BIBLICAL Horizons, July, 1997
Copyright 1997 Biblical Horizons
No. 97
Commentary
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.
It appears to me that there is a balance between "ground" and "tent" in this paragraph, and that the central idea is that Noah drank from the wine. Thus, the paragraph is chiastic in outline.
The first two statements mean that Noah was the first to plant a vineyard. He is said to do this as "master of the ground." Commentators agree that Noah is presented as a giver of rest, by being a giver of wine. He himself drinks of the wine and takes a nap. We are pointed back to Lamech’s prophecy when he named Noah, in 8:29, "And he called his name Noah (Comfort), saying, `This one will comfort us in our labors and in the toil of our hands from the ground, which Yahweh cursed.’" Lamech thus prophesied that there would be a relaxation of the curse as a result of Noah’s work, and that this relaxation would take the form of comfort. The soil would still prosecute God’s curse, and would still bring forth thorns and thistles, but a comfort would be given in the midst of that trial.
Comfort and rest come at the end of toil, and thus are associated with sabbath. God rested on the sabbath day after His labors of creation, but Adam did not enter into any kind of sabbath rest. Through Noah, humanity now enters into a sabbath; not the final sabbath, but a real experience of rest after toil and trial.
What was Noah’s labor? He prophesied to sinners and built a church (the ark) to house God’s people in the midst of historical judgment. And, this judgment was the end of the world. With the end of the old world, and the preservation of the church, Noah’s work was finished, and he could enter sabbath rest. Of course, he lived on and there was more to do, but he entered a sabbath with reference to his former work. We can see here something taught everywhere in Scripture: Those who stand for God and built the Church will inherit the world and enter sabbath and rule.
Sabbath rest is always associated with enthronement. God rests enthroned in His creation. Kings rest enthroned after defeating their enemies and building their houses. It is at that time that a king can sit down and relax with a glass of wine. Accordingly, enthroned kings are often pictured with wine-servers, or drinking wine (Genesis 40; Nehemiah 2:1; Esther). Wine, thus, is a sign of completed work, of rest and comfort after labor. The priests were not to drink wine in the Tabernacle, because their work was never finished, and they did not sit down. (For a full discussion, see Jeffrey J. Meyers, "Concerning Wine and Beer," Rite Reasons 48 & 49.)
The change from Adam to Noah is, thus, a change from priestly labor to kingly rule. No one was allowed to avenge Cain, for God had not given kingly rule to humanity at that point in history, though men seized it for themselves (Genesis 4:15, 23). With Noah, however, the right to rule by means of capital punishment is delegated to humanity (9:5-6). Associated with the right to put murderers to death is the right to kill animals for food (9:3-4).
We can summarize the changes thus:
| Adam | Noah |
| No sabbath | Sabbath |
| Toil w/o comfort | Toil with comfort |
| Bread only | Bread & wine |
| Vegetables only | Meat also |
| Priestly only | Priestly & Kingly |
This explains, I believe, why Genesis 9:20 refers to Noah as a "master of the ground." The word in Hebrew is `ish, which means man as lord of a lady, master of a servant, ruler of a people; while the other common Hebrew word, `adam, refers to man as made of soil, man as man. A third word, `enosh, refers to man as under God, as part of the earth, humble under Divine rule. Thus, in a very general way, the three terms point to man as lord, equal, and servant. Adam was made ruler of the soil and cosmos, of course, but he forsook that position and was made a slave of the soil. In Noah, humanity is given an initial form of mastery back over the creation.
Vine, Wine, and Drink
The statement that Noah was the first to plant a vineyard can be taken in one of several ways. It may simply mean that he began to plant a vineyard, but commentators point out that this is not the best way to make that statement. It may imply that while there had been vineyards and wine before this time (just as there had been executions for crime), this was the first proper vineyard planted with God’s permission. Or it may imply that grapes were unknown in the world before the Flood. Genesis 1 mentions fruit trees and grain plants, but perhaps the vine did not exist until after the Flood.
Whatever the actual historical case, the Biblical meaning is fairly clear: Noah was the first man to act as a master of the soil in planting a vineyard. Noah was the first man to be elevated to kingly status, and from that position to plant his own garden.
God is king. Man is made in God’s image, which is permanent and unchangeable, and also in God’s likeness, which is flexible. Man simply is the image of God; even in hell, people are images of God. Humanity was to grow in God-likeness, however, and become mature enough to be rulers. That was the challenge of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam tried to seize the prerogatives of maturity and rulership when he was only a few hours old, and long before his was ready for it, long before God was willing to give it to him. Noah is now 601 years old, and is mature enough and ready enough to be a king and to act like God in certain significant ways. To wit: Noah, like God, will plant a vineyard (same verb as in Genesis 2:8); and like God he will pass judgment on sins committed in that vineyard by his son.
