In discussions over the so-called Deuteronomic History, many recent scholars have put forth arguments claiming that the entire history of Israel was constructed at a time during the later monarchy in the southern kingdom (perhaps by Hezekiah or Josiah). Therefore, all of this history is filtered through the lens of a 6th-8th century Judean perspective. In these theories, the last one standing got to write and edit history. However, even if we point out weaknesses in this reductionistic approach to OT history, we cannot escape the fact that someone authored and edited these works commonly known as "histories."
Furthermore, in the ancient world, "history" was not seen as something to be "objective." Rather, one told "history" through one's unique lens and theology. There was no problem with mixing theological biases and historical claims.
However, as we think about today, we are really not all that different. We all filter our own history through our particular biases and beliefs. For example, our position as American citizens will naturally color how we approach history that involves the United States. Similarly, for those who are Christians, we will probably approach church history in a different manner than non-Christians.
Finally, even if we do not accept reductionistic claims about Israel's history-writing, we can at least accept their argument that the one with power, or the last one standing, has a significant impact on how the story is told. With that in mind, we need to be aware of ways in which we stand in positions of power. If it is true that such positions also carry with them the ability to shape the story of history, then we must act with great care and responsibility to ensure that our biases do not color our take on history in a way that is unrealistic or even harmful.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Jehoiachin in Babylon
The OT books of history end on a dark note. The northern kingdom falls in 2 Kings 17 after generations of sin. Then, the southern kingdom and Jerusalem also fall in the final chapter of 2 Kings (2 Kgs. 25). The fall of Jerusalem is an especially tragic event. King Zedekiah is captured, forced to watch the deaths of his sons, and then is blinded by the Babylonians (25:6-7). Then, the Temple is burned along with "every important building" (25:9). Finally, the holy objects of the Temple and the people of Jerusalem are carried off to Babylon.
Thus, the historical books end with chaos, darkness, and despair. All that Israel had worked for since the Exodus seems to have been undone. The land is lost, the Temple is lost, and the people are lost. However, there is perhaps a glimmer of hope at the very end.
2 Kings 25:27-30, the final verses of the book, tell the brief story of King Jehoiachin, who had been captured by the Babylonians prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. The author tells the reader that the Jehoiachin was released from prison and was even given a seat of honor at the king's table. Although this is only a small glimpse of hope, it is at least a sign that Judah has not been completely destroyed and abandoned by God.
This rhetorical move is reminiscent of the final scene of the movie "The Road." This movie tells the tale of a father and son who attempt to live and travel in a post-apocalyptic world with no sunshine that is also infested with cannibals. Although the father dies in the end, leaving the boy alone in this god-forsaken world, there is also a tiny ray of hope at the end. The boy has the good fortune of meeting up with another small family who are willing to take him in and show him kindness. Although the movie ends here and does not offer hope for the improvement of the world nor give assurances that this family will survive, there is at least a small sense of hope at the end. This short story in 2 Kings works similarly. Although there is no guarantee that Israel will make a glorious return, there is hope held up that perhaps not all is lost.
Thus, the historical books end with chaos, darkness, and despair. All that Israel had worked for since the Exodus seems to have been undone. The land is lost, the Temple is lost, and the people are lost. However, there is perhaps a glimmer of hope at the very end.
2 Kings 25:27-30, the final verses of the book, tell the brief story of King Jehoiachin, who had been captured by the Babylonians prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. The author tells the reader that the Jehoiachin was released from prison and was even given a seat of honor at the king's table. Although this is only a small glimpse of hope, it is at least a sign that Judah has not been completely destroyed and abandoned by God.
This rhetorical move is reminiscent of the final scene of the movie "The Road." This movie tells the tale of a father and son who attempt to live and travel in a post-apocalyptic world with no sunshine that is also infested with cannibals. Although the father dies in the end, leaving the boy alone in this god-forsaken world, there is also a tiny ray of hope at the end. The boy has the good fortune of meeting up with another small family who are willing to take him in and show him kindness. Although the movie ends here and does not offer hope for the improvement of the world nor give assurances that this family will survive, there is at least a small sense of hope at the end. This short story in 2 Kings works similarly. Although there is no guarantee that Israel will make a glorious return, there is hope held up that perhaps not all is lost.
Green and 1 Kings
The story of Elijah's showdown with the prophets of Ba'al on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18) is a familiar story to many Christians. In fact, it is familiar enough that author Ted Dekker uses this story as the basis for a scene in his fantasy novel "Green." In the novel, the hero, Thomas Hunter, faces off with a pagan priest (whose name happens to be Ba'al) and his horde of evil priests. They both call out to their own gods with the goal of the more powerful god making an appearance so the king of the land will know the true god. While Thomas relies on prayer, the priest Ba'al ends up sacrificing all his priests for an offering of blood. In the end, it is Thomas' god who appears in a miraculous way.
However, in the novel, the king chooses to ignore this sign and has his soldiers pursue Thomas to try to kill him. This is unlike the biblical story of Elijah and Ahab because Ahab allows Elijah to kill the priests of Ba'al and allows Elijah to live. It is interesting that Ahab only turns against Elijah after his wife Jezebel becomes furious over the Mt. Carmel incident.
Comparing these two stories allows the reader to ask why Ahab does not immediately pursue Elijah. Why does he return to chasing Elijah only after speaking with his wife Jezebel? Perhaps this has more to say about Jezebel's role in the story of 1 Kings. Throughout the entire book, the kings of Israel are led astray by their foreign wives. Thus, the story of 1 King 18-19 again highlights the problem of foreignness for Israel. Although Ahab may have turned back to the true God, because he chose to have a pagan wife, his heart was immediately turned from repentance back to sin.
However, in the novel, the king chooses to ignore this sign and has his soldiers pursue Thomas to try to kill him. This is unlike the biblical story of Elijah and Ahab because Ahab allows Elijah to kill the priests of Ba'al and allows Elijah to live. It is interesting that Ahab only turns against Elijah after his wife Jezebel becomes furious over the Mt. Carmel incident.
Comparing these two stories allows the reader to ask why Ahab does not immediately pursue Elijah. Why does he return to chasing Elijah only after speaking with his wife Jezebel? Perhaps this has more to say about Jezebel's role in the story of 1 Kings. Throughout the entire book, the kings of Israel are led astray by their foreign wives. Thus, the story of 1 King 18-19 again highlights the problem of foreignness for Israel. Although Ahab may have turned back to the true God, because he chose to have a pagan wife, his heart was immediately turned from repentance back to sin.
Disobedient Prophets
Several times in the books of Kings a prophet or man of God disobeys a command they were given. The most prominent example is the story found in 1 Kings 13. After condemning King Jeroboam’s actions, he is told by God to return home without stopping to eat or drink. However, when an older prophet invites the man of God into his house, he does turn aside to eat and drink. This disobedience results in the younger prophet’s death when he is mauled by lions.
Similarly, Elisha’s servant, Gehazi, goes against Elisha’s will and greedily takes money as payment from Naaman in 2 Kings 5. After Elisha curses Gehazi, Gehazi’s skin becomes as leprous as the Naaman’s formerly was.
While the story of Gehazi seems understandable, the story of the prophet who is mauled by lions seems a bit extreme. Indeed, his crime seemed of a lesser degree than Gehazi’s, and yet this prophet is the one who lost his life.
In both cases, the point seems to be that God’s prophets are expected to remain totally faithful to God, especially in the midst of a culture that kept straying away from the one true God. It provides a bad example if a prophet who just cursed a king for his disobedience turns around and also fails to obey God’s command. Thus, stories like these two remind the reader of the disobedience in and of the prophet’s role to help remedy this.
We operate the same way today. As we look at officials in public office, we expect them to live out the same policies which they advocate. If they tell citizens to drive less to improve the environment, it will not look good if that same leader is seen taking joy rides in a Hummer. Likewise, as Christians, we advocate many things. The real question is, do we live out what we ask of others?
