With these last chapters of 1 Chronicles, the Chronicler concludes his account of the reign of King David. And oh, it is awesome.
But it starts out with David being not so awesome! What? Chronicler, what hath thou done???
David decides to go against the will of the Lord and take a census of all the people.* Joab, the voice of reason, tries to dissuade David from this act. But David insists, and the census commences. The Lord gets angry and tells Gad, David's seer, that Israel shall be punished. David must choose between three years of famine, three months of military failures, or three days of pestilence. David chooses door number 3, and God sends a pestilence that reportedly kills 70,000 people. Dang!
But then God also sends an Angel to utterly destroy Jerusalem. But David sees the angel and cries out to God to punish him instead of the people, for this was all his fault. Way to take responsibility for your actions and offer yourself to save your people, David. You know what this makes David? AWESOME!
So God tells David to make an altar at the house of some dude named Ornan. Ornan, being an awesome fellow himself, offers his place (in particular, the threshing floor the altar will be built upon) to David for free. David refuses the offer and insists that he must pay full price for it, for he will not give to God burnt offerings that cost him nothing (21:24)** God sends down fire from heaven to burn the offering on the altar and David declares that it will be the future sight of the Temple.
But David says his eventual successor, Solomon, is young and inexperienced, so David makes all the plans and arrangements for the building of the Temple. According to the Chronicler, David got everything ready and just sort of handed the plans over to Solomon to build, since the kid would be too inept to do it on his own. Never mind that Solomon is now remembered as being the wisest of the wise. This, in a way, robs Solomon of perhaps the greatest part of his legacy: the construction of the Temple. Instead, it was all daddy David's doing. Solomon just told the building crews to follow David's plan. Nice one, Chronicler. Way to make David seem even more awesome at the expense of Solomon.
Then David, being awesome, sets up the organization for the priests and Levites and gives them orders on how they will eventually care for the Temple. My commentary states that these arrangements don't appear in other pre-exilic texts, but was the norm for the 2nd Temple after the return from exile. If this is so, then perhaps the Chronicler had David institute such arrangements so as to help legitimize the current Temple order of his day. Think about it. It could be possible.
Anyway, the Chronicler's love affair with David ends with the awesome king overseeing the anointing of Solomon as king. Then David dies. The end.
Wait a minute! Are you serious? That's it? That's all you have to say about David, oh Chronicler? You completely skipped the most exciting part of David's reign from 2 Samuel: Absalom's Revolt! Sure, it's another negative aspect of David that the Chronicler probably deemed not awesome. But, come on! It's a great story of political intrigue! Oh well, guess you'll just have to check out 2 Samuel 13-18 for it.
*The parallel to this story is in 2 Samuel 24. However, here it says Satan (adversary) incites David to order the census, while in 2 Samuel it's God, upset with Israel, who puts it in David's head to have a census. Why is taking a census bad? I don't rightly know. Maybe it was a sign of pride? "Ooo, look at me! I'm Israel, and I'm so cool because I have this many people!" Maybe? Whatever. In any case, God gets mighty upset over it.
**Following David's lead, shouldn't our offerings to God, in whatever form they may take, also cost us? If we give to God only that which we won't miss (loose change, personal budget surplus, etc.) does it really mean anything? Maybe David was on to something. Maybe our offerings should come at great personal sacrifice to ourselves, instead of just whatever extra we can afford. This verse always reminds me of the poor widow who could *only* give two coins. While it seemed a small, unimpressive amount (especially compared to the riches that the wealthy were offering), Jesus said that the widow had given the most, for it cost her everything (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4).
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
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 10-15
All right, after all that genealogy goodness, we now get into the heart of the Chronicler's narrative of the monarchy. And how, for him, does the monarchy begin? Why, with the death of Saul, of course! For sooth, all we get of Saul is his last battle and suicide by falling on his sword. The Philistines then desecrate his body and steal his armor and head.
