BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 90
December, 1996
Copyright 1996 Biblical Horizons
Although the events are, of course, not perfectly parallel, Luke in his gospel intends us to connect Jesus’ birth from the womb and His re-birth from the tomb.
Luke 1:27 introduces us to Joseph and in verse 30 we learn that his betrothed wife was named Mary. An angel appeared to Mary and she was afraid, but the angel comforted her with the news that she would bear the world’s Messiah (1:29-31). Luke knows we have already read Matthew, and so while he does not mention that initially Joseph did not believe Mary’s report, he knows we already know it from Matthew.
The resurrection as recorded by Luke follows the same sequence. First we are told that a man named Joseph saw to Jesus’ burial (23:50-53). They we read that two women named Mary came to the tomb, saw angels, and were afraid (24:1-5). The angels comforted them with the news that the Messiah had risen (24:5-8). But the disciples did not believe them (24:9-11).
Other parallels are also clearly set out. In Luke 2:7, Mary gives birth to Jesus and wraps Him in cloths. This is in a lowly manger, because there was no room in the inn. In 24:50-54, Joseph wraps the body of Jesus in a linen cloth and puts Him in an expensive tomb, because He had no other. There is parallel and contrast: Mere cloth becomes linen, and a manger becomes an aristocratic tomb.
Angels appear to shepherds in Luke 2:8-20, and tell them to look for a baby wrapped in cloths in a manger. The next event in Luke 24 is parallel: In verse 12 (assuming this sentence is authentic), Peter responds to the news of the angels communicated by the women and goes to the tomb and sees the linen wrappings.
Another close parallel to the shepherds’ visitation is Jesus own appearance to the two people (two men, or man & wife) on the road to Emmaus. Initially they do not know who Jesus is. Then, during the evening, Jesus reveals Himself to them. The angels also appeared to the shepherds at night. The shepherds immediately went to see the baby Jesus, and the two travelers immediately return to Jerusalem.
The couple on the road to Emmaus may also link with the appearance of the baby Jesus to Simeon and Anna in 2:25-38.
Finally, the boy Jesus left his parents and stayed in the Temple, His Father’s house (2:41-50). Similarly, at the end of Luke Jesus leaves the disciples and enters the heavenly Temple (Luke 24:50-53).
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 90
December, 1996
Copyright 1996 Biblical Horizons
The apostle Matthew is also known as Levi son of Alphaeus. While not much is said about this man, the few things that are told us are significant.
Matthew in Greek is Matthaios and comes from the Hebrew name Mattithiah, or Mattith-Yah, "Gift of Yah(weh)." Matthew’s other name is Levi, which in Hebrew means "Joined" (Genesis 29:34).
If we reflect on these names – and names are almost always significant in the Word of God – some interesting associations can occur to us. The Levites of Israel connected or joined the people to God, for they were the priests and deacons of the nation, mediators between God and the people.
The Levites received the tithe of the people (Numbers 18), and Levi was a tax farmer for the Roman Empire. He left that service to follow Jesus and become a fisher ( = farmer) of men. Tithes and taxes represent the people who give them; Matthew would collect the people themselves.
Moreover, the Levites were the teachers of Israel. To them was committed the task of teaching the Word to the people in the local synagogues and Levitical cities, as well as at the central sanctuary. Is it an accident, then, that the new Levi writes the first gospel, which is a "Mosaic" gospel full of sermons?
Matthew means "Gift of Yah." The Levites of old were given to Yahweh as His servants, but Yahweh gave them back to Israel as teachers and servants of the people.
Finally, I find it interesting that in all of the first three gospels, we find that Matthew Levi holds a feast in his house (Mt. 9; Mk. 2; Lk. 5). The Pharisees complain that Jesus eats and drinks with tax farmers and outcasts. Notice that this is an argument about eating, about the use of food, which was supervised by the Levites and priests. Yet, in the Law there is no prohibition on eating with any group of people; only certain meats are forbidden. Matthew Levi, in his feast, shows what a true keeping of the dietary laws entails.
Moreover, Jesus says that He came not to heal the healthy but the sick, and to save sinners. That was Levi’s task all along. The scribes and Pharisees, who were the heirs of the original Levites, were not doing their job. But Jesus and His new Levi are.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 90
December, 1996
Copyright 1996 Biblical Horizons
The Feast of Ingathering in the seventh month of the Sinaitic calendar is also called the Feast of Sukkoth, of Booths, also called Feast of Tabernacles. I have usually called it by that last phrase, and it is the most common today; but there is a problem: A tabernacle is a tent, and tents are precisely what are not in view here.
The booths are prescribed in Leviticus 23:40-42, "Now on the first day you shall take for yourselves the growth of beautiful trees – palm branches and boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook – and you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God for seven days. . . . You shall dwell in booths for seven days; all the native-born in Israel shall dwell in booths." An example of obedience to this command is found in Nehemiah 8:15, "Go out to the hills and bring olive branches, and oil-tree branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of leafy trees, to make booths, as it is written."
These are not tents. They are shelters or lean-tos, made of leafy branches. After a week, such shelters would be wearing thin as the leaves decayed.
