Last week Rev. Billy Kristanto delivered the topic on Deuteronomic Theology in our Bible study (click link to read his discussion on Deuteronomic Theology: http://look-ing-up.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-deuteronomic-theology-rev-billy.html).
Today, we will not be discussing only the theology of Deuteronomy, but also its role and effects on history.
INTRODUCTION
We have learned previously that one of the primary themes of Deuteronomic Theology is retribution theology (Indonesian: hukum tabur tuai (the law of sowing and harvesting)). If you are a good person, you will be blessed, if you are a bad person, you will be cursed.
In Deuteronomic Theology, there is a treaty-like format / writing system, which is very much resembles the Suzerain-Vassal Treaty (literally translates to Lord-Servant Treaty). This was a universal treaty format during the ancient time, which provides guidance to writing a treaty, specifically between a lord and a servant.
Here's the format and structure of the Suzerain-Vassal Treaty:
Interestingly, we could find these exact same four elements in the book of Deuteronomy:
The book of Deuteronomy ends the five Pentateuch books, and it also acts as a precursor of a new way of writing, such as the Deuteronomy school and the book of Joshua. Here are some more examples:
Therefore, we must view history and read the Historical books (Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, etc) in light of the retribution theology.
THE TWO VOICES OF THE RETRIBUTION THEOLOGY
The question arises is, "why do these books emphasize so much on retribution theology?"
We are not merely comparing the Old Testament with the New Testament. We are not implying at all that deeds are all that matter in the Old Testament and grace is all the matter in the New Testament.
In fact, there are many occurances when the Old Testament seems to be against Deuteronomic and retribution theologies. For instance, the books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Psalms 73. It's as if we spot two clashing theologies in the same Bible!
Today, we will focus our discussion specifically to the books of Kings and Chronicles.
Why was the book of Deuteronomy very uplifted and glorified, that more than two-hundred references of Deuteronomy were made in the New Testament?
Moreover, out of all Old Testament references Jesus made, He referred to the book of Deuteronomy the most. Yet it seems that Jesus was questioning the retribution theology several times Himself. When He was asked whether a blind man was blind because of his own sins or his parents' sins, His answer was, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him" (John 9:3). It seems here that Jesus erased the category of retribution. Jesus has also said, "for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45), which the Reformed Theology is referred to as common grace. It might be easy on the ears for us reading this passage today, but for the Israelites at that time who held onto the retribution theology so dearly, Jesus' saying was difficult for them to accept. Even today, retribution theology is our default mode when we come before the LORD's presence, especially if you are a conservative. Similarly, even if you are a good citizen in your country, you would feel a little fear when a cop passes by. And whether it is within our awareness or not, we like to think that it is dangerous to not attend a church service, because we believe God would punish us. Let alone the Israelites who held onto the retribution theology so dearly. They were in shock when they heard Jesus spoke of the common grace theology.
There might be those who consider themselves fugitives, and upon knowing of the common grace, they would find relief. On the other hand, the Pharisees and scribes might think, "if this Jesus proclaimed that retribution theology is invalid, what then is my point in living an obedient life?"
On that account, we could find two different voices in the Bible in dialogue, instead of one singular voice. Imagine watching a play with two characters with two different voices speaking to each other in a dialogue. If we want to get the full picture of the play, we must not listen to only one voice, but to both. Alike, if we want to read the Bible as a whole, we must listen to both voices.
The books of Kings are very affected by the Deuteronomic Theology.
The books of Chronicles, on the other hand, seem to be not affected by the Deuteronomic Theology.
We often think that the books of Chronicles are tedious because it it full of repetitions. Whereas, it speaks with a different voice than the books it precedes.
We will first discuss the books of Kings.
THE BOOKS OF KINGS
2 Kings 21 tells the story of King Manasseh, a king evil in the sight of the LORD. In fact, he was the worst and most corrupt king of the Southern kingdom of Judah, reigning for 55 years, making him Judah's longest reigning king. He was also the first king who did not befriend any king from the Northern kingdom of Israel.
A piece of brief historical information: the Northern and Southern kingdoms split during the reign of King Hezekiah, Manasseh's father. Yet, unfeared by this event, Manasseh continued to blaspheme the LORD.
2 Kings 21 lists down all Manasseh's disobedience, which shows how severely he has disobeyed the Deuteronomic law. He also performed child-sacrifice and consulted mediums. As a result, God proclaimed to bring Jerusalem and Judah to destruction as He did to the Northern kingdom when Israel was exiled in Assyria (2 Kings 21:11-15).
We later know that God's words came true when the Southern kingdom fell into the hands of Babylon, although it happened long after Manasseh's death.