The rest of these chapters is a gushing glorification of all things David, akin to a trekkie explaining the greatness of Captain Kirk (particularly over, say, Picard). Here, all the tribes of Israel immediately follow David as king while the parallel in 2 Samuel sees it as a more gradual process to consolidate power. This furthers the sense that the Chronicler is an unabashed David fanboy and thinks David is just, like, awesome!
We get a list of some of the top warriors in David's army. The top three are in a super elite squad known as the Three (that's a hundred times more awesome than Sparta's 300!). The next group consists of thirty elite warriors and is known as the Thirty (which is still 10 times more awesome than 300!). Of particular note, one of the Thirty is Uriah the Hittite. Anyone who's read 2 Samuel should remember that Uriah was the husband of Bathsheba, the woman David had an affair with and impregnated. Remember what happened to Uriah after that? David sent him to the frontlines to be intentionally killed! Dang, David! You killed one of you're best soldiers over a woman! A woman! (Try to imagine Al Pacino from Dick Tracy saying that last part).
So, as David continues to consolidate his kingdom, he tries to bring the Ark of the Covenant (you know, the MacGuffin* from the first Indiana Jones movie? Man, what is it with me and movie references today?) to his new headquarters in Jerusalem. As it's in transit, the Ark tips on the cart, so a man named Uzzah tries to steady it with his hand. This impurity touching the Ark angers God, and Uzzah is struck dead on the spot. In light of this, David postpones the Ark's move to Jerusalem. Poor Uzzah.
David then fights off some Philistine intrusions on his territory. He conquers them at Baal-perazim and burns all the idols that the Philistines left behind. However, as 2 Samuel 5:21 recounts this event, David takes all of the idols back with him.** The Chronicler's version matches Davids actions up with Mosaic Law***, thereby making David even more awesome.
After these battles, David starts up some building projects in Jerusalem. Then he turns his attention back to the Ark. This time, to transport the Ark, he returns to Mosaic law and has the Levite priests carry the sacred object on poles. A big parade filled with music and dancing joins the Ark as it's carried into Jerusalem. Saul's daughter Michal looks out from her window, sees all this, and despises David. But who cares? She's dumb and David is AWESOME!
*Alfred Hitchcock coined the term "MacGuffin" to refer to the mechanism in a movie that drives the story. In heist and spy movies, it's whatever the criminals/spies are seeking after. For the Indiana Jones movies, the MacGuffins would be the Ark of the Covenant, the Sankara Stones, the Holy Grail, and the Crystal Skull. But most people try to forget that last one.
**Once again, this make divine dictation seem suspect. Did David burn the idols there or did he take them with? If divine dictation follows, then God is contradicting himself. If human authorship is more at play, then this discrepancy is of little consequence. The Chronicler is just trying to portray David in an all around better light. It has little, if any, effect on the larger themes presented.
***For example, Deuteronomy 7:25, which starts out "The images of their gods you shall burn with fire."
The rest of these chapters is a gushing glorification of all things David, akin to a trekkie explaining the greatness of Captain Kirk (particularly over, say, Picard). Here, all the tribes of Israel immediately follow David as king while the parallel in 2 Samuel sees it as a more gradual process to consolidate power. This furthers the sense that the Chronicler is an unabashed David fanboy and thinks David is just, like, awesome!
We get a list of some of the top warriors in David's army. The top three are in a super elite squad known as the Three (that's a hundred times more awesome than Sparta's 300!). The next group consists of thirty elite warriors and is known as the Thirty (which is still 10 times more awesome than 300!). Of particular note, one of the Thirty is Uriah the Hittite. Anyone who's read 2 Samuel should remember that Uriah was the husband of Bathsheba, the woman David had an affair with and impregnated. Remember what happened to Uriah after that? David sent him to the frontlines to be intentionally killed! Dang, David! You killed one of you're best soldiers over a woman! A woman! (Try to imagine Al Pacino from Dick Tracy saying that last part).
