BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 92
February, 1997
Copyright 1997 Biblical Horizons
On the eighth day of the rite of "filling the hand," Aaron began his service at the altar. His first offering was a "calf" (Heb. `egel), which served as a purification offering for himself and (apparently) his household (Leviticus 9:2, 8). This is striking for a couple of reasons. First, Leviticus 4:3 requires that priests offer a par, a "bullock," for their purification offering, and, second, nowhere else does the Bible mention an `egel as a sacrificial animal. There is no question of a violation of the commandment here; Leviticus 9:2 describes the animal as a "calf, a bullock," so that a "calf" is included in the category of animals covered by "bullock." Yet, there must be some reason for calling the animal an `egel here. Several possibilities suggest themselves.
First, the use of `egel emphasizes the youth of the animal. Par always means a young bull or bullock, but an `egel is even younger, a young bullock. This is appropriate for Aaron’s first approach to the altar, for he is an `egel in priestly ministry, not yet a par, much less a shor, a mature "ox" (Leviticus 9:4). Some similar rationale may be behind the selection of an `egel for the ascension offering of the people (Leviticus 9:3); Jordan has suggested a progression from initial ascension to God, represented by a calf, to communion with God, represented by the mature animal.
Second, prior to his ordination Aaron was involved with another `egel, the golden calf of Exodus 32. Aaron must have winced noticeably when Moses told him to take an `egel for his purification; ouch! The `egel of his first offering is a fitting atonement for his role in constructing the idolatrous `egel. There is a neat reversal here: The first time we see Aaron involved with liturgical matters he is constructing a golden calf and offering sacrifices to it; but now, his hands having been filled with the priesthood to Yahweh, he offers a calf in his first act of true worship. Dead and idolatrous Aaron has been given new life in his baptismal ordination.
Finally, Exodus 32:1 indicates that the people suggested that Aaron construct an image because Moses was delayed in returning from the mountain. This suggests that they understood the golden calf image as being in some sense a replacement for Moses, who had "brought them out of Egypt." Fittingly, Moses will later return from the mountain with a "horned" face, shining with the glory of Yahweh, the glory that had led Israel through the wilderness to Sinai. Moses is thus the true image of Yahweh, the true calf. In Leviticus 8-9, however, there is a transfer to a new image. Aaron is decked in glory-garments, his head is crowned with glorious gold, and he is now allowed to ascend to the altar-mountain and beyond the screen into the house. As his first act of ministry, Aaron, the new image of Yahweh, the new "golden calf," offers an `egel for purification and a calf of ascension for the people.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 92
February, 1997
Copyright 1997 Biblical Horizons
Years ago, when I was at the briefly-existing Geneva Divinity School, I taught a course in the Apocrypha. One thing that struck me at that time is that two of the stories are almost certainly religious allegories (as well as moral tales): Judith and Susanna. Since "Susanna" means "Lily," this issue of Biblical Horizons seems a good place to share my thoughts.
At the outset, I should say that I have not found any commentator who takes the story of Susanna as a Biblical allegory. Thus, what follows are my own suggestions, based solely on my own reading of the text.
The story of Susanna is one of the apocryphal Additions to Daniel, found as Daniel chapter 13 in Roman Catholic Bibles. It exists only in Greek, though there was likely a Semitic original in either Hebrew or Aramaic, or both. There are two Greek versions, one in the original Septuagint translation, and the other in the Greek version of Theodotion. It is the latter that is translated in Catholic Bibles and in various editions of the Apocrypha. A full discussion of all this is found in Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions. Anchor Bible 44 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977).
While the story of Judith is clearly written as an allegory, the story of Susanna may have an historical root. What we now have, however, has been worked over, apparently more than once, and stands as a fictional story.
Susanna is the beautiful and virtuous wife of Joakim ("Yahweh Will Establish"). Her father, Hilkiah ("Yahweh Is My Portion"), brought her up in the law of Moses. Her husband Joakim is very rich and has a beautiful garden next to his fine house.
Two wicked Jewish elders, who have kept their sins secret for many years, frequently visit Joakim and become consumed with desire for the lovely lily of his garden, Susanna. One day, they both decide to hide in the garden to spy on Susanna, who, as it happens, decides to take a bath. Her maids bring her bath oils, and then leave her. As soon as she is alone, the two lustful elders run to her and demand she submit to them; otherwise, they will accuse her of having a secret lover.
She refuses them and cries out, at which point they also cry out and accuse her. They bring her to trial, and claim that they caught her in the very act of adultery, but that her youthful lover escaped. The people are persuaded by the testimony of these two witnesses, and take Susanna forth to be stoned. She prays to God for help.
At this point the young Daniel appears. The angel of Yahweh inspires him with wisdom (in the earlier version; in the later one, he is already wise). Daniel rebukes the people for not having looked farther into the matter. He gets permission to interview each of the elders separately. He asks each of them what tree Susanna and her lover were beneath when they were apprehended. One elder says a mastic tree; the other says an oak tree. Now it is clear that they are lying and that Susanna is innocent. The two elders are taken out and stoned, while everyone praises Daniel. (In the earlier version, Daniel is not as prominent, suggesting that perhaps the first version did not have Daniel as hero.)
