The Upper Register

Review of John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One

Review ofJohn H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009. 191 pages.

Things I appreciate about the book:

(1) Walton’s Use of ANE Cosmology 

I appreciate Walton’s use of ANE texts relating to cosmology and cosmogony. In the past, Bible-believing Christians who adhere to inerrancy have had difficulty with these materials. We are tempted to ignore them either because they are threatening or because we think they are just irrelevant. I agree with Walton that it is extremely important to interpret the Genesis account in light of the ANE myths. Walton’s claim is not that the Hebrew Bible borrowed from the ANE myths but that the myths show us how ancient people thought (pp. 11-12). This was the ancient cosmology that was “in the air” so to speak, and the Israelite creation narrative is written within that milieu. However, unlike Walton, I would want to carefully observe not only the similarities but also the critical differences between the biblical account and the ANE myths. (More on this below.)

(2) Walton’s Critique of Extreme Concordism (pp. 14-15, 103-5, 109-10)

Walton is right on the money when he shows the folly of trying to read modern scientific ideas out of the creation text. I agree with his critique of Hugh Ross's concordistic hermeneutic (pp. 109-10). Walton is right that concordism gives no respect to the human author (p. 104). However, I think he goes too far in the other direction of essentially evacuating the text of all material significance, thus ruling out the possibility of finding any concord between the biblical account and what really happened as understood by science.

(3) Cosmic Temple (pp. 71-85)

I agree with Walton that the Israelite tabernacle/temple was a microcosm of the cosmos, and that the cosmos itself was a temple. The seventh day is God’s taking up his rest in his temple as the King of all creation. Interestingly, Meredith Kline also held this view, but I did not get the sense that Walton was aware of this. 

(4) “Origins Pie” vs. “Layer Cake” Model (pp. 113-15)

Walton rejects the notion that God’s activity and natural causation form an “origins pie,” so that the more that science attributes to natural causation, the less there is that is left for God. Instead, the issue of causation is better viewed as a “layer cake.” “The bottom layer might be identified as the layer of secondary natural causation while the top layer is identified as ultimate divine causation” (p. 114). I agree with this. It flows from the Reformed doctrine of God’s providential concursus (WCF V.1-3). All things and events are caused ultimately by God, the primary cause, but he also uses secondary causes (WCF III.1). He works his will in and through the secondary causes that he himself created, sustains, and governs. 

(5) Young Earth Creationism’s False Stumbling Block

Walton is eloquent about the danger of interpreting Genesis 1 so literally that it creates false and unnecessary stumbling blocks for faith.

My criticisms of the book:

(1) Walton’s Interpretation of Genesis 1:1

Walton interprets the Hebrew word bara to mean functional creation rather than material creation. He also takes “in the beginning” to refer to the whole creation week, rather than the absolute beginning. But Prov 8:22 and John 1:1 suggest that it should be taken as the absolute beginning. On Walton’s interpretation, Gen 1:1 does not teach that all things were created by God out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Walton himself affirms that doctrine, but he sees it only in Col 1:16-17 and possibly Heb 1:2 (p. 96). But where did the NT writers get the doctrine from, if not from Gen 1:1?

(2) Walton’s Total Separation of Material and Functional Ontology 

This is the heart of Walton’s view. But it is neither biblical nor logical to make such a total separation. It is not biblical, because the biblical view of the material/physical creation is that it is created and sustained by God, is good, and will ultimately be glorified in the new creation. This is theologically important because the biblical world view has a positive view of matter in contradistinction from the negative view of matter and the human body commonly held in the ancient world. For example, Platonists, Marcionites, Gnostics, and Manichees held that matter is intrinsically evil. 

But it is not just unbiblical to make such a radical bifurcation between material and functional ontology. It is also logically impossible to separate the material from the functional. Walton says the Genesis 1 account details the functional creation of time, weather, and food for man (p. 58), but these all have irreducible material components. Time may not be directly material, but the creation of the heavenly bodies to mark the passage of time, and their relationships within the solar system, is clearly both material and functional. Of course there is a functional aspect having to do with God’s establishment of the inter-relationships of the sun, moon, and stars so that these heavenly bodies can serve to help humans mark the passage of time. But the creation of the sun, moon, and stars still involves material creation of these physical bodies. Weather also involves a material component, such as the establishment of the atmosphere, the chemical and physical properties of water and other gases, etc. Food obviously has a material component.

