Customer Reviews

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(16)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I enjoy books that push me out of my comfort zone and cause me to ask questions I had never considered before. John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP, 2009) is one of those kinds of books. Walton offers an interpretation of Genesis 1 that focuses on the worldview of ancient Israelites.

In a nutshell, here is Walton's proposal: Genesis 1 was not intended to give us a scientific understanding of the material origins of the universe. Instead, the seven days of creation are a cosmic temple inauguration ceremony that describe the functional beginning of our world.

If your eyes have already glazed over after reading that summary, then consider his illustration about a college. At what point is a college created? Is it when the buildings go up? Or when the students and faculty arrive on campus and classes begin? Or when the commencement ceremony begins?

Walton's proposal is that Genesis 1 does not give us a narrative of when matter began to exist. The narrative concerns functional origins: when the world began to function the way God intended for human creation to flourish.

Walton writes:

"I believe that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system." (26)

In case some might wonder if Walton is denying the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), he clarifies:

"I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins, and that, in fact, material origins do involve at some point a creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not the one we are asking. We are asking a textual question. What sort of origins account do we find in Genesis 1?" (44)

Walton's view could be classified as a highly sophisticated version of the older Gap theory (that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2). It differs from the Gap theory in that Walton argues for a functional understanding of "create" all throughout the passage.

But it resembles the Gap theory by leaving room for a large span of time and material development that does not hinder the seven day creation process that occurs as the cosmic temple inauguration.

I appreciate Walton's careful treatment of the text. He refuses to get bogged down in trying to reconcile the ancient text with modern scientific understanding:

Taking the text seriously is not expressed by correlating it with modern science; it is expressed by understanding it in its ancient context." (111)

Walton's proposal has much to commend it. I have never been fully persuaded by the Day-Age theory (that the days in Genesis 1 refer to long periods of time) or by the Young Earth view (that the seven days took place in sequence ten thousand years ago). Walton's proposal offers the best of both worlds (inerrancy and science). The Day-Age and Young-Earth theories have never been completely convincing to me because it always seems like people are trying to read more out of the text than is there. (It reminds me of how so many interpreters tackle Revelation.) I am impressed by the way in which Walton seeks to deal seriously with the biblical text, regardless of the implications.

Yet, I have unresolved questions regarding this view. In the end, I have two main concerns.

1. This is a novel interpretation. That is, it has not been a primary interpretation throughout church history. I would be interested to know how ancient Jewish scholars commented on this text.

From my admittedly limited research, I see that many in the ancient world did indeed consider this text to be about material origins. Ancient commentaries do not, of course, change the biblical text. But it does soften the brunt of Walton's proposal, which argues that virtually all the ancients thought of creation stories in the way he proposes.

2. The implications of Walton's proposal may create separate spheres of knowledge. The desire to leave science and theology in separate spheres seems like a good way to keep controversy at bay.

Of course, science and theology impinge upon one another, as Walton would surely agree. Still, I am not sure that saying the Bible does not speak at all to the "how" of material origins is a resolution of the issue, but merely a way of relegating the origins discussion to the peripheral.

Asking "Where did we come from" is never a peripheral issue, as Walton would also admit. But I wonder if his proposal might lead some to the quick conclusion, "See? Who cares whether or not we evolved?" (And I do not find evolution to be persuasive as a model, even when it is of the theistic variety.)

John Walton is a recognized evangelical OT scholar. He is the co-author of one of the most respected evangelical OT Introductions in print. I am thankful for his commitment to the truthfulness of the biblical text. His interpretation is novel, but his research is impressive. The Lost World of Genesis One deserves further reflection and discussion. I look forward to seeing where the conversation leads.

I have been quite pleased with the relatively recent spate of books that have been released by scientists who are quite and proudly adamant that a serious and intellectually minded Christian can be without cognitive dissonance between his faith and his view of science. Authors such as Kenneth Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Darrel Falk, and Francis Collins have demonstrated that one can be a good Christian while accepting good science.

