2.27 Fear and Loving in the Revelation

The Revelation of St John is one of those books that engenders an unconscious but natural avoidance. You don't hear it often studied in small group. There is the sense that the density of detail, the pervasive use of symbolism, and perhaps even a prerequisite knowledge of the Old Testament to parse it can be daunting. Unlike reading the Gospels or the Pastoral Letters, the pay-off in study to understand who we are before God, our sin, our salvation, and how to live our lives, appears reduced together with the higher level of attention needed to achieve it. Conversely, we rightly scrutinize those who show an overly excited attention to books like the Revelation and Daniel and Ezekiel for their prophecies, recognizing the catastrophe of assuming that we understand the Gospel so well that its time to "graduate" to the deeper, "more interesting" things.

As much as I grew up in a church that reveled in their frequent forays into these books, where one inevitably finds himself unable to defend his unorthodox view of the Gospel without resorting to passages that most have trouble understanding, even I found my limits visiting one group where it appeared prophecy was all that they studied. There was a level of pride I had never seen before, that they knew things that the world (and even most of the other churches) missed. There was this feeling of something missing among them, of love, of connection, of people who truly like one another, that overwhelmed even an outside observer. And there was nausea of knowing how patently off they were in their conclusions by any standard. It might be the subject of comedy had they not believed in it so strongly and acted so miserably. I was still part of that larger group, and even I could see it. They couldn't.

When I left, when the Gospel, that swept-clean spotless and paved road, appeared inescapably running through every book of scripture I read, I put down those books of prophecy. I couldn't touch them. It would be years before I was willing to read them again in any state of mind, and with more humility, wondering how much I would be able to understand just by reading. As enigmatic and cryptic as they seemed earlier, with plenty of persons around me eager to insert their confidence that this meant this or that, I now started from exactly zero. Lost.

I like puzzles. The less I understand, the more I feel like my dog gnawing obsessively on his bone, unable to feel satisfaction if he lets go, until it is finally, eventually consumed. With such puzzles there is the fleeting hope held out that it may be solved, if only one is persistent.

But beyond a challenge, I find a certain draw to this book. For such a puzzle, yet I'm taken by the encouragement that "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. (Rev 1:3)" Somehow this book (as neglected as some others in my reading) was written to be understood, taken to heart, and heeded.

The word "awesome" is used so liberally and casually in the world. It's no surprise we on the Christian side want to do what we can to take it back, to reclaim it for things that are properly awesome. So we stress the language when we find a scripture, to see if we can emotionally force the feeling back where it should be in our services and our singing. Even so, it's hard for many of us, jaded by such inflated language in common use, accustomed to incessant and relentless stimulation in daily life, to see awesome for what it is, and to react properly to things as they appear in the Book. The problem with stressing the word, with injecting the emotions to reclaim the language is that it may yield a similar deadening to its affect if we even a little overuse it above what the verse may call for. No longer a new Christian, I find often that I feel immune, or now even resistant, to such deliberate stresses -- such proclamations of "incredible" and "awesome" -- even while knowing in my mind I should have been moved to some degree. I confess that when David says "oh, how I love your law", that I desperately want to know what that must be like, to feel that throughout my being, instead of simply nodding along.

The Revelation, like some other passages, is a breath of fresh air. Because in it we come face to face with God and Christ and in their activity in the denouement of the world. Each chapter, moving along, elicits increasing feelings of gravity, of terror and dread. No logical, rational person should remain unmoved or untroubled.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom. For someone increasingly desensitized to the use of words crafted to evoke emotional response, it is the very picture put in many lesser words that draws one back to their proper sense of awe. Dread is thus a welcome feeling, a stabilizing feeling, knowing that you have captured something very basic and profound about the true God, even perhaps understanding Isaiah's own "falling on his face as if dead" before the Almighty. For a Christian, this dread is terrible and at the same time wonderful in that one fully appreciates how this awesome face, turned against you, is at once turned away from you, turned outward to become a shield and protection to you. What must Daniel have felt to discover that those savage cats would tear any attacker to pieces, as he possibly rested his head on one with his feet on another as he went to sleep?

Immediately there is again sweetness, and comfort in this book, among the terrific pictures of destruction, death, martyrdom, and finale. For a long while I've loved the depth, and the density and the elegance of how it is written even as I struggle with what seem to be puzzles.

Take the letters to the churches, Rev 2 and 3. It helps me to break up each letter in five parts: the Preamble (introduction of who is speaking), the Praise (for that church), the Problem, the Prescription (what to do) and the Promise. Others name these differently. The thing is, if reading quickly, its easy to miss how these parts are woven into each other to increase the effect of the message.

Take Smyrna, for example. Jesus is "the first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life," and he says that he knows their tribulation and poverty. The church in Smyrna is suffering. Yet he assures them, praises them, that they are rich. He knows of the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not. Evidently, many or most in this church are converted Jews and among their persecutors are unconverted Jews attacking them. Jesus tells them not to fear. From their Gentile persecutors, they will be put in prison, to be tested, and have tribulation for ten days. This is the problem. He prescribes that they be faithful until death, which is a serious possibility. And then he promises them a crown of life, and further that he who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.

