Appearances matter

Author presents a false contrast between the material and functional in Genesis | Vern S. Poythress

John Walton's book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (InterVarsity, 2009), is bound to create a stir. Why?

John Walton as an Old Testament scholar addresses a broad audience about the meaning of Genesis 1. Walton wants to be sensitive to what Genesis 1 said to ancient Israelites, who do not bring to Genesis the same questions as do 21st-century people influenced by science. He claims that Genesis 1 and other ancient accounts of creation focus on function and not on material.

For example, on the third day, God gathered the waters into one place, creating two functional spaces, the dry land and the sea. No new material was needed. On the fourth day God made the sun and moon and stars with a function: "to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:17-18). Genesis says nothing about the material composition of sun, moon, and stars, nor would such information (which is technical information in modern science) be relevant. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

Walton correctly observes that Genesis 1 focuses on practical functions rather than on chemical (material) composition. But sometimes he shifts to a second meaning of "material" and "function." He construes "function" as narrowly religious: The seven days of Genesis 1 (which he construes as 24-hour days) describe the inauguration of a cosmic temple to its full functioning as a temple. Before the seven days there would still be an earlier ordinary operation of the astronomical, geological, and biological worlds over extended periods of time. These earlier events belong to "the material phase" that Genesis allegedly does not mention (pp. 92-99). The label "material" now includes all aspects of physical appearance.

This picture implies that, when Genesis 1:9 says, "'Let the dry land appear.' And it was so," it does not mean that the dry land appeared. Rather, God caused the dry land area (already physically and

geologically separated from the sea area for millennia) to function for the first time as a room within the cosmic temple, and to be seen as a room.

People in most cultures experience the world as a whole. They do not constantly separate "material" and "functional" aspects. All aspects of common experience, including physical sensation, are "functional" in a broad sense, because they impact us meaningfully. Ancient people were interested in the physical appearance of the world, and Genesis 1 talks about it, along with other functions. The dry land did appear on the third day. It was part of a total process in which God built a world in which He would dwell. Physical appearance and many other "functions" belong to this whole. As many interpreters from past centuries have recognized, Genesis 1 speaks about what ordinary people can see and experience. It says that God made it all, including whatever additional aspects future generations might uncover (including science!).

In his better moments Walton comes near to saying this. He understands that Genesis 1 does not offer a description in modern scientific jargon, and that it has a different focus from modern scientific accounts about past ages. But Genesis does not merely addressas Walton impliesa totally separate "layer" of personal purpose and temple consecration that has no implications about physical appearances. Both Genesis 1 and science make statements that have implications about physical appearances. They are not simply two layers that never overlap in their implications.

Walton has read Genesis with a false contrast between material and functional, and with equivocal meanings for the two terms. As a result, he artificially detaches Genesis 1 from questions of physical appearance and produces an unsustainable interpretation.

Problematic descriptions in Walton's book increase the difficulties: Both ancient mythological views and Genesis 1 are labeled "Ancient Cosmology"; they embody "Old World science" and "cosmic geography," terms that can confusingly suggest material affinity with modern science. This unfortunate labeling undermines Walton's stress on the distinctive focus of Genesis 1.

In short, Walton's book has mixed value. Positive insights about the practical focus of Genesis 1 mix with some unsound claims. Copyright 2010 WORLD Magazine Articles may not be reproduced without permission

August 29, 2009, Vol. 24, No. 17

John Walton Responds to Vern Poythresss Review of The Lost World of Genesis One
February 4, 2010 Category: Guest Features

"Science and the Sacred" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Today's entry was written by John Walton. John Walton is a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College in Illinois and an editor and writer of Old Testament comparative studies and commentaries. Throughout his research, Walton has focused his attention on comparing the culture and literature of the Bible and the ancient Near East. He has published dozens of books, articles and translations, both as writer and editor, including his latest book The Lost World of Genesis One. John Waltons 2009 publication of The Lost World of Genesis One has attracted a significant amount of well-deserved attention. Walton alerts readers to the importance of the ancient Near Eastern context for properly understanding Genesis 1. A central point of the book is that the biblical text is not concerned about material origins, but with assigning function to the various elements of the created order. In other words, Genesis 1 is not about

