The Scottish Referendum – How Should We Pray?

First posted on thinktheology.co.uk, Friday 12 September 2014

---

I must begin with the proviso that this is a summary of how I personally understand the gospel, the message of the Bible, to relate to the imminent referendum for Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. Others have different views about politics and about the connection between earthly kingdoms and the Kingdom of God; this is my initial attempt at a biblical theology of politics. However, I humbly ask the Christian reader to “examine the Scriptures… to see whether these things are so” (Acts 17:11).

1.  Politics is Jesus’ speciality

Colossians 1:16 says that “in Jesus all things were created, in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether …”  We would expect Paul to continue “… oceans or mountains or stars”.  Instead, he specifies “thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities” – all of these “have been created through Jesus and for Jesus”.  That is hugely important.  Psalm 86:9 says “All nations whom You have made shall come and worship before You, O Lord”.  Paul goes further, explaining that every form of authority was actually designed with Jesus in mind, as the only one who can properly handle it.

We could be specific, then:  The United States, a federal republic, was created through Jesus and for Jesus.  China, a socialist republic, was created through Jesus and for Jesus.  Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, was created through Jesus and for Jesus.  The European Union, with its Parliament, Council, and Commission, was created through Jesus and for Jesus.  The United Nations, with its General Assembly, Security Council, and so on, was created through Jesus and for Jesus.  No political system can function properly without His direct oversight and allegiance to Him.  Yet all leadership that genuinely seeks to take responsibility to care for others is a reflection of His character (Eph 3:14-15; Ps 22:27-28; Ps 82), and therefore derives its authority from Him (John 19:10-11; Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17).

2.  God’s plan is for global political unity

a)  Only one legal ruler of humanity
Humanity was designed politically on the model of a family, with Adam as its first ruler, followed by his son Seth, who as the promised ‘seed’ was given authority over his siblings (Gen 4:1-2, 9, 25; Ps 22:27).  This line of authority continued via Enoch to Noah (Gen 5:29), via Shem (Gen 9:26-27; 11:31) to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel (Gen 17:19-21; 26:3-5; 28:13-15).  Then among Israel’s twelve sons, Judah was given the authority (Gen 49:8-12), and therefore his descendant David was legally ruler of Israel and thus of all nations, for their blessing (Ps 18:43-50; 72:8-11).  Jesus was the direct heir of David’s throne (Matt 1:1-21; cf. 1Chron 1:1–3:24), and therefore legally took responsibility for the actions of His people by dying in their place as ‘King of the Jews’ (John 19:14-22; Num 30:15).  At the same time, though, He was also dying as the rightful King of all nations, who alone could legally pay for the sins of any Gentile peoples who accepted His authority (Rom 5:12-21).  Having appeared the first time to deal with sins, He will come a second time to fulfil all of God’s promises of salvation and restoration of all things (Heb 9:28; Acts 3:19-21; Matt 19:28-29).

b)  Global government awaits its appointed time
From the beginning God has been actively governing all nations.  Adam and Eve, and then Noah, were given humanity’s commission to “fill the earth” (Gen 1:27-28; 9:1), and yet soon after the Flood, humanity attempted a premature political unity at the Tower of Babylon, in disobedience to their commission (Gen 11:1-9).  God thwarted their intention at that time by dispersing humanity and creating nations (Gen 10), but at the same time called Noah’s heir Abram to be a blessing to all the nations (Gen 12:1-3).  Ever since Abram’s day, many nations have attempted to create empires (Gen 14), but the one nation that inherited Abram’s authority has had to wait for God’s timing, while being used by Him to bless other nations (Acts 3:25-26).  Prophets from God’s chosen people Israel not only elaborated God’s future plans for Israel and its promised King to govern all nations (Isa 11; 60; Mic 4; Zec 9–10), but also took God’s messages to other nations and empires (Amos 1–2; Isa 13–23; Jer 25; 46–51; Ezek 25–32; Heb 1:1-2).  Yet even when the promised King finally arrived, after His resurrection and return from Galilee to Jerusalem, it was still not yet time for Jesus to take up the throne of His father David over the nations.  His disciples were expecting these promises of the prophets to be fulfilled immediately for Israel (Acts 1:3, 6; 3:21; Luke 19:11-28; 22:28-30), but they had not grasped how vital all other nations were to His kingdom also (Matt 24:14, 30-31).

c)  Promises for Israel depend on the nations
Jesus explained to them that Israel’s promises could only be fulfilled once all nations, even in the remotest part of the earth, had been blessed with the good news that Jesus had demonstrated God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Israel, and that all nations could now accept Israel’s God for themselves (Acts 1:6-8; 13:32-49; 14:15-17; 17:30-31; Rom 15:8-12).  Before the disciples could reign as kings over their own nation, therefore, they had to serve as ambassadors to all nations, empowered by the Holy Spirit.  Paul perceived that this was all part of God’s plan: Jews like himself would serve as a light to all other nations first (Isa 49:5-7; 60:1-16; Acts 3:25-26; 13:47), so that once all nations had heard and accepted Jesus’ kingship (Hag 2:6-9; Zec 2:10-12; 8:20-23; Rom 11:12, 15, 30), then their own nation Israel would become jealous for their rightful King and turn back to Him (Deut 32:18-21; Rom 11:11, 13-14, 25-27, 31), ready to welcome Him when He returns to Jerusalem (Matt 23:37-39; Luke 21:24).

d)  No global kingdom without every nation represented
Jesus intends to reign as emperor when He returns, over every tribe, language, people and nation (Ps 2; 1Cor 15:20-25; Rev 1:5-6; 7:9-10; 11:15; 15:3-4; 17:12-14; 19:15-16).  This one-world empire will be entirely unified under His righteous government (Zec 14:3-4, 9, 16; Mic 4:1-8; 5:2-4), although He will maintain the unique identities of each diverse nation and people group (Ps 47:8-9; 87:4-6; Isa 25:6-8; Amos 9:11-12).  Jesus needs disciples in every nation to serve as His government in the resurrection when He returns (Dan 7:18; Luke 19:11-27; Rom 8:17-21; 2Tim 2:12; Rev 2:26-27; 3:21; 5:9-10; 20:4-6).  Adam and Eve’s original commission to “fill the earth”, in order to “rule over” it, is now understood to apply not just to humanity in the image of Adam, but to redeemed humanity in the image of Jesus (Rom 5:12-21; 8:16-25; 1Cor 15:44-50).  This is why He has been waiting patiently for nearly two thousand years for us to fulfil His greater commission; when He returns as judge at the end of this age, He does not want any nation to perish entirely (Matt 24:14; 28:18-20; Acts 17:26-31; 2Pet 3:3-4, 9, 12, 15-16; Jdg 21:3, 15, 17).

3.  Jesus’ government is characterised by unity

The Church in the present age is meant to be a microcosm and prototype for the worldwide Kingdom of God that will be revealed when Jesus returns.  Within the Church, Jesus’ co-heirs are learning His principles for how to govern people with justice (Matt 18; 1Cor 5:1–6:8), manage finances (Luke 16:1-13; 2Cor 8–9), make war (2Cor 10:3-6; Eph 6:10-20), and engage in international relations (Rom 15:25-28; 16:16).  However, following the example of Abraham (Gen 14:13–15:1) and Jesus (Luke 4:5-8; John 18:33-37), the Church ought not to take or accept authority from the world, but must wait for the kingdom to be granted to it from God Himself when Jesus returns (Heb 10:32–11:40).  Of course, that does not prevent servants of Jesus from engaging as actively as possible in politics in a personal capacity, for the benefit of their fellow citizens (Gen 45:4-8; Dan 5:29–6:28; Rom 16:23; 1Tim 2:1-4).

Since God’s plan is for the whole world to be governed by Jesus through His Church when He returns, the principles now expected of His Church are designed to be of benefit to nations also.  One of the most fundamental characteristics of Jesus’ government is the unity of diverse people, and not division.  Diversity is of course important, as in the model of the twelve tribes of Israel, or the Church made up of Jew and Gentile without the need to become like each other (Acts 15; 21:17-26; Rom 14).  But nevertheless, unity is the one thing Jesus prayed for the future Church in His high priestly prayer (John 17:20-23).  Paul likewise prayed this for the churches (Eph 1:18; 3:17-19; Php 2:1-5), knowing that Jesus had died to remove dividing walls of enmity (Eph 2:11-22), and will eventually perfect His entire Church in unity before His return (Eph 4:1-16).  Unity is a mark of mature believers (1Cor 3:1-4), and church leaders must constantly be on the alert to prevent disunity (Acts 20:28-30; Php 4:1-3).

