Status
Available
Call number
Series
Collection
Publication
IVP Academic (2009), Edition: 32161st, 192 pages
Description
John H. Walton presents and defends twenty propositions supporting a literary and theological understanding of Genesis 1 within the context of the ancient Near Eastern world and unpacks its implications for our modern scientific understanding of origins. --from publisher description
Media reviews
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
While I would quibble with Walton on certain points, I see Walton's work as an essential primer on the realia of Genesis 1 and a much-needed corrective to the inconsistent hermeneutics found in apologetics material on origins. Frankly, this is a book that needed to be written and was long overdue.
User reviews
LibraryThing member adamtarn
Finally! A reading of Genesis One that doesn't resort to textual gymnastics in order to make it concord with either modern science or our chosen ideology of material origins.
Walton is a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton who specializes in ancient Near Eastern literature and that is exactly how
Once Walton establishes the above groundwork he proceeds to examine ancient Near Eastern literature that deal with the issue of origins in a comparative manner setting us up for his main thesis which is as follows:
Ancient cosmology is function oriented. In other words, Walton proposes that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system. In functional ontology, to bring something into existence would require giving it a function or a role in an ordered system, rather than giving it material properties. Consequently, something could be manufactured physically but still not "exist" if it has not become functional. Thus, the actual creative act is to assign something its functioning role in the ordered system. That is what brings it into existence.
The problem, says Walton, is that we presuppose that Genesis One concerns material activity because we never consider alternative ontologies. Our culture has given us our beliefs about what it means for the cosmos to exist (material ontology; existence is material; creation is a material act) and most of us would not realize that these beliefs are the result of a choice. However, there is an alternative.
We must read Genesis One as describing functional ontology otherwise we are in danger of cultural imperialism. In other words, if we attempt to commandeer the text to address issues it doesn't address, we distort it in the process.
Walton goes on to carefully show how this works with Genesis One. For instance, on day one God created the basis for time; day two the basis for weather; and day three the basis for food. These three functions - time, weather and food - are the foundations of life and would have been a lot more important to someone living in the ancient Near East than the materials that are used in these functions. In days four to six the functionaries of the cosmos are installed in their appropriate positions and given their appropriate roles.
Walton then spends time talking about the seventh day and divine rest. Divine rest is always in a temple. The cosmos is the temple. All this leads to the conclusion that Genesis One should be understood as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as a temple. The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place for God's presence.
Thus, we could summarize Walton's proposal as such:
"[T]he seven days are not given as the period of time over which the material cosmos came into existence, but the period of time devoted to the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple, and perhaps also its annual reenactment. It is not the material phase of temple construction that represents the creation of the temple; it is the inauguration of the functions and the entrance of the presence of God to take up his rest that creates the temple." (92)
All this ground is covered in the first half of this small book. In the second half he proceeds to integrate this view into the broader issues of science and society. The implications are far to many to be discussed in a review like this but I will offer just one of Walton's conclusions,
"In this view, science cannot offer an unbiblical view of material origins, because there is no biblical view of material origins aside from the very general idea that whatever happened, whenever it happened, and however it happened, God did it." (113)
All this is to say that this leaves open whatever descriptive mechanism for material origins the consensus of science is currently espousing to be taken as a best estimate of material origins.
As Walton suggest the resulting theology of this view is not weaker but rather is much stronger and I would have to completely agree. This is simply the most thoughtful and responsible reading of Genesis I have come across and any discussion of biblical origins will have to contend with it.
Thank you professor John H. Walton!
Walton is a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton who specializes in ancient Near Eastern literature and that is exactly how
Show More
he approaches the Genesis text. Furthermore, Genesis One needs to be understood as ancient cosmology. If we try to turn it into modern cosmology, we are making the text say something that it never said because it wasn't written to us. It was written to and for ancient Israelites (This is not to say that it doesn't communicate to all humanity but rather it is simply the exegetical understanding that it comes to us secondarily through Israel to us and everyone else).Once Walton establishes the above groundwork he proceeds to examine ancient Near Eastern literature that deal with the issue of origins in a comparative manner setting us up for his main thesis which is as follows:
Ancient cosmology is function oriented. In other words, Walton proposes that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system. In functional ontology, to bring something into existence would require giving it a function or a role in an ordered system, rather than giving it material properties. Consequently, something could be manufactured physically but still not "exist" if it has not become functional. Thus, the actual creative act is to assign something its functioning role in the ordered system. That is what brings it into existence.
The problem, says Walton, is that we presuppose that Genesis One concerns material activity because we never consider alternative ontologies. Our culture has given us our beliefs about what it means for the cosmos to exist (material ontology; existence is material; creation is a material act) and most of us would not realize that these beliefs are the result of a choice. However, there is an alternative.
