BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 43
November, 1992
Copyright 1992, Biblical Horizons
I recently had the privilege and pleasure of reading the first draught of Gary North’s Economic Commentary on Leviticus, which will be out some time next year. Gary’s comments on Leviticus 27 were stimulating, and caused me to take another look at the passage. The results, which I sent to him, I now present also to you.
To make much sense of this essay, you will need to have Leviticus 27 in front of you.
This chapter concerns vows and payments made to God. Of particular interest is the first section, which begins, literally, "Anyone who makes a special vow, in estimation (value) of your persons to Yahweh." Then follows the value of the persons dedicated. Recent commentators have assumed that since persons cannot be given to the sanctuary, these values are the equivalent of persons.
That is, I want to give my son to the sanctuary to serve God. But my son is not a Levite or a priest. Thus, to fulfill my vow, I give his value in money. This "desanctifies" my son, fulfilling his vow for him, and removing him from the danger that comes from being too near to God. Only the Levites and priests might get so near to God, for only they were consecrated. For other people, drawing so near was dangerous: God would treat such persons as if they were priests or Levites, and weigh them accordingly. Since they would not be qualified, God would judge them.
Some older commentators suggest another view, which I have come to think is correct. They maintain that in fact laymen could and did serve at the sanctuary. There were lots of "menial" tasks to perform around the Tabernacle and Temple that did not involve drawing near to the holy places and touching the holy things. Thus, there was lots of room for people to dedicate themselves or their family members to sanctuary service. In this view, the values listed in Leviticus 27:3-8 are gifts that should accompany the person being dedicated.
These values are significant amounts of money. Scholars have noted that they come close to the prices that human beings commanded on the slave markets of the ancient world. Thus, the accompanying gifts were roughly the value of the persons themselves. It is this fact that has caused more recent scholars to see the values as substitutionary.
Nothing in the text, however, suggests substitution. Indeed, the word translated "make a special [vow]" in verse 2 ("difficult" in some versions), is used for times when a person vows himself to serve God. In fact, the only other time this verb is used in this form is in Numbers 6:2, where it refers to the Nazirite vow. (Numbers 6 deals with ending the vow, and thus says nothing about how one enters the vow.)
The Nazirite vow could be temporary, as Numbers 6 describes, or permanent, as in the cases of Samson, Samuel, and John the Forerunner. One of the requirements of the Nazirite was that he let his hair grow long. The Song of Deborah begins, literally, "That long locks of hair hung loose in Israel, that the people voluteered, praise Yahweh!" (Judges 5:2). This verse indicates that at least sometimes when men took up arms for holy war, they took the Nazirite vow. Would all these men be so rich as to be able to pay these assigned values? By no means, but Leviticus 27:8 allows the priest to decrease the required payment.
A female who took such a vow, like Jephthah’s daughter, would not be going to war, but would be engaged in some kind of sanctuary service, as she was (Judges 11:31, 39-40).
This passage in Judges gives us another slant on this special vow. Jephthah pledges to offer as an Ascension ("whole burnt sacrifice") the first person to come out of his house (flock and herd animals were not kept in the house). The Ascension Offering pictured the believer’s ascent into heaven to the throne of God, as I have showed in my paper The Whole Burnt Offering: Its Liturgy and Meaning. Jephthah’s daughter ascended to the hill of Yahweh to serve Him.
Returning to the holy war, when we look at Exodus 30:11-16, we see that each time the host of Israel was mustered–not "census," but "muster" is the word in this passage–each man gave half a shekel as a ransom for his soul. He was drawing near to God, to the holy war camp (Dt. 23:9-14; 2 Sam. 11:6-13; Amos 2:11-12–hey! look these verses up and read them, because they make a point essential to this essay), and thus came under a special threat from God. Ransom was needed. The money was given to the sanctuary.
