BIBLICAL HORIZONS, No. 96
Copyright © 1997 Biblical Horizons
June, 1997
The history of the sin of Ham and the curse of Canaan comes in the middle of the Generations of Noah, a section of Genesis that begins at Genesis 6:9 and extends to the closing notice, Genesis 11:9. To understand the story better, it is necessary to get in mind the literary structure of the Generations of Noah, as it develops out of the earlier sections of Genesis. To that end, I should like to quote what I have written earlier on that structure:
In Hebrew, the structure is:
This structure is followed in the next verses. In 1:2, a break in Hebrew (no vav, "and") introduces the thought that the earth is formless and void, but that the Spirit and the Word ("let there be") will work together to make it a proper habitation. In 2:5, the same break in Hebrew (no vav) introduces the thought that the earth is barren of vegetation, but that water (symbol of Spirit) and man (image of the Word) will work together to make it a proper habitation. In 5:1b, the same Hebrew break introduces man and woman as co-laborers who should work to bring the world to fruition….
I might note here that the first section ends with God enthroned in sabbath rest. The second section moves to a negative sabbath, as man is driven from the source of Spiritual water and the earth brings forth "thorns," evil men, leading to a climax in the seventh generation from Adam: Lamech. The third section also moves to a negative sabbath, as man and woman become corrupt and fail to bring the earth to fruition, and God announces sabbath judgment, the end of the world (6:1-8). Hope for redemption, however, is announced at the very end of sections two and three (4:25f., 6:8).
(James B. Jordan, "Studies in Genesis One: The Structure of Genesis," in The
Geneva Review 22 [September, 1985].)
* * *
After the creation account, the sections of Genesis are marked by an introductory phrase: These are the generations, or offspring, of something or someone. In this way, the theme of "genesis," or beginnings, initiations, openings, births, is continued through the book. In Trees & Thorns 1 (1991), I wrote:
The Book of Genesis can be seen as having an introduction and seven sections:
Introduction. The Creation of the Heavens and the Earth: Genesis 1:1 –2:3.
1. The Generations of the Heavens and the Earth: Genesis 2:4–4:26 – corresponding to Day 1, the creation of the heavens and earth out of formlessness (creation of man) and the separation of light and darkness (judgment on man; division of Cain and Abel).
2. The Generations of Adam: Genesis 5:1–6:8 – corresponding to Day 2, the establishment of a firmament to separate waters above from waters below. In my speculative opinion, the godly line of Seth was the human form of the firmament, and the corruption of that line is answered by the removal of the firmament and the re-coalescence of the waters in the Flood.
3. The Generations of Noah: Genesis 6:9–11:9 – corresponding to Day 3. There are two large sections here:
4. The Generations of Shem: Genesis 11:10-26 – corresponding to Day 4, the establishment of light-bearers of rule in the heavens. Not only are the godly called lights, but the patriarch’s lives were marked out in years that are the same as significant astronomical numbers.
5. The Generations of Terah: Genesis 11:27–25:11 – corresponding to Day 5, when the great swarming creatures were made, and when God gave His first command to any creature. These themes, multiplication and law, are highlighted in the story of Abraham, which Genesis 11:27–25:11 delineate.
6. The Generations of Ishmael and Isaac: Genesis 25:12–35:29 – corresponding to Day 6. It is the story of Jacob that is the major item here. Day 6 also has two sections:
7. The Generations of Esau and Jacob: Genesis 36:1–50:26 – corresponding to Day 7. The sabbath-rest theme is clear in the story of Joseph, "the generations of Jacob" (37:1–50:26). The "generations of Esau" (ch. 36) point to the fall of man, which happened on the sabbath. Thus, a false sabbath rest is given to Esau, as he multiplies and takes control, while a true sabbath rest is given to the godly.
* * *
Let us now expand this structure. In the first section of Genesis, the Creation of the Heavens and the Earth (1:1–2:3), we can see this large pattern:
Turning to the Generations of the Heaven and Earth (2:4–4:26), we find this same general pattern:
This leads to an extension, with a second recapitulation of the structure:
We now come to the third section, the Generations of Adam (Genesis 5:1–6:8):
With this background, let us survey the Generations of Noah. First, we find a statement about man, Noah and his family (Genesis 6:9-10). Second, we find a problem: the wickedness of humanity (Genesis 6:11-12). Third, we find God’s resolution of this problem: the Flood. After the Flood, we find, fourth, God’s judgment on humanity, His blessing of Noah and the new humanity. Finally, fifth, we find a promise of sabbath peace in the Rainbow Covenant.
