The Lost World of Adam and Eve (28 page)

2
Illocutions are the focus of the speech-act, e.g., promise, command, blessing or instruction. The illocution identifies what the communicator is doing with his or her words.

3
For definitions of terms such as this, consult the glossary, p. 240.

4
Even Jerome recognized this distinction. He notes, “Many things in Sacred Scripture . . . are said in accordance with the opinion of the time in which the events took place, rather than in accordance with the actual truth of the matter.” Jerome,
Commentary on Jeremiah,
28:10-11, trans. Michael Graves, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), p. 173. I am grateful to Michael Graves for this reference.

5
A technique illustrated in K. Lawson Younger Jr.,
Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); and John H. Walton,
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009).

6
See discussion in Theo M. M. A. C. Bell, “Humanity Is a Microcosm: Adam and Eve in Luther’s Lectures on Genesis (1534–1545),” in
Out of Paradise: Eve and Adam and Their Interpreters
, ed. Bob Becking and Susan Hennecke (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010), pp. 67-89.

Proposition 2: In the Ancient World and the Old Testament, Creating Focuses on Establishing Order by Assigning Roles and Functions

1
One of the ways we know this is because if he actually created in Genesis 1:1, it would mean that he created it
tōhû
(the condition in Gen 1:2), yet Isaiah 45:18 clearly says he did not create it
tōhû.
NIV
’s rendering, “he did not create it to be empty,” unfortunately has to add the words “to be,” which are neither represented in the Hebrew text nor implied by the syntax of the Hebrew text.

2
For more information see John H. Walton, “Principles for Productive Word Study,” in
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,
ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 1:161-71.

3
Combinations are important because sometimes words have meaning in combination that conveys more than their meanings individually (e.g., “assault and battery”).

4
The Context of Scripture
, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1:111.

5
These are only a few of the many examples. For more a comprehensive listing and detailed analysis, see John H. Walton,
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 23-62.

6
Ibid., pp. 127-39; idem,
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), pp. 36-43.

7
This was noted by Augustine in his discussion of Isaiah 45:7 in
The Catholic and Manichean Ways of Life
, Fathers of the Church Patristic Series 56 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1966), pp. 71-72. Concerning
bārā
ʾ
he states, “To ‘create’ means to order and arrange.”

8
Though not in the technically philosophical categories developed by Aristotle.

9
Note that even in our preschool instruction in church we don’t hesitate to say that “God made each and every one of us.”

10
Note that here the function, “governing,” 1:16, is the focus. The Israelites can use
ʿ
āśâ
here even though they do not consider the moon an object.

11
The thrust of the conversation in the patristic literature (e.g., Athanasius) was ontological and dealt with non-contingency. I am grateful to Jonathan Walton for pointing this out to me.

12
Walton,
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology.

Proposition 3: Genesis 1 Is an Account of Functional Origins, Not Material Origins

1
See my discussion of the term in John H. Walton,
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), pp. 55-57; idem,
Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), pp. 168-70.

2
The Hebrew word is
šĕ
ḥ
āqîm;
note particularly its usage in Job 37:18, 21. Full discussion can be found in John H. Walton,
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 155-61; or idem,
Job,
NIV
Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), pp. 371-73.

3
If one retains the view that
rāqîa
ʿ
refers to the solid sky, there is still a problem with seeing Genesis 1 as a material origins account. Perhaps the Israelites thought of the solid sky in material terms, but since we do not believe that there actually is a material solid sky, we end up insisting that God created something that does not in reality exist.

4
The reading of Genesis 1 labeled the framework hypothesis recognizes the ways in which days one through three find parallels to days four through six (one/four; two/five; three/six). I agree that this literary structuring is intentional and meaningful. Many who adopt the framework hypothesis, however, are content to stop there. They maintain that the seven-day structure is only literary and move on. I believe that in addition to the literary structuring, the element of ordering the cosmos is needed to grasp the full intentions of the account.

5
Hints of a similar view may be inferred from Job 9:7 and Psalm 8:3; 147:7; see further discussion in John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews and Mark W. Chavalas,
IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), loc. cit.

6
See discussion in Walton,
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology,
pp. 173-74.

7
In a work known as the
Exploits of Ninurta
the text says, “Let the mountains increase the fecundity of quadrupeds for you.”

8
It is true that as herdsmen they actually saw the birth process of sheep and cattle and would have recognized its similarity to human births, but we must remember that their perspective does not represent the logic of science. This is another evidence that they are not discussing the actual, physical birth process.

9
There is an ancient Near Eastern piece that we call
Enki and World Order
that describes the Sumerian god Enki bringing order to the cosmos. See
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.1.3#
. Note that I am not suggesting that the two accounts have much in common in the details (they don’t), and I am certainly not suggesting that the Bible borrowed from this Sumerian myth. I only suggest that both accounts ultimately are concerned with the establishment of order by the command of the pertinent deity.

