The Lost World of the Torah: Law as Covenant and Wisdom in Ancient Context

The Lost World Series #6

by John H. Walton

Our handling of what we call biblical law veers between controversy and neglect.
On the one hand, controversy arises when Old Testament laws seem either odd beyond comprehension (not eating lobster) or positively reprehensible (executing children). On the other, neglect results when we consider the law obsolete, no longer carrying any normative power (tassels on clothing, making sacrifices). Even readers who do attempt to make use of the Old Testament "law" often find it either irrelevant, hopelessly laden with "thou shalt nots," or simply so confusing that they throw up their hands in despair. Despite these extremes, people continue to propose moral principles from these laws as "the biblical view" and to garner proof texts to resolve issues that arise in society. The result is that both Christians and skeptics regularly abuse the Torah, and its true message often lies unheard.
Walton and Walton offer in The Lost World of the Torah a restorative vision of the ancient genre of instruction for wisdom that makes up a significant portion of the Old Testament. In the ancient Near East, order was achieved through the wisdom of those who governed society. The objective of torah was to teach the Israelites to be wise about the kind of order needed to receive the blessings of God’s favor and presence within the context of the covenant. Here readers will find fresh insight on this fundamental genre of the Old Testament canon.

Genres: Theology, Biblical Studies, Christian, History, Old Testament, Christianity, Nonfiction

272 pages, Kindle Edition

Published February 26, 2019

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

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: Like other books in this series, argues that Torah must be understood in its Ancient Near East context as a legal collection teaching wisdom and covenant stipulations rather than legislation, and cannot be appropriated into a system of moral or social ethics today.

The first five books (Torah) of the Bible are challenging for any person who believes the Bible inspired by God and having authority in one's life. John Walton, joined in this volume by his son, have written a series of books premised on the inspiration and authority of the Bible, as well as the fact that it is an ancient work, reflective of its Ancient Near East context. The Walton's argue that we often read these texts through our own cultural lens of how law and legislation work, and may be used to establish biblical "positions" or "precedents" for all sorts of modern moral questions. This is problematic not only because what we have is not a codified system of laws (there is much that is not addressed), and some of the laws support practices like slavery or requiring that a rapist marry the woman he has raped, that we would judge unacceptable. Like other "Lost World" books, they proceed by a series of propositions, with an appendix on the Decalogue.

The Walton's, identifying similarities between Torah and other ancient legal collections, argue that the purpose of these collections is not legislation but to articulate wisdom about how society is to be ordered under the ruler of the state. The purpose is order that reflects well upon the king. Additionally, in the case of Torah, it is a covenant document similar to Ancient Near East (ANE) suzerainty treaties, where the various provisions outline how the people are to remain loyal to their suzerain, in this case Yahweh or God. The statement, "you shall be holy for I am holy" is a conferral of status rather than an objective for the people of Israel, and Torah is wisdom for how they might be who they are by status. There is a distinction between ritual instructions in Torah and other codes. For others, rituals serve to meet the needs of the gods. Yahweh has no such needs and instead, these serve both as means of worship, and maintain and restore covenant order.

The Walton's then move beyond noting the similarities and differences of ANE codes and Torah to consider similarities and differences of context. They note that many of the similarities in provisions reflect not dependence on other codes but rather that they are both embedded in the same cultural "river." What differentiates Torah from these other codes is that it also reflects God's covenant with Israel and God's presence among them, instructing them how they might retain the enjoyment and blessing of that presence.

The final part of their work addresses the church's use of Torah and particular focuses on what Torah is not, and what interpretive practices are invalid. They discourage the common practice of dividing Torah into moral, civil, and ceremonial law, arguing that these divisions are both artificial, and undermine understanding Torah in context as an integral whole. Typically, we lift out the "moral" teachings, and seek to derive principles for our contemporary situation, perhaps along with New Testament teaching, situated in a different, Greco-Roman cultural river. They point to a number of areas in the Torah where this is problematic: marriage, economy, political system, social status and hierarchy, international relations, warfare, and diplomacy, respect of personhood, taxation, property ownership and rights, crime and punishment, and sexual ethics. They contend that Torah was not for salvation, but arose as instruction for living under the covenant. It is a metaphor of health, not a system of moral instruction, and cannot be used as prooftexts for contemporary problems. Taking Torah seriously reads it as a wisdom text disclosing the gracious character of God toward his people and God's intention that they flourish under his care as their suzerain, as they pursue covenant faithfulness in adhering to his wise instruction.

There is much here that is helpful. Instructions we would find morally objectionable (those upholding slavery or patriarchy, for example) fall in line with the kind of order one would expect in the Ancient Near East and commend Yahweh as ruler of his people, but do not serve as legislation for the contemporary church. 

What I find missing, and perhaps troubling is how then we are to read scripture, including the New Testament, also embedded in a cultural river, and according to the Walton's, also not a source of moral instruction for us, but rather "wisdom." They write:

"The decision between 'do not conform to the pattern of this world' (Romans 12:1-2) and 'become all things to all people so that by all possible means [we] might save some' (1 Cor 9:22) does not default in either direction. It means that we exercise wisdom in knowing where to conform to the culture of our day. This wisdom must be exercised by those who can understand the culture well enough to understand the cost of either decision, and it is these people whom we should appoint to lead the community. But making those decisions is not the same thing as following a rigid set of rules, especially not a rigid set of rules that was written to a different culture" (p. 230).

I recognize the value of reading contextually and avoiding prooftexting, but I'm troubled here with language that seems to elevate the wise interpreter above the "rigid set of rules" they interpret. The language of "rigidity" reveals a disposition toward scripture that seems troubling. Were Paul's instructions to the Ephesians or Corinthians about how to lead a life worthy of their calling rigid? Or those of Jesus on divorce, grounded not in a particular culture but in God's creational intent? I agree that the Bible is not primarily a book of moral instruction, yet does not scripture aid those saved by grace, God's workmanship, who created for good works in which we are to walk (Ephesians 2:8-10)? The Waltons' conclusion smacks of a "hidden knowledge" accessible to the wise that seems a long way from the perspicacity of scripture. I would have been helped if they would spell out more of how scripture may be appropriated, and not mostly how it may not.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was at times fascinating, sometimes troubling, and perhaps finally liberating, if I can bring myself to completely accept his conclusions. Walton contends that when we examine the Torah in its Ancient Near East context we have to conclude that it was never intended, nor received (at the time), as Law, in the way we think of as a code of legislation. Instead it was regarded as a body of “aspective” wisdom literature meant to “teach the Israelites about the kind of order that they will need to uphold if they want to receive the blessings of God’s favor and presence.” If this viewpoint is true, then we should not look to the OT to provide universal guidelines of behavior. Nor do we need to come up some convoluted system to determine which of these seemingly arcane rules should be followed and which can be safely ignored as merely ceremonial, or cultural, or just plain unpalatable. This potentially frees us from the troublesome task of figuring out how to legitimately reject the systems of patriarchy and slavery that the OT seems to take for granted at that time. But neither can we easily mine the OT for fundamental principles that we can apply to today’s markedly different culture. He makes a good case, but I will need to ruminate on this further.

[Rachel Cash · Rating 2 out of 5]

Here’s the thing… this book left me with an itch and not a lot of ways to satisfy that itch. In other words, I have more questions than when I started. Certainly, there is value in now knowing what questions to ask, but I was just hoping for more. To dig deeper, one of my next reads might need to be Biblical Law and Its Relevance from one of my old professors, Dr. Joe Sprinkle.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 5 out of 5]

**This was originally reviewed for the Englewood Review of Books. That review can be found here: http://englewoodreview.org/john-walto....**

I have vivid memories of devouring The Lost World of Genesis One, a slim paperback from an Old Testament scholar I had no previous exposure to. It felt like every page packed major insight into the nuances of Hebrew language and literary genres, the cultural context of the ancient world, and comparisons to other religious literature of the Near East. I remember repeatedly thinking, “Why hasn’t anyone ever explained this to me before?!”

