← Defenders Podcast
Defenders Podcast
Defenders 3: Excursus on Creation of Life and Biological Diversity (Part 9): A Critique of John Walton’s Functional Creation Interpretation, Part 2
Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:02]
A
Today we will wrap up our discussion of the functional interpretation of Genesis chapter one. According to that interpretation, you'll remember the six days of creation do not represent days during which God actually brought these things into existence, but rather, these are six literal consecutive days during which God specified functions for various existing things. Now, on this view, according to John Walton, its principal proponent, days one to three establish various functions, and then days four to six establish functionaries, that is to say, things that will carry out the functions established on days one one to three. So there is a kind of parallelism here, such as we saw in the literary framework view, but it's interpreted differently. Walton argues that days one to three serve to establish the basis for time measurement. Day and night, weather, the waters above and the waters below, and then food, the vegetation. So time measurement, weather and food, these functions are established on the first three days. Now, I don't think that we need to dispute the point that those things are created for these purposes, but that obviously does not imply that the creation of the dry land, the firmament, and the vegetation is not also affirmed along with the specification of their functions. Well, Walton has a particularly difficult time with the firmament. He thinks that ancient Israelites believed that there literally existed a solid dome in the sky which held up the waters that were above the earth. And he says, if we take Genesis 1 as an account of material creation, then it implies the existence of something, and I quote the that we are inclined to dismiss as not part of the material cosmos as we understand it, end quote. He says we can escape from the problem, end quote, by interpreting the text purely functionally. Now, wholly apart from Walton's mistaken claim that the ancients thought of the sky or the heavens and as a hard dome, I think here Walton has clearly allowed modern science to intrude into his hermeneutics. The hermeneutical issue here is not whether the firmament is part of the material cosmos as we moderns understand it, but whether it was part of the material cosmos as the ancient Israelites understood it. And trying to justify a functional interpretation by appealing to modern scientific knowledge that the firmament does not exist is an example of concordism. That is to say, letting your biblical interpretation be guided by modern science, which Walton himself rejects. Any comment or discussion about the role of the first three days in establishing functions. Brad. So are we really looking at what the early Hebrews believed as the intent of the written word here, or are we looking for truth? That may be a false dichotomy, but we're looking for what they really believe what the author. Well, let me back up. Let me not say what they believe. Let me say what we're looking for is what the text affirms. Some people are willing to say that these ancient Israelites may have believed, for example, that the sun goes around the earth, that the earth is flat, for example, and other sorts of things. That's what they believed, but that's not what's taught by the text. So what we're interested in is what did these ancient texts teach, what did they affirm? And Walton thinks that if you interpret this text as involving the creation of material objects, and then you're committed to saying that there is this firmament, that there's this solid dome over the earth, like an inverted bowl, in which the astral bodies are embedded, and therefore we should interpret this purely functionally, not as material creation. And the point that I'm making here is that that's an illegitimate hermeneutic. That's concordism. It's letting modern science guide your interpretation of the text rather than what these people themselves affirmed and thought. Ben, I was just curious. Is this for a minute. Is there any relation between this and what some scientists have proposed as the water canopy above the Earth, the water canopy theory, Is there any relationship between them? I don't think that they would identify the canopy with the firmament. Indeed, they think some defenders of the view that the sun and the moon were already there before the fourth day would say that the canopy collapsed at some point and the waters crashed in upon the earth. But they wouldn't say that the firmament was gone. The sun and the moon and the stars were no longer embodied in this. So I think that that would be different. Two separate things. Yeah. Ben,
- [06:44]
B
Actually, there are some young Earth creationists who take that position.
- [06:47]
A
Thank you. Okay. You mean they will identify the canop,
- [06:51]
B
Identify the waters above the canopy as being as a vapor canopy at one point. But most of the young earth creationist organizations have rejected the idea now because they realize that if there was a canopy there, you wouldn't be able to see the sun, moon, and stars, which was the purpose of the sun, moon, and stars to be able to be seen, to mark time markers. So they've rejected the idea.
- [07:14]
A
Now, Ben, correct me if I'm wrong here, but in that case, isn't it true then that the canopy is something distinct from the firmament because the sun and moon and the stars are in the firmament? Right. So they would be beyond this canopy that then collapsed.
