After the awesome Passover celebration, Hezekiah gets to work tearing down all the idols and altars of other gods. Good work, Hezekiah. But then the Assyrian army approaches! Hezekiah tells his people to stay calm, though, for the Lord is greater than any Assyrian army and will protect them. Assyrian messengers come to the gates of Jerusalem to mock the people for believing Hezekiah. For the Assyrians had conquered many nations and none of their gods protected them. Why would Judah's God be any different? However, sadly, the Chronicler's account of this omits the Curse of the Rabshakeh.*
So Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah pray to God and an angel is sent to wipe out the Assyrian army. The good king Hezekiah then oversees some building projects and eventually dies. His son Manasseh becomes king and is severely evil.
How evil is he? Well, he's so evil that he leads Judah astray and the people do more evil than the indigenous inhabitants of the land that the Lord wiped out when Israel first conquered Canaan. So the Lord allows Manasseh to be taken captive by the Assyrians and taken into exile. However, Manasseh repents** and God rescues him from his plight and returns him to Judah to be king. He does good things in the eyes of the Lord before dying.***
Manasseh dies and his son Amon becomes king. Amon was evil and was killed by conspirators. The people then killed the conspirators and made Josiah king. Josiah did good, tore down foreign idols, and restored the Temple. During the restoration, a lost book of the Law is found, prompting Josiah to follow the edicts of this lost book and hold a swanky Passover festival. Now, this is far more swanky than Hezekiah's Passover. Only Passovers held before the Monarchy begin can compare.
Then Josiah goes to fight against King Neco of Egypt. But Neco says he's on a mission from God (he must have Jake and Elwood in his posse) and that Josiah should leave him alone.**** But Josiah doesn't listen and tries to fight Neco anyway. Josiah is struck by arrows and dies.
The Chronicler wraps up the last of Judah's kings rather quickly. Joehoaz becomes king but is then deposed by the king of Egypt. His brother Eliakim is made king and renamed Jehoiakim. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon takes Jehoiakim into exile and Jehoiachin becomes king. He too is taken into exile and Zedekiah becomes king. Zedekiah leads the people into rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar which incites the wrath of the Babylonians. Jerusalem is razed, the Temple is burned and destroyed, and all the surviving people are taken into exile.
2 Chronicles ends with Cyrus the Great of Persia conquering Babylon and decreeing that the Hebrews may return to their homeland. It ends on a much more pleasant and cheery note than 2 Kings. Unlike the Christian Old Testament, some versions of the Hebrew Bible actually end with 2 Chroniclers, thereby concluding with this optimistic note.
*"But the Rabshakeh said to them, 'Has my master sent me to speak these words to your master and to you, and not to the people sitting on the wall, who are doomed with you to eat their own dung and drink their own urine?'" - 2 Kings 18:27
**This becomes the basis of the Apocryphal book "The Prayer of Manasseh." Does this mean I'm going to have to read and review the Apocrypha now?
***This story of Manasseh's exile, repentance, and becoming a good king has no parallel in 2 Kings. Indeed, Kings points out many times that it's because of Manasseh's grievous sins that God allows the eventual Babylonian exile. So why is this story in Chronicles? Well, whatever the origin, let's examine the message. Even the most evil of evil Judean kings in exile can repent and God will return him to his home and make things all right. To the post-exilic community that the Chronicler was probably writing for, this would be quite the comforting message. CIE!
****The account in 2 Kings doesn't explain Neco's actions as being ordained by God. But here the Chronicler does, thereby justifying the death of such a good king. Why would God allow the good king Josiah to be killed? Because he was disobeying the will of God and did not listen to such prophetic words.
Showing posts with label CIE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIE. Show all posts
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
2 Chronicles 26-30
And we're back with more Chronicles goodness!
With Amaziah dead, his son Uzziah becomes king. He was a rather good and prosperous king, overseeing many building projects. But then Uzziah gets too big for his britches. He enters into the temple and attempts to make an offering by himself. Only the priests are allowed to do such things. They stop the the king and some sort of skin rash instantly appears on Uzziah's head. Uzziah leaves and spends the rest of his days separated from people, due to his "unclean" condition. His son Jotham takes the throne. He continues the building projects of his father and is eventually followed by his son Ahaz.
