# The Lost World of Genesis 1 (John Walton)



## RamistThomist (Oct 29, 2018)

Walton, John. _The Lost World of Genesis One_. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsityPress, 2009.

Like the other “Lost World” books, this is written in proposition format, which makes the arguments easy to follow. Walton is very clear, even on points where I disagree. There are some flaws in this work, but it is a valuable text.

Proposition 1: Genesis 1 is Ancient Cosmology

This shouldn’t be a controversial claim. The earth might be 6,000 years old, but there isn’t any underlying science that matches with Genesis 1. Ancient man wouldn’t have been as interested in Answers in Genesis as he would have in the following questions (19):

* How does God interact with the world?
* Is there such a thing as a natural world?
* Is the cosmos best seen as a machine, a set of material objects, a kingdom, a company?

Proposition 2: Ancient Cosmology is Function Oriented

What does it mean to exist? A company’s existence is different from a chair’s (23). Walton contrasts a “material ontology” (e.g.,what constitutes a physical chair) with a “functional ontology” (e.g., what makes a business a business)? There is something to this, to be sure.

Walton says we have focused too much on the material ontology of creation and not its functional ontology (25). For the ancient man something exists “by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system” (26). Of course, Walton is quick to point out that ancient man would have seen the material constituents of an object (or a universe).

Proposition 3: Create concerns functions

He argues that bara means to assign functions, rather than material constituents. He then lists about forty usages in the OT where most of the time it is giving a function to something (41).

Proposition 4: The beginning state in Genesis 1 is Nonfunctional

There is some payoff to his claim: if we read Gen. 1:1ff, we aren’t exactly dealing with a mathematical nothingness prior to the Big Bang singularity. The tohu is simply an unproductive void, rather than a zero-state void (48). Walton then lists 20 occurences where Tohu means unproductive, rather than non-existent.

Propositions 5: Days 1 to 3 in Genesis 1 Establish Functions

God calls the light “day” instead of just “light.” Why? Because he is giving a function to it. Further, reading the text functionally allows us to solve a potential problem in Day 2: the sky isn’t really solid (56). Rather, God is showing us that by a “firmament” in the sky, he is able to order the cosmic geography and keep the “cosmic waters,” always connoting danger, at bay. The firmament establishes cosmic order (57).

Isn’t it strange that God doesn’t actually make anything on Day 3? He does assign functions, however. Walton: “On Day 1 God created the basis for time; day two the basis for weather; and day three the basis for food” (59).

Days 4 to 6 in Genesis 1 Install Functionaries

Reading the text this way solves the problem of why God created light before he created the sun. Here is where Walton’s “functional” argument is the strongest: the very point for why God created the sun/stars was to serve as signs for humans.

Proposition 7: Divine Rest is in a Temple

Walton’s functionalism fits very well with the Sabbath. He notes, “In the ancient world rest is what results when a crisis has been resolved or when stablitiy has been achieved” (73). This makes sense. When the Bible says “King so-and-so had rest,” it didn’t mean no one in the kingdom did anything; only that he had peace and normal operations were able to function.

God’s resting place is his temple (Ps. 132:7-8; 13-14).

Proposition 8: The Cosmos is a Temple

Standard GK Beale stuff.

Proposition 99: The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Relate to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration

Proposition 10: The Seven Days do not concern material origins

This propositions summarizes the first half of the book. The argument follows:
a) Bara is functional.
b) the context is functional (Gen. 1:2 starts with a nonfunctional world)
c) the cultural context is functional.
d) the theology is functional (cosmic Temple)
e) of the seven days, three have no statement of creation of any material component (1, 3, and 7).
f) Day 2 could be material, but then we are left believing in a material firmament in the sky.
g) Days 4 and 6 have material components, but they are dealt with only on the functional level.

Criticisms

1. He overloads the evidence favoring theistic evolution. He never engages in analysis with the strongest analysis from Intelligent Design theorists. To be fair, he says he isn't arguing for theistic evolution.

2. He never notes the contrast that when ancient paganism saw creation as giving a function to an already existing object, and not creating ex nihilo, it is because in paganism (like today’s Neo-Atheism), matter is eternal and only needs some Demiurge (like the god of Freemasonry) to form it.

3. He criticizes Intelligent Design for being “God of the gaps.” Precisely what, then, is theistic evolution? Find a gap in the fossil record? No problem. God providentially furthered evolution along. Anyway, guys like Stephen Meyer aren’t saying, “Must be a God after all.” What they are saying is that information, especially complex information, points to an Intelligence.

4. He rebuts Behe’s argument of “irreducible complexity” by noting the eye’s structural blind spot. Stephen C. Meyer, however, blows that out of the water: ““There’s an important physiological reason as to why the retina has to be inverted in the eye,” he said. “Within the overall design of the system, it’s a tradeoff that allows the eye to process the vast amount of oxygen it needs in vertebrates. Yes, this creates a slight blind spot, but that’s not a problem because people have two eyes and the two blind spots don’t overlap. Actually,the eye is an incredible design” (quoted in Strobel, Case for a Creator, 87).

