Functional Interpretation of Genesis: A Critical Evaluation of John Walton

By James M. Rochford

John Walton is the premier proponent of the Functional View of creation,^[1] though Dennis Venema (a biologist) and Scot McKnight (a NT scholar) also share this perspective.^[2] According to this view, Genesis 1 does not describe the origin of material things, but rather their order and function. For instance, Genesis 1:2 begins with an Earth that is formless and void, and there is already water on its surface. Where did this watery planet originate? According to Walton, the text doesn’t say, but merely assumes material existence. Later, the function of God’s universe is clearly taught. For instance, Genesis 1:14 states, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.” This describes order—not origin. Likewise, the description about humans is less about their creation (Gen. 1:26-27), and more about their function—namely, to be vice-regents over the creative order (Gen. 1:28).

Walton argues that the purpose or function of the cosmos was to be a cosmic temple in which God would dwell.^[3] Many similarities exist between the language in the Garden and the building of the Temple,^[4] and Isaiah even states that the universe is somewhat of a cosmic Temple for God (Isa. 66:1). Thus Walton writes, “The seven days are not given as the period of time over which the material cosmos came into existence, but the period of time devoted to the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple.”^[5]

Thus, according to Walton, the events of natural history could be completely outside the scope of Genesis’ history, because it wasn’t referring to creation, but function. It refers to order—not origins. In fact, he states that “we gain nothing by bringing God’s revelation into accordance with today’s science,”[6] and “God… was content for them to retain the ancient cosmic geography.”[7]

Since Walton is the premier proponent of this view, we will primarily interact with his work.

Does Genesis only refer to function?

Walton claims that we are asking the wrong questions when we read Genesis 1. Modern people want to know the question of origins, but the Bible answers the question of order. Walton writes, “Genesis One was never intended to offer an account of material origins.”[8] He states, “People in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system. Here I do not refer to an ordered system in scientific terms, but an ordered system in human terms, that is in relation to society and culture.”[9] The days of Genesis 1 refer to “the period of time devoted to the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple, and perhaps also its annual reenactment.”[10]

In response, interpreters have always noticed this functional perspective on creation. There is nothing new or novel about this insight. Walton’s thesis is controversial only insofar as he states that Genesis only focuses on function—not creation. This simply doesn’t fit with the text. For a case in point, Genesis 1:1, 21 both use the term “create” (bara’) with no mention of their function. In fact, Walton needs to redefine the term “create” (bara’) to refer to function, rather than creation.[11] Suffice it to say, he is in the infinitesimally small minority on his unique definition.

Does Genesis have anything to say about the natural sciences?

Not according to Walton. He believes that Genesis “does not offer scientific explanations.”^[12] He even states, “Through the entire Bible, there is not a single sentence 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.”^[13] He writes, “God… was content for [the Israelites] to retain the ancient cosmic geography… Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their ‘scientific’ understanding of the cosmos.”^[14]

Walton faces tremendous problems here. Under his perspective, God isn’t merely stating the false cosmology of the ANE, but he is affirming it! After all, Genesis 1 claims to record what “God said…” Furthermore, it seems that the only scientific affirmations that Genesis 1 can make are false ones! Walton states that “Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology.”^[15]

We agree that Genesis is not a science textbook, nor was its primary focus to teach science. However, this is far different from saying that it makes no statements that have implications for the natural sciences. Can the reader of Genesis 1 really believe that this text has nothing to say about creation? While the primary purpose of the text is not to teach astronomy or biology, it surely makes statements that apply to these realms.

Were Adam and Eve the sole progenitors of the human race?

Walton denies this. Regarding the humans before Adam, he writes, “The anthropological specimens would not be viewed as humans in the image of God. They would not be assessed morally (any more than an animal would), and they were subject to death as any animal was.”^[16] He disagrees that “aspects of evolutionary theory should be accepted uncritically,” and neither does “evolution [provide] the best model,” but he goes on to say that “neither Genesis 1 specifically nor biblical theology in general give us any reason to reject it as a model.”^[17] He continues, “Genesis 1 offers no objections to biological evolution.”^[18]

Is the universe simply God’s cosmic Temple?

We agree that literary similarities exist between the opening chapters of Genesis, and the construction of the Tabernacle and Temple. However, do we need to point out the obvious? The similarities refer to physically creating the Temple! Thus origins and order are both in view.

Furthermore, we see no statement of God taking up residence in the cosmic Temple. Surely, God walks through the Garden (Gen. 3:8), but this is such an off-handed comment that it can hardly represent God entering his Temple. Instead, the focus of Genesis 1 is the creation of humans—even exploding into poetry (Gen. 1:27).

Even proof texts for seeing the cosmos as a cosmic Temple seem to backfire on Walton’s thesis. For instance, after building the Temple, Solomon prayed, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built” (1 Kin. 8:27). Moreover, in Isaiah, we read, “Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? ²For My hand made all these things, thus all these things came into being” (Isa. 66:1-2).

Are modern readers simply too biased to interpret Genesis 1?

Walton admits that his view is novel and in the minority. What could account for this? Walton contends that other scholars simply haven’t considered this view because of their modern presuppositions. He writes that his view “is simply one they have never considered because their material ontology was a blind presupposition for which no alternative was ever considered.”[19] But if this is true, why don’t scholars of ANE texts notice these same phenomena? The answer is simple: the ANE texts mention both origins and order—both creation and function.

For instance, the Egyptian texts depict material origins. Egyptologists note that these myths contradict each other,^[20] and therefore, there were rival perspectives. However, the Egyptian texts do address the material creation, and this was quite important in their literature.^[21] Many texts explain the creation of the creator-gods themselves.^[22] In the Egyptian texts, the lesser deities were spit out,^[23] sneezed out,^[24] or ejaculated through masturbation.^[25] Egyptian texts also explain the material origins of humans.^[26] So, the Egyptian texts agree with Genesis on teaching material origins, but they disagree on the self-existence of the gods themselves.

Mesopotamian texts depict material origins. The Enuma Elish does deal with the function of humans, but it also deals with their creation. Marduk states, “Blood I will mass and cause bones to be, I will establish a savage, ‘man’ shall be his name. Verily, savage-man I will create.” The same is true for the creation of the universe: “When the heavens above did not exist, and earth beneath had not come into being—there was Apsu, the first in order, their begetter, and the demiurge Tiamat, who gave birth to them all.”

The NT depicts material origins! We wonder if Walton realizes just how far-reaching his view claims to be. After all, the NT also teaches creation from nothing (Heb. 11:3; Jn. 1:1-3). Perhaps, soon we will be reading books titled The Lost World of John 1 or The Lost World of Hebrews 11:3.

Or perhaps, someday, someone will publish a book titled The Lost World of John Walton…