We all remember Ahaz, right? Evil king Ahaz? No? Well, if that's the case, you're in luck. Cause now we go over his reign again! This is a double delight for all you Ahaz enthusiasts out there. Ahaz starts off by worshiping other deities and following the rituals of these foreign gods. In response, God allows the Arameans to be victorious when they attack Judah. The Arameans take a bunch of people back to Damascus with them. The same thing happens when Israel and Edom later attack Judah. This pattern seems to foreshadow the eventual exile of all of Judah to Babylon.
Ahaz offers tribute to the king of Assyria so that he might come to Judah's aid. Instead, Assyria comes to fight and oppress Judah. Following these defeats, Ahaz abandons the Lord completely. He starts worshiping the gods of Aram thinking those gods gave Aram victory of Judah, so perhaps they'd help out Ahaz as well. They don't. Ahaz dies.
Boom. Enter Hezekiah. Remember Hezekiah, one of the greatest kings of Judah? Remember the song about him? Well, Hezekiah does good in the sight of the Lord, and immediately repents of the sins of his father Ahaz. He reverses all the evil policies of Ahaz and fixes up the temple. Then, with great haste, Hezekiah arranges for the people to celebrate the Passover festival, for the people had been rather lax in observing it*
But, since they begin the festival so soon, many don't have time to fulfill the prescribed preparations. They aren't sanctimoniously clean and shouldn't be allowed to participate. Hezekiah realizes this, but doesn't turn such people away. Instead, he prays that "the good Lord pardon all who set their hearts to seek God, the Lord the God of their ancestors, even though not in accordance with the sanctuary's rules of cleanness."** God heard Hezekiah's prayer and is totally cool with the unclean people coming to worship Him (30:18-20). So the people held a big old festival.
*Wait a minute. You're probably thinking, "But Smitch, didn't it say in 2 Kings that Josiah held the first Passover since the time of the judges?" And my heart warms a little as I hear you say such a thing. Ah, the thinking person, actually reading the text critically and stopping to say, "hey, this doesn't jive!"
You are absolutely correct. So how do we address this issue? What possible hypothesis do you hold? Maybe the Chronicler has a man crush on Hezekiah and wants to make him cooler? Or, maybe the author of Kings was the one with the man crush on Josiah and made him hold the Passover? Maybe it's just an innocent error?
Maybe you should just skip ahead to the Chronicler's coverage of Josiah and see what it says about it there!
Gasp! Could it be? Someone implying that we read this in light of the context of the larger book? Oh, you know how to make me feel all warm and fuzzy, don't you? All right then, let's do just that.
Over in 2 Chronicles 35 it talks about Josiah's Passover. While Hezekiah was able to get the people of Judah to observe it, Josiah got all of Judah and Israel to participate. Josiah's Passover was incredible grand in scale and accurate (the lost book of the Law he finds in he Temple may have included more details about the festival which had been forgotten), the likes of which not seen since before the monarchy. So with this info we see that both versions are correct without any real contradiction. Hezekiah held a Passover, yes, but Josiah held a mega-Passover that hadn't been seen centuries. CIE, folks. Context is everything.
**Do you think the teaching of Jesus echoes this verse at all? I think Hezekiah's little prayer pretty much sums up the teaching of Jesus. So you haven't fulfilled every requirement of your religion. So what? It's the attitude of your heart that matters. In the Gospels, it's the Pharisees and religious leaders who fulfill all the requirements of the law. But Jesus isn't impressed at all. For it's the tax collectors, prostitutes, and dregs of society that possess the heart that's willing to seek after God. And this is more important than any sacrament or ritual that may be imposed upon you.
With Amaziah dead, his son Uzziah becomes king. He was a rather good and prosperous king, overseeing many building projects. But then Uzziah gets too big for his britches. He enters into the temple and attempts to make an offering by himself. Only the priests are allowed to do such things. They stop the the king and some sort of skin rash instantly appears on Uzziah's head. Uzziah leaves and spends the rest of his days separated from people, due to his "unclean" condition. His son Jotham takes the throne. He continues the building projects of his father and is eventually followed by his son Ahaz.
