Defenders 3: Excursus on Creation of Life and Biological Diversity (Part 8): A Critique of John Walton’s Functional Creation Interpretation

Summary

---

Defenders Podcast with Dr. William Lane Craig

Episode: Excursus on Creation of Life and Biological Diversity (Part 8): A Critique of John Walton’s Functional Creation Interpretation

Date: March 13, 2019

---

Overview

In this episode, Dr. William Lane Craig provides a detailed critique of John Walton’s "functional creation" interpretation of Genesis 1. Walton, an Old Testament scholar, argues that the Genesis creation account speaks exclusively of assigning functions to pre-existing material objects, not their material origins. Craig explores Walton’s use of ancient Near Eastern cosmology, discusses the plausibility and scholarly reception of the functional view, and considers theological and linguistic evidence, engaging in Q&A with his class throughout.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Walton’s Functional Creation Claim

• Walton's Burden: Walton believes Genesis 1 describes only functional creation; that is, God assigns roles or purposes to already existing material things, not their creation from nothing.
  • "Walton needs to show that all God does during these six days is to assign functions to material objects... Well, can he sustain this burden of proof?" (01:00)

2. Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology and Biblical Parallels

• Walton’s Use of Ancient Myths: Walton draws on ancient Near Eastern creation stories to argue that existence was defined by function within an ordered system, not by material properties.
• Craig’s Critique: Craig argues that mythic accounts and Genesis 2:5–7 describe the absence of material things, not merely their lack of function:
  • "Rather, they are descriptions of a state in which distinct material objects of these sorts do not exist at all." (04:55)
• Egyptian Myths and Monism: The episode references Egyptian creation myths—monistic in nature—which describe a primordial undifferentiated state from which multiplicity (distinct material things) emerges.

Notable Quote

• "It involves then the creation of an orderly system of functioning objects that come into being. It involves the coming into existence of these objects and not just the specification of functions for material objects that were already present." — Dr. Craig (07:19)

3. Implausibility and Logical Issues with Walton’s View

• Literal Falsehood: For Walton’s view to work, all physical entities must pre-date the assigned functions, which Craig finds implausible and counter to the plain reading of Genesis.
  • “It would require us to take as literally false all of the statements about the darkness, the, the primeval ocean, the emergence of the dry land, the Earth's bringing forth vegetation and fruit trees...” (09:18)
• Eyewitness Problem: According to Walton, an eyewitness would see no change during the Genesis “creation” week—a view Craig calls implausible and requiring "extremely powerful evidence" to accept.

4. Q&A Interaction: Theological and Philosophical Implications

Wisdom in Creation (Proverbs 8:22-31)

• Tayvon suggests wisdom, as discussed in Proverbs, is a prior abstraction, thus function might precede material.
  • “So in that view, the functional is actually prior to the material. I want to hear. What do you think about this?” (12:10)
• Craig’s Reply:
  • Recognizes the literary personification of wisdom, but emphasizes Proverbs still affirms material creation out of nothing, not just functional assignment:
    • “It seems to me that this passage would run contrary very much to Walton's functional view of creation.” (13:45)

Scholarly Reception and Influence

• Ben asks about Walton’s influence; Craig notes initial strong acceptance, with skepticism growing as the implications of Walton’s dichotomy (material vs. function) became clear.

Form Follows Function Debate

• Through a discussion of architectural design ("form follows function"), Craig notes traditional creationists have no issue with God assigning functions to things He materially creates.

Artistic vs. Engineering Creation

• Craig considers that excess beauty in creation—beyond apparent function—suggests God acts as an artist as well as a designer:
  • “And so you might say that there is a lot of excess beauty and decoration in the universe that doesn't serve a function. And there I am inclined to think that God is more like an artist than like an engineer, in that he himself enjoys the beauty of creation and so creates a beautiful world that reflects him...” (20:01)

Cosmic Temple Motif

• A key part of Walton’s view is that creation’s function is to serve as “sacred space” or cosmic temple for God, coming into reality only after He assigns this role.

