Lately, I’ve seen several Bible scholars refer to the fact that the Creation is pictured as God’s Temple in Genesis 1 — which is hardly obvious to modern readers.
I thought I’d go looking to see what the scholars are referring to. And I eventually found Genesis 1 as Temple Text in the Context of Ancient Cosmology, by John H. Walton, an expert in the literature of the Ancient Near East.
The cosmos is portrayed in the ancient world and in the Bible as a temple, and temples are designed to be micro-models of the cosmos. Temples are built in the ancient world for the gods to rest in, which does not refer to relaxing, but to enjoying and maintaining security and order. With the mention of God’s rest on day seven, we can see that Genesis 1 is also thinking about the cosmos as a temple. God is creating his dwelling place, putting people into it as his images (representatives), and taking up his place at the helm to maintain the order he has established.
Imagine a pagan temple of the Ancient Near East. It would be a microcosm of the entire cosmos as viewed by that pagan religion. God’s temple is the entirety of the cosmos!
When a pagan temple is completed, the idol is placed — literally “rested” — in the Temple so the worshipers can come worship. God rested himself in the cosmos once he completed it. He did not so much retire to heaven as he filled the new creation with his presence.
Compare David’s description of God “resting” in the Temple in Psalm 132 —
Let us go to his dwelling place
Let us worship at his footstool—
“Arise, O Lord, and come to your resting place,
You and the ark of your might.”For the Lord has chosen Zion
He has desired it for his dwelling:
“This is my resting place for ever and ever
Here I will sit enthroned, for I have desired it.”
But just as the pagans needed an image of their god, to draw worshipers toward the “real” god behind the image, God placed men and women on earth as his image — not to be worshiped, of course, but to show the true character and nature of God, so that the presence of his images would draw others toward the worship of the One True God who is represented by his images.
Why no graven image of God? Because we are the images!
In the ancient world temple dedications were often seven days in duration. During those seven days, the functions of the temple would be proclaimed, the furniture and functionaries would be installed, the priests would take up their role and at the end, the deity would enter and take up his rest.
Ernest Martin explains,
In the Garden our first parents were able to talk face to face with God. But note an important point. They only had conversations with Him at certain times of the day. They did not see Him on all occasions. It was “in the cool of the day” that they came into “the presence of the Lord” (Genesis 3:8). The expressions “cool of the day” and “the presence of the Lord” were a part of temple language. 7 “The cool of the day” was the period when the Sun got lower in the sky and the cool sea breezes normally swept over the Palestinian region. This was the time of the evening sacrifice (1 Kings 18:36; Daniel 9:21) — about three in the afternoon. This was the time when the animals were being regularly sacrificed (and also in the morning about nine o’clock). At these times the people were then reckoned as being “in the presence of God” (2 Chronicles 20:19). …
John Walton points out how the Tabernacle and Temple represent the cosmos, God’s true temple —
In the biblical text the description of the tabernacle and temple contain many transparent connections to the cosmos. This connection was explicitly recognized as early as the second century A.D. in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, who says ofthe tabernacle: “every one of these objects is intended to recall and represent the universe”.
In the outer courtyard were various representations of cosmic geography. Most important are the water basin, which I Kings 7:23-26 designates “sea”, and the bronze pillars, described in 1 Kings 7:15-22, which perhaps represented the pillars of the earth. The horizontal axis in the temple was arranged in the same order as the vertical axis in the cosmos.
From the courtyard, which contained the elements outside the organized cosmos (cosmic waters and the pillars of the earth), on would move into the organized cosmos as he entered the antechamber. Here were the Menorah (lampstand), the Table of Bread, and the incense altar. In the Pentateuch’s description of the tabernacle, the lamp and its olive oil are provided for “light” (especially Ex. 35:14; Num. 4:9). This word for light is the same word used to describe the celestial bodies in day four (rather than calling them the sun and moon). As the menorah represented the light provided by God, the “Bread of the Presence” (Ex. 25:30) represented food provided by God. The altar of incense provided a sweet-smelling cloud across the face of the veil that separated the two chambers.
