Blogging through the Bible

One other thought

2006-02-08T16:58:00.000-06:00

I want to extend heartfelt thanks to everyone who took the time to visit, especially those who posted comments. I valued your insights and truly appreciate them. Good luck to all, and those of you who have your own blogs can expect me to continue checking in on you there.

I give up

2006-02-08T16:49:00.000-06:00

It's been a while coming and I've probably been in denial, but now I'm admitting defeat. I'm giving up on this project. I just don't have the time I had available when I first launched it, and I feel the need to devote time to another long-lingering writing project that could actually result in a paycheck. Call it the perils of being self-employed.

Beyond that, I'm sorry to say that this endeavor has become a chore that I dread. I have to force myself to do Bible readings, viewing them more as an assignment than a choice. And I think this perspective is causing me to miss a lot. I just push through a day's readings to reach the allotted number of pages, and I'm relieved when I finish. I spend little or no time pausing to think about the implications of what I'm reading or have read and regard my entries as a tedious exercise in regurgitation. I thought jumping ahead to the NT would help, but I find myself thinking, "Yeah, yeah, I've heard this in church a hundred times."

I hate to be a quitter, but I have to confess that it's a pleasure not to have that Bible sitting on my desk, silently tut-tut-ing me for not picking it up. Judge me as you will.

Let's try this again

2006-02-02T19:13:00.000-06:00

So I finally picked up the Bible again this week, getting started on the gospel of Mark. Per the NRSV introduction, “Mark may have been the first sustained, literary interpretation of the traditions about Jesus in primitive Christianity.” It’s theorized that Mark was the first of the four gospels written and served as source material for Matthew and Luke. But who/what were Mark’s sources?

I was surprised to read that Mark covers little of Jesus’ teaching and no stories of his birth and resurrection. I guess that’s why “Mark has been overshadowed” by the other gospels. Onward …

Mark opens by quoting the prophet Isaiah: “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way …” The scene then shifts to John the Baptist—presumably the messenger Isaiah references—baptizing scores of people in the river Jordan. John foretells the coming of Jesus, saying, “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me.” Well, that depends on how you define “after me,” as Jesus actually shows up at the river to be baptized by John. As Jesus comes out of the water, he sees the heavens tear apart and the Spirit descends on him, accompanies by a proclamation from heaven that “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” The Spirit (this is the Holy Spirit we’re talking about, I assume) immediately drives Jesus into the wilderness, where he withstands 40 days of temptation by Satan.

At some later point, “after John was arrested,” Jesus goes to Galilee to proclaim the good news of God. He urges the people to repent and believe because God’s kingdom has come near. As he moves along the Sea of Galilee, Jesus recruits the fishermen (and brothers) Simon and Andrew: “Follow me and I will make you fish for people.” I thought the line was “fishers of men”—different version, I guess. I know this is a horrid segue, but when I read that line right now, my mind immediately went to an article I saw about an hour ago on the Chicago Tribune Web site about a priest accused of recently molesting some boys. Fishers of men, indeed. Ugh.

Anyway, Jesus also connects with James and John, and the five men travel to Capernaum. Jesus teaches in a synagogue and astounds the people, “for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” Take that, scribes. While he is teaching, a man with an unclean spirit approaches Jesus and cries out to him, asking if Jesus has come to destroy them. Jesus rebukes him; more precisely, he rebukes the unclean spirit occupying the man by calling him out. After the spirit leaves the man, Jesus’ fame begins to spread, and his fame grows after he heals Simon’s mother-in-law and many others who were sick or possessed by demons.

Like any smart rock star, Jesus decides to go on tour, traveling to neighboring towns to proclaim his message, “for that is what I came out to do.” Along the way, he cures a leper. Jesus send the former leper away to show himself to the priest. He warned the man not tell anyone what had happened, but the man couldn’t resist. He went out and freely relayed his story, “so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country.” Much like a rock star, some might say.

Next: Healing and parables

***
On a totally unrelated note ...

Today is the 30th anniversary of my father’s death (I should say “the discovery of” my father’s death—he died in a room at the local Holiday Inn and was found by a maid, so there’s some uncertainty about the actual time of death). I was 8-years-old, with three older siblings. Two, in high school, were still at home; the third was away at her freshman year of college in the city. She moved to California within the next year or two, never to return but for fewer than 10 visits. But Death Day, as we so macabre-ly call it, is being eclipsed this year because my other two sibs and I are going to Carlsbad to consolidate her belongings before she returns to the Chicago area, where she will be forced to stay with my mother because she has lost her home, job, and, finally, the car she has been sleeping in for two months. She is two years older than my mother was when our father died. My brother, who has four kids, is the age my mother was when she was widowed. I’m the age my mother was when she gave birth to me. And my mother now lives in a retirement community that was previously a Catholic boarding school that my oldest sister attended for her first year of high school. She’ll return to live there almost 34 years after she left. At least she won’t have to wear a plaid skirt.

I'm rambling. Suffice it to say that life is really, really strange and unpredictable.

Progress report

2006-02-01T17:52:00.000-06:00

I've started reading Mark this week, and I hope to make a posting tomorrow.

In the meantime, because I don't hesitate to get on my soapbox when I see what I consider to be hypocritical Christian behavior, I want to link to a story from yesterday's LA Times. It talks about Evangelicals who are moving beyond abortion and gay marriage to other political issues that overlap with Christian precepts, such as global warming, affordable housing, fewer tax cuts for the rich, and more food stamps for the poor. I found the piece encouraging.

