BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 62
June, 1994
Copyright 1994, Biblical Horizons
This verse is often cited as proof that there was a belief in the resurrection of the body in the Old Testament times. In fact, though, this verse does not teach that. From a Christian standpoint, the resurrection of the body from the grave is clear throughout the Old Testament, and so no such "proof text" as this is necessary. In other words, we do not need to cling to this text in such a way as to fear exploring other alternatives.
There are five possibilities that present themselves here. The first is that this refers to the physical resurrection and judgment of all persons at the end of history. The problem is that this event takes place at the end of the period being described, when Michael delivers Israel and brings the gospel. Thus, the last judgment does not fit the context.
The second is that this refers to the spiritual resurrection of believers. This won’t work because wicked people are also being raised.
A third possibility is to refer this verse to the "life from the dead" resurrection of Romans 11, when a large number of Jews repent and turn to Christ. I believe this event took place before the destruction of Jerusalem and is also portrayed in Revelation 7. (See my essay, "The Future of Israel Reexamined," available from Biblical Horizons .) Here again, however, the resurrection spoken of is spiritual and applies only to the saved.
A fourth possibility is that this refers to the emptying of sheol into heaven when Christ ascended there. This is a concept less familiar to us today, and will be explained below.
And a fifth possibility is that the resurrection here is a national resurrection like the one portrayed in Ezekiel 37. This is the only credible possibility.
The Argument for Ascension
Until Jesus went into heaven, nobody went into heaven. Those who died from Adam to Christ went to sheol, which the New Testament calls hades. The righteous went to Abraham’s Bosom, also called in theology Limbus Patrum, while the wicked went to an uncomfortable place. After Jesus’ death He descended to sheol and sorted the dead. When Jesus ascended into heaven, He emptied Abraham’s bosom and brought all the righteous dead to heaven with Him. The wicked in sheol, however, are not brought up to heaven until the end of time, when they are cast into the lake of fire that is before the throne of God (Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10-15).
It is possible that the first resurrection of Revelation 20:4-6 refers to the ascension of the Old Covenant saints to heaven, to be seated with Christ at the right hand of the Father, and to reign with Him as kings and priests for a thousand years. Meanwhile, the Christ and the Church on earth are binding Satan from deceiving the nations for the same thousand years (Rev. 20:1-2; Matt. 16:18-19). On the basis of Revelation 6:9-11, and the fact that Revelation 20 comes after Revelation 19, my guess is that the ascension of the Old Covenant saints to reign with Christ happened in ad 70, not ad 30.
It is likely that Daniel 12:13 refers to this event. Daniel is told that he will enter into rest and then rise for his alloted portion at the end of the days. In context, the end of the latter days refers to the coming of Christ, for throughout Daniel the prophetic period is the Restoration Era, and that is what "latter days" and "time of the end" refer to.
Thus, possibly the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 refers to this same event. We have to discard this possibility, however, since Revelation 20 says that the wicked in sheol do not rise for their judgment until after the millennium, at the last judgment.
The Argument for National Resurrection
In context, those who sleep in the dust of the earth seem to be parallel to Daniel, who fell into deep sleep with his face to the earth when God appeared to him at the beginning of this vision. Daniel’s resurrection is a type and foreshadowing of the resurrection spoken of here.
The resurrection of verse 2 seems to connect to the evangelistic and teaching ministry spoken of in verse 3; thus, it is some kind of historical resurrection that is spoken of, a resurrectional event in this world, in our history.
The solution to our difficulty is found in Ezekiel 37. There the prophet is told to prophesy to the dead bones of the idolaters scattered all over the mountains of Israel (see Ezekiel 6:5). Ezekiel prophesies and the bones come to life again. This is explained in Ezekiel 37:11 as the national resurrection of Israel after the captivity. The language used by God is very "literal sounding," to wit: "I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves" (vv. 12 & 13). Yet, this graphic language refers to the spiritual resurrection of the nation.
Now clearly, the resurrection of the whole nation does not mean the salvation of each individual. Thus, Daniel 12:2 tells us that in the days of Jesus the nation will undergo a last spiritual resurrection, but some will not be personally regenerated and their resurrection will only be unto destruction.
During His ministry, Jesus raised the nation back to life. He healed the sick, cleansed the unclean, brought dead people back to life, restored the Law, entered the Temple as King, etc. Then, as always, the restored people fell into sin and crucified Him.
This, then, is the most likely interpretation of Daniel 12:2.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 62
June, 1994
Copyright 1994, Biblical Horizons
This essay takes up from the essay "Thousands of Generations," published in Biblical Horizons 61. In that essay we saw that God has promised to show His faithfulness to thousands of generations of those who love Him. If God is going to do this, then human history will have to last for thousands of generations, which means Christ is not coming back for at least 100,000 years or so. (One thousand generations = 30,000 years.)
Now we reflect on the implications of this fact for our understanding of the history of the Church thus far.
What About the Church Fathers?
The true Fathers of the Church are Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John, and the other Fathers in the Bible. These men, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, created the apostolic deposit from which the Church always grows.
The men who came after them, in the first and second and third centuries, are not Church Fathers but Church Babies. This is how we should regard Ignatius, Irenaeus, Basil, the Gregories, and yes, even Augustine. I am not saying that in their personal biographies they were spiritual infants; I imagine they were far more mature in Christ than I am. What I am saying is that in terms of the corporate biography of the Church, they lived in the infant stage and their great accomplishments were only the beginning of that corporate biography. We appreciate what the Holy Spirit did with them, and the theological accomplishments they made, but to say that they understood everything and laid everything out definitively would be grotesque, ludicrous, and idiotic.
