Bible Challenge Day 191: Job’s Challenge (Job 31)

Job and his “friends” have been going at it for several days now. Job’s friends keep insisting that Job must have done something to deserve his sufferings. Job keeps responding that he is innocent. Based on chapter one, we know that Job is more right than they are.

What we see in chapter 31 (not only here, but especially here), is that Job and his friends agree on one thing anyway: the world is supposed to be fair. They have been saying that the world is fair because anything else would imply that God, the governor of the world, is unjust. Job says that the world is supposed to be fair, but is not. That is the basis of his protest. So, in chapter 31, Job says over and over again, “if I had sinned, my suffering would be acceptable” (verse 5, 7, 9, 13, 16, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 33, 38, 39). But because he has not committed those sins, his suffering is NOT acceptable.

Job therefore issues a challenge to God: “Here is my signature! Let the Almighty answer me! O that I had the indictment written against me by my adversary! Surely I would carry it on my shoulder; I would bind it on me like a crown; I would give him an account of all my steps; like a prince I would approach him” (31:35-37).

Like his friends, Job assumes the world is supposed to be fair. Unlike them, Job believes he is innocent of any wrong-doing. So Job calls God to account. He demands the right to prove his innocence. Then, presumably, God will correct the injustice done to Job.

Job turns out to be wrong, as we will read in a few days. But the power of the book depends on us taking seriously Job’s challenge, and the assumption on which it is based: the assumption that the world is supposed to be fair and God is supposed to make sure that it stays that way. It is an assumption that Job shares with the friends he has been battling for nearly thirty chapters! It is also an assumption that most of us make most of the time.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 180: God’s Justice? (Job 4-6)

Job has always been one of my favorite books in the Old Testament. And today we get into the central question of the entire book: is suffering always fair or just?

Job has just cursed the day of his birth (3:1-3). His friend Eliphaz feels obligated to challenge Job. Job has often counselled others who were suffering, says Eliphaz, but now he seems unable to benefit from the very lessons he has previously taught (4:3-5). And the most basic lesson of all is that God is not unjust. “Think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same” (4:7-8).

Eliphaz does not make the obvious conclusion explicit. He leaves that for the other friends later in the book. But the implication is clear enough. Job is suffering. God is too just to impose suffering on innocent people. Therefore, Job deserves what he is getting; Job must have sinned somehow.

For now, Eliphaz accentuates the positive. He says “How happy is the one whom God reproves; therefore do not despise the discipline of the Almighty. For he wounds, but he binds up” (5:17-18). That is, Job should learn his lesson, do right, and experience God’s forgiveness and blessing.

Job will have none of it! He reminds his friends that he did not ask for their help (6:22-23). He accuses them of withholding kindness and becoming treacherous (6:14-15, 21). And he ends with bitter sarcasm: “Teach me, and I will be silent; make me understand how I have gone wrong. How forceful are honest words!” (Wait for it . . . . ) “But your reproof, what does it reprove? . . .  You would even cast lots over the orphan, and bargain over your friend” (6:24-25, 27). With his very last words, at least in this chapter, Job again asserts his innocence (6:29-30).

So the positions are taken, and will only harden for the rest of the book. Job’s friends claim that God is just, so Job must deserve his suffering. Job responds that they are jerks and that he is guiltless. At stake are competing theologies and competing visions of our world. Is God just and our world ultimately fair? Or is the world sometimes unfair and—one must say this with caution—therefore God not always just? The seemingly pious answer is the first. And yet we know from chapters one and two that Job is in fact innocent and that his suffering comes from a kind of bet between Satan and God. That certainly challenges easy and conventional pieties!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 170: The More Excellent Way (1 Corinthians 13)

Like a lot of couples, my wife and I used part of today’s reading from First Corinthians in our wedding ceremony. I remain glad we chose it. Paul gives us a beautiful description of what love can and should be: patient and kind, and so on.

But there is some irony in using this passage at weddings, given Paul’s stated preference for celibacy over marriage. And given Paul’s preference for celibacy, it is not surprising that this passage is not about love in marriage, but rather about love between Christian brothers and sisters.

Two things strike me as particularly important about this chapter in the context of First Corinthians as a whole. First, this chapter is the solution to the basic problem of the entire letter. From the beginning of the letter, Paul has worried about divisions in the Church. The divisions in Corinth take many forms, but a big one is a kind of rivalry between people with different spiritual gifts, particularly the gifts of prophecy and speaking in tongues (chapter 14—tomorrow’s reading). What Paul says in chapter 13 is that the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and all the rest are worth nothing if they are not used in love (13:1-3). Love is what makes the gifts valuable because love is what pushes us to use our gifts “for the common good” (12:7).

That is a good lesson for Christians today, just as it was for Christians in the first century. Being right is not as important as loving each other. Better to defer than to insist our own way. Better to seek the good of our neighbors than to promote our own agenda, good though our agenda may be. That is easier said than done, but the principle is clear enough.

The other thing that strikes me is Paul’s treatment of love as itself a spiritual gift, indeed “the greater gift,” “the more excellent way” (12:31). Our capacity to love comes from God. As we grow in our relationship with God, we should grow in our capacity to love as well, no matter what other spiritual gifts we may receive. It is probably not true that “all you need is love.” But it is certainly true that you need love!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 163 Again: More Sex (1 Corinthians 7)

Paul’s discussion of sexuality and marriage can, it seems to me, be extended to same sex marriage. He generally prefers celibacy, so he has to make an argument for sexuality and marriage of any sort. As I wrote in my blog yesterday, his basic argument is that (1) not all are called to celibacy; (2) those who are not called to celibacy will be troubled by sexual desire unless they can find some legitimate sexual outlet; (3) marriage is the legitimate outlet for sexual desire. Therefore men and women should marry and should meet each other’s sexual needs in marriage.

Paul only mentions heterosexual couples. And in Romans 1, Paul is pretty negative about homosexuality (though that passage can be read in more than one way). But in principle, Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 7 could be extended to same sex couples.

Perhaps some gay or lesbian people are called to lives of celibacy, but most appear not to be, as is true for most straight people.  To suggest that those who are not called to celibacy must remain celibate anyway is to condemn them to being “aflame with passion,” precisely the reason why Paul thinks people should marry. Celebrating gay marriage seems like a better and more faithful option.

This argument does not mean that anything goes. On the contrary, it presumes that the same standards of sexual ethics apply to heterosexual and homosexual marriages. The couple should intend a loving, mutual, lifelong, monogamous commitment. That couples often find themselves unable to fulfill their intentions calls for compassion rather than judgment. But it doesn’t change the ideal, regardless of the gender of the spouses.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 163: Sex (1 Corinthians 7)

Today’s chapter from First Corinthians is all about that most fascinating topic: sex. And what Paul has to say about sex in this chapter is pretty surprising, given his reputation as a misogynist and a prude.

