NATURE OF BIBLICAL SYMBOLS
A symbol is a sign which suggests meaning rather than stat- ing it. For example, God established the rainbow as a sign, pledge, or symbol (‘6th) that ‘he would not bring another flood to destroy mankind. This particular symbol, like many others, requires explanation.
Where symbols are not explained or are explained only briefly, ambiguity may result. The interpreter is forced to be subjective.
Even when an explanation accompanies the symbol, he may read more into the symbol than the explanation warrants. Con- sequently it is highly important in interpreting symbols to con- trol this subjectivity through a broad acquaintance with all of the biblical symbols. The interpreter must thoroughly under- stand the cultural situation in which the symbol originally appeared, and avoid forcing symbols into a maze of complex theological speculations. Simplicity should be the norm.
A summary of the characteristics of symbols may make them easier to understand. (1) The symbol
itself
is a literal object.It may be a boiling pot, a collection of good and bad figs, a ram and a he-goat, or riders on horseback. In each instance, the writer describes an actual pot, or animal, or men on horseback.
(2) The symbol is used to corwey some lesson or truth. The two baskets of good and bad figs (Jer. 24) stood for two groups in Judah. The good figs indicated those who had been carried away captive to Babylon. The bad figs stood for the rest of the people of Judah-Zedekiah, his princes, those who remained in Jerusalem and southern Palestine, and those in Egypt. Restora- tion is promised to those represented by the good figs. Divine
r’ 265
266 INIXRPRETING THE BIBLE
judgment remains for those represented by the bad figs. As a result of these judgments, none of these people will be left in the land that God gave to their fathers. (3) The connection be- tween the literal object and the lesson it teaches becomes clearer when we learn what the one who used the symbol meant to convey by it. Symbols have a self-authenticating credibility when their import is known. As long as the one who puts forth a symbol explains it, the interpreter faces no great difficulty.
But where the explanation is lacking or is only partial, the in- terpreter must strive to find what the symbol originally was meant to teach. Many times the original speaker or writer prob- ably felt that the context was sufficient, needing no supplemen- tation by explicit statement. This caused no great hardship to the hearers of his own time.
Later readers, however, do not fare so well. Nor does a com- parison of symbols always help, since the same or similar act could have diverse meanings. For example, Moses was com- manded to strike the rock (Exod. 17:1-7) on one occasion and to speak to the rock (Numbers 20:8,10-13) on a later occasion.
The immediate purpose for both the striking and the speaking was to obtain water for the people of Israel, who on both oc- casions were at the point of revolt because they lacked water.
Were God’s orders merely to test Moses’ obedience and self- control in the midst of a difficult situation? Or was the rock a symbol of something else? Is the meaning the same on both occasions? Is there a progression from the overt act to a verbal request? The disobedience of Moses is explicitly said to involve a lack of trust in Jehovah and a failure to treat him as holy.
But there is nothing explicit about the rock in the Old Testa- ment, and comparing the two incidents is hardly sufficient to determine whether the rock has symbolic significance. Paul in I Corinthians 10: 3-4 speaks of “spiritual food,” “spiritual drink,”
and a “spiritually accompanying rock,” but how the spiritual is related to the physical he does not elucidate. He suggests that Christ was to Israel what the rock was. But does this mean that Christ was also the spiritual food and drink? If so, such par- ticipation did not deter divine judgment (see I Cor. ,10:5-12).
Recognizing th’ese characteristics of symbols and the problems of meaning, let us turn to some examples.
CL A S S I F I C A T I O N A N D EX A M P L E S O F SY M B O L S
External Miraculous Symbols
Many modern students allow no place in their thinking for miracles. They agree that the writers of the Old and the New
SYhIIWI S AKI) S1.hIBOI.IC:AI. hTIONS 267
Testament believed in miracles, but add: “These people bc- longed to a prescientific age. Since we now know that cause and effect prevail, we cannot admit to the kind of miraculous phenomena reported in the Bible.”
