by James B. Jordan   |   Biblical Horizons No. 255, August 2015

On what grounds do men reject the historicity of Genesis 1?

Just as the majority of evangelical Christians in America today are Arminian and Baptist, so the majority do not believe in a creation around 4000BC. I don’t expect any of these three situations to change anytime soon. Powerful presuppositions are at work in all three instances.

To cut it down to the most basic: It is clear that Genesis 1 narrates the creation of the world in six quite ordinary days, each day having a quite ordinary evening and morning, the days following one another to form a week. It is also clear that Genesis 5 and 11 form a chronology from creation to Abram. That’s the prima facie obvious reading of the text, and so the text was read by the Jews and by Christians for 3000+ years.

On what grounds do men reject the historicity of Genesis 1? One can assert simply that we now know that the world is older than 4000 years, and that the universe did not come into existence in six days; and then on the basis of such assumptions reinterpret Genesis 1. It is to the credit of most evangelical and Reformed expositors that such an argument is not satisfactory. The only possible Biblical argument for taking Genesis 1 in some other way must arise from the text itself, or other places in the Bible that rather clearly indicate that Genesis 1 is not to be taken as an historical account.

Thus, it is asserted that there are indications in Genesis 1 itself that the passage is not to be taken “literally,” indications overlooked by previous generations because they were not giving full attention to the text. The asseverations of “modern science” have forced us to look at the text anew, and now we find contradictions in the text that indicate that it is not to be taken as an historical account.

We can summarize these evidences of ahistoricality as follows. First, it is said that the creation of light on the first day contradicts the creation of the sun on the fourth. This argument cannot stand since the Bible presents the Shekinah light of God as the archetype of which the sun is but a copy. The light that was “let be” on the first day was the light of the Spirit. There is no Biblical ground for asserting a conflict between day 1 and day 4.

Second, it is said that all the plants were made on the third day, while at the time Adam was created there were still plants to be made. This contradiction is again illusory. Genesis 1 very carefully states only that grain plants and fruiting trees were made on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that at the time Adam was created certain other plants had not yet been created, and that the grain plants had not yet sprouted ears of grain. There is no contradiction in the text.

Third, it is said that the sixth day involves too much activity for one mere day. Not so. All the events could easily have been finished by noon.

Fourth, it is said that the sabbath day is unending. Here again, this is a mere assertion. The notion that the seventh day is unending has no support in the Bible. The Bible often speaks of “eighth” days. In any event, this has nothing to do with the lengths and character of the other days, which are specified as having mornings and evenings.

Finally, it is asserted that the firmament of the second day must be a hard shell over the earth, which we now know does not exist, and thus must be symbolic. This assertion ignores the facts (a) that a firmament in Hebrew is not always a hard shell, and (b) that the Bible often speaks of the firmament as a chamber as well as a layer, which comports perfectly with the statement that on day 4 God placed the sun, moon, planets, and stars within the firmament chamber.

These five asserted problems in Genesis 1 are then supplemented by observations on the literary structure of the passage, as if literary structure were somehow in conflict with historicity – an assumption so preposterous that it is never baldly stated.

In conclusion, the supposed indications that Genesis 1 is not to be taken historically prove on scant inspection to be chimaeras.

But what difference does it really make? I submit that ultimately the entire Christian faith stands or falls on how Genesis 1 is interpreted, and that the guardians of the Church must take an unequivocal stance on this matter.

The issue is hermeneutics and religion. Since these “contradictions” in Genesis 1 serve to indicate that this passage is not to be taken historically, the only alternative is to take the passage as giving some kind of archetype for creation by God. It is a foundational “myth,” expressing in “human language” matters that cannot be expressed any other way. It is a true myth in that the ideas taught in Genesis 1 are true.

And this is where the shift from true religion to gnosticism comes in. History has been replaced by ideas.

Now, with the care of a man selecting a meal from a smorgasbord, evangelicals who reject the historicity of Genesis 1 insist on the historicity of later passages in the Bible. In this happy inconsistency they rest – but for how long?

Let us turn to two other seemingly historical events in the Bible and apply the hermeneutical principles of our gnostic-influenced brethren. The first to which we turn is the ten plagues visited on Egypt.

First of all, we note that 20th century historians of the ancient world cannot find any evidence of a vast host of people leaving Egypt at the time the Bible says it happened. Moreover, according to the text of Exodus, all the Egyptian crops and cattle were destroyed, along with the Egyptian army and a large number of Egypt’s sons. Modern “scientific” archaeology and history finds no such event. Therefore, we have to look at the text of Exodus anew. Maybe these events never really happened. Maybe they are just a “true myth,” providing archetypical “ideas” that undergirded God’s relationship with Israel.

Well, do we find any indications in the text that the ten plagues are only a story, that they never really happened? Yes, we do. According to Exodus 9:6, all the livestock of Egypt died in the 5th plague, but according to 9:19, there were still more livestock to be killed in the 7th plague. Also, according to Exodus 8:22, the insects destroyed all of Egypt, clearly including the plants, while in 9:31, the flax and barley were destroyed later on in the 7th plague, and then in 10:15, the locusts ate all the remaining plants. These are much clearer contradictions than anything found in Genesis 1. And to these we may add that repeatedly Pharaoh says he will let the people go, and then changes his mind. How likely is this?

Well, since we have found such clear indications that these plagues are not to be taken as real history, do we find a literary framework to posit as some kind of alternative? Certainly. There are three groups of three plagues, and then a 10th. The first plague in each cycle begins with a command to go to Pharaoh in the morning. The second in each cycle begins with a command simply to go to Pharaoh. The third in each cycle is not announced to Pharaoh at all. The first three plagues are brought by Aaron’s staff, while the last three are brought by Moses’ hand. Etc. So, we have a clear literary structure.

Of course, traditional expositors have suggested ways around the “contradictions” in the historical narrative of the ten plagues, but if we are going to let the interpretation of Genesis 1 be our guide, we may not try to get around these contradictions. Rather, we must let them be indicators that these events never really happened. The plagues on Egypt were not historical events, but are a foundational and archetypal myth for the nation of Israel, just as the six days of Genesis are a foundational and archetypal myth for the whole universe.

