BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 60
April, 1994
Copyright 1994, Biblical Horizons
Zechariah’s first prophecy (Zech. 1:1-6) was delivered in the eighth month of the second year of Darius. The notation of this date serves a number of purposes. Most obviously, it relates Zechariah’s prophecies to those of Haggai. By the time Zechariah delivered his first prophecy, Haggai had already chided the Jews for their neglect of the temple (Hag. 1:1-11), the people had responded by returning to the work of rebuilding (Hag. 1:12-15), and Haggai had encouraged the people with the promise that the house they were building would be more glorious than the previous temple (Hag. 2:1-9). Zechariah’s first prophecy is dated only by month, not by day, so it is impossible to know precisely the length of the interval between Haggai’s second prophecy (Hag. 2:1) and Zechariah’s first. It could have been as little as a week (if Zechariah prophesied on the first day of the eighth month) or as much as a month (if Zechariah prophesied toward the end of the eighth month). What we do know is that by the time Zechariah delivered his first recorded prophecy, the people had begun working on the temple again.
It seems likely, however, that the date is also given for other reasons. Eight frequently signifies resurrection and renewal in the Bible (cf. Gen. 17:12). Zechariah’s prophecy is a call to repentance and renewal, a call to abandon the follies the past and to chart a new course (Zech. 1:4). Zechariah 1:5 is two-edged. On the one hand, Zechariah reminded the Jews that though their fathers were gone, the Word was still alive and active, and was still capable of "overtaking" the rebellious (v. 6). On the other hand, the fact that the fathers were gone meant that Zechariah’s generation had an opportunity to abandon the old ways; a new day and a new way were open possibilities, if the Jews would repent. Zechariah’s sermon was an admonition to cut off the flesh and enter into the new life of the Spirit. All this fits comfortably as an eighth day theme.
Specifically, Zechariah prophesied in the eighth month (1:1), a month that had no particular significance under the Mosaic calendar. The festival calendar was completed by the middle of the seventh month, with the feast of Tabernacles (Lev. 23; Nu. 28-29). The fact that Zechariah’s first prophecy is outside the temporal framework of the Pentateuch may in itself be significant of the new realities of the restoration period.
There are, moreover, two relevant events associated with the eighth month in the Old Testament. First, 1 Kings 6:38 informs us that the temple of Solomon was completed in the eighth month of the eleventh year of Solomon’s reign. Clearly, this date relates to the general "eight" theme in Scripture; the temple, an architectural new creation, was completed in the eighth month, after seven years of construction. This background, in turn, informs Zechariah’s prophecy. He prophesied to Jews who were at work rebuilding the temple, and began to do so in the month that the first temple was completed; the timing of his prophecy contained a promise of success. Moreover, when the first temple was completed, the Lord’s glory came into the Most Holy Place, and God took up His residence in the midst of His people. Similarly, Zechariah promises the restoration community that if they repent and turn, the Lord will return to them to dwell among them (Zech. 1:3).
The second event that took place in the eighth month was Jeroboam’s mock feast of tabernacles. 1 Kings 12:32-33 records that "Jeroboam instituted a feast in the eighth month on the fifteenth day of the month, like the feast that is in Judah, and he went up to the altar; thus he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he had made. And he stationed in Bethel the priests of the high places that he had made. Then he went up to the altar that he had made in Bethel on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, even in the month that he had made from his own heart; and he made a feast for the sons of Israel, and went up to the altar to burn incense." Perhaps with this rebellious eighth-month feast in mind, Zechariah urged the Jews not to imitate their fathers.
Further evidence that the rebellion of northern kingdom forms part of the background of Zechariah’s message is provided by the parallel between Zechariah’s prophecy and Hezekiah’s invitation to the northern tribes to attend the Passover. Both Hezekiah and Zechariah addressed remnant communities who had survived or escaped exile. Like Zechariah, Hezekiah urged Israel to "return to the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, that He may return to those of you who escaped and are left from the hand of the kings of Assyria" (2 Chron. 30:6; Zech. 1:3). Hezekiah added the admonition, "do not be like your fathers and your brothers, who were unfaithful to the Lord God of their fathers, so that He made them a horror, as you see. Now do not stiffen your neck like your fathers, but yield to the Lord and enter His sanctuary, which He has consecrated forever, and serve the Lord your God, that His burning anger may turn away from you" (2 Chron. 30:7-8; cf. Zech. 1:2-6).
Hezekiah’s Passover took place in the second month rather than the first (2 Chron. 30:2). This is in accord with Mosaic instructions concerning an alternative Passover for those who are unclean or traveling in the first month (Nu. 9:9-14). Still, this makes for an intriguing parallel with Zechariah’s first prophecy. Hezekiah urged the remnant of the northern kingdom not to imitate their fathers in the month after the normal feast of Passover; Zechariah urged the remnant from the exile not to imitate their fathers in the month after the feast of booths. Perhaps we have here another example of the curious conflation of Passover and Booths that occurs after the exile and continues into the New Testament (cf. Ezk. 45:18-25; Jn. 12:1, 12-16; Rev. 7:9-17; on this last verse, see Austin Farrer, A Rebirth of Images [Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1970], pp. 114-15).
The dating of Zechariah’s first prophecy, then, brought together a complex of historical and symbolic associations. In the month when Jeroboam had celebrated his mock Tabernacles, Zechariah issued an invitation to those who had acted like the northern tribes when they abandoned the house of God, urging them to reject the example of Jeroboam and their fathers. In the eighth month, the opportunity for rebirth was offered, and the promise that God would return to dwell in a new temple.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 60
April, 1994
Copyright 1994, Biblical Horizons
(Note: In the general confusion surrounding our move and my having several long speaking engagements around the same time, I skipped the April issue and sent out the May issue last time (No. 61). We are also behind several months as a result of all this, and this April issue is being mailed in August. Thus, I am able to comment on the Paul Hill case in Pensacola without being a prophet!)
