What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lost World Series #2
The Lost World of Genesis One by John H. Walton
The Lost World of Genesis Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate [Paperback]John H. Walton (Author)
Unknown Binding
First published July 30, 2009
725 people are currently reading
5257 people want to read
About the author
John H. Walton
117 books325 followersJohn H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College) is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School. He is the author or coauthor of several books, including Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament; Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context; Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan; The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament; and A Survey of the Old Testament.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. See:
John H. Walton, Agriculture
John H. Walton, ceramics.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. See:
John H. Walton, Agriculture
John H. Walton, ceramics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 604 reviews
April 14, 2013
I had mixed feelings about this book, and am rather surprised it has been so favorably reviewed, actually. The author's big idea is that Genesis 1 is not actually an account of material origins, but rather an account of functional origins - it is an account of God giving functions to the pieces of the cosmos. (Walton doesn't deny that God is also responsible for the material creation of the universe, he just doesn't think that's what Genesis 1 is about.) He offers the analogy of a computer - when might we say that a computer exists? At one end, you might say it exists as soon as the hardware components have all been assembled, even if no software has been installed and no one sits at the computer to use it - that is the way we modern people often think about creation. But you might instead say that the computer is nonfunctional and, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent, until it has been completely integrated into an ordered system, with the software, user, and everything else required for it to accomplish its reason for being. In Genesis 1, Walton says, the creation God is undertaking is the assigning of functions. One big benefit of this interpretation, if correct, is that it would mean Genesis 1 has absolutely nothing to say about the age of the Earth, evolution, the Big Bang, etc. - Christians are completely free to accept modern scientific findings and, at the same time, have complete confidence in the Biblical text.
In support of this viewpoint, he examines the Hebrew words used (especially the word translated "create"), and also examines how other ancient cultures understood their own creation stories. He concludes the book by discussing what this interpretation means for current debates about topics like evolution and the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools.
But I have several problems with the book.
1. It is commonly said that if you think you're the first person in world history to correctly understand what the Bible is really trying to say, you're probably wrong. So where are all the Christians (and Jews) who have understood Genesis 1 in the same way as Walton? Especially because he isn't some theological liberal claiming that modern scientific findings should change our interpretation - in fact, you'd expect people closer in time (and thus closer in thought) to the original author should be more likely to share his understanding. So where are they? If such people do exist, not quoting them in the book was a serious oversight. If they don't exist, that's a problem. At one point he even says that his interpretation goes against the traditional understanding.
2. One chapter is largely devoted to looking at other examples of "create" in the Bible to show that the word is used functionally, not materially. But I just didn't find many of those examples convincing. It often seemed like the word could have been understood either way (or even both), just as we use our English word to describe both types of creation.
3. The book seemed to imply that we needed to study other cultures around the ancient Jews in order to get a handle on how the ancient Jews themselves thought, and thus understand the text. I guess that made me a little uncomfortable. First - wasn't the revelation given to the Jews something special? How much should we really look to other cultures, then? And second - the documents we use to learn about surrounding cultures are themselves often fragmented or in short supply, the conclusions we draw from them debatable. I could easily imagine someone objecting, "did God really intend to keep us in the dark like this?". I told a friend that this seems like the sort of book that might drive some people toward Catholicism, and this is why - of course it is tempting to believe that, rather than asking us to dive through a smorgasbord of poorly preserved ancient texts, God might have appointed some sort of easily understood authority still present on Earth to clear up these confusions. (But, on the other hand, even though I find the need to reference other ancient documents a little off-putting, surely this would hardly be the first time our Biblical understanding was enhanced by extra-biblical information. So maybe I should just stop being uncomfortable.)
4. Walton also seems to think that we shouldn't expect to find modern science in Genesis 1 because the original audience certainly wouldn't have understood it. But we all know that the Biblical authors sometimes said things beyond their own understanding (the messianic prophecies, for example), so I didn't find that objection very valuable either.
All that said - of course it is easier to tear down someone else's argument that to present your own, which I'm not doing here. (I did like some of Tim Keller's comments in "The Reason for God" on this matter, as I recall.) I did think Walton was at his best later in the book, when he talks about what science is and what its limitations are. (He offers the analogy of an upper layer, where God, ultimate causation, and purpose are found, and a lower physical layer, where all scientific investigation takes place. Although science might infer the upper layer indirectly, it can neither prove nor disprove its existence.) I also though the discussion about teaching science in such a way that questions of purpose are not addressed was also rather good, so that Christians should not expect God to appear in science classrooms (in public schools), but atheists should just as much not expect science classrooms to deny the possibility of purpose. Walton also thought that some sort of metaphysics instruction in public schools was extremely important, it just shouldn't take place in science classrooms.
In support of this viewpoint, he examines the Hebrew words used (especially the word translated "create"), and also examines how other ancient cultures understood their own creation stories. He concludes the book by discussing what this interpretation means for current debates about topics like evolution and the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools.
But I have several problems with the book.
1. It is commonly said that if you think you're the first person in world history to correctly understand what the Bible is really trying to say, you're probably wrong. So where are all the Christians (and Jews) who have understood Genesis 1 in the same way as Walton? Especially because he isn't some theological liberal claiming that modern scientific findings should change our interpretation - in fact, you'd expect people closer in time (and thus closer in thought) to the original author should be more likely to share his understanding. So where are they? If such people do exist, not quoting them in the book was a serious oversight. If they don't exist, that's a problem. At one point he even says that his interpretation goes against the traditional understanding.
2. One chapter is largely devoted to looking at other examples of "create" in the Bible to show that the word is used functionally, not materially. But I just didn't find many of those examples convincing. It often seemed like the word could have been understood either way (or even both), just as we use our English word to describe both types of creation.
3. The book seemed to imply that we needed to study other cultures around the ancient Jews in order to get a handle on how the ancient Jews themselves thought, and thus understand the text. I guess that made me a little uncomfortable. First - wasn't the revelation given to the Jews something special? How much should we really look to other cultures, then? And second - the documents we use to learn about surrounding cultures are themselves often fragmented or in short supply, the conclusions we draw from them debatable. I could easily imagine someone objecting, "did God really intend to keep us in the dark like this?". I told a friend that this seems like the sort of book that might drive some people toward Catholicism, and this is why - of course it is tempting to believe that, rather than asking us to dive through a smorgasbord of poorly preserved ancient texts, God might have appointed some sort of easily understood authority still present on Earth to clear up these confusions. (But, on the other hand, even though I find the need to reference other ancient documents a little off-putting, surely this would hardly be the first time our Biblical understanding was enhanced by extra-biblical information. So maybe I should just stop being uncomfortable.)
