East of Eden

4 These are the generationsof the heavens and the earth when they were created,in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

i) Some commentators think the chronology of Gen 2 contradicts the chronology of Gen 1. Even if that were the case, it would simply mean the narrator arranges the events in a topical sequence in one or both accounts.

ii) However, Gen 2 doesn't directly track Gen 1. Gen 1 is a global creation account whereas Gen 2 is a local creation account. Gen 1 is more cosmological whereas Gen 2 is more anthropological. Gen 2 takes Gen 1 for granted, but narrows the focus to the divine preparations for man's ancestral homeland. 

5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 

Scholars puzzle over the water source in v6, but in context I think we should construe vv5-6 in reference to vv10-14. River water supplies a natural source of irrigation for wild plants bordering a narrow strip along the river banks. What biologists call a riparian zone. 

"Edenic" is  a popular adjective. Many folks have a preconception of paradise. For some, "Edenic" is a tropical island. But what was Eden really like?

Landmarks change over the millennia. Place-names may change, or be forgotten. Rivers may change course, or dry up. 

However, to judge by the text, and what geographical correlations we are able to make at this distance, Eden was not a lush tropical paradise. Rather, it seems to be hot and dry, situated somewhere in the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys. Vegetation would crowd along the river banks, but quickly thin out from there. 

Or perhaps we should envision a marsh extending from the river banks. Marshy ground is potentially arable, but it requires cultivation. Drainage (Tsumura 1989).

I once lived in the San Luis Rey river valley. It had verdant growth along the river banks, but the surrounding countryside was rocky and dusty, except when it rained. After a heavy rain, barren patches of land would suddenly burst forth with vegetation. I expect Eden was less like a tropical paradise and more like stretches of the Rio Grande river valley. The ancient Jordan river valley supplies a biblical counterpart–as does the Nile river valley (Gen 13:10).

Its situation in a river valley insulates the garden from the vicissitudes of seasonal rainfall, ensuring a measure of stability. It's a good location, but there's room for improvement. It allows the human inhabitants to further cultivate the area beyond the indigenous green zone skirting the river banks. 

7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,

i) Many scholars regard "Adam" as a pun. The Hebrew word, both as a generic name for mankind as well as a proper name for the first man, puns the Hebrew word for soil. But I don't see how that's a play on words, any more that Leonardo da Vinci's surname puns a town in Tuscany. Yes, his proper-name derives from a place-name, because his birthplace was near the town. It's just a conventional way of connecting him to his place of origin. That's historical. Indeed, my own surname (Hays) is derives from a place-name in Normandy (La Haye-du-Puits). Likewise, the fact that Adam is named after the soil, from which he was constituted, doesn't make his name a pun–as if this is a literary device or etiology with no factual basis. 

ii) Many commentators, including conservatives, consider the depiction of God in Gen 2:7 to be anthropomorphic. No doubt Scripture contains many anthropomorphic depictions of God. But is 2:7 anthropomorphic? For one thing, if God actually made Adam and Eve by an act of special creation, how else would the narrator express that idea except by using idiomatic verbs normally employed in human manufacture? That’s the vocabulary he has at his disposal.

In addition, the depictions of God in Gen 2-3 dovetail with Pentateuchal angelology. The Pentateuch contains many angelic apparitions, including the Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is a theanthropic angelophany. Indeed, it’s arguably a Christophany (although the point I’m making in this post doesn’t turn on that identification).

I classify the depictions of God in Gen 2-3, not as anthropomorphisms, but angelophanies. The Angel of the Lord (a theanthropic angelophany). 

In the Pentateuch, angels do rub shoulders with men. Occupy time and space. Interact with their physical surroundings. 

iii) Finally, it’s instructive to compare Genesis with the Gospels:

Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature (Gen 2:7). 

21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man (Gen 2:21-22). 

And taking him aside from the crowd privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and after spitting touched his tongue (Mk 7:33). 

And he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village, and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?” (Mk 8:23). 

Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man's eyes with the mud (Jn 9:6). 

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (Jn 20:22).

Seems to me that Jesus has a modus operandi that’s very reminiscent of God in Gen 2. Jesus isn’t afraid to get dirt under his fingernails. If Jesus doesn’t mind getting grubby, up-close-and-personal, when he performs a miracle, why assume God’s method is different in Gen 2?

 and the man became a living creature. 

The traditional rendering ("living soul") is misleading because the "soul" in Christian theological usag, connotes the incorporeal mind or consciousness of humans which survives death, whereas the usage here is physical. This doesn't mean humans are simply brains in bodies. Rather, it merely means that at this nascent stage of human history and progressive revelation, questions regarding the afterlife and the intermediate state, which give rise to reflections on the immortal "soul," haven't yet arrived. The perspective of chapter 2 is prelapsarian. At this juncture, death is still hypothetical. 

8 And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.

God provides the first humans with an instant orchard to supply their immediate nutritional needs.  

 The tree of life was in the midst of the garden,

i) This doesn't mean the tree of life had inherent rejuvenative properties. It's a concrete symbol. God assigns a consequence to eating the fruit. 

ii) In addition, the tree of life prefigures the menorah. 

 and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

What is meant by "the knowledge of good and evil"? Perhaps we're asking the wrong question. Perhaps what matters is not what kind of knowledge the tree objectively represents, if any, but what kind of knowledge Adam and Eve imagine it represents. The tree is a cipher. That's what makes it a test. What it signifies to them. What they project onto the tree.

10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

i) The garden wasn't a mythical or legendary utopia like Shangri-La, El Dorado, or the Garden of the Hesperides–but a real place. It was situated somewhere in Mesopotamia. The Tigris and Euphrates are still extant, although their courses have changed over the millennia. Modern archeology has tentatively identified the other two rivers (Hill 2000). 

Although the reference to precious gems and metals might make it sound like a fabled paradise, these, too, refer to real places renown for goldmines and lapis lazuli. 

ii) In addition, the reference to precious gems and metals foreshadows the tabernacle furnishings and priestly vestments. 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 

"To work it and keep it" are double entendres. On the one hand, they connote farming techniques. On the other hand, they connote priestly service in the tabernacle. The garden was a natural tabernacle (cf. Num 24:5-6). 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

i) Because Adam and Eve were brought into being as mature adults, God endows them with innate knowledge and language. 

ii) Some readers are puzzled by why God didn't strike Adam dead on the day he sinned. Of course, the narrator would be aware of that. But "in the day" is an idiomatic synonym for "when." Adam will die, not as soon as he eats the forbidden fruit, but sometime thereafter. 

