Can the modern reader believe that the creation account has any real connection to history? Did Moses believe he was writing history? Is Moses account of the origin of the World to be regarded as accurate? These and plenty more questions bombard the reader as he approaches the question of inerrancy and the creation accounts of Genesis. For centuries the relationship between Genesis 1 & 2 and history has been under scrutiny. Many discount the doctrine of inerrancy precisely because they find it incompatible with a historical/scientific reading of Genesis 1 & 2. A more careful reading, however, allows us to maintain convictions about both the historical veracity of the Scriptures and the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.
For many the critics the tension lies more between the text and the worldview of modern science. We have discussed at some length that tension and how modern science presents more of an assumed worldview in these areas than a solid defense of their position. Note especially the newest work of atheist Thomas Nagel, who agrees with that assertion and is deeply frustrated with it. Here, however, I want to consider how the text of Genesis relates to historical accuracy. We must consider whether or not the creation accounts, read as history, can validate the claims of the Bible’s historical veracity. Is this really how the origin of the world unfolding, historically?
For many the answer is an incredulous “no.” They respond simply by dismissing any notions of inerrancy and historical veracity from the account. But I don’t think this is a fair handling of the text. We must ask more direct questions about authorial intent. I am quite comfortable with a literal creation. And yet I must acknowledge that Moses’s writing is not primarily concerned with responding to the kinds of scientific, even historic, questions that modern readers are interested in gleaning from these accounts. Dr. John Walton has been a tremendous asset to me in this realization.
In his book The Lost World of Genesis 1: Ancient Cosmology and the Origin Debate, John Walton proposes that many scholars have not been reading Genesis within its own cultural milieu. He argues that the ancient Israelites were not interested in material origins as we are today, but rather were seeking to explain existence by virtue of functionality. He writes:
In this book I propose that 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. (26)
He supports this argument by breaking down the text of Genesis 1. He analyzes the Hebrew word for “create,” stating that it has to do with functionality. This interpretation, he states, is the literal reading of the text, if not the “face value” way of looking at it. He also breaks down the “days” of creation by explaining how each relates to functionality and not material origination. It all climaxes, really, in the long-held theological position that the world is the theater for God’s displays. Or as Walton sees it, “in the Bible the cosmos can be viewed as a temple (84).” He adds:
Genesis 1 can now be seen as a creation account focusing on the cosmos as a temple. It is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst. This is what makes day seven so significant, because without God taking up his dwelling in its midst, the cosmic temple does not exist. (84)
When we read the Creation accounts, then, according to their context we can perhaps begin to read them through a slightly different lens, one that allows us more flexibility on interpretation, and the possibility to maintain convictions about inerrancy and historicity.
Dr. Walton is not a liberal, progressive, evolutionist. He is a firm Evangelical whose works have long been held in esteem by conservatives. The views he expresses in his book are not drawn from a desire to make evolution and Christianity compatible. One might easily contrast the conservative position of Dr. Walton with someone like Peter Enns, whose book The Evolution of Adam all but outright dismisses the doctrine of inerrancy. But Dr. Walton is not the only one who affirms a “functionally-focused” paradigm for the creation accounts. Dr. Vern Poythress acknowledges that this is precisely how one should read the text, it is the primary aim of the author to point us towards functionality, and that the modern questions are not Moses’s concern. Poythress seems to maintain a literal five-day creation in his review of Walton’s book, arguing that Walton has created a false dichotomy between “material” and “functional” creation. After all we do read that God says, “Let the dry land appear” (Gen. 1:9). Are we to believe that it didn’t actually appear but only took a functional purpose? Poythress points out that “people in most cultures experience the world as a whole” (“Appearances Matter”), not as separate layers of “material” and “functional.” What’s important to note here, however, is that Poythress maintains a literal creationism only through reading the text in the context of its historic intent.
When we divorce Genesis entirely from its context and read into it the modern scientific and historic questions of our age we will inevitably find conflict between the doctrine of inerrancy and our modern worldview. Our modern worldview doesn’t fit with the worldview of the Bible. As we read the creation accounts we must allow them to speak from their context, with their primary purpose. In this case we see that Moses point is not to disprove evolutionary theory, but to promote the functionality of the universe as God’s theatre. This means to me that there is some room for disagreement on the subject of the origin of the universe.
So long as we acknowledge God’s sovereignty over it, his purposes behind it, and that the whole universe exists for his glory I think some room for flexibility ought to be allowed in the church. We can maintain a firm grasp on inerrancy and yet allow some disagreement on how exactly the world was created. I myself lean more towards Vern Poythress’s position: a literal creationism read through proper lens of a functional creation account. Others may agree more with John Walton or even Tim Keller who accept aspects of evolutionary theory. There is room at the table for discussion if we are all reading the text correctly and from within the Bible’s own worldview.
Inerrancy and historicity can be maintained even as we read the Genesis creation accounts. But we must be willing to read them from within the worldview of the Bible itself.
Sparrow & Heart Soul Care 