John H. Walton

Review: New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image of "New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis" by John Walton

New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis (The Lost World Series) John H. Walton with J. Harvey Walton. IVP Academic (ISBN: 9781514004913) 2025

Summary: Reviews his work, adds new insights and clarifications, and answers frequently asked questions.

Fifteen years ago, John H. Walton made a significant contribution to discussions of the early chapters of Genesis and the origins debate. In The Lost World of Genesis One and succeeding works he contended that God accommodates Israel’s language and culture and that the Bible was written for ancient Israel. To understand its meaning for us, we must understand its meaning for them. While he was hardly the first to make such an assertion, he offered a clarity for thoughtful readers through books organized around clear theses that he carefully elaborated.

As a result of the notice he received, he had many opportunities to engage questions, both from those who would challenge his views and from those seeking elaboration of them. In addition, he continued to study ancient near east culture, refining his understanding of the thought and cultural world of ancient Israel. In recent years, that research has been aided by his son, J. Harvey Walton, a contributor to this work.

In this work, the Waltons revisit the previous “Lost World” books in light of both recent scholarship and public engagement. This is reflected in the organization of each of the chapters. Firstly, they summarize previous material. Secondly, they elaborate new explorations since the earlier works, offering new insights and clarifications. Finally, the Waltons answer frequently asked questions.

The book opens with a lengthy discussion of methodology, focusing around his idea of “cultural rivers.” He answers questions about why ancient near east culture is so important and the assumption that Israelites thought in similar ways to their neighbors. He explores questions about cosmology and the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis.

Succeeding chapters follow the same organization, discussing:

  • Genesis 1: What kind of creation account (functional ontology)
  • Genesis 1: The seventh day and its significance (temple and rest)
  • Genesis 2: The garden and the trees (sacred space and priestly roles)
  • Genesis 2: Adam and Eve (archetypes, dust and rib)
  • Genesis 3: The serpent and fall
  • Genesis 3: The pronouncement and aftermath
  • Genesis and Science

Perhaps the most significant change in Walton’s thinking is his shift from the idea of functional ontology to creation as God bringing order. He traces this idea through ancient near east literature and how this ordering is effective in the six days of creation. He contrasts this to material accounts with the difference between building a house and making a home.

This idea of order frames his thinking in successive chapters. The seventh day rest reflects the completion of ordering, God’s sovereignty over chaos. Instead of seeing the garden as a sacred space where God dwells in a human realm, he shifts to seeing the garden as a divine realm ordered by God in which humans dwell as wardens, allowing Walton to see Adam and Eve as archetypes of us all. The Fall then is about seeking wisdom apart from God for their ordering task in the world. It is not a story of how sin came into the world but how humans seek order apart from God. The curse, thus, is the consequence or removing themselves from God’s ordered realm.

I’ve summarized a much lengthier discussion over a number of chapters. But most noteworthy through it all is the shift to the idea of order, which reflects the scholarship of J. Harvey Walton. Particularly, one sees this reflected in the excurses he contributes, which elaborate these ideas. My question as I wrestled with this is whether this represented a refinement or a scholarly rabbit trail. Some of the shifts from orthodox theology in terms of understanding of the Fall are the most noteworthy. While I have doubts about the direction the Waltons are moving, I also appreciate the scholarly engagement, the willingness to change one’s mind in the light of evidence, and the irenic spirit of this book.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: The Lost World of the Prophets

/ rtrube54 / Leave a comment
Cover image for "The Lost World of the Prophets" by John H. Walton

The Lost World of the Prophets (Lost World Series), John H. Walton. IVP Academic (ISBN: 9781514004890) 2024.

Summary: How understanding the ancient Near East context of the prophets can shed light on their message for us.

There is good reason to take prophecy seriously and seek to understand it. Prophets often prefaced their words with “thus saith the Lord” or “this is the word of the Lord.” We wonder, is there a message for us to heed, trust, and obey? Unfortunately, this instinct can go awry when we fail to understand the primary role of the prophet, the nature of prophetic literature, and its theological significance then and now. In The Lost World of the Prophets, John H. Walton, as he has done with other “Lost World” books, takes us back to the ancient Near East backgrounds of prophetic and apocalyptic literature. Building on this background, he helps us understand the message of the prophets and its relevance to us.