We all remember Ahaz, right? Evil king Ahaz? No? Well, if that's the case, you're in luck. Cause now we go over his reign again! This is a double delight for all you Ahaz enthusiasts out there. Ahaz starts off by worshiping other deities and following the rituals of these foreign gods. In response, God allows the Arameans to be victorious when they attack Judah. The Arameans take a bunch of people back to Damascus with them. The same thing happens when Israel and Edom later attack Judah. This pattern seems to foreshadow the eventual exile of all of Judah to Babylon.
Ahaz offers tribute to the king of Assyria so that he might come to Judah's aid. Instead, Assyria comes to fight and oppress Judah. Following these defeats, Ahaz abandons the Lord completely. He starts worshiping the gods of Aram thinking those gods gave Aram victory of Judah, so perhaps they'd help out Ahaz as well. They don't. Ahaz dies.
Boom. Enter Hezekiah. Remember Hezekiah, one of the greatest kings of Judah? Remember the song about him? Well, Hezekiah does good in the sight of the Lord, and immediately repents of the sins of his father Ahaz. He reverses all the evil policies of Ahaz and fixes up the temple. Then, with great haste, Hezekiah arranges for the people to celebrate the Passover festival, for the people had been rather lax in observing it*
But, since they begin the festival so soon, many don't have time to fulfill the prescribed preparations. They aren't sanctimoniously clean and shouldn't be allowed to participate. Hezekiah realizes this, but doesn't turn such people away. Instead, he prays that "the good Lord pardon all who set their hearts to seek God, the Lord the God of their ancestors, even though not in accordance with the sanctuary's rules of cleanness."** God heard Hezekiah's prayer and is totally cool with the unclean people coming to worship Him (30:18-20). So the people held a big old festival.
*Wait a minute. You're probably thinking, "But Smitch, didn't it say in 2 Kings that Josiah held the first Passover since the time of the judges?" And my heart warms a little as I hear you say such a thing. Ah, the thinking person, actually reading the text critically and stopping to say, "hey, this doesn't jive!"
You are absolutely correct. So how do we address this issue? What possible hypothesis do you hold? Maybe the Chronicler has a man crush on Hezekiah and wants to make him cooler? Or, maybe the author of Kings was the one with the man crush on Josiah and made him hold the Passover? Maybe it's just an innocent error?
Maybe you should just skip ahead to the Chronicler's coverage of Josiah and see what it says about it there!
Gasp! Could it be? Someone implying that we read this in light of the context of the larger book? Oh, you know how to make me feel all warm and fuzzy, don't you? All right then, let's do just that.
Over in 2 Chronicles 35 it talks about Josiah's Passover. While Hezekiah was able to get the people of Judah to observe it, Josiah got all of Judah and Israel to participate. Josiah's Passover was incredible grand in scale and accurate (the lost book of the Law he finds in he Temple may have included more details about the festival which had been forgotten), the likes of which not seen since before the monarchy. So with this info we see that both versions are correct without any real contradiction. Hezekiah held a Passover, yes, but Josiah held a mega-Passover that hadn't been seen centuries. CIE, folks. Context is everything.
**Do you think the teaching of Jesus echoes this verse at all? I think Hezekiah's little prayer pretty much sums up the teaching of Jesus. So you haven't fulfilled every requirement of your religion. So what? It's the attitude of your heart that matters. In the Gospels, it's the Pharisees and religious leaders who fulfill all the requirements of the law. But Jesus isn't impressed at all. For it's the tax collectors, prostitutes, and dregs of society that possess the heart that's willing to seek after God. And this is more important than any sacrament or ritual that may be imposed upon you.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
1 Chronicles 16-20
More awesomeness of David! Woohoo!
After the celebration of bringing the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, David gives every person in Israel some bread, meat, and raisin cake. Not quite a chicken in every pot, but it will do! Way to be awesome, David.
Though the Ark is now in Jerusalem, there's still no house for it. Here, the Chronicler gives us an explanation for why David never got around to building the Temple. It wasn't David's fault, for David is awesome and totally wanted to build the Temple. But, the prophet Nathan had a dream where God said that David shouldn't build the Temple. Instead, David should work on consolidating power across the land, establishing a greater peace and stability, and obtaining riches from the spoils of war that will later be used for the construction of the Temple. God says that one of David's sons will eventually build the Temple instead.