One can readily see Biblical backgrounds for this narrative. A women being spied upon lustfully in the privacy of her bath reminds us of David and Bathsheba. A false accusation of adultery by a spurned admirer reminds us of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. But behind it all, as it appears to me, stands the story of the Garden of Eden, as seen through the Song of Solomon.
Solomon’s garden is replete with lilies: He and his wife are compared to lilies several times. Susanna is a lily in her husband’s garden. Her father has given her to her husband, as God gave Israel to Yahweh, or to Solomon. The elders, who were supposed to lead Israel into truth, invade the garden and attack the bride there. Similarly, Lucifer, as Chief Angel, was to lead Adam and Eve to truth, but instead sought to corrupt them, starting with the bride.
This time, however, the bride refuses to sin. She is falsely charged with sin anyway, and stands under sentence of death. Then the hero arrives, a prophet, Daniel. Like the prophets in the Bible, he condemns the wicked authorities, and defends the poor and helpless.
Thus, the character symbols in the story are:
Joakim – The King-Husband, a Good Adam, with palace and garden.
Susanna – The Bride: Israel.
The Elders – Enemy oppressors: hypocritical religious leaders.
Daniel – Deliverer: prophets.
The message of the story is clear: Follow the law of Moses and live righteously. If the wicked attack and accuse you falsely, God will defend you through His prophets. Finally, though the story takes place in the shadow of the Babylonian captivity, the primary danger to God’s people comes from hypocritical religious leaders, not from gentile powers.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 92
February, 1997
Copyright 1997 Biblical Horizons
Peter’s essay inspires me to write up some similar thoughts about the flower of the field. Rightly does Peter associate the almond with Yahweh’s garden, because the Garden of Eden is symbolically positioned as parallel to the Holy Place of the Tabernacle and Temple. To wit:
| Heaven | Land of Eden | Holy of Holies |
| Firmament | Garden of Eden | Holy Place |
| Earth | Outlying world | Courtyard |
Since Aaron’s rod blossomed with almond flowers and nuts, and the rod symbolized him as a man, the flower on his forehead is symbolically an almond flower (whether made in the shape of one or not). It represented Aaron as "watcher (almond) over Israel."
Aaron’s daily operations were in the Holy Place, the symbolic Firmament, the symbolic Garden. It was in that place that he was to wear his flower-crown. In that place also was the Golden Lampstand, which was made as a symbolic almond tree (Exodus 25:31-39). The flowers of this almond tree, mounted above calyx and bud, were the seven lamps. These "watcher lamps" were positioned to watch over the Table of Showbread, which represented the tribes of Israel (Exodus 25:37).
Aaron’s flowered rod, representing him, was placed in the Holy of Holies; but Aaron himself might not go there (except once a year on the Day of Atonement, and then as a sin-bearer, not as a watchman over Israel). May we say that only a plucked flower, one that has passed through death, is eligible to enter heaven (the Holy of Holies) and remain with God?
We don’t find almond blossoms in the Tabernacle/Temple courtyard. This area represents the field, in contrast to the garden. It is the world, where man operates as servant-king, in contrast to the firmament-garden-temple, where man serves as priest-watchman.
In this area we find the lily. The two great bronze pillars that stood on either side of the Temple doorway were made as gigantic lilies, with stem, calyx, and flower (1 Kings 7:19, 22). Similarly, the Bronze Ocean in the Temple courtyard was made as a gigantic lily blossom (1 Kings 7:26; 2 Chronicles 4:5).
The citizens of Israel, including the Chief Citizen, the King, might come into this courtyard for worship. Only the priests might enter the Holy Place. Thus, the priests were almonds, watchers over Israel; while the citizens themselves were lilies. The priests, being citizens, were also lilies of course.
The Bronze Ocean Lily was closely associated with the people of Israel. It rested on the backs of twelve bronze bulls, representing the tribes of Israel. In 1 Kings 7:26, the word for "lily" is masculine (shoshan), but in 2 Chronicles 4:5 it is in a feminine form (shoshannah [Susanna]), perhaps pointing to the nation as Yahweh’s bride.
The two Bronze Pillar Lilies are associated with the leaders of Israel. One pillar was named Boaz; this was the King’s Pillar, for Boaz was David’s family name. The other was named Jachin, a priestly name. The Hebrew word is always masculine when referring to these lilies. King and High Priest stand side by side guarding the door of Yahweh’s house: the King approaching from the courtyard, while the Priest approaches from inside the Temple and standing as a lily rather than as an almond outside the Temple. (For a full discussion of the pillars and their societal meaning, see my essay Thoughts on Jachin and Boaz, available from Biblical Horizons .)
Jesus almost certainly has these Temple lilies partly in mind when He compares living lilies to Solomon’s glory, because after all, it was Solomon who built the glorious Temple. The lilies are more glorious than Solomon ever was, He says. And then He includes the lilies among the "grass of the field" (Matthew 6:28-30; Luke 12:27-28).
