Redemptive History

The Antichrist: Gog and Magog

2006-09-07T21:22:00.000-07:00

“Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him.” (Ezek. 38:2)

“Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.” (Rev. 16:16)

“When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.” (Rev. 20:7-8)

Gog and Magog are woven into the eschatological framework by God Himself. However, relatively little attention has been given to them.[1] It is the contention of the work to show that Armageddon (Rev. 16:14-16) and the Gog-Magog (Rev. 20:7-10) incident are synonymous events which occur at the conclusion of the millennium. Revelation chapter 20 has much in common with the Gog-Magog crisis in chapters 38 and 39 of the book of Ezekiel. For example, Revelation 20 cites Gog and Magog (Rev. 20:8) and both sections deal with the mustering of the world’s evil armies with an end to eradicate the people of God, but they themselves are the ones who are destroyed.

In order to connect the links in the chain of the Armageddon of Revelation 16 and the Revelation 20/Ezekiel 38-39 Gog-Magog crisis a central element must be commonly found in all. Besides the gathering forces to destroy God’s people only to later end in destruction, there is the common theme of Antichrist. Gog vainly attempts to counterfeit then usurp the Lord’s rightful place—Mount Zaphon.[2] This is a Mountain that denotes the place from where God’s glory descends (Job 37:22; Ezek. 1:4). Gog fails in his quest for glory. This is seen more explicitly in the Hebrew text. The point of his failure is emphasized with puns in the grammar. For example, instead of siyyôn (Zion), he will be granted siyyûn a burial marker (Ezek. 39:15). The place where his forces will be buried is ‘ôběrîm which is a term used for the dead crossing from this world into the next (Ezek. 39:11).

While it is certainly true that types of antichrists have already come,[3] Gog is no foreruner. He is the Antichrist of the final conflict. This is seen from the unmistakable finality of the scenarios described of Gog-Magog in Ezekiel 39-39. Both in Revelation 20 and Ezekiel 38:8, the crisis comes following an age of persecution of God’s people. Also, as the Lord’s judgment of Gog in Revelation 20 fuses with the resurrection of the dead (Rev. 20:11-15), the Lord’s delivers His people from Gog which marks for them a state of eternal safety and blessedness (Ezek. 39:21-29).

This “…war of the great day of God, the Almighty” (Rev. 16:14) is certainly the same war refered to in Rev. 20:8.[4] Once the above is established, it must be further shown that the Gog-Magog crisis of Ezekiel 38-39 is indeed identical to Revelation 20:7-10 (which has been shown above to be describing the same event as Revelation 16:14-16). Some of the similarities mentioned above will be enumerated here. Of course, Gog and Magog are mentioned in both texts. Also, there is the gathering of the satanic hordes from the four corners of the earth (Ezek. 38:2-7,15; 39:4 cf. Rev. 20:8), the armies encompassing the city of God[5] (Ezek. 38:7-9,12,16 cf. Rev. 20:9), the fact that this event is ordained by God Himself (Ezek. 38:4,16; 39:2,19 cf. Rev. 20:3,7), the time of the crisis occurring after a time when God’s people lived in relative peace (Ezek. 38:8,11 cf. Rev. 20:3), and the flaming destruction of the satanic forces (Ezek. 38:22; 39:6 cf. Rev. 20:9-10) all point towards a cohesive portrayal of a final eschatological crisis rendered in both Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 20 which again is identical with the Armageddon of Revelation 16:16 (Ezek. 39:22,26,29 cf. Rev. 20:10).[6]

The Gog-Magog Antichrist sinfully lays claim to lordship of Mount Zaphon—the place of divine council (Is. 14:13 cf. Ezek. 38:6,15; 39:2). This woeful antichrist challenges the real Lord of Armageddon.[7] Such vile pride is what triggers the parousia of Christ to destroy him (2nd Thess. 2:3-10). In fact, the false parousia of the antichrist (2nd Thess. 2:9) is depicted in the prophet Ezekiel’s prophecy where Gog comes in a false storm-cloud theophany (Ezek. 38:9,16)[8] The identification of Gog-Magog should have an impact on all of the millennial views.[9] Although much more could be said, it should suffice to simply rest in the victory of God’s conflict with evil that was inaugurated and will one day be consummated.

[1] A representative sample of work on this subject is as follows: Meredith G. Kline, “Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39 (1996), pp. 207-222. The above article follows the exegesis of Dr. Kline and assumes an understanding of Armageddon as Har-Megedon “mount of assembly” (see pp.207-213); Daniel I. Block, “Gog in prophetic tradition: a new look at Ezekiel XXXVIII:17," Vetus testamentum 42 no 2 (1992), pp. 154-172; Michel C. Astour, “Ezekiel's prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean legend of Naram-Sin,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976), pp. 567-579; Reidar Hvalvik, “Sverre Bøe: Gog and Magog” Norsk teologisk tidsskrift 101 no 4 (2000), pp. 257-259; John F. Walvoord, “Russia: king of the north” Fundamentalist Journal 3 no 2 (1984), pp. 23-27.
[2] Each time Gog is mentioned, the location from where he came from is mentioned also. In Hebrew, it is yarkětê sāpôn “Mount Zaphon” (Ezek. 38:6,15; 39:2). This is sometimes seen as a rival, but often identical to Mount Zion or the Mount of Assembly. Tying in to the antichrist theme is Isaiah 14:13 which contains the Babylonian king as a type of antichrist who attempts to usurp God’s throne on Mount Zaphon. For more information see Meredith G. Kline, “Har Magedon The End of the Millennium," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39 (1996), pp .214, 216-217. In Ugarit, Baal was associated with Mount Zaphon, but some see an illusion to a myth from the Akkadian King Naram-Sin (the first king to deify himself while living) which describes him as fighting multitudes of demons from the north. For more information see Michel C. Astour, “Ezekiel's prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean legend of Naram-Sin,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976), pp. 567-579.
[3] See the above footnote concerning the King of Babylon in Is. 14:13.
[4] Both Rev. 16:14 and 20:8 use the Greek word πόλεος (polemos) translated as “battle” in the NIV.
[5] Also known as the center (lit. “navel”) of the world (Ezek. 5:5; 38:12).
[6] The correlation between Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 20 with Revelation 16:14-16 can be further adduced by the binding theme of the universal marshaling of evil armies (Ezek. 38:2-7,15; 39:4 cf. Rev. 16:14-16; Rev. 20:8).
[7] Armageddon should actually be pronounced “Har-magedon.” In Greek, the alpha or “a” has a rough breathing mark. Whenever a vowel has this mark, one is to add an “h” sound to whatever vowel the mark is placed over. Therefore, the “ar” of armageddon should actually be pronounced “har.” This is significant because Rev. 16:16 says that the place is called in Hebrew “armageddon” (pronounced har-magedon). The Hebrew word for “mountain” is har. Thus, Revelation 16:16 speaks of a mountain and not a valley as some may suppose.
[8] For more information on the false advent of the antichrist in a theophanic storm-cloud see Meredith G. Kline, “Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39 (1996), p. 217.
[9] For example, a final conflict between innumerable evil armies against God’s people hardly plays favorable to the postmillennialists who claim that all will be Christian. For example in his comment on Rev. 19:16 David Chilton says, “All nations are absolutely required to be Christian, in their official capacity….Any nation that does not submit to the all-embracing rule of King Jesus will perish; all nations shall be Christianized….in this world as well as in the next” David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, (Dominion:1987) p.489.

I Saw Visions of God: A Brief Summary of the Book of Ezekiel with Emphasis on Biblical-Theological Themes

2006-09-03T01:32:00.000-07:00

The book of Ezekiel is one of the most autobiographical books of the Major Prophets. It is surprising, therefore, that little is said about his life prior to his prophetic call at age thirty which corresponds to the exile of the fifth year of King Jehoiachin. One fact that is known concerning Ezekiel is that he, like the prophet Jeremiah, was a priest (Ezek. 1:3). However, when Ezekiel reached the appropriate age for formal entrance into the priesthood (30 years of age), there was no temple to minister in since it had been destroyed in 586 BC by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Also, Ezekiel was married, but his wife died shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezek. 24:18). Among the displaced exiles, Ezekiel’s prophetic leadership was without question (Ezek. 8:1; 20:1).

The date of composition for the book of Ezekiel is approximately 593 – 570 BC. His prophetic ministry was to those living under the yoke of the Babylonian exile. As it was stated above, the vast majority of the book is autobiographical in nature (Ezek. 1:1), but there are also some third-person narrative sections that either Ezekiel or someone close to him wrote. Also, there is a portion of the book of Ezekiel that could be classified in the genre of wisdom literature due to the prophet’s use of parables (chap. 15) and proverbs (Ezek. 16:44).

Ezekiel was a witness to the Babylonian empire gaining prominence over the once-mighty Assyrians. King Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh Neco often fought with each other over the land that was formerly a part of the Assyrian empire. Sadly, Israel was often the buffer zone between the two major powers. Thus, Israel suffered a great deal by way of repercussions from whoever was stronger at any given time. King Jehoiakim, who was somewhat of a puppet-king, was appointed by Pharaoh Neco. Jehoiakim would switch his allegiances to whoever was perceived as the greatest potential threat to Israel. Jehoiakim switched back to being Pharaoh Neco’s vassal prior to the battle of Carchemish. After Nebuchadnezzar won the pivotal battle of Carchemish in 609 BC, Jehoiakim died leaving his son, Jehoiachin, to endure the wrath of the great Babylonian king. Nebuchadnezzar took the king into exile along with the prophet Ezekiel in 597 BC (2nd Kin. 24:8 – 12) and appointed Zedekiah as his king.