Like the Generations of the Heaven and the Earth, however, the Generations of Noah (the new humanity) continues on with two stories that show a new double fall. The first fall is that of Ham (analogous to that of Adam), and the second fall is that of the later descendants (analogous to that of Cain). We may outline it as follows:
This section, of course, is the subject of this paper; but to get the parallels more firmly in mind, let us outline the "fall of Cain" section that follows:
Notice the "fall and decline" pattern in the Generations of Noah is the same as in the Generations of the Heaven and the Earth. First, an Adamic figure falls into sin, and seeks to destroy the sanctuary. Second, a Cainitic figure seeks to build a counterfeit city. In the Generations of Noah, however, both attempts are frustrated, the former by the actions of Godly men and the latter by God Himself. We shall have to see the reasons for this.
The reason it is important for us to look at the literary and symbolic parallels among these early Histories is that it leads us to see clearly that it is not Noah but Ham who commits the great sin in the passage with which we are concerned. It has been a temptation for exegetes to focus on the drunkenness of Noah as the great sin, but it is Ham who, Satanlike, invades a private domain, and it is Ham who is judged, through Canaan. It is the purpose of this essay to demonstrate that thesis in detail, and to draw conclusions from it; but the thesis will not be fully credible until we have exegeted the passage in depth.
The passage has a chiastic aspect, with Noah’s awakening at the center. Here is the general chiastic flow.
The actual literary structure, also chiastic, is as follows:
A. Noah’s God-like Labor:
8:20And Noah, a master of the ground, was the first,
And he planted a vineyard.
21And he drank from the wine,
And became drunk,
And lay uncovered inside his tent.
B. Actions of the Brothers:
22And Ham, father of Canaan, saw
The nakedness of his father,
And he told his two brothers outside.
23And Shem and Japheth took the garment,
And they laid [it] upon a shoulder of each of
them,
And they walked backward,
And they covered the nakedness of their father,
And their faces were backward,
And the nakedness of their father
They did not see.
C. Parousia of Noah:
24And Noah awoke from his wine,
And he knew what his youngest son had done to him.
B’ Judgments on the Brothers:
25And he said, "Cursed is Canaan.
A slave of slaves he will be to his brothers.
26And he said, "Blessed is Yahweh, God of Shem.
And may Canaan be his slave.
27And may God enlarge Japheth,
And may he live in the tents of Shem,
And may Canaan be his slave."
A’ Noah’s Life and Death:
28And Noah lived after the flood three hundred years and fifty
years.
29And all the days of Noah were nine hundred years and fifty years.
And he died.
(to be continued)
Biblical Chronology, Vol. 9, No. 6
Copyright James B. Jordan 1997
June, 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.
Narrative Relationships
In his chapter 8, Sailhamer states that "the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2 follows a common pattern seen throughout the further narratives of the primeval history (Genesis 1-11). The author often links two distinct narratives to reflect a specific textual strategy. For example, after a narrative with a general description of an event, the author often attaches one which gives more detail about the same event. Having described the dispersion of the nations `according to their languages and countries’ in Genesis 10, the author attaches the story of the city of Babylon (Tower of Babel) in Genesis 11:1-9 to explain the origin of their different languages" (p. 91).
He then argues that the general description in Genesis 1 is followed up with a "close-up" description of creation in Genesis 2.
Now, Sailhamer’s general statement is correct. We do indeed see in the Bible sometimes a more general summary of an event followed by a more detailed narrative. The problem with his assertion is that Genesis 2 may be specifying Genesis 1 in a way different from what Sailhamer asserts. Traditionally (and correctly, I submit), Genesis 2 is seen as an expansion of the sixth day of Genesis 1. Thus, by itself, Sailhamer’s observation does nothing to prove or even hint that his view of Genesis 1 is correct.
Now as a matter of fact, Genesis 2-3 does recapitulate Genesis 1, but at a microcosmic level. What Genesis 1 says about the entire earth is repeated with reference to man, Eden, and the garden. This can be seen in that the structure of the two passages is the same, the second building on the first. The following discussion is derived from my ongoing studies, "Trees and Thorns," chapter 4 (available from Biblical Horizons , Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588).
Genesis 2:4 is parallel to Genesis 1:1.
