Open Book: Views & Reviews, No. 6
November, 1991
Copyright (c) 1991 Biblical Horizons
Tim Powers, The Stress of Her Regard (Ace Books, 1991). Reviewed by Jeffrey Meyers.
Tim Power’s latest novel is now available in paperback. The story is set in early nineteenth century England and Italy, in the world of the poets John Keats, Percy Shelley, and Lord Byron. Michael Crawford, a young obstetrician, the night before his wedding day, inadvertently (but not without blame) marries a Nephilim. That’s right, a Nephilim–one of the descendants of that ancient prediluvian union of fallen angels and men (Genesis 6:4). They are lamiae (vampires); and as you can imagine, this complicates Mr. Crawford’s wedding plans. "Complicates" doesn’t quite to justice to the ensuing stress that Crawford must endure as one who is the object of a Nephilim’s relentless regard. Without giving too much away, let me give the gist of the beginning of the story and briefly discuss Powers’s theological point. Crawford is catapulted into the world of Keats, Shelley, and Byron, all poets who excel as artists because of their foul union with the Nephilim (remember the Greek Muses). These poets trade blood for poetic inspiration, but learn that vampires are very possessive and want more than blood. The story chronicles Crawford’s attempts to shed the amorous regard of the Nephilim for himself and his poet friends.
Certain techniques offer limited release, brief respites from the stress of the Nephilim’s focused attention, but the bond between the Nephilim and man must be definitively severed if there is ever to be any kind of thorough redemption. The story builds up to this. There is only One Way to salvation from these evil forces, and the characters spend the entire novel searching for it.
The themes developed by Powers in The Stress are all related to the potency and seductive appeal of sin. This is how it should be read. A Nephilim (like sin) is hard to shake, and once it gets a foot-hold (or should I say, a throat-hold), the prey begins to enjoy his captivity. He also begins to waste away. A Nephilim (like sin) offers a life of endless sensual excitement that leads to the not-always-anticipated gradual effacement of one’s virility, personality, and responsibility. Sin de-humanizes. In the end the victim’s conscience is seared and he loses his ability to resist without outside help. He is a neffer, a slave. Paul’s outcry, "Who will free me from the body of this death" echoes through this story as the Nephilim’s prey (Crawford, Shelley, and Byron) groan and scheme for their release from bondage.
I enjoyed this book–if one can enjoy a book about sin. It comes much closer to the horror genre than some of Powers’s other novels–though they all contain elements of horror, this one seems to be centered on it. Some of the visual imagery is so powerfully unpleasant, even nauseating at some points, that some warning is in order. This is a book for mature adults who have the ability to make connections between Powers’s powerful imagery and spiritual conflict. The imagery is often graphic and sometimes sexual (though not erotic) since it deals with spiritual adultery and total depravity. As a pastor I don’t think I could recommend this book to teenagers. For one like me, who reads and talks so much about sin that the familiar sin-language often begins to lose its power, this book was a helpful reminder of the genuine horror and seductiveness of sin. Powers excels at de-euphemizing sin.
Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut, Heidegger and Modernity, trans. Franklin Philip (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). Reviewed by Peter J. Leithart.
During the Middle Ages, Christians sought guidance in making decisions by a practice called Sortes Biblicae or Sortes Sanctorum. The believer would take a Bible or a Psalter to an altar and, at a specified time, open it randomly. The page to which he opened the Bible would provide the necessary guidance. I keep an English translation of Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time on my shelf for a somewhat similar purpose. Actually, it is for demonstration purposes. I have challenged more than one friend to open Being and Time randomly (no altar required), and point to a sentence at random. Though I’ve never read through the book, I can all but guarantee that the sentence will be absolutely incomprehensible. So far, I’ve not been proven wrong.
That’s perhaps too dismissive a response to one of the "giants of modern philosophy." And that is, indeed, what Heidegger was. Though hardly a household name, Heidegger stands with Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche as shapers of 20th-century intellectual history. To mention a few of those Heidegger influenced deeply is sufficient to demonstrate the breadth of his influence: Rudolf Bultmann, Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida.
As that list suggests, Heidegger’s influence has been particularly profound in French intellectual circles. For centuries, Paris has been the center of European intellectual faddism, and for many years Heidegger has been a constant presence. In 1987, one Victor Farias dropped a bomb on the French intellectual establishment. In Heidegger et le nazisme, Farias publicly demonstrated what many already knew: that Martin Heidegger was a committed Nazi during his rectorate at Freiburg University during the early 1930s, that he continued to pay his dues to the National Socialist Party until 1945, and that he deliberately covered up these activities in his later years. Farias’s book provoked a storm of responses and recriminations. According to Ferry and Renaut’s account, the facts are beyond dispute. What is really at issue in the debate over Heidegger’s Nazism is whether or not his philosophy in some way lends itself to totalitarianism.
Ferry and Renaut explore this question from a variety of vantage points. In general, their approach is to point to the inner tensions of Heidegger’s thought that drove Heidegger into a search for a "conservative revolution." For example, Heidegger spoke on the one hand about the inherent "fallenness" of "Dasein." (Heidegger’s word for the individual human being, "Dasein" is German for "being there.") Dasein has fallen from "Being," and has become absorbed with "Things." Fallenness into this condition is a "fundamental mode of Dasein, such that when there is Dasein, there is fallenness" (p. 35). This view would lend itself to a quietist political stance. Yet, at the same time, Heidegger claimed that the West was declining due to its absorption with technology, the defining characteristic of modernity. If the "fallenness" is historical and not inherent in Dasein, then perhaps it is reversible.