So, David sets aside the idea of building the Temple and goes off to war, winning many battles against Israel's neighbors, such as the Philistines, Moabites, Arameans, and the Edomites. Interestingly, in 2 Sameul 8:13, this particular victory over Edom is attributed directly to David. But here, in 1 Chronicles 18:12, the Chronicler credits Abishai as the victor. Why, Chronicler? Why take the glory away from David? That seems to go against your modus operandi of writing about how awesome David is. Did you want to distance David from that battle for some reason? Though it was a victory, did some nastiness occur that you'd rather not be associated with David? In fact, I have absolutely no real idea why this possible discrepancy occurs, and all I have to say on it is mere conjecture. Remember that, you impressionable readers, you.
Perhaps 2 Samuel just generalizes that the battle was won by David since he is the king and, therefore, leader over all the Israelite forces. Maybe the Chronicler gets more specific and recognizes that Abishai was the direct commander at that particular battle. This seems plausible, since Abishai was the brother of Joab, commander of the entire army, second only to David.* Indeed, in the very next chapter, Israel faces an alliance between the Arameans and Ammonites. Joab split up the Israelite forces and gave half to Abishai's command to battle the Ammonites while he led the other group against the Arameans. Of course, Israel totally won this battle.
More battles ensue** and this time there's giants! Lahmi, the brother of none other than Goliath enters the fray. Like his better known brother, Lahmi is also killed, this time by Elhanan.*** David's brother Jonathan is also credited with killing a twelve fingered, twelve toed giant from Gath. Apparently there were a lot of giants in Gath. Good for them.
*Isn't context fun? CIE!
**David stayed home in Jerusalem during this period of battles. Although this occurs completely without incident in Chronicles, in Samuel this results in David viewing Bathsheba from afar, sleeping with her, and hastily trying to cover up his tracks which leads to the death of Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite. Now, the Chronicler isn't specifically saying that this incident never occurred, he's just omitting it and focusing, rather, on the awesomeness of David. Apparently the Chronicler doesn't deem adultery and indirect murder as awesome.
***Here we run into troubled waters, my friend. In 1 Samuel 17:50, it says that David does indeed kill the giant Goliath of Gath. In 2 Samuel 12:19, though, it says Elhanan kills the giant Goliath the Gittite. Are these two takes on the same story, or were their several giants at the time named Goliath? Well, as we've seen with the kings of Israel and Judah, certain names of the time were certainly very common. However, to help smooth this problem out, the Chronicler changes the name of the second Goliath to Lahmi and makes him the brother of David's Goliath.
But what of this Elhanan fellow? In Samuel he's the son of Jaare-oregim, while in Chronicles he's the son of Jair. Is Jaare equivalent to Jair? I don't know, but since the two events are otherwise similar, it would be safe to assume that they describe the same Elhanan. Now, there is a member of the elite Thirty named Elhanan, but he's the son of Dodo of Bethlehem. However, in 2 Samuel it says that Elhanan of Jaare-oregim is also of Bethlehem.
Could these two Elhanans be the same warrior? I can't say for sure. But if they were, it would make sense that an enemy giant would be felled by one of Israel's most elite warriors. It certainly seems more feasible that Elhanan, one of the top soldiers in all of Israel, could kill a giant rather than, say, a young, untrained boy with but a sling. Seeing as how Elhanan was a soldier for David and many, if not most, battles were credited almost exclusively to David by name, it seems plausible that eventually the tale could have been turned into how David personally killed Goliath. Maybe, after more time still, the story developed into how David, as a young boy, killed the mighty Goliath. David was a popular and iconic figure of Israel's greatness, and the people of ensuing generations adored him, such as the Chronicler himself. Is it really that far fetched that they might have clung to legendary, and perhaps exaggerated, stories of the awesomeness of their great king?