There is nothing good Satan cannot pervert, and that fact extends to the Christian public witness against abortion just as it applies to everything else. As a Christian who has written, marched, and picketed against legalized abortion since 1970, I have been saddened to see the development of the anti-Christ counterfeit of Christian witness in this area. This counterfeit has been developing since about 1980.
The essential character of the counterfeit anti-abortion position is that it absolutizes "life" and creates a religion around being "pro-life." Because saving lives is the ultimate good of this religion, everything else becomes relative. For the Christian, the worship and service of the true God of the Bible is ultimate, and this relativizes any anti-abortion activities we may engage in.
Prolifism is a form of humanism that treats human life as the ultimate good; thus, the preservation and "rescuing" of human physical life is central to it. Christianity makes the glory of God central, and what glorifies God is carefully defined in the Bible.
Let me lay out some contrasts. The pro-life religion says that capital punishment is wrong because "all life is sacred." Christianity, however, says that capital punishment is right because God says so, and because the execution of a murderer brings glory to Him. We see this diffierence when a Prolifist is asked about the death penalty for abortion. "If abortion is murder, which you Prolifers say it is, do you believe in the death penalty for abortion?" Most Prolifists will say no, but the Christian, of course, must (carefully) answer yes.
The question becomes even more dramatic if phrased this way, "Since the mother is the chief culprit in an abortion, do you believe in putting the murdering mother to death?" Here the Prolifist counterfeit witness becomes almost unanimous: "Of course not!" But the Christian would have to answer this way: "Once the laws have been changed, abortion should be treated like any other form of murder. If a mother kills her 5-year old child, she should be put to death; and if a mother kills her baby in the womb, she also should be put to death."
Second, Prolifists link being against abortion with being against family planning, two things that are completely different, but which both have to do with their false god, "Human Life." From a Christian standpoint, neither sperm nor eggs are alive, and God does not prohibit birth control or family planning.
A third contrast is that Prolifists refuse to recognize that abortion may be God’s way of removing Canaanites from our land. A Christian must consider that if the wicked want to murder their children, that will only lessen the number of evil people our own children will have to contend with. Thus, the Christian witness against abortion is a part of the Christian witness in general. Our message is, "Don’t kill your baby, because there is a better way to live. Come into the kingdom." But because Christians recognize that abortion is not the ultimate sin, the Christian is willing to relax in his or her witness and to do only those things the Bible authorizes in fighting abortion.
Thus, the prophets condemned those who offered their babies to Molech, but they did not organize "rescues." I have written that "trespassing for dear life" is legitimate if it is a way of bearing public witness, if it is "prophetic theater." For Prolifists, however, it is a way of saving babies. When you think about it, though, there are lots of more thorough ways to save babies: kill the abortionists, bomb the clinics, etc.
And why stop there? The babies that are born will be raised in pagan homes. We should kidnap them and put them into Christian homes, and thus "rescue" them from hell, which is far worse then mere death! You can see that from a Christian standpoint, the Prolife religion is very inconsistent. They are more concerned about saving babies from the knife than saving them from hellfire. They worship and serve "Human Life," not God.
Fourth, the Prolife religion rapidly moves into false confrontations. For one thing, they seem more concerned about abortionists than about mothers, but abortion is market-driven and it is the women who are the chief culprits. The abortionist is only a hired gun. This fact, which the Prolifists refuse to face, is why wicked excommunicated heretics like Paul Hill can advocate killing abortionists, while saying nothing about killing mothers. (Of course, if you kill the mother in order to save the baby, you kill the baby too; and this fact puts a damper on killing as an option, something that does not sit well with men of violence.)
Another form of false confrontation, seen in connection with "rescues," is that the Prolifist winds up in confrontation with the police. A Christian may confront those committing these evil deeds, but the Christian has been told to "go the extra mile" in order to avoid confrontations with those God has placed in authority over us.
Prolifists generally refuse to listen to anyone who has not been "bloodied in the fight," that is, who has never been arrested. The measure of committment to their false humanist god is the degree of punishment you have sustained from the authorities. Christians must, of course, be ready to undergo punishment when spreading the gospel, but saving the babies of Canaanites is not at the heart of the Christian’s work and witness–it is a part, but it is not at the center.
Finally, the Prolifism has pretty much destroyed the original Christian anti-abortion witness in America. It started in the 1980s when certain fruitcake charismatics began moving in and taking over anti-abortion activity all over the country. (Please note: There are plenty of non-fruitcake charismatics.) These people know nothing about the Bible and theology, and many of them worship a false god who does not even know the future (the god of Youth With A Mission [YWAM], and other cults). In the late 1980s, an as-yet-unsorted mass of loony and normal charistmatics moved into "rescuing," and initially drew a lot other other people with them. Sometimes orthodox Christians became involved, generally seeing "rescuing" as an opportunity to bear witness. Eventually, however, Biblical Christians moved away from "rescuing."
Meanwhile, the "rescue movement" began to divide up, like the New Left did in the late 60s, and for the same reason: many of its leaders were unstable, ambitious drifters who wanted to become heroes and martyrs. (Such is Paul Hill.) Thus, each would-be hero wound up with his own group.
