“The seven days of Genesis 1 are a chiasm, and therefore these sections are a chiasm. The Adam who doesn’t come to rule at the beginning is answered by the Adam who does come to rule at the end.”

Adapted from James B. Jordan, “The Life of Jacob,” Biblical Horizons No. 258, July 2017.

Genesis has a sevenfold structure. Many books of the Bible, including Revelation, have the same structure. The book is marked out in sections by a phrase that is found about ten times in the book: these are the generations of. Chapter 5:1: “These are the generations of Adam.” Chapter 6:9: “These are the generations of Noah.” The word “generations” in Hebrew is toledot. The “ot” is a feminine plural ending. “Sabbaot”—Lord of sabbaoth—Lord of hosts—armies. “Im” is masculine plural—“Elohim”—plural of “El” or God—majestic God, or many gods. Toledot is the plural of generation—toledah, and the reason I mention that is that these sections of Genesis are called toledah sections.

There are ten of these sections, but if you look at it more carefully you notice that some of the sections are grouped so that we come up with seven sections. The structure of Genesis consists of an introduction and then seven sections that correspond to the seven days of Genesis 1…

This sequence of seven speech actions is the way God always works with the world… That is why Genesis has seven sections, and why the first seven books of the Bible follow the same format. Genesis is the book of the first day. Exodus is where the firmament is made—the firmament people—that is the Tabernacle. Leviticus has to do with flesh and blood, plants and seeds. Numbers has to do with stars. Deuteronomy has to do with the organisation of a group of people. Joshua has to do with planting of a people int he land. Judges has to do with sin bringing a time to its fulfillment on the Sabbath Day. The Spirit works that way, and that is why the Bible is written as it is.

Now, the first section we have is the generations of the heaven and earth, what the heaven and earth brought forth. The heaven and earth bring forth—they marry—and bring forth humanity. What is generated by the heavens and the earth? Genesis 2:4, “This is the generation of the heaven and the earth after they were created in the day Yahweh God made earth and heaven.” Verse 7, “Then Yahweh God formed man of dust (not clay) of the ground,”—that’s the earthy part—“and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”—that’s the heavenly part. The Spirit comes from heaven into dust, the marriage of earth and heaven, and man is formed. That is what the heavens and the earth generate. They generate Adam. And Adam generates Eve, and Adam and Eve generate Cain and Abel and Seth. That’s the generation of the heaven and earth, and what the heavens and earth bring forth is Adam.

This corresponds to day one—the creation of heaven and earth out of formlessness corresponds to the creation of man. The earth was formless and the Spirit of God moved in. Dust is about as formless as you can get. A brick has form. A rock has form. Clay has form. Dust has no form. Man wasn’t made of clay, but of dust. It is formless, and then God’s Spirit comes into it as a parallel to day one. In Genesis 2 the creation of man corresponds to the creation of light on day one. Genesis 2 has the same sevenfold fold outline as Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 the phrase “The Lord God did” follow the same sequence as in Genesis 1, and forming man is parallel to making light on the first day, which is followed throughout Bible. Human beings are lights, stars, etc.

The comes the separation of light and darkness on day one. “God separated the light from the darkness, he saw the light was good. He called the light day, and the darkness he called night.” That separation theme is carried through in this section of Genesis by the judgment on man where he is separated from the Garden, and then primarily the separation of Cain and Abel into a darkened and light kind of people. This second section goes down to the end of Genesis 4.

The next section is the generations of Adam. Chapter 5 says, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” and then it talks about Adam. Adam had a son in is likeness named Seth, so Adam generates Seth, and then Enosh, Kenan, Mehalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah.

This corresponds to the establishment on the second day of the firmament to separate waters above from waters below. The godly line of Seth is the human form of that firmament, and the corruption of that line is answered by the removal of the firmament and the re-coalescence of the waters in the flood.

The godly line stands between, as Adam was supposed to do from the beginning, heaven and earth. There was a mountain rising up out of the earth, and on the mountain stood the priest who mediated between God and man. Symbolically speaking, this was Adam’s position in the firmament—below God and above the world. That is the position of the godly line that comes from Adam, the Sethites. The creation of the Sethite race, as opposed to the Cainite race, is equivalent to the formation of the firmament, linked with that aspect of creation week. This is the second toledot section in Genesis and it relates to the firmament. All of the things made in the first week have a human equivalent now in this story. This group of human beings is placed between heaven and earth.

Noah brings forth Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and the whole “table of nations” comes from them. Just as in Day 3 of Genesis 1 there are two section where land and sea are separated, and then the plants are put on the earth—two actions on the third day. So here, the separation of land and sea is answered by the flood, and then the fact that as the flood receded we have a new separation of land and sea. This is very much the same language as in Genesis 1.

And then the multiplication of plants on the land is answered by the table of nations in Chapter 10. “These are the generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth…” This is another subsection of toledot. The 70 nations grow up, which are the plants on the earth. Does the book of Genesis symbolize humans as plants? Yes, it does, and that is clear from the very first chapters when God says that the earth will bring forth thorns and thistles. Man is made of earth, and what is the next thing that happens after God says the earth will bring forth thorns and good things? First there is Cain, then Abel. But that isn’t where it starts. It starts when God says that the seed of the woman will defeat the seed of the serpent. Women don’t have seeds in a biological sense. In Genesis 1 the plants are said to have seeds about 8 or 9 times and establishes what is meant. In vs. 11 God says, “Let the earth sprout forth vegetation, plants seeding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit with seed in them on the earth.” And the earth brought forth vegetation, verbs seeding seeds after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them after their kind. On and on the word “seed” goes. I have given you every plant seeding seed, and every tree having fruit yielding seed.

The seed of a plant comes when it blooms and has seed to become the next generation. The seed of the woman comes when she blooms by getting pregnant and has the next generation. The seed of the woman is the child, but this is plant language. So to make people analogous to plants is right there in Genesis. We are in the third section of Genesis, and we read about all these nations, which are plants growing and spreading all over the earth.

