BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 95
May, 1997
Copyright 1997 Biblical Horizons
This huge chiasm has as its center the betrayal of Peter, as the leader of the disciples himself rejects Jesus. Peter holds an oficial position as high priest among the disciples of the incarnate Lord. His rejection of Jesus is the turning point. Jesus is now forsaken of men.
The chiasm overlaps the sections that follow our section D’, but that is not a problem. Jesus’ anointing for burial is found in paragraphs 3 and 23. The crucifixion scene is parallel to the Passover and Last Supper, �4-7 & 19-22. The exposure of Judas at the Passover meal is parallel to the exposure of the Temple at the crucifixion, for the Temple had hired Judas, �5 & 21. The inauguration of the Lord’s Supper as memorial of the crucifixion and death of Jesus is parallel to His crucifixion and death, �6 & 20. The agony of Jesus, when He asks the Father if He might be released from His coming doom, is answered by the trial of Jesus before Pilate, when Pilate chooses not to release Him, �10 & 16. Judas’s betrayal is answered by Judas’s suicide, �11 & 15.
E. Judea.
Joseph decided not to go into Judea, because it was clear that there was a threat against Jesus there, 2:22-23. The complementary E’ section concerns Jesus’ ministry in Judea, where the threats against Him mounted swiftly. While we know from John’s gospel that Jesus did make forays into Judea to attend the feasts, Matthew says nothing about these. Jesus does not enter Judea until chapter 19 of Matthew, after His transfiguration, after He set His face to the cross. Joseph’s fears were, thus, quite apt: Judea was a great threat to Jesus.
The E’ section of the Judean Ministry can be outlined thus:
Though the healings in Judea and Jericho form an inclusio for this section, the section does not seem to have a chiastic internal structure. Notice that Matthew has two blind men healed at Jericho; the other gospels have only one (Mark 10:46; Luke 18:45).
F. Baptism and Transfiguration.
Both F sections are fairly long. Each begins with a revelation of Jesus as God’s honored Son, followed by a series of events that bring out what those revelations entail. The implications of Jesus’ baptism occupy much more text, since they include the Sermon on the Mount. In a larger sense, the implications of Jesus’ baptism extend all the way to the transfiguration, and indeed to the end of the book. The transfiguration, which focuses Jesus on His coming death, is followed by a shorter section, which leads into the Judean ministry and then to the events in Jerusalem.
The two F sections are, however, parallel in a number of significant regards. The first F section looks like this:
The F’ section looks like this:
A comparison of the two sections reveals their parallels. Both begin with the witness of a chief servant of Jesus. Next comes a revelation of the Son and the voice of the Father. Wrestling with Satan and his demons comes next in both cases, followed by a removal to Capernaum. In �F:6-12 we have the calling of the disciples, a sermon delivered to their ears (5:1-2), ministry to a disciple’s family, and two cases of reluctant disciples. In �F’:5 we have a sermon delivered to the disciples on discipleship. The only elements that are not parallel are the healing of the leper and of the centurion’s servant.
G. Crossing the Sea.
As with the F sections, the G sections begin with a similar event (crossing the sea) followed up by parallel events that should be seen as flowing from the initial event.
Crossing the sea should be seen in terms of the exodus from Egypt and the entrance through the Jordan into the promised land. Alternatively it can be seen as Jonah’s passage from Israel to Assyria. In both cases, the sea crossing is followed by a conquest.
In the G section, we have a double crossing. First, Jesus crosses eastward to gentile territory, where He heals two Gadarene demoniac. Notice that Matthew has two; the others gospels have only one (Mark 5:1, Luke 8:26). Like Jonah, Jesus is asleep on the boat during a storm. Then Jesus crosses back into Galilee, and begins a conquest.
In the G’ section, we have again two sea crossings that are contextualized with Jesus’ feeding of the people. It is not hard to see �G and �G’ as concerned with Word and Sacrament. The movement in this section is the reverse of the G section: Jesus crosses the sea into Israelite territory, and then goes back across eastward, toward Caesarea Philippi (16:13).
I have tried to make clear the structure of the passage, which is about bread for the most part. In �2, the disciples feed 5000. In �5, the Pharisees argue about eating. In �6, the Canaanite woman says that even the dogs eat the children’s bread. In �8, the disciples feed 4000. In �11, Jesus warns agains the leaven of the Pharisees.
The passage is duplicated. Twice Jesus heals, sends disciples to feed, crosses the sea, enters into conflict with the Pharisees, and has a discussion about bread.
Parallel to the G section, Jesus crosses the sea and heals people, is attacked by the Pharisees, and heals daughters.
H. John’s Ministry.
The H and H’ sections have to do with the Forerunner. Jesus describes John’s work in �H, and John’s death is described in �H’ (11:2-9; 14:1-12). John’s ministry and death are prophetic types of Jesus’ own.