the creation of the material world, but about ordering chaos. Walton supports his position by engaging biblical and extra-biblical evidence, albeit in a popular presentation. (Waltons academic treatment of this topic, Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology, is scheduled to appear from Eisenbrauns Press later this year). BioLogos is very interested in this thesis, as it has direct bearing on what readers have the right to expect from Genesis. Specifically, to what extent, if any, does Genesis 1 concord with modern scientific investigation? Waltons answer is essentially none. This, he says, was not its intent. Not surprisingly, this answer requires those who hold to a concordist position to offer a response. In August of last year, concordist Dr. Vern Poythress (Professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia) offered just such a response in World Magazine. It is one thing to review a book unfavorably, however, it is another thing to inaccurately summarize what the book says and criticize that. Since World Magazine has a very large audience, many of whom will never read Waltons book, we felt it was important to set the record straight. Just what is Walton saying? How does this differ from what Poythress says he is saying? World Magazine would only allow a brief response in the form of a Letter to the Editor. Because of the breadth of World Magazines readership, the nature of Poythresss review, and the importance of the topic to all of evangelical Christianity, we felt it appropriate to publish Waltons response to Poythress in full here. We have invited Dr. Poythress to respond to Waltons concern and will promptly publish his response should he wish to do so. Interested readers may wish to access the following representative reviews of The Lost World of Genesis One; Intervarsity Press (scholarly endorsements including N. T. Wright, Bruce Waltke, and Tremper Longman III); Baker Book House; ReformedAcademic.blogspot (PDF); and Exploring Our Matrix.

Whenever one publishes a new idea on a controversial topic, resistance and disagreement are expected. As in the sciences, peer review is an important part of the process. More importantly, the Church as the community of Gods people needs to investigate new ideas and, if those ideas are to be sustained, take ownership of them. I therefore welcome the scrutiny of thoughtful scholars from various disciplines as they investigate the evidence that I have presented in support of my view of Genesis 1 for its substance, logical consistency, and faithfulness to the biblical text and theology. Vern Poythress is a respected theologian and I appreciate his willingness to engage my thoughts. Though numerous theologians have found my arguments sound, Poythress does not share that opinion and expressed his questions and reservations in his review in World Magazine, August 29, 2009. Normally I do not find responses and counter-responses to be fruitful, but Poythresss

review of my book is particularly problematic, and I feel it is important to set the record straight for interested readers. My disappointment with Poythresss review was not so much that he found my position unpersuasive. It was rather that he misconstrued parts of it, misunderstood others, and spent so much of the space of the review simply offering his (unsubstantiated) opinions about what right thinking might look like. In response, then, a few answering comments might be in order. First, Poythress claims that I am inconsistent in the meanings of material and function. His statement that I construe function as narrowly religious is not quite on target, however. The assertion that I made in the book is that I am not referring to scientific or material functions, but to the way the cosmos functions for human beings (p. 64). I would call the functions anthropocentric rather than religious. It is not clear what inconsistency he is accusing me of. The functions are consistently anthropocentric while the material is a separate issue and, in my view, not of interest to the biblical author or audience. Poythress purports to explain my view when he introduces the idea that the functions served as rooms within the cosmic temple. That may be an interesting way of expressing it, and I would have to think about it, but to my knowledge I never made such a suggestion, and it seems to me to misrepresent what I am trying to say. At the top of the second column, perhaps the most egregious distortion occurs when he sets up a straw man as a representation of my position. He states that People in most cultures experience the world as a whole. They do not constantly separate material and functional aspects. These are neither claims that I made nor ones that I would agree with. The question that I addressed concerned what their focus and orientation would be. My discussion in Proposition 10 makes my stance on this perfectly clear. Of course the Israelites understood that there was a material aspect to the cosmos, that the functions depended on the material, and that God was also responsible for the material phase. But any author makes choices about what he addresses, and I tried to demonstrate that the Israelite author was focusing on the functional. Of course the text uses material language throughout -- it would be difficult to talk about the world without it. I used illustrations in the book: the college, the computer, the temple of Solomon itselfin all of these, material language is essential, but the point was that the existence of each was largely based on their functions. First, it should be noted that when Genesis 1 refers to gathering the waters and the dry land appearing (which Poythress brings up), it is an organization of material, not a manufacture of materials (organizing/ordering is intrinsically functional). Second, the material description (I would contend) must be understood as a description coming out of Old World thinking (thus the similarities in ANE) and therefore not subject to concordist explanation. Some form of material understanding must be used for communication about functions to take place. My contention is that those material aspects are heuristic, not essential or revelatory. Just as we would not need to posit a solid sky in day two to be faithful to the biblical account, we would not need to posit that day three contains a material description that we need to adopt for the basis of our scientific understanding of material origins.

