BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 33
January, 1992
Copyright 1992, Biblical Horizons
The Old Testament priests were given a number of seemingly disparate duties. As everyone knows, the priests led the sacrificial worship of Israel; only the priests could sprinkle blood on the altar or within the tabernacle, and only they could approach the altar to turn sacrificial animals into smoke. But priests, along with the other Levites, were also charged with the duty of guarding the tent of meeting (Nu. 18:3). They were to act as teachers of the law (Dt. 33:10; Mal. 2:7) and as judges (Dt. 17:9). They were to be experts in distinguishing clean and unclean, sacred and profane (Lev. 10:10). They were to offer incense, symbolic of their intercession on behalf of the children of Israel (Joel 2:17). The very garments of the high priest symbolized that he represented the people of God before the Lord. The priests administered and managed the offerings of the people to the Lord (Lev. 27; Nu. 18).
What is the unifying element of these different activities? Is there a unifying element? Several explanations have been offered. Classically, mediation has been considered to be the basic meaning of priesthood; priests speak God’s words to the people, and represent the people before the face of God. Clearly, there is a great deal of truth to this assessment. Yet, it is not clear how, for example, the priest’s guarding task is related to mediation.
Others have concluded that guarding is the basic function of the priesthood. James Jordan has suggested that priestly activity involves establishing and then guarding boundaries (Through New Eyes, pp. 136). Indeed, "guarding is the essence of [man’s] priestly task" (p. 134). As Meredith Kline, Jacob Milgrom, and others have confirmed, the guarding task is close to the heart of the meaning of priesthood. Yet, it is not so obvious that every other priestly task must be subordinated to this one. Jordan’s suggestion that priests "guarded God’s throne by leading people in worship" since "people who truly worship God will not disobey Him" seems forced. Certainly, in a "perspectival sense" we can view worship as a kind of guarding. But it is difficult to shake the sense that they are really two distinct activities. Ezekiel 44:16 implies that they are indeed distinct activities: The sons of Zadok would be permitted to "come near to My table to minister to Me and keep My charge [do My guard duty, Heb. shamru `et-mishmarti]." (It could be argued from this passage, however, that "doing My guard duty" is an explanation of the table ministry of the priests.)
If guarding is the central task of priesthood, moreover, it is difficult to account for the absence of any reference to guarding in some texts that describe the basic functions of the Levitical priest. In Leviticus 21:21-23, for example, the Lord excluded Aaronites with physical defects from coming "near to offer the Lord’s food offerings; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God" (v. 21). Men with defects were prohibited from going into the veil or coming near the altar (v. 23). This law restricted Aaronites with defects from participating in the full range of priestly activities, but nowhere is guarding mentioned as one of those activities. Deuteronomy 33:8-11 lists the duties of the Levites as: using the Urim and Thummim, teaching the law to Israel, and offering incense and burnt offering (cf. 1 Chron. 6:49). These texts show that the Bible can speak of the privileges and duties of priesthood without mentioning guarding.
(Moreover, though the guarding theme is certainly not absent from the account of Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16-18, the main issue at stake between Korah and Aaron was not who would do guard duty, but who could "draw near" [Nu. 16:5].)
We can move toward a more comprehensive definition of the meaning of priesthood, one that includes but is not restricted to guarding, by examining the few secular uses of the word "priest" (Hebrew: kohen) in the Old Testament. In the list of ministers of Solomon in 1 Kings 4, we are told that "Zabud the son of Nathan, a priest, [was] the king’s friend" (v. 5). It is not clear whether Zabud or Nathan is being designated as a priest. What is intriguing is that the preceding verse identifies Zadok and Abiathar as the Aaronic priests (v. 4; cf. 1 Ki. 2:35; 1 Chron. 6:12). There is, moreover, no reference in the genealogies of the tribe of Levi to either a "Zabud" or a "Nathan." They were evidently not descendants of Aaron, yet were designated as "priests." The connection between "priest" and "king’s friend" is also noteworthy.
Along similar lines, 2 Samuel 8:18 informs us that David’s sons were "priests." (It is possible that the "Nathan" in 1 Ki. 4:5 is the son of David; cf. 1 Chron. 3:5.) Again, they were obviously not Levitical priests, since David’s sons were of the tribe of Judah. Moreover, v. 17 identifies Zadok and Ahimelech as the Aaronic priests. 2 Samuel 20:26 says, moreover, that David’s "priest" was Ira the Jairite, perhaps a descendant of the "Jair" who settled in the transJordan (cf. Nu. 32:41; Dt. 3:14), but clearly not a descendant of Aaron. Finally, 1 Chronicles 18:16-17 lists David’s officers, stating that the sons of David were, literally, "first ones at the king’s hand." The word kohen is not used here, but the parallel with 2 Samuel 8:18 is suggestive.
J. Barton Payne has disputed several of these references (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 431). The word for priest is missing in the Septuagint version of 2 Samuel 8:18, and the Hebrew text itself is garbled. On 2 Samuel 20:26 and 1 Kings 4:5, Payne suggests the possibility that Ira and Zabud were personal priests to David and Solomon. Even if that were the case, however, it would leave us with the glaring anomaly of non-Aaronic priests. What functions would these non-Aaronic "priests" have served? They could not draw near to the temple, so why have them? And, if they were "priests" who had no liturgical or sacrificial functions, then the office they filled was not what we usually think of as a "priestly" office.
Far superior, in my judgment, is the conclusion that, in secular contexts, kohen refers to a high administrative office in the royal government. The use of kohen in reference to Zabud and to David’s sons suggests the possibility that the office of kohen is closely related to the office of "king’s friend." At the very least it carries the connotation of a king’s minister or servant.
These secular usages are of great help in our efforts to define the basic character of the sanctuary priesthood. Like the secular "priest," the Aaronic priest was a servant in the King’s house, and therefore a close advisor and confidant of the Great King. This is prima facie a plausible definition of the priesthood. Several Psalms, for example, refer to the priests as "servants of the Lord" who "serve by night in the house of the Lord" (Ps. 134:1) and who "stand in his house" Ps. 135:2). The description of Moses as a "servant" in the "house" (Heb. 3:5) might thus have a priestly connotation (cf. Ps. 99:6). The common description of the priest as one who is consecrated to "draw near" also fits nicely with the idea that the priest is essentially a servant of the royal household. Like the household servant, the priest had authority to enter the King’s palace, a privilege not given to everyone. And, like the household servant, the priest was permitted to enter the house so that he could minister to the king (cf. Ezk. 44:16).
Moreover, the various activities of the Aaronic priesthood can, it seems to me, be subsumed without distortion under this general description. As household servants to the king, the priests did indeed guard the doorways of the palace; the priests were charged with establishing and maintaining the boundary lines between the holy and the profane. But that is not the sole duty of the household servant. Servants are also responsible for cleaning the furniture of the house; similarly, only the consecrated priests could sprinkle the blood that cleansed the defiled tabernacle. As household servants, the priests also served at the King’s table, drawing near to prepare His bread, the sacrifices by fire (Lev. 21:21; Ezk. 44:16). In the ancient near east, household servants were more than manual laborers, however. They were trusted men who advised the king; the cup-bearer Nehemiah evidently had some pull in the court of Susa. So also, the priests had the privilege of advising the King, of presenting petitions before Him in the smoke of the incense. As household servants, the priests would logically also have had the duty of managing the people’s tribute payments to the King (Lev. 27; Nu. 18). In short, if an advertisement for a priest were to be placed in the "Want Ads," it would bear a heading something like this: "Wanted: Administrator of Royal Household."
The other dimensions of priestly work — teaching, judging, etc. — also fit under this heading. The true dwelling place of God, after all, is God’s people. Priestly service in the tabernacle symbolized priestly service among the people. As servants of the Lord’s people-household, the priests were responsible for establishing and enforcing moral boundaries, that is, they taught the law and judged the people. The blood sprinkled by the priests did not cleanse merely the furniture of the tabernacle, but the living furniture, the living stones that made up the true dwelling of God. Ultimately, the King’s "hunger" is not satisfied by bulls and goats (Ps. 50:7-13), but by an self-offering of thanksgiving (vv. 14-15). The sacrifice of the Lord is a broken and contrite heart (Ps. 51:14-17); what satisfies God’s hunger and thirst are living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1-2), since obedience is better than sacrifice (1 Sam. 15:22). Thus, the priests’ duty to "feed" the king and "minister at his table" was fulfilled by leading the people of God to offer themselves as food to the Lord. As household servants, finally, the priests offered petitions on behalf of the household of faith.
By expanding our understanding of the Lord’s "house" from tabernacle to people, we begin to see how we as the New Covenant priesthood can fulfill our priestly calling. The priests of the Old Covenant were representatives of the entire holy nation, representatively fulfilling the calling placed upon all Israel. Their duties and privileges pointed forward to what we, in Christ, have received.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 33
January, 1992
Copyright 1992, Biblical Horizons
In the first week of November, the voters of the state of Washington were asked to approve or disapprove physician-assisted suicide. This has led to a good deal of comment on the issue of euthanasia in the press, and provokes the following reflections.
1. From a social policy standpoint, the whole matter seems a little bizarre. If I were suffering intensely from an incurable illness, and decided to commit suicide, there are a variety of rather painless ways to go about it. There does not seem to be any need for assistance from a physician or anyone else. Thus, why should this issue be raised at all? Anyone who wants to commit suicide is free to do so anytime.
Some of the people in this predicament are old and/or very weak, and thus would need some assistance in ending their lives. Here again, however, I don’t see why a physician is needed. Family members can help.
It seems that the desire for a physician is in part a desire for approval. Most people believe that suicide is wrong. If the courts and a physician tell a person that in his case it is all right, he can feel better about it. The guilt has been shared. And, the person who does not feel up to killing himself has been able to hire a professional to do it for him.
Thus, what society is being asked to decide is not whether people in dire straits can commit suicide, but whether it is acceptable behavior or not. Should a person be allowed the comfort of social approval when he decides to end his life?
2. There are seemingly good reasons for people to commit suicide. Some diseases and conditions are extremely painful and are incurable. Why not go ahead and die? Especially from a Christian viewpoint, since we view this life as temporary anyway, why not go ahead and end this life?
An even better reason to commit suicide is to avoid being a burden to others. People suffering from horrible conditions may be able to take the physical pain, but they may suffer much more from the belief that they are a burden to their families. It hurts a great deal to see your loved ones suffer because you are dying, especially if your medical expenses are going to bankrupt your family. Why not go ahead and get it over with so they can get on with their lives?
As a first answer, we see that the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill," referring to human beings. The Bible makes no exception because of human suffering, and so we must be very careful if we begin to think that there may be such exceptions. Putting people out of their misery is not an option for us (but transforming people’s misery is, as we shall see).
Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden, and two trees were pointed out to him by God. One was the Tree of Life and the other the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God told Adam that the Tree of Knowledge was temporarily prohibited. God encouraged Adam to eat of all the other trees. Thus, God was encouraging Adam to eat of the Tree of Life.
As I have shown at length elsewhere ("The Dominion Trap," Biblical Horizons 15), the Tree of Knowledge has to do with investiture with judicial authority. Adam was not ready for this investiture because he was immature. Later on, as men matured, God gave them the right to exercise capital punishment in state (the death penalty) and church (excommunication). But God always forbad men to kill unless they had express warrant from Him. The Bible spells out that we may kill in self-defense, in war, and through the magistrate for certain crimes. We are not authorized to kill ourselves or to put others to death because they are suffering. To take upon ourselves this right is to seize from the Tree of Knowledge. The fact that Adam was given unrestricted access to the Tree of Life and encouraged to partake of it indicates that we are to choose life over death. We may only employ death sparingly, only to the extent that God has given us restricted access to the Tree of Judgment.
In his sin Adam was kept from the Tree of Life lest he eat and live forever in a condition of sin. Redeemed man, however, is enjoined to eat from the Tree of Life, Jesus Christ.
The fruit of the Tree of Life may be eaten any time; we have been given blanket permission to eat of it. The Tree of Knowledge (of Judicial Authority over Life and Death) has been restricted. God tells us precisely when we may eat of it. To move beyond God’s parameters is to seize forbidden fruit.
Adam was tempted to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Because Adam knew that he would eventually be allowed to eat of it, what God required of him was patience. What Satan set before Adam was the temptation to impatience, the temptation to seize the prerogatives of eldership and rule before he was ready.
This is directly analogous to the situation people who are suffering find themselves in. Suffering forces the issue of patience and impatience. We want the suffering to end, and we are thus tempted to seize at anything we can to end it.
Through God’s good gift of suffering, we realize that death is a good thing. Death will end the struggle with sin and the miseries of this life. When we experience suffering, we see how attractive death really is. Death is God’s good judgment on sin. Death will usher us into bliss. We agree with Bach’s great chorale, "Come, Sweet Death."
So, in the midst of suffering and pain we are tempted to seize death. But God has told us to be patient. We are not authorized to eat of the Tree of Judgment and commit suicide. God reserves to Himself the right to bring death to us. We have to remain patient and await His timing.
We can see the Adamic temptation expanded in the temptation Job’s Eve set before him: "Curse God and die." Job in his agony was tempted to end it all, but he chose to remain patient and wait for God to kill him. Job chose the Tree of Life, and kept his hands off the Tree of Judgment. He refused to execute himself.
Thus, we see that from a Biblical standpoint, suicide and mercy killing are excluded. I don’t think that they unpardonable sins, for many people commit suicide in a state of confusion. The Bible nowhere says that God will keep believers from committing murder. David did, after all. If believers can commit murder, they can also commit suicide. But whether the act is a high-handed sin or a sin of inadvertency, it is still wrong.
3. A Biblical perspective on suffering must take into account the prescriptions of James 5:14-15, "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, having anointed him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, it will be forgiven him."
Anointing with oil by the elders guarantees salvation from sickness and resurrection from death. That is the clear and unmistakable statement of James 5:14-15. In every case, the person who is sick and suffering passes to true health and life when the elders anoint him.
But, Biblically speaking, true health and life are not necessarily the same thing as ordinarily health and life. "Raising up" has a double meaning in the Bible. In Genesis 40:13 & 19 Joseph told both the Cupbearer and the Baker that Pharaoh would raise up their heads, but in the one case it meant the head was raised up to its former position, while in the other it meant that the head would swing high from the gallows. Similarly, Jesus said that when He was raised up He would draw all men to Himself, referring to his crucifixion (John 12:32-33), though we cannot exclude an additional reference to His resurrection and ascension.
The Christian is privileged to participate in the sufferings of Christ. This is part of the work of resurrected believers (Phil. 3:10). Thus, when a man is anointed with oil but is not physically healed, he is still raised up. His suffering is no longer in the sphere of death but in the sphere of resurrection. He is no longer merely a sufferer but a martyr. His suffering is no longer meaningless, but is now a special calling. God calls us to bear one another’s burdens. Those who have been anointed to the ministry of suffering may well be bearing burdens of believers they have never met, as they "fill up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions" (Col. 1:24).
Part of the reason the Christian world has no real credible answer for those who promote euthanasia is that the Churches today do not practice anointing. Neither do they understand that suffering is a special call in the Church. The man who suffers is a catalyst to help others learn to sacrifice, and he also suffers as a way of advancing the kingdom of God. Just as Jesus’ anointed suffering and death established the kingdom once and for all, so the last good work of the believer is his own anointed suffering and death to fill out and advance that kingdom.
From the standpoint of the everlasting life, the amount of time we may spend suffering from a terminal illness is very brief. If we have been anointed, and refuse the temptation to seize death prematurely, we are carrying out an important if invisible ministry in the Kingdom of God.
4. What I have just written raises the question of the use of painkillers. If I have been anointed and called to suffering, should I use painkillers? Certainly. God recommends drunkenness as a way to ease pain (Prov. 31:6-7). The use of modern painkillers, thus, is affirmed as a good thing. We use physicians and painkillers to minimize suffering, but having done so, to the extent we still suffer we recognize it as a special calling.
5. Finally, what about the financial burden of modern medicine? There is no reason why an anointed believer must take advantage of highly expensive modern medicine. It is true that God works through means, so that the person anointed with oil may be healed through the work of a physician. At the same time, the Bible does not indicate that we must pursue every means available to extend this brief life.
It is not suicide to let yourself die. If you don’t want to bankrupt your family, just leave the hospital and go home. If you have been anointed, you have committed the whole matter to God anyway. If He wants you to live, He will make it clear. If the only way you can keep living is to make use of a medical procedure you cannot afford, then His will for you is clear.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 4, No. 1
January, 1992
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1992
by James B. Jordan
We come this month to one of the most pernicious problems in the reconstruction of Ancient Near Eastern chronology, the problem of the Assyrian King Lists. We cannot proceed further with our survey of the chronology of the kings of Israel until we remove this roadblock from our path.
We can do no better than to lean on the work of the extremely learned Dr. O. T. Allis, who includes a full discussion of the subject in his unjustly neglected book The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its Critics (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co, 1972). The book is long out of print and nowhere available, and so, since few readers will be able to consult it for themselves, I shall provide an in-depth review of his discussion. Allis begins:
"Among the early results of excavation in Assyria was the discovery and publication by Rawlinson a century ago of tablets containing the Eponym Canon. These tablets recorded the names of the kings and high officials who, like the archons at Athens and the consuls at Rome, gave their names in succession, each to a year, thereby establishing the chronological sequence. While the system of dating by eponyms began centuries earlier, these lists cover a period of about 250 years, beginning about 900 B.C. A gratifying result of the discovery of these lists lies in the fact that they connect with and overlap for about a century the Ptolemaic Canon, which had been known and used for centuries, but which only began with the Era of Nabonasser, 747 B.C. It was quickly discovered that the two canons were in agreement for the periods which they both covered; and thus the year 722 B.C. for the fall of Samaria, as given by Ussher on the basis of the Ptolemaic Canon, served to anchor the Eponym Canon for the Assyrian chronology" (p. 398f.)
Now, if we take the 490 years of Daniel 9 literally, as we are doing in these essays, we shall have to move these dates forward by quite a bit, but that is not the problem at issue in the Assyrian King List. Let Allis continue:
"The Eponym Canon was preserved in two forms; the one consisted merely of the names of the eponyms (limmu), while the other of which several fragmentary duplicates were discovered, added to the name of the year a brief notation of some important event. Thus for the eponym of Pur-sagale, which was the ninth year of Ashur-Dan III, there was mention of an eclipse of the sun, which astronomer were able to very as having occurred in 763 B.C., a further anchoring of the Canon" (p. 399).
Here we have another problem, also discussed in these essays, which is that we cannot be sure of the dates of these eclipses. It is widely assumed that the moon and the earth have not changed at all in their rotation and revolution during the past several thousand years, so that we can readily calculate when and where eclipses took place in the ancient world. When we find an eclipse referred to, we can easily fix the date. Catastrophists argue that there were significant changes in the relative positions of the moon and the earth during the period in question, nullifying any such calculation of eclipses. (See for instance, Arie Dirkzwager, "Expanding the End of Assyrian History," in Catastrophism and Ancient History 6:1 [January, 1984], p. 45f.)
One does not need to be a catastrophist to question the validity of eclipse dating, however. As we pointed out in Biblical Chronology 2:1, Robert R. Newton has called attention to the established fact of small accelerations and decelerations in the rotation of the earth and of the earth-moon revolution, which means that the farther back we go in history, the less certain we can be of when, where, and how eclipses took place.
This, however, is not the problem we are taking up at present. Let Allis continue: "It was also discovered that, according to the Annals of Shalmaneser III, this king, in his sixth year fought a battle at Qarqar against an alliance of kings, among whom Ahabbu of Sir’ilaia was mentioned. This was in 854 B.C. So it was at once pointed out that if this Ahabbu was the Ahab of the Bible, as many assumed to be the case, this made a difference of more than forty years in the biblical chronology, which placed the death of Ahab, according to Ussher, in 897 B.C." (p. 399).
Virtually all modern evangelical (Bible-believing) scholars assume that the Assyrian King List is inviolable and that Ahabbu is Ahab, and thus that some kind of adjustment must be made in the Biblical chronology. It is this problem that we must now address, with Allis as our guide.
Allis summarizes: "This difference between the biblical and the Assyrian chronologies led to a vigorous debate. Three main positions were taken regarding it. We may describe them as the Gap Theory, which sought to harmonize the Assyrian chronology with the biblical, the Co-Reign Theory, which sought to harmonize the biblical chronology with the Assyrian, and the Objective Theory, which sought to do justice to both" (p. 399).
The Gap Theory proposes that somewhere in the Assyrian Eponym Canon there is a gap of 40+ years. The Biblical chronology is assumed to be correct as it stands, and the Assyrian in error. An early proponent of this view was Jules Oppert, "one of the most distinguished of the pioneers in the Assyriological field" (p. 399). Unfortunately, further archaeological discoveries in the near east have shown Oppert’s suggested reconstruction of Assyrian history, which allowed for a gap, to be impossible. Anstey also proposes a gap, but without proposing any kind of reconstruction of events (Chronology of the Old Testament, pp. 39-41). At present, there is an ongoing discussion in Catastrophism and Ancient History on the question of whether the Assyrian list needs to be expanded. Because there is a better solution to the problem, we need not concern ourselves at this point with that discussion.
The Co-Reign Theories
Allis summaries: "It was maintained by Rawlinson and Schrader that there was no evidence of any break in the sequence of names in the Eponym Canon and that the biblical chronology must be shortened to accord with the new data supplied by the Canon. This view has quite generally prevailed, even in conservative circles and the means used to accomplish the reduction has been . . . the postulating of a series of co-reigns. Both of these explanations [Gap Theory and Co-Reign Theory–JBJ] have this in common: They proceed upon the assumption that the Ahabbu and Iaua mentioned by Shalmaneser are to be identified with the Ahab and Jehu, kings of Israel, referred to in Kings" (p. 400).
Allis proceeds to discuss the Co-Reign approach as it is found in The New Bible Dictionary and in Edwin Thiele’s Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Had he written later than 1972, Allis might also have discussed E. W. Faulstich’s History, Harmony, and the Hebrew Kings, which also proceeds on the same assumption. Allis shows that there are indeed co-regencies referred to in the Biblical account of the kings (as we have seen in our survey of the same era thus far in these essays). The Co-Reign Theory, however, adds new co-regencies that have little or no Biblical support. Allis suggests that the Objective Theory cuts the knot of this problem and eliminates it by denying that the Ahabbu and Iaua of the Assyrians are the Ahab and Jehu of the Bible.
The Objective Theory
Allis writes: "This theory was proposed by George Smith in his book, The Assyrian Eponym Canon, which was published in 1875. . . . We may call his solution objective because it consisted, he tells us, `of taking the Assyrian records to be correct as to Assyrian dates, and the Hebrew as to Hebrew dates’ and also of recognizing `the possibility of errors in the Assyrian accounts where they differ on Jewish matters from the Bible.’" (Smith, pp. 185, 192; Allis, p. 412.) Smith added, "If we allow that the Ahab and Jehu mentioned in the Assyrian records may not be the Ahab and Jehu of the Bible, we are not under the necessity of altering the chronology of either nation in order to make the Assyrian notices fit the times of the Hebrew monarchs" (Smith, p. 154; Allis, p. 412).
Allis continues that Smith’s arguments, which seem "so fair and judicious, apparently attracted little attention; and the identification of the Ahabbu and Iaua of the inscriptions with the Ahab and Jehu of the Bible, which had been vigorously advocated by Schrader in 1872, has been quite generally accepted as established fact. It will be well, therefore, to reexamine carefully the evidence for these and other widely accepted identifications. In doing so it is to be carefully noted at the outset that the data, both biblical and extra-biblical, bearing on the chronology of this period, are meager and insufficient for a wholly satisfactory solution of the problems which are involved" (p. 413).
Allis now proceeds to demonstrate that these identifications are extremely unlikely. He begins: "First of all it is to be noted that there is no clear mention in the Bible of any Assyrian king until the time of Menahem (772-61), who sought the help of Pul king of Assyria `to confirm the kingdom in his hand’ (2 Kings 15:19). This fact is important and deserves careful consideration. Egypt is frequently mentioned from the time of the Patriarchs onward. Solomon married a daughter of Pharaoh; and a few years after his death Shishak invaded Palestine and claimed to have captured many cities. Zerah the Ethiopian [a Pharaoh–JBJ] invaded Judah in Asa’s time. Later on Isaiah and Jeremiah warned their peoples against looking to Egypt for help against Assyria. The Syrians were enemies of Israel for centuries from the time of David on; and several Ben-hadads and Hadadezers are mentioned. We read of wars with the Philistines and that, as late as the time of Jehoshaphat, they brought him presents. The Hittites are also frequently mentioned in the Pentateuch and in Joshua. Solomon traded with them (1 Kings 10:29; 2 Chron. 1:17); and in the days of Elisha they were regarded as a serious threat to Israel (2 Kings 7:6). But not a word is said in the Historical Books about Assyria until the time of Menahem of Israel. If a century and more earlier Assyria had felt obliged to fight against Shalmaneser at distant Qarqar, it is certainly remarkable that no mention of Assyria is made in Kings or Chronicles until so much later" (p. 414).
We shall continue our investigation into this important question next month.
Open Book: Views & Reviews, No. 7
January, 1992
Copyright (c) 1992 Biblical Horizons
Let us now switch gears and move to a discussion of art, literature, architecture, and music. In English, we speak of "playing" games and also of "playing" musical instruments. There is a connection between the two, in that both involve some degree of pleasure and recreation. At the same time, the arts are serious business, not just fun. We see this in the attention God required in the artistic aspects of His worship. American Christians tend to treat the arts as just one more form of recreation. But while there is a connection between art and play (so that we are discussing both together in these essays), actually art and beauty should be at the center of life, since they are supposed to reveal God’s glory and beauty to us. A good deal of transformative thinking is needed in this area.
The Bible indicates to us that we are supposed to bring the very best of our labors to God as our tithe, our first-fruit offering. Historically, the very best art, architecture, literature, and music has been found in the worship and decor of the church. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, there had come to be so much artistic abuse in the church that some of the protestants removed art and music from the church. One of the sad byproducts of this, especially in America, is that church architecture and church music have often been very poor.
God is beautiful. His throne is set in glory and beauty, and He commanded that His Temple and His priests be garbed in glory and beauty. Gold, fine linen, beautiful colors, precious stone, careful architectural lines, orchestras of professional musicians, trained choirs — all of these things we find in the Bible’s description of God’s house and His worship.
Folk Art and Fine Art
We can and should distinguish between "folk" art and "spectator" art. In practice, what "spectator art" means is art that has been separated from a whole-life context and turned into something appreciated at a distance. For instance, if we draw a picture on our walls (or fresco them), then we are adorning our home; this is in the more folkish area. But if we paint the same picture on a canvas and hang it in a museum, we have removed it from the whole-life "folk" context and put it into the more abstracted "spectator art" milieu. We have bracketed it (literally, framed it) off from the rest of life. Similarly, as soon as dance is taken from a dance floor and put on a stage, it moves from folk to spectator. And as soon as music, singing or playing, is put on a concert stage it moves from folk to spectator.
Within spectator art we can distinguish between popular and fine art. Fine art is art that is "refined," that is, art that requires a much higher degree of skill than popular art, and that is designed to "communicate at a more profound level" rather than be "merely useful or entertaining."
Most, though not all, folk art is crude. That is in the nature of the case, since most people are not expert enough to produce really beautiful art or music. The one place where folk art and fine art meet is in the liturgy of the historic Christian churches. The place where whole-life art, which involves the participation of people, reaches its fullest and most beautiful form, is in formal public worship. The liturgy involves all the arts. For instance:
The glory of the liturgy, done as a command performance before the throne of the King of kings, is that with only a little training all the people can participate in it. Thus, the liturgy becomes the fountain of the greatest in both folk art and fine art.
A culture with a well-developed liturgy of worship will also have good folk art and good fine art in all the rest of life. By way of contrast, a culture that has no liturgy of worship (as is the case with most American churches) will have only very crude folk art, and virtually no fine art. Americans import their fine art from Europe, for the most part.
For a variety of reasons, American protestant churches in the Baptist/Methodist/Presbyterian/Pentecostalist traditions have a negative view toward command-performance liturgy. Worship in these churches tends to be a form of entertainment: popular spectator art. The congregation sits passively and listens to a performance put on by preacher or choir. In some churches the preacher is expected to entertain with a lot of yelling and carrying on, while in others he is expected to entertain by providing a detailed Bible or doctrinal lesson. While there is nothing wrong (obviously) with a Bible lesson, if that is about the only thing people come to church for, then they basically are coming to receive, not to give. They are not coming to worship God, but to get information — and all too often this degenerates into merely getting their ears tickled.
The more liturgical churches are often little better. They are indeed more artistic, and have better architecture, decor, music, and so forth. But generally the congregations sit passively and are entertained by all of this: fine spectator art.
(The worst form of this entertainment religion is the televised preaching service, in which the viewer cannot participate even if he wanted to. People who spend lots of time watching TV preachers will tend to bring that same passive mentality with them when they come to public worship at church, and will tend to resist any upgrade that requires them to take a more active part in worship.)
What we need is worship as fine folk art. The Bible everywhere indicates that the church should develop a rich liturgy to present before the King of kings. Historically the church has always done so. We need to give careful consideration to this as we seek to reform the area of the arts. The United States of America is about fifty times larger than France, Germany, or Britain, but does the USA have fifty times the number of great novelists, painters, or composers as any of these countries? Obviously not. The reason is that in spite of the decline of Christianity in these European countries, the discipline of a high liturgy was still felt in the arts there. Americans have more great orchestras, but not composers. Probably more than any other of the arts, music grows out of the worship of the church, and in America, church music is disgracefully poor. Thus, as always, judgment and reformation must begin at the house of God. Given the liturgical movement in all quarters of the Christian church in America at present, we have reason to hope that in another generation or two, our culture will have been disciplined enough to begin producing great works of fine art.
Some Recommendations
God’s beauty is the standard of what we should regard as beautiful. Christians should endeavor to learn to appreciate the best in art, literature, and music. For the most part, this means appreciating the fine arts, especially when we do not have access to participating in fine liturgical worship. Most of us, however, don’t know where to begin. Let me give a few suggestions and comments.
First, most of the classics of Western literature are either Christian or are influenced by Christian themes. It would be good if churches would set up reading classes, and pastors would take people through some of the classics from a Christian point of view. The same is true of the visual arts. We should want to be educated in this, so that we can appreciate the glory and beauty of God and His creation better. When a Shakespeare play is on television, make certain you watch it closely. You’ll find that you basically agree with the points Shakespeare was making. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis are not the only writers Christians will appreciate. There are also the mystery stories written by G. K. Chesterton and Dorothy Sayers. There are the science fiction tales by Cordwainer Smith, Fred Saberhagen (the "Berserker Wars" series), Tim Powers, James Blaylock, and Gene Wolfe. There are the serious social novels by Francois Mauriac and Fyodor Dostoievsky. Christians can also appreciate the literary efforts of Leo Tolstoi, for instance, even though he was not a Christian, because of the Christian influences in his writings.
Second, it is relatively easy for Christians to surround themselves with good music. By good music, I mean classical music. I don’t mean "Christian radio station" music, whether of the gospel variety or of the easy listening variety. Both of these styles of music are usually characterized by flat, dull, gooey words, and flat, dull, gooey music. There is generally little or nothing to lead us to a more profound understanding of the glory and beauty of God and His creation.
The point is not that all such music is "bad," but that it is by far not the best. Modern Christian music has developed out of popular, pagan styles of music, and has a history of about fifteen years of development and growth. Classical music developed out of church music and has a history of about fifteen hundred years of development and growth. Which do you suppose is superior? Which would you like your children to get the most exposure to? Which will better help you grow in faith and knowledge?
It is true that most of the great composers were not Christians, but it is also true that the styles of the music they wrote was developed and fixed by Christians during the years 1000 to 1700 A.D. (Indeed, the development of musical notation is pretty much uniquely Western and thus Christian.) It has taken a couple of centuries to undo the Christian heritage in music (and in the other arts). Christian composers of recent years, such as Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Franck, Poulenc, and Messiaen, have written explicitly for God’s glory, as did virtually all the early composers, such as Machaut, Ockhegem, Josquin des Pres, Bach, and Handel. If Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Wagner were not Christians, or even anti-Christian in their personal philosophies, still they were working out of a Christian heritage, in terms of a Christian idea of what is glorious and beautiful, and much of their music can be and should be enjoyed by Christians today.
If there is a classical radio station in your area, tune to it and leave it on all day. Saturate your environment with the best, and minimize your exposure to what is inferior. Let me say again, however, that I am not claiming that all other kinds of music are bad, or have some type of mysterious evil effects on those who listen to them. It is simply to say that we should surround our home environments with the very best.