Since then, the ongoing “Lost World” series by John Walton (and a revolving host of co-authors) has deftly guided modern readers through some of the thorniest interpretive issues presented by reading the Old Testament writings in our late-modern-scientific age, tackling historical questions surrounding topics like Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood, and the Israelite conquest. While every entry has been valuable and thought-provoking, until now none have quite achieved the same level of paradigm-shifting impact as the argument presented in that first volume.

So let me say at the outset that the sixth entry, The Lost World of the Torah, vies for a spot at the top of the list, matching the best of the series in rigorous commitment to scriptural authority, precise diagnosis of modern cultural issues that impact interpretation, linguistic skill, wide-ranging knowledge of ancient cultures and religions, and accessible writing.

Like every “Lost World” book, the authors build a cumulative case, consisting of propositions that directly build on each other, narrowing in scope, until presenting a final conclusion. The result is a funnel-shaped argument, familiar to long-time readers of Walton, starting in the first chapter by simply contending that “The Old Testament Is an Ancient Document.” Though propositions like this may seem too obvious to waste ink on, the co-authors are wise in starting with a non-negotiable commitment to establishing the ancient context of the Old Testament while making no assumptions about the reader’s knowledge of said context. This may be familiar ground to cover for some, but the book takes a sharp turn right away by interrogating a frequently-unexamined interpretive lens of the modern reader: the way we think about legislation.

By leveraging the memorable image (established previously in the series) of swimming in a “cultural river,” the co-authors seek not only to identify the river within which the Torah was written, but also the river within which we read and interpret. The second Proposition: “The Way Way Interpret the Torah Today is Influenced By The Way We Think Law And Legislation Work” is the first example of the writers’ attempt to shine a light on the cultural river we stand in, and it is this thread of the whole book that sets it apart from much contemporary work on understanding the Old Testament documents. The remainder of the book jumps between these two “rivers,” explicating both the way the Torah would have functioned in the ancient context, as well as how we are unknowingly tempted to distort and misapply its teachings today.

Propositions 3-14 occasionally veer into more technical writing, but also contain the book’s most helpful content for placing the function of Torah squarely within its Ancient Near Eastern context. The authors carefully explain, using plenty of examples outside of Israel, how ancient legislative texts were not meant to be comprehensive bodies of rules for a healthy society, but were instead provided to encourage wisdom in leaders and adjudicators. By understanding Torah as a whole, then, ancient judges might grow in the type of thinking that would equip them to handle specific disputes justly, even if one couldn’t point to a specific rule or law for precedent (the way we are accustomed to using laws).

Seeing the Torah as wisdom-literature helps the modern reader understand its similarities to other societies of the time, but Israel’s Torah is not simply another mundane example of an ancient legislative text. Torah stands apart from its Ancient Near Eastern cousins in striking ways, which are elucidated in the authors’ discussions of suzerain-vassal covenants, ritual, and especially holiness (proposition 7). This is the territory in which the book provides the most startling and exciting insights.

Israel’s Torah stands apart because of Yahweh’s dual role as both deity and king, something wholly unique to Israel (at least in our current understanding). As the authors unpack the concept of Israel’s status as “vassal” to Yahweh’s “suzerainty,” the overall goal of Torah, the role of Yahweh in initiating the covenant-relationship, the meaning of holiness as a status that is given (not earned), and the function of rituals, curses and blessings all begin to take on new meaning.

“The kings of the ancient world desired to label the things that were theirs. Bricks were stamped with their names, their images were placed in conquered territories, and their treaties were inscribed and displayed prominently. A vassal was a showpiece of the suzerain’s grandeur. This labeling was a way to place one’s name on something, just as Yahweh placed his name on Israel…it showed that the suzerain had expressed gracious preference for the vassal by extending his identity to the vassal.” (49)

Within this understanding, one just begins to grasp the importance of Israel extending Yahweh’s name and reputation by participating in the covenant with wisdom and faithfulness, as well as Yahweh’s desire for ancient peoples to know who he truly is (and isn’t) through the well-ordered representation of Israel.

“The Torah, then, far from being legislation, has as its objective to define the nature of the order that defines the people who in turn give some definition to the identity of Yahweh.” (92, emphasis in original)

The final section of the book, Propositions 15-23, moves the argument into the territory of understanding the ongoing significance of Torah for modern people. Here the authors briefly discuss the New Testament’s use of Torah instruction, alluding to the difficulties of reading texts from the Greco-Roman “cultural river” that use texts from an Ancient Near Eastern “cultural river,” all while interpreting within our “cultural river.” It gets a little head-spinning. They also refute common efforts to break Torah into categories (civil, ceremonial, moral), or point to proof-texts for ethical instruction.

These chapters spring off the rock-solid foundation built throughout the book, but one can’t help wishing for more discussion (the most repeated refrain in these chapters is “such discussion is beyond the scope of this study”). Even so, these chapters illustrate the important questions that are raised in applying Torah to our context, as well as the limitations of common answers that are provided.

The result of all this is a book that masterfully elucidates the context of Torah, the ways it functioned in the ancient world, the pitfalls of many modern attempts at interpretation and application, and the ongoing need for more thoughtful work in this area. Walton and Walton are brilliant guides through the ancient world. They write with academic excellence, as well as pastoral sensitivity. This is the “Lost World” series at its best, and deserves a place on every minister’s shelf.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

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

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

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

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

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

Proposition 1: The Old Testament is an Ancient Document

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

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

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

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

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

Proposition 4: ANE Legal Collections teach wisdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposition 7: Holiness is a status, not an objective

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

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

* God’s patronage (Ex. 6:7).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposition 17: Torah was never intended to provide salvation.

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

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

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

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

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

Some Thoughts on the “Ten Commandments.”

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

[Thomas Mulshine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Walton is consistent in this book as in his other Lost World books regarding the idea that reading ANE texts we need to realize it is written for the people in/of the culture at that time. Makes sense. If I just read the first couple of chapters and the last chapter that summed it all up, it would have saved a lot of time, and I would have gotten the main point.
No legislation laws in the Torah, OT, and NT (his next book). Food for thought.

[William · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m 50/50 on this book. I equally love parts and absolutely hate and despise others. For example, I love Walton’s chapters on the Suzerain Vassal Treaty as it relates to Torah. I also greatly appreciated the chapter on why the Torah cannot be subdivided into categories like moral, civil and ceremonial.

The problem is the thesis. Walton’s book can be summed up simply as his belief that the intended purpose of Torah was to communicate wisdom and knowledge rather than a framework for obedience to commandments (interestingly he never really explains why these two ideas have to be mutually exclusive). He maintains that the Torah was never seen by the ancients as intended to convey moral instruction, but served primarily to provide the necessary stipulations for YHWH covenant with Israel.

What then is the source of our moral code? This is where the Jimmeney Cricket of the theological world exhorts us to always let our conscience be our guide. The problem with allowing the human conscience to be the litmus test for determining wrong and right is the inevitable descent into moral subjectivity in which “every man did what was right in his own eyes,” which if you haven’t read the Bible spoiler alert it didn’t work out so well for those folks.

If I have understood the book correctly I think the reason Walton came to this erroneous conclusion is because he felt that if the Torah had intended to be humanities definitive moral guide then it should in fact be far more detailed and specific regarding every facet of human existence. And it is here that Walton misses the particular genius of Torah. In some areas God is in fact very detailed and specific in terms of what is both required and what is not allowed. These serve as the foundation on which we can construct the rest of our moral framework. Other parts of the Bible are I believe intentionally left vague so as to allow a framework that is flexible enough to adapt to changing cultures and epochs of humanity while fundamentally remaining timeless.