This seems an odd command, and it becomes odder when we read the reason for it: "So that your generations may know that I had the sons of Israel live in booths when I brought them out from the land of Egypt" (Lev. 23:43).
What is odd about this rationale is that it seems certain that the Israelites did not live in leafy booths when they came out of Egypt. Rubenstein comments: "First, sukkot are generally not found in the desert. They are built in fields for the protection of watchmen, workers, or animals, and constructed from the products of the field – leaves, branches, reeds, foliage, wood, and hay. Where would the Israelites have found such materials in the desert wasteland? Desert travelers stay in tents, not booths." To which I may add, where would they have found enough foliage for booths for 600,000 men and their families?
Rubenstein continues: "Second, outside of this lone verse in Leviticus, the Bible never claims that the Israelites stayed in booths. There are several descriptions of the camp of the Israelites in the desert, but not one pictures the tribes dwelling in sukkot. Tents are occasionally mentioned, but never booths. Why does Leviticus 23:43 suddenly assume that the Israelites dwelled in sukkot, while the books of Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy know nothing about it?" (See Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, "The Symbol-ism of the Sukkah," Judaism 43 [1994], pp. 371ff.)
The answer of the rabbis to this problem, which Rubenstein accepts, begins with noticing that right after leaving Egypt, the Israelites dwelt at a place called Sukkoth. Sukkoth was, in fact, the first place the people went after leaving Egypt: "Now the sons of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth, about 600,000 men on foot, aside from children" (Ex. 12:37).
It seems, then, that the Feast of Sukkoth (Booths) memorialized the dwelling of the people at Sukkoth – but why? The rabbis suggest further that "Sukkoth" might not be a place name at all, but a description of an environment in which the people dwelled. And what was that environment? It was an environment of clouds.
This seems to me exactly correct, and the burden of this essay is to unfold the correctness of this suggestion, and show its meaning and fulfillment.
First of all, an examination of the word sukkah, its relatives sak, sok, and masak, and its verb form sakak, will reveal that this interpretation is entirely possible. The general meaning is "covering," but specifically associated with clouds or foliage. There are other words for "cover" that do not have these associations. Sukkah or sok can refer to a booth set up to shelter someone from the weather, especially from the sun (Gen. 33:7; 1 Ki. 20:12 & 16; Job 27:18; Jonah 4:5). It can also refer to the thicket in which a lion crouches (Job. 38:40; Ps. 10:9; Jer. 25:38). Most significantly, it can refer to the Glory Cloud of God, His booth (2 Sam. 22:12; Job 36:29; Ps. 18:11; Is. 4:5-6).
Booths set up by an army in the field are sukkoth, and there is probably a double-entendre in 2 Samuel 11:11. There we find Uriah reminding David that the Ark is in the field and the men are living in booths. It is as if Israel is having a kind of Feast of Booths and David is not present with them.
(As a sidelight, Psalm 42:4 refers to the booths of Israel at a festival, which identifies it as the Feast of Booths. The word sak is, however, mistranslated as "throng" or "multitude.")
The other main noun in this group is masak, which is used consistently for the veils that formed the doorway-barriers of the court and two rooms of the tabernacle. It is also used, however, for the idea of protection in Isaiah 22:8, and for God’s Glory Cloud in Psalm 105:39. The tabernacle was a symbol of God’s Cloud, so linking God’s Cloud as a covering and the veils of the tabernacle as coverings is appropriate.
The verb form of this word, sakak, "cover," is used in the same range of associations. The veils of the tabernacle cover the Ark (Ex. 40:3, 21). God’s wings cover His people (Ps. 91:4), and the wings of the cherubim cover the Ark (Ex. 25:20; 37:9, 1 Ki. 8:7; 1 Chron. 28:18). The high priest is such a covering cherub (Ezk. 28:14, 16). God’s Cloud is said to cover and to be a barrier against the wicked (Lam. 3:43, 44). Coverings as protection, especially God’s protection, are another usage (Ps. 5:11; 139:13; 140:7; Nah. 2:6). Since a man is defenseless when defecating, he retires to a protected place to "cover" his "feet" (Jud. 3:24; 1 Sam. 24:3). (If we translate "boothing the feet," and think of an outhouse, we are in line with the meaning of this phrase.) Finally, of great interest to us is that trees are said to cover and shade (Job 40:22).
Putting all this together, we find that a sukkah or booth is a covering or shade. It is analogous to the shade of a tree, and thus is made of arboreal materials. It is also analogous to the covering and shade of God’s Glory Cloud, and to the symbol of that Cloud, the tabernacle.
With this in mind, we can see how the Feast of Booths memorializes the time in the wilderness. During that time, Israel dwelt in The Booth of God’s Cloud, in the sense of being shaded by His Cloud. Psalm 105:39 says, "He spread a Cloud for a covering, and fire to illumine by night." Similarly, Isaiah 4:5-6 speaks quite clearly: "Then Yahweh will create over the whole area of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a Cloud by day, even smoke, and the brightness of a flaming fire by night; for over all the Glory will form a canopy. And there will be a booth to shade from the heat by day, and refuge and protection from the storm and the rain."