With this in mind, we can go back to Isaiah 40:6-8, which Peter analyzed in his essay. If the "flower" is the priestly almond blossom, the "grass" is the lily of the citizens and their kingly representative. Thus, adding to Peter’s analysis, Israel fades both as grass and flower, both as field and garden, both as priestly nation and as a citizenry, before the breath of God.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 92
February, 1997
Copyright 1997 Biblical Horizons
One of the distinctive items of the high priest’s clothing was the "golden plate" inscribed with the words "Holy to Yahweh" (Exodus 28:36-38). The word translated as "plate" is tsits, which literally means "flower." The verbal and noun forms are both used in Numbers 17:8, which describes Aaron’s rod as "budding with buds." Aaron’s budding rod was a sign that he alone, of all the leaders of Israel’s tribes, would flourish as an almond ("watcher") in the house of Yahweh. The flower-crowned rod symbolized the flower-crowned high priest, and since it was Aaron’s rod that blossomed, Aaron would be high priest. Though nothing more than dead wood, the golden flower signified that he would sprout and bloom and become fruitful in service. Through his representative ministry, Israel was to become a flowering field; this is indicated later in the temple, where tsitstsim are carved into the walls and overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:18, 29, 32, 35)
Flowers are associated in Scripture with glory; as Jesus said, flowers are the glorious clothing of the grass, and a God who takes time to make little jackets and ornaments for the grass – the grass that we trample and mow and pluck without a thought – will take care of His children. Just as the Lord clothes and crowns the grass, so He robed and crowned Aaron in garments of glory and beauty. Aaron was the glorious flower of Yahweh’s garden-house.
Flowers are beautiful but rapidly fade and die, and so it is with the glory of man, as Psalm 103:15 and James 1:9-11 indicate. I suspect, however, that there is a more specific connection between the priestly flower and another famous biblical statement about flowers, Isaiah 40:6-8. This passage opens the prophet’s announcement of a new exodus, speaking the comforting words that Israel’s sins have been paid and that a pathway of return will be made in the wilderness. The glory of the Lord will be revealed in His redemption of Israel from her exile, as it was revealed in the first exodus from Egypt. Verses 6-8 must be understood in this context. These verses are structured by parallel sets of threes:
All flesh is grass; all his hesed (faithfulness) is like
the flower of the field.
Grass withers; flower fades.
Because the ruach (breath; Spirit) of Yahweh
blows upon it.
Surely the people are grass.
Grass withers; flower fades.
Word of our God stands forever.
This is not merely a general statement about the weakness and brevity of fleshly life but a specific statement about Israel and her condition; these people are like grass, not people in general. Israel’s hesed ("faithfulness") is glorious as a tsits and equally impermanent, as her exile testifies. The flowers of Israel, her priests, or better, Israel as priestly flower, has faded. Herein, perhaps, is revealed the weakness of the old covenant, for Israel’s flower fades precisely because the breath of God, the breath that gave life to Adam, blows upon her. The hesed of Yahweh is quite different, standing forever; and so the flower garden that has become a desert will one day blossom like the rose, when a resurrected Man of the Spirit will pour out the Spirit on all flesh, will breathe in such a way that the flowers do not fade but bloom everlastingly.
Biblical Chronology, Vol. 9, No. 2
Copyright James B. Jordan 1997
February, 1997
We have had occasion to discuss the views of Meredith G. Kline previously in these newsletters, and now it is time to do so again. Kline teaches at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and also at the Westminster Theological Seminaries (Philadelphia and San Diego). He is the author of some interesting insights into the meaning of certain Biblical texts, and as such his work is important. He is also creator is a new and, in the opinion of most, rather bizarre approach to the history of revelation and redemption. It is as one of the foremost defenders of the "Framework Hypothesis" approach to Genesis 1, however, that he interests us here.
Does Biblical chronology begin with the creation of the cosmos, or with the creation of man? Should we date the events in the Bible Anno Mundi (am, Year of the World), or Anno Hominis (ah, Year of Humanity)? In some ways it does not matter, since the numbers will come out the same either way. But it does matter to our terminology (as just mentioned), and the question of the days of Genesis 1 definitely comes under the purview of our studies.
Kline’s first foray into this matter was published as "Because It Had Not Rained," in The Westminster Theological Journal 20 (1958):146-157. That essay is generally referenced as a good proof for the idea that the Days of Genesis 1 are not periods of time but categories of creation. Now Kline has written a new defense of the notion, in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48:1 (March, 1996):2-15.
I provided a more general refutation of the Framework Hypothesis in Biblical Chronology 3:6. Before proceeding further, let me provide this previous assessment here, for the sake of the many new readers of this essayletter.
* * * * *
Throughout history, the Christian Church has had to guard against the heresy of gnosticism. Gnosticism is not an ordinary heresy, because it does not manifest itself as a set of defined beliefs. Rather, gnosticism is a tendency, a tendency to replace the historic facts of Christianity with philosophical ideas. Gnosticism is the tendency to de-historicize the Christian religion. Gnosticism transforms history into ideology and facts into philosophy. Gnosticism tends to see religion as man’s reflections about God and reality, instead of as God’s revelation of Himself and His Word to man.
