Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 30
Copyright (c) 1993 Biblical Horizons
December, 1993
“What art thou, thou idol ceremony?” asked Henry V during his midnight rounds of the English camp near Agincourt. His answer was that ceremony was both nothing and everything. It was nothing in the sense that it offered no guarantee that the king would be fit for office. Contrary to the French mythology of the royal touch (and everything Henry did was contrary to the French), Henry knew that his coronation ceremony had not given him power to heal the knee that bows to the king. At the same time, ceremony was everything. As Ernst Kantorowicz pointed out in his classic study of The King’s Two Bodies, it was the anointing ceremony that identified the king with the King. Ceremony ensured that the burden of England’s people, their children, and their sins would come upon the king. Ceremony guaranteed that Henry would have more than his share of sleepless nights.
Shakespeare was neither the first nor last to contemplate the strange “all and nothing” character of ritual. Debates during the Reformation often circled around this very issue. More recently, anthropological studies, including Victor Turner’s The Ritual Process, Edmund Leach’s Culture and Communication, and the various works of Mary Douglas have contributed to our understanding of ritual in general, and biblical scholars have begun to employ anthropological concepts in their explication of the sacrificial system of ancient Israel. While anthropological studies often shed valuable light on rites recorded in Scripture, one must remember that the social sciences do not operate with the value-neutral objectivity they sometimes claim. Lacking this awareness, one runs the risk of imposing alien categories on the Bible, in the end obscuring more than clarifying.
Indeed, I would argue that the Bible itself implies a notion of ritual that challenges some of the core assumptions of modern anthropological literature. Ritual, for example, is commonly subsumed under the category of “communication.” One should maintain a robust skepticism about the imperialistic claims of such meta-concepts of postmodern theory as “discourse,” “text,” and “communication.” Still, even while we deny that such concepts exhaust the complexities of reality, we can agree that these concepts capture a part, perhaps an important part, of the truth.
In Scripture, ritual certainly seems to be at least a matter of communication. Worship is performed “before the face of God”; heaps of fat and entrails are lifted heavenward, pointing to the ultimate origin of all good and perfect gifts; blood is sprinkled toward God’s throne in the Most Holy Place; smoke ascends, and God finds its aroma pleasant. All of this indicates that ritual is a way of “saying,” or perhaps better, of “showing” something to God. We could say that ritual is an enacted prayer.
Anthropological literature, however, would distort the notion of ritual as prayer in a number of ways. Most anthropologists would view ritual as communication in a void. Those who perform the rites believe (poor, deluded souls) they are communicating with a deity, but the anthropologist (who, after all, once switched on an electric light!) knows there is no such being. At best, ritual is solipsistic, a monologue by which persons speak to themselves and one another to reinforce existing cultural and social systems. Related to this is, secondly, the assumption that all rituals are equal, since there is no God who speaks and who tells His people what to enact before His face. “Equal” here means both equally quaint and equally ineffective.
A Biblical view of ritual, by contrast, would begin with the assumption that the Triune God is, and that He has revealed Himself in Scripture. There is a God and He has told His people what pleases Him. One would be led, therefore, to distinguish between true and false ritual, between God-ordained rites and what the Puritans called “will worship.” Leviticus 7:1 shows that this distinction is inherent in the Biblical notion of ritual. The chapter on the ritual of the “guilt offering" begins: “This is the torah of the guilt offering." That is, the rite is a prescribed rite; enacting the rite is obedience to torah and obedience to torah pleases God. On the other hand, the Bible clearly forbids other rites (divination, child sacrifice, etc). All rites are not equal; some cause the Lord to vomit people out of the land, while others are delightful “food” for God, a pleasing aroma in His nostrils.
The Biblical view also takes at face value, so to speak, the notion that rites are enacted before the face of God. We are not speaking in a void, nor speaking to ourselves or each other primarily. We are genuinely showing God something, really communicating with Him. Even those rites that the Lord finds abominable are performed in His presence. A gay marriage ceremony communicates to the ever-present God. What it communicates, however, is scorn and defiance.
In addition to prescribed and forbidden rites, there is a third category: rites that are neither prescribed nor forbidden. Thus, for example, I would not argue that anointing was a prescribed rite for the coronation of a medieval Christian king. But it was a fitting symbol of the Spirit of wisdom and power that all hoped would fill and guide the ruler. And I think it is likely that God took note of these rites (especially since they were accompanied by oaths of faithfulness to the Triune God), and held the “anointed” one accountable to conduct himself as a “christ” should. To bring this up-to-date, the Presidential inaugural is not a divinely prescribed ceremony, nor is it significant in the same way baptism and the Eucharist are; but we may be confident that it is not irrelevant in the heavenly places.
The biblical notion of “memorial” is significant in this regard. James Jordan has argued that throughout the Bible, a memorial is something that recalls the covenant to God’s mind (Noah’s rainbow, for example). Jordan concludes that the Old Testament sacrifices were “memorials” of the coming Messiah, effective because they reminded the Father of the Son’s future redemption. He suggests that the Eucharist is Christ’s memorial in the same sense: The Church presents the tokens of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice before the Father, and He remembers His covenant promise to be a God to us and to our children forever.
It is perhaps permissible to extend the biblical notion of memorial to cover ritual in general. Thus, to return to Henry and his midnight ruminations, the anointing of a king could be characterized as a perpetual “reminder” to God of who the king was, and what was expected of him. The crown was a burden to Henry precisely because he knew that the Lord knew who wore it. Thus it was that King Henry, though he felt no magical power surge from the oil of his anointing, still recognized that, once anointed, he was, and would always be, a new man.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 56
December, 1993
Copyright 1993, Biblical Horizons
My research for Through New Eyes II has led me to the conviction that there are three major periods of Biblical history, which lead to a fourth. These are the Ages of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit.
The First Age, that of the Father, is recorded in the book of Genesis. It focuses on the personal lives and faith of the men we call the patriarchs. It begins with God’s establishment of four environments on the earth: (1) the Throne Land of Eden, accessible only through the (2) Garden-Sanctuary, which is surrounded by (3) homelands, which relate to other spaces as (4) outlying world. Man’s first fall, in the Sanctuary, prevented his going into Eden and resulted in his being put in a Homeland that was not a Throneland. The second fall, of Cain, expelled him from a Homeland into a world of wandering. The third fall, of the Sethites, removed the sinners from the world through the great flood. As I have shown in a previous essay ("Three Falls and Three Heroes," in Biblical Horizons 22), these rebellions constituted stealing the gift of the Father (sacrilege), murder of the brotherhood of the Son (fratricide), and resisting the marital gifts of the Spirit (intermarriage or compromise).