Jesus calls their Jewish tormentors a "synagogue of Satan" not simply as a condemnation, but an aggressive affirmation to this church that for all of the slander that they have left God by following Christ, they are in fact God's own people and what they have left is of Satan. He sets the record straight lest in this onslaught one's faith begins to falter. For a Jew, likely put out of their synagogue which was the center of their spiritual and social life amid Gentile pagans, this is a fortifying assurance. For myself, I remember under far less dire circumstances, after severe yelling matches with parents and friends still in my old group, wondering if the differences were so big after all; wondering if I shouldn't just give it a rest and be quiet? Perhaps try to reduce the conflict that erupted around me. I wasn't prepared for the level of animosity when conversations started out as a calm back-and-forth. For a brief moment I had my sister alongside, angry, stubborn, over-eager to argue publicly against the bad doctrine, rejecting any compromise, pushing forward as we studied while this rift between myself and my old church widened into the necessary chasm. Finally we both left.

She eventually went back to them. I'm convinced however, that I needed someone next to me in those moments, uncompromising and willing to call that life for what it was, in order for me to continue. Anger and determination from her did more to steady my faltering resolve than sympathy could.

Why the contrast in the promise? Between a crown of life and second death? Because they are "apostate" Jews, and the Jews believed in an enduring punishment for Gentiles and apostates alike. They are threatened with hell, and Jesus promises them instead a crown of life and that second death will have no power over them.

And how does he introduce himself? As "the first and the last". If anyone should have the power over life and death, it's God. "Who was dead. And has come to life." If anyone should know about death, and wrenching life from death itself, it's Him. This is his mark of authenticity and authority and capability in these words.

This is care and intensity in something measured to bring comfort.

The message to Philadelphia is another variation on this theme, except here Jesus is "holy and true", having "the key of David, who opens and no one can shut, and who shuts and no one can open." But the problem is different, lacking the teeth of Gentile violence. Here, it is vindication that Christ promises against the same "synagogue of Satan". Why the keys of David? Why are we talking about doors? Because it's from David's line that the Messiah, the Savior of Israel comes. Because they are being told that outside of Israel they are shut out of God's presence and salvation.

But Christ holds that key. They cannot shut what he opens, nor can they enter what he shuts against them. Those liars will be forced to come and fall down at the feet of the Jewish Christians, to acknowledge what they viciously denied, that their long-awaited Messiah has deeply loved these people. He counsels them to hold on, that he will keep them from the hour of trial coming upon the world. And he ends with: "He who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God, he will not go out from it anymore" asserting their unassailable place in God's holy presence. "I will write on him the name of (again) My God, and the name of the city of (and again) My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from (yet again) My God, and (even again) My new name." Jesus is repeatedly stamps the Father's name and His name on His people so they can't get it out of their heads that "I love you".

We have the privilege of knowing Him, of standing before One who, as CS Lewis put it, is "not a tame lion" who the world yet approaches carelessly and lightheartedly. For people who are broken by standing in invincible wretchedness before a holy God, and further beaten down by the world at its worst, we are picked up never to leave His Holy Temple. And this is our God.

The picture is never so clear as when there is good contrast.

Interesting Reading

Carey Nieuwhof

https://careynieuwhof.com/9-things-worked-church-decade-ago-no-longer-work-today/

https://careynieuwhof.com/why-the-church-needs-to-decide-on-its-real-mission/

https://careynieuwhof.com/ministry-actually-difficult-decade-ago/

https://careynieuwhof.com/10-reasons-even-committed-church-attenders-attending-less-often/

https://careynieuwhof.com/the-looming-pastoral-succession-crisis-and-why-its-already-bad/

Christianity Today

https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2005/september-online-only/cln50912.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/january/tired-of-show-church-cant-compete-with-hollywood.html?paging=off

https://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2016/august/why-im-not-world-changer.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2013/january/in-defense-of-church-hoppers.html

https://lightenough.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/in-defense-of-church-hoppers/

https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2015/july-web-exclusives/farewell-cultural-christianity.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2011/spring/goingdeep.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2013/october/state-of-american-church.html

https://www.christianity.com/church/church-life/all-alone-together-the-tragedy-of-superficial-relationships-at-church.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/march/9-things-i-love-to-see-when-i-visit-church.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2018/august/5-preaching-styles.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/february/why-you-need-to-change-how-you-preach-and-5-changes-ive-mad.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2017/february/loyal-church-denomination-anymore-good.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/october/why-millennials-wont-build-kinds-of-churches-their-parents-.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/may/why-next-great-move-of-god-will-make-church-people-uncomfor.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2018/august/new-music-is-not-worth-fighting-for-so-what-is.html

https://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2017/february/7-steps-to-start-becoming-church-people-want-to-commit-to.html?paging=off

Patheos

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2018/04/a-description-of-the-early-christians/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/10-reasons-why-people-leave-church/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theroadhome/2018/04/the-source-of-your-pain-is-cultural-collapse/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theroadhome/2018/04/modern-loneliness-is-like-nothing-that-has-come-before/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theroadhome/2018/04/the-quandary-of-the-evangelical-man/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2011/09/25/the-clarion-call-to-watered-down-evangelicalism/

Micah J Murray

https://micahjmurray.com/why-we-left-the-church/

N T Wright

http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/04/04/believing-and-belonging/

Thom Rainer

https://thomrainer.com/2016/09/five-reasons-churches-dying-declining-faster-today/

https://thomrainer.com/2018/08/dying-churches-dont-know-dying-revitalize-replant-053/

https://thomrainer.com/2017/07/seven-common-reasons-churches-dramatic-decline-attendance/

https://thomrainer.com/2014/11/top-ten-ways-churches-drive-away-first-time-guests/

https://thomrainer.com/2016/08/four-types-churches-will-soon-die/

https://thomrainer.com/2016/09/five-reasons-churches-dying-declining-faster-today/

