Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 21
June 1992
Copyright (c) 1992 by Biblical Horizons
The question of whether the Church stands “against” culture, is “of” or “above” culture, or seeks to “transform” culture cannot be answered in abstraction from a particular cultural context. To be sure, in many ways the Church’s message and relation to the world cannot change; the Church must, in season and out of season, proclaim the whole counsel of God and confess that Christ is Lord of all, and seek to bring all into conformity with His will. But in many respects the Church’s relationship to society and culture is not static but fluid; tactically, we might say, her stance toward the world depends in some measure on the condition of the world.
The Church’s relation to contemporary America must, it seems to me, be confrontational. As Herbert Schlossberg argued brilliantly in Idols for Destruction, contemporary America is, like ancient Israel, a land filled with idolatries, rarefied and respectable though they may be. Faced with an idolatrous culture, the Church has no choice but to stake out its ground as a counter-culture. (A friend of mine recently remarked that, since the triumph of “the Sixties,” the Church is more accurately described as a counter-counter-culture.)
A leading aspect of contemporary life is, according to Neil Postman’s 1985 book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, the dominance of entertainment and particularly of television. Following Marshall McLuhan, Postman argues that the medium of public discourse molds the content of a culture. A “typographic” culture where the written word is the primary medium of communication encourages certain mental habits, so that “in a culture dominated by print, public discourse tends to be characterized by a coherent, orderly arrangement of facts and ideas.” A culture dominated by the flickering image will be one in which ideas are suppressed in favor of entertainment.
Postman makes a powerful case for his conclusion that the symphony of contemporary public discourse is written in an entertainment key. He raises the remarkably obvious question of why news programs begin with dramatic music, and gives the equally obvious answer that television news programs do not intend primarily to give useful information but to entertain. News is not the only victim of the television culture. Politics suffers as well. There is something unnerving about seeing Sen. Paul Tsongas make a brief appearance on “Late Night With David Letterman” a couple of days after winning the New Hampshire primary or watching a putatively serious political journalist like John McLaughlin yuk it up with Jay Leno. Everyone, it seems, has the potential to become a celebrity; that is, to become an entertainer. To do so is to reach the heights of contemporary American culture.
Postman argues that the constraints imposed by the medium of television do not melt away when the television program has a religious content. Instead, television reduces religion to another form of light entertainment. Thus, “most of the religious shows feature sparkling fountains, floral displays, choral groups and elaborate sets.” Celebrities from the entertainment industry make frequent appearances on religious programs (while theologians and serious pastors are seldom seen), and nearly every television preacher has the same blow-dried cheeriness as his secular competitors.
Tasteless as religious programming can be, the more serious threat is the invasion of the television ethos into the Church. Religious celebrity has always competed with the slower rhythms of life in local congregations. Itinerant evangelists have always seemed more vibrant, more exciting, more spiritual than the sinner who preaches Sunday after Sunday to the same faces. The attacks of George Whitefield and Gilbert Tennant on the “unconverted ministers” who populated colonial pulpits are an
extreme example, but the conflict can take more subtle forms as well. During the post-Revolutionary period, for example, countless revivalists drew converts by their entertaining appeals to what Nathan O. Hatch has called the “sovereign audience.” In England, the Methodist Church repudiated the more extreme revivalists, but in America the same revivalists were embraced. The reason, Hatch argues, was that the revivals were successful in drawing new members into the Methodist Church. Successful methods of Church growth were, in turn, imitated by local pastors and the Church was refashioned in the image of the revival. The passive Puritan congregation analyzing the meticulous Ramist discourses of a Princeton-educated clergyman was transformed into a passive revivalist congregation thrilling to the homiletical pyrotechnics of an Oberlin graduate.
The same dynamics are at work today. On the one hand, more ambitious churches try to imitate the exciting atmosphere of televangelism. Alternatively, churches may seek to contextualize their ministry by adopting forms of worship, Church life, and preaching that will appeal to the entertainment-drenched congregation. In either situation, the television culture acts as a solvent of traditional Church life and worship. Thus the passive congregation continues its evolution, moving beyond the revivalist mode by its transformation into an audience at a low-budget religious spectacle.
In this context, it can be seen that a traditional liturgical form of worship is among the most counter-cultural acts that the Church can perform. As a Reformed Protestant, I favor traditional liturgical forms not because they are traditional but because I believe they are the best expression of the Biblical theology of worship. Today, liturgy has the added advantage of fulfilling Paul’s instructions to the Romans: “Be not conformed to the image of this world” (Rom. 12:1). At every point, liturgy swims against the current of contemporary culture. Where the culture celebrates youth and novelty, liturgy honors the wisdom of ancients. Where the culture encourages us to seek pleasure, liturgy forces a congregation to focus on giving pleasure to God. Where the culture insists that freedom means formlessness, liturgy is founded on the principle that there is no freedom without form. Where the culture exalts spontaneity, liturgy trains us in mature habits and responses. Where the culture pitches its appeals to the sovereign audience, liturgy is an appeal to a sovereign God.