We may think that because these men lived right after the apostles, they must have known a lot. Remarkably, this is not the case. Anyone who reads the Bible, climaxing in the New Testament, and then turns to the "apostolic fathers" of the second century, is amazed at how little these men seem to have known. The Epistle of Barnabas, for instance, comments on the laws in Leviticus, but completely misinterprets them, following not Paul but the Jewish Letter of Aristeas. It is clear that there is some significant break in continuity between the apostles and these men. What accounts for this? I can only suggest that the harvest of the first-fruit saints in the years before ad 70, which seems to be spoken of in Revelation 14, created this historical discontinuity. (I’d say the first-fruits Church was the Pentecostal harvest of the third month; we look toward the Tabernacles harvest of the seventh month; note Leviticus 23:22, which comes right after the description of the Pentecostal feast, and may well shed significant light on the problem we have here mentioned.)
Thus, the Church Babies had to start with the Bible and grow from studying it and learning about it. They knew the Bible was true and that Greek philosophy was false, but the first outworking out this problem took several centuries and resulted in the great decisions of the first four great councils. Yet not until Augustine did any of these men see clearly the doctrine of election taught in Paul and the rest of the Bible. The Western Church, following Augustine, was able to make much greater progress in defining the faith against Greek philosophy, while the Greek Church made no further progress and began a decline toward the great apostasy of ad 787 (the so-called Seventh Ecumenical Council).
We ought to be careful, too, in assuming we have a comprehensive picture of the early church. We have a few writings of a few men, many of whom were not pastors and teachers but educated first generation converts from paganism, lay scholars who were engaged in debate. We actually know precious little about church life, preaching, and general Bible knowledge during this period. We would need hundreds of sermons from hundreds of preachers, decade by decade, from all over the Church. We don’t have anything like this. When Eastern Orthodoxy maintains that it preserves the lifestyle and teaching of the early church, it is engaged in a monumental act of self-deception. Nobody preserves that life and nobody can recover it because we don’t have enough information to do so. Returning to the practices of the early church is impossible.
When we see that God’s history will span thousands of generations, we see how silly it is to assume that history ended in the early centuries, everything was settled, and no significant progress remains to be made.
What About Tradition?
A Biblical view of history also greatly relativizes all traditions in the Church. Consider the Rome Myth-mystique. When Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople, that city became the New Rome. When Constantinople fell, the Russians decided that they were the true heirs of Rome and the true preservers of Christianity, and announced that Moscow is the Third and Final Rome. Meanwhile, in the West, the city of Rome maintained that it was the center because the Pope was there. But Charlemagne wanted to be Rome also, and created the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire continued to be a European ideal down to World War I. For Roman Catholics, Rome continues to symbolize the center of the world.
Looking back on all this, we can see that it is really pretty stupid. Where does the Bible even hint that Rome will be the center of anything? There is no Biblical reason to think Peter ever went there; the "Babylon" of 1 Peter 5:13 is Jerusalem. The prophecies of Daniel and Revelation clearly state that the Fourth World Empire was annihilated and removed from the scene when Christ’s Kingdom came in the first century. Rome, in the sense it is discussed in Daniel and Revelation, was annihilated in ad 70. What continues thereafter is no longer part of God’s special historical plan, laid out in Daniel 2 & 7, but is simply one nation among many, no different from China or Great Zimbabwe.
We in America are in a happy position, because Protestant Christianity broke with the Rome Myth, and America became the most consistently Protestant nation. Even here, our forefathers looked to the Roman Republic and Cicero for much of their inspiration and architecture; but American Christianity has not claimed to be a New Rome. We have, at long last, moved past this myth.
When we consider the large future ahead for the world, a future that will continue to be galvanized by the ministry of the Church, it becomes rather silly to posit any tradition as the answer to our problems. Will Anglicanism exist 10,000 years from now? Will there still be icons in the churches in Russia 40,000 years from now? Will Dutch Calvinism exist in ad 20,569? Will anybody be using grape juice in communion in the year 3000? Will anyone besides a few advanced historical scholars know in the year 30,000 that the USA ever existed? Or consider the quackodox fringe groups that claim to be guardians of tradition and that "consecrate" bread and wine and then venerate them: will they still exist in 8000 years? Of course not. From the perspective of a truly long history, what is called "church tradition" is largely a matter of very local and temporary custom.
The changes that have already taken place in the history of the Church are only the beginning. What will happen when China, the Congo, and Paraguay become strong Christian lands? Will they claim to be "new Romes"? How quaint! As the Church grows and transforms in history, learning more and more about the Bible and applying God’s ways more and more in human life, the nationalistic follies of her early days will be more and more seen for what they are.
There are those who say, "Well, there are three ancient churches: Contantinople, Rome, and Canterbury; and so there are three authentic traditions." This is nothing but ethnic racism. It is not even true historically. What about Ethiopia, Armenia, and Gaul?
Or let us ask another question: Will Azerbaijani Christians in the year 8000 use the Anglican Book of Common Prayer? Will they use the 17th century Westminster Confession of Faith in all its culture-bound phraseology? Will they worship with Scottish psalm tunes? Obviously not. All these cultural expressions change; only the Bible remains unchanging.
