Paperback: 192 pagesMany thanks to Adrianna and the IVP folks for this review copy.
Dr. John Walton, Old Testament Professor at Wheaton College, sets forth eighteen propositions in this book.
Proposition 1, Genesis 1 Is Ancient Cosmology, sets the stage for the rest of the book. Regarding Proposition 1, Prof. Walton says, “If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology” (p. 17).
By Ancient Cosmology, Proposition 2, Prof. Walton means “Functional ontology,” bring something into existence to function within an ordered system (p. 26), over aganist “Material ontology,” “the belief that something exists by virtue of its physical properties and its ability to be experienced by the senses” (p. 24).
Regarding our English word “create,” Hebrew bara’, in Proposition 3, Prof. Walton argues that the ancient Israelites understood the word “to convey creation in functional terms” (p. 43).
Propositions 5-6 are taken up with the “Six Days of Creation” and how they are ultimately concerned with the functional rather than the material. While Prospositions 7-11 view the “Seven Days of Genesis 1″ as Cosmic Temple Inauguration, that is, “the entrance of the presence of God to take up his rest that creates the temple ” (p. 92).
Professor Walton argues that if this functional reading of Genesis 1 is adopted, as he has argued through the first 11 Propositions, then Concordism, the belief that “the Bible must agree–be in accord with—all the finds of contemporary science,” must be rejected. The ancients simply did not view the world in our scientific terms.
From Propositions 12-18, Prof. Walton takes on Science and other theories of Genesis 1. While Young Earthers and Old Earthers have made some good points for their respective positions, Prof. Walton essentially argues that they have been going in the wrong direction all along. Why? Because Genesis 1 is not about “Material origins,” which is the basis of dating the earth and so on.
But I found it surprising the Prof. Walton doesn’t reject Biological evolution, the leading evolutionary view, altogether. In fact, Dr. Walton says, “Biological evolution is capable of giving us insight into God’s creative work” (p. 138).
Proposition 18 is a word of advice to scientists and the educational system and how science should be handled in the classroom. Essentially, science should stick to its closed system of the material world and should not pass judgment on “anything outside the material universe” (p. 155). A Q & A follows Proposition 18.
Here’s the grind: if Prof. John Walton is correct about a “functional” reading of Genesis 1, then most evangelicals have not only been misreading Genesis 1 but have been engaging in some silly fights.
This looks like a great book!
Brian L, it’s a great read. It will definitely challenge the way you read Genesis 1.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, Walton’s book gave me a rather firm shove in my walking away from the literal 6-day creation view. I think Walton’s view makes more sense, though I haven’t looked at it beyond this book. I hope to get a copy of his forthcoming in-depth treatment of this view entitled Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology.
Jason, How so, since Walton favors a literal 6-day creation?
It’s evident, to me at least, that the so-called P creation story is not dealing with modern conceptions of what is “scientific”. From the Sabbatarian schema of creation, the concern with the primal condition of chaos and creation as the bringing into divine order of the heavens and the earth, to the implicit subversion of the stars and moon as divinities, the speaks directly to the content and rhetoric being embedded in ANE thought and it theological concerns.
The problem is that many conservative Christians have bought into modernism, philospohically speaking, as those they oppose.
The ancients simply did not view the world in our scientific terms.
Excellent point!
evangelicals…engaging in some silly fights
I don’t know why but believers are always seeing a conspiracy in things where there isn’t a direct answer.
Scott: Prof. Walton seems to be sympathetic to some world before the Genesis 1 world. At this point, at least to me, it’s all speculative.
Yes, Gen. 2:1ff as a Sabbatarian schema, following the Six Days of creation but as a Cosmic Temple Inauguration.
A month ago, even before I read this book, I threw away a recent lecture by John MacArthur called “The Theology of Creation.” It proved to be nonsensical.
I have not read the book, but a few years ago I listened to the talk that he gives here: http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/research/symposia/conferences03/Sci_Sym.html
As it has been awhile since I listened to it, I found some comments I made in an email about it to some friends of mine:
A few comments on it though (or caveats, if you will):
I don’t think that his theory that Purpose gives rise to Function is mutually exclusive of Structure giving rise to Function. I think that all 3 would have to be present for a full understanding of how things work and why. I believe that’s what the early scientists (who were largely Christians and many were what we would now call YEC’s) would have thought when they set out to investigate the world. Otherwise, without structure, purpose, and function all tied together; everything would be chaotic and not study-able. I also agree that the original creation is like the ANE temple, or more appropriately, the ANE temple is a type of the original creation, which parallels nicely with Revelation and the new heavens/new earth.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard of this concept, I believe I originally heard of it from CMI (Creation Ministries International), I’ll try to find the article if I can (no luck yet).
