BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 53
September, 1993
Copyright 1993, Biblical Horizons
(“Observations on the Covenant of Works Doctrine,” concluded)
Now, what does this mean? Are we to believe that Adam was supposed to earn "merits" before God apart from faith? Surely nobody wants to maintain this. The traditional explainers of the covenant of works always try to nuance their theology so as to get around this evil implication. So then, how does Adam’s faith in God differ from ours? And how do the good works that were to flow from his faith differ from ours? That is the question the bipolar covenant theology is trying to answer, but not very felicitously in my opinion.
Consider: Genesis 1 says that God "blessed" Adam and Eve. They did not start in any kind of "neutrality." They started out in the Kingdom. They already had life. They were supposed to mature to glory.
Consider: God freely invited Adam and Eve to the Tree of Life in Genesis 2. Only the Tree of Knowledge was forbidden. Even in the Garden, "life" was a free gift, received by faith alone. What Adam was to "earn," by the "merits" of persevering faith, was glorification.
So, then, what did Jesus do for us? Well, first of all He restored us to our Adamic innocence. Sinless Jesus paid the penalty of death for us. Thus, His innocent righteousness is given to us, and restores us to the position of Adam. This provides us with life, the original free gift that Adam lost.
But Jesus does more. He did not die right after He was baptized. He resisted the Tree of Knowledge (rule) offered by Satan and the Jewish people for three years, and remained faithful to God. He finished the work Adam failed to do, and by persevering faith came to the estate of glorification. He moved from being an Adamic sanctuary priest to being a Melchizedekal priest-king over the world. His perfected righteousness enabled Him to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, and that perfected righteousness (matured righteousness) is also given to us freely. This provides us with glory, the gift Adam was to earn through faithfulness.
So then, it was not "life" that Jesus merited, but glory. God gave Jesus "life" at His conception, and reinforced it at His baptism. Adam was also given life at his creation. Adam was to earn glory by means of persevering faithfulness, not by autonomous works with which he could purchase glory.
Ultimately, then, there is only one covenant in two stages. Adam failed to keep the terms of the Adamic Covenant, and thus never came to the Melchizedekal Covenant; instead he came under the judgment of the Adamic Covenant (death [exile]), and began moving toward the inexorable kingly judgment of the Melchizedekal Covenant (damnation). Jesus, however, kept the Adamic Covenant and was advanced to the kingly glories of the Melchizedekal Covenant.
The One Covenant deformed by sin and death is the "Old Covenant." The One Covenant matured by faithfulness and life is the "New Covenant," which exists in glory.
What I have sketched out here is not, of course, the final word on the subject, but I have found it of help in trying to integrate Biblical material with the concerns of systematic theology.
The Law
The "classical covenant theology" often posits that the Mosaic Covenant was, at least in part, a "republication of the covenant of works." This idea comes from some passages in Paul that we shall inspect below. Before we come to Paul, however, we need to look at Moses.
What does the Law actually say? As it stands, what the Law commands in the way of salvation is exactly what the Gospel commands. When we understand this, we can understand that many people kept the Law blamelessly, and found salvation. "And they were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and judgments of the Lord" (Luke 1:6).
Start at the beginning of the Law: "I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; you shall have no other gods before Me." What does this, the First Word, command? It tells us to put our final faith and trust in the true God, the only God there is, who has redeemed us from bondage to sin, the curse of His wrath. Now, this clearly is exactly what the Gospel commands us to do as well.
Second, the Law provides a series of orders that we are to obey. This is also the teaching of the Gospel. Those who put their trust in God are to obey Him.
But that is not the end. Suppose we sin? The Law says that when we sin, we are to come back to God through the sacrifices that He has instituted. This is exactly what the Gospel says as well: When we sin, we come back to God through the final sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
So, was it possible to be saved by keeping the Law? Certainly, in the full sense of keeping the Law. Those who kept the Law (a) put their trust in God, who had redeemed them, (b) strove to obey Him, and (c) when they sinned, returned to Him through the substitutionary sacrifices.
Thus, what the Law said is simply the preliminary form of what the Gospel says. This is why Paul so often praises the Law.
But why, then, does Paul contrast the Law with faith? There are several possibilities here. First, Paul may be contrasting the Age of the Law with the Age of the Gospel, saying that those who cling to the outward forms of the Law are rejecting Christ, and thus in reality perverting the Law as well. This seems to be Paul’s point in some passages.
Second, Paul may be contrasting the perversion of the Law by the Pharisees and Judaizers, with the true meaning of the Law which is the Gospel. This also seems to be Paul’s point in some passages.
Romans 10
Consider Romans 10:3ff. Paul begins by saying that the Jews, "seeking to establish their own righteousness, did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." In other words, for all their profession of Law-keeping, the Jews actually rejected God’s Law and substituted their own "oral law tradition" for it (which we now have in the form of the Mishnah and the Talmuds).
Verse 4 says that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes. The word "end" here does not mean the cancellation of the Law, but the goal of the Law. The Law starts, as we have seen, by commanding faith in God the Redeemer. Christ is the goal of that command. Any Jew who really kept God’s Law would recognize Jesus.
Verse 5 says, "For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness that is of Law shall live by it." This is a quotation from Leviticus 18:5, where it is God who is speaking: "So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am Yahweh." Paul is here saying that anyone who kept the Law, in the true sense, would find life. The Law states that God grants life freely (I am your Redeemer), and then says that if we continue in faithfulness toward God (no other gods before Me), we shall continue in life, maturing toward Melchizedekal glory.