Then for the fourth day section we have the generations of Shem—just a short section. The fourth day is when the lights are put in the heavens, and the Shemites are the new light bearers to rule the heavens. Genesis 9:26 says, “Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave.” Shem has the responsibility for worship. Japheth needs to dwell in the tents of Shem, which means to come to worship. Shem is designated as the line of the covenant seed, and that will later be specified to be Weber, and then Abram, then Isaac, and then Jacob. This is a series of narrowing specification. This is the firmament line of light bearers who maintain God’s truth in the firmament position between heaven and earth.

The fifth section in Genesis is the generations of Terah. What did Terah bring forth? He brought forth Abraham, so this is the Abraham narrative (Genesis 11:27). Terah brought forth Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Corresponding to Day 5 when great swarming creatures were made and God gave his first command to any creature, these themes of multiplication and law are highlighted in the story of Abram, which Genesis 11:27-25:11 delineate. In fact, this theme of multiplication and swarms of people is greatly emphasized here. God says to Abraham, “Your seed will be like the stars of the heavens, like the sand of the sea,” and not only that, Abraham’s brother, Nahor, has twelve children (Genesis 22:20-24). The whole theme of having twelve children starts here, which is multiplication. If you have twelve children you haven’t just reproduced, you have multiplied.

It is part of the “patience” theme that is one of the major themes of Genesis. Abraham has to look over at his brother and say, “He has twelve children,” and then Isaac has to look over at Ishmael and say the same thing while his wife is barren. Abraham has to say the same thing, finally he has just one child. At every point the believers are being told to wait and be patient, while God is giving numerous children to all the unbelievers, or at least those not marked by Divine election to service.

The next section is the generations of Ishmael and Isaac, two section that need to be grouped together as one. In Genesis 25:12 are the twelve sons of Ishmael who are twelve princes, and then vs. 10 gives the generations of Isaac.

We have the generations of Terah, which is the Abraham narrative, and then we have the generations of Isaac, which is the Jacob narrative. You will notice there is no section called the generations of Abraham. There is no Isaac section. There is an Abraham section, a Jacob section, and the ones ones are the generations of Jacob which is the Joseph/Judah section. The Jacob section is a very carefully constructed chiasm, as is the Abraham section. These are very carefully constructed literary units. The first part of Isaac’s life is in the Abraham section when he is a son, and the second half is in the Jacob section where he is a father.

The generations of Ishmael and Isaac correspond to Day 6. Just as Day 6 had two sections—the creation of animals and the creation of man—the toledoth of Ishmael corresponds to the creation of helpful animals because the Ishaelistes are not enemies of Israel Ishmael is regenerated, and is in heaven. The Bible tells us so. They are helpers to Israel. And then the seance half of Day 6 is the creation of man, which corresponds to the generations of Isaac, and is concerned with Jacob, the man who is able to wrestle with God and prevail. This is what it means to be a real, true godly man.

And then the last section is the generations of Esau and Jacob. Genesis 36 is the generation of Esau. That is Cain, the bad thorny plant. The generation of Jacob is the story of Joseph and Judah that has to do with sabbath rest—coming into rest, enthronement, feeding the entire world, and living in the best part of the land. Trace it through in Genesis. It says that the area of the city of Sodom was like the circle of the Jordan, like the Garden of Eden. Then it says that the land of Goshen was the best part of Egypt, and it was like the circle of the Jordan. Being put in Goshen was the equivalent to being put back in the Garden of Eden. Genesis ends with a return to full redemption and Sabbath rest in the story of Joseph. Everything broken has been fixed, at least partially. When we get to Exodus we find that it falls apart. It is Jesus who has to bring the full and final restoration. The generations of Esau in chapter 36 point to the fall of man, which happened on the Sabbath. A false Sabbath rest is given to Esau as he multiplies and takes control, while true Sabbath rest is given to the godly in the land of Goshen.

This is a general chiastic structure. The seven days of Genesis 1 are a chiasm, and therefore these sections are a chiasm. The Adam who doesn’t come to rule at the beginning is answered by the Adam who does come to rule at the end. Adam was supposed to mature and rule, but he didn’t. Joseph does. Adam makes his own clothes. Joseph is given robes by those who honor him. Adam is not honored and not given robes—just bloody animal skins.

It still seems a bit odd for the title of the Abraham narrative to be called the generations of Terah, since it turns out to be all about Abraham. The reason for that is that it is the seed of the woman, the second Adam, who is going to accomplish everything. At every point in Genesis it is the son, the next person in line who is going to accomplish tings, who is going to save the world and be the Messiah. That is the first thing Eve says when she gives birth to Cain. That is why the book is laid out the way it is—the book of generations—the father isn’t adequate, so the son has to come and accomplish the mission. That son turns out to be inadequate, so his son has to come and do it until the coming of Jesus who is the fully capable Son.

Lot offering his daughters to the men of Sodom is an affront to our moral sensibilities, yet the New Testament calls him a righteous man. Could our problem be simply that the Bible is smarter than we are?

George Athas (from Moore College, Australia) has a theory that not only harmonises the story with the New Testament estimation of Lot, it also accords with James Jordan’s rejection of other supposed moral failures by the primeval saints as misinterpretations. Athas considers various theories put forth by commentators, and they make some valid points, but each is lacking in some way. He then writes:

This leads us now to reconsider the nature of Lot’s shocking offer in Gen 19:8. If the narrative sets us up to expect Lot to be a righteous man, what are we to make of his apparently scandalous proposal to give his two daughters for pack rape? We can see how this dilemma leads commentators either to attempt to exonerate Lot, or else to reinterpret Lot’s character completely. The way forward lies in identifying detail omission. We have already mentioned this narrative device, but here we need to define it and notice its particular use in Gen 19.

Detail omission occurs when a narrator deliberately hides information from the reader at one point in a narrative, only to reveal the information at a later point. It is a rhetorical device whereby the presentation of information within a narrative is delayed, in order to control the reading process, shape the reader’s expectations (either consciously or subconsciously) and, thereby, affect the reader’s experience of the narrative. Depending on whether the reader is aware of the hidden information, this creates either an element of curiosity or surprise…

Gen 19 contains a masterful use of Unknown Detail Omission creating surprise. The narrator exploits ambiguities in the narrative to fool the reader into ordering the narrative a particular way, and then surprises the reader at a later point by revealing that the reader has ordered the situation wrongly. This begins with Lot’s offer of hospitality to the two messengers in Gen 19:2. Lot says to them:

“Here you are, my lords! Come by your servant’s house, stay, wash your feet, then rise early, and go on your way.”