Still, however, I don’t think this truly offers much to determine whether the YEC or theistic-evolutionist view of time is correct, as I think this could dovetail with either view (but I do think it can enhance our understanding of the context of Genesis no matter what view on holds).
As someone who would define himself as a YEC, I do think it seems a bit disingenuous of Dr. Walton to make a case that we are all getting it wrong, while still seeming to be stumping for one of those “wrong” positions. I get the impression he is basically saying, the YEC’s are wrong b/c they are injecting modern ideas into their exegetical/hermeneutical methods, but evolution can still be true because I can disconnect the Bible from needing to be interpreted based on anything in the real world. Although, I admit I don’t know anything beyond his presentation above, so I may be reading him incorrectly. If so, I appreciate any correction.
Dave: we discussed this “functional” approach before (see here)
I don’t think Prof. Walton is being disingenuous at all. In fact, he says that “material properties” were a given in the Genesis account but wasn’t the main thing in the ancient minds.
To focus on “material origins,” Walton says, we’re stepping away from the worldview of the ancients. The age of the earth wasn’t a preoccupation as it is today.
Regarding biological evolution, Walton doesn’t dismiss it all together if God is seen as involved all along. But he rejects any position that reduces God’s involvement or posits his nonexistence.
Give it a read!
TC: I meant that I find Walton’s view of functional creation, not creation of matter and universe, the focal point of Genesis 1 a compelling argument. I don’t view the six days of creation as literal 24-hour days in which God brought matter and the universe into existence.
Jason: well, Eugene Merrill in Everlasting Dominion, which I reviewed a few months back, made similar arguments for a “functional reading of Genesis 1.” That ANE stuff is the key to all this.
Walton makes a bit of an argument of literal 24-hour days, but really wasn’t the focus of his book. Maybe in the larger work you’ve referenced.
Once again, I like how you think.
I did some reading on cosmology a few years ago and was pleasantly surprised how the science that brought the fundie-rejected “Big Bang” theory actually did more to prove the Genesis account than disprove it. When you read that their research is telling them that the first moments of creation (because they really have no other word for it) was a faster than lightening explosion of light molecules out of “anti-matter” (fancy word for absolutely nothing), it does sort of conjure up recollections of “Let there be light!”.
Now, mainstream science’s explanation of the origin of man is whole other story, but hey, one out of two is better than zero.
TC: Agreed! Imagine that–the cultural and historical contexts of biblical books makes a difference in interpretation!
Concerning the 6 days, I don’t have an issue so much with the fact of a literal 6-day period (6 24-hour days), just that I no longer think that God brought the universe into existence during that period. I don’t remember Walton’s thoughts on this point except for the larger argument for the installation of functionaries.
Ultimately, the concerns of the P creation story are more important than the modern “scientific” construals of reality.What’s important is the how we view ALL of creation, in the way we live (how we order our lives) according to our worldview (theology).
I live in a county on the eastern seaboard where there is a very large Hasidic Jewish population. The matter of sanctification of time (as a reflection of YHWH’s creation) and living the Torah is there for everyone to see. On Shabbat, certain parts of our villages are shut down, and if you go into certain Hasidic enclaves at that time, your car might get stoned.
One Lent, as a Lenten discipline, I decided to follow the prayers of the little prayer book, (based on monastic practice, which is an outgrowth of Jewish conception of the sanctification of time) my seminary classmate gave me, who is now a priest of the Greek Orthodox Church (GOA). I faithfully prayed the appointed prayers at dawn, 1st hour(7am), 3rd hour(9am), 6th hour (Noon), 9th hour (3pm), (Vespers)Dusk, Compline (bedtime), Midnight Office. It wrecked my “life”. It made me realize that in terms of my way of being in the world (not my thinking?) in many ways I was very secular, and many of the operative values I have line up with that of the larger society.
This is where the “rubber meets the road” in arguments about the nature of Genesis. And it’s curious how often the those who trumpet faithfuness to the Bible the loudest are the ones trying to outdo the modernists in their secular intent, thereby missing the fundamental aspect of the creation stories in their meaning-making function for a theologically-based praxis in the world. I firmly believe that many who name the name of Christ are functional dualists.