Entering onto this stage full of lab coats is now eminent Old Testament scholar John Walton who brings his expertise as a contextually informed exegete to the table. I had something of a hint that we would see a book of this nature after reading his thoughts on the first few chapters of Genesis in his commentary some time back. Happily there is no more need for waiting.

In this work Walton's thesis consists of a series of propositions that culminate with the contention that the creation account of Genesis is a description of the universe's construction as a temple of God. Throughout the course of the book Walton makes a couple of salient points that relate to the "Origins Debate". First of all, we should keep in mind that there is little if no basis in thinking that God would intend to communicate "scientifically correct" statements via the creation account. For (1) there is no statement in the Bible that conveys a scientific truth that the biblical writers would not have already known. (2) There are statements in the Bible that convey cosmological and physiological notions that simply do not comport with science. "Domed cosmology" and the additional notions it contained is clearly without scientific merit. Another example Walton cites is that some of the words translated as "mind" in English actually mean entrails in the Hebrew. Why? Because people in those days simply thought that emotions and feelings derived from these parts of the body. As Walton points out, God obviously didn't correct them on the matter, and no one today would try to argue that we should seek to justify or explain that the source of our emotions is the digestive tract (granted I feel quite miserable when I've eaten something that does not agree with me)! And yet this is exactly how people approach the creation account.

Secondly, Walton demonstrates that the ontology of the creation account is not material but functional. He explains the difference between these two senses by comparing a chair and a corporation. He notes that the former is typically considered to be brought into existence (or created) by the nature of its material status. But as the example of the corporation shows, something can also be created in the sense that it is given a certain function. In his words, "In a functional ontology, to bring something into existence would require giving it a function or a role in an ordered system rather than giving it material property" (26). Of course the entities created in the creation account are material entities, so it is often presumed that Genesis must be manifesting material ontology. Yet as Walton goes on to explain with the contextual evidence of ancient Near Eastern creation accounts, and through an assessment of Hebrew words like "bara", such an assumption is, in the end, spurious.

This book should be required reading for anyone, whatever their predispositions in the origins debate, who wishes to understand the true meaning of Genesis one. If there are any criticisms to be proffered, it is that on rare occasion it does not seems that Walton himself avoids slipping into residual, quasi-concordist tendencies by seeking to apply the story of Genesis one to "what really happened". In the FAQ, for example, he proffers the possibility that dinosaurs and fossils existed in the prefunctional cosmos stage of Genesis one (169). This is a trivial criticism, however, and on the whole he is otherwise quite clear in saying that to ask "what really happened" in the historical and scientific sense is to ask something of the text it cannot provide.

To be sure there is a bit of irony in all of this. If Walton's scholarship is right, and I think it more or less is, we are forced to say that all sides have been wrong in taking the scalpel to the text and seeking to justify their view because of this or that word, or this or that phrase. It can no longer be about the definition of "yom" and how much time you can or cannot fit into it. And it can no longer be about finding a scientific cosmology that allows the day and night to exist before the sun in some convenient fashion. And although many of us who have worked hard to travel such roads will find it hard to turn around and go back, it is time for us to accept that they lead to false destinations. It is time to change our perspectives and see that Genesis speaks to its intended audience on an entirely different wavelength than what we are accustomed or want it to. It is time to accept the Bible on its own terms.

There are countless books arguing about evolution, creationism, and intelligent design. At first glance, The Lost World of Genesis One would seem to be one more addition to what is becoming a frivolous library. But upon more careful inspection, one would find that it is actually an original approach with a much different conclusion.

John H. Walton approaches the first chapter of Genesis from a literary and historical context, rather than a scientific one. His idea is simple: read Genesis one through the eyes of the audience it was intended for: the ancient Israelites. This involves an intricate understanding of the culture of ancient Israel.

Walton says that the account described in Genesis one is actually a description of God forming a cosmic temple in which he will dwell, a literary device that was common in ancient Near East creation accounts. Walton's theory is that the creation account we know so well is not an account of material origins, but rather functional origins. Genesis one is describing God creating order out of chaos. It would have been assumed in the ancient world that God created everything material. It was important that the Israelites know that it was God(Yahweh) that gave order and function to all.