With all this information in place, we can understand much better what is going on in Leviticus 27. Leviticus opens with the Ascension and Tribute Offerings (Lev. 1 & 2). In these offerings, the person offered himself (through an animal substitute) and a tribute (grain) to God. Here at the end of Leviticus, we return full circle to the same idea: Person and tribute are offered to God when a persons enters special service.
Tribute is required whenever we draw near to God. Twice the Torah states, "you will never appear before Me emptyhanded" (Ex. 34:20; Dt. 16:16). The tribute is required, and therefore "ransoms" the person from the penalty attached to not paying the tribute.
One thing that emerges from this study is that when an Israelite was mustered for holy war, he did not necessarily take the Nazirite vow. This muster tax was suficient for his dedication. The Nazirite vow was the "special" vow, and involved an additional, and much more costly tribute. The Nazirite was a "holy warrior extraordinaire." His was a special or "difficult" vow because it was so expensive, both in the tribute required, and in the sacrifices required (see Numbers 6). Only a person to whom God had already given considerable power could become a Nazirite, at least ordinarily.
The Ultimate Nazirite, who had all the power and wealth necessary, was Jesus Christ, who took the vow (not to drink wine) just before His crucifixion (Mt. 26:29). Did Jesus pay money to enter the vow? In a sense yes, for Judas was given 30 shekels of silver for Him (Mt. 26:15), but gave them to the sanctuary (Mt. 27:5). 30 skekels was the price of a slave (Ex. 21:32; Zech. 11:12). Thus, the priests valued Jesus as less than a free man (50 shekels), but in a roundabout way, the Nazirite dedication money was paid during the time when Jesus was under the Nazirite vow.
Let me now provide a brief overview of Leviticus 27 as a whole. The first section concerns the special vow of persons, and any vows of animals (vv. 2-13). The second section concerns dedications to God of houses and lands (vv. 14-22). These are not called vows but "sanctifications." What these two sections have in common is that both are valued in terms of the sanctuary shekel, not in terms of the common or national currency. (Notice that Church and State in Israel maintained two different sets of money, a rather radical cultural separation of the two!) The muster money of Exodus 30:13 had to be offered in the sanctuary shekel, as was the valuation of the Levites (Num. 3:47) and the reparation offering (Lev. 5:15).
The second half of Leviticus 27 also has two sections, dealing with things that are given to God but are not valuated in terms of the sanctuary shekel. The third section of the chapter deals with firstborn animals (vv. 26-27), and the fourth section deals with things that are banned and tithes (vv. 28-33). Banned things are "vowed" (Num. 21:2), and tithes are an imposed vow (Gen. 28:20). Tithes go to the Levites rather than to the sanctuary, so they are not "sanctified" (Num. 18:21-32, contrast the holy things given to the priests, Num. 18:8-20).
Thus, the chapter as a whole has an ABBA structure:
A. Things specially vowed and valuated by the sanctuary shekel.
B. Things sanctified and valuated by the sanctuary shekel.
B’. Firstborn animal may not be sanctified, because it is already Yahweh’s.
A’. Things vowed but not valuated by the sanctuary shekel.
Why is this chapter where it is? Why it is at the end of Leviticus? I think there are two things to bear in mind. First, all the various kinds of vows are brought together here in order to draw together all the discussions in Leviticus. We cannot discuss the sanctification of houses and lands until after we have read the laws of Jubilee in Leviticus 25.
Second, it seems to me that the vows here are great privileges. God allows these people to pay tribute to Him, because He is their King. But the people are sinful and unclean! Only after we have set in motion all the sacrifices and cleansing rituals of Leviticus are we in a position to draw near and offer such vows. Thus, it is fitting that Leviticus end with a discussion of these great privileges.