4. Walton also seems to think that we shouldn't expect to find modern science in Genesis 1 because the original audience certainly wouldn't have understood it. But we all know that the Biblical authors sometimes said things beyond their own understanding (the messianic prophecies, for example), so I didn't find that objection very valuable either.
All that said - of course it is easier to tear down someone else's argument that to present your own, which I'm not doing here. (I did like some of Tim Keller's comments in "The Reason for God" on this matter, as I recall.) I did think Walton was at his best later in the book, when he talks about what science is and what its limitations are. (He offers the analogy of an upper layer, where God, ultimate causation, and purpose are found, and a lower physical layer, where all scientific investigation takes place. Although science might infer the upper layer indirectly, it can neither prove nor disprove its existence.) I also though the discussion about teaching science in such a way that questions of purpose are not addressed was also rather good, so that Christians should not expect God to appear in science classrooms (in public schools), but atheists should just as much not expect science classrooms to deny the possibility of purpose. Walton also thought that some sort of metaphysics instruction in public schools was extremely important, it just shouldn't take place in science classrooms.
Read
March 2, 2021There are countless books arguing about evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. At first glance, The Lost World of Genesis One would seem to be one more addition to what is becoming a frivolous library. But upon more careful inspection, one would find that it is actually an original approach with a much different conclusion.
John H. Walton approaches the first chapter of Genesis from a literary and historical context, rather than a scientific one. His idea is simple: read Genesis one through the eyes of the audience it was intended for: the ancient Israelites. This involves an intricate understanding of the culture of ancient Israel.
Walton says that the account described in Genesis one is actually a description of God forming a cosmic temple in which he will dwell, a literary device that was common in ancient Near East creation accounts. Walton's theory is that the creation account we know so well is not an account of material origins, but rather functional origins. Genesis one is describing God creating order out of chaos. It would have been assumed in the ancient world that God created everything material. It was important that the Israelites know that it was God(Yahweh) that gave order and function to all.
Walton's book is a bit tedious to get through, but his ideas and thoughts are brilliant. The thinking he prescribes in his book causes a radical shift in attitude about numerous ideas. If one subscribes to them, there is no longer a need to argue over young earth/old earth or evolution. The Bible and science collude like no other theory. This is definitely a good read.
John H. Walton approaches the first chapter of Genesis from a literary and historical context, rather than a scientific one. His idea is simple: read Genesis one through the eyes of the audience it was intended for: the ancient Israelites. This involves an intricate understanding of the culture of ancient Israel.
Walton says that the account described in Genesis one is actually a description of God forming a cosmic temple in which he will dwell, a literary device that was common in ancient Near East creation accounts. Walton's theory is that the creation account we know so well is not an account of material origins, but rather functional origins. Genesis one is describing God creating order out of chaos. It would have been assumed in the ancient world that God created everything material. It was important that the Israelites know that it was God(Yahweh) that gave order and function to all.
Walton's book is a bit tedious to get through, but his ideas and thoughts are brilliant. The thinking he prescribes in his book causes a radical shift in attitude about numerous ideas. If one subscribes to them, there is no longer a need to argue over young earth/old earth or evolution. The Bible and science collude like no other theory. This is definitely a good read.
February 16, 2017
A great book on how to read Genesis 1. Walton argues that when we look at the ancient context we see that creation is Genesis 1 is not material, rather it is functional. In other words, though Christians believe God created the materials (the stuff), Genesis 1 is about how this stuff was given its functions (jobs). All sides in the debate on Genesis 1 are mistaken then, for they assume create is to create the materials when it actually is to give them function.
From this he argues that Christians can accept any findings that science presents, as Genesis 1 says nothing about science. Science is metaphysically neutral; it has nothing to say about whether there is purpose (as in Christianity) or no purpose (naturalism). Walton challenges scientists to frown as much upon those who interpret the universe to be purposeless and teach this purposelessness in a science classroom as it already is to those who teach it has a purpose along with the Christian message. Scientists should discuss purpose, since life is not value neutral, but this discussion should take place in ethics and philosophy, outside of the science classroom.
Overall, a great book on how to understand Genesis 1 and what such an understanding means in today's culture.
From this he argues that Christians can accept any findings that science presents, as Genesis 1 says nothing about science. Science is metaphysically neutral; it has nothing to say about whether there is purpose (as in Christianity) or no purpose (naturalism). Walton challenges scientists to frown as much upon those who interpret the universe to be purposeless and teach this purposelessness in a science classroom as it already is to those who teach it has a purpose along with the Christian message. Scientists should discuss purpose, since life is not value neutral, but this discussion should take place in ethics and philosophy, outside of the science classroom.
Overall, a great book on how to understand Genesis 1 and what such an understanding means in today's culture.
July 31, 2021
Not convinced - even after a second more careful reading.
John Walton's main idea is that God never intended Genesis chapter 1 to communicate anything at all about the material origins of the universe. Instead, it's more a ceremony of temple inauguration in which God claimed the universe as his dwelling and sacred meeting place with man.
Walton starts in proposition 2 by sowing confusion about what "existence" would mean to ancient peoples, then builds his case from there. But Genesis never uses the word "existence".
The author assumes too much. And in some chapters he spends more time denying what the Bible says than observing what it does say. He claims early in the book that all of us who interpret Genesis 1 as about the material origins of the universe are really just prisoners of our worldview, implying that we are indebted to him (who, we are to accept, is not a prisoner of his worldview) to free the rest of us from our misconceptions.
Oddly enough, Walton insists the "days" are literal 24-hour days. But in the end, this is inconsequential, because nothing physical actually happened on those days according to his interpretation.
He suggests that in Genesis 1 "bara", Hebrew for "create", does not mean bringing something material into being, but instead means taking something already in existence and ascribing function to it. What he ignores however, are the several other verbs that seem very oriented to materials; words such as separate, form, made, gathered, appear, sprout, yield, swarm, bring forth, etc.
