Did God's Clothing of Adam and Eve Involve a Sacrifice?

I was taught for years that when God “made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21) it implied the sacrificial killing of an animal. This is still a fairly popular belief in many Christian circles. D. A. Carson is his recent release, The God Who is There: Finding Your Place in God’s Story, says this about the passage:

“At this stage in the Bible’s storyline there is no system of sacrifice; that comes later—a priestly system with prescribed sacrifices and ritual. But God knows that they need to be covered. They have so much shame to hide. . . This is the first sacrifice in the long trajectory of bloody sacrifices that reaches all the way down to the coming of Jesus. . . Here in Genesis 3 the death of an animal to cover the man and the woman is a picture of what is to come, the first step of an entire institution of sacrifices that points us finally to the supreme sacrifice and what Jesus did to take away our sin and cover up our shame.” (39)

But while I was a student at the Moody Bible Institute a new professor arrived and I took a class from him on Genesis. His name was John Walton (who now teaches at Wheaton). The Old Testament began to look significantly different in a number of places and this was one of them. Here’s how Walton understands the passage in his commentary on Genesis:

“It is a serious error to read sacrifice between the lines of verse 21. The institution of sacrifice is far too significant an occurrence to leave it entirely to inference. Again we stress that it is our objective as interpreters to understand what the author wished to communicate, not to piece together answers we would like to know from reading between the lines. The author is clearly not communicating anything about sacrifice here, for he does not address that issue. What is his point then?”

“In some contexts, clothing someone is an act of investiture. Kings and priests were clothed in installation ceremonies. Joseph was clothed by his father with a special coat and was clothed by Pharaoh on his appointment to high office. But all of these constitute elevations of status, whereas Adam and Eve are ready to be demoted. In the Tale of Adapa, after Adapa loses the opportunity to eat from the bread and water of life, he is given clothing by the god Anu before being sent from his presence.”

“For lack of other alternatives, this provision should probably be seen as an act of grace by God, preparing them for the more difficult environment he is sending them into and providing a remedy for their newly developed shame. Insofar as animal death is likely already in the system (see comments on pp. 183-84), there is nothing unusual about using an animal skin for a garment.” (229-30).

And this year we were treated to a “theological” commentary by R. R. Reno who gives the garments of skin yet another look. He says,

“God seems to express care by providing the fallen man and woman with clothing to replace the woven garments of fig leaves. These clothes prepare the man and woman to live under the burden of their transgression. But what, exactly, are these garments?”

“The leather clothes suggest a thickening or toughening of the human condition. Human life takes on greater density and weight. The Catholic tradition calls this weight concupiscence, the condition of disorder within the human soul caused when the lower appetites, what Paul calls ‘passions of our flesh’ (Eph. 2:3), push us in directions contrary to our rational desires. For example, I want to study for a test or practice a musical instrument, but hunger distracts or sleepiness overwhelms or an attractive woman has me off and running. This added weight or sluggishness blunts and reduces the power of the human will by dissipating it into the desires of the moment. What we plan for the future is corrupted by what we want in the moment.” (95)

Reno explains that the Council of Trent teaches “that concupiscence is not itself sin, but rather ‘comes from sin and induces to sin’ (session 5.5)”. He asks then, “in what sense could this sluggishness and capacity for distraction be an act of divine care?” He answers:

“Human beings are poised halfway between animals and angels. We are embodied rational animals, capable of long-term projects and sustained loyalties. As a result, the original transgression has momentum. As Rowan Williams observes, ‘The corruption of the human will is more far-reaching disaster than the corruption of the animal will.’ We can follow through with our decision to be loyal to finite reality. For this reason, ‘a wicked human is an immeasurably greater problem than a wicked hamster.’ In order to restrain the effects of sin, God makes the garments of skin. Concupiscence places a governor on the intensity of the human will. It makes us more like hamsters, seeking the pleasure of the moment, and less like the devil, who has no body to limit the intensity of his perversely formed will. Clothed with the garments of skin, we remain incapable of fully focusing our minds in order to completely follow through with our ill-fated plans.” (95-96)

