When in the course of human events…
We the people of the United States…
These words are instantly recognizable, especially but not only, to Americans. They are the beginning to the preamble of two founding documents of this nation, of course, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Now consider how the following words are different:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…
Let me offer the suggestion to take these words as the beginning of another preamble, the beginning of the founding document of the ancient nation of Israel. It is as theocentric–”in the beginning God…” as the U.S. founding documents are anthropocentric..”human events,” “we the people.” Rightly so, because the nation of Israel (I am not referring to the modern nation state of that name) is unique in history as being directly constituted by God. All others are, as the Declaration puts it “Governments…instituted among Men”
Genesis 1:1 is, of course, itself the beginning, of Genesis, of the Bible itself, but also of the Torah, the Law, those five books we also call the Penteteuch. The Torah is THE Law for Israel, as we say the supreme law of the land, its constitution. It constitutes the nation by virtue of the covenant established by God at Sinai. I am thus proposing the Sitz im Leben for Genesis and the rest of the Penteteuch as the Exodus event, which transformed an ethnic group into a political group, the nation of Israel. It may be that much of the material of Genesis is older, as many commentators suggest. It hardly seems likely that these accounts were never narrated previously or even written down. Yet they hold an integral place in the Penteteuch as we have it, and in the book of Genesis. As I will attempt to show, there is nothing extraneous or haphazard about their placement.
The form of an ancient convenant, specifially the Ancient Near Eastern suzerainty treaty has been the subject of some interest since its discovery. It has a typical structure, and scholars, such as Meredith Kline, have demonstrated how units such as Deuteronomy, and also the Decalogue, follow this structure. I wish to propose that the entire Torah fits this pattern well. To recall the elements:
1. The preamble identifies the suzerain (and vassal) in terms calculated to inspire awe and fear.
2. The historical prologue reviews the past relationship between the parties, with particular emphasis upon the magnanimity of the suzerain toward the vassal;
3. The treaty stipulations comprise the suzerain’s detailed demands regarding the vassal’s behavior in light of this treaty; one of those demands always is the undivided and exclusive fidelity of the vassal to this suzerain (to take no other lord besides this suzerain);
4. The deposition states where the written record of the treaty is to be deposited for safekeeping (often the temple of one of the divine witnesses) and how frequently it is to be renewed via public recitation (usually annually);
5. The list of divine witnesses to this covenant and in whose name the oath is sworn; this list always includes the patron deities of both parties; and
6. The blessings and curses that will come upon the vassal who keeps or breaks the treaty; the list of curses typically is quite a bit longer and more detailed than the list of blessings.
(from WikiAnswers)
This is an idealized presentation of these elements. They are not always all present, as I understand it, nor always in that order. The structure of the Penteteuch is complex, but all these elements are present. Deuteronomy, for example, itself shows this covenant structure, quite clearly. And there is what we might call constitutional development apparent even in the post-Exodus, pre-Conquest era. What I am most concerned with in this post is elements 1 and 2, but we can see elements 4-6 present in the bulk of the Penteteuch.
Working backward, blessings and curses (element 6) occur in Deut 27-28. This is just the most concentrated sampling of these. Blesses and curses attached to various acts occur throughout, and is a major theme in the law (as others have recently shown).
The “divine witnesses” of element 5 are heaven and earth called as witnesses in Deut. 4:26, 30:19, 31:28 and 32:1.
Element 4 regards the safekeeping of the document and its periodic public reading. Deut. 31:26 says “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against you.” Deut. 17:18-20 calls for a constant transcription and daily reading of the Law by the King. According to Deut 31:9-13 it was to be read aloud to the people every seven years.
Element 3, the stipulations making demands on behavior comprise the mass of the legal corpus in Exodus through Deuteronomy.
Element 2 is the historical prologue detailing the past relationship between the parties and the reasons the vassal has for being grateful. In the Penteteuch this occurs in distinct parts. Exodus 1-19 recounts the recent history, the rise of Moses and the Exodus. The Exodus will come to be one if not the main reason for the nation to be grateful to God, as summarized in the preamble to the Decalogue: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (Ex. 20:2) Thus in the Exodus experience and the giving of the Law, the ethnic group, a collection of tribes becomes a nation.
How that ethnic group in turn grew from a single man, Abraham is the subject of Genesis 12-50. These chapters recall who they are as a people, what their heritage and destiny are, and how it was that they came to be in Egypt in the first place. It tells of the earlier covenant with Abraham and traces the blessings of that covenant through the generations, making it clear that they are carrying the promise to Abraham to be a blessing in turn to all the nations of the earth. What is not explicitly told them is exactly what this blessing would entail, that they are functioning as God’s means to bring about the incarnation, to bring into the earth, His Messiah, the seed of Abraham.
So Abraham is the beginning point of a large structure in the text that leads to another point, to THE Point, Jesus Christ. To understand how this Abraham to Christ line–in a word, Israel, functions, the text sets it within the larger picture of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. It is widely recognized that Genesis 1-11 have a significantly different scope than the remaining chapters of the book. This is because what for Israel will be “family history” begins with chapter 12, though with some foreshadowing in chapter 11.
Israel exists as an instrument by which God will effect His redemption on the earth. Redemption for what, of course is explained in chapter 3. Before God goes about forming a nation for Himself, He causes unified humanity to be divided into nations. This is the main fuction of chapters 6-11. God inaugurates a divide-and-conquer strategy, and it is within this division structure that His own holy nation is nestled as the remnant of humanity, within which is the remnant of the remnant, until ultimately the Israel par excellence arrives, Christ.
The problem of human sin is compounded by the baffling account of the “sons of God” and their progeny, the mighty men of renown. Bizarre as it seems, the issue seems to be introduction of an extra-human element into the stream of mankind, which catalyzes the depravity which had already abundantly expressed itself in early human history. The first step in recovering humanity is to eliminate this extraneous corruption, and so all but one family perishes in the flood.
Nothing survives–of airbreathing life at any rate–externally, but the incident with Noah and Ham reveals that nevertheless, something has survived. A remaining line of depravity receives a curse, foreshadowing the Israelites commission to eradicate the Canaanites. Now from this single family the race again expands, until the division into languages, and more significantly, nations occurs in chapter 10-11.
Thus the beginning of redemption consists of the two judgments, the flood and Babel. Prior to these is the very beginning of the historical prologue that we have been tracing in reverse. The most significant fact about the “past relationships of the parties” is that the creature Man has acted with perfidy, and utterly failed in fulfilling its purpose and duty. The account frequently called the second creation story is in fact the introduction of the second party, Man. The very first and basic reason for gratitude, creation is recounted from an anthropocentric viewpoint. The first man, and later his wife, are placed in no less position than the vassal king and queen under the reign of the Great King.
Ingratitude, distrust and jealousy make inroads into the relationship, through the corrupting suggestion of the enemy. Transgression of the one explicit prohibition results in irreversible damage, spiritual death, disconnection and rapid degeneration of this ultimate creation of God. Murder, fratricide even, does not delay in appearing, and though a remnant of humanity struggles to remember from whence it is fallen, masses of mankind devolved into barbarism and savagery.
If Genesis 2-Exodus 19 can be understood as the historical prologue, then Genesis 1 fills the role of the covenant preamble. In this way, the “first” creation account has as its primary function, not to recount the beginning of time and space–though it does that, nor to recount how God brings creation into existence–since it tells very little about this. What it does, and does very effectively, is introduce the Great King in terms calculated to inspire awe and fear.
If this is the overriding concern with Genesis 1 it behooves us to read it in this manner with a response not only of awe and holy fear but of gratitude, since this is the appropriate response of creatures to the glory revealed in creation. No doubt many truths can be gleaned from this self-introduction, but seven themes occur to me within the chapter, each of which is abundantly expanded within the remainder of the Bible.
1. That God is Creator, and thus Owner, and due honor and glory and obedience.
2. That He is the Great King, who speaks and is obeyed, and man’s proper place is in His Kingdom.
3. That He is Judge, who alone pronounces good and evil, since good is the emanation and reflection of His own nature.
4. That He is Father, who made man in His own image and likeness, and as Father provider of all needs.
5. That He first created light, an enduring symbol of His holiness.
6. That He divides, separating His holiness from unholiness, and separating for Himself a people for His name.
7. That He is Lord of time itself. He created it and our times are in His hands. He has marked the rhythm of life with a signature, the number of His name as it were, a prevailing seven which resounds throughout history like a refrain reminding us all whose story it is.
Introduction
This post presents a theological model that attempts to capture the basic structure of the redemptive plan of God revealed in the Scriptures. It has been in a state of percolation since the days of my formal theological studies. I consider it to fall within the camp of Progressive Dispensationalism, though I don’t claim my presentation is representative of that camp. It is my own take on it.
The model is intended to:
1. Be Christocentric. In God’s redemptive plan and in the flow of history, Jesus Christ is the center, the point, the crux. (The diagram itself turns out to be cruciform.)
2. Demonstrate the Israel/Church relationship: not replacement, not parallel, not parenthesis.
3. Account for an immanent return throughout the church age.
4. Apply Daniel’s seventy weeks both to the first coming and the second.
I haven’t wanted focused on the various dispensations themselves, but that structure does seem to be present. It recently occurred to me that it does divide into the four dispensations typically described by Progressive Dispensationalists: Patriarchal, Mosaic, Ecclesial, and Zionic. In this present form I refer simply to phases.
The diagram also incorporates seven themes I elaborate elsewhere from Genesis chapter 1:
- God as Creator/Owner
- God as King
- God as Judge
- God as Father/Provider
- Light
- Division
- Time/Rhythm of Life/Sevens
Refer to the following chart (click for large version):
The primary foreground element is the line of promise running from Abraham to Christ. The structure that underlies this line is Israel, Christ being the point of it. (Green dot to white dot.)
Phase One.
Phase One sets the stage for the rest of the plan and defines the background, the world that God loved and sent His Son to redeem (John 3:16). It includes the events of Genesis 1-11, chapters in which God deals with mankind as a whole. Three crises occur, each a major turning point, after which nothing can be the same as before. Each is a failure, a judgment, but also a step in the redemptive plan of God.