Did the Israelites believe their Old World Science? Undoubtedly they did. Did they ever think about the material aspect itself? Again, undoubtedly. Does this mean the Bible is offering an authoritative revelation of material origins? Not at all. The material language simply represents what they understood about the material world to convey the functional significance. The illustration of the heart is again instructive. Israelites were well aware of the physical heart and interested in it. But when Israelites or even God talk about cognitive processes related to the heart, it would be a serious mistake to take this as biblical teaching on physiology. Consequently, I am not saying that Genesis 1 has no material content; I am saying that it is not an account of material origins. Organization and ordering are not (in our thinking) issues of origins. In their functional ontology, those are the most important aspects of origins. The text is not affirming their Old World thinking as authoritative revelation from God and we need not make modern scientific sense of their Old World science to protect the reputation of the Bible. We don't have to figure out how we think with our blood pumps. My point is that God was using their way of thinking about the material world in order to communicate his revelation concerning the functional world. When the Bible talks about thinking with the heart, we discount the material statement because we understand that the Bible is not communicating physiology. God has accommodated their material way of thinking to make the functional point. The same is the case with the waters held back by a solid sky and the land emerging from the seas in Genesis 1. Most of the second column Poythress uses to express his own opinions rather than interacting with mine. He has a right to do that, but it should not be mistaken as refutation. His views must be defended like everyone elses. Poythress concludes that Walton has read Genesis with a false contrast between material and functional, and with equivocal meanings for the two terms. As a result he artificially detaches Genesis 1 from questions of physical appearance and produces an unsustainable interpretation. Poythress has not given clear evidence or explanation of these equivocal meanings, and the alleged falseness of the contrast only expresses his opinion, which he is free to do. But why is the contrast false? What he has claimed in his straw-man argument is that I have made a distinction that I did not actually make. It is not logically inconsistent that the focus of a narrative could be on function rather than material. What evidence does he offer that the contrast is false or artificial? None. His last comment concerns what he labels problematic descriptions. He seems concerned that both ancient Near Eastern literature and Genesis one can be included under labels such as Ancient Cosmology, Old World science, and cosmic geography. Cosmology refers to ideas about the origins and operations of the cosmos, and ancient cosmology is a way to talk about how people in ancient times understood their world. Israel shared some ideas of cosmology with the rest of the ancient world but in other ways had distinctives. Egypt and Mesopotamia were also very different from one another in the details. Despite these differences, they all contain ancient cosmology. Old World Science is just a way of talking about views of the world in pre-scientific ancient times (e.g., earth in the center of the universe). Again, Old World Science was characteristic of Israelites as well as all the peoples around. Poythress claims

that this unfortunate labeling somehow suggests material affinity with modern science. I am not even sure what he means by that, though I willingly acknowledge that it uses category labels to distinguish it from modern cosmology and more recent scientific ideas. It seems that such labeling would be called for rather than unfortunate. All of these comments have reflected on the statements that Poythress actually made. I realize that he had limited space for the review, but it seems quite telling that he did not interact with any of the evidence from the ancient Near Eastern literature, which serves a very significant role in the argument. He also did not deal with all the Hebrew lexical information that was brought to bear to demonstrate the position within the Bible itself. Instead of dealing with the evidence that was presented, he contented himself with saying it did not make logical sense to him. But isnt that the very point? Ancient ways of thinking are not intuitive to us, nor is their logic transparent. That is why we delve into the literature for evidence. These are serious oversights. I have read a few other reviews of the Lost World of Genesis One by scholars who had reservations about my theory. They were balanced, understood my position well, interacted with my ideas and evidence in depth, and offered assessment of aspects of the theory as they raised important questions. These are much appreciated. Dr. Poythress is certainly capable of offering such a review, but this effort fell far short of that helpful ideal. In the process I believe he did a disservice to me, to his readers, and to the discussion.

The Lost World of Genesis One - A Review

In The Lost World of Genesis One John Walton offers a view of the first chapter of Genesis which is sure to spark debate. Those who have read Waltons commentary on Genesis will recognize much of what is covered in this book. But few layman read commentaries and, unfortunately, too many pastors dont either. So this popular level work will now bring the fruits of his scholarship to a whole new audience. Walton says we have lost our way in understanding Genesis 1 because we have lost its cultural context. The only interpretation of Genesis 1 that we have understood has to do with the material creation of the universe. But what if the chapter is not describing a material creation at all? What if it is describing

