All Thy Creatures Praise Thee

CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

ALL THY CREATURES PRAISE THEE: THE LITURGICAL THEOLOGY OF GENESIS 1-3

SUBMITTED TO THE REV. DR. DEAN O. WENTHE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE M.DIV. DEGREE

BY CHARLES LEHMANN NOVEMBER 5, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

II.

THE ENÛMA ELISH AND GENESIS . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

III. THE LITURGICAL CONTEXT OF GENESIS . . . . . . . . . . 10 IV.

THE TABERNACLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A.

Basic Themes in Exodus

14

B.

The Court of Israel in Genesis

20

C.

The Holy Place in Genesis

33

D.

The Holy of Holies in Genesis

46

V.

GOTTESDIENST IN GENESIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

VI.

THE FULFILLMENT OF ALL THINGS IN CHRIST . . . . . . . 56

ii

INTRODUCTION Maker of all things, all Thy creatures praise Thee; All for Thy worship were and are created; Now, as we also worship Thee devoutly, Hear Thou our voices.1 “Father Most Holy” presents us with a view of creation much maligned in modern biblical criticism.

Not many today are

willing to see creation doxologically.

To take such an approach

requires one to acknowledge that there is One worthy of δόξα.

To

much of modern biblical criticism such acknowledgment is anathema.

But it is undeniable that the higher critics have had

some insights.

In particular, they have identified Biblical

themes that have shadows in the literature of other ancient near east cultures. The critics have established that there is a strong connection between the creation account in Genesis and the Babylonian Enûma elish as well as the Baal creation account found at Ugarit.2

Several generations of Old Testament scholars

1.

“Father Most Holy,” Stanza 3, in Lutheran Service Book. (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006), 504.

2.

See Moshe Weinfeld. “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord—The problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1-2:3” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor. (Kevelaer : 1

have devoted their careers to exploring these connections.

Most

often these scholars postulate a redactor who constructed the Old Testament accounts by combining several independent (and sometimes contradictory) streams of thought.

This redactor is

often suggested to be a priest at the time of Josiah who rediscovered these disparate texts and combined them during the Babylonian exile.

In Hummel's survey of Pentateuchal criticism,

he notes: Wellhausen, of course, readily conceded, too, that many components of P may well have been extremely ancient. Yet in its totality he insisted it was a product of exilic and postexilic priestly circles, in order to legitimize and adapt Israel to its new circumstances as a “theocratic” community, without political self-determination and existing only by the sufferance of the Persian authorities. Its habit of self-description in literally Mosaic terms, following the precedent of the deuteronomists, lacked virtually all basis in fact.3 The approach of Wellhausen and his disciples is consistent, interesting, and if one does not look too closely, somewhat compelling.

It is also wrong.

It illustrates what happens when

one regards the Scriptures as human documents only.

In such an

approach, the Scriptures are interesting only because they show Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 501-512. 3.

Horace D. Hummel. The Word Becoming Flesh : An Introduction to the Origin, Purpose, and Meaning of the Old Testament (electronic ed.; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2000, c1979), 51. 2

us how one particular near eastern culture attempted to explain and understand its universe through the gradual development of a cultus.

The Scriptures are seen as an etiological myth.

This is a decidedly anti-Chalcedonian approach to the biblical material.

The Scriptures become only human documents

utterly divorced from the divine, not incarnational in any sense.

Opposite is the approach of some fundamentalist

theologians who gnosticize the Scriptures by turning them into spiritual documents whose human authors are nothing more than typewriters of the Holy Spirit.

Francis Pieper describes this

problem aptly: That in this relationship the writers were not lifeless machines, but living, personal instruments, endowed with intellect and will and equipped with their own distinct style (modus dicendi), is evident from the very nature of the case. For God did not first kill or “dehumanize” Isaiah, David, and all the Prophets in order to speak or write through (διά) them, but He carefully preserved their lives and their genuine human way of expressing themselves in order that they might in their speaking be understood by men.4 Also in Luther, we have a view of the Scriptures that is grounded very firmly in the material.

God makes Himself known

not in a spiritual, gnosticizing way, but according to external, visible means. 4.

Francis Pieper. Christian Dogmatics, electronic ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953), 1:230. 3

When God reveals Himself to us, it is necessary for Him to do so through some such veil or wrapper and to say: “Look! Under this wrapper you will be sure to take hold of Me.” When we embrace this wrapper, adoring, praying, and sacrificing to God there, we are said to be praying to God and sacrificing to Him properly. Thus there is no doubt that our first parents worshiped God early in the morning, when the sun was rising, by marveling at the Creator in the creature or, to express myself more clearly, because they were urged on by the creature.5 For Luther (and, I daresay, Moses), we need not try to construct a story to describe how God comes to us.

For him the

universe is not actually sterile, dead, and without any spiritual component. creature.”

We marvel “at the Creator in the

In Genesis 1 and 2, the divine/human drama has a

beginning of perfect beauty and joy. God speaks into the void and creates the universe. it light.

He orders it by giving day and night.

He gives

He puts all

things in their place in a perfect liturgical order.

The earth

gives forth green herbs to feed the cattle, the creeping things, and man.

He sends moisture to sustain the plants.

day by the sun and the night by the moon.

He rules the

And finally, He

chooses one creature who will be His own dwelling place.

“So

God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he 5.

Martin Luther (1535). Luther's Works, Vol. 1 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther's Works (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1958), 1:15. Hereafter abbreviated as LW. 4

him; male and female created he them.”6 The universe has been created as the Lord's own tabernacle and Eden is the Holy Place. place.

But the Holy of Holies is not a

The Most Holy Place is a person whom the Lord has

fashioned in His own image according to His likeness. of God is Christ.7 it and ‫שמר‬9 it.

The image

And so Adam is placed into the garden to ‫עבד‬8

And as Adam sleeps a sleep very close to death,

Eve is taken from his side and becomes the Lord's very first member of the laity.

By delivering to Adam His own word, He has

already ordained Adam to preach to her and evangelize her. THE ENÛMA ELISH AND GENESIS Though one may easily approach Genesis in a thoughtful and academically viable manner apart from dealing with the other near eastern material, such a comparison can bring some aspects of the theology of Genesis into clarity.

Alexander Heidel gives

a good introduction to the content of the Enûma elish and its thematic connection to the biblical text in The Babylonian Genesis.

In Heidel's translation of the Babylonian myth, we are

6.

Genesis 1:27, King James Version.

7.

Colossians 1:15.

8.

1 Chronicles 28:13.

9.

2 Chronicles 34:9. 5

first introduced to Tiamat, a primordial water monster that represents the universe before it takes any particular shape or form.

At this time only Tiamat the mother of the gods and Apsû,

their father, exist. eternal universe.

Together, these form the preexistent,

They give birth to the great gods, and over

time these gods become powerful, having children of their own.10 Very soon, Tiamat's children become dissatisfied and plot the overthrow of their parents.

It is at this point that the

story's protagonist, Marduk, comes to light.

Heidel argues that

the Enûma elish is above all a hymn to Marduk, explaining his supremacy among the gods of the Babylonian pantheon.

It has the

secondary purpose of explaining why Babylon is the most important of all cities.

According to Heidel, it was composed

sometime during the first Babylonian dynasty (2057-1758 B.C.).11 This sets the composition of the epic at least three hundred years before that of the account in Genesis.

Considering that

it could even have been written before Abraham emigrated from Babylonian territory, it is certainly not out of the question that Moses could have, by oral tradition, heard the Enûma elish. If influence on the Genesis account from the Enûma elish is 10.

Alexander Heidel. The Babylonian Genesis. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1942) Enûma elish, Tablet 1, Lines 1-20, pp 7-8.

11.

Heidel, 3, 6. 6

admitted, the question becomes what sort of influence it was and what insights into the Scriptures we might gain from studying this influence.

Though the points of similarity between the two

accounts are many, focusing on the similarities does very little to inform us regarding the actual relationship between the texts. The Enûma elish presents a pantheon that, as a result of internal conflict, kills the mother of the gods and with her body creates the universe.12

Eventually men are made to be

slaves to the gods and their primary purpose is to build sanctuaries, offer sacrifices, and serve the needs of the gods who created them.13 Though there is some structural correspondence, the theology of Genesis could hardly be more distinct from the Enûma elish.14 Though he ultimately fails to confess Mosaic authorship for Genesis, Nahum Sarna aptly describes the use of mythological metaphor in the Old Testament. Scattered allusions to be found in the prophetic, poetic, and wisdom literature of the Bible testify to a popular belief that prior to the onset of the 12.

