BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 94
April, 1997
Copyright 1997 Biblical Horizons
In preparing an essay on Matthew 24-25 for our subscription essayletter Studies in the Revelation, I have found it necessary to consider the structure of Matthew’s gospel as a whole. The following are the fruits of my research, such as they are. This essay is not intended as the last word on the subject!
Since many of the books of the Bible are structured in a chiastic fashion (also called introversion or palistrophe), I began by examining Matthew along such lines. I have come to the conclusion that Matthew is indeed chiastically organized. Ethelbert Bullinger, in The Companion Bible (London, 1910; Kregel, 1990), and John Breck, in The Shape of Biblical Language (St. Vladimir’s, 1994), point out many smaller chiasms in particular paragraphs in Matthew’s gospel. Our concern here is with the book as a whole.
A chiastic structure has the form A B C B’A’. It can be brief or can extend over a whole book or even set of books. Chiasm differs from "inverted parallelism" by having a central pivot-point that in some way is the most important aspect of the structure. Inverted parallelism, consisting of ABBA, may not have such a central point (unless BB is also a pivot or the more important aspect of the overall section). As we shall see, the central or pivot point of Matthew seems to be the decision of the Pharisees to kill the innocent Servant of the Lord (12:14-21).
Chiasms can overlap in various ways. Large chiastic structures may include several smaller ones. The end of one chiasm may form the beginning of another. One section of a chiasm (usually the first or last) may be a smaller version of a larger chiasm of which it is a part. And so forth. This is not a problem, since chiastic structures are by their nature rather tightly constructed. Either a chiasm is present, or it is not. There are not many ambiguous cases. Of course, nothing prohibits a writer from composing an incomplete chiasm.
It is possible, in an excess of enthusiasm, to discover chiasms where none are present, by forcing the text. At the same time, the abuse of a practice does not negate its proper use. Chiasm is arguably the most common literary form in the Bible, and so we will not go wrong by looking to find them in Matthew, provided we do not abuse the text.
In a chiastic structure, the recurrence of A at the end, and of B at B’, and of C at C’, etc. involves some kind of intensification of the original statement. What was said the first time at B is said again at B’, but in a new way because of what has happened in the meantime, and especially because of what happened at the central pivot. As we shall see, in Matthew 2:13-21, Herod drives Jesus into the "death" of Egypt, and while Jesus is there judgment falls upon the Jews. This brief passage is answered by Matthew 21:1–27:56, where Jesus enters the Egypt of Jerusalem and heads for His death, but in the midst thereof pronounces doom upon the Jews (ch. 23-25).
This example displays the value of chiastic reading. Jesus’ descent into Egypt for protection has a direct relationship of contrast to His ascent into Jerusalem for destruction. The martyrdom of the little children is prophetically related to the coming destruction of Jerusalem. Apart from a chiastic reading, we probably would not make these connections. But Matthew’s literary structure has placed these connections there, and in this way Matthew can make the theological point that Jesus’ death is a descent into Egypt and His resurrection is a new exodus.
With this in mind, let us turn to a consideration of the book of Matthew.
The Gospel According to Matthew
Matthew is the first of the gospels; there can be little doubt of this. The notion that Mark was first because Mark is shorter is nonsensical. Matthew was one of the disciples and was a man of letters. Who better to take notes during Jesus’ lifetime?
Moreover, immediately after Pentecost there would have been a demand for a book containing the teaching and works of Jesus. The Jews were a people of the book. Each time God did a great work, a new part of Scripture was written to tell about it. The 3000 converts on the day of Pentecost would have expected such a book, and we can be pretty sure that Matthew set right down to write it. Doubtless he spoke with the other disciples, and perhaps Matthew’s gospel is to some extent a joint work. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that within a month after Pentecost copies of Matthew’s gospel were in circulation.
Apart from the demand of the Jewish converts, there is another reason why Matthew’s gospel had to be written immediately, and that is that most of what Jesus said and did was said and done privately. Jesus was mysterious. When He taught the multitudes, He used parables. When He healed, he told people to keep it secret. Thus, there were lots of rumors about Jesus, but not many hard facts. Matthew explains all this. The messages recorded in Matthew were given to the disciples, though sometimes other people around the periphery listened in. Matthew tells us that it was Jesus who commanded that His miracles be kept under wraps. Now that Jesus had been raised, however, the secrets were to be revealed: The mystery of the kingdom was to be published. The idea that the disciples waited fifteen or twenty years before getting the gospel into written form is a notion that strains credulity.
