Original: A Response and Evaluation of Cosmic Temple Inauguration
There are numerous theories about how the world and life began, ranging all the way from creationism to atheism. One of the more recent theories is John Walton’s Cosmic Temple Inauguration hypothesis. Walton’s theory focuses on Genesis 1 as the story of God instilling functions and purposes to created things, not physically creating the world. This view doesn’t deny God as creator, but asserts that the main point of Genesis 1 is to reveal how God took a non-ordered world and gave it functions to support His creation of humanity.
As mentioned briefly above, this view originates with John Walton, who remains by far the view’s biggest proponent. Dr. John Walton has served as professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College since 2001, and received his doctorate in Hebrew and Cognate studies in 1981 from Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. Walton’s Cosmic Temple Inauguration hypothesis, though recent, has taken off with incredible intensity—partly due to the success of his book, The Lost World of Genesis One.
Walton’s interpretation of Genesis1 emphasizes God as “instiller” over “creator,” and shifts the readers’ attention toward an Ancient Near Eastern perspective. Walton proposes that modern readers have read Genesis with a tinted lens, coming to the text with the wrong questions as a result. In his own words, Walton states, "I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins, and that, in fact, material origins do involve at some point a creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not the one we are asking. We are asking a textual question. What sort of origins account do we find in Genesis 1?" (44). Answering the question “when and how did God create the material world?” Walton says, “According to the interpretation offered in [The Lost World of Genesis One], the Bible doesn’t tell us, so we are left to figure it out as best we can with the intellectual capacity and other tools that God gave us. But the material world was created by Him” (169). In tandem, these quotes demonstrate Walton’s adamance that a proper interpretation of Genesis 1 must remove a presupposition that “creating” always signifies material origins.
Cosmic Temple Inauguration has some interesting implications on the origin and purpose of life, specifically human life. For example, Walton proposes that the “before” state of Genesis 1 need not require material emptiness. Rather, the “before” state involved “rehearsals leading up to the performance of a play,” which—though necessary—only find their meaning “when the audience is present” (98). In context, this quote is explaining that there’s no reason why animals, plants, and life in general couldn’t be present before the “in the beginning” clause. The presence of this creation, however, didn’t “exist” until it was instrumented by God to serve the purposes of humanity. According to Walton, “the main elements lacking in the ‘before’ picture are, therefore, humanity made in God’s image and God’s presence in His cosmic temple” (97). Similarly, the “after” picture of Genesis 1 encompasses God residing in His temple (the cosmos) and humans ruling as viceroys (97).
One difficulty of viewing the world through the lens of Cosmic Temple Inauguration is the implication that the current existence of earth (that is, the way it functions now) revolves around the needs of mankind. Summarizing His theory in a pamphlet entitled “Genesis 1 as Temple Text,” Walton states that “All of the functions [of the created world] are relative to human existence and they are declared good as they are put in place to function on behalf of humans” (1). This idea isn’t difficult in that it’s heretical, it’s difficult because it’s extraordinary. God’s instilling function in the world so that it intimately supports and sustains humanity reveals the unfathomable love of our Creator for us. If observed apart from a narcissistic mindset, this idea replaces our sense of entitlement with a sense of reverence.
In addition to the strength of humanism, Cosmic Temple Inauguration also boasts the strength of science. Walton laments the wall that his been erected between science and the Bible; a wall that has caused many people to think they must choose either one or the other (164-165). Since, according to Walton, the creation account doesn’t tell us anything about the mechanics of material creation, it breaks the distinction between “natural” and “supernatural,” forming instead an integrative view of material creation. “It [is] important [...] not to criticize evolution as contradictory to the Bible,” Walton suggests, “whatever processes were involved, God was controlling those processes” (173).
