Professor John Walton's Interesting Take on Genesis One

It is my belief that when we read Genesis 1 as the ancient piece of literature that it is, we will find new understanding of the passage that will result in a clearer understanding of how the initial audience would have heard it. In the process, we will also find that many of the perceived conflicts with modern science will be able to be resolved. I have explored this in a recent book titled The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP) and the technical aspects of ancient Near Eastern literature and the Hebrew text will be explored in greater depth in a forthcoming monograph, Genesis One As Ancient Cosmology (Eisenbrauns).

By John H. Walton

Professor of Old Testament
Wheaton College
March 2010

Genesis 1 is Ancient Cosmology
The Bible was written for everyone, but specifically to Israel. As a result we have to read all biblical texts, including (and maybe especially) Genesis 1 in its cultural context—as a text that is likely to have a lot more in common with ancient literature than with modern science. This does not result in claims of borrowing or suggestions that Genesis should also be read as “mythology” (however defined), but that ancient perspectives on the world and its origins need to be understood.

Ancient Cosmology is Function-oriented

In the ancient world and in the Bible, something existed not when it had physical properties, but when it had been separated from other things, given a name and a role within an ordered system. This is a functional ontology rather than a material ontology. In this view, when something does not exist, it is lacking role, not lacking matter. Consequently, to create something (cause it to exist) means to give it a function, not material properties.

“Create” (Hebrew Bara’ ) Concerns Functions

The Hebrew word translated “create” should be understood within a functional ontology—i.e., it means to assign a role or function. This is evident through a word study of the usage of the biblical term itself where the direct object of the verb is always a functional entity not a material object. Theologians of the past have concluded that since materials were never mentioned that it must mean manufacture of objects out of nothing. Alternatively, and preferably, it does not mention materials because it does not refer to manufacturing. Bara’ deals with functional origins, not material origins.

Beginning State in Genesis 1 is Non-functional

In Genesis 1:2 the “before” picture, as throughout the ancient Near East, is portrayed in non-functional, non-productive terms (tohu andbohu) in which matter already exists. If this were an account of material origins, it would start with no matter. As an account of functional origins, it starts with no functions.

Days 1-3 in Genesis 1 Establish Functions

In the ancient world, light was not an object, and day 1 does not recount the manufacture of an object. Verses 4-5 do not make sense unless we understand “light” as referring to “a period of light.” If that is what it means in vv. 4-5, then it logically must mean the same in v.3. Thus on day 1 God created a period of light to alternate with a period of darkness, i.e., God created time—a function. On day two, God created weather (described in accordance with their cosmic geography) and on day three he created fecundity/fertility/agriculture. These three functions are referred to again in Gen. 8:22 and are the principle functions that figure in ancient Near Eastern cosmological texts.

Days 4-6 in Genesis 1 Install Functionaries

Days 4-6 involve installing the functionaries that will operate within the spheres of the three functions described in days 1-3. The description continues to be functional (notice on day 4: signs, festivals, days and years—all functional in relation to people). This incidentally solves the age old problem regarding how “light” can be created on day 1 and the sun not until day four. The contradiction only exists if this is an account of material origins. In a functional perspective, time is much more significant than the sun; the former is a function, the latter simply a functionary. Everything is designated “good” indicating that it functions properly in the system (notice later, it is NOT good for man to be alone: functional). The description of people is also in functional terms from the image of God through the blessing. And God created (bara’ ) them MALE AND FEMALE—functional categories.

Divine Rest is in a Temple

In the ancient world, as soon as “rest” is mentioned everyone would have known exactly what sort of text this was: gods rest in temples and temples are built so that gods can rest in them. Rest is not a term of disengagement but a term of engagement, i.e., everything is in place now so the deity can take up his place at the helm in the control room of the cosmos and begin operations. Rest throughout the Bible indicates that everything is stable and secure and life and the cosmos may proceed as they were intended.