The great anti-gnostic creed of the Christian faith is the Apostles’ Creed. The core of the Apostles’ Creed is a rehearsal of historical events: "born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. The third day He rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty." The reason the Creed recites these events is that the gnostic movements in the early Church tended to downplay or even to reject them. "It does not really matter if these things happened," said the gnostics. "What matters is the meaning, the truths, the great ideas we get from meditating on these things."
The gnostic tendency to convert historical events into mere ideas is very much alive in the evangelical Christian world today, and in my opinion is manifest in the so-called "framework hypothesis" interpretation of Genesis 1. The Framework Hypothesis converts the six days of Genesis 1 into Six Big Ideas. According to the Framework Hypothesis, the events recounted in Genesis 1 never happened; rather, Genesis 1 is simply describing the cosmic order using the literary device of six "days." Perhaps the most influential advocate of the Framework Hypothesis in theological circles is Meredith G. Kline.
The attractiveness of the Framework Hypothesis is plain to see: It enables us to have our cake and eat it too as regards modern science. Modern science says that the universe is much older than 6000 years, and that it came into being through "evolutionary processes" that do not resemble the events set out in Genesis 1. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the modern scientific view. There cannot be, because the only possible evidence for an historical event is an eyewitness report. The modern scientific myth is based exclusively on a supposition, to wit: The way things seem to be right now is the way they have always been. It is an extrapolation based on questionable assumptions about present "processes." (For a discussion of "process" and "natural law" from a Biblical perspective, see chapter 9 in my book, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World [Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988].)
My purpose here is not to deal with the underlying suppositions of modern science, but to point to the clear meaning of Genesis 1. There is no way we can hold to the Framework Hypothesis of Genesis 1 and still have an inerrant Bible.
It is interesting to note that the Framework Hypothesis has been thoroughly refuted over and over again, and yet it has more adherents today than ever before. G. C. Aalders of the Free University of Amsterdam pointed out in 1932 that (1) in the text of Genesis 1 there is not a single allusion to suggest that the days are to be regarded as a merely stylistic device, and that (2) Exodus 20:11 presents God’s activity as a pattern for man, and this fact presupposes that there was a reality in the activity of God that man is to copy. As E. J. Young of Westminster Theological Seminary pointed out in his book Studies in Genesis One (Phillipsburg, NJ: Pres. & Ref. Pub. Co., 1964), no one bothered to answer Aalders. Young himself went on for fifty pages refuting the Framework Hypothesis, and to my knowledge nobody has tried to refute Young.
Recently, Kenneth Gentry has summarized the exegetical arguments against the Framework Hypothesis as follows: "(1) `Day’ is qualified by `evening and morning’ (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31), which specifically limits the time-frame. (2) The very same word `day’ is used on the fourth day to define a time period that is governed by the sun, which must be a regular day (Gen. 1:14). (3) In the 119 instances of the Hebrew word `day’ (yom) standing in conjunction with a numerical adjective (first, second, etc.) in the writings of Moses, it never means anything other than a literal day. Consistency would require that this structure must so function in Genesis 1. (4) Exodus 20:9-11 patterns man’s work week after God’s original work week, which suggests the literality of the creation week. (5) In Exodus 20:11 the plural for the "days" of creation is used. In the 702 instances of the plural "days" in the Old Testament, it never means anything other than literal days." (Kenneth Gentry, The Greatness of the Great Commission [Tyler, TX: ICE, 1991], p. 9.)
We can add two other arguments to Gentry’s. First, there are several other places in the books of Moses where we have seven "panels" of things. These seven-step passages cover the same seven aspects of creation as the seven days of creation, but without using the word "day." For instance, in Exodus 25-31, we find seven speeches of the Lord, telling Moses how to build the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle is an architectural model of the world. Each of God’s seven speeches is introduced with the phrase "Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying," or some variant of this phrase (Ex. 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12). Allowing for the fact that the Tabernacle is a symbolic cosmos, we can see the seven speeches of Exodus 25-31 covering the same ground as Genesis 1. For instance, the third speech (Ex. 30:17-21) concerns the laver, the sea in the Tabernacle, corresponding to Day 3 in Genesis 1. The sixth speech (Ex. 31:1-11) appoints the man who will build the Tabernacle, corresponding to Day 6 when man was created. The seventh speech (Ex. 31:12-17) concerns the sabbath, which was Day 7. (For a full discussion of this and several other seven-section passages, see my paper, "The Tabernacle: A New Creation" [Tyler, TX: Biblical Horizons , Box 132011, Tyler, TX 75713; 1988], and also my book Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989].)
Now, what is important for our purposes is that the book of Exodus does not say that God made these seven speeches to Moses on seven consecutive days. Moreover, there is no "literary device" of "days" employed in Exodus 25-31, or in any of a half-dozen similar passages, even though the same seven "cosmic features" are discussed. Clearly, if Moses had wanted to, he could have written Genesis 1 without saying anything about "days." The contrast between Genesis 1 and Exodus 25-31 shows that the "days" are not a mere literary device.
Second, the Framework Hypothesis has to hold that the events recounted in Genesis 1 never happened. Quite apart from the matter of "days," Genesis 1 makes a whole series of claims that the Framework Hypothesis says are false.