I. Jesus’ Rejection.
The I sections have to do with the rejection of Jesus. In the I section, Jesus condemns the cities that did not listen to John and Himself (11:20-24). In the I’ section, Jesus is rejected at Nazareth (13:53-58). Both sections stress miracles.
J. Gifts for the Children.
The J sections have to do with the blessings and gifts God gives to His true children, and stand in contrast to the K section, which pronounces judgment upon those who have Satan for their father.
In the J section (11:25-30), Jesus praises the Father for revealing His truth to the babes, who are the disciples.
In the J’ section (13:1-52), Jesus reveals truth to the disciples. The J’ section (the parables) seems to have a chiastic structure:
The Sower who gathers a mixed harvest is parallel to the Fisherman who gets a mixed catch. The hidden mysteries are parallel to the Pearl of great price. The explanation of the Sower parable is parallel to the treasure found in a field. The Tares parable is parallel to its explanation. At the center is the parable of the Leaven, which concerns the insertion of the Holy Spirit into the bread of humanity.
We may also note a movement from Jew to gentile as we move from field parables to the pearl and finally to the dragnet: from land to sea.
K. Condemnation of the Pharisees.
L. Innocence of the Servant.
This is the central section of Matthew, and at its center is a revelation of Jesus Christ.
The Egyptian theme is pregnant here. The Egyptians denied any sabbath rest to the Hebrews, but Yahweh delivered them into sabbath. The Pharisees deny the sabbath, while affrming it hollowly. Jesus says that they are sons of snakes, of Satan; and then says that their house is inhabited by demons, recalling the Tabernacle built at the exodus. During His discourse on the demonic house, Jesus comments that the members of His household are those who trust and obey His Father.
Paragraphs 1 & 6 both have to do with houses of God: the Temple of David’s day and the demonic Temple under the Pharisees. Paragraphs 2 & 5 both have to do with healing, the restoration of persons to God’s house in terms of the Levitical law.
At the center of this section, and at the center of Matthew, is the decision of the Pharisees to kill Jesus. Following this is a quotation from Isaiah 42, that Jesus is God’s Servant and that He will deliver the Gentiles. In other words, Jesus is innocent of wrongdoing, and has done only right. The Pharisees only doom themselves by seeking His doom.
Biblical Chronology, Vol. 9, No. 5
Copyright James B. Jordan 1997
May, 1997
We continue our analysis of John Sailhamer’s book *Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account* (Multnomah Books, 1996), which argues that Genesis 1:2ff. is not about the creation of the whole world, but about the preparation of the Land of Eden, which is also the Promised Land.
The Land
Dr. Sailhamer begins chapter 4 of his book with a discussion of the word for "earth" or "land" used in Genesis 1, the Hebrew word *’erets.* What he argues is that the "earth" in Genesis 1:1 refers to the whole cosmos apart from the angelic heavens. Then on verse 2 he argues that the meaning of "earth" shifts to a particular land, the promised land, which is Eden.
He begins by warning us not to read Genesis 1 in modern terms. The "earth" in Genesis 1 is not planet earth as opposed to the other planets and the sun and stars. Rather, the "earth" in Genesis 1 is the habitable land, as opposed to the seas (and, I might add, to the wilderness). The word *’erets* or "habitable land" can be used for the whole world or for the particular land of a particular people. With all of this we have no quarrel.
Then, however, Sailhamer gets to his main thesis, which is that the "earth, land" of Genesis 1:2ff. refers to the particular land of Eden, which he submits is also the promised land today called Palestine. He presents four arguments.
First, he says that "the close relationship between the first two chapters of Genesis supports a localized view of the `land’" (p. 50f.). He states that Genesis 1 & 2 are about the same events and have the same setting, but from differing perspectives. No argument is presented for this; Sailhamer simply asserts it at this point. In chapter 8 of his book, however, Sailhamer presents his arguments for this point, and we shall get to them in due course. For now, let us allow Sailhamer to direct the flow of argumentation.
Sailhamer provides no arguments here, but we may make one comment. It is certainly correct that Genesis 1 & 2 are quite closely related and are parallels. But, I shall argue, the parallel is not one of identity but of analogy. The microcosm of Genesis 2 is a copy of the macrocosm of Genesis 1.
Second, Sailhamer argues that the original land was west of Babylon, and thus was Palestine. He starts in Genesis 11:1, where the whole "earth/land" had the same language. The next verse says that as "they" journeyed east, they came to Shinar and built Babel there. Sailhamer believes that those who built Babel, the "they," are the same as "the whole earth/land" of verse 1. But there are good reasons not to agree with him here. Just four verses earlier, in 10:30, we read of certain Hebrews who moved east. Ignoring the chapter break, which is not part of God’s word but was added by men, we can easily see that those who were journeying east were these Joktanite Hebrews. Arriving in Shinar, they joined with Nimrod’s Cushites and built Babel (10:8-10).
