In this chapter, we find the genealogy from Adam to Abraham's descendants through Esau.
This chapter opens the longest genealogy in the bible at the very beginning: with the creation of Adam. Right away we can deduce that the author of Chronicles was familiar with the book of Genesis. While it might seem self-evident (since Genesis is so widely available today), I actually think this is not something we should take for granted. Especially when you consider how later chapters in this genealogy will refer to figures from Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Samuel and Kings, it's clear that not only was the author of Chronicles familiar with all of these books, but even more importantly these books already formed a recognized scriptural basis for the post-exilic Jews at the time Chronicles was written (c. 500 BCE).
Chronicles begins with Adam for various possible reasons, but the most important reason is that it establishes Chronicles as a "comprehensive" book. It echoes the creation story from Genesis to show that Chronicles is going to tell the whole story from beginning to end. It's not exactly true, per se, but it definitely sets the tone for the book of Chronicles. For example, the book of Samuel begins with the story of Hannah and the birth of Samuel, and Samuel concludes when David has secured the kingship over Israel. The book of Kings begins where Samuel leaves off, with David in his old age about to pass on the kingdom to his son Solomon. Neither of these stories start at "the beginning"; in fact, they start approximately where the last book left off. Even Samuel starts at a point logically connected to Ruth and Judges, showing us the transition between the Judges period and the kingdom period. Judges is the natural follow-up to Joshua, which follows Deuteronomy and Numbers, which follows Exodus and Genesis.
All of these books form a more or less contiguous history of Israel from the creation of Adam through the destruction of Jerusalem during the Babylonian exile. In fact, bible scholars have a name for this contiguous history: it is commonly referred to as the "deuteronomistic history". The deuteronomistic history has two fundamental ideas. The first idea is that Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are interrelated and possibly come from a single author or period of authorship, forming a logically continuous work. The second idea is that Deuteronomy establishes the moral framework and assumptions underlying the historical work. In broad terms, this includes things like the dichotomy between blessings and curses depending on Israel's obedience to God (Deut 28). Therefore we can imagine the deuteronomistic history as the history of Israel modeled in terms of blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience towards God. I think both of these ideas are credible and supported by the text. More nuanced details of the deuteronomistic history are beyond the scope of my commentary, but I think these broad ideas are quite helpful to understand when reading the text.
Chronicles shows us in this first chapter that rather than picking up where Kings left off, it's actually going to start all over again from the very beginning, and it's going to tell us the history of Israel all over again, from the beginning of creation through the Babylonian exile. Indeed, Chronicles ends exactly where the book of Kings concludes, but it starts at the beginning of creation rather than where Samuel leaves off. When you contrast this with the deuteronomistic history mentioned above, you can quickly see that while Joshua through Kings are roughly sequential, Chronicles is more of a parallel history, covering many of the same events but doing so in a different historical context and with different motivations. The key to understanding Chronicles is to dissect those motivations and understand what the Chronicler was trying to accomplish with this book. Some of these motivations are discussed in the introduction to Chronicles (just before this chapter), and we will continue to focus on this topic for the rest of the book.
With all that said, there are a few other things I want to say about the genealogy. First, while it does not discuss the stories from Genesis, by referring to the names of the people involved it calls our attention to those stories. The Chronicler is undoubtedly familiar with Genesis, and it's likely that he would have expected his audience to have at least general familiarity with the stories and themes of Genesis. For instance, by telling us the genealogy of Adam, Noah, "Abram, that is Abraham", his readers would remember the first sin, the fall from grace, the flood and Noah's salvation, and Abram's promise from God whereby his name is changed to Abraham, and so on. That's why I think of this genealogy as almost like an abbreviated history, because as long as you know the stories related to these names, you will think of all these events when reading the names.
Second, the genealogy in this chapter contains a section modeled after the genealogy in Genesis 10 and 11 which lists the descendants of Noah and then the ancestors of Abraham. Once again this shows that the author of Chronicles has a deep familiarity with Genesis. However, this genealogy is actually much more extensive than the one in Genesis, which suggests that the Chronicler may have had access to more thorough genealogical records or historical traditions that have since been lost. This is a common theme across the genealogy because many times the Chronicler will copy genealogies from previous books, but include sections or names that we do not have recorded anywhere else.
Third, this genealogy is meant to show Israel's place in God's created order. We see all these different people and nations and kings, and then we see Abraham, Isaac and his son Jacob (referred to by his other name, Israel).
Fourth, this genealogy has a peculiar structure. What it seems to do is list the "preferred" or chosen son last. For instance, v. 5-16 tell us the descendants of Japheth and Ham before we get to the children of Shem in v. 17. Verse 28 begins with the genealogy of Ishmael before discussing the children of Isaac. Similarly, v. 34-35 gives us the descendants of Esau before the children of Jacob. This is counterintuitive given that many genealogies do the exact opposite, listing the favored son first in the place of honor. I don't think we need to read any implications out of this. In my opinion, the genealogy is structured in this way to set up proper transitions from one generation to the next. To explain what I mean, my readers should remember that there are essentially two different kinds of genealogies. There are "broad" genealogies that expand out horizontally, listing all of a persons brothers, their sons, and their sons after that, etc. Basically just going through an entire family tree from one layer to another. The second kind of genealogy is "narrow" or "vertical", just listing father and son going down some chain of descent for a person of interest. The genealogy here in Chronicles is a mixture of both techniques.
The Chronicler clearly has a chain of descent he is interested in: he is interested in the tribes of Israel, Judah, the Levites and priests, and the kings of Judah. This justifies the "vertical" genealogy, which we see in e.g. v. 1-3, v. 24-27 and elsewhere. However, for various reasons the Chronicler also expands out horizontally at other places (e.g. v. 5-10). Therefore I see the genealogy in Chronicles as a series of "horizontal" genealogies connected together by these vertical genealogies, sometimes expanding outwards but always refocusing on the people of interest to the author. The Chronicler lists the favored son last in order to draw our attention back to the next section of the genealogy, which focuses on the descendants of the chosen son, concluding the previous section and opening the next section, with the chosen son given as a transition between these two sections.
Fifth, the genealogy of the Edomites is surprisingly long, possibly because the Edomites were politically significant in the time that Chronicles was written.
Sixth and lastly, as with every other biblical genealogy, this genealogy is overwhelmingly focused on male descent, even though some women are mentioned by name. Unfortunately, I don't have time to discuss this topic in the depth it deserves, since this post is already quite long. Hopefully I will have more time in the future to discuss gender relations in the bible.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Bible Commentary - 1 Chronicles Introduction
I'm really excited to start Chronicles. Excited and a little nervous, I suppose. I'm excited because it's always fun to read a new book, and nervous because Chronicles is almost the exact same book as Kings in nearly every way. I remember the first time I read Chronicles I would think to myself, "wait, do I really have to read all these stories again?" The worst part is when you get to the list of kings, and it's just a long sequence of names that you don't really recognize, understand or remember. It might not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that we just went through a long sequence of names that we don't recognize or remember, and now we have to read another list... of the very same kings. I remember skimming through this book aggressively and filing it away in my brain as "kinda like Kings except with a lengthy genealogy in the beginning".
But fear not, trusty readers: there are many fascinating details and stories in this book, and with patience we should be able to gain genuine insights into the historical period in which this book was written and what it can speak to us in the present about God's heart and God's ways amongst his people.
I think the best way to look at Chronicles is that it's like Samuel and Kings rebooted. People do this all the time with popular movies, writing and producing the exact same movie except that it's "modern", like different actors and new special effects and stuff like that. With Chronicles, it's like the history of Israel taken from the Pentateuch, Samuel and Kings except it's been updated and contextualized for the "modern" generation. At least, it was modern back in 500 BCE. It doesn't seem modern or hip or fresh to us now, but it was probably a significant shift at the time.