The rest of Genesis shows Abraham, the human father, remaining faithful in his worship of the heavenly Father; Jacob, the human brother, remains faithful in wrestling with the heavenly Brother; and Joseph, the human bridegroom, is a faithful Spirit-led witness before the world. In this period the revelation of the Personhood of God, which is focussed in the Father, has been definitively made (though of course, further revelations will come). The fall of the Hebrews from their witness in Egypt provoked the crisis which led to the second great phase of history: the Age of the Son (or Word).
The Age of the Word, or of Yahweh’s Kingship, has three great phases which lead to a fourth. These are marked by the first four of the Ten Words. The Sinaitic era, extending through the period of the Judges, reveals God as the God of Heaven (for the Tabernacle is a picture of the heaven-cloud). The issue here is the First Word: worship no other gods. The interaction is with the gods of other tribes. The sin is apostasy, and the prophets call people back to the true God. God’s name is Yahweh, the covenant God who receives worship.
The Kingdom era, extending to the exile, reveals God as the center of corporate praise (for the Temple is an architectural image of the praise of the Levitical choir and orchestra). The issue here is the Second Word: worship nothing made by man. The interaction is with the iconic worship patterns of other nations, which may not be incorporated into Yahweh’s praise. Such worship causes men to be cruel, and the prophets call people back to righteous brother-brother relationships as defined by the Law. God’s name is Adonai, the Master who rules.
The Restoration era, extending from the exile to Christ, reveals God as the ruler of the world (for Ezekiel’s Temple is an architectural model of the world mountain). The issue here is the Third Word: carry God’s name in worship and in life faithfully. The interaction is with other peoples in the empires, who must be called to faith but not married unless they convert. John the Baptist calls men back to faithful living. God’s name is Yahweh of Hosts, the God who controls history.
These three eras play out essentially in the sanctuary, in the homeland, and in the world. In a shadowy way, Israel is also permitted to have their homeland as the Throneland, the new Eden where God dwells as King and His people rule with Him.
The fourth era is that of Jesus. Jesus proclaims the sabbath, the acceptable year of the Lord. He repeatedly heals on the sabbath. His ministry discloses what is meant by the Fourth Word. Sabbath means enthronement, and Jesus opens the door into the Throneland by remaining faithful to the Adamic priesthood and becoming Melchizedekal priest-king. The interaction now is with principalities and powers.
The fourth era of the Second Age is also the Third Age, the age of the Spirit. The law as tutor is gone, and now men are called to live by the complete revelation of God in Christ (which includes the content of the law, of course). This is also, as Paul says in Galatians, the age of man-come-of-age. No longer do we approach God through animals, but through a Man. The Edenic dominion for which we were originally designed has come in Christ and is being worked out through all the ages of the Church by the power of the Spirit.
Now, these four ages are the ages of ox, lion, eagle, and man, respectively. These are the four faces of the cherubim, who guard God’s throne and form a pattern for human holiness, and these faces are revealed sequentially in the Bible. The ox is the priest (Lev. 4), and priestly worship is the center of the Sinaitic period. The lion is the king, who with the ox guards the Temple and rules the land during the Kingdom period. The eagle is both the world emperor and the prophet, who come into focus in the Restoration period. Finally, the Man-face is revealed in Christ, and the age of True Humanism arrives.
When the priest is anointed, blood and oil are put on his ear, his hand, and his foot (Lev. 8 & 14). These also point to the three periods of priestly hearing, kingly action, and worldly witness.
Now, these are the four gospels. From ancient times it has been known that Matthew wrote first (despite all the nonsense of liberals during the last century). Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, in his out-of-print book The Fruit of Lips, presents some compelling arguments to show that each of the gospel writers was adding to the previous writer, and in fact that each gospel picks up where the preceding one left off in terms of theme.
Matthew presents Christ as Ox/Moses. His book is full of speeches, for the ear is central. Jesus is law-giver. God is the Father and the God of heaven, and "kingdom of heaven" is Matthew’s term (pointing back to the symbolism of the Tabernacle).
Mark presents Jesus as a man of action. Mark presents Jesus as Lion/David, performing great works, swiftly going here and there, for the hand is central. In Mark, Jesus always does things "immediately." Mark is shorter than Matthew not because Mark wrote first (what a silly argument!), but because Mark does not provide the great sermons. The field of action is the land.
Luke presents Jesus as the Eagle/Prophet, interacting with gentiles and women much more than the other two. In Luke, Jesus is always on the move, and half of his book is taken up with the Travel Narrative to Jerusalem, for the foot is central. The Spirit receives the great emphasis in Luke and Acts. The field of action is the world.
Finally, John presents Jesus as Man, the Image of God. The phrase "son of man" used in the other gospels points to Jesus as second Adamic priest, king, and prophet. The phrase "son of God" used in John points to Jesus as the image of God, true humanity as well as true God. John’s Jesus tours the sanctuary, which represents heaven. Thus, John puts us in the Throneland.
Now, when were these books written? I suggest that Matthew wrote in ad 30, as soon as the Church began. Why would he wait? The Jewish Church needed to hear the words of the Greater Moses. Soon after Matthew wrote his gospel, James wrote his epistle, which is full of allusions to Matthew. James writes to the scattered church, so he writes after the scattering of Acts 8:1, which happened in ad 30. The focus is Jerusalem and the scattering from it.
The second period of the Early Church is the Petrine Period. Mark, we are told by the early records, wrote under Peter’s tutelage. Peter’s labors were among the Jews and their relatives, and finally took the Church to the gentiles at the border of the land (Acts 10-11), but Peter passed off the immediate scene in ad 44. Thus, Mark’s gospel and Peter’s first letter, written to Jewish believers, were written before ad 44. (Herod died in 44, Acts 12, which was 14 years after Paul’s conversion, Galatians 2:1; see "The Resurrection of Peter and the Coming of the Kingdom," in Biblical Horizons 34.)