In Genesis 2:5-7 we find that the earth is said to be empty of plants and shrubs "of the field." That is, the earth is formless, because the distinction between garden and field has not yet been established, and void because of the absence of these plants. The earth is also covered with water, in the form of streams that water "the entire surface of the ground." Then, as God made light in Genesis 1:2, so God makes man to be light-bearer and governor in Genesis 2:7.
On Day 2, God set up the firmament to separate waters from waters, and on Day 3 He made the land appear and put food-plants on it. Genesis 2:8-14 speaks of the garden and its food-plants, and of the land that arises in the center of the world. (Since the rivers flowed out of Eden to water the whole earth, Eden is the highest point on earth.) Thus Genesis 2:8-14 seems to be a recap of Day 3.
Actually, however, we should see the Garden of Eden as the place where man the light-bearer is placed, so that the Garden corresponds to the firmament heavens that were set up on Day 2, and into which the sun, moon, and stars were placed on Day 4. Later on the Bible the Garden-sanctuary is associated with the firmament. (I have set out many of these associations in Through New Eyes.) The Garden is between the Land of Eden and the rest of the world, since the river arises in Eden, and thus the Edenic Plateau was higher than the Garden. Similarly, the firmament is between the highest heaven and the cosmos.
So, Genesis 2:5-7 recaps Day 1, 2:8 recaps Day 2, and 2:9-14 recaps Day 3. Then in Genesis 2:15-17 God puts the man in the Garden of Eden to dress it and to guard it. Guarding involves separation and distinction, since the man has to know what to guard against. He must guard his own heart against disobedience, and as we shall see he must guard the Garden against invasion. God tells him to separate between the ordinary trees and the two special trees, and between the special tree that might be eaten (the Tree of Life) and the special tree that is temporarily forbidden (the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil).
Thus we see in Genesis 2:15 the same themes as Day 4. Man is clearly over the garden, in the same way as the light-bearers are over the earth. The light-bearers are to govern day and night, and the man is to dress the garden. The light-bearers are to separate light and darkness, and the man is to separate between obedience and disobedience, between friend and enemy.
On Day 5, God made the fish and birds to dwell in the seas and on the land, corresponding to Day 3. He also gave them the first command recorded in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2:16-17, we have God’s command to Adam.
Day 6 is equivalent to Genesis 2:18-24. On Day 5 God created sea creatures and birds. On Day 6a He made the land animals, and on Day 6b He created man. Here in Genesis 2:18-24 God brought beasts and birds, representatives of the two days, before the man. When none proved suitable as a mate, God created woman. Thus, we move from animals to humanity once again.
This brings us to the seventh day. In Genesis 1, God, rested on the seventh day. Genesis 2 brings out the notion that God rested not only because He was finished, but also because He had turned the administration of the world over to a steward. He turned the garden over to Adam and Eve, and departed.
It is clear that God departed because after our first parents sinned, He returned. Genesis 2:24 also points to God’s departure when it says "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife." We are so used to seeing this sentence as an aphorism that we fail to take note of it in context. Adam’s father is God. There is a sense in which Adam leaves God as earthly father and sets up his own household in Genesis 2:24. God continues, of course, to be Adam’s heavenly father. This is a point of tension in the passage, because now the question comes: How will this young man fare now that he is on his own, captain of his own family and in charge of the garden? It is the same question that parents ask themselves when they give their children away in marriage.
Now, if we examine the acts of "Yahweh God" in Genesis 2, we can see even more closely the parallel literary structure that this passage bears to Genesis 1. The two passages are parallel chiasms. (On the chiastic structure of Genesis 1, see Biblical Chronology 9:3).
1. Garden formless, empty, given light-bearer (man), 2:4-7
"And YHWH God formed man"
Spirit hovered, made light // breathing into dust, make man
2. Garden-sanctuary, 2:8
"And YHWH God planted a garden"
Parallel to firmament
3. Trees grow out of land, 2:9; centrality of land, 2:10-14
"And YHWH God caused to grow"
Reverse parallel to land and trees of Day 3
4. Man established as ruler, 2:15
"And YHWH God took the man and put him"
Parallel to lights "put" and established as rulers on Day 4
5. Commands, regarding trees, 2:16-17
"And YHWH God commanded the man"
Parallel to command on Day 5
6. Community, 2:18-24
"And YHWH God said"
Parallel to community of man and animals, man and wife
7. Sabbath sin and judgment, 2:25–3:23
Parallel to sabbath, Day 7
Now, these parallels establish a far closer association of Genesis 1 and 2-3 than Sailhamer himself seems to recognize. Yet, these parallels also clearly separate the two passages as to their referents. The light and light-bearers of Genesis 1 become the man in Genesis 2-3. The firmament of Genesis 1 becomes the garden of Genesis 2-3. From these facts, and the others, we can see that the links Sailhamer seeks to forge between Genesis 1 and 2-3 are the wrong links.
