BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 73
May, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
Numbers 3:40-51 tells us that the Levites were substituted for the firstborn of Israel. The firstborn belonged to God, as stated in Exodus 13:12-13 and 22:29. It is clear that the first group of firstborn claimed by God were those He saved at the first Passover (Ex. 12). These should have become the servants of Aaron as guardians of Israel, but Israel rejected Yahweh at the Golden Calf (Ex. 32). The Levites proved faithful, however, and their "hands were filled" with the blessing of serving Aaron and Yahweh because of this (Ex. 32:29). Thus, the Levites replaced the firstborn as guardians of God’s holiness and servants of the Tabernacle.
In Numbers 3:40-51, we find that there were 22,273 firstborn sons. This is a small number, since the number of adult men in Israel were 603,550. Clearly, many of these men were firstborn themselves. Obviously, the firstborn cannot include the adult males. Possibly, then, it includes only those under 20 years of age (Num. 1:3). Even here, however, we would have far too many.
The answer to this puzzle is found in Numbers 3:46-51. As is happened, there were 273 more firstborn than there were Levites. These extra firstborn were ransomed for five sanctuary shekels apiece.
Now, God had already told them in Leviticus 27:2-7 how human beings were to be valued, if dedicated to Him and then ransomed back. Males between 20 and 60 were valued at 50 silver sanctuary shekels. Males from 5 to 20 were valued at 20 such. Males over 60 were valued at 15 such. And males from one month up to 5 years were valued at 5 silver sanctuary shekels.
Thus, those firstborn who were ransomed for 5 shekels were between one month old and five years old. Every child who had passed his fifth birthday was excluded. On this basis, the number 22,273 makes sense.
Thus, the original Passover was designed to save, directly, the firstborn sons between the ages of one month and five years; indirectly, everyone else.
Since the Passover was for these children, and since it was a meal, I don’t see how anyone can deny that Passover was for them to participate in. And I don’t see how anyone can deny the truth of paedocommunion.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 73
May, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
In my Preliminary Commentary on Daniel, which many of you have obtained, I argued in chapter 13 that the four monsters called up from the sea by the evangelistic work of the four winds (the saints) represented the deep hatred of God that evangelistic work brings to the fore in the human consciousness. Evangelism produces monsters from the depth of the human person, which can then be killed.
I think my psychology is correct, but my interpretation was wrong. The four beasts were cherubim protectors for Israel, just as the Metal Man of Daniel 2 was. God established the gentile empire for this purpose from Nebuchadnezzar to Vespasian. Each head of the beast, in turn, was called to bare its teeth and fangs to ward off the enemies of the saints. When the Babylonians stopped protecting the church (Daniel 5), God brought in the righteous Cyrus and Darius. When the Persians stopped protecting the church, God brought in Alexander as a deliverer (Zechariah 9). When the Greeks stopped protecting the church, God brought in the Romans (Daniel 11). The Romans are seen protecting the church throughout Acts, but in Revelation 13, Satan seduces the beast to turn against God’s people.
What troubled Daniel was not the beast as such, but the career of the Little Horn.
So, I must change my view. I was too much under the influence of the commentators, who see the gentile beasts as only evil. They weren’t. The four beasts are cherubic. The first is lion-like. The third, with its wings, is eagle-like. The bear-like beast corresponds to the bull-face of the cherubim, for reasons I have given in my work on orientation in Revelation, Behind the Scenes. The fourth beast, which has a man-face in the Little Horn, is the man-faced cherub.
The beast exists from Nebuchadnezzar to ad 70. Daniel 7:17 says that the four beasts are four "kings," but we would think of them as kingdoms. Similarly, Revelation 17:10 says that the seven heads of the beast are seven kings, but 17:12 says that the ten horns are also ten kings. Clearly they are not kings in the same sense. The seven heads are also seven mountains, and thus the ten horns are ten mountain-peaks (compare the four horns on the symbolic holy mountain altars of the Bible).
Here again I find I must revise what I wrote in the Daniel commentary. It seems to me now that the ten horns must be the ten Roman emperors from Julius Caesar to Titus. They have not yet received a kingdom, because they are part of the kingdom of the beast until ad 70. After that time, the line of Roman emperors will rule in their own rights. Titus is included because he rules in Palestine in the place of his father Vespasian, and thus functions as a horn prior to ad 70.
This means that the seven heads cannot be Roman emperors, and the fifth cannot be Nero. They must be the same as the heads in Daniel. Which five have fallen? Well, it seems to me that they are Babylon, Persia, and three of the Greek heads. The western Greek head is absorbed into Rome, and thus is the sixth. The seventh has not yet come, and when he comes he exists only for a little while. He is "about to come" (v. 8).
These verses in Revelation 17 (vv. 8-11) are, for me, the hardest part of Revelation to place. It seems to me that the reason the beast is an eighth head, and also one of the seven, is this: The beast in Revelation 17 combines the two beasts of Revelation 13 with the Red Dragon of Revelation 12. The Dragon also had seven heads and ten horns. He was red. The seabeast of Revelation 13 had blasphemous names on his heads—being Daniel’s beast in apostasy, while the beast of Revelation 17 is full of blasphemous names. The seventh head of the beast is still to come when John wrote, and he is also the eighth head, which is the "incarnation" of the whole Dragon-beast himself. What does this mean?
