BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 67
November, 1994
Copyright 1994, Biblical Horizons
Immediately following his vision of the outpouring of the Spirit upon the restoration community (4:1-14), Zechariah saw a flying scroll. The interpreting angel told him that the scroll was going throughout the land to purge thieves and perjurers (5:3-4). The sequence is significant: When the Spirit is poured out, not only blessings but curses intensify. A Spirit-filled church is not only one where faith, hope, and love reign, but also one in which "some are sick, and some are fallen asleep." (This same sequence is repeated in Zechariah 12:10-13:6: The Spirit is poured out, and the unclean spirits of false prophets are purged.)
While the overall meaning of the vision of the flying scroll is evident from the angel’s interpretation, Zechariah provides additional details that invite further reflection. First, the most unusual thing about the scroll is that it is in midair. This position immediately suggests several things. The scroll is between heaven and earth, indicating that the curses written on it are not of the earth, earthy. Yahweh Himself, not a human authority, will administer them. This is important for the vision, since the criminals the scroll seeks out – those who steal and then swear falsely that they are innocent – are such as commonly escape detection and punishment by human authorities.
Further, the scroll is mobile, not stationary. This too is important to the vision, since the angel says that the scroll seeks out thieves and perjurors in order to bring curses on them. Like the Hound of Heaven, the curses of the covenant seek out and overtake their object (cf. Zech 1:6). When the Spirit comes upon the church, the wicked find no place to hide. Finally, the scroll’s mobility, and its position between heaven and earth, suggest a relation to the cloud-chariot on which the Lord rides as He comes in judgment. This possibility will become more plausible as we proceed.
A flying scroll is unusual enough, but this scroll is flying to and fro unrolled, or at least partly so. This is evident from the facts that Zechariah can estimate its dimensions (5:2) and that he can see writing on both sides (5:3). Scrolls normally roll into a tube as soon as you let go of the ends; evidently, Someone has unrolled this scroll and is holding it open as it flies over the land. Breaking a scroll’s seals and unrolling it signify administering the things written in the scroll; as the Lamb unseals and unrolls the scroll, the words of the book become incarnate in history (Rev. 5:1ff.). The fact that the flying scroll is unrolled without human agency reinforces the message that the Lord Himself is unleashing the curses of the covenant.
One of the long-standing puzzles of this vision is the size and shape of the scroll. Zechariah says that the scroll is 20 cubits long and 10 cubits wide (30 feet by 15 feet). Ancient scrolls were sometimes as long as 30 feet, but they were usually only about a foot wide. What Zechariah saw looked less like a normal scroll than a flying billboard. Its monstrous size is undoubtedly part of the point: The curses of the covenant were publicly broadcast. No one could claim ignorance.
Most commentators agree that the specific dimensions are also significant. These dimensions occur several times in the Old Testament. According to 1 Kings 6:3, the porch of Solomon’s temple was 20 by 10 cubits. It has been suggested that this porch was the place where the priest or the king read the covenant law to the people, thus establishing an association with the administration of covenant curses that Zechariah exploits. While this is possible, there is no conclusive evidence that the law was in fact read from this porch.
Another possibility is that the scroll replicates the dimensions of the holy place of the tabernacle. (These dimensions are nowhere given explicitly, but must be inferred from the size and number of the wall boards and the size of the Most Holy Place; cf. James Strong, The Tabernacle of Israel [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1987], pp. 28-38). It has been suggested that the curses on the scroll are going into effect now that the temple and priesthood are being restored. This interpretation fits well with the other visions of Zechariah, which focus on the establishment of the temple and restoring the priests’ access to the holy place.
More persuasive than either of these suggestions, in my judgment, is the proposal of Carol L. and Eric M. Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 [The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1987], p. 291), who point out that the two giant olive-wood cherubim of Solomon’s temple together form a 10 by 20 cubit area (each cherub was 10 by 10 cubits, 1 Ki. 6:23-28). The wings of these cherubim overshadowed the ark, which contained the tablets of the law, and they were thus associated with the administration of covenant sanctions. Meyers and Meyers write, "If the cherubim represent divine presence and transport . . . in association with God’s word on tablets, a twenty-by-ten flying scroll . . . would be a postexilic equivalent. The scroll itself has replaced the ark and its tablets, which have disappeared from Israel, as the source of God’s word; and its twenty-by-ten airborne size conjures up the winged guardians of the Mosaic tablets."
The most obvious advantage of this interpretation is that cherubim fly, like the scroll (but unlike Solomon’s porch or the holy place). Moreover, cherubim formed the Lord’s glory cloud-chariot, the cloud that the Lord rides when He appears to judge the earth. Zechariah’s flying scroll is the cherub-filled cloud, symbolically manifested as a text that enumerates the punishments Yahweh will carry out when He comes on clouds of glory.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 67
November, 1994
Copyright 1994, Biblical Horizons
Reading the earliest Christian apologists is like watching a movie in which the hero has the means to demolish his opponents in his grasp but never realizes it. The apologists come across as men not altogether aware of the radical character of the gospel they defend. In response to charges of atheism and sedition, they consistently protested that the Church posed no threat to Rome. Since Christians believed that God would someday judge all their actions, Justin argued, they were "more than all other men" Rome’s "helpers and allies in promoting peace" (First Apology, 12). Specifically, he pointed out, Christians were more ready to pay taxes than anyone else (First Apology, 17). Similarly, Athenagoras told Rome’s leaders that Christians "are of all men most piously and righteously disposed towards the deity and towards your government" (Plea for Christians, 1).