The third period of the Early Church is the Pauline Period. Paul’s missionary journeys begin shortly after ad 44 and run up to just before ad 60. During this period, Luke wrote his gospel and Acts, and Paul wrote his letters. Peter also wrote 2 Peter, which refers to Paul’s writings (probably to Hebrews, since it was addressed to Peter’s Jewish audience). The action here is the world outside of the land.
The fourth period is the Johannine Period, ad 60-66 or so. During this period John wrote his gospel, the book of Revelation, and his three letters; and Jude also wrote that what Peter had predicted in 2 Peter 2 was now coming to pass. The action in John is in heaven, symbolically in the gospel and really in Revelation, which gets us to the throneland.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 56
December, 1993
Copyright 1993, Biblical Horizons
These verses have historically been used by Protestants to prove the sufficiency of Scripture over against Roman Catholic views of tradition. Positively, the argument can be stated as follows: Paul teaches that Scripture equips us for every good work. Everything we need to know and do to be "perfect" is contained in the Scriptures. Therefore, the Scriptures are sufficient as a guide for faith and practice; we need nothing else to train us in perfection. The negative argument goes like this: If the Roman Catholic view were correct, there would be good works for which Scripture does not equip us. Scripture nowhere instructs Christians to venerate Mary or pray to the saints. If these are good works, then Paul’s statement is false. The implications of the Roman Catholic view directly contradict Paul’s statement in these verses, and therefore the Roman Catholic view must be incorrect.
In his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating responds to the Protestant use of these verses with the claim that the passage merely teaches that Scripture "has its uses," which are enumerated in the verse. To say that Scripture "has its uses" is not to say that it is "sufficient"; therefore, these verses do not teach the sufficiency of Scripture (p. 135). Unaccountably, Keating leaves out the final clause of verse 17, "that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work." It is this clause that seals the Protestant case. Keating’s argument is plausible only because it ignores the final clause.
More substantively, Keating cites John Henry Newman’s argument that 2 Timothy 3:16-17, if it proves the sufficiency of Scripture, actually proves the sufficiency of the OT, since the NT was not yet final. Since the Protestant interpretation of these verses proves too much, it is an invalid argument (pp. 135-36).
In fact, Newman’s argument is less formidable than first appearances may suggest. Let us concede Newman’s point that Paul was writing before the NT Scriptures were recognized and that the passage proves the sufficiency of the OT Scriptures. Is this a problem for the Protestant view of the sufficiency of Scripture? I don’t see how. Until the production of the NT, the OT Scriptures were sufficient to teach the wisdom that leads to salvation. Until the completion of the canon and the destruction of Jerusalem, the Church was still in a transitional age. During this age, it could plausibly be argued, the OT Scriptures continued to serve as the canon of the Christian Church, sufficient for that period. The same was true of the Torah before the addition of the Former Prophets; the same could be said of the Former Prophets before the addition of the Latter Prophets. In each age of redemptive history, the existing Scriptures were sufficient for God’s purposes in that age.
But are we certain that Paul was referring exclusively to the OT Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3? I have always assumed this was the case, but Newman’s argument forced a reconsideration. It now seems more likely that Paul was referring to the Scriptures of both the OT and NT.
Consider: Paul wrote 2 Timothy during his house arrest in Rome (1:16-17) near the end of his life. By this time, Paul obviously had already written most of his other epistles, which were already being recognized as "Scripture" (2 Pet 3:14-16). It is likely that most of the other writings of the NT were already completed by this time. Thus, it is not implausible to conclude that Paul knew of the existence of a definite, though yet incomplete, canon of NT writings when he wrote to Timothy.
Newman, however, pointed to a weakness in this line of argument. The Scriptures in view in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 are primarily the ones that Timothy learned as a child (vv. 14-15), which, Newman assumes, must be the OT Scriptures. Even this conclusion does not necessarily follow. Consider the following chronological data: Timothy was a youngish man–no more, certainly, than 40–when Paul wrote his first letter to him (1 Tim. 4:12). Supposing that 1 Timothy was written around 60 AD, and supposing Timothy to be 40, we find that Timothy would have been 10 when Jesus was crucified in 30 AD. It is possible that the earliest NT writings were produced in the 30s. Therefore, Timothy might have learned the NT writings from his mother as a teenager.
This is possible, but doesn’t fit well with Paul’s description of Timothy learning the Scriptures "from childhood." Can we find more specific evidence of Timothy’s age? While I cannot prove it, it seems likely that Timothy is closer to 30 when 1 Timothy was written. 1 Timothy has all the marks of an ordination letter. Paul instructs Timothy to avoid speculative teaching in his ministry and instead to concentrate on love and faith (1:3-7); he warns that others have been "shipwrecked" and excommunicated (1:18-20); he instructs him how to conduct worship (2:1-4), and the proper role of women in the public ordinances of the church (2:9-15); he enumerates the qualifications for officers in the church (3:1-13); he tells him how to deal with various classes of people in the church, including older men, widows, and young women (5:1-16). The book begins and ends with exhortations that Timothy remember what has been entrusted to him (1:18; 6:20). Given the OT evidence, we might speculate that the age of ordination in the apostolic Church was 30. Thus, we can guess that Timothy was around 30 when he received the first letter. Assuming that 1 Tim. was written in 60, Timothy would have been born in 30 AD. His mother, a believing Jewess (Acts 16:1-2), would have taught him what she knew of the NT Scriptures that were being produced during the first decade of Timothy’s life.
The evidence of the book of Acts lends additional support to this reconstruction. Acts 16:1-5 tells us that Timothy joined Paul on his second missionary journey. The date typically assigned to this mission is around 50 AD. If Timothy were born in 30, he would have joined Paul at the age of 20, a suitable age to begin serving as an apprentice to the apostle.
Finally, Paul claims that the writings that Timothy learned as a child communicated wisdom unto salvation through "faith in Christ Jesus" (v. 15). To say that the OT Scriptures taught faith in Jesus surely seems an extravagant claim. It seems more likely that Paul meant the NT Scriptures where the Christ is shown to be identical to Jesus of Nazareth.