Addendum:
But then I read this, about Christians accusing AOL of blasphemy for using two of the most common words in the English language in their marketing. And then there's this, about Christians protesting a film about missionaries because one of the actors is gay. Yep, these particular Christians really know how to focus their energies in positive ways--if you consider it positive to spend your days looking for things that offend you.

Another bite at the apple

2006-01-19T17:30:00.000-06:00

OK, rather than dump this project altogether, I've decided to change course. After all, only the stubborn and foolish insist on staying the course when it's obviously not working. So I'm going to shift my attention to the NT, delving into Mark at the end of this month. Until then, I'm going to let myself soak in the delusion that, because I can wear shorts every day in my new home, I'm actually on vacation. Of course, having applied for my new drivers license and picked up California plates today, it might be more difficult to continue the delusion, but the license won't arrive for a week or two and, hey, no rush in putting on the new plates, right? The Illinois plates don't expire until May, and who needs to drive when you have a bike?

I'm looking forward to the NT--I suspect I'll find its teachings more applicable to life today than the OT, despite the recent allegations that God remains actively engaged in smiting. Or will I have a hard time reconciling the OT God with His NT son? We'll see.

I've been remiss

2006-01-09T10:33:00.000-06:00

I was posting a comment on a friend's blog yesterday, and I had to stop and think for a while before I could come up with my login info for Blogger.

In other words, it's been a while since I've made a posting, and it's been even longer since I posted an entry directly related to my Bible reading. As I wrote in November, I needed to go on hiatus while I prepared for my move from Chicago to California after Thanksgiving. At the time, I wrote that I would return to my Bible reading in December. Well, we're safely into January, and I've yet to resume my reading. And here's the problem--I'm not feeling at all motivated to do so.

I've found the OT so tedious and redundant that I have little desire to dive back into it. Perhaps I'd find it more interesting if I did believe in a literal interpretation, but, as it is, I find it difficult to get through. And, honestly, living in California, about a mile from the beach, probably isn't helping much, either. No, not because it's such a decadent, humanist Blue State, but because the weather is so much better than the Midwest. Going for a run or a bike ride, to the driving range, for a hike, etc. is so much more appealing than reading the Bible (as you can imagine, I'm also having a hard time fitting work in to my schedule). It was much easier when I launched this project--in Chicago last February, where I wasn't very inclined to go outside and had plenty of extra time on my hands.

Now, I'm not generally one for quitting. But I also don't see the virtue in forcing myself to do something I'm dreading and don't feel I'm getting anything out of in the end. Perhaps I need to take a different approach, rather than the chronological order I've been following. When I first started thinking about this last year, and was checking out different Bibles, I came across some Bibles that were broken down into daily readings. Maybe that's the way to go ...

Just when I think the Right can't make me any sicker ...

2005-12-19T19:51:00.000-06:00

... I see where the House found the time last week to pass H. Res. 579, titled "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected for those who celebrate Christmas" (the resolution was amended to tack on those last five words, according to the Washington Post). Not surprisingly, it passed by a vote of 401-22. And you know those 22 legislators who dared to take a stand against this absurdity will be depicted in their next campaigns as the candidates "who voted against Christmas." Horrors!

As Rep. Scott of Virginia noted, this is the same House of Representatives that in recent weeks slashed funding for food stamps, Medicaid, and student loans, while gleefully extending tax cuts for the richest among us. Yes, Virginia, this is a governmental body that truly "recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas." As people used to say, actions speak louder than words.

A little perspective, please

2005-12-07T16:18:00.000-06:00

I was just reading an article in the Washingtong Post about religious conservatives getting up in arms because the White House holiday card doesn't mention Christmas and is adorned with a secular photo--the Bush family's pets frolicking on a White House lawn.

When will these so-called Christians recognize that the president is the president of the entire country, regardless of religious orientation or lack thereof? It's absurd that Laura Bush's press secretary actually has to explain: "Certainly President and Mrs. Bush, because of their faith, celebrate Christmas. Their cards in recent years have included best wishes for a holiday season, rather than Christmas wishes, because they are sent to people of all faiths." Duh! Why do these people refuse to recognize that Christmas is not the only holiday celebrated in December?

The Post notes that the press secretary's rationale is the same offered by major retailers for generic holiday catalogues, including those currently subject to boycotts initiated by various overreaching [my word] Christian groups. And it's not just overtly religious groups--the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, claims that there is a "war on Christmas" involving an "ever-stronger push toward a neutered 'holiday' season so that non-Christians won't be even the slightest bit offended."

It was a quote from "one of the generals on the pro-Christmas side" in the Post article that really caught my attention. Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association (which I believe was behind the threatened boycott against Ford for advertising in gay-oriented publications), said, "Sometimes it's hard to tell whether this is sinister -- it's the purging of Christ from Christmas -- or whether it's just political correctness run amok," he said. "I think in the case of the White House, it's just political correctness." Of course, it's not sinister, whether on the part of the White House or retailers! The White House sends cards to people of all faiths and maybe even some atheists, God forbid--it's a matter of sensitivity to send secular cards to non-Christians. For retailers, it's a matter of trying to appeal to the broadest possible market (capitalism, anyone?). And, as these blowhards so conveniently overlook, in the case of governmental institutions, it's a matter of constitutional law. There's just nothing sinister about it.

