BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 61
May, 1994
Copyright 1994, Biblical Horizons
We speak of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The early Church tended to speak of Him as Father, Word, and Spirit. In this short essay, I want to suggest some other ways to think of the Trinity, ways that I have found pastorally helpful in my own life and devotions. (Like Peter’s essay last month, this is "a book I’d write if I had the time to do it justice.")
0. The very real male-chauvinistic character of Greek and Roman culture, which infects Western Civilization, has blinded us to the pervasive feminine imagery about humanity in the Bible.
1. If God is Father, and God is Son, then what is humanity? Humanity is the Daughter. The Bible speaks of us as Daughter Zion, Daughter Jerusalem. It is a mistranslation of the Hebrew construction to read "Daughter of Zion." Zion is the Daughter. Thus, we are the Daughter.
The daughter-imagery in the Bible is wonderfully comforting, for it means that God will love us and protect us with the same kind of ferocious love that a good father has for his daughter.
2. God is Father, and the Second Person of God is God the Brother, while the Third Person is God the Counsellor. I don’t recall ever seeing a discussion of God the Brother, but the Older-brotherhood of the Second Person is clearly revealed in the story of Jacob. Jacob wrestled with Esau in the womb, and with Isaac and Laban in life, but at Peniel he learned that he was really wrestling all along with God the Brother, who had fought with him not to destroy him, but to make him strong enough to enter the land. The story of Jacob and Esau is parallel to the story of Cain and Abel, and reveals to us God the Brother.
Jesus is also the Younger Brother, like Abel and Jacob and Joseph, who replaces and then redeems his wayward older brother.
Thus, we are the younger brother, and even more, we are the younger sister. God the Brother will guard and protect us with all the ferocious, jealous care of an older brother for his little sister.
Because an older brother counsels his sister, I fit the Spirit as Counsellor into this model.
3. God is Father. The Second Person of God is God the Husband, and the Spirit is God the Matchmaker. We, thus, are the Bride. More attention has been paid to this particular Biblical image, of course. We should never speak of the Church as "it," always as "she." Jesus will guard us as any husband does his wife, and He will be very jealous if we give our wifely attentions to some other man, especially to images.
The Spirit is not often remarked as Matchmaker, however, but if we read the book of Esther properly we shall see the Spirit as the Divine Eunuch who prepares Esther for the King. Esther spent six months saturating her skin with oil, to soften it, and six months exposed to incense, so that her skin absorbed the smell and she became a living flower (Esther 2:12). Believe it or not, all the hard things God has put us through are designed to soften us up and make us a fragrant bride for our Husband.
4. If the Second Person is the Word, then the Father is the Author and the Spirit is the Breath, or more accurately, the Music. Any time a word is said out loud, using breath, it has a musical quality to it. We "intone" words when we speak them. Each of our voices has its own unique tone color (timbre), which is how we recognize one another. We speak with all the musical qualities: dynamics (loud and soft), melody (voice rising and falling), rhythm (fast and slow), and harmony (speaking so that the melody of our voice makes sense).
It is such a shame that our worship is spoken instead of sung! We dishonor the Spirit by not taking music more seriously. Humanity, in God’s image, is the singing daughter, sister, bride. Why do we say the Lord’s Prayer when we could sing it? Why do we say the Creed and the Ten Words, when we could sing them? Why do we read the psalms, when we could chant them? Why do we merely say, "The Lord be with you," "And also with you," when we could sing such dialogues?
5. Finally, God is Planner, Doer, and Coordinator, and as such, we are dancers. We are the dancing daughter-sister-bride-singer. We should consider our lives as dances. Our work is a dance. Our play is a dance. All that we do is a dance, a dance with Him.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 61
May, 1994
Copyright 1994, Biblical Horizons
The Second Word forbids acts of ceremonial veneration before manmade objects. When we see God, we will surely bow before Him, and we properly bow before other human beings, which are made by God and in His image. But we are absolutely forbidden to engage in acts of ceremonial veneration, such as bowing, kissing, burning incense and candles, etc., before any manmade object. Such manmade objects include statues, pictures, crosses, altars, bread, wine, and other things made by human hands.
Those who engage in this practice bring upon themselves the curse of God, but this is not immediately apparent. God says that this practice amounts to hating Him, but this is not immediately apparent either. If it really does amount to hating God, however, then we can understand how such a practice subtly corrupts the generations that follow its inception.
God says that He is jealous, and this is marital language. He says that a believer who bows before manmade objects, such as the bread and wine of communion, is committing spiritual adultery. Such a believer "hates" God by despising the wonderful marriage God has offered him or her.
As faith seeks understanding, we are entitled to ask why this is so. Why does God view obeisance before icons, crosses, and the like in such a negative light? How do such actions constitute fornication and adultery? These are valid questions, and I believe that there are good answers to them, but for our purposes we don’t need to go very far into them here. It is enough that God has spoken, and spoken very clearly. If we love Him, we will not involve ourselves with venerating manmade objects.