It is surely one of the high ironies of the confused state of contemporary Christianity that a Biblically critical reappropriation of tradition should be the cutting edge of counter-cultural radicalism.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 38
June, 1992
Copyright 1992, Biblical Horizons
1 Kings 17, which abruptly introduces Elijah into the history of the northern kingdom, is a carefully constructed literary unit. In its basic structure, it follows a clear exodus-return pattern. Like Jacob and his sons, Elijah was driven out of the land by a famine (vv. 1-4). In exile, Elijah received food from ravens and then from a Gentile widow, just as Israel was given the fruitful land of Goshen. In a Passover scene, he raised the widow’s son from the dead (vv. 8-24). Finally, in the middle of a week of years (cf. Lk. 4:25), Elijah returned to the land to carry out the ban against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18).
Several of the details of chapter 17 indicate other dimensions of this pattern. First, the Lord directed Elijah to move to the east of the Jordan (vv. 3, 5). This connects his exodus with the exile of Adam, Eve, and Cain from Eden (Gen. 3:24; 4:16), and with the geographical symbolism of the tabernacle (Nu. 3:38). Elijah was not driven out of the sanctuary-land by his own sin, however, but because of the sins of Ahab and Jezebel. Elijah’s exile east of the land also points forward prophetically to Israel’s capture and exile in Babylon.
While camping at the brook Cherith, Elijah was fed bread and meat by ravens (vv. 4, 6). Ravens were unclean birds (Lev. 11:15), symbolizing the nations surrounding Israel. The connection between the ravens and the Gentile nations is strengthened by the parallel between the ravens and the widow of Zarephath. In verse 4, the Lord says, "I have commanded the ravens to provide for you," while in verse 9, he says "I have commanded a widow there to provide for you." The fact that Elijah was fed by ravens was a sign that, in exile, he would be sustained by Gentiles. Later, Israel would also be sustained by Gentiles while in exile (cf. 2 Ki. 25:27-30).
The fact that the ravens fed the Lord’s prophet "morning and evening" may be a reference to the daily sacrifices of the tabernacle and temple, which included meat and bread and were sacrificed morning and evening (Nu. 28:1-8). As the Lord’s representative, Elijah received the tribute of the Gentiles. Similarly, the widow’s bread was sacrificial in two senses: first because she fed the Lord’s prophet, and second because she gave in spite of her great poverty. Even in exile, the Lord’s prophet received honor.
The fact that Elijah was aided by a widow points in several directions. It is, first of all, significant that the widow was a Gentile. The prophet of the Lord, the bearer of the life-giving Word, was rejected by Israel, and went to bring God’s blessing to the Gentiles. Jesus later said that Elijah’s ministry to the widow of Zarephath was a prophetic type of the rejection of the Messiah by the citizens of His home town and of the Messiah’s turning to the Gentiles (Lk. 4:25-26).
The widow, moreover, lived in the territory of Sidon. In context, her self-sacrificial generosity toward Elijah was a foil to the murderous rage of the other woman of Sidon, Jezebel (16:31; 19:2). The Sidonian queen in the land sought to kill the prophet, while the poor Sidonian widow offered him food and drink. Again, there is a sharp contrast between the spiritual condition of the nation of Israel and the receptiveness of the Gentiles.
The fact that the woman of Zarephath was a widow is likewise significant. In part, her widowhood heightens the contrast with Jezebel: Widows and queens are a opposite poles of the social scale (cf. Rev. 18:7). Ironically, it is the vulnerable widow, not the wealthy queen, who provides for the prophet.
Moreover, Israel is several times depicted as a widow (Is. 54:4-8; Lam. 1:1). This image should be understood against the background of Israel’s covenant marriage with the Lord. Because of Israel’s prostitution, the Lord abandoned her. Deprived of the love and protection of her husband, she was left mourning. In the book of Ruth, Naomi embodied the widowhood of Israel during the time of the judges, a widowhood that is turned into rejoicing by the kinsman-redeemer Boaz.
Given this background, what is the significance of Elijah being sent to a Gentile widow? When Israel prostituted herself with Baal and Asherah (16:28-34), her Husband threatened to abandon her, to leave her a "widow" and to seek another bride among the Gentiles. This warning was prophetically symbolized in the activities of Elijah. The Divine Husband’s command to the prophet-husband to leave the land symbolized His threat to abandon the apostate nation. (Later, in Ezekiel 8-11, we see the Lord Himself abandon the land and temple.) The Lord’s plan to find a faithful bride was imaged in Elijah’s relation to the widow of Zarephath. Elijah was a husband to the Sidonian widow. He provided for her (vv. 13-16), and gave her a son (vv. 17-23). In a sense, all Gentile nations were widows; they had not entered into a marriage covenant with the Lord, and were without God in the world. But Elijah’s activities foretold of a day when the Gentiles would join together with the remnant of faithful Jews in the one Bride of the Lord.