1. The Fall (Adam, black dot). Lavished by God with with good gifts and entrusted with rule over the earth, our first parents do what creation itself dared not do, disobey the voice of God. The consequence of their disobedience was death, disconnection of the human race from God, and condemnation of the race. This death, spiritual death immediately, physical death inevitably is a curse and an enemy. However the redemptive aspects are:
a. Barring access to the Tree of Life prevents a true living hell of ongoing physical longevity in a state of spiritual death.
b. Death itself will become an instrument of our redemption, through the cross of Christ.
2. The Flood (Noah, blue dot). That it is at the same time a rescue and a judgment is clear from 2 Peter 2:5,9. Redemptive aspects include:
a. A demonstration of God’s absolute hatred of sin.
b. Evidently, from Gen. 6:1-4, purging humanity of an admixture of the non-human.
c. The eight preserved form the basis for the nations to come.
3. Babel (Prism). Human depravity was showing itself in pride, arrogance, disdain for God, and foolish dependance on technology and political power. God’s plan here introduces frustration into man’s self-sufficiency. At this point as well God separates, as he did in Genesis 1 between light and darkness, between land and sea. By confusing languages He divides man into nations, the nations that are described in chapter 10.
The chart pictures this division as a prism dividing an initial ray of mixed (white) light into constituent colors. The red ray running down the center will trace the line that through Shem, Eber, and Abraham will become the nation of Israel, the Nation, and lead to Christ. (This will be developed in the next post.) The other rays symbolize the various nations of the earth, the Gentiles. They run along the background during the whole of the Old Testament but their importance is never really forgotten, as the New Testament makes clear.
Phase Two
At the conclusion of Phase One God separates humanity into nations. The diagram pictures them as discrete rays, but in reality these nations blend in and out of one another. In His plan He sets the nations aside (Acts 14:16; 17:26-27) and builds one for Himself from one man of his choosing Abra(ha)m. This nation will serve as His remnant through which He will effect His redemptive plan.
Abraham is indicated by a green dot (recalling the green plants of Gen. 1 containing its seed) and is the beginning of Israel, the arrow represents the promise to his Seed, the point of the nation of Israel. God gives promises which are (a) for Israel and (b) through Israel for the world. Israel’s purpose is accomplished by millennia of history, however, as the expanded red ray shows.
On the red ray the left triangular section pictures the increase in population from Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob to the time of the Exodus. Magnified it might look something like this:
At the time of Moses (yellow dot) the people Israel is constituted as a nation under the Mosaic covenant with the Law as its constitution. The law is illustrated by the gray lines on either side of the red ray. The law is a visible representation of the righteousness of God, and serves several functions:
1. It keeps the ray discrete, coherent light, like a laser beam, so that the nation of God’s own making does not intermingle with the nations.
2. It defines the covenant, which Israel as a whole fails, but Christ as Israel par excellence fulfills.
3. It serves as a checklist for the life of God in a man. Man, in spiritual death, fails and is condemned by the law. Christ, in whom is Life, obeys it perfectly, showing Him to be the Perfect one who will become sin for us that we may become His righteousness.
The gray line extends only until Christ, since the Law leads to Christ (Gal. 3:24), who is the end of the Law (Rom. 10:4).
Along the course of history the nation is prepared for Christ. King David (purple dot) is an ancestor and type of Christ. God makes a covenant with him that will ultimately lead to Christ, and the structure of Israel’s kingship will be expanded to the Anointed one, the Messiah, King of kings.
The prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah (orange dot) also prepare the nation for Christ. They prophesy the Suffering Servant and the New Covenant that He will mediate. Is the Servant Israel or the Messiah? Both. Israel’s purpose is to bring redemption into the earth, which it accomplishes through Christ who is Israel par excellence, the quintessence, the remnant of remnants. Magnified it might look like this:
Isaiah prophesies that Israel’s Messiah is also to be a light to the nations (Is. 49:6; 60:3). Christ comes to the Nation, and reminds them that they serve as light to the world (Matt. 5:14), which again, they ultimately fulfill through Him (John 8:12; 9:5). His life is the light of men (John 1:4,9). The light is shown by the glow of the white dot, and the light to the nations by the transverse rays from Christ across the spectrum of rays representing the nations.
Daniel’s seventy times seven years (faint white rectangle). 69 sevens brings us to Messiah (triumphal entry A.D. 3/30/33?). After the 69th seven (not during the 70th week) Christ is crucified and on the third day resurrected.
Phase Three
Christ came as the Messiah to His nation, sent to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24). His sheep knew His voice and follow Him (John 10:27). Yet He was largely rejected by His own Nation (John 1:11), but He had other sheep (John 10:16).
The high priest unknowingly prophesied that Christ would die for the Nation, but not only for Israel, but “also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” (John 11:50-51).
Isaiah had prophesied that He would be rejected (Isaiah 53:3). Even as Christ inaugurated the New Covenant in His blood (1 Cor. 11:25) God was putting into place the means by which the blessings of that covenant would spread to the nations.
As the nations were formally set aside so that the remnant would run along the line of the Nation, now the Nation is set aside for the benefit of the nations. By their trespass salvation comes to the nations. The nations enjoy the New Covenant blessings prior to the Nation, to in turn make the Nation jealous (Rom. 11:11). This is a deliberate act of God, a temporary and partial hardening of Israel (Rom. 11:25) to enrich the nations (Rom. 11:12). Note that it is temporary.
The nation-based structure itself remains intact, but the remnant principle is turned ninety degrees, so that it runs in a transnational sense. So now the transverse ray of the light to the nations becomes the axis of the redemptive plan during this phase.
Daniel’s seventy sevens sits on the Israel national line [“Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city” (Dan. 9:24)] and while the sevens are continuous on one another—in the national line, the third phase is not following the line but sitting athwart it. This phase continues “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” (Rom. 11:25) So though it has now lasted nearly two millennia, the end of the age remains nearby all the time.
The New Covenant brings new blessings, particularly in relation to the Holy Spirit as Christ prophesied (John 15-17). Old Testament believers experienced regeneration, and some few theocratic leaders served under the anointing of the Spirit. Now however the Holy Spirit comes to indwell all believers as Joel prophesied (Joel 2:28ff; Acts 2:17ff), which baptizes believers into Christ’s Body (Acts 1:5).
This is Christ’s Church, of which He had spoken in the future tense (Matt. 16:18) As Christ’s Body they continue to minister as He began (Acts 1:1), being sent by Christ as Christ was sent by the Father (John 20:21). During the entirety of the age He is with His Church (Matt. 28:20) as God had been with Christ (Acts 10:38).
He has placed the members of His body to do His works (John 14:12) because He was returning to the Father and sending the Holy Spirit. The whole body being a microcosm of Christ, each member functions in a part of that ministry (1 Cor. 12:4-7). [However, it may be that the apostles themselves served individually as a microcosm of Christ’s ministry (2 Cor. 12:12).]
One manifestation of the Spirit apparently new with the Church occurred at Pentecost when those gathered there spoke in other languages, recalling the national separation at Babel, and signifying the reorientation of the remnant from the Nation to the nations. (1 Cor. 14:21-22). The wall of separation (illustrated by the gray line of the Law) in this age is gone and Israel is now simply one of the nations as the remnant is oriented (Eph. 2:14). The Church is sent to all the nations of the earth. (Matt. 28:19).
Phase Four
The Father will determine at what time He will “restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6). That this query from the disciples was not fatuous, as it is often purported to be, is clear enough from Jesus’ response not to substance but only to timing. However, in God’s redemptive plan the kingdom takes on a cosmic dimension. Abraham’s seed inherits not only the land of Israel, but the whole earth (Rom. 4:13, Matt. 5:5).
Israel continues to play a central role, but it is God’s means of transforming the kingdom of this world to the Kingdom of the Lord and of His Christ (Rev. 11:15). The Nation has played a role by occupying the axis of God’s redemptive plan and bringing Christ into the world, and then by being set aside, transverse to the axis of the plan, as the Messiah brings light to the nations.
At the appointed time, however, the axial shift is to be reversed and Israel’s “full inclusion” will bring far more riches to the world than their temporary and partial blindness (Rom. 11:11, 25-26). Each division, the Nation and the nations has now each played a dominant and a suppressed role in God’s plan, so that mankind might know the fullness of redemption in God’s plan.
“For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” (Rom. 11:30-32)
For the duration of phase 3, the axis has sat transverse to the national line of Israel at the junction of the sixty-ninth and seventieth seven. At the beginning of Phase 4 the seventy sevens chronology continues (faint white rectangle).
The meaning of Dan. 9:27 has been debated whether “he” refers to Christ or to another (anti-Christ):
“And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”
By analogia fidei, Scripture interprets Scripture. What book would be the New Testament counterpart and commentary on Daniel? What book describes abominations and desolations with particular focus on half a “week”? What book signals to us over and over that it is the explanation for the final seven by its incessant focus on the number seven? Clearly, a main theme of the book of Revelation is to account for the final seven and in particular the final half of that seven.
That Christ returns and destroys the beast (Rev. 19:20), the man of iniquity (2 Thes. 2:8) shows that Christ’s return is a complex event and involves a major crisis of wickedness in the earth. Christ said it would be like the time of Noah or Lot (Luke 17:26-30). Peter tells us that “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.” (2 Pet. 2:9) During this time of God’s wrath, in His plan He will keep His people “from the hour of trial” coming on the world.
Does Christ preserve His Church from wrath (1 Thes. 5:9) through a kind of “ark” event in which His Body ascends to the heavens at the end of its earthly ministry (1 Thes. 4:17) as His body ascended to the heavens at the end of His earthy ministry (Acts. 1:9)? There are indications of this. (Matt. 24:33, Rev. 3:8 [c.f. v. 20], Rev. 4:1 [c.f. Rev. 11:12]???)
At any rate, at the conclusion of the final seven, Christ returns (Rev. 19:11) with His saints (Rev. 19:14 [c.f. v. 8]; 1 Thes. 3:13) and sits on His throne and begins to rule over the Nation and the nations [having bound Satan, so that he can no longer deceive the nations (Rev. 20:3)]. Yes, it is at THIS time that Christ is restoring the kingdom to Israel. Only He is not just Israel’s King, but King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev. 17:14, 19:16).