In my first reading, I only read the first few chapters carefully, and once I had the gist of it, I'd read enough to predict his thought and lose interest. I dipped in a few places in other chapters, but there was no further defense of his thesis, merely outworking of it.
As of 2014, Walton was funded by BioLogos (who is funded by Templeton foundation) to visit churches and religious colleges to promote evolution. (https://wng.org/articles/interpretive...)
John Walton's main idea is that God never intended Genesis chapter 1 to communicate anything at all about the material origins of the universe. Instead, it's more a ceremony of temple inauguration in which God claimed the universe as his dwelling and sacred meeting place with man.
Walton starts in proposition 2 by sowing confusion about what "existence" would mean to ancient peoples, then builds his case from there. But Genesis never uses the word "existence".
The author assumes too much. And in some chapters he spends more time denying what the Bible says than observing what it does say. He claims early in the book that all of us who interpret Genesis 1 as about the material origins of the universe are really just prisoners of our worldview, implying that we are indebted to him (who, we are to accept, is not a prisoner of his worldview) to free the rest of us from our misconceptions.
Oddly enough, Walton insists the "days" are literal 24-hour days. But in the end, this is inconsequential, because nothing physical actually happened on those days according to his interpretation.
He suggests that in Genesis 1 "bara", Hebrew for "create", does not mean bringing something material into being, but instead means taking something already in existence and ascribing function to it. What he ignores however, are the several other verbs that seem very oriented to materials; words such as separate, form, made, gathered, appear, sprout, yield, swarm, bring forth, etc.
In my first reading, I only read the first few chapters carefully, and once I had the gist of it, I'd read enough to predict his thought and lose interest. I dipped in a few places in other chapters, but there was no further defense of his thesis, merely outworking of it.
As of 2014, Walton was funded by BioLogos (who is funded by Templeton foundation) to visit churches and religious colleges to promote evolution. (https://wng.org/articles/interpretive...)
November 1, 2011
Certainly the best interpretation of Genesis One i've heard yet. Walton argues that Genesis One is meant to set forth the function of the creation rather than merely a materialistic account of how the world came to be. One of the main differences between the Hebrew creation story and other ancient creation stories, is that most other accounts show the world as being made for the gods and humans created to cater to the gods. The Hebrew creation account reveals a world that is meant to serve the needs of humanity and humanity is meant to be God's 'icon' upon the earth, carrying out creative and caring functions. The Hebrew God does not 'need' humanity, though humanity needs God.
This account maintains that the question of whether the earth was created in a literal six days is simply the wrong question. Only a modernistic and materialistic culture would ask such questions. The ancient world wouldn't have understood the point of asking such questions. What matters is who created the world and why.
This account maintains that the question of whether the earth was created in a literal six days is simply the wrong question. Only a modernistic and materialistic culture would ask such questions. The ancient world wouldn't have understood the point of asking such questions. What matters is who created the world and why.
June 9, 2020
Fascinating and important book that helps reconcile the supposed conflict between science and faith.
What is most impressive is the book's brevity and accessibility.
Walton asserts that Genesis 1 is not a recounting of material origins (that is not how the ancient readers would have read it), it is an "account of functional origins of the cosmos as a temple."
"Viewing Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as temple does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story."
"It is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst…This world is a place for God’s presence."
Day 7 is the climax of the creation account - after completing his temple (the cosmos), he sits down to begin his reign and rule. This has important implications for our Sabbath rest: "When we rest on the sabbath…we take our hands off the controls of our lives and acknowledge him as the one who is in control." We can rest, because God is seated on the throne, above the chaos, ruling.
Genesis is teleological - telling us what our purpose is on earth. Science has no teleology (it does not tell me what is the goal of my life). God gives the answer - to know him and serve him as co-regents.
What is most impressive is the book's brevity and accessibility.
Walton asserts that Genesis 1 is not a recounting of material origins (that is not how the ancient readers would have read it), it is an "account of functional origins of the cosmos as a temple."
"Viewing Genesis 1 as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as temple does not in any way suggest or imply that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not that story."
"It is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst…This world is a place for God’s presence."
Day 7 is the climax of the creation account - after completing his temple (the cosmos), he sits down to begin his reign and rule. This has important implications for our Sabbath rest: "When we rest on the sabbath…we take our hands off the controls of our lives and acknowledge him as the one who is in control." We can rest, because God is seated on the throne, above the chaos, ruling.
Genesis is teleological - telling us what our purpose is on earth. Science has no teleology (it does not tell me what is the goal of my life). God gives the answer - to know him and serve him as co-regents.
December 26, 2023
John Walton argues that Genesis 1 doesn’t provide an origin of the material of the universe, but the origin of the ordering of the universe. This fundamental shift allows for Christians to completely side step the tiring and ridiculous YEC positions and accept the scientific consensus for the material origin of the universe while affirming that God is the one who runs the show.
The fundamental structure of the universe, he argues, is a cosmic temple where God resides. This has a lot of theological implications that I feel he goes through too quickly, but one of them is ecological and I would love to see a book explore quotes like this further:
Even though he rejects panentheism (although not for any clear reason), Walton provides the language of nature being permeated by God(‘s ordering). If creation is God’s temple in which He resides, we cannot have an exploitative understanding of “taking dominion”. Please someone smarter than me continue this theology 🙏.
A sure recommendation for those who want to leave behind a face-value reading of Scripture for something a little meatier.
The fundamental structure of the universe, he argues, is a cosmic temple where God resides. This has a lot of theological implications that I feel he goes through too quickly, but one of them is ecological and I would love to see a book explore quotes like this further:
But if we adopt the biblical perspective of the cosmic temple, it is no longer possible to look at the world (or space) in secular terms. It is not ours to exploit. We do not have natural resources, we have sacred resources.
Even though he rejects panentheism (although not for any clear reason), Walton provides the language of nature being permeated by God(‘s ordering). If creation is God’s temple in which He resides, we cannot have an exploitative understanding of “taking dominion”. Please someone smarter than me continue this theology 🙏.
A sure recommendation for those who want to leave behind a face-value reading of Scripture for something a little meatier.