Finally, the circumstances of Elijah’s first meeting with the widow are significant. Several of the details of the text point to a judicial context. Elijah met the widow at the gates of the city, a placing of testing and judgment (v. 10). She was gathering sticks to stoke up a fire (vv. 10, 12), which James B. Jordan has shown is a symbol of enthronement and judicial authority (see Jordan, Sabbath Breaking and the Death Penalty). At the gates, Elijah put the widow to the test: She must trust the word of the Lord, and refrain from eating until she has first fed the Lord’s prophet. Elijah implicitly warned, "If you eat bread before honoring the Lord’s prophet, you will indeed eat and die."
Unlike Eve, who ate before she was permitted to do so, the widow of Zarephath obeyed the word of her "husband" (v. 15), kept the fast, and received as her reward an abundant provision of food in the midst of famine. She was preparing to stoke a fire for herself and her son, and then eat and die. Elijah offered an alternative: First stoke a fire and offer bread to the Lord, and then He will provide for all your needs. By giving honor to a prophet, the widow received a prophet’s reward.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 38
June, 1992
Copyright 1992, Biblical Horizons
Virtually all Bible commentators and theologians agree that verse 17 is a disclaimer to the radical discontinuity Christ has been proclaiming in Luke 16. They argue that, after declaring that the Gospel had replaced the Law and the Prophets, Jesus said, "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail"(NASB) in order to prevent anyone from thinking that the Old Testament was no longer binding. Their reasoning is rather straightforward: Since "heaven and earth" have not passed away, every "stroke of a letter of the Law" must still be binding.
Second Thoughts
There are two problems with this interpretation, however, which should cause us to consider other possibilities. First of all, while every stroke of the Law is undoubtedly "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (1 Tim. 3:17), nevertheless, we are no longer to obey many of the direct commands contained in the Old Testament. The Mosaic dietary laws were done away with by Jesus (Mark 7:19) and the Apostle Paul rebukes with strong language those who would continue to enforce them (Col. 2:16-22). Paul also explicitly rejects the binding authority of the Old Testament calendar (Gal. 4:8-11). Christ’s sacrifice once and for all ends the need for animal sacrifices (Heb. 10:1-14). Whereas the people of the Old Covenant worshipped God in Jerusalem, Christians worship God in heaven (Gal. 4:24-26; Heb. 12:18-25). Given these New Testament alterations, it is hard to see how the traditional understanding of Luke 16:17 does not contradict the clear message of Jesus and the Apostles that "when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes a place of change of law also" (Heb. 7:12).
The other major problem with the popular understanding of Luke 16:17 is that it doesn’t seem to fit the situation. To show how this is the case, we must try to do justice to the overall context of the passage.
In Luke 15:1-2, the situation that provokes Jesus to tell a number of parables is established:
Jesus launches into a series of parables to rebuke the Pharisees and exhort them to repent. The parable of the one lost sheep out of the flock of ninety-nine (15:4-7) and the parable of the woman who lost one coin out of ten (15:8-10) are both quite simple to understand. Jesus wishes to demonstrate that His ministry to "sinners" is justified. The parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) is more pointed than the others. The Pharisees are compared to the jealous older brothers (vv. 25-32).
At this point chapter 16 begins, "Now he was also saying to the disciples . . ." perhaps indicating a change of subject. In 16:14, however, we are told that the Pharisees "were listening to all these things," so we can be pretty certain that Christ is still referring to the Pharisees. Furthermore, His parable of the unrighteous steward (16:1-13) only makes sense if understood to be referring to the Pharisees–the "stewards" of the Old Covenant who were about to lose their position. Jesus exhorts them to reduce the burdens they are placing on those who were going to inherit the Kingdom so that they could find a place in it. After the passage in question, the subject of judgment on the Pharisees climaxes in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). Once again the Pharisees are contrasted with the downtrodden who inherit the blessing of the Kingdom while they are consigned to eternal fire. This parable is especially pointed since Jesus used the name of His friend, whom He had raised from the dead and whom the Pharisees were conspiring to kill (John 12:10-11). The point of all this is that judgment on the Pharisees and salvation for others is a theme running through Luke 15-16, and readers should expect the theme to be carried on through 16:14-18. (For an extended discussion of the Parable of the Unjust Steward, see James B. Jordan’s essay in Biblical Horizons No. 17.)
Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their scoffing (v. 14), telling them that they are "detestable in the sight of God" (v. 15; NASB). Then He warns them in verse 16 that they should not allow their pride to prevent them from entering the Kingdom of Heaven along with all those–that is, the multitude of "sinners and tax-gatherers" mentioned in Luke 15:1–who are "forcing" their way into it. Since John, he tells them, "the gospel of the kingdom of God" is preached, as opposed to the Law and the Prophets which came before. In light of the parable of the unrighteous steward which has just been told, Jesus is obviously exhorting the Pharisees to throw in their lot with everyone they see taking advantage of the Gospel before it is too late.
Skipping to verse 18: Seemingly out of the blue, Jesus lectures the Pharisees on divorce and remarriage–telling them that to do so is adultery. In context, it is probable Jesus was referring to the fact that the Pharisees, by attempting to serve two masters, had in fact abandoned God for Mammon. Thus, they were guilty of covenantal adultery. Furthermore, by focusing on the husband who divorces his wife and marries another, Jesus emphasizes the Pharisees’ infidelity to Israel. Israel was the bride and the teachers of the Law were to represent the Bridegroom. Because of their infidelity, the Pharisees will not be His representatives to His new Bride, the Church.
To put verse 17 in context, then, the entire passage emphasizes a discontinuity between Israel and the Church and, in verse 16, a discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New. This discontinuity involves a transfer of the Kingdom and judgment on the unfaithful stewards of the Old Covenant–the Pharisees.
Yet, virtually all commentators think that verse 17 taught that every "jot and tittle" of the law is still in force. The readers of Luke 16:17 assume that "heaven and earth" refers to the physical universe (Gen. 1:1) which will not pass away until the second coming (Gen. 8:22). They argue that, after declaring that the Gospel had replaced the Law and the Prophets, Jesus said, "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail" (NASB) in order to prevent anyone from believing that the Old Testament was no longer binding. Is this really what Jesus meant?
Covenants and Creations
While there are several ways to demonstrate the faultiness of this interpretation, perhaps the simplest case comes from the prophecies of Isaiah:
Here, God describes the covenant He made with Israel as the creation of the world. A few chapters later in Isaiah, He promises that He will bring about a new creation:
This passing of the old creation and the bringing in of the new cannot refer to the return of Christ because the resurrection of the dead has not yet taken place. People live a long time, but they are not yet immortal. The most obvious interpretation is that Isaiah is prophesying the New Covenant which was instituted by Jesus Christ.
Interestingly, the Greek word at the beginning of Luke 16:17 which the NASB translates as "But" can just as easily be interpreted as "And." Thus, there is nothing in the verse that must be interpreted as a contrast to the rest of the passage.
In verse 17, then, Jesus tells them what the preaching of the Gospel, as opposed to the Law and Prophets portends: The old creation is passing away with the old covenant, the Pharisees need to switch to the new it they wish to avoid passing away with it.
For these reasons, it seems that Luke 16:14-18 indicates, not the continuing binding validity of the Law and the Prophets, but the imminent passing away of the old creation in the death of Christ. Jesus is warning the Pharisees: Because they have annulled the Law and the Prophets and so taught others (see Matt. 5:17-20), they are in danger of becoming least in the kingdom of heaven which Christ was soon to inaugurate through His death and resurrection – bringing the old creation to an end and ushering in a new heavens and a new earth.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 4, No. 6
June, 1992
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1992
by James B. Jordan
We have now arrived at the reign of Jeroboam II. When Jeroboam II came to the throne of Northern Israel, Amaziah was reigning in Judah. After the death of Amaziah, there was an interregnum of eleven years, during which Judah was governed by Israel. During those years, the son of Amaziah, Uzziah or Azariah by name, grew to maturity, and in his 16th year, he was proclaimed king over Judah, and Judah threw off the yoke of Israel. This means that there is an interregnum of eleven years in the chronology of Judah, during which that nation had no king. (For a discussion of interregna, see Biblical Chronology 2:10, October 1990.)
Let us examine these events in more detail, but before we do, there is one matter to take note of. I have pointed out right along that the years of the Davidic kings of Judah are given in absolute years. Prior to the reign of Jehu, which is a definite boundary in the chronology, the years of Israel’s kings were given in overlapping years, so that the first year of a new king is the same as the last year of his predecessor. After Jehu, however, the reigns of the kings of Israel are given in absolute years, like those of Judah. This is clear from the passages we shall discuss this time, but I won’t bother to prove it here. Why this is so is unclear to me, but I hazard this guess: The author of Kings is making the point that before Jehu, Northern Israel was more closely tied to Judah, and was overshadowed religiously by Judah, while after Jehu, Israel took on a national life more independent of Judah’s.
According to 2 Kings 14:1-22 and 2 Chronicles 25, Amaziah of Judah began his reign as a devout king. He eliminated open idolatry from the land, but did not get rid of Yahweh-worship at shrines, which he should have also done. For reasons we are not told, he got involved in a war with Edom. We can assume that this was in response to an attack from that violent people.