How might Dasein overcome his fallenness? To understand the answer to this question, it is necessary to understand that for Heidegger the condition of "fallenness" consists mainly in the forgetfulness and estrangement of "Being," and the preoccupation with "beings." There is a also second level of forgetfulness; not only does Dasein forget Being, but Dasein also forgets that he has forgotten. This second level of forgetfulness can be overcome through anxiety, which is Dasein’s recollection that he has forgotten something, namely Being; Dasein begins to live authentically when he becomes conscious of his forgetfulness of Being. Thus, anxiety is what brings Dasein back to his senses, to the reality of his place in the world, and reveals his potentialities.
If technology is the problem, it would seem that a restoration of the premodern, pretechnological condition would be the solution. And, indeed, Heidegger did sometimes present Nazism as a metaphysical alternative to the technological societies of America and the USSR. Nazism constitutes a call to tradition, to rootedness in the face of the "forsakenness" of modern society. Here, however, Ferry and Renaut point to another tension in Heidegger’s thought; while he sometimes praises Nazism as the antimodern alternative to technology, at other times he treats Nazism as the only system capable of a suitable response and mastery of technology. Democracy and Stalinism are ill-equipped to meet the challenges of modernity. Nazism is, in this view, not the antidote to modernity but the "actualization of modernity" (71).
Thus, Heidegger found it "necessary to link up with tradition through criticism of what exists (technology)," and this attitude toward modern technology tempted him to "embrace the Nazi idea of a conservative revolution." In short, "Heidegger took up Nazism for reasons that were philosophical and internal to his criticism of modernity" (73).
Though Ferry and Renaut have produced a brief and remarkably clear account of the philosophical roots of Heidegger’s Nazism, their own perspective leaves much to be desired. Their chief argument is with Jacques Derrida (the father of "deconstructionism") who, in response to Farias’s revelations, claimed that Heidegger embraced Nazism because he was still too enamored of Western humanism. The contention that Nazism is a humanism rankles Ferry and Renaut. They contend, on the contrary, that humanism makes two claims that are antithetical to Nazism. First, humanism teaches that it is of the essence of man to have no essence; humanism refuses to "shackle man with some historical or natural definition" (p. 4), which is precisely the opposite of Nazism’s deification of the particular.
Second, humanism teaches that man transcends his particularity by communication; he becomes universal by entering into conversation with others. Hence, man is a universal nothingness, an "abstract universal," who "never wholly confuses himself with any particular identity or being" (p. 5). What is really going on here, of course, is an effort to justify man’s self-definition, that is, to escape God as his Creator and Definer.
During the 1970s, Solzhenitsyn’s revelations of the GULAG bruised and eventually did in French Marxism. Farias has delivered what may be a mortal blow to Heidegger. What will the next French intellectual fad be? Ferry and Renaut’s humanism is only another crumbling idol. All this opens an opportunity for an intellectually vigorous Christian witness.
Open Book is published occasionally, funds permitting, by Biblical Horizons , P.O. Box 1096, Tyler, Texas 32588-1096. Anyone sending a donation, in any amount, will be placed on the mailing list to receive issues of Open Book as they are published. The content of all essays published in Open Book is Copyrighted, but permission to reprint any essay is freely given provided that the essay is published uncut, and that the name and address of Biblical Horizons is given.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 31
November, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons
Most Christians today, when they hear the phrase "abomination of desolation," think of some political figure who is to arrive on the scene some time in the future, and who will oppress God’s people. More careful exegetes have seen that the prophecies concerning "abomination of desolation" have already been fulfilled, though the principle embodied in those prophecies remains in force. Virtually all are agreed, however, in seeing the "abomination of desolation" as a horror committed by gentile military forces.
Matthew 24:15-17 records that Jesus said, "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those in Judea flee to the mountains, and let him that is on the housetop not come down." Because Jesus said that these events would take place in the lifetime of the generation He was speaking to (Matt. 23:36; 24:34), many expositors take this to be a prophecy of the Roman army under Titus. We are told that Jesus meant that the Roman army would make Jerusalem desolate.
Substantiation for this opinion is thought to be found in Luke 21:20-22, which parallels Matthew 24:15-16 with one difference. Luke writes, "Therefore, when you see Jerusalem encompassed by armies, know that her desolation is near."
A more careful study of the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem eliminates the Roman army as a possibility. When the Romans surrounded Jerusalem, it was no longer possible to get out of the city. Moreover, the Judean countryside had already been conquered by that time. During the months immediately preceding the Roman investiture, however, an army of Edomites (Idumeans), with Jewish cooperation, had snuck into the city and massacred many people. This event is more likely to be the precise fulfillment of Jesus’ warning.
Yet these interpretations do not get at the heart of the matter, and for this reason. The Hebrew term translated "abomination" in Daniel 7 and 11, to which Jesus referred, has a very precise meaning, and that meaning excludes any possibility that either gentiles or Edomites are in view. As we shall see, it was only possible for God’s own people, the Jews, to commit the "abomination that causes desolation." It was the sins of the Jews that angered God, and the armies that He sent against Jerusalem were simply the aftermath of His own desolation of His Temple and city.