(3) Are the ANE Creation Myths Interested Only in Functional Creation?

Walton argues that the ANE creation myths are interested only in functional creation. This is the linchpin of his argument (p. 103). But I am not convinced that the ANE creation myths had no interest in material creation, at least the forming of material things like the dry land, the seas, etc. I suspect that it is true that the ANE mind had little concern with the origin of matter itself, since the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is a unique revelation from God in Israelite theology that stands in stark contrast with the ANE world view. The pagan ANE world viewed the primordial waters (Gen 1:2) as eternal and did not concern itself with the question of where they came from. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that the ANE mindset had absolutely no interest in the material shaping of the cosmos and the physical formation of things like the sun, moon, and stars, the firmament, the dry land, the seas, etc. These things may have been viewed mainly in terms of their functional relation to humankind, but that does not eliminate the material component. See Walton’s own excellent description of how the ancients thought on pp. 27-28: “Old World cosmic geography is based on what they could observe from their vantage point,” etc.

(4) No Unique Revelation (Gen 1:1-2)

Walton is so intent on showing the parallels and similarities between the biblical creation account and the ANE myths, that he is left with nothing distinctive about Yahweh’s revelation. He says, “Throughout the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity” (p. 17). But what about creation out of nothing? This was unique, and this seems to be precisely the point of contrast between Genesis 1:1-2 and the ANE myths. Whereas the ANE myths begin with the primordial chaos-waters, which are viewed as eternal, and then progress to the shaping of the orderly cosmos, Genesis 1:1-2 begins with God’s act of absolute creation out of nothing, then progresses to the primordial chaos-waters (cp. Prov 8:22-24 which also puts the absolute “beginning” prior to “the depths” - the same word as used in Gen 1:2, albeit in the plural). But on Walton’s interpretation, Moses should have written v 2 as the very first verse of the narrative, followed by v 1, since Walton interprets bara as bringing functional order out of chaos, not as an act of absolute divine origination out of nothing. This would bring Genesis into perfect harmony with ANE mythology. But the fact that Moses has v 1 first, then v 2, shows that at this point, Yahweh is in fact revealing a unique scientific perspective through the prophet Moses, and not simply working within the parameters of the ANE world view.

(5) “Material Phase” vs. “Inauguration Ceremony” of Cosmic Temple (pp. 86-91)

It is unconvincing to say that Genesis 1 only recounts the “inauguration ceremony” that makes the cosmic temple function, and not also the “material phase” of the construction of the cosmic temple. If anything, Genesis 1 seems to be precisely about the construction of the cosmic temple. It shows the divine architect separating, building, constructing, and getting the temple ready for his coming to take residence in it on day 7.

(6) Inconsistent “Face Value” Interpretation of Yōm 

It is strange that Walton evacuates everything in the Gen 1 narrative of any material, “face value” significance, except for the word yōm, which he interprets as a literal 24-hour day (pp. 90, 108). Yet he himself acknowledges that God’s rest in the temple on day 7 is highly functional; in fact, it is the crowning moment of functional creation. So why take the other six days literally? Walton and Kline are almost mirror images of one another. Both recognize that the text is not to be taken at “face value” in every respect; there is literary shaping in the creation account. Kline takes the snapshots of the divine creative activity as literal acts of divine origination, and the temporal framework of the divine work week figuratively. Walton flips it and takes the temporal framework literally and the snapshots of the divine creative activity as figurative acts of “functional creation.” Ironically, the one thing in the passage that is most clearly figurative (the framework of the 7 days), Walton takes at “face value.”

(7) What is Walton’s View of Historical Adam?

Walton does not address this clearly, but his hermeneutic leaves the door open for the view of Peter Enns and others who deny the historicity of an individual Adam from whom all humankind descended by ordinary generation. But the historicity of Adam as the federal head of the human race is a critical underpinning of Paul’s “two Adams” covenant theology (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 45-49).

(8) Creation and Providence (pp. 118-23)

I am uncomfortable with the blurring of the line between creation and providence in Walton’s thinking. Theologians have historically held that God’s work of providence is distinct from and subsequent to his work of creation. If the doctrine of creation is not taught at all in Gen 1, but only in two texts in the NT, and if creation is on a continuum with providence, then the doctrine of creation seems to be teetering on a weak foundation. I recognize that Walton affirms the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. But on what basis?