Similarly, Elisha’s servant, Gehazi, goes against Elisha’s will and greedily takes money as payment from Naaman in 2 Kings 5. After Elisha curses Gehazi, Gehazi’s skin becomes as leprous as the Naaman’s formerly was.
While the story of Gehazi seems understandable, the story of the prophet who is mauled by lions seems a bit extreme. Indeed, his crime seemed of a lesser degree than Gehazi’s, and yet this prophet is the one who lost his life.
In both cases, the point seems to be that God’s prophets are expected to remain totally faithful to God, especially in the midst of a culture that kept straying away from the one true God. It provides a bad example if a prophet who just cursed a king for his disobedience turns around and also fails to obey God’s command. Thus, stories like these two remind the reader of the disobedience in and of the prophet’s role to help remedy this.
We operate the same way today. As we look at officials in public office, we expect them to live out the same policies which they advocate. If they tell citizens to drive less to improve the environment, it will not look good if that same leader is seen taking joy rides in a Hummer. Likewise, as Christians, we advocate many things. The real question is, do we live out what we ask of others?
Monday, November 29, 2010
David's Parable- 2 Sam 12
While recently re-watching the third "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie, I was struck by the role that deceit played in the film. Every character moved about with secret motives and was constantly trying to manipulate others around them to accomplish those hidden goals. Yet, deceit is not simply something that pirates take part in, but it also plays a significant role in the Old Testament. From Jacob to Tamar, Simeon to Absalom, many of Israel's ancestors rely on trickery from time to time.
Most of us have heard the story about David and Bathsheba. David sees her bathing one day and his lust leads him to kill her husband and take Bathsheba as his own wife. However, David does not get away. Instead, the prophet Nathan tells David a parable and then points out that David is the villain in the story whom David had condemned himself.
While popular interpretations of this story argue that David believed Nathan's story was an actual legal case and that David foolishly missed the point or was tricked, Jeremy Schipper offers a different interpretation. Schipper argues that David recognized the story as a parable, but misinterpreted (either accidentally or intentionally) the different parts of the parable. Nathan's intention and David's interpretations according to Schipper are given below:
NATHAN DAVID
Lamb- Bathsheba Lamb- Uriah
Poor man- Uriah Poor man- Bathsheba
Traveler- n/a (perhaps David's lust) Traveler- David
Rich man- David Rich man- Joab
This misinterpretation by David seems plausible because Nathan does not address the identity of the traveler and because both Uriah and the lamb are the ones killed. According to Schipper, David attempted to use Nathan's parable as a means of shifting the blame for Uriah's murder to someone else. In particular, David used the story to denounce Joab, his general, as a "son of death" who kills on behalf of another (the traveler/David). Thus, David condemns this action in an attempt to prove that his reign is not built upon assassination plots. However, as Nathan quickly corrects, the point goes beyond the murder to the adultery with Bathsheba.
Whether we accept Schipper's proposal or not remains a matter of debate. However, it does cast David in a new light. Instead of a fool who gets tricked, David is a continued schemer in the likeness of ancestors like Jacob. Unfortunately, his scheming here is an attempt to continue covering his sins.
Most of us have heard the story about David and Bathsheba. David sees her bathing one day and his lust leads him to kill her husband and take Bathsheba as his own wife. However, David does not get away. Instead, the prophet Nathan tells David a parable and then points out that David is the villain in the story whom David had condemned himself.
While popular interpretations of this story argue that David believed Nathan's story was an actual legal case and that David foolishly missed the point or was tricked, Jeremy Schipper offers a different interpretation. Schipper argues that David recognized the story as a parable, but misinterpreted (either accidentally or intentionally) the different parts of the parable. Nathan's intention and David's interpretations according to Schipper are given below:
NATHAN DAVID
Lamb- Bathsheba Lamb- Uriah
Poor man- Uriah Poor man- Bathsheba
Traveler- n/a (perhaps David's lust) Traveler- David
Rich man- David Rich man- Joab
This misinterpretation by David seems plausible because Nathan does not address the identity of the traveler and because both Uriah and the lamb are the ones killed. According to Schipper, David attempted to use Nathan's parable as a means of shifting the blame for Uriah's murder to someone else. In particular, David used the story to denounce Joab, his general, as a "son of death" who kills on behalf of another (the traveler/David). Thus, David condemns this action in an attempt to prove that his reign is not built upon assassination plots. However, as Nathan quickly corrects, the point goes beyond the murder to the adultery with Bathsheba.
Whether we accept Schipper's proposal or not remains a matter of debate. However, it does cast David in a new light. Instead of a fool who gets tricked, David is a continued schemer in the likeness of ancestors like Jacob. Unfortunately, his scheming here is an attempt to continue covering his sins.
An OT Mary
Most Christians are familiar with the story of Mary the mother of Jesus. She was a virgin who was approached by an angel and ended up having a baby despite her virginity. However, as one reads the Old Testament, one quickly sees and hears bits and pieces of Mary's story in the lives of women who preceded her. Or perhaps more accurately, Mary's story contains echoes of the stories of these earlier women.
One such instance is the story of Hannah in 1 Samuel 1-2. Here is a woman who cannot have a child (her womb is closed). After being approached by a messenger of God (the priest Eli), she ends up having a son named Samuel. The son ends up being dedicated to the Lord's service.
Even more fascinating is that both Hannah and Mary sing a song of praise to God after the birth of their sons. In fact, both songs start off the same way: "My heart/soul exalt the LORD." As both songs progress, both praise God for His humbling of the rich and powerful and for His raising up of the lowly. For example:
1 Sam. 2:4-"The bows of the mighty are shattered,
But the feeble gird on strength."
Luke 1:52- "He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble." (NASB)
Yet, the comparisons do not end there. Compare these passages in 1 Samuel to the description about Jesus found in Luke 2:40 that says he "continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.":
1 Sam. 2:21- "And the boy Samuel grew before the LORD."
1 Sam. 3:19- "Thus Samuel grew and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fail."
All of these parallels are hard to ignore. However, it reminds us of a basic fact about the mindset of the Biblical writers. For them, history was somewhat circular. History does repeat itself. The stories of the past are also the stories of the present and of the future. That's also why eschatology at times looks so much like protology. So, as we see these elements show up in Hannah's life, and then in Mary's, we may also wonder how these same elements are being played out in out lives today.
One such instance is the story of Hannah in 1 Samuel 1-2. Here is a woman who cannot have a child (her womb is closed). After being approached by a messenger of God (the priest Eli), she ends up having a son named Samuel. The son ends up being dedicated to the Lord's service.
Even more fascinating is that both Hannah and Mary sing a song of praise to God after the birth of their sons. In fact, both songs start off the same way: "My heart/soul exalt the LORD." As both songs progress, both praise God for His humbling of the rich and powerful and for His raising up of the lowly. For example:
1 Sam. 2:4-"The bows of the mighty are shattered,
But the feeble gird on strength."
Luke 1:52- "He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble." (NASB)
Yet, the comparisons do not end there. Compare these passages in 1 Samuel to the description about Jesus found in Luke 2:40 that says he "continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.":
1 Sam. 2:21- "And the boy Samuel grew before the LORD."
1 Sam. 3:19- "Thus Samuel grew and the LORD was with him and let none of his words fail."
All of these parallels are hard to ignore. However, it reminds us of a basic fact about the mindset of the Biblical writers. For them, history was somewhat circular. History does repeat itself. The stories of the past are also the stories of the present and of the future. That's also why eschatology at times looks so much like protology. So, as we see these elements show up in Hannah's life, and then in Mary's, we may also wonder how these same elements are being played out in out lives today.
Monday, November 15, 2010
That's a Nice Shirt: Clothes and the story of David
"Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt. So David went out wherever Saul sent him, and prospered..." (1 Sam. 18:3-5a, NASB)
"Then David arose and cut off the edge of Saul's robe secretly. It came about afterward that David's conscience bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul's robe." (1 Sam. 24:4b-5, NASB)
As 21st century, Westerners, we miss a lot of the significance of stories about robes and clothes in the Bible. For many of us, there is nothing super special about our clothes. They're something that we put on and off, but are also something that we can just as easily put in a give-away box. However, in the ancient near east, your clothes were also you're identity. They symbolized status in a way much more poignant than today. Oh sure our clothes signify role or wealth somewhat today. A person walking down the street in an Armani suit is likely making more than minimum wage. However, just because you manage to try on an Armani suit does not give you the privileges or wealth that a powerful businessperson might have.