Nations will continue to exist as God has established them, but now all are under the rule of Christ, with the Nation at the head of the nations (Is. 2:1-4; Jer. 3:17). Though the axis of the redemptive plan has returned to national orientation, there is no retreat into the past. Now the warp and woof of the plan are combined and the kingdom is over all nations. This is represented by the brightened colors of each national ray.
The kingdom endures in this way until Christ has put all enemies under His feet, including death (1 Cor. 15:25-26). The vision of Revelation refers to a thousand years, during which resurrected saints will rule and judge with Him. At the end of this appointed time, Satan [after one final outrage (Rev. 20:7-9)] will be consigned to hell (v. 10), the remaining dead will be resurrected and the unredeemed will follow Satan into hell (Rev. 20:12-13, 15), and at last the enemy death itself will be destroyed (Rev. 20:14).
Then at the end Christ “delivers the kingdom to God the Father” (1 Cor. 15:24), and God establishes a New Heavens and New Earth, as represented here by the darkness changing to a solid light.
The phrase “the Israel of God” is connected to the rest of Galatians 6:16 in Greek by the word και as the following interlinear citation demonstrates. The και in question is the third one in the verse, appearing here in the first position on the bottom row.
και οσοι τω κανονι τουτω στοιχησουσιν
and / as-many-as / by-the / rule / this / walkειρηνη επ’ αυτους και ελεος
peace / on / them / and / mercyκαι επι τον Iσραηλ του θεου
? / on / the / Israel / of-the / God
The first and second instance of και are glossed as “and,” but I have left the third one unglossed, marked with “?” The major options for και include “and,” “also,” and “even.” Listing glosses, however, is an imprecise and misleading way to consider the meaning or function of a word in another language.
Words almost always have more than one meaning or function. If we conceptually imagine a three-dimensional array of all possible meanings, called “semantic space,” each word is represented not by a single point, but by a particular constellation of points. Two words are considered synonyms if they share at least one point in common, but they will virtually never correspond at every meaning point of their semantic constellations. The characteristic constellation of a word is not static but may gain or lose points over time, that is, a particular word may be used for meaning X,Y, and Z today, but in 100 years perhaps only meanings X and Y will remain. (Look here to see a constellation for the word even)
When we speak of the translation or gloss of one word by its “equivalent” in another language, the situation is much like a synonym within the same language. Their constellations will match on at least one point, but the two constellations will almost never match point for point. This is why working with interlinear presentations such as the one above can be misleading. The gloss is only a convenient label providing a general idea. This is why lexicons do more than list glosses; they also include definitions and typical examples.
Now, how we understand the particular function of και in Galatians 6:16 feeds into how we identify what Paul is referring to as “the Israel of God.” Is it a designation for the Church? This is how it is generally understood by Covenant Theology and Amillennial eschatology. Anthony Hoekema makes this case for the gloss “even” in his classic work on eschatology, The Bible and the Future:
The word και, therefore, should here be rendered even, as the New International Version has done. When the passage is so understood, “the Israel of God” is a further description of “all who follow this rule”–that is, all true believers, including both Jews and Gentiles, who constitute the New Testament Church. Here, in other words, Paul clearly identifies the church as the true Israel. ( p. 197)
Here is the NIV rendering to which Dr. Hoekema is referring:
Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God. (NIV)
There is, in fact, a problem with this argument, as even an intuitive reaction to this translation may suggest. Dr. Hoekema is certainly correct in general terms that even is an acceptable gloss for και, but to make this actually work as he asserts—with “the Israel of God” being a “further description of “all who follow this rule”—he invokes a specific meaning for even that is in fact (1) no longer employed in contemporary English, and (2) is not otherwise an attested meaning for και in the New Testament.
I am referring to the epexegetical use. Epexegesis is a word meaning “explanation,” and refers to adding on to a sentence additional words or phrases to further clarify or specify a statement previously made. This usage of epexegetical even is abundant in the KJV, but not likely to be a feature of any native English speaker reading this post, except when adopting an artificial speech style. The Oxford English Dictionary explains in its listing number 7 for the word even used as an adverb:
Prefixed to a subject, object, or predicate, or to the expression of a qualifying circumstance, to emphasize its identity. Obs[olete] exc[ept] arch[aic] Also in 16-17 c. (hence still arch[aic] after Bible use) serving to introduce an epexegesis; = ‘namely’, ‘that is to say’.
Now we can see how this works in the NIV if we substitute “that is to say” for “even”
Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, [that is to say] to the Israel of God. (NIV)
As the OED points out, this usage was present in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, and thus we find it in the KJV. However, in our time it is obsolete, or no longer a productive aspect of the vocabulary of English speakers today, except as an archaism. Archaic speech refers to a deliberately old-fashioned manner of speech, such as some people might use in preaching or in prayer, the kind of thing that we might call someone speaking in “King James English.”
That is why I say there may likely be an intuitive reaction to the NIV rendering. The NIV describes its own approach as aiming for an English that is “contemporary without being dated.” Yet in this verse they employ an archaic form.
We can see how epexegetical even works from some clear examples from the KJV:
(1) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. (John 5:45)
Here the clause “there is one that accuseth you” leaves the identity of that “one” indefinite. The epexegetical phrase introduced by even specifies that one as Moses.
(2) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ. (Eph. 4:15)
Here “into Him…which is the head” leaves the specific identity of “the head” implicit. The epexegetical phrase introduced by even explicitly specifies “Christ.”
(3) For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection. (2 Cor. 13:9)
In this case, the clause “and this also we wish” is manifestly incomplete without a following epexegetical phrase, identifying what the “this” is referring to.
As mentioned above, this structure is not at all uncommon in the KJV of the New Testament. Further examples include: Matt. 23:10; Rom. 1:20; 1 Cor. 2:7; 1 John 2:25; 1 John 5:4. One glaring feature is present in all these examples as it is in every use of epexegetical even in the KJV New Testament: in every case the word even is in italics, indicating that it is not representing any word present in the original. None of these instances of epexegetical even is a translation of και.
In fact there is only one case, involving six verses where the KJV translates και with even, when it is probably intended epexegetically, though it is very different from the preceding examples. The verses involved are: Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Thes. 3;13; 2 Thes. 2:16; Jas. 3:9. In each case the KJV rendering is “God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” or a variation of this. What is happening here is that the translators are encountering constructions covered by the Granville Sharp rule, where two nouns joined by και share a single article. Rom. 15:6 reads in Greek:
τον θεον και πατερα του κυριου ημων Ιησου Χριστου
the / God / and / father / of-the / Lord / our / Jesus / Christ
The translators knew that “God” and “Father” referred to the same Person, but that to render it “God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” tended to make it sound as if two separate individuals were intended. Furthermore, English does not generally use the definite article with “God,” though Greek does do so with θεος. So “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” was also awkward. Therefore they employed the expedient of epexegetical even for και in this case, to show that “God” and “Father” refer to the same person. In fact, however, it is not really introducing an epexegesis which serves to clarify or specify a previous statement that was generic or indefinite.
Granville Sharp did not formulate his rule until the late eighteenth century (it first appears in a 1778 letter). So in fact the above six instances are not at all examples of an epexegetical use of και, though the translators of the KJV may have taken them to be so.
Apart from these six verses, where και in a Granville Sharp construction is rendered “even” by the KJV translators, there are no instances of και rendered as epexegetical even in the KJV of the New Testament. Even Galatians 6:16 itself is not.
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. (KJV)
Now let us turn specifically to the Greek usage of και. When we do so we discover that there is next to no justification for seeing an epexegetical use for και in New Testament Greek. In general, και works like this:
(1) It is by far the most common coordinating conjunction, equivalent to our “and,” and this is by far the most common use that it has. It serves to join nouns, phrases and clauses.
(a) Andrew and Peter (John 1:44)
(b) …to find his brother Simon and tell him (John 1:41)
(c) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
(2) It is not far from the idea of “and” to the idea of “also,” and και may be used adverbially with the idea of “in addition” or “too” (only the meaning of too that is equivalent to also.)
Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water… (John 3:23)
(3) From “also” we move to “even,” which is a kind of emphatic also, or too, the emphasis being due to surprise, what is called in semantics, contrary to expectation.
(a) Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. (John 12:42)
That is, many believed in him, including some among the leaders (though you would hardly expect this.)
(b) The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. (Acts 10:45)
That is, not only on Jews and Samarians, but on Gentiles, too, but with a strong implied idea of unexpectedness.
(c) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (Gal. 2:13)
That is, Barnabas was also led astray, though you would have expected better of him (c.f. et tu, Brute).
This use of even, which is a kind of unexpected also or including is the predominant meaning of adverbial even in English, according to the OED. However, there is really no question of this meaning of even in Gal. 6:16, and if it were, it would mean “the Israel of God” was at most a subset of “all who follow this rule.”
So while και may be glossed “even” on occasion, such as we have seen above, there is next to no justification for seeing an epexegetical use in the New Testament.
(1) Wallace does not include such a category in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.
(2) Zerwick (Biblical Greek) includes the category, but with a question mark and cites only two possible examples (section 455 ζ):
(a) Gal. 6:16 itself
(b) Acts 5: “the council and all the senate of the people of Israel” (ESV) on the supposition that both “council” and “senate” refer to exactly the same group, and that therefore the και functions as “that is to say.” Possibly Luke is explaining the term “council” (Greek: συνεδριον, i.e. “Sanhedrin.”), even though he has already used the word συνεδριον in Acts 4:15 and Luke 22:66. “Senate” is a translation of γερουσιαν, which means a grouping of elders. The Sanhedrin had 71 members at any time. This would by no means include all the elders of the people.
(3) BAGD includes the category “explicative,” but lists only the following three NT possibilities (and not Gal. 6:16). The word translating και is underlined in each citation:
(a) Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. (Rom. 1:5, NIV)
This is again assuming that “grace” and “apostleship” are referring to the same thing, which is possible, but not at all certain.