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. 

In context, Adam isn't naming every kind of creature on earth, but every kind of creature that frequents the garden. 

But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Why was Eve made from Adam’s side?

i) The general reason is to stress the unity of man and woman. They were made for each other because they were made from each other. Like two halves a whole. That much is clear from the account itself, which stresses the fittingness of Eve, in contrast to the animals, to be the man’s companion and counterpart. The “one flesh,” “bone-of-my-bones” bond. Men and women have a natural, built-in rapport.

ii) But over and above the general reason may be a more subtle and specific reason for the choice of Adam’s side rather than some other part of his anatomy. As one scholar notes:

As we have already observed, the language of the garden scene is found in the tabernacle description; the term sela, here rendered “ribs,” appears frequently in the construction setting of the tabernacle, there translated “side.” (Mathews 1996).

So the narrator may be comparing the woman to a living tabernacle.

 23 Then the man said,“This at last is bone of my bones    and flesh of my flesh;she shall be called Woman,    because she was taken out of Man.”24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Gen 2 makes women central to the life of men. That's in striking contrast to pagan literature (e.g. the Iliad, the Epic of Gilgamesh), where a man's chief companions are other men. 

Excursus 1: Special Creation

The account of how Adam (v7) and Eve (vv21-22) were made is the locus classicus for the special creation of man, in contrast to the theory of macroevolution by common descent. And that's fine as far as it goes.

However, it's not as if the case for special creation comes down to three brief verses in Gen 2. Rather, the entire outlook of Gen 2 (as well as Gen 1) is at odds with evolution, whether naturalistic or theistic. In evolution, developments occur through a series of mechanical causes. If there is a God, he lies behind the automated system. He operates through natural processes.

In Gen 2, by contrast, the perspective is irreducibly supernatural. Personal agency rather than mechanical causation drives the action. God pops in at strategic turning-points to make things happen. And this isn't confined to Gen 2. It pervades the Pentateuch. Theophanies and angelophanies. 

Of course, the Pentateuch also has a doctrine of ordinary providence. Many things naturally occur. To some degree the natural order is like a machine. But the manual override is often used by God and other spiritual agents.  

To make room for evolution, you can't just reinterpret Gen 2:7 or 2:21-22. You have to reinterpret the entire chapter. Indeed, you have to reinterpret the Pentateuch. You must treat the way in which the Pentateuch depicts interaction between men and spirits as systematically fictitious or mythological. And, of course, it doesn't stop with the Pentateuch, or the OT. You have the same situation in the Gospels and Acts.

There are, of course, some radical theologians who are prepared to go that far. However, this is no longer a question of exegesis. Not a question of what it meant to the narrator or the target audience. Rather, this involves imposing an outlook onto the text that's fundamentally alien to the text. Accommodating evolution involves wholesale replacement of the narrator's perspective with an essentially secular perspective. 

Excursus 2: Animals and Man

Recently, an increasing number of professing believers has decided to jettison the historical Adam. The clincher has been the degree of similarity between humans and chimpanzees.

Now, the specific comparisons have been challenged by Intelligent-design theorists. However, it’s still the case that humans are more like chimps than salamanders.

According to evolution, we account for the similarity based on common ancestry. As a rule, similarity reflects affinity. Degrees of similarity mirror degrees of kinship. Organisms that are more alike are more closely related while organisms that are less alike are more distantly related. By “related,” I mean in terms of common ancestry.

Is there an alternative explanation consistent with special creation? Take the principle of plenitude. According to Christian thinkers like Leibniz, Aquinas, and Augustine, God made a world with maximal diversity. God made a world which would combine as many variations as possible.

(In addition, Aquinas thinks organisms have a hierarchical arrangement–from highest to lowest.)

Although that’s theological, there are secular versions of the principle, viz. the multiverse and the modal realism of David Lewis.

And on the face of it, the natural world does look like just about every conceivable strategy is represented. So this isn’t just an abstract postulate.

Now, assuming that organisms range along a continuum (i.e. degrees of similarity or dissimilarity), it’s inevitable that humans will be more like some animals, and less like others. And if that’s the case, then there may well be one animal that humans are more like than other animals.

That isn’t due to common ancestry, but graded diversity. If God made a full-spectrum world, then humans will resemble some creatures more than others–for the world was designed to exhibit a wide range of biological similarities and dissimilarities. Every feasible or compossible permutation will be represented.

Incidentally, when I speak of a scale (spectrum, continuum) of diversity, I don’t mean that in strictly linear terms. That’s an incidental connotation of the spatial metaphors. I don’t think all organisms can be arranged according to a single principle of continuity and discontinuity. In comparing two organisms, they may be alike in one or more respects, but unalike in other respects. My argument doesn’t require linearity.

To take a comparison, consider all the different styles of chess sets. Some chess sets are more alike, while others are less alike. That’s because humans value artistic diversity. And the world we inhabit seems to reflect God’s artistic diversity.

Another example is musical variation. Classical composers would demonstrate their ingenuity by ringing the changes on a particular theme. Notable examples include Pachelbel’s Canon, Handel’s The Harmonious Blacksmith, Bach’s Goldberg Variations, Beethoven’s Diabelli Variations, Brahms’s Variations on a Theme by Haydn, and Vaughan Williams’ Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis.

I’m reminded of Paul’s statement about “the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known…” (Eph 3:9-10).

As Hoehner says, this carries the connotation of “most varied.”

This is not an ad hoc alternative. It’s a comprehensive explanation, based on one overarching principle. That’s economical. It antedates the creation/evolution debate, so it’s not a stopgap that was pressed into service to stave off the Darwinians. And there’s no presumption that God wouldn’t, shouldn’t, or didn’t design a world with maximal variation.

References:

Hill, C., "The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape," Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 52 (2000), 31-46.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Hill.html

Mathews, K. Genesis 1–11:26 (Broadman 1996), 216.

Tsumura, D. The Earth and the Waters in Genesis 1 and 2 (JSOTS 1989), 119-21. 

