THEOLOGY
IN HISTORY
Theology of Land and Promise
This section of course notes will look at the role that the land plays in the covenantal theology of ancient Israel. Beginning with the promises to the patriarchs, the notes will address the issues related to the land, both as promise and as threat.
Covenant: Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and David
The theology of covenant is central to the Old Testament (OT), including the historical books. The term “covenant” (Hebrew tyrib], berit) was used to describe the special relationship between Yahweh and His people, Israel. Scholars have written many works on the importance and nature of “covenant” in the OT.[1] In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Mendenhall and Herion define “covenant” as “the instrument constituting the rule (or kingdom) of God, and therefore it is a valuable lens through which one can recognize and appreciate the biblical ideal of religious community.”[2] As such, “covenant” became a central theological theme in the OT. Old Testament theologians have discussed the topic at length,[3] although such discussion is beyond the scope of this study.
The covenant began with a promise to the patriarchs. Their descendants would possess this land & be a nation (See Genesis 12 & 15). In many ways, the Book of Joshua is the fulfillment of these promises. The conquest/settlement of the land of Canaan is the culmination of the covenant promises.
The essence of the Books of Deuteronomy and Joshua is that God is faithful to his promises. His people can believe Him & trust Him. He has given them the land, they only need to enter and possess it. As Moses said in Dt 1:21, “See, the LORD your God has given you the land. Go up and take possession of it as the LORD, the God of your fathers, told you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.”[4] Continuing fulfillment will require obedience. The terminology of obedience in the OT is that of faith. Enns argued that, in the Historical Books, faith is a “covenantal concept that describes the dynamic, mutual relationship between God and His people.”[5] This faith is usually translated in the text as faithfulness, integrity, trust, reliability, loyalty, fear, or obedience, translating a number of Hebrew words. These terms refer to both human faithfulness to God and God’s faithfulness to His covenant. Obedience to the law of God is the essence of the covenant enacted between God and Israel in Exodus, usually called the Mosaic Covenant.
The judgments of the prophets & Dtr are based upon the Mosaic covenant, especially as represented in Deuteronomy, as well as portions of Exodus & Leviticus. In fact, the treatment of people & property, as well as attitudes of commitment to & worship of Yahweh, is spelled out in these texts.
Most of the references to “covenant” in the Book of Joshua, and many throughout the historical books, refer to the “Ark of the Covenant.” The ark represents the actual presence of the LORD. Thus, the ark is present at the worship sites of Bethel (Judges 20:26-28) and Shiloh (1 Sam. 1-4), eventually becoming the centerpiece of Israelite worship at the temple in Jerusalem. The ark was the place where God dwelt, or sat, in the temple. The presence of the ark guaranteed the presence of Yahweh. It was, in fact, “God’s very throne.”[6] The ark was eventually incorporated into the royal ideology, associated both the temple worship and the Davidic monarchy.[7]
The ark has many practical functions in the historical books. In Josh. 3, the ark precedes the Hebrews into the Jordan. The power of God allows the crossing to occur. Because the Lord was present in the ark, it also was valued in times of war. In Josh. 6 and 1 Sam. 4, the Israelites use the ark as a palladium to insure victory, and the narrative of the Hebrew text refers to the ark in 2 Sam. 6.[8] Interestingly, in the former case victory occurred, but in the latter Israel was defeated. Dtr is clearly stating, even if only implicitly, that obedience, faithfulness, and perhaps piety are required for victory. Thus, the ark may represent God’s presence, but it does not guarantee victory. Victory is guaranteed when God’s people are working in concert with Him. Sparks points out that in the Chronicler’s History, the ark is intimately connected with the priestly institutions, including the tabernacle of the Mosaic era. By the time of the Chronicler, any association of the ark with war was ignored in favor of its role in the worship at the temple.[9]
With the accession of David to the throne of Israel, a new covenant tradition arose. Although the term “covenant” is used only a few times with reference to David, the relationship between God, king, and Israel/Judah is clearly covenantal. Nathan’s speech in 2 Samuel 7 clearly defines David’s anointing and reign as God’s choice.
The covenant between Yahweh & David does not supersede the Mosaic covenant, despite the arguments of scholars like Mendenhall and Herion. They argued that David’s reign was established as a “charter” between God, king, and people that was only later, or by traditional convention, subjugated to the Mosaic, Sinai covenant.[10] Such a view makes Dtr responsible for this interpretation of the Davidic covenant. Such a departure from the biblical text is not warranted, however. Rather, David, like Saul and the priests and judges before him, had an obligation to the basic laws of God’s kingdom, even if culture would allow the king to subvert and ignore those laws. Many often forget that even the kings of Israel and Judah were subject to the earlier laws of God. If the kings, or the people, broke the old covenant regulations, they were still held accountable. This would be the basis for judgment or discipline of the kings. Ultimately, the force of the Mosaic covenant actually superseded the Davidic covenant, resulting in the downfall of the kingdom of Judah, and the loss of the land, to which the study will not turn.
Land: Promise and Threat
The gift of the land is part of the promise & covenant that is brought to fulfillment. As Nelson stated, “The importance of the promised land to Israel’s sense of identity can hardly be overestimated.”[11] In Dt 1:21, Moses gave the people an admonition, “See, the LORD your God has given you the land. Go up and take possession of it as the LORD, the God of your fathers, told you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.”