---

Critique of Walton’s Linguistic Argument

5. Hebrew Word "Bara" (To Create)

• Walton’s Claim: “Bara” concerns functional creation, not material.
• Craig’s Response: Most Old Testament uses of “bara”—including in Genesis 1—refer to material entities (heavens, earth, animals, man):
  • "Most of these objects in the list are easily identified as material objects... Apart from the possible case of Israel, none of the objects of Bara in the Old Testament are are existing things that are merely given a new function.” (28:15)
• Scholarly Support: Cites John Collins, who finds Walton’s material/functional distinction unconvincing.

6. Interpretation of Genesis 1:1

• Walton’s View: Verse 1 is a summary, not a material creation event. Creation proper starts at verse 2.
• Craig’s Refutation: Affirms (consistent with earlier episodes) that Genesis 1:1 teaches “creatio ex nihilo”—creation from nothing—which undermines Walton’s purely functional reading.

---

Direct Engagement with Walton’s Published Replies

• Michael brings up Walton's blog at BioLogos, where Walton claims his view doesn't imply things like non-burning suns or comatose animals.
  • Craig’s Critique: States that even if Walton denies these specifics, his view still logically implies them unless explained otherwise:
    • “Now, it's very important to understand there's a difference between what a person says and what his view implies...” (35:23)
• Michael explains Walton's position that prior to God’s declaration, creation did not serve as a functional "sacred space."
  • Craig acknowledges this “cosmic temple” idea and promises a fuller critique next episode.

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Walton’s Burden of Proof:
  "Otherwise his view will reduce to the typical literal interpretation of Genesis 1..." — Craig (00:55)

• On Ancient Myths & Genesis: "Descriptions of the primordial world in pagan myths...are descriptions of a state in which distinct material objects...do not exist at all. None of them existed at that time." — Craig (04:55)

• On the Implausibility of the Functional View:
  "It would require us to take as literally false all of the statements about the darkness, the, the primeval ocean, the emergence of the dry land...the waters bringing forth sea creatures, the Earth's bringing forth animals, and God's making man." — Craig (09:17)

• On Material Creation in Proverbs:
  "Over and over again in the passage, it says there were no depths before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills...there was a condition during which God existed with his wisdom, but all of these material things did not exist..." — Craig (13:24)

• On God as Artist:
  "There is a lot of excess beauty and decoration in the universe that doesn't serve a function. And there I am inclined to think that God is more like an artist than like an engineer..." — Craig (20:01)

• On Walton’s Possible Motivation:
  "I think what it tries to do is to give a literal reading of Genesis 1 without committing you to young Earth creationism...because it is so massively in contradiction to modern science, history, linguistics, and so forth." — Craig (38:37)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:12 — Introduction of Walton’s functional creation view
• 02:15 – 07:19 — Discussion of ancient Near Eastern myths and their relation to Genesis
• 10:25 – 13:24 — Proverbs 8, theological implications of wisdom and function
• 16:18 – 20:01 — “Form follows function,” God as artist vs. engineer
• 28:15 – 33:57 — Discussion of “bara,” linguistic critique, material creation in Genesis
• 34:12 – 37:24 — Michael introduces Walton’s online answers, discussion of cosmic temple model
• 38:37 – 39:39 — Walton’s scholarly motivations and attempts to reconcile Genesis with science

---

Conclusion

Dr. Craig’s analysis is thorough and critical, finding Walton’s strict division between material and functional creation neither textually nor philosophically defensible. Class interactions highlight persistent scholarly doubts and practical objections to the functional-only view. The episode combines biblical theology, philosophy, linguistics, and Christian doctrine in a robust critique of a popular but controversial interpretation of Genesis.

---

For further study and links referenced (e.g., Walton’s BioLogos articles), visit reasonablefaith.org and biologos.org.

Transcript

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig. Today the Creation of Life and biological diversity, Part 8. For more information and resources from Dr.

Craig, go to reasonablefaith.org today we want to continue our discussion of John Walton's functional interpretation of Genesis Chapter one. We ended last time by saying that Walton has an enormous burden of proof with regard to justifying his interpretation. He needs to show that Genesis 1 involves only functional creation and not also the creation of material objects at the same time. Otherwise his view will reduce to the typical literal interpretation of Genesis 1 that God actually brings into being over the course of six 24 hour days, the plants, the animals, the dry land, the astral bodies and so forth. Walton needs to show that all God does during these six days is to assign functions to material objects. Well, can he sustain this burden of proof? Well, let's first look at ancient Near Eastern cosmology. Walton claims that when we look at ancient Near Eastern creation myths, we find, and I quote, that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system. But does the evidence support this claim? Well, I think that the answer is clearly no. Walton points out, and I quote, that nearly all the creation accounts of the ancient world start their story with no operational system in place. Egyptian texts talk about a singularity, nothing having yet been separated out.