4.  Political division and disunity is a sign of God’s judgement

Unity is a defining feature of God’s government, and thus also of nations that accept His authority.  Equally, the Bible clearly demonstrates that disunity is allowed by God, or even imposed, as a judgement on wicked rulers, nations or coalitions.  The New Testament tends to teach more about God’s dealings with individuals and local churches, but the Old Testament teaches much more about His dealings with whole nations.  From the curse on Adam and Eve (Gen 3:12-16), through the dispersion of the nations at the Tower of Babylon (Gen 11:1-9), to the political division between northern and southern tribes of Israel after Solomon’s reign (1Kgs 11:9-13; 12:19-24), God used division to punish rebellion and teach consequences.  Similarly, coalitions of enemy nations that had attacked God’s people were defeated when He brought confusion on them so that they turned on each other rather than on Israel (Jdg 6:33 + 7:22; 1Sam 14:19-21; 2Chr 20:22-23).

God has good plans for every nation, since He made each nation (Ps 86:9) and gave it government for the sake of His Son (Ps 2:8; Rom 13:1; 1Tim 2:1-3).  He does not wish division on any nation, therefore, but rather that there be ever-increasing unity (Isa 9:7), even between nations (Isa 11:10), in preparation for Jesus’ return to reign over the entire earth.  Of course, in many cases political unity has been forged through injustice and oppression, and for motivations of power or greed.  Even so, unity itself is ultimately a reflection of God’s heart, and political unity can be redeemed because it was created through Jesus and for Jesus (Col. 1:16, 20).  That does not mean that diversity and the unique value of each individual part should be downplayed; on the contrary, it is indispensible for the proper functioning of both the individual part and the whole entity (1Cor 12).

On the other hand, division is one of the fruits of the flesh rather than of the Spirit, involving “enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, [and] factions” (Gal 5:20).  It is a characteristic of earthly rather than heavenly wisdom, “For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing” (James 3:16).  On the other hand, “the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (3:18), and peacemakers “will be recognised as the children of God” (Matt 5:9).

5.  Our response should be to pray for unity and peace

Although the Church ought not to accept any power granted to it by the world, its members have been “seated … with Jesus in the heavenlies”, at the place of highest authority at the right hand of God Himself (Eph 2:6; Col 3:1-4).  Believers can therefore petition God the Father “in Jesus’ name”, that is, in agreement with the requests of Jesus Himself as revealed to two or three witnesses by the Holy Spirit (Matt 18:16, 18-20; John 14:12-14; 16:13-15, 23-27; Rom 8:26-27, 34; Heb 7:25).  To the extent that they do so, their requests will be granted by the supreme Authority over all creation.  This gives them greater influence over world affairs than any political government on earth.

Believers do not just have the opportunity to petition the King of kings; they are specifically instructed to do so, on behalf of all those around them who do not have this sort of authority.  Paul urges the servants of Jesus as a matter of first importance that “entreaties, prayers, petititions and thanksgivings” be brought to the throne of God “for kings and all who are in authority”.  The outcome of such prayers will be an environment in which people “may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity”.  This is “good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour” who cares for “all people” and all nations/Gentiles, because such an environment will also enable the good news of His Son’s ransom and coming kingdom to be communicated freely to all (1Tim 2:1-7).

Let us then cry out to the Almighty God of Israel, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev 1:5).  Let us pray, in accordance with His will as revealed in Scripture, for His judgement to be turned away from our nation, and for wisdom for our leaders and government and decision-makers (in this case all those living in Scotland).  Let us petition the Lord, and also make diligent effort in whatever way we can, “to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3).  “May Your kingdom come; may Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” (Matt 6:10)

Dear Theology Applicant

First posted on thinktheology.co.uk, Tuesday 17 April 2012

---

This post takes the form of a letter to a young person considering studying theology at university, and I hope provides some useful advice drawn from my own experience of studying theology at Cambridge and Oxford.

---

Dear Theology Applicant,
 
I am glad for this chance to speak to you before you start your studies in theology.  To begin with, I am pleased about two things, first that you are interested in applying your intellect to the study of God and His revelation in history, choosing to love Him with all your mind, and second that you see the value of being well-prepared and have decided to seek advice.  When I myself was applying to Cambridge to read Theology, a church leader who was then doing doctoral studies in New Testament came round and chatted with me for a while to help me make an informed decision.

It is not easy to know how to advise someone in your position, because so much of it depends on the individual’s experience and gifting.  I have personally had a fantastic time studying theology at university, and it has worked to sharpen my understanding of the Bible and my ability to communicate its truth to others.  On the other hand, I know of many people who came from strong evangelical families to study theology at university, but in the process either lost their faith completely or became lukewarm and thoroughly compromised in their trust in God’s Word, with the result that they are now either of no use to the church or even stumbling blocks for it.

Like Saul, I would not want to encourage you as an inexperienced youth to step into a dangerous environment for which you are poorly equipped.  Yet unlike him, I do not want to burden you with heavy armour that would hamper you if you know God has called you there; it is not a time for fear but for courageous acts of faith.  Universities are places where evangelicals are forced to achieve the highest standards of scholarship in order to demonstrate the trustworthiness of Scripture.  An evangelical student who can hold on to the truth while dealing with opposition graciously will be a great asset to the church.

Though you may be a bold champion for God’s glory, like David you must remember that you are part of a bigger army.  If you are to succeed it is essential that you find a vibrant church for spiritual growth, as well as academic advisors to mentor you, like Jonathan, and direct you towards the articles and books that present more conservative points of view.  One place to look for the academic support is the Theology Network, where you can find resources and get involved in a local group at your university.

Even so, spiritual mentoring and academic advisors cannot make up for a lack in personal knowledge of the Bible.  Almost all of the things we have grown up believing are questioned by academic theologians.  There are the extreme liberals who deny that any of the Old Testament books were written before the time of the Greeks, or who think that Jesus said less than one fifth of the things recorded in the Gospels.  However it is fairly standard to find the following views in contemporary scholarship:

• Genesis 1-11 is entirely mythical
• the Patriarchs were not real people but rather symbolise tribes or are simply folktales
• Moses didn’t write any of the Pentateuch
• the Exodus and Conquest, if they happened at all, were at most only a small group of slaves that escaped and joined disaffected Canaanites who later adopted their stories
• David and Solomon were probably just local chieftains or tribal leaders, and Israel and Judah were only established as proper kingdoms around the time of Omri and Ahab
• nearly every book of the Old Testament was composed over centuries, with the ‘core’ of the original prophet or author being changed and added to by scribes over many generations
• the book of Isaiah was written by at least three different individuals over about two hundred and fifty years
• Ruth, Jonah, Esther and Daniel are all fictional stories, the latter being written only around 165BC
• Jesus may not actually have believed himself to be the Messiah, and ‘Son of God’ ideas were only introduced years after His death
• Jesus’ death was entirely unexpected, even by himself, and Christianity as a religion was an attempt to come to terms with this loss
• none of the Gospels were written by actual disciples of Jesus, and they were not written until between forty and seventy years after Jesus’ death
• Paul ‘invented’ Christianity as a Gentile religion, and was probably opposed by various other of the original leaders including Peter
• Paul didn’t write Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy or Titus
• Revelation wasn’t written by John the Apostle, but by an ‘elder’ of the same name who lived in Ephesus.

 
Please don’t be disturbed or shaken by these statements – I repeat them not because I believe them to be correct, and I have studied them in some detail, but because they represent standard views in modern biblical studies.

With all of the views in the above paragraph, you will find that it is not raving liberals who are arguing these points, but quite traditional, gentle, learned professors who are simply teaching you what the standard textbooks say.  They will be able to point out things in the Bible that you had never seen in that way, and will quote very intelligent theologians of this and previous generations who proposed such ideas.  You will be expected to be able to understand and reproduce these arguments in your weekly essays and your exams, and if you disagree with them (which you are entitled to do), you will have to do lots of extra reading and present carefully argued alternatives, so that you cannot be accused of basing your arguments on ‘faith’ alone.

There will be times when you are presented with views in lectures or in books you are reading, and you have absolutely no idea how to respond to such a position.  The standard evangelical arguments you have read will seem rather weak in comparison, and you know that this scholar is a reasonable person who has clearly read far more than your parents or your church elders.  It isn’t really a matter that affects salvation, and it surely can’t make that much difference to your personal relationship with God.  At that point it will be too late to decide who you are going to trust.  If your plan was to ‘go where the evidence leads’ and make your mind up when presented with all the facts, the ‘facts’ will all point in one direction.

However if you have decided from the start that God is trustworthy, His Spirit will bring to your mind those things He has said.  If you have hidden His words in your heart, that you might not sin against Him, He will point out to you verses that don’t fit with what you are being taught.  As you are browsing through books in the library or articles on the internet, He will lead you to read things that are exactly what you need to answer this question or address that issue.  In conversations during supervisions or with fellow students, you will find yourself coming up with arguments that you had never thought of before, and He will give you the words to say.

If God is trustworthy then His words will be trustworthy, and we know that God has “made foolish the wisdom of the world” (1 Cor 1:20).  “If you extract the precious from the worthless, you will become my spokesperson.  They for their part may turn to you, but as for you, you must not turn to them.” (Jer 15:19)  One of the things that I came back to most often during my undergraduate degree was that my dad (who never went to university) loves the Scripture and knows God personally far better than my professors, and if he wouldn’t accept something they were saying, I would be wise to disagree even if at the moment I had no idea why.