The beast "was and is not." To understand this, we have to make a distinction between Daniel’s beast and Revelation’s. Daniel’s was "neutral" in the sense that he was called to guard Israel, but might turn against God’s people. Revelation’s beast is the beast in apostasy. The apostate beast "was" in that Belshazzar turned against God, the later Persian rulers turned against God, and the later Greek rulers turned against God, Antiochus Epiphanes being the manifestation of this; Daniel 11. But now the apostate beast "is not," because at the present time Rome acts righteously by protecting the Church (as we see in Acts). Soon, however, Satan will enter the "Judas" of the beast and turn it against God’s people, in the Neronic persecutions. At this point, the seventh head of the apostate beast will become manifest, which will also be an eighth, because Satan himself will be in this head.
Thus, the sixth head, which "now is," is Hellenistic Rome. The seventh/eighth head, which is "about to come," is Satanic Rome.
I find this to be a more satisfactory interpretation than what I wrote in the Daniel commentary.
On the Land Beast, who is the False Prophet, as Herod, see my remarks in Behind the Scenes.
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 45
Copyright (c) 1996 Biblical Horizons
May, 1995
When the Aaronic priests were ordained, the blood of the ram of "filling” was placed on the lobe of the right ear, the right thumb, and the right big toe (Lev. 8:22-24). Similarly, the cleansing rite for a leper included smearing the right ear lobe, thumb, and big toe with blood from the `asham (“guilt” or “reparation” offering) and then with oil (Lev. 14:25-28). These ritual uses of blood are frequently explained as consecrating the “extremities” of the priests and former lepers. Such explanations, however, fail to explain what needs to be explained � the specifics of the rite; why, if the point is to consecrate the “extremities,” should the blood (or blood and oil) be placed on the ear lobe rather than on the top of the head? Rather than seeking explanations in terms of abstract generalizations like “extremities,” it is best to explain these rites by comparison of details within the ceremonial system.
In particular, these rites may be understood in terms of two other institutions of the law. First, there is the ear-boring of the Hebrew who chooses to become a permanent slave (Ex. 21:5-6; see James Jordan’s discussion in his The Law of the Covenant). As the bloody boring of his ear sealed a man as a permanent slave, whose ears are cut open to hear his master’s voice, so the symbolic “boring” of the priests’ ear, thumb, and toe makes him a permanent household servant who is to listen to the voice of His Master, work and worship with hands consecrated to His Master’s service, and walk in his Master’s ways. The leper, who during the time of his uncleanness was separated from the Lord’s house, is restored to his place among the priestly people with a rite containing the same symbolism.
Circumcision forms the other important background to these rites. The permanent slave’s ear was “circumcised” by the ear-boring, and a priest or healed leper had his right ear lobe, thumb, and toe symbolically “circumcised.” The link with circumcision is strengthened by the fact that in both the rites of ordination and cleansing of lepers, the eighth day plays a prominent role. In the case of the leper, the “circumcision” of his ear, thumb, and toe actually took place on the climactic eighth day of the rite (Lev. 14:23). While the priests received their “circumcision” on the first day of the rite, their ordination was not complete until the eighth day, when Aaron and his sons first began to minister at the altar (Lev. 9:1).
The links between the cleansing of lepers and cleansing from corpse defilement may also be noted. The “waters of purification" prepared for the latter cleansing rite were mixed with the ashes of a red heifer, which had been burned with cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet material (Num. 19:6), all of which figured into the ritual for cleansing lepers as well (Lev. 14:4). At a very general level, the similarities between the two rites have an obvious logic: both the leper and the corpse-defied person are being restored to access to the tabernacle, from which their uncleanness had exiled them. The similarities also point to the fact that leprosy was considered a kind of living death, a fact further underlined by the leper’s adoption of mourning customs (unbound hair, torn clothing) during the period of his uncleanness (Lev. 13:45; see Lev. 10:6). In the case of the cleansing from corpse defilement too, the eighth day plays an important, if implicit, role. The corpse-defiled person was sprinkled with the water of purification on the third and seventh day of his uncleanness, and then washed his clothes and bathed on the seventh day (Num. 19:19). As a result, he became clean at the beginning of the eighth day (that is, the evening of the seventh).
Certain forms of uncleanness caused by issues from the genitals ("flesh", Lev. 15:2) also explicitly or implicitly involved an eighth-day rite. A man who had a discharge over a period of time waited seven days after the discharge ceased, and then offered a purification offering and ascension offering on the eighth day (Lev. 15:13-14). The same was true for a woman with an issue of blood outside her monthly menstruation (15:28-29). During her regular period, a woman was unclean for seven days, and any man who laid with a woman during menstruation was unclean for seven days (15:19, 24); thus in each case, the period of cleanness began on the eighth day.
