Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 47
Copyright (c) 1996 Biblical Horizons
September, 1996
Protestants have always insisted that the sacraments bring no benefit without a response of faith, but this seems to undermine infant baptism, since infants do not appear to be able to exercise faith. Luther and Calvin held together their insistence on faith with infant baptism by claiming that infants can believe. Baptists see this as the Achilles’ heel of the paedobaptist position, an example of how far paedobaptists have to go to defend an untenable practice.
Is infant faith absurd? As I indicated more fully in my lectures on baptism at the 1996 Biblical Horizons summer conference, our questions about sacraments often result from confusions about two things: grace and symbols. Through much of church history, there has been a tendency (and sometimes more than a tendency) to conceive of grace as some kind of impersonal substance, energy, or power that God delivers to man. Sacraments thus become, as is said even by many Reformed, “channels” by which grace flows to believers. This is just an image, but imagery has a way of shaping theology for good or ill. To call the sacraments “channels” of grace reinforced the mistaken view that grace is an impersonal substance or power. Grace, however, is God’s attitude of favor to sinners, manifested in His personal approach to establish fellowship, to cut or renew a covenant, with His people. There are not four things involved in sacraments (God, grace, sacrament, us) but only three (the gracious God, sacraments, and us). The Jews marveled at the confidence of Peter and John, and saw that it was a result of personal acquaintance and fellowship with Jesus (Acts 4:13). Our transformation has the same cause: We are renewed by personal fellowship encounter with the Lord who has become life-giving Spirit.
And as regards symbols: Frequently, we think of symbols as an addition to real life, as enhancements of the “literal.” In the personalist framework sketched above, however, symbols have a much more basic function in human life. Personal relationships among human beings exist, under normal circumstances, only by means of signs and symbols. Symbols communicate and mediate information and personal presence. We get to know another person by talking (using linguistic signs) and by gestures (handshake, kiss, hug, facial expressions, etc.). The only way for a man’s infatuation with a woman to move out of imagination into a real relationship of love is for the man to make his love “public” by speaking, writing love letters, sending flowers, and so on. Symbolic acts such as these do not picture a relationship that already exists; without the symbols, the personal relationship will not exist at all.
Likewise, our personal relationship with God takes place through mutual use of symbols: God speaks to us in His word, which takes the form of printed symbols on a page or audible sounds that carry meaning. We respond with words of prayer and praise. God “gestures” to us through the water of baptism and by spreading His table; we respond by accepting His invitation and feasting in His presence. The history of sacramental theology can be told as a dialectic between treating sacraments as magical and treating them as “mere symbols.” A personalist framework cuts through the whole debate: Symbols have power, but the power is the power of establishing and maintaining personal, covenanted relationships.
(Despite real differences between language and other symbolic actions, there are fundamental similarities: both speech [or writing] and gestures are physical actions; both uttering significant sounds and performing significant gestures are symbolic in that meanings are encoded within or “inhere” the physical actions. In fact, it is difficult to think of a human physical action in which meaning does not inhere: A pat on the back is different from swatting a fly but swatting a fly says something; speaking is different from belching, but, depending on circumstances, belching can mean either “I enjoyed the meal” or “I’m a mannerless pig.” Generating and deploying symbols is an inescapable human process, an aspect of our being made in the image of the Father who eternally generates His Word, His Image [John 1:1; Hebrew 1:1-3].)
Given this background, we can return to the question of infant faith. Here, “faith” is the human response trust to God in a personal relationship. The question of infant faith is not: “Are infants capable of receiving this jolt of divine power?” The question is: “Can infants respond to other persons? Do infants have personal relations?” And the answer to this question is obviously yes. Infants quickly (even in utero) learn to respond to mother’s voice; infants quickly manifest “trust” of their parents; infants quickly distinguish strangers from members of the family. If infants can trust and distrust human persons, why can’t they trust in God? Behind the denial of infant faith is, apparently, an assumption that God is less available to an infant than other humans. But this is entirely wrong; for no human being is nearer than God. And it is wrong because God’s presence is mediated through His people. When parents say to their newborn, “Jesus loves you and will care for you,” they are speaking God’s promises.
Parents, moreover, establish relationships with their infants through symbols. We talk to our infants, and we show our love through gestures � hugs and kisses. If there is nothing irrational or absurd about humans’ establishing personal relation ship with infants through symbols, there is nothing irrational about God’s doing the same. As we establish loving and trusting relations with our infants through symbols, so God speaks to infants and establishes a relation with them through the “visible word” of baptism. Thus, the question “Should we baptize babies?” is of a piece with the question “Should we talk to babies?” Paedobaptism is neither more nor less odd and miraculous that talking to a newborn. In fact, that is just what paedobaptism is: God speaking in water to a newborn child.
Let me take this a further step. If the child cannot understand what a parent is saying, is it rational for the parent to speak to him or her? Baptist parents as well as others speak to their infants, and do not expect the child to understand or to talk back for many months. They see nothing irrational in this. They speak to their children, that is, they employ symbols, not because they think the infant understands all that is being said or because they expect an immediate response. They speak to their children so that the child will learn to understand and talk back. So too, we baptize babies not because they can fully understand what is happening to them, nor because we expect them to undergo some kind of immediate moral transformation. We baptize them, and consistently remind them of their baptism and its implications, so that they will come to understanding and mature faith.