[Tayvon]

All.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

All is inert and undifferentiated. End quote. Creation often begins with the primeval waters out of which dry land or gods emerge. You'll recall that when we discussed creatio ex nihilo, we saw that the typical form of these ancient creation myths was when blank was not yet then blank. And this is the type of form that Walton identifies in the myth of the founding of the Babylonian city of Eridu. This is what this ancient text says. No holy house, no house of the gods had been built in a pure place. No reed had come forth. No tree had been created. No brick had been laid. No brick mold had been created. No house had been built. No city had been created. Nippur, a Babylonian city, had not been built. Echor had not been created. Eruk had not been built. Eanna had not been created. The depths had not been built. Eridu had not been created. No holy house, no house of the gods, no dwelling for them had been created. All the world was sea. The spring in the midst of the sea was only a channel. Then Eridu was built. Esagila was created. Now, this typical form of Ancient creation myths is what you find In Genesis, chapter 2, verses 5 to 7. Genesis 2, 5, 7. When no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, then the Lord God created man. Now, the descriptions of the primordial world in pagan myths were therefore not the descriptions of material objects according to which plants and animals and buildings and people all existed, but merely lacked a function. Rather, they are descriptions of a state in which distinct material objects of these sorts do not exist at all. None of them existed at that time. This is especially evident in the Egyptian myths mentioned by Walton. Egyptian mythology was a form of monism or panentheism. It was an attempt to solve the ancient problem of the one and the many. That is to say, what is the unifying factor behind the multiplicity of things that we observe in the world? And the monistic answer to this question was to say that originally there was a primordial, undifferentiated, single reality from which then multiplicity evolved or emanated. And in these Egyptian myths you have such a primordial, undifferentiated, inchoate, characterless condition out of which then multiplicity evolves. It involves then the creation of an orderly system of functioning objects that come into being. It involves the coming into existence of these objects and not just the specification of functions for material objects that were already present. So when Walton concludes, and I quote, consequently, to create something, cause it to exist, and in the ancient world means to give it a function, not material properties, he's drawing a false dichotomy which is foreign to these ancient texts. So when it comes to Genesis chapter one, for this text to feature only functional creation, we must imagine that the dry land, the vegetation, the trees, the sea creatures, the birds, the land animals, even man, were all there from the beginning, but they just were not functioning as an ordered system. But such a view is implausible, not to say ridiculous. It would require us to take as literally false all of the statements about the darkness, the, the primeval ocean, the emergence of the dry land, the Earth's bringing forth vegetation and fruit trees, the waters bringing forth sea creatures, the Earth's bringing forth animals, and God's making man. Notice that Walton cannot say that these things can't exist apart from an orderly system. For the moment that you say that, then the functional creation view collapses and into the traditional view of a six day creation, actually bringing these things into being over those six days. That's the traditional interpretation. God both brings the things into existence and specifies their role in an ordered system. Now, just how bizarre Walton's interpretation is becomes evident in in his statement that the material creation of the biosphere may have gone on for eons prior to Genesis 1:1. And then at some point in the relatively recent past, there came a period of seven consecutive 24 hour days during which God specified the functions of everything existing at that time. Walton notwithstanding, this is the farthest thing from a literal interpretation of the text that you can have, which he claims his view is it implies that all of the descriptions of the world at the beginning of and during that relatively recent week are literally false. If you were to ask what would an eyewitness have seen during that week, Walden either begs off answering the question, or he admits that the answer is that the world before those seven days would have lacked only humanity in God's image and God's presence in his cosmic temple. In other words, everything looked exactly the same, except that the people who existed then had not yet been declared by God to function and as his vice regents on earth, and God had not yet specified the cosmos to function as his temple. An eyewitness would not have observed, and they did not observe on his view any change whatsoever in the world as a result of that creative week. Now, if we're to adopt a reading of the text which is so at odds with with the text's prima facie description of the world, we must have extremely powerful evidence, I think, for adopting such an interpretation. And so we want to ask next what evidence Walton gives for a purely functional interpretation of Genesis 1. But before I do, let me ask if there is any question so far about Walton's appeal to ancient Near Eastern cosmology to justify his interpretation. Yes, Tayvon, thank you, Dr. Craig.