As we shall see in this series of studies, it was the crimes of God’s own people, committed right before His face in the Temple, that are the abominations. God’s response to these abominations was to forsake His Temple and leave it desolate, an empty shell. Then God sent gentile armies to punish the people.
It is important for us to understand this, because it will enable us to see that prophecy is not concerned with political events first and foremost, but rather is concerned with the religious and moral behavior of God’s own people. It is only God’s people who have the privilege of coming into His presence, and thus it is only His people who can commit the "desolating sacrilege."
Two Different Words
In this section we must explore the differences between the terms "abominable" and "detestable" as they are found in the Bible. One of our problems is that English Bibles use the terms almost interchangeably, while in fact there are precise distinctions of nuance in the Hebrew terms. In English, the terms are indeed synonyms, though "detestable" has its roots in the idea of calling on the gods to curse someone. Thus, historically abominable had more to do with personal revulsion, while detestable had more to do with religious curse. In Hebrew there are two different words for these two general ideas. Of course, these two terms do have a large overlap of meaning, but as we dig into Leviticus we find that there are significant differences, and for our purposes precision is very important.
Basically, to anticipate our findings, "abominable" has to do with the land, while "detestable" has to do with the sanctuary. Abominations defile the land, while detestable things defile the sanctuary.
Leviticus 11 lists and describes the characteristics of clean and unclean animals. Then it goes further and says that the Israelites are no longer permitted to eat the flesh of unclean animals, but are to regard such flesh as "detestable." Moreover, they are rendered unclean if they touch the flesh of any dead carcass. "Unclean" generally means "dead," and so all dead carcasses cause uncleanness. Israelites become unclean if they touch dead carcasses, and Israelites become detestable to God if they eat them.
It would be nice if English Bibles consistently translated to`eba as "abomination" and sheqets as "detestable." (I shall use sheqets for all variants of the radical sh-q-ts.) Sadly, however, such is not the case. Yet the distinction is important. As Waltke has written, "In usage, to`eba denotes those persons, things, or practices that offend another’s sensibilities." Waltke adds that "in most cases to`eba has reference to that which is repugnant" to the Lord. By way of contrast, sheqets is "a more technical term denoting that which violates the practices of Yahweh’s cult." (Bruce K. Waltke, "Abomination," in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, fully revised ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979-] 1:13.)
Similarly, Youngblood states that "whereas to`eba includes that which is aesthetically and morally repulsive, its synonym sheqets denotes that which is cultically unclean, especially idolatry." (Ronald F. Youngblood, "to`eba," in R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament [TWOT], 2 vols. [Chicago: Moody Press, 1980] #2530, 2:976f.) Not all unclean things are detestable, however. Unclean animals are not detestable in themselves. It is only their carcasses and their flesh, considered as food, that are detestable.
The relationship between abomination and detestable is this: An abomination, when brought to the sanctuary, becomes a detestable thing. Abominable carries the idea of abhorrence. Detestable carries with it the idea of expulsion, throwing away, spitting out. Thus, detesting meat is the opposite of eating it, and being expelled from the sanctuary is the opposite of being incorporated into it.
The relationship between what is abominable and what is detestable is seen in Deuteronomy 7:25-26. Here is a literal translation:
The word "ban" is herem, which is the opposite of sacrifice. The sacrifice is devoted to God’s fire as food for Him. The herem is devoted to God’s fire away from Him. In my opinion, "the" fire of verse 25 refers to the altar fire, lit by God Himself, which alone should be used in holy war. (See James B. Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty [Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986; available from Biblical Horizons ], pp. 52ff.) If you were going to burn up an idol, and you had a choice between your own fire and God’s fire, which would you choose as most appropriate? The obvious answer to this question is part of the rationale for my interpretation. Burning the idol in "the" fire of God would mean that the melted residue of gold and silver would belong to God–to the sanctuary–and thus not to individuals. The gold of the gods would be given to The God.
We see in these verses that the idol is to be detested and not coveted. It is to be thrown away, not taken in. We notice that taking the idol into the house results in the person’s being banned like the idol. Because the idol is abominable it is to be detested, cast away. The man who receives it will himself be cast away.
As mentioned, the word to`eba has to do with personal abhorrence, not cultic rejection. It occurs in Genesis 43:32 and 46:34 and Exodus 8:26 to indicate that the Egyptians found shepherding an abhorrent occupation. It is used in Leviticus 18 and 20 to refer to homosexual acts and idolatry, considered as non-cultic, whole-lifestyle activities that result in expulsion from the land (Ex. 18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13). It is used throughout Deuteronomy for sexual sins and sins of idolatry. Waltke summarizes the things God abominates, including "images (Dt. 27:15) and the gold and silver belonging to them (7:25); the wages of prostitution (23:18); a false balance (Prov. 11:1); those with a perverse mind (11:20); lying lips (12:22); the sacrifice of the wicked (15:8); an arrogant man (16:5); the prayer of a lawbreaker (28:9); incense offered without regard to ethical conduct (Is. 1:13); etc." (Waltke, p. 13.)
In sum, what God abominates are violations of the First Commandment. God abominates covenantal idolatry, unfaithfulness. Such actions take place in common life, and result in expectoration from God’s holy land.