- [07:33]
B
It would be the waters above. They see the firmament as the space between. So firmament is often, in most translations, not the most favored word. Expanse is usually the word that's favored these days. So they see the expanse as the space between them and the waters above as having. Some of them see the waters above as having collapsed and been the flood waters. But again, they.
- [08:01]
A
Most of them.
- [08:01]
B
Most of them have rejected the idea
- [08:03]
A
that wouldn't be identifying the firmament and the canopy, then they would still be two realities.
- [08:10]
B
Yeah, two different things.
- [08:11]
A
But Walton takes it to be a material object, a hard surface, which would be different than what Ben was talking about. Okay, good. Walton then argues that on days four to six, the functionaries are established, the things that carry out these functions. Walton's view differs from Blocher's literary framework view in that days four to six are not the creation of inhabitants of the domains or the realms that were created on days one to three, but rather days four to six involve the specification of things which carry out the functions whose basis was established on days one to three. So this is an interesting and different interpretation of the parallelism than Blocher's view, and I think it is in some ways more plausible than Blocher's in that we saw that the things created on days 4 to 6 don't really occupy the domains on days 1 to 3, but it does seem that they carry out functions related to the things on days one to three. The sun and the moon in particular seem to be established as functionaries for time measurement. But notice that this doesn't do anything to rule out the material creation of these objects along with the specification of their functions, which is what Walton would have to prove. Any comment then on days four to six before we move along? Alright. Walton also argues that the Genesis account represents God's coming to reside in the world as his cosmic temple. He notes that in the ancient world, gods were conceived to reside in temples, and so God's resting on the seventh day indicates that God comes to reside in the cosmos as his temple. The seven days of the creation week are a reflection of the seven days of dedication that were part of the inauguration of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem. What should we make of this suggestion? Well, I think the problem with this suggestion is that there's just no evidence in the text of Genesis that the author thinks of the world as God's temple or of God's resting and as his coming to reside in his temple. In Genesis, chapter two, verses two to three, we read, and on the seventh day, God finished his work, which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation. There's nothing there to indicate that on the seventh day God came to reside in the cosmos as a temple. Walton's view depends upon, I think, making a false equivalence between God's resting and his residing. On the functional interpretation, you see, God doesn't need to rest because he hasn't been creating anything during the previous six days. Therefore, this notion that resting must equal residing is a result of this functional interpretation. Since God hasn't been working, he cannot cease from working on the seventh day. So it's simply his residing in the temple which is read into the text and is dependent upon this functional interpretation. The traditional interpretation, the seventh day is a day in which God rests. It is the archetype for the Sabbath day during which we cease from work. So to justify his interpretation, Walton has to go outside of Genesis, since it's not in the text of Genesis, which is, I think, in and of itself a dubious procedure. Different authors who are separated by perhaps centuries can have different perspectives. Walton appeals, for example, to Isaiah, chapter 66 and verse 2 to support his view. Isaiah, chapter 66 2. This says. Or verse 1, actually, sorry, 66:1. Thus says the Lord, Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. Now, I don't think that that supports Walton's view at all. What it says there is that it is heaven is where the throne of God is, where God is seated, and the earth is just his footstool. It doesn't support the view that God comes to reside in the earth or the cosmos as a temple. Yahweh had a temple, all right, and it was in Jerusalem. Look at Psalms 132, verses 1 to 8 and 13 14. Psalm 132, 1 to 8, and then 13 and 14. Remember, O Lord, in David's favor, all the hardships he endured, how he swore to the Lord and vowed to the Mighty One of Jacob, I will not enter my house or get into my bed. I will not give sleep to my eyes or slumber to my eyelids until I find a place for the Lord, a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob. Lo, we heard of it in Ephrathah. We found it in the fields of Jar. Let us go to his dwelling place. Let us worship at his footstool. And then verses 13 and 14. For the Lord has chosen Zion. He has desired it for his habitation. This is my resting place forever. Here I will dwell my, for I have desired it so. Here you have the temple in Jerusalem, described as the place where Yahweh dwells, not the cosmos as a whole. In fact, at the dedication of the temple as it's described in First Kings, chapter 8, Solomon recognizes that in a sense, the temple itself was not a place where God actually dwelt, that the temple would be a place where God is manifest, but it is not a literal dwelling place of the Lord. 1st Kings 8, 27:30. 