Now let us turn to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Repeating our Genesis 1 procedure, we note first of all that “scientific” historians can find no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. Josephus says nothing about it, and neither does any other “unbiased” source. So, maybe it never happened. We must inspect the text anew.

Do we find contradictions that indicate that the resurrection never happened? Of course we do! The four gospels are in obvious conflict with one other regarding the events of Easter morning. Of course, traditional expositors try to harmonize these four accounts, as John Wenham does in his book Easter Enigma, but we should let the contradictions stand as they are, for they indicate to us that we are not dealing with what we think of as history at all. Only someone afflicted with “common sense realism” would think that these are historical accounts.

So, seeing that there are contradictions in the text, do we find literary structures that indicate the real meaning of the text? Certainly. In John, for instance, Jesus’ tomb is presented as a holy of holies with the slab on which He lay as an Ark-cover with two angels at either end. Moreover, Jesus appears as Gardener in a new Edenic garden in John. Thus, John is giving us theology, ideas, not history. It has been argued that the resurrection of Jesus differs from creation events in that the Bible presents human witnesses and testimony (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). Well, the creation events were witnessed by the angels (Job 38:4-7), and what we have in Genesis 1 and the rest of the first creation is the testimony of angels (Hebrews 2:2; Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; 4:1-7). The angels were there during creation week. They saw it happen. They, or one of them, or the Angel of Yahweh, revealed this information to whoever wrote Genesis 1, perhaps Noah.

And here my essay concludes. If we approach the Bible the way the ahistorical interpreters of Genesis 1 want us to, the Christian religion eventually disappears into gnosticism. By the same token, if we take other passages of the Bible in their obvious historical sense, and resolve seeming contradictions in the way the Church has always done, then we must do the same with Genesis 1.

The “framework hypothesis” and its brethren import to the Bible a hermeneutics completely alien to the Christian religion. Our faith is based in facts, historical facts: the acts of God in history, in creation, redemption, and new-creation. The faith of the gnostic is in ideas about eternal matters.

Our conclusion is that these modern approaches to Genesis 1 are badly wrong. Not that those advocating them are heretics, for they with happy inconsistency retain most of the Christian religion. But if their hermeneutical procedure is allowed standing within the Church, their disciples will in time carry forth their error consistently, and the faith will be lost. Thus it has ever been.

__________________________________
Photo by Brian Moats, Theopolis Institute.

Judges isn’t a story about Israelites refusing a king. It is a story about attempts to exalt a man as king and the catastrophic results of those attempts.

From the blog of Mark Horne: Solomon Says.

The book of Judges is not a lesson in how Israel needed a king. It is the opposite.

I’m not saying that Judges rules out the possibility that a righteous king could have helped with some of Israel’s problems. Moses had allowed that the tribes of Israel might choose a king in the future, and gave them God’s rules for a king (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).

But Judges isn’t a story about Israelites refusing a king. It is a story about attempts to exalt a man as king and the catastrophic results of those attempts. From the story of Gideon onward, Judges is a history of rulers who began toying with dynastic ambitions. Then the book ends with two horrific stories. In those stories we meet the statement, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 19:25 ESV; see also 18:1; 19:1). But those stories are about degenerate Levites and come at the end of a history of God stopping his chosen judges from becoming kings.

By the way, after David and Solomon, I don’t see any evidence that Israel (divided into two kingdoms) was more righteous or civilized than the time of the judges. My sense of it is that there were more bad kings before (and leading to) the exile than there were bad judges before Saul. If I’m right, then the common reading of Judges requires more explanation to even make sense.

My understanding of a king is someone who holds a hereditary office. A king’s heir will be king if he outlives his father. At the time of Judges, Israel was ruled, above the level of local clans, by judges 1. who gained a reputation as faithful teachers and arbitrators, and 2. who assumed executive powers in times of national emergency.

The Framework of the Story of Judges

Looking at Judges as a unified book, it begins with two overviews: the first of the initial conquest and compromises with the Canaanites and the second explaining the cycle of judgment for idolatry (1:1-2:5 / 2:6-3:6). It ends, as I mentioned above, with two stories, one about an idolatrous Levite and then another about a Levite and the extermination of one of Israel’s own tribes (chapters 17 & 18 / 19-21). Interestingly, the first overview contains the tale of a marriage and the last story begins and ends with marriages as well.

Between those brackets, there is a history of Israel’s judges. For my purposes I will skip over Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, and Deborah & Barak and deal with Gideon.

Gideon the Turning Point

The role of Gideon in permanently altering the history and culture of Israel may be signified by him being the first judge raised up by a personal visitation by the Angel of the Lord (6:11). Gideon is a faithful judge who delivers Israel from the Midianites. In the glow of victory, however, he doesn’t stay completely on the right track.

Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, “Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson also, for you have saved us from the hand of Midian.” Gideon said to them, “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the LORD will rule over you.” And Gideon said to them, “Let me make a request of you: every one of you give me the earrings from his spoil.” (For they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.) And they answered, “We will willingly give them.” And they spread a cloak, and every man threw in it the earrings of his spoil. And the weight of the golden earrings that he requested was 1,700 shekels of gold, besides the crescent ornaments and the pendants and the purple garments worn by the kings of Midian, and besides the collars that were around the necks of their camels. And Gideon made an ephod of it and put it in his city, in Ophrah. And all Israel whored after it there, and it became a snare to Gideon and to his family. So Midian was subdued before the people of Israel, and they raised their heads no more. And the land had rest forty years in the days of Gideon.

Judges 8:22–28 ESV

Gideon, though he fought against false gods, established a shrine for idolatry in Israel. (I am sure it was treated as a way to worship the God of Israel, not the god of the Canaanites, but it was still a violation of God’s law. The only place for authorized worship was the Tabernacle.)