The similarities between Kings and Chronicles are fairly broad. Like Kings, Chronicles was originally written as a single work and only split into a 1st and 2nd book hundreds of years later, likely when it was translated by the authors of the Septuagint (Greek OT). And like Kings, Chronicles was written in a similar timeframe, somewhat after the Jews had started returning to the promised land after they were exiled to Babylon, while Kings was written during the exile or only briefly after. Lastly, Chronicles has a very similar writing style to Kings, with a thematic structure revolving around the progression of kings, emphasizing the changes in Israel's spiritual climate under one king versus another. Under the good kings, we see a renewal in Israel's relationship with God, and under bad kings we see its degradation.
Much as I am emphasizing the similarity to the book of Kings (similar writing style, time frame and themes), there are quite a few differences as well. Perhaps the most obvious difference is that the book of Chronicles focuses almost exclusively on the kings and history of Judah (the southern kingdom), while the book of Kings arguably spends more time on the history of Israel (the northern kingdom) than Judah. In the book of Kings, we spent multiple chapters reading about Elijah and Elisha. In the book of Kings, Elijah is mentioned 63 times; in the book of Chronicles, he is mentioned once. In the book of Kings, Elisha is mentioned roughly 52 times; in the book of Chronicles, he is mentioned exactly zero times. Both Elijah and Elisha were predominantly sent to Israel, hence when the history of Israel is omitted, these prophets also disappear from Chronicles.
Even when describing the kings of Judah, Chronicles adds quite a bit to some stories, filling in a lot of the gaps and omissions in the book of Kings. In other parts, many stories are left out, especially as it relates to David and Solomon. The author of Chronicles leaves out nearly everything about David and Solomon that paint them in a negative light. For instance, he does not describe: David's sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, the succession crisis when Adonijah tried to steal the kingship, Absalom's rebellion, and Solomon's later idolatry when he marries foreign women. Since this establishes a clear pattern of trying to make David and Solomon look good (perhaps, look better than they actually were), one would naturally ask why would Chronicles leave these stories out?
It's possible the author of Chronicles is trying to create, or is himself clouded by, a perception of a more idealistic past that the Jews could seek to rebuild. Since Chronicles is pretty clearly post-exilic, the people of Judah are now returning to their homeland for the first time in a generation and trying to rebuild their nation. The book of Chronicles is perhaps trying to cast a vision for what the nation should aspire to: a united people serving God under a righteous king. It's hard to say for sure, though.
Another big difference between this book and Kings is the aforementioned genealogy. I believe this is the longest and most thorough genealogy in the bible. While I'm going to discuss the details of this genealogy in the coming chapters, what I want to say now is that Chronicles spends a lot of time and energy trying to establish the continuity of their "present day" at the time it was written and the history of David, Solomon and even the earlier patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The genealogy does this directly by showing the lines of inheritance between these respective historical figures into the present day, and Chronicle's deep focus on the temple in Jerusalem and God's covenant with Israel establishes continuity in a more spiritual way. Through these two topics, Chronicles places the post-exilic Judah as both the biological and spiritual inheritors of the promised land, through natural descent and God's promise. The temple becomes a rallying point that they can gather around both as an artifact of their previous dominion over the land, as well as a symbol of God's enduring promise that they would possess the land forever.
In a manner of speaking, the book of Chronicles is appealing to the past as a way to bolster their legitimacy and claims on the land into the future. This is particularly relevant in the post-exilic period because the people may not feel like the land of Judah is "their place" without understanding their historical presence in the area.
In summary, Chronicles is a book written primarily for the people of Judah, focusing on the history of Judah, it describes David and Solomon in idealistic terms to establish a historical "golden age" that they could aspire to rebuild when returning from exile, and it seeks to establish a continuity with the past to both justify and inspire Judah's reoccupation of the promised land and Jerusalem. In all of these aspects, Chronicles is really a product of its time.
But fear not, trusty readers: there are many fascinating details and stories in this book, and with patience we should be able to gain genuine insights into the historical period in which this book was written and what it can speak to us in the present about God's heart and God's ways amongst his people.
I think the best way to look at Chronicles is that it's like Samuel and Kings rebooted. People do this all the time with popular movies, writing and producing the exact same movie except that it's "modern", like different actors and new special effects and stuff like that. With Chronicles, it's like the history of Israel taken from the Pentateuch, Samuel and Kings except it's been updated and contextualized for the "modern" generation. At least, it was modern back in 500 BCE. It doesn't seem modern or hip or fresh to us now, but it was probably a significant shift at the time.
The similarities between Kings and Chronicles are fairly broad. Like Kings, Chronicles was originally written as a single work and only split into a 1st and 2nd book hundreds of years later, likely when it was translated by the authors of the Septuagint (Greek OT). And like Kings, Chronicles was written in a similar timeframe, somewhat after the Jews had started returning to the promised land after they were exiled to Babylon, while Kings was written during the exile or only briefly after. Lastly, Chronicles has a very similar writing style to Kings, with a thematic structure revolving around the progression of kings, emphasizing the changes in Israel's spiritual climate under one king versus another. Under the good kings, we see a renewal in Israel's relationship with God, and under bad kings we see its degradation.
Much as I am emphasizing the similarity to the book of Kings (similar writing style, time frame and themes), there are quite a few differences as well. Perhaps the most obvious difference is that the book of Chronicles focuses almost exclusively on the kings and history of Judah (the southern kingdom), while the book of Kings arguably spends more time on the history of Israel (the northern kingdom) than Judah. In the book of Kings, we spent multiple chapters reading about Elijah and Elisha. In the book of Kings, Elijah is mentioned 63 times; in the book of Chronicles, he is mentioned once. In the book of Kings, Elisha is mentioned roughly 52 times; in the book of Chronicles, he is mentioned exactly zero times. Both Elijah and Elisha were predominantly sent to Israel, hence when the history of Israel is omitted, these prophets also disappear from Chronicles.
Even when describing the kings of Judah, Chronicles adds quite a bit to some stories, filling in a lot of the gaps and omissions in the book of Kings. In other parts, many stories are left out, especially as it relates to David and Solomon. The author of Chronicles leaves out nearly everything about David and Solomon that paint them in a negative light. For instance, he does not describe: David's sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, the succession crisis when Adonijah tried to steal the kingship, Absalom's rebellion, and Solomon's later idolatry when he marries foreign women. Since this establishes a clear pattern of trying to make David and Solomon look good (perhaps, look better than they actually were), one would naturally ask why would Chronicles leave these stories out?
It's possible the author of Chronicles is trying to create, or is himself clouded by, a perception of a more idealistic past that the Jews could seek to rebuild. Since Chronicles is pretty clearly post-exilic, the people of Judah are now returning to their homeland for the first time in a generation and trying to rebuild their nation. The book of Chronicles is perhaps trying to cast a vision for what the nation should aspire to: a united people serving God under a righteous king. It's hard to say for sure, though.
Another big difference between this book and Kings is the aforementioned genealogy. I believe this is the longest and most thorough genealogy in the bible. While I'm going to discuss the details of this genealogy in the coming chapters, what I want to say now is that Chronicles spends a lot of time and energy trying to establish the continuity of their "present day" at the time it was written and the history of David, Solomon and even the earlier patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The genealogy does this directly by showing the lines of inheritance between these respective historical figures into the present day, and Chronicle's deep focus on the temple in Jerusalem and God's covenant with Israel establishes continuity in a more spiritual way. Through these two topics, Chronicles places the post-exilic Judah as both the biological and spiritual inheritors of the promised land, through natural descent and God's promise. The temple becomes a rallying point that they can gather around both as an artifact of their previous dominion over the land, as well as a symbol of God's enduring promise that they would possess the land forever.