Those who want to study the passage and master its details will find the following outline helpful. The passage breaks down according to the Hebrew conjunctions, which separate various sections. Here is an outline for study:
I. Things valuated by the sanctuary shekel (vv. 2-25)
A. Vows of men and beasts
ish ki, he who, v. 2, adult male
and if, v. 4, adult female
and if, v. 5, child
and if, v. 6, infant
and if, v. 7, aged person
and if, v. 8, poor person (cp. Lev. 5:7, 11)
and if, v. 9, sacrificial animal
and if, v. 10b, if he exchanges it
and if, v. 11, unclean animal
and if, v. 13, redemption
B. Sanctification of house and land (vv. 14-24)
NOTE: men parallel house, beasts parallel land
ish ki, he who, v. 14, house
if, v. 17, Jubilee
and if, v. 18, after Jubilee
and if, v. 19, redemption
and if, v. 20a, no redemption if not redeemed
and if, v. 20b, no redemption if "sold"
and if, vv. 22-24, dedicates land under lease
Closure of 1 & 2: v. 25, the sanctuary shekel
II. Addenda: Things not valuated by the sanctuary shekel (vv. 26-33)
B’. Firstborn of animals
akh, yet or also, v. 26, sacrificial animals
and if, v. 27a, unclean animals, redemption
and if, v. 27b, unclean animals, sale
A’. Vowed things
1. Banned
akh kol, yet or also all things, v. 28, property
kol, all, v. 29, persons
2. Tithed
vkol, and all, v. 30, tithes of crops
and if, v. 31, redemption
vkol, and all, v. 32, tithes of sacrificial animals
and if, v. 33b, if he exchanges it
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 43
November, 1992
Copyright 1992, Biblical Horizons
The book of Proverbs appears as a largely random collection of aphorisms drawn from experience saturated in law. Despite its random arrangement, however, the book does have an over-arching structure that reinforces its main themes.
One way to gather clues regarding the structure of a biblical book (or any book) is to look at the beginning and end. Genesis begins with a command to Adam to rule the earth, and ends with a new Adam, Joseph, ruling the largest empire of the world. Exodus begins with Israel in slavery and ends with God’s presence descending on the tabernacle; as James Jordan has written, the theme of the book is "From Slavery to Sabbath." The cosmic scope of the books of Chronicles is reinforced by the fact that it begins with Adam (creation) and ends with the declaration of Cyrus that the temple would be rebuilt, an anticipation of the eschatological temple of the new creation. The book of Matthew begins with the Jewish genealogy of Jesus, depicts his escalating conflict with and rejection of the Jewish leadership and ends with Jesus commissioning His disciples to spread the gospel to the Gentile nations. Acts begins with Pentecost in Jerusalem and ends with Paul preaching unhindered in Rome.
Applying this procedure to the Proverbs yields some important insights. The first nine chapters are full of references to two women who compete for the prince’s attention and affection. Lady Wisdom is introduced in chapter 1, in the street exhorting the simpletons to abandon their folly and warning them of the consequences if they refuse to hear (1:20-33). Chapter 2 introduces the second woman, the adulteress, Dame Folly (9:13); her ways are the ways of death (2:16-18). She is a loud and boisterous woman who preys on the simple (9:13).
Throughout the early chapters, the father alternately encourages his son to pursue Lady Wisdom (3:13ff.; 4:1-9; 8:1-36; 9:1-6) and warns him about the dangers of following Dame Folly (5:1-23; 6:20-35; 7:6-27; 9:13-18). Wisdom brings life, riches, and honor. Folly bring poverty, shame, and ultimately death; her house is a highway to the grave. The Proverbs begin, then with the son confronted by a choice of two women who are bound up with two divergent destinies.
It should be recalled, too, that the Proverbs are written by a King to a Prince. The book largely consists of the Proverbs of Solomon and King Lemuel (chapter 31), and the king consistently addresses his "son." The dramatic premise of the book of Proverbs is this: A Prince must determine whether Lady Wisdom or Dame Folly will be his princess. The dramatic question, then, is: Whom will he choose? (In teaching this to children, I have suggested that the book of Proverbs is structurally similar to Disney’s version of Hans Christian Andersen’s "The Little Mermaid," in which a prince must choose between the mermaid, who cannot speak so long as she is a normal girl, and the sea witch, who has disguised herself as a desirable young woman.)