As Matthew was written first, it is also the case that Matthew presents Jesus as a new priestly Moses, as Mark presents Him as a new David, and Luke as a new prophet. The early chapters of Matthew recapitulate the history of the pentateuch, and set the theme, to wit:
1:1-17 – genealogies; Genesis
1:18-25 – birth of Jesus; birth of Moses
2:1-23 – wealth, descent into Egypt, exodus from Egypt
3:1-17 – baptism of Jesus; Red Sea crossing
4:1-11 – 40 days wrestling in wilderness; 40 years in wilderness
4:12-25 – initial ministry; initial conquests in Numbers
5-7 – Sermon on the Mount; Deuteronomy
The rest of Matthew does not continue this history, nor does it apparently move over the Pentateuchal history a second time in more detail. Egyptian-Pentateuchal themes do, however, continue to be important. At the center of the book, as we shall see, we find the Pharisees as new Egyptians denying the sabbath to the people, with Jesus as new Moses granting them sabbath. The entire movement of the book of Exodus is from slavery to sabbath, and we find that theme at the heart of Matthew.
Also, very often where the other gospels will have Jesus healing one person, or being witnessed by one person, Matthew will have two. The legal theme of a testimony of two witnesses is being carried forth by Matthew in this respect.
The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel
Here is the overall structure of Matthew, as I see it:
A. Past and Future.
The genealogy of Jesus in 1:1-17 brings us up from the past, while the commission in 28:16-20 moves us into the future. The commission should probably be compared to the commissioning of Joshua to take the promised land toward the end of Deuteronomy.
B. The Marys.
The birth narrative of 1:18-25 can be analyzed as having three parts: Mary is presented, an angel appears with a message, and Jesus is born. In the same way, the resurrection narrative of 28:1-10 presents two Marys, an angel appears with a message, and then Jesus appears in His resurrected body. (John 1:1-18 only presents one Mary, the Magdalene.)
Section B’ has appended to it the fact that the Jewish leaders put out lies about the resurrection, 28:11-15. This is an inversion of the Messianic secret: Now that the hidden mystery is to be published, men seek to hide it.
C. Rich Gifts.
The story of the Persian magi in 2:1-12 also involves Herod’s thwarted desire to kill Jesus. In terms of the chiasm of Matthew, the first point to notice is the rich gifts given to Jesus, which will sustain the family while in Egypt. Similarly, the wealthy Joseph of Arimathaea provides a rich tomb for Jesus while He is in the Egypt of the grave, 27:57-61. Second is the fact that the Jews prevailed on Pilate to guard the grave of Jesus (57:62-66). As Herod sought to prevent Jesus’ birth, the Jews seek to prevent His resurrection.
D. Egypt and Crucifixion.
The first D section is short, while the second is the longest section of Matthew.
In 2:13-21, we find a second Joseph taking his family down into Egypt to hide from Herod. This is because the real Egypt is Judea, where Herod is Pharaoh. Herod slaughters the boy children, as Pharaoh did in Exodus 1. Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, a lamentation over the destruction of Jerusalem in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. This is relevant, because the parallel is to Matthew 23-25, the prediction of the coming destruction of Jerusalem under Vespasian and Titus. Matthew 24:19 recalls Matthew 2:18 by saying "Woe to those who are with child or who nurse babes in those days!"
The parallel D’ section runs from the triumphal entry to the death of Jesus. This is the greater descent into Egypt, the real Egypt of Jerusalem. Just as the destruction of Jewish babies is sandwiched into Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt, so Jesus announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem is found in the middle of His sojourn in the real Egypt. Section D’ looks like this:
I. David’s Son. Here Jesus comes as king, as a new Solomon, whose wisdom confounds all questioners:
(to be continued)
Biblical Chronology, Vol. 9, No. 4
Copyright James B. Jordan 1997
April, 1997
Does the chronology in the Bible begin with the creation of Adam or with the creation of the universe? That is the question we are exploring this year. In January and February we took up the "Framework Hypothesis" as advocated by its most scholarly and powerful exponent, Dr. Meredith G. Kline. We found it wanting. We shall also be taking up the "Day-Age Hypothesis" in due course.