Ezekiel’s work mainly consists of three sections: Jerusalem’s just judgment (chaps. 1 – 24), oracles of woe to the foreign nations (chaps. 25 – 32), and the future restoration of God’s people (chaps. 33 – 48). Ezekiel warns against the foolish notions of a short exile or that Jerusalem would be spared further disgrace. Also, Ezekiel includes many dates which have proven to be accurate according to other Biblical and extra-biblical sources. Ezekiel makes use of many symbolic actions such as: bondage and silence (Ezek. 3:22 – 26), models of a city siege (Ezek. 4: 1 – 3), lying on his side for over a year (Ezek. 4:4 – 8), eating at certain times (Ezek. 4:9 – 11), baking barely cake using human excrement as fuel (4:12 – 14), burning hair (Ezek. 5:1 – 3), mimicking the exile (Ezek. 12:10 – 16), trembling during meals (Ezek. 12:17 – 20), groaning (Ezek. 21: 6 – 7), drawing of two roads (Ezek. 21:18 – 24), abstaining from mourning his dead wife (Ezek. 24:15 – 24), and the joining together of two sticks (Ezek. 37:15 – 28).

“In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kedar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God.” (Ezek. 1:1). This opening verse describes much of the elements contained in his book. Dates, his inclusion among the exiles, and miraculous visions of God are common components found throughout the book of Ezekiel. In the opening chapter, Ezekiel describes his encounter with the theophanic glory cloud that resembled a blazing chariot. Among the flashings of lighting and fire, Ezekiel was able to discern what looked like four living creatures which looked like a man, but with glowing calf-like feet, four wings, and four faces (Ezek. 1:5 – 14). Each creature had four faces which included the face of a man, lion, ox, and eagle. Some have interpreted these creature’s faces as somehow symbolically relating to the four Gospel writers: Matthew—lion, because Christ is depicted as the Royal son of David; Mark—ox, because of Mark’s continual use of the Greek word ευθυς (euthous) which means, "immediately or straightaway," denoting the consistent work ethic or deeds of Christ; Luke—man, because Luke depicts Christ as the ultimate man; John—eagle, because his Gospel emphasized the inherent divinity of Jesus Christ. However, these observations are speculative at best.

The four creatures whose wings touched one another were Spirit-led beings (Ezek. 1:12). While wreathes of fire wove themselves all about the creatures, the creatures themselves did not turn as they moved, but rather shot across as flashes of lightening (Ezek. 1:13 – 14). A wheel was also in the immediate vicinity of each creature. Each wheel was identical in the fact that they sparkled, did not turn, intersected another wheel, and were full of eyes upon their lofty rims (Ezek. 1:15 – 21). Above these creatures was an ice-like expanse (Ezek. 1:22). Above the expanse, there was a throne constructed of the ancient emerald, lapis lazuli (often rendered as sapphire). Upon the throne sat God Himself in ultima-refulgent glory that reminded Ezekiel of God’s covenant sign, the rainbow (Ezek. 1:25 – 28; Gen. 9:3).

Given the scope of this work, considerable attention has been given in describing Ezekiel’s view of the inner sanctum of the throne of Yahweh in order to properly understand Ezekiel’s response, “. . . I fell facedown . . .” (Ezek. 1:28c) and his unquestioned obedience in the seemingly strange abovementioned symbolic oracle-actions. As a fitting image of our position before God, God Himself must invade Ezekiel’s dread-filled body in order for him to be obedient in God’s first command to him namely, “Stand up . . .” (Ezek. 2:1)! Ezekiel obviously wanted to obey the Lord of Glory he had just seen, but due to his own sinfulness, he could not obey. Ezekiel says that, “. . . the Spirit came into me and raised me to my feet . . .” (Ezek. 2:2). Again, it is a fitting scene that is analogous to our “coming” to Christ. Ezekiel witnessed what no man can properly describe. He stretches the Hebrew language to its extreme in its depiction of the heavenly throne scene. Metaphors almost seem to burst when Ezekiel describes the anatomy of the creatures and their wheels. The imagery of a divine chariot was fairly common in the Ancient Near East, but none so passionately described. Therefore, it is easier to understand the complete obedience of Ezekiel in such things as the command to not mourn his wife at her death, when it is viewed in the context of the God whom Ezekiel fell before in the opening chapter.
Some of these symbolic action-oracles immediately follow the opening commissioning scene (Ezek. 4:1—5:4). Next, Ezekiel goes on to pronounce oracles of woe and judgment upon Israel for her numerous idolatries (Ezek. 5:5—7:27). Again, Ezekiel is shown visions in the form of the evil idolatrous practices going on inside the temple itself (Ezek. 8:1 – 18). As a result, God renders horrifying justice to the unrepentant within the remnant of Israel following the exile. In fact, the Lord’s judgment-slaughter is so severe, that Ezekiel again falls upon his face and begs God not to destroy the entirety of His people (Ezek. 9:8). Preceding more judgment upon the leaders of Israel (Ezek. 11:1 – 21), is the all-important vision of the glory of the Lord departing from the temple (Ezek. 10:1 – 21). In this vision, the glory-chariot described above, leaves toward the east. Since that time, the theophanic Spirit-cloud of God never dwelt in Israel’s temple. However, under the New Covenant the Spirit indeed indwells His temple—His people (cf. Ezek. 43:1 – 27; 2nd Cor. 6:16).

Ezekiel 12:1—24:14 includes oracles against false prophets (Ezek. 13:1 – 23), Idolatry (Ezek. 14: 1 – 23), spiritual harlotry (Ezek. 16:1 – 63), and Israel’s kings (Ezek. 19:1- 14). Also, Ezekiel tells the proverb of falsehood (Ezek. 12:21 – 28), the vine (Ezek. 15:1 – 8), the two eagles (Ezek. 17:1 – 24), and the two lewd sisters (Ezek. 23:1 – 49)—each proverb analogizing a particular facet of Israel’s turning away from their God. Like Jeremiah before him, Ezekiel also prophesied that Babylon was God’s judgment sword (Ezek. 21:1 – 32).

The next section of Ezekiel’s oracles deals with the judgment upon the foreign nations such as Tyre (Ezek. 26:1—28:6) and Egypt (Ezek. 29:1—32:32). It is with the prophecy against Tyre, specifically Tyre’s king, which particularly warrants attention. After pronouncing the king’s judgment (Ezek. 28:1 – 10), Ezekiel laments the destruction of the king calling him formerly blameless (Ezek. 28:15) and using language that describes him as a guardian angelic being who walked on God’s holy Edenic mountain (Ezek. 28:14 – 15) only later to be driven out by the Lord God Himself (Ezek. 28:16b). Scholars debate whether these verses symbolically describe the prior favor of God to Tyre’s King Ethbaal by portraying him as a primeval being that God had originally crowed with high glory and honor, or if this is in fact, a somewhat cryptic description of the fall of Lucifer given much in the same manner of King David’s Messianic Psalms (cf. Ps. 22:1; Matt. 27:46).

The last section of the book of Ezekiel deals primarily with the future hope and restoration of God’s people—Israel. Ezekiel once again assumes the role of a watchman in which he describes Judah’s fall and the groups of the Israelites within it (Ezek. 33:21 – 33). Also, he describes the past and future shepards over Israel (Ezek. 34:1 – 31). Correlating nicely with the abovementioned prostration scene (Ezek. 1:28) depicting our inability to obey God without His Spirit, is the popular vision of the valley of the dry bones (Ezek. 37:1 – 14). This is yet another descriptive analogy of man’s death in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). The Lord God alone can make dry bones come alive or dead men live (John 6:44). Following the symbolic oracle-action of the two sticks (Ezek. 37:15 – 28) and a vivid description of the coming Har-Meggedon conflict involving the Gog enemies of God (Ezek. 38:1—39:29) are the closing verses depicting a detailed vision of restored Jerusalem—including the all-important temple structure (Ezek. 40:1—48:35).

Interpretations of these chapters vary widely. Some have interpreted this section as actual blueprints for the city and temple of the Jews when they returned from their Babylonian exile. However, Ezekiel’s vision for the future seems to go far beyond a future rebuilding project due to the mentioning of leaves not withering and that the trees leaves will be for healing (cf. Ezek. 47:12; Rev. 22:2). Recently in the history of the Church, there have been some who see this section as dealing with a future temple that will be rebuilt in the present-day (or some form thereof) city of Jerusalem complete with animal sacrifices. However, the temple itself was a type or shadow of what was to come—Christ the temple (John: 2:19; Heb. 10:1 – 18). Therefore, reverting back to the shadow of the temple in the glorious light of the real or actual temple is counterproductive to say the least (Heb. 12:22). Rather, since Christ calls Himself the temple (John 2:19), Scripture calls the Church the temple (1st Cor. 3:9 – 17; 2nd Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19 – 22), and the Bible teaches that in the New Heavens and the New Earth there will be no temple (Hab. 2:14; Rev. 21:1 – 2, 22 – 27); this section ought to be interpreted to refer to the spiritual temple of God just as Israel ought to now be considered the Church (Gal. 6:15 – 16). However, these disputes will not be settled here. Volumes by qualified Amillennialists and Dispensationalists have been written on this very subject. Therefore, for our purposes, perhaps it is best to focus in on the fact that Ezekiel begins with merited judgment and wrath, but ends with demerited grace.

Through the Eyes of Keziniah: A New Perspective on Baptism

2006-08-21T21:35:00.000-07:00

“And he took them that same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.” Acts 16:33-34 ESV

What is baptism? Who should be baptized? These questions have been debated throughout the centuries of the Christian Church. This work is not an attempt to solve the debate. However, it is the intention of the work to show a perspective on baptism to which many in the Church have never been exposed. Therefore, the reader is asked to attempt to lay their presuppositions aside. Again, this work is not an argument, but rather an attempt to look at baptism from a new perspective.