In a manner of speaking, the book of Chronicles is appealing to the past as a way to bolster their legitimacy and claims on the land into the future. This is particularly relevant in the post-exilic period because the people may not feel like the land of Judah is "their place" without understanding their historical presence in the area.
In summary, Chronicles is a book written primarily for the people of Judah, focusing on the history of Judah, it describes David and Solomon in idealistic terms to establish a historical "golden age" that they could aspire to rebuild when returning from exile, and it seeks to establish a continuity with the past to both justify and inspire Judah's reoccupation of the promised land and Jerusalem. In all of these aspects, Chronicles is really a product of its time.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Bible Commentary - 2 Kings 25
In this chapter, Jerusalem is burnt to the ground and nearly all the people are killed or exiled.
To speak honestly, this chapter simply reeks of hopelessness and despair. Jerusalem: destroyed. The king: blinded and imprisoned, with his sons put to death. The people: cast out from the land of promise. This is all of their worst fears come to life, all of the things threatened in Deuteronomy if the people rebelled, all of the things threatened by the prophets, all of the consequences of sin and idolatry. There was a time when Moses said, "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live." (Deut 30:19) What we can see here with stark clarity is that Judah (as well as the northern kingdom Israel/Samaria) chose death. They chose to rebel against God (like Adam) and like Adam, they are now confronted with God's curse as a result of their actions.
If my readers remember, God originally established the covenant with Israel in order to draw them back into a proper relationship with him. Man was supposed to live in community with God; that community was broken when Adam sinned. God sought to restore it by establishing a covenant first with the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and then later with the entire nation of Israel (the story in Ex 19-24). I think it is important for my readers to understand that the fundamental deal God offered to Israel is very similar to the situation that Adam was placed in. God basically told Adam, "hey Adam, I am going to bless you, here is a great wife, you can possess the whole earth and multiply and do all these fun things, just don't sin by eating from a particular tree or else you will die." Adam goes and does exactly the thing God told him not to, and so he dies and the world is thrown into chaos. God says to himself, "that did not go the way I wanted it to." And so God sets off and he finds Israel, and he says to Israel, "hey, so things didn't work out between me and Adam. But you look pretty cool, how about you guys come back to your own personal garden of Eden in the promised land, I will bless you with anything you could ever hope or dream to have, and you guys follow me. The only law is that you should not sin and put me before all other gods, or else you will die." What we've learned over the last few books (well, basically everything between here and Exodus 32, inclusive) is that Israel delves right back into sin, following Adam's footsteps into darkness and similarly following Adam into the promised death.
Now, there are some differences; the sin is different, the way death happens to them is different, and a lot of the superficial circumstances are different. But I think these two stories are fundamentally very similar. In both cases God was bringing people into relationship with himself, in both cases there was a choice between life and death, in both cases the people involved chose death, and in both cases they were cast out of their homeland (Eden in one case, the promised land in the other) to a dark and uncertain future.
I could imagine someone asking, "if God saw how things worked out with Adam, why would he try again with Israel?" There are numerous answers to this question, but for the sake of time I will only offer one: God is trying to establish through the Old Testament (OT) the human need for a savior. Basically, the way I read it is this: if we had only seen Adam sin, then perhaps people would say, "well Adam sinned, but I will not repeat his mistake! God is condemning all of mankind for the actions of a single individual, and he is unjust to do so. I will act righteously." When we look at Israel, God blessed them in many ways, he provided for them, he delivered them from slavery in Egypt (which is symbolic of death, similar to how Adam was cast out of the garden) and he brought them into the promised land, to the "new Eden" for them to inhabit, cultivate, to be fruitful and multiply. And even after all the blessing, Israel sins again and again, harming one another and forsaking God in exchange for worthless idols. Moses interceded for the people many times, forestalling God's wrath, but never averting it entirely and now that wrath has come.
What Israel shows us is that sin is not some kind of accident like Adam was walking along and he suddenly tripped and his mouth landed on the forbidden fruit, and it all happened so fast and he couldn't help it, and he's really very sorry and he promises it would never happen again! To Adam, sin was a deliberate choice, perhaps a regretted choice but one he made nonetheless, and in the thousands of years since it was a choice repeated by every generation. That is the message of the OT. God could keep forgiving, keep restraining himself, and mankind would just keep sinning. There is no amount of second or third of fourth chances that would ever be enough for us to "figure it out" and stop sinning, and sin is not the result of harsh or burdensome circumstances. We do not sin because of our bad childhood or poverty or any circumstantial factor. God blessed Adam and he blessed Israel to show us that sin is not the result of hostile conditions, it's due to the innate tendencies of our own hearts. As the book of Judges puts it, everyone "doing what was right in his own eyes", choosing his own path and making his own decisions about what is good or bad instead of following God's standards for good and bad.
The OT establishes the need for a savior, someone who can come unadulterated by our sinful tendencies and help bring us back into proper relationship with God. Someone like the high priest who goes into the temple and makes atonement for the people, like on the day of atonement (Hebrew, "Yom Kippur". Lev 23:26-32)
Kings is not the end of the OT (in fact, we're barely halfway done), but in many ways I think the Babylonian exile is the thematic heart because of all these patterns that I just discussed.
The destruction of Jerusalem itself follows many of the same patterns as in the previous chapter, except more extreme. This time, rather than simply pillage Jerusalem, they steal everything and burn the city to the ground. The temple, palace and every good house is destroyed with fire. The people are again exiled, but instead of 7,000 leading men, the king of Babylon takes away the majority of the people. Now only a handful are left in the land. The chief officials (who led the rebellion) are put to death rather than exiled, and Judah is not given a new king. Gedaliah is appointed as a governor under king Nebuchadnezzar's authority. Judah no longer possesses even nominal independence, as punishment for their second revolt.
Some men go and assassinate Gedaliah and it's not entirely clear to me why. The bible doesn't really say, but there are two motivations that suggest themselves: first, it's possible that Ishmael killed Gedaliah because Gedaliah was collaborating with the Babylonians. Second, it's possible that Ishmael killed him in order to steal money and (as we will later discover in the book of Jeremiah) to take slaves. Because Ishmael is a brigand, essentially. Between these two, the first explanation makes a bit more sense to me personally (since Ishmael is a member of the royal household in v. 25 and probably loyal to Zedekiah), but it's hard to say for sure.
The last paragraph in the book ends on a slightly more hopeful note, telling us that 37 years into his exile, the king of Babylon (Evil-Merodach, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar) honors Jehoiachin with a favorable position and royal food. Jehoiachin is the king who was exiled before Zedekiah (in the previous chapter: 2 Kings 24:15); there is no evidence that Zedekiah was ever freed from prison, and he probably died in disgrace.
And with this, the book of Kings concludes. We are left in hopeful expectation for a salvation to come from God, both to free Israel from their captivity in Babylon as well as to free all men from the captivity of sin and death. The book of Kings (and the OT in general) leave us with a firm knowledge of the problem: sin. Now we must wait for God's answer; how will God bring about this great salvation?
To speak honestly, this chapter simply reeks of hopelessness and despair. Jerusalem: destroyed. The king: blinded and imprisoned, with his sons put to death. The people: cast out from the land of promise. This is all of their worst fears come to life, all of the things threatened in Deuteronomy if the people rebelled, all of the things threatened by the prophets, all of the consequences of sin and idolatry. There was a time when Moses said, "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live." (Deut 30:19) What we can see here with stark clarity is that Judah (as well as the northern kingdom Israel/Samaria) chose death. They chose to rebel against God (like Adam) and like Adam, they are now confronted with God's curse as a result of their actions.