Presenting humanity as lightbearers in the firmament, mediating between heaven and the world, is implied in the Genesis 1 account. As we have seen, Genesis 1:2 announces three "problems," to wit: the earth was formless, empty, and dark. The formlessness of the world is taken care of by the two great separations of days 2 and 3a. The emptiness of the world is taken care of by the trees and grains of day 3b. The darkness of the world is taken care of by the initial light of day 1, and then by the lightbearers of day 4.
Now, the lightbearers culminate all three "answers." They separate the day and the night (form); they fill the sky (fill); and they govern (vv. 16 & 18). They are signs of rulers.
When humanity is made, God tells them: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (filling); and subdue it (forming); and rule over it (lightbearing, analogous to lightbearers of day 4). Human beings are thus just like the lightbearers. Moreover, as we have seen, the sixth day corresponds to the second, so that humanity is like the firmament. It is only a very slight move to see that humanity is, accordingly, like the lightbearers of the firmament.
Thus, the account in Genesis 1 has already set up an analogy between humanity and the lightbearers in the firmament. All Genesis 2 does it make it more explicit. Genesis 2 is an expansion of the sixth day. On that day, God recapitulated the work of the six days, but in a humaniform fashion. "Man in garden" is a microcosm of the macrocosmic "man in world."
The Covenant God
In chapter 9, Sailhamer argues that the God of Genesis 1 is the same as the covenant Yahweh God who brought Israel out of Egypt. For him this is further evidence that Genesis 1:2ff. deals with God’s putting man into a specific land (Eden, which for him is Canaan also).
Here we must make two observations. First, of course it is the same God. And, since the only God there is is also the covenant God, we can certainly see covenantal aspects in Genesis 1.
Second, however, Sailhamer completely overlooks the implications of the fact that Genesis 1 speaks only of "God," while the name "Yahweh God" appears throughout Genesis 2-3. The name "Yahweh God" is the name given by God in a peculiar way to the people of Israel at the exodus from Egypt (Exodus 6). The name was known earlier, of course, but not given in its full meaning until the exodus.
So, there is indeed a link between the exodus to Canaan under Yahweh God, and Yahweh God’s putting Adam into the garden of Eden. Adam made an "exodus" from wherever he was originally into the garden.
But the fact that "Yahweh God" is NOT used in Genesis 1 certainly indicates a contrast. If "Yahweh God" is the "land-covenant name" of God, then its absence from Genesis 1 is significant. Genesis 1 is NOT presenting God as the "land-covenant" God, but as the "cosmos-covenant" God. In terms of this distinction, we have a macrocosmic name for God in Genesis 1, and a microcosmic name for God in Genesis 2. We have God’s covenantal relationship to the cosmos APART FROM MAN in Genesis 1, and His covenantal relationship to the cosmos THROUGH MAN in Genesis 2. This is the fairly obvious relationship between Genesis 1 and 2-3, which Sailhamer overlooks, does not deal with argumentatively, and from which he has said nothing to dislodge.
(Note: There are more nuances of distinction between "God" and "Yahweh God" in the Bible than the ones we are considering here.)
Once again, Sailhamer has just "sailed through" the passage, presenting his position without even taking notice of the common and well-nigh universal interpretation that he is discarding. His "hammer" simply misses the anvil of argument completely.
When Was Man Created?
On p. 106, Sailhamer presents his argument that mankind was not made during the "beginning period" of Genesis 1:1, but on the sixth day of the "special land-making" work of Genesis 1:2ff. "Were it not for the rest of Genesis, particularly the genealogies in chapters 5 and 10, we would be correct to include human beings among the creatures which inhabited the earth at this time. The genealogies of Genesis, however, tell us clearly that all human beings on earth are descendants of the man and woman created on the sixth day of the week which follows. We are forced by the logic of the text to exclude humans from the world created `in the beginning.’"