Heidel, 82.

13.

Heidel, 99-100.

14.

Walter Eichrodt provides an apt contrast between the worldviews of the pagan cultures around Israel and the view of the Old Testament in Man in the Old Testament. trans. K. and R. Gregor Smith. (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1951.), 28-29. 7

creative process the powers of watery chaos had to be subdued by God. These mythical beings are variously designated Yam (Sea), Nahar (River), Leviathan (Coiled One), Rahab (Arrogant One) and Tannin (Dragon). . . They have survived in the Bible solely as obscure, picturesque metaphors and exclusively in the language of poetry. . . The early Israelite creation myths, with all their color and drama, must have been particularly attractive to the masses. But none became the regnant version. It was the austere account set forth in the first chapter of Genesis that won unrivaled authority.15 Despite the conceits of higher critics, the Genesis account is quite unified in presenting a monotheistic Godhead.

One

strong evidence of this fact is that ‫אלהים‬, though plural, consistently takes a masculine singular verb form in the Old Testament material.

Much ink has been spilled on how to explain

this grammatical oddity.

Though some will argue for some sort

of Hebrew pantheon on the basis of Moses' use of ‫ נעשה‬in Genesis 1:2616, it is noteworthy that the speaker is identified as ‫אלהים‬ but the verb introducing the discourse is ‫ויאמר‬, again masculine singular.

Finally, when God does the creating that He proposes

in verse 26, Moses expresses it again using a singular verb, ‫ויברא‬

15.

Nahum Sarna. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 3.

16.

Though most will acknowledge that the view of P or the redactor is montheistic, it is often assumed that the Pentateuch itself is drawn from sources that are devoted to at least two other gods, ‫ יהוה‬and ‫( אלהים‬J and E). 8

(verse 27). Far better than to take the critical approach to the plural form of ‫אלהים‬, its use of the masculine singular verb form, and the use of ‫ נעשה‬in verse 26 is to joyfully confess what Luther confesses. This is a sure indication of the Trinity, that in one divine essence there are three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not even so far as Their activity is concerned, therefore, is God separated, because all three Persons here co-operate and say: “Let Us make.” The Father does not make one man and the Son another, nor the Son one man and the Holy Spirit another; but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one and the same God, is the Author and Creator of the same work. Nor is it possible in this manner to divide God subjectively, for the Father is not known except in the Son and through the Holy Spirit. Therefore as there is one God objectively, so also subjectively; nevertheless, within Himself, so far as His substance or essence is concerned, He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct Persons in one Godhead. These evidences should be precious to us and welcome.17 Admittedly, Luther's approach to the Scriptures is not popular in the post-Enlightenment world.

To read the Scriptures

with Luther is to begin with the cross and then look backward to the Old Testament witness seeing the fullness of the Scriptures only in their Christological focus.

It is a particularly

Christian and evangelical18 way to approach them. 17.

Luther. “Genesis Lectures” (1535), LW 1:58-59.

18.

In the 16th century sense. 9

Fulgentius of Ruspe makes an additional point: For the essence, that which the Greeks call ousia, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one, in which essence the Father is not one thing and the Son a second thing and the Holy Spirit still a third thing, although in person the Father is different, the Son is different, and the Holy Spirit is different. All of this is demonstrated in the strongest fashion at the very beginning of the Holy Scriptures, when God says, “Let us make human beings in our image and likeness.” When, using the singular number, he says “image,” he shows that the nature is one, in whose image the human being was made.19 Should we place ourselves in the sandals of Moses, the critics fair no better.

Clearly the strong monotheism of

Genesis 1 is a polemic against the muddled polytheism of the Enûma elish.

Further, the Lord has no need in Genesis 1 to

create the universe from preexistent matter.20 THE LITURGICAL CONTEXT OF GENESIS At the beginning of the book of Joshua, the Lord commissions Joshua to be the successor of Moses.

He says to the son of Nun,

“This Book of the Law (‫ )התורה‬shall not depart from your mouth (‫)מ "פיך‬, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it.”21 19.

Fulgentius of Ruspe in Andrew Louth. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2001) 1:30.

20.

Heidel, 76-82.

21.

Joshua 1:8. 10

Later, the Book of the Law is specifically called “the Book of the Law of Moses.”22 Indeed, the Lord's words to Joshua are very Mosaic in tone. The Lord had said to Moses of Aaron, “You shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth (‫)בפיו‬, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth and will teach (‫הוריתי‬ ' ‫ )ו‬you both what to do. He shall speak for you to the people, and he shall be your mouth, and you shall be as God (‫)לאלהים‬ ' to him.”23 The Lord places the ‫ תורה‬in Moses's mouth and promises to be with both Moses's mouth and Aaron's.

Further, the Lord makes

the seemingly outrageous claim that Moses will be God to Aaron, but in a very real sense this statement of the Lord faithfully confesses what the Lord has promised He is about to do. The Law is mediated to both Aaron and Joshua through Moses. The Lord does not give Joshua a new word to speak. Joshua the word He has previously given to Moses. teaching comes from the Lord. both Moses and Aaron.

He gives to Even so, the

He promises that He will teach

The word used of God's teaching in Exodus

4 (‫הוריתי‬ ' ‫ )ו‬becomes the noun (‫ )תורה‬which describes the book that will contain Moses's record of it. 22.

Joshua 8:31.

23.

Exodus 4:15-16. 11

As to the identity of this “Book of the Law,” modern commentators are divided.

Keil and Delitzsch, however, take the

historic position, namely that it refers to the Pentateuch, and further, that the Pentateuch is precisely what was read in the Feast of Tabernacles once every seven years. And whilst the contents and form of the Thorah bear witness that it belongs to the Mosaic age, there are express statements to the effect that it was written by Moses himself. . . When he had delivered his last address to the people, and appointed Joshua to lead them into their promised inheritance, 'he wrote this Thorah, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi, and unto all the elders of Israel' (Deut. 31:9), with a command that it was to be read to the people every seven years at the feast of Tabernacles, when they came to appear before the Lord at the sanctuary.24 Considering the fact that God gave this book to Moses and gave consistent commands both to Aaron and to Joshua to meditate on it and “be careful to do according to all that is written in it,”25 we can safely say that the book of Genesis is a liturgical document.

It was given to Moses for a liturgical purpose and

was heard by the people of Israel in a liturgical setting. The Enûma Elish was also used liturgically, being read publicly on the 4th of Nisan (which was their New Year's festival), the 4th of Chislev, and, very possibly, the fourth day 24.

Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 1:12.

25.

Joshua 1:8. 12

of every month.26

Coming into a context where the pagan creation

myth was heard regularly by the people, a liturgical reading of the gracious account of the Lord in Genesis takes on a clear polemical character. Recognition of the liturgical setting of Genesis is, of course, key to our discussion of the first three chapters.

The

Israelites did not have scrolls of Genesis that they would read whenever they liked.

The “Book of the Law” was kept in the

tabernacle and read aloud to the Israelites in a liturgical setting.

This liturgical context had a profound influence on

how the Israelites understood what they heard proclaimed to them.

This leads us to the contemplation of an important

question.

What were the Israelites seeing, hearing, smelling,

and experiencing when they heard the word, “‫אשית‬ ) ‫”?ב 'ר‬ THE TABERNACLE The construction of the tabernacle is detailed in Exodus 25 through 32.

The tabernacle traveled with Israel during its

wilderness wanderings and remained in use until Solomon built the temple approximately four hundred years later.

Not only did

Moses give plans for the construction of the temple, but his ‫'ספר‬ ‫ התורה‬detailed how the worship in the tabernacle would take place. 26.

Weinfeld, 510. 13

We will now review in some detail what the experience of an Israelite in tabernacle worship would have been.

We will

particularly note the liturgical context of the reading of the ‫ התורה‬,‫ספר‬, ' including the book of Genesis. Basic Themes in Exodus Leviticus 23:34-43 gives us the basic structure for the Feast of Tabernacles.

Here the Lord instructs that beginning on

15 Tishri (just a few days after the Day of Atonement), the Israelites will live in booths for seven days.

On these days

the people will offer food offerings27 to the Lord.

The reason

for these offerings is that the Israelites might remember God's gracious provision during the wilderness wanderings.

