Judges isn’t a story about Israelites refusing a king. It is a story about attempts to exalt a man as king and the catastrophic results of those attempts.

From the blog of Mark Horne: Solomon Says.

The book of Judges is not a lesson in how Israel needed a king. It is the opposite.

I’m not saying that Judges rules out the possibility that a righteous king could have helped with some of Israel’s problems. Moses had allowed that the tribes of Israel might choose a king in the future, and gave them God’s rules for a king (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).

But Judges isn’t a story about Israelites refusing a king. It is a story about attempts to exalt a man as king and the catastrophic results of those attempts. From the story of Gideon onward, Judges is a history of rulers who began toying with dynastic ambitions. Then the book ends with two horrific stories. In those stories we meet the statement, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 19:25 ESV; see also 18:1; 19:1). But those stories are about degenerate Levites and come at the end of a history of God stopping his chosen judges from becoming kings.

By the way, after David and Solomon, I don’t see any evidence that Israel (divided into two kingdoms) was more righteous or civilized than the time of the judges. My sense of it is that there were more bad kings before (and leading to) the exile than there were bad judges before Saul. If I’m right, then the common reading of Judges requires more explanation to even make sense.

My understanding of a king is someone who holds a hereditary office. A king’s heir will be king if he outlives his father. At the time of Judges, Israel was ruled, above the level of local clans, by judges 1. who gained a reputation as faithful teachers and arbitrators, and 2. who assumed executive powers in times of national emergency.

The Framework of the Story of Judges

Looking at Judges as a unified book, it begins with two overviews: the first of the initial conquest and compromises with the Canaanites and the second explaining the cycle of judgment for idolatry (1:1-2:5 / 2:6-3:6). It ends, as I mentioned above, with two stories, one about an idolatrous Levite and then another about a Levite and the extermination of one of Israel’s own tribes (chapters 17 & 18 / 19-21). Interestingly, the first overview contains the tale of a marriage and the last story begins and ends with marriages as well.

Between those brackets, there is a history of Israel’s judges. For my purposes I will skip over Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, and Deborah & Barak and deal with Gideon.

Gideon the Turning Point

The role of Gideon in permanently altering the history and culture of Israel may be signified by him being the first judge raised up by a personal visitation by the Angel of the Lord (6:11). Gideon is a faithful judge who delivers Israel from the Midianites. In the glow of victory, however, he doesn’t stay completely on the right track.

Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, “Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson also, for you have saved us from the hand of Midian.” Gideon said to them, “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the LORD will rule over you.” And Gideon said to them, “Let me make a request of you: every one of you give me the earrings from his spoil.” (For they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.) And they answered, “We will willingly give them.” And they spread a cloak, and every man threw in it the earrings of his spoil. And the weight of the golden earrings that he requested was 1,700 shekels of gold, besides the crescent ornaments and the pendants and the purple garments worn by the kings of Midian, and besides the collars that were around the necks of their camels. And Gideon made an ephod of it and put it in his city, in Ophrah. And all Israel whored after it there, and it became a snare to Gideon and to his family. So Midian was subdued before the people of Israel, and they raised their heads no more. And the land had rest forty years in the days of Gideon.

Judges 8:22–28 ESV

Gideon, though he fought against false gods, established a shrine for idolatry in Israel. (I am sure it was treated as a way to worship the God of Israel, not the god of the Canaanites, but it was still a violation of God’s law. The only place for authorized worship was the Tabernacle.)

But the story shows another problem. Gideon had correctly refused to start a ruling dynasty: “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the LORD will rule over you.” But he was inconsistent. He had 70 sons. How? The text doesn’t make us speculate about marrying a female superhero: “Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring, for he had many wives” (Judges 8:30 ESV). Additionally, he married a concubine who stayed in her hometown, which Gideon ruled from afar. He named his son by her Abimelech, “My father is king.”

Gideon obviously was still holding on to dreams of regal status. And, in doing so, he was violating a rule given by Moses to all future kings: “And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:17 ESV). Gideon wasn’t just acting like a king, but like a pagan king. He set a precedent that led to the fall of Solomon.

Abimelech used his royal status to convince his people he would be preferable to rule by Gideon’s other sons. He then massacred all his brothers, with only one escaping. Gideon’s dynastic ambition led to murder and civil war.

Who Wants to Be King?

One surviving half-brother of Abimelech spoke publicly about him in a parable:

The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, “Reign over us.” But the olive tree said to them, “Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees?’ And the trees said to the fig tree, ‘You come and reign over us.” But the fig tree said to them, “Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees?” And the trees said to the vine, “You come and reign over us.” But the vine said to them, “Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?” Then all the trees said to the bramble, “You come and reign over us.” And the bramble said to the trees, “If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.”

Judges 9:8–15 ESV

In the context, this parable was aimed at Abimelech and those who thought they were wise to support him in his coup. It basically says that productive people are too busy producing to rule over other men. Unproductive people want the power and end up destroying the productive. His prediction came true and Abimelech destroyed many.

Is this the kind of story that you put in a book about how Israel needed a king?

The Dynastic Ambition

Despite the ruinous results of Gideon’s inconsistency, other judges followed his example by attempting dynasties. Nothing bad is said about the next judge, Tola, but then:

After him arose Jair the Gileadite, who judged Israel twenty-two years. And he had thirty sons who rode on thirty donkeys, and they had thirty cities, called Havvoth-jair to this day, which are in the land of Gilead. And Jair died and was buried in Kamon.

Judges 10:3–5 ESV

Later, a couple of other judges followed the same practice. Ibzan “had thirty sons, and thirty daughters he gave in marriage outside his clan, and thirty daughters he brought in from outside for his sons. And he judged Israel seven years” (Judges 12:9 ESV). And, after the judge Elon, Abdon “had forty sons and thirty grandsons, who rode on seventy donkeys, and he judged Israel eight years” (Judges 12:14 ESV).

In fact, the pattern of the story from Gideon to Abdon is organized around dynastic ambitions. It forms what is called a “chiasm.”

The Story of Jephthah

Jephthah is the tale of a marginalized outsider who ended up delivering his hometown and ruling over it. It is a wonderful story, rendered incomprehensible to us by the idea that he slaughtered his daughter as a human sacrifice (Judges 11.29-40). I am not going to argue it here, but I don’t think the word translated “burnt offering” (that doesn’t say burnt or offering in the Hebrew) refers to human sacrifice. Yes, if you have a certain kind of sacrifice on the altar, it is referred to by that word. But this is a different context.

Rather than think Jephthah was someone who would casually offer the murder of one of his household, we ought to be amazed that, unlike Gideon and others, he was not trying to be a king. He had one and only one daughter. He had refused to violate the rule made for kings.

But he still wanted to be king and he wanted God’s permission. So He promised God the first person who came out to meet him–which would mean he (or she) would become a servant to the Tabernacle. Obviously, he was hoping the person would be one of his servants. But that wasn’t what God wanted.

His daughter mourned her future without a husband and children, not her alleged impending death. She would become a Tabernacle servant and never be married. Jephthah’s line was at an end.

