Episode Transcript
Carey Griffel: [00:00:00] Welcome to Genesis Marks the Spot, where we raid the ivory tower of biblical theology without ransacking our faith. My name is Carey Griffel, and today I thought I'd talk about figurative language and other design attributes of the Bible. The reason I decided to do this is because it can shed some interesting light on the way that we read the first chapter of Genesis.
Not that it doesn't also impact every other passage we read in scripture, but I think for many of us, the way we look at Genesis 1 sets the stage for how we think about biblical interpretation at large. Is all of it factual according to how we evaluate facts? Or, do we leave the meaning of it in the past?
Carey Griffel: I mean, we don't fully leave it there, of course. [00:01:00] It absolutely has meaning today. But, we can choose to not impose upon it our standards. And if that's our interpretive hermeneutic, our map or guide of interpretation, you might say, then that means we need to understand the Bible as the ancient literature it is.
And part of that is understanding language and literary conventions. Because language and culture are entirely intertwined. Language doesn't have meaning aside from culture, and culture is expressed by or embedded into language. However you want to express that, there's a symbiotic relationship there. And that's not as straightforward as we might think. We often use language naturally, and we don't always take the time to look behind the curtain, so to speak.
So what I want to do today is build up a kind of toolkit [00:02:00] for you. Now, a caution, having tools doesn't mean that you automatically know how to use those tools. It takes practice. It takes guidance, which I highly recommend you get some of that in real time if you can. Work in a study group. Ask questions of someone more knowledgeable. If you're not in that kind of a space with access to in person teachers, that's OK too. What you do then is Google your questions and see what reliable sources say about your question or the topic that you're looking at. As long as you're capable of holding things loosely enough to genuinely examine other options, then this can work pretty well.
But the thing is, you can't practice using tools unless you know what tools you have, and that's what I'm hoping this episode will be. I started out thinking about this episode with the idea that The [00:03:00] emphasis would be on the nuances of figurative language, but we must also discuss larger macro structures like parallelism and chiasm because they'll help orient us in the right direction.
I'm not going to say much about the importance of understanding figurative language here. But I do have to at least mention the important point that figurative language doesn't mean fictional language. Stories and narratives and metaphors and polemics don't have to mean fiction in the sense that these things are threatening or are adversarial towards truth, even if they don't align with our definition of history, that still doesn't make them fiction.
Okay, couldn't not give that disclaimer, so, well, let's get into it then, [00:04:00] and let's start by looking at Genesis 1. I'm going to bet that you have heard that Genesis 1 is poetry, right? I understand why people would make that claim, but poetry is a pretty particular thing with particular rules, and Genesis 1 really doesn't fit that mold, exactly. Though, we're going to nuance that eventually.
So biblical poetry. This isn't like some modern free form poetry where we know that not all of our English poetry today has rhyme and meter and all of that. But in order to classify a biblical passage as poetry, it does need to meet certain criteria. This criteria is not the same as ours, or at least there's not entire overlap here. Hebrew poetry doesn't have to rhyme at the end of every other line, and they didn't use [00:05:00] iambic pentameter. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't have elements that make it poetry.
For Hebrew, stress and accent are two things that can be used for rhythm in poetry. Unfortunately, this doesn't help us to identify poetry if we aren't fluent in audible Hebrew, of course. But! Let me read what Theodore H. Robinson says in his book, The Poetry of the Old Testament. He says, quote, The immense strength of its accent gives it a rhythmic movement which we miss in the languages which have a slighter stress. The paucity of adjectives adds to the dignity and impressiveness of the style, and to the absence of a large stock of abstract terms, Leads the poet to use imagery and metaphor in its place. End quote.
Okay. If you didn't catch all of that, what he's saying is that we natives [00:06:00] of other languages will miss the rhythm of Hebrew poetry, but it's there and we might miss the fact that it's not flowery with a big vocabulary of adjectives. So some of this is because Hebrew has a pretty limited vocabulary compared to many other languages. And it is very noun and verb heavy, so there's very much a reliance on nouns and verbs rather than descriptors. This means lots of metaphor, in other words.
And language and culture are so tightly weaved together in us that the ways that we speak really do color the ways that we think, or maybe it's vice versa, if you'd like. I think there's a dynamic where language affects culture and culture affects language in a kind of dance together.
So you have the stress and accent of words that are important in poetry, which is hard for those of [00:07:00] us who don't speak Hebrew. But another very important and helpful element of Hebraic poetry is parallelism. This can show up as parallelism in both words and ideas. This isn't to suggest that there aren't also various types of word plays as well, but we'll get to that here in a bit. One reason you might want to use a more word for word translation, maybe not for daily reading, but for deep study, is to help you see this. And this is also a strength of, like, Robert Alter's translation of the Hebrew Bible as well.
Poetry and other macro structures like chiasms are best seen with and in the original language. This is why Mike Chu and I gave some cautions about finding too much design in the text if you aren't in a position to dig into the underlying Hebrew, [00:08:00] because the word choices and sounds really do matter here. But there are still ways we can see some of this in many of our English translations.
