Book Reviews

Reconciling Violence and Kingship

3 Comments

Reconciling Violence and Kingship

Reconciling Violence and Kingship is available at Wipf and Stock Publishers
Reconciling Violence and Kingship is available at Wipf and Stock Publishers

Reconciling Violence and Kingship is a study of the beginnings of the Israelite monarchy based on an examination of Judges 9, 17-21, and 1 Samuel 9-11. In this book author, Marty Alan Michelson, proposes that a new understanding of the establishment of Israel’s monarchy is possible when the above texts are viewed through the lens of Renee Girard’s philosophical theory of institutionalized violence. This theory involves the “textual interplay of desire, mimesis, rivalry, and scapegoating” (p. 2–more on this below). Along with Girard, Mickelson contends that institutionalized violence leads to social stability (p. 8). To put it in Mickelson’s words, “In this study we will demonstrate that in the storied movement toward monarchy, the chaotic violence becomes controlled violence that prevents its further escalation. Through the monarch, violence is transformed into an event that, while violent, reconciles conflict that might otherwise lead to chaos, dissolution, or anarchy” (p. 2).

For those of us not familiar with Girard’s theory, Michelson offers a summary. Michelson does not dwell on a definition of desire perhaps because it seems self-explanatory. We have all experienced that inner want that drives us in seeking to obtain an object, goal, status, or even another person. Desire, however, can result in conflict when people seek the same object, goal, or agenda. Girard further argues that people imitate one another in their desires and actions (this is referred to as mimesis). “This imitative rivalry, compounded by a sense of lost self to the other’s goals, creates an irresolvable conflict. One or the other rival must be removed. Girard hypothesizes…that it is at the point of irresolvable conflict that an alternative emerges” (p. 9). This alternative involves redirecting the violence toward a separate victim, the scapegoat. In other words, better that one dies for all, than for all to die.

Saul cuts up his oxen to summon Israel. This account vividly recalls Judges 19.
Saul cuts up his oxen to summon Israel. This account vividly recalls Judges 19.

What does all of this have to do with the chapters in Judges and 1 Samuel that Michelson focuses on? Michelson is more than a philosopher,  he is a biblical scholar, and a major portion of his book is focused on looking at each passage in its context. He notes that each of the texts, are not only connected by containing the theme of kingship, they also speak of desire, and rivalry that leads to uncontrolled violence. For example, Abimelech kills his brothers and destroys several cities (Judg. 9). Members of the tribe of Dan threaten Micah, steal his priest and destroy the town of Laish (Judg. 17-18). A Levite’s concubine is violently raped which leads to her dismemberment and all out war between Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, nearly wiping out the entire tribe (Judg. 19-21). The uncontrolled violence witnessed in the Book of Judges finally finds its solution in Saul’s action in 1 Samuel 11 when Saul cuts up his oxen into 12 pieces, mimicking the action of the Levite with his concubine in Judges 19. This act rallies all Israel to his side bringing unity and resulting in Saul’s coronation as king.

Why All the Fuss About Girard?

Renee Girard
Renee Girard

When I began reading Reconciling Violence and Kingship I must admit that I was concerned about a method which seemed to approach the Bible (or at least these texts) through a certain pair of colored glasses. Michelson addresses this concern. He states, “…it is not our intent here, after having read the narratives, to lay over them a sort of ‘Girardian Grid’ that says, ‘This text is Girardian because we can connect these dots’…these stories share coherence and literary tradition regardless whether Girard helps us read them” (p. 155). Michelson believes that reading these passages with a “Girardian hermeneutic” “helps us read the cultural issues of kingship emerging in Israel’s history” (p. 155). However, he also emphasizes that this approach does not prove how kingship emerged.

Overview of Reconciling Violence and Kingship

The contents of Reconciling Violence and Kingship are as follows:

Chapter 1 Thesis and Scope of the Study–Michelson lays out his purpose and methodology, outlines the basics of Girard’s theory, and presents an overview of each forthcoming chapter.

Chapter 2 Composition and Kingship in the Deuteronomistic History–Michelson presents a brief history of source critical study on Deuteronomy – Kings with attention to the treatment of the claims that these books include both  pro-monarchical and anti-monarchical sources. Michelson’s rationale for this chapter is “…to set the groundwork for viewing the strengths of a literary and anthropologically informed Girardian reading of these texts.

The meat of Michelson’s book is contained in chapters 3-5 where he examines each text of his study using the new literary approach popularized by such scholars as Robert Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative).

Chapter 3 Abimelech: Judges 8:29-9:56

Chapter 4 Micah, the Levite, and the Concubine: Judges 17-21

Chapter 5 Saul and Kingship: 1 Samuel 9-11

Chapter 6 Assessing a Girardian Hermeneutic within this Study–In this chapter, after a further explanation of Girardian theory, Michelson reviews each text through that lens. In his own words he states, “I will demonstrate that Girard helps us look at and understand the formation of kingship in Israel’s history, without necessarily telling us that this is definitively ‘the way’ that kingship emerged in Israel’s history” (p. 13).