March 8, 2021
It took me a long time to read this book, but it was definitely worth it. So much of what I’ve read concerning Genesis 1 and creation has been about trying to fit science into the text in Genesis, or the other way around. However, Walton makes it clear from the beginning that he doesn’t have an agenda, and walks the reader through his analysis of the first chapter of Genesis. His proposal that Genesis 1 is an account of functional origins rather than material is the first idea I’ve read on this subject that sits well with me and has strong biblical support. Walton also makes it clear that this book is not promoting evolution. Under his proposed position, which he calls the cosmic temple inauguration view, Genesis 1 does not provide a description of material origins (but of course this does not negate the fact that God is responsible for material creation - it’s just not what he thinks is being described in Genesis 1), and our scientific understanding of the earth cannot describe purpose as it relates to creation.
I really appreciate the care Walton took in approaching this subject, and would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in the origins debate or even just in learning about another possible interpretation of Genesis.
I really appreciate the care Walton took in approaching this subject, and would definitely recommend it to anyone interested in the origins debate or even just in learning about another possible interpretation of Genesis.
October 29, 2018
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 conoting 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 9: 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
He overloads the evidence favoring theistic evolution. He never engages in analysis with the strongest analysis from Intelligent Design theorists.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 conoting 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 9: 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
He overloads the evidence favoring theistic evolution. He never engages in analysis with the strongest analysis from Intelligent Design theorists.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
August 10, 2016
Summary: Walton argues from our knowledge of the ancient cultures in Israel’s context that Genesis 1 is a functional account of how the cosmos is being set up as God’s temple rather than an account of material origins.
Some time back, I reviewed The Lost World of Adam and Eve, which is the sequel to this book. I thought it did one of the best jobs I’ve seen of showing how we must try to understand the book of Genesis as its recipients would have in their own cultural context, rather than trying to make it answer questions about origins in the light of the theories of Darwin and the evolutionary science that has developed over the last 150 years. I’ve always had the sense that we’ve been asking of the text of Genesis questions that neither the writer nor the inspiring Holy Spirit never intended to address. The question that remains is what does the early chapters of Genesis affirm? John H. Walton offers a strong argument that these were written out of a very different world view that was considering the cosmos not in terms of the causative factors in their material origins (although Walton is clear to attribute ultimate causation of and sustenance of the creation to God), but rather as an account of how God establishes the functions and places the functionaries in his cosmic temple over which he rules.
Several insights were particularly helpful. One was his demonstration that the cultures of Israel’s day looked at the world in terms of functional rather than material origins. With the rise of modern science we see the world very differently and this results in some of our difficulties in reading the Genesis texts. Also, he explains the seventh day rest of God, which always has seemed anti-climactic to me as in fact the climax of this account as God enters and sits down, as it were, on the throne of his cosmic temple and begins his rule over what he has set in place. Finally, there is the important implication that because this is not an account of material origins their need be no conflict between Genesis 1 (and indeed the chapters that follow as he argues in his sequel) and scientific accounts of origins as long as science does not try to address teleological questions and conclude there is no God.
As in the sequel, Walton develops his treatment of Genesis 1 as a series of propositions. The chapter titles will give you a sense of the flow of his argument:
Prologue
Introduction
Proposition 1: Genesis One Is Ancient Cosmology
Proposition 2: Ancient Cosmology Is Function Oriented
Proposition 3: “Create” (Hebrew bara’) Concerns Functions
Proposition 4: The Beginning State in Genesis One is Non-Functional
Proposition 5: Days One Through Three in Genesis 1 Establish Functions
Proposition 6: Days Four Through Six in Genesis 1 Install Functionaries
Proposition 7: Divine Rest Is In a Temple
Proposition 8: The Cosmos Is a Temple
Proposition 9: The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Relate to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration
Proposition 10: The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins
Proposition 11: “Functional Cosmic Temple” Offers Face-Value Exegesis
Proposition 12: Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough
Proposition 13: The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture is Metaphysical in Nature
Proposition 14: God’s Roles as Creator and Sustainer are Less Different Than We Have Thought
Proposition 15: Current Debate About Intelligent Design Ultimately Concerns Purpose
Proposition 16: Scientific Explanations of Origins Can Be Viewed in Light of Purpose, and If So, Are Unobjectionable
Proposition 17: Resulting Theology in This View of Genesis 1 Is Stronger, Not Weaker
Proposition 18: Public Science Education Should Be Neutral Regarding Purpose
Summary and Conclusions
Walton, a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton, contends that this reading of scripture that takes the cultural-historical context of Genesis seriously is in fact the most faithful to an evangelical doctrine of scripture. It does not start from the questions we want to ask, but asks what truths the text was affirming, first for its original readers, and only then for us. He argues that his approach can take the text at face value rather than needing to apply the hermeneutical gymnastics of those who try to reconcile Genesis and scientific accounts. The result is one that explains away neither scripture nor science.
I also think he makes wise recommendations about public science teaching needing to be neutral about metaphysical questions, excluding both atheist and creationist agendas from the classroom. Whether scholars agree with Walton in all the particulars (and some consider his denial of ancient near east culture interest in material origins in the Genesis text over-emphasized) Walton offers a proposal that defuses, at least from the Christian side, the perceived warfare between science and faith. It seems that there are many concerns from the care of creation to the alleviation of suffering in which both Christians and all thoughtful scientists may make common cause rather than be adversaries. Would that it were so.
Some time back, I reviewed The Lost World of Adam and Eve, which is the sequel to this book. I thought it did one of the best jobs I’ve seen of showing how we must try to understand the book of Genesis as its recipients would have in their own cultural context, rather than trying to make it answer questions about origins in the light of the theories of Darwin and the evolutionary science that has developed over the last 150 years. I’ve always had the sense that we’ve been asking of the text of Genesis questions that neither the writer nor the inspiring Holy Spirit never intended to address. The question that remains is what does the early chapters of Genesis affirm? John H. Walton offers a strong argument that these were written out of a very different world view that was considering the cosmos not in terms of the causative factors in their material origins (although Walton is clear to attribute ultimate causation of and sustenance of the creation to God), but rather as an account of how God establishes the functions and places the functionaries in his cosmic temple over which he rules.