At this point, however, we take up the view propounded by Dr. John Sailhamer, Professor of Old Testament at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon. Dr. Sailhamer is an evangelical, Bible-believing Christian, as are all those with whom we are interacting in these essays. He is a respected scholar who has served as Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and who has served on translation committees for two recent Bible translations.
In 1996, Dr. Sailhamer’s book *Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account* appeared from Multnomah Press. In it, he advocates the notion that the creation account in Genesis 1 is a record of the preparation of the Garden of Eden, not a record of the preparation of the whole earth. *Genesis Unbound* is courteously written and undogmatic; Sailhamer is setting forth his interpretive hypothesis for the larger Christian community to examine.
In brief, Sailhamer proposes that Genesis 1:1 tells us that God created the heavens and the earth at some time in the past. We don’t know when, and it might have been millions or billions of years ago. Then Genesis 1 continues by telling us that in the recent past, God spent six literal 24-hour days working miracles to prepare the land of Eden and its garden for Adam and Eve to live in. Thus, Sailhamer’s thesis offers a new and interesting resolution of the conflict between modern science and Biblical revelation. I predict that it will become more attractive as it gains circulation.
As many readers know, I have devoted a great deal of attention to the Garden of Eden in my long-running series of essay-letters entitled "Trees and Thorns" (available from Biblical Horizons , Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588). Thus, I was very interested to see if Dr. Sailhamer could make a convincing case for this "new" view. It is, after all, always possible that "six-day creationism" has not properly understood the text of God’s revelation. We must always be open to the text above all else, and not blindly cling to familiar traditions, whatever they may be.
I am convinced, however, that Dr. Sailhamer has not made a compelling case, and that this "new" approach is a dead end. I hope that my critique is here presented as courteously as Sailhamer presented his thesis.
To begin with, let me make a few general observations. First, this book is written in a quite popular style, and though the arguments are clearly presented, I think that a "meaty" matter such as this deserves better than a "milky" presentation (Hebrews 5:12). Sailhamer generally does not take up possible objections to his assertions. This may be because his enthusiasm for his approach blinds him to such objections. Whatever the case may be, I found his presentation here to be somewhat lacking in scholarly force.
Additionally, the book has no index, and the notes are not to be found at the bottom of the page, but rather are placed inconveniently at the end. These are sure signs that this is not a "serious" book but a "popular" one. And that is too bad. For this thesis to be taken seriously, the publisher should have presented it in a more serious format. I shall endeavor, however, to interact with the book at serious level that its thesis warrants.
Not Quite New
Sailhamer points out that his approach is not quite brand new. He writes, "The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi understood most of the account of Genesis 1 as a direct reference to God’s preparation of the promised land." He goes on to point out, though, that Rashi had an axe to grind. This was the time of the crusades, when the question of who had the right to Palestine was crucial. Rashi wanted to make the case that God created the promised land (Eden = Palestine for him) and gave it to the Jews (p. 215). (RASHI is an acronym formed from the initials of RAbbi SHlomo Izchaki, or in English, Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, 1040-1105.) According to Sailhamer, Rashi was followed later on by the eminent Puritan-era scholar John Lightfoot (p. 216).
A fuller discussion of the history of this view is desirable. I don’t have the resources to check out the little information Sailhamer provides, but my Jewish commentaries make no mention of this approach. The lengthy (2232 pp.) ArtScroll Tanach Series commentary on Genesis does not mention it, though it summarizes what all the preeminent rabbis, including Rashi, have to say about every topic. [See *Bereshis: Genesis: A New Translation With a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources* (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1977).] The great orthodox Jewish commentator Samson Raphael Hirsch makes no mention of this view, and neither does the great modern Jewish commentator Umberto Cassuto.
Now, Sailhamer does not imply that his view is found commonly in Jewish commentaries. It appears, however, that nobody but Rashi and possibly Ibn Ezra ever held this view. Certainly, the rabbinic community over the ages has not been impressed with it, since they don’t even take it up as a possibility.
On to Sailhamer
There are two ways we can proceed in dealing with *Genesis Unbound.* One is to take up a few crucial arguments presented in the book and discuss them. The other is to take up the book at length. I have opted for the latter.