The Structure of Judges Hinges on Gideon’s Sin

Here is a chiasm I got from James B. Jordan:

For those who want more data, Jim Jordan’s commentary is unbeatable. Also, his chiastic analysis is found here. I relied on it and copied most of it, though I interpret Jephthah’s dynastic aspirations a bit more positively.

“No King in Israel”

As Judges says, God is supposed to be the king. The failure is pinned, to the extent that a single failure is responsible for national sin, on the perverse Levites. Levites were the tribe of pastors and teachers in Israel. When they failed, there ceased to be a king in Israel. The last two stories are meant to explain why Israel was without a king. The Levites were supposed to teach the people that God was their king.

It defies the entire message of the book to interpret Judges as claiming that Gideon of Jephthah or someone else was supposed to become a king.

So What about Your Kingdom?

In my book (Amazon, Kindle), I propose that Proverbs presupposes that we are all kings. Whatever Judges may teach us about society and law, it also has a message for each one of us. The autonomous quest for kingship led to civil war in Israel, and Solomon tells us that one finds real power in acknowledging God as king:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.
Be not wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.
It will be healing to your flesh
and refreshment to your bones.

Proverbs 3:5–8 ESV

By doing what Solomon says, you can become a unified ruler of yourself rather than one who is at war with himself because at war with God.

“Although the Bible has no corporeal legendary swords, it does have a kind of legendary swordsman.”

Redemption

by Jacob Gucker

The “legendary sword” theme in myth, legend, and literature is ancient and enduring. From King Arthur’s Excalibur to the Legend of Zelda’s “Master Sword,” powerful blades have slain dragons and orcs and banished all kinds of evil. Often the sword can only be wielded by a chosen hero who has shown himself worthy. Sometimes the sword, possessing a will of its own, chooses the wielder. Storied blades are close to the truth. Although the Bible has no corporeal legendary swords, it does have a kind of legendary swordsman.

Levi, the third son of Jacob and Leah got his name because “Levi” sounds like the Hebrew word for “attach.” Leah named him hoping that her husband would be attached to her, since she had always been in second place behind her younger sister. What she could not know then was that her Levi would play an important role in the redemption of the whole world. He would be called to “attach,” or join together heaven and earth. He would be called to join people to God and to one another by the words of his mouth, and he would be ordained to keep and guard the family of God by the sword of his hand. First, Levi would have to be redeemed.

In order to understand the fall, redemption, and glorification of Levi we have to go back to the creation of the world and the Garden of Eden. God created the cosmos by the word of His mouth, speaking and bringing into existence the heavens and the earth. He made the world to be a reflection of heaven and in the world He planted a sanctuary garden. Into the garden He installed the man and gave him a priestly vocation of keeping the garden for the sake of the world, forming his wife from his side to stand shoulder to shoulder in their task.

In making the plants and animals God simply spoke, but in making man, He summoned the heavenly council saying, “Let us make man in our image.” It takes a community with a singular purpose to say, “Let us make…” and it comes to pass. The perfect community is the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A good deal more went into the making of human beings than the rest of creation with God forming man of the dust of the ground and then breathing into him the breath of life, but man was still created via speech. It was, however, a particularly divine form of speech; God took council. This will be echoed in Genesis 11 when people, having been enlightened by knowledge, take council to build the tower of Babel.

Unlike the animals, God made mankind in His own image. As a result, man could speak with God and it was his duty to speak the words of God. When the serpent came into the garden with its forked tongue, it spoke for the evil one, derailing the liturgy of the first temple, and leading man and woman to worship the creature, rather than the creator. They had no weapons to wield against the serpent, but they did not need them; they had the word of God. When they failed to speak true in the face of temptation, they committed sacrilege, and God drove them out and kept them out by posting cherubim and a flaming sword at the gate to guard the way back to the tree of life.

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

The “primordial history” portion of Genesis ends in chapter 11 with the tower of Babel. Much happens in the intervening passages, including the total destruction and recreation of the world by a flood. In the new world, man grows in his wisdom and knowledge for good and ill. He establishes towns and he makes tools. He makes wine and musical instruments and develops animal husbandry. By chapter 11 he has become more like God and he attempts to do what the Godhead had accomplished in the creation by building a false version of the community that the original garden was meant to become, a city. At this point it is important to remind readers that the Bible ends with a city coming down from heaven. Here, humanity tries to get on the fast track to the end by building a city that reaches to heaven. Like God, man takes council saying,

“Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”

The Godhead echoes this language saying:

And the LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

This passage is parallel to the creation story at the beginning. The humans are speaking in the cohortative mood, taking council and creating their own temple with the intention of making a name for themselves and to prevent themselves from being dispersed. The Godhead comes down to inspect their city and to see the tower that their speech has wrought. He confuses their language, the very thing that distinguishes them as united, enlightened human beings. They were operating like the godhead, speaking together and creating together. One might even say that they are “whistling while they work” for the language of this passage is filled with word plays that give it all a musical quality. It is as if the people are singing antiphonally to one another the liturgy of the human temple. Their tower is pathetic, though. They think it is high, but God still must condescend from heaven to earth to see it.

In the garden, Adam allowed the serpent to derail the liturgy of God’s temple, and now God is derailing the liturgy in their temple! God intends to build His own city, but it would not be complete for thousands of years. He begins His long work in the next chapter with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve tribes of Israel. Israel fathers Levi, and Levi gets himself into similar trouble with similar consequences as the people at the Tower of Babel.

Atrocity in Israel

When Israel was a sojourner in the land of Canaan, he bought a piece of land on which to place his tent (Genesis 34) and dwelt there. When the prince of the land noticed Israel’s daughter, Dinah, he took her and slept with her, defiling and humiliating her. Drawn to her, he insisted that she be his wife. Jacob did not want to cause trouble in the land, but his sons were reasonably incensed against Hamor and his lusty son, Shehem. Therefore, they deceived them and said, “If you become a part of us by being circumcised, we will give you our sister in marriage.”

The men of the city were circumcised and while they were all healing up, Levi and Simeon sacked them and killed them all, taking their wives and little ones for themselves. Israel was put out with them. Their underhanded deception and murder of a whole city was not justified, even in light of what Shechem did to their sister. Israel remembered their deeds and before he died, speaking about each son in turn, spoke words over their lives. He judged each son according to the quality of his life. Of Simeon and Levi he said:

“Simeon and Levi are brothers;
weapons of violence are their swords.
Let my soul come not into their council;
O my glory, be not joined to their company.
For in their anger they killed men,
and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen.
Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce,
and their wrath, for it is cruel!
I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel.”
(Genesis 49:5-7)

Simeon and Levi’s actions stand in stark contrast with the calling of God for Abraham and the nation of Israel. They deceived the people of Shechem by inviting them into their covenant community and used the sign of the covenant as an opportunity to slaughter them all. They built a false community, founded upon deceitful language, and destroyed it. The text of Genesis 49 does not say it, but it seems that Jacob’s words are the words of God over the twelve tribes. In fact, it is from this passage that we get strong foreshadowing of David and Jesus:

“The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
until tribute comes to him;
and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.”

