Today, I read James McGrath’s summary and review of John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis 1 (see Completed Review of John Walton, The Lost World Of Genesis One). I like McGrath’s summaries because they’re short and readable. But, to be honest, even though I understand various arguments that Walton makes, I’m not sure what Walton’s main point is.
Some people have told me that Walton’s argument is that Genesis 1 wasn’t intended to be a literal account of creation. But that’s not really what I get from McGrath’s summaries. Walton acknowledges that the ancients—and that would include the author of Genesis 1—had a different cosmology (if you will) from what we have today. And so God could have been speaking to the ancients in terms of the science of their times. The author of Genesis 1 and people in his audience may have very well viewed Genesis 1 as a description of what literally happened. But that doesn’t mean that we have to do so.
But Walton also tries to make the point that Genesis 1 is about function, not the creation of materials. In Genesis 1, Walton argues, God organizes material into a universe that is liveable for human beings; by-and-large, we don’t see God in the chapter creating that material ex nihilo. God in Genesis 1 is fashioning an orderly cosmos that functions for us, if you will.
I’m not sure what Walton’s point is here, or how it really addresses current controversies about origins or the infallibility of Scripture. Okay, so God in Genesis 1 organized pre-existing materials into an orderly cosmos. Did God literally do that 6,000 years ago? If science says “no”, is the Bible wrong? Did human beings come into existence 6,000 years ago? Did God fashion the sun and the moon out of pre-existing matter 6,000 years ago? Most scientists today answer “no”. Is the Bible wrong? I’m not sure how Walton’s appeal to function addresses that question.
Walton may say that Genesis 1 is right in the overall point it is making: that our current universe that functions so well for us is from the hand of God, who dwells in the cosmos, as if it’s his temple. So is his argument that Genesis 1′s main point is valid, even if its details are scientifically incorrect?
The temple plays a big part in Walton’s book (from what I’ve heard). Walton says that Genesis 1 should inspire us to celebrate God as the one who organized material into a cosmos that is functional for us as well as a temple for God’s presence. I think Walton associates Genesis 1 with ancient Israelite temple celebrations about the creation of the cosmos, or the renewal of cosmic order.
Would a cultic use of Genesis 1 in ancient Israel undermine it’s being a literal account of creation, making it a way for ancient Israelites to celebrate within a time-frame that worked for them (one week) God’s organization of the cosmos? God may have taken much longer to organize everything “in the beginning” (longer than a human lifespan!), but is Genesis 1 a cultic document that allows us to honor within a seven-day period God’s fashioning of various pieces of our functional cosmos? Is that one of Walton’s points?
I must admit that I haven’t yet read Walton’s book. Right now, I’m reading reviews, hoping that they may give me more insight into Walton’s argument. Soon, I’ll probably read Scot McKnight’s 18 post review. Why do I care? Because some Christians I know are upholding Walton’s book as containing the answer to origins controversies. I’m just trying to understand what that answer is.