We should, of course, fit the eight-day pattern with the seven-day sequence of creation; the eighth day is the beginning of a new week, and thus throughout the Bible symbolizes the beginning of a new creation. I want to go in a somewhat different direction, however. As I have said, the consistent eighth-day cleansing links these various rites to circumcision, which was performed on the eighth day after birth (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3). With leprosy, corpse-defilement, or defilement by issue, the link is quite direct: uncleanness temporarily removed the defiled man or woman from the privileges of access to which circumcision gave title, and thus the cleansing was a renewal of circumcision. In the case of priests, the link is somewhat more complex. The use of blood and the eight-day structure connect ordination to circumcision, but ordination did not merely restore the priests to the privileges granted in circumcision but conferred greater privileges and nearer access. Ordination was a heightened specification of circumcision; within the community of those who wore the mark of the covenant with Abraham, there was an sub-community of those who wore the mark of the covenant with Levi.
Yet, the parallels between ordination and circumcision suggest that what was granted in ordination did not differ in kind from that conferred by circumcision. In both cases, the rites conferred a degree of holiness (Ex. 19:6; 29:1); both rites involved nearness to Yahweh and His house (Dt. 4:7; Num. 3:10); both rites granted food rights, circumcision giving permission to eat the Passover (Ex. 12:43-44) and ordination giving the priests permission to eat various portions of sacrificial grain and flesh (Lev. 6:16, 26; 7:6; Num. 18:8-20); those who submitted to the two rites received not only special privileges before Yahweh, but also were given special responsibilities and came under special sanctions (once circumcised, for example, Israelites were required to celebrate Passover, Num. 9:13; on the priests, see Lev. 21-22). Ordination was a specification of circumcision, and circumcision was a kind of ordination.
It is worth noting that the various rites of “circumcision renewal” were all quite elaborate, often lasting several days and involving numerous ritual actions in various sequences. By contrast, circumcision was, from all the biblical evidence, a simple rite. Nowhere does the Old Testament detail how circumcision was to be performed, as it does for the various rites discussed above. Circumcision could be performed by parents (Ex. 4:24-26), away from any holy place, with little ceremony. Anyone with a sharp piece of flint could apparently perform circumcisions (Josh. 5:2-9). Baptism, similarly, was performed in the New Testament with little ceremony, without special water, catechumenate, or sponsors. It is perhaps not going too far so suggest that the circumcision renewal rites elaborate the meaning of the original circumcision. And, in turn, since circumcision points to baptism, these elaborated rites inform and fill out our theology of baptism. In the New Testament, all of these various “baptisms” are collapsed into the “one baptism,” our circumcision, our ordination to priesthood, our cleansing from death and leprosy.
Recognizing the connection of these various rites with circumcision helps to deal with an objection that may arise from applying the Old Testament ceremonial washings to baptism. To say that baptism is “ordination to New Covenant priesthood,” for example, seems to militate against infant baptism: Surely infants cannot be priests! There are several responses to this objection. Looking at the rite of cleansing for a leper, we see that the healed leper undergoes something like priestly ordination. But this rite cannot be the healed leper’s first induction into his “lay priesthood”; that would suggest that former lepers, by virtue of having had leprosy, were given greater privileges that other lay Israelites. No, the person cleansed from skin disease is restored by the quasi-ordination rite to a status that he had before he contracted the uncleanness. When did he receive his initial induction into this status? The only reasonable answer is: When he was circumcised. Circumcision, in short, conferred a share in the common Israelite priesthood (Ex. 19:6), and circumcision was applied to infants. Therefore, the fact that Christian baptism inducts the baptized into the spiritual priesthood does not conflict with infant baptism.
To put it another way, because all the Old Testament cleansing rites are fulfilled in Christian baptism, this single rite now brings together the meaning of all the Old Testament ceremonies, conferring greater privileges and imposing stricter obligations than any of the Old Covenant rites, including the Aaronic ordination. Christians “have an altar, from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” (Heb. 13:10). The reference here is to the sin or purification offering, the flesh of which was burned outside the camp whenever the blood was taken into the tabernacle (Heb. 13:11-13; Lev. 4:1-21). Jesus is the final purification offering, and in the Eucharist we eat and drink of Him. When did we gain this right to eat from the purification offering? All who are members of the Body of Christ may eat, and we are made members by being baptized by the Spirit into the Body (1 Cor. 12:13). Not even priests might eat the flesh of the most holy sin offerings but those baptized into New Covenant priesthood can. Baptism does not merely give a right to eat from the Passover peace offering, as circumcision did, but gives a right to eat the flesh of Jesus, the true Purification Offering who suffered outside the gate. Baptism does not give access only to the outer court of God’s house, but because we are baptized into the priest who has ascended to the true, heavenly tabernacle, we may go boldly into the Most Holy Place. Thus, because baptism fulfills various rites of the Old Testament, there is no conflict between baptism into priesthood and baptism as the fulfillment of circumcision.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 73
May, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
One of the curiosities of the New Testament revelation is its focus on Galilee. The region of Galilee was given to Asher, Zebulun, Naphtali, and Issachar, and the events of Judges 4-8 occurred there, so it had some importance in Israelite history. But when the tribe of Ephraim led the northern tribes to secede from the south, Galilee naturally was part of the northern kingdom. God eventually took all of Northern Israel into captivity, and then Southern Israel as well.