There are even some that are both specific and vague. Look at the Sabbath for example, God specifically instructs his people to rest but accept for a few examples such as not kindling a fire never actually defines what that means. By the way the first person killed post Sinai is killed by God for breaking the Sabbath (does anyone else think that example might undercut Walton’s whole Torah not intended to convey obedience thing?) At the end of the day Walton is just trying to sell the world on a feel good God who is accessible to a generation not so keen on people or deities telling them what to do or how to live their life.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 3 out of 5]

What was the purpose of the Old Testament law?  I recently taught on this, so it's fresh in my mind.  Walton's thesis that the Torah was only ever meant as wisdom falls short.  He has some insights, but I'm not moved to abandon the more traditional understandings of Law. 



Notes: 


https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...


Happy rant


Nook


In modern Western societies, law is formal, written, and enforced by agencies and institutions.  Such an approach to legislation is referred to as "statutory law".  Given how deeply entrenched this idea of law is, it is instinctive for us to imagine that law in other societies functions in the same way.  That is one of the major presuppositions that will be challenged in the following chapters (5)


Anachronistic intuition (16)


"If, however, the Torah was never intended to be a revelation of prescriptive, codified legislation, then we have to clear the table  and start from the everything to understand what it is and how it works" (25)  Personal note: This seems strange.  I eagerly await Walton's answer 


It has been abundantly clear to scholars studying the many thousand existing court document that the judiciary in the ancient world did not decide cases on the basis of a formal, written, normative legal code as is done today (32)


Personal note: I hear Walton saying the ancient "laws" were more wise guidelines.  Case studies that a local leader could use as a rule of thumb (35)


Personal note: Walton compares the Mosaic law to the Hammurabi code to make the case that the law was intended to show the wisdom efforts of the king (37)


"The items in the list provide descriptive instruction, not prescriptive legislation" (37)


Personal note: the chapter headings convenient outline the premises of Walton's argument (39)


Torah means "instruction", not "law" (41)


Personal note: this would make the covenant law akin to the proverbs 


"Perhaps the main piece of evidence that leads readers to think that the Torah is legislation is the repeated exhortation, or even injunction, to "obey" (43) Personal note: you think?  


Personal note: I'm not convinced by Walton's linguistic work here.  It also occurs to me that the New Testament considers it a problem that the Jews didn't keep the law.  (43)


What the Suzerain wants is faithfulness (48)


If blessing the Israelites will enhance Yahweh's reputation, Yahweh will do that; if destroying them will enhance his reputation, he will deposition that instead (52)


"This is consistent with the action of a suzerain who wishes to establish a reputation for himself through the treatment of his vassals" (52)


The use of both genres indicates strongly that overall purpose of Israel's covenant is for Yahweh to establish a reputation; this is what we mean when we say that Yahweh uses the covenant to reveal himself (53)


Holiness is a status, not an objective (54)


For the nation of Israel to be holy means that Yahweh will identify -- that is, reveal himself through his interaction with them (56)


Note that Yahweh's concern is for his holy name, not for Israel's moral or social condition (60)


We should understand Yahweh's self-revelation not in terms of absolutes or universals but rather in terms of contrast (60)


The main factors differentiating Israel from the rest of the ANE are the aspects of holiness and covenant (86)


The Torah is not intended to be a normative set of rules to be obeyed; it is a list of illustrations that collectively circumscribe the nature of the covenant order, which can guide the Israelites as they seek to be the people of Yahweh, in vassal relationship with him by virtue of the covenant (89)


People found their identity in the role and status that they had in the community and in whether they brought honor or shame to their community (95)


The gods do not rest on a couch, they "rest" on a throne (106)


We cannot speak of keeping the whole Torah any more than we can speak of keeping the whole book of proverbs (114)  Personal note: this brings home his thesis, but how does it square with James 2:10?  


Personal note: written better than I expected.  Certainly better than most books of this sort.  I'm downright entertained!  


Today many Americans, under combined taxation of 40 percent of more, in effect work for the government for free for 40 percent of the year.  As many build up department to by commodities that they need/want, they work another percentage of their year to pay off the banks.  Student loans are paid off as people work for years passing the money on to creditors.  It makes little difference whether one makes money and passes that on to others or whether one just works for free for those to whom they are in debt.  We have little justification for pontificating about the ills of slaver in the ancient world (129)

 

We can conclude neither that capital punishment is acceptable nor that it is unacceptable to God based on the Torah (136)


Christian today have furthermore been inclined to think of the Torah in terms of salvation because they have been taught  that the metanarrative of the Old Testament  -- the big picture -- is salvation history: it is all about God bringing redemption to his fallen people.  (141) Personal note: While I do view the Old Testament  as salvation history, I look at faith -- not the law -- as the means of salvation 


The intention of the Torah is to produce knowledge, not obedeince (146)


Throughout the book we have argued that the Torah should not be used as a contemporary system of legislating morality (163)


A well-ordered society, rather than a moral system of behavior, was the hallmark of a civilized life (172)


Personal note: Law isn’t about sin?  Paul contrasts righteousness with lawlessness (2 Corinthians 6:14)


Rather than pull our moral principles from the Torah, Walton advises to reason from God's nature (180)


Personal note: Walton has a valid insight about the concept of Holiness in the Torah, but I think he's drawing a faulty conclusion. just because God to clear something to be wholly doesn't remove the responsibility of the object to conform to that standard. After all, there are commands to be holy


Personal note: Walton is assuming a discontinuity between the old and new testaments (183)


Personal note: Walton behind to depart orthodoxy in the later chapters. No way to ground objective morality?



We have built a case to suggest that the Torah provides Israel wisdom for establishingorder that upholds the reputation of Yahweh, their king and their God, and therebysecures his favor in the form of continuing presence and blessing (191)


Personal note colon Walton isn't giving due attention to old testament passages that govern how human beings should treat one another


We consequently noted that the focus of this genre in the ancientworld was not to provide legislation but to provide wisdom for bringing about orderin society. (198)


The value of the Torah for us does not consist in requiring us to do anything. Thevalue is to see the reputation that Yahweh has established for himself, read throughthe lens of the ANE context. From the Torah, we can know that the God we worship isnot petty, arbitrary, co-dependent, indifferent, or (conversely) cruel, tyranni (202)

[Shane Williamson · Rating 4 out of 5]

2022 reads: 01

Rating: 4.5 stars.

"We have too often looked to the Torah to construct legislation as if the Torah were intended to be legislation." (p. 5) And so begins the Waltons' invigorating exploration into the ancient backgrounds of torah (commonly known as 'the law'). I have some really mixed feelings about this book. Some parts blew me away, others left me scratching my head. Make no mistake, it's a book replete with bold claims and implications.

First of all, I loved how the book was laid out: 23 propositions that covered the function of torah, its ritual, its context, and ongoing significance. I appreciated the concise chapters (7-10 pages) that made digesting their arguments possible. The only critique about this structure was that by the end, the repetitive nature of what the torah was *not* came to the fore in a way that left one wanting a more positive explanation.

Those familiar with the 'Lost World' series will know Walton's burden that the OT should be read within its own cultural context, that is, as ancient-near-eastern literature, within the confides of Yhwh's covenant with Israel, and operating within temple ideology (p. 100).

In short, torah was not given to establish legislation in the modern sense of the idea, instead it was intended to give the king wisdom for doing his job (p. 38-39). Torah "presents the way of wisdom and life in the ordered world of the covenant." (p. 44) It is wisdom literature meant to shape Israel as Yhwh's chosen vassal before the nations, as a reflection of his own divine identity. This much I was largely in agreement and found their initial propositions as truly edifying and stimulating.