God’s Cloud over the people forms a Great Booth, within which they live. That Cloud over them is like the glorious canopy of a leafy tree, and thus the reproduction of such an arboreal canopy is a symbol of God’s Cloud.
Now we can return to Israel’s sojourn at Sukkoth, recorded in Exodus 12:37 – 13:20. There is every reason to believe that God’s Cloud was over them during this time, for as they left Sukkoth, the Cloud went before them. It is at this point, and not before, that the Cloud appears: "Then they set out from Sukkoth and camped in Etham on the edge of the wilderness. And Yahweh was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might go by day and by night. The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from before the people" (Ex. 13:20-22). (This was, by the way, one Cloud with fire inside it; the fire visible at night and the cloud by day; see Ezekiel 1 for a full description of the Cloud.)
How long did they dwell at Sukkoth? We are not told, but since the memorial of that occasion lasts a week, they might have been there a week. This would have been a week of unleavened bread, after the Passover-Exodus, in which case the Feast of Booths is a memorial of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Moreover, it may have taken Pharaoh a week to rouse himself and gather the tattered remains of his people to pursue Israel. (This is a change from what I wrote in A Chronological and Calendrical Commentary on the Pentateuch. Biblical Horizons Occasional Paper No. 22. There I assumed a one-day sojourn at Sukkoth. A week-long sojourn now seems more likely to me.)
The rabbis were not sure, and we cannot be either, whether the Sukkoth mentioned in Exodus 12-13 was the name of a place, or whether it refers to God’s covering of the people at the place they stayed for a brief time. It does not matter. Perhaps this place had another name earlier, but the Israelites called it Booths (perhaps a plural of greatness: Great Booth), because they dwelt in God’s Booth while there.
It is interesting to consider that at the memorial Feast of Booths, God did not tell Israel to set up a ring of leafy branches around the whole encampment. Rather, the people were to set up their own private booths. This served to individualize and personalize the relationship of each person to God. Yes, God and His Cloud protected the nation as a whole, but also each individual. Each individual experienced the cool shade from leafy tree branches for a week during the hot days of late summer.
One other connection appears to me, which is that this symbolism relates to the events of Palm Sunday. Matthew 21:8 says that the people put branches in the road for Jesus’ donkey to walk on, and Mark 11:8 adds that they were leafy branches. This is so familiar to us that we don’t notice that it might be odd. We think of it merely as laying down a carpet for the king, and so it is. But it may well be that this is a carpet of clouds, and the idea is that Jesus is being elevated. By putting the "clouds" under Jesus instead of over Him, they were placing Him on high. Without realizing it fully, they were anticipating His ascension into God’s Cloud.
In John 12:13, the people greet Jesus with palm branches, though John says nothing about laying them down as a carpet. All the same, part of the meaning of this event, in the light of what we have seen of Biblical imagery, is that Jesus is placed at the center of a glory cloud. The king surrounded by such branches is like God surrounded by His Cloud.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 8, No. 12
December, 1996
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1996
by James B. Jordan
Ezekiel’s 430 Years
In Ezekiel 4, the prophet is told to begin his ministry by setting up a model of Jerusalem and lying on his side and prophesying against it. He is to do this for 430 days, a day for a year. 390 days are against "Israel," and 40 days are against "Judah." Because of the chronological importance of this passage, and the many different interpretations of it, we must take it up in some detail.
1
"And you, son of man, get yourself a brick, place it before you, and inscribe a city on it: Jerusalem. 2And lay siege against it: Build a siege wall, cast up a ramp, pitch camps, and place battering rams against it all around. 3And get yourself an iron plate and set it up as an iron wall between you and the city; and set your face toward it so that it is under siege, and besiege it. This is a sign to the house of Israel."First of all, we note that Ezekiel performs these symbolic acts in his capacity as "son of man," a phrase that means "second Adam," and refers to his messianic position as acting high priest of the exilic community. (Compare Leviticus 21:1-3, 10-15 and Ezekiel 24:16-18.) The holiness of the High Priest, and the requirement that he marry only a virgin, establishes him as a visible representative of the Angel of Yahweh. Such was Ezekiel.
Second, Ezekiel was to draw a symbolic representation of Jerusalem on a brick, and then set up a model of siegeworks against it. Then he was to set up an iron wall between himself and the city. Since Ezekiel represents Yahweh (the Angel of Yahweh), the iron wall represents the firmament as "heavens of brass," a barrier of judgment, but also of protection, between God and Jerusalem. When the iron firmament is removed, nothing will stand between God and the wicked harlot city.
Third, the iron wall is between Ezekiel, who besieges the city, and the city itself. Thus, Ezekiel is on the other side of the firmament-barrier, and represents God. God is the one who besieges the city. It is not Nebuchadnezzar but Yahweh who is angry with Jerusalem.