The first two interpretations recognize an actual animal skin. Reno seems to interpret the garments as a symbol of a change in the human condition. No animal needed for that. Thirty-four years ago I would have dismissed Walton and laughed at Reno. Twenty-eight years ago I accepted Walton and would have dismissed Reno. Today I’m sticking with Walton but have respect for Reno’s interpretation. It’s a simple passage but my journey with its interpretation illustrates the possible changes in one person’s study of the Bible and my growth with respect to the various interpretations that are possible. (By “simple” I don’t mean “problem free.” My post should show that. But rather that its interpretation is minor compared to some other passages. In other words, I don’t lose any sleep on this one.) My youthful arrogance and over confidence has lessened (I hope) and my respect for the work of scholars from a broader perspective than just my evangelical up bringing has widened.  Do you have stories like this of your own? 

Here are the three titles I referenced:

Coming Soon from Crossway - The Bible Story Handbook

John Walton has made a lasting impression on me as a student of Scripture.  One thing he impressed upon me was that we shouldn't be reading the Old Testament to glean moral lessons from David, Abraham, Sarah, Esther etc.  The Old Testament is a revelation of God.  Here's how he explains it in his Genesis commentary:

"Solomon is not offered as a model of setting up an administration (1 Kings 2), Esther is not offered as a model for how to change government policy (Est. 4-7), David is not offered as a model for how to get out of a rough spot (1 Sam 21:10-15)--though each is successful and receives no condemnation for how they conduct themselves.  We must take our lead carefully from what can be determined to be the agenda of the text."  (692)

I know what you're thinking.  "But doesn't the New Testament do this very thing?"  Walton has an answer.

"The fact that the New Testament in  few places (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:6-13; Heb. 11) draws its teaching based on role models does not thereby offer a blanket approval for us to do the same.  We can readily accept the New Testament's interpretation of the role models, but our confidence as a result of recognizing their inspiration does not necessarily make their hermeneutic repeatable."  (ibid 694 n.56)

Now this will, no doubt, open a can of worms and could destine a whole lot of sermons for the trash can.  But I think Walton needs to be heard.  Coming this September from Crossway is a book that John and his wife, Kim, have put together called The Bible Story Handbook: A Resource for Teaching 150 Bible Stories from the Bible.  Here's the catalog description:

"How do Sunday school teachers lead children through the stories of Cain and Abel or Judas’s betrayal in a way that reflects the authority of Scripture? Sunday school curricula often glosses over difficult lessons or focuses too much on characters in Bible stories, neglecting God’s self-revelation in Scripture. John and Kim Walton have created this handbook for 175 150 [I found three different numbers in various places.  I think the 150 is correct.] Bible stories to assist teachers and parents in knowing what each story teaches and how to present it in a God-centered way."

"As they work their way through the Bible, the Waltons examine seven elements in each story: focus, theme, application, place in the Bible, interpretational issues, historical and cultural background, and age-group appropriateness. The Bible Story Handbook includes introductory articles on why we teach the Bible, right and wrong ways to use the Bible, and ends with a two-year teaching plan. Every parent and Sunday school teacher will find this unique resource to be invaluable in teaching children to know and love God."

This may be a book primarily for Sunday school teachers but I think there is something here for all of us to learn from.  The Bible Story Handbook will have 352 pages and sell for $21.99. 

Just for Laughs!

I was delighted to see John Walton this past Friday even if we only had 10 minutes to talk.  I'm very excited about a couple of projects he's working on one of which is the Job commentary for the NIV Application Commentary series.  This video has been out for a while but if you haven't seen it I think you'll enjoy it.  It shows his marvelous sense of humor. 

N. T. Wright, John Walton and Genesis

My friend Paul sent me this video of N. T. Wright commenting on Adam and Eve.  In passing Wright says he's "with" John Walton in his understanding of Genesis 1.  I'll come back to that in a minute. 

I find it interesting that Wright says Americans need to realize the "rest of the world" does not bundle issues together the way we do so we need to "lighten up" and "uncouple" those issues.  I think he's thinking of things like if we deny Adam and Eve were real then we have to deny original sin. I realize it's more than that but that's one example.  First, I'm not sure that just knowing others (For Wright to go from the way Britains do it to the "rest of the world" is quite a leap in itself.) don't make the connections we do in itself justifies that we stop making them.  It makes us sound like we are slaves to some "American mental illness" that arbitrarily makes connections with no sound reason for doing so. Secondly, on the other hand, I do believe we have unnecessarily coupled some things together on pretty tenuous grounds but the uncoupling must be proven not simply dismissed because "the rest of the world" doesn't see connections the way we do.