As in other works in this series, Walton unpacks the lost world of the prophets through a series of propositions. Perhaps the simplest way to summarize the content of this work is to list these propositions as Walton outlines them in the book:

Part 1: Ancient Near East
1: Prophecy Is a Subset of Divination
2: Prophets and Prophecy in the ANE Manifest Similarities and Differences When Compared to Israel

Part 2: Institution
3: A Prophet Is a Spokesperson for God, Not a Predictor of the Future
4: Prophecy in the OT Is Not Monolithic but Developing
5: The Classical Prophets Are Champions of the Covenant in Times of Crisis
6: Prophecy Takes a Variety of Different Shapes After the Old Testament

Part 3: Literature
7: Recognition of the Categories of Prophetic Message Help Us Be More Informed Readers
8: Prophets Were Typically Not Authors
9: The Implied Audience of the Prophetic Books Is Not Necessarily the Audience of the Prophet

Part 4: Methodological and Interpretive Issues
10: Distinction Between Message and Fulfillment Provides Clear Understanding of Prophetic Literature
11: Fulfillment Follows Oblique Trajectories
12: The NT Use of OT Prophecy Focuses on Fulfillment, Not Message
13: Prophecy Carries Important Implications for Understanding God and the Future, but Our Ability to Forge a Detailed Eschatology with Confidence Is Limited

Part 5: Apocalyptic
14: Apocalyptic Prophecy Should Be Differentiated from Classical Prophecy
15: In Apocalyptic Literature, Visions Are Not the Message but the Occasion for the Message
16: New Testament Apocalyptic Operates by the Same Principles as Old Testament Apocalyptic

There were several aspects of Walton’s treatment that I felt were of great importance. Firstly, he focuses on prophets as spokespersons for God rather than predictors of the future. When we focus on the latter, we miss the strong focus on the warnings the prophets brought as God’s people violated his commands.

Secondly, the focus of their condemnations was how they breached God’s covenant relationship with them. The primary message of the prophets was to warn of God’s impending judgment because the people had not kept faith with God.

Thirdly, Walton emphasizes that the prophetic books as we have them reflect a process from initial message to transcription to compilation that may have involved more than one person over a period of time. Likewise, the original audience of the prophet may not be the audience of the prophetic book.

Fourthly, Walton’s distinction between message and fulfillment is so valuable when considering New Testament “fulfillments” that seem at variance with the plain meaning of the original message. Specifically, he pleads the authority of the New Testament interpreters and the fact that the fulfillments are things that have occurred. On the same basis, he argues against attempts to predict particular fulfillments of eschatological passages that have not occurred. We, unlike the apostolic witnesses, are not inspired. Instead, we should focus on the broad message of God’s purposes and promises to those who persevere through suffering.

Fifthly, I will just note the very helpful distinction Walton draws between prophetic and apocalyptic writings, summarized in the table on p. 130. I found particularly intriguing the distinction of prophecy originating as spoken word whereas apocalyptic is literature-based.

Finally, and perhaps most significant for our reading, Walton provides a rubric of four types of messages we will encounter in prophecy: indictment, judgement, instruction, and aftermath. In his conclusion, he offers guidance about how we might appropriate each in our present day.

As in other contributions to this series, Walton offers clear and concise explanations that summarizes a vast amount of recent scholarship for the serious lay student of scripture. in notes and recommended further reading, he points the interested reader to more in-depth scholarship. Finally, he gently corrects our misreading of prophetic and apocalyptic literature, encouraging us to keep the main thing the main thing, and not to lose ourselves in speculative schemes.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.

Review: The Lost World of the Torah

/ rtrube54 / 3 Comments

lost world torah

Review: The Lost World of the Torah (The Lost World Series Volume 6), John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019.

Summary: Like other books in this series, argues that Torah must be understood in its Ancient Near East context as a legal collection teaching wisdom and covenant stipulations rather than legislation, and cannot be appropriated into a system of moral or social ethics today.