Bailey rightly picks up the ambiguity in the phrase “wash your feet,” which can be a euphemism for sex. The ambiguity creates curiosity through a known detail omission: the reader knows that Lot is offering hospitality to the two messengers, but does not know what kind of hospitality he is offering. Is Lot offering the messengers an opportunity for sexual gratifica-tion? Or is Lot simply offering them the opportunity literally to wash their feet. We may compare the scene with Gen 18:4, in which Abraham also offers his guests the chance to wash their feet. However, Abraham’s offer is unambiguously literal: he offers to bring some water, thereby ruling out the possibility that he is offering sexual gratification to his guests. But such is not the case with Lot. The known detail omission leads the reader to wonder whether Lot is a righteous man like his uncle, Abraham, or a licentious host.

What’s more, Lot is in Sodom—a city characterized by its wicked inhabitants. And in the previous chapter, Abraham’s bargaining with God has set the reader up to see whether ten righteous people can be found in Sodom (18:32). The reader hopes that Lot is a righteous man and, along with Abraham, that ten righteous people can be found within its gates to spare the city, including Lot and his family. There is, therefore, a lot riding on this encounter (pun intended), but at this stage the reader does not know whether Lot’s hospitality is a good thing or a bad thing. Furthermore, in Gen 18:5, Abraham’s three guests accept his unambiguous offer of righteous hospitality immediately. But such is not the case with the two messengers in Gen 19. On the contrary, they initially turn down Lot’s offer.

This heightens the mystery and tension. Do they perhaps sense that Lot is offering them inappropriate hospitality? Has Lot himself become just like the wicked sinners of Sodom? Lot needs to urge the messengers to stay with him before they finally accept. And as they go to his house, the reader prepares to see just what kind of hospitality Lot does offer. The narrative produces crucial curiosity at this point. The fate of Sodom hangs critically in the balance.

The situation is compounded by a further ambiguity in the temporal clause at the start of Gen 19:4. The clause reads “Before they bedded down”. The reader is led to ask whether this is simply lying down to sleep for the night, or whether it also has a sexual connotation. The action does not actually occur, as is indicated by the adverb “before”. However, the narrator employs the power of suggestion by framing the next incident in the episode with reference to this aborted action. This not only implies that the arrival of the men of Sodom at Lot’s door is an interruption, but that the act of “bedding down” (however it is viewed) was certainly about to occur. Again, the reader hopes the potential action was innocent, but the narrator does not give sufficient clarity for the reader to be sure. The ambiguities here produce considerable curiosity and different potential interpretations of the narrative.

At this point, the men of Sodom surround the house and demand Lot bring the messengers out in order to “know” them. This too is another ambiguity because of the semantic range and possible connotations of the verb “to know”, which include both knowing factually and knowing sexually. Are they simply carrying out a defensive investigation in order to “know” facts, as Bailey suggests, or are they demanding a sexual encounter? The ambiguity instilled in the narrative to this point heightens the stakes here. In either case, the reader is likely to interpret the scene through the lens of the narrator’s  earlier note that the men of Sodom were very wicked (13:13). If the reader believes Lot has offered sexual gratification to his guests, then the reader will conclude that Lot has become like the residents of Sodom: a wicked sinner. As such, the reader will interpret the demand of the Sodomites as asking for their own sexual encounter with the guests.

But even if the reader sees the scene as a defensive operation, the characterization of the Sodomites will lead the reader to expect that they will brutalize the two messengers. Rape of civilians was common enough in ancient societies (cf. Judg 5:30; Lam 5:11; Zech 14:2). As Janzen highlights, ancient warfare sought to break down city walls and gates in order to penetrate and desecrate a city. The symbolic connection between sex and politics was often embodied (in the fullest sense of the word) through the “diabolical sacrament” of the rape of defeated inhabitants.

When we recall that the two messengers had arrived at Sodom’s gate (Gen 19:1) and, through Lot’s hospitality, had entered the city, we may begin to see how the inhabitants of Sodom might have thought their city had been covertly infiltrated by potential conquerors. Their demand to “know” the two messengers could, therefore, be understood as seeking to respond in kind—giving conquerors a taste of their own bitter medicine. And since the reader knows that the men of Sodom were very wicked (13:13), the reader expects them to be capable of such atrocities towards perceived militants…

In Gen 19:6–8, Lot makes his shocking offer. He has two daughters “who have never known a man” to offer to the mob to assuage their penchant for sex and violence. This offer is a pivotal moment in the narrative, for up until this point all of Lot’s words and actions have been ambiguous. Now the reader perceives Lot’s true colors, as he unambiguously shows that he is every bit as abusive as the men of Sodom, dashing any hope that he might have been a righteous man. While the Sodomites had wanted to “know” and brutalize the two messengers, Lot now offers the “knowledge” and brutalization of his daughters. The range of Pentateuchal norms mentioned view the brutalizing of women as heinous and potentially deserving of the death penalty. This causes the reader to evaluate Lot’s previously ambiguous offer of hospitality as inappropriate: he did indeed offer sexual gratification to the two messengers, and this must be why they had initially refused. Their final acquiescence to stay in his house, therefore, is not evidence of the messengers’ depravity, but evidence of Lot’s persistent wickedness. It turns the messengers’ reconnaissance into a mission to prove Lot’s depravity. To underline this, the narrator uses the same verb to describe the pressure Lot exerts on the messengers to accept his hospitality as the pressure the men of Sodom now put on Lot to bring the messengers out to them. Since migrating to the Jordan Basin in Gen 13:12, it seems the bad company of Sodom has corrupted Lot’s character. There is not a single righteous person in the city. Sodom’s (and Lot’s) fate is sealed!…

The narrative uses the reader’s revulsion at rape to turn hopes and sympathies against Lot. His own appeal to the rules of hospitality is thereby not designed to make the reader sympathetic towards him, but rather to show that Lot has “lost the plot.” He is using what is essentially a good code as justification for a crime against his own daughters.