Other

http://credohouse.org/blog/the-intellectual-crisis-of-todays-church

http://www.dearbiblebelt.com/why-men-hate-going-to-church/

https://lewayotte.com/2013/01/10/there-is-no-biblical-support-for-paid-pastorselders/

https://www.ministrymatters.com/lead/entry/4984/why-are-so-many-churches-empty-the-importance-of-in-depth-bible-study-for-a-congregation

http://malphursgroup.com/13-deadly-sins-of-a-dying-church/

https://www.amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/inside-report/magazine/id/10804/t/new-life-for-a-dead-church

https://www.crossroadschristian.org/blogs/blog/the-twelve-mistakes-dead-churches-make

http://www.joyfulheart.com/plant/restart.htm

https://www.crosswalk.com/church/pastors-or-leadership/ask-roger/17-ways-to-know-that-your-church-is-dying.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1010/Amid-Evangelical-decline-growing-split-between-young-Christians-and-church-elders

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/12/26/on-leaving-church/

http://www.maggienancarrow.com/2015/the-church-is-not-dying-its-failing-theres-a-difference/

https://www.crosswalk.com/church/pastors-or-leadership/6-subtle-signs-that-a-church-is-on-its-deathbed.html

http://www.dearbiblebelt.com/why-men-hate-going-to-church/

http://credohouse.org/blog/the-intellectual-crisis-of-todays-church

http://seniorpastorcentral.com/953/why-churches-should-euthanize-small-groups/

https://blog.heartsupport.com/lets-stop-pretending-christianity-is-actually-relevant-okay-ade4c00dabcc

http://timmybrister.com/2005/08/franchising-church-the-latest-greatest-trend-of-the-megachurch-movement/

https://christianneity.wordpress.com/2016/10/03/lack-of-gravitas/

https://alastairadversaria.com/2018/01/27/what-pastors-could-learn-from-jordan-peterson/

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/11/gravitas-weight-gain.html

https://blog.capterra.com/lessons-from-autopsy-of-a-deceased-church-you-can-use/

https://mereorthodoxy.com/american-church-deserves-to-die/

https://www.faithandleadership.com/cherry-crayton-waiting-words-were-glad-youre-here

https://www.faithandleadership.com/ryan-p-bonfiglio-lets-make-church-center-theological-education-again

https://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/joe-mckeever/10-signals-say-you-not-welcome-this-church.html

Gen 14 - Abraham and the Four Kings

Thoughts on Gen 14

Gen 14 is one of those detail-rich passages we might read on the way to something else, pulling out a few points we can apply personally, and otherwise consigning most of the information to the distant recesses of memory. We have little personal connection to that world and aren't given enough of a picture to develop one. It may be worth asking questions of the details we have to see what we can get, accepting that many questions must be left open.

We have the general story of four kings sweeping from the East, defeating the combined armies of five cities and taking Lot and the inhabitants of infamous Sodom captive, and Abraham in turn defeating the invaders and rescuing Lot. Prior to returning all of the spoils to Sodom, Abraham makes a tithe of his possessions to Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem (later Jerusalem). Both the tithe and Melchizedek himself will be referenced later in other books and chapters.

(Note: I had thought to keep some detail out of this, but many thanks to my father for providing external references and a host of grammatical and historical corrections. I include several below.)

Matters of Geography and Dating

The four kings from the East serve as potential anchor points to the historical record for those attempting to piece together a proper chronology of the Bible's events. We have an Amraphel king of Shinar, an Arioch king of Ellasar, Chederlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim. As allies they conquer Sodom, Gomorrah and the three other cities of the plain. Thirteen years later the tribute cities rebel and in the fourteenth year the same kings return. So the first criterion is we're looking for four kings who reign in some degree of alliance with at least a fourteen year overlap. We may also favor the possibility that one or more of these kings is recorded by their historians to have fallen in battle, although this is not explicitly stated in Gen 14:7 (simply that they were defeated).

The Shinar of the Bible is typically linked with the area of ancient Sumer. At this point in history, this may or may not have included the city of Ur, almost certainly the same city as Abraham's origin (Ur of the Chaldees). I say *almost certainly* because there seems to be a problem identifying who the "Chaldees" ("Kasdim", in the Hebrew) are. The Septuagint renders them in Greek as "Chaldees" though to our knowledge Chaldeans don't appear on the landscape of the region until the 10th century BC, which is about the time of Solomon. There is further discussion as to whether the name of Abraham's ancestor, Arphaxad (Arpakshad) contains the word/name "Kasdim" and how it is used.

Babel (presumably early Babylon), Erech (Uruk) and Accad (Akkad/Agade) were in the land of Shinar. These were the "beginnings" of Nimrod's kingdom (Gen 10:10 -- possibly what Nimrod inherited from an earlier person, before he built the other cities) and the plain was the first mentioned settlement as people journey east from where the Ark landed (Gen 11:2). Babel and Erech are certainly cities. Akkad is known to be a region a bit further upstream. From secular history we are told that Sargon built a capital city named Agade/Akkad, but it was depopulated after him and has not yet been found. (See JP, note 1)

Ellasar is most commonly thought to be the same city-state of Larsa which was often in conflict with its neighbor, Ur. (See JP, note 2)

Elam is that center-West portion of modern day Iran which sits close to the cities of Babylon, Ur, Larsa, etc. They were often in conflict with Sumer, Larsa and Ur. At one point it appears the king of Elam installed a son as a ruler on Ur's throne. That could potentially accord with a king of Elam heading an army with a Sumerian king at his side.