The answer to our dramatic question is given in the final chapter of the book, the well-known Proverbs 31. It is no accident that the Proverbs ends with a celebration of the excellent wife. In the drama of Proverbs, the excellent wife is Lady Wisdom from the earlier chapters. Her husband, the Prince, now sits in the gates of the city. The prince has successfully resisted the seductions of the adulteress, Folly. He has chosen well. Together, the Prince and his bride form the royal household.
This structure and these characters are generally analogous to the major structures and characters of the Bible. The first prince, Adam, chose to follow the word of his adulterous wife (2 Cor 11:1-3), and ended up, as the Proverbs say, in Sheol. The Last Adam listened intently to the Word of His Father, and died to win a spotless Bride. Now He praises His bride in the gates; she is an excellent wife.
This may seem a rather whimsical way to summarize the book of Proverbs, but it sheds light on particular proverbs. For example, recognizing the unity of the book of Proverbs will help us to understand the original force of the rescue verses of 24:11-12. Theses verses, of course, have been used to justify the activities of the anti-abortion group, Operation Rescue. They imply, according to the leaders of the movement, that Christians should physically hold back women who are going to abortuaries to kill their babies.
I do not wish to debate the merits of Operation Rescue here. This verse may indeed be applicable to anti-abortion tactics. Suffice it to say that, in the dramatic context of Proverbs, this verse has a different immediate force. The ones "being taken away to death" and "staggering to slaughter" are the fools and simpletons of the early chapters of the book. Throughout those chapters, the simpleton is depicted as one who blissfully follows the adulteress to the grave (2:18-19; 6:33; 7:22-27; 9:18). Proverbs 7:22 says that the fool follows the woman Folly as "an ox goes to the slaughter."
In context of the whole book, then, Proverbs 24:11-12 instruct us to rescue fools and simpletons from the folly and simplicity. The idea is close to that of James 5:20: "he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins." The rescue operation in view in Proverbs 24:11-12 is primarily the rescue of foolish sinners from the highway that leads to the grave.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 4, No. 11
November, 1992
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1992
by James B. Jordan
As we have seen in this series, each time there is a new covenant, there is a break in the year-by-year chronology. At the same time, each time the break is crossed by information provided in the text. Thus, the year-by-year chronology breaks down at the birth of Abraham, but we can figure out when Abraham was born from information contained elsewhere in the Bible. The year-by-year chronology breaks down during the Egyptian Sojourn, but Exodus 12:40-41 and Galatians 3:17 bridge the gap. The year-by-year chronology breaks down after the book of Judges, but 1 Kings 6:1 bridges the gap.
Now, the chronology also breaks down between Malachi and Matthew. The only place the Bible bridges the gap is in Daniel 9:24-27, the "seventy weeks" from Cyrus to Jesus. In the past we have taken up the question of whether the 70 Weeks should be taken as literal years or as a symbolic chronology, and we have opted in these studies to take them literally, thereby bridging the gap.
But exactly how is the gap bridged? There are three possibilities, as I see it. One is that the cutting off of the Messiah after the 69th week refers to the crucifixion, which for now we will put in A.D. 30. The second is that the cutting off takes place in A.D. 67, followed by the 70th week, in the middle of which Jerusalem is destroyed. The third possibility (and I hate to admit this) is that there is a gap (yes, you read that right) between the 69th and 70th weeks.
Well, let’s see what we can do with this.
Daniel 9:24. Seventy sevens [weeks] have been decreed for your people [Israel] and your holy city [Jerusalem], to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy One.
This is an overall statement introducing the details to follow. The seventy sevens are taken to be seventy weeks, and weeks of years, because as we shall see, they clearly are units of years. This prophecy concerns Israel and Jerusalem most pointedly, and in my opinion indicates that all that the Bible prophesies about Israel and Jerusalem comes to pass by A.D. 70. I have defended this thesis at length in Biblical Horizons Nos. 27-29, and if you don’t have a copy of this essay, you can obtain it by sending a donation of $5.00 to Biblical Horizons , Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588.