The first five books (Torah) of the Bible are challenging for any person who believes the Bible inspired by God and having authority in one’s life. John Walton, joined in this volume by his son, have written a series of books premised on the inspiration and authority of the Bible, as well as the fact that it is an ancient work, reflective of its Ancient Near East context. The Walton’s argue that we often read these texts through our own cultural lens of how law and legislation work, and may be used to establish biblical “positions” or “precedents” for all sorts of modern moral questions. This is problematic not only because what we have is not a codified system of laws (there is much that is not addressed), and some of the laws support practices like slavery or requiring that a rapist marry the woman he has raped, that we would judge unacceptable. Like other “Lost World” books, they proceed by a series of propositions, with an appendix on the Decalogue.

The Walton’s, identifying similarities between Torah and other ancient legal collections, argue that the purpose of these collections is not legislation but to articulate wisdom about how society is to be ordered under the ruler of the state. The purpose is order that reflects well upon the king. Additionally, in the case of Torah, it is a covenant document similar to Ancient Near East (ANE) suzerainty treaties, where the various provisions outline how the people are to remain loyal to their suzerain, in this case Yahweh or God. The statement, “you shall be holy for I am holy” is a conferral of status rather than an objective for the people of Israel, and Torah is wisdom for how they might be who they are by status. There is a distinction between ritual instructions in Torah and other codes. For others, rituals serve to meet the needs of the gods. Yahweh has no such needs and instead, these serve both as means of worship, and maintain and restore covenant order.

The Walton’s then move beyond noting the similarities and differences of ANE codes and Torah to consider similarities and differences of context. They note that many of the similarities in provisions reflect not dependence on other codes but rather that they are both embedded in the same cultural “river.” What differentiates Torah from these other codes is that it also reflects God’s covenant with Israel and God’s presence among them, instructing them how they might retain the enjoyment and blessing of that presence.

The final part of their work addresses the church’s use of Torah and particular focuses on what Torah is not, and what interpretive practices are invalid. They discourage the common practice of dividing Torah into moral, civil, and ceremonial law, arguing that these divisions are both artificial, and undermine understanding Torah in context as an integral whole. Typically, we lift out the “moral” teachings, and seek to derive principles for our contemporary situation, perhaps along with New Testament teaching, which is situated in a different, Greco-Roman cultural river. They point to a number of areas in the Torah where this is problematic: marriage, economy, political system, social status and hierarchy, international relations, warfare, and diplomacy, respect of personhood, taxation, property ownership and rights, crime and punishment, and sexual ethics. They contend that Torah was not for salvation, but arose as instruction for living under the covenant. It is a metaphor of health, not a system of moral instruction, and cannot be used as prooftexts for contemporary problems. Taking Torah seriously reads it as a wisdom text disclosing the gracious character of God toward his people and God’s intention that they flourish under his care as their suzerain, as they pursue covenant faithfulness in adhering to his wise instruction.

There is much here that is helpful. Instructions we would find morally objectionable (those upholding slavery or patriarchy, for example) fall in line with the kind of order one would expect in the Ancient Near East and commend Yahweh as ruler of his people, but do not serve as legislation for the contemporary church.

What I find missing, and perhaps troubling is how then we are to read scripture, including the New Testament, also embedded in a cultural river, and according to the Walton’s, also not a source of moral instruction for us, but rather “wisdom.” They write:

“The decision between ‘do not conform to the pattern of this world’ (Romans 12:1-2) and ‘become all things to all people so that by all possible means [we] might save some’ (1 Cor 9:22) does not default in either direction. It means that we exercise wisdom in knowing where to conform to the culture of our day. This wisdom must be exercised by those who can understand the culture well enough to understand the cost of either decision, and it is these people whom we should appoint to lead the community. But making those decisions is not the same thing as following a rigid set of rules, especially not a rigid set of rules that was written to a different culture” (p. 230).

