Material or Function in Genesis 1? John Walton Responds (Part 1) | The BioLogos Forum

(system) #1

Note: This is the fifth post in the blog series accompanying our spring Book Club, which is reading The Lost World of Genesis Oneby John Walton. In the next two posts, Walton responds to the most common criticisms of his interpretation of Genesis 1. While his terminology should be familiar to those who have read his books, newcomers to Walton’s ideas are strongly urged to read previous blog posts related to his book, particularly this prior entry by David Fuller in the book club series, and this short video by Walton.

As the book clubs have been working through The Lost World of Genesis One and as people have been reading the associated blogs on the BioLogos site, as well as possibly other blogs and reviews, one question emerges more often and more urgently than any other. It has been at the core of negative reviews and critiques of my position, and it has been held as a reservation for many who are otherwise positively inclined:

Why can’t the account of creation account in Genesis 1 be both functional and material?

Before we address this question, it would be of interest to explore what drives this question. I can think of several possibilities, and there are probably more.

  1. We feel a need for Genesis 1 to address the making of things or the material world because this is an important doctrine for Scripture to address.
  2. We feel a need for Genesis 1 to address the making of things because we need to counter the atheistic worldview of how the cosmos came into being.
  3. We view the world through a post–Enlightenment, western civilization lens which sees the material as most important, so we assume God would be addressing that in Genesis 1.
  4. We are most comfortable with traditional ways of understanding Genesis 1 as a material account.
  5. We feel that the Bible provides not only revelation about God but revelation about our world, so we look for scientific and historical information in its pages.
  6. We have studied the text with this question in mind and come to different conclusions.

Any or all of these are possible; some could be held simultaneously, and some may be held subconsciously. Different people will have different reasons for wanting Genesis 1 to be about both material and functional origins, but it is worthwhile to identify those reasons.

In this post, I am going to offer four points that address hurdles that people have encountered. Then, in the next, I will identify four reasons why the origins account of Genesis 1-2 should be considered an origins account pertaining to function and order, rather than material origins, and why it should not be considered “both/and.” As an opening caveat, it must be admitted that, hypothetically, it could be both. But we cannot afford to focus on what the text could be. In a biblical narrative we are looking for the focus that the author intends to incorporate into the text. Any consideration of the material aspects of the account has to be supported by the evidence of the text.

Hurdles people encounter in understanding the concept of functional origins

  1. Materialistic presuppositions inherent in our culture. It is very difficult to resist encumbering the text with our modern issues, our pressing questions, and our worldview. We are intractably materialistic in how we think. We also have to acknowledge how extremely difficult it is for our modern minds to even begin to grasp the concept of an order/function-focused origins account. It makes no sense because it does not yield to western/modern logic. If we try to reason through it and defend it with western-style thinking, we are bound to remain confused. We cannot even resort to the logic of classical Greek thinking—that too is very different from what is found in the world of the ancient Israelites. In fact, people who come from or work in non-western cultures generally find it easier to grasp a function/order understanding.
  2. Material Objects non-functioning. Some have contended that the account must be both material and functional because it makes no sense for material objects not to be functioning or because making something to function requires a material object on which to act. People question if the celestial bodies are simply sitting there inert or if animals are in a comatose state. This sort of misunderstanding about what God is doing as he makes things functional (see point 3) oftens leads to a misrepresentation of my views. The activity of giving order and function to creation that God performs in Genesis 1 is not possible to define materially, naturally, or scientifically. The work of the six days is to order the cosmos as sacred space and to prepare it to function as sacred space (“it was good”) for people in God’s image. It has nothing to do with the sun functioning as a burning ball of gas or the animals hunting for food or giving birth to their young. The cosmos can only function as sacred space once God has inhabited it and people in his image are there. God is declaring purpose for the cosmos as an ordered space for people and as sacred space where he will dwell. This is what defines the divine activity.
  3. What happened in the seven days? What did God do? Another hurdle that some people have to viewing the text functionally is that they can’t picture what actually happened in the seven days. The answer is: the cosmos began functioning as sacred space. Someone whose only interest was the material cosmos would not have seen anything different happening. But with the completion of the seven days, what is now is happening has a newly defined reason and purpose—decreed by God. It all has a new identity. This new identification was associated with seven 24-hour days just as the inauguration of the temple was. A good example of this can be found in the way we use a vision statement or a mission statement for institutions. Recently Wheaton Graduate School inaugurated a vision statement and a mission statement. The graduate school has been in existence for many decades and has had its present shape and programs for a number of years. Adopting and promoting a vision and mission statement will not change how the institution operates. But it articulates a purpose and identity that may not have been realized or present before and proclaims that as its purpose. Genesis 1 is doing something similar. It is articulating a purpose through a mission statement (people living out their designated role as the image of God) and a vision statement (seeing the world around us as sacred space where God is living among his people and being in relationship with them). It provides the opportunity for people to have an expanded view of the program and to understand the program in ways that they have not previously been able to do. This is true for the ancient Israelites who are being drawn out of ancient Near Eastern cultural ways of thinking, but it can also be true for us as readers of Scripture as we are drawn out of our common cultural ideas. Finally, it is also an accurate description of what temple inaugurations do in the ancient world and the Bible.
  4. The importance of ex nihilo. 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 as Creator of the material world and either imply or affirm that creation happened ex nihilo. Secondly, the initial formulation of the theology of ex nihilo creation did not have to do with the material world. Rather, it served as the way to argue against Platonic assertions about the eternal existence of the soul. The opposite position, that eventually won consensus in the church, was that the soul is created “out of nothing” when each person comes into existence. It was only much later that the term was applied to the material cosmos. Consequently we can conclude that even though church doctrine in recent centuries has focused on the importance of material creation ex nihilo, it would not be appropriate to drive that doctrine back into the world of the Old Testament. That was not a big issue in the ancient world. Consequently, we need to recognize that there is no question that God is the one who created the material cosmos, and at some point at the beginning of that process he did it out of nothing. Other biblical passages confirm this, as do I—it is essential theology. So we don’t need to try to make this important theological point (God’s non-contingency) with Genesis 1, if this is not an issue it intended to address. After all, just because we have an origins text in Genesis 1 doesn’t mean that it has to offer a comprehensive account of everything that God did at every level. We need to inquire as to what aspects of origins Genesis 1 intends to address.