Amaziah made a mistake in hiring 100,000 warriors from Northern Israel to help him in this war. A prophet warned him not to take along the Israelites, and so he sent them home and fought only with his own troops. He was victorious against Edom, but the Israelite troops pillaged Judah while Amaziah was fighting Edom.
At this point, having been given victory by God, Amaziah fell into apostasy. He brought gods home from Edom and began worshipping them. A prophet rebuked him, but Amaziah refused to hear, and threatened the prophet.
Amaziah then determined to fight Israel, to avenge the sack of Judah’s cities. He called out Jehoash of Israel, who warned him not to fight, because Israel was a much more powerful nation. God had determined to punish Judah, however, and Amaziah did not listen. Judah was defeated, and Jehoash of Israel brought Amaziah in captivity back to Jerusalem, sacked it, took all its treasures, and left Amaziah in a condition of obvious vassalage.
Amaziah reigned a long time (29 years), and reigned for fifteen years after the death of Jehoash of Israel, fifteen years into the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel. He was slain by a conspiracy. We can readily suppose that the conspirators were either Judahite nationalists who blamed Amaziah for the state of the nation, or agents of Jeroboam II who were removing a thorn from the side of the king of Israel. The latter seems to me more likely, for reasons I shall set out below.
We know that Jeroboam II was one of the most powerful kings Israel ever had, and so there is no reason to doubt that he relinquished Israel’s hold on Judah. The book of Amos describes the prosperity of Israel at this time, and prophesies God’s judgment. Clearly, Judah was vassal to Israel during this period.
2 Kings 14:21-22 says that after the death of Amaziah of Judah, "all the people of Judah took Azariah (Uzziah), who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the place of his father Amaziah. He built Elath and restored it to Judah, after the king slept with his fathers." On the face of it, this seems to say that right after Amaziah’s death, his son Uzziah was made king. 2 Kings 15:1-2, however, indicate otherwise, clearly stating that Uzziah was made king in the 27th year of Jeroboam II, which was twelve years after the murder of Amaziah his father. The reason 2 Kings 14:21-22 is placed where it is, is to show us that whereas sinful Amaziah lost territory, his Godly son Uzziah began to reclaim it. Then the narrative goes to the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel before returning to take up the reign of Uzziah.
The eleven-year interregnum between the last year of Amaziah and the first year of Uzziah is not hard to understand. During this time, the nation of Judah was subject to Israel and to Jeroboam II. Evidently there was no great desire to put the son of Amaziah (Uzziah) on the throne of Judah. For this reason, I believe that the conspirators who slew Amaziah were agents of Jeroboam II, and that they governed Judah for eleven years, until the "people of the land" prevailed upon Jeroboam II to allow Uzziah to be made king.
The Collapse of Israel
For the first fifteen years of Uzziah’s reign, Jeroboam II was on the throne of Israel, and doubtless Uzziah was subject to him. With the death of Jeroboam II, however, there was a collapse of the kingdom of Israel, which went 22 years without a king, and Uzziah was able to make Judah a strong nation again. Uzziah’s 52-year reign is described in 2 Chronicles 26.
What brought about the collapse of Israel? The book of Amos prophesies it, but we are not told anything explicitly about it in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Evidently God brought some serious enemies against Israel during Jeroboam II’s reign. This is described in 2 Kings 14:26-27, "For Yahweh saw the affliction of Israel, very bitter; for there was neither bound nor free, nor was there any helper for Israel. And Yahweh did not say that He would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, but He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash." The expression "neither bound nor free" indicates that the entire social order of servant and master broke down in Israel as a result of a conquest; but then God enabled Jeroboam II to rally the nation.
Amos 1:1 says that Amos delivered his oracle of doom against Israel "two years before the earthquake." Let me suggest that, as is often the case in prophetic language, a literal earthquake is not what is in mind, or at least not primarily what is in mind. Rather, Amos warned Israel that in the third year–a significant number–judgment would fall. I suggest that Amos delivered this warning toward the end of Jeroboam II’s reign, because Uzziah was already on the throne of Judah (Amos 1:1). Two years later, the land quaked under an invasion that brought Israel to its knees, but Jeroboam II rallied and saved the nation. The nation, however, did not repent, and so after Jeroboam II’s death, it was laid low again.
After 22 years of oppression, Israel was somehow released, as God had promised. Zechariah the son of Jeroboam II came to the throne, but he did not have much credibility after 22 years. His reign only lasted 6 months before he was killed by Shallum, who reigned one month before being slain by Menahem. These events took place in the 38th and 39th years of Uzziah of Judah (2 Kings 15:8, 13, 17).