This sin wrecks our relationship with God, but because our hearts are deceitful, we may not realize what has happened. By bowing before manmade objects, we have set up another god in our hearts, a god we still call by Christian names, but a god that God Himself rejects. The only way we can be sure that our worship is acceptable, and that we are really worshipping the God who is really there, is if we worship as He Himself has taught us.
Such worship is liturgical in the sense that it is a conversation, a dialogue, and is preferably sung rather then merely spoken. Singing puts beauty, life, love, excitement into the conversation. Thus, true liturgical worship is dialogue worship, such as in Lutheranism and Protestant Episcopalianism. Worship that consists of bowing to silent objects is completely anti-liturgical. It is a curious thing that the churches which are considered "liturgical" are often very anti-liturgical. There is nothing liturgical about bowing to the cross when you cross the chancel, or elevating bread and wine and bowing to them, or kissing icons. Such essentially silent acts of homage before manmade objects not only offend God, they are also quintessentially anti-worship, anti-liturgical.
Such pseudo-worship inevitably becomes a matter of mechanics rather than a relationship with God. Even the prayerbook, valuable as it truly is, ceases to be a guide and becomes a law. It was only after the Reformation purged the churches of all thing-veneration that the fact of our having a "personal relationship with God" could come into clear focus. The great anti-liturgical churches (Rome, Orthodoxy, Anglo-Catholicism) train their clergy in the precise performance of ritual acts nowhere taught in the Bible, in the precise observance of days, and in other mechanical things; but such clergy are generally profoundly ignorant of the Bible.
Consequences Over Time
The consequences of sinning against the 2d Word are not immediately apparent. In fact, they take until the third and fourth generation to become apparent. What this means is that if you commit this sin, you will probably not live to see the consequences. You have to obey this law by faith alone. But of course, those who break this law are precisely those who demand something to gaze at, something to look at. Such people have already rejected the demand to worship by faith.
Faithfulness to God, which is here marked by a refusal to engage in the veneration of manmade objects, also has consequences for later generations. In this case, however, the promise is for thousands of generations. In the Bible we can take a look at faith’s consequences to the third and fourth generations in the book of Genesis.
Abraham, we are told, was looking for a city. That city was not yet in existence. In fact, Jerusalem would not be taken for about a thousand years, and the New Jerusalem would not become real in history for another thousand. Thus, Abraham could not live by sight. He had to live by faith in a future reality.
What are the consequences of such faith? Blessings to the third and fourth generations, and beyond. What is interesting, and in a way encouraging, is to consider what a failure Isaac turned out to be. No sooner did Isaac have two sons than he rebelled against God. He rejected the son that God had marked out, and favored Esau. He rejected the son that patiently refused to marry pagan girls, and favored the polygamous Esau, even though Esau’s pagan wives made life miserable for him and Rebekah. He rejected the son who kept the books and built up the sheikdom, and favored the "action hero" son who played in the woods hunting animals all day. And Isaac did this for seventy-seven years! It was only after Rebekah tricked him into obeying God that Isaac finally bowed the knee.
Abraham died while Isaac was in sin. From what Abraham could see, the fruit of his faithfulness was just a sorry, compromised, belly-worshipping man who claimed to serve God but had in fact rebelled against Him. Abraham died without seeing God’s promise come true. He died before seeing the wrestling faith of Jacob in action. He died without seeing Joseph elevated to rule over the whole world.
In other words, friends, if we are faithful, we probably won’t live to see the fruits of it. We must obey God by faith, knowing that He will make good His promise, though probably not in our lifetimes and not before our eyes. Of course, our children may do better than Isaac, or our children may do worse, but God’s promise goes through them all the same.
What this means, for me, is something visionary and powerful. It means that we control the future. The wicked wreck matters for themselves down to the third and fourth generation, assuming that their children do not repent. After the fourth generation, the children of the wicked cease to be historically relevant. The children of the obedient, however, grow in power and historical influence for thousands of generations.
Human history will last for at least 100,000 years, I am confident. One thousand generations is 30,000 years, and the word is plural. Three thousand generations is 90,000 years, but why should the plural only imply three? If Jesus returns before that time, Satan can say, "Well, You said You would show Your mercy to thousands of generations, but You did not do so. You ended history after only a few hundred generations." I don’t believe that Satan will ever say this, however, because when history is finally over, it will indeed be seen that God shows mercy to thousands of generations.
What happens to those who break the 2d Word? After the fourth generation, they cease to be relevant. Consider the Eastern Orthodox Churches and their nations. In the 700s these Churches apostatized into icon worship. I’m sure that God has His people in these churches, and eventually the churches will repent and begin to obey again. But meanwhile, what human and cultural progress has come out of Orthodox nations? None. They made progress in theology and culture for several centuries, but after the year 800–nothing.