The sociologically consistent Baptist should, it seems to me, follow the Peekabo Street theory of child training. Peekaboo Street was the American Olympic skier, whose parents, as I recall the story, were so very trendy and liberal that they did not want to “impose” an identity on their little girl, so they allowed her to choose her own name, with obvious results. Karl Barth, who loudly protested the “violence” of imposing a Christian identity on a child through infant baptism, would undoubtedly be pleased. In fact, the Streets were not so liberal after all, for in spite of themselves they apparently did teach Peekaboo to speak English, rather than giving her the freedom to choose a language or make one up on her own. Baptist parents, so far as I know, are not consistent either; they do impose a language and a name on their children, a language and a name that cannot be religiously neutral; they do, in spite of themselves, often treat their children as Christians, teaching them to sing “Jesus loves me” and to pray the Lord’s Prayer. And if they do all this, what reason remains for resisting the imposition of the covenant sign?
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 87
September, 1996
Copyright 1996 Biblical Horizons
Yahweh’s two speeches at the end of the book of Job (38-41) should bring some closure to the book. The prologue has the whole cosmic order arrayed against the blameless and upright Job, "a man who feared God and shunned evil" (1:1, 8; 2:3). Yahweh’s capstone speeches affirm God’s absolute control over the entire cosmic order, including Satan. The story begins when Satan, the voraciously malevolent "son of God" is commissioned by Yahweh to prove Job’s integrity. Satan flies out of God’s presence and, in effect, brings the whole world of men and cosmic forces to bear against Job, sparing only his life. Sabeans plunder his property (1:15). Fire falls from heaven and consumes his sheep and servants (1:16). The Chaldeans carry his camels into captivity and slaughter his servants (1:17). A mighty wind strikes the four corners of his children’s house and they all die (1:19). Finally, after Job refuses "to sin by charging God with wrongdoing" (1:23), Satan secures permission to "strike his flesh and bones" (2:3).
In all of this it is crucial to read the text carefully. Satan is only Yahweh’s tool. When Yahweh calls Job’s faithfulness to Satan’s attention after the first round of devastations, He says, "he still maintains his integrity, though you incited Me against him to devour him without any reason" (2:3). Similarly, Satan himself understands his roll as a tool in the hand of the Almighty when he says to the Lord, "But stretch out Your hand and strike his flesh and bones" (2:5). Clearly, Satan is an instrument in the hand of the Lord to accomplish His will against/for Job. Job also recognizes this fundamental truth when he rebukes his wife: "Yahweh gave and Yahweh has taken away. Blessed be His Name!" (1:21).
This background is all the more important because it is precisely Yahweh’s complicity in Job’s suffering that must be explained or at least satisfactorily expounded. Yahweh has arrayed the whole cosmic order–inanimate, animate, angelic, and human–against his servant Job! This is Job’s principal and consistent complaint in all of his monologues and dialogues. This means that the problem addressed in the book of Job is not so much the problem of suffering per se, but the problem of the moral order of the world, specifically God’s maintenance of the world. Can what God does and allows be justified? It’s not just "why do people suffer?" and "why do godly men and women like Job suffer?", but can suffering people trust God? Since there is so much arbitrary suffering in the world (arbitrary from our perspective anyway), can we assume that God is managing the world well? Can we rely on Him? Does He control all things? Or is He just Dr. God, as the Arminians teach, trying to do the best He can with a bad situation?
Now, if the principle of retribution (which was foolishly offered by Job’s three friends as the solution to this problem) is not the key to unlock the reason for evil and suffering, then what is? God was not punishing Job because of Job’s secret sins. If God does not order and manage the world according to the principle of justice and retribution, if the suffering we see in the world is not a tit-for-tat punishment for particular sins, then can there be anything like an orderly, managed world given the extent of suffering and evil that man experiences? Does God do all things well? If so, should we be able to discern His ways in the world?
The answer is given at the end of the book of Job. God manages His world just fine without our knowledge or help. So what if you can’t figure out how or why God does certain things? Remember, you are just a creature. Let God be God! We can trust God, even though we do not know the "whys" of our own situation. You and I may not understand God in the particular situation in which we struggle, but we do understand why we trust God. We may not know why we are suffering, but we do know why we trust God!
This is what the final chapters of Job establish–God’s wise but inscrutable control over all things. This is why God engages Job in a wrestling match at the end of Job’s period of suffering. "Now gird up your loins like a man; I will question you and you shall answer Me" (38:3). "Girding the loins" means to tuck the skirt of your robe into your belt so that you can run or move freely. It is a call to pull together all your strength for a contest. Prepare yourself for a wrestling match with the Creator and Lord of the universe. Brace yourself like a man: God allows Himself to be wrestled with. Remember Jacob. God desires that Job wrestle with Him, not as an enemy but as a Father. One modern commentator notes that there is a kindly playfulness in the Lord’s speeches that is quite attractive and even relaxing. God’s aim is not to crush Job with an awareness of his minuteness, nor to mock him by showing how much more wise He is.
After all, it was God himself who started this whole process with Job! It was God who dispatched Satan to trouble Job. God pointed Job out to Satan! (A fact that often goes unnoticed, see 1:8.) It was God who allowed Job’s three friends to challenge him. It was God who expected Job to struggle with their accusations. It was God who was wrestling with Job all along. Now, at the end, it is God who meets Job for another struggle, another contest, the one that will enlighten Job. Why does God do this? To the end that Job might fear Him, might become strong and mighty in wisdom and discernment; that he might be restored to an even greater position than before.
You see, God does not want slaves; nor does He want His people to remain babies forever. He wants mature sons and daughters! Many readers have thought that God’s response to Job in chapters 38-41 is meant to silence him by beating him down with His almighty power. After such a display, Job should never question God again. That is unnecessary. The meaning of these speeches is not that we ought never to question or even think about the ways of God. This is a very dangerous misinterpretation. The main purpose in Yahweh’s questioning is not to browbeat Job with dazzling displays of His power and wisdom. Nor is it to overwhelm Job with His power and strength! No, not primarily. God invites Job to reconsider the mystery and complexity – even the sheer incomprehensibility– of Himself and His ways with the world. "There is a reason why you trust Me, Job, even though you can’t logically penetrate the mystery of your own situation."