During the reign of Menahem, Pul king of Assyria came against him and made Israel a vassal state of Assyria (2 Kings 15:16-17). Menahem reigned 10 years, and was succeeded by his son Pekahiah, who reigned only two years before being overthrown by Pekah. Pekah evidently wanted to shrug off Assyrian domination, but Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria conquered him and reasserted Assyrian overlordship (2 Kings 15:29).
This is a clue as to who dominated Israel during the 22-year interregnum between Jeroboam II and Zechariah-Shallum-Menahem. According to 2 Kings 14:25, Jonah prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam II, the same time as Amos or a few years before. Jonah also went to Assyria and converted it, as the Book of Jonah records. Assyria, now strengthened by Godly wisdom and insight, may well have taken over Israel after the death of Jeroboam II, which would have been a good thing for Israel at this time. After this, Assyria continued to hold Israel in vassalage until finally Assyria was forced to destroy the nation because of its continuing rebellion.
Pekah was overthrown and killed by Hoshea after 20 years of Pekah’s rule, but Hoshea did not become king until the 12th year of Ahaz of Judah, eight years later. Evidently Hoshea governed Israel simply as an Assyrian agent until Assyria finally allowed him to assume the throne. Anstey cites an Assyrian inscription that sheds light on these events:
The land of Beth-Omri [Samaria; Israel]…the goods of the people and its furniture I sent to Assyria. Pekaha [Pekah] their king…and Asui [Hoshea] I appointed over them…their tribute of them I received. (Anstey, p. 203)
Thus, it seems that Assyria put Hoshea as governor of Israel, and he slew Pekah shortly thereafter. Hoshea was not allowed to become king until later. After a few years, Hoshea rebelled against Assyria, and Assyria completely conquered Israel, bringing to an end the history of the Northern Kingdom (2 Kings 17-18).
(We shall return to consider parallel events in Judah next month.)
The dates for these events are as follows:
YEA4 JUDAH ISRAEL EVIDENCE
3178 Amaziah 15 Jeroboam II 1 2 Ki. 14:16-23
3182 Amaziah 29 Jeroboam II 15 2 Ki. 14:17-22
3183 Interregnum 1 Jeroboam II 16
3204 Uzziah 1 Jeroboam II 27 2 Ki. 14:21; 15:1-2
3218 Uzziah 15 Jeroboam II 41
3219 Uzziah 16 Interregnum 1
3240 Uzziah 37 Interregnum 22
3241 Uzziah 38 Zechariah 6 months 2 Ki. 14:29; 15:8
3242 Uzziah 39 Shallum 1 month; Menahem accession 2 Ki. 15:10-27
3243 Uzziah 40 Menahem 1
3253 Uzziah 50 Pekahiah 1 2 Ki. 15:23-24
3255 Uzziah 52 Pekah 1 2 Ki. 15:25-27
3256 Jotham 1 Pekah 2 2 Ki. 15:32-33
3271 Jotham 16; Ahaz accession Pekah 17 2 Ki. 15:38; 16:1-2
3272 Ahaz 1 Pekah 18
3275 Ahaz 4 ("Jotham 20") Interregnum 1 (Hoshea Governor) 2 Ki. 15:30
3283 Ahaz 12 Hoshea 1 2 Ki. 17:1
3291 Hezekiah 6 Hoshea 9 (end of Israel) 2 Ki. 18:10
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 21
June 1992
Copyright (c) 1992 by Biblical Horizons
Several years ago I wrote an essay, “Theses on Paedocommunion,” in which I argued that allowing all baptized and non-excommunicated persons to the table of the Lord was Biblical and desirable. (A copy of this essay is available for a donation from Biblical Horizons .) During the past several years I have been among a community of Christians that practices paedocommunion and weekly communion. I have also been in contact with a variety of people around the country who desire paedocommunion but cannot have it. Additionally, I have received responses to my original theses.
Thus, I write as someone who believes in paedocommunion, and who has had an opportunity to observe it in practice for several years. Out of this experience I have several observations to make, that I believe can be of use to churches considering paedocommunion.
Normal-Meal Paedocommunion
First, it seems to me that part of the paedocommunion argument is that the Lord’s Supper is just that, a supper, a meal. It signifies all of the gospel, and reveals Christ, so it is as profound as infinity, but it is also extremely simple. It shows that all life comes from God, and is a gift of God apart from our works.
Thus, the trappings of the Supper should only be those of an enhanced meal. Do we put a tablecloth on our table at home when we have a formal meal? Then put a tablecloth on the table in church. Do we put flowers on our table? Then put flowers on the church’s table. Do we put candles on our table? Then put candles on the church’s table. Do we read the Bible at our table? Then read the Bible from the church’s table. Do we put a covering on the food on our table to keep it warm and keep the flies off? Then put a covering on the food on the church’s table until time to serve it. Do we put our table against the wall and bow down at it? No? Then don’t do that in church either. Do we make the sign of the cross over our food at home? No? Then don’t do that in church either. Do we eat our food at home kneeling? No? Then don’t do that in church either.