The result of Israel’s speech is that Simeon and Levi would be scattered throughout Israel. Simeon would be distributed within Judah alone and Simeon looks like little more than a tag-a-long with Judah in the conquest of their territories (Judges 1). Levi, on the other hand, had no inheritance in Israel. Levi would be scattered throughout the tribes. From this we can see that their evil council to build a false community has practically the same effect as that of the people of Babel. There’s no mention here of confused tongues, but the Levites will have an interesting relationship with speech from here on out. Furthermore, all of the elements in this prophecy will come up again and again. Levi will continue to be a community builder and guardian, a wielder of speech and swords and even a slayer of beasts and men. He keeps this vocation to this day, but only because of repentance and faithfulness and redemption.

Redemption

People love to flatten it down into simple transactions, believing that redemption is about “getting saved.” One believes that the transaction of Jesus dying on the cross saves him from his sin, and he is saved. The historical events and cultural background of Jesus matter little, and the process of redemption for individuals is likewise reduced to instant pudding. Want pudding? Just add water! The redemption of Levi is no simple transaction, but a thing worked out in space and time. Obviously, Levi is a tribe, and not an individual man throughout most of the Bible, and we’re not just talking about the redemption of the one man, but of the whole tribe, and ultimately, the whole nation of Israel.

Nevertheless, there was something about Levi’s faithfulness to his sister, Dinah. It was zealous, though misguided faithfulness to the covenant, and God would redeem it for good. However, it would come through acts of faithfulness and despite acts of sin and rebellion. God would also redeem his mouth and his sword.

The birth order of Israel’s sons roughly prefigures the history of the Old Testament and New Testament eras with three sons being key. Levi, Judah, and Joseph are Priests, Kings, and Prophets, respectively. This cycle can be seen at several levels, but suffice it to say that Israel’s leaders were priests in the era of the Mosaic Tabernacle, then Kings (David, Solomon, etc.) and then prophets (Isaiah, Daniel). The cycle repeats in John the Baptizer who was a Levite, and Jesus who is Son of David and reigning King, and the Church which consists of Spirit-led speakers who prophesy in Christ to the nations. Jesus is the consummate priest, king, and prophet.

The book of Genesis ends the story of the sons themselves and Exodus begins the story of the tribes which bear their names. The story of the nation of Israel begins with a Levite man and woman giving birth to a son, Moses. Named for the fact that he was drawn alive from the water of the Nile while other Hebrew boys were being drowned, he would lead Israel up from Egypt and through the waters of the Red Sea, to be drawn alive from the waters while Pharaoh’s armies drowned. Like Moses when he was a baby, they didn’t even get that wet! Now, consider that the New Testament begins with Levite Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth giving birth to a son who leads people through the waters of baptism in the Jordan river, and you are seeing the aforementioned priest, king, and prophet pattern. Furthermore, it is the priests and Levites who are sent to inquire as to the nature of John’s baptism and message.

It is in Exodus that we begin to see Levi’s explicit relationship with speech and the sword. God commanded Moses to speak for Him to Pharaoh, but Moses complains about his “uncircumcised lip.” Aaron would be his mouthpiece:

“Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak.” But he said, “Oh, my Lord, please send someone else.” Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses and he said, “Is there not Aaron, your brother, the Levite? I know that he can speak well.” (Exodus 4:12-14)

God explicitly refers to Aaron as “your brother, the Levite” and the fact that he can speak well. This is ironic because Moses is a Levite as well, but it is Aaron who will be the father of the Levitical priesthood. The calling of Levi is already in the works, but again, redemption is worked out in space and time and another event will bring Levi into his redemption.

At mount Sinai, after the people commit idolatry by forming the golden calf and feasting in its presence, Moses bids that anyone who is on Yahweh’s side take up his sword:

And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to the derision of their enemies), then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, “Who is on the LORD’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. And he said to them, “Thus says the LORD God of Israel, ‘Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor.’” And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And that day about three thousand men of the people fell. And Moses said, “Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, so that he might bestow a blessing upon you this day.” (Exodus 32:26-29)

This episode is the immediate cause of Levi’s redemption. With the Spirit of God hovering over Sinai, the Word thundered from the heart of heaven that swift justice consume the transgressors, and Levi became a proper guardian of God’s holy temple. In their idolatrous revelry the people had broken through the barriers which had been set about the mountain sanctuary. Any sharp weapon is an extension of the mouth, and the sword is a fitting punishment for those who refuse to listen. All people are destined to be cut; they will either have their hearts circumcised by the word, or they will be cut off from the earth by the sword. Just as Adam and Eve followed the word of the serpent to feast from the forbidden tree, and so were cut off from the tree of life by Cherubim with flaming sword, so did Levi and his flashing sword become a guardian angel of God on that day, cutting off many of those who feasted with the golden calf, about 3000 souls.

Zeal for the covenant name is zeal for the covenant community. Loving Yahweh is loving people. Loving God is loving one’s sister and brother and companion. Love, food, and fellowship are on one side of the sword, and dereliction, starvation, and death are on the other. The same is true of the Word of God. The sword is the word extended to those who will not hear and the word is the sword given to those who will. Levi earned his priesthood by being a defender of the covenant. This moment in the tribe of Levi was a moment of redemption and victory. His sword went from being a weapon of murder to an implement of covenant guardianship. The tribe’s motives were similar when it was Levi the man taking revenge for his sister’s honor, but now, rather than building a false community, he was protecting the true covenant community.

The prophecy concerning his scattering does come to pass, but in a redemptive way. The tribe of Levi will be dispersed throughout the whole land and he will have no inheritance, but Yahweh Himself will be his inheritance! Levi will serve God in the Tabernacle and the Temple and he will be distributed throughout Israel to keep and serve in the whole nation. He will speak the words of the various liturgies in worship and he will wield a knife in the priestly duties of sacrifice and circumcision. He will continue to “slay men” and “hamstring oxen,” (Genesis 49) but now he will help men offer sacrifices representing themselves to God. Levi will help men to die to themselves and be attached to God, whether they were born in Israel, or whether they are grafted in to the nation’s tree.

Levi is not only proficient in the use of swords, however. All sharp edged or piercing weapons are extensions of human speech in the Bible. When Israel united itself to the Baal of Peor and a son of Simeon took a Midianite princess into his family, Phinehas the Levite showed his zeal for the covenant community with his spear:

When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the congregation and took a spear in his hand and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly. Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped. (Numbers 25:7-8)

This act earned Phinehas a special covenant of “perpetual priesthood.” According to Psalm 106, Phinehas’ actions are “counted to him as righteousness.” This echoes the language of Genesis when Abraham believes God, and it is credited to him as righteousness. Phinehas is not only believing in his heart but confessing with his spear that Yahweh Sabaoth is Lord!

The redemption of Levi has twists and turns, just as with the rest of Israel. We now turn to several major examples of the chaos that ensues when Levites do not keep covenant with Yahweh.

A Tale of Two Levites: Judges 17-21

These chapters at the end of Judges show the corruption and chaos that results when everyone in Israel does “what is right in his own eyes.” Chapters 17-18 are a story about a Levite from Bethlehem who travels to Ephraim, and it forms an interlocking literary unit with chapters 19-21, which feature a Levite from Ephraim who travels to Bethlehem.

