A reflection in honour, not in opposition — written as a younger brother listening, grieving, and bearing witness to the voice of Genesis 3.
In April 2025, I wrote privately to Professor John H. Walton about his recent reinterpretation of Genesis 3, as presented in New Explorations in the Lost World of Genesis. To my surprise and gratitude, he replied — not once, but twice — with warmth, clarity, and care.
What follows is the full text of my final reply, offered not as a rebuttal, but as a reflection: part lament, part testimony, and part theological witness from one who has long honoured his work, and who now feels compelled to respond.
John’s final reply following receipt of what follows was brief but gracious:
“At this point, I will just have to say that we will have to agree to disagree. I encourage you to continue your study and wish you the best.”
(3 May 2025)
30 April 2025
1: Introduction and
Posture
Subject: Grateful Dialogue and Deeper Listening – A
Follow-up Reflection for Professor John H. Walton - with gratitude and care
Dear John,
Thank you—truly—for
replying again with such clarity, composure, and humility. I am grateful beyond
words. Your willingness to remain in this conversation, when you are under no
obligation to do so, speaks volumes of the character I’ve long admired in you.
I want to honour that gift in return—with equal care, with open hands, and with
a spirit not of rebuttal, but of deep listening, mutual learning, and humble
testimony to the Word we both cherish.
Your response has
helped me see our points of divergence with greater clarity, and I welcome that
illumination. You are right to highlight our differing assumptions. And I
accept your challenge—to examine them carefully, to scrutinise my premises, and
to acknowledge that some things I have treated as conclusions may indeed be
postulates.
But if I may gently
return the favour: I wonder whether some of what you have characterised as my
assumptions may in fact be observations of the text itself—materially
verifiable within the literary structure, narrative logic, and canonical
placement of Genesis as we have received it. That is what I hope to explore in
what follows—not to win an argument, but to open a window.
This letter, then, is
not written as a scholar to a scholar, nor as a disciple to a master, nor as a
critic to a teacher—but as a younger brother to an elder one; as someone who
has been fed by your work, and who now grieves not over your integrity, but over
what I perceive as an interpretive loss.
This letter is
structured into the following further sections, each speaking directly to
concerns you’ve raised, and attempting to engage them—exegetically,
theologically, and canonically—with the reverence and care they deserve:
2:
Authorial Horizon and Reception Context
I
will explore why I believe Genesis 1–3 must be read not only through ANE genre
parallels, but as prophetic revelation—intentionally crafted by Moses to speak
to Israel’s covenantal formation after the Exodus. The Torah begins not merely
with story, but with interpretation. Genesis is not folklore—it is liturgical,
didactic, and prophetic.
3:
Genesis 3 and the Unfolding of Sin
You
wrote that Genesis 4 is where “sin” begins, but I will show why Genesis 4 names
what Genesis 3 reveals: that disorder is not abstract but moral, covenantal,
and deeply theological. The pattern of desire, grasping, and judgment is
continuous—and the text itself compels us to hear Genesis 3 as the seedbed of
what Genesis 4 names.
4:
Prophecy as Speech-Act in Genesis
While
you observe that prophecy requires a recognisable speech-act form, I will
gently suggest that Moses operates prophetically even in narrative. Genesis 3
contains forward declarations, covenantal pronouncements, and divine oracles.
These are not retrospective musings—they are performative acts of speech that
shape the theology of the entire Torah.
5:
The Audience Is Israel, Not Babylon
You
noted your openness to various audiences, but I will respectfully argue that
the most textually-supported audience for Genesis is second-generation Israel
at Moab. This shapes not only interpretation, but genre. Genesis is not framed
for cultural curiosity—it is covenantal reformation, forming a people to
remember who they are and whose they are.
6:
The Unity of Genesis 2–4
This
segment will show why Genesis 4 cannot be severed from Genesis 3. Sin is not
introduced in 4—it is named in 4, having already been seen in 3. Desire, disobedience,
shame, hiding, judgment, promise—these are not merely literary devices. They
are theological enactments with real-world covenant consequences.
7:
Why Genesis 1–3 Is Already Prophecy
This
section makes the case that prophecy, in the biblical tradition, is not
confined to ecstatic prediction. It includes covenantal speech, divine
commentary, moral explanation, and eschatological foreshadowing. Genesis 1–3
carries all of these. Not because we wish to read it that way, but because the
text itself presents itself that way.
8:
Genesis as Backcast Revelation
I’ll
then show how Genesis functions as a prophetic history told in hindsight—not
myth, but memory. Not to speculate on origins, but to reveal meaning. This is
not genre imposition, but literary observation: Moses gives Israel its origin
story after its covenant formation—not before. That alone makes Genesis 1–3
prophetic in voice and structure.
9:
Theology Is Not the Enemy of Exegesis
You’ve
said theology must come after exegesis. I agree. But Genesis itself does
theology—before Paul, before the canon, before the Church. Theological meaning
is already embedded in the narrative logic of Genesis 1–6. I will show that the
themes of sin, death, exile, and promise are not theological overlays—they are
the text’s own heartbeat.