Now, at one level, this defense was perfectly accurate. The early Christians were not revolutionaries seeking to overthrow the powers that be. Justin pleaded that charges be investigated before sentences were passed and that no one should be condemned simply for accepting the name "Christian," both commonsensical appeals to basic justice. At the same time, it is clear in retrospect that the Church’s uncompromising assault on pagan mythologies, philosophies, and religious practices attacked the foundations of Greco-Roman civilization. In this respect, the Church’s enemies such as Celsus were better sociologists than their Christian adversaries. Pagan apologists perceived that widespread success for Christianity meant the end of Rome as they knew it.
The Christian gospel is subversive of even the most virtuous and just societies. Dutch New Testament scholar Herman Ridderbos has pointed out that the gospel brings civic righteousness – on which, we are consistently led to believe, orderly society depends for its existence – into radical judgment. According to Ridderbos, Paul insisted that even "the insight of man into the hopelessness of his condition, into his `being worthy of death’ (cf. Rom. 1:32), in no respect whatever introduces change into his existence, but rather must be reckoned a part of this dying." Paul did not teach that the gospel is ultimately antinomian; far from it. By insisting that only an alien righteousness makes sinners acceptable to God, however, the apostolic gospel does reveal the ultimate worthlessness of those very virtues that we think must be encouraged in order preserve even a minimum of social stability.
It seems, then, that the Christian must choose either to attack the moral underpinnings of existing social order or to tame the radical force of the gospel. The dilemma is an intensely practical one. If I tell my neighbor that his faithfulness to his wife, his diligent care of his children, and the disciplined pursuit of his career are ultimately nothing but hay and stubble that will be consumed in the judgment, am I not encouraging adultery, negligence, and sloth? Conversely, if I encourage him in his godless virtue, am I not showing him a way to gain the world – or at least to salvage his family and career – while he loses his own soul?
In modern Christianity, the typical response to this dilemma has been to mute or deny the New Testament’s exclusive claim that Jesus is the only name "under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." This has often been done with one form or another of universalism. If everyone – perhaps, as Barth suggested, even Judas Iscariot – is already in Christ, the dilemma evaporates. Most forms of universalism, such as the contemporary Roman Catholic variety, are less extreme, suggesting that those who are innocently ignorant of the gospel, but who seek God with a pure conscience, may achieve salvation. In either form, such efforts to resolve the dilemma constitute an unacceptable capitulation to the forces of gnostic modernity. Jacob Neusner has it right: Whatever its merits politically and socially, tolerance is not a theological virtue. Neusner’s dictum is, moreover, not an extraneous tenet of an obsolete formulation of Christian faith, but a direct implication of serving a God whose Name is Jealous.
Evangelicals have generally resisted universalism, but often in favor of other methods of domesticating the gospel. Historically, moralism has been the most common substitute the gospel of grace and judgment among evangelical Protestants. The temptation to reduce the gospel to moral exhortation is especially powerful in situations of cultural disintegration and social chaos, when Christians fear that too radical a gospel will unleash antinomian elements, further fraying the social fabric. According to Anglican bishop C. FitzSimons Allison in his book, The Rise of Moralism, Anglican theologians after the Stuart Restoration of 1660 replaced the Reformation insistence that sinners are made acceptable to God by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ with the teaching that sinners make themselves acceptable by a meritorious work of faith or by their own sincere endeavors. This profound modification of the Reformation doctrine of justification arose, Allison argues, because the Caroline theologians feared the social consequences of preaching a gospel of free grace.
Moralism also becomes attractive in situations of theological pluralism. During the Reformation and after, contests over the interpretation of the gospel more often than not ended in blood. Given this potential for violence, it seemed only reasonable to mute theological differences and strive for common moral and social goals. Contemporary appeals to generalized "virtue" and "family values" indicate that these dynamics are at work in the midst of our culture wars. The combination of cultural disintegration and theological pluralism in our time thus provides a double pressure on evangelicals to exchange the gospel for moralism.
The dilemma, in my judgment, must be resolved in favor of maintaining an undiluted gospel, however socially irresponsible it may appear to those who would defend the existing order of things. In fact, if the New Testament is to be believed, what the gospel subverts are the fortresses raised up against the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 10:1-6). What it destroys are the socio-cultural chains and prisons that sinful men construct for themselves and their fellows. What seem to be the virtues that enable humane society to flourish are, in the light of the gospel, the cultural crystallization of human rebellion. Augustine’s claim that pagan virtues are, in the final analysis, splendid vices reflects the New Testament’s view. The church does not exist to buttress such virtues, but to expose them to the unrelenting light of the Word of God.
