Genesis

NIV Application Commentary, Old Testament #1

by John H. Walton, David Weston Baker, Bill T. Arnold

The NIV Application Commentary helps you communicate and apply biblical text effectively in today's context.To bring the ancient messages of the Bible into today's world, each passage is treated in three Original Meaning. Concise exegesis to help readers understand the original meaning of the biblical text in its historical, literary, and cultural context.Bridging Contexts. A bridge between the world of the Bible and the world of today, built by discerning what is timeless in the timely pages of the Bible.Contemporary Significance. This section identifies comparable situations to those faced in the Bible and explores relevant application of the biblical messages. The author alerts the readers of problems they may encounter when seeking to apply the passage and helps them think through the issues involved.This unique, award-winning commentary is the ideal resource for today's preachers, teachers, and serious students of the Bible, giving them the tools, ideas, and insights they need to communicate God's Word with the same powerful impact it had when it was first written.

Genres: Biblical Studies, Theology, Reference, Old Testament, Religion, Nonfiction, Christian

768 pages, Hardcover

First published October 11, 2001

About the author

John 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.

Reviews

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Waltons NIVAC commentary was a pleasant surprise. This is a series I had judged by it's rather light-weight looking cover. It difficult to compare Walton's style (which might be NIVAC's style--I don't know as this is the only volume I've seen) to that of Wenham or Waltke. The commentary is simply based on the NIV text and doesn't include verse by verse textual or commentary notes. Rather, each section begins with a sub-section on "Original Meaning", then another on "Bridging Contexts", and then a final sub-section on "Contemporary Significance". It's "different", but it works. In the Original Meaning section, Walton walks though the text and explains what it would have meant to the original audience, dealing with textual issues, background, and historical setting. Since it's not a verse by verse commentary, it's not as detailed as one might expect, but it does cover the important things. In the Bridging Contexts" section Walton teases out the "timeless" meaning of the text. Finally in the "Contemporary Significance" section application is made. This isn't as technical a commentary as many, but I was surprised by how technical it actually is. The "Bridging Contexts" and "Contemporary Significance" sections often run together, but Walton uses them to make some excellent applications that the preacher will often find very helpful. More than once I've found extremely good illustrations that made their way into my sermons. Walton was the perfect scholar to write this commentary as the format gives him a perfect venue for discussing the background issues he's so well-known for. But this also may be where some readers become annoyed. Walton has done some cutting-edge work in Genesis background studies, but he quite often holds back here and plays things more "conservatively" than he does in his other books.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Walton, John. Genesis NIVAC. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

John Walton begins the introduction not with dull academese about Genesis, but with creation and covenant. The Babylonian and Egyptian gods (and its Freemason god today) could not be covenantal.

His intro is good and sane, but there are still some iffy parts. Against the fundamentalist he says there is an undeniable mythical element. Against the liberal he rejects the attempt to reduce all of it to myth. I actually think the mythical content is...well….true. That stuff is real. More on that later.

Genesis is structured around the toledoths (2:1; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2). And Genesis is Covenant History, with the covenant aimed for an election to revelation (Walton 37ff). Abram was elect partly because the knowledge of God had been lost (52). So, God reveals himself. And he reveals himself through Covenant.

A question about methodology. Walton has been accused of simply reading ANE back into the Bible. This isn’t entirely accurate. There is no “Bible-equivalent” of ANE texts, nor is the ANE uniform. Take creation: in Babylonian legends creation births the gods (or the gods birth creation). In some Egyptian accounts the “god” speaks creation into existence.

Genesis 1:1-5

Resit refers to a duration of time, not a specific point (Walton 68). Evidence for this is in Job 8:7, “which speaks of the early part of Job’s life.”

Regarding bara Walton argues that it refers, not to material creation, but to assigning functions and tasks (71).

Day 1

Walton argues that it is not the phycists’ light being created, but that ‘or refers to a period of time. This makes sense since God separates the light from darkness (and you can’t draw a physical boundary and keep light on one side, darkness on the other).

Rather, God is creating time, which is the first of the functions he creates (79). Genesis 1 is operating on functional, rather than structural terms (83). There is something to this, since it avoids some of the problems of “how is there light before the sun?” and the neutered “it’s all myth” approaches.

What did God do on Day 4?