Genesis 11:1 means that all human beings descended from Noah, all people on the earth, had the same religion and the same language. The Hebrews were representatives of the human race, being the direct carriers of the religion-bearing responsibility assigned to Shem (9:26; 10:21). The rebellion of these Hebrews at Babel had consequences for the whole race of mankind, just as did Adam’s original sin. It is in this context that God calls a faithful Hebrew, Abram, to carry on the task of Shem and Eber (Hebrew).
[For an extensive discussion of this matter, see my essay, "Babylon & the Babel Project," in *Studies in the Revelation* issues 11-12 (1996), available from Biblical Horizons , Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588.]
Sailhamer proposes that the "whole earth" of 11:1 is a "whole land of people," and these people moved east to Babylon. Where did they come from, he asks? Well, to the west is Palestine, so that is where they originated. He then goes back to Genesis 3:24 and 4:16 to show that movement away from God is signified by and originally manifested as eastward movement. Now, this is very true, but it does not in the least indicate that the movement is away from Palestine, or that Palestine is Eden. The Ark landed, after all, in the mountains of Ararat, which are not in Palestine. Thus, what area these people came from as they journeyed east cannot be ascertained.
But even if we could be sure that they came from the region of Palestine, that would not show that the pre-flood land of Eden had the same location.
Third, Sailhamer says that one of the major themes of the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses) is God’s gift of the promised land to His people. If we really grasp this, he says, it will make sense that Eden was that same land. Moses has the promised land in view as he writes Genesis 1-2, Sailhamer assumes. But this is highly unlikely. Genesis 1-11 does not concern the priestly people of Israel, who are given the promised land, but the universal history of humanity. To be sure, the promise of a garden-land is important in both histories, but that they must be the same location is not important. Noah planted a vineyard after the Flood, a new version of the original garden planted by God. Was this in Palestine also, or in the region of Ararat?
Moreover, we must challenge the notion that "Moses wrote Genesis with the Sinai covenant in view." Sailhamer spells out this view on p. 87, where he asserts: "The writer of the Pentateuch wrote Genesis 1 primarily because he wanted his readers to understand something about God and the nature of the covenant He made with Israel at Mt. Sinai. At the center of that covenant was the promise of a homeland for His people (Deuteronomy 5:32-33). Already in the first chapter of the Pentateuch the author directs the readers to God’s concern for that land." I can only assume that by "the writer" Sailhamer means Moses.
Yet, nowhere does the Bible ever say that Moses wrote Genesis. It was part of the corpus of five books that Moses put in the Tabernacle, but he is never said to have been its author. I suggest that Joseph wrote Genesis. Moses may have edited it somewhat, but the likely author is Joseph, in my view. And who can say I am wrong? There is no evidence either way. Thus, we must not assume that Genesis was written at Mount Sinai, or that the Sinaitic covenant was directly in view in the writing of Genesis. There is simply no reason to believe such a thing.
And even if Moses did write Genesis, we have no grounds for assuming that he wrote it with the Sinaitic covenant directly in view. To be sure, the history recorded in Genesis lays the foundation for later events (though it is well-rounded and complete in itself, ending with the entire world coming to Joseph for food, and thus presenting a very positive picture of a restored kingdom of God). And if Moses wrote Genesis, the later events would be in the back of his mind. But to assert that Mount Sinai is in the foreground of the meaning of Genesis is to assert something for which there is simply no evidence.
Fourth and finally, Sailhamer says that later passages of scripture assume that Eden is the Promised Land. He begins with a very serious misinterpretation of Jeremiah 27:5-6, which reads:
5. "I have made the earth/land, the men and the beasts which are on the face of the earth/land, by My great power and by My outstretched arm, and I give it to the one who is upright in My sight.
6. "And now I have given all these earths/lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and I have given him also the wild animals of the field to serve him."
Now, Sailhamer rightly points out that "all these lands" refers in context to Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon in Jeremiah 27:3. But he also asserts that "the earth/land" of verse 5 must refer to the land of Israel. If it referred to the whole earth, he argues, it would be an error, for surely God did not give the whole earth to Nebuchadnezzar.
Yet verse 5 does not say that the whole earth is to be given to Nebuchadnezzar. It only says that God disposes of the earth and gives it to whomever He pleases. In fact, "the one who is upright in My sight" must ultimately be Jesus, and He does indeed receive the whole earth. In other words, verse 5 establishes the principle that God is Lord over all the earth, and verse 6 says that certain parts of the earth, certain lands, are given to Nebuchadnezzar.