While I certainly agree that all humanity are descended from Adam and Eve, I don’t see how this can be asserted on Sailhamer’s premises. If he were correct, the genealogy of Genesis 5 would only concern the human beings set up in the original land. The post-Flood genealogies are not at issue, since they deal with humanity after the world-wide Flood. Maybe the "daughters of men" that the "sons of God" intermarried with in Genesis 6 were pre-Adamic humans. How can Sailhamer know? Genesis 5:1 – 6:8 does not anywhere state that all the human beings on the whole earth were descended from Adam. Of course, that is assumed — but again, how can Sailhamer know?
Now, if we take the traditional view of Genesis 1, we know for a fact that the only two human beings on the whole earth were Adam and Eve, created on the sixth day. But on Sailhamer’s view, these were two human beings created and put into the special land. Nothing indicates that there were not other human beings already in existence. Moreover, Sailhamer’s assertion that everything in heaven & earth was made "in the beginning period" can hardly exclude such a pre-Adamic humanity.
The First Day
For Sailhamer, the first day starts in Genesis 1:2, not Genesis 1:1. Now, in a further attempt to substantiate his position, he creates a problem in Genesis 1 where none exists. He asks (as others have) how there can be light on the first day if the sun was not created until the fourth? As we have seen in previous issues of this newsletter, there is no problem here at all. When the glory cloud of God appears in the Bible, it is always refulgent with light. The hovering Spirit, who is always associated with the manifestation of God’s glory, is the Source of the light on days 1-3 of Genesis 1. Thus, there simply is no problem here at all.
Sailhamer solves this non-existent problem by asserting once again that the universe, including the sun, had been around for a long time. Since (for him), Genesis 1:2 only concerns the forming of the Edenic land, "let there be light" just means "let the sun rise." Well, if Sailhamer’s interpretation were correct, then his interpretation of "let there be light" is possible. But as we have seen, Sailhamer has utterly failed to persuade that "in the beginning" refers to a long period of time, or that Genesis 1:2ff. has to do only with the promised land.
The Second Day
A more significant problem of interpretation surrounds day 2 of Genesis 1. Sailhamer takes up the second day in his chapter 11. Sailhamer says that the "firmament" is simply the sky, and that the waters above the firmament are clouds. If Genesis 1:7 said that the waters are "within" the firmament, the reference might be to clouds. But the text says that the water are "above" the firmament.
What the "firmament" is in Genesis 1 is a hard problem, and can only be addressed by taking into account much that is found later in the Bible. Even in Genesis 1, however, we can see what the most likely interpretation is.
In the beginning, God created the angelic heaven and the cosmic earth. From Genesis 1:1-2 we see a four-tiered universe. Lowest was the land. Over the land was the sea. Over the sea was some kind of dark space. And over the dark space was the angelic heaven. There was no boundary between the angelic heaven and the cosmic earth.
On the second day, God established a boundary between the angelic heaven and the cosmic earth, and took part of the sea up into the angelic heaven. The notions that the "waters above" are simply clouds in the sky or a water canopy over the whole world, will not withstand close inspection. A very good discussion of this (though detailed and difficult for the layman to follow) is found in Paul H. Seely, "The Firmament and the Water Above," *The Westminster Theological Journal* 53:2 (Fall 1991):227-240 and 54:1 (Spring, 1992):31-46. Sadly, Sailhamer seems unaware of this study.
Since the sun, moon, and stars are located "in" the firmament, the waters above the firmament must be "beyond" the visible universe. Thus, the waters above cannot be clouds or a vapor canopy, both of which are under the stars. Moreover, whenever the angelic heaven appears to men in the Bible, it is as if a curtain had pulled back and the angelic heaven is revealed as very near at hand. And, the angelic heaven is pictured as having a sea in it (Ezekiel 1:22; Revelation 4:6).
Thus, the firmament is some kind of "dimensional barrier" between the angelic heaven and the cosmic earth. Neither the angelic heaven nor the firmament (its far side, anyway) can be reached by a spaceship.
Further study will reveal that the firmament is not only a shell-like barrier or curtain between heaven and earth, but also a chamber between the two. The highest heaven is equivalent to the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle. The firmament heaven is equivalent to the Holy Place (and notice that seven astral lamps in the Holy Place, symbolically linked to the sun, moon, and the five visible planets).
Taking water from the earth up into heaven is a prophetic type of taking baptized people from earth up into heaven.
For more on all of this, I can only recommend my own lectures on the firmament, available from Biblical Horizons , Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588.
