# The Lost World of Torah (Walton)



## RamistThomist (Nov 16, 2019)

This book isn’t as “revolutionary” as perhaps Walton’s critics and fans think it is. There are a number of things he isn’t saying:

a) He isn’t saying the Torah doesn’t apply today.
b) He isn’t promoting sexual freedom.
c) He isn’t saying Israel copied from ANE cultures. In fact, he specifically rejects that idea.

In short, Torah revealed Yahweh’s order in society. It addressed threats to order, and in that revelation it teaches wisdom, not a format for OSHA codes. My problem with the book is that about 70% of it is really, really good. Almost outstanding, even. It's at the parts where it matters most we found documentation least. Walton is bad about that in other works. It's not that he doesn't know the scholarship. He knows it better than most.

I recommend this for the mature reader. We don't agree with all of his conclusions.

Thesis: Order is achieved through the wisdom of those who governed society. Our primary task in studying Torah is not to make it an updated version of the Congressional Register, but to see how it embodies (or is embodied) order in society.

*Proposition 1: The Old Testament is an Ancient Document*

Walton faces a stiff challenge: he correctly notes the embeddedness of much of Torah, yet he wants to affirm its relevance for us today. Can he do that? He suggests the use of a “cultural broker,” a person an analogue who can help us make sense of commands like “Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.”

*Proposition 2: The Way we think about Torah today is conditioned by how we think law and legislation work.*

Walton notes, correctly I think, that Hebrew “legal sayings” include legislation and instruction. These are two distinct speech-acts with different expected responses.

*Proposition 3: Legal Collections in the Ancient World are not Legislation*

Key idea: What did legal sayings in the ANE look like? Does the “Law,” whether Hammurabi’s or Moses’s, cover every legal aspect of society? Walton argues that judges in the ancient world, more often than not, used their intuition.

*Proposition 4: ANE Legal Collections teach wisdom*

These lists are aspective. They contain a wide variety “of aspects pertaining to a topic.” A collection of legal lists would teach the king or judge how to be wise in a ruling. Walton suggests it is like the “practice problem” in a math textbook. It teaches you how to do something, but the individual problem isn’t the standard for all further deductions.

*Proposition 5: Torah is similar to these legislations and therefore teaches wisdom*

An example that Torah functioned also as wisdom is David’s (unwitting) response to Nathan’s parable. He says the man must die but he also must pay fourfold.

Terminology: 







None of these terms refer to codified legislation. But does not the command to “obey” imply that Torah = legislation? Not necessarily. The command to “obey” almost always has “voice” as its object, not Torah itself. I think there are some exceptions, though.

We are told to keep (smr) his commands (mitzwot). These commands occur often in Wisdom literature, which is concerned with order.

*Proposition 6: The Israelite Covenant functions as an ANE Suzerainty Treaty.*

Thesis: these treaties sought to teach wisdom and explain what the regent may or may not do; it wasn’t a comprehensive legislation. The suzerein’s stipulations were more of “extending his identity” than imposing a piece of legislation (Ezek. 36:22-24).

*Proposition 7: Holiness is a status, not an objective*

In Lev. 19:2 God’s people are called to be holy (indicative, not imperative). It is more along the lines of “You Will Be Holy.” The Hebrew qds can mean:

* a constellation of all that is associated with Yahweh (the ark, temple, Mt Sinai, etc).

* God’s patronage (Ex. 6:7).

*Proposition 8: ANE rituals served to meet the needs of the gods*

Thesis: rituals provide the means by which order is maintained. I agree with what he is saying but he didn’t offer any argumentation or have any textual support.

*Proposition 9: Israelite ritual maintains to preserve covenant order because Yahweh has no needs*

At this point there is a clear break between ANE societies and Israel. Yahweh doesn’t need to be pampered. Therefore, the ritual exercises maintain a different status quo. These rituals serve the role of a tribute. It served the purpose of revelation: it revealed (among other things) Yahweh’s order to the world.

Walton points out, but does not develop, that kipper rarely has “person” or “sin” as its object. It is rather to restore the cultic equilibrium. It’s not so much that it forgives sin but it allows a person to be forgiven.

*Proposition 10: Torah is similar to other ANE codes because it embodies the same cultural context.*

This is tricky. On one hand, it is true by definition. We don’t live outside space and time. It also makes sense that legal wisdom (or wisdom in general) would bleed through national boundaries. On the other hand, as Walton admits, establishing that x borrowed from y is very difficult.