His discussion of myth vs. history is very good and is a common misunderstanding in popular circles.  The last part of the discussion he shows his dependence on Walton's understanding of Genesis.  I've provided Wright's video here and another brief video of Walton on Genesis.  Those who want to know more should read Walton's book The Lost World of Genesis One.  You can see my review of Walton's book here.  You can find these and other helpful videos and articles at The BioLogos Foundation. 


 

John Walton Responds to Vern Poythress

Readers of this blog may recall a review I did of John Walton's book The Lost World of Genesis One.  Theologian Vern Poythress did a review of the book for World magazine.  Walton has now responded to that review.  He says he normally "does not find responses and counter-responses to be fruitful, but Poythress’s review of my book is particularly problematic, and I feel it is important to set the record straight for interested readers."  The Biologos blog has invited Poythress to respond and they say they will publish his response if he would like to.  Walton's final paragraphs are of particular interest:

"All of these comments have reflected on the statements that Poythress actually made. I realize that he had limited space for the review, but it seems quite telling that he did not interact with any of the evidence from the ancient Near Eastern literature, which serves a very significant role in the argument. He also did not deal with all the Hebrew lexical information that was brought to bear to demonstrate the position within the Bible itself. Instead of dealing with the evidence that was presented, he contented himself with saying it did not make logical sense to him. But isn’t that the very point? Ancient ways of thinking are not intuitive to us, nor is their logic transparent. That is why we delve into the literature for evidence. These are serious oversights."

"I have read a few other reviews of the Lost World of Genesis One by scholars who had reservations about my theory. They were balanced, understood my position well, interacted with my ideas and evidence in depth, and offered assessment of aspects of the theory as they raised important questions. These are much appreciated. Dr. Poythress is certainly capable of offering such a review, but this effort fell far short of that helpful ideal. In the process I believe he did a disservice to me, to his readers, and to the discussion."

I was pleased to see my own review listed as suggested reading as a "representative review."  Thanks to my co-worker Jared for bringing Walton's response to my attention. 

The Legacy of The Tower of Babel: "God Abuse"

I once had a customer ask what I thought of a particular book that she was considering as a gift for her daughter. I told her that while I had some concerns about the author's view of God I liked much of what he had to say. Her response took me back, "I don't care what he thinks about God. I just want my daughter to accept Christ." With nothing else said she bought the book. Why is our concept of God important? I'll leave you with these important thoughts by John Walton from his commentary on Genesis.

"God Abuse. By nature we are all pagans caught in the Babel syndrome. When we think we can manipulate God by praying in Jesus' name to achieve selfish purposes, our paganism is showing. When we 'claim promises' as a means of making God do what we want him to do, our paganism is showing. When we come to think we are indispensable to God because of the money we donate, the talents we have, the ministries we engage in, or the worship we offer, our paganism is showing. When we treat God as a child to be cajoled or a tyrant to be appeased, the Babel syndrome is surging in our veins. We want a manageable 'God-lite.' We want to be able to harness his power for our own benefit, no strings attached. Our society has confronted child abuse and spouse abuse, but this is 'God abuse.' "

"If we desire to prevent ourselves from settling for the paganism of a watered-down version of God, we must reconnect with God's revelation of himself in the Bible. When we read the Bible daily, it is not so we can get a mystical thought for the day. Too many of us treat the Bible as if it were a newspaper horoscope, giving clues about what we should do or should not do that day. We need to reclaim the Bible as God's self-revelation. We should be reading to find out what God is like."

"Our spiritual growth is dependent on, among other things, developing an increasingly informed understanding of who God is and bringing more and more of our lives into orbit around him. These two must work together. Someone can have a sophisticated understanding of God but refuse to orbit her life toward God. God's claims are ignored and prevented from impacting attitudes, choices, and lifestyle. Another person many have a strong view but suffer from a deficient or distorted view of God. His misinformation can leave him sincere but sincerely wrong, dedicated but misguided."