If my readers remember, God originally established the covenant with Israel in order to draw them back into a proper relationship with him. Man was supposed to live in community with God; that community was broken when Adam sinned. God sought to restore it by establishing a covenant first with the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and then later with the entire nation of Israel (the story in Ex 19-24). I think it is important for my readers to understand that the fundamental deal God offered to Israel is very similar to the situation that Adam was placed in. God basically told Adam, "hey Adam, I am going to bless you, here is a great wife, you can possess the whole earth and multiply and do all these fun things, just don't sin by eating from a particular tree or else you will die." Adam goes and does exactly the thing God told him not to, and so he dies and the world is thrown into chaos. God says to himself, "that did not go the way I wanted it to." And so God sets off and he finds Israel, and he says to Israel, "hey, so things didn't work out between me and Adam. But you look pretty cool, how about you guys come back to your own personal garden of Eden in the promised land, I will bless you with anything you could ever hope or dream to have, and you guys follow me. The only law is that you should not sin and put me before all other gods, or else you will die." What we've learned over the last few books (well, basically everything between here and Exodus 32, inclusive) is that Israel delves right back into sin, following Adam's footsteps into darkness and similarly following Adam into the promised death.
Now, there are some differences; the sin is different, the way death happens to them is different, and a lot of the superficial circumstances are different. But I think these two stories are fundamentally very similar. In both cases God was bringing people into relationship with himself, in both cases there was a choice between life and death, in both cases the people involved chose death, and in both cases they were cast out of their homeland (Eden in one case, the promised land in the other) to a dark and uncertain future.
I could imagine someone asking, "if God saw how things worked out with Adam, why would he try again with Israel?" There are numerous answers to this question, but for the sake of time I will only offer one: God is trying to establish through the Old Testament (OT) the human need for a savior. Basically, the way I read it is this: if we had only seen Adam sin, then perhaps people would say, "well Adam sinned, but I will not repeat his mistake! God is condemning all of mankind for the actions of a single individual, and he is unjust to do so. I will act righteously." When we look at Israel, God blessed them in many ways, he provided for them, he delivered them from slavery in Egypt (which is symbolic of death, similar to how Adam was cast out of the garden) and he brought them into the promised land, to the "new Eden" for them to inhabit, cultivate, to be fruitful and multiply. And even after all the blessing, Israel sins again and again, harming one another and forsaking God in exchange for worthless idols. Moses interceded for the people many times, forestalling God's wrath, but never averting it entirely and now that wrath has come.
What Israel shows us is that sin is not some kind of accident like Adam was walking along and he suddenly tripped and his mouth landed on the forbidden fruit, and it all happened so fast and he couldn't help it, and he's really very sorry and he promises it would never happen again! To Adam, sin was a deliberate choice, perhaps a regretted choice but one he made nonetheless, and in the thousands of years since it was a choice repeated by every generation. That is the message of the OT. God could keep forgiving, keep restraining himself, and mankind would just keep sinning. There is no amount of second or third of fourth chances that would ever be enough for us to "figure it out" and stop sinning, and sin is not the result of harsh or burdensome circumstances. We do not sin because of our bad childhood or poverty or any circumstantial factor. God blessed Adam and he blessed Israel to show us that sin is not the result of hostile conditions, it's due to the innate tendencies of our own hearts. As the book of Judges puts it, everyone "doing what was right in his own eyes", choosing his own path and making his own decisions about what is good or bad instead of following God's standards for good and bad.
The OT establishes the need for a savior, someone who can come unadulterated by our sinful tendencies and help bring us back into proper relationship with God. Someone like the high priest who goes into the temple and makes atonement for the people, like on the day of atonement (Hebrew, "Yom Kippur". Lev 23:26-32)
Kings is not the end of the OT (in fact, we're barely halfway done), but in many ways I think the Babylonian exile is the thematic heart because of all these patterns that I just discussed.
The destruction of Jerusalem itself follows many of the same patterns as in the previous chapter, except more extreme. This time, rather than simply pillage Jerusalem, they steal everything and burn the city to the ground. The temple, palace and every good house is destroyed with fire. The people are again exiled, but instead of 7,000 leading men, the king of Babylon takes away the majority of the people. Now only a handful are left in the land. The chief officials (who led the rebellion) are put to death rather than exiled, and Judah is not given a new king. Gedaliah is appointed as a governor under king Nebuchadnezzar's authority. Judah no longer possesses even nominal independence, as punishment for their second revolt.
Some men go and assassinate Gedaliah and it's not entirely clear to me why. The bible doesn't really say, but there are two motivations that suggest themselves: first, it's possible that Ishmael killed Gedaliah because Gedaliah was collaborating with the Babylonians. Second, it's possible that Ishmael killed him in order to steal money and (as we will later discover in the book of Jeremiah) to take slaves. Because Ishmael is a brigand, essentially. Between these two, the first explanation makes a bit more sense to me personally (since Ishmael is a member of the royal household in v. 25 and probably loyal to Zedekiah), but it's hard to say for sure.
The last paragraph in the book ends on a slightly more hopeful note, telling us that 37 years into his exile, the king of Babylon (Evil-Merodach, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar) honors Jehoiachin with a favorable position and royal food. Jehoiachin is the king who was exiled before Zedekiah (in the previous chapter: 2 Kings 24:15); there is no evidence that Zedekiah was ever freed from prison, and he probably died in disgrace.
And with this, the book of Kings concludes. We are left in hopeful expectation for a salvation to come from God, both to free Israel from their captivity in Babylon as well as to free all men from the captivity of sin and death. The book of Kings (and the OT in general) leave us with a firm knowledge of the problem: sin. Now we must wait for God's answer; how will God bring about this great salvation?
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Bible Commentary - 2 Kings 24
In this chapter, Jerusalem is sacked and all of the leaders of the city are exiled to Babylon.
There are several broad patterns we can draw out of this chapter. The central point is that Judah is getting systematically torn to pieces, but since we have to read a whole chapter about it, I'm going to write in more detail.
The first pattern is: foreign kings renaming the rulers of Judah. This first happened in the previous chapter when Pharaoh took Eliakim, made him king, and renamed him Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34). The second time it happens is in this chapter in v. 17 when Nebuchadnezzar changed Mattaniah to Zedekiah and made king. It might not be immediately obvious why Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar would do this, but this is an expression of domination. What is a more thorough way to change someone's personal identity than to change their name? God changes the name of several people in history (for instance, Abram renamed to Abraham and Jacob renamed to Israel). In those cases, God would rename people as an expression of his promises for them and their destiny and future. In this case, Nebuchadnezzar is renaming the king of Judah in order to show that the destiny of Judah and Judah's rulers is in the hands of Babylon. If Babylon can change Mattaniah's name, what could they not change?
The actual meaning of Zedekiah and Jehoiakim is godly ("the LORD is righteousness" and "the LORD raised him up" respectively), but the point is that this is not something that was done by God for their good; it was done by a foreign king to break their identity as a means of control.
The second pattern is the removal of leaders and authorities. This is described in verses 10-16 and it's done for two main reasons I can think of. First (and perhaps most importantly) it undermines the possibility of any resistance by removing the people most capable of organizing resistance. The leading men, the "mighty men". Why would Nebuchadnezzar take away all the best soldiers? It could be he wants to place them in his own army, but I think it's more likely because he doesn't want these commanders organizing the army of Judah to fight against him if the people decide to rebel (as they literally did earlier in this chapter, as described in v. 1). The second reason why Nebuchadnezzar would take all the best people, particularly the craftsmen and smiths, is to enslave them for his own profit. These are the people with the most skills and knowledge and the most earning potential. Nebuchadnezzar probably hauled them off to his own workshops to make things for his treasury or whatever other projects he had going on.
Lastly, Nebuchadnezzar removes the material wealth from the country. He's certainly not the first king to pillage Jerusalem's temple and royal palace (for one earlier example, 1 Kings 14:26), but combined with the other actions described in this chapter, it further drives Judah into a state of helplessness and paralysis. Without gold or silver in the royal treasury, the new king of Judah will have less financial resources to 1) raise an army and 2) pay for foreign mercenaries. Besides enriching Nebuchadnezzar, this will also make it more difficult for Judah to resist him in the future.