One thing to keep a lookout for is what Robert alter calls focusing. A term or idea or concept is introduced in one line, and then in the next line it's focused upon more specifically. Now, the hard part about this, at times, is that we might not always see how the ideas relate to one another. For instance, let's look at the beginning of Psalm 19. I will be using the NASB today a lot, because the version I have is particular in pointing out poetry. I have a copy that only does double columns for poetry. Now, that doesn't mean the translators have caught all of the poetry, because they definitely haven't. But it's helpful, nonetheless.[00:09:00]
At any rate, let's look at some of this parallelism. The first verse of Psalm 19 says, quote, The heavens are telling of the glory of God, and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. End quote.
Okay, so here it's easy to see how the heavens parallels with expanse in the second line. But the last part of the line is also in parallel. The The glory of God in the first line parallels the work of his hands in the second line. The second line is more specific than the first line. As Alter says, it focuses in. And then you also have the verbs in the middle. In the NASB, the verb in the first line is to tell, which is more generic than the second line, which says to declare.[00:10:00]
This is an example where the whole line fits together. And sometimes it might not be the whole line that is parallel. Let's look at the first verse of Psalm 24 for an example here, quote, the earth is the Lord's and all it contains, the world and all those who dwell in it. End quote. Okay. Obviously we have earth and world in parallel with all it contains and those who dwell in it in the second line. And in the second line, it's presumed, rather than stated outright, that, like the earth, the world also belongs to the Lord.
This pattern, with three elements in the first line, and two in the second, is quite common, and scholars have noticed it in particular in lament poetry, though again, unfortunately, it's not always obvious in [00:11:00] English.
An example of lament poetry like this is in Amos 5 2. And I'll have to break it up for you in the way that I say it so that you catch all of the pieces. This isn't an example of parallelism, but it's an example of the pattern of three and then two. I will emphasize the different parts in the first half of this verse.
It says, quote, She has fallen. She will not rise again. The Virgin Israel, end quote.
But of course, we also see this pattern in praise poetry. Like in Psalm 27, 1, and again, I'll read it with pauses between the parts. Quote, The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom shall I fear? The Lord is [00:12:00] the defense of my life. Whom shall I dread? End quote. I like this one because you have the three-two pattern, and it repeats And focuses, so that defense is specific of the light, and life is specific of salvation, and dread is more specific than fear.
Scholars call this type of parallelism synonymous. Another type of parallelism is called antithetic. This is where we have opposites in parallel. Let's look at Psalm 1, verse 6. It says, Quote, For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish. End quote.
This is also an example of how the words don't need to come in exactly the same order, because [00:13:00] knowing of the Lord in the first line is parallel to the perishing of the wicked. These are opposites. Either you know the Lord, or you perish.
A third type of parallelism is synthetic. This is where we have a genuine extension of the idea in the second line that goes beyond what the first line says. Psalm 1 verse 2 says, quote, But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in his law he meditates day and night, end quote.
So the idea of the law is in parallel, but the length of the meditation is given in line 2, so, it's adding to the idea of having delight in the law. The next verse says, quote, He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit [00:14:00] in its season, end quote.
So here, the second line expands the thought of the first by describing the tree. Subsequent lines continue elaborating on the tree until it culminates into what it's really saying, which is not actually about a tree at all, but about the man it continues with, quote and its leaf does not wither, and in whatever he does, he prospers. End quote.
You can also say that this is a simile rather than a metaphor as it says he will be like. A simile is a comparison between two things that uses the words as, or like, it's not saying he is a tree, but he is like a tree. It kind of makes the comparison a little bit more clear than when we have a strict metaphor.
Okay, so now I want to talk about chiasm [00:15:00] in what's maybe a little bit of a different way than you've heard it in most other places. Now, I've mentioned chiasms before. And we think of them as like a literary sandwich or a mountain. And so usually you've got at least three elements to the chiasm, right? You have the bread on the outside and the meat in the middle, or else you have the sides of the mountain and the top of the mountain, like the external elements are parallel to one another and the middle element is unique and something of a highlighted point.
But you can also have a chiasm of two elements. And as always, when talking about chiasms, it's difficult to do that just over audio. But anyway, the term chiasm is named after the Greek letter chi, which looks like an English X. So we're going to picture each pair of lines with an X superimposed above the two lines of text, and the [00:16:00] diagonals of the X are going to point to the parallel structure. So, what happens here is that the textual elements get switched in order. So, the first element of the line becomes the last element of the second line, and the last element of the first line is in parallel with the first element of the second line.
Make sense? Well, it's hard to describe verbally. Now, the example I'm going to give you is kind of ruined in English, so we'll have to fix that here in a second. But, Proverbs 2 4 in the NASB says, quote, if you seek her as silver and search for her as hidden treasures, end quote.
Okay. So that kind of looks like normal parallelism, seeking and searching, silver and treasures, but in the original Hebrew, it's not in that order. In Hebrew, it says something like, if you [00:17:00] seek her as silver. And as for hidden treasures, search for her. So yeah, it's hard to see if you can't visualize it, but try writing it down and you can see how the elements are switched around.
That's a chiastic structure. It's switching the elements around in reverse. And again, yes, you can do that with the ideas and not just single words, but it remains an artifact of the original language, because there's also a rhythm, And an audible similarity that would be noticed if this was spoken aloud by a fluent speaker.