While the details of the rest of verse 24 are at some points unclear, certainly the coming of the Covenant in its fullness in Christ is what is being spoken of. But the New Covenant arrives in stages. There are two stages that interest us, and that are interpretive possibilities. The first stage is the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement of Christ and the sending of the Holy Spirit in A.D. 30. These events can be seen to finish transgression, to make an end of sin, to atone for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. If anointing the Most Holy refers to Jesus’ baptism, and it probably does, this was also accomplished by A.D. 30. If it refers to Pentecost, the same is true.
But sealing vision and prophet seems to point beyond that date, because what we call the New Testament still had to be written. It was not until just before A.D. 70 that the new writings had been completed. Thus, one might argue that the 70 Weeks carry down to A.D. 70. On the other hand, it can be argued that though there were visions and prophets between 30 and 70, yet the definitive fulfillment of vision and prophecy took place in Christ and was finished by A.D. 30.
Yet, "finishing the transgression and making an end of sin" has reference to Israel and Jerusalem, not to the whole world. It can be argued that Israel’s transgression and sin did not reach their fullness until just before A.D. 70. At that point, the iniquity of the Canaanites was full, and Israel was eliminated from the scene of prophecy and special history.
25. So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, seven sevens and sixty-two sevens; it will be built again, with streets and moat, even in times of distress.
The seven weeks of 49 years we have seen run from Cyrus’s decree to the end of Nehemiah. The fact that these were literally 49 years establishes that the "sevens" or "weeks" of this passage are groups of years. The prophecies concerning Jerusalem’s rebuilding were fulfilled in this period. Then there are 62 more weeks of years, the period "between the testaments" as it is usually and unfortunately called.
26. Then after the 62 sevens, the Messiah [Jesus] will be cut off [excommunicated by the religious rulers of Israel] and have nothing [the cross, Phil. 2:7]; and the people of the Prince [the enthroned Christ] Who is to come will destroy the city [Jerusalem] and the sanctuary [Temple]. And its end will come with a flood [like Noah, like the threats of Deut. 28; like the locust flood of Joel]; even to the end there will be war [the Jewish War of A.D. 66-70]; desolations are determined.
"After the 62 weeks" must mean during the 70th. I have provided the standard interpretation in the text, which is that the cutting off of the Messiah refers to the events of A.D. 30, Jesus’ excommunication and crucifixion. It might be argued, however, that Jesus was cut off and had nothing around the year 66, when Paul supposedly died, if we also believe that there was a great massacre of other Christians also at this time. In that case, it is a kind of "death" of the early Church that is in view. But, and it is a big "but," the Bible says nothing about such a massacre, and does not record the death of Paul.
27a. And He [Messiah the Prince] will confirm a covenant [The Covenant] with the many [the Church] during one week [the 70th week]. But in the middle of the week He will put a stop to sacrifice [peace offerings] and tribute [grain offerings] [by dying on the cross, and thereby ending the sacrificial system].
This is the traditional view, and I am still generally happy with it. The assumption is that Christ confirms the Covenant during His 3-year ministry, and then dies in A.D. 30 in the middle of the 70th week.
But there is an alternative possibility. The fact is that peace offerings and tribute offerings did not stop with the cross. We see Paul going to the Temple and offering sacrifices to fulfill his Nazirite vow in Acts 21:26. Perhaps the confirming of the covenant with Israel is the conversion of the (symbolic) 144,000 Jews as recorded in Revelation 7, what Paul calls the "fullness of Israel coming in" in Romans 11. Perhaps the cessation of sacrifices refers to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.
Still, confirming the covenant is exactly what the gospels show Jesus doing. Thus, I am happier viewing the 70th week as beginning with the baptism of Jesus. Jesus’ work put a definitive and judicial "stop" to the sacrificial system, though His people were free to continue offering memorials until the Temple was actually destroyed.
27b. And on the detestable wing comes one who desolates, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who desolates.