Obviously, if you are going to go into academic theological study, having to disagree so frequently with what you are being taught will take a lot of effort and extra study and prayer and graciousness with your lecturers.  There are resources available to help with this (such as the IVP Dictionaries), but if you are going to enjoy your university experience, you will need (1) an unshakeable conviction in the trustworthiness of God and His Word, (2) a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures, (3) an enthusiasm for study and suitable intellectual ability, and (4) a capacity for graciously and respectfully disagreeing with others.  I don’t know you well enough to say whether academic theological study is the thing for you, but please pray about it and perhaps chat it through with your parents and others in the church who know you well.

If you don’t feel that God is directing you to study theology at university, there are other alternatives for developing your understanding of the Scriptures and the biblical languages.  I can understand the views of a respected church leader I know, who went to Bible college himself, that Bible colleges are the worst of both worlds – their confessional perspective may protect you from the full brunt of liberal scepticism, but it also means that your ability to make a difference in academia will be significantly impeded because of the negative reputation Bible colleges have there.  On the other hand, studying in a Bible college usually means spending three years in a ‘Christian bubble’, sheltered from the friendship and questions of non-Christians rather than living differently within the student world.

If you have the ability to do academic theology, there is support available for helping you study at university; if not, the church will be better served by you choosing another career and doing personal study on the side.  A calling for church leadership does not need you to be a skilled academic to feed your flock, but you must be “diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15)  Personal study is by no means an ‘easy option’.  Whatever you choose to do, you will need to work at it with all your heart.

I’m aware that most of my comments above have been focused primarily on biblical studies, and there are other areas of theological study such as church history, philosophy of religion, psychology and religion, other religions, and modern theology.  Every battle is different in its challenges, but even if all you have is a slingshot, never doubt that our God is mighty; “in Messiah are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3).  Go, and may the Lord be with you.

Buried Secrets: Did King David’s Empire Exist? Pt3

First posted on thinktheology.co.uk, Saturday 2 July 2011

---

Support for Situating the United Monarchy at the Late Bronze–Iron Age Transition

The moderate revised chronology of the Centuries of Darkness contributors (summarised in the previous post) is coming to the attention of an increasing number of archaeologists, both junior and senior, and its scholarly arguments have been considered sufficiently coherent to merit further discussion even if many have not yet been persuaded. <<1>>  It seemed worthwhile, therefore, to assemble some of the pieces of evidence that might be seen to strengthen an association of David and Solomon with the hill-country of Canaan during the final decades of the Late Bronze Age and over the period of transition into the Iron Age 1 period.  The transition between these two ages was not sudden, with considerable overlap between their respective material cultures, and it is widely accepted that the destructions of Late Bronze cities in the land of Canaan were not all at once (as the common identification with Joshua’s conquest might have implied) but rather staggered.
 
In the extended version of this post I accumulated nine A4 pages worth of evidence showing how well the conquest of Joshua, the Judges period, the time of Saul and David, and the glorious kingdom of Solomon correspond to what we know of the archaeology, politics, religious innovations and literature of the end of the Late Bronze Age and transition into the Iron Age 1.  This full version was sent to Francesca as well as to other senior Old Testament scholars for their response, and I hope to publish it in due course in a suitable academic journal.  However this blog post is already far too long, so I trust the omission of most of that material will not be too great a disappointment to readers.
 
Briefly, some of the clearest points of comparison with the archaeological evidence for the Late Bronze – Iron Age transition are: the highly unusual destruction of Jericho at the start of the Late Bronze <<2>>; the absence of pig bones throughout the Late Bronze; the threat of warlike pastoralists called ‘Apiru’ [Hebrew?] on the Canaanite city states during the Late Bronze; the Mycenaean-style Philistines with whom David battles; the construction of both the Millo and palace above it at the very start of the Iron Age (cf. 2Sam 5:9-11) <<3>>; prosperous trade relations between Egyptian and Hittite kings via Solomon; copper mining and bronze casting by local rulers at the end of the Late Bronze; Late Bronze Cypriot washbasin stands in Solomon’s temple <<4>>; the destruction of Gezer by the pharaoh Merenptah (cf. 1Kgs 9:16) and subsequent invasion of Judahite territory by Ramesses III, pharaoh of a new dynasty; and the extensive literary influence on material ascribed to David and Solomon from Late Bronze Ugarit or New Kingdom Egypt, such as Psalms 29, 72 and 104 <<5>>, or Proverbs, or especially Song of Songs. <<6>>

Conclusion

We have seen in these last three posts, responding to Francesca’s first BBC programme, that the detailed chronology and literary plausibility of the establishment of monarchy in Israel does indeed seem to contradict the material evidence for this time when we rely on the conventional dating of archaeological strata in ancient Canaan.  That would imply that the events recorded in the books of Samuel and the first few chapters of 1Kings are mostly fabrications written in much later times.  But even if we did not have good reason for questioning the chronology of the Iron Age, seeing these biblical histories as fiction would seem inherently unlikely for a number of reasons:
(1) Israelite historians give vastly reduced lengths of reigns for ante- and post-Flood monarchs compared with the Sumerians, showing that they are less willing to glorify even long-dead ancient rulers by exaggerating their reigns.
(2) They do not conceal the lengthy reigns of monarchs they consider to have been wicked such as Manasseh, or the relatively short reigns of righteous kings such as Jotham, showing that religious bias did not appear to influence them to ‘adjust’ the historical details.
(3) They are not ashamed to admit that Israel’s monarchy was a latecomer compared to those of surrounding nations such as Edom or Moab, going against the conventions of nationalistic ancient historians in other cultures.
(4) Their records of their first monarchs are hardly complimentary:  Saul was a manic depressive who slaughtered his entire high priestly clan.  David’s foreign victories, major building works and national government are passed over with only the briefest comments, the interest being instead in his adultery and murderous cover-up and the subsequent civil war with his own son.  Even Solomon’s glorious reign (1Kgs 1–7) is deliberately undermined with a focus on his negative legacy using the phrase ‘until this day’ (1Kgs 8:8; 9:13; 9:21; 10:12; 12:19). <<7>>
(5) Even more problematic is the consistent emphasis in all Yahwistic texts on the importance of true promises and not bearing false witness, which becomes particularly significant in light of the widespread perception in ancient Israel that historical writing was done by prophets (e.g. 1Chr 28:29; 2Chr 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 20:34; 26:22; 32:32; 33:19).
Such extensive anomalies between the biblical record and the archaeological record as we find for the time of David and Solomon’s kingdom should therefore lead us first to reconsider the strength of the archaeological conclusions before we cast aspersions on the self-critical biblical historians.
 
When we turn from the biblical data to look at the archaeology, then, we find that the artificially expanded Third Intermediate Period of Egypt can be collapsed by unbuttoning the synchronism between Shishaq and Shoshenq I.  This makes it possible to bring down the end of the Late Bronze Age by approximately two and a half centuries to around 950BC.  The biblical dates remain in place, being confirmed by Mesopotamian links back to the ninth century and by internal cohesion back to the start of David’s reign.  However, that means that David and Solomon’s eleventh- to tenth-century dates now correspond not to the Iron Age 2 archaeological stratum as commonly thought, but to the preceding final period of the Late Bronze Age and the transition into the start of Iron Age 1.  When the extra-biblical historical evidence for this period is compared with numerous background details recorded in the Bible, whether in archaeology, politics, religion, or literature, the resulting match seems too close to be coincidental.
 
The benefits of such a reconstruction, however, extend far beyond ancient Israel, since the dark ages caused by a bloated Third Intermediate Period in Egypt have affected archaeology all around the Mediterranean as shown by the Centuries of Darkness scholars.  Perhaps the questions highlighted by Francesca’s programme show the time has finally come for a tectonic shift in the field of ancient history, and if so it may be the detailed and reliable historical records of the Bible that hold the key.  There might be some lessons for us here, that the research of scholars like Francesca who do not share our religious convictions can still point us in the right direction, that collaborating with experts in other fields of study can help us to solve the major problems in our own, and that when it comes to the Bible, the questions that cause us the greatest difficulty can sometimes lead to the most exciting new discoveries, to the benefit of many.

---

Footnotes
1 Some of those who have been willing to engage in academic dialogue with CoD proponents include Prof. Colin Renfrew and Prof. Anthony Snodgrass of Cambridge University, Aidan Dodson of Bristol University, Jonathan Tubb and Rupert Chapman of the British Museum, and Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa.

2 John Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest (JSOTSup 5; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978).  Bimson, John & Livingston, David. “Redating the Exodus.” Biblical Archaeology Review, 13.5 (Sep/Oct 1987): 40-48, 51-53, 66-68 [see http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=bsba&Volume=13&Issue=5&ArticleID=2] (accessed 07/06/2011).  See also Bryant Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence”, BAR 16.2 (Mar/Apr 1990): 44-58; Wood tries to argue that the Middle Bronze city may have survived well into the Iron Age, though his assessment of the evidence is disputed by Bimson.

3 Jane M. Cahill, “It is There: The Archaeological Evidence Proves It”, BAR 24.04 (Jul/Aug 1998; issue title: “David’s Jerusalem: Fiction or Reality?”).