So, as David continues to consolidate his kingdom, he tries to bring the Ark of the Covenant (you know, the MacGuffin* from the first Indiana Jones movie? Man, what is it with me and movie references today?) to his new headquarters in Jerusalem. As it's in transit, the Ark tips on the cart, so a man named Uzzah tries to steady it with his hand. This impurity touching the Ark angers God, and Uzzah is struck dead on the spot. In light of this, David postpones the Ark's move to Jerusalem. Poor Uzzah.
David then fights off some Philistine intrusions on his territory. He conquers them at Baal-perazim and burns all the idols that the Philistines left behind. However, as 2 Samuel 5:21 recounts this event, David takes all of the idols back with him.** The Chronicler's version matches Davids actions up with Mosaic Law***, thereby making David even more awesome.
After these battles, David starts up some building projects in Jerusalem. Then he turns his attention back to the Ark. This time, to transport the Ark, he returns to Mosaic law and has the Levite priests carry the sacred object on poles. A big parade filled with music and dancing joins the Ark as it's carried into Jerusalem. Saul's daughter Michal looks out from her window, sees all this, and despises David. But who cares? She's dumb and David is AWESOME!*Alfred Hitchcock coined the term "MacGuffin" to refer to the mechanism in a movie that drives the story. In heist and spy movies, it's whatever the criminals/spies are seeking after. For the Indiana Jones movies, the MacGuffins would be the Ark of the Covenant, the Sankara Stones, the Holy Grail, and the Crystal Skull. But most people try to forget that last one.
**Once again, this make divine dictation seem suspect. Did David burn the idols there or did he take them with? If divine dictation follows, then God is contradicting himself. If human authorship is more at play, then this discrepancy is of little consequence. The Chronicler is just trying to portray David in an all around better light. It has little, if any, effect on the larger themes presented.
***For example, Deuteronomy 7:25, which starts out "The images of their gods you shall burn with fire."
Hezekiah and Josiah in Song
I don't know about you, but I rather like Apologetix, that infamous Christian parody band. Ok, I know some you, in fact, loathe them. I'm looking at you, Matt.
But I came across this fan made music video and it was just so topical! It talks about Kings Hezekiah and Josiah, who we previously discussed in 2 Kings. Plus, it contains clips from both and Star Wars and Jingle All the Way, two of life's greatest cinematic pleasures!
But I came across this fan made music video and it was just so topical! It talks about Kings Hezekiah and Josiah, who we previously discussed in 2 Kings. Plus, it contains clips from both and Star Wars and Jingle All the Way, two of life's greatest cinematic pleasures!
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?'"
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Michael and BEARS!
My brother (check out his blog here) just informed me that there is a Michael W. Smith song, Love Me Good, that contains the lyrics "you never know when you might be attacked by the BEARS."
Has Michael been mocking bald people?
I find the video below kind of disturbing for reasons I can't quite place my finger on.
Has Michael been mocking bald people?
I find the video below kind of disturbing for reasons I can't quite place my finger on.
2 Kings 21-25
Let's start with a brief note on the structure of Kings, shall we? The histories of these kings recorded within are mostly brief, usually detailing only any wars or other specific events they were involved in. Instead of the broader history, Kings seems intent on relating whether each king followed the Lord or strayed and worshiped idols and other gods (the majority of them did not follow the Lord). This is reiterated by the frequent advice to the reader to look in the (now lost) Annals of the Kings of Israel and Judah for more detailed accounts of the actions of these kings. Kings is not an objective history, but a theological narrative with a specific agenda and message. We'll discuss this more as we reach the endgame of 2 Kings.
This portion of our story starts off with the reign of Manasseh, Hezekiah's son (who's now, obviously, deceased). Manasseh was the opposite of his papa and did all that was evil in the sight of the Lord, including dealing with wizards (and I bet they weren't good wizards, like Gandalf, but more the evil wizard type, like Saruman. Actually, I think as far as God is concerned, all wizards are evil. Tough luck, Gandalf). Because of Manasseh's rampant idolatry, God becomes completely fed up and vows to wipe out Judah. From this vow, we now know how God washes his dishes (wiping them and turning them upside down).