The Lord’s First Speech
The Lord’s first speech interrogates Job about his non-participation in God’s creation, as well as about His own continual maintenance of the universe (Job 38-39).
1. Creation (38:4-11). "I am the Creator and Architect of the Universe, Job, good buddy. Consider the structure of the inanimate world: Are you qualified, Job, to formulate universal opinions on the nature of the universe? You were not there when I made it! You have no access to My creative wisdom. And because you do not have the knowledge to pass judgment on Me, Job, neither do you have any good reason not to trust Me. I, the Lord, have done all this well without your help or even your comprehension. You have every reason to trust Me, Job."
2. Maintenance (38:12-39:30). Next, Yahweh’s interrogation of Job focuses on His inscrutable management of the World. First, there is a reminder that Yahweh maintains the entire inanimate creation quite well without Job. "I am the Lord, the Controller of all Creation. As Lord I wisely manage and control all the inanimate elements of creation" (38:12-38). The Lord focuses on meteorological, heavenly phenomenon: sun, storms, rain, constellations, and clouds. God shows Job regions of the cosmos to which he has no access. These heavenly phenomenon are above Job and the Lord manages all of these, even though Job scarcely ever gives it a thought.
Second, the Lord reminds Job that He wisely manages and controls all the animals (38:39 – 39:30). But take note of the kinds of animals described here: lions, ravens, mountain goats, wild donkeys, wild oxen, ostriches, the wild horse, hawks, and the eagle. What do all these creatures have in common? They are all wild, non-domesticated beasts. They are all animals that have only a tenuous relationship with man. They appear to have no usefulness to man. They inhabit areas that man does not: desolate steppes, wilderness, and the mountain crags. When war wipes out a region, these are the only animals that remain to inhabit the land (Isa. 34; Ezk. 34).
What do all these creatures that appear to have no usefulness to mankind mean? Why are they there? Why should this theology of wild animals convince Job to trust His Lord? Yahweh alerts Job to the almost total inscrutability of whole tracts of the natural order. Some of these animals are also often violent and hostile to man. The wild ass is the enemy of cultivated land, and the lion the enemy of the shepherd’s flocks. Yahweh asserts His lordship over all. No part of the world lies outside of His rule. There are no hostile forces that exist beyond His control. Even that which seems so unruly and wild in the animal world is subject to God’s rule. They are all unquestionably created and managed by God, but for what reason? This is a paradigm for all knowledge of God! Domesticated, tamed animals might serve to magnify the skill of humanity. We make the animal world subservient to us by domesticating them. But wild animals serve to impress humans with the fundamental inexplicability of the world as it has been created and is maintained by God. Carefully observing the animal world will result in wisdom and insight for the wise man. Remember 1 Kings 4:32-33 and the Proverbs. The argument is basically this: Just as God is able to govern wisely that which is incomprehensible to us as humans, namely the wild animals, so also God is able to govern the rest of His world, including the world of humanity with all of its impenetrable mysteries, like evil and suffering.
With this, Yahweh’s first interrogation of Job ends. Problem: Does this really cut it for Job? Is there nothing more to be said? Job doesn’t seem to be satisfied (40:3-5). Job has acknowledged the Lord’s point, sure enough. And yet, if the book ended here, after the Lord’s first speech, there would be something missing. The Lord’s first speech is not suficient.
Maybe, if we listen carefully, and get close enough to Job, we might be able to hear Job, with his head bowed, whispering, "Yes, Lord, but. . . I understand, Lord, that I have every reason to trust You even when I don’t fully understand Your purposes. You manage the world quite well without me, especially whole tracts of Your creation to which I have no access. But, Lord, what about the forces of evil? What about those malevolent human and cosmic forces that wreak havoc on the harmony and order of your creation? It’s all well and good to ponder the subtle harmony of the world by looking at the clouds, the wild horses, and the ostrich, but. . . What about the fire that came down from heaven and consumed my estate? What about the east wind that leveled the house of my sons and daughters and killed them? What about the pride and wickedness of Sabeans and Chaldeans who raided my property killing and destroying everything? If Your world is so wisely well ordered how can these things happen? Where is the justice in all of this? Why must I, an innocent godly man, suffer such injustice? These acts are not part of Your normal order in creation. They are gross, violent transgressions of that order? What about these acts, Lord?"
The Lord’s Second Speech
Now, how does the Lord answer? He says, "Oh, yeah, Job, I almost forgot. Look at Behemoth and Leviathan. There’s your answer!"
This has always concerned me. I get the impression that it has boggled the minds of many a Christian reader. Let’s say that you have a Christian friend who has just learned that he has terminal cancer. Or parents in the church have just lost their children in a house fire. Suppose you visit the hospital and try to minister them. Would you read Job chapters 40-41 to them? Have you ever read Job 40-41 to suffering friend? Well, why not? Is this conclusion not satisfying to you? Do the Lord’s words not clinch it for you? Is it anti-climactic? Does God’s own answer to human suffering and the apparent injustice of evil sit right with you? Leviathan is the climax. The description of Leviathan is surprisingly long. And it is God’s portrait of leviathan that utterly subdues Job. Why? What’s going on here? Who is Leviathan? And why does he become God’s final illustration in the closing moments of His sermon to Job?