Now, most English translations render verses 6-7, "But the righteousness of faith speaks thus, `Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?’" (that is, to bring Christ down), or "Who will descend into the abyss?’" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." Because the translations begin this verse with "but," the English reader thinks that Paul is contrasting the faith of verse 6 with the Law of verse 5. This, however, is not what the Greek says. The word mistranslated "but" is not alla, which is a strong adversative, but de, which indicates a continuation of the previous thought. Paul is simply continuing his argument by quoting from the Law (Deuteronomy 30:12-13) to show that the Law always taught faith. He continues this argument in verses 8-9, quoting further from Deuteronomy 30.
So, then, in Romans 10 Paul does not contrast the Law with the Gospel, but shows that they teach the same thing.
Galatians 3
In Galatians 3, Paul’s argument is different. Here he is dealing with Jews and Judaizers who have perverted the true meaning of the Law into Cainitic works-salvation (bribing God, the essence of all false religion). As Moises Silva has pointed out, the Judaizers held that "the inheritance depends on keeping the law." This is what Paul refuses to grant, because the Bible clearly teaches that the inheritance is given on the basis of God’s promise as a free gift. The inheritance is advanced (matured) by faith-full obedience, but it is received initially by faith alone. (See Moises Silva, "Is the Law Against the Promises? The Significance of Galatians 3:21 for Covenant Continuity," in William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, eds., Theonomy: A Reformed Critique [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990], pp. 153-167.)
Let’s go back to Exodus. God states to Moses in Exodus 3-4 and Exodus 6 that He is Yahweh, "The God Who Keeps the Promises Made to the Fathers, so you can trust Me." He initially made the promises as El Shaddai, "The God Who Is All-Powerful, so you can trust Me." Now He is keeping those promises. He saves Israel, all of grace. Then He gives the Law, which commands faith and continued faithfulness.
God gives life freely. Then He calls on us to keep the Law (which commands continued faith), and promises continuance and maturation in life if we do so. The Judaizers (and the Roman Catholics), however, held that we must keep the Law as a way of "meriting the merits of Christ." They were saying that keeping the Law provides initial life. Paul says no.
Paul uses the phrase "works of the law" to describe this perversion of the meaning of the Law. If we try to find initial life through Law-keeping, we shall find the curse of the Law instead because we all fail to keep the Law perfectly (that is, we don’t trust God perfectly). We can paraphrase Galatians 3:10-13 as follows:
10. For as many as try to find initial life through the Law fall under the curse of death, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them." (Dt. 27:26)
11. Now that no one is justified (finds initial life) in the Law before God is evident, for "He who is righteous by faith shall live." (Hab. 2:4)
12. And the Law is not of faith in this sense (the Law does not provide initial life); on the contrary, "He who practices them shall find maturing life in them." (Lev. 18:5)
13. Christ redeemed us from the death that was the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." (Dt. 21:23)
This paraphrase is based on Silva’s suggestions, which I think are very well reasoned. Silva does not put it this way, but I think that if we distinguish between initial life and maturing life, we can easily sort out the meaning of Leviticus 18:5 as Paul quotes it in Galatians 3:12. Leviticus 18:5 says that we will find maturing life by keeping God’s holy Law; it never implied that we find initial life that way, because it was given in the context of the exodus, wherein the people had already been given initial life by God’s free grace.
Paul is contrasting the meaning of "life" in Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5, meanings that the Judaizers were confusing. Habakkuk 2:4 contrasts life-through-faith with pride. Thus, it is clear that Habakkuk 2:4 is speaking of initial life. Leviticus 18:5, however, is spoken by God to people who have already been given initial life. Thus it is speaking of maturing life.
It is absurd to argue that faith-filled Law-keeping can provide initial life. Adam did not even exist before he was given initial life. How could he, then, keep the Law? Initial life is God’s sovereign act apart from any human action, and which is answered by faith alone. God then gives the Law, which commands continued faithfulness and provides maturing life.
The same sequence is seen in salvation. God calls Abram out of death and gives him life, which Abram answers by faith. Then God tells Abram His laws and statutes, which Abram keeps, and which provide Abram with more life, maturing life. Eventually Abraham grows and becomes a man of great influence for good, called "God’s Prince among us" by the God-fearing Hittites (Genesis 23:6). The same sequence can be seen in the Sinaitic Covenant: initial life by God’s action alone, followed by maturing life through faithfulness. And, as Paul points out in Galatians 3, the same sequence can be seen in the succession of the Patriarchal and Sinaitic Covenants, the former focussing on initial life, the latter focussing on maturing life.
Back to Adam
Now let’s go back to Adam and the covenant of works question. Adam was given initial life by God, completely apart from anything he did, since he did not even exist. God then set before Adam the Tree of Life, enjoining him to partake of it. The Tree of Life would have provided Adam with maturing life. After a while, when Adam was ready, God would have given him glorification by admitting him to the temporarily forbidden Tree of Knowledge (which as I have shown elsewhere has to do with investiture with Melchizedekal rule).
The traditional covenant of works doctrine is wrong, then, when it implies that Adam was to earn life through merits. Adam already had life. His faithfulness was a maturation of that life. What Adam was to earn was glory, the reward of persevering faith.
Now, what did God set before Israel? Very much the same thing. God redeemed Israel and gave them life. They were to mature in life through faithfulness, but were not to seize the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge (signified by the dietary laws and other temporary prohibitions). If they remained faithful, they would grow into anticipatory forms of Melchizedekal rule, becoming dominant in the culture of the world (Deuteronomy 28).