Evil Manasseh dies and his son Amon replaces him. Amon was also evil (typical), so a group of conspirators killed him. But then the rest of the folk killed the conspirators and made Amon's son Josiah king. Now, Josiah was one of those rare, godly kings and oversaw repairs on the Temple. During these repairs, the high priest Hilkiah discovered a long lost book of the law hidden away in the Temple. After reading the book, Josiah tore his clothes (a sign of great grief) because of how much they had apparently been doing wrong all these years.
This book was likely a portion of Deuteronomy which had apparently been lost and forgotten. This portion contained, among other things, the instructions for the Passover festival, which had not been observed since the time of the judges!* Josiah gathered the people, read the lost book to them, went on a rampage destroying and desecrating all foreign idols and altars, and held the Passover.
However, all this returning to the ways of the Lord did not dissuade God from his previous wrath incited by Manasseh. Josiah later met up with Pharaoh Neco of Egypt, who killed Josiah. His son Jehoahaz became king, but Neco imprisoned him and places Josiah's other son, Eliakim, as king. Of course, to make things more fun and confusing, Eliakim's name is changed to Jehoiakim.
Enter the CHALDEANS!**
King Nebuchadnezzar (yes, this is where the namesake of Morpheus' ship in the Matrix comes from) descends upon Judah and raises havoc. Jehoiakim dies and his son Jehoiachin takes his place. Nebuchadnezzar instigates a siege against Jerusalem, causing Jehoiachin to surrender. He's exiled to Babylon and his uncle, Mattaniah (renamed Zedekiah) is appointed the new ruler by Nebuchadnezzar.
But Zedekiah rebels and another siege of Jerusalem takes place. Zedekiah tries to flee, but is captured and forced to watch the slaughter of all his children. His eyes are then gouged out and he's taken away to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar's captain, Nebuzaradan, proceeds to utterly destroy Jerusalem, burning down all the houses, palaces, and the Temple. Another guy, Gedaliah was appointed governor of all those who remained in Judah. But then he was killed and all the people who were left fled to Egypt for they were utterly afraid of the Chaldeans.
The book of 2 Kings ends with a short footnote that the later king of Babylon, Evil-merodach, releases Jehoiachin (the king that initially surrendered at Jerusalem) from prison, befriends him, and has him dine with the king every day.
So, what about that rambling paragraph I started this post with? The author of 2 Kings makes it bluntly clear, several times, that it was because of Manasseh's sins that God sent the Chaldeans to wipe out Judah and remove all the people to Babylon. So? What's the big deal about that? Well, the big deal is that it was during this exile that these texts were probably compiled and composed, meaning we should probably try to understand what those Hebrews in exile would take to heart from this. The main thrust of it being, because they sinned and disobeyed God, God took them from their homeland. Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans at large aren't in control. They are mere tools of the Lord. God is in control and orchestrated this to happen.
Again, so what? Well, if the Chaldeans were in control, then all hope would have been lost. But if the Lord is in control, then there's still hope. If Judah's sin caused this calamity, then maybe if the people repent of their sin, change their ways, and follow God once again, then the Lord's favor will return and he'll free his people (as is the trend of the Deuteronomistic History, which may also have been part of the book that Josiah found). So while it may at first seem that 2 Kings ends with the dismal horror of exile, it actually ends with a message of hope, particularly for those still in exile who would have read or heard this narrative.
A rather impressive literary device, is it not?
*The judges ruled over the tribes of Israel before the institution of the monarchy began with King Saul. Saul ruled about 400 years before Josiah, so the last time the Passover was observed was well over 400 years prior!