The detestable wing is the polluted garment of the Israelite as priest, most pointedly the garments of the High Priest (Num. 15:37-41). Only Israelites could commit detestable acts, for by definition such acts are priestly. Israel’s sins caused God to desolate His sanctuary and leave it for destruction at the hands of the Romans. Destruction was poured out on the desolators, on apostate Israel. The detestable act, I suggest, is the massacre of the "144,000" converts as recorded in Revelation 14-15, whose blood was poured out upon Jerusalem in Revelation 16, because Jerusalem had drunk their blood (Rev. 17).
Now, traditionally, Daniel 9:27b is seen as happening after the completion of the 70 Weeks. That is, Jesus’ death in the middle of the 70th week ended the sacrificial system, in principle and that is the last thing prophesied as part of the 70 Weeks. What verse 27b predicts is not part of the 70 Weeks, but comes later. This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.
But of course, it is not the only possibility. Possibly, as we have noted, the 70 Weeks go down to A.D. 70. In this case, the events described in verse 27b simply explain the method used by Messiah to put a stop to peace and tribute offerings (v. 27a).
Comments
I lean strongly toward the traditional view. Verse 26 clearly states that the Messiah is cut off after the 62nd (= 69th) week. This refers to A.D. 30. Thus, if the 70 Weeks do indeed include the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, we must put a gap of 36-37 years between the 69th and 70th weeks (30-66 A.D.). The 70th week would be the years 67-73 A.D., with the destruction of the temple in the middle of the week.
A gap is not as unreasonable as it appears, because Acts and the epistles do provide chronological information from A.D. 30 forward. Thus, the gap is filled. The chronology is not actually broken, because the 69 weeks carry us from Cyrus to Christ, Acts takes us up to just before the destruction of Jerusalem, and the first half of the 70th week takes us to A.D. 70. But, Acts does not completely cover this period, and who wants a gap if we can avoid it?
Another corroboration of the traditional view comes from the interesting fact that if we go with it, there are 1000 years between the completion of the Temple and its destruction. The Temple was completed in the year Anno Mundi 3000. The middle of the 70th week came in A.M. 3960. If this was A.D. 30, the Temple was destroyed 1000 years after it was first built. If the middle of the 70th week (A.M. 3960) was when the Temple was destroyed, then we don’t have an even millennium for the Temple.
Of course, the preceding is a tenuous argument, but this whole discussion is tenuous. The only way we can arrive at a proper interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 is to try to compare the whole systems of each alternative interpretation. It is very striking that the Temple was completed in A.M. 3000, and this figure is unassailable. The fact that the traditional view puts the destruction of the Temple, and the end of the first creation, in the year 4000 A.M. is also striking, and should be considered as evidence, though perhaps not very weighty, in favor of the traditional interpretation.
Conclusion
Daniel 9:24-27 bridges the gap between Malachi and Matthew by providing a chronology of 490 years. The period begins with the decree of Cyrus in around A.M. 3474, and ends in A.M. 3964. The death of Christ happened midway through the last seven years, or in A.M. 3960. There is good reason, as we shall see, for making this the same as A.D. 30, in which case the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the year A.M. 4000.
I titled this newsletter Open Book, accent on open, because I want it to complement Biblical Horizons . I originally wanted to call it In Medias Res, a phrase meaning "in the middle of things," and used to refer to stories that open in the middle of the narrative. I had originally intended to introduce and close each essay with an ellipsis ( . . . ), indicating that we are engaged in an ongoing discussion that has not come to an end. I decided that such a scheme was too fanciful, and came up with Open Book instead.
The Openness of Literature
Let’s discuss literature for a moment. There are two ways a story or novel can close. The _rst is called poetic justice. When a story ends with poetic justice, the bad guys are all punished and the good guys are all rewarded. This kind of story is eminently Christian, because at the end of history, the bad guys will be punished and the good guys rewarded. Thus, this kind of story reminds us of a truth we don’t often see in real life. This kind of narrative falls on the rational side of the Christian fence.