Now we see Manasseh's descendant, King Josiah (2 Kings 23:4-24). Josiah was the best king of Judah, "before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him" (2 Kings 23:25).
His success in reigning Judah was as a result of his obedience (retribution theology).
However, in verse 26, God said that Josiah's righteousness as mentioned in verse 25, still could not surpass Manasseh's evil, that He would not revoke his curse towards the Southern kingdom, even long after Manasseh's death. "Still the Lord did not turn from the burning of His great wrath, by which His anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked Him" (2 Kings 23:26). God still "could not move on" from His anger towards Manasseh for two generations. What caused God's prolonged great wrath towards Manasseh, even long after Manasseh's death? Wouldn't it be the same as saying, "Martin Luther, John Calvin and Zwing Li rose, but God still remembers Pope's sins and because of this reason, churches will still collapse!"?
Now let's slightly change gear to how the same story is delivered in the books of Chronicles.
THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES
2 Chronicles 33 tells the parallel story of King Manasseh. Initially, like the books of Kings, it lists down Manasseh's iniquities and sins. But something unique comes in in verse 11: "Therefore the Lord brought upon them the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria, who captured Manasseh with hooks and bound him with chains of bronze and brought him to Babylon". Then the story ended with Manasseh's repentance in verses 12 and 13, and how God retrieved his throne back. This part of the story is not written in Deuteronomy. The story according to the author of Deuteronomy is that Manasseh died in his sins, never repented, and never damned by God.
This part of the story as written on Chronicles is also faulty in its timeline.
Manasseh reigned in 720 BC, that is during the Assyrian Empire when the Northern kingdom was exiled to Assyria.
Following the end of the Assyrian Empire, arose the Babylonian Empire. In around 597, 587, 582 BC.
As a reference, Daniel was brought to Babylon in either 597 or 587 BC, which was the first wave of the exile to Babylon (only the elites were brought into Babylon. The remnants of Judah were not brought into Babylonia until 582 BC when Jerusalem and Judah were destroyed).
Knowing this historical timeline, it does not make sense for verse 11 to state that Manasseh was captured by the Assyrians and brought into Babylon.
Besides, why did the Assyrians capture only the king of Judah and left the city untouched? And even weirder, it is written in verses 12 and 13 that Manasseh lowered himself, gained his throne back and performed Josiah-like reformation! These historical errors are often brought up by the skeptics to question the Bible.
Furthermore, verse 17 mentions that the people of Judah were the ones who refuse to be obedient to God, and because of this, Judah was still damned at the end of the story.
THE BOOKS OF KINGS VS. THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES
We have read that the books of Kings were full of the retribution theology, while the books of Chronicles seem to be against it.
When reading the Bible, we must not raise the question of whether it is historically correct or not, but why the authors decided to write this way. Historians say that it is important for us to know when the books were written to see the bigger picture because those books were not directly dictated by God to men. In our case, the books of Chronicles were written in a different era than the books of Kings.
The books of Kings, Judges, etc are not history books, but judgment books. All of them were written and edited several times by several people to judge according to that specific era. These books were written around the time when they were in exile. And the most theological question the first reader of the books of Kings could ask was, "why am I exiled? I thought Jerusalem and Judah would never be destroyed!" Their reaction was similar to BuzzLightyear's reaction in the movie Toy's Story when he realized that he is not a real space ranger, but is a mere toy. He simply could not believe it; he felt banished. The books of Kings, Judges, etc were written during this period of time. So the message the authors of these books wanted to deliver was retribution theology, that the readers should view their exile as a result of their rebellion, that their exile does not mean Yahweh's defeat against Babylonia, but theirs against sin.
However, the books of Chronicles were written after the deliverance from exile in 539 BC. According to carbon dating, the books of Chronicles were written in 400 BC (~100 years after they returned from exile). At this time, Jerusalem has been recovered, but not in perfection. This is the struggle minor prophets like Ezra and Nehemiah addressed: they could no longer hold on to the Davidic line to anticipate the Messiah; the line of the Messianic King was lost. This is because after they were freed from Babylon, they were under King Cyrus of the Persian Empire, which rose after the Babylonian ended. They were enslaved in Egypt, captured by Assyria, then Babylon, then Persia, then Greece, then Rome. It's a neverending story of exile and bondage. In this situation, they might think to themselves, "were our sins that severe that we could never be free?" This is the context in which the books of Chronicles were written. And so the first reader of Chronicles needed a different answer because they could easily say, "it is my ancestors' sins which damnation I am bearing today! I was just born yesterday in Babylon! What sin have I done to deserve this unending bondage?"
Therefore, Chronicles answered their question of whether they are still God's own.
The Babylonian exile was a big turning point for Israel, because ever since the exile, they no longer committed idolatry. So much so that they also rejected Jesus when He came.
