Heaven & earth

***QUOTE***

slaveofone said:

On another note, I'd be interested to hear what Triablogue thinks about the reference to an angel with a flaming sword... Is there more to this interpretation? A better way to understand the linguistics? Could this be evidence of a narrative that is meant to be understood symbolically or that it was composed through more vision-based imagery?

Historically speaking, metallurgy and swords didn't exist at the time and if an angel held a sword, Adam and Eve wouldn't have recognized it as such anyway. The angel could as well as held a flaming shotgun as a sword except that a flaming shotgun would not be understood at the time the text of Genesis was coming into its form...which suggests the event was being re-interpreted for the understanding of a later audience.

Thanks.

***END-QUOTE***

There are various ways of broaching the answer:

1.I think the constitutive element is flame or fire, not sword. “Sword” functions adjectivally.

A fiery phenomenon that is sword-like in some respect.

2.Apropos (1), it could be a formal comparison. The flame resembles a sword. Perhaps a thunderbolt is in view.

3.Or it could be a functional comparison. Just as a sword can be used as a defensive weapon, the fiery phenomenon is a defensive force to secure the garden from trespassers.

4.As you suggest, it’s possible that Moses has employed a literary anachronism, using a word which denoted a later artifact to designate an earlier, analogous object—in much the same way the translators of the KJV use the hitech word “candle” instead of lamp.

5.I think that answers your second paragraph. However, your first paragraph seems to be broader.

i) The cherubim in 3:24 obviously foreshadow the cherubic statuary in the tabernacle.

At one level, this goes to archetypal/ectypal relation between the garden and the tabernacle.

The garden is sacred space. Indeed, it’s the archetype of the inner sanctum.

The garden has its ectypal analogue in the tabernacle.

We might call this a horizontal, linear, or temporal analogy. Not merely archetypal, but prototypal.

In addition, you have a concentric form of ritual purity. Israel is holy in relation to the nations. The tabernacle is holy in relation to Israel. The inner sanctum is holy in relation to the tabernacle.

Likewise, Eden was holy in relation to the wilderness outside the garden.

ii) At another level, there’s an archetypal/ectypal relation between heaven and earth. Heaven is sacred space. The garden is a microscopic ectype of the macroscopic archetype.

We might call this a vertical or spatial analogy. This is synchronic rather than diachronic.

If you’ve been following my exchange with Loftus on cultic cosmology and the triple-decker universe, you’ll be aware of the argument, as well as some of the supporting literature.

Here are a couple of additional articles:

W. Vogels, “The Cultic & Civil Calendars of the Fourth Day of Creation (Gen 1,14b),” SJOT 11 (1997): 163-80.

G. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem), 1986), 19-24.

iii) Beyond the Pentateuch is the cultic imagery of Ezekiel, with its many allusions to Eden and the Mosaic cultus. And that, in turn, foreshadows the Apocalypse.

In tracing out these typical motifs, Bock and Duguid would be good commentators on Ezekiel, while Beale and Smalley would be good commentators on Revelation.

6.On the relation between the figural and/or literal dimensions:

i) Something can be:

a) Either literal, but not figural.

b) Figural, but not literal.

c) Both literal and figural.

I assume that (a) is self-explanatory.

An example of (b) would be Heb 12. This is a literary construct rather than a literal depiction of heaven.

The whole notion of ritually pure or impure objects in the Mosaic cultus would be an example of (c). The land, the temple, and the furnishings thereof, are both actual objects as well as significant objects.

7.Finally, we have many heavenly visions in Scripture. Are these literal or figural?

The question is ambiguous.

i) They are literal visions in the sense that the seer was the actual recipient of visionary revelation.

ii) But are they literally descriptive of what heaven is like?

a) Here we need to draw some distinction between the raw vision and the literary record of the vision.

b) That said, we also need to ask what heaven is?

What heaven is (ontology), and what heaven is like (perception) are interrelated.

To the extent that we identify heaven with the intermediate state, which is a discarnate state, you might say that appearance is reality: esse is percipi.

Heaven is like a collective dream, along the lines of Berkeley’s objective idealism.

God assumes the role of the oneiropompist who sends the celestrial dreams to the sainted believer, who assumes the role of the oneiropolist or dreamer.

So heaven may be very similar to the heavenly visions in Scripture, only more varied and extensive than these isolated glimpses behind the veil.

In addition, they include auditions as well as visions, and other sensory simulations.

The audiovisual images, generated by God, and transmitted to the soul of the sainted believer, are drawn from the sensible world, then redeployed to simulate and signify what would otherwise be the supersensible realities of the spiritual realm. That is how heaven is experienced by the saints in glory.

The earthly ectype is prior to the heavenly archetype in the order of knowing, but posterior in the order of being.