Let’s be clear about this: We are discussing what the text claims happened. Genesis 1:7 says that an event happened in which God made a "firmament" and separated waters above the firmament from those below. The Framework Hypothesis says that this event never happened. According to it, all Genesis 1:7 means is that this configuration came into being as a result of the evolutionary plan of God.
Genesis 1:9 says that God gathered all the waters on the earth into one place, and that the dry land appeared. The Framework Hypothesis says that as an event, this never happened.
Repeatedly throughout the chapter, the text claims that God said things. These are events. We might interpret Genesis 1 and suppose that since human beings were not on the scene, God did not "speak" in audible tones. We might even say that these phrases mean that He "put forth His Word," and thus refer to the work of the Second Person of the Trinity. The point, however, is that the text claims that God did these things, said these things, as discrete actions. The Framework Hypothesis says that God never did these things, that no such individual acts ever occurred. According to the Framework Hypothesis, all Genesis 1 means is that God’s Word (or "wordness") lies behind everything that came into being over the course of who knows how long a time. The Framework Hypothesis denies that there was a certain time in history when God said "Let there be light," and another, different, event in history when God said, "Let the waters teem."
To put it simply, Genesis 1 clearly claims that certain events took place, and the Framework Hypothesis says that those events simply did not take place. The Framework Hypothesis denies the specific claims of the text: The text as it stands is in error; these things never actually happened. All we are supposed to learn from the text, according to the Framework Hypothesis, is the idea that God made everything, and ordered it.
This is a very interesting way to read the Bible! Let’s apply it to John 20. John 20 says that Jesus’ body was not physically in the tomb on resurrection morning, and that He physically rose from the grave. But we "know" from modern science that dead people don’t rise! Maybe John 20 doesn’t really have to be taken with "wooden literalism." Notice, for instance, in verse 12 that two angels sat in the tomb, one at one end of the slab and one at the other. What this means is that the death of Jesus is the "mercy seat" where God meets with men, for in the Tabernacle two cherubim stood on either end of the "mercy seat." Now that we have the idea from this verse, we no longer have to believe that it ever really happened, according to the interpretive methods of the Frameworkers.
Or consider John 20:15. Mary Magdalene saw Jesus and thought He was the gardener, for the tomb was in a garden. Well, here is the new Eve, restored from her sins, encountering the New Adam in the new garden of the new covenant. That’s the idea. But did she really see and touch the physical body of Jesus? Who knows? and who cares? asks the Frameworker. The point of the resurrection narratives is not to tell us about historical events, but to makes us understand God’s word to us, which is: "Don’t worry; be happy!"
Now, I don’t know any evangelical Frameworkers who would want to apply their methods to John 20, but what is to stop someone else from doing so? Evangelical Frameworkers want to have both the events of John 20 as well as the theology. In fact, most of them would see that the theology of John 20 depends on whether the events really happened: If Christ did not really rise from the tomb, then His death cannot be our "mercy seat," and He cannot offer Himself as our new Gardener-Husband. When it comes to Genesis 1, however, they want the ideas without the events.
Genesis 1 makes claims about historical events just as surely as does John 20. If the claims of Genesis 1 are in error, then there is no reason to think the claims of John 20 are true. If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then what it claims happened really happened, and that is just as true for the creation as it is for the resurrection.
* * * * *
The argument Kline presented in his original article, and which is repeated here, is this: Genesis 1 says that on Day 3 God created the plants, but in Genesis 2:5 we find that the plants had not been created because there was no man to till the ground; that is, the plants were created after man was created. In his new article, which we shall take as superseding his earlier one and thus reflective of his more mature thinking, Kline writes regarding Genesis 2:5, "Absent then were all plants, whether belonging to the unpeopled wilderness or to cultivated areas" (p. 12).
This, however, is precisely not what Genesis 2:5 says, nor it is what Genesis 1 says about Day 3. Genesis 2:5 tells us that no "shrub of the field had been made" and no "plant of the field had sprouted" by the time of the sixth day. These events did not occur until after man was created. If that is so, then what kinds of plants were made on the third day of Genesis 1?
Genesis 1:11-12 tells us that two kinds of plants were made on the third day. The first was "plants seeding seed" (literally) and the second was "trees fruitbearing fruit." These two kinds of foods were given to Adam and Eve as food in Genesis 1:29. These are the foundations respectively of bread and wine. They are the kinds of plant food man encounters first, in the garden-sanctuary at the center of the world, on the sabbath day. They were made first, and already existed when man was made. They already existed for man to eat with God on the sabbath. As we shall see, however, the grain did not exist yet in mature (food) form; only the trees had produced food. Thus, man’s first sanctuary food was fruit (wine), not grain (bread).
Genesis 2:5 tells us that none of the other kinds of plants were made on the third day. By itself, this shatters the "modified day-age interpretation" of Genesis 1. The "day-age interpretation" holds that each "day" was a stage in the evolutionary development of the world, but this is obviously wrong since it would mean plants existed before the sun, moon, and stars. Thus, the "modified day-age interpretation" says that each of the six "ages" of Genesis 1 means that for some reason the item mentioned is highlighted in that age. Plants were around for an age; the mists cleared to reveal the sun for an age; then came an age of dinosaurs, fishes, and birds, and then came mammals and man. This sounds okay (sort of), but Genesis 2:5 makes it impossible. We can hardly have only fruits and grains on the earth for millions of years before ferns, bushes, pine trees, and grass appeared!