(The God-fearing Gentiles ate the forbidden meats. Eating these foods signified Melchizedekal rule over the whole world. Israel was to resist the temptation to assert universal dominion. There are some significant incidents showing Satan tempting Israel to assert Melchizedekal dominion [eat the world-foods], such as 2 Kings 3 and 2 Chronicles 35:20ff. After Jesus was made Melchizedekal priest-king, God’s people in union with Him have universal dominion, signified by eating all foods [Acts 10].)
Each time the One Covenant was republished in the time before Christ, it had the same basic content. Each time, however, no matter how far God’s people progressed through faithfulness, they always fell into sin before coming to glory. Even when God made them kings, the kings did not persevere to the end (see the stories of Saul, David, and Solomon, etc.).
Then the One Covenant was republished to Jesus. He was given initial life. He persevered in maturing life. And He did not fail. Thus, He was given the reward of glorification and became the Melchizedekal priest-king. This began the New Covenant, which is simply the eschatologically mature form of the One Covenant.
In a sense, then, the classical Reformed position is correct. Not only the Mosaic covenant but all the covenants are republications of the original Adamic covenant.
What is new about the New Covenant, or the "covenant of grace" is not that it involves faith, because Adam was to have faith. Rather, what is new is that we now have a Guarantor of the Melchizedekal glory. The content of our faith has advanced, but the psychological action of faith remains the same.
At the same time, however, all the post-Adamic covenants are also pre-publications of the New Covenant, the "covenant of grace." This is because all of them involved trusting not only in God the creator, but in God the re-creator of sinful man.
There are, then, three manifestations of the One Covenant in the Bible. First there is the Adamic Covenant. In this covenant, the Melchizedekal glory is promised but not yet attained. In this covenant, man has not yet sinned.
Second there are the covenants of promise before Christ. In these covenants, the Melchizedekal glory is still promised but not yet attained. In these covenants, however, man has sinned and is saved by faith in God the creator and re-creator.
Third there is the New Covenant in Christ. In this covenant, the Melchizedekal glory has been attained. And in this covenant, man has sinned and is saved by faith in God, faith clarified by the work of Jesus and our trust in it.
A Final Note on the Covenant of Grace
In my opinion, "covenant of grace" is also an unhappy term. The first covenantal relationship between God and man (Adam) was gracious in the sense that God created Adam. Adam did nothing to earn his creation. What the term "covenant of grace" means is that salvation is free, brought about by God’s sovereign act. This is the same as Adam’s initial creation. Thus, both stages of the One Covenant are equally gracious in this sense.
What the term "covenant of grace" means is not just that God is gracious, but that He is gracious to sinners. Thus, "covenant of redemption" would do better as a term. (Sadly, this phrase is reserved for a supposed covenant between the Father and the Son, which is a piece of theological speculation and unnecessary terminological baggage.)
The problem with both of these terms, however, is that neither indicates that our salvation is not mere redemption and restoration, but is also glorification. What the New Covenant provides is not just salvation but also glory, because Jesus has completed the Adamic task and has been given the Tree of Knowledge.
Thus, if we must use terminology that goes beyond the Bible, I suggest "initial covenant" and "completed covenant." All the covenants of the Bible republish the initial covenant. After the fall, all the covenants until Pentecost prepublish the completed covenant. After Pentecost, the New Covenant publishes the completed covenant.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 5, No. 5
September, 1993
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1993
by James B. Jordan
This issue of Biblical Chronology begins a second series of studies. The first series, Vols. I:1–V:4, concerned the chronology of the Bible itself. We saw, first, that the Bible is indeed concerned with chronology, contains much chronological information, and that the chronology in the Bible is complete from creation to the cross. We also dealt in detail with the chronological data in order to uncover precisely what the chronology of the Bible is.
After a break of four months (May-August 1993) we now begin the second series of studies (which is why this September issue is No. 5 of Volume V). In this second series we shall take up particular topics, including (1) erroneous interpretations of Biblical chronology, which is our topic this time, (2) revisionist views of the history of the ancient world, and (3) particular questions of Biblical interpretation that may arise.
If this Biblical Chronology newsletter develops as I hope, we shall have guest essays from time to time. As a working theologian, my own field is Biblical interpretation, not ancient history. I can describe in these newsletters the debates that are underway in the area of revisionist history, but I cannot evaluate them. Thus I hope that we can draw on the labors Christians who are committed to Biblical chronology and who are working in the area of ancient history.
This month we begin an extended review of the book 1994? by Harold Camping (New York: Vantage Press, 1992). In this book the author suggests that Jesus will return in 1994, and bases his argument on Biblical chronology. Mr. Camping’s peculiar views of Biblical chronology were first set forth in book form in his Adam When? A Biblical Solution to the Timetable of Mankind (Oakland, CA: Family Stations, 1974). Camping’s views are sufficiently eccentric that I did not discuss them in the first series of newsletters. I personally know of no scholar who agrees with his view of Genesis 5 & 11, though there may be some.
I’m not in the habit of taking seriously people who try to predict the time of Jesus’ return. I would not take up Camping’s two books now, except for one thing: Mr. Camping is the founder and president of the Family Radio network, which broadcasts worldwide. He speaks on this network and hosts a talk show. As a result, his book 1994? has received very wide promotion and distribution. Mr. Camping is a Calvinistic amillennialist, and his quackodox book has circulated all over the Presbyterian and Reformed world. Most readers of this newsletter live in that world, and so as a service to you I am going to take up this book and Camping’s earlier book in some detail.
Quackodoxy
Quackodoxy exists between orthodoxy and heterodoxy (heresy). Quackodox ideas are ideas that are wrong but are held by people who are orthodox Christians. If a quackodox idea is pushed far enough and hard enough, it becomes a destructive heresy. Generally speaking, though, quackodox ideas simply trouble the church and make headaches for pastors.