What is the true Church tradition, then? The true Church tradition is revamped each time significant progress is made in the Church’s understanding, each time there is a paradigm shift or intellectual revolution. In the light of the new paradigm, history is re-understood as the events that lead down to the revolution and new paradigm. History is not some kind of objective recounting of facts. If it were, it would have to include everything the ever happened, and by "everything" I mean everything! History, rather, is the selective recounting of events deemed significant by us who live now. Thus, each time there is a cultural paradigm shift, history is re-considered and events are emphasized that lead to the present crisis and situation. This does not mean, necessarily, that history is being distorted; rather, it means, we hope, that history is being better understood and applied.
Thus, there is no such thing in the abstract as Church tradition. Anyone who seeks merely to preserve the "tradition of the past" winds up distorting it, because those who authored the "tradition" were working out of a far broader paradigm than what wound up in the "tradition." When the next generation tries to deal only with the "tradition," and refuses to entertain anything that might be broader, it perverts that tradition.
I saw this happen in the old Christian Reconstructionist scene. There were young men whose only knowledge of theology came from Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen. They thought, however, that this was all there was to know. They judged everyone and everything in terms of this "tradition." But in fact, of course, Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen were broader than merely what they wrote, knowing a whole lot of things they did not put in their books. These three men were working out of a large paradigm, but their followers, those I’m writing about here, did not have a large paradigm. Their paradigm was exclusively formed from the things contained in the books of Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen. As a result, they grossly distorted the Christian Reconstructionist model that had been established by Rushdoony, North, and Bahnsen. They despised, for instance, pastoral care and counselling, and the reason they had no appreciation for these things is that RN&B did not write about them, so they had not become part of the "tradition." I never new more than a handful of "Reconstructionsts" who fit this description, but the few I knew provided a good illustration of the problem I’m addressing.
The same is true of any traditionalist. Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance, claims to preserve the tradition of the "Church Fathers." In fact, these "Fathers" ("Babies") were much broader, richer, fuller, and much more Biblical in their paradigms than shows up in the few writings we have from them. To isolate these writings and work over them generation after generation produces gross distortions. And actually, "Orthodoxy" fell into idolatry in the 700s, venerating icons in defiance of God’s law, which had never been done in the Church before.
How then do we measure the tradition of the Church? We measure it by the Bible. What God has been teaching the Church is the Bible. The more we learn about the Bible, the better we can sort through "tradition" and see what is wheat and what is chaff. History is real; tradition is real; the guidance of the Spirit is real; but the only way we can understand and appreciate that history, tradition, and guidance, is from the standpoint of the Bible, which is the unchanging foundation.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 6, No. 6
June, 1994
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1994
by James B. Jordan
11. The Life of Abraham
2006 – Noah dies (Gen. 9:29).
2008 – Abram is born of Terah in Ur (Gen. 11:26-32; 12:4; Acts 7:4).
2026 – Reu ben Peleg dies (Gen. 11:20-21).
2042? – Abram and Terah move to Haran (Gen. 11:31-32).
2049 – Serug ben Reu dies (Gen. 11:22-23).
2083 – Terah ben Nahor dies. Abram leaves Haran and enters promised land, settling in Shechem (Gen. 12:1-7). This is the beginning of the 430 years of living under Egyptian dominion. See the discussion of Exodus 12:50 in chapter 15 below.
2084? – Abram moves to Bethel (Gen. 12:8).
2085? – Abram moves to the Negev; famine sends him to Egypt (Gen. 12:9-10).
2086? – Pharaoh attacks Sarai, is plagued, and sends Abram out with much spoil (Gen. 12:11-20). Abram leaves Egypt and settles in Bethel. There is strife between Lot’s men and Abram’s, and Lot separates from Abram (Gen. 13:1-17).
Abram moves to Hebron, converts Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner. The War of the Kings ensues. Lot is captured and rescued. Abram is afraid the kings will return. God appears to him and promises him the land (Gen. 13:18; Gen. 14-15).
2093 – Sarai offers Abram forbidden fruit: Hagar. Abram accepts. Once Hagar is pregnant, she makes it clear that she will not let Sarai adopt her child. Sarai punishes Hagar, who flees. God meets her and blesses her (Gen. 16:1-14).
2094 – Ishmael born (Gen. 16:15-16).
2096 – Arpachshad ben Shem dies (Gen. 11:12-13).
2107 – In the spring God appears to Abram, changes his name to Abraham, and tells him to circumcise his household. God also changes Sarai to Sarah, and tells Abraham that she will have a child in twelve months "at this time next year" (Gen. 17).
A few days after this, God appears to Abram again, tells him that Sarah will bear him a child in the spring ("when the time revives"; Gen. 18:10 & 14; cp. 2 Ki. 4:16-17), and announces the destruction of the cities of the Jordan Circle. Abraham pleads for Lot’s life, and is given it (Gen. 18). God’s two angels proceed to Sodom and rescue Lot; then the cities are destroyed (Gen. 19). (The circumcision of the righteous is parallel to the destruction of the wicked.) Lot chooses not to rejoin Abraham, and his life is ruined.
The fouling of the land causes Abraham to leave it and move south toward Egypt, and then later into Philistine (Egyptian) territory (Gen. 20:1). By now it is summer.
These events have taken probably three months, which means Sarah must become pregnant immediately in order to have a son in the spring. Satan attacks by causing Abimelech to take her into his harem. God shuts up the wombs of Abimelech’s household, appears to Abimelech and threatens him, and Sarah is returned to Abraham. Abraham settles in Gerar (Gen. 20).