Genesis 2:5 says that "no shrub of the field was yet in the earth." This clearly means that such plants had not yet been created. The word for "shrub" (se’akh) occurs only three other times in the Old Testament. Speaking of Hagar and Ishmael after they were driven out from Abraham, Genesis 21:15 says, "And the water in the skin was used up, and she left the boy under one of the shrubs." This associates shrubs with areas that are not "well watered throughout," as was the garden of Eden (Genesis 13:10), and as is required for grain and fruit.
Speaking of trashy people, "whose fathers I disdained to put with the dogs of my flock," Job comments that they don’t eat well: "Who gather mallow from the shrubs, and whose food is the root of the broom bush." Driven from the community for their crimes, "among shrubs they bray; under brush they huddle" (Job 30:1-7).
We can conclude that "shrubs" include all plants that do not produce food in the form of grain or fruit. Some are indeed edible, but they are not the staple form of diet, and are not included as sanctuary food (bread, wine, and oil). These plants did not exist until after the six days of creation week were over. Their creation was suspended until after man was made, for a reason implied in Genesis 3:18. God waited until He saw whether man would sin or not. If man did not sin, the shrubs would be one kind of plant; if man sinned, they would be "thorns and thistles."
Genesis 2:5 says that "no plant of the field had yet sprouted." This implies that such plants did exist, and indeed are the same as the grains created on the third day. Such plants had been brought forth, but no second generation had sprouted. Genesis 1:11, "let the earth sprout vegetation," uses dasha’, which implies growing up. Genesis 2:5, "had yet sprouted," uses tsamakh, which implies budding. The grains grew on the third day, but had not sprouted buds until after the sixth. The grain plants had not yet sprouted their ears of grain.
Here again, I believe that the grains had not sprouted because it remained to be seen whether man would sin or not. Harvesting and winnowing grain is labor-intensive, and Genesis 3:18-19 says that sinful man will grow and harvest it by the sweat of his brow. God could have caused grain to sprout in a way that is not so labor-intensive. Thus, the sprouting of the grain awaited the decision of man to sin or not to sin.
From these considerations we see that a careful reading of the text provides no hint of contradiction. Genesis 1 does not say that God created all plants on Day 3. He only created fruit trees and grain plants. Genesis 2:5 does not say that there were no plants in the earth at the time under consideration. It rather says that the remaining plants that would exist in the world had not been created, and that the grains had not yet sprouted.
For a noted Hebrew scholar to make so elementary a mistake is surprising, but it probably only indicates what happens to any scholar when he approaches a text with preconceived notions. He sees what he wants to see, and ignores details that destroy his model.
OPEN BOOK, Views & Reviews, No. 31
Copyright (c) 1997 Biblical Horizons
February, 1997
Theophanic revelation is historically progressive, or eschatological, in character. First of all, in Genesis 1:2, the Spirit appeared inside the creation, sent by the Father. After the creation of man, the Spirit worked and works with humanity to bring us to maturity, from Daughter to Bride to fruitful Mother. He used angels for this purpose under the Old Creation.
The Bible speaks of angels as winds and _re (Hebrews 1:7), associating them with the Spirit in the way that humanity is associated with the Son. In the Old Creation, the theophanic appearances of the Son were as the Angel of Yahweh, preeminently the Pillar of Cloud (wind) and Fire. In this way, the Spirit progressively brought the Son into the world, revealing the Son. At the incarnation, the Spirit (the Power of the Most High) overshadowed the virgin Mary and brought the Son into the world as man. At Jesus’ baptism, the Spirit came upon Him in full measure to guide Him.
In Jesus, humanity comes to maturity and no longer needs angelic tutors (Acts 7:53; Galatians 4:23–5:6; Hebrews 1:14 & 2:2; Revelation 1-22). In the New Creation, human beings are tutors in Christ. The servant priesthood of ecclesiastical ministers is provided to bring the entire Bride to maturity (Ephesians 4:11-13). These overseers are to be elders, older men whose maturity then sets an example for all. In the same way, the older women are to guide the younger.
As the Spirit revealed Jesus, so Jesus reveals the Father. The Son is revealed throughout the Old Creation, at Mount Sinai dictating the law and through the prophets dictating their prophecies. The Father is little revealed in the Old Creation. What is new in the New Creation is the revelation of the Father through Jesus. Jesus, the now-incarnate Yahweh of the Old Creation, continually points up to the Father. Yet, even in the New Creation the Father remains somewhat hidden behind the Son, so that Philip could yearn to see the Father (John 14:8). Jesus said that He reveals the Father, and in Revelation we do begin to see the Father on His throne (Revelation 4:2-3). Yet, until the removal of the _rmament-sky at the end of history, we shall not see the Father revealed in the cosmos.