Let me illustrate with several examples. One of the most prominent forms of quackodoxy today is the "home everything" movement. It is fine is you want to practice home birth, for instance, but it becomes quackodox when you try to say that home birth is the best, most Biblical way to have a baby, and then try to pressure other people into it. It is fine if you choose not to circumcise your son, but if you start calling circumcision "mutilation" you are getting pretty close to heresy (calling God a mutilator), and if you start pressuring people about it you are definitely quackodox. You choose to home school? Fine, but don’t say that the Bible teaches home schooling as the best way, because the Bible teaches no such thing. You choose not to use birth control and have twenty children? Fine, but don’t say that the Bible teaches against birth control, because in fact the Bible teaches that family planning is an aspect of Christian maturity (as are all forms of planning).
The Rushdoony-wing of Christian Reconstructionism has a number of quackodox ideas running around in it. One is their belief that the Sinaitic dietary laws are binding as laws of health for Christians. If you choose not to eat shrimp, that’s fine; but don’t try to say the Bible teaches it, because the Bible clearly teaches that Christians are not under these laws. Another quackodox idea that runs through California Reconstructionism is "Biblical geocentricity." If you believe in a geocentric model of the cosmos, that’s fine; but don’t try to tell me that the Bible teaches it, because it clearly does not.
California Reconstructionists also virtually despise the institutional Church, and in this regard they are close to moving out of quackodoxy into full-blown heterodoxy.
(Bibliographical note: Biblical Horizons ministries makes available balanced discussions of home schooling, birth control, and the dietary laws of Moses. For information write to Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588.)
Now, trying to set the date for Christ’s return is quackodox at best. Jesus Himself said that He did not "know" the day or the hour; only the Father knows (Matthew 24:36). Quackodox interpreters reply that Jesus "knew" the month and year (and so He has put them in the Bible), but just not the day and hour. This kind of interpretation beggars belief! Based on this kind of literalism, we should be chopping off our hands and ripping out our eyes when they offend us (Matthew 5:29-30). Moreover, Acts 1:7 settles the matter: It is not for us to know the times or epochs which the Father has determined. Thus, "day and hour" in Matthew 24:36 is equivalent to "times and epochs" in Acts 1:7–in both cases the Son does not "know" because they are determined by the Father. Those to try to date the second coming have committed the "sin of inadvertency" of claiming to know something Jesus Himself does not know!
(In contrast, the Son knows all about the a.d. 70 destruction of Jerusalem, and reveals a great deal of information about it. This is because it is the Son who, as part of the inauguration of His reign, destroys Jerusalem. The end of the Son’s mediatorial reign will come when the Father decides, and this, in the economy of revelation, the Son does not "know.")
Camping’s 1994? is definitely quackodox. Camping is not a heretic, but an orthodox Christian who has done much fine work in the area of radio over the years. He leaves open the question of the time of Christ’s return by putting a question mark at the end of his title. At the same time, his book is filled with bad exegesis and unsubstantiated typology, and encourages the reader to look to 1994 as the time of Christ’s return. This kind of material is borderline at best.
So why bother with it? In a little over a year from now, this book will be headed for the recycling bin. I see three reasons to take it up. First, this book will be a headache for many pastors for a year, and I’m in a good position to answer it and provide help to these pastors. Second, answering a book like this provides us an opportunity to review in greater detail certain aspects of the chronology of the Bible. And third, as I mentioned in the first series of newsletters, many students of Bible chronology cannot resist the temptation to try and set the date for the second coming, even though Jesus has told us not to (Acts 1:7). Camping’s work is a specimen of this, and thus useful to analyze from that standpoint. (E.W. Faulstich’s weird work is another example. We dealt with Faulstich in the first series of newsletters.)
Genesis 5 & 11
Camping’s view of Genesis 5 & 11 will be our first concern. He sets out his view in Chapters 3-5 of Adam When?, which are reprinted in toto with only minor expansions and deletions in Chapter 8 of 1994? For this reason, I shall refer only to the discussion printed in 1994?
Camping’s position is as follows: The life spans given to the various patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11 are actually calendar periods. The next son in succession was born in the year that the preceding patriarch died, and a new calendar was begun with his birth. This enables him to come up with 6023 years between the creation and the flood, instead of the 1656 years reckoned on the usual and commonsensical method.
Camping is quite open about his motivations. On page i of Adam When? he states that "written history goes without pause back to about 3000 B.C. and, therefore, the flood must have been earlier than that." In other words, traditional Biblical chronology (which would put the flood c. 2275 B.C.) must be in error because ancient history professors have disproved it. To rescue the Bible, Camping has come up with a new scheme that gets him many more years. What he should have done is call into question today’s scholarly myths about the chronology of the ancient near east.
How does Camping come up with his new interpretation? First, he notes that in Genesis 5:3 we are told that Adam begat a son and called his name Seth. Again in 5:28-29 we are told that Lamech begat a son and called his name Noah. Only in these two cases is the phrase "called his name" used. In the other cases in Genesis 5, the text simply says that X begat Y. Second, Camping asserts plausibly that when the phrase "called his name" is used, a literal son is in view. Direct sonship must be the case if the father actually names the next person in the list. Third, in the other cases, however, Camping asserts that an immediate son is not in view. "Mahalalel begat Jared" (v. 15) may only mean that Mahalalel is the ancestor of Jared.