Setting aside the details, however, it is clear that the waters "above" the firmament cannot be clouds, and thus Sailhamer’s exegesis cannot stand. Removing water from the earth into the angelic heavens, beyond the stars, is clearly a much more cosmic action than merely putting clouds above the land of Eden. Thus, the events of the second day by themselves alone completely destroy Sailhamer’s thesis.
Not Good?
Since Sailhamer has ignored the programmatic character of Genesis 1:2 for the passage as a whole, he is left with a question about why God did not pronounce matters "good" at the end of the second day. He submits that the "land" was not yet good for humanity at that point, since water still covered it. We can say the same thing for the mid-point of the third day, however, since there were not yet any plants on the "land" at that point. Yet, God calls matters good before setting in the plants. Thus, I don’t think Sailhamer’s explanation carries any water at this point.
Rather, as we have noted already, God is working to take care of the three "problems" set out in Genesis 1:2 — darkness, formlessness, and emptiness. The second day and the first half of the third day deal with the problem of formlessness, and that is why God does not pronounce things "good" until the end of the second half of the third day. Only then was the forming work completed.
The forming work in Genesis 1 takes the original structure of the world into a new structure, which has a wonderful balance and symmetry. Here is the end product:
Highest Heaven
Angelic heaven
Heavenly sea under these heaven, above firmament
Firmament Heaven
Far reaches: right "under" the angelic heaven; stars
Near end: the blue sky
Earth
Land
Sea
Notice first of all that the resulting configuration of the Highest Heaven and the Earth is the same: dwelling place with sea underneath (below) it.
Second, notice that the firmament is called "heaven," which means that the firmament displays within the original "earth" (cosmos) the nature of the Highest Heaven. The stars in the firmament are related to the angels and their realm, while the blue sky at the lower end of the firmament is related to the heavenly sea.
All of this is the forming work that God originally had in mind, and in terms of which the original creation was relatively "formless." I may add that this is precisely the cosmic configuration seen in the Tabernacle:
Highest Heaven – Holy of Holies
Cherubim
Blue cherubim veil (waters)
Firmament Heaven – Holy Place
Lamps (stars)
Second blue veil (waters)
Courtyard – Earth
Laver (on a pedestal off the ground, thus also waters)
Altar of earth raised up
Third blue veil at entrance (lower waters)
(For more on all this, see my book *Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World.*)
OPEN BOOK, Views & Reviews, No. 33
Copyright (c) 1997 Biblical Horizons
June, 1997
This kind of language is revelatory in a particular way, different from ordinary language. It reveals man as the image of God, as the ruler of creation, as having authority over other persons in various ways, etc. It is the particular kind of language used by rulers as they rule, and the particular kind of language used by the Church as she acts as the hidden servant-government of the world.
Such constitutive or covenantal language has many aspects or dimensions, all of which are avenues of revelation about God, such as:
1. Constituting covenantal documents.
2. Law codes.
3. Legislation.
4. Decrees.
5. Songs for use in directing life (like the Psalms).
6. Pointed questions designed to elicit re_ection.
7. Prayer.
2D. Relational Revelation. There is a kind of communication that takes place between the various semi-persons (higher animals) and objects in the lower creation. Our general scheme requires us to regard this as another avenue of revelation, which I am calling Relational Revelation. To start with, consider the way animals communicate with each other, the way your cat and dog tell you things, and the way angels and God communicate with the lower aspects of creation.
In a sense, the linguistic ability of human beings counts for and represents the whole creation, for humanity is the leader and acme of revelation. Plants convert earth, air, water, and are (light) into food, which animals and human beings eat, and humans also eat animals. In this way, humanity eats into itself the cosmos and transforms the cosmos into full personhood, and through human speech the cosmos speaks.
Yet we know that some kinds of speaking occur in the higher animals, and this will have to be considered as another dimension of linguistic revelation. Indeed, there may be a great deal more going on in this area than we are presently aware of.
Let us stop thinking about language for a moment, and consider instead that all the objects in the cosmos exist in relationships with one another. This is true of human beings as well, and of all things as they relate to God. This is the spatial or _eld aspect of created existence, and it is a manifestation of the Son, who is Word.
Now let us return to language. Language sets things in relationship with one another. For instance, certain words are used to create the relationship of marriage, or to create a new nation, or to baptize a person into the Church. Laws and judgments set persons into relationships with one another: taxpayer and bureaucrat, guilty and innocent, etc. All language expresses relationships. Performative language, as we have just indicates, creates relationships. Declarative sentences express relationships ("That house is white." "John went to the store."). Commands express relationships between persons ("Bring me my slippers!"). Questions call relationships into question ("Where is my book?" "Adam, where are you?). General patter either lubricates human relationships ceremoniously, or wrecks it through gossip.