Most recently, charismania has hit these groups again, as the bizarro type of charismatic churches have gone into their most idiotic and moronic phase yet: services that consist of "holy laughter," in which people get together and laugh themselves silly "in the Spirit." Every time you think the degradation of Christianity in America has hit rock bottom, these people excavate another cellar to move it into.
As a result of all this, the older, responsible anti-abortion Christian voices have been overwhelmed, and their organizations left in the dust. You cannot hear a string quartet if a rock band is playing in the same room. This is probably for the good, if it forces us to channel our efforts into rebuilding the Church. The fact is that it takes an act of faith to believe that the baby in the womb is a human being, because you cannot see it. In our time, only Christianized cultures have regarded abortion as murder and criminalized it. Thus, apart from a revival of genuine Biblical Christianity, the present situation will not significantly change. We should do what we can, bearing witness and helping unwed mothers, but more and more it will be necessary for Christians to separate publicly from the heresies of the Prolifist religion and its false humanist god.
I conclude with an analogy I have found helpful. In the early and mid-19th century, both Christians and Abolitionists said that chattel slavery was wrong. Both opposed it, and sought to end it. After a while, the Abolitionists developed a violent wing (John Brown) that embarrassed the pacifist wing. The religion of Abolitionism was a form of humanism: "Human Freedom." The Christians believe in human freedom also, but not as the ultimate good.
In the providence of God, the Abolitionists helped provoke a bloody war over the issue, and slavery was indeed abolished. The situation may become similar today. Both Christians and Prolifists oppose abortion. As time goes along, we are going to see more and more violent action by Prolifists, would-be John Browns like Paul Hill. The result may be a bloody civil war that will end abortion. If God brings this to pass, we may well rejoice at the outcome, but we cannot as Christians approve of the means.
God is taking world history through various stages of growth; in the midst of it all, He calls us to have a consistent, Biblical witness.
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 6, No. 4
April, 1994
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1994
by James B. Jordan
(We are discussing the meaning of the phrase "cutting off of days" in Genesis 4:3, showing that it implies the turn of the year in autumn.)
Two passages use the term "cutting off of years" to refer to the lunar year, beginning in the Spring.
Exodus 12:41 – at the cutting off of the 430 years. This event was on the 15th day of the first month, the seventh month of the solar year. It was "to the very day" that Israel had entered Egyptian dominion, referring back to Abram’s entrance into the land in Genesis 12. Thus, Abram entered Canaan, and came under Egyptian hegemony, on the 15th day of the first month.
Gen. 16:3 – at the cutting off of 10 years. Ishmael was conceived, and he was born the same year (the eleventh year). If the "cutting off" time had been in the autumn, this would be after literally 9½ years of living in the land. Abram was 75 when he left Haran and entered the land (Gen. 12:4) and 86 when Ishmael was born (Gen. 16:16). Abram would have to have been 85 when Ishmael was conceived, if this happened in autumn. He might have turned 86 by the time of Ishmael’s birth the following summer, but he would only have just turned 86, for in the spring of that year he would still have been 85. It is thus more likely that the cutting off of 10 years means 10 full years from the spring of 2083, when Abram entered the land. Ishmael’s birth in the winter of the following year gives us six more months for Abram to turn 86. Moreover, as we shall see later on, Sarah conceived Isaac "at the time of reviving" of the year, in the spring (Gen. 18:14). We cannot be certain about Genesis 16:3, but the few indications we have point more to the spring than to the fall.
Let us now examine the remaining instances of this phrase:
Gen. 41:1 – at the cutting off of two full years. This was two full years after Pharaoh dealt with his baker and cupbearer. His visions concerned harvests, and might thus have come at the end of the year, or in the spring. This is, however, the end of a definite period of time.
1 Ki. 17:7 – at the cutting off of days. Elijah’s brook dried up. This might indicate the turn of the year, after a summer of heat, but it might not. Unlike Genesis 4:3, where precisely the same phrase is used, there is no indication of a harvest.
2 Chron. 18:2 – at the cutting off of years. Jehoshaphat visited Ahab, who put on a feast for him. Giving the royal context, and that the kings measured their rules by the solar year, this phrase hints that it was at the turn of the year, in autumn.
Neh. 13:6 – at the cutting off of days. After his time of service at court, Nehemiah asked to return to Jerusalem. There is no hint that this phrase indicates a set time of the year, but simply that after a time Nehemiah asked to return. Here again, however, the phrase does indicate the end of a definite period of time.
What we have seen is that "at the cutting off of days/years" indicates the end of a definite period of time, usually explicitly defined in the text. We have also seen that it very often refers to the turn of the solar ational year in autumn, especially when associated with harvests. We are on very good ground, therefore, in seeing it referring to the end of the solar year in Genesis 4:3, especially since harvest is in view.
The Day of Atonement and the Feast of Ingathering came in the seventh (sabbath) month, at the end of all harvests. Extrapolating backwards from information given at Sinai, and remembering that Moses put Genesis in its final form, we may readily imagine that Cain and Abel brought their sacrifices in the seventh month. According to Exodus 23:16; 34:22; and Leviticus 25:8-10, the year ended in the seventh month. Thus the first month of the solar year was the seventh month of the lunar year, for the cycle of lunar months began in the spring with the first month (Ex. 12:2). (The Bible speaks of the day as beginning at evening, as in Genesis 1, "there was evening and morning, one day." Similarly the year begins around the autumnal equinox, as the year darkens.)
Thus, it seems most likely that Cain and Abel offered their sacrifices at the end of the sixth or at the beginning of the seventh month, at the end of the solar year.