*Proposition 11: The differences between Torah and ANE codes are found not in legislation, but in establishing order*

Unlike other law codes, Torah is concerned with holiness and covenant. Yahweh, who is holy, has taken to himself a people who are now holy. How should they live? He gives them Torah to define the nature of the order which reveals himself.

*Proposition 12: Torah is situated in the context of the ancient world.

Proposition 13: Torah is situated in the context of covenant.*

For many laws in Torah, even if they are functioning as law, they are apodictic, not casuistic. 

*Proposition 14: Torah is situated in the context of Israelite theology regarding God’s presence residing among them. 

Proposition 15: Discussions of the law in New Testament context do not tell us anything about Old Testament Torah in context.

Proposition 16: Torah should not be divided into categories to separate what is relevant.*

Speaking of the debt-slavery in the Old Testament, Walton notes,







Taxation in Torah times was based on goods-and-barter system, as coins weren’t minted until the Persian period. Therefore, Torah isn’t talking about monetary taxation, giving principles for or against, but warning rulers not to trust in their own strength (as measured by goods).

*Proposition 17: Torah was never intended to provide salvation.

Proposition 18: Divine Instruction can function as a metaphor for health rather than law

Proposition 19: We cannot gain ethical knowledge by reading Torah apart from its culture.*

His basic claim is the difficulty in finding out which passages contain moral (and only moral) principles and which are ceremonial. The immediate counter is that “Thou shalt not kill” seems fairly moral.

*Proposition 20: Torah cannot provide prooftexts for solving problems today.*

He isn’t saying we shouldn’t go to Torah for ethical wisdom. He means only that many of the passages don’t neatly fit today. He has an excellent discussion on Deut. 24:1-4. 








Some Thoughts on the “Ten Commandments.” 

Torah actually doesn’t call them that. They are the “Ten Words” (Ex. 20:1’ 34:28).

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## MSH (Nov 21, 2019)

I haven’t had a chance yet to read the book so thanks for this short review. 

I did hear Walton discuss this book on a podcast. He and the interviewers seemed to spend much of their time poking fun at Protestants for their misunderstanding of Torah. Walton denied the threefold use of the Law and basically said the Reformers made it up to fit their system. 

It was a rather juvenile interview and Walton on this occasion like others seems to criticize a theology that he can’t or won’t accurately describe. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 22, 2019)

MSH said:


> I haven’t had a chance yet to read the book so thanks for this short review.
> 
> I did hear Walton discuss this book on a podcast. He and the interviewers seemed to spend much of their time poking fun at Protestants for their misunderstanding of Torah. Walton denied the threefold use of the Law and basically said the Reformers made it up to fit their system.
> 
> ...


What podcast? Link?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 22, 2019)

MSH said:


> Walton denied the threefold use of the Law and basically said the Reformers made it up to fit their system.



Many OT scholars today, even evangelical ones, deny the threefold use. I disagree with them, but it's not new to Walton. I don't think Walton would have said the Reformers made it up, since in the book he talks about Justin Martyr's using something like the three fold use.


----------



## MSH (Nov 22, 2019)

This may be the right link. It has been a while since I listened to it so I’m uncertain. If they are making fun of Reformed Theology and Protestantism then this is the right one. If I remember correctly they seem to conflate RT with Fundamentalism. 






I wasn’t trying to be precise so much as a little sarcastic with regard to Walton saying the Reformers made up the 3 fold use of the Law. But I do believe that he either doesn’t understand it or is intentionally misrepresenting it. 

Give it a listen and share your thoughts please. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 22, 2019)

MSH said:


> This may be the right link. It has been a while since I listened to it so I’m uncertain. If they are making fun of Reformed Theology and Protestantism then this is the right one. If I remember correctly they seem to conflate RT with Fundamentalism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've listened to several podcasts by Walton on this topic, as well as having read the book. His point is that Torah is to teach wisdom and to prevent the encroaching of disorder in the cosmos/polis (to extrapolate a Greek term).

He's attacking the idea that the Torah was meant to function as an Israelite version of the _Congressional Register_.