The land of promise, however, always came with the threat of loss. The land belongs to the LORD, who gave it to His people. Under the terms of the covenant, however, God also has the right to take back the land if the people are disobedient to the covenant. In Josh 23:13, Joshua told the people, “You may be sure that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations before you. Instead, they will become snares and traps for you, whips on your backs and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land, which the LORD your God has given you.” Even in the generation of the settlement of the land of promise, the threat is a reality. This threat of loss is abundantly clear in the Book of Joshua, since the failure to conquer the whole land is blamed on disobedience. Nelson argued that the “paradoxical aspect” of the Book of Joshua, the juxtaposition of conquest celebration and threat of loss through disobedience, “remains necessarily open-ended and enigmatic for the reader.”[12] The Book of Judges further makes this threat clear. The people of Israel are only sojourners on God’s land. They must keep the covenant to remain in the land.
By being in possession of the land & being in covenant with God, Israel had rest. “Rest” presupposes devotion to God. Without the Lord’s favor, rest was impossible. “Rest” suggests peace in the land. Joshua proclaimed victory in Josh. 22:4, “Now that the LORD your God has given your brothers rest as he promised, return to your homes in the land that Moses the servant of the LORD gave you on the other side of the Jordan.” Solomon summarized the theology of rest in his speech in 1 Kings 5:3-5,
You know that because of the wars waged against my father David from all sides, he could not build a temple for the Name of the LORD his God until the LORD put his enemies under his feet. But now the LORD my God has given me rest on every side, and there is no adversary or disaster. I intend, therefore, to build a temple for the Name of the LORD my God, as the LORD told my father David, when he said, “Your son whom I will put on the throne in your place will build the temple for my Name.”
God gave rest in the land. His people lost their rest through disobedience. The “judges” restored rest. The rest was not lasting because of disobedience. In fact, one might argue that the judges did not actually bring rest, only temporary peace from war.
In Hebrews 4, the author suggests that every concept of rest in the OT, namely Sabbath and conquest of the land, is illusory. For the NT writer, rest is ultimately result of relationship with Jesus Christ. The work of Jesus enacted a new relationship with God that allows His people to have true rest. This rest, however, is spiritual, not spatial, and eternal, not temporary. If readers could catch this view of rest, one wonders what new forms of peace could ensue. Current events suggest that such peace is only a dream.
“The More Things Change”: Israel,
Palestine, and Hezbollah
The current (July 2006) battles between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon underscores the importance of the land, as well as the aspect of holy war, which will be a topic below. Both the Jews and Arabs lay claim to that land now occupied by Israel. Both believe that they have historical precedence to occupy it. Both argue that God gave it to them. The battles of 1200 BC are still being fought in the mountains of southern Lebanon in 2006. The cultures that endure such conflicts have a long history, and to that history of society, this study now turns.
Tribe and Nation
In the earliest historical traditions of Israel, God is their leader. The leadership of Yahweh is underscored by the Divine Warrior motif discussed below. The victory belongs to God. Gideon learned that he must trust in Yahweh, rather than in his army’s might. Gideon’s son, Abimelech, fails as the first king in Israel. In the Book of Judges, the nature and role human leadership in Israel became an issue. The “judges” who led the people to defeat their oppressors served primarily as “saviors” or “deliverers,” rather than judges. Deborah did carry out judicial functions, and some may have exercised political leadership, but they were primarily charismatic leaders endowed with the Spirit of God to deliver Israel, or at least a portion of Israel.[13] Satterthwaite pointed out that the presence of God’s Spirit does not guarantee moral transformation or long-term victory. In fact, Jephthah and Samson made terrible moral judgments after the coming of God’s Spirit. The Book of Judges may celebrate the successes of charismatic leadership, but the book also points out its failures. These “judges” were not able to bring lasting peace or obedience and fidelity to God.[14] The failures of Jephthah and Samson, perhaps the most naturally gifted of the judges probably led to the conclusion that monarchy was the only viable solution to the quagmire of disunity, violence, and apostasy.[15]
The phrase, “In those days Israel had no king,” suggests that Israel needed a king, or at least desired one. The controversy in Judges 8 and 1 Sam. 8-12 demonstrates that the desire for a king was not unanimous, but a “pro-monarchy” voice spoke loudly in ancient Israel. Nelson pointed out that Joshua, in fact, is presented as a royal figure, rather than a lawgiver like Moses or a judge like the charismatic leaders to follow. As Brueggemann has also pointed out, Dtr presents an obvious parallel between Joshua and Josiah. Josiah is the great reformer, who follows in the footsteps of Joshua. Joshua, therefore, “serves as a forerunner and model for royal leadership, especially for the reforming policies of Josiah.”[16]
“Put Her in Her Place”: Family,
Gender, and Sexuality
Any study of the society of ancient Israel must address the topics of gender and sexuality. Women play many important and visible roles in the historical books. Rahab delivers Joshua’s envoys to safety. Deborah judges and leads in battle. Jael kills Joshua’s enemy, Sisera.[17] An unnamed woman kills the rogue king, Abimelech. The Queen of Sheba enhances Solomon’s reputation. The prophetess Huldah authorized Josiah’s reform by authenticating the “Book of the Law.” These acts of heroism, however, are overshadowed by violence toward and oppression of women in the historical books.