If we transpose from the horizontal axis to the vertical, the veil separated the earthly sphere, with its functions, from the heavenly sphere, where God dwells. This latter was represented in the holy of holies, where the footstool of the throne of God (the ark) was placed.
Interesting, isn’t it? Walton lays out the theory in great detail in the scholarly Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology
If Walton (and many others) is right, then Adam and Eve were in fact the priests in God’s cosmic temple. And, indeed,
John Sailhamer has argued that it is not coincidental that the two verbs “to work it” and “to care for it” used in Gen 2:15 are the same verbs as those used in reference to the service of the priests in the temple.
And we have to notice that God said regarding Israel —
(Exo 19:4-6 ESV) 4 “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”
God’s purpose in Israel was to form a “kingdom of priests.” Isaiah picks up the theme —
(Isa 61:6 ESV) 6 but you shall be called the priests of the LORD; they shall speak of you as the ministers of our God; you shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in their glory you shall boast.
This purpose was, of course, realized in the Kingdom —
(1Pe 2:9 ESV) 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
(Rev 1:5b-6 ESV) To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
That’s a theme you don’t hear much in church. Yes, we’re the “priesthood of believers” and therefore may read the Bible for ourselves and all that — which is true but not really the point.
Rather, the point is that we Christians are to serve God in the same fashion as priests in the ancient temples. That’s our job. What do priests do?
Well, they instruct others in the Scriptures, they help others to offer sacrifices, they offer sacrifices for themselves and for others, they accept offerings to God, they care for those in need, they do the things necessary to bring God’s forgiveness to others. Indeed, they declare the formerly unclean clean. They are God’s representatives to the people. … It’s a big deal.
You see, being a part of the priesthood of believers is not about acquiring privileges and rights so much as a role in life, a place in the world, a purpose to serve.
Thus, we have these dual images — they don’t compete so much as inform and form each other. We are both images of God and priests of God. We serve as priests, in part, by being like God. And, in part, we are like God by serving as priests. After all, the priests are often merely acting as God’s agents, being his human hands to do his work in this world.
The following video is 1-hour long, and it’s well worth the time to listen. I’ll delay the next post to help give you time to do so.
“Second-century astronomer Ptolemy’s (blatantly wrong) Earth-centered model of the solar system didn’t just stay in vogue for 20 or 30 years; it stuck around for a millennium and then some. It wasn’t until almost 1,400 years later that Copernicus published his heliocentric (sun-centered) model in 1543. Copernicus wasn’t the first to suggest that the we orbited the sun, but his theory was the first to gain traction. Ninety years after its publication, the Catholic Church was still clinging to the idea that we were at the center of it all and duking it out with Galileo over his defense of the Copernican view. Old habits die hard.”
Just as the “scientists” in Ptolemy’s time were absolutely convinced they understood the universe, modern scientists can be absolutely convinced we have the origins of the universe completely figured out. We need to walk humbly as we try to square modern science and Genesis. God is fully capable of humbling us with new discoveries either in scripture, in science, or in both.
If God’s creation is his temple, why did he wait for an eternity to build it? The creation is new relatively speaking. God’s “temple” in Revelation is far more beautiful than our fallen universe. No, I believe the creation is for us to see the immensity and glory of God. It is for our benefit, not his.
Humility is wonderful virtue that all of us need. Still, is it possible that it will ever be proven that smoking is good for you? After all, experts have been wrong before. What about when a person sees a massive blob on their CAT scan. Should they say to themselves “Well, scientists have been wrong before and they will be wrong again?”
I’m not sure “scientists” were so certain they understood the universe in ancient times. For one thing, there were no scientists. Science developed after the invention of the printing press just like the Reformation and the rise of the modern world. Plato acknowledged that the trajectories taken by the planets was a mystery that needed to be explained. (The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas).