But, of course, "Wildmon does not give retailers the same benefit of the doubt [he gives the White House]. This year, he has called for a consumer boycott of Target stores because the chain issued a holiday advertising circular that did not mention Christmas. Last year, he aimed a similar boycott at Macy's Inc., which averted a repeat this December by proclaiming 'Merry Christmas' in its advertising and in-store displays." The forced capitulation turns my stomach.

These people are just out of control. If they expended only a fraction of the energy they devote to combating their persecution fantasies to emulating the Messiah they claim to want to protect, perhaps more hurricane victims would be back on their feet. But who has time to help those in need when Target is saying Season's Greetings?

Go, Vatican, go!

2005-11-18T18:46:00.000-06:00

Another Vatican official has come out against intelligent design in the science classroom. The Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory is quoted as saying, "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be."

"Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent. 'God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,' he wrote. 'He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves.' If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Yep.

On the same page as the Vatican

2005-11-14T17:25:00.000-06:00

It seems so rare, I felt I had to take a minute to acknowledge my pleasure with the Catholic Church.

A Vatican official last week proclaimed that Genesis and evolution are "perfectly compatible," adding that "the fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim."

At a press conference, Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator." He warned that religion risks turning into "fundamentalism" if it severs its links with reason.

Poupard further said "it's important for the faithful to know how science views things to understand better."

Amen to that!

Bible break

2005-11-11T08:49:00.000-06:00

I've got some bad news for loyal readers (are there any?): I need to put my Bible blogging on hold for a bit while I prepare for a cross-country move. I've tried to keep up, but with all the sorting and packing, mapping and planning, good-bye events with friends and family, and, oh yeah, work, I'm having trouble keeping my head above water. Add to that the need to take a 124-mile detour to San Diego to bail out my sister (an unbelievably long story), I won't be able to return to Ezra until December. I will, however, make occasional posts on religion-related items I see in the news or other media, like my past two postings. I hope readers can be patient with me and will continue with me on my journey through the Bible next month.

And now I'm off to get a tuneup--gotta make sure the Silver Bullet is in good shape for the 2,000+ mile drive.

From God's lips to Pat Robertson's ears?

2005-11-10T17:12:00.000-06:00

So Robertson seems to believe.

Yesterday, I wrote about the Dover elections, where every school board member who supported intelligent design over evolution was voted out of office. According to Robertson, the people of Dover have thereby damned themselves:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

I wasn't aware God ran in elections, or only exists in cities where the populace votes a certain way. More to the point, I wasn't aware that Pat Robertson spoke for God. The arrogance of the guy is beyond comprehension, as is the mindset of his followers. Aside from their warm reception for Robertson, how can they worship a God who they perceive to be so fickle?

Argh.

A mixed bag on intelligent design

2005-11-09T18:36:00.000-06:00

I was distressed, but not surpised, last night when I read that the Kansas Board of Education voted that "high school students should be told that aspects of widely accepted evolutionary theory are controversial." Not surprisingly, I side with the Washington Post columnist who imagined God saying to the Kansas board members: "Man, I gave you a brain. Use it, OK?"

The debate in Kansas received a lot of news coverage, but I hadn't heard anything about its prominence in the campaigns for the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania. I'm taking heart in the results there--voters kicked out all eight members of the board who had supported intelligent design. Thank God (and I mean that) reason prevails in some parts of the country. Maybe we'll dodge the impending theocracy yet.

2 Chronicles (Part II, cont'd): Exile!

2005-11-07T17:57:00.000-06:00

About 13 years after Josiah leads the great Passover celebration, he sets out against King Neco of Egypt, who is leading a fight on the Euphrates. Neco sends envoys to Josiah to inquire why Josiah is challenging him. Neco is not coming after Josiah, after all, but following God’s command to hurry and attack the house with which Neco is at war. Josiah is warned: “Cease opposing God, who is with me, so that he will not destroy you.” But Josiah fails to heed the warning. As a result, he is killed by archers. According to the notes, this represents divine retribution because Josiah disobeyed God’s word, as revealed by Neco. Seems a little harsh—Josiah has done much good, but, because he doesn’t recognize God’s word being spoken through a foreign king (king of a land that had oppressed the Israelites, no less), down he goes.

Anyway, Josiah is followed by Jehoahaz, his son. He reigns only three months before the king of Egypt (the same king through whom God spoke to Josiah!) deposes him. The Egyptian king makes “his [Jehoahaz’s] brother Eliakin king over Judah and Jerusalem,” changing his name to Jehoiakim. “But Neco took his brother Jehoahaz and carried him to Egypt.” Jehoiakim does what is evil, and King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon comes up against him. The Babylonian king carries both Jehoiakim and some of the vessels from the house of the Lord to Babylon.

Jehoiakim is succeeded by his son Jehoiachin, who is only eight years old. He reigns three and one-third months, and, despite his age and brief reign, manages to do evil in the sight of the Lord. His reign ends when Nebuchadnezzar sends for him and more precious vessels to be brought back to Babylon.