By way of contrast, sheqets is used of acts of idolatry considered as cultic activities that result in expulsion from the sanctuary. What God detests are violations of the Second Commandment. God detests liturgical idolatry. Such actions take place in the context of the sanctuary, and result in God’s expectoration from the sanctuary. An apt illustration from Israel’s later history comes from the period after the separation of Ephraim from Judah. The sin of Jeroboam I was to worship the Lord using pagan rituals, a violation of the Second Commandment: liturgical idolatry (1 Ki. 12:28-32). God cursed Jeroboam at his false sanctuary (1 Ki. 12:33–13:6). Later, Ahab introduced the worship of the false god Baal, a violation of the First Commandment: covenantal idolatry (1 Ki. 17:31-33). God cursed Ahab in the land (1 Ki. 17:1; 21:23-24; 22:37-38).
The sanctuary is an inner circle within the land. Similarly, detestable things are an inner circle within abominable things. God abhors both. Detestable things are more pointedly abhorrent because they come directly in conflict with the sanctuary — they are waved in God’s face — while abominations are more generally abhorrent because they more generally conflict with God’s moral law.
Sheqets occurs first in Leviticus 7:21:
This law stipulates the total incompatibility between God’s sacrifices and uncleanness. Becoming unclean was no great problem in itself. In most cases, you simply waited until sundown and were cleansed. Even in the severest cases of uncleanness, you were only prohibited from coming into the sanctuary until you were clean; there were normally no social restrictions on you. (The exception was when the wilderness camp organized for war. See James B. Jordan, "The Death Penalty in the Mosaic Law: Five Exploratory Studies" [available from Biblical Horizons ], chap. 4. Even here, however, being put outside the camp only meant being put outside the official boundary-line that separated the Israelites from the surrounding mixed multitude. Thus, the expelled person was not cast out to forage for himself, but was simply put over the line separating Israel from the Gentile camp followers.)
If, however, you presumed to eat of a sacrifice while in a state of uncleanness, the punishment was excommunication. Scholars debate what "cutting off" means. The older view was that it meant excommunication, while the most common view today is that it implies that God will kill the person. Even if the latter is correct, a person who was declared "cut off" would clearly be excommunicated from the worship assembly. (Similarly, New Testament excommunication means turning the person over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, and implies that God will put such a person to death if he does not repent; 1 Cor. 5:5). See Jordan, "Death Penalty," chap. 5.
Jacob Milgrom has argued that the only way to remove the penalty for such high handed sin is to repent and bring a Compensation Offering. This is the thesis of his study, Cult and Conscience: The "Asham" and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), esp. chap. 3. Though Milgrom does not make application to cases other than those found in Leviticus 6:1-7, I believe his point applies to any case where "cutting off" is in view.
We notice that in Leviticus "detestable" is not used of idols. It is used only with reference to the animal and dietary laws. In the rest of the Bible, however, "detestable" is almost always used in contexts of ritual idolatry. Ritual idolatry is in view in the two usages in Deuteronomy (7:26; 29:17) and in 1 Kings 11:5, 7; 2 Kings 23:13, 24; and 2 Chronicles 15:8. (2 Kings 23:14 speaks of Ashtoreth and Chemosh as detestable and of Milcom as abominable, indicating the overlapping zones of meaning of the words.)
The word occurs only once in the Psalter, in a verse dealing with prayer: "For He has neither despised nor detested the affliction of the afflicted; neither has He hid His face from him; but when he cried to Him for help, He heard" (Ps. 22:24). The afflicted man feels morally unclean and separated from God, but he states that God does not detest him. We notice again the "Second Commandment" context of prayer, mediation, and access to God.
Isaiah 66:3 uses "detestable things" to describe the rituals of faithless worship; and verse 17 speaks particularly of unclean meals: "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens [sanctuaries], following one in the center [sanctuary], who eat swine’s flesh, detestable things, and mice, shall come to an end altogether."
The cultic setting for the usage of "detestable" is also seen in the instance of this term in Jeremiah:
Ezekiel also uses the term in an exclusively cultic or cult-related fashion (Ezk. 5:11; 7:20; 11:18, 21; 20:7, 8, 30; 37:23). According to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the corruption of true worship in the Temple was detestable to God. It was for this reason that God marched out of the Temple, leaving it desolate and empty (Ezk. 8-11), and then destroying it.
Daniel picks up this thought. It is really impossible for the heathen to make God’s Temple detestable. They have no real right of access there, and so even if they invade it, they cannot really "touch" anything there. It is when God’s people turn to idolatry, or do His appointed rituals in an idolatrous fashion, with impure hearts, that the Temple is rendered detestable. Daniel predicts future times when again apostate religious leaders will bring in detestable things that cause desolation (the mistranslated "abomination of desolation"), resulting in the destruction of the Temple (Dan. 9:17; 11:31; 12:11; Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14).
Three more passages and our survey is completed. Hosea 9:10 speaks of Israel’s adultery at Baal-peor as rendering them detestable. We recall the association of idolatry with adultery. Nahum 3:6 says that God will throw detestable things over harlot Nineveh, thus making her abhorrent in the eyes of the nations. Here the idea of expectoration is paramount. Zechariah 9:7 speaks of detestable food, "I will remove their blood from the mouth, and their detestable things from between their teeth."
In summary, the use of detestable rather than abominable in Leviticus, especially chapter 11, clearly serves to highlight the cultic and idolatrous associations. The man who wishes to draw near to God in worship should not be detestable to God. Thus, he must avoid the things that make him detestable. It is liturgical idolatry that makes a man detestable to God, and eating at the table of demons is signified by eating the detestable flesh of unclean animals. The man who incorporates such symbolically-demonic flesh into himself renders himself detestable to God, and if he presumes to draw near, he will be cut off.