“You shall

dwell in booths for seven days. All native Israelites shall dwell in booths, that your generations may know that I made the people of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”28 This feast becomes the context in which the Law of Moses (=Pentateuch) will be read once every seven years.29

On how much

of the Law was actually read, there is some controversy.

27.

Holocaust offerings in the LXX.

28.

Leviticus 23:42-43.

29.

Deuteronomy 31:9-13. 14

Keil

and Delitzsch assert: We learn from Neh. 8:18, that in Ezra’s time they read in the book of the law every day from the first to the last day of the feast, from which we may see on the one hand, that the whole of the Thorah (or Pentateuch), from beginning to end, was not read; and on the other hand, by comparing the expression in v. 18, “the book of the law of God,” with “the law,” in v. 14, that the reading was not restricted to Deuteronomy: for, according to v. 14, they had already been reading in Leviticus (Lev. 23) before the feast was held, an evident proof that Ezra the scribe did not regard the book of Deuteronomy like the critics of our day, as the true national law-book, an acquaintance with which was all that the people required.30 However, their assertion is weak at best.

Nehemiah 8:18 does

say that they read “in” the book of the law on every day of the feast.

The claim that this means that they did not read

everything in the Pentateuch simply does not arise from the actual words of Nehemiah.

It could just as simply mean that

they read portions of the text during each day of the feast, spreading the five books over the days of the feast.

If one

reads Nehemiah in the context of Deuteronomy, which commands that the Book of the Law be read so that the people may do “all the words of this law” (‫ )את־כל־דב ' )רי התורה הזאת‬it becomes clear that reading the whole Pentateuch is implied.31

30.

Keil and Delitzsch, 1:979-980.

31.

Deuteronomy 31:12. 15

Thus, it is reasonable to suspect that they would have begun their reading with the the beginning (‫אשית‬ ) ‫ )ב 'ר‬and continued until all the ‫ תורה‬had been read.

As the Israelites heard the account

of God's creation of the universe in Genesis 1 and 2, they would have heard the very space in which they heard it described.

As

they moved on to Genesis 3, they would have heard the sacrifices they were offering as a distant echo of that which was offered by the Lord after their initial fall into sin and whose skins covered them.

Ezekiel will use this to point to an

eschatological hope when the tabernacle will be incarnated and Eden will be fully restored: Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwelling places, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in

16

the midst of them for evermore.32 Ezekiel clearly points forward to the Incarnation, when the tabernacle will be Christ's body and He will dwell with them forever.

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we

have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”33 The emphasis is continually on the material, the physical. God speaks in Genesis and it is created. and it is built.

God speaks in Exodus

Further, the liturgical context of Genesis'

reading is seen, heard, and experienced in a very physical way by the Israelites. ‫ תבנית‬in heaven.

They are not called upon to contemplate the

Moses does not give the Lord's people to know

Him apart from the physical. In fact, it will be shown that the ‫ תבנית‬of Exodus 25:40 bears a strong relationship to the account of the world's creation in Genesis 1 to 2.

What is less clear is whether the

Lord is telling the story of creation in such a way that he can reinforce the Israelites' experience in the tabernacle or whether the ‫ תבנית‬of the tabernacle is modeled after Genesis. Moses suggests an answer in the fact that the ‫ תבנית‬receives 32.

Ezekiel 37:23-28.

33.

John 1:14.

See also Zechariah 2:10.

17

only occasional mention in his account of the giving of the plans for the tabernacle and its later construction. corresponds to the word of the Lord in Genesis.

The ‫תבנית‬

He speaks His

word and the tabernacle, the universe, is fashioned according to it.

In Exodus, the Lord speaks His word to Moses, and acting in

accord with Moses' words, the people construct it. It is commonly suggested that the ‫ תבנית‬is a common theme in near eastern literature of the ancient world and that it should come as no surprise to us to find this sort of language used in Exodus for the construction of the tabernacle.

Sarna indicates

that the primary force of this is to show that God approved of the structure. A prominent characteristic of the narrative in both its parts is the repeated reference to divinely given instructions and celestial patterns for the terrestrial edifice and for its contents. Such a conception of a sanctuary is not unknown elsewhere in the ancient world. It is attested as early as about 2200 B.C.E. in the narration of a building project by the Sumerian King Gudea of Lagash. It also occurs in Egyptian texts that treat of similar enterprises. This idea of divine inspiration, initiation, and specification of a religious institution generally communicates the deity's sanction and acceptance of the sacred structure, which is thereby endowed with legitimacy.34 Such a perfunctory explanation, however, fails to account

34.

Nahum Sarna. The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 156. 18

for the creation imagery that is tied to the construction of the tabernacle.

Further, the Lord Himself gives direct sanction to

the work by declaring creation good35 and by filling the tabernacle.36

Sarna's explanation is sociologically interesting,

but fails to account for all the data. More satisfying is the approach of Hummel in which he introduces the idea of vertical typology to account for Moses' use of ‫תבנית‬. Theologically very important for all the following material is the word “pattern” (tabnith or “type”) at the beginning of the section (25:9). The reference here is to “vertical typology,” not primarily to the horizontal or eschatological typology, which the term usually implies (although the two can never be strictly separated). The tabernacle and its ritual are a “reflection,” a miniature, a copy of the heavenly temple. There is God’s eternal throne (ultimately the entire universe), but God must become “incarnate” in a special dwelling place among mankind because of its alienation in sin. The same language and conceptuality is applied to the tabernacle’s successor, the temple (and by extension to the entire holy city, Zion) as well as to Christ, both His incarnation, and the fulfillment in Him of God’s eternal purpose for the temple of the entire cosmos (Hebrews, Revelation, etc.).37 The incarnation that Hummel speaks of is very real.

Moses

and the Israelites know the Lord by His dwelling above the 35.

Genesis 1:31.

36.

Exodus 40:34.

37.

Hummel (1979), 76. 19

cherubim, by the cloud and the fire, by his mighty hand and outstretched arm as he executes judgment on the Israelites.

Not

seeing the end of their faith, Moses and the Israelites were given by faith to see the heavenly in the earthly and physical. “And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.”38 The Court of Israel in Genesis That all of creation is the Lord's tabernacle, or dwelling place, is indicated in both thematic and in more explicit ways. One argument can be drawn from the very structure of the account in Genesis 1 as it compares to Exodus 25 through 40.39 Klitsenko notes that the seven instances of ”‫ “ויאמר אלהים‬in Genesis 140 are paralleled by seven instances of a similar phrase, ”‫ויד 'בר‬ ‫יהו)ה אל־משה 'לאמר‬,” when God gives instructions to Moses on the construction of the tabernacle.41

This is further highlighted by

38.

Hebrews 11:39-40.

39.

Yurie Klitsenko. “Creation of the World; Making of the Tabernacle and the Rite of Church Consecration,” Orthodox Research Institute, February 22, 2003. [cited 16 Oct 2004]. Online: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ liturgics/klitsenko_creation_world.htm

40.

Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 14, 20, 24, 26.

41.

Exodus 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12. 20

seven instances of ”‫שר צוה יהו)ה את־משה‬4 ‫ “כא‬when the tabernacle is constructed in chapter 40.42 There is nothing in the actual narrative of the Exodus accounts that would demand that these phrases be repeated.

If

the Lord has been speaking to Moses for several chapters already, it is reasonable to assume that in the next sentence it is the Lord speaking.

The dwelling of God in His creation,

however, is an important theme in the books of Moses.

The Lord

creates man and woman, places them at the center of His creation, and makes them his own εἰκόνα43 within creation.

This

parallels closely the account of the construction of the tabernacle in Exodus 40.

After the tabernacle's completion, the

”‫ ”כבוד יהוה‬fills it and the Lord dwells with His people.44

Moses

is intentional in giving clues that the attentive hearer would recognize. One may also see other thematic and structural relationships between Genesis 1-2 and Exodus 39-40.

In Exodus 39:4, Moses

“saw that they had performed all the tasks as the Lord had commanded.”

In Genesis 1:31, the Lord sees “all that He had

42.

Exodus 40:19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32.

43.

Genesis 1:26, LXX.

44.

Exodus 40:34. 21

made.”

In Exodus 39:32, all the work is “completed”; in Genesis

2:1, all the work of creation is “completed.”

In Exodus 40:33,

Moses finishes his work; in Genesis 2:2, God finishes his work. Moses blesses in Exodus 39:43; God blesses in Genesis 2:3.