creation as it would have been understood in its ancient Near Eastern context? In that context Genesis 1 is describing not the material creation of the universe but its functional creation. That is to say for those in the ancient Near East the universe did not exist in any meaningful way until its parts had been assigned a purpose or role. Walton explains, *T+he actual creative act is to assign something its functioning role in the ordered system. That is what brings it into existence. Of course something must have physical properties before it can be given its function, but the critical question is, what stage is defined as creation. (27) For those in the ancient world to create something means to give it a function, not material properties. (35) It would be hard to overestimate the importance of this distinction in order to properly understand Genesis 1. Walton illustrates this distinction with that of creating a computer. First there is the assembly of its physical components, that is, its physical creation. Then someone has to write the programs but until they are installed its existence is meaninglessit cannot function. (27) Someone still has to install the software and then we need to find a power source. Finally he concludes, But what if no one sits at the keyboard or knows how to use or even desires to use it? It remains nonfunctional, and, for all intents and purposes, as if it did not exist. We can see that different observers might be inclined to attribute existence to the computer at different stages in the process. (27) To the modern mindset existence is entirely related to the physical composition of somethingit is an ontological focus rather than a functional one. But as Walton demonstrates, *i+n the ancient world, what was most crucial and significant to their understanding of existence was the way that the parts of the cosmos functioned, not their material status. The problem seems to revolve around the word create. To the modern mind the word refers almost exclusively to the material composition of something. The functional sense of the word is better seen when we say something like we created a committee. The people already existed but the committee did not exist until roles were assigned to certain individuals and a purpose was given for them to meet. This is what God is doing in Genesis 1. He is assigning roles and purpose to a chaotic system. He is creating order with a purpose. That purpose brings us to Waltons next point which hinges on day seven. Whats the point of God resting on the seventh day? Simple. God rests in a temple and only a temple. Walton explains this is not just a siesta on a Sunday afternoon. For deity this means that the normal operations of the cosmos can be undertaken. This is more a matter of engagement without obstacles rather than disengagement without responsibilities. (73) The temple is not primarily a place of worship but a home or more importantly his headquartersthe control room. (75) From here, the temple, God assumes his rightful place. Genesis 1 is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst. This is what 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 Gods presence. (84-85) Walton supports this thesis with important connections between the cosmos and the tabernacle and the temple. (pp. 8184) This leads to my final point. Walton suggests the seven days may be understood in relation to some aspect of temple inauguration. (87) The parallels of Genesis 1 to other ancient Near Eastern inauguration ceremonies are

striking. The Bible itself records temple inauguration ceremonies (see p. 89 for discussion). Also, these inauguration ceremonies could be reenacted on a yearly basis. No evidence has been found that Israel engaged in this kind of yearly festival but it should not be surprising if we found they did and Walton says it would be theologically and culturally appropriate. (91) This also relieves the problem of whether the Hebrew word for day (yom) is a twenty-four hour day or a long period of time. Since Genesis 1 is not describing the physical creation of the universe the problem dissolves. An inauguration ceremony which is seven twenty-four hour days poses no problem. Walton says understanding yom as a twenty-four hour day has always been the best reading of the Hebrew text. Readers may be concerned that Walton is buying into the theory that the Israelites simply borrowed from other pagan cultures. He is not. He clearly says, I am not suggesting that the Israelites are borrowing from these ancient literatures. Instead the literatures show how people thought in the ancient world, and as we examine Genesis, we can see that Israelites thought in similar ways. (79 see also his discussion on pp.13-15) This is an important distinction. Walton also notes that it was not his reading of the ancient Near Eastern texts that changed his mind on Genesis 1 but rather questions he had in the text of Genesis itself. (54) Other readers may wonder if Walton believes that God did create the material universe. Rest assured he does. He says, If we conclude that Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, we are not thereby suggesting that God is not responsible for material origins. I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins, and that, in fact, material origins do involve at some point creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not one we are asking. We are asking a textual question: What sort of origins account do we find in Genesis 1? (44) The last part of the book Walton engages with how his view affects issues like evolution, intelligent design and public science education. I had more qualms with this part of the book than I did with the first part. But they are minor points of disagreement which do not affect his major premise. Waltons book is a five-star example of exegesis which is culturally informed without compromising Biblical authority. Highly recommended. I think it would make a great choice for a small group study. You can hear a lecture that Walton gave during a science symposium to a group of physicists on Genesis 1 here. It is extremely helpful and includes power point slides he used in the presentation. In several places he expands and clarifies what he covers in the book. The presentation is 52 minutes long with about 10 minutes of Q & A following. For further reading: Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible by John Walton from Baker Academic. Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? edited by Daniel I. Block. Walton has an essay in this volume

called Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document. "Do We Need Background Studies?" an article for the Koinonia blog See especially the forthcoming 5-volume work from Zondervan called the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. Walton is the general editor. It should be released this fall. Walton mentions a forthcoming full scale scholarly work on Genesis 1 from Eisenbrauns. The title is Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns). I have been unable to get any details on its release date. See also the publisher's (IVP) blog, Addenda & Errata, on the book as well. Posted by Louis at 9:00 AM Labels: Book Review, John Walton 0 comments:

Post a Comment
Newer Post Older Post Home Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)