No matter how the reader spins the cultural realities, the death of Jephthah’s daughter is scandalous. Samson treats women as playthings, going from one to another. Samson’s sexual desires and weaknesses causes his downfall. In the last few chapters of Judges, the relationship between the sexes goes into complete disarray. The Levite allows his concubine to be ravaged, and then he dismembers her to call the other tribes to arms. This event leads to civil war and the near destruction of the tribe of Benjamin. The scheme to attain wives for the men of Benjamin increases the scandal of the event. Nelson concluded, “It is both ethically and theologically significant that the ultimate collapse of Israel’s relationship with God carries with it a similar breakdown of the just and proper relationship between the sexes.”[18]
The same issues continue in Samuel and Kings. Amnon’s rape of his half-sister Tamar is avenged by her brother, Absalom, but the event is hidden when she is placed in her brother’s home. Tamar is now a tainted woman, but the scandal is hidden. David’s affair with Bathsheba is never mentioned after the death of the ensuing child, and the murder of Uriah is also forgotten. In fact, the Chronicler does not even mention David’s sin. Solomon’s wives are labeled as a cause of his downfall. Most of these wives were likely diplomatic brides for political expediency. The reader cannot escape the proprietary nature of male over female in the historical books.
The reader cannot leave the discussion of gender without mentioning the “bad women” of the historical books, Delilah, Jezebel, and Athaliah. Some might conclude that these three women were simply making the most of opportunities. In fact, in a free enterprise system that rewards and honors scheming success, Delilah and Athaliah probably would be seen as more positive than they are portrayed in the OT. Delilah is the conniving wife who subdues the mighty Samson. He is more to blame than she is, however, since he went to a foreign wife against the will of his father and easily gave up his secret to her. Dtr presents Jezebel, on the other hand, as an evil practitioner of militant baalism. She eventually dies the violent death prophesied by Elisha. Athaliah, Jezebel’s daughter, murdered her own sons to maintain her position of power. These women may represent the darker side of the feminine gender, but they also represent the strong drive to overcome patriarchal hegemony, like the modern feminist movements.
The Divine Warrior and Holy War
The Old Testament portrays the Lord as the Divine Warrior who fights for Israel and Judah, gives them land, and comes to dwell among them. In a 1973 essay, F. M. Cross discussed the theme of Yahweh as Divine Warrior, primarily through the motifs of Day of Yahweh, creation, conquest, and entrance liturgies. As Divine Warrior, Yahweh defeated chaos to order creation and defeated Israel’s enemies to give them the land of promise. In entrance liturgies, such as Ps. 24, Yahweh is also presented as the warrior king entering the temple to rule on the throne of the Ark of the Covenant.[19] As Nelson pointed out, the role of Yahweh as Divine Warrior is summarized in the confessional style statement, “The LORD fought for Israel” (Josh. 10:14, 42; 23:3, 10).[20]
In conjunction with Yahweh as Divine Warrior, the conquest and maintenance of the land was viewed as holy war. God instructed Israel in the Book of Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of certain cities in the land, with the understanding that the enemy population was “devoted to destruction,” or the “ban” (Hebrew cherem !r,j,). Because these battles were part of a holy war, all of the booty belonged to Yahweh, the victorious Divine Warrior. The human winners in the battle were not allowed to take possession of the booty, which included the people, because it belonged to God. Therefore, it had to be destroyed, and the people killed.[21] T. R. Hobbs, however, pointed out that the Books of Deuteronomy and Joshua present different reasons for the “ban.” In Deuteronomy, the purpose of the “ban” was to avoid pollution, while in the Book of Joshua the “ban” appears to be a test of obedience for the Israelites.[22]
In the Book of Judges, the theme of holy war presents itself several times. The Lord continually “gives” the enemies to the armies of Israel. Nelson pointed out that the Book of Judges ends with a “reversed holy war,” in which the tribe of Benjamin is almost destroyed when the other Israelite tribes declare holy war on their neighboring tribe. Nelson concluded that this “upside-down holy war” is evidence that Israel’s relationship with the Lord is near collapse.[23] From this low point, the historical narrative moves to a new form of leadership—monarchy.
The current events in the Middle East evoke visions of “holy war” under the rubrics of the Islamic jihad, although some Israeli actions could be construed in similar ways. The concept of jihad is debated. The Arabic term literally means “struggle,” and can range in meaning from internal spiritual struggles to military confrontation against non-Muslims. Most Muslims claim that jihad is not “holy war,” although statements by Osama bin-Ladan and Saddam Hussein in the past decade suggest otherwise.[24] Clearly, the current state of overt warfare in Lebanon and more covert warfare in Iraq, India, Indonesia, and the west, appears to be “holy war” under the rubric of jihad. How might the 21st century reader compare the current Islamic jihad and OT cherem? First, OT cherem was an ancient theological perspective. In fact, by the time of the exile, the prophet of Is. 43:28 can make cherem the sole responsibility of Yahweh. In addition, of course, in the New Testament Jesus promoted a peaceful way to life. Unfortunately, Christians have not been exempt from “holy war” actions. Christian murders of abortion doctors provokes discussion of a holy war, and the Religious Right has appeared to declare “holy war” against the liberal left in American politics. The events of Dtr, where the performers of cherem forgot God’s greater purpose, 21st Christians (and Jews, for that matter) must never forget the tenets of their faith when attempting to either protect themselves or expand the faith.
Theology of Monarchy
As reported in 1 Sam 8-12, there was no unanimity for establishing the monarchy. In fact, Samuel was against the monarchy because it represented a rejection of Yahweh as the leader of Israel. During the period of exodus, wilderness, and conquest/settlement, Israel had strong divinely appointed, charismatic leaders. These leaders (i.e. Moses and Joshua) were not kings, since Israel was not yet a settled state, which was prerequisite to having a king. During the “Judges” period, charismatic leadership continued, but was chaotic at best and anarchic at worst. Only in brief periods over the course of several hundred years was the “judge” leadership effective. With the complete breakdown of order that is reported at the end of the Book of Judges, the call for a king became louder, although the cry had begun much earlier. The eventual result was the Davidic monarchy, but the intervening period of Samuel, Saul, and Abner reveals the continuing unsettled nature of Israelite leadership. Before moving into a discussion of the Davidic monarchy, the study will make a brief sketch of the theological presuppositions for and controversial attitudes toward monarchy in general.
