More on the Annihilation of the Egyptian and Neo-Assyrian Armies…

Okay…so now I am finally ready to finish my postings on the annihilation of the Egyptian and Neo-Assyrian armies. Forgive me, as there have been a couple other posts in between. First, I wanted to push my newly published book review in JESOT (…I mean who wouldn’t?). Then came the Robertson controversy. However, now we are back!

In my previous post, I drew attention to 7 points of contact between the narratives that recount two of the greatest Israelite military victories. Those points of contact range from the semantic, to historical, to thematic. I suggested that when viewed together, as a whole (synergism), they point to a fascinating literary connection. I want to unpack the nature of that connection here.

I believe that the literature is suggesting a typological relationship between these events—that the writer of Kings presented the event of Neo-Assyria’s failed siege of Jerusalem in a manner that would encourage his readers to invoke the memories of Israel’s victory of Egypt for context and significance. Let’s briefly look at Michael Fishbane’s methodological framework (See his work, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Claredon Press: Oxford, 1988, Reprint, 2004).

Fishbane argues that inner-biblical typology is “a literary-historical phenomenon which isolates perceived correlations between specific events, person, or places early in time with their later correspondents” (351). Such a relationship “celebrates new historical events insofar as they can be correlated with older ones as a disclosure of the plentitude and mysterious workings of divine activity in history” (352). According to Fishbane, syntactical and lexical features most clearly set off such a connection, but ultimately the content of the relationship most appropriately signals and defines the typology. Assuming this scheme in the example offered here, the typology is ops the historical type as it correlates two events within Israel’s history—the annihilation of the Egyptian and Assyrian armies. More specifically, it is a retrojective historical typology as the prototype event provides the framework for the antitype’s presentation and interpretation. In other words, the Exodus narrative, the prototype, provides the intellectual and theological framework within which the Kings narrative, the antitype, is presented and understood.

I believe that this explains the numerous points of connection observed between the two narratives, particularly the distinct usage of the verb ידע that is relatively foreign to the books of Kings. The writer wants his readers to realize that the annihilation of the Neo-Assyrian army is more than just a salvific event along the historical continuum of the Lord’s people. Rather, Jerusalem’s salvation is another foundational moment for Israelite history whereby the Lord displays his mighty protection of his people.

Yet, the nuances of this correlation appear to go deeper. If you recall in the previous post, in the Exodus narrative the substantiation for salvation is rooted in the self-glorification of the Lord (Ex 14:4, 7). In the Kings narrative, the salvation is also rooted in the glorification of the Lord (2 Kgs 19:19). However, in the case of the Kings narrative the substantiation for Jerusalem’s salvation is also rooted in David’s legacy. According to 2 Kgs 19:34, which is contextualized in an oracle that is given in response to Hezekiah’s prayer (2 Kings 19:14-19), the Lord declares that he will protect the city for his sake and “for the sake of David” his servant. Hezekiah anchors his appeal for salvation in the character of the Lord, and the Lord vows to oblige his request, but in doing so, the Lord acknowledges that the salvation of Jerusalem is equally substantiated by the legacy of David.

Consequently, the correlation between narratives testifies to continuity and development. The God who protected their ancestors still protects them, even from the world’s most formidable military powers. Yet the community has evolved, and the Davidic dynasty has become a foundational component that defines their relationship with the Lord.

So are there any further implications for this proposal? I believe that there are. Indeed, the comments that ensue will open the door to a more robust and complicated discussion, which is for another time. However, if this proposal has merit, then it is another example of why scholarship needs to reconsider the nature and extent of Israel’s grand historical narrative that was composed during the latter portion of Iron Age II.

Ever since the late Frank Moore Cross and his students (namely Richard Nelson) proposed the so-called double redaction theory for the Deuteronomistic History, it has been commonplace for scholars to view the confines of Israel’s pre-exilic, grand historical narrative in terms of (some form of) Deuteronomy to (some form of) 2 Kings. Only later in the exilic and post-exilic period was this historical narrative redacted, eventually taking on the shape that you and I recognize. However, there have always been those who recognize the similarities of the Deuteronomistic material and some of the traditions in the Pentateuch, and biblical scholarship over the past couple of decades has seen the rise of arguments for an Ennateuch as the confines for Israel’s grand historical narrative (i.e. from Genesis-2 Kings). One very interesting theory that is rethinking the record of Israel’s historical accounts comes from Konrad Schmid, who essentially argues for two Israelite historical traditions that were amalgamated in the Persian Period (Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Trans. byJames D. Nogalski; Siphrut 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010).