We must read Genesis One as describing functional ontology otherwise we are in danger of cultural imperialism. In other words, if we attempt to commandeer the text to address issues it doesn't address, we distort it in the process.
Walton goes on to carefully show how this works with Genesis One. For instance, on day one God created the basis for time; day two the basis for weather; and day three the basis for food. These three functions - time, weather and food - are the foundations of life and would have been a lot more important to someone living in the ancient Near East than the materials that are used in these functions. In days four to six the functionaries of the cosmos are installed in their appropriate positions and given their appropriate roles.
Walton then spends time talking about the seventh day and divine rest. Divine rest is always in a temple. The cosmos is the temple. All this leads to the conclusion that Genesis One should be understood as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as a temple. The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place for God's presence.
Thus, we could summarize Walton's proposal as such:
"[T]he seven days are not given as the period of time over which the material cosmos came into existence, but the period of time devoted to the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple, and perhaps also its annual reenactment. It is not the material phase of temple construction that represents the creation of the temple; it is the inauguration of the functions and the entrance of the presence of God to take up his rest that creates the temple." (92)
All this ground is covered in the first half of this small book. In the second half he proceeds to integrate this view into the broader issues of science and society. The implications are far to many to be discussed in a review like this but I will offer just one of Walton's conclusions,
"In this view, science cannot offer an unbiblical view of material origins, because there is no biblical view of material origins aside from the very general idea that whatever happened, whenever it happened, and however it happened, God did it." (113)
All this is to say that this leaves open whatever descriptive mechanism for material origins the consensus of science is currently espousing to be taken as a best estimate of material origins.
As Walton suggest the resulting theology of this view is not weaker but rather is much stronger and I would have to completely agree. This is simply the most thoughtful and responsible reading of Genesis I have come across and any discussion of biblical origins will have to contend with it.
Thank you professor John H. Walton!
Show Less
LibraryThing member StephenBarkley
Controversy surrounds anyone who decides to talk about Genesis one. Young Earthers, Old Earth Creationists, Literary Readers and Gap Theorists form their identity by battling each other. Walton brings something completely new to the argument with compelling clarity. Here's a brief summary:
We assume
This is a remarkable book that should be read by anyone interested in forming a biblical understanding of creation. Walton's made a compelling case that must be answered by any other view of Genesis going forward.
We assume
Show More
that when the Bible uses the verb "create" it means to create material. A closer look at the Hebrew usage of the term shows us that create is more functional than material. (E.g. We can speak of creating a business when nothing material has happened.) When scripture speaks of God creating in Genesis 1, he's essentially giving function to the elements of the world—giving them purpose. This doesn't deny ex nihilo—that doctrine just cannot be found in Genesis 1. On the seventh day, God takes up residence in his Temple (that is: cosmos). This functional reading of "to create" places Genesis firmly in the realm of other ancient cosmologies and allows us to read the text more faithfully. Once this view is explained, Walton goes on to challenge all the other creation views as inadequate.This is a remarkable book that should be read by anyone interested in forming a biblical understanding of creation. Walton's made a compelling case that must be answered by any other view of Genesis going forward.
Show Less
LibraryThing member wbc3
Walton gives a new perspective on the Biblical Genesis 1 creation account by viewing it in light of other Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature. He does this by working through eighteen propositions/chapters about Genesis 1. The first two are the critical ones that provide the foundation for the
Show More
remaining ones. The first proposition is that Genesis one needs to be viewed as ancient cosmology not as scientific exposition. The second proposition regards ontology and was much harder for me to get my head around. He asserts that ANE cosmology is function oriented (describing functional ontology) rather than material. The simplest example he gave is that creating a curriculum does not refer to the material manufacturing process, but the process of organizing the ideas and goals necessary to form the curriculum. I found some of what Walton proposes to be compelling, but I confess that I don’t have the necessary expertise in ANE cosmology or the philosophy of ontology to see all the flaws in his arguments. Despite that, I found what he wrote to be well worth considering and recommend this book to anyone willing to be challenged in their understanding of the Biblical creation account in Genesis 1. Show Less
LibraryThing member puritanreformed
Walton sadly doesn't understand basic philosophy at all. Ontology (from Greek ων, οντα, ον, participial form of Greek ειμι, + λογος) is the philosophy of things, what a thing is, concerning essences and accidents. It is not necessarily material, since God is not material, neither
Next, since in God's economy, God does everything with a purpose, it is ridiculous to state that since everything has a teleology, Genesis must not be dealing with ontology.