The reason is that, as I mentioned above, Sailhamer’s approach is new, different, intriguing, and will prove attractive. The proofs against the "Framework Hypothesis" and the "Day-Age Hypothesis" have been around for several generations, but these views continue to have wide circulation among educated Christians for a very simple reason: the pressure of modern scientific hypotheses (presented as facts). Supposedly we KNOW that the universe is billions of years old. Supposedly we KNOW that the red-shift in the spectra of distant stars is caused by their travelling away from us at high speeds. Supposedly we KNOW that the speed of light is constant. Supposedly we KNOW that the dinosaurs were exterminated by a "nuclear winter" caused by the impact of a large meteorite upon the earth. Supposedly we KNOW that animals and manlike beings existed on the earth well before 4000 or 10,000 BC. The "Framework Hypothesis" and the "Day-Age Hypothesis" are attempts to get around the fact that Genesis 1 seems obviously to contradict these assertions of modern scientific theory. These two ways of reading Genesis 1 are, however, exegetically implausible, and have been shown up as erroneous many times. They "save science for Christ" at the expense of sound hermeneutics, at the expense of the rather clear statements of Genesis 1.
Now comes Sailhamer. It looks as if we can have our cake and eat it too. Sailhamer takes Genesis 1 literally, as a series of miraculous events over the course of six days. He does this by limiting the geography of Genesis 1 to Eden-Palestine (which he equates). Since, according to him, Genesis 1 is not concerned with the creation of the universe, there is no apparent conflict between most modern scientific hypotheses and the Bible.
Moreover, Sailhamer is a noted scholar. His arguments will look very good to those not equipped to think them through. His book is popularly written, presented in friendly paperback rather than in intimidating hardcover, and published by a respected and well-distributed evangelical publishing house. The opening pages of the book contain (carefully guarded) statements of recommendation from numerous evangelical scholars. For all these reasons, I predict that Sailhamer’s approach will grow in popularity and acceptance, at least among laypersons, over the coming years. And thus I think a detailed analysis is warranted.
In the Beginning
After two introductory chapters, Sailhamer begins his exposition of Genesis 1 with chapter 3, entitled "In the Beginning." He argues that the word "beginning" does not mean a point of time, but a period of time. From this he argues that the "beginning" may have lasted millions or billions or even googols of years, before the work of six days that follows in Genesis 1. Let us now consider his arguments.
He writes: "The Hebrew word *reshit,* which is the term for `beginning’ used in this chapter, has a very specific sense in Scripture. In the Bible the term always refers to an extended, yet indeterminate duration of time, *not* a specific moment. It is a block of time which precedes an extended series of time period. It is a `time before time.’ The term does not refer to a point in time but to a *period* or *duration* of time which falls before a series" (p. 38).
As evidence for this, Sailhamer points to Job 8:7, where "beginning" refers to the earlier part of Job’s life before disasters overtake him. Also, he points out that the first year of a king’s reign is counted from the official beginning of the year, and he states that the time between the death of the previous king and that official date is the "beginning" of the new king’s reign. (He says that the king’s reign dates from the first day of Nisan after he comes to the throne. I have argued that it is the first day of Tishri, the beginning of the civil year. This does not affect Sailhamer’s argument. By the way, it seems that this official way of reckoning only applied to Judah’s kings, not to Israel’s. At any rate, the last year of David’s reign was the "zero" year or, according to Sailhamer, the "beginning" of Solomon’s.)
Sailhamer also argues that if a particular point in time were meant by "beginning" in Genesis 1:1, a different word would have been used. "The author could have used a Hebrew word for `beginning’ similar to the English word `start’ or `initial point’ (for example, *rishonah* or *techillah*)" (p. 41).
Finally, Sailhamer seems to take this back just a bit when he writes, concerning a point-beginning, "Such a concept, however, is not likely to be connected with *reshit,* the Hebrew word actually used in Genesis 1:1" (p. 42).
Now, what shall we make of this? At the outset I think it is significant that none of the numerous exegetical commentaries available to me make any mention of this matter. Nor do Hebrew lexicons and theological lexicons. It does not seem to have occurred to anyone else that *reshit* has to mean a period of time rather than a point of time. By itself, of course, this does not make Sailhamer wrong, but it does mean that the burden of proof is on him to make his case. And at this point I return to the point made above, which is that the popular style of this book has excluded the kind of extended technical argumentation this is precisely needed at this point.