Very good

20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 

Unlike paganism, which divinizes nature by ascribing spontaneous generation to the four elements, the initial production of aquatic life requires a divine command (Cf. Exod 7:3).  

21 So God created the great sea creatures

What do the "great sea creatures" refer to?

i) Some scholars think they refer to marine creatures like sharks, whales, and giant squid. One problem with that identification is that ancient Israelites weren't a seafaring people, so that wouldn't be relevant or even intelligible to the original audience.

ii) As emancipated Egyptian slaves, they might be painfully familiar with Nile crocodiles. Technically speaking, those are freshwater rather than marine species. But the narrator may not be concerned with that distinction. Nile crocodiles are huge ambush predators and notorious man-eaters. The experience would be unforgettable. In Bible times, the habitat of crocodiles extended to Palestine and Mesopotamia (Blaiklock 1983).

There is a species of crocodile (the saltwater or estuarine crocodile) that's at home in both inland freshwater and coastal marine habitats. Yet its distribution lies outside the Mideast. But its distribution may have been more extensive in earlier times. 

However, the plural suggests a wider reference than one kind of "sea creature." Which brings us to another interpretation:

iii) Other scholars think this is an allusion to mythical sea-monsters or "chaos monsters." If so, that's an example of Scripture's polemical theology, where Scripture polemicizes against pagan concepts. In this case, it would be cutting them down to size. In paganism, the chaos monsters are godlike beasts that threaten to unhinge the natural order. Animate forces that wreak havoc with the natural order, unless they are contained. They rival the gods. 

If that's what Genesis is alluding to, then by placing them within the creation account, the narrator demythologizes them (just as he demythologized the celestial luminaries) by reducing them to mere creatures, however impressive, but utterly subservient to God. On one interpretation, Job 40-41 is an expanded example of polemicizing against chaos monsters. There are other fleeting references in Scripture (Ps 74:13-14; 104:25-26; Isa 27:1; 51:9). 

 and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

In what sense is the creation said to be "good"? God is commending his own actions. Whatever God does is good because he does it, whether in creation or providence. 

This also affirms the goodness of the material world. Matter isn't evil. Physical existence isn't imprisonment. 

 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.26 Then God said, “Let us make man

What's the significance of the first person plural? 

i) The traditional Christian explanation is a Trinitarian interpretation. God is talking to himself, but since God is Trinitarian, introspection has a plural dimension.

The problem with that explanation is that it's too theologically advanced for the original audience. At this introductory stage of progressive revelation, they lack the necessary background for that reference to be intelligible. However, I think the Trinitarian interpretation has a grain of truth. I'll return to it momentarily. 

ii) Some scholars think this is a rhetorical device: interior monologue. The narrator depicts God in the act of self-deliberation.

In general, there's nothing wrong with that explanation. There are biblical examples of interior monologue (e.g. 1 Sam 27:1; Ps 42:5). However, even though that might explain the first-person form, it fails to explain the plural form. Yet it's the plural form that calls for explanation.

In fact, we have examples of divine interior monologue in Genesis (Gen 2:18; 18:17). But there the narrator employs the singular form.  

iii) Another explanation that's become popular in modern scholarly circles is that God is addressing the angelic heavenly court. That's an attractive proposal, and it may be correct, but there are problems:

Gen 1 is notably silent on the creation of angels. So Gen 1 hasn't laid a foundation for that referent. It would be very abrupt to assume an allusion to the heavenly court when Gen 1 hasn't even said anything about the existence or origin of angels. 

In fairness, one might defend the angelical interpretation by noting that the context of Gen 1 includes the entire Pentateuch. Certainly the Pentateuch mentions angels. Indeed, there are several references to angels in Genesis alone.

On the other hand, there's nothing in the Pentateuch that clearly refers to the angelical heavenly court. Those all occur outside the Pentateuch. Perhaps the closest we come to it is "Jacob's ladder." 

Since, moreover, Gen 1 is a creation account, if angels are the point of reference for God's plural address, I think we'd still expect the creation of angels to be mentioned. Gen 1 does explain some things in reference to other things, but it does so by building on earlier fiats. God is said to make one thing at an earlier stage, and that, in turn, is a point of reference for a later development. 

iv) In Gen 1, there are arguably two divine agents in play: God and God's Spirit. In Scripture, "spirits" are personal agents, and the "Spirit of God" is a divine agent. So, in context, it would make sense if this is a dialogue between God and God's Spirit. This isn't fully Trinitarian, but it's a first step in that direction. 

Some might be tempted to include God's word. However, in Gen 1, God's word isn't presented as a personal agent. Rather, God is a speaker. 

The notion that God's word is a personal agent will, of course, be developed in the course of Scripture, but we're not yet at that point. 

 in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Man is the "image" of God in the sense of God's representative and viceregent on earth. 

27 So God created man in his own image,    in the image of God he created him;    male and female he created them.

Gen 1 is heteronormative. Transgender and homosexuality are decadent aberrations. 

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Based on vv29-30 and 9:3, some Christians think all animals were originally herbivores. But there are problems with that interpretation:

i) The wording is permissive, not proscriptive. It doesn't prohibit carnivory. Rather, it speaks to divine provision. 

ii) We should avoid a false dichotomy between carnivory and herbivory. Both carnivores and herbivores depend on flora to survive. Herbivores eat plants while carnivores eat other carnivores or (especially) herbivores. So carnivores are equally dependent on flora. It's just a distinction between direct and indirect dependence.

iii) The language is hyperbolic, since some vegetation is inedible.

iv) It singles out wild animals, ignoring livestock. 

v) It singles out land animals, ignoring aquatic creatures. But many aquatic creatures are carnivorous or hematophagous, viz. sharks, orcas,  lampreys, piranha, barracuda, jellyfish, sea snakes, moray eels, tiger fish, vampire fish. 

vi) Apropos (v), some creatures straddle ecological zones. How would the narrator classify semiaquatic creatures like ducks, frogs, otters, turtles, anacondas, seals, crocodiles? How would their diet fit in? 

vii) The passage ignores carnivorous or hematophagous bats and insects, viz. ticks, fleas, mosquitoes, dragonflies, centipedes, vampire bats.

viii) The narrator uses taxonomic nomenclature that normally denotes wild plants. If the passage is prohibitive, that would place a ban on farming. Were Adam and Eve not allowed to farm the land? Likewise, if the passage is taken to forbid meat-eating, then does it also forbid horticulture? Would it be sinful for Adam and Eve to cultivate seedless grapes and watermelons?  

ix) Gen 1 is an account of origins. It describes creatures which would be familiar to a reader living after the fall and after the flood. 