If this is the "cutting off of days," then the beginning of days would be in autumn, in the seventh month. Thus, we can suppose that the creation of the world, recorded in Genesis 1, took place in autumn.
The first month was determined by the vernal equinox. The new moon nearest the equinox began the first month. Thus, the seventh month came near the autumnal equinox. The creation of the world probably took place near or at the autumnal equinox. This would be the first month of the solar year.
4. The Chronology of Genesis 4 & 5
Elsewhere I have shown that there are not and cannot be any gaps in the chronology of Genesis 5. The sons born may not be the firstborn, as Seth was not Adam’s firstborn, and though Shem is mentioned first in Gen. 5:32, he was not the oldest. The son whose name is given, and to whom the chronology is attached, is the "patriarchy-bearer."
There are seven generations from Adam to Lamech on Cain’s side, and seven from Adam to Enoch on Seth’s side. If we assume that the births of relevant generations correspond, which may not be the case, we can assume that Enoch’s prophecies were directed in part against Lamech’s behavior. The chronology is as follows:
1st 0 – Adam created
125? – Cain kills Abel
2d 130 – Seth born
3d 140? – Enoch ben Cain born. (I have given Cain 15 years to move and settle down before having children, and thus I am spacing his line in each case ten years after those in preceding generation of Seth’s. Of course, Cain might have given birth to Enoch long before he slew Abel, and the Cainitic line might be much more compact than that of Seth. There is no hard evidence for my suppositions here.)
235 – Enosh born
4th 245? – Irad born
325 – Kenan born
5th 335? – Mehujael born
396 – Mahalalel born
6th 406? – Methushael born
460 – Jared born
7th 470? – Lamech ben Methushael born
622 – Enoch ben Jared born
8th 632? – Jabel, Jubal, Tubal-cain born
687 – Methuselah born
9th 874 – Lamech ben Methuselah born
930 – Adam died
987 – Enoch translated
1042 – Seth died
10th 1056 – Noah born
1140 – Enosh died
1235 – Kenan died
1290 – Mahalalel died
1422 – Jared died
1536 – Beginning of 120 years of grace (Gen. 6:3)
11th 1556 – Japheth born (5:32; 10:21)
1558 – Shem born (7:6; 11:10)
1560? – Ham born (9:24). We do not know when Ham was born, only that he was the youngest.
1651 – Lamech ben Methuselah died
1656 – The Flood; Methuselah died
1657 – End of Flood (1657 is 33 jubilees of 50 years each plus 7 years, for a total of 40 periods of time.)
5. The Chronology of the Flood Year
The first difficulty to address here is that some have posited a 360 day year before the Flood. Supposedly this is proved by the fact that 5 months (Gen. 7:11 + 8:4) equals 150 days (Gen. 8:3). The following stand against this:
1. The 150 might be a round number for 147 actual lunar days.
2. Noah might have been unable to see the new moon while in the Ark, and thus would have measured out 30-day months until he was again able to take measurements, at which time he would have adjusted the calendar.
3. Noah entered the ark on the 17th day of the 2d month, and exited on the 27th day of the 2d month. This gives 12 lunar months, for 354 days, plus 11 days, to equal a solar year. Gen. 7:11 & 8:14.
4. The number 365 occurs in the numerology of the early chapters of Genesis in two ways:
a. It is the number of years Enoch lived (Gen. 5:23).
b. Genesis 5 tells us the age of each patriarch when the patriarchy-bearing son was born. If take each of these figures from Adam to Lamech, and divide each one by 60, and then add together all the remainders, we get 156. Genesis 5 also explicitly tells us how long each patriarch lived after the patriarchy-bearing son was born – seemingly unnecessary information since we are also told his total years. If we take each of these figures from Adam to Lamech, and divide each one by 60, and then add together all the remainders, we get 209. Add these two remainders together and we get 365. Although this kind of numerical computation seems bizarre to modern rationalistic people, it was not strange in the ancient world, and the fact is that this kind of computation does indeed work in various places in the Bible, such as here. The full significance of what God means by this certainly eludes me! but it is clear that the number 365 is indeed "hidden" in the text (Prov. 25:2). (M. Barnouin, "Recherches numériques sur la généalogie de Gen 5," Revue Biblique 77 [1970]: 347-75; summarized in Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary 1 [Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987], p. 134.)
We conclude that there is no evidence to substantiate the notion that the length of the year before the Flood was 360 days.
As regards the Flood year itself, it began in the second month, which would be in the spring. We can make a good guess as to the various days of the year by taking note of the number of seven-day sequences that show up in connection with it. This indicates a sabbath pattern. We start off with the assumption, grounded in Biblical theology, that God’s announcement of the Flood came on a sabbath, the day of judgment. This was am 1656, month 2, day 10 (hereafter 2/10/1656), according to Genesis 7:1-4.
The actual judgment commenced on the following sabbath, 2/17/1656 (Gen. 7:10-11). After 40 days the rain stopped (Gen. 7:12, 17). If we assume a 30-day second month, we come to 3/27/1656, a Thursday. On Thursday, the fourth day, the fishes and birds were made. On this Thursday of the Flood year, only fishes and birds (surviving by lighting on floating debris) would exist on the earth. The only animals and men were in the Ark.
The waters receded and after 150 days the Ark rested (invisibly) on Mount Ararat, on 7/17/1656, which is a Tuesday, the day the dry land began to appear in Genesis 1.