[Tayvon]

I want to dialogue about this from the reference of Proverbs chapter 8, verse 22 to 31. Okay, this is the wisdom speaking. And would you want me to read that? Proverbs 28, chapter 821 to 31.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Okay, so Proverbs 8, 21, 31. The Lord created me at the beginning of his works, the first of his acts of old ages ago, I was set up at the first before the beginning of the earth, when there were no depths, I was brought forth. When there were no springs, abounding with water, before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth. Before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world, when he established the heavens, I was there when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made Firm the skies above. When he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him, always rejoicing in. In his inhabited world, and delighting in the sons of man.

[Tayvon]

This is the first person, is wisdom.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Yes.

[Tayvon]

And he said he was before foundation of the world. And so this is a possible view where this abstract, we can even say in the beginning with the word. That word can equip as this wisdom. It's an abstract concept that we can think of as God's design. And it was there before the material world existed. And God spoke that into material world. So in that view, the functional is actually prior to the material. I want to hear. What do you think about this?

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

All right, Great question. Clearly, this is a reflection on the creation account, isn't it? You see the many parallels when it speaks of Lady Wisdom here. This is, as you say, a literary personification of an abstract concept. Wisdom is an attribute or property of God. And in the Proverbs, wisdom is personified as a woman who then speaks, and she says, I was with God in the beginning. Now, it seems to me t' one that the passage we just read clearly supports the view that these objects come into being, that they are created. It's not that they all existed, and God merely assigns functions to them. Over and over again in the passage, it says there were no depths before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills. Over and over again it seems to say that there was a condition during which God existed with his wisdom, but all of these material things did not exist, and he brought them into being. So it seems to me that this passage would run contrary very much to Walton's functional view of creation. Yes. Ben, considering your interaction with apologists and theologians around the world, basically how much influence do you think Walton is having? I know he's a prolific writer. Yes, he is. Everybody that I talk to doesn't really follow his view of Genesis 1 so much as his views on Adam and Eve, but just curious what you think his influence is. Well, I think at least for a time, it was very extensive. When I was at sessions at the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature on Walton's view, I was just shocked at how the panel acquiesced so readily in his views, and no one seemed to raise a critique or an objection, which to me are patent These objections are obvious, I think now, since then, as we'll see in a moment, I think that with some passage of time and greater reflection, there is now, I think, increasing skepticism about the viability of the functional interpretation, because it requires you to draw this strong, strong dichotomy between material creation and functional creation. He won't allow you to have both in these texts, just assignment of functions. And I think that the impression I get is that scholars now are saying that that dichotomy is a false one. Anybody else? Yes, Brad, just your last comment. We always talk about form follows function,

or that you design something so that

it functions for what you want it to do. I have a hard time distinguishing creating that dichotomy that you just said. I don't know how you have something. Okay, well now that's so interesting you'd bring that up. Wasn't that the so called Bauhaus school of architecture and art, that form follows function, as I recall, Anyway, I remember we studied this in college. We didn't consider architecture a real engineering thing. Well, the idea of form follows function was to eliminate from your designs superfluous decoration that had no function. Things like a rococo church, if you've seen how they're just encrusted with decorations and cherubs and all sorts of fanciful things. And the form follows function school of thinking was no, these non functional elements should be eliminated and you should create aesthetically pleasing forms that are functional. Now that seems to me to say that if a designer has a function in mind, for example, a pitcher, he wants to create something that will store and pour water, that he will then create a pitcher that is simple, that has a kind of spout, that has a handle that is able to hold a good amount of water. But he would not create, for example, a picture that is in the form of say, a cow and the water pours out of its mouth into the glass. We've all seen pictures like that. And the form follows function would say that's a bad design. Now that seems to me quite consistent with the notion that God designs the world with certain functions in mind and that then he creates the plants and the animals to carry out these various functions. What Walton's view requires us to say is that there were these material objects already and that now God assigns functions to them. For example, the vegetation will now serve the function of food for the animals, and the animals will serve the function of controlling the ecosystem by having a viable biosphere. And man will have a different function and so on His View, what Genesis 1 involves is seven literal days, consecutive days of just assigning functions to things, but they're not coming into being. And that seems to me to be just utterly implausible. Okay, thank you for that interesting question, Jonathan. I promise I don't have a softball question.