Well, I think that answer is that Yahweh displays Behemoth and Leviathan in order to convince Job of His comprehensive Lordship over all, especially over all cosmic forces, good and evil. These two beasts, especially Leviathan represent both the mightiest of all the terrestrial creatures as well as the cosmic forces of evil. The Lord is Master over whatever forces may lie behind Job’s ordeal. The Lord is Master over Leviathan and over Leviathan’s cosmic counterpart: Satan. God is master over all the powers in the universe, earthly and cosmic, good and evil. Nothing escapes Him. God has Job’s life under control. God has Job’s suffering under control. God has Satan under control. God is sovereign master of the universe. He is no paltry Arminian God who merely tries to "influence" the outcome of events that are really not under His control. You see, if Job cannot capture and control the most powerful creatures on earth, then neither can he control the cosmic forces of evil. He has no business questioning the justice of God’s rule. God controls all of this without man’s help.
First, there’s Behemoth (Job 40:15-24). The fundamental lesson to be learned from "looking at Behemoth" can be found in verses 19 and 24. "He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with His sword" (v. 19). This animal can only be controlled by God himself! He is God’s domestic beast. (The Hebrew behemoth is just an augmented form of the word behemah, "cattle; domesticated beast.") God completely controls him. The Lord, his Maker, is able to subdue him. God holds him in check! "Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?" (v. 24). "I dare you Job. Control him. Subdue him. Trap him. Pierce his nose. I can do so. Do you understand the implications, Job? If you cannot capture and control this creature, Job, how is it that you presume to sit in judgment against me, the Creator! My thoughts are not your thoughts, Job. Neither are My ways your ways. Do you understand the implications, Job? Can you extrapolate from this and understand what it means for your present situation? Who controlled all of those malevolent forces that wiped out your family, wealth, health, and reputation? It was Me, Job. Well, let Me help you a little with this. Look at just one more creature with Me. Leviathan."
(to be concluded)
Biblical Chronology
Vol. 8, No. 9
September, 1996
Copyright © James B. Jordan 1996
by James B. Jordan
Our purpose in this study is to lay out the chronology and history of the Kingdom of Judah from the reign of King Josiah to the completion of the exile of the Jews under Nebuchadnezzar, with particular attention to the events recorded in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
The Empire of Assyria
Assyria dominated the ancient world in the centuries before the exile of Judah. The great Assyrian warrior Tiglath-Pileser III ruled from 745-727 BC. When he turned westward to conquer the region of Palestine, Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Northern Israel formed a coalition against him. Evidently they sought to enlist Ahaz ("He Upholds," probably from Yeho-Ahaz, "Yahweh Upholds"), King of Judah, but Ahaz refused. Rezin and Pekah invaded Judah, and against the advice of Isaiah, Ahaz turned to Tiglath-Pileser for help, sending him a large gift. Tiglath-Pileser immediately responded, conquering Syria and Israel, and making Judah a vassal state (2 Kings 15:29; 16:5-9; Isaiah 7; 2 Chronicles 28). Ahaz was required to introduce some Assyrian religious practices into Judah, and he was not particularly averse to doing so (2 Kings 16:10-18). Meanwhile, Northern Israel rebelled against Assyria, and in 722/1 BC Tiglath-Pileser’s successors sacked and destroyed Samaria (2 Kings 17).
Notice the position of the people of Judah. They were both religiously and nationalistically disposed to oppose Assyria. Thus, the political conservatives and the religious conservatives could and did join hands against the internationalists and idolaters. The former wanted political freedom, while the latter wanted idolatry extirpated. This union, which we see today in the United States, eventually caused the destruction of Judah.
Hezekiah (Hizqi-Yah, "Yah’s Strength") apparently ruled with his father Ahaz beginning in 725 BC, and reigned until 696 BC. He instituted religious reforms, assisted by Isaiah. Hezekiah, doubtless encouraged by unrest all over the Assyrian empire, refused tribute to Assyria (2 Kings 18:3-7; 2 Chronicles 29-31). Crown Prince Sennacherib undertook to settle matters, while his father Sargon II was on the throne. In Hezekiah’s 14th year, Sennacherib invested Jerusalem, but was destroyed by God. Thereafter, Hezekiah was regarded as a king in his own right by the other nations (2 Kings 18:13–19:37; Isaiah 36-37; 2 Chronicles 32:23).
After Hezekiah’s death, his son Manasseh (M’nashsheh, "Causing to Forget") once again played the role of willing vassal of Assyria. Politically, he had little choice: Assyria was at her height, and even conquered Egypt during this period. Manasseh, however, was happy to promote pagan religion in the land (2 Kings 21:1-17; 2 Chronicles 33:1-10). Toward the end of his reign, however, he seems to have joined in a rebellion against Assyria, which started in 652 BC with a revolt by the older brother of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal. This brother, Shamash-shumukin, was governor of Babylon. Ashurbanipal subdued his brother in 648 BC and evidently moved west to put down a rebellion among the Arabs. It is likely that it was at this time that Manasseh was taken to Nineveh as a captive. When Manasseh returned to Judah, he sought the Lord, and for the last five or so years of his reign began a series of reforms (2 Chronicles 33:11-19).
O. Palmer Robertson suggests that the most likely time for the prophecies of Nahum ("Comforter") is in these last years of Manasseh, or possibly in the early years of Josiah. [Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990).] He points out that in Nahum’s book, Assyria has already conquered Egypt (Nahum 3:8), and that Assyria is still in full strength, which means no later than the death of Ashurbanipal in 627 BC, the 12th year of Josiah (Nahum 1:12). Since Nahum has little to say about the sins of Judah, Judah may have been in a period of reform; though possibly it is because Nahum is preaching against Assyria, which had apostatized from her conversion under Jonah ("Dove"). In fact, since Manasseh’s successor, Amon, was pro-Assyrian, Nahum might have prophesied during his reign as an indirect condemnation of Judah. At any rate, Nahum comes during this period.