Paradoxical as it may seem, the gospel, because it lays bare the rotten foundations of the fallen City of Man, is the only foundation for true and lasting, that is to say, Christian, social order. This may seem an unbearably bigoted conclusion. If, however, the gospel is, as the current Pope continually assures us, the truth about man, his relation to God, and the way of life in this world and beyond; if it is, indeed, the truth about the Truth; and if a truly human society must be founded on Truth – then it is difficult to see how a Christian could say anything else.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 67
November, 1994
Copyright 1994, Biblical Horizons
The story of Elisha’s cursing of 42 "little children" (KJV) in 2 Kings 2:23-25 is a perennial problem passage. Matthew Henry treats the story as a moral lesson on the level of Aesop’s Fables: "God must be glorified as a righteous God, that hates sin, and will reckon for it, even in little children. Let the hideous shrieks and groans of this wicked wretched brood make our flesh tremble for fear of God. Let little children be afraid of speaking wicked words, for God notices what they say." Not a bad moral lesson, that. But is it the point of this passage?
For the most part, the best that has been done is to say that the 42 were "young lads," old enough to know that the prophet deserved honor and therefore culpable for their mockery. Others highlight the seriousness of the sin; T. R. Hobbs compares mockery of the Lord’s prophet to touching the ark, both apparently minor transgressions that are severely punished (2 Kings [Word Biblical Commentary #13; Waco, TX: Word, 1985]). Still, one is left unsatisfied, both because of the brutality of slaughtering 42 children, and because it seems so odd that the Spirit would choose to record such an event in the first place. Perhaps we are to learn, as Augustine did, that human feeling and the justice of God are two different things.
In his taped lectures on Kings, James Jordan has provided a more satisfactory interpretation of the passage. Jordan points out the exodus-conquest pattern of 2 Kings 1-2. Elijah and Elisha leave the land (through the parted waters of Jordan, just as Israel left Egypt through the Red Sea), Elijah ascends and cannot be found (like Moses), and Elisha returns as Elijah’s successor (again through the parted Jordan, just as Israel entered Canaan). Elisha is clearly presented as a new Joshua, who enters the land to heal it and to purge it of Canaanites. He meets the "young lads" at Bethel, a center of the golden calf cult (1 Ki. 12:25-33). Jordan suggests that the "lads" are priests or at least assistants to the priests who serve the shrine at Bethel. Cursing the 42 "lads" is part of the new Joshua’s conquest of the land.
Jordan’s interpretation is supported by the fact that na`ar ("boy") sometimes carries the connotation of "official" or "steward." It denotes someone who is in a subordinate position without implying anything about age. Mephibosheth’s servant Ziba is called a na`ar of Saul’s house (2 Sam. 16:1), and he was clearly no "lad," since he had fifteen sons of his own (2 Sam. 19:17). Boaz would have been a fool to put a "boy" in charge of his reapers, but his foreman is called a na`ar in Ruth 2:5-6. These examples suggest that na`ar might be translated as "official" in other passages as well (cf. 1 Ki. 20:13-15).
The same can be said for the other term used to the describe the 42, yeled. While this word normally refers to humans and animals of young age (even fetuses, Ex. 21:22), it is also used in reference to older persons. When Jeroboam led a delegation to Rehoboam to ask for relief from Solomon’s heavy yoke, Rehoboam consulted with the yeladim "who grew up with him and stood before him" (1 Ki. 12:8). How old were these young men? Verse 8 indicates that they were about the same age as Rehoboam, and 1 Kings 14:21 tells us that Rehoboam was 41 when he began to reign. Thus, the "young men" were about 40 when they gave their foolish counsel. They are called yeladim both because they were younger than the elders whose counsel Rehoboam rejected and because they were Rehoboam’s subordinates; that they "stood before" Rehoboam suggests that they were his personal servants and confidants, holding the office of "prince’s friend." In any case, this passage shows that the usage of yeled is not restricted to young children and teenagers.
Elisha, thus, did not instigate a slaughter of babies or infants or little children, but instead called down curses on the "officials" of the idolatrous shrine of Bethel. As the new Joshua, he was beginning his herem war against the shrines of the Israelo-Canaanites who dominated the northern kingdom.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 6, No. 11
November, 1994
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1994
by James B. Jordan
Further Numerical Items of Interest
Umberto Cassuto points out some other numerical factors in Genesis 5. [Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, [1944] 1961.), pp. 258ff.] For one thing, he observes that every number in Genesis 5 is a multiple of 5, sometimes with the addition of 7. We have, in essence, made this point already. He also points out that in the totals of the years lived by the patriarchs, there are five 7s, so that we have another occurrence of the number 5:
Seth 912 [(181 x 5) + 7]
Jared 962 [(191 x 5) + 7]
Methuselah 969 [(191 x 5) + 7 + 7]
Lamech 777 [(154 x 5) + 7]
Interestingly, and this is not from Cassuto, if we add up all the total years of these patriarchs, including Noah’s 950, we come to 8575 years, which is 5 x 5 x 7 x 7 x 7.
Some of Cassuto’s numerical computations are, however, in error. On p. 261 he states that 1643 solar years of 365 days each makes 600,000 days, and if we add two 7s (=14) to this 1643 we come up to 1657, the year the Flood ended. Thus, he says, we see here the sexagesimal number 600,000 augmented by two 7s.
The problem is that 1643 x 365 = 599,695, and in fact a closer number would be obtained by multiplying 365 by 1644, which is 600,060. In neither case, however, does Cassuto’s assertion stand up. Nor can we repair his assertion by adding in extra days for leap years. Over the course of 1643 years we would have 410 extra days, minus the compensatory 365-day non-leapyears that come three out of every four century years (in this case, 12). 410 – 12 = 398. 599,695 + 398 = 600,093 days.