Eating dead (unclean) flesh is symbolically equivalent to eating the beliefs of idolatry. While the sins of the people in the land bring down the judgment of God upon themselves, it is precisely the sin of idolatry brought by God’s appointed priests into the Tabernacle and Temple that constitutes the desolating sacrilege.
With this background in mind, it will be useful to provide precise translations of two important passages that show that if a man makes himself liturgically detestable or covenantally abominable to God, God will vomit him out rather than eat (incorporate) him into His kingdom.
Leviticus 18:24-29
The sins spoken of here are acts of sexual immorality and idolatry, considered not as cultic acts in God’s special sanctuary presence, but as acts of covenantal idolatry committed in His land. If they do these things, they will be vomited out of the land. To spare the nation such general punishment, they are to vomit out any individual who does such things by cutting him off from the people. They are to act as guards, guarding the holiness of the land even as the armed Levite guards secured the holiness of the sanctuary.
Thus, the boundaries of society are to be guarded by the citizenry. They are to guard society against persons who commit acts of abomination. They are to vomit such persons out. If they do not, the entire land will become unclean and God will purge it by vomiting out the entire nation.
Analogous to this, the boundaries of the sanctuary are to be guarded by the Levites and priests (in the New Covenant, by the clergy/elders). They are to guard the sanctuary against persons who commit detestable acts. They are to vomit such persons out. If they do not, the entire sanctuary will become detestable, and God will forsake it, leaving it desolate.
Acts of sexual immorality, if committed in the sanctuary, as in cultic prostitution, would be detestable as well as abominable. Just as God left His Temple desolate when detestable acts were committed there in Ezekiel 8 – 11, so earlier He had abandoned the Tabernacle for the same reason. See 1 Samuel 2:22 and 4:11. The Ark refused to re-enter the Tabernacle, and it was only when the Temple was built that God again moved into a House. Similarly, God destroyed Solomon’s Temple after leaving it, and did not return until after the Exile, when a new Temple was built. In the New Covenant, God renounced the Temple in Jerusalem and took up residence in the people-house of the Church.
(to be concluded)
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 3, No. 11
November, 1991
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1991
by James B. Jordan
Deuteronomy 17:6 tells us that a matter is to be regarded as established if it is testified by two or three witnesses. One of the most important characteristics of Biblical chronology is that it is very often supported by more than one witness. A case in point is the fact that the book of Kings provides us an interlocking chronology of two different kingdoms: the southern kingdom of Judah and the northern kingdom of Israel. In addition, the book of Chronicles, a separate book with a different theological slant, also provides us a chronology of Judah. Nowhere else in the ancient world is such a detailed and carefully cross-referenced chronology to be found.
Moreover, the chronology of the kings of Judah and Israel is not found in a mere list, like the Assyrian king list upon which so much is based nowadays. Rather, the reigns of each king are summarized and significant events are recorded. Thus, we are given not only an interlocking chronology but a history to boot.
The fact that the Bible contains such a chronology and history for the period of the kings proves that chronology and history were very important to the Israelites, especially to those who kept records. No other nation in the ancient world shows anywhere near as much concern for historical accuracy or for chronological exactitude.
We have already discussed (in vol. 3, no. 9) the difference between the ways the years of Judah’s and Israel’s kings are recorded. In general, the reigns of Judah’s kings are given in chronological numbers, so that you can add up the years and come up with the total. By way of contrast, the reigns of Israel’s kings are given in historical numbers, so that the last year of a given king is also the first year of his successor. (If you don’t have this issue of Biblical Chronology, back issues can be ordered from ICE.)
Rehoboam and Jeroboam I both began to reign the year after Solomon’s death. That is, Rehoboam’s official Year 1 is the year after Solomon’s official Year 40. Since Jeroboam I did not revolt until shortly after Rehoboam came to power, his Year 1 is the same as Rehoboam’s. This was the year 3030 A.M., 30 years after the completion of the Temple in the year 3000.
According to 1 Kings 14:20, Jeroboam I reigned 22 years, and his son Nadab succeeded him. God gave Jeroboam the kingdom of (northern) Israel, but Jeroboam immediately rejected the Lord. He set up calves and told the people that these images represented Yahweh, their God. This use of images in worship is strictly forbidden by the second commandment, which goes on to say that those who break it will be shown God’s wrath down to the third and fourth generation–implying that their line will be cut off. In Jeroboam’s case, his line was cut off in the next generation. (1 Kings 12-14).
According to 1 Kings 14:21, Rehoboam reigned 17 years. The book of Kings tells us that after God gave Rehoboam the kingdom, he oppressed the people and caused the secession of the northern states from the confederacy. Then Kings says that Judah (the southern kingdom) provoked the Lord with idolatry, and the Lord brought in Shishak, king of Egypt, to punish them.
Chronicles gives us a different slant on these events. 2 Chronicles 11 tells us that after provoking the northern secession, Rehoboam began listening to the prophets and obeyed the Lord for three years, during which he prospered. 2 Chronicles 12:1, however, tells us that after he became strong, Rehoboam forsook the law of the Lord, and this is what provoked Him to send His unwitting servant Shishak against Judah.