But the story shows another problem. Gideon had correctly refused to start a ruling dynasty: “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the LORD will rule over you.” But he was inconsistent. He had 70 sons. How? The text doesn’t make us speculate about marrying a female superhero: “Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring, for he had many wives” (Judges 8:30 ESV). Additionally, he married a concubine who stayed in her hometown, which Gideon ruled from afar. He named his son by her Abimelech, “My father is king.”

Gideon obviously was still holding on to dreams of regal status. And, in doing so, he was violating a rule given by Moses to all future kings: “And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:17 ESV). Gideon wasn’t just acting like a king, but like a pagan king. He set a precedent that led to the fall of Solomon.

Abimelech used his royal status to convince his people he would be preferable to rule by Gideon’s other sons. He then massacred all his brothers, with only one escaping. Gideon’s dynastic ambition led to murder and civil war.

Who Wants to Be King?

One surviving half-brother of Abimelech spoke publicly about him in a parable:

The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, “Reign over us.” But the olive tree said to them, “Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees?’ And the trees said to the fig tree, ‘You come and reign over us.” But the fig tree said to them, “Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees?” And the trees said to the vine, “You come and reign over us.” But the vine said to them, “Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?” Then all the trees said to the bramble, “You come and reign over us.” And the bramble said to the trees, “If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.”

Judges 9:8–15 ESV

In the context, this parable was aimed at Abimelech and those who thought they were wise to support him in his coup. It basically says that productive people are too busy producing to rule over other men. Unproductive people want the power and end up destroying the productive. His prediction came true and Abimelech destroyed many.

Is this the kind of story that you put in a book about how Israel needed a king?

The Dynastic Ambition

Despite the ruinous results of Gideon’s inconsistency, other judges followed his example by attempting dynasties. Nothing bad is said about the next judge, Tola, but then:

After him arose Jair the Gileadite, who judged Israel twenty-two years. And he had thirty sons who rode on thirty donkeys, and they had thirty cities, called Havvoth-jair to this day, which are in the land of Gilead. And Jair died and was buried in Kamon.

Judges 10:3–5 ESV

Later, a couple of other judges followed the same practice. Ibzan “had thirty sons, and thirty daughters he gave in marriage outside his clan, and thirty daughters he brought in from outside for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years” (Judges 12:9 ESV). And, after the judge Elon, Abdon “had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkeys, and he judged Israel eight years” (Judges 12:14 ESV).

In fact, the pattern of the story from Gideon to Abdon is organized around dynastic ambitions. It forms what is called a “chiasm.”

The Story of Jephthah

Jephthah is the tale of a marginalized outsider who ended up delivering his hometown and ruling over it. It is a wonderful story, rendered incomprehensible to us by the idea that he slaughtered his daughter as a human sacrifice (Judges 11.29-40). I am not going to argue it here, but I don’t think the word translated “burnt offering” (that doesn’t say burnt or offering in the Hebrew) refers to human sacrifice. Yes, if you have a certain kind of sacrifice on the altar, it is referred to by that word. But this is a different context.

Rather than think Jephthah was someone who would casually offer the murder of one of his household, we ought to be amazed that, unlike Gideon and others, he was not trying to be a king. He had one and only one daughter. He had refused to violate the rule made for kings.

But he still wanted to be king and he wanted God’s permission. So He promised God the first person who came out to meet him–which would mean he (or she) would become a servant to the Tabernacle. Obviously, he was hoping the person would be one of his servants. But that wasn’t what God wanted.

His daughter mourned her future without a husband and children, not her alleged impending death. She would become a Tabernacle servant and never be married. Jephthah’s line was at an end.

The Structure of Judges Hinges on Gideon’s Sin

Here is a chiasm I got from James B. Jordan:

For those who want more data, Jim Jordan’s commentary is unbeatable. Also, his chiastic analysis is found here. I relied on it and copied most of it, though I interpret Jephthah’s dynastic aspirations a bit more positively.

“No King in Israel”

As Judges says, God is supposed to be the king. The failure is pinned, to the extent that a single failure is responsible for national sin, on the perverse Levites. Levites were the tribe of pastors and teachers in Israel. When they failed, there ceased to be a king in Israel. The last two stories are meant to explain why Israel was without a king. The Levites were supposed to teach the people that God was their king.

It defies the entire message of the book to interpret Judges as claiming that Gideon of Jephthah or someone else was supposed to become a king.

So What about Your Kingdom?

In my book (Amazon, Kindle), I propose that Proverbs presupposes that we are all kings. Whatever Judges may teach us about society and law, it also has a message for each one of us. The autonomous quest for kingship led to civil war in Israel, and Solomon tells us that one finds real power in acknowledging God as king:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.
Be not wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.
It will be healing to your flesh
and refreshment to your bones.

Proverbs 3:5–8 ESV

By doing what Solomon says, you can become a unified ruler of yourself rather than one who is at war with himself because at war with God.

The book of Esther describes the fulfillment of the battle of Gog and Magog

An excerpt from “Esther in the Midst of Covenant History” by James B. Jordan (2001)

The battle of Gog and Magog is found in Ezekiel 38-39. Ezekiel presents the destruction of Jerusalem as simultaneously a judgment on the whole world (Ezekiel 24-33). After this, he prophesies that the people will return to the land. Sometime after this there would be a time of trouble and the land would be invaded by an army made up of many peoples under the leadership of Prince Gog. In my book Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World I followed many older commentators in referring this to the invasion of the land by Antiochus Epiphanes.

After this huge battle, a new Temple is built out of the spoils. This follows the pattern of victory followed by house building that we see everywhere in the Bible. The Tabernacle was built of the spoils of Egypt, and the Temple of the spoils of the Philistines. Ezekiel’s Temple is described in a vision of sacred geometry, but it was intended to apply to the Restoration era. The actual building erected by Joshua and Zerubbabel (Haggai 1-2; Zechariah 1-6) and glorified by Ezra was the literal fulfillment of the visions of Ezekiel 40-48. The changes in sacrificial administration set out in these visions were implemented in the Restoration Temple. I noted in Through New Eyes that this was the view of Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, and E. W. Hengstenberg.