Such an approach is based on preconceived ideas of how the universe must operate. Further, it underestimates the people of biblical times. Miracles were meaningful to these people pre- cisely because they did believe in the regularity of nature.
The mighty acts of God were mighty because they showed his control over this pattern of nature. He changed the pattern only rarely, and for purposes which he may or may not have disclosed. But the change in the pattern, whether or not God revealed the full significance of the change, convinced the peo- ple of God that their God was alive, that he acted and was con- cerned about them. Such beliefs were a contrast to those of other ancient people, who believed in gods that did nothing (cf. Elijah’s taunt, I Kings 18:26-27). A god who is imprisoned within a pattern laid down by nature, who does not and cannot act apart from it, could hardly be considered a Supreme Being.
The God known to the people of the Bible was both a God of order and a God of freedom. The regularity of nature testified to God’s order, the miracles to his freedom.
There are very few external miraculous symbols. The cher- ubim and the flaming sword placed at the East of Eden (Gen.
3:24) testified to the rupture of fellowship between man and God. The burning bush at Horeb (Exod. 3:2) awakened Moses to a realization of the presence of God and to his awe-inspiring holiness. The pillar of cloud and fire which went before the Israelites day and night (Exod. 13:21-22) symbolized God’s pres- ence among his people and his guidance of them. .Jehovah went before them in (be) these external phenomena. These last two symbols are ordinary objects of nature transformed to help both Moses and the people realize that God was not merely an idea but a reality. The individual who encountered God as a par- ticular fact through the symbol of the burning bush or through a luminous cloud standing over the camp at night could either respond in faith or remain indifferent and self-centered. Moses certainly responded in faith. But most of those who witnessed the fiery cloud died in the wilderness because of unbelief. How versatile God is in making himself known! What resistance men present to all of God’s versatility! Modern men may ex- press their resistance by shutting God up to channels of action which are acceptable to their own unalterable laws. Another form this resistance takes is to rewrite history so that only hu- man actions are considered relevant. Those who are under the
268 ~NIlGWRE’I‘ING THE hl%LE 269 illusion that God can be confined by such means should think
seriously about the blindness that sin imposes on the intellect (cf. II Cor. 4:4).
Visional Symbols
In the next chapter a brief section will discuss how prophets came to know the things which they proclaimed. One common means was that of the vision. We see this in the heading to the book of Isaiah: “The vision of Isaiah which he saw” (Isa. l:l), or the phrase: “the words of Amos which he saw” (Amos 1:15;
cf. Mic. 1:l; Hab. 1:l).
A visional symbol consists of those things which were seen by the prophet when all of his mental powers were brought to new heights of perception. The symbol seen in the vision in- volved a common object from everyday life although it stood for something else. Because of its role in the vision, this object stands for a reality which the prophet must press home to his hearers.
The Lord showed Amos a basket of summer fruit. He asked him what he saw. The prophet replied: “A basket of summer fruit.” Next the Lord answered: “The end is come unto my people Israel; I will proceed no longer to overlook them” (see A m o s 8:1-12). In this section there is a play on two similar sounding Hebrew words: qayitz (summer fruit) and qttz (end).
This is an understandable symbol among an agricultural peo- ple. A ripe basket of fruit at the close of summer is either con- sumed by eating, or if left uneaten, it is consumed by spoiling.
Just as the basket of fruit speedily comes to its end, so the Lord will bring his people Israel to the end which he has ap- pointed for them. He will no longer overlook their sin. He will act in judgment (Amos 8:3). This is a vivid symbol.
