191
Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 49, No. 1, 191-195.
Copyright © 2011 Andrews University Press.
A SCHOLARLY REVIEW OF JOHN H. WALTON’S
LECTURES AT ANDREWS UNIVERSITY ON
THE LOST WORLD OF GENESIS ONE
Ni c h o l a s P. Mi l l e r
Andrews University
Earlier this year John Walton, a Professor of Old Testament studies at
Wheaton College, came to Andrews University to share his thoughts on the
question of how Genesis 1 should be read and understood. The crux of
his argument was historical, and gave further philosophical background to
his arguments found in The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and
the Origins Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009). His lecture, addressed
directly to a Seventh-day Adventist audience, is helpful for understanding
how his arguments are framed and understood in an Adventist context and
how Adventists might relate to them.
After a brief overview of Walton’s lectures and basic arguments regarding
Genesis 1, I will consider the philosophy that appears to underlie his proposal.
I will then examine some of the theological presuppositions undergirding
his conclusions that Genesis can be reconciled with some form of theistic
evolution. I argue that Walton’s conclusions are in profound tension with, and
even contrary to, core Adventist theological commitments involving theodicy,
the loving character of God, and the theme of the great controversy between
good and evil.
In his rst lecture, Walton discussed the general interpretive approach to
the OT, arguing that we can only understand the meaning of the stories in
the Bible if we understand the worldview of its immediate intended audience.
The Bible was written for their worldview, not for that of the twenty-rst
century; nevertheless, its spiritual and moral messages were also intended for
today (“It was written for us, but to them”). Therefore, we should recognize,
he argued, that its authority does not lie in its claims about the physical world
and material reality. The Bible makes no scientic claims, he asserted, and
its observations on the natural and physical world are not different from the
existing worldviews of the surrounding cultures of the ancient Near East.
Walton claimed that the surrounding cultures, as shown in their literature
and writings, did not have a materialist ontology, but rather a functional one.
This meant that these peoples were primarily, if not entirely, concerned with
how systems and institutions came to carry out their present functions, rather
than when they rst physically or materially appeared.
In his second lecture, Walton applied this model to the issues of
Genesis 1. He observed that on day one, God did not actually create light,
but rather put it to the use or function of marking off periods of light and
dark. This observation on the function of light was what originally led him
192
se M i N a r y st u d i e s 49 (sP r i N g 2011)
to his hypothesis regarding the functional nature of creation as recounted in
Genesis 1. From this insight regarding light, he posited that the Hebrew mind
was, like the surrounding cultures, actually concerned about the function of
things, and not their material origins. This concern with functionality was the
model for all the days of creation in Genesis 1.
Walton accepted that the days of creation were seven literal twenty-
four-hour periods of time, but that nothing was physically created on those
days. Rather, the functions of the material world—the earth, the sea, the sky,
plants, animals, and humans—were instituted, and the whole was inaugurated
as a temple, or sanctuary, for God.
One does not need to agree with all of Walton’s arguments to appreciate
his insight into the role that function plays in the days of creation. A number
of creation elements such as earth, sky, and sea all existed on day one. Indeed
light itself existed well prior to day one, as Scripture proposes that heaven
and angels exist in it, and even God himself “dwells in light unapproachable”
(1 Tim 6:16). Under a completely materialist view of creation, it is hard to
understand what actually was created on the rst two days of creation week.
On day three, one can point to the creation of green growing things, though
the main point of that day also seems to be functional, the separating of the
existing elements of land and sea. Recognizing a functional process to the
interpretation of Genesis 1 helps to more fully explain how the rst three
days are truly acts of creation.
Viewing creation through lenses that include a functional prism also
shows how integral the seventh day is to the creation week—a point that
Adventists should truly appreciate. A functional view helps to clarify that the
Sabbath is not merely an addition to the six days of creation. Rather, on the
Sabbath day God created the ongoing temporal order and organization within
which creation operates. Thus the seventh day is rmly a part of the week
of creation and not merely an afterthought tacked on to the end. Therefore,
the addition of a functionalist outlook on the creation week is something that
Adventists can applaud and embrace.