Even if the specific dates need to be adjusted, the point will stand, namely, that the NT writings were being produced during Timothy’s childhood and/or youth, that they were early recognized as "Scriptures," and that Timothy would have learned their truths from his mother. If my argument is valid, 2 Timothy 3:14-17 stands as a stronger testimony to the divine origin of the whole Bible than Protestants have generally recognized.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 5, No. 8
December, 1993
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1993
by James B. Jordan
Both Bible history and the current consensus chronology of the ancient world are tied up intimately with Egyptian history and chronology. Thus, as we broaden Biblical Chronology beyond the matter of adding up numbers and try to integrate Biblical chronology with the ancient world, the place to start would seem to be Egypt.
Before we start, however, I have to make a decision. Heretofore I have suggested that Daniel’s 70 weeks of years should be taken literally as 490 years, and should begin with the decree of Cyrus. Virtually nobody believes this is possible today because of the grip of the Ptolemaic chronology and supposed astronomical synchronisms that establish the current consensus chronology (hereafter CCC). I have provided information in previous issues of this newsletter that seriously call those prejudices into question (Biblical Chronology 2:1, 2:12, 3:1, 3:5, & 4:11). Now I need to make a decision regarding how to proceed. Shall I use the B.C. dates that assume Ptolemy and the CCC are correct, or shall I go with my inclination to take Daniel’s 70 weeks of years chronologically? The CCC puts the decree of Cyrus in 536 B.C. The strictest Biblical chronology (hereafter SBC) would put it at 456 B.C., a difference of 80 years.
My decision is to go with the SBC as regards B.C. dates. I have two reasons for doing this. First of all, it is my private inclination. Second is the fact that this newsletter and almost all of my writings (as well as those of Gary North and similar persons) are highly prophetic. I’m not writing to persuade people to make slight adjustments in their paradigm (model). As we shall see, the CCC is under major assault within the world of archaeology and ancient history today. Yet, I seriously doubt if writings like mine will be taken seriously by even the revisionists within the academy.
One thing that makes prophetic ministries different from priestly ones is context. Prophets arise when the inadequacies of the present context of paradigm become intolerable. Thus, prophets do not find the happiness of working within a context of other people, or of many other people. Prophets create new contexts by calling people to rethink themselves and the world. Priests, however, minister within a context, gradually moving people forward. A priest, thus, can have a movement of people behind him that grows out of a preexisting situation. Movements within the church, such as the Church Growth Movement or the Charismatic Movement, grow out of two or three centuries of foundation. They are simply the latest phase of trends that started with baptist religion (individualism) and revivalism (emotionalism). They are extensions of the reigning paradigm.
Prophetic work is quite different. Like Moses or Elijah, the prophet stands outside the trend and advocates something different by calling people back to the Bible. The prophet initially has only a few followers.
Now, it sounds very self-congratulatory for me to call myself a prophet, and I’m certainly not on a par with Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, or Luther. But at the same time in God’s providence I have never been allowed the luxury of a context, or very much of one, and I’ve come to accept that this is my place. If I were writing in an Episcopalian context, I’d get into trouble for saying that kneeling for communion is a bad idea. If I were writing in a Presbyterian context, I’d get into trouble for saying that pastors need pastors, too, and so bishops are a good and necessary blessing. Obviously, if I were writing in a Baptist context I’d get into trouble for advocating paedobaptism and paedocommunion. My problem has been that I keep seeing things in the Bible that most people in these various contexts don’t see and don’t want to hear about.
These newsletters are published by the Institute for Christian Economics, whose president, Gary North, has been engaged in prophetic-type work for over twenty years. All of the ICE publications are designed to challenge the existing evangelical paradigm, expose its compromises, and call Christians back to a more serious consideration of the teachings in the Bible. So, since I’m calling for a "root and branch" reworking of ancient world chronology, why should I fall short of saying everything I think? If God blesses these writings and they wind up having some influence, then sooner or later other men will come along behind me and correct my errors. A new paradigm will grow out of the prophetic challenge laid down by these newsletters and by the work of others in this area. For now I seem to be called to plant prophetic seeds and see if God chooses to cause them to bear any fruit eventually.
With this in mind, let me provide at the outset a brief skeleton of Bible dates, and in this chart I’ll set out all three forms of dating. As I proceed, however, I’m usually going to use SBC dates. The CCC dates are not simply 80 years off from the SBC dates because the CCC also misinterprets the period of the kings and is off by many years. Also, many CCC scholars erroneously think that the Hebrews were in Goshen for 430 years, and thus backdate the birth of Abram by 215 years. The CCC dates given here come from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1979). This is an evangelical work and thus seeks to mesh to some degree the CCC with a belief in Biblical accuracy.
Anno Mundi B.C. (SBC) B.C. (CCC)
Creation 0 3930 undated*
Flood 1656 2274 undated*
Birth of Abram 2008 1922 1952 or 2167
Exodus 2513 1417 1447
Temple begun 2993 937 966
Fall of Jerusalem 3425 505 586
Decree of Cyrus 3474 456 536
*Evangelicals using the CCC do not accept the chronological interpretation of Genesis 5 & 11, believing that there are gaps in the record. Thus, they can date neither the Flood nor the Creation.
The Beginnings of Egypt
Genesis 10:6 tells us that the sons of Ham were Cush, Mitsrayim (Mizraim), Put, and Canaan. We know from Genesis 9:25 that Canaan was the actual name of one of Ham’s sons. Cush also seems to have been the name of a person, because his children are mentioned by name in Genesis 10:7-12. Mitsrayim, however, is apparently a dual form in Hebrew, and the seven children of Mitsrayim listed in Genesis 10:13-14 are all in the plural (Ludim, Anamim, etc.), indicating nations rather than individuals. The dual form "mitsrayim" has almost always been taken to indicate the "two Egypts," that is the lower Egypt of the Nile delta and the upper Egypt to the south. Certainly the Egyptians thought of their land that way, and supposedly this is reflected in the Hebrew dual form. At any rate, perhaps Ham had a son named Mitser or something, whose name was altered in Genesis 10 to Mitsrayim in order to denote the nation that came from him; or perhaps the personal name of Ham’s son has not been recorded in favor of giving the name of the nation. Herodotus calls the first king of Egypt Menes, founder of Memphis, and in the past "Menes" has sometimes been seen as a Hellenized form of something like "Mitser." One no longer encounters this association in scholarly literature, but whether this is because the required consonant shifts have been proven impossible or because Genesis 10 is simply ignored, I do not know.