In the final canon, Moses makes the first address to Israel concerning monarchy in Israel. In Deut. 17, Dtr records this statement.
When you have come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me," you may indeed set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community. Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the LORD has said to you, "You must never return that way again." And he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself. When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law written for him in the presence of the levitical priests. It shall remain with him and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes, neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel.[25]
Leaving aside discussion of the date of origin for this text, the theological implications are many. First, God is the leader of Israel. If the nation has a king, Yahweh must establish the monarchy. Furthermore, the king is subject to the laws of the LORD, not above them. In keeping with these laws, the excesses that normally accompany kingship are forbidden. Theologically, these issues stem from the reality of Yahweh’s kingship.
K. M. Heim mentions several implications of the theology of Yahweh’s kingship over Israel, a reality mentioned in many OT texts.[26] First, Yahweh is king over other gods. In Ps. 95:3, the psalmist declares, “the LORD is a great god and a great king over all gods.” Thus, only Yahweh is worthy of worship. Furthermore, any king serving as Yahweh’s human representative king must “implement and sustain” the practice of monolatry, or henotheism.[27]
Second, Yahweh has dominion over all nations. He is not only the God of Israel, but also of the entire world. Therefore, Yahweh has authority to give the king that same dominion. If the king will only remain faithful, he will have peace and dominion throughout his realm.
However, the third implication is that the king is under ethical responsibilities to Yahweh. Although the divine right of kings dominated Israel’s history, the theology of Yahweh as king, rather than the human monarch as ultimate authority, was meant “to counteract ‘rights’ such as those associated with the ‘king like all the other nations’ described in 1 Samuel 8:11-17.”[28] Even David forgot these principles when he took Bathsheba and murdered Uriah. Nathan’s parable has no application to David until Nathan explicitly calls his attention to the parallels. David viewed himself as completely outside of the laws governing others. Nevertheless, Dtr (and the Chronicler to a lesser extent) measures the Davidic monarchy against the ethical standards of the Pentateuch, especially Deuteronomy. As Nelson wrote, “Under God, the king’s proper task is not to enhance his own royal prestige (2 Sam. 24:3, 10), but to do God’s will for justice (23:3-4).”[29] Jeroboam and northern tribes’ accusations that Solomon was oppressive toward them were probably correct, judging from Rehoboam’s reply that he would increase the oppression. Thus, Solomon’s failure to recognize the ethical dimensions of the monarchy under Yahweh led to the division of the kingdom.[30] The Davidic monarchy, and the theological presuppositions surrounding it will be the next topic of this discussion.
As mentioned previously, 1 Sam. 8-12 presents a pro-monarchy and anti-monarchy conflict. In 1 Sam. 8:6-7, the people demand that Samuel “Give us a king to lead us.” Samuel is grieved, and the LORD encourages Samuel, “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king,” even comparing the request for a king to idolatrous actions. The chapter continues with warnings concerning the reality of monarchy, including military service, forced labor, and taxes. Samuel points out that kings “take” more than they give, noting the repeated use of the word “take” in 1 Sam. 8:11-17.[31] The king will take sons, daughters, crops, and flocks. In 1 Sam. 12:12, the LORD states matter-of-factly that the people had asked for a king “even though the LORD your God was your king.” Heim concludes that God gave Israel a king because of his graciousness in the face of their rebellion. “Yahweh’s positive response transformed a human error into a divine opportunity.”[32] Nelson concluded, “The flawed institution of kingship is redeemed by God’s willingness to raise up and anoint the ‘man after [God’s] own heart.’”[33] The study will now move to the topic of David and his dynasty.
Samuel anointed David king at the behest of Yahweh. David’s descendants were God’s representative leaders. Because the Lord would now rule through a king rather than charismatic rulers, the nature of that rule was changing. As von Rad points out, the history of David’s rise to power and reign is “completely secular.”[34] God is doing something new, using the human agency of a king rather than the divine agency of His Spirit. Howard stated that “the king—as the ‘son’ of God (2 Sam. 7:14)—was God’s vice-regent on earth. As the king went, so went the nation.”[35]
God promised that this kingdom would belong to David’s line forever. While individual kings would face discipline when they strayed from God’s ways, Yahweh would never take away the kingdom from David’s seed. The tension between divine promise and human responsibility remained a problem for Israel and Judah’s kings, just as it remained a problem for the people in general. However, as God’s anointed leader, the king faced greater judgment, and his judgment had greater consequences, since the discipline affected not only the king and his family but also the nation.
David is the standard by which Dtr measures all the kings of Judah and Israel. As Howard pointed out, “The figure of David the king casts a long, impressive shadow across the pages of 1 & 2 Kings. … First Kings clearly intends to pick up where 2 Samuel leaves off.”[36] Thus, David is the central character, and the focus of the Books of Samuel and Kings. David was the ideal king, who walked “after God’s own heart.” (1 Sam. 13:14). David sought the Lord and served Him faithfully during most of his lifetime. The Book of Psalms colors the picture of David in most readers’ eyes as much as Dtr and Chronicles. Even in the latter books, David prays and seeks God in many contexts. As Brueggemann has pointed out, David avoids all bloodguilt, albeit by the timely actions of Joab on several occasions. David achieved the necessary positions of power without becoming guilty of bloodguilt, Abigail points out in 1 Sam. 25:26, “the LORD has kept you, my master, from bloodshed and from avenging yourself with your own hands.”[37] David’s innocence and humility adds to his reputation as “man after God’s heart.”