Chapter 7 Summary and Conclusions

Strengths and Weaknesses of Reconciling Violence and Kingship

Marty Alan Michelson, author of Reconciling Violence and Kingship
Marty Alan Michelson, author of Reconciling Violence and Kingship

In my opinion the true strength of Michelson’s book is found in his close reading of the biblical texts he has chosen. As noted above, this discussion occurs in chapters 3-5. The insight that impacted me the most was the positive spin that Michelson puts on the beginning of Saul’s story in 1 Samuel 9-11. Although I was familiar with a number of the parallels between Judges 19-21 and 1 Samuel 11 (e.g., both texts speak of Gibeah, the Benjamites, and the town of Jabesh Gilead, and in both texts a former living entity is carved into 12 pieces). I had always looked at the similarity in these chapters as ominous signs of what was to come in Saul’s kingship. Michelson, however, effectively demonstrates that these common motifs are there to emphasize the positive difference that Saul makes. The horrific dissection of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19 only leads to further bloodshed in Israel. Conversely Saul’s dissection of his oxen rallies all of Israel who “come out as one man” (1 Sam. 11:7)–another expression shared by these stories (cf. Judg. 20:1)– resulting in victory.

Michelson, like Girard, also makes much of the idea of “sacral kingship.” This expression carries both priestly and sacrificial connotations. I was impressed by Michelson’s careful reading of 1 Samuel 9 and 10 and all of the priestly allusions that can be found in Saul’s initial encounter with Samuel. The Bible certainly reflects a close connection between priesthood and kingship beginning with Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20), David and Solomon’s offering of sacrifices (2 Sam. 6:17; 1 Kgs. 8:64), and finally Jesus Himself who is both High Priest and King (Heb. 7). Along these lines, allow me to chase a brief rabbit trail that has nothing to do with the book under review. I believe it is incorrect to interpret Saul’s offering of sacrifice in 1 Samuel 13:9 as the sin for which he is rebuked. It’s not Saul’s offering of the sacrifice per say, but his disobedience to God’s word by not waiting for Samuel to come and offer the sacrifice (1 Sam. 10:8; 13:13).

As regards Michelson’s use of Girard’s theory, the big story of the Bible certainly substantiates this viewpoint. As humans we run after various desires, which lead to conflict. That conflict often escalates into a violence that threatens to consume us. But God has provided a scapegoat, Jesus, the King. And through His sacrifice it is possible to find at-one-ment and peace. Whether the same theory can be applied to Saul’s kingship or not, I’m not sure. I wasn’t completely convinced by Michelson’s argument. I do find it ironic, however, that though Saul brought a measure of peace and unity through the scapegoat process, his later reign reflects once again the violence and chaos of the Judges period as he slaughters the priests of Nob (1 Sam. 22) and relentlessly pursues David.

Samuel anoints Saul.
Samuel anoints Saul.

Most of what I would term “weaknesses” relate to matters of interpretation. This is probably a poor term to use, since my interpretation is also far from infallible. But having noted my reservation of that term, I will point to two examples where I differ with Michelson. In the introduction, Michelson justifies narrowing his study to 1 Samuel 9-11 for the following reason: “…chapters 9-11 exclusively and uniquely treat the introduction and acclamation and inauguration of Saul as king principally apart from the activity of Samuel” (p. 6). I believe this point not only gives too little credit to the part Samuel plays in the overall account, but also, and most importantly, leaves out the important part that God plays in the inauguration of kingship in Israel. Since Michelson is looking at the narrative to ascertain the history behind the story and the philosophical and anthropological elements involved in kingship, perhaps his lack of focus on God in this story is understandable. But it is hard to understand his downplaying of the important part that Samuel plays in the story. After all, it is Samuel who announces to him “And on whom is all the desire of Israel? Is it not on you and on all your father’s house?” (1 Sam. 9:20). It is also Samuel who invites him to the feast (1 Sam. 9:22-24), the kind of feast noted elsewhere when kings were anointed (1 Sam. 16; 1 Kgs. 1). It is Samuel who anoints Saul, and Samuel who gives him 3 signs of confirmation (1 Sam. 10:1-10). Furthermore, it is Samuel who instigates the public casting of lots in choosing Saul (1 Sam. 10:17ff.) and Samuel who calls the people together at Gilgal to publicly acclaim Saul as king (1 Sam. 11:14-15). To be fair to Michelson, his point is that Saul is only acclaimed king in 1 Samuel 11:15 and that prior to that, the narrator uses the term nagid (“prince” is one translation of this significant term). However, it seems difficult to overlook the important part that Samuel plays in 1 Samuel 9-11.