10
Others could be identified when we move to the larger canon.

11
These do not give license for us to exploit—we are caretakers in God’s place. The Hebrew verb translated “subdue” (
kbš
) refers to bringing someone or something under control. The Hebrew word translated “rule” (
rdh
) differs from the one used in Genesis 1:16-18. It refers essentially to exercising authority that has been granted or acknowledged. For more discussion see John H. Walton,
Genesis,
NIV
Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), p. 132 for the Hebrew and pp. 139-45 for some practical observations.

12
That the image of God is marred by the fall and restored in Christ highlights the fact that our ability to be vice-regents in God’s program is hampered when we go our own way. That does not change our identity. The image of God will be discussed in more detail in chap. 21.

13
See complete discussion with texts cited in Walton,
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology,
pp. 46-68.

14
See Walton,
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology.

15
Miriam Lichtheim,
Ancient Egyptian Literature
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 1:106.

16
This analogy was first suggested to me by Leith Anderson.

17
I have developed many other examples of this sort of distinction that cannot be elaborated here. Among them, the origins of an organization (home) versus the origins of the building that houses them (house); the origins of a local church (home) versus the origins of the building they meet in (house); the origins of a country (home) versus the origins of the terrain and topography where they live (house); the origins of a college with its mission, faculty, curriculum and students (home) versus the origins of its campus buildings (house). One could also consider how a neighborhood is described—by its buildings and streets (house) or by the people who live there (home). Taking a slightly different slant, one could talk about the physical features of a laptop (polymers, soldering on the motherboard)—a material discussion—or about the software and applications—order and function.

18
Passages in both Old and New Testaments confirm this. In the Old Testament, statements that God spreads out the earth (Ps 136:6; Is 42:5; 44:24) or that he laid the foundations of the earth (Job 38:4; Ps 24:2; 102:25; 104:5; Is 48:13; Zech 12:1) indicate that he is the builder of the house. In the New Testament we see similar affirmations in John 1:3: “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” Colossians 1:16 similarly states that “for in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.” At the same time Paul specifically delineates “thrones or powers or rulers or authorities”—items pertaining to order and function. Hebrews 1:2 identifies Christ as the one through whom God made the “universe,” though it is noteworthy that the text refers to the
aiōnas
rather than to the
kosmos,
therefore showing a functional orientation, not just a material one (same in Heb 11:3).
Aiōnas
generally refers to the world in terms of time and history rather than in terms of spatiality and materiality.

Proposition 4: In Genesis 1, God Orders the Cosmos as Sacred Space

1
It is true that the Hebrew employs the verb
yšb,
which often merely means to sit or to dwell. Nevertheless, the context here and in a number of other contexts indicates clearly that it is a seat of power and authority from which one rules, e.g., Numbers 21:34; 1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; throughout 1 Kings 1–2; 15:18; 22:10; Psalm 7:7; 9:7; 22:3; 29:10; 55:19; 68:16; and many others.

2
This does not mean that our work on those six days is only self-serving.

3
Extensive evidence for the ancient Near Eastern connections (cosmology and temple, rest and temple, etc.) can be found in John H. Walton,
Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 100-119, 178-92.

4
Notice the two sets of seven days in 1 Kings 8:65, and in 2 Chronicles 7:9 the seven days of dedication (
ḥ
ănukka
) of the altar having been celebrated (
ʿ
āśâ
). Note also the seven-day sanctification of the altar in Exodus 29:35-37. For thorough discussion see Victor Hurowitz,
I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings,
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 115 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), pp. 260-61, 266-84, esp. 275-76. Such inaugurations are connected variably to the feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, to Sukkoth/Booths or to Hanukkah—all festivals connected to seven days.

5
Note that in Exodus many chapters are spent talking about the material construction; then a seven-day ceremony inaugurates it as sacred space.

6
A further nuance can be identified here. In chapter seven I am going to consider the possibility that there may have been a period of time between the seven-day account and the garden account. If that view is accepted, sacred space would have a two-phase process. In Genesis 1 God orders the cosmos to be sacred space and rests (
šbt
) by ceasing his ordering work. His presence would then be in the cosmos and presumably acting in some ways in relationship with people in his image. The garden story would be the next phase during which God’s presence actually took up residence (
nw
ḥ
) in Eden, the designated center of sacred space. This would be the stage in which a designated priesthood was established. The understanding that God’s presence is established in phases can be supported in general by the long process from creation to Babel to covenant to temple to incarnation to Pentecost to new creation (for full discussion see chap. 18, “Jesus Is the Keystone”). This understanding is more particularly illustrated by the way that God’s presence was realized in stages through the covenant (Abram inaugurating sacred space by building altars in Gen 12) and the steps that led from the burning bush, through the plagues, the pillar of cloud and his appearance on Mount Sinai, eventually coming to a climax in the tabernacle (Ex 40), where he took up his dwelling place in the center of sacred space. The tabernacle/temple is the culmination of a long process whereby sacred space became focused in temple. While we can identify a general theological continuity and coherence regarding the presence of God and sacred space, the imagery also shows some fluidity.