Consider the Roman Catholic Churches and their nations. Rome is not as blatantly iconolatrous as is Orthodoxy, but there is still plenty of disobedience to the 2d Word. And since the time of the Protestant Reformation, what cultural or historical progress has been made in Catholic countries? None.
The meaning is clear: After the fourth generation, the disobedient cease to be relevant. They still exist, and their cultures continue to drift along, but without progress and with all kinds of conflict. It is only as Protestant ideas come into Catholic and Orthodox settings that any kind of contribution is made, as with the Russian and French novelists of the 19th and 20th centuries respectively: Such writers were thinking in literary, Word-oriented categories, and thus began to break from the idolatry of their own church backgrounds.
So, what do you want for your children? Do you want to be part of history? Do you want to set in motion things that will change history for thousands of years, yea for thousands of generations? If so, then obey God, and in particular, obey the 2d Word.
Take the Long View
The fact that history has such a long stretch ahead has a couple of other implications that I’d like to call attention to. First, it means that we may as well relax about things as they are now. We advocate the Biblical reformation of the Church, of worship, and of society. We are dissatisfied and often very unhappy about how things go in the Church. I don’t need to mention anything specifically, since you know the problems in your situation better than I do.
We need to advocate reform. We need to pray for reform. We need to work for reform. But we might as well face that fact that God works over generations of time, and that there are about 100,000 years of history ahead for the human race. It may be 200 years before Christians are willing to obey God and return to chanting the psalms in worship. It may be 50 years before Christians are willing to obey God and serve wine in communion, and let all baptized persons (including children) participate. It may be 20,000 years before there is a Biblically theocratic government in the place you live. But we create that future by being faithful in the here and now, not by opting out, dropping out, starting up our own things, and the like.
So, hey! Relax. So they won’t let your children participate in communion? That’s okay. If you believe in paedo-communion, as I do, then you’ve faithfully advocated what you believe is the Biblical position. You’ve courteously challenged invited the leadership to think about it. They don’t see it yet, but that’s okay. Eventually, their descendants will see the point. And in the meantime, are your children suffering? Well, yes, but no more then you are, and no more than everyone else in today’s church is suffering because of the pervasive laxity. And, by being faithful, you’ve created the conditions that mean God will show mercy to your children, grandchildren, etc.
So you can go ahead and give a full 10% of your income to your church, even though they are going to build another building with it instead of doing what you think would be best. You can go ahead and remain in your semi-dispensational church, if it is the only really alive evangelical church in your town, instead of going out and starting some kind of perfectionistic "home church." It is probably going to take a long time, but if we are faithful now, it will come.
(Of course, if the church goes liberal, or the pastor starts bowing down to the cross, you’d better flee.)
Future and Frontier
This is really a footnote to the essay, but a second implication is that such a long future definitely encourages me to believe in space exploration. One reason I sell the collected short stories of Cordwainer Smith is that Smith, as a devout and extremely well read Christian, had a long, slowly developing view of Christianity and culture in the future. Reading his stories, which span about 20,000 years of time, helps you acquire more of that sense of things. As a Christian I like some science fiction, not because I think the future will be like any SF writers describe it (because it won’t be), but because I like having my sense of future time enlarged. I am, as a believer, a controller of the future.
It’s too bad that our conservative politicians these days are such wimps and pansies. All they are able to do is criticize the socialistic programs of the left. If I were running for office, I’d major on space. I’d advocate using the Peace Dividend to make booster rockets available to industry. I’d be happy for "multi-national corporations" to get out there and get to work. After all, multi-national corporations form a good balance of power with nation states. But sadly, the nation states won’t let industry into space. They have throttled any such attempt. As a result, we have no frontier, no vision, and the nation turns inward toward bread and circuses.
God has created the frontier to keep His future-oriented people moving into new worlds. The frontier is necessary for cultural health. Space is, well, perhaps not the final frontier, but it is a great one for now. A great deal of national healing would take place if industry could move into space in a big way. Of course, for that to happen, the shackles would have to come off of business and industry; but it would be easier to make a case for getting the government off our backs if we had a visionary goal to set before the people.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 6, No. 5
May, 1994
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1994
by James B. Jordan
8. The Table of Nations
If we assume births every two years, and about 30 years between generations (cp. Gen. 11:12-24), we can come up with an approximate series of dates for the generations recorded in Genesis 10. We shall assume that all three of Noah’s sons had their firstborn sons two years after the Flood (cp. Gen. 11:10). See the Table.