I’m not concerned about squaring Genesis with modern science. Genesis is not about science.
SteveA, But where Genesis touches on science, it has to be right or the Bible lies to us. And we can’t forget that God made the sun’s shadow go backwards up the stairs and then reverse direction again (Isaiah 38:8, II Kings 20:8-11). In Joshua 10:12,13, God made the sun stand still for one whole day. If God can do this, obviously then God isn’t constrained to obey his own laws of physics. If God can do this in complete violation of known physics then God can and has and will suspend physical laws anytime he wishes. I noticed several on this site are real worried about how God can’t violate what we scientifically observe. Of course he can, and has, and will.
I have no doubt that God can, and has at times, suspended certain laws of physics for his own purposes. But this, rather by definition, is an exceptional act. To predicate the entire creation –including its physical laws– on such a suspension of those very laws is counter-intuitive at best, and contradictory at worst.
Skip, your view suggests, at least, that Genesis does touch on science. When God made the sun stand still, as it was described in ancient terms familiar to the account’s contemporary readers, was that to give man a moment to compare scripture with science? Hardly. It was to show His power and give assurances of His support to both Joshua and Isaiah. Mankind and science call a lot of its observations “laws” of science or ‘laws of nature.’ Does it amaze you to think God is not bound by such ‘laws’? This whole premise that the Bible must submit to mankind’s observations of the universe is a literalist’s fantasy.
Skip, you are taking theology and trying to make it submit to science in ways science cannot sustain. Science is NOT the study of God. Can a hammer pass through the tiniest cracks in a wall the way water does? That is as likely as science addressing God’s will for the conduct of man. Can science address the nature of creation? Of course it can. THAT is what science endeavors to do. Science looks at the physical and makes observations on what it finds. Science is not intended to make observations about and explain the unseen. .
All of this fails to comprehend the intention and purpose of the scriptures, which are intended to guide our search for the Lord of the universe and reveal Him. Whereas observations of the physical (i.e., science) cannot complete our view of God, the scriptures take us in that direction, and Jesus completes the endeavor. Despite the efforts of many scientists to tell people about the origins of things, they see only the fingerprints and NOT the full revelation found only in Jesus. For all the genuine attempts of science and scientists to find origins and quantify ages and uncover facts, there is no substitute in science for what Jesus reveals to us about God. Personally, I doubt science will ever even approach the depths of revelation and comprehension of God we readily find in Jesus. Science was invented by mankind. Mankind is NOT on par with God. Science is limited by the imaginations of men and women, no matter how brilliant they may be. God is NOT so limited. This is what is meant by the saying, “His ways are above our ways.”
Grizz, I am confused, I think we agree.
Grizz, BTW, have no intention of making theology submit to science. Theologians drive me crazy because in their cerebral pursuits they often completely miss the essence of Christianity.
Both theology and science submit to God. We say we understand those words, but our actions and thinking betray that we do not.
Science is the application of the highest derivative of the human intellect to understand the natural world – the physical realm – the observations through our senses and the mechanistic analysis of the same through our logic and mathematics. Theology is the application of the highest derivative of the human intellect to understand the nature of God – as observed by our experience through our senses and the mechanistic analysis of the same through our study of the inspired word of God, in which God revealed His nature and the purpose for creation, the church, and us. The approach to truth is the same. The divine nature is revealed both in the natural world (Rom 1:20) as well as in the scripture (2. Tim 3:14-17; 2 Pet. 1:2-4, 21). God is the author of both. If God is a God of peace, not chaos, and of order (taxonomy), not disorder, would God give confusing, conflicting, chaotic information through His sources of revelation – which are “different” only in appearance to us and not to Him? Would God create a universe of order, that Christ holds together (Col. 1:17), and then periodically introduce supernatural chaos? Just because “He could do that?”