The ancestor of the Egyptians, whom we shall call Mitser for convenience, was born after the Flood. We know this because there were only eight people on the Ark, so all the children of Shem, Ham, and Japheth were born after the Flood. We are entitled to believe that the four sons of Ham are listed in chronological order in Genesis 10:6, though this may not be the case. Canaan, at least, seems to have been the youngest, for in Genesis 9:24-25, Noah places a curse on Canaan because of what his own youngest son, Ham, had done. Noah’s youngest son had rebelled against God’s order, so Noah placed a curse on Ham’s youngest son. (Remember that curses can be turned into blessings if men repent; the Canaanite Gibeonites did just that in Joshua 9.) At any rate, such seems to be the logic of Genesis 9:24-25, which, if true, would jibe with the fact that Canaan is listed last in Genesis 10:6. At any rate, I shall take it that Mitser was Ham’s second-born son.
According to Genesis 11:10-13, Shem’s son Arpachshad was born two years after the Flood and lived 438 years. We may guess that Mitser was born to Ham sometime during the same decade at least, and lived a comparably long life. Thus, we come up with something like this:
Anno Mundi B.C. (SBC)
Flood 1656 2274
Birth of Mitser (?) 1660 2270
Birth of Peleg 1757 2173
Tower of Babel (?) 1871 2059
Death of Peleg 1996 1934
Birth of Abram 2008 1922
Abram at 75 2083 1847
Abram leaves Egypt (?) 2086 1844
Death of Mitser (?) 2098 1832
This brings us to the question of when Egypt was founded, and whether Mitser actually founded it. Perhaps Mitser was the Menes who founded the first dynasty of Egypt. Or perhaps he was the father of those who became Egyptians later on.
We can put together a possible scenario by taking the tower of Babel incident into account. In Biblical Chronology 5:6 I argued that the scattering at the tower of Babel probably happened in the middle or later in the life of Peleg, who died in a.m. 1996. The dividing of the world happened during his life, and the clans of his brother Joktan were instrumental in the sin at Babel, which would put the event later in Peleg’s life rather than earlier.
For aesthetic reasons I shall arbitrarily put the division of the nations in a.m. 1871 (2059 B.C.; midway between the Flood and Abram’s exodus from Egypt), and it is possible that the first dynasty of Egypt began shortly thereafter. Of course, it might have begun earlier. Diodorus states that Menes introduced the worship of the gods into Egypt, perhaps a link to the aftermath of the Babelic apostasy. But all of this is very tenuous. The Bible does not give us enough to go on, and it will have to be up to archaeologists and historians to settle the matter, if they ever do.
Genesis 10:13-14 gives us an important bit of information often overlooked, which is that the Philistines were descendants of Mitsrayim. That is, the Philistines are grandchildren of the Egyptians, and in the Bible the Philistines are virtually equivalent to the Egyptians. The history of Israel’s deliverance from Philistia in the time of Samson and David is equivalent to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt in the time of Moses, and there are many, many deliberate parallels in the two events. Similarly, Abram’s descent into Egypt and his exodus out of it are parallel to his later sojourn in Philistia, and also to Isaac’s later sojourn in Philistia.
Egypt and the Patriarchs
If we don’t know much about the origin of Egypt, we do know that Egypt was a mighty power by the time of Abram’s arrival in the land of Canaan (Genesis 12). A famine in the land caused Abram to journey to Egypt for a time. Bear in mind that Abram was an important personage, what we might call a sheik today. He had 318 fighting men in his sheikdom (Gen. 14:14), which means he had many other shepherds and servants, with their wives and children. From the outset, Abram presided over a nation of perhaps 3000 or more people.
The fact that Abram journeyed to Egypt indicates that Egypt exercised hegemony over the land of Canaan at this time. Also, we know that Israel sojourned in Egypt for 430 years, beginning at this point in time. Thus, Egypt exercised hegemony over Canaan during the entire period of the patriarchs (see Biblical Chronology 2:7 for a fuller discussion of this).
Abram entered Canaan in a.m. 2083 (1847 B.C.). We are not told how long he dwelt in Canaan before his descent into Egypt, but I suggest two years. My reason is almost purely aesthetic and theological: it means that Abram’s exodus from Egypt happened in the third year, as did his separation from Lot. So often in the Bible a preliminary judgment is rendered on the third day or in the third year, that it makes sense to see the same thing happening here. We do read in Genesis 12:4 that Abram was 75 when he left Haran. He spent a little time at Shechem (v. 6). Then he pitched his tent at Bethel (v. 8), a statement that indicates a somewhat longer sojourn. After a time, he moved into the Negev (v. 9). Then there was a famine in the land. Abram moved into Egypt, was celebrated as a sheik, and received many gifts. Then God struck the Egyptians with plagues. All of this indicates to me a time of about 2-3 years.
Now, what is interesting is that if Abram’s exodus from Egypt came in the third year, a.m. 2086, this is 430 years after the Flood. The 430 years of "bondage" in Egypt begin with Abram’s arrival in Canaan, as we have seen, so that there would be a three-year overlap of these two 430-year periods. Since the Hebrews’ migration into Goshen happened exactly in the middle of the 430 years of "bondage in Egypt," it strikes me as aesthetically appropriate to put the fall of the nations at the tower of Babel exactly in the middle of the 430 years from the Flood to Abram’s third year in Canaan. That is why I put the tower of Babel in a.m. 1871. This date for Babel is late enough for Joktan and his clans to be involved, but early enough for the two civilizations of Ur and Egypt to have developed to the point they seem to have at the time of Abram.
But the reader should be aware that my suggestion that Abram’s exodus from Egypt happened in the third year of his sojourn in Canaan is somewhat speculative (though I think pretty well grounded in the text and in Biblical theology), and my date for the tower of Babel is purely speculative, though approximately correct.
At any rate, as regards Egypt, any reconstruction of ancient history must see Egypt as a great power already by this time, and continuing to be a power for 430 years.
Another important piece of information is found in the conversion of Pharaoh and apparently of the entire Egyptian nation under Joseph. Pharaoh’s dissatisfaction with the old bread and the old wine caused him to cast his baker and cupbearer into prison in the year a.m. 2286. Three years later Pharaoh found better bread and wine in Joseph, in whom he recognized the Spirit of God (Gen. 41:38, in Hebrew). Later on, Pharaoh knelt before Jacob to receive the blessing of Yahweh (Gen. 47:7-10). Throughout Genesis 41 to 50 the Egyptians are always pictured as rejoicing at the good things that happen to the Hebrews, and as mourning at the death of Jacob. This is clearly a picture of national conversion. Joseph ruled Egypt for Pharaoh from a.m. 2289 to 2369, and sometime after that the Pharaoh and the Egyptians apostatized from the true faith.