Paul does state a clear reference for celibacy, which partially justifies his prudish reputation. He says that he wishes all could be like him, i.e. celibate (7:7). And he ends the chapter by saying that “he who marries is fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38). In between, he makes the same point in other ways.

But Paul is clear that not all have the gift of celibacy. And those who are not called to a life of celibacy should marry. After all, “it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion,” i.e. to be driven by unsatisfied sexual desire (7:9). So marriage is an acceptable alternative for Christians, even if it is not the highest calling in Paul’s view.

The thing that interests me most is Paul’s clear linkage of sexuality and marriage. On the one hand, he assumes that sexual activity should be confined to marriage. In today’s culture, that is a conservative stance. But Paul is clear that one reason for marriage—indeed the only reason he mentions—is sexual satisfaction. It is striking that Paul does not mention children. Paul talks about sex as the satisfaction of human desire, not as a means of procreation. This flies in the face of the argument that procreation is the primary—sometimes people say only—legitimate reason for sex.

Paul is also startlingly egalitarian in this chapter. Everything he says about men’s sexual rights in connection with their wives, he says in virtually identical language about women’s sexual rights with regard to their husbands. “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time . . . .” (7:3-5).

Today the language about a wife not having authority over her own body sounds jarring, but in Paul’s day that was obvious. What was revolutionary was the next clause—the husband does not have authority over his own body. And the husband cannot unilaterally decide against sex any more than the wife can. Temporary separations are by mutual consent. Then the spouses must again fulfill their obligation to provide mutual sexual satisfaction. That is a more modern, more pro-sex and pro-woman position than is normally associated with Paul!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 152: Conscience (Romans 14)

The reading for today from Romans contains a set of extraordinary statements.

5 Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. 6 Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.

14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

22 The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God. Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what they approve. 23 But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faith; ^l for whatever does not proceed from faith ^m is sin. ⁿ

Paul talks about two issues: observing the day (e.g. calling some days particularly holy); and clean and unclean food. In the first, he does not say what he considers right. In the second, he does. But in both cases, he mainly says that people should do whatever they think is right.

Honor the day. Do not honor the day. Abstain from certain foods. Eat all foods. If you have doubts, do not do it. If you don’t, feel free to go ahead (as long as you do not harm your brother or sister).

It is a remarkable ethic, putting a remarkable responsibility on each of us to determine what we believe is right and to do it. I presume that Paul would say some things are intrinsically right or wrong. But in this passage, Paul is all about the Christian conscience.

Fr. Harvey

 

Bible Challenge Day 149: Christians, Jews, and Others (Romans 11)

I often get into conversations about salvation. Perhaps oddly, it is not a question I worry about. I assume that God will handle whatever happens after death. And, because God is good, I am confident that what happens after death will be good. The details are fuzzy in my mind, but that seems OK.

But salvation is a big part of the issue in the chapter for Roman for today. Paul is distressed that so many Jews are rejecting the gospel. He seems to want to say two things: Faith in Christ is how salvation works; and the Jews who are rejecting Jesus are not necessarily out of luck. He puts it clearly in verse 28-29: “As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your [Gentiles] sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

Paul simply cannot believe that God will reject the Jews. He begins this chapter, “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!” (11:1) He speaks of their “full inclusion”, which will be life from the dead (11:12, 15). He says “all Israel will be saved” (11:26).

Having now made it through nearly half the Old Testament as part of the Bible Challenge, this all makes sense to me. Routinely the Israelites disobey God. And even if God punishes them, God forgives, and the covenant endures. Surely Jesus does not make things worse for his people! As Paul says, this time speaking about Jews and Gentiles alike, “God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that [God] may be merciful to all” (11:32).

What is actually most striking to me in all this, however, is a different point. For salvation, different ethnic and religious groups somehow depend on each other. Paul is interested in Jews and Gentiles. He says, in effect, that the rejection of the Jews opens the door to the salvation of Gentiles. The salvation of Gentiles will in turn inspire the Jews to greater covenant loyalty (11:11-24). Jews and Gentiles are saved together, even if the particular dynamics of salvation differ. That is a striking claim with important implications for Christian-Jewish dialogue!

I take it from all this that the covenant between God and the Jews remains intact, that Jesus has expanded the covenant to include Gentiles, and that we are all in this together. And I wonder if the same kind of expansion could not include other religious groups as well. Might it be the case that our salvation is somehow wrapped up with the salvation of, for example, Muslims, without requiring Muslims to convert to Christianity?

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 148: Vocation (1 Chronicles 25-27)

Yesterday my son graduated from high school. As part of our family celebration, we did a ritual blessing of him. We celebrated what he has already accomplished and expressed our hopes for his future. Part of those hopes is that he will find his calling, the thing gives his life passion and purpose. So I am thinking about vocation—calling.

That helped a little bit with the reading for today from Chronicles, which was pretty dull. King David is planning all the roles for the temple that his son will build. Most of the reading was lists of names. So, for example, David appointed families of musicians and assigned them particular duties by lot (chpt 25). In theory, those families would remain in charge of music at the temple down through the generations. The same went for the gatekeepers and other roles (chpt 26), and military divisions (chpt 27).

That makes for a very different way to think about vocation than we were doing in my family last night. Children are born to a vocation. If my father was a musician, I would be a musician. (A frightening thought for anyone who knows my musical limits!)

Being born to a vocation would be hard in the sense that a young person might not find that particular work satisfying. On the other hand, it would eliminate the uncertainty that I still remember feeling when I was in my early twenties, that sense that I could do whatever I wanted but I had no idea what I wanted.

On balance, I much prefer the opportunity to discern my own vocation. After five generations of lawyers, I became a priest, so I have to like that freedom!

But I do like one thing about the idea of being born into a vocation. People born to a particular vocation know that they do not choose their vocation. They simply live into it. Sometimes in our culture we celebrate individual choice so much that we lose sight of the idea of calling as something that comes to us from outside, something to which we respond well or poorly, something that is given to us rather than something we make for ourselves. I want my son (both of them!) to discover his vocation, which requires patient listening and not just self-exploration. I am not sure how well he understands that. I cannot blame him because I am still working on it myself!
Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 142: Everybody? (Romans 5)

Sometimes I get into conversations about who gets to go to heaven. Or, to reverse the question, who doesn’t? I am particularly thinking about this question now because the gospel reading for this Sunday mentions “the unforgiveable sin” (Mark 3).

Romans says plenty about sin and judgment. It begins with “the wrath of God . . . against all ungodliness” (1:18). As Paul warms up, he insists that “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” (3:9). But Romans 5 is positively universalistic. The structure of Paul’s argument pushes in this direction when he compares Adam and Jesus. Adam brought sin and death into the world, and all people share Adam’s guilt and Adam’s punishment. Jesus is the new Adam, bringing grace and life. The parallel implies that all will receive life, just as all received death.