9. Abram in Canaan and Egypt
Abram entered Canaan in am 2083. We are not told how long he dwelt in Canaan before his descent into Egypt, but I suggest two years. My reason is almost purely aesthetic and theological: it means that Abram’s exodus from Egypt happened in the third year, as did his separation from Lot. Often in the Bible a preliminary judgment is rendered on the third day or in the third year, and thus it is reasonable to suggest that the same thing happened here. We do read in Genesis 12:4 that Abram was 75 when he left Haran. He spent a little time at Shechem (v. 6). Then he pitched his tent at Bethel (v. 8), a statement that indicates a somewhat longer sojourn. After a time, he moved into the Negev (v. 9). Then there was a famine in the land. Abram moved into Egypt, was celebrated as a sheik, and received many gifts. Then God struck the Egyptians with plagues. All of this indicates to me a time of about 2-3 years.
Now, what is interesting is that if Abram’s exodus from Egypt came in the third year, am 2086, this is 430 years after the Flood. The 430 years of "bondage" in Egypt begin with Abram’s arrival in Canaan, as we have seen, so that there would be a three-year overlap of these two 430-year periods. Since the Hebrews’ migration into Goshen happened exactly in the middle of the 430 years of "bondage in Egypt," it strikes me as aesthetically appropriate to put the fall of the nations at the tower of Babel exactly in the middle of the 430 years from the Flood to Abram’s third year in Canaan. That is why I put the tower of Babel in am 1871. This date for Babel is late enough for Joktan and his clans to be involved, but early enough for the two civilizations of Ur and Egypt to have developed to the point they seem to have at the time of Abram.
If I am correct, then most likely the war of the kings recorded in Genesis 14 happened right after Abram’s exodus from Egypt, as did God’s making covenant with him in Genesis 15 (which followed the war of Genesis 14 immediately). We notice that in Genesis 15 Abram was commanded to slaughter animals that were 3 years old. The death and resurrection of these animals signifies that from that time forth God would tie Abram to the land. This indicates to me that he had been in the land for 3 years.
But the reader should be aware that my suggestion that Abram’s exodus from Egypt happened in the third year of his sojourn in Canaan is somewhat speculative (though I think pretty well grounded in the text and in Biblical theology), and my date for the tower of Babel is purely speculative, though approximately correct.
10. The Chronological Structure of Abraham’s Life
Abraham was born in 2008. He received his call from God to leave Haran at age 75, in 2083 (Gen. 11:32; 12:1; Acts 7:4). After ten years he took Hagar as concubine at age 85 (Gen. 16:3), in 2093. Ishmael was born a year later, when Abraham was 86 (Gen. 16:16), in 2094. Since Abraham lived 175 years, the birth of Ishmael came at the center of his life. We shall discuss the importance of this below.
At the age of 99, Abraham was told to circumcise his household, and was told that Sarah would have a son (Gen. 17:1, 24; 18:10). This was the year 2107, the year Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. The next year, 2108, Isaac was born (Gen. 17:17; 21:5).
Five years later, Isaac was "weaned," meaning that he moved from his mother’s tent to his father’s (or in some other way was presented by Sarah to Abraham). The 400 years of Genesis 15:13 began when Isaac was five years old. This is approximately the time when Isaac was weaned, and when Ishmael was seen laughing by Sarah and was cast out. Ishmael’s mother was an Egyptian, as the text is careful to point out in this context (Gen. 21:9). While there was no direct oppression involved in Ishmael’s simple laughter, yet when we remember that the name Isaac means "he laughs," we can understand Sarah’s fear that Ishmael would be a counterfeit Isaac. Paul in Galatians 4:29 says that this laughter constituted "persecution," in the sense that it detracted from Isaac’s place as heir. Thus, Paul identifies the beginning of the 400 year oppression with the weaning of Isaac. This is the year 2113. Abraham was 105.
Sarah died 32 years later. Sarah was 90 at the birth of Isaac (Gen. 17:17; 21:5). She died at the age of 127 (Gen. 23:1). Therefore, Isaac was 37 when Sarah died, in the year 2145. Abraham was 137.
Abraham died at the age of 175 (Gen. 25:7), in 2183. In the providence of God, Abraham’s life is structured chiastically:
A. Birth in 2008
B. Entrance into land at age 75
C. Birth of Ishmael at age 86
B’.Birth of Isaac at age 100
A’.Death at age 175
If we reflect on this, we see that the land and seed are connected (B). We also see that at the center of Abraham’s life (C) is the production of his own seed, which is not good enough. In a sense, Ishmael is Abraham’s true seed, the seed produced by sinful man (though Ishmael became a believer, Gen. 21:20, cp. 21:22). Only after God’s miracle is the true seed born, the seed of the woman, whose dead womb is miraculously opened.