In other words, this work suffers from bad philosophy and the creation of false dichotomies. Add to that an ignorance of the basics of opposing views (e.g. Walton misrepresents the YEC position), and you have a book that does not even begin to make a case that can function as a viable challenge to opposing views
Show More
are the hierarchy of emanations in the Platonic scheme. There is no such thing as "functional ontology." But rather ontology is ontology, and teleology is teleology. Walton would have failed a first-year philosophy class with such terminological confusion.Next, since in God's economy, God does everything with a purpose, it is ridiculous to state that since everything has a teleology, Genesis must not be dealing with ontology.
In other words, this work suffers from bad philosophy and the creation of false dichotomies. Add to that an ignorance of the basics of opposing views (e.g. Walton misrepresents the YEC position), and you have a book that does not even begin to make a case that can function as a viable challenge to opposing views
Show Less
LibraryThing member spbooks
A brilliant book for anyone interested in the relationship between science and the Genesis 1 creation story in the Hebrew Bible. The idea that the first chapter of the Bible must line up with science is completely undermined once this ancient text is read on its own terms in its historical and
Show More
cultural context. The author works through a series of propositions solidly based in scholarship about the ancient world and its cosmology. Written with clarity and rigorous logic. Highly recommended for those interested in the subject. Show Less
LibraryThing member louisvigo
It was 7th grade when Mrs Mayo, my public school science teacher, taught evolution. She prefaced that day stating evolution does not disprove creation but merely explains it (this was in southwest Louisiana, 1982). As I read the bible throughout the years I never really considered that the 6 day
I was faced with the dilemma that I wasn’t comfortable with the 6 Day = 6 Eons theory either, it just didn’t pan out in light of the sequence of days in Genesis 1. For instance Day one begins with the Earth already created, and the stars aren’t there until day 4. So that didn’t add up, how could I be faithful to scripture and not ignore science.
Walton provides a satisfactory explanation along with a deeper appreciation for Genesis 1, as much more than just an account of creation. He refutes the Concordist model which states Genesis 1 was written to scientifically explain the material creation of life, the universe, and everything. He shows that this view was beyond the ancient’s worldview and that their main concern was explaining functional origins, i.e. the Cosmic Temple Inauguration model. And the preeminent thrust of was mainly a teleological account, the explanation of purpose and function.
The teleological evidence of Genesis 1 is needed today as much if not more than ever. The modern world is so confused when it comes to purpose, we assume that God created us merely to be happy, whether his happiness our ours. But the authors intention in Genesis is much more profound. The ideas expressed in Genesis 1 as interpreted here are implicitly related to environment, sexuality, family, and every other aspect of human activity of life and civilization.
The beauty is that his premise is compatible with both a literal 6 Day Creation model and Old Earth via evolution and/or big bang theory, as well as any other model. The central idea being that Genesis 1 is detailing a functional inauguration, and that since scripture gives no scientific model of the material creation of the universe but states emphatically that God is highly involved in the process no matter the method.
Science provides no mechanism for the metaphysical question of purpose in regard to the origins of life, it cannot explore the “why” questions only the “how” questions. Science cannot and will not tell us the goal of the universe, why we are here, or even if we have a purpose or not… and it should not… It would not be empirical science if it did. That is the aim of teleology and metaphysics, which should be taught in conjunction to science, but as a separate entity.
Any model of the origin of the cosmos and life should be taught along with all its complexities and problems. And philosophical ideas such as teleology and metaphysics should be taught as objective non-religious ideas, with the aim of teaching students ‘how to think’, not ‘what to think’. Its is a shame and a waste that there is a conflict that is inherently politicized that prevents textbook publishers and educators to owning up to the problems deep-rooted in the evolution model. But that is normal science, owning up to and discussing these things is part of the scientific process.
Science is a great tool for exploring the universe, but it is not the end all of knowledge, nor does it claim to be. History has taught us that as our knowledge increases the truths of science change. Whats true and beyond doubt in one generation is not necessarily true in the next. The process of doing science itself changes over time. Quantum physics is a huge wrench in the contemporary process. Again, I’m no scientist, but I’m not ignorant of some of the problems and ideas.
Lastly, Walton does an outstanding job relating academic ideas in a down-to-earth style. He presents his propositions in a clear and logical manner that is easy to follow. He follows each chapter with a summary, summarizes everything at the halfway point of the book and again at the end so there is not much room for misunderstanding and plenty room for grasping the whole picture. He then answers a few common questions at the very end in a Q & A style. Its pretty concise and logical laid out. Which makes for a great and quick read for such a heavy topic.