Paul is then explicit about this point: “For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. . . . If, because of the one man's trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore, just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all” (5:15-18).

That is striking! Other passages in Paul and in other places certainly seem to suggest that people will go to hell. But in this passage Paul makes a strong and clear argument that Christ’s grace brings life to all. May it be so!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 141: Paul on Abe (Romans 4)

Romans is an incredibly important book. It is Paul’s longest letter, and his most systematic one. Martin Luther had some of his basic Reformation insights while working on a commentary on Romans. Karl Barth inaugurated one of the most important theological movements of the twentieth century while writing a commentary on Romans. But I have always found the book to be dense and a little forbidding. I have to take Romans in small doses and very slowly. A chapter a day is about my speed.

Today’s chapter is Paul using the example of Abraham to make his basic point that people are justified by faith, not by works of the law. He quotes Genesis 15:6. “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Paul’s point is that Abraham received a promise from God. Abraham trusted that promise. God reckoned Abraham’s trust as righteousness, even though Abraham had not really done anything yet to demonstrate that trust in his life.

Paul then notes that this reckoning Abraham righteous occurred before Abraham received circumcision as a sign of the covenant (4:10). Circumcision was subsequently given as a seal of the righteousness Abraham had by faith but not—this is the key point—as a condition of Abraham’s being reckoned righteous. What is true of circumcision, is true by extension of the entire law. It does not help us to be reckoned righteous. The righteousness comes as a promise from God. All we do is trust God’s promise.

Paul concludes that faith (trusting God’s promise, specifically God’s promise in Jesus Christ), rather than obedience to the law, is what really matters. And this faith is available to those who are not circumcised (non-Jews) as much as to those who are (Jews), since Abraham received the promise in faith and was reckoned righteous apart from circumcision or the law.

I can follow all that pretty well. The Abraham story in Genesis is not about justification, so Paul is using the story to make an argument that is not originally there. But I admire his creative use of the Old Testament, and it does help to illustrate his point.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 136: Josiah’s Reform and the Fall of Judah (2 Kings 22-24)

Momentous events continue as we reach we end of Second Kings.

The first big thing is Josiah’s reform. It is the positive climax of First and Second Kings. Ever since Solomon, Judah (the southern kingdom, and all that is left after the fall of Israel) had high places that were either officially idolatrous or dangerously close. Even the good kings left them (except Hezekiah, and his son Manasseh restored them) as a snare for the people of Judah. But during Josiah’s reign, the book of the law (probably a version of Deuteronomy) is found. Josiah had the entire book read to the populace, purified the temple, defiled the altars that had been part of the northern kingdom (and were now Samaritan territory), and sponsored a massive celebration of Passover. Second Kings says he was the best king ever (23:25).

But Josiah’s reform is too little too late. Judah continues its sinful ways. God remains angry and hands the kingdom over to the Babylonians, who conquer in two stages. The second and more brutal stage is our chapter for tomorrow, but this one is bad enough. Going forward, there is no truly independent remnant of David’s kingdom. With only a brief exception, that continues until the creation of Israel in the twentieth century.

The two things that strike me in all this are not central to the story as told in Kings, but are interesting. One is that Josiah sends his high officials, along with the high priest, to consult a prophet about the newly found book of the law. The surprise is that this illustrious crew consults a female prophet named Huldah (22:14f). In Israel’s history, Huldah may be the most influential woman since Deborah the judge six hundred years before. Women today can look to Huldah as a precedent for women’s religious leadership.

The other thing is the power politics. Josiah is able to move into what had been northern territory because there was a temporary opening while the great powers (Egypt to the south and Mesopotamia to the north) were quiet. Josiah himself dies when Egypt makes a move to dominate the region and challenge the emerging Mesopotamian power, Babylon. Judah falls when Babylon successfully drives Egypt back and establishes its own dominance throughout the area.

Theologically, Second Kings attributes the rise and fall of the great powers (and, of course, Israel and Judah) to Yahweh. But that theological claim would not have made sense to the people of Egypt or Babylon. The fact that the people of Judah could hold to it is a remarkable testimony to their persistent faith.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 134: The Fall of Israel (2 Kings 17)

It is easy to read over chapter seventeen without really noticing just how important it is. But a LOT is going on.

The chapter describes Assyria’s conquest of Israel (the northern kingdom, not Judah, which continues to be ruled by David’s descendants for another century or so). Assyria was the great power dominating Mesopotamia at the time (late 8^th century BCE). The king of Israel became a vassal of the Assyrians (17:3), but then revolted. Assyria crushed the revolt and deported many of the leading citizens of the conquered kingdom. We are told that “Israel was exiled from their own land to Assyria until this day” (17:23). We can add that the ten tribes that constituted the kingdom of Israel (separate from Judah) never return. They are the “lost tribes” of legend. From this point forward, references to the twelve tribes of Israel only make sense as history or else as a vision of God’s restoration in the messianic age.

A second result of the Assyrian conquest is the resettlement of foreigners in the territory that had been Israel. Originally these people did not worship Yahweh (17:24-25). Eventually, the people there begin to worship Yahweh (17:28) but also other gods (17:29-33). The biblical author comments, “To this day, they continue to practice their former customs.” This is the origin of the Samaritans, who appear in the New Testament as hated semi-kin to the Jews.

Theologically, the most important claim in this chapter, and the central theological claim of First and Second Kings, is that conquest happens because they sinned and angered God who, therefore, allowed conquest to happen (17:7-18). The Assyrians were not acting on their own, or following their own gods. Instead, they acted as agents of Yahweh who governed them primarily based on the faithfulness (or lack thereof) of Israel. We will see the same when Judah falls to a later conqueror.

On one hand, this theological explanation blames the victim. Israel fell because they sinned; they deserved what they got. On the other hand, this theological explanation gives Israel some measure of control at a time when they are radically disempowered: if only they will obey God, they will overcome the mightiest empire of their day.

This theology needs to be supplemented by passages from other biblical books. But it governs virtually everything we are reading right now. . . .

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 131: The Enigma of Jehu (2 Kings 9-10)

Jehu intrigues me. It would appear at first that he is one of the good guys. Elijah has prophesied judgment on the family of the wicked King Ahab. Jehu is anointed king of Israel by a prophet, acting under instructions of Elisha, largely for the purpose of executing that judgment. He does, and with vigor, killing Ahab’s son (the current king) and widow Jezebel, as well as Ahab’s other seventy sons. As he exacts this bloody retribution, Jehu explicitly cites Elijah’s prophecy as justification.