2108 – In the spring Sarah gives birth to Isaac in Philistine territory (Gen. 21:1-7).
2113 – Isaac is weaned. At the feast, Sarah sees Ishmael laughing. She perceives that his laughter will war against Isaac, whose name means Laughter. This event is the beginning point of the 400-years during which the seed will live in a land not theirs (Gen. 21:8-10; Gal. 4:30; Gen. 15:13; Acts 7:6). In terms of the theme of Egyptian dominion over the Hebrews, note that Ishmael is the son of an Egyptian woman.
Sarah requires Abraham to drive Hagar and the 13-year old Ishmael out. God appears to Hagar and tells her that He will be with Ishmael and bless him (Gen. 21:11-21).
Also during this year Abimelech covenants with Abraham at Beersheba (Gen. 21:22-34), and Abraham settles in Philistine territory for a long time.
2124 – Ishmael is 30 years old. Let us assume that his firstborn son is born in this year, and his others at two year intervals. Thus, this would be the year of Nebaioth’s birth (Gen. 25:13).
2126 – Shelah ben Arpachshad dies (Gen. 11:14-15). Kedar ben Ishmael is born (?).
2128? – Adbeel ben Ishmael born.
2130? – God tells Abraham to take Isaac into the land, to Mount Moriah near Jerusalem, and offer him as a sacrifice. Isaac is a "youth" not a "child," so perhaps 17 or so (thus the year 2130). After sparing Isaac, God tells Abraham that he will have a vast multitude of seed (Gen. 22:1-19). This might also be the year of the birth of Mibsam ben Ishmael.
2131? – Abraham hears that his brother Nahor has had 12 sons (Gen. 22:20-24).
2132? – Mishma ben Ishmael born.
2134? – Duman ben Ishmael born.
2136? – Massa ben Ishmael born.
2138? – Hadad ben Ishmael born.
2140? – Tema ben Ishmael born.
2142? – Jetur ben Ishmael born.
2144? – Naphish ben Ishmael born.
2145 – Sarah dies at the age of 127 in Hebron, which means that Abraham had moved back into the land of promise by this time. Abraham buries her in the field at Machpelah in the promised land (Gen. 23).
2146? – Kedemah ben Ishmael born.
2148 – Abraham sends his servant to obtain a wife for Isaac, who marries Rebekah and takes her into Sarah’s tent (Gen. 24). Isaac is 40 at this time (Gen. 25:20).
12. The Continuation of Abraham’s Line
2149? – Abraham marries Keturah and begins to have six sons (Gen. 25:1-6). I shall put these children two years apart from each other, as we have done before, and the next generation will be put after 30 years, in order to get an approximate chronology.
2151? – Zimran ben Abraham born.
2153? – Jokshan ben Abraham born.
2155? – Medan ben Abraham born.
2157? – Midian ben Abraham born, the ancestor of the Midianites.
2158 – Shem ben Noah dies (Gen. 11:10-11).
2159? – Ishbak ben Abraham born.
2161? – Shuah ben Abraham born.
2168 – Esau and Jacob born (Gen. 25:25-26).
2183 – Abraham dies at 175 (Gen. 25:7). Sheba ben Jokshan born (?).
2185? – Dedan ben Jokshan born.
2187 – Eber ben Shelah dies (Gen. 11:16-17). Ephah ben Midian born (?).
2189? – Epher ben Midian born.
2191? – Hanoch ben Midian born.
2193? – Abida ben Midian born.
2195? – Eldaah ben Midian born.
2198 – Jacob and Esau are 30 years old. Let us assume that around this time Esau despises his birthright and signs it over to Jacob (Gen. 25:27-34). This means that the famine and Isaac’s sojourn in Philistine territory take about 10 years, at the end of which we are told of Esau’s marriage in 2208.
2200? – A famine causes Isaac to move to Philistine territory (Gen. 26:1-11).
2201? – Isaac reaps a bountiful harvest (Gen. 26:12).
2202? – The envious Philistines drive Isaac away (Gen. 26:13-17).
2203? – Isaac digs wells and finally finds a place to live for a few years (Gen. 26:18-22).
2205? – Isaac moves to Beersheba (Gen. 26:23-25).
2207? – Abimelech makes a covenant with Isaac at Beersheba (Gen. 26:26-33).
2208 – Esau marries two pagan wives, Judith bath [daughter of] Beeri the Hittite and Basemath bath Elon the Hittite (Gen. 26:34). In Genesis 36:2 these two women are named Adah bath Elon the Hittite and Oholibamah bath Anah bath Zibeon the Hivite. So, Judith (Praise) is also named Adah (Pleasure), and Basemath (Fragrant) is also named Oholibamah (High Place Tent). Basemath-Oholibamah was the daughter of Elon the Hittite and Anah, who was the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite. We shall have Esau bear his first two sons a year later. Esau married a third wife in 2245.
2209? – Eliphaz ben Esau and Jeush ben Esau born (Gen. 36:4-5)
2211? – Jalam ben Esau born.
2213? – Korah ben Esau born.
2215? – [Asshurim] ben Dedan born.
2217? – [Letushim] ben Dedan born.
2219? – [Leummim] ben Dedan born.
2231 – Ishmael dies (Gen. 25:17).