The Levite from Bethlehem

The first story is about a certain Micah of Ephraim, a man who stole money from his own mother and returned it. She forgave him and used some of the money to create graven images. He takes a Levite from Bethlehem into his house and installs him as his own personal priest to Yahweh and a host of other household gods, as though the God of Israel was but one among many. He sets up a shrine with idols and a linen ephod. It’s a sweet deal for a lawless Levite from the “house of bread” who is now a servant in a house full of false gods. Despite the idols, Micah thinks that having his own Levite priest to Yahweh is bound make him prosperous.

Along come members of the tribe of Dan, looking for a portion of the land to call their own. They tell the Levite to ask God if their venture will succeed and he tells them that it will go well for them. They go on to find the people of Laish, a quiet and unsuspecting people prospering in a good area. They decide to raid the town and take it for themselves, but not before they go back to snatch up the Levite and the idols. Coming upon Micah’s house with 600 men, they plan to take everything, even the women and children, leaving Micah with nothing. They come to the gate of Micah’s house and the Levite asks them what they are doing.

And they said to him, “Keep quiet; put your hand on your mouth and come with us and be to us a father and a priest. Is it better for you to be priest to the house of one man, or to be priest to a tribe and clan in Israel?”

The faithless Levite folds like a house of cards and leaves Micah with nothing. No Levite should be guarding a house full of idols, but this one did for as long as it was profitable. When the time came for him to guard the gate of his master’s house, he put his hand over his mouth. The Danites go on to attack the peaceful people of Laish, killing them with the sword and burning their city. They rebuild the city for themselves and dwell there with a line of priests to call their own. There was no King in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

The Levite from Ephraim

The companion story of the Levite from Ephraim is one of the Bible’s most unsettling accounts. The story is about a Levite whose concubine leaves him to go back to her father’s house in Bethlehem. He goes to speak kindly to her, hoping she will return. Arriving at Bethlehem, he abides with her father for almost a week. The text repeatedly highlights her father’s hospitality and their eating and drinking each day. Her father urges him to stay longer, but he takes his concubine and leaves. Unwilling to lodge at Jebus, the city that would one day be Jerusalem, the very house of Yahweh and the city of the King, the Levite instead turns in at Gibeah.

The language of what follows is conspicuously like that of the account of Lot and the angels in Sodom from Genesis 19. A seemingly hospitable Ephraimite meets him in the square and urges him not to spend the night there, but to come in and commune with him. The wicked men of Gibeah try to beat down the door like Sodomites that they might sexually assault the Levite. The owner of the house bids that they take his virgin daughter together with the concubine and have their way with them. They refuse to listen and the owner of the house thrusts the concubine without and shuts the door. After they ravage her all night, she staggers toward the door where her adonai was abiding in safety. She collapses on the threshold of the door as the morning light dawns and she dies. Up to this point the narrator has referred to her as a concubine or youthful girl, but for the first time in the passage, the narrator calls her “Isha,” woman, wife.

The text refers to the Levite as “Ish” just once in the beginning of the passage, and he received the hospitality of her father, but he does nothing to show that he is her husband and she is his wife. The Levite did nothing to spare her, but allowed himself to be closed up inside the house, safe and sound. Whereas the Levite in the previous story stood aside while the Danites carried him off, the Levite in this story closes the door on his own flesh. He hauls her home on his donkey and then does an appalling thing:

And when he entered his house, he took a knife, and taking hold of his concubine he divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel. And all who saw it said, “Such a thing has never happened or been seen from the day that the people of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt until this day; consider it, take counsel, and speak.”

The Levite takes not sword, but knife to divide her. There are relatively few words translated “knife” in the Bible, and there are only four times that this particular word is used, and two of those occurrences are in Genesis 22 where Abraham nearly sacrificed his only son, Isaac:

Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.

The sheer irony of this Levite using a sacrificial knife to cut up his poor concubine should not be missed. He is not attached to her, but tosses her aside so flippantly that she is ravaged to death right outside the door where he was safe until morning. Then, he cuts her up like an animal sacrifice and sends a piece of her to each tribe in Israel so that the whole covenant nation would know what the sons of Benjamin at Gibeah did. The narrator urges the reader to consider, take counsel, and speak to the matter.

This introduces the next part of the story in which we see the covenant community being ripped apart, rather than drawn together. The troubled nation of Israel comes together to take counsel and speak as to what to do about the tribe of Benjamin and it leads to war against one of the tribes. The Levite switches places with the whole nation. He tells the nation which has “assembled as one man” to “give your advice and counsel here.” Then, “as one man,” the nation takes action and goes up against Benjamin to “burn out” the transgressors. They take a tithe of the people, ten of a hundred, a hundred of a thousand, a thousand of ten thousand to go against Benjamin, Judah first. Truly, the whole world has turned upside down!

Throughout the Bible Israel and the church are the bride of God and priests and pastors are liturgical husbands who represent God to the people. They represent Christ to the church. Priests, Levites, and pastors are meant to “speak kindly to her,” to offer her forgiveness in times of unfaithfulness. But this Levite does not lay down his life for his unfaithful bride. He leaves her to die by the door. “Ephraim” means “fruitful,” but this Levite from Ephraim and his wife are not fruitful. The closed door where she dies symbolizes the closing of her womb. It symbolizes the fact that the nation of Israel is bearing no fruit, and if the nation does not bear fruit in the form of faithful children, there can never be a Messiah to save her. Levi was supposed to be distributed to Israel to serve in every place, but this Levite distributed his wife in twelve pieces to the twelve tribes. He used his sacrificial knife to divide the woman and she became a fire in every tribe that nearly burned the whole nation down. This is not the fire of Yahweh’s altar. This is strange fire! Moreover, the whole ordeal leads to the desolation of Benjamin and a need for women to be wives to the men of Benjamin. There was no king in Israel, everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

A Future Reforging

In Malachi, the last book of the Old Testament, Yahweh takes up a case against the Levites and the men of Judah for their failure to worship from the heart and keep their speech pure.

“My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him. It was a covenant of fear, and he feared me. He stood in awe of my name. True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.”

“But you have turned aside from the way. You have caused many to stumble by your instruction. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the LORD of hosts.”

The covenant here refers to the one God made with the Levites through the covenant-guarding actions of Phinehas. It references the fact that Levites are teachers and preachers as well as those who offer sacrifices to God, and this was particularly true of the non-priest Levites who were scattered throughout Israel to be local pastors. God is cross with the Levitical priests in Malachi for several reasons, one of which is that Levi is supposed to speak the truth and guard knowledge with his lips. The Hebrew word for “guard” is often translated as “keep” and refers to keeping the garden, the tabernacle, the temple, and the covenant. The act of guarding the sanctuary of God implies the use of a sword. Again, the sword is an extension of the mouth and speech. The good news is that in Malachi 3, God promises that the “the Lord… will suddenly come to his temple,” and that “He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver….”