Jehoiakim is replaced by Zedekiah, who does evil and rebels against Nebuchadnezzar. “All the leading priests and the people also were exceedingly unfaithful.” God continues to send them prophets, but the people “kept mocking the messengers, despising His words, and scoffing at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord against his people became so great that there was no remedy.” So He sends the Chaldeans against them. The Chaldeans kill their youths, burn down the house of God, break down the wall of Jerusalem, etc. The Chaldean king takes those who had escaped death into exile in Babylon (why not in his own land?), and they become his servants.

2 Chronicles ends with King Cyrus of Persia, “in fulfillment of the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah," declaring liberty for the exiles: “The Lord … has charged me to build Him a house at Jerusalem … Whoever is among you of all His people, may the Lord his God be with him! Let him go up.”

On to Ezra.

2 Chronicles, Part II (cont'd): More back and forth

2005-11-03T09:57:00.000-06:00

After Hezekiah unites the people of Judah and some of the people of Israel at Passover, all who are present go out and break down pillars, sacred poles, and high places—all of the pagan shrines. Hezekiah then commands the people of Jerusalem to pay taxes to the priests and Levites, “so that they might devote themselves to the law of the Lord.” The people give in abundance, and the priests and Levites are reorganized and strengthened. Much of this shadows the version in 2 Kings, but the Chronicler makes no mention of, among other things, Hezekiah’s consultations at this time with the prophet Isaiah or faith in foreign alliances.

Despite Judah’s faithfulness, it suffers an invasion by Assyria. Hezekiah gathers his troops and plans to stop the flow of water into Jerusalem, where the Assyrians are headed. He also builds towers and walls and makes weapons and shields. He tells the people that they shouldn’t fear the Assyrians because the people have God on their side. The Assyrian king sends his servants to deliver a message to the people in Jerusalem. The messengers warn them against relying on Hezekiah and point out that no other nation’s god has been able to stop the Assyrian attack. But Hezekiah and Isaiah pray together, and God responds by wiping out the Assyrian army.

As in 2 Kings (but told here in a far shorter version), Hezekiah subsequently falls ill. God heals him after prayer, but Hezekiah “did not respond according to the benefit done to him, for his heart was proud.” God's wrath comes down on the king and Judah, but then Hezekiah humbles himself “so that the wrath of the Lord did not come upon them in the days of Hezekiah.” It’s coming, though—make no mistake about that.

After Hezekiah’s death, his son Manasseh succeeds him. Over his long reign, he primarily acts in an evil way, rebuilding high places, altars, and sacred poles and practicing child sacrifice. He goes so far as to set a carved image of an idol in the house of God. Further, he “misled Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that they did more evil than the nations whom the Lord had destroyed before the people of Israel.” Contrary to Kings, however, Manasseh repents—although not until he is captured by Assyria and taken to Babylon in manacles. I’d think that would cheapen things. Nonetheless, “God received his entreaty, heard his plea, and restored him again to Jerusalem and to his kingdom.” His successor and son Amon doesn’t follow his lead. “He did not humble himself before the Lord.” His servants kill him, but then the people kill the servants. They proceed to make his son Josiah king.

According to the notes, “Josiah is the best of all Judean kings in following the example of David.” He purges Judah of the high places, etc. and oversees the restoration of the house of God. When the book of law is discovered during the repair process, Josiah reacts dramatically, tearing his clothes. He sends the priest Hilkiah to inquire of God about the book. The prophet Huldah conveys God’s message: “I will indeed bring disaster upon this place and upon its inhabitants, all the curses that are written in the book … because they have forsaken me.” And yet, “because your heart was penitent and you humbled yourself before God … I also have heard you … I will gather you to your ancestors and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace; your eyes shall not see all the disaster that I will bring on this place and its inhabitants.” So another generation is spared God’s wrath.

Josiah renews the covenant with God, making “all who were present in Jerusalem and in Benjamin pledge themselves to it.” He also leads the people in a grand celebration of Passover. “No Passover like it had been kept in Israel since the days of the prophet Samuel.” Unfortunately, though, Josiah will falter, leading to his downfall. More later.

2 Chronicles, Part II (cont'd): A rock star king

2005-11-01T17:00:00.000-06:00

After a leprous King Uzziah dies, Jotham takes over and—say it with me—does what is right. Unfortunately, the people continue to follow corrupt practices. And Jotham’s successor Ahaz (Jotham doesn’t get much coverage from the Chronicler) goes the same route, even going so far as to make cast images for the Baals.

“Therefore the Lord his God gave him into the hand of the king of Aram,” as well as the king of Israel. The people of Israel capture 200,000 of “their kin” (presumably the citizens of Judah) and take their booty back to Samaria. The prophet Oded meets and chastises them for their excessive killings and enslavement. He concedes that Judah is wicked but urges them to send the captives home. The people of Israel agree after their chiefs point that “our guilt is already great, and there is fierce wrath against Israel.”

Despite being somewhat spared due to the God’s mercy, Ahaz turns to the king of Assyria for help. When will these guys learn to turn to God? The Assyrian king turns him down, and Judah suffers multiple attacks by other kingdoms. Eventually, the king of Assyria himself comes against Ahaz and oppresses him. “In the time of his distress [Ahaz] became yet more faithless to the Lord,” engaging in apostasy.

Ahaz is succeeded by Hezekiah, a good king who does what is right—the notes refer to him as a second David and especially a second Solomon. He has the temple cleaned and makes a covenant with God, “so that His fierce anger may turn away from us.” The people and leaders bring sacrifices and re-launch worship practices at the temple. “Thus the service of the house of the Lord was restored. And Hezekiah and all the people rejoiced.”

Hezekiah then attempts a reunification with Israel. He sends word that the people of Israel should come to keep the Passover at the temple. He pleads with them to return to God “so that He may turn again to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria … For the Lord your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from you, if you return to him.” But many of the Israelites scorn and mock the couriers relaying Hezekiah’s message. “Only a few … came to Jerusalem.” The celebration goes well, though—so well that the people decide to extend it another week. “The Lord heard Hezekiah, and healed the people.” The Chronicler describes great joy in Jerusalem, and the notes say Hezekiah united the people in sacrificial worship, but what about all the people in Israel who didn’t rally around? If only a few came to the temple, can you really call this unity?

At any rate, I have about 10 more pages to read in 2 Chronicles. According to a list I made while reading 2 Kings, seven kings (six of them evil) will reign in those pages, leading up to the fall of Jerusalem. It’s tempting to just skip ahead to Ezra, thinking “Been there, done that,” but I will persevere.

2 Chronicles, Part II (cont'd): Of child kings and lepers

2005-10-28T17:08:00.000-05:00

Joash begins his reign at age seven and does what is right. At some point, he sets his eyes on restoring the house of the Lord. He asks the priests and Levites to make a special collection of funds. “All the leaders and all the people rejoiced and brought their tax…” There’s a sentence you don’t see often.

And yet, after going to the trouble to restore the house of God, Joash and the people eventually turn away from God. After the priest Jehoiada dies, they abandon God’s house to serve the sacred poles and idols. “And wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this guilt of theirs.” God sends Zechariah, Jehoiada’s son, to condemn the people: “Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has also forsaken you.” What does he get for his trouble? The people conspire against and stone him. As he lies dying, Zechariah calls out, “May the Lord see and avenge!”

Yes, He may. God delivers Judah into the hand of the much smaller army of Aram. When the army withdraws, it leaves Joash severely wounded. Angry over the murder of Zechariah, Joash’s servants kill him in his bed.

Joash’s son Amaziah is the next to step up to the plate. “He did what was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not with a true heart.” After killing the servants who killed his father, Amaziah assembles troops to go against the Edomites, including some troops he hires from Israel. An oracle warns him against this, telling Amaziah that he should go to battle without the troops from Israel, “or God will fling you down before the enemy.” For once, a king heeds a prophet—Amaziah sends those troops home; unfortunately, their dismissal stokes their anger against Judah. I’m not sure why—they were paid their silver and got to avoid the risk of battle.

So Amaziah goes out with his own people and strikes down 10,000 men of Seir, capturing many others who are subsequently thrown down from the top of a rock and “dashed to pieces.” But then Amaziah brings back the gods of the Seir, sets them up as his god, and worships them. When will these people learn? Can retribution be far behind?

Not far at all, it turns out. While Amaziah and his men were in Seir, the troops from Israel attacked several cities in Judah. Amaziah sends the messenger Jehu to Israel, apparently to make peace, but King Joash of Israel (not to be confused with Joash of Judah) scorns him. Joash condemns Amaziah for his arrogance and warns him against a military confrontation. “Amaziah would not listen—it was God’s doing, in order to hand them over, because they had sought the gods of Edom.” Amaziah and Joash do battle, with Joash capturing Amaziah. He survives Joash by 15 years, but it’s not clear if he spends that time imprisoned.

The people of Judah enthrone Amaziah’s son Uzziah (aka in 2 Kings as Azariah). Like his father, he starts off following the right path but eventually goes wrong. Early on, he battles the Philistines and others, builds cities, and commands an impressive army. “His fame spread far, for he was marvelously helped until he became strong.” As so often happens, pride follows his success, and his fall isn’t far behind. After attempting to make an offering on the altar in the temple (only priests were allowed to make such sacrifices), disease breaks out on his forehead. Uzziah remains leprous until his death, living in a separate house and buried away from the other kings.

Next: More ups and downs

Become a Republican

2005-10-26T18:34:00.000-05:00

They've almost convinced me. Don't miss screen #6, which addresses the Bible.

Warning: It's loud, so turn your sound down or off.

2 Chronicles, Part II: Stop me if you've heard this before

2005-10-26T17:45:00.000-05:00

Having killed his brothers and marrying Ahab’s daughter, Jehoram rules Judah and does what is evil. He benefits from the covenant between David and God, though—without it, it seems, God would destroy the house of David, including Jehoram.

Jehoram makes high places in Judah and leads its inhabitants into unfaithfulness. Eventually, he receives a letter from the prophet Elijah, who has been critical of Ahab, king of Israel. The letter accuses Jehoram of following in the ways of the northern kings and killing his brothers. For these acts, Elijah writes, God will bring a plague on the people and a harsh bowel disease on Jehoram (I’ll spare you the details). God also stirs up the Philistines and Arabs against Jehoram. They come up against Judah and steal away with the king’s possessions, wives, and children, leaving only his youngest son Jehoahaz. “After all this the Lord struck him in his bowels,” and Jehoram dies two years later.

The Chronicler reports that Jehoram is succeeded by “his youngest son Ahaziah.” Uh, didn’t he just write that Jehoahaz was his youngest son? Perhaps the names are just variations of each other? The NRSV notes don’t address this discrepancy, so who knows. Anyway, Ahaziah, too, walking in the ways of the house of Ahab, “for his mother was his counselor in doing wicked.” Like mother, like son, I guess. He also apparently followed the advice of counselors from Ahab’s house, and, as we already know, he teamed up with Jehoram of Israel against the Aramean king in Ramoth-gilead.

As ordained by God, Ahaziah’s downfall comes when he goes to visit the injured Jehoram after that ill-advised battle. En route, Ahaziah runs into Jehu, “whom the Lord had anointed to destroy the house of Ahab.” Jehu kills Ahaziah, as well as his brothers, leaving no one to rule Judah. Jehu, having also inflicted the wounds that subsequently kill Israel’s Jehoram, takes over Israel.

In a story we encountered in 2 Kings, Ahaziah’s mom steps in for him, while the king’s daughter hides his son Joash. After seven years of hiding Joash, the priest Jehoiada enters an agreement with the commanders and others. The “whole assembly made a covenant with the king [i.e., Joash] in the house of God.” They proclaim him king and kill Athaliah, Ahaziah’s mom (and, presumably, Joash’s grandmother). The priest then makes a covenant between himself, the people, and the king “that they should be the Lord’s people.” To celebrate, they all go to the house of Baal and tear it down. Just like the looting I’m expecting in Chicago tonight, only much more pure. Do I sound bitter?

Pardon the lull

2005-10-25T20:54:00.000-05:00

Hectic week so far. Between receiving an offer and signing a contract to sell my place, starting to make arrangements to move West, getting rear-ended on the way to a client meeting, and dealing with ongoing shenanigans involving an out-of-control sibling--not to mention obsessing about Plamegate--I've definitely neglected my blogging. Look for the latest on Jehoram tomorrow.

Tell me how the Republicans came to be the Christian party?

2005-10-22T10:53:00.000-05:00

So a millionaire Republican Senator just won more than $800,000 in the lottery. Surely, he plans to donate much of the money to any of the many worthy causes in dire need of contributions now, right? Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and South Asia all come to mind. But the senator and his wife plan to use the money for remodeling projects. Nice.

How can he even joke about his remodeling projects (not that he was actually joking) when so many Americans have lost their homes recently?

The guy, Judd Gregg, has assets between $2,697,000 and $9,430,000, mostly in an extensive stock and real estate portfolio, and he lives in New Hampshire, which doesn't impose state income taxes. Later news coverage does indicate he'll donate a "portion" to his family's charitable foundation, but c'mon. Let's see some of those Christian values in action.

2 Chronicles, Part II (cont'd): A mixed bag

2005-10-21T10:40:00.000-05:00

Jehoshaphat takes over Judah after Asa’s death, and “the Lord was with Jehoshaphat.” Surrounding countries resist attacking because of their fear of God, and the king has “great riches and honor.” He also makes a marriage alliance with the Northern Kingdom’s Ahab, though, marrying Ahab’s daughter. This will likely come back to haunt him, if not Judah as a whole.

After the marriage, Ahab induces Jehoshaphat to join him in attacking Ramoth-gilead. Jehoshaphat first requires assurance that the Lord is behind such action. Four hundred prophets in Ahab’s court all tell him that God is indeed on board, but Jehoshaphat insists on also asking Micaiah, even though Ahab warns him that this prophet never gives him favorable prophesies--what's the point of consulting experts if they don't give you the answers you want, after all? As is his suit, Micaiah predicts dire results, reporting that he had a vision of all of Israel scattered on the mountains like sheep without a shepherd. Ahab reacts by throwing the prophet in prison, only to be released when the king returns safely from battle. “If you return in peace,” Micaiah says, “the Lord has not spoken by me.” Well, the Lord has spoken by Micaiah, and Ahab is killed in battle. No mention is made of the prophet’s fate after that--does he ever get out of prison?

Jehu, a prophet from Judah, visits Jehoshaphat upon his return and scolds him for forming an alliance with the Northern Kingdom, “those who hate the Lord.” On the positive side, the king has destroyed the sacred poles and set his heart to seek God; presumably, this saves him from God’s wrath over the ill-advised alliance. Jehoshaphat also goes on to institute judicial reforms, appointing judges in the fortified cities and a central court in Jerusalem. According to the NRSV notes, he “extends his own jurisdiction and restricts the influence of the local courts” by appointing his own judges. Harriet Miers, anyone?

Despite these acts that are good in the eyes of God, Judah is attacked by the people of Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir. Terrified, Jehoshaphat turns to God, praying for help and proclaiming a fast. He reminds God that the three countries were spared when Israel came to the promised land; yet “they reward us by coming to drive us out of your possession that you have given us.” God directs all of Judah to go down against the attackers but to only take position. They needn’t fight because God will take care of everything for them. They do as instructed and witness the Ammonites and Moab attack those from Mount Seir and then ultimately turn on each other. Jehoshaphat and his people have only to collect the booty after the destruction. Not surprisingly, “the fear of God came on all the kingdoms of the countries when they heard that the Lord had fought against the enemies of Israel.”

This is where the Chronicler confuses me a bit. Toward the end of Chapter 20, he says that Jehoshaphat did “what was right in the sight of the Lord.” But, he says, the high places were not removed (contradicting an earlier statement), and the people had not yet set their hearts upon the God of their ancestors. Further, he recounts that Jehoshaphat joined with King Ahaziah of Israel, “who did wickedly.” This is in addition to his earlier alliance with Ahab. So, I’d say Jehoshaphat was kind of a mixed bag, overall, not all good and not all evil.