So other elements of Hebrew poetry do go beyond the pairs of lines to the level of stanzas. And we have elements of sound that we are used to in English, such as alliteration, which is using the same sound or similar sound at the beginning of words or syllables, or at the beginning of lines or verses or stanzas to make an acrostic poem. [00:18:00] Examples of acrostics are Psalms 9 to 10, Psalm 25, Psalm 34, Psalm 37, Psalm 111, 112, the famous 119, and 145. Now, that isn't all of them by any measure. You'll find many within chapters and sections like in Psalm 31, 10 31. I mention these so that you can go into the Hebrew yourself and go see how that actually plays out in the actual poem.
And of course there's also puns, plays on words that would be obvious in the original language. These use words that sound similar to other words, and of course they don't show up exclusively in poetry, but since they rely on sound, they do often show up there.
Okay, so those are some of the elements of Hebrew poetry. [00:19:00] Returning back to our point about Genesis 1, there are definitely elements of this within the first chapter of Genesis, but then we can say that about many chapters of the Bible. Although there is much more narrative than poetry in the Bible, poetry is very common. These poetic elements being present doesn't turn Genesis 1 into something particular and unusual. And they don't make it so we can then dismiss the chapter as being unhistorical by nature.
If we tried to pull that kind of a move, then much of what we see in the prophetic writing would likewise not be history. There's a lot of poetry in the prophets, and prophets aren't always telling the future. Quite often they talk about the past history of the people, as well as their current day situation. So I mean to say that the presence of poetic elements Doesn't make this a non historical genre, or [00:20:00] like we can dismiss the text in some way because of it.
I told you that my copy of the NASB highlights poetry by putting it into double columns as opposed to narrative portions of the text, and most of Genesis 1 11 is narrative. That's not to say that there aren't differences in the way the narrative is given in Genesis 1 11 as opposed to the rest of Genesis. Just reading it, there are obviously different sections, and can and should be read slightly differently. But no, Genesis 1 is not poetry. It does have parallelism, it has wordplay and most importantly, the whole chapter has a particular structure, which I've talked about before. The structure of the days should make us realize that they are put in this way to make some specific points that are not about chronology.
So, [00:21:00] because of the tight structure of the text, I get that when talking about Genesis 1 and how it looks, it's probably easier to say that it's poetry, even if you're not trying to make a technical claim as such. Because it's definitely a highly structured chapter. now you know a little bit more about Hebrew poetry, so let's look closely about where we can find these elements in Genesis 1.
An obvious place is in verse 2, with the earth being formless and void. Many of you know that is tohu vavohu in Hebrew, and that's certainly poetic. And you know, I've been saying how awesome this NASB is that I have and how it highlights poetry, but it certainly doesn't get it all.
Most other versions will say that verse 27 is poetic. But, it's not highlighted as poetry in this translation, which I find so odd. But [00:22:00] that verse is, So God created man in his own image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them.
That's pretty obviously a piece of poetry. It's probably something that was used in more places than just this chapter, if we could go back in time and see.
Now, some people will claim that Genesis 1 is obviously straightforward historical narrative, Because, often, Hebrew narrative will give things in a sequence that includes the word and. One thing happens, and then, and then, and then. Most translations, even ones that are supposedly word for word, often take out the frequent repetition of the word and in narrative sections because, to us, that's distracting. But in Hebrew, it's only a short addition to the beginning of a Hebrew word. So, for the language, it's a normal way of [00:23:00] distinguishing a series of events.
So, some will say. See, Genesis 1 is straightforward chronology. This is how a chronological narrative is written in Hebrew. Well, yes, and now the problem is that while, yes, it does have this, It's also a little bit different than normal. Almost never do we have this kind of repetition of the actor in the series of events. And in this case, that's God. I mean to say that if Abraham is doing something in chronological series, his name is given once and then we have the series of ands that is attached to verbs. So we don't have, and Abraham did this, and Abraham did that, and Abraham did this other thing over there.
So, the repetition of, and God said, with the use of the word God there, that's [00:24:00] unusual, and it breaks the common narrative pattern in that way. But, to be fair, neither do we see that in poetry elsewhere either. We just don't see that anywhere else at all. So, Genesis 1 does break the conventions in some ways.
Now, many scholars have called it a song. Or, a hymn, like a song or a hymn, doesn't necessarily have to fit all of the conventions of a traditional poem, it's supposed, nor does it fit in the realm of prose, though it could be telling a narrative story in a very structured way. At any rate, unless we find another example of writing that's similar to Genesis 1, we just have to leave it in its own classification, I'm afraid. It's neither poetry, nor is it exactly historical narrative. At least as far as looking at a close analysis of the language used.
And here's another interesting thing. Narrative in most other ancient cultures was [00:25:00] done in poetry. In the Bible, it's almost entirely done in prose. Not entirely, but almost entirely. You'll see some narrative poetry in small snippets. For instance, in Genesis 37 33, which again is not highlighted in my NASB as poetry, it says, quote, It is my son's tunic. A wild beast has devoured him. Joseph has surely been torn to pieces. End quote.
That's what the NASB says. Alter has translated it as, An evil beast has devoured him. Torn. Oh, torn is Joseph. End quote.