10:
Genesis as Already Theological
The
central claim of this segment is that Genesis does not become theology only
when Paul or others interpret it. It is theological in its own voice. Genesis 3
is not about survival in a broken world—it is about communion lost, covenant
ruptured, and promise spoken. To reduce it to disorder is to mute the voice
that first names the gospel.
11:
A Socratic Invitation
Here
I turn not to argument but to invitation: through questions that invite
reconsideration. Not to trap, but to ask: If sin crouches at the door in 4,
when did it enter? If exile is declared in 3, what is the meaning of enmity? If
a seed is promised, what does that say about the voice that spoke it?
12:
A Final Exhortation from the Garden
This closing is not a summary, but a blessing. A final hope that Genesis 3 will be heard again—not only as wisdom, but as the opening cry of the gospel. That what was lost in the garden was not merely order, but communion—and what is spoken there is not only consequence, but the promise of redemption.
My aim is not to argue
from assumptions, but to surface observations that I believe are embedded in
the literary structure and covenantal shape of Genesis itself. And at each
turn, I will try to listen to the text more than to my own impressions.
This letter is
structured into the following further sections, each speaking directly to
concerns you’ve raised, and attempting to engage them—exegetically,
theologically, and canonically—with the reverence and care they deserve.
I hope this framework
helps orient the conversation and invites shared attention to the Scripture we
both seek to honour:
2: On the Authorial Horizon – Moses, Prophecy, and the Shape of the Torah
John,
You suggested that my view—placing
Genesis within the prophetic horizon of Moses speaking to Israel on the plains
of Moab—is an assumption not supported “inside or outside the text.” I
appreciate the directness of that challenge. But may I offer what I believe are
observable literary and canonical cues that support this reading—not as mere
tradition, but as prophetic pattern.
1. The Opening and
Closing of the Torah Are Framed as Prophetic Revelation.
Genesis 1:1 opens with “בְּרֵאשִׁית
בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים”
(“In beginning, God created…”), a phrase that offers no article before
“beginning” and no contemporary timestamp—marking it, not as a contemporaneous
eyewitness record, but as a retrospective theological declaration. The language
is elevated, declarative, and liturgical.
By contrast, Numbers
36:13 closes the Torah’s fourth book with a clear authorial signal:
“אֵלֶּה הַמִּצְוֹת וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעַרְבֹת מוֹאָב”
“These are the commandments and judgments that YHWH commanded by the hand of
Moses to the sons of Israel in the plains of Moab.”
This
inclusio—beginning without historical timestamp, ending with explicit
historical setting and prophetic mediation—frames the entire narrative as
delivered by Moses to a covenant community after the Exodus, looking
back.
2. The Literary
Device of “Tôledôt” (“These Are the Generations”) and the Prophetic “In the
Day” Pattern.
Genesis 2:4 introduces the formula:
“אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ בְּהִבָּרְאָם בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים”
“These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that YHWH God made earth and heaven.”
This is not merely
historiographic. It is theological narration. And crucially, it is not a
contemporaneous “record” but a retrospective framing. The phrase “בְּיוֹם” (“in the day”) functions not as a timestamp,
but as a prophetic summary—used frequently across the prophets (cf. Amos 8:9;
Isa 2:11; Ezek 30:3) to mark divine speech acts about historical
meaning.
The “generations”
structure throughout Genesis (11 times) is likewise a retrospective ordering
device. It is not folklore—it is theological construction. And construction
implies an architect.
3. The Use of YHWH
Elohim in Genesis 2–3 Is a Post-Sinai Marker.
Genesis 1 uses “Elohim” exclusively. Genesis 2–3 begins using “YHWH Elohim” (YHWH
God)—a combined name revealed only in the covenantal context of Exodus
3:15ff. This name is liturgically and theologically loaded. Its appearance in
Genesis 2–3—before Sinai in the story but after Sinai in the audience’s
experience—is not incidental. It is revelation interpreted for a covenant
people.
In short: Genesis
is not composed as raw history. It is history already theologised,
ordered, and prophetically addressed to a covenant community being prepared to
enter a land.
You are right: I
cannot prove that Moses is the author in a 21st-century evidentiary
sense. But the internal structure, literary markers, narrative voice, and
canonical coherence all point to Moses not just as a compiler, but as a
prophet—the first of the Former Prophets—speaking in retrospect with
theological purpose.
3: Genesis 3 and the Unfolding of Sin – A Narrative of Naming, Not Invention
Dear John,
Let me now gently
revisit your first objection: that I am “connecting” Genesis 3 and 4 in a way
you find hermeneutically ungrounded—whereas you see the sin of Genesis 4 as
Cain’s own, and do not find the concept prefigured or present in Genesis 3.
I want to respond, not
by importing theology into the text, but by listening to what the text
itself does—linguistically, literarily, and canonically.
1. Sin in Genesis 4
Is Not Introduced as a New Concept—It Is Named.
Genesis 4:7 is the
first time ḥaṭṭāʾt appears. But its introduction comes not as an
innovation, but as a personification, a presence “crouching at the
door,” with desire and power dynamics (tĕshûqâ and māshal) that directly
mirror the prophetic words to the woman in Genesis 3:16.
