Genesis 1 focuses on the creation
of the (cosmic) temple, not the material phase of preparation. In
the next chapter we will track the implications of the idea that the
seven days are not related to the material phase of creation.
PREVIOUS CHAPTERS PROPOSED that Genesis 1 is not an account
of material origins but an account of functional origins, specifically focusing on the functioning of the cosmos as God's temple.
In the last chapter we identified the seven days of creation as literal twenty-four-hour days associated with the inauguration of
the cosmic temple-its actual creation, accomplished by proclaiming its functions, installing its functionaries, and, most importantly, becoming the place of God's residence.
One of the most common questions about this view comes
from those who are struggling with the worldview shift from material orientation to functional orientation (a difficult jump for all
of us). In a last effort to cling to a material perspective, they ask,
why can't it be both? It is easy to see the functional orientation of
the account, but does the material aspect have to be eliminated
altogether?
In answer to this question, if we say that the text includes a
material element alongside the functional, this view has to be
demonstrated, not just retained because it is the perspective most familiar to us. The comfort of our traditional worldview is an insufficient basis for such a conclusion. We must be led by the text.
A material interest cannot be assumed by default, it must be demonstrated, and we must ask ourselves why we are so interested in
seeing the account in material terms. In previous chapters I have
proposed the following:
• The nature of the governing verb (bard, "create") is functional.
• The context is functional (it starts with a nonfunctional world
in Gen 1:2 and comes back to a functional description of creation after the flood in Gen 8:22).1
• The cultural context is functional (ancient Near Eastern
literature).
• The theology is functional (cosmic temple).
These provide some significant evidences of the functional
perspective.
If we turn our attention to the possible evidences for the material interests of the account we find significant obstacles:
• Of the seven days, three have no statement of creation of any
material component (days 1, 3 and 7).
• Day two has a potentially material component (the firmament,
ragi a), but no one believes there is actually something material there-no solid construction holds back the upper waters.
If the account is material as well as functional we then find
ourselves with the problem of trying to explain the material
creation of something that does not exist. The word ragi `a had
a meaning to Israelites as referring to a very specific object in
their cosmic geography. If this were a legitimate material account, then we would be obliged to find something solid up
there (not just change the word to mean something else as concordists tend to do). In the functional approach, this compo nent of Old World science addresses the function of weather,
described in terms that they would understand.
• Days four and six have material components, but the text
explicitly deals with them only on the functional level (celestial bodies for signs, seasons, days and years; human beings
in God's image, male and female, with the task to subdue
and rule).
• This leaves only day five in discussion, where functions are
mentioned (e.g., let them swarm) and the verb bara' is again
used.2 As a result, it is difficult to sustain a case that the account is interested in material origins if one does not already
come with that presupposition.
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 a conclusion designed to
of the (cosmic) temple, not the material phase of preparation. In
the next chapter we will track the implications of the idea that the
seven days are not related to the material phase of creation.
PREVIOUS CHAPTERS PROPOSED that Genesis 1 is not an account
of material origins but an account of functional origins, specifically focusing on the functioning of the cosmos as God's temple.
In the last chapter we identified the seven days of creation as literal twenty-four-hour days associated with the inauguration of
the cosmic temple-its actual creation, accomplished by proclaiming its functions, installing its functionaries, and, most importantly, becoming the place of God's residence.
One of the most common questions about this view comes
from those who are struggling with the worldview shift from material orientation to functional orientation (a difficult jump for all
of us). In a last effort to cling to a material perspective, they ask,
why can't it be both? It is easy to see the functional orientation of
the account, but does the material aspect have to be eliminated
altogether?
In answer to this question, if we say that the text includes a
material element alongside the functional, this view has to be
demonstrated, not just retained because it is the perspective most familiar to us. The comfort of our traditional worldview is an insufficient basis for such a conclusion. We must be led by the text.
A material interest cannot be assumed by default, it must be demonstrated, and we must ask ourselves why we are so interested in
seeing the account in material terms. In previous chapters I have
proposed the following:
• The nature of the governing verb (bard, "create") is functional.
• The context is functional (it starts with a nonfunctional world
in Gen 1:2 and comes back to a functional description of creation after the flood in Gen 8:22).1
• The cultural context is functional (ancient Near Eastern
literature).
• The theology is functional (cosmic temple).
These provide some significant evidences of the functional
perspective.
If we turn our attention to the possible evidences for the material interests of the account we find significant obstacles:
• Of the seven days, three have no statement of creation of any
material component (days 1, 3 and 7).
• Day two has a potentially material component (the firmament,
ragi a), but no one believes there is actually something material there-no solid construction holds back the upper waters.
If the account is material as well as functional we then find
ourselves with the problem of trying to explain the material
creation of something that does not exist. The word ragi `a had
a meaning to Israelites as referring to a very specific object in
their cosmic geography. If this were a legitimate material account, then we would be obliged to find something solid up
there (not just change the word to mean something else as concordists tend to do). In the functional approach, this compo nent of Old World science addresses the function of weather,
described in terms that they would understand.
• Days four and six have material components, but the text
explicitly deals with them only on the functional level (celestial bodies for signs, seasons, days and years; human beings
in God's image, male and female, with the task to subdue
and rule).
• This leaves only day five in discussion, where functions are
mentioned (e.g., let them swarm) and the verb bara' is again
used.2 As a result, it is difficult to sustain a case that the account is interested in material origins if one does not already
come with that presupposition.
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 a conclusion designed to
Similar Books