Secondly, I was surprised by Michelson’s understanding of Judges 18:30. This is the concluding comments of the story concerning Micah, the Levite, and the tribe of Dan. The tribe of Dan steals Micah’s idols and his Levite (who has been acting as a priest for Micah’s household). The Danites destroy the inhabitants of Laish (which becomes the city of Dan), and set up their own idolatrous worship. At this point, Michelson states, “…we are introduced to a new priest, Jonathan, son of Gershom of the tribe of Manasseh” (p. 80). My understanding, and that of other commentators (e.g., Daniel Block and Barry Webb in their Judges commentaries), is that Jonathan is none other than the Levite of the story. His name has been withheld to this point because the writer desires to shock the reader with who this unnamed Levite actually is. According to the text Jonathan is the son of Gershom, the son of (not from the tribe of as Michelson translates) Manasseh. But scholars are aware that the name “Manasseh” has been tampered with and should probably read “Moses.” In Hebrew, an extra “n” has been partially inserted into the name. The scandal of the story is that this unnamed Levite who participated over an idolatrous shrine in the house of Micah and who became priest for the Danites, was none other than a descendant of Moses! To interpret the mention of Jonathan in Judges 18:30 as a “new priest” who is being introduced, is not only very anticlimactic, it fails to account for why at this late stage the narrator would introduce a new character. Especially a character with a name, when throughout the narrative most characters (except for Micah) are nameless.

One can judge for oneself whether the above examples are true weaknesses or not, but one definite weakness in Reconciling Violence and Kingship is the editing. It is unfortunate that this wonderful book is so riddled with grammatical and spelling errors. The errors also extend to wrong Scripture notations (e.g., 1 Samuel 7 on p. 127 should read 1 Samuel 8) and the mixing up of names  (twice on p. 79 the name Micah is used when it is the Levite who is being referred to, and on p. 103, “all the men of Jabesh-Gilead,” should read “all the men of Gibeah.”). One has the impression that this book was quickly rushed to press rather than given the editorial attention it deserved.

Conclusion

If you’ve stayed with me this far, you probably recognize that this book is most suited for the scholar and the serious student. It engages with philosophical concepts and is conversant with what is going on within the realm of scholarly studies on the Deuteronomistic History. However, a serious layperson could certainly benefit from the insights found in chapters 3-5. On a final note, I’d like to mention that Marty Alan Michelson has become a cyber-buddy of mine. I deeply appreciate his enthusiasm for the study of Scripture and his warm personal demeanor in all of our correspondence. Marty please feel free to comment on this review. If I have misunderstood or not represented some of your views properly, I would welcome the opportunity to hear from you and set the record straight. Meanwhile for those of you who would be interested in some of Marty’s teachings on the Books of Samuel please click on the following link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN47b_SfQZE

Reconciling Violence and Kingship is available at Amazon USA / UK

You can also check out some of Marty’s other materials here at Amazon.com

Archaeology, Biblical Artifacts

The Ishbaal Inscription At Khirbet Qeiyafa

2 Comments

The Ishbaal Inscription At Khirbet Qeiyafa

Ishbaal inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa. Photo by Tal Rogovski, borrowed from http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2015/06/second-inscription-from-qeiyafa.html
Ishbaal inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa. Photo by Tal Rogovski, borrowed from http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2015/06/second-inscription-from-qeiyafa.html

After Saul was killed in battle against the Philistines (1 Sam. 31), his army captain Abner took Saul’s son, Ish-bosheth (Ishbaal) and made him king (2 Sam. 2:8-10). As I discuss in my book Family Portraits, Ish-bosheth is also known by the names Ishbaal and Eshbaal in the Bible (1 Chron. 8:33; 9:39). It has recently been announced that in the summer excavations of 2012 at Khirbet Qeiyafa (see my article on Khirbet Qeiyafa), a large stone storage jar (pithos) was discovered with the name Ishbaal / Eshbaal inscribed on it.

One of the latest finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa is an inscription with the name Ishbaal. (map taken from holylandphotos.org)
One of the latest finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa is an inscription with the name Ishbaal. (map taken from holylandphotos.org)

This discovery has several interesting features. For starters, this is the first time that the name Ishbaal has been found outside of the Bible. Second, the layer in which the Ishbaal inscription was found dates to the period of 1020-980 B.C., according to radiometric dating. This is precisely the time period in which Saul’s son, Ishbaal would have been active. This Ishbaal, however, is not the son of Saul. We know that because the inscription goes on to read, “son of Bedaʿ.” The name Bedaʿ is unique, not being found in the Bible or in an archaeological context before. According to the authors of a recent article in BASOR (Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research) announcing this discovery, “The letters of the inscription are large and clear, similar in size and evenly spaced, and were written by a skilled hand in Canaanite script” (see the full article here). The inscription is the result of a skilled scribe and thus suggests the presence of a developed society. The fact that this inscription is Canaanite is of special interest to paleographers (those who study ancient scripts). Originally it was thought that the Canaanite script was replaced by the so-called Phoenician script at the end of the second millennium B.C. Now we have evidence of the Canaanite script being in use during the monarchy of David thanks to this discovery, along with four other inscriptions (2 more from Khirbet Qeiyafa, 1 from Beth Shemesh, and 1 from Jerusalem).