The tops of the mountains became visible on 10/1/1656 (Gen. 8:5). Let us provisionally assume this to be a Tuesday, corresponding to the third day of creation week, when the dry land appeared. This would mean that if the tenth month was 29 days, the raven and dove sent out 40 days later (11/11/1656) were sent out on a sabbath (Gen. 8:6-12). The doves sent out seven and fourteen days later were also sent out on sabbaths (11/18/1656; 11/25/1656).
Following from this, if the eleventh month was 29 days and the twelfth was 30 days, or vice versa, then the drying of the surface of the earth and uncovering of the Ark on 1/1/1657 (Gen. 8:13) was on a Sunday, the first day of a new creation. Similarly, if the first month of 1657 was 30 days, then the emergence from the Ark on 2/27/1657 (Gen. 8:14) was also a Sunday, the eighth Sunday of the year.
We provisionally assumed above that 10/1/1656 was a Tuesday, and this is the case if we assume 29-day months for the seventh, eighth, and ninth months.
Now let us cross-check the scheme. We found reason to believe that months 2,3,4,5,6,11/12 were 30 days, and that 7,8,9,10,11/12 were 29-days, with the first month of 1657 a 30-day month. This gives us a roughly 50-50 spread, which is what is required for lunar months.
6. The Rebellion of Ham
Genesis 9:20-27 records the fall of Ham. Noah, acting as a second Adam with more God-like responsibilities than the first, actually plants his own garden, in this case a vineyard. It takes several years for a vineyard to produce enough grapes to produce wine. We are told that on one occasion Noah took a sabbatical rest, drank wine, and fell asleep in his tent. This is parallel to God’s withdrawal from His garden in Genesis 2:25, to allow Adam and Eve to get to know each other intimately, and to test them by His absence (cp. Gen. 3:8, where we see God’s return).
Ham rebels against Noah as Adam rebelled against God. Adam seized the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, which had to do with rule and judicial authority. Ham stole Noah’s robe, which had to do with the same thing. When Ham tried to enlist his brothers in his conspiracy, however, they refused to go along, and upheld their father’s authority (symbolized by upholding his robe on their shoulders).
When Noah "returned" to the scene, he, like God in His garden, passed judgment. Ham was Noah’s youngest son, and so Noah placed a judgment on Ham’s youngest son, Canaan. Like all such judgments, this one was double-edged: Canaan would be "cursed" to be a servant of servants, but a servant of God’s servants would find blessing.
In terms of chronological information, this shows us that Canaan had already been born by this time. He was Ham’s fourth son (Gen. 10:6). We read in Genesis 11:10 that Shem’s firstborn, Arpachshad, was born two years after the Flood. If we assume a child every two years, beginning two years after the Flood, then Canaan was born in the eighth year after the Flood, in 1664. (Leah’s sons were born at two-year intervals; Gen. 29:31-35.)
7. The Date of the Tower of Babel
In the days of Peleg the earth was divided (Gen. 10:25, referring to the tower of Babel). Perhaps the tower of Babel incident happened about the time of Peleg’s birth, but that is unlikely. We are told that the clan of Joktan, Peleg’s brother, moved to the east (Gen. 10:30). Four verses later we read that "as they journeyed east" they came to Shinar and built the tower of Babel. In context, it seems clear that it was the Joktanites who headed up the Babelic project. This is no surprise, since the Joktanites were in the priestly line of Shem (Gen. 9:26-27; 10:22ff.). Those who were supposed to lead in true worship became leaders of apostasy. Moreover, Genesis 10:6-8 may mean that Nimrod, founder of Babel, was the fourth generation from Ham, while Joktan was the fourth generation from Shem, making them contemporaries:
Ham Shem
Cush Arpachshad
Raamah Shelah
Sheba or Dedan Eber
Nimrod Joktan
Alternatively, Nimrod might have been a late son of the long-lived Cush, and thus a contemporary of Joktan. (If Cush were the same age as Arpachshad, he would have been 101 when Joktan was born, with probably 300+ years to go; thus if Cush begat Nimrod at the age of 101, Nimrod would have been the same age as Joktan.)
In terms of the theology of Genesis, the call of Abram occurs in the aftermath of the judgment on the nations at the tower of Babel. Israel becomes the microcosm of a new creation, with her seventy elders a microcosm of the seventy nations of the world in Genesis 10. Thus, it is possible that the scattering at Babel happened not too long before the call of Abram. On the other hand, since the Biblical principle is that people fall into sin immediately after they are granted a kingdom, it may be that the Joktanites led the nations of the world into sin sometime around the middle of Peleg’s life. According to Biblical chronology, Peleg was born in am 1757 and lived 239 years, to the year 1996. Abram was born in 2008.
The meaning of Genesis 10:25, then, is that sometime during Peleg’s life the world was divided at Babel. Since Peleg’s brother Joktan was involved in the apostasy at Babel, and it seems that his involvement came after he had begotten many sons, it is likely that the Babel incident happened in the middle or later part of Peleg’s life. For aesthetic reasons I shall arbitrarily put the division of the nations in am 1871 (midway between the Flood and Abram’s exodus from Egypt, on which see below).
If Nimrod was born around 1759, as I have suggested, then he had plenty of time to grow up, gather men around him as a "mighty hunter," and found a city, Babel. If the fall of Babel came in 1871, then after this Nimrod went forth to found Assyria (Gen. 10:8-12).
8. The Chronology of Genesis 11
There can be no gaps in this chronology either. The following are the dates:
1558 – Shem born. Shem died when Abraham was 150. He outlived Sarah by 13 years. Isaac and Rebekah had been married 10 years.
1658 – Arpachshad born to Shem, 2 years after Flood (Gen. 11:10). Abram was 86 when Arpachshad died, and Ishmael was 2 years old.