[Brad]

I recall in a debate a while ago, you made a comment where your opponent was thinking of God more akin to an artist, or, excuse me, as

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

an engineer as opposed to an artist. Yeah, that comic you were making.

[Brad]

How would someone like Walton make sense

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

of the ostensible waste? This does follow up on Brad's question. I wasn't endorsing the form follows function axiom. I was just explaining it. But you might say that the world involves a lot of excess decoration, doesn't it? Corals that grow on beautiful reefs that remain unseen. Wildflowers in the mountains that no one ever sees. Galaxies and stars that are beautiful but are never seen by anyone. And so you might say that there is a lot of excess beauty and decoration in the universe that doesn't serve a function. And there I am inclined to think that God is more like an artist than like an engineer, in that he himself enjoys the beauty of creation and so creates a beautiful world that reflects him, even though we human beings may not see a lot of it and it might seem to be excessive now. So I think Walton could say something like that as well. His view isn't that these functions are really narrowly defined. Like the function of a giraffe's long neck is to reach the leaves in the trees. It's not that type of function he's talking about. It's much more general than that. As I said, vegetation serves the function of food for the animals, but it's not implying that cacti have prickles on them or thorns on them as a way of warding off herbivores from eating them. He's not that specific.

[Brad]

Okay.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Yes, Marcos? Dr. Craig, on his view, does he

really think that God created the world at some point?

Yes, he does affirm that. He just says that the account of Genesis chapter one is not the story of that if there was a creation of the world out of nothing, it took place sometime before Genesis 1. So God created everything, but everything had no function? Well, that's what it seems to imply. That's kind of odd, isn't it? And that seems mad, doesn't it, that God created all this stuff and left it sitting around for eons with no function. That doesn't make any sense. And then finally, in the relatively recent past, he took seven days and declared functions for these things. That just seems contrary to the nature of a wise and provident God. Yeah, I agree with you, Marcus. I think it's a bizarre view. Go ahead, Steve.

[Brad]

Picking up on Taewon about wisdom. And wisdom is there before the depths and stuff. Now to have design, you have to have it actualized in some way. So two things to consider. Where is the angelic creation in relation to this as far as time wise and how it's actualized? And is God just adding more function with this latest creation? And does the fact that light, you know, the things that are seen are temporal, but they depict the things that are really real, like the spiritual. And so you see you have asynchronous reproduction first before you have bisexual, which is symbolic of God given new hope. That's how I see things. So I can see how you could attribute this latest creation being a top one where everything's mapped to it and God's redeeming prior fall because the angelic fall.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Yeah. Walton doesn't speak to those kinds of issues, Steve. And I think the reason is because he's not doing a systematic theology of creation. He is an Old Testament scholar who wants to interpret this particular passage in the book of Genesis. So the question is very limited. What is this passage about? And he thinks when you read against the ancient Near Eastern background, what it's about is the assignment of fun functions to things. And he's just not addressing those sorts of deeper theological questions that you raised. Yes, Elizabeth. Is it? Yes. Okay.

[Tayvon]

I'm thinking about in order for something

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

to be in existence, it seems like even if it's not functioning, it would have the potential to function like a light switch that's not turned on yet. And in order for something to have potential to function, wouldn't it have to have other functions already in place? In other words, I'm struggling with the timeline here. Would Walton say that the creation of days were also the correct order of days for things to function properly? Seems like a dependent relationship would be involved here. I'm not sure if my question is clear, but. No, I think you're raising a really good point. Point. It's kind of related to Marcus point, I think. And it is very difficult to see how these functions could be assigned to things that were wholly non functional. It didn't have, for example, working parts. I agree. I think that's right. And the view is so bizarre that I wonder sometimes have I misunderstood him. But if you say that Genesis chapter one involves not only the assignment of functions, but also the coming into being of these things. Then as I say, it just collapses to the typical view of creation over six consecutive 24 hour days. Those traditional creationists wouldn't deny that God also assigns functions to things like the sun and the moon and the stars on the fourth day. That's very clear.