4
"As for you, lie down on your left side, and place the iniquity of the house of Israel on it. You shall lift up their iniquity for the number of days that you lie on it. 5For I have assigned you a number of days corresponding to the years of their iniquity, 390 days. Thus you will lift up the iniquity of the house of Israel. 6When you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, on your right side, and lift up the iniquity of the house of Judah. I have assigned it to you for 40 days, a day for each year. 7And you shall set your face toward the siege of Jerusalem with your arm bared and prophesy against it. 8And behold, I shall put ropes on you so that you cannot turn from one side to the other until you have completed the days of the siege."Fourth (continuing), we notice that for the whole period of 430 days, Ezekiel will have ropes upon him so that he cannot turn from side to side. He will not be able to stop his work of prophesying against Jerusalem. We can assume that his wife or an assistant tied him up each day for this purpose. We can also assume that he did not do this for 24-hours a day (as verse 9 makes clear), but for a set period each day.
Fifth, Ezekiel is to lie on his side with his face toward the iron plate, Jerusalem being on the other side of it, and with his arm bared. He is to prophesy against Jerusalem. All of this portrays God’s attitude. God’s face is against Jerusalem. He has closed up the heavens as iron. His arm is bared against Jerusalem. His words are against Jerusalem.
Sixth, we are told first in verse 4a that Ezekiel is to place or put the iniquity of the house of Israel on Jerusalem, and then later the iniquity of the house of Judah. Verses 4b and following speak of Ezekiel’s "lifting up" the iniquity of Israel and Judah. Because the Hebrew verb that means "lift up" can also mean "bear," some assume that Ezekiel was to bear the sins of Israel and Judah, but this cannot be correct. Ezekiel was not suffering for their sins, and Jerusalem was indeed destroyed for these sins. Thus, the proper translation is "lift up." Ezekiel was to call up the sins and lift them up to the ears of those listening, showing that their sins had gone up to God. He was to lift up their sins and place them on Jerusalem.
Before examining the days/years, we must complete the passage:
9
"And as for you, take wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and spelt. Put them in one vessel and make them into bread for yourself. You shall eat it according to the number of the days that you lie on your side, 390 days. 10And your food that you eat: 20 shekels a day by weight. You shall eat it from time to time. 11And the water you drink shall be the sixth part of a hin by measure. You shall drink it from time to time. 12And you shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked in their sight over human feces."
13And Yahweh said, "Thus shall the sons of Israel eat their bread unclean among the nations whither I shall banish them."
14And I said, "Ah, Master Yahweh! Behold, I have never been defiled; for from my youth until now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has any desecrated offering ever entered my mouth."
15And He said to me, "See, I shall give you cow’s dung in place of human feces over which you will prepare your bread."
16And He said to me, "Son of man, behold, I am going to break the staff of bread in Jerusalem, and they will eat bread by weight and with fear, and drink water by measure and in horror, 17because bread and water will be scarce. And they will be appalled with one another and will waste away in their iniquity."
Seventh, these verses raise the question of whether the 430 days/years are years of iniquity or of punishment. Ezekiel is to eat defiled bread for 390 days, and this represents that the people will eat such bread in the nations they will be sent into. Thus, some commentators have posited that the 430 (or 390) years are years of judgment and extend from the destruction of Jerusalem to about the time of the Maccabees. The problem with this view is that the banishment of Israel only lasted until Cyrus let them go back to the land. Moreover, the "times of the gentiles" of Daniel do not stop with the Maccabees but go on to the Romans. Additionally, God goes on to say that the bread and water of scarcity pictures the conditions in Jerusalem during the coming siege.
Thus, it is clear that the 430/390/40 years are years of iniquity. These years come before the destruction of Jerusalem. The sins of these years accumulated judgments that are soon to be placed on the wicked city (compare Genesis 15:16 and Matthew 23:35). These judgments include the scarce food and drink during the siege, and the defiled food to be eaten in the exile. This food is not defiled by the gentiles, but is defiled by their own feces. Their own filth defiles their meals. Because Ezekiel is a holy priest, God lets him use ordinary fire-dung; but the point has been made that this ritual theater portrays defiled food.
Eighth, and finally, we can now turn to the question of the 430 years. Symbolically, of course, this number points back to the sojourn in Egypt that began with Abraham and ended with Moses. For this reason, and because they despair of finding a chronological explanation, many commentators say that the 430 years are only symbolic and not chronological.
The mistake made by the commentators (and from my reading, it is all of them) is this: They look at the political and not the religious history of Israel and Judah. They note that the kingdom of Israel did not last 390 years, and that of Judah lasted far longer than 40. Ingenious explanations have occasionally been offered to account for this, but none of them work, which is why modern commentators reject them.
This is not, however, a reference to political history. Ezekiel’s concern is religious. These are the sins of Jerusalem. For 390 years, Jerusalem was the religious capital of all Israel, even during the divided monarchy. The only time Jerusalem was the capital only of Judah is in the 40 years before Josiah recaptured the northern area. Thus, by the time of Ezekiel, the nation was once more "Israel," and in verse 3 she is referred to as such.
In other words, if the sins of the "house of Israel" referred only to the kingdom of Northern Israel, they were visited upon that nation by Assyria a century earlier. But that is not the meaning here. The sins have reference to Jerusalem, and are visited upon Jerusalem as religious capital of both Israel and Judah.