The last part focuses the act of the devouring, while also moving to the consequences of the act. And, again, why does it matter? Well, it shows for one thing [00:26:00] that poetry can also be chronological and narrative, unlike what some will say in the debate about Genesis 1. If, for instance, we prove that Genesis 1 isn't actually poetry, well, then the thought is, it must be precise chronological historical record.
But that's kind of a false dichotomy. Poetry builds to culmination, as we shall see, and that's also something we see in Genesis 1. Also, I'm going to quote Robert Alter from the Literary Guide to the Bible. And he says, quote, I don't think there is ever a one to one correspondence between poetic systems and views of reality, but I would propose, that a particular poetics may encourage or reinforce a particular orientation towards reality. For all the untold reams of commentary on the Bible, this remains a sadly neglected question. [00:27:00] One symptomatic case in point, a standard work on the basic forms of prophetic discourse by the German scholar Claus Westermann never once mentions the poetic vehicle used by the prophets and makes no formal distinction between, say, a short prophetic statement in prose by Elijah and a complex poem by Isaiah. Any intrinsic connection between the kind of poetry the prophet spoke and the nature of their message is simply never contemplated.
It's like people are afraid of poetry because they really think that it means non historical or non chronological, or non-narrative or what have you. But there is a direction in the poetry, absolutely. The idea of focusing, as done in Hebraic poetry, suggests that there is a culmination that the author is headed towards. And it makes a difference [00:28:00] in places like the Psalms or Proverbs, where things like lament and praise are sandwiched together, and you're left wondering, why? What's the point? What is supposed to be the main takeaway that the author is communicating? Is the author of the psalm lamenting, or is he praising? Which is it?
If Genesis 1 were to be read as any prose narrative, it throws a wrench with its odd structure and repetition. It calls to attention certain aspects while downplaying others with the idea of the act of culmination. In other words, Not every statement in Genesis 1 can be given the same weight. Now, I'll get to that in a second, but first I want to bring out how this works in the book of Job.
If you compare the poetry of the friends, who give glib answers, probably polished clichés or proverbs of the type everyone's heard before, and you compare that to what Job says, [00:29:00] Job's poetry is clearly culminating, and is a vivid picture of his suffering that builds and builds. When you get to the poetry that God speaks, he parallels much of what Job says, repeating it using the same words and phrases and images, but he does it in an even more potent way.
God intensifies the images even beyond what Job did. Its poetry and these aspects of repetition are not repetition for the sake of repetition. Instead, it's repetition for the sake of building up to a grander idea. It's drama. It's beauty. It's emphasis for the sake of the whole entire idea that the writer's trying to communicate.
And we can see that in Genesis 1 too, in both micro and macro scale. For instance, in macro view, we can see the whole thing building up to first the creation of man and [00:30:00] then the seventh day. First the building up of the environment in the first three days and the emptiness is being filled up with lower things, lesser animals. And then, man, before we get to the ultimate climax of the seventh day,
it's ironic to me how Genesis 1 obviously builds up to that, and yet some creationists will talk only of the six days of creation as if the seventh day is just a measly afterthought. They don't know what to do with it, even though it is the ultimate day of the week.
Anyway, so that's the macro view of the chapter. There's a building up, an anticipation that's natural to what we're reading. And in micro view, we can see this in the creation of mankind as well. Verse 26 says, then God said, let us make man in our image, according to our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the [00:31:00] sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth.
So, there's a building up, again, of animal types, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. Interesting that creeping things come after cattle, isn't it? Honestly, I'm not sure why. I haven't yet noticed anyone comment on that specifically. Maybe it's because they are the most prevalent of the living things on earth.
Anyway, then we have the little poem about humanity. God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created him. Male and female, he created them. God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.
So the ending there is slightly different than the section before the creation of man. but it's clearly a [00:32:00] chiasm. And this begins with, So God said, let us create. And yet only God creates. Is that a buildup? A culmination? Maybe. And man was created. And then man was blessed. And then man was commanded.
And yes, again, I think there's that chiasm here that I mentioned. We have the repetition of the command before and after the making of man. And the center of the chiasm, which is the creation of man, has everything to do with the buildup of where the passage goes.
So is Genesis 1 poetry? Definitely not. Does it utilize these ideas? Absolutely. But then I'd also suggest the whole concept of history in the Hebraic mind, at least by the time of the compilation of the Hebrew Bible, is also wrapped up in a kind of anticipation or [00:33:00] culmination, isn't it? History for them is not just a record of the past. It's a record of the past that shows where they're going to end up in the future. We might think we can use history for that today, like the idea of learning from history so we don't repeat the same mistakes, for instance. That's not exactly the same thing as what we have here. The people of God weren't trying to learn from their past mistakes.
Well, I mean, obviously they were trying to avoid their past mistakes, but they were trying to reach a gold standard that really never was before. This amazing time never really happened. Even the most conservative here have to realize that progression forward in history is necessary. A hope for the future that will surely reflect good from the past, but that will certainly move beyond the past to achieve what is truly meant to be.
And this is also, by the way, fundamentally why [00:34:00] Genesis 1 can potentially be used as a type for what should be, Whether that type is the ideal human work week, or an allegorical reading of history where the earth is supposed to last 7, 000 years, as I mentioned in last week's episode.