Walton's book is a bit tedious to get through, but his ideas and thoughts are brilliant. The thinking he prescribes in his book causes a radical shift in attitude about numerous ideas. If one subscribes to them, there is no longer a need to argue over young earth/old earth or evolution. The Bible and science collude like no other theory. This is definitely a good read.

This book stirred up quite a bit of controversy when it was published in 2009. Unfortunately, I let it gather dust on my bookshelf for a year before I recently picked it up to read it. I wish I'd gotten to it sooner! I enjoy a challenge, and this was a challenging book for me -- not because of it's readability (it's quite approachable) but because it forced me to think hard about a perspective on Scripture I've never considered. Any book that can do that is worth reading, no matter whether I end up agreeing with it in the final analysis.

I'll admit that I approached this book with a lot of skepticism. Any time someone claims to have discovered a new (or, in this case, lost for millenia) way to interpret Scripture, my first reaction is to doubt the "new" interpretation. Though I believe Scripture to be authoritative and inerrant, I have great respect for the theologians, pastors, and scholars throughout Church history who have come before us. Though not everyone in history has come to the same conclusions (far from it!), I found it difficult to believe that someone today could have uncovered an entirely new approach to something as important as the account of Creation in Genesis 1, which every scholar for the last several thousand years has missed.

That said, Dr. Walton's arguments are quite compelling; much more so than I anticipated. His basic proposition is that Genesis 1 is NOT an account of material origins at all, but of "functional" origins. He argues that, because in the modern world (even as far back as in Jesus' day) we think of the word "create" in terms of physical manufacturing, we read that ontology into the Genesis 1 account. However, Genesis is an ancient document, written for an ancient audience which, according to Walton, did NOT have the same understanding of "create". In the ancient world, creation (the Hebrew word "bara") had to do instead with the assignment of function. Thus, Genesis 1 is the account of God giving function (specifically, "anthropocentric" functions designed to make the world suitable to human life) to an already materially-existing world.

The author does, however, affirm God's physical creation of the world ex nihilo (out of nothing), which was something I did not expect him to say. His argument is not that God was not the material/physical Author of creation, only that Genesis 1 is not that account.

Walton calls his view the "Cosmic Temple Inauguration View", because he contends that the language of Genesis 1 is similar to the language used to describe the inauguration of other temples, both in Scripture and in other documents of ancient cosmology (Egyptian, Sumerian, etc). One example he gives is Solomon's temple, contrasting the building of the temple with the creation of the temple. We can read the account of the construction of the temple in 1 Kings 6-7, which took 7 years. However, the physical building didn't "become" a temple until the temple was inaugurated (with a 7-day feast) and God came to dwell there. In Solomon's prayer of dedication in 1 Kings 8, he tells of the various functions of the temple, and that language finds parallels in the Bible's first chapter.

In the ancient world, Walton explains, temples didn't have function until a deity dwelt there. Furthermore, a deity's power was thought to be restricted to the place where his/her temple was located. It follows, then, that Genesis 1 gives the account of the entire cosmos being the temple of the one true and living God. He has assigned function to all that is, and his power is absolute throughout the universe because the cosmos is his temple. Walton sees confirmation of this in other OT passages, such as Isaiah 66:1-2, which speaks of heaven as God's throne, and earth as his footstool.

Much of the book is devoted to addressing the topic of evolution. Walton stresses that his book is not intended to support biological evolution, though many will undoubtedly read it this way. His point is that if his interpretation of Genesis is correct, there is no reason on theological grounds to reject biological evolution as a method; science should be able to speak for itself without being forced to fit into perceived biblical restrictions that aren't there. He is careful to describe several very nuanced positions, such as differentiating between "methodological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism". The first is a biological process that may or may not be substantiated by scientific study, but would not necessarily conflict with biblical teaching if found to be true (though he does appear to hold out Adam & Eve as historical figures who, as the first humans, were specially created in God's image and did not evolve; this point was a bit unclear to me on my first reading). Most modern scientists, though, subscribe to "metaphysical" naturalism (what most people think of when hearing the word "evolution"), which begins with a presupposition that the universe is "dysteleological" -- it has no ultimate purpose. This, says Walton, is NOT science but faith, and is not compatible with Scripture.