A second problem for recent commentators is that the older chronology of the Biblical kings has been rejected in favor of a condensed chronology designed to bring the Biblical timespan into line with what is assumed to be a perfect Assyrian chronology. As we have seen in earlier studies, however, this condensed chronology does not stand close inspection, and thus we use the Biblical chronology.
We have seen that Josiah reunited Judah and Israel in his 12th year of rule (628-627 BC). Judah as a separate nation only existed for a while, but how long? Israel had been taken into captivity by Assyria in 719 BC, about 91 years earlier. In the reign of Ahaz, however, God had said that the nation of Israel would exist as a culture (though not necessarily as a political entity) for 65 more years (Isaiah 7:9). There was a deportation of Israelites after the destruction of Samaria, described in 2 Kings 17:24-40 and mentioned in Ezra 4:2-10. It seems that this is the end of that 65 years. But when did it happen?
We can guess that it happened 40 years before Josiah reunited the nation, and thus in 667 BC. Isaiah 7:1, however, says that Pekah king of Israel attacked Ahaz of Judah in the year God gave Israel only 65 more years. In 732 BC, Pekah was already dead. If, however, we put Pekah’s attack against Ahaz in the last year of the former’s reign, in 736 BC, and then add 65 years, we come to 671 BC. If we add 40 years, we come to 631 BC, which is the 8th year of Josiah, the year he began to seek Yahweh’s face. My guess is that this is the 40 years of Judah. Josiah’s seeking of God’s face led directly to his reuniting Israel.
Now, if we count from the 8th year of Josiah to the 5th year of Zedekiah and Jehoiachin, we get 39 years, which would be subtracted from the 390 years of Israel. This leaves us 351 years to count backwards from the end of Northern Israel in 671, which brings us to 1022 BC, the end of David’s reign. If we assume that it was at this point that David sinfully numbered God’s people, presumptuously taking over Yahweh’s host, we have the beginning point of the 430 years of sin.
If, however, we count from the 8th year of Josiah to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, we get 45 years, to be subtracted from the total 390 years of Israel. This leaves 345 years to count backwards from 671 BC; which brings us to 1016 BC, the 5th year of Solomon’s reign. This is one year after Solomon began the building of the Temple, which completed the holy city of Jerusalem. This also might be the starting point of the count, especially if either (a) the number of years has been rounded off from 431 to 430, or (b) a more accurate chronological count would yield an exact 430 years. Or, we might count backwards from when the investiture of Jerusalem began, in 588 BC, which takes us to the third year of Solomon, when there were still people rebelling against his God-appointed rule.
When did David number the people? We can only get an approximate date, but it will suffice. David’s sons Amnon and Absalom were born after he became king in Hebron at the age of 30. Thus, when Amnon raped Tamar, and Absalom slew him, David must have been about 50. This was right after Solomon was born (2 Samuel 3:2-3; 12:24; 13:1ff.). Thus, when David died at the age of 70, Solomon was about 20. In 1 Chronicles 21 David numbered the people and received the site of the Temple, and in 1 Chronicles 22 he began instructing Solomon, who was "young and inexperienced," in the plan of the Temple. We are also told here that David "made ample preparations before his death" (1 Chronicles 22:5). Thus, the numbering of the people must have occurred toward the end of David’s reign, when Solomon was a teenager.
The history of Temple, the core of Jerusalem, is what is definitive here. Ezekiel’s count begins either with God’s identification of the Temple site after David’s great sin, or with Solomon’s beginning of the building of the Temple. Solomon’s building of the Temple is not, however, an act of iniquity, and so it seems best to begin with David’s sin.
Accordingly the 430 years of sin against God’s presence in Jerusalem begin with David’s numbering the people in 1022 BC, in the 38th year of his 40-year reign. We move 351 years to 671 BC, when Israel ceased to exist and only Judah remained. We move 40 years, for Judah, to 631 BC, the year Josiah set his heart to restore the Temple and reunite the land. Then we continue to 592 BC, 39 more years, the year of Ezekiel’s prophetic theater announcing Jerusalem’s doom.
There remains one curiousity in our passage: Ezekiel only eats and drinks the bread and water of scarcity and defilement for 390 days, not the full 430 days. One way to resolve this might be that Ezekiel lay on both his right and left sides for 40 days, thus collapsing the 40 days into the 390, but verse 6 says that the 40 days of Judah are to come only after the 390 days of Israel are completed.
I propose the following resolution of the difficulty, which takes account of two factors. First, the actual 40 years of Judah came, as we have seen, in the midst of the 390 years of Israel; but Ezekiel is told to put his 40 days of Judah after the full 390 days of Israel. Second, 40 years is the number of years Israel wandered in the wilderness, and we have already seen that the total number of days is 430, the number of years Israel spent "in Egypt" (i.e., under Egyptian hegemony, from Abram forward).