5. His stuff on naturalism isn’t wrong per se, and there is a difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, but he often ends up just using the term naturalism. He is also rather naive on the courts’ past rulings. Yes, it is true that science pretends not to make any judgment on God, but that is precisely what science then makes statements on what God does and doesn’t do in the physical realm.

5a. Further, Walton isn’t clear on what recent rulings constitute valid science: anything falsifiable, empirical, and validated by the scientific method. Yet Walton never mentions this nor mentions the huge defeaters to this line of thinking: e.g., evolution isn’t testable by the scientific method, sometimes models for science determine the evidence, sometimes the evidence the models.

6. Walton is to be commended for rejecting Neo-Darwinism, but guess which model controls the system right now? That’s right, N-D. N-D posits, to use Dawkins’ euphonic phrase, a “Blind Watchmaker.” If Walton’s interesting reading is to gain any credence, he must break the back of N-D.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Hamalas (Oct 29, 2018)

Someone just gave me this book last week. Thanks for the review!


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 29, 2018)

Hamalas said:


> Someone just gave me this book last week. Thanks for the review!



Half is very good. Half is very weak. These Biologos guys don't realize that Evolution today is Neo-Darwinism, and N-Ds fight to the death and don't compromise.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 29, 2018)

The Gnostic World of John Walton

https://isgenesishistory.com/gnostic-world-of-john-walton/

"By ‘gnosticism,’ I’m referring to a philosophical view of the world that thinks special, hidden knowledge is necessary to understand what is true. For Dr. Walton, this knowledge is found in his ‘lost world’; it can only be recovered by scholars like himself. Such knowledge provides true insight into reality."

One more little snip ( but the whole thing is worth reading):
_
In the first centuries, gnosticism said truth was found in knowing that God could not have entered time as a sweating, laughing, bleeding man. In these latter centuries, gnosticism says truth is found in knowing God could not have created dirt, water, and life in a few days, or formed two people immediately from dust and a rib, or destroyed the earth with a global flood during the 600th year of Noah’s life.

Gnosticism consistently seeks to substitute Biblical history with its own history. In the early church, it looked to the religions of Persia and the philosophies of Greece to provide a spiritual history of the world. In the modern era, it looks to the religion of evolutionary science and the philosophies of the Enlightenment to create a materialist history of the universe._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 29, 2018)

lynnie said:


> The Gnostic World of John Walton
> 
> https://isgenesishistory.com/gnostic-world-of-john-walton/
> 
> ...



That's certainly a danger when someone says, "History doesn't matter. Just the spiritual stuff" (we see that a lot in eschatology). 

On the other hand, if someone says, "Yes, I affirm God interacts in history (especially given my infamous views on continuing miracles!), but I can understand how the Hebrew text reads thus," I don't think that is gnostic.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Oct 29, 2018)

> *Like the other “Lost World” books*, this is written in proposition format, which makes the arguments easy to follow



From my favorite:

Proposition 1: Velociraptors are fast and smart
Proposition 2: Humans are tasty dinosnacks
Proposition 3: Don't play God

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Guido's Brother (Oct 29, 2018)

In the last while at Creation Without Compromise, Ted Van Raalte has been posting stuff from Noel Weeks critiquing John Walton.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Oct 29, 2018)

Guido's Brother said:


> In the last while at Creation Without Compromise, Ted Van Raalte has been posting stuff from Noel Weeks critiquing John Walton.


It was even more disheartening to see he has a forthcoming book against the moral law.
Gone is the doctrine of the clarity, and now certainly, sufficiency of Scripture.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 29, 2018)

His book on the Canaanites was pretty good, if inadequate at parts. The other stuff is iffy.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 29, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Like the other “Lost World” books...



Personally, I don't find it Conan Doyle's best work.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 31, 2018)

I think the problem with Christians is that often we are bringing a scientific knife to a metaphysical gunfight.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 31, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I think the problem with Christians is that often we are bringing a scientific knife to a metaphysical gunfight.



Exactly. Unless you specifically take out metaphysical naturalism, it doesn't matter on anything else.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 1, 2018)

I read this book a few years ago and plan to reread it. Overall, I think it was helpful and thought-provoking. I had one concern where I think Walton's argument is demonstrably wrong. I'm still wrestling with how much it affects the rest of his position which I thought was compelling overall. 