Those who were faithful in captivity came to be called Judahites, contracted in English to "Jews." This meant that they were counted as part of Judah, the Southern Kingdom, no matter what tribe they were originally from. After the exile, those who came back were called Jews, Judahites, no matter what tribe they were from.
The Jews who settled Galilee after the exile were no different from any others, but over the course of time, the Judeans in the south came to feel contempt for the Galileans, who were regarded both as hayseeds and as compromised by too close an association with gentiles. The region was historically known as "Galilee of the gentiles," and it was still called by that name (Is. 9:1; Mt. 4:15).
Jesus evidently called all His apostles from Galilee, and none from Judea. We can be certain of all but Judas Iscariot (Ish-Kerioth, man of Kerioth), whose name and location may indicate Judean origin. If this is true, then the one apostate was a Judean!
God called the Hebrews out of the nations. God called Abram out of the Hebrews. God called Israel out of Abraham’s seed, leaving behind Ishmael and Isaac. God called Judah out of Israel. Now it seems that God called Galilee out of Judah. In each case, the sub-group that is called out becomes the kernel of the new creation.
Galilee was "of the gentiles," and symbolically at least was an appropriate middle ground for the Christian era to begin in. Their accent was sufficiently different to be immediately recognized (Mk. 14:70). We recall Isaiah’s prophecy that the word of God would come in disagreeable tongues to the Jews.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 73
May, 1995
Copyright 1995, Biblical Horizons
Commentaries on John, discussing the Word or Logos in John 1, routinely turn to Greek philosophy and say that John is using a term and at least part of an idea familiar in the ancient world. John is showing the Christian truth that is dimly seen in these philosophical concepts.
Fascination with this supposed Greek context of the word Logos has blinded these men to its profound Biblical root. In this short essay I don’t intend to go into all the ramifications of the Word-Logos in John 1 and in the Bible. I just want to point out one significant aspect that, as far as I know, has been overlooked by all.
The Hebrew term for "word" is dabar, and a variant of it is debir. The word debir is used for the Holy of Holies or inner shrine, God’s throne room, in the Temple (though not in the Tabernacle). The AV translates it as "oracle," while many modern versions render it as "inner sanctuary" (1 Ki. 6:5-31; 7:49; 8:6-8; 2 Chr. 3:16; 4:20; 5:7-9; Ps. 28:2). A glance at these passages indicates that it is the room itself, not just the Ark and Cover, that is the debir.
Now, when we go back to John 1 and translate the Greek word logos as "holy of holies," we get a strikingly pregnant series of associations and meanings:
Jesus is the Holy of Holies. To enter into the Holy of Holies is to enter into Christ Himself, to become one with Him. The Holy of Holies, the room where God dwells, is God Himself. God dwells within Himself.
The Holy of Holies is the archetype of all creation. It is the pattern. The universe is patterned after God Himself as Creator. This is why, in Biblical imagery, the Holy of Holies is replicated in the Holy Place, which pictures the firmament chamber between heaven and earth. Then the Holy of Holies is replicated in the Courtyard, which is the mountain top, the high place of the earth. And the Holy of Holies is replicated in the world and cosmos itself. All these are pictured as "four-square" in Biblical imagery, after the original Holy of Holies. And of course, man himself is created in the image of the Holy of Holies.
The Light in the Holy of Holies is God’s shekinah glory, which as Meredith Kline has shown in his Images of the Spirit, is the Holy Spirit’s manifestation. In Genesis 1:2, both the Spirit and the darkness hovered over the deep, but the light of the Spirit overcame the darkness in this primordial "contest." God breathed the Spirit of Life into Adam, and into every man since. Every man is a created holy of holies, containing the light of the Spirit, which men sinfully try to overcome with their own darkness.
Once we see that the Word is the Holy of Holies, it is no surprise that He "tabernacles" among us. The Tabernacle and Temple are pictures not only of the cosmos, but also of the human person, with God enthroned at our center. By becoming man, the Holy of Holies put on the Tabernacle around Himself. The shekinah Glory that was enshrined in the Tabernacle was thus enshrined in human flesh. John’s Gospel, as I showed in Through New Eyes, the proceeds on a tour of the Tabernacle, showing how the Holy of Holies fulfilled its meaning.
Thus, instead of thinking in abstract "logos concept" philosophical categories when we read John 1, we ought to think in terms of the concrete imagery of the Holy of Holies. What was inside the Holy of Holies?
First, the Throne of God, signified by the Cover on the Ark with its two cherubim, on whose wings God sat enthroned. Jesus is the Cover of the Ark. He is the Throne, who glorifies the Father and holds Him up eternally. That is what the Word is, and that is what we as little words, living epistles, are to be as well.
Second, the Ark itself, a chest containing three items. Inside the chest were the three aspects of human life, which are copies of the divine life of the Holy of Holies Himself.
Third, the Tablets of the Law, inside the Ark, are the linguistic Word of God. Usually this is all that commentators see in John 1, though as we are seeing there is more to it. Jesus is the eternal Word of God, which is part of the Holy of Holies, and we are made in His image. Thus, we must be living epistles also.