The other kind of narrative does not end with poetic justice. There are loose ends. The work is open in a sense. This kind of story is also very Christian because history is open, and because God’s actions in history are mysterious. Often the wicked do escape. Often the righteous su_er. Such narratives fall on the mysterious side of the Christian fence. No better example can be found than the book of Job, for Job at least never _nds out why he su_ered.
Of course, many narratives are not written by Christians at all. The fact that they are narratives, however, betrays the true reality of existence, which only Christianity can account for. History is real; thus, narratives (stories) are possible.
Because Christians are so often sophomoric, however, they tend to reject stories that don’t have poetic justice endings. They see the openness of literature, especially modern literature, as a threat. They want a nice, neat, rationalistic wrapup. The profound artist, however, often wants to portray the openness of life.
I read science _ction, and when I think of an open ending, I think _rst of the very clever end of Jack Vance’s novel Marune: Alastor 933 (Vance is not a Christian, but he is a conservative). Here is the ending, a dialogue between the hero Efraim and his sweetheart:
Efraim looked away down the valley. "So then–what shall we do?"
"I don’t know."
"I don’t know either."
Or I think of the end of the major work of that masterful Christian writer Gene Wolfe, the _ve Urth novels. These novels track the development of the character Severian as he rejects the hideous way of life to which he has been raised and attempts to make a better world. Severian is a Christian _gure, and as he develops, he becomes more and more aware of his sinfulness. At the end of the _fth book, The Urth of the New Sun, Severian has by no means become perfect, and his accomplishments are ambiguous. We leave him at a seashore by the graves of friends, not yet having come to his _nal rest, and still striving to be a decent and good man.
But we don’t have to look only to science _ction to _nd open works. Think of Umberto Eco’s two great novels, The Name of the Rose and Foucault’s Pendulum. In each the story is open at the end. The nihilistic pantheism expressed by Adso of Melk at the end of The Name of the Rose is assuredly not the message of the book. Adso fails to learn that just because we cannot know everything, we can still know many things. At the end of Foucault’s Pendulum, Casaubon is waiting still for "those of little faith" to do what they will do. And time would fail us if we were to discuss Walker Percy’s novels.
The Mystery of Art
Art abstracts from life in order to enhance our understanding and appreciation of life. The arts do not _t the neat boxes set up by ideology, though ideologues try to make them do so. In this essay, I am setting out _ve reasons why the arts are "mysterious."
1. As we have discussed, the arts can be open ended.
2. The arts deal in symbolism and imagery.
3. The arts deal in character and personality.
4. It is di_cult to say what good art is.
5. The arts arise from the subconscious and unconscious depths of the human personality, places not transparent to human understanding, or at least not yet transparent.
So, second, the arts deal in symbolism and imagery, which by their very nature are complements of propositional discourse. We can explain symbols and images by means of propositions, but we cannot exhaust them by doing so. We can say, for instance, that the tabernacle symbolized the cosmos. But it also symbolized the body politic of Israel at that time. It also symbolized the individual human person. And therefore, it typi_ed the New Adam to come, Jesus Christ.
Symbolism, thus, is slippery, and it is o_ensive to the ideological mind. The ideologue wants to treat symbols as codes. And when an ideologue encounters a piece of art, he analyzes it only in terms of whether it "teaches" his own doctrine or not.
When shallow Christian ideologues produce art, it is propagandistic rather than revelatory, message rather than epiphany. Rather than challenging us with the height, length, breadth, and depth of reality, such art communicates a "message," such as "you ought to come forward at a Billy Graham Crusade," or "man is ruining the environment," or "the rapture is near." Any symbolism that may be employed is crude and shallow.
Symbols and images don’t communicate ideas so much as they reveal or distort the nature of reality. They communicate by shaping us. In the _rst chapter of Gene Wolfe’s Urth novels, mentioned above, Sevarian says, "We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, de_ning edges . . . . I did not know that then, but it is a profound mistake to believe that we must know of such things to be in_uenced by them, and in fact to believe so is to believe in the most debased and superstitious kind of magic. The would-be sorcerer alone has faith in the e_cacy of pure knowledge; rational people know that things act of themselves or not at all"–from The Shadow of the Torturer. Making allowances for the fact that this comes in a novel of ideas, and is expressed by an immature character, what is said here is very, very true.
