Here are the links for parts 1 and 2 for those that missed them:
Part 1: https://creationunfolding.com/2024/05/30/understanding-john-waltons-cosmic-temple/
Part 2: https://creationunfolding.com/2024/06/30/john-waltons-cosmic-temple-part-2-ex-nihilo-vs-ex-materia/
(For those that prefer a video format, see link at bottom of page).
In this instalment (Part 3), I evaluate John Walton’s second argument—that throughout the Old Testament, the word “bara” only rarely talks about the creation of material objects, a proposal that he defends by reviewing 50 Old Testament examples.
John Walton says:
“This list [of the 50 examples that Walton references] shows that grammatical objects of the verb [bara] are not easily identified in material terms … no clear example occurs that demands a material perspective for the verb … a large percentage of the contexts require a functional understanding” (Walton 2009, p. 43).
It is true, many of the examples he furnishes do not speak to the creation of material objects, but many of the examples he lists actually do—things like stars, the heavens, creatures, and mankind. So, Walton’s claim that “a large percentage of the contexts require a functional understanding” is not quite accurate.
Even granting this concession, Walton remains fundamentally at odds with the vast majority of Old Testament scholars, and for good reason. God is not limited to the creation of material things. He can and does create abstract things as well. For example, in Psalm 51:10, David asks that God create in him a new heart. No, this is not the creation of a material object, but it is still a creative act. David is asking God, in a very literal sense, to change, form, alter, modify, his heart from one state to another. And that’s important. The object, in this case his immaterial heart, is going to be different than it was before. Notice that this concept has got absolutely nothing to do with giving David’s heart a new function. Rather, his heart or immaterial being is becoming altogether different—a fundamental concept that is at odds with Walton’s hypothesis.
Here is another example from Isaiah 45:7 (ESV), where God says, “I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity.” In this passage God is not creating material objects, but he is creating something—in this case, he is creating circumstances. Again, this language is not functional. Something is actually changing.
Yet many of the examples Walton cites are along these lines. He says:
“In other words, the absence of reference to materials rather than suggesting material creation out of nothing, is better explained as indication that bara is not a material activity but a functional one” (Walton 2009, p. 43; see also https://creation.com/walton-functional-creation).
Yet this statement is only giving the reader two options. Either the verb is used to describe the creation of material objects or it is used to describe new functions. This is misleading because there is another option—God can also create abstract things like new hearts and different circumstances.
Now, you might be saying to yourself, well, can’t Genesis 1 be speaking both functionally and materially? Personally, I quite like this proposal. After all, you don’t really make something without giving it a function or a role. In fact, I really have no problem with Walton’s temple theme for the early chapters of Genesis. Walton, however, says the answer is categorically no. According to Walton, Genesis 1 can only be speaking about the forming of functions. Walton’s reasoning is not, however, tied to the internal exegetical argument I have just proposed, but to his external belief that early Genesis is really nothing more than ancient Near Eastern myth:
“For if the Hebrew term is to be taken in its normal contextual sense, it indicates that God made a solid dome to hold up waters above the earth. … We may find some escape from the problem, however, as we continue to think about creation as ultimately concerned with the functional rather than the material. If this is not an account of material origins, then Genesis 1 is affirming nothing about the material world. Whether or not there actually are cosmic waters being held back by a solid dome does not matter” (Walton 2009, p. 57).
In other words, if Genesis 1 is about material creation, we must, according to Walton, believe that God created a solid dome to hold up the waters in the heavens because this is what the text is saying. Yet this is unfortunate. I trust that the reader can see how Walton’s dependence on ancient Near Eastern myths has completely undermined his authority in the scriptures. Yet Walton is clearly wrong about his rendering of the events of Day 2. Instead of rehashing my objections here, I refer the reader back to Part 1 (see link above) where William Lane Craig utterly refutes the idea that the writer of Genesis was describing a solid dome in Genesis 1:6.
Ok, so summarizing all three parts of this series. The ancient Near Eastern literature is not, contra Walton, only interested in functional language for material objects. We discussed this in Part 1. In Part 2, we saw that the use of many other verbs in Genesis 1 clearly speak to God’s manipulation of material reality and cannot be dismissed in favor of a purely functional role, and in this part we concluded that the word “bara” throughout scripture speaks to God’s creational role of both physical and abstract concepts and cannot be used to support Walton’s functional-only reading of Genesis 1.
References
Walton, John H. 2009. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.