Manasseh’s son, Amon ("Amen" or "Faithful"; or possibly "Workman," or "Foster Child"), followed in his father’s earlier footsteps. He reigned for only two years. So wicked was he that the members of his official cabinet put him to death, after which "the people of the land" made his son Josiah (Yoshi-Yah, "Yah Supports" or "Yah’s Support") king in his stead (2 Kings 21:18-24; 2 Chronicles 33:21-25). Robertson calls attention to evidence that "the people of the land" may have been "a privileged social and political class or an aristocratic institution of landowners which was active on the legal and military level and which had political influence" (p. 8). We shall encounter them again.
The Reign of Josiah
Josiah’s first year began in the seventh month (Tishri) of 639 BC, which month begins the last quarter of the year (that is, the way we measure years today, from January to December). The months or days immediately preceding were his "accession year," properly the second year of Amon. Josiah was only eight years old when he began to reign, and possibly still eight at the commencement of his first official year. Since "the people of the land" put him in office, they probably ran the country while he was a child (2 Kings 22:1).
When Josiah was only 13 or 14 years old, he was married at least twice, to Zebidah ("Endowed") and to Hamutal ("Dew’s Kin"). This was in the sixth year of his reign. His sons Johanan (Yoh-Hanan, John, "Yah Is Gracious") and Jehoiakim (Yeho-Yakim, "Yahweh Establishes," also called El-Yakim, "God Establishes") were born that year, Jehoiakim to Zebidah, and Johanan probably to Hamutal. A third son, Jehoahaz (Yeho-Ahaz, "Yahweh Upholds"), was born to Hamutal in Josiah’s eighth year of rule. See 2 Kings 23:31 & 36 and 1 Chronicles 3:15. Thus, at this early age Josiah was involved in a forbidden polygamous marriage relationship, from which he could not extricate himself, and to two women who may not have been sympathetic to his later reforms. It is certain that his two sons did not follow in his footsteps, and this is a good indication of why they did not. (Johanan evidently preceded Josiah in death; otherwise, he would have stood in line to succeed him, yet nothing is said about him except for the genealogical notice in 1 Chronicles 3:15.)
(Note, polygamy is forbidden by implication in Genesis 2:24, for if you cleave to one wife you will have not time for another; and in the Law in Leviticus 18:18. It is expressly forbidden to kings in Deuteronomy 17:17. Yet, once a second marriage has been entered, it must be endured. If you chop your arm off, that is a sin, but you don’t get a new arm. If you commit bigamy or polygamy, that is a sin, but you don’t get to put aside your extra wives. Josiah’s marriages were arranged for him before he set his heart to seek the Lord, and before the book of the Law was recovered. On his part, thus, it was a sin of inadvertency; to wit, he was led astray by his elders.)
In the eighth year of his reign, Josiah began to "seek Yahweh." He was probably 16 at the time of this religious quickening. Not yet 20, and therefore not yet old enough to exercise power as a citizen, let alone as a ruler, he bided his time until he was of age (2 Chronicles 34:3; see Numbers 1:3).
At the age of 20, Josiah began his holy war. Under the nose of Assyria, and doubtless backed by both the political conservatives (anti-internationalists) and religious anti-idolaters, he purged Jerusalem and Judah of idols and of the high places where Yahweh was sinfully worshipped with sacrifices in defiance of God’s law. Then he embarked on a conquest of what had been Northern Israel, and purged it of idols as well (2 Chronicles 34:3-7). Josiah burned up the idols, ground them to powder, and scattered them. These are the actions of holy war. He burned them up as Jericho had been burned, symbolically reconquering the holy land.
It is important to note that Josiah re-unified the nation of Israel. This is not generally realized. Nebuchadnezzar did not simply conquer Southern Judah, but he took the whole land that David and Solomon had once ruled, and which Josiah had re-unified. Thus, the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel often speak of the Kingdom of Judah as "Israel," for after Josiah, the Kingdom of Judah ruled the entire land.
The following year, at the end of 627 or in 626 BC, Jeremiah (Yi-Remiyah, from Yahweh-Ramah, "Yah Is On High") was called as a prophet (Jeremiah 1:2). Jeremiah was but a young man at the time; the word he uses for "youth" indicates a man under 20 years of age (Jeremiah 1:6). Josiah was only 21 years old. Here we see that God gave Josiah a man of roughly his age, and with his same heart, to help him. We know that Jeremiah prophesied throughout this time (Jeremiah 3:6; 25:3; 36:2), and as we shall see, some of the content of those sermons is woven into Jeremiah 1-20.
Josiah’s purge of the Temple and the land was completed by his 18th year, and in that year he ordered that the Temple be repaired. This order must have been given at the beginning of the regnal year, in the 7th month (October, 622 BC), because by the following spring (1st month; April, 621 BC), Passover was celebrated in the restored Temple (2 Kings 22:4; 23:23).
Meanwhile, Assyria was beginning to fall apart. In 629, which was Josiah’s tenth year of rule, Ashurbanipal apparently made his son Sinsharishkun co-regent with him. Ashurbanipal was evidently killed in 627, opening the door to rebellions throughout the empire. Nabopolassar of Babylon took that city away from Assyria in 626, and was proclaimed King of Babylon on November 22, at the beginning of Josiah’s 14th year of reign. Thus, even as Josiah engaged in ecclesiastical reform, God acted to tear down the enemy idolatrous nation that had oppressed His people. We note that God did not move against Assyria until Josiah had first acted in faith to rid the land of idols, for Josiah began his campaign while Assyria was still powerful and dominant.