The Cosmos Is a Temple

In the ancient world and in the Bible, the cosmos was understood to be a gigantic temple (Isa. 66:1), and temples were designed to be a micro-cosmos (see description of the Garden of Eden and the Temple vision of Ezekiel; there is symbolism in the tabernacle/temple furniture and décor). Genesis 1 is portraying cosmic origins in terms that would be recognized as a temple building account.

The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Relate to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration

If cosmic origins are described here in functional terms and follow the pattern of temple building texts, then the point is made that the cosmic temple is here being made functional. When a temple was built, it became functional not when all of the physical work had been done (building, furniture, priests’ garments) but in an inauguration ceremony that in a variety of texts throughout the ancient world lasted seven days. During those seven days, the functions of the temple were identified, the functionaries installed, the priests commissioned and most importantly that which represented the deity was brought into the center of the sacred space where he took up his rest. Then the temple was functional—it existed. If this is the paradigm in Genesis 1, then the seven days can easily be understood as regular days and the account can be understood as an inauguration of the cosmic temple that initiates the functions by which it operates.

The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins

If the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple inauguration, days that concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth. This is not to say that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not the story of material origins.

“Functional Cosmic Temple” Offers Face Value Exegesis

The hermeneutical commitment to read the text at face value elevates this interpretation since it makes an attempt to understand the text as the author and audience would have understood it. It does not reduce the text to a symbolic, figurative, theological or literary reading, as is often done in the attempt to correlate the text to modern science. Concordism applies scientific meanings to words and phrases in the text that are modern—that the ancient readers would never have had. Day-age seeks to make room for an old earth. Both of these approaches struggle because they are still trying to get Genesis to operate as an account of material origins for an audience that has a material ontology and cannot think in any other way.

....

Taken from: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/genesis1357910.shtml

The Victorious Messiah’s Triumphal Parade



“And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the Cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them by the Cross”.

[Colossians 2:13-15]

One of the great contributions that Pope Benedict XVI has made in his book Jesus of Nazareth. Part Two: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, is, in my opinion, in his clear differentiation between the type of Messiah that the majority of the Jews were anticipating, and in the actual type of Messiah that they got in Jesus the Christ. Even amongst the Apostles, one of whom was a Simon the Zealot (Luke 6:15), some at least were sword-bearing. And this included Simon Peter himself, who hacked off the ear of the high priest’s slave (John 18:10) in the Garden of Gethsemane. Was Judas the betrayer, himself, a Sicarii (dagger bearer, Iscariot = Sicarii), as well as being a thief? It was a self-serving type of Messiahship that most were desiring, one to rid themselves of the hated Romans, and perhaps to restore the theocratic world of King David and Solomon (the Lions of Judah), which most would have regarded as a halçyon golden age for Israel.

But this One who now claimed to be the Son of God, this Jesus of Nazareth, came with neither sword nor earthly army. And he was far more inclined to criticize the Jewish leaders than the Romans. Admittedly, the crowds flocked to him because of his personal magnetism and his miracle working. But his doctrine was radically different from that of the Jewish leaders. He proclaimed the Beatitudes, peace and love, and offering no resistance, and service and loving one’s enemies. God the Father he revealed to be a God of otherness. Peter himself, who had become convinced that Jesus was indeed the one who was to come, and who was in awe at the incident of the Transfiguration, still tried to manoeuvre his Lord away from this talk of death on a Cross. Later he drew the sword in defence of the Lord, who of course needed no defending. God the Father would promptly send Jesus, at his bidding, “more than twelve legions of angels” (Matthew 26:53).

But He was like a lamb led to the slaughter, when crucified. Milton Terry has written, regarding Revelation’s emphasis on his crucifixion (as in 1:7), a “lamb”, “slain”, that there is a certain irony in this imagery: “The great trouble with Judaism was that it looked for a mighty lion; and was scandalized to behold, instead, a little lamb” (cf. Luke 24:21, 25-27; John 6:15; 19:15). [Biblical Apologetics, p. 323].