4 Peter James et al., Centuries of Darkness (London: Jonathan Cape, 1991): 198-99, and Plate 12 (after p.170); E.W. Heaton, Solomon’s New Men: The Emergence of Ancient Israel as a National State (London: Thames & Hudson, 1974), Plate 24 (after p.96).

5 For Ps 29, see Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I, 1-50 (Anchor Bible; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966): 174-80.  For Ps 72, see Heaton, Solomon’s New Men, 39-40, see also references in n.13 on p.182.  For Ps 104, see Peter Craigie, “The Comparison of Hebrew Poetry: Psalm 104 in the Light of Egyptian and Ugaritic Poetry” Semitics 4 (1974): 10-21.

6 Michael V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985): 181-93.  Duane Garrett, Song of Songs (Word Biblical Commentary 23B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004): 21-22.

7 The ark is still portable; relations with Phoenicia have not improved; foreign nations remain among Israel; trade routes have not lasted; the division of kingdoms was his fault.  See also his transgression of all three royal prohibitions from Deut 17:1617 in 1Kgs 10:14–11:8.

Buried Secrets: Did King David’s Empire Exist? Pt2

First posted on thinktheology.co.uk, Friday 1 July 2011

---

A Possible Solution to the Israelite Dark Age

In the last post we saw that the problems surrounding David’s kingdom must be addressed on both the literary and archaeological fronts, and in this post I focus in on the second of these.  If the discussion becomes too technical, you may want to jump straight to the third post where I discuss some of the extensive ‘evidence’ for David and Solomon, and summarise the overall argument.
 
Francesca’s programme supported the ‘low chronology’ of the Israeli archaeologist Finkelstein and others, who expand the ‘dark age’ even further between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age 2, so that in effect the troubled times of the Judges continue uninterrupted until the kingdom of Omri and Ahab.  In doing this, though, they have in fact unwittingly brought Israel closer in line with the rest of the ancient Mediterranean.  A series of other ‘dark ages’ between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages have been found stretching from Italy and Malta to Greece and Turkey (land of the ancient Hittites) and down through Cyprus as far as Ethiopia (ancient Nubia).  In almost every one of these examples, art, architecture and inscriptions seem to disappear as if into thin air at the end of the Late Bronze Age for two or three centuries, before suddenly reappearing almost where they had left off near the beginning of the Iron Age.  It was only in the mid-1980’s that a group of young scholars with expertise in different but related fields of archaeology (Britain, Crete, Greece, Near East, Nubia) realised that these dark ages must be more than coincidence.  On closer investigation they realised that the absolute dates fixing the end of the Late Bronze Age all across the Mediterranean were all traceable back to the standard Egyptian chronology, corresponding to the end of its glorious New Kingdom period.
 
The New Kingdom in ancient Egypt was the third of a succession of periods of unified government over both the fertile delta region of the north (Lower Egypt) and the narrow Nile valley of the south (Upper Egypt).  Each of these periods was followed by an ‘intermediate period’ in which competing pharaohs ruled in different parts of the country.  The Third Intermediate Period, following the New Kingdom, corresponded in terms of archaeological remains to the new Iron Age around the ancient Mediterranean.  This Iron Age, however, seemed to begin everywhere with a number of generations that left little if any material evidence to show for their existence; everywhere ,that is, apart from Egypt.  Since intermediate periods by definition contain several overlapping dynasties of pharaohs, these five scholars recognised the possibility that if the overlaps were in fact more extensive than presently assumed, this would shorten the overall length of the Third Intermediate Period in Egypt.  Supposing the start of this period was shifted later by the surprisingly plausible figure of a couple of centuries, this lowering of the dates for the start of the corresponding Iron Age would also lower the end of the Late Bronze, and compress the ubiquitous ‘dark ages’ into perhaps as little as one or two generations.
 
This group of ancient historians gathered their findings into a single book entitled Centuries of Darkness (1991; website: http://www.centuries.co.uk), arguing for a reduction in the length of Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period in order to lower the Late Bronze Age by approximately two and a half centuries and thereby remove dark ages across the ancient world.  Applying this to ancient Israel, the Iron Age 2A period would fit naturally down in the second half of the ninth century, with the preceding Iron Age 1 starting as late as the beginning of the ninth century, just two or three generations beforehand.  That would redefine David and Solomon as kings ruling during the transition from the end of the Late Bronze Age into Iron Age 1.  They would keep their traditional tenth century dates, which are derived from the independent biblical chronology, but these dates should properly be attached to different archaeological levels in the ancient city mounds all across Israel.  To find David and Solomon, we just need to dig a little deeper than previously thought.
 
A few of the clearest benefits of accepting this realignment will be mentioned in the third post, to follow.  First, though, it is necessary to make brief mention of the two supposedly insurmountable problems preventing many from accepting what is otherwise a beautifully elegant solution to the dark age mystery: the equation between the biblical Shishaq and Egyptian pharaoh Shoshenq I, and carbon-14 dating.

Two Common Problems with the Proposed Solution

The key synchronism between Israelite and Egyptian history that has held them together securely ever since the creation of the standard chronology is the note in 1Kings 14:25 that in the fifth year of Solomon’s son Rehoboam, a pharaoh of Egypt named “Shishaq” came against Jerusalem and took away the temple treasures.  Egyptian history does indeed provide a pharaoh with this very name, very near the start of the Third Intermediate Period, known as Shoshenq I, a pharaoh who is also known to have made a military expedition up into Canaan.  Surprisingly, though, neither Jerusalem nor any other major city of Rehoboam’s kingdom apart from Aiyalon is listed on the victory inscription of Shoshenq I.  What is more, he conquers a number of cities of the northern kingdom even though ‘Shishaq’ is said to have been an ally of Israel’s ruler Jereboam I in 1Kings 11:40.  Most scholars, though, consider the similarity of names to be so strong as to justify any amount of special pleading to explain away these various discrepancies.
 
An alternative explanation of the name Shishaq, however, has been proposed by several scholars, connecting it to the common New Kingdom throne name Ramesses.  The scribal confusion of this pharaoh’s nickname with the throne name Shoshenq, common a little over a century later, can be explained in three steps: <<1>>  First, we know the name Ramesses was widely shortened by Egyptians to ‘Sessy’ or ‘Sessu’, and nicknames of foreign rulers were evidently used in Israel (e.g. Osorkon – 2Kgs 17:4; Ashurbanipal – Ezra 4:10).  Second, the Egyptian letter s/ś was typically represented with the symbol for ‘sh’ in Late Bronze cuneiform sources, the bureaucratic lingua franca in Canaan, showing that ‘Sessu’ could have been pronounced ‘Sheshu’ by his contemporaries in Canaan.  Third, the letter waw for the ‘u’ sound at the end of ‘Sheshu’ was written with a symbol like a lollipop from the Middle Bronze period down at least as far as the end of the Late Bronze Age, but this very same symbol was used for the letter qof (‘q’) by scribes in the Iron Age 2 period.  Therefore an Iron Age 2 historian reading the name ‘Sheshu’ from a Late Bronze text or inscription might easily misread it as ‘Sheshq’, all the more so if the most common name for pharaohs in his own day was now ‘Shoshenq’.  As a final piece of evidence, we know that the last great pharaoh of the New Kingdom, Ramesses III, did indeed travel through Canaan to fight the Sea Peoples further north, apparently conquering on his way some of the prominent southern cities such as Lachish (associated with Rehoboam in 2Chronicles 11:9; 12:4) unlike the later invasion of Shoshenq I.
 
The invasion of ‘Shishaq’ (or perhaps originally ‘Sheshu’) is securely dated to Rehoboam’s fifth year according to the independent chronology of the Bible (c. 925 BC), and this was believed to be identical to the Canaanite conquest of Shoshenq I, an event with its own internal cross-references within Egyptian dynastic chronologies.  It became therefore the single most important ‘peg’ on which to hang the beginning of the Third Intermediate Period, and thus the Iron Age also.  Despite the jumble of various overlapping dynasties in this period, scholars now felt they had clear dates for its beginning as well as its end, so the pharaohs in between could be slotted into place.  As a result several pharaohs had their reigns extended well beyond the last year attested by inscriptions, and in other cases pharaohs were even added to the king-list by scholars (i.e. invented) with the same throne name, so as to account for the unnaturally long reigns they appear to have had.  If Rehoboam’s ‘Shishaq’ was a case of mistaken identity, however, archaeologists would be free to calculate the lengths of pharaohs’ reigns and of early Iron Age strata as best fits the evidence rather than as the chronology appears to demand.
 