Interestingly the second half of Abraham’s life is also structured chiastically:
A. Birth of Isaac, Abraham 100
B. Death of Sarah, Abraham 137
A’.Death at age 175
The death of Sarah, followed shortly by Isaac’s marriage, which involves taking Rebekah into Sarah’s tent (Gen. 24:67), moves Abraham off the scene as regards the core of redemptive history. Abraham marries Keturah and has six more sons, but they are not the seed line.
Now, if we look at Acts 7:2-4, we find the Holy Spirit saying that Abram received God’s initial call in Ur, moved to Haran until his father Terah died, and then moved to Canaan. This is, of course, a typological prophecy of Israel’s later exodus from Egypt: wandering in the wilderness (Haran) until the older generation (Terah) dies, and then entering the land. We are not told when Abram made his exodus from Ur and went to Haran, but it was sometime during his first 75 years. Also, at some point in these 75 years he married Sarai. Thus, Abram’s marriage to Sarah and call parallel chiastically the death of Sarah and the removal of his call. We can now put it all together (see the chart).
The Structure of Abraham’s Life
A. Birth of Abraham
B. Marriage to Sarah and call of Abraham (age ?)
C. Sojourn in Haran; God appears and tells him to leave (Gen. 12)
D. Entrance of Abraham into land (age 75)
E. Attack of Pharaoh on Sarah (Gen. 12) (age 76-77?)
F. Abraham re-enters land (Gen. 13) (age 77?)
G. War of the Kings; Lot rescued (Gen. 14) (age 78?)
H. God appears to Abraham (Gen. 15) (age 78?)
I. Birth of Abraham’s son Ishmael (age 86)
H’. God appears to Abraham (Gen. 17) (age 99)
G’. Destruction of Sodom; Lot rescued (Gen. 18) (age 99)
F’. Abraham leaves land (Gen. 20) (age 99)
E’. Attack of Abimelech on Sarah (Gen. 20) (age 99)
D’. Birth of Sarah’s son Isaac (age 100)
C’. Sojourn in Philistine territory; God appears, tells him to leave, return to land, offer Isaac (Gen. 22)
B’. Death of Sarah and removal of Abraham’s call (age 137)
A’. Death of Abraham (age 175)
An Hypothetical Chronology for the Table of Nations
Date Line of Shem Line of Ham Line of Japheth
1656 – Flood
1658 – Arpachshad ben Shem Cush ben Ham Gomer ben Japheth
1660 – Elam ben Shem Mitsrayim ben Ham Magog ben Japheth
1662 – Asshur ben Shem Put ben Ham Madai ben Japheth
1664 – Lud ben Shem Canaan ben Ham Javan ben Japheth
1666 – Aram ben Shem Tubal ben Japheth
1668 – Meshech ben Japheth
1670 – Tiras ben Japheth
—- – Generation gap
1688 – Seba ben Cush Ashkenaz ben Gomer
1690 – Havilah ben Cush Riphath ben Gomer
[Ludim] ben Mitsrayim
1692 – Sabtah ben Cush Togarmah ben Gomer
[Anamim] ben Mitsrayim
1693 – Shelah ben Arpachshad
1694 – Raamah ben Cush Elishah ben Javan
[Lehabim] ben Mitsrayim
Sidon ben Canaan
1696 – Uz ben Aram Sabteca ben Cush Tarshish ben Javan
[Naphtuhim] ben Mitsrayim
Heth ben Canaan
1698 – Hul ben Aram Nimrod ben Cush (?) [Kittim] ben Javan
[Pathrusim] ben Mitsrayim
[Jebusite] ben Canaan
1700 – Gether ben Aram [Casluhim] ben Mitsrayim [Dodanim] ben Javan
[Amorite] ben Canaan
1702 – Mash ben Aram [Caphtorim] ben Mitsrayim
[Girgashite] ben Canaan
1704 – [Hivite] ben Canaan
1706 – [Arkite] ben Canaan
1708 – [Sinite] ben Canaan
1710 – [Arvadite] ben Canaan
1712 – [Zemarite] ben Canaan
1714 – [Hamathite] ben Canaan
Date Line of Shem Line of Ham Line of Japheth
—- – Generation gap
1723 – Eber ben Shelah
1724 – Sheba ben Raamah
1726 – Dedan ben Raamah
1730 – [Philistines] ben [Casluhim]
—- – Generation gap
1757 – Peleg ben Eber
1759 – Joktan ben Eber Nimrod ben … Cush (?)