I wasn’t quite happy with this, since it puts the battle of Gog and Magog out of sequence. Antiochus Epiphanes invaded the land years after the Temple was initially rebuilt and then made glorious. Is there another event that better fits as the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-30? I believe there is. I suggest that the book of Esther describes the fulfillment of the battle of Gog and Magog.

Let me make a detour into Zechariah. Zechariah sees the Kingdom in the form of a grove of myrtle trees (Zech. 1:8). It is significant that Esther’s original Hebrew name, Hadassah, is the word for “myrtle” (Esth. 2:7). Moreover, Zechariah prophesies the events of Esther in Zechariah 2:8-9. He states that after the Glory of God had moved back into the Temple, the nations would seek to plunder Israel. God would wave His hand over them, however, so that they would be plundered by their slaves, those they were oppressing: Israel. This event would be a confirming seal to them that God had indeed reestablished the Covenant with them.

Of course, it is in Esther that we see a conspiracy to plunder the Jews, which backfires with the result that the Jews plundered their enemies. This event is then ceremonially sealed with the institution of the annual Feast of Purim. The book of Esther is frequently overlooked in the Old Testament, and its meaning has been widely debated. If my suggestion is correct, however, we now have a good idea of its purpose and place in the canon.

With this in mind, we can look back at Ezekiel. Ezekiel 34 states that God will act as Good Shepherd to Israel, and will bring them back into the land. He continues this theme in Ezekiel 36, saying that God will make a new covenant with Israel. The inauguration of this new covenant, which we can call the Restoration Covenant, is described in Zechariah 3, where God removes the filth from Joshua the High Priest and restores the Temple and priesthood. Of course, Ezekiel’s language in Ezekiel 36:25-27 is picked up in the New Testament and applied to the New Covenant, but we need to understand that the first fulfillment of his words was in the Restoration Covenant, which was of course a type of the New Covenant.

Ezekiel continues in Ezekiel 37 with the vision of the valley of dry bones. The Spirit of God would be given in greater measure than ever before (though of course not as great as at Pentecost in Acts 2), and the result would be a restoration of the people. No longer would there be a cultural division between Judah and Ephraim, but all would be together as a new people. (Their new name as a whole would be “Judahite, Jew.”)

At this point, Ezekiel describes the attack of Gog, Prince of Magog, and his confederates. Ezekiel states that people from all the world will attack God’s people, who are pictured dwelling at peace in the land. God’s people will completely defeat them, however, and the spoils will be immense. The result is that all nations will see the victory, and “the house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God from that day onward” (Ezk. 39:21-23). This is the same idea as we found in Zechariah 2:9, “Then you will know that Yahweh of hosts has sent Me,” which I argued above most likely refers to the events of Esther.

Chronologically this all fits very nicely. The events of Esther took place during the reign of Darius, after the initial rebuilding of the Temple under Joshua and Zerubbabel and shortly before rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah.

Nehemiah established a social polity among the people and rebuilt the physical walls of Jerusalem. Since Ezekiel 40-48 is concerned with the fullness of the Temple and also with the reconfiguration of the social polity of the land, it is possible to maintain that the central fulfillment of Ezekiel 40-48 is found in the labors of Nehemiah. It should be noted that the prophecy of Ezekiel 40-48 came in the first month of 572 B.C., exactly 70 years prior to Nehemiah’s request to Darius to go to Jerusalem. This fact should not be discounted, for there are several 70-year predictions operating in this period of history, as we saw in our studies in Daniel.

Thus, the interpretive hypothesis I am suggesting (until someone shoots it down) is this: Ezekiel 34-37 describes the first return of the exiles under Zerubbabel, and implies the initial rebuilding of the physical Temple. Ezekiel 38-39 describes the attack of Gog (Haman) and his confederates against the Jews. Finally, Ezekiel 40-48 describes in figurative language the situation as a result of the work of Nehemiah.

Looking at a few details, we see that the victory of the Jews over their enemies in Esther resulted in the deaths of 75,310 people (Esth. 9:10,15,16). This number of deaths is commensurate with the extent of the slaughter pictured in Ezekiel 38-39. The Jews were told that they might plunder those they slew (Esth. 8:11), but they did not take any of the plunder for their personal use (Esth. 9:10,15,16), which surely implies that it was regarded as holy and was sent to adorn the Temple.

Another interesting correspondence lies in the fact that the book of Esther repeatedly calls attention to the “127 provinces” of the Persian Empire, and in connection with the attack on the Jews, speaks of the “provinces which were from India to Cush” (Esth. 8:9). This goes well with the way Ezekiel 38 starts out, for there a number of nations are mentioned from all over the world, all of which were within the boundaries of the Persian Empire (Ezk. 38:1-6). In other words, the explicit idea that the Jews were attacked by people from all the provinces of Persia is in both passages.

Another possible cue is found in the prominent use of the Hebrew word for “multitude” in Ezekiel 39:11, 15, and 16. That word is hamon, which is spelled in Hebrew almost exactly like the name Haman. It was Haman, of course, who engineered the attack on the Jews in Esther. In Hebrew, both words have the same “tri-literal root” (hmn). Only the vowels are different. (Though in hamon, the vowel “o” is indicated by the vowel-letter vav.) According to Ezekiel 39:11 and 15, the place where the army of Gog is buried will be known as the Valley of Hamon-Gog, and according to verse 16, the nearby city will become known as Hamonah. Moreover, the words Agagite and Gog are the same in Hebrew, if we subtract the vowels and vowel-letters. Thus, in Hebrew consonants, Hamon-Gog and Haman the Agagite are identical. It seems to me that if I were a Jew living during the inter-testamental era, I would be struck by these correspondences, and they would cause me to consider whether or not they are related.