Yet, for the ancients, clothes were part of your identity. If you are stripped of you clothes, you lose the identity that those clothes symbolized. Thus, it is extremely significant when Jonathon (a prince) strips off his royal robes and gives them a shepherd boy. It was essentially an abdication of the throne. Likewise, David feels guilt over cutting part of Saul robe because it was like making a premature grab at the royal throne. David was not just cutting a robe, he was attacking Saul's identity as king.
Passages like this serve as a poignant reminder that we cannot simply overlook details in Biblical narrative. Even things like the clothes that people wear (or don't wear) can have a major affect on interpretation.
"Then David arose and cut off the edge of Saul's robe secretly. It came about afterward that David's conscience bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul's robe." (1 Sam. 24:4b-5, NASB)
As 21st century, Westerners, we miss a lot of the significance of stories about robes and clothes in the Bible. For many of us, there is nothing super special about our clothes. They're something that we put on and off, but are also something that we can just as easily put in a give-away box. However, in the ancient near east, your clothes were also you're identity. They symbolized status in a way much more poignant than today. Oh sure our clothes signify role or wealth somewhat today. A person walking down the street in an Armani suit is likely making more than minimum wage. However, just because you manage to try on an Armani suit does not give you the privileges or wealth that a powerful businessperson might have.
Yet, for the ancients, clothes were part of your identity. If you are stripped of you clothes, you lose the identity that those clothes symbolized. Thus, it is extremely significant when Jonathon (a prince) strips off his royal robes and gives them a shepherd boy. It was essentially an abdication of the throne. Likewise, David feels guilt over cutting part of Saul robe because it was like making a premature grab at the royal throne. David was not just cutting a robe, he was attacking Saul's identity as king.
Passages like this serve as a poignant reminder that we cannot simply overlook details in Biblical narrative. Even things like the clothes that people wear (or don't wear) can have a major affect on interpretation.
Saul the Judge
A foolish vow, a child is threatened by that vow, and people advocate doing whatever seems best in their own eyes. Although these events take place in 1 Sam. 14, it seems like we have heard them before. In fact, if one reads straight through from Genesis to 1 Samuel, they will realize that they have heard this before. While this story in 1 Sam. 14 is about the foolishness of King Saul, there are many elements that seem reminiscent of the book of Judges.
For example, several times throughout the narrative, Saul's men advise him to "do whatever seems good to you" (NASB). One cannot help but think of the ending of Judges which states how everyone "did what was right in their own eyes." Instead of seeking God's advice, people simply acted on their own feelings, just as Saul makes a number of rash orders here.
Likewise, Saul seems like a newer version of the Judge Jephthah. Both characters make a foolish oath after military victories that end up affecting one of their children. In the case of Jephthah, he offers to sacrifice the first thing that greets him at his home, which results in his having to sacrifice/dedicate his daughter to God. In the case of Saul, he makes an oath that forbids any of his men from eating any honey, even though as Jonathon points out, the honey would help strengthen the troops. In the end, Saul is faced with the decision to kill his own son for violating the oath by eating honey. However, unlike Jephthah, Saul does not keep his oath but bends to the wishes of his people.
If these similarities between Saul and the book of Judges are intentional, then the effect is comparing the end of Saul's reign to the period of the judges. Although Saul is king and should be bringing more prosperity and unity to Israel, he reign is just as foolish and chaotic as the period of the judges. In fact, in some ways it is worse because he is even weaker than some of the leaders of old as he can't even keep his own oaths. Instead of remaining faithful to the tasks God gave him, he allows himself to be easily pushed around by his own feelings and by the wishes of his people.
For example, several times throughout the narrative, Saul's men advise him to "do whatever seems good to you" (NASB). One cannot help but think of the ending of Judges which states how everyone "did what was right in their own eyes." Instead of seeking God's advice, people simply acted on their own feelings, just as Saul makes a number of rash orders here.
Likewise, Saul seems like a newer version of the Judge Jephthah. Both characters make a foolish oath after military victories that end up affecting one of their children. In the case of Jephthah, he offers to sacrifice the first thing that greets him at his home, which results in his having to sacrifice/dedicate his daughter to God. In the case of Saul, he makes an oath that forbids any of his men from eating any honey, even though as Jonathon points out, the honey would help strengthen the troops. In the end, Saul is faced with the decision to kill his own son for violating the oath by eating honey. However, unlike Jephthah, Saul does not keep his oath but bends to the wishes of his people.
If these similarities between Saul and the book of Judges are intentional, then the effect is comparing the end of Saul's reign to the period of the judges. Although Saul is king and should be bringing more prosperity and unity to Israel, he reign is just as foolish and chaotic as the period of the judges. In fact, in some ways it is worse because he is even weaker than some of the leaders of old as he can't even keep his own oaths. Instead of remaining faithful to the tasks God gave him, he allows himself to be easily pushed around by his own feelings and by the wishes of his people.
The End in the Middle
"Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years."- 1 Samuel 13:1 (TNIV)
This summary of the reign of king Saul comes at the beginning of chapter 13 in 1 Samuel. However, it's placement in the story is odd. One expects to find such a summary either at the end of a story or perhaps at the beginning. Indeed, both David and Solomon have similar summaries of their reigns, but in both of their cases the summary comes after the death of the king. However, in the case of Saul, this statement appears in the middle of Saul's story. A similar thing occurs with Ish-bosheth and David in 2 Sam. 2:10-11 and 4:4-5. Here, Saul was crowned king 3 chapters earlier and had led a successful campaign against Israel's enemies. However, there is still plenty of Saul's story to go. In fact, Saul does not die until the very end of 1 Samuel.
In thinking about the placement of this statement, perhaps it is significant that, unlike David or Solomon, there is no summary statement at the end of Saul's life. Furthermore, it appears just before Saul's first major mistake as king. While waiting at Gilgal for Samuel, Saul becomes impatient and ends up disobeying God's command. Instead off waiting for Samuel to come and offer a sacrifice, Saul chooses to offer the sacrifice himself. Samuel then rebukes Saul with the harrowing claim that Saul's "kingdom will not endure" (13:14 TNIV). Indeed, things continue to go downhill for Saul as he slowly loses touch with God and slowly loses his kingdom to David.
In some ways this narrative device works lie an extended flashback in movies. There are many movies that provide you with a scene and then go back to explain how that scene came about. For example, a bomb goes off in the opening scene and then the movies flashes back to the events leading up to that bombing. We already know the ending, the question is just how did we get there. Thus, whether it is Saul or David, we get a peak at the end and must await the details that are to come. However, in Saul's case, the author is signaling that this is the beginning of the end for Saul. With no second summary at the end of his reign (unlike David and Solomon), Saul's life is a steady downhill event. After chapter 13, Saul's reign is a good as done, so one might as well only summarize the totality of Saul reign here. Thus, in chapter 13, we know that the end of Saul is coming, but the reader soon discovers that the 42 years of Saul's reign were not all good years..
This summary of the reign of king Saul comes at the beginning of chapter 13 in 1 Samuel. However, it's placement in the story is odd. One expects to find such a summary either at the end of a story or perhaps at the beginning. Indeed, both David and Solomon have similar summaries of their reigns, but in both of their cases the summary comes after the death of the king. However, in the case of Saul, this statement appears in the middle of Saul's story. A similar thing occurs with Ish-bosheth and David in 2 Sam. 2:10-11 and 4:4-5. Here, Saul was crowned king 3 chapters earlier and had led a successful campaign against Israel's enemies. However, there is still plenty of Saul's story to go. In fact, Saul does not die until the very end of 1 Samuel.