The Hebrew terms are
the same. The narrative sequence is continuous. And in fact, the structure
of Genesis 3–4 mirrors itself:
- Genesis 3: Desire → Grasping → Eyes opened
→ Shame → Voice of God → Prophetic speech → Consequence → Naming
- Genesis 4: Desire → Grasping → Eyes fallen
→ Shame unrepented → Voice of God → Prophetic speech → Consequence →
Naming
Genesis 4 does not
invent sin—it names it. Just as Adam “called” the woman “Eve” in light of
the promise, so Genesis 4 “calls” the crouching force “sin” in light of what
has already been unleashed.
This is not
assumption. It is close reading.
2. Genesis 3 Is a
Narrative of Fall and Consequence—Even Without the Word “Sin.”
You rightly note that
the term ḥaṭṭāʾt is absent from Genesis 3. But the shape of sin
is unmistakably present:
- Disobedience of divine command
- Hiding from God
- Blame-shifting
- Alienation from creation
- Cursing of the ground
- Expulsion from sacred space
This is not merely
disorder. It is moral rupture. To say “this is not sin” because the term is
missing would be like denying Exodus 32 is about idolatry because the word
“idol” isn’t used.
The pattern of
sin is there. Genesis 4–6 simply make it explicit.
3. The Literary
Shape of Genesis 1–6 Is Theologically Coherent.
Genesis 1: Tôb
(“good”) dominates.
Genesis 2–3: Ṭôb and rāʿ introduced in tension.
Genesis 4: ḥaṭṭāʾt appears by name.
Genesis 6: Rāʿ overwhelms ṭôb—“every inclination… only evil continually.”
This is a narrative
crescendo—not of moral reflection alone, but of theological deepening. Genesis
3 is the hinge on which that door swings.
4. The Serpent’s
Speech and God’s Response Are Prophetic.
Genesis 3:5—“Your eyes
will be opened… you will be like Elohim, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 3:22—“Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and
evil.”
This is not post
hoc theology. It is canonical irony, embedded in narrative. The prophecy of
the serpent is confirmed by YHWH—but twisted, poisoned, inverted. That is why
exile follows. That is why shame and death enter. This is what the prophets
later call sin.
Genesis 3 names
“evil.” Genesis 4 names “sin.” Genesis 6 names “corruption.” These are not
isolated terms. They are narrative lenses, developing a theological arc.
4: Is Genesis 3 Prophecy? A Closer Reading of Genre and Speech-Act
Dear John,
You mentioned, with
care and humility, that you do not see Genesis 3 as “prophecy,” since prophecy
is a speech-act, and the chapter lacks the literary markers traditionally
associated with prophetic literature. That’s a fair and serious point. Let me
engage it carefully and constructively—not as a rebuttal, but as an invitation
to revisit what prophecy is in the canon, especially when the Torah
itself is counted among the “Former Prophets.”
1. Prophecy as
Canonical Speech, Not Merely Genre
In classical Hebrew
understanding, prophecy is not merely a genre or a performative speech in
time—it is the divinely inspired articulation of what is, what has been, and
what will be, spoken through a chosen vessel, to a covenant community, for the
sake of calling, warning, and restoration.
By that definition,
the Torah is inherently prophetic—even if not composed in classical prophetic
oracle form.
- Deuteronomy 18 explicitly identifies Moses
as the model prophet.
- Joshua 1–24 continues the story of the
Torah and opens with “Moses, the servant of YHWH, is dead.”
- The Hebrew Bible orders the Torah as the
foundation of the Former Prophets, not the Writings.
If Moses speaks as
prophet in Deuteronomy, then the narratives he gives in Genesis (including 1–3)
must be seen through that same prophetic office.
2. The Opening
Formula of Genesis 2:4 Is the Prophetic Marker
Genesis 2:4 reads:
“These are the
generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day
that YHWH God made earth and heavens.”
This is not merely a
heading. It functions as a tôlĕdôt formula—a covenantal, genealogical,
and theological marker of narrative progression. Each tôlĕdôt in Genesis
functions like a prophetic chapter heading: a revelation of origin, not through
immediate speech, but through inspired narration.
In prophetic books
like Ezekiel and Isaiah, God speaks through vision and voice. In the Torah, He
speaks through unfolded history—patterned, interpreted, and inspired by
the Spirit through Moses.
3. Genesis 3 Is
Structured as Covenant Lawsuit and Oracle
While it lacks the
formal “Thus says YHWH,” Genesis 3 follows the covenantal rîb (lawsuit)
structure seen in prophetic literature:
- Interrogation: “Where are you?” “Who told
you?” “What is this you have done?”
- Testimony: The man blames the woman, the
woman blames the serpent.
- Indictment: “Because you have done this…”
- Judgment: Threefold oracle to serpent,
woman, and man.
- Consequence: Exile, cursing, enmity,
death.
This
structure—interrogation, indictment, judgment, consequence—is the same one used
in Hosea 4, Micah 6, and even Revelation 2–3. If this is not prophecy in form,
it is at least prophecy in function.
4. Prophecy as
Forward-Looking Pattern, Not Just Foresight
Genesis 3 contains not
just backward reflection (on why life is hard), but forward projection—a
divine interpretation of what reality has become and what it will entail:
- The serpent will crawl and eat dust all
the days of his life (3:14).