The original period that is the foundation for this prophecy lasted, thus, 470 years (430 + 40). Here, the 40 has been placed within the 430, and is thus made to do double duty. First, it is the years of Judah’s sins, which are to be visited upon Jerusalem shortly. Second, however, it will be a new period of wilderness after the judgment, for those who are of Judah and not of Israel.
The name of God’s people throughout this history is "Israel." During and after the exile, however, they will be called "Jews" ("Judah-ites"). Those who cling to the old ways are of Israel; those who move to the new ways are Jews. Notice in verse 13 that the "sons of Israel" will eat unclean bread among the nations. The implication is that those who identify with the new people of God, "Judah," will eat manna for "40 years," and then re-enter the land of promise.
Thus, we can summarize the entire prophetic theater this way:
(1) The 430 years of sins against God’s temple-presence will be visited upon Jerusalem, and in the siege the people of Jerusalem will have little to eat and drink.
(2) 390 of those years are linked with "Israel," and historically this is true. Those who cling to old Israel will eat defiled bread among the nations, and thus Ezekiel eats symbolically defiled bread for 390 days.
(3) 40 of those years are linked with "Judah," and this is also historically true. But additionally, "Judah" represents the emerging new people of God, and those who move into "Judah" will not eat defiled bread. They will eat God’s bread, cooked over cow dung like Ezekiel’s, for "40 years," in the "wilderness," and then return from exile.
Ezekiel Continues to Prophesy
During the time that Ezekiel was acting out his daily drama, he received some other messages and visions from Yahweh. In Ezekiel 5, God continues his message to Ezekiel, telling him that after his theatrical siege of Jerusalem is ended, he is to act out the scattering of the people into the nations, and tell his hearers that God is going to do this.
Later he received another message from God, to the effect that those who worshipped on the high places in Israel were going to be destroyed (Ezekiel 6). Still later he received another message, that the entire land of Israel would be destroyed (Ezekiel 7).
Finally, in the 6th year of Zedekiah and Jehoiachin, in the sixth month, fifth day, Ezekiel was shown a vision of the abominations of Jerusalem, of God’s abandonment of the city and Temple, and of the destruction of the same (Ezekiel 8-11). All of these visions and events happened during the 430 days of simulated siege. After this come more visions, prophesies, and prophetic theater (Ezekiel 12-19), some of which may still have come during the 430 days. The message of chapter 12, at least, probably came right at the end of the simulated siege. Those that follow probably came after, over the next couple of years.
Ezekiel 8 is of interest because it shows that idolatry had returned in full force to Israel. Up to this point the prophets had denounced the sin of oppression and the idolatry of looking for an early return from exile. By this time, in 591 BC, Ezekiel is shown that in their hearts, the leaders of Israel were bowing down to all kinds of abominable things. Women were "weeping for Tammuz," and men were bowing to the sun in the east. They were using the Temple for these things, thus outwardly still associating their idolatry with Yahweh, which infuriated the Lord.
Moreover, in Ezekiel 13, which comes soon after, we find God denouncing the prophets for practicing divination, and the women of Israel for using magic charms. Idolatry of the heart is also denounced in Ezekiel 14. Ezekiel 16 is an allegory, and surveys the history of Israel’s idolatry, and certainly implies that the nation was once again returning more and more to the outward practice of idolatry. Ezekiel 18 denounces social sins and the use of the high places as shrines of Yahweh.
Ezekiel 14:14 is interesting because God mentions Daniel as one of the three most righteous men in history. We can imagine that most of the Israelites and exiles hated Daniel, because he was at Nebuchadnezzar’s right hand and supported his righteous judgments against God’s apostate people. We can be sure the Ezekiel and Daniel were good friends, and that both men had regular correspondence with Jeremiah in Jerusalem.
We now arrive at Ezekiel 20, a prophecy that comes in the 7th year, 5th month, 10th day, of Zedekiah-Jehoiachin’s dual rule. Here we have a word to the exiles. God denounces a whole series of sins, reviewing Israel’s history, and climaxing with an indictment against the exiles for practicing full-fledged idolatry on high places. Ezekiel says that eventually their sons will repent and return to the land, but that they will remain "in the wilderness" until that time.
The ensuing oracles, which follow this one in time, are against Jerusalem. Doubtless Ezekiel sent these as letters to Jeremiah and the other faithful in Israel, but they were mainly given to the exiles to destroy their false hopes in an early return. A long list of abominations is denounced by God in Ezekiel 22, and almost all of these are social crimes. Listed among them is the continuing evil of eating sacramental meals at shrines (v. 9). Though making idols is mentioned at the outset (v. 3), it is unclear whether the people in Jerusalem were really setting up false gods, or if their "idolatry" consisted of their horrible treatment of the image of God, other people. Chapter 23 denounces the idolatry of looking to other nations instead of God for protection.
In Ezekiel 24, the prophet is told that on that very day, the 10th of the 10th month of the kings’ ninth year (588 BC), Nebuchadnezzar had laid siege to Jerusalem, and would bring God’s judgment upon her. Ezekiel’s wife also was taken by God at this time, and the prophet was told not to mourn publicly for her. This is because he was acting high priest for the exiles, but also was a picture to them that God would not mourn the death of His bride, Jerusalem, because as Ezekiel 16 and 23 point out, she was notoriously adulterous.