The second factor that used to be considered a firm piece of evidence dating Iron Age 2A levels to the tenth century was the carbon-14 dating method.  When testing organic material for the remaining amount of this radioactive isotope, the plain results always require calibration to produce proper dates, and for the Iron Age this has usually been done using the evidence of tree-rings (dendrochronology).  Tree-ring data is not yet as complete or reliable as it needs to be, and there is a great need for other ‘anchors’ with which to calibrate the carbon-14 curve, different test objects whose date we already know for certain from undisputed historical locations.  That is, we can use carbon-14 to find approximate dates for objects relative to other objects, but for absolute dates the scientists rely on the careful work of archaeologists and on their agreement about the right standard chronology.  One recent discovery that has lent support to the present proposal to shorten standard chronology is the carbon-14 dating of some archers who died in the destruction of Nineveh in 621 BC.  This is a rare example of a securely dated strata agreed upon by all ancient historians and archaeologists.  Although we know they died in 621, they were radiocarbon-dated fairly precisely to 795 plus or minus twenty years, suggesting that perhaps older carbon-14 dates might need to be down-dated by as much as a couple of centuries. <<2>>  More research is undoubtedly needed, but for our purposes we can simply note that carbon-14 dates should not prevent us exploring this proposal further.  In the final part we will mention a few of the many correlations between the time of David and Solomon and the conclusion of the Late Bronze Age in the archaeological record.


Footnotes
1 Drawn from a paper delivered by Peter van der Veen at the Bronze-Iron Age Chronology of the Ancient Near East colloquium on 26 March 2011 at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, entitled “Excursus: The Name ‘Shishaq’ in the Bible – Does it represent Shoshenq?”.

2 Taylor et al., “Alternative Explanations for Anomalous 14C Ages on Human Skeletons Associated with the 612BC Destruction of Nineveh”, Radiocarbon 52:2 (2010) 372-382; also available at Radiocarbon website: http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/holdings/journal?r=http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/.

Buried Secrets: Did King David’s Empire Exist? Pt1

First posted on thinktheology.co.uk, Thursday 30 June 2011

---

In the first episode of the series of programmes, Francesca chose to start with the subject that has constituted the greatest controversy for Old Testament scholarship in the last twenty years or so – the reality of the kingdom of David and Solomon. This little academic contretemps has even come to the attention of National Geographic (Dec 2010), who have responded with a (much more even-handed) summary of the discussion, complete with frank interviews and beautiful photos. To understand the significance of the debate, though, one needs to be aware of some historical developments in Old Testament studies. [My apologies for the more technical nature of the next three posts – archaeology and chronology are essential foundations for the serious student of the Bible, and when we understand its characters in their proper ancient context the history can start to come alive.]

The Great Battle of Our Time

In past generations, scholars felt obliged to admit uncertainty about the stories of the long-lived Patriarchs in Genesis or the miraculous exploits of Moses in Exodus through Deuteronomy.  This was mainly due to lack of clear external evidence supporting these narratives (as one might expect of stories mostly about nomads wandering through unpopulated areas), and also a consequence of the then generally accepted literary theories about multiple sources behind the Pentateuch.  They usually felt, though, that once they got to the United Monarchy of Israel they were on much safer ground historically, and the literary sources for these times such as 1–2 Samuel or 1 Kings had a ‘ring of truth’ about them.
 
In recent years, though, there have been movements in both of these fields of study.  On the one hand, a theory proposed in the middle of last century has become quite widespread, namely the idea that the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings were meant to form a complete history of Israel from the death of Moses to the Babylonian exile.  The suggestion was that all of these books show dependence on Deuteronomy’s theology and literary style, hence the overall name ‘Deuteronomistic History’.  They were supposedly composed of a number of shorter oral traditions collected and tied together with major speeches at appropriate points, by an editor or editors writing around the end of the Judahite monarchy, the time of the final events recorded in 2 Kings.  What some scholars have therefore argued is that the earlier books are inherently unreliable, being made up of rumours and legends about events many centuries before the final compiler’s time.
 
On the other hand, archaeology has matured as a discipline, with far more now known about the repeated destructions and rebuilding of the many cities and settlements mentioned in the Bible.  The somewhat vague picture from archaeology that had been thought to correspond fairly well to the biblical account has become quite a bit more detailed, and unfortunately there are an increasing number of misalignments between the archaeological and textual records of ancient Israel the further back in history one goes.  ‘Misalignment’ is the key word, as we will see later, but as a result, those scholars who are not inclined to give the Old Testament the benefit of the doubt are raising some uncomfortable questions about the truthfulness of biblical authors.

A. Literary Evidence for the United Monarchy

As for the books of Samuel, the main source for the life and deeds of David, there are still several scholars fighting to defend the authenticity of the stories described, regardless of when these stories were incorporated into the books in which they now appear.  One of these, Baruch Halpern, was interviewed by Francesca in the programme, and he has written a superb (if somewhat cynical) analysis of David’s life and propagandistic biography in 1–2 Samuel, entitled David’s Secret Demons.
 
At this point I am obliged to mention, if somewhat reticently, my own doctoral research on 1–2 Samuel, which I hope to complete within the year and then publish.  Before starting my second term of study, I stumbled upon a remarkable literary structure that encompasses the entire fifty-five chapters of the book of (1–2) Samuel.  This structure pairs every episode in the whole book with another episode somewhere else in order to construct several large concentric patterns, patterns that each contain an inherent emphasis on the scene or statement at the very centre of the pattern.  In this way the author has managed to communicate a very clear message throughout, and one that incorporates and relies on every single story in the book.  The implications of this structure are quite significant, because it not only requires that the whole composition be the work of one author, but also actually names that author (previously anonymous).  Both the stated author and the message of the book are not only consistent with a date within the lifetime of David, but arguably demand it.  I’m afraid I cannot go into more detail at this stage, but it won’t be long before this evidence in favour of the biblical presentation of David’s kingdom can be introduced into the academic debate.

B. Archaeological Evidence for the United Monarchy

As for the other side of the debate, the archaeological evidence for the time of David and Solomon, this relatively minor dispute within Old Testament studies may well turn out to be the trigger for a long-awaited tectonic shift in the field of ancient history.  The Old Testament boasts the only continuous national history of any ancient people that extends from the Persian Empire (at the end of the Iron Age) back into the Early Bronze Age of the third millennium BC.  As such, it therefore offers an ideal unbroken chronology with which the records of neighbouring kingdoms and empires on all sides can be synchronised.  The Bible claims to offer eye-witness accounts of various events that ought to be quite obvious in the archaeological remains of different places, including the collapse of Jericho’s walls, the appearance of the Philistines in the coastal region of Canaan, the prosperous kingdom of Solomon with its extensive international trade links and Egyptian influence, and the invasion of the Egyptian pharaoh Shishaq that coincided with a collapse of the political and economic stability of Solomon’s reign.
 
If we had nothing but a series of disconnected stories, as one has with the epics of Homer, we would be free to search for material evidence of these events in various different archaeological levels, or strata, from different time periods, in order to find the best match.  However, the Bible provides a sometimes rather inconvenient sequence of precise dates for the whole history, and scholars are therefore forced to limit their searches to only those layers that the archaeologists have identified as being from that time period.  This, though, is where the problem lies.  Cities were destroyed and rebuilt numerous times, each time flattening out the remains of the previous level and building on top.  The successive strata, however, do not come with convenient labels saying ‘tenth century’ or ‘around 850 BC’, despite what textbooks would have you believe.  Absolute dates come from ancient written records, not from archaeology, and the challenge has always been to match the cultural remains in certain strata with the right events from the city’s political history recorded in a nation’s texts, such as for example those found in the Old Testament.
 
The chronology of the kingdoms of ancient Israel and Judah (from 1–2 Kings) is considered very reliable by most Old Testament scholars, because the foreign rulers mentioned in the books of Kings as well as Israelite rulers mentioned in ancient inscriptions are found in precisely the right order and time period, as far back as the start of the neo-Assyrian empire in the early 9th century BC.  The Bible records that around this time Ahab’s father Omri founded his capital city at Samaria in the northern kingdom of Israel, building it from scratch on a hill belonging to a local farmer (1Kgs 16:24).  When excavating Samaria, therefore, the great British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon dated its first building phase to Omri, noting also that the same type of pottery was found both below and above this original floor level.  The only problem was that this Iron Age 2 pottery had been dated elsewhere to the tenth or even eleventh century BC, and had therefore been assumed to belong to the time of David and Solomon who reigned from about 1100 to 930 BC according to the Bible.
 
Strata with pottery of the Iron Age 2A period show a time of renewed building activity and development of culture in ancient Israel, but before this is the Iron Age 1, a period of about two hundred years for which there are practically no monumental buildings or artistic remains of any value.  In fact, if we didn’t have connections with Egyptian dynasties that fix the dates, we might be tempted to shrink this period to perhaps only a couple of generations at most.  Within the standard Egyptian chronology, though, biblical scholars noticed that this ‘dark age’ corresponded fairly well to the period of the Judges known from the Bible.  The only discrepancy was in the length of time between Joshua’s conquest and the rise of the United Monarchy – 1Kings 6:1 seems to put this at around 350 years, whereas the time between the end of the Late Bronze Age and the new phase of building in the Iron Age 2 was at most about 200 years.  Scholars concluded that the biblical chronology was mistaken, and maintained that Joshua must have been in part responsible for the end of the Late Bronze period in Canaan around 1230 BC, while David and Solomon ruled during the Iron Age 2A in the tenth century.
 