Fourth, the Golden Pot of Manna, inside the Ark, is the gift of life, mediated through food. The eternal Logos, the Holy of Holies, carries the life of God, which lightens every man.
Finally, Aaron’s Rod that Blossomed, inside the Ark, represents the glorified man, aged with white blossoms on his head. The Logos Holy of Holies is the image of the Ancient of Days. He is eternally mature, and eternally a ruler.
When we draw into the Church for worship, we see the elders, we hear the Word, and we eat the sacramental manna. Thus, we come in contact with the created manifestations of the eternal Holy of Holies.
In conclusion, to limit the Word or Logos of John 1 only to language or to some abstract philosophical concept is an error. The Logos is the Holy of Holies, and all it embraces.
Biblical Chronology Vol. 7, No. 5
May, 1995
Copyright James B. Jordan 1995
The contents of this article will be published in a commentary. If you wish to be notified when the
commentary becomes available, please click the link below and send a blank e-mail to the webmaster.
Thank you.
webmaster@biblicalhorizons.com
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 45
Copyright (c) 1996 Biblical Horizons
May, 1995
As I noted in an earlier article in Rite Reasons, the Church Fathers Tertullian, Ambrose, and Augustine all claimed that baptism inducts the baptized person into membership in the royal priesthood of the church, and Thomas Aquinas said that baptism, by imprinting an indelible “character” on the soul, confers a share in the priesthood of Christ. This was even worked into some ancient baptismal liturgies; the actual water baptism was followed by an anointing with oil, and this was explained by reference to the anointing of priests and kings in the Old Testament.
Modern liturgical scholars have made the same connection. According to one recent article in the journal Worship, on the origins of baptism, most of the baptismal rites that existed in first-century Judaism involved self-baptism, self-washing. John the Baptist’s baptism was significantly different in this regard; he did not instruct the people to baptize themselves but urged them to come and be baptized by John himself (Mt. 3:6; Lk. 3:7). The majority of washings under the Old Testament ceremonial system were likewise self-washings (Lev. 14:8; 15:5, 7, 10, 11, 13). One of the few exceptions to this in the Old Testament system was Aaron and his sons, who were “baptized” by Moses at the time of their ordination (Lev. 8:6; see also Lev. 14:7; and Num. 19:19, where a corpse-defiled person was sprinkled by a “clean person”). The passive form of John’s baptism (and Christian baptism) is determined at least in part by the priestly baptism, not by the baptisms of Jewish or Greek religion in the first century or by the other washings of the Old Testament.
Before moving on, we can see another dimension to the passive form of New Covenant baptism. Prophecies of the coming new Messianic order were frequently promises of water. Isaiah foretold the redemption of Jacob as an out-pouring of water and Spirit on dry ground (Is. 44:1-5). The water that the Lord supplies will renew the parched ground like a forest and garden (Is. 41:17-20). As in their first entry into the land, Israel will have to pass through water and be “sprinkled” clean as they enter the land after exile (Ezk. 36:24-25). In the first instance, these and other water prophecies have to do with the return of the Jews from Babylonian exile, but they also point to a final and greater exodus. When John the Baptist appeared offering water in the wilderness, he was claiming to fulfill these eschatological promises; the fact that he was baptizing around the Jordan particularly recalled Ezekiel’s prophecies about Israel’s restoration to the land. And in each case, these are promises that Yahweh will cleanse His people. The passive form of John’s baptism picks up on these prophecies, as well as on the priests’ ordination bath. The eschatological promise is that water and Spirit will be poured out in order to form a priestly people from the dry ground of old Israel. That the Jews understood the meaning of John’s baptism is shown by the questions they posed to him in John 1:19-28.
If we see Jesus’ own baptism by John as an inauguration to priesthood, some light can be shed on a few of the details of that event, especially as recorded in Luke’s account (Lk. 3:21-23). First, the question of why Jesus was baptized at all, especially with a baptism “of repentance for the remission of sins” (3:3), has frequently been answered by saying that Jesus was identifying Himself with His people. He submitted to baptism as part of His work as the sin-bearing substitute. This explanation fits very snugly with the view that Jesus was baptized into priestly ministry. The High Priest of Israel, after all, was a sin-bearer. Throughout the year, the sins of Israel “accumulated” on the High Priest until they were confessed over the scapegoat and sent out of the camp on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). The Aaronic priests were ordained to bear the sins of Israel, “baptized” into substitutionary ministry. As Duane Spencer points out in his Holy Baptism, this explains what Jesus meant when He said that His baptism was part of "fulfilling all righteousness” (Mt. 3:15): Jesus fulfilled righteousness by undergoing baptism into priesthood.
Second, Luke tells us that immediately after His baptism Jesus “began His ministry,” being “about thirty years of age” (Lk. 3:23). Priests likewise began ministry at the age of 30 (Num. 4:34-37), following their ordination, which included a ritual bath.