A covenant is a bond-in-blood that is sovereignly administered[1]. All throughout Scripture, God relates to His people through the means of a covenantal relationship. In fact, most of the time that the Bible uses the word “loving-kindness” it is speaking of God’s covenant love. Ancient Near Eastern people often would make (literally “cut”) a covenant with one another. However, only in the pages of Scripture do we find a Deity making a covenant with man. If two people living during the Old Testament age wanted to make a covenant with one another, it was a ceremony with serious ramifications. First, one would dig a trench. Then, the people involved would slice various animals and let their blood run into the newly dug trench. Finally, the first covenanter would pass through the blood, followed by the second covenant-maker. Signifying this, if one of the people making the covenant did not meet the pre-determined stipulations of the covenant, then what had happened to the animals would happen to the covenant-breaker. However, if the people kept the stipulations of the covenant, then they would both enjoy the pre-determined benefits of the covenant. This is where the whole Biblical idea of “blessings and cursings” finds its origins. If a person were to keep the stipulations of the covenant, then that person would receive the blessings of the covenant. If the individual under the covenant did not meet the stipulations, then the individual would receive the cursings of the covenant. God is a God of the Covenant.

With a basic knowledge of the covenant in mind, the reader is invited to go on an imaginary pilgrimage to ancient Jerusalem with Keziniah son of Beracah. Keziniah is a Jew from the tribe of Dan. However, he lives in Cappadocia, which is the easternmost province of Asia Minor. Keziniah’s father Beracah was the recipient of a great portion of land which he squandered away on wine and women. Therefore, Keziniah was relieved to find out that he would be moving from Jerusalem to Cappadocia to work for his new wife’s father. Keziniah wanted to do anything to escape the shame that his father had brought upon his family. He made a vow to God that he would be a far better father to his future children.

Keziniah made a decent living managing his father-in-law’s business, but he soon found out why this arrangement seemed to good to be true. His wife Iscahoni, was one of the most difficult women to please in all of Asia Minor. Her father was a good man, but he knew that the only way a man would marry his daughter is if he was from a distant land and he promised him a prosperous job. Keziniah fit the bill. However, Keziniah’s life was not one full of pain and grief, devoid of all joy and happiness. Keziniah loved his God. As a result, he tried to love his wife and his life as Cappadocian merchant. This was made much easier by the births of his twin sons, Japhlet and Jaroah.

Keziniah went to participate in the Feasts of Weeks (a.k.a. Pentecost, Feast of Harvest, or Day of Firstfruits). Unfortunately, Keziniah usually went to these things alone. His wife was not very devout and his sons were to young to take on the journey. Unbeknownst to him, arriving in Jerusalem was only the beginning of his journey. Not unlike all of the Jews in Jerusalem at that time, Keziniah was a party to many discussions that focused around the miracle-working carpenter/prophet that the Sanhedrin had put to death days earlier. Soon, Keziniah felt that this was not going to be the typical Feast of Harvests. As Keziniah was preparing for breakfast, he heard a loud commotion outside his room. When he exited his room he saw a baffled crowd staring at a group of Jews praising the Lord in what sounded like many different languages. Keziniah found himself in the midst of the ever-increasing crowd mesmerized by what he saw and heard taking place. Some mocked them, but most were simply perplexed as to what all this meant. He was soon about to receive his answer.

A man stood up and answered the mockers. However, he did not stop with a simple rebuttal. He went on to explain that what they were witnessing was none other than the fulfillment of what the prophet Joel (Joel 2:28-32) had foretold. God was poring out His Spirit on these people. Then, the man speaking began to tell the crowd of Jesus of Nazareth. He spoke about His death and resurrection. He cited King David. He explained how Jesus was the Messiah, but the people had put him to death. Keziniah could not contain himself any longer when he shouted with a loud voice, “Brothers what should we do”?

The man said spoke to the crowd, but Keziniah felt that man was speaking directly to him. The man said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and for your children and all who are far off , everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself.” (Acts 2:28-29) This man was referencing the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis (Gen. 17:7-14; Luke: 1:54-55).

Keziniah races home with a new song in his heart and a new direction for his life. He tells his father-in-law and his family about the amazing spectacle he witnessed and how he had forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. His listeners did not react in the way that he expected. Instead of joy, he saw looks of fear and anger in their faces. They did not accept his message. However, Keziniah knew that God’s covenants always included children. Therefore, he had them baptized as a sign under this New Covenant. Keziniah had his sons circumcised although they were not yet believers in Yahweh as a symbol of membership in the covenant community with God and His people. Naturally, Keziniah had his sons baptized although they were not yet believers in Christ. As the days go on, Keziniah realizes that following Christ has its costs. His wife was more unruly than ever and he had already overheard his father-in-law comparing Keziniah with Beracah. He made the unpopular decision to move his family to Corinth. He was going to go into business with a Corinthian Christian he had met.

The new business prospered, but Keziniah was burdened for his wife and children. He knew that the promise was for him and for his family, but he did not see any sign of them coming to the knowledge of Christ. Just when Keziniah thought that his family would never come to know the joy that he felt, his church received a new letter from the Apostle Paul. When he heard the letter read, he began to cry. God knew just what Keziniah son of Beracah needed that day. He felt a new sense of peace as he heard the Apostle’s words, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” (1st Cor. 7:14) Any Jew knew what God meant by the words “holy” and “unclean.” Although his outward circumstances did not change, Keziniah knew that God had not abandoned his family. He knew God was working in their lives because God is the God of the Covenant.

Many books have been written on the subject of baptism and one should only expect many more. However, how many have been written through the eyes of the first century Jewish convert? The fictional character in this story did not have a plethora of books to tell him what to believe, nor did he have the wonders of a western, individualistic culture to show him the way. Instead, Keziniah lived in a federal culture which thought in more representative terms. Keziniah’s name was followed by that of his father. The idea of a covenant that did not include his offspring would not have even entered into the mind of Keziniah or any other first century Jew. This argument has been pointed out by Francis Schaeffer who said, “If Peter did not mean what the Jews understood him to mean in an Old Testament context--that God establishes His covenant not just with believers but with our children also--then there would have been a riot on that day. Or if it had been a polite crowd, there would at least have been hands going up saying, ‘Excuse me Peter, what do you mean by that? Could you clarify yourself?’ It was such a serious thing for the Jew to be told that God is changing a fundamental way in which He deals with people[2].” Noted Biblical scholar, B.B. Warfield notes the Believer Baptist’s absence of a Biblical command signifying this change when he says, “. . . if we except stringent reason for the alteration of the child-including covenant, we shall be sadly disappointed.[3]” Former Baptist Pastor, Robert R. Booth asked himself, “How could this privilege have been canceled without at least some mention of it in the Bible.[4]” Joel R. Beeke and Ray B. Lanning summarize the point of this present work well when they say, “The Jewish multitude had Jewish expectations. . . about the Messiah, but also about the way in which God works with people. Suppose that you were one of those Jews, who had grown up knowing all the privileges and encouragement of a God who says, ‘As the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine’ (Ezek. 18:4). You are told that in Christ the covenant has been restated in a new and better way, but children are now left out of the picture. They are no longer included in the way God deals with people. Would it not at least trouble you to think that God has made such a fundamental alteration to the way in which he offers his grace to men and women?[5]” As it has been stated above, this work is designed only to give the reader a new and different perspective on the doctrine of baptism. Hopefully, this perspective will encourage the reader to dispel the notion that infant baptism is some invention of the Roman Catholic Church. Christians must understand that this doctrine may not be as plain as it may initially seem.

[1]The definition is from O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, (P&R: 1980), pp. 3-15. Although this is a fairly narrow definition, it will suffice for the purposes of this work. Dr. Robertson’s book is an excellent resource for an introduction into Covenantal Thought.
[2]Francis Schaeffer, Baptism, (Trimark: 1976), pp. 18-19.
[3]B.B. Warfield, The Works of B.B Warfield, Vol. II, (Baker:1932), p. 400.
[4]Robert R. Booth, Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism, (P&R: 1995), p. 136
[5] Gregg Strawbridge, ed. The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, (P&R: 2003), p. 57

Concerning Premillennialism and Isaiah 65:17-25

2006-08-21T21:16:00.000-07:00

Isaiah son of Amoz was a prophet of Yahweh. This mortal man witnessed the unspeakable terrors and mercies of Isaiah 6. His words are weighty. These ancient words force the reader to examine one’s place in God’s redemptive history. There are some points of contention concerning the Dispensational or Historic Premillennial interpretations of Isaiah 65:17 – 25. On the outset, it should be noted that often premillennialists claim that theirs is the view of the Early Church. However, this is a broad and untenable claim. While it is true that some Early Church Fathers such as Irenaeus,[1] Justin Martyr,[2] and Tertullian[3] held to a form of premillennialism, it differed in some aspects from historic premillennialism.[4] Also, many other Ante-Nicene Fathers such as Origen,[5] Victorinus,[6] and Caius[7] held to a more amillennial view. Certainly, Patristics is not at issue. However, it is important to note that no one millennial position can lay claim to the historical interpretation of the Church.

