The Shape of Genesis – Part 1

The difference between a chiasm and a Bible Matrix chiasm is the difference between mere symmetrical patterning and the use of a covenant arrangement for a didactic purpose.

While a standard symmetry-only chiasm is interesting and demonstrates unity and a coherent intent by the Divine Author (as opposed to a haphazard compilation or JEDP-type combination of different texts by fallible men), a Bible Matrix chiasm describes a process of transformation-by-covenant. The “X” of the text becomes a chicane, or an hourglass, through which an object, individual, or even a nation, passes in order to grow into a state of greater maturity. At the center is a test of faith of some sort, a refining by fire, followed by a qualification—or disqualification—for greater authority to serve. The old form dies and rises as something new. What was merely natural becomes spiritual. A son of man becomes a Son of God. What is singular is multiplied. What is good becomes great.

Moreover, whereas the mirroring in a standard chiasm highlights the correspondence between pairs of events in the pattern, a Bible Matrix chiasm is an actual “type,” a “sentence” of symbols which not only highlights these pairs but also points beyond itself to other similar sequences. A standard chiasm is pretty but a Bible Matrix chiasm is a portal. What do I mean by this?

Well, for example, when we notice that the early chapters of Matthew work through the pattern of the Pentateuch, the recapitulation of those ancient events in the life of Jesus becomes “quantum-entangled” in a literary sense. As we read Matthew, we are instantly transported back to those previous events, but also required to notice the similarities and the differences between them. A major difference would be that Jesus passes through this pattern alone, rather than as the head of a nation.

When we notice that the first five chapters of Genesis work through the same pattern, we are instantly transported forwards from the mitigated curse upon the fruit of the land and the womb in Adam to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic “land and womb” promises in Moses.

Contrary to the position of academics looking for excuses to question the historicity of Genesis 1-11, the later iterations of the pattern do not mean that the earlier iterations are fiction or myth (or even “true myth,” which is a serpentine euphemism for “true fiction.” Or true lies). In fact, the later, more detailed iterations help us to understand the earlier, frustratingly succinct ones, a God-given opportunity for exegetical progress that these daft boffins seem to entirely overlook.

This “portal” feature not only works in a linear fashion but is also multi-dimensional, taking us not only forwards and backwards but also in and out, pulling focus from the outer limits to a single protagonist and back again. A good is example is the fact that the pattern of commission, sin, and atonement (“coverings”) as it related to Adam is then repeated in macrocosm in the history from Adam to Noah, ending with the Great Flood as a global “day of coverings.” Where Adam was created in the Land and lifted up as a “firstfruits” into the Garden-Sanctuary, Enoch is taken by God at the end of the Adamic “pentateuch” in a recapitulation of the same pattern.

So, identifying the structure of the text opens to us a fresh avenue of understanding, one that exposes much of what has been written over the centuries as well-intentioned but ultimately worthless speculation. I maintain that a sound understanding and application of the covenant-literary structure of the Bible would make a great percentage of theological writings obsolete. The saying, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough,” is wrongly attributed to Albert Einstein, who was apparently a terrible lecturer, continually veering off into tangential observations. (What he did say, when asked for a brief quote concerning the work for which he won a Nobel Prize, was that if it could be summarized in a sentence, it would not be worth the prize!) However, a quote attributed to Lord Rutherford Nelson carries the same idea: “An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.” God has made the world in such a way that variation and complexity originate from relatively simple algorithms. A parrot is forever a parrot, a dog is forever a dog, and a cat is forever a cat, but genetic diversification within each species has provided innumerable variations upon the same theme. The Word of God is no different. While it seems complicated to the untrained eye (such as the eyes of theological academics, who seem content to revel in apparent contradiction and complexity because it keeps them in a job), the Bible can, in fact, be explained very simply. It is simple enough that a child can understand it, so an actual barmaid would have no problem whatsoever. If you have a pen handy the next time you visit a tavern, the basic algorithm fits nicely onto a folded paper napkin.¹For more discussion, see The Language of Rainbows.

Overview

Those who insist that the book of Genesis, especially its early chapters, was written by Moses as a story of tribal origins to consolidate the identity of the Hebrew people, and/or a polemic to counter the myths of surrounding pagan nations, seem to me to be lacking in even basic logic. The history recorded in Genesis 1-11 is extant in various corrupted forms in the memories, art, and literature of approximately five hundred cultures across the globe. Asserting a late date for the text and limiting its purpose to the survival and comfort of a splinter culture in the Ancient Near East demonstrates either brazen disingenuousness or a hapless ignorance of the facts.

One more crucial fact is that the book of Genesis, though obviously a collection of records written and accumulated over time which ended up in the hands of Moses, is revealed by its structure to be a single literary unit. One could claim that this was the work of Moses, but there is no evidence for that assertion, and unlike the other four books of the Pentateuch, Moses is neither mentioned nor addressed by God.

Genesis begins with promises made to a young man who is put in charge of the food, threatened by a serpent, and whose world ends under the promise made in a rainbow. Genesis ends with a young man who is robed in a rainbow, given the serpent-crown of Egypt, and who extended his rule by feeding the nations. The book contains numerous chiasms, but its overall covenantal structure is quite a different beast altogether (it seems that God even made chiasms in different “kinds”), one that recapitulates the sequence of forming and filling in Genesis 1. This explains why, although narrative stops are made along the way, time passes quickly between recorded events at the beginning and gradually slows down, the narratives becoming longer, more continuous, more detailed, and also more personal, as the book progresses. This prefigures the pattern of Old Covenant history, which ends with the enthronement over the nations of a better Adam, the true Joseph, Jesus Christ. Cosmos and covenant are also quantum-entangled. There is a school of cosmology that asserts we are able to see the light from distant stars, despite a recent creation date, because the universe has a center of gravity, thus time passes much more quickly at the extremity of the universe than at its center. ²See D. Russell Humphries, Starlight & Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe. For a related discussion on the structure of Old Covenant history as a “solar system” … Continue reading By the end of Genesis, the nations have a new center of gravity. By the end of the Bible, the entire world has a new center of gravity.

In future posts, we will look at each of these sections in close-up, discovering the same pattern working at more detailed levels.

If you are new to this method of interpretation, please visit the Welcome page for some help to get you up to speed.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting my work as a patron.