What was most confusing about this book was how the authors pushed the impetus and weight of the historical situation of torah beyond other sensible and essential doctrinal convictions, to undercut, at least in my mind, the agency of the divine author in breathing out Scripture. The authors are of the opinion that readers of Scripture cannot successfully draw principles from torah for today, because doing so cannot be done consistently (never mind that this itself is a very historically situated conviction, mirroring post-enlightenment rationalism). For the Waltons', the methodology of the apostles' reading and interpretation of Scripture cannot be imitated today. I couldn't help but think of how this undermines the single, divine author who, as Peter said, brought along the human agents in writing holy scripture. In this sense, then, I was left disappointed. The authors seem to bypass an immense weight of biblical theology that locates a (even vaguely) visible metanarrative across the two testaments.

All in all, I was gearing up for a five-star rating but couldn't based on differing hermeneutical convictions. But, I hope the above thoughts do not deter others from reading this otherwise excellent treatment about torah. It has given me a lot of thinking to do and inspired greater diligence in understanding the OT and its use in the NT, and for us today serving Messiah.

[Jared Greer]

Honestly, I don’t feel comfortable leaving a rating on this because I’m just not entirely sure what I think of it. There were several points of agreement (e.g., I have long accepted Walton’s primary postulation that Torah is a kind of ancient wisdom literature); but I don’t share his confidence in the myriad of conclusions he draws from that main point. I don’t necessarily disagree with him on everything, either; I just don’t feel well enough informed on this topic to properly evaluate the weight of his arguments. Biblical law is something I’ve been wanting to study in more detail for a while now. I’ll get around to it some day.

[Debbie · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book uses very academic language, which didn't serve to clearly communicate the author's ideas. Even the examples didn't clarify things. He argues that the Torah does not contain a legal code but was intended to teach wisdom so that those who made judgments would have a certain sense of what was a good and a bad judgment. After muddling through it, all I can say is that he didn't convince me with his arguments. Here are some examples, as I understand them:

1) The Torah is not comprehensive (covering every type of judgment or civil code needed to run a society), therefore it doesn't contain any actual laws that were intended to be obeyed and used when judging cases. 2) Even though the leaders were supposed to regularly read through the Torah and their rulings may match what is given in the Torah, they aren't actually referring to it since they don't specifically quote that law when making their ruling. (Talk about imposing modern Western standards on a different, ancient culture!) 3) The Code of Hammurabi appears to be a listing of judgments that were intended to show off what a just king he was, so all "they sure look like laws" lists must be the same type of thing rather than an actual list of laws. 4) Because the Hebrew words for "obey" and "keep" [as in, keep my commandments] can be used in a different sense about wisdom sayings, they can't refer to actual keeping of laws even when the wording seems to indicate that.

And so on. The author seemed certain he is right, stated that anyone who disagrees must prove him wrong, but he twisted anything that might be used as proof with poor arguments so he can dismiss it. Not impressed.

I received an ebook review copy of this book from the publisher through NetGalley.

[Ionia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have been taking theological courses and have been devoting my extra hours to a lot of theological/philosophical reading. When I saw this book, I had hoped that reading it would clarify for me the purpose of the Torah, not through a 21st Century lens, but as to its original purpose. I am pleased to say, that it that, and much more.

This is a very well-written and thought provoking book, that explains what the Torah is and how it was meant to function in the society it was written for. Whilst many of us think of the Torah and the books of the Bible as largely being moral commandments that we should all follow, even in the current age, this book dispels a lot of those presupposed ideas and offers sensible conclusions on what the works really mean.

I found that the further I got into this book, the more the concepts that the authors presented made sense to me. This was written in an interesting manner that even a layperson, like myself can understand. I appreciated that it was not written in a way that seemed derogatory, as if the authors were trying to disprove the importance of the Torah, but conversely, that they were trying to ensure that it continues to have value when placed in the proper context.

Overall, this is an excellent book for anyone who wants to know more about the Torah, and why it exists. I will definitely read this book again.

This review is based on a complimentary copy from the publisher, provided through Netgalley. All opinions are my own.

[Patrick McWilliams · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots to appreciate here regarding the function of Torah in its genre and Ancient Near East context, and what that means (or rather, what it doesn’t mean) for Christians.

Some parts were quite repetitive, and among all the many examples of “we can’t do xyz with the Torah,” I found myself wishing for more positive expressions of what we CAN/should do with it.

I did not find Walton’s position on the NT use of the OT convincing. I do think the apostles provide us with an interpretive method, including the use of typology. As we are not inspired, I do think it can be taken too far, however. I will also grant that it’s possible Walton’s position is closer to my own than I realize.

Overall, I’d say this deserves to be read alongside other works on biblical law as part of a balanced study.

[Leandro Dutra · Rating 5 out of 5]

I muſt ſay my giviŋ five ſtars does not mean I am ſure I totally agree wiþ ðe auþors. I gueß I will need to read furþer books before convinciŋ myself, even if ðe propoſal conveniently expoſes ðe weakneßes of claßical (Baptiſt & Preſbyterian) alliance þeology — not ðat ðe auþors mention it. Ðey make a convinciŋ, even if perhaps not as readable as I would want, caſe for ‘Law’ beiŋ a miſtranſlation for Torah, even if the LXX actually tranſlates νομος. Ðe implications are multitude, & ðey include a readable appendix on the Decalogue (Δεκαλογος, the Ten words).

[Whitney Dziurawiec · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really appreciated Walton's insights here but I can see how it would be jarring for those who haven't gotten into Jacob Milgrom's work yet or feel locked into literalist readings of the text. it did leave me feeling a little more confused with how to exegete specific texts. I think I prefer Milgrom or Mary Douglas's Leviticus as Literature. pretty fascinating all around though! I plan to read his one on the prophets at some point.

[Jake Mlsna · Rating 3 out of 5]

I wanted to like this more but it felt redundant at times and in the end I don't feel like I was able to grasp a clear a picture of the full importance of the Torah for the Israelites and for us today. There were a lot of compelling historical facts and insights shared that challenged a strictly moralistic or legal reading of the Torah so the book is still worth reading

[Lydia Redwine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great and helpful resource. It’s a bit dense and the author repeats a lot of information which while helpful sometimes, also made it longer than it needed to be.

I would recommend this to anyone confused by the Torah and its purpose and to people who think they know everything about the Torah (you probably don’t.)

[Rachel Turner-Poteet · Rating 3 out of 5]

Walton is right about the nature of torah but not about the implications of that nature. He just keeps being a moral relativist and claiming not to be and then essentially saying that scripture cannot be kept as canon by its traditors in any real sense.

[Noah Calcagno · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first few chapters blew my mind, the rest was repetitive.

[Chad Gibbons · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another very thought-provoking entry in the "Lost World" series.

The main argument of this particular entry is that "Torah" doesn't mean "law" and the ancient Israelites wouldn't have understood it this way. This is stated as revolutionary, but it's not actually as helpful as the Waltons make it seem. When they say that Torah doesn't mean law, they really mean to say that Torah is not "legislation" - Which seems to me to go without saying.

Because the Waltons feel the need to really make this their central point, there is much hyperbole and exaggeration along the way. This was particularly annoying and confusing. Like hearing a sermon that does a really good job of addressing a problem, but never offering any kind of solution.

The Waltons say that "Torah" is better described as a kind of wisdom literature. To be more precise, Torah has three genres:
- Wisdom literature
- Suzerain covenant
- Ritual practices

This is pretty inarguable. The real issue is what the Waltons say the ramifications of this are.

Torah as wisdom literature
The Torah is not law (legislation). The Torah gives aspects of what living wisely in covenant relationship with YHWH looks like. BUT, this doesn’t involve morality. In the first book of the Lost World series, "Lost World of Genesis One", one of John Walton's main points was to say "the bible is not a science book". He did a fine job there and it was well explained and well taken. In this book, his goal is to say "the bible is not a morality book". This is a much tougher sell, at least for me. What do the Waltons mean by this?