**Or Babylonians, if you prefer.
This portion of our story starts off with the reign of Manasseh, Hezekiah's son (who's now, obviously, deceased). Manasseh was the opposite of his papa and did all that was evil in the sight of the Lord, including dealing with wizards (and I bet they weren't good wizards, like Gandalf, but more the evil wizard type, like Saruman. Actually, I think as far as God is concerned, all wizards are evil. Tough luck, Gandalf). Because of Manasseh's rampant idolatry, God becomes completely fed up and vows to wipe out Judah. From this vow, we now know how God washes his dishes (wiping them and turning them upside down).
Evil Manasseh dies and his son Amon replaces him. Amon was also evil (typical), so a group of conspirators killed him. But then the rest of the folk killed the conspirators and made Amon's son Josiah king. Now, Josiah was one of those rare, godly kings and oversaw repairs on the Temple. During these repairs, the high priest Hilkiah discovered a long lost book of the law hidden away in the Temple. After reading the book, Josiah tore his clothes (a sign of great grief) because of how much they had apparently been doing wrong all these years.
This book was likely a portion of Deuteronomy which had apparently been lost and forgotten. This portion contained, among other things, the instructions for the Passover festival, which had not been observed since the time of the judges!* Josiah gathered the people, read the lost book to them, went on a rampage destroying and desecrating all foreign idols and altars, and held the Passover.
However, all this returning to the ways of the Lord did not dissuade God from his previous wrath incited by Manasseh. Josiah later met up with Pharaoh Neco of Egypt, who killed Josiah. His son Jehoahaz became king, but Neco imprisoned him and places Josiah's other son, Eliakim, as king. Of course, to make things more fun and confusing, Eliakim's name is changed to Jehoiakim.
Enter the CHALDEANS!**
King Nebuchadnezzar (yes, this is where the namesake of Morpheus' ship in the Matrix comes from) descends upon Judah and raises havoc. Jehoiakim dies and his son Jehoiachin takes his place. Nebuchadnezzar instigates a siege against Jerusalem, causing Jehoiachin to surrender. He's exiled to Babylon and his uncle, Mattaniah (renamed Zedekiah) is appointed the new ruler by Nebuchadnezzar.
But Zedekiah rebels and another siege of Jerusalem takes place. Zedekiah tries to flee, but is captured and forced to watch the slaughter of all his children. His eyes are then gouged out and he's taken away to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar's captain, Nebuzaradan, proceeds to utterly destroy Jerusalem, burning down all the houses, palaces, and the Temple. Another guy, Gedaliah was appointed governor of all those who remained in Judah. But then he was killed and all the people who were left fled to Egypt for they were utterly afraid of the Chaldeans.
The book of 2 Kings ends with a short footnote that the later king of Babylon, Evil-merodach, releases Jehoiachin (the king that initially surrendered at Jerusalem) from prison, befriends him, and has him dine with the king every day.
So, what about that rambling paragraph I started this post with? The author of 2 Kings makes it bluntly clear, several times, that it was because of Manasseh's sins that God sent the Chaldeans to wipe out Judah and remove all the people to Babylon. So? What's the big deal about that? Well, the big deal is that it was during this exile that these texts were probably compiled and composed, meaning we should probably try to understand what those Hebrews in exile would take to heart from this. The main thrust of it being, because they sinned and disobeyed God, God took them from their homeland. Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans at large aren't in control. They are mere tools of the Lord. God is in control and orchestrated this to happen.
Again, so what? Well, if the Chaldeans were in control, then all hope would have been lost. But if the Lord is in control, then there's still hope. If Judah's sin caused this calamity, then maybe if the people repent of their sin, change their ways, and follow God once again, then the Lord's favor will return and he'll free his people (as is the trend of the Deuteronomistic History, which may also have been part of the book that Josiah found). So while it may at first seem that 2 Kings ends with the dismal horror of exile, it actually ends with a message of hope, particularly for those still in exile who would have read or heard this narrative.
A rather impressive literary device, is it not?
*The judges ruled over the tribes of Israel before the institution of the monarchy began with King Saul. Saul ruled about 400 years before Josiah, so the last time the Passover was observed was well over 400 years prior!
**Or Babylonians, if you prefer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
