Page 21 - Through New Eyes

Interpreting the World Design 13
tie, beasts of the field, and creeping things. These six categories
recur in Scripture. For instance, in Leviticus 11, where we find a
discussion of clean and unclean animals, there are five catego-
ries: domestic animals (cattle), fish, birds, wild animals (beasts
of the field), and creeping things. The distinction between clean
and unclean is symbolic, and is set out in terms of Genesis one’s
categories. The great monsters are also used symbolically in
Scripture, often to represent the nations in revolt against God.
The best-known instances of this usage are the beasts of the
books of Daniel and Revelation. G
There is no reason to be surprised at the notion that the
world and its creatures have a symbolic dimension. Remans
1:20 tells us that God’s invisible attributes are “clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made.” In other words,
the creation reflects the character of its Creator, and points us to
Him. An example from common life will help to clarify this.
You get into your automobile, and turn on the radio. One
station is playing music by the Rolling Stones. You twist the dial
and come to another station playing music of Bach. You can tell
the difference immediately. Why? Because Bach’s music reflects
his person and style, and the music of Mick Jagger reflects his. If
you have a trained ear, when you hear a piece by Bach you’ve
never heard before, you might say, “I’m pretty sure that’s by
Bach; it sounds like Bach.”
Just so, the universe and everything in it reveals the charac-
ter of its Creator. God &.@Yzed the universe to reveal Himself and
to instruct us. The problem we have is that sin has made us deaf
and blind. We need new eyes and ears, and the Scriptures can
help us get them.

Reading Biblically
Modern literature is not written the same way as ancient
literature, and this presents a problem for Bible students.
George Mendenhall has written,

Ancient thought is associational, not “scientific,” and therefore
tends to create the maximum of relationships between experi-
ence, language, and art, not the minimum which is so charac-
teristic of modern over-specialization. 7