Again, he argues on p. 262 that if we add up the lives of the pre-Flood patriarchs, and then add Noah’s life to the year after the Flood (601 years), we come up with 8226 years. That is correct. Then he says that 8219 years is 3,000,000 days, to which we then add 7 years. Once again, then, we have a sexagesimal number (½ of 6,000,000) + 7. In this case also, however, Cassuto’s computations do not stand up. 8219 x 365 = 2,999,935 days.
Moreover, Cassuto maintains that the 5 years is 60 months, and thus that a sexagesimal system underlies the use of the number 5 in this passage. This is not correct. There are 62 lunar months in 5 solar years.
Thus, contrary to Cassuto, there does not seem to be a sexagesimal number system underlying or woven through these numbers. Rather, the basic numbers are 5 & 7, which compose the numbers 10 and 12, all basic to Biblical revelation.
A Jubilary Number?
The Flood ended in the year a.m.1657. According to Cassuto (as best I recall), in a place I cannot find (and which may be in a book I read in seminary and do not possess), this number consists of 33 jubilees of 50 years each, plus 7 more years. Now, 33+7=40, and of course, 40 is a significant number in the Bible. The problem with this scheme is two-fold. First, the Year of Jubilee is not introduced until Mount Sinai, in Leviticus 25. This problem can be overcome if we posit that God was foreshadowing the jubilary principle in this earlier age.
The major problem is that jubilees come every 49 years, not every 50 years. The 50th year, the Year of Jubilee, is the first year of the new cycle, as we have seen in previous issues of this newsletter. (Reprinted as "The Jubilee & Biblical Chronology," available from Biblical Horizons , Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588, for $3.00.)
The jubilary principle may, however, still be foreshadowed in the antediluvian history. 33 jubilees of 49 years comes to the year 1617, which is 40 years before the end of the Flood in a.m.1657. At the jubilee in Leviticus 25, the accused sinner could leave the city of refuge (in this case, the ark), and return to his land unmolested by any accuser (in this case, return to the world). The 40 years that ended with the end of the Flood, thus, might be intended to foreshadow Israel’s time in the wilderness-refuge that issued into the conquest of Canaan-land.
Astral Numbers
Gordon J. Wenham, in his commentary on Genesis 1-15 (Waco: Word, 1987), p. 133-4, summarizes some work M. Barnouin has done on the numbers in Genesis 5. I shall simply quote Wenham’s summary, and then add to the discussion.
"Barnouin (Revue Biblique 77 [1970] 347-65) has made the bravest attempt to confront this issue. He believes that the ages of the antediluvians can be related to various astronomical periods such as the number of days or weeks in the year or the synodic periods of the planets (i.e., the time it takes for a planet to return to the same point in the sky). These astronomical periods were known to the Babylonians, and a sexagesimal arithmetic, he maintains, would have made the calculations quite easy.
"Barnouin notes the obvious point that Enoch lived 365 years, which he supposes represents the perfect span on life.
"Furthermore, if the [ages of the patriarchs when their son was born, Adam to Lamech] and the [remaining years of the patriarchs, Adam to Lamech] are each divided by 60, and the remainders added together, the sum of the remainders is 365! As for the patriarchs’ ages at death, these can be related to synodic periods: e.g., Lamech’s 777 = synodic period of Jupiter + synodic period of Saturn; Jared’s 962 = synodic period of Venus + synodic period of Saturn. He shows how other patriarchal ages can be generated similarly."
Now, I do not read French, so this is as far as I can go with summarizing Barnouin’s 1970 article. In Vetus Testamentum 27 (1977), Barnouin published a second article on the census figures in the book of Numbers, which is available in translation. In fact, I commissioned this translation, and it is sold through Biblical Horizons (Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588) for $6.00, postpaid. In this technical study, Barnouin shows that the census figures in the book of Numbers relate, over and over again, to various astral cycles, establishing that Israel is being portrayed as a heavenly host. In this course of his discussion, he makes repeated reference to Genesis 5.
I am not well enough informed to try and extend Barnouin’s thesis, but he certainly strikes me as being on to something. Kenan’s total of 910 years is ten times 91, and 91 is ¼ of a solar year of 365 days.
Enoch’s 365 years corresponds to a solar year. I’m not sure Barnouin is right that this is the ideal lifespan. I think that Genesis 5 implies that the ideal lifespan is a millennium, which none of these attained.
Jared’s 962 years corresponds to the synodic period of Venus (584 days) plus the synodic period of Saturn (378 days).
Methuselah’s 969 years are added to Kenan’s 910 years to come up with a total of 1879. This number is the total of four synodic periods:
Mercury 116 days
Venus 584 days
Mars 780 days
Jupiter 399 days
Finally, Lamech’s 777 years, in addition to being a triple repetition of the number seven, corresponds to Jupiter (399) plus Saturn (378).
