CORROBORATING WITNESS—JOHN H. WALTON
CORROBORATING WITNESS
(Cosmic Order, Sacred Space, and Prophetic Accountability)
THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. WALTON
CALLING THE WITNESS
SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls John H. Walton.
(The atmosphere shifts. This witness brings no spectacle—only orientation.)
(The WITNESS is sworn.)
SCOPE AND LIMITS OF TESTIMONY
SPOCK
Professor Walton, you appear before this court as a scholar of the Old Testament and the ancient Near Eastern world.
You are not asked to testify to modern events, supernatural causation, hidden codes, or predictive numerology.
You are not asked to validate theological belief.
You are asked to testify to how Scripture itself communicates meaning—particularly through concepts of order, sacred space, symbolic language, and prophecy as moral accountability.
Do you understand the limits of your testimony?
WITNESS (WALTON)
Yes, Your Honor.
SPOCK
Let the record reflect: this testimony concerns ancient cognitive frameworks, not modern interpretation or application.
Proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
IDENTITY AND METHOD
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and field for the court record.
WITNESS (WALTON)
My name is John H. Walton. I am an Old Testament scholar specializing in the ancient Near Eastern worldview and how the biblical texts functioned within that cultural context.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
In your work, what is the most common mistake modern readers make when approaching Scripture?
WITNESS (WALTON)
They assume the Bible is answering modern questions—especially questions about causation, mechanism, and prediction.
Ancient texts were not written to explain how things happen. They were written to explain what things mean and how order is maintained.
SPOCK
So noted. This court recognizes that ancient texts may operate with different assumptions than modern readers bring to them.
COSMIC ORDER VS. MODERN CAUSATION
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How did ancient Israelites understand the world differently from modern Western readers?
WITNESS (WALTON)
Ancient people were primarily concerned with order, not mechanism.
They asked questions like:
Is the world functioning as it should?
Are roles being fulfilled?
Is justice being upheld?
Is chaos being restrained?
They were far less concerned with what caused an event and far more concerned with whether the event represented a breakdown of moral or cosmic order.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So when Scripture speaks of catastrophe, violence, or judgment—
WITNESS (WALTON)
—it is usually addressing disorder, not explaining physics or fate.
Violence, injustice, and corruption are forms of chaos.
Justice, restraint, and faithfulness represent order.
NUMBER SYMBOLISM — ORDER, NOT CODES
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Much has been made—sometimes irresponsibly—about numbers in Scripture. From your perspective, how do numbers function in the biblical world?
WITNESS (WALTON)
Numbers in Scripture are not secret codes or predictive tools.
They are symbolic markers of order, completeness, or significance.
For example:
Seven signals completeness
Twelve signals covenant community
Forty signals transition or testing
Numbers shape attention. They do not explain causation.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So biblical number symbolism is communicative, not mechanical.
WITNESS (WALTON)
Correct. Numbers tell you how to read a moment, not how to calculate the future.
SPOCK
The court draws a boundary:
Number symbolism is admitted as an ancient communicative convention—not as numerological prediction.
Proceed.
SACRED SPACE AND THE TEMPLE
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
You have written extensively on sacred space. What did the Temple represent in Israel’s worldview?
WITNESS (WALTON)
The Temple represented God’s ordering presence in the world.
It was the place where chaos was restrained and order reaffirmed—ritually, morally, and socially.
Corruption of the Temple was not merely religious failure. It signaled a breakdown in the maintenance of order itself.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So a challenge to the Temple—
WITNESS (WALTON)
—was a charge of disorder.
It was an accusation that leadership had failed in its responsibility to uphold justice, protect the vulnerable, and restrain violence.
“CHILDREN OF GOD” — STATUS AND VULNERABILITY
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The phrase “children of God” appears frequently in Scripture. How would that have been understood?
WITNESS (WALTON)
It is a status designation, not a biological one.
It refers to those under God’s authority and care—often Israel collectively, and often the vulnerable.
Children represent dependence, lack of power, and moral claim upon the community.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So references to children function symbolically?
WITNESS (WALTON)
Yes. They signal innocence, vulnerability, and the responsibility of leaders to protect rather than exploit.
Scripture often uses the suffering of innocents not to explain tragedy—but to indict those who allow disorder to persist.
PROPHECY AS ACCOUNTABILITY, NOT PREDICTION
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How does prophecy function in Scripture?
WITNESS (WALTON)
Prophecy is primarily about accountability.
It is not focused on predicting distant futures, but on confronting present failures.
Prophets speak to leaders and systems that perpetuate injustice, violence, or exploitation.
They call attention to disorder and warn of consequence—not as fate, but as moral inevitability.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So prophecy arrests attention.
WITNESS (WALTON)
Yes. It demands response.
LIMITING INSTRUCTION — WHAT THIS TESTIMONY DOES NOT CLAIM
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
For clarity: are you claiming Scripture explains why tragedies happen?
WITNESS (WALTON)
No.
Scripture explains how communities should respond when disorder appears.
It does not assign blame to victims or reveal hidden causes.
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
And are you validating modern symbolic interpretations?
WITNESS (WALTON)
No. I am explaining how symbolism functioned then, not how it should be applied now.
SPOCK
Let the record reflect:
This testimony establishes ancient meaning structures, not modern conclusions.
Proceed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.
(SATAN rises.)
SYMBOLISM VS. SUBJECTIVITY
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Professor Walton, symbolism is subjective. People see what they want to see.
WITNESS (WALTON)
Only if symbolism is detached from its cultural framework.
In Scripture, symbols are constrained by shared tradition and communal understanding.
They are not infinitely flexible.
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Still—meaning is constructed.
WITNESS (WALTON)
Meaning is recognized within limits, not invented without restraint.
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So you cannot control how later readers apply these ideas.
WITNESS (WALTON)
Correct. But misuse does not invalidate original function.
ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
No further questions.
(SATAN sits.)
JUDICIAL HOLDING
SPOCK
The witness has testified, within strict limits, to the ancient worldview underlying Scripture:
Meaning is communicated through order, role, and function—not mechanism.
Numbers serve symbolic attention, not prediction.
Sacred space represents moral order and accountability.
Prophecy confronts present disorder rather than forecasting distant events.
No claims of supernatural causation, numerology, or modern application have been asserted.
This testimony is admitted for corroborative purposes only.
CLOSING REFLECTION — WALTON’S CONTRIBUTION
The testimony of Professor Walton establishes the following for the record:
Ancient Scripture teaches readers how to recognize disorder—not how to decode fate.
Symbolism is disciplined, not arbitrary.
Innocent suffering indicts power; it does not explain tragedy.
Prophecy calls leaders to account; it does not eliminate human responsibility.
This record does not claim answers.
It clarifies how attention was meant to work.
BENCH OBSERVATION
SPOCK
When meaning is misunderstood, power fills the void with force.
The court reminds the jury:
Understanding how Scripture thinks does not require believing what it claims.
But ignoring how it thinks guarantees misreading what it says.