Both in the books of Kings and Chronicles, Manasseh was a representation of Israel.
But in Chronicles, Manasseh has a different role. It is written on Chronicles that Manasseh was brought by Assyrians into Babylon, and the readers of Chronicles were just recently freed from Babylon.
The primary message the authors of Chronicles meant to deliver was that if they repent now, then God would restore their freedom and would bless them once again.
Therefore, the Bible is not a perfect historical record. The Bible's main concern is not to write in precision / accuracy, but to judge history. Each book of the Bible holds on to their own agenda. It would be stupid if we consider all the data written as "heaven-given" and "timeless" (in a precise sense). We must pay attention to the different conditions, eras, and readers to which these books were written for.
The Bible itself recontextualize the same story to fill the specific need of an era. Every book in the Bible (not only the books of Chronicles) has its own agenda. Even the books of Kings, but their agenda have not been known to us because we simply need to learn more.
But the important question is: are you alright learning this fact today? Would you be able to accept it?
Remember that the real question is not whether something is historically precise or not. We must fear seeking something that the Bible does not offer.
Once again, the question is: would you be brought closer to God by knowing what's precise and accurate?
A question was asked, "doesn't chronicles literally means national records? Shouldn't a national record be historically precise?"
Do you remember the famous battle story between Athena and Sparta? According to modern history textbooks, Athena always won the battle, simply because modern historians and the modern western culture hold on to democracy. While Sparta represents monarchy. They did not intentionally alter the story to support they believe, they simply concluded that Athena must have won the battle because Athena seems like a good role model.
Our (Indonesian) national record is the same. We are very much influenced by what we want to see and what we do not want to see. Can you really find any historians who write without any agenda?
TaNaKh (Hebrew: תנ״ך) is a Hebrew Bible, arranged not according to the Protestant's canonization, but according to its very acronym. TaNaKh stands for Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. These are the three classifications of the TaNaKh books.
Torah (teachings) consists of the Five Books of Moses or the Pentateuch.
Nevi'im (prophets) consists of the prophetic books, including the books of Kings.
Ketuvim (writings) consists of literature, proses, wisdom, history and other writings such as Psalms, Job, Daniel, and Chronicles. Chronicles being the last book of the Ketuvim. If we were to classify Chronicles today, we would place it under Nevi'im, along with the books of Kings, but it is classified under Ketuvim.
Then, why is our Bible arranged in the Protestant Bible, placing Chronicles relatively close with Kings? Because we want to focus on chronology, to deliver the readers to our main agenda that is Christ. We would like to show the readers that the whole history and prophecy point to Christ.
The books of Chronicles are classified under Ketuvim in TaNaKh, alongside Psalms and Proverbs, because the Jews know that the Chronicles holds another message, for another agenda, that they are not mere history books.
As modern readers, we like to consider ourselves objective, yet we too unconsciously hold on to our own agendas. Like we have our own agendas, the first readers of Chronicles too had theirs.
TRUTH VS. PRECISION
John Frame introduced the concept of "truth" versus "precision". In the modern scientific paradigm, there is no distinction between "truth" and "precision". And Frame suggested otherwise. When asked how old you are, you would not say 40 years, 2 months, 3 days, 11 hours, 6 minutes, and so on, which is a very precise and truthful answer. But, by saying you are 40 years old, you would not be very precise, but you would still be truthful.
Another example would be having a book with 398 pages, and somebody tells you that there are around 400 pages. Both 398 and 400 pages are truthful answers. And psychologically speaking, we are more prone to read 398 as 300 than 400, which explains why $2.00 is often written as $1.99.
If we are being too precise by answering 398 pages, at times people would question your precision. Why then do we expect our Bible to be perfectly precise? The Bible is so truthful that it is not precise. In fact, a life too precise would not be livable, even scientists believe so. We all say stars twinkle, even scientists. But if you want to be precise, you have to replace the words twinkling stars with: the stars are pinpoints of lights in the sky and its light path is interfered by the atmosphere and undergoes diffraction.
Another example, we all say the sun sets and the sun rises, even scientists. But if you want to be precise, you have to replace the words with: the earth rotates towards the east on its axis and returns to the same point every 24 hours. In real life, we never speak like this.
Here's another example. We all know that women are known for not being precise and clear in their verbal communication. If we ask our wife if she is angry, she would yell, "NO, I'M NOT!" Now imagine if our wife is being so precise and unambiguous by answering, "yes, I am angry with you because you did so and so", there would be a missing feeling, or meaning.
This is what we call as inerrancy, the belief that the Bible is without error in a sense that it is contrary to fact. Truly, we may insist that the whole content of the Bible is truthful, but we can never insist that everything that is scientifically precise must be written on the Bible.