—- – Generation gap
1787 – Reu ben Peleg
1789 – Almodad ben Jotkan
1791 – Sheleph ben Joktan
1793 – Hazarmaveth ben Joktan
1795 – Jerah ben Joktan
1797 – Hadoram ben Joktan
1799 – Uzal ben Joktan
1801 – Diklah ben Joktan
1803 – Obal ben Joktan
1805 – Abimael ben Joktan
1807 – Sheba ben Joktan
1809 – Ophir ben Joktan
1811 – Havilah ben Joktan
1813 – Jobab ben Joktan
—- – Generation gap
1819 – Serug ben Reu
—- – Generation gap
1849 – Nahor ben Serug
—- – Generation gap
1871? – Tower of Babel
1878 – Terah ben Nahor
OPEN BOOK
Views & Reviews
No. 21 Copyright (c) 1994 Biblical Horizons May, 1994
Words and Glory
by James B. Jordan
Arts and literature reviews in most evangelical Christian publications generally approach their subjects in terms of ideology. We are told whether or not the _lm or book is acceptable in terms of morals, sexual graphicness, and theological accuracy.
While there is de_nitely a place for such reviews, I fear that all too often such an approach simply reinforces the idea that the arts exist only as a surrogate form of communication. We turn the art “object” into words, and then analyze it as information.
While all art is related to words, artistry as such actually exists in another realm, the realm of glory. God Himself is surrounded by glory, which appears often in the Bible as a Chariot-Throne or Glory-Cloud around Him. Ezekiel 1 and Revelation 4-5 give us the most detailed pictures of this, but when we realize that the Tabernacle and Temple are architectural representations of this Glory-Throne environment, we can also see in them revelations of God’s visual, audible, and tangible glory.
When God’s glory appears to people in the Bible, we hear the sound of billions of angels singing, a sound like rushing waters or mighty winds. When this glory appears, we see a rainbow of colors, and the appearance of precious stones and metals. We smell the delightful scents of roast meat and incense. We touch precious cloths. We taste excellent bread and wine. These artistic features enhance the environment around the Godhead, and are not designed simply to communicate ideas.
Along these same lines, notice that the garments of Aaron are called “garments of glory and beauty,” not “garments of symbolism and typology” (Exodus 28:2). They are “holy garments,” and that is their “word-aspect,” but they are also beautiful garments, and that is their “spirit-aspect.”
Theologically we should say that as the Spirit glori_es the Son (the Word of God), so art glori_es words; but as each of us is a little word created in the image of the Divine Word, so art glori_es us as persons, and glori_es human life. Or we could put it this way, to the same e_ect: The Spirit glori_es the Person of the Father, and the Word of the Son. Thus, the arts are related to words and communication, but they are also more generally related to environment and human life. The arts enhance both our persons and our words, both our environments and our communications. But as the Spirit never exists for Himself alone, so there can never be “art for art’s sake.”
We can press this Trinitarian foundation of the arts one step further. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and also from the Word, and never from only one. In human life, glory is produced by a person and by his thoughts. Thus every artistic object made by the image of God has a human dimension of glory and a “word dimension” of content. In the artist’s labor, these are conjoined, but as we experience the artist’s work, we can separate them. We can separate Mapplethorpe’s brilliant photographic techniques from his sometimes-disgusting subject matter and _lthy intentions. We can separate the decent ideas sung about in Christian pop music from its tawdry and inferior musical style. For a true analysis, we must take both aspects into consideration.
Glorifications Versus Debasement
Because of sin, the arts sometimes do not serve to glorify but to debase. Sinful men make their environments ugly, and create ugly art to “enhance” their ugly words. But since all men are still God’s images, no men are able to live with such ugliness all the time. Thus, even in the most debased of human cultures, there is still some beauty.
Also, in view of the sinful and fallen condition of the world, artists who are committed to glory and beauty will sometimes used debased techniques to portray ugliness, in order to reveal some aspect of the human condition.
All of this is to say that when we analyze a piece of art, we must look not only at the content (the “word dimension”) but also at the artistic element. A novel, painting, or piece of music is not to be analyzed as good or evil when it comes to its artistry, but should be analyzed as excellent or poor in terms of its glory. The word-aspect of a piece of art may be good or evil; but the glory-aspect is either excellent or poor. There is no such thing as an evil rhythm, an evil chord progression, an evil smell, or an evil color scheme; but there are certainly poor rhythms, chord progressions, smells, and color schemes.
Realizing this enables us to see why Christians can and should enjoy works of art produced by unbelievers, even when the unbelievers have an evil intention. Unbelievers are still made in God’s image, and in a Christian society they also have the bene_t of the social discipline of the gospel under the mediatorial kingship of Jesus Christ. Thus, an unbeliever with evil intentions, like Wagner, can produce beautiful music that Christians can and should enjoy.
In the Church, the symbolism of architecture focuses on the word-aspect (the table, pulpit, throne, and font) by placing these in the center, but the overall design of the building is also important as a way of enhancing the place of worship. Similarly, vocal music glori_es the words of Scripture, while instrumental music enhances the environment.
When we consider the arts, we must consider not only the words associated with a particular artistic object, custom, or experience, but also the glory and beauty connected with it. Both content and glory are important to God, and both should be important to us as well.