We’ll spend some time here since this is largely why Walton is so controversial. His larger argument is fairly sound: there is evidence that when “creation language” is used, it is not always in a structural sense. For example:

Job 9:9 shows that constellations are arrangements of objects and not structures. ‘Sa can refer to acts like arranging (124).
Isaiah 41:17-20. “Both verbs bara and asah are used to describe the establishment of functions.”
Isaiah 45. Both verbs are referring to nonmaterial objects.

So did God “make” the sun on the 4th day? On Walton’s reading, no. God gave the lights a functional task

Image of God

Walton lists the three interpretative options: theological, grammatical, and conciliar. The theological says the “us/our” language refers to the Trinity. The grammatical says it is a plural of majesty. The conciliar says it refers to the divine council. The grammatical option is the easiest to eliminate, since there aren’t many (or any?) examples of the plural of majesty in Hebrew. The theological one won’t work, either. It wouldn’t have made any sense to an OT Jew for the Father to be speaking to the Son and Spirit. Further, it has God the Father telling God the Son and God the Spirit what they are going to do, but how would this work, given that they all share the same mind? Wouldn’t they already know?

The conciliar option has God telling the divine council what they are going to do, yet in the end God is the one doing it. This fits the grammar and is attested elsewhere in the Hebrew bible. Someone might object that “We aren’t created in the image of angels?” That misses the point on what the image of God really means? If it means a set of metaphysical properties like will, rationality, etc., then maybe we don’t share those with angels (then again, maybe we do). But that’s not what the image is about.

Definition of the image of God: it is the capacity to be God’s vice-regents (131). “The image is a physical manifestation of divine (or royal) essence that bears the function of that which it represents; this gives the image-bearer the capacity to reflect the attributes of the one represented.”

Genesis 2

“Divine rest is the principal function of a temple, and a temple is always where a deity finds rest, so the cosmos is God’s temple” (147). On another note, in this earlier volume Walton is quite hostile to theistic evolution (156).

How should we honor the Sabbath? This is the big-time money question for Reformed folks. And if you are a Covenanter, all of theology reduces to this moment. Walton makes a number of wise comments: if you have to reduce Sabbath-keeping to a bunch of rules, you’ve missed the point. Sabbath is the way we acknowledge God on his throne and as priest-kings, it is how we reflect the stability and equilibrium of rest (158).

Walton rightly skewers the “Sethite” thesis about the “sons of God” in Genesis 6. There is zero syntactical evidence for such a claim. Walton rejects the angelic thesis, but not for the usual reasons. While he correctly notes that whenever the “sons of God” appear in Scripture (e.g., in Job), it means angelic beings. But he says the Bible doesn’t give us a large enough sample size, so we can’t use that evidence. Further, contra Enoch and Jude’s use of Enoch (sorry fundies), the angelic beings would have taken wives in marriage, which goes against Enoch’s usage of porneia.

Walton claims the “sons of god” are sort of like Gilgamesh, tyrant kings of old who took extra wives. To be fair, Walton admits there is zero evidence in Scripture for his position but he notes, accurately, that it matches the Gilgamesh account.

There are several problems here. (1) Gilgamesh was an apkallu, or maybe a son of an apkallu. That supports the angelic thesis. So if Walton is correct, then he is thrust back upon the angelic thesis. (2) Precisely about what event in the OT does Jude allude to? Genesis 6. Jude connects this account with the sexual sins of Sodom. Again, we are thrust back upon the angelic thesis.

The Flood

True to Walton’s methodology, he doesn’t argue for any specific extent of the flood. He notes some problems in each view, lists the grammatical and syntactical options, and lets the reader decide. And the options aren’t simply universal vs. local. Rather, they are a) global, b) known world, c) regional, d) local (322). There are some problems with the Universal Flood view:

If the sea level rose for 150 days until it covered the tops of the mountains, and the sea level rose 16, 946 ft to the top of Ararat, then it was logically 16, 946ft across the earth. This requires about 630 million cubic miles of additional water weighing 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Here is the problem: the oceans had to triple in volume in 150 days and then shrink quickly back to normal. Where did the 630 million cubic miles of water go? There is no ocean to drain to because the oceans are already filled.