What this means is that any accurate history of Egypt must assume an era of faith between the years 1641 B.C. and 1561 B.C.
Egypt and Moses
The Hebrews began to multiply in Egypt, and about a century before the exodus the Pharaoh tried to put a stop to it. His effort climaxed with the command to murder all boy babies, a command his daughter rejected when she adopted Moses (Ex. 1). What this shows us is that Egyptian civilization was very dependant upon slave labor from about 2413 to the time of the exodus in 2513 (or 1517-1417 B.C.). Then the Egyptian culture was demolished for several centuries.
The Bible says nothing about Egypt until we read in 1 Kings 3:1 that Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter. This was shortly before the Temple began to be built in 2993 (937 B.C.). Egypt had obviously begun to be a power by this time, but in David’s day it was still not important enough to be noticed. Thus, for nearly 480 years after the exodus, Egypt was a minor power.
Let’s consider what the Bible actually says happened to Egypt in 1417 B.C.:
1. A slave labor base of over 600,000 men was lost, and a working population of an unknown number of "mixed multitude" also departed.
2. All the crops of Egypt were destroyed.
3. All the cattle of Egypt were destroyed.
4. All the firstborn sons of Egypt were killed.
5. The Egyptian army was wiped out.
6. The Pharaoh was killed, because the Pharaohs always led their armies.
7. The gods of Egypt were humiliated completely.
Now this event was of a huge magnitude. Scholars using the CCC today often tell us that it happened during the reign of Thutmose III, but we not only have the sarcophagus of Thutmose III, we also know nothing like this happened during his reign. The same is true of the alternative sometimes suggested, Rameses II. This construction of ancient history is clearly completely wrong.
The destruction of Egypt must have ushered in a dark age. Any reconstruction of ancient history that does not have an Egyptian dark age beginning in 1417 B.C. (or the equivalent CCC date, 1447 B.C.) is wrong.
Moreover, on their way out of Egypt the Israelites encountered a savage tribe of men called Amalekites (Ex. 17). There is reason to believe that these Amalekites were on their way to Egypt to pillage it. As Rahab informs us (Joshua 2:9-11), the shock of the collapse of Egypt was felt immediately in Canaan, which after all was under Egyptian hegemony. It is reasonable to assume that vultures would immediately descend upon the corpse of Egypt. Genesis 36:12 tells us that Amalek was a grandson of Esau, and thus the Amalekites were Semites of the Hebrew line, though they were completely mingled with Canaanite Horites (Gen. 36:1-43).
Immanuel Velikhovsky must be given credit for suggesting that the Hyksos or Shepherd-King dynasties of Egypt were the Amalekites. The Hyksos were culturally degenerate and foreign, and evidently ruled Egypt for over 400 years.
Egypt and the Kings of Israel
As we have seen, Egypt had become a world power by the time of Solomon’s accession to the throne in a.m. 2989. A Pharaoh whom the Bible calls Shishak was on the throne of Egypt at the end of Solomon’s reign and at the beginning of Rehoboam’s (1 Kings 11:40; 14:25).
Zerah the Ethiopian, evidently a Pharaoh, was defeated by Asa of Judah, apparently in the 10th year of the latter’s reign (2 Chronicles 14). This is a.m. 3069.
In the days of Ahaz of Judah and Hoshea of Israel, Egypt was active as an alternative to Shalmaneser of Assyria (2 Kings 17:1-6). This is c. a.m. 3285 (645 B.C., SBC).
In Hezekiah’s day the Judahites were involved with Egypt (2 Kings 18:21). Hezekiah followed Ahaz in Judah, so we have continuity of Egyptian presence in this era of Biblical history.
Manasseh followed Hezekiah, and during his 55-year (a.m. 3314-3369; 616-561 B.C.) reign the Egyptians seem to have been inferior to the Assyrians in power. Sometime during Manasseh’s reign the Assyrians captured him.
After Manasseh came Amon for two years, and then Josiah for 31 years. Pharaoh Neco fought Babylon in the days of Josiah, killed Josiah, and captured Jehoahaz, taking him to Egypt (2 Kings 23:29-35). This was in a.m. 3402 (528 B.C., SBC).
What emerges from this survey is that Egypt was something of a power in the days of Solomon and Rehoboam, but then ceased to be very relevant to the scene until the days of Ahaz. The Egyptians opposed the Assyrians, but evidently were not strong enough to dislodge Assyrian hegemony over Canaan. Thus, the following information needs to be taken into account in constructing a history and chronology of the ancient world:
c.a.m.2980 c.950 BC(SBC) c.979(CCC) Egypt re-emerges as a power
c.2980-3030 c.950-900 c.979-929 Egypt active with Solomon and Rehoboam
3060 870 c.899 Egypt defeated by Asa
c.3069-3285 c.861-645 c.899-732 Egypt apparently inactive in Canaan, possible period of weakness
c.3285-3474 c.645-456 c.732-539 Egypt opposes Assyria and Babylon ineffectually, but manages not to be conquered
c.3285 c.445 c.528 Conquest of Egypt by Cambyses of Persia Current Consensus Chronology and Egypt
If the Bible is correct, then virtually everything written about the history of Egypt in Bible Dictionaries and Bible Encyclopedias is wrong. The consensus history that is used in these works says that the Hebrews departed Egypt during the reign of Thutmose III, one of the greatest of the Egyptian Pharaohs and one of the earliest in what is called the New Kingdom. After the reign of Thutmose, Egypt began stronger and stronger, and its power and influence continued until around 1070 B.C.(CCC). Thus, those who suggest that the exodus happened during the reign of Thutmose’s successor are also wrong.
Now this is precisely the period when, according to the Bible, Egypt was undergoing several centuries of devastation and weakness. Both of these things cannot be true, and it is a testimony to the almost unbelievable schizophrenic capacity of the human mind for self-delusion that any evangelical scholar could try to believe both of these things. In any other field of endeavor such an attempt would be called insanity. Only in Biblical studies does such stupidity go unchecked and unchallenged year after year.