The Bible is truthful. Prove: the Israelites sinned and were exiled. But it is not precise, because God still considered them His own. If you only accept one aspect, then you have been knowing a narrow God.
Walter Brueggemann once suggested something which I do not agree entirely, because it is very prone to be misused. He suggested that if God could fit perfectly into our thoughts, then maybe He would not be able to save us because He works in a way that we don't understand and refuse to understand.
This is the spirituality in which we must live, but once again, I do not entirely agree with his statement because it is very prone to be misused.
There are two polars in terms of validity:
We previously mentioned how the book of Job was against the retribution theology, but at the end, Job's friends were avenged and damned too, weren't they? And Job's wealth was recovered too. The same with the ending of Psalms 73, "For behold, those who are far from You shall perish; You put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to You" (Psalms 73:27). These prove that the retribution theology should not be entirely neglected.
In conclusion, all these do not sacrifice truth. Yet, it is through unprecision that truth may be delivered better.
IMPLICATION
The theology of the Bible is very much shaped according to the context down below (earth). We too are the same. We claim that we know God, yet what we believe today is very much influenced by when we were born, where we were born, our cultures, etc. Now the dreadful misinterpretation that often arise is: "so we can all reinterpret the Bible according to our needs?! According to our discussion today, not only does the Bible change its theology, but also history! So does that mean I can claim that Christ did not die and did not resurrect?" This is a great mislead. First of all, there are many parts of the Bible, which we must insist precision in its historical record, for example the fact that Christ died andwas resurrected. We are not monolistic.
Second, all these should otherwise humble ourselves, because now we have learned that none could deliver truth without context. Knowing that what we hold on so surely today, would be wrong, should humble us greatly. The Bible is no exception.
We are often upset when there are words that we said taken out of context, but we have done the same by taking the Bible out of context.
Speaking of humility, as conservatives, we like to give labels to the charismatics and liberals. We have to attempt to listen to them for once, becuase sharing the gospel should be in a dialogue form. Our discussion today must create within us the reverence of theology, instead of a boastful heart.
A lecturer was invited to speak in a seminary even. Before his time to deliver his speech, the master of the ceremony read all his theses and titles, and he ended with, "...and he is a very humble man, let us give him a round of applause". Right before he came up the podium, he whispered to his students sitting behind him, "why did he say that last sentence, as if humility is a rare virtue found among Christians. Humility should be the virtue of all Christians!"
We think through learning the Reformed theology, we continue to fill our heads with knowledge, so we could further boast, whereas it is humility before the LORD that should be our true vision.
If you want to share our discussion today as a material for evangelism, we should not think of what we ought to say to the, but how we ought to say it. Once again, do not forget humility. Do not go out there as if you are the most correct once.
The Great Comission says, "go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19a). Reading this, we like to assume that we have already been made disciples, therefore Jesus sent us out to make other disciples. And with this false spirit, we wish to teach everyone. Whereas, our spirit of evangelization should be for us to share with them the gospel, so that one day we might hear and know more of the truth from them. Sure, they would have to listen to you when you share the gospel with them, but you also need their voices. You have to tell them, "I have to share this gospel with you right now, not because I know more than you do, but so that one day I too may hear it from you". Wouldn't it be beautiful if we all can share the good news with this spirit and purpose?
NOTES
This apologetic is quite recent, it was only discovered around 30 years ago. Therefore, we must continue to learn about the subject through reading books and commentaries. I hope through our discussion today, we are driven to learn more through reading, so that we are made aware of our limitations and be humbled by our lack of knowldge.
February 13th, 2019
By Vik. Jethro Rachmadi B.Mus., M.Th., GRII Kelapa Gading
Written by Alicia Angie Wiranata
This sermon note has not been revised by the preacher.Today, we will not be discussing only the theology of Deuteronomy, but also its role and effects on history.
INTRODUCTION
We have learned previously that one of the primary themes of Deuteronomic Theology is retribution theology (Indonesian: hukum tabur tuai (the law of sowing and harvesting)). If you are a good person, you will be blessed, if you are a bad person, you will be cursed.
In Deuteronomic Theology, there is a treaty-like format / writing system, which is very much resembles the Suzerain-Vassal Treaty (literally translates to Lord-Servant Treaty). This was a universal treaty format during the ancient time, which provides guidance to writing a treaty, specifically between a lord and a servant.
Here's the format and structure of the Suzerain-Vassal Treaty:
- Preamble:
The identification of both parties bound in the contract. - Prologue:
What the lord has done so far for the servant (the story so far). - Stipulations:
The laws and regulations ought to be fulfilled in order for this treaty to be valid. - Blessings / curses:
The rewards and punishments received by the servant from the lord when the stated laws are fulfilled or neglected.