I recognize the value of reading contextually and avoiding prooftexting, but I’m troubled here with language that seems to elevate the wise interpreter above the “rigid set of rules” they interpret. The language of “rigidity” reveals a disposition toward scripture that seems troubling. Were Paul’s instructions to the Ephesians or Corinthians about how to lead a life worthy of their calling rigid? Or those of Jesus on divorce, grounded not in a particular culture but in God’s creational intent? I agree that the Bible is not primarily a book of moral instruction, yet does not scripture aid those saved by grace, God’s workmanship, who created for good works in which we are to walk (Ephesians 2:8-10)? The Waltons’ conclusion smacks of a “hidden knowledge” accessible to the wise that seems a long way from the perspicacity of scripture. I would have been helped if they would spell out more of how scripture may be appropriated, and not mostly by how it may not.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest

/ rtrube54 / 3 Comments

the lost world of the israelite conquest

The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2017.

Summary: Explores the biblical accounts of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, looking closely at the ancient Near East context and arguing that this was not a divinely commanded genocide or Holy War.

One of the more troubling parts of the Bible are the narratives of Israel’s conquest of Canaan, and the apparent genocide of the Canaanite people at God’s command. Often this is justified as a judgement on the wickedness of the Canaanites. It is even more disturbing when these texts are appropriated to justify other “Holy Wars” or culture wars against evil in society.

In this fourth installment to the “Lost World” series, John H. Walton is joined by his son J. Harvey Walton, in a close study of the biblical texts often understood as God’s command of Holy War against Canaan as divine judgement. Similar to Walton’s approach in other books in this series, the authors combine careful work on cultural backgrounds with close reading of the pertinent biblical texts. Like other books, they present their study as a series of propositions, grouped into six parts.

First, they lay groundwork in asking the question of how we interpret the Bible, emphasizing that it is an ancient document and that often our problem is what our expectations of what the Bible is, which differs from its true nature. In this case the Bible is neither defining what goodness is for us nor telling us about how to produce goodness, but rather in the context of God’s covenant with Israel, how God is bringing about the goodness he purposes. Thus, we must never read these texts as warranting Holy War or a kind of jihad in our own context.

Second, the Walton’s argue that the Canaanites are not depicted in scripture as guilty of sin and that the usual textual indicators for divine retribution against the Canaanites are absent. Critical to their argument is showing that Genesis 15:16 does not indicate that the Canaanites were committing sin, but that God is deferring his action against the Amorites, with whom he had allied.

Third, they argue that the Canaanites are not guilty of breaking God’s law because they did not partake of the covenant and its stipulations. Their expulsion from the land is not analogous to the expulsion of Israel from the land for their unfaithfulness to the covenant.

Fourth, the Waltons look at the language and imagery of the conquest and contend that the descriptions of the Canaanites follow ancient Near East conventions for describing an enemy as “invincible barbarians” Likewise, the behaviors described as “detestable” are from the framework of God’s ideals for Israel under the covenant and not indictments against the Canaanites for crimes against a covenant they are not under. And finally, the language of conquest recapitulates that of creation, in which disorder (chaos) is replaced with order (cosmos). Disorder must be cleared, not as punishment against the Canaanites, but to establish God’s covenant order through Israel.

The fifth part is perhaps most significant in its discussion of herem, most often translated as “utterly destroy.” They argue rather that it involves the idea of removing something from use, so that a new order or use can be established. Killing people is not inherent in herem, but rather the destroying of the identity of a community, particularly the identity markers associated with idolatrous worship. Killing may happen in the course of this, as it tragically does in all ancient wars, but this is not the focus of herem.

Finally, the authors contend that this offers a template for understanding the New Testament, not in attacking those outside the community of faith, but making herem all identities in conflict with absolute allegiance to the Lordship of Jesus. What is to be attacked and removed from use is not outsiders, but our own false allegiances, false identities or any identity that competes for paramount status with our identity in Christ.

This, along with the argument that God does not command ethnic genocide in these passages is important. Yet this argument left me troubled. The plain reality is that even if this wasn’t genocide, people died to set up this new order of God. If they died, not because they were guilty of sins or crimes against God (because they were outside the covenant and its stipulations), but simply as part of a process of destroying the identity of a community, this seems a distinction without a difference. The idea of retributive action at least seems to carry the sense of a just judgment, even if it does involve bloodshed. “Removing an identity from use” driving them from the land, seems more humane, except that the same number of people die, only as “collateral damage” of the conquest. There is something about this that seems more heartless. It also seems to dance around the plain sense of texts that herem in the context of the conquest does involve the destruction of lives in city after city. I did not feel the authors dealt adequately with this problem.