Now, in terms of how the Hebrew language uses the term "beget," Camping is right: Mahalalel might have been Jared’s grandfather, or even great-grandfather. But Camping makes another leap, and asserts that Jared was born the year Mahalalel died. Here is a paraphrase of Genesis 5:15-17 according to Camping’s assertion: "And Mahalalel lived 65 years and begat the ancestor of Jared. And Mahalalel lived 830 years after he begat the ancestor of Jared, and he had sons and daughters. So the epoch of Mahalalel lasted 895 years, and he died."
At the outset we must issue two criticisms of Camping’s position. First of all, and most importantly, it is based on sheer assertion. There is no Biblical evidence to back up Camping’s assertion that when "called his name" is absent from the text, some kind of epoch of years is in view. He provides what he regards as corroborative evidence later on, and we will look at it, but all of it is sheer supposition. There are other, far more plausible reasons why the text does not include the phrase "called his name" in every case. Nothing indicates that a calendar of epochs is in view.
Second, on Camping’s view there is nothing in the text to indicate that each of these epochs follows the preceding one. In other words, Camping asserts that the epoch of Jared begins in the year after the death of Mahalalel. Jared, he asserts, was born in the year Mahalalel died. When Mahalalel was 65, he asserts, Mahalalel begat the ancestor of Jared. But what in the text indicates this? Those who disbelieve in Biblical chronology, such as W. H. Green and B. B. Warfield, make basically the same argument as Camping–that "begat" simply means "is an ancestor of"–but they put gaps between each patriarch (cf. Biblical Chronology II:1 & 2). What in the text indicates that these epochs follow one another without a break? Camping’s only argument for believing this is that there must have been such a chronology in the ancient world, which is a circular argument (pp. 292ff.).
Let me remind you, now, of the simple, traditional view: Mahalalel begat Jared, his real son, at the age of 65. Based on this interpretation, which is actually the literal statement of the text, we can indeed add up the years between creation and the flood. In fact, we cannot avoid doing so, and putting gaps into the chronology is an impossibility. On Camping’s view, however, we have no reason to believe that the Epoch of Jared began the year after the Epoch of Mahalalel ended. On Camping’s view, then, there is no foundation for a chronology of this era, which is sad because a chronology is precisely what he wants to create!
Camping never seems to recognize this problem, but there are a couple of problems with his position that he does recognize. First of all, Genesis 4:26 says that a son was born to Seth and he called his name Enosh. The phrase "called his name" is used for Enosh, so that Enosh was the immediate son of Seth. Accordingly, Camping does not have an Epoch of Seth lasting 912 years. The Epoch of Enosh began when Seth was 105, and was the first of these epochs.
Now this is all well and good, but Camping does not see that Genesis 4:26 hurts his overall interpretive assertion. After all, Genesis 5:6 only says that Seth begat Enosh, with nothing said about naming him. It is only when we bring Genesis 4:26 into the picture that we realized that Seth named Enosh, and thus Enosh is his immediate son. But what if that is the case all the way through? The fact that Seth named Enosh, even though Genesis 5 does not state it that way, would seem to indicate that the rest of the patriarchs of Genesis 5 named their heirs also.
Bear in mind that Genesis 4:26 and 5:6 are in two clearly delineated separate sections of Genesis. The genealogical chronology is in Genesis 5, a section that runs from 5:1 to 6:8. If we just look at the chronological section itself, we would naturally think (on Camping’s assumptions) that there was an Epoch of Seth. In other words, on Camping’s assumptions, the chronology of Genesis 5 is by itself misleading. We have to run over to Genesis 4 to correct it. If Genesis 5 intended to provide the kind of epoch-chronology Camping favors, then we would rightly expect Genesis 5 to tell us that Seth named Enosh, thereby eliminating an Epoch of Seth and providing us the correct chronological data. The fact that Genesis 5 does not include this all-important bit of information shows that Genesis 5 is not setting out the kind of epoch-chronology Camping has hypothesized. Rather, Genesis 5 is to be read in the traditional way, and only the traditional way of reading it makes sense of the entire chapter.
A second problem with Camping’s interpretative hypothesis is found in Genesis 5:32, which says that Noah began Shem, Ham, and Japheth, but says nothing about Noah’s naming them. Yet, as Camping agrees, these clearly were the immediate sons of Noah. Similarly, Genesis 11:26-28 say that Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran, but does not say he named them; yet the text makes it clear that they really were his sons.
Here again, Camping admits that these are exceptions to his rule, but he does not see that these exceptions strongly argue against his rule altogether. In fact, every time the Bible says anything additional about one of these patriarchs, it becomes necessary for Camping to set aside his rule. On Camping’s rule, there should have been an Epoch of Seth before Enosh, an Epoch of Noah before Shem, and an Epoch of Terah before Abram, but the Bible makes it clear that there were no such epochs. On what basis does Camping assert that the other patriarchal life spans were epochs?
(By the way, Camping is almost certainly wrong on p. 271 in saying that Ham was the oldest. Genesis 9:24 says that Ham was the youngest, and Genesis 10:21 does not speak of "Shem the older brother of Japheth," but of "Shem, brother of Japheth the eldest.")
The Meaning of Naming
Now at this point, I need to point out the real meaning of the phrase "he named him" in these chapters. The contrast between "he named him" and those cases that do not mention naming is established by the Bible itself in Genesis 4:1.
To begin with, it is clear that Eve named Cain. The next verse mentions the birth of Abel, but does not say who named him. Genesis 4:25 says that Eve named Seth, and verse 26 says that Seth named Enosh. Genesis 5:3 says that Adam named Seth. The contrast is between whether the mother or the father names the child. What normally happens is that the mother names the child, and the father confirms the name. Thus, Eve named Seth, and then Adam confirmed the name. Since the woman is the mother of the seed, the child’s first relationship is with her, and she names him.