It's not really about that exact chronology in dating though, right? Like if you think it is, you're getting hung up on the wrong idea. The world is going to last more than 7, 000 years. It already has, as far as we can tell. So we want exactitude. But that's not the point. The point is where the culmination is and what it's going to be.
The Israelite Workweek isn't about each individual day of creation as if each Monday is going to respond to day two in some way. No, the point is the culmination of the week. What's important about it? Why is it important? [00:35:00] How does this help us know God and humanity? Okay, I think you get the point. Again, much of this is primarily about seeing these tools in actual action, so that wherever you're reading in the Hebrew Bible, they will start jumping up at you.
Oh, and by the way, we really are primarily talking about the Old Testament. While there are most definitely examples of poetry in the Greek New Testament, they aren't anywhere near as common as in the Old Testament. It's just a different way of thinking and expressing thoughts. If we're going to get more into the New Testament ways of doing things, we need to talk about things like midrash and allegory. Again, not that you don't see those things in the Old Testament, but they're way more prevalent in the New. Of course, the other reason we're not going to discuss those things in this episode is that they're more about interpretation of the text rather than the literary structures within it.
Okay. [00:36:00] So, I believe I've mentioned Lakoff and Johnson's book. Metaphors we live by . I highly recommend it in order to see how metaphors structure our experience and the meaning behind what we experience. Metaphors don't actually come secondary to the way our brains work. They actually are a primary way that we think. For most of us, we use symbolic or figurative language naturally. We don't think about it. We don't even realize that the things we're saying are actually metaphors. It's that closely embedded in our views.
As I said before, language and culture are intimately connected, and they genuinely affect the way that we see things. In relation to the way that we see parallelism and chiasm and patterns in Hebrew poetry, This reflects the way that they saw and understood history. It's less a straightforward arrow from a time in the distant past to the [00:37:00] future, and more a matter of cycles that repeat. And those cycles are connected to important moments in the past and important occasions in the calendar. So, again, macro view thought is demonstrated in these patterns in the text, in the way that it's written.
But you also see it in micro view. A few weeks ago, I had a couple of episodes on the names of God, and if you go back and have a look at them, with the lens of metaphor, well, just about every name that we mentioned is steeped in that kind of imagery, isn't it? And we read Genesis 1 and don't often think about the Spirit hovering over the waters or God literally speaking?
Like, how is God speaking anyway, without a human body and lungs and air in which to speak? Oh, but those are kind of easy metaphors that we kind of dismiss and say it's okay that those are metaphors. Of course the biblical authors have to write about God in the ways that we can [00:38:00] kind of picture him, right? God is transcendent and we don't actually see him in Genesis 1 with literal eyes taking in photons of light. Creation is described as being spoken into existence because it's got to describe the creation somehow, doesn't it? Well, maybe there's some meaning behind that speaking that we don't quite appreciate till we kind of peek behind that curtain of language.
What does it mean for God to speak, really? Speaking is more than just the act of making sounds with your mouth and tongue. We've talked before about how naming things is an act of authority and dominance. Remember how Adam named all the beasts? We don't see them individually named, but the serpent shows up and we presume that Adam knows him and holds authority over him. Speaking can be about judgment and you're only capable of judgment if you have authority. Kings give decrees, judges speak [00:39:00] sentences. So where and how God speaks in the first few chapters of Genesis is pretty instructive.
We won't go through all the instances in chapter one as I trust we're pretty familiar with those. But let's look at chapter two. Where does God speak and to whom? There's no warm greeting of Adam, no good morning or nice to meet you, but rather it's a command. The first recorded words of God to Adam are, from any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.
Well, that's a nice hello, isn't it? I mean, of course, we don't need to presume that these are the only words that God ever said to Adam, and maybe they had a nice introductory chat before this command. But it's interesting that these are the first words we know of from God to his special [00:40:00] creation Adam.
God then goes on to say, It's not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper suitable for him. That seems a little bit more friendly, but note also here that God isn't talking directly to Adam. Maybe he's talking indirectly to Adam, maybe he's talking to himself, maybe he's talking to someone else like the Divine Council. We don't know. We see some other interaction between God and Adam, but these are the only words in Genesis 2. And it's not just about the act of speaking, but also about what the act of speaking means.
Here's some other things to consider. I don't think these are coincidental, though, who knows? They could be to some degree. But we use our mouths to speak, right? And what is Adam's one specific command? God doesn't tell him yet to be fruitful and multiply. Well, of course he doesn't. Adam doesn't yet have Eve. But then Eve shows up, well, she doesn't [00:41:00] get spoken to by God, and God doesn't mention that command.
So even though the purpose of man in creation is to rule and subdue and multiply and all of that, that's not what God tells Adam. God tells Adam not to eat, and we use mouths to eat, just like we use mouths to speak. The man then goes on to presumably use his mouth to name the animals. So there's power and authority in the use of our mouths. And it's exactly that instrument that also leads to our ruin. It's not bad speech that does this. It's not something coming out of the mouth, but rather it's something going in. See it's not just me seeing this parallel here, right? Good things are coming out of God's mouth, and bad things are going into Adam's mouth.
