Now that we’ve gone through the entire primeval history from the garden of Eden onward, it’s time to take a look at the most difficult passage to interpret, the Genesis 1 creation account. If taken as a literal account of material origins, it says that the time from the creation of the universe to the first human beings was six 24-hour days. This even seems to be supported by Exodus 20:11, which uses the 6-1 day structure of the creation account as the basis for the Sabbath. But if that’s true, it means all the findings of modern science are wrong, requiring many more miracles than what’s described in the biblical account [1], and even undermining the accuracy of the rest of the primeval history (Gen. 2-11), which is supported by modern science (see the earlier posts in this series). So is this creation account just wrong, or is there a better way to interpret it?
Note: This post is largely a summary of the argument in Old Testament scholar John Walton’s book The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. I’ve removed a lot of details from his argument for brevity, and added a few where I felt it was important. But all credit regarding the argument in this post goes to him.
Functional vs. Material Creation
Looking at this text from our modern, scientific worldview, which views the material world as most important, it seems to be describing the material origins of the universe, i.e., how God brought everything into being. However, this materialistic worldview which elevates physical being to a position of primary importance hasn’t always been around. In the ancient Near East, the function of a thing was considered to be most significant, and most in need of an explanation, rather than the material existence of that thing. [2]
For example, the Insinger Papyrus from Egypt includes its own creation account, which describes the creation of all things but doesn’t deal with their material origins. Rather, it tells us what is the purpose of each of the created things. [3] The same is true of the Egyptian Instruction of Merikare, which includes a hymn to the creator god Atum (130-135). [4] The Akkadian creation myth KAR 4 tells us that heaven was created as an abode for the gods, that the earth was created to make the ground firm, and that the Tigris and Euphrates were made to properly place canals and ditches, but it doesn’t say anything about how these were materially formed. [5] The Babylonian Enuma Elish and Sumerian Debate Between Summer and Winter have the same emphasis on functionality (but not materiality). [6]
This isn’t just true of extra-biblical texts from the ancient Near East, but even other biblical texts, such as the creation account in Psalm 104. This poetic description of creation begins by telling us that God created light for his glory (vv. 1-2; cf. Gen. 1:3-5) and heaven as his abode (vv. 2-4; cf. Gen. 1:6-8). The earth was founded so that the ground might not be shaken, and the waters went to their appointed places to provide a drink for the animals (vv. 5-13; cf. Gen. 1:9-10). Plants were created to give food for animals and people, the trees were made as a home for the birds (vv. 14-18; cf. Gen. 1:11-13). The heavenly lights were made to mark time for animals and people (vv. 19-23; cf. Gen. 1:14-19). All these things are given by God to the creatures of the land and sea (vv. 24-30; cf. Gen. 1:20-25). This psalm is clearly a parallel description of the Genesis 1 account (it’s even in the same order!), but it’s concerned only with functional purpose, not material origins. [7]
Those who hold to a ‘material origins’ view of Genesis 1 (whether young-earth creationists, gap theorists, or old-earth creationists) may object that this interpretation abandons a ‘literal’ reading of the account. That I’m being inconsistent by interpreting Gen. 1 figuratively while interpreting the rest of the primeval history literally. However, this objection equivocates between ‘literal’ and ‘scientific’ or material; just because I don’t think Genesis 1 is a scientific account of origins doesn’t mean I’m not interpreting it literally within its cultural context. Furthermore, as we’ll see, there are indications within the creation account itself and the rest of the Hebrew Bible that it takes a functional view of origins.