(b) Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. (Matt. 8:33)
Here και introduces a clause that serves as a subset of “all this,” translated here by “including,” and in ESV as “especially.” Whatever we might label this use, it is not an instance of epexegetical και.
(c) For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. (John 1:16, NASB)
Granted, “and” doesn’t make for the clearest English style, but it is hard to see how “grace upon grace” would function as an epexegesis for something in the first part of the verse. At any rate, it is not very analogous to Gal. 6:16.
In short, interpreting και in Galatians 6:16 simply as the conjunction “and” is entirely non-problematic in Greek, whereas positing an epexegetical use of και, glossed perhaps as “even” in English, is highly unlikely in New Testament Greek. It is without any clear parallel that I am aware of.
In addition to the above, Dr. Hoekema’s suggestion is doubtful because of two other considerations.
(1) If it were a case of epexegetical και, it is not at all clear what the epexegesis would be clarifying. What occurs before the και that is indefinite or unclear? In fact,“the Israel of God” is actually less clear than what precedes it. The suggestion might make sense if the elements were inverted from their actual order:
* Peace and mercy to the Israel of God, [that is to say] to all who follow this rule.
Then it could plausibly fit the pattern, and an unclear expression “the Israel of God” would be clarified by “all who follow this rule.”
(2) Even if we accept the idea of an epexegetical και, such that “the Israel of God” is a restatement of “all who follow this rule,” it doesn’t take us where Dr. Hoekema suggests, because “all who follow this rule” is itself not a designation for the entire Church. The rule he is referring to is: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.” (Gal. 6:15, NIV) This is the rule the Church should follow, not that which every member did in fact follow. The entire passage would not be necessary if all Christians already followed this rule. He specifically points in verse 12 to “Those who want to make a good impression outwardly,” who he states “are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.” These are not unbelievers but misguided believers, believers who do not walk by the rule.
Now, I should point out that Dr. Hoekema’s explanation is not the only grammatical way to understand “the Israel of God” to be the Church, but I think it is the most common way, and the easiest way—despite the fact that it is very poorly supported by Greek grammar. It could be explained even with και understood as “and,” though it would still be a stretch to see why “and” does not imply that “the Israel of God” is something that is not equivalent to “all who follow this rule.” I can think of a way to make it work (sort of) myself, though I wouldn’t very much believe it. The question I have is why try to make it fit a preconceived notion of “the Israel of God” being a reference to the Church, when the simplest explanation works perfectly well?
Now we will turn to some exegetical considerations in our discussion of A Biblical Case for an Old Earth by David Snoke, beginning with the genre of the first chapter of Genesis, the subject certainly of a great deal of spilled ink, from the quilting bee approach of the Documentary Hypothesis to the ANE mythological parallels or else polemics. I would agree with Dr.Snoke that it is not a science text per se; it is not given to satisfy our curiosity about how the world came to be. Nor is the early part of Genesis a series of myth, legend and folktales strung together like so many beads on a string.
Part One: Genesis 1 is not Poetry
However, in this regard to genre, Dr. Snoke takes us down a totally wrong path right from the start when he asserts that Genesis 1 is poetry:
Genesis 1 is clearly different in style from the later historical chapters of Genesis and the historical books, because of its poetic structure. To say it is “poetic” does not mean it is not true; it simply has the form of a poem, like the Psalms, in which words are sometimes used symbolically and generically. David Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (p. 145)
Thinking of the creation narrative as poetic is a not uncommon
mistake. A line from Inherit the Wind dismisses it as “the
pleasant poetry of Genesis.” The problem with this
assertion is, first, that it simply is objectively untrue. Hebrew
poetry is quite common in the Old Testament: Psalms, Proverbs, Song
of Songs, Job, the vast majority of the Prophets, for example, and it
has well-known and readily recognizable characteristics.
Genesis 1 is simply very unlike Hebrew poetry in structure, as I
shall demonstrate. The chapter does exhibit a stylized structure,
repetition of certain elements, and sequential sections that might be
mistaken for stanzas, but these are characteristics drawn from the
genre of which it largely partakes, procedural discourse.
Second, to misclassify Genesis 1 as poetry falsely predisposes
toward a figurative interpretation. One major feature of Hebrew
poetry is the rich use of imagery, simile, metaphor. This is not to
say that understanding Genesis 1 as prose predisposes toward the
literal. Prose can contain figures as well, and these may be
identified in various ways, but poetry essentially demands imagery.
On the other hand, to the degree that we can identify Genesis1 as
some species of procedural discourse, it is worth noting that
procedural texts highly tend toward the concrete and directly
referential.
Features of Hebrew poetry include:
1. First, it has its particular rhythm or meter. Each line
typically has two halves with three elements each, though this
pattern is varied often. Genesis 1 is not structured this way.
2. It does not rhyme, but has “rhyming meaning,” this
is what is known as parallelism. Often the three elements in the
first half are matched with three elements in the second half, known
as synonymous parallelism. This is only one type, however, but there
are several types of balancing corresponding meaning, as the example
below will show. This is not present in Genesis 1, with the possible
exception of v. 27, but we will examine this below. There is a kind
of matching phenomenon in the content of the days, and this has
sometimes been cited as “parallelism,” but it is at a
higher level, between paragraphs or sections, and not at all what is
meant by parallelism in the context of poetic structure.
3. Also there are characteristic grammatical features. For
example, the article and the direct object marker ‘eth are
used much less frequently, as is the conjunction “and.”
Genesis 1 uses all three of these abundantly, quite unlike poetry.
4. Generally, there is an archaic feeling to it, with older,
otherwise obsolete words being prominent. Some words are considered
“poetic” and occur in preference to certain prosaic
words. One example below is bal, a negative which is used in
poetry in preference to the ususal lo’, the negative of prose.
I do not believe any of the usual list of archaic words can be found
in Genesis 1.
5. In addition to all this, as I mentioned above, there is
prominent use of imagery, figurative speech, particularly visual
metaphors, personification, anthropomorphism and the like. Of
course, to what extent Genesis 1 is figurative is part of what we are
considering here, and we could point to a certain level of imagery.
The chapter depicts God as speaking, for example. We do not thereby
understand vocal cords and a vibrating column of air. So it entails
something of an anthropomorphism However, a side by side comparison
will demonstrate the difference between what we find in Genesis 1 and
true poetic imagery. In fact Psalm 104 is essentially a poetic
treatment of Genesis 1.
To illustrate how the metric structure of poetry works, below is
an interlinear presentation of Psalm 104:5-9. Translations typically
lay poetry out in lines, but the individual elements may or may not
be apparent. The five lines presented show a verset pattern as
follows: 3:3, 3:3, 2:3, 2:2:3, 3:3.
5 He set the earth on its foundations,
so that it should never be moved.
6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
7 At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
9 You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.
| yasad | erets | ‘al-makoneyah | bal-timmot | ‘olam | wa’ed | |
| He-established | earth | on-foundations-her | lest-she-be-moved | forever | and-ever | |
| tehom | kallebush | kissito | ‘al-harim | ya’amidu | mayim | |
| deep | like-garment | you-covered-it | over-mountains | stood | waters | |
| min-ga’aratka | yenusun | min-qol | ra’amka | yehapezun | ||
| from-rebuke-your | they-fled | from-voice | thunder-your | they-hastened | ||
| ya’alu | harim | yeredu | beqa’ot | el-maqom | Zeh yasadta | lahem |
| arose | mountains | went-down | valleys | to-place | that you-established | for-them |
| gebul | samta | bal-ya’aborun | bal-yeshubun | lekassot | haarets | |
| boundary | you-set | lest-they-pass | lest-they-return | to-cover | the-earth |
As mentioned above, one possible poetic structure is in verse 27,
which in the ESV is set in lines as poetry:
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
This is the only verse that approaches poetry in the chapter,
which of course is one more demonstration that the rest is not.
However, at best I would call it quasi-poetic at best. It has
something that is similar to parallelism but is really rather
opposite to it. Where parallelism would have, for example a 3:3 line
where elements ABC appears in the first verset and synonyms A’B'C’
may appear in the same order in the second verset, here the same
words occur in each half but in different order:
| wayyibera | elohim | eth-haadam | betsalmo |
| and-created | God | D.O.-the-man | in-image-his |
| betselem | elohim | bara | oto |
| in-image (of) | God | He created | D.O.-them |
| zakar | uneqeba | bara | otam |
| male | and-female | He created | D.O.-them |
Also of note in this one “quasi-poetic” verse we have
four elements, the waw consecutive, the definite article, and
THREE instances of the direct object marker ‘eth.
However, it is a distinct structure that draws the attention and
sets it apart from the rest. This is due to its comprising the
climax of the chapter. Whatever the genre, at verse 27 the discourse
reaches its peak, and the author takes some extra steps to highlight
it.
Part Two: Genesis 1 as Procedural Discourse
If Genesis 1 is not a poetic cosmogony, then what is it? The
answer I will suggest draws from the nature of what is being
recounted, the step-step-by-step construction by a Master Craftsman,
and it’s place in the legal literature of Israel, the Torah. First,
we will consider the contribution of procedural discourse to the
structure of Genesis 1. This consideration draws on the work of
linguist Robert Longacre, who identifies two types of procedural
discourse: (1) “how to do it,” and (2) “how it was
done.” These two may be illustrated by, first, the
instructions of how the tabernacle and associated accoutrements were
to be constructed (25:10-31:11) and, second, how they were in fact
constructed (Exodus 36:8-39:43). Genesis 1 though is not pure
procedural discourse, as Longacre defined it, but what “skewed”
in his terms, blending in elements of narrative discourse, such as
focus on the agent and the narrative schema of verb tenses, and so is
the latter mentioned section in Exodus. A great deal of the
Penteteuch is procedural discourse,in fact, providing instructions on
how to deal with various problems, how to present sacrifices and
offerings and such. Other sections similar to those above include
Exodus 40:1-33, which recounts the actual erection of the tabernacle,
following the construction of its elements. Also 1 Kings 6:1-7:51
and 2 Ch. 3:1-5:1 similarly record the construction of the temple
under Solomon.