Thus, language is relational, spatial. Sentences can be diagrammed, laid out in relationships in space, visible to the eye.
Now, what I must write next may ba_e some readers, but please bear with me. There is evidence to suggest that something like language exists as a _eld in the universe as a whole, and moves between objects of the same kind. We can start with the Bible. Colossians 1:17 says that all things are connected together in and through the Second Person of God, the Word. Similarly, Hebrews 1:3 says that the Son upholds all things by His powerful word.
Moving from such hints in the Bible, let me call attention to the work of A. Rupert Sheldrake, as presented in his books A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation (London: Blond & Briggs, 1981); The Presence of the Past: Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature (New York: Vintage, 1989); and Seven Experiments That Could Change the World (New York: Berkeley-Riverhead, 1995). Sheldrake presents experimental evidence to show that communities of the same kinds of creatures are linked throughout space by _elds of "morphic resonance." For instance, if a group of mice are trained over a period of time to perform certain acts in New York, another group of mice trained in Sydney six months later will learn the same acts in a shorter period of time. Clearly, there is no biological explanation for this, and Sheldrake argues that the explanation lies in a kind of communication among all mice.
Sheldrake’s work explains the seemingly impossible links between certain animals and the world itself: the way _sh _nd their way back to spawning grounds, or the way an abandoned cat will travel a thousand miles to come home.
The evidence presented to back up this theory is not limited to animals, but also extends to non-living things and plants as well. One experiment involved crystals. A new kind of crystal was precipitated out of a solution, a process involving a certain amount of time. Later on, the same crystal precipitated faster and more easily.
This is not the place to go farther with this. I only wanted to show that there may be good reason to believe that something like language operates in every aspect of the cosmos to create relationships. This linkage of communication is itself a revelation of God.
One _nal point along these lines. We saw above that angels were particularly involved in revealing God’s truth to us when we were children in the Old Creation. Angels used animals, stars, plants, etc. for this purpose. It may be that angels maintain the lines of communication between the parts of creation.
3. Revelation Through Event.
Thirdly, God reveals Himself through actions, His own and those of His creatures.
A3. Special Historical Revelation. By this we mean the actions of God Himself in the sphere of cosmos and history, particularly as focussed in the special covenantal history of the Old Creation (from creation through the apostolic age).
We can distinguish several kinds of special actions by God. The _rst is the act of direct creation, bringing into being something that did not previously exist. One example, obviously, is the creation of the cosmos itself. Another is Jesus’ changing water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana, for the grape molecules, as well as such sediment as might have been found at the bottom of the jars, were created out of nothing. Another is the turning of the Nile river and all the waters of Egypt into blood. Both of these creative miracles were the _rst God performed as part of a larger series connected with the two exceptionally important periods of covenant-making. It is likely that the provision of manna from the sky during the wilderness wanderings is another example of creation out of nothing.
A second kind of direct action by God consists of acts of transformation, whereby God transforms something that already exists by using powers that do not exist within the cosmos itself. The various resurrections performed by God in the Bible _t into this category, as doubtless do some of the healings. Multiplying loaves and _shes _ts here.
A third kind of direct action by God consists of works of extraordinary providence that are timed to coincide with prophetic predictions. I have in mind bringing millions of frogs over the Egyptians all at once, or bringing vast swarms of lice and _ies. Some of the healings might _t here also.
Yet another kind of direct action involves symbolic demonstrations of Divine power, such as walking on water (which recalls the hovering of God over the creation), and the like.
We could probably come up with other categories as well, but these su_ce for our purposes.
In the main, God’s special miraculous acts are part of the Old Creation history, and these miracles are particularly grouped around times of covenant making: the original creation, the Flood, the Exodus from Egypt, the formation of the Remnant Covenant under Elijah and Elisha, and the coming of the New Covenant. Miraculous events done by God have occured also in the history of the Church from time to time.
Also here we must consider God’s special guidance "behind the scenes." God generally guides all of human history "behind the scenes," but the history recorded in the Bible involved special guidance as God brought His original covenant with Adam to maturity in Christ. This special history involved the ful_llment of previously-revealed prophecies, and that is what distinguishes it from the more general providential guidance of God in history.