Conclusion to Part 1

This article has shown the role of speech in the creation of the world and the formation of covenant community. It has shown that Levi’s sin of using the sign of circumcision to create a false church in order to deceive and destroy the men of Shechem caused him to be scattered throughout Israel. God graciously redeemed this consequence by acknowledging Levi’s covenant faithfulness at Sinai with ordination; Levi would be distributed throughout the land to become a mediator between God and Israel. The third son of Jacob and Leah was ordained to be a sword-wielding guardian of the people and the temple of God. Born to a woman who hoped that his birth would attach her to her husband, Levi was redeemed to serve as a representative husband to Israel with sword in hand and truth in mouth to attach people to God and to one another. When the Levites failed to live up to their calling, chaos ensued in the covenant community.

Nevertheless, God will go on to refine and “purify the sons of Levi,” glorifying them to serve in the same capacity for the sake of the whole world. Part 2 of this article will set out the glorification of Levi in the New Testament.

Jacob Gucker is a librarian at BMA Theological Seminary in Jacksonville, Texas. He lives with his wife and baby daughter at Preacher’s End Farm where she raises vegetables and pastures chickens and he looks up from his books to help out.

“The guardian’s role is to prevent evil; the judge’s role is to deliver from evil, once it has been allowed in.”

An excerpt from James B. Jordan’s commentary on Judges (47-51) concerning the role of Israel’s Messiahs.

What were the judges? They were civil rulers and deliverers of Israel. God is concerned with all of human life and society. It is false to try to limit His interest only to the institutional Church, though as the sacramental body of Jesus Christ, the Church is the foremost earthly “institution.” The judges show us God delivering His people from His and their enemies, in particular in social and political situations. According to Scripture, the civil magistrate bears the sword of iron (as distinct from the Sword of the Scriptures) as a threat to evildoers. A magistrate is a minister of God, no less than a Church officer is, but the magistrate is a minister of God’s vengeance, while the elder is a minister of redemption. (See Romans 13.)

The judges were civil magistrates. Their normal work was to act as magistrates for Israel, settling disputes (Ex. 18:21 ff.). Their special work was to act as avengers for Israel, destroying the enemies of God. This is still the duty of the magistrate today: to settle disputes in court and to prosecute defensive warfare against aggressors. The book of Judges focuses in on the exceptional work of vengeance and deliverance, because this is what is important for the purpose of revealing and foreshadowing the redemptive work of Christ.

In Scripture there are two offices or official works to which a man may be called beyond his normal capacities as worker, husband, and father. These two offices are those associated with redemption and vengeance. Those called to these offices are ordained for the purpose. Ordination is by the Holy Spirit, as represented by oil. In the Old Testament, the Levites and the kings (the house of David) were ordained regularly by oil, as a rite installing them in their official duties. We do not find such ritual anointing in the case of the judges, however; rather, they were anointed directly by the Spirit.

This does not mean they were not elected officials. E. C. Wines has provided a good commentary on this point: “Four stages may be noted in the proceedings relating to Jephthah; – the preliminary discussion, the nomination, the presentation to the people, and the installation (Judges 10:17, 18 and 11:1-11). The enemy was encamped in Gilead. At this point, the people and their rulers, assembled in convention on the plain, said to one another, ‘Who shall be our chief, to lead us against the foe?’ This was the discussion, in which every citizen seems to have had the right to participate. In the exceedingly brief history of the affair, it is not expressly stated, but it is necessarily implied, that Jephthah, of Gilead, a man of distinguished military genius and reputation, was nominated by the voice of the assembly. But this able captain had been some years before driven out from his native city. It was necessary to soothe his irritated spirit. To this end the elders went in person to seek him, laid before him the urgent necessities of the state, softened his anger by promises of preferment, and brought him to Mizpeh. Here, manifestly, they made a formal presentation of him to the people, for it is added, ‘the people made him head and captain over them.’ That is, they completed the election by giving him their suffrages, recognizing him as their leader, and installing him in his office. Here, then, we have, 1. The free discussion of the people in a popular assembly concerning the selection of a leader; 2. The nomination of Jephthah by the meeting to be chief; 3. The elders’ presentation of him to the people for their suffrages; and 4. His inauguration as prince and leader of Israel. It is to the analysis of such incidental relations as this scattered here and there through the history, that, in default of a more exact account of the primitive order of things, we are compelled to resort, in our study of the Hebrew constitution, for much of the information, which it would be gratifying to find in a more detailed and systematic form.” ¹E. C. Wines, The Hebrew Republic (originally published as Commentary on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, vol. 2; reprint, Uxbridge, MA: American Presbyterian Press, n.d.), p. 110f.

Thus, the judges were not self-appointed men, but were leaders recognized by the people. This is obvious even if Wines’s analysis be not convincing in its every detail. There was a regular way to appoint judges, then, even if there was no anointing with oil involved. Wines enumerates the political characteristics of the judgeship system in Israel as follows:²Ibid., pp. 148ff.

1. “The Hebrew judges held their office for life.” This was true of Moses and of Joshua, and is presupposed throughout the book of Judges.
2. “The office was not hereditary. Moses took no steps to perpetuate this magistracy in his family, or to leave it as an hereditary honor to his posterity.” We may note that when Samuel tried to set his sons up as judges, it did not work out, and the people demanded a king.
3. “The chief magistracy of Israel was elective. The oracle, the high priest, and all the congregation, are distinctly recorded to have concurred in the elevation of Joshua to this office (Num. 27:18-23). Jephthah was chosen to the chief magistracy by the popular voice. Samuel was elected regent in a general assembly of Israel (1 Sam. 7:5-8 ).” There is nothing to indicate the contrary in the case of any other of the judges.
4. “The authority of these regents extended to affairs of war and peace.” These were their special and general works.
5. “A contumacious resistance of the lawful authority and orders of the Hebrew judges, was treason.” See Joshua 1:18 and Deuteronomy 17:12. This is important is evaluating Jephthah’s response to the rebellion of Ephraim in Judges 12.
6. “The authority of the Israelitish regents was not unlimited and despotic. It was tempered and restrained by the oracle. This is distinctly affirmed, in the history of the appointment of Joshua to the chief magistracy, as the successor of Moses (Num. 27:21). It is there said, that he should stand before Eleazar the priest, who should ask counsel for him, after the judgment of urim before the Lord.” In Christian lands, this means that the state should consult the Church in matters where the Church has competency.

“The power of the Hebrew chief magistrates was further limited by that of the senate and congregation.” They were not bound to consult with the body of elders on every point, but we see that “in important emergencies, they summoned a general assembly of the rulers, to ask their advice and consent. This we find to have been repeatedly done by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel.”

“Still another limitation to the authority of the Hebrew judges was in the law itself. Their power could not be stretched beyond its legal bounds.”

Wines sums it all up this way: “No salary was attached to the chief magistracy in the Hebrew government. No revenues were appropriated to the judges, except, perhaps, a larger share of the spoils taken in war, and the presents spontaneously made to them as testimonials of respect (Jud. 8:24; 1 Sam.9:7; 10:27). No tribute was raised for them. They had no outward badges of dignity. [This may be a bit extreme on Wines’s part, since there probably was some type of robe of office, but Wines is certainly right in what follows.] They did not wear the diadem. They were not surrounded by a crowd of satellites. They were not invested with the sovereign power. They could issue orders; but they could not enact laws. They had not the right of appointing officers, except perhaps in the army. They had no power to lay new burdens upon the people in the form of taxes. They were ministers of justice, protectors of law, defenders of religion, and avengers of crime; particularly the crime of idolatry. But their power was constitutional, not arbitrary. It was kept within due bounds by the barriers of law, the decisions of the oracle, and the advice and consent of the senate and commons of Israel. They were without show, without pomp, without retinue, without equipage; plain republican magistrates.” While Wines may go a bit too far in rejecting all outward symbols of office, since these were common and expected in this period of history, in the main he is clearly correct. As we shall see, the history of the period of Judges shows the regents of Israel gradually aggrandizing to themselves more and more of the trappings of power.