Numbers 7 is of particular note as it is a “how-it-was-done”
type of procedural discourse organized according to twelve sequential
days. Also it is repetative and formulaic, with verbatim repetition
in the body of each day section. Nehemiah 3 similarly presents
procedural discourse organized in sequence spacially, one section of
the wall followed by the next, and it employs repetitive formulae,
such as: “They laid its beams and set its doors, its bolts, and
its bars.” (v. 3)
Below is a comparison of features of Genesis 1 and verses from
some of the procedural discourses mentioned, particularly Ex. 36-39
and 1 Kings 6-7, where we see the same kind of mixed narrative and
procedural skewing as in Genesis 1. Of note are the references to
the date construction started, in one instance employing a form of
the root r’sh, from which is derived re’shit
“beginning.” Also the same verb and verbal structure are
employed, wayya’as, “and he made.” Very
interesting parallels are the notation of seeing and judging the work
in Ex. 39:43, which is followed by a blessing, and statements of
completion, which occur at the end of Ex. 36-39, Ex. 40, 1 Kings 6-7,
and in 2 Chron. 5:1, and which exactly parallels Genesis 2:1. There
even seems to be something of a parallel to “quasi-poetic”
structure of the climactic verse 27 of Genesis1, in the fabrication
of the mercy seat and the pair of overshadowing cherubim.
Part Three: Genesis 1 as Covenant Preamble.
Drawing from the work of Meredith Kline on the Israelite Covenant
in light of ancient near eastern suzerainty treaties, it appears that
Genesis 1 is filling role of covenant preamble. Kline lists the five
main sections of such ancient covenants as follows:
- Preamble, introducing the supreme king and emphasizing his
majesty, power and greatness. - Historical Prologue, identifying the vassal and detailing the
previous relations between the two parties, particularly stressing
the blessings bestowed by the king. - Stipulations, stating in detail the obligations imposed by
the king and accepted by the vassal for maintenance of proper
relations. - Sanctions, blessings and curses for obedience and
disobedience, respectively. - Succession Arrangements, for deposit of the text, periodic
reading, and continuation of the covenant by future generations.
As far as I know, Dr. Kline himself never applied this structure
to the whole of the Pentateuch, but the Torah was the supreme Law of
Israel, the constitution for the nation. We agree with Bruce Waltke,
that the composition of Genesis, as a coherent whole at least, comes
out to the Sinai experience, when the tribes became a nation., and
that Genesis 1 comprises the Preamble to the covenant (Waltke, “The
Genre of Genesis, Chapter One”). There is logic in seeing the
Pentateuch as at least following the general outline of the ancient
near eastern covenant, because of its structure. The bulk of it is
comprised of laws, and includes provision for keeping the tables of
the Law in the Ark of the Covenant and contains blessings and curses,
most specifically in Deuteronomy. Prior to these, generally all of
Genesis and Exodus 1-19 is narrative, specifically recounting man’s
relationship with his Creator, the cause of discord, the selection of
one man to found a people and this people’s growth as a family, clans
and eventually tribes, followed by the specific circumstance of
bondage in Egypt.
Genesis 1 then fills the role of the Preamble and is intended to
reveal just exactly who this King is who is making this covenant and
who through it is bringing salvation to the world. The Preamble,
then presents the King in the role of Creator, and this is the reason
why the procedural discourse concerning the creation of all things,
most especially man fills the role of introducing God. No doubt this
chapter could be mined without end for truth about God, but here we
identify seven themes in particular, which will be vital in the
Mosaic covenant, continue to be important motifs throughout all of
Scripture, and come to full fruition in the person of Jesus Christ,
the Son of God. These seven themes are comprised of four roles and
three acts:
1. Creator
It is no small matter that the first truth the Scriptures tell us
about God is that He is our Creator: “In the beginning, God
created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1). To the maker go
the rights of ownership: “Know that the Lord, he is God! It is
he who made us, and we are his.” (Ps. 100:3) Note Gen 14:19:
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Possessor of heaven and
earth,” where the word translated “Possessor,”
qoneh, means both “creator” and “owner.”
And He has full rights over His creation: “Has the potter no
right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for
honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” (Rom. 9:21)
Jesus had a right to be outraged: “He was in the world, and the
world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.”
(John 1:10).
2. King.
In Genesis 1, we see God’s creative power exercised by His
command. As the King of the universe, He speaks, and it is done: “And
God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” (v. 1)
This kingly authority was recognized in Jesus: “And they were
astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had
authority, and not as the scribes.” (Mk. 1:22)
Lord, I am not worthy to have you come
under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.
For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say
to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’
and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does
it.” (Matt. 8:8-9)
Jesus came preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God, and we
see at His return: “On his robe and on his thigh he has a name
written, King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Rev. 19:16)
3. Judge
God looked at His own work and judged it: “And God saw that
it was good. “ (Gen. 1:18); “And God saw everything that
he had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Gen. 1:31). He
also judged what was not good: “It is not good that the man
should be alone.” (Gen. 2:18) It was over this very role of God
as Judge, that the first sin occurred, as man arrogated for himself
the right independently to judge:
“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be
opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen.
3:5) This judgment of creation has passed to the Son:
The times of ignorance God overlooked,
but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has
fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a
man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all
by raising him from the dead. (Acts 17:30-31)
4. Father
Genesis 1 very clearly specifies the uniqueness of man:
“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God
he created him;
male and female he created them.” (Gen.
1:27)
In this way His creation of us is in a manner of speaking also His
procreation. His intent is to create sons and daughters. Adam is
called “the son of God.” (Luke 3:38). We see what the
phrase “in his image means at the birth of the first child:
“When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own
likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” (Gen. 5:3) The
Old Testament does not often refer to this truth about God, but it is
not absent: “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God
created us?” (Malachi 2:10) Jesus Christ is uniquely the
eternal Son of God, but He came to bring “many sons to glory.”
(Heb. 2:10).
As Father, He is also our Provider: “And God said, “Behold,
I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all
the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them
for food.” (Gen. 1:29) He continues to provide: “So
Abraham called the name of that place, “The Lord will provide”:
as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the Lord it shall
be provided.” (Gen. 22:14), and the greatest blessing was
provided by Abraham’s Seed:
For if, because of one man’s trespass,
death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive
the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in
life through the one man Jesus Christ. (Rom. 5:17)
5. Light
God’s creation is His self-revelation, and He begins with light: “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” (Gen. 1:3) Throughout the Scriptures, light symbolizes God’s righteousness and holiness: “This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” (John 1:5) Jesus came as that light: “In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” (John 1:4-5). A frequently heard objection is that light is created on day one, before the sun is created on day four. Yet light is far more fundamental and everlasting than the sun, which was created as a lamp: “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night.’” (Gen. 1:14) The word translated “lights” in reference to the sun and moon, in each case is not ‘or, the word for light as a substance, but me’or, “luminary” or “lamp,” standing for and testifying to the light of God’s holiness. Similarly, Jesus was “the true light” (John 1: 9) whereas John the Baptist was “a burning and shining lamp” (John 5:35). As with John, so with the sun, we are “willing to rejoice for a while in his light,” but in the New Heavens and New Earth the Lord is the light:
And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. (Rev. 21:23-24)
6. Separation
One of the striking aspects of the chapter is the process that God follows to form the earth, since He does not do any of this by necessity. Had he wished He could have produced everything fully formed at the exercise of His will. Yet He makes a point not only of going through certain steps, but of telling us that He does so. I take it, then, that the steps are significant. He begins by separating light from darkness. We have already seen that light is an everlasting symbol of God’s holiness, and so its separation from darkness further emphasizes this, and makes a didactic point for His people.
For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)
This separation is emblematic of His separating out a people for Himself:
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Pet. 2:9)
The principle of the remnant, that God separates out a people for Himself, first nationally, through Israel, then trans-nationally through the Church, is not only a major theme of Scriptural revelation, but the process through which He effects salvation for His people. Like successive lots, of mankind, Israel is taken, of Israel Judah is taken, of Judah, Jesus of Nazareth is taken, the ultimate Son of Man, King of Israel, Last Adam.
7. Time
The major structural feature of Genesis 1 is, of course, the six-day creation, seventh day rest pattern, which is the subject of the major controversy, at least as far as Dr. Snoke’s book is concerned. Again, we must understand that whatever we conclude about the seven days, we can be sure that it is a process that God had no need to follow, as He could have created all things in an instant by the exercise of His will. Yet it is how He was pleased to do it—or how He was pleased to tell us that He did it. Why? The most explicit answer is that He was setting up a pattern for His people to follow. Central to the covenant is the commandment:
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Ex. 20:8-11)
This rhythm of life is a repeated theme, the number seven, throughout the life of God’s people: the Sabbath, Sabbath years (Ex. 23:10-11), the year of Jubilee after seven Sabbath year periods (Lev. 25:8-12), seventy years of captivity based on the failure to observe these sabbaths (2 Chronicles 36:20-21), Daniel’s prophecy of seventy weeks also based on these captivity years (Dan. 9:24-27). Ultimately the “Revelation of Jesus Christ” is saturated with sevens (I believe based on the Daniel prophecy).
Beyond this, Genesis 1 shows that God is creator of time as well as space and matter. First, the seven days illustrates this, as of all our time measurements, the week is the one that is not based on a natural process such as the rotation of the earth or its revolution around the sun. Second is the frequently observed oddity that the text counts days of creation prior to the creation of the sun on day four. Is this an “oops” moment, Homer nodding, a slight discrepancy that the author did not spot? No, it seems to me that the obvious point is that a day is a day because God designated it so. The sun and the moon are not only a lamps but also clocks: “And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years.” (Gen. 1:14)
The Young Earth/Old Earth debate is all about time. The time we experience or the time we detect or believe we detect from observation of creation is a created thing just as we and all the universe are. The text of Genesis makes it very clear that God is Lord also of time. Whatever we conclude in the debate, it behooves us to listen very carefully to the self revelation of the Lord of time.
Conclusion.