But Jehu is not done with his religious purge. He also tricks and then slaughters the prophets, priests, and people of Baal, following the example of the prophet Elijah and wiping out Baal from Israel (10:28). In terms of the values of Second Kings, this all seems like virtuous work. At last, a king of Israel is worshipping Yahweh, and Yahweh only.

Ironically, Jehu does not go far enough for the author of Kings. Apparently Jehu should also have undone the religious policies of Jereboam, the first king of Israel after Solomon, by tearing down altars in Dan and Bethel. For that failure, Jehu is judged (10:31). So this most zealous follower of Yahweh of all the kings of Israel (but not Judah) was deemed wicked. It seems a harsh judgment for one who did so much in conscious imitation of and loyalty to the prophets of his time.

By the standards of our time, of course, Jehu fares much worse. Slaughtering political and religious opponents is the attribute of a murderer and tyrant, not of a righteous leader. And the judgment of our time is at least partially justified by events reported in Second Kings. Jehu slaughters much of the royal house of neighboring Judah, needlessly alienating Israel’s best ally (10:13f). There is no stated religious justification for these acts. He also loses significant territory to Aram (10:32f). As a consequence, Jehu’s twenty-eight year reign seems like a disaster for Israel, which ends up reduced in territory, isolated diplomatically, and, I presume, traumatized by brutality.

The troubling part of all this is that my own judgment of Jehu as excessively narrow-minded and brutal seems basically opposite of the judgment of the book. The religious policy promoted in Second Kings is harsh and intolerant, more like ISIS than the policies of the United States. Other parts of the Bible are less brutal. But these books, interesting though I find them on historical grounds, make me uneasy . . . .

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 127: The Bad News (1 Kings 22)

I don’t know quite what to make of the exchange in the chapter from First Kings for today. The kings of Israel and Judah are trying to decide if they should attack neighboring Aram. They consult four hundred prophets, all of whom promise success in the name of Yahweh. That seems like enough! But Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah wants a little more confirmation, so he asks if Ahab, the king of Israel, knows any more prophets. . . .

Ahab does know another prophet, but complains that Micaiah always prophesies bad news. They consult Micaiah anyway. Surprisingly, he too promises success. But Ahab pushes him, so he changes tune and predicts a devastating defeat. Ahab is furious.

It is odd to me that Jehoshaphat needs a 401^st prophet. It is odd to me that Ahab pushes Micaiah to predict failure. And it is odd to me that Ahab then arrests Micaiah for doing exactly what he asks!

It seems like both kings know in their hearts that the news should be bad. They cannot quite trust all those positive prophets or even Micaiah when he is positive. They are looking for bad news, even if they are angry when it comes and do not act on it.

The commentary notes how hard it can be to distinguish the true will of God from various counterfeits. That seems right. But I would add that in this story the kings seem to have a gut feeling as to what the word of God really is. It is the challenging word, the word that tells them what they do not want to hear. Then, having heard the word, and even kind of recognizing it, they ignore it. I suspect that we often do the same.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 123: What’s Wrong with High Places? (1 Kings 14-15)

I had hoped to write about King Solomon, about whom I have very ambivalent feelings. But life intervened and now we have moved on to the time of the divided kingdom, when the ten tribes to the north secede and take the name Israel, leaving David’s and Solomon’s line ruling the southern tribe of Judah.

The main thing that strikes me in the material for today is the emphasis on “high places.” Already at the beginning of Solomon’s reign, people worshipped at these high places (1 Kings 3:2). But once the temple in Jerusalem was complete, it became the one legitimate place to offer sacrifice in the entire kingdom (and, I suppose, in the world). Unfortunately, Solomon did not remain true to God or to the temple that Solomon himself had commissioned: he built new high places dedicated to foreign gods (e.g. 11:7-8). His son Rehoboam built still more (14:23) and so, apparently, did his son Abijam (15:3). Abijam’s successor Asa was a good and faithful king, but even Asa failed to remove the high places (15:14). Virtually every other king in Judah will continue to be evaluated based in part on their failure to remove the high places. Why do the high places matter? Why do they come up so often?

Part of what is going on is clearly official idolatry. Solomon’s high places were dedicated to gods like Chemosh and Molech (11:7). Rehoboam added male temple prostitutes (14:24). But Asa removed the temple prostitutes (15:12) and presumably refused to patronize explicitly pagan altars at the high places. There must be more.

Part of what is going on is disobedience. In Deuteronomy, it repeatedly states that the Israelites are to offer sacrifice only at the place which God will choose (e.g. 12:14). That means in front of the ark of the covenant, which gets permanently housed in Solomon’s temple. But one might still ask, what is the purpose of this law? Why prohibit worship at other places if the worship was, in other respects legitimate?

I think the issue ultimately goes back to the commandment again any graven images at all (e.g. Deut 5:8f). At the heart of the temple was the holy of holies containing the ark of the covenant. Inside the ark was nothing except the tablets of the law (8:9). Other than the ark, the only thing in the room were statues of cherubim whose wings covered the ark and formed a kind of empty throne. There was no representation of God.

The point, as I understand it, is that God is beyond our representations. The best “image” for God is empty space. The best we can do is provide a kind of frame for the space where God is manifest. Even in the heart of Jerusalem under the (relatively few) faithful kings, most people cannot handle the empty space. They need to fill it with golden calves or images of God or something. Building and sacrificing at high places seems to have addressed that same need.

But what we really need is not a comforting image of a non-god. What we really need is a constant reminder that our images are inadequate to the reality of God, that God sometimes remains hidden and always remains mysterious and elusive. High places were a major way the people of ancient Israel abandoned their exclusive commitment to the God who really is beyond all things in heaven and earth. We don’t build high places today, but we surely do fail to live up to an exclusive commitment to such an awesome God.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 116: Even the Gentiles (Acts 11)

In Acts 10 (yesterday), Peter and his companions in Caesarea are “astounded” that the Holy Spirit descends on Cornelius and his household. Cornelius was sympathetic to Judaism, but he was not Jewish.

As the chapter for today begins, Peter has returned to Judea where the apostles and the remaining followers of Jesus are not happy (11:2). Peter describes his divine vision as well as the descent of the Holy Spirit. His critics “were silenced,” and the community praised God, saying “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life” (11:18). It is admirable that they can accept the new reality.

In fact, however, Peter is not the agent of change, even humanly speaking. Philip had already baptized an Ethiopian eunuch (8:38) and continued on a missionary journey through what had been Philistine territory and up to Caesarea. Already Gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) were joining the expanding community.

After the description of Peter and Cornelius, Acts resumes the story of the people who, like Philip (but not Peter), had been scattered by the persecution in Jerusalem. Unnamed refugees arrived in Antioch, where they shared the gospel with Gentiles and established the first truly mixed Christian community—Jews and Gentiles following Jesus together (11:20-21). This new thing needed a new name and, for the first time, they are called “Christians.” Barnabas fetches Paul, who joins the community in Antioch for a formative year before they set off together on the first of Paul’s missionary journeys (11:26).