The Goiim are harder to pin down. The word can be translated as heathens, or nations, referring often to non-Semitic (especially Caucasian) peoples in general. Hence, Tidal, king of Goiim, is often rendered Tidal, king of Nations. We don't have an exact match in history for Goiim as a nation. This could indicate that Tidal was the leader of a confederacy of various peoples, thus far unidentified in history. The Hittites/Hathi are also occasionally considered due to their (at some point) dominance over the Anatolian region of modern Turkey at the north-west border of Shinar and the resemblance of a king's name (much later in history) of Tudhaliya. (See Note 4) Similarly, a Hurrian people living in the Zagros mountains (Western Iran) had a king named Tishdal.

Compounding the question of who were the Goiim is the possible mention in Josh 12:23 of "the king of Goiim in Gilgal (sometimes Galilee)", Is 9:1 "Galilee of the Goiim" (Gentiles/Assyria?) and in Jud 4:2 where Sisera's residence was in Harosheth-ha-goiim" (Harosheth of the Gentiles).

There is a more attractive link between these "Goiim" and the "Gutium", a people that historically did live in proximity and frequent conflict with Sumer, Larsa, and Elam and may have had a king named Tidalmesh or some variant of the same. I haven't found much information on Tidalmesh, however, beyond a possible name. An alliance with four powerful kings in roughly the same area makes a certain sense.

Further. You don't conduct military campaigns far from home when there is turbulence back home among far more powerful parties. This re-entry into Canaan represents a rare period of peace and accord between peoples who rarely found themselves together in that same state. Perhaps with guards needed at home, without going as an alliance, it might not have been practical to raise an army large enough to conquer the south-west regions twice in fourteen years. So you would need general peace as a prerequisite for such a campaign. Even Sargon didn't go so far south as Canaan.

Lastly, as for timing, we're probably looking at the time period between 2300BC and 1700BC to be liberal and encompass a number of chronologies. The more commonly used Exodus date is around 1450BC which at a minimum would put Abraham at 1450 BC+430 BC=1880 BC, representing when Abraham received the covenant from God, which would be his departure from Haran. Other chronologies that attempt to address some difficult verses pertaining to the length of Israel in Egypt and the time of the Judges may push the date back further but none earlier than Sargon's time (2300BC). This is a maximum reasonable span, for archaeologists who believe the Bible is accurate.

Geneologies

The land of Shinar was settled by "the whole world" with "one common speech". So there likely was a great mix of various people. Nimrod is from Ham so perhaps that indicates the dominance of Ham's descendants in that land at some point. We don't know exactly where to place Nimrod in history, given how the Hebrew introduces him as a son of Cush but outside the normal listing of his sons, as if a parenthesis.

The Amorites are also from Ham, but from another son, Canaan.

Abraham is from the line of Shem. Elam is a son of Shem. Asshur (with a city in Assyria named for him) is also from Shem.

Whichever tribal group dominates Ur when Terah and Abraham leave might have some effect on why they did.

Abraham's Migration to Canaan

Some questions first arise in Gen 11. Abraham's father, Terah, takes him and his wife and Lot out of "Ur of the Chaldees" in order to enter Canaan. Note, then, Abram was heading for Canaan before we read of God's call. Terah "took" Abram and Lot, so that indicates the original decision to leave for Canaan was his.

Heb 11:8 doesn't shed much more light on this calling, only that he obeyed and went by faith, though he did not know where he was going.

Why were they going to Canaan? Ur, and its environs, is the center of known civilization. On the other hand, Amorites (and others) lived in Canaan and about from the time of Sargon of Akkad (~2300BC) until just before Hammurabi (1750BC) were regarded as uncivilized, lesser peoples.

One theory advanced is that Terah is fleeing political or military upheaval in Ur. But if Ur is part of Shinar, stopping in Haran (also likely dominated by Shinar) when Canaan is the goal seems strange. If not, then why plan as far as Canaan, if he can just flee to Shinar, and possibly closer cities than Haran? And what's suddenly in Haran that changes Terah's mind about continuing on?

A second theory is that depending on the time frame, if Amraphal conquers Canaan about the time that Terah sets out, he could have either been part of a military occupation or outpost heading to Canaan (which could explain why Abraham trained his own small army) or a large expedition of settlers from Ur determined to capitalize on freedom and opportunity in newly subjugated territory. Abraham leaves Haran with possibly more people than he went in, which could indicate he or Terah had been taking in people for the trip.

We don't know how much time passes from the setting out of Terah from Ur to Lot's capture. Abraham may have delayed in Haran to some degree to honor his elderly father until he died. We do know that Abraham headed far south even down to the Negev, at which point a famine forced him to continue on to Egypt, which he somewhat quickly left again. After that time he settled in a number of places until Lot parted company, at which point Abraham stayed near Hebron, near the oak trees of Mamre the Amorite. The theory of heading to Canaan after Shinar's conquest of it rests on Terah departing just after, and that Abraham's various settlements were less than fourteen years. With no mention of Abraham encountering the first conquest, presumably this happened before his arrival in the land.

It is worth noting three things:
1) Very little conquest, outside of an Amorite town of Hazazon-tamar (likely modern day En-Gedi on the West side of the Dead Sea) is mentioned in the area that Abraham is believed to have occupied West of Sodom.