The historical premillennial interpretation of Isaiah 65:17 – 25 states that these verses describe the conditions experienced during the work of God called, the millennial reign. This is time period following the second advent of Christ, in which He reigns on earth for one thousand years. The conditions described in these verses are interpreted “literally”[8] by the historical premillennialists. Laying aside for the moment whether or not these verses should be interpreted literally, a cursory reading of Isaiah 65:17 – 25 with passages such as Is. 11:6 – 9; 66:22 – 24; Rev. 21:1 – 8 reveals many similar themes (e.g. peaceable animal kingdom) and statements (e.g. ‘New Heavens and New Earth’). By stark contrast, the millennial portion of Revelation (Rev. 20:1-6) contains no such phrases or thematic content. If these five passages (Is. 11:6-9; 65: 17 – 25; 66:22- 4; Rev. 20:1-6; 21:1-8) were to be laid side by side, Revelation 20 would quickly be seen as out of place. Putting aside what Rev. 20:1 – 6 is describing, it appears whatever it is depicting, it is not found in Isaiah 65:17 – 25.[9]

“ ‘Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth’.” (Is. 65:1a). This phrase, according to historic premillennialism, refers to the thousand year rule of Christ on earth.[10] Yet, a brief survey of other passages that contain this theme will not allow for such an interpretation. Isaiah 66:22 states, “ ‘As the new heavens and the new earth that I will make endure before me,’ declares the Lord, ‘so will your name and descendants endure’.” If the new heavens and new earth refer to the millennial reign as premillennialists hold, then logically the length of time that, “…your name and descendants endure” is one thousand years. Surely such an interpretation confuses the point of Isaiah 66:22—your name and descendants will endure forever.

Warning and encouraging his flock concerning the day of the Lord, Peter says the heavens and earth will be destroyed by fire (2nd Pet. 3:12). In 2nd Peter 3:13 the Apostle Peter warns this destruction will happen, “But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.” Peter’s use of the phrase, ‘new heavens and new earth’ cannot refer to a premillennial thousand year period on earth prior to the consummation of all things. The immediately preceding verse describes the destruction of the heavens and earth. Premillennialism does not hold that the heavens and earth will be destroyed by fire prior to the millennial reign. Rather, it is with the phrase, “home of righteousness” that the new heavens and new earth is defined. This theologically wonderful phrase, “home of righteousness” would not appear to be a fitting designation for a premillennial earth co-inhabited by sinners and saints.

Revelation 21:1 is the final use of the new heavens and new earth phrase, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.” Again, mention is made of the passing away or destruction of the old heavens and earth. Besides the context of the following verses (Rev. 21:2-8), the phrase “no longer any sea” is of special import. This is a place where premillennialists and amillennialists agree that the “literal” or “real” meaning is the “symbolic” one. In the Ancient Near Eastern mind, the sea represented evil or chaos.[11] The mention that there is no sea in the new heavens and the new earth does not mean that there is no sea. It means that there is no evil or sin present there, which again is not conducive to the premillennial co-existence of both the righteous and the reprobate. Therefore, other scriptural references of the “new heavens and new earth” do not allow for this term to be applied to the premillennial one thousand year time period on the earth.[12]

“ ‘The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind’.” (Is. 65:17b). The immediate context of the “former things” for Isaiah was the former judgments and deeds of God upon Israel for their sins (Is. 41:22; 42:9; 43:9,18; 46:9; 48:3). However, Christians often interpret this verse as referring to their former sins. This verse is important for the purposes of this study. Since premillennialists insist upon a literal interpretation of Isaiah 65:17 – 25, then this would lead to the notion that people in the millennial reign are unable to cognitively recall their “former things” (i.e. sin). If premillennialists assert that not remembering the former things means anything besides not remembering, then it would appear that the premillennial literal hermeneutic is flexible on this point. “But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy.” (Is. 65:18). Note the duration of the command for rejoicing—forever.

As it has been shown above, the other Biblical references to the new heavens and the new earth refer to the heavenly state, not to a thousand year earthly reign of Christ.[13] However, Isaiah 65:20 reads, “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be accursed.” Initially, this passage seems to pose difficulties for those who hold to the amillennial position. How could Isaiah 65:17 – 25 refer to heaven if people die? A proper hermeneutic would suggest that the other passages mentioned above in no way allow for a millennial reign, so one should simply interpret the unclear in light of the clear. While this is certainly an acceptable solution, it will not suffice for the present study. This leads to the real crux of the matter between premillennialists and amillennialists. The premillennial hermeneutic, which has been shown lacking with phrases such as “new heavens and new earth,” “not recalling the former things,” and “rejoicing forever” demands that Isaiah 65:20 means that people will truly die. Amillennialists on the other hand, see this verse as metaphorically describing the incalculable long life of the redeemed in heaven. This is due to amillennialists seeing Isaiah 65:17 – 25 as depicting the heavenly state through a series of literary metaphors attempting to convey the unspeakable bliss that awaits the sons and daughters of God. One can just see the prophet bursting anthropomorphical language boundaries attempting to convey the ultimate consummation of all things (2nd Cor. 2:9 cf. Is. 64:4)!

If premillennialists hold that v. 20 refers to the fact that people will die, then they must logically hold that there will be no sorrow or crying when people die in the millennium. For, Isaiah 65:19b states, “… the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more.”[14] Isaiah uses the most common trials of life and claims that they will be rectified. These verses are not to be taken as actual conditions experienced by those who are alive during the millennial reign. Rather, they are to be interpreted as a series of metaphors that symbolize the end of all struggles common to humanity. The pain of God’s judgments and our rebelliousness will be as if they were forgotten (Is. 65:17). Not that literal mental recall concerning our former sinfulness will be prohibited. Similarly, the command to rejoice forever is contrasted with the common despair shared by all those who live in this postlapsarian existence (Is. 65:18-19). The painful problem of infant mortality will never be experienced again (Is. 65:20a) or the tragedy of one whose life is thought to have ended prematurely (Is. 65:20b). To further substantiate this, take the capital of all common pain experienced by those on earth—death, Isaiah says it is as if someone who dies at one hundred[15] will have thought to be a child (Is. 65:20d) and he who does not reach one hundred will be like an accursed sinner (Is. 65:20e). Not that some people will literally live extended lives, but some will not reach one hundred years. Rather, Isaiah is claiming that the ultimate common pain of death will be a thing of the past, their days will be like the days of a tree (Is. 65:20 cf. 65:22).

Also, to further substantiate the above interpretation, notice the position of Isaiah 65:20. It directly follows the statement that, “…the sound of weeping and crying will be heard in it no more.” (Is. 65:19). Compare this with the destruction of the common shroud of death that enfolds all peoples. “On this mountain[16] he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers the nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The Lord has spoken.” (Is. 28:7-8). Here is seen the wiping away of all tears as synonymous will the destruction of death forever (Is. 25:7 cf. Is. 65:19; Rev. 21:4). Therefore, given the meaning of the context immediately preceding Isaiah 65:20 as referring to the destruction of death (Is. 65:19 cf. 25:7-8), then it would appear more plausible to interpret v. 20 in an amillennial fashion. It would appear antithetical to state that some people would live extended lives, but still die immediately following a claim that God would eliminate death (Is. 65:19 cf. 25:7-8). Rather, in keeping with the other metaphors in Isaiah 65:17 – 25, the prophet goes to the extreme opposite of the commonly shared pains of life. The son of Amoz is not merely claiming extended life, but forever life!

Continuing with the interpretation that Isaiah 65:17 – 25 contains God’s response to Isaiah’s cries for justice by “righting all the wrongs” commonly experienced by those who dwell on earth, the next metaphor deals with the pain of others wrongfully benefiting from other’s labor, “They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant as others eat. For as the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people; my chosen ones will long enjoy the works of their hands.” (Is. 65:21-22). Again, Isaiah is not attempting to convey the agricultural and architectural conditions during the one thousand year reign of Christ on earth. Rather, he is keeping with the motif of all wrongs being righted. No longer (compare with the “Never again” of v. 20) will the wicked benefit on the backs of the righteous. Truly, the old order of things has passed away (Rev. 21:4). Isaiah 65:23 – 24 deal with the pain of fruitless labor (v. 23a), wayward children (v. 23b), and that dreadful silence from the Lord (v. 24). What parent does not fear that his or her child will be subject to misfortune? In keeping with the complete other end of the spectrum concerning the ultimate righting of wrongs, Isaiah states that they will be blessed by God. Them, and their descendants with them.[17] Also, who has not waited for what seemed an eternity for God to answer their prayer? It is the common lot of all the children of God that at some times their Father seems far off. The heavens are as brass and God does not seem to even hear. “Not so!” says Isaiah. Again in the extreme, God will not only hear their prayer, but before they even ask, He will hear (Is. 65:24).

“The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like an ox, but dust[18] shall be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain.” (Is. 65:25) This verse is practically mirrored elsewhere in Isaiah, “The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, and their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like an ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (Is. 11:6-9). These verses were quoted in their entirety so that the parallels can be readily observed. The premillennial interpretation of Isaiah 65:25 (and assumedly Isaiah 11:6-9) is that during the one thousand year reign of Christ on earth, the animal’s organic structure will be somehow supernaturally altered to enable previously rapacious animals to be mild and for carnivores to morph into herbivores. However, such a fantastic interpretation is not needed. In keeping with the theme of all wrongs being righted, Isaiah 11:6 – 9; 65:25 are simply another example of this theme.

Contrary to the premillennial view are the phrases “my holy mountain” (Is. 11:9a; 65:25b) and the earth being “full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (Is. 11:9b). The cosmic mountain-temple[19] of Yahweh is where these animalistic changes are to occur according to premillennial thought. However, if this mountain is to be equated with the Lord’s temple, then this phrase would appear to ultimately be linked with the final temple—heaven (Rev. 21:22-27). Also, the claim the knowledge of God will cover the earth as waters cover the sea (Is. 11:9 cf. Hab. 2:14) would appear problematic to the premillennial concept of a one thousand year sinner and saint co-habitation. In keeping with the theme of Isaiah 65:17 – 25, this “knowledge” could not simply be intellectual ascent, but rather a relational knowing is what is implied. Greater than earthly death is the problem of not knowing the Lord. Many will suffer in hell due to this lack of knowledge. This problem too will be corrected in the ultimate manner. As the sea covers the earth, all will know Him (cf. Jer. 31:34; Hab. 2:14).