Abijam succeeded Rehoboam. His first officially designated year of rule was the 18th of Jeroboam, the year 3047 A.M. (1 Kings 15:1-2; 2 Chronicles 13:2). Kings tells us that there was war between him and Jeroboam. Evidently Jeroboam I decided that with Rehoboam dead and a novice on the throne, it was time for him to strike. Kings only tells us that there was war, but 2 Chronicles 13 gives an account of it. Also, Kings tells us that Abijam did not devote himself to the Lord but walked in his father’s sins. Chronicles tells us that the sin involved polygamy, something expressly forbidden to kings (2 Chronicles 13:21; Deuteronomy 17:17).
The Reign of Asa
Asa succeeded Abijam in the south. He came to power in the 20th year of Jeroboam, after Abijam had reigned three official years. Thus, as we demonstrated in BC 3:9 (which includes a chart of this period), the 20th year of Jeroboam was officially Asa’s Year 0. Asa’s Year 1 (Jeroboam’s 21st) was the year 3050 A.M.
The first thing we are told about Asa in both Kings and Chronicles is that he did right in God’s sight, and thus was blessed. The brief account of Asa’s reign in 1 Kings 15 is supplemented by the larger account in 2 Chronicles 14-16.
Meanwhile, Jeroboam I died in his own 22nd year of rule, and was succeeded by his son Nadab, who reigned only 2 years. He began his reign in Asa’s Year 2 (1 Kings 15:25), and was succeeded by Baasha in Asa’s Year 3 (1 Kings 15:28). Baasha overthrew the dynasty of Jeroboam I and began his own, but he did not repent of the sin of iconolatry, and so his line was also extinguished by the Lord.
In Asa’s Year 26, Elah the son of Baasha came to the throne and reigned over Israel for two years (1 Kings 16:8). His two years were the 26th and 27th of Asa, and during his second year, Zimri overthrew and slew him and became king for one week (1 Kings 16:10). The army preferred Omri, their commander, and he marched against Zimri. Zimri committed suicide. Others, however, preferred Tibni, and the two fought it out for five years. Finally, in Asa Year 31, Tibni died and Omri became sole king. Omri reigned 12 years in all, dying in Asa Year 38, in which year his son Ahab came to the throne (1 Kings 16).
It is interesting to pause and reflect on a theological image that come to us from these facts. Asa, the good king, reigned in Jerusalem while a succession of wicked kings came and went in Israel. Asa’s reign overlapped those of Jeroboam I, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, and Ahab. Can we see in this a vague type of the rule of King Jesus, whose reign goes on and on in Jerusalem while earthly kingdoms rise and fall?
We notice that in Northern Israel there was no established royal line such as existed in Judah. When Elah was slain by Zimri, a 5-year period of civil war ensued. The historian gives these five years to Omri, evidently because he was strong enough to have been considered king during this period, Tibni being merely an unsuccessful competitor. Nevertheless, the fact that there was a period of chaos at this point in the history of Israel alerts us to the possibility of other such periods later on. In fact, traditional Biblical chronology finds interregna during times of civil war in later Israelite chronology, though some modern chronologists dispute this. It is a problem we shall have to address when we come to it.
The Asa-Baasha Problem
Meanwhile, we have a curious problem during the reign of Asa. 2 Chronicles 16:1 states that "in the 36th year of Asa’s reign, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah." The problem with this verse is that Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa.
Traditional Biblical chronologers suggest that 2 Chronicles 15:19 and 16:1 should be translated as follows: "And there was no more war until the 35th year of Asa’s kingdom. In the 36th year of Asa’s kingdom, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah." (The Hebrew noun can mean either reign or kingdom.) They propose that these events are dated from the split between the northern and southern kingdoms, which would be the beginning of Asa’s kingdom. That is, the kingdom of Judah would date from that event, and at the present time it was Asa’s kingdom. Moreover, since Rehoboam and Abijam were bad kings, the kingdom of Judah did not really come into its own until Asa’s reign. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, Asa had just led the nation in a covenant renewal, reestablishing it. Thus, Judah was in a special way Asa’s kingdom at this time. The 35th and 36th years of Judah would would be the 15th and 16th years of Asa’s personal reign.
The criticism of this interpretation is that it involves special pleading. Nowhere else do we translate the Hebrew noun as "kingdom" instead of "reign." The chronicler nowhere else dates from the beginning of the kingdom of Judah. Why do so here?
In reply, traditional chronologers point to 2 Chronicles 22:2, which says that Ahaziah was a "son of 42 years when he began to reign," contradicting 2 Kings 8:26, which says he was only 22 years old. They point out that Ahaziah came to the throne 42 years after his grandfather Omri, and so the chronicler at this point seems to be dating this event from the beginning of Omri’s line.
C. F. Keil in his remarks on these two passages (in the Keil & Delitzsch Old Testament commentary series) maintains in both cases that the discrepancies are to be accounted for as scribal errors; i.e., errors in the transmission of the text of Chronicles. The 42 years of Ahaziah should be 22 years, because the Hebrew numbers 40 and 20 look somewhat alike. Similarly, the 35th and 36th years of Asa should really be the 15th and 16th, because the Hebrew numbers 10 and 30 look somewhat alike. This is of course a possible explanation, and we should not discount it completely. If, however, we can explain the text without resorting to charges of scribal error, we should do so.
I think that the traditional Biblical chronologists are probably correct. The chronicler wrote with a particular theological purpose, and he wrote for people who already had the book of Kings in their possession. Thus, when he takes seeming liberties, he does so with a reason.