Nonetheless, the narrative does take a surprising turn. The messengers pull Lot back inside the house and stun the mob outside, thus preventing them from finding their way to the door to cause harm (Gen 19:10–11). But then, rather than condemn Lot for his depravity, the messengers ask (19:12–13):

“Do you have anyone else here: a son-in-law, or your sons or daughters—anyone else in the town who belongs to you? Get them out of this place, because we are about to destroy this place. Since the outcry against them is so great before Yahweh, he has sent us to destroy it.”

Why would the messengers seek to save Lot when he has just unambiguously demonstrated that morally he is every bit as corrupt as the men of Sodom? Has not Lot sealed his own fate along with the rest of the city? Evidently not! But why not? Gen 19:14 is the moment the narrator reveals a key detail that has been withheld from the reader up until this point. The verse states:

So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law who were married to his daughters. He said, “Get up! Get out of this place, because Yahweh is about to destroy the town.” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

Surprisingly, Lot’s daughters are not virgins! On the contrary, they are already married. Until this moment, the narrator has exploited the story’s ambiguities to make the reader think Lot’s daughters are virgins and just inside the door of his house. The reader has even come to believe that Lot might have offered his two daughters to the two messengers for sex, before the mob of Sodom interrupted, leading Lot to offer them to the mob instead. But this is clearly not the case. Lot apparently has sons-in-law, and just to underscore this fact, the narrator employs a tautology: “his sons-in-law who were married to his daughters”. Lot also has to go out to them, because they are not in the house with him. This can only mean that Lot’s daughters are also not in the house with him. This, then, explains why the messengers have to ask Lot whether he has any sons-in-law, sons, or daughters in the city (19:12), for they simply cannot tell from the confines of Lot’s house. And eventually, when Lot returns to the house, the messengers tell him to take his wife and his two daughters “who have been found” (19:15) out of the city before it is destroyed. The word ‘who have been found’ is used only of Lot’s two daughters, and does not include Lot’s wife.

Furthermore, its use makes no sense if Lot’s daughters were already in the house, as presumably Lot’s wife was. However, it makes good sense if Lot has indeed gone out, found them, and brought them back to his house, albeit without their husbands, who do not believe destruction is imminent. This also precludes the possibility that Lot had more than two daughters—that is, two unmarried daughters in the house whom he tries to substitute for the divine messengers, and other married daughters living elsewhere in the city whose husbands do not believe Lot’s warning. At the end of the episode, there are indeed only two daughters with Lot (19:30), and these are the two daughters who had been found in 19:15.

All this means that by withholding the key detail that Lot’s daughters are already married and living elsewhere in the city, the narrator has fooled the reader into believing that Lot’s daughters have been in the house all along, and that Lot is a degenerate father. So masterfully does the narrator fool the reader, that most subsequent translators are thoroughly fooled too. Instead of rightly translating the phrase as “his sons-in-law who had married his daughters,” translators usually depict them as “sons-in-law who were to marry his daughters” (NRSV, ESV; cf. RSV, NIV, HSCB, NET). They cannot conceive of Lot’s daughters as anything but virgins immediately inside Lot’s house. Even Robert Alter, who rightly recognizes that the narrative is here revealing previously concealed information in a surprising way, still sees the daughters as betrothed, rather than already married…

Once this key detail about Lot’s daughters is revealed, the narrative suddenly turns on its head. The reader is forced to reassess the entire episode in light of this new information. Lot did not have two virgin daughters to offer to the mob outside his door. So why would he say that he did? Two factors help explain it. The first is the hospitality code of the ancient Near East. Gen 18 depicts Abraham as a paragon of hospitality, and the juxtaposition of that chapter before the Sodom episode affords easy comparison between Abraham and Lot. Furthermore, we have already mentioned the Ugaritic Epic of Aqhat, which describes the model son as one “who drives out those who would abuse his houseguest” (Aqhat I:30). Protection of guests was indeed a virtue. Lot feels compelled, therefore, to protect the two messengers to whom he has offered the shelter of his roof.

The second factor is that Lot perceives the wicked intent of the Sodomite mob to brutalize the two messengers. His offer of two virgin daughters is a ruse designed to appeal to the sexual appetite of the mob. It seems Lot hopes they might accept the offer, and while they wait for him to go and bring out his daughters, he might be able to smuggle his guests safely out of town. In other words, Lot’s shocking offer is a decoy to buy time. Even our translators fall for this decoy completely, which shows how skillfully the narrative depicts Lot as a quick thinker. Lot actually has no intention of bringing out two virgin daughters for pack rape, because he does not have two virgin daughters. Rather he is intent on ensuring the safety of his guests. The problem, however, is that Lot’s house is surrounded. As well intentioned as we now discover him to be, his ruse probably doesn’t stand a chance of working. This then explains the need for divine intervention, as the two messengers stun the mob and achieve for Lot what he had hoped his decoy might have done: buy time.

This also enables Lot’s free movement. But despite it, Lot eventually hesitates to leave the city (Gen 19:16). This hesitation is critical in light of Abraham’s negotiation over Sodom in the previous chapter. Despite Abraham’s best bargaining efforts (18:32), not even ten righteous men can be found in Sodom to avert the city’s destruction. Not even Lot’s sons-in-law qualify, though even their inclusion would not be enough to avert destruction as per Abraham’s terms to which Yahweh has agreed. Lot, the only righteous man in Sodom, must therefore flee the city before its cataclysmic downfall, but he hesitates. His righteousness is probably what sparks Yahweh’s compassion for him (19:16). And so, the two messengers physically escort Lot, his wife, and his two daughters “who have been found” out of the town. Lot, despite his quick thinking, was unable to safeguard his guests and smuggle them out of town. Yet, because of his own righteousness, he is not destroyed with the city, but is ironically safeguarded and smuggled out of town by those very same guests. Once again, the narrative takes an ironic turn.¹George Athas, “Has Lot Lost the Plot? Detail Omission and a Reconsideration of Genesis 19” in Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Volume 16, Article 5 DOI:10.5508/jhs.2016.v16.a5. Full article available here.