Brueggemann also pointed out that David became king because “the Lord was with him,” which Brueggemann labels as God’s providence in the choice of David.[38] Early in David’s life, the women sang, “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”[39] In the same chapter, Dtr tells the reader that “an evil spirit from God” came upon Saul, while “the LORD was with David but had left Saul.”[40] God had chosen David to fill the void of leadership in Israel, and Dtr (and the Chronicler) assure the reader that the choice of God was a good one.
When the reader approaches the Books of Chronicles, the centrality of David becomes even more dominating. Robert North wrote, “The person and dynasty of David forms the heartbeat of all of the Chronicler’s theology.”[41] North argued that “the Chronicler aimed at nothing less that to rectify an existing popular misconception. The primary vehicle of Israel’s ‘chosenness,’ he shows, was not Moses on Sinai at all. No, it was David on Zion!”[42] Indeed, the role that Moses plays in the history of the Chronicler is lawgiver and founder of the cult of Israel, not as the foundation of Israel’s existence and “chosenness.” The Chronicler’s David was “a man after God’s heart.” The Chronicler omits David’s sin with Bathsheba, the attempted and realized coups-d’etat, and the difficulties in his household. Rather, the Chronicler highlights David’s complete devotion to Yahweh, regular worship of the Lord, and care for the holy things and future temple.[43]
How does David as “a man after God’s own heart” align with his affair with Bathsheba? It obviously cannot be aligned. He committed a gross sin, in fact several gross sins. However, when he was confronted, David made no excuses & begged for no special mercy. He accepted his sin & the resulting consequences. He repented & confessed his sin to God. This apparently is even more important than the sin being committed. The Christian reader should remember Jesus said that he came for the sick, not the well. Furthermore, in John 8, Jesus forgave rather than judged the repentant woman caught in adultery.
The Eternal Throne
God promised David the throne of Israel for eternity. Yahweh chose David as His king. Thus, the throne would always be occupied, although periods of discipline would be necessary. J. J. M. Roberts stated that the term “forever” (Hebrew le‘olam) “indicates that the covenant committed God to permanently maintaining the Davidic line,”[44] thus God never destroyed the line, even though breaks occurred. Even the Chronicler could speak of an unbroken Davidic dynasty.
The eternality of David’s throne became future-oriented in several ways. First, it became a source of false hope for Judah. The kings and the nation thought that Yahweh could not allow them to be defeated because that would take away the promised throne. Second, because the kings failed to achieve Yahweh’s purposes, a future hope arose, typically called “messianism.”[45]
Messianic Hope
As the failure of the kings became more & more apparent, a hope for the future arose. Yahweh would eventually replace the present faulty system with a new king who would rule righteously. One likely sees this hope beginning in the release of Jehoiachin at the end of the book. While scholars debate the role of future hope in Dtr, Howard pointed out that readers should not completely discount the final appendix of 2 Kings as a word of hope, even if it is only a “glimmer of hope to people in exile—that their king was still alive and that the great promises to David were not completely dead.”[46]
Scholars have long debated presence, or lack thereof, of messianism in the Chronicler’s work. The Chronicler apparently could not abandon the physical reality of the Davidic dynasty by looking to an “awaited Davidic liberator.”[47] Rather, the hope was in the legitimate line of David, which certainly left questions in the minds of post-exilic readers. These doubts probably account for the ambiguity of the eschatological theology of the Chronicler. Living in the present—without a king—was necessary, but still a king was needed. The Chronicler’s “messianic” hope, therefore, lay exclusively in the dynasty of David, which is an understandable and not unexpected perspective, given the centrality of David and his dynasty in the Chronicler’s work.[48]
This hope for a future Davidic ruler developed into the messianic hope of the prophets, and especially in early Judaism. A messiah would come from David’s line. This would be a future leader who would solve all of the problems of the kings of the past. The theology of messiah developed through the centuries until many strains can be seen in the 2nd temple period. The NT writers present Jesus as this “son of David.”
Temple
David, the “man after God’s heart,” conquered Jerusalem and laid the groundwork for the building of the temple. The temple was the place Yahweh had chosen for “His name to dwell.” Thus, this was His dwelling place. His presence was there. The temple was, therefore, the center of Israel/Judah’s religious life, and secular life, for that matter. The Ark of the Covenant resided there, returned among great pomp by David, especially as recorded by the Chronicler. The priests and Levites worked in the environs of the temple, further emphasizing its importance, in fact its holiness.
Nelson calls the Jerusalem temple the “‘stage set’ against which much of the action of Chronicles is performed.”[49] While the temple is important in Dtr, it takes on a new centrality in Chronicles. For Dtr, centralized worship at the Jerusalem temple is a requirement for covenant loyalty to Yahweh, for Chronicles that centralized worship is a reality. Nelson calls this “a world of ideological history, …history as it ought to have been, a visionary history in which divine promise works itself out according to the rules of the doctrine of retribution in the context of the Jerusalem Temple.”[50] Much of the “action” of Chronicles takes place at the temple, with psalms sung and liturgy practiced. In fact, the failure of the first temple is resolved in the transition between Chronicles and Ezra, when Cyrus is “appointed” by Yahweh to build the Lord a temple in Jerusalem.[51] The failure of the guardians of the first temple failed, but God has built a new temple, which is the world of the Chronicler.