Along the same lines, Walton does not estimate age of the earth, because he believes the Bible does not address the issue. I have become increasingly unwilling to be dogmatic about the earth's age myself, but this is bound to be a problem for readers with strong convictions on this particular issue.

The book's greatest strength, in my view, was a distinction Walton makes between exegesis and theology:

"Even if the reader is not inclined to adopt the proposed interpretation of Genesis 1, his or her theology could still be greatly enhanced by the observations offered here by embracing a renewed and informed commitment to God's intimate involvement in the operation of the cosmos from its incipience and into eternity. We all need to strengthen our theology of creation and Creator whatever our ciew of the Genesis account of origins. Even though it is natural for us to defend our exegesis, it is arguable even more important to defend our theology."

He goes on to list four theological affirmations that are expected of us once we come to see that God's role as Creator is more than simply the "builder" of everything; He is also the ruling sustainer of the cosmos. Each of these ought to be able to be affirmed by Christians of all different exegetical persuasions, and I agree that this book was helpful in focusing my attention more on these ongoing aspects of God's creative work:

1.The world operates by Yahweh's design and under his supervision to accomplish his purposes.
2.The cosmos is his temple.
3.Everything in the cosmos was given its role and function by God.
4.Everything in the cosmos functions on behalf of people who are in his image.

In comparing his view to other views (including Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and the Framework Hypothesis), the Cosmic Temple Inauguration View comes across as a "miracle" interpretation, offering answers to the problems offered by the other views. It certainly seems to "work"; that is, it is internally consistent. Personally, though, I'm not interested in whether something "works". I want to know if it's true, and here I'm just not sure I can come to full agreement with John Walton.

Perhaps it's just because material ontology is so engrained in my thinking, but I am not fully convinced by Walton's claim that Genesis 1 is about only functional and not material origins. Unfortunately, my knowledge of science, ancient cultures, and the Hebrew language are insufficient to allow me to do much more than rely on other experts in such fields to interact with Walton, and see whether his research can be refuted or corroborated. And so it is with great interest that I will watch the ongoing dialogue between theologians and other intellectuals more knowledgeable than I that will inevitably crop up in response to this book.

In the meantime, I highly recommend reading this book yourself. At the very least, it will give you plenty to think about!

It seems there are several areas of scripture that are ripe with differing interpretations. And when surveying the varying interpretations of an area of scripture one can easily become frustrated. It seems at times that all the interpretations carry the backing of scripture and reason whether viewed literally, metaphorically, or some other way. And it is when many or all of the differing interpretations are shaped as to present no conflict with accepted doctrine that one is tempted to say, "Why does it matter if I choose one, they all seem to fit?" There are two areas of scripture that have taken on this level of confusion for me. One is the matter of origins and the other is eschatology. I was raised with Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and so have come to know that position fairly well. Not until recently have I decided to honestly consider other views and attempt to find which one is true. But after reading the defenses of the major views I have found myself asking, "They all seem to fit, why choose one?" After browsing Amazon for books concerning this issue I came upon John Walton's "The Lost World of Genesis One." After reading a few chapters I quickly realized that this book offered something that no other view offers, an interpretation of Genesis that does not deal with material origins. Many interpretations of Genesis seek to find some sort of cosmology in Genesis or only a spiritual myth which will make us feel warm inside. We either read the text in light of our own cultural context or strip it of any real theological meaning by reducing it to a fable. Walton gives us an interpretation that appears to be as honest with this ancient text as any modern interpretor can be while also seeking to uphold all the major doctrines that this text supplies. Anyone interested in the origins issue with find this book an exciting and interesting addition to the issue.