First, while *reshit* is sometimes used for a period of time at the beginning of something, it is also used (contrary to Sailhamer) for a point-beginning, as in Deuteronomy 11:12, "…a land concerning which Yahweh your God is caring for her continually. The eyes of Yahweh your God are on her from year’s beginning even to years’s end." The years in Israel had a definite beginning on the first day of the first month, and a definite end on the last day of the last month.
Thus, it is context that determines the precise nature of the "beginning" spoken of. In Genesis 1:1, the "beginning" is the creation "out of nothing" of the cosmic heavens and earth, as Sailhamer himself argues. Moreover, Sailhamer himself argues that "create" is a unique, punctiliar act of God (pp. 247-250). Thus, it would seem that the "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 has to be a point of time, not a period of time.
Now, while I did not find Sailhamer saying it in these precise words anywhere in his book, it seems that his view is this: During the age of "beginning," God did a number of miraculous punctiliar actions. At some point, for instance, God "created" the animals (see his chapter 14). Thus, a Sailhamer-esque paraphrase of Genesis 1:1 might be, "During the beginning period, God created all the things in heaven and on earth." As I have pointed out, however, we have as yet found no compelling reason to insist that the "beginning" must be a period of time.
Second, while *reshit* can be used for a period of time at the beginning of someone’s life or reign, I do not find any place where it clearly refers to the Year Zero of a king. The few times it is used for the "beginning" of the reign of a king, nothing indicates that this technical time period is in view (Jeremiah 26:1, 27:1, 28:1, 49:34). In fact, as Sailhamer has to admit, Jeremiah 28:1 speaks of the fourth year of Zedekiah as part of the "beginning" of his reign. Now, Sailhamer makes a great deal out of his argument here. He says that the "beginning" of the king’s reign is an indeterminate period, which is followed by numbered years. He makes this an analogy to Genesis 1, an indeterminate period followed by numbered days. But there is no evidence I can find that the Bible uses "beginning" this way with regard to kings. Sailhamer provides no citations to support his assertion. Thus, I submit that he is simply wrong in this argument.
Third, Sailhamer is correct that if all Genesis 1:1 wanted to say is that God created the heavens and earth at a point in time at the beginning, *rishon* or *techillah* would have been better. But that does not mean that *reshit* was used to indicate a period of time. In fact, unlike these other two words, *reshit* can also mean "first" in the sense of "chief," "the principal thing," or "firstfruits." Now, it would be wrong to translate Genesis 1:1 as "The chief thing God created was the heavens and the earth," because the preposition "in" tells us that we are speaking of time. But it seems clear that the author of Genesis 1:1 wants us to understand that not only did God make the universe at the beginning of time, but also that this act was the fountain from which everything else flowed. Thus, *reshit* rather than one of the other words was used.
Let me expand on this observation. *Reshit* is used, I suggest, because of its connection to firstfruits. The firstfruits were brought before God on the Sunday after Passover, the same day as God created the heavens and earth (Exodus 23:19; Leviticus 2:12; 23:9-14). Exodus 20:9-11 says that God worked for a week to set a pattern for His image, humanity. The law of firstfruits tells that the first part of our labor, done on the first day of the week, is to be given to God. Only after we have given the first part to God may we eat of the rest of the harvest of our labors. This, I submit, is the true analogy to Genesis 1:1. God does not give His firstfruits to anyone, since He is supreme. Man acknowledges God’s supremacy by giving God his firstfruits. Man’s firstfruits signify the whole "heaven and earth" produced by man, God’s image. The use of *reshit* in Genesis 1:1 sets up this correlation, and fully accounts for why *reshit* rather than some other word is used here. Thus, one dimension of Genesis 1:1 would be "As the firstfruits of His creation, God made the heavens and the earth." This, however, is a secondary implication of the use of *reshit* in Genesis 1:1, because the word "in" clearly implies time and temporal sequence.
To sum up, *reshit* is not used in Genesis 1:1 because the writer wanted a word that implies a period of time. Rather, it is used because the writer wanted a word that implies firstfruits.