Interestingly, we could find these exact same four elements in the book of Deuteronomy:
- Preamble: Deut 1:1-5
Yahweh spoke to Israel through Moses. - Prologue: Deut 1:1-11
The story so far and what Yahweh has done for Israel in the past. - Stipulations: Deut 1:12-26
The deeds to be done and not to be done. - Blessings / curses: Deut 1:27-34
The outcomes (blessings and curses) of their respective deeds.
These four elements are not found in any other Pentateuch books. Now that we have seen how treaty-like and retributional the book of Deuteronomy is, we will discuss its effects on history.
The book of Deuteronomy ends the five Pentateuch books, and it also acts as a precursor of a new way of writing, such as the Deuteronomy school and the book of Joshua. Here are some more examples:
- In the book of Joshua, Israel obeyed God and won battles, yet Achan disobeyed God by plundering forbidden objects and Israel lost the battle. This shows an obvious application of the retribution theology.
- In the book of Judges, Israel sinned and was damned, and they gained salvation when they repented.
- In the books 1-2 Samuel, there is too a contrast between Saul and David. Saul sinned and was damned, David was obedient and was blessed. Yet, when David disobeyed God, he too was damned.
- In the books 1-2 Kings, we see the same repeated pattern of "and he did what was evil / right in the sight of the LORD" and the blessings / curses which follow.
Patterns such as these are not present in the books prior to the book of Deuteronomy.
Therefore, we must view history and read the Historical books (Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, etc) in light of the retribution theology.
THE TWO VOICES OF THE RETRIBUTION THEOLOGY
The question arises is, "why do these books emphasize so much on retribution theology?"
We are not merely comparing the Old Testament with the New Testament. We are not implying at all that deeds are all that matter in the Old Testament and grace is all the matter in the New Testament.
In fact, there are many occurances when the Old Testament seems to be against Deuteronomic and retribution theologies. For instance, the books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Psalms 73. It's as if we spot two clashing theologies in the same Bible!
Today, we will focus our discussion specifically to the books of Kings and Chronicles.
Why was the book of Deuteronomy very uplifted and glorified, that more than two-hundred references of Deuteronomy were made in the New Testament?
Moreover, out of all Old Testament references Jesus made, He referred to the book of Deuteronomy the most. Yet it seems that Jesus was questioning the retribution theology several times Himself. When He was asked whether a blind man was blind because of his own sins or his parents' sins, His answer was, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him" (John 9:3). It seems here that Jesus erased the category of retribution. Jesus has also said, "for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45), which the Reformed Theology is referred to as common grace. It might be easy on the ears for us reading this passage today, but for the Israelites at that time who held onto the retribution theology so dearly, Jesus' saying was difficult for them to accept. Even today, retribution theology is our default mode when we come before the LORD's presence, especially if you are a conservative. Similarly, even if you are a good citizen in your country, you would feel a little fear when a cop passes by. And whether it is within our awareness or not, we like to think that it is dangerous to not attend a church service, because we believe God would punish us. Let alone the Israelites who held onto the retribution theology so dearly. They were in shock when they heard Jesus spoke of the common grace theology.
There might be those who consider themselves fugitives, and upon knowing of the common grace, they would find relief. On the other hand, the Pharisees and scribes might think, "if this Jesus proclaimed that retribution theology is invalid, what then is my point in living an obedient life?"
On that account, we could find two different voices in the Bible in dialogue, instead of one singular voice. Imagine watching a play with two characters with two different voices speaking to each other in a dialogue. If we want to get the full picture of the play, we must not listen to only one voice, but to both. Alike, if we want to read the Bible as a whole, we must listen to both voices.
The books of Kings are very affected by the Deuteronomic Theology.
The books of Chronicles, on the other hand, seem to be not affected by the Deuteronomic Theology.
We often think that the books of Chronicles are tedious because it it full of repetitions. Whereas, it speaks with a different voice than the books it precedes.
We will first discuss the books of Kings.
THE BOOKS OF KINGS
2 Kings 21 tells the story of King Manasseh, a king evil in the sight of the LORD. In fact, he was the worst and most corrupt king of the Southern kingdom of Judah, reigning for 55 years, making him Judah's longest reigning king. He was also the first king who did not befriend any king from the Northern kingdom of Israel.
A piece of brief historical information: the Northern and Southern kingdoms split during the reign of King Hezekiah, Manasseh's father. Yet, unfeared by this event, Manasseh continued to blaspheme the LORD.