“God can do anything He wants” is a obvious but empty rhetorical statement to essentially say, “God did it the way I think He did it.” I used to say that too, and that’s what it meant. I would say, “God can do anything He wants to.” I doubt that God was thanking me for graciously allowing Him that freedom. But, even after acknowledging that, I would turn around and say I knew how He had done it because He told us in His word (but, I forgot to say, “according to my limited understanding.”)
Since God does not contradict Himself, any apparent contradiction must stem from our imperfect understanding of the data- scripture or science. When we make Genesis touch on science when it does so only as an outcome of our incomplete understanding, Genesis doesn’t lie, but we lie to ourselves. And we do all the time, because that’s what we want to believe That’s just human nature, and that’s also what’s wrong with it. That nature ruled under the Old Covenant, not the New..
We say we understand this, but we then morph the scripture (our own interpretation) and/or scientific data (our interpretation of) to fit our preconceptions. That’s to be expected because that’s just the human thing do do. And, again, that is also what’s wrong with it. Anyone who thinks everybody else does that except them is in denial. It is the Holy Spirit who guides into all truth.(John 16:13) The Christian should have the widest bandwidth of God’s revelation of Himself. But we limit an infinite bandwidth down to the fraction by our human understanding when we say we already know all of it because we have the Bible in our hand. Should we circle the wagons to protect the little that we do know, or think we know? It’s easy to see how Christians -theologians or not – can become arrogant in a self-assessments of their perceived spiritual knowledge. Very dangerous – produces division.
As a generality, science actually does a better job of understanding the gap between our present knowledge and the expanse of truth than does theology. Both theologians, as well as the theological wannabes (like me), tend to protect what they presently understand instead of continuing to search for truth by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. I do not serve the truth if I take the Bible, in its English translation, and use my human-based knowledge to claim that because the book is complete and inspired, my understanding of it is, too.
I have changed in my understanding of “complete,” “inspired,” and “inerrant,” also, and It has not been in order to compromise the scripture to something else. It is part of the transition from what I thought I understood to a deeper understanding of the revelation of God through the word.
Therefore, it is true that theologians can completely miss the essence of Christianity in their cerebral pursuits. But perhaps it can be missed even more by non-cerebral pursuits of reflex information that has been stored in the basal ganglia that form our preconceptions that slip by conscious cerebral evaluation.before they come out. Scientists can do that, too. I am flowing down the circuit on that one — I think the entire church today is missing the essence of Christianity, and one contributor is that we elevate our opinions about our interpretations of Genesis, or any other part of the Bible, above the reason why the universe was made. Our purpose, and that of the church, came from out of the foreordained plan of God made before time began (1 Cor. 2:6-10).. That preempts everything.
The temple allusion is fascinating. But I believe they could come into his presence at Any moment as his beloved children(in addition to those formal encounters) since sin had not broken the sacred cords of communion.
The most amazing thing about the concept of universe as temple is that the LORD who created the universe to be His temple has now formed you and me as His temple. Solomon, when dedicating the temple he built asked, “if the universe cannot contain him, how much less this house that I have built?” It would do all of us good to reflect on that question and apply it to our own bodies as the temple of the Holy Spirit and the dwelling place of GOD.
Charles wrote,
Amen. Many historians have concluded that the reason science developed first in Europe is due to Christianity. Isaac Newton in particular credited his discoveries to his belief in God. Copernicus was a believer, as was Galileo.
Belief in a rational God who does not change encouraged Europeans to imagine a universe governed by unchanging, constant laws. Hence, Newton assumed that his experiments in motion, momentum, and inertia in England would produce conclusions that apply equally to the Sun and planets — and he was right.
The Chinese discovered much of mathematics long before the Europeans, but it was the Christian worldview that allowed Europe to see the world scientifically long before anyone else.
When we insist that laws of physics may not have always been true or might not be true outside the Solar System or such in order to produce a six-day creation, we are undermining not only science but the roots of science in Christianity. We are, in a very real sense, giving up our understanding of the Logos as sustainer of the universe.