Another example of a visional symbol is the golden candle- stick with a bowl on the top from which seven pipes brought oil for seven lamps. Beside this candlestick were two olive trees, one to the right of the bowl and one to the left which supplied the oil to the bowl (Zech. 4:1-14). Zechariah himself was puz- zled by the two olive trees. Twice he asked what or who these stood for (vss. 11,12). The angel’s reply after Zechariah’s twice- repeated question suggests that the answer should have been self-evident to Zechariah. Hence the angel’s answer is slightly enigmatic: “These are the two sons of fresh oil [i.e., the two anointed ones] who stand before the Lord of the whole earth”
(vs. 14). Throughout Israelitish history the candlestick played a prominent part in tabernacle and temple worship. The can-
dlestick apparently symbolizes the people of God as God’s lights in the world. The only thing unusual about this candlestick in Zechariah is how it was supplied with oil. The oil came directly from the two olive trees. Since the angel thought that their iden- tity should be self-evident to the prophet, the two olive trees must stand for Zerubbabel, the head of the civil government of the Jews who returned to Palestine, and for Joshua, the high priest who endeavored to get the priesthood functioning again.
Obviously these symbols promise an abundance of oil to bring abundance of light. The kind of oil which the people of God need is the energizing of God’s Spirit. The kind of light which they must send forth should also come from this source. This Old Testament symbol seems to point beyond the days of the return of the Jews from the exile to the Pentecost of the Chris- tian Church when God’s Spirit was poured out upon his people.
But its immediate thrust concerned the power and the light needed by the people of God who had returned to their own land. They faced all sorts of obstacles. God would empower his two chosen leaders-Zerubbabel and Joshua-to be the channels through whom this power and light would come to a needy people. This symbol is difficult because there is no explicit ex- planation. Yet if we carefully study the book itself and the lan- guage of the passage, and if we are aware of the role that the prophets saw as God’s calling for his people, then certain em- phases begin to emerge in this symbolic picture. In the inter- pretation of a symbol like this, no honest interpreter dares be dogmatic. Neither does he need be apologetic for a meaning which satisfies the demands of the context.
This symbol in Zechariah served as the basis for a second visional symbol many years later. John in Revelation has two witnesses or prophets whose ministry extends for three and one half years (Rev. 11:3-12). He designates these two prophets as “the two olive trees and the two lampstands [candlesticks]
who stand before the Lord of the earth” (Rev. 11:4). It is ob- vious that he has modified the picture of Zechariah. Here each prophet is symbolized by a lampstand and by an olive tree. By such symbols John tries to show that these two prophets are di- vinely empowered for their task. They are supplied with oil or with power. The light which they emit will involve not only truth but the power of judgment. Fire from their mouth will devour their enemies. The two prophets may withhold rain.
They can turn the waters into blood, and they can smite the earth with a plague as often as they wish. When they have fin- ished their prophetic ministry, the beast who comes from the abyss overcomes them and kills them. Their bodies lie unburied
in the streets of Jerusalem for three and one half days. The l~agans who were harassed by the prophetic ministry of these
two prophets and rejected it rejoice and celebrate over the death of their tormentors (Rev. 11: 10). After three and one half days the two prophets are resurrected and ascend to heaven in the presence of their enemies (Rev. 11:11-12). These two Chris- tian prophets play an important role. John’s description so emphasizes the aspect of judgment that the interpreter can evaluate fairly their character and enduement only if he takes seriously into account the symbols of the two lampstands and the two olive trees. These point unmistakably to their Spirit- filled life and power. They proclaimed the light of truth as well as the fire of judgment.
For other visional symbols see: Jeremiah 1:13; chap. 24;
Ezekiel 37:1-14; Daniel 2:31-35,36-45; 7:1-8; 8; Zechariah 1:lO;
1:18-19; 5:1-l]; 6:1-8.
Material Symbols
In contrast to visional symbols, material symbols consist of things which can be seen, touched, felt, and used by chosen representatives of the people of God or by all the people. These are actual objects which convey a meaning beyond their ma- terial use.
One common material symbol of both the Old and New Cov- enants is that of blood. Rites involving blood are found among many ancient peoples and are found currently among many primitive religions. Therefore, it is important to find out what the people of God in the Old Testament understood by this symbol. Why were there prohibitions against eating blood?