What significance does all this have? Well, in Genesis 15:5, God told Abram to "tell" the stars, and that "so shall your seed be." If we are right in positing that the patriarchal lives carried astral symbolic weight, then Abram’s observation of the stars would, at least in part, remind him of the great patriarchs of old. Such would his seed be, and indeed, the census figures of the book of Numbers bear this out. Abram’s seed were numbered in the same astral fashion, planets moving in the firmament of heaven.
The firmament is the chamber between earth and heaven. It is the original Holy Place between the Altar Mountain on earth and the Holy of Holies of Heaven. It is, thus, the place were man, as priest/ruler of creation under God, is positioned. Thus, God’s people are restored "to the heavenlies," and are pictured as moving about in the firmament.
An additional dimension of this revelation may be seen in another aspect of the numbers of Genesis 5. The total number of days from creation to the end of the Flood Year (a.m.1657), using even years of 365 days each, and drawing this hint from Enoch’s 365-year lifespan, comes to 604,805 days. This is not completely correct, however, since the Flood ended during the 1657th year.
Years are solar, and months are lunar. The water is said to have dried up from the earth on the first day of the lunar year, which is six months into the solar year. Thus, this is about 177 days (½ a lunar year of 354 days) into year 1657. Noah exited the ark on month 2, day 27, or about 234 days into the year.
Now we can come up with a more accurate figure. 1656 years of 365 days is 604,440 days. If we add 402 leapyears we come to 604,842 days. To this we add 177 days to the first day of spring, for 605,019 days; or we can add 234 days to the day Noah left the Ark of Refuge, for 605,076 days.
All of these numbers are approximate. I only wish to call attention to the census figures in Numbers, and how closely they match up. The total of the first census was 603,550 (Num. 1:46), while the total of the second census was 601,730 (Num. 26:51). In both cases, the root number is 600,000, with a significant additional number added (Barnouin discusses 3550 and 1730 in the paper mentioned for sale above). At any rate, we can see that just as there is a correspondence between the census figures and the lifespans in years of the ante-diluvian patriarchs, so there is also a rough correspondence between the total census figures and the total period of the first patriarchal age measured in days.
Sabbath Themes
The sabbath is the time of enthronement; it means that one’s priestly service has been counted as successful by God, and He now bestows kingship. (See James B. Jordan, Sabbath-Breaking and the Death Penalty, available for $12.00 from Biblical Horizons , Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588). When God finished His "service" or labor of making the world in six days, He entered into enthroned sabbath rest on the seventh. The image of God, humanity, is to move through the same historical programme.
The life of Noah shows the initial fulfillment of God’s programme for humanity. At his birth, Noah’s father Lamech prophesied: "This one will give us comfort from our work and from the toil of our hands in connection with the ground, which Yahweh has cursed" (Gen. 5:29). This was a prophecy that Noah would complete humanity’s first week, and enter into enthroned sabbath rest.
This is exactly what happened. After the Flood, God made a covenant of kingship with Noah, transforming the preceding covenant of priesthood made with Adam. Noah would be enthroned and allowed to pass judgments as a king. The kingly duty of punishing the wicked with the death penalty was entrusted to him. Noah planted a vineyard and drank of the wine, which is everywhere in the Bible a symbol of enthroned kingly rest. (Note the various cupbearers that serve kings in the Bible; the fact that Ahasuerus drinks wine each time he makes a pronouncement in Esther; the fact that Jesus, entering into His priestly work, rejected wine until the Kingdom had come; etc.) When his sons sinned, Noah passed judgment on them. Note the parallel: God planted a garden; Noah planted a vineyard. Adam tried to seize God’s prerogatives; Ham tried to seize Noah’s. God passed judgment; Noah, now enthroned in sabbath kingship, passes judgment.
Thus, we are prepared to see some analogies between Noah’s life and God’s actions in Genesis 1, and that is what we find. Genesis 5:32 says that "Noah was 500 years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth." These sons are not listed in order; Japheth was oldest, and Ham youngest (Gen. 8:24; 10:21). What is important about Genesis 5:32 is that Noah’s first son was born at the beginning of his 6th century of life, paralleling God’s creation of a son on the 6th day.
The Flood came in Noah’s 600th year (Gen. 7:6). This was the beginning of his 7th century of life, his sabbath century. After God executed His judgment on sinful humanity, His "last" judgment so to speak, He turned the kingly sabbatical responsibility of passing judgment and restraining evil over to Noah and his true descendants (the Godly; the church). Those who would not identify with the Godly would lose the right to pass judgments, and instead of being kings would be slaves (Gen. 9:25-27). This has been true ever since, despite appearances. Even when the Godly do not wield the sword of justice in society, they still rule the world, for they and they alone have the ear of the Father.
It may well be significant that Noah’s life as a second Adam begins in the second millennium of humanity. He was born in the year 1056, which is 8×7 years into the second millennium. The eighth day signifies a new beginning, for it is the first day of man’s week after the completion of God’s. Thus, the number 56 may be intended to have a prophetic character to it, and may lie behind Lamech’s prophecy.
Additionally, if we look only at the second millennium, as a millennium of man, then the idea presents itself of a man’s actually fulfilling Adam’s fallen week and coming to sabbath rest. The Flood came in the year 1656, or 656 years into this human millennium. It comes, as we saw, in the seventh or sabbath century. After a jubilary period of 49 years, the Flood comes in the 7th year (i.e., 56), a year of exclusively Divine judgment. The next year becomes the year of man’s enthronement as God’s junior partner, the first year of a new week of years.