Yet another corroboration, to my mind, lies in the fact that Haman was an Amalekite. He was an “Agagite,” a descendant of the Amalekite king Agag who was captured by Saul and hacked to pieces by Samuel (1 Sam. 15; Esth. 3:1). What Esther records is the last great attack upon Israel by Amalek, and the final destruction of Amalek. Now, Numbers 24:20 states that “Amalek was the first of the nations, but his end shall be destruction.” The term “nation” is more closely associated with the Japhethites than with the Hamites or the Shemites. We don’t know which “nation” Amalek was, since it is not listed in Genesis 10, but it would seem to have been a Japhethite one.¹I disagree with Jim on the identity of Amalek. He notes below that Amalek is the name of one of Esau’s grandsons, presumably after this “nation” of Amalek, but I believe that this was in fact the original Amalek, and thus “first” means the firstborn of Jacob, a false brother who would trouble Israel until the end of the Old Covenant era, the Herods being “Idumeans” or Edomites. For more discussion, see Everlasting Arms.

At any rate, what is striking about Ezekiel 38 is that the nations listed as conspiring against Israel are Japhethite and Hamite nations seldom if ever mentioned outside the primordial list in Genesis 10. Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Beth-togarmah, Tarshish, and Gomer are all Japhethite nations from Genesis 10:2-4. Cush, Put, Sheba, and Dedan are Hamite peoples from Genesis 10:6-7. Thus, the notion is of a conspiracy of primordial peoples against the true remnant of the Shemites. This certainly squares well with the fact that Haman was the preeminent representative of Amalek, the first of the nations.

Moreover, Amalek is the name of one of Esau’s grandsons, a mighty chieftain (Gen. 36:16). As Genesis 36 shows, Esau’s sons and grandsons completely merged with the Horites of Mount Seir to become the semi-Canaanite nation of Edom. From Genesis 14:6-7 we learn that the hill country of the original Amalekites was close to the Horites of Mount Seir. By giving his son the name Amalek, Eliphaz, son of Esau, was clearly forging another link. Thereafter, the Amalekites are not only gentiles, but also Edomites. Haman in Esther is not only a spokesman of the gentile opposition to God, but also of the continuing hatred of Esau for Jacob.

The main argument against my hypothesis would be that Ezekiel 38-39 picture an invasion of the land of Israel, whereas the events of Esther happened throughout the Persian Empire. At present, this argument does not have much force with me because of the fact that this entire section of Ezekiel is so highly symbolic in tone anyway. Chapter 37 gives us the vision of the valley of dry bones, after all, and chapters 40-48 are a thoroughly geometrical vision of the Restoration Covenant. Thus, I can see no difficulty in assuming that Ezekiel is picturing the final world-wide attack of Amalek and his cohorts under the imagery of an attack on the land, imagery derived from the book of Judges (cp. Jud. 18:7,10,27 with Ezk. 38:8,11,14).

Moreover, since the land of the Jews was part of the empire of Ahasuerus-Darius, and the attack on the Jews took place throughout the empire, it is clear that the Jews in the land were under assault in Esther. Thus, even if someone wants to press the idea of an invasion of the land of promise, Esther still portrays it. God’s people throughout the empire, including those in the land, were under assault.

A final corroboration of this interpretive hypothesis comes from what we might call the “Amalek Pattern” in the Bible. Note in Genesis 12-15 that Abram moves into the land after escaping Pharaoh (ch. 12), settles down and experiences peace and prosperity (ch. 13), and then faces an invasion of a worldwide alliance of nations (ch. 14). This alliance captures Lot, but Abram rescues him, after which a Gentile priest blesses Abram (ch. 14). Finally, after this, God appears to Abram in a vision and makes covenant with him (ch. 15), guaranteeing him a “house.”

Now look at Moses: After escaping Pharaoh (Ex. 1-14), the people are given food and water in the wilderness (Ex. 16). Then Amalek attacks and kills many Lot-like stragglers (Ex. 17; Dt. 25:17-19). Moses defeats Amalek, after which a Gentile priest (Jethro) blesses the people, and then God appears in the Cloud and makes covenant with them (Ex. 18-24), including the building of a “house” (the Tabernacle).

The same themes show up in the history of David: After escaping Pharaoh Saul (1 Sam. 18-26), David finds a place of rest in the “wilderness” at Ziklag (ch. 27). Then Amalek attacks and steals David’s wives (ch. 30), but David defeats them. Following this, a Gentile priest-king (Hiram of Tyre, who as a Gentile king was also a priest) blesses David (2 Sam. 5:11-12), and then God appears to David in a vision, promising him a “house” (2 Sam. 7).

In this pattern, the attack of Gentile world powers (Gen. 14) is associated with the attack of Amalek (Ex. 17; 1 Sam. 27). As can plainly be seen, the same pattern recurs in the Restoration. After departing from Babylon, the people settle in the land and experience a degree of peace. Then comes the attack of Amalek and Gog & Magog. After this, Gentile priest-kings sponsor the return of Nehemiah to restore the land and the “house.”

While it would be fascinating to follow up this theme in the Gospels, Acts, and possibly Revelation, enough has been said to indicate that it is a recurring pattern, and one that lends some support to the hypothesis that the attack of Gog and Magog is fulfilled in the book of Esther.

James Kirk learns via Vulcan mind meld that he will never marry.

Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. (1 Corinthians 7:6-7)

Reliance upon rules and regulations is a sign of immaturity. There’s nothing wrong with them, of course, just as there is nothing wrong with the “gutter guards” used to keep the ten pin bowling ball moving towards the pins for children’s parties at the bowling alley. Likewise, there was nothing wrong with creeds, rosary beads or religious paintings in their early days. They were simply mnemonic devices for the illiterate. But, just as it was with the Pharisees in the first century, these lifeless, inflexible “stoicheia” become a problem when they turn into legislation and become mandatory. Failing to tithe one’s kitchen herbs leads to certain destruction. The celibacy of certain prominent men in the Bible is part of this discussion. The question is not “Is celibacy holier than marriage?” but why were these spiritual giants, including Jesus, celibate at all?

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

At that time the Lord said to Joshua,
“Make flint knives and circumcise
the sons of Israel a second time.”
(Joshua 5:2)

Was Israel disobedient in its failure to circumcise every male born in the wilderness? The Lord never chastised them for this. If this lapse in the practice of circumcision was in the plan of God, what was the purpose of that plan? The example which first comes to mind is the circumcision of the firstborn son of Moses in Exodus 4:24-26.