A bronze statue of Baal discovered at Ugarit from the 14th-12th centuries B.C.
A bronze statue of Baal discovered at Ugarit from the 14th-12th centuries B.C.

Baʿal is the name of the Canaanite storm god and was often attached to names just as God (el) orYahweh (yahu, usually spelled with “iah” in English) was. This practice is called using a “theophoric” element, which simply means that the name of the god is embedded in a person’s name. What is interesting about the use of “baal” as a theophoric element in names is that the Bible shows no evidence of its use after the early monarchic period (10th century B.C.). Previous to, and including the early monarchic period, it is found in names like Jerubaal (Gideon’s other name), Meribbaal (Jonathan’s son, also called Mephibosheth), and, of course, Ishbaal. Archaeology reflects the same practice. No inscription has ever been found in Judah from the 9th – 6th centuries with “baal” used as a theophoric element. While Baʿal means “lord” or “master,” its association with the Canaanite god seems to have made it an unpopular name in Judah during those centuries.

There is still one more inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa yet to be translated. It will be interesting to see what further light it might shed on this period of history.

Uncategorized

Saeed Abedini: More Than a News Story

2 Comments

Saeed Abedini: More Than a News Story

IMG_0435
Saeed’s mother Bebe is a wonderful cook and over the 6 days we spent with her and Zizi we were treated to an array of fabulous Persian cuisine.

One of the greatest bonds between people is the love of a mother for her son. I was vividly reminded of this recently when my wife and I had the opportunity of visiting with Saeed’s mother and sister. Zizi, Saeed’s sister, was a former student of mine, so Gloria and I have known her for nearly 6 years. But our recent visit with Zizi gave us the opportunity to meet Bebe, Saeed’s mother, for the first time. That first night with Bebe was very impactful. As a loving mother is want to do, she showed us past photos of Saeed. She also showed us videos he had made. One of the videos was of Saeed giving his testimony. If you have never heard Saeed’s testimony from his own mouth, it is worth watching (you can click here to view it).

Prison Life for Saeed

I had often wondered what prison conditions were like for Saeed. What does the prison look like? What does his day consist of? It hadn’t been that long since Bebe had been in Iran and was able to visit her son so I asked her about her experience of visiting Saeed in prison. At this point she broke down in tears and was unable to speak about it. As you can imagine, I felt terrible for even asking the question. It was at this moment that I realized we weren’t just talking about any person who was in prison. To her this was more than someone who is reported about in the news, more than even a Christian brother to be concerned about and pray for; this was her son! Of course I realized this before asking the question, but the emotional impact of her response brought home to me the personal pain Saeed’s family experiences with each passing day of his imprisonment. Once Bebe recovered, she not only shared the photos and videos that I mentioned above, she also showed me pictures of what it looks like inside of Rajai Shahr prison where Saeed is currently incarcerated. She showed me pictures of the kinds of cells that prisoners are held in and the deplorable sleeping conditions they face. She showed me a filthy latrine and shower, the kind that Saeed is made to clean each day. She also showed me pictures of the courtyard where most prisoners are able to go and get some sunshine and daily exercise. But Zizi told us that due to the dangers of mixing with other prisoners, Saeed is not able to get this daily dose of sunshine and exercise. I wanted to post several of the pictures that Bebe had showed me so I googled images of Rajai Shahr prison. I couldn’t find those particular photos, but I was horrified at the brutality of the pictures that I did find. Out of sensitivity for the family, and readers here, I will not post any.

The Closeness of Saeed’s Family

11100970_10204615786570079_1548006871_n
Me and Gloria with our beloved Zizi

We spent 6 days with Bebe and Zizi. During that time I became impressed with just how close this family is to each other. Every day each family member skypes or calls each other. During the time we were with them, we were able to speak to each member of Saeed’s family. Zizi often speaks about the closeness of her family and how they have always loved and supported one another. Although I would never minimize the significance of family for those of us from the West, there is a difference between Western and Middle Eastern culture when it comes to family. In the West we are usually close to our parents and siblings. Fewer of us stay in close touch with cousins, nephews, nieces, etc. Many families in the USA are scattered across the country and only see each other once a year or less. Zizi explained to me that in Iran families stay very connected to one another. They usually live in the immediate vicinity of each other and they are in constant communication not only with immediate family members, but with aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Important decisions such as marriage, and business are not just personal concerns, but the concern of the entire family (or clan). When someone in the West confronts an important life event or decision they will hope for the family’s blessing and support, but whether they get it or not they will usually go ahead with their own decision. Middle Eastern culture is very different. If the family does not support a marriage or some other decision, the individual will usually relent and do what is best for the family. What is best for the family comes before an individual’s desire. To put it succinctly: in Western culture it tends to be me first and then family; whereas in Middle Eastern culture it is family first and then me.

Your Family is Cursed

This realization about cultural differences heightens the personal tragedy for Saeed’s family. Although we can sympathize with Saeed’s family, and our loss of a family member is no less painful, yet we can not fully appreciate the effect of Saeed’s imprisonment on his family because of the difference in cultural dynamics. Let me give one example that Zizi shared with us. As mentioned above, in Iran not only are families close, they live close to one another and are involved with each other’s lives on a daily basis. When a family is scattered, it is considered to be a curse from God. Many of Saeed’s relatives have told Saeed’s father that the reason his family is scattered and experiencing so much turmoil is because he and his family converted to Christianity. Saeed’s family is considered cursed and unclean. As a result, the extended family has very little to do with Saeed’s family. Saeed’s father remains in Iran so that he can visit and maintain contact with his son. Although he has a lot of family still in Iran, Saeed’s father is virtually alone because he has been ostracized from the larger family unit. There is no support, no encouragement, only disdain and contempt.

Saeed’s family who once had a beautiful home in Iran and experienced the daily love and support of each other, has now been scattered to various places around the world. Imagine losing your home, being separated from your family, being forced to leave the country you love and becoming refugees in a foreign country. I say, “imagine,” but for those of us in the West, this is beyond anything we have ever experienced and therefore it is difficult to truly imagine it. Saeed has two sisters and a brother. Not only is he separated from them, but they are separated from each other. Zizi lives in the states, her other brother and sister are currently refugees in another country. Even Saeed’s parents are separated by the circumstances. Bebe, Saeed’s mother, has been warned not to come back to Iran or she will be arrested (We were told this was because she boldly witnessed to the guards about her faith in Christ!). This means she can no longer even visit her son in prison. Saeed’s father is the only remaining immediate family member who can stay in Iran. In spite of being separated from his dear wife and other children, and in spite of being ostracized by other family members, he stays. He stays because he is the only link between Saeed and the family and between Saeed and the outside world.

Saeed’s Family Reunion: Living in Hope

saeed-abedini
Saeed, Nagmeh, and the children

For those of us who have followed the story of Saeed’s imprisonment, we are aware of the loving and courageous efforts of his wife Nagmeh to obtain his release. While we were visiting with Bebe and Zizi, Nagmeh was in Germany speaking with government officials there about Saeed’s release. This past week, she, Bebe, and Zizi have traveled to Washington D.C. to appear before Congress and appeal that no deal be made for Iran’s nuclear program without an agreement to release the 4 Americans currently held in Iranian prisons. Nagmeh has eloquently spoken before governments, churches, and other organizations about her desire to see her family reunited and the toll it has taken on her children not to have their father at home. Here is yet one more family separation that I have not yet mentioned. Not only are Saeed’s children growing up without him, they are frequently without their mother as she answers the call to testify of her faith and to secure the release of her husband. Nagmeh herself related this difficulty as she spoke before Congress this week (click here to read). The article I am referencing begins: “The wife of a prominent Christian pastor imprisoned in Iran has described how her family has been ‘torn apart’  by their ordeal. But they have kept their faith, she explained adding: ‘Jesus hasn’t abadoned us.'”

While many continue to pray for Saeed’s release, I thought it important to be reminded, as I was through my visit with Saeed’s mom and sister, that it is more than a news event we are praying about. It is a real family who has not only experienced the pain of separation from Saeed, but also from each other. Our prayers are about a real man who is a husband, father, son, and brother. Without a change in regime, it is sad to think that Saeed’s family can never be reunited again in the their own beloved country. But I do pray and long for the day when they are all reunited again in the country of God’s choosing.

Dear Jesus, thank you for sustaining Saeed and his family, thank you for protecting him and for keeping his faith and that of his family strong. Thank you for the example that Saeed and his family are to many of us–love for You, love for each other, and love for their enemies. Thank you for what you have accomplished through Saeed’s imprisonment. Thank you for those who have been converted through Saeed’s witness, and his family’s witness. Dear Lord, pleae reunite Saeed and his entire family and please bring him home soon!

The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve

Leave a comment

The Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve

Chapter 7 in "A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit," concerns the Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve.
Chapter 7 in “A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit,” concerns the Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve.

The Book of the Twelve is the modern designation for the Minor Prophets. This title suggests that there is a purposeful unified message and structure to these books. In chapter 7 of “A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit,” Martin Clay examines the Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve, or perhaps more accurately, the meaning and usage of ruach in these books. As we have seen in previous posts in this series, ruach has other meanings besides “S/spirit.” Within the Book of the Twelve, Clay notes that this term may have other usages such as, “spirit of prostitution” (Hos. 4:12; 5:4), or “impurity” (Hos. 4:19; 8:7; Zech. 13:2). He also notes that it can be used as a technical term for the prophetic office as in “the man of the spirit” (Hos. 9:7). Besides these usages, Clay focuses on 4 specific meanings of ruach found in the Book of the Twelve. These 4 usages include the relationship of ruach with vitality, divine judgment, empowerment, and salvation or soteriology.

Ruach and Vitality

Available at Amazon USA / UK
Available at Amazon USA / UK

This usage of ruach has similarities with Ezekiel’s usage as noted in our last post (The Holy Spirit in Ezekiel). Ruach as vitality occurs within two different contexts in the Book of the Twelve. The first is its use in contexts of creation with reference to the human spirit or breath ( Zech. 12:1). Clay sees the usage in Malachi 2:15-16 as a “wordplay implying that human vitality and life is ultimately derived from the ruach of the creator” (p. 73). The second usage of this concept occurs in statements that refer to idols as being lifeless (e.g., Hab. 2:18-20). In contrast to the life-giving breath of God, idols are breathless (spiritless).

Ruach and Divine Judgment

This usage also recalls Ezekiel’s imagery of the storm wind that brings judgment. It is found in such passages as Hosea 4:19; 8:7; 12:1; Hab. 1:11. Clay concludes, “The ruach in the Twelve is linked to divine agency in punishing disobedience and realigning human actions and expectations with those of Yahweh” (p. 75).

Ruach and Empowerment

imagesThere are two ways in which ruach empowers in the Book of the Twelve. One way is to empower prophets for confronting the community with its failure to keep God’s covenant and the other is to empower for the task of rebuilding the Temple. “Both these tasks are essentially concerned with the restoration of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel” (p. 75). Once again, we saw a similar usage in Ezekiel regardomg prophetic empowerment. An example of prophetic empowerment by the Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve comes from Micah 3:1-8. In verse 8 Micah states, “But truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord…. Clay discusses some of the difficulties with translating verse 8, but it is clear that the ruach belongs to the Lord and is the instrument that empowers Micah. The Spirit of the Lord also empowers Zerubbabel for the rebuilding of the Temple in the well-known passage from Zechariah 4:6 (see above). Clay states, “Yahweh strongly contrasts the efficacy of his own ruach to human ability….The ‘ruach of Yahweh’ is thus shown to be an empowering force which enables humans to fulfil divine purposes that would otherwise be impossible to achieve” (pp. 77-78). This last statement by Clay highlights an important biblical aspect of God’s Spirit. To my mind, it is reminiscent of Jesus’ command to his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they receive power from the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8).

Ruach and Soteriology (salvation)

In Acts 2 the disciples receive the fulfilment of the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32.
In Acts 2 the disciples receive the fulfilment of the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32.

Perhaps when Christians think of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, it is a passage like Joel 2:28-32 (3:1-5 in the Hebrew text) that comes to mind. A prophetic passage which speaks of the Spirit’s activity in the “latter days” which results in dreams, visions, and the salvation of many. Joel uses the language of the Spirit being “poured out,” which, as Clay points out, only occurs in 6 passages in the prophets (Isa. 29:10; 32:15; 44:3; Joel 2:28-29; Ezek. 39:29; and Zech. 12:10). Notice that once again there is a connection with Ezekiel. In fact, Clay notes that the ruach being poured out by Yahweh is “a verbal parallel shared uniquely with Joel 3:1-5 (Joel 2:28-32 in English translations, p. 79). Clay also suggests that the language of “pouring out” the Spirit may be an intentional twist on words of judgment where God often speaks of “pouring out” his wrath or judgment. This pouring out of the Spirit takes place in relation to Israel’s restoration, but also includes Gentiles as well (“all flesh,” “whoever calls on my name”). Clay also suggests that it “may be viewed as a direct fulfilment of Moses’ desire for the Israelites that they would all have the spirit (Num. 11:29) and, by inference, would experience dreams and visions from Yahweh (Num. 12:6)” (p. 81). This observation has the effect of linking the Spirit’s activity in the Pentateuch (where we began) with the Prophets, which in turn, finds its fulfilment in the Book of Acts.