Noah’s position of authority is signified by his garment, a garment he laid aside during his rest, and which his two righteous sons placed on him. The word for "the garment" is simlah. This word can be used for any covering of the body, clothing in general; but in a number of places the word is used for clothing that has some special symbolic or ceremonial meaning (Genesis 35:2; 41:14; Exodus 19:10 & 14; Deuteronomy 21:13; 22:5). Here at the beginning of the new history of the world, it is doubtful if Noah had any particular special garment, because his situation did not invite him to distinguish himself from other people and their positions. Nevertheless, in terms of the robe-theology of Genesis, Noah’s garments signify his position of authority and rule over his clan. (For a fuller treatment of robe-theology, see James B. Jordan, Primeval Saints: Studies in the Patriarchs of Genesis, published by Biblical Horizons .)
At the center of this paragraph is the statement that Noah drank of the wine. He entered into the promised rest, and participated in the sabbath of kings. This is followed by the statement that he became drunk. In English, "getting drunk" usually means becoming helplessly inebriated, but it does not have that meaning in Hebrew. All this statement needs to mean is that Noah drank enough to feel warm, peaceful, and sleepy. This is the kind of restful and relaxing use of alcohol that the Bible commends as entirely proper, on proper occasions. Possibly, of course, Noah was new to wine and accidently drank too much; but however the case may be, there is nothing to indicate any sinful action on Noah’s part. In this story, it is Ham, not Noah, who sins.
We are also told that Noah uncovered himself. That is, he was warm and lay down for a nap. Since he was inside his own private tent, he was hidden from view; that is, he was still covered by the tent itself.
Noah has now withdrawn from the vineyard. He has planted it, and he has entered into sabbath rest. The sons are alone in the vineyard. This is directly parallel to Genesis 2, where Yahweh God planted the garden, entered into sabbath rest, and withdrew, leaving Adam and Eve alone.
B. Actions of the Brothers:
A. 22And Ham, father of Canaan, saw
B. The nakedness of his father,
C. And he told his two brothers outside.
D. 23And Shem and Japheth took the garment,
E. And they laid [it] upon a shoulder of each of them,
E’ And they walked backward,
D’ And they covered the nakedness of their father,
C’ And their faces were backward,
B’ And the nakedness of their father
A’ They did not see.
This chiastic form of this paragraph is clearly marked by the first and last phrase, which in Hebrew are reversed:
The other statements are either parallels or contrasts, and illuminate each other. Statement C says that Ham told his brothers, while C’ says that their faces were turned away. In context, their faces were turned away that they might not see their father’s nakedness; but it is clear that they also turned away their faces from Ham’s solicitations. Statements D & D’ have to do with the garment that covered their father’s nakedness. At the center is Shem and Japheth’s restoration of their father’s symbolic stature.
For the second time, Ham is called the father of Canaan (Genesis 9:18 & 22). Since Ham had four sons, there must be some special significance in this appellation (10:6). Commentators sometimes seek an explanation for this by running off to later places in Genesis, where the Canaanites are clearly a wicked people, or even later in the Bible, where the land of Canaan is given to Israel. We should, however, stick with the context as closely as possible. A father is a physical progenitor, of course, but often a "father" is also a role model, a spiritual father. Since Canaan is singled out here, it seems fairly clear that we are being told that Ham’s basic attitude and sinfulness was already being emulated by Canaan; perhaps Ham’s other sons did not pick up on their father’s ways. Since Canaan alone is cursed, it seems that Canaan alone was a "son" of Ham in this sense.
Ham was one of the eight righteous souls taken on the Ark. Thus, he was a faithful servant of Yahweh. The story we are considering is, therefore, the fall of Ham.
The Sin of Ham
The sin of Ham is the subject of much myth and nonsense. I recently read in an internet discussion that "commentators usually consider it to have been a homosexual attack." I asked, "What commentators?" Commentators bring up this possibility only in order to dismiss it as nonsense. Yes, "uncovering nakedness" in Levi-ticus 18 does refer to sexual relations, but that phrase is not found here. Moreover, it is clear from the passage that Shem and Japheth did the opposite of what Ham did. They covered their father, which means Ham looked at him. That is all.
Now, the word "naked" here does imply that Ham espied Noah’s private parts. In Leviticus 18, to "uncover the nakedness" of another person means to uncover her or his genitals with a view to having sexual relations. Ham did not "uncover" Noah’s genitals, so there is no hint of sexual relations, but he did see Noah’s "nakedness." Back in Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness, they made coverings for their loins. Thus, "nakedness" is concentrated there.
Ham did two things. First of all, he entered Noah’s tent without permission, without "knocking." This by itself was wrong, but understandable. Perhaps Ham had some interesting news, and just barged in. When he saw that Noah was asleep (on his back, presumably), he might simply have turned around quickly and left, and said nothing.
Ham’s serious sin was not that he happened to see Noah naked, but was his making an issue of it. He told his brothers about it. Here again, the text is subtle and we must be careful. Ham might have come out and said, "Hey, guys! I happened to wander in to father’s tent and saw he has uncovered himself. Do you think we should do anything?" If that had been the case, the matter would have been completely innocent. Clearly, however, something more was involved. Whatever Ham said provoked Shem and Japheth to engage in the purely ritual act of covering Noah, who after all was already covered by the tent itself; and whatever Ham said provoked Noah to pass a very severe judgment on his line through Canaan.