As soon as the Temple repair started in the autumn of 622 BC, a copy of the Law of God was found in the Temple. Josiah had it read to him, and realized that the nation was in deep trouble. He asked the priests to tell him what to do, and they consulted Huldah the prophetess. She said that the reform would not last, and that after Josiah died the nation would be judged by God (2 Kings 22:8-20). Liberal scholars insist that the book of the law that was found and read was Deuteronomy, which they foolishly say was written as this time. Doubtless, however, it was the whole of the five books of Moses, copies of which were preserved in the Temple. During the years of idolatry, most copies of the Law had been destroyed, but one copy remained to be found at this time. According to 2 Kings 23:2, Josiah read to the people the Book of the Covenant from the book that was found, and the Book of the Covenant is Exodus 20:22–23:33 (see Exodus 24:3, 7). The fact that most of this Book is the social law of God, relating to how we treat our neighbors, is very important for the history that ensues.
While Josiah had been campaigning in Northern Israel, many idolatrous altars had either been rebuilt in Judah, or had not been torn down during his first campaign. Rightly frightened by God’s law, Josiah immediately completed the work of purging Judah and Israel of all the remnants of idolatry and iconolatry (Exodus 20:23-24; 22:18 & 20; 23:24 & 33; 2 Kings 23:4-20).
Unlike some former kings, who had removed only pagan idols but let the high places dedicated to Yahweh remain, Josiah removed them all. God had forbidden the offering of sacrifice and incense anywhere but the Tabernacle and Temple, making allowance only for the period between Eli and Solomon when the Temple ritual was not in operation (Exodus 20:24; 1 Kings 8:29; 22:43; 2 Kings 12:3; 18:4 & 22). There was a popular religion in Israel, however, that rejected God’s law in this matter. They set up shrines on hills, and made images to represent Yahweh and His court, in defiance of the second commandment. They were exactly like Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Anglo Catholics today. Josiah destroyed these shrines as well, and this is why he was such a hero to the Protestant Reformers.
But did everyone accept these reforms? Not at all. Just as many in Europe did not accept the Protestant Reformation, we read that "the priests of the high places did not go up to the altar of Yahweh in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brothers" (2 Kings 23:9). They could no longer visibly offer animals and incense on the high places, but they could still defile God’s word by engaging in private ceremonies of unleavened bread on their own. Once Josiah died, these iconolaters were able to worm out of the woodwork (Jeremiah 17:1-4; Ezekiel 6; 20:27-44). Eventually, so did pure idolatry (Ezekiel 8).
2 Chronicles 35 describes the great Passover held by Josiah in the spring of his 18th year of reign (April, 621 BC). This is said to have been the greatest Passover ever celebrated since the days of Samuel (2 Chronicles 35:18). Samuel had renewed the nation and restored the covenant, but then the people apostatized and demanded a king like the kings of the nations. Similarly, Josiah renewed the nation and restored the covenant, but after his death the people went back into iconolatry and sin.
Robertson suggests that Zephaniah (Tsiphan-Yah, "Yah’s Hidden Treasure") prophesied in the period immediately after the book of the Law was discovered, perhaps during the 6 months between that discovery and the celebration of the Passover. Zephaniah prophesied in the days of Josiah before the fall of Assyria (Zephaniah 1:1; 2:13-15). His short book contains numerous quotations and allusions to Deuteronomy (Robertson, pp. 254ff.), thus indicating that the Law had been recovered by the time Zephaniah prophesied. At the same time, Zephaniah condemns the idolaters in Judah, which indicates that they were still practicing at that time. Thus, it is likely that his prophecy came during the six months of the final purge. Also, his prediction of the Day of the Lord and the joy of Jerusalem might be seen to have an initial fulfillment at the Great Passover.
From 2 Kings 24:18 we learn that Josiah’s son Zedekiah (Tsidqi-Yah, "Yah’s Justice," also called Mattaniah, Mattan-Yah, "Yah’s Gift") was born to his wife Hamutal in Josiah’s 21st year, 618 BC. The Bible tells us nothing about the rest of Josiah’s reign until the very end. But God was busy in the wider world tearing down Assyria. In Josiah’s 25th year (614 BC), the Medes conquered the ancient capital Asshur. Then, with Babylonia assisting, they conquered Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, in 612 BC, and evidently King Sinsharishkun died at this time. The remnant of the Assyrian leaders fled to Haran, but were defeated by the allies in 610 BC, the 29th year of Josiah.
Although the Assyrians had conquered Egypt years earlier, they had allowed the Kings of Egypt to continue to rule. Egypt had thrown off Assyria’s yoke, but did not want a strong Babylon dominating Palestine. So, in the spring of 608 BC Pharaoh Neco II sent an army to help the Assyrian refugees retake Haran.
Josiah went out to stop Neco. We are not told why, but probably the Jewish conservatives persuaded him that Assyria must not be allowed to revive. Neco sent a message to Josiah telling him that this was not his affair, and to stay away, but Josiah ignored it. Josiah’s army was defeated and he was killed. The author of Chronicles, probably Ezra, comments that Neco’s warning came from the "mouth of God" (2 Chronicles 35:22).
Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim
Josiah’s son Jehoahaz became king. We are told that "the people of the land" made him king (2 Chronicles 36:1). He was younger than his brother Jehoiakim, whose mother was Zebidah. Possibly Hamutal was the first wife, and so her sons had prior claim. Or possibly the "people of the land" preferred Jehoahaz’s anti-Egyptian, anti-Assyrian politics to that of his evidently pro-Egyptian older brother. Since these people had favored Josiah and supported his anti-Assyrian program, Pharaoh Neco deposed Jehoahaz and put his older brother Jehoiakim on the throne. Jehoahaz ruled only three months, during the summer of 608 BC, the three months Neco was vainly trying to reconquer Haran for the Assyrian refugees. The book of Jeremiah records no prophecies from him uttered during the brief reign of Jehoahaz, and only one comment: that Jehoahaz (called Shallum, "Retribution") would die in Egypt, where Neco took him (Jeremiah 22:10-12). Nothing more is said about him.