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

or Where Kenneth Gentry Is Wrong on the Revelation

Part 1 here.

I’ve been meaning to write this post since I wrote Part 1 (over two years ago). A friend’s recent question concerning Kenneth Gentry’s lectures on the Revelation encouraged me to bite the bullet and bust a gut and get it done. The question is this: Is the Revelation to be interpreted in the light of Josephus’ Jewish War, or in the light of the Bible itself?

Just as the Tabernacle rebuilt by David included Gentile worshipers, the reinstitution of worship in Israel after the exile likewise required the inclusion of Gentile sponsors. We saw in Esther in Ezekiel’s Temple that the oikoumene was a Jew-Gentile social architecture, with the city of Jerusalem itself serving as a kind of holy altar within a larger temple. [1] Just as the four-horned altar served as an image of the (symbolically) four-cornered Land (not earth; see The Earth Is Flat), so now the entire city was referred to as “holy,” and the genealogy of every Jew was considered “priestly.” This upgrade in holiness of what was once common was the result of Israel’s exile, a death-and-resurrection which purged her of idol worship. So, what could go wrong?

Of course, these new blessings could and would be twisted into curses. The holy city itself and the genealogy of every Jew would become Israel’s new gods.

This is the situation into which the Messiah was born. The outcome of this idolatry was the requirement for a new death-and-resurrection. In Israel’s place, Christ initiated it, and Israel followed Him through the process over the next generation. Like the bronze altar outside the Tabernacle, the entire city itself would be considered “outside the camp,” and even its sides would be splashed with the blood of the atoning sacrifices. As the law decreed, the crimes of the murderers would be atoned for with their own blood.

Consequently, it would be no surprise that the deep structure of the Revelation recapitulates the order of sacrifice. The Revelation is not a description of the Jewish war, though it is part of the outcome. It is a liturgy describing the sacrifice of the priesthood of Israel for the sake of the nations. Herod’s Jerusalem would be offered up in a spectacle of blood, fire and smoke. Any other reading of the final book of the Bible, using, for instance, uninspired second Temple literature, the works of Josephus, or the latest news headlines, to interpret it, is a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of the text.

Ordo Sacrificii sub Apocalypsis

In the book of Leviticus, the simple process of the whole burnt offering (“the ascension” [3]) blooms like a flower, revealing myriad parts with different purposes. Yet each of these remains a process of transformation, one whose pattern can be traced back to Genesis 1.

Creation – Day 1 – Called (Sabbath – “on the Lord’s Day”)

What is the correspondence between the choosing of the blameless animal and Day 1? The baptism of Jesus is a great help. The dove hovers over the water and identifies the Lamb from hundreds of His repentant brothers. We see a similar process at the anointing of David, the shepherd. In the Revelation, it is the vision of the glorified Jesus, the one who has already ascended.

Division – Day 2 – Sanctified (Passover)

In biblical terms, sanctification is not a growth in holiness but a setting apart. In sacrificial terms, it is the delegation of a purpose, much as one might set apart food for a special event. Thus, sanctification has more to do with election than the kind of practical holiness which the word brings to mind today. In Genesis 1, this is the parting of the waters. In Exodus, it is the parting of the Red Sea to set Israel apart from Egypt. In Galatians, Paul combines these two images in his use of Hagar and Sarah as symbols of Egypt’s river and Canaan’s rain, the waters below and the waters above (see The Shape of Galatians, pp. 155-165). In the Revelation, it is the Division of the New Israel, represented by the seven churches, from the Old Israel, the city of Jerusalem who now embodies the worst traits of Egypt, Sodom and Babylon, and worse, flaunts these in God’s face through her continued sacrifices, following the murder of Christ and most of His apostles. Jesus calls these new “sons of God” out of Egypt and “passes over” them, “trimming the wick” on each lampstand. He cuts off the leaven of the Pharisees in each church before He cuts off “Egypt” altogether (see The Eighth Letter and Living Menora).

Ascension – Day 3 – Presented (Firstfruits)

The Passover sacrifice could be a lamb or a kid, but the Firstfruits animal offering was a lamb. Revelation 4-5 reveal the Lamb, ascended to heaven as the firstfruits from the dead, representing all who believe. Since the work of Day 3 was twofold, Land and fruits, Altar and Table, Christ is the connection between the earth (His grave in Israel) and the heavens. Instead of grain and fruit plants, Christ is flesh and blood, bread and wine, offered upon the Table.

Christ opens the scroll, which ends His ministry in the Garden, and sends the four Gospel witnesses into the Land (or, in Tabernacle terms, moves the action from the Most Holy into the Holy Place). The seven seals follow the same sevenfold pattern in microcosm.

Testing – Day 4 – Purified (Pentecost)

Just as Christ is the Head of the sacrifice (offered without being washed), chapter 7 reveals the firstfruits Body: 144,000 believing Jews. Note that the Body is washed (v. 14). These are the sheep which Peter was to feed for the slaughter. The process of “counting” alludes to the book of Numbers. Only the men were counted, because men are sacrificial “heads,” hence circumcision for Israelite males. But there are Gentiles as well, yet these are not counted. They are numberless. Peter’s haul of fish was counted, an offering from the sea presented upon the “altar” on the beach (a fire of burning coals). The fact that these Gentile “human sacrifices” are not counted means the Covenant is moving from earth to heaven, from the Cainite ground to the “Abel” (hebel) clouds of heaven. This is a new heavens and earth, a new creation, and the description of the end of their suffering aptly follows the order of the Creation week (see Saved From The Green Horse). The centre of this promise concerns the striking and scorching heat of the sun, which leads into chapter 8. This is a description of the holy fire from heaven, the Spirit of God descending upon both Jews and Gentiles from the Day of Pentecost onward. From heaven’s point of view, salvation was a call to become a human sacrifice, since Christ has made us “acceptable” to God (in sacrificial terms). We no longer need animal substitutes.