His son and successor Jehoram, on the other hand, is pretty darn evil all around. He starts off his reign by killing his brothers and some of the officials of Israel (wouldn’t that provoke the king of Israel to seek revenge?). The Chronicler writes that Jehoram, although a king of Judah, “walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done; for the daughter of Ahab was his wife. He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” No doubt the wife’s fault, if I had to guess.

More on Jehoram and his successors later. I suspect, however, that much of the remaining 25 or so pages in 2 Chronicles regurgitates 2 Kings, which I’ve already covered in earlier posts.

2 Chronicles, Part II: Here come the kings

2005-10-19T12:57:00.000-05:00

With Solomon’s death, his son Rehoboam becomes king. Of course, we know from 1 Kings that God became disgusted with Solomon in his final year and therefore promised his throne to his servant Jeroboam. Chronicles makes no mention of how Jeroboam escaped to Egypt to hide from Solomon when the sitting king learned of God’s plans. Instead, the Chronicler’s first mention of Jeroboam comes upon his return from Egypt after Rehoboam is made king.

The story in Chronicles about his return closely mirrors that told in Kings: Jeroboam complains to Rehoboam about Solomon’s oppressive rule and asks him to lighten up. Rehoboam consults with his father’s counsel, who advise him to do as requested, and his own posse, who suggest he tell the Israelites that his “little finger is thicker than my father’s loins” (apparently a reference not to his finger but another appendage, per the NRSV). Rehoboam opts for the tough-guy stance and informs the Israelites that his reign will be even harsher for them. This leads to the division of the Israelites, as those in Judah follow Rehoboam and the others follow Jeroboam.

Despite Rehoboam’s hard-ass streak, he seems to have God’s favor. He builds up Judah to fight Israel, but he heeds God’s instruction to let everyone go home. The priests and Levites turn to Rehoboam, after Jeroboam bans them for liturgical service, followed by others “who had set their hearts to seek the Lord.” Now, this makes little sense to me. Isn’t Jeroboam God’s chosen successor? So why are good Israelites turned away from him and to Rehoboam?

Regardless, Rehoboam and Judah eventually abandon the law of God. As a consequence, Egypt attacks Jerusalem, causing Rehoboam and his officers to humble themselves before God. In response, God relents—a bit. He won’t destroy them, but they will become Egypt’s servants, “so that they may know the difference between serving [God] and serving the kingdoms of other lands.”

Rehoboam is succeeded by his son Abijah, who becomes involved in war with Jeroboam. At one point, Abijah harangues Jeroboam: “Do you not know that the Lord God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel forever to David and his sons by a covenant of salt? …you think that you can withstand the kingdom of the Lord in the hand of the sons of David? … The Lord is our God, and we have not abandoned him … you have abandoned him.” Sure enough, God delivers Judah from Jeroboam; “the people of Judah prevailed, because they relied on the Lord.” Jeroboam, in fact, is struck down by God and dies.

When Abijah dies, he is followed by his son Asa, who does what is good. As a result, Judah builds and prospers. When the Ethiopians come up against them, Asa relies entirely on God to protect Judah, and it works. “The Lord defeated the Ethiopians.” The prophet Azariah encourages Asa to continue his reforms, and the people enter a covenant to seek the Lord with all their heart and soul—“whoever would not seek the Lord … should be put to death.” The people rejoice, and God gives them peace for a while.

But Baasha, the new king of Israel, goes up against Judah. Asa approaches the king of Aram (Syria) to propose an alliance. The Aramean king agrees and sends his troops against the cities of Israel. Good news for Asa, right? Not—the seer Hanani chastises him for relying on the Aramean king instead of God. Because of this foolish move, “from now on you will have wars.” Suddenly Asa, formerly described as doing what was good, turns—he jails Hanani and inflicts cruelties on others. And reform is not in the cards. When he comes down with a foot disease, he seeks help from a physician, not God, and subsequently dies. Is this where Christian Scientists get the idea that professional medical care is a bad thing?

Next up: Jehoshaphat et al. (again)

2 Chronicles, Part I: Deja vu

2005-10-17T17:47:00.000-05:00

After several days devoted primarily to preparing for and holding a garage sale, it's time to get back on track here. [Note: I'm posting this before editing it or checking for typos because I've got to run but wanted to get something up. Bear with me!]

2 Chronicles opens with Solomon establishing his place as king, following the death of his father David. He leads the Israelites on a pilgrimage to Gibeon, where God’s tent of meeting remained. That night, God appears to Solomon, and the king asks for wisdom and knowledge. Because Solomon didn’t ask for possessions, wealth, honor, or the life of those who hate” him, God grants him the wisdom and the knowledge requested and “riches, possessions, and honor.” No mention of the lives of those who hate him, though. Guess you can’t have everything.

After a brief description of Solomon’s military and commercial activities, the Chronicler (that sounds like a comic book name to me, but it’s the title the NRSV notes give the author) recounts the preparations for the building of the temple. The account of the temple construction closely parallels that of 1 Kings, as summarized here. In that previous post, I noted my surprise that Solomon conscripted thousands of laborers to perform the necessary work. I shook my head at that again in 2 Chronicles, but I was also taken aback to read in 2:17 that Solomon took a census. Oh—I literally just noticed that his census, as opposed to David’s, counted the aliens living in Israel. That must explain why he didn’t incur the wrath of God that David suffered after taking a census of the Israelites.

