Crossing this cultural gulf means making one significant,
and seemingly obvious, proposition: Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology. (16) This
means that “it does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or
address modern questions.” (16) What, then, are the terms in which it describes
cosmology? This is the crucial question, and what sets Walton’s interpretation
on a different course from the others.
Moderns tend to think of creation only terms of material
origins. What is the sun made of and how did it come into being? How long did
it take for the mountains to be formed and how did they get their current
shape? What is the physical composition of humanity and how did we get to be
the way we are now? These are the questions of a modern, Enlightenment-oriented
culture. But these are not the questions of a polytheistic culture, or even a
monotheistic culture within a wider polytheistic world? In order to understand
Genesis One, we need to ask the questions the ancients asked.
Rather than questioning the material origins of the
universe, the ancients told stories about the functional origins of creation.
Existence, for them, was not tied to the material properties of an object, but
rather to how that object functioned within a closed system. “In a functional
ontology, to bring something into existence would require giving it a function
or a role in an ordered system, rather than giving it material properties.”
(26) Walton proves his point through numerous examples from ancient Near
Eastern texts, and concludes with this contrast between modern and ancient
thinking: “We tend to think of the cosmos as a machine and argue whether
someone is running the machine or not. The ancient world viewed the cosmos more
like…a kingdom.” (35)
Functional Ontology is the cornerstone of Walton’s
interpretation of Genesis One. Using this as his lens, he sees in Days 1-3 the
creation of the three fundamental functions of life: time, weather, and food.
“So on day one God created the basis for time; day two the basis for weather;
and day three the basis for food. …If we desire to see the greatest work of the
Creator, it is not to be found in the materials that he brought together–it is
that he brought them together in such a way that they work.” (59) Perhaps a
better translation of “It was good”, then, would be “It worked.”
From here, Walton proposes that Genesis One “should be
understood as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as a temple.” (84)
Because “divine rest takes place in temples,” (87) the seven days of creation
are best understood as a temple inauguration. “By naming the functions and
installing the functionaries, and finally by deity entering his resting place,
the temple comes into existence–it is created in the inauguration ceremony.”
The implications of this interpretation are numerous., but I
will only mention two. First, if Genesis One is an account of functional
origins rather than material origins, there is no conflict between a “literal”
reading of Genesis and the findings of evolutionary science. (Walton argues
that the real fight between the creation (and ID) camp and the evolution camp
is over teleology, and he makes some interesting prescriptions for public
scientific education.) Second, if the cosmos is God’s temple (or divine resting
place) then there are no such things as natural resources–there are only sacred
resources, and we must adjust our ecology accordingly.
Walton’s book offers valuable insight into the Genesis One
debate, and ought to be carefully examined by those on all sides. There is much
more in the book that is worthy of discussion, and it is accessible enough to
encourage conversation between all interested parties.
Questions: Does Walton present a reading of Genesis One that
allows Christians to remain theologically and exegetically faithful while being
scientifically relevant? Do you find the argument of functional ontology
convincing? How does this interpretation change the game on cosmic origins?