13. Jacob and Esau
The first chronological problem encountered in the story of Jacob is to figure out his age when he went to Padan-Aram to get a wife. He was 77 years old (and thus by no means a youth). We know this from the following data:
a. Joseph stood before Pharaoh at age 30 (Gen. 41:46).
b. At the end of 7 years of plenty, Joseph was 37 (Gen. 41:29-30).
c. At the end of 2 years of famine, when Jacob came to Egypt, Joseph was 39 (Gen. 45:6) and Jacob was 130 (Gen. 47:9).
d. Therefore, Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born (130-39=91).
e. Jacob had served Laban 14 years when Joseph was born (Gen. 30:25).
f. Therefore, Jacob was 77 when he came to Padan-Aram (91-14=77).
The other problem for the Jacob narrative is to figure out the ages of his sons. After Joseph was born, Jacob sought to leave Haran and was persuaded to stay another 6 years (Gen. 30:25ff.; 31:38, 41). Thus, Joseph was born at the end of the first 7 years of Jacob’s marriage. If Joseph is the youngest son born in Padan-Aram, then all 7 of Leah’s children were born during those 7 years, which is pretty much impossible. Even if we say that Dinah was born later on, which seems to have been the case from Genesis 32:22, we still have 6 sons born in 7 years.
There are two answers to this problem. The first is that it is, of course, barely possible, if Leah was passing the children on a wet nurse instead of nursing them herself (since women tend not to conceive while nursing). When we consider that Leah stopped bearing after the birth of Judah, and apparently did not conceive her last two sons until after her maid Ziplah had born two children, then we must have at least 8 children born in seven years before Joseph. This strains credulity to the breaking point.
The second answer is that this passage is not presented in strictly chronological order. The order is theological. First are described the ten "natural" sons, and then is described the birth of Joseph, the "miracle" son, born from a closed womb. Consider: first Abraham has a natural son, and then God opens Sarah’s womb and the miracle son is born. The second born is the replacement for the fallen firstborn. Consider: Rebekah is barren, but God miraculously opens her womb. Her firstborn, Esau, is bad, and is replaced by the second-born, Jacob ("Supplanter"). Now we come to Jacob. The first ten sons are born without a miracle. They are bad, and sell Joseph into slavery. Joseph is the second-born, replacement son, born after the miracle. This is the structure of the passage.
So then, what is the chronology? Leah has four sons and stops bearing (Gen. 29:31-35). This easily takes up seven years, and these four sons (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah) are older than Joseph. Early in the seven years, Rachel gives Bilhah to Jacob, and two sons are born (Dan & Naphtali; Gen. 30:1-8). These are also probably older than Joseph. After she stops bearing, Leah gives Zilpah to Jacob, and she bears two sons (Gad & Asher; 30:9-13). These are probably younger than Joseph, born during the final six years in Haran. At some point, Leah begins to have children again and bears Issachar and Zebulun (30:14-20), again during the last six years. We are told that afterward she bore Dinah.
2239? – Teman ben Eliphaz born (Gen. 36:11).
2241? – Omar ben Eliphaz born (Gen. 36:11).
2243? – Zepho ben Eliphaz born (Gen. 36:11).
2245 – Rekebah and Jacob trick Isaac into obeying God and giving the blessing to Jacob. Jacob leaves home at age 77 to get a wife in Padan-Aram. God appears to him at the top of a ladder to heaven (Gen. 27-28). Esau, seeing his parents loath his first two wives, marries Mahalath bath Ishmael. Since Ishmael died in 2231, this was probably a child of his old age. In Genesis 36:3, Mahalath (Mild) is called Basemath (Fragrant), the same as the original name of Esau’s first wife. Possibly in this year also Gatam ben Eliphaz was born (Gen. 36:11).
2247? – Kenaz ben Eliphaz born (Gen. 36:11).
2249? – Amalek ben Eliphaz born (Gen. 36:12).
2252 – Jacob marries both Leah and Rachel.
2253? – Reuben ben Jacob born.
2254? – Dan ben Jacob born.
2255? – Simeon ben Jacob born.
2256? – Naphtali ben Jacob born; Reuel ben Esau born (Gen. 36:4).
2257? – Levi ben Jacob born.
2259 – Judah ben Jacob born? Joseph ben Jacob born. Judah was older than Joseph.
2262? – Gad ben Jacob born.
2263? – Issachar ben Jacob born.
2264? – Asher ben Jacob born.
2265 – Jacob returns to Canaan at age 99. Before leaving, Zebulun ben Jacob is born (?). Laban pursues Jacob, but is turned back by God. God meets Jacob and wrestles with him at Jabbok. Jacob meets Esau and parts from him, settling in Succoth (Gen. 33:17).
2266? – Dinah is born.
2276 – Joseph, age 17, brings back a bad report on his six older brothers, has dreams, and is sold into slavery (Gen. 37). Judah leaves his brothers and marries Shua (Gen. 38:2).
2277? – Er ben Judah born (Gen. 38:3).
2279? – Onan ben Judah born (Gen. 38:4).
2281? – Dinah, age 15?, is ravished by the Hamor of Shechem when Jacob moves to Shechem. The city of Shechem is razed by Levi and Simeon, who are cursed by Jacob (Gen. 33:18-20; Gen. 34). Jacob moves to Bethel (Gen. 35:1-15).
2282? – Jacob moves from Bethel to Eder; on the way Rachel dies giving birth to Benjamin (Gen. 35:16-21).
2283? – Hanoch ben Reuben born (Gen. 46:9).