Several insights were particularly helpful. One was his demonstration that the cultures of Israel’s day looked at the world in terms of functional rather than material origins. With the rise of modern science we see the world very differently and this results in some of our difficulties in reading the Genesis texts. Also, he explains the seventh day rest of God, which always has seemed anti-climactic to me as in fact the climax of this account as God enters and sits down, as it were, on the throne of his cosmic temple and begins his rule over what he has set in place. Finally, there is the important implication that because this is not an account of material origins their need be no conflict between Genesis 1 (and indeed the chapters that follow as he argues in his sequel) and scientific accounts of origins as long as science does not try to address teleological questions and conclude there is no God.
As in the sequel, Walton develops his treatment of Genesis 1 as a series of propositions. The chapter titles will give you a sense of the flow of his argument:
Prologue
Introduction
Proposition 1: Genesis One Is Ancient Cosmology
Proposition 2: Ancient Cosmology Is Function Oriented
Proposition 3: “Create” (Hebrew bara’) Concerns Functions
Proposition 4: The Beginning State in Genesis One is Non-Functional
Proposition 5: Days One Through Three in Genesis 1 Establish Functions
Proposition 6: Days Four Through Six in Genesis 1 Install Functionaries
Proposition 7: Divine Rest Is In a Temple
Proposition 8: The Cosmos Is a Temple
Proposition 9: The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Relate to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration
Proposition 10: The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins
Proposition 11: “Functional Cosmic Temple” Offers Face-Value Exegesis
Proposition 12: Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough
Proposition 13: The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture is Metaphysical in Nature
Proposition 14: God’s Roles as Creator and Sustainer are Less Different Than We Have Thought
Proposition 15: Current Debate About Intelligent Design Ultimately Concerns Purpose
Proposition 16: Scientific Explanations of Origins Can Be Viewed in Light of Purpose, and If So, Are Unobjectionable
Proposition 17: Resulting Theology in This View of Genesis 1 Is Stronger, Not Weaker
Proposition 18: Public Science Education Should Be Neutral Regarding Purpose
Summary and Conclusions
Walton, a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton, contends that this reading of scripture that takes the cultural-historical context of Genesis seriously is in fact the most faithful to an evangelical doctrine of scripture. It does not start from the questions we want to ask, but asks what truths the text was affirming, first for its original readers, and only then for us. He argues that his approach can take the text at face value rather than needing to apply the hermeneutical gymnastics of those who try to reconcile Genesis and scientific accounts. The result is one that explains away neither scripture nor science.
I also think he makes wise recommendations about public science teaching needing to be neutral about metaphysical questions, excluding both atheist and creationist agendas from the classroom. Whether scholars agree with Walton in all the particulars (and some consider his denial of ancient near east culture interest in material origins in the Genesis text over-emphasized) Walton offers a proposal that defuses, at least from the Christian side, the perceived warfare between science and faith. It seems that there are many concerns from the care of creation to the alleviation of suffering in which both Christians and all thoughtful scientists may make common cause rather than be adversaries. Would that it were so.
April 25, 2018
Wow. Wow! It's rare I find a book that lays out an argument in a clear, concise, and readable way; an argument that presents its points and its conclusions as a series of propositions. Walton's book on the first chapter of Genesis is a fascinating look into how our modern empirical scientific worldview causes many readers of Genesis to impose a material ontology onto a story concerned with functional ontology. From this, he looks at its teleological implications in our modern society.
Walton comes to this conclusion through intense exegetical analysis, linguistic analysis, and attempting to understand the perspective of the author by looking at other creation myths from Babylonian, Sumerian, and Egyptian cultures. He analyzes both a polemical reading of Genesis 1 in contrast to its surrounding myths, as well as a teleological one.
I've been incredibly strengthened and bolstered by this reading and look back in shame at years of arguing and debating others over something I struggled to rationalize myself. For once, I am at peace. I highly recommend this to anybody who is struggling to rationalize a scientific perspective with a biblical one - a struggle that need not actually happen if you understand the functional ontology present in Genesis 1.
Walton comes to this conclusion through intense exegetical analysis, linguistic analysis, and attempting to understand the perspective of the author by looking at other creation myths from Babylonian, Sumerian, and Egyptian cultures. He analyzes both a polemical reading of Genesis 1 in contrast to its surrounding myths, as well as a teleological one.
I've been incredibly strengthened and bolstered by this reading and look back in shame at years of arguing and debating others over something I struggled to rationalize myself. For once, I am at peace. I highly recommend this to anybody who is struggling to rationalize a scientific perspective with a biblical one - a struggle that need not actually happen if you understand the functional ontology present in Genesis 1.
July 25, 2022
Offers an interesting interpretation of Genesis 1 based an alternate way of translating the Hebrew words used. It shouldn't offend anyone, altho I'm sure someone will complain. My only beef is Walton makes his point… and then keeps on making it until the horse is not only dead but decaying. Essentially there is no reason for this to be a book; a magazine or web post would have been sufficient.
March 11, 2012
I currently am rereading this book. I have been awaiting this book for years. It should be required reading for every student at Seminary and Christian Colleges. Along with Enns, Walton is causing the Evangelical world to be a lot more honest about how we read the teאt.
January 28, 2024
Kort maar super boeiend boek! De auteur maakt een deep dive in het oude nabije oosten, oftewel de cultuur en tijd waarin het oude testament plaatsvindt. Theologisch, maar heel toegankelijk geschreven.
Vanuit die context werpt hij een blik op Genesis, en onderzoekt hij hoe het originele publiek (de Israelieten) naar de schepping zou hebben gekeken.
Oprecht een aanrader!
Vanuit die context werpt hij een blik op Genesis, en onderzoekt hij hoe het originele publiek (de Israelieten) naar de schepping zou hebben gekeken.
Oprecht een aanrader!
September 5, 2025
Bruh you mean to tell me that Genesis wasn't written to a 21st century American audience??? We are so far removed from the ancient way of thinking it's difficult to wrap my little material-mind around. But Walton does a fantastic job helping me understand God's bigger plans just a little bit better. Thank you, my good man. 👏🤘
April 9, 2014
My review:
John Walton is one of the top evangelical scholars on the Old Testament, so I was very pleased to hear he had written a book on this subject. The book has very careful, respectful, orthodox scholarship and remains accessible due to the clear writing style and the book's format of 17 propositions each supported by a short chapter. I found his argument very compelling.