In conclusion, Judah is basically screwed. Also, there are bands of Moabite, Ammonite and other raiders traversing the land pillaging and murdering people. So that's also happening.
Why does this happen? The author takes yet another opportunity to remind us of the sins of Manasseh; interestingly, it's not the idolatry that seems to drive retribution against Judah, it is the innocent blood shed by Manasseh that has sealed their fate to destruction.
As another brief aside, I should also mention that even though the book of Kings does not describe the battle of Carchemish, we can see the results of it in this chapter where "the king of Egypt did not come out of his land again" (v. 7). The Egyptians, along with the Assyrians, were soundly defeated by the Babylonians. In the previous chapter, Josiah was killed in battle with the Egyptians when the Egyptians were rushing out to get to that battle and Judah resisted them. Now the Egyptians have been defeated and ironically it is the Babylonians that are now oppressing Judah.
Judah started off this chapter in a more dignified kind of servitude to the Babylonians, but there are not many nations that are happy with "dignified servitude", so they resist and are crushed. At the end of this chapter, we learn that Zedekiah now also rebels against the Babylonians and in the next chapter we will learn if he fares better than Jehoiakim.
There are several broad patterns we can draw out of this chapter. The central point is that Judah is getting systematically torn to pieces, but since we have to read a whole chapter about it, I'm going to write in more detail.
The first pattern is: foreign kings renaming the rulers of Judah. This first happened in the previous chapter when Pharaoh took Eliakim, made him king, and renamed him Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34). The second time it happens is in this chapter in v. 17 when Nebuchadnezzar changed Mattaniah to Zedekiah and made king. It might not be immediately obvious why Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar would do this, but this is an expression of domination. What is a more thorough way to change someone's personal identity than to change their name? God changes the name of several people in history (for instance, Abram renamed to Abraham and Jacob renamed to Israel). In those cases, God would rename people as an expression of his promises for them and their destiny and future. In this case, Nebuchadnezzar is renaming the king of Judah in order to show that the destiny of Judah and Judah's rulers is in the hands of Babylon. If Babylon can change Mattaniah's name, what could they not change?
The actual meaning of Zedekiah and Jehoiakim is godly ("the LORD is righteousness" and "the LORD raised him up" respectively), but the point is that this is not something that was done by God for their good; it was done by a foreign king to break their identity as a means of control.
The second pattern is the removal of leaders and authorities. This is described in verses 10-16 and it's done for two main reasons I can think of. First (and perhaps most importantly) it undermines the possibility of any resistance by removing the people most capable of organizing resistance. The leading men, the "mighty men". Why would Nebuchadnezzar take away all the best soldiers? It could be he wants to place them in his own army, but I think it's more likely because he doesn't want these commanders organizing the army of Judah to fight against him if the people decide to rebel (as they literally did earlier in this chapter, as described in v. 1). The second reason why Nebuchadnezzar would take all the best people, particularly the craftsmen and smiths, is to enslave them for his own profit. These are the people with the most skills and knowledge and the most earning potential. Nebuchadnezzar probably hauled them off to his own workshops to make things for his treasury or whatever other projects he had going on.
Lastly, Nebuchadnezzar removes the material wealth from the country. He's certainly not the first king to pillage Jerusalem's temple and royal palace (for one earlier example, 1 Kings 14:26), but combined with the other actions described in this chapter, it further drives Judah into a state of helplessness and paralysis. Without gold or silver in the royal treasury, the new king of Judah will have less financial resources to 1) raise an army and 2) pay for foreign mercenaries. Besides enriching Nebuchadnezzar, this will also make it more difficult for Judah to resist him in the future.
In conclusion, Judah is basically screwed. Also, there are bands of Moabite, Ammonite and other raiders traversing the land pillaging and murdering people. So that's also happening.
Why does this happen? The author takes yet another opportunity to remind us of the sins of Manasseh; interestingly, it's not the idolatry that seems to drive retribution against Judah, it is the innocent blood shed by Manasseh that has sealed their fate to destruction.
As another brief aside, I should also mention that even though the book of Kings does not describe the battle of Carchemish, we can see the results of it in this chapter where "the king of Egypt did not come out of his land again" (v. 7). The Egyptians, along with the Assyrians, were soundly defeated by the Babylonians. In the previous chapter, Josiah was killed in battle with the Egyptians when the Egyptians were rushing out to get to that battle and Judah resisted them. Now the Egyptians have been defeated and ironically it is the Babylonians that are now oppressing Judah.
Judah started off this chapter in a more dignified kind of servitude to the Babylonians, but there are not many nations that are happy with "dignified servitude", so they resist and are crushed. At the end of this chapter, we learn that Zedekiah now also rebels against the Babylonians and in the next chapter we will learn if he fares better than Jehoiakim.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Bible Commentary - 2 Kings 23
In this chapter, Josiah leads Judah into the last great revival of the pre-exilic era.
This chapter is a fascinating journey through the complex world of Judah and Israel's religious observance. The single longest passage in this chapter tells us all of the things that Josiah is destroying or tearing down, and by reading the list of things he's destroying, we can get a good sense of what their religious world looks like. This chapter concludes with the beginning of the political turmoil that heralds the end of Judah's independence.
This chapter begins with Josiah taking the initiative to gather all the people to the temple and in their presence, renew the covenant with the LORD. I think this section (verses 1-3) shows us the power of a king to change and shape the religious landscape of his kingdom. In this case, the king simply decided that his nation would worship another god besides Baal, and that edict is passed down to all the people for them to obey.
However, even though Josiah is sincere in his devotion, I think it's unlikely that most of the people share his passion. We see Josiah driving many of the changes in this chapter. If you read verses 4-24, look at how many times the author talks about what "he" (Josiah) did. Josiah is the one going around destroying altars, removing mediums and spiritists, smashing sacred stones and many other things. Of course, we know that technically it is the men under Josiah's command who are doing all these things. But the point is that it is Josiah's willpower and authority that is enforcing all these decisions and if it were not for Josiah, they would not be happening. By extension, when Josiah dies then the people will rebuild all their altars unless the next king follows in Josiah's footsteps. We know as a matter of fact that the next king does not follow Josiah (v. 32), so unfortunately Josiah's revival dies with him.
God honors Josiah because Josiah is sincere, but in this case the king is remarkably impotent to effect lasting cultural change. This is contrary to the narrative I established elsewhere, particularly with respect to Manasseh, but in this case it's pretty clear that Josiah is a solitary figure trying to push back against the momentum of his society and he fails to make a lasting difference.
Out of all the various things Josiah did, there are a few I want to pick out. First I want to point out how many of the idolatrous practices are centered around the temple. Amongst other things, Josiah removes an Asherah pole from the temple, destroys the rooms of the male prostitutes and the rooms of the "women weaving for Asherah". This shows a considerable amount of syncretism in their religious practice, where at a minimum, Baal and Asherah worship is commingled with worship for the LORD. In practice, it's possible that Baal and Asherah worship was progressively replacing worship for the LORD, which we can see in the way that altars for Baal are built in more and more prominent locations in the temple complex.
From this passage (v. 4-7) we can also get a sense of what their religious worship looked like. Prostitution (including, but not limited to, homosexual prostitution) was part of their religious experience. There are wooden poles symbolizing fertility. The women "weaving for Asherah" is likely connected to divination. For reference, look at Greek and Roman mythology that associates "the fates" with weaving. In that case, weaving was a metaphor for the connected destinies of individual people (each strand) and weaving they could discern and perhaps even control the fate of men and women. Although it's hard to say anything with certainty, I think it's likely that this obscure reference implies similar religious doctrine in ancient Canaanite polytheism.