And finally, even after the Resurrection, at the Ascension, the Apostles were still asking him if he were going to “restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6). They still had not properly understood Him.

Needed was the Holy Spirit, to enlighten them inwardly, so that they might become other Christs.

So it is not all that surprising, given this prevailing mentality, that the crowds, egged on by the priests and the scribes, would have clamoured for Barabbas rather than for Jesus.

Barabbas

We might be tempted to think of this Barabbas as a dirty witless oaf, somewhat as portrayed for instance in Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ. But he was probably not like that at all. He was, as was Jesus, a leader who apparently drew people through personal magnetism. So he would have been somewhat charismatic. He, though, was a revolutionary (lestes) against Rome. Just what the people wanted. Indeed, Barabbas was popular with the masses. Probably not so much so with the Temple aristocracy, who may have found him rather too brutal and lawless for their liking. But that was not going to stop them from inciting the crowd to call for Barabbas over Jesus.

Ironically, Greek versions give his name as Jesus Barabbas, which mean ‘Jesus son of the father’*; a name most fitting to the real Savior. And it is quite common for writers to proceed from this to make the outlandish suggestion even that Jesus and Barabbas were one and the same person. Anyway, if ever there were a populist type of Messiah, then this Barabbas was the epitome of it.

And, given, that Barabbas did represent some sort of threat to the Roman occupation, whereas it was obvious to Pilate that Jesus of Nazareth did not, it is rather mystifying that the Romans would have let him go?

[*Abba has been found as a personal name in a 1st-century burial at Giv'at ja-Mivtar, and Abba also appears as a personal name frequently in the Gemara section of the Talmud, dating from AD 200–400. These findings support "Barabbas" being used to indicate the son of a person named Abba or Abbas ].

So, who was Barabbas?

Where did He come from?

Where did He go?

These three questions are asked at:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/09/who-is-barabbas.html

where the writer then summarises the little that we know of Barabbas in the Gospels:

"[Barabbas] was a robber (John's account), a notable prisoner (Matthew's account), someone who had (with others who were also imprisoned) made an insurrection/sedition and committed murder in the insurrection (Mark's and Luke's accounts). So, this man was a true brigand and a captain of them. His name appears to be taken from "bar abba" meaning "son of the father" (although some have suggested "bar rabbi" meaning "son of the teacher." Supposedly, he participated in the 'insurrection', - what "insurrection"? The "insurrection" wherein fanatically 'religious' Jews sought to overthrow Herod's Roman supported 'secular' governance - in an unsuccessful attempt to re-establish the ancient 'theocratic' form of governance as was instituted by David' (after the Lord rebuked the 'anointed' king Saul and replaced him with David?

The Church Fathers it seems, according to this source, were unable to add very much to this:

I scanned through the early church writers to see if there were any interesting legends about him. I mostly came up empty. Tertullian describes him as “the most abandoned criminal” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 42). Cyril of Alexandria describes him as “a notorious robber” and “a dangerous and brutal criminal, [who was] not free from blood-guiltiness” (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, at John 18:40). Augustine calls him “the robber,” “the murderer,” and “the destroyer [of life]” (Augustine, Tractate 116 on John’s Gospel, at John 19:1). Even Faustus (whom Augustine opposed) called him “the notorious robber” (Faustus quoted in Augustine’s Reply to Faustus, Book 14, Section 1). Chrysostom provides a characteristically colorful description:

“For which was right? To let go the acknowledged criminal, or Him about whose guilt there was a question? For, if in the case of acknowledged offenders it was fit there should be a liberation, much more in those of whom there was a doubt. For surely this man did not seem to them worse than acknowledged murderers. For on this account, it is not merely said they had a robber; but one noted, that is, who was infamous in wickedness, who had perpetrated countless murders”.