They clarify this claim by saying the bible doesn't deliver a system of morality (like how the Torah is not "law" because it doesn't deliver us a comprehensive system of legislation). Here is that ramification thing I was talking about. Sure, the bible doesn't deliver a comprehensive theory of morality or legislation. But to say this means the bible contains no law or no moral imperatives doesn't follow. At all.

The Waltons say "Torah" is better translated as "instruction". Fine also. But when we wonder what this instruction is about, the Waltons say that it's instruction on how to live. What they mean to say is that the bible isn't a universal comprehensive morality for all times and for all peoples. Again, that's fine. Of course that's right. But when we ask the Waltons if we can say the Torah at least gives examples of moral living for the people of Israel at that specific time and place, they still say 'no'. The reason is because ANE peoples didn't have a category that corresponds to what we call "morality".

This seems like equivocation to me. If Torah is basically instruction on how people should live, and 'Morality' is basically instruction on how people should live, then what is the argument here? If modern people think of morality as how God wants them to live, and the Torah describes how God wanted Israel to live, then why are we arguing about how Torah isn't "moral" if Torah does what we think "morality" does? This was unhelpful and many of the claims the Waltons make here greatly overstep the bounds of this book (especially when they describe modern systems of morality). Was the Torah written to a different culture? Yes, of course... But again: Do people actually NOT KNOW THIS?

Here is a helpful illustration about what the Waltons mean by contrasting "wisdom" with "morality": A doctor doesn't tell you how to eat and then punish you with cancer if you disobey. A doctor tells you how to eat so you will live a healthy life. In the same way, God is not delivering laws to punish you for not following them, He's telling you how to live rightly.

That's good stuff, and I thought it helpful (although it doesn't address my issue). More helpful still is where they talk about suzerain treaties.

Torah as suzerain covenant
Again, this is nothing new (at least not new since Meredith Kline and his work). A suzerain covenant describes a relationship between a sovereign (suzerain) and his vassals. Torah is a suzerain covenant between Him as sovereign and Israel as vassal.

The bible is not sui generis - we see these treaties from other ANE societies. Typically, suzerains had vassals to expand their reputation. The vassal provides benefits to the suzerain, the suzerain provides benefits to the vassals. There are even similar agreements like this with other ANE cultures and their gods.

In the case of Torah, the vassals (Israel) are given aspects of wisdom to maintain a social order - and in so doing, maintain their covenant relationship with YHWH. The purpose is for YHWH to dwell among them. YHWH enters into covenant with Israel to glorify his name and broaden his reputation in the world, as a suzerain might.

This is certainly a foreign concept for modern readers and this is where books like this shine. Imagine riding into a village on a horse and offering a suzerain covenant with the people there. Who are you? Who do you think you are? What do you offer? Why would they sign up? In modern times, we don't do things to glorify the suzerain. If Americans act a certain way, and America is a great nation (let's say), who does this really glorify? If Americans had a sovereign, then right living would glorify that person. But who is the "god" of America? (I think america does have a god, but that's beside the point).

BUT! How do we live in a relationship with a God that doesn't need anything? This is where Torah differs greatly from the other nations covenants because YHWH is in a different category than the other gods. The third genre of Torah comes into play here.

Torah as ritual practices
In other nations, we could ask: What do the gods want? ANE people thought that gods wanted the same thing human rulers wanted: Food, clothing, housing, to be honored, respected, pampered, amused, etc. But notice: Moral behavior is NOT one of the things gods care about. 'Right living' and 'justice' is desirable because it maintains order (not for goodness itself). And order is good for both rulers and people. This is why the Waltons say what they do about Torah and morality.

Israel's covenant is different though because YHWH doesn't have needs. God says: "I don't need these things. I want people to work beside me to bring order in the world." (John Walton is BIG on ‘order’). Here's another main point of the book: God doesn't try to change society. He wants the Israelites to reflect God's honor WITHIN the society and culture they live in. The Torah describes how the Israelites were to do this within their ANE culture. It does not describe the perfect, ideal, heavenly culture and society. It describes how particular people were to reflect God within their already existing culture and society. Torah describes how Israel will show the world how to live with the one true God - not the other gods of the world.

So, what does holiness mean in this context? The Waltons say that when WE think 'holy', we think piety. WE think holiness means 'following certain rules really closely.' But for Israel, holiness means identifying THIS people as HIS people. They are holy by means of entering into a covenant relationship. Holiness is not something we do, it's something we are. "Being holy" means that what we do as God's people reflects on God because God identifies us with Himself and Himself with us. We can bring God honor by how we live. We can either live out our holy status well, or live it out poorly. Either way will reflect on YHWH to the nations. One way will glorify Him, one way will not.

(Think here of how children and parents reflect upon one another. Living in ways that bring honor or shame to one another.)

The call to holiness is not a call to follow the law (otherwise, how could the instruments in the temple be "holy"? Were they the most moral of all the other plates and tables?). No, holiness is a status bestowed on the covenant people by YHWH. Pious living and even sacrifices don't make people holy. YHWH makes people holy. Torah doesn’t even have a procedure to "take away sins". The sacrificial system was rather a way to wash away the stain of sin from the presence of God (think "cleansing of an external impurity"). And sacrifice is important because YHWH wants to dwell in their midst. What differentiates this from other ANE cultures is extremely interesting: Besides Israel, holiness is not a concept found in the ANE (I wish much more time was spent on this point).

Here again is the problem I have with this book. What if we DON'T think of holiness as 'pious works'? What if we are well-read Nazarenes who have a much deeper and 'biblical' view of holiness? The Waltons use the words "holiness", “morals” and “law” and THEY think the READER thinks a certain way. Then the Waltons say "the Torah doesn't care about holiness" (or morals). Now, this is absurd, because the Torah certainly DOES care about holiness, and the Waltons know it. What the Waltons MEAN is: "Torah doesn't talk about holiness the way YOU talk about holiness" (and just assume you are speaking wrongly about it). But the hyperbole is already out there and the damage is done. Meanwhile, I'm just left wondering (as I imagine many readers do): Who is this book written to?


One of the Waltons' bugaboos is when Christians say they “follow the bible”. You just can't do that across the board unless you plan on following ALL the laws (which no one does). What Christians are actually doing, without knowing it, is taking some pre-existing morality they have and using that pre-existent system to tell them what verses to keep and which verses to disregard. But this means the bible isn't really giving them a morality - they already have a morality and are using parts of the bible to justify it.

This is a real problem and the Waltons describe it well. I agree with the problem, but I strongly disagree with their solution. They say: Stop trying to find morality in the bible. Just keep the morality you got from your culture and use the bible for something else.

There are many different ways Christians have addressed the age-old problem of how to read the Torah. One of them is to divide Torah into "moral", "civil", and "ceremonial" laws. The Waltons (rightly) say this is also a wrong solution. This tripartite division of the law is something imposed on the text afterwards (hints of this are in Origen and Jerome, but Aquinas first explicitly taught it). This is an artificial partition that is sometimes used to carve up Torah and throw out pieces we don't want. The Waltons offer us another division: Wisdom, Suzerainty, and Ritual. But is this really better? It's better in the sense that these are the concepts the Israelites actually thought in. But when we try to bring the teaching of Torah into our own lives, we're left with similar problems Aquinas' tripartite division had, only now we have no help or clue about what to do about it.

Another solution Christians have is something like basic "cultural hermeneutics" (like what Webb does in "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals"). Finding principles and guidance for the original culture, then translating that guidance into our own culture so we can learn to follow after God's own heart in our own context. The Waltons don't like this either because we're still trying to find answers Torah is not trying to give. Namely, the question “How then should we live?”