Many predators are specially designed to capture and consume prey, while prey are often designed to elude capture. If, however, all creatures were initially herbivorous, then the origin of many major lifeforms took place at a later date. 

x) Judging by the taxonomic nomenclature, Gen 9:3 probably refers to hunting game species in particular rather than a meat diet in general (Walton 2001).

2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.

i) The traditional chapter break is an editorial mistake. Most scholars think the pericope extends from Gen 1:1-2:3. 

ii) In what sense is God said to rest? 

a) It means cessation from creation. He's done making the world. That's a finished product. 

b) "Rest" is a loaded word. "Rest" is chosen because that word connotes the Sabbath. Foreshadows the Sabbath. More than foreshadows: this is the prototypal and archetypal Sabbath. 

c) It also evokes the cosmic temple motif. A temple is the "house of God." After completing the temple, God takes up residence (as it were). So "rest" in this context doesn't imply inactivity, but activity. God is no longer active in the construction phase because that's over with. God is now active in the world, because there is a world for God to be active in. A theater of divine action. 

Of course, this doesn't mean the physical world is literally God's dwelling-place. We're dealing with a theological metaphor. 

iii) I think that also explains the absence of the diurnal refrain ("dusk and dawn"). Some scholars take this to mean the seventh day is endless, but I think it simply means day seven breaks the cycle of the divine workweek.  And it terminates divine action in that regard. 

In fact, the diurnal refrain after each day and between each day already signifies divine rest, for the interval between dusk and dawn is nighttime (whereas the interval between dawn and dusk is daytime). The difference is that on days 1-5, God completes a day's work, whereas–on day 6, God completes a week's work. That represents a complete cessation of God's creative labors, unlike the temporary breaks on days 1-5. 

In addition, God's creation workweek is unrepeatable whereas man's work week is repeatable, precisely because God's unique action sets the pattern for man. 

Far from being continuous, it's discontinuous–for the sabbath is a buffer between the last workweek and the next workweek. By definition, it's "set apart" from other days. But the sabbath is ended by the resumption of the workweek. The creation account doesn't go that far since the point of the creation account is to explain the origin of the cycle. Once the cycle is in place, it will repeat itself. Periodicity is implied by the goal of the process. 

To say it's endless due to the absence of the diurnal refrain would prove to much, for that would also mean it has no inception as well as no termination. No dawn or dusk. But that's more than proponents wish to claim for the seventh day. 

References:

Blaiklock, E. M. "Crocodile," The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology (Zondervan 1983), 140.

Walton, J. Genesis (Zondervan 2001), 342-43. 

From first day to fourth day

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 

1) It's often said that Gen 1 takes God's existence for granted. There's no effort to prove his existence. That's true, but misleading. The narrative audience for Genesis is the Exodus-generation. The Exodus-generation witnessed firsthand how God miraculously delivered them from Egypt and sustained them in the wilderness.

2) Gramatically speaking, there are basically two ways to construe Gen 1:1-3:

i) You can construe v1 as a statement of absolute creation. Nothing preexisted God. God made the world at the beginning of time. Time and space take their point of origin in God's creative fiat (v1). 

In addition, v1 marks the first creative fiat. That's the initial phase of the six-day creative process. 

ii) Conversely, you can construe v1 as a temporal clause (viz., "When God began to create"). By the same token, you can construe v1 as a topic sentence prologue which summarizes the creative process. On that view, v1 stands outside the six-day creative process. In addition, creation doesn't begin until v3. God is terraforming a preexistent earth, with preexistent waters. God is the finisher rather than the Creator. 

One argument for the second interpretation is that, in normal usage, the merism (heaven and earth) refers to the world as a finished product. However, it would be fallacious to read that back onto Gen 1:1. It normally refers to the world as a finished product because that's the status quo once God made the world. But that's premature at this preliminary stage of creation. 

3) Although both these interpretations are grammatically viable options, both interpretations aren't theologically viable options. Interpretation (ii) would make this a fairly pagan creation account. It wouldn't clearly distinguish this from pagan cosmogonies. 

There's a reason why pagan creation myths take preexisting matter for granted. That's because, in heathenism, matter is ultimate. Nature is ultimate. The gods themselves are the product of an antecedent natural process. 

In addition, as one scholar notes:

Since the "earth" commands the attention of the whole report in vv3-31, are we to believe that the account gives no word on the origins of its focal topic when it is the very subject of origins that drives the narrative (Mathews 1996)?

Once again, we need to keep in mind the narrative audience for Gen 1. That would be the Exodus-generation. They were liberated from Egypt. Egypt was an influential source of paganism. Gen 1 stands in contrast to pagan cosmogonies. The one true God of Israel stands in contrast to the gods of the pagan pantheon. The God of Israel has no antecedents or coexistents.  As one scholar puts it:

For the first time in the religious history of the Near East, God is conceived as being entirely free of temporal and spatial dimensions (Sarna 1989).

To be sure, liberals don't think the ostensible setting of the Pentateuch reflects the actual date of composition. They think the narrator has archaized the present. But even if the setting were a historical fiction, the ostensible narrative audience is still the interpretive frame of reference. 

Of course, Christians ought to believe the self-witness of the text. 

2 The earth was without form and void

This describes the primordial state of the earth when God made it on the first day. At this stage, the earth is barren and desolate. Lifeless and inhospitable. There's nothing "chaotic" in this description. 

and darkness

Darkness is not a preexisting something, but a negative state. The absence of something position. The absence of light.