Maturity – Day 5 – Transformed (Trumpets)

This is where our concept of “sanctification” comes in. It is spiritual maturity, so in biblical terms a better word for it might be transformation. The flesh has been consumed and is now fragrant clouds, able to pass through locked doors (as we see in John and Acts), following the High Priest who entered through the torn veil in clouds of incense on the Day of Atonement.

New Israel – Good Trumpets

Maturity corresponds to the Feast of Trumpets (see above), describing in “Mosaic” terminology the witness of the Apostles leading up to the destruction of the  Temple and its now obsolete – and corrupted – worship. The seven trumpets follow the same sevenfold “creation-through-sacrifice” pattern. As the Feast of Trumpets, they muster the troops of Israel. However, as is described by Paul in Romans, there were now two Israels. The Judiastic Israelites are described as Egyptian/Babylonian locusts, and the saints are described as human Tabernacles, temples of the Spirit.

In chapter 10, a part of the New Covenant authority is delegated to John, a son of thunder, who, as the Last Apostle, will speak the final words of judgment upon the rulers of the Land (“kings of the earth”). For a description of the angel, see The Church As Colossus and The Last Trumpet.

The two witnesses are the Law of Moses and the Testimony of the Prophets embodied in the Apostolic Witness as the testimony of Jesus, hence Moses and Elijah deferring to Christ at His transfiguration, and the Father vindicating Christ as He did at His baptism. Just as that act ended Christ’s personal testimony to Israel, so these two witnesses end the Apostolic testimony to Israel. Both Head and Body have now spoken and been slain.

What is interesting here is that the Word began in the Garden, worked its way out through the Land to the World. Here we have three pictures of the testimony of the Firstfruits Church, which reverse the order: A great army crossing the Euphrates into the Land (World), the witness of John as seven “Sinaitic” thunders (Land), and the Law and Prophets as two cherubim (Garden). These symbols follow the High Priest as He makes His way from the court, through the Holy Place and into the Most Holy, just as He does in Leviticus. So the final verse of this section referring to the Ark of God in His temple should be no surprise if we have a handle on sacred architecture. The blood of the human sacrifices is being offered by Christ as the “washed Body” (Leviticus 1:9 – supporting baptism by full immersion of the body). However, this brings a new fire from heaven, one which will be administered by the Roman armies.

Old Israel – Bad Trumpets

Following the pattern of Psalm 1, Maturity has both blessings (the Apostolic witness) and curses (the response of the rulers of the Land). This dual witness is the “Deuteronomy” of the book of Revelation (read Deuteronomy 28). In their warnings, the Firstfruits Church not only “filled up” (multiplied into an abundance, as Brides do) the sufferings of Christ, but also provoked unbelieving Israelites to harden their hearts like Pharaoh did, and to “fill up” their sins. Paul describes this Jew-Gentile ministry and the imminent judgement of Jerusalem:

For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God’s wrath has come upon them at last! (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)

I hope it is becoming plain how erroneous is most exposition of the Revelation, including that by many preterists. Throwing proof texts at each other is like arguing about jigsaw pieces without reference to the picture on the box, which is found in the Torah.

Anyhow, from Revelation 12, the pattern of the Trumpets (Maturity) is repeated. It begins with a negative Pentecost. Just as David received the Spirit and Saul received an evil spirit from the Lord, so false Israel became demonic after the “enlightening” of Pentecost (Hebrews 6:4). Satan was kicked out of his “legal” role in heaven and took up residence on the earth, or more specifically, on the Land, in the Temple of the Herods (the source of the Edenic “springs” described in the final chapters of Ezekiel). So, that’s the Herodian Garden corrupted. Notice it begins with the Woman and the Herodian Dragon, a clear reference to Genesis as the beginning of this legal pattern.

Next, he spewed this corrupted (“bitter” Wormwood) river into the Land, and the false Church sucked it right up. This was the false doctrine which the apostles had to battle against, referred to over and over again in the epistles (so much for the attempts over the centuries to identify this false doctrine as anything but anti-Christian Judaism).

Satan’s final attempt to kill the Bride was to turn to the World for aid, so he called upon the Sea Beast, Rome (see Three Strikes, Binding and Loosing, and Serpents and Dragons). AD64 saw not only the completion of Herod’s Temple (proving Jesus to be a false prophet) but also the burning of Rome, the first time Roman authorities recognised Christianity as separate from Judaism. Satan’s ploy was to attack this strange new Jew-Gentile Body with a Jew-Gentile counterfeit, just as Herod and Pilate became “friends” after the trial of Christ.

After a description of this false worship and its false kingdom (presented as an Aaronic golden calf, the image of a beast), the “transformed” sacrifices are seen as “holy smoke” on the mountain with Christ, Head and Body now united. Their flesh and blood was “harvested” as bread and wine. Like the blood of Abel, it cried from the ground and calls upon God for vindication and vengeance. However, unlike the first murder, this vengeance would not be delayed. The blood of all the prophets from Abel onwards would be avenged upon that generation. The Land is described as an altar overflowing with blood “as high as a horse’s bridle.”

Conquest – Day 6 – Vindicated (Atonement)

Jerusalem had been surrounded by saints with Gospel “Trumpets”, but the final day had come. As it was with Jericho, the firstfruits of the Land, “all flesh” would be cut off in Jerusalem, as the firstfruits of the World. The entire city would be cut around, or circumcised. This brings us to the seven bowls of wrath, which correspond to the seven sprinklings of blood from the hand of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. However, on this day, the Roman general Titus would step over the Body of the apostate High Priest (see End of the Abrahamic Rift and Jesus’ Caesars).

What is the source of the seven bowls? Only the structure of the text reveals this (which means exegetes with little or no poetic sense will write this observation off as speculation). Interestingly, it is the Lampstand, the light of the Law now available by the Spirit (see Seven Bowls of Wrath). The Spirit would no longer strive with old Israel. For a sample of the beauty of the “de-Creation” described under the image of these Temple bowls, see #41 in 50 Failed Predictions part 9. For a complete rundown, see James B. Jordan’s The Vindication of Jesus Christ.