Did Ham come to his brothers and snicker about Noah’s condition? This seems unlikely behavior for a man already more than a century old. Moreover, in terms of eye-for-eye judgment, it does not fit with the curse put upon Canaan: Noah did not curse Canaan to be laughed at.
The subsequent verses give us all we need to reconstruct what Ham said: He advocated taking over rule and authority from Noah. The symbol of such authority was the robe, and by re-robing their father, Shem and Japheth rejected Ham’s suggestion. The curse on Canaan to be a slave and a servant fittingly matches the sin of Ham: Canaan will have his rule and authority stript from him.
Ham corresponds to the serpent in Genesis 3. The serpent advocated that Adam and Eve seize the forbidden fruit and make themselves gods. Ham advocates that Shem and Japheth seize the robe and make themselves rulers. In both cases, the sin is grounded in ambition and impatience, for the Tree of Knowledge was not permanently forbidden (Genesis 1:29), and Noah’s robe would descend to his sons in due time. In both cases, the sin is rebellion against authority, first against God’s fatherly authority, and then against man’s fatherly authority under God.
(to be continued)
Biblical Chronology, Vol. 9, No. 7
Copyright James B. Jordan 1997
July, 1997
We conclude 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 Third Day
In chapter 12, Sailhamer discusses the third day. He states that "In Hebrew, any `pool’ of water — regardless of size — is called a `sea’" (p. 126). I don’t know where he gets this. It is not evidently true. A sea in the Bible is a large body of water.
In a note he refers to the Bronze Sea in the Temple of Solomon. The Bronze Ocean, mounted on a pedestal, represents the waters above the firmament, the heavenly ocean. It is not a pool.
Sailhamer goes on to say that the gathering of the waters "into one place" clearly does not refer to the oceans, but to the various seas and lakes of Palestine, which are gathered into that one place. But it is a fact that there is only one world ocean. The continents are but large islands in this one world sea. Sailhamer has several seas in one place, but the text indicates one large sea. Rather clearly, a world-wide order rather than a localized one is in view.
In a bizarre mistake, Sailhamer goes on to say that only fruit trees were made on the third day. For him, this means God specially planted these trees in the land of Eden. But the text clearly says that grain plants as well as trees were made on the third day. Sailhamer then goes on to ask what the animals and birds and fishes were supposed to eat if the only vegetation in the world was fruit trees. The answer is: grains. (Aquatic vegetation does not come into view in Genesis 1-2.)
Then Sailhamer says that since God planted fruit trees in the garden in Genesis 2, that planting is to be identified with the planting on the third day. But Sailhamer can only make this association because he has completely ignored the grains. It seems to me that Sailhamer is so enthralled by his thesis that he is simply blind to certain matters in the text.
The Fourth Day
Chapter 13 deals with the 4th day. Sailhamer generates some non-existent problems that supposedly show that God did not make the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. He writes: "But does the text actually say that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day? I don’t believe it does. Yet if the text *did* say those heavenly bodies were created on the fourth day, a major problem would confront us. How could the universe — which includes the sun, moon, and stars — have been created `in the beginning’ (1:1) and also on the fourth day? And how could the author speak of a `day and night’ during the first three days of creation if the sun had not yet been created? Furthermore, are we to understand that plants and vegetation were created on the third day, before the creation of the sun?" (p. 129).
Gentle reader, do these strike you as real problems? Of course not. Nothing hints that all the contents of the heaven and earth were created "in the beginning." Sailhamer has asserted that they were, but has provided no evidence to support that assertion. The alternation of day and night was provided by the waxing and waning of the light source established on the first day. No problem here. Trees and grains existed for a mere 24 hours before the sun was made, and in the meantime the light set up on of day one sustained them. So where is the problem?
Sailhamer informs the unwary reader that many exegetes have wrestled with these problems over the centuries. They have? No one did before the rise of evolutionary science. He cites the work of only two men, C. F. Keil and John Calvin, both of whom appear not to have had any problem with the text at all. They said God made the sun on the fourth day.
Now Sailhamer turns to his own position. He starts by telling us that it is clear that the sun was made "in the beginning." At the risk of boring you, courteous reader, let me state again that Sailhamer has provided no evidence for this assertion.
Retranslating Verse 14
Then he tells us that the proper translation of 1:14 is not "Let there be lights in the firmament to separate the day and night," but "Let the lights in the firmament be for separating the day and night." Now, if this be correct, then Sailhamer does have a case for arguing that the sun already existed. But is it correct?
First, if Sailhamer is right, then every expositor for the past several thousand years has been wrong. I find nobody who takes 1:14 the way Sailhamer does. Hirsch and Cassuto, Calvin and Keil, Wenham and Hamilton, etc. — nobody agrees with Sailhamer or even raises the issue.
Second, Sailhamer asserts that there is a clear difference in the Hebrew phrasing of verses 6 and 14. Verse 6 says, "Let there be a firmament between the waters, AND LET IT BE for separating," while verse 14 says, "Let there be lights in the firmament-heavens TO SEPARATE between the day and between the night." Sailhamer’s own discussion is not very clear, but he is arguing that if the traditional view is correct, verse 14 should read, "Let there be lights … AND LET THEM BE for separating…."