We do not know the names of people in the Christian community at Antioch. But they followed the Holy Spirit into uncharted territory and established a way of being Christian that Paul would spread across much of the ancient world. Meanwhile Peter and, even more, the other apostles in Jerusalem are astounded that the Holy Spirit descended on a single Gentile family. It is a humbling lesson for Christian “leaders”—the leaders had a hard time just keeping up with the movement of the Spirit beyond the boundaries of the Christian community. It is a lesson that we continue to need!
Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 113: The Earliest Church Again (Acts 8)

The readings for today are dramatic! I’ll leave David for another time. What most sticks with me today is Acts 8:1—persecution breaks out and all are scattered except the Apostles. The fact that the apostles stayed in Jerusalem seems strange. If I were the hostile authorities, the apostles would be my main target. But apparently the persecution targets the rank and file rather than the highest leadership. It sets my historical imagination to working . . . .

Here are the things Acts says. The Christian movement is growing very quickly and beginning to take institutional form. The first set of leaders, the apostles, find they cannot handle all the administrative details, so they choose a second set of leaders, whose task is apparently to manage the distribution of food (6:1-4). The catalyst for this decision is tension between “Hebrews” and “Hellenists” (6:1).

The terms are not defined. The Hellenists and the Hebrews were all Jewish by background and were all part of the Christian movement. Presumably the Hellenists were Greek speakers or were sympathetic to Greek culture (i.e. Hellenistic). The Hebrews probably were more traditionally Jewish. When Peter and the twelve agree to appoint a new set of leaders, they ask others to “select from among yourselves” people “whom we may appoint” (6:3). All of the selected leaders have Greek names, which makes it sound a lot like Peter and the apostles were identified more with the Hebrews, and the Hellenists were to be represented by the Seven.

The religious authorities in Jerusalem were clearly hostile to Peter and the other apostles. But they had not tried to kill them. By contrast, one of the seven—Stephen—is stoned as a result of his interrogation by the high priest (chapter 7). And when the persecution breaks out, Acts follows Philip—another of the Seven—into Samaria (chapter 8). Apparently the religious leaders were more hostile to the Seven than to the Apostles, who were irritating but tolerable.

This is what makes these speculations interesting to me. I think we are seeing the first real division in the Church—a kind of proto-denominationalism. One wing of the Jesus movement is more attached to the religious traditions of Israel, based in Jerusalem, and under the leadership of the twelve apostles (apparently along with James, the “brother of the Lord”—but that is for another time). The other wing of the Jesus movement was also Jewish but was more open to Greek culture and more troubling to the religious authorities in Jerusalem. That wing gets driven out of Jerusalem. And, as a result, that wing provides the leadership for the first missionary expansion of the Christian movement. And, because they were more open to foreign influence, that wing begins to share the Christian gospel with Samaritans and with an Ethiopian. Only later, and with reservations as best I can tell, do the apostles accept the Samaritan mission (8:14f).

If this is at all right, the Hellenist wing of the Jewish Christian movement represents the future of Christianity, and it is to these largely uncelebrated folks that we owe our (Gentile) inclusion in the Church! Of course, there will be much more to this story . . . .

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 110: David Again (2 Samuel 4-6)

David’s story really should be a miniseries! But it would have to be done by someone willing to risk challenging a natural Christian tendency to put David on a pedestal. I admire his accomplishments enormously. And I accept the characterization of him as a man after God’s own heart. But he was also an incredibly shrewd politician. Just beneath the surface of the biblical narrative is a truly compelling adventure story.

As First Samuel ends, David has apparently defected to the Philistines. He has accepted the overlordship of Achish of Gath and rules a small city named Ziklag. When the Philistines muster for war against Saul and Israel, David shows up.

What David would have done if he had actually been at the battle that killed Saul is unclear. He had been hedging his bets, serving the Philistines but also deceiving them about the degree to which he had fully turned against Israel. As the story is told, some Philistines suspected his loyalty and sent him away before the decisive battle. That is where 1 Samuel ends.

As 2 Samuel picks up the story, David does two apparently contradictory things. On one hand, he shows great loyalty to Saul’s memory, killing the man who claimed to have killed Saul and publicly mourning the death of the man who had driven him from Israel. At the same time, David and his small army show up in Judah where he is made king of part of what had been Saul’s kingdom. This sounds like an offer the people of Judah could not refuse! Then he sends word to the people of Jabesh-Gilead, who are loyal to Saul, that he is now king of Judah (2:7). This sounds a lot like a play for the throne of the united nation. If so, it does not work.

Chapter three describes the commencement of hostilities between David’s kingdom in the south and the rest of Israel under Saul’s son and heir in the north. The cause of the war is unclear. David is not mentioned, but it inconceivable that a warrior of David’s prowess would not participate in the war.

David’s forces gain the advantage, but David continues to show an odd loyalty to Saul’s family and former supporters. Finally David’s forces prevail (after seven years of fighting!), at which point, the tribes of Israel accept David as their king (5:1). This is presented as a voluntary act, and the people may well have welcomed David since that ended a civil war. But David becomes king because his troops defeated Israel.

Meanwhile, the Philistines remain the dominant power in the region. David surely ruled as their client. And they surely enjoyed seeing Israel convulsed by a civil war, which prevented Israel from uniting against them. But once David wins the war and unites Israel, he becomes a threat. They promptly attack. It must have been a dangerous moment for David. But in two battles, he defeats the Philistines and effectively ends the long period of their dominance, a period going back to the time of Samson and Samuel.

Finally, in the most politically skillful act of all, David conquers a Canaanite city in the middle of his kingdom and claims it as the city of David—thus beholden to no single tribe. This is like choosing Washington DC as the capital of the United States. Then he brings the ark of the covenant—apparently neglected since the days of Eli—into his city, making the city of David both the political and the religious capital of the united and newly independent nation. And Israel enters a golden age of prosperity.

That is quite a journey for a shepherd boy!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 109: The Earliest Church (Acts 5)

I am loving Samuel and Acts! Both tell dramatic stories, and both leave lots of room for our historical imagination. The single line that particularly struck me from Acts five was verse 11: “Great fear seized the whole church.” A lot has happened in just a few chapters!

In Acts one, even before the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost, Peter and the others had enough faith in the future of the Christian movement that they appointed a replacement for Judas. I have always seen that as a first step towards the creation of a church alongside the temple. Then the Holy Spirit strikes and “about three thousand persons were added” to the movement in a single day (2:41). Miracles happen. Growth continues. Opposition mounts. And the responsibility/authority of Peter and the others grows.