This historical revelation can be summarized as follows:
1. Father sends Spirit into cosmos.
2. Spirit reveals the Son, who comes into cosmos as Angel, and the Spirit causes us to fear Him (Romans 8:15; Proverbs 1:7).
3. Son comes into the cosmos, incarnate, and men fear (Mark 4:41; 9:32; 10:32; 16:8).
4. Son sends Spirit into our hearts, crying "Abba, Father!," revealing Father (Romans 8:15; Galatians 5:6).
5. At the end, we are brought to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24).
In conclusion, let me suggest that the de_ning aspect of personhood or personality is love, or its opposite. "God is love," we are told (1 John 4:8), and in context "God" means particularly the Father. The three Persons of God love each other, communicate with each other, and act on behalf of each other eternally. The love-aspect is the personal aspect.
D1. Object Revelation. There are three fundamental forms of Personal revelation in the cosmos, in addition to the Person of God Himself. The _rst, historically, consists of the angels and the created objects of the cosmos. Each of these objects, considered in and of itself, is a revelation of the Creator. Objects in the world reveal God’s person by their "thereness and thatness," not by their words or actions (though such are inseparable from them).
This cosmic furniture was brought about through the labors of the Spirit during the week of creation, and serves His purposes, as guided by Him and by the angels. To wit: All these things exist to train humanity for maturity. As we showed in Through New Eyes, these various things in the universe teach mankind about God and about humanity. Men are like birds, animals, _shes, trees, thorns, grasses, air, water, stars, stones, etc. All of these, and all the rest of creation, symbolize human beings and human life.
During the _rst phase of human existence, which we call the Old Creation and also childhood, these objects were used through the Spirit to teach us. We were "under" them in that sense. In the second phase of human existence, which we call the New Creation and also maturity, these objects are used through the Son by us in the exercise of dominion and in our work of transforming the world from glory to glory. Thus, in a real sense, the world comes to us _rst as a revelation of God, as something we have no control over. This is the truth that is warped in all childish religions, such an "animism," which view created things as possessing divine fearfulness. Only as we have matured in Christ, and as we have grown from childhood into the abilities of adult maturity, does the world become something "under" us, that we use and manipulate. Then the world ceases to be such a strong avenue of revelation, and God’s self-revelation shifts "upward" to other avenues; that is, revelation becomes more concentrated in persons and less in objects.
God’s personal self-revelation through worldly objects, coming to us as children and producing awe, embraces such things as the following:
a. Angels or spirits, or demons (fallen angels).
b. Stars, rocks, plants, lower animals, earth, air, water, etc.
c. Higher animals, which are considered semi-personal, and not static objects (Exodus 21:28_.; Numbers 22:22_.).
Additionally, human beings can use the furniture of the world as symbols of God and of His image, man. This is possible because these things already are symbols of God, avenues of revelation. When man takes the things of the world and makes them into symbols, he acts creatively, with maturity, instead of merely receptively, as a child.
For this reason, the various articles of furniture, tools, curtains, etc. of the Tabernacle and Temple are each symbolic of human beings. They are all "fabricated persons," whose construction, whose placement in relation to other objects, and whose use portray aspects of human personhood, which is itself an copy of the Divine person. God Himself dictated the form of these objects, but they were made by Spirit-led men (Exodus 31:1_.), so they stand in the middle between God’s original creation and man’s symbolic creations.
If love is the mark of "personhood," how is love manifested at this level of creation? We can suggest several things, for instance the exchange and recombination of elements in chemical transformations; gravitic attraction; magnetic attraction; the yielding of the soil to plants and their return to the soil; and so forth. It seems that every aspect of creation is "generous," except for fallen man! "God so loved the world (of mankind) that He gave . . . ." The lower creation images God’s personal giving, and indeed groans to give more of itself (Romans 8:19-22). (Just so, as noted above, I believe we must question the assertion that "general revelation" does not say anything about redemption: i.e., sacri_ce and exchange.)
Thus, within this category of "thing-revelation," there are many aspects and dimensions: many created objects, many fabricated objects, many ways of giving, etc.
A few other comments are necessary at this point. The cosmos consists of substance (matter), space, and time; and things in the universe can be considered in terms of their peculiar particle aspects, their relationships with other particles in the _eld of existence, and their movement through the wave of time, as they alter and change in themselves and in their relationships. These aspects of the cosmos, considered as a whole, reveal the three Persons of the Trinity; to wit:
1. The distinctive quality of any given substantial object, its particularity, reveals the unique particularity of each Person of God, and thus primarily of the Father.
2. The relationships of objects in the spatial _eld of the cosmos reveal the linguistic connections between the Persons of God, and thus primarily of the Son-Word. (We shall take up the relationship of language to spatial _elds below.)
3. The movements and changes of objects in the wave of time reveal the movement and transforming energy of the Persons of God, as they relate to one another actively, and thus particularly reveal the Spirit.
Re_ect for a moment on how we as particular human beings relate to space and time. The relationship of things in space is seen with the eye and determined by and understood by language. A sense of proper timing, and a sense of the times in which one lives, is not something that can be taught so much as it is something that is caught. The mode of spatial, relational understanding is that of the Word primarily, while the mode of temporal understanding is that of the Spirit primarily. We shall return to these matters as we proceed.