2) Abraham with a trained army of 318 (and a significant amount of resources for plunder) is completely ignored, despite the four Eastern kings running through all people East of the Jordan, and throughout the Southern portions of modern Israel up to the Negev. They would have had to pass by him on the way down to the plains. Is it possible that Abraham, from the same region as Amraphel, is considered a "friendly" in a territory that did not rebel? Is it possible that Abraham in fact was friendly until Lot is swept up in the pillage of Sodom? The four kings apparently proceed north on the West side of the Jordan, bypassing Melchizedek and Salem with no more conquests after subduing Sodom.

Likely Abraham would have heard of the rebellion years before. He may have been in range of army scouts from the kings. However he seems far enough away to personally only get the news by someone who escaped the captivity, nor was he afforded an opportunity to warn Lot to evacuate.

Further, 3) there is a difference in the order given of the four kings between Gen 14:1 and 14:9. Despite that in 14:1 Amraphel is mentioned first, possibly because he was the pre-eminent of the earlier expedition or perhaps in general, the five cities of the plain rebel against Chederlaomer and he heads the actual battle. Is the difference in order significant, with both Amraphel and Arioch (Ellasar) listed as 1st and 2nd, and then again as a pair, listed in the 3rd and 4th positions?

Does the servitude of the five cities of the plain to Chederlaomer and the lack of fighting West of the Jordan (as opposed to South and East) indicate that each of the four kings held different territories as their own vassals? That certainly provides the incentives for this alliance, where Elam takes the plains and Shinar holds Canaan West of the Jordan. I have heard from some (not confirmed) that both the Gutium and Hittites (at different times) had presences even in areas to the South and also East of the Jordan. Which might suggest that the Amalekites' territory near the Negev might have been vassal to Larsa, if this line of reasoning holds.

Incidentally, heading Northwest from Babylon to Haran and then South along the Jordan is a natural path around the fertile crescent that avoids the inhospitable desert. The four kings may have taken that through to the East side of the Jordan and may have also been attempting to take the same path back from the West side when Abram caught up with them. Terah and Abraham took the same path from Ur.

Another question: was Abraham always nomadic or was it only after the departure from either Ur or Haran that he adopted the lifestyle?

Lastly, and I don't know what significance it has, note the in Gen 12, when Abram leaves Haran for Canaan, he further takes people he had acquired in Haran. He is going on God's directive. Is he also resuming whatever mission his father had and then paused? Are these simply extra shepherds to handle his flocks, or are they people leaving with some expectation to settle, having pledged themselves to Abraham now that his God has promised to give Abraham a land of his own?

Abraham's Relationship with the Amorites

Is it significant that Abraham's allies in the land are Mamre, his two brothers, and that they are all Amorite? Given that the Amorites are a huge (albeit scattered and nomadic) presence on both sides of the Jordan and even throughout Mesopotamia, Abraham might have had a greater familiarity with them. Bear in mind, these are not a small people and would at some point take Babylon itself. The renowned Hamurrabi was the sixth Amorite king to rule Babylon, although by that time his ruling nation had adopted the language and customs of the previously dominant Akkad.

While the Amalekites are attacked in general, only the Amorites who lived in Hazazon-tamar are attacked. If this is En-Gedi, then this is possibly the four kings' route down into the Valley of Siddim (now the Dead Sea) to threaten the five cities.

Aner, Eschol and Mamre, (beyond a standing alliance) may well have had additional incentive in attacking the four kings after the assault on the Amorite city.

The King of Sodom

The king of Sodom is always mentioned first in the lists of his own alliance, and he entreats with Abraham regarding what happens to the loot. We conclude that he is likely the head of the most important city, and this status extends to his successor.

Because the king of Sodom comes out to meet Abraham with King Melchizedek in the King's Valley (Shaveh) north of Salem, it is often assumed that the king of Sodom survived. Many translations like the NIV thus read that when the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, some of their men fell into the tar/slime pits and the rest fled to the hills, where the more "literal" NASB and others just say "and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell in them." It's still not hard and fast that "they" doesn't refer generally to their armies, but I think this likely indicates that the kings died.

Which means the king who met Abraham is whoever took over after the previous one died. This could explain his eagerness to let Abraham keep the loot from Sodom. Firstly, the better part may not have been his goods originally (unlike the previous king) and secondly, he's now the new kid on the block where Abraham is undisputed and sole power in the area. Beyond simple humility, Abraham's refusal to accept the goods may have been a recognition that the King of Sodom was trying to buy Abraham's protection and military ability. Abraham suspected an ulterior motive and how Sodom would boast that it had made Abraham rich. Perhaps this also translates into a something meant to bind Abraham to him through the perception of him being indebted. Abraham returns in victory only to find the machinations starting from the people he had just saved.

Given how rich Abraham already was, riches alone may not be part of the subsequent worry Abraham shows in Gen 15, following this encounter with the King of Sodom.

In a vision following this, God opens with, "Do not fear, Abram. I am a shield to you; your reward shall be very great." Protection (implying a felt need for protection) and reward. Yet Abraham's principal worry is later revealed to hinge around an heir. Material goods mean nothing if his inheritance passes to another not related (strangely, Eliezar of Damascus, born in Abram's house, is closer in this scenario than even Lot is?) But then, maybe this is how Abraham has begun expecting to "help" God keep that promise. That the inheritance stays in his general "house".

I don't have a full read on exactly how this is affected by the previous conversation.