Wait, wait, wait. Are you telling us that David didn't kill Goliath? Well...no. I'm not saying that. I am saying that when one takes into account the context, history, and nature of humans, the preceding explanation could be considered possible. But, on the other hand, David very well could have literally killed Goliath personally as a young lad. Maybe by the time Elhanan met up with Lahmi, the name Goliath had become so synonymous with a giant (as it is in our culture today) that the author of Samuel could have mislabeled Lahmi as his brother Goliath. The Chronicler, in turn, clarifies this and helps correct the problem.
In either case, though, the message remains the same. Even if David didn't actually kill Goliath, we still have the message that, though we may be small, God will help us conquer our biggest problems. Sometimes the message is more important than the historical "truth." Did George Washington actually cut down a cherry tree as a young lad? Probably not. But we still teach our kids this story in kindergarten because its a good moral lesson. Remember, these are not objective histories, but theological narratives. They're meant to teach us truths about God as much as (or more than) recount the history of God's people.
After the celebration of bringing the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, David gives every person in Israel some bread, meat, and raisin cake. Not quite a chicken in every pot, but it will do! Way to be awesome, David.
Though the Ark is now in Jerusalem, there's still no house for it. Here, the Chronicler gives us an explanation for why David never got around to building the Temple. It wasn't David's fault, for David is awesome and totally wanted to build the Temple. But, the prophet Nathan had a dream where God said that David shouldn't build the Temple. Instead, David should work on consolidating power across the land, establishing a greater peace and stability, and obtaining riches from the spoils of war that will later be used for the construction of the Temple. God says that one of David's sons will eventually build the Temple instead.
So, David sets aside the idea of building the Temple and goes off to war, winning many battles against Israel's neighbors, such as the Philistines, Moabites, Arameans, and the Edomites. Interestingly, in 2 Sameul 8:13, this particular victory over Edom is attributed directly to David. But here, in 1 Chronicles 18:12, the Chronicler credits Abishai as the victor. Why, Chronicler? Why take the glory away from David? That seems to go against your modus operandi of writing about how awesome David is. Did you want to distance David from that battle for some reason? Though it was a victory, did some nastiness occur that you'd rather not be associated with David? In fact, I have absolutely no real idea why this possible discrepancy occurs, and all I have to say on it is mere conjecture. Remember that, you impressionable readers, you.
Perhaps 2 Samuel just generalizes that the battle was won by David since he is the king and, therefore, leader over all the Israelite forces. Maybe the Chronicler gets more specific and recognizes that Abishai was the direct commander at that particular battle. This seems plausible, since Abishai was the brother of Joab, commander of the entire army, second only to David.* Indeed, in the very next chapter, Israel faces an alliance between the Arameans and Ammonites. Joab split up the Israelite forces and gave half to Abishai's command to battle the Ammonites while he led the other group against the Arameans. Of course, Israel totally won this battle.
More battles ensue** and this time there's giants! Lahmi, the brother of none other than Goliath enters the fray. Like his better known brother, Lahmi is also killed, this time by Elhanan.*** David's brother Jonathan is also credited with killing a twelve fingered, twelve toed giant from Gath. Apparently there were a lot of giants in Gath. Good for them.
*Isn't context fun? CIE!
**David stayed home in Jerusalem during this period of battles. Although this occurs completely without incident in Chronicles, in Samuel this results in David viewing Bathsheba from afar, sleeping with her, and hastily trying to cover up his tracks which leads to the death of Bathsheba's husband, Uriah the Hittite. Now, the Chronicler isn't specifically saying that this incident never occurred, he's just omitting it and focusing, rather, on the awesomeness of David. Apparently the Chronicler doesn't deem adultery and indirect murder as awesome.
***Here we run into troubled waters, my friend. In 1 Samuel 17:50, it says that David does indeed kill the giant Goliath of Gath. In 2 Samuel 12:19, though, it says Elhanan kills the giant Goliath the Gittite. Are these two takes on the same story, or were their several giants at the time named Goliath? Well, as we've seen with the kings of Israel and Judah, certain names of the time were certainly very common. However, to help smooth this problem out, the Chronicler changes the name of the second Goliath to Lahmi and makes him the brother of David's Goliath.
