Wednesday, May 27, 2015

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

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

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 8th 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

Friday, May 22, 2015

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

Monday, May 18, 2015

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 401st 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

Thursday, May 14, 2015

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

Thursday, May 7, 2015

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

Monday, May 4, 2015

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

Friday, May 1, 2015

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