In thinking about the placement of this statement, perhaps it is significant that, unlike David or Solomon, there is no summary statement at the end of Saul's life. Furthermore, it appears just before Saul's first major mistake as king. While waiting at Gilgal for Samuel, Saul becomes impatient and ends up disobeying God's command. Instead off waiting for Samuel to come and offer a sacrifice, Saul chooses to offer the sacrifice himself. Samuel then rebukes Saul with the harrowing claim that Saul's "kingdom will not endure" (13:14 TNIV). Indeed, things continue to go downhill for Saul as he slowly loses touch with God and slowly loses his kingdom to David.
In some ways this narrative device works lie an extended flashback in movies. There are many movies that provide you with a scene and then go back to explain how that scene came about. For example, a bomb goes off in the opening scene and then the movies flashes back to the events leading up to that bombing. We already know the ending, the question is just how did we get there. Thus, whether it is Saul or David, we get a peak at the end and must await the details that are to come. However, in Saul's case, the author is signaling that this is the beginning of the end for Saul. With no second summary at the end of his reign (unlike David and Solomon), Saul's life is a steady downhill event. After chapter 13, Saul's reign is a good as done, so one might as well only summarize the totality of Saul reign here. Thus, in chapter 13, we know that the end of Saul is coming, but the reader soon discovers that the 42 years of Saul's reign were not all good years..
Monday, November 8, 2010
The 300
A few years ago the movie "300" released in theaters. The film celebrated the might and courage of 300 Spartans who stood up against their Persian foes who were many times more numerous. This film resonated with Americans who value similar things that the movie glorified: strength, power, courage, ability to stand up against all odds.
In Judges 7 we read the account of another 300 warriors. However, the values espoused here in the story of Gideon seem a little different. Although courage still appears to be valued (God and Gideon allow those who are afraid to go home), the second qualification of Gideon's troops stands out as unique. God tells Gideon to only take with him the men who "lap" water like a "dog." While there is some debate as to the exact meaning and significance of this phrase, one theory argues that this was a sign of lack of military training. While those who knelt would have demonstrated military readiness, the actions of these 300 may have shown a lack of such readiness.
If this is the case, then it is significant that these are the 300 whom God chose. God did not choose those who were strong in battle or great warriors like the 300 Spartans. Instead, he chose those who did not belong in battle. Instead of relying on their military strength, they were to be courageous and rely on God's strength and faithfulness. This is a theme that will continue throughout the Bible, even into the NT. Two stories of 300 soldiers; two very different approaches to victory.
In Judges 7 we read the account of another 300 warriors. However, the values espoused here in the story of Gideon seem a little different. Although courage still appears to be valued (God and Gideon allow those who are afraid to go home), the second qualification of Gideon's troops stands out as unique. God tells Gideon to only take with him the men who "lap" water like a "dog." While there is some debate as to the exact meaning and significance of this phrase, one theory argues that this was a sign of lack of military training. While those who knelt would have demonstrated military readiness, the actions of these 300 may have shown a lack of such readiness.
If this is the case, then it is significant that these are the 300 whom God chose. God did not choose those who were strong in battle or great warriors like the 300 Spartans. Instead, he chose those who did not belong in battle. Instead of relying on their military strength, they were to be courageous and rely on God's strength and faithfulness. This is a theme that will continue throughout the Bible, even into the NT. Two stories of 300 soldiers; two very different approaches to victory.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Sampson: Hero or Tragedy?
We often think of the story of Sampson as a story of a hero. Children books and bibles celebrate his heroic feats against the Philistines and especially praise his final hour. In looking at his faith, we are pointed to Judges 16:30 which states that "he killed many more when he died than while he lived" (TNIV).
But, what if this is actually a tragic statement instead of a triumphant one. Indeed, Sampson had many issues during his life, particularly with pagan women. As one reads the story of Sampson, it seems that the only times he ever kills the Philistines is when he needs personal revenge. Never does he act on behalf of his people. Instead, he even seems to befriend the enemy (Judges 14:20-15:2). In this light, perhaps 16:30 can be seen as a tragic commentary on a life wasted. Although he was blessed with strength from God, he wasted that strength and ended up doing more for Israel when he was blind and a captive than in all the years he was healthy and free.
Furthermore, even though Sampson finally recognizes that it is god who gives him strength in the end, even here Sampson's desire is selfishly motivated. He does not act in order to free Israel or to show people that YHWH is greater than Dagon. Rather, he acts to "get revenge on the Philistines" for his "two eyes" (16:28). Given that this is the final judge mentioned, perhaps it is a sad commentary on the state of Israel and its leaders prior to the Kingdom period. Indeed, the life of Sampson seems to fit quite nicely with the final verse of Judges: "In those days...everyone did as they saw fit" (21:25, TNIV).
But, what if this is actually a tragic statement instead of a triumphant one. Indeed, Sampson had many issues during his life, particularly with pagan women. As one reads the story of Sampson, it seems that the only times he ever kills the Philistines is when he needs personal revenge. Never does he act on behalf of his people. Instead, he even seems to befriend the enemy (Judges 14:20-15:2). In this light, perhaps 16:30 can be seen as a tragic commentary on a life wasted. Although he was blessed with strength from God, he wasted that strength and ended up doing more for Israel when he was blind and a captive than in all the years he was healthy and free.
Furthermore, even though Sampson finally recognizes that it is god who gives him strength in the end, even here Sampson's desire is selfishly motivated. He does not act in order to free Israel or to show people that YHWH is greater than Dagon. Rather, he acts to "get revenge on the Philistines" for his "two eyes" (16:28). Given that this is the final judge mentioned, perhaps it is a sad commentary on the state of Israel and its leaders prior to the Kingdom period. Indeed, the life of Sampson seems to fit quite nicely with the final verse of Judges: "In those days...everyone did as they saw fit" (21:25, TNIV).
Monday, November 1, 2010
Regression of the Judges
"Then Israel did evil in the eyes of the LORD and served the Baals." (Judges 2:11)
Many of us have heard many of the stories from Judges. In fact, some of the most intriguing Old Testament stories come from this book. Sampson, Gideon, and Deborah all have amazing stories here. Additionally, for many years, readers have observed a recurring cycle of sin, oppression, call to God, and salvation. This cycle occurs over and over as Israel serves other Gods, is oppressed by her neighbors, calls to God, and receives salvation from a judge whom God sends.
Yet, it is also interesting that this cycle does not seem to be merely a circle. Rather, to me it seems like a spiral staircase. We've covered this ground before, and yet, it is not quite the same. In particular, there is a sense that, as Israel continues to serve their gods and Ba'als, the quality of their judges seems to worsen. Among the first few judges whom God sends are Ehud and Deborah. Both judges are moved by a strong conviction of commitment to God and boldly go to face the enemy. They live up to the charge to "be strong and courageous." These are people you want leading Israel.
However, then we come to Gideon. While Gideon demonstrates a good heart to serve God, he is also fearful. He doubts whether God will truly be with him and is a far cry from the leadership of Ehud and Deborah. After Gideon, the regression continues with the godless rule of Abimelek and the foolish oath of Jephthah. Finally, we come to Sampson. Although often regarded as a hero, the life of Sampson is really a tragedy. Although he was set up for greatness, Sampson chased after pagan women and prostitutes and only attacked the enemy when he needed personal revenge. In Sampson, the regression of the judges seems compete. Yet, as if this was not enough, the author ends the book with several stories (apparently out of order chronologically) about how everyone just did as they pleased without leadership and the horrific consequences that followed those actions.
So, why is there this regression? Perhaps the answer lies in the nature of idolatry. Idolatry is not a sin that ends with the worshiping of other gods. Idolatry leads to immorality, as Paul points out in Romans. Thus, the continuation of idolatry in Israel eventually consumed the whole community, including even the judges themselves. If uncleanness is a contagion within the community, then it was only a matter of time before the leaders of Israel fell to the same idolatry and immorality as the people. Perhaps there is also a sense in which this regression among the judges was a judgment from God. If the people continued to put in only half an effort in repenting, then God would being only putting in half an effort in saving. Or, one final possibility is that this literary feature is like Mark's gospel where the disciples seem to regress. Perhaps it is emphasizing the fallen-ness of humanity and our inability to fully follow God. In this sense, it emphasizes human sin and ensures that the focus remains on the faithfulness of God.