Because God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, his “natural” laws are as well. Astronomers have proceeded on the deeply Christian assumption that natural laws millions of light years away and so millions of years in the past are the same as they are today. And they were discovering stars far more than 6,000 light years away long before Darwin.
Geologists in Europe did the same thing. When steam and dynamite became available to build canals and tracks for trains, they found fossils and geologic layers. Christian scientists in the early 19th Century explained it all away with the Flood. But then they found remnants of an ice age. And then they tried to measure how old the mountains are. And as they applied contemporary laws and experience to geology, they found that the earth’s layers are millions of years old.
Long before Darwin and potassium-argon dating, 19th Century scientists were coming up with ages for fossils and geologic formations, such as mountains, millions of years in the past. And they found that much of what they observed clearly predated the Flood and was not a product of a Flood.
This led to speculation as to how species evolved over time. The ancient skies and ancient earth were understood before Darwin, all due to the work of Christian scientists who were honest enough to date things based on the laws of nature as revealed experimentally — because they considered the Laws to come from God, and to therefore be true millions of light years away and millions of years in the past.
The fundamentalist allegation that ancient universe and the ancient earth are lies taught by atheistic secular humanists to destroy Christianity is a myth, indeed, a lie. Most of the scientists who did the early work in these fields were Christians.
After Darwin, atheists began to claim — falsely — that evolution by natural selection explained the world so as to remove the need for God. Christians foolishly believed them, and so rejected evolution and the ancient world and universe in an effort to preserve faith. I would suggest that we should find a better source for our theology than atheistic activists seeking to destroy our faith!
Moreover, because this story all begins with a Christian worldview regarding God and his laws, it is impossible for science to disprove God. No God means no science.
The skies and the earth tell a story about how God has acted to bring the heavens and the earth about, and that story will necessarily be a Christian story. Obviously, God does miracles, and there is much about the creation that is miraculous, but when we deny that our observations can tell the truth, then we undercut foundational truths about God and Christianity.
We err if we think we have discovered all the laws of physics. God may still have some surprises for us.
Yes, Skip, I expect we have some more surprises in store. The idea of a lawful order to nature was one. Evolution was another. I am thinking that near term we have hope that neuroscience will uncover some of God’s mysteries. Also, the concept of Emergence may be of value. Then there is Rene Girard’s Mimetic Theory that is fascinating. The coming joining of humans and computers will teach us additonal lessons. In that regard, the writings of Teilard du Chardin (who i once thought was way off base) and those interpreting and extending him have been instructive and helpful to me.
Skip,
It is well understood among physicists that our present knowledge of physics is incomplete. Our theories have gaps that need to be filled. This is not the least controversial.
Nonetheless, at non-relativistic speeds and gravitational fields, Newton physics remain remarkably accurate and entirely sufficient for most purposes — despite the changes brought about by relativity and quantum theory.
No future physics discovery is going to change Newton’s Laws of Motion in ordinary experience and we may safely build our jets and airplanes relying on Newton.
Just so, Einstein is quite sufficient to put a man on the moon or to send a space probe to Pluto. Future discoveries aren’t going to cause the rockets to miss.
We can’t just dismiss physics as incomplete and therefore meaningless.
After all, I’m confident that we haven’t yet mined the scriptures for all the truths in them either. Bible students keep finding new truths, new applications, new meaning in the text — without destroying what we already have known.
Just because our knowledge the scriptures is incomplete, we can’t dismiss it all with “God may still have some surprises for us”! Yes, he does, and I’m excited at the prospect of learning more of what God has to reveal to us — through his scriptures and through his creation, be it physics, chemistry, or astronomy — even paleontology. It’s all about God and therefore all interesting and exciting.
Jay, I heartily agree.
I just don’t by this whole cosmic temple idea.