Moreover, contrary to Sailhamer’s argument, verse 7 immediately goes on to say this: "And all the nations shall serve him, and his son, and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings will enslave him." So, it would seem that in a sense God DID give all the lands of the earth to Nebuchadnezzar — at least all the earth in the horizon of the people of that time.
Thus, Sailhamer’s attempt to force Jeremiah 27:5 to refer to the land of promise, and then also to Eden and then also to Genesis 1, is completely without foundation. It is not the land of Judah that is in view at all, but the whole earth.
Sailhamer also refers to the promises that the people will "return to Eden" after the exile (Isaiah 51:3; Ezekiel 36:35; Joel 2:3) as evidence that Eden and the Promised Land are in the same location. But this is to mistake symbolic language for literal, historical language. Exodus 15:17 says that the Promised Land is a new Eden planted by God, but that does not mean that the Promised Land is in the same location as the original Eden.
Conclusion: Sailhamer has failed to present even a prima facie case for thinking that the location of Eden was the same as that of Canaan. For all I know, of course, they might have been the same, but our author has given us no sound arguments for making such an identification.
[I must say, however, that linking Eden with Canaan makes a whale of a lot more sense than trying to link it with Mesopotamia, which is what is most often done.]
The Edenic River(s)
Sailhamer returns to the matter of Eden and Palestine in chapter 6 of his book. He argues that the four rivers of Genesis 2:10-14 form the boundaries of the land of Eden, and that these are also the boundaries of the Promised Land (p. 72). There are two problems with this.
First, the Promised Land extended only to the Euphrates River on the east, while the Tigris is mentioned also in Genesis 2:14, and it is to the east of the Euphrates. The area between the Euphrates and the Tigris was NOT part of the Promised Land.
Second, the text of Genesis 2:10 specifically states that the four rivers were NOT the boundaries of Eden or of the Garden of Eden. "And a river was flowing from [the land of] Eden to water the Garden, and FROM THERE it divided and it became four headwaters." These rivers carried Edenic waters OUT of the Garden to four locations, signifying we may suppose the four corners of the earth.
Thus, it would seem that the land of Eden CANNOT be the same as the Promised Land. If we draw back the present lines of the Tigris and Euphrates to a common source, we wind up in the region of Ararat, wherefrom Noah began the second world. This would seem to be the location of Eden as well, on high ground whence rivers arise and down from which they flow.
An Eden in Ararat or Turkey receives further evidence from the other two rivers. Sailhamer says that the Pishon, which is mentioned first, cannot be located because the land of Havilah whither it flowed cannot be located for certain. But there seems to be little doubt but that Havilah is somewhere in Arabia, likely in the Sinai Peninsula, due south of Canaan. This emerges from Genesis 15:18 and 1 Samuel 15:7, because the land of Shur is on the east side of Egypt. Accordingly, the Pishon is the Jordan river, before it was stopped up by the Dead Sea at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was while in Havilah that Israel found the bdellium-colored manna and the gold and onyx used to built the Tabernacle and the High Priestly garments (Genesis 2:12; Exodus 25:7; 28:9-12; Numbers 11:7).
Similarly, since the Gihon went down to Cush (Ethiopia), it ran parallel to the Jordan east thereof. This river no longer seems to exist after the Flood.
At any rate, if we draw lines from the Jordan northward to where it would intersect the lines drawn from the Tigris and Euphrates, we come to Turkey, Armenia, or the region of Ararat. [For more on this, see my book *Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World.*]
I cannot, of course, be absolutely certain of the region of Ararat, but it is certain that Sailhamer has not successfully made a case for the land of Eden’s being the land of promise.
Moreover, one might just as well make a case for Lebanon as Eden. The garden in Canticles is clearly an extension of the original Garden, a restoration and an historical advancement-transformation thereof. I don’t think anyone disputes this. In Canticles 4:15, we read of "a garden spring, a well of living water, and streams from Lebanon." Trace the Jordan northward and you immediately come to the mountains of Lebanon. As Eden was the source for the river in the Garden, so Lebanon is the source of the river in Solomon’s garden. A study of the relationship of Lebanon to Solomon’s garden in Canticles will only confirm this analogy. The same kind of relationship is seen in Ezekiel 31:3-9. Now, I am not myself arguing that Lebanon was the location of the original land of Eden. I am only pointing out another and different symbolico-literary association with Eden that is found in the Bible. If we are going to follow Sailhamer’s mistaken attempt to turn these symbolic associations into geographical verities, Lebanon is as good a candidate as Canaan.