Christians do not need to fear the arts. God wants us to live beautiful lives and make more beauty to His glory. As long as we seek first the kingdom of God, we do not need to fear that we will be drawn away from God by good literature, art, and music.
What about dancing? Because of the erotic nature of much dancing, Christians have historically shied away from the dance. In the Bible, however, people danced to the Lord; indeed, we are commanded to do so (Psalm 150:4). Thus, dancing is not always wrong; it depends on the situation. Romantic dancing between a man and his wife, for instance, is entirely appropriate. A man ought not to be happy if his wife dances in the embrace of some other man, however. Moreover, some folk dances are innocent of erotic overtones. Christians should be careful of the dance, as of all things, but Christians should not reject the beauty of bodily movement and exercise, for it is a way to praise God.
Television
Television is a problem for Christians, because television tends to become addictive. To sit and watch TV does not engage the mind actively the same way that reading a book or listening intelligently to a symphony does. When we sit passively, in an attitude of wanting to be entertained, we tend to become depressed. Most of us, if we spend too much time entertaining ourselves, will get into a foul mood. Man needs to put some effort into what he does.
Another problem is that television is almost always watched too much by children, who should be out playing and developing their bodies, or studying, or working at piano lessons, or helping around the house or farm. Square-eyed kids, addicted to what writer Harlan Ellison has aptly called the "glass teat," are not being prepared for the responsibilities of Christian maturity.
A third problem is that television pipes directly into our homes a pagan philosophy of life, attractively presented in the form of cartoons, interesting dramas, or not-very-funny entertainment programs. Those who subscribe to movie channels also have to contend with pornography.
So, the solution is to get rid of the television, right? No, not at all. Such a solution can be a denial of the power of God to give us self-discipline. We must learn to discipline our viewing habits and watch selectively. There is no magic formula for this. Some people have tried rationing their use of the television by putting a piggy bank on the set, and paying something like $2.00 per hour to watch it. How many people do you think really keep this up for very long, especially when they realize that they are simply paying themselves? Even if you are paying the money over to the church, the fact is that it takes as much self-discipline to do all this as it does simply to decide to break the habit and keep the set turned off except for things that you really want to see. Make the decision, ask God to help you keep with it, and gird up your loins and do it. Of course, if you find that in fact you never watch any more television, because nothing interests you, you might get rid of it. There are, however, good concerts, plays, films, and programs on the arts on some public TV and satellite cable channels. We should take advantage of these. We can also enjoy programs about nature, animals, and science, provided we filter the evolutionary viewpoint.
How about entertainment viewing? In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with a Christian spending a moderate amount of his time reading simple fiction or viewing television drama. The problem comes in that so much of this kind of stuff is garbage. It really is. It has no point, no depth, no humor. (It is pitiful how television comedians strive to be funny, but even with the canned laughter, there is little real humor on television.)
I mentioned something earlier that applies here: filtering and objectivity. The older we become, the more skilled we should be at filtering the kind of stuff that is thrown at us; that is, we should be able to assume an objective psychological stance and sort out the good from the bad. Except for the Bible, all literature is a mixture of good and bad elements. Sometimes the good vastly outweighs the bad, so that we are able to stomach or filter the bad very easily. Sometimes the bad so outweighs the good that we reject the story or drama altogether, as trash or as pornography. Sometimes there is a mixture. Different people will have different interests and different abilities to filter. We cannot, thus, set up a universal standard for all people. There are books and films that children should not read or see, but that adults can appreciate. (Indeed, the Jewish rabbis used to maintain that no unmarried person should be permitted to read the scroll of the Song of Solomon, for obvious reasons.) So, filtering is very important, but it is up to each individual how much he is able and/or willing to filter.
As a general rule, however, the Christian will watch far less television, and be far more selective, than the non-Christian.
Now, how about Christian television stations? I’m going to be very blunt here, and risk offending some: I think most of this stuff is a total and complete waste of time. The sermons (harangues) preached on television are mostly garbage, not Bible exposition. They are devoid of value in helping you mature in the faith. Moreover, they tend to compete with the Church for your time, loyalty, and money. Second, while the older, cleaner entertainment programming of some Christian networks is obviously preferable to what is on the three major networks today, it is still not a whole lot better even so. Finally, you can waste a lot of time watching Christian talk shows, time better spent doing something active. This kind of viewing is all right while you wash dishes or fold clothes, but it seldom has enough value to command your full attention.
The Christian use of television is still in its infancy. It has come a long way, but just because a television program is Christian in orientation does not mean we are obligated to watch it, nor does it give us an excuse to sit and use the "plug-in drug." We have to be just as selective with Christian television as with non-Christian. If there is a guest on a talk show who has something genuinely worthwhile to say, you might tune in. Otherwise, there are probably better ways to use your time.
(to be concluded)
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.