The Bride as Artist
by James B. Jordan
Genesis 2:15 says that the _rst man was commissioned by God to dress and to keep the garden. The garden was located within the land of Eden, which was one among many lands on the earth according to Genesis 2:8-14. The garden was the place where God would meet with the man on the _rst day of the week. Since the man was made on the 6th day, and the next day was the sabbath, the _rst day of man’s week would be the sabbath, the day of the Lord. In the garden were two special “sacramental” trees, and from the garden the waters _owed to water the whole earth. All of these facts serve to show us that the garden was the sanctuary, the place of worship.
In worship, God calls us and renews covenant with us. Our place is to say “amen,” which is to a_rm the primacy of God in all of life. This is what the _rst man, the _rst priest of the _rst sanctuary, was called to do on the _rst day of the week at the center of the world.
The man was told to dress and to keep the garden. Keeping is literally guarding, and dressing is beautifying. The man was to guard and beautify the garden-sanctuary. By extension, he was to guard and beautify the land and the world as well: in other words, his home and his workplace.
The association between guarding and beautifying is important. Contrary to Francis Schae_er’s contention, the arts are seldom prophetic in character. The arts rather tend to reinforce (guard) ideas and customs that are current in society. They reinforce these ideas and customs by beautifying them, with the result that people don’t want to change their customs because they are emotionally attached to them via their artistic enhancement. (Visual arts in particular always re_ect the mindsets of previous generations.)
We see this when we try to change the music in the Church. The gospel-song style of music enhances and reinforces (guards by beautifying) the sentimental theology of 19th and early 20th century soft-evangelicalism. Even when people have improved their theology, they are often artistically attached to these gospel songs and thus are unwilling to enter fully into better theology and practice.
Modern art claims to be prophetic, but it is not. Modern “chaotic” art and music simply dressed and guarded “modern” (early 20th century) ideas, or actually the ideas of Kant several generations earlier. If such artistic expressions were not in tune with culture and custom, the artists would be completely ignored. In the middle part of the 20th century, playwrites like Horton Foote who wrote clean plays about common life were ignored, and composers who wrote pretty music went unheard.
The Importance of the Woman
Now we notice that God said that it was not good for the man to be alone in this task. God determined to make a helper suited to the man (Genesis 2:18). In context, the woman is to help the priest guard and beautify the sanctuary, home, and workplace. Two things we need to notice from this.
First of all, the woman is in the garden. That means that the man is to guard and beautify her. As regards the Church, this means that the Adam is to guard and beautify the Bride, something the _rst Adam failed to do, but which the Last Adam does perfectly. In accordance with this, the o_cers who represent the Last Adam in the Church must be men, who guard and beautify the congregation, which is theologically feminine.
In the home and workplace, it is the man’s task to guard and beautify the woman. We see this in the Song of Solomon. It is the duty of all men everywhere, and it is a duty that has most often been rejected. The history of the world is a history of men exploiting, degrading, and abusing women. We speak of “wife-beating” as if it were something other than assault. If a man assaults another man in the street, it is a crime, but if a man assaults his wife at home, in most cultures it is his “right.” Christianity has reversed this trend to a degree, but there is much left to do. In Christian cultures, it is the women who are adorned in beautiful clothes and jewelry, while in non-Christian cultures the men strut as peacocks.
Second, the women is given to help the man guard and beautify the world, including the world of the sanctuary (worship). As the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) shows, it is particularly as mothers that women become _erce guardians, but the Bible does not restrict their guarding work only to the home. Deaconesses will help the elders guard the holiness of the Church.
But I wish to make another point about the woman as “helper” needed by the man. The arts are not simply a masculine pursuit. The Christian artist needs the feminine perspective if he or she is going to be fruitful. Outside of Christianity, artists tend toward homosexuality, and I believe this is precisely because in their hearts men reject God and His command to take the woman as helper. It has only been in Christian cultures that women have begun to blossom as writers, artists, and musicians–and there is still much progress to be made in this area.
The importance of the woman’s perspective in art must be seen _rst of all in worship. In worship there are three dimensions. First, the Spirit comes alongside the Bride and calls her to become herself. The Spirit and the Bride call others into the Church, and in worship the Spirit leads the Bride to confess sin and become whole, before proceeding further in worship. The Spirit is, so to speak, the Divine Matchmaker who prepares the Bride for the Groom (like the eunuch in Esther 2:10-12 & 3:15–save that the Spirit is not at all powerless!).
Then the Bride is led by the Spirit into dialogue with the Son. In this dialogue, the congregation is feminine before her Lord and Husband. We impoverish the arts of worship if we do not make full use of the contributions of women in this area, because the woman’s intuitions (when renewed by the Spirit) are wonderfully suited to help the men respond to Christ properly in praise and adoration. (Also, in my opinion it is important for women to “vote” in the Church, because they have good instincts when it comes to selecting the men who will represent the Divine Husband to the congregation.)