What I’m left with is that these are difficult texts, similar to Genesis 22 in which God commands the sacrifice of Isaac. The last minute substitution of the ram does not make this less challenging. Likewise demonstrating that these texts offer no warrant for genocide is only marginally comforting. Perhaps our difficulty is that we expect God to be nice, a “tame lion” as it were. We would rather a God who remains above the fray than one who gets involved in wars of conquest to effect his purposes. We don’t like the idea of trying to justify the ways of God when they seem unseemly. We likewise are uncomfortable with a God who takes on flesh and blood and dies for us. Many Christian heresies are efforts to sanitize this event. I don’t want to say that is what the authors are doing here. They obviously care deeply about scripture. But I also don’t think we can soften the shocking effect of these passages, or should. These passages remind us both of the tragedy of the human condition, and that God accommodated that human condition in not remaining aloof from war and death even as God worked out redemptive purposes for humankind, first through Israel, then for all of us.

 

 

 

Review: The Lost World of the Flood

/ rtrube54 / 7 Comments

The Lost World of the Flood

The Lost World of the Flood, Tremper Longman III & John H. Walton (with a contribution by Stephen O. Moshier). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2018.

Summary: An argument for why Genesis portrays what was a local cataclysmic flood as a global flood, considering both Ancient Near East backgrounds and the theological purpose of the narrative.

John Walton, with co-authors in several instances, has published a series of “Lost World” books in recent years. Previously, I have reviewed The Lost World of Genesis One (here) and The Lost World of Adam and Eve (here). In each of these books Walton uses a combination of careful exegesis and study of Ancient Near East backgrounds to propose readings of the biblical passages to propose a reading faithful to a commitment to the trustworthiness of scripture and yet not in conflict with science. In this work, Walton and Tremper Longman III team up to pursue a similar study of the flood accounts in Genesis 6-9. The challenge in these texts is that they clearly teach a universal flood, a fact that Walton and Longman affirm, at variance with the geological evidence that would accompany such a flood. Other commentators either try to argue that the text actually indicates a local flood or they contend for a “flood geology” which has failed to gain acceptance among geologists. These authors both admit that the text actually affirms a universal flood and yet accept the lack of evidence for such a flood in the geological record and include a contribution from a Christian geologist (Stephen O. Moshier), who affirms the lack of evidence for a global flood. As in other Walton books, the argument is framed around a set of propositions that may be the best way to summarize the book:

Part I: Method: Perspectives on Interpretation
Proposition 1: Genesis Is an Ancient Document
Proposition 2: Genesis 1–11 Makes Claims About Real Events
Proposition 3: Genesis Uses Rhetorical Devices
Proposition 4: The Bible Uses Hyperbole to Describe Historical Events
Proposition 5: Genesis Appropriately Presents a Hyperbolic Account of the Flood
Proposition 6: Genesis Depicts the Flood as a Global Event

Part II: Background: Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Proposition 7: Ancient Mesopotamia Also Has Stories of a Worldwide Flood
Proposition 8: The Biblical Flood Story Shares Similarities and Differences with Ancient Near Eastern Flood Accounts

Part III: Text: Understanding the Biblical Text Literarily and Theologically
Proposition 9: A Local Cataclysmic Flood Is Intentionally Described as a Global Flood for Rhetorical Purposes
Proposition 10: The Flood Account Is Part of a Sequence of Sin and Judgment Serving as Backstory for the Covenant
Proposition 11: The Theological History Is Focused on the Issue of Divine Presence, the Establishment of Order, and How Order Is Undermined
Proposition 12: The “Sons of God” Episode Is Not Only a Prelude to the Flood; It Is the Narrative Sequel to Cain and Abel
Proposition 13: The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) Is an Appropriate Conclusion to the Primeval Narrative

Part IV: The World: Thinking About Evidence for the Flood
Proposition 14: The Flood Story Has a Real Event Behind It
Proposition 15: Geology Does Not Support a Worldwide Flood (Steve Moshier)
Proposition 16: Flood Stories from Around the World Do Not Prove a Worldwide Flood
Proposition 17: “Science Can Purify Our Religion; Religion Can Purify Science from Idolatry and False Absolutes”