1st Kings 8, 27 30. That doesn't look. Oh, I'm in second kings, sorry. First kings, chapter 8, 27:30. Solomon says, but will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold heaven, and the highest heaven cannot contain thee, but how much less this house that I have built. And then in verse 30, hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant and of thy people Israel, when they pray toward this place. Yea, hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and when thou hearest, forgive. So here again, Solomon, in dedicating the temple, recognizes that really heaven is the Lord's dwelling place. And he says, when we turn to this temple and pray, wilt thou please in heaven hear our prayer and answer? So I'm not persuaded that it's legitimate to read this into the text of Genesis 1, that it represents God's coming to reside in his temple. As for the seven day motif, I think this is more plausibly connected with the practice of Sabbath observance than it is with the dedication of the temple. It is because of the practice of Sabbath observance, resting on the seventh day that you have the creation account in terms of a seven day week. And it may be well that the seven days of temple dedication reflect the Sabbath day observance rather than the other way around. So in sum, I find Walton's purely functional interpretation of Genesis 1 to be implausible, not to say outlandish. The account, I think, is naturally taken to involve both material and functional creation. Any comments about that point? Yes, Bobby. Doctor Craig, one of the other points that Walton makes is that on the last day, or to complete the analogy of a temple, it being a temple, is that the ancients would have installed an image of the God of God in the temple. And the parallel to that he uses is man creating man in God's image. Yeah. Now dwelling in the temple. There isn't an image of God though, in the temple, right? I mean, what are you thinking of there? There is no image of God. Those are forbidden. So and with respect to man's being God's image, this leads to another point that I had thought to make but I omitted. And that is why think that if God is creating here a dwelling place, that it's the whole world, that it's a cosmos rather than the Garden of Eden. A lot of commentators have said that in creating the Garden of Eden there are a lot of similarities between the Garden and the tabernacle where God's presence dwells in the Holy of Holies. And as you say, man is created as God's image that lives in the Garden of Eden. So if you do want to have this idea of God's resting being, his residing, why not identify it with the Garden of Eden rather than with the cosmos as a whole? I'm not persuaded that that's right for the Garden of Eden either. It seems to me that the Garden of Eden is created as a habitat for man, but not as a place for God. It's not referred to, interestingly enough as the Garden of God in Genesis, but it's a garden created as a fit place for humans to be. So I'm very skeptical of reading this into the text that we have here. The creation of some sort of temple or dwelling place for God, whether it be the Garden of Eden or the cosmos. Thanks, Taewon.
- [21:09]
C
Dr. Craig, I wanted to explore another possibility about dysfunctional perspective. Could it be since God is spiritual and he is showing us a progression of a spiritual two physical process. In the beginning, the first day he actually separated light from darkness and that is his intention to bring our dark spiritual state into the light. And second day he separated the heaven and earth which he separate the position of creator and creature so that we understand where we stand in reference to him in heaven. The third day he separated land from the sea and he tells he commanded Adam and Eve to cultivate the land and there's cultivating area that are separated from non cultivational. That's just my guess. And the fourth day he set in the rhythm where we are going to observe the rhythm of season and days and months and mark and then he move on with creature of the sea and creature of the flies. That started to show us his design. In a biological system there are common systems with the sea creature and the flying creature and then the six day the animals. All this intrigue design in biological systems that he kind of. And and Chinese people learn all kind of things martial art and as well from the animals or their survival skill or something. So I don't know whether he Just do that for our learning. And do you think that's a. A functional. And then he rested on the seventh day. He rested on his design and he rested on this progression. What do you think about that possibility?
- [23:47]
A
Well, I think we have to be very careful about spiritualizing this account. I don't think that this is in any way a sort of spiritualized account. It seems to me to be a very physical description of the way the material world comes about, particularly at the very beginning. Taiwan the darkness doesn't seem to represent in Genesis 1 a force of evil. There's nothing sinister about darkness in this context. It's just nighttime. And God creates a world in which there's day and night. And there doesn't seem to be anything in the darkness that would connote evil or something in opposition to God. And with regard to the separation of the heavens and the earth, although the word heaven can be used as God's dwelling place in Genesis 1, it seems to be describing the part of creation where the sun and the moon and the stars and so forth are above us. It's not heaven in a spiritual sense. So it seems to me that the account from beginning to end is a very physical account of creation. It certainly does manifest God's cosmic design. That's certainly true. And it climaxes in man as the crown of creation. But the rest, well, the resting of God, it says very explicitly he's resting from the work that he had done during those six days. And so I take it that on the traditional account he has been creating various things. And on the seventh day he's finished. He's done.