2284? – Reuben lies with Jacob’s unendowered wife Bilhah (Gen. 35:22); [Hushim] ben Dan born (Gen. 46:23).
2285? – Pallu ben Reuben born (Gen. 46:9); Jemuel ben Simeon born (Gen. 46:10).
2286? – Nahath ben Reuel born (Gen. 36:13); Jahzeel ben Naphtali born (Gen. 46:24).
2287 – Joseph, age 28, interprets the dreams of Pharaoh’s baker and cupbearer, two years before he stands before Pharaoh (Gen. 40; 41:1). Hezron ben Reuben born; Jamin ben Simeon born; Gershon ben Levi born? (Gen. 46:9-11).
2288 – Isaac dies at 180 (Gen. 35:28). Zerah ben Reuel born? (Gen. 36:13); Guni ben Naphtali born? (Gen. 46:24).
2289 – Joseph, age 30, stands before Pharaoh at the beginning of the 7 years of plenty (Gen. 41:46). Carmi ben Reuben born; Ohad ben Simeon born; Kohath ben Levi born (Gen. 46:9-11).
2290? – Shammah ben Reuel born (Gen. 36:13); Manasseh ben Joseph born (Gen. 41:50-51); Jezer ben Naphtali born (Gen. 46:24).
2291? – Jachin ben Simeon born; Merari ben Levi born (Gen. 46:10-11).
2292? – Mizzah ben Reuel born (Gen. 35:13); Ziphion ben Gad born (Gen. 46:16); Ephraim ben Joseph born (Gen. 41:52); Shillem ben Naphtali born (Gen. 46:24).
2293? – Zohar ben Simeon born; Tola ben Issachar born (Gen. 46:10, 13). Shelah ben Judah born (Gen. 38:5, 11). If Er married at 30, and was killed by God, then Onan would have been, say, 28 when he also was killed. Shelah at that time was underage, below 20. Tamar was asked to wait for him to grow up. We are here making Shelah 14 years younger than Onan, or 14 years old when Onan was killed. See discussion below in section 14 (next issue).
2294? – Haggi ben Gad born; Imnah ben Asher born (Gen. 46:16-17).
2295? – Shaul ben Simeon born; Puvvah ben Issachar born; Sered ben Zebulun born (Gen. 46:10, 13, 14).
2296 – End of the 7 years of plenty. Shuni ben Gad born; Ishvah ben Asher born? (Gen. 46:16-17).
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 33
Copyright (c) 1994 Biblical Horizons
June, 1994
While this newsletter is dated June, this essay is actually being finalized and prepared for shipment in November. What this reflects more than anything else is my personal reluctance to take up this topic. The reason is that a number of friends and acquaintances have over the years, some rather recently, abandoned authentic Christianity for the heresy of iconolatry, moving into one of the three branches of the Church that are infested with idolatry: Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglo-Catholicism. All of us have a natural reluctance to draw the line when it comes to our friends, but on a subject this important, which God says is extremely important, our friends sometimes leave us no choice.
I have stood forthrightly and clearly against the violation of the Second Word for as many years as I have been a teacher. Thus, when my friends decide to ignore God’s command, they can hardly be surprised that I must join Him in condemning them. For me to do any less would be unfaithfulness to the Lord who bought me. I have dealt with this topic in The Liturgy Trap, but as part of our studies in civilization, I must now take it up in more detail.
Part of the fundamental meaning of the Second Word is the opposition of the ear and the eye as means of interacting with God. The reason that the eye cannot be used as a way of interacting with God is that God is invisible. Visibility is not an attribute of God. God makes Himself visible, but in Himself He is invisible.
On the other hand, God is Pure Language. Language or Wordness is an attribute of God; indeed, so much so that the Second Person of the Godhead is the Word of God. As I have noted before, the first three commandments have a trinitarian focus, and it is precisely the Second Word (notice that they are all called “Words” not “pictures”) that relates to the issue of the visual in worship.
Not only does God reveal Himself in His Word and not in pictures, but even the nature of language itself and of the alphabet is brought into God’s nature. He is “Alpha and Omega,” and several passages of the Bible actually use the Hebrew alphabet (from aleph to tav) to lay out the truth of God. At this point, let me quote from my commentary on the book of Revelation, a work in progress, on Revelation 1:8.
Alpha and Omega
Jesus is the Word of God. In Hebrew, He is also the Alphabet of God. Those who want to take logos in John 1:1 as “logic” or “reason” are sorely mistaken. The Biblical concept of God as Word is much fuller than mere mental logic. It is that God is Pure Language. That is, language or wordness is an attribute of God. This is why the revelation and worship of God is verbal, not visual, and why adoring things made by human hands is forbidden in the Second Word or Commandment. It is also why the false worship in Revelation is image worship (Revelation 13:14). If we were to study the nature of human language, we would see that language itself reveals the nature and character of God. Up to this point, however, linguistics has been done without this theological reference point, though some Christian linguists are beginning to understand the matter better today, notably Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy.
Thus, by taking the name “Alpha and Omega,” God says that He is the Fountain of all language. Apart from God, men grow silent and language declines. In hell no one speaks. Christian cultures are literary. Literacy spreads to all. Books are written and published. Language increases in expressiveness. People learn other tongues as part of their basic education.