My summary of the argument:
Scripture never attempts to modify Israel's scientific understanding of the world: a flat world, the geocentric orbit of the sun, the intestines as the seat of the emotions, etc are assumed concepts in Scripture. As the view of divine creation in the entire ancient world was one of establishing function rather than material origins, we must not assume that Genesis 1 is necessarily correcting this understanding. In fact, the ancients' concept of existence was of fitting into an ordered, functional system, rather than being materially present.
A central piece of our understanding of the passage, then, is of the the word "create," or bara in Hebrew. In order to have the most literal understanding here, we can't assume that the definition of bara lines up at all points with the English word. Rather, our source for understanding the word must be its usage elsewhere in the OT. The word is used about 50 times in the OT, often clearly used to indicate establishing function, but never unambiguously used to indicate material creation. This makes establishing function the closest, most conservative understanding of this concept.
Thus Walton concludes that the (24-hour) days of creation was the period in which God established an ordered system, functioning as He intended. Walton also holds that God is responsible for the material origins of the cosmos, but that we are not told how or when God accomplished that.
Genesis 1, then, gives account of three days of establishing functions followed by three days of installing functionaries. For example, the first day, we can consider God to be creating time, as he called forth a period of light as "day." This also solves the question of how day and night occur before the material creation of the sun. The first three days establish time, weather, and food--the foundational functions of life. Days 4-6 still have a functional orientation, but focus on the functionaries. For example, in day 4, God establishes the task of the lights, which is to provide light and mark off days, festivals, seasons, years.
I won't summarize this part of the argument, but Walton demonstrates that Genesis 1 is a temple inauguration narrative, so all of the cosmos is God's temple and he takes up dwelling in it beginning on day seven.
Walton does not claim that Scripture supports evolution, only that we can view scientific conclusions as unobjectionable as long as we understand that whatever the material origins of the universe was, it was God's way of making the cosmos and he remains active in his Creator role.
John Walton is one of the top evangelical scholars on the Old Testament, so I was very pleased to hear he had written a book on this subject. The book has very careful, respectful, orthodox scholarship and remains accessible due to the clear writing style and the book's format of 17 propositions each supported by a short chapter. I found his argument very compelling.
My summary of the argument:
Scripture never attempts to modify Israel's scientific understanding of the world: a flat world, the geocentric orbit of the sun, the intestines as the seat of the emotions, etc are assumed concepts in Scripture. As the view of divine creation in the entire ancient world was one of establishing function rather than material origins, we must not assume that Genesis 1 is necessarily correcting this understanding. In fact, the ancients' concept of existence was of fitting into an ordered, functional system, rather than being materially present.
A central piece of our understanding of the passage, then, is of the the word "create," or bara in Hebrew. In order to have the most literal understanding here, we can't assume that the definition of bara lines up at all points with the English word. Rather, our source for understanding the word must be its usage elsewhere in the OT. The word is used about 50 times in the OT, often clearly used to indicate establishing function, but never unambiguously used to indicate material creation. This makes establishing function the closest, most conservative understanding of this concept.
Thus Walton concludes that the (24-hour) days of creation was the period in which God established an ordered system, functioning as He intended. Walton also holds that God is responsible for the material origins of the cosmos, but that we are not told how or when God accomplished that.
Genesis 1, then, gives account of three days of establishing functions followed by three days of installing functionaries. For example, the first day, we can consider God to be creating time, as he called forth a period of light as "day." This also solves the question of how day and night occur before the material creation of the sun. The first three days establish time, weather, and food--the foundational functions of life. Days 4-6 still have a functional orientation, but focus on the functionaries. For example, in day 4, God establishes the task of the lights, which is to provide light and mark off days, festivals, seasons, years.
I won't summarize this part of the argument, but Walton demonstrates that Genesis 1 is a temple inauguration narrative, so all of the cosmos is God's temple and he takes up dwelling in it beginning on day seven.
Walton does not claim that Scripture supports evolution, only that we can view scientific conclusions as unobjectionable as long as we understand that whatever the material origins of the universe was, it was God's way of making the cosmos and he remains active in his Creator role.
November 3, 2012
The author is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and wrote the volume on Genesis in Zondervan's NIV Application Commentary series, as well as "Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context" and "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament."
This book is written for lay persons, pastors and science teachers who want "some stimulating ideas for thinking about the Bible, theology, faith and science." The purpose of the book is to "introduce the reader to a careful reconsideration of the nature of Genesis 1."
This book is organized around 18 relatively short chapters. Each chapter title is a proposition, e.g., Genesis 1 Is Ancient Cosmology, Ancient Cosmology Is Function Oriented, Divine Rest Is in a Temple, The Cosmos Is a Temple, The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins, "Functional Cosmic Temple" Offers Face-Value Exegesis, Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough, The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture Is Metaphysical in Nature, God's Roles as Creator and Sustainer Are Less Different Than We Have Thought, and Resulting Theology in This View of Genesis 1 Is Stronger, Not Weaker. Each proposition is then defended. The propositions are organized so that the whole book flows very nicely.
The main theme of the book is that Genesis 1 describes functional creation, rather than material creation, in that the days of Genesis 1 are seven 24-hour days of the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple. The author believes that the true literal translation is the translation that the Israelites understood. He suggests that "the Israelites were much more attuned to the functions of the cosmos than to the material of the cosmos," and that for them "something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system." The author concludes with discussions of the impact of his functional view of Genesis 1 on our understanding of evolution, Intelligent Design, and public education. The main theme is an expansion of views that the author previously presented in his "The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis," (Zondervan, 2001), especially on pages 147-157 of that volume.
Each chapter ends with a brief bibliography entitled "Technical Support." There is a final chapter of "Summary and Conclusions", a four-page FAQ, extensive Notes, and a brief subject Index.
I highly recommend this book for anyone who is still struggling with (or should be struggling with) how to understand the text in Genesis 1.
This book is written for lay persons, pastors and science teachers who want "some stimulating ideas for thinking about the Bible, theology, faith and science." The purpose of the book is to "introduce the reader to a careful reconsideration of the nature of Genesis 1."
This book is organized around 18 relatively short chapters. Each chapter title is a proposition, e.g., Genesis 1 Is Ancient Cosmology, Ancient Cosmology Is Function Oriented, Divine Rest Is in a Temple, The Cosmos Is a Temple, The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins, "Functional Cosmic Temple" Offers Face-Value Exegesis, Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough, The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture Is Metaphysical in Nature, God's Roles as Creator and Sustainer Are Less Different Than We Have Thought, and Resulting Theology in This View of Genesis 1 Is Stronger, Not Weaker. Each proposition is then defended. The propositions are organized so that the whole book flows very nicely.