One of Schmid’s historical traditions is called the Moses Story, which spans (some form of) Exodus to (some form of 2 Kings). I find this intriguing, particularly to make sense of the typology that I am proposing above. [In addition, we also have the weird notation of Hezekiah’s destruction of the Nehushtan in 2 Kgs 18:4 that is left without an antecedent if one assumes the traditional confines of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings.] Could it be that the Hezekian edition of Israel’s national history transcended the boundaries of Deuteronomy-2 Kings to include elements of the Pentateuchal traditions? [Yes…I am a proponent of the view that Hezekiah’s tenure as Judah’s king saw the extensive composition of literature, including some type of a “Hezekian history.”]

I think so…perhaps…

The Radical Conversion Experience of Phil Robertson

So everyone on earth has something to say about the whole Phil Robertson ordeal. Even me! And here I want to say one more thing. However, I don’t want to get into a debate of the so-called hypocrisy of the Left or the so-called blind support of Robertson and Duck Dynasty by the Right. What I want to do here is just say a few things about the article itself, written by Drew Magary. It is always important to get a little context to such a vehement debate. You can read it here.

I think the purpose of this article is very straightforward. The author shows that Robertson is not only a man of strong convictions (again…whether you agree with them or not…), but he is a man whose understanding of the world is very black and white, cut and dry, and very simplistic. For Robertson, there is very little, if any, room for grey. Repeatedly, the author inserts quotes from Robertson that reminisce of what he believes to be the “good ol’ days.”

Intermingled with this presentation, the writer interjects his thoughts and opinions, and the writer uses these at times to question Robertson’s worldview. For example, at one point in the article, Magary recounts a rant by Robertson on the theological heritage of America. During that rant, Magary quotes Robertson as he addresses the moral laxity of American society, “Everything is blurred on what’s right and wrong…Sin become fine.” To this, Magary interjects, “What, in your mind, is sinful.”

…and then we read some of the famous quotes….

The final words of the article are particular telling. Essentially, Magary asks if Robertson’s desire for a simple life, driven by Christian principles, is even possible. Tellingly, Magary does not think so, as he resigns himself to the “godless part of America that Phil is determined to save.”

So again, what about this article? What should we be taking away from it? I wish I could say that we should set aside the conversation of Robertson’s supposed bigotry or prejudice, but we can’t. The reality is that his explicit commentary and imagery of the homosexual lifestyle is too much to be ignored. As I have said before, Robertson is at fault for this. He was too graphic to help any conversation that could have been fruitful. But this brings me to the point that I want to talk about just briefly…his roughness, coarseness, and black and white worldview.

The article also talks about pre-Christian Robertson. In particular, Magary recounts the story when Robertson badly beat a bar owner, so bad that he had to flee the state. If it were not for money exchanging hands and the negotiations of Robertson’s wife, Robertson would have likely landed in jail. Robertson also abused his family, pills, and alcohol. He was a mess! So what does this all mean? It means that this man is defined by his radical conversion experience. This is critical, I believe, to understanding Robertson and his worldview.

Through my experiences, I have realized that people who experience a radical conversion experience often view the world in black and white and cut and dry terms. I have had the privilege of knowing a few people like this, one of whom I still know very closely. Furthermore, such people carry with them a history. Indeed, the Bible makes it very clear that Christians are a New Creation upon conversation, but the reality of the human existence is that those pre-Christian experiences have had an impact on our personalities, etc. So, I believe that we should not expect Robertson to be anything but cut and dry, coarse, blunt….and at times vulgar.

Here is the beauty of people like this. The Christian community needs people who have a black and white, cut and dry, and simple worldview. These people have an ability to cut through all the grey and remind us of what matters. Indeed, I would prefer them not to be at the forefront of media blitz, but the Bible is very clear that we are all expected to give an account of our faith. Nevertheless, when the grey becomes so much, that the lines of right and wrong become so blurred that any recognition of them becomes almost impossible, people like Robertson have an uncanny ability to give us an anchoring point…an anchoring point to recalibrate things and reduce the grey.

JESOT 2.2

I noticed today that the new volume of the Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament was out.

You can check it out here.

In this volume, I offer a review of Peter Enns' work The Evolution of Adam (pp. 218-23). This really was one of the more thought-provoking books I have read in a long time. Whatever you think of Enns, and he is a rod for controversy, you cannot deny that his presentation on this issue is well done and engaging.

Lets be honest. He says things that need to be said. Now, do not get me wrong, while my review reveals my (overall) positive reception to his work, I am not buying into his argument hook, line, and sinker. (I will defer to Pauline scholars on his discussion of Pauline theology. However, for an interesting video that is currently making its rounds, click here). I do think that much of what he says about the genre of opening chapters of Genesis is something that needs to be emphasized more and more.

Genre is critical to good interpretation, and understanding genre helps us understand the demands of the text. Without recognizing and respecting the demands of the text, the chances that our interpretation will hijack the text and ask it to bear a weight that it is not designed to bear increase significantly.

Comparing the Israelite Victories Against Egypt and Neo-Assyria…Interesting….

Two of the more famous Israelite military victories recounted in the Old Testament are those against the Egyptian and Neo-Assyrian Armies (Ex 14 and 2 Kgs 18-19). Both are true underdog stories, wherein the mightier of the two sides suffers a humiliating and decisive defeat at the hands of Israel and its God. But does the literary connection between these two narratives go beyond dramatic victories that speak to Yahweh’s power?

Consider the following points:

·         In both narratives, God’s people face off against the greatest military and imperialistic powers of the day. The Exodus narrative should be read against the LBA backdrop, and we know that this was the classical age of Egyptian might. The 2 Kings narrative is set against IA-II, and during this era the Neo-Assyrian Empire was the undisputed power.

·         The military encounters of both narratives play into the strengths of Israel’s enemies. We know that, with the exception of the Hittite Army, Egypt was unparalleled in open-field, chariot warfare during the LBA. In Ex 14, Israel is confronted by Israel directly before the Reed Sea. The siege tactics of the Neo-Assyrian army are well-documented, and in 2 Kgs 18-19, Israel is holed up behind the walls of Jerusalem with the Neo-Assyrian Army within earshot.

·         Both military encounters appeared at crucial junctures in Israelite history. Israel’s confrontation with Egypt appears in the immediate aftermath of the Passover. Thus, an Egyptian victory would have either secured Israel’s re-enslavement or delayed their trek to the Promised Land indefinitely. In 2 Kings, the text suggests that a Neo-Assyrian victory at Jerusalem would have resulted in the forced exile of Judah and the extinction of God’s people.

·         In each case, God’s people recognize their inferiority. In Exodus, Israel cries out in fear, accuses Moses of duping them, and essentially resign themselves to re-enslavement. In 2 Kings, Israel has retreated behind the walls of Jerusalem, the universal sign that the aggressors have the military superiority.

·         A divine being plays a pivotal role in each confrontation. In Exodus, there is the Angel of God, who runs interference with the pillar of cloud while Israel safely navigates the Reed Sea. More famously, the Angel of the Lord slays the army of Assyria under the cover of darkness in 2 Kings.

·         With each Israelite victory, the victory is decisive. The Egyptian corpses wash up on the seashore, and in 2 Kings the narrator documents the unanticipated realization that the previously robust army had transformed into dead corpses over night. Furthermore, literarily speaking, the defeats usher in a new dispensation for each Empire. After Ex 14, Egypt is never mentioned again with the same military reverence and the Neo-Assyrian Empire essentially disappears in Kings after chapter 19.

·         The result of both confrontations is the same—a recognition that the Lord is mighty to save his people. Interestingly, in both narratives similar syntax and semantics are used: see Ex 14:4; 17; 2 Kgs 19:19. In each case, telic syntax is accompanied by a constituent noun clause.

o   “…But I will gain glory from myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I the Lord.” (Ex 14:4; NIV)

וְאִכָּבְדָה בְּפַרְעֹה וּבְכָל־חֵילוֹ וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי־אֲנִי יְהוָה

o   “…But I will gain glory from myself through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and through his horsemen, and the Egyptians will know that I the Lord.” (Ex 14:17-18; NIV)

וְאִכָּבְדָה בְּפַרְעֹה וּבְכָל־חֵילוֹ בְּרִכְבּוֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי־אֲנִי יְהוָה

o   “Now, Lord our God, deliver us from his hand so that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone, Lord, are God.” (2 Kgs 19:19; NIV)

וְעַתָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ הוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ נָא מִיָּדוֹ וְיֵשדְעוּ כָּל־מַמְלְכוֹת הָאָרֶץ כִּי אַתָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים לְבַדֶּךָ

[On reading the forms וְיָדְעוּ as irreal Perfects with a telic nuance, see John A. Cook and Robert D. Holmstedt. Beginning Biblical Hebrew. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013, 66-67. While the syntax is different, the semantics are the same.]

Indeed, these points of contact cause one to pause. But is this all fortuitous? Perhaps. However, the principle of synergism looms large. Consequently, it is the convergence of these points that cause me to conclude that something other than accidental or random is occurring. The total effect is greater than individual effects. As to the implications of this literary connection, I will leave that for next time.

