sex marriage.” It appears that C.S. Lewis held to a similar paradigm. In a comment Ellen Cressman provided a quotation from Lewis’ Mere Christianity (p. 112 in the 2001 Harper San Francisco printing):
“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.”
Now, let me be clear, I don’t agree with everything Lewis says in this chapter on “Christian Marriage,” especially his words immediately following on “headship” in the home. (Also, excuse his outdated reference to Muslims as “Mohommedans.”) Yet here I think he was on to something way back in 1952. Christians must be very, very careful about equating morality as governed by the Church with morality as governed by the State. We know this already, for as I mentioned yesterday we do not legislate divorce, even divorce save porneia, so we must be aware of the dangers of trying to use the State to do what even the Holy Spirit seems unable to do sometimes–hold together our marriages.
Now I know one reaction (and it was exhibited in the comments) is that if we move marriage away from the hands of the State, allowing them to provide a religious-less “civil union,” then we risk opening the floodgates to polygamy and all other sorts of “unions.” Fair enough, but at that we must ask what the State has to do with marriage/civil unions in the first place. I am not a historian of world culture, nor of marriage, but I assume that it has not always been so that the State dictated how marriage worked or determined who could or could not join together in a union. Christian marriage has existed with or without the approval and support of the State, so it was not the State that birthed Christian marriage.
We must ask what interest does the State have in governing the affairs of unions. Does the State care if you are married to one spouse but have sex with twenty? No, you cannot go to jail for adultery. Does the State prevent this form of polygamy? No, it does not. The State’s interest has to do with organization. There must be something about the particularity of small partnerships (whether or not sex is involved) that interest the governing powers. So if Reverend, Pastor So-and-So cannot sign on behalf of the government does that mean suddenly the government will want to provide civil unions of one man and twelve women? I don’t know, but I think that complicates things for the State and moves away from the reason the State likes having its voice in our marriage rituals.
That said, do I care if nine people share assets or if their partnerships result in tax breaks? I’m not sure that I do. Again, the State’s actions are not concerned with morality or the imagery that Christian marriage attempts to present. The State is concerned with organization and control.
Now I am not saying that Christians shouldn’t vote with their religious convictions as motivation. I think our convictions should motivate us to participate in our “democracy” in ways that makes life a little better for the poor, the immigrant, the widow, and a little harder on the oppressor, the murderer, the abuser, and so forth. But as I said above, we realize that at times some things should not or cannot be legislated–maybe unions resulting in hospital visitation rights, tax bracketing, asset sharing, and child custody is not one of those things? Maybe Lewis is right that Christians must live out a very particular vision of marriage, not asking the State to control it. Maybe we should focus on our own marriages and actually doing marriage the Christian way before we spend time demanding that the perks of the State be given only to those who are “married” in the eyes of the State.
Stanley Hauerwas destroyed my hermeneutical paradigm.
In December 0f 2006 I finished my first semester of seminary studies, grabbed a ride to the airport, and flew to New York City to attend the wedding of a couple of my close friends. I gave myself one extra day of travel to explore Manhattan afterwards. As my wanderings around the Big Apple came to a close I stopped into a Boarders (remember those?) by Madison Square Garden to browse. I came across a series of essays titled The Hauerwas Reader edited by J. Berkman and M.G. Cartwright. This book is an anthology of essays by the Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas.
The Hauerwas Reader
I was challenged by what I was reading, so much so that I bought the book. I resonated with Hauerwas’ arguments, even when I couldn’t fathom the implications. Yes, Christian should live as an alternative people. Yes, Christians should refuse to kill. Yes to this and yes to that! Now what am I supposed to do with these arguments?
I am asking this question still.
One essay destroyed my black-and-white hermeneutical paradigm. It humbled me. I realized that I had a lot to learn regarding interpreting the Scriptures. I have been on a quest to reconstruct my hermeneutical approach to Scripture ever since. The article was a short, three page piece that Hauerwas had written for the Charlotte Observer in 1993 when one of the major national debates was over whether homosexuals could serve in the United States military. It was titled, “Why Gays (as a Group) are Morally Superior to Christians (as a Group).” (You can access it through Google Books, pp. 519-521 here.)
In the opening paragraph Hauerwas wrote:
“I am ambivalent about recent discussions concerning gays in the military. I see no good reason why gays and lesbians should be excluded from military service; as a pacifist I do not see why anyone would want to serve. Moreover, I think it a wonderful thing that some people are excluded as a group. I only wish that Christians could be seen by the military to be as problematic as gays (p. 519).”
He proceeded to argue that we were excluding homosexuals from the military as a way of trying to restore some sense of morality in a world where our morality was already out of order. We didn’t know why we were doing what we were doing as a nation. We didn’t have sexuality “figured out” anymore than homosexuals did. Hauerwas wrote this stringing remark:
“As a society we have no general agreement about what constitutes marriage and/or what good marriages ought to serve. We allegedly live in a monogamous culture, but in fact we are at best serially polygamous. We are confused about sex, why and with whom we have it, and about our reasons for having children (pp. 519-520).”
Hauerwas argued that our moral confusion led to our grasping at straws, seeking a scapegoat, someone to call “immoral” so we would know how to define ourselves as “moral.” Then Hauerwas turned the tables on us Christians as he has righteously done for many years. He asked what it would look like if the Catholic tradition of “just war” was persuade with as much vigor as our stance against homosexuals in the military. He asked what it would look like if Christians were so dedicated to love and non-violence that the military considered Christians a threat to their aims just like they considered homosexuals a threat.