The main theme of the book is that Genesis 1 describes functional creation, rather than material creation, in that the days of Genesis 1 are seven 24-hour days of the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple. The author believes that the true literal translation is the translation that the Israelites understood. He suggests that "the Israelites were much more attuned to the functions of the cosmos than to the material of the cosmos," and that for them "something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system." The author concludes with discussions of the impact of his functional view of Genesis 1 on our understanding of evolution, Intelligent Design, and public education. The main theme is an expansion of views that the author previously presented in his "The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis," (Zondervan, 2001), especially on pages 147-157 of that volume.
Each chapter ends with a brief bibliography entitled "Technical Support." There is a final chapter of "Summary and Conclusions", a four-page FAQ, extensive Notes, and a brief subject Index.
I highly recommend this book for anyone who is still struggling with (or should be struggling with) how to understand the text in Genesis 1.
January 2, 2021
John H. Walton's popular book "The Lost World of Genesis One" is simple and easy-to-read. It is not bogged down with too many endnotes or technical support, but Walton argues his position rather clearly and concisely. One who is not familiar with ancient cosmology, Old Testament studies, or science would still be able to easily work his/her way through the book. Walton proposes that rather than being at odds with biological evolutionary theories, Genesis 1 promotes a creation account centering on functional origins, not material ones. Pulling evidence from other Ancient Near East (ANE) works, Walton shows how the ancients were much more concerned with how things functioned than about their material and physical properties. The account in Genesis 1, according to Walton, tells of how the God of Israel ordered and gave purpose to the cosmos. The question of material origins is outside of the scope of Genesis 1, although it is clear from the corpus of Scripture that all material origins ultimately began with God as well.
I enjoyed the first half of this book, which discussed ancient cosmology and the Old Testament thought-world, much more than the second half, which dealt primarily with questions about material origins, the place of science in discussions about purpose, and how a Bible-based Christian could adhere to biological evolution, if he/she felt it to be a credible explanation for material origins. I find Walton's thoughts and research compelling and useful. Above all, this book is an incredibly important reminder that the world of the Hebrew Scriptures (and of the New Testament) was one fundamentally different from our own, which means that certain questions we ask today were not the ones they asked then. It also means that certain presuppositions may not have been present back then that are prominent today. As Walton so wisely puts it, "The Old Testament ... was written for us, and for all humankind. But it was not written to us. It was written to Israel." (7).
I enjoyed the first half of this book, which discussed ancient cosmology and the Old Testament thought-world, much more than the second half, which dealt primarily with questions about material origins, the place of science in discussions about purpose, and how a Bible-based Christian could adhere to biological evolution, if he/she felt it to be a credible explanation for material origins. I find Walton's thoughts and research compelling and useful. Above all, this book is an incredibly important reminder that the world of the Hebrew Scriptures (and of the New Testament) was one fundamentally different from our own, which means that certain questions we ask today were not the ones they asked then. It also means that certain presuppositions may not have been present back then that are prominent today. As Walton so wisely puts it, "The Old Testament ... was written for us, and for all humankind. But it was not written to us. It was written to Israel." (7).
December 9, 2025
I loved this book!
Well balanced, well informed and studied, and balanced. While not exhaustive, the view this book provides of Genesis 1 matches better with the thought of the Ancient Near East than what I previously thought, especially the rest of scripture's commentary on the Sabbath and Gen 1 as a whole. Worth the read, no matter what your view of material creation is or whether you're open to change your mind (while holding the Bible as inspired)!
Well balanced, well informed and studied, and balanced. While not exhaustive, the view this book provides of Genesis 1 matches better with the thought of the Ancient Near East than what I previously thought, especially the rest of scripture's commentary on the Sabbath and Gen 1 as a whole. Worth the read, no matter what your view of material creation is or whether you're open to change your mind (while holding the Bible as inspired)!
August 7, 2022
This book did a great job of exemplifying the importance of understanding the biblical text from an Ancient Near Eastern perspective, especially for anyone who is new to the subject. 10/10 would recommend for anyone interested in ancient cosmology/ reading a new perspective on Gen 1.
November 13, 2019
Best theology book I’ve read this year. Walton is engaging and thought-provoking.
June 26, 2020
Since 1970 there has been a tremendous amount of scholarly work to develop an understanding of ANE metaphysical world. This work has resulted in new insights into how the Bible should be understood - in its ancient context. John Walton's monograph puts for 18 propositions. Each one building on the previous addressing how an ANE world view applied to Genesis 1 alters how we understand what is being taught in this text. His propositions significantly shift Christian view points of not only creation, but how science and the Bible relate to each other and how these topics should be taught in public schools. This is a book that should be read by every scientist, educator and Christian.
March 11, 2023
Solid exposition of Genesis 1, rightly establishing the functional reading and removing unnecessary conflicts with science's material cosmology. Less technical than Middleton's Liberating Image in a good way. Very methodical development of his thesis. A good starting place for those who feel caught between science and faith when reading Genesis 1.
February 19, 2017
This was a fascinating look at Genesis from a perspective that I can most relate to: literary. The author's focus is on Genesis as an ancient text, written to a group of people living in a certain time, and the perspective (and language) that they would have understood, and the implications to us reading it millennia later.
His premise that Genesis 1 is not actually an account of the material origin of the universe (not to say that God did not create the materials, but rather that this account is not talking about that) but rather the functional origins (the setting up of time, the formation of earth to meet the needs of man [created in God's image], weather patterns, etc) is an important distinction from the actual material creation of the cosmos, and in fact, he argues, lines up much better with the ancient world's thinking about the earth. It sets the account in its historical context, and the correct understanding of the ancient word "create," etc, to get the cultural understanding of how the ancients would have understood the text. In short, Genesis 1 does not argue for either a young or an old earth view.... it simply does not express an opinion one way or the other, because that's not what it cares about. The argument is compelling, opening up the world of science as we currently understand it, and Christianity to come together in harmony. Neither the way we currently understand the evolutionary process or the God of the Bible have to be in contradiction with one another.