The

tabernacle and all the furnishings are sanctified in Exodus 40:9; God sanctifies creation in Genesis 2:3.45 But it is not merely by structural allusion that the Scriptures confess all of creation as the Lord's dwelling place. That creation is the tabernacle of the Lord is also indicated more explicitly in the Old Testament.

Stephen refers to this

Old Testament teaching in the sermon he gave on the day of his martyrdom.

Quoting Isaiah 66, he proclaims, “Heaven is my

throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?”46 Stephen refuses to locate the Lord in one place, to circumscribe him in heaven or on earth.

For Stephen, the

filling that is spoken of in Exodus 40 is of all creation, not just the visible dwelling of the ”‫ ”כבוד יהוה‬in the tabernacle and later, the temple.

45.

See also Sarna (1991), 156.

46.

Acts 7:49-50. 22

Perhaps the most explicit confession of the universe as the Lord's dwelling place may be found in Psalm 104.

The Psalm

begins: Bless the Lord, O my soul! O Lord my God, you are very great! You are clothed with splendor and majesty, covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent (‫)כיריעה‬. He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters; he makes the clouds his chariot; he rides on the wings of the wind; he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire. He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.47 Though the imagery of the psalm is clear without it, some of the specific language used in the text makes the connection between creation and tabernacle especially strong. out the heavens like a “‫יריעה‬.”

The Lord stretches

This very word is used 38 times

in the Pentateuch in reference to the curtains that form the outer and inner walls of the tabernacle.48 The imagery enhances what we learn from the lexical clue of ‫יריעה‬.

The light of creation, which fills the universe, is the

Lord's garment.

His influence throughout the earth is indicated

by the fact that the waters (sky) become His roof49, the winds 47.

Psalm 104:1-5.

48.

Francis Brown et al. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Strong's, TWOT, and GK references Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc.; electronic ed.; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000), xiii.

49.

A reference to the dividing of the firmaments in Genesis 1:6-7. 23

his messengers, and flames his servants.

All His creatures

praise Him. In fact, this is the image of the rest of the psalm.

Going

day by day through the six days of creation, the psalmist describes how all of God's works praise Him.

The first half of

verse two hearkens to the light of the first day of creation. The second half of verse two through verse four bring to mind the separation of the waters above and the waters below on the second day.

Beginning with verse five we see the appearance of

dry land and a little later, vegetation. Here the distinction of days is not as distinct, because the psalmist extols the Lord for what He creates the grass and trees for.

The grass (third day) feeds the cattle (sixth day) and the

trees (third day) provide shelter for the birds (fifth day).

It

almost appears that as the psalmist continues his doxology, the careful structure that he appears to have in the beginning of the hymn gives way to a gushing river of one cause for praise upon another as the song rages on. Modern liturgical use of Psalm 104 often excludes verse 35. To some, it breaks the flow of the doxology. seems out of place. Psalm.

The curse simply

Consider, however, the idyllic tone of the

Leviathan frolics in the sea.

24

The birds sing.

Wine

gladdens the heart of man.

Though some post-fall ideas are

introduced--lions roaring for their prey--even these are presented in a positive praiseworthy way. The psalmist desires nothing more than a restoration of the perfect praise that flowed spontaneously from all of creation before the fall. eschatologically.

Thus verse 35 is properly read Finally, the wicked will be consumed from the

earth, and Eden will be restored.

Until then, our communion

with the Lord is imperfect, even when we are in His tabernacle. It breaks the posture of man that is most prevalent in the Old Testament, that of joy.50 Psalm 104 is not the only place that the psalms confess the continual doxology of creation. Psalms 148 and 149 suggest a kind of liturgy for such thanksgiving, where the sun, the moon, the stars, the fish, and the dragons are commanded to praise the Lord. Yet every one of us could have composed a better and more perfect psalm than any of these if we had been begotten by Adam in innocence.51 The enthronement psalms, particularly 97 through 99, call upon all of creation to praise the Lord. roars.

The rivers clap their hands.

The earth shakes.

The sea

Even so, Psalm 99:1 notes

that the Lord is enthroned between the cherubim, a fact that 50.

Eichrodt (1951), 33-34.

51.

Luther. “Genesis Lectures” (1535), LW 1:105. 25

will be noted again later. Another important text that reveals what was in the mind of the Israelites regarding creation as tabernacle is the Song of the Three Children.

Just before the beginning of the liturgical

canticle52, the song gives us these gems, confessing both the temple and all of creation as the Lord's dwelling place: Blessed art thou that beholdest the depths, and sittest upon the cherubims: and to be praised and exalted above all for ever. Blessed art thou on the glorious throne of thy kingdom: and to be praised and glorified above all for ever. Blessed art thou in the firmament of heaven: and above all to be praised and glorified for ever.53 Though the preface to the canticle certainly sets a scene reminiscent of Isaiah 66, Psalm 104, and above all Genesis 1, it is in the section that the church uses liturgically that the Song of the Three Children shines as a confession of the true τέλος of creation.

The canticle names all of creation, bit by

bit, and after naming it gives the command, “ὑμνεῖτε καὶ ὑπερυψοῦτε αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.”54 Within the Song of the Three Children we have no hint of the fall.

It is as if Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego do not even

52.

Benedicte Omnia Opera.

53.

The Apocrypha : King James Version. (Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995), Song Thr 13:32-34.

54.

“Praise and exalt Him into the age.” 26

know that the fall has taken place.

They have been delivered

from death by the Lord and know full well that the world now is not as it should be.

They sing because of what the world was

and will be. A few centuries later, in first century Palestinian Judaism, Flavius Josephus explicitly confesses a strong connection between the tabernacle and creation, albeit one highly grounded in the Hellenistic context in which he lived. When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests, as a place accessible and common, he denoted the land and the sea, these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men. And when he ordered twelve loaves to be set on the table, he denoted the year, as distinguished into so many months. By branching out the candlestick into seventy parts, he secretly intimated the Decani, or seventy divisions of the planets; and as to the seven lamps upon the candlesticks, they referred to the course of the planets, of which that is the number. The vails, too, which were composed of four things, they declared the four elements; for the fine linen was proper to signify the earth, because the flax grows out of the earth; the purple signified the sea, because that color is dyed by the blood of a sea shell fish; the blue is fit to signify the air; and the scarlet will naturally be an indication of fire.55 Before the fall there is perfect communion of God and man. Thus, one might say that before the fall, there is no court of 55.

Flavius Josephus and William Whiston. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, Includes Index. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1987), Ant 3.181. 27

the Gentiles.

God has not chosen for Himself a special people

out of all nations because there are none who are outside His faithful.

All are of Israel.

There is, as of yet, no need for

the nations to be drawn to Zion. Genesis 3 gives a shadow of this perfect communion even when the Lord “discovers” the sin of Adam and Eve. the garden in the cool of the day.”56

He is “walking in

Why should He not?

garden and all of creation is the Lord's tabernacle.

The

Here,

however, the Lord's tabernacling with His people becomes a cause of fear and shame for Adam and Eve. They have separated themselves from Him and placed themselves under a curse.

This separation is confessed by the

distinct sections of the Lord's tabernacle.

These separate

precincts would definitely have been in the mind of the Israelites as they heard Genesis 3. In their flesh Adam and Eve know the consequences of their sin before the Lord even tells them.

Their shame needs a

covering, and the Lord has made the penalty for their sin perfectly clear. surely die.”57

“In the day that you eat of it, you will

But the Lord does not kill Adam and Eve in the

day that they eat of the tree. 56.

Genesis 3:8.

57.

Genesis 2:17.

Adam, at least, lives to the age

28

of 930.58

Rather than executing the punishment that the Lord has

mandated, He acts in mercy and kills animals in their place.59 Even in Eden, “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”60 The sacrificial system is given by the Lord in order to provide for an orderly means by which He may again dwell with His people in such a way that they will be able to endure His presence. sacrifice.

This requires continual, substitutionary blood And because the Lord does not want to be separated

from His people, He Himself provides that which is necessary for the wall to be broken down. One episode that illustrates this well is the sacrifice that Moses performs after receiving the Book of the Law and before ascending Sinai to receive the plans for the tabernacle.61

In

this scene, Moses builds an altar of twelve pillars, one for each of the tribes of Israel.

After building these, sacrifices

of oxen (peace offerings and holocaust offerings) are performed. Moses throws half the blood against the altar and sprinkles half of it on the people while saying, “Behold the blood of the 58.

