Evaluation – New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis

I first heard about John Walton’s approach to Genesis from a lecture he gave at a faith and science conference at Wheaton College when I was an undergraduate student (around 2005). It was significant for me because it was the first time that I heard an intellectually rigorous theological perspective that actually aligned with what science claimed. Before this, my perception was that the science department and the Bible department disagreed about these topics related to origins. For this reason, I was excited to see what Walton has updated, clarified, and even where he changed his mind.

There are several great things about this book. First, the structure of the book makes it easy to follow. You can read this volume without having read all the previous Lost World books. It probably does require some familiarity with the questions and debate around origins to get the most out of it but not required. The FAQs make it easy to skip around and read about specific questions you may be more interested in.

Second, I really appreciate it when an author is forthcoming with where they have changed their mind. Walton also sticks to the content of the debates and avoids any negative ad hominem arguments. Walton’s humility and transparency give him added credibility in my book.

Third, it is cool to see the collaboration with his son J. Harvey Walton. There are several excursuses written by his son that add helpful insights and expanded concepts. These are also many of the areas where Walton has changed his mind or expanded his previous material the most.

Book Summary – New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis

Each topic has three parts. First, a summary of the previous material. Second, Walton provides new insights, clarifications, and illustrations to expand on the previous material. Last is a section of frequently asked questions and common critiques.

My hope for this book is that it will (1) help those who have adopted the Lost World perspective to understand it more fully, (2) help those who have been confused and uncertain to gain more clarity, and (3) help those who have been resistant and critical to perhaps correct what they believe about me or about the position so that the conversation can move forward in more healthy ways, even if they continue to disagree.

New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis by John Walton

Methodology

Walton believes in both God’s authority and human agency in the creation of the Bible. He claims that “the Bible is written for us but not to us”. It is written to a particular group of people in a particular cultural context. We should seek to understand what the author intended to communicate and what the original audience would have understood.

Inerrancy means we must affirm what the Bible affirms as true. It does not mean that we believe everything written in the Bible is true. For example, the statements Satan makes to tempt Jesus in the desert are lies. This isn’t controversial because it is clear in the context of the temptation that Satan is lying and the author is not trying to communicate those lies as truth. The question for interpretation then becomes what does the Bible affirm and what is just a reference.

The ancient cosmic and physiological perspectives in the Bible should be considered as references and not affirmations. Claiming that the sky is a solid dome is not an affirmation. It is a reference to the default way people thought about the sky in the ancient near east. We should apply this same methodology to the creation and fall accounts in Genesis 1-3.

Functional Ontology

Walton claims that Genesis 1 is not about the material or physical creation of objects. It is about God bringing order and a function to objects. This is how the ancient near east thought about creation. Walton now focuses more on order and function. The initial state was non-order. God brought order to the non-order. Human brought disorder. This spectrum of order provides a better way of understanding what the original authors were communicating.

This is not to say that God did not also create the underlying mater, but that is not what Genesis is talking about. Walton uses analogies like a house vs a home or software vs hardware to help us think about the order/function of an object vs the material of an object.

The seven days are then to be understood as a literarily prioritized order and not a chronological order. The Bible does not answer questions about the mechanisms, like evolution.

Temple and Rest

Walton claims that day seven in the creation story is the climax. When God rested, we should understand that he came to occupy the space like a deity would occupy a temple after it was constructed. Previously, Walton referred to this as a cosmic temple. The problem with this view is that role of a temple was to distinguish between inside and outside, separating the sacred space from the non-sacred space. There is no outside the cosmos, so Walton now refers to this as “cosmos as a sacred space”. The role of humans then is to expand the sacred space by expanding God’s order.

Sacred Space and Priestly Roles

Walton identified Adam and Eve as having priestly roles in his previous works. Eden was a sacred space and Adam and Eve served as archetypes of priests. This assumes that Eden is human realm where God visits (like other sacred spaces). Walton changes his view to consider Eden as the divine realm where humans find they do not belong. Adam and Eve are then viewed as wardens and Eden is more a palace/royal garden than a temple garden.

Walton also claims that we should not push for symmetry between the garden of Eden in Genesis and the imagery used in Revelation for the culminating future Kingdom of God. We should not read more into Genesis than what is there to try to make it match the picture in Revelation.

Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve should primarily be thought of as archetypes. This is not to say they weren’t real people that existed in a real past, but that isn’t what the text is trying to describe. This does not mean that Genesis is an allegory where things have symbolic meaning.

There is evidence that there were other humans other than Adam and Eve. First is Cain found a wife, presumably from other people that existed nearby. Second is Cain’s fear that there were other people out there that would kill him when he is banished. Third is that Cain built a city, which presumes other people would live there.

Walton claims that the creation of Adam from dust is a claim about identity, not his origin or material nature. Dust is a reference to mortality. Humans are created mortal from the beginning. It was access to the tree of life that allowed them to avoid death in Eden. Without access to the tree of life, their mortal nature led to physical death. This means that Adam and Eve did not need to be made out of nothing (no predecessors).