It is not hard to figure out that Ahaziah’s 42 years carry us back to the first year of Omri’s kingdom, and there are indications in the text that the chronicler intends for us to do so. Ahaziah was king of Judah, but fully sympathetic to the line of Omri and Ahab. The text of 2 Chronicles 22 emphasizes that he was Omri’s great-grandson through Athaliah. Three times the text states that he took counsel only from the house of Ahab, an expansion of the information about him in 2 Kings 8. Anstey points out that Ahaziah is dropped from the genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1. (Martin Anstey, Chronology of the Old Testament, p. 182.) Thus, the chronicler wants to position Ahaziah not so much as a legitimate king of Judah but primarily as an extension of Omri’s evil reign into Judah, and as a precursor of Athaliah.
And neither is it hard to believe that 2 Chronicles 15:19 and 16:1 refer to the 35th and 36th years of the kingdom of Judah as years of Asa’s kingdom. The chronicler has just finished a long account (two chapters) of Asa’s goodness and reforms. Now, however, Asa falls into sin and idolatry. He brings the kingdom into distress as a result, and receives the judgment of God. From this point on, his kingdom suffers wars (2 Chronicles 16:9).
The book of Kings tells us that in the last half of Solomon’s reign, the united kingdom suffered wars because of Solomon’s sin. He fell into sin came shortly after he completed and dedicated the Temple. Similarly, right after Asa finished restoring the Temple and the people had renewed their covenant with the Lord (2 Chronicles 15), Asa fell into sin and brought tribulation upon the nation of Judah. Thus, it is not strange that the chronicler should date these events not in terms of Asa’s personal reign but in terms of the kingdom over which Asa presided.
Regardless of how we interpret this particular problem, however, the overall chronology is clear: No matter when the war with Baasha took place, Asa reigned 41 years, from A.M. 3050-3090.
Open Book: Views & Reviews, No. 6
November, 1991
Copyright (c) 1991 Biblical Horizons
Gambling
The Bible nowhere condemns gambling, and so we need to be careful in our assessment of it. Let me begin by making a strong case against gambling. Then I will surprise most readers by pointing out that gambling may not always be sinful. The reader should bear in mind that in this section we are not discussing the wisdom of state-run lotteries and we are not discussing the sin-filled environment of casinos. We are only taking up the subject of betting and gambling in ordinary life.
After the lust for glory and the lust for blood, the third things that wrecks the fun for non-Christians is gambling. Christian pastors and theologians have often (but not always) condemned it throughout all ages. The reason is simple: If a man really believes that God will judge all things, he will lose interest in gambling. Money is one of the most important things in life, because it is the means God has appointed for providing the necessities of life. Moreover, man is called to exercise responsible dominion over all the world, and so God will call each man to account for what he has done with his money and goods. God condemns the man who buries his money, and blesses the man who uses his money properly (Matthew 25:14-30).
The Christian is careful with the money entrusted to his stewardship. Spending some money on fun and recreation is a good and necessary thing, as we have seen. Gambling, however, takes what is a serious thing and attempts to treat it as if it were nothing. Gambling is profligate waste. The man who gambles is affirming that he is not a steward, and that he will have to give no accounting for what he has done with his money. The fun of gambling is located precisely at the point where there is pleasure in wasting things. Buying an ice cream sundae may be a relative waste of money, but ice cream is enjoyable in itself. Gambling, however, is an absolute waste of money; the pleasure lies in the waste itself.
Gambling with cards or with gambling machines is addictive because men love death. Almost universally, men play to lose; as long as they are making money, they keep playing. Few people take their money and leave. This is why casinos become so wealthy.
Here we are talking more about the informal betting that goes on in everyday life. People bet on games. When they do this, they show that the games are a serious matter to them, for they are willing to stake money on the outcome. They cannot simply relax and enjoy the game for fun. They have to make it serious, to put themselves at risk in the outcome.
The unconverted man reverses the right order of things. He takes games, which should be for fun, and treats them with utmost seriousness. He takes the possessions entrusted to his stewardship, which should be a serious matter, and gambles with them. The gambler wants to believe that there is no God, or if there is a God, He is not a judge. The unconverted man wants to suppress his inner awareness of coming judgment, and gambling helps him to do this. When he gambles, he says, "I am not going to have to give an account for what I do with this money."
In other words, lying behind the gambler’s profligate waste of money is a serious religious motive. Deliberate wasting of his possessions is a religious act for him. It is his way of affirming to himself that there is no judgment, that he is god, and that he can do as he pleases with his own property. If a man trades money for something else, he is expressing his need for that thing. But when a man wastes money for the sheer pleasure of wasting it, he is affirming that he needs nothing.
The more the Christian takes to heart the reality that God will call every matter into judgment, the less he will be motivated to treat the serious things of life lightly, and the less he will be motivated to gamble with his money, his possessions, or his life.
Now, having made a strong case against gambling, let me point out that some of the most profound and sober Christian theologians and ethicists, who affirm the inerrancy and absolute authority of the Bible, have held that gambling may not always be wrong. Let me critique what I have written above.
First, is it really true that the sole pleasure in gambling is in waste? Gambling games, like slot machines and bingo, are sometimes fascinating and fun in themselves, and part of the fun is in seeing whether or not you might get some money.