I’m eager to get into this book. It’s one of about 3-4 books on Genesis that I’ve got to review ASAP, and I’m looking forward to all of them, but I’m especially eager to read this one.
Alisa: that first step we take in our understanding is crucial: “functional” vs “material” orgins?
Jason: Walton seems open to a recreation deal for he 6 days and day 7 as that “Cosmic Temple Inauguration.” At the moment I remain unconvinced of a recreation and so on.
Scott: thanks for sharing your Hasidic experience and so on.
And it’s curious how often the those who trumpet faithfuness to the Bible the loudest are the ones trying to outdo the modernists in their secular intent, thereby missing the fundamental aspect of the creation stories in their meaning-making function for a theologically-based praxis in the world.
“Their meaning-making function for a theologically-based praxis in the world” – that’s it! That’s the world of the ancients.
Peter L: for one, it will challenge your current reading of Genesis 1, if you’ve not ventured there before.
As inclined as I am to agree with Walton, I have to admit that every time I hear about the argument of this book (as well as his Genesis commentary), I have to wonder if this isn’t stretching things a bit. I won’t rehash it here, but as I recall there was a discussion over at John Hobbin’s blog about Walton’s view where Dr. Walton replied back and forth for a while.
I don’t think its for no reason that, quite literally, at least 2000 years of interpretation of Genesis 1 have all assumed (apparently wrongly, per Walton) that Genesis 1 is narrating the creation of the cosmos, however the details of it are interpreted. He must have quite an argument if he really is convincing on this reading of it.
I say all of that as someone who has long since scratched my head in disbelief at the “literal” view of Genesis 1 that some hold. There are lots of reasons in my view why Genesis 1 shouldn’t be interpreted as a week of work like we would experience, but it would be hard for me to see how “material origins” (as opposed to what?) are not in view here.
Bottom Line:
Walton and I (and most OT scholars) would agree that while Genesis 1 is doing many things, giving a modern cosmological telling of the creation event is not one of them. However, it seems that Walton parts company when he asserts that “creation” is not being asserted at all…is his view that Genesis 1 is teaching that God “gave function” to the cosmos, “in the beginning”? Does he see God then as existing perpetually as within the cosmos, rather than as its “creator” (in the modern sense)?
However, it seems that Walton parts company when he asserts that “creation” is not being asserted at all…is his view that Genesis 1 is teaching that God “gave function” to the cosmos, “in the beginning”? Does he see God then as existing perpetually as within the cosmos, rather than as its “creator” (in the modern sense)?
Justin: Walton is not totally dismissing the creation concept of Genesis. What he argues, via illustration, is that a physical structure is not a college until we have a faculty, students, and so on. The physical properties then must be viewed as “functionaries.”
He labels the cosmos as God’s temple. I’m still unconvinced.
It’s an interesting concept, that’s for sure. I’ve read his article on creation in the IVP Dictionary of the Pentateuch, where he sketches out his view briefly. Maybe at some point I’ll get around to reading his Genesis commentary. Thanks for the review!
Justin: my pleasure. His commentary are on the better ones in the series. Of course he makes similar arguments there.
TC, Justin: As you may have/not seen, for October you can read Walton’s Genesis commentary here.
Jason: Thanks. That’s mighty cool.
Pingback: Book Reviews of John H. Walton’s ‘The Lost World of Genesis One’ « Near Emmaus: Christ and Text
It appears Walton does a good job of rooting Genesis 1 in it’s ancient context. However his presentation in The Lost World of Genesis 1 is incedibly brief, almost an a brief outline, however. He feels a lot like NT Wright in the way the bishop uses 2nd temple Judaism writings to frame the NT. Walton does the same in his use of ANE literature to frame the reading of Genesis 1.
While he defines technical terms like “ontology,” and “teleology,” he’s asking the average reader to do some heavy lifting by attempting to crawl into an ancient (and long departed) worldview that sees existence as functionality rather than materiality. Most modern, including evangelicals, have a very difficult time reflecting upon their own worldview, let alone others.
Intriguing read. Want to read more.
Kyle: he’s got a larger work in the works.
Pingback: Book Reviews of John H. Walton's 'The Lost World of Genesis One' : Today Topics
Pingback: Richard Dawkins is Coming to Portland « Near Emmaus
Bryon, this book is written almost on the bottom shelf level, so I hope it gets around.