The Holy Spirit in the Book of the Twelve: Conclusion

Although ruach has other usages in the Book of the Twelve, Clay’s focus on the 4 particular usages examined above, show a marked similarity with the Book of Ezekiel. This concluding chapter on how the Old Testament uses the word ruach, re-emphasizes, and in some ways, expands upon the meaning of ruach noted in our other posts. Ruach as the life-giving breath, not only reminds us of Ezekiel but takes us all the way back to the beginning of Creation in Genesis 2:7 (even though this passage uses a different word). Ruach as a means of empowerment reminds us of the leadership demonstrated by Moses and the Judges, but extends beyond leadership as it is also related to the empowerment given by God to his prophets to proclaim his word. The purpose of this empowerment is so that God might restore his people to himself. This empowerment is also a gift of grace, as it empowers human beings to do things that they would not otherwise be able to do. For those who continue in rebellion, the ruach can also denote judgment in the imagery of a storm-wind. But God not only pours out divine judgment, he also pours out his ruach in order to bring deliverance and salvation to Israel and the nations.

Character Studies, Insights from Family Portraits

My Musings About Going to Church

4 Comments

My Musings About Going to Church

What comes to our mind when we speak of "going to church?"
What comes to our mind when we speak of “going to church?”

When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, a popular slogan was coined which said, “Jesus ‘Yes,’ the Church, ‘No.'” This statement spoke of what some saw as the irrelevancy of the church. Some people were relating to what they learned of Jesus, but they were turned off by what was referred to as the “institutional church.” For some, the church conjured up images of monotonous rituals with no relevancy to daily life, cold, unfeeling, and hypocrital people, lavish buildings, and money-hungry preachers. There was much in this negative portrayal of the church that had a basis in reality, and certainly needed to be addressed. While some have sought to address these and other issues facing the church, new issues continue to arise and some continue to reject the church or the need for going to church.

What Do We Mean By “Going to Church?”

How would you identify the church in this picture? Is it the building or the people?
How would you identify the church in this picture? Is it the building or the people?

The statement “going to church” is, in certain ways, a misnomer. It is an expression that has developed over the centuries meaning the building where people meet. Of course, biblically, it refers to the body of believers for whom Christ died–those who are “called out” and saved by the blood of Christ. While many Christians understand this difference, our use of the phrase “going to church” waters down the true meaning of “church.” I wonder if Christians revived the biblical meaning of church if we would be as quick to dispense with the church. When I determine that, “I’m not going to church anymore,” it can have a very impersonal ring to it. By it I may mean, “I don’t need an institution or building to worship God in,” which is true enough. But if I understand “church” to mean “the family of God,” “the people  for whom Christ died,” “the body of Christ,” etc., then my statement takes on a different meaning. Is it true that I don’t need the family of God, or that it’s alright for me to separate myself from fellow believers for whom Christ died? It’s much easier to disassociate myself from a building or institution, but do I have the right to disassociate myself from worshipping with fellow believers?

God’s People Have Always Worshipped as a Community

moodyFrom the day of Pentecost onward, believers in Jesus have gathered together to worship. “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42, NKJV). The early believers did this quite naturally because it was their heritage as the people of God to meet together to worship God. Whether meeting at the tabernacle, the temple, or later in synagogues, the people of God had always gathered together to worship, celebrate, fellowship, and learn of God. While the Scripture focuses on individuals who displayed great faith in God in their own personal lives, the context of their story is always the community of God’s people. In other words, the Bible never entertains a solitary believer who is not a part of the community of God’s people. My point here is not to denigrate home bible studies; after all, the early church usually met in homes. But I do have a concern with those who intentionally isolate (and insulate) themselves from the church body by “doing church” at home in the form of listening to Cds, or the radio or TV (I am not speaking of the elderly or those who are physically incapable). My concern is also with “drive-in” churches or similar arrangements where it is not necessary to fellowship or interact with the body of Christ.

When a Christian's attitude is, "It's all about me," we can dispense with going to church.
When a Christian’s attitude is, “It’s all about me,” we can dispense with going to church.

Our Western World, and this is especially true of America, has promoted the value of Individualism. Americans are especially proud of “pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps,” or singing “I Did It My Way.” However, this focus on the individual alone is contrary to biblical values which, not only focus on the significance of community, but the interdependence of God’s people on one another. Try reading Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11-14 with an individualistic mindset. Statements such as, “But now indeed there are many members, yet one body” (1 Cor. 12:20); “And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually” (1 Cor. 12:26-27), become nonsensical. Our individualistic spirit might consider the writer of Hebrews exhortation “And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the Day approaching,” (Heb. 10:24-25) as being a bit melodramatic. “C’mon, I can do this Christian thing on my own. I don’t need others to stir me up to love and good works. I don’t need others to encourage my walk with the Lord. I don’t need others to help me keep a correct perspective on doctrine and belief.” Seriously? I doubt any one would word it this way, but in practice this is what it boils down to. Not only does “forsaking the assembly” of believers rob me of many good things that God intends for me, it also prevents God from using my gifts for the benefit of the body.

Going to Church: The Example of Elkanah (1 Samuel 1-2)

1 Samuel 1-2 pictures Elkanah as a godly man who consistently takes his family to worship God in Shiloh.
1 Samuel 1-2 pictures Elkanah as a godly man who consistently takes his family to worship God in Shiloh.