“Formless and Void”
The first thing the biblical author tells us, after the fact that “God created the heavens and the earth,” is that “the earth was formless and void” (Heb: tohu w’bohu). What does this mean? The Hebrew words tohu and bohu are only found a little over a dozen other times in the Old Testament, so let’s see how they’re used elsewhere:
The desert wilderness in which Israel spent 40 years was tohu (Deut. 32:10)
The Israelites should not turn from God to things that are tohu (1 Sam. 12:21)
The paths of caravans go to tohu and they perish (Job 6:18)
The north is stretched out over tohu, and the earth over nothing (Job 26:7)
God causes princes to wander tohu where there is no way (Ps. 107:40)
Jerusalem under siege is a city of tohu (Isa. 24:10)
The wicked turn aside the righteous for tohu (Isa. 29:21)
Edom will be destroyed and become a wilderness, tohu and bohu (Isa. 34:11)
The nations and their rulers are tohu to God (Isa. 40:17, 23)
The works of idolaters are in vain and their idols are tohu (Isa. 41:29)
Those who make idols are tohu (Isa. 44:9)
God did not create the earth tohu but to be inhabited (Isa. 45:18)
God did not ask Israel to seek him in tohu or the land of darkness (Isa. 45:19)
God’s servant has labored and spent his strength for tohu (Isa. 49:4)
The wicked rely on tohu when unjustly accusing the righteous (Isa. 59:4)
The land of Israel is tohu and bohu during the Babylonian exile (Jer. 4:23)
In every other instance throughout the Hebrew Bible, tohu and bohu do not refer to material non-existence or formlessness, but rather purposelessness or vanity. The only possible exception is Job 26:7, where the north is stretched out over tohu; however, this most likely refers to the waters of chaos that existed under the earth in ancient Near Eastern cosmology (Exod. 20:4; Ps. 24:1f; 136:6; cf. Enuma Elish 1.3-5; 4.128-140). [8]
The two most notable uses of tohu and bohu are in Isaiah 45:18 and Jeremiah 4:23. Isaiah tells us that God “did not create [the earth] tohu, he formed it to be inhabited!” The opposite of tohu is not “existent” or “formed,” but “inhabited,” showing that tohu isn’t about material formlessness but whether something is functioning according to its God-given purpose. Likewise, Jeremiah clearly echoes the Genesis creation account by saying, “I looked on the earth, and it was tohu and bohu.” But this is in the context of a prophecy about the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem and exile (Jer. 4:5-27). The land of Israel didn’t cease to exist materially at this time, but it ceased to function according to its God-given purpose as a home for the Israelites.
The Days of Creation
Based on the meaning of tohu and bohu, the Genesis creation account starts from a place of functionlessness, rather than a place of total material non-existence or formlessness. But what about the days of creation themselves? If we go through the actual creation story without reading any modern assumptions into it, the first three days of creation involve only the creation of functions and no actual material creation. The fourth through sixth days are less straightforward, but still emphasize function over material.
On day 1 of creation, God “said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” God then separated the light from darkness, and named the light “Day” and the darkness “Night” (Gen. 1:3-5). The original readers of this text would have had no concept of light as a material object (photons), so there is no material creation on this day, just separation and naming.
On day 2 of creation, God separates the cosmic waters into two by making a raqia (“firmament”), and names the raqia “Heaven” (Gen. 1:6-8; cf. Enuma Elish 4.128-140). If the raqia is a physical dome, as the original readers likely would have believed, then we now know such a dome doesn’t exist, so there is no material creation on this day. If the raqia is simply an “expanse,” as in some translations, then an “expanse” is not material so there is also no material creation, only separation and naming.
On day 3 of creation, the waters below are gathered together and the land appears, and God names the waters “Sea” and the land “Earth” (Gen. 1:9-10). God assigns the land to bring forth plants (Gen. 1:11-13). As the dry land simply “appears” from beneath the waters, there is once again no material creation, only separation and naming, as well as assigning a function (to the land to bring forth plants).
There’s nothing in the first three days that could be interpreted as material creation ex nihilo. This is surely significant, for if Genesis 1 were intended to give an account of material origins, it would tell us how these things were made. Instead, it emphasizes the assignment of these things to their proper place and function, and God naming them. The same emphasis is found in other ancient Near Eastern creation stories, such as the Enuma Elish, which tells us that nothing had a name before creation, not even the gods (1.1-8).
On day 4 of creation, we’re told for the first time that God “made” (asah) something that could be material, the sun, moon, and stars (Gen. 1:14-19). This could be interpreted as either material or functional creation. The verb asah simply refers to the completion of a task, which could be material creation or assignment of function. [9] For example, in Exodus 20:9-10, it is used to describe people “doing” work, which obviously doesn’t involve material creation ex nihilo. Overall, the emphasis in this passage is on the function of the heavenly bodies – to give light, to separate day and night, and to separate light from darkness. Therefore, on the fourth day of creation, God assigned functions to the heavenly bodies.
On day 5 of creation, God “created” (bara’) the tanninim (“sea monsters”) and other creatures of the sea and sky (Gen. 1:20-23). Like asah, the verb bara’ is ambiguous, and often refers to the assignment of function. [10] The overall emphasis in this passage is on the function of these creatures – to multiply and fill the sea and sky. Moreover, the tanninim were seen as creatures of chaos, so this is saying that even they have a function in God’s ordered creation. The same point about sea monsters is made elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Ps. 148:7; Isa. 27:1; 43:20; 51:9; cf. Job 41).