After considering the further twist of the sin of Lot’s daughters “knowing” their father, who does not “know” that he has “known” his own daughters, Athas concludes that “Lot has not ‘lost the plot.’ The reader has!”

This possible solution accords with James Jordan’s view concerning Abram’s lie about Sarai being his sister, since Abram was vindicated by God’s judgment. Jordan also defends Jacob and Rebekah in their “righteous deception” of blind Isaac and the degenerate Esau.²James B. Jordan, Primeval Saints, Studies in the Patriarchs of Genesis. The midwives in Egypt who lied to Pharaoh were also blessed by God. The point is that deception of evil doers is a righteous act, and one which turns the craftiness of the serpent back on himself. The cross, of course, was the ultimate deception, an Adam willing to die for His bride because of His faith in the promises of God.

All of this supports the idea that the Scriptures are often obfuscatory to sort the faithful from the unfaithful. The righteous will meditate on the apparent wickedness of Lot while the wicked will simply condemn the Bible as an unrighteous book, and thus condemn themselves.

With the merciful you show yourself merciful;
with the blameless man you show yourself blameless;
with the purified you show yourself pure;
and with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous.
Psalm 18:26

The abandonment of the Son by the Father is made palpable not in the crucifixion of His body, since He willingly laid down His life, but in the darkness which covered the Land for three hours. But perhaps this darkness was a sign of the Father’s nearness rather than His distance.

Matthew, Mark and Luke document the darkness which covered the Land during the last three hours of Jesus’ life, and so do three extra biblical historians, Thallus, Phlegon and Africanus. But what was its purpose? It is wise to look for typological precedents for events in the Gospels, since Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. Concerning darkness we have the primeval world before the creation of light (Genesis 1:2), and the darkness which covered Egypt as the ninth plague (Exodus 10:21-23).

The details of this plague are interesting, since this was “a darkness to be felt” and “nor did anyone rise from his place for three days.” Only the land of Goshen where the Israelites dwelt was given light. Thus, the three hours of darkness at noonday were a sign of the coming three days in which Christ would be covered by the darkness of the tomb. But there is another instance of darkness and light as a judgment in Exodus, and that occurred at the Red Sea crossing (Exodus 13:19-20). The pillar of cloud gave light to the Israelites but the Egyptians were left in the dark. Thus the two were kept separate throughout the night.

My assertion here is that the darkness in each case was a visit from the glory cloud, the “mobile tabernacle” which served as God’s chariot until the Day of Pentecost. It was presumably this cloud which is described in Genesis 3:8, which would be better translated as “And they heard the sound/voice of the Lord God coming to the garden in the breath/spirit of the day and they hid themselves…” It is likely that this visitation was similar to the cloud which descended upon Sinai and upon the mount of transfiguration. It is also likely the same cloud which, when opened, provided a glimpse into heaven at the baptism of Jesus (with its allusion to Genesis 1, the Spirit hovering over the deep), at His ascension, and again at the martyrdom of Stephen. The Lord always comes “with” or “in” clouds, and when He does, He comes to judge.

Of course, judgment does not necessarily mean punishment. The Lord came down to judge Babel, Egypt and Sodom, and it each case the result was cursing. In the case of Ezekiel, it seems the prophet was actually taken up in or by the chariot in Spirit that he might witness the sins of Jerusalem, God and a “son of man” serving as two legal witnesses, explaining the phrase “Come, let us go down…” in Genesis 11:7, when God brought confusion. The pillar of cloud also brought confusion upon Pharaoh’s armies, and it was likely present when the armies of Midian were confused under the watch of Gideon. But when the cloud came upon the Tabernacle and Temple, upon the Son, and upon His saints on the Day of Pentecost, as a mighty, rushing wind, the Lord was happy to bless. The arrival of the chariot of God, unlike the chariot of Pharaoh, is a chariot which brings not only vengeance but also redemption. It is the chariot of the almighty ga’al, the one who bears a two-edged sword to slay the wicked and cut the bonds of the righteous.

So, is it beyond possibility that the chariot of God was the cause of the three hours of darkness, recorded across the oikoumene, while Christ was on the cross? After all, the final chapters of Ezekiel present this Jew-Gentile social construct as a temple, with the Land of Israel as its holy altar. The Lord was coming to His temple to inspect it for “leprosy.” According to the Law, the leprosy had to be cut out, but if it returned, the house would be destroyed. Jesus was crucified “outside the camp,” like a leper (see Leviticus 14, and The Leprous House). He was the one being “cut out” that the house might be spared. But as Jesus predicted, the cleaned house would be filled with even worse demons (see Seven Spirits More Wicked), and its response to being cleansed would be a return to corruption in an even greater way. The Veil of the Temple was torn, but when the Lord later returned “in the clouds” the Temple was torn down. Not one stone was left upon another.

And he shall break down the house, its stones and timber and all the plaster of the house, and he shall carry them out of the city to an unclean place (Leviticus 14:45)

This means that the entire Land was under judgment, and Jesus was at the center of the court. He had been condemned by the High Priesthood (Garden), by Herod (Land) and by Pilate (World), the entirety of the oikoumene “Tabernacle.” Now He was being judged by heaven, and for the will of heaven be done on earth required the “bowing of the heavens,” that is, a visit from the heavenly court via the glory cloud, a symbolic reunion of the waters above and below in a prefiguring of final judgment (see “Bowing the Heavens” in my book Inquiétude for more discussion.) God was visiting the Garden, and Adam was exposed in His court. The events that transpired recapitulate those of Psalm 18 – including the earthquake –with one major difference: the Father did not hear, and did not deliver, the Man who cried out to Him.

The cords of death encompassed me;
the torrents of destruction assailed me;
the cords of Sheol entangled me;
the snares of death confronted me.

In my distress I called upon the Lord;
to my God I cried for help.
From his temple he heard my voice,
and my cry to him reached his ears.