Thus, in the fall of 608 BC Jehoiakim became king. He, like his brother Jehoahaz, was unfaithful to the Lord and helped reinstitute the idolatry that Josiah had purged. In the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish in the second quarter of 605 BC, and in the summer conquered Jerusalem and deported Daniel and his friends to Babylon.
The first three years of Jehoiakim’s reign are the setting for the prophecy of Habakkuk (Habaqquq, "Embrace"). Robertson points out that in Habakkuk the Babylonians are still a small nation, but that they are shortly going to conquer Jerusalem, because of all the oppression and violence in the city (Robertson, pp. 34ff.). Thus, Habakkuk must come after Josiah, but before Nebuchadnezzar. He prophesied either in the short reign of Jehoahaz or in the initial years of Jehoiakim; more likely the latter, because the kinds of oppression and violence he describes would have only begun to rear their ugly heads in the three-months of Jehoahaz. Also, if he had prophesied in the reign of Jehoahaz, he would have predicted the coming of the Egyptians, not of the Babylonians.
We note that Habakkuk does not denounce idolatry but oppression (1:2-4). Evidently Josiah’s reforms had had the effect of linking Yahwism with Israelite nationalism in such a way that the nation was at this point proudly opposed to idolatry. They were confident that God was with them, that He was on their side, that they were His people, and that the Temple was His house. This was not a holy confidence but a bald presumption. Paying lipservice to their national god, the rich proceeded to oppress the poor, violating the Book of the Covenant, to which they had pledged allegiance when Josiah read it to them (Exodus 21:1-11; 22:21-27; 23:1-9). This was beginning to take place after the death of Josiah, and in Jeremiah we shall see that it came to characterize Israel.
Conclusion
The alliance of political nationalists and true believers during the reign of Josiah was understandable, but it did not produce lasting results. Ultimately, Josiah was seduced by the political programme. He did not recognize that Neco II’s warning to him was the "voice of God" to him. His untimely death at the age of 39 meant that the wicked were able to come back to power, the reform was halted, and the nation spiralled downward into destruction. The nationalistic conservatives were in control, and they rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar over and over until finally, with the blessings of Daniel and Jeremiah, Judah was destroyed and taken into captivity.
(to be continued)
Rite Reasons, Studies in Worship, No. 47
Copyright (c) 1996 Biblical Horizons
September, 1996
Traditional Presbyterian theologians regularly cite 1 Corinthians 11:28 as an argument against the practice of paedocommunion. Children must be able “to examine themselves” before they come to the table. Supposedly this text demands a certain level of intellectual capability as well as the capacity to engage in self-conscious introspection, both of which, we are told, small children do not possess. Anti-paedocommunionists never get tired of reminding us that young children simply are not able to fulfill the requirement of “self-examination” required in 1 Corinthians 11. But does this text really require the kind of self-examination that Presbyterians have traditionally thought? To whom is the admonition to “examine oneself” directed? Does it actually require an ability to perform internal soul-searching and deep personal introspection to determine whether one is worthy to come to the Table? I think not. I think that this text has been overworked by anti-paedocommunionists. In fact, I am convinced that it actually works against the traditional Presbyterian practice of excluding infants from the Table. Traditional Presbyterian theologians need to examine themselves. Let me explain.
The verb Paul uses here is “to prove oneself” (dokimazo). To bring out the meaning of this word, it may be best to translate 1 Corinthians 11:28 as follows: “Let a man prove himself before he eats . . . .” I am convinced that in this context (1 Corinthians 10-12) it refers to the Christian’s behavior with respect to the unity of the body of Christ. The whole context of this admonition has to do with the unity of the church. All Christians participate in the body of Christ. Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf (1 Corinthians 10:16b-17). The problem in the Corinthian church was that people were behaving at the Supper in a manner that contradicted the reality of the unity of their local church with each other in Christ. They were divided at the Table! They were therefore eating unworthily. “Unworthily” (anaxios) is an adverb that modifies the verb “eat.” Paul is not talking about checking to see if you are a worthy person before you come to the Table. He is talking about how you partake of the Supper. It refers to one’s behavior at the Table. The Corinthian church was eating and drinking in an unworthy manner, that is, in a way that did not evidence the unity of the body of Christ. Therefore, “let a man prove himself” refers to his manner of participation at the Table, or more broadly, to his relationship with the local body of Christ.
The admonition, “Let a man prove himself,” means: Let a man show that he rightly judges the unity of the body of Christ before he comes to the Table. Let his actions demonstrate to all (especially to the elders) that he is one who lives in a manner that manifests his unity with the brethren. The evidence of this “self-demonstration” would be the manner in which he treats his brothers in Christ, especially when he partakes of the sacrament � eating in a manner that demonstrates his unity with the body of Christ in the local church. This understanding of the verb “to prove” (dokimazo) can be established from the immediate context. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:19, “No doubt there have to be divisions among you in order that the proven ones (hoi dokimoi) may be made manifest.” The “proven ones” of 1 Corinthians 11:19 are those who have “proved themselves” in 1 Corinthians 11:28. I don’t believe that this passage requires an inward act of contemplating and evaluating one’s sins. It is does not refer to an internal, subjective individual act at all. Christ’s Table should be approached with demonstration of faithfulness, ecclesiastical faithfulness. Not just subjective contemplation, but objective demonstration of one’s behavior with respect to the body is demanded.
