In the comments section of my article “Answering questions and objections,” [1] one of our regular visitors here at the Aristophrenium posed a question to me regarding how the universe and this world operate with respect to God (particularly with a view toward Walton’s exegesis of the Genesis creation account). And once again the depth that I wanted to invest my response with came up against the word-count restriction imposed on comments. Like I said previously, it takes few words to ask a controversial question but far more words to answer it appropriately.

His question itself smacked of deism, I thought, and he seemed to be wondering how it would play out under Walton’s view. Essentially what he wanted to know was whether or not interpreting Genesis under a function-oriented ontology would allow for God’s material creation “to ‘function’ according to the mechanics He devised for it.”

So my question, then: Wouldn’t this also allow for evolution? Life functions according to the mechanics that God has devised for it? That is why, as Adam [Morgan] pointed out, God created ‘kinds’ of animals in Genesis. Then it would be a simple matter to let them ‘expand’ in number based on how He made them. I have heard that Walton is a rather staunch anti-evolutionist, but how can this not fit? [2]

And he wanted an answer deeper than simply “God didn’t create life that way,” but rather an answer with some kind of support for it. So here then is my answer to our intrepid visitor, posted where I have a little more room to write.

Still looking at Genesis for material origins

So first things first: God certainly did bring “every individual species” into material existence (more on this in a moment); however, the point being made here is that the Genesis account is not a record of that. As Walton explained, there is a distinction between building a temple and creating a temple; the former regards the construction phase, but upon completion we do not yet have a “temple.” Without establishing its functions and functionaries and God coming to rest in it during the inauguration ceremony, it is nothing more than an ornate stone and wooden edifice; the “temple” does not exist yet. Your question regards the construction phase, the evolution of kinds and species over billions of years, but Genesis regards the inauguration phase so it is wrongheaded to mine the text for insight on that. The Genesis account presupposes the building phase in its disclosure of the inauguration phase, where God establishes the functions and functionaries and comes to rest in the newly created cosmic temple. Again, Genesis is an account of this seven-day inauguration ceremony, an account that begins with a non-existent temple, not non-existent material. With the building ready, the ceremony can now usher in the creation of the temple.

Scriptures are clear that God brings everything into material existence, but Genesis is not that story. It is an account of the beginning of redemptive history, which is an anthropocentric story rooted in the sovereign purposes of God who tabernacles with his image-bearers, set in motion during the creation of this cosmic temple which God prepared over a seven-day inauguration ceremony and came to rest in, and from which he providentially ordains redemptive history according to his purposes. The beginning of redemptive history is found in God preparing and entering this cosmic temple, with Adam and Eve established as his image-bearers and stewards. And we know how the story plays out thereafter. This temple motif saturates Scriptures; even our own bodies are described in temple terms. No less is the cosmic order itself a temple, from which God tabernacles with his image-bearers through redemptive history, beginning with Adam and Eve as detailed in Genesis.

Deism: winding up the clock and letting it go

The construction phase of this temple is not accounted for in Genesis; it presupposes the material elements (i.e., the building is already erected). But by no means was God uninvolved in the material phase of construction. The notion that you presented, that God created the universe and then left it to operate according to the laws of nature that he designed, is not only foreign to Walton’s exegesis but also to Scriptures as a whole. Such a notion presupposes an interventionist dichotomy between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ which cannot be found in Scriptures, a notion the origin of which is found in the deistic views of the Enlightenment. Scriptures (and Walton) strongly oppose that sort of view, rejecting that God is ever ‘hands-off’ with creation, only intervening here and there ‘supernaturally’, nor does such a view even find any correspondence in the cultures of the ancient Near East. (And I would note that this would be the sense in which Walton is a “rather staunch anti-evolutionist;” namely, Walton is steadfast against both atheistic and deistic notions of evolution since, contrary to atheism, God exists and, contrary to deism, he is never unplugged from creation that way. Moreover, because I understand his view on theistic evolution I am able to articulate it, although I do not myself subscribe to it.)