Death is also described as a hungry mouth, isn't it? And what about the serpent? He is going to eat dust and bruise [00:42:00] the heel of the seed of a woman, presumably with his mouth. Genesis 4. 11 says the ground has opened its mouth to take in Abel's blood. Exodus 4. 12 says God will be with Moses's mouth. I could go on and on. The Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophets, they all have this imagery and these associations. And again, I'm not trying to say that every use of the word mouth is going to be deeply theological, but I want to point out that such a common word as this, we just kind of pass by as we read, but it's actually potentially loaded with meaning. We think it's just part of the body. It's just a word communicating something boring and simple and not profound. But it's not just part of the body. It's got meaning behind that.
And the other thing to note is that single metaphors don't just stand on their own. They're part of a matrix that can connect to [00:43:00] other metaphors, sometimes in unexpected ways. What I'm saying is that this is a tool that I think is undervalued. Because if the goal is to understand the culture and get in the head of the ancient person, then understanding these matrices of metaphor, I think, is invaluable.
I mean, think about it. What do we associate with mouths today? Modern people are chatterboxes. We talk all the time. We almost don't know how not to talk. We think everyone should talk. Everyone should have a voice. And that's just not the way the ancient world was. Probably, us introverts would appreciate that to some degree.
And as for eating, well there's obvious differences there as well between us and the ancient world. And again, connections within connections. As much as we talk these days, we also eat. And there's a weird sort of relationship between eating and judgment [00:44:00] for us. We can't seem to figure that out. But because we speak so often and eat so often, We see the mention of these things and they aren't remarkable to us, so we aren't latching on to their deeper meaning.
But okay, so there's one more thing I want to look at here before we close, and that is the metaphor of blotting out. You're probably familiar with where this shows up in the flood, right? There are three passages where the term is used in the flood. And while I read these passages, you'll note that I read a little bit past the exact verse because I want you to notice what comes after the mention of the blotting out.
Okay? So, Genesis 6, verses 7 through 8 says, The Lord said, I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, for I am sorry that I have made them. But Noah found favor in the [00:45:00] eyes of the Lord.
Then we have Genesis 7, verses 4 through 6. For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights. And I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made. Noah did according to all that the Lord had commanded him. Now Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the earth.
Now the last place we see it in the flood is in Genesis 7, 23 and 24 I'm going to read as well. Thus he blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky. And they were blotted out from the earth and only Noah was left together with those that were with him in the Ark. The water prevailed upon the Earth 150 days.[00:46:00]
Okay, so here we are in the context of the flood and what happens in the flood. Well, everyone but Noah and his family dies, right? So what this blotting out business is, it's about death, right? It's quite clear. Noah and the others in the Ark were left. And everyone else died. So blotting out means wiping everything out. Killing everyone. It means destruction. Now I'm not totally challenging that picture of death, but I do want to bring some thoughts forward here that I think we aren't expecting.
We're going to keep following where this term shows up, and I'll talk a little bit about where the metaphor of blotting out originates. That's not a normal term for destruction via large amounts of water, by the way. I mean, I have seen it used like that in my life, but probably I see that because it's used in the flood narrative like this, and we think that it has to do with this destruction. But the original [00:47:00] source of the term blotting out isn't an ecological disaster, but it is a pretty apt and nuanced metaphor, as we shall see.
So, the next place we see the term is instructive. It's in regards to Israel against the Amalekites. I want you again to note what happens after the verse that specifically uses the term blot out.
In Exodus 17, 14 through 16, it says, Then the Lord said to Moses, Write this as a memorial in a book, and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under Heaven. And Moses built an altar and called the name of it The Lord is my banner saying A hand upon the throne of the Lord. The Lord will have war with Amalek from Generation two Generation.
Okay, so important thing here, writing things as [00:48:00] a memorial in a book and what's blotted out? The memory of Amalek, but of course we still remember him and this people group Don't we? Their memory is obviously not been removed from existence Like we suppose happened with the blotting out of people and animals during the flood. And Moses built an altar.
Okay so the next place we see this is in Exodus 23 23 in the context of speaking about the conquest and blotting out the inhabitants Again, we're thinking of destruction. Probably this is going to reflect back to what we're thinking of in the flood. Now, I won't read that section as it's a bit lengthy, but there's the concept of blessing and cursing and making right covenants.
Next up after that is an appearance of the term after the golden calf incident in Exodus 32, 30 through 34, it [00:49:00] says, the next day, Moses said to the people, You have sinned a great sin, and now I will go up to the Lord. Perhaps I can make atonement for your sin. So Moses returned to the Lord and said, Alas, this people has sinned a great sin. They have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will forgive their sin, but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written. But the Lord said to Moses, Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book. But now go, lead the people to the place about which I have spoken to you. Behold, my angel shall go before you. Nevertheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them.
Okay, so more mentions of a book, and note the desire that Moses had for making atonement for their sin. Moses asks God to forgive, [00:50:00] but if not, he offers himself as the one who should be blotted out. And God says, no, no, whoever has sinned shall be blotted out. Now, in my conversations about the atonement, we've talked about what that means and how it's a purification or a washing. So, we're getting closer here.
