Exploring the Lost World of Genesis One
Discuss the origins of the universe and one is bound to get into some debate on subjects like the nature of science and religion, Darwinian naturalism, evolution, intelligent design, creation science, creation ex nihilo, or the age of the earth. Much of the discussion centers on how the material universe came about.
Naturally, the origins question must consider the creation account in Genesis 1, and the possible implications, if any, the biblical chapter has in the nature of science and religion debate. Many Christian interpreters understand the days of creation to be descriptive of the processes out of which the material universe came into existence; for some the universe came about in creative acts done over a period of six 24-hour days, whereas others stretch the creative acts over six indefinite but finite periods of time extending millions of years called day-ages.
An important angle the Bible student must take into account is the role the Ancient Near East (ANE) worldview played in the literary genre they employed in compositing to communicate their message within the creation account. Old Testament scholar John Walton offers his expertise in ANE literature in understanding the first book of the Pentateuch in The Lost Word of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009).
After reading The Lost Word of Genesis One, I am left with some mixed reactions, and would have to give it a thumbs up and a thumbs down.
I give thumbs up to Walton’s main thesis: that Genesis 1 parallels other ANE cosmologies. He contends that in the ANE mindset creation is “bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition,” it has to do with “functional origins,” not “material origins,” and “to create something (cause it to exist) in the ancient world means to give it a function, not material properties” (35). In the case of Genesis 1, the formless and void world had no function, but the order God gives to the universe renders the cosmos purposeful and intelligible (51). As such, when approaching ANE and OT creation accounts, one must take into mind “the cosmic creation in the ancient world was not viewed primarily as a process by which matter was brought into being, but as a process by which functions, roles, order, jurisdiction, organization and stability were established” (53).
“It is important to reiterate that I am not suggesting that the Israelites are borrowing from these ancient literatures,” writes Walton, “Instead, the literatures show how people thought in the ancient world” (79). This is an important caveat in that Walton is not allowing for any buttressing arguments for biblical writers being “copy cats;” rather, he is carefully observing they had a shared categories for understanding the world around them.
What did Moses intend to communicate in penning Genesis chapter 1? Taking into context the ANE worldview, Walton suggests the picture of the Genesis creation week, concerns God giving function and purpose to everything in the cosmos, which is ultimately a cosmic temple for worship. He writes,
It is also helpful to note that Walton is not saying that the Bible rejects the notion of God being uninvolved in the creation of the material universe, but that Genesis 1 is not the account to discover that truth (96). He points to Colossians 1:16-17 as conveying both a material and functional creation (97).
Still the functional origin in the creation week, according to Walton, precludes the material creation question on the age of the earth. As such day-age interpretation misses the point (91), and the literal 24-hour day creation model likewise misses the point, since “the seven days are not given as the period of time over which the material cosmos came into existence, but the period of time devoted to the inauguration of functions of the cosmic temple, and perhaps also its annual reenactment” (92). As for the framework view, Walton finds “no objection can be raised against the literary structure and no disagreement with the theological points,” he questions, “whether Israelites thought of this text in only literary/theological terms,” and warns “this view risks reductionism and oversimplification, and should only be a last resort” (112).
Walton’s exegetical analysis is profound and certainly a helpful starting point in reading Genesis 1 for all its worth prior to using it in the discussion on the material origin of the universe. We can understand Genesis 1 as God creation of a meaningful world, without having to force every image into some scientific process that was likely never in the mind of the original author to begin with.
I give thumbs down to Walton’s conclusion on the nature of science and the exclusion of intelligent design in the scientific quest for the origins of the universe.
Conceptualizing the supernatural and natural causations of the universe to a layered cake, Walton contends “the realm of scientific investigation would be represented in the lower layer,” whereas “the top layer represents the work of God,” and concludes that “science, by current definition, cannot explore the top layer…it concerns itself with only that which is physical and material” (115). This paradigm allows Walton to find no justification for teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom, since “Science is not capable of exploring a designer or his purpose. It could theoretically investigate design but has chosen not to by the parameters it has set for itself…Therefore, while alleged irreducible complexities and mathematical equations and probabilities can serve as a critique for the reigning paradigm, empirical science would not be able to embrace Intelligent Design because science has placed an intelligent designer outside of its parameters as subject to neither empirical verification nor falsification.” (127).
Here Walton falls into the trap of a secular sacred divide, wherein he relegates all things sacred to the realm of the upper-story, thus banishing any discussion that might lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer being the first cause of all things in the universe outside the lower-story realm of science.
Is Walton’s exclusion of an intelligent designer supporting a false dichotomy between secular and sacred ideas? Is the science of demonstrating a designer not science at all? What Walton fails to address is his contention is not in the realm of science but in the philosophy of science. He also fails to offer a sound basis for why one would exclude a priori the possibility of design in the question on the origins of the universe. Walton also fails to mention that only recently science has been divorced in religion, and that the men of science like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, believed in a divine creator of an ordered universe, and it their belief spurred them to embrace scientific inquiry, for in understanding the world around them, they could understand more about the God they worshipped.