But what of this Elhanan fellow? In Samuel he's the son of Jaare-oregim, while in Chronicles he's the son of Jair. Is Jaare equivalent to Jair? I don't know, but since the two events are otherwise similar, it would be safe to assume that they describe the same Elhanan. Now, there is a member of the elite Thirty named Elhanan, but he's the son of Dodo of Bethlehem. However, in 2 Samuel it says that Elhanan of Jaare-oregim is also of Bethlehem.
Could these two Elhanans be the same warrior? I can't say for sure. But if they were, it would make sense that an enemy giant would be felled by one of Israel's most elite warriors. It certainly seems more feasible that Elhanan, one of the top soldiers in all of Israel, could kill a giant rather than, say, a young, untrained boy with but a sling. Seeing as how Elhanan was a soldier for David and many, if not most, battles were credited almost exclusively to David by name, it seems plausible that eventually the tale could have been turned into how David personally killed Goliath. Maybe, after more time still, the story developed into how David, as a young boy, killed the mighty Goliath. David was a popular and iconic figure of Israel's greatness, and the people of ensuing generations adored him, such as the Chronicler himself. Is it really that far fetched that they might have clung to legendary, and perhaps exaggerated, stories of the awesomeness of their great king?
Wait, wait, wait. Are you telling us that David didn't kill Goliath? Well...no. I'm not saying that. I am saying that when one takes into account the context, history, and nature of humans, the preceding explanation could be considered possible. But, on the other hand, David very well could have literally killed Goliath personally as a young lad. Maybe by the time Elhanan met up with Lahmi, the name Goliath had become so synonymous with a giant (as it is in our culture today) that the author of Samuel could have mislabeled Lahmi as his brother Goliath. The Chronicler, in turn, clarifies this and helps correct the problem.
In either case, though, the message remains the same. Even if David didn't actually kill Goliath, we still have the message that, though we may be small, God will help us conquer our biggest problems. Sometimes the message is more important than the historical "truth." Did George Washington actually cut down a cherry tree as a young lad? Probably not. But we still teach our kids this story in kindergarten because its a good moral lesson. Remember, these are not objective histories, but theological narratives. They're meant to teach us truths about God as much as (or more than) recount the history of God's people.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
1 Chronicles 1-9
Who wants to reread exactly what they just read all over again? Only different! Chronicles is essentially a repeat of Kings, only from a different perspective. Remember our discussion on the message of Kings? Well, Chronicles has a similar message of hope. But while Kings ended during the grim future of Babylonian exile, Chronicles was written during the post-exilic era, after the Persians had allowed the Israelites to return home.
The unnamed author, usually dubbed the Chronicler (doesn't that sound like an awesome villain from the '60s Batman tv show?), seems to take material from several of the already written, now biblical, texts available to him. He takes this multitude of sources and attempts to combine them into a singular, coherent narrative.*
The Chronicler begins, essentially, with the story thus far. It's nearly as condensed as my own version. Chronicles 1-9 recount the genealogies of, well, lots of people. It specifically goes from Adam, to Noah, to Israel, down to David, legitimizing his kingship and his line of descendants as rulers. But the Chronicler also lays out the multitude of descendants of Noah's sons, Ham, Shem, and Cush, that make up all the nationalities of the ancient Middle East. In case you were wondering, descendants from Shem are Semitic people, which include the line of Israel. Hence, bigotry against Hebrews (Jews) is called anti-Semitism. Actually, Semites include a much wider spectrum of peoples, but Jews seem to be singled out.
The Chronicler seems to have gathered these genealogies from previous books, such as Genesis, and streamlined them into a more coherent succession to serve his purpose. While the vast majority of this section is lists of descendants, there are little blurbs about certain individuals scattered throughout. It's here we find the brief "Prayer of Jabez" that was capitalized on. The whole verse is only 2 verses long, yet it was exploited for books, videos, and a slew of merchandise! As for me, I plan to make my fortune off of exploiting 2 Kings 18:27.**
This section ends with the Chronicler reiterating 2 Kings' message that God exiled Judah to Babylon because of its unfaithfulness. He then includes genealogies of some of the people that have now returned from exile back to Judah. Next up: Back to Saul!
