Excursus on the Origin of Life and Evolution of Biological Complexity (Part 8)

Today we will wrap up our discussion of the functional interpretation of Genesis chapter 1. 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.

On this view, according to John Walton, days 1 to 3 establish various functions, and then days 4 to 6 establish functionaries, that is to say things that will carry out the functions established on days 1 to 3. 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 1 to 3 serve to establish the basis for time measurement (day and night), weather (the waters above and the waters below), and then food (the vegetation). 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 the things mentioned on days 1-3 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. 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. He says if we take Genesis 1 as an account of material creation then it implies the existence of something “that we are inclined to dismiss as not part of the material cosmos as we understand it.”[1] He says we can “escape from the problem” by interpreting the text purely functionally.[2]

Wholly apart from Walton's mistaken claim that the ancients thought of the sky (or the heavens) 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. 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.

Walton then argues that on days 4 to 6 the functionaries are established – the things that carry out these functions. Walton's view differs from Blocher’s literary framework view in that days 4 to 6 are not the creation of inhabitants of the domains that were created on days 1 to 3. But rather days 4 to 6 involve the specification of which things are to carry out the functions whose basis was established on days 1 to 3. So this is an interesting and different interpretation of the parallelism than Blocher’s view. 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 are not really the inhabitants that occupy the domains on days 1 to 3. But it does seem that they carry out functions related to the things on days 1 to 3. 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.

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. 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? 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 as his coming to reside in his temple. In Genesis 2:2-3 we read,

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, falsely equating God's resting and his residing. On the functional interpretation, God doesn't need to rest because he hasn't been creating anything during the previous six days. Therefore the the functional interpretation requires that God’s resting must equal God’s residing. 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. On 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, since it's not in the text of Genesis, Walton has to go outside 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 66:1 to support his view. This says, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.’” I don't think that that verse supports Walton's view at all! What it says there is that it is heaven that 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 cosmos as a temple. Yahweh had a temple all right, and it was in Jerusalem. Look at Psalms 132:1-8,13-14.

For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation: “This is my resting place for ever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it.

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 1 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. 1 Kings 8:27, 30:

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 into the text of Genesis 1 that the seventh day 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 the 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. 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.

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.

First objection: Days 1, 3, and 7 have no statement of creation of any material component. Answer: This isn't surprising for day 7 – that's the day of God's rest! So of course he's not creating anything then. But on day 1, light is created. So that would be a material component. And on day 3, 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.

The second objection: Day 2 has a potentially material component (namely, the firmament) but, “if this were a legitimate material account then we would be obliged to find something solid up there.” Answer: 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.

Third objection: 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 4 and 6 do deal with the creation of material objects and not just functions.

Finally, fourth objection: On day 5 functions are mentioned and the Hebrew word for create (bara) is used. Answer: Bara indicates efficient causation – the production of the effect. And the material origin of birds and sea creatures on day 5 is clearly in view. Again, the creation of material objects like birds and sea creatures doesn't require that God created them ex nihilo.

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 monotheistic myth interpretation.