Several things are key to their argument here. One is an argument that Genesis 1-11 reflect historical events, and that the flood story is rooted in a real event. Second is that hyperbole in Biblical narrative has a number of precedents. Third and perhaps most significant is that there are a number of hyperbolic elements in Genesis 6-9, from the size of the ark (the dimensions of which do not seem structurally possible with the materials used) to the depths of the waters, and they would argue, the extent of the flood, and that these elements are in the narrative because they serve a theological purpose, namely to show the dis-ordering and re-ordering work of God in judgment, laying the groundwork for God’s covenant with Abraham.

While Walton argues that he is not reconciling the Bible and science, but rather offering a better rendering of what the text actually says in these works, I would like him to address the question of why it takes incongruities between science (or archaeology) and scripture to bring such readings to light. He does this in part by observing the “two books” idea of revelation, and that each speaks to, and purifies, the other. But I wonder if interpreters might have reached the author’s proposal for reading the flood narratives apart from or before the geological evidence. I also find the argument suspect that the writers clearly wrote of a global flood, but engaged in intentional hyperbole in so doing. It would be easier for me to believe they intended a global flood simply because their “world” as they knew it was utterly flooded.

What Walton and Longman show is that their reading fits well within the total context of Genesis 1-11, a crucial point in favor of that reading. They also provide a reading that doesn’t necessitate pitting scripture against science nor coming up with an “alternative science” that comports with scripture. They argue that these accounts are rooted in real, historical events and do not ask us to gloss over portions of the text. While their engagement with geology demonstrates that it is not possible to ignore or dismiss science, and in fact science ought to be listened to as part of God’s “two books,” the real advance comes through trying to understand the Genesis narratives on their own terms, in their cultural and historic context and the theological purpose intended by their writer. This leads to an even more startling possibility: what if, in more carefully listening to both science and scripture on their own terms, we might in the end come to a better harmony between the two?

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

Review: The Lost World of Genesis One

/ rtrube54 / 3 Comments

the lost world of genesis one

The Lost World of Genesis One, John H. Walton. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Summary: Walton argues from our knowledge of the ancient cultures in Israel’s context that Genesis 1 is a functional account of how the cosmos is being set up as God’s temple rather than an account of material origins.

Some time back, I reviewed The Lost World of Adam and Eve, which is the sequel to this book. I thought it did one of the best jobs I’ve seen of showing how we must try to understand the book of Genesis as its recipients would have in their own cultural context, rather than trying to make it answer questions about origins in the light of the theories of Darwin and the evolutionary science that has developed over the last 150 years. I’ve always had the sense that we’ve been asking of the text of Genesis questions that neither the writer nor the inspiring Holy Spirit never intended to address. The question that remains is what does the early chapters of Genesis affirm? John H. Walton offers a strong argument that these were written out of a very different world view that was considering the cosmos not in terms of the causative factors in their material origins (although Walton is clear to attribute ultimate causation of and sustenance of the creation to God), but rather as an account of how God establishes the functions and places the functionaries in his cosmic temple over which he rules.

Several insights were particularly helpful. One was his demonstration that the cultures of Israel’s day looked at the world in terms of functional rather than material origins. With the rise of modern science we see the world very differently and this results in some of our difficulties in reading the Genesis texts. Also, he explains the seventh day rest of God, which always has seemed anti-climactic to me as in fact the climax of this account as God enters and sits down, as it were, on the throne of his cosmic temple and begins his rule over what he has set in place. Finally, there is the important implication that because this is not an account of material origins their need be no conflict between Genesis 1 (and indeed the chapters that follow as he argues in his sequel) and scientific accounts of origins as long as science does not try to address teleological questions and conclude there is no God.