That last is what is so striking in the chapter for today. Barnabas (and presumably some others) sells his property and brings the proceeds to the apostles for distribution. Ananias and Sapphira decide to do the same thing, but they are not quite all in. Holding some money back seems to have been OK. What is not OK is holding some money back but claiming to donate it all. Both are stuck dead in turn. And after each death, Acts reports that fear seized the community (5:5, 11). I get that!

As best I can tell, two things are happening in the earliest church. First, it is taking discernable shape over against other religious options of the day. An inner core is highly committed, to a degree that can seem uncomfortably cult-like. And leaders are emerging with a near total authority over a least the inner core. This is what Acts emphasizes.

At the same time, the movement begins to attract a larger circle of presumably less committed members. Surely the thousands who are described as joining in a single day did not all immediately sell their possessions. Indeed, if the movement did grow that quickly, many of the new converts would have had little opportunity for personal interaction with the apostles and therefore little opportunity to learn the details of Jesus’ story.

Leading such a movement must have been quite a challenge! Peter and the others have to contend with hostile authorities, curious but uncommitted onlookers, a totally dedicated inner circle, and a growing circle of more loosely committed and largely ignorant members. As we will see tomorrow, the challenge proves too much: the apostles appoint another layer of leaders to handle some of the responsibilities that the apostles themselves simply cannot manage. The fact that they manage to hold it all together, or at least to hold enough of it together that the movement can continue to grow, is inspiring. And, in my view, attention to the human challenges they faced makes their success seem that much more miraculous.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 106: David’s Rise to Power (1 Sam 25-27)

Carrie and I are watching House of Cards on television. It is the story of a man’s relentless rise to power from Democratic Whip in Congress to Vice President (so far). He rises by lying and manipulating everyone around him, with an occasional murder to cover his tracks. Somehow the main character manages to be charming and awful at the same time.

David is not portrayed as awful in 1 Samuel. Quite the contrary, David is the great hero of the book, the man after God’s own heart, the man with the Spirit of the Lord, the man chosen by God to establish the kingdom on a secure foundation. And yet . . . First Samuel makes it clear that David was also a tough, talented, and ambitious politician. He would make a worthy opponent for Frank Underwood.

Samuel anoints David as the king to replace Saul (16:13). But the anointing was not made public, and Samuel and David seem to have spent little time together. At no point did David rely on Samuel to build his power base.

But from the beginning, David was interested in power. When he visits his brothers at the battlefield, long before he himself becomes a renowned warrior, David hears that Saul will reward the man who agrees to fight Goliath. David immediately asks, what will that man get (17:26)? He does not receive an answer, but kills Goliath and enters Saul’s service, where he quickly distinguishes himself.

After a short time, Saul recognizes, rightly, that David’s popularity threatens to eclipse his own, which destabilizes Saul’s reign. Saul’s erratic behavior makes things worse, particularly when he alienates his own family and kills the priests of Nob. Meanwhile, David is consistently loyal to Saul. It is the only part of David’s behavior that does not advance his own interests.

When David flees from Saul, he first seeks sanctuary among the Philistines in Gath, but they do not trust him (21:0f). Next he gathers around himself a kind of bandit gang composed of his family and everyone who was in distress, debt, or generally discontented (22:1-3). He and his army of 400-600 roam the territory of Judah (David’s tribe), fighting the Philistines and eluding Saul. He is also building a power base.

In the chapters for today, David essentially asks for protection money from the very rich Nabal, and eventually marries Nabal’s wife. Then he and his men return to Gath, where he enters the service of the Philistine king. David seeks, and is granted, a tributary city in the territory of Gath. But David is not honest with the king of Gath. Each day, David raids the various non-Israelite tribes to the south. Each day he slaughters everyone so that no one can report back. And each day he tells the king that he has been raiding Israelites. The king concludes that David has fully alienated his former people and so will remain loyal to the Philistines when in fact David is keeping his options open.

Throughout it all, David continues to consult God. But he is also a shrewd political player who totally outmaneuvers his opponents at each stage. As a result, I have never really known what to make of David. And, also as a result, I find him endlessly fascinating.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 105: On The Road (Acts 1)

I am happy to be starting Acts of the Apostles, which I have always loved. And I like what Sam Candler had to say in the Bible Challenge commentary for the day. (It helps that I know him a little bit. He lives near my parents and serves at the Cathedral in Atlanta where I attended Church as a child.)

Sam makes two important points. First, Acts continues the story of the Gospel of Luke. Second, 1:8 sets the agenda for the book. Jesus sends his disciples out to be his witnesses (1) in Jerusalem, (2) in Judea and Samaria, and (3) to the ends of the earth. The action follows this three-part scheme, which provides the basic structure of the book.

This makes the point that the disciples are supposed to hit the road. They are not supposed to stay in Jerusalem and enjoy intimacy with Christ and with each other. They are supposed to go out into the world to do the work of Christ.

The emphasis on the road continues from the Gospel of Luke. Much of the action of the Gospel, including many of the most famous parables, takes place on the road.

We see the same thing in my very favorite part of this chapter. Jesus ascends into heaven. The disciples are standing around, looking after him. Suddenly two angels appear and challenge them. “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven?” Get to work! The rest of the book is about them doing just that.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 102: Religion and Politics (1 Samuel 16)

The political scene described in our readings for today makes me feel better about politics in America! Tension and danger are everywhere.

The problem that inspires the people to ask for a king in the first place was enemies encroaching on all sides. The greatest threat was the Philistines, who despite some overly optimistic summary statements, dominated Israel off and of from Samson’s time, through Samuel’s leadership, through Saul’s reign, and into David’s time. At no point in all this period was Israel really safe.

Israel was also internally convulsed. Samuel is a ruthless power broker. Leaving God out of the story for the moment (!), Samuel has made Saul king even though Saul did not want the position (e.g. 10:22). Saul proves effective by defeating the enemies of Israel. But as soon as Saul shows signs of independence, Samuel cuts him off. When Saul offered a sacrifice himself, rather than waiting for Samuel to offer the sacrifice, Samuel threatened that God would take away the kingdom (13:14). When Saul failed to slaughter absolutely every Amalekite as Samuel had instructed, Samuel repeated the threat (15:23).

Saul’s reaction is pitiful—he begs Samuel not to desert him (15:30). Samuel refuses, and instead secretly anoints David as the next king. When Samuel arrives at Bethlehem to do the deed, the elders of the city come to him trembling and ask if he comes in peace (16:4). Clearly Samuel was a man to be feared!

But Saul has his own power. When God tells Samuel to go to Bethlehem to anoint a son of Jesse, Samuel fears that Saul will kill him (16:2). The anointing is secret, and no one acts on it for quite some time.