You see, what is surprising is that no evangelical scholar bothers to question this. It would be one thing if the articles in dictionaries and encyclopedias addressed the problem and the authors then came away scratching their heads in bafflement. That would show that at least the author had come to grips with the problem. But these men are so caught up in the current and clearly wrong scholarly consensus that they don’t even seem to see the problem at all. It is utterly amazing.
Happily there are serious revisionist movements in the scholarly world outside evangelicalism that are pointing out the serious errors in this historical reconstruction, and pointing out the serious errors in the assumptions underlying it. We shall investigate these errors in the next several editions of Biblical Chronology.
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 30
Copyright (c) 1993 Biblical Horizons
December, 1993
A while back a friend told me that his church had finally introduced weekly communion. He told me that they were having an 8:00 a.m. service on Sundays for anyone who wanted to have communion. At present only about five people were coming to this service, but he was hopeful that more would come eventually.
I didn’t say anything at the time, but my friend’s comment caused me to begin to think: Is this really communion? Is communion an exercise of private devotion between an individual and God, which can be served to part of the congregation on a voluntary basis? I don’t think so. I have to question whether what is going on at my friend’s 8:00 a.m. service is really communion at all.
When I am asked if I believe in having weekly communion, I reply, “Not quite. What I believe is that worship is covenant renewal, and the communion meal is always the climax of God’s renewing covenant with His community.” This way of putting it takes the focus off of what is “extra” about communion, and puts the focus on God’s renewing of the covenant in the whole service. It also takes the focus off of any notion of an individual’s getting some kind of "fix" from communion, and puts the emphasis on the community.
When the church I formerly co-pastored, Westminster Presbyterian Church of Tyler, Texas, finally left the orbit of “Reconstructionism,” the only places we found that would allow paedocommunion were in Episcopal circles. For a year, the church sustained an unofficial relationship with the American Episcopal Church, which proved to be very problematic, before finding a good home in the Reformed Episcopal Church. During that AEC year we would sometimes have visitors from other Episcopal churches. They would sometimes come rather late, and after they had gone forward for communion, would just go to the back door, bow, and leave. Sometimes they missed the confession of sins and absolution, and also the dismissal and benediction.
What was in these people’s minds? Clearly they thought of communion as some kind of religious drug, a “Jesus fix" that they could come and get at the communion rail, and then go on their way. They did not consider the worship service a corporate event, or they would have been with the community from start to finish. They did not view communion as part of the covenant renewal, or they would have participated in the entire service. Instead, they viewed the bread and wine magically: Jesus had been charmed down into the bread and wine by the “consecration,” and they had received some kind of spiritual dope by eating communion.
The instant you remove communion from the covenant renewal as a whole, you raise a question about its meaning that the Bible cannot answer. The Biblical answer to the meaning of communion is that it is the climax of the covenant renewal, the point at which the renewal is sealed by a common meal. If you don’t have communion in your worship service, you have not had covenant renewal. By the same token, if you don’t have the Word first, you have not had covenant renewal either, because there is no covenant to seal!
By removing communion from the sequence of covenant renewal, we introduce the question of what “extra” benefit comes from “having” communion. When a church does not “have” communion every week, people begin to ask what is the “extra” blessing of communion. Then they may begin to want to “have” that “extra” blessing every week. But this entire process of reasoning is wrong. There is no “extra” blessing in communion. The Lord’s Supper is simply the sealing climax of the covenant renewal that takes place on the Day of the Lord (the Lord’s Day).
The notion of some “extra” blessing receives strength from the individualistic piety of the Western churches. Nowhere is this more evident than in Anglican and Lutheran churches, because each individual comes forward and gets the bread and wine by himself or herself. There is no corporate action visible at all. Naturally such churches wind up with voluntary communion services, such as my friend put at 8:00 a.m., because communion is only something between me and Jesus, overseen by the minister.
The more consistently Reformed churches eliminated the extreme individualism and privatization of the communion rail by serving people seated. Even here, however, the focus in the traditional Reformed services is on individual self-examination and individual participation. People close in upon themselves and shut their eyes as they eat. I wonder if this is Biblical. Perhaps we should eat the bread and drink the wine the same way we share any other meal, looking around at one another and participating together.
Pews and rows of chairs are unfortunate in this regard. When we receive the Lord’s Supper in pews it is easier to be very private and individualistic. It is good that we are seated (an improvement over kneeling), but it is not good that we are seated in rows. If we sat at tables, looking across the table at other people, the experience of the Lord’s Supper would take on a far more communal atmosphere. Or if you have pews or chairs, arrange them in the round, so that people face one another.
I’m making a big deal out of the communal atmosphere of the Lord’s Supper because it is very important. For one thing, you never see any kind of covenant renewal meal in the Bible celebrated privately, or in a highly privatized manner. The parables picture people seated at tables at feasts. At the Last Supper, the disciples reclined at a table around Jesus, clearly able to look at one another. If we are going to be careful about how we worship, we need to come to grips with these examples of how covenant renewal meals are done Biblically.
Second, covenant renewals in the Bible are always corporate, except where they symbolize the central covenant renewal that God the Father made with Jesus, and into which we are incorporated. The Bible makes it plain that there are such things as local churches, with elders over them, and such elders obviously have a list of people they are accountable for (the church roll). These are genuine covenant communities. When God comes to renew covenant on the Lord’s Day, it is the day of blowing trumpets, the day of assembly. God renews covenant with the assembled congregation. Thus, the covenant meal is something God gives to the assembled congregation, not to individuals. The Lord’s Supper is only properly served to the assembled congregation, not to five people coming out at 8:00 a.m. who want the “extra” of “having” weekly communion.
Third, if there is anything stressed in the epistles, and particularly in 1 Corinthians, it is the need for the people in a local church to be at peace with one another. The fact is that we don’t want to sit down and eat with people we don’t like. That is why the Bible tells us we need to become reconciled to the other people in the church before we come to the Lord’s Table. I believe one of the main reasons communion became so privatized is that the churches are full of people who don’t get along with one another, who have offended one another. If communion is just “me and Jesus,” then we can ignore the need to become reconciled. If, however, we are sitting at tables looking at one another and participating in communion as at a meal, then it is much harder to ignore the command to be reconciled first.
