I recently read John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One, which, judging by things I had read about it, is an important book. It lived up to what I had heard.
What lost world is Walton discussing? It is the worldview of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture, the culture of the human author of Genesis, and of those who heard and read that book. Walton believes that we, living in the 21st century, have our own worldview, and that we often do not understand that another one is possible, or, in the case of ANE people, that a different worldview is to be expected, let alone understood.
Walton does not believe that we, of the 21st century, mean the same thing about God’s creation, in the first chapter of Genesis, as the people of the ANE meant and understood. His book summarizes what Walton believes is a major consequence of our worldview, so different from that of the human writer(s?) of Genesis one. Walton states that “I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins.” But, he says,
Most interpreters have generally thought that Genesis 1 contains an
account of material origins because that was the only sort of origins that our material culture was interested in. It wasn’t that scholars
examined all the possible levels at which origins could be discussed; they presupposed the material aspect.
and All of this indicates that cosmic creation in the ancient world was
not viewed primarily as a process by which matter was brought into being, but as a process by which functions, roles, order,
jurisdiction, organization and stability were established.
As an example, Walton uses the sun and moon. ANE culture didn't understand that the sun and the moon were large bodies beyond our atmosphere, nor that the moon was in orbit around the earth, and the earth was in orbit around the sun. The ANE understanding of Genesis 1:14-18 would have resembled someone painting, or installing, these lights on the the firmament. Walton sees that passage as about function, not about creating from nothing, and notes that Genesis 1 indicates the functions of what we now think of as heavenly bodies:
Genesis 1:17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light to the earth, 18a and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. (World English Bible, public domain)
By the way, ANE culture believed that the clouds and the heavenly bodies were held up, and in place, by a transparent sphere, a ceiling, the firmament. There isn't a firmament. Does that mean that the Bible is in error? Not so. The Bible is inerrant, but inerrant in what it affirms, not in what it reports or adjusts to in the culture of the time it was written. It doesn’t affirm ANE concepts of astronomy, nor, for that matter, 21st century concepts of astronomy. It just reports them, or uses them. Walton points out that we usually talk and write as if the sky really was blue, (It is often red or pink near dawn and sunset. For the reasons for that, see this Scientific American article.) and as if the sun really rose and set. Neither is really true, but, if some portion of the Bible were to be written today, and made reference to these phenomena, it would not be in error, unless blue sky and a rising sun were an integral part of the message of the gospel.
There are other ANE concepts that we no longer hold, such as that the earth is flat, with four corners.
To Walton, Genesis 1 was not meant, by God, to be taken as sequential history, setting forth a literal description of God’s acts in making things. Rather, it was meant to contradict other creation stories, about false gods, and to describe God’s work in making a functioning, harmonious earth, with its inhabitants.
Walton discusses the first three days, so-called, from Genesis 1, and concludes that they, as described, were meant to credit God for creating time, weather, and food, in that order.
Even humans, says Walton, were mentioned not principally as something made, but as something with functions in God's creation:
Genesis 1:26b “... Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
He also writes that “Of the seven days, three have no statement of creation of any material component (days 1, 3 and 7).”
Beside his interpretation of Genesis 1 as describing function, not making, Walton has another important idea, namely that Genesis 1 should be interpreted as God preparing a temple for himself, and, on the seventh day, inhabiting it. Besides his interpretation of what the original Bible language says,
Walton has also looked at lots of ancient writings by non-Hebrew ANE
authors, and that, too, has influenced his view of what he calls temple
inauguration. Walton explicitly denies that Genesis is based on these other writings.
It so happens that I was reading a book by N. T. Wright, an important bible scholar, as part of my devotional reading, while I was writing this. I was surprised to read the following:
When God made the world, he “rested” on the seventh day. This doesn’t just mean that God took a day off. It means that in the previous six days God was making a world—heaven and earth together—for his own use. Like someone building a home, God finished the job and then went in to take up residence, to enjoy what he had built. Creation was itself a temple, the Temple, the heaven-and-earth structure built for God to live in. - N. T. Wright, Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters
Now, finally, about the age of the earth. Says Walton: If the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple
inauguration, days that concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole have nothing to
contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth.
and “The point is not that the biblical text therefore supports an old
earth, but simply that there is no biblical position on the age of the earth.”
Walton does not claim that he wrote as he did with a view to contradicting Young-Earth Creationism, but, as he says, it is clear that this important Bible scholar is not wedded to YEC.
Thanks for reading!
This graphic below (not from Walton) indicates that it is impossible to read both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as if they were simple narratives, expressing events in sequence as they happened:
