Biblical Horizons Newsletter
No. 32: The Abomination of Desolation
Part 4b: Abominable and Detestable
by James B. Jordan
December, 1991

BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 32
December, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons

(continued from Biblical Horizons 31)

Leviticus 20:22-26

22. And you shall guard all My decrees and all My laws and do them, so that the land will not vomit you out, where I am bringing you thither to live in it. 23. And you shall not walk in the decrees of the nation that I am driving out from before your face, for all of these things they did and I abhorred them. ("Abhor" here is quts, a word that indicates a deep emotional reaction against something, involving rejection and even destruction. See Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament #2002, 1:794.) 24. And I said to you concerning them, You will possess their ground and I shall give it to you to inherit it, a land flowing of milk and honey. I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations. 25. And so you distinguish between the clean cattle and the unclean, and between the unclean winged thing and the clean; and you shall not render detestable your souls by the cattle or by the winged thing or by anything that crawls on the ground, which I set apart from you as unclean. 26. And you are to be My holy ones, for holy am I, the Lord, and I set you apart from the nations to be Mine.

Here it is stated that separating between clean and unclean animals, and regarding the flesh of unclean animals as causing them to become detestable, is a symbol of Israel’s covenantal separation from the nations. The land will vomit them out if they commit general moral abominations. General moral abominations are symbolized by specific detestable acts, primarily having to do with eating the flesh of unclean animals. That which is detestable is a concentrated symbol of that which is abominable.

Leviticus 18:24-30 spoke both of the Israelite and the sojourner. Both could commit abominable acts. Both could become abominable. Both would be spat out of the land if they did so. In contrast Leviticus 20:22-26 speaks only to the Israelite. The Israelite alone is in God’s inner circle. He alone has sanctuary access, so he alone can commit detestable acts. The dietary laws did not apply to the sojourners in the land (Dt. 14:21). The sojourners were not set apart from the nations to be priests to God, but the Israelites were. Thus, when the Canaanites and later on the sojourners committed acts of idolatry, these were abominable, but when Israelites committed these same acts, they were both abominable and detestable.

Leviticus 18 and 20 also differ in that Leviticus 18 speaks of the land’s vomiting out the Canaanites and Israelites, while Leviticus 20 speaks of the Lord’s driving out Israel. In chapter 20 the Israelites are threatened with expulsion for failure to guard, failure to carry out the God-mandated penalties set forth in this passage. The non-priestly Canaanites (Lev. 18) were not judged for failure to guard, but "only" for the abominations themselves. This relates to the difference in position of Israel and the Gentiles, and to the fact that only Israel could commit "detestable" acts. (It also pushes in the direction of seeing the prohibitions of Leviticus 18 as applicable to all men, but the sanctions of Leviticus 20 as applicable only to Israel. If such is the case, then it would primarily be in the Church that Leviticus 20 would apply today. Let me express my thanks to Peter Leithart for this observation, as well as for the observations in this entire paragraph.)

Diagram 1

As we draw this part of our discussion to a close, think back to Adam and Cain (see "Three Falls and Three Heroes," in Biblical Horizons 22). The sin of Cain was an intensification of the sin of Adam. Adam was cast from the sanctuary-garden of Eden, while Cain was cast from the land of Eden. Adam’s sin was a detestable act, eating forbidden food. Cain’s sin was an abominable act, murdering his brother. Before the creation of a new garden-sanctuary (the Tabernacle and its precincts), detestable acts were not possible. Abominable acts, in the land, were possible, however. Thus, for their abominable acts in the land, the Canaanites were driven from it (Lev. 18:27). Also, because the Egyptians viewed shepherding as an abominable occupation, the Israelites were not permitted to dwell in their land but were given the separate land of Goshen (Gen. 46:34). Thus, the land-sanctuary distinction, and the attendant abominable-detestable distinction, is woven into the warp and woof of the entire Old Adamic Covenant from creation to the cross.

(The fall of the Sethites, which resulted in the Flood and the destruction of the entire world, cannot be repeated. God guaranteed that he would prevent man’s sin from ever reaching that point of extremity again (Gen. 8:21; 11:1-9). Thus, Leviticus gives no "third" category of sin that results in the destruction of the world. It is only sanctuary and land that are in view.)

In the New Covenant, however, the sanctuary is in heaven. There are no more earthly garden-sanctuaries. As a result, the New Testament writings focus almost exclusively on moral sins, abominations. The only opportunity to commit a detestable act occurs when the church is united liturgically with the heavenly Christ by the Spirit during Lord’s Day worship. Geographical considerations no longer apply, only liturgical ones, and the only rite specified is the Lord’s Supper. Abuse of the Lord’s Supper is the one detestable act applicable in the New Covenant, just as eating the one forbidden fruit was the only detestable act in the first Garden. Just as the detestable act of eating forbidden fruit brought death to Adam, and all the detestable acts of the Mosaic covenant brought "ceremonial death" (uncleanness) to the Israelites, so the detestable act of abusing the Lord’s Supper brings death in the New Covenant (1 Cor. 11:30). The proper application of the dietary laws of Leviticus is to the sacrament.

The Holy, the Abominable, and the Detestable

Leviticus 11:44 and 45 state that the reason for the dietary laws was that Israel was to be holy as God is holy. Holiness has to do with transcendence. In God’s case, transcendence means His utter separation from His creation. While man is made in God’s image, yet in another sense God is always utterly unlike man, as the Creator is different from the creature. Thus, an affirmation of God’s holiness is always an affirmation of His awesome transcendence, including His ethical separation from sin.

In man’s case, holiness means integrity. Each man or woman is to have integrity in himself or herself. Each is unique. We know, paradoxical as it may sound, that it is as we come to be more and more dependent on God, that simultaneously we come to have more and more uniqueness and integrity in ourselves. (See Calvin’s remarks on this in the opening pages of his Institutes of the Christian Religion.) The more we cleave to God, the more transcendent we become over our circumstances.

This idea of integrity, then, is the link between the holiness of God and that of man. God’s holiness and integrity was expressed in the Old Covenant by the boundaries of the Tabernacle and Temple. These preserved God’s transcendence, both metaphysical and ethical. The human body is analogous to the Tabernacle and Temple. Thus, the holiness of the individual person is related to what he takes into his body.

Holiness is the opposite of both the abominable and of the detestable. In terms of what God does in His land, God never acts abominably. In terms of what God is in His Person, God never receives anything detestable. Similarly, the holy man is not to act abominably in his life, in the land, or else he will be cast out of the land. Just so, the holy man is not to permit detestable things into his inner person, into the holy sanctuary of his heart and body, lest he be cast out of God’s sanctuary.

Thus, we have the following analogies:

Diagram 2

Diagram 3

In the section preceding this one, we saw that detestable idolatry can be profitably correlated with the Second Commandment, while abominable behavior can be correlated with the First. It is possible and profitable to do this another way as well. The first five commandments bear analogies with the last five. The First Commandment supports God’s absolute holiness and integrity, while the Sixth supports the holiness and integrity of man: manslaughter is forbidden. Just so, the Second Commandment supports God’s relational holiness, while the Seventh supports the relational holiness of man: adultery is forbidden. With this in mind, we can see that detestable acts focus on the first five commandments, sins against God’s holiness, while abominable acts focus on the second five commandments, sins against the integrity and holiness of other human beings.

God’s Name (Third Commandment) was enthroned in His sanctuary, and thus violations of the sanctuary "stole" from His glory. Just so, the Eighth Commandment forbids stealing from our fellow men, and would be an abomination.

Similarly, the sabbath was the day when oaths to God were taken (Fourth Commandment), and violation of it would be detestable. The Ninth Commandment focuses on false testimony given under oath in human courts, which would be abominations.

Finally, honoring those in authority (Fifth Commandment) means not seizing their robes, which means not eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil–a detestable act. Not coveting the goods of someone who is one’s equal (Tenth Commandment) would be an abomination.

(On the Ten Commandments, their arrangement and meaning, see James B. Jordan, Covenant Sequence in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, available from Biblical Horizons .)

Thus we can improve our list as follows:

Diagram 4

 

In summary, that which is detestable has to do with man’s inward being, his heart and flesh, while that which is abominable has to do with man’s life. Similarly, that which is detestable has to do with direct affronts to God’s presence, before His sanctuary, while that which abominable has to do with indirect affronts to God’s presence, in His land and in connection with His images. The detestable is an aggravated form of the abominable, because it goes to the inward parts of the man, and because it more directly confronts the holiness of God in His sanctuary.

One final point remains to be noted. Since God’s personal holiness is manifested in His House, so also man’s personal holiness is to be manifested not only in his person but also in his house. Accordingly, the second half of Leviticus 11 concerns defilements not of the person but of the home. Just as Decay can come upon both a man and his house, so also the defilements caused by unclean animal carcasses can come upon both a man and his house. Keeping the one clean is symbolically equivalent to keeping the other clean.

Conclusion

The "abomination of desolation" in Daniel is literally the "detestable thing of desolation." The reference is clearly to idolatry and not to moral sin. This point has generally been recognized by interpreters, who point to Antiochus Epiphanes’ sacrificing a pig on God’s altar and to Titus’s setting up idolatrous imperial standards around Jerusalem. What the interpreters have not realized is that neither Epiphanes nor Titus were capable of violating God’s Temple, because neither had any true and legal access to it. The only people who could violate the Temple were the priests, for they alone had proper access to it. Thus, the "detestable act causing desolation" can only have been committed by Israelites, focussed in the persons of their representatives, the priests, and focussed most closely on the person of the High Priest.

If Daniel’s prophecy had spoken of an "abomination of desolation," it would be possible to see the actions of Antiochus and of Titus as fulfilling the prophecies. As it is, however, the clear difference in usage between "abomination" and "detestable" eliminates any moral and political interpretation of the prophecy, and focuses our attention upon the liturgical and religious.

Biblical Horizons Newsletter
No. 32: The Original Low-Down Filthy Male Chauvinist Pig-Dog
by James B. Jordan

BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 32
December, 1991
Copyright 1991, Biblical Horizons

For a year of so we have been reading about date rape. It amazes me how many "conservative" commentators have taken the attitude that "boys will be boys," and that it is somehow the girl’s fault if she lets the boy go too far. I have to agree that we should not confuse seduction with rape, because the latter is a crime of violence primarily, not of sexuality. Nevertheless, the Bible’s perspective is clear: The primary guardians of sexual virtue in society are to be the men. (From the articles on Clarence Thomas published around the time of his hearings, I gather this is his opinion also.)

Similarly, I was dismayed to see the reaction of many "conservatives" to the testimony of Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas. I personally am inclined to think that Thomas is innocent. Certainly under our law a man is innocent until proven guilty, and Thomas was not proven guilty. At the same time, however, we should bear in mind that Miss Hill did not make open brazen charges against Thomas, but gave her testimony quietly and in private. Assuming for the sake of discussion that her testimony was true, it is not her fault that nobody else had the same experience as she did (no testimony of 2-3 witnesses), and it is not her fault that the matter became public so that she had to make public her allegations.

Moreover, her story was not at all incredible on the face of it. Some "conservatives" argued that if she had been harassed, she should simply have left her job and sought another. Comments like this show only that these "conservatives" have never had any experience with sexual harassment of women on the job. Most women are in no position, economically or psychologically, to just quit and take another job. They are forced to endure the harassment and resist it as best they can. Anybody with any experience knows this. As someone who has counselled women in this position, I assure you that it is not simply a matter of "quitting and getting another job."

And why did she stay with Thomas? Why move to another job with him? Obviously because he had stopped bothering her, and because her possibly legitimate ambitions were best served by continuing her association with him.

In other words, her story was not unbelievable. It was either true or false–my guess is that it was false–but as a scenario it was not in the least incredible. Harassed women every day find themselves in similar circumstances.

I’m a bit concerned when Bible-believing Christians rally around a man whose commitment is to "natural law" rather than to Biblical law. "Natural law" is just a way of avoiding saying "God’s law," and is an insult to the blood of Christ. We don’t want to speak about Christ and His kingship, so we speak of "natural law." We ought to be ashamed of such rhetoric!

The Hill-Thomas hearings should cause us to look back at what the Bible says about men and women. We find in Genesis 1-3 the most important story and most revealing history in this regard. A careful reading of the passage will reveal some interesting things.

To begin with, Eve had not yet been made when God told Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:16-22). After Eve had been generated, God told them both that every tree would be for them to eat (Gen. 1:27-30). God used the implied-future tense: "It shall be food for you." So, how did Eve come to understand that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was temporarily prohibited? Adam told her.

Adam had three clear duties with regard to Eve. First, since she was in the garden and Adam was to guard the garden (Gen. 2:15), Adam was to guard and protect her. Second, since Adam knew things she did not, Adam was to instruct her. Third, since what Adam knew was about food, Adam was to feed her (supervise her eating).

Those three things are exactly what this male pig-dog did not do. Read carefully the story of the fall of man, beginning in Genesis 2:25, which actually introduces the story (2:25-3:7). According to 2:25, Adam was with Eve the whole time the serpent spoke to her. The phrase "with her" in Genesis 3:6 makes the same point. Adam stood by while the serpent seduced his wife. He did not interrupt to remind her of the truth. He did not properly supervise her eating. And he did not guard her.

Why? There is only one possible explanation: Adam wanted Eve to eat the fruit so he could see what would happen. If she died, he could simply tell the Lord, "Well, the woman you gave me ate the forbidden fruit after I told her not to. I’ve got more ribs. How about another woman?" If she lived, Adam would know that the serpent was right and would eat himself.

The more closely we consider the story of the fall, the more obvious it is that Adam had fallen into deep depravity. His actions were as ignoble and disgusting as any imaginable. That’s how men have tended to treat women ever since. They fail to guard women, and then they turn around and blame them when bad things happen.

But that’s not how our Husband treats us. The book of Revelation shows that the Last Adam protects His bride and kills the serpent. He feeds His bride with His own broken body and shed blood. He teaches His bride the truth and sets up the Church to remind her of it week after week.

As Christians, we need to stand up against "date rape" and sexual harassment. True, some of the women are falsely crying wolf, and my guess is that Anita Hill was one of them. In the main, however, men have behaved like chauvinist pig-dogs ever since Adam betrayed Eve. We need to distance ourselves from the evil opinions of "conservatives," and stand squarely on what the Bible says in this most important area.

Biblical Chronology Newsletter
3_12
by James B. Jordan

Biblical Chronology
Vol. 3, No. 12
December, 1991
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1991

The Formation of the Remnant (Chronologies and Kings VI)

by James B. Jordan

According to 1 Kings 16:29, Ahab came to the throne of Israel in the 38th year of Asa of Judah, which was the year A.M. 3087. He reigned 22 years, dying in the year 3108. Ahab married a princess of Tyre named Jezebel (Jeze-baal). Under Jezebel’s influence, Ahab turned away from the syncretistic religion instituted by Jeroboam I, a mixture of Yahwism and Baalism, and introduced pure Baalism as the official state religion of Northern Israel.

During the days of David and Solomon, the Tyreans had been allies with Israel. Hiram of Tyre, a Godly convert, had supported David and had been anxious to have a hand in helping build the Temple, which as Jesus said was a “house of worship for all nations” (Mark 11:17; Isaiah 56:7). When Israel apostatized and split into Southern Judah and Northern Israel, it seems that her influence in Tyre waned. A new power arose in Tyre and the priest-king Eth-baal reinstituted the old Baalist faith. Now we find Ahab marrying Ethbaal’s daughter. Now we find God’s people forming covenants with the heathen, instead of the other way around. Now we find Israel becoming a spiritual vassal to Tyre, reversing the earlier situation. (This is why so much attention is given to Tyre in the prophecy of Ezekiel. Tyre was a converted nation that apostatized. Tyre’s alliance with Solomon meant that Tyre recognized the Temple High Priest as its spiritual king, and so Ezekiel 28 describes the apostate High Priest as the “king of Tyre.”)

During Ahab’s reign, God raised up Elijah to confront and challenge his apostasy. Elijah was unsuccessful in bringing about a change in the nation, and as a result God turned from Israel and instituted a Remnant Church in its midst.

Chronology

It seems most likely that Elijah’s confrontation with Ahab began in the 13th year of his reign, the year A.M. 3099. We can make this guess on the basis of counting backwards from the death of Ahab. Ahab and Jehoshaphat of Judah went to war with Syria, and Ahab was slain in battle. According to 1 Kings 22:51, Ahaziah of Israel began to reign in Jehoshaphat Year 17 (A.M. 3107). This was also Ahab’s 21st year. Thus, it seems that Ahab put his son on the throne to reign as co-rex while he went to war.

At the same time, Jehoshaphat put his son Jehoram of Judah on the throne to reign while he was away. This is established by comparing 2 Kings 1:17, which says Jehoram of Israel was reigning in the 2nd year of Jehoram of Judah, with 2 Kings 3:1, which says Jehoram of Israel reigned in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat. Thus, Jehoram of Judah reigned for two years during Jehoshaphat’s 17th and 18th years, after which he yielded the throne back to his father, not becoming co-rex again until Jehoshaphat Year 22 (2 Kings 8:16-17).

Thus, it seems that the 3rd Syrian War was instituted in A.M. 3107 and ended in 3108 with the death of Ahab.

According to 1 Kings 22:1 there was peace for three years between Syria and Israel after the 2nd Syrian War. So the 2nd Syrian War probably took place in A.M. 3103. The previous year saw the 1st Syrian War, so it happened in A.M. 3102. (See 1 Kings 20.) During the three years of peace, Ahab stole Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kings 21), and this seems to be what brought about his doom.

Chapters 17-19 of 1 Kings come right before the 1st Syrian War. It is possible that there is a gap of several years between Elijah’s three years of famine and the 1st Syrian War, but my guess is that there was not, for two reason. First, while the text does not explicitly say so, the concatenation of events points to the idea that the 1st Syrian invasion was a punishment for Ahab’s rejection of Elijah’s ministry. Second, it makes sense from a political standpoint that the Syrians would invade the nation while it was helpless. This indicates that the three years of famine were A.M. 3099-3101.

History

Now let us review these events in order and assess their meaning more fully. When Ahab came to the throne he married Jeze-baal, and together they began to change the national state religion of Israel from pseudo-Yahwism to pure Baalism. Probably in the 13th year of Ahab’s reign, Elijah appeared out of nowhere and told him that there would be no rain for three years. Doubtless Ahab did not take this strange person and his prophecy seriously, but as the months went by he began to reassess his opinion of Elijah.

Three years without rain radically decapitalized the nation. The great wealth that Omri had gathered began to be depleted as the Israelites had to buy food from other nations. Ahab and Jezebel became increasingly concerned to find Elijah, and Jezebel sought to put all the orthodox Yahwist prophets and pastors to death. Unknown to her, a high official in Ahab’s court, a gentile named Obadiah, kept 200 of these church leaders alive in caves. Finally Elijah appeared and called for a confrontation between Yahweh and Baal. The result was that Yahweh was shown to be God, and the prophets of Baal were slain. (1 Kings 17-18).

Ahab was initially impressed, but his wife determined to kill Elijah, and Ahab was soon cowed by her. Elijah fled to Mount Sinai, where he put his case before God. Elijah told the Lord that Jezebel had killed all the prophets, which means that after Elijah’s victory the 200 prophets must have come out of their caves and been slain. God told Elijah that while there were no pastors left in the land, there were still 7000 loyal church members. God commissioned Elijah to set up a Remnant Church for them, an Ark to protect them from the coming Flood (1 Kings 19).

This was basically the end of attempts at national reformation in Northern Israel. Instead of confronting the state and calling the nation as a whole back to Yahwism, the prophets would in the future concentrate on ministering to the Godly Remnant in their congregations. Eventually the Remnant would move south to Judah, and thereby be spared when the Assyrians conquered Israel.

Meanwhile, Ben-Hadad of Syria swept into Israel to take over the prostrate nation. The Lord granted Ahab a victory as one more sign to him that He and not Baal was the true God. The next year the Syrians tried again, and God again gave the victory to Ahab. Ahab, however, immediately turned the victory into defeat by sparing Ben-Hadad and forming an alliance with him (1 Kings 20).

Three years of peace ensued, but Ahab still did not repent of his ways. Instead he stole Naboth’s vineyard, property that actually belonged to Yahweh (1 Kings 21). So, God provoked Ahab to the folly of attacking Syria, and in the battle Ahab lost his life (1 Kings 22).

As soon as Ahab was known to be dead, the Moabites rebelled against Israel. Ahaziah, who had come to the throne as co-rex with Ahab the year before, fell through a lattice and died as a result. Thus, he died in the same year as his father (A.M. 3108), and Jehoram of Israel came to the throne (2 Kings 1). Since Jehoram of Judah was still standing in for Jehoshaphat at this time (2 Kings 1:17), we can assume that this happened right after Ahab’s death, and so Ahaziah must had died within days of Ahab’s death, before Jehoshaphat got back to Jerusalem and took his throne back.

2 Kings 3 begins the reign of Jehoram of Israel. The ascension of Elijah is recorded in 2 Kings 2. This indicates that Elijah’s ascension also took place in A.M. 3108, the year Ahab and Ahaziah died and the year Jehoram became king. As Jehoram ascended the earthly throne, Elijah ascended to heaven. Elisha became High Prophet in his place.

Further confirmation that Elijah’s ascension took place just as Jehoram came to the throne is found in 2 Kings 3, which records the rebellion of Moab that was mentioned in 1 Kings 1:1. Immediately after the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled. Ahaziah died within days, and Elijah ascended. Thus it fell to Jehoram to fight Moab. Jehoshaphat was still in the country, and he joined forces with Jehoram of Israel. The prophet they consulted was Elisha, so Elijah must have been gone by this time.

Then Elisha completed the constitution of the Remnant Church. We see the Exodus themes of borrowing and of deliverance from slavery in 2 Kings 4:1-7. We see the Exodus theme of the restoration of the firstborn son in 2 Kings 4:8-37. We see the Exodus theme of the healing of food in 2 Kings 4:38-41, and of manna in 2 Kings 4:42-44. Finally, we see the building of a new house–a new tabernacle–for God s people in 2 Kings 6:1-7.

These are all the earmarks of a new covenant. This new covenant, the Remnant Covenant, is distinguished by the rise of the Writing Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, Joel, etc.).

(For further reading, expanding on many of the points made in this article, see my essay, “Elijah’s War With Baal,” available for a tax-deductible contribution from Biblical Horizons , Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588. I also have a series of taped lectures on 1 & 2 Kings. Write Biblical Horizons for information.)

Year	Judah		Israel		Historical Data, Testimony, Evidence or Proof
3086	Asa	37	11
3087	38		Ahab	12 1	1 Kings 16:29
3088	39		Ahab	2
3089	40
3090	41 Jehoshaphat accession		4		2 Chron. 16:13; 1 Ki. 22:41-42
3091	Jehoshaphat	1	5
3092	2		6
3093	3		7
3094	4		8
3095	5		9
3096	6		10
3097	7		11
3098	8		12
3099	9		13		Elijah: 1st year of famine 1 Ki 17
3100	10		14		2nd year of famine
3101	11		15		3rd year of famine; Mt. Carmel victory 1 Ki. 18-19
3102	12		16		1st Syrian War 1 Ki. 20:1-20
3103	13		17		2nd Syrian War 1 Ki 20:26-43
3104	14		18		1st year of peace	Naboth’s vineyard 1 Ki. 21
3105	15		19		2nd year of peace	Naboth’s vineyard 1 Ki. 21
3106	16		20		3rd year of peace	Naboth’s vineyard 1 Ki. 21
3107	Jehoram Pro Rex	1        17	Ahaziah Co Rex	1        21	3rd Syrian War 1 Kings 22:51
3108	2         18		Jehoram	2        22 1	Death of Ahab 1 Ki. 22 Death of Ahaziah 2 Ki. 1 Ascension of Elijah 2 Ki Ascension of Jehoram 2 Ki. 1:17; 3:1 Moabite War 2 Ki. 3
3109	19		2

Rite Reasons Newsletter
No. 18: A Review of the New Trinity Hymnal, Part 3
by Dr. Louis and Kimberly Schuler

Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 18
December 1991
Copyright (c) 1991 by Biblical Horizons

(continued from Rite Reasons Nos. 16 & 17)

Hymns Added to the Trinity Hymnal

The new Trinity Hymnal has added 156 hymns, some good and some terrible.

Good Hymns

The Revision Committee has added many hymns that are truly great hymns of the faith and should be included in any hymnal.

Consider the following examples.

The great fifteenth century Latin hymn, "O Love, How Deep, How Broad, How High!" (NTH #155) has been added with the tune DEO GRACIAS. The melody weds the text beautifully in the power of its line and harmony. This hymn is particularly effective because the text is sung to a fifteenth century melody, so that poetry and melody produce a good artistic and aesthetic match.

Another text and tune that weds well is the fifth century "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" (NTH #193). In this setting of PICARDY by Ralph Vaughan Williams, the worshiper can feel the fear of going before the living God. Another added hymn with a setting by Vaughan Williams that is particularly good is "On Christmas Night All Christians Sing" (NTH #227). The joy of Christ’s birth is especially felt in the meter of this traditional English carol.

The beautiful Irish hymn "Be Thou My Vision" has been added to the NTH (#642). The melody’s simplicity makes it easy to learn yet the melodic line shows great profundity in its building to the high point of tension in the third line and the denouement of the fourth line. Alice Parker’s anthem arrangement is very useful in teaching choirs phrasing and musicianship (published by Hinshaw Music, 1976).

In the area of folk styles the new Trinity Hymnal has added "What Wondrous Love Is This" (NTH #261), whose haunting melody calls us to consider the death of Jesus in a way that truly glorifies Him.

"My Song Is Love Unknown" (NTH #182) is one of our favorite texts. The tune ST. JOHN (CALKIN) is a nice tune but there are two better tunes for this text. Our favorite is RHOSYMEDRE (NTH #442), which with its calm simplicity expresses the grace as no other tune could do. We also like the repetition of the last line that is required when singing it with RHOSYMEDRE. A second tune that is also wonderfully suited for this text, and one specifically written for it, is LOVE UNKNOWN by John Ireland.

Other valuable hymns added to the NTH include "Lovely Child, Holy Child" (NTH #231), "Good Christian Men, Rejoice and Sing" (NTH #270), "Angels We Have Heard on High" (NTH #214), "O Sons and Daughters, Let Us Sing" (NTH #272–too bad the three-fold alleluias at the beginning and end were omitted), "O Jesus Sweet, O Jesus Mild" (NTH #232), "Thou Who Wast Rich beyond All Splendor" (NTH #230), "Children of the Heavenly Father" (NTH #131), and "Infant Holy, Infant Lowly" (NTH #216).

Bad Hymns

In this section we primarily talk about the musical aspects of the hymns. The texts for many of them are acceptable although some are as weak artistically as the melodies that accompany them. We shall attempt to keep our comments to one or two per hymn even though there may be other things wrong with it.