Sara Japhet wrote that Chronicles presents the reader with a “systematic history of Israel’s worship, a description of the cultic institutions, and the establishment and functioning of the clergy.”[52] She recognizes two stages of establishment of the cult of Israel. First, Moses established the laws of the cultus. In fact, the only real role of Moses in Chronicles is the laws governing worship and the establishment of the cultic personnel and attendant paraphernalia. Second, David established the cult in Jerusalem, with Solomon actualizing the plans of David. The temple and the worship conducted there thus becomes the central focus of Chronicles.
Inviolability of Jerusalem
According to several OT passages, the Lord will protect Jerusalem because His presence was there and for the sake of David. In 2 Kings 19:34 (parallel to Is. 37:35), Isaiah tells Hezekiah, “I will defend this city and save it, for my sake and for the sake of David my servant.” Around the theology expressed in this word from God grew the belief that God would never allow anyone to destroy His temple, since it was His dwelling place. The belief in the inviolability of the temple and Jerusalem was a noble theological premise. It recognized Yahweh’s holiness.
This belief in the inviolability of Jerusalem and the temple became a theological foundation for Judah. This theological attitude, unfortunately, became a source for complacency in Judah. The temple was no longer a place to worship and celebrate God’s holiness, but a place to practice acts of penitence in order to continue sinful lifestyles. Jeremiah confronted this perverted theology in his famous “Temple Sermon.”
Hear the word of the LORD, all you people of Judah who come through these gates to worship the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place. Do not trust in deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!” If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever. But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless. Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”--safe to do all these detestable things? Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD. Go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for my Name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel.[53]
These words of God through Jeremiah apparently reflect the mindset of many in Dtr. The complacency in worship and in practicing justice, as well as the willingness to turn away from Yahweh to other gods demonstrates a lack of understanding of Yahweh’s holiness—and the holiness of the temple. God often sent prophets to combat these issues.
Prophets and Kings
A discussion of prophecy in the historical books could begin with Moses, based upon Deuteronomy 18; but, as Moller wrote, “prophecy in the strict sense begins with Samuel.”[54] He heard & delivered the word of the Lord to various people, including Eli and Saul. In 1 Sam. 3, God speaks directly to Samuel, delivering a message concerning Eli’s sons and the future of Israel’s leadership. After the prefatory words of 3:1, “In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions,” and the summary words of 3:20, “All Israel from Dan to Beersheba recognized that Samuel was attested as a prophet of the LORD,” 1 Samuel begins a new era in Israel.[55] After a long absence, God’s word becomes operative again. “The prophets” are the spokespersons or mouthpieces for God’s word, as the phrase, “Thus says the Lord,” found throughout the prophetic books, emphasizes. The importance is that God speaks and that his words are effective, never “falling to the ground.”[56] He sends prophets to speak for Him. The people, and especially the king, are expected to hear this word and obey it (1 Sam. 10:5-13; 19:18-24; 28:6,15)!
Prophets are important in both Dtr and the Chronicler’s work. In Dtr, prophets appear at important points in the history, anointing, advising, and even dethroning kings, as well as calling to faithfulness, or “trust” in God, the kings and the people. As Moller wrote, “the narrator leaves the impression that the prophets were one of Israel’s most important oppositional forces.”[57] The Chronicler includes what Japhet called a “continuous chain” of prophets, acting as mediators between the Lord and His people, intercessors, and historiographers, recording the history of God’s people.[58] As Nelson pointed out, because the Lord provided prophets throughout Israel’s history, “neither Israel nor Judah could claim that their fate had taken them by surprise.”[59] The prophets delivered God’s word to His people, portraying a distinctive perspective as the mouthpiece of God. This perspective was, in many ways, a unique worldview.
Prophetic Worldview
Worship of Yahweh alone is the criteria for all success. Placing anything else in the place of “the Name” would result in defeat, destruction, and death. Thus, all the kings are judged primarily according to their worship practices. Thus the two major reformers in Dtr, Hezekiah & Josiah, are portrayed the most positively. The Chronicler includes Joash, Asa, and Jehoshaphat in the list of prophets who successfully reformed at least a portion of the worship practices.
Oppression of the less fortunate in society—widows, orphans, aliens, and poor—was also a criterion for survival & blessing. Failure in this area reflected a failure in relationship with Yahweh. Justice in society is the primary message of the prophetic books, such as Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah. From this worldview, the prophets delivered God’s word.
Many prophets served as royal advisors, sometimes simply giving advice and often serving as covenant watchmen, calling the kings and people back to the laws of Yahweh. Shemaiah appears two different narratives with reference to Rehoboam. In 1 Kings 12:22 and 2 Chr. 11:2, Shemaiah delivers God’s word to cease from attacking Jeroboam, a prophecy that Rehoboam heeded. However, the Chronicler records another prophecy of Shemaiah in 1 Chr. 5. Rehoboam and “all Israel”[60] had abandoned the law of the Lord, and the Lord sent Shemaiah to inform them that the invasion of Shishak was predicated by this rebellion against the Lord. Deliverance from total destruction was only averted by repentance by Rehoboam and the people.[61] Nathan, Gad, Micaiah ben-Imlah, and Isaiah all served as royal advisors, giving advice on political, religious, and military matters to the kings of Israel and Judah.[62] Nathan confronted David’s sin with Bathsheba. Ahijah announced to Jeroboam that he would be given all but one of the tribes because of the unfaithfulness of Solomon. Elijah confronted Ahab for his blatant disregard of Israel’s covenant with Yahweh. Since the Chronicler had no interest for the affairs of Israel, his only mention of the prophet Elijah is with reference to a letter sent to Jehoram, king of Judah, denouncing his sins and announcing a painful disease that would end his reign.[63] A quick perusal of these references makes evident the importance of the prophetic word for both Dtr and the Chronicler.