[Tayvon]

So

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

I think these questions that you're raising are all powerful objections to the view.

[Brad]

Okay, Bruce, I don't agree with it, but couldn't it be that he's saying that when these things are made, their function is trivial, and then when they are given an assignment, then it becomes significant? It's like if I have a hydraulic servo on my desk that adjusts the flaps on an airplane. Trivially, it could be used as a paperweight. But that's a trivial function.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Yes. I don't think that is his view. I mean, you're suggesting a way perhaps to amend the view or save it. Because the kind of functions that he, he says God assigns are so general that it's hard to see how they couldn't have been there. For example, the function of the sun is to mark the difference between day and night. On day one, you've got the day and night. On day four, he assigns that function to the sun or the function assigned to vegetation to be eaten by animals. It's so general that it's hard to see how he could say what you just said. Well, let's go on. I suggested we need to ask then what evidence Walton gives for a purely functional interpretation of Genesis 1. And his first argument is that the. Oops. Okay, my marker is not working. But this is simple. It is that the Hebrew word bara B a r a. For those of you taking notes, the Hebrew word for create, which is bara, concerns functional creation. He provides a chart listing approximately 50 passages in the Old Testament where the word bara is used. The objects said to be created include things like the heavens and the earth, sea, creatures, people, the starry host, a cloud of smoke, Israel, the ends of the earth, north and south, disaster, a pure heart, and so forth. Incredibly, from this list, Walton concludes, and I quote, this list shows that grammatical objects of the verb are not easily identified in material terms. And even when they are, it is questionable that the context is objectifying them. End quote. Now, I should have thought precisely the contrary was true. Most of these objects in the list are easily identified as material objects. Now, admittedly, some are not material objects. For example, a pure heart. Create in me a pure heart, O God, or Israel, or north and south. Those are not material objects. But these are the exceptions. The three objects of Bara in Genesis 1, the heavens and the earth, the sea creatures and man are all clear cases of material objects. Just because they're not created ex nihilo doesn't imply that they do not come into being at the moment of their creation. Apart from the possible case of Israel, none of the objects of Bara in the Old Testament are are existing things that are merely given a new function. Of the objects on the list, none of them, except perhaps Israel, is an already existing object which is then simply assigned a new function. Walton opines that the reason the functional interpretation of Genesis 1 is quote unquote never considered by other scholars itself a telling admission, is because they have been misled by cultural influences of our material culture. End quote Hardly. I think such a claim impugns the credibility of scholars of the ancient Near East. I suspect that the reason that no one else has so interpreted the text is because it is such an obvious misreading of the text. The Old Testament scholar John Collins says, and I quote, I agree with almost everyone else that Genesis records some sort of material origins, and I do not grasp exactly why Walton keeps making a distinction between material and functional. End quote Walton's next argument is that the creation account proper begins at Genesis chapter one and verse two. Verse one. Remember, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth is just a summary of the whole week, not an initial act of creation prior to verse two. So he says, creation does not involve bringing matter into being, but just establishing functions. Now it's important to understand just how radical Walton's interpretation is. We might think that he means that creation begins with the primordial waters in place, and then over the next seven days God introduces order and functionality by making the dry land appear, having sea creatures and birds come on the scene, having vegetation sprout from the dry land, land animals come to be, et cetera. But that would not sustain his claim that only functional creation is involved. Even if these things are not created ex nihilo, they would still be instances of creation, just as the construction of a chair is the creation of that chair by a carpenter, even though he uses material in the construction of that chair. Now, if this account is to be exclusively functional, as Walton claims, then all of the plants and animals and even man must be there right from the start. So Walton on page 169 affirms that prior to the seven days of Genesis 1, the dinosaurs and the hominids were alive and well, only waiting to be given their respective functions. Even if we agree that creation proper begins at verse two, there's nothing in the text to support so novel an interpretation. But is Walton right in thinking that verse one is not part of the creation process? He is not. And here I simply refer you back to our discussion of creatio ex nihilo earlier in the doctrine of creation. Walton does not, at least in this book, the Lost world of Genesis 1, interact with the exegetical arguments which support verse 1 as a statement of creatio ex nihilo. And if that's correct, then Walton's claim that Genesis 1 is purely functional collapses. Any question about his use of Genesis 1:1 as merely a title and not a description of the creation of the universe in the beginning?