For corroboration that this is in view in Genesis, consider these passages: In Genesis 16:11, God tells Hagar to name her son Ishmael, and in v. 15 Abram confirmed that name. In Genesis 25:25-26 we read that "they" named Esau, and that Jacob "was named," without saying who did the naming. It would seem that Isaac and Rebekah made the decision together. Rachel and Leah named all their own sons and the sons of their respective maids (Gen. 29:31-35; 30:5-13, 18-24). Rachel named her second son Benoni, but Jacob altered his name to Benjamin (Gen. 35:18).
At what point did the father either confirm or alter the name of his son? I suggest that it was at the weaning of the son, a ceremony mentioned in Genesis 21:8-9. On that occasion, Sarah observed Ishmael "isaacing," as the Hebrew literally has it. The question then arose: Who is to be the true Isaac, God’s true laughter? This question of names was settled on that day by Abraham’s driving Ishmael out. By doing so, Abraham confirmed the name at the weaning ceremony. (From a Biblical theological standpoint, this suggestion sheds light on what is happening when God changes a persons name, as Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel. Weaning of some sort seems definitely to be in view in Genesis 32:24-32.)
So then, what is going on in Genesis 5 & 11? Are we to assume that when it says "he named him" that in these cases the father directly named the son, or that he changed the name the mother originally gave him? In all other cases, the mother’s name was confirmed by the father? Not quite. We don’t have enough information to assert such an interpretation.
I believe the reason is this: When attention is called to the father’s naming the child, it is because the name had special significance. "Seth" means "the appointed replacement," pointing to the second Adam to come (Gen. 4:25, and notice the wording of 5:3, which points to the same thing). "Enosh" means "weak man," and this name was Seth’s confession of human frailty, against Adam’s sin. From this time, men began to confess their weakness and worship God instead of defying Him (Gen. 4:26). Lamech named Noah, explaining the name in terms of sabbath comfort and rest, a prophecy of the flood and the new creation (Gen. 5:29).
These are the only three places in the primeval genealogies where naming is made explicit, and in each case it has to do with theology and prophecy. There is absolutely no reason to tie it to a chronological consideration. The other sons were just as immediate, and were named by their mothers and fathers, but their names are not explained as having special significance. As is usually the case, their names do have some significance, but not the special significance attached to Seth, Enosh, and Noah.
As a preliminary conclusion we have to say the following about Camping’s hypothesis. (1) There is absolutely nothing in the text to support his view that these life spans are epochs. Camping has pulled this notion out of thin air. (2) There is plenty of evidence in the text that each of the patriarchs was the son of the preceding patriarch. (3) There are good theological reasons why the naming of some patriarchs is given special notice; Camping’s hypothesis is not needed to explain why the naming is mentioned in some cases and not in others.
(to be continued)
OPEN BOOK
Views & Reviews
No. 17 Copyright (c) 1993 Biblical Horizons September, 1993
Returning to The Village
by James B. Jordan
Matthew White & Ja_er Ali, The O_cial Prisoner Companion (Warner Books, 1988).
Dean Motter, The Prisoner (Graphic Novel) (DC Comics, 1989).
First shown in the United States on CBS television in 1968, The Prisoner has remained one of the most celebrated and remarkable television programs ever produced. The Prisoner was originally conceived as a seven-episode series, each an hour long, dealing allegorically with the free man versus modern mass society. The series was then expanded to the seventeen episodes that now exist. From time to time it is shown by local PBS and independent television stations, and some video stores carry videocassettes for rental.
Actor Patrick McGoohan had complete artistic control over the entire series. He wrote and directed the _nal two episodes, which "reveal" what the series was about. According to those who know him, McGoohan is a devout Roman Catholic Christian (White & Ali, p. 171). He twice rejected o_ers to play James Bond, once before the role was o_ered to Sean Connery and then again when Connery retired, evidently because of his contempt for Bond’s immoral personal character (White & Ali, pp. 123, 181).
In the _rst episode of The Prisoner we see an unnamed British agent resigning from the secret service. He returns home only to be gassed and spirited away to The Village. Where this Village is and who actually runs it we never know. It may be the Soviets; it may be the British; it may be a secret world-ruling conspiracy. It doesn’t matter: The point is that The Village exists to force this ex-agent into conformity with the "world."
The prisoner is given the name "No. 6." In each episode a new No. 2 is brought in to break No. 6, _nd out why he resigned (the answer is simply that he freely chose to do so), and bring him into conformity. We don’t _nd out for certain who No. 1 is until the last episode, though this is hinted at every week. The home of No. 6, from which he is abducted, is shown each week as 1 Buckingham Place (Place). Also note the opening dialogue:
No. 6: Where am I?
No. 2: In The Village.
No. 6: What do you want?
No. 2: In formation. We want in formation. (That is, we want information, but we want you to get "in formation" with society. No individuality allowed.)
No. 6: You won’t get it.
No. 2: By hook or by crook, we will.
No. 6: Who are you?
No. 2: I am the new No. 2.
No. 6: Who is No. 1.
No. 2: You are No. 6. (Or: You are, No. 6!)
No. 6: I am not a number! I am a free man!
No. 2: (uproarious laughter)
White & Ali identify the seven core episodes of the series. A look at these brings out some of the Christian themes that become more explicit in the last episode. In "Dance of the Dead," No. 6 _nds a dead body on the beach, and takes from it a transistor radio. Climbing to the top of the tower, he tunes in just long enough to get the message, "Only through pain can tomorrow be ensured." (Compare Acts 14:22, "Through many tribulations we must enter the Kingdom of God.") The Village overseers sentence him to death for possession of this radio, but he manages to avoid execution.