There are other logistical problems but they aren’t ultimatey decisive. What matters is the text. Didn’t the flood cover “all” the earth? As good Calvinists we know that all doesn’t always mean all (Dt 2.25). True, but didn’t it cover the mountains? The text uses the Pual form of ksh, which suggests a variety of possibilities (325). Water can “cover” not simply by submerging but also by drenching. If we tell someone “you are covered with water” during a storm, we just mean they are drenched.

Conclusion

The commentary is weighted towards the earlier chapters of Genesis. That’s probably inevitable as that is where all the questions are. I don’t always agree with Walton’s conclusions, but his handling of the text and syntax is masterful.

[Jeff Noble · Rating 1 out of 5]

I didn’t finish this book. I gave up on it after 120 pages. I have read Walton’s “The Lost World of Genesis” and took issue with it, but after seeing so many recommend this commentary, I had to get it, assuming it would be a good resource as I preached through Genesis.

It was the most UNHELPFUL for a pastor. Walton seems determined to hold to a textual criticism approach and his blind commitment to intellectualism obscure the text and meaning of the text itself.

One has to read paragraphs in order to find the barest hint of true biblical commentary on the text itself. He seems more interested in undermining Genesis and its author than he does in explaining and offering theological insight.

God is strangely absent in Walton’s commentary, whereas fictional authors of Genesis, similarities to other ANE documents, supposed scientific proofs and cultural influences weigh more for the composition and message.

I would recommend Derek Kidner, John Currid, Kenneth Matthews or Kent Hughes as more helpful for the minister and pastor seeking to teach or preach through this majestic book.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though I am a fan of John Walton's work in many regards, this Commentary falls under his more mediocre work. I would like to address the many issues with my rating.

First, though the commentary is not an exhaustive exegetical commentary there were many places where much more hermeneutical and contextual ideas could have been explained. Much of the context and hermeneutics within the commentary felt very empirical and loaded with motive.

Second, theologically the Commentary was light. I know Walton wanted to preserve original textual meaning without too much inference, but instead he waters his writing with his own theological positions while maintaining his independence from showing alternative ideas

Third, the text is simply a bit outdated.

But I do want to say. There still remains three stars. Because though outdated, the text is still vitally important in numerous ways, and Walton's scholarship (though tainted with plenty of bias) is still valuable and important.

I do recommend reading the text, but make sure you have 4-5 other resources to gather different ideas and opinions about the Genesis text at the same time.

[Grace · Rating 1 out of 5]

I never expected a commentary like this from the NIV Application Commentary. For a conservative Christian this volume was shocking. I read rather blindly at first. I was slightly puzzled at some statements but gave him the benefit of the doubt. But doubts began to mount. When I re-read the first chapters and saw what Walton was really saying I was so disappointed.

Walton would say things that made a lot of sense and I agreed with him but then his conclusions would be what finally made me see his text manipulation. For example, I loved when he says that he believes in the 7 days of "creation". How refreshing. But I didn't realize he meant something very different. Walton says the Genesis 1 account is not about creating "matter" at all. He uses the ancient story of creation, the Enuma Elish, to back this up. His conclusion is that Genesis 1 is all about order and not creation. God is bringing order to the cosmos. So God brings order to the cosmos in 7 days.

There are many examples of where I diverge from Walton's understanding of the biblical text but here is what clarified for me that we would not agree on a basic understanding of Genesis:

"In fact, despite the popular and traditional belief otherwise, it can be
easily demonstrated that death was in the system prior to the Fall. I ask the
question, Did Adam have skin? His statement in 2:23 shows that he did. We
know well today what the epidermis is—a layer of dead skin cells. Since
Adam had dead cells, we know that death existed at the cellular level. If
plants served as food, then certainly we can conclude that plants likewise
died. There is no reason to draw a line between animal life and lower forms
of life; thus, we have no theological reason to claim that death of animals
did not exist before the Fall. Through sin came the inevitability of death for
people. Because of sin people lost access to the tree of life and became fully
susceptible to death."

In another part of this commentary he calls Adam and Eve priests in God's cosmic temple. That didn't sit well. It sounded almost pagan. If I remember rightly the temple was made for people to have a place to sacrifice and come into relationship with God again. They didn't need that in the garden.

I was dismayed to see a video on Seedbed, featuring him. I thought Seedbed was a biblically conservative outlet. In the video Walton calls sin, bringing "disorder" into the cosmos once again. I think it is was much more grave than that. This is also where I heard him say that we need to read Genesis literarily, not literally.