Chapters 17-19 describe the separation of the harlot and the bride, corresponding to Hagar and Sarah (Israel as Egypt versus Abraham’s “heavenly Canaan”), and also the two prostitutes whose hearts were discerned by Solomon. Since this entire pattern recapitulates the Testing of Adam in the Garden, the Father is discerning the heart of the Bride (Numbers 5) whom Christ has presented to Him as a chaste virgin. Not only are her eyes open (Luke 24:31; Acts 9:8,18), but she is liberated by the obedience of her Adam.

Glorification – Day 7 – Sent (Booths)

The final section of the Revelation is also sevenfold. It describes the ministry of the now-enthroned Firstfruits Church in heaven during this current period (see For A Thousand Years and Altar of the Abyss – 7). The sacrificial process enacted in the Garden and re-enacted in the Land would now be recapitulated throughout the World through the testimony of saints from every nation.

I hope to write a complete “Shape of the Revelation” some time soon, but will wait for Peter Leithart’s 2015 commentary because he will no doubt present many insights I can rip off include! In the mean time, get a hold of James B. Jordan’s Revelation lecture series.

But I hope you can see that the Revelation is not a symbolic account of the Jewish War, as important as understanding that history might be. Of course, I do recommend Kenneth Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell, which is extremely helpful when it comes to dating the book and establishing its purpose in the biblical canon.

_____________________________________
[1] For an introduction to this subject, see Peter J. Leithart’s The Four: A Survey of the Gospels. For a more in-depth study, see James B. Jordan’s The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. And you can search for “oikoumene” here on the blog.
[2] See Peter J. Leithart, Skinned and Cut, Biblical Horizons No. 35 (March 1992)

ART: A souped up version of the original cover artwork for David Chilton’s The Days of Vengeance. Chilton makes a similar error to Gentry, but is still well worth a read for his many insights.

 And I looked, and behold, a black horse! And its rider had a pair of scales in his hand. (Revelation 6:5)

 The book of Revelation is a mystery, yet like all good mysteries it is a book made entirely of clues. It is a glimpse through the torn veil of the Temple, that is, the flesh of Jesus, into the heavenlies. The cloud into which He was taken up is opened to John’s eyes that he might see the horses and chariots of God (2 Kings 6:17). But John is a prophet who knows the Bible, and like John we will only understand the symbols if we know the Bible. The conversation at God’s table is for those who know their Master’s mind, who hear His voice as children and thus quit themselves like men. To them, this is indeed a Revelation. To those outside His commission, it remains an enigma, terrible lightning and thunder and the sound of trumpets (Exodus 19:19; 20:18).

This post has been slain and resurrected for inclusion in my 2015 book of essays, Inquietude.

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

“What we have received from Jesus is not a collection of ‘merits,’ but rather His maturity.”

James B. Jordan writes:

The problem with the “covenant of works” notion lies in the fact that it is linked up with merit theology. There is no merit theology in the Bible. Merit theology is a hangover of medieval Roman Catholicism.

The problem with much “active and passive” talk is that it is part of the same erroneous scheme: Jesus’ “active obedience” earned merits that are then given to me, merits that Adam was supposed to earn. Such “merits” are some kind of “works,” and though this is not said, what is implied are something like Herculean labors, something beyond merely remaining faithful.

But that’s not what happened. Jesus simply remained faithful. He did not do any heroic works — there is no heroism in the gospel anywhere; only faithfulness. In a large sense, all of Jesus’ “work” was “passive.” He did not “go beyond” mere faithful obedience to the Law. But as a result of doing just that and no more, He matured into full adulthood. Notice that He was proclaimed king when He arrived at Jerusalem, was tried as a king, was robed as a king, and was crucified as a king. Contrary to Presbyterian theology, Jesus did not die primarily as a priest but as Melchizedek, as a king. That is, as an adult.

Or, better, as the One who was on the brink of becoming king, as the anointed Prince. Passing through death on the tree and then being resurrected in a transfigured state, Jesus became fully King and Adult.

Jesus resisted Satan in the wilderness. That’s what Adam failed to do. From that point on, for three plus years, He matured in faith, beyond the point where Adam failed. He matured to the point of being ready for adult responsibilities. Through his death, he became fully mature and was given dominion over ALL nations, over the wider world into which Adam had been prematurely cast.

That is the point of Galatians 3-4. Formerly we were children, but now in union with Jesus Christ we have become adults. What we have received from Jesus is not a collection of “merits,” but rather His maturity.

A fuller discussion of this theme of maturation can be found in James B. Jordan, From Bread to Wine: Toward a More Biblical Liturgical Theology, available for $15.00 from Biblical Horizons: www.biblicalhorizons.com

See also: Dying He Shall Die

ART: In the Garden of Eden, Kathryn Brimblecombe-Fox

“[Wine, women and song] are three things which are essential characteristics of the New Covenant glory which the Church has done a bad job of affirming over the centuries, and are three things which are hated by Islam. Islam is the scourge of Christendom, and a mirror of Christendom. It’s as if all the mistakes the Church makes are magnified in Islam or in some way directly perverted in Islam. Then, there is a fourth characteristic of the New Creation order: holy war.

These are areas in which the church has continually failed to be what God intends, and so there must be something important these things. So, somebody must not want us to think about them.

We have failed to treat worship as liturgical warfare. Worship has been everything but liturgical warfare. The book of Revelation is seen as a bunch of fantasy predictions, or something else, but the last thing it is seen as is a training manual for liturgical warfare. The book describes a worship service in heaven in which warfare is going on, conducted by angels as a model for what the Church is supposed to do. A minute ago, we prayed, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Obviously, that means worship on earth as it is done in heaven. But when we look at worship in heaven, it doesn’t bear much resemblance to what we do in practice…

I don’t think we really believe that when we worship, demons are driven away. And the more closely we worship in the way the Bible describes, the more the principalities and powers will be cast down. The Church has operated much more by sight than by faith in this area.”

Wordmp3 has a new lecture by James Jordan available free for download:
Pentecost: Lighting the World on Fire.