I may add that in this chapter and the one that follows (chapters 6 & 7), Sailhamer points out some significant correlations between the land of Eden and the promised land, and between the garden of Eden and the Tabernacle. There are many, many such correlations, but they are thematic and theological, not geographical. It is abundantly clear that the promised land is a new Eden, and that the Tabernacle courtyard is a new garden, but these relationships say absolutely nothing about geography. They are irrelevant to Sailhamer’s case. To be sure, these correlations can fit his case, but they fit just as well without his attempt to link Eden and Canaan geographically.
Heavens and Earth
Back to his chapter 4 now: Sailhamer argues that ordinarily the word "heaven" means "sky." This is quite true. He then argues that the phrase "heavens and earth" is a unit and means "the whole universe." Granting his point for the sake of argument, we then follow him to the assertion that since God made heavens-&-earth in Genesis 1:1, He also made the sun, moon, and stars then, because they are in the heavens (pp. 57-58). Later on, he will argue that God also made all plants and animals in Genesis 1:1, "in the beginning period" (on which, see last month’s issue of Biblical Chronology).
I see two major problems with this. First, if Sailhamer wants to say that God made everything during the "beginning period," then that must include man as well. Accordingly, the man put into the Garden (Canaan) in Genesis 2 may have been a special man, but there were already men around. Ah, but it turns out that Sailhamer wants to make an exception for mankind. He wants to say that God made everything except man during the "beginning period." But there is absolutely no way Sailhamer can have it both ways. If God made the first man on the sixth day, then He made the first fish on the fifth day, and the sun on the fourth day. If God made "everything" during the "beginning period," then man was also made then. Exegetically and logically, Sailhamer has no grounds for making man an exception to his scheme.
Second, Sailhamer seems to think that the heaven of Genesis 1:1 is the same as the heavens where the sun is located. But Genesis 1:8 says that there is a second heaven, the firmament heaven, and v. 14 says that the sun is located in this second heaven.
Moreover, if Sailhamer be correct, so that the heaven created in Genesis 1:1 is just the sky above, then what about the angelic heaven? When was it made? That there is such a place, and that it is not the starry universe, is clear from many passages of Scripture, and it has always been assumed that its creation is given in Genesis 1:1.
Yet it seems that Sailhamer would want to include the angelic heaven in Genesis 1:1, since he tells us that the phrase "heaven & earth" means "everything." But if the angelic heaven is in view in Genesis 1:1, then nothing is implied about the sun, moon, and stars, for these are not part of the angelic heaven.
The traditional view is quite clear and simple. In Genesis 1:1, God made the angelic heavens and the cosmos. This original "earth" was undifferentiated, but God acted to separate this original "earth" into sky, sea, and land/earth. We now have two heavens and two earths: the original angelic heaven and the new sky-heaven within the cosmos, and the original cosmic earth and the new land-earth within the cosmos. These parallels emerge from a simple reading of the text. After the fall of man, we also have two seas: the sea within the cosmos, and the abyss of hell. Thus, we can diagram it this way:
HEAVEN EARTH (ABYSS)
sky land sea
(heaven earth deep)
Sky, land, and sea are parts of the EARTH that correspond to the greater HEAVEN, EARTH, and ABYSS.
Conclusion: Sailhamer seems confused about what the original heavens and earth included. Did they include the angelic heaven or not? Is the later sky-heaven part of the original heaven or part of the original earth? Perhaps Sailhamer will be able to untangle this for us as we go along. At this point, his case is more and more unconvincing.
Formless and Void
I hate to criticize an author who is so friendly and amiable in his presentation, but theological argument has to be rigorous, and so we must move on and see if Sailhamer can rescue his thesis with other information and arguments.
In chapters 5 and 21 of his book, Sailhamer argues that the phrase "without form and void" is a mistranslation. He states that this mistranslation goes back to attempt to accommodate the Biblical account with pagan notions of a primeval chaos. The pagans believe that originally there was an unformed mass of material in existence, which then the gods or the demiurge worked over to bring the present ordered cosmos into existence. Sailhamer thinks that many early translators were operating with this kind of thinking in their background, and that they set in motion an erroneous tradition of translation that still warps our English versions today.
Sailhamer asserts that the Hebrew phrase *tohu vabohu,* rendered "without form and empty," actually means nothing more than "wilderness." And as such, the reference is to a particular spot on the earth, which God makes into the fruitful land of Eden.
Now, Sailhamer is correct that *tohu* can be used for an empty space or a wilderness, but it can also mean "confusion." The *Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament* (Moody Press, 1980) states on p. 964b, "It refers to a desert wasteland in Deut 32:10; Job 6:18 (see ASV, RSV); 12:24b = Ps. 107:40b; to a destroyed city in Isa 24:10 (see also 34:11); to moral and spiritual emptiness and confusion in I Sam 12:21 (twice) and several times in Isa (29:21; 41:29; 44:9; 45:19; 59:4); and to nothingless or unreality in Isa 40:17, 23; 49:4;" and possibly Job 26:7.