Kings and judges are shepherds. The central section of Judges, at which we have now arrived, is concerned with this. Priests, prophets, ministers, Levites – these are guardians. The two appendices of Judges deal with Levites, and their failure to guard Israel properly. The point of the appendices (Judges 17-21) is to show that the failure of these moral guardians was the basic underlying cause of all the moral problems discussed in the preceding chapters (Judges 3-16). Thus, the ultimate guardians of society are the officers of the Church. Theirs is the powerful, positive work of instruction and worship (Ex. 18:19-20), which must underlie the negative, vengeance work of the judge (Ex. 18:21ff.). The guardian’s role is to prevent evil; the judge’s role is to deliver from evil, once it has been allowed in.

In the Bible, everything is confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (James Jordan notes that this is the basis for Hebrew parallelism and also verbal pleonasm. See Symbolism – A Manifesto.) An example of a “dual” witness from God would include the two dreams given to Joseph, and the two dreams given to Pharaoh. We see each Covenant confirmed by two witnesses as well. The Mosaic Covenant was a double witness at three levels: the two tablets of the Law, the second set of tablets, then a second giving of the Law in Deuteronomy.

A sign was given to Gideon to prove that God would save Israel by Gideon’s hand. He requested a second sign, and rather than chiding him, the Lord acquiesced. The Lord Himself asks us to prove all things. That explains the double sign, but not the ingredients of the signs, the fleece and the threshing floor. Fortunately, the consistency of biblical symbolism and structure not only gives us the answer, it reveals the events as a type of the events which followed, and, typologically, also shines light on the process of the first century apostolic witness.

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

“I will open my mouth in a parable;
I will utter dark sayings from of old… “
Psalm 78:2

The account of Samson’s marriage and the subsequent collateral damage is one of those stories out of which teachers and preachers try in vain to wring a moral. After all, isn’t that what the Old Testament is for? Actually, no. It is a history of God’s Covenants, and every single text, whether historical narrative or prophetic vision, has a Covenant structure. Certainly, there are morals, but some stories resist such an obvious use (unless we are willing to cook the Book). These stories of God’s delegated authorities are intended to illustrate the work of God in the world.

Firstly, a structural overview, using the Covenant steps, the matrix terms and the sacrificial process:

One problem with modern conservative scholarship is its reluctance to deal with types that are not explicitly described in the text. This means that a lot of what is considered interpretation is merely application.

Aside from those types which are explicitly explained, the typological nature of Biblical history is rejected. Thus most of its “bandwidth” remains unheard. The result of this severe “downsampling” is that a lot of that application is off-the-mark because a clumsy search for a moral to the story has taken the place of the typological message. The principles drawn from the histories are not universals but abstracts, because we are looking for morals, not looking at men made in the image of God.

[This post has been refined and included in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.]

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

“…of the angels He says:
‘Who makes His angels spirits
and His ministers a flame of fire.’”

God is the source of all things, and He identifies Himself as such in His speeches. Every speech is Covenantal, and every preamble within His speeches is a statement of transcendence. “I am the Lord your God.”

After the initial call comes delegation, Covenantal Hierarchy. A man, a Moses, an Abraham, receives the Word with meekness.

We know that angels are God’s messengers, the sent ones. They administered the Old Covenant as our tutors, Satan becoming the first false teacher, the first corrupt ambassador, or, if you will, the first publican.

[This post has been refined and included in Sweet Counsel: Essays to Brighten the Eyes.]

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

I am Habakkuk the prophet. And this is the message that the LORD gave me. Our LORD, how long must I beg for your help before you listen? How long before you save us from all this violence? Why do you make me watch such terrible injustice? Why do you allow violence, lawlessness, crime, and cruelty to spread everywhere? Laws cannot be enforced; justice is always the loser; criminals crowd out honest people and twist the laws around.
Habakkuk 1:1-4

[Part 1 here.]

Perhaps there is more to this idea of “suing God” than a mere Puritan quote, especially when God Himself fails to keep His own rules, when God Himself appears to break Covenant.

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!

“…that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the Land, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” Matthew 23:35

“from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.” Luke 11:51

The Hebrew word for “land” is feminine. [1] The fruitful Bride is pictured in the fruitful field. Both are to be cultivated and cared for under God by Covenant.

When the priesthood was faithful, God promised to make the people, animals and Land fruitful: the Covenant “to,” the input of the Spirit as Head, as Covenant Word made flesh. Deuteronomy 28 gives a long list of ways in which God would make her abundant.

After harvest, the priests, like Adam, would bring the firstfruits to God, the evidence of Covenant faithfulness, and God’s “interest.” Adam’s death-to-self (as Noah) brings Eve’s willing subordination (the animals/nations). Abundance and easy plunder always picture the faithful Bride, humbling herself before God like Sarah, Manoah’s wife, Hannah, Elizabeth and Mary. This is the Covenant “fro,” the return of the Spirit as Body, the Covenant Word clothed in glory. Adam’s faithfulness reverses the curse upon Eve.

Continued obedience would bring domination, politically and economically. This chosen nation — as priest — would picture the relationship between the Father and the Son. An obedient priesthood would create an ever-expanding glory, a Bride gathered together by the Spirit.

Blood and Wine

Covenant is not perpetual motion, maintaining the status quo. It is even better than that. Obedience creates a door through which God miraculously pours new life into the world by His Spirit: spiritually (relationally) for sure, but also economically and politically. [2] The abundance we receive from the back and forth is a multiplication we cannot explain, a conception of new life on the threshing floor that bursts into the world from another realm, fearfully and wonderfully made. Sex is Covenant. Economics is Covenant. Commuting to and from work is Covenant. And God brings the increase.

Until, of course, we start acting like squatters (gods) instead of tenants (stewards by Covenant). The relationship between church and state becomes Jezebel and Ahab, Sapphira and Ananias — a conspiracy with the serpent to hijack the fruitful field and its abundance, resulting from an unwillingness to recognise God as the owner, the One who brings the increase. Such conspiracies always end in the shedding of innocent blood, and God almost always brings a famine. If there is scarcity, it is a spiritual problem. We panic and turn to other gods, as Israel did in the book of Judges (hence Jordan’s equation of Israel’s Baalism as a form of humanism) [3]. There is the shedding of innocent blood, and Ruth begins with a famine, a barren field and a barren woman (Naomi). It takes the obedience of a new Adam (Boaz) and the willing Covenant subordination of a new woman (Ruth as “field”) to renew the worship, the Land and the Promise. [4]

Throughout the Old Testament, Israel (the Bride) is inextricably linked to the Land by Covenant. Even when she was “vomited out” at the exile, it was under the sanctions of the Covenant. She was unfaithful to God (sacrilege in the Temple) and killed her own children (abominations the Land). God warned her, judged her under the Covenant conditions (divorce), and then He slew her. Blood for blood.