Let me try and make this clearer. Verse 6 says God made the firmament, and then it says He gave it the purpose of separating the waters. Verse 14 "ought to say" that God made the lights, and then add that He gave them the purpose of separating day and night. This would make it clear that God made the lights as He made the firmament, and then assigned them their purpose. Because the verb is not repeated, Sailhamer argues, verse 14 should be read that on the fourth day God made (appointed) the lights to separate day and night. This implies that they already existed.
Now, as I mentioned above, no other exegetical expositor seems to think that this distinction in phrasing amounts to anything other than a simple variation in the way the text is expressing matters. I am not sufficiently skilled in advanced Hebrew syntax to express more than a very meagre opinion (see below). But I can point out that if Sailhamer’s reading were correct, it would create a significant problem, to wit: The light set up on the first day ALREADY separated day and night. If that light is the same as the sun, then what is God doing on the fourth day? What does it mean for God to appoint the sun to this task on the fourth day, if the sun already had this task from the first day?
Now, it is to Sailhamer’s credit that he recognizes this problem and attempts to deal with it on pages 134-35. He affirms that the sun (on his view) was already marking day and night. What is new on the fourth day, he states, is that God announced the purpose of the lights. That works as far as the lights being for signs and festivals, etc., is concerned, but it does not work so clearly as far as the lights being to separate day and night. On Sailhamer’s view, the text has already told us this in verse 4. Why repeat it here?
I submit that for Sailhamer’s view to be tenable, verse 14 should simply read, "Let the lights in the firmament-heaven be for signs and for festivals and for days and for years," without repeating the business of separating day and night, since it is clear that they already had that purpose.
Now, Sailhamer asks, "Why did God wait until the fourth day to announce the purpose of the sun, moon, and stars?" (p. 135). His answer is that days 4-6 parallel days 1-3. "On the fourth day, God commanded the sun, moon, and stars to distinguish day and night and all the signs and seasons (1:14-15). On the fifth day, God commanded the seas to swarm with fish and sea creatures, and on the sixth day, He commanded the land to bring forth animal life" (p. 135). This parallelism looks good until we notice that on the fifth day God also made birds to dwell upon the land (v. 22) — and the land was made on the third day, not the second. Moreover, the second day is not focally concerned with the seas, which are not named until the third day, but with the firmament. It is the firmament that is in focus on the second day, not the seas.
Additionally, Sailhamer says that the first three days are days of preparation, while the next three announce the purposes of the things made on the first three. But that’s not true either. The firmament made on the second day is given a purpose immediately (v. 6). If Sailhamer’s parallelism were correct, the fifth day should announce the purpose of the firmament, something it does not do.
My conclusion is that Sailhamer has not at all solved the problems his translation of verse 14 creates. On his reading, verse 14a is simply a redundant repetition of what has already been said in verses 3-4.
A Correct Understanding
The traditional understanding is that on the fourth day the sun, moon, and stars simply replaced the primordial light of day one, which was the light of the Spirit and glory of God. Eventually, the sun, moon, and stars will be gone, because the firmament-boundary between heaven and earth will be gone, and the light of the Spirit of Christ will return as the light of the cosmos (Revelation 21:23). In the meantime, the firmament stands between us and God, while we live out the course of history by faith and not by sight, "under the sun" (as the book of Ecclesiastes tells us).
With the traditional understanding in view, we may be able to account for the slight difference in grammar between verses 6 and 14.
Verse 6: "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it separate the waters from the waters." Were the waters already separated? No.
Verse 14: "Let there be lights in the firmament-heavens to separate the day and the night, and let them be for signs and for festival assemblies and for days and for years." Were day and night already separated? Yes, by the light of the first day.
Now, if the text read, "Let there be lights in the firmament-heavens, and let them separate the day and the night," someone would say, "Aha! This contradicts verse 4, which says there was already a light separating day and night." But no one can make this mistake because of the way the grammar stands. Originally there was (Divine) light above the earth separating day and night. Now God makes lights in the firmament for that purpose.
Notice how verse 14 continues, "and let them be for signs and for assembles and for days and for years." Did the light of the first day do these things? No. They are added here, and so a finite verb rather than an infinitive is used to introduce them.
In short:
"Let there be a firmament, and let it divide the waters," because dividing the waters is new.
"Let there be lights, and let them be for signs, etc.," because these functions of light are new.
"Let there be lights to separate day and night," because this function is not new, but is now taken over by the newly-created lights.
This distinction fully accounts for the grammatical difference, and it does so simply and in line with the flow of the passage.
One other matter may be addressed here. I have asserted that the light that shone on the first day is the light of the glory-Spirit of God. This may stand to reason without a prooftext, but is there anything in Genesis 1 that points to this? Yes, there is.
Notice verses 6-7 again: "Let there be a firmament … And God made the firmament."
Verses 14-16: "Let there be lights … And God made the lights."