Gen 1 lays great emphasis on the light/dark, day/night motif. For a reader who lived in preelectric times, what was the significance of light and dark, day and night?

i) Darkness evokes fear and apprehension. For one thing, there were dangerous nocturnal predators (e.g. Ps 104:20-22).

ii) Likewise, you could get lost in the dark. That might easily happen to those who had to travel on foot (e.g. Jn 12:35).

iii) Apropos (ii), a day was a unit of distance. How far you could travel by foot in a day (e.g. Gen 30:36; 31:23; Exod 3:18; Num 10:33; 11:31; 33:8). 

iv) Conversely, the major sources of light were sunlight and firelight. In that respect there’s probably an intertextual connection between sunlight and agriculture (Gen 1:14; 8:22). Sunlight was necessary for farming, and farming was necessary for food and wine. Keep in mind that wine was often substitute for water in a dry climate.

v) The Pentateuch also describes certain types of sacred fire, light, or firelight. There’s the Shekinah, the burning bush, the pillar of fire, the perpetual flame (for burnt offerings), and divine lightning that consumes offerings. These reflect the presence of God or the revelation of God. The accent on light in Gen 1 sets the stage for these examples.

vi) In the ancient world, certain celestial phenomena were interpreted as omens (signs, portents, prodigies).

was over the face of the deep.

The surface of the primordial earth was submerged in water.

And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

i) This involves puns and mixed metaphors. The Hebrew designation (ruach) can mean wind, breath, or spirit. The narrator is exploiting the polyvalent connotations of the word (Averbeck 2005):

i) "Wind," as a natural metaphor which goes with water. Without dry land, there's nothing to constrain wave action. 

ii) "Breath" is a natural metaphor for the spoken word. That suits God speaking the world into existence.

iii) In addition, "breath" is a synecdoche for biological life. When organisms die, they "expire." 

This foreshadows God's creation of Adam, in the next chapter.

iv) The agency of God's Spirit in making the world foreshadows his agency in making the tabernacle (Exod 31:3). 

v) "Hovering" is a protective, avian metaphor, which foreshadows God's provision for the wilderness generation (Deut 32:11-14). 

vi) Apropos (v), this may be a theophany that trades on ancient Near Eastern iconography, representing the winged solar disk (Niehaus 1995). 

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 

This probably foreshadows types of sacred light in Exodus, such as the pillar of fire, the burning bush, and the menorah. 

5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

In the creation account (Gen 1-2), "day" (yom) has three different senses:

i) Daylight or the daylight hours, in contrast to night.

ii) A solar day.

iii) An idiomatic synonym for "when" (e.g. 2:4; 5:1).

Days aren't simply units of time, but units of light. It's easy for modern readers to overlook that fact because we're accustomed to artificial lighting. We regulate our lives by technology. But natural lighting would be far more significant to an ancient reader. 

And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

"Evening and morning" means dusk and dawn, sundown and sunup. They demarcate daytime from nighttime. The diurnal cycle is already in place on the first day of creation–which presumes a functioning solar system. 

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

This is just a distinction between rainwater (above) and lakes, rivers, ponds, oases, and the sea (below). Although some scholars think the Hebrews believed in a three-story universe, ancient Hebrews were perfectly capable of seeing rainclouds emit precipitation. 

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

i) This alludes to mountain formation. As land rises, the water lowers. Coastlines are borderlines between surf and turf. 

Theoretically, if the process were miraculously reversed, that would flood the earth. No additional water would be required to submerge the earth. Seawater would be sufficient, if natural barriers like mountains and hills were breached. And if the process (mountain formation) were miraculously repeated, that would be a drainage mechanism for the flood waters. 

ii) Some scholars think the ancient Near Easterners believed there was only one continent, encircled by one ocean. However, ancient mariners were in a position to discover other land masses. 

iii) The "earth" has more than one sense. Global or local, depending on the context. It can denote the "planet," or the surface of the earth, or the "land" is a localized sense. 

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

This illustrates the interplay between miracle and providence, primary and secondary causality. God's initial fiat creates the conditions for a system of second causes. He creates the fruit trees from scratch, but once they exist they have the internal capacity to reproduce on their own.

The imagery may be influenced by the way vegetation seems to explode out of nowhere when the desert is inundated by a flash flood from a cloud burst. Something the wilderness generation had occasion to observe. 

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

i) On the face of it, the fourth day is out of sequence. For the diurnal cycle is already functioning as of day one. As a matter of common experience, the narrator (and his audience) knew that daylight normally comes from sunlight. So this is probably a deliberate anachronism. To that degree, the creation account is nonsequential. As one scholar puts it:

These two days are not related to each other chronologically but that they refer to the same event–the creation of the sun. Indeed, this wool seem to be implied in 1:17-18 where it is stated that God set the sun "in the expanse of the sky…to separate light from darkness" (the latter phrase, in fact, is quoted directly from 1:4). In other words, we are told in Genesis 1:4 that God separated light from darkness and in 1:18 how he did it (Youngblood 1999).

ii) This is likely intended to foreshadow the tabernacle. The "expanse" is analogous to the ceiling of the tabernacle, while celestial luminaries are analogous to the menorah. Put another way, the narrator is using architectural metaphors to prefigure the tabernacle. Alert the reader to similarities between the natural world and the tabernacle as a sacred microcosm of the world (cf. Beale 2008; Hodge 2011).

iii) "Seasons" could refer to agricultural cycles, holidays, or both. 

iv) The narrator demythologizes celestial luminaries. In paganism, these were gods. That gave rise to astromancy. But in Gen 1, the celestial luminaries are demoted to creatures of the one true God. 

v) On the syntax of day four, see Collins.

References:

Averbeck, R. "The Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Bible and Its Connections to the New Testament, M. Sawyer & D. Wallace, eds. Who's Afraid of the Holy Spirit (BSP 2005), 23-25.

Beale, G. K. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism (Crossway 2008), chaps. 6-7. 

Collins, J. Genesis 1–4 (P&R 2006), 56-58.

Hodge, B. C. Revisiting the Days of Genesis (Wipf & Stock), 56-67.

Mathews, K. Genesis 1–11:26 (Broadman 1996), 142. 

Niehaus, J. God at Sinai (Zondervan 1995), 150-53.

Sarna, N. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis (JPS 1989), 5.

Youngblood, R. The Book of Genesis: An Introductory Commentary (Wipf & Stock, 2nd ed., 1999), 27.

Introduction to Genesis

Genesis is formally anonymous. However, the authorship of Genesis is inseparable from the authorship of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch is a literary unit. So it would be artificial to consider the authorship of Genesis in isolation to the authorship of the Pentateuch as a whole. Other Pentateuchal books indicate Mosaic authorship. That, in turn, reflects back on Genesis. 