In "Free for All," we _nd that the pub in The Village serves no alcohol, but in "Checkmate" we _nd that No. 6, before his capture, used to drink at a pub called "Hope and Anchor." There is enough here to see that the radio represents the Bible, alcohol the sacraments, and the "Hope and Anchor" pub the Church. These are forbidden in The Village.
No. 6 has an inner strength that enables him to avoid being pressed into the world’s mold. From time to time, as he says goodbye to someone, No. 6 says "Be seeing you," and shoots the sign of the _sh with his thumb and fore_nger. McGoohan explained this as an ancient Christian greeting (White & Ali, p. 132). Paradoxically, other (bad) characters also use this sign of greeting, showing that things are not always what they seem.
It is in the last episode that we see clearly that the entire series has been allegorical. The issue of who really runs The Village is unimportant, because The Village is the world. At the end, free at last, No. 6 is still "The Prisoner" — these words _ash under him while he drives away "free." Moveover, the last episode, by showing that No. 1 is really the dark side of No. 6, shows that true freedom comes not from wrestling with society but from mastering one’s sinful, ape-like nature. No. 6 is truly free within because he is a moral person, even if he is, like all of us, held captive by The World.
The last temptation put before No. 6 was also put before Jesus Christ: take over and be our ruler. No. 6 almost falls before this temptation, but he successfully resists it. The last episode also symbolically points to love and faith, balancing "hope and anchor" which have already been mentioned. The Beatles’ song "All You Need Is Love" is played throughout much of the last episode, as is the song "Dem Bones, Dem Dry Bones." McGoohan was particularly insistent on "Dem Bones," doubtless because it is only the man resurrected from the dead who can be a true individual and resist The World.
The O_cial Prisoner Companion is chock-full of information about the original television series. White and Ali show that Christian allegorical elements are important in The Prisoner, though they don’t provide a full Christian analysis. All the same, if you are a Prisoner fan, or if the series is going to be broadcast where you are, you will enjoy having this book alongside.
In late 1988 and early 1989, DC Comics issued a set of illustrated stories that present a new Prisoner tale in four chapters (Books A-D), set in the present. These were collected and issued as a graphic novel in late 1989. Written and illustrated by Dean Motter, these were prepared with the advice of the Six of One society, which is a Prisoner appreciation society. Unlike the original television series, where allegory governs all events, here it is the espionage and secret service elements that predominate.
In order for this new Prisoner tale to work, the last television episode had to be ignored. In that last episode, the _nal No. 2 is raised from the dead. He breathes deeply and says, "I feel a new man!" This is clearly symbolic of a new birth. Yet in the DC Comics tale, this No. 2 is haunting The Village seeking revenge.
All the same, the basic themes appear. A young woman resigns from the British secret service. She attempts to circumnavigate the globe in a yacht, but is shipwrecked at The Village, which is in ruins (Prisoner, Book A). There she encounters the old No. 6, who engages in typically cryptic Prisoneresque conversation with her. "There is no love without freedom, and no freedom without love," he tells her. "I am a gardener, concerned about the condition of the garden," he says. As he departs, he gives her the sign of the _sh, "Be seeing you" (Prisoner, Book B).
The new Prisoner tale abounds with references to the television series, and is fun for that reason. The story is so cryptically presented, however, that a good deal of it does not make sense. At the end, we don’t know very much about what’s been going on, or why. Of course, the television series was equally "confusing," viewed simply as a spy story, but in terms of sermon and allegory it made sense.
The Prisoner graphic novel is enjoyable and clever. I enjoyed it, and if you are a Prisoner fan, you will too. Ultimately, however, I think it fails as a sequel, and this is simply because allegories don’t lend themselves to sequels.
The _nal episode of the television series ("Fall Out") has a contradictory ending. Toward the end of the episode, a rocket blasts out of The Village to start a world war and destroy the world. This event had been threatened by the lines from the song: "the monkey chased the weasel; the monkey thought t’was all in fun. Pop goes the weasel!" The monkey face of No. 1, unveiled in the _nal episode, represents the sinful side of humanity. If victorious, the monkey may destroy the world.
Yet, right after the rocket blasts o_ and destroys The Village, No. 6 and his companions arrive in England in a cage, and No. 6 returns to his home, though still a prisoner. (Address: 1 Buckingham Place; he is both prisoner and king.) In this way, the last episode sets before the viewer three alternatives: either destroy the world, continue to live in slavery, or learn to love one another and live in freedom.
Metropolis
reviewed by James B. Jordan
When Fritz Lang’s Metropolis came from Europe to America in the later 1920s, large portions of the _lm were edited out, and some have been lost forever. As much as possible, however, the _lm has now been restored. I’ve seen Metropolis several times, but the new restored version puts a completely di_erent complexion on the _lm, and a more Christian one.
The restored version has been given a "rock-disco" soundtrack. The monotonous mechanical beat of disco music goes rather well with many of the super-science and mechanical scenes in the _lm, but the songs (thankfully there are only a few) really interfere with it. The lyrics manage to miss the point of the scene every time, and of course, rock-disco music is totally incapable of expressing any kind of profound human emotion. The e_ect is to trivialize the profundity of the _lm. This is the price we pay, though, since the man who put up the money to restore Metropolis is the rock musician who wrote the music! (By the way, there are several inferior versions of Metropolis _oating around; you will want to check out and view the Moroder version, which is here reviewed.)