2 Kings 21 lists down all Manasseh's disobedience, which shows how severely he has disobeyed the Deuteronomic law. He also performed child-sacrifice and consulted mediums. As a result, God proclaimed to bring Jerusalem and Judah to destruction as He did to the Northern kingdom when Israel was exiled in Assyria (2 Kings 21:11-15).
We later know that God's words came true when the Southern kingdom fell into the hands of Babylon, although it happened long after Manasseh's death.
Now we see Manasseh's descendant, King Josiah (2 Kings 23:4-24). Josiah was the best king of Judah, "before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him" (2 Kings 23:25).
His success in reigning Judah was as a result of his obedience (retribution theology).
However, in verse 26, God said that Josiah's righteousness as mentioned in verse 25, still could not surpass Manasseh's evil, that He would not revoke his curse towards the Southern kingdom, even long after Manasseh's death. "Still the Lord did not turn from the burning of His great wrath, by which His anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked Him" (2 Kings 23:26). God still "could not move on" from His anger towards Manasseh for two generations. What caused God's prolonged great wrath towards Manasseh, even long after Manasseh's death? Wouldn't it be the same as saying, "Martin Luther, John Calvin and Zwing Li rose, but God still remembers Pope's sins and because of this reason, churches will still collapse!"?
Now let's slightly change gear to how the same story is delivered in the books of Chronicles.
THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES
2 Chronicles 33 tells the parallel story of King Manasseh. Initially, like the books of Kings, it lists down Manasseh's iniquities and sins. But something unique comes in in verse 11: "Therefore the Lord brought upon them the commanders of the army of the king of Assyria, who captured Manasseh with hooks and bound him with chains of bronze and brought him to Babylon". Then the story ended with Manasseh's repentance in verses 12 and 13, and how God retrieved his throne back. This part of the story is not written in Deuteronomy. The story according to the author of Deuteronomy is that Manasseh died in his sins, never repented, and never damned by God.
This part of the story as written on Chronicles is also faulty in its timeline.
Manasseh reigned in 720 BC, that is during the Assyrian Empire when the Northern kingdom was exiled to Assyria.
Following the end of the Assyrian Empire, arose the Babylonian Empire. In around 597, 587, 582 BC.
As a reference, Daniel was brought to Babylon in either 597 or 587 BC, which was the first wave of the exile to Babylon (only the elites were brought into Babylon. The remnants of Judah were not brought into Babylonia until 582 BC when Jerusalem and Judah were destroyed).
Knowing this historical timeline, it does not make sense for verse 11 to state that Manasseh was captured by the Assyrians and brought into Babylon.
Besides, why did the Assyrians capture only the king of Judah and left the city untouched? And even weirder, it is written in verses 12 and 13 that Manasseh lowered himself, gained his throne back and performed Josiah-like reformation! These historical errors are often brought up by the skeptics to question the Bible.
Furthermore, verse 17 mentions that the people of Judah were the ones who refuse to be obedient to God, and because of this, Judah was still damned at the end of the story.
 |
| King Manasseh in Exile, by Maerten de Vos |
We have read that the books of Kings were full of the retribution theology, while the books of Chronicles seem to be against it.
When reading the Bible, we must not raise the question of whether it is historically correct or not, but why the authors decided to write this way. Historians say that it is important for us to know when the books were written to see the bigger picture because those books were not directly dictated by God to men. In our case, the books of Chronicles were written in a different era than the books of Kings.
The books of Kings, Judges, etc are not history books, but judgment books. All of them were written and edited several times by several people to judge according to that specific era. These books were written around the time when they were in exile. And the most theological question the first reader of the books of Kings could ask was, "why am I exiled? I thought Jerusalem and Judah would never be destroyed!" Their reaction was similar to BuzzLightyear's reaction in the movie Toy's Story when he realized that he is not a real space ranger, but is a mere toy. He simply could not believe it; he felt banished. The books of Kings, Judges, etc were written during this period of time. So the message the authors of these books wanted to deliver was retribution theology, that the readers should view their exile as a result of their rebellion, that their exile does not mean Yahweh's defeat against Babylonia, but theirs against sin.
However, the books of Chronicles were written after the deliverance from exile in 539 BC. According to carbon dating, the books of Chronicles were written in 400 BC (~100 years after they returned from exile). At this time, Jerusalem has been recovered, but not in perfection. This is the struggle minor prophets like Ezra and Nehemiah addressed: they could no longer hold on to the Davidic line to anticipate the Messiah; the line of the Messianic King was lost. This is because after they were freed from Babylon, they were under King Cyrus of the Persian Empire, which rose after the Babylonian ended. They were enslaved in Egypt, captured by Assyria, then Babylon, then Persia, then Greece, then Rome. It's a neverending story of exile and bondage. In this situation, they might think to themselves, "were our sins that severe that we could never be free?" This is the context in which the books of Chronicles were written. And so the first reader of Chronicles needed a different answer because they could easily say, "it is my ancestors' sins which damnation I am bearing today! I was just born yesterday in Babylon! What sin have I done to deserve this unending bondage?"