The author is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and wrote the volume on Genesis in Zondervan's NIV Application Commentary series, as well as "Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context" and "Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament."

This book is written for lay persons, pastors and science teachers who want "some stimulating ideas for thinking about the Bible, theology, faith and science." The purpose of the book is to "introduce the reader to a careful reconsideration of the nature of Genesis 1."

This book is organized around 18 relatively short chapters. Each chapter title is a proposition, e.g., Genesis 1 Is Ancient Cosmology, Ancient Cosmology Is Function Oriented, Divine Rest Is in a Temple, The Cosmos Is a Temple, The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins, "Functional Cosmic Temple" Offers Face-Value Exegesis, Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough, The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture Is Metaphysical in Nature, God's Roles as Creator and Sustainer Are Less Different Than We Have Thought, and Resulting Theology in This View of Genesis 1 Is Stronger, Not Weaker. Each proposition is then defended. The propositions are organized so that the whole book flows very nicely.

The main theme of the book is that Genesis 1 describes functional creation, rather than material creation, in that the days of Genesis 1 are seven 24-hour days of the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple. The author believes that the true literal translation is the translation that the Israelites understood. He suggests that "the Israelites were much more attuned to the functions of the cosmos than to the material of the cosmos," and that for them "something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system." The author concludes with discussions of the impact of his functional view of Genesis 1 on our understanding of evolution, Intelligent Design, and public education. The main theme is an expansion of views that the author previously presented in his "The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis," (Zondervan, 2001), especially on pages 147-157 of that volume.

Each chapter ends with a brief bibliography entitled "Technical Support." There is a final chapter of "Summary and Conclusions", a four-page FAQ, extensive Notes, and a brief subject Index.

I highly recommend this book for anyone who is still struggling with (or should be struggling with) how to understand the text in Genesis 1.

I struggle as a teaching pastor because the question of how to make science and faith "fit." This question often comes up from our members. I know the young earth, old earth and theistic evolution arguments well but they leave me wanting. To adhere to them, I felt I was either finagling the text of Genesis (discounting the plainest meetings of "yom", etc.) to make the creation model fit current scientific understandings or finagling science to make it fit theological understandings. This book offers a clear way forward. It is accessible to the non-scientist, non-theologian, and non-Old Testament expert. It will drop like a bit of a bombshell on the creation-evolution playing field. I am sure die-hard young earth model adherents and old earth model adherents will have critiques, but in my reading of Walton's scholarship, I feel that they will have a difficult time sustaining their argument. I would be particularly interested in those Edgar Andrews and others will receive this work. I look forward to their responses. Frances Collins adores it writing, "he elevates scripture to a new level of respectful understanding and eliminates any conflict between scientific and scriptural descriptions of origins."

This work offers more detailed purpose for Genesis than the past non-concordist views have offered (claiming it is mostly poetic, or a taunt song against surrounding polytheists, etc). Ascribing a functional purpose where Genesis 1 ia a functional account of God inaugurating His already existing "temple in the cosmos" is brilliant. It adheres to the text and to the Ancient Near East worldview. I have always been a non-concordist but now feel like I have more leg to stand on because of this work. It gets my highest recommendation.

Word on the street is that Walton is working through a longer form of this work (including a bit more ANE text quotes) to arrive soon. Yipee.

If you are someone who is deeply involved in the much heated origins debate, this book is a must read for Christians who are willing to let go of their cultural conditioning on how we should read Genesis and invite a new approach that makes a convincing case for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

There are many Christians that will automatically draw back from this book because of its implications, but you will soon find that John Walton believes in the authority of Scripture and brings out a much more glorious truth that you may not see in Genesis. I would challenge you to get this book and at the very least read it to gain a different perspective on the reading of Genesis. All of the controversy surrounding the origins debate will go out the window and you'll come out above both sides who are bitterly arguing meanings that are not really there in Genesis (i.e. young earth, evolutionary process, etc).

Regardless of your position in the origins debate, this book is essential reading and won't leave you unchallenged or disappointed.