Third, at the baptism of Jesus, the Father identified Jesus as the “Son of God” (Lk. 3:22). This can be a royal rather than a priestly title (see 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:6-7), and it surely carries that resonance in Luke 3. Jesus is the royal priest, the priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:1-3). But sonship is not unconnected with priesthood. The Levites, who served in a semi-priestly capacity, took the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Numbers 3:38-51). In Hebrews 4:14 the new high priest is identified as “Jesus the Son of God,” and in 5:5 the author interprets Psalm 2:7 (“Thou art my Son”) as a prophecy of Jesus’ glorification as high priest.
Finally, immediately after recording the baptism, Luke gives the genealogy of Jesus (Lk. 3:23-38). By modern standards of literary structure, this does not seem to be an appropriate place to insert a genealogy. 1 Chronicles and Matthew make better sense in opening with genealogies. Once we see that Jesus’ baptism is the inauguration of His priestly ministry, however, nothing could be more appropriate than a genealogy. Priests of the Old Testament had to prove descent from Aaron, and later from a particular branch of the Aaronic clan, or they were not permitted to serve (Ezra 2:61-63). Throughout the Old Testament, priests are consistently identified as “son of” some previous priest, a sign that the priesthood was tied to physical descent. So Luke, having recorded Jesus’ baptism into priestly ministry, must show that Jesus has a right to this ministry.
Contrary to expectation, the genealogy proves that Jesus is not a descendent of Aaron but from the tribe of Judah. How then can he serve as priest? Luke, in keeping with Hebrews, shows that this Priest is from an older order, but Luke presses the case even further than Hebrews. This Priest is a priest after the order of Adam (Lk. 3:38). And as the first Adam, having been given the priestly ministry of guarding the garden, was tested by Satan, so also for this newly ordained Priest, who passes through the waters into the wilderness to be tested by the devil (Lk. 4:1-13), so that He could be a priest who was tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 39
Copyright (c) 1995 Biblical Horizons
May, 1995
I have lived and worked in Presbyterian circles since I became convinced of the Reformed faith over twenty years ago. Thus, it is easiest and most appropriate for me to issue criticisms and to call for reformation in the Presbyterian churches. Both Scripture and my own experience, and my observation of the experiences of others, have led me to a conviction that Presbyterian church government as it usually exists today is seriously awry from the Biblical pattern, but not really any more so than other options available at present. Thus, while I shall write critically of current-day Presbyterianism in this essay, what I have to say will impinge on other systems of government as well. As a Presbyterian, however, I feel I should deal with the “beam in my own eye” first.
My purpose in this essay is to investigate the Biblical meaning of eldership, especially as it relates to the Church.
Words for “Elder”
The word “elder” in the Hebrew Bible is zaqen. In the Aramaic of the book of Ezra it is sib. In the Greek Bible, including the New Testament, it is presbuteros. All of these words mean the same thing: old man, aged man.
The Hebrew noun zaqan means “beard,” and of course any man who is physically mature might sprout a beard. While this noun is linked to the noun zaqen, it does not govern the meaning of the latter. An elder is not simply someone with a beard. Rather, the verb zaqen always means “be old.” Often it is found in the phrase, “old and advanced in years” (Gen. 24:1; Josh. 13:1, 23:2). A glance at a concordance will show that every time it is used it refers to a very old man or woman. The adjective zaqen, from which the substantive noun zaqen comes, means “old,” and the noun means “old man, elder.” A gathering of elders is, in the first instance, a gathering of the old men, the white-hairs, the grandfathers.
The Aramaic word sib in Ezra 5:5, 9; 6:7, 8, 14 means “old man.” It is close to the Hebrew verb sib, which means “to be grayheaded” and is found only in 1 Samuel 12:2 and Job 15:10. In the latter verse, it is parallel to the phrase “very aged.”
In commenting on the Old Testament usage of zaqen, Jack P. Lewis has this to say: “zaqen as a substantive, usually plural, is a technical term occurring about one hundred times. Only the context can determine whether old men or the ruling body [of elders�JBJ] is intended in any particular case. The OT is not clear concerning the age required to qualify one to be a zaqen or details of appointment to the group.” [R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), �574, p. 249.]
While it is true that no age limit is specified, we shall see that the age of 50 is indicated as the bottom limit. Also, there is no way a man before at least that age could be considered “old and advanced in years.” Clearly, elders are old men.
The Greek term presbuteros derives from Greek words such as presbutes meaning “old man.” The Greek particle pres- means “old.” Its usage in the Greek translation of the Old Testament clearly associates it with the equivalent Hebrew terms. It means “old man.”
Scenes of Elders
As always in tribal societies, there were already elders among the Hebrews before Moses organized the Israelite society at Mount Sinai, and these men led the people (Ex. 3:16, 18; 4:29; 12:21). Seventy of these elders were associated with Moses as the supreme court of Israel (Ex. 24:1, 9, 14; Num. 11:16-30). Civil elders ruled local communities, and are sometimes called “elders of the gate” because they guarded access, both legal and physical, to the towns in which they held court.