Part of the importance of this chronological information is that it affirms to us the historical concreteness of the development of the kingdom of God in human history. "Priest" and "king" are not just abstract, timeless theological ideas, though they are usually con-sidered this way, sad to say. They are stages in maturation, both for us personally (we serve God before we rule men), and historically.
To round out this discussion of sabbath themes, let me point out that there is also a sabbath motif in the chronology after the Flood. The seventh from Noah is
Reu, whose father Peleg is one of the two sons of Eber. Peleg’s brother, Joktan, had thirteen sons who joined with him in the wicked Babel project (Gen. 10:25-30; 11:1). Thus, in the seventh generation from Noah we have the apostasy of the 13 grandsons of Eber through Joktan, which must contrast with the implied faithfulness of the one grandson of Eber through Peleg. Compare the seventh from Adam: the godly Enoch and the ungodly Lamech.
The fall of the false Hebrews came toward the end of the second millennium; Peleg died in 1996, and "in his days the world [not the "soil"] was divided" (Gen. 10:25). Abram starts a new world, and he was born in 2008. This is eight years into the third millennium, the beginning of the second week of years of that millennium. Thus, the birth of Abram, considered chronologically, points to a new beginning.
OPEN BOOK
Views & Reviews
No. 24 Copyright (c) 1994 Biblical Horizons November, 1994
Questions to Ask of Films
by John M. Frame
In my discussion of _lm and culture, I identi_ed the general thrust of modern secular liberalism and its antithesis with Christianity. My reviews will deal with those themes in general. Here I wish to be a bit more speci_c. What follows are certain questions that are always in my mind when I go to _lms. I recommend that other Christian viewers ask the same questions. I will not go through this whole list in each review; I will only discuss the ones I think most important to the particular _lm.
1. Who wrote the _lm? Who produced it? Who directed it? Do we know through the writings and previous work of these people anything about their philosophy of life? The previous works of actors are also important. Actors contribute much to the quality of a _lm, little to its fundamental conception. But actors do tend to sign on to projects with which they have some ideological a_nity (assuming _nancial rewards are not otherwise determinative). Mel Gibson almost never takes on _lms with a heavy sexual element; Mickey Rourke almost always does. The presence of certain actors, granting that they sometimes go "against type," can tell you something about the message of a _lm.
2. Is it well-made, aesthetically? Are the production and acting values of high quality? These factors may have little to do with the "message." But they do tend to determine the extent of the _lm’s cultural impact, and that is important for our purposes. If a _lm is well-made, it can have a large impact upon the culture for good or ill. (Of course some bad _lms also have a major impact!)
3. Is it honest, true to its own position? This is another mark of "quality." Generally speaking, an honest _lm, regardless of its point of view, will have a larger cultural impact than one which blunts its points.
4. What kind of _lm is it? Fantasy? Biography? Realistic drama? Comedy? Obviously each _lm must be judged according to its purpose and genre. We don’t demand of a fantasy the kind of historical accuracy we demand of a supposedly literal biography.
5. What is the world view of the _lm? Is it theistic or atheistic? Christian or non-Christian? If non-Christian, is its main thrust relativistic or dogmatic? How does it employ the theme of "equality?" Is there any role for providence, for God? Is the _lm pessimistic or optimistic? Does the action move in deterministic fashion, or is there a signi_cant role for human choice?
6. What is the plot? What problems do the characters face? Can these problems be correlated in some way with the Fall of mankind in Adam? Does the _lm in e_ect deny the Fall, or does it a_rm it in some way?
7. Are the problems soluble? If so, how? What methods are available to the characters so that they can _nd the answers they need?
8. What is the moral stance of the _lm? Is the _lm relativistic, dogmatic, or both in some combination? What are its attitudes toward sex, family, human life, property, truth, heart-attitudes? What is the source of moral norms, if any? Does justice prevail?
9. In comedy, what is it that is funny? What are the typical incongruities? Who is the butt of the jokes? (Christians? traditional values? the wicked? the righteous? God? Satan?) Is the humor anarchic? Is it rationality gone awry? Is it bitter or gentle? Does it rely on caricatures? If so, of whom?
10. Are there allusions to historical events, literary works, other _lms, famous people, Scripture, etc. that would give us some idea where the _lmmakers are coming from? We should remember, of course, that allusions may be negative, positive, ironic, or merely decorative. A biblical allusion does not necessarily indicate acceptance of biblical values.
11. What are the chief images of the _lm? Is there anything interesting about the lighting, the camera angles, the sound, the timing which would reinforce a particular theme? Are there signi_cant symbols?
12. Are there any explicit religious themes? Christ-_gures?1 Does the _lm express signi_cant attitudes toward Christ, the clergy, or the church? Does it distort Christianity or present it at its worst? Or does it present it with some insight and/or sympathy? Does it recognize the element of personal piety in people’s lives?2 If so, does it approve or disapprove of it? What about Satan, the demons, the occult? Does the _lm recognize their activity in some way? Is the devil taken seriously? If so, how is he dealt with?