B3. General Historical Revelation. Since man is the image of God, human life at all levels reveals God. The biographies of individuals reveal God, as do the histories of families, churches, businesses, schools, nations, civilizations, and human history as a whole. Because man is sinful, much of what is found in such histories reveals God by way of contrast, but it still in inescapably revelatory.
In contrast to Special Historical Revelation, General Historical Revelation is directed by human beings rather than by God. Human beings are the actors in history, and so history tells us "more" about the images of God than about God Himself.
Thus, human history is not just "one thing after another," as the saying goes. Rather, it reveals the nature of man and the nature of God.
As miracles pointedly reveal God by forcing our attention, so crisis times in history are "more" revelatory than ordinary times. In crisis, people act according to their basic natures, for good or ill. The various works of Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy and of Rene Girard are particularly valuable in exposing some of the revelatory aspects of social upheavals, revolutions, and crises.
Yet, the ordinary day-to-day actions of human beings also teach us about God. Human beings like to dress well, because God is robed in glory. Human beings eat, incorporating other things into themselves; and God "eats" us into His fellowship (see Revelation 3:16, as well as the whole sacri_cial system). Human beings study and investigate the world. Human beings rework and transform the world. All the things that human beings do re_ect the things that God does.
C3. Dynamic Covenantal Revelation. As there are certain special persons and groups of persons (i.e., rulers and the Church), and special covenantal words spoken by such persons, so there are special covenantal deeds done by them. All such special deeds are revelatory.
First of all, the general ruler-ruled relationships. The particular deed that the state does is to bear the sword. The magistrate can go to war and he can put people to death. Such events are crises in society or in the lives of individuals. The ruler can also command taxes, maintain roads, and do other things that are less of a crisis nature, but all of which display his position as covenant head of a certain society in a certain aspect. All of these things are things that God also does, and so the covenantal deeds of the ruler reveal things about God.
The particular deed that the husband and wife do is sex. In sex, the husband takes the wife to himself. He is fundamentally active and she is fundamentally passive: He penetrates her. This interaction is extremely pleasurable and non-threatening in a good marriage. It reveals how the Persons of God fully enjoy being one with each other, and also how the creation is passive under the penetrating and life-giving actions of God.
When covenants and contracts are engaged, they are normally sealed with a meal. The covenant meal is revelatory, since both parties eat the same food at the same time in the same place. Thus, the two parties become one by taking the same food into themselves, which food is transformed into each of them. This is a form of union and communion that is the opposite of sex in certain ways, but like sex it is pleasurable and reveals how the Persons of God enjoy being one with each other and with Their friends. (Sex is private and involves only one other person; meals are public and involve many people. In sexual union, one new thing is potentially created [a child], while in culinary union, one old thing is shared [food].)
Let us now turn to Dynamic Covenantal Revelation in the Church. Here we are concerned with the revelatory character of the sacraments, which like the other actions we have studied spring from the Energy of the Spirit. The sacraments are primarily the dynamic work of the Spirit. As the Spirit is sent by the Son, certain words are spoken _rst, and then the action is performed. "Do this," said Jesus, not "Contemplate this."
The word "sacrament" is not found in the Bible, and there is always discussion as to what makes something a "sacrament." We shall bypass that discussion. There are four special "miraculous" works of the Spirit that the Church performs as special covenant rites. They are Holy Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Unction, and Ordination.
Baptism makes us new persons, and so in this work of the Spirit, the Fatherly aspect of our existence comes to the fore. Unction for the sick is a kind of extension of baptism to those who need it.
Ordination sets aside certain persons as special representatives of the Son, to oversee the congregation, the preaching, and the rites. This work of the Spirit has a special relationship to the ruling/serving aspect of our existence, that of the Son.
Finally, the Lord’s Supper is the act of the whole congregation, and so in this rite, action comes to the fore. What we do in the Supper is a memorial presented to God the Father, and what we eat is in a miracle the Theoanthropos, but the energy of the Spirit is paramount in the rite. In the order of worship, we _rst confess sins and are restored as persons. Then we hear the Word and pledge renewed allegiance to Him. Finally, we receive the power of the Spirit. The Spirit _rst binds us together as one loaf in union with Christ, as we all eat the same Bread. Then the Spirit imparts to all of us collectively the death of Christ through His blood, so that we are enabled to live sacri_cally as martyrs, dying more and more to sin and rising more and more to righteousness.
Since the "sacraments" are generally understood to be avenues of revelation, I need go no farther at this point.
(to be concluded)