However, what is concerning about Walton’s proposal is the elevation of
functionality to the exclusion of materiality in the creation week. He seems to
view the creation process described in Genesis 1 solely as one type of creation
at the expense of other processes, particularly the creation of matter.
Why must we be forced to choose between the two kinds of creation?
Cannot functionality and materiality both play a role in creation as portrayed
in Genesis 1? Is it possible to have a creation as complex and existential as
that found in Genesis and not have both elements involved? These rhetorical
questions lead to a practical one: What is Walton’s view on when plants,
animals, and humans were materially created? He suggests that one cannot
answer these questions from Genesis 1 as it was not written for that purpose.
During a question-and-answer session, he indicated that the Genesis account
193
a sc h o l a r l y re v i e w o f Jo h N h. wa l t o N ’s le c t u r e s . . .
would allow God to have created in one day, six days, or in some other length
of time —in other words, God is not limited to creating within any particular
length of time. In his writings, it is clear that, he accepts a good part of
the current scientic evolutionary story. He writes, “I am not suggesting a
wholesale adoption of evolution, merely that neither Genesis 1 specically
nor biblical theology in general give us any reason to reject it as a model
as long as we see God as involved at every level and remain aware of our
theological convictions.”
1
What are Walton’s theological convictions? First, God exists; therefore,
“whatever evolutionary processes may have taken place, we believe that God
was intimately involved with them.”
2
Second, Genesis 1 does not require a
young earth; nor does it objection to biological evolution.
3
While he proposes
that God did something special at “the creation of the historical Adam and
Eve,” causing a “material and spiritual discontinuity,” he nds it “difcult
to articulate how God accomplished this.” Ultimately, nothing in the Bible
provides an obstacle to “allowing us to reap from science understandings of
how life developed up to and including the creation of the rst humans.”
4
In his lecture, Walton’s justication for his hermeneutical approach
focused primarily on the nature of reality, the division between the natural
and supernatural, and the implications of communication-“word/act”
theory. In developing his hermeneutical model, Walton rejected the notion
that reality is a like a pie that has been sliced into natural and supernatural
realms. Under this model—essentially a “God-of-the-gaps” view—the more
we discover about nature, the smaller the slices of the supernatural become.
In response to this problem, he proposed instead that reality is like a layered
cake, with a layer of “natural” on the bottom and a layer of “supernatural” on
top. We can explore the natural world, make all the discoveries we wish, and
never threaten the supernatural, which is over all and guides all. We are merely
discovering the mechanisms and materials that the Creator uses to develop
and guide his creation.
While proferred as an illustration of the ancient Near Eastern mindset,
the layered-cake model actually bears striking resemblance to immanuel Kant’s
divide between the noumena (supernatural) and the phenomena (natural world).
This divide explains in part the sharp break we have in our contemporary world
between the discipline of science on one hand, and philosophy, metaphysics,
and theology on the other. This division has roots going back to Descartes,
Hume, and Spinoza, who posited that there is no meaningful connection or
1
John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins
Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 137.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid., 138.
4
Ibid., 139-140.
194
se M i N a r y st u d i e s 49 (sP r i N g 2011)
integration between the natural and supernatural realms. This view of reality lies
at the foundation of many twentieth-century philosophical perspectives that
have led to a devaluation of Scripture, and includes views such as positivism,
historicism, materialism, and the higher-critical methods of biblical exegesis.
A more recent and extreme way of describing the discontinuity of nature and
supernature is the Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) model, described by
Stephen Jay Gould, the late Harvard paleobiologist. NOMA is based upon the
idea that science and religion govern two separate domains. The ndings of
one should not be allowed to shape, intrude upon, or dene the other. Science
interprets the physical, material world, while religion interprets the world of
values, morals, and spiritual beliefs.