Genesis 5:5.

59.

Genesis 3:21.

60.

Hebrews 9:22.

61.

Exodus 24:4-11. 29

covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”62 The consequence of the blood being on the elders is made absolutely explicit in verse 11.

“And he [the Lord] did not lay

his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.”

It is only the elders of Israel, who

have blood on them, that are given to ascend the mountain and behold God.

It is a rather rare theophany.

It is said that the

elders “saw the God of Israel. (‫להי ישר 'אל‬ ' ‫או ' )את א‬6 ‫”)ויר‬63 is meant by ‫ ראה‬is not completely clear.

What precisely

The word can have the

sense of seeing with a sense other than sight.64

The

Septuagint's use of εἶδον (root: ὁράω) is similarly ambiguous. Nevertheless, verse 11 strongly favors a physical seeing, which is why Moses notes that God “did not lay his hand” on the elders. Even here, though, we must understand that God is showing Himself through a mask.

Very likely this mask is the Son

62.

Exodus 24:8.

63.

Exodus 24:10.

64.

Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Translation of the author's Lexicon manuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum in Veteris Testamenti libros, a Latin version of the work first published in 1810-1812 under title: Hebraisch-deutsches Handworterbuch des Alten Testaments.; Includes index.; Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc, 2003), 748. 30

Himself.

Consider John 1:18. “No one (οὐδεὶς) has ever seen

(ἑώρακεν) God at any time (πώποτε·).

The only begotten God

(μονογενὴς θεὸς) who is in the bosom of the Father--that one has exegeted [Him].” When Luther cites this text in his Genesis lectures, he explicitly ties the problem of seeing God with the consequences of the fall.

As he does this, Luther recognizes a need in man

to have a visible image of God.

For Luther, this image is

Christ. Thus God reveals His will to us through Christ and the Gospel. But we loathe it and, in accordance with Adam’s example, take delight in the forbidden tree above all the others. This fault has been implanted in us by nature. When Paradise and heaven have been closed and the angel has been placed on guard there (cf. Gen. 3:24), we try in vain to enter. For Christ has truthfully said: “No one has ever seen God” (John 1:18). Nevertheless, God, in His boundless goodness, has revealed Himself to us in order to satisfy our desire. He has shown us a visible image. “Behold, you have My Son; he who hears Him and is baptized is written in the book of life. This I reveal through My Son, whom you can touch with your hands and look at with your eyes.65 John 1 argues that the Son who is “εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς” makes the Father known.

There is no reason to argue that this is not the

case in the Old Testament.

Much of the work recently done on

the phrase, ‫מלאך י הוה‬, suggests the very possibility. 65.

Luther. “Genesis Lectures” (1540), LW 5:49-50. 31

Luther in

The Three Symbols or Creeds of the Christian Faith (1538) applied his “wrapper” language (later used in the Genesis lectures) explicitly to John 1:18. For God dwells in a light to which no one can come; but he must come to us, though hidden in a lantern. As it is written in John 1, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” And before that Moses says, “For man shall not see me and live.”66 The implication of this for our discussion of the sacrificial system is clear. does.

God desires to come to us and He

He does so in a hidden way, wearing a mask.

we can grasp Him.

In this way

In the Old Testament he masks Himself in

fire, in cloud, in a still small voice, in a bush that does not burn up, and in the ‫מלאך י הוה‬.

Luther suggests that in all of

these things we have Christ, the one who in John 1:18 is the exegete of the Father. In the fall the image of God is lost, the glory of the Lord departing from the persons who bore his very image. for Him to return, there must be blood.

In order

The blood of the

sacrifice allows God to be present with His people once more, and Christ, the true image of God67, dwells between the cherubim

66.

Luther. “The Three Symbols or Creeds of the Christian Faith” (1538), LW 34:216.

67.

Colossians 1:15. 32

on the ark of the covenant.68 The Holy Place in Genesis We have shown a strong relationship between Moses' description of God's creation of the universe in Genesis 1 and the construction of the tabernacle in Exodus 25 through 40. Though we cannot speculate on whether all of the structural and thematic similarities between the accounts would have been noticed by the Israelites, this does not change the fact that they are woven into the text. Whereas Genesis 1 paints the picture in broad strokes, we come to something a bit different in Genesis 2. gives the lay of the land.

Here Moses

Not only do we learn where the

rivers were and what they were named, but we learn what sort of precious minerals could be found and what sort of vegetation grew. The Lord's cosmic tabernacle takes on a specific form with a specific man with specific work to do.

The text moves from the

broad to the specific, but in both the broad and the specific, the content of the discourse is concrete.

The text that they

heard was the text that they saw all around them. The instructions for the construction of the tabernacle structure begin with the command to embroider the curtains with 68.

Exodus 25:22. 33

depictions of cherubim.

Within the books of Moses, the cherubim

have extreme significance both in the cult of the Israelites and in creation itself.

The only mention of them in Genesis is

after the exile from the garden, when the Lord places two cherubim with swords of flame to keep Adam and Eve from entering and eating from the tree of life.69 Cherubim do not appear again in the books of Moses until he gives the instructions for the making of the ark of the covenant. Here they are mentioned seven times.70

It is at the

beginning of the very next chapter71, that the cherubim make an appearance that mirrors their place in Genesis 3. That the cherubim are woven into the very fabric of the Tabernacle identifies the tabernacle as Eden recreated, the way to life, guarded by angels.

To be in the tabernacle is to have

access to the tree of life which has, since the beginning, been inaccessible to the Israelites. Luther sees the connection between Eden and the tabernacle in his Genesis Lectures. Moses implies that Paradise had a road or gate toward the east through which there was an access to this garden. Likewise, in connection with the temple 69.

Genesis 3:24.

70.

Exodus 25:18-22.

71.

Exodus 26:1. 34

structure in Ezekiel mention is made of the gate of the sanctuary which faced toward the east, obviously to have us realize that the temple was a figure of Paradise; for if nature had remained perfect, Paradise would have been the temple of the entire world.72 The cultic use of the cherubim is consistent also throughout the rest of the Scriptures.

They are mentioned primarily in

relation to a creedal confession of who the Lord is as the one who sits enthroned above the cherubim.

Never are the cherubim

mentioned apart from a context that is concretely grounded in either the tabernacle or the temple. In Genesis, the cherubim are associated with a hard word of law.

Adam and Eve, expelled from the garden, know the

permanence of their exile by the fact that two members of the Lord's army have been permanently stationed at the entrance of Eden.

They cannot pass.

immortality.

They cannot eat the food of

They will die.

The tabernacle is the reversal of this word of Law.

The

cherubim welcome the people to receive the mercy that comes from the Lord who once more dwells among His people. in the garden in the cool of the day.

He again walks

The glory that dwells

between the cherubim is an undeniable confession of this fact. The command given the people to listen to the reading of the Law every seven years would have brought some into the 72.

Luther. “Genesis Lectures” (1536), LW 1:230. 35

tabernacle, and all near it.

Here they would have seen the

cherubim guarding the way to life and would have heard, and perhaps seen, the high priest. When Moses commands the Levites to read the Law before the people on every seventh Feast of Tabernacles, he commands them in the masculine singular (‫רא‬8 ‫)תק‬.73

It is likely, therefore, that

the ‫ תורה‬was read by the High Priest himself.

When the people

listened to the High Priest's voice, they would have had an interesting experience when he intoned the words of Genesis 2:11-12: The name of the first [river] is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold (‫ )הזהב‬of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone (‫ )אבן השהם‬are there. They heard what they saw.

The priest was vested in the

beauty of the region that surrounded Eden.74

The cloth of the

high priest's ephod was made from gold, scarlet, and purple yarns (‫ <זהב‬75).

Rings that bound pieces of the ephod together were

made of pure gold. stones (‫אב 'ני־שהם‬76).

On the front of the ephod were two onyx These stones had engraved on them the names of

73.

Deuteronomy 31:11.

74.

Exodus 28:2-9.

75.

Exodus 28:6.

76.

Exodus 28:9. 36

the twelve tribes of Israel. Even if it were not established that there are structural and thematic similarities between Moses' accounts of creation and the construction of the tabernacle, we would still have to acknowledge that as the people heard about ‫זהב‬,< they saw ‫ <זהב‬in the priest's ephod.

As they heard about ‫אבן השהם‬, they saw ‫ אבנ' י־שהם‬on

which the names of the tribes of Israel were inscribed. Nevertheless, this imagery was recognized even by the Jews in the days of the early church.