Second, the arguments I gave above almost seem idolatrous when it comes to money. If we can play games with other things in life, why can’t we play games with money? Money, after all, is simply an economic good like any other economic good. If we can have a playful attitude toward other economic goods, and occasionally be frivolous with them, why not with money itself?
Third, if it is all right to take a few of dollars and "waste" it on a candy bar, a soft drink, and a novel, is it necessarily wrong to take that same money and "waste" it on a slot machine, a lottery ticket, or a bingo game?
Fourth and finally, since the Bible does not forbid gambling, are we on safe grounds to take an absolute posture against it? Do we dare "add to the Word of God?"
These questions point up the fact that the issue in gambling is not God’s law but our motivation and situation. God’s law does not speak directly to the issue, and so we must go to motivation to address the issue. What is our motive in gambling? Are we, like unbelievers, motivated by a destructive desire? Or are we simply having a bit of fun? Is it wrong to destroy money by laminating a dollar bill or putting a coin on a railroad track?
Hardcore Bible-believing Calvinistic ethicists have suggested the following considerations: First, if a person has very little money, it is sinful for him to harm his family by wasting it on candy bars, wine, gambling, or even going to a play or concert. Second, if a person finds candy bars, wine, or gambling addictive, he should not spend money on them. But third, if a person is well off, and has some extra money to play with, it is not necessarily wrong for him to buy a lottery ticket or drop a few coins in a slot machine, any more than it is wrong for him to buy a candy bar or indulge in an occasional martini.
I’m sure the last word has not been written on this subject, but I have presented both sides so that the reader can advance in his or her thoughts about the issue. (For further reflection: Would it be wrong for a Christian organization to put up a slot machine or run bingo games to raise money? How would this differ from having a bazaar?)
Humor
The Christian takes God seriously, so he does not take himself as seriously. This is why Christians can laugh even at the hard things of life, while the non-Christian takes even his play seriously. I don’t mean that there is no place for weeping, for there clearly is. Nor do I mean that the Christian is never serious, for he clearly is. Just as the judgment of God forms a context for taking things seriously, however, the overall sovereignty of God forms a context for not taking things too seriously. God’s plan does not depend on us. We are privileged to have a part, but if our plans fail, we can laugh and pick up the pieces, and move on. We are secure in His plan, and it can never fail.
Thus, Christians historically have been a relaxed and humorous people. Among non-Christian cultures, humor almost invariably is of the scathing, sarcastic variety. Humor is a weapon for them. Here again, the fun of life is turned into a serious matter. In Christian societies, jokes and laughter develop, because men learn to relax in God’s world.
There are a lot of funny things in the world. Our forefathers had a very down-to-earth sense of humor, as anyone who has ever read Luther’s Table Talk or some of the lighter Puritan literature knows. During the nineteenth century, the Unitarian movement captured the culture and style of life in England and America. The Unitarians were the dour, humorless people who have often been confused with their fun-loving Puritan grandfathers. The Unitarians thought that the earthy humor of their ancestors was "improper." They did not think that life was full of fun and humor; everything had to be taken seriously. It is most unfortunate that this kind of thinking also influenced the Christian churches, so that today we sometimes find Christians who cannot laugh when something genuinely funny happens.
Good antidotes for Unitarian-Victorian prudery are the semi-autobiographical sketches composed by an English veterinarian who writes under the pseudonym James Herriot, the first of which is titled All Creatures Great and Small; available in any bookstore or library. Down-to-earth humor is also seen in the mythical film biography of Mozart, Amadeus. Back in the days when horses roamed the streets, before the days of flush toilets, when chamber pots were found in rooms, it was natural for people to laugh at some of the more earthy aspects of life. Our antiseptic society makes the occasions for such humor rarer, and thus shocking to some people. But observe God’s humor in Judges 4:22-25, an incident that surely caused the Israelites to laugh heartily.
The pagan wants to laugh, too. His problem is that he takes life too seriously. Laughter is not part of his life. Abraham’s son was named Isaac, which means "he laughs." All the true sons of Abraham are laughter-filled people. Those who are not of the faith, however, must go to extremes to find humor. Thus, the humor in a pagan society tends to become more and more extreme, either becoming cruel and sarcastic, or else becoming preoccupied with sexual or bathroom subjects for their own sakes. Stories are told with a leer rather than with a twinkle in the eye. Alcohol must be abused in order to lubricate the laugh. Eventually humor drops out of a pagan society altogether, and all that remains is sadism.
There is also another tremendous value to humor, which is that it tends to insulate us from sin. God laughs at the sinful rebellion of men (Psalm 2), and laughter is one of the great defenses against evil. (This point is illustrated by Ray Bradbury’s novel Something Wicked This Way Comes.) Let us say that a Christian youth is confronted with a sexually alluring photograph. Too often, Christians are taught that the pious response is to "fight the temptation." Fighting temptation, however, often involves concentrating on the temptation, and as a result we are not delivered from it. A better response is to learn to laugh at it. The fact is that the sexually alluring material spread about in our society is ridiculous, and if we learn to ridicule it, we are not likely to be seduced by it.
(to be continued)
Open Book is published occasionally, funds permitting, by Biblical Horizons , P.O. Box 1096, Tyler, Texas 32588-1096. Anyone sending a donation, in any amount, will be placed on the mailing list to receive issues of Open Book as they are published. The content of all essays published in Open Book is Copyrighted, but permission to reprint any essay is freely given provided that the essay is published uncut, and that the name and address of Biblical Horizons is given.