So, what is the nuance of the term in Genesis 1:2? Sailhamer and some commentators take it as defined by the following term, with which is it paired. *Bohu* means empty. So the phrase means "very empty" or "a total wilderness."
The big, fat problem with this approach, which Sailhamer does not even mention, is that Genesis 1 rather obviously follows an outline set up in 1:2. The earth is formless, empty, and dark. This sets up the discussion that follows, to wit:
First, God takes care of the darkness problem in a preliminary way by creating light.
Second, God takes care of the formless problem by separating waters above and below and putting the firmament between them, and then by separating land and sea. These actions take place on Days 2 and 3a, and are linked not only thematically, but by the fact that the situation is not pronounced good until the second act of forming is completed on Day 3a.
Third, God takes care of the emptiness problem by creating grain plants and fruit trees, on Day 3b.
Fourth, God takes care of the darkness problem permanently by creating the sun, moon, and stars, on Day 4.
Thus, days 2-4 take up in series the three problems outlined in 1:2. Then, days 5-7 are show God blessing various parts of the world He has organized.
Accordingly, the passage itself explains what is meant by *tohu vabohu,* and it means just what the traditional translations say it means: formless and empty.
There is no need to see the original formlessness of the earth as a primeval chaos. There was already some shape to the creation, because the land was under water, and there was some kind of space above the water even then. For God’s purposes, however, the world was without form, or formless.
This formlessness seems to have particular relevance to the sea. Originally the sea covered the land. Then God took part of the sea into the angelic heaven, and put the rest of it below the land (i.e., lower than the land). The filling seems to have particular reference to the land (Day 3b), and the lightening seems to have particular relevance to the heaven or sky (Day 4).
Now I really do have to complain against Sailhamer here. Virtually every discussion of Genesis 1 takes up the "forming and filling" aspects of the passage. True, few seem to see that there are three problems, not just two, in Genesis 1:2. But apart from that, Sailhamer has to know that the usual interpretation distinguishes the problems of formlessness and emptiness — yet he does not discuss this interpretation at all. He simply leaps to the conclusion that a "wilderness" is all that is in view, and then uses this to argue for his notion that only the land of promise is in view in Genesis 1.
Thus, Sailhamer does not make a case for his position at all. He simply asserts it. He ignores the strong case against it at this point. Even though this is a popularly-written book, there is simply no excuse for this omission. One could charge that Sailhamer is just trying to pull the wool over the reader’s eyes.
Conclusion: Genesis 1 as a whole makes very clear that the traditional translation, "formless and empty" is quite correct. Sailhamer’s contention that nothing more than an empty wilderness is in view here is without foundation.
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 51
Copyright (c) 1997 Mark Horne
May, 1997
Reverend Richard Bacon is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, Texas. He has written a tract entitled “What Mean Ye By This Service? Paedocommunion in Light of Passover,” printed by Presbyterian Heritage Publications (P.O. Box 180922, Dallas, TX 75218). I am writing this brief response to set forth why his argument does not prove its case, or make the anti-paedocommunion position seem even probable. As this debate continues to go on, hopefully setting forth such reasons will give us a chance to address them, so that, if paedocommunion is not the proper practice for the Church of Jesus Christ, that fact might actually be demonstrated from Scripture.
Inexplicable Use of Scripture
The first concern that needs to be dealt with, is the many instances of Rev. Bacon’s confidently declaring that the Bible says something that the Bible does not say. Running into these instances one after another does not encourage a paedocommunionist to think that he is reading a rational argument from Scripture. Thus, they not only make Rev. Bacon’s case more unconvincing, but they also alienate any reader who has not already made up his mind that paedocommunion is wrong.
Exodus 12.21 “The Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said to them `Go and take for yourselves lambs according to your families, and slay the Passover lamb.'”
Rev. Bacon asserts that “the elders actually drew out the lambs” (p. 9) for the entire people. There is no reason in the world to believe this, however. All this indicates is that Moses could not speak to all 600,000 men at once. Rather, he relayed the message through the elders. Each head of the household selected a lamb for his household. Nothing in verse 21 modifies this. Is there any commentator or Biblical scholar who has come to Rev. Bacon’s conclusion? This sounds like a complete novelty and an unnecessary one, unless one has an axe to grind. To say the least, one needs more evidence here. As it stands, verse three and following seem abundantly clear that each family head was to take a lamb from his flock according to the mouths in his household.
Exodus 12.26-27a “And it will come about when your children say to you, `What is this service to you?’ that you will say, `It is a Passover sacrifice to the Lord because He passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but delivered our homes.'”