Now verses 3-4: "Let there be light. And there was light." We don’t read that God made the light. The contrast indicates that God Himself was the source of the light. To be sure, there are creational aspects of God’s light when it shines into the creation: photons carry the packets of light (to use one way of speaking about it), and such photons are creatures. But the Source of the light in verses 3-4 is, by implication, God Himself.
The Fifth Day
Another large problem awaits Dr. Sailhamer on the fifth day. Up to now, he has been able to argue that when God is said to "make" things in Genesis 1, this really means that He "appoints them" or "sets them up" (pp. 106-08). He has been able to assert that these things already existed, but were appointed to their various purposes during the creation week. The verb translated "make" can indeed have this meaning, though Sailhamer has not convinced us that it has that meaning in Genesis 1.
On the fifth day, however, God did not "make" the great sea monsters; He "created" them (v. 21). On the face of it, this is something brand new. In chapter 14 of his book, Sailhamer wrestles with the sea monsters.
He points out the traditional understanding, which is that there are three acts of creation in Genesis 1: the heavens and earth, the living creatures, and humanity. Each is a radically new "wondrous work" of God, indicating a beginning of something radically new. But for Sailhamer, this is not acceptable, because he maintains that the animals had been created during the "beginning period." Because he is absolutely certain of this, he argues that "Genesis 1:21 is best explained as a comment on verse 20. It is a comment to remind the reader that God `created’ all kinds of animals `in the beginning’ (1:1)" (p. 138).
He states, "The author does not say God created all the animals on the fifth day; he merely says it was God who created all the animals and that now He commands some to fill the waters and the skies over the promised land" (p. 139). But that is NOT what the text says. It does not read: "And it was God who had created the great sea monsters, etc." If that had been the writer’s intention, the word order in Hebrew would be different. As it stands, the Hebrew reads, "And (He) created, God, the great sea monsters, etc." The verb comes first, stressing the action, as it does routinely in Genesis 1. For Sailhamer to be correct, the Hebrew should put the noun "God" first: "And God, (He) created the great sea monsters, etc." In fact, if the stress is on the fact that it was God who created, the Hebrew would likely include the pronoun explicitly: "And God, He Himself created the great sea monsters." But that is not how the text reads.
Conclusion
It is not necessary to survey the remainder of Dr. Sailhamer’s book, some of which we have dealt with already. Nothing he writes after his discussion of the fifth day adds any new arguments for his thesis. His discussion of the sixth and seventh days is, in the main, unproblematic. The last section of his book is a return to general principles, and those parts that are relevant have already been discussed.
Our conclusion is that while Dr. Sailhamer’s thesis is interesting, it is not correct. The author’s arguments, such as they are, consist mainly of statements of his thesis over and over, and an attempt to interpret Genesis 1 in the light of them. We have found his thesis to be unsupported by any credible argument, and his interpretation of Genesis 1 to be replete with errors.
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 52
Copyright (c) 1997 Mark Horne
July, 1997
(continued from Rite Reasons No. 51)
If only adult males might offer sacrifices, that would prove nothing regarding Passover. If anything, the nature of other sacrifices points to the participation of children in the meal, for then the two cases would be precisely parallel to one another. In both cases there is an adult male who slaughtered the animal, and then his family is permitted to eat the animal.
Women, Uncleanness, & Passover
I’ve already responded to Rev. Bacon’s use of Numbers 9.6-7 above. But he also makes the following case from the rest of the passage: “If women had partaken of the passover, we should expect roughly twenty-five percent of the women of Israel to be approaching Moses with the same kind of question that these men had, for twenty-five percent of the women of Israel in each of the four weeks of every month would have been unqualified to partake (if for no other reason) due to their menstrual period (Leviticus 15:19-30)” (p. 13).
This is an interesting argument, but it proves too much. Except for circumcision, one had to meet the same requirements to attend Passover as one did for the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Booths. All three yearly feasts required ceremonial cleanliness of participants. Now, it is beyond question that women and children were permitted to attend the other two feasts (Deuteronomy 16.11, 14). Thus, twenty-five percent of the women were barred from these other feasts. Yet we read of no complaints on the part of these women.
If we permit Rev. Bacon’s argument from silence in the case of Passover, then it will prove that women were not allowed to attend the other two feasts as well. Thus, his speculation cannot count as evidence that women were not permitted to take part in Passover.
The reason we don’t find a complaint from women is clear: The women were not required to attend. The men were. Thus, the men found themselves facing two contradictory commands: You must attend, and you may not attend. In Numbers 9, Moses resolved the problem for them.
Furthermore, the fact that cleanness was required of participation in the other feasts, as well as the peace offerings and the priests’ portions, means that such requirements simply cannot be used to prove that children did not have the discernment or maturity to participate in Passover. All such arguments prove that Moses was wrong to allow children to participate in other sacraments requiring cleanliness (Leviticus 7.15-21; cf. Deuteronomy 12.7, 12, 18; Leviticus 10.14; Numbers 18.11).
Conclusion: Whatever Happened to the
Regulative Principle of Worship?