Josephus writes of it in his

Antiquities of the Jews. Now the vestment of the high priest being made of linen, signified the earth; the blue denoted the sky, being like lightning in its pomegranates, and in the noise of the bells resembling thunder. And for the ephod, it showed that God had made the universe of four [elements]; and as for the gold interwoven, I suppose it related to the splendor by which all things are enlightened. He also appointed the breastplate to be placed in the middle of the ephod, to resemble the earth, for that has the very middle place of the world. And the girdle which encompassed the high priest round, signified the ocean, for that goes round about and includes the universe. Each of the sardonyxes declare to us the sun and the moon; those, I mean, that were in the nature of buttons on the high priest’s shoulders. And for the twelve stones, whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning. And for the mitre, which was of a blue color, it seems to me to mean heaven; for how otherwise could the name of God be inscribed upon it? That it was also illustrated with a crown, and that of gold also, is because of that splendor 37

with which God is pleased.77 In Josephus' remarks, the impression is given that when the high priest enters the tabernacle, the whole world is present. It is interesting that Josephus in certain places actually has the high priestly vestments confessing something other than what the Lord gave them for.78

Nevertheless, the link between

creation and the vestments in Josephus does actually reflect the allusions that we see Moses making in his accounts of the creation of the world and the construction of the vestments. Josephus may be hellenizing an older tradition that existed in apocryphal literature that he was familiar with.

The link

between the vestments and creation is also attested earlier (190 B.C.) by Sirach: He was as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, and as the moon at the full / As the sun shining upon the temple of the most High, and as the rainbow giving light in the bright clouds / And as the flower of roses in the spring of the year, as lilies by the rivers of waters, and as the branches of the frankincense tree in the time of summer / As fire and incense in the censer, and as a vessel of beaten gold set with all manner of precious stones / And as a fair olive tree budding forth fruit, and as a cypress tree which groweth up to the clouds. / When he put on the robe of honour, and was clothed with the perfection of glory, when he went up to the holy altar, he made the 77.

Josephus and Whiston, Ant 3.184-187.

78.

In Exodus 28:21, Moses notes that the twelve stones represent the tribes of Israel. 38

garment of holiness honourable.79 The correlations between creation and what the people would have experienced in the tabernacle do not end with the priest's ephod.

Indeed, they would not have seen the ephod at all were

it not for the light of the lampstand, or menorah. The function of the lampstand was to illumine the Holy Place.

However, if that were the only purpose for the menorah,

then any sort of torch would have served well.

One would not

have needed the elaborate sort of lampstand that is described by Moses.80

Exodus describes a lampstand that is very botanical in

its look and arrangement. The shape of the lampstand--the trunk with its branches extending on either side--unmistakably evokes the image of a tree. Quite possibly, it represents the tree of life. The inflorescence of the almond tree most certainly bears symbolic value, for that tree is the earliest spring-flowering plant in the Land of Israel, often even before the end of February. The stem sh-k-d means “to be watchful, wakeful, vigilant”; thus, the almond flower is a symbol of life renewed and sustained. The number seven, the totality of the lamps, is the outstanding symbolic number in the Bible, an expression of completeness and perfection. Finally, the lights constitute the most powerful symbol of all, for light intimates both life itself and the presence of the Giver of all life.81 For Luther, the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge 79.

Sirach 50:6-11, KJV.

80.

Exodus 25:31-40.

81.

Sarna (1991), 165. 39

of good and evil together formed the sanctuary at which the church first conducted its worship.

Bringing in themes from the

psalms, Luther moves on from a discussion of the very first sermon82 to discuss the nature of the Divine Service in the garden. So, then, this tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or the place where trees of this kind were planted in large number, would have been the church at which Adam, together with his descendants, would have gathered on the Sabbath day. And after refreshing themselves from the tree of life he would have praised God and lauded Him for the dominion over all the creatures on the earth which had been given to mankind. . . Adam would have extolled the greatest gift, namely, that he, together with his descendants, was created according to the likeness of God. He would have admonished his descendants to live a holy and sinless life, to work faithfully in the garden, to watch it carefully, and to beware with the greatest care of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This outward place, ceremonial, word, and worship man would have had.83 The final connection between the tabernacle's holy place and creation can be seen in the liturgy that would take place there. Atonement is the center of the Old Testament sacrificial system. Absolutely key in recognizing this purpose is the prohibition against eating blood. “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut 82.

Genesis 2:16-17.

83.

Luther. “Genesis Lectures” (1535), LW 1:105-106. 40

him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.”84 God does not prohibit the eating of blood by way of some arbitrary regulation that has no basis in the theology of the Old Testament.

Rather, the prohibition is designed to bring

into focus and highlight the reality of the atonement. The Lord wishes to spare His people of the punishment they have merited.

For this reason, He gives it on the altar to make

atonement for their souls. Those translations of the Old Testament that constantly render ‫ קרבן‬as “offering” and the hiphil of ‫ קרב‬as “offer”85 may go further than the Lord intends in His usage of the words.

The

person who brings the offering is doing just that, bringing it. The simple Qal meaning of ‫ קרב‬is to “draw near.” To “cause to draw near” is most simply expressed “to bring near.”

The person who brings the sacrifice is an instrument.

They provide the necessary animal. however, by God.86

The sacrifice is given,

The way of atonement is in this way the same

in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. 84.

Leviticus 17:10-11.

85.

See Brown, Driver, Briggs.

86.

Leviticus 17:11. 41

In the Old Testament, the sinner brings forth an animal which God gives to Himself on the altar and expiates His own wrath. Key to understanding this expiation is to also keep in focus the true role of propitiation in the Old Testament. “Propitiation” must be included in the concept and translation of k-ph-r as well as “expiation” . . . Outside of the Bible, of course, “propitiation” often applies to man’s attempt to appease an angry god by his sacrifices. The solution is not to eliminate the Biblical themes of the wrath of God and of divine retribution from our theology, which is evidently often the liberal hidden agenda in this connection. Rather we must give full weight to the Biblical emphasis that the true God Himself graciously provides the means by which His righteous wrath may be allayed. In a way, this was the point of the entire covenant, old as well as new. Thus seen, “expiation” and “ propitiation” become virtual synonyms, but both are likely to be misunderstood without the corrective emphasis supplied by the other.87 The very concept of the divine wrath is often distasteful in modern approaches to theology. They use the idea of propitiation to lay at the feet of God a retributive nature. This nature looks on the surface like a father who joys in abusing his children and needs to be offered the blood of a dead animal so that his bloodlust can be satisfied. The Scriptures, however, present us with a loving God who, though roused to anger by sin, in His grace and mercy provides 87.

Hummel (1979), 85. 42

all that is necessary for both propitiation and expiation. the New Testament, Judas hands Christ over to Pilate.

In

Jesus

puts it this way: “It is enough; the hour has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”88

And further,

though sinners brought Jesus to the hands of Pilate, it was not they who offered Him. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.89 The importance of understanding that the sacrifice of the Old Testament is offered to God by God is emphasized well by Hummel when he describes the connection between the sacrificial system and the cross. “The typological connection would be impossible if Old Testament worship were informed by any fundamentally different type of theology, that is, works rather

88.

Mark 14:41.

89.

Hebrews 9:22-26. 43

than grace.”90 Contrast this with Eichrodt's view of the selfsame matter: Forgiveness cannot be thought of as God's personal dealing with men for the restoration of fellowship unless Man is personally committed to this action on the part of his God. What might be possible in the case of magical purification or legalistically conceived remission of punishment is unthinkable when it is a matter of the return of the God who has been injured by Man. Here Man must be involved in his most inward self, if there is to be a real renewal of fellowship.91 To stop with Hummel's observation regarding the theology of the Old Testament, however, is to stop a bit too soon.

Jesus

fulfills the entire Old Testament sacrificial system on the cross, but He delivers the benefits of his suffering, death, and resurrection in the Lord's Supper. Moses' description of blood sacrifice in Leviticus certainly brings to mind in the Christian the very words that our Lord used as He instituted the supper by which He delivers to us the gifts He won on the cross. A brief exploration of the relationship between these two texts will illumine just what the Old Testament sacrificial system was given to accomplish. 90.

Hummel (1979), 80.

91.