Naturally, the origins question must consider the creation account in Genesis 1, and the possible implications, if any, the biblical chapter has in the nature of science and religion debate. Many Christian interpreters understand the days of creation to be descriptive of the processes out of which the material universe came into existence; for some the universe came about in creative acts done over a period of six 24-hour days, whereas others stretch the creative acts over six indefinite but finite periods of time extending millions of years called day-ages.
An important angle the Bible student must take into account is the role the Ancient Near East (ANE) worldview played in the literary genre they employed in compositing to communicate their message within the creation account. Old Testament scholar John Walton offers his expertise in ANE literature in understanding the first book of the Pentateuch in The Lost Word of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009).
After reading The Lost Word of Genesis One, I am left with some mixed reactions, and would have to give it a thumbs up and a thumbs down.
I give thumbs up to Walton’s main thesis: that Genesis 1 parallels other ANE cosmologies. He contends that in the ANE mindset creation is “bringing order to the cosmos from an originally nonfunctional condition,” it has to do with “functional origins,” not “material origins,” and “to create something (cause it to exist) in the ancient world means to give it a function, not material properties” (35). In the case of Genesis 1, the formless and void world had no function, but the order God gives to the universe renders the cosmos purposeful and intelligible (51). As such, when approaching ANE and OT creation accounts, one must take into mind “the cosmic creation in the ancient world was not viewed primarily as a process by which matter was brought into being, but as a process by which functions, roles, order, jurisdiction, organization and stability were established” (53).
“It is important to reiterate that I am not suggesting that the Israelites are borrowing from these ancient literatures,” writes Walton, “Instead, the literatures show how people thought in the ancient world” (79). This is an important caveat in that Walton is not allowing for any buttressing arguments for biblical writers being “copy cats;” rather, he is carefully observing they had a shared categories for understanding the world around them.
What did Moses intend to communicate in penning Genesis chapter 1? Taking into context the ANE worldview, Walton suggests the picture of the Genesis creation week, concerns God giving function and purpose to everything in the cosmos, which is ultimately a cosmic temple for worship. He writes,
Genesis 1 can now be seen as a creation account focusing on the cosmos as a temple. It is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst. This makes day seven so significant, because without God taking up his dwelling in its midst, the (cosmic) temple does not exist. The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place for God’s presence. Though all of the functions are anthropocentric, meeting the needs of humanity, the cosmic temple is theocentric, with God’s presence serving as the defining element of existence (85)
It is also helpful to note that Walton is not saying that the Bible rejects the notion of God being uninvolved in the creation of the material universe, but that Genesis 1 is not the account to discover that truth (96). He points to Colossians 1:16-17 as conveying both a material and functional creation (97).
Still the functional origin in the creation week, according to Walton, precludes the material creation question on the age of the earth. As such day-age interpretation misses the point (91), and the literal 24-hour day creation model likewise misses the point, since “the seven days are not given as the period of time over which the material cosmos came into existence, but the period of time devoted to the inauguration of functions of the cosmic temple, and perhaps also its annual reenactment” (92). As for the framework view, Walton finds “no objection can be raised against the literary structure and no disagreement with the theological points,” he questions, “whether Israelites thought of this text in only literary/theological terms,” and warns “this view risks reductionism and oversimplification, and should only be a last resort” (112).
Walton’s exegetical analysis is profound and certainly a helpful starting point in reading Genesis 1 for all its worth prior to using it in the discussion on the material origin of the universe. We can understand Genesis 1 as God creation of a meaningful world, without having to force every image into some scientific process that was likely never in the mind of the original author to begin with.
I give thumbs down to Walton’s conclusion on the nature of science and the exclusion of intelligent design in the scientific quest for the origins of the universe.
Conceptualizing the supernatural and natural causations of the universe to a layered cake, Walton contends “the realm of scientific investigation would be represented in the lower layer,” whereas “the top layer represents the work of God,” and concludes that “science, by current definition, cannot explore the top layer…it concerns itself with only that which is physical and material” (115). This paradigm allows Walton to find no justification for teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom, since “Science is not capable of exploring a designer or his purpose. It could theoretically investigate design but has chosen not to by the parameters it has set for itself…Therefore, while alleged irreducible complexities and mathematical equations and probabilities can serve as a critique for the reigning paradigm, empirical science would not be able to embrace Intelligent Design because science has placed an intelligent designer outside of its parameters as subject to neither empirical verification nor falsification.” (127).
Here Walton falls into the trap of a secular sacred divide, wherein he relegates all things sacred to the realm of the upper-story, thus banishing any discussion that might lead to the conclusion of an intelligent designer being the first cause of all things in the universe outside the lower-story realm of science.
Is Walton’s exclusion of an intelligent designer supporting a false dichotomy between secular and sacred ideas? Is the science of demonstrating a designer not science at all? What Walton fails to address is his contention is not in the realm of science but in the philosophy of science. He also fails to offer a sound basis for why one would exclude a priori the possibility of design in the question on the origins of the universe. Walton also fails to mention that only recently science has been divorced in religion, and that the men of science like Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, believed in a divine creator of an ordered universe, and it their belief spurred them to embrace scientific inquiry, for in understanding the world around them, they could understand more about the God they worshipped.
Comments
Post a Comment