Finally, if Sailhamer were correct that "in the beginning" refers to a period of time, I really don’t see why that time cannot include the six days as well. As mentioned above, Sailhamer does not prove that a "beginning" is a time before a numbered sequence. Thus, on his presuppositions, I submit that the "beginning" might just as well include the six days — in which case the six days are at the beginning of time.
In conclusion, Sailhamer argues that the word translated "beginning" always refers to an indeterminate period of time before other events. We have seen that this is not the case. He also argues that if a point of time were meant by "beginning" in Genesis 1:1, certain other words would be better. We have seen that this would be true IF all Genesis 1:1 meant to communicate was the idea of a punctiliar beginning. In fact, however, the author chose *reshit* because of its broader nuances of meaning. Finally, since it is the creation "out of nothing" that is being spoken of in Genesis 1:1, there really can be no doubt but that a punctiliar event, the first event in time and history, is in view.
OPEN BOOK, Views & Reviews, No. 32
Copyright (c) 1997 Biblical Horizons
April, 1997
Several implications flow from this first group of considerations. First (D1), nature and natural objects reveal God to the eye of faith. The study of nature is the study of the design of the Spirit, and from it we learn how God designs things, and how we as His images can design things, thinking His thoughts after Him.
Second (C1), rule and authority reveal God to the eye of faith. The study of government, in church, state, family, business, etc., is the study of the Son, and from it we learn how God governs things and how we as His images can govern things. We learn positive and negative things, because we live in a world held captive under sin. Yet, the Christian must learn to see the face of Christ in all rulers, even in evil ones to the extent that they actually rule and govern.
Finally (B1), the study of persons and of human life and of how human beings are constituted, is a study of God. The human body-soul-spirit complex is the image of God the Father, the Person, and a faith-full examination of the human person is a revelation of the nature of God. For instance, what does it mean that the human person, unlike any animal, has the ability to fall prostrate before a ruler, to kneel in submission, to stand to receive orders, to sit forward to pay attention, to sit back to judge and evaluate, to recline to eat, to dance and leap in ecstatic worship, to engage in sexual relations face-to-face, etc.? All of this is revelatory.
Thus, in summary, we have found four/_ve avenues of revelation in the area of Personhood. First, we have found that God reveals Himself as a Person through theophanies. Second, we have found that God reveals Himself as a Personal object ("particle") in each and every one of the lower parts of creation. Third/fourth, we have found that God reveals Himself as a Ruler in the human rulers of this world, and as a Servant in the Church. And finally, we have found that God reveals Himself as a full Person in the personality and total constitution of each and every human being.
We have thus far considered revelation apart from language and activity, and to these we now turn.
2. Revelation Through Language.
By revealing Himself as Word, God reveals Himself as Language. We are not speaking here of the Bible in particular, but of language as such. Language, its various forms and aspects, is a revelation of God. This is one of the most important avenues of revelation that is generally overlooked in discussions of "special" and "general" revelation.
A2. Word Revelation. God states that He is Word, and this is associated with the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. God is Alpha and Omega, the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and thus also Aleph and Tav, the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. A number of the psalms, four chapters of Lamentations, and some other Bible passages are structured as a list of 22 items each beginning with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. God is not only Alpha and Omega but Alpha through Omega; not only Word, but Alphabet! (On this, see Rite Reasons 33.)
It is important to see that God comes to us, as Word, first as Speech and then as Scripture. Hearing involves submission, while reading involves much less. I cannot close my ears, but I can close my eyes. I cannot go back and listen again to something I hear (before the modern tape recorder), but I can go back and re-read and meditate on what I read. The first hearing of something comes as a new thing, as an authority that I must either accept or reject.
For this reason, there is a great stress in the Bible on hearing the Word of God. We are to listen to it in Church, submitting to the words of the reader, and hearkening to its amplification in the sermon. If all we do is study the Bible, without hearing it, we have dominion over it. The goal, of course, is for it to have dominion over us.
Once we have heard something, we can "write it down" in our memory and meditate on it. Memory, however, is notoriously selective, and that is nowhere more true than in moral matters and in matters relating to God. Sin means that we shy away from God, and readily forget what He says. "Oral tradition" is no trustworthy safeguard of memory, despite what many early 20th century scholars maintained. Thus, writing has been with humanity from the beginning. It has always been necessary to write down things that have to be remembered, especially contracts and covenants. Long before he died, we can be sure that Adam was writing things down in some fashion. It is no surprise, then, that the God who speaks is also a God who writes down what He has already said. He spoke the Ten Words, and then wrote them down. He dictated laws to Moses and sermons to Isaiah, who then proclaimed them. They were written down, to be a memorial for all time. Note in this regard especially Jeremiah 36:2, where Jeremiah was told to write down all the messages God had been giving him to proclaim over the years. Speech comes first, and then the creation of a memorial through writing.
