The Lost World of Genesis One [Paperback]

Here is a book that I hope will be put into the hands of every Christian who is interested in science.

Dr John Walton is a very careful and established Old Testament scholar who teaches at Wheaton College. He has done a lot of work in Ancient Near Eastern studies and is also the author of the NIV Genesis commentary. The most crucial insight of his view is that the seven days of Genesis 1 are seven literal days, but there is no adequate reason to interpret these seven days as the duration in which the universe with the living things began their existence. Rather, there are better reasons to interpret the seven days as the duration in which the universe with the living things were organized (or re-organized) to function in a way that was compatible with the appearance of the first humans, who with the organized universe formed a cosmic temple. It should be noted that this view is not the same as the `Gap Theory'. The Gap theory proposes a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, but this is grammatically problematic in the Hebrew language. Walton's view does not have this problem as he does not propose a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Rather, the whole of Genesis 1 are taken to be the days in which God reorganized the universe to be functional with respect to man.

It is most important to grasp the methodological principle that, to understand an ancient text, we have to find out how the ancient readers would have understood it. Based on studies of the Ancient Near Eastern culture as well as Hebrew texts, Walton argues that it is preferable to take the Hebrew word bara which is translated as 'create' in Genesis 1 to mean functional (with respect to the cosmic temple) rather than ontological creation. Therefore, there is good evidence to think that the functional view is how the ancient readers would have understood Genesis 1. And unlike some other approaches to Genesis 1, Walton's view does not involve linguistic gymnastics but it is a rather straightforward interpretation that is based on a better understanding of the Hebrew word bara.

Hence, regardless of the scientific view that a Christian holds, he or she would have to consider this approach seriously as this is quite likely what the Bible really meant. If this was what the author of Genesis intended to convey to his audience, then 21st century readers should be wary of imposing their modern ideas (e.g. the Young Earth Creationism, which sees the seven days as the beginning of existence of the universe) onto the text. The reason why many people in the churches hold firmly to Young Earth Creationism is perhaps because they think that that is what the Bible plainly teaches. They should heed the words of Augustine with reference to Genesis, `In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.' Young Earth Creationists should therefore be open-minded and be willing to consider other interpretations of Genesis 1, and in view of the Jewish background of the text it is actually more reasonable to interpret it in functional terms.

The implication of Walton's view is that Genesis does not say when the universe (with the living things) began to exist. It could have been millions of years (for the purpose of which God did not reveal to us), and then a reorganization just before the creation of the first humans. Hence, there is no conflict between science and Christianity in the matter of dating the age of the earth, and therefore the age of the earth as a stumbling block for many unbelievers is totally unnecessary.

It is also important to emphasize that, while Walton's interpretation has the implication that Genesis does not say when the universe began to exist, this does not imply that the Bible does not affirm that God is literally the first cause of the beginning of existence of the universe. On the contrary, there are other passages in the Bible (e.g. Colossians 1:16-17) which affirm (literally and regardless of duration) God's creation of the material cosmos ontologically, and Walton himself affirms this also on p97. It should be noted that this point--God as the first cause of the beginning of the universe-- is well supported by philosophy, history, and recent discoveries in science (see The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, published by one of the world's most respected academic press, Wiley-Blackwell). Hence, Christians can have full confidence that God is the first cause of the beginning of the universe, and that there is no conflict between science and Christianity in the matter of dating the age of the universe.

To conclude, Walton's view is the best interpretation of Genesis 1 currently available, though I feel quite sad that not many Christians are aware of it yet (most people are only aware of the Young-Earth and the Day-Age interpretations). This view has resolved the questions that I have, and I think that it can help many others (especially people from communist background such as mainland China) who have heard of Christianity and who are struggling with its apparent conflict with science. Get this book; the ideas in it are important for our understanding of the Bible, for teaching our children about the relationship between Genesis and science, and perhaps indirectly for the salvation of other people.

The book is made up of 18 propositions that Walton affirms and which he thinks are of importance in the origins debate. Walton emphasises repeatedly the need to read Genesis as much as possible in the mindset of an ANE Israelite. He recognises that our ability to do this is limited but nevertheless it should be our goal when reading the text. Bearing this in mind, Walton asserts that Genesis 1 is an account of 'functional ontology' and not 'material ontology'. In defending this thesis he appeals to other ANE creation accounts and also to Genesis itself, showing, as he thinks, how a functional ontology better explains the text. Rushing to the end of the argument - the middle of the book - Walton's conclusion is that the creation week in Genesis is the functional inauguration of God's cosmic temple. This is how an Israelite, indeed anyone of an ANE milieu, would have read the text.

A consequence of this, then, is that Genesis 1 does not give an account of material origins. And thus there is no conflict between Genesis and contemporary science. Walton is careful to affirm that God is responsible for material origins but it's just that Genesis 1 is not an account of that. Further, he is careful to affirm the historicity of Adam of Eve even if he doesn't adequately explain how historicity works on his view.

The whole book depends on the material/functional dichotomy, and early on Walton sets out to show that creation does not necessarily mean material. By material Walton means the stuff. Genesis is not an account of creating stuff. With respect to function he distinguishes between scientific function and, what he calls elsewhere, anthropological function. It is the latter he has in mind. Genesis 1 is an account of the already existing material world being given the function of a cosmic temple.

I think more work is required on this division. It wasn't always apparent, at least not to me, what exactly Walton means by functional ontology. It is also unclear that there is the strict division of material/function that Walton's argument requires. Within the context of Genesis he asks the question 'can't it be both?'. He answers this question by saying that material creation cannot simply be assumed, it must be argued for. This, it seems to me, is a dodge. If one accepts Walton's bifurcation of material/function then creative acts must be one or other, it cannot be both. But suppose material and functional creation are not always mutually exclusive, then what? Suppose further that there can be a necessary connection between the material and the functional such that material creation entails functional creation, in which case the point in time of functional creation could also be the time of material creation. To be fair to Walton these points are touched upon but I think more space should have been given to dealing with these, and similar, issues since they are of such importance to his argument.

Walton glances over different interpretations of Genesis; namely, young earth, old earth and the framework hypothesis. He briefly explains what these interpretations get right and what, he thinks, they get wrong. For instance, he agrees with YEC that the creation week is made up of 24 hour days but disagrees with material creation.

He also insists that his interpretation did not arise out of a concern to reconcile evolutionary science and Christianity but it would be hard to deny that its appeal is linked, at least to those who have taken up his thesis enthusiastically. In general I think this is a very helpful addition to the origins debate. The book does several things well but it also has some problems and some limitations.

Professor Walton will be known to many biblical scholars and teachers as co-author of a fine Old Testament Survey. This book makes a significant contribution to the study of Genesis and, indeed, the whole of the Hebrew Bible. Walton makes a convincing case that the first chapter of Genesis must be understood in terms of its cultural and literary background in the ancient Near East and not, in the first instance, in the light of our contemporary cosmological concerns. So, like many other ANE creation accounts, Genesis 1 depends on a functional ontology; it portrays the ordering of a chaotic world into a functioning Cosmos which serves as a temple for God, rather than a creation "ex nihilo". Walton's tone throughout is eirenic. His deep scholarship serves always to clarify rather than to mystify. Those scholars, who, in my view understandably, have been led to dismiss the historical-critical enterprise as barren of significance may revise their opinion if they read this. However, this accessible and affordable book will also be of interest for pastors, bible group leaders and indeed all who are interested in establishing how the truths of Scripture bear on current debates.