Then the earth reeled and rocked;
the foundations also of the mountains trembled
and quaked, because he was angry.

Smoke went up from his nostrils,
and devouring fire from his mouth;
glowing coals flamed forth from him.

He bowed the heavens and came down;
thick darkness was under his feet.

He rode on a cherub and flew;
he came swiftly on the wings of the wind.
He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him,
thick clouds dark with water.

What does this mean for the significance of the three hours of darkness? That the Christ who “became sin for us” was trodden underfoot like an enemy, or a serpent, the blood upon the kapporet, the footstool of God (see Peter Leithart, The Footstool of His Feet.) To conquer sin, He became sin. To make His enemies His footstool (Psalm 110:1; Luke 20:43; Hebrews 10:13), He would first be trampled underfoot, and it would please the Lord to bruise Him (Isaiah 53:10). The holy presence which overshadowed Mary at Jesus’ conception (Luke 1:35) now overshadowed the entire nation at His death.

This abandonment of the Son by the Father was not “spatial” but legal. The Father presided over the Son in the seat of Moses, surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. This courtroom “betrayal,” a perjury in the sense that He changed His previous testimonies concerning the blamelessness and authority of the Son, was as close-to-home as the kiss of Judas. In this final act, the Father crossed the floor and stood with Judas, with Ananias, with those who beat, spat upon and ridiculed Jesus, with Pilate, with the crowd, and with the thief who cursed Him on the cross.

The word “sacrifice” connotes the idea of “near bringing” (see James B. Jordan, Leviticus 1:2). It was this reversal of judgment, through substitutionary atonement, that the angels “standing at the four corners of the Land,” those who stood prepared to vindicate the Son by immediately destroying the city and the Land (as predicted in Daniel 9:25-26), were told: “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God” (Revelation 7:1-3).

At the Day of Pentecost, the brightness of the cloud was visited upon those who believed, and the darkness of strong delusion upon those who refused to believe. In the Gospel, this dividing “sword” was extended right across the empire. This “visitation” by the Spirit, whose indwelling turned every believer into a chariot (epitomised and signified in the miraculous travel of Philip in Acts 8:38-39), explains the inspiration and perseverance of the Jew-Gentile saints and the strong delusion which confused and confounded their Jew-Gentile enemies, who turned on each other, eventuating in their destruction at the coming of Christ with all His martyred sons, including Abel (Matthew 23:35), on white horses as a cloud of “witnesses” (martyrs) against the first century “Babylon.” These saints were God’s chariot.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:1-2)

By James B. Jordan, at Theopolis Institute.

From time to time, when I’ve lectured on how to read the Bible, I’ve used art-music as one example thereof. When we listen to a simple folk song, we hear the same melody over and over again, but this is not how composers write “high” music. Let me amplify.

A composer will put out a theme (melody) clearly and forthrightly. You can hear it without diffculty. And, from time to time that melody will come back, and without diffculty you will hear it again. But what you probably won’t hear, unless you are trained to listen to music, is that the melody is being used in more ways. It may be broken down, and parts of it used in various ways in the overall piece. It may be played in the bass line, or in an alto line, underneath a more prominent second melody or theme. You’ll hear the new melody, and not notice that the old melody is being used underneath. The melody may be stretched out into slower notes (augmented), or played twice as fast (diminished). It may be used like a round (canon; ricercar; fugue), coming in over and over again on top of itself. It may be inverted (switching high and low notes), or played cancrizans (backwards). (A good listener can hear an inversion, but it takes a really good one to notice when the melody runs backwards.) The melody may be taken from a minor key to a major one, or vice versa. A composer will introduce one theme, and then another, and then play them at the same time.

Continue reading at Theopolis Institute.

by James B. Jordan – PART 1

What does it mean to read the Bible as inspired literature? The method is not new nor is it uncommon in Dutch Reformed circles. Exegesis must be Christocentric, plenary (all the text serves a theological purpose), respect the context in God’s redemptive plan, and plumb the full literary depth of the writing.

Continue reading at Theopolis Institute.

All of the arcane “personal” stipulations in the Torah find their fulfilment in the corporate worship of Israel. Just as the sacrifices were to be without blemish, so also were Israelites to be spotless if they were to stand before God. But the rules for the identification, quarantining and ceremonial cleansing of leprosy only begin with the skin of the worshiper in the wilderness. They then move to the garment, and finally to the house in the Promised Land. A failure in personal holiness would lead eventually to a corruption of corporate worship. James Jordan writes:

Jesus’ statement that the stones of the building will not be left attached to one another hearkens back to the rules for house affiction (“lepr­osy”) in Leviticus 14:33-53.¹On the translation of “leprosy” with “affliction,” see Jordan’s monograph, The Touch of Affliction: The “Plague” of “Leprosy” in Leviticus 13. Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper 31 (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 2002). If the affliction in the walls of the house proves irremedia­ble, the priest is to “tear down the house, its stones, and its timbers, and all the plaster of the house, and he shall take them outside the city to an unclean place” (Leviticus 14:45).

From the verse just cited, it is clear that house affliction only applies to a house inside a walled city. An examination of the history of the applica­tion of the laws of house affliction sheds considerable light on certain events in the gospels, for the primary house to come under these rules is the temple.

In Ezekiel 8:7-13, Ezekiel is told to dig into the wall around the temple. In his vision the wall is hollow and has a chamber inside of it. All over the inner walls of this chamber are carved various idols, and the leaders of Israel are worshipping them secretly.²These people were not actually worshipping idols or engaging in idolatry. We know from Jeremiah that they had turned the temple itself into an idol, and regarded Yahweh as their own national god who would always protect them. What Ezekiel sees in his vision is their true hearts, not their outward beliefs. This is a graphic picture of house affliction, the “greenish or reddish” marks under (within) the walls of a house.