Genesis 1 is God’s self introduction to His people, and the only appropriate response is glory, honor and awe. Here is the point of saying it is not a text of science; not that the few details relating to the cosmos are non-factual, but that the Creator, not the creation is the take-home message. Frankly, God does not tell us enough about his process of creation to question the timing the text presents. Does He mean us to understand that He created the universe in six literal days, and relatively recently? Nothing that we learn about God here leads us to doubt His ability. Can science judge this? Only if we first know what a recent six-day creation would look like, and then we observe that it does not, in fact, look that way. We cannot know this, however, as we stand as fonts of ignorance before Him. What then is too hard about the six days?
We are often like the press, following a presidential press conference. The president tells us the important things he wants us to know, but we, ignoring his words, throw up questions about this or that, anything but what he has just told us about. In the light of God’s self revelation in Genesis 1, we should rather be like Job, having just been addressed by God from the whirlwind:
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.” (Job 38:1-4)
Then Job answered the Lord and said:
“Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
I have spoken once, and I will not answer;
twice, but I will proceed no further.” (40:3-4)
“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
…Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.” (42:2-3,5-6)
I’ve been listening to the online lectures of the always edifying Dr. Kim Riddlebarger entitled Amillennialism 101, which are available on his blog. Perhaps this will come as a shock, but his main point of disagreement is with Dispensationalism, the eschatology of his youth. It seems when he became a man he put away chiliastic things.
His point is well taken that a “my verses can beat up your verses” approach fails to get below the surface to the underlying differences in hermeneutics and presuppositions. One particular limitation is that he mainly takes on the Classical Dispensationalists, which allows him to Evel Knievel over not only ten centuries to come but also the past half century of doctrinal development in the premillennial camp. If there is something of a “fish-in-a-barrel” quality to the discussion, it comes from his drumming on the old Dispy claim of “consistent literal” interpretation. Now, it seems to me that even way back in the mid-80s at DTS, this claim was seriously open to question.
Dr. Riddlebarger counters with the analogia fidei, Scripture interprets Scripture, with the odd intimation that Amillennialists employ this principle but Dispensationalists don’t. In my ever humble opinion, I suggest that the truth is that we have two competing rules of thumb. One: the literal sense should prevail unless there is an indication otherwise, with which Dr. Riddlebarger is in full agreement. Two: that the best indication of what Scripture means is Scripture itself, which I happen to know Dispensationalists also believe. It appears to me that in practice, the Amil application of the analogia fidei ends up not only harmonizing but homogenizing and often flattens out the details of various prophetic texts. I call it their “Infinite Elasticity Principle” that does away with those pesky facts that don’t fit the theory. He advocates Amillennialism in part because he states it is the view that covers the greatest number of passage with the least amount of “tweaking.” I only have audio, but I am given to understand that he says this with a straight face.
The Dispensationalists’ self-identification with “consistent literal” interpretation I take to be a reaction against the Amils’ tendancy to leap before they look into a figurative interpretation. It is all well and good to say an Old Testament prophecy to Israel has been fulfilled in Christ, but we still have to exegete the passage. If it is figurative, what are the figures? What do they mean? So Dispensationalists have tended to hug closer to my principle one (above) than two perhaps, even if the claim to being consistently literal cannot be sustained.
I wouldn’t insist on this, but it seems perhaps: Amillennialists exegete like theologians and Dispensationalists theologize like exegetes.
If I am making this sound like a situation where balance would come in handy, that is the beauty of Progressive Dispensationalism. It shares a great deal with Covenant Theology, but is (IMO) still distinctly Dispensational. (My suggestion to rename it “D-formed Theology” has not really caught on).
No matter what we say about any other parts of the Bible, even the names of the various eschatological views come down to how each understands Revelation 19-20, the famous 1000 year passage. Whether the 1000 years is literal is not the point, but if chapter 20 flows from the Second Coming in chapter 19 and continues with a millennial reign of Christ followed by the New Heavens and New Earth, then the text is not consistent with Amillennialism. Accordingly, the Amils state that there is a break at chapter 20 and that from this point it refers to the first coming and that the thousand years is the time between the first and second advents. Now, I find this far from obvious in the actual text, and it helps the Amils if you don’t look too closely at it. And it is all too easy to dismiss, discount or ignore the book of Revelation. As you are doubtless aware, it has a reputation for being almost impenetrably incomprehensible.
Yet this is an exaggeration. One complication of Revelation is that it presents two layers, two communication events with very different properties. The first layer is the visionary experience given to John (and indirectly to us). This is where the difficult symbols occur that present a challenge for interpretation. This layer is non-literary; the vision itself is not John’s composition. That we so often try to interpret it as if it were is a problem.
The second layer is John’s account of what he saw, which he was commanded to write in 1:11. This literary layer in itself presents few interpretive difficulties: John, the narrator sees this, hears that, various entities come and go, do this, say that. The characters are often bizarre, sometimes hard to picture, but on the whole the action is straightforward and the language visual and concrete. It is much like a drama, or a film that plays out before him, and he describes this to us.
How the drama progresses is one of the main interpretive questions, but it moves generally toward a climax, clearly—the all-time climax of the New Heavens and New Earth. Events do not necessarily occur in Jack Bauer real time. Neither is it Groundhog Day; suggestions of recapitulation are significantly overplayed. Starting about chapter 11 we have a sort of Dramatis Personae where major characters are introduced, and these will interact through chapter 20.
I think there are several lines of evidence that demonstrate a continuous narrative from chapter 19 to 20. There are no mathematical proofs in exegesis, but I suggest that a unbiased reading of the chapters is highly inconsistent with the idea of a chronological backshift at 20:1. Tracking the references to the characters is illuminating:
The beast is described in chapter 13, and it is given authority by the dragon (v. 4) and the false prophet reflects the dragon in its speech (13:11) and exercises delegated authority from the beast (13:12) and by this power it deceives the people of the earth. In 16:13 these three are said to send out deceiving spirits to bring about the war of Armageddon.
In 19:11 the Word, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords arrives on a white horse and defeats the armies assembled by the dragon, the beast and the false prophet. His weapon is a sword from his mouth (v. 15), and then we are told, “he will rule them with a rod of iron,” the isolated future tense here being consistent with an understanding that the reigning of 20:4 is chronologically subsequent. 19:20 continues: “And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.”
Two of the three instigators of the war are dealt with here, and the third, the dragon is incarcerated three verses later. However, three verses later takes us into chapter 20, and there really is no indication of a shift in perspective at all. Yet the Amils maintain that at 20:1 the real-life historical reference is now at the time of Christ’s first advent rather than the second. Verse 20:2 is the first reference to the thousand years, and verse 3 contains a back reference: “so that he might not deceive the nations any longer,” connecting to the “deceived” of 19:20 as the most recent of several repeated references to deception by the dragon’s power.
In verse four there is a back reference to the beast and to its mark: “Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.” It is stating the obvious to say that this occurs at least after the beast has begun to afflict the saints, and it would appear to be most consistent with a situation after it has been defeated. Reference to the beast does not occur again, except after the thousand years in a reminder that it and the false prophet are in the lake of fire (v. 10)
These souls are said to come to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years (v. 4), an event called “the first resurrection” (v. 5). According to Amillenniarians this resurrection symbolizes, not bodily resurrection but either regeneration (passing from spiritual death to life) or the death/translation to heaven of believers, or both of these. That such concepts are symbolized by individuals that in the drama are (1) already Christians and (2) already dead (absent from the body, present with the Lord) does not appear to dissuade them. It makes me scratch my head, however.
Furthermore, from the first advent to the second, people are born again and die and go to be with the Lord on an ongoing basis, and at least some Amillennialists (Dr. Riddlebarger included) see the beast as symbolic of an ongoing opposing presence throughout the present age. This situation we are told is pictured in Revelation by a resurrection that occurs only at the beginning of the thousand years: all the raised saints reign for the entirety of the thousand years, and we are told explicitly that no more dead are raised in all that time (v.5).
Finally, the dragon (now referred to as the devil) is released, causes a war and gets thrown in turn into the lake of fire (v. 10), and at this point another back reference occurs to the events of 19:20: “where the beast and the false prophet were.” These two are not mentioned as being involved in this war, but are mentioned as being in the lake of fire. We are told by the Amils that this is the same war as before, but I suggest that it is far more consistent with the details of the text to see two wars one before and one after the thousand years.
Bless their hearts, Amillennialists do advance evidence for seeing chapter 20 as a recapitulation: war and judgment at the end of both, can’t see how people are deceived after a thousand years of Christ’s victory. They cite “And I saw” or a “descending angel motif” in 20:1 as a transition marker, suggestions which are dubious, and certainly do not signal a backward time shift. At least LOST gives us a “whoosh.” Where is the Amil who will stand up and say, “Besides, we really need it to say that.”
I hesitate to employ so bad a line here as “the devil is in the details,” but it seems to me that close attention to the particulars of the text make the Amil take on the passage extremely unlikely. Where does anologia fidei stop and eisegesis start? I think that if you have to tweak the gehenna out of it, that ought to be a clue.
Professor David Snoke, in his recent book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, makes appeal not only to the Scriptures, but also to science. What to understand from the word science, however, in our society, not always clear. I suggest six perspectives from which we may consider the concept of science.
1. Science is a method for distinguishing truth from non-truth through observation and reason. This method optimizes the relevance of observation by manipulating conditions so as to focus uniquely on the phenomenon under investigation, in order to evaluate a particular hypothesis about it. Done properly, the set up of the conditions serves to eliminate or control for any factors liable to confuse the issue or render interpretation of observed phenomena ambiguous. “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out. ” (Proverbs 25:2) Good use of the human intellect is God-glorifying and reflects the imago Dei, always remembering human depravity and man’s uncanny ability to reason logically to a wrong conclusion.
2. Science is also the body of knowledge already acquired on a subject, particularly about the physical universe. Because of human frailty, a certain percentage of necessarily this contains error, as shown by the fact that this body of knowledge is constantly being corrected. For a believer, the authority of Scripture, inerrant, is far above any product of mere man.
3. Frequently science is used to refer to the physical cosmos itself. An example is when people say that the Bible teaches some things about “science.” As a shorthand way of speaking, this is understandable, but this tends to suggest that the physical universe, creation, belongs in some sense to the discipline of science. In reality, may I suggest, science (as (1) above) is only one way to approach creation.