Is the command not to boil a goat in its mother's milk moral, civil, or ceremonial? Why isn't there a punishment attached to it when you break it? That's Walton's point. "Law" isn't functioning always in the sense that we mean by it, and so we have to be careful not to read later connotations back into it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 25, 2019)

MSH said:


> If I remember correctly they seem to conflate RT with Fundamentalism.



I don't know a whole lot about Walton other than the fact that Young Earth Creationists don't like him and vice versa. Based on Jacob's review, I reckon most people should avoid this book. Surely there are others that don't have so much error mixed in.

But if they were saying that Reformed Theology is tantamount to fundamentalism, consider this. From the standpoint from the world as well as the standpoint of many professing Christians who don't want to acknowledge the applicability of one part of the Bible or the other, Reformed theology basically is fundamentalism, and "fundamentalism" of a rather "legalistic" and extreme sort. Much of what is good in fundamentalism came out of Old Princeton, basically, although it didn't originate there, of course. So I don't think we should always shrink back or disavow the label if that's what is in view. We aren't fundamentalists in the eyes of Independent Fundamental Baptists or the Bible Presbyterians in Singapore, but we sure are in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of most professing Christians. Now maybe Walton should know better if that was what he was doing. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he just wants to dismiss Reformed Theology by putting it into the "Fundy, other" category? I don't know, but for some people, a more learned "fundamentalism" is fundamentalism nonetheless. 

That reminds me of a statement I encountered a while back. Someone said that "Everyone in the South seemed to be some kind of Southern Baptist." To be sure, that is an ignorant statement. What they meant was that there are a lot of people who consider the Bible to be authoritative. To many in the culture, anybody who utters the words "The Bible says" is a fundamentalist, especially if what is in view is something that mainstream opinion makers consider to be bigoted.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 25, 2019)

I wouldn't recommend this book to Aunt Bessie May in church. I do think that mature readers should interact with his arguments, though.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MSH (Nov 26, 2019)

Pilgrim said:


> I don't know a whole lot about Walton other than the fact that Young Earth Creationists don't like him and vice versa. Based on Jacob's review, I reckon most people should avoid this book. Surely there are others that don't have so much error mixed in.
> 
> But if they were saying that Reformed Theology is tantamount to fundamentalism, consider this. From the standpoint from the world as well as the standpoint of many professing Christians who don't want to acknowledge the applicability of one part of the Bible or the other, Reformed theology basically is fundamentalism, and "fundamentalism" of a rather "legalistic" and extreme sort. Much of what is good in fundamentalism came out of Old Princeton, basically, although it didn't originate there, of course. So I don't think we should always shrink back or disavow the label if that's what is in view. We aren't fundamentalists in the eyes of Independent Fundamental Baptists or the Bible Presbyterians in Singapore, but we sure are in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of most professing Christians. Now maybe Walton should know better if that was what he was doing. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he just wants to dismiss Reformed Theology by putting it into the "Fundy, other" category? I don't know, but for some people, a more learned "fundamentalism" is fundamentalism nonetheless.
> 
> That reminds me of a statement I encountered a while back. Someone said that "Everyone in the South seemed to be some kind of Southern Baptist." To be sure, that is an ignorant statement. What they meant was that there are a lot of people who consider the Bible to be authoritative. To many in the culture, anybody who utters the words "The Bible says" is a fundamentalist, especially if what is in view is something that mainstream opinion makers consider to be bigoted.



I agree. I have told many people that the new fundy’s are anyone one who hold to the infallibility and in err envy of Scripture. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MSH (Nov 26, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I wouldn't recommend this book to Aunt Bessie May in church. I do think that mature readers should interact with his arguments, though.



I agree, though from what I’ve read of his Lost World books the stuff that’s worth keeping has been said before without as much dangerous baggage. I have benefited however in how he has rephrased some things. I am uncomfortable whenever someone insinuates that only now with this new insight can we really know what the text is trying to convey-that for 2000 years we somehow missed it. Though, I don’t dismiss out of hand new insights we receive from archaeology and such, though they usually just add more weight to what we already confess. I am thankful for the numerous times that Walton has corresponded with me regarding questions about his material. I would recommend emailing him if one has questions about his work as he is usually pretty quick to respond in my experience. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## MSH (Nov 26, 2019)

I would add that Walton does believe that us Reformed/Protestants have pretty much everything wrong. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Informative 1


----------