This is reinforced by the fact that Genesis introduces many motifs which prefigure later developments in other Pentateuchal books. This implies the Pentateuch (or at least the "final form" of the Pentateuch) was the work of one hand. That would account for its thematic unity, and the author's apparent foresight–which is creative hindsight. Although he actually wrote the Pentateuchal books in chronological sequence, in his mind's eye he had the entire narrative arc in view. He mentally wrote the Pentateuch backwards, beginning with the denouement, and working back to events leading up to the denouement. Compositionally speaking, he knew where he was going before he got there. The process of execution is in reverse order to the process of planning. The Pentateuch is essentially one book with one continuous story.

It's possible that Moses had a scribe take dictation. After completion, the text would be deposited in the ark of the covenant. Mosaic authorship allows for post-Mosaic scribal updating here and there. 

Liberals are alert to apparent anachronisms in the Pentateuch that seem to point to a later date, but that cuts both ways. They ignore anachronisms that point to an earlier date than their theory postulates, viz. the nomadic wilderness setting of Exodus–Deuteronomy. 

In commenting on Genesis, I'll refer to the author as the "narrator" rather than Moses, because that's the role that Moses is assuming in Genesis. 

Depending on whether we favor the early or late date for the Exodus, Genesis was written in the early to mid-2nd millennium BC. Interpreting the book doesn't depend on which date we choose, especially since all events in Genesis considerably predate the time of composition. 

Assuming Mosaic authorship, Genesis was written to emancipated Jewish slaves in the Sinai desert. It filled in the backstory of their history as a people-group. It clarified the identity of the one true God. The God who delivered them from Egypt was the same God who made the world, saved Noah, and guided the patriarchs. The God who delivered them from Egypt isn't a local God or tribal God. He is not one God among many. Rather, he is the Creator of the world. All other concrete entities are creatures. 

It's possible that Moses made some use of oral or written historical sources in Genesis. However, his knowledge of certain events was presumably the result of direct revelation. 

Genesis is a flashpoint of controversy in the debate over the relationship between science and Scripture. Christians have a duty to believe whatever God tells us in his word. In case of conflict, Scripture trumps science. And there's a necessary place for defending the claims of Scripture.

However, exegesis shouldn't be distracted by extraneous issues. Exegesis shouldn't be shaped with a view to modern debates. An interpreter ought to try as best he can to clear his mind of modern concerns and assume the viewpoint of the original author and his target audience. When reading Genesis, we need to ask ourselves what would be significant to the original audience? What would stand out for them? We need to imaginatively project ourselves into their situation. Check our own concerns and preconceptions at the door. Leaving modernity behind is, in turn, the best way to revise and correct our prejudices in the clarifying light of God's word. We need to adjust our perspective to the narrator's perspective. See the world afresh through the eyes of the narrator, rather than superimposing our cultural reference points onto the ancient text.

Commentators use comparative ancient Near Eastern literature to interpret Genesis. To some extent this can be useful, but it's easily overused. The first task of a commentator is to interpret the text before him, not compare it to another text and use the other text as the frame of reference. Even if we assume that the narrator is interacting with common ancient Near Eastern conceptions, the question at issue is what that means to the narrator, and not what it might have meant to the authors and editors of comparative literature. We must interpret Genesis on its own terms, according to the narrator's own vision.

In addition, using comparative literature to interpret Genesis assumes we know how to interpret the comparative literature. So the exercise can quickly devolve into vicious circularity. 

In my opinion, many scholars fail to put themselves in the situation of the narrator and the immediate audience. Fail to experience the world as someone living in the ancient Near East would experience the world. Their world was not a literary construct. There are many things that even prescientific peoples would be aware of. The methodology of scholars is often backwards. Instead of viewing ancient Near Eastern art or and literature through the world the author experienced, they view the world through the art or literature. 

For further reading:

Hess, R. "Language of the Pentateuch," T. D. Alexander & D. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (IVP 2003), 491-97.

Mathews, K. Genesis 1–11:26 (Broadman 1996), 42-46.  

Children of the dawn

Lk 1:46-55; 67-79

46And Mary said,

"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
53he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
54He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever."

67And his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying,
68 "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
for he has visited and redeemed his people
69and has raised up a horn of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David,
70 as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, 71 that we should be saved from our enemies
and from the hand of all who hate us;
72 to show the mercy promised to our fathers
and to remember his holy covenant,
73 the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us
74that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
might serve him without fear,
75 in holiness and righteousness before him all our days.
76And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,
77to give knowledge of salvation to his people
in the forgiveness of their sins,
78because of the tender mercy of our God,
whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high
79to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the way of peace."

Exposition

Mary’s hymn is a study in continuity and contrast. A study in continuity: his steadfast love for his people, from one generation to the next. In the keeping of his word. In his remembered promise. In his abiding covenant with the patriarchs, and their posterity.

God is unchanging in purpose because God is unchanging in nature. God is the only constant in a fleeting world. Generations come and go, but God remains the same. What time, space, and death have scattered, he shall regather–on behalf of his elect.

His steadfast love is manifested in mighty deeds as well as weighty words. God’s providence, undergirding God’s promise. A God who says what he will do, and does what he has said. Crowned by the long-awaited birth of the Messiah.

But also a study in contrast: between the humble and the haughty. The lowly and the lofty. The poor in spirit and the self-sufficient. The fate of the faithful and the fate of the faithless. God exalts the lowly and lowers the lofty. God is strong where we are weak. Those who win today will lose tomorrow, while those who lose today will win tomorrow.

For Zechariah, the Messianic age is a second Exodus. A greater Exodus. As God once visited his captive people in the person of his Angel, God now visits his people in the person of his Son. As God long ago brought light to his people by the pillar of fire and the radiant Shekinah, he now brings light to his people by the Shekinah Incarnate, who leads them anew to the promised land (e.g. Josh 24:14).

Application

The heathen were children of the night. Living and dying in darkness. They stumbled on the starlit path of dim, blighted nature.

The Jews were children of a harvest moon. They saw by the lunar light of God’s promise and providence. The silver beams of the silver age of redemption, and the harbinger of a dawning day.