This is the largest problem with the book. The Waltons say that we shouldn't try to find any kind of principles in the Torah because there aren't any there. But isn't this at odds with how Jesus and the apostles engaged the Torah? The Waltons say that Jesus and the apostles were allowed to read the Torah this way, but we aren't. They lose me here. I can't believe the apostle Paul read the Torah a certain way only to turn around and tell Timothy and Titus to NOT do what he was doing. The people of God should and have always read the Torah to find "teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness". For everything right with the book, this was a strange point to make and a strange hill to die on.

[Dylan Tysinger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gives a great idea of what the view of Torah was and what kind of relationship God wanted to establish with Israel in the historical and cultural context of the ancient near east.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Lost World of Torah – John Walton

Spoilers ahead

John Walton's book "The Lost World of the Torah" offers a new perspective on the interpretation of the first five books of the Bible, also known as the Torah or the Pentateuch. Walton argues that the laws and wisdom in the Torah should be understood in the context of the ancient Near Eastern culture in which they were written, rather than through a modern Western lens. He contends that the laws in the Torah were not meant to be prescriptive, but rather were seen as a covenant between God and the Israelites, outlining the responsibilities of each party. He also argues that the wisdom literature in the Torah, such as the book of Proverbs, should be understood as practical advice for living in the ancient Near Eastern context rather than as timeless universal truths.

John Walton argues that the laws in the Torah should not be read as a legislative text for several reasons:

1. Ancient Near Eastern laws were not prescriptive but were seen as a covenant between the ruler and the ruled, outlining the responsibilities of each party.

2. The laws in the Torah were not meant to be universally applicable to all people and cultures, but rather were specific to the ancient Israelites and their culture.

3. The laws in the Torah were not seen as a means of achieving justice, but rather as a means of maintaining social order and preserving the cultural identity of the Israelites.

4. The laws in the Torah were not meant to be enforced by the state or by human authorities, but rather by God.

5. The laws in the Torah were not seen as moral or ethical principles, but rather as practical advice for living in the ancient Near Eastern context.

Walton argues that instead of reading the Torah as a legislative text, it should be understood as a covenant between God and the Israelites, outlining the responsibilities of each party. He also argues that the wisdom literature in the Torah, such as the book of Proverbs, should be understood as practical advice for living in the ancient Near Eastern context rather than as timeless universal truths.

Walton writes:

Throughout the book we have tried to demonstrate that the Torah is not provided for us to construct a contemporary system of legislation or morality. It did not serve in that role for Israel and certainly should not be given that role by us. It is not legislation, and it is contextually situated in three important ways that together prevent us from treating it as an authoritative repository for principles of behavior. Such treatment goes against the intended significance of the genre of the Torah. We also have to recognize that the Bible (in both testaments) is more interested in order in the community of God’s people than in establishing personal ethics/morality, though that does not necessarily mean that our personal ethics are unimportant to God. Having laid the theoretical foundation in this chapter, we now need to turn our attention to how we can address the current issues of today by taking advantage of the Bible’s revelation while trying to be aware of potential fallacies. This is the topic of the next proposition. (The Lost World of the Torah, p. 181-182)

Walton argues against the view that readers of the Old Testament can draw principles from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). He argues:

The practice of deriving principles of behavior from the Torah is similar to the likewise common approach of deriving principles of behavior from the Old Testament narratives. We can demonstrate the flaws of the methodology in connection with Torah by examining the methodology applied to the narrative literature. As with the Torah, we sometimes substantiate a derived-principles method by pointing out that the New Testament authors show an inclination to use Old Testament characters as role models for behavior (cf. especially Heb 11). Such methodology is typical of children’s curricula and is foundational to many sermons and Bible study series. The problems with this method are multitude. One problem occurs when, in some cases, it is not clear at all whether a character’s behavior is acceptable or not, in which case no principle can be derived by claiming that it is biblical. For example, endless arguments take place concerning Rahab’s protection of the Israelite spies by lying to the king’s men as she sends them off on a wild goose chase while the spies are hidden on her roof. Is her lie commendable or deplorable? Is lying always wrong? The text does not resolve this in the course of the narrative and is not intended to engage or answer such questions. No principle about lying can be derived as the biblical teaching (p. 168).

John Walton suggests that the Torah should be read as an ancient Near Eastern document that reflects the culture and worldview of the Israelites in the time it was written. He argues that the laws and wisdom in the Torah should be understood in their original context, rather than through a modern Western lens.

Instead of reading the Torah as a legislative text, with laws that are universally applicable and prescriptive, Walton suggests that it should be understood as a covenant between God and the Israelites, outlining the responsibilities of each party. This means that the laws in the Torah were seen as specific to the ancient Israelites and their culture and not meant to be universally applied to all people and cultures.

Walton also argues that the wisdom literature in the Torah, such as the book of Proverbs, should be understood as practical advice for living in the ancient Near Eastern context rather than as timeless universal truths. He suggests that the Torah should be read as a historical document that can provide insight into the beliefs, practices, and culture of ancient Israel, rather than as a source of moral or ethical guidance for modern readers.

Readers of Walton’s book (especially Christians) may ask: if the Torah cannot be applied in my life (because of his argument that we cannot derive principles from the text – see pages 168-177) what is the point of reading it? This is a good question. Walton argues that Christians can gain several valuable insights from reading the Torah, despite the fact that the context and audience are different from their own. Some of the main values that Christians can gain from reading the Torah are:

1. Understanding of the history and culture of ancient Israel: The Torah provides a detailed account of the history and culture of ancient Israel, which can help Christians gain a deeper understanding of the Bible as a whole and the context in which Jesus and the early Christian church lived.

2. Theological insights: The Torah contains a rich tradition of theology, which can help Christians understand the nature of God and His relationship with humanity. For example, the concept of God as a covenant-making and covenant-keeping God, can help Christians understand God's faithfulness and the concept of God's promise.

3. Familiarity with the Old Testament: The Torah is the foundation of the Old Testament, and it is an important part of the Christian Bible. Reading the Torah can help Christians understand the literary, historical, and theological context of the rest of the Old Testament.

4. Understanding of the New Testament: The New Testament quotes from and alludes to the Torah extensively. Reading the Torah can help Christians understand the biblical references and allusions in the New Testament.

5. Help in understanding the Jewish background of Jesus: The Torah is the foundation of the Jewish faith, and Jesus was a Jew. Reading the Torah can help Christians understand the background and context of Jesus' teachings and actions.

Overall, Walton contends that reading the Torah can provide Christians with a deeper understanding of the Bible as a whole and the context in which Jesus and the early Christian church lived. It can also provide valuable theological and historical insights that can enrich one's faith.

Walton refers to what he calls “the authority of the text” (p. 15, 172, 178, 225) throughout his book. I would argue that this reveals his “swimming in the river” of his culture. As an Evangelical Christian, he is assuming authority of this text while not delving into the complexities of its construction, or engaging in the argument whether Moses (or any prophet) wrote the laws in the Torah. This, to me, is a fundamental thing that must be understood when engaging with his argument. To Walton, the text has “authority,” and so Walton then works to show how the text of the Hebrew Bible can be read and how it can still have authority, even though the laws contained therein are not binding.

[Trevor Atwood]

This book really had me thinking. It opened up an appetite for more study of the Torah and understanding different views on how to properly interpret.

Having finished the book, appendix and all, I’m still not sure I follow how I’m supposed to treat the Torah that won’t lead me to simply doing whatever I want to do. It seems by the authors account, that all morality is simply subjective and a product of its context. I don’t think that’s what the Walton’s believe, but this book raisers those questions for me.

All in all, I’m doing more thinking about OT “law” even though the book led me to more confusion than conviction.

[Tyler Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Lost World of the Torah, by John Walton, is an incredibly thought provoking volume in what's already an incredibly thought provoking series. I agonized a bit over this rating, because insofar as the quality of scholarship is concerned, the book is solid, and deserving of at least a four star review. My conviction has always been that my own personal bias and perspective ought not factor in when I'm reviewing a text. I felt guilty for giving this book three stars, but I think that relatively mediocre score is an accurate representation as far as my RECOMMENDATION goes. I wouldn't recommend this book to most, or even many.