The Old testament, Walton says, does what ancient mythology tried to do, offer as a literary mechanism to explain worldview. Yes, but is that all it is? Do the chapters Genesis 1-11 just offer an explanation or do they offer reality? What I think is ironic is that he tells me, a 21st century Bible reader, to not press into the text what it doesn't say. I think I can say the same for him.

[Jeremy Manuel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Walton's commentary on Genesis is one that I found to be a bit of a mixed bag. I found some parts to be very insightful, while other parts just didn't seem to receive the same level of treatment. This made for an uneven feeling experience overall.

Where Walton's commentary shines brightest is his treatment of Genesis 1-11. While his treatment will make some Christians uncomfortable, especially those with a leaning towards seven literal days of creation and a focus simply on the material creation, I found his treatment of the text to be quite interesting even if I didn't always agree with him. I think his framing of Genesis 1 as being about purpose and function more than material creation to be a compelling argument and one that makes good sense. At the same time Walton also considers these seven days literal, but I found it hard to understand what that really meant under his interpretive rubric. It almost felt like a way to make up for his different approach to those who would disagree.

I think his use of other ANE sources is useful and that he does a good job at showing not just the similarities between these early texts, but the very stark differences as well. I found that it helped ground what kind of text those early chapters of Genesis would be instead of our modern attempt to turn it into some kind of scientific explanation of how the world came to be.

Once we leave those first eleven chapters of Genesis, I felt like the quality of Walton's work just didn't quite feel the same. In part I'm glad, since I didn't have time to read through 100-200 pages per chapter or two of Genesis, but you could very much tell that Walton's passion was for the first eleven chapters and the rest was more average with the occasional insight.

I also tended to find the modern application really not that well done. I know that in part this is because trying to draw application out of these stories is not always really the purpose of the text, but since it's part of the commentary setup here, it's attempted and doesn't often succeed in very meaningful ways in my opinion.

Walton's commentary on Genesis isn't bad by any means, but is more one I would recommend for the first eleven chapters than the final thirty nine. It will still serve plenty well for those chapters, but there is definitely a difference between how those two parts of Genesis are treated by Walton.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the hardest books to preach through is the Book of Genesis for it’s length and rolling narrative makes it hard to preach only a section without preaching the entire book as a whole. It is therefore extremely helpful that Zondervan Publications has put out a commentary on the Book of Genesis in the NIV application Commentary series. This commentary is well-known and respected in both popular and scholarly circles. For the NIV application Commentary series truly helps the exegete understand the original context of the text as well as its contemporary significance.
This commentary is written by fame theologian John H. Walton. His background and his deep understanding of the historical books of the Old Testament combine to make a phenomenal work on the book of Genesis. With regard to the introductory section to both of the books inside this work I found the introductory section on the Book of Genesis comparable to most mid-level commentaries diving into both composition purpose as well as a few biblical theological components.
In dealing with the commentary proper, the textual commentary is written in pericope sections rather than dealing with a verse by verse exegetical study. This is the form at which the NIV application study commentary, is exclusivity written init was therefore not a surprise, but it is something that a reader should expect. This does not negate in any way this commentaries usefulness rather it enhances a preacher’s focus on seeing the forest through the trees. I therefore recommend this commentary wholeheartedly as a useful tool to both the preacher, teacher, uneducated laymen, and Sunday school teacher. I do suggest though that this commentary be paired with a more solid one that deals exegetically with each verse.
These books was provided to me free of charge from Zondervan Press in exchange for an unbiased, honest review.

[Martin Rollins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good commentary which sheds a great deal of light upon a very foundational book of the Bible. Particularly helpful is John Walton's thorough treatment of Genesis 1 to 11. Like some of his other works, Walton argues that the opening chapters of Genesis deal not with 'material' origins but with YHWH giving functionality to each aspect of creation; a terrific option which bypasses both very literal 'young earth' interpretations, and the view that Genesis 1-2 is essentially a carefully crafted literary framework.
Although this book is lengthy, treatment of the patriarchal narratives (Genesis 12-50) is not nearly as comprehensive as Walton's discussion of the opening chapters of Genesis. Nonetheless, the author proffers helpful insights vis-à-vis the patriarchal stories. Continually demonstrated is the fact that the author of Genesis stresses the land aspect of the covenant for Abraham, the family aspect of the covenant for Jacob, and the 'blessing to the nations' facet of the covenant for Joseph. Rather that a verse by verse analysis of Genesis, Walton instead highlights salient portions of the narrative.
Walton also uses contemporary materials from the Ancient Near East in order to elucidate the biblical texts. This is a very interesting and helpful tact the author takes.
Overall a very valuable commentary which is neither overly technical nor superficial.