5
The problem with NOMA is that it leaves no room for truly historical
religions such as Judaism and Christianity. These religions say that the
supernatural has invaded, and will continue to invade, the natural world from
time to time. Even Walton himself is not willing to fully accept NOMA because
it would exclude all the miracles of the Bible, including Christ’s incarnation,
miracles, and resurrection. He reserves his “layered-cake” model particularly
for the early chapters of Genesis. In the NT, he prefers to view miracles
such as the incarnation more like what he terms a “marble-cake,” with the
supernatural more obviously intruding into the natural world.
This mixed-methodological approach to interpreting different sections
of the Bible in different ways appears inconsistent. Could Adventism
afford to take Walton’s approach seriously, even if they could swallow its
inconsistency? I believe the answer is a rm no. It is an answer based in
part on the profound theological differences between the Reformed tradition
and the Adventist theological heritage, and it revolves around a core pillar of
Adventist theology—the great controversy framework of history.
Whether he claims it or not, Walton is inuenced by the Reformed
Calvinistic tradition, in which the highest concern is the glory of God as shown
in his sovereignty. On the issue of God’s inscrutable authority, he invokes
the classic Reformed argument that God’s ways of dealing with humanity are
truly beyond comprehension. He acknowledges that “an evolutionary system
is difcult to reconcile to the character of God”; but he seeks to answer this
objection with the argument that “God in his wisdom has done things in the
way that he has. We cannot stand in judgment of that, and we cannot expect
to understand it all.”
6
This may be a satisfactory response for a thinker within the Reformed
tradition. Adventists, however, nd their roots in Arminianism and have as
their greatest concern the character of God, as demonstrated in his love and
5
Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (New
York: Ballantine, 1999), 49-67.
6
Ibid., 133-134.
195
a sc h o l a r l y re v i e w o f Jo h N h. wa l t o N ’s le c t u r e s . . .
fairness in dealing with his creation. While both Adventists and Reformed
Calvinists value the other’s views about God, when faced with the dilemma of
choosing between God’s sovereignty and human free will, Calvinists choose
to emphasize God’s sovereignty over his loving character. The result is a God
who eternally condemns those who have no choice but to sin.
7
Adventists, on
the other hand, believe that a central point of the Great Controversy between
Christ and Satan, which God has let unfold for millennia, is to show that the
ways of God are righteous and true and to reveal his true character of love
—God allows all people to freely choose whether to follow him and then
grants power to succeed in following his way. In the Adventist perspective,
God voluntarily limits his sovereignty by respecting our free choice. This self-
limitation is an expression of God’s character of love.
How do these theological positions relate to Genesis 1? First, the Calvinist,
who believes that God created much of humanity in order to condemn them
to everlasting torment in hell, will have no qualms about God creating through
a process that requires death, i.e., evolution, with its primary mechanism of
survival of the ttest. If Adventists, on the other hand, were to accept a prefall
“good” and call it “good,” creation that involved suffering and death, they
would see their whole theological framework based on the Great Controversy
between good and evil basically splinter apart.
A God who creates through the use of sin and suffering is one who
would not fare well even under imperfect human standards of fairness and
kindness. The Bible goes out of its way to afrm that death came into the
world through humanity’s sin (Rom 5:12). It teaches that suffering and death in
nature and the animal world is connected with the attempt to bring back fallen
humanity. “For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the
revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not
willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation
itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious
liberty of the children of God” (Rom 8:18-21).
This unwilling subjection to “futility” is not consistent with the “good”
that God saw throughout his initial creation (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25,
31). The problem of reconciling “goodness” with the suffering and death
of sentient beings appears insuperable, at least if one believes that the Bible
teaches a death-free heavenly world. Ultimately, Adventism cannot accept
theistic evolution, or any variant of it, that allows suffering and death on
earth before Adam’s sin, because has staked its theological framework on the
revelation of God’s moral government and character of love in history.
7
R. E. Olson describes Calvinist theologian Theodore Beza as putting it, “those
who suffer for eternity in hell can at least take comfort in the fact that they are there
for the greater glory of God” (The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition
and Reform [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999], 459; see esp. 454-472).