Let's start with what's exceptional. The appendix on The Decalogue is a perfect example of why appendices are essential reading in theology. They often function as a specialized essay on a specific topic of interest; in this case, the Ten Commandments. The content here is informative and perspective changing. Examples; the commandment to "have no other gods before me" is literally "before my face." Divine Council passages have always been of particular interest to me (the notion that scripture never denies the existence of pagan gods, only their status as legitimate gods. Paul agrees when he cites Deut. in reference to demonic offerings, but I digress). Walton points out that the commandment forbids bringing other "gods" into the Lord's presence, because they are cast down, disenfranchised, disempowered and displaced spirits, with no place in the presence of God. That's a powerful detail. The chapter also explains why adultery is specifically enumerated in the Ten, while other practice of fornication are relegated to subsequent commandments. Walton deftly points out that adultery has unique consequences for Israel as a community, thereby taking priority (fornication has a solution... marriage! Whereas adultery causes irreparable harm to the family and community).

There are other good and useful chapters; challenging, but useful. Walton's books are structured with sequential propositions building a logical case. The early propositions are foundational to the argument, and the later propositions are dependent upon earlier ones. As such, I've always fallen off at SOME point in Walton's writing, having previously understood and agreed with earlier propositions, but eventually diverging in either that understanding or agreement.

I diverged from Walton far earlier in this book than I usually do (with the exception of The Lost World of Adam and Eve, which I also strongly differed on). Things start VERY strong, with a paradigm altering discussion about how ancient law was not ever considered comprehensive legislation. Judges and Kings were responsible for interpreting and APPLYING the law situationally. Israel was no different. It's just impossible that the Torah could have been considered the end-all-be-all of legal decision making. It doesn't address every circumstance. This is the very reason the Pharisees eventually came into conflict with Jesus. The "oral law" was legislation which supplemented a non-legislative Torah. The primary function of Torah was so judges and kings had a reference point when governing Israel. It's other primary function is to serve as treaty between YHWH and his people. The terms and conditions of their inhabiting the land (but see, the waters are already muddied, because that IS a legislative function in some familiar sense). I'd never considered the aspect of Torah guiding Israel's leaders, instead of legislating her people. It lines up with the New Testament, and Walton is careful to cite Paul at strategic points. In fact, that perspective helps make sense of a few difficult Pauline passages.

That's some of the good. Here's the bad. A three star review is not because Walton's scholarship is lacking. It's because Walton's rhetoric is insufficiently compelling. Proposition based arguments which build upon one another MUST flow cohesively, and the previous proposition must justify subsequent propositions. Walton's conclusion (at least how I understand it; though he'd probably say I'm missing his nuance) is that because Torah is not legislative, and because we cannot derive moral principles from ALL of its commandments, that must mean we cannot derive moral principles from ANY of its commandments. He says this almost verbatim at some points; moral absolutes do exist, but God has not given us any way to recognize them. The Bible (and specifically Torah) is, in Walton's conclusion, not a legitimate source for citing objective moral principles. My initial response is distaste. I'm not sure how anyone can call themselves a Christian, and certainly not an evangelical, without believing the Bible is essential to answering questions of morality. Again, maybe I'm missing some nuance, but I consider myself fairly educated, and I suspect that's more or less what Walton is trying to say.

The early proposition that Torah is wisdom, NOT legislation, may very well be true. That proposition in no way necessitates the later propositions that Torah is good only for discerning order in an ancient context, and never for discerning morality in a universal context. There are dozens of other trails to follow, toward different conclusions which keep the Bible (and the Old Testament) at the forefront of ethical arguments. I know those arguments exist because I wrote them in the margins as I read.

[Christina Bohn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This could have been a very good book if the authors consistently backed up their claims. Over and over again they made fascinating propositions without supplying sufficient evidence. Show us, don't just tell us. Plus, much of this book was redundant (but such is the style of many of the books in this series).

[Steve Frederick]

Unfortunately speaks far more about what the Torah is not, rather than exploring what kind of order the Torah was seeking to establish, and how its wisdom was specifically understood to establish that order

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

As I read Walton's "The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest" a year or two ago I was thinking that this is the book I wished he'd actually written. That book addressed the question of "holiness" in the context of Yahweh's covenant with Israel. It touched on the nature of Torah, but only just. I'm glad the Walton's have followed up, although I would have appreciated more discussion of how we might exegete and apply the Torah today. I'm a preacher and that's my job. Other's may not share that concern.

Much of this covers ground already explored from a somewhat different perspective in "Israelite Conquest". Here the Waltons examine Torah from the perspective the Ancient Near Eastern "cultural river". Part I explains the basics: the thought world of ANE is not our thought world and the Old Testament needs to be read in light of their "cultural river". Each of Walton's other "Lost World" books begins similarly.

Part II examines the nature and function of legal collections in ANE. The key points here are that ANE legal collections are not "legislation" in the sense that we think of it. There was no modern concept of statutory law backed by coercive force in the ANE. ANE legal collections fall into the category of "wisdom". Ancient kings were tasked by the gods to maintain order and these inscribed legal codes—like that of Hammurabi—were evidence offered to the gods that the kings were keeping order. The Torah, similarly, is not "legislation", but "wisdom" (not so much "law", but rather "instruction"). Israel, however, is in the unique position of being in covenant—a suzerainty treaty—with Yahweh. Yahweh is not concerned with the "Great Symbiosis" (the ANE idea of humans providing for the needs of the gods and the gods in return providing for the needs of humans), but with a holy people through whom his reputation will be established—through either blessing or cursing. Part II ends with a chapter defining "holiness" as a status conferred by Yahweh rather than something to be earned by keeping Torah.

Part III addresses the relation between Torah and ritual in ANE context. The Waltons explain the "Great Symbiosis" and that ANE ritual was aimed at meeting the needs of the gods. Yahweh, however, has no needs to be met. Israelite ritual, in contrast, is aimed at keeping covenant order. Again, this order is rooted in an ANE concept of order. While it may at many points overlap our ideas of order, in other respects it may seem very foreign and even nonsensical.

Part IV starts bringing all of this together: The Torah is similar to ANE legal collections because it shares their cultural context; Torah's distinction is found in Israel's covenant relation to Yahweh. Key to understand Torah is Yahweh's presence amongst his people.

I don't think there's anything particularly controversial about the first half of the book. In Part V the Waltons begin working towards some logical conclusion as to how Torah is significant for Christians today. Again, these are logical conclusions drawn from the principles outlined in Part I to IV. The Waltons address a number of common contemporary errors. Proposition 16 discusses the common tactic of dividing Torah into moral, civil, and ritual categories and shows that this both misunderstand the nature of Torah and is impossible to do consistently. Proposition 17 addresses the misconception that the Torah was intended to provide "salvation". Propositions 19 through 23 range into controversial territory, although I think they really do follow as logical conclusions from the earlier non-controversial propositions. Here the Waltons assert that because the Torah was focused on order rather than morality and because it is not a comprehensive legal document, we cannot build a system of ethics on it nor can we consistently derive principles from it. It follows that we cannot reliably fish prooftexts from Torah to solve today's problems. Moving towards positive answers, the Waltons then explain that a divine command theory of ethics does not require a view of Torah as moral instruction. We can look elsewhere. Finally, they argue that taking the Torah seriously means reading it as it was intended, not trying to convert it into a moral law.