It is hard to believe that in a society like this men in their 20s, 30s, or even 40s would be considered “elders” and thereby be eligible for such positions of oversight. We read in 1 Kings 12 that Rehoboam, himself 41 years old, forsook the counsel of the elders and hearkened to the words of the younger men with whom he had grown up. An elder is somebody well over 41 years of age!
It seems clear that there were also ecclesiastical elders. We read in Numbers that the Levites and priests could assume their duties at the age of 30, but then could retire at the age of 50. We are not told what they did after their retirement, and clearly such a retirement did not apply to the high priest because Aaron was 83 when he became high priest. Surely such elder Levites and priests would become overseers of the priestly duties and of the Levitical cities. Later on, when David reorganized the worship and set up 24 chief priests, we can assume that these overseers were also older men, past the age of 50.
With all of this in the background, it seems strange to assume that the elders in the New Testament churches were younger men who simply held the "office of elder.”
Overseers
It is often felt that the word episcopos, “bishop” or “overseer” (the Greek-English form of the Latin-English “supervisor”), is simply equivalent to “elder.” But that is not quite true. Hebrews 12:15 teaches that we are to oversee one another in the Church, “overseeing that no one fails to obtain the grace of God.” In 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Chief Overseer of our souls. In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the elders that he has summoned that they are to oversee the Church. In 1 Timothy 3:1ff., Paul writes of the office of overseer as something all men might aspire to, and proceeds to list qualifications, as he also does in Titus 1:7.
The association of elders with overseers in Acts 20:28, however, does indicate that anyone with the office of overseer should be an old man.
Immediate Implications
Modern Presbyterians object to the idea that a minister can transubstantiate bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ with his hands. They rightly see this as magic. Sadly, they practice the same thing when they think they can make a man into an elder by laying hands on him. Only years of experience can make a man an elder, whether a teaching or a ruling elder. Ordaining men in their 20s, 30s, or even 40s to the fullness of the ministry is a serious mistake.
Deacons
Modern Presbyterianism has invented the office of deacon. The deacons are a group of men, they say, who handle the physical side of Church life: maintaining the property, carrying out works of charity, and controlling the money. This notion is based on Acts 6, taken out of its Biblical context.
In reality, and this is pretty obvious from the Bible as a whole, a deacon is an assistant and/or apprentice elder. Joshua was Moses’ deacon; Elisha was Elijah’s deacon; Gehazi was Elisha’s deacon; Baruch was Jeremiah’s deacon. The Twelve were Jesus’ deacons, and after they became elders, they enlisted other men as their deacons.
The deacons of Acts 6 took care of physical needs under the oversight and direction of the elders, the apostles. The diaconate is not a separate o_ce, but the training ground for the o_ce of overseer. Elisha “poured water on the hands of Elijah” (2 Ki. 3:11). According to 1 Kings 20:21, Elisha “ministered to” Elijah. The Twelve fed the 5000 while Jesus taught them, and then cleaned up the loaves and fishes.
Thus, a deacon is someone who is set aside by the Church to help the elders. Each elder should have a deacon. The deacon mows the elder’s grass, takes his car to the shop to be fixed, and does anything else necessary to help the elder do his job. This is a far cry from the modern “board of deacons,” who all too often pride themselves in “controlling the money.”
Teaching and Ruling
For many years I was persuaded, based on studying the New Testament in isolation from the whole Bible, of the modern view that there is only one office of elder. All overseers rule, I maintained, and all teach in one form or another. That is quite true, but is not all there is to say about the matter.
The fact is that the Old Testament shows a clear separation between church functions and state functions. The “elders of the gate” were civil officers, while the older Levites and priests were ecclesiastical officers. The New Testament does not change any of this. Rather, what happens is that the New Creation comes, and there is a need for both offices to continue in the context of the Church. Later, as the Church matures, there may also be civil elders. In the Church herself, however, there are interpersonal conflicts that can be settled by ruling elders, and there is also a need for experts in the Bible and doctrine to oversee the worship and teaching of the Church.
Does a man have to be aged before taking up tasks in the Church? By no means. We should have ruling deacons and teaching deacons. A teaching deacon would be a younger man appointed to teach and lead in worship in a local church, but because of his relative youth, he would be under the oversight of the older men in the presbytery (the wider association of churches). In meetings of the presbytery, such teaching deacons would have the right to speak and contribute to the discussion, but when it came time to vote, perhaps only the elders, the old men, would cast a vote. Similarly, ruling deacons would sit in with ruling elders and the local teaching elder or deacon, and contribute to the leadership of the church in the discussion, but perhaps not in the vote. Perhaps only elders (teaching and ruling overseers) should have the power to pronounce excommunication. We shall return to this matter of voting later.
A shadow of this truth is seen in the traditional form of Presbyterian address. When a man speaks in the presbytery, he addresses the assembly as “fathers and brethren,” showing that some of the men are indeed much older and should be accorded more respect and their words given greater weight.
Further Biblical Confirmation
The Bible places a tremendous emphasis on growing up and becoming mature, aged, and wise. When we see this, we realize how Satanic the “sixties” were, with their slogan: “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.” Let’s briefly review the Biblical evidence.