Innocent blood makes the Land unclean, and guilty blood makes it clean again. Instead of the wine of a bridal feast (the true vine), there is a Land soaked in blood (the curse of thorns). Lusts bring forth death.

Blood and Figleaves

Which brings us to Cain and Abel. Some important background first, so bear with me. What I want to say rests upon some observations by James Jordan concerning the events in Genesis 4.

Biblical chronology shows that Abel’s murder would have taken place almost 130 years after Adam’s sin. Jordan writes:

“After killing Abel, Cain went out and built a city, naming it after his firstborn, Enoch (Genesis 4:17). It seems odd that a man would build a city all by himself.

We can ‘get real’ about this situation if we pay attention to Genesis 5:3 and 4:25. These sentences tell us that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old, and that he was born after the death of Abel as a replacement for Abel. What we learn from this, thinking ‘really’ and concretely, is that Cain slew Abel about 128 years after the creation, when Cain was, say, 128 years old and Abel was, say, 126 years old.

Now, think about this. Adam and Eve had obviously had many sons and daughters by the time of this murder. Cain and Abel had each married one of those daughters, had had children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren—at least—of their own by the time of the murder.

Getting real, I suggest that Abel, as keeper of flocks and as secondborn, was the priestly worship leader under Adam, while Cain, as firstborn, was the kingly clan leader, the prince under Adam. God had killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve and had rejected their figleaf vegetable garments. Hence it was clearly known that one approaches God first and foremost through animal offerings, not through vegetable ones. Vegetables might be added, but on top of the animals (compare Leviticus 1 and 2). This means that in some sense Abel was worship leader.

Getting real, I suggest that annually ‘at the turn of the year,’ Adam and then Abel as his deacon led the entire human race in worship. This had been going on for 128 years. By this time there were thousands of human beings in attendance.

Then, one fateful year, Cain decided to bring his own vegetable offering separate from Abel. Some kind of revolutionary spirit is manifest here. Indeed, what we see here is the ‘state’ taking over the ‘church’ and the liturgy of the church, something that has happened loads of times in history. Cain was not content to be clan leader. He wanted to be ‘high priest’ as well.

In this event, Cain was rejected in front of thousands of people, in front of the entire human race. This was not some private disgrace, but a public humiliation. He was embarrassed in front of his own entire extended family. It is because this humiliation was so public and so intense that in his rage he slew Abel.

Then Cain went out and built a city. We can see now that he did not go alone. There were doubtless other men who had joined with Cain in his revolutionary act. There were doubtless sons and grandsons and others of his extended family who went with him. I’m not going to bother to try and do the math. I’ll just say that probably a thousand or more people went with Cain. That’s how he could build a city.” [5]

When Abel and Cain approached the Garden for Covenant renewal (at “the proto-Veil”), it was as representatives. As a national Day of Covering, we can assume there was to be a dual atonement, two offerings: head and body, as in Leviticus 1, the complete Covenant process. I do think it took more than one animal to cover both Adam and Eve. Perhaps this is also the case here: the first animal as head and the second as body. Abel’s offering was the to and Cain’s the fro. Abel’s approach (discovering of Adam) and offering (covering of Adam) was to build the house, open the Holy Place. Cain’s offering (discovering of Eve) was to fill it, to present, symbolically, the Bride (covering of Eve).

Abel made the first approach, obediently. Perhaps Cain did understand that the Bride was a “fruitful field,” and so offered such fruits. But like all the crucial Old Covenant brides she was a barren field. As Eve, she required a covering provided by innocent blood to make her fruitful again for the next cycle.

We can see how this was easily distorted in the time of the Judges, and how easily this is distorted today. Any scarcity under the “global economy” of the New Covenant is a spiritual problem. Prosperity is to come from God but we insist on manufacturing it. We cannot create miraculously except by obedience (however imperfect) to the Covenant. Our attempts are simply inflations, bubbles, phantom pregnancies. All our fiscal policies are a breaking of wind. [6]

This goes for Cain’s offering. It was the fruit of a rebellious heart, an unwillingness to submit to the revealed Word of God. Abel’s witness as priest was faithful, even after his martyrdom. There was no exploitation from the Adam. But there was an insubordinate Eve. Based on Israel’s prosperity and defiance later in history, we may surmise that the testimony of Cain’s offering was the “grace” of Bart Simpson:

“Dear God, we paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing.”

Exhibit Abel

As under humanism, communist and socialist, the state took the place of God as provider, and “Stalin” slew the clergy. Instead of there being evidence of Covenant faithfulness, the evidence against Cain was the wrong blood on the ground. Instead of an Atonement that would keep barrenness at bay, a field that was fruitful, there was the first killing field.

His philosophy was exposed for what is was — sterile as salt. Just as the fruitful Garden was barred to Adam, the fruitful Land was barred to Cain. He, too, should have been under the sword but God again showed mercy. God demonstrated to Cain that He was still the Provider. Cain again rejected God as Provider. He built a city away from God — a false “Bride.” As with the vegetables, it was again a counterfeit of the Covenant fro, a manufactured fruitfulness, a figtree covered with leaves but no fruit, like Adam. It was an empty room.

Peter Leithart writes:

Cain’s city is a city of wanderers, those who have been disconnected from the soil. Modern cities are proverbially full of rootless wanderers, but this is not only the modern city. The city as such is a city of wanderers, people cut off from the soil. The city is the city of fear. Cain is afraid that “whoever finds me will kill me,” and though the Lord assures Him of protection, he immediately goes and builds a city, walling himself in from the dangers outside, creating the sacred protective space of the city. [7]

Now, I hope you are still with me. Instead of the holy to and fro:

F A T H E R  > < S O N  +  B R I D E
and
F A T H E R  > B R I D E <  S O N

it was:

F A L S E   F A T H E R  |  A B E L  (sacrificed son)  <  C A I N  (false son)
and
F A L S E   F A T H E R  >  C I T Y   O F   C A I N  (false body)  <  C A I N   (false son)

This laid the foundation for the establishment of false worship, false Covenants and a world filled with violence and bloodshed. False worship, bereft of obedient faith, wants nothing of substitutes. This was the outcome in Genesis 6, and it was also the outcome in Judaea under the Herods.

F A T H E R  > <  S O N S  +  F A L S E   B R I D E S

F A L S E   F A T H E R  >  I N N O C E N T  B L O O D  <  F A L S E  S O N S

This, understandably, resulted in the end of the first Creation (in both cases, hence Jesus’ references to AD70 with flood motifs), and the cutting off of all flesh, a worldwide circumcision. In both cases, the Matrix expands to a new level, with substitute smoke (Noah’s obedient animals = Gentiles) and a worldwide substitute Laver (the flood = crystal city). The raven was the Covenant curse, most likely feeding on floating bodies, flying to and fro until the waters went down, and the Lord put away His sword (cf. Rev. 19).