Walter Eichrodt. The Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J.A. Baker, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967). 1:465. 44

The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls.92

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.93

In both Leviticus and Matthew, the passage begins with a confession regarding the blood of the sacrifice. highlights the importance of the blood. located.

Moses

It is where the life is

The Lord tells us that the blood of the new covenant,

as opposed to the old one, is His own.

What is implicit in the

Matthew text, just as it is explicit in the Leviticus one, is the language of sacrifice. It is not difficult to see how the language of sacrifice became so prominent in the medieval Roman church.

For this

reason, it is important that we note the language of Hebrews when we look at these texts. sacrifice “once for all.”94

Jesus offered Himself as a There is no need for a repeated

unbloody sacrifice of the mass.

The Lord delivers through the

Lord's Supper the same thing that was accomplished by the Lord giving the blood on the altar to Himself, atonement for our souls, the forgiveness of our sins.

92.

Leviticus 17:11.

93.

Matthew 26:28.

94.

Hebrews 9:26. 45

The Holy of Holies in Genesis If the world is the tabernacle, and Eden is the Holy Place, then Adam and Eve themselves are the Holy of Holies.

Though

Genesis does not make this theme as explicit as some of the ones that we have previously explored, it is certainly there. The Lord's word in the creation of Adam and Eve95 gives to them dominion over all of creation. has placed in them His εἰκόνα.

As we have noted, the Lord

From Paul's letter to the

Colossians we know this εἰκόνα to be Christ. This dominion is described by Moses in two ways.

First, man

is to “be fruitful and multiply, fill (‫ )ומלאו‬the earth and subdue it.”96

This command is inextricably bound up in the imago Dei.

It is the Lord who fills creation, and more explicitly, the tabernacle (‫וכבוד יהוה מ 'ל)א את־המשכן‬97). It is only by the Lord's gracious giving of His image to Adam and Eve in their creation that they can image Him in any way including procreation. The second way in which Moses describes the rule of Adam and Eve is that they are to have dominion over every living thing in 95.

Genesis 1:26-28.

96.

Genesis 1:28.

97.

Exodus 40:34. 46

creation.

This dominion is expressed by Adam in a particular

way as he names the creatures in the Garden.98 At first glance, the naming of the animals in Genesis 2 does not seem that significant.

The theology of name, however, is an

important theme in the Scriptures.

This theme has been

recognized for quite some time. In Luther's Genesis lectures, he notes that Adam's perfect righteousness and innocence allow him to see the true nature of the animals and to have dominion over them not as some external despot but as one who graciously commands them to do exactly what they have been created to do. Without any new enlightenment, solely because of the excellence of his nature, [Adam] views all the animals and thus arrives at such a knowledge of their nature that he can give each one a suitable name that harmonizes with its nature. . . Therefore by one single word he was able to compel lions, bears, boars, tigers, and whatever else there is among the more outstanding animals to carry out whatever suited their nature.99 Modern biblical scholarship has arrived at similar conclusions as can be seen in Eichrodt, who identifies the view of name discussed by Luther as the prevailing view of the ancient world. The naming of the animals by Adam is not only an 98.

Genesis 2:19-20.

99.

Luther. “Genesis Lectures” (1535), LW 1:119-120. 47

assertion of sovereignty over them, it expresses their natures. In the context of human names this belief finds expression in the giving of new names to vassals by their overlords or to disciples by their masters; the new name stamps a new pattern of life, so to speak, on the recipient.100 Eichrodt's last observation can be seen in the Scriptures themselves as the Lord renames Jacob,101 and after He became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, Peter.102

Further, it is seen in

the placing of the name on Israel in the Aaronic benediction.103 Such name theology inexorably binds creation to the cultic experience of Israel in the tabernacle, and later the temple. Gieschen notes this very clearly. There is significant evidence that during a period of Israel's history an extensive Name theology developed in which God's presence with his people was described through expressions involving the dwelling of his ‫שם‬, especially in the sanctuary.104 In Luther, Adam's naming of the animals is speaking on them the blessing for which God created them in the first place. dog praises God by being a dog, a bird by being a bird.

A

In his

100. Eichrodt (1967), 2:40. 101. Genesis 32:28. 102. Matthew 16:18. 103. Numbers 6:22-27. Particularly verse 27. “So shall they put my Name on the people of Israel, and I will bless them.” 104. Charles A. Gieschen. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. (Boston: Brill, 1998), 71-72. 48

naming of the dog as dog and the bird as bird, Adam calls the creatures under his dominion and care into an unending rejoicing in their dogness and their birdness. Adam is able to do this not because it is in his nature to do so but because it is in God's nature to do so, and He has created Adam in His image, to be his very icon within Eden. Perhaps most indicative of Adam and Eve as the Holy of Holies within Eden is their relationship as husband and wife. Luther delights to confess this, though, he only ties it to Paul's use of Genesis 2105 when he discusses the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden. Adam and Eve, or marriage itself, is a type of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:32). This allegory is ingenious and full of comfort, for what more delightful statement can be made than that the Church is the bride and Christ the Bridegroom? It expresses that most happy association and bestowal of all the gifts which the Bridegroom possesses, as well as the obliteration of the sins and all the misfortunes with which the poor bride is burdened. Therefore it is a most delightful saying when St. Paul states (2 Cor. 11:2): “I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you to Christ as a chaste virgin.”106 Luther's reason for a “late” confession of this truth may be that he sees in Paul a confession of the atonement, an atonement that is not in any way necessary in Genesis 2.

Though

105. Ephesians 5:31-32. 106. Luther. “Genesis Lectures” (1536), LW 1:233. 49

understandable, it would seem that Paul does not find it unnatural to speak of Genesis 2 in light of the later reality of fallen humanity. In the usage of the church, Genesis 2 has often been tied not only to Ephesians 5, but also to the Gospel of John.

As Eve

is created from the side of Adam, so is the Church created by the water and nourished by the blood that flows from the side of Christ as He dies on the cross.107

For Leo the Great, the

incarnation itself is announced by the institution of marriage in Genesis 2. From the very commencement of the human race, Christ is announced to all men as coming in the flesh. In which, as was said, “there shall be two in one flesh,” there are undoubtedly two, God and man, Christ and the Church, which issued from the Bridegroom’s flesh, when it received the mystery of redemption and regeneration, water and blood flowing from the side of the Crucified.108 In the Holy of Holies, the high priest entered, representing Israel, and brought the blood of the sacrifice which the Lord gave on His ark for the atonement of His people.

The blood came

from an animal that the Lord Himself had given to His people. The priest receives from the Lord the forgiveness that He freely 107. John 19:24-25, 1 John 5:6-9. 108. Leo the Great. “Letter LIX” in Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XII, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 60. 50

gives. When Adam, as husband, serves Eve, his wife, he is bestowing on her the gifts that he himself has already received from the Lord.

Though the gifts he gives in Eden are not the forgiveness

of sins, they are, in their pre-fall context, every bit as precious. Adam is the first preacher of God's word of Law and Gospel that He has heard from the Lord Himself.109

Striking in the word

that the Lord speaks to Adam is that even before the fall, the Lord speaks in such a way that Law and Gospel are distinct. This is true even though the “chief use of the Law”110 does not yet exist and the Gospel does not yet proclaim the atonement. Both the accusing office of the Law and the redeeming office of the Gospel are consequent to the fall into sin.

In the pre-fall

context, Law is simply command, and Gospel is simply promise, or gift. GOTTESDIENST IN GENESIS In our discussion of the relationship between creation and the tabernacle, we have discussed all of the puzzle pieces necessary for us to map out the nature of Gottesdienst in Genesis. 109. Genesis 2:16-18. 110. Luther. “Great Galatians” (1535), LW 26:335. 51

Gottesdienst is Luther's preferred word for what is normally called in English, “worship.”

Its meaning, however, is far

richer than the English equivalent.

Gottesdienst is “divine

service,” a back-and-forth dynamic in which the Lord gives out His gifts and the given-to ones respond with praise and thanksgiving.

The emphasis in Luther is clearly on the Giver

known by the gift. The Apology to the Augsburg Confession indicates the proper focus of Gottesdienst as receiving the gifts God offers. Aus diesem ist leicht zu merken Unterscheid zwischen dem Glauben und zwischen der Frommkeit, die durch Gesetz kommt. Denn der Glaub ist ein solcher Gottesdienst und latria, da ich mir schenken und geben lasse. Die Gerechtigkeit aber des Gesetzs ist ein solcher Gottesdienst, der da Gott anbeutet unser Werke. So will Gott nun durch den Glauben also geehret sein, das wir von ihm empsahen, was er verheisset und anbeutet.111 The receiving of the Lord's gifts does not take place in an otherworldly, spiritual manner, but rather concretely within the Lord's own creation.