The Lord’s Supper is an enhanced meal, but still a meal. It is as profound as the gospel, but as simple as “dinner with Jesus.” If our children eat at our table at home, they belong at Christ’s New Table also. Admission is by baptism.
I believe that any departure from the above considerations leads toward sacramentalism and superstition. On the one hand, medieval-type churches tend to destroy the Supper by surrounding it with artificial rituals that have nothing to do with a meal. It becomes something weird and special. In such churches, the bread and wine are held up to be gazed at, for instance. Do we hold up our food at home and gaze at it? Along these lines it is interesting to note that in the Eastern churches the meal is prepared behind closed doors (the iconostasis) so that nothing is seen. This is because the food is to be eaten, not gazed at. Also, the Eastern churches insisted on using common daily bread, since Christ became a true man, and refused to use artificial wafers. I am not trying to defend all aspects of the Eastern rite here, but I do think they have preserved the simplicity of the meal at these points.
On the other hand, the Reformation churches have tended to negate the meal-character of the Supper. When we use flowers and candles at home, but reject them in church, we are making the Supper into something strange. When we use infinitesimally small bits of rock-hard crackers, we make the Supper into something weird. When we refuse to eat the meal except four times a year, we make it into something arcane. After all, the Lord’s Supper clearly belongs with the Lord’s Day. Shall we visit Christ, and not stay for dinner when He invites us to? Thus, reacting against the mystical nonsense of the medieval tradition, Reformed churches have often gone to the opposite extreme, and have also undermined the simplicity of the meal.
Now, I believe that if we refuse to let our baptized covenant children come to the Lord’s Table, we are subtly but effectively communicating to them that they need to do some kind of works before they will be entitled to participate in this mysterious event. When we do this, the Supper is no longer a meal, but something else. It is a mystical ritual that just happens to be kind of like a meal, but it is not a meal. Also, we communicate the idea that participation in this mystical ritual is an attainment, not a gift. But away with such notions! If our children are entitled to sit at table at home, then they belong at the Table in church also.
At the same time, in the church I served in Tyler, Texas, for several years, we had people who would put crumbs of bread into the mouths of infants, and dip their fingers in the wine and let the infant suck it off. This also is an error, if an innocent one. It is completely unnatural. After all, is this how we feed infants at home? No? Then don’t do it in church either.
The same observations apply here. If we “force-feed” infants, we are saying that the Lord’s Supper is not really a meal but some kind of mystical rite that is kind of like a meal. We move subtly but surely in the direction of sacramentalism and mysticism. What we need, then is normal-meal paedocommunion. When the child begins to drink from the cup at home, he should be given a cup at church. When he begins to chew teething biscuits at home, he can be given bread at church. Not before. Not later on.
Some have called for “weaned child communion.” I am not sure what this means in every case. If it means what I said in the paragraph above, I agree with it. If it means that the child should not commune until he is fully weaned, then I must disagree. Children begin to eat and drink at the table at home before they are fully weaned from breast and bottle. They should begin to eat and drink in church when they begin to eat and drink at home.
Communion is simply dinner in heaven with Jesus. The glorification of this meal needs to be at every point a glorification of a normal meal, not a series of peculiar exceptions. The tablecloth may be more elaborate than a home tablecloth. The candles may be larger. The substance of the meal may be simpler (only bread and wine). But nothing adventitious to a meal should be introduced. No bowing down to the bread and wine. No holding them up to be gazed at. No forcing them on infants.
Should Fathers Serve Their Children?
Let me now turn to a second problem I have seen in the practice of paedocommunion. It is the belief that the elders should give the bread and wine to the heads of the households, and that fathers must serve their own families. Now, for the sake of good order, and to keep the grubby paws of children off the bread as it was passed, we in Tyler asked parents to serve their small children. There was no heavy theological reason for this. It was merely an aspect of “natural meal” communion. We serve small children at home, lest they slop the food on the table. So, let parents help their children in church.
After a while, however, some parents came to think that it was their “priestly privilege” to serve their own children. Some men decided it was their “priestly privilege” to serve their own wives. Such a belief is a distortion of the nature of worship and communion. This belief arose in the Tyler church because of the influence of the ideas of R. J. Rushdoony and of “California Reconstructionism.” Rushdoony’s thought is highly familistic, and at some points quite anti-ecclesiastical. In the early years of the Tyler church, we had people who were influenced by these ideas, and who viewed the family as virtually autonomous.
Reconstructionism aside, however, I believe that familism is a pervasive error in American Christianity. By and large, people who are anti-statist tend to be familists. It is understandable that this ethos should infect the churches. Many people who want their children at the Lord’s Table have arrived at this conclusion out of notions of family solidarity and not out of theological and ecclesiological considerations. The influence of Mary Pride and of the home school movement also tends in this direction.