Christian believers here below are children of the dawn. They dwell in light and shade. In the snug, dappled light of the rising sun. Breaking over the frosty hills. Fanning forth into the valleys below. The first flush of a new day. A spring day. An everlasting day. Yet the rising sun casts shadows, long shadows. Advancing day alongside remnants of receding night. Tears and laughter intermixed.

But above and beyond, the saints shall be children of the day. Dwelling in the noontime brightness of the equatorial sun. The undying light of God’s hoped-for, longed-for restoration.

Prayer

Thank you, Father, that you have made us children of the dawn. That you have graced us to walk in the aurorean light of the Easter morn. Even though our life below is often overshadowed by sin, illness and death; by hardship and heartache; by longing for what we once had, but have no more; or what we long for, but never had; our path is brightened by shafts of heavenly sunshine that thaw the heart, heal the knees, cheer the soul, and light our eyes a way out of lingering shadows into the fullness of the greatness of the goodness of the consummation to come.

By the love of God, the grace of Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Prayer for the prayerless

Lk 1:8-23

8Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, 9according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense. 11And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12And Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. 13But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, 17and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."

18And Zechariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." 19And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. 20And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time." 21And the people were waiting for Zechariah, and they were wondering at his delay in the temple. 22And when he came out, he was unable to speak to them, and they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he kept making signs to them and remained mute. 23And when his time of service was ended, he went to his home.

Exposition

Because there were too many of them for every priest to burn incense in the sanctuary, casting lots was used to narrow the field. In addition, casting lots eliminating favoritism. It was purely a matter of chance who was chosen by lot. Not bribes or nepotism or other kinds of preferential treatment.

Here’s a classic case of a random event. Random by design. So what are the odds that Zechariah would be the sanctuary at just the time that Gabriel appeared to him? This event was once-in-a lifetime opportunity. Indeed, few Jews, including priests, ever encountered an angel, or burnt incense in the sanctuary. The conjunction to two improbable events renders the conjunction all the more improbable.

But therein lies the unspoken irony of the event. Behind this seemingly chance encounter is the unseen, all-seeing hand of God. Although human hands visibly cast the lots, the invisible hand of God also cast the lots. He directed the lots to choose Zechariah. Unbeknownst to them, they played with loaded dice that day.

Some miracles can be outwardly indistinguishable from ordinary events. They seem perfectly normal. They employ natural media. They dissolve into the mundane surroundings.

Sometimes God is never nearer than when he seems to be far-gone. Very present when he appears to be utterly absent.

The angelic apparition was a stereotypical miracle. Conspicuously supernatural.

Yet in this encounter there are two miracles in one. We tend to focus on the conspicuous miracle, to the neglect of the inconspicuous miracle.

God moves in our lives in so many little, daily, unobtrusive ways. In small things as well as large. In quiet things as well as loud.

Zechariah prayed for a son. No doubt Elizabeth also prayed for a son. But when the moment came, when his prayer was answered at long last, when the answer came from the lips of an angel, no less, Zechariah is surprised. More than surprised–incredulous.

No doubt there is some irony in this. Why pray for something if there’s no expectation that God will hear your prayer? If, when he does, indeed, hear your prayer, you react in disbelief?

Of course, prayer often has more to do with desperation than expectation. We pray, not necessarily because we expect God to answer our prayer, but because prayer is our last resort. We have done all that’s humanly possible, but it’s not enough. We turn to God when we are powerless. Caught on the ledge of the cliff.

And, indeed, it is wrong to make demands on God, as if he owes us something, as if we can boss him around. Expectancy of that kind is irreverent. Out of place.

So why did Gabriel’s statement take Zechariah by surprise? If I were guessing, I suppose Zechariah stopped praying for a son long ago. For years, he and his wife prayed for a son. Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

But when no son was forthcoming, when Elizabeth was well past her child-bearing years, they got tired of praying. At least Zechariah did. He lost hope. He lost heart. He gave up. At that point prayer seemed futile. Mocking his inmost desire.

When Gabriel spoke to Zechariah, Zechariah had forgotten that worn-out prayer. Zechariah forgot about the prayer, but God had not forgotten. God remembered the prayer that Zechariah had long forgotten.

God answered his prayer. But what is more, God answered a forgotten prayer. Although Zechariah ceased praying, God never ceased hearing.

So Gabriel must remind Zechariah of his own long-forgotten prayer. For as Gabriel explains, these things come to pass in due time. God’s time.

Not all our prayers are answered. We frequently pray foolish prayers. Shortsighted. Misguided. To get whatever we ask for would be a curse rather than a blessing.

We pray for what we think is best, but the how and when are up to God. If he does answer a prayer, the timing and the circumstances lie with him, and often transpire in ways we could never foresee.

Zechariah asks how he can be sure. That question echoes the prologue, where Luke is writing Theophilus to inform and confirm him in the faith.

For the reader, it’s ironic to see a man questioning an angel. Demanding a sign. Demanding proof. For the angelic apparition is, itself, a sign from God!

This is the same angel who spoke to Daniel so many centuries before. The same angel who stands before the face of God.

Yet Zechariah is so blinded by years of aching, enervating disappointment–so blinded by his tiresome, predictable routine under the sun–that when something unpredictable occurs–when even an angel from heaven comes down to him and speaks to him–he finds it hard to break the spell of his ingrained, heartbroken pessimism. He doubts the indubitable.

And this from a man of faith. A man of God. A true believer. Zechariah is not an unbeliever. Not a nominal believer. Not like those who fell in the wilderness.

But like a tree in winter, he has withdrawn into a subsistent spiritual existence to survive the bitter conditions. He never lost his enduring faith in God. But he lost his youthful joy in the Lord. The birth of John will restore his joy. Bring light and delight to a battle-weary saint.

Application

Like Zechariah of old, what sustains us in the yawning, pale gray stretches of our journey are the rare and unforeseeable, yet tiny timely glimpses of eternity. Like dappled moonlight, broken by the overhanging trees, we walk in alternating pools of light and shade. When we seem to be lost in the dark, a white beam of starlight, piecing the wind-blown branches, momentarily illuminates the blackness ahead. Then the breeze blows again, and the path darkens again. Darkens behind us, after we pass.