In this way, it is no different in Eden

than it is today. The Gottesdienst of Genesis begins with the Lord's gracious creating of the universe and giving it all into the care and dominion of the human beings He has placed there.

At the very

111. Philipp Melanchthon, Apology IV:49 trans. Justas Jonas in Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. (Göttingen: Vandenhoed & Ruprecht, 1967), 170. 52

center of this creation is a grove in which grows two types of tree:

the tree of Life, and the tree of the knowledge of good

and evil. Luther highlights the fact that both trees are good creations of God.

In Luther's understanding, man was given to

care for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as a good gift of God, just not one from which man was given to eat.112 Most importantly, the trees mark the locatedness of the Lord's speaking. command.

It is here that He gave his promise and

It is here that He located His Word.

things are sanctified by the Word and prayer.

For Luther, all In Genesis 2,

therefore, there is no more sacred place than the grove of trees that have God's command attached to them. We know also that Eve was aware of the importance of these trees, and thus we have her already in the grove when the serpent comes to her.113

For Luther there is no doubt that the

word concerning the eating of the fruit came to Eve by way of Adam's preaching.114

What is not completely clear is whether Adam

preached the Lord's word incorrectly or whether Eve misunderstood it under the influence of the serpent. 112. Luther. “Genesis Lectures” (1535), LW 1:105-106. 113. Genesis 3:1ff. 114. Luther. “Genesis Lectures” (1535), LW 1:144. 53

What is

absolutely clear in Luther is that when Eve misquotes the words of the Lord she has already moved from faith to unbelief.115 With the sin of Adam,116 the Gottesdienst of Genesis sees a significant change.

The angel who speaks the word of the Lord's

curse and promise addresses Adam first because Adam is the one who had been entrusted with the word in the first place.117 Thus, when the dew of creation is still wet upon the ground, sin enters the world, and even at this moment the Lord preaches a strong word of Gospel.

“I will put enmity between you and the

woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”118 The Lord seals His promise with a sacrifice. and Adam and Eve are spared.119

Blood is shed

It is by no accident that Moses

notes that the Lord makes garments of skin with which to clothe them.

In order for these garments to be given, blood must be

115. Ibid, 155. 116. It is worth remembering that in the New Testament (particularly Paul), it is Adam who is held accountable for the coming of sin into the world. He was with his wife when she ate and did nothing to save her. Further, Christ is the new Adam, not the new Eve. By being obedient unto the cross, He washes away the sin of Adam and of the whole world. 117. Ibid, 173. 118. Genesis 3:15. 119. Genesis 3:21. 54

shed.

Death enters the world in an immediate way when Adam and

Eve fall from grace.

But due to the Lord's rich love and care

for them, it is not their blood that He immediately demands, but He takes the blood of another, pointing forward to the blood that He would finally shed in their place. The messianic hope is real and concrete for Eve from the beginning.

When Cain is born, Eve rejoices in her belief that

the promise of Genesis 3:15 has been fulfilled. have gotten a man, YHWH. (‫”)קניתי )איש את־יהוה‬120

She says, “I

Through her hearing

of the promise, Eve has gone from the unbelief of Genesis 3 to faith in Genesis 4.

“Although this was a false hope, it

nevertheless is clear that Eve was a saintly woman and that she believed the promise concerning the future salvation through the blessed Seed.”121 What has been noted by Hummel about the theology of the Old Testament is proven in the text itself. presents a theology of grace.

The Old Testament

The Lord graciously provides for

the needs of His people both before sin and after. Initially this gracious calling comes through a Word that ratifies the gifts that He has already bestowed in creation.

120. Genesis 4:1, author's translation. 121. Luther. “Genesis Lectures” (1536), 242. 55

After the fall, this word turns into a promise that the sin they have brought into the world will be destroyed when the Lord Himself prepares a sacrifice that will be sufficient for the sins of all the children of Adam and Eve. THE FULLFILLMENT OF ALL THINGS IN CHRIST The σκηνή or “tabernacle” word group has a rich history of usage in the New Testament.122

Normative for its usage, however,

is the Johannine application of it to Christ.

The Lord takes on

flesh and tabernacles among us.123 The Gospel of John continues this theme as Jesus identifies his body as the temple.124

We know from the New Testament

approach to the tabernacle in the Gospel of John, Hebrews, and elsewhere that it is only in Christ that the Old Testament tabernacle has any meaning. When the incarnation itself occurred in Jesus' birth the tabernacle found its fulfillment there. One of the key passages in making the connection is John 1:14, "The Word (Christ) was made flesh and dwelt among us ..." We might also translate "tabernacled among us" to make the connection even more obvious. St. John uses the usual Greek translation for the Hebrew for 122. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vols. 5-9 Edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 Compiled by Ronald Pitkin., ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976), 7:375-381. 123. John 1:14. 124. John 2:19, see also Matthew 26:61. 56

"indwell" and by a happy coincidence the words in the two languages even happen to sound somewhat alike.125

It may not be out of line to suggest that Christ is the very ‫ תבנית‬after which the tabernacle is modeled.

Surely we may

say that it is only in Him that the tabernacle receives its fullness.

In the Old Testament, the Lord dwelt between the

cherubim.

In Christ, “all the fullness of the deity dwells

bodily.”126 It is Christ who will finally bring His bride into heaven, where the fullness of our experience will be Himself, and we will tabernacle with Him forever. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed--on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. . . And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will 125. Horace D. Hummel. “Christ in the Old Testament,” For the Life of the World, 1998, 3:2. 126. Colossians 2:9. 57

bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day--and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.127 All things in creation will receive their fullness in the Lamb who was slain from before the foundation of the world. is He that created the universe for us, and it is in Him that

It

the world receives all that it has. forever.

Let us tabernacle in Him

Amen.

127. Revelation 21:10-14, 22-26. 58

Emphasis added.

WORKS CITED Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black et al. The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993, c1979). The Apocrypha : King James Version. (Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995). Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche. (Göttingen: Vandenhoed & Ruprecht, 1967). Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : With Westminster Hebrew Morphology., electronic ed. (Stuttgart; Glenside PA: German Bible Society; Westminster Seminary, 1996, c1925; morphology c1991). Francis Brown et al., Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Strong's, TWOT, and GK references Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc.; electronic ed.; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000) Walter Eichrodt. Man in the Old Testament. trans. K. and R. Gregor Smith. (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1951). ________. The Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J.A. Baker, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vols. 5-9 Edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 Compiled by Ronald Pitkin., ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-c1976). Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Translation of the author's Lexicon manuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum in Veteris Testamenti libros, a Latin version of the work first published in 1810-1812 under title: Hebraisch-deutsches Handworterbuch des Alten Testaments.; Includes index.; Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc, 2003). Charles A. Gieschen. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. (Boston: Brill, 1998). 59

Alexander Heidel. The Babylonian Genesis. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942).

The

The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001). Unless otherwise indicated, all English biblical quotations are from the English Standard Version. The Holy Bible : King James Version., electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version. (Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995). Horace D. Hummel. “Christ in the Old Testament,” For the Life of the World, 1998, 3:2. ________. The Word Becoming Flesh : An Introduction to the Origin, Purpose, and Meaning of the Old Testament (electronic ed.; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2000, c1979). Flavius Josephus and William Whiston. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, Includes Index. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996, c1987). Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002). Yurie Klitsenko. “Creation of the World; Making of the Tabernacle and the Rite of Church Consecration,” Orthodox Research Institute, February 22, 2003. [cited 16 Oct 2004]. Online: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ liturgics/klitsenko_creation_world.htm Andrew Louth. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2001). Martin Luther. Luther's Works, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther's Works (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1958). Lutheran Service Book. (Saint Louis: House, 2006).

Concordia Publishing

Francis Pieper. Christian Dogmatics, electronic ed. (St. Louis: 60

Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953). Nahum Sarna. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989). Nahum Sarna. The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991). Philip Schaff. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XII, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997). Septuaginta : With morphology. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996, c1979). Moshe Weinfeld. “Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord—The problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1-2:3” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l'honneur de M. Henri Cazelles, ed. A. Caquot and M. Delcor. (Kevelaer : Butzon & Bercker, 1981), 501-512.

61