Scan barcode
A review by bkoser
The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John H. Walton
3.0
Bottom line: Walton's interpretation is worth consideration (although I'm not convinced), and the book is a worthwhile read (although it could have used an editor).
Walton's position, the cosmic temple inauguration view, claims that creation in Genesis 1 is functional, not material. He discusses what this means, examines a few theological implications, briefly compares his view to others, and discusses the debate about teaching creation/evolution in schools.
Walton gives examples of the difference between material and functional creation: creating a chair would be material creation, while creating a company would be functional creation. A restaurant is materially created when the building is built and filled with utensils and ingredients, and is functionally created when it receives its licenses and permits and opens its doors for customers. Assembling a computer's hardware gives it material existence; installing software gives it functional existence. I think I understand the difference but I'm not sure exactly what Walton is claiming for Genesis 1 functional creation. I think his position is that, for example, the sun existed as a star before Genesis 1, but was functionally created as "the Sun" in Genesis 1 when God gave it the purpose of ruling the day, etc.
I only think that because Walton never comes right out and says it. That's my first problem with the book: it feels like the author was developing his theory as he wrote it down, skipping around and repeating himself. That's a valid way to write a book, but I would prefer to read an edited, concise, logically-progressing argument. It's also overly wordy; it felt like he was trying to write for laymen but couldn't quite pull it off.
The FAQ section includes the question, "What would eyewitnesses have seen on these days?" Walton's answer is, "We overrate eyewitnesses in our culture...The perspective of an eyewitness would be inadequate and and too limited to be of any good. Genesis 1 is not intended to be an eyewitness account." Wouldn't "I don't know" have been a less weaselly answer? I guess he was trying to say it doesn't matter what "actually" happened, but it comes off as snarky.
Walton lists all the times the Hebrew words "bara" (create) and "tohu" (empty) are used in the Bible to back up his position. Probably because I don't completely understand his position, I felt the usage was less cut and dried than he claimed.
Walton's main claim is a good one: Genesis was written by and for Ancient Near East (ANE) people, and so we should try to understand it with their context in mind. Reading only in our 21st Century Western context can easily lead to misinterpretations.
In the end, as Walton points out, I don't know Hebrew or anything about ANE culture. I'm taking his word that, for example, ANE people thought of origins solely as a functional event rather than a material creation or a combination of the two. I tend to side with a consensus of experts (which is why I think the earth is older than 6000 years and we did go to the moon), and if this position gains traction I could see myself getting on board, but I'm not currently convinced.
That leads to another common objection: if this is the way the original audience understood Genesis 1, why did no one figure it out before 2009? Walton acknowledges this objection but doesn't really answer it, saying only that the knowledge was lost and has only been regained recently as we have gathered more information about this time period and culture. That's certainly possible, but modern reinterpretations always make me pause.
Walton discusses a few theological implications of his position (e.g. day 7 creation rest is not a cessation of labor), but only briefly. For example, one objection to an old earth by Young-Earth Creationists is that it requires death before sin, which would seem to contradict Romans 5:12. I've read some explanations (e.g. it's referring to sin by men, and therefore also death for men; it refers to spiritual death rather than physical death). Walton's theory is that death means the loss of eternal life through the separation from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's a valid theory, but is argued in a brief and oblique manner. These theological discussions are mainly what I wanted from this book, so I was a little disappointed.
Walton oddly sets up a false dichotomy between deism and "there's no difference between natural and supernatural". Believing that, for example, God set up physical laws like gravity rather than himself pushing rocks down to earth when dropped is hardly deism. I might be too naturalistic (e.g. I think "formed me in my mother's womb" is poetic), but I'm certainly no deist.
One of Walton's best arguments is in answer to the question: how could you reconcile the cruelty and waste of evolution with God's character? Walton says that Job also questioned God about suffering: he believed that the righteous would prosper and the wicked would suffer. God never answers Job why he let him suffer; he instead shows the complexity of the world and shows that He is in control. Rather than saying "why would God use evolution?" or "if I were God I wouldn't use evolution", we should trust God's wisdom and goodness and determine what the Bible requires us to defend.
Walton is a little vague on Adam and Eve, but he appears to think they are archetypes rather than actual people. He doesn't really develop this idea; I guess I'll have to read his sequel "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" to hear his full thoughts. Though I think a literal Adam and Eve could be integrated with the cosmic temple view.
Walton's summary of other views:
- Young Earth Creationism is commendable for its faith in scripture, but defends a scientific explanation the Bible does not require and science seems to refute.
- Old Earth Creationism unnecessarily interprets material changes in light of modern scientific understanding (e.g. saying the hydrological cycle was created on Day 2) that the Bible does not require.
- The Framework Hypothesis doesn't go far enough; did ancient Israelites understand Genesis 1 as only literary and theological?
- Walton dismisses other theories (explicity Gap and Day-Age) as not viable (I agree).
I like his stance on the "should they teach creation in public schools" question: the current scientific consensus (currently evolution) should be taught in science class without any comment on metaphysical purpose or lack thereof. The question of purpose should be discussed in a philosophy or theology class.
Walton must have read a good bit of Orson Scott Card; he quotes from two of Card's books, neither of them from the Ender's Game series. Doesn't mean anything, just thought it was interesting. :)
This review sounds pretty harsh. I learn best by critiquing and debating, and that tends to come off as more negative than I feel. Also, while the book is worth reading and his position is a possibility, I had high expectations that were disappointed. I came into the book wanting and half-expecting to be convinced, and was not. The topic warrants more thought and study; I'll try to read Walton's "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" next year, along with some critiques. For now, my position remains, "I don't know".