*This would, obviously, bring into question the claim of divine dictation, the notion that God deliberately and distinctly dictated every single word of the Bible to the given authors. When examined critically, though, this notion doesn't hold. The many variations, alterations, and discrepancies throughout the Bible would imply a forgetful or schizophrenic singular author.
This doesn't mean that God was wholly absent from the compilation of his Book. God certainly could have divinely nudged authors in a certain direction. This would actually seem likely considering the coherence of underlying themes written over the expanse of such a long period of time.
This may seem unsettling, for some of you may have been raised to believe in divine dictation, as I was. Certainly, divine dictation would demand the fullest attention to a pastor preaching scripture, for it is the literal, exact words of the Lord, inerrant in everything. Conceding to the craftsmanship of human authorship, though, doesn't make the Bible any less true. Like I said before, God easily could have had a hand in the compilation of these texts. For me, understanding the human aspect makes the Bible far more approachable, especially when one considers the circumstances of its composition and emphasizes with the target audience of the period.
CIE. Context Is Everything. Without it, people can just excise willy nilly any message they want from the Bible. And they do. Just look at all the televangelists out there.
**"But the Rabshakeh said to them, 'Has my master sent me to speak these words to your master and to you, and not to the people sitting on the wall, who are doomed with you to eat their own dung and drink their own urine?'"
The unnamed author, usually dubbed the Chronicler (doesn't that sound like an awesome villain from the '60s Batman tv show?), seems to take material from several of the already written, now biblical, texts available to him. He takes this multitude of sources and attempts to combine them into a singular, coherent narrative.*
The Chronicler begins, essentially, with the story thus far. It's nearly as condensed as my own version. Chronicles 1-9 recount the genealogies of, well, lots of people. It specifically goes from Adam, to Noah, to Israel, down to David, legitimizing his kingship and his line of descendants as rulers. But the Chronicler also lays out the multitude of descendants of Noah's sons, Ham, Shem, and Cush, that make up all the nationalities of the ancient Middle East. In case you were wondering, descendants from Shem are Semitic people, which include the line of Israel. Hence, bigotry against Hebrews (Jews) is called anti-Semitism. Actually, Semites include a much wider spectrum of peoples, but Jews seem to be singled out.
The Chronicler seems to have gathered these genealogies from previous books, such as Genesis, and streamlined them into a more coherent succession to serve his purpose. While the vast majority of this section is lists of descendants, there are little blurbs about certain individuals scattered throughout. It's here we find the brief "Prayer of Jabez" that was capitalized on. The whole verse is only 2 verses long, yet it was exploited for books, videos, and a slew of merchandise! As for me, I plan to make my fortune off of exploiting 2 Kings 18:27.**
This section ends with the Chronicler reiterating 2 Kings' message that God exiled Judah to Babylon because of its unfaithfulness. He then includes genealogies of some of the people that have now returned from exile back to Judah. Next up: Back to Saul!
*This would, obviously, bring into question the claim of divine dictation, the notion that God deliberately and distinctly dictated every single word of the Bible to the given authors. When examined critically, though, this notion doesn't hold. The many variations, alterations, and discrepancies throughout the Bible would imply a forgetful or schizophrenic singular author.
This doesn't mean that God was wholly absent from the compilation of his Book. God certainly could have divinely nudged authors in a certain direction. This would actually seem likely considering the coherence of underlying themes written over the expanse of such a long period of time.
This may seem unsettling, for some of you may have been raised to believe in divine dictation, as I was. Certainly, divine dictation would demand the fullest attention to a pastor preaching scripture, for it is the literal, exact words of the Lord, inerrant in everything. Conceding to the craftsmanship of human authorship, though, doesn't make the Bible any less true. Like I said before, God easily could have had a hand in the compilation of these texts. For me, understanding the human aspect makes the Bible far more approachable, especially when one considers the circumstances of its composition and emphasizes with the target audience of the period.
CIE. Context Is Everything. Without it, people can just excise willy nilly any message they want from the Bible. And they do. Just look at all the televangelists out there.
**"But the Rabshakeh said to them, 'Has my master sent me to speak these words to your master and to you, and not to the people sitting on the wall, who are doomed with you to eat their own dung and drink their own urine?'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