As in the sequel, Walton develops his treatment of Genesis 1 as a series of propositions. The chapter titles will give you a sense of the flow of his argument:

Prologue
Introduction
Proposition 1: Genesis One Is Ancient Cosmology
Proposition 2: Ancient Cosmology Is Function Oriented
Proposition 3: “Create” (Hebrew bara’) Concerns Functions
Proposition 4: The Beginning State in Genesis One is Non-Functional
Proposition 5: Days One Through Three in Genesis 1 Establish Functions
Proposition 6: Days Four Through Six in Genesis 1 Install Functionaries
Proposition 7: Divine Rest Is In a Temple
Proposition 8: The Cosmos Is a Temple
Proposition 9: The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Relate to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration
Proposition 10: The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins
Proposition 11: “Functional Cosmic Temple” Offers Face-Value Exegesis
Proposition 12: Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough
Proposition 13: The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture is Metaphysical in Nature
Proposition 14: God’s Roles as Creator and Sustainer are Less Different Than We Have Thought
Proposition 15: Current Debate About Intelligent Design Ultimately Concerns Purpose
Proposition 16: Scientific Explanations of Origins Can Be Viewed in Light of Purpose, and If So, Are Unobjectionable
Proposition 17: Resulting Theology in This View of Genesis 1 Is Stronger, Not Weaker
Proposition 18: Public Science Education Should Be Neutral Regarding Purpose
Summary and Conclusions

Walton, a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton, contends that this reading of scripture that takes the cultural-historical context of Genesis seriously is in fact the most faithful to an evangelical doctrine of scripture. It does not start from the questions we want to ask, but asks what truths the text was affirming, first for its original readers, and only then for us. He argues that his approach can take the text at face value rather than needing to apply the hermeneutical gymnastics of those who try to reconcile Genesis and scientific accounts. The result is one that explains away neither scripture nor science.

I also think he makes wise recommendations about public science teaching needing to be neutral about metaphysical questions, excluding both atheist and creationist agendas from the classroom. Whether scholars agree with Walton in all the particulars (and some consider his denial of ancient near east culture interest in material origins in the Genesis text over-emphasized) Walton offers a proposal that defuses, at least from the Christian side, the perceived warfare between science and faith. It seems that there are many concerns from the care of creation to the alleviation of suffering in which both Christians and all thoughtful scientists may make common cause rather than be adversaries. Would that it were so.

Review: The Lost World of Adam and Eve

/ rtrube54 / 4 Comments

Lost WorldThe Lost World of Adam and Eve, John H. Walton. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2015.

Summary: Building on his earlier The Lost World of Genesis One, Walton contends that Adam and Eve are both archetypes of humanity and also historical figures, though not necessarily our biological progenitors, that their disobedience brought disorder into the sacred space of the creation affecting all people, and that Christ’s work has to do with restoring that order.

Genesis 1-3 are both foundational texts for Christian belief, and heavily contended texts because of the apparent conflict between scientific understandings of origins and the biblical account read “literally.” It has always been my sense that a significant part of the problem is that many of our discussions violate a fundamental principle of good scripture study which is, to the best of our ability, to understand what it would have meant to its original recipients rather than try to relate it with contemporary science, or show that it is a “scientific” account of origins as do those advocating “creation science.” I don’t think Moses, or whoever we believe wrote these texts was thinking at all about the science. I do think these accounts were shaped very much by the ancient Near East context, and the distinctive claims that the God of Israel was making about Himself, his world, and human beings.

In this book, and his earlier The Lost World of Genesis One, John H. Walton, who is an Old Testament scholar, rigorously explores these texts in light of the growing body of material about the ancient Near East, and through careful reading of the texts himself. Usually I would not paste in a “table of contents” to summarize the book, but in this case it is the best way for you to see Walton’s argument, summed up in twenty-one propositions:

Introduction
Proposition 1: Genesis Is an Ancient Document
Proposition 2: In the Ancient World and the Old Testament, Creating Focuses on Establishing Order by Assigning Roles and Functions
Proposition 3: Genesis 1 Is an Account of Functional Origins, Not Material Origins
Proposition 4: In Genesis 1 God Orders the Cosmos as Sacred Space
Proposition 5: When God Establishes Functional Order, It Is “Good”
Proposition 6: ’adam Is Used in Genesis 1-5 in a Variety of Ways
Proposition 7: The Second Creation Account (Gen 2:4-24) Can Be Viewed as a Sequel Rather Than as a Recapitulation of Day Six in the First Account (Gen 1:1-2:3)
Proposition 8: “Forming from Dust” and “Building from Rib” Are Archetypal Claims and Not Claims of Material Origins
Proposition 9: Forming of Humans in Ancient Near Eastern Accounts Is Archetypal, So It Would Not Be Unusual for Israelites to Think in Those Terms
Proposition 10: The New Testament Is More Interested in Adam and Eve as Archetypes Than as Biological Progenitors
Proposition 11: Though Some of the Biblical Interest in Adam and Eve Is Archetypal, Yet They Are Real People Who Existed in a Real Past
Proposition 12: Adam Is Assigned as Priest in Sacred Space, with Eve to Help
Proposition 13: The Garden Is an Ancient Near Eastern Motif for Sacred Space, and the Trees Indicate God as the Source of Life and Wisdom
Proposition 14: The Serpent Would Have Been Viewed as a Chaos Creature from the Non-ordered Realm, Promoting Disorder
Proposition 15: Adam and Eve Chose to Make Themselves the Center of Order and Source of Wisdom, Therefore Admitting Disorder into the Cosmos
Proposition 16: We Currently Live in a World with Non-order, Order and Disorder
Proposition 17: All People Are Subject to Sin and Death Because of the Disorder in the World, Not Because of Genetics
Proposition 18: Jesus Is the Keystone of God’s Plan to Resolve Disorder and Perfect Order
Proposition 19: Paul’s Use of Adam Is More Interested in the Effect of Sin on the Cosmos Than in the Effect of Sin on Humanity and Has Nothing to Say About Human Origins
Excursus on Paul’s Use of Adam, by N. T. Wright
Proposition 20: It Is Not Essential That All People Descended from Adam and Eve
Proposition 21: Humans Could Be Viewed as Distinct Creatures and a Special Creation of God Even If There Was Material Continuity
Conclusion and Summary

A few key things to note. One key contention is that Genesis 1 is a functional rather than material account of creation. The focus is on the functions and functionaries of creation rather than their material origins, which is key to Walton’s understanding that the creation, and the garden are an ordered sacred space. Another is that Walton sees Genesis 2 as a sequel–humans have already been created, but God then makes a garden, and two particular humans who are both real figures and serve as archetypes acting on behalf of the human race. This allows Walton to contend for a historical Adam and Eve, without needing to insist that they are the progenitors of all human beings. Their decision to make themselves the center of order and source of wisdom had the opposite effect of bringing disorder into the world, which affects all humanity down to the present. Walton also deals with the important Pauline texts concerning Adam, with the help of N.T. Wright, arguing that the concern is the disordering of the cosmos rather than sin’s effect on humanity.

It is true that Romans 5:12 says that through one man sin entered the world (cosmos), it also speaks of death coming through sin, a clear effect of Adam’s sin not only on the cosmos but on humanity. I wonder here if Walton presses his ideas of order and disorder in the cosmos too far. I also find myself questioning the “functional” versus “material” distinction since both the spaces God makes and the creatures he fills them with are material as well as functional. What this pointed up to me is that while I want to take Walton’s argument as it stands, I also want to go back and take a closer look at the texts.

I do think it is important that those who take the biblical accounts seriously investigate to see whether Walton’s propositions can be sustained. If Walton’s argument stands the test of good exegesis, then he makes a critical contribution in ending the contentious battle between science and scripture over origins. His account does not insist that scripture makes claims about the material origins of the universe, nor does he insist that Adam is the biological progenitor of all human beings. Yet he argues for creation as an ordered sacred space, disordered by the sin of a historical Adam.

A number of the online reviews I found of Walton’s writing seemed more interested in defending a particular view of origins rather than carefully engaging his exegesis. For those interested in such things, this review by Richard Averbeck seemed among the most helpful in confirming Walton’s arguments at some points while raising important questions at others.

What I most appreciate about Walton’s book is the careful effort to look at Genesis as an ancient Near East text, while also taking it seriously as scripture. While mindful of the scientific arguments, his concern is to discern most clearly what scripture does and does not assert. Whether you agree or not with Walton’s argument, I hope it will have the effect it had for me of driving you back to the scriptures themselves “to see if these things are so.”