Genesis 1 is also about making things: John Walton’s thesis revisited

Chris Heard beat me to the punch in coming back to John Walton’s thesis that Gen 1 recounts the dedication of the universe and the assignment of functions to its components over a seven day period, whereas the coming-into-being of the universe and its components is not recounted. Chris does a fine job of pointing out why the thesis is improbable. I look forward to his promised post on ברא, in which he will almost certainly improve on my cursory treatment of that verb in a previous post. For John Walton’s detailed rejoinder to that post, go here.

Like Chris, I also want to emphasize that Walton makes a number of excellent points.

For example, it is true that the coming-into-being of some things is not recounted in Gen 1. In particular, the coming-into-being of a formless earth, of the darkness, and of the waters of the deep (1:2) is not recounted. It is also true that in Gen 1 God assigns a function to every named component of the universe in relation to other named components of the whole.

Still, as I see it, Gen 1 clearly tells of God (1) making things and (2) putting them where they belong (3) for an assigned purpose. As far as the verbs ברא ‘create’ and עשה ‘make’ are concerned, it seems to me that Walton misconstrues their import in Gen 1. To be sure, he is certainly right that verbs like ברא or עשה do not necessarily refer to manufacture. For example, עשה in Ps 104:4 refers to the assignment of a function, not manufacture:

עשה מלאכיו רוחות

Who makes the winds his messengers

But I think it is wrong to suggest that the aforesaid verbs refer to the assignment of a function in Gen 1 except in the case of זכר ונקבה ברא אתם ‘male and female he made them’ in Gen 1:27, where the assignment of function alone may be in view - I would never have contemplated that possibility if I had not read Walton, so I owe the insight to him. I still think it’s close to absurd to think that ויברא אלהים את התנינם הגדלים means something other than ‘God made the great sea-monsters’ (Gen 1:21), but I will leave that example alone in this post.

In my view, a decisive argument in favor of the conclusion that Gen 1 tells of God making things and putting them where they belong in view of their intended function is that that event series, expressed with the verb sequence עשה ‘make’ and נתן ‘put (something in a place)’ in Gen 1:16-17, is expressed repeatedly via the same verb sequence in the instructions having to do with the construction of the Tabernacle (not its dedication) recounted in Exodus. Key passages include Exod 25:17, 21; 25:23, 30; 26:31, 32; 27:1, 5. Cf. 37:12, 13. Likewise, after many chapters in which Bezalel is reported to have made (עשה) the components of the Tabernacle (Ex 36-39), including the table (37:10), it is Moses who puts the table in its proper place (נתן) (40:22). Moses is commanded to ‘consecrate’ (קדש) the altar (40:10) on a separate and final occasion. Somewhat similarly, God ‘consecrated’ קדש) ) the seventh day on which he ceased to make things any longer (Gen 2:3). Just as God ‘finished the work’ (the verb is כלה) on the seventh day according to Gen 2:2, on a day subsequent to the act of making per se, Moses ‘finished the work’ (Ex 40:33) (the verb, once again, is כלה).

The conclusion is difficult to avoid: both Gen 1:1-2:3 and Exodus 36-40 describe the making of and installation of components, as well as the fact that an entire task, on a separate occasion, was properly finished, and in that sequence.

Chris suggests that John Walton’s thesis should read as follows: “Genesis [1] is not primarily interested in the material structures that allow the functions to operate.” I would put it slightly differently: Gen 1 is not interested in material structures and their coming into being apart from the functions they are assigned. Once the עשה plus נתן sequences in Exodus 25-27 are compared with the same sequence in Gen 1:16-17, it seems clear that Gen 1 tells indeed of God making things and putting them where they belong, in the process of assigning said things a function in the greater whole.

Bibliography

John H. Walton, Genesis (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001); “Genesis and Cosmology” (lecture, 2003, go here); Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006)

Comments

[Bob MacDonald]

This - Genesis and the Tabernacle linkage - is a nice pattern recognition. I think its application goes far beyond function and construction. In particular, the 'male and female' is not simply functional but of the character of God's image in each of us. I will meditate on this ... and respond much later.

[Kevin P. Edgecomb]

Interesting stuff. There may be a little circularity going on here, though. Walton (whose ANE Thought in the OT I've read, though not the Gen. commentary yet, and I especially thank Alan Lenzi for his probing reading and comments somewhere else, where we interacted on the subject) is good to bring up the lack of distinction between essence and function in ancient thought. As far as I've ever read, the distinction is first made by Plato and explicated by Aristotle. But in focusing on the Genesis 1 narrative as describing function to the exclusion essence, Walton rather undercuts his own foundation, as it's precisely the ancient ambiguation that allows for his "function" argument to be posited. That is, anciently, the answer is actually "both": The essence and function were considered inseparable, and to have come into being together. There is no separation. To focus on function to the exclusion of essence is as objectionable as to focus on essence to the exclusion of function.

Anyhow, it's interesting stuff, and I enjoyed the book.

[JohnFH]

Thanks for your helpful comments, Kevin. They ring true to me.

[David Guttmann]

ז יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ, עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע;
Isaiah 45:7

[JohnFH]

In other words, David, other passages prove that HaShem was understood to be the Creator of darkness, even evil and misfortune, and thus anything and everything that exists.

One passage on its own is an insufficient basis for systematic thought. But if Scripture is allowed to interpret Scripture, false avenues are closed off.

[David Guttmann]

Sorry I got interrupted in the earlier comment. Transition from light to darkness occurs through the removal of light - it happens. Transitioning from nothingness to existence "occurs" also. There are no components being assembled. Making on the other hand
עֹשֶׂה and יוֹצֵר are assembling from preexisting components.

Life occurs.For living things the verb בוֹרֵא is used referring to the life force.

Rambam uses Yeshayahu to argue that evil is something that "occurs" through the removal of "good". One does not make evil - one just takes away life and continuity. (Guide 3:10)

[David Guttmann]

WoW John I did not expect you active at this hour. It seems scholarship is acquired at night!

[Cristian Ratza]

I agree with you John. I do find Walton's contributions very useful, but to say that we have no CREATION in Genesis 1 stretches beyond recongnition the definitions of most of the words involved.

[JohnFH]

David,

thanks for bringing Rambam into the discussion. He deserves to be read and quoted widely by Jews and non-Jews alike. Someone should write a book entitled "Rambam for dummies."

[Phil Spinelli]

On Monday June 23, 2008 John Walton presented his position on Gen 1 in a lecture sponsored by Logos. The MP3 audio of that lecture is posted for free download at: http://www.logos.com/media/lecture/walton.mp3

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Phil, for the heads up. I look forward to listening to it.

[Andy Witt]

John, do you think it's possible that Gen 1 speaks of both the creative activity of God (bara) as well as the preparation/functional activity (asa)? I've always found the phrase at the end of the creation account interesting, that God "created [bara] in order to make [asa]" (2:3). Though the two words are somewhat synonymous, they are not entirely, I think we'd all agree, and 2:3 seems to support the differences between the two words at least in the creation story. I had a professor in seminary describe 1:1 as the "creation" of all things, and from 1:2ff the narrowing in on the "preparation/making" of the land as a place for mankind to dwell, much like we 'make' our beds in the morning. It makes use of the sense of 'asa' which is preparing something for use, or making it ready for a function. Thanks for the post!

[JohnFH]

Hi Andy,

Gen 2:3 makes me think that a concrete sense of bara' is activated by the author of the pericope in this instance. That concrete sense would be related to what the verb as a participle means in Phoenician, a nomen professionis for a kind of artisan. If that is the case, the sense of 2:3 might be: God fashioned in order to make. I hope that's clear.