The next question is what does I Corinthians 11:29 mean? What are we being commanded to do at the end of the passage when Paul says, “For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment upon himself, not discerning (diakrino) the body”? This answers the question, “How should one prove oneself?” The answer is that one should “judge the body rightly.” Again, according to the context, this most naturally means “to take cognizance of the whole church that is seated as one body at this meal” (Gordon Fee). The point is that we dare not approach the sacramental body when we are the cause of schism and division in the corporate body! The Corinthian church came to the “common” Table in groups or parties (1 Corinthians 11:21-22). The rich were over here with the best food and wine and the poor where over there with whatever they happened to be able to bring. They were eating the Lord’s Supper as a divided church!
I don’t see how (in context!) this command “to discern the body” can possibly be understood as a either 1) a failure to discern the location or mode of the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, or 2) a failure to reflect adequately on his death during the meal. The whole of 1 Corinthians is devoted to strife and conflict in the body of the church. Moreover, whenever the sacrament is mentioned, it is mentioned as both body and blood. Verses 24-25 set out both elements. Then verse 26 says, “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup.” Verse 27 says, “whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner.” Verse 28 says, “and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” Verse 29 says, “he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment.” It is clear, then, that if Paul were referring to discerning something about the sacrament, he would have written, “he does not judge the body and the blood rightly.” By saying only “body,” he clearly is referring to the body of the church.
Thus, “judging the body” is parallel to “judging ourselves” (1 Corinthians 11:31). One fails to “judge the body” when one “despises the church of God” (1 Corinthians 11:22). Paul closes out the chapter with a summary exhortation: “So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another . . . so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment” (1 Corinthians 11:33, 34). Paul does not summarize his warnings by reminding them to engage in rigorous, introspective self-examination before coming to the Table. He does not warn them against not participating in the Supper if they don’t understand the correct interpretation of the real presence of the body. What he does do is tell them to “wait for each other”! Act like a community. This entire passage is about the manner in which the church at Corinth eats the Lord’s Supper � they partake as a divided church. It is not about 1) children coming to the Table, 2) intellectually challenged people coming to the Table, 3) people partaking who do not know the difference between the Reformed, Catholic, and Baptist view of the presence of Christ at the meal, or 4) people coming to the Table without adequately reflecting upon the death of Jesus. It’s all about manifesting the unity of the church at the Lord’s family Table.
Let me close by trying to bring all this to bear upon the paedocommunion question. Are our children members of the body of Christ, the church? Why then are they cut off from communion with Jesus? Why do we eat as a divided body? Far from being a prooftext against paedocommunion, this passage judges traditional Presbyterianism as a church for “not discerning the body”! Why is it that when we come together as a church there are divisions among us? A great big ugly division is manifest at the Table between adults and children, members of the church and half-way members of the church. We are divided between those who are in the covenant (adults) and those who are halfway in the covenant (baptized little children). When the family of God gathers around the Table to eat dinner with the Lord, why are the youngest children excluded? Do they not belong to him? Why must they be told and sometimes forcibly hindered from eating and drinking with the One with whom they are covenantally united? Have they proven themselves to be schismatics or divisive? Do they fail to discern the unity of the body of Christ? If so, then by all means they should be excluded. If not, why are they denied access to the family Table? No, it is not the children who fail to discern the unity of the body of Christ; rather, we, the adult leaders of the church, are those who fail to judge the body rightly. We traditional Presbyterians have for too long “despised the church of God and humiliated those who have nothing” (1 Corinthians 11:22)?
The analogy with the family table is valid and powerful. All of my children eat dinner with the family, even my two-year old! They are all required to “prove themselves” before and at the table. They are all required to “judge the body” of the family. In other words, they are all required to respect the unity of the family, even the toddler in the family! If he fails to discern the unity of the family and starts throwing food at his fifteen-year old sister, then he is disciplined. He is learning what it means to have the privilege of eating at the table. He must prove himself. He must “discern the body” before and at every meal. If he refuses, he may need to be disciplined.
Now, I have heard a Presbyterian minister say that he has “never encountered a three-year old who is able to examine himself.” But I say that one-, two-, and three-year olds evidence their ability to discern the importance of the family meal in countless Christian homes every night. We begin disciplining our children at very early ages because we believe that they are capable of self-examination! Because they are members of the family, they are graciously invited to the table to eat. In the context of this gracious setting, as they grow up, they gradually and with increasing maturity learn what it means to behave in accordance with the privilege of family table fellowship. They are able to “prove themselves.” They begin to learn very early what is the meaning and significance of the family meal, and they learn how to behave in accordance with that significance. Surely, one can see the application to the Lord’s Table.
Now, according to the text of 1 Corinthians 11, who really are those who are guilty of not “discerning the Lord’s body”? Are they the little baptized children of the church who have not yet attained intellectual maturity, or those who bar such children from the Table? Who really is guilty of sinning against the “body of Christ”? Our covenant children or anti-paedocommunionist theologians? Who really ought to be fenced from the Table? Which members of the body have not “proved themselves”? Christ’s little ones or traditionalist Presbyterian theologians who continue to oppose the unity of the entire body of Christ, adults and children, around his Table? I am, of course, overstating the case somewhat. Nevertheless, if Paul’s fundamental concern is the unity of the body of Christ around the Table, and if his admonition to “examine yourself” is directed at those who divide the ecclesiastical body of Christ at the Table, then, in my humble opinion, traditional Presbyterian theologians have some serious self-examination to perform before they come to the Lord’s Table.