There is definitely more to be studied on this, but the prospect is incredibly eye-opening and gives room for growth and experience beyond what the debates to present have led us to believe. Very insightful.
As a side note, there are several sections in this book that are fairly dull and tedious, especially if you're not into linguistics like I am, so the four stars is for readability and the tendency that Walton has to overly repeat himself.
His premise that Genesis 1 is not actually an account of the material origin of the universe (not to say that God did not create the materials, but rather that this account is not talking about that) but rather the functional origins (the setting up of time, the formation of earth to meet the needs of man [created in God's image], weather patterns, etc) is an important distinction from the actual material creation of the cosmos, and in fact, he argues, lines up much better with the ancient world's thinking about the earth. It sets the account in its historical context, and the correct understanding of the ancient word "create," etc, to get the cultural understanding of how the ancients would have understood the text. In short, Genesis 1 does not argue for either a young or an old earth view.... it simply does not express an opinion one way or the other, because that's not what it cares about. The argument is compelling, opening up the world of science as we currently understand it, and Christianity to come together in harmony. Neither the way we currently understand the evolutionary process or the God of the Bible have to be in contradiction with one another.
There is definitely more to be studied on this, but the prospect is incredibly eye-opening and gives room for growth and experience beyond what the debates to present have led us to believe. Very insightful.
As a side note, there are several sections in this book that are fairly dull and tedious, especially if you're not into linguistics like I am, so the four stars is for readability and the tendency that Walton has to overly repeat himself.
July 22, 2023
I was fascinated by this book, not least because the author offers a compelling case supporting a reading of Genesis 1 that I have long held but have not always articulated convincingly. Namely, that Genesis 1 is not intended to be an account of material origins but rather a theological statement of God’s sovereignty and purpose in creation. As such, the debate about biological evolution versus creationism is unnecessary. Walton believes he is giving the text the most “literal” reading possible (using the original languages and cultural understandings of the original audience). He concludes that Genesis 1 is an account of functional origins rather than material origins. Into a formless, chaotic world, God brings order by establishing functions on days 1-3 (Time, Weather, Food Production) and by assigning functionaries on days 4-6. Day 7 establishes the universe as God’s cosmic temple where He takes residence upon completion of the work of the six days.
He makes the point for serious readers of the Bible, that rather than try to push the agenda that Young Earth creationism or Intelligent Design be introduced into the classroom, we should advocate that metaphysical naturalism (which is a matter of belief, not scientific method) should not be bundled together with biological evolution.
Science can and should continue to support the best material evidence to explain the nature of the universe. Faith understands God’s guiding hand in all of it.
He makes the point for serious readers of the Bible, that rather than try to push the agenda that Young Earth creationism or Intelligent Design be introduced into the classroom, we should advocate that metaphysical naturalism (which is a matter of belief, not scientific method) should not be bundled together with biological evolution.
Science can and should continue to support the best material evidence to explain the nature of the universe. Faith understands God’s guiding hand in all of it.
October 30, 2019
I don't go for 5 stars very often, honestly. But this is just a really good book. It has been at least 2 years since I read a work that has such impeccable clarity and also fairness. He drives home his point, which is that the details of Genesis 1 are referring to creation in the sense of assigning function rather than an explanation of how things came to be materially. In other words, God created plants as food. The part we should emphasize is the plants and their role, not the day they were created.
Genesis 1 does not concern itself with questions of the age of the earth, methods through which God created, what preceded what, etc, because those are modern questions and they weren't even on people's radars back then. An absolute must read. You should especially read it if you are Amish-Mennonite (as I am). For some reason we love fundamentalists like Ken Ham and John Piper. Why? I decry. (that's rhyming.) Take care, guys. I'm off to attend a talk with my friend at a local museum.
Genesis 1 does not concern itself with questions of the age of the earth, methods through which God created, what preceded what, etc, because those are modern questions and they weren't even on people's radars back then. An absolute must read. You should especially read it if you are Amish-Mennonite (as I am). For some reason we love fundamentalists like Ken Ham and John Piper. Why? I decry. (that's rhyming.) Take care, guys. I'm off to attend a talk with my friend at a local museum.
October 6, 2022
Wow. I am filled with genuine awe and tremendous hope after reading this book from Walton. He beautifully and clearly articulates a perspective of the creation account in Genesis that humbly seeks to understand the author’s true intent and how it points to and reveals God at work.
A few months ago I visited the Creation Museum, and was frustrated and angered by the antagonistic and sword-wielding tone that was prevalent throughout it. And I was disgusted how the Bible was used as a weapon to promote a worldview that must be accepted at all costs in order to be a true, authentic follower of Jesus.
This book is a game changer, and I would strongly recommend for anyone interested in this topic.
A few months ago I visited the Creation Museum, and was frustrated and angered by the antagonistic and sword-wielding tone that was prevalent throughout it. And I was disgusted how the Bible was used as a weapon to promote a worldview that must be accepted at all costs in order to be a true, authentic follower of Jesus.
This book is a game changer, and I would strongly recommend for anyone interested in this topic.
June 28, 2013
"Nobody is an infallible interpreter, and we must always stand ready to reconsider our interpretations in light of new information. We must not let our interpretations stand in the place of Scripture's authority and thus risk misrepresenting God's revelation. We are willing to bind reason if our faith calls for belief where reason fails. But we are also people who in faith seek learning. What we learn may cause us to reconsider interpretations of Scripture, but need never cause us to question the intrinsic authority or nature of Scripture." - a must read book that might turn your world upside down.
February 14, 2018
Excellent insight into ancient Mesopotamian creation myths and their role in giving us insights in how to interpret Gen. 1. Genesis 1 isn’t giving us a scientific account of material creation, but an account of functional creation from human’s perspective. Both old earth and young earth creationists are asking the wrong questions of the text. Also, the section on the creation account revealing creation as a temple for God is excellent, but for some reason the author doesn’t conclude with dipping into Rev. 21-22 and the new creation in regards to its temple implications.
June 18, 2017
A superb book! Walton's premise is that to correctly interpret the first chapter of Genesis, one must read it within the context of the time and culture in which and for which it was written. The conclusion is that there really is no conflict between modern science (evolution, old earth, etc) and evangelical Christian faith as long as the underlying metaphysical assumptions are properly considered. I can't recommend this book highly enough. I wish I had read it 15 years ago!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 604 reviews