In one proposition (sorry I can't remember which for certain, but I believe it was #10 based on the OP's excellent summary), he argued that Genesis 1 does not specifically teach creation ex nihilo. Of course, he quickly and correctly states that this is clearly taught elsewhere in scripture (thus avoiding the wrath of my "Heretical Material" stamp). His point is only that this is not taught from Gen. 1. For elsewhere in scripture, I would look first to Heb. 11:3 which begins with "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." My concern is how I understand the structure of Heb 11. The author of Hebrews appears to be going sequentially through the OT showing the importance of faith. (That may or may not hold through the end of the chapter when he stops being specific and starts summarizing.) If that view of Heb. is correct, that leaves very little scripture between Gen. 1:1 and the account of Abel from which the author drew his inspired OT interpretation in Heb. 11:3. To me, it seems reasonably certain that the author of Hebrews read Gen 1 to teach creation ex nihilo. And, I'd take an inspired interpretation over any theologian's interpretation any day.

I'm not sure how important this is to Walton's overall argument in this book. But, I'd like to see this included with the criticisms. 

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide an excellent and thoughtful summary.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Nov 1, 2018)

Paul1976 said:


> I read this book a few years ago and plan to reread it. Overall, I think it was helpful and thought-provoking. I had one concern where I think Walton's argument is demonstrably wrong. I'm still wrestling with how much it affects the rest of his position which I thought was compelling overall.
> 
> In one proposition (sorry I can't remember which for certain, but I believe it was #10 based on the OP's excellent summary), he argued that Genesis 1 does not specifically teach creation ex nihilo. Of course, he quickly and correctly states that this is clearly taught elsewhere in scripture (thus avoiding the wrath of my "Heretical Material" stamp). His point is only that this is not taught from Gen. 1. For elsewhere in scripture, I would look first to Heb. 11:3 which begins with "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." My concern is how I understand the structure of Heb 11. The author of Hebrews appears to be going sequentially through the OT showing the importance of faith. (That may or may not hold through the end of the chapter when he stops being specific and starts summarizing.) If that view of Heb. is correct, that leaves very little scripture between Gen. 1:1 and the account of Abel from which the author drew his inspired OT interpretation in Heb. 11:3. To me, it seems reasonably certain that the author of Hebrews read Gen 1 to teach creation ex nihilo. And, I'd take an inspired interpretation over any theologian's interpretation any day.
> 
> ...



But upon what do the later authors of Scripture base their claim of creation ex nihilo? No doubt on Genesis 1.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 1, 2018)

I certainly think that's the case for Heb. 11:3. I haven't looked at others.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2018)

Walton holds to a creation ex nihilo. He just said that wasn't Genesis's purpose. He says the 7 Days are assigning functions, not material creation. We see that in some of the days there is nothing actually created.

You can get ex nihilo from Hebrews. You can also get it from the impossibility of crossing an actual infinite.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Walton holds to a creation ex nihilo. He just said that wasn't Genesis's purpose. He says the 7 Days are assigning functions, not material creation. We see that in some of the days there is nothing actually created.



Agreed. Given what we have learned from modern cosmology, I would HATE to see scripture interpreted in a way that excludes creation ex nihilo. And, Walton certainly affirmed it was taught elsewhere. My concern is I believe the author of Hebrews sees it in Gen. 1. If Walton doesn't, that seems to be a problem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheos (Nov 1, 2018)

I'm actually reading this now. I found his argumentation to be weak. For example, his case for _bara_ meaning functional creation rather than material was asserted but not really proven. He offered a chart that listed its appearance in the OT and assumed the reader would look at that and say, "Well now I see it!" But no!

The main reason I'm reading it is for supplementary reading on the comparative method approach in an OT PhD course. My prof actually wrote a similar book called _In the Beginning... We Misunderstood_. While I didn't fully agree with his conclusions either, he did a much better job of comparing ANE texts and views than Walton. In fact, Walton seemed to cite very little by way of ANE stuff the first third. The second third it is picking up. I'll have to keep reading to see if he maintains it. But as comparative studies go, it is weak. I think his methodology is good. But his citations and demonstrations are begging his conclusion a bit.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Nov 1, 2018)

For more critique of Walton's method of comparing ANE texts and the Bible, I can also highly recommend this article: "The Completed Creation and Its Implications" by Noel K. Weeks, in _Mid-America Journal of Theology_ 28 (2017): 109-133.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 1, 2018)

I thought his argument from _bara _was the second weakest part of the book. I don't think it proved the functional aspect. I do think there is a functional aspect to it, but not from bara and not to the detriment of the material.


----------



## Timotheos (Nov 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thought his argument from _bara _was the second weakest part of the book. I don't think it proved the functional aspect. I do think there is a functional aspect to it, but not from bara and not to the detriment of the material.


What did you think was the weakest?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 2, 2018)

Timotheos said:


> What did you think was the weakest?



Where he tried to choose between 2 or 3 masters: Theistic Evolution or Naturalist Evolution.


----------



## Paul1976 (Nov 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Where he tried to choose between 2 or 3 masters: Theistic Evolution or Naturalist Evolution.



Admittedly, it's been around two years since I read this, so I could be mistaken. However, I though he intentionally tried to stay as far away from issues of about evolution specifically. While his view of the text is one that allows for an old Earth and various forms of evolution, I do not think it requires any of that.


----------