Show More
account in Genesis was contradictory to an old earth because of the way everything is worded… until I watched a series of videos by a 6 Day Creationist sometime around 1998 who was supremely adamant that evolution was the most formidable weapon of deceit and doubt facing Christians today. And until exposed to many of the complexities around the issue I considered it for approximately 2 years before dismissing it. I’m no scientist, but I eventually settled back on the old earth model, thats just what makes the most sense to me. And like science I remain open to change my views upon further knowledge.I was faced with the dilemma that I wasn’t comfortable with the 6 Day = 6 Eons theory either, it just didn’t pan out in light of the sequence of days in Genesis 1. For instance Day one begins with the Earth already created, and the stars aren’t there until day 4. So that didn’t add up, how could I be faithful to scripture and not ignore science.
Walton provides a satisfactory explanation along with a deeper appreciation for Genesis 1, as much more than just an account of creation. He refutes the Concordist model which states Genesis 1 was written to scientifically explain the material creation of life, the universe, and everything. He shows that this view was beyond the ancient’s worldview and that their main concern was explaining functional origins, i.e. the Cosmic Temple Inauguration model. And the preeminent thrust of was mainly a teleological account, the explanation of purpose and function.
The teleological evidence of Genesis 1 is needed today as much if not more than ever. The modern world is so confused when it comes to purpose, we assume that God created us merely to be happy, whether his happiness our ours. But the authors intention in Genesis is much more profound. The ideas expressed in Genesis 1 as interpreted here are implicitly related to environment, sexuality, family, and every other aspect of human activity of life and civilization.
The beauty is that his premise is compatible with both a literal 6 Day Creation model and Old Earth via evolution and/or big bang theory, as well as any other model. The central idea being that Genesis 1 is detailing a functional inauguration, and that since scripture gives no scientific model of the material creation of the universe but states emphatically that God is highly involved in the process no matter the method.
Science provides no mechanism for the metaphysical question of purpose in regard to the origins of life, it cannot explore the “why” questions only the “how” questions. Science cannot and will not tell us the goal of the universe, why we are here, or even if we have a purpose or not… and it should not… It would not be empirical science if it did. That is the aim of teleology and metaphysics, which should be taught in conjunction to science, but as a separate entity.
Any model of the origin of the cosmos and life should be taught along with all its complexities and problems. And philosophical ideas such as teleology and metaphysics should be taught as objective non-religious ideas, with the aim of teaching students ‘how to think’, not ‘what to think’. Its is a shame and a waste that there is a conflict that is inherently politicized that prevents textbook publishers and educators to owning up to the problems deep-rooted in the evolution model. But that is normal science, owning up to and discussing these things is part of the scientific process.
Science is a great tool for exploring the universe, but it is not the end all of knowledge, nor does it claim to be. History has taught us that as our knowledge increases the truths of science change. Whats true and beyond doubt in one generation is not necessarily true in the next. The process of doing science itself changes over time. Quantum physics is a huge wrench in the contemporary process. Again, I’m no scientist, but I’m not ignorant of some of the problems and ideas.
Lastly, Walton does an outstanding job relating academic ideas in a down-to-earth style. He presents his propositions in a clear and logical manner that is easy to follow. He follows each chapter with a summary, summarizes everything at the halfway point of the book and again at the end so there is not much room for misunderstanding and plenty room for grasping the whole picture. He then answers a few common questions at the very end in a Q & A style. Its pretty concise and logical laid out. Which makes for a great and quick read for such a heavy topic.
Show Less
LibraryThing member tony_sturges
In this astute mix of cultural critique and biblical studies, John H. Walton presents and defends twenty propositions supporting a literary and theological understanding of Genesis 1 within the context of the ancient Near Eastern world and unpacks its implications for our modern scientific
Ideal for students, professors, pastors and lay readers with an interest in the intelligent design controversy and creation-evolution debates, Walton's thoughtful analysis unpacks seldom appreciated aspects of the biblical text and sets Bible-believing scientists free to investigate the question of origins.
Show More
understanding of origins.Ideal for students, professors, pastors and lay readers with an interest in the intelligent design controversy and creation-evolution debates, Walton's thoughtful analysis unpacks seldom appreciated aspects of the biblical text and sets Bible-believing scientists free to investigate the question of origins.
Show Less
LibraryThing member vanjr
This is a book that deals with how we read the Bible. It suggests that the "Creation vs. Evolution" argument misses the point of Genesis 1. His premise is that we cannot read into the text more or something different from what the original author and readers intended/meant. He argues against
Show More
"concordism" and for Genesis 1 being read most literally as being the origin of functions. A worth while read if this topic interests you. He may have made those on both sides of the Creation/Evolution upset with him:) Show Less
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2009-05-22
Physical description
192 p.; 8.25 inches
ISBN
0830837043 / 9780830837045