Many of us have heard many of the stories from Judges. In fact, some of the most intriguing Old Testament stories come from this book. Sampson, Gideon, and Deborah all have amazing stories here. Additionally, for many years, readers have observed a recurring cycle of sin, oppression, call to God, and salvation. This cycle occurs over and over as Israel serves other Gods, is oppressed by her neighbors, calls to God, and receives salvation from a judge whom God sends.
Yet, it is also interesting that this cycle does not seem to be merely a circle. Rather, to me it seems like a spiral staircase. We've covered this ground before, and yet, it is not quite the same. In particular, there is a sense that, as Israel continues to serve their gods and Ba'als, the quality of their judges seems to worsen. Among the first few judges whom God sends are Ehud and Deborah. Both judges are moved by a strong conviction of commitment to God and boldly go to face the enemy. They live up to the charge to "be strong and courageous." These are people you want leading Israel.
However, then we come to Gideon. While Gideon demonstrates a good heart to serve God, he is also fearful. He doubts whether God will truly be with him and is a far cry from the leadership of Ehud and Deborah. After Gideon, the regression continues with the godless rule of Abimelek and the foolish oath of Jephthah. Finally, we come to Sampson. Although often regarded as a hero, the life of Sampson is really a tragedy. Although he was set up for greatness, Sampson chased after pagan women and prostitutes and only attacked the enemy when he needed personal revenge. In Sampson, the regression of the judges seems compete. Yet, as if this was not enough, the author ends the book with several stories (apparently out of order chronologically) about how everyone just did as they pleased without leadership and the horrific consequences that followed those actions.
So, why is there this regression? Perhaps the answer lies in the nature of idolatry. Idolatry is not a sin that ends with the worshiping of other gods. Idolatry leads to immorality, as Paul points out in Romans. Thus, the continuation of idolatry in Israel eventually consumed the whole community, including even the judges themselves. If uncleanness is a contagion within the community, then it was only a matter of time before the leaders of Israel fell to the same idolatry and immorality as the people. Perhaps there is also a sense in which this regression among the judges was a judgment from God. If the people continued to put in only half an effort in repenting, then God would being only putting in half an effort in saving. Or, one final possibility is that this literary feature is like Mark's gospel where the disciples seem to regress. Perhaps it is emphasizing the fallen-ness of humanity and our inability to fully follow God. In this sense, it emphasizes human sin and ensures that the focus remains on the faithfulness of God.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Ga'Hoole and Covenant Renewal
This past weekend I saw the new movie "Legend of the Guardians," which is based on the kids' fantasy books, "Guardians of Ga'Hoole." The movie centers around the story of some owls who end up being caught in a battle between a group of evil, Nazi Germany-like owls, and "the Guardians" who live in a land called Ga'Hoole. Although the movie was targeted at kids, there were several themes that I found particularly fascinating.
One of those themes dealt with the power of stories. In the opening scene, some young owls are playing in their tree and imagining themselves as heroes from their father's stories. While one brother firmly believes in the stories (which turn out to be true), the other brother looks on them with scorn and prefers to live in "reality." However, as their father tells them when he returns to the tree, "Stories are tell us who we are--they give us identity."
Being a Communication major and a Biblical Studies major in undergrad, I couldn't help but think of the Biblical story. The stories of the Bible are powerful not just because they can teach a lesson, but really because they give us identity by telling us our history and revealing our nature. A powerful example of this comes whenever Israel goes through the process of covenant renewal. In Joshua 24, Israel goes through such a ceremony. However, before the people can recommit themselves, they must remember their stories. Hence, the beginning of the ceremony in Joshua 24 rehearses the history of Israel up to that point. One's stories and history provide identity so that one is empowered to live in keeping with that identity.
In the movie, the consequences of not holding onto those treasured stories is clearly illustrated. In the end, the brother who believes in the stories goes on to become a hero while the brother who scorned the stories falls to evil and does not find redemption. Likewise, the consequences in Israel's history were equally severe. Just as Joshua predicted in chapter 24, Israel would forget her history and would fall under God's judgment. Thus, both this film and the Biblical story serve as poignant reminders of the importance of remembering and being committed to our stories and history.
One of those themes dealt with the power of stories. In the opening scene, some young owls are playing in their tree and imagining themselves as heroes from their father's stories. While one brother firmly believes in the stories (which turn out to be true), the other brother looks on them with scorn and prefers to live in "reality." However, as their father tells them when he returns to the tree, "Stories are tell us who we are--they give us identity."
Being a Communication major and a Biblical Studies major in undergrad, I couldn't help but think of the Biblical story. The stories of the Bible are powerful not just because they can teach a lesson, but really because they give us identity by telling us our history and revealing our nature. A powerful example of this comes whenever Israel goes through the process of covenant renewal. In Joshua 24, Israel goes through such a ceremony. However, before the people can recommit themselves, they must remember their stories. Hence, the beginning of the ceremony in Joshua 24 rehearses the history of Israel up to that point. One's stories and history provide identity so that one is empowered to live in keeping with that identity.
In the movie, the consequences of not holding onto those treasured stories is clearly illustrated. In the end, the brother who believes in the stories goes on to become a hero while the brother who scorned the stories falls to evil and does not find redemption. Likewise, the consequences in Israel's history were equally severe. Just as Joshua predicted in chapter 24, Israel would forget her history and would fall under God's judgment. Thus, both this film and the Biblical story serve as poignant reminders of the importance of remembering and being committed to our stories and history.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Power of Remembering- Joshua 3-4
History is important. One need look no further than church traditions to see that much. So much of what we do is done because somewhere back in the church's history people decided to do it that way. Why are the hymnals blue? Because some of us years ago wanted them that way. Why do we do the announcements before the sermon? Because someone at some point decided it was more effective that way. Yet, examining a church's history is something that many churches today seem to neglect. Many members can't tell you how their church began or how the church's ministry had progressed and changed over its history.
However, taking the time to examine this history can be very informative and inspiring. At the church I attended while in college, when our new pastor began his ministry, we took the time to examine the history of our church on one Sunday evening. It was an excellent time to see issues that had been buried for years and also to see how God had been faithful and at work in the church over the decades. Taking the time to remember and reflect on those successes and on how God had been at work was a helpful exercise in bringing back unity and focus to our church.
In Joshua 3-4, Israel also recognizes the need to remember God's acts in their history. After God's miraculous act of bringing Israel across the Jordan, Joshua orders the people to collect a stone from the Jordan for each tribe. These are then erected into an altar. The purpose: that later generations my know that "Israel crossed this Jordan on dry ground" and that "all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the Lord is mighty" (4:21-24 NASB). Such a memorial was a way of forcing Israel to remember this great act of God and continue to praise Him for His faithfulness and obey Him. Similar to war memorials today which cause citizens to remember the battles soldiers have fought for their countries, these stones stood to remind Israel of the acts that God was performing for them. In this way, not only does Josh. 3-4 remind us of a mighty act of god in history, but it also reminds us of our duty to remember the acts of God within our own history. Indeed, history is important and has great potential to impact the present.
However, taking the time to examine this history can be very informative and inspiring. At the church I attended while in college, when our new pastor began his ministry, we took the time to examine the history of our church on one Sunday evening. It was an excellent time to see issues that had been buried for years and also to see how God had been faithful and at work in the church over the decades. Taking the time to remember and reflect on those successes and on how God had been at work was a helpful exercise in bringing back unity and focus to our church.