Birds, Passions, and Callings

In 2011, 20^th Century Fox released The Big Year, starring Steve Martin (Stu), Jack Black (Brad), and Owen Wilson (Kenny). Now, I know what you are probably thinking, but no. This movie is not a mindless comedy built upon crude humor. Rather, it is movie that, while having very funny moments, is rather serious and can force some very real and pointed introspection.

Stu, Brad, and Kenny are very different people who have different personalities and life-circumstances. Stu is an accomplished CEO, who built his company from the ground up. Brad is an average-Joe computer programmer. Kenny is an affluent ego-maniac. The common thread between these three men is a love of birds. More specifically, the common thread is an attempt at what is called a “Big Year,” which in birding circles refers to an effort to see how many different specifies of birds one can observe in one calendar year.

The movie juxtaposes the efforts of these three men, including the individual obstacles that face each man in their quest for their Big Year. Stu becomes increasingly aware of his mortality and eventually realizes that he has spent too much time building his company and that the waning years of his life must be spent with his family. Brad spends every moment of his spare time and money in the pursuit of his passion while suffering the critical inquires of his father. Ultimately, through a series of events, Brad’s father comes to understand his son’s passion. Kenny, who is the proclaimed King of Birding and world record holder for the number of different birds observed in one year, will let nothing and no man keep him from sitting atop of the pinnacle…not even his marriage.

What is very revealing is that each character, at particular points in the movie, faces what I like to refer to as cross-roads moments. At specific junctures, each is forced to consider what is more important—the pursuit of a passion at all costs or allowing that passion to be merely a passion and not an obsession. In one scene, Kenny has a heated exchange with his wife, who senses that Kenny’s pursuit is tearing apart their relationship. In that exchange, Kenny refers to his passion as a “calling.” This struck me as an interesting choice of words, particularly as I could not help but connect this movie with the vocational pursuits of many young evangelicals.

As young Evangelicals, we often hear the term “calling” tossed around, particularly at evangelical institutions of education. Students are often encouraged to gain a sense of their calling so to fashion their career goals accordingly. The assumption is that everyone has skills and abilities, and as Christians, we should seek a vocation that maximizes one’s abilities in a specific service to the Kingdom of God. Often, though not necessarily intended, this logic translates into a fixation upon a particular vocation. Thus, a perception is creation that a calling cannot be fulfilled outside of a particular vocation.

The unfortunate reality is that with such logic there is a very real possibility of a devastating conundrum. What happens when the pursuit of a calling comes up empty? For example, what happens when one’s pursuit of a calling in full time missions puts his or her family in a potentially compromising and destructive environment? I have seen it happen. Or, what happens if a calling to business requires that one put his or her life savings on the line, knowing full well that such an “investment’ could send the family into bankruptcy? What happens when the pursuit of a degree or education financially hinders your family, perhaps for years to come? Again, I have seen it come to fruition.

The potency of such a conundrum arises when we realize that these undesirable, and in some cases crippling, circumstances appear not in the midst of vain pursuit, but rather in the pursuit of something that is God-glorifying. What is one to make of, and how is one to respond to, crippling circumstances that are the result of an honest, God-glorifying pursuit? Shall we press on at all costs under the mantra that, “If this is my calling, all will be well in the end?”

This is a tough question, but it needs to be considered, particularly since it is usually avoided (at least in my experience). Moreover, no. I do not think that Christians should press forward at all costs. Consider Acts 16. In this text, Paul receives a vision of a man, who tells him to stop his intended pursuit into Asia but rather head to Macedonia. From there, Paul heads to Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, and other very important places. Of course, we can only speculate what would have happened if Paul would have been stubborn and unwilling to yield to the nudging of the Holy Spirit. However, the writer seems to imply that the face of the New Testament Church would have been drastically different.

Young Evangelicals need to gain a proper understanding of a calling, particularly in light of its role in determining one’s vocational choices. If we understand a calling not as something that is fixed to a particular vocation, then the Christian is more receptive to adapt in the face of crippling circumstances. Of course, I am not advocating that everyone deviate at the sniff of a stiff headwind. However, during those moments when something must give, understanding that one’s calling as a Christian is not fixed to one particular vocation but rather to the Lord whom I serve can be rather freeing…at least it has been for me.

Indeed, these statements may seem trivial to some of you reading this. With all due respect, these words are not for you. Rather, they are for those who have experienced the emotions described in this post. They are for the young evangelical college student, seminary student, and graduate student who have sensed a burden placed upon their soul, experienced the guidance of God Almighty, and have still seen their efforts come back relatively fruitless.

At the end of the movie, Stu and Brad are on the phone discussing the published results of their Big Year. Brad finished second and Stu fourth. The winner is, predictably, Kenny, but at the expense of having lost his marriage. The movie ends with this simple but profound juxtaposition.