Abraham's Army

One pastor suggested this is another "Gideon" moment in the Bible. I don't think so. Melchizedek rightly acknowledges that God delivers the enemies into Abraham's hand. Beyond that the text doesn't support a Gideon moment, where a man is moved by God to take a deliberately inferior force, using unlikely tactics, against a dramatically overwhelming force for an astonishing victory. God was then making a point to a rebellious nation.

Upon hearing of his nephew's capture, Abraham simply led out his trained men, which number 318. We are told in the previous verse that he was living by the "oaks of Mamre the Amorite", the brother of Eshcol and Aner, and that they are Abram's allies. Possibly, because Mamre is the last of the three mentioned to the King of Sodom as deserving a share, Mamre is the youngest.

In that conversation, only Abram and his three allies are specifically listed as having a share in the spoils, not any of the people under them. Which opens the possibility that, like Abram, they also were leaders of comparable numbers of men. Otherwise, their share would be something like 3 parts out of roughly 320. Perhaps not insignificant, still. Shares were not typically considered in such an egalitarian manner as to officially extend to each participant in action. In the Middle East even until today the tendency is that the war leader gets the main share of the battle and then he becomes "a river to his people". The king of Sodom doesn't treat with the foot soldiers about dividing spoils, but rather only the leaders.

Bear in mind, further, that armies in those days were not the same size as armies in modern times, or even armies many hundreds of years later (e.g. from Jud 7 and 8 it appears Gideon mustered at its largest 32,000 against an enemy of 135,000).

In the days of Sargon, he led an army that peaked at 5400 men against city states which maintained standing armies of typically 600-700 men. And he did this after he controlled around 14 city-states which could each provide him troops. These, often considered king's bodyguards, would be better equipped than the reserves (the rest of the people) called up in time of war, who would have far less (if any) training. Sargon's troops employed composite bows and early battle armour. One thing Sargon and others hadn't worked out was the regular supply of food for their armies, which were ordered to pillage by force any non-Akkadian farms and settlements within the general empire. Not being a sustainable mechanism, this presents an upper limit to the size of any army located in one place for military action. It can feed itself on the go as long as it doesn't stop. In areas of lower population, you simply can't bring a large army, because there won't be enough to pillage. This pattern continued after Sargon's death.

This is one reason that Amorites were particularly despised: they were nomadic and hence didn't greatly contribute to the provisions that could be extracted from a territory to supply an army. Agriculture is a demonstrated necessity for large standing armies. If foraging armies easily defeated armies of established settlements, that suggests the settlements can't have been very big.

Also, keeping in mind that a large army was useful to maintain peace and support conquests over the size of Sumeria in general, and that the worst threats would (and did) come from the nearby city-states (and not from provincial areas like Canaan), it seems reasonable that a large military invasion of the size used by Sargon throughout Mesopotamia is unlikely. It may have been that the four kings might have amassed 2000 soldiers, but possibly as little as 1000, seeing it as sufficient to take back lost territories.

Abraham's 318 soldiers (a small army even by today's standards) may not have been a trivial force in the region, especially if the three Amorite brothers brought at least as many.

It is suggested by some that the mention that "they were allies of Abram" -- instead of "Abram was their ally" -- may suggest that Abram was initially a junior partner in this alliance, possibly as a newcomer to the region, and a nomad amid more permanent Amorite settlements. He would have been useful to stave off Amalekite (and other) attacks, and he would have found some protection surrounded by the Amorites. The Amorites, being familiar with Ur, might even have welcomed possibly Ur-trained military expertise in their less developed southern region.

By the time of the battle the game is clearly Abram's and the details are given matter-of-factly. He divides his forces (not the most obvious choice if you are severely outnumbered) and attacks by night. This would neutralize both archers as well as (horse/camel) cavalry if it was part of the four kings' army. Additionally, after Sodom, the kings are returning victorious, flush with slaves and enormous wealth. They aren't in the state of mind to expect an existential threat. Soldiers would have been diverted to simply contain the hundreds (maybe thousands) of captives from the cities and guard the loot. Many would likely be drunk and feasting or just recovering at night.

Lastly, there are often profound differences in the abilities of armies assaulting static or arrayed positions as opposed to being forced to defend themselves from surprise attacks. The four kings did very well against those native to the land and presumably only left once all threats to their dominion had been eliminated (again, Abraham was not seen as a threat).

Abraham may have been familiar with their tactics, having lived in or around a prominent or capital city. He may have believed he had the upper hand, especially with the security of God's as-yet-unfulfilled promise (meaning that Abraham has to survive this). Abraham's apparent lack of hesitation may have been the confidence of a leader who has read his opponent correctly, has a clear mission, the resources to carry it through as well as a moral responsibility to rescue his blood relative.

At the end of the conflict, whatever the arrangement may have been between Abraham and his allies, he is clearly the senior party, negotiating with the king of Sodom on their behalf for their shares.

The Giants Weren't a Significant Factor

Notice the route that the four kings take. They defeat the Rephaim, the Zuzim (may be the same as Zamzummim), the Emim and the Horites, up to the wilderness (desert, unpopulated areas). They are going south on the east side of the Jordan, possibly well overshooting the end of the (now) Dead Sea and as yet avoiding the cities of the plains. They then swing ("back") north and west to Kadesh (not confidently located -- but see Note 5) and hit the Amalekites (all along the southern and Negev areas of modern Israel) and a specific Amorite settlement. Then they defeat Sodom and the other four in a combined battle.