____________
1 Steven Spielberg’s "E.T." is, I think, a genuine Christ _gure: recall the themes of pre-existence, growth, teaching, miracle, healing, death, resurrection, ascension. Spielberg denied this parallel, but in my view it is objectively there, even if Spielberg was unconscious of it. The reason is that the human mind has a need for a gospel like that of the New Testament. Those who don’t accept that gospel often instinctively give to their idolatrous inventions powers parallel to those of Christ.
2 The character of Frank Burns in the original M*A*S*H was a pious fellow who kneeled to pray at his bedside, to the scorn of his fellow soldiers. Eventually, it turned out that he was an adulterer and hypocrite. That is fairly typical of the way Hollywood portrays Christian piety. There are exceptions.
Three Reviews by John M. Frame:
THE JOY LUCK CLUB
The Mothers:
Suyuan Kieu Chinh
Lindo Tsai Chin
Ying Ying France Nuyen
An Mei Lisa Lu
The Daughters:
June Ming-Na Wen
Waverly Tamlyn Tomita
Lena Lauren Tom
Rose Rosalind Chao
Hollywood Pictures presents a _lm directed by Wayne Wang. Produced by Wang, Amy Tan, Ronald Bass, and Patrick Markey. Written by Tan and Bass. Based on the novel by Tan. Photographed by Amir Mokri. Edited by Maysie Hoy. Music by Rachel Portman. Running time: 135 minutes. Classi_ed: R (for strong depiction of thematic material).
In this long _lm, Amy Tan’s novel is skillfully realized. The acting, direction, and photography are _ne, and we get a good introduction to Chinese and Chinese-American culture, going back sixty years or so. The story concerns four Chinese women who ultimately emigrate to America, and their American daughters (the men are demons and cartoon _gures). The _lm also scrutinizes the mothers of the mothers. It is mainly a series of vignettes, by which we understand something of each woman’s background, her sacri_ces, her shame, her relations with her daughter, her hopes for the future.
There are a lot of obligatory feminist, generation-gap, and communication-gap cliches, but behind all of that there is something more substantial as well. The story recognizes and illustrates the biblical principle that sins of fathers (and mothers) are visited upon later generations. Mothers who are ashamed from early abuse and humiliation seek to redeem themselves by maintaining hope for their daughters: hope which the daughters see as impossibly high expectations. Eventually, broken down lines of communication are repaired and the women come to love one another despite past bitterness.
But as the title (based on a continuing meeting of the four immigrant women for Mah Jong and group therapy) suggests, much of the joy that takes place is just luck, attributed to ancestors, omens, accidental revelations. Murder, suicide, profane language (often glaringly at odds with the super-polite diction usually employed by the ladies), and divorce are among the tools these women have used to maintain their self-respect. The _lm treats traditional Chinese religious practices as something of a joke: on a couple of occasions, the woman protagonists cynically use the superstitions of their oppressors to gain victories over them. Essentially, the women accomplish their goals through their own cleverness and through sheer luck.
But what hope is there for these women that the cycle won’t continue, that their daughters, and daughters’ daughters, won’t go through the same heartbreak? Hope is evidently, in the _lmmakers’ minds, the main theme of the movie, as it is the major theme of some crucial speeches. But what basis for hope is there in a universe of chance? Although the movie conveys no sense of the reality of a personal God, it certainly presents the need for something more than luck as a basis for joy.
HEAVEN AND EARTH
Le Ly Hiep Thi Le
Steve Butler Tommy Lee Jones
Mama Joan Chen
Papa Haing S. Ngor
Eugenia Debbie Reynolds
Warner Bros. presents a _lm written and directed by Oliver Stone. Produced by Stone, Arnon Milchan, Robert Kline, and A. Kitman Ho. Based on the books When Heaven and Earth Changed Places by Le Ly Hayslip with Jay Wurts, and Child of War, Woman of Peace by Le Ly Hayslip with James Hayslip. Photographed by Robert Richardson. Edited by David Brenner and Sally Menke. Music by Kitaro. Running time: 138 minutes. Classi_ed: R (for violence, language, and sexuality).
This is the third of Oliver Stone’s movies about the Viet Nam war and its aftermath, the others being "Platoon" and "Born on the Fourth of July." This one is a true story, though I assume certain liberties have been taken, of a Vietnamese woman. During her childhood, the French destroy her village. Then in her teen years, the Viet Cong come, demanding the loyalty of the villagers, torturing and raping any (including Le Ly, on the basis of a mistake) who appear to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Then came the Americans, who transform everything. Now Viet Nam is a bog of prostitution, cigarettes, drugs, corruption, suspicions, hatreds. Le Ly is forced to go to the city and work for a Vietnamese man who fathers her _rst son to the angry response of his wife. Le Ly is reduced to begging and selling goods to soldiers in the streets.
At this point, Steve Butler appears, a Marine o_cer who seems to love and understand her genuinely. He makes her his wife, and the family _ees Viet Nam with the American pullout, settling in San Diego, at _rst with Butler’s family. Steve cannot make it _nancially, and his bitterness turns to viciousness and eventual suicide. In the course of events, Le Ly learns that his work in Viet Nam was to assassinate Vietnamese who collaborated with the Cong. What the _lm tells us is that he was in e_ect a serial killer, who after the war is wracked with guilt over it.