"Reading God's Word is essential to becoming informed. Purposeful engagement with God is essential to maintaining God-centered orbits in our worldview. When we read the Bible each day, the main question we should be asking is, 'What does this help me to understand about God?' instead of 'What does this tell me to do today?' or 'What decision should I make about X?' The paganism in each of us drives us to be self-absorbed. God's revelation draws us to himself. We only need to yield." (383, 386-387)

Jesus Creed Reviews John Walton's Lost World of Genesis One

I did a review of John Walton's book The Lost World of Genesis One here. Now Scot McKnight and fellow blogger RJS have started a series of posts at JesusCreed.org on the book with Walton interacting from time to time. The first post is here. I personally liked the book and think Walton has some very original thoughts on the first chapter of Genesis. If you have not read the book but would like to get a feel for some of the issues involved and Walton's take on it this would be a good place to go. But don't stop there. Get your own copy and read for yourself. Agree or disagree Walton's view merits attention and discussion.

The Lost World of Genesis One - A Review

In The Lost World of Genesis One John Walton offers a view of the first chapter of Genesis which is sure to spark debate. Those who have read Walton’s commentary on Genesis will recognize much of what is covered in this book. But few layman read commentaries and, unfortunately, too many pastors don’t either. So this popular level work will now bring the fruits of his scholarship to a whole new audience.

Walton says we have lost our way in understanding Genesis 1 because we have lost its cultural context. The only interpretation of Genesis 1 that we have understood has to do with the material creation of the universe. But what if the chapter is not describing a material creation at all? What if it is describing creation as it would have been understood in its ancient Near Eastern context? In that context Genesis 1 is describing not the material creation of the universe but its functional creation. That is to say for those in the ancient Near East the universe did not “exist” in any meaningful way until its parts had been assigned a purpose or role. Walton explains, “[T]he actual creative act is to assign something its functioning role in the ordered system. That is what brings it into existence. Of course something must have physical properties before it can be given its function, but the critical question is, what stage is defined as ‘creation.’” (27) For those in the ancient world to create something “means to give it a function, not material properties.” (35) It would be hard to overestimate the importance of this distinction in order to properly understand Genesis 1.

Walton illustrates this distinction with that of “creating” a computer. First there is the assembly of its physical components, that is, its physical creation. Then someone has to write the programs but until they are installed its “’existence’ is meaningless—it cannot function.” (27) Someone still has to install the software and then we need to find a power source. Finally he concludes, “But what if no one sits at the keyboard or knows how to use or even desires to use it? It remains nonfunctional, and, for all intents and purposes, as if it did not exist. We can see that different observers might be inclined to attribute ‘existence’ to the computer at different stages in the process.” (27) To the modern mindset “existence” is entirely related to the physical composition of something—it is an ontological focus rather than a functional one. But as Walton demonstrates, “[i]n the ancient world, what was most crucial and significant to their understanding of existence was the way that the parts of the cosmos functioned, not their material status.” The problem seems to revolve around the word “create.” To the modern mind the word refers almost exclusively to the material composition of something. The functional sense of the word is better seen when we say something like we “created a committee.” The people already existed but the committee did not exist until roles were assigned to certain individuals and a purpose was given for them to meet. This is what God is doing in Genesis 1. He is assigning roles and purpose to a chaotic system. He is creating order with a purpose. That purpose brings us to Walton’s next point which hinges on day seven.

What’s the point of God resting on the seventh day? Simple. God rests in a temple and only a temple. Walton explains this is not just a siesta on a Sunday afternoon. “For deity this means that the normal operations of the cosmos can be undertaken. This is more a matter of engagement without obstacles rather than disengagement without responsibilities.” (73) The temple is not primarily a place of worship but a home or more importantly his “headquarters—the control room.” (75) From here, the temple, God assumes his rightful place. Genesis 1 is “describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst. This is what makes day seven so significant, because without God taking up his dwelling in its midst, the (cosmic) temple does not exist. The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place for God’s presence.” (84-85) Walton supports this thesis with important connections between the cosmos and the tabernacle and the temple. (pp. 81-84) This leads to my final point.

