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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)