In a similar vein, Josiah also removes the "horses ... dedicated to the sun" and the "chariots dedicated to the sun". This also reflects or imitates common mythological understanding with the ancient Greeks who similarly described Helios (the god of the sun) as like a man riding a chariot across the sky. It may not be derived from Greek theology directly, but it does seem to indicate some sort of common Mediterranean culture.
I also think this chapter is cool how it shows Josiah sweeping through the temple and Jerusalem, then expanding outwards to Judah and lastly going up to Bethel and Samaria and destroying the altars and high places there. I think it gives the chapter a sense of progression as Josiah moves outward from his base of power (in Jerusalem) to the increasingly distant parts of his own land and then even into Samaria which is not under his dominion (since it had been captured by the Assyrians).
As a brief note, I would also like to point out all of the things Josiah burns in the valley of Ben Hinnom. By the New Testamental period, Ben Hinnom (or equivalently, Gehenna) attains a sort of folklorish significance as a kind of fiery hell that cursed souls are sent to after death. Jesus himself uses the word Gehenna to indicate the kind of dark fate that faces evil men. The story that I had heard was that the valley of Ben Hinnom was used as a sort of municipal dump for Jerusalem, though according to Wikipedia that etiology only emerged in the 12th century AD, well after the events described in 2nd Kings.
Lastly, the story in verses 15-20 is directly referencing a passage much earlier in 1 Kings 13. In that chapter, an unnamed prophet directly references Josiah himself and says that Josiah would destroy Jeroboam's altar, which is fulfilled here at almost the very end of the book, right before Judah is destroyed as an independent nation.
After that, they celebrate the Passover for the first time in what... a hundred years? Maybe more, maybe less. It's hard to say for sure. What we do know is that this is the first and only reference to the Passover in the entire book of Kings; there are no references to the Passover at all in the entire books of Samuel or Judges. It is referenced once in the book of Joshua. Although we have to read between the lines a bit, it seems unlikely that the Israelites were celebrating the Passover more than once in a given generation; perhaps less.
Verse 26 tells us that no matter how much good Josiah sought to do, it was not enough to overcome the great evil that Manasseh performed.
After that, Josiah gets into a war with the Egyptians and dies. After Josiah's defeat, Israel is subjugated by the Egyptians who impose tribute upon them. The kings return to doing evil and with that, Josiah's revival is over. I could talk more about the political situation between Egypt, Assyria and the emerging Babylonians, but this commentary is already pretty long so I'll keep it brief. Egypt is in decline, but they still have power and are trying to hold onto their vassals in Canaan and Sinai. Assyria is also in decline, and in fact has been defeated by the Babylonians several times (not recorded in the biblical account). Judah is allied with the Babylonians as we earlier saw. Neco is actually allied with the Assyrians and is not going up to fight the Assyrians, he is going up to join them to try to hold back the Babylonians. Josiah fights against the Egyptians because he is helping his ally Babylon, but he is killed in battle and the Egyptians are not held back from their destination, Carchemish. The Egyptians and Assyrians enter into battle against the Babylonians at Carchemish, and the Babylonians promptly slaughter everyone. This battle (which is not directly mentioned in Kings) results in the demise of the Assyrian empire and is a considerable blow to the Egyptian empire. After this (beginning in the very first verse of 2 Kings 24), it is suddenly the Babylonians who are the powerful foreign adversary marching around conquering nations like Judah.
In the next chapter, we will learn more about Jehoiakim's reign and how he responds to the Babylonian threat.
This chapter is a fascinating journey through the complex world of Judah and Israel's religious observance. The single longest passage in this chapter tells us all of the things that Josiah is destroying or tearing down, and by reading the list of things he's destroying, we can get a good sense of what their religious world looks like. This chapter concludes with the beginning of the political turmoil that heralds the end of Judah's independence.
This chapter begins with Josiah taking the initiative to gather all the people to the temple and in their presence, renew the covenant with the LORD. I think this section (verses 1-3) shows us the power of a king to change and shape the religious landscape of his kingdom. In this case, the king simply decided that his nation would worship another god besides Baal, and that edict is passed down to all the people for them to obey.
However, even though Josiah is sincere in his devotion, I think it's unlikely that most of the people share his passion. We see Josiah driving many of the changes in this chapter. If you read verses 4-24, look at how many times the author talks about what "he" (Josiah) did. Josiah is the one going around destroying altars, removing mediums and spiritists, smashing sacred stones and many other things. Of course, we know that technically it is the men under Josiah's command who are doing all these things. But the point is that it is Josiah's willpower and authority that is enforcing all these decisions and if it were not for Josiah, they would not be happening. By extension, when Josiah dies then the people will rebuild all their altars unless the next king follows in Josiah's footsteps. We know as a matter of fact that the next king does not follow Josiah (v. 32), so unfortunately Josiah's revival dies with him.
God honors Josiah because Josiah is sincere, but in this case the king is remarkably impotent to effect lasting cultural change. This is contrary to the narrative I established elsewhere, particularly with respect to Manasseh, but in this case it's pretty clear that Josiah is a solitary figure trying to push back against the momentum of his society and he fails to make a lasting difference.
Out of all the various things Josiah did, there are a few I want to pick out. First I want to point out how many of the idolatrous practices are centered around the temple. Amongst other things, Josiah removes an Asherah pole from the temple, destroys the rooms of the male prostitutes and the rooms of the "women weaving for Asherah". This shows a considerable amount of syncretism in their religious practice, where at a minimum, Baal and Asherah worship is commingled with worship for the LORD. In practice, it's possible that Baal and Asherah worship was progressively replacing worship for the LORD, which we can see in the way that altars for Baal are built in more and more prominent locations in the temple complex.
From this passage (v. 4-7) we can also get a sense of what their religious worship looked like. Prostitution (including, but not limited to, homosexual prostitution) was part of their religious experience. There are wooden poles symbolizing fertility. The women "weaving for Asherah" is likely connected to divination. For reference, look at Greek and Roman mythology that associates "the fates" with weaving. In that case, weaving was a metaphor for the connected destinies of individual people (each strand) and weaving they could discern and perhaps even control the fate of men and women. Although it's hard to say anything with certainty, I think it's likely that this obscure reference implies similar religious doctrine in ancient Canaanite polytheism.
In a similar vein, Josiah also removes the "horses ... dedicated to the sun" and the "chariots dedicated to the sun". This also reflects or imitates common mythological understanding with the ancient Greeks who similarly described Helios (the god of the sun) as like a man riding a chariot across the sky. It may not be derived from Greek theology directly, but it does seem to indicate some sort of common Mediterranean culture.
I also think this chapter is cool how it shows Josiah sweeping through the temple and Jerusalem, then expanding outwards to Judah and lastly going up to Bethel and Samaria and destroying the altars and high places there. I think it gives the chapter a sense of progression as Josiah moves outward from his base of power (in Jerusalem) to the increasingly distant parts of his own land and then even into Samaria which is not under his dominion (since it had been captured by the Assyrians).
As a brief note, I would also like to point out all of the things Josiah burns in the valley of Ben Hinnom. By the New Testamental period, Ben Hinnom (or equivalently, Gehenna) attains a sort of folklorish significance as a kind of fiery hell that cursed souls are sent to after death. Jesus himself uses the word Gehenna to indicate the kind of dark fate that faces evil men. The story that I had heard was that the valley of Ben Hinnom was used as a sort of municipal dump for Jerusalem, though according to Wikipedia that etiology only emerged in the 12th century AD, well after the events described in 2nd Kings.
Lastly, the story in verses 15-20 is directly referencing a passage much earlier in 1 Kings 13. In that chapter, an unnamed prophet directly references Josiah himself and says that Josiah would destroy Jeroboam's altar, which is fulfilled here at almost the very end of the book, right before Judah is destroyed as an independent nation.