Prayer

Thank you, Father, for remembering our unremembered prayers. For answering us long after we cease to ask, or hope, or dare.

Thank, you, Father, that nothing happens by chance. For each uneventful thread, in our little lives below, is woven into the surpassing tapestry of your eternal plan for the saints in glory.

By the love of God, the grace of Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

A people prepared

Lk 1:5-17,24-25

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. 7But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years.

8Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, 9according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense. 11And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12And Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. 13But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, 17and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."

24After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she kept herself hidden, saying, 25"Thus the Lord has done for me in the days when he looked on me, to take away my reproach among people."

Exposition

Herod the king and Zechariah the priest. Inhabiting the same physical space, yet realms apart. Herod, the impious worldly king–and Zechariah, the pious, otherworldly priest. Outwardly they coexist in the same parcel of time and space. Yet Zechariah’s outward existence is a shadow cast by God’s invisible light.

Outwardly, Zechariah and Herod trod a common path upon the earth. Neighbors in life and death. Yet imperceptibly they were moving apart, day-by-day and year-by-year, in opposing destinations, toward a looming eternity.

Herod was a man of power while Zechariah was a man of prayer. Herod was a creature of the day while Zechariah was a creature of the morrow. Herod was bounded by what is while Zechariah was emboldened what might be. Herod was an old man running out of time while Zechariah was an old man embarking on the infancy of an everlasting heritage.

Elizabeth, his wife, was barren, but like other barren women before her–such as Hannah, Rachel, Rebekah, Sarah, and Manoah’s wife–God later favored her with a son. The grace of God counteracted the disgrace of man. No longer was she the object of reproach.

Both Elizabeth and Mary find favor with God. Like Rebekah, they drink from God’s hidden wellspring. They counterbalance one another, just as Jesus and John the Baptist counterbalance one another.

In a way, women like Rachel, Rebekah, Hannah, and Sarah prefigure Elizabeth. God foreshadows the future by prophetic events as well as prophetic words.

Yet over and above this embodied oracle of things to come, such precedent reminds the reader of God’s sustaining providence for his people of all times, at all times. Grace is repetitious where the need is repetitious. Because these women had to endure a common deprivation, God blessed them with a common compensation.

At the same time, there’s a catch. God gave Elizabeth and Zechariah a son. That brought them joy.

And yet their son–their only son, their only child–would later die at Herod’s hands. Their son to die at the hands of Herod’s son. The Baptist had a remarkable birth, calling attention to his remarkable vocation. And his untimely demise.

Not all childless women are favored like Elizabeth. But by the same token, not all mothers will outlive their children. Elizabeth had him so late, to lose him so soon.

Zechariah was a man of prayer, amidst a people of prayer. Prayer is a river. The river feeds into the sea, while the sea feeds into the river. The river fills the sea. The seawater rises, to form clouds, which snow on mountains, which melt in spring, replenishing the river, replenishing the land, replenishing the sea.

Like a water cycle, prayer has a cycle all its own. We speak and we receive. We are blessed by what we receive, so we give thanks. And thanksgiving is, itself, a blessing. A blessed blessing. Blessing upon blessing–as God’s buoyant sunshine turns our heavy petitions into wafting clouds–which rain upon our parched hearts, causing the desert to bloom.

God answered Zechariah’s prayer. Some prayers go unanswered, just as some seeds never germinate. But what we never sow, we never reap. If we scatter seed, some may take root and flourish. But if we never seed the fallow ground with patient prayer, the ground will never bloom–except for thorns and thistles.

A prayerful people are a patient people. An expectant people. A hopeful people, and a trustful people. A people with one foot in the future. Stepping, by faith, into the unseen horizon ahead.

Yet they also have a foot in the past, as a foothold leading up to the future, just over the summit. A foothold firmly planted in God’s past promises. A foothold firmly planted in God’s past providence. Which are, in turn, the pledge and prefiguration of God’s coming kingdom.

As the incense ascended, the angel descended. While Zechariah burnt incense in God’s temple below, an angel came down from his temple above. The hidden ceiling between the outward token and the upward reality became deliquescent for a little time in a little place.

Are we a “people prepared”? Many men grumble about the silence of God. About his absence in their lives–as they perceive it. They don’t see him, or feel him, or hear him.

But are they even prepared to meet their God? Have they set the table, should their dinner guest arrive unannounced? If God came to us, would we even know the day of visitation? Or would his passing come and go unnoticed. Some people can’t wait. They cram their lives with busywork.

Do we set our clocks by heaven’s time? If we are there when he is not, if he is there when we are not, then God will seem to be remote. If we wait at the right place at the wrong time, we will miss the Lord. If we wait at the wrong place at the right time, we will miss the Lord.

Are we overlooking God because we stare in the wrong direction? God might be nearby, but he seems far away because we stare out the window when we ought to turn around.

Mary Magdalene went looking for Jesus. And she found him. Yet she saw him without seeing him, and heard him without hearing him. Sight without insight. Sensation without perception. She could see with her eyes, but her mind was blind (Jn 20:1-16). To a darkened mind the day is night.

When Jesus came for the first time, Anna and Simeon were prepared, but many others were oblivious. The missed him, not because he came too late, but because he came too soon. In truth, he was right on time, but his arrival was premature to them since they were not expecting him.

Men murmur that God is taking too long. They tire of waiting. But suppose they wait for someone who came and went? It’s not that God is late; no, they are late–like the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-13).

If Jesus came again, would we be ready? If your watch is running fast, then everybody seems to be running late. If your watch is running slow, then everybody seems to be ahead of schedule.

Application

Like Zechariah the priest, we, too, inhabit two worlds at once. We inhabit the fallen, dying, earthly world. We live side-by-side with the ungodly.

Yet we also live in God’s pervasive, but unseen presence. We live before the face of God. We live in the present, but we live for the future. We live in the present, but we grow out of God’s past providence and God’s past promise. We live in the present, but we grow into God’s consummation.

Prayer

Thank you, Father, for preparing us for yourself. Zechariah was a man of prayer, amidst a people of prayer. And you made us a prayerful people. You gave us faith to live by faith. We live in the backward glance of your faithful providence as we trust in the forward reach of your crowning promise. We rest in all you have done as we hope in all you will do. It matters not if we hear you as long as you hear us.

By the love of God, the grace of Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Amen.