What made Adam and Eve unique is being made in the image of God. This is a reference to their role to rule, not their mental faculties, consciousness, or ability to reason.

Adam and Eve are not archetypes of male and female. They both represent all humanity. Adam is an archetype for work and Eve is an archetype for community. Working and community are both aspects of life for both male and female.

The Serpent

The serpent should be understood as a chaos creature. It is not Satan and should not be thought of as evil as usually understood. This avoids questions about how evil or Satan could have existed before the fall or why was Satan was allowed in the Garden of Eden. When the serpent is thought of as a chaos creature, it represents non-order, which isn’t evil like disorder. It is not desirable for humans, but it is not evil. The serpent is a catalyst for humans making a choice between God and themselves.

Genesis 3 should not be thought about as a story for how sin came into the world or about how two people’s choices affect us all. It is about humanities search for order. Genesis 1-11 covers the many inadequate ways that humans find in that search.

The Curse

Walton claims that calling the pronouncement in Gen. 3:14-19 should not be thought of as a curse or punishment. First, the pronouncement applies to the serpent and the ground, not the humans. Second, this passage should be read as descriptive and not prescriptive.

Walton pushes back against common interpretations such as the “serpent crusher” in Gen. 3:15 being a messianic claim about Jesus and the “rule” and “desire” in Gen. 3:16 being a claim about gender relationships. This was not the intent of the original author.

Science and the Bible

Our contemporary scientific questions were not a part of what the author of Genesis was intending to answer nor what the ancient near eastern audience would have asked. We must not read into the text our own assumptions from our current cultural perspective.

For the author, teleology (destiny) is more important than ontology (what we came from). The Bible is concerned with agency (who and why questions) not about what and how questions. This removes the perceived conflict between science and faith.

For example, if science claims that evolution best explains the how and what of human origins, Christians can freely accept this thesis and still rely on the Bible for traditional answers to the who and why questions.

My Top Takeaways – New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis

Inerrancy

Affirmations and References

From a high level, why does all of this matter? What is at stake if we believe all the claims that Walton makes in this book? One common worry is related to inerrancy. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is without errors. If we accept Walton’s claims, are we accepting that the Bible was wrong about these things? Then could it also be wrong about Jesus, the resurrection, etc.?

Inerrancy is an easy concept for me to support at a general level, but it is a very nuanced concept to apply to specific texts. I really like the distinction Walton makes between affirmations and references. Everything is a reference at one level. The words reference something in the reality of the author and audience. Some of the references are also affirmations. These affirmations are intended to communicate a truth claim. I like the definition of inerrancy that states we must affirm as true what the Bible affirms as true.

Walton’s methodology provides some helpful guidelines to help think about what in the Bible is a reference and what is an affirmation. First, he points out the distinction between an affirmation at the discourse level compared to an affirmation at the detail level. There is always an affirmation at the discourse level, but there may not be affirmations at the detail level of a particular text.

Good questions to ask when approaching a text is “Why is this here?” and “What did this text change about the audience’s thinking?”. If the text departs from the default understanding of the culture, it is more likely to be an affirmation. If the text is the same as the default understanding of the culture, it is more likely to be a reference.

Inerrancy and the Historical Adam

One area where this approach is helpful is the historical Adam. What do we lose if Adam was not a real historical person? Some people feel like there is a lot riding on it. I think the main reason is related to inerrancy. First, can we trust the rest of the Bible? Second, for historical Adam in particular, we must address how Paul refers to Adam in Romans 5. Do we need to assume that what Paul wrote was his based on his own understanding of Genesis and does that demand that we also believe what Paul believed about Genesis?

Walton provides a helpful distinction between the historical Adam, the literary Adam, and the theological Adam. These do not need to all be the same. If Genesis is using Adam as a literary archetype, then it isn’t making a claim about the historical Adam. Paul could have affirmed both a historical Adam as well as the literary Adam in Genesis and still used a theological Adam to communicate about a specific theological point relevant to his audience. We don’t need to merge all of this into one, monolithic understanding.

My Critiques – New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis

Methodology

Walton addresses the common critique about his approach only being possible recently due to the archeological discoveries of many ancient near eastern tablets and scrolls. Why would God allow/create a situation where no one could accurately interpret Scripture for thousands of years between then and now?

Walton does a good job addressing the problems behind this type of question. He points out that various cultures throughout history asked different questions of the text and therefore had different methodologies for interpretation. They would never have considered the approach of trying to understand the original intent of the author because the question was not answerable to them.

Walton applies his methodology consistently and comes to many different conclusions than much of traditional evangelicalism. Many of the conclusions make a lot of sense, often more sense than the traditional view (at least to me in the cultural context). My question is whether his methodology is the best way to interpret Scripture and the best way to get at the truth.

First, is the intent of the author always the same as the intent of God? Could God intend to communicate to various audiences through various methodologies using the same text across different times and cultures?

Second, what can we learn from previous and alternative methodologies? Are we going to have too narrow of a view if we only look at interpretations through Walton’s methodology?

Conclusion