After that, they celebrate the Passover for the first time in what... a hundred years? Maybe more, maybe less. It's hard to say for sure. What we do know is that this is the first and only reference to the Passover in the entire book of Kings; there are no references to the Passover at all in the entire books of Samuel or Judges. It is referenced once in the book of Joshua. Although we have to read between the lines a bit, it seems unlikely that the Israelites were celebrating the Passover more than once in a given generation; perhaps less.
Verse 26 tells us that no matter how much good Josiah sought to do, it was not enough to overcome the great evil that Manasseh performed.
After that, Josiah gets into a war with the Egyptians and dies. After Josiah's defeat, Israel is subjugated by the Egyptians who impose tribute upon them. The kings return to doing evil and with that, Josiah's revival is over. I could talk more about the political situation between Egypt, Assyria and the emerging Babylonians, but this commentary is already pretty long so I'll keep it brief. Egypt is in decline, but they still have power and are trying to hold onto their vassals in Canaan and Sinai. Assyria is also in decline, and in fact has been defeated by the Babylonians several times (not recorded in the biblical account). Judah is allied with the Babylonians as we earlier saw. Neco is actually allied with the Assyrians and is not going up to fight the Assyrians, he is going up to join them to try to hold back the Babylonians. Josiah fights against the Egyptians because he is helping his ally Babylon, but he is killed in battle and the Egyptians are not held back from their destination, Carchemish. The Egyptians and Assyrians enter into battle against the Babylonians at Carchemish, and the Babylonians promptly slaughter everyone. This battle (which is not directly mentioned in Kings) results in the demise of the Assyrian empire and is a considerable blow to the Egyptian empire. After this (beginning in the very first verse of 2 Kings 24), it is suddenly the Babylonians who are the powerful foreign adversary marching around conquering nations like Judah.
In the next chapter, we will learn more about Jehoiakim's reign and how he responds to the Babylonian threat.
Monday, October 5, 2015
Bible Commentary - 2 Kings 22
In this chapter, Josiah starts to repair the temple and discovers the book of the law.
Depending on how you count, this is perhaps the third big revival in Judah in the book of Kings. The previous revivals (by my reckoning) would be the kingship of Joash and more recently, Hezekiah. Josiah leads the last and possibly greatest revival in Judah before the Babylonian exile.
As with so many other biblical figures, I am fascinated by Josiah's personal history and development. In the previous chapter, I went on at length talking about the malign impact of having an evil king who reigns for more one generation (which was true of Manasseh, Josiah's grandfather) and how it can set up a cultural trend towards idolatry. This makes Josiah's righteousness all the more striking. Josiah is not alone, however.
Abraham was raised in an idolatrous family; in fact, during Abraham's life he was very likely the only follower of the LORD in the whole earth. Somehow, Abraham emerged from that culture and from his family and became a hero of faith. Similarly, Moses was raised in Egypt by Pharaoh's daughter. Egypt had a complex polytheistic religion and Moses would certainly have been raised in the Egyptian faith to worship their gods. Yet somehow, Moses was able to get past his upbringing and become another hero of the faith, perhaps through the teaching of his mother (Ex 2:9) and perhaps through his time in the wilderness (Ex 2:15).
But how did Josiah become a righteous man? How did he develop such a strong faith in the LORD in spite of the idolatry all around him? Even the temple of the LORD is populated with the idols and altars of Manasseh, yet somehow Josiah sincerely repents when confronted with the threatened judgment. Unfortunately I don't really have the answer here.
Anyway, for whatever reason Josiah takes an interest in the affairs of the temple: he sees the temple is not being maintained, and he sends one of his officials to ensure that some of the temple revenue (probably some kind of tax) is directed to repairing the structure. By chance, the high priest finds a copy of the law of Moses and he sends it to be read to the king. In the text it is referred to as the "book of the law", but this is just another name for the book of Moses, i.e. the Pentateuch, which is the first five books in the Old Testament. We have already read this (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). I can imagine all sorts of things about the book of the law that would make the king rend his garments when it is read to him, perhaps most dramatically the curses that are threatened over Israel in Deuteronomy 28.
Something that surprises me about this story is how few copies of the Law there are. In retrospect, it makes sense because in this time period books are very expensive and most people are illiterate. There are a handful of professional scribes (such as the scribe in this chapter) who would spend their entire lives recording and copying books. Ancient Israel and Judah would maintain their history and culture through oral traditions passed down from one generation to another. In light of this, there may have been only a handful copies of the Law in existence across the entire nation at this time frame. Especially given that most people are worshiping other gods, knowledge of the Law would have been limited to a handful of scribes and priests in the temple complex.
I guess this surprised me because through so much of the history of Judah we have these prophets running around proclaiming the LORD and rebuking the people, and yet now it seems like the Law itself is scarcely known. Perhaps this again shows a distinction between the stories of Israel's history (like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and the details of religious observance commanded in the Law. It's hard for me to say for sure.
What we do know is that Josiah was equally surprised and shocked when he learned of the destruction the LORD was threatening for his nation. Josiah seems legitimately distressed, in a way that I would not expect if he had known about the Law before. His first reaction is to try to figure out, can we fix this? Can our nation repent enough and turn that this evil might be averted? Unfortunately, at this point it appears the answer is no, but Josiah himself is spared because of his own tenderness before the LORD.
I want to contrast Josiah's response here with Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20. When Isaiah told Hezekiah that he would die, Hezekiah cried out to the LORD and the LORD showed him mercy and healed him. When the Isaiah told Hezekiah that his nation would be destroyed by the Babylonians, he was okay with it. Now Josiah is learning that his nation will be destroyed, and he repents; but it's too late. It is too late for Josiah or any other man to change the course of events.
Josiah learns that the disaster coming is now unavoidable; in the next chapter, we will discover how Josiah's responds.
Depending on how you count, this is perhaps the third big revival in Judah in the book of Kings. The previous revivals (by my reckoning) would be the kingship of Joash and more recently, Hezekiah. Josiah leads the last and possibly greatest revival in Judah before the Babylonian exile.
As with so many other biblical figures, I am fascinated by Josiah's personal history and development. In the previous chapter, I went on at length talking about the malign impact of having an evil king who reigns for more one generation (which was true of Manasseh, Josiah's grandfather) and how it can set up a cultural trend towards idolatry. This makes Josiah's righteousness all the more striking. Josiah is not alone, however.
Abraham was raised in an idolatrous family; in fact, during Abraham's life he was very likely the only follower of the LORD in the whole earth. Somehow, Abraham emerged from that culture and from his family and became a hero of faith. Similarly, Moses was raised in Egypt by Pharaoh's daughter. Egypt had a complex polytheistic religion and Moses would certainly have been raised in the Egyptian faith to worship their gods. Yet somehow, Moses was able to get past his upbringing and become another hero of the faith, perhaps through the teaching of his mother (Ex 2:9) and perhaps through his time in the wilderness (Ex 2:15).
But how did Josiah become a righteous man? How did he develop such a strong faith in the LORD in spite of the idolatry all around him? Even the temple of the LORD is populated with the idols and altars of Manasseh, yet somehow Josiah sincerely repents when confronted with the threatened judgment. Unfortunately I don't really have the answer here.
Anyway, for whatever reason Josiah takes an interest in the affairs of the temple: he sees the temple is not being maintained, and he sends one of his officials to ensure that some of the temple revenue (probably some kind of tax) is directed to repairing the structure. By chance, the high priest finds a copy of the law of Moses and he sends it to be read to the king. In the text it is referred to as the "book of the law", but this is just another name for the book of Moses, i.e. the Pentateuch, which is the first five books in the Old Testament. We have already read this (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). I can imagine all sorts of things about the book of the law that would make the king rend his garments when it is read to him, perhaps most dramatically the curses that are threatened over Israel in Deuteronomy 28.