- [25:34]
C
From Proverbs 8 that we read last week, it apparently God has a blueprint of this design in his mind before anything happened. And so to bring that blueprint to reality, there is this process. And so he probably, you know, it doesn't have to be this, but there has to be some kind of process to bring from unseen to the scene. And so I thought this is a great way that he kind of expanded his wisdom into his.
- [26:24]
A
Well, I do think that you're quite right in thinking of wisdom's role in creation as being a sort of blueprint on which creation is built. It's not as though he sort of made it up as he went along. That may not be in Genesis, but as you say in Proverbs, you certainly do have this notion of the creation of the world in accordance with God's wisdom. So I do think that's an important part if we want a full orbed doctrine of Creation. Well, let me wrap up by looking at the question as to whether or not creation in Genesis 1 cannot be both material and functional. This is what most people believe, that it's not an either or, it's a both and. But Walton resists this. He gives four objections against the view that Genesis 1 teaches both material and functional creation. But I think that on the basis of what we've already said, these objections can be fairly easily dismissed. Here they are. Number one is that days one, three and seven have no statement of creation of any material component. Days 1, 3, and 7 have no statement of creation of any material component. Answer? Well, this isn't surprising for day seven. That's the day of God's rest. So of course he's not creating anything then. But on day one, light is created, so that would be a material component. And on day three, vegetation and fruit trees are created, and those are material components of creation. Remember, they don't need to be created ex nihilo in order to be created. Second objection. Day two has a potentially material component, namely the firmament. But, and I quote, if this were a legitimate material account, then we would be obliged to find some something solid up there. End quote. This is concordism. If the ancient Israelites thought that the firmament was a solid dome, which I don't think they did, but if they did, then they would have no problem relating such an account of material creation. And it would be illegitimate to use modern science to guide your interpretation of the chapter. Objection number three. Days four and six deal explicitly only with material components on a functional level. Days 4 and 6 deal explicitly only with material components on a functional level. Answer this might be the case for the sun, moon, and stars, admittedly, but it's clearly false for the animals when God says let the earth bring forth living creatures. And it's probably false for man as well when God says, let us make man in our image. Since man was not among the animals, he didn't exist at that time and so needed to be created by God. So I think that days four and six do deal with the creation of material objects and not just functions. Finally, objection number four is that on day five functions are mentioned and the Hebrew word for create, bara, is used. On day five, functions are mentioned and bara is used. Bara is efficient causation, the production of the effect and the material origin of birds and sea creatures on day five is clearly in view. Again, the creation of material objects like birds and sea creatures doesn't require that God created them ex nihilo. Any question or comments about Walton's four objections to the both and view? Yes. Jim, Could you go over the third objective objection again, please? Yes. What was created? Yes. What he says is that on days 4 and 6, the account is dealing with material objects only in terms of functions. It's not talking about God's bringing them into being, it's just talking about their functions. And I am willing to concede the point for the sun, moon and stars that it may well be that on day four, God simply specifies the functions that these already existing astral bodies are to fulfill. But I don't think you can say that about the animals and man created on day six. The animals are clearly brought into being on day six when he says, Let the earth bring forth, etc. And since man isn't among the animals, the creation of man must have involved the bringing into existence of something new as well. So while I'm willing to grant that day four deals only with the functions of the astral bodies, it seems to me on day six you just have indisputably the material creation of animals and man. Okay, well, there's so much more that one would like to say about Walton's view, but I think that this is sufficient to show that the functional interpretation is just not a plausible option. Next time we will turn to the final interpretation, which is, as I'm calling it, the Hebrew myth interpretation. So let's close with a word of prayer. Thank you, Father, for giving us the opportunity, the health and the prosperity to be able to meet together in this way and think about these things. And now, as we go into the workaday world, we commit ourselves to you, to walk in your will, to follow your paths, and to honor you in Jesus name. Amen.