Thus, the string of metaphorically righting all wrongs contains corrections of the common pains over remorse of sin (Is. 65:17), mourning (v. 19), infant death (v. 20a), premature death (v.20 b), exploitation of the righteous (vs. 21-22), futile work (v. 23a), wayward children (v. 23b), unanswered prayer (v. 24), and animal danger (v. 25). One would be hard-pressed to name another pain that would not fall under one of the above mentioned categories. Isaiah 65:17 – 25 uses these common pains to metaphorically describe the new heavens and the new earth, which according to the amillennial position equates to what is known as heaven. There are obviously more questions that could be asked and answered. However, allow this work to serve as an amillennial interpretation of Isaiah 65:17 – 25 and a brief sketch of some elements of amillennial eschatology.

[1]Bercot, David. ed. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, (Hendrickson:1995) pp. 450-451.
[2] Ibid. p. 450
[3] Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James. eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III, (Hendrickson:2004), p. 483.
[4] In fact, the premillennialism of the Early Church was quite different from either the historic or dispensational premillennialism of today. They held that the earth would continue for six thousand years and culminate in a final thousand year Sabbath (following the pattern of the creation week). See Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Eerdmans:1992) p 709.
[5] Origen, Origen De Principiis, Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James. eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, (Hendrickson:2004) p. 297.
[6] Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James. eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII, (Hendrickson:2004) p. 360.
[7] Eusebius, The Church History of Eusebius, Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James. eds. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2nd Ser., Vol. I, (Hendrickson:2004) p. 160.
[8] Here, ‘literal’ refers to an exact correspondence to what has been stated (e.g. The king sat in his chair.—The King of England sat on his throne). However, depending upon the author, ‘literal’ can refer to the real meaning the author is intending to convey (e.g. The king sat in his chair.—authority). Thus, the deeper reality of authority symbolically represented by a potentate upon is throne can be called the ‘literal’ reading depending on the intention of the author. See further, G.K. Beal, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling place of God, (InterVarsity Press:2004) pp. 365-385. Also, it should be noted that concerning interpretation, oftentimes ‘literal’ has come to mean ‘true’ and ‘spiritual’ often means ‘liberal’ or connotes the idea of arbitrarily allegorizing. Therefore, caution must be used when saying that one group is ‘spiritualizing’ the text. This often has a negative effect similar to labeling all ‘literalists’ as ‘wooden literalists.’
[9] It is interesting to note that preeminent historical premillennialist and New Testament scholar Dr. George Eldon Ladd states that, “The only place in the Bible that speaks of an actual millennium is the passage in Revelation 20:1-6.” George Eldon Ladd, The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse, (InterVarsity:1977) p. 32.
[10] It has been suggested that perhaps the millennial reign is the first thousand years of heaven. However, this is untenable due to the premillennial scenario (e.g. Satan being let loose to deceive and a final battle at Armageddon). This suggestion would have yet another interim: one thousand years of heaven—interim of an undetermined amount of time—resumption of heaven.
[11] Isaiah 57:20 and Revelation 13:1. See also, the Canaanite Mythology of the hero-god, Baal and the Sea-Tiamat.
[12]Also, notice the repetition of the word ‘create’ in Isaiah 65:17 – 18. It is used referring both to the new heavens and new earth (v. 17) and Jerusalem (v. 18). This is what is called in Hebrew grammar, a metonymy. This is the substitution of what is meant by something associated with it. Essentially, this would equate the two. See, G.K. Beal, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling place of God, (InterVarsity Press:2004) p. 25. See further J.D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence, (Harper & Row:1988) pp. 89-90.
[13] Also, traditionally amillennialists have interpreted Isaiah 65:17 – 25 as referring to the spiritual state of the believer in Christ. While it is true that Christians experience spiritual blessings already, there is a much fuller experience of these blessings yet to come. Hence, the “already/not yet” eschatological phraseology normally associated with amillennialism.
[14] Immediately, upon the hearing of the words, “new heavens and new earth” coupled with “Jerusalem” one should hear the echoes of Revelation 21:1-2.
[15] For information on the number one hundred see, Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, (InterVarsity Press:1998) p. 411.
[16] cf. Isaiah 65:25.
[17] The notion of descendants could be an attempt to convey the idea of an ongoing (i.e. forever) life.
[18] cf. Gen. 3:15.
[19] For further explanation of the equation of God’s temple with His mountain see G.K. Beal, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling place of God, (InterVarsity Press:2004) pp. 301-309.

There was Evening and There was Morning: The Literary Structure of the Book of Genesis 1:1-2:3 in Light of the Creation vs. Evolution Debate

2006-08-21T20:53:00.000-07:00

How did we get here? How did “here” get here? For many millennia the answer was clear—God. In some polytheistic cultures the earth was the product of many gods, or perhaps one superior deity. For all cultures who accept the existence of matter, the notion of the earth coming into being by itself was an alien notion. However, today the Evolutionary Theory has shattered the long-held beliefs of many. As a result, those who still hold to the ancient doctrine of Creation appear fanatical and out of touch with the modern Western world. In recent years those who deny evolution have become much more vocal. Concerning those who have denied creationism and adopted evolution, Dr. Henry Morris claims, “They changed the truth of creation into the lie of evolution.”[1]

Although the Intelligent Design movement is gaining more respect in the academic community, “Biblical Creationist” are not. Why is this? Creationists usually cite the opening chapters of the book of Genesis to bolster their viewpoint. They say that Genesis describes God’s creation of the world in six literal twenty-four hour solar days. They assert that a “day” cannot mean millions of years; therefore the evolutionary framework which requires long periods of time is in violation of the Biblical account. Accordingly, it is held by some that you cannot hold to the modern scientific viewpoint concerning the age of the earth and the Genesis account simultaneously. Some have attempted to overcome this proposed dichotomy by advocating what is known as Theistic Evolution[2] and the Day-Age Theory.[3]

However, is the chronological sequence of creation the true goal of the opening portion of Genesis? The answer lies in exegesis, not in politics or science. What is known as the Framework Theory teaches that the “days” of Genesis are indeed literal twenty-four hour solar days, yet the poetic literary structure of Genesis makes metaphorical use of these days when anthropomorphically describing the ex nihilo power of God’s creative fiat. For the sake of reference, the days will be given below in the order they are named in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3.

Day 1—Light (1:3-5)
Day 2—Sky & Sea (1:6-8)
Day 3—Dry Land & Plant Life (1:9-13)
Day 4—Stars, Moon, & Sun (1:14-19)
Day 5—Sea Creatures & Winged Creatures (1:20-23)
Day 6—Land Animals & Mankind (1:24-31)
Day 7—Sabbath Rest (2:1-3)

The poetic refrain, “there was evening then there was morning” runs throughout days 1 – 6. Already, such a poetic refrain should even tip off the modern hearer that this account is no straightforward history lesson. Rather, it is a beautiful metaphor of the Creator “working” during his “week” in order to accomplish His work much in the same way as both the ancient and the modern hearer can relate to. Sadly, such an interpretation is seen as "non-literal" in most Creationist circles. For example, it would be impossible to chronologically render days 1 – 3 as solar days, due to the lack of a sun until day 4. However, some Creationist have countered by saying that in days 1 – 3 God’s glory stood in for the lack of a sun. While such a claim is possible, it seems to indicate a type of desperation. Even if such an argument were granted, one would still have trouble with the refrain, “there was evening then there was morning.” While the “morning” would fit with their hypothesis, “evening” would not. It is not as if God doused his glory until morning.

This type of isogetical reasoning is why many ridicule those who believe in the inspiration of the Bible. Instead of overreacting to evolution by forcing an ancient document to capitulate to your presuppositions, why not allow Genesis to speak in its eastern poetic fashion? Forgoing arguments against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch brought about by those higher critics that hold to the Documentary Hypothesis; does it not seem the height of hubris to think that Moses was concerned about how long God took to create the earth? Moses lived long before the Scopes Trial. It seems that many Creationist have zeal, but not according to knowledge. It seems as if no one is asking what Genesis actually saying. Rather, it is forced to argue against a modern scientific theory or it is disregarded altogether.

Moses never heard of Darwin, but he had heard of Baal, Ashtoreth, and Molech. Moses’ account of creation served, among other things, as an apologetic for Yahweh’s supremacy over the gods of the other nations. Baal brings the rain, but Yahweh made the clouds. Ashtoreth brings fertility, but Yahweh created man. Molech brings a bountiful harvest, but Yahweh created the dry land. Obviously, a fiercely monotheistic religion such as Judaism did not believe in the actual existence of the above mentioned deities. However, the majority did. Also, these local gods were beginning to take the place of Yahweh in the Israel due their integration into Canaan. Therefore, the supremacy of Yahweh over Baal is a much more contextually plausible reason for the poetic structure of the opening chapters of Genesis. Observe the structuring of the “days” of Genesis according to the Framework Theory:

Creation Kingdoms ~~~~ Creature Kings

Day 1—Light (1:3-5) ~~~~ Day 4—Stars, Moon, & Sun (1:14-19)
Day 2—Sky & Sea (1:6-8) ~~~~ Day 5—Sea & Winged Creatures (1:20-23)
Day 3—Dry Land & Plant Life (1:9-13) ~~~~ Day 6—Land Animals & Mankind (1:24-31)

The King of Creation ~~~~ Day 7—Sabbath Rest (2:1-3)

The kingdom of light in day 1 is ruled by the luminaries of day 4. The kingdoms of the sky and sea of day 2 are ruled by the sea and winged creatures of day 5. The kingdom of earth (i.e. dry land and vegetation) in day 3 are ruled by the animals and man in day 6.[4] This leaves day 7 as the crowning of the creation week—the Sabbath of God. One wonders what sort of literalistic interpretation would suffice to render an omni-competent God “resting.” As if he were tired from such a taxing endeavor as the creation of the heavens and the earth. In fact, the Bible itself speaks of day seven as spiritually continuing on far beyond a twenty-four hour day some millennia ago. The author of the New Testament book of Hebrews says in Hebrews 4:4, “For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: ‘And on the seventh day God rested from all his work’.” A few verses later in Hebrews 4:9 he says, “There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God.” Therefore, at least day 7 is recognized as having spiritual, or more precisely, eschatological significance far past a solar day in the distant past.