 

The Bruce Waltke Affair and the Westminster Confession

I suppose most everyone has heard by now about the kerfuffle over Dr. Waltke's video in which he pleaded for evangelical Christians to engage the issue of evolution. The video, which has since been removed, had appeared on the website of BioLogos, a think tank founded by Francis Collins, author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006). Dr. Collins is a geneticist and a committed Christian who converted from atheism. He was the former head of the Human Genome Project and is now Director of NIH. His BioLogos group is committed to advancing dialogue between science and faith, but with a decidedly theistic evolutionary slant. Dr. Waltke stated in his Old Testament Theology (2007) that reading Dr. Collins's book helped him to reach the conclusion that theistic evolution is the best way to resolve the apparent conflict between the modern scientific account and the biblical account of human origins (p. 202, n. 81).

I comment on this situation with some trepidation, since I know from firsthand experience how controversial the topic of evolution is in Reformed circles. There is something about this topic that causes some people to lose their minds. Like Dr. Waltke, I wish we as Christians could have a calm, rational conversation about this without immediately jumping to charges of heresy.

Now I have been perusing the various theology blogs to see what people's reactions are to Dr. Waltke's resignation, and I have observed that no one has raised the question of whether the RTS administration is right in its apparent view that theistic evolution is out of accord with the Westminster Standards. Let me back up a bit and provide some evidence that this is what the RTS administration thinks. I base this on the Inside Higher Ed report which has the following paragraphs:

Michael Milton, president of the seminary's Charlotte campus and interim president of its Orlando campus, where Waltke taught, confirmed that the scholar had lost his job over the video. Milton said that Waltke would "undoubtedly" be considered one of the world's great Christian scholars of the Old Testament and that he was "much beloved here," with his departure causing "heartache." But he said that there was no choice.

Milton said that the seminary allows "views to vary" about creation, describing the faculty members there as having "an eight-lane highway" on which to explore various routes to understanding. Giving an example, he said that some faculty members believe that the Hebrew word yom (day) should be seen in Genesis as a literal 24-hour day. Others believe that yom may be providing "a framework" for some period of time longer than a day. Both of those views, and various others, are allowed, Milton said.

But while Milton insisted that this provides for "a diversity" of views, he acknowledged that others are not permitted. Darwinian views, and any suggestion that humans didn't arrive on earth directly from being created by God (as opposed to having evolved from other forms of life), are not allowed, he said, and faculty members know this.

Asked if this limits academic freedom, Milton said: "We are a confessional seminary. I'm a professor myself, but I do not have a freedom that would go past the boundaries of the confession. Nor do I have a freedom that would allow me to express my views in such a way to hurt or impugn someone who holds another view." 

I have to say that I am a little puzzled by Dr. Milton's argument. I'm particularly interested in the last two paragraphs above. The penultimate paragraph states that "Darwinian views, and any suggestion that humans ... evolved from other forms of life ... are not allowed." The final paragraph states that RTS is a confessional seminary and that faculty cannot go past the boundaries of the Confession. If we put the two statements together, we have the implication that Dr. Waltke's view of human evolution is outside the boundaries of the Confession. This seems to be taken for granted on all sides. Even Waltke may have agreed with this, or presumably he would not have resigned so quickly (although we cannot discount the possibility that at age 79 he may have had personal reasons for not wanting to put up a fight).

Whatever Dr. Waltke thinks, the burden of proof rests with the RTS administration to make the case that Dr. Waltke's position is a violation of the system of doctrine of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. This is far from obvious, at least to me.

I recall the same issue back in 1996 when the Terry Gray case came before the OPC General Assembly, at which GA his appeal was denied and he was found guilty for his defense of Adamic animal ancestry. I was not present at that GA, but I quizzed several commissioners upon their return to try to determine what the argument was for concluding that his views were out of bounds confessionally. To a man they all said, "We were convinced by John Murray's exegesis of Genesis 2:7." I sputtered in disbelief, "But that doesn't answer my question," and then I would repeat it. They had no answer. To me it was a travesty of justice that Terry Gray was removed from his office as a ruling elder because the majority of the elders in the OPC disagreed with his exegesis, not because they found him guilty of violating the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession (cp. OPC Book of Discipline III.7.b). Perhaps the case was made at the lower courts, and I was simply unaware of it; in which case it is still disappointing that the men I spoke with voted guilty on exegetical grounds alone, without relating that exegesis to the larger question of whether it is essential to the system of doctrine.