I'm not certain if the Horites are related, but the Rephaim, Zuzim and Emim are definitely linked in their descriptions as giants along with another people known as the Anakim (also named the sons of Anak). See Deut 2:11. The Emim in Moab are regarded as Rephaim, but called Emim by Moab. The Anakim are also considered Rephaim (suggesting Anak who is descended from an Arba -- Josh 15:3 -- is also possibly from a Rapha, but we don't have any better information on these three). Similarly the land given to Ammon was also inhabited by earlier Rephaim, who Ammonites called Zamzummim. In Deut 2:10, the Emim are apparently as numerous and tall as the Anakim. When the Hebrew spies look at the land of Canaan they run into the Sons of Anak (Num 13:33) and report that they felt like grasshoppers to them and probably were regarded as such by the Anakites. Finally, Og the King of Bashan (the same as the land of the Rephaim), when killed in battle with Moses, had a bed frame approximately 13x6 feet (Deut 3:11). Og is officially the last of the Rephaim, yet, if Anakites are considered Rephaim, we know of several descendants of Anak fighting for the Philistines as giants: Goliath and his two brothers who were killed by David's relative and an unknown affiliate. Does this suggest that Og is the last of the established Rephaim, but not necessarily of the entire race? Og is the last time the word "Rephaim" is mentioned outside of simply naming the land itself.

They are frightening. But they can also be killed.

It's possible that what we see in scripture may reflect a gradual decline of these peoples. There are significant territories East of the Jordan that the four kings go through. However, we just read that they "defeat... defeat... defeat..." as if engaging an entirely unextraordinary force. Anakites in the south west are encountered by the Hebrew spies, yet, only Og is mentioned among those particular three Rehpaim territories encountered in Abraham's day. Remember, the Hebrews had God fighting for them, but that advantage likely did not apply to the four kings.

Joshua and Caleb extinguish them handily from all the land in the West where they still have fortified cities, leaving only a trace in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod in the south west (hence Goliath). But despite the original fear of the spies forty years before, no extended record of any attack on the Anakite cities appears (unlike Jericho or Ai, etc.) Most of the enemies in the land aren't Anakim, which further suggests that the Anakim were perhaps even a minority in a land of normal-sized people. Og is the king of Bashan, but the last of the Rephaim, which may indicate that by this time, a handful of Rephaim rulers may simply stand out among a normal population. In the case of Goliath and his brothers, they will later serve the Philistines. Despite the Anakim surviving in the Philistine cities by David's day, there are no armies of giants. They may simply have died off or been subsumed into the larger population as genetically compatible outliers.

This may also be upheld by the absence (at least in our record) of giants fighting in normal-peopled armies in the days of Joshua and Caleb. They stuck to their cities and only integrated out of necessity (as in Gath, Gaza and Ashdod). That would accord with a natural genetic source (or upkeep) of their giantism. They have to keep it in the gene-pool.

The question arises: who are these Anakim? The Hebrew spies called them "nephilim", which takes us back to Gen 6:4, where is says the "nephilim were there in those days (pre-Flood) as afterward, when the sons of God..." Many presume "afterward" means the post-Flood days since we read of "nephilim" in Joshua's day. So both nephilim groups are the product of angels and humans. However I've always had a problem with the idea of angels being permitted to come down again after the flood and doing the same thing that helped get the earlier world destroyed catastrophically. Those angels who left their first estate were not spared but are bound for the judgment day (Jude 6). It's not out of the question that after the flood, some angels did the same and suffered the same results, but it seems strange. And if they did, their giant offspring enjoyed dramatically reduced success.

It's been pointed out that the Hebrew isn't necessarily as clear as the English as to where the punctuation goes. We may also potentially read it where "nephilim were there in those days" is distinct from "as afterward when the Sons of God..." meaning that we are distinguishing giants not related to angels from giants that are the product of angels, all within the same pre-flood age.

We read about the post-flood Anakim, and it's natural to assume that this earlier parenthetical is talking about pre- and post-flood, but that's not demanded. The Hebrew spies may have too-liberally used the word "nephilim" in their description, yet it remains that there were powerful giants. And if there are nephilim giants that are not the product of angels, that suggests that somewhere in the genetic makeup of pre-flood man we have giantism, which thus allows for the possibility that it may still have been present in the genetic makeup of Noah, his sons and their wives. Given enough in-breeding, giantism well could reappear as other traits do today in various populations. We even have giantism today, some were even overly strong wrestlers. But we also know about the shortened life-spans of those born with this condition. Could be the same, could be different.

They may have had limited eyesight (see Note 6).

It's not then so strange to wonder if these Rephaim never got to be a big enough population to significantly alter the balance of power in a region as a people. They simply had too many problems and recovered more slowly from defeats. They were frightening in a one-on-one battle, but never present and armed in numbers to threaten well-equipped armies.

It sounds like a fairy tale, talking about actual giants walking with tiny people, but there it is in scripture. Each group in turn was displaced. The Hebrews destroyed Og and his army, and his territory went to Manasseh. The Ammonites took over the land of the Zuzim. The Moabites took over the land of the Emim. Presumably the last of these people died with Goliath and his brothers.

The Edomites displaced the Horites (despite it being the same vicinity, no mention is made of any Rephaite connection to Horites). If these are the Hurrians, they were likely not among the early settlers but could have arrived after the first invasion of those Eastern kings.