Le Ly herself prospers in the US. She visits her family in Viet Nam, and encounters more bitterness: family members resent her wealth while they have so little. But there is reconciliation.
Oliver Stone is, of course, one of the most deeply ideological of directors, and in many ways he expresses here his loathing for American values and culture. To his credit, he does not glamorize the Viet Cong: they are brutal. But their brutality is the brutality of self-defense, we are told, the brutality made necessary by people who want the freedom to govern themselves. The Americans are the real wreckers of the peaceful culture. Butler seems to typify the whole American war e_ort: sheer murder under the guise of nation-building.
Also, in America, we see scenes of huge refrigerators and supermarket shelves _lled with all sorts of food, to the amazement of Le Ly. And we see shovels of it being emptied into the sink disposal unit, after mass quantities have been conspicuously consumed by Steve’s fat female relatives.
Nevertheless, Stone does not hide the fact that Le Ly does eventually _nd happiness in America and through her prosperity is able to help the poor of her own country, doubtless far more than if she had stayed there. Nor does he hide the fact that the Communist rule puts Le Ly’s family into a state of constant poverty and su_ering. Yet it is not clear how these inconvenient facts have modi_ed Stone’s value judgments.
It is a very beautiful movie. Hiep Thi Le and Tommy Lee Jones give wonderful performances, as do the others in the cast. Stone’s critiques of American materialism are certainly not entirely wrong, though they come across to me as rather heavy-handed.
The _lm has a deeply Buddhist sensibility. Repentance and reconciliation inhibit bad karma. But is that not, in the end, a form of sel_shness just as much as that which Stone has been quick to condemn in the American culture? Would that Christ had been allowed to speak his Word of peace, so truly to lift the burdens of these a_icted people.
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
Don Pedro, Prince of Aragon Denzel Washington
Benedick, of Padua Kenneth Branagh
Claudio, of Florence Robert Sean Leonard
Beatrice, an orphan Emma Thompson
Hero Kate Beckinsale
Don John Keanu Reeves
Dogberry Michael Keaton
Borachio Gerald Horan
Conrade Richard Cli_ord
Samuel Goldwyn presents a _lm written, produced, and directed by Kenneth Branagh. Also produced by David Par_tt and Stephen Evans. Photographed by Roger Lanser. Edited by Andrew Marcus. Music by Patrick Doyle. Running time: 111 minutes. Classi_ed: PG-13 (for momentary sensuality).
Kenneth Branagh’s _lm of Shakespeare’s "Much Ado About Nothing" is a wonderful treat. All production, direction, and acting values were great. It really communicated the play to a modern viewer. I have never been so wonderfully amused and moved (simultaneously) in a long time. I kept in mind Jim Jordan’s case that Shakespeare was a Christian playwright, and I saw all kinds of parallels to the gospel. It begins as a wonderful, happy party (Edenic) (so Edenic that – in a modern touch – no one seems to notice that the revered leader of the army is black, played by Denzel Washington; even though his brother is white!), except for wicked Don John, whose jealousy leads him to slander one of the two heroines. He is the Satan _gure, and as played in the movie, he also reminds me of the older brother in the prodigal son parable: unable to enjoy the festivities, because of some imagined injustice. He is the only dour _gure, the devil-as-Pharisee.
The slandered girl undergoes symbolic death and resurrection. Her _ance, who believed the false charges, and therefore is himself liable to death (the Branagh character challenges him to a duel), repents, and forgiveness wonderfully abounds. Sin is not ignored; the _ance must pay a price which appears somewhat ominous to him; but the price, accepted voluntarily, turns out to be the consummation of joy. In the "risen" girl’s arms he is symbolically raised with her to newness of life, and the party begins again. She is the Christ _gure.
Meanwhile, there is wonderful comic dialogue, good natured put-downs between the other couple, Benedick and Beatrice, played by Branagh and his wife Emma Thompson. Even in her most wicked comments, her good heart shows through. Could she ever play a really evil person? That would be hard to conceive. Eventually, she and Benedick discover their love for one another under their cynical facades. Essentially, what happens is that each is deceived by third parties into thinking he/she is loved by the other. That hypothesis puts a new "perspective" on the data, whereby each is able to discover his/her love for the other. Each learns to love by being persuaded that he/she has _rst been beloved. The parallel with God’s grace is remarkable.
The music is rich, wonderful, and appropriate. Shakespeare’s songs have never been arranged so beautifully.
The Satan _gure and his cohorts get their just deserts, but most everyone else rejoices at the end, so that the wicked simply disappear from the picture. Not a bad representation of the biblical eschatology: far from being glamorized as in this world, the wicked are not even missed.
Do reformed people really understand "the kingdom of God as a party," to quote Tony Campolo? I think not very often. Shakespeare’s portrayal of the kingdom (I really think that’s what it is) is far more compelling than the usual sour Reformed picture of the Christian life. I think of Jordan’s comment about people who think that God sits up in heaven waiting to pounce on us for making a liturgical or theological mistake. That seems to be the theological mentality of many Reformed people.
I took courses in Shakespeare in college. It was a chore then, understanding the Elizabethan English and sorting out all the professor’s ideas about the "deeper meanings." But now, especially after Branagh’s "Henry V" and this one, I have come to love Shakespeare and to _nd in him a kindred spirit.