I enjoyed this book. The scholarship is good, the ideas seem well-reasoned, and organization of the material is nice. However, I'm not quite sure I understand the intended audience of the book.

For instance, the author talks at length about the Hebrew word "bara", and it's meaning in the Hebrew and ANE world. Walton provides a list of where bara is used in the Old Testament to support his argument. However, as I looked at the passages he mentions, I'm not sure some of the passages agree with his assertion. If the list was for people who were going to double-check the text before agreeing with Walton, why not give a brief rationale on each passage? If the list was just to show that he'd looked at many passages before drawing his conclusion, why include the list at all? It seems that some portions of the book were aiming at neither skeptically-minded readers, nor those less inclined to check his work. This left me frustrated in more than one spot.

I was also frustrated that the focus of this book was Genesis 1. To my recollection, Walton didn't establish why we should view Genesis 1 in isolation from texts like Genesis 2, and there were many times where I felt like Walton's arguments would have benefited from interaction with other passages, such as Genesis 2 and 3, parts of Hebrews, the writings of Paul, etc. I'm hoping that Walton has plans to interact with more complex texts in some other book.

Nevertheless, there is much here to commend. Walton's attempt to transport us back into ancient near eastern thought and life to try to make sense out of the genre of Genesis 1 is commendable. You may not agree with his conclusions, but this book should serve as a reminder that there is room in the interpretation of Genesis 1 for those who think differently, but still look to the Bible for authority.

John Walton is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College. In this short volume, Walton lays out his theory that Genesis One does not describe a material creation, but rather the assigning of functions to pre-existing things. The book is organized around 18 propositions, the first of which is that "Genesis One is ancient cosmology." Walton argues that Genesis is not written to moderns but to the ancient Hebrews; thus, studying the literature of contemporary ancient societies "is the key to a proper interpretation of the text." He acknowledges that if God inspired the writer of Genesis, the book need not reflect the cosmology of surrounding nations, but his analysis assumes that it does.

Next, Walton argues that ancient cosmology is primarily concerned with function, not with material existence. He briefly surveys some of the ancient Egyptian and Babylonian creation accounts, and notes that in many cases nothing material is actually made. Rather, things are given a function in an ordered system.

Walton argues that the Hebrew word bara, which is translated as "create," concerns function, not material creation. Walton notes that bara occurs about 50 times in the Old Testament, and God is always the subject or implied subject of the verb. No pre-existing materials are ever mentioned in conjunction with bara, causing scholars to conclude that it implies creation ex nihilo. That bara only refers to what God does, never to what man does, bolsters this view; humans can give things a function within an ordered system, but only God can speak matter into existence. Psalm 33:6; 148:5; Rom. 4:17. Nevertheless, Walton insists that bara means the assignment of function, not creation ex nihilo.

Genesis 1:2 states that the earth was "formless and void"--tohu and bohu, in Hebrew. If the earth was really "empty" or "void," as the Hebrew term bohu is translated, then all the plants and animals must have been physically created during the creation week. Walton engages in a lengthy analysis of the word tohu, which means "formless" or "chaotic", but not of the word bohu, which is translated as "void." He argues that because bohu is used only 3 times, and always in conjunction with tohu, then bohu must mean the same thing as tohu. But that doesn't really make sense, and one begins to grow suspicious of the conceit that everyone BW (Before Walton) mistranslated the relevant Hebrew terms.

As we go through the days of the creation week, God seems to be creating things out of nothing: "`Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.' So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind." Walton admits that animals don't have a function; God tells them to "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas," but, if Walton's thesis is correct, they had been doing this already for millions of years.

The human function is to subdue and rule. (Gen. 1:26) Walton notes that Genesis Two seems to describe a material creation of man ("the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7), but argues that the "Adam" discussed there is an archetype, not the prototype, and that the story is meant to caution man about his mortal nature ("Dust you are and unto dust you shall return" Gen. 3:19), not to describe the physical creation of man. Walton believes that on day six, God gave humans the image of God, by which he means a moral nature, "though it remains difficult to articulate how God accomplished this." He believes that, prior to the creation week, humans were simply animals with no moral accountability. "The anthropological specimens would not be viewed as humans in the image of God. They would not be assessed morally (any more than an animal would), and they were subject to death as any animal was."