I suppose I could respond to other things � the assertion that some sort of “counting” of adult males was involved in Passover, that Jesus only fed five thousand men and no women or children, that Jesus was involved in a catechism at the age of twelve when he spent three days in Jerusalem, etc. All I can say is that Rev. Bacon strings together what seem to me nothing more than speculations as if they made a case.
The bottom line is that the Bible presents no barrier between initiation in the covenant and participation in the covenant meal. Rev. Bacon needs a text that gives us an age limit or developmental standard for participation in the sacramental food and drink. He has not given us one. His strong assertions of the “specialness” of the Lord’s Supper all beg the question. No one is denying that it is special in that it is a sacrament. We are simply denying that it is too special for children. He has given us no reason to think otherwise. Indeed, since we are to become like little children in our faith in order to enter the Kingdom, it would seem that the specialness of the communion meal is precisely for children and those who become like them!
The Bible says that one cannot participate in Passover unless one is circumcised. Also, one cannot participate in Passover if one is ceremonially unclean. Rev. Bacon asserts, that there is an additional rule involving a level of discernment. But he has not given us any Scriptural support for such an assertion, and it is hardly Reformed to simply make one up.
At one point in the confrontation between the Lord and Pharaoh, the Egyptian king seemed to give in. He was ready the let them go worship the Lord as long as they left their children behind. Moses had a different idea, “We shall go with our young and our old; with our sons and our daughters, with our flocks and our herds we will go, for we must hold a feast to the Lord” (Exodus 10.9). The flocks and herds were for sacrifices (10.25-26), but why were the children needed at a feast to the Lord. Rev. Bacon may insist that it was catechizing if he wishes, but I’m looking for a Biblical answer (Deuteronomy 16.11, 14).
A Response to Rev. Bacon’s Argument
that Manna was not a Sacrament
The preceding response to Rev. Richard Bacon’s tract, “What Mean Ye by This Service,” was made to the published version, a copy of which I borrowed from the library at Covenant Theological Seminary. I recently discovered that a new appendix has been added to the version available on the Blue Banner’s web page. This new appendix is entitled “Manna & Manducation.” Here, Rev. Bacon, addresses one of the flaws (at least, I think it was a flaw) in the body of his tract his bald statement that manna was not a sacrament.
Rev. Bacon makes it quite clear he believes not only that manna was not a sacrament, but that paedocommunionists are desperately grasping at straws to claim that manna was a sacrament. He says, “the paedocommunionist has an uphill battle to prove that eating manna and drinking water (not wine) points to the New Testament sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. . . .” Indeed, he asks rhetorically of manna and water from the Rock: “Why then do paedocommunionists want to bring it into the debate?” Furthermore, he claims the argument from manna is evidence of paedocommunionist desperation: “The fact that the argument has shifted from a sacramental meal to a non-sacramental meal gives the impression that it is the practice of the paedocommunion that is being defended rather than a covenantal hermeneutic.”
That last claim is made near the end of the essay and I repeat it because I want readers to remember it as they read my response: “The fact that the argument has shifted from a sacramental meal to a non-sacramental meal gives the impression that it is the practice of the paedocommunion that is being defended rather than a covenantal hermeneutic.”
Rev. Bacon claims that 1 Corinthians 10.1-4 does not correspond to Baptism or the Lord’s Supper. He claims that the baptism in this passage and in 1 Corinthians 12.13 corresponds to Pentecost. Furthermore, he asserts that John 6.49, 54 prove that manna was not a sacrament. My plan is simply to show that Rev. Bacon is making up things that are at odds with the entire history of Reformed Theology, while pretending that paedocommunionists are the ones breaking with the tradition.
John Calvin, in book 2 of the Institutes of the Christian Religion devotes a chapter (10) to the similarity of the Old and New Testaments. He sees a need to discuss this “because writers often argue at length about the difference between the Old and the New Testament, thus arousing some misgiving in the simple readers mind” (2.10.1; Ford Lewis Battles, tr.).
Indeed, that wonderful rascal Servetus and certain madmen of the Anabaptist sect, who regard the Israelites as nothing but a herd of swine, make necessary what would in any case have been very profitable for us. For they babble of the Israelites as fattened by the Lord on this earth without hope of heavenly immortality (ibid.).
According to Calvin one of the many similarities between the covenants, is that the Old Testament was given similar signs and seals to those we have been given. The reformer appeals to 1 Corinthians 10.1ff. to prove his point:
Indeed, the apostle makes the Israelites equal to us not only in the grace of the covenant but also in the signification of the sacraments. In recounting examples of the punishments which, according to Scripture, the Israelites were chastised of old, his purpose was to deter the Corinthians from falling into similar misdeeds. So he begins with this premise: there is no reason why we should claim any privilege for ourselves, to deliver us from the vengeance of God, which they underwent, since the Lord not only provided them with the same benefits but also manifested his grace among them by the same symbols. It is as if he said: “Suppose you trust that you are out of danger because both Baptism, with which you have been sealed, and the Supper, of which you partake daily, possess excellent promises, but at the same time you hold God’s goodness in contempt and play the wanton. Know that the Jews did not lack such symbols, and yet the Lord carried out his harsh judgments against them. They were baptized in crossing the sea and in the cloud that protected them from the sun’s heat.” Our opponents call that crossing a carnal baptism, which corresponds in a certain measure to our spiritual baptism. But if that were accepted as true, the apostle’s argument would not be effective. For Paul here means to disabuse Christians of thinking they are superior to the Jews through the privilege of baptism. Nor is what immediately follows subject to this cavil: “They ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink.” This he interprets as referring to Christ (2.10.5).