- The woman will have multiplied sorrow and your
desire will be for your husband (3:16).
- The man will eat by toil until you
return to the ground (3:19).
- The Seed of the woman shall bruise
the serpent’s head (3:15)—a future act.
This is not just
wisdom. This is proto-prophecy. Not just reflection. Revelation.
You mentioned that to
call this “prophetic” would require evidence.
With love and care, I
submit: the evidence is the text itself.
5: Who Was Genesis Written For?—Foreground Audience and Canonical Intent
Dear John,
Your most recent note
rightly reminds us to be honest about assumptions—our presuppositions shape how
we approach the text. I want to honour that reminder by testing one of mine in
the open: namely, my conviction that Genesis 1–3 is not merely ancient literature
for an ANE-saturated reader, but retrospective prophetic revelation given by
Moses to covenant Israel, post-Exodus, as part of their divine instruction.
You’re right that the
final shape of the Pentateuch doesn’t explicitly say, “Moses wrote Genesis for
Israel in the wilderness.” But neither is it silent about its own orientation.
1. Genesis Is Not a
Free-Standing Work—It Begins a Unified Scroll
The first word of
Exodus is wə—“and.” Likewise Leviticus begins with wayyiqrāʾ—“and
He called.” Numbers opens, way·daḇ·bêr—“and YHWH spoke.” These are narrative
connectors. They presume continuity, not independence.
The Torah, in its own
structure and form, presents Genesis as theological backstory to covenant
identity—a prologue, not an archive. It is not literature floating in ANE
thought-space. It is the opening act of Israel’s covenantal formation, setting
the backdrop for the giving of the Law and the arrival at the land.
2. “These Are the
Generations…”: Internal Audience Markers
The Hebrew tôlĕdôt
structure in Genesis is not only a literary framework. It is a covenantal
orientation tool. It recasts all cosmic and tribal history into one line
of divine promise, stewardship, and election.
This framing is not
neutral. It points the reader—not back to Sumer, but forward to Sinai.
If Genesis were meant
for Babylonian readers or merely ANE-sympathetic recipients, it would not
include genealogical chains from Adam to Abraham to Jacob to the twelve tribes.
These are not literary ornaments. They are theological breadcrumbs.
They name the
recipients.
3. Moses’ Speech at
the Edge of the Land Frames the Whole Torah
Deuteronomy makes
clear that Moses is speaking to second-generation Israel:
“These are the words
Moses spoke to all Israel across the Jordan in the wilderness…”
—Deut 1:1
“Ask now about the
former days, long before your time…”
—Deut 4:32
Moses consistently
refers to events the people did not witness themselves but must receive by
trust. Genesis is given not as eyewitness documentary but as covenantal
memory—crafted by the prophet as an origin narrative that grounds
Israel’s faith in YHWH alone.
4. Prophetic
Retrospection Is Not Speculative Assumption—It’s the Shape of the Torah
In light of this, what
you describe as “a premise that must be simply posited” is, respectfully, not
an assumption on my part. It’s an inference from the structure, flow, and
voice of the Pentateuch itself.
Just as Moses recounts
creation in Genesis, so he recounts covenant in Exodus, rebellion in Numbers,
and renewal in Deuteronomy. The whole narrative is retrospective prophecy—spoken
not from the dust of Eden, but from the plains of Moab.
This is why I say
Genesis 1–3 must be read not first through the eyes of an ancient scribe
writing wisdom tales, but through the voice of a prophet forming a covenant
people.
It is not ANE
literature primarily—it is SR (Special Revelation), canonically
structured and theologically loaded from the first sentence onward.
6: Sin in Genesis 4 Is the Unfolding of Genesis 3—Not a New Theme
Dear John,
You wrote that you see
no direct connection between the “sin” in Genesis 4 and the events of Genesis
3. May I offer a counter-reading—not polemically, but exegetically?
When Cain is warned
that “sin is crouching at the door, its desire is for you, and you must rule
over it” (Gen 4:7), this is the first appearance of the Hebrew word ḥaṭṭāʾt.
That much is clear.
But this naming
of sin does not mark its origin. It marks its recognition.
As I read it, Genesis
4 is not introducing a new concept. It is naming the rupture already
described in Genesis 3. Here’s why:
1. The Narrative
Flow Presumes Causality
There is no literary
break between Genesis 3 and 4. The same actors, the same language, the same
pattern of desire–taking–judgment–exile repeat.
- In Genesis 3, Eve “sees… takes… gives…”
- In Genesis 4, Cain “rises… strikes…
speaks…”
The structure mirrors
itself.
This isn’t
narrative invention. It’s narrative intensification. The “beast” at the woman’s door in Genesis 3
now crouches at Cain’s. The desire that drew Eve now threatens Cain. The
judgment that came to Adam now looms over Cain.
2. The Thematic
Language of “Desire” and “Rule” Repeats Intentionally
Genesis 3:16 – “Your
desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Genesis 4:7 – “Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
This is not
accidental. These are parallel constructs—two competing relationships of
hierarchy, longing, and dominance.