I take this to be a classic example of the conflict between religious power on one hand and political/military power on the other. Samuel does not have an army, but he speaks for God. Samuel is the one who confers religious legitimacy on Saul. Without that religious legitimacy, Saul may not be able to hold the loyalty of his people. But Saul does have a professional army. As long as they remain loyal, Saul may not need Samuel.

Clearly Samuel is aware of the danger he is in. And so is Saul. When David emerges as a popular military leader, Saul’s only remaining power base is undermined.

The tragedy in this story is the impact on everyone else. Ordinary people were caught between Samuel and Saul, to say nothing of the Philistines. The royal family itself is increasingly divided, as Saul’s son and daughter side with David against their father. This was not a good time to live in ancient Israel! It is amazing to think that David and the golden age emerge out of it.

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 99: From Judge to King (1 Samuel 7-9)

The period we are now covering is fascinating. Up to the reading for today, the people of Israel have been organized as a loose confederation of tries under the occasional leadership of Judges. Today, we begin the transition to monarchy. Soon we will get Israel’s golden age under Kings David and Solomon. And yet, the transition to monarchy is troublesome and ultimately unsuccessful. The kingdom of the twelve tribes lasts considerably less time than the period of Judges. And today we can already see the problems that will emerge.

Samuel seems to be the dominant figure as the transition begins. In chapter seven, he functions as the last Judge. Israel has sinned, once again opening the door to domination by a foreign power, the Philistines. Like earlier judges, Samuel recalls the people to covenant loyalty (7:3-4), and then leads them in victorious battle against the oppressor (7:7-11). After the victory, “Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life” (7:15). If his story ended there, Samuel would be a judge in the pattern of the early, faithful judges described in the book of Judges.

But when Samuel is old, Israel asks him for a king. Twice they say they want a king so that they can be “like other nations” (8:5, 20). It is a bad idea. Israel was called to be different. God tells Samuel to do it, even though the request is a rejection of God (8:7-9). At God’s command, Samuel warns the people that their king will oppress them (8:11-18). Most of his predictions come true during Solomon’s reign.

Finally, we meet the man destined to be Israel’s first king, Saul. Saul is really tall, but not particularly bright. His father sends him to find some lost donkeys. For three days, Saul wanders MILES of countryside. When he finally bumps into Samuel, Samuel tells him that the donkeys were found long ago. More importantly, Samuel tells Saul that he will be king. Saul hesitates. And we know his hesitation is justified. If he cannot keep track of a few donkeys, how can he rule a nation?!

Over the next few days, we will follow Saul’s tragic career, David’s incredible rise to power, and the turbulent period of monarchy. But we can already see that the monarchy is a rejection of God, that it will lead to the oppression of the nation, and that the kings will often be hapless!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 95: Ruth and Jesus (Ruth, John 14)

Two unrelated things struck me in our readings for today.

First, Ruth is a relief after Joshua and Judges. We have had a lot of violence. Joshua is, among other things, a story of genocide. Judges ends with the most graphic and distressing story in the entire Bible: the story of the Levite’s concubine. But, for today at least, the violence is on hold. The value celebrated is family love and loyalty. Women are the main characters. Most surprisingly, a Moabite (i.e. foreign) woman is the hero. At the end, we learn that the Moabite Ruth is the grandmother of King David. There could be no better reminder that foreigners are not all bad, Joshua notwithstanding.

The other thing that struck me was the famous line, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (14:6). It is interesting to reflect on what it means to BE the truth. We normally talk about knowing the truth or teaching the truth or discovering the truth. But Jesus is claiming to be the truth, to fully and perfectly embody the truth.

I cannot wrap my mind around what that means. But one thing seems clear. The kind of truth Jesus is is not a fact. It cannot be captured in a proposition. Truth is not something we can know with our heads. Instead, truth is personal. Truth is a person. Truth is someone we love, not something we know. To say we know truth, in this sense of the word truth, means to be in relationship with truth.

If we connect the claim that Jesus is the truth to the opening lines of the gospel of John about all things coming into being through the Word, then we can say that creation is much more than inert matter. Creation itself is personal, in the sense that a person stands at its heart. We should interact with creation in a way analogous to our interactions with the people we love. At the very least, we should not abuse and exploit it!

I sense there is much more to the claim that Jesus is the truth. But, perhaps appropriately, I have reached the limits of my understanding. Maybe I should go commune with Jesus!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 92: Samson’s Women (Judges 13)

Much of the Bible is a man’s book, at least in the sense that the main actors are men. From the time that Moses first challenges Pharaoh until the end of his life, women do not get a lot of air time, not even Miriam, Moses’ sister, who was clearly important in her own right. In Joshua, the only important woman is Rahab, and she only appears in two chapters.

But Judges is an exception. From the beginning to the end of the book, women matter. Deborah is the most impressive of all. But one or more women are important to the storyline for most of the judges, and they are absolutely critical in Samson’s story. The most famous woman in Samson’s life is Delilah, but we will not read about her until tomorrow. Today I was struck by his mother.

Samson’s mother was barren, but an angel of the Lord appears to her to promise her a child. This put her in the line of barren mothers from Genesis: Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel. Her husband missed the encounter, so he prays that God will send the “man” again. God does, but again sends the angel to Samson’s mother, not to Manoah. She hurries to call her husband, so that he too can hear the divine message. Manoah asks the angel about Samson’s rule of life, and the angel gives a rule for Samson’s mother. Finally, when the angel ascends to heaven, Manoah assumes that he and his wife will die since they have seen the Lord. She reassures him that God would not have accepted their sacrifice if God intended to kill them.

At each point, the angel has privileged her over her husband and even over her son to be born. And the story makes clear that she has more wisdom and insight than her husband. This pattern is consistent enough that it must be part of the lesson of the story. Precisely because the Bible tends to be male dominated, I value the exceptions and want to notice and celebrate biblical women when I can. Thank God for Samson’s mother. Would that Samson displayed her good sense and judgement one he becomes an adult!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 89: The Judges Spiral (Judges 7-9)

The book of Judges has a cool, spiral pattern.

At one level, the book follows a repeating pattern, like a circle. The pattern is established in chapter two, verse 11 forward. I take this chapter to be generic. It is not talking about a single event (e.g. verse 16) but rather introduces the pattern for each judge. First, Israel sins. God hands them over to a foreign oppressor. Eventually Israel cries out to God. God calls a “judge” (more like a general, normally) to deliver the people. The judge defeats the oppressor. The people remain faithful for the rest of the judge’s life, but then relapse and start the cycle all over again. The lesson is clear enough. Sin leads to punishment. Repentance and covenant loyalty lead to restoration.

Once we notice the pattern, then the deviations from the pattern become interesting. And it turns out the deviations are following a pattern too. Each judge is a little worse than the previous one.

