174
Se m i n a r y St u d i e S 49 (Sp r i n g 2011)
(5) The recurring evaluation of God’s work as “good” describes its
functionality relative to humans.
(6) The climax of day seven, when God rests from his work, describes
God taking control of his cosmos from his newly created temple (ibid.).
His new perspective of Genesis 1 is a natural and logical development of his
study on the culture of biblical Israel and the ancient Near East as presented in
his publication, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the
Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006).
Walton’s interpretation has an important implication for the creation/
evolution/intelligent-design debate since his proposal effectually removes
Genesis 1 from the debate. According to this perspective, Genesis 1 no longer
has any relevance for the question of material origins of the cosmos and
offers no mechanism for material origins. He notes that his view would allow
both the young-earth and old-earth creationists the freedom to consider the
mechanisms suggested by modern science, while still retaining a high view of
Scripture. Thus he asserts that every scientic explanation could be viewed
as God’s handiwork and given a teleological evolutionary meaning—the biblical
creation account that claims God is the creator of the material world, while
science reveals how God did it. Walton concludes that “whatever aspects of
evolution that continue to provide the best explanation for what we observe
should not, in most cases, be objectionable for Christians” (166).
Although The Lost World of Genesis One presents a helpful and intriguing
new perspective on the biblical creation account of Genesis 1, nevertheless its
grounding upon the ancient Near Eastern functional cosmological view means
that this book does not sufciently address two key problems this viewpoint
causes for a creationist: the problem of sin and the reality of death.
Walton argues that “just because death came to us because of sin, does
not mean that death did not exist at any level prior to the Fall” (100). He
notes that the notion that there was no death would defy common sense
since death is a part of the natural process; it exists on the cellular level (the
epidermis level of the skin consists of dead cells), in ora (sprouting leaves,
owers, fruit, seed), and in fauna (carnivorous and herbivorous animals, birds,
and sh). He concludes that human resistance to death was only due to their
access to the Tree of Life. As such, death existed before the fall, but humans
became subject to it only as a punishment for disobeying God, at which time
they lost access to the Tree of Life.
While science provides us with data from current biological observations
and the fossil record, no specic data exists from the Garden of Eden. Thus,
while it is highly probable that biological function is the same now as it was
then, we cannot assume conclusively, as we simply do not have the data. Biblical
evidence suggests that biological function may have performed differently
and that must be considered by biblical scholars. There are several passages