Elsewhere he reiterates his point, appealing to the same passage, against the Roman Catholic schoolmen:
But we must utterly reject that scholastic dogma (to touch on it also in passing) which notes such a great difference between the sacraments of the old and new law, as if the former only foreshadowed God’s grace, but the latter give it as a present reality. Indeed the apostle speaks just as clearly concerning the former as the latter when he teaches that the fathers ate the same spiritual food as we, and explains that food as Christ. Who dared treat as an empty sign that which revealed the true communion of Christ to the Jews? (4.14.23)
Calvin quotes Augustine to substantiate his point from the same passage in 1 Corinthians:
In different signs there is the same faith; it is the same with different signs as it is with different words; for words change their sounds from time to time; and words are nothing but signs. The fathers drank the same spiritual drink, but not the same physical one, as ours. See therefore, how faith remains while signs change. With them Christ was the Rock; for us Christ is that which is put on the altar. They drank, as a great sacrament, water flowing from the rock; believers know what we drink. If you look at the visible appearance, they drank something different; if you look at the inner signification, they drank the same spiritual drink.
Thus, Calvin relies on 1 Corinthians 10.1ff. to formulate doctrines regarding the sacraments:
These things which we have said both of mortification and of washing were foreshadowed in the people of Israel, who were on this account said by the Apostle to have been “baptized in the cloud and in the sea.” Mortification was symbolized when the Lord, rescuing the people from the domination and cruel bondage of Pharaoh, made a way for them through the Red Sea and drowned both Pharaoh himself and the Egyptian army, who were in hot pursuit and almost at their backs. For in the same way he also promises us in baptism and shows us by a sign given that by his power we have been led out and delivered from bondage in Egypt, that is, from the bondage of sin; that our Pharaoh, that is, the devil, has been drowned. . . . In the cloud there was a symbol of cleansing. For as the Lord covered them with a cloud and gave them coolness, that they might not weaken and pine away in the merciless heat of the sun, so do we recognize that in baptism we are covered and protected by Christ’s blood, that God’s severity, which is truly an unbearable flame, should not assail us (4.15.9).
Calvin knows, however, that some of the anabaptists and followers of Servetus will attempt to disprove that manna was a true sacrament by appealing to John 6.49, 54. He replies that Jesus “passed over the principal feature of manna and noted only its lowest use” (2.10.6). He thus returns to 1 Corinthians 10.1-5:
Paul knew that when the Lord rained down manna from heaven he did not do so merely to feed their bellies, but also bestowed it as a spiritual mystery, to foreshadow the spiritual quickening we have in Christ. Therefore he did not neglect this aspect, the one principally worth considering. From this we can conclude with full certainty that the Lord not only communicated to the Jews the same promises of eternal and heavenly life as he now deigns to give us, but also sealed them with truly spiritual sacraments. Augustine debates this matter at length in his work Against Faustus the Manichee (ibid.).
Thus, we see that not only does John Calvin hold to what Rev. Bacon claims is a view unique to paedocommunionists, but he actually rejects his counter-argument from John 6.
I don’t know if Calvin ever considered Rev. Bacon’s novel idea that 1 Corinthians 12.13 refers to Pentecost. I would guess that he didn’t consider Pentecost a possibility for the rather common-sensical reason that the Holy Spirit did not fall on the Corinthians at Pentecost. Thus, to appeal to the Pentecost as something that happened to the Corinthians would be a useless appeal. Calvin uses the passage to explain of the rite of Baptism:
But as far as it is a symbol of our confession, we ought by it to testify that our confidence is in God’s mercy, and our purity in forgiveness of sins, which has been procured for us through Jesus Christ; and that we enter God’s church in order to live harmoniously with all believers in complete agreement of faith and love. This last point was what Paul meant when he said, “We have all been baptized in one Spirit that we may be one body” (4.15.14)
According to Charles Hodge, Calvin, along with Luther and Beza, believed that being made to drink one spirit was a reference to the cup in the Lord’s Supper. (A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974], p. 255. Hodge disagrees with them.)
Next, we consider the Westminster Divines. I have already mentioned in my initial response to Rev. Bacon how the framers of the Confession of Faith used 1 Corinthians 10.1-4 to prove that the sacraments of the Old Testament are the same in substance with those of the New Testament (27.5). There is an additional citation in the Larger Catechism. Question 174 asks “What is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the time of the administration of it?” The answer includes a direction to “stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces.” The prooftexts include 1 Corinthians 10.3-5. The Divines also considered manna and the water from the rock to be sacramental.