Therefore, Chronicles answered their question of whether they are still God's own.
The Babylonian exile was a big turning point for Israel, because ever since the exile, they no longer committed idolatry. So much so that they also rejected Jesus when He came.
Both in the books of Kings and Chronicles, Manasseh was a representation of Israel.
But in Chronicles, Manasseh has a different role. It is written on Chronicles that Manasseh was brought by Assyrians into Babylon, and the readers of Chronicles were just recently freed from Babylon.
The primary message the authors of Chronicles meant to deliver was that if they repent now, then God would restore their freedom and would bless them once again.
Therefore, the Bible is not a perfect historical record. The Bible's main concern is not to write in precision / accuracy, but to judge history. Each book of the Bible holds on to their own agenda. It would be stupid if we consider all the data written as "heaven-given" and "timeless" (in a precise sense). We must pay attention to the different conditions, eras, and readers to which these books were written for.
The Bible itself recontextualize the same story to fill the specific need of an era. Every book in the Bible (not only the books of Chronicles) has its own agenda. Even the books of Kings, but their agenda have not been known to us because we simply need to learn more.
But the important question is: are you alright learning this fact today? Would you be able to accept it?
Remember that the real question is not whether something is historically precise or not. We must fear seeking something that the Bible does not offer.
Once again, the question is: would you be brought closer to God by knowing what's precise and accurate?
A question was asked, "doesn't chronicles literally means national records? Shouldn't a national record be historically precise?"
Do you remember the famous battle story between Athena and Sparta? According to modern history textbooks, Athena always won the battle, simply because modern historians and the modern western culture hold on to democracy. While Sparta represents monarchy. They did not intentionally alter the story to support they believe, they simply concluded that Athena must have won the battle because Athena seems like a good role model.
Our (Indonesian) national record is the same. We are very much influenced by what we want to see and what we do not want to see. Can you really find any historians who write without any agenda?
TaNaKh (Hebrew: תנ״ך) is a Hebrew Bible, arranged not according to the Protestant's canonization, but according to its very acronym. TaNaKh stands for Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim. These are the three classifications of the TaNaKh books.
Torah (teachings) consists of the Five Books of Moses or the Pentateuch.
Nevi'im (prophets) consists of the prophetic books, including the books of Kings.
Ketuvim (writings) consists of literature, proses, wisdom, history and other writings such as Psalms, Job, Daniel, and Chronicles. Chronicles being the last book of the Ketuvim. If we were to classify Chronicles today, we would place it under Nevi'im, along with the books of Kings, but it is classified under Ketuvim.
Then, why is our Bible arranged in the Protestant Bible, placing Chronicles relatively close with Kings? Because we want to focus on chronology, to deliver the readers to our main agenda that is Christ. We would like to show the readers that the whole history and prophecy point to Christ.
The books of Chronicles are classified under Ketuvim in TaNaKh, alongside Psalms and Proverbs, because the Jews know that the Chronicles holds another message, for another agenda, that they are not mere history books.
As modern readers, we like to consider ourselves objective, yet we too unconsciously hold on to our own agendas. Like we have our own agendas, the first readers of Chronicles too had theirs.
TRUTH VS. PRECISION
John Frame introduced the concept of "truth" versus "precision". In the modern scientific paradigm, there is no distinction between "truth" and "precision". And Frame suggested otherwise. When asked how old you are, you would not say 40 years, 2 months, 3 days, 11 hours, 6 minutes, and so on, which is a very precise and truthful answer. But, by saying you are 40 years old, you would not be very precise, but you would still be truthful.
Another example would be having a book with 398 pages, and somebody tells you that there are around 400 pages. Both 398 and 400 pages are truthful answers. And psychologically speaking, we are more prone to read 398 as 300 than 400, which explains why $2.00 is often written as $1.99.
If we are being too precise by answering 398 pages, at times people would question your precision. Why then do we expect our Bible to be perfectly precise? The Bible is so truthful that it is not precise. In fact, a life too precise would not be livable, even scientists believe so. We all say stars twinkle, even scientists. But if you want to be precise, you have to replace the words twinkling stars with: the stars are pinpoints of lights in the sky and its light path is interfered by the atmosphere and undergoes diffraction.
Another example, we all say the sun sets and the sun rises, even scientists. But if you want to be precise, you have to replace the words with: the earth rotates towards the east on its axis and returns to the same point every 24 hours. In real life, we never speak like this.