Jay said:
“But just as the pagans needed an image of their god, to draw worshipers toward the “real” god behind the image, God placed men and women on earth as his image — not to be worshiped, of course, but to show the true character and nature of God, so that the presence of his images would draw others toward the worship of the One True God who is represented by his images.”
If this cosmic temple is before the Fall, then who are the “others” that his images would draw “toward the worship of the One True God who is represented by his images”? If Adam and Eve had not sinned then all people would be God’s images and would be in perfect fellowship with God. There would be no one to draw anywhere.
Jay said:
“Rather, the point is that we Christians are to serve God in the same fashion as priests in the ancient temples. That’s our job. What do priests do?
Well, they instruct others in the Scriptures, they help others to offer sacrifices, they offer sacrifices for themselves and for others, they accept offerings to God, they care for those in need, they do the things necessary to bring God’s forgiveness to others. Indeed, they declare the formerly unclean clean. They are God’s representatives to the people. … It’s a big deal.”
Again, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, then there would have been no need for priests to instruct others in the Scriptures, offer sacrifices (no sin offerings needed, none other commanded), care for those in need, or do the things necessary to bring God’s forgiveness to others. The temple and priest metaphor breaks down pre-Fall.
Ernest Martin said:
“In the Garden our first parents were able to talk face to face with God. But note an important point. They only had conversations with Him at certain times of the day. They did not see Him on all occasions. It was “in the cool of the day” that they came into “the presence of the Lord” (Genesis 3:8). The expressions “cool of the day” and “the presence of the Lord” were a part of temple language.”
It’s interesting that Martin is able to say so dogmatically that “they only had conversations with Him at certain times of the day” based on a single example that happened after they sinned. Their fellowship with God was already severed at this point, and they were hiding and trying to cover their sin and nakedness. If there is temple terminology here, it’s can’t apply to the pre-Fall “very good” creation. Pre-Fall, Adam and Eve didn’t need to come into the presence of the Lord in the sense of needing a temple.
Those are some things that grabbed my attention.
Here’s a review of one of Walton’s other books, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, that addresses other issues with his theology.
http://creation.com/review-walton-the-lost-world-of-genesis-one
Jim, I am glad someone else saw this the way I did, I was gun shy to mention it. I am not real popular around here as it is. If I call anything to attention, it is just sour grapes. Thanks again, we will see if it draws any comments.
Jim wrote,
I don’t follow the logic. Obviously Adam and Eve were capable of sin. Moreover, they’d been commanded to be fruitful and fill the earth in chapter 1. Therefore, they had sex and, in time, would bear children in Eden. A lot of children.
Moreover, Eden is described as being in a particular place on the earth, not filling the earth, and yet God commanded Adam and Eve to fill the earth. Hence, it was expected that their descendants would leave Eden and cover the planet.
Surely the descendants of Adam and Eve would be just as prone toward sin as their antecedents. Hence, even pre-Fall, sin would be a possibility, meaning that the priestly function of drawing people toward God would always be needed. The need to instruct people about God would always be needed.
Therefore, the cosmic temple concept works perfectly well pre-Fall.
You assume that pre-Fall the world is not only sinless but not subject to temptation and not capable of sin. But this is clearly not so.
Jay, I don’t have a clue as to where you came up with that “stuff” but that was pretty fast thinking anyway. Jay there was no sin except for that nasty old apple tree, so evidently all those non existence children had been gnawing on god’s apples for a long time and he finally had put up with all that apple stealing he could bear. The straw that broke the camel’s back, so-to-say. so mankind paid the price for stealing his last apple until he sent Jesus to pay for all those apples by dyeing on a cross. which he did. but apple stealing still goes on today. so each of us have to pay for our own apples now.
Like any good thinker, Walton makes some good points, but as usual, there were some duds. I thought. I reject his idea that Scripture doesn’t reveal anything of science. I liked his explaining how God rested on the 7th day as God’s inauguration of his temple(creation).