Now that we’ve seen a few strengths of Walton’s theory, we can examine some weaknesses. The most obvious weakness of Cosmic Temple Inauguration is it’s dissonance with a straightforward reading of the text. In reading any form of literature, including the Bible, it’s important to make sure our interpretations are coming from what’s actually in the text, not our expansions on it. I’ve heard it said once that the plain sense makes the most sense unless it’s nonsense. Being careful not to impose our own meaning on the text, a stance of simplicity is beneficial when reading scripture. This stance toward scripture is difficult to accomplish from Walton’s theory, since enormous understanding of Ancient Near Eastern culture is a prerequisite to a proper interpretation of Genesis 1. Walton’s theory seems to require significant interpretational and intellectual gymnastics; however, Walton responds that other theories have their faults as well, saying specifically that Young Earth Creationism requires “scientific gymnastics” (109).
A second weakness of Cosmic Temple Inauguration involves Walton’s proposition that the Hebrew word for creation (bara) is better understood as functionality, not physicality. The problem with this belief is that it’s not all inclusive. For example, the early church traditionally believed the creation account told of God physically creating material things “ex nihilo,” out of nothing. An example of this can be seen in Matthew Henry’s commentary, Exposition of the Old and New Testament Volume I (c. 1706): “It is the visible part of the creation that Moses here designs to account for; therefore he mentions not the creation of angels” (1:1. Point 1. Page 2). Later, Henry adds, “The manner in which this work [of creating the world] was effected: God created it, that is, made it out of nothing. There was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced” (SIC. Gen. 1:1. Point 3. Page 2). The first quote attends to creation as being specifically material, while the second quote contradicts Walton’s idea of distinct matter in the “before” state. Early commentaries neither validate, nor invalidate, the biblical text or Walton’s theory, but this commentary does soften the brunt of Walton's proposal by reminding us that Cosmic Temple Inauguration is a 21st century theory, and not traditionally held by the early church fathers.
A final weakness of Cosmic Temple Inauguration is the presence of death before the fall. Addressing Romans 5:12, “sin entered the world through one man [...] and in this way death came to all men,” Walton contends, “Just because death came to us because of sin, does not mean that death did not exist at any level prior to the Fall (SIC 100). The main problem with the idea of death (in any form) prior to the fall is that the longstanding philosophy that God created all things perfect must be either rejected, or reinterpreted.
Personally, I am hesitant to accept Cosmic Temple Inauguration as Walton presents it. To believe that God created everything, but reject Genesis 1 as the recording of the material as well as the functional creation, means to conclude that God created at least some things without functionality before Genesis 1. Genesis may very well emphasize the functionality of creation (something that resonated with the Hebrews) but that doesn’t nullify the account of material creation; perhaps material and functional creation coincide in Genesis 1. On the other hand, if creation was without order before God’s action on it, then I could see how the theory of evolution could be true. For example, baraminology, God creating “according to kinds,” is a major hindrance for the belief in macro-evolution in Christian theology. However, if the earth was chaotic prior to Genesis 1, then there is no baraminology to inhibit macroevolution.
Another reason I am hesitant to accept Cosmic Temple Inauguration is because it requires intensive study in order to understand an Ancient Near Eastern perspective of creation. If a straightforward reading of the text—without previous understanding of Ancient Near Eastern culture—can result in the radical misinterpretation of Genesis 1, then what can we say about a straightforward reading of other biblical events—i.e., the crucifixion? My personal conclusion is one of caution: I’m not sure deserting simplicity in my interpretation of Genesis 1 is beneficial.
In conclusion, Walton’s Cosmic Temple Inauguration theory is a scholarly—and intriguing—perspective on the origin of life. Its weaknesses of complicated interpretation and terminology are balanced out with it’s strengths of contextual loyalty and respect for science.
Works Cited:
Walton, John. “Genesis 1 as Temple Text in the Context of Ancient Cosmology: Summary Description.” BlackHawkChurch.org. 23 Apr. 2011.
---. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
Henry, Matthew. “An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of the First Book of Moses, Called Genesis.” Exposition on the Old and New Testament. J.B Williams. University of Lausanne, Switzerland: (c)1706. 1-157. Google Books. 23 April, 2011
Comments
Post a Comment