The text uses the same
syntactic form because it is drawing a thread from the fall to its immediate
outworking.
The “sin” that
crouches is the logical child of the “desire” that preceded it.
3. The Canonical
Arc Confirms the Prophetic Pattern
You rightly
distinguish between literary exegesis and theological overlay. But in Genesis,
the theology is the exegesis.
Genesis 1–11 is not
episodic. It is telescopic—each chapter amplifying and embodying the
theological crisis of the previous one.
- In Genesis 3, disorder is introduced
through disobedient desire.
- In Genesis 4, that disorder metastasizes
into murder.
- In Genesis 6, it saturates every intention
of the human heart.
- In Genesis 8, it remains even after
judgment.
That is not loose
literary theming. It is progressive revelation—a theology of sin
unfolding within the story before the word sin is ever used.
4. The Naming of
Sin in Genesis 4 Echoes the Pattern of Genesis 1
Just as Adam named the
creatures, just as Eve named Cain and later Seth, the author of Genesis names
sin in 4:7.
But naming in Genesis
does not create a reality—it reveals what was already true.
Genesis 4 reveals: the
“sin” now crouching began with the desire and disobedience in Eden. It has
grown. It now takes form. And soon it will speak in the blood of Abel from the
ground.
This is why I cannot
see Genesis 4 as a self-contained narrative. It is Genesis 3 in seed now
bearing fruit.
To read 4:7 as
unrelated to 3:1–24 is, I believe, to miss the pattern the author has so
carefully woven.
7: Genesis 1–3 as Prophetic Revelation—Genre, Function, and Speech-Act
Dear John,
I appreciate deeply
your caution against over-applying categories like “prophecy” to texts that do
not clearly bear that form. You wrote:
“Prophecy is a
speech-act and I do not see any literary indications that would lead me to the
conclusion that it is the speech-act of Genesis.”
This is helpful and
clarifying. But if I may, I believe it is a definitional narrowing of prophecy
that does not quite align with the biblical use of the term, especially in the
Pentateuch itself.
Allow me to explain
why I refer to Genesis 1–3 as prophetic—not merely as a claim of theological
conviction, but as a literary and historical observation grounded in form,
function, and reception.
1. The Former
Prophets Begin in Genesis
The Hebrew canon’s
classification of Genesis as part of the Torah does not isolate it from
prophetic speech. Rather, it locates Genesis within the broader genre of instructional
prophecy—what the Hebrew tradition calls the Former Prophets
(Joshua–Kings), whose primary function was not predictive or ecstatic, but covenantal
exposition of God's acts and intentions in history.
Genesis, as the first
part of the fivefold work of Moses, is not simply “narrative.” It is prophetic
historical narrative, serving a speech-act function within Israel’s
foundational covenantal identity.
Consider:
- The entire Torah, including Genesis, is
read aloud publicly in covenant renewal (Deut 31:9–13).
- Genesis is structured with embedded narrative
oracles—declared judgments, blessings, and genealogies that explain
Israel’s world.
- These speech-acts are retrospective,
not contemporaneous. Moses speaks into Israel’s present by interpreting
the past.
That is precisely what
prophets do.
2. The Use of “Toledot”
in Genesis Signals Authorial Prophetic Intention
Genesis 2:4 introduces
the phrase:
“These are the
generations of the heavens and the earth…”
This toledot
structure frames not just a genealogy, but a narrative explanation of
origins—using past narrative to interpret current covenantal identity.
Each toledot section
provides theological meaning to real-world realities: suffering, enmity, death,
promise, and election.
To use your own
helpful phrase: “Prophecy is a speech-act.”
And the toledot
is a literary speech-act—declaring what happened and why, with divine speech
punctuating human events.
This is not merely
“literary storytelling.” It is covenantal proclamation.
3. Moses’ Prophetic
Vocation Shapes Genesis 1–3
You rightly remind us
not to assume authorial intent. But Genesis is not anonymous folklore. Its
placement within the Torah, its use of YHWH Elohim (a covenantal name),
and its embedded anticipation of covenant motifs all point toward Mosaic
authorship as a prophetic interpreter.
Moses is the one who hears
and declares God’s words. He writes after the Exodus, addressing
second-generation Israel.
The literary
indicators of this are manifold:
- Genesis 1–3 culminates in covenantal
speech and judgment.
- Genesis 4–6 continues this theological
trajectory—sin, evil, judgment, mercy.
- The connection to Exodus through the
repeated use of “YHWH”, “covenant”, and “blessing” is
seamless.
In short: Genesis
functions not just as ANE narrative, but as special revelation—a
divinely authored interpretation of history, embedded within Israel’s prophetic
memory.
4. The Text
Declares the Future—Before the Narrative Unfolds
Genesis 3 contains
forward-leaning oracles that do not describe the past but announce the
future:
- “I will put enmity…” (3:15)
- “He shall bruise your head…”
- “You shall bruise his heel…”
- “You shall bring forth children…”
- “He shall rule over you…”
- “Cursed is the ground because of you…”
- “Dust you are, and to dust you shall
return…”
These are not past
reflections. They are proclamations—addressed to the serpent, the woman,
and the man in turn, each describing a consequence not yet realised in the text
itself.