Of more immediate relevance is Zechariah’s fifth Night Vision (Zecha­riah 5:1-4). The prophet sees a huge flying scroll, having the dimen­sions of the Holy Place of the tabernacle. The Holy Place was a symbol of the  rmament heavens, and this scroll appears in the firmament. It goes forth from God, as the “eyes” of Yahweh have gone forth in the previous vision (3:10; & 1:10-11; 6:1-8). From Genesis 1, we know that God’s eyes evaluate what He sees. His eyes are also, thus, an evaluating scroll, the law of God in its judging function. The scroll measures every house in Israel to see if it conforms to the holy dimen­sions of the Holy Place. Two specific sins are judged: false swearing (wor­ship) and theft. We have noted this pair already in our study. The houses of those who swear falsely and/or who steal will be consumed with house affliction, according to Zechariah 5:4, “[The curse] will dwell with­in that house and consume it with its timber and stones.”

When we come to Jesus’ “cleansing” of the temple, we find that He condemns the people for these two sins: “My house should be a house of prayer (true swearing), but you have made it a den of thieves” (Matthew 21:13). Later on, in Revelation 13:14-16, the “Beast Image,” which is the idolatrous worship house of the apostates, also requires false worship and a mark that governs buying and selling.

We know from a full reading of the gospels, Matthew through John, that Jesus “cleansed” the temple twice. As the living Scroll or Word of God, He arrived at the house two times. This is in accor­dance with the laws of house affliction in Leviticus 14. Making allowances for a general application of the principles in Leviticus 14, we can see Jesus fulfilling them as follows:

First, if greenish or reddish marks appear inside the walls of a house, the priest is to quarantine it for seven days. This corresponds to Jesus’ first inspection of the temple, record­ed in John 2:14-22. From that time, Jesus did not go again to the temple, as far as we are told, until His final arrival in Jerusa­lem.

Second, if after a week of quarantine the reddish and/or greenish marks have spread, the priest is to tear out the stones and plaster that have the marks in them, and repair the place in the wall. This corresponds to Jesus’ second temple inspection, as recorded in Matthew 21:12-14. Jesus drove out the bad stones, for the temple is made of human stones, and then restored the blind and lame, restoring the hu­man temple. This dual action of tearing down the bad and restoring the crippled as a true human temple is a microcosm of Jesus’ entire earthly ministry of restoring Israel – which then falls anew by rejecting Him.

Third, if the affliction reappears in the house, the house is to be torn down complete­ly. Jesus as priest, as Zechariah’s Flying Scroll, comes in the late ad 60s, finds that the temple has not been repaired (i.e., the people are still apostate), and destroys it.³From The End of the World: A Commentary on Matthew 23-25, by James B. Jordan. Available from www.biblicalhorizons.com

Further to this, although the Hebrew word translated “leprosy” is indeed a striking, a plague, it seems that it pictured an invasion of the Sanctuary by the serpent.

The linguistic root of the word translated “leprosy” [tsara’ath] may mean “smiting.” The curse of leprosy came as a “stroke,” which aligns it with the plagues the Lord brought upon Egypt at the hand of Moses. This, however, gives us no clue as to what this disease actually was.

The “whiteness” of this condition most certainly links it to the “whiteness” of death. The purification rites for a person contaminated by a corpse are similar to those for a person with “leprosy.” Moreover, when Miriam is struck with the condition, Aaron begs that she not become like a still born child “whose flesh is half eaten away.”

However, there is another feature of this “leprosy” which traces this “death” back to Eden. Whereas the Hebrew word denotes being struck with a plague, it is described in Akkadian with a word which means “scaly” or “covered with dust.” Scales and dust tie it to the curse upon the serpent in Genesis 3. Leviticus 13 also refers to a “dry scall,” so rather than naming an actual disease it describes a symptom: scaled skin.⁴Jacob Milgrom translates the biblical “leprosy” as “scale disease” in his Leviticus 1-16, 768–889. In his Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, Oppenheim quotes the word which has been translated leprosy as “covered with dust” or “scaly.” The Akkadian word “epqu”, which was translated leprosy in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, also means “scaly.”

This might help explain the language connected to it in 2 Kings 5, where the leprosy of the faithful, obedient Gentile is transferred to the lying, thieving Israelite, as his ironic Covenant “inheritance”: “The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow. (2 Kings 5:27 [KJV])⁵From “Scales of Justice: The Covenantal Significance and Serpentine Nature of Biblical ‘Leprosy’” in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.

This explains the references to the apostate High Priesthood as a “man of sin.” This representative of humanity had allowed the serpent to take dominion of the Garden. Following his expulsion from the heavenly court at the ascension of Christ (Revelation 12:9), Satan took up residence in the replica of the Sanctuary on earth (signified in Revelation 8:10 as the Edenic “springs and waters”). By the time Christ returned to inspect the Temple, the house was indeed “serpentine,” filled with demons (Matthew 12:43-45).

“Virtually every time in the Bible that God gives a promise or a kingdom to someone, the first thing he does is ruin the promise by sinning against God.”

A must-read essay by James B. Jordan   |   www.biblicalhorizons.com

Solomon began to build the Temple of the Lord in the fourth year of his reign, which was 480 years after Israel came out of Egypt, the year A.M. 2993 (1 Kings 6:1).

Seven years later, in the year A.M. 3000, the Temple building was finished (1 Kings 6:38). The many ornate pieces of furniture needed for the Temple were not yet made, however, and during the next thirteen years the palace of Solomon and his royal apartments were built, while the apparatus of the Temple worship was being created (1 Kings 7). Then, in A.M. 3013, both houses were finished (1 Kings 7:51; 9:10).

After Solomon dedicated the Temple and worship began to be conducted there, God appeared to Solomon. This was in the 24th year of his reign. God told him that if he remained faithful, the throne of David would be established over the kingdom of Israel perpetually. If Solomon sinned, however, the rule over Israel would be lost (1 Kings 9:1-9).

Virtually every time in the Bible that God gives a promise or a kingdom to someone, the first thing he does is ruin the promise by sinning against God. Adam did it. Abraham did it (committing polygamy with Hagar right after God told him he would have a son). Saul did it (1 Samuel 9-15). David did it, committing adultery with Bathsheba right after God promised to dwell in his house. Many other examples could be mentioned, but here we see it again.