Metropolis is a vast city of the future. Deep underground live the workers, who labor at the machines that keep the city running, while on the tops of the skyscrapers lives the aristocratic (capitalist) elite. Freder, the son of Johann Frederson the Master of Metropolis, visits the underground city, where he is horri_ed at the working conditions of the proletariat. Young Freder takes the place of one of the workers, so that he can learn more about them. He joins the workers in a worship service in the catacombs. Here he meets the prophetess Maria, symbol of the Church. She preaches a sermon about the Tower of Babel, reinterpreting its destruction as a revolution by the workers against the elite. In a vision, above the ruined Tower appear the sarcastic words, "These are the Works of Man, Great and Glorious." Maria counsels the workers to avoid revolution, and await a mediator, because "between the Head and the Hand must come the Heart."
The edited version of Metropolis, which we have always seen before, pretty much leaves the theme here. The answer to the divorce between capitalist and worker is the sentimentality of emotion, represented by Maria and Freder. This, however, was not the message of Lang’s original _lm, as the restored version shows. Because of the clarity of the restored _lm, we are able to see that Maria’s catacomb church is surrounded by basic Christian symbols: cross, _ame, _sh, cherub. The fact that the later trysts between Freder and Maria take place in the Cathedral takes on considerably more importance.
Even more, however, is the restoration of Yoshiwara’s House of Pleasure to the _lm. I don’t recall this whorehouse even showing up at all in the edited version. Now, however, we can see it is as the antithesis of the Church. The evil robot Maria hangs out in the whorehouse, and she is portrayed in a vision as the whore of Babylon riding on the back of the Beast. When Freder takes the place of the worker in the factory, he sends him to his house in the upper city. The worker, however, is seduced to visiting the whorehouse. As a result, he is killed. Thus, there is a picture of the moral choice placed before men: Will Metropolis be New Jerusalem (Church) or Old Babel (Whorehouse)?
Returning to the plot, Johann Frederson, the Master of Metropolis, is concerned about a possible worker’s revolt. He and the evil scientist Rotwang visit the catacombs and see Maria preaching to the workers. Frederson persuades Rotwang to make a robot duplicate of Maria, which he will then use to manipulate the workers to his will.
Rotwang’s laboratory features as a prominent symbol the pentagram, the sign of witchcraft. The pentagram is on each of his doors, and a large one is mounted on the wall right above the robot Maria as she is being made. It is clear that the counterfeit of the Church entails witchcraft and evil science. What Rotwang creates is a "golem," a human being arti_cially created by magic. The golem is a traditional part of Germanic (speci_cally Jewish) folklore: the man-made man who has no soul, and who is thus possessed by the devil. This becomes an important theme in Metropolis. It is now modern science that presumes to take the place of God and create new men, but the result is the creation of monsters. Lang thus deliberately associates the evil side of modern science with the presumptions of Babel and the monstrosities of traditional witchcraft.
The robot or golem Maria takes the true Maria’s place in the catacomb church, but she preaches hate and revolution (which was not Johann Frederson’s intention!). Incited by her, the workers storm the power plant and destroy the machines. The machines they wreck, however, are those that pump the water out of the underground city; and the result is that waters _ood in and destroy their homes. When they realize that their children are all dead, they seize the golem Maria and burn her for witchcraft in front of the cathedral.
Unknown to the mob, however, the true Maria has escaped from Rotwang, and she and Freder have rescued all the children. In the _nal scenes, Rotwang and Freder _ght on the roof of the cathedral, and Rotwang is cast down to his death. At the end, on the steps of the cathedral Maria persuades Freder to be a mediator between the Master of Metropolis and a spokesman for the workers, because "between the Head and the Hands must come the Heart."
Metropolis assumes that there is a real and dire con_ict between the working classes and the rulers and governors of a civilization. The _lm sets up two ways of "resolving" this con_ict, and of dealing with the horrors and su_erings of the proletariat. One way is through the Church, and the other way is through revolution. By the skillful use of antithetical symbolism, Lang directs us to the Church as the proper solution. The love of Freder for Maria is set against Rotwang’s lust for her. Freder’s respect for Maria (the Church) is set against Rotwang’s mere use of her as a means to power (witchcraft). The true Maria (Church) is set against the golem Maria (Whorehouse of Babylon). The self-destructiveness of violent revolution (destroying the children, the future) is set against the redemptive work of the Church (saving the children, and thus the future).
Metropolis also works at the level of allegory. Maria preaches hope in a coming mediator. In a sense, she raises up Freder to be that mediator. Freder shows Christ-like love for su_ering humanity by taking the place of one of the workers, descending to become one of them. Freder’s love for Maria, and his desire to protect her, is Christ’s love for the Church. At the end of the _lm, the battle between Freder and Rotwang on the top of the cathedral (on the heights) reminds us of Christ’s confrontation with Satan, and of Michael’s casting Satan out of heaven. Having been through all these experiences, Freder is ready to act as mediator between worker and aristocrat.
We have to say, of course, that the fundamental problem of history is not the class struggle, nor is it the main function of the Church to be a "heart" mediating between the "heads" and "hands" of society. Given, however, that class warfare, fear, and hatred are very real problems, the message of Metropolis can certainly be appreciated. It is the Church, and not science, witchcraft, and harlotry, which has the true answer.
Metropolis contains only one scene that may concern parents: The golem Maria dances an incomplete strip tease at Yoshiwara’s House of Pleasure. At the fast speed of a silent _lm, this is more ridiculous than sensuous, and was not designed to be o_ensive.