1693 – Shelah born. Shelah died when Abraham was 118.
1723 – Eber born. Eber outlived "Abram the Hebrew [Eberite]" 4 yrs. Jacob and Esau were 19 when Eber died.
1757 – Peleg born
1787 – Reu born
1819 – Serug born
1849 – Nahor born
1871? – Tower of Babel
1878 – Terah born
1948 – Birth either of Haran or Nahor ben Terah (see below)
1996 – Peleg died
1997 – Nahor died
2006 – Noah died
2008 – Abram born (see below)
2026 – Reu died
2049 – Serug died
2083 – Terah died
Genesis 11:26 says that Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Compare to Genesis 5:32, which says that Noah begat Shem, Ham, and
Japheth. We know from Genesis 11:10 that Shem was 100 years old 2 years after the Flood, which came in Noah’s 600th year, so that Shem was obviously not the firstborn. He was born when Noah was 602, even though as patriarchy-bearer he is listed first. According to Genesis 10:21, Japheth was the eldest. That makes Ham the youngest.
By means of parallelism, we can suggest that of Terah’s sons, Haran was the eldest, born when Terah was 70 years old, and Nahor the youngest. Nahor married one of Haran’s daughters (Gen. 12:29), and Haran died well before the other two sons did (Gen. 12:28).
Acts 7:4 tells us that Abram did not leave the city of Haran until Terah had died. Genesis 12:4 says that Abram was 75 at that time. Genesis 11:32 says that Terah died at 205. Thus, Abram was born when Terah was 130. This solution was first noted by Ussher, and so commentaries preceding his work do not take it up. Amazingly, many modern commentators also do not follow Ussher on this point, although the arithmetic is simple and frankly inescapable. We can only assume that many modern commentators do not read very widely when they write their commentaries, and also cannot do arithmetic.
Problem: In Genesis 17:17, Abraham laughed and said, "Shall a child be born to a man who is 100 years old?" If Abraham had been born when Terah was 130, why would he have a problem believing in a birth at 100? On the basis of this, some have suggested that Terah was not dead when Abram left Haran, and that Acts 7:4 should be taken spiritually: Terah was dead to Abram.
This won’t hold up, however. Years later, Abraham married Keturah and had more sons. Clearly Abram’s laughter in Gen. 17:17 is not related to any feeling of impotence, but to the humor in the situation: a childless man finally having a son at the age of 100. More to the point is the second phrase of 17:17, "And shall Sarah, who is 90 years old, bear a son?" Sarah was past the age of childbearing (Gen. 18:11). At any rate, Abraham’s marriage to Keturah shows that he had no problem with the idea of having children in his old age.
A second "problem" is that if we assume Abram was born when Terah was 70, then the arrival of Abram in Canaan at 75 happens 365 years after the birth of Arpachshad. Neat. But, of course, we wind up destroying the literary parallel between the sons of Terah and the sons of Noah. So, the purely aesthetic considerations cancel each other out. In terms of Biblical calculation based on an inerrant text, we should allow Acts 7:4 to carry the day.
It is, thus, far better to go with Ussher and other chronologists, and assume that Abram was born when Terah was 130. This is the simplest and most satisfactory explanation.
As long as Moses lived, Israel seldom worshipped other gods directly. She broke the First Word by breaking the Second, worshipping God through the calf. As we shall see, God always treats such Liturgical Idolatry as Covenantal Idolatry, but it is far more serious because it is committed by those He has called to Himself, who therefore should know better. To some extent, God overlooks the folly of the pagans; He does not overlook the folly of His own people, as we shall see.
After Moses, however, the people fell into full Covenantal Idolatry, worshipping the gods of the tribes round about. They “forsook Yahweh” and served other gods. Therefore, God brought them under the cultural dominion of those other gods by putting them in bondage to the tribes who created them. When they refused to worship Yahweh, who brought them out of Egypt and gave them the land, then they lost the land and went back into Egypt, so to speak.
By way of contrast, in the Kingdom period we no longer find Israel forsaking Yahweh for other gods; instead they “worship Yahweh and serve the Baals,” seeing to worship Yahweh through the media of images and shrines (image houses) on high places. Thus, in this second period it is the Second Word that is the main problem. As we shall see, however, God refuses to accept such false worship, and counts it as rejection and hatred of Him. Thus, whenever the Second Word is defied, the First is as well.
When Israel entered the land to conquer it, they initially obeyed Yahweh and destroyed the Canaanites and their idols. In time, however, they grew lax, so that Yahweh brought this charge against them: “I said, `I will never break My covenant with you, and as for you, you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed Me” (Jud. 2:1-2). The Israelites were sinking into the worship of other gods.
This is made more explicit in Judges 2:11-13: “Then the sons of Israel did evil in the sight of Yahweh, and worshipped the Baals, and they forsook Yahweh, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods from the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed themselves down to them; thus they provoked Yahweh to anger. So they forsook Yahweh and served Baal and Astartes.” Notice in this statement that “doing evil in the sight of Yahweh” is defined, as far as Judges is concerned, as worshipping other gods, perhaps because “in the sight of Yahweh” is equivalent to “before My face.” Notice also the language of the First Word, “who brought them out of the land of Egypt.”
We read that the sons of Israel “did evil in the sight of Yahweh,” that is, worshipped other gods, in the following places:
Judges 3:7, introducing the bondage to Cushan-Rishathaim, with eventual deliverance under Othniel.
Judges 3:13, introducing the bondage to the Moabites, with eventual deliverance under Ehud.