Moses suggests to the people that perhaps he can make atonement. He asks God to forgive them and he offers himself to be blotted out. We've gotten this idea previously that blotting out means death, but are we really so sure about this? Where does the term come from? Is Moses actually offering himself up as a substitute sacrifice here?
What is this book that's mentioned? Well, it might be related to death in a way, but I'd suggest it's not primarily or only about that. What we want to talk about here are these so called books of life. There are [00:51:00] mentions of various types of heavenly books, we might say. You get a lot of this in Revelation, for instance. But it shows up in various places, and it's also a very ancient Near Eastern thing as well. This idea shows up as the Tablets of Destiny in places like the Epic of Gilgamesh, for instance. The idea there is that the gods were connected to one's destiny. So, yes, this is often about the length of one's life and whatnot.
But there's also a record of one's life in these books. Good deeds you've done, bad deeds, and all of that. And I must have heard about these books when I was little, because I remember picturing them and how they record everything about our lives. I was probably, oh, about eight or ten or so, and I pictured my book, and the pages were like the size of a large illustrated book of some sort, but there were thousands and thousands of pages already, so that it was about like three fourths as tall as I was at the time.
I don't want to think about how tall that book [00:52:00] must be these days. This is why metaphors are good. You can sort of picture these things. So anyway, we can picture all of our deeds and things written in this book, but it's obviously not just that, right? Because Moses offers himself to be blotted out of the book, and if that's just about being killed instead of the people being killed, well, that would make some sort of sense and that's usually how people take this. But the people aren't killed explicitly after this, they're given a plague. The next chapter they're told to leave the mountains so they can go into the land again, and we have mention of the conquest, and it's like, hang on, isn't God awfully mad at the people? And yet it seems almost like it's business as usual here.
Now maybe not quite, because in this passage God says he needs to send his angel rather than go himself with the people, because God says he'll consume the people otherwise. Now, interestingly, right after [00:53:00] that is a description of the Tent of Meeting, where Moses meets with God. Seems a bit of an odd insertion until you see that Moses is then telling God, wait a second, you said we'd have your presence and now you're telling us that you're gonna send your angel instead? But that isn't right. And God says, yeah, well, okay, I guess I'll come with you after all. And Moses asks to see God's glory, but God says, I can show you something, but not really all of that. And hey, after that, new tablets get made.
I mean, this is fascinating. First, Moses says that God can blot him out instead and then we end up with new tablets being made. Now, these tablets are, of course, the covenant tablets and they aren't the individual books of life for Moses but we're looking a little too specifically at that blotting out language from earlier then. Because this isn't really about being blotted out from the Book of Life. And what [00:54:00] gives with not destroying anyone anyway, right?
And what gives with not destroying anyone anyway, right? Like, someone should have seen the wrath of God beyond a little plague, we'd think. No one's being blotted out here. Well, what about this idea of atonement? Atonement is connected to sacred space, and we do have the specific mention of the Tent of Meeting, though there's certainly no explicit connection between the atonement Moses mentions And that tent. Of course, they also leave the mountain after the incident, but again, the text doesn't really specify that it's because the mountain has been polluted.
But you know what? Actually, we've really started too late in the story. So let's back up. What happens after Moses finds out about the calf? He gets royally mad. He breaks the tablets. He orders 3, 000 people to be killed. Oh, huh, well, there's our death then. But it's [00:55:00] before the next day, when Moses had a chance to cool off a bit, I guess, and he offers himself to be blotted out. Well, if that's a substitutionary death, probably those 3, 000 people would have appreciated that offer before this, if it was just about someone dying in someone else's place.
Well, what happens after the 3, 000 men are killed? Moses tells the Levites, who were the ones who did the killing, That they were dedicated for service to the Lord. Guys, this whole thing is strange, with the way it almost seems to throw details together, right? Hmm. Well, we're not here to exegete this whole passage, but I do suggest we notice the order of things that happen. And that order is not accidental.
Okay, so I haven't talked yet about the term blotting out and it's relation to books specifically. Of course, my picture of the really tall book would be anachronistic. If we aren't talking about [00:56:00] tablets, we're talking scrolls, which are parchment. Animal skin, in other words. Written on by ink. Now, parchment was very valuable, so parchment would get reused if needed. And of course, mistakes were occasionally made by scribes that needed correction. And this was done by washing off the ink and scraping the parchment clean. This is the context of blotting something out. You're not blotting anything out on a tablet, but parchment was likely used fairly early. It's far less durable than a stone tablet, so we don't have a whole lot of early examples of parchment. But nonetheless, It was likely in use long before the time of the exile, and it was certainly in use during the time of the exile. And of course, these wouldn't be books per se, but they'd be scrolls. At any rate, the act of blotting out is the act of washing and removing something from [00:57:00] parchment.
But like any good metaphor, there is layered meaning here that goes beyond the simple origin of the term. I think we can see that meaning once we head back to the flood in Genesis. But we need to keep looking forward for a minute here. The story of the calf is retold in Deuteronomy. The order of events isn't exactly the same as what we see in Exodus.
In Deuteronomy 9, 13 through 15, it says, Furthermore, the Lord said to me, I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stubborn people. Let me alone that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven, and I will make of you a nation mightier and greater than they. So, I turned and came down from the mountain, and the mountain was burning with fire, and the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.