Consider for example the conception and fetal development of a human. It is obvious that we understand embryology scientifically; the ovum, the sperm, fertilization, genetics, cell signaling and so on, from zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus and so forth. It is a broad and well attested scientific field. We understand fairly well how all this works ‘naturally’. And yet what does the Bible say? “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psa. 139:13); “The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jer. 1:4-5). An interventionist dichotomy between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ does not exist in Scriptures; that is, God is not hands-off with respect to nature, intervening here and there. Identifying and understanding the material means by which something happens does not preclude the agency of God in those means. This applies to your question about evolution: we may understand, to one degree or another, how evolution works, the material means by which evolution occurs (like with embryology) but this does not allow us to preclude the agency of God in those means, to think he is hands-off and letting nature work on its own (again, like with embryology). God is definitively and providentially hands-on in the universe. “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:16-17; notice that last clause in particular).

This is yet another problem inherent with young-earth creationism, which tends to assume the same sort of dichotomy: they say that God resting on the seventh-day indicates that henceforth he ceased his work of material creation. But such Scriptures as Psalm 139:13-15 for example defies such a view! See especially verse 15, where the psalmist characterizes his development in his mother’s womb in terms that harken the mind to Genesis. For them to think that God specially created Adam and Eve but not Cain or Abel or anyone or anything else because he ceased specially creating on day seven, letting the laws of nature take it from there, simply defies the biblical witness. From one issue to the next their interpretation of Genesis (under its own terms), shoulders noteworthy problems—which by contrast underscores the strength, coherence, and consistency of Walton’s exegesis of Genesis (under its own terms.)

Not only is God the one who brings all things into material existence but he is also the one who continually sustains all of creation. The idea that God got everything running and then stood back to let nature do its thing “would have been laughable in the ancient world because it was not even conceivable,” Walton notes. “The ancients would never dream of addressing how things might have come into being without God or what ‘natural’ processes he might have used.” If God were to unplug himself from creation the way deists think, Walton observed, everything would immediately cease to exist. [3] Quite frankly, God’s agency is manifest in the formation of every creature of every species of every kind in every age. There is no such thing as God-of-the-gaps; in other words, science does not push God out of creation, but rather discovers the means of his creative agency—like with embryology.

References:

1. Smart, D. (2011, May 10). “Answering questions and objections.” Aristophrenium. [Blog]. http://aristophrenium.com, 17/May/2011.
2. Joe (2011, May 16). Comment to Smart (2011), para. 2.
3. Walton, J. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; pp. 20-21.

As I am re-reading this book by Douglas Groothuis, this brief excerpt jumped out at me as bolstering a point I have been making over the last few months; namely, that since God is the author of both Scriptures and nature, the two cannot disagree with each other. I think his point is quite instructive (p. 79):

Truth … is systematic and unified. Truth is one, as God is one. All truths cohere with one another as expressions of God’s harmonious objective reality—of his being, his knowledge and his creation. Something cannot be true in religion and false in science (or vice versa), or true in philosophy but false in theology (or vice versa). There is only one world, God’s world; it is a uni-verse, not a multi-verse.

• Douglas Groothuis (2000). Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Due to the word-count restriction in the comments area, I have chosen to address in a blog post many of the questions and objections being submitted in response to my posts on the Genesis creation account, since it takes more words to answer a controversial question than it does to ask it—and there are several being asked. I will not identify to whom each question or objection belongs; I am confident that people will recognize the substance of their question or objection in what follows. (I have also chosen to reframe each question or objection in my own words.)

Read the rest of this entry

In a recently published article [1] Duane Proud, a dear friend and colleague of ours here at the Aristophrenium and one of its founding contributors, published what he understands to be Statham’s misgivings [2] about Walton’s central thesis on how the Genesis creation account might be properly understood exegetically. [3] While this is quite appropriate for Proud, given that the origins debate is his primary interest here at the Aristophrenium (i.e., creation versus evolution), I do find myself wishing that he had reached out to me prior to publication because, quite frankly, it does appear that Statham was rather confused about the book he was reviewing. That, in addition to the fact that Proud has not read Walton’s book, is why I say that he published what he understands “to be Statham’s misgivings,” putting the onus on Statham. There is not a lot I can say about Statham’s review because I am still waiting for a copy of his article, as I have been since Proud brought it to my attention November 28 last year in a personal email. [4] But if Proud had have reached out to me I could have cleared some of this fog up, injecting these concepts with the coherence needed for him to digest the ideas, allowing him to publish an article that hits closer to its mark. Instead, I shall have to provide that further clarification here.

Read the rest of this entry

My  esteemed blogging colleague, David Smart (aka ‘Ryft’), has written on two recent occasions now^[1], about a novel approach to the reading of the creation account in Genesis 1. It is a view promoted by John Walton in his book, The Lost World of Genesis One (2009).