Once again, then, we see an eschatological dimension to linguistic communication. First God speaks, exercising direct authority over us in our childhood. Then God causes things to be written down, giving us more authority over His words so that we reflect on them, compare them, and expand upon them by making applications. In fact, the four fundamental periods of Biblical history reveal this sequence twice:
1. The Law period (Genesis-Joshua) is primarily a time of dictation.
2. The Kingdom period (Judges, Ruth, Samuel, the five wisdom books) is a time of revelation by inspiration.
3. The Prophetic period (the rest of the "Old Testament") is primarily a time of dictation, when God dictated to the prophets.
4. The Gospel period (the "New Testament") is, except for Revelation, a time of revelation by inspiration.
Books of vision, like Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, and Revelation, are in between dictation and inspiration, for God shows things to the prophets, and the prophets write up the matter under inspiration.
I should add that whether dictated, inspired, or revealed through vision, the Word of God is equally inerrant and infallible. I might also add this:
Dictation – Son (words from God)
Inspiration – Father (out of the personal reflections of the writer)
Visionary Revelation – Spirit (visible mode)
B2. Linguistic Revelation. Linguistic revelation is different from revelation through things because while God is not visible and is not material (not a creature), God is language. He is Word. We must, of course, maintain the distinction between Creator and creature in the area of language, but the analogy between the two is "closer" and more pregnant than the analogy in the area of visible objects. We see this in that God in Himself is a linguistic being, while in Himself He is not visible. Thus, God demands that His worship must be through language, and in no way through images and icons. I am not enough of a philosopher to express the matter more focally at this point (but see Rite Reasons 33-36).
Since language is an attribute of God, the study of language is a study of a revelation of God, and perhaps more particularly, a study of human beings, the images of God. Human languages are a revelation of human existence; linguistics is correlative to anthropology. The study of language is the study of the medium between one person and another, including between God and human beings. Throughout his writings and lectures, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy provides valuable insights into the revelatory character of language as such, calling for a complete reevaluation of grammar and linguistics on a Christian base. (See especially his Speech and Reality [Norwich, VT: Argo Books, 1970]. For a brief introduction and summary, see Biblical Horizons 63.)
Because language is an attribute of God, linguistic aptitude is a characteristic of God’s people, while linguistic ineptitude is a characteristic of rebels. In a society under the influence of the Bible, languages improve in precision and populations become better speakers and readers. When Christianity declines in a society, as it has been in Western civilization, the result is a decline in literacy and in linguistic precision. When the Spirit comes tongues are loosed, as at Pentecost. In hell all is silent: No one desires to communicate with anyone else, for each is turned in upon himself. For a fine picture of this fact, see C. S. Lewis’s novel The Great Divorce.
The original language that God taught Adam was almost certainly Hebrew. Some language was spoken before Babel, and it was either Hebrew or something else. Why would it be some other language? Moreover, the names in the early chapters of Genesis are Hebrew words, and the words spoken by God have some double entendres and puns in Hebrew. All of this strongly implies that Hebrew was the language of that primordial revelation. (For a fuller discussion, see Open Book 27, June 1996.)
So, Hebrew was the primordial language, perfectly fitted to man’s first stage of life; and it will always be the language to which we corporately must return as we repeatedly re-start our lives in the covenant. At Babel, however, Hebrew expands to become the germ of many languages, with different configurations, which then multiply further. This is the glorification, the maturation, of language in history. The verb system in Hebrew, for instance, is built up largely of voices, with tenses only implied; certain other languages are built up largely of tenses, with only a few voices. This diversification, affirmed and sealed at Pentecost, is not to be undone; rather, each language has its own perspective on God, humanity, and the cosmos. In the world to come, we will be learning all these languages, and enjoying all these millions of perspectives on God.