Walton suggests “the seven days may be understood in relation to some aspect of temple inauguration.” (87) The parallels of Genesis 1 to other ancient Near Eastern inauguration ceremonies are striking. The Bible itself records temple inauguration ceremonies (see p. 89 for discussion). Also, these inauguration ceremonies could be reenacted on a yearly basis. No evidence has been found that Israel engaged in this kind of yearly festival but it should not be surprising if we found they did and Walton says it “would be theologically and culturally appropriate.” (91) This also relieves the problem of whether the Hebrew word for day (yom) is a twenty-four hour day or a long period of time. Since Genesis 1 is not describing the physical creation of the universe the problem dissolves. An inauguration ceremony which is seven twenty-four hour days poses no problem. Walton says understanding yom as a twenty-four hour day “has always been the best reading of the Hebrew text.”

Readers may be concerned that Walton is buying into the theory that the Israelites simply borrowed from other pagan cultures. He is not. He clearly says, “I am not suggesting that the Israelites are borrowing from these ancient literatures. Instead the literatures show how people thought in the ancient world, and as we examine Genesis, we can see that Israelites thought in similar ways.” (79 see also his discussion on pp.13-15) This is an important distinction. Walton also notes that it was not his reading of the ancient Near Eastern texts that changed his mind on Genesis 1 but rather questions he had in the text of Genesis itself. (54)

Other readers may wonder if Walton believes that God did create the material universe. Rest assured he does. He says, “If we conclude that Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, we are not thereby suggesting that God is not responsible for material origins. I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material origins, and that, in fact, material origins do involve at some point creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not one we are asking. We are asking a textual question: What sort of origins account do we find in Genesis 1?” (44)

The last part of the book Walton engages with how his view affects issues like evolution, intelligent design and public science education. I had more qualms with this part of the book than I did with the first part. But they are minor points of disagreement which do not affect his major premise.

Walton’s book is a five-star example of exegesis which is culturally informed without compromising Biblical authority. Highly recommended. I think it would make a great choice for a small group study.

You can hear a lecture that Walton gave during a science symposium to a group of physicists on Genesis 1 here. It is extremely helpful and includes power point slides he used in the presentation. In several places he expands and clarifies what he covers in the book. The presentation is 52 minutes long with about 10 minutes of Q & A following.

For further reading:

Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible by John Walton from Baker Academic.

Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? edited by Daniel I. Block. Walton has an essay in this volume called “Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document.”

"Do We Need Background Studies?" an article for the Koinonia blog

See especially the forthcoming 5-volume work from Zondervan called the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. Walton is the general editor. It should be released this fall.

Walton mentions a forthcoming full scale scholarly work on Genesis 1 from Eisenbrauns. The title is Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns). I have been unable to get any details on its release date.

See also the publisher's (IVP) blog, Addenda & Errata, on the book as well.

Coming Soon from IVP Academic: The Lost World of Genesis One

John Walton was, by far, one of my favorite professors. His expertise in Ancient Near Eastern literature is enviable. So when I saw this new book, The Lost World of Genesis One, from IVP Academic I got very excited. Pardon my enthusiasm. In this work Walton "presents and defends eighteen propositions supporting a literary and theological understanding of Genesis 1 within the context of the ancient Near Eastern world, and unpacks its implications for our modern scientific understanding of origins." (from the catalog) Bruce Waltke says "Walton's cosmic temple inauguration view of Genesis 1 is a landmark study in the interpretation of that controversial chapter. On the basis of ancient Near Eastern literatures, a rigorous study of the Hebrew word bara' ('create'), and a cogent and sustained argument, Walton has gifted the church with a fresh interpretation of Genesis 1." Davis A. Young, Professor Emeritus of Geology, Calvin College, and coauthor of The Bible, Rocks and Time, says "Every theologian, every pastor, every Christian in the natural sciences, indeed, every Christian who loves the Bible must put aside all other reading material this minute and immediately begin to absorb the contents of John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One. Walton closely examines Genesis 1 in light of ancient Near Eastern literature and offers a compelling case that the creation account is far more concerned with the cosmos being given its functions as God's temple than it is with the manufacture of the material structures of the earth and universe. In the process, he has blown away all the futile attempts to elicit modern science from the first chapter of the Bible." The book is paperback, 176 pages and sells for $16.00.