So far we have read about Othniel (3:7-11), who follows the pattern perfectly. Then Ehud (3:12-30), who also follows it closely except that he begins to deliver the people by a political assassination that is described as disgusting. Deborah and Barak are third (4-5). Deborah is great, and perhaps the most impressive woman in the Old Testament. But Barak is the military leader, and he is less impressive. He won’t fight unless Deborah goes with him. As a consequence, he does not get the glory of killing the enemy leader (4:8-9).

Finally, today we get Gideon, who needs multiple signs before he is willing to act, and who is also explicitly told that neither he nor Israel as a whole will get the glory of the victory (7:2-8). Worse yet, Gideon slaughters non-cooperative Israelites and then constructs an ephod that ultimately leads him, his family, and his people astray. Then his son makes himself king ad fights a minor civil war.

We will continue the downward slide with Jephthah and Samson and especially with the Levite at the end.

The result is a kind of spiral, as the book circles around the theme of sin and punishment, repentance and restoration, but also moves consistently downward.

Where we are heading is social collapse and the need for a new start under a king. But the monarchy to come is set-up in Judges not as a wonderful institution so much as a desperate response to a desperate situation.

Fr. Harvey

 

Bible Challenge Day 87: Conquest, Twice! (Judges 1)

Because I am a history geek, I have always found Judges one intriguing. At the end of Joshua, the Israelites appear to have conquered and settled virtually all of the Promised Land, basically wiping out the Canaanites who stood in their way. But Judges one offers a quite different picture of conquest.

 

A few clues indicate that Judges one is indeed a second version of the same events. Joshua dies at the end of the book bearing his name (24:29). Joshua dies again in Judges two (verse 8), implying that Judges one covers material that took place during his lifetime. Also the episode of Othniel and Achsah is narrated twice, in very similar words (Joshua 15:15-19; Judges 1:11-15). Several places described as conquered in Joshua are again described as attacked in Judges. The most interesting example is Jerusalem, which is described as conquered in both Joshua 12:10 and Judges 1:8, but then described as successfully resisting the Israelite attack in Judges 1:21.

 

I conclude a couple of things. First, the editors of the Bible were not particularly interested in smoothing out discrepancies. Competing accounts of the same event are put side by side with no effort to determine which is more accurate (or if either is). Second, the conquest was not quite so total as Joshua seems to indicate. That is a relief to me since the book of Joshua seems genocidal. For once I am glad that the facts were more complicated than the story as told!

 

Most important, however, is the question, why tell the same story twice? And why tell it differently? In my view, the answer is literary and theological. The book of Joshua portrays the Israelites as faithful and united as they finally experience the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham so long ago. This version of the story teaches that God rewards faithful (and patient!) people. Judges, by contrast, is largely the story of Israel’s sin and gradual loss of control of the Promised Land. It is therefore unsurprising that the tribes are portrayed as less united, less successful, and less faithful. This version of conquest sets up the lesson that God punishes unfaithful people, but will forgive and restore them when they repent.

 

What emerges from this kind of analysis is less emphasis on historical accuracy in all its details and more on literary art and theological lessons. And that seems appropriate for a religious book whose primary purpose is to teach us how to relate to God!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 85: Healing? (John 5)

I have read this chapter of John many times, and always interpreted the healing in it as a straight-forward miracle story. Since John is never entirely straight-forward, that was foolish! Recently, a commentator drew my attention to the healed man’s poor behavior, which changes everything.

Jesus asks the man, “do you want to be made well” (5:6)? The man does not actually answer that question. Instead, he offers excuses as to why he has not previously been healed even though he lays beside a miraculous healing pool all day every day. His excuse is that no one else will put him in the pool when its healing powers are activated. Clearly his (unspecified) illness is not his fault. Of course, Jesus had never suggested that it was. Jesus just asked if he wanted to be healed of it. Apparently the answer is, not really. Unasked, Jesus heals the man, who takes up his mat and walks away.

In the next scene, we learn that this was on a Sabbath. Some religious leaders tell the man that it is not lawful for him to carry his mat on the Sabbath. Once again, his immediate reaction is to insist that it is not his fault: “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your mat and walk’” (5:11). They want to know who made him well, but he doesn’t know.

In the third scene, Jesus meets the man again. The man says nothing to Jesus, but “went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well” (5:15).

What a jerk! As I now interpret this set of exchanges, we are supposed to see him as too attached to his ailment to want healing, too committed to his own disempowerment to accept responsibility, and too afraid of the people around him to embrace the new life he has been given or to show gratitude to the one who gave it.

But I suspect that we all have a little of this man in us. I know that I hold on to some of my own wounds rather than seeking genuine healing. I sometimes blame others for my own failures. I sometimes retreat from God’s invitation to new life because I am more comfortable with what is more familiar. Ironically, I like John’s story much better now that I like the healed man much less. Now it gives me a picture of how I must sometimes look and thus an incentive to do better!

Fr. Harvey

Bible Challenge Day 80: Holy Violence (Joshua 7-9)

I had not planned to write anything during Holy Week, but I need to process my thoughts. I have always found Joshua to be the most troubling book in the entire Bible. Parts of other books trouble me, but always something inspires me as well. In Joshua, where virtually the entire book is about conquest, genocide, and expropriation, that is not as true.

I heard once that different ethnic groups in the United States during the nineteenth century typically responded to the story of Moses and Joshua in very different ways. Black people emphasized Moses the liberator who freed God’s enslaved people. White people emphasized Moses the lawgiver who established the (hierarchical) social order. Native Americans emphasized Joshua, the successor of Moses and the leader of an invading army which wiped out the native inhabitants of Canaan. I am guessing some Palestinians today would hear something similar. Sigh . . . .

The verse that particularly struck me today was 8:24-25: “When Israel finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and when all of them to the very last had fallen by the sword, all Israel returned to Ai, and attacked it with the edge of the sword. The total of those who fell that day, both men and women, was twelve thousand—all the people of Ai.” That is after Joshua’s troops killed every man, woman, and child in Jericho, along with all the oxen, sheep, and donkeys (6:21), and before they enslaved the Gibeonites, who survived only by deceit (chapter 9).

The lesson of Joshua is that God rewards the faithful people by honoring the covenant promises God made to Abraham. And there is a bright spot: Rahab, the Canaanite prostitute is spared because she recognizes the God of Israel. She then gets a cameo mention in the New Testament as part of the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:5)! But this is not much good news in a pretty grim book.

One grand irony helps me a bit. The names Joshua and Jesus are very similar in Hebrew. The one I follow is not the fierce warrior but the prince of peace. This week, of all weeks, is a reminder that God suffers with and for us. God does not command genocide. Still, I struggle with what we are reading these days . . . .

Fr. Harvey