Someday someone will have to study Hebrew with a view to how it is fitted to be the primordial language, and the language of God’s Word in its first three installments (with a little Aramaic in the third). What does it mean that the primordial language is so largely built up of voices (modes, stems)?
Now, each language implies all the others, and so all truth can be expressed in each language, though some languages are more felicitious for one purpose than another. It is hard to translate some things from Dutch to English, but if you use enough words, you can do it. Once we know them all, however, we can use the right language for the right purpose.
What language do we speak in heaven? All languages, not some other language. Learning languages in heaven will be learning new appreciations for the Word. It will be a neverending delight.
The vast number of languages and dialects, with their "body language" and tonal sing-song, provide a tremendous variety of avenues of "linguistic revelation." The dances and musics of various peoples are related to their body language and the tones of their speech.
C2. Linguistic Covenantal Revelation. There is a middle kind of linguistic communication that stands between general language and the Word of God as spoken into the creation from God Himself, and that is the proclamation of the Word: preaching; and with that, the kind of language that initiates and maintains covenants in history among men and between men and God.
The Bible maintains an authority over all languages, for when the Bible is translated into a language, that language is "Hebraized" to some extent, and is reformed to become a more fit vehicle for the Word of God. The involvement of certain human beings in this work of translation – those who have the abiding form of the gift of tongues – places this work in the middle between the original Word of God and ordinary human language.
Similarly, the preaching of the Word in the context of official worship, where the community is officially gathered under her leaders and in the context of the Lord’s Supper, has a certain power and authority not present at other times. And, _owing from this occasion, and then _owing back into it, are the times when the Bible is taught and studied and applied more generally by anyone able to teach and apply it.
The Spirit-led proclamation of the Word of God mediates the Word into human life and thus is a special linguistic event, different from ordinary language. Preaching, thus, is a distinct avenue of Divine revelation.
Preaching is Biblical study and teaching that takes place in worship, in a setting of covenant renewal. We must make a distinction between language that is merely descriptive or conversational, and language that initiates future states of affairs, or maintains those states of affairs. Preaching and evangelism are one form of such language. Evangelism initiates people into God’s family covenant, and preaching maintains it, renewing the covenant. Similarly, law codes and national constitutions and covenants consist of language that creates societies, and the decisions and proclamations of judges and rulers maintain such societies.
As above, we must distinguish between two kinds of Linguistic Covenantal Revelation. The covenantal language in the Church is fundamentally protological; that is, it creates a new world. Preaching continually calls us out of "Egypt" and into God’s Kingdom. We start over again in the Church, week by week, as worship on the first day of the week ushers us forward.
By way of contrast, the covenantal language in other spheres of life is fundamentally eschatological. A marriage comes about after a time of courtship. A nation is formed out of a crisis in history, as at the Exodus from Egypt, or as with the Declaration of Independence of the United States. Law codes are formed based on prior experience, though they also determine the future (since the law is also a teacher). The words of judges conclude cases at law.
Of course, all covenantal spheres of life employ both protological and eschatological language, both teaching and testing, both rules and judgments, etc. I hope it is clear enough, however, that there is a fundamental temporal difference between the most powerful forms of covenantal language: the language that creates a new world, and the language that develops into history and eventually closes an old one. The Church is primarily oriented to the former, while the other spheres of life are primarily oriented to the latter.
Thus, for 430 years the Hebrews possessed the constitutive, prophetic words given through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph – words of genesis, beginnings. They had these kinds of covenant words, but not the covenant words of the Law that constituted Israel as a nation. That came later. Even then, God constituted Israel as a nation with priests but not with kings. The kings came later still, when God decided the people were ready to be given David. At two levels, then, Church preceded nation, Church-covenant words preceded national-covenant words. In both cases, the nation-constituting covenant words came after periods of crisis (the sojourn in Egypt and the period from Eli to Saul), while the covenant-initiating words came to Abram in no such historical context.
(Well, the covenant-initiation with Abram did come in the context of the judgment at Babel, but not with the immediate force as the other two examples just given. To find a purely priestly and thus initiatory covenant, we must go back to Adam.)
So, Linguistic Covenantal Revelation is a particular kind of language. This is the kind of language that gives direction to people. We can call it directive, but I prefer to call it covenantal. The Bible itself is this kind of language, as it comes from God. Man as the image of God also utters this kind of language.
(to be continued)