- Chrysostom, Homily 86 on Matthew, Section 2, at Matthew 27:11-12

On the whole, though, the early church basically leaves Barabbas alone. A couple (Origen and Rabanius) describe him as figuring the Devil, while Pseudo-Jerome goes so far as to associate him with the scapegoat which was freed. I’m told the “Gospel According to the Hebrews” is an apocryphal work that takes the “son of the teacher” interpretation as opposed to “son of the father,” but generally the apocryphal works also pretty much leave him alone or simply parrot the canonical accounts.

Gill provides similar comments, and adds:

“The Ethiopic version adds, “the prince”, or “chief of robbers, and all knew him”; and the Arabic, instead of a “prisoner”, reads, a “thief”, as he was”.

He also points out that this name was a common name among the Jews, providing various citations to folks by that name. There does not seem to be much more out there on him".

Professor Robert Temple Could Not Be More Right About 'the Vicious Academic World'

Taken from Robert Temple’s Egyptian Dawn. Exposing the Real Truth Behind Ancient Egypt (Century 2010).

Pp. 399-400:

"[On the Atlantic Culture] …. Countless authors, ancient and modern, have commented upon the Atlantic cultures, but these remarks have rarely been given proper attention Perhaps the reason for this is that there is no academic disci¬pline or academic department concerned with 'Atlantic culture'. As soon as the archaeologists of one region of the world begin to discuss it, they feel uncomfortable, because they are 'straying beyond their boundaries'. There is nothing that makes an academic more nervous than that, because it opens him up to criticism by his colleagues. The academic world is a vicious world, where no mercy is ever shown, and where the slightest slip from 'consensus behaviour' can endanger an academic's entire career. It is only people like myself, who do not depend upon the favour and approval of peers for a livelihood, who can say what they like and stray over as many boundaries as they please. With every passing year, the competition for jobs within the academic community becomes more intense, the level of fear rises and the timidity of discourse increases. One of these days, the academic world will just seize up like a sea of ice, with no movement at all, and all opinions will remain perfectly rigid. Then everybody will be safe. …".

Pp. 430:

"…. Alessandra Nibbi's ideas are so extraordinarily interesting and rele¬vant that at one point I considered attempting an extended survey of them here, and compiling a comprehensive bibliography for her as I have done for Patrick O'Mara (whom she frequently published in her journal). If it were not for the activities of a few polite and genteel 'trouble-makers' like Nibbi and O'Mara, Egyptology would become totally petrified and incapable of ever generating a new insight. Thus, people like Nibbi and O'Mara should be encouraged enthusiastically, because they poke the corpses of the 'walking dead', the orthodox scholars who never deviate by a hair's-breadth from consensus opinions, and make them awaken from their sleepwalking and stir slightly. However, I have had to abandon my noble idea of surveying Nibbi's ideas, however important they are in terms of what I have been discussing, because the task would be too vast, and this book would never end. I shall content myself therefore with quoting only one of her many, many articles, which appeared in her own journal in 1995, as her comments are so shocking in the light of what we have been considering: ... we are given [in a book she has just quoted] a resume from the Egyptological textbooks on the 'Libvans' without considering the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty and assumption in piecing together the Egyptological material, and no clarity at all concerning the geographical background of these people, which cannot have been the desert.... We must accept the Roman use of this term which applied to all the area immedi¬ately to the west of the Nile . . . Thus the term westerner is more appropriate than Libyan for the people we are discussing. . . More recent studies of 'Libyan' people have been reluctant to separate them from the area that is Libya today and rarely attempt to identify them from any evidence. We even find references to 'ethnically Libyan pharaohs', whatever that may imply: At the seminar which formed the basis of Anthony Leahy's Libya and Egypt c. 1300)-750 B.C. (1990), no attempt was made to define 'Libyan'. Scholars depended considerably on Leahy's earlier article on the Libyan period in Egypt which attempts to identity the foreign ‘Libyan' Dynasty in Egypt as rule by men of 'Libyan extraction', even though 'the retention of their ethnic identity is obscured by the evidence’. …".