[1] Morris, Henry M. Biblical Creationism, (Baker Book House:1993) p.162.
[2] Theistic Evolution has many variations. It is held by most Deist and some Christians. Simply put, it is the belief that God indeed created the earth, but he created it through the medium of evolution. For more information see Alfred Fairhurst, Theistic Evolution, (Standard Publishing:1919).
[3] The Day-Age Theory holds that the “days” of Genesis are really representative of ages or long periods of time. For more information see Gerald L. Schroeder, Genesis One: A Physicist Looks at Creation, (Zola:1998).
[4] In addition, mankind is given rule over all the earth (e.g. vegetation, winged birds, land animals) in Genesis 1:26 – 30.

Daniel Chapters 7-12

2006-08-21T20:46:00.000-07:00

Chapters seven through twelve make up the bulk of the prophetic aspect of the book of Daniel. Interpretations of the following verses differ widely. However, eschatology is what is designated by Christians as a “non-essential” (as opposed to the Trinity, deity of Christ, authority of Scripture, etc.). Therefore, Christian charity toward others with different views is fundamental. Chapter seven deals with the night vision of the Four Great Beasts. The first beast was a lion with eagle wings, a common Ancient Near Eastern image, that represented Babylon. The reference to its wings being torn off and given a man’s heart may refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s insanity (cf. Dan. 4:33; 7:3). The second beast was a bear with three ribs in its mouth (Dan. 7:5). This is most likely a reference to the Medo-Persian Empire and its voracious appetite. The three ribs correspond to the Persian conquests of Lydia (546 BC), Babylon (539 BC), and Egypt (525 BC). The third beast was a four-headed winged leopard (Dan. 7:6a). This best corresponds to the swiftness of the conquest of the Greek kingdom of Alexander the Great. The four heads that were given authority to rule (Dan. 7:6b) refer to the time after Alexander’s death. His kingdom was broken up into four parts ruled by his generals. The last beast was a hideous monster with iron teeth and ten horns which represented the Roman Empire (Dan. 7:7). The ten horns represent ten Roman kings (Dan. 7:24).

Among the tens horns, arose a little horn that most believe represents the antichrist (Dan. 7:8). Next, Daniel sees the Lord and calls Him the, “Ancient of Days.” This term only appears here in Scripture and is also the term that those living in Ugarit used for their god, El. Daniel sees a magnificent vision of the Lord in His theophanic-throne-chariot that was similar to the one seen by his contemporary, Ezekiel (cf. Ezek. 1:1 – 28; Dan. 7:9 – 10). Daniel then sees one whom he calls “a son of man” who comes in the clouds to receive worship, praise, glory, honor, and an imperishable kingdom. This son of man is the Son of Man—Jesus Christ (cf. Dan. 7:13; Matt. 24:30) and He will judge the little horn and all those who oppress His saints (Dan. 7:26).

In chapter eight, Daniel sees a goat with two horns. The goat is later revealed as the Medo-Persian kingdom (Dan. 8:20). He goes on to symbolically describe the Medes (horn 1) becoming independent of Assyria (horn 2) after 631 BC, as two horns with one longer than the other, but grew up later (Dan. 8:3). The Persians were a rather insignificant portion of the Median Empire, but they eventually came to control it when Cyrus brought Media under his hand in 550 BC and ascribed to himself the title, “King of the Medes.” Therefore, while both horns were long, the Persian horn was longer because it was superior in strength and it came into power after the other. Next, he saw a goat with a large horn in between his eyes which represented the Greeks (Dan. 8:21). Again, mention is made of the swiftness of this kingdom (Dan. 5b). However, his own troops refused to go any further in helping Alexander extend his kingdom shortly before his death, hence the breaking of the goat’s large horn (Dan. 8:8a). Further support for this representing the Greek empire is the four horns that came into being after the original large horn was broken—representing the four generals who ruled after Alexander (Dan. 8:8b). This corresponds to one of the four horns that started out small, but at a latter time grew in power. The descriptions of this horn (Dan. 8:9 – 14, 23 – 25) favor an identification with the later Greek Seleucid ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes who persecuted God’s people and defiled the temple. The order to seal the vision because it concerns the distant future (Dan. 8:26) refers to the times of Alexander the Great which were 200 years after Daniel’s vision. Also, the later descriptions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes were 150 years after Alexander (cf. Dan 11:1 – 35).

Daniel prays in chapter nine and agrees with God concerning Jerusalem’s destruction (Dan. 9:4 – 16). Also, he asks for the restoration of the city (Dan. 9:17 – 19). The angel Gabriel comes to Daniel and reveals to him the vision of the Seventy Sevens. The 70 years of exile (Dan. 9:2) are repeated 7 times, which was a pattern for covenantal curses (Lev. 26:14). This would amount to 490 years. Again, there are different interpretations of the seventy sevens or literally, “seventy weeks of years.” 490 years can refer to a period of history. For example, the non-canonical book of Jubilees dates all history into periods of 490 years. However, a more complex answer can be found in the fact that the order to rebuild Jerusalem (Dan. 9:25) was followed by seven sevens (49 years). Following completion of the city, sixty-two sevens (434) years passed until the Christ was “cut off” (Dan. 9:26). The 49 years plus the 434 years equals 483 years with the last 7 years needed to equal 490 years occurring during the earthly ministry of Christ. This vision is followed by the abomination that causes desolation (Dan. 9:27). This refers to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ blasphemous sacrificing of a pig in the temple. This action is spoken of in the apocryphal book, 1st Maccabees 1:54.

Chapter ten focuses in on the terror spread during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes upon God’s people. Gabriel explains to Daniel that he was sent since the time Daniel began to seek God, but the Price of Persia (either Satan or a powerful demon) hindered him. However, the archangel, Michael came to his aid (Dan. 10:12 – 14). Thus, Daniel is given a glimpse of the spiritual battle that rages in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12; Rev. 12:7 – 9). Much has been said regarding the contents of chapter eleven referring to an unknown future time when various alliances and rulers will rise prior to a final conflict known as, Armageddon. While a final conflict may indeed happen, Daniel 11:2 – 20 describes no such events. Rather, Daniel is given extraordinarily detailed information concerning the intricacies of Ancient Near Eastern history prior to and during the inter-testamental period.

The three kings in Persia (Dan. 11:2a) refer to Cambyses (529 – 523 BC), Gautama (523 – 522 BC), and Darius I (522 – 486 BC). The fourth king (Dan. 11:2b), was Xerxes I (485 – 464 BC). Alexander the Great comes to power (Dan. 11:3), but his empire is scattered to the four winds (another reference to his generals). The king of the south (Dan. 11:5a) was Ptolemy Soter I (323 – 285 BC). The commander that broke away and became stronger (Dan. 11:5b) was Seleucus I Nicator (311 – 280 BC). He became so powerful that he ruled territories from the Indus River to Syria. The daughter of the king of the south (Dan. 11:6) was Bernice, the daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285 – 246 BC). She made a marriage alliance (Dan. 11:6a) between Antiochus II Theos (261 – 246 BC) from Syria and Ptolemy II of Egypt. However, her power did not last (Dan. 11:6b), because Laodice (Antiochus’ former wife), conspired in the poisoning of Bernice, Antiochus II, and their infant son. The one from her family line who arose (Dan. 11:7a) was Bernice’s brother, Ptolemy III Euergetes (246 – 221 BC). He attacked the forces of the north (Dan. 11:7b) when he attacked the Seleucid kingdom and had Laodice put to death.

The king of the north who attacked the king of the south (Dan 11:9) refers to the failure of Laodices’ son, Seleucus II Callinincus (246 – 226 BC) to defeat the Ptolemaic kingdom in 240 BC. However, his sons (Dan. 11:10a) Seleucus III Ceraunus (226 – 223 BC) and Antiochus III the Great (223 – 187 BC) assembled a great army (Dan. 11:10b) when Antiochus III fought with the Ptolemies from 222 – 187 BC. The “fortress” that is mentioned (Dan. 11:10c) most likely refers to his fortress in southern Canaan named, Raphia, were a major battle between the king of the south, Ptolemy IV Philopator (221 – 203 BC) and the king of the north (Dan. 11:11), Antiochus III occurred in 217 BC. Antiochus III the Great gathered another army (Dan. 11:13) in an alliance with Philip V of Macedon in order raise a greater army to invade the Ptolemaic kingdom. This resulted in a victorious siege (Dan. 11:15) by Antiochus III at Sidon over the Egyptian general, Scopas in 198 BC. Antiochus III the Great made an alliance with the king of the south by giving his daughter, Cleopatra, to the boy-king Ptolemy V Epiphanes in marriage (Dan. 11:17a). However, his plans did not succeed (Dan. 11:17b) when Cleopatra aligned herself with the Egyptians and sought Roman help against her father, Antiochus III the Great.