Yes, Michael, There's a blog that Walton has written that is biologos.org Mm. Did you see this? Where he went through kind of point by point, these objections and.

No, I did not. Do you want to give us the.

Well, I mean, like, he's got one here. You know, he's got.

Can you give us the link or the address?

Yeah, it's just that it's B I O L O g o s biologos.org

okay,

I could send you the link. But he addresses here the questions of material objects non functioning. He says that the idea of the sun existing but not burning or animals just lying in a comatose state are a misunderstanding of his position. He addresses what happened in the seven days. The importance.

How does he explain that position is.

Yeah, and so he says here the importance of ex nihilo. I mean, it's kind of a big heading here. But he talks about that some believe that Genesis 1 must be interpreted in material terms lest we forfeit the important doctrine of creation ex nihilo. This is not true. The first observation to be made is that other passages in the Bible affirm God is creator of the material world and either imply or affirm that creation happened ex nihilo. So he establishes that.

We've already said that right off.

And that.

But the point that I'm more interested in is his claim that the animals are not lying about comatose, that the sun is not burning and producing heat even though it exists. Now, it's very important to understand there's a difference between what a person says and what his view implies or what

he means by what he says.

Yeah, and. And I'm not claiming that Walton says that the animals were lying about comatose or the sun wasn't burning, but it does seem to me that this is what his view implies. And so what I want to know is, then what is his view? If these animals are not lying about comatose and the sun is not burning and heating things, he does seem to affirm that they existed. Right, but just lacked their assigned functions.

Yeah, he says that they were performing their activities of hunting each other for food and operating and all these things before God gave them their name and function. And so again, though, like you said, it really just comes back down to the literal interpretation.

Well, to me, that is either backward causation, right, they were exercising their functions given to them later, or else. I want to know what changed as a result of that week of.

He talks a lot here about that. What it began doing once God declared the name and the function was that it started functioning as sacred space. And so he talks about that God wasn't really there until he created humans and inserted himself into the creation, that before that it wasn't fully functioning the way it does now.

That is a very different take on it and is related to his view, which we'll talk about next time, that the world functions as a temple, a cosmic temple, in which God dwells. And I'll say some things about that later, too, but thank you at least for alerting us to that website. I have corresponded with Walton personally and so was taking into account what he had personally communicated to me in his letter, but I had not looked at the BioLogos site, so that would be very interesting.

It at least seems like he's very aware of the objections and has at least made some sort of an attempt to answer them.

Yes, I'm sure he must be all right. Well, do we have time for one more question, perhaps? Grant?

[Brad]

Sorry, I just want to know, what do you think, Walton? It's such a bizarre view. It seems really hard to defend. He has to do all kinds of backflips logically in order to try to justify it. What do you think his motivation for pushing this view? I mean, what is he trying to accomplish?

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Okay, I can't speak to his personal motivations that would be to try to psychoanalyze him. But in terms of what does he try to accomplish? I think what it tries to do is to give a literal reading of Genesis 1 without committing you to young Earth creationism. Young Earth Creationism is sort of the bete noire of biblical scholars and theologians. It's just got to be avoided at all costs because it is so massively in contradiction to modern science, history, linguistics, and so forth. And so interpretations are sought that would help you to be faithful to the text. But to avoid saying that a few thousand years ago God created the world in six literal days.

[Brad]

It just seems like he has other options. You know, we've been through right well,

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

and I hope that's what this class has shown. You know, we have been surveying all of these options, and one of my goals is to just broaden your thinking on this. Not to make you come to a certain conclusion, but just to realize there are a lot of options out there that are available to be considered. So with that, let's close with a word of prayer. Father, thank you for the joy and the fellowship of meeting together and thinking about these important issues in this way. And we pray now that you would sanctify us. We pray that you would help us this week to honor you in all that we do and to say and think to the praise of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in whose name we pray. Amen.

The copyright for the preceding material is held by Dr. William Lane Craig. For more go to reasonablefaith.org.