This is what prophecy
does.
If Genesis 3 is not
prophecy in literary function, then neither are the oracles of Balaam, or the
blessings of Jacob, or the curses of Deuteronomy.
And yet Genesis 3 initiates
the prophetic structure of all that follows.
8: Genesis as Backcast Prophetic Revelation—The Function of Narrative Memory in Torah
Dear John,
Thank you again for
your gracious correspondence. Your distinction between literary-exegetical
method and theological-canonical synthesis is honourable and clear, and I hear
you: you are not denying the value of theology or prophecy—you are simply
seeking to handle the text faithfully within its original literary bounds
before allowing later theology to shape it.
I affirm that
discipline. But I would like to suggest that even within its earliest shaping,
Genesis is already prophetic theological narrative—not because it is
read that way later, but because it was written that way originally.
Let me explain what I
mean by that, using no assumptions—only literary markers within Genesis itself.
1. Genesis Was
Never Intended to Stand Alone
The book of Genesis is
the first volume of a five-part scroll, and its narrative does not
terminate until the final line of Numbers 36:13:
“These are the
commands and the judgments that YHWH commanded through Moses to the Israelites
on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho.”
This is the endpoint
of a single, unified theological drama—from Eden to the edge of Canaan.
Genesis opens with no
article in 1:1—just:
“In beginning,
Elohim created the heavens and the earth.”
(בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת
הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ)
This opening is not
historical reportage—it is liturgical framing, a declaration of divine
authorship that narrates Israel’s cosmic origin.
But the story doesn’t
pause. Genesis 2–4 is joined by sequential “and” constructions (וְ...), linking the acts of creation to the naming of trees, the formation of
man, and the speech of the serpent—all of which proceed into a continuous
storyline with no break in narrative voice.
This same linking
structure continues through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. This is
not a collection of ancient stories. This is prophetic historical theology,
unified by literary seams, covenants, divine speech-acts, and redemptive
memory.
2. Genesis Is Told
from the Plains of Moab
You say that my claim
about Mosaic prophetic intent lacks textual grounding.
But the grounding is
precisely in the contextual frame of Torah:
- Genesis ends with a coffin in Egypt.
- Exodus begins with “and” (וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת)—“And these are the names…”—linking it
grammatically and theologically to Genesis.
- Deuteronomy is Moses’ speech to the
second generation, recapping the entire journey, including the
pre-Sinai narrative.
And at the end of
Numbers, we are told that all of this—from Genesis through Numbers—was given by
the hand of Moses, as divine command.
This is not
speculative. It is narrative frame.
Genesis is not ANE
myth collected in a vacuum. It is a prophetic recounting of creation and
covenant, written by a prophet, for a covenant people, during a prophetic
journey.
3. The Canonical
Form Is the Literary Form
You are entirely right
that later interpretation should not overwrite original meaning. But in the
case of Genesis 1–3, the canonical form is the original form.
That is, Genesis is
not a free-floating Mesopotamian cosmogony reinterpreted by Paul. It is a
covenantal document—shaped as prophetic instruction from the very first
scroll.
To put it differently:
when Paul reads Adam as a type, he is not imposing meaning. He is recognising
meaning. Because Adam was never a generic archetype. He was Israel’s origin
story—a son who fails, a priest who rebels, a man who grasps at divinity.
That is not Pauline
invention. That is Torah.
Genesis 3 introduces enmity,
exile, death, nakedness, curse, and promise—not
as mythic metaphors, but as covenantal realities. The speech-acts in Genesis 3
are not reflections on disorder. They are declarations of consequence, designed
to make Israel understand its own story.
This is what prophets
do. They tell Israel how she came to be.
And Genesis does this
from the very first page.
9: Why Genesis 3 Demands Theological Reading—Before Paul, Before Canon, Within the Text Itself
Dear John,
You’ve noted that
theology—especially canonical theology—is a step that should follow literary
and contextual exegesis, not precede it. You are concerned that reading Paul
back into Genesis flattens the distinct voice of the original narrator. I
honour that concern.
But my grief is not
that you’ve avoided later theology. It’s that you’ve muted the theology
already within Genesis itself.
Let me show what I
mean, purely within the bounds of Genesis 2–6. No New Testament references. No
doctrinal overlays. Only the text.
1. Genesis 2–4 Is
Theologically Constructed
Genesis 2 introduces
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—not as a symbolic motif, but as the
axis of life and death:
“In the day you eat of
it—dying you shall die.” (2:17)
This is prophetic
speech. It declares a divine reality that will unfold as a consequence of
disobedience.
Then, in Genesis 3:
- Eve is deceived by the serpent.
- Adam transgresses the command.
- Their eyes are opened.
- They hide from YHWH Elohim.
- God interrogates, judges, curses, and
promises.
These are not wisdom
reflections. They are legal, moral, relational, and covenantal events.
They match the
theological pattern of sin, judgment, and redemptive promise found in Israel’s
own history. There is a voice, not just a motif.
2. Genesis 4–6
Interprets Genesis 3 Theologically
If Genesis 3 were only
a reflection on wisdom or disorder, the next chapters should treat sin as a new
concept.