While the New Testament is filled with good reasons for “going to church,” my inspiration for faithfulness in worshipping God with His people comes from an unusual place. It’s through the example of Elkanah (Samuel’s father) in 1 Samuel 1-2, that God spoke to me the most clearly about “going to church.” While Elkanah is far from a perfect man, one of the things stressed in 1 Samuel 1-2 is his commitment to worship God with his family at the place where God had commanded. Elkanah’s commitment to worship God at Shiloh (where the tabernacle was in those days) is emphasized 4 times in the first two chapters of 1 Samuel (1 Sam. 1:3, 7, 21; 2:19-20). This may not seem remarkable at first glance, but the writer notes a number of obstacles that Elkanah faces which makes his commitment all the more remarkable. The first obstacle is the corrupt priesthood of Eli and his sons. The first statement of Elkanah’s commitment to worship God is found in 1 Samuel 1:3, which also notes that the sons of Eli are the priests at Shiloh. 1 Samuel 2:12-17 reveals the wickedness of these men and how they steal the sacrificial offerings of the people. Next we learn that there is rivalry and bitterness between Elkanah’s two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. We are specifically told that this rivalry rears its ugly head each year when the family is making its pilgrimage to Shiloh to worship the Lord (1 Sam. 1:6-7). Corrupt leadership alone would seem a good enough reason for Elkanah to dispense with the yearly visits to Shiloh. Add to that the dysfunction of his own family, and Elkanah has multiple reasons not to make the yearly trek to Shiloh. The devil has always been good at discouraging people from worshipping God due to our own hypocrisy or the hypocrisy of others. He whispers, “Why do you want to go church? There’s no one there but a bunch of hypocrites!” Or, “Who do you think you are to take your family to church when it is in such a mess?” Or, “Look at the problems that develop everytime you try to go to church. It’s too much trouble, why don’t you just stay home?” These ploys have proven very effective over the centuries and the devil has, apparently, seen no need to change his strategy.

Elkanah and Micah: Going to Church vs. Homemade Religion

Instead of "going to church" Micah opted for his own brand of homemade religion in Judges 17.
Instead of “going to church” Micah opted for his own brand of homemade religion in Judges 17.

Elkanah’s example is particularly powerful when contrasted with a story found in Judges 17. In fact, I believe Elkanah is deliberately contrasted with Micah and the Levite in Judges 17. In the Hebrew Bible the Book of Judges immediately preceeds the Books of Samuel (Ruth is found among “the Writings” in the Hebrew division of the Bible). Both stories begin with the story of certain men who are living in “the mountains of Ephraim” (Judg. 17:1; 1 Sam. 1). Both stories deal with corrupt priests and corrupt worship (Judg. 17:4-13; 1 Sam. 2:12-17). Finally, both stories include levites. Judges 17 clearly speaks about a Levite who comes to dwell with Micah in the mountains of Ephraim (Judg. 17:6-10). The author of 1 Samuel never tells us that Elkanah is a Levite. However, this may have been obvious to the readers of his day based on the genealogy given in 1 Samuel 1:1 (Elkanah is also called “an Ephrathite,” but levites lived throughout the tribes of Israel). The writer of Chronicles clarifies Elkanah’s lineage as being from the levitical family known as the Kohathites (1 Chron. 6:33-35). The point of the contrast between Micah and Elkanah suggests that, even though Elkanah may seem to have many “legitimate” reasons to start his own homemade religion, he refuses to do what Micah and the Levite had done. In spite of all the obstacles, Elkanah remains faithful to the command to worship God in the place God had chosen (Deut. 12:5-8). Elkanah’s example of faithfulness in worship, in spite of many difficult obstacles, stands as a testimony to modern believers who often forsake “going to church” (i.e., worshipping God with fellow believers) for less trivial reasons (I got my feelings hurt; I don’t like the pastor; I don’t like the music; etc.). In fact, Micah’s homemade religion suggests the dangers inherent in forsaking the worship of God with His people in favor of a “I’ll do what is right in my own eyes, thank you very much” spirituality.

Purchase at Amazon USA / UK, or get the ebook from westbow press.com
Purchase at Amazon USA / UK, or get the ebook from westbow press.com

Does the modern Church have problems? Do I really need to answer that? The Church, and the people of God of all ages, have always had problems. That’s precisely why we need the Lord and each other! God knows that and so He has created a community, a family, which He has purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28). We forsake that blood-bought community at our own peril. No, the Church is not perfect, and as has often been said, if it were and we attended it, we would ruin its perfection! However, it is God’s gift to us, and we honor God and the sacrifice of Christ when we participate in it and assemble together to worship our God and Savior.

This article was inspired by the research in my book–Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Please check it out at westbowpress.com or at Amazon USA / UK. Available in hardback, softcover, or e-book.