4. The scientific method, (1) above, is associated with a certain purity of motive, an “objectivity” to the extent that this may be achieved by man. At some point, another feature has crept into the actual practice of science in our society: the explicit commitment to admitting only “natural processes” in its findings. Science, of course, is limited in that it is only competent to observe natural phenomena, but it is a frightful leap in logic to conclude from science’s limitations that nothing beyond the “natural” cosmos exists. With a system like this, disproving the existence of a creator is easy: since the only admissible cause for the universe are natural processes, no divinity need apply. If it is in fact true that God created the universe, science (4) is honor-bound to promote a lie. Instead of eliminating bias, it embraces it to its very core, a formula for folly. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” (Psalm 14:1)
5. Science, is also a sort of secular magisterium, which makes pronouncements with authority. As such it is made up of the current consensus or majority view of “scientists” and “scholars,” powerful titles. If science (1) boasts a purity of method, its cousin of the same name is every bit as pure as the human heart: politics, ideology personal ambition, wishful thinking are frequently well represented in the mix.
6. Finally, science is also an idol, worshipped by masses complete with temples, priesthood, and mythology. Prominent in that mythology is its cosmogony, and modern secular religion is a vast improvement over man’s earlier efforts to flee from God (Romans 1). Polytheistic idolatry was some help, making for gods we could at least try to manipulate. Deism freed us from everything about God but his creative power, but it never really succeeded, never caught on with the masses. With the advent of Darwin, however, the endless human quest found its greatest technological breakthrough. The idea of human descent from animals can be traced as far back as the ancient Greeks, with Darwin the times were right in terms of popular willingness, and Darwin’s presentation that gave it a “truthy” quality. Darwinism does not require atheism; it just makes the world safe for atheism. For diehards it’s still possible to fit God in anywhere there is a little extra room. He just doesn’t have that much to do anymore, a lame duck deity.
It is surprising that Snoke criticises his young-earth opponents for a cynical view of “science” and scientists (whether a conspiracy theory or a shared world-view), when he daily swims in the waters of a system with a radical commitment to deep falsehood. Some of his statements suggest that the intelligent design argument will triumph given enough time. Perhaps he would be right, if evidence and logic were really what mattered.
There is even authorized mythology for what might be thought of as our realm as Christians. An entire alternative history for the development of Judaism and Christianity as well as for the origin of the Scriptures is fashioned for us from the stuff of evolution, and it is touted as what educated people believe. Acceptance of these constructions in preference to the Bible’s own account is a large part of what we mean by theological liberalism.
Snoke is absolutely right to point out that an old earth view is not equal to evolution, but mind-numbing antiquity is essential to the evolutionary system. What is essentially none other than spontaneous generation and other absurdities have plenty of room to hide in eons past. Given enough time, who can say what might not happen? Maybe Professor Snoke can tease out a thread of pure science (1) from this tangled mess, but it is more than I can say with confidence. Guilt by association? Admittedly.
Does his view tend toward liberalism? Not by logical necessity, surely, but I cannot confidently say that it does not in practice. Many of those who have found themselves in the day-age camp, and, even more to the point, in the local flood camp hold their positions because they just cannot bring themselves to believe the more traditional interpretations, no matter what they see the text as teaching. Snoke differs from them in finding a way to harmonize these with a text that at first blush appears to suggest something else. However, it is here that lies the justification for my “smoke and mirrors” word play, as I think his treatment of the text will simply not fly. This, of course, is a matter for another post.
I discovered Intelligent Design.
Shades of Al Gore! No, I don’t mean to claim such a distinction for myself. However, while I am musing though Professor David Snoke’s A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, I thought I’d take a discursus from my rantings for a moment and present a personal view.
A dyed-in-the-wool non-evolutionist, in the mid-90’s I had occasion to review my thinking on the subject. A college biology class I was taking suggested evidence of descent from certain seaweeds to land plants based on a shared form of chlorophyll. I recall pondering for some time whether there might not be something to ol’ Chuck Darwin after all.
Fortunately, my microbiology class cured me of such wanton open-mindedness once and for all. It was learning about the inner workings of the “simple cell,” the microscopic unit that is the sine qua non of life. I became an instant admirer of its macro-molecules, particularly the proteins and the nucleic acids. I want to tell you about them, but I hardly know which should come first. And that’s just the point! Neither one can exist or has any reason to exist unless the other is fully in place.
I think, however, that proteins are my favorite. In their vast diversity, each is composed of the same kit of constituent amino acids, numbering a mere twenty (like an alphabet), everything depending on the order of their combination. Assembled randomly, they give you a nice inert blob. Yet if done cleverly, the mere sequence of micro-Tinkertoys turns into the most amazing little contraptions. They are described according to four structures: primary is the precise order of amino-acids, placed one after another like beads on a string. Secondary structure comes about as the differing acids exert influence on the others, this one having say a strategically-placed sulphur atom that pulls on its neighbors; so stretches of the filament coil into a tubes or lay down broad zig-zags to form sheets. These fold upon themselves guided by sticky charges here and there to form distinctive units, the tertiary structure. One of these may be enough to function on its own, or it may clump together with a few other units (its quaternary structure) to form a molecular machine.
Thus are formed the polypeptides, the enzymes in the cell. One might grab onto two ends of a vitamin molecule and snap off the useful bit. Another forms a channel through the cell membrane, locked to all but those molecules sporting the requisite key. Others unzip the DNA, or untwist it, or guard the spinning helix against supercoiling. Some function as cable cars and elevators, shifting this and that around the cell interior. A few serve as mini-motors, causing flagella or cilia to whip around or rotate. There are literally myriads of such tiny engines in the cells of living creatures.
Ending up with the right enzyme boils down to the matter of correctly “spelling” an extremely long word. Not to worry, instructions are included. That would be the nucleic acid. Our most familiar variety is the famous double helix formed from chains of nucleotides, each composed of a sugar shorn of an oxygen (deoxyribose), a phosphate, one of four “bases.” These four are a pair of couples, really, each one dancing only with the one that “brung ‘em,” whether they are leading or following. Four is a tad skimpy for an alphabet, so the DNA works by code, three “letters” at a time (a bit like Hebrew, now that you mention it). That makes 64 possibilities, if I did the math right, more than enough for an alphabet, punctuation and maybe some function keys. Each triliteral “codon” decodes into one of the twenty amino acids, or into signals, such as start or stop, though some trios which seem to be skipped over like”silent” letters. Within a particular section of DNA, known as a “gene,” the sequence of codons matches the sequence of amino acids in a protein, and so reading the one, “spells” the other.
How is this accomplished? Much smaller clover-shaped molecules, built from a slightly different type of nucleic acid, RNA serves as links from one to the other. On one end, a particular type has its own version of the trio, this time the three significant others of each base in a DNA codon. On the other end of the clover leaf is a spot that has a particular fondness for the specific amino acid signalled by the codon. As a result, each time three bases are unzipped, the appropriate tRNA jumps in and sticks to the zipper, places its designated “bead” on the protein string, and then falls off. Little by little, one step at a time, you’ve got your microscopic mechanical marvel.
Pondering all this, what completely flabbergasted me, is that anyone in his/her right mind could imagine this intricate interworking as anything but deliberately engineered. As I stated above, one part makes no sense without the other. And none of it does anything without at least some sort of quorum of constituents present. You need DNA to make the proteins, and you need proteins to work the DNA.
During these days I was driving home and I tuned the radio to a talk show. The guest was telling the host about some amazing molecular machines, and he was using terms like “irreducible complexity” and “intelligent design.” I nearly drove off the road! The radio voice was either Michael Behe or William Dembski; I can’t remember which, but he was putting into powerful words what I had had only vague notions of. It was the first time I had heard the concept of “intelligent design,” but I had already been on board for months.
Intelligent design is a cogent argument that intellectually sends Darwin his pink slip. It is perfectly logical and scientific, though this has not prevented its being derided as pseudoscience by detractors. On the popular level, it is mistakenly confused with the much broader concept of creationism, a movement with a thousand faces. I see this mistake repeated constantly, by both creationism opponents and by creationism advocates alike.
Reading the daily idiot forum, AKA letters to the editor, you find all kinds of blather on the subject, very seldom from individuals who know what they are talking about. It is strange times we live in where ignorance and prejudice come to the rescue of “science.”
Distressing as well, is indications within Professor Snoke’s book that between ID advocates and more traditional creationists there appears to be a great gulf fixed, and perhaps widening. I understand this is due in part to the old-earth, young-earth controversy. If you’ve been reading these posts, you know I have a point of view in the matter, but goodness, folks, Darwin has not yet left the building. I think we might want to stick together for the moment, not sacrificing convictions, but recognizing comrades in arms.
I can understand why some may find themselves in the old-earth camp. Thanks to ID, you can be a non-evolutionist, never even having read Genesis, and also holding your head up high as a practitioner of the scientific method. Granted you’re not going to become a young-earther by science alone, without influence of special revelation. I get it. I do think the balance favors creation of the universe in 144 hours, but I am not as stuck on it as Professor Snoke appears to be on his millions of years. I have some remarks on the text to make, and some reaction to Snoke’s translation of it, but these must wait for another post.
Before discussing points of disagreement, it is well to underscore significant areas where I agree with his assertions. First, intelligent design makes for a cogent and compelling argument against evolution. He states that it undermines Darwinism, and I wholeheartedly agree that it does conceptually. Whether it will do so on any widespread basis within the scientific community, I am perhaps less sanguine than Snoke, as I see Darwin adherence more a religious than a scientific practice.
Early on the morning following the wedding, you take the item and wrap it carefully in your cloak. Your journey will take you many miles from the town of Cana, but you are very fortunate that the brother in law of your best friend’s cousin is the most renown expert in the art of winemaking this side of Jerusalem, and he is a mere two hours’ ride by donkey. He will surely get to the bottom of this mystery.
Arriving at his home, you introduce yourself and explain the purpose of your journey. Bemused he is that one would travel so far with such fervor just to have his opinion on a little bit of wine, but he is always happy to hold forth on his favorite subject, and yes he would gladly provide you with the benefit of his opinion.