"The Apostles’ Creed" (NTH #741) loses on all accounts. First, the versification of the creed given here is more unwieldy than anything the Bay Psalm Book offered. For example, consider:

Who suffered when he stood condemned by Pontius Pilate’s code, Was crucified, was dead, as he himself had long foretold.

or

In God the Spirit I believe, who guides a holy church, The universal body that victorious shall emerge.

There is nothing theologically wrong, but as poetry is it worthy? Is that what we want to offer our glorious God?

Consider now the melody. It consists of four lines and the first, second, and fourth are essentially the same. This in itself is not bad; for instance the tune of "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" (NTH #457) does the same thing. But the line in that hymn has direction as compared to that of the Apostles’ Creed tune, which is rather static. There is very little tension and release, and consequently no interest in the melody.

The harmony is also static, changing at the measure instead of at the beat, which is the case in most good hymns. Not only is the harmonic rhythm static but extra notes are added to the triads that weaken the tension-producing character of the chords (such as D9, G/C, F9, Am/G Fmaj7 etc.). These are the kinds of chords that are used in jazz to weaken harmonic direction is, hardly a desirable effect for a creed!

The use of folk tunes in a hymnal is very good but can sometimes cross the boundary into bad taste. (A common illustration is when "Amazing Grace" is sung to the tune of "The House of the Rising Sun." This is not done in the NTH, we hasten to add.)

Unfortunately something similar though not as bad has happened several times in the new Trinity Hymnal. "As the Hart Longs for Flowing Streams" (NTH #662) and "Though I May Speak With Bravest Fire" (NTH #597) are both based on the famous folk song "O Waly, Waly," ("There Is a Ship") which is about infidelity in a love relationship. We find it rather ironic to use this melody with a hymn based upon 1 Corinthians 13! The tune expresses very well the melancholy of jilted love, but it does not express the power of true agape love.

There is also the pseudo-folk style that was so popular in the 60s and 70s. The anemic "Father of All Things" (NTH #106) properly should not be sung without wearing love beads. "Jesus Christ Has Triumphed Now" (NTH #288) also falls into this category.

When we think of Psalm 19 and its description of the law as perfect, we also think of the power and majesty of God. Psalm 19 in the Genevan Psalter expresses this text with all His majesty extolled. "The Law of the Lord Is Perfect" (NTH #152) conveys the impression that there are no consequences to breaking the law. This pseudo-folk piece is replete with gooey sentimentality and over-syncopation–enough to make any flower child feel good. This song may have been fine for the coffee house ministries of the old Jesus Movement, but it hardly qualifies as a worship setting of Psalm 19.

Bring out the old school colors, join hands and sway to "Now I Belong to Jesus" (NTH #709), which employs the popular collegiate song style. (It used to be a favorite with Campus Crusade for Christ; maybe still is.) It works well for the adoration of the Alma Mater but not for the living God.

As serious musicians, we find it a bit disconcerting to take popular classical themes from the concert hall and turn them into hymns. The tune FINLANDIA is used three times in the new hymnal, once with "Be Still, My Soul," with which it has often been associated. Even this is too much as far as we are concerned. It works very well in the orchestral version. Let’s leave it there. The editors of the new Trinity Hymnal didn’t stop though with just the FINLANDIA tune. They also added "We Are God’s People" (NTH #355) from Brahms’s Symphony No. 1; "O Lord, I Love You, My Shield, My Tower" (NTH #620) from Saint Saens’ Symphony No. 3; and "O God Beyond All Praising" (NTH #660) from Holst’s The Planets, "Jupiter." Even though Holst arranged this himself, the association with the concert work is so strong that we are not sure whether we’re singing to God or Jupiter.

For us the most objectionable hymn of this kind is "God, All Nature Sings Thy Glory" (NTH #122) based on the Ode to Joy found in Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9. We love the music of Beethoven, but this melody expresses very well the pantheistic theology of this composer and need not be used in a Christian setting. It originally was used as the brilliant setting for the text:

Joy, bright spark of divinity,

Daughter of Elysium,

Fire-inspired we tread

Thy sanctuary.

Thy magic power re-unites

All that custom has divided,

All men become brothers

Under the sway of thy gentle wings.

Friedrich von Schiller

The music follows the sentiment of the poetry very closely. Beethoven did not write a tune to be used universally with any text. He was much too great a composer for that.

Although "Lord, Speak to Me That I May Speak" (NTH #560) is purported to be based on a Schumann composition, it sounds as much like the original as it does Palestrina. Arrangements of this kind are strange at best. When so many great hymns are available, why do we need this?

Using the great tunes of classical music seems at first glance to be a good idea, bringing the best of our culture into the worship of the Church. Why do we oppose it? There are three reasons. First, we associate the music of Beethoven, Saint-Saens, Brahms, Sibelius, etc., with their original concert settings. It is as jarring to us to hear these in Church as it would be to hear jazz or rock music in Church. Many other people may not have these associations, but we should be sensitive to culturally educated people who do.

Second, we believe that worship is an act different from other actions, and should have its own culture. The musical culture of the Church is the tradition of Church music. New music should grow out of that culture, not be drawn over from other spheres of life.

Third, and we cannot get into this here, as trained musicians, we are aware of aspects of this concert music that makes it less appropriate for worship than traditional Christian hymnody. (Dr. Schuler is working up a course on Christianity and music that will be made available through Biblical Horizons in the near future, and that will provide more information on this subject.)