The inability of the rationalistic Christian to squeeze symbolism into his mold leads to the rejection of the arts. Because art cannot be reduced to language, it is mysterious. Art complements language as a second mode of communication, as the Lord’s Supper complements the sermon. Jesus said, "Do this as My memorial," not "Figure this out as My memorial." What is done is artistic, involving ritual, sight, touch, and taste. If the mere reading of the Word can be enhanced by prayer and sermon, so the art of the sacrament can be enhanced and extended in the liturgy.
Ideologues don’t like this, and Christianity has been infected by ideology as this point. I return to Calvinism, for it is my own context. Calvinists don’t think that the Supper will work unless they read the "words of institution." Jesus never commanded that these word be read, only that they be obeyed. Calvinists have substituted reading these words for doing the sacrament, for they don’t do what the words say to do. (They don’t have a second prayer of thanksgiving before serving the wine, and usually they don’t use wine.)
A third mysterious aspect of the arts is that they often deal with or reveal human character and personality. Biblically speaking, living things are the third mode of revelation, along with language and imagery. Just as symbols and images cannot be reduced to language codes, neither can human beings. The great value of reading great literature, such as Shakespeare or Jane Austin, is that it reveals so much about human character and life. It has a humanizing in_uence on us, humanizing in the best sense. It broadens our understanding of the image of God.
We shall explore this point in more detail as we discuss the _fth mysterious aspect of the arts below, which is that the arts arise from the mysterious depths of the human personality. For now we can note that not only can a good artist reveal other persons to us in his or her work, but the revelation of himself can also be edifying or instructive. (Of course, there is art that is just the reverse, but the corruption of a good thing does not obviate its proper use. Just because some people are gluttons does not make all food evil.)
Fourth, the arts are mysterious because it is very di_cult, if not impossible, to say in propositions what good art is. This is why the ideologue reduces the evaluation of art to its "message." Why is Bach better than Amy Grant? Why is Rouault better than the gooey sentimental stained glass windows of early 20th century churches? Why is Gene Wolfe better than Frank Peretti?
It is possible to answer these questions, but it requires training and education to do so. More than this, appreciation of the arts requires exposure and maturity. Have you ever read a description of a _ne wine? "It has a mildly fruity bouquet, with a hint of smoke, chestnut, and apple, etc." When you sip the wine, however, you taste fermented grapes; and after all, none of these _avors are actually in the wine–wine is made from grapes. The variations in _avor are caused by the soil, weather, etc. These other words ("smoke, chestnut, etc.") are merely suggestive. They are an attempt to describe. They are images, symbols.
Thus, the Christian world is full of people who say that what they like is just as good as great art. To say this is to reject the Christian doctrine of growth, maturation, and development toward the excellence of God’s glory. To say that everything is equally glorious–and glory is the criterion of the arts–is to deny history and progress. It is to say that the scrawls of a child are as good as the art of Rembrandt.
Yet, how is Rembrandt better than a child’s scrawl? The answer to that has to do with glory rather than with truth, narrowly conceived, and glory is far more mysterious than truth. God has given us truth, and we know many things. I do not take away at all from the intellectual beauty of systematic theology. But God has also given us glory, and we can indeed say that some sunsets are more glorious than others, some music better than others.
(to be concluded)
Open Book is published occasionally, funds permitting, by Biblical Horizons , P.O. Box 1096, Niceville, Florida 32588-1096. Anyone sending a donation, in any amount, will be placed on the mailing list to receive issues of Open Book as they are published. The content of all essays published in Open Book is Copyrighted, but permission to reprint any essay is freely given provided that the essay is published uncut, and that the name and address of Biblical Horizons is given.