Here's another example. We all know that women are known for not being precise and clear in their verbal communication. If we ask our wife if she is angry, she would yell, "NO, I'M NOT!" Now imagine if our wife is being so precise and unambiguous by answering, "yes, I am angry with you because you did so and so", there would be a missing feeling, or meaning.
This is what we call as inerrancy, the belief that the Bible is without error in a sense that it is contrary to fact. Truly, we may insist that the whole content of the Bible is truthful, but we can never insist that everything that is scientifically precise must be written on the Bible.
The Bible is truthful. Prove: the Israelites sinned and were exiled. But it is not precise, because God still considered them His own. If you only accept one aspect, then you have been knowing a narrow God.
Walter Brueggemann once suggested something which I do not agree entirely, because it is very prone to be misused. He suggested that if God could fit perfectly into our thoughts, then maybe He would not be able to save us because He works in a way that we don't understand and refuse to understand.
This is the spirituality in which we must live, but once again, I do not entirely agree with his statement because it is very prone to be misused.
There are two polars in terms of validity:
- The liberal:
"How could God exile His own people? This kind of a God is irrelevant to our age. What we want is a loving God". - The conservative (us):
"The Bible cannot be humiliated like this! We must find a way to prove that the Bible only has one unison voice from the beginning to the end."
The correct answer is neither. The Bibles is so careful and sensitive towards the context in which it is written. The voice of the Bible is never singular, but plural, precisely because its authors know their audience and context well.
I will share another illustration of parents and children. Parents discipline their children different. They could say, "I will beat you if you do that!", and the next minute, "don't worry about it, child, forget your doing". Does this mean the parents are stupid? No. We have to ask, "why did the parents say two very different things to the same child?" We would then figure out that the two sentences were spoken in different context. In the first context, the child did not know his mistake, and in the second, the child has understood his mistakes and repented.
In conclusion, all these do not sacrifice truth. Yet, it is through unprecision that truth may be delivered better.
IMPLICATION
The theology of the Bible is very much shaped according to the context down below (earth). We too are the same. We claim that we know God, yet what we believe today is very much influenced by when we were born, where we were born, our cultures, etc. Now the dreadful misinterpretation that often arise is: "so we can all reinterpret the Bible according to our needs?! According to our discussion today, not only does the Bible change its theology, but also history! So does that mean I can claim that Christ did not die and did not resurrect?" This is a great mislead. First of all, there are many parts of the Bible, which we must insist precision in its historical record, for example the fact that Christ died andwas resurrected. We are not monolistic.
Second, all these should otherwise humble ourselves, because now we have learned that none could deliver truth without context. Knowing that what we hold on so surely today, would be wrong, should humble us greatly. The Bible is no exception.
We are often upset when there are words that we said taken out of context, but we have done the same by taking the Bible out of context.
Speaking of humility, as conservatives, we like to give labels to the charismatics and liberals. We have to attempt to listen to them for once, becuase sharing the gospel should be in a dialogue form. Our discussion today must create within us the reverence of theology, instead of a boastful heart.
A lecturer was invited to speak in a seminary even. Before his time to deliver his speech, the master of the ceremony read all his theses and titles, and he ended with, "...and he is a very humble man, let us give him a round of applause". Right before he came up the podium, he whispered to his students sitting behind him, "why did he say that last sentence, as if humility is a rare virtue found among Christians. Humility should be the virtue of all Christians!"
We think through learning the Reformed theology, we continue to fill our heads with knowledge, so we could further boast, whereas it is humility before the LORD that should be our true vision.
If you want to share our discussion today as a material for evangelism, we should not think of what we ought to say to the, but how we ought to say it. Once again, do not forget humility. Do not go out there as if you are the most correct once.
The Great Comission says, "go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19a). Reading this, we like to assume that we have already been made disciples, therefore Jesus sent us out to make other disciples. And with this false spirit, we wish to teach everyone. Whereas, our spirit of evangelization should be for us to share with them the gospel, so that one day we might hear and know more of the truth from them. Sure, they would have to listen to you when you share the gospel with them, but you also need their voices. You have to tell them, "I have to share this gospel with you right now, not because I know more than you do, but so that one day I too may hear it from you". Wouldn't it be beautiful if we all can share the good news with this spirit and purpose?
NOTES
This apologetic is quite recent, it was only discovered around 30 years ago. Therefore, we must continue to learn about the subject through reading books and commentaries. I hope through our discussion today, we are driven to learn more through reading, so that we are made aware of our limitations and be humbled by our lack of knowldge.
February 13th, 2019
By Vik. Jethro Rachmadi B.Mus., M.Th., GRII Kelapa Gading
Written by Alicia Angie Wiranata
Alice
No comments:
Post a Comment