Rev. Bacon asserts that here we are informed that “the children are to serve a catechal role” (p. 10). Indeed, he emphasizes his contention with rhetorical questions: “What part do the children play in this meal? Does God simply leave it to our imagination? Does the Church have `discretion’ as to what part the children take?” (p. 9) On the contrary, they are “told” to ask, “What do you mean by your eating in this service?” (p. 10)
Now, this seems doubly gratuitous to me, and I would beg Rev. Bacon to add needed argumentation to this interpretation or else drop it from his tract. In the first place, it is simply adding to Scripture to assert that the children are told to ask anything in this passage. All God says is that, when they ask the question, they should be given an answer. It is the answer that the parents are told to give, but no question is commanded. In short, there is nothing about a catechism in this passage. In fact, there is nothing in the passage to mandate that Passover is being celebrated at the time the child asks the question. The point is simple: Whenever he asks about Passover, tell him about the Exodus.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the text about “your eating,” let alone anything with italics! Why is the Authorized Version suddenly replaced by this imaginative paraphrase? Granted, the child asks the parent, “What is this service to you?”, not “to us?”. But that does not prove that the child was not a participant in the rite; it only proves that he does not know the meaning of the rite. That is why he has to ask his parent about the meaning. The fact that Rev. Bacon was tempted to add the second-person possessive pronoun to the “eating” in his paraphrase, indicates that he himself is aware that the text, as originally written, does not give him sufficient grounds to argue that the child was not a participant.
Exodus 12.43b-44 “This is the ordinance of the Passover; no son of a stranger may eat of it; but every man’s slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it.”
Rev. Bacon asserts that “verse 44 expressly tells us that servants were not to partake of the Passover on the basis of their masters’ inclusion in the covenant. They were not to partake, in fact, until they themselves were confirmed in the covenant by accepting circumcision as adults.”
There is not one word in this passage about “adults.” Slaves were to be circumcised no matter what their age. Rev. Bacon is right, in a sense, to say that his own circumcision, not his master’s was the basis of a servant’s access to Passover; but what was the basis of the servants’ circumcisions, if not “their masters’ inclusion in the covenant”? There is nothing in this text about “accepting” circumcision or anything else.
Exodus 12.48 “But if a stranger sojourns with you, and does the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.”
According to Rev. Bacon, “all of [a stranger’s] males must be circumcised, only he (as an adult male covenantal head of the household) draws near and partakes” (pp. 10-11).
Why is “only” inserted into this verse? Rev. Bacon seems once again to be adding to the Word of God. All the verse says is: When a Gentile wishes to partake, he may do so if he circumcises all the males in his household. Nothing is said about forbidding the other males. Quite the contrary, the God-given prohibition is repeated: “No uncircumcised person may eat of it.” Why would any faithful Israelite claim that there is some additional reason to prohibit these circumcised males? Granted, uncleanness will later also prohibit participation, but the fact remains that God is the one who makes such rules. To add a further requirement is simply not permitted, as I’m sure Rev. Bacon will agree. Thus, I think some further explanation is needed, or else the interpretation of this text needs to be altered.
Numbers 9.6-7 “But there were some men who were unclean because of the dead person, so that they could not observe Passover on that day; so they came before Moses and Aaron on that day. And those men said to him, `Though we are unclean because of the dead person, why are we restrained from presenting the offering of the Lord at its appointed time among the sons of Israel?'”
Rev. Bacon comments that “certain men had been present at a funeral, so by reason of ceremonial or Levitical uncleanness they were not permitted to keep the Passover (cf. Numbers 5.2-3). Both men and women contracted ceremonial uncleanness (Numbers 5.3), so we must suppose either (1) no women were at the funeral or (2) that women were not required to keep Passover anyway, so being at the funeral made no difference" (p. 13).
Now, nothing is said about a funeral in this passage, and people did not become unclean simply by attending a funeral. Rather, one becomes unclean from touching a corpse (Numbers 19.11-13, 16), or being in a room where there was a corpse (Numbers 19.14). Unless, Rev. Bacon can show that the Israelites observed indoor funerals (an unlikely custom if people were trying to minimize uncleanness), there is nothing about attending a funeral that would make one unclean. Thus, there is no need whatsoever to assume that no women attended a funeral. One only need assume that they did not handle the body.
2 Chronicles 30.8 “Now do not stiffen your neck like your fathers, but yield to the Lord and enter His sanctuary which He has consecrated forever, and serve the Lord your God, that his burning anger may turn away from you.”
Rev. Bacon asserts that this passage teaches “that it is not merely for ceremonial uncleanness that a person is prohibited from partaking of the sacramental meal. The instruction in verse 8 is “yield yourselves unto the Lord . . . and serve the Lord your God.” This account teaches us that something more than ceremonial uncleanness could keep an ancient Israelite from the feast. An unyielded heart also disqualified the ancient Israelite from partaking in the sacrament of the Passover meal, even though he had been previously circumcised” (p. 14).