Why was the blood so important in the sacrifices? The first ques- tion is answered clearly in Deuteronomy 12:23-25.
Only be sure that you do not eat the blood because the blood is the living being [life], and you shall not eat the living being [life]
with the flesh. You shall not eat it: you shall pour it out upon the earth like water. You shall not eat it in order that it may go well for you and for your sons after you, because you shall do that which is right [pleasing] in the eyes of Jehovah.
Here the life itself is identified with blood. Thus the living being is not to be eaten with the flesh. The flesh itself is not to’ be regarded as sacred, but the life or living being is. When it comes to the role of blood in the sacrifices, Leviticus 17:ll makes it clear that the blood itself is a complex. There is that within the blood which plays a role in atonement.
SYMIIOLS AND SYMISOLICAI. AC T I O N S 2iI ISecause the living being [life] of the flesh, it is in the blood. Ar~tl I have given it [the blood] to you upon tile altar for the purpose of making atonement on behalf of [for the sake of, for] your pcr- sons; because it is the blood with the living being [life] that makrs atonement.
The blood with the life makes atonement-not the blood by itself. The blood considered apart from the life is in the same category as the flesh. Yet the blood can be separated from the flesh. But the life or living being is not so easily identifiable.
Hence the blood (with which life is associated) is used to make atonement. What really matters is the life or living being. This explanation of the symbol still leaves many questions unan- swered. But enough is said to show that a profound concept of blood was held by the people of God in the Old Testament. It stood for a living being or life poured out. Sin which robs men of life is atoned for by the pouring out of life. The New Testa- ment accepts this formula, but makes one important clarifica- tion. The life which is poured out must be that of the being of God (see Heb. 1:3; 7:16; 9:14; 13:20). Christ offered himself, his life for sinners (see Heb. 9:22-28).
Another material symbol found in visions is the cherub or cherubim. This word (in Hebrew, Qruu) is found over ninety times in the Old Testament. It is found only once in the New Testament (Heb. 9:5). The appearance and function of the cherubim in the visional symbols would seem to indicate an order of angelic beings. Ezekiel provides enough material to show the complexity of the symbol (see Ezek. 1:5-28; 9:3;
10: l-20; 11:22; 28: 14-16). They have four faces, four wings, and four wheels-one for each face. There is a vital relation between the wheels and the living creatures (see Ezek. 1).
But the material cherubim are much simpler. They were found in the tabernacle and temple in the Most Holy Place.
There they faced each other and overshadowed the mercy seat with their wings. Jehovah of hosts was enthroned on the cher- ubim (I Sam. 4:4; II Sam. 6:2 = I Chron. 13:6; II Kings 19:15
= Isa. 37: 16; Ps. 80:2; 99: 1). The glory of the Lorcl appeared by the cherubim and from this area he spoke (Exod. 25:18-22;
37:7-g; Num. 7:89). These cherubim were made of gold.
Other images of the cherubim were carved on the gold-plated cedar planks in the inner walls of the temple and on the olive wood doors (I Kings 6:29-35; II Chron. 3:7).l As material sym- bols they stand for the holiness of God. By their location they also connote his inaccessibility (cf. Heb. 9:8). Here are sym-
1 BDB, p. 500.
272 ~NI‘13U’KE~I ING 1‘IIE BIULE
bols of creatures who have an immediate and intimate relation with God. This symbol conveyed to the Israelites the exalted character of God. It helped the Israelites to be filled with awe at the contemplation of God. It is significant that. the meaning of the s)n1bol became fixed in the thinking of the Israelites.
Never did they worship the cherubim, although on many occa- sions they lapsed into idolatrous practices. With this symbol they coultl only think of the true God. When they departed from God, they also turned aside from the symbol.