But instead:
- Genesis 4 says “sin is crouching at the door,”
personified, active, and ready to rule.
- Genesis 6 describes human inclination as “only evil
continually.”
- Genesis 8 confirms that even after judgment, “the
imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”
These are not just
disorderly social outcomes. They are moral, covenantal categories.
And where are they
rooted?
Not in the cultural
context of Babylon.
In Genesis 3.
The structure is
cumulative, not isolated. Each chapter builds the theological meaning of the
last. Sin is not a word superimposed—it’s a reality described, then named.
3. Genesis 3 as
Theology-in-Narrative
Even within Genesis,
the narrative structure teaches theological truth:
- Disobedience leads to shame (3:7)
- Shame leads to hiding from God’s presence
(3:8)
- God calls out, not to destroy, but to
confront (3:9)
- God pronounces consequences, not
suggestions (3:14–19)
- And God gives a promise—a seed, a
victory, a bruising and a heel.
There is no neutral
way to read this. It is theological through and through.
You have said that
prophecy is a “speech-act.” I agree. And the speech of YHWH in Genesis 3 is not
merely explanatory—it is performative.
YHWH speaks, and
realities unfold.
He curses the ground.
He names the enmity. He establishes death. And he clothes the man and woman.
That is prophetic
action. It carries legal and theological force, just as Moses’ later
speech in Deuteronomy does.
10: The Heart of the Matter — Genesis 3 as Proto-Theology, Not Proto-Philosophy
Dear John,
This leads me gently
but firmly to the heart of my sorrow:
It is not that I wish
to read Paul back into Genesis.
It is that Genesis already breathes the theological air that Paul later,
by the Spirit, simply inhales and articulates.
It is not an
imposition.
It is a reception.
Paul does not invent
the theological implications of Genesis 3.
He receives them.
He listens to what the Spirit already said through Moses.
When Paul says,
“Through one man, sin entered the world, and death through sin” (Rom 5:12), he
is not distorting Genesis 3.
He is hearing Genesis 3 rightly—as it narrates, through prophetic speech
and consequence, the rending of communion, the birth of shame, the corruption
of desire, the exile from life.
Genesis 3 is not
merely a story about disorder.
It is a story about disordered love, disordered trust, disordered
communion—the very fabric that Paul calls hamartia (sin).
Not an Inference—A
Manifest Reading
This is not a
theological leap.
It is a theological listening.
The canon, beginning
with Genesis 4–6, continues to unfold what Genesis 3 seeded:
- Alienation deepens.
- Violence multiplies.
- Sin reigns.
- Death reigns.
And the need for a
Redeemer—the promised Seed—becomes the silent drumbeat of history.
If Genesis 3 were
simply about the messiness of life, there would be no Seed promise.
There would be no enmity spoken by God.
There would be no curse to be lifted.
There would be only adaptation
to disorder, not redemption from death.
Why This Matters
John, this is why my
heart breaks.
Because I hear in your
recent work not a denial of God’s voice, but a silencing of its fullness.
By isolating Genesis 3
from the theology it births within Genesis itself, you have
inadvertently muted the prophetic burden that the text carries long before Paul
ever picks up the melody.
And in so doing, you
risk leaving the Church with anthropology—but without soteriology.
Wisdom—but without hope.
Disorder—but without deliverance.
The story becomes a
description of survival, not a promise of salvation.
But the text itself
cries out for more.
It does not merely
describe a fall into disorder.
It announces exile.
It pronounces enmity.
It prophesies a coming bruising—and a coming victory.
It is not just the
literary context that demands this.
It is the narrative voice.
It is YHWH's voice.
11: A Socratic Invitation
Dear John,
Permit me, with the
deepest reverence, to offer a gentle line of questions—not to trap or to corner,
but to invite:
- If Genesis 4 speaks of sin lying at
the door, when did the door open?
- If Cain must master sin, when did
sin enter the story world of Genesis?
- If violence fills the earth by Genesis 6,
when was its seed planted?
You rightly insist
that Genesis 3 never uses the word sin (ḥaṭṭāʾt).
But neither does Genesis 2 use the word death until the warning is
given.
Neither does Genesis 1 use the word sacred, yet the Sabbath is declared
holy.
The narrative unfolds
its deepest meanings not merely through terms, but through thematic
escalation.
Genesis 3 acts
what Genesis 4 names.
Genesis 3 enacts
what Genesis 6 saturates.
The Spirit-inspired movement
of the text binds them—seamlessly, organically, prophetically.
The story, read as a
living unity, names its own theological burden not by force, but by
fruition.
You taught us to
listen to movement as well as meaning.
The movement here is
unmistakable:
A garden of trust becomes a field of blood.
The Question
Beneath All Questions
Therefore, dear John,
in the spirit of Socratic friendship:
If Moses gave us Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers as one sweeping,
covenantal, prophetic narrative (Torah)—why would the opening chapters of
Genesis be an island unto themselves?
If Moses is the first
great prophet (Deut 34:10)—
If his voice is shaped by encounter with YHWH at Sinai—
If his writings are canonized as prophecy—
Then would it not
follow naturally that the Genesis narrative, even as it uses the literary forms
of its time, carries prophetic intentionality from its first words?