God had told Solomon through Moses that there were three things the king must not do: multiply gold, reduce the people to servitude to build up a war machine, and commit polygamy (Deuteronomy 17:16-17). Shortly after we read that God appeared to Solomon and gave him the kingdom promise, we read that Solomon broke these three conditions.

First, he multiplied gold (1 Kings 10:14-22). He took in 666 talents of gold per year. The number is obviously significant. The actual weight is about 25 tons of gold per year. That is, 50,000 pounds of gold per year. That is, 800,000 ounces of gold per year. At $400.00 per ounce, that comes to $320,000,000.00. That’s the least it might have been. Using the equivalent figures found in The Open Bible, (one talent of gold = $5,760,000), we come to $3,836,160,000.00. That’s a lot of gold for a nation the size of New Jersey. Every year.

We are told that Solomon made 200 large ceremonial shields of beaten gold, using 600 shekels of gold on each large shield. These were used to form a “glory cloud” around the king (God’s viceroy) when he walked across the common pavement between the royal palace to the palace of the High King (the Temple) (1 Kings 14:28).

Second, Solomon multiplied horses (1 Kings 10:26-29). Finally, Solomon multiplied wives (1 Kings 11:1-8). These marriages were political alliances, and in order to play politics Solomon build temples to the gods of his wives’ nations. This offended the Lord, and the Lord raised up adversaries for Solomon.

The Egypt Factor

Egypt comes to prominence at this juncture of history. One way to understand the relevance of Egypt is to contrast Egypt with Tyre. Hiram, king of Tyre, had been a loyal ally of David. He loved David. He clearly was a converted man. When Solomon came to the throne, Hiram could not do enough for him. He volunteered to help build the Temple, because Israel’s God was his God also (1 Kings 5). He showered Solomon with gifts (1 Kings 9:11, 14). If there was any nation Solomon should have allied with, it was Tyre.

Yet, Solomon gave Hiram a cheap and insulting present, and offended him (1 Kings 9:11-12; 2 Chronicles 8:2). Solomon evidently thought his relationship with Hiram was secure, and so did not try to please him. (I am reminded of how the “conservative” Reagan and Bush administrations constantly offend their Christian supporters—evidently because they regard them as “in their pocket”—while they pursue the goodwill of liberals and degenerates.)

Solomon chose to pursue Egypt instead, marrying the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kings 9:16). Solomon had actually married Pharaoh’s daughter in his youth, perhaps with God’s blessing. At least the Lord overlooked the matter (1 Kings 3:1ff.). Now, in his Adamic “fall,” his rebellion against the promise God had given him, Solomon’s relationships with Egypt are not overlooked.

Moses had forbidden the kings to engage in horse trading with Egypt (Deuteronomy 17:16). Solomon not only got horses from Egypt, but became a middle-man for horses between Egypt and other nations (1 Kings 10:26-29).

The folly of Solomon’s involvement with Egypt is apparent from what we read in 1 Kings 11. It is evident that Pharaoh’s policy as regards Palestine was to play all sides against each other. (How different from loyal Hiram!) Back in David’s day, the Israelites had defeated the Edomites, and the prince of Edom, Hadad, had fled to Egypt. There he was nurtured in Pharaoh’s court, and Pharaoh made him his brother-in-law. When the time was ripe, Hadad took leave of Pharaoh and went to make trouble for Solomon (1 Kings 11:14-22). (It should be noted that Pharaoh tried to dissuade Hadad from this; v. 22. He didn’t try very hard, though.)

Solomon’s equine enterprise actively supplied the king of Syria with horses (1 Kings 10:29). Shortly thereafter, Syria was taken over by a man who hated the house of David, and who used those horses to plague Israel (1 Kings 11:23-25).

Moses said that the kings of Israel must never reduce the people to slavery, and he linked this idea to involvement with Egypt (Deuteronomy 17:16). Solomon had conscripted labour to help build the Temple and the palace, and the people had willingly volunteered (1 Kings 5:13-18). The actual citizens of Israel did not have to come and put in time working on the Temple, but they had to supply manpower from their serfs (1 Kings 9:20-22).

Now, as long as the Temple and palace were being built, the people did not mind supplying this labour. Afterwards, however, Solomon kept building and building. The citizens of Israel had to supply the manpower for this. The citizens themselves had to serve as conscripts in the army (1 Kings 9:22), and Moses had prohibited having a standing army. All of this amounted to a great financial burden, and the citizenry did not like it.

Solomon put Jeroboam the son of Nebat in charge of conscripting workers from Ephraim. Ephraim was the other great and powerful tribe, next to Judah, and they did not like this Judahite king taxing them so heavily. Jeroboam probably did a good job of bullying work out of the Ephraimites, until one day the prophet Ahijah informed him that God was going to let him have the rule over the ten northern tribes, as a way of punishing Solomon. Solomon caught wind of this, and Jeroboam fled to Egypt, where he was protected by Pharaoh (1 Kings 11:26-40).

After Solomon died in A.M. 3029, Rehoboam his son came to the throne. The people appealed for tax relief, but Rehoboam told them that he was going to increase their taxes. As a result, the ten northern tribes seceded from the confederation of Israel and made Jeroboam their king, in the year A.M. 3030 (1 Kings 12).

Rehoboam was initially chastised by this turn of events, but he soon forsook the Lord and promoted all kinds of idolatry. The Lord prompted Pharaoh to invade Judah. Remember, Pharaoh had been a friend of Jeroboam’s. Pharaoh doubtless regarded Solomon’s exceedingly wealthy kingdom as too powerful. Accordingly, he must have rejoiced to hear that the kingdom had split in half. In the fifth year of Rehoboam, Pharaoh captured Jerusalem and helped himself to all the gold Solomon had stored up, including the 200 ceremonial gold shields. Rehoboam had to replace them with bronze ones (1 Kings 14:25-28).

Solomon ignored his friends (the Lord and Hiram) while he courted and curried favour with his enemies (Syria and Egypt). The result was disastrous to the nation.

BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY, No. 3, Vol. 10 © 1991 Biblical Horizons

__________________________________
ART: Solomon and the Plan for the Temple (illustration from a Bible card published 1896 by the Providence Lithograph Company).