The lost world of Genesis one

Genesis 1 describes functional origin, not material
origin, according to Walton.

Genesis chapter one has been a battleground text for centuries.  Nowhere has this been evident as clearly as in debates over the nature of Creation and the role it plays in scientific understandings of origins.  Christian (as well as Jewish and Muslim) readers of the text have traditionally embraced one of the following views of how Genesis 1 relates to the world around us:

Young-Earth Creationism (or Genesis Literalism):  The most widely attributed (but not the most widely embraced) view of what the Bible teaches regarding origins, YEC proposes that the days of Genesis 1 were literal 24-hr solar days in which God created everything, and which took place between 6,000-12,000 years ago.  YEC proponents seek to harmonize Science with Scripture by making science conform to a completely literal reading of the text.

Old-Earth Creationism (or the "Day-Age" view):  Many Christians have seen the "days" of Genesis 1 as referring to long periods of time during which God created the world through physical, geological and (to varying degrees) evolutionary processes.  OEC proponents point out the non-literal use of the term for "day" (Heb. "yom") elsewhere in Genesis 1-2 as well as in other passages of Scripture and believe that Gen.1 is using phenomenological language (describing something as it would appear to an observer rather than in a literally, scientifically precise way) to give a theological presentation of the creation of the world.

Literary view (or the "Framework" view):  Since the days of St. Augustine there have been Christians who have noted the non-literal nature of Gen.1 as well as structural indicators in the text itself that it is not intending to provide a literal chronological account of material origins.  For instance, Framework proponents note the "days" 1-3 correspond to "days" 4-6 with the former consisting of the setting up of "realms" or "domains" and the latter providing the "rulers" or the ones "excercising dominion" over their respective realms (i.e. the greater and lesser lights of day 4 are said to rule over or govern the day and night of day 1).  Thus, questions of chronology or reconciliation between Genesis 1 and the physical sciences are illegitimate to begin with and the text does not attempt to provide any of those answers.

These are not exhaustive descriptions of every view that's ever been put forth regarding Gen.1 (the now-defunct "Gap theory", popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible would be such an example), but they do encapsulate the majority of interpretations put forth over the years.

In "The Lost World of Genesis One", ancient Near East scholar John Walton seeks to add to the discussion by pointing out a key interpretational premise that all three above views have largely ignored (or been unaware of).  Walton argues that ancient Near East (ANE) literature did not operate according to the categories of post-enlightenment materialism; and therefore to read Genesis according to modern presuppositions is to abuse the very text one is trying to uphold the authority of. 

Walton's main premise is that in the ANE the idea of "creation" (Heb. "bara'") had to do not with material origins (how something came into being physically), but rather it sought to explain functional origins (how something came to have its purpose/usefulness/role in the cosmos).  Drawing from parallel creation accounts from Egyptian, Babylonian and Sumerian literature, Walton notes that in the ANE, whenever a temple was created, the culmination and final act involved was the enthronement of the deity on the 7th day, which resulted in divine rest.  With this cultural norm in mind, the account of Gen.1 is an account of God creating His true Temple (the universe, specifically the earth populated by humanity made in His image) and then enthroning Himself over it as sovereign ruler of the cosmos, with human beings as his "vice-regents", so to speak.  The 7-Day pattern of Genesis 1 was likely part of a 7-day celebration of Creation and does not intend to answer any question of how God created the world.  As a result, any questions of material causation (astrophysics, cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology, etc.) are inherently outside of the intended scope of Gen.1 as it was Inspired by God. 

"The Lost World of Genesis One" consists of 18 propositions (each comprising a short chapter in the book) related to the interpretation of Gen.1, the relationship of it with science, and how one should approach the topic in light of current origins debates in public school settings:

Proposition 1:  Genesis 1 is Ancient Cosmology
Proposition 2: Ancient Cosmology is Function Oriented
Proposition 3: "Create" (Hebrew bara') Concerns Functions
Proposition 4: The Beginning State in Gen.1:1 is Nonfunctional
Proposition 5: Days One to Three in Gen.1 Establish Functions
Proposition 6: Days Four to Six in Gen.1 Install Functionaries
Proposition 7: Divine Rest Is in a Temple
Proposition 8: The Cosmos is a Temple
Proposition 9: The Seven Days of Gen.1 Relate to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration
Proposition 10: The Seven Days of Gen.1 Do Not Concern Material Origins
Proposition 11: "Functional Cosmic Temple" Offers Face-Value Exegesis
Proposition 12: Other Theories of Gen.1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough
Proposition 13: The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture is Metaphysical in Nature
Proposition 14: God's Roles as Creator and Sustainer Are Less Different Than We Have Thought
Proposition 15: Current Debate About Intelligent Design Ultimately Concerns Purpose
Proposition 16: Scientific Explanations of Originas Can Be Viewed in Light of Purpose, and If So, Are Unobjectionable
Proposition 17: Resulting Theology in This View of Gen.1 Is Stronger, Not Weaker
Proposition 18: Public Science Education Should Be Neutral Regarding Purpose

Of the 3 views mentioned above, Walton's view is closest to the Literary/Framework view.  However, his treatment of the text in its ANE context is more extensive than most previous Framework approaches, and therefore, more plausible. 

YEC proponents will likely dismiss Walton as trying to "accomodate" the Bible to a scientific agenda...as they do OEC proponents.  But this is not even remotely the case.  Walton makes a solid argument from the text itself in order to demonstrate his premise.  He seeks to interpret the text as it was intended by the author (or what he refers to as "face-value" interpretation).  Such a high view of Scripture's Inspiration is a hallmark of evangelical interpretation.  Those whose knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss any approach that is not "literal" (i.e. Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research) would do well to listen to the evidence Walton presents and be open to correction of their presuppositions (which, ironically, are based more on modern scientific assumptions than on ancient Biblical interpretation!).  Likewise, OEC and traditional framework proponents will need to engage Walton's critique of their own positions and the areas where they go too far or not far enough. 

For anyone interested in Genesis 1 and how one should interpret it, I absolutely recommend "The Lost World of Genesis One."  At under 200 pages, it is definitely something most people can pick up and read; though the more familiarity one has with the ANE in general, the more persuasive Walton's arguments will seem.  Even those who are not completely persuaded by Walton's view will find much in this book that they can appreciate and grow from, both intellectually and spiritually.