Wait, He didn’t put it away, did He? He gave it to Noah/Christ, the first human judge, the man who built and filled a house with many mansions, an infinite room.

Next time: Filling the Infinite Room.

_____________________________________
[1] See What the Seraphim Really Said.
[2] Our modern problems — economic and environmental — are all spiritual ones. But Western Christians don’t see the world this way at all. We’ve swallowed a secular worldview hook, line and sinker. The future is sure going to be interesting as we mature in our understanding of the world as ours by Covenant.
[3] See Baal’s Stimulus Package.
[4] See Fairy Tale in a Field.
[5] James B. Jordan, Getting Real in Genesis, Biblical Horizons No. 203. Subscribe at www.biblicalhorizons.com
[6] See Building Cages Out of Freedom.
[7] Peter J. Leithart, City of Cain.

Infinite Room series links here.
INFROOM

Does the Bible really contain everything the man of God requires? The curve balls of history call the church to greater and greater wisdom, but the principles remain the same. What if one of the oddest books of the Old Testament contained crucial advice for modern western culture and the Christians attempting to deal with its tragi-comic apostasy?

James Jordan has the gift of identifying universal themes and principles in Scripture. Many times these initially sound far-fetched, but I have found he is always vindicated. The observations in the following excerpt from his Judges: God’s War Against Humanism concerning worship can be easily applied to every area of life, but most interestingly to the understanding of evolution as a mere philosophy, and more recently to our secular culture’s ungodly (and therefore failing) approach to economics.

Baalism: Ancient Humanism

We often distance our culture from that of the Canaanites, thinking that since modern man does not literally bow down to idols, he must be somewhat better off. Let the reader, however, consider whether he as a Christian ever literally bows down to his God. How many Protestant churches that have kneelers has the reader ever been in? Do Protestants show their respect for the King of kings by at least standing for prayer, or do they pray sitting down, a posture nowhere encountered in Scripture for prayer? If modern Christians have no more respect for their God than to address Him sitting down, why should we expect the modern Baalists to bow down to Nature? Ancient man bowed before his god, whether it was Nature (Baalism) or the Creator (YHWH). Modern man does not bow before his god, whether Nature (humanism) or the Creator (Christ).

Similarly, for ancient man, the heart of religious exercise was adoration, worship, prostration, sacrament (a fellowship meal with the god). This was true of Israel before the LORD, and of the Canaanites before Baal. And this is the Biblical view of worship: Preaching/proclamation is the Word from God, which leads to a response of adoration, prostration, sacrament. The modern Christian, however, sees the heart of worship as entertainment (from a choir and an entertaining preacher) or as philosophical meditation (from a scholarly preacher). The sermon, instead of leading into worship, has become itself the climax of worship. And, just as the modern Christian view of worship is not much more than studying doctrine, so the modem humanist worships his god in the same way. We don’t see humanists bowing down to their gods, but we do see them studying them, lecturing about them, writing books about them. And we don’t see Christians bowing down to the LORD either, but we do see them studying Him, preaching about Him, and writing books about Him.

Thus, there is indeed a big difference between ancient religions and modern ones. Ancient man primarily worshipped his gods, while modem man primarily studies his. This is true both of pagans and of conservative, orthodox Christians.

Once we understand this, however, we can see that the opposition between the Truth and the Lie is the same now as it was then. Ancient pagans worshipped Nature, while modem pagans philosophize about Nature. The belief is the same, however: the belief that Nature is self-creating. Similarly, ancient believers worshipped the Creator, while modern Christians tend mainly to philosophize about Him, but the belief is the same.

So, what was Baalism? In essence it was the ascription of power to Nature: The universe has within itself the force of life. The world as we know it is the result of the union of the ultimate male and female principles of the universe, which may be called Baal and Ashteroth (or Astartes). (A similar goddess is Asherah, mistranslated as “groves” in the King James Version. The difference between the two goddesses is technical, and both were expressions of the same religious principle.) Canaanite philosophers believed, of course, that these ultimate forces were impersonal, and that their union was not sexual; but the common people preferred to think of the matter mythically. The sun god copulated with the original mud of the world, and the animals and man resulted. How does such a myth differ from a more sophisticated expression of the same principle, such as can be found in any 20th century high school science textbook? Once, we are told, there was a vast primordial sea. Then one day, sparked by sunlight, an organic molecule appeared, which evolved to become our present world. A “male” principle, sunlight, inseminates a “female” principle, the primordial sea, and life is born.

__________________________________________________________

“Christian faith is a religion primarily of submission, not of stimulation. For the Christian to get himself all worked up (through “speaking in tongues” or some other means) avails absolutely nothing in the sight of God.”

__________________________________________________________

The Baal-Ashteroth religion understandably was intimately concerned with fertility. The Creator God of the Bible had promised fertility to Israel if they were faithful to Him (Dt. 7:13-14), but what He demanded was moral loyalty, including especially sexual chastity (monogamy). The religion of Baalism, however, advocated exactly the opposite method of getting fertility. Chaotic sexual orgies would stimulate Nature (Baal and Ashteroth), and fertility would be the result (human, animal, and crop fertility). The true religion of Israel said that fertility was obtained by submitting to the Creator, while Baalism said that fertility was obtained by stimulating Nature. Thus, in true religion, man is the servant/slave of God, in submission to Him; while in Baalism, man is the LORD of his god (Nature) who needs to be stimulated by him.

Nature religion is a religion of stimulation. Man has to stimulate Nature in order to get results. Like the Baal priests of the ancient world, he may engage in sexual orgies, or cut himself with knives (1 Kings 18:28), in order to arouse the sleeping god. This is also the philosophy of the modern world. Stimulating nature is not seen (as in Christian faith) simply as a form of technological dominion. It is also seen as a way of salvation, so that modern medical scientists believe they will solve the problem of disease by learning how to control nature, and modern philosophers believe that controlling nature will permit man to control evolution and advance humanity, while modern revolutionaries from Marx to Marcuse believe that simply stimulating society through the imposition of social chaos will automatically lead to a better world.

For the Christian, however, the problems of disease and social inequities are solved by submission to God and His law. Medicine is not wrong, but it can only help a little bit. Disease will not go away until God is pleased with humanity (Dt. 7:15). The same is true for other areas. Thus, Christian faith is a religion primarily of submission, not of stimulation. For the Christian to get himself all worked up (through “speaking in tongues” or some other means) avails absolutely nothing in the sight of God.

Thus, the heart of ancient Baalism was secular humanism. Secular humanism says that the universe is self -creating, so that Nature is ultimate (this being the “secular” aspect). Secular humanism also teaches that man is the LORD of Nature, and that man must rule over (stimulate) Nature (this being the “humanism” aspect). There used to be such a thing as “Christian humanism,” which taught that man was LORD of nature, but only in submission to God. This is the true doctrine, although the term “humanism” has come to be offensive to Christians, so we no longer speak of “Christian humanism.”

So, for the ancient Baalist to bow before his idol was not an act of submission, but an act of stimulation. What he believed was the same thing modern secular humanists believe: that man is the LORD of Nature, and that there is no Creator God to whom man is responsible.