Finally, united to the Son by marriage and “one _esh” with Him, the congregation participates in the dialogue between the Son and the Father. From this perspective, we are all sons, and here the masculine perspective is needed as a contribution to the art of worship.
What is true of worship must also be true of all of life, as we do God’s will on earth as we have learned to do it in heaven. The beauti_cation of life is every bit as much the woman’s task as it is the man’s, and the man is called upon to appreciate fully the woman’s contribution. Sadly, in the history of the world, perverse de_nitions of manhood and of womanhood have arisen, and these have warped the Church all too often.
The Enoch Factor
by James B. Jordan
After Cain murdered Abel and was driven out of the land of Eden, we read that he had a son whom he named Enoch, and that he founded a city that he also named Enoch (Genesis 4:17). The city, we are told, was named for his son.
This was the _rst city ever built, but it will not be the last. The last city is the New Jerusalem, built by God the Father, and “named” for His Son. As Enoch was prince of the city of Enoch, so Christ is the Prince of the holy city.
The _rst city was built on the blood of a murdered brother. The last city is also built on the blood of a murdered younger brother, the Ultimate Younger Brother, Jesus Christ. Throughout the Bible we see younger brothers replacing older brothers because the older brother is unfaithful: Seth replaced Cain, Isaac replaced Ishmael, Jacob replaced Esau, Joseph replaced his brothers, David replaced his, etc. Jesus was the last Adam, the _nal younger brother, and His death is the foundation for the City of God.
Enoch did not plant a garden and then let it grow into a city. In this he was setting a course di_erent from God’s. If we follow the history of the garden concept in the Bible, we _nd that Abraham and the patriarchs worshipped at oasis-sanctuaries characterized by altars, trees, and wells. Later, these elements were organized into a formal tent-centered sanctuary, the Tabernacle, as a place of worship. Still later, the Tabernacle grew into the Temple, and the Temple is set in a city, Jerusalem. In this way, God grows the city out of the garden. God grows a civilization up from the roots of agriculture.
Enoch started with a city. That means he started with a tyranny. The city becomes a place that conquers and enslaves the “peasants” and “serfs” of the agricultural countryside. Because the tyrant-city has no root it cannot last, but while it lasts it is brutal.
Enoch’s sin was like Adam’s. God had told Adam and Eve that every tree was for them to eat (Genesis 1:29). Thus, they could _gure out that the forbidden tree was only temporarily forbidden. Their sin was that they would not wait for God’s permission. Similarly, Enoch was unwilling to work patiently and grow a city out of a garden. He jumped forward and tried to seize the _nal fruits of generations of labor: the glory of a city.
For a variety of reasons, the heathen often make more rapid initial cultural gains than do the righteous. The heathen are willing to enslave other people to work for them. The heathen don’t take one day in seven to rest. The heathen expend no psychological energy in repentance and striving against sin. Thus, the heathen get there _rst. This is what I call “the Enoch Factor.”
We see the Enoch Factor in Genesis 4. Not only did Cain build the _rst city, but his descendants became “fathers” (experts, teachers) of the sciences of animal husbandry, music, and metallurgy. The _rst poem in the Bible is put on the lips of a descendant of Cain (Genesis 4:20-24).
The Enoch Factor means that very often great advances in technique (not in philosophy) come from pagan sources. Usually the heathen get there _rst, and then the believers come after. Practically speaking, what does this mean?
First, it means that Christians must not be overwhelmed by the technological and artistic prowess of the heathen. In our society today, the best artists and technicians are almost never believers. We know from the Bible, however, that they have no root and will burn out. Our city is built more slowly, but it will endure forever. As history matures, Christianity will more and more become culturally dominant, and more and more we will see Christians “getting there first” in the arts and sciences.
Second, it means that Christians often must learn technique from the heathen. How foolish would it have been for Israelite herdsmen to refuse to manage their animals well, just because it was pagan Jabal who developed many fundamental techniques! And how sad if David had refused to learn music because Jubal got there _rst!
Now think about what this may mean. Often pietistic Christians are critical of their brethren in the arts because artistic Christians rub shoulders with degenerate heathen. Indeed, a Christian artist may have to apprentice himself to a degenerate heathen. Are we mature enough to support our Christian brethren in this?
The arts are very powerful, because art enhances belief by means of emotion. Thus, the Christian who studies with Jubal must be very careful and be sure to keep separate the study of technique from the adoption of a philosophical outlook. Still, greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world, and the Christian is called to take dominion in all areas of life. We can learn from the world, and should be bold to do so.
The proper context for study of the techniques of Enoch is the Church. We need the teaching and sacramental community of a local church as a support base, a garden, the whole time we are studying in the world. Apart from such a context, we run the danger of being sucked in by the philosophy of Enoch.