C1. Personal Covenantal Revelation. A second class of particles consists of human beings who have status as leaders among other human beings: parents, husbands, masters, overseers, elders, older siblings (especially _rstborn sons), rulers, governors, etc. Such rulers have a covenantal relationship with those they rule. That rule will be exercised through words and deeds, but here we are considering the rulers as such, as symbols or revealers of God’s lordship.
As angels yield their oversight of the world to humanity, so the Spirit yields to the Son. The Spirit is no longer bringing the (preincarnate and then infant) Son into the world; rather, the (now mature) Son sends the Spirit at Pentecost. (This is not an absolute change in history, but a relative one, for in one sense the Spirit is always bringing the Son and the Son is always sending the Spirit, in all times.)
The _rst Spirit-made ruler was Noah, after the _ood, and this is a picture of the New Creation when humanity ascends in Christ to full rule over the cosmos (in principle, at least). (On Noah’s ascension, see Biblical Horizons 96-98.)
Rulers are representatives of the Son, whose job it is to bring all humanity to maturity through sacri_ce. As Jesus died for His Bride, so the husband must be ready to die for his wife, the parent for his or her child, and the ruler for his people (by defending them in combat, as David was willing to _ght Goliath when Saul would not).
It might seem that rulers should preeminently picture the Father rather than the Son. From one perspective, that is doubtless the case; and since all three Persons are involved in all of these avenues of revelation, it is certainly a legitimate perspective. My reason for not associating rulers with the Father directly is _ve-fold. First, I think it preferable to associate the Father with human persons as such (see below), not with human persons as rulers. Second, rule is exercised primarily by speaking words and directing other people by means of words. Thus, rule is linguistic, which associates it more closely with the Son. Third, rule always involves fear of some kind, and fear is associated with the Son rather than with the Father, who is associated with love: At the last judgment it will be Jesus, not the Father, who passes judgment. Fourth, as we have seen, true rule is also associated with sacri_ce and death. Finally, the Bible associates sonship with rule and authority, as in Psalm 2, 2 Samuel 7, etc. The father is not so much ruler as advisor to the mature son, who actually rules.
In addition to speci_c rulers, the Church is also, as a body, the ruler of this world. All authority has been given to Jesus Christ, and the Church is in union with Him. As the book of Revelation shows, through her prayers and faithfulness the Church actually determines the course of history. Thus, as a special body of people, the Church must be placed here as a particular avenue of revelation from God, for the Church (to the extent she ful_lls her calling) reveals God to the world. "Behold how they love one another" should always be the response to our personal revelation.
The many di_erent kinds of superior-inferior relationships in humanity provide many avenues and aspects to this category of "authority revelation."
Now, the avenues of Personal Covenantal Revelation, which I originally thought to term Authority Revelation, must be grouped under two main heads. Rulers are over other people, while the Church is in a sense "under" other people, "ruling" through prayer and service and sacri_ce. The history of the Kingdom begins with the work of the Church, and climaxes in the production of mature Godly rulers in every sphere of life. The goal of the Church is the discipleship of nations into theocracies, where Christ is recognized as king.
In terms of Personal Covenantal Revelation, the Church reveals the glory of Christ’s lordship by serving and su_ering and teaching, all the things that initiate history over and over again. The Church manifests the glory of the cross. The other spheres of life reveal the glory of Christ’s lordship primarily by ruling and passing judgments, the things that maintain history and bring it to places of relative consummation. These other spheres manifest the glory of the ascension.
In all the forms of Covenantal Revelation, as we shall see, there is a mutual relationship between above and below, server and served, lord and servant, etc., which point to the relationship between God and man. Such covenantal relationships are at the opposite pole from casual relationships. Such strong relationships form larger "particles" of their own, such as families, nations, churches, etc. Each of these is an avenue of revelation about man and God.
B1. Personal Revelation. Preeminently, of course, human beings are the images and likenesses of God the Father. This is true of all people, of people as people. The goal of history is for all people, or at least all the elect, to grow into the fullness of God-likeness, which means a growth in love and hospitality.
The concept of "image" is static. Human beings simply are the images of God, whether in heaven, earth, or hell. So, apparently are angels, though in a di_erent way. The image of God is not something in man, or an aspect of man, that may be lost or diminished or increased; rather, man simply is the image of God. The concept of "likeness" is dynamic. Human beings grow in the likeness of God, or else depart from it (Genesis 3:22). Angels apparently do not grow in this sense.
The many di_erent kinds of human beings – races, cultures, individuals, the two sexes, etc. – provide many aspects to this avenue of "personal revelation."
This brings me to a comment on what I consider to be an error in Reformation theology, which is that the sacraments are considered "visible words." That is, they make Christ visible. In fact, visibility has nothing to do with the sacraments. Baptism is tangible, while the Supper is edible; neither is to be gazed at. Moreover, they are primarily not "words," for the Word in worship is the Scripture and its proclamation. They are, rather, works of the Spirit: miracles. The closest thing to a "visible word" would be the human person, especially the human face.
(to be continued)