There are a number of passages in the Scriptures that are arranged alphabetically. Most of us are familiar with Psalm 119, which is arranged in 22 sections according to the Hebrew alphabet. Each section has eight verses, all beginning with the same letter, and proceeding from aleph to tav (the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet). But several other psalms are also alphabetical, either completely or partially: Psalm 9-10 (which is one psalm), 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, and 145. Moreover, Psalm 1 begins with a word starting with aleph (“blessed”) and ends with a word starting with tav (“perish”).
The description of the Bride of the King, Lady Wisdom, in Proverbs 31:10-31 is alphabetical, proceeding verse by verse through the Hebrew alphabet. Each of the first four chapters of Lamentations is alphabetical. Chapter 3 of Lamentations has three verses for each letter: aleph, aleph, aleph, beth, beth, beth, etc. Nahum 1:2-8 is an incomplete alphabet.
If we take note of the themes of these alphabetical passages, we find that they are all very relevant to Revelation. Several focus on God’s Word. Loyalty to God’s Word brings blessing, while disloyalty brings judgment. Such are Psalm 1 and 119, and also Psalm 37 (an expansion of Psalm 1).
Several focus on God’s judgments. God provides a complete alphabet of judgment in Lamentations 1-4 and Nahum 1. It is a happy thought that God’s alphabet of judgment is broken in Lamentations 5, providing hope that He will not sustain His wrath against His people forever. God’s judgment is given an alphabet of praise in Psalm 34.
Proverbs 31:10-31 focuses on the Bride. The woman here is not merely a good wife, for what wife could ever do all that this woman does! This is the wife of a king, the Lady Wisdom of Proverbs 1-9, the opposite of Harlot Folly. The alphabet of the Bride is fully related to Christ’s Bride of Revelation 21-22.
Psalm 25 is a prayer in the face of danger, a prayer that God will help us persevere in the face of temptation and tribulation. This is an important theme in Revelation.
Finally, Psalms 111 and 145 are alphabets of praise to God for His faithfulness and attributes, and Psalm 112 is an alphabet of blessing for the faithful saints.
Thus, God’s Word embraces all reality and all history. The Alphabet of God’s existence is the standard by which we are judged and by which we live and find joy. It is the standard for His Bride (Proverbs 31). It is the vocabulary of His praise (Psalms 111 & 145). It is the description of His blessings, which are as wide as the alphabet of God’s totality (Psalm 112). And, as in Psalm 25, God’s alphabet of totality is something we can call upon in time of need.
God’s alphabetic attribute is His sovereign rule. The Father has given this alphabet to the Son. It is the book that the Son receives from the Father. Thus, it is the Son who is here called “Alpha and Omega.” He was the Almighty, the I Am, and the Lord God in the Old Creation. Now He is the Alphabet of all human life and of all existence.
(End of quotation from my studies in Revelation.)
Sight and Hearing
If I were to ask you which you would rather lose, your sight or your hearing, chances are good that you would rather lose your hearing. Biblically speaking, however, we should much prefer to lose our sight. It is because we are sinners that we prefer sight to hearing. This goes back to Adam’s sin in the Garden. Eve, with Adam standing by and approving, saw that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was beautiful, good for food, and desirable, and based on her sight she ignored God’s word of command not to eat of it. From that time on, people have been born into the world sinfully relying on sight more than on hearing. (Thanks to the Rev. Rich Bledsoe for the insights in this paragraph.)
But if you reflect upon it, you will realize that sight is not very accurate. For one thing, looking at another person tells you virtually nothing about him. You may think I have a beard because I’m a hippie, but the real reason might be that I agree with R. J. Rushdoony’s odd notion that God commands men to have beards! Or I might have a beard to hide a disfigured face, or because my skin breaks out when I shave. The real reason, if you want to know, is that my wife likes my beard, and so do I, and that’s all there is to it.
How do we learn about another person? By hearing what he or she has to day. Language reveals the inside of another person, something sight can never do. A person may lie, and use language to conceal, but that is only the opposite of revealing; and the fact is that a liar is indeed revealing himself. Thus, if we want to learn about God, we must hear His Word. Looking at Him, if that were possible, would not tell us anything. After all, Satan can appear as an angel of light, while God appeared as a disfigured man dying on a cross.
To take another example, consider the Rodney King beating of a couple of years ago. Everyone in the United States saw the videotape of a group of Los Angeles police beating Mr. King repeatedly with sticks, over and over, far beyond what anyone would think is reasonable law enforcement. It was completely clear that the police were out of control, and everyone judged them guilty. Seeing is believing. But, when the matter went to court, what was heard in testimony was quite different. First, King was hit with batons, which bounce back when they strike; he was not struck with sticks. Second, most of the blows were struck on the ground around King to try and subdue him. Third, King had lunged at the police, and had already taken some taser rounds, yet was still coming on. He seemed to have tremendous strength, and had to be subdued. A very careful and precise viewing of the videotape bore this out. The jury found the police not guilty (though since this was politically unacceptable, later kangaroo courts were set up to find them guilty anyway!). Now, even if I haven’t got all the facts straight here, the point I’m making is clear: seeing is not believing!
In his writings on linguistics and the nature of man, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy has pointed out that sight deals with things, while hearing deals with persons. Sight has to do with science, with observation, with objectivity. Hearing has to do with personal relationships, with subjectivity.
Man wants to turn God into an object, something we have under control. This is of the essence of Original Sin, and we all have this tendency. It is the great Achilles’ Heel of theology, that we talk about God too much and treat Him as an object. True theology must be conducted as prayer, and this is the great lesson of Augustine’s Confessions, for the whole book is written as a prayer. When we set up icons, or supposedly “consecrate” bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, we have turned God into an object or force, and we have made the essential first step to depersonalizing and taking control of God.