In Joshua 3-4, Israel also recognizes the need to remember God's acts in their history. After God's miraculous act of bringing Israel across the Jordan, Joshua orders the people to collect a stone from the Jordan for each tribe. These are then erected into an altar. The purpose: that later generations my know that "Israel crossed this Jordan on dry ground" and that "all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the Lord is mighty" (4:21-24 NASB). Such a memorial was a way of forcing Israel to remember this great act of God and continue to praise Him for His faithfulness and obey Him. Similar to war memorials today which cause citizens to remember the battles soldiers have fought for their countries, these stones stood to remind Israel of the acts that God was performing for them. In this way, not only does Josh. 3-4 remind us of a mighty act of god in history, but it also reminds us of our duty to remember the acts of God within our own history. Indeed, history is important and has great potential to impact the present.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Return of the Cousins
Within the story of Numbers we see the sins of the community in Genesis coming back to haunt Israel as they have to face their reprobate cousins while attempting to enter the land. Those peoples that were created through sinful acts or were simply not chosen by God end up being the same people who cause Israel grief. Below is a comparison of the Genesis and Numbers accounts:
Gen. 25, 27- Esau (Edom) becomes the reprobate brother under Jacob (Israel)
Num. 20:14-21- The king of Edom refuses to let Israel pass through their land
Gen. 19:30-38- Lot's daughters seduce him and bear Moab and Ammon
Num. 22-25:5- The Moabite king hires Balaam to curse Israel and the men of Israel are seduced by Moabite women
Gen. 9:20-27- Noah curses Canaan (Ham's son) for Ham's sin
Num. 21, 31- Israel defeats Canaanite nations while entering the promised land.
These stories thus serve both to justify to current actions of Israel (taking the land from reprobates), but also serve to condemn certain actions and behaviors. In this sense these stories can function similarly to some of our modern superhero stories. In the conflict between heroes and villains, the villains oftentimes are either relatives or friends of the hero. The difference, however, can be traced back to an event in the villain's past. Either a poor decision of the hero drove the villain to become evil or the evil was a result of a poor reaction to a tragedy in the villains life. In either case, the conflict becomes a stage not just for action, but also for a lesson in how to avoid behaviors that bring evil. Here is a You Tube video from The Incredibles that illustrates this point:
Mr. Incredible and Syndrome
Here, the villain was a fan of Mr. Incredible. However, Mr. Incredible's selfishness/pride, coupled with the poor decisions by Syndrome lead to repercussions for Mr. Incredible later in life as this young fan turns into a horrible villain. Thus, similar to Israel, those that are not chosen or who act sinfully within the community end up being a thorn in the side of their relatives later in the story.
Gen. 25, 27- Esau (Edom) becomes the reprobate brother under Jacob (Israel)
Num. 20:14-21- The king of Edom refuses to let Israel pass through their land
Gen. 19:30-38- Lot's daughters seduce him and bear Moab and Ammon
Num. 22-25:5- The Moabite king hires Balaam to curse Israel and the men of Israel are seduced by Moabite women
Gen. 9:20-27- Noah curses Canaan (Ham's son) for Ham's sin
Num. 21, 31- Israel defeats Canaanite nations while entering the promised land.
These stories thus serve both to justify to current actions of Israel (taking the land from reprobates), but also serve to condemn certain actions and behaviors. In this sense these stories can function similarly to some of our modern superhero stories. In the conflict between heroes and villains, the villains oftentimes are either relatives or friends of the hero. The difference, however, can be traced back to an event in the villain's past. Either a poor decision of the hero drove the villain to become evil or the evil was a result of a poor reaction to a tragedy in the villains life. In either case, the conflict becomes a stage not just for action, but also for a lesson in how to avoid behaviors that bring evil. Here is a You Tube video from The Incredibles that illustrates this point:
Mr. Incredible and Syndrome
Here, the villain was a fan of Mr. Incredible. However, Mr. Incredible's selfishness/pride, coupled with the poor decisions by Syndrome lead to repercussions for Mr. Incredible later in life as this young fan turns into a horrible villain. Thus, similar to Israel, those that are not chosen or who act sinfully within the community end up being a thorn in the side of their relatives later in the story.
Friday, October 8, 2010
YHWH as King in Num. 1-4
The first few chapters of Numbers seem to be not only preparing Israel for the conquest of Canaan but also to be placing YHWH as king over Israel. The arrangement of the tribes around the tabernacle is of course partially a military formation. In this light, it can be seen that the camp arrangement of Israel is not too different than the military camps of other kings in the ancient near east. Often such encampments would place the king at the center of the camp. This would signal the importance of the king and also provide the king with protection from enemies.
Thus, such a military camp would somewhat serve like the secret service does for the President today. Just as the Secret Service is always present and surrounding the President in public areas, likewise the armies of the ancient world would camp around their leader. Yet, it is interesting that in Numbers, at least part of the camp structure was for the protection of Israel instead of protection for God. Numbers 1:53 points out that one reason the Levites were to camp closest to the tabernacle was to help prevent God's wrath from falling on the rest of the camp.
The sense of YHWH as Israel's king is heightened in the following chapters as the book describes the various tasks of which the Levites were in charge. In describing the transportation of many of the pieces of holy furniture, Numbers reports that these holy objects were to be wrapped in blue, crimson, and purple clothes--all colors of royalty. The message is clear: the God who brought Israel out of Egypt is also to be their king who will bring them into the Promised Land and is to be worshiped as their king.
The New Testament continues with this idea of God/Jesus as king over His people. One wonders if we have lost some of this sense in our modern world. One also wonders what rituals or practices that we have in our churches today either place God and Jesus in this role as king or that strip Him of such a position.
Thus, such a military camp would somewhat serve like the secret service does for the President today. Just as the Secret Service is always present and surrounding the President in public areas, likewise the armies of the ancient world would camp around their leader. Yet, it is interesting that in Numbers, at least part of the camp structure was for the protection of Israel instead of protection for God. Numbers 1:53 points out that one reason the Levites were to camp closest to the tabernacle was to help prevent God's wrath from falling on the rest of the camp.
The sense of YHWH as Israel's king is heightened in the following chapters as the book describes the various tasks of which the Levites were in charge. In describing the transportation of many of the pieces of holy furniture, Numbers reports that these holy objects were to be wrapped in blue, crimson, and purple clothes--all colors of royalty. The message is clear: the God who brought Israel out of Egypt is also to be their king who will bring them into the Promised Land and is to be worshiped as their king.
The New Testament continues with this idea of God/Jesus as king over His people. One wonders if we have lost some of this sense in our modern world. One also wonders what rituals or practices that we have in our churches today either place God and Jesus in this role as king or that strip Him of such a position.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Whom are We Goring?
In Exo. 21:28-32, the Israelite law gives some stipulations about what to do when an ox "gores" a human being to death. According to the text, if it is a first time occurrence, then only the ox is to be put to death. However, if the ox has a habit of attacking people that the owner is aware of, then the owner is also to be killed if that ox gores a person to death.
It is interesting that the law codes of Hammurabi also contain passages about ox gorings. Apparently people must have enjoyed taunting oxen or something for this to be a common enough problem to write laws about it. But, nonetheless, when we compare the Exodus text with Hammurabi's laws, it is interesting that the cost to the owner differs. With the Mesopotamian texts, all that is required of an owner is a payment of money to the family of the victim. However, in Exodus, the cost is heightened as it will cost the owner his very life if he acts with negligence. Thus, it might be reasonable to argue here, given the Israelites were probably familiar with other ancient law codes and ethics, that they are also stating something about the character of YHWH. In particular, YHWH very much takes the issue of human life seriously. It is no small matter when a person gets killed. Thus, if the guilty party had prior knowledge that could have prevented the death, it is not something that a payment of money will sufficiently cover. The guilty person's life is required. Thus, God establishes the importance of human life even through a seemingly ordinary rule.
However, as we look at our own lives, I wonder if we face some of the same issues as Israel here. In particular, do we have the same high view of human life, or are we willing to throw away lives when it is convenient for us? In other words, what "oxen" do we use and employ that have a tendency to "gore" others? For example, when we use certain products, such as coffee, do we end up using and supporting "ox" companies that abuse and "gore" employees, particularly those in less fortunate situations. And while perhaps we can be excused based on ignorance like the ox owner whose ox kills a person for the first time, what does it say about us when we do have knowledge of "gorings" and still choose not to act to defend those who are injured in the process? Do we choose our own comfort and convenience over even human life? Do we put up with sweatshops and corruption when it makes our life easier or cheaper? It seems to me that if we worship the God who places great value on human life and dignity that we cannot make such a choice in good conscience.
It is interesting that the law codes of Hammurabi also contain passages about ox gorings. Apparently people must have enjoyed taunting oxen or something for this to be a common enough problem to write laws about it. But, nonetheless, when we compare the Exodus text with Hammurabi's laws, it is interesting that the cost to the owner differs. With the Mesopotamian texts, all that is required of an owner is a payment of money to the family of the victim. However, in Exodus, the cost is heightened as it will cost the owner his very life if he acts with negligence. Thus, it might be reasonable to argue here, given the Israelites were probably familiar with other ancient law codes and ethics, that they are also stating something about the character of YHWH. In particular, YHWH very much takes the issue of human life seriously. It is no small matter when a person gets killed. Thus, if the guilty party had prior knowledge that could have prevented the death, it is not something that a payment of money will sufficiently cover. The guilty person's life is required. Thus, God establishes the importance of human life even through a seemingly ordinary rule.
However, as we look at our own lives, I wonder if we face some of the same issues as Israel here. In particular, do we have the same high view of human life, or are we willing to throw away lives when it is convenient for us? In other words, what "oxen" do we use and employ that have a tendency to "gore" others? For example, when we use certain products, such as coffee, do we end up using and supporting "ox" companies that abuse and "gore" employees, particularly those in less fortunate situations. And while perhaps we can be excused based on ignorance like the ox owner whose ox kills a person for the first time, what does it say about us when we do have knowledge of "gorings" and still choose not to act to defend those who are injured in the process? Do we choose our own comfort and convenience over even human life? Do we put up with sweatshops and corruption when it makes our life easier or cheaper? It seems to me that if we worship the God who places great value on human life and dignity that we cannot make such a choice in good conscience.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Plagues and Cattle
It has long been recognized that the plagues against Egypt seem to work as a polemic against "all the gods of Egypt." For example, YHWH demonstrates his authority over the river and thus over the river gods and goddesses (Hapi, Isis, Khnum, and others). The darkness for 3 days is a clear challenge to Re and Horus. We could keep going through all the plagues and list different gods that YHWH takes on. However, upon reading through the plagues, it was interesting to me how many times cattle seemed to appear in the story:
Ex. 9:3-6: livestock, including cattle, are killed
Ex. 9:19-25- Both livestock and people are struck by hailstones
Ex. 11:5- God promises to kill the firstborn of every household AND "of their cattle as well."
This attention to the Egyptians' cattle is interesting. Perhaps, given the polemical nature of the plagues, this attention is because of the continuing religious climate Israel faced. Within the context of the Exodus, perhaps the writer is trying to draw a clear distinction between Israel and Egypt. Since many of Egypt's gods deal with cattle or bulls in some form (Apis-bull god, Hathor- goddess with cow head, Mnevis-bull god) it makes sense for YHWH to make sure the point that He is greater is communicated. It is the author's way of saying that clearly YHWH is greater than any of these cattle gods, and that is what separates us from Egypt.
Furthermore, throughout the entire ancient near east, bulls were seen as a symbol of fertility and strength. Hence, even outside Egypt there were many such cattle gods and goddesses. In Canaan, both El and Ba'al were sometimes described as a bull. Likewise, in Babylon, the bull was a symbol for their god of fertility and of storms. Thus, this would remain a challenge to YHWH even after the people left Egypt. Indeed, it seems that this was one of the continuing struggles for Israel as they keep trying to mix their religion with these cattle, fertility religions. In fact, even before the book of Exodus if over, they have created a golden calf. Likewise, later in their history the creation of calf idols at Dan and Bethel during Jeroboam I's reign only continues the problem (1 Kgs. 12). Thus, perhaps the continuing judgment against the cattle in the first half is no accident, but is the author's desperate attempt to point out that YHWH, not these other gods of fertility and strength, is the one to be served.
Ex. 9:3-6: livestock, including cattle, are killed
Ex. 9:19-25- Both livestock and people are struck by hailstones
Ex. 11:5- God promises to kill the firstborn of every household AND "of their cattle as well."
This attention to the Egyptians' cattle is interesting. Perhaps, given the polemical nature of the plagues, this attention is because of the continuing religious climate Israel faced. Within the context of the Exodus, perhaps the writer is trying to draw a clear distinction between Israel and Egypt. Since many of Egypt's gods deal with cattle or bulls in some form (Apis-bull god, Hathor- goddess with cow head, Mnevis-bull god) it makes sense for YHWH to make sure the point that He is greater is communicated. It is the author's way of saying that clearly YHWH is greater than any of these cattle gods, and that is what separates us from Egypt.
Furthermore, throughout the entire ancient near east, bulls were seen as a symbol of fertility and strength. Hence, even outside Egypt there were many such cattle gods and goddesses. In Canaan, both El and Ba'al were sometimes described as a bull. Likewise, in Babylon, the bull was a symbol for their god of fertility and of storms. Thus, this would remain a challenge to YHWH even after the people left Egypt. Indeed, it seems that this was one of the continuing struggles for Israel as they keep trying to mix their religion with these cattle, fertility religions. In fact, even before the book of Exodus if over, they have created a golden calf. Likewise, later in their history the creation of calf idols at Dan and Bethel during Jeroboam I's reign only continues the problem (1 Kgs. 12). Thus, perhaps the continuing judgment against the cattle in the first half is no accident, but is the author's desperate attempt to point out that YHWH, not these other gods of fertility and strength, is the one to be served.
Monday, September 13, 2010
The story of Joseph or of Jacob's sons?
We typically read Genesis 37-50 as the story of Joseph, and for good reason. The majority of these stories deal with the trials Joseph faces as he is sold by his brothers into slavery, goes to Egypt, and eventually becomes 2nd in command in Egypt and is able to save his family. We've heard these stories so many times that we just assume that the focus is on Joseph's life. However, then we read stories like Gen. 38 about Judah and Tamar and wonder why the author/editor would place such an unseemly interruption in the middle of the Joseph narrative. Although there are certainly several reasons for the placement of Gen. 38 (it is interesting that clothing plays a prominent role in the three stories of Gen. 37-39), perhaps the placement is due to the fact that this is not simply the story of Joseph.
All throughout Genesis there have been competitions between siblings for blessing and birthright (Ishmael/Isaac, Jacob/Esau, Cain/Abel). The stories at the end of Genesis are no different. Indeed, perhaps it is better to recognize the ending set of narratives as extending back into Gen. 34 and describe the end of Genesis as a tale about the sons of Jacob. With 12 sons, the competition for the blessing/birthright becomes very complicated and interesting given that the reader is expecting a younger sibling to receive it by this point. And, corresponding with expectations, the three oldest sons quickly disqualify themselves in chapters 34 and 35. The process has begun. Then, the oldest son of Rachel is sold into slavery, leaving only the younger at home. It is good to note that the fourth son, Judah, was instrumental in selling Joseph. He should now be out as well.
However, the author then catches us off guard by returning to Judah. Although we should be moving on to the next sons, the story tells the tale of Judah and Tamar. This story seems to function as a lesson for Judah as he recognizes his own faults and repents, claiming that Tamar is more righteous. We then return to Joseph, and then, again we find Judah in the foreground of the story. When attempting to take Benjamin to Egypt, it is Judah who is willing to make a personal sacrifice for the sake of his father and brother. It seems that Judah's heart has done a 180. It is also interesting that this is the second time that Reuben attempts to preserve the family (saving Joseph and protecting Benjamin) and is foiled. It becomes clear that Reuben is still out.
The climax comes when Jacob blesses his sons. Although he gives the birthright to the sons of Joseph, there is still a blessing to be dealt with. So, Jacob proceeds down the line and is begins as expected. Reuben, Simeon and Levi are out because of their sins. But then comes the surprise, Judah receives the blessing and a promise that he will rule over his brothers. Thus, the story of Israel begins--a story that will continue throughout the rest of the Bible. Therefore, perhaps we need to reexamine the end of Genesis and look at the story of all of Israel and not simply at the story of a single tribe.
All throughout Genesis there have been competitions between siblings for blessing and birthright (Ishmael/Isaac, Jacob/Esau, Cain/Abel). The stories at the end of Genesis are no different. Indeed, perhaps it is better to recognize the ending set of narratives as extending back into Gen. 34 and describe the end of Genesis as a tale about the sons of Jacob. With 12 sons, the competition for the blessing/birthright becomes very complicated and interesting given that the reader is expecting a younger sibling to receive it by this point. And, corresponding with expectations, the three oldest sons quickly disqualify themselves in chapters 34 and 35. The process has begun. Then, the oldest son of Rachel is sold into slavery, leaving only the younger at home. It is good to note that the fourth son, Judah, was instrumental in selling Joseph. He should now be out as well.
However, the author then catches us off guard by returning to Judah. Although we should be moving on to the next sons, the story tells the tale of Judah and Tamar. This story seems to function as a lesson for Judah as he recognizes his own faults and repents, claiming that Tamar is more righteous. We then return to Joseph, and then, again we find Judah in the foreground of the story. When attempting to take Benjamin to Egypt, it is Judah who is willing to make a personal sacrifice for the sake of his father and brother. It seems that Judah's heart has done a 180. It is also interesting that this is the second time that Reuben attempts to preserve the family (saving Joseph and protecting Benjamin) and is foiled. It becomes clear that Reuben is still out.
The climax comes when Jacob blesses his sons. Although he gives the birthright to the sons of Joseph, there is still a blessing to be dealt with. So, Jacob proceeds down the line and is begins as expected. Reuben, Simeon and Levi are out because of their sins. But then comes the surprise, Judah receives the blessing and a promise that he will rule over his brothers. Thus, the story of Israel begins--a story that will continue throughout the rest of the Bible. Therefore, perhaps we need to reexamine the end of Genesis and look at the story of all of Israel and not simply at the story of a single tribe.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
The Hubris of Gen. 11
When we read the story of the Tower of Babel
11:1-4- Humanity gathers to build a tower to heaven
11:5- God "comes down" to see the city and the tower
11:6-9- The building up of the humans is ended
This is certainly one way to interpret the hubris exhibited in the story. However, there is also another way of reading the story. In this other interpretation, the hubris is not so much based on a vertical dimension, but rather on a horizontal dimension. In particular, we see in this story a denial of God's verdict to "fill the earth" (1:28; 8:17). In both stories of "creation" (the flood/Noah acts like a recreation story in many respects), God begins the new world with a command to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth.
In theBabel story, though, people "found a plain in Shinar
Given this interpretation, the story is not simply a tale about humanity's sinful desire to become like God. Rather, it highlights the sinful desire to reject God's commands when it proves more comfortable to do so. To the people ofBabel
11:1-4- Humanity gathers to build a tower to heaven
11:5- God "comes down" to see the city and the tower
11:6-9- The building up of the humans is ended
This is certainly one way to interpret the hubris exhibited in the story. However, there is also another way of reading the story. In this other interpretation, the hubris is not so much based on a vertical dimension, but rather on a horizontal dimension. In particular, we see in this story a denial of God's verdict to "fill the earth" (1:28; 8:17). In both stories of "creation" (the flood/Noah acts like a recreation story in many respects), God begins the new world with a command to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth.
In the
Given this interpretation, the story is not simply a tale about humanity's sinful desire to become like God. Rather, it highlights the sinful desire to reject God's commands when it proves more comfortable to do so. To the people of
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Posts for Scriptures I
Hey everyone,
This post is mainly just to signal that the posts after this one (until December) will be for a class (Scriptures I). If you're not in the class, feel free to read them and join the discussion. If you are in the class, just be aware that all the posts before this one do not relate to class material (although you are free to read them as well). Thanks. Hope that helps. Grace and peace!
This post is mainly just to signal that the posts after this one (until December) will be for a class (Scriptures I). If you're not in the class, feel free to read them and join the discussion. If you are in the class, just be aware that all the posts before this one do not relate to class material (although you are free to read them as well). Thanks. Hope that helps. Grace and peace!
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Answers to Prayer
So, as Christians, we usually try to pray fairly often. Sadly, we don't pray as much as we probably should (but that's another topic for another time). When we do pray, though, what do we expect? Do we expect God to answer us? Recently, I've been convicted about this. It seems easy for me to pray for God to move in my life, but then get up and never give a second thought to that prayer during the day.
Now, of course, when we pray, God often acts in a way that we don't expect, but this does not mean that He is not responding. Indeed, Biblical stories seem to imply that when God's people cry to Him, He is faithful to give a response (whether it's what they wanted or not). So, in our prayer life, when we pray, do we expect a response? Or is our prayer life something that we just ritually go through to give us some comfort? If we ask God to move, to we keep our eyes open to the world around us to see where He does show up? Or do we treat these movements as distractions to our routine? It seems we need to take our prayer more seriously. After all, we are entering into dialogue with the God who created the universe. If we pray and don't act in a way that shows a readiness to hear/see a response, then we insult God's power and faithfulness to answer.
Now, of course, when we pray, God often acts in a way that we don't expect, but this does not mean that He is not responding. Indeed, Biblical stories seem to imply that when God's people cry to Him, He is faithful to give a response (whether it's what they wanted or not). So, in our prayer life, when we pray, do we expect a response? Or is our prayer life something that we just ritually go through to give us some comfort? If we ask God to move, to we keep our eyes open to the world around us to see where He does show up? Or do we treat these movements as distractions to our routine? It seems we need to take our prayer more seriously. After all, we are entering into dialogue with the God who created the universe. If we pray and don't act in a way that shows a readiness to hear/see a response, then we insult God's power and faithfulness to answer.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Lessons from Porn
Here is a really good post that I read at another blog. It takes a recent development within the porn industry and makes some intriguing (and I think appropriate) comments about our society as a whole. Here is the link to the blog:
http://qideas.org/blog/meet-roxxxy.aspx
http://qideas.org/blog/meet-roxxxy.aspx
Thursday, March 11, 2010
To a Magic Foreign Land
"Christ is risen from the dead,This chorus was made up by one of my friends before he was able to figure out the words to Matt Maher's song, "Christ is Risen." The actual words go as follows:
and he's standing on my bed
Come away, come away to a magic foreign land."
"Christ is risen from the dead,Just a little different from my friend's chorus. However, as I was thinking about it, the revised version seems to echo what many American Christians believe. I don't want to imply that this is necessarily what my friend believes (he was just putting forth nonsense words), but sadly many Christians do believe this way. Instead of realizing the implications of Jesus' resurrection as the first-fruits of out resurrection, many Christians prefer to believe in a gnostic view of the afterlife. They choose to believe that, after death, all that happens is we fly away to heaven and live with God forever. But this is not what the Bible teaches.
trampling over death by death
Come awake, come awake,
come and rise up from the grave."
The Bible firmly teaches a life after life after death. That's the whole point of the resurrection. We will not exist as disembodied spirits. In the end, when God restores all things, our bodies will be physically raised. This is the hope of Easter--or do we not believe that Jesus was actually raised? As NT Wright puts it in his book, Surprised By Hope, to only hope for a spiritual existence in a world far from earth means that death is victorious. Death still reigns because it has defeated creation and our physical bodies. But the Resurrection of Christ promises that God will redeem His creation. The physical world that He created in the beginning will not be abandoned to death and decay while we rest in some "magic foreign land."
Instead, as Maher's song beautifully points out, the Christ's Resurrection was God's was of trampling over death. Death does not reign, so let us come awake to this fact and live appropriately while we await that glorious day of recreation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)