Judges 4:1, introducing the bondage to the Canaanites, with eventual deliverance under Deborah.
Judges 6:1, introducing the bondage to the Midianites, Amalekites, and “Sons of the East” (Ishmaelites), with eventual deliverance under Gideon.
Judges 8:33, introducing the bondage to the half-Canaanite Abimelech.
Judges 10:6, which makes the sin explicit again: “Then the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of Yahweh, served the (1) Baals and the (2) Ashteroth, the (3) gods of Aram, the (4) gods of Sidon, the (7) gods of Moab, the (6) gods of the sons of Ammon, and the (7) gods of the Philistines.” For this seven-fold apostasy Israel was sold to the Ammonites in the northwest and to the Philistines in the southeast.
With the possible exception of Cushan-Rishathaim of Mesopotamia, these were all essentially tribal groups that worshipped powers in nature and ancestors. During this period, God broke His people of this tendency, and we almost never find Israelites worshipping other gods again.
A Theology of Ritual:
Mapping the Territory
by Peter J. Leithart
G. K. Chesterton began Orthodoxy by describing the plot of a book that he had never written. Taking a page from Chesterton, below I will briefly map out the territory of a book (or books) that need(s) to be written. Had I but world enough and time–and a small army of research assistants–I would embark on the project. It is, however, always easier not to write a book, and I’ll probably take the easy way out and not write this one. Besides, by next Tuesday, I’ll probably lose interest. Nevertheless, convinced that such a book would be useful, I offer this map in the hope that it will provide stimulation and guidance to someone with more perseverance, discipline, and intellectual energy than I.
Over the past several years, I have had the growing conviction of the need for a Reformed, Vantillian theology of ritual. This conviction arises partly out of my reflection on the provocative and still growing body of writings of James B. Jordan. Another stimulus has been my study of Roman Catholicism, as this study has forced me to try to determine precisely where the fault lines between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism lie. Also influential has been my work on Calvin and the Reformation generally. Questions of the usefulness and efficacy of rites form the subtext for many of the Reformers’ contests with Rome, but to my knowledge no Protestant has ever dealt with ritual in a comprehensive manner. Almost every Reformed work on ritual (or “ceremony”) has been an anti-Roman polemic; I know of no attempt to provide a positive biblical assessment of the place of ritual in the Christian worldview and in practice of the church. (Of course, I may well be ignorant of a huge body of literature; if I am, please someone let me know.)
In terms of systematic theology, I think the question of rites gets to the heart of a central tension in Reformed theology. At least popularly in Reformed churches, I have the impression that election tends to cancel out the covenant, the church, and the sacraments; in modern evangelicalism, personal experience of regenerating grace tends to have a similar effect. By insisting that salvation is a matter of personal knowledge of God through the only mediator Jesus Christ, Reformation theology seems to undermine any need for the church, ritual, sacraments, or clergy; all mediators but Christ are not merely superfluous but idolatrous. Five hundred years after the Reformation, many Protestants live with a bad conscience in regard to the Anabaptists, the nagging question of whether the Reformers really completed the Reformation.
Bad conscience or no, the Reformers were absolutely correct when they insisted that Christian life is life in the church, and that the church cannot escape rites and governments. The Anabaptist solution is not a solution, or rather, it is a solution that conflicts with clear biblical requirements. In fact, the early Reformers seem hardly to have sensed any tension between their excision of superfluous mediators and their insistence on the significance of the church and its orders. Calvin combined a high Augustinian predestinarianism with a high Augustinian churchmanship (as, obviously, Augustine also did). But if the Reformers did not sense the tension, the tension exists today; at least I feel it. Evidence that others feel it as well is provided by the fact that any Reformed theologian who talks too much or too reverently about the Supper is suspected of being on the road to Rome. Part of the proposed project thus would involve an attempt to understand how the Reformers and post-Reformation dogmaticians systematized the doctrines about which we (or I) feel tensions.
A theology of ritual would address the questions posed above from the standpoint of sacramental theology. The question might be formulated concretely as follows: If Jesus brings us into direct communion with the Father, what need do we have of water, bread, and wine? If we are baptized in the Spirit, what use is baptism in water? If we feed on Christ by faith–Augustine said of John 6, “Believe, and you have eaten”–, why feed on bread and wine? It is sufficient as a practical matter to answer, “Because Jesus commands us to.” But a theology of ritual would attempt to provide a more systematic explication of the logic of the sacraments. It would attempt to answer the question: Why, in the New Covenant, when the shadows and types have passed away, do we still have sacraments at all? And what efficacy do they possess?
The sacraments would also be central to a theology of ritual because the sacraments in fact are rituals. It is inadequate to say that sacraments are signs; “sign” connotes something altogether too static. The sacraments are dynamic rites; facta (act) is as essential to the sacraments as res (element) and dicta (word). Thus, a theology of ritual would attempt a refinement of traditional Protestant formulations concerning the sacraments. In addition to treating the sacraments per se, a theology of ritual would address questions of liturgical theology more broadly considered.
It seems to me that it would be most potentially fruitful to approach this refinement of sacramental and liturgical theology from the perspective of the sacrificial system. It seems likely that the biblical understanding of rituals and hence of sacraments would emerge most clearly from texts that deal directly with rituals, which are mainly found in Exodus-Deuteronomy. The meaning and efficacy of the sacraments, then, need to be understood according to the categories and patterns of the Levitical system. For example, a number of the New Testament images associated with baptism (washing, clothing, anointing) hearken back to the rite of priestly ordination. If we wish to deepen our understanding of baptism, Exodus 29 would be a good place to begin. Armed with my extremely limited knowledge of the history of the church, I don’t know of anyone who has ever attempted to formulate sacramental theology from this standpoint in any rigorous way. Especially given some important recent work done on the Levitical system (eg., Jacob Milgrom), this seems like a useful project.