Ahijah, Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, Jehu ben Hanani,[64] and others predicted the future, for both good and evil. This included the division of the kingdom, fall of kings, and various natural phenomena. Sometimes they also performed miraculous actions, testifying to their calling from God. The truth of the predictions proved that their words were indeed the word of God, words of judgment and hope.
Judgment & Hope
The prophets primarily prophesied messages of judgment. The nation would fall. Kings would die. The people would suffer. As seen in the “Temple Sermon” of Jeremiah, the prophets most often focused on the failure of Judah’s (and Israel’s) leaders to practice justice toward the weakest members of society—widows, orphans, and aliens. True worship of Yahweh could not ignore the people for whom God cared.
However, a message of hope was also prominent, albeit more subdued. The nation would never be utterly rejected. Yahweh would always love His chosen people & would never forsake them. Thus He left a tribe for the sake of David, & He would allow a remnant to return after punishment.
“Don’t Eat in God’s House”:
Christianity, Sanctuary, and Royal Establishment
Christian readers may read the texts related to kings and royal sin as distant voices that are irrelevant to modern Christianity. Brueggemann, however, has suggested that mainline U. S. churches “are in a situation comparable to David’s new pretension in the royal establishment of Jerusalem, excessively full of themselves.”[65] Just as David’s kingdom lasted through only a generation of ignoring the prophetic word calling the kings back to God’s laws, so the modern American church needs to hear God. Brueggemann has focused his attention upon mainline Christianity, probably because it is his home, but an astute cultural and religious critic could level the same accusation against evangelicalism.[66] Wealth and power typically do not make Christians Christ-like, or kingdom minded. The church building becomes a sanctuary not to be soiled by dirty (spiritually or physically) people. The mission becomes building and maintaining the empire rather than reaching the lost and needy. The pastors, bishops, and denominational leaders wield great power for political change, but forget that their primary calling is spiritual. As Brueggemann suggests, this situation does, indeed, sound a great deal like David and Solomon!
“The Christian Nation”: Christianity and the West
Heim pointed out that the same patterns of “religious inconsistency” that condemned ancient Israel to exile have been repeated “throughout the history of Christian monarchies.”[67] From the middle ages through modern empires, “Christian nations” have exercised despotic control over conquered peoples, ignoring the very freedoms that those nations cherished as god-given. Throughout its history, even modern America, though without a monarchy, has ignored the rights of people—both domestically and abroad. From African slaves to wives and daughters, the United States of America has operated with an unwritten, and illegal, class system. Nevertheless, even as the Supreme Court continues to strike down laws allowing segregated voting systems, schools, and golf courses, people are still marginalized. The poor or minority person gets far less justice than a wealthy white man. The young man who exercised poor judgment as an 18-year-old high school senior finds himself listed with 40-year-old pedophiles on a “sexual predator” list. Furthermore, as westerners buy larger houses, take more exotic vacations, and drive fancier cars, millions of children around the world starve and die from preventable diseases. And these victims continue to have no voice, just as the “people of the land” (’am ha’eretz $r,a,h; ![;) had no voice unless Yahweh himself sent prophets to champion the cause of the needy—the widow, orphan, and alien. When will America hear their voices and love them with love of Christ—the love that recognize the truth of Matt. 25:34-46, which is a passage in which interestingly Jesus compares Himself (or the Father?) to a king?
V. Holiness/Purity
1. God is holy & requires holiness from His people.
2. The people were required to prepare themselves for entry into the land and to conquer the land.
3. Sin among the people had to be removed. Sin among the people, as Howard pointed out, made them in essence Canaanite. God’s people were to be characterized by holiness & purity, not sin.
4. cherem (mr,j,)—These items (people, material goods, cities) are “devoted to the LORD” or set apart to Him. They are “holy.”
I. Faithfulness
A. Yahweh is faithful to His promises
--He gave them the land.
--He raises up deliverers.
B. Israel is unfaithful to Yahweh
--Their worship is compromised.
--Their morality is compromised.
C. Israel is unfaithful to one another
--Conflicts over inclusion/exclusion
--Handing Samson over to Philistines
--Civil Wars & near extermination
III. Purity
A. God had warned that Canaanites would be a snare.
B. They were!
C. A main problem was false worship.
--Altars
–Idols
–Hiring priests
[1] For example, William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants, 2d rev. ed. (Paternoster Press, 2002); Thomas E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985); E. W. Nicholson, God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); Dennis J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1972); Delbert Hillers, Covenant: History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1969).
[2] The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, s.v. “Covenant,” by George E. Mendenhall and Gary Herion.
[3] Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Trans. by J. A. Baker, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1961, 1967), made “covenant” the theological center of his magisterial 2 volume work.
[4] All scripture quotations are from the New International Version, unless otherwise stated.
[5] Dictionary of the Historical Books, s.v “Faith,” by P. Enns.
[6] Howard, 261. Ezekiel, of course, describes God’s departure from the Most Holy Place, leaving the ark unoccupied. See Ezekiel 10.
[7] Dictionary of the Historical Books, s.v. “Ark of the Covenant,” by K. L. Sparks.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, s.v. “Covenant,” by George E. Mendenhall and Gary Herion.
[11] Richard Nelson, The Historical Books, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 90.
[12] Ibid., 91.