Seventh-day Adventists will be disappointed in Walton's rationale for the Sabbath. "In the traditional view that Genesis 1 is an account of material origins," he writes, "day seven is mystifying. It appears to be nothing more than an afterthought with theological concerns about Israelites observing the Sabbath--an appendix, a postscript, a tack on." Walton argues that God did not rest on the Sabbath, in the sense of cessation of labor, but rather transitioned from the extraordinary activity of assigning function to the more normal, day-to-day business of being God in His cosmic temple. Toward the end of the book, he argues that Christians should keep the Sabbath not in imitation of God's rest--because He did not--but to celebrate that God, rather than man, is at the controls. In effect, Walton substitutes his own rationale for the Bible's (Ex. 20:11).

Just as jarring to the Adventist reader will be Walton's argument that the tabernacle is a map of the cosmos. He believes the objects in the courtyard represent the disordered cosmos, the objects in the holy place represent the ordered cosmos, the curtain between holy place and most holy place represents the raqia or "firmament" (which Walton conceives of as a solid structure), and the most holy place represents heaven. Walton makes no mention of the function of the tabernacle in the Jewish economy, nor that it is patterned after a temple in heaven (Ex. 25:40; Heb. 8:5; Rev. 11:19; 15:5), nor of its Christ-centered symbolism, so well studied by Adventists. For him, it is merely a biblical analog of other ancient temples, which, he notes, were often meant to be models of the cosmos.

Walton's larger thesis is that Genesis One "should be understood as an account of the functional origins of the cosmos as a temple." "It is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst. . . . without God taking up his dwelling in its midst, the (cosmic) temple does not exist." This concept is without biblical context. In the biblical worldview, God dwells in heaven (I Kings 8:43; 2 Chron. 6:30; Psalm 103:9; Mat. 5:45; 23:9), which is an actual place (Acts 1:11; Heb. 1:3; 8:1, 5; 9:24; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 4:1-2). He does not normally dwell in the world that He created in Genesis One (Eccl. 5:2). Scripture also teaches that God is eternally existent (Gen. 21:33; Rom 1:20; 1 Tim. 1:17), yet there is nothing in Walton's thesis to push the creation week (or, rather, the inauguration week) back beyond the 6,000 to 10,000 years indicated by the chrono-genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. Where had God been living from eternity up until the last few thousand years? It makes more biblical sense that God lived in heaven both before and after the creation week, which is primarily concerned with the creation of this world and the human race, not with finding a home for a homeless God.

Walton insists that his thesis is a genuine attempt to rightly read the text, not an attempt at concordance between science and Scripture, but he seems a bit too pleased with how neatly his reading of Genesis obviates the conflict: Genesis says nothing about the material creation of the earth or the cosmos, hence there can be no conflict between Genesis and any scientific theory of material origins. Almost half of this slim volume is devoted to discussing how his theory solves the problem better than any of the other proposed solutions, such as Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, the Framework Hypothesis, the Gap Theory, Intelligent Design, etc.

Walton affirms that God is responsible for the material origins of all things; he merely demurs that the Bible says nothing specific about those origins. Hence, God might have used survival of the fittest--nature red in tooth and claw-to create the natural world over eons of time. Brushing aside the theodical problems this raises, Walton says we finite humans cannot second-guess God. This might satisfy a "sovereignty of God" Calvinist, but Adventists emphasize the Great Controversy theme of cosmic history, which centers on the vindication of God's character and government, and we cannot afford to dismiss theodicy so casually.

Notwithstanding Walton's frequent denials, this book ultimately is an attempt to resolve the conflict between science and Scripture with a new reading of Scripture. It will not persuade most conservative Christians for a variety of reasons, including that it does not spring from a biblical worldview, but rather from imputing ancient Egyptian and Babylonian concepts to the author of Genesis.