The commander who put an end to the insolence of Antiochus III (Dan. 11:18) was the Roman general, Lucius Cornelius Scipio, through seventeen hard-fought battles. This resulted in the “Peace of Apamea” in 188 BC. Also during this time, the second son of Antiochus III the Great who would latter be known as the infamous Antiochus IV Epiphanes, was taken hostage to Rome. His successor (Dan. 11:20) was the eldest son of Antiochus III the Great, Seleucus IV Philopator (187 – 175 BC) who employed a tax collector (Dan. 11:20) named, Heliodorus (mentioned in the apocryphal book, 2nd Maccabees 3:7 – 40). The contemptible person who was not given the honor of royalty (Dan. 11:21) was none other than the wicked Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175 – 164 BC) who was brother to Seleucus IV, but was not his legitimate successor because Seleucus IV had a son named, Demetrius I. The reference to the destruction of a prince of the covenant (Dan. 11:22) may refer to the murder of the high priest Onias III by those loyal to the terrible Antiochus IV Epiphanes (mentioned in the apocryphal 2nd Maccabees 4:32 – 43).

The king of the south who was not able to stand (Dan. 11:25) describes the defeat of Ptolemy VI Philometor by Antiochus IV Epiphanes at Pelusim (mentioned in the apocryphal 1st Maccabees 1:16 – 19). The king of the north who returned with his heart set against the holy covenant (Dan. 11:28) refers to the plundering of the temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes on his way from Egypt to Syria (mentioned in the apocryphal 1st Maccabees 1:20 – 28). After he invaded Egypt again in 168 BC (Dan. 11:29), Antiochus IV Epiphanes was forced to retreat from Egypt by the Roman, Gauis Popilius Laneas (Dan. 11:30a). Antiochus IV Epiphanes vented his anger toward the Jews (Dan. 11:30b) by abolishing the daily sacrifices and setting up the abomination that causes desolation (Dan. 11:31) in 168 BC (mentioned in the apocryphal works 1st Maccabees 1:54, 59; 2nd Maccabees 6:2). However, the people of God resisted him (Dan. 11:32). The “little help” they received (Dan. 11:34) may refer to the rebellion of the Maccabees (see the apocryphal work, 1st Maccabees 4:36 – 39).

Daniel has been consistently accurate in his prophecies concerning Ancient Near Eastern history during the time of the inter-testamental period thus far. Therefore, when it would be very difficult to harmonize the actions of the person depicted in Dan. 11:36—12:3 with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, rather than deny Daniel’s credibility, other options must be sought. Some see this as a description of the final antichrist who will appear prior the second advent of Christ. While his destruction seems to coincide with the end of time (Dan. 12:1 – 3), this interpretation demands an assumption of an extended time period between the events described in Dan. 11:21 – 35 and Dan. 11:36—12:3 which is not in any way communicated by the text. Another more speculative option is that the events depicted in these verses were averted due to the conditional nature of some prophecies. However, this alleged conditional element is not found in any of the previous verses. Again, the text gives no notice of a change to a conditional promise of fulfillment. As it has been observed, prophetic literature is highly symbolic. Therefore, it is probably best to see Dan. 11:36—12:3 as using the template of Antiochus IV Epiphanes as typology for a final antichrist figure whose doom is sure (cf. Dan. 11:45; Zech. 14:1 – 4; 2nd Thess. 2:8; Rev. 16:13 – 16; 19:11 – 21). Chapter twelve again involves Michel the archangel (cf. Dan. 10:13; 12:1) as protector of Israel. Jesus spoke of this great “time of distress” (Dan. 12:1) when telling of the coming siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (Matt. 24:21; Mark 13:19). Following a prediction of the resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked (cf. Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:46; John 5:28 – 29), Daniel is instructed to again seal up the vision (cf. Dan. 8:26; 12:4). Thus, the book of Daniel comes to a close. In the narratives, God has proven Himself sovereign over the affairs of men in times past and in the prophecies He will prove Himself true in the time to come.

Is the Bible Revisionist History?

2006-08-20T01:32:00.000-07:00

Revisionist historians have attempted to alter the data of numerous historical events. From Jesus’ supposed married life to the American Civil War, historical revisionists have challenged long-held historical “facts” and looked at them through a different light. However, the light that many of these revisionists use is dimmed by their own presuppositions. While it is certainly worthwhile to re-examine any event, many of their conclusions are so outlandish that even to be called a “Historical Revisionist” is an unfavorable term. However it is true, anytime that history is only seen from one viewpoint, that person or group’s bias is reflected. Is the Bible guilty of revisionist history? For example, take the account of Sennacherib’s attempted conquering of Jerusalem found in 2nd Kings 18:13—19:37.

To summarize the Biblical account, the Assyrian King Sennacherib threatens Judah which results in King Hezekiah giving Sennacherib nearly all of the wealth in his kingdom. This does not appease the Assyrian king. He sends his messengers to frighten Hezekiah and his people. Also, his messengers blaspheme Yahweh. Hezekiah is afraid. His allegiance to Egypt worthless, he repents and turns to the Lord. In those days that meant listening to Isaiah son of Amoz, who tells Hezekiah not to fear and to trust in God. That night, the Lord sent an angel and killed the Assyrian army. After the deaths of 185,000 of his men, Sennacherib returned to Nineveh. Now, let us examine the same event from excerpts of Sennacherib’s own royal annals:

“As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit
to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong
cities […] I drove out (of them) 200,150
people […] Himself I made a prisoner in
Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in
a cage. […] Hezekiah himself, whom the
terror-inspiring splendor of my lordship had
overwhelmed and whose irregular and elite
troops which he had brought into Jerusalem,
his royal residence to strengthen (it), had
deserted him…”[1]

The above citations were written in Akkadian on an artifact known as, Sennacherib’s Prism. It continues on about how the Assyrian king took various items as tribute and how he dominated Hezekiah, but it does not say that he sacked the city of Jerusalem. The Prism mentions a divided kingdom (i.e. Judah) and its king (i.e. Hezekiah), which accurately coincides with the Biblical text. However, this inscription is also important for what it does not say. Both the Prism and 2nd Kings agree that Assyria laid heavy siege to the city, but that Sennacherib did not take Jerusalem. However, there is no mention of the death of 185,000 men in one night! Why is this? Does the Bible simply take a failed attempt by an inept king and revise it into some type of morale booster for their people? Or, do kings not want such failures recorded in their royal annals? If one reads the Prism, Sennacherib’s failure to take the city is strangely missing for a man with such “terror-inspiring splendor.” However, with the account in 2nd Kings, one sees a reason why a powerful king turned back against Israel, who was a relatively small military power.

To some, it may still seem as if is the Bible is revisionist history. If so, it is in good company with many ancient histories of this battle. Known as, “The Father of History,” Herodotus (c. 484-425 BC) interviewed Egyptian priests and said that while Sennacherib’s general was laying siege to Jerusalem on one side, the king himself was attacking Egypt on the other. Outnumbered and outmatched, the Pharaoh received word that his god would deliver him. As he approached the Assyrian camp, listen to Herodotus’ account of what he saw, “Their enemies came there, too, and during the night were overrun by a horde of field mice that gnawed quivers and bows and the handles of shields, with the result that many were killed fleeing unarmed the next day.”[2] The Bible and Herodotus are not alone in recounting this ancient phenomenal battle. Falvius Josephus (c. 37 BC – 100 AD), coincides with the Biblical account. Most importantly, he cites a portion of the lost works of the Babylonian historian, Berossus (c. 340 - ? BC). This is the Hellenistic Babylonian Berossus’ account:

“Now when Sennacherib was returning from his Egyptian war
to Jerusalem, he found his army under Rabshakeh his general
in danger [by a plague], for God had sent a pestilential
distemper upon his army; and on the very first night of the
siege, a hundred and eighty-five thousand, with their captains
and generals, were killed. So the king was in a great dread,
and in a terrible agony at this calamity; and being in great fear
for his whole army, he fled with the rest of his forces to his
own kingdom, and to his city of Nineveh;…”[3]

From the Bible, Sennacherib’s Prism, Herodotus, Josephus, and Berossus we have evidence that this battle occurred and Sennacherib failed to sack Jerusalem. Excluding, the Prism, there is also testimony that his army was decimated in a single night. The angel of the Lord in 2nd Kings certainly could have struck the army with plague and rats (e.g.1st Sam. 5:9—6:5) in order to wipe them out. Revisionist History certainly is occurring, but it does not appear to be on the side of the Bible! Many more parallels to the Bible from Ancient Near Eastern events and myths could be shown. Also, each one of these myths contain elements of truth. The Bible states that all knew God, but that knowledge had grown dark due to their lack of worshipping Him (Rom. 1:18-25). The tradition of an ancient battle was not lost on the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Hittites, or Greeks simply because they were pagans. Much more could be said. Finally, a reading of many of these ancient texts will demonstrate their mythic nature in contrast to the Biblical record. These texts should not be feared, for they are simply echoes of lost knowledge.

[1] James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, Vol. I (Princeton:1973) p. 200.
[2] Herodotus, The Histories, (Oxford:1998) p.152.
[3] Flavius Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus, (Kregle:1999) pp. 334-335.