Since that correlation of biblical events with particular archaeological periods, however, problems have come to light regarding both the start and end of the supposed era of the judges.  At its start, the archaeology from the end of the Late Bronze Age seems to bear less and less similarity to the biblical records of Joshua’s conquest, to the extent that Jericho of that period did not even have walls to ‘come a-tumbling down’.  At its end, the fairly lacklustre building activity of the Iron Age 2 period not only seems very unlike the biblical description of Solomon’s kingdom, but its connection with the founding of Samaria would put it at least a century later than Solomon.  If anything, the re-dating of supposedly ‘Solomonic’ strata by Israel Finkelstein in Francesca’s programme doesn’t actually go far enough.
 
In the second part of this post I will consider a possible solution to the archaeological problems associated with David’s kingdom, before mentioning in the third post a selection of the clearest historical and literary matches supporting this alternative archaeological context for the United Monarchy.

Buried Secrets: The Real Garden of Eden

First posted on thinktheology.co.uk, Tuesday 21 June 2011

---

After her second episode on monotheism, Francesca’s third episode of her Old Testament series was based around the interesting suggestion that the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was in fact simply a sixth century BC satire, written to put the blame for the tragic Babylonian exile of Judah from their land squarely onto their king, presumably Zedekiah (though he is not identified by name). In many ways this programme commended itself to the Christian viewer, full of valid and important insights into biblical theology. However, ultimately the proposal failed to do justice to either the text of Genesis itself or the situation of the end of the Jerusalem monarchy and kingdom of Judah.

The first worthwhile observations made by this programme were the close conceptual parallels between the Garden of Eden and the temple, and between Adam and the king. Francesca is by no means the first to notice these connections, and in this regard I must recommend for those interested the excellent book by Greg Beale entitled The Temple and the Church’s Mission.  Unfortunately, her metaphorical and decontextualised reading of Genesis 2-3 becomes ironically an example of the very patriarchal and nationalistic interpretations of which she is so critical elsewhere.

Her proposal sees the Garden of Eden as in fact simply a reference to the Jerusalem temple, or perhaps the land of Judah as a whole, rather than the prototype for the whole earth that Genesis 1–2 describes (“fill the earth and subdue it”, i.e. bring its profusion into order).  Taking it out of its context, though, denies theologians the ability to sanctify the whole earth as the dwelling place of God, and makes the text an insular and self-centred glorification of one small piece of real estate in the Middle East.  Far be it from the writers of Scripture to overlook God’s love for the whole earth.

Similarly, her proposal treats Adam as a metaphor for the wicked king Zedekiah whose disobedience forced God to exile the nation of Judah from their land, but when read in the context of Genesis 1–3, ‘Adam’, or ‘mankind’, is only complete when functioning as male and female together, and it is only together that humanity can rule over the created order (Gen. 1:27-28).  In Genesis 3 it was not Eve’s fault alone, but Adam and Eve’s together, hence their shared judgement of curse but also their joint participation in the solution to their sin – the ‘seed of woman’ who would reassert mankind’s proper authority over the serpent and the rest of the created world.  To confine this text’s application to just the Judahite king is far too patriarchal a reading, and fails to do justice to the dignity of woman, both in bearing responsibility for wrongdoing and in playing an equal part in the restoration of cosmic order.

The second worthwhile observation made in the programme is the important link between the Garden of Eden story and the denunciation of the King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28.  Bible scholars have long noted the connection, but in the programme Francesca associates the ‘guardian cherub’ of Ezekiel 28 with Adam because of the ‘king’ connection, failing to recognise the closer conceptual parallel with the serpent of Genesis 3.  The ‘king of Tyre’ (perhaps referring to the spiritual authority behind the very human ‘prince of Tyre’ denounced in 28:1-10) is said to have been “full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” prior to sinning.  In the same way, the serpent was evidently ‘wiser’ than Adam and Eve about the nature of the Tree of Knowledge (Gen. 3:5), and was closer to the ‘naked’ glory of man and woman than any other living being (‘shrewd’ being the same word as ‘naked’ in Gen. 3:1).  Both the ‘king of Tyre’ and the serpent are ‘cast to the ground’, ‘reduced to dust’ (Eze. 28:17-18; Gen. 3:14), and one finds equivalent biblical allusions to the serpent in Micah 7:16-19 and Isaiah 65:22–66:2.  Hearers of Genesis 3 in Ezekiel’s day would naturally have associated the ‘guardian cherub’ of Ezekiel 28 with the (other?) guardian cherubim in Genesis 3:24, who rightly prevented access to the forbidden tree rather than encouraging it as the wicked serpent had done.  The serpent would therefore be understood to have been the physical agent for an exalted spiritual being (much like the human ruler of Tyre was), punished for seducing God’s children to trade innocence for wisdom or beautiful possessions (cf. Gen. 3:6 with Eze. 28:16, 18).

The third important observation Francesca makes in this episode is actually the implication one may draw from her proposal about corporate consequences for individual actions.  She suggests that the story of Genesis 2–3 blames the exile of the nation of Judah on the sin of King Zedekiah, rather than on, say, the widespread idolatry and injustice of its citizens.  She has made her dislike of the concept of ‘original sin’ quite plain in the programme, and presumes that by extricating the story of Genesis 2–3 from its place at the very start of human history she has thereby managed to liberate us from pessimistic idea that we are all guilty because of our common forefather Adam.  On the contrary, though, by accepting that ancient Judahites blamed their king for their national exile (as stated explicitly in 2 Kings 23:26-27 regarding King Manasseh instead), she is still acknowledging this fundamental biblical principle.  Dependents do suffer the consequences of actions by their representative head, be that a king or an ancestor.

That is all that the doctrine of original sin teaches – all humans are suffering the ills of enmity and death ultimately due to the fault of our first forefather (Isa. 43:25-28).  Yet in exactly the same way we are also legally able to receive reconciliation and eternal life simply by pledging our allegiance to a different King, the promised Son of David and the only man who has ever lived a perfect life before God.  We must not decontextualise Genesis 2–3, though, and assume this theological principle applied only to the kingdom of Judah in 587BC; it appears where it does in Genesis precisely so that it can be seen to apply to all humanity, regardless of ethnic or national identity.  The good news of salvation is good news for ‘all the ends of the earth’, because Israel’s god was also the sole original Creator of all humanity (Isa. 45:18-22); for that reason the legal effects of what the righteous ‘seed of woman’ accomplished may be applied to every people group on earth, not just to Israel.

The next post returns to look at the first episode of the BBC series.

Buried Secrets: Did God Have a Wife? Pt2

First posted on thinktheology.co.uk, Saturday 18 June 2011

---

Asherah as God’s Wife?

In my last post, we looked at the evidence (or lack of it) for polytheism in Israel. Finally, Francesca’s third point involves the theory that the god of Israel had a wife.  It must be pointed out to start with that despite first appearances this is not a contradiction of Francesca’s professed atheism – she wants to show that Israelites believed God had a wife, though she herself would reject their belief in God regardless.  Her arguments about a female deity in ancient Israel are certainly not original; the title of this programme is copied straight from the archaeologist William Dever’s 2005 book, though without acknowledgement.

However, when she claims that “the majority of biblical scholars throughout the world” accept the idea that Israel’s god once had a consort, this is perhaps wishful thinking.  The majority of biblical scholars are quite aware that the ‘asherah’ appearing so frequently in biblical texts was almost certainly a tree or carved wooden pole, having religious significance in the worship of various different deities (see Deut. 16:21; 1Kgs. 14:23; 2Kgs. 17:7-12; 21:3-7; Isa. 17:8; Jer. 17:2).  The inscription Francesca pays so much attention to, where a blessing from “Yhwh of Samaria and his asherah” is scrawled above some puerile graffiti, has been connected unequivocally with these wooden objects by several distinguished scholars including John Emerton and Jeffrey Tigay.  They rightly note that personal names never take a pronominal suffix in biblical Hebrew, so her reading is out of the question; it must also refer to the carved wooden object.

Regardless of how the inscription should be read, though, it is indisputable that the ‘Queen of Heaven’ was worshipped by Israelite women in the final decades before the Babylonian exile, as Jeremiah 44:15-19 clearly records.  This divine Queen’s identity is not specified, though, and while 2Kings 23:4 seems to describe ritual vessels made in the same era for Asherah alongside Baal and the host of heaven, the following verses then clarify that only Baal and the heavenly host were actually worshipped within the temple of Israel’s God, apparently with the aid of a wooden ‘asherah’ (23:6).  The women were particularly attentive to this object, though, weaving hangings for it (23:7), which may justify a connection with the Queen of Heaven to whom they showed similar devotion.  Many nations of the ancient Near East in this century were reviving interest in their ancient religious heritage (of whatever variety), so it is not implausible that in Israel too the ritual objects which had almost completely lost their idolatrous connotations (hence 2Kgs. 13:4-6) recovered their ancient association with the Canaanite goddess in the seventh century BC.