Next Friday I will discuss four reasons why the origins account of Genesis 1-2 pertains exclusively to function and order rather than to material origins, and why it should not be considered “both/and.”

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

(Brad Kramer) #2

Because Dr. Walton is involved in a conversation with members of the Book Club at the moment, he is not available to answer comments and questions. However, you are free to discuss his ideas.

(Preston Garrison) #4

Since Dr. Walton is analyzing people’s motivations for questioning his account of Genesis one as strictly functional, let me turn that around. Does he want to say it has nothing to do with material origins in order to hang onto the word “inerrant?” I haven’t read the book yet so I don’t know the answer to that.

(Anthony Smith) #5

So when we read ‘And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.’ we are to understand that in purely functional terms, with no implications for the material properties of the cosmos. It doesn’t tell us anything about, say, where the water was, or that the water moved from one place to another place (in fact, even to think in those terms shows we are shaped by our culture’s interest in material stuff and where it is - but the ancients had no interest at all in questions of where things are or whether the land is dry or submerged). We need to read that verse as telling us that the land and the sea, which were already there, began to function as a sacred space. In other words, we could translate the verse as follows, to faithfully reflect the meaning: ‘And God said, “Let the water under the sky, which is already gathered to one place, and the dry ground, which appeared a long time ago, now function as a sacred space.” And it was so.’


(GJDS) #6

One suggestion I would make is that the material would respond to God’s command instantly – but the functional that Walton speaks of, especially that of sacred space, would occur in real time, as it may involve humanity. I am not sufficiently familiar with Prof Walton’s book, so my comment is within the context of this blog, but I think the temple idea is consistent with the notion of the Biblical message. Thus the material creation would be covered by “in the beginning God created the heaven and earth”, and also “in the beginning was the Word, in John 1 – the functional would be viewed as the activities that bring us to God. However I view all of these statements as God’s creative acts which cover all aspects of reality, physical and spiritual.

(Roger A. Sawtelle) #7

Looking at the Big Bang through the eyes of function and form, it looks to me that Dr. Walton has a point.

In the Big Bang there was light before there were our assumed sources of light. Genesis recognizes that there was light before there were stars.

Genesis also recognizes that there was time before there was a way to measure time in hours and days.

Materialism puts matter first, which is false. Modern science properly understood is about how nature works. It is about Natural Laws, not about matter. Natural Laws are rational, based on observation of how nature works.

The question must be, Does form follow function, or does function follow form? I would say that form follows function and thus God needed to determine the functions needed to provide for the harmony and success of Creation before its laws and material forms could be established. How the universe functions is more important than from what it is made.

Walton calls the Creation is a Temple, and we think that the priestly editor put it together with this in mind. I call it a rational home for rational humans created by a rational God. Certainly the Creation has a spiritual dimension also, which needs to be addressed. There is no spiritual dimension without the rational, and there is no rational dimension without the spiritual. We need to recognize this simple fact.


I’m glad Walton admits that Genesis 1 could hypothetically be both functional and material, and I appreciate his argument that it is functional only. While all his suggested motivations and hurdles for those who disagree are true, they are not necessarily true with every detractor. That is, I know many evangelical OT scholars who agree with Walton’s basic methodology and are not (consciously at least) driven by the first 5 motivations, nor troubled by the 4 suggested hurdles…yet they find Genesis 1 teaching both/and (I guess this leaves only motivation #6 as relevant). Whether this is due to the solid “firmament” (raqia’) or the use of 'asah (“make, do”) in context or whatever…there are (con)textual hurdles that keep some scholars from going all the way with Walton’s view (even though many of them want to get there). Thus, the question I raised in my own post ( remains: what counsel can be given to these types, other than “keep studying until you agree with this position” (not to suggest this is Walton’s counsel)? Is there a way to benefit from and promote much of Walton’s analysis even with continued disagreement or lack of confidence on this central feature?

(Preston Garrison) #9

There’s something a little strange about saying that the text can only really be understood by pre-scientific ancient near eastern people or by 21st century language/ANE scholars, but by no one in between. I can see Walton’s point about function, but I can’t help but feel that insisting on a “function only” view is a way of getting around the fact that as a material account it seems partly remarkable (“Let there by light”) and partly wrong (solid dome, waters above and beneath, etc.) I’m just not so sure that the ancient near easterner was so totally uninterested in the material as Walton maintains that he was.

(system) #10

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.