“The Hebrew word translated “create” should
be understood within a functional ontology—i.e., it means to assign a role or
function. This is evident through a word study of the usage of the biblical
term itself where the direct object of the verb is always a functional entity
not a material object”.
If Eden is
the Holy of Holies in God’s Temple of creation, the implication is that
humanity, created for this inner sanctuary, is best understood as Homo
liturgicus. Living in the Holy of Holies, humanity is called to give
worship to God in all thoughts, words, and deeds.
It is my belief that when we read Genesis 1 as the ancient
piece of literature that it is, we will find new understanding of the passage
that will result in a clearer understanding of how the initial audience would
have heard it. In the process, we will also find that many of the perceived
conflicts with modern science will be able to be resolved. I have explored this
in a recent book titled The
Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP) and
the technical aspects of ancient Near Eastern literature and the Hebrew text
will be explored in greater depth in a forthcoming monograph, Genesis One As
Ancient Cosmology (Eisenbrauns).
Genesis 1 is Ancient
Cosmology
The Bible was written for everyone,
but specifically to Israel. As a result we have to read all
biblical texts, including (and maybe especially) Genesis 1 in its cultural
context—as a text that is likely to have a lot more in common with ancient
literature than with modern science. This does not result in claims of
borrowing or suggestions that Genesis should also be read as “mythology”
(however defined), but that ancient perspectives on the world and its origins
need to be understood.
Ancient Cosmology is Function-oriented
In the ancient world and in the
Bible, something existed not when it had physical properties, but when it had
been separated from other things, given a name and a role within an ordered
system. This is a functional ontology rather than a material ontology. In this
view, when something does not exist, it is lacking role, not lacking matter.
Consequently, to create something (cause it to exist) means to give it a
function, not material properties.
“Create” (Hebrew Bara’)
Concerns Functions
The Hebrew word translated “create”
should be understood within a functional ontology—i.e., it means to assign a
role or function. This is evident through a word study of the usage of the
biblical term itself where the direct object of the verb is always a functional
entity not a material object. Theologians of the past have concluded that since
materials were never mentioned that it must mean manufacture of objects out of
nothing. Alternatively, and preferably, it does not mention materials because
it does not refer to manufacturing. Bara’ deals with
functional origins, not material origins.
Beginning State in Genesis
1 is Non-functional
In Genesis 1:2 the “before”
picture, as throughout the ancient Near East, is portrayed in non-functional,
non-productive terms (tohu and bohu) in which matter
already exists. If this were an account of material origins, it would start
with no matter. As an account of functional origins, it starts with no
functions.
Days 1-3 in Genesis 1
Establish Functions
In the ancient world, light was not
an object, and day 1 does not recount the manufacture of an object. Verses 4-5
do not make sense unless we understand “light” as referring to “a period of
light.” If that is what it means in vv. 4-5, then it logically must mean the
same in v.3. Thus on day 1 God created a period of light to alternate with a
period of darkness, i.e., God created time—a function. On day two, God created
weather (described in accordance with their cosmic geography) and on day three
he created fecundity/fertility/agriculture. These three functions are referred
to again in Gen. 8:22 and are the principle functions that figure in ancient
Near Eastern cosmological texts.
Days 4-6 in Genesis 1
Install Functionaries
Days 4-6 involve installing the
functionaries that will operate within the spheres of the three functions
described in days 1-3. The description continues to be functional (notice on
day 4: signs, festivals, days and years—all functional in relation to people).
This incidentally solves the age old problem regarding how “light” can be
created on day 1 and the sun not until day four. The contradiction only exists
if this is an account of material origins. In a functional perspective, time is
much more significant than the sun; the former is a function, the latter simply
a functionary. Everything is designated “good” indicating that it functions
properly in the system (notice later, it is NOT good for man to be alone:
functional). The description of people is also in functional terms from the
image of God through the blessing. And God created (bara’ ) them
MALE AND FEMALE—functional categories.
Divine Rest is in a Temple
In the ancient world, as soon as
“rest” is mentioned everyone would have known exactly what sort of text this
was: gods rest in temples and temples are built so that gods can rest in them.
Rest is not a term of disengagement but a term of engagement, i.e., everything
is in place now so the deity can take up his place at the helm in the control
room of the cosmos and begin operations. Rest throughout the Bible indicates
that everything is stable and secure and life and the cosmos may proceed as
they were intended.
The Cosmos Is a Temple
In the ancient world and in the
Bible, the cosmos was understood to be a gigantic temple (Isa. 66:1), and
temples were designed to be a micro-cosmos (see description of the Garden of
Eden and the Temple vision of Ezekiel; there is symbolism in the
tabernacle/temple furniture and décor). Genesis 1 is portraying cosmic origins
in terms that would be recognized as a temple building account.