Francesca refers to the many well-known clay figurines found throughout Israel from the 9th to the 6th century BC which are in the form of women supporting exaggerated breasts.  She rightly notes that the imagery is noticeably less erotic than depictions of Asherah from Ugarit, reflecting the usual association of breasts with nourishment rather than sexual relations in biblical texts (e.g. Gen. 49:25; Ps. 22:9-10; Song 7:7-8; Isa. 66:11).  The modern elevation of Mary to a goddess-like character in folk-Catholicism demonstrates how ‘natural’ it might be for women in that sort of monotheistic environment to seek a feminine object for their devotion, but it also shows that such a goddess figure need not be a ‘wife’.

There is in fact a similar problem with seeing Asherah as the wife of Israel’s God in seventh century Judah.  According to Ugaritic mythology, Asherah was the wife of Baal’s father El, and Baal’s own wife was the goddess Ashtoreth, known as goddess of the Sidonians in Solomon’s day (1Kgs. 11:5).  In biblical texts, up to the time of Solomon Baal is usually associated with his traditional consort Ashtoreth (Jdg. 2:13; 10:6; 1Sam. 7:3-4; 12:10; with Asherah also in Jdg. 3:7; 6:25-30), but from then on he is always connected with Asherah instead, who would apparently therefore have been a mother figure to him (1Kgs. 16:31-33; 18:19; 2Kgs 17:16; 21:3; 23:4).

This is consistent with the reference to Rehoboam’s wife Maacah, daughter of Absalom, who made an image for Asherah or as an ‘asherah’ and was therefore removed from her official position as ‘queen mother’ by her son Asa.  The position of Queen Mother is recorded carefully by Israelite historians for the reigns of most kings of Judah from Rehoboam right down to the end of the Judahite monarchy.  It is possible that the deaths of Jezebel and her daughter Athaliah are both recounted in detail in the Bible because they were both Queen Mothers at the time of their execution, and both had propogated Canaanite religion from Phoenicia, including serving as official patron of the cult of the Asherah (1Kgs. 16:31-33; 18:19; 2Kgs. 8:26-27; 9:29-37; 11:13-16).  As Baal the divine King was worshipped by their royal sons, they too represented Asherah the divine Queen Mother, so their executions symbolised to faithful Yahwists the command to destroy their idolatrous ‘asherah’ poles also (compare 2Kgs. 9:35 with 1Sam. 5:4).  Consistent with this reconstruction also is the complete absence of any evidence of divine ‘marital affection’ of the ‘Queen of Heaven’ for the Lord Yhwh in the minds of either the prophet Jeremiah or the women who worshipped her (Jer. 44).  Even if Asherah was worshipped in Judah, it was not as ‘God’s wife’ but rather as ‘Baal’s mother’.

The True Feminine in Biblical Theology

The official worship of Israel’s true God, therefore, never allowed any sort of connection with a divine female counterpart, unlike the worship of Baal, and as Walter Moberly explained in the programme, giving the creator God a wife would be to misunderstand the way in which He is the origin of all being and beyond sexuality.  In Genesis 1:26‑28, the creator who in Himself is the source of plurality and community determined to make ‘adam’, humanity, “in Our image”; this was fulfilled in the creation of male and female together as the ‘image of God’, ruling together over His world.  The desire (of women?) to find a female counterpart for God in fact forces an unnatural division also in human relationships between man and woman; male and female are meant to worship together and function in harmonious unity as ‘humanity’, just as their Creator Himself does.

It may be objected at this point that the Bible still insists on referring to God as ‘He’, which is quite correct.  Though Israel’s god is very occasionally portrayed using feminine imagery (e.g. Isa 42:14-15; 49:14‑16; 66:9), He is the subject of male verbs and pronouns without exception in Scripture.  But from a theological perspective this is absolutely essential; the essence of the feminine in Israelite religion and in biblical theology is always found instead in the chosen people of God, His glorious Bride.

From as early as Abram onwards this was understood as a profound prophetic mystery, expressed first in Genesis 15:  When God put Abram in a ‘deep sleep’, just as Adam had experienced at Eve’s creation (Gen. 2:21; 15:12), He revealed to Abram the prophetic explanation of what had happened to him and Sarai in Egypt just a few years earlier (Gen. 12:10–13:2).  Abram’s wife Sarai had been taken into captivity so to speak in Pharaoh’s harem, for which Pharaoh’s house was struck with great plagues.  Eventually Pharaoh realised she belonged to Abram and released her to return to Canaan with her husband, who had gained fame and great wealth in the process.  In God’s prophecy to Abram as he slept, He explained that Abram’s descendants would similarly become foreigners, enslaved, vindicated and released to return to Canaan.  The clear implication is that a chosen nation would in some way function as a bride, destined to become the mother of the son of promise.  Whose bride could she be but God Himself, becoming the appointed ‘Woman’ whose ‘Seed’ would crush the serpent’s head and restore human authority over the created order (Gen. 3:15).

Women then continue to play a crucial role in the fulfilment of God’s promises of ‘seed’ throughout Genesis (e.g. 16:10; 17:15-19; 24:60; 25:22‑23; 31:16; 38:26), and from Exodus onwards Israel is not just God’s firstborn son (Ex. 4:22‑23) but also His covenant bride (see Ex. 34:14-16; Num. 5:11-31; Ps. 45; Hos. 1–3; Isa. 54:4-10; 61:10–62:5; Eze. 16).  One might then object perceptively that the nation of Israel was in fact famous for her adultery against God, so it is hardly fair that women are to represent Israel while men represent a God who is by definition perfect.  On the contrary, Zion is often presented by the psalmists as having a perfection of beauty matching God Himself (e.g. Pss. 46; 48), and the prophets also appeal to Zion to become the queen she is called to be (e.g. Isa. 54; 60; 66; Jer. 31:21-22; Eze. 40–47; Zec. 2).  Even a whole book of the Bible, the Song of Solomon, was arguably intended to be a sumptuous study of the romance between the Son of David and His Bride, the chosen people.  Solomon failed in his attempt to be God’s anointed King over the nations, just as Israel failed in her attempt to rule in righteousness by his side, but as the Church made up of Israel and every other nation, we are now being called by our worthy King, our intended ‘husband’, to stand in the beauty of holiness and reign over all nations by His side.

Male and female together are called to worship the God who reveals Himself in plurality and community.  But the desire of both men and women for a perfect ideal, toward which they might each strive, is fulfilled not in seeking a goddess counterpart to the Creator God, but in reflecting on the eternally planned romance between the Creator and restored Humanity.

The next post continues with a look at the third episode of the BBC series.

Buried Secrets: Did God Have a Wife? Pt1

First posted on thinktheology.co.uk, Saturday 18 June 2011

---

The second episode of this series looks at the whole issue of monotheism in ancient Israel, a subject about which much has been written because it is such a unique concept in the ancient world. Francesca’s primary concern here seems to be the male-centredness of the biblical view of God, so in order to discover the feminine in ancient Israelite religion which she believes the Bible writers deliberately concealed, she must first establish that Israelites worshipped multiple gods like their neighbours. Once she has shown that Israel’s god was one of many, she can then identify one particular goddess whom she believes to have been the official consort of Israel’s god; if there was a female version of God worshipped in ancient Israel, then we are free to dismiss the Bible’s male chauvinism as entirely without justification in either ancient or modern times.

Francesca has elsewhere expressed her frustration about inequality for women in the academic world, and as believers in Christ we too should share her sensitivity to injustices against women in modern times.  We worship a god who cares about the widow, the fatherless and the foreigner, who delivers the oppressed, and whose offer of salvation and restored dignity is without regard for class, race or gender (Gal. 3:28).  Women have been treated unjustly over the centuries in many cultures, and the Church has unfortunately been no exception to this rule.

The Bible too has been interpreted in some very misogynistic ways by scholars and religious leaders since ancient times, most of whom have unsurprisingly been male.  However, this has caused many feminists to assume that the Bible itself is also guilty of male bias, without letting God’s word speak for itself.  Much work remains to be done here, but I will consider the threefold argument Francesca makes in this programme first before offering some thoughts about reinstating the truly feminine in biblical theology.

Yhwh = El?

The first observation Francesca makes involves the 1929 discovery of the ancient city of Ugarit on the Mediterranean coast of what is now Syria.  It is in fact remarkable how extensively this Canaanite city with its buildings and texts confirmed the biblical portrayal of indigenous Canaanite religion.  The point she highlights, however, is that the Ugaritic divine pantheon was ruled over by El, the supreme creator and father of the gods, even if it was his ‘son’ Baal who was the hero god worshipped as ‘king’ of the gods in Ugarit.  It is well-known that Israel’s god used to be known by the name El in the days of Abraham, as in ‘El-Elyon’ or ‘El-Shaddai’, but Francesca tries to argue that if Canaanites viewed El as the ruler over a pantheon of other gods, this is also likely to have been the case for ancient Israel.