Not genre instead
of prophecy.
But genre in
service of prophecy.
A Proposal
Perhaps we are not so
far apart, dear John.
Perhaps what I am
pleading for is simply this:
That Genesis 1–3 be
read first through the lens of prophetic revelation to Israel,
and only secondarily through the lens of ancient Near Eastern literature.
Not denying the
importance of background.
But prioritising the unique covenantal audience and divine Author.
If the text’s first
recipients stood not in Babylon, but in Moab—
And if they heard Moses speak not myth but covenantal history—
Then surely, the
“order” and “disorder” Genesis describes must be heard as more than
cosmological architecture.
They must be heard as
the rupture of communion.
The birth of sin.
The seedbed of redemption.
In other words:
Genesis 3 does not
merely reflect disorder.
It names the wound that only Christ can heal.
12: An Exhortation — From the Garden
Dear John,
You once wrote that "the
Bible is God's Word for us even if it wasn't written to us."
I still cherish that insight.
It reminds me that we
are not free to reshape the Scriptures to our liking—
nor to shrink their reach to merely human horizons.
The Spirit breathes
the text forward.
The story stretches from Eden to Golgotha.
And so, may I offer a
final gentle prayer for our shared love of Scripture:
That we remember
Genesis is not merely about cosmology, nor anthropology, nor even wisdom alone—
It is about communion lost and sought again.
It is not only a story
of order breached.
It is the first cry of a world longing for its Redeemer.
The voice of YHWH in
the garden, "Where are you?"
is the same voice crying out at the Cross, "It is finished."
The fracture of
Genesis 3 is not simply about disorder.
It is the beginning of exile—
the dawn of enmity—
the seed of hope—
the hidden first notes of the gospel symphony.
To treat it as
anything less is not merely to shift genre.
It is to silence a music older and deeper than the stars.
A Benediction
John,
you have been a faithful steward of God's Word.
You have guarded it against trivialization.
You have magnified the importance of hearing it well.
I am praying that you
will continue that stewardship by letting Genesis 3 speak in its fullest voice:
Not only as ancient
wisdom,
but as prophetic wound and promise.
Not only as literary
reflection,
but as covenantal declaration.
Not only as a mirror
of our chaos,
but as the first whisper of God's greater Order in Christ.
May the Spirit who
inspired Genesis now illuminate it for you anew—
as both the ancient word to Israel,
and the living word to the Church.
The story is not yet
done.
The garden gates are not forever shut.
The Tree of Life still
stands.
And He who is its fruit still calls.
Bless you, dear John.
In gratitude, affection, and enduring prayer,
Joe
Postscript
1. Introduction
This reflection expands on the
correspondence shared with Dr John H. Walton regarding Genesis 1–3 and the
nature of the text as prophetic revelation. It affirms the value of his method
and seeks to gently challenge certain underlying assumptions through exegetical
and theological observation
2. Authorial Intent and Recipient Reception
The Torah as received by Israel is not
written contemporaneously with the events of creation, but as retrospective
history shaped under divine inspiration by Moses. Genesis 1–3 is therefore
prophetic in both content and structure, addressed to a covenant people shaped
by the Exodus.
3. Canonical and Covenantal Context
Genesis 4–50 continues the theological
trajectory of Genesis 3, affirming its foundational role in naming sin,
explaining disorder, and revealing the nature of evil. The opening chapters must
be read not only for their literary structure, but also for their theological
coherence across the canon.
4. Literary and Theological Observations
Close reading of Genesis 2:4–3:24 reveals
narrative patterning, chiastic structure, and embedded prophecy. Key
observations include the parallelism between trees, the naming of Eve, the
prophetic oracle to the serpent, and the theological tension between death and
access to life.
5. The Role of the First Audience
The intended audience is Israel post-Exodus,
receiving these texts in the wilderness as part of a covenantal formation.
While ANE parallels are informative, the primary context of meaning is the
theological and prophetic shaping for God’s people under Moses’ leadership.
6. The Theological Arc from Eden to Egypt
Genesis 1–3 lays the foundation for a
theological arc that culminates in Joseph’s statement in Genesis 50:20 — 'what
you meant for evil, God meant for good.' Sin, evil, death, and exile all begin
in the garden and find their resolution in redemptive history, not merely
literary parallels
7. Toward a Theology of Ontological Evil
Building on this, a wider theological
project is underway exploring how evil is not merely moral disorder but
ontological rebellion — a disruption of divine order. This reading affirms
Genesis 3’s unique role in defining the human problem that Christ alone
resolves.
8. Conclusion
This document is not a rebuttal, but a
humble contribution to the ongoing dialogue about how best to hear Genesis on
its own terms — and on the Spirit’s terms. It invites renewed appreciation for
the prophetic and theological voice of Genesis 3 as foundational for gospel
proclamation.
This reflection was shared privately with Professor Walton, who responded warmly and generously. While we ultimately reached very different conclusions, I remain deeply grateful for his past influence and example, and pray that our shared love for the Scriptures will now bear fruit in surprising new ways, both in my life and his.
No comments:
Post a Comment