Furthermore, the Westminster Standards appeal to 1 Corinthian 12.13 to prove that baptism admits the baptized into the institutional Church (28.1), “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (25.2). Likewise, the answer to question 165 of the Larger Catechism uses the text to prove that baptism is the sacrament “whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible Church.”
Let us now consider Charles Hodge. Hodge comments on 1 Corinthians 10.3, “As they had their baptism, so they had their eucharist; and they all had it” (ibid., p. 172).
On 12.13, Hodge departs from the Westminster Standards because he had a rather lower view of the visible Church and her relation to water baptism, as his numerous essays bear out. He states that the sacrament of baptism is not in view here, but rather regeneration. (Ibid., p. 254. To his credit, Hodge does not hesitate to claim that “the baptism of the Spirit often attends the baptism of water.” This is a bolder admission than I commonly hear today in Presbyterian circles.) Hodge uses Pentecost as an example of the use of the term “baptize” which does not involve water. But it never seems to enter Hodge’s mind that the event of Pentecost is here being referred to by Paul. Again, it would be nonsense for Paul to refer to the outpouring of Pentecost because the Corinthians weren’t there at the time. They were made partakers in that outpouring through their own baptisms, just as were the first converts on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2.38; 1 Corinthians 1.10-17). Just as Gentile proselytes who were circumcised could then celebrate their deliverance from Egypt, despite their physical ancestry, so those of us who are baptized into Christ’s body, the Church, are made participants in the Holy Spirit Who moved into the Church on the Day of Pentecost.
I have not the energy to type up quotations from Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. I simply invite you to investigate the Scriptural index at your leisure.
The conclusion of all this, is that Rev. Bacon’s appendix is even more insulting to paedocommunionists than the body of his tract. He acts as if we were all a bunch of bizzarities simply because we have taken our own tradition seriously. All we have done by mentioning manna and water from the Rock is reproduce the Reformed consensus of the past four and a half centuries! Yet Rev. Bacon shamelessly “opines”: “The fact that the argument has shifted from a sacramental meal to a non-sacramental meal gives the impression that it is the practice of the paedocommunion that is being defended rather than a covenantal hermeneutic.”
The fact that Rev. Bacon is willing to simply re-write the Reformation Tradition in sacramental hermeneutics, without admitting it to his readers, gives the impression that he is more interested in winning an argument with the ignorant in favor of an unbiblical human tradition than dealing honestly and openly with the issues involved.
Since we’re supposed to be “always being reformed,” I suppose I should explain why I am not addressing Rev. Bacon’s actual arguments for denying the sacramental nature of manna and the water from the Rock. The main reason is I find them entirely implausible. Had Rev. Bacon admitted that he was dealing with errors he had found in Reformed notables from Bucer to Berkhof, then perhaps I would feel a need to let him know why I am not persuaded by his exegesis. But, as it is, I am content with an expos� of his revisionism. What reason do I have to think he is truly interested in whether or not paedocommunion is the covenantal position? (On Bucer, see Common Places of Martin Bucer. The Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics 4, D.F. Wright, trans. [Appleford, Abingdon, Berkshire, England: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972], p. 287.)
A second reason is that Dr. Ken Gentry, in his sermon series “Paedocommunion: Faith or Fad?” gives some excellent reasons for closely associating manna with Passover. Though strenuously (and fallaciously, in my opinion) opposing paedocommunion, Dr. Gentry points out that the directions are identical for both choosing the Passover lamb and gathering manna (“according to the mouth of eating”). Furthermore, the Israelites were forbidden in the case of both the Passover lamb and the manna to save any for the next day. If Rev. Bacon has a reply for Dr. Gentry, I would like to hear it. (You can order Dr. Gentry’s 4 cassettes from Covenant Media Foundation for $18. Call 1 (800) 553-3938; or see their website at cmnfnow.com. My critique of Dr. Gentry, “God’s Uncovered Pit: Kenneth Gentry on Paedocommunion,” is available for $2.50 from Biblical Horizons , P.O. Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588.)
As it stands, Rev. Bacon is the innovator; and thus he reveals that paedocommunionists are the conservatives who are simply trying to be consistent with Reformational hermeneutics. The fact is that, according to Rev. Bacon, John Calvin, the Westminster Divines, and Charles Hodge all ought to have been paedocommunionists. They all believed that manna and water from the rock were sacraments. In the final analysis, then, Rev. Bacon is actually arguing that paedocommunion is the more truly Reformed practice. I’m glad to be able to conclude that we agree on something!
[There is one other alternative, which I would consider too ridiculous to mention except that Rev. Bacon mentions it as if he realizes he might need to resort to it: He claims that we are not “forced to conclude that children, much less infants, must have been partakers of manna. I would be unable to prove that exegetically (the paedocommunionists are equally unable to prove it, but I am willing to concede the point).” First of all, paedocommunionism is concerned with partially weaned children, not suckling infants. Secondly, to claim that such weaned children might not have eaten the manna, or that such a thing cannot be proven (or even needs to be proven) exegetically, is simply a ludicrous claim which merits no counter-argument. That Rev. Bacon would attempt to raise a shadow of a doubt on this point is rather amazing.]