The Seven Days of Genesis 1
Relate to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration
If cosmic origins are described
here in functional terms and follow the pattern of temple building texts, then
the point is made that the cosmic temple is here being made functional. When a
temple was built, it became functional not when all of the physical work had
been done (building, furniture, priests’ garments) but in an inauguration
ceremony that in a variety of texts throughout the ancient world lasted seven
days. During those seven days, the functions of the temple were identified, the
functionaries installed, the priests commissioned and most importantly that
which represented the deity was brought into the center of the sacred space
where he took up his rest. Then the temple was functional—it existed. If this
is the paradigm in Genesis 1, then the seven days can easily be understood as
regular days and the account can be understood as an inauguration of the cosmic
temple that initiates the functions by which it operates.
The Seven Days of Genesis 1
Do Not Concern Material Origins
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 to
say that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1
is not the story of material origins.
“Functional Cosmic Temple”
Offers Face Value Exegesis
The hermeneutical commitment to
read the text at face value elevates this interpretation since it makes an
attempt to understand the text as the author and audience would have understood
it. It does not reduce the text to a symbolic, figurative, theological or
literary reading, as is often done in the attempt to correlate the text to
modern science. Concordism applies scientific meanings to words and phrases in
the text that are modern—that the ancient readers would never have had. Day-age
seeks to make room for an old earth. Both of these approaches struggle because
they are still trying to get Genesis to operate as an account of material
origins for an audience that has a material ontology and cannot think in any
other way.
[End of quote]
The professor makes an excellent
point here about a common tendency to “reduce the text to a symbolic,
figurative, theological or literary reading, as is often done in the attempt to
correlate the text to modern science”. I discussed this tendency in my article:
What exactly is Creation Science? Part One: Our Western
obsession with 'Science'
Jeff Morrow (op. cit.) has, for his part, written on the liturgical significance
of Genesis 1:
….
Genesis 1-3, in its account of creation, presents the cosmos as one large
temple, the Garden of Eden as the Holy of Holies, and the human person as made
for worship. The very content and structure of Genesis 1-3 is in a very real
sense liturgical; the seventh day is creation’s high point.
The Sevenfold Structure of Creation in Genesis 1
The number seven is important for the form and content of Genesis 1 as the
number of perfection in the ancient Near East, the number relating to covenant,
and of course, the number of the day known as the Sabbath, the pinnacle of
creation. Genesis 1:1 contains seven words: běrē’šît bārā’ ’elōhîm ’ēt
hašāmayim wě’ēt hā’āreṣ. Genesis 1:2 has fourteen words, seven times two.
Furthermore, significant words in this passage occur in multiples of seven: God
(35 times, i.e., seven times five), earth (21 times, i.e., seven times three),
heavens/firmament (21 times), “and it was so” (7 times), and “God saw that it
was good” (7 times)...
The poetic framework and symmetry of this passage is what allows one
scholar to describe its theme as the “Cosmic Liturgy of the Seventh Day.”
Creation unfolds as a “cosmic liturgical celebration” culminating on the
seventh day.
The Tabernacle as a New Creation
Numerous parallels exist between the seven days of creation and Moses’
construction of the tabernacle in the Book of Exodus. The tabernacle’s
consecration process lasted seven days, indicating another heptadic pattern
also connected to the Sabbath ordinances. Furthermore, key verbal
correspondences exist between Moses’ construction of the tabernacle in Exodus
39-40 and God’s creation of the world in Genesis 1...
The Temple as New Tabernacle and New Creation
The parallels between creation and the tabernacle are also mirrored in the
parallels between the seven days of creation and Solomon’s construction of the
Jerusalem temple. Absent are the striking verbal correspondences, yet there
remains cosmic symbolism in the temple construction...
Creation as Temple in the Ancient Near East
This association between Temple and creation is not unique to the Genesis
text, nor is the heptadic structure. In fact, temples throughout the ancient
Near East often had cosmological connotations. The building of a temple often
accompanied creation, as we find in the Enuma Elish and elsewhere...
Creation in Genesis, we may conclude, is described as a temple; it is
constructed as an ancient Near Eastern temple would be constructed. The divine
fiats are “architectural directives,” in the words of Meredith Kline.
The Garden of Eden as the Inner Sanctuary and the
Human Person as Created for Worship
...Genesis 2-3 depicts the Garden of Eden as the Holy of Holies, and this
has implications for our understanding of humanity’s purpose. In this section,
I will first discuss Eden’s image as an Inner Sanctuary and then discuss human
beings as homo liturgicus, liturgical humanity made for worship.
Gregory Beale notes that the distinction of regions of creation described
by Genesis are similar to those of the Temple. The heavens represent the holy
of holies, the earth the inner sanctuary, and the sea the outer court. Other
indications of this similarity appear in the text. In Genesis 3:8, for example,
God walks back and forth (using a form of hlk) in Eden, which is also
how God’s presence is described in the tabernacle in Leviticus 26:12 and
Deuteronomy 23:14.
In examining the rest of the canon, we find other evidence that points to
intentionality in these parallels that make creation appear as a temple. The
Temple, and Mount Zion in general, are frequently associated with Eden, and in
some instances actually identified with Eden...