1. Adam and Eve were created physically mature, but infants in wisdom. That is why the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden to them. This tree bestowed an investiture with rulership and judgeship, and they were not ready for it. When they seized the fruit, they seized the robe of the elder and judge, a heavy robe that crushed them. For more information on this subject, see my essay, “The Dominion Trap,” in Biblical Horizons No. 15. Also consider the following passages: 2 Samuel 14;17, 20; 2 Samuel 19:27; 1 Kings 3:9; Deuteronomy 1:39; 2 Samuel 19:35; which show that the phrase “knowledge of good and evil” means the ability and right to pass judgment.
2. Passing judgment requires that we have experience and have acquired wisdom. Hebrews 5:14 says, “Solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves in the knowledge of good and evil.”
3. In Israel, God set out certain ages for certain stages of responsibility. A man remained a “child,” under-age and under his parents’ authority, until the age of 20. At that time, he was enrolled as a separate member of the Kingdom (Num. 1:3). A list of the stages of life, for official purposes, is given in Leviticus 27:3-7, to wit:
1 month to 5 years – infant
5 years to 20 years – youth
20 years to 60 years – adult
Over 60 years – elder
4. A Levite might take up certain preliminary responsibilities at the age of 25 (Num. 8:24).
5. Levites and priests were not to enter into full service until the age of 30 (Num. 4:3). This is an important age in the Bible. We are told pointedly that Joseph did not become vice-regent of Egypt until he was 30. David did not become vice-regent of Israel (under God and under God’s prophet Nathan) until 30. Jesus did not begin His work until He was 30. (Gen. 41:46; 2 Sam. 5:4; Lk. 3:23).
6. But clearly, a 30-year old man is not an elder. “Elder” means old man. The Bible refers to the hoary head. John in Revelation 1 sees Jesus as an old man, with white hair.
7. Numbers 4:3-47 and 8:25 tell us that Levites were to retire from the work of carrying the heavy furniture of the Tabernacle at the age of 50. If this is merely a practical requirement, because the men are getting old, it is superfluous. “All Scripture is profitable for doctrine…for instruction in righteousness…for good works.” It seems clear that at the age of 50 the Levites became elders, wise men, ready to engage in the oversight of the spiritual life of Israel. Since the priests were Levites, we should draw from this that Levites continued in religious work after the age of 50, but of a more doctrinal and judicial sort, just as the priests continued to teach and minister after the age of 50.
8. The Jews challenged Jesus, “You are not yet 50, yet you claim to have seen Abraham” (John 8:57). I submit that it was obvious to the eye that Jesus was in His early 30s. His hair and beard were still black. Why, then, the reference to 50? I think it is because the Jews saw that Jesus claimed to be a teacher, but it was not normal for a man to be a teacher, in the way Jesus was, before the age of 50.
9. Paul tells Timothy not to let men despise his youth (1 Tim. 4:12). By this time Timothy was probably close to 40, yet is still considered a youth.
10. Finally, consider Leviticus 27:7 again: Here the age of eldership is 60. Thus, it seems that a man might start his eldering tasks at 50, but not really be considered a full elder until 60.
Now, how do we put all this together? In the past, I have written, because it seemed so to me, that men should not be ordained as elders in the Church before the age of 30. From our study that much is obvious. Now, however, I believe that 30 is too young for the eldership. As a man of 45 I can assure you that men are not elders before they are at least 50!
Let’s notice something important about those entering service in their 30s. They did exercise rule, yes, but only under authority. Joseph was second to Pharaoh. David was second to Yahweh, and Yahweh spoke through the prophets, like Nathan. (Indeed, the great condition of the Kingdom was that the King must always harken to the High King, who spoke through the prophets. Saul did not do so; David did.) The laboring Levites were under the authority of the elder Levites. Timothy was under Paul. And Jesus stresses, right in John 8, that He spoke and did only what the Father commanded Him (Jn. 8:28). In other words, Jesus was not acting as an elder during His earthly ministry.
What about the apostles? They were about Jesus’ age, and therefore not elders when they began their work in Acts 2. This is quite true, but the New Testament stresses that the Holy Spirit worked with these men in a direct, miraculous way. Thus, before ad 70 the church was under the higher oversight of the Elder Spirit in a special way. It is only as we move along in the New Testament that we find men called “elders” and set aside as “overseers.” (Some of these men, of course, were old men who had been Godly elders and overseers in the synagogue before moving over into the Church.)
I submit that only when a king became an older man, an elder, did he begin to have the moral right to become more independent. This perhaps is why we sometimes see older kings put their sons on the throne with them as co-regents.
The Bible associates elders with overseers, those who watch over the Church. Thus, overseers should be at least 50 years old.
Let me summarize what I think the Bible is teaching us, as we have considered it thus far:
1. Nobody should become a voting member of the Church before the age of 20.
2. Nobody should become a deacon, in the sense of an assistant and apprentice, before the age of 25.
3. Nobody should be ordained as a teacher, under the authority of elders, before the age of 30.
4. Nobody should be made a ruling elder in a local church, or a teaching “bishop” overseeing several churches, before the age of 50. The rule of thumb should be 60, but no one should become an elder before 50.
(to be concluded)