Okay, so in the telling of the story in Exodus, we're led to believe that Moses didn't really talk to God until the next day. But [00:58:00] here we have Moses breaking the tablets and laying prostrate before God for 40 days and 40 nights, praying to God that he wouldn't destroy the people, and Aaron in particular. This seems quite a different telling, but it doesn't really bother me that these two tellings are recorded differently, because there's obviously a good bit of symbolism and metaphor in this version that Moses is giving the people before they enter the land.
And, of course, here we have the sense of destruction with the idea of blotting out. And so, in all of this, I'm not saying there isn't this idea of destruction. I mean, the very act of erasing a parchment is an act of destruction of what's written. But remember, we're talking strong, strong metaphor here. And it's hard to say what the level of hyperbole is.
But there's one other connection we should note, and that one is one of memory. The memory of Amalek was to be blotted out. [00:59:00] This is obviously not speaking of human memory. It's talking about God's memory. And again, remember, metaphor. We're not talking about God literally forgetting something, but something else. What we're talking about is covenant.
So let's go back to Genesis, shall we? What happens after the last use of the term blotting out? The waters prevailed on the earth. Waters. Washing. Oh yeah. Look at that. Washing atonement. Very interesting.
Then in Genesis eight, one through three, we have, but God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth and the water subsided. The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed. The rain from the heavens was restrained. And the waters receded from the earth [01:00:00] continually. At the end of 150 days, the waters had abated.
Okay, so we have this idea of remembrance. Again, this isn't about God forgetting that Noah was out there on the water. This is covenantal language. Chapter 9 talks about the covenant with the rainbow. In verses 14 through 16, it says, when I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.
Okay, but wait a second. Why do we have the mention of remembering in chapter eight and yet we don't get to the remembering of the covenant till chapter nine? Is that because [01:01:00] Noah had to do a sacrifice to appease God's wrath? No, no, that's not it. Why we see this is because of that nice, lovely literary design we talked about before. Chiasm. The chiasm of the flood narrative is one of my most favorite in the Bible. And if you're interested in what that looks like, it's not hard to find it somewhere online that has all of that laid out. I'll probably be putting a copy of it in my Facebook discussion group if you're interested in that, and probably on my blog.
Metaphor and meaning, it's not just a straightforward account of, oh, everyone has to die in order for God to be appeased. Maybe they all did die, but the deeper meaning behind that wasn't just that they died, but the greater meaning is, either being in or out of covenant with God, having God remember you and thus forgive you or deliver you, versus having God [01:02:00] forget you, which is the opposite of being delivered. It's being left to the consequences that you've set for yourself because you've not done right and you've refused to take your case before God as Moses did and make your plea, not to manipulate God, but to follow God. To be in covenant with Him.
Man, I thought we were going to get into more of the blotting out passages here, but I suppose this is pretty sufficient. I do suggest you go do your own word study on this because it's very interesting. Ezekiel 6 6 is an interesting one. And it's not always about blotting out bad things either.
Remember that metaphors often have opposites show up as well. So, of course, we have the writing down of things. But also in places like Nehemiah 13 verse 14, it says, Remember me for this, O my Lord, and do not blot out my loyal deeds, which I have performed for the house of my God and its services.
[01:03:00] It's a bit unfortunate in some translations because some will not use the term blot out in every use, probably because the translators are thinking purely in the sense of destruction. Often you'll see it translated as wipe away. Which isn't a bad translation, since there is that idea of washing and purification. But it is unfortunate that it breaks that cue for us English readers.
Okay, so, at any rate, we've about reached the end of the episode here now, and hopefully you've found some interesting points, if not some new tools for your Bible study. Again, don't try to go overboard or think that there's no way you can understand Scripture at this level of complexity. That's not what it's all about. Rather, it's about when you're ready to pick up more particular tools to dig deeper, that's what all this stuff is for. When you've got questions of things that don't seem to make a lot of sense, then that is what [01:04:00] this is for.
Because quite likely, a lot of our confusion in the hard parts of the Bible have to do with this kind of stuff. So I hope that was helpful. As always, I appreciate you guys for listening, and if you've got any questions or ideas for episodes, please do let me know. You can reach me on Facebook or through my website at GenesisMarksTheSpot. com, where you can also find blog posts and other exciting things like looking at my artwork and ways you can help support me financially. Which, thank you so very much to those of you who do.
And if you're interested in discussion about church history and systematic theology, don't forget to check out my segment, Pilgrims in a Holy Land, on the YouTube channel, Faith Unaltered, which, some fantastic news there, we've gotten picked up there for syndication by Glossahouse, a Christian publisher. And our [01:05:00] stuff can be found on their YouTube channel, as well as their podcast, Provetext.
One of the first ones that they uploaded was my discussion on biblical theology and what that is. So, go check that out if you're interested. It's episodes 1072 and 1073 on Provetext. Or, on the Glossahouse YouTube channel. If you're listening to this in real time, I am still pretty early in on discussions about church history on Pilgrims in the Holy Land, and I hope that you can join me there. But at any rate, we're going to go ahead and wrap up, and I wish you all a blessed week, and we will see you later.