[13] The Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books, s.v. “Judges,” by P. E. Satterthwaite, 581.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Nelson, 107.
[16] Ibid., 89; Walter Brueggemann, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 155-156.
[17] Nelson, 105, pointed out the sarcasm of the account of Jael and Sisera, where the former was the comforter, the one who was responsible to give favors (sexual?), but in the end kills the great general.
[18] Ibid., 106.
[19] F. M. Cross, “The Divine Warrior,” in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 91-111 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), passim. Other important studies on this theme include Patrick D. Miller, Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973); Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995); and Gerhard von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel (Wipf & Stock, 2000).
[20] Nelson, 91.
[21] Ibid., 91-92.
[22] The Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books, s.v. “War and Peace,” by T. R. Hobbs.
[23] Nelson, 108.
[24] Various websites present the views of jihad and “holy war.” Sohail H. Hashmi, “Jihad,” http://www. cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_jihad.html; Daniel Pipes, “What Is Jihad,” New York Post (Dec. 31, 2002), online edition, http://www.danielpipes.org/article/990; Robert Spencer, “Why Jihad Watch?,” www.jihadwatch.org; Imam Shaheed Hasan Al-Banna, “Jihad,” http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/jihad/. All accessed on Aug. 4, 2006.
[25]Deut. 17:14-20, NRSV, from Gramcord Bible Companion software.
[26]Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books, s.v. “Kings and Kingship,” by K. M. Heim. Biblical references include Ex. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5, 26; Judg. 8:23; 1 Sam. 8:7, 10:19, 12:12; Ps. 93:1, 96:10, 97:1, and 99:1. The discussion of this paragraph is based upon Heim’s summary.
[27]Monolatry is the worship of one god, while henotheism is the belief in one god, but without denying that other gods exist.
[28]Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books, s.v. “Kings and Kingship.”
[29]Nelson, 127.
[30] Many matters certainly precipitated the division of Judah and Israel. As Tommy Brisco concluded, the kingdom of David & Solomon was not conquered from without but by the “passions of older, deeper tribal loyalties.” Holman Bible Atlas (Nashville: Broadman Holman, 1998), 119.
[31] Nelson, 126.
[32] Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books, s.v. “Kings and Kingship.”
[33] Nelson, 127.
[34] Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, translated by D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 315.
[35] David M. Howard, Jr., An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993), 198.
[36] Ibid., 197.
[37] See Walter Brueggemann, Power, Providence & Personality: Biblical Insight Into Life and Ministry (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990), chapter 3 passim.
[38] Ibid., 26-41, esp. 39-41.
[39] 1 Sam. 18:7.
[40] 1 Sam. 18:10-12.
[41] Robert North, “Theology of the Chronicler,” Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963), 376.
[42] Ibid., 377.
[43] Howard, 258.
[44] The Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books, s.v. “Davidic Covenant,” by J. J. M. Roberts.
[45] The reader should recognize that messianic theology is actually a product of early Judaism, not of the Hebrew Bible. The hope for a future leader, savior, deliverer, and king in the Hebrew Bible provided the raw material for the development of messianism, found expressed fully in apocalyptic works like Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as in the New Testament.
[46] Howard, 199.
[47] North, 378.
[48] Howard, 259-260; North, 378-381; for further study, see H. G. M. Williamson, “Eschatology in Chronicles,” Tyndale Bulletin 28 (1977): 115-154; Magne Saebo, “Messianism in Chronicles?” Horizons in Biblical Theology 2 (1980): 85-109.
[49] Nelson, 154.
[50] Ibid., 155.
[51] 2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-3.
[52] Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles, Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 45.
[53] Jer. 7:2b-12.
[54] Dictionary of the Historical Books, s.v “Prophets and Prophecy,” by K. Moller.
[55] See Nelson, 127.
[56] 1 Sam. 3:19-20; 1 Kings 8:56; 2 Kings 10:10. See Howard, 189 for this discussion.
[57] Dictionary of the Historical Books, s.v “Prophets and Prophecy,” by K. Moller.
[58] Japhet, 46.
[59] Nelson, 148.
[60] See Howard, 253-256, for a discussion of the Chronicler’s use of “all Israel” to refer to Judah. In the post-exilic period, the Chronicler apparently felt the need to emphasize the unity of Israel and Judah, in a sense ignoring, or at least glossing over, the total division in the pre-exilic period.
[61] As mentioned earlier, retribution was an important theme in the Chronicler’s work. See Nelson, 153-154, and Howard, 263-264, for discussions of the doctrine of retribution in Chronicles.
[62] Nathan: 2 Sam. 7:1-17; Gad: 1 Sam. 22:5; 2 Sam. 24:11-19; 1 Chr. 21:9-19; Nathan and Gad: 2 Chr. 29:25; Micaiah: 1 Kings 22:8-28; 2 Chr. 18:7-27; Isaiah: 2 Kings 19-20.
[63] Nathan: 2 Sam. 12; Ahijah: 1 Kings 11:29-39; Elijah: 1 Kings 17-18; 2 Chr. 21:12-15.
[64] See references above, as well as those listed in this note. Ahijah: 1 Kings 14; Elijah: 1 Kings 17-18; Elisha: 2 Kings 4-7; Jehu: 1 Kings 16:1-7.
[65] Brueggemann, Power, 112.
[66] Michael S. Hamilton, “We're in the Money!,” Christianity Today Vol. 44, No. 7 (June 12, 2000), online edition, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/007/1.36.html, accessed Aug. 4, 2006.
How did evangelicals get so wealthy, and what has it done to us?
By
[67]Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books, s.v. “Kings and Kingship.”