Walton's position, the cosmic temple inauguration view, claims that creation in Genesis 1 is functional, not material. He discusses what this means, examines a few theological implications, briefly compares his view to others, and discusses the debate about teaching creation/evolution in schools.
Walton gives examples of the difference between material and functional creation: creating a chair would be material creation, while creating a company would be functional creation. A restaurant is materially created when the building is built and filled with utensils and ingredients, and is functionally created when it receives its licenses and permits and opens its doors for customers. Assembling a computer's hardware gives it material existence; installing software gives it functional existence. I think I understand the difference but I'm not sure exactly what Walton is claiming for Genesis 1 functional creation. I think his position is that, for example, the sun existed as a star before Genesis 1, but was functionally created as "the Sun" in Genesis 1 when God gave it the purpose of ruling the day, etc.
I only think that because Walton never comes right out and says it. That's my first problem with the book: it feels like the author was developing his theory as he wrote it down, skipping around and repeating himself. That's a valid way to write a book, but I would prefer to read an edited, concise, logically-progressing argument. It's also overly wordy; it felt like he was trying to write for laymen but couldn't quite pull it off.
The FAQ section includes the question, "What would eyewitnesses have seen on these days?" Walton's answer is, "We overrate eyewitnesses in our culture...The perspective of an eyewitness would be inadequate and and too limited to be of any good. Genesis 1 is not intended to be an eyewitness account." Wouldn't "I don't know" have been a less weaselly answer? I guess he was trying to say it doesn't matter what "actually" happened, but it comes off as snarky.
Walton lists all the times the Hebrew words "bara" (create) and "tohu" (empty) are used in the Bible to back up his position. Probably because I don't completely understand his position, I felt the usage was less cut and dried than he claimed.
Walton's main claim is a good one: Genesis was written by and for Ancient Near East (ANE) people, and so we should try to understand it with their context in mind. Reading only in our 21st Century Western context can easily lead to misinterpretations.
In the end, as Walton points out, I don't know Hebrew or anything about ANE culture. I'm taking his word that, for example, ANE people thought of origins solely as a functional event rather than a material creation or a combination of the two. I tend to side with a consensus of experts (which is why I think the earth is older than 6000 years and we did go to the moon), and if this position gains traction I could see myself getting on board, but I'm not currently convinced.
That leads to another common objection: if this is the way the original audience understood Genesis 1, why did no one figure it out before 2009? Walton acknowledges this objection but doesn't really answer it, saying only that the knowledge was lost and has only been regained recently as we have gathered more information about this time period and culture. That's certainly possible, but modern reinterpretations always make me pause.
Walton discusses a few theological implications of his position (e.g. day 7 creation rest is not a cessation of labor), but only briefly. For example, one objection to an old earth by Young-Earth Creationists is that it requires death before sin, which would seem to contradict Romans 5:12. I've read some explanations (e.g. it's referring to sin by men, and therefore also death for men; it refers to spiritual death rather than physical death). Walton's theory is that death means the loss of eternal life through the separation from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's a valid theory, but is argued in a brief and oblique manner. These theological discussions are mainly what I wanted from this book, so I was a little disappointed.
Walton oddly sets up a false dichotomy between deism and "there's no difference between natural and supernatural". Believing that, for example, God set up physical laws like gravity rather than himself pushing rocks down to earth when dropped is hardly deism. I might be too naturalistic (e.g. I think "formed me in my mother's womb" is poetic), but I'm certainly no deist.
One of Walton's best arguments is in answer to the question: how could you reconcile the cruelty and waste of evolution with God's character? Walton says that Job also questioned God about suffering: he believed that the righteous would prosper and the wicked would suffer. God never answers Job why he let him suffer; he instead shows the complexity of the world and shows that He is in control. Rather than saying "why would God use evolution?" or "if I were God I wouldn't use evolution", we should trust God's wisdom and goodness and determine what the Bible requires us to defend.
Walton is a little vague on Adam and Eve, but he appears to think they are archetypes rather than actual people. He doesn't really develop this idea; I guess I'll have to read his sequel "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" to hear his full thoughts. Though I think a literal Adam and Eve could be integrated with the cosmic temple view.
Walton's summary of other views:
- Young Earth Creationism is commendable for its faith in scripture, but defends a scientific explanation the Bible does not require and science seems to refute.
- Old Earth Creationism unnecessarily interprets material changes in light of modern scientific understanding (e.g. saying the hydrological cycle was created on Day 2) that the Bible does not require.
- The Framework Hypothesis doesn't go far enough; did ancient Israelites understand Genesis 1 as only literary and theological?
- Walton dismisses other theories (explicity Gap and Day-Age) as not viable (I agree).
I like his stance on the "should they teach creation in public schools" question: the current scientific consensus (currently evolution) should be taught in science class without any comment on metaphysical purpose or lack thereof. The question of purpose should be discussed in a philosophy or theology class.
Walton must have read a good bit of Orson Scott Card; he quotes from two of Card's books, neither of them from the Ender's Game series. Doesn't mean anything, just thought it was interesting. :)
This review sounds pretty harsh. I learn best by critiquing and debating, and that tends to come off as more negative than I feel. Also, while the book is worth reading and his position is a possibility, I had high expectations that were disappointed. I came into the book wanting and half-expecting to be convinced, and was not. The topic warrants more thought and study; I'll try to read Walton's "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" next year, along with some critiques. For now, my position remains, "I don't know".