The King and the Dragon: A Biblical-theological take on the seraphim

2006-08-19T19:38:00.000-07:00

Much has been written in regards to the mysterious creatures of the prophet’s vision in Isaiah 6:1-6.[1] A portion of this article will deal with the identification of those creatures, known as the seraphim. Also, the biblical-theological significance of these creatures in redemptive history will be examined. In what follows, it will be shown that the creatures of Isaiah 6 are flying serpents which more closely resemble dragons than angels as it is commonly thought. Also, the identification of Lucifer as a seraph coupled with his later association with the bronze serpent later destroyed by Hezekiah will display an overlooked example of the major biblical-theological theme of Yahweh’s triumph over the dragon.[2]

Ever since the time of a 5th century anonymous theologian scholars call Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, the seraphim have been shrouded in myth and superstition.[3] The word seraph (pl. seraphim) is from the Hebrew word, sārap which means “to burn.” These creatures are positioned above the throne of God singing what is known as the Trisagion, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord [Yahweh] Almighty” (Is. 6:3). The creatures had six wings. With two they flew, with two they covered their face, and with two they covered their feet.[4] This is not the only occasion where the prophet makes mention of “poisonous” (sometimes translated as “fiery”) snakes. In Isaiah 14:29; 30:6 he speaks of flying snakes. Although it is often translated as “darting,” the word here is ‘ŭp which is used over twenty times in the Old Testament, in every instance it refers to some type of flying. Furthermore, Isaiah employs this very word when he describes the flying action of the seraphim themselves in Is. 6:2.

The flying snake motif was fairly common in the Ancient Near Eastern world. The Mesopotamian god, Nergal had an epitaph in Akkadian as Šarraptu (a cognate of seraph). A carving of these creatures was found in the land of Gozan (modern Tell Halif) between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers where the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (Pul) deported the Israelites (2nd Kings 17:6; 18:11).[5] Also, an 8th century bronze bowl found at Nimrud has on its rim a winged serpent perched upon a standard and is inscribed with Hebrew names.[6] The bowl was found in the Assyrian capital (Nimrud), probably because it was given as tribute to either Tiglath-pileser III or Sennacherib by either King Ahaz or his son Hezekiah. The Egyptian winged cobra motif can be seen on the Egyptian funerary stela of Neswy.[7] This stela is of particular importance due to its similarities with the prophet Isaiah’s vision: The stela is beautifully ornamented with a scene which depicts a winged sun disc (a representation of the head of the Egyptian pantheon, the sun-god Amun-Ra)[8] flanked by two winged cobras known as uraei. These uraei were stylized cobras used as symbols of sovereignty in ancient Egypt. During his vision in chapter 6, Isaiah son of Amoz witnessed iconic temple imagery come to life.

Long before Isaiah’s time, a wilderness rebellion resulted in the Lord sending “fiery serpents” to punish His people. Moses was commanded to fashion a bronze standard in the image of these serpents. All who cast their gaze upon the image were healed (Num. 21:4-9). Much later, King Hezekiah was to destroy the bronze snake due to its link with idolatry (2nd Kings 18:4). For, Israel had begun offering sacrifices to it, rendering the once-holy standard unholy. In fact, the bronze serpent was given a name, Nehuštan. The etymology of the name is a word-play on the words nĕhōšet meaning “bronze” or “copper” and nāhāš meaning “snake.”[9] The word used to describe these punishing serpents in the book of Numbers is seraphim, again from sārap which means “to burn.” This exact word is used in Numbers to describe the serpents and in Isaiah to describe the mysterious six-winged creatures. These are the only two instances of this word in Scripture. It is the contention of this article that the two are at the least associated, if not identical with one another.[10]

If the above is correct, then it is very possible that Satan himself was once a seraph. This would account for his reptilian appearance in the Genesis account (Gen. 3:1). The ability of the Devil-serpent to speak is in accordance with a seraph as can be seen from their ability to sing the Trisagion mentioned above. Also, the curse Yahweh pronounced upon him would rob him of his avian nature. No longer would he soar as the son of the morning, but rather he would slither on his belly in the lowly dust (Gen. 3:14). Again, if the above is correct in relating the seraphim with the Nehuštan, then the bronze image crafted by Moses would resemble such a serpentine creature.

This understanding of the draconic seraphim in their Ancient Near Eastern context sheds new light and biblical-theological emphasis on King Hezekiah’s reforms. Prior to his weakness before the Assyrian King Sennacherib, Hezekiah began a short-lived reformation. The king destroyed idols, Asherah poles, and the Nehuštan (2nd Kings 18:1-4). With the understanding gained concerning the connection between the seraphim and the Nehuštan, this narrative of Hezekiah’s religious reforms takes on an eschatological significance. The Nehuštan was placed in the temple garden courtyard. As it was mentioned above, the Nehuštan was being sinfully worshipped by the people.[11] The bronze seraph Yahweh had Moses fashion was intended to lead people to God, but it was in fact leading them away from Him. Thus, the Nehuštan resembled another seraph who led people from worshipping the one true God and desires worship for himself (Matt. 4:9-10). Also, it is not insignificant that the Nehuštan was likely placed in the garden courtyard of the temple.[12] As it was in Eden, again a winged dragon-serpent “stood” in the garden. In the form of the Nehuštan, that old serpent—Satan dramatically re-enacted the Eden episode. Adam failed in his mandate to “keep”[13] the archetypical temple in the Garden of Eden from the profane. Also, many impious kings failed to rid the temple of this seraph. Once used to bring men to God, the Nehuštan now more resembles its wicked predecessor. Thus, the drama unfolds. King after king allowed the filthy Nehuštan to boldly stand in the garden temple, leading multitudes away from Yahweh. Who will stand? Is the Nehuštan-devil triumphant? Enter the king. When it seemed all hope was lost under the notoriously blasphemous King Ahaz, his son Hezekiah ascended to the throne of Judah. Hezekiah son of Ahaz would not fail. The battle of the king and the dragon-serpent would be swift. He would smash the image and thus slay the dragon.

In conclusion, the imagery of the serpents in the book of Numbers and the seraphs of Isaiah are likely identical. This would lead to the high probability that Satan himself was a seraph due to the distinctive characteristics attributed to them. Also, the Nehuštan as modeled after the seraphim-snakes in the wilderness Numbers account later became an idol, therefore symbolizing the dark former seraph—Satan. Its position in the temple also links it with the seraphim-serpent in the Garden of Eden. This all leads to a dramatic showdown in an otherwise hasty reading of Hezekiah’s reforms. Understanding the context of the Nehuštan, underscores the dramatic eschatological significance of Hezekiah’s smashing of that idol. Thus, the biblical-theological theme of Yahweh’s triumph over the serpent was inaugurated at Eden, re-enacted throughout various points in redemptive history,[14] and will be fully completed at the consummation of all things.

[1] For more information on the identification of the seraphim as is supported in this article see Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst, (Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk: 1977), pp. 70-115; Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible, (HarperSanFransisco: 1987), pp.122-124; Philip King & Lawrence Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, (Westminster John Knox Press: 2001), p. 84.
[2] Among other works, one can see this theme in Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, (Two Age Press: 2000); John Day, God's Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament, (Cambridge University Press: 1985).
[3] See Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, The Celestial Hierarchy, (Kessinger: 2004).
[4] This is likely an effete or circumlocution. The position of this article is that “feet” is a euphemism for the lower extremities (i.e. genitalia). See note on Isaiah 6:2 in the New English Translation of the Bible as well as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary On the Whole Bible, (Zondervan: 1999).
[5] See illustration no. 655 in James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, (Princeton University Press:1969).
[6] See figure no. 2 in R. D. Barnett, "Layard's Nimrud Bronzes and Their Inscriptions," Eretz Israel 8 (1967): 3, fig. 2.
[7] See illustration no. 54 in Philip King & Lawrence Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, (Westminster John Knox Press: 2001), p. 130.
[8] The Mesopotamian equivalent is Utu (Šamaš) the son of Nanna and older brother of Innana (Ištar).
[9] Also, some commentators add that the word-play sounds like the Hebrew word for unclean tāmē’. Thus, it has a derogatory name. See note on the New International Version of the Bible.
[10] See Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, (Jewish Publication Society of America: 1990).
[11] For an explanation of some of the various ways in which the Nehuštan may have been worshipped in ancient Israel see Karen Randolph Joines, “Bronze Serpent in the Israelite Cult,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 87 no. 3 S 1968, pp. 245-256.
[12] Also, there is much evidence that the temple itself was modeled after the Garden of Eden as an archetypical temple. See Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, (Two Age Press: 2000), pp. 31-32, 54-56; Lawrence Stager, “Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden,” ErIs 26 Festschrift for F.M. Cross, Israel Exploration Society, pp. 183-194; G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical-Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT no. 17 ed. D.A. Carson, (InterVarsity Press: 2004), pp. 66-80.
[13] While it is usually translated as “keep” and “cultivate,” much more than agrarianism is in view. The two Hebrew words thus translated are ‘ābad and šāmar. Whenever these words are used together, they refer to “guarding” something holy (Num. 18:5-6; 1st Sam. 7:1; 1st Chr. 23:32; Ezek. 44:14). Also, this same word šāmar is employed to describe the guarding duties of the cherubim with regards to Eden in the post-lapsarian world, suggesting much more than mere gardening. For more information see Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, (Two Age Press: 2000), p. 54; G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical-Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT no. 17 ed. D.A. Carson, (InterVarsity Press: 2004), pp. 66-68.
[14] For more examples of this theme in Scripture see Gen. 3: 14-15; Job. 26:12; Ps. 74:13-14; Is. 27:1; 51:9; Zech. 3:1-3; Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:7, 9; 20:2, 10.

Introduction to Redemptive History

2006-08-19T19:06:00.000-07:00

Redemptive History views history as the progressive revelation of God to His people. Therefore, all of history has to some degree a place in the overarching redemptive plan of God throughout the ages. In what follows, various aspects of biblical theology will be presented in order to further grasp the redemptive purposes of God as found in the Biblical text. Oftentimes, these themes will give new insight into the actions of God and His covenantal people by examining the ancient context and the biblical-theological themes presented therein. Although they may not be in entire agreement with the articles posted here, the insights will be in the vein of scholars such as Gerhardus Vos, Meredith G. Kline, Gerard Van Groningen, O. Palmer Robertson, Lee Irons, and Mark W. Karlberg, among others. Enjoy.