(to be continued)
OPEN BOOK
Views & Reviews
No. 30 Copyright (c) 1996 Biblical Horizons December, 1996
Twelve Fundamental Avenues of Revelation (Part 1)
by James B. Jordan
Theologians often speak of "special" and "general" revelation, or of "natural" and "supernatural" revelation, or of "word" and "deed" revelation. While there are many worthwhile insights in these discussions, particularly in the discussions in Cornelius Van Til’s Introduction to Systematic Theology, I have not found any that satis_ed my quest for a full picture of revelation grounded in the doctrine of God and creation – by which I mean that I have my own concerns and agendas as a theologian and what I have read from others has not supplied what I have needed, or at least has not supplied it in the form in which I needed it.
For those who are interested, this essay is part of the general series of studies in "Through New Eyes," which supplement my book by that title, and which will form the second volume of a series under the same title. In this "second volume," we are interested in uncovering a trinitarian view of history, and part of doing that is to expose a trinitarian view of revelation that is suited to our purposes. By no means do I intend the present essay to say all that should be said about the subject of God’s self-revelation to and through the creation. My purposes, as stated, are (a) to provide for myself and others a useful general conceptual grid, and (b) to provide a framework that is useful in discussing the unfolding of God’s plan and glory in human and cosmic history.
That said, let me begin by pointing out that almost without exception, discussions of this topic seek to divide revelation into two kinds, such as "general" and "special," or "verbal" and "non-verbal." As a trinitarian schooled at the feet of such men as John M. Frame and Vern S. Poythress (who should be credited for much that is worthwhile in this essay, but who should not be held accountable for such infelicities as are doubtless present), I am disinclined to follow. God has revealed Himself in three ways, in three Persons, and we should expect there to be three irreducable avenues of revelation from Him.
The tendency to reduce everything in theology to pairs, or dyads, such as two kinds of revelation, or two testaments, or "body and soul," etc., is, I submit, a holdover from Greek philosophical ways of thinking. For the Greek philosophers, the universe is not created by a living God, but is self-creating, an emergent manifestation of "being." Accordingly, the universe consists of two things: "being" and "non-being," or "form" and "matter" as it is also put. Since the universe is god, or somehow embraces god, then the "good high stu_" is divine while the "bad low stu_" is non-divine or even anti-divine. In Christian thought, this dyad played strongly into the division between "nature" and "grace."
If, however, we start strictly from the genius of Biblical revelation, the very Word of God, we come up with a di_erent scheme. The only true duality is that of the creature and the Creator. It is this duality that the various Greek and Greek-modi_ed schemes point to, though without su_cient clarity. God Himself, however, exists in three Persons, each with unique properties. The creation adds a fourth "person" to this community, so that the creation exists in four directions or aspects, as revealed symbolically in the four faces of the cherubim. That is, creation displays the three Persons/aspects/properties of God as well as her own unique non-divine aspect/property. History is structured in such a way that the three Persons of God are revealed in order, and such that any fourth period of creation history is also the _rst of a new cycle of three. We have discussed this in brief in previous essays in the "Through New Eyes Part Two" series (see Biblical Horizons 22, 57, 58, 61, 63, 69, 80, and Rite Reasons 31-36).
For the Christian, unlike the Greeks, God unfolds Himself to us in history, progressively, from glory to glory; from Father to Son to Spirit in a repeating spiral, each of which takes His Daughter-Bride to a new level of maturity. For the Christian, unlike the Greeks, God is a person, and so He communicates by language. Hearing rather than sight is the primary mode of revelation, as one person speaks with another.
Trinitarian Revelation
God reveals Himself as Person, Word, and Energy (Power, Movement). In another sense, each of these is a Person (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but the particular property of each is di_erent. Thus the Father is the Ultimate Person and the Archetype of personhood. The Son, as a divine Person, is the Image of the Father, and the Spirit is the Image of Father and Son.
The Son’s property is language, for He is the Word. He is "spoken" by the Father as well as "begotten" by Him.
The Son also speaks back to the Father, and this requires not just "thought" but "breath" (motion, energy) so that the Holy Spirit enables the Son to speak back to the Father. The Spirit is the Energy that enables the Word to leave the mind of God and to go forth. Thus, the Spirit energizes the Word in the _rst place, from the Father, acting almost as a mother to the Son; and the Spirit energizes the Word back to the Father, acting almost as a bride to the Son.
There is, however, no true feminine in God, for God is creator over against the creation. The creation is the feminine. Accordingly, it is the Spirit who comes into the creation at the beginning and continually moves alongside the creation, alongside creation’s apex, humanity, to enable humanity, and through us the creation, to converse back with God.
This triune communication of intra-trinitarian revelation is the ground of revelation to the creation. Thus, we have revelation through three modes: persons, language, and movement. It is an error to speak of only two kinds of revelation, such as word and deed, for there is also revelation through persons. It is an error to speak of only two aspects of the church, word and sacrament, for the community of persons is a third. It is wrong to speak of only two "means of grace," word and sacrament, for persons are means of grace to one another (John 7:38-39; cf. 3:8).