Interview with Author John Walton - Part 2

Question: You comment that readers of the historical literature should not so much look for "lessons from the life of Asa or lessons from the life of Saul" but rather "patterns, themes, and motifs that we ought to see as weaving the historical tapestry into a picture of the sovereign God of the covenant." (p. 212) Can you flesh out the difference between these two approaches and why the first approach isn't the best?

Walton: This distinction is important because it recognizes that the Bible is revelation about God, not revelation of the human figures. The humans are the instruments of God, but it is not about them. The problem is that usually the behavior of the human figures is described; it is rarely prescribed. Too often we end up reading between the lines to try to figure out why they did what they did, and in those cases we can only speculate. Our responsibility is to be like God, not to imitate the characters in the Bible. When we ask the question, "why is this text here?" the study of the literature as Scripture will generally lead us to the conclusion that it is not there to give models for behavior from the biblical characters. If that is not the author's intention, then that is not where we find the authority of the text.

Question: Have any of your views changed or significantly altered since the writing of the second edition?

Walton: No. Though I have developed additional interests, such as the Presence of God, that is now represented in a new chapter.

Question: You have specialized in the area of Ancient Near Eastern literature and its relationship to the Old Testament. Many today have argued that the Old Testament has borrowed from ancient pagan myths. Can you help us understand how we should approach this complex issue?*

Walton: The problem is with the focus on borrowing. It would be very difficult to prove borrowing under any circumstances, and given the limited amount of information available to us, it is an impossibility. The existence of similarities does not prove borrowing. Israel shared in the cultural environment of the ancient world. That means that many general ways of thinking were just natural to them. Even some specifics (such as laws or proverbs) would have been part of their cultural heritage. The mythology of the ancient world offers us a window to their worldview. That can be a benefit when we begin to explore the Bible. We should expect to find similarities because God communicated into a culture, and communication requires a context.

Question: Do you have a favorite Old Testament book? If so, why?

Walton: I can only assess my "favorites" in relation to the ones I most enjoy teaching. Those would be Genesis, Job and Jonah. I think I enjoy teaching them the most because they are the ones where I feel that I have the most to offer students. I enjoy giving students new ways to look at books and showing them why these perspectives are important.

Thanks for taking time to answer my questions. Congratulations to you and Andrew Hill on a great work.

For further reading:

* Works by Walton on the Ancient Near Eastern Literature:
Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible
Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Other titles:

Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament
Genesis - NIV Application Commentary
Old Testament - The IVP Bible Background Commentary (co-editor)
"Jonah" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol 8 Daniel - Malachi (revised edition)
Covenant: God's Purpose, God's Plan

Interview with Author John Walton

John Walton was kind enough to take time out of his day to answer a few questions for me. He and Andrew Hill just released the third edition of their A Survey of the Old Testament. I will break down the interview into two posts. John also sat down with Zondervan and talked briefly about the new edition. I encourage you to listen to it as well. I first met John when I was a student at Moody Bible Institute. I was immediately impressed with him. He cared about his students and was more than willing to take time to answer questions. More than anyone he taught me to know and love God through the Old Testament rather than making a series of character studies to model my life after. We'll touch on that in the interview. I'm thankful to Andrew Rogers of Zondervan for making the arrangements for the interview.

Question: Can you describe the differences between a "survey" of the Old Testament, an "introduction" and a "theology" of the Old Testament?

Walton: There is always going to be some degree of overlap between them. A "survey" is intended to provide an understanding of the content of the Old Testament. Its focus is mostly on the story line though it does not ignore the plot line or critical issues. It also will deal with the text on literary and historical levels. In contrast, a "theology" focuses more on the plot line or the meta-narrative. That would talk about what they believed, what we believe, and what makes the text canon and Scripture. The intention of an "introduction" is to discuss and summarize key issues in critical scholarship related to the individual books of the Bible.

The remainder of the interview will be on tomorrow's post.

John Walton on A Survey of the Old Testament @ Yahoo! Video