In heaven, however, the family is not the nuclear, biological family. Jesus said that the natural family, not the state, would be the greatest enemy of His kingdom (Matt. 10:16-23, 34-37; Luke 14:26). The new family is the church. The parents are not the biological parents, but the elders of the church, who act for Christ. The natural, biological family is dead in Adam, and its children are born dead. We do not baptize children because they are born into the Church of Christian parents. Rather, we baptize them because they are born dead in trespasses and sins, and their only hope is to be transferred and adopted into the new heavenly family. After baptism, biological parents are mere stewards of Christ. They have no ownership rights. In the presbyterian ritual, all the members of the congregation take vows and become God-parents to the child.
Weekly worship affirms this truth. The heavenly family takes priority over the natural family. In heaven, children do not need to be fed by their earthly fathers, but by Christ. In heaven, wives do not need to be fed by their earthly husbands, but by the heavenly Bridegroom. Only in this way can the new heavenly family restore the natural family.
In my previous essay, I stated that parents can separate their children from the Table for a given Sunday if the child is in impenitent sin. I wish to modify this assertion. Since the elders are the parents in the Church, it is really they and they alone who can admit or restrain from the Table. Practically speaking, this means that parents should briefly confer with elders before church if they believe that this week their child should not communicate. The elders can give their okay, or else encourage the parent to relent. In this way, the table-fencing authority of the elders is preserved.
Implementing Paedocommunion
I do not believe that weekly communion and paedocommunion are of the essence of the Church. I do not believe that these two considerations need to be first and foremost in our minds as we consider what church to affiliate with. I do indeed believe that restoration of these two practices is very important, but it will take time, and cannot be rushed. I offer the following considerations.
For one thing, the form that historic, orthodox, catholic, Biblical Christianity has taken in the United States is Baptist. Virtually all American protestants are baptists, one way or another. To say that the “true” catholic churches are those that have “apostolic succession” or some other historical claim, is in my opinion nonsense. It is a failure to recognize the church, the people of God, where they presently are. Presently, in the U. S., they are largely in baptist or quasi-baptist communities. The baptistic ethos of individualism, anti-sacramentalism, decisionism, etc., pervades all of American protestantism.
This was the point of the first volume of Christianity and Civilization, which I edited under the title The Failure of the American Baptist Culture. The point of these essays was not that baptists are bad Christians, but that all of mainstream American Christianity, good and bad, is “bapti_ed.” Such is the nature of American Christianity.
Many if not most presbyterians and Reformed people who sprinkle their babies view this as little more than a dedication. For this reason, they have no instinct to admit their children to the Table. Their instincts are the same as those of their baptist brethren: to hold off such privileges until the child has made some kind of intellectual profession of faith.
The baptist form of the faith cannot endure much longer because it does not have the depth to confront and deal with modern problems. In my opinion, no other heritage by itself has such a depth either. The church of the 21st century will be a “new garment,” coming out of the current ferment. This being the case, I believe, there is no “group” that we need to join up with, because no “group” has the answers. All the conservative separated churches in America today are basically in holding patterns.
All this is to say that if we are true sons of Issachar, we need to know the times in which we live (1 Chron. 12:32). We need to work realistically and charitably with the form of historic Christianity that exists in our culture, and not become isolated from it. That does not mean we all need to go join baptist churches. It does mean that our attitude toward our majority brethren needs to be one of inclusion, not one of antipathy.
Now this is all preparatory to saying that we find God’s people in communities that are not theologically self-conscious, and that are not where we wish them to be. As long as these communities have the three marks of the Church (a genuine community, sacraments, and the Bible), they are true churches. As far as I personally am concerned, my first desire is for a community of godly, prayerful people, not for a certain ritual, or great theological precision, or weekly communion, or paedocommunion, welcome as these would be. I had rather be in a godly community that has communion monthly, than be in a cold church that has it weekly.
Thus my advice to persons who don’t have weekly communion or paedocommunion is this: Don’t run this up so high on your list of priorities that you acquire a distorted perspective. For centuries baptized children have been wrongfully separated from Christ’s table. Yet these were not ages of monumental ungodliness, because the communities were often sound. A good Christian community will do far more for your children than will weekly paedocommunion, if you have to choose between them. After all, during these same centuries, adult Christians were separated from Christ’s table except for four times a year. For the most part they were separated from the wine of communion, either not being given the cup at all, or being given a grape-juice substitute. All of these distortions need to be healed, but in spite of them, these were still true churches.
I also advise Christian parents not to act autonomously or in a revolutionary fashion, for the same reason. Giving your children communion, in defiance of your church, will do far more harm than good. You thereby teach your children to be rebellious and defiant, like you. Far better to teach them to respect the godliness of the community, and their elders, while letting them know that you think there could be some improvements.