An important point to note in response is the relative dating of evidence from Ugarit; Ugarit’s final flowering was approximately contemporaneous with the times of the Judges in ancient Israel, if we take the biblical dates at face value.  That means that the portrayal of Canaanite religion in the texts discovered among the ruins of Ugarit cannot necessarily provide reliable information about religion at the time of Abraham half a millennium earlier, nor about Canaanite religion far down the coast in Israel in the days of Ahab and Jezebel centuries later.  We cannot ignore Ugarit, but we must not overstretch its evidence.

As for Abraham’s time, it is clear that ‘El’ was the generic term for ‘God’ and had to be given further definition with epithets like ‘Elyon’ (Most High) or ‘Shaddai’ (perhaps Lofty or Almighty), just as later the title ‘Baal’ (Lord) had to be clarified; even Israel’s covenant God was called ‘lord’ or ‘baal’ in Hosea’s time (Hos. 2:16‑17).  Yet when Abraham was in Canaan there is surprisingly no mention of his neighbours worshiping idols (cf. Gen. 14:17-20; 15:16), even though this does appear well over a century later in Jacob’s time (31:30; 35:2-4).  We know that ancient polytheistic religions always accumulated more gods over time, so it seems at least plausible that by the time of Ugarit’s destruction (centuries after Jacob) the newcomer storm god Baal had won the affection of the Canaanites and so displaced their original (true/only?) god El as ‘king’.  The storm god Teshub had done the same to his divine predecessors worshipped by the Hittites, which then inspired equivalent coup d’états by Zeus in Greece and later also Marduk in Babylon.

Polytheism in Israel?

Second, Francesca moves on from ‘El’ to look at evidence for a widespread polytheism in ancient Israel.  She shows that Israelites were aware of the gods worshipped by other nations (e.g. Ps. 95:3; 96:3-5; 97:7‑9), and even had occasional stories where their own God spoke of Himself in the plural (e.g. Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7).  She also points out that Israel’s god evidently ruled surrounded by a heavenly council of ‘divine’ beings (e.g. 1Kgs. 22:19; Job 1:6).  None of this is ‘breaking news’ for conservative scholars; it has been discussed for centuries.  Judaism and Christianity have long referred to these other spiritual beings as cherubim and seraphim, angels and demons, or principalities and powers, even in Old Testament times (e.g. Ex. 25:20; 1Sam. 16:14; Ps. 91:11; Isa. 6:2; Dan. 10:5-13).

Regrettably, secular scholars such as Francesca were often taught that monotheism means ‘only one supernatural being up in heaven’, so for her this discovery “undermines monotheism itself”.  Yet ancient Israelites perceived that despite there being multiple supernatural beings, only one creator god meant that only He was truly worthy of worship.  What is more, for some unknown reason He had chosen to rule over their own insignificant group of tribes personally, rather than leaving them to the whims of other lesser created beings as with other nations (Deut. 4:15-20).  When He chose their ancestor Abram personally, He also made it quite clear that His ultimate purpose in this choice was to extend this special blessing to all other nations too (Gen. 12:2-3), something Isaiah and other prophets would later emphasise strongly (Isa. 45:18-24; 49:5-7).

Israelites did not remain faithful to their creator god, though, and evidence of their ‘adultery’ is far too easy to find in Scripture; in almost every generation they are rebuked for worshiping idols (e.g. Gen. 35:2; Ex. 32:8; Num. 25:2; Jdg. 2:7-19; 1Kgs. 11:4-8; 18:18-24; 2Kgs. 23:3-14; etc.).  In certain generations those who actively practised their true ancestral religion of Yahwism had evidently shrunk to a very small minority of the population in parts of Israel, just as in Jesus’ day there were relatively few who properly kept the law of their ancestors (namely, the Pharisees – Matt. 23:1-3; Acts 21:18-20).  But truth has never been defined as what most people believe; archaeologists may offer evidence that many Israelites at certain times worshipped other gods, but this in no way undermines the biblical presentation of what true religion should look like.

Even so, it is worth noting that the actual proportion of Israelites who were polytheistic seems to have remained very small through most of their history; the prophets were evidently hyper-sensitive to even the smallest amount of idol-worship in Israel.  Francesca claims that “polytheism wasn’t the exception; it was the norm”, but to see how far from the truth this is, one only has to study the meanings of people’s personal names found in Old Testament lists and in excavated seals or inscriptions from the land of Israel,.  Jeaneane Fowler’s thorough 1988 study of ‘Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew’ demonstrates convincingly that the vast majority of Israelites throughout their period of nationhood were not just monotheistic, but in fact gave their children names reflecting a uniquely monotheistic conception of their god, when compared with meanings of names from neighbouring countries:  Hebrew names never convey acceptance of other gods’ existence, both names and titles of female deities are totally lacking, children are never thought of as the offspring of the deity (very common elsewhere), and the god worshipped by Hebrew-speakers is never connected with fertility, animals, or astronomical phenomena as other gods of the area were.

In my next post, I’ll consider Francesca’s claim that Asherah was God’s wife.

Buried Secrets? Responses to Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou

First posted on thinktheology.co.uk, Thursday 16 June 2011

---

General comments on BBC2’s “The Bible’s Buried Secrets” television series.

If you did not watch the three episodes presented by Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou on BBC Two in March this year, you can still watch them YouTube with the first episode below…
http://www.youtube.com/embed/QGXemCRNNH4

 
As a fellow Oxford-educated scholar and member of the same Society for Old Testament Studies, I watched the programmes with interest, and though I will comment on each episode in more detail in following posts I will begin in this first post with some general comments on the series as a whole.
 
Francesca is a self-confessed atheist, and though she clearly loves studying the Old Testament she has no personal allegiance to Israel’s god, nor has she ever read the texts as they were intended to be read, without the sceptical anti-supernatural lenses of academic scholarship.  She was given a particular privilege to present her specialist subject, the Old Testament, to the general public, so in writing these programmes she had genuinely good intentions – trying to persuade educated, middle-class BBC2 viewers that the Bible is in fact both interesting and relevant to them.
 
In order to do this, though, she felt that she must liberate the biblical text from those traditionalists who take it at face value and use it not purely as a work of ancient history (as she does) but as a pattern for modern living.  She of course feels that the ancient Israelites were vastly less enlightened than modern Western society, so religious communities that choose to share those ancient beliefs will become unavoidably sexist, politically misguided and morally repressive.  One way she thinks she might successfully persuade her viewers to give up their (either dismissive or fervently credulous) association of the Bible with such unfashionable ideas, is to try to show that in fact ancient Israel was a much more liberal and ‘normal’ ancient society than the Bible makes it out to be.  Effectively this justifies why she enjoys studying it so much, and will hopefully encourage others to study it also.
 
Even so, she has acknowledged in print (in the latest magazine of the Oxford Theology Faculty, issue 2) that there will be some who disagree with her not purely from a naïve faith-based position, such as the average evangelical churchgoer, but also from an informed scholarly position.  Such scholars believe that the biblical version of the past is quite able to stand up to critical inquiry, and she regularly has to deal with students of hers who raise objections to her sceptical views (encouraging to hear!).  In the classroom setting she is able to answer these or recommend further reading, but she regrets the restrictions of a television programme that doesn’t allow for footnotes or sufficiently nuanced claims.  I can quite understand how difficult she must have found this.
 
Unfortunately, she has been warned by her BBC producers to expect angry and abusive correspondence from her viewers, quite different from the polite etiquette in the scholarly world for how to disagree with someone.  Our own reactions to her programmes, therefore, whether in private or in print, should model to her and to others who share her views how we who have a personal allegiance to the God of the Bible can interact with our ‘opponents’ with gentleness and respect, as Peter instructs us in 1 Peter 3:15.
 
I personally enjoyed the visual presentation of the series of programmes, and was perhaps a little envious even, of the opportunity she had to visit personally so many of the archaeological and historical locations regularly referred to in Old Testament scholarship.  She communicates articulately and used the three hours allotted to her very effectively.
 
Nevertheless, I found the programmes frustrating for three primary reasons.  First, in several of her provocative suggestions, she gave the impression that these were her own innovations rather than acknowledging others who advocate these fairly well-known scholarly views.  Second, too often she argued against ‘straw men’, rejecting some facile old-fashioned interpretations of the Bible rather than engaging properly with what the text itself says.  Third and most important, she contented herself with making superficially subversive proposals of the sort favoured by modern Old Testament scholarship, rather than recognising the far more profoundly subversive message of the prophets themselves.  The impression given is that of a teenager’s petty rebelliousness against his parents’ rules, somehow failing to recognise that his parents are in fact themselves political dissidents fighting to bring down a dangerous and oppressive dictator.
 
There is far more at stake in the study of the Old Testament scriptures than simply different views about what a small ethnic group believed and wrote in a little backwater of the Ancient Near East.  The ancestors of Jesus’ Jewish nation were part of the revolutionary plan by the God of the whole world for restoring all humanity to its rightful position of steward of creation, after he had first created a vaccine for the spiritual cancer causing mankind to turn against both itself and its Creator.  Without the Old Testament’s careful record of centuries of trials, we would have no proof that this remedy can actually work with an entire people group, and mankind would be lost in its self-destructive sickness, without hope and without God in the world.

The next post begins with a look at the second episode of the BBC series.