On day 6 of creation, God “made” (asah) and “created” (bara’) the land animals and humans. Once again, the emphasis is on the function of humanity, which is the climax of the creation account and the most important function. All the rest of creation functions in relation to humanity, as we are meant to spread over the earth, to have dominion over the animals, and to eat the green plants (Gen. 1:26-30).
In summary, the entire Genesis 1 account deals with the assignment of things to their proper place and function, rather than telling us how they were materially created, much like other ancient Near Eastern creation stories. Throughout the creation account, God sees that “it was good,” which means that it is functioning according to its assigned purpose (cf. Gen. 2:18). The closest it gets to describing material origins is when God commands the earth to bring forth plants, and the sea and land to bring forth life (Gen. 1:11, 20, 24). But this doesn’t mean that plants or animals are made out of dirt, or that sea creatures are made out of water, it just means that’s where they come from. (See the Sumerian epic The Exploits of Ninurta [390-410] for a similar statement.)
The Seventh Day
Finally, on day 7 of creation, God “rested from all the work he had done” (Gen. 2:2f). Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, we’re told that God’s “resting place” is his temple (1 Chron. 28:2; Ps. 132:8, 13f; Isa. 66:1), which in a broad sense encompasses his entire creation (Isa. 66:1). The Babylonian creation story, Enuma Elish, also ends with the gods creating a temple that “shall be a dwelling for our rest at night; come, let us repose within!” (6.51-54) The idea that the cosmos is also the temple of God/the gods can be found all throughout ancient Near Eastern texts. [11]
This helps to explain why Genesis 1 fits the creation of the cosmos into a seven-day framework. In the ancient Near East, the ceremony for the dedication of a temple lasted multiple days (usually seven), during which time the powers of the temple were declared and the roles of temple functionaries were declared. This is seen in over forty texts that describe temple dedication ceremonies. [12] The dedication of Yahweh’s temple and consecration of his priests in the Bible also lasted for seven days (Exod. 29:37; Lev. 8:31-36; 1 Kgs. 8:65; 2 Chron. 29:17; Ezra 6:22?). Importantly, the material creation of the temple always takes place before its dedication (and takes much longer than seven days).
Therefore, the most likely explanation of the seven-day framework in Genesis 1 is that it’s meant to be the seven-day dedication ceremony of God’s cosmic temple, in which the proper place and function of the temple is first assigned (1:3-13), its functionaries – i.e., the heavenly bodies, animals, and humans – are designated (1:14-31), and finally God himself takes his place in the temple (2:1-3).
Conclusion
If we look at the Genesis creation story from a modern, materialistic worldview, it seems to contradict the findings of modern science about the age of the cosmos and evolution of life on earth. But when we look at it using an ancient Near Eastern lens, as emphasizing functional purpose over material origins, there’s no contradiction. The story begins with a functionless (tohu w’bohu) heaven and earth, which over a seven-day dedication period is transformed into God’s own temple. The six days of creation may have been 24-hour days, or epochs, or even instantaneous (as some early Christians believed); this makes no difference. As Genesis 1 deals with the function of creation, while science deals only with empirical evidence and material origins, there can be no contradiction between the two.
______________________________
[1] Among other things, it would mean that God sped up radioactive decay by a factor of millions and miraculously removed the heat from this process, that he created the genomes of all organisms to look like they descended from a common ancestor, that he intervened to increase the genetic diversity of humans to make it look like our genetic common ancestor lived much more than 6,000 years ago… this list could go on for hours.
[2] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 21-35.
[3] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 30-31.
[4] See a translation of this text here.
[5] See a translation of this text here.
[6] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 31-33.
[7] The psalmist’s creation account also indicates that animals like “donkeys,” “cattle,” “storks,” “wild goats,” “young lions,” and even “people” existed materially as early as days 3 and 4 of the Genesis creation story (Ps. 104:10-23; cf. Gen. 1:9-19), even though the function of these creatures was not defined until later (Ps. 104:24-30; cf. Gen. 1:20-26). Likewise, the death and predation of animals is regarded as a natural and good part of the created order (Ps. 104:21), which contradicts interpretations like young-earth creationism that deny animal death before the Fall.
[8] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 176 n. 2.
[9] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 64.
[10] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 36-45.
[11] John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, 77-85.
[12] Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1992), 260-284.
No comments:
Post a Comment