Again, I don't think there's much in Parts I to IV that will be controversial for anyone who has kept abreast of modern scholarship on these matters. The Waltons provide a good summary with lots of footnotes pointing to the literature. This should be particularly approachable for laymen. Part V will certainly stir up controversy, but I've got to say that the Waltons build their case well. Despite this comprising half the book, I would have liked a bit more detail at times. I reread a few of the propositions two or three times. In the end, I would quibble with a few points, but I think they're largely correct. My frustration—and I'm sure there will be many others with the same frustration—is that we're "left hanging" at the end. Now we know how *not* to misread Torah, but we've only got a few specific examples of how we should read it in light of the ANE cultural river. What about the rest? Of course, the answer to that question is to study further and I suppose that means diving into the bibliography and the references in the footnotes.

[Colin Weeks · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read for an Old Testament Theology class in my 3rd year undergrad.

The Lost World of The Torah by John H. Walton and his son, J. Harvey Walton, is a bold attempt at rewiring the brain of the average modern evangelical to think through the Torah in a more contextually nuanced way similar to how the Ancient Near Eastern (A.N.E.) peoples would have. The Waltons explain that moderns often impose their own “cultural river” onto the biblical texts and draw out conclusions that are not actually there. Their solution to this problem is helping “readers to become more aware of how this biblical literature functioned in its context.” While there is a lot to be appreciated in this book, the authors’ efforts lead them to make some outrageous claims that greatly undermined the impact of their book. I will highlight some strengths and underscore the major flaws I found as well.

Beginning with their strengths, the Waltons went to great lengths to explain how our modern, Western conception of legislation was not present in the Israelite mind. Rather than a set of fixed, rigid, and exhaustive laws, the Torah was used as a vignette, painting a picture of order to be studied and imitated as the Israelites sought to glorify Yahweh in their daily conduct. Walton highlighted this fact by explaining that Torah is mostly case law, showing what godly order would look like in various ‘cases’ without extensively covering every conceivable incident (which would be impossible). They explained that “the texts do not teach what the law is; they provide a model for right and wrong so that judges will know it when they see it.” From our perspective, it is hard to separate our modern view of law from the nuance Walton is explaining here, but the distinction is important. I appreciated their efforts to drag the reader into the A.N.E. and help us understand the mind of the average person thousands of years ago.

While the authors’ extensive knowledge of the A.N.E. is one of their greatest strengths, it also became one of their greatest weaknesses. The conclusions they arrived at throughout the book were very frustrating. Each proposition felt like the authors would bind you in a straight jacked listing all of things you cannot do with Scripture and then smile and encourage you to finally enjoy the Torah safely from a distance behind a glass screen.

As a clear indicator, they write: “We therefore review the now common litany of this book: the purpose of the Torah is not legislation, not moral instruction, not to form an ideal society, not universally applicable, not incumbent on those outside the covenant, and not connected to salvation.”

One must wonder if the Torah does anything at all. Throughout the book, the authors would examine paradigms and cultural quirks within the A.N.E. and bring those findings back to Scripture. From there, they would make bold assertions about what Scripture can or cannot say based on their findings, even if it runs contrary to the perspicuity or plain reading of Scripture.

Some of their main assertions were as follows:
1. The Torah was not legislating Israel or imposing morality or social ideals but was merely extending God’s identity.
2. Since Israel gives “public definition to the characteristics of God, Israel must manifest justice according to the values of the ancient world in order to reflect God properly”
3. To understand the Torah in its cultural context better, we cannot use the New Testament as a source of information (because it is limited by its own cultural river).
4. The NT authors cannot give us hermeneutical principles for interpreting OT passages because they relied solely on their inspired authority.
5. The OT is flawed because it legislated slavery, condoned rape, and is patriarchal and misogynistic.
6. Trying to construct a moral system from the Torah (or even the NT) is “like trying to build a skyscraper out of seven two-by-fours and a pot of glue.”
7. As Christians, we can discern right from wrong without Scripture using only our conscience, evaluating decisions based on what is “healthful.”
8. The Torah’s primary value for a modern Christian is to “see the reputation that Yahweh has established for himself.”

While there is no doubt that properly contextualizing the Bible is critically important, we can easily blur its imperatives into absurdity if we are not careful. The Waltons are clearly smart individuals but have unfortunately “thrown the baby out with the bath water,” transforming the Torah into a powerless, ancient relic intended for little more than historical documentation. It appears to me that they have not had good friends to challenge their ideas, but instead have ruminated in isolation, becoming blind to their inconsistencies.

[Felicity · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm just finishing the Appendix: Decalogue, and have many thoughts.

I'm rating it 4-stars because I DO think it's a valuable read, and brings some really good perspectives to consider. It's a bit more point form than his ANE Thought and the OT, but more in-depth on the nature of the Torah.

I really appreciated and was challenged by the book, though I can relate to the dissatisfaction of other readers. Nearing the end, it seemed the conclusions were not fully laid out or processed, and I'm not sure I can follow them to agree on some of the final points. There seemed to be some contradictions, such as the Old Covenant and New Covenant doing two different things, and then yet basically concluding that the New Covenant is doing essentially the same thing(as far as response and role in making us a culturally dependent representative people, etc.)

As well, concluding the entire Bible is not useful for ethics or morality, and that we can't really know the nature of God seemed to have a contradictory conclusion. Basically, I got the impression that we are to have a "holy" status, representing Him, but not really know who we are representing. And how we do that just depends on the culture, as our morals are entirely subjective, and we know little of Yahweh's.

But if the purpose of the Torah is to build His reputation and make his name known, but we don't really have a good way of knowing his nature or character, it seems a very thin reputation. He is not petty and doesn't need us, but doesn't really care what we do, as long as we are orderly about it?

I felt the majority of this book was really rich, and I did in fact agree and resonate with most of his propositions. I learned a lot. It wasn't till the end that it felt less substantial and thorough, and a bit thrown together. I would have appreciated it if he had followed through a bit more with where his conclusions were leading, and what that meant for knowing God, serving him, the meaning of right and wrong, and even, what is sin?

I am left unsatisfied with this book and feel Ancient Near Eastern Thought was a bit more complete. I haven't read any other books in this series, but I'm not sure if they will be what I'm looking for, if they are similar in their depth and conclusions.

But, I really truly do appreciate Walton's work, and don't regret reading it! It's great for discussion, and definitely left me with new questions and areas to research more.

[Joshua · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would rate this somewhere between a 3 & 4. I really enjoyed most of it, agree with much of it, and found his discussion of Torah as Ancient Wisdom really fascinating. However, as others have noted, Walton deconstructs the majority view of Torah and the traditional threefold division of it, without much help putting it back together again for the reader.

One concern i have is that one may finish reading this book and not be sure what it means for Torah to be God's word at all - as Walton asserts that it is inseparably mixed with human err and limited, culturally relative ideas. Further, if all Walton's claims are accurate, i struggle to see how the unity of Scripture is not in some way jeopardized, thus rendering Systematic and Biblical theology as nice ideas, but sort of fundamentally misguided efforts. One also wonders if Walton believes it is possible to utilize principles of Torah for modern ethics at all, and if so, how? As a result, one also wonders how this culturally situated wisdom says anything about a God that is the same perfectly good, just, and holy being yesterday, today, and forever. The fact that Walton devotes almost no discussion to some of these questions, which will naturally arise in the readers mind throughout LWOT, to me, seems like a bit of a failure. I would expect this from a reading a secular scholar, not a Christian professor. Nevertheless, he does have a book devoted to questions like these - "Old Testament Today: A Journey from Original Meaning to Contemporary Significance" - though i can't speak to it.

Overall, while i found quite a lot of the book useful, although it definitely left me with some lingering questions that i felt should have been addressed, even if they fall outside the immediate scope of this work. Some of my convictions have been somewhat challenged, and I will probably follow this up with a book on the doctrine of inspiration, as well as hermeneutics of the Torah in order to gain some greater clarity over some of the questions that have arisen for me. I would probably only recommend this to someone who has a great working knowledge of biblical and systematic theology, and has already read extensively about the ANE and it's biblical parallels.