Of course there are many other material symbols: the taber- nacle as a whole, the Holy and Most Holy Place, the furniture in these two compartments, the altar of burnt offering and the laver of brass-these are only a few. In studyirrg any material symbol, the interpreter should note carefully what is associated with the particular symbol, how it functions, any explicit state- ments about its purpose, and the extent and frequency of its occurrence. 1Vhen giving a meaning to the symbol on the basis of these considerations, we must not introduce ideas that would have puzzled those who actually viewed the symbol. Material symbols do not constitute an opportunity for inventive genius.
Rather they stand for basic elements in the relationship between man and God.
Emblematic hTumbers, h’ames, Colors, Metals and Jewels We can rarely be sure that particular examples of this cate- gory carry any symbolism. The primary function of numbers is to indicate measurement of time, space, quantity, etc. Colors are usually a means of aesthetic expression. Metals have utili- tarian qualities that dictate their use. Jewels are often intro- duced because of their beauty and splendor. Names are usually routine appellatives to pinpoint persons and places. Yet there are instances when the interpreter wonders if a symbolical mean- ing is not co-existent with the literal meaning. In other places this is clearly the case. And in still other occurrences these em- blematic expressions are purely symbolical. But to insist that any of these elements is solely symbolical and consistently means a certain thing takes careful study. The evidence rarely supports a consistent symbolic meaning in some dogmatic scheme of classification.
Numbers. Any symbolic meaning given to numbers must be based on an inductive study. Take, e.g., the number twelve. In the Old Testament there are the twelve tribes of Israel. In the New Testament there are the twelve disciples (Matt. lO:l), the twelve apostles (Matt. 10:2), and the number twelve by itself-
“He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve” (I Cor. 15:s).
In the book of Revelation the number twelve plays a large role.” There are twelve thousand sealed from each of the twelve tribes of Israel (7:4-S). The woman clothed with the sun has a crown of twelve stars on her head (12: 1). The New Jerusalem has twelve gates and at the gates twelve angels (21: 12). Inscribed on the gates are the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (21:12).
The city has twelve foundations and inscribed on them are the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb (21: 14). The city is laid out as a square with the dimensions of 12,000 stadia, al’- parently on each side. If this be true, the city would have 1500 miles on each side (21:16). The height of the wall is 144 cubits (12 x 12, just as the 144,000 was 12,000 x 12)-cf. 7:4 with 21:17. The foundations of the walls consist of twelve costly jewels (21:19-20). The twelve gates are twelve pearls. The trees of life (“tree” in Rev. 22:2 is a collective noun) are on each side of the river which proceeds out of the throne of God.
These trees yield twelve kinds of fruit, yielding their fruit each month (22:2). With this background of usage, one can see why Rengstorf takes the number 144,000 symbolically. He speaks of the twelve tribes in the words of Kraemer as “the typical num- ber of the unbrokenness, of the irreducible completeness of the theocratic people, of the people for God’s own possession.“3 Rengstorf proceeds further:
If the language is of a sealing of 12,000 out of the 12 tribes, there is asserted by this that the number of those sealed is determined through the counsel of God and that the community (church) built out of them bears the characteristic of absolute completeness; fur- ther, indeed that this community (church) is to be of a vast mag- nitude. The expression “the twelve” is useful for the stress on the divine will, which at the same time is always a redemptive will and is revealed also here as a redemptive will. The expression “the thousands” is useful for calling attention to the magnitude of the community (church). The uniform origin of the twelve thousand out of the individual tribes is useful for recognition of the regu- larity of the divine action and for the completeness of its results.
The attestation to the absolute unity of the sealed ones is their concentration in the number, 144,000. The whole is nothing other than the resolute and confident acknowledgement of God as the Lord of his community (church) who attains his goal in it [the church], within its history. Any other interpretation necessarily leads the wrong way.. . . The author of the Apocalypse thus speaks 2 See Karl Heinrich Rcngstorf, “dcidekn,” “(hrknton tesserakoutn te.wm),”
“dodekatos,” “dddekaphulon,” TWNT, II, 321-328, especially pp. 323-325.
3 Ibid., p. 323.