Conclusion
If Eden is the Holy of Holies in God’s Temple of creation, the implication
is that humanity, created for this inner sanctuary, is best understood as Homo
liturgicus.
Living in the Holy of Holies, humanity is called to give worship to God in
all thoughts, words, and deeds. When we look at the Genesis account of Eden, we
find other instances of people portrayed as created for worship. Adam, for
example, is told to “till” (from the root ‘bd) and “keep” (from the root
šmr). When šmr and ‘bd occur together in the OT (Num.
3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chr. 23:32; Ezek. 44:14) they refer to keeping/guarding
and serving God’s word and also they refer to priestly duties in the
tabernacle. And, in fact, šmr and ‘bd only occur together again
in the Pentateuch in the descriptions in Numbers for the Levites’ activities in
the tabernacle. Such an association reinforces the understanding of Adam as a
sort of priest-king, or even high priest, who guarded God’s first temple of
creation, as it were. In light of this discussion, therefore, what we find in
Genesis 1-3 is creation unfolding as the construction of a divine temple, the
Garden of Eden as an earthly Holy of Holies, and the human person created for
liturgical worship.
Notes of special interest:
18 Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, 63.
This conclusion follows a series of liturgical parallels and themes that
Fletcher-Louis had just summarized in his text as follows: “[There exists] a
set of literary and linguistic correspondences between creation (Genesis 1) and
the tabernacle (Exod 25-40)….the seven days of creation in Genesis 1 are paired
with God’s seven speeches to Moses in Exodus 25-31….Each speech begins ‘The
Lord spoke to Moses’ (Exod 25:1; 30:11, 16, 22, 34; 31:11, 12) and introduces
material which corresponds to the relevant day of creation...
47 Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 74-75.
On these pages, He comments: “It may even be discernable that there was a
sanctuary and a holy place in Eden corresponding roughly to that in Israel’s
later temple. The Garden should be viewed as not itself the source of water but
adjoining Eden because Genesis 2:10 says, ‘a river flowed out of Eden to water
the Garden’. Therefore, in the same manner that ancient palaces were adjoined
by gardens, [quoting John Walton] ‘Eden is the sources of the waters and [is
the palatial] residence of God, and the garden adjoins God’s residence.’
Similarly, Ezekiel 47:1 says that water would flow out from under the holy of
holies in the future eschatological temple and would water the earth around. Similarly,
in the end-time temple of Revelation 22:1-2 there is portrayed ‘a river of the
water of life…coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb’ and flowing
into a garden-like grove, which has been modeled on the first paradise in
Genesis 2, as has been much of Ezekiel’s portrayal. If Ezekiel and Revelation
are developments of the first garden-temple…then Eden, the area where the
source of water is located, may be comparable to the inner sanctuary of
Israel’s later temple and the adjoining garden to the holy place….Eden and its
adjoining garden formed two distinct regions. This is compatible with…[the]
identification of the lampstand in the holy place of the temple with the tree
of life located in the fertile plot outside the inner place of God’s presence.
Additionally, ‘the bread of the presence’, also in the holy place, which
provided food for the priests, would appear to reflect the food produced in the
Garden for Adam’s sustenance….the land and seas to be subdued by Adam outside
the Garden were roughly equivalent to the outer court of Israel’s subsequent
temple...
49 ...Fletcher-Louis writes that, “The office of high
priest was thought to recapitulate the identity of the pre-lapsarian Adam. This
goes back at least as far as Ezekiel 28:12ff. where the prince of Tyre wears
precious stones which are simultaneously those worn by the Urmensch in
the garden of Eden and those of the Aaronic ephod according to Exodus 28”
(Fletcher-Louis, “Worship of Divine Humanity,” 126).
52 ...Beale concludes that, “The cumulative effect of
the…parallels between the Garden of Genesis 2 and Israel’s tabernacle and
temple indicates that Eden was the first archetypal temple, upon which all of
Israel’s temples were based” (79-80)...
55 ...Beale’s comments about how rabbinic
literature treated Adam’s duties in the Garden are insightful. He explains
that, “The Aramaic translation of Genesis 2:15 (Tg. Neofiti) underscores this
priestly notion of Adam, saying that he was placed in the Garden ‘to toil in
the Law and to observe its commandments’ (language strikingly similar
to…Numbers [3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6]….Verse 19 of this Aramaic translation also
notes that in naming the animals Adam used ‘the language of the sanctuary’”
(67). Beale writes further, “Indeed, Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis 2:7 says that
God created Adam partly of ‘dust from the site of the sanctuary’….Pirke de
Rabbi Eliezer 11 and 12, and Midrash Rabbah Genesis 14:8 [among other
texts],…all affirm that Adam was created at the site of the later temple, which
was also at Eden or was apparently close to it…” (67 n. 90). Finally, “Midrash
Rabbah Genesis 16:5 interprets Adam’s role in Gen. 2:15 to be one of offering
the kinds of ‘sacrifices’ later required by the Mosaic Law” (67 n. 91)...