You produce a small flask, and he is at once struck by the deep regal color. Removing the stopper, he is charmed by the heady aroma which fills the room. Pouring a small amount into a glass, he swirls it, observing the subtle interplay of iridescent hues in the fruity vortex. Gently wafting the glass before him he inhales the fragrance, and then ventures a taste. His eyes betray a wonder, no, an awe, at what his palate is savoring. Another sip, and he is lost in admiration, pondering the wonder that this unexpected visitor has carried with him this forenoon.
“You ask me to judge, perhaps to identify this wine. I confess, I cannot, and to this moment I thought myself intimately acquainted with every wine known in this half of the empire. It is I who must beg of you to tell me the origin of this heavenly liquid, for I have tasted nothing so exquisite in these two and forty years in my art. It has a boldness that is yet in harmony with gentleness and a certain insouciance. Hints I detect of pomegranate and frankincense, with a suggestion of lilly of the valley.”
The morning moves into midday and early afternoon, and still the old man muses over the content of his cup, lovingly savoring it drop by drop. He invites you, his new very dear friend, to dine with him, and over his simple but tasteful fare, he elocutes regarding vintages he has known, the culture of grapes, favorable seasons for the production of sugar and its early fermentation. “If I had to venture a guess,” he dares at last, “I would say its excellence most closely recalls a 23 from the slopes of Carmel, or perhaps a 27, but this wine has clearly aged beautifully, and a twenty-seven would not allow for this.”
“You say the wine has definitely been aged?”
“Oh, unquestionably, young man. Without the slightest doubt it could not be less than seven years of age. Its complexity–a certain maturity, I might say profundity–are unmistakable signs. Yes, of this you can be sure. I’d stake my reputation on it.”
“Why, sir, what would you say if I were to tell you that this wine never existed prior to yesterday evening?”
His face darkening, a storm cloud passing over it, he replies, “I would say, young man, that it is an unseemly thing to mock an old man–and one’s host.”
Your assurances of sincerity, your fervent assurance that you are in earnest, your most enthusiastic retelling of the wonder you witnessed only the night before can do nothing to persuade the expert. You, a servant in attendance at the wedding in Cana, you saw the man from Capernaum transform water into–this wine–yesterday. Yet, nothing in art nor science will give credence to your ridiculous claim. It is scientifically impossible.
*******
The preceding is my parabolic way of of introducing a discussion stimulated by A Biblical Case for an Old Earth by David Snoke, assistant professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Pittsburgh and an elder at City Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA). He takes a “day-age” approach to the Genesis creation account, which allows for what he finds to be convincing scientific evidence that our world is millions of years old. He chiefly takes issue with certain voices within the “young-earth” creationism movement.
Intriguing as his argument is, I do not think that his conclusion comprises the best solution to the problem. While I do not find myself within the school of thought that makes up his primary conceptual opponents, I do favor a more traditional six-day creation. There is much that ought to be said, however, in reaction to his work, and God willing, I will offer my thoughts in a series of posts.
My somewhat anachronistic illustration of the water-become-wine is intended to pinpoint what I believe to be the central error in Professor Snokes’ reasoning. We are not told much about Jesus’ wine except that it was the best of the wedding feast (John 2:10), though I have imagined it as celestial. Whatever its qualities, it came to be in an instant, though surely nothing in science, no spectroscopy , no chemical analysis, no electron microscope could have confirmed its true age.
The previous chapter in John recalls one of Jesus’ earlier works, the universe. To what extent the cosmos was also fashioned pret a porter we are not informed in detail, though Snoke does recognize that in Adam we are presented with an adult male in the prime of life, who moments before had been a pile of dust. It was the chicken, accordingly, that came first, not the egg. In fact if I understand Snoke correctly, he would agree that every species of living thing in its initial creation appeared by fiat in full maturity, old-seeming, though eons of time separate such divine acts.
Snoke makes room for this concept, a bit late in his conceptual game in my opinion. He refers to it as an “appearance of age,” a idea which he considers to have intellectual respectability, though he takes a different view. In fact his treatment of the word “appearance” remains somewhat dismissive throughout his book, yet he never truly deals with the idea, except to make a few disobliging comparisons.
In fact though nodding to the notion, he fails to recognize its true import. It remains, however, the fly in his concordantist ointment. Why I assert that this is so I will develop, D.V., in my next post.
A few remarks on the book of Revelation, the genesis of which goes back to a conversation I had with a Bible translator many years ago. Since Revelation is notoriously difficult to interpret, I remarked that it must also be difficult to translate. To my surprise, he answered that no, it was just about the easiest book. Why is this? To truly translate a text means first interpreting it. Why should this not hold for Revelation?
It then hit me that in Revelation we are faced with one type of communication embededed in a completely different type. The first is the visionary experience with its esoteric content, representative imagery, and abundant scriptural allusions. The second is the literary framework around it, consisting of John’s report of this visionary experience. In the latter the action is simple and highly concrete: seeing, hearing, speaking, animals, weather, and so on. It is with the former, the elaborate visual panorama that John witnessed that the true difficulty in interpretation lies. John is the author of the framework (under inspiration), but the authorship of the vision, if we are to believe the text, is divine.
It seems to me that the above observation is the absolutely essential starting place for any true understanding of Revelation. However, it is decidedly not where the majority of scholarship starts, because the book’s self description is not taken by these interpreters at face value. This is a matter for a separate post, but the prevailing conception entails an appeal to “apocalyptic genre,” which essentially treats the book as false prophecy.
So the interpretive task for revelation, though involving literary analysis, mainly lies elsewhere. Standard literary criticism, as if the intricate details of Revelation were carefully crafted by John, is sure to lead us astray, since he himself is a recipient of the communication act and may himself have limited understanding of the contents. We are assured that “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1: 20-21) Antisupernatural bias will prove a stumbling block for dealing with Revelation, whether in terms of the liberal scholar who discounts both inspiration and the prophetic or the cessationist conservative, who holds a “high view” of the Scriptures, but has little use for dreams and visions.
Yet Scripture gives us guidance even with these. Numbers 12:6-8 provides insight into the prophetic process: “If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord.” The revelation John receives is of both kinds: he sees Jesus, his own dear friend during his days in the flesh, now exalted and glorified, and he is also given a panoramic puzzle, a “riddle” in the terms of Numbers 12.
A prophet is required to faithfully report the Lord’s message, but may not himself be able to fully interpret it. “The prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.” (1 Peter 1:10-11)
We need to look at how dream and vision is to be interpreted, and this means listening to Joseph and Daniel. When Joseph’s fellow prisoners were faced with dreams to interpret, he said to them, “Do not interpretations belong to God? Please tell them to me.” (Genesis 40:8). When Pharaoh asks him to interpret his dream, he replies: “It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer.” (Genesis 41:16) Daniel speaks similarly to Nebuchadnezzar: “No wise men, enchanters, magicians, or astrologers can show to the king the mystery that the king has asked, but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days. (Daniel 2:27-28)
Both Joseph and Daniel went on to explain much of what was revealed through others through a gift of interpretation operating through them. A similar situation occurs with tongues in the New Testament: “Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.” (1 Corinthians 14:13) In interpretation of this type, standard critical tools, analysis of sources, considering the sitz im leben and such have limited usefulness. The prophesy has an interpretation, which is a mystery in God’s own keepting, and yet it is intended to be known at least in part by God’s people, through the Holy Spirit: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” (Revelation 2:11)
Having an ear to hear begins with paying careful attention. “Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.” (Hebrews 2:1) There is decreasing clarity as we move from the words of any prophecy, to interpretation, then to application, then to timing. What is primordial in the process and open to all is close observation of the text. “You see but you do not observe,” Sherlock Holmes chides, and the same is true of even standard exegesis. For the book of Revelation it is perhaps truer, if that is possible, than for other books of the Bible: our primary task is being as thoroughly familiar as we can be with the particulars of the prophecy.
Prophetic words are to be meditated on, mulled over, prayed about, watched for. Mary remembered the prophetic words and events from Jesus childhood, and she “treasured up all these things in her heart.” (Luke 2:51) Some aspects may be known ahead of time, but the total picture ultimately awaits the time of its fulfillment.
This is why it is absurd to argue about the interpretation of a predictive prophecy before its fulfillment, because only then can its meaning be definitively known. Many of the prophecies about the coming of Jesus were not even recognized as prophecies in advance, e.g. “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew 2:15) Despite their careful inquiry the prophets did not put it all together about him. Was “the prophet” (Deuteronomy 18:15) the same as the Annointed One? (Daniel 9:25-26) Are these the same as the Suffering Servant? (Isaiah 53) They did not know the answers, and they were not meant to know. They were simply not given enough pieces of the puzzle.
Yet we are welcomed to try and tease out the details. “It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out. ” (Proverbs 25:2). Sometimes there is even an invitation: “This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast.” (Revelation 13:18) “When you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be (let the reader understand)…” (Mark 13:14) Yet ultimately the purpose of the prophecy is not to give us all the details of the future, but for another reason.
Paul tells us that prophecy is for “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.” (1 Corinthians 14:3). Peter was given a prophecy by Jesus about “what kind of death he was to glorify God.” (John 21:19) He did not know by this prophecy the day of his death, but he did know: (1) that his own desire to follow the Lord even to the death would be fulfilled by God’s power, though Peter himself had failed (c.f. John 13:37), (2) that God would perfect his love in Peter (1 John 2:5, 4:12, 17-18; c.f John 21:15-17), (3) that he was indistructible until that day (c.f. Acts 12:5-6). Would such knowledge give strength and courage?
Perhaps Peter looked in the mirror from time to time looking for gray hairs since the prophecies were for when he was “old?” Keeping an eye on the times around us is an obvious sign that we take the prophecy seriously. It is quite a different thing to place too much confidence on charts and schedules, since we just may have a few of our interpretations a bit off.
The book of Revelation is meant to edify, encourage, and console believers as we wait for Jesus’ return. Joining together in considering how it is may be fulfilled accordingly ought to be a source of fellowship, not of discord, “for we know in part and we prophesy in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9). Teaching Revelation therefore needs to focus on knowing the text well, with interpretation playing a secondary and always tentative role.