It seems to me that in order to remain within the fence of the Westminster system of doctrine, we need to make the following minimal affirmations with regard to this topic:

1. The inspiration, authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture, which includes a firm rejection of any notion that the opening chapters of Genesis are mythical or non-historical, even as they polemically engage the myths prevalent in their Ancient Near Eastern context (e.g., Enuma Elish, the Gilgamesh Epic) (WCF I.1-5).

2. Affirming that when there is an apparent conflict between scientifically interpreted general revelation and special revelation, we can and should let general revelation serve as a warning flag to spur us to go back and reexamine our exegesis, but that in the final analysis special revelation has priority and ought to provide the ultimate hermeneutical context for interpreting general revelation (WCF I.6-10).

3. The historicity of Adam and Eve as real individuals, and of Adam as the federal head of all humanity descending from him by ordinary generation; this foundational affirmation is so interwoven with the very fabric of Reformed, covenantal, biblical, and Pauline theology (Romans 5) that it would seem to be essential to the system of doctrine (WCF VI.1-3; VII.2; WLC 21, 22, 26, 31).

4. That if God did employ secondary causes such as natural selection acting upon genetic variation within populations to create all of the species of living things, he sovereignly superintended the process by his providential concursus so that all biological diversity developed in accordance with his perfect decree and for his eternal glory (WCF III.1; IV.1; V.1-3; WLC 18).

I would think that within the doctrinal turf marked out by the fence of these affirmations it would be possible to hold to some version of theistic evolution, although one would want to examine the details of what is being asserted. Perhaps I've missed something essential; if I have, I'm open to being argued with. But as far as I know, Dr. Waltke affirms the above points. In fact, after having the video taken down he issued a nine-point clarification affirming that "Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended" and that "Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church." And in his Old Testament Theology, he argued that Gen. 1-3 are "essentially historical, not mythological" (pp. 189-90). Waltke also recently engaged Peter Enns in the pages of the Westminster Theological Journal (2009) in which he concluded that Enns's views were in his mind "inconsistent with the doctrine that God inspired every word of holy Scripture." Although both scholars are featured on the BioLogos site, they are not the same.

It needs to be pointed out that there are versions of theistic evolution that would fall outside the pale of orthodoxy, including, possibly, some of the versions advocated at the BioLogos institute. For example, Peter Enns is doing a series of blog posts in which he is calling into question the historicity of an individual Adam as the biological father of all humans (contra point 3). Other theistic evolutionists are better described as deistic or naturalistic evolutionists because they reduce God's role to the initial big bang and downplay his sovereign creative involvement thereafter (contra point 4).

I personally do not hold to theistic evolution. I'm committed to old earth progressive creationism as the most satisfying attempt to find concord between the book of nature and the book of Scipture. I have gone on record, with Meredith Kline, in rejecting animal ancestry for Adam (The Genesis Debate, ed. David G. Hagopian, p. 180). See also my "Evolution Disclaimer" here. But this conclusion rests on the exegesis of Gen. 2:7; it is not derived from Confessional boundaries.

Dr. Waltke has had a long and distinguished career as a beloved Reformed teacher. He has been a staunch defender of biblical orthodoxy within the framework of a commitment to the highest standards of scholarship. Not even RTS is prepared to label him a heretic, and they seem to acknowledge that it caused them some pain to let him go. It's disappointing that a longer, more deliberative process such as that which occurred in the Enns case at Westminster was not forthcoming at RTS. Perhaps at the end of the day, RTS would still determine that a parting of ways is in the seminary's best interests, but it would be nice to have an argument laying out precisely why Dr. Waltke is out of accord with the Westminster Standards. Given Dr. Waltke's orthodoxy, I suspect it would be harder to make that case than many assume.

Again, perhaps that case can be made. Perhaps my list of four essentials above is too minimalistic and I need to tighten the fence. Or perhaps I have misread Waltke or am unaware of something he has written or said. My point is that the argument hasn't been made yet and it would be nice to hear it before we cast out a highly regarded Reformed brother and scholar.