What if Christians prayed for peace? What if Christians refused to submit to anyone, even a general, whose orders were not aligned with the peace of Christ? What is Christians sought to witness to Christ at all times? He wrote this pithy paragraph:
“Finally, consider the problem of taking showers with these people. They are, after all, constantly going about the business of witnessing in hopes of making converts to their God and church. Would you want to shower with such people? You never know when they might try to baptize you (p. 521).”
Then he ended with these words:
“If gays can be excluded as a group from the military, I have hope that it could even happen to Christians. God, after all, has done stranger things in the past.
“However, until God works this miracle, it seems clear to me that gays, as a group, are morally superior to Christians (p. 521).”
I was a bit stunned. The thought came to mind, “Why do I judge homosexuals, especially Christians who struggle with homosexuality, yet honor Christians who serve in the military and possibly kill other humans?” Another thought came to mind, “Why does the church accept Christians in the military when Jesus spoke so straightforwardly about killing and violence? Why do we dedicate worship gatherings to honor military veterans, especially around the 4th of July? How have we explained away the call to ‘turn the other cheek’ and to never ‘return evil for evil’ so easily?”
If you were to ask me once every day for a week whether or not Christians should serve in the military I will say, “No!” three times; “No” twice; and “Maybe” twice. That is my pacifism.
What I have found most perplexing is how Christians can give so much energy to explaining why homosexuality is a sin while honoring Christians who participate in war as heroes saying nothing about the sins they commit. If you kill another person in Iraq you can come back to the United States and likely receive financial aid to attend almost any evangelical seminary around. This is not so if you write on your admissions essay, “I think I might be homosexual.”
I am not advocating the compatibility of Christianity with homosexuality. I am suggesting that our conversation on this topic is more rhetoric than substance. I agree with John Byron that this is a subject where we have shown little intellectual muscle strength, often fearing what might be said if we use the “h” word (see “Homosexuality: When will the church really have a conversation?”).
I see articles like James Emery White’s “The ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ to Culture Wars” where he advocates for Christians taking a political stance against same-sex marriage and I wonder why same-sex marriage is one of his “yes” answers while our nation’s military industrial complex is not?! Why is homosexuals aiming for a monogamous relationship worth our time, but the death of thousands of people (many who are not Christians, therefore damned in White’s worldview) isn’t?
I appreciate Christians like Tim Keller who are asking, “How do we acknowledge the image of God in all humans, including homosexuals ?” Yet I wonder what Keller says to an soldier home from duty about whether or not s/he could reenlist if s/he is a Christian (see “Tim Keller on how to treat homosexuals”)?
I am not asking Christians to affirm homosexuality as moral. I am asking why other matters of greater importance are ignored. What do we do with homelessness, disease, addiction, war, famine….on and on. Why is it “social gospel” for someone to make a call to care about these issues?
Christians who advocate military service for Christians often make arguments from silence like, “Well, John the Baptist and Jesus are depicted as meeting military personal and they never tell them to quit.” Sometimes I hear, “Yes, Jesus calls us to ‘turn the other cheek’ but [insert qualifications A, B, and C, including possible qualification D regarding "practicality in our sinful world."]! What if a Christian advocates for monogamous homosexuality by saying, “Well, in Romans 1 Paul isn’t writing about loving, monogamous homosexual relationships because he had never seen one.”? We respond, “Oh c’mon, you can’t argue from silence when we have so many clear passages that teach against it.” Or if someone says, “Yes, homosexuality was wrong back then, but we are in a different cultural milieu!” we accuse them of relativizing Scripture. God forbid they appeal to being “practical in our sinful world.”
It may be possible to affirm Christian military service while denying Christians being homosexual, but many of the arguments I hear are selective at best, disingenuous at worst. I wish more Christians would be smacked by someone like Stanley Hauerwas and forced to ask themselves, “What is my hermeneutical paradigm for saying biblical prohibition A no longer applies while biblical prohibition B does.” I think we have a long, long way to go to say we have done the hard exegetical and theological work to which John Byron calls us. I think many of us might discover our application of Scripture is already relativized by the majority culture. It is kind of like this comic:
Craig A. Evans talks archaeology.
Craig A. Evans
For the radio show Issues, Etc. Craig A. Evans discusses the following topics related to archaeology and biblical studies:
(1) Nazareth, Sepphoris, and Capernaum
(2) Reading, Writing, and Literacy
(3) Confronting the Religious Establishment
(4) Jewish Burial Traditions
You can access those here.
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.
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.
Honor to whom honor is due: Dr. Jan Verbruggen
Dr. Jan Verbruggen
Dr. Jan Verbruggen is the Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary. Though I have never had the opportunity of being in one of his classes he did supervise me as I studied Aramaic, theological French, and the Book of Genesis.
Jan is a very friendly and approachable and he makes the learning experience enjoyable. While I am not all that gifted in languages he did a fine job of helping me through a semester of theological French and a semester of Aramaic, both languages that I intend to use in my future studies.
When we did our study on the Book of Genesis (really an intense study of Genesis 1-3) he provided many resources, insights, and helped me rehabilitate my stagnate reading skills in ancient Hebrew.
I have found Jan to be the type of person who goes above and beyond, often finding me articles and providing book recommendations along the way. He has been very supportive as I try to think about future goals and I am thankful for the opportunity I had to spend some time getting to know him over the last few years.
__________
See also:
Honor to whom honor is due: Dr. Marc Cortez
Honor to whom honor is due: Dr. James DeYoung
Honor to whom honor is due: Dr. Todd Miles