Finally, to put it another way, we just need to bear in mind that the Lord’s Supper is a meal. It is not something else cleverly disguised as a meal. It is a meal with God and with the other members of the covenant communion. Every time the Bible pictures such meals they are pictured as ordinary meals with God. When we have meals at home we sit at table, looking at one another, and discussing things in an edifying manner. This should be the model for how the Lord’s Supper is conducted.
Other Implications
There are two kinds of special worship: covenant renewal worship and general (or “outer court”) worship. General worship events include private devotions, family devotions, Wednesday night prayer meetings, Christmas Eve services, and so forth. Attendance at such things should be voluntary.
But there is also the special, appointed kind of worship that we are calling covenant renewal worship. This kind of worship requires the presence of the local assembly. This is an assembly covenanted together under some kind of body of elders. As Hebrews 13 says, those elders watch over the people, and so they clearly know who they are. In other words, the elders have a roll or list of people in the local assembly (whether it is written down or not).
This assembling takes place on the Day of the Lord. In a sense, every day is a potential Lord’s Day, and if the Church is in a season of distress and can only meet late at night on Thursdays, then that occasion becomes the Lord’s Day. The normal thing, however, is for the Church to meet according to the sabbath pattern laid out in the Bible: each Sunday.
Thus, the Lord’s Day is the time of covenant renewal. Every member of the congregation is required by God to be present, unless providentially hindered. To stay away for any light reason is to show contempt for God. And, since worship is covenant renewal with God’s people, unbelievers should not normally be present, though Christian visitors should be welcome.
When we see this, it becomes clear that the Lord’s Supper belongs in each covenant renewal, and only in covenant renewals. There are plenty of other kinds of meals, “outer court” meals, that we can have at other times. It shows a lack of understanding of communion to have it on Christmas Eve, at some kind of mid-week service, or at any time other than when the covenant community is assembled for covenant renewal. I think it is a mistake to have it on Maundy Thursday, unless you require the whole congregation to be present. The Bible does not teach us to commemorate Maundy Thursday, though we are free to do so if we wish. The time to commemorate the Last Supper of Maundy Thursday is on the Lord’s Day.
Now, some will reply that every time we pray we are renewing covenant with God in a smaller way, which is true. Thus, it will be argued, we can have voluntary communions at times other than at the central, core covenant renewal ceremony of the entire assembly. I can see the logic here, but where do we stop? Is it proper for families to have communion by themselves at home, every day? Is it proper for me to have it by myself, when I engage in covenant renewal through daily prayer? If not, why not?
I believe 1 Corinthians 11:17-31 answers these questions. First of all, the commands “do this,” and the statement “given for you” are all plural. The community is being addressed, not individuals.
Secondly, Paul makes it clear that this ritual is given to the assembled church, not to the family. Verse 22 says that we have houses to eat and drink in. Verses 18 & 20 say that he is discussing a ritual done when the church comes together.
Finally, verses 21 & 33 make it clear that no one is to participate in the Supper until everyone has arrived. Paul has no notion of only part of the church taking communion. Communion is something that is only properly served to the entire gathering in a context of covenant renewal.
For this reason, I don’t think it is appropriate to serve communion at a wedding, even to everyone present, unless the wedding takes place during the Lord’s Day covenant renewal service. Now, lots of people do this, and years ago I thought it was a good idea also. What they have in mind is starting their marriage off with Jesus, and that is a wonderful thing. But I have come to believe that having communion is not the proper way to do that. Communion only belongs in covenant renewal worship. Now, I don’t think that God is mad at people for having communion at their weddings! Not at all. What I am doing here is asking the Church to consider advancing and maturing beyond where she has been to this point. I think once we understand communion properly, we will see why it is not really appropriate to do it at weddings. I’ve only recently come to this conclusion myself, and perhaps I am wrong and will change my mind again!
Is it appropriate to have communion at meetings of presbyteries of other kinds of Church courts? At this point, I don’t think so. It seems to me that God renews covenant with His people, not with select groups of them, and not with representatives of them. In the time before Christ, of course, God renewed covenant with the priests as representatives of the people, but that was because the people were not permitted to draw near. Our representatives today do not have that same function. All Christians have equal nearness to God liturgically. It seems to me that 1 Corinthians 11 is teaching that communion is covenant renewal with the congregated local assembly.
Why is communion served at presbytery meetings, or meetings of the general assembly, etc? Is it for theological reasons, say because these groups are considered some kind of church in themselves with which God is renewing covenant? Frankly, I don’t think so. I am inclined to think that communion is served basically for sentimental reasons: because it seems right and appropriate. Following the rule of being very careful about what we do in worship, I think we need to have a good justification for serving communion at such meetings. No mention is made of communion’s being served at the council in Acts 15.
What about taking communion to the sick? Well, the practice of taking communion to the sick seems to arise from the idea that communion is something “extra.” The churches that have a magical view, like the Anglo-Catholic, take communion to the sick as a “Jesus fix." The evangelicals take communion to the sick because they have communion only four times a year and it is a shame for a person to miss out on this “extra” just because he/she is sick.
But if we do worship as covenant renewal, then if a person is sick, he or she misses the entire renewal. We can be sure that God knows all about the sickness, and that the sick person is not missing out on any special blessing by being absent for a Sunday or two.
I have four thoughts. First, James 5 says that if a person is sick, he or she should call for the elders and be anointed. That, rather than taking communion, seems to be the right response in this situation.
Second, a person who is chronically sick can be brought to church, sit or lie in the back, and then be taken home. Worship does not last all that long, and if a person is ill or infirm for weeks on end, it usually possible to transport him for something as short as a church service.
Third, with the miracle of modern electronics, it might be possible to broadcast the service to the home of the sick person over a phone cable, and then bring communion over. That way, the sick person would participate by extension in the whole covenant renewal.
Finally, I don’t see how you take communion to the sick without taking the whole covenant renewal, which would involve taking at least part of the congregation. For this reason, I have come to have strong reservations about taking communion to the sick. (And this obviously supersedes what I have written and said in the past.) Of course, I’m open to other arguments here; but for the present, I’m not comfortable with the practice.
And as a final thought: Why do it? There is nothing magical about communion. When the sick person returns to church, he or she will once again participate in the covenant renewal. Until that time, God will take care of him or her.