We now turn to the use of musical styles from the other end of the spectrum. Sometimes we are told that people don’t like the German chorales because they are too hard to sing. Yet those same people will want to sing songs like "Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me" (NTH #500) set by James Ward, which opens with a leap of a seventh followed two notes later by a leap in the opposite direction of a sixth and two notes later back up with a leap of a sixth. It continues throughout to hop around like a jack rabbit. We could stump almost any student in a sight-singing class with this melody. Not only does it jump all over the place, it also has very little forward motion in the melody and harmony. It sounds like bad Barry Manilow and should have never been put into a hymnal.

We are also afflicted with another James Ward hymn, "Morning Sun" (NTH #287), which is nothing more than a jumpy version of the hymn tune TOPLADY. This is the perfect example of how not to use rhythm in hymn literature. There are sixteen measures in the melody and only in two of those measures does a text syllable fall on beat one. The technical term for this misplaced beat is syncopation, a very good device when used in moderation. But like wine, when used in excess, it makes one a little tipsy. It’s like trying to walk with one leg about six inches longer than the other. Syncopation used in this way breaks the principle of tension and release; the over use of syncopation creates tension because the accented syllables rarely fall on the accent of the meter (the first beat). This device, which is a big part of popular music, leaves the listener unsettled because we naturally want to have accented syllables correspond to the accent of the meter. There is an expectation set up with the accent of the meter. When it is denied over and over again, tension results and there is no rest from that tension–there is no sabbath.

The rhythm also breaks the principle of unity and diversity. In this case the rhythm is unified to an extreme. Fourteen of the sixteen measures open with the same rhythm. We realize that some hymns may have straight quarter notes throughout (not our favorite either). But the constant quarter note rhythm is not as noticeable because it is not as strong in character as this syncopated rhythm. This overly unified rhythm becomes boring very shortly. It is not good artistry.

Eclecticism is the order of the day for contemporary hymnals, and that means every hymnal must have a few Spirituals. The new Trinity Hymnal is no exception. We love to sing Spirituals and they are often great music, but most of them fall short theologically in worship. The editors picked out two such Spirituals for the new hymnal–"Lord I Want to Be a Christian" (NTH #530) and "My Lord, What a Mourning" (NTH #328). We hope we have gotten further than wanting to be a Christian when we come to worship God. "My Lord, What a Mourning" is neither a prayer nor a hymn of praise or worship. It simply is an attempt to describe the scene on the judgment day. These are folk songs, not worship hymns. One might as well include "Ghost Riders in the Sky."

Some of the new hymns simply have bad poetry. For instance "Let us Praise God Together" (NTH #659) is set, as you might expect, to the famous melody "Let Us Break Bread Together." A hymnal is not the place for greeting-card poetry. The author obviously felt constricted by the well-known text to this tune.

Let us praise God together, let us praise;

let us praise God together all our days.

He is faithful in all his ways,

he is worthy of all our praise,

his name be exalted on high.

Let us seek God together, let us pray;

let us seek his forgiveness as we pray.

He will cleanse us from all our sin,

he will help us the fight to win,

his name be exalted on high.

Let us serve God together, him obey;

let our lives show his goodness through each day.

Christ the Lord is the world’s true light,

let us serve him with all our might,

his name be exalted on high.

The addition of contemporary Christian music is also in vogue for most modern hymnals, especially evangelical ones. "My Tribute" (NTH #640) is one such popular song. Unlike the normal hymn, this song is through composed; that is, there are no repeated verses of music (although two lines of music are repeated). The opening phrases of the music are directionless. If we asked people who knew this song to sing the first four lines, we bet that most would not be able to do so correctly. The memorable part comes at the fifth line, which goes "To God be the glory," etc. Also, unlike most good hymns, the harmony changes generally at the measure instead of at the beat. This kind of popular style is a lame lamb brought before God.

One other such popular song is "El Shaddai" (NTH #42). Not only is the melody completely devoid of interest and drama but the text is pretentious. We’re not against anyone learning a little Hebrew or the names of God in Hebrew, but in this case it is unnecessary. One need only to look at the poetry of verses two and three to realize that Michael Card cannot write poetry very well.

It makes us particularly sad to see really good texts set with extremely poor music. There is a fine hymn text by Edmund Clowney that unfortunately is set to a klunker. "In Your Arms, Lord Jesus Christ" (NTH #419) is paired with the tune LISTENING by Norman Warren. This tune is two phrases long but has no closed cadence until the final verse. This flies absolutely in the face of the tension-rest principle.

Remind us that if we ever are a part of an editorial committee for a hymnal, not to write any hymn tunes for the hymnal. We wouldn’t be any good at it anyway. Writing a hymn is a monumentally difficult task and should be approached with trepidation. Even some of the greatest composers turned out some hymns of only passing value. All this is to say that Ronald Matthews is in good company if some of his hymns don’t seem to hang together. His tune KECK has replaced the very beautiful tune BRAUN (OTH #117) for "Shepherd of Tender Youth" (NTH #160). Matthews’s tune sounds as if it was harmonically conceived rather than melodically, but the harmonies don’t move in a coherent way. Here for the musicians is a traditional harmonic analysis of the whole hymn–

Eb: I-ii-V/IV-IV/IV-V⁴²/IV-V⁶-ii-vi-ii-vi-IV-I-iii-ii-v

Db: vi-IV-IV-IV⁷-I

Gb: V-IV-IV-IV⁶-I-a tone cluster-I-IV-vii^o65-vi-vii^o7-IV-vii^o65 Eb: I-IV⁷-V⁷-I.

Even from the first change of key from E^b to D^b our ears wander in the wilderness, an ironic contrast with the text.