(John Frame, in class lectures on the doctrine of the Word of God, has shown that each of these forms of revelation is also a form of the Word of God, which is self-expressive [person-revealing], meaningful [linguistic in itself], and powerful [energetic]. Thus, the Son [Word] reveals the essence of the Father and the essence of the Spirit, while the Father and the Spirit also reveal themselves directly.)
The replication of this triune revelation is seen at the level of human persons, in that we are priests, kings, and prophets. We must correct Calvin and the theological tradition at this point, because the modes of revelation that the Bible sets forth for these three are not quite those we _nd in the standard literature. The priest primarily reveals personhood, so that his dress and position are most important. The king primarily reveals language, for he speaks laws and rulings and gives direction to society. The prophet is primarily the man of action, for he goes places and performs dramatic actions, blown by the Spirit. Of course, all three aspects are found in all three persons, as we shall discuss in due course.
For now, in summary:
Father – Personal revelation
Son – Language revelation
Spirit – Action revelation
Three Modes in Four Spheres
When theologians speak of "special" and "general" revelation, they usually mean something like on the one hand the particular revelation of God directly through the Word together with the special history recounted in the Bible, and on the other hand the general revelation of God through the created world, which cannot help but reveal its Maker and Sustainer. Yet any theologian will have to distinguish between "general" revelation
GOD A. Father B. Son C. Spirit
Person Language Act
From outside
the creation:
1. Divine Theophany Speech Covenant history
Scripture
CREATION Particle Field Wave
Matter Space Time
Through the
creation:
2. Human People Language Deeds
(Father)
3. Covenantal Rulers Direction Interaction
(Son)
Church Preaching Sacrament
4. Cosmic Angels Relations Activity
(Spirit) Things
A1 Theophanous Revelation
B1 Personal Revelation
C1 Personal Covenantal Revelation:
C1a Through Church
C1b Through Rulers
D1 Object Revelation
A2 Word Revelation
B2 Linguistic Revelation
C2 Linguistic Covenantal Revelation:
C1a Through Preaching
C1b Through Judgments
D2 Relational Revelation
A3 Special Historical Revelation
B3 General Historical Revelation
C3 Dynamic Covenantal Revelation:
C3a Sacraments
C3b Acts of Power
D3 Dynamic Cosmic Revelation
through human life and history on the one hand, and through the lower creation on the other. From what we have seen thus far, this vague distinction between "special" and "general" does not _ow from the nature of God and the creation. In addition to a triad of what is being revealed, we also need a triad of spheres through which it is being revealed, and that gives us nine avenues of revelation. When we add God Himself to the three created spheres of revelation in which He discloses Himself, we come up with twelve avenues of revelation. For reasons that will be explained in due course, one of these must be divided, for a full total of _fteen avenues.
I must add that "special" revelation is usually considered the redemptive revelation God provides to man after our fall into alienation, while "general" revelation is said not to contain redemptive content. I think that this bifurcation is open to serious question. The present essay will not, however, address this distinction. We are at this point concerned only with avenues of revelation, and we shall set aside the question of redemptive versus non-redemptive content.
The best way for us to proceed is to set this out in a scheme, and then discuss it. In that way, the proof of the pudding will be in its eating, so to speak.
I believe that these twelve categories, being a (3-fold) revelation of the Trinity in the (4-fold) creation, can summarize all the various avenues of revelation, exposing to view several that are extremely important and generally overlooked.
Immediately we must make an extremely important point, which is this: In the opera ad extra of God (i.e., God’s works outside of Himself, in the creation) each Person of God is involved, yet so that one Person is more prominent than the other two. To use the popular phraseology: All of God does all that God does. Thus, Theophany is not a revelation of the Father apart from the Son and the Spirit, but in Theophany the Personhood, and therefore the Fatherhood, of God is preeminent, while word and glory (energy) are also present. We shall explore these revelational relationships as we proceed.
1. Revelation Through Persons.
God comes into creation Himself. He comes through various other things, but He also comes directly, in the Divine Person, Word, and Power (Energy). That is, we can distinguish (if not always separate) between God’s Person, Word, and Power over the creation and God’s Person, Word, and Power through the creation. Here we are concerned with the former.
A1. Theophanous Revelation. A Theophany is an appearance of God. The various times God appeared in the time before the incarnation of the Son anticipate His _nal and full Theophany in Jesus Christ. John 1:18 says that no one has seen God (the Father) at any time, so that with a few exceptions all appearances of God in history are appearances of the Son. The Spirit occasionally becomes visible, as when He gave forth light on the _rst day of creation, and when He appeared as a Dove at Jesus’ baptism.
Theophanies are always accompanied by words and actions of power (miracles), so that the linguistic and energetic aspects of God’s self-revelation are also present, but the aspect of theophany as such is personal. Thus, it is preeminently associated with the Father, even though it is the Father’s Image (the Son) that is the particular Person present in the theophany.
(to be continued)