Something that surprises me about this story is how few copies of the Law there are. In retrospect, it makes sense because in this time period books are very expensive and most people are illiterate. There are a handful of professional scribes (such as the scribe in this chapter) who would spend their entire lives recording and copying books. Ancient Israel and Judah would maintain their history and culture through oral traditions passed down from one generation to another. In light of this, there may have been only a handful copies of the Law in existence across the entire nation at this time frame. Especially given that most people are worshiping other gods, knowledge of the Law would have been limited to a handful of scribes and priests in the temple complex.
I guess this surprised me because through so much of the history of Judah we have these prophets running around proclaiming the LORD and rebuking the people, and yet now it seems like the Law itself is scarcely known. Perhaps this again shows a distinction between the stories of Israel's history (like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and the details of religious observance commanded in the Law. It's hard for me to say for sure.
What we do know is that Josiah was equally surprised and shocked when he learned of the destruction the LORD was threatening for his nation. Josiah seems legitimately distressed, in a way that I would not expect if he had known about the Law before. His first reaction is to try to figure out, can we fix this? Can our nation repent enough and turn that this evil might be averted? Unfortunately, at this point it appears the answer is no, but Josiah himself is spared because of his own tenderness before the LORD.
I want to contrast Josiah's response here with Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20. When Isaiah told Hezekiah that he would die, Hezekiah cried out to the LORD and the LORD showed him mercy and healed him. When the Isaiah told Hezekiah that his nation would be destroyed by the Babylonians, he was okay with it. Now Josiah is learning that his nation will be destroyed, and he repents; but it's too late. It is too late for Josiah or any other man to change the course of events.
Josiah learns that the disaster coming is now unavoidable; in the next chapter, we will discover how Josiah's responds.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Bible Commentary - 2 Kings 21
In this chapter, Manasseh leads Jerusalem into idolatry.
The very first thing I should say is that this is not, of course, the same Manasseh that we read about in Genesis. There is a "tribe of Manasseh", who are one of the twelve tribes, descendants of Manasseh the son of Joseph (see e.g. Gen 41:51). This is another Manasseh, a worse Manasseh, if you will. Not to say that the first Manasseh was much of a saint (if the other sons of Jacob are anything to go by), but this one is clearly worse. This is a Manasseh who is steeped in idolatry and murderous tendencies, and both the author of Kings and the unnamed prophets in v. 10 rebuke him in strong terms.
The second thing I want to point out is how early Manasseh became king and how long he reigned. He was king from age 12 through 67, which is 55 years. By comparison, Hezekiah was king for 29 years and even David (the most famous king of Israel) reigned for only 40 years. It's hard to overstate the significance of this, because when a single person is king for more than about 30 or 40 years, it means that an entire generation is raised up that does not know life before their current king.
Regents like this have the capability of shaping an entire generation from their youth to adulthood, and it means that their personality and character can be stamped onto a culture in a way that does not happen when a king reigns for less time. I already mentioned how much power ancient kings would have to shape the society under them (and that is certainly true), but the difference is that when they reign for long enough to shape one generation, they can institute cultural patterns that generation will pass down to their children and descendants beyond that. It means that a king can extend influence beyond his own lifetime.
In the case that a king is righteous (like David), this is good. But in the case that a king does evil, it magnifies the depth and durability of that evil. Unfortunately, Manasseh is the second kind, and most of this chapter is dedicated to telling us about all the evil things that Manasseh did. Principally, that is Manasseh's idolatry and shedding innocent blood.
Verse 13 uses a peculiar expression, where the LORD (through his prophets) says that he would judge Jerusalem with the "line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab". This is basically using an analogy from how people would construct houses. When building a house in biblical times (and still to this day, actually) people would use a plumb line, which is just a line of cord with a weight attached at the bottom. The reason why is that you can use this line to determine a straight up and down direction, so when building a wall it lets you build a wall that is exactly parallel to gravity, which makes the wall stronger and less likely to fall over.
In this chapter (and elsewhere in the OT), the plumb line is used as a metaphor for God's judgment because God is essentially saying, "your wall is crooked and I am going to use this plumb line to show how you are defective." It shows the people what they are supposed to be like, but they are not. The plumb line means that Judah has "built itself incorrectly", in a moral sense, and God is going to judge them because they have not done what is right. In this particular verse, I think the prophets call it the "line of Samaria" because Judah is sinning the same way that Samaria sinned, and as a result Judah is going to suffer the same judgment that God inflicted on Samaria.
Amon reigns after Manasseh, but Amon is a much less consequential figure because he is assassinated shortly into his reign. We are not given the reason why Amon is assassinated, but just the fact that it happened seems to indicate that there is growing instability in Judah. As we see more violence in Judah and the kings are more and more consistently seeking evil and serving Baal, it is clear that we are approaching the very end of Judah's independent kingdom. The Babylonians invasion that was foretold in the previous chapter is swiftly approaching.
The very first thing I should say is that this is not, of course, the same Manasseh that we read about in Genesis. There is a "tribe of Manasseh", who are one of the twelve tribes, descendants of Manasseh the son of Joseph (see e.g. Gen 41:51). This is another Manasseh, a worse Manasseh, if you will. Not to say that the first Manasseh was much of a saint (if the other sons of Jacob are anything to go by), but this one is clearly worse. This is a Manasseh who is steeped in idolatry and murderous tendencies, and both the author of Kings and the unnamed prophets in v. 10 rebuke him in strong terms.
The second thing I want to point out is how early Manasseh became king and how long he reigned. He was king from age 12 through 67, which is 55 years. By comparison, Hezekiah was king for 29 years and even David (the most famous king of Israel) reigned for only 40 years. It's hard to overstate the significance of this, because when a single person is king for more than about 30 or 40 years, it means that an entire generation is raised up that does not know life before their current king.
Regents like this have the capability of shaping an entire generation from their youth to adulthood, and it means that their personality and character can be stamped onto a culture in a way that does not happen when a king reigns for less time. I already mentioned how much power ancient kings would have to shape the society under them (and that is certainly true), but the difference is that when they reign for long enough to shape one generation, they can institute cultural patterns that generation will pass down to their children and descendants beyond that. It means that a king can extend influence beyond his own lifetime.
In the case that a king is righteous (like David), this is good. But in the case that a king does evil, it magnifies the depth and durability of that evil. Unfortunately, Manasseh is the second kind, and most of this chapter is dedicated to telling us about all the evil things that Manasseh did. Principally, that is Manasseh's idolatry and shedding innocent blood.
Verse 13 uses a peculiar expression, where the LORD (through his prophets) says that he would judge Jerusalem with the "line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab". This is basically using an analogy from how people would construct houses. When building a house in biblical times (and still to this day, actually) people would use a plumb line, which is just a line of cord with a weight attached at the bottom. The reason why is that you can use this line to determine a straight up and down direction, so when building a wall it lets you build a wall that is exactly parallel to gravity, which makes the wall stronger and less likely to fall over.
In this chapter (and elsewhere in the OT), the plumb line is used as a metaphor for God's judgment because God is essentially saying, "your wall is crooked and I am going to use this plumb line to show how you are defective." It shows the people what they are supposed to be like, but they are not. The plumb line means that Judah has "built itself incorrectly", in a moral sense, and God is going to judge them because they have not done what is right. In this particular verse, I think the prophets call it the "line of Samaria" because Judah is sinning the same way that Samaria sinned, and as a result Judah is going to suffer the same judgment that God inflicted on Samaria.
Amon reigns after Manasseh, but Amon is a much less consequential figure because he is assassinated shortly into his reign. We are not given the reason why Amon is assassinated, but just the fact that it happened seems to indicate that there is growing instability in Judah. As we see more violence in Judah and the kings are more and more consistently seeking evil and serving Baal, it is clear that we are approaching the very end of Judah's independent kingdom. The Babylonians invasion that was foretold in the previous chapter is swiftly approaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)