But none of this is remotely credible. The message in verse 8 is aimed at Israelites of the Northern Kingdom as opposed to Judahites of the Southern Kingdom. These people, though circumcised, had refused to enter God’s sanctuary, but had worshipped at unauthorized locations in their nation. The command to “yield” is simply a command to give up their unauthorized shrines and celebrate Passover where God has told them to celebrate it. There is no additional requirement being stated in this verse. Rather, the people are being warned not to refuse the privilege to which they have been entitled (cf. Numbers 9.13).
I Corinthians 10.1-4 “For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ.”
This passage appears nowhere in Rev. Bacon’s tract, but since he asserts that manna “was not a sacrament” (p. 18), how is he not openly contradiction the Apostle Paul?
Surely Rev. Bacon knows paedocommunionists are going to think of this verse, so why not explain how he can make such a categorical statement while still being faithful to Scripture? This would not only be a better strategy, to answer his opponents, but it would show more respect for those he is attempting to persuade. After all, are we simply supposed to believe whatever Rev. Bacon tells us to believe? Or are we supposed to settle this matter by the study of Scripture?
For the record, the Westminster Confession of Faith, declares that manna was a sacrament: “The sacraments of the old testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new” (27.5). The original prooftext for this assertion is 1 Corinthians 10.1-4. Granted, Rev. Bacon is free to register disagreement with the framers of the Confession on this point. But, for those of us who are advocating paedocommunion due to our allegiance to the Reformed Faith, he owes us some explanation, aside from assertions on nothing more than his own authority in contradiction to the framers of our Standards.
Is Child-Participation in Passover Essential to Paedocommunion?
Paedocommunion does not depend solely on whether or not children participated in the Passover. The Eucharist is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament sacraments. It is manna and the water from the rock (1 Corinthians 10.3-4). It is all the sacrifices that were eaten by the priests and sometimes the lay people both in their individual peace offerings and at the three yearly festivals (1 Corinthians 10.18; Leviticus 7.15-18; Deuteronomy 12.7, 12, 18; 16.1-15). Thus, there is no doubt that weaned children participated in these sacraments. Therefore, there is no reason to think they should now be barred from the sacramental meal of the New Covenant.
Incidentally, only adult males were required to attend these three feasts (Deuteronomy 16.16). Nevertheless, the point is that women and children were not prohibited from them.
Cain & Abel and “The Process of Time”
Admirably, Rev. Bacon goes back to Genesis to begin his case. He argues that the term “the end of days” (p. 5) at which Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God designates that it was revealed to them that they had to have reached a certain age. He also adds some arguments that Cain and Abel were both of mature years, able to marry and be “rational and discerning.”
I find Rev. Bacon’s argument regarding “the end of days,” rather speculative, but even if it is true it is really irrelevant to his case. He concludes, “There are numerous other sacrifices throughout the book of Genesis (8.20f.; 12.7f.; 13.4f.; etc.). In each case an adult male brought his sacrifices to the Lord, Thus, the principle was established by the time of Exodus that these sacrifices were to be made by those males capable of being heads of households.” A couple of points here, one incidental and one essential:
Incidentally: Women did in fact offer sacrifices under the Mosaic covenant (Leviticus 12.6-8; 15.29). If such counter-examples don’t count, because the Levites in fact did the offering on the altar, then the above considerations don’t count for Passover either. For the Passover Lamb was also slaughtered by the Levitical priest. Granted, this is not the case for the first Passover, but for all we know women were permitted to slaughter the first Passover, if a woman could be the head of a household (I have no idea). After all, when Zipporah displayed the blood of her son’s circumcision by touching the foreskin that she had cut off to his feet, God’s wrath was averted (Exodus 4.124-26). Not only does this correspond rather directly to the original Passover, but the scene occurs right after God tells Moses:
Then you shall say to Pharaoh, “Thus says the Lord, Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I said to you, `Let My son go, that he may serve Me’; but you have refused to let him go. Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn."
Thus, I don’t think Rev. Bacon has made all that strong a case.
On a more essential matter, I don’t see how the age or gender or household position of the one who offered sacrifices to God is relevant to determining the age or gender or household position of the one who ate from the sacrifices to God. According to Leviticus, the priest’s family was invited to eat from the sacrifices that the adult male priest offered (10.14; Numbers 18.11). Likewise, any Israelite or alien who offered peace offerings was encouraged to invite his children, along with others, to eat them with him (Deuteronomy 12.7, 12, 18; Leviticus 7.15-18; 22.17-25; Numbers 15.14-16). The question in dispute is not who slaughtered the Passover Lamb, but who was permitted to consume the Passover Lamb.
(continued in Rite Reasons No. 52)