[Nate Weis · Rating 2 out of 5]

The NIVAC series contains a lot of hit or misses, and this one falls on the “misses” side. I was disappointed that chapters 1-2 received hundreds of pages of commentary while the rest of genesis seemed to be skimmed over.
Hermeneutically, it seemed like Walton often used his knowledge of the ancient near east (which is impressive to be sure) to impose interpretations on texts that are puzzling and even do violence to the common sense reading of the text. He seemed very hesitant to allow for any typological/Christological interpretations.
I mainly bought this commentary for the application sections, because I knew the actual commentary would be stronger in other commentaries. However, the applications lack any theological depth, and are typically Christ-less.
Walton is an excellent OT scholar, but a puzzling choice for this particular commentary series. If you’re looking for a resource on Genesis, Mathews in the NAC series is a much stronger option.

[Pam Larson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good non-technical commentary. The author focuses on God and his plan, not on the Bible characters. Favorite quote: "The depths of God’s sovereignty are not demonstrated by his repression of our choices that inevitably reveal our sinfulness and fallen self-will, but by the fact that there is no choice that we can make, however sinful or fallen, that can interfere with his plan."
The main drawback of the NIV Application Commentary series, for me, is that it devotes so much space to "contemporary significance" that there's not enough explication of the biblical text itself. "Contemporary" applications feel somewhat dated after 20 years.

[blueygurl2016 · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a wonderful commentary on Genesis. Having been a very long time since I have read Genesis, it was nice to have a commentary to help explain some of the more difficult passages, such as Noah getting drunk and cursing his son. The only criticism I have is this: one of the sources he draws frequently from is Ravi Zacharias, who is now a false prophet due to a scandal that was discovered I believe after his death which I do think is well after this was written, like over a decade after this was written. So, this could use an update taking out Ravi’s sources or with a warning saying Ravi was okay back then but we know better now. Something like that. Idk.

[Karla Ticona · Rating 5 out of 5]

Toda la hermenéutica, interpretación del lenguaje original hebreo, exégesis y mucho mucho contenido del libro de Génesis que uno pudiera imaginar y necesitar.
Tiene mucho material para consumir, así como estudiar y buscar incluso macerar para poder llegar a conclusiones personales. Muy recomendado para leerlo y estudiarlo y tomarse el tiempo, no es un libro para leer de tapa a tapa por todo el contenido de calidad que tiene.

[Dan Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Indebted

This resource has been most helpful in expounding the central message of this magnificent text at hand. Pastors and teachers should definitely consider adding this to their library.

[Adam Bloch · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is only a review of the material for Genesis 1-11 (which I read in its entirety, but my sermon series is changing gears for chapter 12-50). Although I don't agree with everything in this commentary, it's a thorough resource for studying the material.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

He didn't go verse by verse, but talked about a passage. Because of this, some things were left unanswered. Still great, but could have been better.

[Jamie Pennington · Rating 5 out of 5]

I greatly enjoy the NIV application commentary. The author of this edition is also ver good.

[Sean-david · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am re-writing my review. At the time I first read this (for a course in Genesis along with Schaeffer's Genesis: In Space and Time, which is wonderful), it just wasn't sinking in. For an application commentary there does seems to be a lack of application, but Walton is extremely thorough in many areas and the more I go back to this as I am in Genesis I find it more and more fruitful and encouraging. That said, there are a few areas where Wlaton seems to shy away from firm convictions on some areas that I just think we cannot be that loose on. Still, worth having in your library IMHO.

[Dan Lacich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best overall commentary I have ever read on Genesis. Perfect for people with questions about creation, science, application for today, and what it really meant to ancient people. I used this as the foundational text for a year long study of Genesis.

[Spencer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Strong commentary on Gen 1-12 but begins to falter towards the midpoint to the end. Walton handles philosophical and apologetic questions pertaining to Genesis 1 and creation masterfully, but does not evidence this same skill elsewhere.