Once the temple is constructed, the ark, with its two tablets from Moses, is brought into the temple, carried by the Levites. As described in Kings, the temple then fills with a cloud, “for the glory of the Lord filled the house of God.” Solomon dedicates the temple and acknowledges that God has fulfilled His promises—Solomon has succeeded his father and has built the temple “for the name of the Lord.” He proceeds to kneel and give praise to God: “[T]here is no God like you … you who have kept for your servant, my father David, what you promised to him.” He asks God to also keep His dynastic promise to David. Solomon goes on to ask God to keep his eyes open to the temple, so He may heed His servants when the pray toward it. As I covered in the earlier post, Solomon names several types of calamities that might result from the Israelites’ sins—including drought, famine, sickness, and military defeat—and asks God to forgive them when they repent. He even urges God to listen to the prayers of foreigners, so “that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you,” as do the Israelites. The prayer is answered with fire from heaven, and “the glory of the Lord filled the temple.”

God subsequently appears to Solomon again. He responds favorably to the prayer: “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice … if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgiven their sin and heal their land.” There you have it—humble yourself, pray, seek God, and turn from your wicked ways, and God will forgive you. This pretty much describes the sacrament of Confession, but for the omission of any mention of a priest or middleman. Of course, the resource I consulted about this discrepancy only refers to NT bases for confession, not OT. Still, I find the rationale for the need to confess to a priest suspect. It strikes me as self-serving for a Catholic priest to say, “Human beings need rituals and ceremonies to celebrate the important moments in life.” And I disagree with that basic premise—humans may desire rituals and ceremonies to celebrate important moments in life, but I don't think they need them. By this argument, the important moments of life are limited to those that are deemed by I don’t know whom as deserving of rituals and ceremonies. But many, if not all, of the most important moments of my life were not of the type that is subject to such formal recognition, and I wouldn’t want them to be. If there are only seven sacraments (I can’t believe I remember that), does that mean the Catholic Church believes those are the only important moments in a person’s life? I guess I just continue to be put off by religions’ demand for sanctioned structure and intermediaries. Why can't it be between you and God? Don't get me wrong--I believe that ministers can help people improve their relationships with God. I just don't believe that clerical involvement is a prerequisite to a relationship with God.

Getting back to 2 Chronicles, though, I didn’t read much new about Solomon. To the contrary, the Chronicler opts to exclude information that appears in Kings, such as references to his foreign wives. The Chronicler fails to even mention that God ultimately decided to punish Solomon by giving His kingdom to one of the king’s servants after Solomon’s death.

Next: 2 Chronicles, Part II , and Babylonian captivity for the Israelites

1 Chronicles, Part II (cont'd): The passing of the crown

2005-10-13T08:52:00.000-05:00

David’s days seem to be dwindling. He gathers all of Israel’s officials, commanders, warriors, etc. and tells them of his plans to build a house for God. “But God said to me, ‘You shall not build a house for my name, for you are a warrior and have shed blood.’” [Now, if I’m one of the warriors in the crowd, I’m getting a little worried, but that’s just me.] Instead, David charges his son Solomon with building the temple, per God’s instructions. David urges Solomon to seek out God and not forsake Him.

David goes on to give Solomon his written plans for the temple. David, it turns out, is a bit of a micromanager—the plans are extremely detailed, down to the weight of gold for each lampstand. Or maybe it’s God who is the micromanager, for David declares, “All this, in writing at the Lord’s direction, he made clear to me—the plan of all the works.” Considering that this is the first we hear of God’s directions for the temple, other than that Solomon should build it and not David, I’d say that claim is a little suspect. The NRSV notes don’t address this verse (28:19), but I wonder if the Chronicler inserted it for some reason.

David acknowledges to the assembled leaders that Solomon is young and inexperienced; he explains that this is why he has provided so many of the necessary building supplies, including gold, silver, and bronze. He then solicits contributions from others. As the notes point out, “since only the Levites are permitted in the temple, lay participation in building is impossible.” After they make their contributions, “the people rejoiced because these had given willingly, for with single mind they had offered freely to the Lord.” I can’t remember the verse or phrase, but I always understood that people should keep their good deeds to themselves—it seems kind of inappropriate for the contributors to celebrate their own donations.

Following the slapping of their own backs, David gives praise to God. He recognizes God’s greatness and asks Him to keep a generous spirit in the people’s hearts and to direct their hearts toward Him. He also asks God to grant Solomon “that with single mind he may keep your commandments.” David and the whole assembly make sacrifices and offerings the next day, and Solomon is anointed king. “He prospered, and all Israel obeyed him … The Lord highly exalted Solomon in the sight of all Israel.” But the Chronicler also says that “all the leaders and the mighty warriors, and also all the sons of King David, pledged their allegiance to King David,” which directly contradicts 1 Kings. The first chapters there describe a struggle for the throne as David’s death approaches, with Adonijah trying to claim it for himself.

The Chronicler also parts ways with 1 Kings in the telling of David’s death. In 1 Chronicles, David dies full of “riches and honor.” In Kings, however, David required the warming body of a young virgin in his dying days.

At any rate, on to 2 Chronicles.