Finally, ritual has for the past century been a subject of considerable interest in the fields of anthropology (Claude Levi-Strauss, Victor Turner, Mary Douglas, Edmund Leach, Clifford Geertz), sociology (Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, a few hints scattered through the work of Peter L. Berger), literary criticism (Rene Girard), comparative religion (James Frazer, Mircea Eliade, Jonathan Z. Smith) and historical studies (medievalists such as Johan Huizinga, Ernst Kantorowicz, Marc Bloch, and their more recent, mostly French, successors; historians of early modern Europe such as Natalie Davis; classical scholars such as Walter Burkert). A fully developed theology of ritual would interact with this literature. Much of this literature studies the relationships between ritual, culture, and social behavior. A theology of ritual would thus not only impinge on sacramental theology, but also shade into the area of Christian social and political thought.
The Wealth of Nations
by Peter J. Leithart
In the second year of Darius, near the end of the feast of booths, the prophet Haggai encouraged the Jews of the restoration to continue their work on the temple by assuring them that “the latter glory of this house will be greater than then former” (Hag. 2:9). To this end the Lord promised, “Once more in a little while, I am going to shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land. And I will shake all the nations; and they will come with the wealth of nations; and I will fill this house with glory” (2:6-7). David L. Peterson has captured the sense of the verse with the comment that “the nations are being shaken in order to jar loose their wealth” (Haggai and Zechariah 1-8: A Commentary [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984], p. 68).
Though the sense of the prophecy is clear, its fulfillment is not. The phrase “a little while” is somewhat ambiguous, but there is little doubt that it is a time reference. The phrase `od me`at is used elsewhere in the sense of “soon” (cf. Hos. 1:4). In Haggai 2:6, this phrase is interrupted by `achath (fem. of “one”), which may serve “to emphasize the imminence of the time specified" (Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8 [The Anchor Bible, 25B; New York: Doubleday, 1987], p. 52). Haggai expected the nations to be shaken in a very short time.
It is possible to take this as a promise of the gathering of the nations as the Lord’s people. The word translated as “wealth” means “precious things” (Heb., chemdath; cf. Hos. 13:15; Nah. 2:9), and refers to objects and vessels for use in the temple. These are often symbols of people (cf. 2 Ki. 25:8-17). The Lord would shake the nations so that many Gentiles would convert and become living stones in the people-temple of God. Such a promise is not unusual in postexilic prophecies, with their frequent emphasis on the international scope of Israel’s influence (cf. Zech. 8:18-23; 14:16).
The setting of Haggai’s prophecy reinforces this interpretation. The twenty-first day of the seventh month was the seventh day of the feast of tabernacles. During the seven days of that feast a total of 70 bulls, representing the 70 nations (Gen. 10), were sacrificed as ascension (burnt) offerings (Nu. 29:12-34), a series of sacrifices that came to an end on the seventh day of the feast. It was thus particularly apt for Haggai to prophesy of the gathering of the nations on this occasion. The cosmic imagery of verse 6, though surely to be taken symbolically, also supports the notion that the precious things are Gentiles. “Heavens and earth” are parallel to “earth and sea,” and both are immediately connected to the shaking of the nations. The three phrases are speaking of the same process in different ways.
At the same time, there are indications in these verses that the primary concern is with the return of Jews who remain scattered throughout the nations. Exodus imagery supports this interpretation. Though Haggai’s word for “shaking” (ra`ash) does not occur in Exodus, it is a good description of what happened in Egypt: Through the ten plagues, the Lord shook Egypt to its roots. Haggai was prophesying that in a similar way the nations would be shaken. Because of the Lord’s shaking, the children of Israel and the wealth of Egypt were jarred loose. Haggai’s promise that the Jews would plunder the nations of their precious things (Hag. 2:7-8) is a promise of another exodus (Ex. 12:35), as is the fact that the plunder of the nations will be used in the construction of God’s house (Hag. 2:7, 9).
Working on the hypothesis that the shaking of the nations was for the purpose of recovering scattered Jews, the fulfillment of Haggai’s prophecy is easier to pinpoint. The only exodus that occurred “a little while” after Haggai’s prophecy was Ezra’s return to Jerusalem (Ezra 7-8). Michael Fishbane has pointed out the references to the exodus in Ezra’s pilgrimage (Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985], pp. 362-63). Significantly, Ezra arrived in Jerusalem bearing “650 talents [nearly 25 tons] of silver, and silver utensils worth 100 talents [nearly 4 tons], and gold talents, and 20 gold bowls, worth 1000 darics [less than 20 pounds of gold], and two utensils of fine shiny bronze, precious (Heb. chamudoth) as gold” (Ezra 8:26-27). In addition, Ezra was given imperial authorization to collect donations of silver, wheat, wine, oil, and salt from all the treasurers of the Persian provinces beyond the river (7:21-22). If we accept the short chronology of Ezra-Nehemiah, Ezra arrived in Jerusalem in the fifth month of the seventh year of Darius (= Artaxerxes, Ezra 7:8), somewhat less than five years after Haggai prophesied.
In every particular, Ezra’s mission fulfills Haggai’s prophecy. In Ezra’s mission to Jerusalem, the Lord shook loose Jews who remained in exile as well as the wealth of Persia, claimed the gold and silver as His own, and brought the plunder to adorn His house.