One last thought on this, and admittedly I'm now stepping beyond extrapolation and interpolation and into the realm of speculation. Very far up on the earth's surface (generally where we couldn't easily ascribe something to a pre-flood period) we have the preservation of strange humans like the Neanderthal and the Cro-Magnon. As for the later, he's now renamed "early Modern Human" since there's a direct genetic link to the rest of us. For the former, popular impressions are still suffering from the examination of one of the early specimens that apparently suffered from a crippling and debilitating form of arthritis. The late zoologist Boton Davidheiser commented that dressed up in coat and hat on the New York subway, no one would look twice.

That admitted, is it possible that, in the days of chaos and expansion that defined the early post-flood world, and an environment much less hospitable than the earlier times (think aftermath of tsunamis, but on a worldwide scale), Noah and his family were still more genetically diverse than we are today? Our earlier ancestors, those that hunted, apparently had the leg bones of Olympic sprinters. Cro-Magnon humans were extremely tough and sturdy with all the normal hallmarks of intelligence, language and social behaviors. Neanderthals have similar advantages, and in fact nearly all of the world, with the exception of those specifically from sub-Saharan Africa, share a non-trivial amount of "Neanderthal" genes. This could be explained by a secondary migration from Africa out into the world where Neanderthals already were (the "Out of Africa" theory). On the other hand, it could be explained by peoples heading towards Africa before tribes that included these different humans began intermingling, and those other humans never followed. Did they die out before crossing Southward? Was the southern continent not hospitable for them?

Keep in mind that, if you plot the lifespans of the humans recorded in scripture for both pre- and post-flood times, you see a dramatic decline in longevity immediately after the flood. This may coincide with other infirmities that simply weren't there before the flood.

Could these Anakim giants be simply another strain of humanity that didn't thrive in the post-flood world?

My Notes:

See James Parkinson: RESOLVING CHRONOLOGY OF THE 2nd MILLENNIUM B.C. My dad's view offers a suggestion as to who these kings are, as well as the Pharaohs of Joseph's and Moses' day. In this case, although it appears he starts by identifying these kings and working forward using the timeline in scripture, this in fact works into earlier efforts of his where (like most) he finds an indisputable date (i.e. Babylonian captivity) and works backwards.

Regarding chronology (the attempt to link dates in history and other related story with Biblical events) not many people have this interest and there are a few accepted versions. For the most part, scripture allows one to easily piece the timeline together by often giving the intervals between significant events or the lives of people. You can then use this to go all the way to Noah's day and beyond this way.

It's not all cut and dry however, because scripture appears to give different dates for the same period.
Two major questions involve how long was the period of the Judges and how long were the Israelites in Egypt.

1 Kings 6:1 says that 480 years pass from the Exodus to the beginning of building of the temple, which is also the 4th year of Solomon's reign. In Acts 13, however, if you add up the intervals listed, you get a figure of 573 years. There isn't much dispute as to a number of spans, so really, the question is how long was the period of the Judges?

Another question arises as to how long was Israel's time in Egypt, given that Exodus 12:40-41 tells us its 430 years from Jacob's entry into Egypt until the Exodus. However, Gal 3 says that 430 years elapses from the Abrahamic promise until Sinai (which based on how long it takes Jacob to get to Egpyt, makes their sojourn 210-215 years instead of the full 430).

We assume the inerrancy of scripture, so we are presented with the question of how can these dates be different and yet correct, and so several options (not presented here) are explored. This results in variations of chronology that can add up to 300 years to figure out when Abraham lived. In this case, my dad's chronology accords to a fair degree with the identifying of these kings and Pharaohs.

On the other, it doesn't quite work with mine, but I admit his argument is worth consideration.

Notes from my Father:

Note 1: A valuable reference here is K.A. Kitchen, "On the Reliability of the Old Testament;" Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. While no book is entirely perfect, Kitchen is a renowned archaeologist and his book is a powerful rebuttal to the minimalists -- those who hold that the Bible is not a reliable record of history.

Note 2: JP: Ken Kitchen, p568, note 23, argues that this is not Larsa.

Note 3: JP: Earlier, Ur-Nammu, who founded the 3rd Dynasty of Ur, defeated Puzur-Inshushinak, king of Elam, and replaced him with one of his own choice. Might that not be the beginning of the Genesis 14 alliance? The wording of verses 1,4,9 and 14 suggests that Ellasar may have been vassal to Ur, and Goyin/Gutium may have been vassal to Elam. Ur-Nammu led the first invasion - verse 1 -- while Kutir-Lagamar led the second. Perhaps because Harran was taken by Ur, and Sodom was taken by Elam. Perhaps Gutium took the area S.E. of the Dead Sea, and that is how the Horites -- Hurrians -- came to be there. I ratehr think these two wards ended the Early Bronze Age.

Note 4: JP: Kitchen, p. 320, "bears an early Hittite name, Tudkhalia, and his title is a fair equivalent of the 'paramount chiefs'..."

Note 5: JP: Qadesh means 'holy'; probably Arabic 'Ain Quadis', 40 miles S of Beer Sheba.

Note 6: JP: Chaim Herzog and Mordechai Gichon, "Battles of the Bible;" New York: Barnes & Noble, 1978 and 1997, p93, "(Contrary to current fashion, which would like to transfer whatever is doubtful in the Biblical accounts to the realm of myth, endocrinology has been marshalled to prove convincingly that limited eyesight, common in tall, strong people, could have hampered Goliath's capability to react correctly to David's aiming his sling.)"