I must be clear from the outset that this is not a book review. I have not read the book and must therefore rely on secondary citations and explanations of his thesis from people like David, and others. Yet, my attempts at digesting the idea have thus far been only moderately successful and the concepts presented still lack coherence in my own mind. To be as gracious as possible, I must at this point attribute this apparent incoherence to my own limitations. But I certainly look forward to further clarification.

On the surface, I can relate to objections from those who want to reject Walton’s arguments on the basis of historical theology. That is, if the early church fathers never thought Genesis 1 means what Walton thinks it means, how is it that we should now trust Walton’s interpretation? Well, we should trust it on the basis of a demonstrably sound hermeneutic I guess. This approach must necessarily presume nothing of what people like Augustine, Basil, Aquinas, Origen, etc., thought about Genesis, but focus on the Scripture itself. However, Walton’s conclusion then tends to require us to consider that the people who lived in the first few centuries after Christ lacked the recently recovered knowledge that Walton claims now makes it possible to receive this revelation in a new light. That at least, should give us pause. But just how long this ancient knowledge has been lost to us I do not know. Perhaps The Lost World of Genesis One has those answers.

Many of the online reviews of Walton’s book that I skimmed were quite positive on balance. But one review that has helped me get a foothold on this topic and  clear away some of the smog, is a critical piece by Dominic Statham, who wrote in the December 2010 edition of the Journal of Creation (JoC).^[2,3] (Note: All quoted material in this article comes from Statham’s review, unless stated otherwise. Any errors are most likely my own.) And of course, if Statham has misrepresented Walton in any way, my apparent moment of clarity may again be overcome by the smog. But let’s press on in hope.

Read the rest of this entry

The full title of the book is Creation, Fall, Restoration – A Biblical Theology of Creation (CFR).

I originally became interested in CFR because of the promise it offered as a commentary on the relationship between science and scripture, and as a survey of the historical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. And with chapters such as Scripture, Science, and Interpretation, Creation and Genesis: A Historical Survey and two chapters covering different aspects on The Days of Creation, I was not at all disappointed. Andrew Kulikovsky demonstrates his depth of knowledge in these areas, bringing all of the relevant pieces together into one volume that is relatively easy to read.

Similarly, Bob McCabe in a recent review of CFR, says that Kulikovsky “provides a readable text that is a basic exegetical and theological explanation and defense of the biblical text, as well as refuting common evangelical interpretative schemes that undermine the traditional reading of Genesis.”

That is not to say that the material itself is easily understood. In fact, I spent quite a bit of time re-reading some sections of the book and I think that is simply due to the nature of the topics being covered, together with my lack of prior knowledge on the subject matter.

In the first chapter, Kulikovsky acknowledges the concept (originating with Francis Bacon) that “God has revealed Himself in two ‘books’ – general revelation and special revelation” (p.18) but spends the first two chapters distinguishing one from the other, recognizing the unfortunately all too common habit for Christians to, either explicitly or implicitly, give general revelation an equal or higher position than that of special revelation.^[1] He rightly points out that whenever the two books seemingly conflict, “Such conflicts are nearly always resolved by simply reinterpreting the special revelation in Scripture … implying … that the two are not equal.” (p. 18-19). Similarly, “The truth claims of science always seem to trump exegesis, regardless of how thorough it is and how well done.” (p.41)

Read the rest of this entry

Or, Why Genesis 1 means exactly what it says: Another response to comments by Sandy Grant

In October 2006 I responded to the position held by Sandy Grant as described in his article “Reading Genesis”, published in the October 2006 edition of Matthias Media’s The Briefing. This was followed by another post in August 2007 after Sandy took the opportunity to clarify his position, believing that I had misrepresented him^[1]. I am quite aware that Sandy’s views are popular among Sydney Anglicans and The Briefing is widely promoted amongst Sydney Anglican churches. In fact during discussions I have had with informed Anglicans on this topic since October 2006, Grant’s article is often cited as an argument against a straight-forward reading of Genesis 1.

However while I believe I dealt with Sandy’s position (and objections) fairly in my previous posts, there were some additional points raised by Sandy in August 2007 that I will address now. In doing so I hope to demonstrate that a straight-forward reading of the early chapters of Genesis^[2] is the most sensible and that the kinds of objections that Sandy raises come from an unnecessary compromised theology that cannot be sustained.

Read the rest of this entry