Because of this, all true liturgy is verbal, not visual. Nowhere does Bible command acts of obeisance before any manmade object. The Bible never shows anyone rightly doing any such thing. (In 2 Kings 5:18-19, Naaman makes it clear that his bowing is simply to help the king, not an action of his own, and is given permission to do it. Notice, though, that Naaman was very concerned about this matter. He did not want to bow at all.) The Bible expressly forbids it, and threatens a great curse on those who do it. Because of this, the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglo-Catholic churches are not liturgical churches; they are anti-liturgical.
The Silence of Images
Pagan religion is shrine religion. People go individually to a shrine or temple and make obeisance before an image. This is a very convenient kind of religion, because images do not speak. Thus, they can never challenge us to repentance. They simply reinforce Original Sin at all levels of life. To the extent that this kind of wickedness enters the Church, to that extent sin is not challenged and human beings defile God and one another.
How nice it is to go into a Church and tell our sins to some statue or crucifix or “reserved host”! Such things will never talk back to us. The Biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers teaches exactly the opposite: We must talk to other believers, who will inconveniently and annoyingly talk back to us!
Because iconic religion is essentially silent, it does not build community. People in the three iconolatrous churches will go individually to a shrine, or to some shrine set up inside the church building itself, and do their own private thing there. This privatization of worship extends to the performance of what is left of the Christian liturgy. For centuries, the Roman Catholic liturgy was conducted in Latin, leaving each individual to his or her own thoughts. When people go forward to a rail to receive the sacrament, they are essentially completely alone. In the Bible, the Lord’s Supper is celebrated as a meal, around a table, with the saints looking at one another; for it is the communion of the Church, not merely individuals, with God and with one another.
The result of iconolatry is cruelty. When we don’t continually interface with other people at something of a deep religious level, we become callous. Human rights have never been of much concern in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries, which is why the false hopes of communism and liberation theology have been strong in them, and it is no surprise that the rise of Anglo-Catholicism was accompanied by the rise of a militaristic and anti-Christian imperialism in Great Britain that treated colonial blacks and East Indians with contempt. Happily the Methodist movement within the Church of England acted as a counter to this tendency. Social justice arises out of Word-centered Christianity, and in the modern era that has meant Protestantism. The Puritans and the Scottish Presbyterians, for instance, treated the aboriginals they encountered quite differently.
The connection between iconolatry and oppression is clearly made in the Bible, for it was during the period of the Kings that the violation of the Second Word became the main sin, and along with that the prophets repeatedly condemned the people for oppressing the poor, the widow, and the outsider.
Hearing and Authority
When I use my eyes, I am in complete control of the information that comes to me, for I can shut my eyes. I can shut my eyes in the face of an icon. If I read the Bible to myself, I can shut my eyes and stop reading.
The Bible does not say to read the Word of God but to hear it. This means someone else must read it for me to hear it. This means that Biblical religion cannot be individualistic but must be corporate. We cannot worship God silently at a shrine; we must be with others and hear them, and speak so that they hear us. But the ear is unlike the eye. I cannot shut my ear. The only way I can stop the sound is to leave the room.
This is because sound, unlike sight, makes a physical impact upon me. Sound is bodily, physical, while sight is mental. We are physically impacted only by very bright light. Paganism, which depreciates the physical body, also depreciates the hearing of words. Paganism goes for sight, for an image has no physical effect upon me.
But hearing also involves submission to authority. When I listen to you, I am yielding authority to you. I am allowing you to speak to me. When you listen back to me, you yield authority to me. Thus, speaking involves the mutual yielding of authority. Speaking and hearing involve mutual submission. Mutual respect and submission is the essence of community, and the only way I can get away from hearing you is to leave the room, to leave the community and go off by myself.
Seeing leaves me in complete control. I submit to nobody. The silent image only reflects back my own preconceived ideas to me. Instead of changing me, the image reinforces what I already am and think. No growth, no sanctification is possible.
Because hearing involves submission to authority, community becomes possible. Those who speak best have the most authority. They may be experts, and we listen to them. They may be elders, whose age reflects years of experience, and so we listen to them. In this way, culture and civilization become possible.
Of course, to one degree or another, all cultures have this aspect of hearing and mutual submission. God has said, however, that Christian culture is to maximize this dimension of life through the priesthood of all believers and the elimination of all counterfeits, all image worship.
Image-worshipping cultures have a high degree of anarchy, especially in religion. Real worship is individual obeisance at a shrine or temple. The isolated monk is regarded as a holy man, while in true Christianity, isolation is a great evil and monks should be viewed with grave suspicion. Some monks, even within Christianity, practice vows of silence, which surely is a vast perversion of God’s design. Celibacy and virginity are regarded highly, while in Biblical religion it is the married state that is celebrated as the highest expression of Godly life. “It is not good for the man to be alone,” said God, speaking of Adam as priest of the Garden. Only a married man, living in that most frustrating of all communities (marriage and family), can acquire the wisdom to guide the Church of God.
Because of the largely anarchical and individualistic character of religion in image-worshipping cultures, whether pagan or semi-Christian, the unifying point in society becomes the state. By way of contrast, in Christian societies, where the “one anothering” of verbal interchange and mutual submission is central, the state declines as a unifying force and society becomes free and open.
(to be continued)