Another hymn with similar problems is "Call Jehovah Your Salvation" (NTH #664). The composer throws in a few chords that aren’t triads to give it a rather mellow feel. Well, mellow means that the strength is taken out. This is hardly desirable when singing about the power of salvation. The melody follows the form aa¹bb¹. Neither a nor a¹ cadence on the tonic so that there is an unresolved feeling in the first section. It is startling then that both b and b¹ cadence on the tonic. The melody can be further sectionalized as follows: aa¹aa²bb¹bb². With the repetition of so many similar melodic fragments, the principle of diversity has been tried and found wanting. The hymn becomes quite boring after a verse or two.

If you have ever heard the song "Rhythm of Life" sung by Sammy Davis, Jr., and Shirley MacLain in some forgotten movie of our distant past, you may recognize some of that melody in "Stand Up, O God, Be Present Now" (NTH #71). Not surprisingly this hymn is of the same vintage–early 1970s. Rhythmic unity is achieved ad nauseam with the same rhythmic unit throughout.

Have you ever stood up to sing a hymn in church only to be transported to a smoke-filled piano bar? That style of hymn has found its way into the new Trinity Hymnal. "What Kind of Man Can Live in the World" (NTH #563) might work very nicely in some of those bars. As far as we’re concerned, that is where it should remain.

We saved "In Silence My Soul Is Waiting" (NTH #666!) for the last blast. If you’re not bored by the time you sing all eight verses of this static melody, it may be because you have fallen asleep on your feet. There are 45 notes in this melody of which 33 are the notes a, c, or e. These are the notes of the tonic (minor) triad. In other words, this hymn goes nowhere.

Hymns Deleted from the Old Trinity Hymnal

Good Deletions

Most of the deletions made by the editors were very welcome and we agree with their decisions in almost every case.

Bad Deletions

In addition to what has already been mentioned, other hymns that should not have been deleted include:

OTH

210 Lo, God to Heaven Ascendeth! AUS MEINES HERZENS GRUND

526 O Lord by Thee Delivered ELLACOMBE

254 Come, Holy Spirit, Come CAMBERWELL

225 Hark! Ten Thousand Harps and Voices HARWELL

467 Weary of Earth, and Laden With My Sin LANGRAN

527 Lord, I Hear of Showers of Blessing RHEIDOL

555 Teach Me, My God and King RHIW

623 Christ, By Heavenly Hosts Adored SALZBURG

185 text only By the Cross of Jesus Standing — Horatius Bonar

287 Lord, Thou Hast Been Our Dwelling Place THE GOLDEN CHAIN

435 What, Ye Ask Me, Is My Prize WOLLT IHR, WAS MEIN PREIS

General Comments

The organization of the hymnal along a confessional outline has been maintained, which makes it especially easy to use in personal study and worship. This style of organization is, however, not always best for corporate worship. We do find it rather ironic that where the old Trinity Hymnal has the Ten Commandments (p. ix), the new Trinity Hymnal has a Guitar Chord Chart and a page on How to Add Amens. Maybe the editors felt that in today’s society, knowing one’s guitar chords is much more useful. We would like to think that they may have thought that all good Reformed Christians have the Ten Commandments committed to memory, but we doubt that this was the case.

The old Trinity Hymnal had a section in the back of the hymnal called "Hymns for Informal Occasions." Although we would not have included these hymns in a hymnal, at least they were put under this title and at the back of the hymnal so that people would understand that this style of music is not proper for a worship service. But the editors of the new Trinity Hymnal have seen fit to intersperse these hymns throughout the entire hymnal. These are not hymns in the true sense, but rather they are subjective songs of personal piety and do not belong in worship. We don’t think they even belong in a hymnal.

Conclusion

When we received the first report on the hymnal revision we were distressed that so much junk was even being considered as material for the Trinity Hymnal. We were heartened when we heard that many of the more pop-rock songs (we refuse to call them hymns) were going to be dropped from the final revision. Our first reaction to the new hymnal was that the editors had put together a good hymnal. But as we studied it further we became more disappointed with each passing page.

If I was not a member of the OPC or PCA, I would not even consider buying this hymnal for my congregation to use. OPC and PCA congregations who already use the old Trinity Hymnal, would be better off not to buy the new hymnal, especially considering its expense. Rather they should make their own supplement to their hymnal by seeking Copyright permission for copying the few good hymns that were added to the new Trinity Hymnal; most of the good ones are not even under Copyright. (One good feature of the new hymnal is that all the addresses of the publishers of Copyrighted materials can be found in one list on pages 881-882.) OPC and PCA congregations who do not presently use the Trinity Hymnal but one of the more contemporary broadly evangelical hymnals, should consider replacing their hymnal with the new Trinity Hymnal but with caution as to its problems; and again be ready to make a supplement to the hymnal.

The new Trinity Hymnal is not a hymnal that will be considered one of the great hymnals of all time. We are not even sure that we would call it adequate for our present time. Too many hymns and Psalms are missing from its pages for it to be considered as a successful hymnal.

Is this really all that important? Yes it is. After learning to read and understand the content of the Word, the next most important thing for a congregation is to learn music. In the area of Christian education, music plays second fiddle only to the text of Scripture. As the Spirit glorifies the Son, so music glorifies the Word. Everywhere the Bible commands and commends the use of music (singing) in worship. When we settle for grossly inferior music and poetry in worship, we are not following the directives of the Bible. When we fail to raise up competent, trained musicians to instruct and lead the Church in music, we are failing to heed the priorities of Scripture. A great deal of reformation is needed in the Presbyterian churches along these lines.

Copyright © James B. Jordan 1989 - 2007